See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/371221674

Vision and reality of e-government for governance improvement: Evidence

from global cross-country panel data

Article · June 2023

DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122667

CITATION READS

1 47

5 authors, including:

Qi Zou Zijun Mao

Huazhong University of Science and Technology Huazhong University of Science and Technology
9 PUBLICATIONS 65 CITATIONS 15 PUBLICATIONS 346 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Qi Zou on 02 June 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122667

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

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

Vision and reality of e-government for governance improvement: Evidence

from global cross-country panel data
Qi Zou a, b, Zijun Mao a, b, *, Rongxiao Yan a, b, Shuai Liu c, Zheng Duan b, d
a
College of Public Administration, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei 430074, China
b
Non-traditional Security Research Center, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei 430074, China
c
Institute of Public Safety Research, Department of Engineering Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
d
School of Mechanical Science & Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei 430074, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Leveraging e-government development to improve all aspects of governance has become a shared vision of
E-government governments in the digital age. However, the internal mechanism for e-government development to promote
Governance improvement governance is ambiguous, and the extent to which e-government affects governance remains uncertain. Drawing
Public value
on public value theory, this study analyzes the internal mechanism behind global e-government promoting
Global
governance improvement. To determine the realistic effects of e-government in governance improvement,
empirical test included 170 countries and covered observations from 2010 to 2018. Results of the linear panel
data analysis showed that the development of e-government promoted governance improvement as a whole.
Specifically, the effects of e-government on different dimensions of governance were heterogeneous: E-govern­
ment performs strong positive effects on the four governance dimensions of voice and accountability, govern­
ment effectiveness, regulatory quality and rule of law, but relatively weak effects on political stability and
absence of violence/terrorism and the control of corruption. These results indicate a certain gap remains between
the vision and the reality of using e-government to comprehensively improve governance. This study provided
insights into the future trends and priorities of global e-government.

1. Introduction to provide public services (Cordella and Tempini, 2015).

Since the beginning of the 21st century, the traditional governance
that emphasizes “departmentalization, specialization, standardization,
and routing” is dissolving (Sheryazdanova and Butterfield, 2017), and
the governance concept of reintegration, public participation, demand-
based holism, and digitization has become the key to the transition from
a control-oriented government to a service-oriented government (Dun­
leavy, 2005; Fishenden and Thompson, 2013; Margetts and Dunleavy,
2013). In the process, more integration has fostered the need to produce
and exchange information among citizens, between citizens and public
administration, and between different branches of public administration
However, with the explosion of digital technology and information
throughout society, these transformations have left bureaucracies with
information overload, challenging traditional concepts of governance
including, but not limited to, administration, management, organiza­
tion, accountability, and participation (Cordella and Tempini, 2015).
Information and communication technology (ICT) promises to help
public administration systems meet this challenge more comfortably.
Particularly, ICT helps transform public service delivery from offline to
online, and e-government platforms have become a new bridge con­
necting the government and citizens (Chan et al., 2021).
In this context, consensus exists on the concept of e-government, that

Abbreviations: ICT, information and communication technology; COVID-19, Corona Virus Disease-19; OPEN, Online Procedures Enhancement for civil applica­
tions; FE, Fixed-effects; RE, Random-effects; EGDI, E-Government Development Index; UN, United Nations; WGI, Worldwide Governance Indicators; GDP, Gross
Domestic Product; FGLS, feasible generalized least squares; BG, between-group; WG, within-group; VIF, variance inflation factor; OLS, ordinary least squares; GLS,
generalized least squares.
* Corresponding author at: No 1037 Luoyu Road, Hongshan District, College of Public Administration, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan,
Hubei 430074, China.
E-mail addresses: qizou@hust.edu.cn (Q. Zou), maozijun@hust.edu.cn (Z. Mao), yanrx@hust.edu.cn (R. Yan), liushuai0029@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn (S. Liu),
duanzheng@hust.edu.cn (Z. Duan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122667
Received 19 March 2022; Received in revised form 22 February 2023; Accepted 24 May 2023
0040-1625/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Q. Zou et al.
is, to use the opportunities brought by ICT to provide various govern­
ment services to the public and to improve the structure and operation of
the government (Maclean and Titah, 2021; Mas and Gómez, 2021;
Twizeyimana and Andersson, 2019). In the past decade, with the
explosive innovation of new-generation ICT, such as big data, cloud
computing, artificial intelligence, and the Internet of Things, which have
been widely adopted in the public sector, e-government has changed
from the simplest automated office system to a complex system that
promotes intelligent decision making, reintegration of organizations and
governance transformation (Meijer et al., 2021; Norris, 2010; Young
et al., 2019). E-government creates new opportunities for government
change and holistic governance, delivering public services and infor­
mation to stakeholders with greater quality, accountability and effi­
ciency, and improving relationships between social actors (Gao et al.,
2013; Gil-Garcia et al., 2018; Mas and Gómez, 2021; Norris, 2010;
Twizeyimana and Andersson, 2019). E-government development covers
the transformation of the government at the technical and organiza­
tional levels, that is, e-government not only focuses on the government’s
adoption of ICT to improve government business processes, but also
focuses on taking advantage of the opportunities of digital trans­
formation to reform outdated bureaucratic habits and reintegrate gov­
ernment agencies to meet the public service needs of the people in a
more holistic, agile, and adaptive manner (Dunleavy, 2005; Kaufmann
et al., 2010; Mao et al., 2021a, 2021b; Margetts and Dunleavy, 2013;
Norris, 2010).
Further, e-government is converging with bureaucracy as it enables
new forms of participation (Schuppan, 2009). Traditional public
administration system has information monopoly and hierarchical sys­
tem within the government, and the introduction of e-government is to
create an environment for the two-way flow of information between the
public sector and social actors to reduce the traditional hierarchical
system caused by information monopoly in government practice (Pan­
agiotopoulos et al., 2019).
Although the positive role of e-government in governance improve­
ment has been confirmed, previous studies on how e-government can
promote governance have produced ambiguous findings and show some
limitations. First, these studies have mainly focused on the impact of e-
government on specific areas of governance, such as government oper­
ational efficiency (Panagiotopoulos et al., 2019), public service delivery
(Sharma et al., 2021), and transparency (Asher et al., 2019; Halachmi
and Greiling, 2013; Jun et al., 2014; Malodia et al., 2021), yet did not
comprehensively discuss the internal mechanism behind e-government
promoting governance improvements, and what specific dimensions of
governance can be improved. Second, empirical studies are mainly
based on cross-sectional analysis (Durkiewicz and Janowski, 2018; Nam,
2019), and ignore time effects, thereby making it difficult to eliminate
the interference of potential factors. Over the past decade, the applica­
tion scenarios and maturity of modern digital technologies, such as
artificial intelligence, big data, Internet of Things, and blockchain, have
developed by leaps and bounds, thereby triggering massive changes in
the functions and roles of e-government. However, if the time effect is
ignored, the real impact of e-government on governance cannot be
easily captured. Third, previous studies have generally regarded e-
government as a technological tool to improve efficiency yet ignored its
far-reaching impact on the concept, organization, and paradigm of
governance.
To solve these research gaps, this paper first starts from public value
theory and explores the value positioning of e-government in promoting
good governance in the digital age to provide a theoretical basis for
governance innovation in the digital age. Second, this paper compre­
hensively examines how e-government is deeply integrated with the
bureaucratic system from all aspects of governance and sorts out the
vision, path, and theoretical explanation of e-government to promote
governance improvement. This will help theoretically explain how
countries can utilize e-government opportunities to adjust the rela­
tionship between government, society, and citizens to adapt to the
2
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122667
ubiquitous digital transformation and the further rise of civil political
rights, such as democracy, participation, and consultation. Finally, we
used panel data from 2010 to 2018 for 170 countries to examine which
aspects of governance, were improved by global e-government practices
and to what extent. This will help provide evidence-based decision
making for the adjustment and further development of global e-gov­
ernment strategies.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews the
related literature. Section 3 clarifies the internal mechanism and pro­
vides a theoretical explanation of e-government promoting governance
improvement as well as introduces the research hypotheses. Section 4
presents the data sources and econometric models. Section 5 presents
the empirical results. Section 6 outlines the discussion, conclusions, and
policy implications. Section 7 highlights the limitations of this work and
proposes some directions for future research.
2. Literature review and research questions
Several studies have analyzed and evaluated the impact of e-gov­
ernment on governance but faced numerous limitations. First, from the
perspective of research areas, these studies have mainly analyzed the
positive impact of e-government on specific areas of governance, mainly
including government operation efficiency (Gable, 2015), public service
delivery (Chan et al., 2021; Sharma et al., 2021; West, 2004), trans­
parency (Asher et al., 2019; Halachmi and Greiling, 2013; Jun et al.,
2014; Malodia et al., 2021), public engagement (Khan and Krishnan,
2021a; Malodia et al., 2021), government organization transformation
(Gao et al., 2013; Nograšek and Vintar, 2014), and public crisis response
(Janssen and van der Voort, 2020; Mao et al., 2021a, 2021b). These
studies have also mainly adopted qualitative methods, such as literature
reviews and case analyses, to explore the application scenarios of e-
government in specific subdivisions of governance.
Second, the existing relevant empirical studies mainly focused on
specific regions, and little evidence exists from global cross-country. For
example, Dhaoui (2021) found that e-government is positively corre­
lated with control of corruption and government effectiveness in the
Middle East and North Africa. A cross-sectional study by Deng et al.
(2018) showed that e-government in developing countries plays a pos­
itive role in enhancing governance performance, including the quality of
public service delivery, public organization efficiency, and social
effectiveness. E-government development must be embedded in cultural
contexts from different countries, and relevant research must extract
experience and evidence that can withstand scrutiny (Ingrams et al.,
2020). From the perspective of the underlying logic and technology, e-
government is built on the Internet-based global network, which en­
courages changes in the global model (Ingrams et al., 2020). However,
too many current regional studies are difficult to fully explain and verify
the universal law that e-government promotes governance improvement
on a global scale.
Third, previous empirical studies are mainly cross-sectional in nature
and thus ignore time effects. For example, Nam (2019) used cross-
country data in 2016 to verify that e-government improves govern­
ment efficiency. Durkiewicz and Janowski (2018) used 2016 cross-
country data to verify that e-government is positively correlated with
government efficiency and public participation. However, these studies
are unable to easily eliminate the bias generated by time effects and
latent variables (Das et al., 2017; Durkiewicz and Janowski, 2018).
Fourth, previous studies ignored the large-scale applications of new
generation ICT, such as big data, cloud computing, artificial intelligence,
and IoT in the public sector over the past decade (Adam, 2020). These
technologies penetrate into the government and make it smarter and
lead to a deeper and broader transformation of the bureaucracy, a
typical example being “smart government”, “smart society”, “smart
city”, and “urban brain” have been widely deployed worldwide over the
past decade. The widespread use of new technologies means that e-
government has wider application scenarios, more powerful functions,
Q. Zou et al.
higher levels of intelligence, and higher citizen adoption, thereby
boosting the comprehensiveness of its impact. Therefore, this study
empirically analyzes global cross-country panel data to explain temporal
and regional factors and to provide additional evidence on how e-gov­
ernment can be used to improve governance.
Finally, technocraticism prevails in the research and practice of e-
government, and many e-government related studies were based on the
premise that the development of ICT in the public sector should natu­
rally improve the governance capacity of the government. However, this
premise appears tenuous, and the literature suggests that the use of ICT
does not automatically foster greater participation, nor does it lead to
good governance (Bertot et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2009; Lindquist and
Huse, 2017; Norris, 2010). The reason is because e-government for
governance depends not only on technology and information infra­
structure, but also on the convergence between technological, bureau­
cratic, and political systems (Stratu-Strelet et al., 2021).
The over-prevalence of technocratic over-emphasis on technological
change largely ignored the simultaneous organizational and adminis­
trative changes in governance practice (Norris, 2010). And the over-
prevalence has brought many negative impacts on e-government prac­
tice, mainly reflected in the fact that e-government projects consume
considerable resources but cannot always achieve their goals, such as
low success rate of government ICT investment, difficulty in optimizing
public service provision, insufficient interaction between government
and the public, digital divide not fundamentally improved (Khan and
Krishnan, 2021a). The negative consequence in academia is that e-
government research is more or less marginalized in public adminis­
tration research, occupying to some extent a “ghetto” position, reflecting
a lack of comprehensive consideration of the role of technological
change in public administration (Buffat, 2015). Therefore, the theoret­
ical analysis of comprehensively examining the path of e-government to
promote governance improvement from the technical and organiza­
tional levels is imminent.
Based on the above analysis, the research questions are broken down
into three aspects. First, what are the paths and their theoretical ex­
planations for e-government to promote governance improvement?
Second, which aspects of governance does e-government positively
affect? Third, is there heterogeneity in the effects of e-government on
different dimensions of governance? To answer these questions, this
study explored the path and theoretical explanation for the development
of e-government to promote good governance, verifies the real impact of
e-government on governance since 2010, and pays more attention to all
the dimensions of governance and global universal law.
3. Theoretical basis and hypotheses development
3.1. E-government for good governance from the public value theory
perspective
Public value theory has attracted research attention for its powerful
proposition that shifts the focus of public sector management from in­
ternal efficiency to the value creation process that occurs outside the
organization (Panagiotopoulos et al., 2019). Based on this theory, the
value that e-government should generate can be summarized as
improved public services, improved administration, and improved so­
cial value (Twizeyimana and Andersson, 2019). Public value theory
provides new insights into the use of e-government to improve gover­
nance performance, that is, to meet citizens’ expectations by imple­
menting e-government to improve government efficiency and provide
quality public services (Deng et al., 2018). The utilization of e-govern­
ment to enhance the public value of governance is also reflected in the
co-creation of government and the public: co-creation empowers citi­
zens by enabling them to participate in meaningful and valuable public
service design and policy decisions (Khan and Krishnan, 2021a).
Further, the application prospect of public value theory in e-gov­
ernment shows that the digital transformation of the government is not
3
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122667
only in terms of technology, but more importantly, it should be used as a
part of the country’s overall development plan and strategy to carry out
public governance transformation and innovation (United Nations,
2020). Therefore, the development of e-government should proceed
from a holistic approach, be driven by public values, and achieve
institutionalization at all levels of government and society, which will
fundamentally change the thinking mode of government employees and
the way of cooperation in the public sector (Jun et al., 2014; Nograšek
and Vintar, 2014). E-government is not only a new opportunity for the
transformation and efficiency improvement of internal government
agencies but also an important means to create public value for the so­
ciety and the public.
Public value theory provides useful insights into the mechanisms by
which e-government promotes governance improvement. First, the
development of e-government not only needs to focus on administrative
value or improving government efficiency but also needs to focus on
public interests and social value. Second, e-government needs to trans­
form the traditional mode of government monopoly on information,
promote the flow of political, governance, policy, and decision-making
information among the government, the public, and other social actors
and improve public participation, transparency, and accountability.
Third, e-government plays a key role in the transition of the government
from a “control-oriented government” to a “service-oriented govern­
ment”, thus helping the government provide more high-quality, accu­
rate, accessible, equitable, and affordable public services. Fourth, e-
government uses information infrastructure and ICT to embed laws and
rules into the business or law enforcement processes of the public sector
to improve the rule of law.
To further refine the role of e-government in improving governance
from the perspective of public value theory, we draw on the World
Bank’s definition of governance and identify the dimensions of gover­
nance and their definitions. Governance is defined as “a country’s
tradition and system of exercising power” (Das et al., 2017; Kaufmann
et al., 2010) and includes 1) the process of selecting, monitoring, and
replacing governments; 2) the ability of governments to effectively
formulate and implement sound policies; and 3) respect for citizens and
the state for the institutions that govern economic and social in­
teractions among them (Kaufmann et al., 2010). The six dimensions of
governance are: voice and accountability, political stability and absence
of violence or terrorism, government effectiveness, regulatory quality,
rule of law, and control of corruption (Das et al., 2017; Kaufmann et al.,
2010). The definitions of these governance fields and dimensions are
shown in Table 1.
As mentioned above, the public value of e-government in governance
covers the improvement of public services, administration, and social
value. The World Bank’s definition of governance has a high degree of
conformity with the content of public value theory. Therefore, from the
public value theory perspective, this section adopts the governance
definition of the World Bank and uses the existing authoritative litera­
ture to theoretically explain the influence mechanism of e-government
on different dimensions of governance. This approach aims to draw a
vision of e-government for comprehensive governance improvement.
3.2. E-government promotes voice and accountability improvement
Modern governance pays increasing attention to voice and
accountability. The core of voice and accountability is that citizens can
participate in the selection of governments and their decisions (Das
et al., 2017; Kaufmann et al., 2010), and that citizens have the inherent
right to participate in the formulation and implementation of public
policies (Roberts, 2004; Stratu-Strelet et al., 2021). Ubiquitous digita­
lization provides ample online channels that allow citizens to participate
in selecting their governments and secure their right to freedom of
expression, freedom of association, and a free media (Kock and Gaskins,
2014). These include, but are not limited to, greater citizen participation
in political activities and government actions, more online monitoring,
Q. Zou et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122667

