This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights
 Author's personal copy

Government Information Quarterly 31 (2014) 211–220

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Government Information Quarterly

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/govinf

Determining the type of e-government use

Taewoo Nam ⁎
Department of Public Administration, Myongji University, Geobookgol-ro 34, Seodaemoon-gu, Seoul 120-728, Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Available online 18 April 2014 This article aims to understand what determines the degree of e-government use for multiple purposes by ana-
lyzing the Government Online Survey data that the Pew Internet and American Life Project provide. Three main
Keywords: purposes of e-government use are identified as: service use, information use, and policy research. The degree of
e-Government use e-government use for a specific purpose is predicted by five sets of determinants: psychological factors of
Digital exclusion technology adoption, civic mindedness, information channels, trust in government, and socio-demographic
Technology adoption
and personal characteristics. Sociodemographic conditions influence usage level of various transactional
Civic mindedness
services provided by e-government. Perceived ease of use facilitates the acquisition of general information
through e-government. Civicness is a critical determinant of e-government use for policy research. Policy re-
searchers who are more engaged with and concerned about society, neighbors, and government are emerging
as a new class of e-government users.
© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction For a government to move toward a citizen-centric, outward-

looking approach, understanding citizens' use of e-government
1.1. Concerns beyond e-inclusion and identifying determinants of e-government use has a central
importance for both researchers and practitioners. There is a
The common definition of e-government refers to the use by govern- concern beyond e-inclusion. With an increasing availability for a
ment of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to deliver variety of e-government functions (e-service, e-information, and
information and services to citizens, businesses, and public agencies e-participation), the emerging concern about e-government becomes
(Carter & Belanger, 2005; Edmiston, 2003; Sipior & Ward, 2005; West, a question of why certain populations use those specific functions of
2004). For the delivery of information and services, public administra- e-government while others do not. In this regard, a research focus
tion, with technological advances, has been experiencing a change needs to address not only the existing divide between users and non-
from the bureaucratic, inward-looking approach to a citizen-centric, users, but the difference in the degree of using e-government with
outward-looking approach that prioritizes the concerns and needs of respect to the type of its functions and reasons for that difference.
users or customers (Ho, 2002; Thompson, Rust, & Rhoda, 2005). As Hence a research inquiry should go beyond “whether or not to use e-
Layne and Lee (2001) mentioned, government processes are being government?” and instead consider “for what purpose does one use e-
organized for citizens' convenience rather than the convenience of government?” and then “what determines the degree of e-government
government agencies. More recently, according to International City/ use for the specific purpose?”
County Management Association (2011), e-government-driven chang- The study empirically investigates the impact of various determi-
es identified by local government managers are the improvements in nants (i.e., perception-based psychological factors, civic mindedness, in-
city/county governments' communication with the public and customer formation channels, trust in government, and socio-demographic
services more than such managerial impacts as re-engineering business backgrounds) on multiple types of e-government use. The U.S.-based
processes, increasing efficiency, and reducing administrative costs. survey data from the Pew Internet and American Life Project is
Nevertheless, there is a relative paucity of systematic research that employed for statistical examination. The paper unfolds in eight parts,
investigates citizens' use of e-government (Gauld, Goldfinch, & including the foregoing introduction. The next section addresses
Horsburgh, 2010; Helbig, Gil-Garcia, & Ferro, 2009; Reddick, 2005; the contextual background of e-government use. Then determinants
Streib & Navarro, 2006). of e-government use are derived from an expanse of relevant literature.
After the description of data, measurements, and empirical strategy,
the results of the multivariate regression analysis are presented. The
following two sections discuss further implications for practitioners
⁎ Fax: +82 2 300 0654. and researchers, respectively. The final section offers some concluding
E-mail address: [email protected]. remarks.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.09.006
0740-624X/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 Author's personal copy

212 T. Nam / Government Information Quarterly 31 (2014) 211–220

2. The context of e-government use from the personal interests of those who look up general and service-
related information for their own purposes.
2.1. Digital exclusion Recent papers pay attention to co-creation of policies, information,
and public services with government and other fellow citizens as a
Multidimensional issues of a digital divide provide the context of new type of e-government use (Bertot, Jaeger, & Grimes, 2010a;
digital exclusion in e-government use. The digital divide is a complex, Bertot, Jaeger, Munson, & Glaisyer, 2010b; Lukensmeyer & Torres,
dynamic, and multifaceted concept (Bruno, Esposito, Genovese, & 2008; Nam, 2010, 2012a; Nam & Sayogo, 2011). Especially in paying at-
Gwebu, 2011). It captures the gap, separation, distinction, disparity, or tention to citizen needs, there is a critical need for governments to en-
gulf between the haves and have-nots in terms of various resources compass modalities in working together with citizens in fulfilling
and competences related to ICTs, but its multidimensional, multi- service delivery (United Nations, 2012: 2). Through various platforms
faceted nature denies a simple dichotomy between the haves and enabled by Web 2.0-based interactive and collaborative technologies,
have-nots, connoting a more complicated, complex social phenomenon some people collectively create public information, provide service,
(Helbig et al., 2009). Access is fundamental and basic to the digital di- and take part in policy processes. The new type of e-government use
vide, and little else is possible without access. The concept of access is emerging with government 2.0—the government's adoption of Web
evolves into successive types of access to digital technologies: motiva- 2.0—as a new domain of e-government (Aichholzer & Strauß, 2010;
tional access, physical access, skills access, and usage access (Van Dijk, Baumgarten & Chui, 2009; Chen, 2009; Cho & Hwang, 2010; DiMaio,
2005, 2006). 2009; Johannessen, 2010; Mintz, 2008; O'Reilly, 2010; Osimo, 2009;
Usage access can be further specified in the context of e-government Tapscott, Williams, & Herman, 2008).
adoption. Sipior and Ward's (2005) multidimensional perspective high- In short, it is possible to identify five types of e-government use from
lights three facets of the digital divide: internet access, computer skills, extant literature as follows:
and e-government inclusion. In Gurstein's (2003) more elaborate
• Service use: using transactional services.
model, the dimension of access extends from access to ICT infrastruc-
• General information use: looking up general information.
ture to access to e-government (electronically enhanced service deliv-
• Policy research: looking up information related to government
ery and information dissemination) and e-governance (electronically
policies.
enhanced decision-making process). The e-inclusion gap model of
• Participation: participating in decision-making and discussion
Becker, Niehaves, Bergener, and Räckers (2008) stratifies different
processes.
levels: the gap between the total population and internet users, the
• Co-creation: co-creating policies, information, and services with
gap between internet users and e-commerce users, the gap between
government and other citizens.
e-commerce users and e-government information users, and the gap
between e-government information users and e-government transac- While citizen participation via e-government is still not an experi-
tional service users. ence prevailing around the world, more usual and frequent cases of e-
The development of e-government may itself represent technical government take-up are involved in the use of transaction-based ser-
innovation from which certain members of society are inevitably vices and (general and policy-related) information via e-government
excluded. Benefits from a new mode of e-government may mobilize (United Nations, 2012). The co-creation type offers governments a
only the technically savvy while disenfranchising those who have less new opportunity for engaging more citizens in government processes
experience and technical know-how. Regarding that, McNeal, Hale, and collecting the wisdom of crowds (Nam, 2012a), but the dominant
and Dotterweich (2008) claim e-government becomes a double-edged type of e-government use is the use of transactional services and
sword: motivating e-government use for some while magnifying information.
existing gaps for others. The new technological tools of e-government
may hold benefits for only some segments of the population. With the 3. Determinants of e-government use
digital exclusion, e-government has not lived up to its possibilities and
potentials (McNeal et al., 2008). As a result of the extensive review, five main sets of determining
factors are identified. Fig. 1 sketches a conceptual framework of e-
2.2. Types of e-government use government use. The framework further extends Dimitrova and
Chen's (2006: 175) conceptual model, which includes four theoretical
Since e-government in definition provides its users with information determinants, by adding “trust in government.” This section discusses
and services (Carter & Belanger, 2005; Edmiston, 2003; Sipior & Ward, the five main determining components in detail.
2005; United Nations, 2002; West, 2004), e-government use is basically
the use of information and services offered by e-government. Beyond e-
information and e-service, the loaded concept “e-government” has
evolved to include e-democracy and e-participation. While service and
information use remains as the major purpose of e-government use,
participating in governmental decision-making can comprise one par-
ticular category of e-government use (Marchionini, Samet, & Brandt,
2003) but there are far fewer e-participants than there are service and
information users. Moreover, not all e-governments offer opportunities
for citizens to join in decision-making processes. In sum, according to
Thompson et al. (2005), citizens and businesses can use e-government
for three purposes: to access information; to engage in electronic trans-
actions with government; and to participate in government decision-
making.
There are other perspectives on the types of e-government use.
Haller, Li, and Mossberger (2011) highlighted policy research as a
newly emerging type of e-government use. The policy researchers are
those who use e-government to look up information about policies. Fig. 1. A conceptual framework of e-government use determinants.
Their civic interest in policy-related information is distinguishable Note. Adapted from Dimitrova and Chen's (2006) conceptual model.
 Author's personal copy

