RESEARCH NOTE E-Government Strategies in Developed …€¦ · Developed and Developing Countries: An Implementation ... DEVELOPED VS. DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ... while 9.3% are in the

Copyright © 2006, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of Idea Group Inc.is prohibited.

Journal of Global Information Management, 14(1), 23-46, January-March 2006 23

E-Government Strategies inDeveloped and Developing

Countries: An ImplementationFramework and Case Study

Y. N. Chen, Western Kentucky University, USAH. M. Chen, Shanghai Jiaotong University, China

W. Huang, College of Business, Ohio University, USAR. K. H. Ching, California State University, USA

ABSTRACT

Given the fact that more and more governments invest heavily in e-governmentdesign and implementation, e-government has become an evolving and importantresearch area in the IS field. Most, if not all, currently published e-governmentstrategies are based on successful experiences from developed countries, whichmay not be directly applicable to developing countries. Based on a literature review,this study summarizes differences between developed/developing countries. Itidentifies key factors for a successful e-government implementation and proposesan implementation framework. As a demonstration, we follow the guidance of theproposed framework in conducting a case study to analyze the implementationstrategies of e-government in developed and developing countries.

Keywords: e-government; e-government implementation framework; e-governmentstrategy

INTRODUCTIONWith the Internet surging, govern-

ments at all levels are utilizing it to rein-vent their structure and efficiency, coiningthe term “e-government” to describe this

initiative. Bill Gates of Microsoft claimsthat e-government is one of the most ex-citing fields in electronic commerce in thenear future. E-government is a cost-effec-tive solution that improves communication

RESEARCH NOTE

24 Journal of Global Information Management, 14(1), 23-46, January-March 2006


between government agencies and theirconstituents by providing access to infor-mation and services online. The Econo-mist magazine estimates that the potentialsavings of implementing e-governmentcould be as much as $110 billion and 144billion English Pounds in the U.S. and Eu-rope, respectively (Symonds, 2000).Though a new subject, e-government hasattracted more and more research inter-est and focus from industries, national gov-ernments, and universities (Carter &Belanger, 2005; Chircu & Lee, 2003;Huang, Siau, & Wei, 2004; Jain &Patnayakuni, 2003; Moon & Norris,2005; Navarra & Cornford, 2003), suchas IBM’s Institute for Electronic Govern-ment and various “E-Government TaskForces” in different countries (Huang,D’Ambra, & Bhalla, 2002).

E-Government is a permanent com-mitment made by government to improvethe relationship between the private citi-zen and the public sector through en-hanced, cost-effective, and efficient de-livery of services, information, and knowl-edge. Broadly defined, e-government in-cludes the use of all information and com-munication technologies, from fax ma-chines to wireless palm pilots, to facilitatethe daily administration of government,exclusively as an Internet-driven activitythat improves citizen’s access to govern-ment information, services, and expertiseto ensure citizen’s participation in, andsatisfaction with government process (UN& ASPA, 2001). Narrowly defined, e-government is the production and deliv-ery of government services through ITapplications, used to simplify and improve

transactions between governments andconstituents, businesses, and other gov-ernment agencies (Sprecher, 2000).

The development and implementa-tion of e-government brings about impactsand changes to the structure and function-ing of the public administration (Snellen,2000). Unlike the traditional bureaucraticmodel where information flows only ver-tically and rarely between departments, e-government links new technology withlegacy systems internally and, in turn, linksgovernment information infrastructuresexternally with everything digital (Tapscott,1995). Moreover, e-government will helpbreaking down agency and jurisdictionalbarriers to allow more integrated whole-of-government services across the threetiers of government (federal, state, andlocal). Government in the offline environ-ment can be difficult to access, which isespecially problematic for people in re-gional and remote locations. E-Govern-ment offers a potential to dramatically in-crease access to information and services.E-Government makes it easier for citizensto participate in and contribute to govern-mental issues.

Various stages of e-government re-flect the degree of technical sophisticationand interaction with users (Hiller &Belanger, 2001). A broad model with athree-phase and dual-pronged strategy forimplementing electronic democracy is pro-posed by Watson and Mundy (2000) (seeFigure 1). The three phases draw on theprinciples of skill development (Quinn,Anderson, & Finkelstein, 1996), and theprongs echo the dual foundations ofdemocratic government — effectiveness



and efficiency. Note that we identify e-government and e-politics as elements ofe-democracy. E-Government informs citi-zens about their representatives and howthey may be contacted and it improvesgovernment efficiency by enabling citizensto pay transactions online; whereas e-poli-tics is the use of Internet technology toimprove the effectiveness of political de-cisions by making citizens aware of thehow and why of political decision makingand facilitating their participation in thisprocess.

The initiation phase focuses on pro-viding citizens with a single point of ac-cess to government information and Web-enabling government payments are thecritical initial goals. For a minimum levelof political involvement, citizens need toknow who represents them and what ishappening in the political scene.

When the e-democracy proceeds tothe infusion phase, nearly all governmentsadopt the principles of e-government.Online review and payment applications

are widely installed. Citizens can makemost government payments via the Weband electronic bill presentment is the stan-dard. Government becomes more efficientvia two major approaches. Small govern-ments opt for an application service pro-vider (ASP) solution, while large govern-ments implement in-house systems. Aninitiation stage is necessary because gov-ernments need to create the infrastructure(e.g., software firms, methodologies, con-sulting skills), acquaint governments andcitizens with the concept of e-government,and learn how to scale from a handful totens of thousands of online governmentservices. Once the foundation of skills andknowledge has been built and the idea hasgained currency, large-scale adoption isfeasible.

With the further development of e-government, citizens will not be satisfiedwith a one-size-fits-all solution, andcustomization will be demanded. Duringthe customization phase, electronic de-mocracy implements a one-to-one rela-

Figure 1. Three phases model

Effectiveness >>>

Electronic Democracy

Single Point of Access to Government

� Enabling Web-based Payment

� Informed Citizens

All Government is Electronic Government

� Mass Presentment, Review, and Payment Online

� Open Access to Government Information

One-to-One Relationship Between Government and Citizens

� Citizens have Personal Profiles for all Financial Transactions

� Citizens can Customize Relevant Information

Initiation Infusion Customization

Efficiency >>>

e-government e-politics



tionship between citizen and government.To further improve their personal effi-ciency, all citizens have an electronicallymaintained, personal profile of their finan-cial interactions with government. An ad-dress change, for example, is a single trans-action that automatically notifies all gov-ernment systems. In addition, citizens canget a detailed breakdown of their particu-lar government payments so that they aremore directly connected with how theirtaxes and fees are spent (e.g., amountcontributed to education).