Table 1 of e-participation on voice and accountability is not significant. Mean­

Composition and definition of governance from the World Bank. while, Lindquist and Huse (2017), Waheduzzaman and Khandaker
Field Dimension Definition (2022) highlighted that e-government may increase government control
over the public rather than enhance discourse and accountability and
Capturing perceptions of the
extent to which a country’s called for more theoretical, practical, and empirical evidence to deter­
citizens are able to mine whether and how e-government can enhance voice and
Voice and participate in selecting their accountability.
accountability government, as well as From the perspective of the internal mechanism of e-government
freedom of expression,
The process by which freedom of association, and a
promoting voice and accountability, the integration of ICTs into
governments are free media. bureaucratic and political systems is often described as a positive sig­
selected, monitored, and Capturing perceptions of the nificance by enhancing the political influence of citizens and creating a
replaced. likelihood that the more participatory capacity (Andersen et al., 2010; Stratu-Strelet et al.,
government will be
Political stability 2021). E-government provides easier access to more and better infor­
destabilized or overthrown
and absence of
by unconstitutional or mation on government activities and policies, increases citizen partici­
violence or terrorism pation and consultation in policy processes to improves
violent means, including
politically-motivated government–citizen relations, and increases the efficiency, fairness, and
violence and terrorism. quality of communication and participation (Halachmi and Greiling,
Capturing perceptions of the
quality of public services, the
2013; Leroux et al., 2020; Maclean and Titah, 2021; Sæbø et al., 2008;
quality of the civil service Stratu-Strelet et al., 2021). For the less fortunate and isolated members
and the degree of its of society, e-government development can help overcome geographic,
Government
independence from political institutional, and social barriers and give marginalized groups a voice in
pressures, the quality of
effectiveness the political arena (Gulati et al., 2014).
policy formulation and
The capacity of the
implementation, and the Improving government transparency and accountability is another
government to crucial aspect of e-government. E-government provides opportunities
credibility of the
effectively formulate
and implement sound
government’s commitment for citizens to access government information anytime and anywhere,
to such policies. which in turn increases transparency and accountability (López-López
policies.
Capturing perceptions of the
et al., 2018). Citizens can also learn about the rules of government
ability of the government to
formulate and implement compliance or public service applications and how to handle their
Regulatory quality sound policies and complaints through the government online service platform (Kim et al.,
regulations that permit and 2009). In addition, bureaucracies use e-government to improve the
promote private sector
availability of information and services to citizens and facilitate their
development.
Capturing perceptions of the communication with other social actors (Gulati et al., 2014; Tolbert
extent to which agents have et al., 2008). The development of e-government can also leverage digital
confidence in and abide by platforms to innovate forms of engagement and consultation to intensify
the rules of society, and in the transparency, accountability, and responsivity of public adminis­
particular the quality of
Rule of law trations (Schuppan, 2009). Many governments have become more
contract enforcement,
The respect of citizens and property rights, the police, “open” by publishing more public data and information to e-government
the state for the and the courts, as well as the platforms (Lindquist and Huse, 2017). A typical example is that in many
institutions that govern likelihood of crime and countries, citizens participate in processes, such as making and tracking
economic and social violence.
land use plans or budget decisions through e-government platforms
interactions among Capturing perceptions of the
them. extent to which public power
(Schuppan, 2009).
is exercised for private gain, In terms of implementation paths, using e-government to increase
Control of including both petty and citizens’ political voice and participation: the first step is to ensure
corruption grand forms of corruption, as inclusiveness, the second step is to ensure the free availability of infor­
well as “capture” of the state
mation, and the third is to provide information through social media and
by elites and private
interests. government portals for citizens to participate in and influence the
decision-making process (Malodia et al., 2021). Similarly, the United
Source: Kaufmann D, Kraay A, Massimo, 2010. The Worldwide Governance In­
Nations believes that e-government can promote public participation in
dicators: A Summary of Methodology, Data and Analytical Issues. World Bank
political activities through three ways. First, information provision,
Policy Research Working Paper 1(5430):1–28. http://papers.ssrn.
com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1682130. which means the government provides information to the public. Sec­
ond, consultation, which indicates that the government provides advice
and feedback to the public on policies or services provided at different
petitions and consultations, greater transparency, greater account­
stages. Third, decision making, where the government engages the
ability, and online voting (López-López et al., 2018; Twizeyimana and
public in the decision making United (United Nations, 2020).
Andersson, 2019).
E-voting and e-petitions are among the best practices for civic
Several studies have analyzed the role of e-government in promoting
empowerment and public engagement in e-government. Information
voice and accountability. For instance, Leroux et al. (2020) empirically
asymmetry is an established cause of low vote rate, whereby citizens
analyzed 49 states in the United States and found that by providing
often have difficulty accessing election information, such as location,
online election information through government portals and social
time, candidates, and processes to vote. E-government providing online
media, e-government can increase voter turnout in a low-cost way. A
election information through government portals and social media may
citizen survey study by Amosun et al. (2021) showed that e-government
increase the likelihood of voting in a low-cost way (United Nations,
usage has a significant positive influence on the perception of citizens
2020). In an electronic petition system, citizens sign petitions online and
toward government transparency in China during the COVID-19 crisis.
a certain number of signatures may force the legislature to discuss the
Similar results were found in an empirical analysis from 78 cities in
topic, allowing citizens to directly influence the political agenda (Sæbø
Spain (López-López et al., 2018). However, a cross-sectional empirical
et al., 2008).
study by Waheduzzaman and Khandaker (2022) showed that the impact

