1

A Conceptual Framework for Comparative E-Governance Research*

By

Yu-Che Chen Assistant Professor of E-Government and Public Management

Division of Public Administration Northern Illinois University,

DeKalb, IL 60115, USA ycchen@niu.edu

&

M. Jae Moon Underwood Distinguished Professor of Public Administration

Yonsei University 134 Sinchon-dong Seodaemun-gu

Seoul, 120-749 Korea mjaemoon@gmail.com

*Paper prepared for presentation at the Public Management Research Association/International Research Society for Public Management (PMRA/IRSPM) 2010 conference in Hong Kong, October 14-16, 2010.

mailto:ycchen@niu.edu�mailto:mjaemoon@gmail.com�

2

Abstract

This paper develops a conceptual framework to guide empirical research on international and comparative electronic governance. This proposed framework provides a new conceptualization of e-governance and emphasizes on the role of strategic managerial choices in improving e-governance performance. This framework draws insights from several relevant literatures: institutionalism, interorganizational information systems, collaborative public management, and online civic engagement. It describes the influences of political, legal, social, administrative, economic, and technical infrastructure factors on e-governance performance. Moreover, it examines how strategic choice and leadership combined with technology enactment can mediate or moderate the impact of these contextual factors on e-governance performance. Research propositions and strategies are proposed to guide future empirical research.

Introduction

The use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) for public governance is

an issue of increasing importance facing public administration and management (United

Nations, 2010; Yang, 2009). The growth of the online population and the increasing use of

electronic means for citizens to interact with government are important driving forces. For

example, approximately three out of four adults in the United States are able to get online, and

a majority of them access government websites.1 A recent national survey indicates that

China’s internet population is at 250 million, which is over 17 percent of its population.2

Advances in information and communication technologies also provide public managers

with tools to provide integrated (citizen-centric) services. A citizen service information system

can provide an integrated view of public service requests and delivery. For example, a 311

system in Minneapolis/St. Paul in Minnesota provides an integrated view of a host of services

traditionally provided across nine departments and units (Fleming, 2008). Or, a national

Thus,

public managers increasingly need to connect with the public via electronic means.

1 For more information and update, visit Pew Internet and American Life Project web site (http://pewinternet.org/). 2 For more information and update, visit China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC) web site (http://www.cnnic.net.cn/en/index/).

http://pewinternet.org/�

3

information system can be used for disease control. Such integration holds the promise of

breaking down the barriers dividing various governmental departments and units to deliver

public value.

Moreover, recent developments in ICTs offer fresh opportunities for public governance

via electronic means. The rapid growth and use of Web 2.0 tools have opened up opportunities

for government to engage with citizens via their preferred mode of online interaction (Chang &

Kannan, 2008). For example, the Obama White House has a channel in YouTube to raise citizen

awareness of public policy issues. The Ideascale project sought innovative, peer-evaluated

policy ideas directly from citizens by using Web 2.0 features.

A cornerstone of democratic governance is transparency. Information technology helps

public managers provide information to the public, such as the federal government’s

Recovery.gov website, which provides information on the use of economic recovery funds. Such

transparency could be done collaboratively among communities of information, and

government can play a critical role in ensuring that transparency is meaningful and targeted

(Fung, Graham, & Weil, 2007).

Empirical studies of electronic governance to date tend to focus on performance

evaluation rather than improving performance itself. Several international and comparative

studies have provided rankings for national government websites (United Nations, 2008, 2010;

West, 2008). Performance measures have evolved over the last decade, adding privacy and

security as well as citizen engagement (i.e. e-participation), and improved access and quality of

online services. At the sub-national level, there is a good collection of studies examining

government websites and scoring them based on a wide range of criteria, including citizen

participation (e.g. (Holzer, Manoharan, Shick, & Stowers, 2008; Scott, 2006; West, 2005)). A

new emphasis on what public managers can do is essential in advancing the theory and practice

of e-governance (Yang, 2003). Once baseline and benchmark performance information are

available, the next logical step is to focus on methods of improvement.

The empirical investigation into international and comparative e-governance faces the

challenge of describing and explaining the influence of various contextual factors on e-

4

governance, such as political, legal, economic, organizational, and technical factors, among

others. Heek’s (1999) examination of international practice points to several political, cultural,

structural, and strategic factors. The United Nations’ 2008 e-government survey report

highlights basic infrastructure issues: enabling institutions, such as laws and regulation, and

technology infrastructure, such as access to internet and mobile devices (United Nations, 2008).

Several comparative studies of e-government have underscored the importance of

understanding government structure and institutions in understanding the advancement of

digital government (e.g. (Homburg, 2008)). However, there is a lack of rigorous systematic

investigation into how these factors determine e-governance performance and there is a need

to better describe the role of ICTs in the process.

The recent rapid development and use of Web 2.0 tools and system integration

technologies present new research opportunities. The existing scholarship has not fully

explored the complementary roles that online civic engagement and integrated citizen service

can offer each other. For example, citizens can form virtual communities to provide evaluation

of government services. An electronic public service agent while providing integrated citizen

services can simultaneously give citizens the opportunity to comment on public policy issues.3

The primary objective of this paper is to develop a conceptual framework by which

international and comparative e-governance research can advance the understanding of e-

governance through addressing the issues and opportunities identified above. In particular, this

proposed framework will describe the influence of various contextual factors, delineate the role

of strategic management, and explore the opportunities of government 2.0 in integrating online

service with online civic engagement. The next section begins with a conceptualization of

electronic governance that will be foundational for the development of the proposed

framework. The discussion will be based on a literature review that draws insights from various

A

forward-looking research agenda in e-governance would explore the ways in which these

innovations can be better managed to add public value.

3 Dr. Sung at the Research Development and Evaluation Commission (RDEC) in Taiwan provided me with this insight.

5

bodies of research. Next, the main section of the paper will propose a conceptual framework

accompanied with research propositions. This paper concludes with a preliminary research

agenda aimed at forwarding the understanding of e-governance in international and

comparative perspectives.

Electronic Governance

Electronic governance has been generally viewed as a combination of an advanced form

of e-government and online civic engagement (Y.-C. Chen & Hsieh, 2009). Electronic

governance can be seen as an advanced stage of e-government (Garson, 2006, p.23; United

Nations, 2008). By removing organizational barriers, governments can be transformed into

citizen-centric enterprises. This approach would emphasize connectedness (government-as-a-

whole approach) as the foundation for strategic use of ICTs (United Nations, 2008, xv). The

focus would be on government and integration of government systems and knowledge to

improve efficiency and effectiveness of public services.

Online civic engagement is the other main dimension of e-governance. Holzer and

colleagues (Holzer et al., 2008) define electronic governance as the embodiment of both digital

government and digital democracy. Digital democracy is reflected in government’s effort in

providing online civic engagement options, including online decision-making and online surveys

(Carrizales, Holzer, & Manoharan, 2008). The United Nations 2008 E-government survey defines

online civic engagement as e-participation (including, e-information, e-consultation, and e-

decision-making, (United Nations, 2008, pp. 17-18)).

Here, the conceptualization of e-governance focuses on the concept of public

administrator interests, such as guiding public values, identifying focus, mode of activities, main

organizational driver(s), structure of organization, and technology. The notion of e-governance

can be best understood by distinguishing between e-government and e-governance. These

distinctions should be treated as a matter of emphasis. Below, Table 1 is a summary of the

comparison between e-government and e-governance.

