Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy

E-participation in local governments: An examination of political-managerial support

and impacts
Christopher Reddick Donald F. Norris
Article information:
To cite this document:
Christopher Reddick Donald F. Norris , (2013),"E-participation in local governments", Transforming
Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 7 Iss 4 pp. 453 - 476
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 15:48 01 February 2016 (PT)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/TG-02-2013-0008
Downloaded on: 01 February 2016, At: 15:48 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 58 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 424 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Sreejith Alathur, P. Vigneswara Ilavarasan, M.P. Gupta, (2014),"Determinants of citizens’ electronic
participation: insights from India", Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 8 Iss 3 pp.
447-472 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/TG-09-2013-0034
Johann Höchtl, Peter Parycek, Michael Sachs, (2011),"E-participation readiness of Austrian
municipalities", Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 5 Iss 1 pp. 32-44 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506161111114635
Aggeliki Tsohou, Habin Lee, Zahir Irani, Vishanth Weerakkody, Ibrahim H. Osman, Abdel L. Anouze,
Tunc Medeni, (2013),"Proposing a reference process model for the citizen-centric evaluation of e-
government services", Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 7 Iss 2 pp. 240-255
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506161311325387

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:195450 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-6166.htm

E-participation
E-participation in local in local
governments governments
An examination of political-managerial
support and impacts 453
Christopher Reddick Received 22 February 2013
Department of Public Administration, The University of Texas at San Antonio, Revised 10 June 2013
Accepted 13 June 2013
San Antonio, Texas, USA, and
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 15:48 01 February 2016 (PT)

Donald F. Norris
Department of Public Policy, University of Maryland,
Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this research is to examine factors that explain top governmental officials’
support for e-participation in American local governments, and to examine the impacts of
e-participation adoption on local governments in the USA.
Design/methodology/approach – This study utilizes a national survey of e-participation among
US local governments, which examines factors that predict greater political-managerial support for
e-participation and factors associated with positive impacts from e-participation.
Findings – This research found that demand was the most important factor predicting
political-managerial support for e-participation and impacts.
Research limitations/implications – This study produced somewhat limited results partly
because relatively few of the responding governments had adopted any significant number of
e-participation activities. A second limitation is that the authors took a quantitative approach to
e-participation supports and impacts, which did not enable them to tease out some of the more subtle
nuisances of e-participation adoption and its impact on government. A third limitation is that the
authors conducted the research only on governments at the local level in one nation.
Practical implications – Local governments should ensure top level (elected and appointed
officials) support for e-participation for it to be successful. Citizen demand, formal planning, and
taking e-participation are seriously also associated with adoption and positive impacts. So, local
governments should consider these factors when developing e-participation.
Originality/value – This study is first to examine the impacts of e-participation adoption on local
governments in the USA.
Keywords E-government, E-democracy, E-participation
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Research on information technology (IT) and public administration often cites the
importance of top management support for technology adoption, which is said to lead to
more successful adoption. Studies show that when leaders of organizations show their Transforming Government: People,
support for technology and change, IT implementations are more likely to be successful Process and Policy
Vol. 7 No. 4, 2013
(Standish Group, 1995; Norris, 1999; Chen and Gant, 2001; Chen and Perry, 2003; pp. 453-476
Ebrahim and Irani, 2005; Norris and Moon, 2005; Reddick and Frank, 2007; q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1750-6166
Macintosh and Whyte, 2008; Fan, 2011). In this paper, we expand on these findings to DOI 10.1108/TG-02-2013-0008
 TG examine factors that explain top governmental officials’ support for e-participation in
7,4 American local governments.
We also examine the impacts of e-participation adoption on local governments in
the USA, something that has not been studied in the existing literature. For example,
does e-participation have a positive impact on local governments? And if so, what are
the factors associated with its impact?
454 These issues are important to local governments for at least two reasons. First,
nearly all local governments of any size in the USA have adopted e-government
(Coursey and Norris, 2008). This, in turn, means that these governments have at least
the potential to adopt e-participation. And, the USA has a large number of general
purpose local governments – over 39,000 (US Bureau of the Census, Statistical
Abstract of the United States, 2012). Thus, even if a small fraction of them begins to
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 15:48 01 February 2016 (PT)

implement e-participation, the impact could be considerable.

The second reason is that governments spend large sums of money to implement
and manage their e-government activities. Although we can locate no estimates of local
e-government spending in the USA, overall cost estimates are available, and they
suggest that the sums involved are not trivial. For example, Gartner (2013) estimated
that IT spending worldwide would be approximately $3.8 trillion in 2013, a 4.1 percent
increase over 2012. E-government spending makes up an increasing fraction of IT
costs. Thus, another reason to understand factors affecting the management support
for and impacts from e-participation is its cost.
Therefore, we ask two research questions in this paper:
RQ1. What factors explain higher levels of elected and top appointed officials’
support for e-participation in local governments?
RQ2. What factors explain positive impacts of e-participation in local governments?
This paper is divided into four sections in addition to this brief introduction. The
second section discusses claims that have been made in the literature about
e-participation as well as empirical results that call these claims into question. We
discuss findings from the literature regarding political-managerial support for
e-participation and literature about e-participation impacts. We then review studies
that help us to identify variables that are associated with IT and e-government
adoption. In the third section, we explain our research methods and data. In this
section, we present the results of our statistical analysis. In the final, section we discuss
the most significant findings and implications of this study and provide suggestions
for further research.

Claims for e-participation and empirical results

Sæbø et al. (2008), define e-participation as the extension and transformation of
participation in democracy through the use of information and communication
technologies (ICTs). The goal of e-participation is to promote active citizen engagement
in democratic societies and, through this engagement, to enable citizens to impact and
foment change in governments and public policies. Research on e-participation also
addresses the roles that citizens and government play in promoting greater civic
engagement (Macintosh and Whyte, 2008).
In differentiating e-participation from e-government, Peristeras et al. (2009), argue
that e-participation focuses more on public policy formulation through the political
 system, while e-government focuses on service delivery through the administrative E-participation
system. E-participation is multi-disciplinary, borrowing theories from political science, in local
public administration, sociology, e-government, and information systems research, to
name a few (Susha and Grönlund, 2012). Phang and Kankanhalli (2008) state that governments
e-participation initiatives can encourage two-way communication between government
and citizens, educate citizens about policy, legitimize government decisions, and
provide opportunities for mutual learning. The internet, with its ability to overcome 455
offline physical constraints, is the primary vehicle for e-participation.
Even knowing that an important purpose of e-participation is to promote increased
citizen engagement in a democracy, Mahrer and Krimmer (2005) argue that, in reality,
e-participation has suffered from a “service first” and “democracy later” approach
similar to the development of e-government. Chadwick and May (2003) discuss three
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 15:48 01 February 2016 (PT)

models of citizens’ interaction, which may explain why e-participation often only
translates into improvements in service delivery. Their first, the managerial model,
focuses on improving service delivery to citizens. Their consultative model includes
citizens in decisions, but, here, governments solicit citizen input but the governments
themselves make final decisions. Their final, the participatory model, involves citizens
in policy making. Chadwick and May argued that the managerial model is the easiest
for governments to achieve because it only involved the use of ICTs to deliver services.
The participatory model is the most difficult for governments to achieve, since it
involves changing existing power relationships, something that is decidedly more
complex (Kraemer and King, 2006). Reddick (2011) has recently confirmed these
models through empirical research on e-participation.
Andersen et al. (2007), argue that e-participation is costly. Although over time
e-participation may lead to better governance and cost reductions in public service
delivery, governments face many unknown challenges when involving citizens more in
governance. As a result, most of the existing research suggests that if e-participation
has any impact, it would most likely be through the improvement of public service
delivery and would not involve transformation of a democracy (Chadwick and May,
2003; Reddick, 2011).

