Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2005

Towards the Restoration of Public Trust in Electronic Governments: A Case

Study of the E-Filing System in Singapore

Chee-Wee, Tan Shan-Ling, Pan Eric T.K. Lim

Sauder School of Business, School of Computing, National School of Computing, National
University of British Columbia University of Singapore University of Singapore
chee-wee.tan@sauder.ubc.ca pansl@comp.nus.edu.sg limtzeku@comp.nus.edu.sg

Abstract Furthermore, with accelerated advancements in

E-governments are becoming part and parcel of the
virtual economic landscape and are plagued by the same
lack of consumer trust that inhibits e-commerce
transactions. To make matters worse, the political
exclusivity and apathetic bureaucracy of public
institutions have amplified the level of difficulty in trying
to convince the citizenries to come onboard e-government
initiatives. In a preliminary attempt to derive possible
developmental implications for the restoring of public
trust in e-governments, this study explores the success
story of the Singapore’s Electronic Tax-Filing (e-Filing)
system to reveal how trust-building mechanisms have
been incorporated into its techno-structure to attract a
phenomenal rate of public user acceptance. Specifically,
the case examines the means by which process-based,
characteristic-based and institution-based trust have been
restored in the e-Filing system. This paper concludes by
suggesting that the restoration of public trust can only be
achieved through a blend of socio-political strategies and
Information Technology.
1. Introduction
The accountability of public administration is
constantly under scrutiny from political observers for its
effective representation and fulfilment of communal
interests [21]. Predominantly, the authoritarianism of civil
administrators in policy formulation and execution has
been chastised for gradually corroding government
institutional trustworthiness, a phenomenon La Porte and
Metlay [30] have termed as the “Deficit of Trust” in
public establishments (p.341). This “confidence gap”, as
established by Mitchell and Scott [37], will not only
trigger a backlash of cynical sentiments hindering
governmental initiative implementations but
simultaneously, it may threaten the very fabric of
legitimacy upon which public administration functions.
Information Technology (IT), the trust canyon between
public agencies and their citizenries continues to widen.
Particularly, the rise of e-government and its depiction as
modernized public management have presented renewed
challenges to civil administrators [1], [55]. Speculating on
the impacts of this e-transformation movement within the
public sphere, Stratford and Stratford [49] have foretold
that the increasing prevalence of e-governments serves to
propel public services towards a growing customer-
centric focus, which promises enhanced functionalities
and more active citizens’ involvement.
Nevertheless, such premature predictions of e-
government display symptoms of either optimism or
idealism. While public agencies yearn for the commercial
values of competitiveness and productivity embodied
within e-governmental adoptions [8], Frederickson [12]
and Haque [21] have warned against the societal
implications of these hasty businesslike migrations. They
were afraid that governments, blinded by their drive for
business process rejuvenation, may marginalize social
responsibilities in place of standard business norms.
Haque [20] for instance, noted that the infusion of
private-sector guidelines into public-sector reformation
campaigns has displaced traditional obligations of
government institutions and compromised on the level of
public confidence [5].
In light of these limitations, the restoration of public
trust stands as one of the top priorities in reinventing civil
administration [23], [21]. Moreover, the theme of trust
management is underrepresented in e-government
academia. A plausible explanation could be that e-
governments provide exclusive and indispensable public
services. Without exposure to market forces, government
agencies are deemed as unlikely candidates to invest the
necessary time and energy to rebuild citizen trust in
public initiatives [44]. A preliminary review of this area
has also uncovered such political exclusivity to be the
main distinction that separates the management of
consumer trust in e-government from that of e-commerce
[53].

0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE 1

 Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2005
This study thus attempts to explore and explain the
management of public trust in e-government initiatives
through a case study of the Singapore Electronic Tax-
Filing (e-Filing) system. The e-Filing system is one of the
most definitive e-government projects introduced by the
Singapore government to revitalize tax-filing services and
reinstate the wavering public confidence in its tax
collecting arm, the Inland Revenue Authority of
Singapore (IRAS). Through the utilization of IT as a trust
building mechanism, the e-Filing system has succeeded in
reversing disapproving voices towards the tax agency and
attracting a phenomenal rate of acceptance among its
target audience.
Given the rich experience of the IRAS in mediating
diverse citizen expectations, the case of the e-Filing
system is impeccable in appreciating the management of
public trust during e-government development.
Specifically, findings from this study will contribute
towards developmental implications for the restoration of
public trust in e-governments.
2. Theoretical Foundation
The seamless diffusion of IT into public administration
has radically altered its bureaucratic structure [39] by
expanding the scope and capabilities of public services
through new communication media [49]. These
paradigmatic shifts in basic governmental functioning [24]
are best characterised by the reengineering of archaic
business processes for operational performance and the
reshaping of conventional administrative procedures to
accommodate citizen participation [31], [41]. In other
words, the notion of e-government can be conceived as
“covering the changes of governance in a twofold manner:
(1) the transformation of the business of governance, i.e.
improving service quality delivery, reducing costs and
renewing administrative processes and; (2) the
transformation of governance itself, i.e. re-examining the
functioning of democratic practices and processes” ([1],
p.379).
