The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1468-4527.htm
OIR
45,2
440
Received 4 May 2020
Revised 28 September 2020
Accepted 21 November 2020
Online Information Review
Vol. 45 No. 2, 2021
pp. 440-460
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1468-4527
DOI 10.1108/OIR-05-2020-0158
Digital divide in ASEAN member
states: analyzing the critical
factors for successful
e-government programs
Indri Dwi Apriliyanti, Bevaola Kusumasari and Agus Pramusinto
Department of Public Policy and Management, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences,
Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, and
Widodo Agus Setianto
Department of Communication Science, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences,
Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Abstract
Purpose – This study addresses the critical factors that contribute to the success of e-government programs in
the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member states (AMS). We investigate the factors that
play key roles in e-government adoption and implementation in AMS that stem from multiple dimensions.
Design/methodology/approach – Our qualitative study on eight ASEAN countries with different political
situations and economic developments suggests that in general, institutions (formal and informal institutions),
resources, leadership, organizational design and culture values determine the success of e-government.
Findings – The provision of adequate information and communication technology infrastructure alone is
insufficient to ensure the success of e-government.
Research limitations/implications – Our findings lead to a conceptual framework of factors that drive the
success of e-government projects that advances the literature on e-government, particularly the research about
e-government in the context of developing countries.
Originality/value – An empirical evidence and in-depth understanding suggest that different factors are
associated with detrimental impacts on e-government implementation.
Keywords E-government, Digital divide, ASEAN, Public sector
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
In the past decades, information and communication technology (ICT) has transformed the
way governments manage internal business and government processes (Meijer and Bekkers,
2015). This transformation has been identified as e-government (electronic government) or as
an approach government has taken to modernize public sectors by applying ICT as a tool to
process information and to redesign communication platforms. Since 2000, all ASEAN (the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations) member states (ASEAN member states or AMS),
namely, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the
Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam, have signed the e-ASEAN Framework
Agreement to develop and strengthen the use of ICT and to increase the competitiveness of
the ICT sector in ASEAN, including the cooperation to diminish the digital divide among
ASEAN country states.
To achieve the pillars of e-ASEAN initiatives, governments of AMS have implemented e-
government in past years as part of the national strategies to increase government
This work has been funded by FISIPOL UGM under the programme of Research, and Community
Service Grants 2019. The opinions expresses here in are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of funding agency.
managerial effectiveness and governance. However, adopting e-government in developing Digital divide
countries (as most AMS are categorized as developing countries) is challenging and in ASEAN
cumbersome. As a widely existing phenomenon, the failure of e-government has attained
increased research attention from scholars (Goldfinch, 2007). However, Gunawong and Gao
(2017) state that most studies focus on developed countries, whereas such studies in
developing countries are limited and thus contribute to our poor understanding toward e-
government failure, which occurs in developing countries. Moreover, discussions about e-
government in the ASEAN region are lacking. Sang et al. (2009) suggest the need for research 441
on e-government implementation in the ASEAN region. Until now, to the best of our
knowledge, we did not find any related work discussing the application of e-government in
ASEAN. We believe this is the first empirical study of e-government development in ASEAN.
We argue that ASEAN countries provide highly interesting environments for studying e-
government. According to CNBC (2018), ASEAN is the fifth largest economy in the world and
has boosted its gross domestic product (GDP) growth reach to a five-year high of 5.2% (IMF).
Although most ASEAN countries have shown superior economic performance, developing
countries face challenges, such as poor bureaucracy and legal system institutions (Alon and
Hageman, 2017), resulting in the inability of governments to thoroughly respond to public
needs and interests. We also argue that each ASEAN country has its own resources,
challenges and institutional characteristics that differ from each other. Therefore, analyzing
how developing countries with different resources and political situations implement their e-
government programs is interesting, shedding new light on e-government implementation in
nondeveloped countries.
In addition, we notice that although literature on e-government has been extensive,
improved integrative approaches have not been used for analyses on government efforts in
implementing e-government. Specifically, we find that managerial technology use and
organizational factors that influence e-government have been limitedly discussed (Buffat,
2015). Luna-Reyes and Gil-Garcia (2014) and Stier (2015) state that current studies that
explain the complex relationships among ICT, organizations and institutions are scarce. The
authors also require a deep understanding about how ICT, governmental organizations and
institutions operate and influence each other. Equally important, Stier (2015) argues that
discussions about the roles of political factors and regime types in analyzing the performance
of e-government in cross-national research are limited. These research gaps are addressed in
the present study by assessing the critical factors that contribute to e-government. Previous
studies failed to thoroughly identify the determinants of e-government performance. To
address such gaps, we investigate factors that drive the success or failure of e-government
programs in AMS by considering different sorts of dimensions.
The contributions of this study are fourfold. First, we analyze the role of ICT, organizations
and institutions in influencing e-government implementation, a discussion that remains
lacking in e-government literature. Second, we compare e-government implementation in
countries with different economic developments and political situations, thereby representing
interesting study contexts. Third, we propose a model that aims to explore critical factors that
account for successful e-government implementation, particularly in developing countries.
Fourth, we explain that understanding the factors that promote successful e-government
implementation can help governments in defining strategies to strengthen e-government
diffusion. We argue that the absence of analyses on e-government in developing countries
(particularly in ASEAN countries) is one reason why the existing model commonly fails to
produce strong analyses to understand the presence of e-government in ASEAN countries.

2. Literature review
The e-government literature has highlighted four factors that drive e-government
performance. The extant literature has identified that institutional factors, technological
OIR factors, organizational factors and leadership play important roles in determining the
45,2 adoption of e-government projects, and later in stimulating the development of e-government.

2.1 Institutional factors

Institutional factors affect e-government diffusion and implementation (Dawes, 2008). These
institutional factors include legal laws or regulations (Gil-Grac
ıa and Prado, 2005; Gunawong
442 and Gao, 2017; Jaeger and Thompson, 2003), economic issues (Jaeger and Thompson, 2003),
national culture (Khalil, 2011; Lean et al., 2009a; Schuppan, 2009), cultural perceptions (Evans
and Yen, 2005), cultural perspectives (Choudrie et al., 2017; Zhao and Khan, 2013), cultural and
social differences (Pons, 2004), social and political environment, democratization level,
external pressure (Fan and Zhao, 2017; Gasc
o, 2005), political stakeholder interactions (Heeks
and Stanforth, 2007; Rose et al., 2018), political culture and administrative traditions and
culture (Bolgherini, 2007; Linders et al., 2018; Schuppan, 2009).
King et al. (1994) argue that national governance plays a critical role in diffusing information
technology (IT) innovations. Tolbert et al. (2008) also suggest that a supportive national climate
of institutions is an essential contributing factor in shaping e-government diffusion. Bolgherini
(2007) and Rorissa and Demissie (2010) argue that apart from the role of ICT in e-government
adoption, political environment and national policies are also important factors for e-
government. National institutions of governance are embedded in various types of
organizations (either public or private) and operate at societal levels (March and Olsen, 1989).

2.2 Technological factors

Technological factors include e-government infrastructure (Basu, 2004; Damanpour and
Aravind, 2012; Yoon and Chae, 2009), IT quality triad (information, system and service
quality) (Prybutok et al., 2008) and e-government system maintenance. ICT or digital
technologies and the Internet are critical parts of e-government implementation (Zhang et al.,
2014). Technological factors that support and enable e-government implementation are
required for the successful acceleration of e-government diffusion. Therefore, poor IT
infrastructure, such as limited access to stable ICT, can constrain rapid e-government
diffusion (Rorissa and Demissie, 2010; Wu et al., 2016).