T. Nam / Government Information Quarterly 31 (2014) 211–220 213

3.1. Psychological predispositions are more likely to learn about new advances from mass media as op-
posed to interpersonal channels. The analysis conducted by Dimitrova
The consideration of perceived usefulness draws upon Davis's and Chen (2006) corroborated their hypothesis that mass media chan-
(1989) Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). TAM elucidates psycho- nels are more important than interpersonal channels among the earliest
logical predispositions (perceived usefulness and perceived ease of adopters of e-government services. Earlier findings support the theoret-
use) that explain end-user's adoption and acceptance of different ical proposition that technology adopters are differentially influenced
kinds of ICT systems and applications (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). Per- by distinct information channel types and sources (Brancheau &
ceived usefulness denotes “the extent to which a person believes that Wetherbe, 1990; Fichman, 1992; Zmud, 1983).
using the system will enhance his or her job performance,” and per-
ceived ease of use refers to “the extent to which a person believes that 3.3.1. Trust in government
using the system will be free of effort” (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000: 187). A group of studies took a close look at the relationship between trust
Many studies have corroborated the influence of the variables in government and e-government use. Some studies found that higher
drawing from TAM on the intention and intensity of e-government levels of trust in government are associated with more intensive e-
use. The term “perceived usefulness” is often interchangeably used service use (Belanger & Carter, 2008; Carter & Belanger, 2005; Carter
with “perceived functional benefit” and “perceived use value” & Weerakkody, 2008; Goldfinch, Gauld, & Herbison, 2009; Horsburgh,
(Kolsaker & Lee-Kelley, 2008; Shareef, Kumar, Kumar, & Dwivedi, Goldfinch, & Gauld, 2011; Hung et al., 2006; McNeal et al., 2008; Parent,
2011). Perceived value in e-government service and perceived relative Vandebeek, & Gemino, 2005; Reddick, 2005; Rufín, Medina, & Sánchez
advantage significantly increase usage intentions (Carter & Belanger, Figueroa, 2012; Sang et al., 2009; Tolbert & Mossberger, 2006;
2004; Colesca & Dobrica, 2008; Horst, Kuttschreuter, & Gutteling, Warkentin et al., 2002; Welch, Hinnant, & Moon, 2005). Others showed
2007; Hung, Chang, & Yu, 2006; Mills, Carter, & Belanger, 2010; Ozkan the absence of any significant relationship (Sweeney, 2007; Torres, Pina,
& Kanat, 2011; Sang, Lee, & Lee, 2009) and positively influence adoption & Acerete, 2005; West, 2004).
decisions (Bretschneider, Gant, & Ahn, 2003). Perceived use value of e- For e-government service use, trust in government may be more im-
government is associated with the intensity of actual usage (Carter, portant than trust in technology, given the gap between a higher level of
2008; Chong, 2011; Colesca & Dobrica, 2008; Kumar, Mukerji, Butt, & trust in technology and a lower level of trust in government (Sweeney,
Persaud, 2007; Phang et al., 2006; Sipior, Ward, & Connolly, 2011; 2007). Overall, citizens more readily trust the functional aspects of e-
Susanto & Goodwin, 2010; Tung & Rieck, 2005; Wangpipatwong, government service—the technology—but are not as willing to trust
Chutimaskul, & Papasratorn, 2008). On the other hand, while some the government itself, the actual provider of the service (Sweeney,
studies supported a significant association between e-government use 2007). In this sense, citizens tend to dichotomize their trust in e-
intensity and perceived ease of use (Carter & Belanger, 2005; Chong, government: institutional trust in government vs. process trust in the in-
2011; Hung et al., 2006; Warkentin, Gefen, Pavlou, & Rose, 2002), others ternet channel (Bart, Shankar, Sultan, & Urban, 2005; Ozkan & Kanat,
found that higher levels of perceived ease of use are not necessarily as- 2011; Susanto & Goodwin, 2010; Tolbert & Mossberger, 2006).
sociated with increased intentions of using e-government services
(Carter & Belanger, 2004; Gilbert, Balestrini, & Littleboy, 2004). 3.4. Socio-demographic conditions