DEVELOPED VS.DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Every year, the United Nations re-leases a report on the least developedcountries (LDC) and compares their eco-nomic conditions in several different cat-egories. For 2002, 49 countries were des-ignated as the least developed. Thesecountries were decided based on their lowGDP per capita, their weak human assets,and their high degree of economic vulner-ability (UNCTAD, 2002). E-Governmentimplementation and development is a high-priority issue on various countries’ agenda.Some countries have surpassed others inonline services that they offer to their citi-zens. Indicators on education and literacyshow that, in Mozambique, only 7% ofthe total population was enrolled in sec-ondary school. Indicators on communi-cations and media show that, inBangladesh, only 3.4% of the populationhas a telephone, while 9.3% are in the cir-culation of daily newspapers (UNCTAD,2002).

Although e-government technologieshave a potential to improve the lives of80% of the world’s population that livesin developing countries, the developedcountries such as the U.S., Canada, UK,and Australia are so far leaders in e-gov-ernment (Annual Global Accenture Study,2002), reaping the vast majority of initialgains of e-government implementation.Actually, the gap between developed anddeveloping countries in Internet techno-logical infrastructures, practices, and us-age has been wider rather than narrowerover recent years. Besides the lack of suf-ficient capital to build up expensive na-tional information infrastructure (NII) onwhich e-government is based, developingcountries also lack the sufficient knowl-edge and skill to develop suitable and ef-fective strategies for establishing and pro-moting e-government.

An estimated 500 e-governmentprograms were launched in the year 2001by governments worldwide (Palmer,2002). E-Government strategies have hada tremendous impact on the way govern-ments interact with their citizens. Morethan 75% of Australians file income taxesonline, while the mayor of Minnesota re-ceives about 13,000 e-mails from thepublic each week (Palmer, 2002). Ac-cording to the 2002 Annual GlobalAccenture (former Anderson Consulting:AC) Study, Canada is the leader in e-gov-ernment implementation. The remainingtop 10 countries are (in order): Singapore,the United States, Australia, Denmark, theUnited Kingdom, Finland, Hong Kong,Germany, and Ireland. A survey by the



United Nations found that of its 190 mem-ber states, only 36 out of the 169 avail-able Web sites had one-stop portals andless than 20 offered online transactions(Jackson, 2002). This clearly shows a biggap in current e-government implementa-tion status in different countries. A morerecent study using the United Nations dataempirically proves that e-government de-velopment and implementation differ inthree areas: income level, developmentstatus, and region (Siau & Long, 2005).

In comparison with other countries,the United States along with Australia,Singapore, and Canada are the early lead-ers in the march toward e-government.Governments in the United Kingdom,France, Germany, Spain, Norway, HongKong, and New Zealand have vowed tochange their policies toward the implemen-tation of e-government in order to takethe full advantage of the digital informa-tion age. Other cautious implementers in-clude Italy, Japan, Netherlands, and South

Table 1. Main differences between developed and developing countries

Developed Countries Developing Countries

• Government and economy developed early, immediately after independence

• Government usually not specifically defined; economy not increasing in productivity

History and Culture

• Economy growing at a constant rate, productivity increasing, high standard of living

• Relatively long history of democracy and more transparent government policy and rule

• Economy not growing or increasing productivity; low standard of living

• Relatively short history of democracy and less transparent government policy and rule

• Has a current staff, needs to increase technical abilities and hire younger professionals

• Does not have a staff, or has very limited in-house staff

Technical Staff

• Has outsourcing abilities and financial resources to outsource; current staff would be able to define requirements for development

• Does not have local outsourcing abilities and rarely has the financial ability to outsource; current staff may be unable to define specific requirements

• Good current infrastructure • Bad current infrastructure Infrastructure

• High Internet access for employees and citizens

• Low Internet access for employees and citizens

Citizens • High Internet access and computer literacy; still has digital divide and privacy issues

• Relatively more experienced in democratic system and more actively participate in governmental policy-making process

• Low Internet access and citizens are reluctant to trust online services; few citizens know how to operate computers

• Relatively less experienced in democratic system and less active participation in governmental policy-making process

Government Officers

• Decent computer literacy and dedication of resources; many do not place e-government at a high priority

• Low computer literacy and dedication of resources; many do not place e-government at a high priority due to lack of knowledge on the issue



Africa. Though there has been significantprogress made in developed countries ine-government implementation, many de-veloping countries have been left behindwith a long way to catch up. Table 1 sum-marizes differences between developedand developing countries in various as-pects of government.

History and CultureThe history and culture between de-

veloped and developing countries are dif-ferent in many aspects. Developed coun-tries are known more for their early eco-nomic and governmental growth, withmany governments forming in the 1500s.Several of the developing countries havejust recently gained their independence andstill do not have a specific governmentstructure. Culture is also a major differ-ence between developed and developingcountries. Religious and other back-grounds among citizens of developingcountries prevent them from doing certainactivities that are commonplace amongdeveloped countries. War is also notori-ous among some developing countries inthe Middle East and Asia (e.g., Afghani-stan), which depletes their economy andtheir government structure.

Technology StaffThe in-house staff for most devel-

oped countries has been in existence andwell-established. Although many of themare old, with half of the existing UnitedStates government information technology(IT) workers eligible to retire within thenext three years (Ledford, 2002), the ex-isting department is up and working. In

contrast, many developing countries do nothave an IT department in place or havean IT department that is low-skilled andinsufficiently equipped. Education in thesecountries is a major problem as well aslack of financial resources to pay skilledworkers. This brings up major issues withthe development and maintenance of sys-tems.

Governments in many developedcountries choose to outsource e-govern-ment projects. Developed countries oftenhouse companies specialized in e-govern-ment development within their borders,which makes outsourcing an affordableand convenient alternative. Though com-panies specialized in e-government devel-opment may be available in developingcountries, the competitive systems devel-opment rates they charge may not be af-fordable for many developing countries.Even if outsourcing is affordable, withoutappropriate understanding of IT, manygovernment officials of developing coun-tries will find it difficult to specify require-ments and resources to devote for theprojects to be outsourced.

InfrastructureThe size and abilities of infrastruc-

tures between developed and developingcountries differ dramatically. For example,India’s capacity for international telecomtraffic reached just 780 Mbps by the endof 2000, which is a mere 1.4% of the ca-pacity available in the neighboring coun-try, China (Dooley, 2002). Developedcountries have the infrastructure size andabilities to make Internet and telephoneaccess available to almost all of their resi-



dents, with some populations over 300million. The insufficient infrastructure ofdeveloping countries is due to economicconditions, war or destruction, which mayhave recently occurred, and governmen-tal regulations of the telecommunicationsindustry. A dilemma of government regu-lations also exists in India, where the sec-tor has been a monopoly since its inde-pendence from Great Britain in 1947(Dooley, 2002). All of these factors, un-fortunately, hinder the progress of e-gov-ernment in developing countries.