2.3 Organizational factors

E-government adoption not only requires ICT infrastructure or tools but also high-level
human resources. Human resources or government employees have important impacts on e-
government diffusion. Technical and technological know-how, IT skills and capacity
(Bolgherini, 2007; Chen and Gant, 2001; Gasc
o, 2005; Zheng et al., 2013) are among the
determining human factors that affect e-government development. Employees’ commitment
level also alters their behaviors and attitudes toward e-government reform (Kim and Lee,
2009; Lee and Porumbescu, 2019). Kim and Lee (2009) argue that the success of e-government
may be dependent on the steady commitment of skillful government employees who are
eager and willing to accept reform and new initiatives and to cooperate for conducting new
tasks. Therefore, administrative reform and organizational transformation (Gasc
o, 2005;
Nograsek, 2012) are needed to accelerate e-government adoption. The attempt to optimize
employee commitment to organizational initiatives for adopting and implementing e-
government can be achieved by building a corporate culture that consists of training,
development, reward and punishment (Babakus et al., 2003; Eisenberger et al., 1990; Hwang
and Choi, 2017). Entwistle et al. (2007) also reveal that cooperation among governmental
bodies is advised to achieve beyond the reach of unilateral action. Cooperation among
organizations can mobilize the mounting volume of critical resources needed to implement e-
government, including increasing economies of scale in terms of widening the areas of service Digital divide
offerings (Ferro and Sorrentino, 2010; Kassen, 2019). Ferro and Sorrentino (2010) also reveal in ASEAN
that cooperation among governmental bodies, including that between governments and
private organizations, can further facilitate e-government.

2.4 Leadership
E-government initiatives stem from commitments to political and administrative leaders 443
(upper/high-ranking bureaucrats) (Choi and Chandler, 2020; Heeks, 2001). Certain articles
show that effective leadership (Heeks, 2001; Luk, 2009), empowering leadership (Wright et al.,
2012), leadership support (Yang and Rho, 2007) and managerial skills (Zheng et al., 2013) can
promote e-government diffusion. Leaders can provide direction, support knowledge sharing
and mobilize resources (Prybutok and Spink, 1999; Wallis and Zhao, 2018). Leaders are
expected to create strategic e-government plans, which involve short- and long-term
e-government goals, including plans to build relationships with citizens and partners
(Prybutok et al., 2008). Skillful leaders are perceived to overcome obstacles, problems and
challenges in the e-government implementation process (Karch, 2007; Yun and Opheim, 2010).
Political and administrative leaders also have the power to decide whether e-government
initiatives are implemented in a decentralized manner or not (Melitski, 2003). Moreover, e-
government diffusion is affected by power allocation (Wang et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2014).
Past studies demonstrated that the distribution of decision-making power (Welch et al., 2004)
can accelerate the quality of e-government. Melitski (2003) argues that the decentralization in
decision-making is helpful in instilling the further commitment of employees in carrying out
their tasks, including when embracing e-government initiatives (see Table 1).

3. Research methodology
We apply a multiple case approach in this study. Given that our research mainly explores
factors that are closely related to one another and linked to their contextual setting (formal
and informal institutions), we argue that the multiple-case approach is appropriate (Yin,
2014). This approach allows us to establish patterns of relationships between factors within
and across cases (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). The multiple-case approach also helps us
build a strong theoretical base for model building (Yin, 2003).

3.1 Case selection

The selection of cases is based on two criteria. First, we selected countries that have
implemented e-government projects. Our cases represent e-government projects at several
ministries on the national level, albeit they are in different project sizes and themes. Second,
we selected countries with different economic developments and political situations, allowing
us to develop a rich and heterogeneous understanding toward the role of various factors in
influencing e-government implementation. We also only selected cases where governments
can be interviewed. As a result, only eight cases, which represent 80% of the total number of
countries in the ASEAN region, were selected. Such cases are from the following countries:
Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

3.2 Data collection

Primary data were collected from semistructured interviews with government employees
from various ministries, departments or agencies, through face-to-face interview or email.
Several governments wanted to hold a focus-group discussion (FGD), rather than a one-on-
one interview, arguing that the former is more time efficient for them than the latter. Most
interviews lasted at least 60–120 min and were recorded and transcribed. However, the
OIR Factor Category Source
45,2
Institutional Legal laws and regulations Gil-Grac
ıa and Prado (2005), Gunawong
factors and Gao (2017), Jaeger and Thompson
(2003)
Economic issues Jaeger and Thompson (2003)
Culture (national culture, cultural perceptions, Khalil (2011), Lean et al. (2009b), Pons
444 cultural perspectives, cultural awareness, (2004), Schuppan (2009), Zhao and Khan
cultural differences) (2013)
Social and political environment (social and Fan and Zhao (2017), Gasc
o (2005)
political differences, democratization level,
external pressure, open to political reform)
Politics (political interaction of stakeholders, Evans and Yen (2005), Heeks and
political culture) Stanforth (2007), Linders et al. (2018),
Rose et al. (2018)
Technological E-government system maintenance Palvia et al. (1994)
factors IT infrastructure Basu (2004), Damanpour and Aravind
(2012), Yoon and Chae (2009), Zhang
et al. (2014)
IT quality triad (information, system and Prybutok et al. (2008)
service quality)
Organizational Financial resources Ferro and Sorrentino (2010)
factors Human resources (civil servants) (IT skills, Bolgherini (2007), Chen and Gant (2001),
capacity and capability, commitment) Gasc
o (2005), Lee and Porumbescu
(2019), Zheng et al. (2013)
Government bodies (coordination and Ferro and Sorrentino (2010), Kassen
cooperation among intergovernmental bodies) (2019)
Administrative traditions and culture Bolgherini (2007), Schuppan (2009)
Change management and organizational Gasc
o (2005), Nograsek (2012)
transformation
Leadership Effective, empowering leadership, leadership Luk (2009), Prybutok and Spink (1999),
support Wright et al. (2012), Yang and Rho
(2007), Zheng et al. (2013)
Distribution of decision-making power Melitski (2003), Wang et al. (2018),
Table 1. Welch et al. (2004)
Summary of Strategic planning Prybutok et al. (2008)
literature review in Managerial skills Zhang et al. (2014)
e-government Commitment among administrative leaders Heeks (2001)

Vietnamese government refused our request to record the interview. All interviews were
conducted in the English language, but in several interviews, we asked help from real-time
interpreters to translate certain conversations between interviewees and interviewers. We
interviewed more than one ministry/department/agency in each country and conducted the
interviews with more than one person who represents a ministry/department/agency. We
aimed to gain diverse perspectives to minimize bias and to enhance our ability to combine
multiple perspectives on e-government implementation. All interviewees and participants in
the FGD requested for anonymity to protect their profile. To triangulate the data, we
conducted the interviews with the academics from top universities in each country and
contrasted the findings with the data from secondary sources, such as government websites
and reports from international donors and organizations (World Bank, IMF, and UN) and
from articles published in peer-reviewed journals. We also took part in two workshops about
public service delivery and e-government in the ASEAN region in 2019, which were attended
by government from all ASEAN countries. In the workshops, we posed questions about the
development of e-government projects in their country, including barrier and favorable
circumstances as a source of e-government failure and success. The events also allowed us to Digital divide
conduct another face-to-face semi-structured interview with government officials about their in ASEAN
own experience and involvement in e-government projects (see Table 2).

