Although research on the digitalization of public services has focused on many different areas, the role of digital public services (DPS) in shaping citizens’ well-being is a rather under-researched topic. This study investigates how inequalities and internet usage influence the relationship between digital public services (DPS) and individual well-being. Drawing on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), the digitalization paradox, and broader theories of digital inclusion, we analyse individual- and country-level data from 24 European countries across three waves: 2018, 2020, and 2022. DPS are operationalized using the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI), a composite indicator developed by the European Commission to assess digital performance and progress across EU member states. Multi-level analysis was used to investigate the relationship between DPS and life satisfaction and to uncover whether this is moderated by use of the internet and inequalities related to the four main drivers of digital access: age, gender, income, and education. Our findings reveal a counterintuitive trend: higher levels of DPS are associated with lower reported well-being, particularly among individuals presumed to possess advanced digital skills. These results underscore the need for more inclusive and human-centered approaches to digital public service design.
BallanoS.UribeA. C.Munté-RamosRÀ (2014). Young users and the digital divide: Readers, participants or creators on internet?Communication & Society, 27(4), 147–156. https://doi.org/10.15581/003.27.4.147-155
2.
BatesonJ. E. G. (2000). Perceived control and the service experience. In SwartzT. A.IacobucciD. (Eds.), Handbook of services marketing and management (pp. 127–144). Sage Publications.
3.
BaumF.NewmanL.BiedryzckiK. (2014). Vicious cycles: Digital technologies and determinants of health in Australia. Health Promotion International, 29(2), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/das062
4.
BélangerF.CarterL. (2009). The impact of the digital divide on e-government use. Communications of the ACM, 52(4), 132–135. https://doi.org/10.1145/1498765.1498801
5.
BüchiM.FesticN.LatzerM. (2018). How social well-being is affected by digital inequalities. International Journal of Communication, 12(21), 3686–3706. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/8780/2450
6.
BüchiM.JustN.LatzerM. (2016). Modeling the second-level digital divide: A five-country study of social differences in internet use. New Media & Society, 18(11), 2703–2722. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815604154
Cruz-JesusF.OliveiraT.BacaoF.IraniZ. (2017). Assessing the pattern between economic and digital development of countries. Information Systems Frontiers, 19(4), 835–854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-016-9634-1
9.
CuervoM. R. V.MenéndezA. J. L. (2006). A multivariate framework for the analysis of the digital divide: Evidence for the European union-15. Information & Management, 43(6), 756–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.05.001
10.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
11.
DavisF. D.BagozziR. P.WarshawP. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2632151 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
12.
EbbersW. E.JansenM. G.van DeursenA. J. (2016). Impact of the digital divide on e-government: Expanding from channel choice to channel usage. Government Information Quarterly, 33(4), 685–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.08.007
13.
Elena-BuceaA.Cruz-JesusF., OliveiraT., et al. (2020). Assessing the role of age, education, gender and income on the digital divide: Evidence for the European Union. Information Systems Frontiers, 23(4), 1007–1021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-10012-9
14.
ElmassahS.HassaneinE. (2022). Digitalization and subjective well-being in Europe. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance, 24(1), 52–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPRG-05-2021-0060
FathyaV. N.ViveritaV.HatiS. R. H.AstutiR. D. (2023). Customer satisfaction with electronic public services: An 18 years of systematic literature review. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 20(4), 759–812. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-022-00350-6
17.
FrancisJ.BallC.KadylakT.CottenS. R. (2019). Aging in the digital age: Conceptualizing technology adoption and digital inequalities. In Ageing and digital technology (pp. 35–49). Springer.
18.
FriemelT. N. (2016). The digital divide has grown old: Determinants of a digital divide among seniors. New Media & Society, 18(2), 313–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814538648
19.
GalperinH. (2017). Why are half of Latin Americans not online? A four-country study of reasons for internet non-adoption. International Journal of Communication, 11, 3332. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/6287/2114
20.
Gasco HernandezM. (2024). Reflections on three decades of digital transformation in local governments. Local Government Studies, 50(6), 1028–1040. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2024.2410830
21.
GrimsleyM.MeehanA. (2007). E-government information systems: Evaluation-led design for public value and client trust. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(2), 134–148. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000674
HaugN.DanS.MergelI. (2023). Digitally-induced change in the public sector: A systematic review and research agenda. Public Management Review, 26(7), 1963–1987. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2234917
24.
HeisigJ. P.SchaefferM. (2019). Why you should always include a random slope for the lower-level variable involved in a cross-level interaction. European Sociological Review, 35(2), 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcy053
25.
