This study investigates why municipal officials have not fully taken advantage of the interactive features of the Internet to bring citizens closer to their governments. Studies show that although the Internet has great potential to improve government–citizen relations, many governments at all levels have not taken advantage of this potential to improve Web site deliberative features to enhance online citizen participation in the policy process. Based on the data analysis from a survey of local government chief administrative officers in five Midwestern states, the authors find evidence that city officials have not taken advantage of the Internet to bring citizens closer to their governments because these officials strongly prefer traditional citizen participation to Internet-based citizen participation. In addition, deployment of resources to support online participation is restrained by the low preference for Internet-based citizen participation. These findings call into question the widespread assumption that public officials enthusiastically embrace the movement toward e-democracy.
AndrewsR.2009. Civic engagement, ethnic heterogeneity, and social capital in urban areas: Evidence from England. Urban Affairs Review44:428–40.
2.
AthertonC.1987. Teledemocracy: Can technology protect democracy?Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3.
BachenC.RaphaelC.LynnK.McKeeK.PhilippiJ.2008. Civic engagement, pedagogy, and information technology on Web sites for youth. Political Communication25:290–310.
4.
BarberB.1984. Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.
5.
BeierleT. C.2004. Digital deliberation: Engaging the public through online policy dialogues. In Democracy online: The prospects for political renewal through the Internet, ed. ShaneP., 155–66. New York: Routledge.
BerryJ. M.PortneyK. E.ThomsonK.1993. The rebirth of urban democracy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution..
8.
BertotJ. C.JaegerP. T.2006. User-centered e-government: Challenges and benefits for government Web sites. Government Information Quarterly23:163–68.
9.
BestJ.KruegerB. S.LadewigJ.2007. The effect of risk perceptions on online political participatory decisions. Journal of Information Technology and Politics4:5–17.
10.
BimberB.2002. The study of information technology and civic engagement. Political Communication17:329–33.
11.
BimberB.2003. Information and American democracy: Technology in the evolution of political power. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12.
BlackT. R.1999. Doing quantitative research in the social sciences: An integrated approach to research design, measurement and statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
BoxR. C.1998. Citizen governance: Leading American communities into the 21st century. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
BudgeI.1996. The new challenge of direct democracy. Oxford, UK: Policy Press.
15.
ChadwickA.MayC.2001. Interaction between states and citizens in the age of the Internet: E-government in the United States, Britain and the European Union. Paper presented to the American Political Science Association, San Francisco.
16.
CodyP.SmithJ. K.1997. Applied statistics and the SAS programming language. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
17.
DanzingerJ. N.AndersenK. V.2002. Impacts of IT on politics and the public sector: Methodological, epistemological, and substantive evidence from the ‘Golden Age’ of transformation. International Journal of Public Administration, 25:591–627.
18.
DenhardtJ. V.DenhardtR. B.2007. The new public service: Serving not steering. 2nd ed. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
19.
DenhardtJ.TerryL.DelacruzE. R.AndonoskaL.2009. Barriers to citizen engagement in developing countries. International Journal of Public Administration32:1268–88.
20.
DeSarioJ.LangtonS.1984. Citizen participation in public decision-making. New York: Greenwood.
21.
DiMaggioP.HargttaiE.NeumanW. R.RobinsonJ. P.2001. Social implications of the Internet. Annual Review of Sociology27:307–36.
22.
Di MariaE.RizzoL. S.2005. E-democracy: The participation of citizens and new forms of the decision-making process. In Online citizenship: Emerging technologies for European cities, ed. Di MariaE.MicelliS., 73–108. New York: Springer.
23.
DrukeH.2005. Local electronic government: A comparative study. New York: Routledge.
24.
EbbersW. E.PietersonW. J.NoordmanH. N.2008. Electronic government: Rethinking channel management strategies. Government Information Quarterly25:181–201.
25.
EbdonC.2000. The relationship between citizen involvement in the budget process and city structure and culture. Public Productivity and Management Review23:383–93.
26.
EbdonC.2002. Beyond the public hearing: Citizen participation in the local government budget process. Journal of Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management 14:273–294.
27.
EdminstonK. D.2003. State and local e-government: Prospects and challenges. American Review of Public Administration33:20–45.
28.
EggersW. D.2005. Government 2.0: Using technology to improve education, cut red tape, reduce gridlock, and enhance democracy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
29.
FischerF.2000. Citizen experts, and the environment: The politics of loan knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
30.
FroomkinA. M.2003. Habermas@discourse.net: Toward a critical theory of cyberspace. Harvard Law Review116:751–873.
31.
Global E-Policy and E-Governance Institute and Rutgers University E-Governance Institute. 2005. Digital governance in municipalities worldwide: A longitudinal assessment of municipal Websites throughout the world. New York: United Nations.
32.
Global E-Policy and E-Governance Institute and Rutgers University E-Governance Institute. 2007. Digital governance in municipalities worldwide: A longitudinal assessment of municipal Websites throughout the world. New York: United Nations.
HayesR. A.KoglA. M.2007. Neighborhood attachment, social capital building and political participation: A case study of low and moderate income residents of Waterloo, Iowa. Journal of Urban Affairs29:181–205.
35.
HolzerM.HuL.SongS.2004. Digital government and citizen participation in the United States. In Digital government: Principles and best practices, ed. PavlichevA.GarsonG. D., 306–19. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
36.
IrvinR. A.StansburyJ.2004. Citizen participation in decision-making: Is it worth the effort?Public Administration Review4:55–65.
37.
