E-procurement is a rapidly growing area of e-government implementation. Nevertheless, scholarly research on e-procurement implementation is limited, especially at the municipal level. This study presents empirical evidence on city level e-procurement in the United States, based on a data set of the 191 largest cities. This study focuses on two research questions – 1) Does e-procurement progress in a staged manner as suggested about e-government by the stages theory? 2) What factors contribute to the progression of e-procurement systems through the stages? We find not only that e-procurement is more prevalent in the information or cataloging stage than in the transaction stage but that cities with both IT capacity and a council-manager form of government are more likely to be in an advanced stage of e-procurement development. By providing both descriptive statistics along with statistical analysis, this study helps to explain the current status of e-procurement implementation along with the factors that might lead to further implementation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BauerC., & ScharlA. (2000). Quantitative evaluation of Web site content and structure. Internet Research, 10(1), 31–43.
2.
BermanE. M., & WangX. (2000). Performance measurement in U.S. Counties: Capacity for reform. Public Administration Review, 60(5), 409–420.
3.
BrombergD., SaldivarK., & FudgeM. (2012). E-Procurement: Understanding implementation. In ManoharanA. & HolzerM. (Eds.), E-Governance and civic engagement: Factors and determinants of e-democracy. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
4.
CarrizalesT. (2008). Functions of e-government: A study of municipal practices. State and Local Government Review, 40(1), 12–26.
5.
CarterL., & BelangerF. (2005). The utilization of e-government services: Citizen trust, innovation and acceptance. Information Systems Journal, 15, 5–25.
6.
ChaneyB. A., CopleyP. A., & StoneM. S. (2002). The effect of fiscal stress and balanced budget requirements on the funding and measurement of state pension obligations. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 21(4), 287–313.
7.
CoggburnJ. (2003). Exploring differences in the American states' procurement practices. Journal of Public Procurement, 3(1), 3–28.
8.
CorsiM., GuminaA., & CiriaciD. (2006). How e-government may enhance public procurement. International public procurement conference proceedings, 21–23 September, Rome, Italy.
9.
CourseyD., & NorrisD. F. (2008). Models of e-government: Are they correct? An empirical assessment. Public Administration Review.68, 523–537.
10.
DamanpourF., & SchneiderM. (2009). Characteristics of innovation and innovation adoption in public organizations: Assessing the role of managers. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 495–522.
11.
DawesS. S. (2008). The evolution and continuing challenges of e-governance. Public Administration Review. December: Special Issue: 86–102.
12.
EdmistonK. D. (2003). State and local e-government: Prospects and challenges. The American Review of Public Administration, 33(1), 20–45.
13.
HendrickR. (2004). Assessing and measuring the fiscal heath of local governments: Focus on Chicago suburban municipalities. Urban Affairs Review, 40(1), 78–114.
14.
HillerJ., & BélangerH. (2001). Privacy strategies for electronic government. E-Government series. Arlington, VA: PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment for the Business of Government.
15.
HoA.T.K., & SmithJ. F. (2001). Information technology planning and the Y2K problem in local governments. American Review of Public Administration, 31(2), 158–180.
16.
HolzerM., & KimS.T. (2008). Digital governance in municipalities worldwide: A longitudinal assessment of municipal Web Sites throughout the world. Newark, NJ: National Center for Public Performance.
17.
HolzerM., & ManoharanA. (2011). Digital governance in municipalities worldwide: A longitudinal assessment of municipal Web Sites throughout the world. Newark, NJ: National Center for Public Performance.
18.
HolzerM., ManoharanA., ShickR., & StowersG. (2009). U.S. municipalities e-governance report – An assessment of state Websites. Newark, NJ: National Center for Public Performance.
19.
HolzerM., ManoharanA., & Van RyzinG. (2010). Global cities on the web: An empirical typology of municipal websites. International Public Management Review, 11(1), 104–121.
20.
HuangZ. (2007). A comprehensive analysis of U.S. counties' e-government portals: Development status and functionalities. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(2), 149–164.
KettlD. F. (1994). Reinventing government? Appraising the National Performance Review. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
23.
KrebsT. B., & PelisseroJ. P. (2010). Urban managers and public policy: Do institutional arrangements influence decisions to initiate policy?Urban Affairs Review, 45, 393–411.
24.
LayneK., & LeeJ. (2001). Developing full functional e-government: A four-stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122–136.
25.
LeeJ. (2010). 10 year retrospect on stage models of e-government: A qualitative meta synthesis. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 220–230.
26.
MokkenRJ (1971). A Theory and Procedure of Scale Analysis. De Gruyter, Berlin, Germany.
27.
MoonJ. M. (2002). The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality?Public Administration Review, 62(4), 434–433.
28.
MoonJ.M. (2005). E-procurement management in state governments: Diffusion of e-procurement practices and its determinants. Journal of Public Procurement, 5(1), 54–72.
29.
NelsonK. L., & NollenbergerK. (2011). Conflict and cooperation in municipalities: Do variations in form of government have an effect?Urban Affairs Review, 47(5), 696–720.
30.
NelsonK., & SvaraN. (2010). Form of government still matters: Fostering innovation in U.S. municipal governments. American Review of Public Administration, 41(6), 1–25.
31.
NorrisD. F., & KraemerK. L. (1996). Mainframe and PC computing in American local governments: Myths and realities. Public Administration Review, 56(6), 568–576.
32.
PurchaseS., & DooleyK. (2010). The acceptance and use of e-procurement systems. International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, 13(6), 459–473.
33.
ReddickC.G. (2004). A two-stage model for e-government growth: Theories and empirical evidence for U.S. cities, Government Information Quarterly, 21(1), 51–64.
34.
ReddickC.G., & FrankH. (2007). The perceived impacts of e-government on U.S. cities: A survey of Florida and Texas City managers. Government Information Quarterly, 24(3), 576–594.
35.
SarikasO.D., & WeerakkodyV. (2007). Realising integrated e-government services: A UK local government perspective. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 1(2), 153–173.
36.
SchwesterR. (2009). Examining the barriers to e-government adoption. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 7(1), 113–122.
37.
StowersG.N.L. (1999). Becoming cyberactive: State and local governments on the World Wide Web. Government Information Quarterly, 16(2), 111–127.
38.
TeoT., & TanM. (1998). An empirical study of adopters and non-adopters of the Internet in Singapore. Information and Management, 34(6), 339–345.
39.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), UN Global E-government Readiness Report 2005: From E-government to E-inclusion, Division for Public Administration and Development Management UNPAN/2005/14, 2005.
