Cyberspace as an Extended Policy Domain for Citizen Well-being: ICT Competitiveness,Government Capacity,and Subjective Well-being

Abstract

This study examines how national-level ICT development, cybersecurity governance, and government capacity influence subjective well-being across 169 countries. As digital interactions increasingly influence daily life, cyberspace has emerged as a critical policy domain for each country with substantial implications for citizen welfare. Using cross-national indices and multivariate analyses, we find that cybersecurity governance has a significant and positive association with subjective well-being, with the association being notably stronger in high income countries than middle income countries. In contrast, broader ICT infrastructure quality and access do not consistently predict well-being outcomes. The findings call into question infrastructure-led models of digital development, pointing instead to the importance of institutional capacity. By reframing cyberspace as a core extension of state responsibility in the digital age, this study contributes to the broader discourse on digital-era public governance and calls for a shift toward citizen-centred, context-sensitive approaches to cyberspace governance.

Keywords

ICT competitiveness government capacity cyberspace governance cybersecurity subjective well-being

Key Points for Practitioners

Recognize cyberspace as an extension of the public policy domain for citizen welfare; gains in digital well-being require citizen-centered policies and competent government capacity.

Infrastructure-led digital development does not automatically raise well-being; its impact varies by national context and must be paired with robust cybersecurity governance.

Understand the shifting role of government in digital development and adapt governance strategies to stages of digital development.

High-income countries should focus on strengthening digital trust, data protection, and advanced cybersecurity measures, whereas middle-income countries need to expand access and build foundational cybersecurity capacity simultaneously to translate connectivity into welfare gains.

Introduction

Technology changes and constrains human activities in a society. Digitalization which is one of the powerful inventions in the history is transforming governance structures and social interactions, rendering their outcomes increasingly unpredictable and extensive. Their influence on societal outcomes is not predetermined; instead, it depends on institutional design, governance structures, and policy decisions (Johnson & Acemoglu, 2023). At the turn of the century, the virtual state was predicted as a new form of government, with Fountain's technology enactment framework emphasizing the interplay between information technology, organizations, and institutional embeddedness (Fountain, 2001;2004). Today, governments around the world are in a fierce competition by investing substantial resources in ICT infrastructure and digital initiatives, yet the reality of virtual territories is no longer hypothetical—citizens increasingly demand state-like protections in cyberspace, spanning the internet, the metaverse, and social media platforms from data privacy, cybersecurity to digital rights (Gil-Garcia, 2012; Lambach, 2020; Meijer & Bolívar, 2016; Möllers, 2021; Reggi & Gil-Garcia, 2021).

Despite these transformations in societal digitalization and citizen demands, the effect of digitalization on broader outcomes, such as citizens’ subjective well-being, happiness, and life satisfaction, remains an underexplored yet fundamental question (Welby, 2019; Montgomery, 2013; Suárez Alvarez & Vincente, 2023). Since Amartya Sen's Nobel Prize underscored the centrality of capabilities and human flourishing, happiness—or subjective well-being—has emerged as a primary policy objective for governments, displacing the traditional focus on economic output and material living standards (Sen, 1999). Consequently, the psychological determinants of well-being have been examined extensively across psychology, public health, and related fields. While early discussions of e-government primarily framed digitalization as a tool for enhancing efficiency and quality of public service delivery to citizens (Ingrams et al., 2020; MacLean & Titah, 2022; Moon, 2002), contemporary digital governance must address broader societal implications and challenges, including public value creation, digital rights, cybersecurity, and the governance of digital spaces different from private sectors (Luna et al., 2015; Meijer, 2018; Kempeneer & Heylen, 2023).

This study addresses this gap by examining how ICT development and digitalization shapes subjective well-being by exploring the following research questions: Does digitalization lead to positive well-being outcomes? How do these relationships differ by economic conditions of countries? What is the role of government beyond enhancing service efficiency to actively improve citizens’ well-being?

While our evidence is based on the ITU ICT Index, which covers 168 countries, to address the aforementioned research questions, a recent case of an ‘internet shutdown’ in South Korea—where internet penetration reached 97.6% of the total population as of 2023—provides a stark illustration of the societal consequences of digital dependency and its profound impact on citizens’ daily lives.