2. Literature review
In this section, we first discuss findings from the literature that are directly relevant to
our research questions: political-managerial support for e-participation and the impacts
of e-participation. We then discuss variables that are often found to be associated with
IT and e-government adoption, namely demographics and local government
characteristics, managerial aspects of e-participation, demand and e-participation
services. It is from this literature that we derive the variables that we use in the
regression models we develop later in this paper.

Political-managerial support
Studies of IT and e-government adoption have historically shown the importance of
top-level support in organizations for innovation and IT adoption success (Sirkka et al.,
1991; Standish Group, 1995; Norris, 1999). One of the first studies to address the
importance of top management support in information systems success was by
Doll (1985). This author found that top management support was critical for the
successful adoption of information systems. More recently, Brown et al. (2007) found
 TG that top management support is essential for IT implementation success, regardless
7,4 of the information system introduced.
To date, there is little research that examines top management support and
e-government adoption. Chen and Perry (2003) conducted a study that examined IT
outsourcing and e-government and found that top management support is important
for its success. Regarding IT outsourcing projects in local government, Chen and
456 Gant (2001) argue that top management support provides the political will to get
different departments to work together in government, essentially breaking down the
silos of government.
In addition, top management support can deal with any organizational resistance to
change. Ebrahim and Irani (2005) argued that top management support is especially
critical for e-government adoption because of the scale of changes that are required for
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 15:48 01 February 2016 (PT)

the advancement of e-government. Fan (2011) found that e-government adoption was
dependent upon city council support. When executives and leadership in government
understand the use and potential of e-government, they can translate this into greater
success in adopting and implementing e-government. We extend these findings about
top management and elected official support for IT and e-government adoption to the
adoption of e-participation. Our assumption is that e-participation adoption will be
more likely if there is support from these officials.

E-participation impacts
Numerous works in the e-government literature argue for the importance of ICTs on
reforming and changing government. Weerakkody et al. (2011), discuss the importance of
what they call t-government or transformation government. T-government is
organizational-level ICT, which transforms existing internal and external processes and
structures and creates greater transparency, accountability, efficiency, and citizen
participation in government. Ho (2002) states that the e-government paradigm transforms
the public organization. Weber’s classic bureaucratic model has an emphasis on hierarchy
and top-down management. The e-government model, according to Ho (2002), has an
emphasis on teamwork, multidirectional information flows and decisions, and
communication and change from citizens. Fountain (2009) has articulated the
importance of understanding institutions and bureaucratic reform. She argues for the
importance of understanding the politics of reform in the context of institutional change
and transformation.
However, according to Kraemer and King (2006), the claims that IT will
reform government are not supported by existing empirical evidence. Proponents of
reform argue that there has been failure because of the lack of top management support
that was unable to distribute the benefits of reform to the organizations. Kraemer and
King believe that IT reform has not been able to change organizations because IT
reinforces existing power relationships. The study of transformation from
e-government shows that existing empirical findings support more of a change in
service delivery, not a radical departure of ways of doing business (West, 2004;
Coursey and Norris, 2008; O’Neill, 2009; Norris and Reddick, 2013). For example,
e-government innovations in the European Union are more likely to have the greatest
short-term impact on public service delivery, than radical change or transformation
(Torres et al., 2005).
 Bannister and Connolly (2011) discuss the idea of the relationship between trust and E-participation
transformation and the development of e-government, which is important to in local
understand the impact of e-participation. Their conclusion is that:
governments
[. . .] ICT can delivery efficiency. It can enable effectiveness. It can reduce costs. It can
facilitate openness. But ICT can do little for benevolence and nothing for openness or
empowerment if those in power do not want these things to happen (p. 145).
457
Next, we discuss several factors that previous studies have shown to be associated
with the adoption of IT and e-government. We are interested in finding whether they
also are associated with top management support and e-participation impacts. These
factors are demographics and local government characteristics, managerial aspects,
demand for e-participation, and e-participation services.
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 15:48 01 February 2016 (PT)

Demographics and local government characteristics. Numerous studies have found

associations between a variety of demographic and local government characteristics
and IT and e-government adoption in the USA. In the following section, we discuss
what the literature suggests are the most important, including size, type and form of
government, regional location of the government, income and race.
Size. Size (as measured by population) is the leading factor found to be associated
with the adoption of IT and e-government in this literature. Table I provides a list of
studies and their principal findings regarding size and IT or e-government adoption.
Norris and Kraemer (1996) have explained that size is related to IT adoption by local
governments, because larger local governments have greater needs for computing and
larger budgets with which to support IT.
Type and form of government. Numerous studies have found that adoption of IT
and e-government is related to type and form of government. In the USA, type of
government means either a county or a municipality, and form of government means
whether the government is led by an elected executive (mayor or county executive) or a
professional manager (city or county manager or administrator). Typically, studies
have found municipality and professional management to be associated with adoption.
Brudney and Selden (1995), Norris and Demeter (1999), Moon (2002) and Norris and
Campillo (2002) found that municipal governments and local governments with

Norris (1984), Brudney and Selden (1995) IT adoption by smaller US local governments
Norris and Kraemer (1996) Adoption of sophisticated computing systems
by US local governments
Norris (1999) Adoption of leading edge IT systems by local
governments
Norris and Demeter (1999) Adoption of computing and web sites by US local
governments
Moon (2002), Holden et al. (2003), Reddick (2004), Adoption of e-government by US local
Moon and Norris (2005) governments
Reddick (2005b) Adoption of e-commerce by Texas county
treasurers
Schwester (2009) Adoption of e-government by small US
municipalities
Ahn (2010) Adoption of e-commerce applications by US local
governments Table I.
Homburg and Dijkshoorn (2012) Adoption of e-government by Dutch Size and IT/e-government
municipalities adoption
 TG professional managers were more likely to adopt IT and e-government than counties and
7,4 governments led by elected executives. Similarly, Norris (1984), Holden et al. (2003),
Reddick (2004) and Norris and Moon (2005) found that both municipal type and
professional form were associated with adoption of IT and e-government by local
governments.
One explanation for these findings is that professional managers are more likely to
458 understand the value of IT and e-government for local governmental operations and to
have been exposed more to the professional literature and training and conferences
than elected officials and therefore more likely to want to implement these
technologies.
Location. Studies have also found adoption of IT and e-government to be related to
the region of the USA within which local governments are located. The typical
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 15:48 01 February 2016 (PT)