Despite the positive prospects of an e-government
knitted society, there are pressing issues to be resolved for
their realization. From a technological perspective, the
novelty and anonymity of virtual transactions expose
transacting parties to higher contractual risk [2]. Without
the insurance of face-to-face confirmations, the integrity
of online transactions may succumb to fraudulent
practices [40], opportunistic behaviours [26] and
information distortions [32]. To add to these inhibiting
factors common to e-transactions, the inherent character
of e-governments amplifies the degree of difficulty in
attracting ‘loyal’ supporters.
Irrefutably, public agencies are monopolistic
‘business’ entities that offer services exclusive to a
country. With such unique sanctions and coercive powers,
0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE
it is not surprising that e-government initiatives are
typically conceived as digital manifestations of
mandatory, rather than voluntary, actions to be performed
by the citizens [51]. In this vein, the dictatorial tone of
communication adopted by public agencies for such
policy decisions [44] tends to alienate citizens from
becoming faithful subscribers of e-government services.
Moreover, as opposed to e-commerce, e-governments are
laden with a supplementary layer of political affinity,
which may induce the populace to question the
underlying veracity and morality of executive
governmental decisions. Therefore, Warkentin et al [53]
maintained that for e-government to be endorsed by the
general public as a legitimate platform for monetary and
information exchanges, “it must be removed from the
political arena in the minds of the citizens” (p.158). The
establishment of citizen trust is thus imperative and
proportional to the extent of public receptivity towards e-
government initiatives.
The notion of trust is not unfamiliar in social
disciplines with antecedents scattered across sociology
and strategic management literature (see [6], [43], [35]).
With each of these scholarly articles portraying trust in a
different light, a consensual working definition is
necessary to advance research in a homogeneous direction
[15]. Intuitively, the concept of trust hinges on a
precondition of vulnerability, which dictates that one
party (the truster) must willingly assume a defenseless
posture in anticipation that the other party (the trustee)
will behave in a socially responsible manner to fulfill the
expectations of the former [17], [25]. Core to this idea are
the principles of interdependence and risk because the
basis of transactional relationships rests on the
fundamental assumption that the interests of one party
cannot be achieved without reliance on another [47] and
“if one were omniscient, actions could be undertaken with
complete certainty, leaving no need or even possibility,
for trust to develop” ([34], p.970; see also [27]).
Synonymous with these prescribed characteristics, this
study subscribes to Ba and Pavlou’s [2] interpretation of
trust as “the subjective assessment of one party that
another party will perform a particular transaction
according to his or her confident expectations, in an
environment characterized by uncertainty” (p.245).
Compared to contemporary sociological perspectives
where trust is illustrated as a two-dimensional static
variable that is either present or absent [14], [45], this
definition appropriately captures trust in its multi-faceted
temperament. Indeed, Zucker [57] posited that the
engendering of trust is derived from the primary socio-
economic attributes of institutional credibility, social
similarity and business process reliability, each of them
corresponding to the respective modes of institution-
based, characteristic-based and process-based trust.
2
 Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2005
As with any manner of business interactions, the
trustworthiness of the goods and service provider is a
persuasive factor in affecting consumers’ purchase
preferences and perhaps, even more so in virtual
marketplaces where most transactions occur impersonally
and anonymously [2]. Consequently, institution-based
trust in the form of third-party guarantors represents an
additional seal of assurance and external legitimization
towards an agreed course of action between transacting
partners in order to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome
for any e-government transaction. Such arbitrating
arrangements are quite prevalent as deterrents against
insidious scams in e-commerce [29].
Conversely, social similarities such as the influence of
culture [13] play an equally important role in e-
government adoptions because people from the same
community settings often share an identical opinion on
what constitutes socially acceptable behavior [57]. This
stance is further reinforced by Doney et al [9], who
established causal links binding dimensions of national
culture to human’s cognitive processes of trust
development. Therefore, e-government programs must
synchronize with predominant social-behavioral trends in
order to secure characteristic-based trust within their
service vicinities.
Last but not least, process-based trust is accumulated
from familiarity gained through prior transactional
experience [7], [17]. It is subjected to the dependability of
the e-government processes to deliver the requisite
functionalities in a format satisfactory to the expectations
of the user [53]. Apparently, whenever the trustee
behaves responsibly to accomplish his/her part of the
bargain, the trustor increases his/her confidence towards
the trustee and vice versa when the trustee fails to
conform to the terms of the contract [18]. In another sense,
the creation of trust in this case is through the
convincement of citizens that the essence of e-
government services is mirrored after inveterate
governance systems and the only modifications stems
from procedural refinements.
Clearly, the above theoretical discussion suggests that
the restoration of public trust is deterministic towards the
eventual adoption of e-governments as an irreplaceable
channel of business transactions and symmetrical
communication between public agencies and their citizens.
Hence, this research proposes to analyze the strategic
proliferation of the e-Filing system through the building
of institution-based, characteristic-based and process-
based trust among its taxpayers.