CitizensThe difference of Internet accessi-

bility between developed and developingcountries is a reflection of the countries’infrastructure and telecommunication abili-ties. As mentioned previously, developingcountries lack financial resources and gov-ernment stability and structure to containa sizable infrastructure. This results in lowaccess to the Internet and telephone. Onethird of the world’s population has nevermade a phone call, and 63 countries haveless than 1% access to the Internet(ICeGD, 2002). In developed countries,almost every citizen has access to theInternet, and the rate of computer literacysurpasses that of developing countries.

Government OfficersIt is imperative that government offi-

cials understand and value e-government.The level of resources they are willing toallocate is dependent on their understand-ing of technology and the benefits that willensue. In developed countries, most gov-ernment officials use the Internet or com-

puters on a daily basis. Therefore, gov-ernment officials in developed countriesare familiar with technology and realizehow efficient it is. This increases their dedi-cation to allocating additional resourcesfor further implementation. In develop-ing countries, IT is a vague concept, andgovernment officials are somewhat un-willing to allocate already scarce re-sources toward something they are notfamiliar with.

A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKOF E-GOVERNMENTIMPLEMENTATION

Most, if not all, e-government strat-egies and implementation plans in devel-oping countries have been based on theo-ries and experiences of developed coun-tries (Huang, D’Ambra, & Bhalla, 2002).Feeling the pressure and demand from citi-zens to provide e-government servicesonline, many developing countries have nochoice but to hastily jump into the e-gov-ernment implementation wagon by follow-ing e-government development strategiesproposed and carried out by developedcountries. However, due to substantial dif-ferences in many key aspects of e-gov-ernment related technological and socialconditions between developed and devel-oping countries, e-government develop-ment strategies and experiences from de-veloped countries may not be directly ap-plicable to developing countries. Even indeveloped countries, about 20-25% of e-government projects are either neverimplemented or abandoned immediatelyafter implementation, and a further 33%fail partially in terms of falling short of major



goals, causing significant undesirable out-comes or both (Heeks, 2000).

The Center for International Devel-opment at Harvard University, USA, sup-ported by IBM, identified four key fac-tors describing differences between de-veloping and developed countries in termsof implementing e-commerce (Kirkman,Osorio, & Sachs, 2002). These four fac-tors are adapted to study e-governmentin this research, which are termed as Na-tional E-Government Infrastructure (NeI)factors.

Nel Factor 1: Network AccessNetwork access is measured by the

availability, cost, and quality of informa-tion and communication technology (ICTs)networks, services, and equipment. Morespecifically, it includes the following keyelements:

• Infrastructure Development.Infrastructure development is a neces-sity before countries can consider anylarge projects dedicated to e-govern-ment. Citizens must have access to ser-vices before any of the cost saving ben-efits will apply. Also, with a lack ofback-end infrastructure, governmentsand their employees will be unable tomove into a transactional process andfurther stages of e-government imple-mentation.

• Resources and IT Support.Outsourcing can be an option for coun-tries to implement e-government. Theprivate sector has an obligation to sup-port governments throughout the worldin their dedication to e-government.

Developing countries need financial dis-counts and support from the private sec-tor to successfully develop applicationsdue to their lack of resources and staff.

• Utilization.The citizen utilization of the Internet isbased on the access to the Internet andthe Web site. Technical support mustprovide 24/7 access in addition to pro-viding a better infrastructure so that morecitizens can utilize the Internet. Muchlike in developed countries, citizen uti-lization is an important part of the costsavings for countries.

Nel Factor 2: Network LearningNetwork learning concerns two key

issues: (1) Does an educational system in-tegrate ICTs into its processes to improvelearning? and (2) Are there technical train-ing programs in the community that cantrain and prepare an ICT workforce?Technical staffing and training is a majorissue in e-government implementation. Indeveloping countries, the problems lie inthe lack of financial resources to hire full–time, in-house support and in the inabilityto find such support due to the lack ofeducation in these countries. Outsourcingis an alternative; however, affordable andcompetent companies may not be avail-able. Even if a country can find the financesto support an outsourcing project, stabil-ity and maintenance of the application areoften difficult.

Nel Factor 3: Network EconomyNetwork economy concerns how

businesses and governments use informa-tion and communication technologies to



interact with the public and with each other.Key issues involved include collaboration,partnership, public-private sector partner-ship, e-community creation, and so forth.Boundary removal between different agen-cies in a government is a major issue in e-government. In many developing coun-tries, government structure is undefinedand destabilized by corruption and com-munism. Consequently, boundary removaland department collaboration is a difficultand slow process. In many countries, warand terrorism is a constant issue that dis-rupts government operations on a dailybasis. Government departments must col-laborate with each other, with private sec-tors, and with related communities in or-der for e-government to be implementedin an efficient way. Due to the low com-puter literacy and high cost of online ac-cess, long and unnecessary transactionsneed to be cut down in processes to al-

low users to quickly access documentsand print them or fill them out online.

Nel Factor 4: Network PolicyNetwork policy concerns the extent

that the policy environment promotes orhinders the growth of ICT adoption anduse. Some related key issues include leg-islations, laws, strategies (visions and mis-sions), accountability, and so forth. Gov-ernment agencies and departments mustbe accountable for their information andprocesses they support. It is essential forprocesses and duties to be segregated andresponsibilities to be assigned to appro-priate agencies and departments. Theseagencies and departments then need towork together to design their Web pagesand IT flows. After implementation, theymust have the abilities and be held ac-countable to support the Web pages andtroubleshoot them. Governments must also

Figure 2. A conceptual research framework

Network Access Network Learning Network Economy Network Policy

Implementation Outcome of E-Government Strategies

Implementation Process of E-Government Strategies

National E-Government Infrastructure (NeI) Factors: National Culture

Organizational Culture Social Norms (resistance

to change)

Culture Factors:

History Citizen Governance Organizational Structure Politics & Information

Availability

Society Factors:



be accountable for their financial and ac-counting systems. Many developing coun-tries have issues and economic problemsdue to their lack of reliable accountingsystems.

Culture and Society FactorsE-Commerce largely deals with busi-

ness transactions in private sector wherease-government deals with services in thepublic sector. Due to key differences be-tween private and public sectors (e.g.,Bozeman & Bretschneider, 1986; Caudle,Gorr, & Newcomer, 1991; Rainey,Backoff, & Levine, 1976), factors otherthan the ones identified by the previously-mentioned Harvard University e-com-merce research project may also be im-portant to e-government strategies andimplementations. Prior relevant researchsuggested some key factors for e-govern-ment strategies and implementations,which can be used to identify differencesin e-government between developed anddeveloping countries. Those suggestedfactors include society factors like history,citizens (Huang, D’Ambra, & Bhalla,2002), government staff and gover-nance (Wimmer, Traunmuller, & Lenk,2001), organizational structure (Baligh,1994); and cultural factors like nationalculture (Hoftstede, 1980, 1991), orga-nizational culture (Hoftstede, 1980;Schein, 1993), and social norms (Ajzen,1988). Other than those suggested by lit-erature, society factors like politics andinformation availability should also beconsidered. Developing countries are of-ten less democratized with underdevel-oped press communication resulting in

unbalanced and deficient information avail-ability. These politics and information fac-tors have significant impact on the speedof infrastructure establishment in develop-ing countries, thus should be consideredin creating e-government strategies.