3.2. Civic mindedness Previous empirical studies have confirmed the determining effects
of demographic, socioeconomic, generational, and geographical differ-
There exists a great deal of compelling evidence for the connection ences in e-government use (Akman, Yazici, Mishra, & Arifoglu, 2005;
between e-government use and civic mindedness. The use of electronic Becker et al., 2008; Belanger & Carter, 2006; Goldfinch et al., 2009;
means by citizens to interact with government is likely to be an exten- McNeal et al., 2008; Mossberger et al., 2003; Neu, Anderson, & Bikson,
sion of their civic and political involvement via traditional channels 1999; Niehaves & Becker, 2008; Niehaves & Plattfaut, 2010; Reddick,
(Dimitrova & Chen, 2006: 177; Mossberger, Tolbert, & Stansbury, 2005; Sipior et al., 2011; Tolbert & McNeal, 2003; Welch et al., 2005).
2003; Mossberger, Tolbert, & McNeal, 2008). Some previous studies Individuals less likely to take part in online government interactions
have used the broad concept of civic mind, which is measured as the in- are typically less skilled technologically, older, less educated, non-
tention and the degree of involvement, interchangeably with civic en- White and/or less affluent (Mossberger et al., 2003). Some empirical ex-
gagement (Dimitrova & Chen, 2006; Nam, 2012b). Elements of civic aminations found e-government usage to be stratified by gender and
engagement broadly include knowledge of, interest in, and discussion ethnicity (Belanger & Carter, 2009; Bimber, 1999; Edmiston, 2003;
of political and public affairs, as well as participation (Bimber, 2003; Goldfinch et al., 2009; Losh, 2003). Empirical investigation profiling
Brint & Levy, 1999; Mossberger et al., 2008; Norris, 2001; Verba, socio-demographic composition suggests quite a pessimistic finding:
Schlozman, & Brady, 1995). Prior interest in and contact with govern- little change in the socio-demographic context of e-government users
ment can provide motivation for citizens to interact with government (Dimitrova & Chen, 2006; McNeal et al., 2008).
(Dimitrova & Chen, 2006: 177; Mossberger et al., 2003, 2008). Citizens' The Diffusion of Innovations Theory provides a solid theoretical back-
contact with government is considered to be symbolic of civic minded- ground to support the explanatory importance of socio-demographic
ness (Dimitrova & Chen, 2006). An important part of civic mindedness is profiles as well. According to the theory, early adopters of any technolo-
social contact. Some literature dealing with technology adoption gy innovation share common characteristics: young, well-educated, and
identifies social contact as vital to the process of technology diffusion higher income (Rogers, 2003). Dimitrova and Chen (2006), drawing
process (Lin, 2003; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). from the theory, found that e-government service users share the demo-
graphic characteristics of early technology adopters.
3.3. Information channels
4. Data, measurements, and method
Dimitrova and Chen (2006: 178) argue that e-government research
is lacking information about the ways in which citizens learn about gov- 4.1. Data
ernment websites, suggesting the existence of two different informa-
tion channels—interpersonal channels (e.g., from friends, family, This study analyzes the publicly-available data from the Pew Internet
coworkers) and mass media channels—which are used to inform citi- and American Life Project survey (Government Online, available at www.
zens about e-government services. Rogers' (2003) Diffusion of Innova- PewInternet.org/Reports/2010/Government-Online.aspx) of American
tions Theory posits that earlier adopters of technological innovation adults. Princeton Survey Research Associates International conducted a
 Author's personal copy

214 T. Nam / Government Information Quarterly 31 (2014) 211–220

random-sampled survey between November 30 and December 27, 2009. limit of frequency, but are mostly distributed toward rare frequency.
While 1690 people were surveyed via landline phone, 560 people were Given this distribution, Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression assum-
surveyed via cell phone. A combination of landline and cellular random ing normal distribution fails to make consistently an unbiased efficient
digit dial (RDD) samples was used to represent all adults in the continen- estimation of countable events (Long, 1997). For this reason, this
tal United States who have access to either a landline or cellular tele- study employs Poisson regression.
phone. The subsample of online government users (N = 1375) has a
margin of error of three percentage points. 5. Results
The socio-demographic and personal characteristics include age in
years, race (White vs. non-White), sex, the level of education and annu- 5.1. Categorizing e-government users
al household income as proxy measures of socioeconomic status, resi-
dential categories, and self-identified partisanship. Table 1 exhibits the Before reporting the result of the multivariate regression, this sec-
demographic distribution of the sample. tion first discusses the categorical inclusiveness of the different types
of e-government use. For the categorization, e-government use falls
4.2. Measurements into one or more categories when respondents do at least one activity
in a particular category. Although five categories of e-government use
Dependent variables count the number of e-government services, can draw from existing literature, categories other than users of transac-
information items for general purpose, and information items for policy tional services and (general or policy-related) information through e-
research. Each dependent variable as a count measure is created by ag- government remain as a small portion of the whole population. The ev-
gregating binary variables (1 for Yes or 0 for No). Table 2 describes the idence from the random-sampled survey data that this study employs
items collapsed into additive indices (summation of binary variables). shows an overall landscape of relatively frequent e-government usage
An internal consistency test of those collapsed items was carried out for transactional services, general information, and policy research. De-
using Cronbach's alpha. spite a growing number of experiences in policy participation and co-
This study has five groups of determinants: psychological factors, creation, such e-government practices do not share a proportion large
civic mindedness, information channels, trust in government, technolo- enough to be compared with the other three main categories (United
gy adoption, and socio-demographic and personal characteristics. Nations, 2012). Table 4 describes the percentage of these three catego-
Table 3 describes the details of these independent variables. ries out of the whole sample.
Sixteen percent of the sample does not use e-government. Service
4.3. Method users, policy researchers, and general information users are the three
main categories of e-government users. There is a significant overlap-
To examine the determining effects of the explanatory variables on ping of a substantial proportion (42%) between the three types of e-
different types of e-government use, this study runs multivariate re- government users. Almost half of respondents belong to more than
gressions of each type of e-government use with the same set of predic- one category. It is noteworthy that almost two-thirds (62%) of the sam-
tors. All three dependent variables indicate the number of activities in ple falls into the policy researchers category. Interestingly, while users
which survey respondents are involved. Although those count variables of services (72%) and information (general information plus policy-
are truncated between zero and the maximum number of aggregated related information: 75%) have been considered the major categories
binary items, the possibility of more activities over the maximum of e-government users, the number of those who go to e-government
count can be assumed. With such nature of the outcome variables as to look up information related to policy issues (62%) is slightly larger
count measures, Poisson distribution fits the data better than normal than the number of general information users (59%). The division of in-
distribution. Count events could occur supposedly without an upper formation users in terms of the nature of information gives rise to a new
type of e-government users (policy researchers).

Table 1
5.2. Identifying determinants of e-government use
The demographic composition.

N = 1375 Categories Percentage This section examines the impact of the five sets of determinants on
Age Generation Y (born after 1976) 24% e-government use. The use intensity is predicted, varying by the type
M = 51, S.D. = 18 Generation X (born between 1965 18% of e-government use. The pre-regression evidence in Table 5 merits
and 1976) attention. Different types of e-government use and perception-based
Min = 18, Max = 95 Baby Boomers (born between 1946 39%
and 1964)
variables are associated with each other at a moderate level. Trust
Dutifuls (born before 1946) 19% in government is not correlated with dependent variables and psycho-
Sex Male 45% logical factors. As Table 4 indicates, the categorical inclusiveness is
Female 55% consistent with considerable correlations among three major types of
Race White 80%
e-government use.
Non-White 20%
Education High school incomplete 5% Table 6 describes the result of the Poisson regression analysis. Each
High school graduate 23% regression predicts the degree of e-government use in a particular pur-
Some college level 29% pose with existing determinants. As different types of e-government use
Four-year college graduate 25% overlap and correlate with each other, a specific type of e-government
Post-graduate education 18%
use is a predictor for other types of use. Service use and information
Annual household income $30,000 or less 24%
$30,001 to $50,000 22% use are a significant predictor of the degree to which e-government
$50,001 to $75,000 18% will also be used for policy research (β = 0.305 and 0.297, respectively).
$75,001 to $100,000 15% Service use is a significant predictor of information use (β = 0.469), and
$100,001 or more 21%
vice versa (β = 0.499). The degree of e-government use for policy re-
Residential place Rural 21%
Suburban 52% search is also a predictor for that of the use of service (β = 0.294) and
Urban 27% information (β = 0.235) via e-government.
Self-reported partisanship Democrat 37% The first set of determinants includes psychological factors. The two
Republican 26% determining components of TAM (perceived usefulness and perceived
Independent or others 37%
ease of use) are not significant overall across the three regression
 Author's personal copy

T. Nam / Government Information Quarterly 31 (2014) 211–220 215

Table 2
Constructs of dependent variables.

