Same Bed,Different Dreams? A Comparative Analysis of Citizen and Bureaucrat Perspectives on E-Government

Abstract

Recent studies indicate that bureaucrats and citizens are beginning to recognize the opportunities that information and communication technologies offer for governance as well as the constraints on such technologies. However, it is unclear how much, or even if, the perspectives of citizens and bureaucrats regarding e-government coincide or diverge. Using data collected from independently administered random surveys of citizens and bureaucrats in late 2001 by Hart-Teeter, this article first compares the perspectives of these two groups on aspects of e-government: their knowledge of it, attitudes toward it, concerns about it, and thoughts about the pace of its implementation. The article models the factors determining respondents’ preferred pace of e-government implementation, then discusses policy implications from top-down (Hamiltonian) and bottom-up (Jeffersonian) approaches.

Keywords

e-government information technology citizen bureaucrat

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bradshaw-Lynn, D. (2000). Technology launch in government. In G. D. Garson (Ed.), Handbook of public information systems (pp. 113-125). New York: Marcel Dekker.

Carpenter, D. (2001). The forging of bureaucratic autonomy: Reputations, networks, and policy innovation in executive agencies, 1862-1928. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.

Council for Excellence in Government. (2001a). [Hart/Teeter e-government study #6446a] survey data.

Council for Excellence in Government. (2001b). [Hart/Teeter e-government study #6446b] survey data.

Coursey, D. , & Killingsworth, J. (2000). Managing government Web services in Florida: Issues and lessons. In G. D. Garson (Ed.), Handbook of public information systems (pp. 331-344). New York: Marcel Dekker.

Crewson, P. (1997). Public service motivation: Building empirical evidence of incidence and effect. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(4), 499-518.

DiMaggio, P. , Hargittai, E. , Neuman, W. R. , & Robinson, J. P. (2001). Social implications of the Internet. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 307-336.

Goodsell, C. T. (2004). The case for bureaucracy: A public administration polemic. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.

Hart-Teeter . (2002a). E-government: To connect, protect and serve us. Retrieved August 23, 2004, from www.excelgov.org/usermedia/images/uploads/PDFs/egovconnectprotectdata1.pdf

10.

Hart-Teeter . (2002b). E-government: To connect, protect and serve us. Retrieved August 23, 2004, from www.excelgov.org/usermedia/images/uploads/PDFs/egovconnectprotectdata2.pdf

11.

Herring, E. P. (1997). Public administration and the public interest. In J.M. Shafritz & A. Hyde (Eds.), Classics of public administration (4th ed., pp. 76-80). New York: Harcourt Brace College. (Original work published 1936)

12.

Kettl, D. (2002). The transformation of governance: Public administration for twenty-first century America. Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins University.

13.

Kim, S. , & Kim, D. (2003). South Korean public officials’ perceptions of values, failure and consequences of failure in e-government leadership. Public Performance and Management Review, 26(4), 360-375.

14.

Moon, M. J. (1999). The pursuit of managerial entrepreneurship: Does organization matter? Public Administration Review, 59(1), 31-43.

15.

Nye, J., Jr. (1997). Introduction: The decline of confidence in government. In J. Nye, Jr. , P. Zelikow , & D. King (Eds.), Why people don’t trust government (pp. 1-18). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

16.

Patashnik, E. (2003). After the public interest prevails: The political sustainability of policy reform. Governance, 16(2), 203-234.

17.

Perry, J. (1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(1), 5-22.

18.

Perry, J. , & Wise, L. (1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review, 50(3), 367-373.

19.

Peters, B. G. (1999). American public policy: Promise and performance (5th ed.). New York: Chatham House.

20.

Roberts, N. (2002). Keeping public officials accountable through dialogue: Resolving the accountability paradox. Public Administration Review, 62(6), 658-669.

21.

Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.

22.

Thomas, J. C. , & Streib, G. (2003). The new face of government: Citizen initiated contacts in the era of e-government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(1), 83-101.

23.

Tornatzky, L. , & Fleischer, M. (1990). The process of technological innovation. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

24.

Waldo, D. (1984). The administrative state (2nd ed.). New York: Holmes & Meier.