This study presents a systematic review of the 122 studies on citizen satisfaction in the field of public administration. The research aims to identify the current state of knowledge on citizen satisfaction by drawing on existing empirical results and conceptual arguments, highlighting research gaps, and developing a heuristic framework to guide future research. Based on a literature search of 12 major public administration journals, our findings indicate that citizen satisfaction has gained significant academic attention as a performance measure to monitor and assess public service delivery, particularly at the local level. Despite substantial scrutiny in diverse research contexts, quantitative studies still predominate, mainly using secondary survey data in their research. Furthermore, we observed an absence of an agreed-upon definition for citizen satisfaction and an over-emphasis on the expectancy-disconfirmation model to explain the satisfaction process, highlighting the need for scholars to move beyond the performance-expectation dyad. While reviewing a set of environmental, organizational, and individual-level antecedents and outcomes, we noticed few scholars have considered the effects of moderating variables on citizen satisfaction. As such, our paper concludes by identifying a few underexplored research themes that could facilitate knowledge-building regarding citizen satisfaction.
AbdelkarimS. (2023). The role of economic conditions in shaping citizens’ satisfaction with government in Tunisia's fragile democracy: An expectancy-disconfirmation analysis. International Journal of Public Administration, 46(15), 1047–1060. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2022.2069117
2.
AmirkhanyanA. A.KimH. J.LambrightK. T. (2014). The performance puzzle: Understanding the factors influencing alternative dimensions and views of performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut021
3.
AndersenS. C.HjortskovM. (2016). Cognitive biases in performance evaluations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(4), 647–662. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muv036
4.
ArielyG. (2013). Public administration and citizen satisfaction with democracy: Cross-national evidence. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 79(4), 747–766. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852313501432
5.
BaekgaardM.SerritzlewS. (2020). Those who understand it will not be persuaded: A performance information paradox. International Public Management Journal, 23(1), 138–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2018.1461152
6.
BarnesC.PetryS. (2021). “It was actually pretty easy": COVID-19 compliance cost reductions in the WIC program. Public Administration Review, 81(6), 1147–1156. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13423
7.
BarrowsS.HendersonM.PetersonP. E.WestM. R. (2016). Relative performance information and perceptions of public service quality: Evidence from American school districts. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(3), 571–583. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muw028
8.
BeeriI.UsterA.Vigoda-GadotE. (2019). Does performance management relate to good governance? A study of its relationship with citizens’ satisfaction with and trust in Israeli local government. Public Performance & Management Review, 42(2), 241–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2018.1436074
9.
BerghA.ErlingssonGÓWittbergE. (2022). What happens when municipalities run corporations? Empirical evidence from 290 Swedish municipalities. Local Government Studies, 48(4), 704–727. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2021.1944857
10.
BinghamL. B.NabatchiT.O'LearyR. (2005). The new governance: Practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 547–558. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00482.x
11.
BlutM.FrenneaC. M.MittalV.MothersbaughD. L. (2015). How procedural, financial and relational switching costs affect customer satisfaction, repurchase intentions, and repurchase behavior: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 32(2), 226–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2015.01.001
12.
BolandT.FowlerA. (2000). A systems perspective of performance management in public sector organisations. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 13(5), 417–466. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513550010350832
13.
BouckaertG.Van de WalleS. (2003). Comparing measures of citizen trust and user satisfaction as indicators of ‘good governance’: Difficulties in linking trust and satisfaction indicators. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 69(3), 329–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852303693003
14.
BrinkerhoffD. W.WetterbergA.WibbelsE. (2018). Distance, services, and citizen perceptions of the state in rural Africa. Governance, 31(1), 103–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12271
15.
BrownT. (2007). Coercion versus choice: Citizen evaluations of public service quality across methods of consumption. Public Administration Review, 67(3), 559–572. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00737.x
16.
BrudneyJ. L.EnglandR. E. (1983). Toward a definition of the coproduction concept. Public Administration Review, 43(1), 59–65. https://doi.org/10.2307/975300
17.
BruningE. (2010). A methodological assessment of ten years of Canada’s Citizen’s First satisfaction survey research. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 76(1), 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852309361579
18.