4
Q. Zou et al.
Hypothesis 1. E-government development promotes the improvement
of voice and accountability.
3.3. E-government promotes political stability and absence of violence/
terrorism
The social value and well-being dimensions of e-government are
related to the ability to support governments to achieve better outcomes
in areas of political stability and absence of violence or terrorism, such
as peace, security, crime rates, and poverty reduction (Twizeyimana and
Andersson, 2019). However, only few studies have examined the impact
of e-government on political stability and absence of violence/terrorism,
and no empirical study has verified the association between the two.
Similar studies have mainly conducted case studies to analyze the pos­
itive effects of e-government in two aspects, namely, political stability
brought about by public trust (Ahn and Bretschneider, 2011; Chan et al.,
2021) and the prevention of violence and crime (Chang et al., 2018;
Meijer et al., 2021; Porumbescu, 2016).
Moreover, combining public value theory with the related literature
reveals that e-government promotes political stability and absence of
violence/terrorism through at least three paths. First, e-government
transforms bureaucracy from an authoritarian culture to a more citizen-
centric culture and alters public sector service performance, democratic
responsiveness, and citizen satisfaction with government in the long run,
ultimately increasing trust (Jun et al., 2014; Khan and Krishnan, 2021a;
Malodia et al., 2021; Porumbescu, 2016; Tolbert and Mossberger, 2006).
Citizens maintaining a high degree of trust in the bureaucracy and po­
litical system is the fundamental driving force for political stability, and
the benefits brought by e-government are expected to inject a steady
stream of impetus to maintain political stability in different countries
and regions (Topornin et al., 2021). For example, a study by World Bank
(2021) showed that e-government performance in the face of public
crises has greatly improved public perceptions of government,
including, but not limited to, monitoring public health events, managing
crisis response and resource allocation, ensuring road traffic security,
and monitoring illegal fishing and deforestation.
Second, acute danger situations such as mass violence and terrorist
attacks, often require the full panoply of governmental response rather
than just focusing on a single trigger point and demand sustained,
engaged information use by survivors (World Bank, 2021).The state and
public security departments can utilize surveillance systems to quickly
highlight public safety risks, thereby helping authorities comprehen­
sively prevent and respond to violence, crime, and terrorism (Kennedy
and Scholl, 2015). For individuals in society, police departments can use
policing systems to predict the time, location, and who will commit
crimes and provide online communication and rescue support for vic­
tims at risk of violence or in crisis (Meijer et al., 2021; Westbrook, 2008).
For example, a case study by Meijer et al. (2021) found that the Berlin
predictive policing system KrimPro and Amsterdam’s crime prediction
system are used to perform temporal-geographic analysis of crime pat­
terns, forecast areas with statistically higher crime rates, and form the
basis for early allocating police resources to high-risk areas.
Finally, the rapid development of ICTs and the ubiquity of the
Internet have made the Internet a breeding ground for crime and
terrorism, and governments must design and implement sufficiently
robust e-government strategies to address this public security risk. The
Internet provides terrorist organizations with a powerful instrument to
improve their public information, recruitment opportunities, and in­
ternal communications. Thus, countries must strengthen Internet
censorship and expand their ability to limit the spread of terrorist digital
information to respond to terrorist attacks. In this process, e-government
must use advanced network countermeasure technologies and tools to
conduct extensive and comprehensive filtering of websites involving
terrorism (Chang et al., 2018; Topornin et al., 2021). Saudi Arabia and
the United Arab Emirates, as countries most threatened by terrorism,
have actively deployed Internet infrastructure and have designed the
5
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122667
highest level of Internet censorship, becoming important weapons in
combating terrorism (Topornin et al., 2021). Another common Internet
crime is Internet fraud and telephony fraud, and e-government must
break new ground to support models for fraud detection in ICT appli­
cation services. Fraud detection systems have been developed by some
countries and have been used to monitor and analyze what happens
within and between accounts of suspicious users to identify fraudulent
behavior and target them with precision (Kennedy and Scholl, 2015;
Kim et al., 2013; Snellen, 2002).
Hypothesis 2. E-government development promotes political stability
and absence of violence or terrorism.
3.4. E-government promotes government effectiveness improvement
The emergence of e-government stems from the government’s failure
to fully respond to the growing needs of citizens. Improving government
efficiency is the starting point and focus of e-government development,
as well as the original driving force for the global spread of e-govern­
ment (Gable, 2015). In the early stage of development, e-government
was mainly used to increase productivity, reduce bureaucratic red tape,
simplify complex business processes, and ultimately reduce the cost of
government operations (Cordelia, 2007; Cordella and Tempini, 2015;
Das and Das, 2021; Halachmi and Greiling, 2013; Nam, 2019). Some
empirical studies have preliminarily verified the positive role of e-gov­
ernment in improving government effectiveness. For example, Nam
(2019), Chen and Aklikokou (2021) separately used cross-country data
in 2016 to verify that e-government has a significant positive impact on
government effectiveness. Durkiewicz and Janowski (2018) used 2016
cross-country data to verify the positive correlation between e-govern­
ment and government efficiency. However, these studies are all cross-
sectional in nature and lack sufficient impact mechanism analysis and
case support. Therefore, this study will sort out the mechanism by which
e-government promotes government effectiveness based on the existing
literature and further verify their association using cross-country data
from 2010 to 2018.
In terms of the mechanism for e-government to promote government
effectiveness, with the increasingly extensive integration of e-govern­
ment and bureaucracy, the mature e-government in recent years has
profoundly changed the logic of government operations. E-government
connects different public sectors, thus increasing the efficiency of the
flow of information between different government (Twizeyimana and
Andersson, 2019). This process facilitates new forms of network
collaboration between different public sectors to promote decentral­
ization (Schuppan, 2009). It means that new e-government solutions
that can facilitate policy implementation will increasingly shift to
decentralized units (Chen and Aklikokou, 2021; Schuppan, 2009). The
government’s balance between division of labor and integration has
always been a point of contradiction in traditional public management,
especially the bureaucracy and the new public management movement.
E-government is expected to maintain a good balance between network
collaboration and decentralization, which brings bright future in gov­
ernment efficiency improvement (Cordelia, 2007; Twizeyimana and
Andersson, 2019). This is conducive to maintaining systemic, sustain­
able, flexible, robust, lean, and agile whole-of-government operations
and more efficient management of public resources and the economy
(Twizeyimana and Andersson, 2019).
E-government’s transformation of government processes and provi­
sion of a good balance between online collaboration and decentraliza­
tion make it easier for citizens to access public services (Adam, 2020).
For example, underdeveloped and economically excluded groups often
face the dilemma of accessing basic public services. Thus, e-government
can bring public services and participation opportunities directly to
people in remote or impoverished communities so that they can access
public service digital kiosks in villages nearby, thereby increasing the
equity, accessibility, and efficiency of delivering essential public
Q. Zou et al.
services (Sharma et al., 2021).
Another excellent practice that e-government brings to government
efficiency is enhancing the government’s ability to respond to crises. In
the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, governments worldwide are using
e-government platforms to manage the crisis innovatively. The intelli­
gence of emergency decision making brought about by e-government
promotes the adaptability and agility of governance and enables other
social actors to participate in a coordinated manner, greatly improving
the effectiveness of the response to COVID-19 (Janssen and van der
Voort, 2020; United Nations, 2020). This process is particularly reflected
in the rapid and efficient collection, sharing, and dissemination of
epidemic data. Specific examples include the use of digital contact
tracing to locate people at risk of infection and the use of online service
platforms to provide public services, resource guarantee, and rescue for
residents in a state of social distancing (Janssen and van der Voort,
2020; Mao et al., 2021a, 2021b).
Hypothesis 3. E-government development promotes government
effectiveness.
3.5. E-government promotes regulatory quality improvement
In the context of globalization and digitization, the development and
transformation of ICTs has not only caused changes in societal needs but
also structural changes in the management activities of regulatory
agencies (Davidavičienė et al., 2018). However, balancing the activities
of regulators with the needs of society and businesses is difficult for
governments, compelling many countries to prioritize the use of e-
government to optimize the functions of regulators (Davidavičienė et al.,
2018). Therefore, the focus of the latest related research evaluating the
role of e-government in governance has gradually shifted from the
public face of the government and service delivery to the regulatory field
(Kennedy and Scholl, 2015). A case study by Eyert et al. (2020) took
Uber as an example and pointed out that the government should use
digital technologies, such as big data and artificial intelligence, to su­
pervise Uber’s algorithm effectively and efficiently. To the best of our
knowledge, a mechanistic analysis of how e-government improves reg­
ulatory quality is insufficient, and relevant empirical studies are yet to
be performed. The internal mechanism or path through which e-gov­
ernment promotes regulatory quality is described as follows.
First, within the government, given the control potential of ICT,
technology has taken over a considerable part of the traditional duties of
civil servants, and senior managers can directly supervise front-line
workers through digital platforms (Buffat, 2015; Cordelia, 2007). Be­
tween the government and the public, the transparency and openness
brought about by e-government enables the public to directly supervise
the administrative activities of the bureaucracy and the behavior of of­
ficials, changing the previous situation where supervision mainly relied
on the internal control of the government (Halachmi and Greiling,
2013). The reason is because e-government breaks the traditional bar­
riers of information flow between the government and the public, and
the public is no longer just the recipient of information, but can generate
and disseminate information in the official field, such as reading and
publishing criticisms regarding the government on the Internet (Chang
et al., 2018). In addition, digital platforms, digital sensors, social media,
and video streaming provide numerous opportunities for citizens and
external experts to better monitor and oversee internal government
operations and public services delivery chains (Lindquist and Huse,
2017).
The Online Procedures Enhancement for civil applications (OPEN),
developed by the Seoul Metropolitan Government, is one of the leading
practice cases. Enforcement is enhanced by the involvement of audit and
inspection bureaus through the OPEN system, and applicants for gov­
ernment services can monitor the status of applications, who is
responsible, and when actions are taken or decisions are made in real
time (Cho and Choi, 2011; Kim et al., 2009). Citizens can file a complaint
6
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122667
with the Audit Department through the system when the applicant ob­
serves any delay or potential for misconduct (Kim et al., 2009).
Second, monitoring and regulating the market to avoid market fail­
ure is an important responsibility of the government, and the economic
uncertainty caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has strengthened the
governments’ need for the ability to supervise the economy’s operation.
Many governments have enacted regulations and administrative rules
that require businesses to regularly report data (such as financials) that
allow authorized government agencies (such as tax authorities) to carry
out specific regulatory activities (Klievink et al., 2016). In addition,
statistical and information processes that do not target individual citi­
zens are crucial to the effectiveness of the country’s economic regulation
(Schuppan, 2009). Smart regulatory design can greatly facilitate these
activities, thereby increasing the political viability and adhesiveness of
public and private regulatory tools (Schmid et al., 2021). For example,
the “platform-to-platform” supervision method has become an impor­
tant means for the government to supervise the specific operational
activities of digital economy enterprises at the micro level. Among them,
the integration of governance and infrastructure is how public and pri­
vate platforms are interconnected, especially the shared technical
components of the platform (such as systems, interfaces, and data
standards) that directly connect governments, businesses, and the public
(Klievink et al., 2016).
Finally, the rapid development of the digital economy also brings
ethical risks, such as improper use of data, invasion of privacy, digital
discrimination, and monopoly. The regulation of the digital economy is
difficult to achieve a balance between inclusiveness and standardized
development, and the traditional regulatory system gradually appear
powerless (Taeihagh et al., 2021). Governments must utilize cutting-
edge ICT opportunities to meet the challenges entailed by the disrup­
tive changes in digital technology. Specifically, given the widespread
use of digital technologies in society for public and private communi­
cations, governments must bring business-oriented algorithmic scrutiny
to digital platforms that enable them to deeply integrate business con­
siderations into various public values in society, the economy, and the
politics (Topornin et al., 2021). Algorithmic review has been widely
deployed in countries where the digital economy is developing rapidly.
Government agencies use ICT to carry out regulatory activities on al­
gorithms involved in digital platforms, such as e-commerce and social
media (Topornin et al., 2021). It conducts more active and intervening
disciplinary control for the standardized operation of digital platforms.
Hypothesis 4. The development of e-government promotes the
improvement of regulatory quality.
3.6. E-government promotes rule of law improvement
In the process of legislation, public access should be the norm from
the knowledge of the rules to the legal certainty of citizens (Bovens and
Zouridis, 2002). The wide application of e-government is expected to
promote the democracy and fairness of legislation for the public to
participate in the legislative process. Citizens and interest organizations
can obtain legislative information by accessing the web platforms of
legislatures and governments and can check whether justice has been
achieved by initiating legal proceedings (Bovens and Zouridis, 2002;
Kennedy and Scholl, 2015). A cross-case analysis by Bovens and Zouridis
(2002), Kennedy and Scholl (2015) found that e-government designs in
many countries include making draft legislations publicly available
online and incorporating features for citizens to discuss and provide
their feedback. Nevertheless, only few studies have explored how e-
government promotes the rule of law, and no empirical study has veri­
fied whether e-government can play a positive role in the rule of law.
Therefore, this study analyzes the internal mechanism through which e-
government promotes the rule of law and uses cross-country panel data
for an empirical test.
First, e-government allows many laws and rules to be incorporated
Q. Zou et al.
into specialized systems and chips and embedded in the physical envi­
ronment, whereby police and other government workers will no longer
be the only law enforcement officers, which makes the intelligent
Internet of Things an important force of law (Kennedy and Scholl, 2015).
E-government strategies have been widely used in justice sector. New
Zealand established a central electronic database to support the judi­
ciary in establishing common standards and protocols for sharing data
and improving access to justice sector information for all stakeholders
(O’Neill, 2009). The digital courtroom is another classic case of the
digital transformation of rule of law, where defendants can provide
evidence and arguments in prison, vulnerable witnesses can testify in
videoconferencing facilities, busy lawyers can deliver cases online, and
the public with access can watch online trials (Moore, 2019). This
innovative approach reconfigured the public’s role in “seeing justice
done”, leading to the emergence of a new “visuality of technocracy” that
recast citizens as merely actors (Moore, 2019). Digital justice has
relieved the pressures of the significant increase in cases in many
countries, which has wider application prospects in the context of the
COVID-19 pandemic and has brought convenience to rural and remote
areas.
Another benefit brought by the proliferation of e-government in the
rule of law is to ensure the fairness of the law and the accessibility of
legal services at the social level and to improve public legal literacy to
shape a more mature society under the rule of law. The deployment of
public legal services on online platforms, such as legal aid, legal
consultation, arbitration, and judicial relief, has greatly eased the needs
of citizens and has formed an effective mechanism for equal power and
protection of the rights and interests of vulnerable groups (Kennedy and
Scholl, 2015). Citizen participation through the Internet can strengthen
the vulnerable position of the public in litigation, expand the scope of
public supervision of the authorities, and Internet public opinion can
also help prevent political interference in judicial procedures. In addi­
tion, legal institutions and government agencies can use the Internet
platform to educate people on the rule of law and conduct legal analysis
of specific cases to guide public opinion within the legal framework and
strengthen public legal literacy.
Finally, e-government is expected to increase the compliance of the
actions of governments and their officials, making the rule of law further
the norm of governance. The deep application of e-government in law
enforcement can reduce or even eliminate the discretion of individual
decision makers, and increasing monitoring, accountability, and trans­
parency may also motivate them to follow the rules strictly rather than
flexibly to avoid compromising the rights of specific citizens (Kennedy
and Scholl, 2015). The reason is because of the electronic regulatory
system, which defines a set of legal normative rules that regulate
administrative procedures and the provision of public services (Cordella
and Tempini, 2015). Many decisions are no longer made on the street by
law enforcement officers handling cases, but are programmed into
software and computers, greatly reducing the scope of administrative
discretion (Bovens and Zouridis, 2002).
Hypothesis 5. The development of e-government promotes the
improvement of rule of law.
3.7. E-government promotes control of corruption improvement
Corruption undermines citizens’ trust in government, reduces eco­
nomic growth, discourages investment, and creates political instability
(Arayankalam et al., 2021). Over the past decade, e-government has
shifted from increasing access to information to ensuring that rules are
transparent and that citizens can track government decisions and ac­
tions, and ultimately reduce the incidence of corruption (Bertot et al.,
2010). The cross-sectional studies from Arayankalam et al. (2021), Chen
and Aklikokou (2021) and Nam (2018) verified that e-government
maturity lowers corruption in the legislature, executive, and judiciary
branches. Elbahnasawy (2014) used panel data from 1995 to 2009 to
7
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122667
verify that e-government is a powerful tool for reducing corruption. By
contrast, the empirical study by Adam (2020) showed that e-govern­
ment does not directly reduce corruption in African countries. Wu et al.
(2020) compared the use of e-government to control corruption in China
and India through an analysis of interviews with civil servants and
proposed that e-government needs to be combined with traditional
measures and the context of the country to better control corruption.
The above research on the relationship between e-government and
control of corruption is mainly cross-sectional in nature, and very few
studies published before 2010 have used panel data. Some studies have
even produced controversial results. Therefore, in response to the ex­
plosion of digital technology transformation over the past decade and to
break through the limitations of previous studies, this study further
elaborates how e-government promotes control of corruption and ver­
ifies their correlation using cross-country panel data from 2010 to 2018.
E-government compresses the rent-seeking space of power by regu­
lating the governance and law enforcement behaviors of the government
and officials, thereby fundamentally combating the soil that breeds
corruption. E-government is considered an effective tool to restructure
principal–agent–client relationships to reduce corruption by expanding
access to information, including, but not limited to, streamlining rules
and procedures, standardizing service delivery, providing detailed data
on transactions, streamlining decision-making processes tracking, and
recording citizen complaints (Elbahnasawy, 2014). By embedding rules
in software, e-government can reduce or remove the role of officials and
enforcers in the decision-making chain and empower citizens, thereby
reducing or eliminating the risk of corruption and abuse of power by
civil servants (Sheryazdanova and Butterfield, 2017; Twizeyimana and
Andersson, 2019).
E-government reduces the face-to-face interaction between govern­
ment officials and citizens, thereby weakening officials’ discretion and
compressing their room for corruption (Arayankalam et al., 2021; Wu
et al., 2020). For example, online document applications, such as pass­
ports, driver’s licenses, business licenses, and online payment of taxes
and duties limit the tendency to bribe access to public services (Chen and
Aklikokou, 2021). Moreover, e-procurement is not only a unified pro­
curement within an administrative department but uses a network
platform to conduct online transactions and accept supervision to reduce
the possibility of manipulation in the bidding process (Schuppan, 2009).
In addition, South Korea’s OPEN system is considered successful in
controlling corruption by government employees and has greatly
changed the perception of corruption among Seoul residents (Bertot
et al., 2010; Cho and Choi, 2011; Kim et al., 2009).
Another way for e-government to control corruption is to innovate
the way audit institutions and the public supervise government activities
and civil servants’ behaviors (Bertot et al., 2010; Cho and Choi, 2011;
Kim et al., 2009). The government information platform is expected to
integrate the taxation, finance, public complaints, and other databases
of specific government departments or staff to form a mirror of the
economic activities of government departments and officials. The audit
department is expected to use intelligent technology to better supervise
the spending behavior of administrative departments and specific offi­
cials, thereby reducing the potential for manipulation and corruption
(Schuppan, 2009). A public-facing anti-corruption platform is another
powerful weapon. The “I Bribe” website, established in 2011 by India’s
“Janaagraha Centre for Citizenship and Democracy”, collects informa­
tion on corruption reported by citizens and combines it with geospatial
data to highlight the most problematic areas (World Bank, 2021).
Hypothesis 6. E-government development promotes the effect of
control of corruption.
The mechanism and theoretical framework of e-government pro­
moting governance improvement is shown in Fig. 1. This figure illus­
trates the vision for e-government to improve all aspects of governance.
On the basis of this theoretical framework, this study uses cross-country
panel data from 2010 to 2018 to determine to which extent does e-
Q. Zou et al.
Fig. 1. The theoretical mechanisms of e-government to promote governance improvement.
government achieves its vision in reality, that is, which aspects of
governance have e-government actually improved.
4. Research methodology
4.1. Data collecting
This study targeted countries across the world, considering the data
availability of each variable, the sample size of this study is 170 coun­
tries. The set of national observation units for this model is N = [1, 2, …,
170], and the set of time periods is T = [2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018].
That is, this is a balanced panel database with a two-year interval. The
variables, indicators and their data sources involved in this study are
described below. MS office 2016 and SPSS 23.0 were used to collect and
organize data, and StataMP 14 was used for statistical analysis.
4.1.1. Dependent variables
The dependent variable of this study used the Worldwide Gover­
nance Indicators (WGI) published by the World Bank to measure the
governance level of each sample country. The WGI includes six
comprehensive indicators covering the governance level of >200
countries since 1996 in six dimensions: voice and accountability, po­
litical stability and absence of violence or terrorism, government effec­
tiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, and control of corruption
(World Bank, 2020; Kaufmann et al., 2010). The definitions of these
dimensions are shown in Table 1. Based on hundreds of variables drawn
from 31 different data sources, the indicators capture governance per­
ceptions as reported by respondents, non-profit organizations, business
information providers, and global public organizations (World Bank,
2020; Kaufmann et al., 2010). This study places these indicators sepa­
rately in different regression models.
4.1.2. Independent variables
The independent variables in this study were the E-Government
Development Index (EGDI) published by the United Nations (UN). The
index is used to represent the level of development of e-government,
8
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122667
combining measures of the scope and quality of online services, tele­
communications infrastructure, and human capital in each country. UN
experts surveyed the level of e-government development in all 193 UN
member states by examining national websites and the combined level
of e-government policy and strategy development. In this measure, the
EGDI is the weighted average of the three-dimension normalized scores
of the Online Services Index, Human Capital Index, and Telecom Infra­
structure Index (Choi et al., 2017; James and Petersen, 2018; United
Nations, 2020). EGDI has a minimum score of 0 and a maximum score of
1.
4.1.3. Control variables
A comprehensive economic factor, the GDP per capita, is included in
the model as a control variable. The reason is because economic factors
are likely to be key factors affecting e-government and governance. We
were careful to include control variables because EGDI is a composite
indicator that includes human capital and telecommunications infra­
structure. The latter is the key software and hardware factor for the
development of e-government and it is also the performance of the na­
tional development level. The GDP per capita observations for all sam­
ples are from the Penn World Table version 10.0 published by the
University of California, Davis, the University of Groningen, and the
University of Pennsylvania (Feenstra et al., 2015). The data sources of all
variables are shown in Table 2.
4.2. Econometric methodology
4.2.1. Panel unit root tests
In panel data estimation, the existence of unobserved common fac­
tors in a time series may lead to the cross-sectional dependence, endo­
geneity, and heterogeneity of variables due to the influence of complex
social, economic, political, and cultural factors (Mahmood et al., 2022).
A unit root in panel data may trigger a spurious regression and produce
biased estimation results. Therefore, the first generation of panel unit
root tests, including LLC, IPS, and HT, was used to verify the existence of
unit roots in time series (Harris and Tzavalis, 1999; Im et al., 2003; Levin
Q. Zou et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122667