Data Data 445

E-government collection collection
Country project Scale Institutions method period

Brunei The usability and National Senior officer, IT staff and project FGD, May-June
Darussalam accessibility of manager in Prime Ministry interview 2019
e-government Office, Ministry of Education, and email
website Ministry of Finance, and
Ministry of Health, and lecturers
in Universiti Brunei Darussalam
Cambodia The usability and National Senior officer, IT staff, project FGD and May 2019
accessibility of manager and department staff in interview
e-government Ministry of Health, Ministry of
website Public Works and Transport,
and a lecturer in Royal
University of Phnom Penh
Indonesia The usability and National Senior officer, IT Staff and FGD and November
accessibility of department staff in Ministry of interview 2019
e-government Administrative and Bureaucratic
website Reform, Ministry of
Communication and Information
Technology, and lecturers in
Universitas Gadjah Mada
Laos The usability National Senior officer and project FGD and November
and accessibility manager in Ministry of Home interview 2019
of e-government Affairs, Ministry of Public
website Health, Ministry of Finance, and
Ministry of Planning and
Investment
Malaysia The usability and National Senior officer, project manager FGD and May 2019
accessibility of and department staff in Public interview
e-government Service Department, MAMPU,
website and lecturers in Universiti
Kebangsaan Malaysia, and Tun
Razak University
Singapore The usability and National Senior officer in Prime Minister’s Email April 2019
accessibility of office, and lecturer in National
e-government University of Singapore
website
Thailand The usability and National Senior officer, project manager, FGD and May 2019
accessibility of and department staff in Public Interview
e-government Service Delivery Commission,
website and lecturers in King
Prajadhipok’s Institute, and
National Institute of
Development Administration
Vietnam The usability and National Senior officer and department FGD and June-July
accessibility of staff in Ministry of Home Affairs, Interview 2019
e-government and Vietnam, and lecturers in
website Academy of Social Sciences- Table 2.
Vietnam Institute of Economics Data collection
OIR 3.3 Data analysis
45,2 We borrowed procedures from grounded theory to analyze our data (Charmaz, 2014; Locke,
2001). We used the Gioia approach, which involves coding, clustering and interpreting, to
analyze findings and to draw patterns from multiple cases. The Gioia methodology also
encourages researchers to present findings that “demonstrate connections among data,
emerging concepts, and the resulting grounded theory” (Gioia et al., 2013, p. 17).
Data were analyzed through three steps. First, we encoded the qualitative information that
446 we obtained from interviews, with the aim to break down descriptive patterns. Lines from the
interviews were identified, labeled and coded (Boyatzis, 1998). These lines were categorized
into existing or new established codes. The categorization of codes was derived from the
shared meanings of the data (lines from the interviews). Second, we examined the patterns of
codes and organized them into several themes. Third, we analyzed the themes and how they
can become the basis for a theoretical dimension. Finally, we categorized the themes into
several theoretical dimensions (Table 2).

4. Findings
Based on our data analysis, we identified various rationales behind the failure or success of e-
government implementation. We then categorized the rationales into different factors:
institutions, leadership, resources, intraorganizational factors and interorganizational factors.

4.1 Institutions
We define institutions as formal (laws and government regulations), including the presence of
formal organizations and informal (cultural or political situations) that affect e-government
development. We find that the AMS under investigation neither has particular laws nor
regulations that manage e-government reform activities in their country. Our findings also
indicate that each country has established an institution that is responsible for leading and
managing e-government development, although the institution type differs from one country
to another. However, if the institution is neither equal to the ministry nor led by the Prime
Minister, then such an institution is not considered to be powerful enough to push other
ministries or governmental bodies to prioritize e-government implementation.
Moreover, our findings demonstrate that social and political environments, including
political difference, democratization, external pressure and the willingness to conduct
political reforms, have affected the institutional factor for AMS to accept digital
transformation. Brunei, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, which relatively have limited
political openness and low government accountability, are also reluctant to harness ICT use
to increase the participation of citizens in decision-making. These countries focus on how
social media use among citizens may agitate regime stability. Our interviewees (interviewee 1
and 2/lecturers) from Vietnam clearly stated, “The communist regime controls everything,
including innovation.” In Thailand, political instability causes frequent reshuffles in the
cabinet, creating difficulty in sustaining e-government programs because each cabinet has
different strategic agendas. Similarly, in Indonesia, the ministry reshuffle also leads to the
change in government agendas as not all ministers prioritized e-government. In Malaysia, the
political transition that occurred after the downfall of Najib Razak changed government
agendas, including project prioritization and selection. In a country where political stability
exists and a strong strategic e-government plan is established, such as in Singapore,
consistency is guaranteed in e-government implementation and sustainability.

4.2 Leadership
Our study shows that the leadership factor consists of six variables: (a) political willingness;
(b) establishment of a clear vision; (c) focus on new trends and strategic goals; (d) use of
resources for strategic goals; (e) guaranteed implementation of organizational plans and (f) Digital divide
provision of feedback and motivation for improvements. We observe that certain ministers in ASEAN
and administrative leaders exhibit willingness in adopting and prioritizing e-government
reform, whereas other leaders do not demonstrate the same attitude toward e-government.
The reason most leaders do not consider ICT development in their country is due to their lack
of political will to implement e-government. Laos and Cambodia explained that this reason is
worsened by the limited resources of countries, driving leaders to prioritize basic needs of
people. Leaders also perceive e-government as a potential threat to their power because it may 447
reduce their authority in government.
Most of our interviewees in all eight countries argued that no visions or objectives can be
fulfilled without good leadership. Our study examines the ability of leaders to establish a clear
vision, focus on new trends and strategic goals, use resources for strategic goals, implement
organizational plans and provide feedback and motivation. These factors determine the
quality of e-government implementation. When a leader has a clear vision, he/she can create a
strategic plan that involves determining short-, medium- and long-term e-government goals.
A successful e-government also requires a leader who has knowledge and understanding of
technologies and new ICT trends for creating strategic goals. Moreover, a leader plays an
important role in providing guidance and direction and in enhancing partnership with other
actors to promote knowledge sharing and transfer and to mobilize resources for developing e-
government programs. Some of our interviewees said they need a leader who can execute a
plan and monitor the implementation of the program. This statement indicates that a good
leader is an individual who can execute an e-government program whose thoughtful
planning and monitoring can determine the success of e-government. In a country where a
single party controls the government, regulations are made at the central level, and local
governments must follow such regulations; therefore, when a party leader fails to prioritize
e-government, the government at all levels cannot obtain power to initiate change.