3. Methodology
This study has adopted an in-depth case research
methodology. According to King [28], case study
research can tender “a deeper understanding of the
0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE
underlying process of organization change [within the
context of] an information system” (p.174). It is
appropriate in scenarios where the research question is
exploratory [56] within a broader sociological milieu,
necessitating rich descriptions of the social environment
[50]. Moreover, case study offers an opportunity to
engage in theory-building in areas where there is
relatively little prior knowledge [4], [10].
The case study for this paper was conducted at the
IRAS using several methods of data collection [4].
Focused, semi-structured interviews [36] were conducted
with organizational members associated with various
developmental phases of the e-Filing system, including
the Chief Information Officer (CIO), the e-filing system
design team, the e-filing system implementation team and
the e-filing administrative group. By soliciting
information from representatives involved throughout
these stages, the investigators were able to obtain a feel of
the entire e-government adoption experience. Particularly,
attention has been paid to the interaction of these
interviewees with the new technology such that the study
is not “[deflected to] the environment around the
phenomenon rather than the phenomenon itself” ([48],
p.11). Through these exercises, the investigators have
assembled a qualitative in-depth collation of data points
within the study environment that focused specifically on
developmental issues pertaining to the strategic
management of trust in the e-Filing system with lesser
emphasis on its technicalities [10].
Given the prescribed methodology, objective data
compilation was impossible as the researchers interacted
with the human subjects participating in the enquiry, and
in the process, altered the perceptions of both parties [52].
This research thus accepts a more interpretivistic
perspective [52] of the data gathered, i.e. the contextual
understanding of the investigators provides
supplementary background information that influences
evidence interpretation. Also, as part of data analysis,
preliminary themes isolated in the earlier half of the study
were incorporated into subsequent interview sessions to
stimulate a deeper scrutiny of the emerging issues. Data
collection was concluded when the themes became
repetitive and the information appeared to reach
saturation [19].
4. The e-Filing System: An Overview
The Singapore government was confronted with an
escalating amount of outstanding tax revenue during
1980s. Unprocessed tax returns stockpiled in the
Singapore Income Tax Department (SITD) and caused
administrative lags that aggravated the volatile situation
of mounting dissatisfaction among the organizational staff
and the taxpaying citizens. In view of this downward
spiraling state of affairs, the IRAS was inaugurated in
3
 Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2005
1992 to clear the bureaucratic backlog and repair the
tarnished image inherited from its predecessor by
restructuring the obsolete taxation system. This corporate
mission guided the IRAS over the next 8 years when the
tax administration process was reengineered as an
integrated Information System (IS), which resulted in the
lowering of staff turnover and a general increase in public
confidence.
The induction of direct taxpayer services (phone-
filing) in 1995 marks a milestone in the IRAS’ drive
towards revolutionizing the tax-filing system. 43% of tax
inquiries could then be handled by the automated voice
response system with the remaining 400,000 calls left to
the tax officers. Concomitantly, the IRAS’ reputation was
gradually being reversed as reflected in a 2001 survey
where 94.1% of individual taxpayers, 89.6% of corporate
taxpayers and 94.6% of goods and services taxpayers
expressed their satisfaction with the refurnished e-
government services.
Nonetheless, the IRAS did not rest on the laurels and
foresaw the popularity of the Internet as an opportunity to
extend the phone-filing services to a wider audience. With
the launch of e-filing on 16th February 1998, taxpayers
are allowed to file their income returns online either
through the Internet or the phone. This new S$1.90
million e-filing system is even accessible to overseas
citizens.
The quantum-leap in the e-Filing paradigm features
direct data entry into the IRAS’ centralized database,
thereby rendering the entire tax-filing process paperless
saved for a verification receipt. The IRAS projected that
the investment will be recovered within 5 years if 20-30%
of taxpayers submit their returns electronically. With an
approximated growth of 100% in the number of e-filers
annually, the IRAS is confident of breaking even.
Central to this computerization movement within the
IRAS is the Inland Revenue Integrated System (IRIS), a
sophisticated techno-structure that assimilates the entire
range of tax processing functions into a singular
information architecture. Fundamentally, the IRIS is
designed with a set of in-built predefined evaluation
criteria to process 80% of normal tax returns, which do
not demand additional manual validation. The remaining
20% are then routed, to the appropriate tax officer with
the essential skill domain, via an automated routing
process that employs a set of complex case matching rules
embedded within the IRIS. Through the codification of
essential tax processing measures into computer-based
rules, the main advantage of this streamlined tax valuation
system is the boost in productivity by re-channeling
manpower resources to address more complicated tax
returns while retaining the stringent controls of the
physical tax administrative practices.
The e-Filing system has demonstrated how a public
organization has unleashed the potential of IT to craft a
0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE
robust IS, which serves as a common denominator
between itself and its constituents. Given the IRAS’
victory in overturning negative communal reactions
towards the tax administration system, this research
would be beneficial in offering constructive insights into
the strategic management of trust in e-government project
development.
