Adoption of E-Communication Applications in U.S. Municipalities: The Role of Political Environment,Bureaucratic Structure,and the Nature of Applications
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online July, 2011
Adoption of E-Communication Applications in U.S. Municipalities: The Role of Political Environment,Bureaucratic Structure,and the Nature of Applications
E-government has been touted by many as a technological answer to improve citizen participation, government accountability, and transparency by facilitating a greater level of communication and flow of public information between citizens and the government. This article examines how political environment, government structure, and the nature of individual e-government applications influence the likelihood of adoption. Using data obtained from multiple sources, logistic regressions are conducted on a sample of six e-government applications that possess varying degrees of communicative and organizational impacts on the government to observe how different factors influence their adoption. Findings include a general disinclination for adopting e-government applications with high communicative impact; however, such disinclination dissipated when there was a high level of political competition in the area and perceived demand for online communication; active traditional channels of political communication, such as political parties and accessibility to local council members, reduced the likelihood of adoption; the preferences of the elected mayors coincided with the perceptions of nonelected officials who favor e-government applications that would reduce the workload while disfavoring applications that would increase it.
Applebaum, A.I. ( 2002). Failure in the cybermarketplace of ideas. In E. C. Kamarck & J. S. Nye (Eds.), Governance.com: Democracy in the information age (pp. 17-31). Cambridge, MA: Visions of Governance in the 21st Century.
2.
Doctor, S., & Dutton, W.H. ( 1998). The first amendment online: Santa Monica’s public electronic network. In R. Tsagarousianou , D. Tambini, & C. Bryan (Eds.), Cyberdemocracy: Technology, cities, and civic networks (pp. 125-151). London, England: Routledge.
3.
Dunn, D.D., & Legge, J.S., Jr. (2000). U.S. local government managers and the complexity of responsibility and accountability in democratic governance . Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11, 73-88.
4.
Dunn, D.D., & Legge, J.S., Jr. (2002). Politics and administration in U.S. local governments. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12, 401-422.
5.
Edmiston, K.D. ( 2003). State and local e-government: Prospects and challenges . American Review of Public Administration, 33, 20-45.
6.
Feoick, R.C., Jeong, M.-G., & Kim, J. ( 2003). Credible commitment and council-manager government: Implications for policy instrument choices. Public Administration Review , 63, 616-625.
7.
Fountain, J.E. ( 2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
8.
Fox, S. ( 2005, October 5). Digital divisions: There are clear differences among those with broadband connections, dial-up connections, and no connections at all to the internet. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2005/Digital-Divisions.aspx?r=1
9.
Furlong, S.R., & Kerwin, C.M. ( 2005). Interest group participation in rule making: A decade of change. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , 15, 353-370.
10.
Gant, D., Gant, J., & Johnson, C.C. ( 2002). State web portals: Delivering and financing e-service . Washington, DC: Price Water House Coopers Endowment for the Business of Government.
11.
Ho, A.T.-K. (2002). Reinventing local governments and the e-government initiative. Public Administration Review, 62, 434-444.
12.
Ho, A.T.-K, & Ni, A.Y. ( 2004). Explaining the adoption of e-government features: A case study of Iowa county treasurers’ offices. American Review of Public Administration, 34, 164-180.
13.
Horrigan, J.B. ( 2008, July). Home broadband adoption 2008. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project . Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2008/Home-Broadband-2008.aspx
14.
Kakabadse, A., Kakabadse, N.K., & Kouzmin, A. ( 2003). Reinventing the democratic governance project through information technology? A growing agenda for debate. Public Administration Review, 63, 44-60.
15.
Kamarck, E. C., & Nye, J. S. (Eds.). (2002). Governance.com: Democracy in the information age. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
16.
La Porte, T., Demchak, C.C., & De Jong, M. (2002). Democracy and bureaucracy in the age of the web: Empirical findings and theoretical speculations. Administration & Society, 34, 411-446.
17.
Moon, M.J. ( 2002). The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality? Public Administration Review, 62, 424-433.
18.
Norris, D.F., & Moon, M.J. ( 2005). Advancing E-government at the grassroots: Tortoise or hare? Public Administration Review, 65, 64-75.
19.
Nye, J.S. ( 2002). Information technology and democratic governance . In E. C. Kamarck & J. S. Nye (Eds.), Governance.com: Democracy in the information age (pp. 1-16). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
20.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. ( 2003). Promise and problems of E-democracy: Challenges of online citizen engagement. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/LongAbstract/0,3425,en_2649_37405_35176329_1_1_1_1,00.html
21.
Putnam, R.D. ( 2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community . New York, NY: Simon & Schuster .
22.
Scott, J.K. ( 2006). "E" the people: Do U.S. municipal government web sites support public involvement? Public Administration Review , 66, 341-353.
23.
Simmons, J.R., & Simmons, S.J. ( 2004). Structural conflict in contemporary cities. American Review of Public Administration, 34, 374-388.
24.
Stanley, J.W., & Weare, C. ( 2004). The effects of internet use on political participation: Evidence from an agency online discussion forum. Administration & Society, 36, 503-527.
25.
Thomas, J.C., & Streib, G. ( 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.
26.
Tolbert, C.J., & Mossberger, K. (2006). The effects of E-government on trust and confidence in government. Public Administration Review, 66, 354-369.
27.
Tsagarousianou, R. ( 1998). Electronic democracy and the public sphere: Opportunities and challenges. In R. Tsagarousianou, D. Tambini, & C. Bryan (Eds.), Cyberdemocracy: Technology, cities, and civic networks (pp. 167-178). London, England: Routledge.
28.
Tsagarousianou, R., Tambini, D., & Bryan, C. (Eds.). (1998). Cyberdemocracy: Technology, cities, and civic networks. London, England: Routledge .
29.
United Nations Online Network in Public Administration and Finance. (2005). UN global E-government readiness report 2005: From E-government to E-inclusion. New York, NY: United Nations. Retrieved from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan021888.pdf .
30.
Weare, C., Musso, J.A., & Hale, M.L. ( 1999). Electronic democracy and the diffusion of municipal web pages in California. Administration & Society, 31, 3-27.
31.
Welch, E.W., Hinnant, C.C., & Moon, M.J. ( 2005). Linking citizen satisfaction with E-government and trust in government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 371-391.
32.
West, D.M. ( 2004). E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review , 64, 15-27.
33.
West, D.M. ( 2005). Digital government: Technology and public sector performance . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
34.
West, D.M. ( 2008, August 17). Improving technology utilization in electronic government around the world, 2008 (Brookings Governance Studies) . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
35.
Wilhelm, A.G. ( 2000). Democracy in the digital age: Challenges to political life in cyberspace. New York, NY: Routledge.
