Government Information Quarterly 21 (2004) 51 – 64

A two-stage model of e-government growth: Theories and

empirical evidence for U.S. cities
Christopher G. Reddick*
Department of Public Administration, University of Texas at San Antonio, 501 West Durango Boulevard,
San Antonio, TX 78207, USA

Available online 13 December 2003

Abstract

This article examines the current stages of development of e-government growth in American cities.
A two-stage model of e-government growth is applied to municipalities. Stage I is the cataloging of
information online and Stage II is transactions being completed online. This article examines the
development of these stages along with the e-government relationships being government to citizen
(G2C), government to business (G2B), or government to government (G2G). The two-stage model is
applied to data from the 2002 International City/County Management Association (ICMA) Electronic
Government survey. The findings indicate that G2C Web sites are primarily in Stage I. There does not
appear to be much movement outside of the information dissemination stage of e-government. In
regards to the G2G relationships, cities are becoming more advanced with many transactions completed
over the city’s Intranet. However, the greatest advancement has taken place in the G2B relationship, in
which procurement of equipment and office supplies was done by around half of the surveyed cities.
These findings imply that e-government growth is more pronounced in some areas than others.
D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

American cities are in the early stages of what is anticipated to be a deep transformation
from the Internet. Rapid growth of Web-based applications in the government promises
significant cost savings through structural changes in productivity and delivery of government
information and services. Cost savings are especially critical in the short term since they will

* Fax: +1-210-458-2536.
E-mail address: [email protected].

0740-624X/$ – see front matter D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.giq.2003.11.004
52 C.G. Reddick / Government Information Quarterly 21 (2004) 51–64

most likely dictate the future development of Internet and related communication technologies.
This study finds that American cities are indeed in the early stage of e-government develop-
ment, mostly cataloging information, but certain other areas, such as e-procurement, are
becoming more advanced. Overall, e-government has not reached, as was envisioned, a deeper
transformation of internal government agency and cross-agency structures and processes.
A 2003 Council for Excellence in Government survey of 1,023 randomly selected adults in
the United States revealed that nearly two-thirds of e-government Internet users report using
government Web sites generally to find information, such as an office address or a list of
services provided by an agency.1 On the other hand, only a quarter log on to conduct a
transaction, such as filing their taxes or renewing their driver’s license. However, when
respondents were asked whether they are interested in using transaction services, two-thirds
believe that they would be very or somewhat interested in options, such as changing their
address online or responding to jury summons. The transition from informational e-govern-
ment to transactional e-government is significant because it requires an information exchange
between citizens and government.
This article explores the current stages of development and prospects for future develop-
ment in e-government growth in the U.S. cities. E-government is defined for the purposes of
this study as the use of the Internet to deliver services and information to citizens and
businesses.2 Research on local e-government is sparse.3 Furthermore, the naı̈ve enthusiasm
for the supposed ‘‘revolutionary effects’’ of e-government can often stifle creativity and
knowledge—practices that make local government work.4 Overall, the American cities
examined in this study are becoming closer in some areas to the transactional stage of e-
government growth, but there is much more to do.
At present, there are two applicable phases of the growth and development of e-govern-
ment in U.S. cities—the cataloging and transaction stages. There are also three possible
relationships examined in this article that e-government’s can hold, namely, government to
citizen (G2C), government to business (G2B), and government to government (G2G). The
growth stages in relation to the types of e-government are the focus of this article. This article
examines these two stages and applies them to data from the 2002 International City/County
Management Association (ICMA) Electronic Government survey.5
The first section of this article delves into the particulars of the two-stage model of e-
government growth. The second section outlines the existing literature in public admin-
istration on e-government development at the subnational level. The third section presents the
database and methods used. The fourth section looks at the frequencies of occurrence of the
two-stage model of e-government growth. The final section concludes with an assessment of
the current stage of e-government at the municipal level and the prospects for future
development.