5. The Strategic Management of Trust in e-
Governments
From the preceding account, it is perceivable that the
IRAS faced an uphill struggle in overcoming the
taxpayers’ resistance towards the proposed e-Filing
model. Through the innovative use of IT, the IRAS has
surmounted the psychological barriers of distrust among
the taxpaying citizens. The remainder of this section will
focus on how IT-based e-government processes have
contributed to the strategic management of trust within
the context of the e-Filing system. Subsequent case
analysis aims to augment the above theoretical foundation
by drawing implications for the restoration of process-
based, characteristic-based and institution-based trust in
e-governments.
5.1. Process-based Trust
The emphasis on business process efficacies is
pervasive among e-government scholars and covers two
critical aspects: (1) the areas of government where IT can
be effectively utilized to enhance the efficiency of public
service delivery and; (2) the impacts of redesigned public
administrative procedures on citizens (see [33], [46]).
Further to these discourses, Gefen et al [18] postulated
that the consistency of e-government processes to fulfill
transactional requirements constitutes the most
rudimentary means of generating trust among service
recipients.
Parallel to these arguments, the e-Filing system was
meant to serve a similar purpose. Since the days of the
SITD, its apathetic bureaucracy, coupled with ritualistic
operations, has stretched taxpayers’ patience with the tax
administration system [38]. Procedural redundancies such
as the insistence of physical folders for storing tax
profiles have caused eruptions of regular clashes between
the government agency and its citizenries. To top it off,
the casual attitude of civil administrators in handling
customer enquires further estranged the taxpayers.
To arrest the deteriorating relationship with the
taxpayers, the e-Filing system was launched by the IRAS
to restore public confidence in the taxation system.
Through an IT-driven overhaul of the tax processing
routines, the e-Filing system was devised as a convenient
and responsive alternative to its manual counterpart. In
addition, the integrated informational architecture of the
4
 Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2005
e-Filing system facilitates the tracking of transactional
history for every taxpayer such that knowledge can be
shared among officials on how best to serve an individual.
In turn, this will drastically reduced the delays in reacting
to consumer queries and improved the response quality:
“Whenever a taxpayer approaches us, the first thing
we do is to retrieve his record. Using IRIS, a click on
their identity card number will get us a record of their
last conversation [with the IRAS] and whom they have
spoken to. In the past, we wouldn’t know who the last
person to handle the case was, unless the taxpayer
himself had taken down the name of the officer he had
contacted.” (System Engineer)
Through such an extensive network of assistance, the
e-Filing process has become smoother and easier for the
taxpayers:
“The help-channels have aided the taxpayers because
of the immediate contact with the helpline staff. The e-
Filing help-lines open from 8am to 10pm during each tax
cycle and taxpayers could get help immediately on the
computer. It really cuts down on the problems that they
had…even though the number of e-filers climbed every
year, we observed that the amount of correspondences
have dropped from its peak of when we first started the e-
Filing system.” (Customer Service Attendant)
Consequently, it is conceivable from these statements
that the e-Filing system is not merely a digital
streamlining of the tax-filing procedures, but also an
incorporation of virtual feedback channels, which are part
of its trust building efforts [2]. Since familiarity is the key
to building process-based trust [7], [17], the analysis has
attested to the accessibility and responsiveness of help-
centers as cardinal peripherals of core e-government
activities in order to provide end-user support for business
interactions and preclude the manifestation of
technological phobia in amateur users. An integrative
backend infrastructure is thus vital to e-governments in
amalgamating the primary and supportive functions
available to citizens into a consolidated service portal
[11], [31] so that transactions can be accomplished in a
timely, reliable fashion and process-based trust is earned.
5.2. Characteristic-based Trust
Apart from the accruement of trust through business
process familiarization, characteristic-based trust is
another equally relevant dimension of e-government
development [18]. Intuitively, e-government services are
tailored exclusively to tackle the social requirements of a
single country and in this respect, the influence of the
national culture on trust management overshadows those
of other subservient demographic behavioral patterns [9].
Likewise, one of the toughest obstacles encountered by
the IRAS in developing the e-Filing system resides in the
recurring friction between the agency and its taxpayers,
0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE
the cause of which can be credited to the presence of
mutual suspicions and long-standing animosity between
both parties. Effectively, this prolonged hostility is almost
tantamount to an entrenched national culture underlying
the tax governance system.
For the taxpayers, the IRAS is perceived
stereotypically as a ‘primitive’ government bureaucracy
with inflexible regulations and an unforgiving corporate
culture. Moreover, the tendency of public administration
to enact translucent policies has diluted citizens’
willingness to participate proactively in e-government
initiatives [51]. An excellent illustration from the case is
the lack of transparency in the management of
information within the e-Filing system. Most interviewed
taxpayers have professed to a limited understanding of the
inner workings of the e-Filing system and expressed
trepidation over the privacy and security of sensitive tax
information [22].
“Although taxpayers feel that e-Filing is efficient and
convenient, they sometimes tend to worry if the private
tax information submitted is secure…They [taxpayers]
occasionally complain that they do not really know what
goes on behind the system. Therefore, it would be better if
the IRAS can let them know how their sensitive tax
information is being used.” (IRAS Respondent)
Such misgivings over the accountability of e-
governments were also echoed by Gant and Gant [16],
who documented the absence of privacy and security
statements in a significant number of governmental web
portals. The IRAS officials, on the other hand, have their
own reservations over the honesty of the taxpaying
population because they are accustomed to the perception
of taxpayers as unwilling and thereby infidel participants
of the taxation system.