Table 2 especially intelligent technology, e-government has matured, and the

Variables, indicators and data sources. differences between countries have narrowed. Particularly, as more
Variable type Variable Data sources countries and regions worldwide deploy e-government, online public
services and intelligent decision making become more widespread and
Voice and
accountability common, and the e-government system is more integrated with the
Political stability and bureaucratic system, which is expected to reshape the bureaucracy at
absence of violence/
World Bank. Worldwide governance
the technical and organizational levels (Chen and Aklikokou, 2021).
Dependent terrorism
indicators. Http://info.worldbank.
variable Government
effectiveness
org/governance/wgi/. 5. Findings
Regulatory quality
Rule of law 5.1. Descriptive statistics for variables
Control of corruption
United Nations. UN E-Government
Independent The results of descriptive statistics for all variables are presented in
EDGI Survey. publicadministration.un.org/
variable
egovkb. Table 3. The table shows that a large variation existed over countries and
Groningen Growth and Development time for all variables. This means that governance levels, e-government
Control
GDP per capita
Centre. Penn World Table version 10.0 maturity, and GDP per capita vary considerably between countries and
variable (PWT 10.0). www.rug.nl/ggdc/prod by year. Further, the between-group (BG) variation in the data is
uctivity/pwt/.
considerably larger than the within-group (WG) variation. The BG
variation implies how much a variable varies between countries,
et al., 2002), thereby addressing cross-sectional dependence, heteroge­ whereas the WG variation indicates how much a variable varies over
neity, and spurious regression issues and ensuring the rationality of the time within countries (Khan and Krishnan, 2021b). This reveals that
panel regression models. although governance levels, e-government, and GDP per capita have
changed over time, each variable has greater variability across
4.2.2. Cointegration tests countries.
Cointegration tests were performed to check for homogeneity issues
in the panel data. Drawing upon Mahmood et al. (2022), this study 5.2. Model robustness
adopted three cointegration tests, namely, Pedroni’s cointegration,
KAO’s cointegration, and Westerlund’s cointegration, to check whether 5.2.1. Panel unit root tests
all models have long-run equilibrium. LLC, IPS, and HT were adopted for the unit root tests. Table 4 shows
that voice and accountability, political stability and absence of violence/
4.2.3. Linear panel data regression terrorism, control of corruption, and EDGI are all stationary in level,
In this study, a linear panel data regression model was adopted to test whereas government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, and
and estimate the effects of e-government on the six dimensions of GDP per capita are not completely stationary in level. However, both of
governance. The linear panel data regression model was used given that these groups are stationary in the first difference, that is, all these var­
the model comprehensively considers individual effects and time effects iables reject the hypothesized presence of a unit root because they are all
and can better measure the effects of independent variables on depen­ stationary in level or in the first difference. Therefore, further static
dent variables compared with cross-sectional regression analysis. panel data estimation can be performed.
Furthermore, the linear panel data regression analysis decreases the risk
of multicollinearity and biases in the estimations process (Yuan et al., 5.2.2. Cointegration tests
2017). Therefore, the theoretical econometric model of this study can be Table 5 presents the results of Pedroni’s cointegration, KAO’s coin­
described as follows. tegration, and Westerlund’s cointegration, which reject the hypothesis
of no co-integration among the dependent, independent, and control
yit = α + βi xit + ui + εit i ∈ N, t ∈ T. (1) variables in all models (P < 0.001), thereby indicating that the inde­
In Eq. (1), yit represents the dependent variable, namely, the six di­ pendent variable (EGDI), control variable (GDP per capita), and all
mensions of governance—voice and accountability, political stability dependent variables (six dimensions of governance) are co-integrated
and absence of violence or terrorism, government effectiveness, regu­ and have long-term correlations.
latory quality, rule of law, and control of corruption. xit represents the
independent variable (EGDI) and a control variable that changes with 5.3. Correlation analysis of variables
time. βi represents the estimated coefficient of xi. ui is the unobserved
characteristics of prefecture i and εit is the idiosyncratic error. To preliminarily test whether correlation exists among the EGDI,
Parameters for linear panel data regression are estimated using WGI, and GDP per capita, Pearson correlation analysis was adopted. The
either fixed effects (FE) models or random effects (RE) models. FE is results of Pearson correlation coefficients of are shown in Table 6. The
estimated using the least squares dummy variable method, and RE is table reveals that all WGI dimensions (voice and accountability, political
calculated using the generalized least squares method (Hausman, 1978; stability and absence of violence or terrorism, government effectiveness,
Yuan et al., 2017). The classic Hausman test is used to determine regulatory quality, rule of law, and control of corruption) positively
whether FE or RE is preferable in all models (Hausman, 1978). correlated with each other (P < 0.001). EGDI was positively related to
Furthermore, in order to eliminate the errors caused by inter-group the voice and accountability (r = 0.613, P < 0.001), the political sta­
heteroscedasticity, intra-group autocorrelation and inter-group bility and absence of violence or terrorism (r = 0.574, P < 0.001), the
contemporaneous correlation that may exist in the linear panel data government effectiveness (r = 0.843, P < 0.001), the regulatory quality
regression model, the comprehensive feasible generalized least squares (r = 0.801, P < 0.001), rule of law (r = 0.783, P < 0.001), and the
(FGLS) was used for further effects estimate (Parks, 1967; Razzaq et al., control of corruption (r = 0.732, P < 0.001). The GDP per capita also
2021; Xu et al., 2022). positively correlated with EGDI and all dimensions of WGI (P < 0.001).
The data involved in this study mainly belong to a relatively new All bivariate correlation coefficients ranged from 0.432 to 0.954.
period of e-government development—the second decade of the 21st To avoid multicollinearity in all models, we observed the variance
century. Since 2010, with the rapid development of digital technology, inflation factor (VIF) values of all the models were 2.19, which satisfied
the stringent acceptable threshold of 5 (Belsley et al., 2005; Pahnke

9
Q. Zou et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122667

Table 3
Descriptive statistics of all variables.
Variables Mean Min Max SD SD Total observations Annual observations
(BG) (WG) (N) (n)