[Insert Table 1 Here]

6

In terms of public values, e-government places more emphasis on efficiency and

effectiveness in the production and provision of information and services both online and off-

line. In contrast, e-governance places more emphasis on citizen participation and transparency.

Citizen participation and transparency are regarded as cornerstones of democratic governance.

It is held that transparency of government actions provides the foundation for meaningful

citizen participation in public governance. E-government focuses more on services: providing

public information and services. Electronic filing of tax returns, a critical public service function

that interfaces directly with citizens, is an example. With regards to focus, electronic

governance covers both services and processes, with the latter primarily defined as how public

policy and service decisions are made. For example, government can set up an electronic forum

as a means to consult with citizens on public service priorities.

The primary supplemental emphasis in e-governance, as compared to e-government,

with regard to activities is interaction. The interaction provided by e-governance is built on e-

government’s integration of horizontal (inter-agency cooperation) and vertical (inter-

governmental) dimensions. E-government integration happens inside government and takes

government-as-a-whole approach. E-governance, on the other hand, places more emphasis on

solving public issues by means of inter-sectoral interactions that involve governments, non-

profit (professional) organizations, and businesses. Interaction between government and

citizens via online civic engagement is another feature of interactivity embodied in e-

governance. A recent example of such interaction is the Ideascale project which lets citizens

suggest innovative policy ideas and let them vote on them online, using the interactive features

of a social networking site. Government agencies then respond and implement some of the

best ideas.

The main driver of e-government is government itself. By contrast, e-governance

centers on collaborative enterprises that bring government, businesses, non-profit

organizations, and citizenry together. This emphasis on collaboration and shared ownership is

consistent with the notion of public services that seeks to solve increasingly complex public

problems by calling for engagement of organizations and people from all sectors of society. The

7

development of technical data standards for standard business reporting in Australia has high

level support from a host of sectors: businesses, professional (accounting) organizations, and

various government agencies. They all help to determine the standards and how the standards

are to be implemented, which, of course, benefits the entire economy (Y.-C. Chen, 2010b).

Collaboration can be also seen in education in the United States. Non-profit organizations,

school districts, and businesses often work with the Department of Education to develop

strategic plans and identify best practices.

E-governance is gradually shifting away from the traditional hierarchical (top-down)

public decision-making process and service provision. Traditionally, government has been the

main producer of public services as well as the primary service delivery unit. The gradual shift to

increased utilization of businesses and nonprofit organizations for service production and

delivery has been evident in many Western democracies (e.g. (Gray, Jenkins, Leeuw, & Mayne,

2003; H. B. Milward & Provan, 2000). E-governance centers more on a heterarchical way of

public service production and delivery as well as engagement. For example, non-profit

organizations can lead disaster relief efforts with citizen grass-root involvement, as well as

coordination with government agencies and businesses for resources. Such a scenario does not

involve a clear center of authority and activities are organized with multiple centers. In such a

case, ICTs play a critical role in assisting with coordination and monitoring.

The technological emphasis of e-governance depends on Web 2.0, which meshes well

with its focus, mode of activities and structure. Web 2.0 technology applications include RSS

feed, video sharing, social networking, wiki, and “mash-ups”, among other. Web 2.0 allows for a

high level of interactivity, not only between government and citizens, but also among citizens

and with other non-governmental organizations (Chang & Kannan, 2008). Government websites

which merely provide information and services are forms of one-way communication, moving

from government to citizens; this is considered Web 1.0. Another feature of Web 2.0 is the

emphasis on user generated content and leverage of collective knowledge. These features offer

new and fresh ways for citizens and other groups to engage government.

8

Institutions, Collaboration, Civic Engagement, and Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs)

Proceeding with a conceptualization of e-governance requires a review of the following

relevant bodies of literature. The first body of literature under review is institutionalism and its

varieties. Institutions, including social norms, political culture, and laws, play a critical role in

understanding differences in e-governance performance across different countries. Moreover,

a good understanding of institutional context will guide strategic choice. The next body of

literature under review is research on information technology within the context of public

administration, with a focus on interorganizational information systems that align better with

both integration and interaction seen in e-governance. This research literature can provide

insights into the role that ICTs play in moderating or mediating institutional and organizational

contexts.

Research on collaborative public management is also a relevant here. Collaborative

public management speaks to collaboration and interactivity, both of which are involved in e-

governance. Moreover, collaborative management takes a normative stance in having a strong

element of citizen participation in collaborative governance (O'Leary & Bingham, 2009). Such a

stance is consistent with the values of transparency and citizen participation subscribed by e-

governance. Furthermore, research on online civic engagement is another emerging area of

scholarship that informs the study of e-governance. This research builds on the civic

engagement literature while examining the role that ICTs can play. Below, the discussion will

provide brief synopses of the main assertions made by each body of literature on the role of

ICTs in e-governance.

Institutionalism

Institutions play an important role in shaping the range of strategic uses ICTs can offer in

improving integration and interaction. One institutional mechanism is the constraints set by the

legacy of political, economic, cultural, and policy forces as articulated by historical

institutionalism (Hall & Taylor, 1996). Available policy options serve as conditions; this is

because of the very nature of an administrative system. For example, a centralized

9

administrative system presents a greater set of challenges for the adoption of an ICT that

features decentralized decision-making. Moreover, Welch and Wong (2001) in their global

empirical analysis, have suggested that civil service systems mediate the global pressure of

information technology bearing on increasing openness and accountability. A comparative

analysis also points toward the conditioning effect of these institutional factors on the

advancement of e-government (Y.-C. Chen & Hsieh, 2009).

Another insight from the studies of institutionalism, particularly as seen in the work of

Ostrom and colleagues (e.g. (Ostrom, Gardner, & Walker, 1994)), is the notion that there is

relative difficulty in changing an existing institutional context, because, according to the

Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) Framework, constitution-level rules are most

difficult to change; they embody well-established values, beliefs, and norms of behavior.

Collective-action level rules are easier to modify than constitution-level rules, but still changing

them pose challenges because vested interests are embedded in these rules. Similarly,

operational-level rules are easier to modify than collective-action level rules because the

former are usually technical in nature; these rules capture the implementation scheme that the

interested bodies have already agreed on. Thus, by extension, an investigation into the

likelihood of ICTs improving e-governance performance should examine the particular level of

rules that such implementation is going to alter. This research strategy would shed light on

Heeks’ (1999) notion of concept-reality gap in using information technology for administrative

reform.

Social institutionalism draws our attention to broader social processes and the logic of

social appropriateness. Social processes can exert the force of isomorphism, which acts to bring

the practices of organizations into conformity with those of society. Social appropriateness can

drive organizational decisions as organizations search for legitimacy. By extension, these

processes and such logic can help explain ICT adoption decisions. A recent study of e-

government adoption suggests the importance of external influences and the search for

legitimacy (Jun & Weare, 2010).

10

The studies of institutions also suggest the role of technology in solving collective action

problems. Rational institutionalism, as conceptualized by Hall and Taylor (1996), identifies

institutional coordination and communication as potential sources of difficulties in solving

collective action problems. Thus, it is appropriate to examine how the use of ICTs can address

coordination and communication to overcome collective action problems. Moreover, a larger

point is the need to understand the physical environment in analyzing the institutional context

(Ostrom et al., 1994). Here, a parallel to e-governance is found in the need to understand the

basic technical infrastructure, such as the internet penetration rate of a certain area or

community.