Based upon the earlier literature re-view and discussion, a research frame-work incorporating critical success fac-tors (CSFs) which influence e-governmentstrategies and implementations is proposedand shown in Figure 2. Some CSFs iden-tified in the proposed framework couldbe more important to developed countriesthan to developing countries, or vice versa.The framework can also be used to as-sess and guide the strategic developmentof e-government implementation in devel-oped and developing countries.

CASE STUDYThe following case study is used to

demonstrate how the proposed e-govern-ment implementation framework can beused to analyze different e-governmentstrategies adopted in developed and de-veloping countries. It presents a snapshotof current e-government implementationin the U.S. (the largest developed coun-try) and China (the biggest developingcountry in the world, with a focus onShanghai - the biggest city and economiccenter of China) in comparing their e-gov-ernment implementation strategy.

E-Government ImplementationStrategy in the U.S.

The U.S., as the largest developedcountry, has one of the most advancedNational E-Government Infrastructures



(NeIs) in the world, and it also has a longhistory and culture of democratic govern-ment structure and capitalist economic sys-tem. As a result, the U.S. governmentadopted the following three strategic prin-ciples in the implementation of e-govern-ment: (1) citizen-centered, not bureau-cracy-centered; (2) results-oriented; and(3) market-based, actively promoting in-novation (source: www.firstgov.gov). Inshort, e-government implementation strat-egy of the U.S. is market-based with theaim of serving and supporting citizens’specific requirements, which is assessedby clear and specific results.

The policy environment in the UnitedStates is an important consideration in un-derstanding the strategy for e-governmentimplementation. A complete set of lawsrelating to the development of e-govern-ment has been in the place already, includ-ing the Privacy Act, the Computer Match-ing and Privacy Protection Act, the Elec-tronic Freedom of Information Amend-ments, the Computer Security Act, theCritical Infrastructure Protection, the Gov-ernment Paperwork Elimination Act, andthe Electronic Government Act (Relyea,2002).

According to the white paper of theU.S. federal government’s e-governmentstrategy (2002 and 2003), more than 60%of all Internet users interact with govern-ment Web sites. Moreover, by leveraginginformation technology (IT) spendingacross federal agencies, the U.S. federalgovernment will make available over $1billion in savings from aligning redundantinvestments. Federal IT spending in theUnited States exceeded $48 billion in

2002 and $52 billion in 2003. That levelof IT spending provides enormous oppor-tunities for making the transformation gov-ernment into a citizen-centered e-govern-ment. Indeed, a good portion of currentfederal IT spending is devoted to Internetinitiatives, yielding over 35 million Webpages online at over 22,000 Web sites.However, past agency-centered IT ap-proaches have limited the government’sproductivity gains and ability to serve citi-zens. As a result, the federal governmentis determined to transform the way it doesbusiness with citizens through the use ofe-government.

A September 2002 report from thePew Foundation found that 71 millionAmericans have used government Websites – up from 40 million in March 2000.A June 2002 United Nations report,Benchmarking eGovernment: A GlobalPerspective, rated the United States asthe world leader in e-government on thebasis of achievements over the last year.The United States Web portal,FirstGov.gov, is currently in stage 4 of itsimplementation (Hiller & Belanger, 2001),which integrates various government ser-vices internally and externally for the en-hancement of efficiency, usability, and ef-fectiveness. The FirstGov.gov attracts al-most 6 million visitors a month, which isAmerica’s Gateway to more than 180million Web pages from federal and stategovernments, the District of Columbia, andthe U.S. territories. Named one of the “50Most Incredibly Useful Web Sites” byYahoo, July 2002, and to PC Magazine’sTop 100 Classic Sites, March 2003,FirstGov.gov was most recently awarded



the prestigious Innovations in AmericanGovernment Award for transcending tra-ditional government boundaries.

In January 2003, the current e-gov-ernment project managers met with themembers of the 2001 e-government taskforce. This group of more than 100 gov-ernment managers shared a number of in-sights about unresolved e-governmentchallenges that the 2003 strategy shouldaddress. None of the identified challengeswere involved technological barriers (asdiscussed earlier, the U.S. has one of thebest NeIs in the world so that its main stra-tegic issues for successfully implementinge-government are largely non-technical is-sues). The challenges were centeredaround behavioral or policy changesneeded, such as leadership support, pa-rochialism, funding, and communication.Another challenge in 2003 is to physicallymigrate agency-unique solutions to eachcross-agency e-government solution, re-ducing costs, and generating more citizen-centered results. The suggested solutionsto these challenges include: establishingsingle sources of information, accessibleby citizens in no more than three clicks(one-stop portals such as Recreation.govand Regulations.gov); developing tools thatprovide a simple one-stop method to ac-cess government programs; and establish-ing common sets of standards for data col-lection and reporting.

In 2003 and 2004, the overall e-government strategy addressed the follow-ing areas:

• Driving results and productivitygrowth: IT and management reform in-

vestments that create an order of mag-nitude improvement in value to the citi-zen, especially in the areas of home-land security information sharing andknowledge flow;

• Controlling IT costs: Consolidatingredundant and overlapping investments,enterprise licensing, fixing cost overruns,and competing away excess IT servicescharges;

• Implementing the E-GovernmentAct of 2002: Including government-wide architecture governance andWeb-based strategies for improvingaccess to high quality information andservices; and

• Improving cyber security: Desktop,data, applications, networks, threat andvulnerability-focused, business continu-ity, and privacy protection.

In summary, due to the relatively longhistory of democratic system, the maingoals of the U.S. e-government focus onincreasing effectiveness and efficiency ofgovernment work and, at the same time,reducing cost.

Differences between theU.S. and China

The first e-government implementa-tion project in China began in 1994. Ac-cording to the 11th Report of the Statisticof China National Network Development(RSCNND) by China National NetworkInformation Centre (CNNIC), up to theend of 2002, the Internet users hadachieved 59.1 million. It added up to 9%of the Internet users in the world (655million). There were 371,600 Web sites,



among which 291,323 were in com.cn,6,148 in gov.cn, 54,156 in net.cn, and1,783 in org.cn. The number of comput-ers linked to the Internet was more than20.83 million.