2. Stages of e-government growth

Layne and Lee provide a model that has four stages of e-government growth.6 This article
concentrates on two of these stages. The first stage is the cataloguing of information on a Web
 C.G. Reddick / Government Information Quarterly 21 (2004) 51–64 53

site and the second phase is transactions on a Web site. However, the third and fourth phases,
which are not covered in this article, are vertical and horizontal integration. Vertical
integration is the municipal government’s systems linked with higher levels of government
in similar functional areas. In horizontal integration, systems are integrated across different
functions, which breaks down the ‘‘silos’’ of information dissemination. The article does not
cover horizontal and vertical integration since there is little evidence for their occurrence at
the municipal level,7 except perhaps for isolated cases.8 In addition, much of the literature
about e-government is dominated by private sector spokespersons that offer claims of
reinventing organizations and revolutionized business models.9
The first stage of growth (cataloging of information) is initial efforts of governments to
establish an online presence. Cataloguing involves presenting information about government
and its activities on the Web. At this stage, the information is nontransactional in nature.
Online presence saves the government time and money since staff are oftentimes consumed
with answering basic questions about government services and procedures. A Web presence
reduces the workload of street level bureaucrats because it is a functional equivalent to being
open twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week.10
The second stage of e-government growth is the transaction phase. This occurs when
online cities allow citizens to transact with government electronically by putting databases
online so that citizens can pay taxes, fines, or fees. The fact that they can contact one point
of government and complete any level of government transaction (i.e., the idea of ‘‘one
stop shopping’’) is a most desirable feature. Transactions conducted electronically should
improve efficiency for both customers and the agency compared to the first stage of
cataloguing information. This also makes government more accessible for those who cannot
attend because of meetings or have work schedules that make them unable to visit a branch
office during business hours. This stage will empower citizens to deal with government
online anytime, saving hours of paperwork, the inconvenience of traveling to a government
office and time spent waiting in line. In this article, we incorporate Layne and Lee’s first
two stages of e-government growth and combine it with three types of e-government
relationships.11
Hiller and Belanger12 present a growth model similar to Layne and Lee. However, the
former authors combine their stages of growth model with the major types of e-government
relationships. E-government can involve electronic relationships between government and
different levels of constituents. The first relationship identified by Hiller and Belanger is
government delivering services to individuals. Here the government establishes or main-
tains a direct relationship with citizens to deliver a service or benefit (e.g., citizen
requesting information on a service). The second relation is government to individuals in
the political process. This relationship is between government and its citizens in the
democratic process (e.g., voting online). The third relationship is G2B (e.g., paying taxes
online). The fourth relationship is G2B in the marketplace, since a major portion of online
transactions between government and businesses involve procurement decisions. The fifth
relationship is government to employees through, for example, the Intranet to provide
information on employee benefits. The last relationship mentioned by Hiller and Belanger
is G2G in which government agencies must collaborate and/or provide services to one
54 C.G. Reddick / Government Information Quarterly 21 (2004) 51–64

Table 1
Stages of e-government growth and type of government relationship
Type of Stages of e-government growth
government Stage I: Cataloguing Stage II: Transactions
relationship

G2C Online presence of information about Services and forms online and databases to
government and its activities for citizens. support online transactions for citizens.
Example: Council meeting minutes online Example: Online payment of taxes
G2G Online presence of information for other Services and forms online and databases to
levels of government and its employees. support online transaction for other levels
Example: Intranet with benefits information and government and employees.
Example: Provide online training
G2B Online presence of information for Services and forms online and databases to
businesses about government. support businesses transactions with
Example: Online product review of office government
supplies Example: Make purchases of office
supplies online

another (e.g., the Federal Bureau of Investigation sharing information online to other levels
of government). In this article, the focus is on the application to American cities of the
G2C, G2B, and G2G relationships. They represent the heart of the governmental relation-
ships outlined by Hiller and Belanger.
In the stages of e-government growth model, we combined the first two stages of the
Layne and Lee13 model and the type of e-government relationships outlined by Hiller and
Belanger14 (Table 1). The stages as mentioned are the cataloging and transaction phases of e-
government and the G2C, G2B, and G2G relationships. The following section provides a
brief review of the current literature on e-government growth at the local level.