4.3 Resources
Our findings suggest that financial and human resources influence e-government adoption
and implementation. We observe that financial constraints and mixed government priorities
influence the pace at which e-government is adopted in certain countries. When governments
face challenges to fulfill basic needs, they prioritize poverty alleviation programs. The cases
are prevalent in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, which have low GDP and considerable resource
limitations. Due to the unavailability of adequate financial resources, Cambodia, Laos and
Vietnam receive funds from international donors to expand capacity, support the building of
essential ICT infrastructure and human resource training. However, Cambodian and Lao
governments admit that maintaining e-government programs is difficult because donors only
support the beginning or initial stages of such programs. For countries with good economic
development, such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, building ICT infrastructure in rural
areas remains a key challenge in e-government diffusion. Irregular electricity supplies and
unstable Internet connection are also barriers to the implementation of e-government projects,
especially outside major cities. Only few well-resourced governments, such as Singapore and
Brunei, have embraced sophisticated ICT infrastructure.
Human resources are critical in accomplishing multiple e-government objectives. Laos,
Cambodia and Vietnam need additional government employees who have IT skills.
In Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, government employees in urban areas to some degree
relatively are familiar with ICT and possess adequate IT skills. One interesting finding is that
Brunei is a small country; it only has a small pool of local people who have adequate IT skill
and knowledge. Therefore, most e-government projects are being outsourced to foreign
private sectors. Meanwhile, Singapore has knowledgeable and skillful government
employees, and it currently does not deal with a shortage of IT-proficient employees.
OIR 4.4 Intraorganizational factors
45,2 We identify (1) the existence of e-government strategic plans; (2) organizational structure and
distribution of decision-making power and (3) personnel management as variables categorized
as organizational factors that contribute to the success of e-government development.
Although AMS do not have particular laws or regulations concerning e-government,
Brunei, Cambodia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam have e-government strategic
plans (2015–2019) that focus on ways to increase resources for strengthening ICT facilities
448 and for encouraging public organizations to collaborate and accelerate integration.
Low hierarchy and power distribution in the decision-making process are critical in the
success of e-government initiatives and later in the implementation of e-government. We
observe that in most countries, decision-making with regard to e-government issues is
centralized in the upper management. Top-down decision-making is a type of organization
design in most of our cases. The authority of a leader cannot be questioned by his/her
subordinates. When a subordinate questions, criticizes or sends a complaint to the leader, his/
her action may be considered a form of criticism that attacks the leader, thereby embarrassing
the leader. Hierarchical culture can be found in Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia,
Thailand and Vietnam. Our interviewees (IT staff) from Indonesia also mentioned how not
having a rigid hierarchy and being able to take part in the decision-making process are
important. Our interviewees also argued that decentralization may speed up the decision-
making process because it avoids decisions made through a vertical hierarchy. When some
simple decisions should be made by the top management, it prevents the staff from being
responsive in addressing problems, although the decisions can be solved easily by them. For
certain small cases, the decision-making is delegated to middle managers or operational staff.
At this level, policy-making practices with a consensual, bottom-up approach facilitate
employee participation. However, this set-up is only implemented in certain organizations,
demonstrating that such an approach can only be executed depending on leaders’ willingness.
Regarding personnel management, we notice certain problems in employee recruitment,
training, performance management and compensation. Most organizations in our cases
recruit employees through the traditional approach where the written examination
applicants should take is unrelated to their target job. The examination does not test the
IT proficiency of applicants. Moreover, a high turnover of civil servants occurs in Cambodia
and Vietnam where low salaries, limited rewards for new initiatives and poor employment
conditions force capable civil servants and competent applicants to join private sectors that
offer good payments and employment conditions. Punishments for poor and inefficient work
are also scarce. In addition, lack of support from specific actors, such as managers, hinders
innovation development. Only few governments follow a good management system that
promotes meritocracy and performance-oriented civil service management decisions.
Singapore, for example, has successfully applied reward and punishment mechanisms and
training and development programs to motivate civil servants. Indonesia has taken a
different approach to motivate civil servants and to increase productivity by annually giving
an award to any government organization that can successfully implement innovative
e-government reform.
Lack of staff motivation, particularly from middle management, is also observed in most
of our cases. The situation is the same: civil servants are weakly motivated and are not ready
to change. One example, in a FGD we held in Malaysia, senior officers and department staff
shared a story about the difficulty to motivate old civil servants to learn new technology.
These people often are middle-level managers who obtained their positions because of
seniority. They cannot inspire their staff to learn new technology due to their own lack of
capability. Vietnam also shared a similar situation. The informants explained the situation
was worsened by the absence of clear performance management in human resource practices
in the government.
4.5 Interorganizational factors Digital divide
ICT development requires system integration among ministries and agencies. Solving this in ASEAN
problem is difficult in most ASEAN countries. The case in Brunei and Indonesia shows that
the high enthusiasm of each ministry to develop ICT in public services is not followed by
efforts to develop joint strategic planning. Coordination weaknesses are also exhibited
because data management is still fragmented in each ministry. The incomplete data and silo
mentality of each department that occurs in the bureaucracy in most ASEAN countries, such
as Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia, indicate the weak coordination of 449
policies in ICT development. Our interviewees (1 and 2/senior officer and department staff)
from Cambodia mentioned the absence of clear coordination among ministries/departments
results in redundant infrastructure, messy data communication channels, duplicated efforts,
inefficient software use, all of which hinder the process to integrate the data from various
organizations and make the process of applying technology costly. In Indonesia, the
authority to conduct an administrative reform is under the Ministry of Administrative
Reform, whereas ICT development is under the Ministry of Communication. Such a similar
problem can be found in many ASEAN countries.
The Vietnamese government faces difficulties in terms of coordination as there is lack of
common ICT and information standards. The government also faces silo mentality in
bureaucracies as each department/agency wants to keep their authority, power and interest.
Each department/agency is afraid of coordination because they believe it may interfere with
their autonomy. Malaysia and Singapore, which are relatively more advanced countries in
terms of ICT than others, still face coordination problems. In the case of Malaysia, there is a
lack of coordination and integration among government agencies, thus hindering the process
of e-government implementation. Coordination, which used to be a problem in Singapore, can
be resolved and thus become a driving factor for reform: “The nexus of political leaders,
bureaucrats, and corporate leaders is the driving force behind public sector reforms, particularly
inter-locking directorships, when a certain individual, who holds multiple top directorship
positions, accelerates the implementation of government agendas” (a senior officer shared this
account through email).
Coordination among governmental bodies is also a key challenge in implementing e-
government reform. The absence of coordination, lack of common goals and visions and lack
of coordination culture in government organizations result in messy communication
channels, redundant e-government infrastructure, duplicated efforts and missing data and
system integration among governmental bodies.
In all cases, we find that each country has built cooperation with nonstate actors to
implement e-government programs. Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam have received support
from international donors to initiate and implement e-government programs. Indonesia,
Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand have applied public–private partnerships with private
firms to develop their e-government programs. However, except Singapore, other countries
cannot learn and absorb new knowledge from their partners due to the shortage of ICT skills
and knowledge of government employees. We observe that the effectiveness of knowledge
sharing and transfer during cooperation relies on the capability of organizations to
successfully absorb new knowledge from their partners. As a consequence, Cambodia, Laos
and Vietnam, for example, cannot maintain e-government projects that are initiated by
international donors because the skill and knowledge to operate and continue e-government
programs are lacking. For Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, cooperative
arrangements do not always lead to knowledge transfer due to the limited number of
skillful and knowledgeable government employees. Therefore, the effectiveness of the
involvement of nonstate actors in e-government programs, including that of knowledge
sharing and transfer during cooperation, is lacking (see Figure 1).
OIR First-order constructs Second-order themes

45,2 Brunei: “The E-Government National Centre under the Prime Presence of institutions that are
Minister’s Office became the central agency to lead e- responsible for ICT reform
government.”

Aggregate
theoretical
dimensions

450 Political situation/openness Institutions

Cambodia: “Media freedom is constrained. The government

does not respond to the public’s demand to be involved in
decision making. Government accountability remains fairly
limited.” Political willingness

Vietnam: “In the communist regime, one political party controls

everything, including innovation. The government is eager to
control information flow among its citizens, including online
information. The government prohibits any “information” that
is detrimental to national interest. Transparency and
accountability

First-order constructs Second-order themes

Vietnam: “Some leaders are eager to implement e-government

programs, but the number of such leaders is limited, and they do
not have the power to accelerate programs because the power Political willingness
belongs to the party leader.”

Establishment of a clear vision Aggregate

theoretical
dimensions
Focus on new trends and
strategic goals
Indonesia: “Leaders can establish a clear vision of e-government
programs, set strategic e-government objectives, provide
feedback, give motivation, and ensure the implementation of
Use of resources for strategic
Leadership
such programs.”
goals
Laos: “We do not have clear objectives toward e-government
adoption. Moreover, our leaders’ knowledge and expertise in
formulating, implementing, and sustaining ICT strategies are
lacking.” Guaranteed implementation of
organizational plans

Provision of feedback and

motivation for improvements

First-order constructs Second-order themes

Cambodia: “Due to financial constraints from our government,

Availability of financial
telecommunication and ICT infrastructure remain severely
resources
underdeveloped.”

