In this modern digital era, e-participation plays a vital role in fostering democratic governance and citizen engagement. However, internet regulatory frameworks can greatly influence the extent and type of e-participation initiatives. Internet regulations can be considered as two sides of the same coin. While increased government authority and control may deter people from taking part in e-participation initiatives, laws are necessary to promote a safe online environment. Drawing on complexity theory and the insights provided by fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA), this study investigates the multifaceted relationship between internet regulations and e-participation outcomes. The study used publicly available cross-sectional data from 134 countries for 2021 and 2022. Through an examination of diverse regulatory frameworks, including those on online content regulations, defamation, privacy and the availability of resources for internet regulations, it becomes evident that while regulations on privacy are effective for high e-participation, the government’s inability to regulate the internet leads to low e-participation. While strong internet laws and privacy laws are the core conditions for high e-participation, the absence of privacy laws is a core condition for low e-participation. Moreover, the government’s approach to regulation yields varying outcomes. The findings of this study would be useful to policymakers, stakeholders and researchers in understanding the configurations leading to high and low e-participation.
AhangamaS. (2023). Relating social media diffusion, education level and cybersecurity protection mechanisms to e-participation initiatives: Insights from a cross-country analysis. Information Systems Frontiers 2023, 1, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10796-023-10385-7
2.
AleisaN. (2024). Key factors influencing the e-government adoption: a systematic literature review. Journal of Innovative Digital Transformation, 1(1), 14–31. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIDT-09-2023-0016
3.
AlrubaiqA., & AlharbiT. (2021). Developing a cybersecurity framework for e-government project in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Journal of Cybersecurity and Privacy, 1(2), 302–318. https://doi.org/10.3390/JCP1020017
4.
AntoniadesN., & HaanP. (2019). Government capabilities as drivers of performance: Path to prosperity. Heliyon, 5(2), e01180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01180
5.
BannisterF., & ConnollyR. (2020). The future ain’t what it used to be: Forecasting the impact of ICT on the public sphere. Government Information Quarterly, 37(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101410
6.
BélangerF., & CarterL. (2008). Trust and risk in e-government adoption. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 17(2), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSIS.2007.12.002
7.
BerntzenL., & KaramagioliE. (2010). Regulatory measures to support eDemocracy. 4th International conference on digital society, ICDS 2010, includes CYBERLAWS 2010: The 1st international conference on technical and legal aspects of the e-society, 311–316. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDS.2010.74
8.
BeynonM., JonesP., & PickernellD. (2016). Country-level investigation of innovation investment in manufacturing: Paired fsQCA of two models. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5401–5407. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2016.04.145
9.
BüchiM., FesticN., & LatzerM. (2022). The chilling effects of digital dataveillance: A theoretical model and an empirical research agenda. Big Data and Society, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211065368
10.
BuschA., TheinerP., & BreindlY. (2017). Internet censorship in liberal democracies: Learning from autocracies? In Managing democracy in the digital age: Internet regulation, social media use, and online civic engagement (pp. 11–28). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61708-4_2
11.
ChanM., YiJ., & KuznetsovD. (2022). Government digital repression and political engagement: A cross-national multilevel analysis examining the roles of online surveillance and censorship. International Journal of Press/Politics, 29(2), 371–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612221117106
DavidB., & GillC. (2013). Complexity theory and the social sciences: The state of the art. In Complexity theory and the social sciences: The state of the art. Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203519585
14.
DiamantopoulouV., AndroutsopoulouA., GritzalisS., & CharalabidisY. (2020). Preserving digital privacy in e-participation environments: Towards GDPR compliance. Information (Switzerland), 11(2), 117. https://doi.org/10.3390/info11020117
15.
DunnC. M., & EgloffF. J. (2019). The politics of cybersecurity: Balancing different roles of the state. St. Antony’s International Review, 15(1), 37–57.
16.
DuttaS., & LanvinB. (2023). Network readiness index 2023. https://download.networkreadinessindex.org/reports/nri_2023.pdf
17.
FainshmidtS., WittM. A., AguileraR. V., & VerbekeA. (2020). The contributions of qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) to international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 51(4), 455–466. Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-020-00313-1
18.
Felipe Luna-ReyesL., & Ramon Gil-GarciaJ. (2011). Using institutional theory and dynamic simulation to understand complex e-Government phenomena. Government Information Quarterly, 28, 329–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.08.007
19.
FissP. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393–420. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2011.60263120
20.
FreemanJ., & QuirkeS. (2013). Understanding e-democracy government-led initiatives for democratic reform. JeDEM - EJournal of EDemocracy and Open Government, 5(2), 141–154. https://doi.org/10.29379/jedem.v5i2.221
21.