Interorganizational Information Systems for Government

One important insight of this literature points toward the centrality of context,

specifically the larger social, political, economic, organizational, and technological factors.

Pardo and Tayi (2007), in a study of information integration, have shed light on the importance

of examining the policy and social environment, interorganizational setting, and

organizational/business processes when trying to identify a technology solution. Based on a

study of e-government information system integration projects in the Netherlands, Bekkers

(2009) identifies multiple rationalities, including those in the political, legal, and economic

realms. Furthermore, a legal mandate can be an important driving force in the effort at

overcoming organizational barriers to interorganizational collaboration (Dawes, Cresswell, &

Pardo, 2009). This is particularly the case when each organization has its own set of rules and

procedures. These, according to Scholl and Klischewski, can be seen as jurisdictional constraints

(Scholl & Klischewski, 2007).

Mapping interdependence is important in the design and implementation of ICTs within

an interorganizational setting (Bekkers, 2007). The level and type of resource dependence are

likely to structure the relationships and interaction among organizational players (Pfeffer &

Salancik, 2003). Specifically, interorganizational information systems require careful mapping of

the flow of information and the actions that will be taken on the information (Barrett &

11

Konsynski, 1982). As organizations see a stake in the interorganizational system, perceived

interdependence will also begin to drive participation.

The level of complexity is an important consideration when designing and implementing

an interorganizational information system designed for public management and administration.

As a general rule, complexity tends to grow with any increase in the number of organizations

and sectors involved (Gil-Garcia, Schneider, Pardo, & Cresswell, 2005). Complexity is also a

function of technical uncertainty (Bekkers, 2007). A cutting-edge information technology

project for electronic governance is more complex not only in terms of technical difficulty, but

also in terms of political difficulty; there will be difficulty in reaching consensus, especially in the

face of uncertainty about project success. Moreover, complexity arises from the nature of the

information that flows through the interorganizational information system. Information with

elevated privacy and security is likely to make system implementation more complex (Hu &

Tzeng, 2009).

The success of interorganizational information systems in the public sector is also likely

to depend on executive support and management capacity. Studies of customer relationship

management systems and enterprise resource planning systems in the private sector have

shown that executive support is critical for successful implementation of inter-departmental

information systems (Gattiker & Goodhue, 2005; Kerimoglu, Basoglu, & Daim, 2008). Executive

support can overcome likely resistance coming from different units by cultivating shared

understanding and goals (Lawless & Moore, 1989). In the case of integrated citizen service

information systems, top management’s articulation of the service orientation can help the

integration of systems and procedures from various local government departments (Y.-C. Chen,

2010a).

Collaborative Public Management

The literature on collaborative public management underscores the fact that to

understand how success is attained in the interorganizational setting, both structures (i.e.

(Moynihan, 2009)) and processes (i.e. (Thomson & Perry, 2006)) need to be understood. Several

structural characteristics and processes are favorable to interorganizational collaboration. First,

12

a recognition of interdependence by participating organizations helps create the need for

collaboration (D. Wood & Gray, 1991). Second, a good level of goal congruency is favorable

(Percival, 2009). Goal congruency helps expand the base for support for interorganizational

efforts because it creates alignment between single organization interests and collective

interest. Another favorable condition is less contestation in authority (Moynihan, 2009).

Otherwise, such contestation would cause friction among organizations and take resources

away from implementation. A productive interorganizational process for collaboration is the

building of interorganizational trust as found in the studies of service delivery networks (B.

Chen, 2008).

This literature also offers several management strategies and needed management

capacities for successful interorganizational collaborations in public service. One approach is to

develop a fitting management strategy to address a unique combination of structural

characteristics such as level of trust and organizational competency (K. Provan & Kenis, 2008)

(H. B. Milward & Provan, 2006). This strategy may focus on a sequential way of managing

tension among organizations (K. Provan & Kenis, 2008). Another important management

strategy requires understanding different values of organizations in various sectors and the

resultant tensions as an increasing number of collaboration is intersectoral (Berry & Brower,

2005; Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2006; Herranz, 2008). The issues of politics and control should

be central in the formulation of a management strategy for interorganizational networks (B.

Milward, Kenis, & Raab, 2006; Rethemeyer, 2007a, 2007b) as power and legitimacy are critical

(Choi & Kim, 2007).

Collaborative public management also requires a set of management competencies to

be successful (Hicklin, O'Toole, & Meier, 2008; McGuire & Silvia, 2010). Competencies in

managerial networking include building support for public programs in an interdependent

setting and getting relevant individuals and organizations involved (L. J. O'Toole, Walker, Meier,

& Boyne, 2007). Specific managerial networking activities might involve activating, framing,

mobilizing, and synthesizing (McGuire, 2002). A critical networking skill is conflict resolution, as

conflicts are an inherent part of interorganizational collaboration (O'Leary & Bingham, 2009).

13

Managing collaboration performance is another critical ability. Network managers need to be

aware of the multidimensional nature of success in collaboration (B. Chen, 2008; O'Leary &

Bingham, 2009). Performance should be seen as multilevel (organization/individual, network,

and community), especially because tension can arise at different levels (K. G. Provan &

Milward, 2001).

Online Civic Engagement

The level and scope of online civic engagement can be conceptualized as a function of

both supply of online civic engagement functions and citizen demand and use (Norris, 2001)

(Dimitrova & Chen, 2006). Surveys of local governments in the United States suggest only

limited adoption of online civic engagement for a variety of reasons (Coursey & Norris, 2008;

Scott, 2006). Nevertheless, there is preliminary evidence pointing towards the conditions under

which supply of online civic engagement by government is more likely. For example, managerial

innovativeness is a favorable condition (Moon & Norris, 2005), as is technical capacity (L. Wood,

Bernt, & Ting, 2009). Continued managerial support and involvement is important (Ong &

Wang, 2009), particularly in the form of resource input (L. Wood et al., 2009).

Moreover, institutional support is critical for the supply of online civic engagement

functions. Supportive laws and regulations serve as the legal and institutional foundation for

the establishment of online civic engagement functions, such as e-rulemaking and e-FOIA on

government websites (Y.-C. Chen & Hsieh, 2009). Such institutional support can also take the

form of an executive order. For example, the Obama administration’s Open Government

Initiative focusing on transparency, collaboration, and accountability provides the policy

direction and support for deploying Web 2.0 features on federal government websites.

Transparency can help with trust (E. Welch, Hinnant, & Moon, 2005), which constitutes a

motivation for government to supply e-governance functions.

On the other hand, as stated, demand and use cannot be ignored. This set of factors

includes some basic characteristics of the citizenry, such as access to technology and the

telecommunication infrastructure (United Nations, 2008, 2010), and competency over a specific

channel of communication also matters (Pieterson & Dijk, 2007). For example, a culture that

14

values face-to-face communication may see under-utilization of available telecommunication

technology or a preference for a particular communication channel (i.e. mobile phone over

website). Another related factor is civic mindedness; demand is often based on a strong

participatory culture that has an interest in policy-making (Dimitrova & Chen, 2006).

Studies of adoption and use of e-government systems and services have shown that

individuals decide to use an e-governance function because of several factors, namely usability

(Morgeson & Mithas, 2009) and the individual’s perception of self-efficacy (Lee, 2008; Pieterson

& Dijk, 2007). External influence through interpersonal communication also plays a role

(Dimitrova & Chen, 2006). Finally, all these factors are also related to the question of privacy

and security, which empirical studies have suggested is of central important to e-government

adoption decisions (Quinn & Ramasubramanian, 2007).