Dependent variables Cronbach's α Constructs Percentage of yes

Service use 0.745 Renewing a driver's license or auto registration 32%

Applying for a fishing, hunting or other recreational license 11%
Paying a fine such as a parking ticket 12%
Downloading government forms 44%
Looking up what services a government agency provides 47%
Information 0.763 Advice or information about a health or safety issue 26%
Recreational or tourist information 33%
Information about benefits 21%
Information about how to apply for a government job 16%
Policy research 0.767 Information about a public policy or issue 49%
Official government documents or statistics 37%
Government data on data.gov, recovery.gov or usaspending.gov 17%
Text of any legislation 24%
How money from the recent federal government stimulus package is being spent 24%

results. Only three coefficients gain significance in the prediction of the (with their most basic service and information needs) and concerned,
degree of e-government use. As expected, a higher level of perceived civic-engaged citizens.
value of service significantly increases the degree of actual service use The third set of determinants involves information channels—the
(β = 0.378). The regression result suggests that policy researchers are means by which people become aware of how to achieve their purpose
likely to have a more positive perception of engagement with public of- by use of e-government. The regression models compare the influence
ficials (β = 0.267). Perceived ease of use only predicts the degree of in- of the three main information channels on e-government use with
formation use (β = 0.346). some way other than a government source, search engine, or interper-
The second set of determinants includes various measures of civic sonal source. The result does not deliver any significant finding on the
mindedness. In terms of the determining effect of civic mindedness relationship between information channels and e-government use.
on e-government use, there is an obvious difference between service/ The fourth set of determinants is trust in government. Trust in all
information use and policy research. Five variables are included at the three levels of government is not a significant predictor for any of the
same time in regression, but only one variable is significant in the e-government use types. The correlation coefficients between depen-
models of predicting service use and information use. It is predicted dent variables and the three variables of trust in government have
that those who interact with government via offline channels use consistently very low magnitude (see Table 5). This data doesn't sup-
more services provided by e-government (β = 0.535). In contrast, the port a significant association between e-government use and trust in
regression result of policy research shows a remarkable association government.
between e-government use for policy research and various measures The final set of determinants represents socio-demographic and per-
of civic mindedness. Offline and online interactions with government sonal characteristics. They are included in regression models as control
(β = 0.706 and 0.953, respectively), offline and online civic engage- variables, but they also have determining effects to some extent.
ments (β = 0.549 and 0.230, respectively), and online participation Males (β = − 0.536), non-Whites (β = − 0.404), the more affluent
(β = 0.601) all predict the degree of e-government use for policy re- (β = 0.150), suburban residents (β = 0.401), and self-identified
search. In terms of civic mindedness, policy researchers are distin- Republicans (β = 0.437) are more likely to use services through e-
guished from service users and general information users. Those government. While the better educated use more information through
who engage with their government and neighbors and participate in e-government (β = 0.268), the less affluent are more likely to look up
discussion of public issues are more likely to look at and be interested information about personal day-to-day issues such as health, safety, ben-
in policy-related information than non-participants. This analysis hints efits, and how to apply for a government job (β = −0.102). Personal
at a possible distinction between conventional e-government users backgrounds are not a predictor of e-government use for policy research.

Table 3
The description of independent variables.

Category Variable Measurement

Psychological factors •Perceived value of service e-Government allows people to complete tasks (Ordinal)
•Perceived value of information e-Government provides information to the public (Ordinal)
•Perceived value of engagement e-Government allows people to contact officials (Ordinal)
•Perceived ease of use How much of what you were trying to do on the government site did you succeed? (Ordinal)
Civic mindedness •Offline interaction with government Whether to interact with government in the past 12 months (letter, phone, or face-to-face interaction)
•Online interaction with government Whether to send an email to local, state, or federal government in the past 12 months
•Offline civic engagement Whether to talk face-to-face or by phone with neighbors about community issues
•Online civic engagement Whether to interact with neighbors to talk about community issues through email, blogging, or social networking site
•Online participation A count of the following activities: participating in an online town hall meeting; posting comments, queries or
information in a blog, online discussions, or online forum about public issue; joining a group online that tries to
influence policies; and uploading photos or videos online about public issues
Information channels •Government channel Whether to visit a general information site like usa.gov
•Search engine channel Whether to use a general search engine
•Interpersonal channel Whether to hear from other people
Trust in government •Trust in federal government How much of the time do you think you can trust the federal government? (Ordinal)
•Trust in state government How much of the time do you think you can trust your state government? (Ordinal)
•Trust in local government How much of the time do you think you can trust your local government? (Ordinal)
Technology adoption •Internet use intensity Usage frequency (Ordinal)
•Broadband adoption Whether to use DSL, FiOS, or WiFi
 Author's personal copy

216 T. Nam / Government Information Quarterly 31 (2014) 211–220

Table 4 It would be pertinent to take caution before seeing e-government as

The proportion of e-government use. a mainstream of government functions of all kinds and a norm of service
e-Government use Percentage delivery, information dissemination, and citizen–government interac-
tions. Surprisingly even advanced countries have a gap between e-
[A] Transaction service use 72%
[B] General information use 59% government availability and usage. According to United Nations
[C] Policy research 62% (2012: 102-103) report the average usage rate of EU27 countries in
Both [A] and [B] 52% 2010 was only 32% and the OECD average was around 40%, despite
Both [A] and [C] 53%
the recent improvements (51% in 2006, 67% in 2008, 90% in 2010) in
Both [B] and [C] 46%
[A], [B], and [C] 42% e-government availability, which is an indicator measured as the per-
Never use 16% centage of basic 20 services available on e-government. Given the sub-
stantial gap between the e-government availability and use, many
potential benefits of e-government are concealed and have not been
Internet use intensity and broadband adoption are positively correlated fully realized. This presents a major challenge for policymakers in
with all dependent variables (see Table 5), but regressions do not signify their efforts to improve citizens' take-up of e-government. They need
the causal influence of the two technology adoption variables on e- to rethink how public services can be taken up more by citizens so as
government use. to help realize the full potential benefits. United Nations (2012) claimed
that “low usage limits the reach and impact of e-government, and more
6. Implications needs to be done if governments are to successfully leverage e-
government to improve efficiency and effectiveness and realize other
6.1. Implications for e-government practice benefits” (p. 102).