3. Literature review of e-government growth

There are essentially two streams of research on e-government growth in public admin-
istration. The first stream is the content analysis of government Web sites for specific features
of e-government. The second stream of literature is the e-government surveys of local
government officials. There are also studies that combine both content and survey method-
ologies. Content analyses of government Web sites were the first to appear in the literature, so
they will be discussed initially.

3.1. E-government content analysis

One of the first content analyses of U.S. local government Web presence was done by
Stowers.15 This author conducted an analysis in the late 1990s of state and local
government (with populations over 100,000) Web pages to provide data on the current
level and type of public sector activity. Over one hundred variables were gathered on the
 C.G. Reddick / Government Information Quarterly 21 (2004) 51–64 55

information and services available on state and local home pages and entire Web sites. In
terms of interactivity, Stowers notes that practically all states and the majority of local
government sites had available contact information. Only 25 percent of cities and 32
percent of states provided e-mail directories to their officials. The majority of states and
larger cities provided scattered e-mail addresses, however, few were searchable. The
results indicated that state and local governments were becoming what Stowers termed
‘‘cyberactive,’’ all states and almost half of the cities studied having some official
presence on the Web. The most common functions on state and local Web sites were
public safety, libraries, parks, and urban issues.
West has also conducted a content analysis of over 1,500 city government Web sites for the
seventy largest cities in America.16 Web sites were evaluated for the presence of various
features dealing with information availability, service delivery, and public access. West uses a
similar methodology to Stowers’ study. West noted that there has been a substantial rise in
city sites having fully executable online services. Of the Web sites examined around the
country, 49 percent offered some service, up from 13 percent in 2001. Of this group, 12
percent offer one service, 4 percent have two services, 2 percent offer three services, and 31
percent have four or more services. The most frequently found online services included
requesting services, requesting information, paying traffic tickets, and filing complaints. One
feature that has aided the development of online services has been the ability to use credit
cards and digital signatures on financial transactions. In 2002, 25 percent of city govern-
ments’ Web sites were able to process credit card payments, which is up from 4 percent from
the previous year. However, only 1 percent allows digital signatures for financial transactions,
about the same as in 2001.
Kaylor et al. in their content analysis of government Web sites wanted to provide a
rubric for benchmarking e-government implementation among U.S. cities by assigning
‘‘e-scores’’ to cities,17 a method is similar to what was done by West.18 E-scores have
the potential of becoming a barometer for cities interested in determining their online
presence compared to other cities nationwide. Kaylor et al. evaluated Web sites according
to the functions and services that municipalities provided. For example, is there the
ability to pay taxes online, can the public register for classes online, is the geographic
information system online, and so forth? The authors used a rubric with twelve key
attributes and created an e-score. Several features separate those sites with the highest e-
scores from those with modest scores. Some of these include e-commerce (e.g., online
payments taxes), registration and permits information, customer services (e.g., pothole
repair), communication, and online surveys/polls. Higher e-scores indicated both a wider
range of functions that were Web-enabled and a greater degree of technological
sophistication that was present.
In Spain, Criado and Ramilo did a content analysis of Spanish council Web sites.19
Data were gathered in 2000 and 2001 through direct observation of 174 existing Web
sites. The results indicated that different-sized municipalities had different types of Web
sites. The largest cities had more developed Web sites. Overall, in Spanish municipalities,
cataloguing information was mostly present, rather than possibilities for interaction with
citizens. Their results indicated that feedback was reduced to giving e-mail addresses and
56 C.G. Reddick / Government Information Quarterly 21 (2004) 51–64