Cambodia: “Several implemented e-government programs were

previously initiated by international donors, such as UNDP. We Financial resources
also obtained support from them during the initial stages of (international donors)
program implementation.” Aggregate
theoretical
dimensions

Resources
Thailand: “Thailand has a growing skilled workforce. However,
government employees, particularly old workforce, may lack Availability of skilled staff
necessary IT skills and knowledge.”

Lao: “Citizens, businesses, and government employees oftentimes

have a chance to use the Internet only during working hours Adequate information
because using it still costs high.” technology infrastructure

Figure 1.
Data structure
(continued)
 First-order constructs Second-order themes
Digital divide
Brunei: “We had an e-government strategic plan for 2015-2019.” E-government strategic plan
in ASEAN

Laos: “Our government employees are still cumbersome. Many

hierarchies, complicated procedures… thus creating poor and
inefficient performance.”
Indonesia: “We observe that each ministry/department is given Aggregate
the authority to create the e-government programs they want to
undertake. Ministry or department units are also given the
Distribution of decision-
making power theoretical
dimensions
451
authority by the minister to decide what ICT system they want
to build and what e-government programs they want to
implement.” Hierarchy
Intra-
organizational
factors

Cambodia: “High turnover rates are observed among

government IT employees due to low salaries and employment
conditions compared with those in private firms. Personnel management

Thailand: “The recruitment of new government employees is

traditional. Civil service examinations, which fail to determine
the ICT proficiency of applicants, is conducted.”

First-order constructs Second-order themes

Malaysia: “Our government employees slowly adapt with e-

government reform. They are reluctant to change the way they Readiness for change
carry out tasks because they lack skills and expertise.”

Aggregate
theoretical
Coordination dimensions
Indonesia: “Certain issues arise. First, coordination does not
exist among ministries. They create a similar e-government
program without integrating it to each other. Second, each
ministry refuses to open their data to other Common goals, visions, and
Inter-
ministries/departments because of trust issue. These issues stem missions organizational
from a problem that each ministry/agency refuse their authority factors
to be reduced or intervened by other ministries/agencies as the
consequence of coordination.”
Trust among organizations

Effectiveness of the
Cambodia: “ICT investments are mostly built under donor- involvement of non-state
funded projects. However, these projects are only supported by actors
donors in the initial stage. Therefore, we face difficulty in
maintaining e-government programs due to the lack of skillful IT
and knowledgeable employees.” Adequate communication
Figure 1.
and knowledge sharing
among organizations

5. Discussion
From the institutional aspect, each ASEAN country has established institutions that lead and
manage e-government development. The existence of these institutions is key in encouraging
other line ministries and government institutions to prioritize e-government policies (Choi
et al., 2017; Manoharan and Ingrams, 2018; Sagarik et al., 2018). We observe that most ASEAN
countries do not have special legislations administering e-government reform activities; thus,
certain countries do not have a coercive legal basis that compels them to prioritize
e-government projects (Relly and Sabharwal, 2009; Sharma and Panigrahi, 2015). The
absence of laws and regulations contributes to the ill ability of governments to sustain the
prioritization of e-government programs in the midst of the changes in governments,
following elections or political situations (see Figure 2).
Countries with relatively limited political openness and low government accountability
are reluctant in utilizing ICT to enhance public participation in decision-making. At the same
time, government organizations have not faced strong pressure from citizens to enhance
e-government services, particularly using them as a medium for citizens to engage in
policymaking processes. The present study supports previous research stating that an open
OIR
45,2

452

Figure 2.
Critical factors in the
e-government
implementation in
ASEAN member states

political condition is a determining element in the success of e-government reform (Heeks and
Bailur, 2007; Sharifi and Zarei, 2004). Political instability, particularly relating to the change
of ministers or minister-level officials, also creates changes in government agendas, including
project selection and priority.
In terms of leadership, the lack of political will be demonstrated by political leaders and
government senior officials in implementing e-government due to the fact that most leaders
do not consider ICT as a priority. Certain leaders even consider e-government as a potential
threat to their power and authority as it may undermine their authority in the government.
Meanwhile, previous studies (Kumar and Best, 2006; Luk, 2009; Moon et al., 2014) indicated
that political will plays a substantial role in the provision of human resources that determines
the successful implementation of e-government.
Regarding leadership quality, leaders’ ability to develop a clear vision, to focus on new
trends, and strategic objectives, to utilize resources for strategic goals, to ensure the
implementation of organizational plans and to provide feedback and motivation are essential
in determining the quality of e-government implementation. Prior studies (Elnaghi et al., 2019;
Lang and Br€ uesch, 2019; Zhao et al., 2015) showed that clear visions and goals can positively
affect government institutions’ IT adoption. In addition, Angelopoulos et al. (2010) and Luna-
Reyes and Gil-Garcia (2011) argue that leaders’ ability to inspect and identify problems in
implementing e-government projects contribute to a successful e-government adoption.
In terms of resources, financial challenges influence the acceleration of the e-government
adoption of countries. Developing countries with low GDP seem to experience difficulty in
adopting e-government. Due to the lack of adequate financial resources, certain countries
acquire funds from international donors to support the development of essential ICT
infrastructure along with human resource training. Such assistance is found in the initial
phase of e-government adoption. However, these countries experience difficulty in sustaining
the implementation of their e-government projects. Chen and Thurmaier (2008) and Pedersen
(2017) reveal the significance of financial support in ICT equipment provision and support the
process of e-government implementation. Apart from the central government, international
donors also hold a crucial role in the e-government adoption of ASEAN countries.
 With regard to human resources, countries with low GDP, such as Laos, Cambodia and Digital divide
Vietnam (OECD, 2018), lack available skilled government officers with expertise in IT. in ASEAN
Countries with medium-level GDP, such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand (OECD, 2018),
also face the same issue although to a much lesser degree than Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam.
In terms of intraorganizational variables, the decision-making related to e-government
issues remains centralized in the upper level management through a top-down approach.
Unlike previous studies arguing that the degree of centralization influences the acceleration
of e-government adoption (Budding et al., 2018; Ezz et al., 2009; Waller and Genius, 2015), the 453
present study highlights the importance of decision-making decentralization in e-government
projects. Our respondents stressed the importance of being able to make decisions in an agile
context, wherein a rigid hierarchy can instead undermine input from personnel who often
have a good understanding of operational issues; such hierarchy can also decelerate the
e-government adoption process. Moreover, this research indicates that the shortcomings of
e-government in terms of human resource development are particularly evident in the
employee recruitment stage, training, performance management and compensation. Our
study also illustrates personnels’ resistance in welcoming e-government projects when the
projects distract them from working on their main task or put more significant time in
learning a new system, hence creating more of a burden for them. This finding occurs both in
countries with low and medium GDP, albeit such issues appear to be more rampant in low
GDP countries, such as, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. This public sector resistance to
e-government reform is well-known in the extant literature (Choi and Chandler, 2020).
Concerning interorganizational variables, the readiness for change influences
organizational capacity to implement e-government. From the interorganizational aspect,
the quality of coordination, similarity of goals and visions, trust among organizations and
similarities in terms of human resource competence and culture determine the quality of
e-government implementation. Moreover, our study emphasizes the importance of knowledge
sharing between organizations and nonstate actors that actually play a major role in affecting
the effectiveness of collaboration outcomes. Interorganizational coordination is a crucial
element as e-government often involves system integration between line ministries and
institutions; accordingly, collaborative relationships among these organizations are known as
a key factor that can lead government organizations to achieve success in implementing
e-government (Brand~ao et al., 2012; Chun et al., 2010; Ndou, 2004).
Our results are in line with the framework developed by Nour et al. (2008), Tornatzky and
Fleischer (1990) and UNPAN (2002) in which they argue that technology (availability) and
organization (structure, resources, ability, communication process) alone are insufficient to
capture the dynamics of the development of e-government. Environment that is represented
by institutional settings, government regulation and IT infrastructure also plays a
substantial role in e-government progress.