Dependent variable
Voice and accountability − 0.057 − 2.259 1.734 0.962 0.136 850 170
Political stability and absence of violence or terrorism − 0.105 − 2.993 1.540 0.902 0.228 850 170
Government effectiveness − 0.002 − 2.244 2.241 0.948 0.145 850 170
Regulatory quality 0.016 − 2.363 2.233 0.927 0.130 850 170
Rule of law − 0.051 − 2.322 2.100 0.959 0.134 850 170
Control of corruption − 0.046 − 1.806 2.381 0.993 0.133 850 170
Independent variable
EGDI 0.505 0.000 0.946 0.201 0.054 850 170
Control variable
GDP per capita 1.913 0.036 11.719 1.95 0.193 850 170

Table 4
Results of the panel unit root test.
Variable IPS LLC HT

I(0) I(1) I(0) I(1) I(0) I(1)

Voice and accountability − 2.39** − 56.79*** − 28.83*** − 140.00*** − 1.70* − 14.76***

Political stability and absence of violence or terrorism − 8.78*** − 23.76*** − 35.52*** 30.69 − 7.42*** − 19.26***
Government effectiveness − 0.75 − 36.14*** − 14.23*** − 59.21*** − 1.37 − 18.08***
Regulatory quality − 6.14*** − 22.99*** − 42.37*** − 75.36*** 1.01 − 13.09***
Rule of law 0.06 − 17.74*** − 18.08*** − 35.59*** − 2.4** − 19.05***
Control of corruption − 4.59*** − 53.81*** − 32.51*** − 71.06*** − 3.77*** − 16.25***
EDGI − 4.10*** − 63.31*** − 25.16*** − 430.00*** − 10.67*** − 17.36***
GDP per capita 16.02 − 20.43*** 5.49 − 32.63*** 14.09 − 7.06***
*
P < 0.05.
**
P < 0.01.
***
P < 0.001.

et al., 2015). Hence, the results indicate that the concern of multi­
Table 5
collinearity does not primarily impact the study findings.
Results of cointegration.
The model Pedroni’s cointegration KAO’s Westerlund’s
corresponding to cointegration cointegration
5.4. Regression analysis
the dependent
Modified ADF Modified DF Variance ratio
variable
PP 5.4.1. Pooled OLS regression analysis
Voice and Table 7 presents the results of the pooled ordinary least squares
13.59*** − 1173.32*** 4.99*** 3.17***
accountability (OLS) regression analysis. Cluster robust standard errors are considered
Political stability
in all models to remove potential heteroskedasticity. Results show that
and absence of
violence/
13.15*** − 551.33*** 4.34*** 2.58** without considering the time effects, EGDI has significant positive ef­
terrorism fects on voice and accountability (β = 3.01, P < 0.001), political stability
Government
13.19*** − 3328.09*** 4.23*** 2.69** and absence of violence/terrorism (β = 1.54, P < 0.001), government
effectiveness effectiveness (β = 2.87, P < 0.001), regulatory quality (β = 2.68, P <
Regulatory
quality
13.67*** − 471.18*** 4.21*** 3.87*** 0.001), rule of law (β = 2.40, P < 0.001), and control of corruption (β =
Rule of law 13.40*** − 781.53*** 6.25*** 3.07*** 2.15, P < 0.001). The positive role of e-government in governance
Control of improvement is therefore preliminarily determined.
13.56*** − 389.88*** 4.22*** 3.73***
corruption
**
P < 0.01. 5.4.2. Linear panel data regression analysis
***
P < 0.001. To control for endogeneity and unobserved heterogeneity, and avoid
time effects from interfering with econometric models, the linear panel
data regression was adopted for evaluation. The classic Hausman test

Table 6
Pearson correlation coefficients.
Variables (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

(1) Voice and accountability 1

(2) Political stability and absence of violence or terrorism 0.658*** 1
(3) Government effectiveness 0.754*** 0.719*** 1
(4) Regulatory quality 0.789*** 0.675*** 0.929*** 1
(5) Rule of law 0.797*** 0.748*** 0.954*** 0.932*** 1
(6) Control of corruption 0.782*** 0.751*** 0.925*** 0.877*** 0.953*** 1
(7) EGDI 0.613*** 0.574*** 0.843*** 0.801*** 0.783*** 0.732*** 1
(8) GDP per capita 0.432*** 0.565*** 0.759*** 0.719*** 0.744*** 0.717*** 0.737*** 1
***
P < 0.001.

10
Q. Zou et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122667

Table 7
Results of the pooled OLS regression.
Voice and Political stability and absence of Government Regulatory Rule of Control of
accountability violence/terrorism effectiveness quality law corruption

E-Government Index 3.01*** 1.54*** 2.87*** 2.68*** 2.40*** 2.15***

(EGDI) (0.40) (0.32) (0.28) (0.31) (0.33) (0.37)
− 0.02 0.15*** 0.15*** 0.13*** 0.18*** 0.20***
GDP per capita
(0.06) (0.03) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04)
− 1.54*** − 1.17*** − 1.73*** − 1.59*** 1.60*** − 1.51***
_cons
(0.14) (0.5) (0.10) (0.11) (0.11) (0.13)
N 850 850 850 850 850 850
R2 0.38 0.37 0.75 0.68 0.67 0.61

Note: Cluster robust standard errors in parentheses.

***
P < 0.001.

was used to determine whether the evaluation results of each model
belong to fixed effects or random effects. The results of the linear panel
data regression analysis and Hausman test are shown in Table 8.
Specifically, first, EGDI had a significant positive impact on the voice
and accountability (β = 0.23, P < 0.05). Hausman test results unveiled
that the random-effects model was applied to evaluate the effect of EGDI
on voice and accountability (P > 0.05). This result verifies that e-gov­
ernment development can promote the improvement of voice and
accountability, thus confirming Hypothesis 1.
Second, EGDI had a significant positive effect on the government
effectiveness (β = 0.61, P < 0.001). The Hausman test result showed that
the random-effects model was applied to evaluate the effect of EDGI on
government effectiveness (P > 0.05). This result verifies that e-govern­
ment development can promote the improvement of government
effectiveness, thus supporting Hypothesis 3.
Third, EGDI had a significant positive effect on the regulatory quality
(β = 0.21, P < 0.05). The Hausman test results showed that the random-
effects model was applied to evaluate the effect of EDGI on regulatory
quality (P > 0.05). This result verifies that e-government development
can promote the improvement of regulatory quality, thus verifying
Hypothesis 4.
Fourth, EGDI had a significant positive effect on the rule of law (β =
0.30, P < 0.01). The Hausman test result showed that the random-effects
model was applied to evaluate the effect of EGDI on the rule of law (P >
0.05). This result verifies that e-government development can promote
the improvement of rule of law, thus supporting Hypothesis 5.
Finally, the results show that EGDI does not significantly affect po­
litical stability and absence of violence or terrorism (P > 0.05, fixed
effects) and control of corruption (P > 0.05, fixed effects). The results
reveal that e-government development fails to effectively improve these
two dimensions of governance, thus rejecting Hypotheses 2 and 6.
Meanwhile, panel data analysis results reveal strong random effects
and weak fixed effects, especially given that all models that accept the
hypotheses contain random effects estimates. When the number of
countries included in the sample (N) is large, the fixed effects estimate
may contain too many dummy factors, thereby exacerbating the loss of
degrees of freedom and the multicollinearity among the explanatory
variables (Elbahnasawy, 2014). Judge et al. (1985) found that when N is
large and T is small, random-effects estimates are more efficient than
fixed-effects ones. In this study, N (170) is much larger than T (5), hence
explaining why most models are random effects. At the same time,
random effects estimates may better account for the inclusion of unob­
served heterogeneity in the models (Ingrams et al., 2020). The random
effects model adopts generalized least squares (GLS) to transform the
original model, which can better deal with the issues of autocorrelation
and heteroscedasticity. In fact, several studies on e-government using
cross-country panel data have also adopted random effects estimates
(Das et al., 2017; Dhaoui, 2021; Elbahnasawy, 2014; Ingrams et al.,
2020).
Since heteroscedasticity, autocorrelation and contemporaneous
correlation may exist in panel data, it is difficult for FE and RE models to
eliminate the errors caused by them. In order to ensure the robustness of
the quantitative results, this study employed comprehensive FGLS to
handle these errors. Prior to this, three measures were adopted to
determine the model settings: 1) Wald Test was used to detect hetero­
scedasticity; 2) Wooldridge Test was used to detect autocorrelation; 3)
Friedman’s test was used to detect contemporaneous correlation (the
sample size N is much larger than the number of periods T). The test
results of heteroscedasticity, autocorrelation and contemporaneous
correlation are shown in Table 9. These results show that all models
have inter-group heteroscedasticity and intra-group autocorrelation, but
no inter-group contemporaneous correlation.
According to the above detection results, this study adopts the
comprehensive FGLS to correct the heteroscedasticity and

Table 8
The results of linear panel data regression analysis.
Voice and Political stability and Government Regulatory quality Rule of law Control of
accountability absence of violence/ effectiveness corruption
terrorism

FE RE FE RE FE RE FE RE FE RE FE RE

E-Government Index (EGDI) 0.07 0.23* − 0.01 0.23 0.15 0.61*** − 0.08 0.21* 0.08 0.30** 0.09 0.23*
(0.63) (2.15) (− 0.05) (1.46) (1.36) (5.36) (− 0.81) (2.12) (0.8) (2.94) (0.91) (2.21)
GDP per capita 0.03 0.10*** 0.10* 7.51*** 0.05 0.24*** 0.15*** 0.25*** 0.08** 0.24*** 0.04 0.21***
(0.90) (4.30) (2.15) (7.51) (1.51) (13.04) (5.57) (13.49) (2.71) (12.10) (1.50) 9.90)
Adj-R2 0.24 0.24 0.32 0.34 0.68 0.66 0.49 0.55 0.59 0.59 0.56 0.54
F-statistics 0.90 36.38*** 2.58 90.41*** 3.13* 353.95*** 16.18*** 264.39*** 5.33** 232.50*** 2.26 147.66***
Hausman test − 68.47 30.22*** − 258.61 − 144.41 − 47.69 36.41***
Model selection Random-effects Fixed-effects (FE) Random-effects (RE) Random-effects (RE) Random-effects (RE) Fixed-effects (FE)
(RE)

Note: The number in the parentheses is t-value. Hausman test adopts classic Hausman test.
*
P < 0.05.
**
P < 0.01.
***
P < 0.001.

11
Q. Zou et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122667

Table 9 Table 11
Test results of heteroscedasticity, autocorrelation and contemporaneous Cronbach’s alpha, KMO and Bartlett’s test of Worldwide Governance Indicators.
correlation. Cronbach’s alpha KMO Bartlett test
Dependent Heteroscedasticity Autocorrelation Contemporaneous
Chi/square D-F P
variables (Wald Test) (Wooldridge correlation
Test) (Friedman’s test) 0.96 0.90 7636.73 28 <0.001

Voice and Notes: (KMO) Kaiser-Meyer/Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.

2,100,000*** 99.16*** 3.46
accountability
Political stability
and absence of Table 13 presents the component matrix of the combined governance
76344*** 39.20*** 4.86
violence/ index and lists the factor loadings of each dimension of governance in
terrorism the combined governance index.
Government This study also employed pooled OLS regression analysis with cluster
4,800,000*** 99.97*** 5.28
effectiveness
Regulatory quality 140,000*** 138.54*** 0.44
robust standard errors, the random effect model and comprehensive
Rule of law 46,209*** 30.78*** 33.43 FGLS to determine whether and to what extent e-government has a
Control of positive effect on the combined governance index. As mentioned earlier,
25,456*** 122.55*** 4.55
corruption these -methods were adopted in this study because they can efficiently
Note: The null hypothesis (H0) is that there is no heteroscedasticity/autocorre­ handle the issues of heteroskedasticity, heterogeneity, contemporaneous
lation/contemporaneous correlation in the specified model. correlation and multicollinearity. Table 14 presents the regression an­
***
P < 0.001. alyses results. The model setting tests show that heteroskedasticity
(Wald Test: chi2 = 440,000, P < 0.001) and autocorrelation (Wooldridge
autocorrelation, and the analysis results are shown in Table 10. These Test: F = 103.31, P < 0.001) exist in this panel data model, while
results show that e-government has significant positive effects on the six contemporaneous correlation (Friedman’s test: Statistic = 4.49, P >
dimensions of governance (P < 0.001). However, in terms of co­ 0.05) does not exist. Therefore, we use a comprehensive FGLS that can
efficients, among all dimensions of governance, e-government has the handle heteroskedasticity and heterogeneity for estimation. The positive
smallest effect on political stability and absence of violence/terrorism (β effect of e-government on the overall governance index was verified by
= 0.57, P < 0.001) and the control of corruption (β = 0.32, P < 0.001). the pooled OLS (β = 2.77, P < 0.001, R2 = 0.58), the random effects
These results further verify that e-government has a heterogeneous ef­ model (β = 0.23, P = 0.011, R2 = 0.55) and the comprehensive FGLS (β
fect on improving various dimensions governance, that is, global e- = 0.84, P < 0.001), thereby confirming that on the whole, global e-
government has stronger positive effects on the four governance di­ government has a positive effect on governance improvement.
mensions of voice and accountability, government effectiveness, regu­
latory quality and rule of law, but weaker effects on political stability 6. Discussion and conclusions: vision and reality of e-
and absence of violence/terrorism and the control of corruption. government in governance

