The issue of e-government use is critical in deeply divided societies where the access to social capital is restricted for minorities. E-government use in these societies may differ by ethnic background, size of locality or both. Israel was chosen as a case since it is an example of a deeply divided society. Using data from the Israel’s Social Survey 2015, it was found that the disadvantaged minority has a lower probability of using e-government as compared to other groups. However, when segmenting this population by size of its localities, the stratification structure differs between large and small localities. The conclusion is that the inequality approaches should consider not only the ethnicity but also the size of locality as a factor differentiating between ethnic groups in terms of the specific Internet use.
AbbasRMeschG (2016) Do rich teens get richer? Facebook use and the link between offline and online social capital among Palestinian youth in Israel. Information, Communication & Society21(1): 63–79.
2.
Al-AdawiZYousafzaiSPallisterJ (2005) Conceptual model of citizen adoption of e-government. In: SimoneMDChandruVNathanK (ed.) The second international conference on innovations in informational technology (IIT’05), Dubai, UAE, 26–28 September, pp. 1–10.
3.
AlAwadhiSMorrisA (2009) Factors influencing the adoption of e-government services. Journal of Software4(6): 584–590.
4.
Al-HajM (2004) Immigration and Ethnic Formation in a Deeply Divided Society: The Case of the 1990S Immigrants from the Former Soviet Union in Israel. Leiden: Brill, pp. 1–246.
5.
Al-ShafiSHWeerakkodyV (2010) Factors affecting e-government adoption in the State of Qatar. In: European, Mediterranean and Middle Eastern conference on information systems (EMCIS 2010) (eds IraniZGhoneimAAliMet al.), Abu-Dubai, UAE, 12–13 April, pp. 1–23. London: Brunel University.
6.
AlmarabehT (2011) Knowledge management of e-government in Jordan. International Journal of Advanced Corporative Learning4(4): 4–9.
7.
AmitK (2018) Identity, belonging and intention to leave of first and 1.5 generation FSU immigrants in Israel. Social Indicators Research139(3): 1219–1235.
8.
Bar-HaimESemyonovM (2015) Ethnic stratification in Israel. In: SáenzREmbrickDGRodríguezNP (eds) The International Handbook of Demography of Race and Ethnicity. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 323–337.
9.
BasuS (2004) E-government and developing countries: an overview. International Review of Law Computers & Technology18(1): 109–132.
10.
BelangerFCarterL (2008) Trust and risk in e-government adoption. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems17(2): 165–176.
11.
BertotJCJaegerPTGrimesJT (2010) Using ICT to create a culture of transparency: e-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly27(3): 264–271.
12.
CarterLBelangerF (2004) Citizen adoption of electronic government initiatives. In: Proceedings of the 37th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS’04), Big Island, HI, 5–8 January, pp. 1–10. Washington, DC: IEEE.
13.
CarterLBelangerF (2005) The utilization of e-government services: citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors. Information Systems Journal15(1): 5–25.
14.
CarterLWeerakkodyV (2008) E-government adoption: a cultural comparison. Information Systems Frontiers10(4): 473–482.
15.
CastellsM (2010) The Rise of the Network Society: The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture. 2nd ed.Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
16.
ChenBRashtyD (2002) E-Government in Israel: The Five Layers Model of E-Government. Jerusalem, Israel: Ministry of Finance, General Accountant Office.
17.
ChenY-CGantJ (2001) Transforming local e-government services: the use of application service providers. Government Information Quarterly18: 343–355.
18.
Di GennaroCDuttonW (2006) The internet and the public: online and offline political participation in the United Kingdom. Parliamentary Affairs59(2): 299–313.
19.
DodelM (2016) E-government’s hidden inequality: why spending on online services can be regressive and how to avoid it. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on theory and practice of electronic governance (ICEGOV ’15–16), Hammamet, Tunisia, 1–3 March, pp. 68–74. New York: ACM Press.
20.
EdmistonKD (2003) State and local e-government: prospects and challenges. The American Review of Public Administration33(1): 20–45.
21.
GauldRGoldfinchSHorsburghS (2010) Do they want it? The “demand side” of e-government in Australia and New Zealand. Government Information Quarterly27(2): 177–186.
22.
GoldshmidtR (2012) E-Government in Local Authority. Jerusalem, Israel: Knesset Research and Information Center (in Hebrew).
23.
HaberfeldYCohenY (2007) Gender, ethnic, and national earnings gaps in Israel: the role of rising inequality. Social Science Research36(2): 654–672.