6. Conclusions and limitations

Discussions and empirical information about the quality of e-government implementation in
developing countries are currently lacking because most studies are conducted in developed
countries. The lack of prior studies seeks an understanding about the complex relationship
among ICT infrastructure, organizations, and institutions in influencing e-government
implementation. These research gaps lead us to examine the quality of e-government
implementation in AMS whose contexts vary in terms of economic development and political
situation. In general, institutions, resources, leadership, organizations and culture drive the
success of e-government. The objective of this study is to develop a conceptual model of
critical success factors that can spur the growth and success of e-government. For e-
government practitioners, this study can offer guidelines on how to successfully implement
OIR an e-government system. E-government adoption must be accompanied with supportive
45,2 formal institutions, sufficient financial aid, capable IT employees, adequate infrastructure,
good leadership and management, effective organizational design and adaptive culture.
The study also has certain limitations. First, we qualitatively collected our main data
through interviews and discussions. This methodology is subject to recall bias, under which
some of our interviewees may not completely recollect information. However, we mitigated
this risk by interviewing multiple interviewees from similar government institutions. We also
454 interviewed government employees from other government institutions and asked similar
questions. By conducting these multiple interviews, we intended to minimize bias and attain
multiple perspectives in understanding cases. Second, although substantial efforts were
made to solicit various countries, the study was limited by the sample size. We only collected
data from eight (out of ten) countries in the ASEAN region. Our sample covered e-government
reform in central government organizations, and it did not capture the implementation of e-
government projects at the local level, which oftentimes demonstrates more dynamic results.
Further studies that can cover all AMS and focus on e-government implementation in areas at
the local level can be valuable in assessing the generalizability of our research findings.
Future research can investigate other developing countries with different settings (different
political situations and cultural values).