5.4.3. Overall effect of e-government on governance
The Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach, 1951) and KMO (Kaiser, 1970)
were adopted to analyze the persistence, reliability, and validity of all
variables. Cronbach’s alpha and KMO values exceeding 0.80 indicate the
high consistency, reliability, and validity of the data. Table 11 shows
that the Cronbach’s alpha and KMO values in this study are 0.96 and
0.90, respectively, both of which are greater than the strict norm of 0.90,
thereby suggesting that the data have high consistency, reliability, and
validity. Meanwhile, the KMO value suggests that the correlation of each
dimension of WGI is strong and that these variables are suitable for
factor analysis. The results of Bartlett’s test further confirmed the results
of KMO (Chi-square = 7636.73, P < 0.001).
Principal component analysis was conducted to extract the combined
governance index from WGI (six dimensions of governance). Table 12
shows the extracted results of the combined governance index. A prin­
cipal component is extracted, and the variance contribution rate of this
component is 85.00 %, thereby confirming that the combined gover­
nance index can explain the six dimensions of governance to a high
degree.
The development of e-government is a representative feature of the
combination of the ICT system and the bureaucratic system, which helps
the governments of various countries to realize the transformation of
governance in line with the digital age and shape a more efficient and
open government. With the rapid upgrading and wide application of
ICT, countries worldwide spend substantial resources to implement
ambitious e-government strategies, making the impact of e-government
involving all aspects of governance. Academia and practice have formed
a common vision for e-government: e-government requires a more
fundamental and holistic transformation of the concept of governance,
the operation mode of the bureaucratic system, the way the government
and the public interact, and the way public services are provided, and
ultimately realize the holistic, agile, adaptive, open, and smart gover­
nance. However, the internal mechanism and theoretical explanation for
e-government to promote governance is ambiguous, and the extent to
which e-government affects governance is still uncertain. Therefore, this
study focuses on the relationship between e-government and gover­
nance improvement, provides theoretical insights for e-government to
comprehensively improve governance level through literature review

Table 10
The results of comprehensive FGLS analysis.
Voice and Political stability and absence of Government Regulatory Rule of law Control of
accountability violence/terrorism effectiveness quality corruption

E-Government Index 0.83*** 0.57*** 1.16*** 1.07*** 0.67*** 0.32***

(EGDI) (8.13) (5.65) (13.26) (13.69) (7.94) (3.99)
GDP per capita 0.23*** 0.22*** 0.30*** 0.28*** 0.33*** 0.33***
(15.01) (20.73) (27.44) (28.67) (28.93) (27.59)
__cons − 0.79*** − 0.76*** − 1.16*** − 1.02*** − 1.01*** − 0.90***
(− 18.26) (− 16.05) (− 33.45) (− 32.64) (− 29.65) (− 23.56)
Wald Chi2 828.64*** 1147.08*** 3167.02*** 3157.78*** 2141.20*** 1258.92***

Note: The number in the parentheses is Z-value.

***
P < 0.001.

12
Q. Zou et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122667

Table 12
Total variance explained.
Component Initial eigenvalues Extraction sums of squared loadings

Total % of variance Cumulative % Total % of variance Cumulative %

1 5.10 85.00 85.00 5.10 85.00 85.00

2 0.39 6.57 91.58
3 0.31 5.09 96.67
4 0.12 1.92 98.59
5 0.05 0.87 99.40
6 0.03 0.55 100.00

Note: Extraction by principal component analysis.

democratic channels, such as political participation, access to govern­

Table 13
ment information, two-way communication, and online voting
Component matrix of the combined governance index.
(Halachmi and Greiling, 2013; Khan and Krishnan, 2021a; Leroux et al.,
Variable Factor loading 2020), enabling citizens to have the inherent right to participate in the
Voice and accountability 0.862 formulation and implementation of public policies (Roberts, 2004).
Political stability and absence of violence/terrorism 0.816 However, critics have raised concerns that e-government would grant
Government effectiveness 0.96
governments more tools to control citizens (Lindquist and Huse, 2017).
Regulatory quality 0.945
Rule of law 0.978 Nonetheless, the logic behind these divergence points is consistent, that
Control of corruption 0.96 is, the development of e-government requires corresponding open social
and governance systems, allowing the use of ICT and digital tools to
Note: Extraction by principal component analysis.
have a greater impact on voice and accountability. If this is not achieved,
e-government is likely to change from a democratic tool to a control tool.
Table 14 Therefore, the success of e-government in improving voice and
The effect of e-government on the combined governance index. accountability requires a culture of transparency embedded in the
Pooled Random Comprehensive
governance system, ensuring the digital penetration, technical capabil­
OLS effects FGLS ities and access of government agencies, and the digital literacy and
adoption of the public and society (Bertot et al., 2010). In any case, this
E-Government Index 2.77*** 0.23* 0.84***
(EGDI) (0.33) (0.09) (0.08) study finds that global e-government has good performance in voice and
0.15*** 0.22*** 0.31*** accountability, especially good design and practice in public participa­
GDP per capita
(0.04) (0.02) (0.01) tion, transparency, and accountability.
− 1.68*** − 0.53*** − 1.02*** Second, the findings unveil that e-government positively impacts
_cons
(0.11) (0.06) (0.03)
N 850 850 850
government effectiveness. This result is consistent with that of the re­
R2 0.58 0.55 – sults of a global cross-sectional study by Nam (2019), Chen and Akli­
kokou (2021). Improving government effectiveness is the initial driving
Note: Standard errors in parentheses.
* force and starting point for the development of global e-government.
P < 0.05.
***
P < 0.001.
Especially since the 21st century, e-government has achieved unprece­
dented success in reducing red tape, simplifying business processes,
improving public service accessibility, and responding to emergencies to
and theoretical analysis, and uses panel data from 170 countries from
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government management
2010 to 2018 to verify the actual impact of e-government on various
(Chen and Aklikokou, 2021; Nam, 2019). A good example is the
dimensions of governance. The main findings of the theoretical analysis
deployment of digital public service centers in rural areas of developing
and empirical analysis of this study are as follows.
countries to leverage the digital infrastructure of e-government to
Overall, the empirical findings unveil that global e-government
enhance the service capabilities of public service centers in rural hin­
development had strong positively effects on voice and accountability,
terlands, where residents can easily access public services, such as
government effectiveness, the regulatory quality, and the rule of law.
telemedicine, care services, resident and information update services,
However, e-government had relatively weak effects on improving po­
and ultimately expand access to public services (Sharma et al., 2021).
litical stability and absence of violence/terrorism and the control of
However, some scholars worry that the efficiency gains achieved
corruption. These results illustrate that the development of global e-
through e-government come at a cost. Excessive focus on efficiency
government has played a positive role in most areas of governance, but
brought about by e-government rather than information security issues
remained weak in some areas, such as political stability and absence of
may undermine citizens’ individual liberties, privacy rights, and the
violence or terrorism and control of corruption. It means that although
right to participate in government decision making (Panagiotopoulos
great progress has been made in the development of global e-govern­
et al., 2019). E-government has a profound and comprehensive effect on
ment since 2010 and most of the public values of e-government have
government effectiveness, but the next development requires a better
been realized, a certain gap remains between reality and vision in terms
balance between efficiency and public rights.
of governance improvement.
Third, the findings reveal that e-government positively affects reg­
Specifically, first, the findings provide evidence that e-government
ulatory quality. Numerous studies have addressed the role of e-govern­
positively impacts voice and accountability. It complements the
ment development in improving regulatory quality, especially within
empirical evidence suggested by many qualitative studies of the positive
government and public oversight of front-line civil servants (Pan­
impact of e-government development in promoting voice and account­
agiotopoulos et al., 2019), supervising the standardized operation of
ability as it provides digital tools to improve transparency and
enterprises (Klievink et al., 2016; Schmid et al., 2021), and control
accountability (Halachmi and Greiling, 2013; Matheus et al., 2021;
digital economy monopoly and ethical risks (Taeihagh et al., 2021;
Roberts, 2004). This finding is in line with that of the empirical findings
Topornin et al., 2021). A cutting-edge practice that was mentioned in
of López et al. that e-government can positively affect transparency
many studies is that South Korea strengthens audit and inspection
(López-López et al., 2018). The reason is because e-government provides