was not related to e-service delivery and only a few services and functions could be
completed online, such as paying taxes. It is apparent that Spanish municipalities are in
the early stages of e-government growth.
Ho, in his empirical study, combines content and survey methodologies of American
cities Web development.20 This author has a more optimistic ‘‘reinventing government’’
view of the development of e-government. Ho makes the case that there is the prevalence
of a portal design in many larger cities that facilitates vertical and horizontal interaction in
municipal government. This implies movement into stages three and four of the Layne
and Lee e-government growth model.21 Ho asserts this new paradigm emphasizes
coordinated network building and the idea of a ‘‘one-stop shop,’’ where citizens can
simply go online to take care of all their government business. This is in direct contrast to
the traditional bureaucratic paradigm, which stresses a division of labor and stand-
ardization.22 Ho also makes it clear that shifting to a new paradigm is not easy because
of the socioeconomic and organizational barriers that remain. These barriers include
insufficient staff, lack of funding, and digital divide among racial groups.23 He advises
that future advances in e-government have to go beyond simply advancing technology and
into finding ways to address the social problems.24
There is also a study that statistically models the relationship between West’s e-govern-
ment index and social and political factors of U.S. states. McNeal et al. for instance, set out to
answer one major question: why have some states embraced digital government more
extensively than others?25 In their attempt to find the answer to this question, they examined
three other questions: (1)‘‘Has more extensive use of this new technology occurred in states
that are generally more innovative?’’ (2) ‘‘How does resource allocation relate to e-govern-
ment?’’ (3)‘‘Has e-government spread in response to citizen demand, been facilitated by
participatory politics, spread through professional networks, or spread because of efficiency
concerns?’’ The authors conducted a statistical analysis using West’s index.26 Their results
indicated that

 professionalism is an important factor in determining whether or not states will innovate in

e-government;
 participatory politics and constituent demand do not drive adoption of digital government;
and
 states with Republican-controlled legislatures are more likely to embrace e-government,
which may be due to the drive for more efficiency in government that Republicans tend to
embrace.

Their findings are indeed contrary to what one would expect in e-government develop-
ment since these authors found no evidence that resource allocation drives e-government
growth.27
The existing content analysis literature on e-government indicates that many of the cities
surveyed are in the initial stages of e-government—primarily the cataloguing of information.
There is a more optimist view presented by Ho who believes that there is some vertical and
horizontal integration occurring in larger cities with portal designed Web sites.28 However,
 C.G. Reddick / Government Information Quarterly 21 (2004) 51–64 57

the existing literature does not combine the main e-government relationships with the stages
of growth model, which is the focus of this article. The e-government surveys are examined
next and they essentially arrive at a similar conclusion to the content analysis, although using
a different methodology.

3.2. E-government surveys

There are several survey analyses that demonstrate the evolution of e-government at the
local level. One analysis was done by Moon.29 This author uses the Hiller and Belanger
stages of growth model.30 Moon then uses data obtained from the 2000 E-Government
Survey conducted by the ICMA and Public Technology, Inc. Moon found that larger
municipalities were more likely to be proactive and strategic in advancing e-government.
This author also found that municipalities with council-manager forms of government made
more advances in e-government. However, there were also barriers, which included financial
capacities, legal issues concerning privacy, and the lack of technical personnel. Moon
concluded that most municipalities were only in early stages of e-government, not yet
utilizing e-government for participatory politics and not yet reaping the benefits of the lower
costs and efficiency from economies of scales.31
Edmiston extends the analysis of Moon by examining both city and county e-government
in the United States.32 An examination of the 2000 survey evidence from the National
Association of Counties33 and ICMA found that most chief information officers believe that
the e-government sites that are in place have helped improve service delivery in addition to
expanding access. It has also improved access to government officials since people can now
find out more about their representatives through a Web site and can even contact government
officials through e-mail. One of the most pressing issues that Edmiston discusses is the digital
divide.34 Although e-government has expanded access, there are certain racial groups that are
still left out.35 There are also legal issues concerning privacy. In addition, funding is always
an issue because e-government cannot expand without adequate funds.36
In another country study, Deakins and Dillon in a mail survey of local authorities e-
government in New Zealand delve into sixteen issues previously identified as being critical
for successful e-government initiatives.37 Their survey had a response rate of forty-nine out of
the eighty-nine local and regional authorities they contacted. At the time of the survey in
2001, thirty-four out of forty-nine local authorities had live Web sites, four had Web sites
currently under development, while the remaining eleven did not have an Internet presence.
The most commonly reported reasons for wishing to have a Web presence was making
information more accessible to local citizens as reported by 37 percent of respondents (i.e.,
Stage I of e-government growth).
The results of the existing content and survey literature of local e-government indicated
limited development past the initial stages of cataloging information on the Web. In this
study, we focus on a two-stage model of e-government growth that has not been examined in
the literature. We are especially interested in the extent of development of e-government
relationships in the transaction phase. The database and methods used to examine these
relationships are briefly outlined in the following section.
58 C.G. Reddick / Government Information Quarterly 21 (2004) 51–64