References
Alon, A. and Hageman, A.M. (2017), “An institutional perspective on corruption in transition
economies”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 155-166, doi: 10.
1111/corg.12199.
Angelopoulos, S., Kitsios, F. and Papadopoulos, T. (2010), “New service development in e-government:
identifying critical success factors”, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy,
Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 95-118, doi: 10.1108/17506161011028821.
Babakus, E., Yavas, U., Karatepe, O.M. and Avci, T. (2003), “The effect of management commitment to
service quality on employees’ affective and performance outcomes”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 272-286, doi: 10.1177/0092070303031003005.
Basu, S. (2004), “E-government and developing countries: an overview”, International Review of Law,
Computers and Technology, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 109-132, doi: 10.1080/13600860410001674779.
Bolgherini, S. (2007), “The technology trap and the role of political and cultural variables: a critical
analysis of the e-government policies”, The Review of Policy Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 259-275,
doi: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.2007.00280.x.
Boyatzis, R.E. (1998), Transforming Qualitative Information : Thematic Analysis and Code
Development, Sage Publications.
Brand~ao, L.E., Bastian-Pinto, C., Gomes, L.L. and Labes, M. (2012), “Government supports in public–
private partnership contracts: metro line 4 of the S~ao Paulo Subway system”, Journal of
Infrastructure Systems, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 218-225, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000095.
Budding, T., Faber, B. and Gradus, R. (2018), “Assessing electronic service delivery in municipalities:
determinants and financial consequences of e-government implementation”, Local Government
Studies, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 697-718, doi: 10.1080/03003930.2018.1473768.
Buffat, A. (2015), “Street-level bureaucracy and e-government”, Public Management Review, Vol. 17
No. 1, pp. 149-161.
Charmaz, K. (2014), Constructing Grounded Theory Constructing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed., Sage
Publication, London.
Chen, Y.C. and Gant, J. (2001), “Transforming local e-government services: the use of application
service providers”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 343-355, doi: 10.1016/
S0740-624X(01)00090-9.
Chen, Y.C. and Thurmaier, K. (2008), “Advancing e-government: financing challenges and Digital divide
opportunities”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 537-548, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-
6210.2008.00889.x. in ASEAN
Choi, T. and Chandler, S.M. (2020), “Knowledge vacuum: an organizational learning dynamic of how e-
government innovations fail”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 1, p. 101416.
Choi, H., Park, M.J. and Rho, J.J. (2017), “Two-dimensional approach to governmental excellence for
human development in developing countries: combining policies and institutions with e-
government”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 340-353, doi: 10.1016/j.giq. 455
2017.03.002.
Choudrie, J., Zamani, E.D., Umeoji, E. and Emmanuel, A. (2017), “Implementing e-government in Lagos
State: understanding the impact of cultural perceptions and working practices”, Government
Information Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 646-657.
Chun, S.A., Shulman, S., Sandoval, R. and Hovy, E. (2010), “Government 2.0: making connections
between citizens, data and government”, Information Polity, Vol. 15 Nos 1–2, pp. 1-9, doi: 10.
3233/IP-2010-0205.
CNBC (2018), “ASEAN: what you need to know about the globally important group”, available at
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/26/asean-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-globally-important-
group.html (accessed 5 February 2019).
Damanpour, F. and Aravind, D. (2012), “Managerial innovation: conceptions, processes and
antecedents”, Management and Organization Review, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 423-454.
Dawes, S.S. (2008), “The evolution and continuing challenges of e-governance”, Public Administration
Review, Vol. 68, pp. S86-S102.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P. and Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990), “Perceived organizational support and
employee diligence, commitment, and innovation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 1,
pp. 51-59, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.75.1.51.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Graebner, M.E. (2007), “Theory building from cases: opportunities and
challenges”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 25-32, doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2007.
24160888.
Elnaghi, M., Alshawi, S.N., Kamal, M.M., Weerakkody, V. and Irani, Z. (2019), “Exploring the role of a
government authority in managing transformation in service re-engineering: experiences from
Dubai police”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 196-207, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.
2018.11.011.
Entwistle, T., Bristow, G., Hines, F., Donaldson, S. and Martin, S. (2007), “The dysfunctions of markets,
hierarchies and networks in the meta-governance of partnership”, Urban Studies, Vol. 44 No. 1,
pp. 63-79, doi: 10.1080/00420980601023836.
Evans, D. and Yen, D.C. (2005), “E-government: an analysis for implementation: framework for
understanding cultural and social impact”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 3,
pp. 354-373, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2005.05.007.
Ezz, I., Papazafeiropoulou, A. and Serrano, A. (2009), “Challenges of interorganizational collaboration
for information technology adoption: insights from a governmental financial decision-making
process in Egypt”, Information Technology for Development, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 209-223, doi: 10.
1002/itdj.20123.
Fan, B. and Zhao, Y. (2017), “The moderating effect of external pressure on the relationship between
internal organizational factors and the quality of open government data”, Government
Information Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 396-405.
Ferro, E. and Sorrentino, M. (2010), “Can intermunicipal collaboration help the diffusion of E-
Government in peripheral areas? Evidence from Italy”, Government Information Quarterly,
Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 17-25, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2009.07.005.
Gasc
o, M. (2005), “Exploring the e-government gap in South America”, International Journal of Public
Administration, Vol. 28 Nos 7–8, pp. 683-701, doi: 10.1081/PAD-200064235.
OIR Gil-Garc
ıa, J.R. and Pardo, T.A. (2005), “E-government success factors: mapping practical tools to
theoretical foundations”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 187-216.
45,2
Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G. and Hamilton, A.L. (2013), “Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research:
notes on the Gioia methodology”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 15-31,
doi: 10.1177/1094428112452151.
Goldfinch, S. (2007), “Pessimism, computer failure, and information systems development in the public
sector”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 67 No. 5, pp. 917-929, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.
456 00778.x.
Gunawong, P. and Gao, P. (2017), “Understanding e-government failure in the developing country
context: a process-oriented study”, Information Technology for Development, Vol. 23 No. 1,
pp. 153-178, doi: 10.1080/02681102.2016.1269713.
Heeks, R. (2001), “Understanding e-governance for development”, I-Government Working Paper
Series11, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 1-27, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-629X.1980.tb00220.x.
Heeks, R. and Bailur, S. (2007), “Analyzing e-government research: perspectives, philosophies,
theories, methods, and practice”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 243-265,
doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2006.06.005.
Heeks, R. and Stanforth, C. (2007), “Understanding e-government project trajectories from an actor-
network perspective”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 165-177,
doi: 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000676.
Hwang, K. and Choi, M. (2017), “Effects of innovation-supportive culture and organizational
citizenship behavior on e-government information system security stemming from mimetic
isomorphism”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 183-198.
Jaeger, P.T. and Thompson, K.M. (2003), “E-government around the world: lessons, challenges, and
future directions”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 389-394, doi: 10.1016/J.
GIQ.2003.08.001.
Karch, A. (2007), “Emerging issues and future directions in state policy diffusion research”, State
Politics and Policy Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 54-80, doi: 10.1177/153244000700700104.
Kassen, M. (2019), “Promoting public cooperation in government: key drivers, regulation, and barriers
of the e-collaboration movement in Kazakhstan”, International Review of Administrative
Sciences, Vol. 85 No. 4, pp. 743-762.
Khalil, O.E.M. (2011), “E-government readiness: does national culture matter?”, Government
Information Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 388-399, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2010.06.011.
Kim, S.E. and Lee, J.W. (2009), “The impact of management capacity on government innovation in
Korea: an empirical study”, International Public Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 345-369,
doi: 10.1080/10967490903103334.
King, J.L., Gurbaxani, V., Kraemer, K.L., McFarlan, F.W., Raman, K.S. and Yap, C.S. (1994),
“Institutional factors in information technology innovation”, Information Systems Research,
Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 139-169, doi: 10.1287/isre.5.2.139.
Kumar, R. and Best, M.L. (2006), “Impact and sustainability of e-government services in developing
countries: lessons learned from Tamil Nadu, India”, The Information Society, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 1-12, doi: 10.1080/01972240500388149.
Lang, A. and Br€uesch, C. (2019), “Collaborative governance in program implementation: the
development of e-relocation notification in the Swiss canton of Zurich”, International Journal of
Public Administration, pp. 1-13, doi: 10.1080/01900692.2019.1665681.
Lean, O.K., Zailani, S., Ramayah, T. and Fernando, Y. (2009a), “Factors influencing intention to use e-
government services among citizens in Malaysia”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 458-475, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2009.03.012.
Lean, O.K., Zailani, S., Ramayah, T. and Fernando, Y. (2009b), “Factors influencing intention to use e-
government services among citizens in Malaysia”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 458-475, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2009.03.012.
Lee, J.B. and Porumbescu, G.A. (2019), “Engendering inclusive e-government use through citizen IT Digital divide
training programs”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 69-76.
in ASEAN
Linders, D., Liao, C.Z.P. and Wang, C.M. (2018), “Proactive e-governance: flipping the service delivery
model from pull to push in Taiwan”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 4,
pp. S68-S76.
Locke, K.D. (2001), Grounded Theory in Management Research, University of Waikato, Waikato, NZ.
Luk, S.C.Y. (2009), “The impact of leadership and stakeholders on the success/failure of e-government 457
service: using the case study of e-stamping service in Hong Kong”, Government Information
Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 594-604, doi: 10.1016/J.GIQ.2009.02.009.
Luna-Reyes, L.F. and Gil-Garcia, J.R. (2011), “Using institutional theory and dynamic simulation to
understand complex e-government phenomena”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 28
No. 3, pp. 329-345, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2010.08.007.
Luna-Reyes, L.F. and Gil-Garcia, J.R. (2014), “Digital government transformation and internet portals:
the co-evolution of technology, organizations, and institutions”, Government Information
Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 545-555, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2014.08.001.
Manoharan, A.P. and Ingrams, A. (2018), “Conceptualizing e-government from local government
perspectives”, State and Local Government Review, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 56-66, doi: 10.1177/
0160323X18763964.
March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1989), Rediscovering Institutions, Free Press, New York.
Meijer, A. and Bekkers, V. (2015), “A metatheory of e-government: creating some order in a
fragmented research field”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 237-245, doi:
10.1016/j.giq.2015.04.006.
Melitski, J. (2003), “Capacity and e-government performance: an analysis based on early adopters of
internet technologies in New Jersey”, Public Performance and Management Review, Vol. 26
No. 4, pp. 376-390, doi: 10.1177/1530957603026004005.
Moon, M.J., Lee, J. and Roh, C.-Y. (2014), “The evolution of internal IT applications and e-government
studies in public administration”, Administration and Society, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 3-36, doi: 10.
1177/0095399712459723.
Ndou, V.D. (2004), “E - government for developing countries: opportunities and challenges”, The
Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 1-24, doi:
10.1002/j.1681-4835.2004.tb00117.x.
Nograsek, J. (2012), “Change management as a critical success factor in e-government
implementation”, Business Systems Research, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 13-24, doi: 10.2478/v10305-012-
0016-y.
Nour, M.A., AbdelRahman, A.A. and Fadlalla, A. (2008), “A context-based integrative framework for
e-government initiatives”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 448-461.
OECD (2018), Economic Outlook for Southeast Asia, China and India 2018: Fostering Growth through
Digitalisation, OECD Publishing, Paris. doi: 10.1787/saeo-2014-sum-en.
Palvia, P., Means, D.B. and Jackson, W.M. (1994), “Determinants of computing in very small
businesses”, Information and Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 161-174, doi: 10.1016/0378-
7206(94)90044-2.
Pedersen, K. (2017), “Realizing e-government benefits with minimal capabilities”, Transforming
Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 262-285, doi: 10.1108/TG-11-2016-0083.
Pons, A. (2004), “E-government for Arab countries”, Journal of Global Information Technology
Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 30-46, doi: 10.1080/1097198X.2004.10856365.
Prybutok, V.R. and Spink, A. (1999), “Transformation of a health care information system: a self-
assessment survey”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 46 No. 3,
pp. 299-310, doi: 10.1109/17.775282.
OIR Prybutok, V.R., Zhang, X. and Ryan, S.D. (2008), “Evaluating leadership, IT quality, and net benefits
in an e-government environment”, Information and Management, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 143-152, doi:
45,2 10.1016/j.im.2007.12.004.
Relly, J.E. and Sabharwal, M. (2009), “Perceptions of transparency of government policymaking: a
cross-national study”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 148-157, doi: 10.
1016/J.GIQ.2008.04.002.
Rorissa, A. and Demissie, D. (2010), “An analysis of African e-government service websites”,
458 Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 161-169, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2009.12.003.
Rose, J., Flak, L.S. and Sæbø, Ø. (2018), “Stakeholder theory for the E-government context: framing a
value-oriented normative core”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 362-374.
Sagarik, D., Chansukree, P., Cho, W. and Berman, E. (2018), “E-government 4.0 in Thailand: the role of
central agencies”, Information Polity, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 343-353, doi: 10.3233/IP-180006.
Sang, S., Lee, J.D. and Lee, J. (2009), “E-government adoption in ASEAN: the case of Cambodia”,
Internet Research, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 517-534, doi: 10.1108/10662240910998869.
Schuppan, T. (2009), “E-Government in developing countries: experiences from sub-Saharan Africa”,
Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 118-127, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2008.01.006.
Sharifi, H. and Zarei, B. (2004), “An adaptive approach for implementing e-government in I.R. Iran”,
Journal of Government Information, Vol. 30 Nos 5–6, pp. 600-619, doi: 10.1016/j.jgi.2004.10.005.
Sharma, R. and Panigrahi, P.K. (2015), “Developing a roadmap for planning and implementation of
interoperability capability in e-government”, Transforming Government: People, Process and
Policy, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 426-447, doi: 10.1108/TG-06-2014-0023.
Stier, S. (2015), “Political determinants of e-government performance revisited: comparing democracies
and autocracies”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 270-278.
Tolbert, C.J., Mossberger, K. and McNeal, R. (2008), “Institutions, policy innovation, and e-government
in the American states”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 549-563, doi: 10.1111/j.
1540-6210.2008.00890.x.
Tornatzky, G. and Fleischer, M. (1990), The Process of Technology Innovation, Lexington Books,
Lexington, MA.
UNPAN (United Nations Division for Public Economics and Public Administration) (2002),
“Benchmarking e-government: a global perspective: assessing the progress of the UN
member states”, available at https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/Portals/egovkb/
Documents/un/English.pdf (accessed 26 September 2020).
Waller, L. and Genius, A. (2015), “Barriers to transforming government in Jamaica: challenges to
implementing initiatives to enhance the efficiency, effectiveness and service delivery of
government through ICTs (e-Government)”, Transforming Government: People, Process and
Policy, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 480-497, doi: 10.1108/TG-12-2014-0067.
Wallis, J. and Zhao, F. (2018), “e-Government development and government effectiveness: a reciprocal
relationship”, International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 479-491.
Wang, C., Medaglia, R. and Zheng, L. (2018), “Towards a typology of adaptive governance in the
digital government context: the role of decision-making and accountability”, Government
Information Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 306-322, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2017.08.003.
Welch, E.W., Hinnant, C.C. and Moon, M.J. (2004), “Linking citizen satisfaction with E-government and
trust in government downloaded from”, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,
Vol. 15 No. 3, doi: 10.1093/jopart/mui021.
Wright, B.E., Moynihan, D.P. and Pandey, S.K. (2012), “Pulling the levers: transformational leadership,
public service motivation, and mission valence”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 72 No. 2,
pp. 206-215, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02496.x.
Wu, J., Ding, F., Xu, M., Mo, Z. and Jin, A. (2016), “Investigating the determinants of decision-making Digital divide
on adoption of public cloud computing in e-government”, Journal of Global Information
Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 71-89. in ASEAN
Yang, K. and Rho, S.Y. (2007), “E-government for better performance: promises, realities, and
challenges”, International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 30 No. 11, pp. 1197-1217, doi:
10.1080/01900690701225556.
Yin, R. (2003), Applications of Case Study Research (Applied Social Research Methods), Series, 4th, Sage,
Thousand Oaks. doi: 10.1080/07388940701860318. 459
Yin, R.K. (2014), Cast Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, London, doi: 10.1017/
CBO9780511803123.001.
Yoon, J. and Chae, M. (2009), “Varying criticality of key success factors of national e-strategy along
the status of economic development of nations”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 26
No. 1, pp. 25-34, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2008.08.006.
Yun, H.J. and Opheim, C. (2010), “Building on success: the diffusion of E-government in the American
states”, Electronic Journal of eGovernment, Vol. 8, available at: www.ejeg.com.
Zhang, H., Xu, X. and Xiao, J. (2014), “Diffusion of e-government: a literature review and directions for
future directions”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 631-636, doi: 10.1016/j.
giq.2013.10.013.
Zhao, F. and Khan, M.S. (2013), “An empirical study of e-government service adoption: culture and
behavioral intention”, International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 36 No. 10, pp. 710-722,
doi: 10.1080/01900692.2013.791314.
Zhao, F., Wallis, J. and Singh, M. (2015), “E-government development and the digital economy: a
reciprocal relationship”, International Journal of Operations and Production Manage, Vol. 25,
doi: 10.1108/IntR-02-2014-0055.
Zheng, D., Chen, J., Huang, L. and Zhang, C. (2013), “E-government adoption in public administration
organizations: integrating institutional theory perspective and resource-based view”, European
Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 221-234, doi: 10.1057/ejis.2012.28.