pattern of adoption is that governments in the West and South are more likely to
adopt than those in the Northeast and Midwest (Norris and Demeter, 1999;
Norris and Campillo, 2002; Holden et al., 2003; Reddick, 2004; Norris and Moon, 2005).
One possible explanation for this is that local governments in the former regions are
more likely to have professional managers than those in the latter regions. And as seen
above, there is a relationship between professional management and the likelihood to
adopt.
Income. Somewhat of a consensus exists in the literature that higher income is
positively associated with the likelihood that citizens will adopt e-government
(Dimitrova and Chen, 2006). It is also well known in the social science literature
that income is highly correlated with more resources for government (Thomas and
Streib, 2003; Reddick, 2005b; Dimitrova and Chen, 2006). Akman et al. (2005) found a
similar relationship between income and citizen use of the internet in Turkey. Studies
by the Council for Excellence in Government (CEG, 2003), Thomas and Streib (2003),
Shelley et al. (2004), Reddick (2005a) and Dimitrova and Chen (2006) all found that
higher income was related to a greater likelihood of e-government use.
In this paper, we extend these findings to include the impact of income on adoption
of e-participation. We would expect to find that local government with higher median
household incomes would be more likely to adopt e-participation. This may also be
explained by the intimate association between income and education. Thus,
constituents with greater educational attainment may be more likely to demand
e-participation.
Race. Finally, a few studies have found that race is associated with adoption of
e-government by both individuals and governments (CEG, 2003; Thomas and
Streib, 2003; Shelley et al., 2004; Ho, 2002; Reddick, 2005b; Ahn, 2010). Undoubtedly one
reason for this association is the existence of the digital divide(s) where proportionately
fewer minorities and poor persons have access to and use the internet, the high
correlation between poverty and race in the USA, and, finally, the fact that many
American central cities have relatively high concentrations of both poor and minority
populations.
Managerial aspects. As we reported earlier, management is strongly linked to IT and
e-government adoption and impacts. In this paper, we examine top political-managerial
support for e-participation, the location of IT/e-participation management within local
governments, and planning for and evaluation of e-participation by local governments
as important management activities.
 The Standish Group’s (1995) Chaos Report clearly links top management support to E-participation
the success of IT projects. Brudney and Selden (1995) found that positive administrative in local
performance was associated with IT adoption by small local governments. Similarly,
Moon and Norris (2005) identified the importance of management orientation to the governments
adoption of e-government at the local level. Finally, Reddick (2009) has identified that
management capacity was an important factor in e-government adoption.
Some studies have found that the internal location within a government of IT 459
and e-government management matters to adoption and implementation. In our survey,
we asked where in the local government e-management was housed – whether in the IT
department, the chief administrator’s office or elsewhere. The rationale for housing IT
in a separate department is to have central oversight and consistency across the
local government (Norris and Reddick, 2013). Here, we wondered if the location of
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 15:48 01 February 2016 (PT)

e-participation management might be associated with greater adoption or more positive

impacts?
The IS literature tells us that involving end-users in systems planning and
development makes implementation success more likely (Thierauf, 1984; Laudon and
Laudon, 2004). If we extend this to e-participation, it would suggest that local
governments should reach out to their citizens to ascertain their desires for information
and services on the local web site. Surveying citizens would also give local governments
an indication of demand for information and service delivery, and, presumably, greater
demand would result in greater uptake by citizens. Thus, another managerial issue to
consider is whether local governments survey their citizens to find out the types of
information and services that the latter want on the local web site?
The IS literature also tells us that planning for and analysis of IS projects
improves the likelihood of implementation success (Thierauf, 1984; Laudon and
Laudon, 2004). Thus, we consider whether local governments undertake formal
planning for e-participation and cost-benefit analyses of e-participation projects before
undertaking them, and impact or effectiveness analyses after e-participation projects
have been in place. We would assume that governments that undertake these activities
would be more likely to adopt e-participation and would receive greater positive impacts
from it.
Demand and e-participation services. Most of the e-government research to date
has focused on the supply of e-government, while few studies have examined the
demand-side (Gauld et al., 2010). These authors, along with others, argue for the
importance of understanding the human side of the e-government equation (Thomas
and Streib, 2003; Reddick, 2005a). Klievink and Janssen (2009) argue for what they call
demand-driven joined up government. This is where, instead of citizens having to search
for information for a service request, e-government enables citizens’ to get
recommendations on the basis of their preferences.
We examine demand for e-participation through three questions in the survey. One
question asked whether citizen demand for e-participation existed in these local
governments. Two questions asked whether local elected and appointed officials actively
promoted e-participation. Presumably, in local governments where there is greater
demand by citizens or active promotion for e-participation by local officials, there would be
evidence of greater adoption of e-participation activities. Existing research shows that
citizen demand for e-government at the local level spurs greater innovation (Reddick and
Frank, 2007). We test this presumption later in this paper.
 TG E-participation services. Finally, the number of e-participation activities offered online
7,4 would indicate the breadth of adoption of e-participation within local governments.
Local governments that offer a greater number of e-participation activities should
show evidence of a larger number of positive impacts from e-participation (Reddick, 2011).
This we also test in this paper.

460 3. Research methods

To produce the data needed for this study, we contracted with the International
City/County Management Association (ICMA) to conduct a survey of e-democracy
among American local governments. The questionnaire that we used for this study is
based in part on an e-democracy survey conducted by ICMA in 2006 (Norris, 2007).
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 15:48 01 February 2016 (PT)

Because we wanted to be able to compare the results from our 2011 survey with data
from the 2006 survey, we based the 2011 instrument on the instrument from 2006.
However, recognizing that much has changed in the world of e-government and
e-democracy in the five years between the surveys, we needed to update the 2006
instrument at least somewhat to capture recent e-democracy issues and trends.
Therefore, prior to developing the 2011 instrument, we asked a convenience sample
of local IT directors and chief information officers (CIOs) to review the 2006 instrument
and make recommendations to us based on their expert knowledge of local
e-democracy developments since then (see Appendix 1). Armed with these expert
practitioners’ suggestions, we worked cooperatively with the ICMA survey research
staff to write the 2011 questionnaire. While many of the questions are identical to those
in the 2006 survey, we added a number of new questions. In order to keep the length of
the survey manageable, as we added new questions to the 2011 instrument, we deleted
a nearly equal number from the 2006 instrument. Note that in the survey instrument
we told respondents that for our purposes the terms e-participation and e-democracy
were synonymous and, that to simplify things for the questionnaire, we used the term
e-participation to mean both.
For the purpose of this paper, we chose a select number of questions from our
e-participation survey (see Appendix 2). These questions closely corresponded to what
we wanted to test in our models examining the impacts of factors that explain
political-managerial support and e-participation impacts.
ICMA mailed the surveys in the spring of 2011 to all municipal governments with a
population of 10,000 and greater and to all county governments of the same size that
have elected executives or appointed managers. However, for purposes of this paper,
we included responses only from local governments that served populations of 25,000
for this paper in order to make the 2011 data comparable to the data from the 2006
survey. In addition, we believe that only including larger-sized local governments that
have populations of 25,000 or greater, we are more likely to examine adopters of
e-participation.
ICMA provided an online option for completing the survey to the local government
respondents. Nearly eight in ten (78.5 percent) of respondents returned paper surveys,
while about the balance completed the online version. ICMA sent a second mailing to
local governments that had not responded to the first mailing.
Of 2,287 surveys mailed, 684 local governments responded to the survey, for a
response rate of 29.9 percent (Table II). This response rate is consistent with other
surveys recently conducted by the ICMA at around 30 percent, although lower than the
 E-participation
Local governments
Local governments surveyed responding in local
No. No. % governments
Total 2,287 684 29.9
Population group
Large (250,000 and above) 223 66 29.6 461
Medium (50,000-249,999) 1,000 321 32.1
Small (25,000-49,999) 1,064 297 27.9
Geographic region
Northeast 426 72 16.9
North-central 594 180 30.3
South 741 240 32.4
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 15:48 01 February 2016 (PT)

