This study aims to analyze several legislation barriers and establish regulation policy for the task of e-government push in China. First, a stage model of e-government is proposed according to the previous models of e-government evolution. The five dimensions are: cataloging, transaction, vertical integration, horizontal integration, and e-democracy in the e-government development progress. Corresponding dominant tasks are developed for the dimensions based on literature review and interviews. Second, we test validity and reliability of the dominant tasks based on a national wide survey of 111 government CIOs, and the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) results demonstrated that the constructs are good fit. Third, key legislative points are designed to match the dominant tasks based on the survey of a scholar panel specializing in administrative law. Therefore, a full perspective on legislative policies is provided to meet the needs of e-government development.
AffiscoJFSolimanKS (2006) E-government: A strategic operations management framework for service delivery. Business Process Management Journal12
(1): 13–21.
2.
AhnMJBretschneiderS (2011) Politics of e-government: e-government and the political control of bureaucracy. Public Administration Review87
(2): 414–426.
3.
AndersenKVHenriksenHZ (2006) E-government maturity models: extension of the Layne and Lee model. Government Information Quarterly23
(2): 236–248.
4.
AwadNFKrishnanMS (2006) The personalization privacy paradox: an empirical evaluation of information transparency and the willingness to be profiled online for personalization. MIS Quarterly30
(1): 13–28.
5.
BhattacherjeeAPremkumarG (2004) Understanding changes in belief and attitude toward information technology usage: a theoretical model and longitudinal test. MIS Quarterly28 (2): 229–254.
6.
ChangEKPrybutokVRZhangXN (2008) Measuring e-government readiness. Information & Management45: 540–546.
7.
CourseyDNorrisDF (2008) Models of e-government: Are they correct? An empirical assessment. Public Administration Review6
(11): 523–536.
8.
CronbachL.J (1971) Test validation. In Educational Measurement, 2nd Edition, ThorndikeR. L. (ed.) American Council on Education, Washington, DC.
9.
DawesSSPardoTA (2002) Building collaborative digital government systems systemic constraints and effective practices. The Kluwer International Series on Advances in Database Systems, 26: 259–273
10.
DunleavyPMargettsHBastowSTinklerJ (2006) New public management is dead – long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory16
(3): 467–494.
FanB (2013) Achieving horizontal integration of municipal e-government in China: assessment of managerial mechanisms. Information Development29
(4): 333–348.
13.
FanBLuoJF (2014) Benchmarking scale of e-government stage in Chinese municipalities from government chief information officers’ perspective. Information Systems and E-business Management12
(2): 259–284.
14.
FanBZhangPZ (2009) Spatially enabled customer segmentation using a data classification method with uncertain predicates. Decision Support Systems41
(3):176–193.
15.
Gil-GarciaJRMartinezMIJ (2007) Understanding the evolution of e-government: The influence of systems of rules on public sector dynamics. Government Information Quarterly24
(2): 266–290.
16.
GoodhueDL (1998) Development and measurement validity of a task-technology fit instruments for user evaluations of information systems. Decision Sciences29
(3): 105–138.
HillerJSBelangerF (2001) Privacy strategies for electronic government. In E-Government 2001, AbramsonM.A.MeansG.E. (eds.) Rowman & Littleeld, Lanham, MD.
19.
HinkinTR (1998) A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods1, 104–121.
20.
JaegerTP (2002) Constitutional principles and e-government: an opinion about possible effects of Federalism and the separation of powers on e-government policies. Government Information Quarterly19
(4): 357–368.
21.
JunKNWeareC (2011) Institutional motivations in the adoption of innovations: the case of e-government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory21:495–519.
22.
KlievinkBJanssenM (2009) Realizing joined-up government—Dynamic capabilities and stage models for transformation. Government Information Quarterly26
(2): 275–284.
23.
LayneKLeeJ (2001) Developing fully functional e-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly18
(2): 122–136.
24.
LeeJ (2010) 10 year retrospect on stage models of e-government: a qualitative meta-synthesisGovernment Information Quarterly27, 220–230.
25.
LimJHTangSY (2007) Urban e-government initiatives and environmental decision performance in Korea. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory18: 109–138.
26.
RamonaMN (2007) E-disclosure laws and electronic campaign finance reform: Lessons from the diffusion of e-government policies in the States. Government Information Quarterly24
(2): 312–325.
27.
SiauKLongY (2005) Synthesizing e-government stage models: a meta-synthesis based on meta-ethnography approach. Industrial Management & Data Systems105
(4), 443–458.
28.
ShimJPWarkentinMCourtneyJFPowercDJShardaRCarlssonC.(2002) Past, present, and future of decision support technology. Decision Support Systems33
(2): 111–126.
29.
StoreyVCStraubDWStewartKAWelkeRJ (2000) A conceptual investigation of the r-commerce industry. Communications of the ACM43
(7):117–123.
30.
StrejcekGTheilM (2003) Technology push, legislation pull? E-government in the European Union. Decision Support Systems34
(3): 305–313.
31.
United Nations (2008) United Nations e-Government survey 2008: From e-Government to connected governance. New York: Author.