GagliardoneIginio., GalDanit., AlvesThiago., & MartinezG. (2015). Countering online hate speech. UNESCO.
22.
GopalakrishnanR. (2012). Accountability, Transparency and Sustainability in Governance: Can Rural Broadband be a Game-changer?IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review, 1(1), 51–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/227797521200100107
23.
HuangY., LiK., & LiP. (2023). Innovation ecosystems and national talent competitiveness: A country-based comparison using fsQCA. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 194, 122733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122733
24.
HurlburtG. F. (2013). Complexity theory: A new paradigm for software integration. IT Professional, 15(3), 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1109/MITP.2012.87
25.
Janoske McLeanM., MaddenS., & PressgroveG. (2021). Complexity theory as a new lens for digital social advocacy. Public Relations Review, 47(3), 102056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102056
26.
KhanA., & KrishnanS. (2020). Virtual social networks diffusion, governance mechanisms, and e-participation implementation: A cross-country investigation. E-Service Journal, 11(3), 36. https://doi.org/10.2979/eservicej.11.3.02
27.
KhanA., KrishnanS., & ArayankalamJ. (2020). The role of ICT laws and national culture in determining ICT diffusion and well-being: A cross-country examination. Information Systems Frontiers. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-10039-y
28.
KubilevičiusK. (2023). How does the public’s interest in participating in the political process influence the equilibrium between privacy and security in cyberspace?Teisės Apžvalga / Law Review, 2(28), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.7220.2029-4239.28.1
29.
Le BlancD. (2020). E-participation: A quick overview of recent qualitative trends. In DESA Working Paper (Issue 163).
30.
LindersD. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 446–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.003
31.
LindnerR., & AichholzerG. (2020). E-democracy: Conceptual foundations and recent trends. In HennenR., van KeulenL.,, KorthagenI.,, AichholzerI.,, LindnerG.,, & NielsenR., (Eds.), European e-democracy in practice (pp. 11–45). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27184-8_2
32.
MarianiI., MortatiM., RizzoF., & DesertiA. (2025). The theoretical background on e-participation. In Design thinking as a strategic approach to e-participation (pp. 11–30). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-72160-1_2
33.
Maryville University. (2022). Social media as activism and social justice | Maryville Online. Maryville University. https://online.maryville.edu/blog/a-guide-to-social-media-activism/
34.
MattkeJ., MaierC., WeitzelT., GerowJ. E., & ThatcherJ. B. (2022). Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) in information systems research: Status quo, guidelines, and future directions. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 50(1), 208–240. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.05008
35.
MisangyiV. F., GreckhamerT., FurnariS., FissP. C., CrillyD., & AguileraR. (2017). Embracing causal complexity: The emergence of a neo-configurational perspective. Journal of Management, 43(1), 255–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316679252
36.
MishraS., AlowaidiM. A., & SharmaS. K. (2021). Impact of security standards and policies on the credibility of e-government. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-020-02767-5
37.
MountasserT., & AbdellatifM. (2023). Digital transformation in public administration: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Professional Business Review, 8(10), e02372. https://doi.org/10.26668/BUSINESSREVIEW/2023.V8I10.2372
38.
NinčevićPašalić, I., & ĆukušićM. (2024). Understanding E-participation adoption: Exploring technological, organizational, and environmental factors. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 207, 123633. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHFORE.2024.123633
39.
OliveiraC., & GarciaA. C. B. (2019). Citizens’ electronic participation. International Journal of Web-Based Communities, 15(2), 123–150. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJWBC.2019.101042
40.
PappasI. O., GiannakosM. N., & SampsonD. G. (2019). Fuzzy set analysis as a means to understand users of 21st-century learning systems: The case of mobile learning and reflections on learning analytics research. Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 646–659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.010
41.
PappasI. O., & WoodsideA. G. (2021). Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA): Guidelines for research practice in information systems and marketing. International Journal of Information Management, 58, 102310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102310
42.
PiazzaJ. A. (2022). Fake news: The effects of social media disinformation on domestic terrorism. Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict: Pathways toward Terrorism and Genocide, 15(1), 55–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/17467586.2021.1895263
43.
PietiläI., MeriläinenN., VarsaluomaJ., & VäänänenK. (2021). Understanding youths’ needs for digital societal participation: Towards an inclusive virtual council. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2021.1912182
44.
RasoolimaneshS. M., RingleC. M., SarstedtM., & OlyaH. (2021). The combined use of symmetric and asymmetric approaches: Partial least squares-structural equation modeling and fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 33(5), 1571–1592. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-10-2020-1164
45.
RihouxB., & RaginC. (2009). Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques. In Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques. Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452226569
46.