HelbigN.Gil-GarciáJ. R.FerroE. (2009). Understanding the complexity of electronic government: Implications from the digital divide literature. Government Information Quarterly, 26, 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2008.05.004
26.
HenmanP. (2010). Governing electronically: E-government and the reconfiguration of public administration, policy and power. Palgrave Macmillan.
27.
Ionescu-FeleagăL.IonescuB.-Ș.StoicaO. C. (2022). The impact of digitalization on happiness: A European perspective. Mathematics, 10, 2766. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10152766
28.
IraniL. (2015). Hackatons and the making of entrepreneurial citizenship. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 40(5), 799–824. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243915578486
29.
JansenA.ØlnesS. (2016). The nature of public e-services and their quality dimensions. Government Information Quarterly, 33(4), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.08.005
30.
KallinikosJ. (2011). Governing through technology: Information artefacts and social practice. Palgrave Macmillan.
LaiJ.WidmarN. O. (2021). Revisiting the digital divide in the COVID-19 era. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 43(1), 458–464. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13104
34.
LimJ. H.TangS.-Y. (2008). Urban E-government initiatives and environmental decisión performance in Korea. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 18(1), 109–138. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum005
35.
LindblomT.RäsänenP. (2017). Between class and status? Examining the digital divide in Finland, the United Kingdom, and Greece. Information Society, 33(3), 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2017.1294124
36.
LindgrenJ.MadsenC. Ø.HofmannS.MelinU. (2019). Close encounters of the digital kind: A research agenda for the digitalization of public services. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), 427–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.03.002
37.
LipsM. (2019). Digital government: Managing public sector reform in the digital era. Routledge.
38.
LiuH.ZhouQ.LiangS. (2025). Digital inclusion in public services for vulnerable groups: A systematic review for research themes and goal-action framework from the lens of public service ecosystem theory. Government Information Quarterly, 42(2), 102019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2025.102019
LolichL.TimonenV. (2022). Digitalisation of public services as a challenge to social justice. In YerkesM. A.BalM. (Eds.), Solidarity and social justice in contemporary societies (pp. 191–200). Palgrave Macmillan.
41.
LynnT.RosatiP.ConwayE.CurranD.FoxG.O’GormanC. (2022). Digital public services. In LynnT.RosatiP.ConwayE.CurranD.FoxG.O’GormanC. (Eds.), Digital towns (pp. 49–68). MacMillan.
42.
MacayaJ. F. M.RibeiroM. M.JereissatiT.dos Reis LimaC.CunhaM. A. (2021). Gendering the digital divide: The use of electronic government services and implications for the digital gender gap. Information Polity, 26(2), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-200307
43.
MacKenzieD.WajcmanJ. (Eds.). (1985). The social shaping of technology (pp. 1–16). Open University Press.
44.
MartinA. (2008). Digital literacy and the “digital society”. "Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies, and Practices", 30(151), 151–176.
45.
MartinS. P.RobinsonJ. P. (2007). The income digital divide: Trends and predictions for levels of internet use. Social Problems, 54(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2007.54.1.1
46.
MeuterM. L.OstromA. L.RoundtreeR. I.BitnerM. J. (2000). Self-service technologies: Understanding customer satisfaction with technology-based service encounters. Journal of Marketing, 64(3), 50–64. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.64.3.50.18024
47.
MilakovichM. E. (2022). Digital Governance. Applying Advanced Technologies to Improve Public Service. Routlege.
48.
MorozM. (2017). The level of development of the digital economy in Poland and selected European countries: A comparative analysis. Foundations of Management, 9(1), 175. https://doi.org/10.1515/fman-2017-0014
49.
MurgeaA. (2023). Digitalisation and happiness in the European Union, Ovidius Unviersity Annals. Economic Science Series, 23(2), 335–342.
50.
MusaH. G.FatmawatiI.NuryakinN.SuyantoM. (2024). Marketing research trends using technology acceptance model (TAM): A comprehensive review of researches (2002–2022). Cogent Business & Management, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2329375
51.
NielsenP. A.PerssonJ. S. (2017). Useful business cases: Value creation in IS projects. European Journal of Information Systems, 26(1), 66–83. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41303-016-0026-x
52.
OECD. (2001). Understanding the digital divide. OECD Digital Economy Papers, 49. OECD Publishing.
OsborneS. P. (2020). Public service logic: creating value for public service users, citizens, and society through public service delivery, Routledge critical studies in public management. Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.
55.
PanagiotopoulosP.KlievinkB.CordellaA. (2019). Public value creation in digital government. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101421
56.