CarvalhoC.BritoC. (2012). Assessing users’ perceptions on how to improve public services quality. Public Management Review, 14(4), 451–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2011.649976
19.
CharbonneauÉVan RyzinG. G. (2012). Performance measures and parental satisfaction with New York City schools. American Review of Public Administration, 42(1), 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074010397333
20.
CharbonneauÉVan RyzinG. G. (2015). Benchmarks and citizen judgments of local government performance: Findings from a survey experiment. Public Management Review, 17(2), 288–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.798027
DahlströmC.NistotskayaM.TyrbergM. (2018). Outsourcing, bureaucratic personnel quality and citizen satisfaction with public services. Public Administration, 96(1), 218–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12387
23.
DeHoogR. H.LoweryD.LyonsW. E. (1990). Citizen satisfaction with local governance: A test of individual, jurisdictional, and city-specific explanations. The Journal of Politics, 52(3), 807–837. https://doi.org/10.2307/2131828
24.
de Oliveira SantiniF.LadeiraW. J.PintoD. C.HerterM. M.SampaioC. H.BabinB. J. (2020). Customer engagement in social media: A framework and meta-analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(6), 1211–1228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00731-5
25.
De VriesM. S.Van der Hooft‐Van der ZijlA. H. (2003). The implications of community policing for police-citizen relationships. International Journal of Public Administration, 26(8-9), 1017–1035. https://doi.org/10.1081/PAD-120019358
26.
DöringM. (2022). ‘Explain, but make no excuses’: Service recovery after public service failures. Public Management Review, 24(5), 799–817. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1864013
27.
DowdingK.JohnP. (2011). Voice and choice in health care in England: Understanding citizen responses to dissatisfaction. Public Administration, 89(4), 1403–1418. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01960.x
28.
DrewJ.DolleryB. (2016). Does size still matter? An empirical analysis of the effectiveness of Victorian local authorities. Local Government Studies, 42(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2013.869497
29.
EngdawB. D. (2020). The impact of quality public service delivery on customer satisfaction in Bahir Dar city administration: The Case of Ginbot 20 Sub-city. International Journal of Public Administration, 43(7), 644–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2019.1644520
30.
FerraioliF.BallartX. (2023). Measuring performance concerning air and noise pollution: A comparison of Madrid’s official data and results from a citizen survey. Local Government Studies, 49(6), 1386–1409. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2022.2086538
31.
FiltenborgA. F.GaardboeF.Sigsgaard-RasmussenJ. (2017). Experimental replication: An experimental test of the expectancy disconfirmation theory of citizen satisfaction. Public Management Review, 19(9), 1235–1250. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1295099
32.
FledderusJ. (2015). Does user co-production of public service delivery increase satisfaction and trust? Evidence from a vignette experiment. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(9), 642–653. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2014.952825
GollagariR.BeyeneB. B.MishraS. S. (2023). Ethical leadership and students’ satisfaction in public universities of Ethiopia: Mediating role of perceived good governance. International Journal of Public Administration, 46(13), 902–914. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2022.2044859
36.
GoodsellC. T. (1981). Looking once again at human service bureaucracy. The Journal of Politics, 43(3), 763–778. https://doi.org/10.2307/2130636
37.
GreasleyS.JohnP. (2010). Does stronger political leadership have a performance payoff? Citizen satisfaction in the reform of subcentral governments in England. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(2), 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq018
38.
GrimmelikhuijsenS.PorumbescuG. A. (2017). Reconsidering the expectancy disconfirmation model. Three experimental replications. Public Management Review, 19(9), 1272–1292. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1282000
39.
GrossoA. L.Van RyzinG. G. (2012). Public management reform and citizen perceptions of the UK health system. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(3), 494–513. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852312442658
40.
HerianM. N.HammJ. A.TomkinsA. J.Pytlik ZilligL. M. (2012). Public participation, procedural fairness, and evaluations of local governance: The moderating role of uncertainty. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(4), 815–840. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur064
41.