In sum, the research literature reviewed here point toward the following critical lessons.

First, context matters when deciding whether to implement a particular function of e-

governance. Context includes a collection of political/policy, cultural, institutional/legal,

organizational, and technical factors. Second, the manager’s strategic choice can potentially

influence e-governance performance. A fitting strategy that takes into account the contextual

factors is productive. However, with regard to the purpose of this paper, two core issues

remain to be addressed. First, the manner in which these contextual factors influence e-

governance performance at the national level has not been fully delineated. Second, the impact

of strategic choices made by public managers on e-governance performance in a particular

context has not been sufficiently explored. Below, in the following section, a conceptual

framework will be developed and research propositions to guide empirical investigation will be

offered.

A Conceptual Framework for Comparative E-Governance Research

The primary unit of analysis is nations or autonomous administrative systems. The

rationale for this unit of analysis is that integration and interaction involved in e-governance

include all levels of government and all three sectors of a society. The encompassing nature of

15

e-governance requires that “nation” be used as the unit of analysis. Moreover, political

institutions, cultural values, and economic conditions are more distinctive at that level.

The basic assumption for this proposed framework is that the effects of information and

communication technologies (ICTs) should be understood in their institutional, political, social,

organizational, and technical contexts. This assumption is based on the notion of socio-

technical perspective, which has been assumed by most e-government studies, such as the

studies by Fountain (2001) and Pardo and Tayi (2007). More specifically, the combination of

strategic and management choices and the ICTs being deployed play a mediating and

moderating role in the relationships between these contextual factors and performance of e-

governance.

The empirical investigation of e-governance can focus on integration and interaction,

and ultimately the creation of public values. As discussed earlier, for e-governance, integration

can be measured by the combined levels of information system consolidation, whether

vertically or horizontally across the organization, or across various sectors. Interaction is

measured by the combined levels of online interaction among a diverse group of organizations

and individuals as well as between citizens and government in policy-making and public service

production and delivery. The long-term impact of e-governance will be seen in the addition of

value to public services.

Below, Figure 1 depicts various dimensions and factors and the mediating and

moderating role played by the combination of strategic choice and technology enactment. The

discussion of each dimension will focus on the effects on strategic choice and technology

enactment as well as on e-governance performance. The statements on strategic choice and

technology enactment will focus on their mediating and moderating roles on the relationships

between these factors and e-governance performance. References to relevant studies will be

integrated into the discussion, and illustrations and research propositions will also be provided.

[Insert Figure 1 Here]

Political Dimension

16

The character of a political system will likely shape the level of open interaction

between government and other non-governmental actors, and such interactions will likely

occur online, provided that the technical infrastructure is in place. A pluralistic political system,

such as those of the United States and Britain, encourages competition among political and

policy ideas. In a modern society, such interactions are openly accessible via media. As more

and more media content move online, political and policy debates and exchanges will become

even more open. Such a political system also provides to non-governmental actors a legitimate

role to play in policy debates. Advocacy/interest groups with a particular policy agenda can

directly engage government and citizens to advance their agenda. In contrast, a totalitarian

political system such as the one in North Korea would not allow any such open debates on

public policies and the interactions between government and non-governmental actors would

be tightly controlled and concealed from citizens. The media is usually tightly controlled and

even more so the internet, as it is regarded as the gateway to outside influence and the open

market of ideas. Thus, in such a scenario, open interaction is rarely available and even more

difficult online.

A participatory political culture would help promote interaction between government

and citizens as well as other intermediate groups. Such a culture promotes grass root activities

to advance a policy idea, which would coincide with the Web 2.0 premise of placing individuals

(users) at the center of activities. Political blogs, online video clips, and other user (citizen)

generated content is produced through such grass root activities. Internet technologies and

online platforms such as Wordpress and Wikipedia make publishing and reaching out to a mass

audience easy and affordable. Such a culture gives government the opportunity to be perceived

as able to facilitate meaningful participation. When coupled with ICTs, a participatory political

culture is likely to foster the formation of online communities as well as the promotion of

interaction among citizens, governmental units, and other stakeholders in society. Thus, in sum,

the discussion above suggests two research propositions:

R1a: A more pluralistic political system with a participatory political culture is more likely to have more enactment of participatory and social network technologies via strategic choice and leadership.

17

R1b: A more pluralistic political system with a participatory political culture is more likely to have a higher level of e-governance performance.

Administrative Dimension

The degree of centralization in administrative systems is likely to affect the level of

integration of governmental information systems both vertically and horizontally. This

integration of governmental systems speaks to the integration aspect of e-governance inside

government. An administrative system that is highly centralized usually builds on rules and

procedures with a single-point top-down command and control structure. The logic of

centralization is consistent with the establishment of a highly integrated government

information system that spans levels of government and jurisdictions. As a result, it does not

involve a major system change that requires modifying institutional arrangements at the

collective action or constitutional level (Ostrom et al., 1994). For example, the development

and implementation of a single and integrated information system for tracking residence

information in China (a centralized administrative system) would likely face less resistance

compared to a similar project that might be implemented in the United States (a federal

system).

With regard to an IT governance structure serving as a part of the administrative

system, such a scenario would provide the information technology office with needed authority

for government-wide initiatives; this in turn would likely promote integration. An example of

such authority would be elevating the Chief Information Officer to a cabinet level position.

Traditionally, information technology is treated as a unit under a department that does not

allow for any enterprise-level coordination and decision-making. An effective IT governance

structure is enterprise-wide, strategic, and transparent and accountable (Weill & Ross, 2004).

Another aspect of the administrative system is the government’s role in service

production and delivery. A high degree of involvement on the part of non-state actors would

promote integration between government and non-governmental organizations. A trend seen

over the past twenty years in some Western administrative systems is the increasing reliance

on non-profit organizations and businesses in public service production and delivery (Salamon,

18

2002). Through grants, contracts, partnership, and other policy instruments, governments are

shifting the locus of public service production--such as human services--to non-profit

organizations and businesses (Rethemeyer, 2009). Even in national defense, the United States is

employing civilian contractors to carry out a significant portion of military services. Moreover,

these services are increasingly conducted as collaborative networks of organizations and

individuals. Such networked public service production and delivery require a higher level of

integration and interaction cross sectors. The use of ICTs would facilitate information exchange

and coordination (Fedorowicz, Gogan, & Williams, 2006).

Since the government’s role in service production and delivery is related to intersectoral

integration and interaction, two sets of research propositions can be offered:

R2-1a: A centralized administrative system with a cabinet-level IT governance structure is more likely to have more enactment of integrative ICTs via strategic choice. R2-1b: A centralized administrative system with a cabinet-level IT governance structure is more likely to have a high level of vertical and horizontal e-governance integration inside government. R2-2a: A high level of reliance on non-governmental organizations for the production and delivery of public services is associated with strategic preference and enactment of ICTs integrating organizations cross sectors. R2-2b: A high level of reliance on non-governmental organizations for the production and delivery of public services is associated with a high level of e-governance integration cross sectors.

Legal Dimension

Meaningful interaction between government and citizens on public policy issues

requires both making policy related information available to citizens and providing mechanisms

for citizens to participate in the policy-making process. Therefore, meaningful online

interactions would require laws and regulations in both areas. For example, the United States,

as a leader in e-participation as ranked by the United Nations (United Nations, 2008), has

enacted the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which allows citizens to request information

from government. E-FOIA goes one step further, covering information in electronic format. In

terms of citizen participation, the U.S. Administrative Procedure Act stipulates that a “notice

and comment” period be held as a part of the proposal of a regulation. The entire rulemaking

19

process is online, and it is usually referred to as e-rulemaking. This online process offers an

organized way for citizens to participate in the rule-making process.