13
Q. Zou et al.
bureau enforcement by developing the OPEN system, where the public
can monitor government services and government activities anytime
and anywhere (Chang et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2009). However, to our
knowledge, few studies have provided empirical evidence on a global
scale that e-government development positively impacts regulatory
quality because the field is extremely new, and this study fills in the gap.
The effective application of e-government in the regulatory field must be
embedded in the government digital transformation process and polit­
ical context of a country or region. The main findings of studies from
Middle East and North African countries suggested that regulatory
quality benefits are only to a lesser extent, as these countries are less
digitized and face a larger digital divide (Dhaoui, 2021).
Fourth, the findings show that e-government positively impacts the
rule of law. Similar to regulatory quality, the role of e-government
development in rule of law is an emerging field. On key areas where
researchers and practitioners see e-government as significant progress in
promoting rule of law, such as promoting public participation in the
legislative process (Schuppan, 2009), electronic enforcement (Kennedy
and Scholl, 2015), electronic court (Moore, 2019), online legal services
and assistance (Moore, 2019), and reduce the discretion of the enforcer
(Bovens and Zouridis, 2002; Cordella and Tempini, 2015). Our empirical
research results supplement the evidence for numerous previous quali­
tative studies and quantitatively verify that the latest global e-govern­
ment practices since 2010 have achieved good results in rule of law.
Fifth, the quantitative analysis results show that the effect of e-
government on improving political stability and absence of violence/
terrorism is still not strong enough. With the unstable global political
situation, the unprecedented impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the
increased risk of economic crisis outbreaks, and the emergence of
intense military conflicts, e-government has gradually become a crucial
area in maintaining political stability and absence of violence or
terrorism. Although existing qualitative research suggested that e-gov­
ernment has emerged as a major contributor to improving public iden­
tification with the political system (Porumbescu, 2016; Tolbert and
Mossberger, 2006), maintaining political stability (Topornin et al.,
2021), controlling public crises (World Bank, 2021), preventing violence
and crime (Meijer et al., 2021; Westbrook, 2008), and combating
terrorism (Topornin et al., 2021), our empirical findings suggest that the
role of e-government in maintaining political stability and absence of
violence/terrorism remains inadequate.
This is mainly because the factors affecting political stability,
violence or terrorism are very complex, involving many aspects of the
country such as politics, economy, society and culture, and the world is
facing the huge challenge of a risk society. Emerging risks around the
world are characterized by a wide variety, changeable forms, and
complex processes, requiring each country to establish a high level of
risk management capability including monitoring, early warning,
response, and recovery. Complex functional requirements lead to the
establishment of an e-government system oriented to comprehensive
risk management often requires extremely high digital technology ca­
pabilities and financial expenditures. For example, crime prevention
policing systems and government platforms for combating terrorism are
highly mature e-government applications due to their strict re­
quirements for massive data, intelligent algorithms, and powerful in­
formation infrastructure. These e-government platforms are often only
able to be widely deployed in cities with developed economic strength
and a high degree of government digital transformation. Most devel­
oping countries and regions are often unable to meet such conditions,
making global e-government still insufficient to maintain political sta­
bility and absence of violence/terrorism.
Sixth, e-government also has a weak effect on the control of cor­
ruption. Evidence from theoretical basis shows that e-government is
often described as a powerful weapon to control corruption through
regulating the behavior of government and officials (Cho and Choi,
2011; Elbahnasawy, 2014; Sheryazdanova and Butterfield, 2017),
reducing the direct contact between officials and the public in the course
14
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122667
of public service (Arayankalam et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2020), com­
pressing power rent-seeking space (Das and Das, 2021), monitoring the
spending behavior of the government and specific officials (Schuppan,
2009), and accepting public reports of bribery (Schuppan, 2009).
However, the role of e-government in the control of corruption has
different results in existing studies. Specifically, a 2003–2016 panel data
study from 15 Middle East and North African countries (Dhaoui, 2021)
and a 2016 cross-sectional study from countries worldwide (Nam,
2018), supported the view that e-government can directly promote the
control of corruption. Differently, cross-sectional studies from countries
around the world verified that e-government indirectly impacts con­
trolling legislative, executive, and judicial corruption through govern­
ment administrative efficiency (Arayankalam et al., 2021). Further, an
empirical study from Africa showed that the direct impact of e-govern­
ment development on corruption is not significant, but indirect impacts
must be achieved through ICT development and institutional quality
(Adam, 2020). Basyal et al. (2018) also found that the direct effect of e-
government in reducing corruption was not significant compared with
good governance, transparency culture, and socioeconomic factors.
The theoretical explanation for this contradiction is that e-govern­
ment plays a dual role in controlling corruption: on the one hand, e-
government transforms bureaucracy from an authoritarian culture to a
more citizen-centric culture and increases transparency, responsiveness,
and public trust, thereby reducing the potential for abuse of power and
corruption by public officials (Ahn and Bretschneider, 2011). On the
other hand, new channels of corruption may also emerge in e-govern­
ment development, especially through the delegation of e-government
projects and front-office functions of government services to the private
sector, where public-private linkages are strengthened (Schuppan,
2009). In addition, the introduction of e-government may strengthen
existing bureaucratic power relations and strengthen control rather than
democracy, and bureaucrats can use e-government to increase their
control of information or to limit the direct interaction of the public in
selected areas, thereby creating new powers monopoly and corruption
(Andersen et al., 2010). These can also explain why e-government can
control corruption at a specific time and place, but not enough in a wider
time and regional scope.
In summary, this study has theoretical and practical implications for
improving governance by leveraging the opportunities brought by e-
government. Based on public value theory, this study comprehensively
explores how the e-government system is deeply integrated with the
bureaucratic system from the theoretical level in the six dimensions of
governance, namely, voice and accountability, political stability and
absence of violence or terrorism, government effectiveness, regulatory
quality, rule of law, and control of corruption to push the boundaries of a
new paradigm of public administration and finally realize the holistic,
agile, adaptive, and open governance and meet the public needs and
expectations for the government. This study provides clear paths and
theoretical implications for how to realize the vision of global e-gov­
ernment to comprehensively and profoundly improve governance. In
the empirical research part, this study found that the effects of e-gov­
ernment on different dimensions of governance were heterogeneous: E-
government performed strong positive effects on the four governance
dimensions of voice and accountability, government effectiveness, reg­
ulatory quality and rule of law, but relatively weak effects on political
stability and absence of violence/terrorism and the control of corrup­
tion. These results indicate that there remains a gap between the reality
and the vision of the global realization of good governance in all aspects,
leveraging the opportunities presented by e-government.
This gap shows that the current global e-government system did not
completely reform the bureaucracy and governance on the basis of
public values. The fundamental reason is that the development of e-
government must be deeply embedded in the context factors of a country
or region, especially technology, organization, culture, socio-economic,
and sectoral knowledge (Janowski, 2015; Nam, 2018). For example,
citizen’s level of ICT adoption plays a key role in the success of e-
Q. Zou et al.
government, and despite the strong preference by governments to use e-
government to improve government efficiency, citizens in many places
still have a strong preference for face-to-face interactions with officials
when they have questions or seek services due to their low digital lit­
eracy (Bertot et al., 2010). If the digital transformation of government is
not coordinated with any key context factors, the positive effect of e-
government development on governance will be reduced. In addition,
the development of e-government is accompanied by the gradual
advancement of ICT innovation in the public sector, which means that
the impact of e-government on governance is also a gradual process
(Janowski, 2015). Meanwhile, the development of global e-government
has not yet reached the level of comprehensively improving governance
capacity since 2010. Therefore, the future practice of e-government
must be more deeply and comprehensively embedded in the bureau­
cratic system and must adapt to local background factors to fully meet
the needs of the public and protect the rights of the public, changing the
bureaucratic system from autocracy to citizen-centered, thereby
improving governance in general, especially in terms of political sta­
bility and absence of violence/terrorism and control of corruption where
e-government impacts are limited.
7. Limitations and future research
In recent years, the widespread use of ICT in government has been
recognized as a way to improve governance and to advance democratic
governance by increasing the effectiveness and legitimacy of public
decision making and social justice. This study provides a series of
theoretical and practical implications for global e-government to pro­
mote governance improvement. However, this study still has some
limitations that must be addressed in future studies. First, on a global
scale, the theoretical analysis of this study remains relatively general on
how different countries use the e-government system to transform the
bureaucratic system based on the new paradigm of public management
and their own context factors. On the basis of determining the public
value of e-government, future research must further formulate precise e-
government strategies according to specific regional or national context
factors. Second, the context factors affecting e-government and gover­
nance are highly complex and diverse, and although the linear panel
data regression model we adopted can largely eliminate the impact of
confounding factors by virtue of its comprehensive treatment of indi­
vidual effects and time effects, some important contextual factors must
be identified, measured, and incorporated into control variables to in­
crease the robustness of the model in future research. Third, with the
development of new generation ICT, digital technology, and smart
technology, their applications are gradually becoming more integrated,
smarter, and more agile globally, resulting in unprecedented integration
of e-government into bureaucracy and governance, forming the concept
of digital government and smart government. Nevertheless, the assess­
ment objects of the EGDI issued by the United Nations mainly focus on
online services, and the assessment of digital transformation within the
government remains lacking, which may affect the accuracy of the re­
sults of this study. Future research must comprehensively assess the
actual level of e-government development in various countries. Finally,
global e-government is developing rapidly, and its impact on gover­
nance at different stages may differ. Future research must further
explore the real impact of global e-government on governance at
different times.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Q.Z.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Data curation, Writing-
Original Draft. Z.M.: Methodology, Project administration, Writing-
Original Draft. R.Y.: Methodology, Writing-review & editing. S.L.:
Data curation, Writing-review & editing, Supervision. Z.D.: Validation,
Writing-reviewing and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
15
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122667
Declaration of competing interest
We declare that we have no conflict of interest.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the National Social Science Fund of
China and the Huazhong University of Science and Technology Double
First-Class Funds for Humanities and Social Sciences for funding this
study. We also acknowledge the editors and reviewers of the Techno­
logical Forecasting and Social Change for helping improve this study.
Formatting of funding sources
This work was supported by the National Social Science Fund of
China (grant number: 21AZZ013) and the Huazhong University of Sci­
ence and Technology Double First-Class Funds for Humanities and So­
cial Sciences (Research on the Functional Mechanism of Digital
Government in the Coordinated Development of Digital Economy and
People’s Livelihood, Non-traditional Security Research Center Con­
struction). The funders had no role in the design of the study, the
collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; or the writing of the
manuscript.
References
Adam, I.O., 2020. Examining E-government development effects on corruption in Africa:
the mediating effects of ICT development and institutional quality. Technol. Soc. 61,
101245 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101245.
Ahn, M.J., Bretschneider, S., 2011. Politics of E-government: E-government and the
political control of bureaucracy. Public Adm. Rev. 71 (3), 414–424. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02225.x.
Amosun, T.S., Chu, J., Rufai, O.H., Muhideen, S., Shahani, R., Gonlepa, M.K., 2021. Does
e-government help shape citizens’ engagement during the COVID-19 crisis? A study
of mediational effects of how citizens perceive the government. Online. Inform. Rev.
https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-10-2020-0478 ahead-of-print.
Andersen, K.N., Henriksen, H.Z., Medaglia, R., Danziger, J.N., Sannarnes, M.K.,
Enemærke, M., 2010. Fads and facts of E-government: a review of impacts of e-
government (2003-2009). Int. J. Public Adm. 33 (11), 564–579. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01900692.2010.517724.
Arayankalam, J., Khan, A., Krishnan, S., 2021. How to deal with corruption? Examining
the roles of e-government maturity, government administrative effectiveness, and
virtual social networks diffusion. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 58, 102203 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102203.
Asher, M., Leston-Bandeira, C., Spaiser, V., 2019. Do parliamentary debates of e-petitions
enhance public engagement with parliament? An analysis of twitter conversations.
Policy Internet 11 (2), 149–171. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.194.
Basyal, D.K., Poudyal, N., Seo, J., 2018. Does E-government reduce corruption? Evidence
from a heterogeneous panel data model. Transform. Gov.: People Process Policy 12
(2), 134–154. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-12-2017-0073.
Belsley, D.A., Kuh, E., Welsch, R.E., 2005. Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential
Data and Sources of Collinearity. John Wiley & Sons.
Bertot, J.C., Jaeger, P.T., Grimes, J.M., 2010. Using ICTs to create a culture of
transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools
for societies. Gov. Inf. Q. 27 (3), 264–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
giq.2010.03.001.
Bovens, M., Zouridis, S., 2002. From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: how
information and communication technology is transforming administrative
discretion and constitutional control. Public Adm. Rev. 62 (2), 174–184. https://doi.
org/10.1111/0033-3352.00168.
Buffat, A., 2015. Street-level bureaucracy and E-government. Public Manag. Rev. 17 (1),
149–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.771699.
Chan, F.K.Y., Thong, J.Y.L., Brown, S.A., Venkatesh, V., 2021. Service design and citizen
satisfaction with e-government services: a multidimensional perspective. Public
Adm. Rev. 81 (5), 874–894. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13308.
Chang, L.Y.C., Zhong, L.Y., Grabosky, P.N., 2018. Citizen co-production of cyber security:
self-help, vigilantes, and cybercrime. Regul. Gov. 12 (1), 101–114. https://doi.org/
10.1111/rego.12125.
Chen, L., Aklikokou, A.K., 2021. Relating e-government development to government
effectiveness and control of corruption: a cluster analysis. J. Chin. Gov. 6 (1),
155–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/23812346.2019.1698693.
Q. Zou et al.
Cho, Y.H., Choi, B., 2011. E-government to combat corruption: the case of Seoul
metropolitan government. Int. J. Public Adm. 27 (10), 719–735. https://doi.org/
10.1081/PAD-200029114.
Choi, H., Park, M.J., Rho, J.J., 2017. Two-dimensional approach to governmental
excellence for human development in developing countries: combining policies and
institutions with e-government. Gov. Inf. Q. 34 (2), 340–353. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.giq.2017.03.002.
Cordelia, A., 2007. E-government: towards the e-bureaucratic form? J. Inf. Technol. 22
(3), 265–274. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000105.
Cordella, A., Tempini, N., 2015. E-government and organizational change: reappraising
the role of ICT and bureaucracy in public service delivery. Gov. Inf. Q. 32 (3),
279–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.03.005.
Cronbach, L.J., 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika
16 (3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02310555.
Das, A., Das, S.S., 2021. E-government and entrepreneurship: online government services
and the ease of starting business. Inform. Syst. Front. 24 (1), 1027–1039. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10796-021-10121-z.