HerianM. N.TomkinsA. J. (2012). Citizen satisfaction survey data: A mode comparison of the derived importance—performance approach. American Review of Public Administration, 42(1), 66–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074010393271
42.
HirschmanA. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Response to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Harvard University Press.
43.
HjortskovM. (2017). Priming and context effects in citizen satisfaction surveys. Public Administration, 95(4), 912–926. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12346
44.
HjortskovM. (2019). Citizen expectations and satisfaction over time: Findings from a large sample panel survey of public school parents in Denmark. American Review of Public Administration, 49(3), 353–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074018765822
45.
HoA. T.-K.ChoW. (2017). Government communication effectiveness and satisfaction with police performance: A large-scale survey study. Public Administration Review, 77(2), 228–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12563
46.
HodgkinsonI. R.HughesP.HughesM.GlennonR. (2017). Does ownership matter for service delivery value? An examination of citizens’ service satisfaction. Public Management Review, 19(8), 1206–1220. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1272711
47.
HolumM. L. (2018). How does competitive tendering and contracting affect satisfaction with municipal health and care services?International Review of Administrative Sciences, 84(3), 520–538. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852316630391
48.
HolumM. L.JakobsenT. G. (2016). Inter-municipal cooperation and satisfaction with services: Evidence from the Norwegian citizen study. International Journal of Public Administration, 39(8), 597–609. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2015.1029132
49.
HongS. (2017). What are the areas of competence for central and local governments? Accountability mechanisms in multi-level governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(1), 120–134. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muw048
50.
IdowuS. S.IbietanJ.OlukotunA. (2020). Privatization of power sector in Nigeria: An evaluation of Ibadan and Ikeja electricity distribution companies performance (2005–2018). International Journal of Public Administration, 43(16), 1413–1420. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2019.1672183
51.
ImT.LeeS. J. (2012). Does management performance impact citizen satisfaction?American Review of Public Administration, 42(4), 419–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074011408589
JacobsenR.SnyderJ. W.SaultzA. (2015). Understanding satisfaction with schools: The role of expectations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(3), 831–848. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muu026
54.
JamesO. (2009). Evaluating the expectations disconfirmation and expectations anchoring approaches to citizen satisfaction with local public services. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1), 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum034
55.
JamesO. (2011a). Managing citizens’ expectations of public service performance: Evidence from observation and experimentation in local government. Public Administration, 89(4), 1419–1435. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01962.x
56.
JamesO. (2011b). Performance measures and democracy: Information effects on citizens in field and laboratory experiments. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(3), 399–418. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq057
57.
JamesO.MoseleyA. (2014). Does performance information about public services affect citizens’ perceptions, satisfaction, and voice behaviour? Field experiments with absolute and relative performance information. Public Administration, 92(2), 493–511. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12066
58.
JilkeS. (2018). Citizen satisfaction under changing political leadership: The role of partisan motivated reasoning. Governance, 31(3), 515–533. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12317
59.
JilkeS.BaekgaardM. (2020). The political psychology of citizen satisfaction: Does functional responsibility matter?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(1), 130–143. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muz012
60.
JunK. N.WangF.WangD. (2014). E-government use and perceived government transparency and service capacity. Public Performance and Management Review, 38(1), 125–151. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576380106
61.
KampenJ. K.Van de WalleS.BouckaertG. (2006). Assessing the relation between satisfaction with public service delivery and trust in government. The impact of the predisposition of citizens toward government on evaluations of its performance. Public Performance & Management Review, 29(4), 387–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2006.11051881
62.
KellyJ. M. (2005). The dilemma of the unsatisfied customer in a market model of public administration. Public Administration Review, 65(1), 76–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00432.x
63.
KellyJ. M.SwindellD. (2002). A multiple-indicator approach to municipal service evaluation: Correlating performance measurement and citizen satisfaction across jurisdictions. Public Administration Review, 62(5), 610–621. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00241
64.
KimS.KimM. (2022). Citizen satisfaction in the public sector. In SchedlerK. (Ed.), Elgar encyclopedia of public management (pp. 205–207). Edward Elgar Publishing.
65.