In 2022, a fire at the data center of Kakao, South Korea's largest digital tech company, triggered a nationwide service outage, causing widespread panic among users. Kakao's flagship application, KakaoTalk—often referred to as ‘Korea's app for everything'—serves as the primary platform for government services, financial transactions, communication, entertainment, and transportation. The outage significantly disrupted both personal communication and critical public and private sector services, including messaging, file sharing, online and offline payment systems, taxi services, real-time navigation, food delivery systems, and business communications. The heightened psychological anxiety among citizens stemmed from their dependence on Kakao services, leading to what can be characterized as a ‘national digital blackout’. The incident significantly affected citizens’ daily lives, economic activities, and access to public services, rather than being a mere technical failure.

Moving forward, this event highlights the urgent need for robust digital governance, decentralization strategies, and contingency planning to prevent similar crises in the future in South Korea. The Korean government has observed that citizens are progressively perceiving internet access and application functionalities as public services rather than commodities provided by private technology companies. Following service recovery, the private firm Kakao, acknowledged that, “as a service utilized by the majority of South Koreans, KakaoTalk has taken on the role of a public service, and we confess that we have not met our responsibilities in accordance with these user expectations” (Chung & Im, 2022). Furthermore, the data center fire and ensuing service outages, which affected government operations, highlighted the necessity for enhanced disaster management and national security strategies. President Yoon designated Kakao as an integral component of the nation's infrastructure, while the national assembly proclaimed that disruptions in data centers and associated services would be incorporated into the national disaster management framework.¹

From this viewpoint, we argue that the impact of ICT development on subjective well-being is conditioned by the government's capacity to govern cyberspace. Specifically, we hypothesize that when ICT development is at a relatively low level, its direct effect on well-being tends to be stronger. However, as ICT development advances, it is the government's capacity and competitiveness for cyberspace governance from quality of connectivity to security—rather than ICT alone—that becomes a more decisive factor in shaping citizens’ well-being.

Our study offers several contributions. First, it complements previous theoretical work by providing empirical evidence that advances the understanding of cyberspace governance. While existing research widely acknowledges the growing significance of cyberspace as a policy domain, much of the literature remains largely conceptual or theoretical in nature. A predominant strand of research emerges from the international relations (IR), political geography and computer science, which tend to frame cyberspace primarily in terms of cyber threats, warfare, and international security at the national level (e.g., Gartzke, 2013; Kello, 2017; Mueller, 2020). IR-centered perspectives often emphasize state-centric concerns, particularly focusing on military power and the balance of power among nations (Rid, 2013; Valeriano & Maness, 2015). Another major theme is the preservation of state sovereignty, with ongoing debates over whether traditional notions of sovereignty can be appropriately applied in online environments as digital sovereignty (Glasze et al., 2023; Mueller, 2020; Gross et al., 2017). Technical and computer science approaches to cyber governance predominantly focus on system architecture, infrastructure design, and software development. However, these macro-level or technocratic analyses often overlook the role of citizens, neglecting how cyberspace governance affects individual rights, security, and subjective well-being. Second, this study emphasizes that government capacity plays a crucial role in promoting human-centered approaches to cybersecurity, positioning it as a core component of cyberspace governance. While cybersecurity scholarship has traditionally prioritized technical and state-centric concerns, few studies have examined how human-centered approaches—those prioritizing individual rights, agency, and trust—are embedded within national cyber governance frameworks (DeNardis, 2014; Mueller, 2020), and how such approaches may contribute to broader societal goals such as well-being and happiness. We borrow insights from the established framework of government capacity and competitiveness, integrating it with systems theory to examine and contemplate citizen demands, societal transformations, the pervasiveness of digital technologies, and the government's role in both protecting and governing its citizens in cyberspace. We elaborate on the increasing awareness of cyberspace as an extended policy domain for citizen welfare and how the government can enhance the national happiness and wellbeing of its citizens. Finally, this study delineates a research agenda in public administration.