This symmetrical cynicism has evolved into a vicious
cycle that not only impedes external taxpayers from
embracing the e-Filing system, but it has also contributed
to internal apprehensions over IT-led transformations of
existing administrative institutional order [54]:
“Nowadays, we have to trust that taxpayers were very
honest and we could accept the tax returns as they were,
so we proposed to get the e-Filing system to process them
according to the 80/20 rule…Of course, with this change
in mindset, there were a lot of obstacles when you had to
throw the old thinking out. A number of tax officers would
argue, “No, this [manual tax return verification process]
is the right way. We must still check…” and things like
that.” (CIO)
The e-Filing system thus signifies a decisive move by
the IRAS to reconcile these perceptive differences.
Through the availability of simplified IT-based
communication channels such as emails, taxpayers are
systematically absorbed into the extended knowledge
framework of the public institution in which their voices
are awarded due recognition and undivided attention.
5
 Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2005
More importantly, such an arrangement permits both the
IRAS and the taxpayers to acknowledge and resolve each
other’s concerns:
“During the peak period, we can receive up to 2-3
hundred emails everyday…We have a listing of these
available learning opportunities in our Lotus Notes
database. We don’t call them [customer enquires]
complaints, we call them learning opportunities. It is
accessible to every officer so that we can all learn from
the mistakes. We do keep track and try to improve on
them. So whenever we receive comments from the
taxpayers on things we did not do well, the staff will raise
suggestions on how we can try to solve them…However,
in certain cases where we can’t resolve the problem due
to organizational concerns, we will also explain to them
[taxpayer] why.” (Corporate Communications Officer)
From the evidence, it can be gathered that the initial
skepticism surrounding the e-Filing system stems from a
deeply-rooted culture of public wariness towards
governmental establishments and vice versa. As such, the
IRAS has exploited the technological capabilities of the e-
Filing system to offer user-friendly methods of
communication in order to promote a conducive
knowledge-sharing atmosphere for taxpayers to articulate
their opinions and achieve consensus with the tax agency.
A candid knowledge-sharing culture, derived from the
merger of integrative IT and bidirectional communication
strategies, is therefore complementary to e-governments
as it offers an avenue for practitioners to comprehend the
often neglected component of citizen expectations in
order to realign the developmental direction of e-
government initiatives accordingly [21]. In this way, civil
administration can better reflect social interests and
restore characteristic-based trust in the populace.
5.3. Institution-based Trust
The genesis of institution-based trust in e-transactions
originates from indirect sources of assurance such as
intermediate moderators [53]. Since intermediaries have
no vested interest in a business transaction, they are
perfect arbitrators to endorse the authenticity of the deal.
Hence, the presence of mediators in virtual commerce
helps to mitigate the uncertainties in an otherwise obscure
modus operandi [2]; especially in the context of
compulsory e-government initiatives whereby the
political clout associated with their parent agencies is
seldom lost on the citizenries [3].
To the IRAS, the restoration of institution-based
trust represents an urgent task on its agenda to diffuse the
e-Filing paradigm into the general taxpaying population.
To reassure taxpayers of the e-Filing system’s
impartiality, the auto-inclusion scheme is initiated by the
IRAS to secure employers’ endorsement of the revamped
e-Filing model.
0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE
By clinching data transfer alliances with a total of
1,197 corporations, the auto-inclusion scheme is devised
to enroll employers into transmitting relevant tax
information on behalf of their employees directly into the
IRAS central database. This will condense the entire tax-
filing sequence to make it effortless and errorless for the
taxpayers because once the employment data for a
particular individual has been uploaded, he/she is simply
expected to submit a series of zero returns through the e-
Filing system.
Moreover, perplexing tax administrative matters such
as whether a financial entry is taxable can be resolved
most efficiently at its source (employers):
“We prefer it that way [auto-inclusion] because first of
all it is very accurate. In fact, sometimes the taxpayers
themselves enter the thing wrongly…[Besides,] whether
an item is taxable or non-taxable, we can arrange with
the employers. So taxpayers don’t have to crack their
heads.” (CIO)
To pull off such a stratagem, a great leap of faith is
required of the taxpayers since they cannot verify the
accuracy of the transferred income figures due to security
considerations. Nevertheless, with the commitment and
appropriation of these organizational partners, the
taxpayers are gradually convinced that the auto-inclusion
scheme places the e-Filing system under magnified
scrutiny and subjects the IRAS to greater accountability.
