By examining evaluations of worldwide city and country Websites from 2003 to 2012, this study compares their digitized government performance. Defined as dual variables, digitized government represents e-government services and e-governance collaboration. For each jurisdiction, this time-series assessment determines whether the innovation is developing linearly (in stages) or diffusing (leveling off) over time. The results are bifurcated. They convey that diffusion is occurring among worldwide municipal government Websites for both e-government and e-governance. The country findings, however, are inconsistent. The discussion explains the findings by applying a well-known four-fold typology of information technology (IT) and social change to them. The conclusions affirm digitized government's multidimensional qualities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbbateJ. (1999). Inventing the Internet. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
2.
AkessonM, SkalenP. & EdvardssonB. (2008). E-government and service orientation: Gaps between theory and practice. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(1), 74–92.
3.
AndersenK.V. & HenriksenH. Z. (2006). E-government maturity models: Extension of the Layne and Lee model. Government Information Quarterly, 23(2), 236–248.
4.
AndrewsL. (2012) I know who you are and I saw what you did: Social networks and the death of privacy. New York: Free Press.
5.
BalkW. L. & CalistaD. J. (2001). A framework for professional action in government: A facts and values perspective. Public Performance & Management Review, 25(1), 88–104.
6.
BannisterF. (2007). The curse of the benchmark: An assessment of the validity and value of e- government comparisons. International Review of Administrative Science, 73/2. Retrieved from http://ras.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/73/2/171.
7.
BavecC. (2006). On the current environments for e-government development in the enlarged European Union. Information Polity: The International Journal of Government and Democracy in the Information Age, 11(3/4), 197–206.
8.
BélangerF. & HillerJ. S. (2006). A framework for e-government: Privacy implications. Business Process Management Journal, 12(1), 48–61.
9.
BrownM. M. (2007). Understanding e-government benefits. The American Review of Public Administration, 37(2), 178–197.
10.
CalistaD. J. (2006). The transformational nature of Web-Based instructional mediation: Constructing a research agenda for in-service public administration students, Public Performance & Management Review, 30(2), 245–261.
11.
CalistaD. J. & MelitskiJ. (2005). The e-gov reform as e-government and e-governance: Tracing the development of ICTs to differentiate the two electronic dimensions. Paper presented at the International Association of Schools and Institutes of Administration Conference (IASIA), Como, Italy.
12.
CalistaD. J. & MelitskiJ. (2007). E-government and e-governance: Converging constructs of public sector information and communication technologies. Public Administration Quarterly, 31(1). 87–120.
13.
CalistaD. J. & MelitskiJ. (2010, March). The linear model of digitized government research: A critique and an alternative construct. Paper presented at the American Society for Public Administration Conference, San Jose, CA.
14.
CalistaD. J. & MelitskiJ. (2011). Worldwide municipality websites between 2005 and 2007: An OECD perspective that compares maturational and curvilinear best practices Explanations. Public Administration Quarterly, 35(2), 268–306.
15.
CalistaD. J. & MelitskiJ. (2012). Digitized government best practices in country web sites from 2003 to 2008: The results are bifurcated. Business Process Management Journal, 18(1), 138–162.
16.
CalistaD. J. & MelitskiJ. (2013). Digitized government among countries worldwide from 2003 to 2010: Performance discrepancies explained by comparing frameworks. International Journal of Public Administration, 36(3), 222–234.
17.
CalistaD. J., MelitskiJ., HolzerM. & ManoharanA. (2010). Digitized government in worldwide municipalities between 2003 and 2007. International Journal of Public Administration, 33(12/13), 588–600.
18.
CampbellD. T. & StanleyJ. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental design for research. Stamford, CT: Cenage Publishing.
19.
ChristensenC. (2000). The innovator's dilemma. NY: Harper.
20.
ChadwickA. & MayC. (2003). Interaction between states and citizens in the age of the Internet: “E-government” in the United States, Britain, and the European Union. Governance, 16(2), 271–300.
21.
ChadwickA.2006. Internet politics: States, citizens, and new communication technologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22.
ChenY-C. & HsiehJ-Y. (2009). Advancing e-governance: Comparing Taiwan and the United States. Public Administration Review, 69 (Special Issue), S151–158.
23.
CooperM. (2010, September 27). More gloom lies ahead for cities, report says. The New York Times, A10.
24.
CourseyD. & NorrisD. F. (2008). Models of e-government: Are they correct? An empirical assessment. Public Administration Review, 68(3), 523–536.
25.
D'AgostinoM., SchwesterR., CarrizalesT. & MelitskiJ. (2011). A study of e- government and e-governance: An empirical examination of municipal websites. Public Administration Quarterly, 35(1), 3–25.
26.
DanzigerJ. N. & KraemerK. L. (1986). People and computers: The impacts of computing on end users in organizations. NY: Columbia University Press.