Though China has maintained its po-sition as the fastest growing economy inthe world in recent years, there still existsa big gap in terms of National E-Govern-ment Infrastructure (NeI) between Chinaand other developed countries like the U.S.Even though its economy has developedfast in the last decade, China is still in theprocess of transitioning from a centrally–controlled, planned economy to a mar-ket-based, capitalist economy. Using theproposed framework, we assess the e-government implementation status in Chinawith a focus in Shanghai, the economiccentre of China. Shanghai is one of themost developed regions/cities in China. Ifthere exist differences between the U.S.and Shanghai in terms of NeIs and e-gov-ernment implementation based on the pro-posed theoretical framework, the differ-ences between the U.S. and China canbe even bigger.

1. Network Access.The information infrastructures inShanghai have undergone mega changesand made some big progresses in re-cent years. Up to the beginning of year2002, the bandwidth of Shanghai’sInternet connection to the outside worldwas expended to 2.5G; the networkcable lines were stretched out for morethan 550 kilometers that covered morethan 99% of the whole city. The num-ber of broadband Internet users in

Shanghai reached 125 thousand thatyear; the number of fixed phone usersexceeded 6 million while mobile phoneusers exceeded fixed phone users.More than 3.1 million families had ac-cess to the Internet, which almostdoubled the number of the previousyear. However, even in Shanghai, oneof the most advanced cities in China,subscribing to Internet service is stillmore costly in China than in developedcountries such as the United States. InChina, the charge of ISP (Internet Ser-vice Provider) is bi-directional; userspay for not only sending but also re-ceiving information.

2. Networked Learning.The development of the network learn-ing is speeding up in Shanghai. Thebroadband of the main network of theShanghai Science & Education Net-work (SSEN) was expanded to 1.25Gfrom the 64k in its budding stage. Thefibro-cable connecting the educationalinstitutions in Shanghai was longer than200 kilometers in the year 2001. Morethan 19 universities in Shanghai madetheir effects to launch a common-shareddatabase of the book information inthese 19 universities’ libraries. In thissystem, people could also search forthe key academic periodicals and bor-row through the Remote Borrowing/Lending Service. Up to the year 2001,the SSEN had a sea-sized collectionof materials including: 12 thousand pe-riodical databases, 200 thousand e-book resources, business sub-data-bases, science and technology sub-da-tabases, digital periodical system data-



base, and so forth. More than 100multi-functional databases provided awide range of selections to the students’content. Furthermore, several univer-sities in Shanghai got permission fromthe government to develop their “net-school” projects, which made the e-learning in Shanghai more professionaland orderly. According to the HumanDevelopment Report in 2001 by theUnited Nations Development Program(UNDP), which publiherd the firstTechnical Achievements Index (TAI) inthe world, China is listed as the 45th

among the 72 countries whereas theU.S. is ranked 2nd in the list.

3. Networked Economy.The information industry in Shanghai iskeeping a fast developing momentumin recent years. The turnover of the in-formation industry in Shanghai was130.225 billion Yuan by its growth rateof 24.4%, which maintained its strate-gic position as Shanghai’s first pillar in-dustry. The proportion of the addedvalue in this industry in the GDPamounted to 8.1% that was 0.7% morethan the previous year. Among the in-formation industry in Shanghai, the turn-over of the information product manu-facturing industry reached 101.3 billionYuan, and its growth rate even hit37.4%. The product sales percentagewas also increased by 1.8% andsummed up to 97.5%. Meanwhile theinformation services and software inShanghai also achieved an output of28.8 billion Yuan, a 52.2% increasefrom the previous year. The informa-tion industry in Shanghai has remained

in the top three throughout the wholecountry in terms of its scale, so muchthat it also draws worldwide attention.The network economy is thus greatlyenhanced by the strategy Shanghaiadopted — “To promote the Industri-alization by Informationization.” Amongthe 1,500 industry companies, 80% ofthem have set up IT departments; 97%of them have popularized the use ofcomputer; 89% of them have becomefamiliar with common software; 12%of them have conducted ERP; and 8%of them have implanted CRM. Morethan 500 marketplaces have adoptedtheir MIS; most convenient chain storesand supermarkets have launched POSand also have them linked with eachother to form a value-added networksystem. As a whole, China’s e-com-merce turnover is relatively small in size,accounting for only 0.23% of the U.S.’sannual e-commerce turnover.

4. Network Policy.Network policy might be the weakestpart of the four NeI factors for China.China has been transforming its eco-nomic system from the old SovietUnion’s “planned economy” model tothe capitalist’s “market economy”. Thetransition period, though seemingly tobe on a right track, is painful and farfrom completion. The legal systems,laws, and regulations have been gradu-ally established, yet they are far frommaturing in managing the big develop-ing economy, not to mention the com-pleteness of its network economypolicy and related laws.



Due to its relatively short history of mod-ernized society and long history of feu-dal governmental system, China’sdemocratic system and policy still havea long way to go even though they haveachieved much more progress in the lastdecade. For example, to the year 2002,12 policies, statutes, and regulationswere taken into consideration byShanghai municipal government. Themajor ones are listed as follows:

• Regulations on Shanghai’sInformationization Projects Man-agement;

• Detailed Rules of the Regulations onthe IC Industry and Software Pro-motions in Shanghai;

• Decision on the OverallInformationization Construction inShanghai;

• Suggestions on the Information Se-curity in Shanghai;

• Management Measures on the So-cial Insurance Card System; and

• Management Measures on the Pub-lic Mobile System.

Besides these policies, statutes, andregulations, the implementations arealso of the same importance. Shanghai’smunicipal government is dedicated inthe administrations, supervisions, andmutual discussions of the confusions inorder to achieve a better legal environ-mental situation.

5. Culture and Society Factors.Developed countries have a long his-tory and culture of democratic govern-mental structure and capitalist economic

system, with many governments form-ing in the 1500’s. Many developingcountries have not completed its pro-cess of establishing an effective andtransparent governmental structure aswell as an efficient capitalist economicsystem. China has only started its “opendoor” policy in the late 1970s and“market-driven economy” in 1990s.The differences in history and culture,citizens, government officers, and tech-nical staff between China and otherdeveloped countries like the U.S. arealso noticeably large.For example, China was under the feu-dal government system for nearly 5,000years, where the dictator of the coun-try, the emperor, has absolute powerand possesses absolute wealth in thecountry. Only until the early 1910s, sucha governmental structure was over-turned. However, the very long historyof ruling by an absolute powerful em-peror would have an impact on mod-ern governmental structure and system.Even now, national and provincial gov-ernments still have certain privileges toaccess and use valuable resources, suchas financial, human, and production re-sources. Governmental agencies andorganizations are generally more effec-tive/powerful than private sectors incarrying out e-government implemen-tations. The level of transparency ofgovernmental management mechanismand decision-making process is rela-tively low. Because of those historicalreasons and practically some advan-tages existing in governments, manyuniversity graduates and talents favor



to work for governments. As a result,governmental officers and/or technicalstaff in governments are generally moreknowledgeable than those in the pri-vate sector using information technolo-gies and systems in their daily work.

