Although government digital transformation has become a central strategy for improving public service delivery, less is known about whether its benefits are distributed evenly across places with different digital conditions. Using China’s “Internet + Government Services” national pilot policy as a quasi-natural experiment and a panel of 285 prefecture-level cities from 2010 to 2022, this paper examines both the average and distributive effects of digital government on public service provision. The results show that government digital transformation significantly improves public service provision efficiency on average, but these gains are highly uneven across cities. The effect is significantly stronger in cities with better pre-existing digital foundations and markedly weaker in cities facing more severe digital constraints. Further quantile-based evidence indicates a clear Matthew effect: digitally leading cities gain the most, whereas digitally lagging cities benefit far less. Mechanism analysis shows that digital transformation improves public service provision through stronger interdepartmental coordination, lower service provision costs, and information exchange between government and citizens. These findings suggest that digital government can enhance public service provision while also reinforcing disparities in public service gains under unequal initial conditions.
AfonsoA.SchuknechtL.TanziV. (2010). Public sector efficiency: Evidence for new EU member states and emerging markets. Applied Economics, 42(17), 2147–2164.
2.
BattyM. (2012). Smart cities, big data. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 39(2), 191–193.
3.
CaiX.LuY.WuM.YuL. (2016). Does environmental regulation drive away inbound foreign direct investment? Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in China. Journal of Development Economics, 123, 73–85.
4.
CordellaA.TempiniN. (2015). E-government and organizational change: Reappraising the role of ICT and bureaucracy in public service delivery. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 279–286.
5.
DaiC. Z.BaoJ. (2017). Digital governance: A perspective from social form evolvement. Chinese Public Administration, 9, 21–27. (in Chinese)
6.
Di GiuliA.LauxP. A. (2022). The effect of media-linked directors on financing and external governance. Journal of Financial Economics, 145(2), 103–131.
7.
FerroE.HelbigN. C.Gil-GarciaJ. R. (2011). The role of IT literacy in defining digital divide policy needs. Government Information Quarterly, 28(1), 3–10.
8.
Gasco-HernandezM.NasiG.CuccinielloM.HiedemannA. M. (2022). The role of organizational capacity to foster digital transformation in local governments: The case of three European smart cities. Urban Governance, 2(2), 236–246.
9.
GasovaK.StofkovaK. (2017). E-government as a quality improvement tool for citizens’ services. Procedia Engineering, 192, 225–230.
10.
Gil-GarciaJ. R.DawesS. S.PardoT. A. (2018). Digital government and public management research: Finding the crossroads. Public Management Review, 20(5), 633–646.
11.
HeF.ZengX.HuangW. (2023). Effects of social security contributions on labour employment, wages and household savings: New evidence from monthly household panel data. The Journal of World Economy, 32(4), 201–226. (in Chinese)
12.
HelbigN.Gil-GarcíaJ. R.FerroE. (2009). Understanding the complexity of electronic government: Implications from the digital divide literature. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 89–97.
13.
HoA. T.-K. (2002). Reinventing local governments and the e-government initiative. Public Administration Review, 62(4), 434–444.
14.
HoffmanD. L.NovakT. P.SchlosserA. E. (2001). The evolution of the digital divide: Examining the relationship of race to Internet access and usage over time. In CompaineB. M. (Ed.), The digital divide: Facing a crisis or creating a myth (pp. 47–97). MIT Press.
15.
HyytinenA.HuttunenK.ToivanenO.HammarM. (2022). Enhancing the adoption of digital public services: Evidence from a field experiment. Government Information Quarterly, 39(2), Article 101687.
16.
JiangX. J. (2018). Government management and service in the era of big data: How to improve capacity and respond to challenge. Chinese Public Administration, 9, 6–11. (in Chinese)
17.
KongD.LiuC. (2024). Centralization and regulatory enforcement: Evidence from personnel authority reform in China. Journal of Public Economics, 229, Article 105030.
18.
LeydesdorffL.DeakinM. (2011). The triple-helix model of smart cities: A neo-evolutionary perspective. Journal of Urban Technology, 18(2), 53–63.
19.
LuS. F.ZhangH. T.LiC. (2023). Geographical distance between different levels of government and public service provision: Evidence from the relocation of local government sites. Public Finance Research, 11, 33–49. (in Chinese)
20.
MaL. (2022). Handle matters online without having to ask anyone for help: Government digital transformation and the restructuring of social relations. E-Government, 5, 31–42. (in Chinese)
21.
MaL. (2024). Digitalization without transformation: The paradox and solution of digital government. Public Governance Research, 36(6), 62–72. (in Chinese)
22.
MacKinnonD. P.PirlottA. G. (2015). Statistical approaches for enhancing causal interpretation of the M to Y relation in mediation analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(1), 30–43.
23.
MorettiE. (2004). Estimating the social return to higher education: Evidence from longitudinal and repeated cross-sectional data. Journal of Econometrics, 121(1–2), 175–212.
24.
Ninčević PašalićI.ĆukušićM. (2024). Understanding e-participation adoption: Exploring technological, organizational, and environmental factors. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 207, Article 123633.
25.
NorrisD. F.MoonM. J. (2005). Advancing e-government at the grassroots: Tortoise or hare?Public Administration Review, 65(1), 64–75.
26.
OuyangJ.PengL.LuY. (2024). Budget supervision of the People’s Congress and government expenditure efficiency under digital transformation: An analysis from the perspective of information asymmetry. Journal of Management World, 40(11), 137–157. (in Chinese)
27.
PeetersR. (2023). Digital administrative burdens: An agenda for analyzing the citizen experience of digital bureaucratic encounters. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 6(1), 7–13.
28.
PittawayJ. J.MontazemiA. R. (2020). Know-how to lead digital transformation: The case of local governments. Government Information Quarterly, 37(4), Article 101474.
29.
ShangguanZ. M.LiL. L.BaiW. D. (2023). Digital transformation of public finance and optimization of public expenditure structure. Public Finance Research, 6, 96–112. (in Chinese)
30.
ShiB. Z.YouA. N. (2021). Digital government and international trade. Finance & Trade Economics, 42(7), 145–160. (in Chinese)
31.
Toro-MaureiraS.OlivaresA.Sáez-VergaraR., et al. (2026). The missing link: Identifying digital intermediaries in e-government. Public Administration Review, 86(2), 507–519.
32.
TwizeyimanaJ. D.AnderssonA. (2019). The public value of e-government: A literature review. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 167–178.
33.
WestD. M. (2004). E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 15–27.
34.
WidlakA. C.PeetersR. (2025). A theory of the infrastructure-level bureaucracy: Understanding the consequences of data-exchange for procedural justice, organizational decision-making, and data itself. Government Information Quarterly, 42(2), 102021.
35.
XuP.JohnsonK.RundlettA. (2022). E-participation in contemporary China: A comparison with conventional offline participation. Chinese Public Administration Review, 13(3), 150–161.
36.
YangC.GuM.AlbitarK. (2024). Government in the digital age: Exploring the impact of digital transformation on governmental efficiency. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 208, Article 123722.
37.
YinZ. C.JiangJ. L.YanY. (2021). Does the digital divide affect household income?Finance & Trade Economics, 42(9), 66–82. (in Chinese)
38.
YuW. C.LiangP. H.GaoN. (2020). Can higher level of disclosure bring greater efficiency? The empirical research on the effect of government information disclosure on firms’ investment efficiency. China Economic Quarterly, 19(3), 1041–1058. (in Chinese)
39.
ZhaoW.ZouY. (2021). Smart urban governance in epidemic control: Practices and implications of Hangzhou. Chinese Public Administration Review, 12(1), 51–60.