4. Database and methods

The ICMA Electronic Government Survey 2002 was sent in the spring of that year to the
chief administrative officers in municipalities with populations 2,500 and over and to the
chief administrative officers of counties with populations 2,500 and over with the council-
administrator or council-elected executive forms of government.38 This is different from the
previous 2000 ICMA survey, which surveyed e-government in cities with populations greater
than 10,000.39 Of the 7,005 municipalities and 839 counties that received surveys, 3,700
cities responded (52.8 percent) and 423 counties responded (50.4 percent). In total, of the
7,844 municipalities and counties that received surveys, 4,123 responded (52.6 percent). This
is a similar response rate to the 2000 ICMA survey of cities at 51 percent.
In this article, we concentrate on cities in the examination of the stages of e-government
growth. The average population of the cities that responded to the survey was small, at around
10,000 to 24,999. This is different from the bulk of literature on computer adoption, for
instance, which is based on large municipalities.40 The costs of developing and maintaining a
Web site are relatively fixed. A determinant of supply will be population size, because the
larger the number of residents, the lower will be the average cost per user.41 Therefore, this
research also sought to determine whether municipal size makes a difference in e-government
growth. In addition, there was on average, the dominance in the survey responses of the
mayor-council and council-manager forms of government. Research demonstrates that cities
with a professional manager in the council-manager form of government are more likely to
adopt information technology innovations.42 There was also a higher percentage of cities that
responded in suburban areas in the north central part of the United States; therefore, regional
variations may have an impact on e-government growth as well.43
The methods that we used examine frequencies of occurrence of the two-stage model in the
different types of governmental relationships (Table 1). SPSS version 11.5 was used to
produce the descriptive statistics. The results should be viewed with caution since many of
the cities that responded were smaller and in the north central part of the country. However,
these differences make this study unique compared to existing work. The frequencies of
occurrence of e-government growth are presented in the following section.

5. Results

The results of the ICMA 2002 electronic government survey revealed that almost 76
percent of cities that responded had a Web site and are, therefore, in Stage I of e-government
growth (Table 2).44 Of the cities that responded ‘‘no’’ to having a government Web site, 61

Table 2
Stage I of e-government growth, overview of responses
Question Frequency (total responses) Percent of cities
Does your local government have a Web site? 1838 (2425) 75.8
If ‘‘no,’’ do you plan to create a Web site in the next year? 359 (587) 61.2
 C.G. Reddick / Government Information Quarterly 21 (2004) 51–64 59

percent planned to create a Web site in 2003. Therefore, most of the cities in 2002 were at
least in Stage I of cataloguing information online. However, there is some room for
improvement since around 24 percent of the cities surveyed did not have a Web presence
in 2002.
The study also examined the presence of Stage II of e-government growth and the G2C
relationship (Table 3). Cities have shown some movement toward the transactional phase. In
terms of frequency of occurrence, current use of online payment of taxes represented only 41
out of 1,719 respondents, a meager 2.4 percent of cities. However, in G2C service areas, such
as online requests for local government records, current use was 28 percent and online
requests for services, such as pothole repairs, was also fairly high at 32 percent. The highest
occurrence of transaction-based services were forms that can be downloaded for manual
completion, such as building permits, at 56 percent and online communication with
individual elected and appointed officials at 72 percent of respondents. With a few
exceptions, such as forms to be downloaded and communication to politicians, there seems
to be only modest progress toward the transaction stage of e-government.
The G2B procurement relationship is represented by Stages I and II of e-government
growth in Table 4. For example, in Stage I, 238 out of 1,578 (or 15.1 percent) cities had the
ability to review property and/or liability insurance online. In addition, in Stage I, the highest
G2B use was online review of equipment at 68.9 percent, and office supplies was high for
online review at 67.9 percent.