KisidaB.WolfP. J. (2015). Customer satisfaction and educational outcomes: Experimental impacts of the market-based delivery of public education. International Public Management Journal, 18(2), 265–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2014.996629
66.
KosecikM.SagbasI. (2004). Public attitudes to local government in Turkey: Research on knowledge, satisfaction and complaints. Local Government Studies, 30(3), 360–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/0300393042000310444
67.
KweitM. G.KweitR. W. (2004). Citizen participation and citizen evaluation in disaster recovery. American Review of Public Administration, 34(4), 354–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074004268573
68.
LundinM.ÖBergP.JosefssonC. (2015). Learning from success: Are successful governments role models?Public Administration, 93(3), 733–752. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12162
69.
MaL. (2017). Performance management and citizen satisfaction with the government: Evidence from Chinese municipalities. Public Administration, 95(1), 39–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12275
70.
MaL.ZhengY. (2019). National e-government performance and citizen satisfaction: A multilevel analysis across European countries. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 85(3), 506–526. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852317703691
71.
ManafH. A.MohamedA. M.HarveyW. S. (2023). Citizen perceptions and public servant accountability of local government service delivery in Malaysia. International Journal of Public Administration, 46(12), 823–832. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2022.2025829
72.
MishraS. S. (2021). Do street-level bureaucrats exhibit transformational leadership for influencing sound governance and citizens’ satisfaction?International Journal of Public Administration, 44(15), 1366–1377. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2020.1765798
73.
MishraS. S. (2022). Mediating roles of service innovation and perceived corruption in the relationship between e-government and citizens’ satisfaction. International Journal of Public Administration, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2022.2139845
74.
MishraS. S.GeletaA. T. (2020). Can an e-government system ensure citizens’ satisfaction without service delivery?International Journal of Public Administration, 43(3), 242–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2019.1628053
75.
MishraS. S.MominM. M. (2020). Is citizens’ trust escalating the effect of sound governance on citizens’ satisfaction in Ethiopia?International Journal of Public Administration, 43(1), 84–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2019.1669050
76.
MokJ. Y. (2020). Proposed non-linear relation between satisfaction with government performance and co-production: An initial empirical test. Public Management Review, 22(3), 432–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1599060
77.
MorgesonF. V.III. (2013). Expectations, disconfirmation, and citizen satisfaction with the US federal government: Testing and expanding the model. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(2), 289–305. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus012
78.
MorgesonF. V.III.PetrescuC. (2011). Do they all perform alike? An examination of perceived performance, citizen satisfaction and trust with US federal agencies. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(3), 451–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852311407278
79.
MorgesonF. V.III.SharmaP. N.SharmaU.HultG. T. M. (2021). Partisan bias and citizen satisfaction, confidence, and trust in the U.S. Federal Government. Public Management Review, 24(12), 1933–1956. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1945667
80.
NabatchiT.SancinoA.SiciliaM. (2017). Varieties of participation in public services: The who, when, and what of coproduction. Public Administration Review, 77(5), 766–776. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12765
81.
NieL.WangH. (2022). Government responsiveness and citizen satisfaction: Evidence from environmental governance. Governance, 36(4), 1009–1345. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12723
82.
NodaY. (2021). Performance information and learning effects on citizen satisfaction with public services. Public Management Review, 23(12), 1833–1855. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1775281
83.
OhY.ShinH.ParkJ. (2022). Exploring managerial attitudes toward various participation mechanisms in response to citizen satisfaction signals on public service quality. Administration & Society, 54(5), 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211048396
84.
OliverR. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378001700405
85.
OlsenA. L. (2015). Citizen (dis)satisfaction: An experimental equivalence framing study. Public Administration Review, 75(3), 469–478. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12337
ParkH.BlenkinsoppJ. (2011). The roles of transparency and trust in the relationship between corruption and citizen satisfaction. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(2), 254–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852311399230
88.
PetrovskyN.MokJ. Y.León-CázaresF. (2017). Citizen expectations and satisfaction in a young democracy: A test of the expectancy-disconfirmation model. Public Administration Review, 77(3), 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12623
89.