West 526 192 36.5

Form of government
Municipality (464) (67.8)
Mayor-council 494 80 17.2
Council-manager 911 374 80.6
Other 51 10 2.2 Table II.
County (220) (32.2) Local government
Council-administrator or manager 544 173 78.6 e-participation
Elected executive 287 47 21.4 survey responses

response rate of 36.8 percent for the 2006 survey. ICMA has noticed a decline in
responses to its surveys in recent years and attributes this, in part, to the impact of the
recent severe economic recession on local staff cutbacks. As a result, local governments
understandably have fewer resources to devote to completing surveys (Moulder, 2011,
personal communication).
When we examine responses by governmental size (population), we see that the local
governments in all three categories, large, medium and small, are fairly reasonably
represented among survey respondents. Local governments in the Northeast are
under-represented, while those in the West are over-represented. Municipalities were
substantially over-represented versus counties. Among municipalities, the council
manager form of government was substantially over-represented, while among counties
the council-administrator form of government was also substantially over-represented.
The research methods used in this paper are first descriptive statistics showing the
distribution of the sample for the dependent and independent variables. Following the
descriptive statistics, ordinary least squares (OLS) regression is used to test the models
examining the top management support and impacts of e-participation on local
governments.
The survey instrument asked respondents to indicate which, if any, of
11 e-participation activities their local governments had conducted in the past year.
These were:
(1) conducted one or more narrated or guided discussion forums about important
local issues;
(2) conducted one or more non-narrated or guided discussion forums about
important local issues;
(3) facilitated or operated chat rooms;
 TG (4) conducted public consultations, e.g. engage public in the budget process;
7,4 (5) enabled citizens to participate in a poll or survey;
(6) enabled citizens to view a hearing or a meeting;
(7) enabled citizens to participate in a hearing or meeting;
(8) permitted or facilitated electronic citizen petitions;
462 (9) enabled citizens to vote in an election or referendum;
(10) conducted electronic town halls; and
(11) enabled citizens to post comments.

For the purposes of this research, if a local government had conducted at least one of
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 15:48 01 February 2016 (PT)

these activities, this meant that that government had engaged in e-participation. Of the
648 governments shown in Table I, 538 responded that they engaged in at least one
e-participation activity. We used this smaller sample for the statistical analysis that
follows.

Dependent variables
The dependent variables for this research included: e-participation positive impact;
elected officials actively promote e-participation; and top appointed officials actively
promote e-participation. Table III presents the descriptive statistics for both the
dependent and independent variables for the three models tested in this paper.
We constructed the e-participation positive impact dependent variable from a
question on the survey that asked: “As a result of e-participation, has your local

n Minimum Maximum Mean

Dependent variables
E-participation positive impact 538 0 6 2.30
Elected officials actively promote e-participation 503 1 5 2.85
Top appointed officials actively promote e-participation 494 1 5 3.26
Independent variables
Demographics and local government characteristics
Median household income in 2009 inflation-adjusted dollars 538 $23,513 $145,023 $57,075
% White population 538 14.2 97.8 72.9
250,000 or greater population 538 0 1 0.09
City 538 0 1 0.68
West 538 0 1 0.36
Council manager-council administrator form of government 538 0 1 0.80
Managerial aspects of e-participation
Conducted survey of residents on types of information/
services for web site 538 0 1 0.28
ITD responsible e-participation activities 538 0 1 0.17
Formal planning e-participation 538 0 1 0.25
Cost benefit analysis e-participation 538 0 1 0.13
Effectiveness analysis e-participation 538 0 1 0.12
Table III. Demand and e-participation services
Descriptive statistics Significant grassroots demand for e-participation 503 1 5 1.97
of dependent and E-participation taken seriously 424 1 5 3.92
independent variables E-participation index 538 1 9 3.30
 government experienced any of the following impacts?” We constructed a summation E-participation
index of all six positive impacts as a result of e-participation: in local
(1) increased quantity of information available to local officials for governments
decision-making;
(2) increased quality of information available to local officials for decision-making;
(3) increased quantity of citizen participation; 463
(4) increased quality of citizen participation;
(5) better decision-making by local officials; and
(6) increased citizen trust in government.
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 15:48 01 February 2016 (PT)

The total number of responses for this question was 538. There was a minimum score
of no impact, or zero, and the maximum score showed all six had an impact. The
average or mean positive impact was 2.30. Therefore, those local governments that use
e-participation reported that they had just over two positive impacts as a result of its
adoption.
The second and third dependent variables are on a five-point Likert scale. The
question asked was: “On a whole, do officials in your local government actively
promote or give attention to e-participation?” Local governments were asked to
respond to two questions, one for elected officials and the second for top appointed
officials. The number of responses for elected officials was 503. The minimum response
was 1, indicating that they do not promote e-participation at all. The average for
elected officials support was 2.85 (out of 5). For top appointed officials, the number of
observations recorded was 494. The minimum and maximum score for top appointed
officials were the same as the elected officials. The average score for top appointed
officials was 3.26 (out of 5). These survey results suggest that top appointed officials
more actively promoted e-participation than did elected officials. However, for the sake
of transparency, we should note that the surveys were completed mostly by appointed
officials.

Independent variables
In order to determine what factors, if any, are associated with these three dependent
variables, we analyzed the 14 independent variables shown in Table III that we derived
from the literature. The first set of independent variables included six demographics
and local government characteristics:
(1) Population – from the ICMA dataset. Large-sized local governments serving
populations of 250,000 or greater population. 29.6 percent of the responding
local governments fell in this population range.
(2) Type of government – from the ICMA dataset. 67.8 percent of the respondents
were municipal governments.
(3) Form of government – from the ICMA dataset. The council-manager form of
government for cities (80.6 percent) and council-administrator form of
government for counties (78.0 percent) were the most commonly found forms
of government.
(4) Region of the country – from the ICMA dataset. 36.5 percent of the sample were
from the Western region of the USA.
 TG (5) Median household income – from the Census Bureau for each local government
7,4 and is adjusted for 2009 dollars. Our sample shows the minimum median
household income was $23,513 and the maximum household income was
$145,023. The average was $57,075.
(6) Percent of White population – from the Census Bureau statistics. The minimum
was 14.2 percent and the maximum was 97.8 percent White, while the average
464 White population was 72.9 percent.

In addition to these demographic and local government characteristics, we took other

variables from specific questions asked on the survey (Table III). The second set of
variables we examined included five managerial aspects of e-participation:
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 15:48 01 February 2016 (PT)

(1) Conducted citizen surveys – 28 percent of local governments conducted surveys of

residents about citizens’ desires for information and services on their web sites.
(2) Location of managerial responsibility for e-participation – 17 percent of local
governments that said their IT department is responsible for e-participation
activities.
(3) Formal planning – 25 percent of respondents that said that they conducted
formal planning for e-participation.
(4) Cost-benefit analysis – 13 percent of respondents conducted cost-benefit
analysis of e-participation projects before implementing them.
(5) Effectiveness analysis of e-participation – 12 percent of respondents conducted
impact or effectiveness analysis for e-participation projects after they were
implemented.

The last group of factors, e-participation demand and services, included three
variables:
(1) Citizen demand for e-participation – based on a five-point Likert scale for the
question: “Are citizen grassroots groups or organizations actively pushing for
e-participation opportunities within your local government?” The scale ranged
from no grassroots demand (1) to significant grassroots demand (5). The
average score was 1.97 (out of 5).
(2) Whether e-participation was taken seriously by the local government – derived
from a five-point Likert scale for the question: “Please circle the number that
indicates the extent to which your local government takes seriously and acts
upon the results of e-participation projects and activities in their decisions and
actions”. The scale ranged from do not take seriously (1) to take very seriously (5).
The average score for e-participation taken seriously was 3.92 (out of 5).
(3) E-participation activities index – this included the 11 e-participation activities
previously discussed. The minimum response for this independent variable was
one and the maximum responses was nine (out of 11) possible activities. The
average was 3.3 (out of nine e-participation activities adopted).