6.1.1. Consider the gap between e-government availability and use 6.1.2. Consider e-government as an integrated way to multichannel
Discussions about the promise of e-government chiefly highlight delivery
three benefits: easier access to information, more efficient service deliv- The fact that interest in e-government is generally low overall pro-
ery, and improved communication (Streib & Navarro, 2006: 288). vokes an imperative of multichannel approach, which is the provision
Reddick's (2005) analysis of the 2001 E-Government Survey conducted of public services by various means in an integrated and coordinated
by Pew Internet and American Life Project found that users of e- way (United Nations, 2012: 73). e-Government providers need to
government information were prevalent while transaction-based know that e-government services are often used to a different extent
users are not common yet. The difference between the 2001 data and by different people. Since individual users have diverse needs and de-
the 2009 data that this study employs reveals a dramatic increase of mands for services, it is no longer sustainable for governments to utilize
transactional service users for the past eight years. The most frequent a single preferred way of service provision over the other. People can
information seekers in the 2001 data were those who search for infor- make selections according to their needs and circumstances and receive
mation related to tourism and recreation, but many citizens in the consistent information and services across channels resulting in an in-
more recent data look up information related to government policies. crease in their satisfaction and trust in government. Multichannel

Table 5
Descriptive statistics and pairwise correlation with dependent variables.

Descriptive statistics Pairwise correlation

M S.D. Min Max Service use Information use Policy research

Service use 1.462 1.217 0 5 1.000 – –

Information seeking 0.966 1.014 0 4 0.514⁎ 1.000 –
Policy research 1.500 1.542 0 5 0.478⁎ 0.445⁎ 1.000
Perceived value of service 3.409 0.903 1 4 0.268⁎ 0.190⁎ 0.157⁎
Perceived value of information 3.517 0.831 1 4 0.214⁎ 0.184⁎ 0.209⁎
Perceived value of engagement 3.476 0.841 1 4 0.209⁎ 0.142⁎ 0.225⁎
Perceived value of government 2.0 0.000 1.447 −4.193 1.956 0.136⁎ 0.128⁎ 0.123⁎
Perceived ease of use 3.228 0.914 1 4 0.066⁎ −0.070⁎ −0.001
Offline interaction 0.468 0.499 0 1 0.285⁎ 0.243⁎ 0.342⁎
Online interaction 0.318 0.466 0 1 0.291⁎ 0.284⁎ 0.458⁎
Offline civic 0.537 0.499 0 1 0.195⁎ 0.191⁎ 0.273⁎
Online civic 0.253 0.435 0 1 0.212⁎ 0.232⁎ 0.326⁎
Online participation 0.330 0.698 0 4 0.212⁎ 0.227⁎ 0.438⁎
Government channel 0.165 0.371 0 1 0.182⁎ 0.124⁎ 0.124⁎
Search engine 0.427 0.495 0 1 0.035 0.028 0.071⁎
Interpersonal channel 0.125 0.330 0 1 −0.072⁎ −0.021 −0.115⁎
Trust in federal government 2.158 0.754 1 4 0.067⁎ 0.099⁎ -0.009
Trust in state government 2.262 0.748 1 4 0.058⁎ 0.054⁎ 0.032
Trust in local government 2.389 0.790 1 4 0.060⁎ 0.043 0.083⁎
Internet use intensity 5.434 1.724 1 7 0.303⁎ 0.197⁎ 0.295⁎
Broadband adoption 0.893 0.309 0 1 0.167⁎ 0.112⁎ 0.140⁎
Republican 0.243 0.429 0 1 0.027 −0.029 0.007
Democrat 0.397 0.489 0 1 0.016 0.069⁎ -0.033
Age 51.363 18.238 18 95 −0.083⁎ -0.068⁎ −0.027
Female 0.560 0.496 0 1 −0.107⁎ -0.003 −0.096⁎
White 0.800 0.400 0 1 0.011 -0.017 0.067⁎
Education 4.550 1.669 1 7 0.311⁎ 0.250⁎ 0.322⁎
Annual household income 4.910 2.334 1 9 0.260⁎ 0.123⁎ 0.241⁎
Suburban residence 0.513 0.500 0 1 0.054 0.009 0.027
Urban residence 0.254 0.435 0 1 0.040 0.023 0.015
⁎ p b 0.05.
 Author's personal copy

T. Nam / Government Information Quarterly 31 (2014) 211–220 217

Table 6
Results of Poisson regressions.

Service use Information use Policy research

b s.e. b s.e. b s.e.

Different types of e-government use

Service use 0.469⁎ 0.091 0.305⁎ 0.089
Information use 0.499⁎ 0.093 0.297⁎ 0.097
Policy research 0.294⁎ 0.060 0.235⁎ 0.060

Psychological factors
Perceived value of service 0.378⁎ 0.134 0.051 0.119 −0.152 0.162
Perceived value of information 0.079 0.148 0.177 0.177 0.037 0.195
Perceived value of engagement 0.202 0.144 −0.006 0.149 0.267⁎ 0.128
Perceived ease of use 0.117 0.095 0.346⁎ 0.100 −0.112 0.091

Civic mindedness
Offline interaction with government 0.535⁎ 0.194 0.183 0.190 0.706⁎ 0.191
Online interaction with government 0.110 0.202 0.333 0.202 0.953⁎ 0.190
Offline civic engagement −0.007 0.173 −0.037 0.184 0.549⁎ 0.172
Online civic engagement 0.195 0.281 0.301 0.197 0.230⁎ 0.101
Online participation −0.173 0.114 0.136 0.116 0.601⁎ 0.107

Information channels
Government channel 0.324 0.276 −0.319 0.349 −0.549 0.322
Search engine channel 0.361 0.278 −0.288 0.336 −0.311 0.333
Interpersonal channel 0.237 0.319 −0.056 0.377 −0.919⁎ 0.369

Trust in government
Trust in federal government 0.009 0.139 0.244 0.133 −0.031 0.156
Trust in state government 0.006 0.144 −0.130 0.161 −0.079 0.146
Trust in local government −0.048 0.129 −0.147 0.147 0.190 0.161

Technology adoption
Internet use intensity 0.049 0.062 −0.201 0.066 0.084 0.069
Broadband adoption 0.057 0.263 0.299 0.276 −0.100 0.321
Self-reported political affiliation
Republican 0.437⁎ 0.202 −0.194 0.286 0.143 0.196
Democrat 0.238 0.209 0.374 0.199 −0.177 0.271

Socio-demographic characteristics
Age −0.006 0.007 −0.009 0.005 −0.006 0.008
Female −0.536⁎ 0.160 0.078 0.162 −0.224 0.162
White −0.404⁎ 0.208 −0.331 0.216 0.330 0.284
Education 0.036 0.045 0.268⁎ 0.061 0.102 0.068
Annual household income 0.150⁎ 0.057 −0.102⁎ 0.037 0.047 0.043
Suburban residence 0.401⁎ 0.200 −0.085 0.228 0.160 0.239
Urban residence 0.363 0.212 −0.247 0.219 0.012 0.229
N 909 909 909
Log likelihood −123.15 −166.48 −108.34
Log-ratio Chi-square 193.63⁎ 151.40⁎ 219.99⁎
Pseudo R2 0.309 0.269 0.384

Note. For information channels variables, “some other way” is a baseline category. Independents are a comparison category in political affiliation. Suburban and urban residence is
compared to rural residence.
⁎ p b 0.05.