Having laws and regulations that make government information available to the public

is usually regarded as a major milestone. For example, India adopted its Right to Information

Act in 2005 and China adopted the Open Government Information regulation in 2007.

Nevertheless, there should exist a mechanism by which citizens can forward public policy input,

to complete the two-way interaction. Therefore, we propose:

R3a: A strong legal support for citizen access to government information and citizen participation in policy-making is positively associated with enactment of ICTs for government-citizen interaction. R3b: A strong legal support for citizen access to government information and citizen participation in policy-making is positively associated with a higher level of e-governance performance in the area of interaction.

Economic Dimension

E-governance performance and the enactment of e-governance technologies is also a

function of a nation’s economy. The economic prosperity of a nation would determine in part

whether government or citizens have sufficient purchasing power to acquire information and

communication technologies. This is a central reason for the low internet penetration and

limited use of mobile devices in many African countries. In addition to a nation’s total GDP, the

size of its middle class is also likely related to the level of e-governance. The larger the middle

class, the larger the number of citizens that would be in the position to purchase and use ICTs.

Such use would likely drive the development of e-government, which usually follows the trend

of e-commerce. Thus, several studies have pointed to income as an important factor in

determining whether an individual gets online (Mossberger, Tolbert, & Stansbury, 2003; Norris,

2001).

The extent to which a country’s economic prosperity depends on the production and

use of ICTs is likely to be related to e-governance. The growth of South Korea’s economy is

driven in part by its electronics and information technology industry. Based on reports of the

World Economic Forum, the strategic importance of information technology in economic

growth and the availability of affordable devices are reasons for South Korea’s high ranking in

20

e-government. Similarly, the ICT industry also has played a critical role in the growth of the U.S.

economy. This strategic importance and availability also in part explain the extensive use of ICTs

by citizens and organizations in all three sectors of society. Taking these considerations

together, we propose:

R4a: A nation with a higher level of economic prosperity, larger middle class, and greater reliance on information technology for economic growth is more likely to have more strategic enactment of e-governance technologies. R4b: A nation with a higher level of economic prosperity, larger middle class, and greater reliance on information technology for economic growth is more likely to have better e-governance performance both in terms of integration and interaction.

Social Dimension

Social capital can provide the foundation for stronger civic engagement (Skocpol &

Fiorina, 1999). Social capital can facilitate coordination and cooperation to promote the mutual

interests of participants. These cooperative social interactions are likely to lead to social trust,

which promotes individual participation in civil associations and political societies. By extension,

virtual social interactions can lay the foundation for e-governance. People use online tools to

facilitate social interactions—both online and offline—to enhance cooperation and

coordination, to advance mutual interests. The use of Twitter in Iran’s election and the

establishment of sites that allow users to post video clips of natural disasters are two of many

examples.

Professional social networks, defined here as professional social capital, are important

in public policy making and public services. Professional associations usually focus on a

particular policy area, and this allows for cooperation and coordination as well as mobilization

with regard to governance issues. Professional networks can help collaboration across

organizational boundaries and levels of government. For example, a criminal justice information

system relies on shared goals and professional values to promote integration and interaction

among criminal justice professionals. The formation of such professional social capital can take

place online as virtual communities of practices. In fact, some wikis have grown out of the need

for such professional networks to share knowledge.

21

For the purpose of comparative research, two nuances of the social dimension need

further exploration. A society may have a social norm that pays deference to public officials as

authority figures. Such a social norm might prevent citizens from directly interacting with

government either offline or online. Second, socially preferred channels of interactions within a

particular society may place a premium on face-to-face social interactions, for example, and

this would dampen the growth of online social capital, even if there were to be a significant

stock of social capital accumulated offline. Considering these factors, these propositions are

offered:

R5a: A large stock of social capital for citizens as well as professionals is positively associated with more enactment of e-governance technologies. R5b: A large stock of social capital for citizens as well as professionals is positively associated with a higher level of e-governance performance in both integration and interaction.

Technical Infrastructure Dimension

Technical infrastructure refers to telecommunication infrastructures both for society as

a whole and for government services. Two standard measures of infrastructure maturity have

been the penetration rates of internet usage and mobile phone usage. Additionally, because

online content and traffic have become more data intensive, an increasingly important measure

of infrastructure is the size and availability of broadband networks. This presents an added

dimension of the “digital divide” separating those who have broadband access and those who

do not. In the United States, the Obama administration’s rural broadband initiative is aimed at

bridging this divide.

The maturity of the telecommunication infrastructure can also be measured by the

extent of virtual interactions among governmental units. The telecommunication infrastructure

(i.e. fiber optics) is sometimes referred to as the “backbone” of governmental networks. The

ability to connect to various main governmental office buildings and provide sufficient

bandwidth is a measure of such maturity. For example, Britain’s national fiber optic

telecommunication infrastructure established for its National Health Services provides

sufficient bandwidth for health information in digital networks.

22

Moreover, defining technical infrastructure must also consider the national availability

and use of network technologies (Web 2.0 in particular). A mature technical infrastructure, by

definition, would be characterized by organizations and individuals in all sectors of society

having access to network technologies. The development of Web 2.0 technologies in the United

States has made online participation and collaboration easy and relatively affordable. The

development of innovative products, such as i-Phones and i-Pads, is another sign of maturity.

Taken together, these points suggest the following research propositions:

R6a: A mature technical infrastructure is positively associated with a higher degree of e-governance technology enactment via strategic choices. R6b: A mature technical infrastructure is positively associated with a higher degree of e-governance performance in terms of both integration and interaction.

Strategic Choice and Leadership

Strategic choice and leadership are critical elements in the proposed conceptual

framework for comparative e-governance research. These elements address the specific

managerial and leadership strategies that public managers and administrators can deploy to

enhance e-governance. Thus, this section develops research propositions by further integrating

insights from various bodies of literature with regard to the various dimensions identified

above. These strategies, once empirically verified, can inform both the theory and practice of e-

governance for national governments.

A productive first step in developing a strategy requires careful assessment of the

various dimensions identified above. Each country has a unique profile with regard to the

specific political, social, legal, administrative, economic, and technical infrastructure factors

that have been outlined. A country profile can identify opportunities and challenges in

improving e-governance performance. For example, after a careful analysis, a country may

discover that its main obstacle to the interaction dimension of e-governance may be its lack of a

participatory political culture, rather than, for example, limited social capital. A thorough

analysis of each dimension will generate a clear profile, which in turn can serve as the basis for

developing effective strategies appropriate to specific social, cultural, political, and national

contexts.

23

The second step in developing a strategy requires a feasibility analysis. Consonant with

Provan and Kenis’ (2008) argument concerning national implementation, a fitting strategy

would address the main challenges identified during an overview of the various dimensions

mentioned above. For example, a federalist administrative system requires a strategy for

dealing with coordination complexity. Complexity grows with any increase in the number of

joint decisions required in implementation (Pressman & Wildavsky, 1984) and with any increase

in the degree of interdependence involved (Ito & Peterson, 1986). Moreover, an optimal

strategy also needs to attend to any alterations in the distribution of costs and benefits and the

various political implications arising therein. Thus, one of the challenges associated with

information sharing in integration and interaction projects is bureaucratic politics (Bekkers,

2009; Lawless & Moore, 1989; L. O'Toole, 1997). Finally, an optimal strategy needs to be based

on a clear understanding of the extent of change. If the change sought for integration and

interaction requires change at the constitutional level, as conceptualized by Ostrom and

colleagues (Ostrom et al., 1994), an appropriate strategy may require broad administrative and

political reform efforts to lay the institutional and political foundation for e-governance.