24.
Israel Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) (2015) The 2015 social survey. Received by request from Israel Social Science Data Center (ISDC) at the Hebrew University. Available at: http://isdc.huji.ac.il
LanceeBBolT (2017) The transferability of skills and degrees: why the place of education affects immigrant earnings. Social Forces96(2): 691–716.
28.
LewinAStierH (2018) Material status, gender, and material hardship: evidence from Israel. Advances in Life Course Research35: 46–56.
29.
Lewin-EpsteinNSemyonovM (1992) Local labor markets, ethnic segregation, and income inequality. Social Forces70(4): 1101–1119.
30.
LinFFofanahSSLiangD (2011) Assessing citizen adoption of e-government initiatives in Gambia: a validation of the technology acceptance model in information systems success. Government Information Quarterly28(2): 271–279.
31.
MahadeoJD (2009) Towards an understanding of the factors influencing the acceptance and diffusion of e-government services. Electronic Journal of E-Government7(4): 391–402.
32.
MeschGS (2003) Language proficiency among new immigrants: the role of human capital and societal conditions: the case of immigrants from the FSU in Israel. Sociological Perspectives46(1): 41–58.
33.
MeschGS (2012) Minority status and the use of computer-mediated communication: a test of the social diversification hypothesis. Communication Research39(3): 317–337.
34.
MeschGS (2016) Ethnic origin and access to electronic health services. Health Informatics Journal22(4): 791–803.
35.
MeschGSTalmudI (2006) The quality of online and offline relationships: the role of multiplexity and duration of social relationships. The Information Society22(3): 137–148.
36.
MeschGSTalmudI (2011) Ethnic differences in internet access. Information, Communication & Society14(4): 445–471.
37.
MeschGSManoRTsamirY (2012) Minority status and health information search: a test of the diversification hypothesis. Social Science & Medicine75(5): 854–858.
38.
NorrisDFReddickCG (2003) Local e-government in the United States: transformation or incremental change?Public Administration Review73(1): 165–175.
39.
PalviaSCJSharmaSS (2007) E-government and e-governance: definitions/domain framework and status around the world. In: Foundations of e-government (eds AgarwalARamanaVV), Hyderabad, India, 28–30 December, pp. 1–12. Hyderabad, India: IECG.
40.
PatelHJacobsonD (2008) Factors influencing citizen adoption of e-government: a review and critical assessment. In: Proceedings of 16th European conference on information systems (ECIS 2008) (eds GoldenWActonTConboyKet al.), Galway, 9–11 June, pp. 1058–1069. AIS.
41.
PhangCWLiYSutantoJet al. (2005) Senior citizens’ adoption of e-government: in quest of the antecedents of perceived usefulness. In: Proceedings of the 38th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS’05), Big Island, HI, 3–6 January, pp. 130a. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
42.
RaijmanRSemyonovMGeffenR (2015) Language proficiency among post-1990 immigrants in Israel. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies41(8): 1347–1371.
43.
ReddickCG (2005) Citizen Interaction with e-government: from the streets to servers?Government Information Quarterly22(1): 38–57.
Van DeursenAJAMHelsperEJ (2015) The third-level digital divide: who benefits most from being online. In: RobinsonLCottenSRSchulzJet al. (eds) Communication and Information Technologies Annual. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd., pp. 29–52.
50.
Van DeursenAJAMVanan DijkJAGMTen KloosterPM (2015) Increased inequalities in what we do online: a longitudinal cross sectional analysis of internet activities among the Dutch population (2010 to 2013) over gender, age, education, and income. Telematics & Informatics32(2): 259–272.
51.
WangpipatwongSChutimaskulWPapasratornB (2005) Factors influencing the adoption of Thai e-government websites: Information quality and system quality approach. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on e-business 2005, Bangkok, Thailand, 19–20 November, pp. 19–20. Bangkok, Thailand: Assumption University Press.
52.
WelchEWHinnantCC (2003) Internet use, transparency and interactivity effect on trust in government. In: Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS’03), Big Island, HI, 6–9 January, p. 7. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
53.
WestDM (2004) E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review64(1): 15–27.
54.
WoolleyPPetersonM (2012) Efficacy of a health-related Facebook social networking site on health-seeking behaviors. Social Marketing Quarterly18(1): 29–39.
55.
YamadaD (2017) Migration, education investment and gender in transition: evidence from Tajikistan in the 2000s. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2912084