27.
DasJ., DiRenzoC. & BurbridgeJ.Jr. (2009). Global e-government and the role of trust: A cross-country analysis. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 5(1), 1–18.
28.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
29.
DawesS. S. (2008). The evolution and continuing challenges of e-governance. Public Administration Review, 68 (Special Issue), S86–S102.
30.
FaisalZ. R. & RahmanZ.. (2008). E-government in India: Modelling the barriers to its adoption and diffusion. Electronic Government, An International Journal, 5(2), 181–202.
31.
FingerM. & PécoudG. (2003). From e-government to e-governance: Towards a model of e- governance. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 1(1), 1–10. Retrieved from www.ejeg.com/volume1-issue1-art1-fingerpecoud.pdf.
32.
Flak, L. S., Sein, M. K. & Sæbø, Ø. Towards a cumulative tradition in e-government research: Going beyond the Gs and Cs. EGOV 2007. WimmerM.A., SchollH.J. and GrönlundA. (Eds.). (pp. 13–24). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
33.
FountainJ. E. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
34.
FountainJ. E. (2005, March). Central issues in political development of the virtual state. Paper presented at The Network Society and the Knowledge Economy in the Global Context. Lisbon, Portugal.
35.
GarsonG. David. (2006). Public information technology and e-governance: Managing the virtual state. Boston: Jones & Bartlett.
36.
GrönlundÅ. (2010). Ten years of e-government: The ‘end of history’ and new beginning. In WimmerM.A., ChappletJ-L., JanssenM. & SchollH. J. (Eds.), Electronic government, (pp. 13–24). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
37.
HabermasJ. (2011). The discourse theory of law and democracy. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
38.
HakimD. (2012, February 12) Cities borrow from pensions to pay for them. The New York Times, A, 1.
39.
HassanH. S., ShehabE. & PeppardJ. (2011) Recent advances in e-service in the public sector: State-of-the-art and future trends. Business Process Management Journal, 17(3), 526–545.
40.
HeeksR. & BailurS. (2007). Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods, and practice. Government Information Quarterly, 24(2), 243–265.
41.
HoldenStephen. (2003). The evolution of information technology management at the federal level: Implications for public administration. In GarsonG. D. (Ed.), Public information technology: Policy and management issues (Pp. 53–73). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
42.
HydeA. (Spring, 2001). Management fad of the year 2000: 'E-gov.’The Public Manager.
43.
International Telecommunications Union, (2011). Organizations for Economic Co-Operation and Development, and United Nations.
JacobsA. (January, 30, 2015). China further tightens grip on the Internet. The New York Times, A1–6.
46.
JanssenD., RotthierS. & SnijkersK. (2004). If you measure it they will score: An assessment of international egovernment benchmarking. Information Polity, 9(3/4), 121–130.
47.
KampenJ. K. & SnijkersK. (2003). “E-democracy: A critical evaluation of the ultimate e-dream. Social Science Computer Review, 21(4), 491–496.
KimD-Y. & GrantG. (2010). E-government maturity model using the capability maturity model integration. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 12(3), 230–244.
LayneK. &. LeeK. (2001). Developing fully functional e-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122–136.
52.
LeeJ. (2010). 10 year retrospect on stage models of e-government: A qualitative meta Synthesis. Government Information Quarterly, 27 (3), 220–230.
53.
LeeC-P., ChangK. & BerryF. S. (2011). Testing the development and diffusion of e- government and e-democracy: A global perspective. Public Administration Review, 71 (3), 444–454.
54.
LickliderJ. C. R. & TaylorR. W. (1968). The computer as a communication device. Science and Technology, 76(2), 1–3.
55.
Lindblad-GidlundK. (2008). Driver or passenger? An analysis of citizen-driven eGovernment. In Electronic Government 2008. WimmerM. A., SchollH. J. & FerroE. (Eds.). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
56.
MergelI. (2014): Social media adoption: toward a representative, responsive or interactive government? in: dg.o '14 Proceedings of the 15th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, pp. 163–170, doi>10.1145/2612733.2612740.
57.
MergelI. & BretschneiderS. I. (2013). A three-stage adoption process for social media use in government. Public Administration Review73 (3), 390–400.
MisraD. C. (2007b, December). Select aspects of conceptual foundations of e-government, Clearing the fog for better vision. In AgarwalA., & RamanaV. V. (Eds.), International Conference of E-Governance (ICEG 2007), pp. 29–30.
60.
MoonM. J. (2002). The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality?Public Administration Review, 62(4), 424–433.
61.
MorozovE. (2011). The net delusion: The dark side of Internet freedom. NY: Public Affairs Press.
62.
MorozovE. (2013). To save everything, click here: Technology, solutionism, and the urge to fix problems that don't exist. NY: Penguin Books.
63.