Regression models
Table IV shows the three OLS regression models that we tested in this study. The first
model tested whether the independent variables were associated with whether elected
 Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 15:48 01 February 2016 (PT)

Elected officials actively Top appointed officials actively

promote e-participation promote e-participation E-participation positive impact
b coef. t-statistic Prob. sign. b coef. t-statistic Prob. sign. b coef. t-statistic Prob. sign.

Constant – 1.33 0.18 – 2.39 * * 0.02 – 0.65 0.52

Demographics and local government characteristics
Median household income in 2009 inflation-adjusted
dollars 0.07 1.48 0.14 0.04 0.74 0.46 2 0.03 20.56 0.58
% White population 0.09 1.89 * 0.06 0.12 2.34 * * 0.02 0.02 0.45 0.65
250,000 or greater population 0.00 0.08 0.94 2 0.06 21.18 0.24 0.03 0.54 0.59
City 0.07 1.43 0.15 0.05 1.01 0.32 0.11 2.06 * * 0.04
West 0.01 0.13 0.90 2 0.03 20.59 0.56 2 0.07 21.31 0.19
Council manager-council administrator form of
government 2 0.04 20.97 0.34 0.03 0.71 0.48 2 0.04 20.90 0.37
Managerial aspects of e-participation
Conducted survey of residents on types of
information/services for web site 0.08 1.72 * 0.09 0.09 1.87 * 0.06 0.06 1.25 0.21
ITD responsible e-participation activities 0.00 0.07 0.95 2 0.01 20.22 0.83 2 0.09 21.96 * * 0.05
Formal planning e-participation 0.14 2.96 * * * 0.00 0.06 1.26 0.21 0.11 2.05 * * 0.04
Cost benefit analysis e-participation 0.03 0.67 0.51 2 0.01 20.19 0.85 0.00 0.01 1.00
Effectiveness analysis e-participation 0.02 0.43 0.67 0.10 1.87 * 0.06 0.09 1.63 * 0.10
Demand and e-participation services
E-participation taken seriously 0.18 4.05 * * * 0.00 0.24 4.97 * * * 0.00 0.17 3.55 * * * 0.00
Significant grassroots demand for e-participation 0.33 7.18 * * * 0.00 0.20 4.20 * * * 0.00 0.18 3.76 * * * 0.00
E-participation index 2 0.06 21.42 0.16 2 0.01 20.25 0.80 2 0.03 20.70 0.49
Adjusted-R 2 0.24 0.16 0.13
F-statistic 10.12 * * * 6.41 * * * 5.30 * * *
n 411 404 412
Note: Significant at: *0.10, * *0.05 and * * *0.01 levels
governments

political-managerial
E-participation

for e-participation
Regression models

support and impact

in local

465

Table IV.
 TG officials actively promoted e-participation. Only five of the 14 independent variables
7,4 were associated with an increase in elected officials actively promoting e-participation
(adjusted R 2 ¼ 0.24)[1], [2]. These were an increase in the percent of White population;
local governments that conducted a survey of residents; formal planning of
e-participation; e-participation taken seriously by the local government; and the
existence of significant grassroots support for e-participation.
466 The second model tested whether the independent variables were associated with
whether top appointed officials actively promoted e-participation. Again, only five
independent variables were associated with top appointed officials actively promoting
e-participation (adjusted R 2 ¼ 0.16). In this model, an increase in percent of White
population, citizen survey about information and services on local web sites,
effectiveness analysis of e-participation, e-participation taken seriously, and significant
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 15:48 01 February 2016 (PT)

grassroots demand for e-participation all were positively associated with top appointed
officials actively promoting e-participation.
The final regression model tested whether the independent variables were associated
with e-participation having a positive impact on local governments. Again, only five
independent variables were associated with positive e-participation impacts. One was
associated with a decreased likelihood of positive impacts. The adjusted R 2 for this
model is 0.13. The regression results show that city government, formal planning for
e-participation, effectiveness analysis of e-participation, e-participation taken seriously,
and significant grassroots demand for e-participation all were associated with positive
impacts from e-participation. Having the information technology department (ITD)
responsible for e-participation was associated with a decreased likelihood of positive
impacts.
The final model tested can be shown in Figure 1. In this figure, we show that
demographic and local government characteristics, managerial aspects of
e-government, and demand for e-participation services impact the dependent
variables of top political-managerial support for e-participation and e-participation
impacts.

4. Summary and conclusion

In this paper, we examined variables that are often found in the literature to be
associated with elected and top appointed officials’ support for e-participation and
factors that are associated with positive impacts from e-participation. We did so
because we wanted to better understand what motivates elected and appointed officials
to support the adoption of e-participation activities at the local level. We also wanted to
better understand factors that are associated with positive impacts resulting from
e-participation adoption by local governments.
As indicated earlier, these are important to understand because of the large
numbers of local governments in the USA that have adopted e-government, and, thus,
have the potential to adopt e-participation and to experience possible impacts from
adoption. An additional important reason is the considerable cost to local governments
of e-government.
We grouped 14 independent variables identified in the literature as important to
e-government adoption into three factors, demographics and local government
characteristics, managerial aspects of e-participation, and demand and e-participation
services. Most importantly, all three of our models showed that, when e-participation
 E-participation
in local
Demographics governments
and Local
Government
Characteristics
467
a. Political
managerial
support
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 15:48 01 February 2016 (PT)

b. E-
Managerial participation
Aspects of E- impacts
government

Demand for E-
Participation Figure 1.
Services Diagrammatic
representation
of the model

is taken seriously and when there is significant citizen support for e-participation,
elected and appointed officials are more likely to support e-participation, and positive
impacts from e-participation are more likely to occur (Table V).
Other notable findings included that elected and appointed officials’ support was
associated with percent White population and conducting a citizen survey. Formal
planning was associated with elected officials’ support while effectiveness analysis was
associated with appointed officials’ support. City government, planning for
e-participation and effectiveness analysis was associated with an increased likelihood
of positive impacts from e-participation. However, having the ITD in charge of

Support from elected officials Support from appointed officials E-participation positive impacts