Table 3
Stage II e-government growth and G2C relationship model
Service Frequency Percent
(total response) of cities
Online payment of taxes 41 (1719) 2.4
Online payment of utility bills 89 (1738) 5.1
Online payment of fines/fees 70 (1736) 4.0
Online completion and submission of permit 167 (1748) 9.6
applications
Online completion and submission of business 95 (1731) 5.5
license applications/renewals
Online requests for local government records 491 (1756) 28.0
Online delivery of local governments records to 307 (1727) 17.8
the requestor
Online requests for services, such as pothole repair 564 (1747) 32.3
Online registration for use of recreational facilities, 242 (1728) 14.0
such as reserving picnic areas, racquetball courts,
and classes
Online voter registration 26 (1659) 1.6
Online property registration, such as animal, bicycle 29 (1340) 2.2
registration
Forms that can be downloaded for manual completion 880 (1562) 56.3
(e.g., voter registration, building permits, etc.)
Online communication with individual elected and 1182 (1634) 72.3
appointed officials
60 C.G. Reddick / Government Information Quarterly 21 (2004) 51–64

Table 4
Government two business (G2B) procurement relationship and Stages I and II of e-government growth
Service Frequency Percent
(total responses) of cities
Stage I
Review product offerings online for property and/or liability insurance 238 (1578) 15.1
Review product offerings online for equipment 1152 (1672) 68.9
Review produce offerings online for office supplies 1136 (1673) 67.9

Stage II
Make purchase online for property and/or liability insurance 33 (1412) 2.3
Make purchase online for equipment 718 (1574) 45.6
Make purchase online for office supplies 858 (1599) 53.7

Stage II G2B relationship shows modest progress with only 2.3 percent of cities taking part
in online procurement of property and/or liability insurance (Table 4). The number of cities
jumps when it comes to purchasing office supplies online and purchasing equipment online to
53.7 and 46 percent, respectively. The message here is that purchasing equipment and office
supplies online is much more advanced than the previously mentioned G2C relationships.
The last e-government relationship examined was the G2G, which is in Stages I and II of
the growth model (Table 5). The question asked was ‘‘Does your local government have an
Intranet (or Web server accessible only to local government employees)?’’ There were 790
cities out of 1,806 (or 43.7 percent) that responded positively to this question. Those that
answered ‘‘yes’’ were then asked a follow up question about how they currently used their
Intranet. Not surprisingly, the majority of the cites surveyed were in Stage I, with almost 76
percent using their Intranet to provide news and information for government employees,
almost 62 percent used the Intranet to publish documents and manuals online, and 53.4
percent used the Intranet to post internal job openings. However, when it comes to Stage II,

Table 5
Stages I and II of e-government growth and G2G relationship (Intranet use only)
Intranet service Frequency Percent
(total responses) of cities
Stage I
Provide news and information 586 (772) 75.9
Publish documents and manuals online to reduce printing costs 472 (763) 61.9
Post job openings for internal recruitments 406 (761) 53.4
Provide employees benefit forms 256 (758) 33.8

Stage II
Provide online report generation 284 (755) 37.6
Provide online procurement tools 178 (741) 24.0
Enable project teams to collaborate 294 (740) 39.7
Expand telecommuting staff access to information and data 140 (332) 42.2
Provide online training 190 (733) 25.9
 C.G. Reddick / Government Information Quarterly 21 (2004) 51–64 61

the evidence is very modest. For instance, the highest responses were to expand tele-
commuting staff access to information and data at 42.2 percent and to enable project teams to
collaborate at almost 40 percent. Compared to Stage I, there is less advancement toward Stage
II in the G2G relationship. The following section provides a discussion of the current stage of
maturity of e-government and prospects for the future area development.