In fact, the formation of virtual partnerships with external
entities, which are already trusted by the taxpayers, lends
weight to the integrity of the e-Filing system:
“Most of the taxpayers don’t see any difference
between their employers filing the returns for them versus
they [taxpayers] filing the returns themselves. Anyway,
they understand that the employers have access to their
income information…In fact, taxpayers prefer the auto-
inclusion scheme because it [e-Filing process] is more
accurate and it saves them the effort of trying to
comprehend what the different financial terms mean
during tax filing.” (IRAS Interviewee)
Therefore, as opposed to the popular hypothesis of
third-party guarantors as leading sources of institution-
based trust [18], [53], the above example suggests that
strategic collaborations with established pillars of trust
may be another viable option to offset the political
climate of e-governments. As seen in the preceding
quotation, there is an obvious spill-over effect to be
gleaned from the auto-inclusion scheme such that the
trustworthiness of employers is compounded onto the e-
Filing system, thereby giving it a preferred appeal over
the manual tax-filing procedure. Since collaborators such
as employers have previous trust engagements with the
target audience, the creation of virtually-integrated
extended enterprise e-government solutions allows public
institutions to reestablish institution-based trust by
capitalizing on approved credibility. Over time, such
6
 Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2005
collusive alliances will shift institutional trust from third-
party institution-based trust derived through intermediary-
driven configurations to bilateral institutionalized trust,
which accompanied dyadic inter-organizational business
processes [42].
To summarize, the strategic management of public
trust in e-governments can be construed as the restoration
of process-based, characteristic-based and institution-
based trust among citizens. Bearing this correlation in
mind, the case of the IRAS has underscored crucial
developmental considerations to be taken into account for
implementing e-governments (see Table 1).
Insert Table 1 here: See Appendix A.
6. Implications and Conclusion
This study addresses the important topic of public trust
restoration in e-governments, especially with the ‘biased’
political background and authoritative connotations
attached to their parent implementers, the public
institutions [21], [30]. By exploring the restoration of
process-based, characteristic-based and institution-based
trust among citizens [57] in the case of the IRAS, this
research makes a pertinent contribution to the
development of trust-building instruments in e-
governmental systems. In contrast to pioneering work
performed in this area (see [18], [53]), this study proposes
a clearer distinction between developmental implications
for e-governments and the respective complementary
roles of IT.
Indeed, the case of the e-Filing system draws attention
to the observable phenomenon that each mode of trust can
only be restored through a blend of socio-political
strategies and IT. Consequently, the table of
developmental implications serves the dual role of acting
as guiding beacons for practitioners to assess the
deficiency of trust-building mechanisms within their e-
government initiatives and proposing feasible solutions to
these system shortcomings so as to arrive at a holistic
trusting-building effort. This in turn may persuade
citizens to experiment with the e-government services and
eventually be co-opted into adopting these initiatives.
Besides these pragmatic developmental considerations,
the case bears implications for future research in an
identical direction. Firstly, this study admits the
limitations of a single case analysis and thus, proposes
that investigations of a similar nature should be replicated
across other e-government programs in order to validate
the findings and achieve greater generalizability through
theoretical extrapolation [56]. Moreover, the research
hints of probable interdependencies between the different
modes of trust, which may warrant further theoretical
examination. For instance, it is possibly the case that the
encouragement of a congenial knowledge-sharing culture
0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE
to restore characteristic-based trust may serve to alleviate
some of the public anxieties towards government
institutional credibility. With public agencies and their
citizenries getting more comfortable with each other’s
presence through knowledge-sharing coalitions, citizens
may warm to the trustworthiness of government
establishments and the sincerity of their offered services.
In sum, for e-governments to become a staple in the
mundane endeavors of the general populace, their
implementers should pay significant attention to the
inclusion of IT-based trust-building strategies during
development in order to restore public confidence in the
offered services.
7. References
[1] G. Aicholzer, and R. Schmutzer, “Organizational
Challenges to the Development of Electronic Government”,
Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Database
and Expert Systems Applications, Greenwich, London, U.K.,
September, 6-8, 2000, pp. 379-383.
[2] S. Ba, and P.A. Pavlou, “Evidence of the Effect of Trust
Building Technology in Electronic Markets: Price Premiums
and Buyer Behavior”, MIS Quarterly, (26:3), 2002, pp. 243-
268.
[3] F. Bannister, “Dismantling the Silos: Extracting New
Value from IT Investments in Public Administration”,
Information Systems Journal, 11, 2001, pp. 65-84.
[4] I. Benbasat, D.K. Goldstein, and M. Mead, “The Case
Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems”, MIS
Quarterly, (11:3), 1987, pp. 369-386.
[5] E.M. Berman, “Dealing with Cynical Citizens”, Public
Administration Review, (57:2), 1997, pp. 105-112.
[6] R. Bhattacharya, T.M. Devinney, and M.M. Pillutla, “A
Formal Model of Trust Based on Outcomes”, Academy of
Management Review, (23:3), 1998, pp. 459-472.
[7] A. Bhattacherjee, “Individual Trust in Online Firms:
Scale Development and Initial Test”, Journal of Management
Information Systems, (19:1), 2002, pp. 211-241.
[8] P. Devadoss, S.L. Pan, and J.C. Huang, “Structurational
Analysis of e-Government Initiatives: A Case Study of SCO”,
Decision Support Systems, 2002, 34, pp. 253-269.
[9] P. Doney, J.P. Cannon, and M.R. Mullen, “Understanding
of the Influence of National Culture on the Development of
Trust”, Academy of Management Review, (23:3), 1998, pp.