In summary, due to the differencesdiscussed earlier in NeIs and other socialissues, it may not be feasible for privatesector to play a leading role in e-govern-ment implementation; instead it may begovernments to drive the progress of e-government implementation. Therefore,the e-government implementation strategybetween the U.S. and China are largelydifferent, which will be discussed next.

E-Government ImplementationStrategy in China

As analyzed earlier, due to the sub-stantial differences in all four key aspects/factors of NeI and other CSFs betweenChina and developed countries like theU.S., instead of adopting the e-govern-ment implementation strategies developedin the U.S. directly, China should adopt astrategy that fits well with its current posi-tion in terms of the four aspects of NeIand other CSFs as specified in the pro-posed assessment framework. For ex-ample, as the center of China’s economydevelopment, Shanghai’s e-governmentimplementation can function as a rolemodel for other cities and provinces inChina to follow up. Three specific e-gov-ernment implementation strategies ofShanghai are specified. They are: (1) toincrease the transparency of governmentwork, (2) to provide the convenience and

better services to citizens and enterprises,and (3) to improve the efficiency of thegovernment administration.

Compared with the U.S.’s e-govern-ment strategic principles — “citizen-cen-tered”, “results-oriented” and “market-based” (eGovernment Strategy, 2002,2003), Shanghai has largely different stra-tegic goals. The ultimate goal of e-gov-ernment implementation could be quitesimilar, which is to improve the perfor-mance and efficiency of the governmentwork and lead to better interactions/co-operation between government and thepublic and between the government andprivate enterprises. The unique feature ofShanghai’s e-government strategy is to “in-crease the transparency of the governmentwork”. Other than achieving its usualgoals, e-government in Shanghai is usedas an instrument in expediting governmenttransformation and conformity. Via theimplementation of e-government, civilrights are concretized, bribability is mini-mized, and governance by law and de-mocracy are enhanced.

In general, the e-government imple-mentation in China as a whole is aiming toserve its overall economic developmentgoal, which is to completely transformChina’s former Soviet Union style “plan-ning economy” to “market economy”.Such changes in the overall mechanism ofthe country will definitely have profoundeffects on e-government implementationstrategy and practice. On the other hand,the U.S. has a long history of a market-economy and democratic system. Thegovernment work is relatively much moretransparent than that in China. Therefore,



“increasing the transparency of govern-ment work” may not seem to be impor-tant as it is to China.

In fact, based upon the successfulexperience of e-government implementa-tion strategies in developed countries,China adopted a different e-governmentimplementation strategy, which could becharacterized as “government-driven andpartnership with the private sector”. In thisstrategy, governmental departments con-solidate all forces and resources availablein a society (a city or a province) to leadthe implementation of e-government whileestablishing partnership with private sec-tor for the implementation purpose. So far,China’s e-government implementation isstill at the stage 1 with some features instages 2, 3, and 4 in some economicallymore developed cities and provinces,whereas the U.S. may already be at thestage 3, according to the five-stage model(Hiller & Belanger, 2001), and it hasachieved some initial results. Chinese gov-ernment perceived that the rapid devel-opment of the Internet in the U.S. resultedfrom effective and significant direct sup-port and sponsorship from the governmentthrough the military, education, and gov-ernment procurement policies, which hasbeen regarded as a good example andeffective means for driving the develop-ment of e-government in China by Chi-nese government.

The dominant role played by Chi-nese government generally fits well withthe historical and cultural characteristicsas well as the NeI of China. In fact, theChinese government could be the onlypossible entity in the society that has

enough power and capability to coordi-nate all related government agencies, or-ganizations, and private sectors as well asconsolidate all available resources to ef-fectively implement e-government. Thegovernment has also had successful ex-perience in playing the leading role in mod-ernizing its previous outdated telecommu-nication industry, which is perhaps the mostsuccessful contemporary example ofChina’s interventionist economic strategy.By mid-2001, China’s public switchingcapacity was 300 million circuits, which isthe world’s largest. This was largely dueto the supply-driven program of networkrollout by the government with the growthrate of double digits through the 1990s(Lovelock & Ure, 2001).

The fund for e-government imple-mentation is being mainly covered by gov-ernments both at central and provinciallevels. For example, the investment by thecentral national government alone is re-portedly standing at least over USD$120million (Lovelock & Ure, 2001). By1998, China has set up 145 gov.cn do-main names in China. According to theChina Internet Network Center (CNNIC)annual report, the number of current gov.cndomain names is more than 5,864.

The Chinese government is speed-ing up the construction of network infra-structure in preparing for its completionof e-government implementation in 2005.Since the initiation of first e-governmentprogram “Digital Beijing”, which theBeijing Municipal Government used oncomputerization of administration proce-dure and e-education in 1994, the Chi-nese government has made much progress



on e-government. The purpose of e-gov-ernment construction falls into three cat-egories: building the internal network tohandle government affairs at all levels andthe external Web to handle business inconnection with enterprises; public ser-vices and affairs between government;promoting 12 key services involving cus-toms, taxation, finance, public security,social security, and agriculture and waterresource; and accelerating the establish-ment of important databanks such aspopulation and agricultural information.Services currently offered by governmentWeb sites mainly include function/voca-tion introduction, government announce-ment/laws and regulations, governmentnews, trade/regional information, workguide, and so forth (Source: Semi-annualSurvey Report on the Development ofChina’s Internet in January 2002, ChinaInternet Network Center).

The Government Online Project(GOP) provides good evidence indicat-ing the government’s dominant role andsupport for e-government development inChina, and it has three stages. Stage onefocuses upon connecting 800-1,000 gov-ernment offices and agencies to theInternet; stage two focuses on having gov-ernment offices and agencies move theirinformation systems into compatible elec-tronic form; and stage three will occursometime late in the decade when gov-ernment offices and agencies becomepaperless.

The purpose of the GOP is to createa centrally accessible administrative sys-tem that collects and transports data toand from users, users being the public and

the enterprise system as well as govern-ment departments. In other words, thegovernment’s strategy for driving the “in-formation economy” is to first launch theGOP by setting up formal governmentWeb sites so that the public can acquireinformation and procure specific govern-ment services via the Internet. The focusthen shifts to promoting office automationvia government Web sites in order to cutdown on excessive bureaucracy and,hence, expenses.