service delivery supports the provision of accessible services needed further demonstrates the growing need for greater understanding
by the poor and increases the inclusion and participation of socially of the drivers that lead citizens to use e-government. Carter and
disadvantaged groups in government policies and decisions. According Belanger (2005) claimed that “in order to develop citizen-centered e-
to United Nations (2012: 84), a combination of contact channels government services that provide participants with accessible, relevant
works best to increase e-government adoption, and thus public information and quality services that are more expedient than tradi-
agencies should therefore provide multiple contact points. The tional ‘brick and mortar’ transactions, government agencies must
existence of one channel and its applications alone do not guarantee first understand the factors that influence citizen adoption of this
results. Policies for boosting e-government usage should consider e- innovation” (p. 5).
government as a channel well-connected and integrated with other E-Government Satisfaction Index (Freed, 2012) suggests seven ele-
conventional ways rather than simply replace traditional media with ments to tempt more citizens to the active use of e-government as
e-government. Governments need to actively educate citizens about follows:
multiple ways available to obtain services and encourage them to use
the most convenient and efficient channel (Kolsaker & Lee-Kelley, • Functionality: usefulness, convenient placement, and variety of online
2008: 724). features.
• Transparency: thoroughly and accessibly disclosing information about
6.1.3. Consider drivers of e-government use what the agency is doing.
The extent to which governments benefit from e-government is • Search: relevance, organization, and quality of search results available.
contingent upon citizens' willingness to adopt e-government. This • Navigation: organization of the site and options for navigation.
 Author's personal copy

218 T. Nam / Government Information Quarterly 31 (2014) 211–220

• Look and feel: visual appeal of the site and its consistency throughout challenging and obtaining pertinent data is much more difficult than
the site. measuring the supply side of e-government functions. Currently there
• Content: accuracy, quality, and freshness of information. is no comprehensive data available to assess citizen usages of e-
• Site performance: speed, consistency, and error-free loading of pages. government. The data that this study uses includes some key measures
of e-government use but does not have the list of various e-government
Since current e-government initiatives indicate a shift toward a functions fully comparable to other existing indicators provided by EU,
citizen-centric approach to e-government use, citizen-centricity and OECD, and United Nations. The U.S.-based random sample has a possi-
focus on user needs are highly relevant to e-government use. Thus per- bility of over-representing the policy research type compared to other
ceived ease of use, convenience and good usability are factors that have similar international data, but there is currently no way to examine
important bearings on e-government use (Kolsaker & Lee-Kelley, 2008: the possibility because there is a lack of U.S.-based data about e-
723; United Nations, 2012: 105–106). government usage. The future research needs to construct a comparable
full list of e-government services and information and then investigate
6.1.4. Consider policy researchers as an important type the degree to which different segments of the population use them.
Considering multiple types of e-government use offers governments
new insights. The purpose of e-government use is diversified into not
only service use and information acquisition, but policy research by 7. Conclusion
those who use e-government for their individual interests in accordance
with their civic minds. While e-government practitioners may continue A variety of promising benefits from e-government use are fulfilled
to target the service-needy as a top priority, a new and additional policy to the extent to which citizens use e-government. Understanding
target needs to include civic-minded e-citizens. Therefore, this paper multiple purposes of e-government use and identifying determinants
suggests that government practitioners should make broad efforts for of e-government use in a particular purpose help governments develop
encouraging and facilitating digital citizenship beyond technological strategies for engaging more citizens in e-government. Overall findings
efforts for digital inclusion. Given the considerable proportion of policy of this study make a notable distinction in e-government users' charac-
researchers among the whole of e-government users, various levels teristics between policy researchers and users of transactional services
of information for policy research should be available through e- and general information. Policy researchers are making up a consider-
government. Policy researchers are those who can provide govern- able proportion of e-government users. An increase in those who are
ments with concerned, informed feedback and communicate with interested in policy issues can be beneficial to governments. Such e-
other citizens about policies and governments. For governments, citizens can provide informed feedback to governments and let others
efforts for increasing readily available policy-related information on e- know about governments by civic engagement with their neighbors. It
government sites and actively using current Web 2.0 tools to engage is important to note that this transmission of information can occur
more citizens do not require a large-scale or costly investment in e- through e-government. However, governments also should remain cau-
government development. Governments can upgrade contents for con- tious about the extent to which “e-” in e-government is superfluous, be-
cerned citizens to be exposed to new, extensive media of e-government cause e-government can be considered only one of multiple options that
and establish strategies for keeping citizens informed via various online citizens can select for their interactions with government. The increase
media. Such efforts demand relatively little from government since the in citizens' use of e-government, nevertheless, becomes a discernible
applications are already in place and need only to be maintained. In this long-term trend because a growing number of people have recognized
sense, governments could do more with less for transparency and and experienced greater efficiency, effectiveness, and convenience in
accountability, supported by policy researchers. using various government functions via e-government and digital con-
nections with conventional channels. For governments to go forward,
6.2. Implications for e-government research researchers need to provide more comprehensive understanding of
the types and determinants of e-government use.
Addressing the weaknesses of this paper offers new directions for e-
government research. TAM has been proved powerful as a theoretical
Acknowledgments
framework and model, and its components that can be used for vari-
ables of empirical research are theoretically well-supported. However,
This work was supported by the 2013 Research Fund of Myongji
the constructs may not perfectly fit the context of e-government be-
University.
cause current e-government in many countries is no longer a new tech-
nological innovation to most people—rather an efficient tool readily
available for a majority of the population. Components in TAM and References
other relevant theories need to be adjusted to today's e-government re-
search and the context of e-government use. Aichholzer, G., & Strauß, S. (2010). Electronic identity management in e-government 2.0:
Exploring a system innovation exemplified by Austria. Information Polity, 15(1–2),
A statistical model needs to be both comprehensive and parsimoni- 139–152.
ous. The model specification that this study sets is comprehensive at the Akman, İ., Yazici, A., Mishra, A., & Arifoglu, A. (2005). e-Government: A global view and an
cost of a less parsimonious one. Structural equation modeling (SEM) can empirical evaluation of some attributes of citizens. Government Information Quarterly,
22(2), 239–257.
meet both goals if multiple constructs are collapsed into some factors by Bart, Y., Shankar, V., Sultan, F., & Urban, G. L. (2005). Are the drivers and role of online
measurement models based on theoretical advances adjusted to the trust the same for all websites and consumers? A large-scale exploratory empirical
context of e-government use. study. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 133–152.
Baumgarten, J., & Chui, M. (2009). e-Government 2.0. McKinsey Quarterly, 4, 26–31.
Further research of e-government use could be richer if the intrinsic Becker, J., Niehaves, B., Bergener, P., & Räckers, M. (2008). Digital divide in eGovernment:
characteristics of the determinants included in the study are analyzed in The Inclusion gap model. In M.A. Wimmer, H. J. Scholl, & E. Ferro (Eds.), Electronic gov-
greater depth and in relation to each other. Given the measures from the ernment: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference, EGOV 2008 (pp. 231–242).
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
secondary data, the analysis is difficult to extend to the deeper discus-
Belanger, F., & Cartel, L. (2006). The effects of the digital divide on e-government: An em-
sion of the intrinsic characteristics. With the possibility of complicated pirical evaluation. Paper presented at the 39th Hawaii International Conference on
modeling such as SEM, the relationships among the five sets of theoret- System Sciences, Kauai, Hawaii, January 4–7.
ical determinants can be further explored. Belanger, F., & Cartel, L. (2008). Trust and risk in e-government adoption. Journal of
Strategic Information Systems, 17(2), 165–176.
This study raises an imperative need of measuring e-government Belanger, F., & Cartel, L. (2009). The impact of the digital divide on e-government use.
usage. According to United Nations (2012: 114), measuring usage is Communications of the ACM, 52(4), 132–135.
 Author's personal copy