JensenM.VenkateshA.2007. Government Websites and political engagement: Facilitating citizen entry into the policy process. In Schriftenreihe informatic vol. 23. Towards electronic democracy, ed. ThossenB., 55–65. Linz, Austria: Trauner Verlag.
38.
JohnsonT. J.KayeB. K.2003. A boost or bust for democracy: How the Web influenced political attitudes in the 1996 and 2000 presidential elections. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics8:9–34.
39.
KearnsI.BendJ.SternB.2002. E-participation in local government. http://www.ippr.org(accessed July 12, 2003).
40.
KerlingerF. N.1986. Foundations of behavioral research.Third edition. New York: CBS.
41.
KingC.StiversC.1998. Government is us: Public administration in an anti-government era. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42.
KingS. K.FelteyK. M.SuselB. O.1998. The question of participation: Toward authentic participation in public administration. Public Administration Review58:317–26.
43.
KleinH. K.1999. Tocqueville in cyberspace: Using the Internet for citizen associations. Information Society15:213–20.
44.
KlotzR.2004. The politics of Internet communication. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
45.
KraneD.2008. Can the “courthouse gang” go modern? Lessons from the adoption of performance based management by county officials. Public Performance and Management Review31:387–406.
46.
KunsteljM.JukicT.VintarM.2007. Analysing the demand side of e-government: What can we learn from Slovenian users?Lecture Notes in Computer Science4656:305–17.
47.
KvasnyL.KielM.2006. The challenges in redressing the digital divide: A tale of two cities. Paper presented at the International Conference on Information Systems, Barcelona.
48.
KvasnyL.PaytonF.2005. IT perspectives: The case of women in sub-Saharan Africa. Paper presented at the International Conference on Information Processing, Los Angeles.
49.
KweitM. G.KweitR. W.1981. Implementing citizen participation in a bureaucratic society. New York: Praeger.
50.
LangtonS.1978. What is citizen participation?. In Citizen participation in America, ed. LangtonS., 13–24. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
51.
La PortC.DemchakC.de JongS.FriisC.2000. Democracy and bureaucracy in the age of the Web: Empirical findings and theoretical speculations. Tucson, AZ: Cyberspace Policy Research Group.
52.
MicelliS.2005. E-government developmental guidelines. In Online citizenship: Emerging technologies for European cities, ed. Di MariaE.MicelliS., 179–204. New York: Springer.
53.
MoonM. J.2002. The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality?Public Administration Review62:424–33.
54.
MossbergerK.TolbertC. J.StansburyM.2003. Virtual inequality: Beyond the digital divide. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
55.
MussoJ. A.WeareC.HaleM. C.2000. Developing Web technologies for local governance reform: Good management or good democracy?Political Communication17:1–19.
56.
NalbandianJ.1991. Professionalism in local government: Transformation in the roles, responsibilities, and values of city managers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
57.
NeedhamC.2004. The citizen as a consumer: E-government in the United Kingdom and United States. In Electronic democracy: Mobilization, organization, and participation via new ICTs, ed. GibsonR., 43–69. New York: Routledge.
58.
NorrisD. F.MoonM. J.2005. Advancing e-government at the grassroots: Tortoise or hare?Public Administration Review65:64–75.
OldfieldA.1990. Citizenship and community: Civic republicanism and the modern world. London: Routledge.
61.
O’LooneyJ.1995. Economic development and environmental control: Balancing business and community in an age of nimbys and lulus. Westport, CT: Quorum.
62.
O’TooleD. E.MarshallJ.GreweT.1996. Current local government budgeting practices. Government Finance Review12:25–59.
63.
RobertsN.2004. Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation. American Review of Public Administration34:315–53.
64.
RocheleauB.WuL.2002. Public versus private information systems: Do they differ in important ways? A review and empirical test. American Review of Public Administration32:379–97.
65.
ScavoC.2005. Citizen participation and direct democracy through computer networking: Possibilities and experience. In Handbook of public information systems, 2nd ed., ed. David GarsonG., 255–280. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.
66.
ScavoC.ShiY.1999. World Wide Web site design and use in public management. In Information technology and computer applications in public administration: Issues and trends, ed. GarsonC., 246–66. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
67.
SchlosbergD.DryzekJ. S.2002. Digital democracy: Authentic or virtual?Organization and Environment15:332–35.
68.
SingletonR. A.StraitsB. C.1999. Approaches to social research. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
69.
StiversC.1990. The public agency as poll: Active citizenship in the administrative state. Administration & Society22:86–105.
70.
SunsteinC. R.2001. Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
71.
TapiaA. H.OrtizJ. A.2010. Network hopes: Municipalities deploying wireless Internet to increase civic engagement. Social Science Computer Review28:93–117.
72.
ThomasJ. C.1995. Public participation in public decisions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
73.
TrippiJ.2004. The revolution will not be televised: Democracy, the Internet, and the overthrow of everything. New York: HarperCollins.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2005. Individual state descriptions, 2002 Census of governments. Volume 1, Number 2, pp. 95–180.
76.
VerbaS.SchlozmanK.BradyH. E.1995. Voice and equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
77.
WangX.2001. Assessing public participation in U.S. cities. Public Performance and Management Review24:322–36.
78.
WeberL. M.LoumakisA.2003. Who participates and why? An analysis of citizens on the Internet and the mass public. Social Science Computer Review21:26–42.
79.
WestD. M.2005. State and federal e-government in the United States. Providence, RI: Brown University, Center for Public Policy. http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovt05us.pdf(accessed September 30, 2006).