6. Conclusion

This article has examined a two-stage and three different governmental relationship models
of e-government growth. The G2C relationship shows that e-government is primarily in Stage
I cataloging information, in essence, providing an online presence for cities. E-government is
more developed when it comes to G2G use of Intranets for government employees. However,
the most advancement has occurred in G2B in the online procurement of office supplies and
equipment. There is, however, further room for improvement in this category.
Electronic procurement yields three types of efficiency benefits: operational savings from
using digital instead of traditional manual operations; higher efficiency of the procurement
process itself; and improvements in the transparency of government procurement markets and
their processes.45 For instance, costs from manually processing a purchase order can range
from $125 to $175. E-procurement can reduce those costs by $10 to $15 by eliminating faxes,
phone calls, document preparation, and approvals.46
One drawback to this study is the linear view of e-government growth. The growth of e-
government could also be S-shaped.47 In this theory, initial innovation benefits, such as the
Internet, are persuaded by early adopters on others. This typically creates an exponential
growth in the adoption and usage of the innovation. Growth will eventually decline as the
number of potential users declines. This diffusion pattern creates the nonlinear S-shaped
curve because of this oscillation pattern of growth and decline. This is a very similar pattern
to an economic business cycle. Therefore, according to this theory, we should not expect
rapid growth into the transactional phase of e-government at present. The future should hold
more promise with the wider adoption of broadband technology.
The results, in general, support the notion that e-government has not revolutionized the
way government functions. However, there is room for optimism since some areas have
demonstrated greater strides than other areas. The Council for Excellence in Government
reports that Americans are ready for using e-government to conduct online transactions
(and two-thirds of Americans are indeed online).48 The demand for e-government
transactions is there but most likely the greater issue for government is inadequate
supply of technology because of the current fiscal crisis that state and local governments
are facing.
However, compared to other new communication and information technologies, the rate of
technological diffusion of the Internet is quite rapid. For example, over three years after the
World Wide Web was launched with the introduction of Mosaic, 25.8 percent of California
cities had Web sites, and increased to 46.3 percent after four years. By contrast, cable
television systems were developed in the early 1950s, yet less than ten years later in 1965
62 C.G. Reddick / Government Information Quarterly 21 (2004) 51–64

only 1,325 systems had been constructed, representing less than 15 percent of communities
that would have cable by 1990.49
Future studies might want to systematically test the relationship between e-government and
other social, political, and economic variables. For instance, do resource constraints inhibit e-
government growth? Is there more effective implementation of e-government in council-
manager forms of government when compared to mayor-council governments? How much of
an impact does demographic changes have on e-government growth? Many interesting
questions remain to be investigated in further work on e-government development at the
municipal level.

Notes and References

1. Council for Excellence in Government (2003). The New E-Government Equation: Ease,
Engagement, Privacy and Protection. Washington, DC: Prepared by Hart–Teeter for the
Council for Excellence in Government.
2. International City/County Management Association (ICMA) (2002). Electronic govern-
ment. Washington, DC: Author.
3. Doty, P., & Erdelez, S. (2002). Information micro-practices in Texas rural courts: Methods
and issues for e-government. Government Information Quarterly, 19(2), 369–387.
4. Ibid., 3.
5. Ibid., 2.
6. Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully function e-government: A four stage
model. Government Information Quarterly, 18(1), 122–136.
7. General Services Administration, Intergovernmental Advisory Board (1999). Integrated
Service Delivery: Governments using Technology to Serve the Citizen. Washington, DC:
General Services Administration Office of Intergovernmental Solutions;
Ibid., 2;
Moon M. J. (2002). The evolution of e-Government among municipalities: Rhetoric or
reality? Public Administration Review, 62(4), 424–433.
8. Musso, J., Weare, C., & Hale, M. (2000). Designing web technologies for local gover-
nance reform: Good management, or good democracy? Political Communication, 17,
1–19.
9. Ibid., 3.
10. Fountain, J. E., & Osorio-Urzua, C. A. (2001). Public sector: Early stage of a deep
transformation. In R. E. Litan, & A. M. Rivlin (Eds.), The Economic Payoff from
the Internet Revolution. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
11. Ibid., 6.
12. Hiller, J. S., & Belanger, F. (2001). In M. A. Abramson, & G. E. Means (Eds.), Privacy
strategies for electronic government, in e-government 2001. Oxford: Rowman and
Littlefield Publishers.
13. Ibid., 6
14. Ibid., 12.
 C.G. Reddick / Government Information Quarterly 21 (2004) 51–64 63