PetrovskyN.XinG.YuJ. (2023). Job satisfaction and citizen satisfaction with street-level bureaucrats: Is there a satisfaction mirror?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 33(2), 279–295. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muac022
90.
PiotrowskiS.GrimmelikhuijsenS.DeatF. (2019). Numbers over narratives? How government message strategies affect citizens’ attitudes. Public Performance & Management Review, 42(5), 1005–1028. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2017.1400992
91.
PitiaN.SinghG.NazR. (2013). Postal service reforms in Solomon Islands of the South Pacific: Evaluating consequences for public service delivery and customer satisfaction. International Journal of Public Administration, 36(12), 821–830. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2013.795160
92.
PoisterT. H.ThomasJ. C. (2011). The effect of expectations and expectancy confirmation/disconfirmation on motorists’ satisfaction with state highways. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(4), 601–617. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur004
93.
PorumbescuG. (2017a). Does transparency improve citizens’ perceptions of government performance? Evidence from Seoul, South Korea. Administration & Society, 49(3), 443–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399715593314
94.
PorumbescuG. (2017b). Not all bad news after all? Exploring the relationship between citizens’ use of online mass media for government information and trust in government. International Public Management Journal, 20(3), 409–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2016.1269859
95.
RamchandaniG.TaylorP. (2011). Quality management awards and sports facilities’ performance. Local Government Studies, 37(2), 121–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2011.554824
96.
SchachterH. L. (1997). Reinventing government or reinventing ourselves: The role of citizen owners in making a better government. SUNY Press.
97.
SerraG. (1995). Citizen-initiated contact and satisfaction with bureaucracy: A multivariate analysis. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5(2), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a037243
98.
ShinglerJ.Van LoonM. E.AlterT. R.BridgerJ. C. (2008). The importance of subjective data for public agency performance evaluation. Public Administration Review, 68(6), 1101–1111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00958.x
99.
SongM.AnS.-H.MeierK. J. (2021). Quality standards, implementation autonomy, and citizen satisfaction with public services: Cross-national evidence. Public Management Review, 23(6), 906–928. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1730939
100.
SongM.KimM.FaveroN. (2020). Social class, ingroup–outgroup comparison, and citizen evaluations: Is user satisfaction linked to outcome disparities?The American Review of Public Administration, 50(2), 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074019874445
101.
SongM.MeierK. J. (2018). Citizen satisfaction and the kaleidoscope of government performance: How multiple stakeholders see government performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(4), 489–505. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy006
102.
StipakB. (1979). Citizen satisfaction with urban services: Potential misuse as a performance indicator. Public Administration Review, 39(1), 46–52. https://doi.org/10.2307/3110378
103.
SwindellD.KellyJ. M. (2000). Linking citizen satisfaction data to performance measures: A preliminary evaluation. Public Performance & Management Review, 24(1), 30–52. https://doi.org/10.2307/3381075
104.
TaylorC. D. (2015). Property tax caps and citizen perceptions of local government service quality. American Review of Public Administration, 45(5), 525–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074013516670
105.
ThomasJ. C. (2013). Citizen, customer, partner: Rethinking the place of the public in public management. Public Administration Review, 73(6), 786–796. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12109
106.
ThomassenJ. P.LeliveldM. C.Van de WalleS.AhausK. (2017). Compensating citizens for poor service delivery: Experimental research in public and private settings. Public Administration, 95(4), 895–911. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12339
107.
TranC. T. T. D.DolleryB. (2021). Administrative intensity and local resident satisfaction in Victorian local government. Public Administration, 101(1), 318–334. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12784
108.
TummersL.WeskeU.BouwmanR.GrimmelikhuijsenS. (2016). The impact of red tape on citizen satisfaction: An experimental study. International Public Management Journal, 19(3), 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2015.1027800
109.
Van de WalleS. (2018). Explaining citizen satisfaction and dissatisfaction with public services. In OngaroE.Van ThielS. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of public administration and management in Europe (pp. 227–241). Palgrave Macmillan.
110.
Van de WalleS.Van RyzinG. G. (2011). The order of questions in a survey on citizen satisfaction with public services: Lessons from a split-ballot experiment. Public Administration, 89(4), 1436–1450. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01922.x
Van RyzinG. G. (2006). Testing the expectancy disconfirmation model of citizen satisfaction with local government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(4), 599–611. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui058
113.