Grassroots demand Grassroots demand Grassroots demand

E-participation taken seriously E-participation taken seriously E-participation taken seriously
Planning for e-participation Planning for e-participation Table V.
Percent White Percent White Variables associated with
Citizen survey Citizen survey support from local
Effectiveness analysis Effectiveness analysis officials and
(2) ITD manages e-participation e-participation impacts
 TG e-participation, while not associated with local officials’ support for e-participation,
7,4 lowers the likelihood of positive impacts from it.
That citizen demand, taking e-participation seriously and conducting surveys to find
out what citizens want were associated with a greater likelihood that elected and
appointed officials would support for e-participation should not be surprising. This is
because more often than not government officials do, indeed, act on citizen demands.
468 When governmental officials survey citizen to discover their preferences, those officials
are likely to act on those preferences. Governmental officials tend to take seriously the
feedback that they receive from their constituents. Simply put, governmental officials do
so because, if they do not, they may suffer at the polls in the next election.
Overall, the demand variables in our models were much more strongly associated
with the dependent variables than either the demographic or managerial variables. We
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 15:48 01 February 2016 (PT)

were somewhat surprised that so few (only two) of the demographic and local
government characteristic variables (percent White and city type government) were
significant in the models. This is because much of the previous literature has found an
association between many of these variables and e-government adoption. We were also
surprised that the management variables were not more strongly associated with the
dependent variables because the literature shows that management matters to IT and
e-government adoption.
Finally, we were somewhat surprised that having the ITD manage e-participation
lowered the likelihood of positive impacts from it. This could be that ITDs have many
responsibilities in addition to e-participation, and, therefore, their attention to
e-participation may not be as great as it might be in a local government office
principally or at least more narrowly focused on e-participation. The survey data cannot
answer this question, so we leave it for further research.
The findings of this study have two important implications. First, e-participation
seems to be more complicated than e-government in terms of factors predicting positive
impacts and top management support. Much of the existing e-government research
found empirical evidence for the significance of demographics and local government
characteristics. These were largely not found to be significant in our models. This
implies that e-participation is a more complicated process that needs further empirical
investigation. Second, demand seems to be a substantial driver of e-participation
impacting both top management support and impacts. This is consistent with existing
literature that citizens drive the use and impacts of technology in government.
We suspect that this study produced somewhat limited results partly, if not largely,
because relatively few of the responding governments had adopted any significant
number of e-participation activities, and the activities that they had adopted were
mainly one-way (government to citizen) versus two-way and interactive (Norris and
Reddick, 2013). Only one e-participation activity had been adopted by more than half
of the governments; two activities approached half of local governments; and
three activities had been adopted by fewer than one-third (most of which were under
10 percent). And if adoption rates of e-participation activities were low, local
government plans for future adoptions were abysmal. Planned adoptions rose above
10 percent of governments in 2011 for only one of the listed activities.
A second limitation to this study concerns the methods that we used to evaluate the
political-managerial support and impacts of e-participation. We took a quantitative
approach, which did not enable us to tease out some of the more subtle nuisances of
 e-participation adoption and its impact on government. To address this limitation, we E-participation
would suggest that researchers who undertake further studies of e-participation in local
consider the use of qualitative methods, such as case studies and focus groups, to
gather more in-depth information about reasons for top officials’ support for governments
e-participation and the impacts from it. A third limitation is the limited number of
categories that we used for measuring our dependent variables of top management
support and impacts. Here we would suggest a broader survey, which have more 469
questions that address both of these important issues.
These limitations aside, the empirical evidence presented here should be a starting
point for further studies into factors associated with e-participation adoption among
local governments in the USA and into factors associated with the impacts of
e-participation on those governments.
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 15:48 01 February 2016 (PT)

Notes
1. The F-statistics for all three models were statistically significant, indicating that the models
were correctly specified.
2. In order to test whether multicollinearity is an issue for our independent variables, in the
regression models we computed tolerance and variance inflation factors. Both statistics
indicated that multicollinearity was not an issue, with these statistics being within
acceptance levels.

References
Ahn, M.J. (2010), “Adoption of e-communication applications in US municipalities: the role of
political environment, bureaucratic structure and the nature of applications”, American
Review of Public Administration, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 428-452.
Akman, I., Yazici, A., Mishra, A. and Arifoglu, A. (2005), “E-government: a global view and an
empirical evaluation of some attributes of citizens”, Government Information Quarterly,
Vol. 22, pp. 239-257.
Andersen, K.V., Henriksen, H.Z., Secher, C. and Medaglia, R. (2007), “Costs of e-participation: the
management challenges”, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 1
No. 1, pp. 29-43.
Bannister, F. and Connolly, R. (2011), “Trust and transformational government:
a proposed framework for research”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 28,
pp. 137-147.
Brown, S.A., Chervany, N.L. and Reinicke, B.A. (2007), “What matters when introducing new
information technology”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 50 No. 9, pp. 91-96.
Brudney, J. and Selden, S. (1995), “The adoption of innovation by smaller local governments: the
case of computer technology”, American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 25 No. 1,
pp. 71-86.
CEG (2003), The New E-Government Equation: Ease, Engagement, Privacy and Protection,
Council for Excellence in Government, available at: www.cio.gov/documents/
egovpoll2003.pdf (accessed March 7, 2012).
Chadwick, A. and May, C. (2003), “Interaction between states and citizens in the age of the
internet: “e-government” in the United States, Britain, and the European Union”,
Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, Vol. 16
No. 2, pp. 271-300.
 TG Chen, Y.-C. and Gant, J. (2001), “Transforming local e-government services: the use of application
service providers”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 18, pp. 343-355.
7,4
Chen, Y.-C. and Perry, J. (2003), “Outsourcing for e-government: managing for success”,
Public Performance & Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 404-421.
Coursey, D. and Norris, D.F. (2008), “E-government models: are they empirically correct?”,
Public Administration Review, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 523-536.
470 Dimitrova, D.V. and Chen, Y.C. (2006), “Profiling the adopters of e-government information
and services: the influence of psychological characteristics, civic mindedness,
and information channels”, Social Science Computer Review Summer, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 172-188.
Doll, W.J. (1985), “Avenues for top management involvement in successful MIS development”,
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 15:48 01 February 2016 (PT)

MIS Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 17-35.

Ebrahim, Z. and Irani, Z. (2005), “E-government adoption: architecture and barriers”, Business
Process Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 589-611.
Fan, Q. (2011), “An evaluation analysis of e-government development by local authorities
in Australia”, International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 34, pp. 926-934.
Fountain, J.E. (2009), “Bureaucratic reform and e-government in the United States: an
institutional perspective”, in Chadwick, A. and Howard, P.N. (Eds), Routledge Handbook of
Internet Politics, Routledge, New York, NY.
Gartner (2013), “Worldwide IT spending to hit $3.8 trillion in 2013”, As reported on
cnet.com. March 28, available at: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57576820-92/gartner-
worldwide-it-spending-to-hit-$3.8-trillion-in-2013/ (accessed June 8, 2013).
Gauld, R., Goldfinch, S. and Horsburgh, S. (2010), “Do they want it? Do they use it? The
‘demand-side’ of e-government in Australia and New Zealand”, Government Information
Quarterly, Vol. 27, pp. 177-186.
Ho, A.T.-K. (2002), “Reinventing local governments and the e-government initiative”,
Public Administration Review, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 434-444.
Holden, S.H., Norris, D.F. and Fletcher, P.D. (2003), “Electronic government at the local level:
progress to date and future issues”, Public Productivity & Management Review, Vol. 26
No. 3, pp. 1-20.
Homburg, V. and Dijkshoorn, A. (2012), “Diffusion of personalized e-government services among
Dutch municipalities: an empirical investigation and explanation”, in Weerakkody, V. and
Reddick, C.G. (Eds), Public Sector Transformation Through E-Government: Experiences
from Europe and North America, Routledge, London.
Klievink, B. and Janssen, M. (2009), “Realizing joined-up government – dynamic capabilities
and stage models for transformation”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 26,
pp. 275-284.
Kraemer, K. and King, J.L. (2006), “Information technology and administrative reform:
will e-government be different?”, International Journal of Electronic Government Research,
Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-20.
Laudon, K.C. and Laudon, J.P. (2004), Management Information Systems: Managing the Digital
Firm, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Macintosh, A. and Whyte, A. (2008), “Towards an evaluation framework for eParticipation”,
Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 16-30.
Mahrer, H. and Krimmer, R. (2005), “Towards the enhancement of e-democracy: identifying the
notion of the ‘middleman paradox’”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 27-42.
 Moon, M.J. (2002), “The evolution of e-government among municipalities: rhetoric or reality?”, E-participation
Public Administration Review, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 424-433.
in local
Moon, M.J. and Norris, D.F. (2005), “Does managerial orientation matter? The adoption of
reinventing government and e-government at the municipal level”, Information Systems governments
Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 43-60.
Norris, D.F. (1984), “Computers and small local governments: users and uses”,
Public Administration Review, Vol. 44 No. 1. 471
Norris, D.F. (1999), “Leading edge information technologies and American cities”,
in Garson, G.D. (Ed.), Computer Applications and Public Administration, Idea Group
Publishers, Hershey, PA.
Norris, D.F. (2007), “Electronic democracy at the American grassroots: results of a nationwide
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 15:48 01 February 2016 (PT)