601-620.
[10] K.M. Eisenhardt, “Better Stories and Better Constructs”,
Academy of Management Review, (16:3), 1991, pp. 620-627.
[11] D. Fernandes, W. Gorr, and R. Krishnan, “ServiceNet: An
Agent-Based Framework for One-Stop E-Government
Services”, Proceedings of the 7th Americas Conference on
7
 Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2005
Information Systems, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A., August
3-5, 2001, pp. 1590-1594.
[12] H.G. Frederickson, The Spirit of Public Administration,
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1997.
[13] F. Fukuyama, Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation
of Prosperity, New York, The Free Press, 1995.
[14] J.J. Gabarro, “The Development of Working
Relationships”, In Intellectual Teamwork: Social and
Technological Foundations of Cooperative Work, J. Gallagher,
R.E. Kraut, and C. Egido, (eds.), Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 1990, pp. 79-110.
[15] M.J. Gallivan, “Striking a Balance Between Trust and
Control in a Virtual Organization: A Content Analysis of Open
Source Software Case Studies”, Information Systems Journal,
11, 2001, pp. 277-304.
[16] J. Gant, and D.B. Gant, “Web Portals and Their Role in
E-Government”, Proceedings of the 7th American Conference
on Information Systems, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.,
August 3-5, 2001, pp. 1617-1623.
[17] D. Gefen, “E-Commerce: The Role of Familiarity and
Trust”, Omega: The International Journal of Management
Science, (28:6), 2000, pp. 725-737.
[18] D. Gefen, M. Warkentin, P.A. Pavlou, and G.M. Rose,
“E-Government Adoption”, Proceedings of the 8th Americas
Conference on Information Systems, 569-76. Dallas, Texas,
U.S.A., August 9-11, 2002.
[19] B. Glaser, and A. Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded
Theory, Aidine, Chicago, 1967.
[20] M.S. Haque, “Legitimation Crisis: A Challenge for Public
Service in the Next Century”, International Review of
Administration Sciences, (64:1), 1998, pp. 13-26.
[21] M.S. Haque, “The Diminishing Publicness of Public
Service under the Current Mode of Governance”, Public
Administration Review, (61:1), 2001, pp. 65-82.
[22] R. Heeks, “Citizen Access and the Use of Government
Data: Understanding the Barriers”, In Organizations in Virtual
Communities. J. Kisielnicki, (ed.), IRM Press, Hershey, PA,
2002.
[23] R.E. Herzlinger, “Can Public Trust in Nonprofits and
Governments be Restored”, Harvard Business Review, 1996,
pp. 97-107.
[24] A.T.K. Ho, “Reinventing Local Governments and the E-
Government Initiative”, Public Administration Review, (62:4),
2002, pp. 434-44.
[25] B.W. Husted, “The Ethical Limits of Trust in Business
Relations”, Business Ethics Quarterly, 8, 1998, pp. 233-248.
[26] S.L. Jarvenpaa, and N. Tractinsky, (1999) “Consumer
Trust in an Internet Store: A Cross-Cultural Validation”,
0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communications, (5:2), 1999.
[27] M.V. Karahannas, and M. Jones, “Interorganizational
Systems and Trust in Strategic Alliances”, Proceedings of the
International Conference on Information Systems, Charlotte,
North Carolina, U.S.A., December 13-15, 1999, pp. 346-357.
[28] S. King, “Case Tools and Organizational Action”,
Information Systems Journal, 6, 1996, pp. 173-194.
[29] P. Kollock, “The Production of Trust in Online Markets”,
Advances in Group Processes, 16, 1999, pp. 99-123.
[30] T.R. La Porte, and D.S. Metlay, “Hazards and
Institutional Trustworthiness: Facing a Deficit of Trust”,
Public Administration Review, (56: 4), 1996, pp. 341-7.
[31] G. Lawson, NetState. London: Demos, 1998.
[32] H.G. Lee, (1998) “Do Electronic Marketplaces Lowers
the Price of Goods?” Communications of the ACM, (41:1),
1998, pp. 73-80.
[33] K. Lenk, and R. Traunmuller, Presentation at the IFIP
WG 8.5 Working Conference on “Advances in Electronic
Government”, Zaragoza, Spain, February 10-11, 2000.
[34] D.J. Lewis, and A. Weigert, (1985) “Trust as a Social
Reality”, Social Forces, 63, pp. 967-985.
[35] R.C. Mayer, J.H. Davis, and F.D. Schoorman, (1995) “An
Integrative Model of Organizational Trust”, Academy of
Management Review, 20, 1995, pp. 709-734.
[36] R.K. Merton, M. Fiske, and P.L. Kendall, The Focused
Interview: A Manual of Problems and Procedures, 2nd edn.
New York: Free Press, 1990.
[37] T.R. Mitchell, and W.G. Scott, “Leadership Failures, the
Distrusting Public, and Prospects of the Administration State”,
Public Administration Review, 47, 1987, pp. 445-452.
[38] M.J. Moon, and S. Bretschneider, “Does the Perception of
Red Tape Constrain I.T. Innovativeness in Organizations?