T. Nam / Government Information Quarterly 31 (2014) 211–220 219

Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010a). Crowd-sourcing transparency: ICTs, Kolsaker, A., & Lee-Kelley, L. (2008). Citizens' attitudes towards e-government and e-
social media, and government transparency initiatives. Paper presented at the 11th In- governance: A UK study. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(7),
ternational Conference on Digital Government Research, Pueblo, Mexico, May 17–20. 723–738.
Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., Munson, S., & Glaisyer, T. (2010b). Social media technology and Kumar, V., Mukerji, B., Butt, I., & Persaud, A. (2007). Factors for successful e-government
government transparency. Computer, 43(11), 53–59. adoption: A conceptual framework. The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 5(1),
Bimber, B. (1999). The internet and citizen communication with government: Does the 63–76.
medium matter? Political Communication, 16(4), 409–428. Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional e-government: A four stage model.
Bimber, B. (2003). Information and American democracy: Technology in the evolution of Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122–136.
political power. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Lin, C. A. (2003). An interactive communication technology adoption model.
Brancheau, J. C., & Wetherbe, J. C. (1990). The adoption of spreadsheet software: Testing Communication Theory, 13(4), 345–365.
innovation diffusion theory in the context of end-user computing. Information Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables.
Systems Research, 1(2), 115–143. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bretschneider, S., Gant, J., & Ahn, M. (2003). A general model of e-government adoption Losh, S.C. (2003). Gender and educational digital chasms in computer and internet access
and diffusion. Paper presented at the 7th Public Management Research Conference. and use over time: 1982–2000. IT and Society, 1(4), 73–86.
Washington, DC: Georgetown University (October 9–11). Lukensmeyer, C. J., & Torres, L. H. (2008). Citizensourcing: Citizen participation in a
Brint, S., & Levy, C. S. (1999). Professions and civic engagement: Trends in rhetoric and networked nation. In K. Yang, & E. Bergrud (Eds.), Civic engagement in a network
practice, 1875–1995. In T. Skocpol, & M. P. Fiorina (Eds.), Civic engagement in society (pp. 207–233). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
American democracy (pp. 163–210). New York: Russell Sage. Marchionini, G., Samet, H., & Brandt, L. (2003). Digital government. Communications of the
Bruno, G., Esposito, E., Genovese, A., & Gwebu, K. L. (2011). A critical analysis of current ACM, 46(1), 25–27.
indexes for digital divide measurement. The Information Society, 27(1), 16–28. McNeal, R. S., Hale, K., & Dotterweich, L. (2008). Citizen-government interaction and the
Carter, L. (2008). e-Government diffusion: A comparison of adoption constructs. internet: Expectations and accomplishments in contact, quality, and trust. Journal of
Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 2(3), 147–161. Information Technology & Politics, 5(2), 213–229.
Carter, L., & Belanger, F. (2004). The influence of perceived characteristics of innovating Mills, A., Carter, L., & Belanger, F. (2010). Conceptualizing public service value in e-
on e-government adoption. The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 2(1), 11–20. government services. Paper presented at the 16th Americas Conference on Information
Carter, L., & Belanger, F. (2005). The utilization of e-government services: Citizen trust, in- Systems, Lima, Peru, August 12–15.
novation and acceptance factors. Information Systems Journal, 15(1), 5–25. Mintz, D. (2008). Government 2.0. Fact or fiction? Public Manager, 36(4), 21–24.
Carter, L., & Weerakkody, V. (2008). e-Government adoption: A cultural comparison. Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. (2008). Digital citizenship: The internet, society,
Information Systems Frontiers, 10(4), 473–482. and participation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Chen, H. (2009). AI, e-government, and politics 2.0. Intelligent Systems, 24(5), 64–86. Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & Stansbury, M. (2003). Virtual inequality: Beyond the digital
Cho, H., & Hwang, S. (2010). Government 2.0 in Korea: Focusing on e-participation ser- divide. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
vices. In C. G. Reddick (Ed.), Politics, democracy and e-government: Participation and Nam, T. (2010). The wisdom of crowds in government 2.0: Information paradigm evolu-
service delivery (pp. 94–114). Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing. tion toward wiki-government. Paper presented at the 16th Americas Conference on In-
Chong, A. Y. (2011). What drives Malaysian e-government adoption?: An empirical anal- formation Systems, Lima, Peru, August 12–15.
ysis. Information Resources Management Journal, 24(2), 16–27. Nam, T. (2012a). Suggesting frameworks of citizen-sourcing via government 2.0.
Colesca, S. E., & Dobrica, L. (2008). Adoption and use of e-government services: The case Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 12–20.
of Romania. Journal of Applied Research and Technology, 6(3), 204–217. Nam, T. (2012b). Dual effects of the internet and political activism: Reinforcing and mo-
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of in- bilizing. Government Information Quarterly, 29(S1), S90–S97.
formation technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. Nam, T., & Sayogo, D. S. (2011). Government 2.0 collects the wisdom of crowds. Paper
DiMaio, A. (2009). Government 2.0: A Gartner definition. Available at. http://blogs. presented at the 3rd International Conference on Social Informatics, Singapore,
gartner.com/andrea_dimaio/2009/11/13/government-2-0-a-gartner-definition/ October 6–8.
Dimitrova, D.V., & Chen, Y. (2006). Profiling the adopters of e-government information Neu, C. R., Anderson, R. H., & Bikson, T. K. (1999). Sending your government a message: E-
and services: The influence of psychological characteristics, civic mindedness, and in- mail communication between citizens and government. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corp.
formation channels. Social Science Computer Review, 24(2), 171–188. Niehaves, B., & Becker, J. (2008). The age-divide in e-government—data, interpretations,
Edmiston, K. D. (2003). State and local e-government: Prospects and challenges. American theory fragments. In M. Oya, R. Uda, & C. Yasunobu (Eds.), towards sustainable society
Review of Public Administration, 33(1), 20–45. on ubiquitous networks: Proceedings of the 8th IFIP conference on e-Business, e-Services,
Fichman, R. G. (1992). Information technology diffusion: A review of empirical research. and e-Society (pp. 279–287). Boston: Springer.
Paper presented at the International Conference on Information Systems, Dallas, Texas, Niehaves, B., & Plattfaut, R. (2010). What is the issue with internet acceptance among el-
December 13–16. derly citizens? Theory development and policy recommendations for inclusive e-
Freed, L. (2012). Satisfying the 21st century citizen in a multi-device, multi-channel government. In M.A. Wimmer, J. -L. Chappelet, M. Janssen, & H. J. Scholl (Eds.),
world: American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) E-Government Satisfaction EGOV 2010: Proceedings of the 9th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference on Electronic
Index (Q2 2012). Available at. http://www.foreseeresults.com/research-white- Government (pp. 275–288). Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
papers/_downloads/acsi-egov-q2-2012-foresee.pdf Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the internet
Gauld, R., Goldfinch, S., & Horsburgh, S. (2010). Do they want it? Do they use it? The worldwide. New York: Cambridge University Press.
‘demand-side’ of e-government in Australia and New Zealand. Government O'Reilly, T. (2010). Government as a platform. In D. Lathrop, & L. Ruma (Eds.), Open gov-
Information Quarterly, 27(2), 177–186. ernment: Collaboration, transparency, and participation in practice (pp. 11–39). Sebas-
Gilbert, D., Balestrini, P., & Littleboy, D. (2004). Barriers and benefits in the adoption of e- topol, CA: O'Reilly Media.
government. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(4), 286–301. Osimo, D. (2009). Editorial: Government 2.0—Hype, hope, or reality? European Journal of
Goldfinch, S., Gauld, R., & Herbison, P. (2009). The participation divide? Political participa- ePractice, 9(1), 2–4.
tion, trust in government, and e-government in Australia and New Zealand. Ozkan, S., & Kanat, I. E. (2011). e-Government adoption model based on theory of planned
Australian Journal of Public Administration, 68(3), 333–350. behavior: Empirical validation. Government Information Quarterly, 28(4), 503–513.
Gurstein, M. (2003). Effective use: A community informatics strategy beyond the digital Parent, M., Vandebeek, C. A., & Gemino, A.C. (2005). Building citizen trust through e-
divide. First Monday, 8(12). Electronic article available at. http://131.193.153.231/ government. Government Information Quarterly, 22(4), 720–736.
www/issues/issue138_112/gurstein/index.html Phang, C., Sutanto, J., Kankanhalli, A., Li, Y., Tan, B. C. Y., & Teo, H. (2006). Senior citizens'
Haller, M., Li, M., & Mossberger, K. (2011). Does e-government use contribute to civic en- acceptance of information systems: A study in the context of e-government services.
gagement with government and community? Paper presented at the 11th Public Man- IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 53(4), 555–569.
agement Research Conference, Syracuse, New York, June 2–4. Reddick, C. G. (2005). Citizen interaction with e-government: From the streets to servers?
Helbig, N., Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Ferro, E. (2009). Understanding the complexity of electronic Government Information Quarterly, 22(1), 38–57.
government: Implications from the digital divide literature. Government Information Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Quarterly, 26(1), 89–97. Rufín, R., Medina, C., & Sánchez Figueroa, J. C. (2012). Moderating factors in adopting local
Ho, A. T. (2002). Reinventing local governments and the e-government initiative. Public e-government in Spain. Local Government Studies, 38(3), 367–385.
Administration Review, 62(4), 434–444. Sang, S., Lee, J., & Lee, J. (2009). e-Government adoption in ASEAN: The case of Cambodia.
Horsburgh, S., Goldfinch, S., & Gauld, R. (2011). Is public trust in government associated Internet Research, 19(5), 517–534.
with trust in e-government? Social Science Computer Review, 29(2), 232–241. Shareef, M.A., Kumar, V., Kumar, U., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2011). e-Government adoption
Horst, M., Kuttschreuter, M., & Gutteling, J. M. (2007). Perceived usefulness, personal ex- model (GAM): Differing service maturity levels. Government Information Quarterly,
periences, risk perception and trust as determinants of adoption of e-government 28(1), 17–35.
services in The Netherlands. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4), 1838–1852. Sipior, J. C., & Ward, B. T. (2005). Bridging the digital divide for e-government inclusion: A
Hung, S., Chang, C., & Yu, T. (2006). Determinants of user acceptance of the e-government United States case study. The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 3(3), 137–146.
services: The case of online tax filing and payment system. Government Information Sipior, J. C., Ward, B. T., & Connolly, R. (2011). The digital divide and t-government in the
Quarterly, 23(1), 97–122. United States: Using the technology acceptance model to understand usage. European
International City/County Management Association (2011). e-Government 2011 survey Journal of Information Systems, 20(3), 308–326.
summary. Available at. http://icma.org/en/icma/knowledge_network/documents/ Streib, G., & Navarro, I. (2006). Citizen demand for interactive e-government: The case of
kn/Document/302947/EGovernment_2011_Survey_Summary Georgia consumer services. American Review of Public Administration, 36(3), 288–300.
Johannessen, M. R. (2010). Different theory, different result: Examining how different Susanto, T. D., & Goodwin, R. (2010). Factors influencing citizen adoption of SMS-based e-
theories lead to different insights in government 2.0 research. Paper presented at government services. The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 8(1), 55–71.
the 1st Scandinavian Conference of Information Systems and the 33rd Information Sys- Sweeney, A.D. P. (2007). Electronic government-citizen relationships exploring citizen
tems Research in Scandinavia Seminar, Skørping, Denmark, August 20–24. perspectives. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 4(2), 101–116.
 Author's personal copy