Theoretical Framework and Hypothesis

Linking ICT Development and Governmental Capabilities to Enhance Citizen Well-Being

Our proposed theoretical framework linking ICT infrastructure, governmental capacity, and well-being is derived from systems theory (Easton, 1957), which posits that a system functions in a dynamic relationship with its environment, receiving diverse inputs, processing them in specific manners, producing outputs, and ultimately influencing outcomes. Utilizing Easton's (1957) system theory, Ho and Im (2015) present a framework for governmental competitiveness, concentrating on the “transformation process.” This framework emphasizes the management and capability to achieve superior outputs and outcomes: “the government's ability, considering various constraints, to mobilize resources both domestically and internationally to enhance the social, economic, and cultural conditions of the nation, thereby sustainably improving the quality of life for its citizens.” This framework emphasizes that the competitiveness of governments is shaped by the distinct characteristics, developmental phase, institutional environment, cultural and social elements, political situations, and economic context of every country (Im & Hartley, 2019). Following Figure 1 is the visualized framework for this study.

Figure 1.

Integrated Theoretical Framework Easton (1957) and Chung and Im (2022).

Input and Outcome: ICT Digital Development and Subjective Wellbeing

While well-being encompasses multiple definitions and conceptual approaches (Topp et al., 2015; Pollard & Lee, 2003), recent scholarship increasingly emphasizes subjective well-being (SWB) as a central indicator of individual welfare (Diener, 1984; Diener et al., 1998, 2010; Deaton, 2008; Mellander et al., 2012; Rath & Harter, 2010). SWB refers to individuals’ cognitive and emotional evaluations of their lives, including life satisfaction, the presence of positive moods, and the absence of negative emotions (Diener et al., 1998; OECD, 2013). While existing cross-national studies often operationalize SWB through composite indicators such as healthy life expectancy, perceived social support, and autonomy in decision-making (Helliwell et al., 2023; OECD, 2013), recent literature has begun to explore the role of digital development as critical inputs that shape the conditions for well-being.

A substantial body of literature has explored the correlation between ICT infrastructure, subjective well-being, and happiness, showing mixed results (Kraut et al.,1998, 2002). Kavetsos and Koutroumpis (2011) evaluated data from 29 European nations to investigate the welfare consequences of possessing diverse technological devices, focusing on the intangible effects of the extensive utilization of mobile and broadband networks. Utilizing self-reported life satisfaction as a measure of well-being, the study revealed that possession of a landline phone, mobile phone, compact disc player, computer, and internet access correlates with elevated levels of subjective well-being. These findings highlight the beneficial impact of technological ownership and ICT access on individual happiness.

Elmassah and Hassanein (2022) analyzed aggregate-level indicators from the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) across 28 European nations and identified a positive correlation between internet connectivity, usage, integrated digital technology, and life satisfaction. Their study found that while certain aspects of digitalization may improve individual well-being, human capital and digital public services are negatively correlated with life satisfaction; although essential, these factors do not inherently contribute to increased subjective well-being. Maiti and Awasthi (2020) utilized a panel database from 2000 to 2014, encompassing 67 countries across all subcontinents, and discovered that exposure to ICT, access to mobile phones, internet, and telephone connections, as well as internet security, positively influences aggregate well-being and national advancement.

In contrast, Twenge (2019) posited a correlation between increased engagement with digital media and lower psychological well-being. Numerous extensive studies corroborate this perspective, indicating that adolescents and young adults who engage more with digital media experience elevated stress and psychological problems (Rosen et al., 2022), diminished overall psychological well-being (Shakya & Christakis, 2017), reduced life satisfaction (Booker et al., 2015), lower levels of happiness (Twenge et al., 2018), and increased sensations of loneliness and social isolation (Primack et al., 2017).

Hypothesis 1: Increased digital development, as measured by internet connectivity and access to digital technologies, is positively associated with subjective wellbeing, including social support, healthy life expectancy and life satisfaction.

Although digitalization generally enhances subjective wellbeing and happiness, its effects differ between developed and developing nations, influenced by distinct economic conditions and particular local needs and contexts (Maiti & Awasthi, 2020). In developed nations, digital innovations frequently aim to improve the quality and complexity of current services, thereby enhancing convenience and efficiency. In developing nations, improving access to mobile phones and internet connectivity can significantly enhance communication, economic prospects, and social inclusion, resulting in greater subjective wellbeing.

Hypothesis 2: The impact of ICT development on subjective well-being, including social support, healthy life expectancy, and life satisfaction, differ according to the economic development status of countries.