Das, A., Singh, H., Joseph, D., 2017. A longitudinal study of e-government maturity.
Inform. Manage.-Amster. 54 (4), 415–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
im.2016.09.006.
Davidavičienė, V., Raudeliūnienė, J., Vengrienė, E., Jakubavičius, A., 2018.
Consolidation of the activities of regulatory institutions while implementing e-
government solutions. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 19 (2), 307–322. https://doi.org/
10.3846/jbem.2018.5534.
Deng, H., Karunasena, K., Xu, W., 2018. Evaluating the performance of e-government in
developing countries. Internet Res. 28 (1), 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-
10-2016-0296.
Dhaoui, I., 2021. E-government for sustainable development: evidence from MENA
countries. J. Knowl. Econ. (1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00791-0.
Dunleavy, P., 2005. New public management is dead-long live digital-era governance.
J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 16 (3), 467–494. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/
mui057.
Durkiewicz, J., Janowski, T., 2018. Is digitalization improving governance quality?
Correlating analog and digital benchmarks. In: Proceedings of the 18th European
Conference on Digital Government ECDG, pp. 48–56.
Elbahnasawy, N.G., 2014. E-government, internet adoption, and corruption: an empirical
investigation. World Dev. 57, 114–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
worlddev.2013.12.005.
Eyert, F., Irgmaier, F., Ulbricht, L., 2020. Extending the framework of algorithmic
regulation. The Uber case. Regul. Gov. 16 (1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/
rego.12371.
Feenstra, C.R., Inklaar, R., Timmer, M.P., 2015. The next generation of the penn world
table. Am. Econ. Rev. 105 (10), 3150–3182. https://doi.org/10.15141/S5Q94M.
Fishenden, J., Thompson, M., 2013. Digital government, open architecture, and
innovation: why public sector IT will never be the same again. J. Public Adm. Res.
Theory 23 (4), 977–1004. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus022.
Gable, M., 2015. Efficiency, participation, and quality: three dimensions of E-
government? Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 33 (4), 519–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0894439314552390.
Gao, X., Song, Y., Zhu, X., 2013. Integration and coordination: advancing China’s
fragmented e-government to holistic governance. Gov. Inf. Q. 30 (2), 173–181.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.12.003.
Gil-Garcia, J.R., Dawes, S.S., Pardo, T.A., 2018. Digital government and public
management research: finding the crossroads. Public Manag. Rev. 20 (5), 633–646.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1327181.
Gulati, G.J.J., Williams, C.B., Yates, D.J., 2014. Predictors of on-line services and e-
participation: a cross-national comparison. Gov. Inf. Q. 31 (4), 526–533. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.07.005.
Halachmi, A., Greiling, D., 2013. Transparency, E-government, and accountability.
Public Perform. Manag. Rev. 36 (4), 562–584. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-
9576360404.
Harris, R.D.F., Tzavalis, E., 1999. Inference for unit roots in dynamic panels where the
time dimension is fixed. J. Econ. 91 (2), 201–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-
4076(98)00076-1.
Hausman, J.A., 1978. Specification Tests in Econometrics. Working paper,
pp. 1251–1271.
Im, K.S., Pesaran, M.H., Shin, Y., 2003. Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels.
J. Econ. 115 (1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7.
Ingrams, A., Manoharan, A., Schmidthuber, L., Holzer, M., 2020. Stages and
determinants of E-government development: a twelve-year longitudinal study of
global cities. Int. Public Manag. J. 23 (6), 731–769. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10967494.2018.1467987.
James, O., Petersen, C., 2018. International rankings of government performance and
source credibility for citizens: experiments about e-government rankings in the UK
and the Netherlands. Public Manag. Rev. 20 (4), 469–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14719037.2017.1296965.
Janowski, T., 2015. Digital government evolution: from transformation to
contextualization. Gov. Inf. Q. 32 (3), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
giq.2015.07.001.
Janssen, M., van der Voort, H., 2020. Agile and adaptive governance in crisis response:
lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 55, 102180 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102180.
Judge, G.G., Hill, R.C., Griffiths, W.E., Lutkepohl, H., Lee, T.C., 1985. Introduction to the
Theory and Practice of Econometrics. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
16
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122667
Jun, K., Wang, F., Wang, D., 2014. E-government use and perceived government
transparency and service capacity. Public Perform. Manag. Rev. 38 (1), 125–151.
https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576380106.
Kaiser, H.F., 1970. A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika 35 (4), 201–415.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291817.
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., Massimo, 2010. The worldwide governance indicators: a
summary of methodology, data and analytical issues. In: World Bank Policy Research
Working Paper, 5430, pp. 1–28. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstrac
t_id=1682130.
Kennedy, R., Scholl, H.J., 2015. E-regulation and the rule of law: smart government,
institutional information infrastructures, and fundamental values. Inf. Polity 21 (1),
77–98. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-150368.
Khan, A., Krishnan, S., 2021a. Citizen engagement in co-creation of e-government
services: a process theory view from a meta-synthesis approach. Internet Res. 31 (4),
1318–1375. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-03-2020-0116.
Khan, A., Krishnan, S., 2021b. Moderating effects of business-systems corruption on
corruption in basic national institutions and electronic government maturity:
insights from a dynamic panel data analysis. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 59, 102349 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102349.
Kim, S., Kim, H.J., Lee, H., 2009. An institutional analysis of an e-government system for
anti-corruption: the case of OPEN. Gov. Inf. Q. 26 (1), 42–50. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.giq.2008.09.002.
Kim, T.K., Lim, H.J., Nah, J.H., 2013. Analysis on fraud detection for internet service. Int.
J. Secur. Appl. 7 (6), 275–284. https://doi.org/10.14257/ijsia.2013.7.6.28.
Klievink, B., Bharosa, N., Tan, Y., 2016. The collaborative realization of public values
and business goals: governance and infrastructure of public–private information
platforms. Gov. Inf. Q. 33 (1), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.12.002.
Kock, N., Gaskins, L., 2014. The mediating role of voice and accountability in the
relationship between internet diffusion and government corruption in latin america
and sub-Saharan africa. Inf. Technol. Dev. 20 (1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02681102.2013.832129.
Leroux, K., Fusi, F., Brown, A.G., 2020. Assessing e-government capacity to increase
voter participation: evidence from the U.S. Gov. Inf. Q. 37 (3), 101483 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101483.
Levin, A., Lin, C., Chu, C.J., 2002. Unit root tests in panel data:asymptotic and fnite-
sample properties. J. Econ. 108 (1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(01)
00098-7.
Lindquist, E.A., Huse, I., 2017. Accountability and monitoring government in the digital
era: promise, realism and research for digital-era governance. Can. Public Adm. 60
(4), 627–656. https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12243.
López-López, V., Iglesias-Antelo, S., Vázquez-Sanmartín, A., Connolly, R., Bannister, F.,
2018. E-government, transparency & reputation: An empirical study of spanish local
government. Inform. Syst. Manage. 35 (4), 276–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10580530.2018.1503792.
Maclean, D., Titah, R., 2021. A systematic literature review of empirical research on the
impacts of e-government: a public value perspective. Public Adm. Rev. 82 (01),
23–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13413.
Mahmood, N., Zhao, Y., Lou, Q., Geng, J., 2022. Role of environmental regulations and
eco-innovation in energy structure transition for green growth: evidence from OECD.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 183, 121890 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2022.121890.
Malodia, S., Dhir, A., Mishra, M., Bhatti, Z.A., 2021. Future of e-government: An
integrated conceptual framework. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 173, 121102
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121102.
Mao, Z., Yao, H., Zou, Q., Zhang, W., Dong, Y., 2021a. Digital contact tracing based on a
graph database algorithm for emergency management during the COVID-19
epidemic: case study. JMIR mHealth uHealth 9 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.2196/
26836.
Mao, Z., Zou, Q., Yao, H., Wu, J., 2021b. The application framework of big data
technology in the COVID-19 epidemic emergency management in local
government—a case study of Hainan Province, China. BMC Public Health 21 (1),
1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12065-0.
Margetts, H., Dunleavy, P., 2013. The second wave of digital-era governance: a quasi-
paradigm for government on the web. Philos. Trans. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 371
(1987), 20120382. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0382.
Mas, J.M., Gómez, A., 2021. Social partners in the digital ecosystem: will business
organizations, trade unions and government organizations survive the digital
revolution? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 162, 120349 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2020.120349.
Matheus, R., Janssen, M., Janowski, T., 2021. Design principles for creating digital
transparency in government. Gov. Inf. Q. 38 (1), 101550 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
giq.2020.101550.
Meijer, A., Lorenz, L., Wessels, M., 2021. Algorithmization of bureaucratic organizations:
using a practice lens to study how context shapes predictive policing systems. Public
Adm. Rev. 81 (5), 837–846. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13391.
Moore, S., 2019. Digital government, public participation and service transformation: the
impact of virtual courts. Policy Polit. 47 (3), 495–509. https://doi.org/10.1332/
030557319X15586039367509.
Nam, T., 2018. Examining the anti-corruption effect of e-government and the moderating
effect of national culture: a cross-country study. Gov. Inf. Q. 35 (2), 273–282.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.01.005.
Nam, T., 2019. Does E-government raise effectiveness and efficiency? J. Glob. Inf.
Manag. 27 (3), 120–138. https://doi.org/10.4018/JGIM.2019070107.
Nograšek, J., Vintar, M., 2014. E-government and organisational transformation of
government: black box revisited? Gov. Inf. Q. 31 (1), 108–118. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.giq.2013.07.006.
Q. Zou et al.
Norris, D.F., 2010. E-Government 2020: Plus ça change, plus c’est la meme chose. Public
Adm. Rev. 70 (s1), s180–s181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02269.x.
O’Neill, R., 2009. The transformative impact of E-government on public governance in
New Zealand. Public Manag. Rev. 11 (6), 751–770. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14719030903318939.
Pahnke, E.C., Mcdonald, R., Wang, D., Hallen, B., 2015. Exposed: venture capital,
competitor ties, and entrepreneurial innovation. Acad. Manag. J. 58 (2015),
1334–1360. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0777.
Panagiotopoulos, P., Klievink, B., Cordella, A., 2019. Public value creation in digital
government. Gov. Inf. Q. 36 (4), 101421 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
giq.2019.101421.
Parks, R.W., 1967. Efficient estimation of a system of regression equations when
disturbances are both serially and contemporaneously correlated. J. Am. Stat. Assoc.
62 (318), 500–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1967.10482923.
Porumbescu, G.A., 2016. Linking public sector social media and e-government website
use to trust in government. Gov. Inf. Q. 33 (2), 291–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
giq.2016.04.006.
Razzaq, A., An, H., Delpachitra, S., 2021. Does technology gap increase FDI spillovers on
productivity growth? Evidence from Chinese outward FDI in belt and road host
countries. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 172, 121050 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2021.121050.
Roberts, N., 2004. Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation. Am. Rev.
Public Adm. 34 (4), 315–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074004269288.
Sæbø, Ø., Rose, J., Skiftenes Flak, L., 2008. The shape of eParticipation: characterizing an
emerging research area. Gov. Inf. Q. 25 (3), 400–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
giq.2007.04.007.
Schmid, N., Haelg, L., Sewerin, S., Schmidt, T.S., Simmen, I., 2021. Governing complex
societal problems: the impact of private on public regulation through technological
change. Regul. Gov. 15 (3), 840–855. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12314.
Schuppan, T., 2009. E-government in developing countries: experiences from sub-
Saharan Africa. Gov. Inf. Q. 26 (1), 118–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
giq.2008.01.006.
Sharma, S.K., Metri, B., Dwivedi, Y.K., Rana, N.P., 2021. Challenges common service
centers (CSCs) face in delivering e-government services in rural India. Gov. Inf. Q. 38
(2), 101573 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101573.
Sheryazdanova, G., Butterfield, J., 2017. E-government as an anti-corruption strategy in
Kazakhstan. J. Inform. Tech. Polit. 14 (1), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19331681.2016.1275998.
Snellen, I., 2002. Electronic governance: implications for citizens, politicians and public
servants. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 68 (2), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0020852302682002.
Stratu-Strelet, D., Gil-Gómez, H., Oltra-Badenes, R., Oltra-Gutierrez, J.V., 2021. Critical
factors in the institutionalization of e-participation in e-government in Europe:
technology or leadership? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 164, 120489 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120489.
Taeihagh, A., Ramesh, M., Howlett, M., 2021. Assessing the regulatory challenges of
emerging disruptive technologies. Regul. Gov. 15 (4), 1009–1019. https://doi.org/
10.1111/rego.12392.
Tolbert, C.J., Mossberger, K., 2006. The effects of e-government on trust and confidence
in government. Public Adm. Rev. 66 (3), 354–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
6210.2006.00594.x.
Tolbert, C.J., Mossberger, K., Mcneal, R., 2008. Institutions, policy innovation, and e-
government in the American states. Public Adm. Rev. 68 (3), 549–563. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00890.x.
Topornin, N., Pyatkina, D., Bokov, Y., 2021. Government regulation of the internet as
instrument of digital protectionism in case of developing countries. J. Inf. Sci. 6 (1),
1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515211014142.
17
View publication stats
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 194 (2023) 122667
Twizeyimana, J.D., Andersson, A., 2019. The public value of E-government – a literature
review. Gov. Inf. Q. 36 (2), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.01.001.
United Nations, 2020. E-Government survey 2020 - digital government in the decade of
action for sustainable development.
Waheduzzaman, W., Khandaker, S., 2022. E-participation for combating corruption,
increasing voice and accountability, and developing government effectiveness: a
cross-country data analysis. Aust. J. Public Adm. 81 (4), 549–568. https://doi.org/
10.1111/1467-8500.12544.
West, D.M., 2004. E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen
attitudes. Public Adm. Rev. 64 (1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
6210.2004.00343.x.
Westbrook, L., 2008. E-government support for people in crisis: an evaluation of police
department website support for domestic violence survivors using “person-in-
situation” information need analysis. Libr. Inf. Sci. Res. 30 (1), 22–38. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.lisr.2007.07.004.
World Bank, 2021. World Development Report 2021: DATA for BETTER LIVES.
https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2021, accessed on March 16,
2022.
Wu, A.M., Yan, Y., Vyas, L., 2020. Public sector innovation, e-government, and
anticorruption in China and India: insights from civil servants. Aust. J. Public Adm.
79 (3), 370–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12439.
Xu, B., Li, S., Afzal, A., Mirza, N., Zhang, M., 2022. The impact of financial development
on environmental sustainability: a European perspective. Resour. Policy 78, 102814.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102814.
Young, M.M., Bullock, J.B., Lecy, J.D., 2019. Artificial discretion as a tool of governance:
a framework for understanding the impact of artificial intelligence on public
administration. In: Perspectives on Public Management and Governance. https://doi.
org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvz014.
Yuan, B., Ren, S., Chen, X., 2017. Can environmental regulation promote the coordinated
development of economy and environment in China’s manufacturing industry?–a
panel data analysis of 28 sub-sectors. J. Clean. Prod. 149, 11–24. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.065.
Qi Zou is a PHD candidate in the College of Public Administration, Huazhong University of
Science and Technology. His research interests include digital governance, non-traditional
security and public policy.
Zijun Mao is a professor in the College of Public Administration, Huazhong University of
Science and Technology. His research interests include digital government and non-
traditional security.
Rongxiao Yan is a PHD candidate in the College of Public Administration, Huazhong
University of Science and Technology. Her research interests include digital government
and human resources management in public sector.
Shuai Liu is a postdoctoral fellow in the Institute of Public Safety Research, Department of
Engineering Physics, Tsinghua University. His research interests include digital govern­
ment and non-traditional security.
Zheng Duan is a lecturer in the School of Mechanical Science & Engineering, Huazhong
University of Science and Technology. His research interests include digital governance
and higher education management.