E-Democracy,E-Commerce,and E-Research

Abstract

Few doubt that the Internet is changing citizen interactions with government. To assess those changes, the authors analyze data from a telephone survey on how Georgia residents connect with government via the Internet. They find that citizens visit government Web sites for many reasons, which can be divided into three categories: e-democracy, e-commerce, and e-research. E-democracy is the least common activity, and it alone resembles traditional political behavior by being more prevalent among respondents interested in politics and government. The authors discuss the implications of these findings for future citizen engagement with e-governance and for the role of government in facilitating that engagement.

Keywords

e-democracy e-governance e-commerce political behavior

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American City and County . (1998, November 1). Web site intended to replace diatribe with dialogue. Retrieved February 4, 2004, from http://americancityandcounty.com/ar/government_web_site_intended/index.htm

American Society for Public Administration and United Nations Division for Public Economics and Public Administration . (2002). Benchmarking e-government: A global perspective—Assessing the progress of the U.N. member states. Retrieved February 4, 2004, from www.unpan.org/egovernment2.asp%23survey

Bimber, B. (2000). The study of information technology and civic engagement. Political Communication, 17(3), 329-333.

Brannen, A. (2001, Spring). E-government in California: Providing services to citizens through the Internet. Spectrum: The Council of State Governments, 6-10.

Clift, S. (2002). The future of e-democracy—The 50 year plan. Retrieved February 4, 2004, from www.publicus.net/articles/future.html

Emmert, C. F. , & Traut, C. A. (1993). Citizen-initiated contacting: A multivariate analysis. American Politics Quarterly, 21, 239-253.

Fletcher, P. D. , Holden, S. , & Norris, D. F. (2003). Electronic government at the local level: Progress to date and future issues. Public Performance and Management Review, 26(4), 325-344.

Governing . (2000, July). Over at the city Web site. Governing, 64.

The Markle Foundation. (2001, July). Toward a framework for Internet accountability [Online Report]. Retrieved February 4, 2004, from www.markle.org/news/AccountabilityForewordExecutive&Intro.pdf

10.

Momentum Research Group. (2000). Benchmarking the egovernment revolution: Year 2000 report on citizen and business demand. Retrieved February 4, 2004, from www.omentumresearchgroup.com//pdf/eGov_report.pdf

11.

Melkers, J. , & Thomas, J. C. (1999). Explaining citizen-initiated contacts with municipal bureaucrats: Lessons from the Atlanta experience. Urban Affairs Review, 34(5), 667-690.

12.

Moon, M. J. (2002). The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality? Public Administration Review, 62(4), 424-433.

13.

Pew Internet and American Life Project . (2002, April). The rise of the e-citizen: How people use government agencies’Web sites. Retrieved February 4, 2004, from www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=57

14.

Sharp, E. B. (1986). Citizen demand-making in the urban context. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

15.

Stowers, G. N. L. (2001). Commerce comes to government on the desktop: E-commerce applications in the public sector. In M. A. Abramson & G. E. Means (Ed.), E-government 2001 (pp. 44-84). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

16.

Streib, G. , & Thomas, J. (2003). The new face of government: Citizen-initiated contacts in the era of e-government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13, 83-102.

17.

Verton, D. (2000). Electronic government. Computer world, 34, 50.

18.

West, D. M. (2000). Assessing e-government: The Internet, democracy, and service delivery by state and federal governments: The Genesis Institute.

19.

Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Economic analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.