15. Stowers, G. (1999). Become cyberactive: State and local governments on the World Wide
Web. Government Information Quarterly, 16(2), 111–127.
16. West, D. M. (2001). Urban e-government: An assessment of city government web sites.
Providence, RI: Taubman Center for Public Policy, Brown University;
West, D. M. (2002). Urban e-government, 2002. Rhode Island: Center for Public Policy,
Brown University.
17. Kaylor, C., Deshazo, R., & Van Eck, D. (2001). Gauging e-government: A report on
implementing services among American cities. Government Information Quarterly,
18(2), 293–307.
18. Ibid., 16.
19. Criado, J. I., & Ramilo, M. C. (2003). E-government in practice: An analysis of web site
orientation to the citizens in Spanish municipalities. The International Journal of Public
Sector Management, 16(3), 191–218.
20. Ho, A. T. -K. (2002). Reinventing local governments and the e-government initiative.
Public Administration Review, 62(4), 434–444.
21. Ibid., 6.
22. Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional
change. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
23. Ibid., 7. Moon.
24. Thomas, J. C., & Streib, G. (2003). The new face of government: Citizen-initiated con-
tacts in the era of e-government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
13(1), 83–102.
25. McNeal, R. S., Tolbert, C. J., Mossberger, K., & Dotterweich, L. J. (2003). Innovating in
digital government in the American States. Social Science Quarterly, 84(1), 52–70.
26. West, D. M. (2000). Assessing e-government: The internet, democracy, and service
delivery by state and federal governments. Providence, RI: Taubman Center for Public
Policy, Brown University.
27. Aldrich, D., Bertot, J. C., & McClure, C. R. (2002). E-government: Initiatives, develop-
ments, and issues. Government Information Quarterly, 19, 349–355.
28. Ibid., 20.
29. Ibid., 7. Moon.
30. Ibid., 12.
31. Ibid., 10.
32. Edmiston, K. D. (2002). State and local e-government: Prospects and challenges. Amer-
ican Review of Public Administration, 33(1), 20–45.
33. National Association of Counties (NACo) (2000). 2000 E-government survey. Washing-
ton, DC: Author.
34. Ibid., 32.
35. Ibid., 24.
36. Ibid., 27.
37. Deakins, E., & Dillon, S. M. (2002). E-government in New Zealand: The local authority
perspective. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 15(5), 375–398.
38. Ibid., 2.
64 C.G. Reddick / Government Information Quarterly 21 (2004) 51–64

39. International City/County Management Association (ICMA) (2000). Electronic govern-

ment 2000. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association and
Public Technology.
40. Brudney, J. L., & Seiden, S. C. (1995). The adoption of innovation by smaller local
governments: The case of computer technology. American Review of Public Administra-
tion, 25(1), 71–86.
41. Weare, C., Musso, J. A., & Hale, M. L. (1999). Electronic democracy and the diffusion of
municipal web pages in California. Administration and Society, 31(1), 3–27.
42. Ibid., 40.
43. Ibid., 7. Moon.
44. Ibid., 2.
45. Ibid., 10.
46. Gansler, J. S., Lucyshyn, W., & Ross, K. M. (2003). Digitally integrating the government
supply chain: E-procurement, e-finance, and e-logistics. Arlington, VA: IBM Endowment
for the Business of Government.
47. Ibid., 15.
48. Ibid., 1.
49. Ibid., 41.