Further reading
Adeya, C. (2002), ICTs and Poverty: A Literature Review, IDRC. Ottawa: IDRC, Ottawa, available at
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan048368.pdf.
Al-Jaghoub, S., Al-Hourani, M. and Al-Yaseen, H. (2010), “Evaluation of awareness and acceptability of
using e-government services in developing countries: the case of Jordan Saheer”, Electronic
Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Alshehri, M., Drew, S., Alhussain, T. and Alghamdi, R. (2013), “The impact of trust on e-government
services acceptance”, International Journal of Technology Diffusion, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 50-61, doi:
10.4018/jtd.2012040105.
Bertot, J.C., Jaeger, P.T. and 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”, Government
Information Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 264-271, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.001.
Cordella, A. and Tempini, N. (2015), “E-government and organizational change: reappraising the role
of ICT and bureaucracy in public service delivery”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 32
No. 3, pp. 279-286, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2015.03.005.
Gomez, R. and Pather, S. (2012), “ICT Evaluation: are we asking the right questions?”, The Electronic
Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 1-14, doi: 10.1002/j.
1681-4835.2012.tb00355.x.
Guha, J. and Chakrabarti, B. (2014), “Making e-government work: adopting the network approach”,
Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 327-336, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2013.11.008.
OIR Menon, J. and Hill, H. (2014), “Does East Asia have a working financial safety net?”, Asian Economic
Journal, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
45,2
Jin, D. and Bian, Z.F. (2013), “Quantifying the emission’s impact of coal mining activities on the
environment and human health in process”, Journal of Coal Science and Engineering, Vol. 19
No. 3, pp. 421-426, doi: 10.1007/s12404-013-0326-x.
Norris, D.F. and Moon, M.J. (2005), “Advancing e-government at the grassroots: tortoise or hare?”,
Public Administration Review, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 64-75, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00431.x.
460
North, D.C. (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge
University Press, New York. doi: 10.4324/9780203392805_chapter_10.

and P
erez Cota, M. (2016), “From the quality of traditional services to the quality of
S
a, F., Rocha, A.
local e-government online services: a literature review”, Government Information Quarterly,
Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 149-160, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.004.
Taylor, J., Lips, M. and Organ, J. (2007), “Information-intensive government and the layering and
sorting of citizenship”, Public Money and Management, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9302.2007.00573.x.
Tornatzky, L.G. and Klein, K.J. (1982), “Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption
implementation: a meta-analysis of findings”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management EM, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 28-45.
Veeramootoo, N., Nunkoo, R. and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2018), “What determines success of an e-government
service? Validation of an integrative model of e-filing continuance usage”, Government
Information Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 161-174, doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2018.03.004.
Wescott, C.G. (2001), “E-Government in the Asia-pacific region”, Asian Journal of Political Science,
Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 1-24, doi: 10.1080/02185370108434189.
Wongwuttiwat, J. and Lawanna, A. (2018), “The digital Thailand strategy and the ASEAN
community”, The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, Vol. 84
No. 3, p. e12024, doi: 10.1002/isd2.12024.
Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed., SAGE Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA.

Corresponding author
Bevaola Kusumasari can be contacted at: bevaola@ugm.ac.id

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com