Building and committing required management capacities and resources is an important

component of an overall strategy. These capacities and resources help overcome the challenges

identified in various dimensions in order to realize the objectives of e-governance. The concept

of management capacities includes management of technical ICT resources, contracts, and

projects. IT contract management and project management are critical management capacities

for government employees, because these employees usually rely on IT service providers for

the design and implementation of complex IT projects. Moreover, the ability to manage a

network of organizations for the production and delivery of public services is particularly

relevant in e-governance. Managerial activities, such as activating, mobilizing, and framing,

should help articulate interdependence, improve goal congruency, reduce contestation of

authority, and build trust for collaboration.

As mentioned previously in the review of the collaborative management literature,

conflict resolution skills are also important (O'Leary & Bingham, 2009). Skillful conflict

24

resolution can help build interorganizational trust and thus foster collaboration and integration

of business processes and systems. Moreover, the capacity to manage relationships with

citizens in their online interaction with government helps with virtual interaction and trust

building. The ability to structure online interaction to allow informed deliberation and

collaboration is important (Holzer, Melitski, Rho, & Schwester, 2004).

Adapting to changing goals and conditions while delivering best value should be a part

of the overall strategy. High level integration and interaction e-governance projects usually take

several years to complete. For example, building technical standards for data interoperability in

business reporting in the Netherlands took several years (Y.-C. Chen, 2010b). Changing political

and economic realities may shift government resources away from e-governance projects. A

skilled manager and leader must be able to work within that constraint and still be able to

deliver the best public value, even if this may involve, for example, shifting to relying more on

non-profit and non-governmental resources.

Promoting and leveraging innovations is another component of a productive strategy for

e-governance. Technical innovation would help address basic information, coordination, and

decision-making challenges. For example, advancements in blog mining (automation of the

mining for causal relationships in millions of postings and comments) can assist with basic

information management, especially in view of the sheer amount of information generated in

virtual interactions. Innovations in collaborative ICTs can reduce the cost of coordination.

Innovations in Web 3.0 technologies, such as software for XBRL, would empower citizens with

affordable tools, giving them the ability to conduct sophisticated analysis of public information

and become productive members in virtual interactions.

Moreover, managerial innovation would also assist in e-governance. Managerial

innovation may involve, for example, adopting a new mindset or finding synergy between e-

governance integration and interaction. A new mindset, for example, can be the orientation

towards enhancing and increasing citizen-centric virtual government. Such a mindset would

support and exemplify government information sharing and system integration. There are

opportunities to increase both integration and interaction simultaneously. One way involves

25

providing government information service agents who are able to offer on-demand

government services within a structured process of gathering public policy input.

Implementing a productive management and leadership strategy with the components

described above constitutes a high-level strategic choice and leadership agenda. Considering

these factors, the following research propositions capture the relationships indicated in Figure

1.

R7a: High-level strategic choice and leadership is likely to positively moderate the relationships between various dimensions and e-governance performance. R7b: High-level strategic choice and leadership is positively associated with a higher level of e-governance performance. R7c: High-level strategic choice and leadership is positively associated with a higher level of e-governance technology enactment.

Technology Enactment

Enactment of e-governance technologies is usually the result of direct influence of the

various dimensions identified in the framework or shaped by strategic choices. There is a

distinction between technology enactment and e-governance performance which should be

noted. Technology enactment is concerned more with design and implementation of relevant

ICT projects, whereas e-governance is concerned more with actual use. For example,

establishing an online social networking forum to gather innovative ideas about various policy

problems is considered technology enactment. By contrast, the actual number of citizens

participating and ideas generated would be a measure of e-governance performance.

Technology enactment can be directly influenced by the various dimensions identified

above. For example, an authoritarian political system would enact ICTs that enhance central

control. This would assist in the integration of systems across levels of government, but reduce

potential interaction between citizens and government. The provision of e-governance

functions on government websites is considered technology enactment. Specific measures can

be found in studies of e-government and e-governance (e.g. (E. W. Welch, Moon, & Wong,

2006; West, 2005)). Such provisions may result from combining a mature IT industry and

technical infrastructure.

26

Strategic choice and leadership can influence the specific technology enacted. For

example, the U.S. federal government has made a conscious decision to develop information

standards for government data to facilitate the “mash-up” of government information. This

would deliver better information and services. Management and leadership are particularly

relevant to successful IT project implementation, especially because IT projects usually have a

high failure rate (Yardley, 2002).

The characteristics of information and information technology adopted have

implications for e-governance performance. The nature and flow of information inform

organizational interdependence and dynamics (Barrett & Konsynski, 1982). Empirical evidence

has suggested that the use of network technologies does not necessarily have a democratic

effect, contrary to what most people would argue (Rethemeyer, 2007a). The adoption of an

information system that further consolidates central control will hamper interaction sought in

e-governance. On the other hand, the adoption of open standards is a positive force in

encouraging a wider participation by non-profit organizations and citizens. Research

propositions below capture all three relationships discussed above.

R8a: The level of e-governance integration and interaction technologies adopted is associated with the preferences of various factors over integration and interaction. R8b: The level of e-governance integration and interaction technologies adopted is positively associated with a high-level strategic choice and leadership. R8c: The level of e-governance integration and interaction technologies adopted is positively associated with a high-level e-governance performance.

Research Agenda and Conclusion

The conceptual framework discussed above offers research propositions to guide the

development of a research agenda based on empirical investigation and theory building. A

productive research agenda has three complementary components. First, there is a need to

conduct large-scale comprehensive analysis to test research propositions using a country

(autonomous region) as the unit of analysis. Such large scale analysis should include a large

number of countries, with a scoring standard for each of the political, social, legal, economic,

administrative, and technical infrastructure dimensions over a course of several years. It will

27

create a large enough panel of data to examine the relationships between various contextual

factors and e-governance performance measures. Attention should be given to the creation and

fine-tuning of indicators for various contextual dimensions, technology enactment, and e-

governance performance.

Second, a productive research agenda would incorporate an in-depth comparative case

analysis, with country as the unit of analysis. The case analysis would be used to explore each

instance of strategic decision-making in its context. Yin’s (2003) case study research design is a

useful guide. The primary goal of the case study is to explore the role of strategic choice and

leadership in moderating or mediating the influence of these dimensions over e-governance

performance. Tracing major events in the history of e-government and e-governance will help

isolate the influence of a particular factor such as open government laws. The study of multiple

cases while focusing on the existence and absence of key strategic components would shed

light on their degree of relevance. Pattern matching, explanation building, and cross-case

syntheses as recommended by Yin (2003) would be used. Moreover, a variable-driven analysis

for comparative case studies as suggested by Ragin (1987) will be useful for isolating the impact

of a strategy.

Third, and finally, a productive research agenda would incorporate a sub-national

comparison. The goal of this component is to control for contextual factors while examining the

relationships between characteristics of technology being enacted, strategic choice, and e-

governance outcome. Moreover, sub-national comparisons can focus on e-governance projects

that have similar technologies and goals. For example, a comparison of the use of Web 2.0 for

generating policy ideas, across multiple countries, can generate insights into the role of

interactive functional features in e-governance across various contexts.