survey”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Urban Affairs Association, Seattle,
WA, April.
Norris, D.F. and Campillo, D. (2002), Factors Affecting the Adoption of Leading Edge Information
Technology by Local Governments, Maryland Institute for Policy Analysis and Research,
University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD.
Norris, D.F. and Demeter, L.A. (1999), “Computing in American city governments”, The 1999
Municipal Yearbook, International City/County Management Association,
Washington, DC.
Norris, D.F. and Kraemer, K.L. (1996), “Mainframe and PC computing in American cities:
myths and realities”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 568-576.
Norris, D.F. and Moon, M.J. (2005), “Advancing e-government at the grassroots: tortoise or
hare?”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 64-75.
Norris, D.F. and Reddick, C.G. (2013), “Local e-government in the US – transformation or
incremental change”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 165-175.
O’Neill, R. (2009), “The transformative impact of e-government on public governance in
New Zealand”, Public Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 751-770.
Peristeras, V., Mentzas, G., Tarabanis, K. and Abecker, A. (2009), “Transforming e-government
and e-participation”, IEEE Intelligent Systems, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 14-19.
Phang, C.W. and Kankanhalli, A. (2008), “Framework of ICT exploitation for e-participation
initiatives”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 51 No. 12, pp. 128-132.
Reddick, C.G. (2004), “Empirical models of e-government growth in local governments”,
E-Service Journal, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 59-74.
Reddick, C.G. (2005a), “Citizen interaction with e-government: from the streets to servers?”,
Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 22, pp. 38-57.
Reddick, C.G. (2005b), “Government e-commerce adoption: a study of Texas counties”, Journal of
E-Government, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 45-73.
Reddick, C.G. (2009), “The adoption of centralized customer service systems:
a survey of local governments”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 1,
pp. 219-226.
Reddick, C.G. (2011), “Citizen interaction and e-government: evidence for the managerial
consultative, and participatory models”, Transforming Government: People, Process and
Policy, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 167-184.
Reddick, C.G. and Frank, H.A. (2007), “E-government and its influence on managerial
effectiveness: a survey of Florida and Texas city managers”, Financial Accountability
& Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
 TG Sæbø, Ø., Rose, J. and Flak, L. (2008), “The shape of eParticipation: characterizing an emerging
research area”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 400-428.
7,4 Schwester, R. (2009), “Examining the barriers to e-government adoption”, Electronic Journal of
E-Government, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 113-122.
Shelley, M., Thrane, L., Shulman, S., Lang, E., Beiser, S., Larson, T. and Mutiti, J. (2004), “Digital
citizenship”, Social Science Computer Review, Vol. 22, pp. 256-269.
472 Sirkka, L., Jarvenpaa, S.L. and Ives, B. (1991), “Executive involvement and participation in the
management of information technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 205-227.
Standish Group (1995), The Chaos Report, available at: www.cs.nmt.edu/, cs328/reading/
Standish.pdf (accessed February 9, 2013).
Susha, I. and Grönlund, A. (2012), “eParticipation research: systematizing the field”, Government
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 15:48 01 February 2016 (PT)

Information Quarterly, Vol. 29, pp. 373-382.

Thierauf, R.J. (1984), Effective Management Information Systems, Charles E. Merrill Publishing
Company, Columbus, OH.
Thomas, J.C. and Streib, G. (2003), “The new face of government: citizen-initiated contacts in the
era of e-government”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, No. 1,
pp. 83-102.
Torres, L., Pina, V. and Royo, S. (2005), “E-government and the transformation of public
administrations in EU counties: beyond NPM or just a second wave of reforms?”, Online
Information Review, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 531-533.
US Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States (2012),
State and Local Government Finances and Employment, available at: www.census.gov/
compendia/statab/cats/state_local_govt_finances_employment.html (accessed June 5,
2013).
Weerakkody, V., Janssen, M. and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2011), “Transformational change and business
process reengineering (BPR): lessons from the British and Dutch public sector”,
Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 28, pp. 320-328.
West, D.M. (2004), “E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen
attitudes”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 15-27.

Further reading
Höchtl, J., Parycek, P. and Sachs, M. (2011), “E-participation readiness of Austrian
municipalities”, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 5 No. 1,
pp. 32-44.

Appendix 1. Expert practitioners

We wish to acknowledge and express our appreciation to the following local government
officials who reviewed the 2006 survey instrument and provided comments and suggestions that
we then used in developing the 2011 instrument. Any errors or omissions are those of the authors
and in no way reflect on these officials or their advice.
Michael Cannon, Chief Information Officer, City of Rockville, MD.
Ira Levy, Director of Technology and Communication Services, Howard County, MD.
David Molchany, Deputy County Executive Fairfax County, VA (previously CIO of Fairfax
County).
Elliot Schlanger, Chief Information Officer, State of Maryland (previously, CIO, City of
Baltimore, MD).
Paul Thorn, IT Manager, City of Annapolis Maryland.
 Appendix 2. Survey instrument E-participation
in local
governments

473
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 15:48 01 February 2016 (PT)

E-participation/E-democracy Survey August 2011

The International City/County Management Association (ICMA) is conducting this survey to assess local government electronic
democracy (e-democracy) activity and to provide information that will be helpful to local governments in their e-democracy initiatives.
The results of this survey will be published in the Municipal Year Bookand on the ICMA website. Please assure the success of this
project by completing the survey and returning it to ICMA by Friday September 23rd 2011. You can complete the survey online at
http://icma.org/edemsurvey

Thank you for your participation.

Robert J. O’Neill, Jr.

Executive Director, ICMA

1. Does your local government have a website? 1. Yes 2. No

For the purposes of this survey, the local government website is the official website. This does not include websites produced by
the Chamber of Commerce or other organizations (e.g., tourist bureau, economic development agency, etc.). If your local
government DOES NOT HAVE a website, you do not need to complete the survey. Please return it to ICMA in the enclosed
envelope or scan the survey and email it as a PDF to ICMA at [email protected]

Electronic participation or electronic democracy is defined as the use of electronic means, principally although not solely
through local government web sites and the Internet, to promote and enhance citizen engagement with and participation in
governmental activities, programs and decision-making. For purposes of this survey, we will use the term e-participation to
refer to both e-participation and e-democracy.

2. Within the past three (3) years, has your local government surveyed residents to determine what types of online information,
services, or participation they want available on the local government website? 1. Yes 2. No

2A. If yes, what was the focus of the survey (s)? (Check only one.)
a. Online information and services
b. Online participation
c.Online information, services, and participation
(Continued)
 TG 3. Does your local government have concrete plans to survey residents with in the next 12 months to determine
what types of online information, services,or participation they want? (Check only one.)