Van RyzinG. G. (2007). Pieces of a puzzle: Linking government performance, citizen satisfaction, and trust. Public Performance & Management Review, 30(4), 521–535. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576300403
114.
Van RyzinG. G. (2013). An experimental test of the expectancy-disconfirmation theory of citizen satisfaction. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32(3), 597–614. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21702
115.
Van RyzinG. G. (2015). Service quality, administrative process, and citizens’ evaluation of local government in the US. Public Management Review, 17(3), 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.841456
116.
Van RyzinG. G.CharbonneauÉ (2010). Public service use and perceived performance: An empirical note on the nature of the relationship. Public Administration, 88(2), 551–563. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01820.x
117.
Van RyzinG. G.ImmerwahrS. (2004). Derived importance-performance analysis of citizen survey data. Public Performance & Management Review, 27(4), 144–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2004.11051813
Van RyzinG. G.MuzzioD.ImmerwahrS.GulickL.MartinezE. (2004). Drivers and consequences of citizen satisfaction: An application of the American customer satisfaction index model to New York City. Public Administration Review, 64(3), 331–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00377.x
120.
VásquezW. F.TrudeauJ. (2011). External and internal consistency of user evaluations. International Journal of Public Administration, 34(14), 918–925. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2011.616989
121.
VásquezW. F.TrudeauJ.FranceschiD. (2011). Can user perception influence the quality of water services? Evidence from León, Nicaragua. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(3), 481–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852311407363
122.
Vigoda-GadotE. (2007). Citizens’ perceptions of politics and ethics in public administration: A five-year national study of their relationship to satisfaction with services, trust in governance, and voice orientations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(2), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muj018
123.
Vigoda-GadotE.ShohamA.SchwabskyN.RuvioA. (2008). Public sector innovation for Europe: A multinational eight-country exploration of citizens’ perspectives. Public Administration, 86(2), 307–329. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2008.00731.x
124.
WalkerR. M.BrewerG. A.BoyneG. A.AvellanedaC. N. (2011). Market orientation and public service performance: New public management gone mad?Public Administration Review, 71(5), 707–717. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02410.x
125.
WangQ.NiuM. (2020). Exploring the relationship between government budget information and citizens’ perceptions of public service performance in China. Public Management Review, 22(3), 317–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1584234
126.
WangX. (2001). Assessing public participation in U.S. cities. Public Performance & Management Review, 24(4), 322–336. https://doi.org/10.2307/3381222
127.
WelchE. W.HinnantC. C.MoonM. J. (2004). Linking citizen satisfaction with e-government and trust in government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(3), 371–391. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui021
128.
WilsonP. A. (1996). Community involvement: A function of local government innovation. International Journal of Public Administration, 19(7), 1087–1104. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900699608525133
129.
WongS. L., LiuH. T.Cheng L. J. (2011). Elucidating the relationship between satisfaction and citizen involvement in public administration. Public Management Review, 13(4), 595–618. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2010.525032
130.
WuW. N. (2021). Does citizens’ 311 system use improve satisfaction with public service encounters?—Lessons for citizen relationship management. International Journal of Public Administration, 44(8), 665–673. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2020.1744644
131.
YangY. (2010). Adjusting for perception bias in citizens’ subjective evaluations: A production function perspective. Public Performance and Management Review, 34(1), 38–55. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576340103
132.
YapC. S.AhmadR.NewazF. T.MasonC. (2021). Continuous use and extended use of e-government portals in Malaysia. International Journal of Public Administration, 44(15), 1329–1340. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2020.1759626
133.
ZhangJ.ChenW.PetrovskyN.WalkerR. M. (2022). The expectancy-disconfirmation model and citizen satisfaction with public services: A meta-analysis and an agenda for best practice. Public Administration Review, 82(1), 147–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13368
134.
ZhaoD.HuW. (2017). Determinants of public trust in government: Empirical evidence from urban China. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 83(2), 358–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852315582136
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