This paper is a preliminary attempt to develop a framework for the study of electronic

governance. Its first contribution is to argue for a distinction between e-government and e-

governance in order to keep pace with recent developments in Web 2.0. Moreover, this paper

begins to delineate the relevant contextual factors that influence e-governance performance by

28

offering specific research propositions. Finally, it sheds light on the role of strategic choice and

leadership in e-governance within an array of broader and diverse contextual factors.

29

Political dimension Administrative dimension

Tech Infrastructure Dimension

Legal dimension

Social dimension

Economic dimension Technology Enacted

E-governance: • Integration • Interaction

Strategic Choice and leadership

Table 1. Comparison between E-Government and E-Governance E-government E-governance Values Efficiency, Effectiveness, Service

quality Efficiency, Effectiveness, service quality plus citizen participation and transparency

Focus Service Service plus process

Mode of Activities

Integration -horizontal service integration (inter-agency cooperation) -vertical service integration (inter-governmental cooperation)

Integration plus Interaction -inter-sectoral collaboration -citizen engagement/participation

Main driver(s) Government Government plus businesses, citizens, non-profit organizations

Structure Hierarchy Heterarchy Technology Web 1.0 Web 2.0

Figure 1. A Conceptual Framework for Comparative E-Governance Research

30

References

Barrett, S., & Konsynski, B. (1982). Inter-Organization Information Sharing Systems. MIS Quarterly, Special Issue, 93-105.

Bekkers, V. (2007). The governance of back-office integration. Public Managemen Review, 9(3), 377-400. Bekkers, V. (2009). Flexible Information Infrastructures in Dutch E-Government Collaboration

Arrangements: Experiences and Policy Implications. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 60-68.

Berry, F., & Brower, R. (2005). Intergovernmental and Intersectoral Management: Weaving Networking, Contracting Out, and Management Roles into Third Party Management. Public Performance and Management Review, 29(1), 7-17.

Bryson, J., Crosby, B., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The Design and Implementation of Cross-Sector Collaborations: Propositions from the Literature. Public Administration Review, 66(Supplement to Issue 6 (Special Issue)), 44-55.

Carrizales, T., Holzer, M., & Manoharan, A. (2008). Worldwide E-Governance: A Longitudinal Assessment of Municipal Web Sites and the Digital Divide. In D. Norris (Ed.), E-Government Research: Policy and Management (pp. 98-119). Hershey, New York: IGI Publishing.

Chang, A.-M., & Kannan, P. K. (2008). Leveraging Web 2.0 in Government. Washington, D.C.: IBM Center for the Business of Government.

Chen, B. (2008). Assessing Interorganizational Networks for Public Service Delivery: A Process-Perceived Effectiveness Framework. Public Performance & Management Review, 31(3), 348-363.

Chen, Y.-C. (2010a). Citizen-Centric E-Government Services: Understanding Integrated Citizen Service Information Systems. Social Science Computer Review, first published on February 14, 2010 as doi:10.1177/0894439309359050

Chen, Y.-C. (2010b). Realizing the Full Potential of XBRL in Government: Case Studies of XBRL Implementation. Washington, D.C.: IBM Center for the Business of Government.

Chen, Y.-C., & Hsieh, J.-Y. (2009). Advancing E-Governance: Comparing Taiwan and the United States. Public Administration Review, 69(Supplement 1).

Choi, S. O., & Kim, B.-T. (2007). Power and Cognitive Accuracy in Local Emergency Management Networks. Public Administration Review, Supplement to Volume 67, 198-209.

Coursey, D., & Norris, D. (2008). Models of E-Government: Are They Correct? An Empirical Assessment. Public Administration Review, 48(3), 523-536.

Dawes, S., Cresswell, A., & Pardo, T. (2009). From "Need to Know" to "Need to Share": Tangled Problems, Information Boundaries, and the Building of Public Sector Knowledge Networks. Public Administration Review, 69(3), 392-402.

Dimitrova, D., & Chen, Y.-C. (2006). Profiling the Adopters of E-Government Information and Services: The Influence of Psychological Characteristics, Civic Mindedness, and Information Channels. Social Science Computer Review, 24(2), 172-188.

Fedorowicz, J., Gogan, J., & Williams, C. (2006). The E-Government Collaboration Challenge: Lessons from Five Case Studies. Washington, D.C.: IBM Center for the Business of Government.

Fleming, C. (2008). Call 311: Connecting Citizens to Local Government Case Study Series: Minneapolis 311 System. Washington, D.C.

Fountain, J. (2001). Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

31

Fung, A., Graham, M., & Weil, D. (2007). Full Disclosure: The Perils and Promise of Transparency. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Garson, D. (2006). Public Information Technology and E-Governance: Managing the Virtual State. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Barlett Publishers, Inc.

Gattiker, T. F., & Goodhue, D. L. (2005). What Happens After ERP Implementation: Understanding the Impact of Inter-dependence and Differentiation on Plant-level Outcomes. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 559-585.

Gil-Garcia, J. R., Schneider, C., Pardo, T., & Cresswell, A. (2005). Interorganizational Information Integration in the Criminal Justice Enterprise: Preliminary Lessons from State and County Initiatives. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 38th Hawaiian International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii.

Gray, A., Jenkins, B., Leeuw, F., & Mayne, J. (2003). Collaboration in Public Services (Vol. X). New Brunswick (U.S.A.) and London (U.K.): Transaction Publishers.

Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Plitical Science and the Three New Institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(4), 936-957.

Heeks, R. (1999). Reinventing Government in the Information Age: International Practice in IT-enabled Public Sector Reform. London and New York: Routledge.

Herranz, J. (2008). The Multisectoral Trilemma of Network Management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(1), 1-32.

Hicklin, A., O'Toole, L., & Meier, K. (2008). Serpents in the Sand: Managerial Networking and Nonlinear Influence on Organizational Performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 253-273.

Holzer, M., Manoharan, A., Shick, R., & Stowers, G. (2008). U.S. Municipalities E-Governance Report: An Assessment of Municipal Websites. Newark, NJ: The E-Governance Institute

National Center for Public Performance School of Public Affairs and Administration. Holzer, M., Melitski, J., Rho, S.-Y., & Schwester, R. (2004). Restoring Trust in Government: The Potential

of Digital Citizen Participation. Washington, D.C.: IBM Center for the Business of Government. Homburg, V. (2008). Understanding E-Government: Information Systems in Public Administration.

London and New York: Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group. Hu, L.-T., & Tzeng, K.-C. (2009). Cross-Boundary Integration Management in Electronic Governance: Case

Evaluations. Taipei: Research Development and Evaluation Commission. Ito, J. K., & Peterson, R. B. (1986). Effects of Task Difficulty and Inter-unit Interdependence on

Information Processing Systems. Academy of Management Journal, 29(1), 139-149. Jun, K.-N., & Weare, C. (2010). Institutional Motivations in the Adoption of Innovations: The Case of E-

Government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, doi: 10.1093/jopart/muq020, first published online: June 9, 2010

Kerimoglu, O., Basoglu, N., & Daim, T. (2008). Organizational Adoption of Information Technologies: Case of Enterprise Resource Planning Systems. Journal of High Technology Management Research, doi:10.1016/j.hitech.2008.06.002.