By the end of 2000, 80% of all gov-ernment agencies, both local and national,had established Web sites. Some examplesof the implemented e-government Websites include:

• State Economic and Trade Commis-sion State Administration of InternalTrade;

• Central Committee of the LeagueCommission of Science, Tech & Indus-try for National Defense;

• State Administration of Foreign Ex-change Control General Office ofCPPCC;

• Supreme People’s Court SupremePeople’s Procurator;

• Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of CivilAffairs;

• Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ministry ofForeign Trade and Economic Coop-eration;

• Ministry of Information Industry Min-istry of Justice;

• Ministry of Labor and Social SecurityMinistry of Land and Natural Re-sources;



• National Bureau of Oceanography Na-tional Intellectual Property Right Office;

• China Council for Promotion of Inter-national Trade China National SpaceAdministration;

• CNNIC General Administration of CivilAviation of China; and

• General Administration of Customs.(Source: Ministry of Information In-dustry (MII) http://www.mii.gov.cn/mii/index.html)

They are only a few examples ofChinese e-government implementationprojects. However, currently most Chi-nese people cannot pay their taxes, ob-tain their driver licenses, IDs, residencecertificates, and so forth, from the gov-ernment Web site, and the paperless gov-ernment still has a long way to go.

The Chinese government, like all gov-ernments, is stricken with turf battles be-tween ministries, commissions, and otherorganizations which all view the Internetas touching on their domain of authorityor interest. As noted earlier, the Govern-ment Online Project was initiated in early1999. The following two strategic projectswere also planned and will be fully imple-mented in the near future. EnterpriseOnline is to encourage industries to ag-gressively adopt the full use of availableInternet technologies, and to provide agreater degree of transparency. FamilyOnline is to encourage increased use ofnetwork resources by families acrossChina, including those in rural areas, andto bring the populace at large onto thegovernment’s new communications plat-form.

In summary, while China hasachieved its fast economic developmentin the late decade, it has also started tomove to a more democratic and transpar-ent government system and mechanism.E-Government has become one keyimplementation mechanism for the govern-ment to achieve its goal of a more trans-parent government. China adopted an e-government implementation strategy dif-ferent from the U.S. Based on its owneconomic, historic and social factors,China’s e-government implementation isso far largely driven by government, ratherthan by market forces. In a relatively shorttime period, it has achieved some notice-able results although there is still a longway to go.

DISCUSSIONSAND CONCLUSION

Although there are some prior stud-ies published on e-government strategiesand implementation (e.g., Carter &Belanger, 2005; Chircu & Lee, 2003;Glassey, 2001; Greunz, Schopp, & Haes,2001; Huang, D’Ambra, & Bhalla, 2002;Wimmer, Traunmuller, & Lenk, 2001), toour knowledge, most if not all publishede-government strategies are from the per-spective of developed countries, not fromthe perspective of developing countries.Due to the considerable differences be-tween developed and developing coun-tries, the latter cannot directly adopt e-government strategies used in developedcountries. For that reason, the currentstudy intends to do some initial work tobridge this gap. It compares strategic is-sues and implementations of e-government



between developed and developing coun-tries. More specifically, the following is-sues are addressed:

• Proposing a conceptual framework thatincludes the critical success factors in-fluencing e-government strategies andimplementations for developed and de-veloping countries.

• Using a case study to illustrate how theproposed framework can be used toanalyze different e-government strate-gies in a developed country (the U.S.)and a developing country (China).

Due to the substantial differences infour aspects of NeI and other CSFs asspecified in the proposed framework, de-veloping countries cannot and should notdirectly adopt developed countries’ suc-cessful e-government implementationstrategies. The proposed framework pro-vides a clear structure and guideline fordeveloping suitable e-government imple-mentation strategy. Developing countriesshould consider their own positions interms of CSFs as specified in the proposede-government strategy framework andlearn from other countries’ successful e-government implementation strategies, andthen work out their e-government imple-mentation strategies that fit with their coun-tries’ characteristics and conditions.

Future studies can be conducted tocollect national data in both developed anddeveloping countries to empirically and sta-tistically verify the proposed frameworkand study the relationships among thespecified CSFs. More specifically, the im-portance of those CSFs to e-government

strategies and implementation can beranked through using survey researchmethodology. More complicated relation-ships existing between CSFs can be de-termined using Structure Equation Mod-eling technique. In this way, CSFs forimplementing e-government strategies canbe specifically identified and validated.With the guidance of the proposed frame-work, e-government strategies and imple-mentations in developing countries can bemore effective and efficient.

REFERENCESAjzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality

and behavior. Milton Keynes: OpenUniversity Press.

Annual Global Accenture (former Ander-son Consulting: AC) Study Report.(2002).

Baligh, H. H. (1994). Components of cul-ture: Nature, interconnections, and rel-evance to the decisions on the organi-zation structure. Management Sci-ence, 40(1), 14-28.

Bozeman, B., & Bretschneider, S. (1986).Public management information sys-tems: Theory and prescription. PublicAdministration Review, Special Issue,47-487.

Carter, L., & Belanger, F. (2005, Janu-ary). The utilization of e-governmentservices: Citizen trust, innovation andacceptance factors. Information Sys-tems Journal, 15(1), 5-25.

Caudle, S. L., Gorr, W. L., & Newcomer,K. E. (1991, June). Key informationsystems management issues for the pub-lic sector. MIS Quarterly, 15(2), 171-188.



Chircu, A. M., & Lee, H. D. (2003, Au-gust). Understanding IT investments inthe public sector: The case of e-gov-ernment. In the Proceedings of theAmerican Conference on Informa-tion Systems (AMCIS), FL.

Dooley, B. L. (2002). Telecommunica-tions in India: State of the marketplace.Faulkner Information Services (Feb-ruary), Docid 00016872.

eGovernment Strategy. (2002, 2003).U.S. Federal Government. Retrievedfrom www.firstgov.gov.

Garretson, C. (2002). Senate passes e-government bill. InfoWorld DailyNews, June 28.

Glassey, O. (2001, June 27-29). Modeland architecture for a virtual one-stoppublic administration. The 9th Euro-pean Conferences on InformationSystems (pp. 969-976).

Government and the Internet Survey.(2000). The Economist, 355(8176),33-34.

Greunz, M., Schopp, B., & Haes, J.(2001). Integrating e-government infra-structures through secure XML docu-ment containers. In Proceedings of the34th Hawaii International Confer-ence on System Sciences.

Heeks, R. (2000). Reinventing govern-ment in the information age. London:Routledge Press.

Hiller, J., & Belanger, F. (2001). Privacystrategies for electronic government. E-Government Series. Arlington, VA:PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowmentfor the Business of Government.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s conse-quences: International differences in

work-related values. Newbury Park,CA: Sage Press.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and or-ganizations: Software of the mind.London: McGraw Hill.

Huang, W., D’Ambra, J., & Bhalla, V.(2002). An empirical investigation ofthe adoption of egovernment in Aus-tralian citizens: Some unexpected re-search findings. Journal of ComputerInformation Systems, 43(1), 15-22.