220 T. Nam / Government Information Quarterly 31 (2014) 211–220

Tapscott, D., Williams, A.D., & Herman, D. (2008). Government 2.0: Transforming Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in
government and governance for the twenty-first century. Available at. http:// American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
wlu-ca.academia.edu/DanHerman/Papers/378095/Government_2.0_Transforming_ Wangpipatwong, S., Chutimaskul, W., & Papasratorn, B. (2008). Understanding citizen's
Government_and_Governance_for_the_Twenty-First_Century continuance intention to use e-government website: A composite view of technology
Thompson, D.V., Rust, R. T., & Rhoda, J. (2005). The business value of e-government for acceptance model and computer self-efficacy. The Electronic Journal of e-Government,
small firms. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 16(4), 385–407. 6(1), 55–64.
Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. (2003). Unraveling the effects of the internet on political par- Warkentin, M., Gefen, D., Pavlou, P. A., & Rose, G. M. (2002). Encouraging citizen adoption
ticipation? Political Research Quarterly, 56(2), 175–185. of e-government by building trust. Electronic Markets, 12(3), 157–162.
Tolbert, C. J., & Mossberger, K. (2006). The effects of e-government on trust and confi- Welch, E. W., Hinnant, C. C., & Moon, M. J. (2005). Linking citizen satisfaction with e-
dence in government. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 354–369. government and trust in government. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Torres, L., Pina, V., & Acerete, B. (2005). e-Government developments on delivering public Theory, 15(3), 371–391.
services among EU cities. Government Information Quarterly, 22(2), 217–238. West, D.M. (2004). e-Government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen
Tung, L. L., & Rieck, O. (2005). Adoption of electronic government services among busi- attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 15–27.
ness in Singapore. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 14(4), 417–440. Zmud, R. W. (1983). The effectiveness of external information channels in facilitating
United Nations (2002). Benchmarking e-government: A global perspective. New York: innovation within software groups. MIS Quarterly, 7(2), 43–56.
American Society for Public Administration (Available at http://unpan1.un.org/
intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan021547.pdf).
United Nations (2012). e-Government survey 2012: e-Government for the people. New York: Taewoo Nam earned his Ph.D. degree in Public Administration and Policy from the
United Nations. Available at http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/ Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy, University at Albany, State University of
un/unpan048065.pdf. New York. He is working for Department of Public Administration, Myongji University,
Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2005). The deepening divide inequality in the information society. Korea as an assistant professor. His research interests include inter-governmental collab-
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. oration, local government management, citizen participation, and digital government. He is
Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. the author or co-author of articles in Government Information Quarterly, International Review
Poetics, 34(4–5), 221–235. of Administrative Sciences, Journal of Urban Technology, Applied Research in Quality of Life,
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance Information Polity, Journal of Information Technology and Politics, and Social Science and
model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. Computer Review.