NorrisD. F. (2003). Leading edge information technologies and American local governments. In. GarsonG. D. (Ed.), Information technology: Policy and management issues. Pp. 139–169. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
64.
NorrisP. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
65.
NorrisD. F. & MoonM.J. (2005). Advancing e-government at the grassroots: Tortoise or hare?Public Administration Review, 65(1), 64–75.
66.
NorrisD. F. & FloydB. A. (2006). The scholarly literature on e-government: Characterizing a nascent field. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 2(4), 40–57.
67.
NorrisD. F. & ReddickC. G. (2013). Local e-government in the United States: Transformation or incremental change?Public Administration Review, 73(1), 165–175.
68.
PaskalevaK. (2008). Assessing local readiness for city electronic governance in Europe. International Journal of E-Government Research, 4(4), 17–36.
69.
PinaV., TorresL. & RoyoS. (2007). Are ICTs improving transparency and accountability in the EU region and local governments? An empirical study. Public Administration, 85(2), 449–472.
70.
PorterE. (2013, January 21). Recession's true cost is still being tallied. The New York Times. B1.
71.
PostmanN. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. Vintage: New York.
72.
RethemeyerR. Karl. 2007. The empires strike back: Is the Internet corporatizing rather than democratizing policy processes?Public Administration Review, 67(2), 199–215.
73.
RifkinJ. (1995). The end of work: The decline of the global labor force and the dawn of the post-market era. New York Putnam Publishing Group.
74.
RogersE. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. NY: Free Press.
75.
SaxenaK. B. C. (2005). Towards excellence in e-governance. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18(6/7), 498–513.
76.
SchollH. J. (2006, October). Is e-government research a flash in the pan or here for the long shot? Paper presented at the EGOV 2006 Conference, Krakow, Poland.
77.
SeifertJ. W. (2003). A primer on e-government: Sectors, stages, opportunities, and challenges of online governance. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RL31057.pdf.
78.
SengeP. (1990). The fifth discipline. The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
79.
SheridanW. & RileyT. B. (2006). Comparing e-government vs. e-governance. Victoria, BC, Canada. The Commonwealth Centre for e-Governance. July. Retrieved from http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/6556.
80.
SiauK. & LongY. (2005). Synthesizing e-government stage models: A meta-synthesis based on meta-ethnography approach. Industrial Management & Data Systems. 105(4), 443–458.
81.
SimonH. A. (1946). The proverbs of administration. Public Administration Review, 6(1), 53–67.
82.
SpinelloR. A. (2002). Regulating cyberspace: The policies and technologies of control. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group Inc.
83.
SrivastavaS. C., & TeoT. S. (2007). What facilitates e-government development? A cross- country analysis. Electronic Government, an International Journal, 4(4), 365–378.
TitahR. & BarkiH. (2005). E-government adoption and acceptance: A literature review. Cahier de la Chaire de recherché du Canada en implantation et gestion des technologies de l'information, (5)3, 1–28.
86.
TristE. & MurrayH. (Eds.) (1993). The social engagement of social science, volume II: The socio-technical perspective. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
87.
TristE. L. & BamforthK. W. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal getting. Human Relations, 4(1), 3–38.
88.
United Nations. (2003). World public sector report 2003: E-government at the crossroads. NY: United Nations.
89.
United Nations. (2005). Global e-government readiness report 2005: From e-government to e- inclusion. NY: United Nations.
90.
United Nations. (2008). UN e-government survey 2008: From e-government to connected governance. NY: United Nations.
91.
United Nations. (2010). E-government survey 2010: Leveraging e-government at a time of financial and economic crisis. NY: United Nations.
92.
United Nations. (2012). United Nations e-government survey 2012: E-Government for the people. NY: United Nations.
93.
Uttar PradeshD. (2010, September 2) The next billion geeks: How the mobile internet will transform the BRICI countries. The Economist. Retrieved from www.economist.com/node/16944020?story_id=16944020.
94.
Von HaldenwangC. (2004). Electronic government (g-government) and development. European Journal of Development Research, 16(2), 417–432.
95.
WestD. (2005). Digital government: Technology and public sector performance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
WongK., FearonC. & PhilipG. (2007). Understanding e-government and e-governance: Stakeholders, partnerships and CSR. The International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management.24(9), 927–943. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com.online.library.marist.edu/pdqweb?index=19&d.
98.
YangG. (2009). The power of the Internet in China: Citizen activism online. New York: Columbia University Press.
99.
YangK. & MelitskiJ.2007. Competing and complementary values in information technology strategic planning: Observations from ten states. Public Performance & Management Review, 30(3), 426–452.
100.
YildizM. (2007). E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and the ways forward. Government Information Quarterly, 24(3), 646–665.
101.
ZambranoR. (2008). E-governance and development: Service delivery to empower the poor. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 4(2), 1–13.