7,4 a. No, we have no concrete plans to conduct a survey

b. Yes, we plan to conduct a survey about online information and services
c. Yes, we plan to conduct a survey about online participation
d. Yes, we plan to conduct a survey about online information, services and participation

4. Please indicate whether your local government has done any of the following electronically (e.g., via your website
474 or otherwise via the Internet) within the past 12 months and whether it has any concrete plans for doing any of them
electronically within the next 12 months.
Activities No, not done Yes, done in Concrete
in past 12 past 12 plans to do in
months months next 12
months

a. Conducted one or more narrated or guided

Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 15:48 01 February 2016 (PT)

discussion forums about important local issues

b. Conducted one or more non-narrated or guided
discussion forums about important local issues
c. Facilitated or operated chat rooms
d. Conducted public consultations, e.g., engage public
in the budget process
e. Enabled citizens to participate in a poll or survey
f. Enabled citizens to view a hearing or a meeting
g. Enabled citizens to participate in a hearing or
meeting
h. Permitted or facilitated electronic citizen petitions
i. Enabled citizensto vote in an election or referendum
j. Conducted electronic town halls
k. Enabled citizens to post comments
l. Other (Please specify)

If you answered YES to any of these activities (4a-4l), please complete all of the questions in this survey. If you
answered NO to all of these activities, go to question 16, and do not answer questions 5 through 15.

5. Why does your local government engage in e-participation projects and activities? (Check all that apply.)
a. Demanded or required by local elected officials
b. Demanded or required by top administrators
c. Demanded by citizens (that is, citizens in general)
d. Demanded by local interest groups that have cloutin the community
e. It is the right thing to do
f. To keep up with other local governments in our area or peer local governments elsewhere
g. Other (Please specify_______________________)

5A. Of the reasons you cited in question 5, which is the most important reason? Please insert the letter here

6. Which organization in your local government has principal responsibility for e-participation projects and activities?
(Check only one.)

a. City/county manager/administrator office e. CTO office

b. Mayor/county executive office f. Public Information Office
c. IT department g. Other (Please specify)
d. CIO office

(continued)
 7. Please circle the number that best describes the extent to which your local government’s e-participation projects and
activities today mostly involve communication from the local government to citizens or mostly involve communication from E-participation
citizens to the local government.
Mostly local government A mix of both, about Mostly citizen to local
in local
to citizen half and half government governments
1 2 3 4 5

8. Please circle the number to indicate the extent to which your local government takes seriously and acts upon the results
of e-participation projects and activities in their decisions and actions.
475
Do not take seriously Take very seriously
1 2 3 4 5

9. Regarding the e-government projects and activities that your local government currently provides, how are they
developed? (Check all that apply.)
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 15:48 01 February 2016 (PT)

a. Developed in-house by local government staff e. Developed by a local government

association
b. Developed by consultants and local government staff f. Developed through a public-private
partnership
c. Outsourced to Application Service Providers g. Other (Please describe.)
d. We purchased programs from vendors

10. From the list in question 9 above, please identify which method is most commonly used by your local government to
develop/acquire e-government services? Enter the appropriate letter here: ___

11. Has your local government conducted formal planning for e-participation projects or efforts? 1. Yes 2. No

11A. If “yes,” were these formal planning activities solely about e-participation or did they involve other aspects of
information technology (IT) or electronic government? (Check all applicable.)

1. Planning for e-participation only

2. As part of planning for local government IT
3. As part of planning for local government e-government

12. Has your local government conducted formal cost benefit analyses or other formal analyses of e-participation projects
or activities before undertaking them? 1. Yes 2. No

13. Has your local government conducted formal impact or effectiveness analyses of e-participation projects or activities
after undertaking them? 1. Yes 2. No

14. As a result of e-participation, has your local government experienced any of the following impacts?
Impact Increased No Decreased Don’t
difference know
a. Workload or time demands on local
government technology personnel
b. Workload or time demands on local
government line and staff personnel
c. Quantity of information available to local
officials for decision-making
d. Quality of information available to local
officials for decision-making
e. Quantity of citizen participation
f. Quality of citizen participation
g. Better decision-making by local officials
h. Citizen trust in government
i. Other (Please specify______________________)

(continued)
 TG 14A. Of the changes that you identified in question 14 above, which one is the most significant positive_change that your
local government faces regarding e-government? Enter the appropriate letter here: ___

7,4 14B. Of the changes that you identified in question 14 above, which one is the most significant negative_change that your
local government faces regarding e-government? Enter the appropriate letter here: ___
15. Some of the literature about e-participation says that it will radically transform the relationship between citizens and
governments by significantly improving it. Have you observed either of the following due to e-participation in your local
government?
Improved No change Deteriorated
a. Due to e-participation, the relationship between citizens and local
government elected officials has:
476 b. Due to e-participation, the relationship between citizens and the local
government administrators has:
16. Which, if any, of the following barriers to providing e-participation has your local government encountered?
(Check all that apply.)
Barriers Yes No
a. Need to upgrade technology infrastructure
c. Lack of technology expertise
d. Lack of technology staff
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 15:48 01 February 2016 (PT)

e. Lack of funding
f. Lack of demand by citizens
g. Lack of demand by elected officials
h. Lack of support from elected officials
i. When we have provided opportunities or mechanisms for e-participation, few citizens have
participated
j. Issues around privacy
k. Issues around security
l. Concerns that unrepresentative groups would dominate e-participation channels
m. Concerns that the digital divide would prevent participation by some citizens
n. Lack of demand from elected officials
o. Lack of support from top administrators
p. Lack of information about e-participation applications
q. Inadequate bandwidth
r. Difficulty justifying the cost of e-participation applications
s. Other (specify____________________________________________________)

16A. Of the barriers that you identified in question 16 above, which is most the difficult one that your local government
faces regarding e-participation projects and activities? Enter the appropriate letter here: ___
The next two questions ask you to estimate the amount of demand for e-participation within your local
government. Please answer these questions as objectively as possible so that we can gain a realistic
understanding of whether such demand exists.
17. On the whole, do officials in your local government actively promote or give attention to e-participation ? Please use
the following 1 to 5 scale to indicate the extent to which they do or do not. Circle the appropriate number.

Don’t promote, give Actively promote, give

little or no attention to great attention to
a. elected officials 1 2 3 4 5
b. top appointed officials 1 2 3 4 5
18. Are citizen grass-roots groups or organizations actively pushing for e-participation opportunities within your local
government? Please circle the appropriate number to indicate whether there is any grassroots demand for
e-participation.

No grassroots Significant grassroots

demand demand
1 2 3 4 5

Please provide the following information in case we need to contact you for follow up.
Name ______________________________________________ Telephone number (_____)________________________
Title _______________________________________________ E-mail ________________________________________

Return to: Evelina Moulder, Dir. of Survey Research, ICMA, 777 North Capitol St., NE, Suite 500, Washington,
DC 20002-4201. You may scan your completed survey and save it as a PDF and send it to:
[email protected]
Copyright 2011. Donald F. Norris and Christopher G Reddick. Neither this instrument nor any of its contents may be
used without prior written permission.

Corresponding author
Donald F. Norris can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Alaa Aldin Abdul Rahim A. Al Athmay. 2015. Demographic factors as determinants of e-governance
adoption. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy 9:2, 159-180. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by Middle East Technical University At 15:48 01 February 2016 (PT)