E-government Impact on Business and Entrepreneurship in High-,Upper-middle- and Lower-income Countries from 2008 to 2014: A Linear Mixed Model Approach

Abstract

Most electronic government (e-government) initiatives have the improvement of business atmosphere and the creation of new business as their objectives. This article aims to measure the impact of change of e-government index (and its composing sub-indexes) in the ease of doing business (EoDB) and the rate of creation of new business in the high-, middle- and low-income countries, seeking to test if there is a difference in the effects. The study used a panel data design (repeated measurements), with four points (years 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2014), in three change periods (2008/2010, 2010/2012 and 2012/2014), collecting data from various databases: Doing Business Report by World Bank, United Nations (UN) E-government Survey, Corruption Perception Index by Transparency International and World Bank Entrepreneurship Survey. The data were combined and analyzed with linear mixed models procedures with fixed and random effects. Data suggest that different models should be applied to understand the relationship of e-government with outcome variables, according to the income level. Suggestions for future research are presented.

Keywords

Electronic-government starting business corruption impact evaluation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Almeida

G.O.

, & Zouain

D.M.

(2014). E-government readiness and its relationship with improvement of business: Evaluation of results from 2008 to 2012. 12th International Conference e-Society, Madrid, Spain.

Andersen

T.B.

(2009). E-government as an anti-corruption strategy. Information Economics and Policy, 21(3), 201–210.

Andersen

K.V.

, & Henriksen

H.Z.

(2006). E-government maturity models: Extension of the Layne and Lee model. Government Information Quarterly, 23(2), 236–248.

Brown

D.M.

(1999). Information systems for improved performance management: Development approaches in U.S. public agencies. In Heeks

Richard

(Ed.), Reinventing government in the information age. International practice in IT-enabled public sector reform (pp. 113–134). London: Routledge.

Brunetti

, & Weder

(2003). A free press is bad news for corruption. Journal of Public Economics, 87(7), 1801–1824.

Carter

, & Bélanger

(2005). The utilization of e-government services: Citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors. Information Systems Journal, 15(1), 5–25.

Carter

, & Weerakkody

(2008). E-government adoption: A cultural comparison. Information System Frontiers, 10(4), 473–482.

Ebrahim

, & Irani

(2005). E-government adoption: Architecture and barriers. Business Process Management Journal, 11(5), 589–612.

George

, & Gireesh K.

G.S.

(2013). Antecedents of customer satisfaction in internet banking: Technology acceptance model (TAM) redefined. Global Business Review, 14(4), 627–638.

10.

Hanafizadeh

, Hanafizadeh

M.R.

, & Khodabakhshi

(2009). Taxonomy of e-readiness assessment measures. International Journal of Information Management, 29(3), 189–195.

11.

Hair

J. F.

Jr., Black

W. C.

, Babin

B. J.

, & Anderson

R. E.

(2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

12.

Hsiao

(2003). Analysis of panel data (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

13.

Jaeger

P.T.

, & Thompson

K.M.

(2003). E-government around the world: Lessons, challenges, and future directions. Government Information Quarterly, 20(2003), 389–394.

14.

Mahalik

D.K.

(2014). Does decision changes—a case discussion on e-governance outsourcing: A fuzzy analysis approach. Global Business Review, 15(4S), 39S–48S.

15.

McCulloch

C.E.

, & Searle

S.R.

(2000). Generalized, linear, and mixed models. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

16.

Moon

M. J.

(2002). The evolution of e-government among municipalities: rhetoric or reality? Public administration review, 62(4), 424–433.

17.

Morgeson

F.V.

, & Mithas

(2009). Does e-government measure up to e-business? Comparing end user perceptions of U.S. federal government and e-business web sites. Public Administration Review, 69(4), 740–752.

18.

Norris

D.F.

, & Kraemer

K.L.

(1996). Mainframe and PC computing in American cities: Myths and realities. Public Administration Review, 56(6), 568–576.

19.

Reddick

C.G.

(2005). Citizen interaction with e-government: From the streets to servers? Government Information Quarterly, 22(1), 38–57.

20.

SPSS. (2013). Linear mixed-effects modelling in SPSS: An introduction to the MIXED procedure. Retrieved 5 January 2015 , from http://www.spss.ch/upload/1107355943_LinearMixedEffectsModelling.pdf

21.

The World Bank. (2009). Doing business 2010. New York, NY: The World Bank.

22.

The World Bank. (2014). Doing Business 2015: Going Beyond Efficiency. New York, NY: World Bank Publications.

23.

Transparency International. (2010). Corruption perception report. Retrieved 2 May 2010 , from www.transparency.org/policy_research/survey_indices/cpi

24.

Transparency International. (2013). Global Corruption Report 2013: Access to Information. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

25.

United Nations (UN). (2008). United Nations e-Government Survey 2008: From e-government to connected governance. New York, NY: United Nations Publications.

26.

United Nations (UN). (2014). United Nations e-Government Survey 2014: E-government for the future we want. New York, NY: United Nations Publications.

27.

Verbeke

, & Molenberghs

(2000). Linear mixed models for longitudinal data. New York: Springer-Verlag.

28.

West

D.M.

(2000). Assessing e-government: The internet, democracy, and service delivery by state and federal government. The Genesis Institute. Retrieved 15 March 2015 , from http://www.insidepolitics.org/egovtreport00.html

29.

Zouain

D.M.

, Almeida

G.O.

, & Sato

E.M.M.Z.

(2012). An analysis of effect of e-government readiness on business climate, corruption perception, and the rate of new entrepreneurs. IADIS e-society, 1, 169–176.