Lawless, M. W., & Moore, R. (1989). Interorganizational Systems in Public Service Delivery: A New Application of the Dynamic Network Framework. Human Relations, 42(12), 1167-1184.

Lee, J. (2008). Determinants of Government Bureaucrats' New PMIS Adoption: The Role of Organizational Power, IT Capability, Administrative Role, and Attitude. Amercian Review of Public Administration, 2008(2), 180-202.

32

McGuire, M. (2002). Managing Networks: Propositions on What Managers Do and Why They Do It. Public Administration Review, 62(5), 599-609.

McGuire, M., & Silvia, C. (2010). The Effect of Problem Severity, Managerial and Organizational Capacity, and Agency Structure on Intergovernmental Collaboration: Evidence from Local Emergency Management. Public Administration Review, 70(2).

Milward, B., Kenis, P., & Raab, J. (2006). Introduction: Towards the Study of Network Control. International Public Management Journal, 9(3), 203-208.

Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. (2000). Governing the Hollow State. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 359-379.

Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. (2006). A Manager's Guide to Choosing and Using Collaborative Networks. Washington, D.C.: IBM Center for the Business of Government.

Moon, J., & Norris, D. (2005). Does Managerial Orientation Matter? The Adoption of Reinventing Government and E-Government at the Municipal Level. Information Systems Journal, 15, 43-60.

Morgeson, F. V. I., & Mithas, S. (2009). Does E-Government Measure Up to E-Business? Comparing End User Perceptions of U.S. Federal Government and E-Business Web Sites. Public Administration Review, 69(4), 740-752.

Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C., & Stansbury, M. (2003). Virtual Inequality: Beyond the Digital Divide. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Moynihan, D. (2009). The Network Governance of Crisis Response: Case Studies of Incident Command Systems. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, mun033.

Norris, P. (2001). Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. New York: Cambridge University Press.

O'Leary, R., & Bingham, L. B. (Eds.). (2009). The Collaborative Public Manager: New Ideas for the Twenty-first Century. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

O'Toole, L. (1997). Interorganizational Communication: Opportunities and Challenges for Public Administration. In J. Garnett & A. Kouzmin (Eds.), Handbook of Administrative Communication (pp. 61-78): CRC Press.

O'Toole, L. J., Walker, R. M., Meier, K. J., & Boyne, G. A. (2007). Networking in Comparative Context. Public Managemen Review, 9(3), 401-420.

Ong, C.-S., & Wang, S.-W. (2009). Managing citizen-initiated email contacts. Government Information Quarterly, 26(3), 498-504.

Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., & Walker, J. (1994). Rules, Games and Common-Pool Resources. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.

Pardo, T. A., & Tayi, G. K. (2007). Interorganizational Information Integration: A Key Enabler for Digital Government. Government Information Quarterly, 24(4), 691-715.

Percival, G. (2009). Exploring the Influence of Local Policy Networks on the Implementation of Drug Policy Reform: The Case of California's Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, advance access.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (2003). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Stanford, CA (originally) New York: Stanford University Press (Originally) Harper and Row in 1978.

Pieterson, W., & Dijk, J. v. (2007). Channel choice determinants; an exploration of the factors that determine the choice of a service channel in citizen initiated contacts. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 8th annual international conference on Digital government research: bridging disciplines \& domains.

33

Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Provan, K., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and

Effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229-252. Provan, K. G., & Milward, B. (2001). Do Networks Really Work? A Framework for Evaluating Public-Sector

Organizational Networks. Public Administration Review, 61(4), 414-423. Quinn, A., & Ramasubramanian, L. (2007). Information technologies and civic engagement: Perspectives

from librarianship and planning. Government Information Quarterly, 24(3), 595-610. Ragin, C. C. (1987). The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies.

Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press, Ltd. Rethemeyer, K. (2007a). The Empires Strike Back: Is the Internet Corporatizing Rather than

Democratizing Policy Process. Public Administration Review, 67(2), 199-215. Rethemeyer, K. (2007b). Policymaking in the Age of Internet: Is the Internet Tending to Make Policy

Networks More or Less Inclusive? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 259-284.

Rethemeyer, K. (2009). Making Sense of Collaboration and Governance. Public Performance & Management Review, 32(4), 565-573.

Salamon, L. M. (Ed.). (2002). The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Scholl, H. J., & Klischewski, R. (2007). E-Government Integration and Interoperability: Framing the Research Agenda. International Journal of Public Administration, 30(8/9), 889-920.

Scott, J. (2006). "E" the People: Do U.S. Municipal Government Web Sites Support Public Involvement? Public Administration Review, 66(3), 341-353.

Skocpol, T., & Fiorina, M. (Eds.). (1999). Civic Engagement in American Democracy. Washington, D.C.; New York, NY: Brookings Institution Press & Russell Sage Foundation.

Thomson, A. M., & Perry, J. (2006). Collaboration Processes: Inside the Black Box. Public Administration Review, 66(Supplement to Issue 6), 20-32.

United Nations. (2008). UN E-Government Survey 2008: From E-Government to Connected Governance. New York.

United Nations. (2010). United Nations 2010 Global E-Government Survey: Leveraging E-government at a Time of Financial and Economic Crisis. New York: United Nations.

Weill, P., & Ross, J. W. (2004). IT Governance: How Top Performers Manage IT Decisions Right for Superior Results. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.

Welch, E., Hinnant, C., & Moon, M. J. (2005). Linking Citizen Satisfaction with E-Government and Trust in Government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(3), 371-392.

Welch, E., & Wong, W. (2001). Global Information Technology Pressure and Government Accountability: The Mediating Effect of Domestic Context on Website Openness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory(4), 509-538.

Welch, E. W., Moon, M. J., & Wong, W. (2006). What Drives Global E-Government? An Exploratory Assessment of Existing E-Government Performance Measures. In G. A. Boyne, K. Meier, L. O'Toole & R. M. Walker (Eds.), Public Service Performance: Perspectives on Measurement and Management. Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, Sao Paulo: Cambridge University Press.

West, D. (2005). Digital Government: Technology and Public Sector Performance. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.

34

West, D. (2008). Improving Technology Utilization in Electronic Government around the World, 2008: Brookings.

Wood, D., & Gray, B. (1991). Toward a Comprehensive Theory of Collaboration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2), 139-162.

Wood, L., Bernt, P., & Ting, C. (2009). Implementing Public Utility Commission Web Sites: Targeting Audiences, Missing Opportunities. Public Administration Review, 69(4), 753-763.

Yang, K. (2003). Neoinstitutionalism and E-Government. Social Science Computer Review, 21(4), 432-442. Yang, K. (2009). American Public Administration: Are We Prepared for the Challenge. Public Performance

& Management Review, 32(4), 579-584. Yardley, D. (2002). Successful IT Project Delivery. London, Great Britain: Pearson Education. Yin, R. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3rd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE

Publications, Inc.

A Conceptual Framework for Comparative E-Governance Research*IntroductionElectronic GovernanceInstitutions, Collaboration, Civic Engagement, and Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs)InstitutionalismInterorganizational Information Systems for GovernmentCollaborative Public ManagementOnline Civic Engagement

A Conceptual Framework for Comparative E-Governance ResearchPolitical DimensionAdministrative DimensionLegal DimensionEconomic DimensionSocial DimensionTechnical Infrastructure DimensionStrategic Choice and LeadershipTechnology Enactment

Research Agenda and ConclusionReferences