PickJ. B.AzariR. (2008). Global digital divide: Influence of socioeconomic, governmental and accessibility factor on information technology. Information Technology for Development, 14(February), 91–115. https://doi.org/10.1002/itdj.20095
57.
PickJ. B.NishidaT. (2015). Digital divides in the world and its regions: A spatial and multivariate analysis of technological utilization. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 91(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.12.026
58.
PinkerR.PinkerR. (2017) Stigma and social welfare. In: Social policy and welfare pluralism, Selected writing of Robert Pinker (pp. 61–68). Policy Press.
59.
PlegerL. E.MertesA.ReyA.BrüeschC. (2020). Allowing users to pick and choose: A conjoint analysis of end-user preferences of public e-services. Government Information Quarterly, 37(4), 101473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101473
60.
PoliA.KelfveS.Motel-KlingebielA. (2019). A research tool for measuring nonparticipation of older people in research on digital health. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 1487. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7830-x
61.
PorsA. S. (2015). Becoming digital—passages to service in the digitized bureaucracy. Journal of Organizational Ethnography, 4(2), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOE-08-2014-0031
ProkopC.TepeM. (2022). Talk or hype? The effect of digital interfaces on citizens’ satisfaction with standardized public services. Public Admin, 100(2), 427–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12739
64.
RethemeyerR. K. (2006). Policymaking in the age internet: Is the internet tending to make policy networks more or less inclusive?. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(2), 259–284. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mul001
65.
SafarovN. (2021). Personal experiences of digital public services access and use: Older migrants’ digital choices. Technology in Society, 66, 101627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101627
66.
SalihA. M. (2024). Digital Leadership: Evidence from Theory and Practice. Taylor & Francis.
StoicaE. A.BogoslovI. A. (2017). A comprehensive analysis regarding DESI country progress for Romania relative to the European average trend. Balkan Region Conference on Engineering and Business Education, 2(1), 258–266. https://doi.org/10.1515/cplbu-2017-0034
69.
TolbertC. J.MossbergerK. (2006). The effects of E-government on trust and confidence in government. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 354–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00594.x
70.
United Nations. (2012). E-government survey 2012. United Nations e-government survey 2012. United Nations.
Van DeursenA. J.van DijkJ. A. (2018). The first-level digital divide shifts from inequalities in physical access to inequalities in material access. New Media & Society, 21(2), 354–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818797082
73.
Van DeursenA. J. A. M.HelsperE. J.EnyonR. (2016). Development and validation of the internet skills scale (ISS). Information, Communication & Society, 19(6), 804–823. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1078834
Van DijkJ. A. (2012). The evolution of the digital divide-the digital divide turns to inequality of skills and usage. In Digital enlightenment yearbook 2012 (pp. 57–75). IOS Press.
76.
Van WartM.RomanA.WangX.LiuC. (2019). Operationalizing the definition of e-leadership: Identifying the elements of e-leadership. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 85(1), 80–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852316681446
77.
VerdegemP.VerleyeG. (2009). User-centered E-government in practice: A comprehensive model for measuring user satisfaction. Government Information Quarterly, 26(3), 487–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2009.03.005
78.
VromanK. G.ArthanatS.LysackC. (2015). “Who over 65 is online?” older adults’ dispositions toward information communication technology. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.018
79.
WangY.RanB.MaL. (2025). Decoding paradoxes in digital government: Strategies for the pursuit of public value. Public Administration, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.70008
80.
WelbyB. (2019). The impact of digital government on citizen well-being. OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 32. Paris: OECD Publishing.
81.
WilliamsF.PhilipL.FarringtonJ.FairhurstG. (2016). ‘Digital by default’ and the ‘hard to reach’: Exploring solutions to digital exclusion in remote rural areas. Local Economy, 31(7), 757–777. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269094216670938
82.
WongY. C.HoK. M.ChenH.GuD.ZengQ. (2015). Digital divide challenges of children in low-income families: The case of Shanghai. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 33(1), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2014.998576
ZhangW. J. (2013). Research of Teacher-student Relationship Based on the creativity Development of Students. Master’s Thesis, Shandong Normal University.
85.
ZouY. (2022). Leveraging digital infrastructure for pandemic governance: Preparation, praxis, and paradox. Public Performance & Management Review, 46(1), 140–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2022.2130946
86.
ZyzakB.MartinussenP. E. (2024). OK Computer: Applying the public service logic on digital health services. Public Management Review, 26(11), 3342–3364. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2024.2337080
87.
ZyzakB.Sienkiewicz-MałyjurekK.JensenM. R. (2024). Public value management in digital transformation: A scoping review. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 37(7), 845–863. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-02-2024-0055