Rodríguez-BolívarM. P., Alcaide-MuñozL., & CoboM. J. (2018). Analyzing the scientific evolution and impact of e-participation research in JCR journals using science mapping. International Journal of Information Management, 40, 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJINFOMGT.2017.12.011
47.
RoyoS., PinaV., & Garcia-RayadoJ. (2020). Decide Madrid: A critical analysis of an award-winning e-participation initiative. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(4), 1674. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041674
48.
RussoI., & ConfenteI. (2019). From dataset to qualitative comparative analysis (QCA)—Challenges and tricky points: A research note on contrarian case analysis and data calibration. Australasian Marketing Journal, 27(2), 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2018.11.001
49.
SaeboO., RoseJ., & NyvangT. (2009). The role of social networking services in e-participation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 5694 LNCS, 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03781-8_5
50.
Santamaria-PhilcoA., Canos CerdaJ. H., & Penades GramajeM. C. (2019). Advances in e-participation: A perspective of Last Years. IEEE Access, 7, 155894–155916. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2948810
51.
ShahC. S., & AhangamaS. (2023). A cross-country examination of internet penetration and the economic participation of women: The influence of social capital and gender equality. IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review, 12(2), 182–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/22779752231152531
52.
SørensenE. (2002). Democratic theory and network governance. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 24(4), 693–720. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2002.11029383
53.
SunL., & ZhangY. nan. (2023). Research on the impact of information interaction between government and media on the dissemination of public opinion on the internet. Heliyon, 9(6), e17407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17407
54.
TangT., HouJ. (Jove), FayD. L., & AnnisC. (2019). Revisit the drivers and barriers to e-governance in the mobile age: A case study on the adoption of city management mobile apps for smart urban governance. Journal of Urban Affairs. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2019.1572455
55.
ThevenonF., ShantzA., AlabasterG., & JohnstonR. (2022). The sustainable development goals extended report. United Nations.
56.
ThompsonN., MullinsA., & ChongsutakawewongT. (2020). Does high e-government adoption assure stronger security? Results from a cross-country analysis of Australia and Thailand. Government Information Quarterly, 37(1), 101408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101408
57.
TootsM. (2019). Why e-participation systems fail: The case of Estonia’s Osale.ee. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), 546–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.02.002
58.
TsaoS. F., ChenH., TisseverasingheT., YangY., LiL., & ButtZ. A. (2021). What social media told us in the time of COVID-19: A scoping review. The Lancet Digital Health, 3(3), e175–e194. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30315-0
59.
TwizeyimanaJ. D., & AnderssonA. (2019). The public value of E-Government: A literature review. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 167–178. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.01.001
60.
United Nations. (2016). UN E-government survey 2016. In UN E-government knowledgebase.
61.
United Nations. (2020). UN E-government survey 2020.
62.
United Nations. (2022). E-government survey 2022: The future of digital government.
63.
VasistP. N., & KrishnanS. (2024). Powered by innovation, derailed by disinformation: A multi-country analysis of the influence of online political disinformation on nations’ innovation performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 199, 123029. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHFORE.2023.123029
64.
WangH., & RanB. (2023). Network governance and collaborative governance: A thematic analysis on their similarities, differences, and entanglements. Public Management Review, 25(6), 1187–1211. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.2011389
65.
WoodsideA. G. (2014). Embrace perform model: Complexity theory, contrarian case analysis, and multiple realities. Journal of Business Research, 67(12), 2495–2503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.07.006
66.
WoodsideA. G. (2017). The complexity turn: Cultural, management, and marketing applications. In The complexity turn: Cultural, management, and marketing applications. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47028-3
67.
WoszczynskiA. B., & WhitmanM. E. (2011). The problem of common method variance in IS research. In The handbook of information systems research. https://doi.org/10.4018/9781591401445.ch005
68.
XuX., TahirS. H., KhanK. B., SajidM. A., & SafdarM. A. (2024). Beyond regression: Unpacking research of human complex systems with qualitative comparative analysis. Heliyon, 10(10), e31457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31457
69.
YuW., & ShenF. (2022). The relationship between online political participation and privacy protection: Evidence from 10 Asian societies of different levels of cybersecurity. Behaviour & Information Technology, 41(13), 2819–2834. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2021.1953597
70.
ZhaoY., & FanB. (2018). Exploring open government data capacity of government agency: Based on the resource-based theory. Government Information Quarterly, 35(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.GIQ.2018.01.002
71.
ZhengD., ChenJ., HuangL., & ZhangC. (2013). E-government adoption in public administration organizations: Integrating institutional theory perspective and resource-based view. European Journal of Information Systems, 22(2), 221–234. https://doi.org/10.1057/EJIS.2012.28