Huang, W., Siau, K., & Wei, K.K. (Eds.).(2004). Electronic government: Stra-tegic and implementations. Hershey,PA: Idea Group Publishing.

International Conference on e-Govern-ment for Development (IceGD).(2002). Retrieved September 25,2002, from http://www.palermoconference 2002.org/en/home_a.htm.

Jackson, N. (2002). State of the market-place: e-Government gateways.Faulkner Information Services (Feb-ruary), Docid 00018296.

Jain, A., & Patnayakuni, R. (2003, Au-gust). Public expectations and publicscrutiny: An agenda for research in thecontext of e-government. In the Pro-ceeding of American Conference onInformation Systems (AMCIS), FL.

Keston, G. (2002). U.S. self-service gov-ernment initiatives. Faulkner Informa-tion Services (February), Docid00018287.

Kirkman, G. S., Osorio, C. A., & Sachs,J. D. (2002). The networked readinessindex: Measuring the preparedness ofnations for the networked world. InThe global information technology



report: Readiness for the networkedworld (pp. 10-30). Oxford UniversityPress.

Ledford, J. L. (2002). Establishing bestpractices for e-government within theU.S. Faulkner Information Services(February), DocId: 00018275.

Lovelock, & Ure. (2001). E-governmentin China. Retrieved from http://www.trp.hku.hk/publications/e_gov_china.pdf

Moon, J. M. (2002, July/August). Theevolution of e-government among mu-nicipalities: Rhetoric or reality? PublicAdministration Review, 62(4), 424-433.

Moon, M. J., & Norris, D.F. (2005, Janu-ary). Does managerial orientation mat-ter? The adoption of reinventing gov-ernment and e-government at the mu-nicipal level. Information SystemsJournal, 15(1), 43-60.

Navarra, D. D., & Cornford, R. (2003,August). A policy making view of e-government innovations in public gov-ernance. In the Proceedings of theAmerican Conference on Informa-tion Systems (AMCIS), FL.

Palmer, I. (2002). State of the world: e-Government implementation. FaulknerInformation Services (January),Docid 00018297.

Quinn, J. B., Anderson, P., & Finkelstein,S. (1996). Leveraging intellect. Acad-emy of Management Executive,10(3), 7-27.

Perlman, E. (2002). E-government spe-cial report: The people connection.Congressional Quarterly DBA Gov-erning Magazine, 32(September).

Rainey, H. G., Backoff, R. W., & Levine,C. H., (1976). Comparing public andprivate organizations. Public Admin-istration Review, March/April, 233-243.

Relyea, H. C. (2002). E-gov: Introduc-tion and overview. Government Infor-mation Quarterly, 19, 9-35.

Schein, E. H. (1993). On dialogue, cul-ture, and organizational learning. Orga-nizational Dynamics, Autumn, 40-51.

Siau, K., & Long, Y. (2005). Using socialdevelopment lenses to understand e-government development. Journal ofGlobal Information Management (inpress).

Snellen, I. (2000). Electronic commerceand bureaucracies. In the Proceedingsof the 11th International Workshopson Database and Expert System Ap-plication (pp. 285-288).

Sprecher, M. (2000). Racing to e-gov-ernment: Using the Internet for citizenservice delivery. Government Fi-nance Review, 16, 21-22.

Symonds, M. (2000). The next revolu-tion: After ecommerce, get ready foregovernment.

The Economist (n.d., June 24). Retrievedfrom http://www.economist.com/l.cgi?f=20000624/index_survey

Tapscott, D. (1995). Digital economy:Promise and peril in the age of net-worked intelligence. New York:McGraw-Hill.

UN (United Nations) & ASPA (Ameri-can Society for Public Administration).(2001). Global survey of e-govern-ment.



UNCTAD (2002). Least developedcountries at a glance. United NationInformation Communication Technol-ogy Task Force.

U.S. Census Bureau. (1999). Govern-ment Organization: 1997 Census ofGovernments, Washington, D.C. Re-trieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/gc97org.html

Y. N. Chen, PhD, Marry R. Nixon Professor of Accounting at Western KentuckyUniversity specializes in accounting information systems and auditing. Her currentresearch focuses on the effectiveness of analytical review procedures andimplementation of information systems. Dr. Chen earned her PhD from theUniversity of South Carolina. Before joining Western Kentucky University, shewas an associate professor of accountancy at Ohio University and assistantprofessor of accounting at Concordia University, Canada. Professor Chen hasauthored articles in many leading academic and professional journals, includingAuditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Issues in Accounting Education, Journal ofManagement Information Systems, Information & Management, Review of QuantitativeFinance & Accounting, Internal Auditing, Journal of End User Computing, Journal ofComputer Information Systems, Journal of Global Information Management, Journal ofEducation for Business, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, and Journal ofApplied Business Research.

Dr. H. M. Chen is professor and associate dean of the Management School,Shanghai Jiaotong University (SJTU), Shanghai, China. He received his PhD fromShanghai Jiaotong University (1991). He was a visiting scholar at Sloan School,MIT, during 1999-2000. His main research interests are in industrial organization(mergers & acquisition), negotiation and bargaining theory, transportationmanagement (air transportation), and technology innovation. Professor Chenpublished dozens of papers in academic journals and conference proceedings. Dr. W. W. Huang is a professor with the MIS Department, College of Business,Ohio University. He has worked as a faculty in universities in Australia, Singapore,and Hong Kong, and has received research awards in universities of Australiaand USA. His main research interests include group support systems (GSS), electroniccommerce, e-learning, knowledge management systems, and software engineering.He has published more than 80 academic research papers (peer-reviewed),including papers being published in leading IS journals such as the Journal of

Watson & Mundy. (2000). Electronic de-mocracy: A strategic perspective. Com-munications of ACM.

Wimmer, M., Traunmuller, R., & Lenk,K. (2001). Electronic business invad-ing the public sector: Considerations onchange and design. In the Proceedingsof the 34th Hawaii InternationalConference on System Sciences.



Management Information Systems (JMIS); IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, andCybernetics; Information & Management (I&M); IEEE Transactions on ProfessionalCommunication; Decision Support Systems (DSS); Communications of AIS; andEuropean Journal of Information Systems. He is senior editor of the Journal of DataBase for Advances in Information Systems (an ACM SIGMIS Publication), and onthe editorial board of I&M, Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM), andJournal of Data Management (JDM).

R. K. H. Ching is a professor of information technology and information systemsin the College of Business Administration, California State University, Sacramento.Dr. Ching received his PhD from the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Hispublications have appeared in various journals, including the Journal of theOperational Research Society, Information Systems Management and the Journal ofGlobal Information Management, and numerous conference proceedings.

Documents

RESEARCH NOTE E-Government Strategies in Developed …€¦ · Developed and Developing Countries: An Implementation ... DEVELOPED VS. DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ... while 9.3% are in the