Unexpected Results from Simultaneous Equation Model and
Implications”, Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, (11:3), 2002, pp. 327-352.
[39] M.J. Moon, “The Evolution of E-Government among
Municipalities: Rhetoric or Reality?” Public Administration
Review, (62:4), 2002, pp. 424-433.
[40] P. Neumann, “Identity-Related Misuse”, Communications
of ACM, (40:7), 1997.
[41] P. Norris, “Who Surfs? New Technology, Old Voters, and
Virtual Democracy”, In Democracy.com? Governance in
Networked World. E.C. Kamarck, and J.S. NYE, (eds.), Hollis,
NH: Hollis Publishing Company, pp. 71-94, 1999.
[42] P. Pavlou, Y.H. Tan, and D. Gefen, “Institutional Trust
and Familiarity in Online Interorganizational Relationships”,
Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Information
8
 Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2005
Systems, Naples, Italy, June 19-21, 2003.
[43] J.K. Rempel, J.G. Holmes, and M.D. Zanna, “Trust in
Close Relationships”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 49, 1985, pp. 95-112.
[44] P.J. Robertson, and S.J. Seneviratne, “Outcomes of
Planned Organizational Change in the Public Sector: A Meta-
Analytic Comparison to the Private Sector”, Public
Administration Review, (55:6), 1995, pp. 547-558.
[45] M.D. Rousseau, S.B. Sitkin, R.S. Burt, and C. Camerer,
“Not So Different After All: A Cross Discipline View of
Trust”, Academy of Management Review, (23:3), 1998, pp.
393-404.
[46] P. Schubert, and U. Häusler, “E-Government meets E-
Business: A Portal Site for Startup Companies in Switzerland”,
Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences, Hawaii, U.S.A., January 3-6, 2001.
[47] B.H. Sheppard, and D.M. Sherman, “The Grammars of
Trust: A Model and General Implications”, Academy of
Management Review, (23:3), 1998, pp. 422-437.
[48] D. Silverman, “Qualitative Research: Meanings or
Practices?” Information Systems Journal, 8, 1998, pp. 3-20.
[49] J.S. Stratford, and J. Straford, (2000) “Computerized and
Networked Government Information”, Journal of Government
Information, 27, 2000, pp. 385-389.
[50] A.L. Strauss, and J. Corbin, Basics of Qualitative
Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques.
London: Sage Publications, 1990.
[51] C.W. Tan, S.L. Pan, and E. Lim, “E-Governance:
0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE
Towards a Strategic Convergence of Stakeholder Interests”,
Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Information
Systems, Naples, Italy, June 19-21, 2003.
[52] G. Walsham, “The Emergence of Interpretivism in IS
research”, Information Systems Research, (6:4), 1995, pp. 376-
394.
[53] M. Warkentin, D. Gefen, P.A. Pavlou, and M. Rose,
“Encouraging Citizen Adoption of e-Government by Building
Trust”, Electronic Markets, (12:3), 2002, pp. 157-162.
[54] D. Wastel, P. Kawalek, and M. Newman, “Plus ça
Change: Defensive Translations and Resistance to IT-enabled
Change in Local Government”, Proceedings of the 11th
European Conference on Information Systems, Naples, Italy,
June 19-21, 2003.
[55] M. Wimmer, R. Traunmuller, and K. Lenk, “Electronic
Business Invading the Public Sector: Considerations on
Change and Design”, Proceedings of 34th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, U.S.A., January 3-6,
2001.
[56] R.K. Yin, Case Study Research: Design and Methods.
Sage, London, 1994.
[57] L.G. Zucker, (1986) “Production of Trust: Institutional
Sources of Economic Structure 1840-1920”, Research in
Organizational Behavior, (8:1), 1986, pp. 53-111.
9
 Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2005
Appendix A
Modes of Trust Implications for e-Government
Development
Process-Based ƒ Process-based trust is derived from
business process familiarity and as such, e-
government transactions must adhere to the
principles of timeliness and reliability.
Also, a comprehensive network of
assistance must be available to dispel
initial system fears faced by amateur users.
Characteristic-Based ƒ Characteristic-based trust is derived from
social similarities and as such, the
developmental direction of e-government
initiatives should conform to public
expectations by employing bidirectional
communication strategies and knowledge-
sharing policies.
Institution-Based ƒ Institution-based trust is derived from
third-party assurance and as such, e-
government initiatives may consider
collaborating with established external
entities in order to exploit the credibility
ratings of these existing pillars of trust.
Table 1. Summary of implications for e-Government development to restore public trust
0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE
Role of Information Technology (IT)
ƒ To provide the integrative infrastructure
for assimilating primary and supportive
functions of the e-government initiative
into a consolidated service portal such
that transactions can be accomplished
by citizens effortlessly.
ƒ To offer the technical means for crafting
simplified methods of communication
so as to induce citizens to readily
participate in extended knowledge-
sharing networks.
ƒ To form the technological backbone of
virtually-integrated extended enterprise
e-government solutions, which in turn
maximize the compounding effects of
third-party institutional trustworthiness.
10