Governance of Cyberspace: Cybersecurity and Wellbeing

While research on cybersecurity and subjective well-being is still limited, the broader discourse on human-centered and citizen-centered smart cities has already engaged with related themes. Specifically, smart cities aim to achieve a balance between operational efficiency, citizen well-being, and economic growth, integrating a wide range of elements—including technology, data governance, policy frameworks, and physical infrastructure—which naturally intersect with cybersecurity concerns (Gasco-Hernandez et al., 2022; Gasco Hernandez, 2024; Gil-Garcia et al., 2015). Technology-driven territorial governance, including smart city governance, platform governance, internet governance and digital governance, is not merely a technological concern, rather should be regarded as a complex process of institutional transformation, recognizing the political dimensions of attractive visions of socio-technical governance (Meijer & Bolívar, 2016).

This study underscores the significance and necessity of cyber governance in safeguarding cybersecurity. Governance “consists of the traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercized. This includes the process by which governments are selected, monitored and replaced; the capacity of the government to effectively formulate and implement sound policies; and the respect of citizens and the state for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among them’’ (Kaufmann et al., 1999, p. 1). In particular, cybersecurity encompasses a comprehensive set of tools, policies, security concepts, safeguards, guidelines, risk management strategies, actions, training programs, best practices, assurance measures, and technologies essential for protecting the cyber environment and the assets of organizations and users (ITU, 2008; Harknett & Stever, 2011).

Prior studies in the psychology literature indicate a robust correlation between cybersecurity and individual well-being, suggesting that cybersecurity challenges can profoundly affect mental health and quality of life. The increasing prevalence of cyber-attacks and breaches has been linked to negative mental health outcomes, including anxiety, stress, burnout, and depression (Inkster et al., 2023). Furthermore, research has shown that exposure to cyber threats—such as identity theft, online harassment, and data breaches—can lead to heightened psychological distress, including anxiety and decreased life satisfaction (Bada et al., 2019). Additionally, Belanger and Carter (2012) highlight that trust in digital security is a key determinant of citizens’ willingness to engage with online government services, reinforcing the link between cybersecurity governance and overall well-being.

Hypothesis 3: Cybersecurity governance is positively associated with higher levels of subjective well-being, including social support, healthy life expectancy, and life satisfaction.

Hypothesis 4: While increased digital development is positively associated with higher levels of subjective well-being, including social support, healthy life expectancy, and life satisfaction, this relationship is moderated by the cybersecurity governance.

Research Method

Data and Selection of Index

This study primarily incorporates the ITU ICT Development Index (IDI), the ITU Global Cybersecurity Index (GCI), and the UN's World Happiness Report (WHR), each serving as distinct thematic indicators. The ITU ICT Development Index (IDI) measures a country's level of digital infrastructure, access, and use (International Telecommunication Union, 2017). The ITU Global Cybersecurity Index (GCI) assesses cybersecurity governance, legal frameworks, technical capabilities, and cooperation in cyberspace (International Telecommunication Union, 2021). Lastly, the UN's World Happiness Report (WHR) evaluates subjective well-being, including life satisfaction, social support, and economic conditions, as key determinants of national happiness (Helliwell et al., 2023). These indicators agree that Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is insufficient for clarifying disparities in well-being or happiness in the development and evaluation of social policies. Since 1990, the range of indices assessing development, progress, well-being, harmony, and happiness has broadened (Delsignore et al., 2021, 2023).

We employ multivariate regression analysis on a cross-sectional dataset of 168 countries in 2023 to elucidate variations at the country level. In this study, we utilized the 2023 versions of the index exclusively, as our primary key explanatory variable, the ICT development index, implemented a new methodology in the 2023 report. Examining data from prior versions alongside data employing the new methodology may result in errors including comparability issues, biases, inconsistencies, misinterpretation of trends, and data integration challenges (Singer & Willett, 2003). Table 1 displays summary of key index used in this study.

Table 1.

Overview of Key Indicators.

Theoretical Perspective	Indicator	Measurement	Data Source (year)
Input	Universal Connectivity Index	Normalized Progress Score, 0-100 (Individuals using the Internet (%),Households with Internet access at home (%), Active mobile-broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants)	ITU ICT Development Index (2023)
Input	Meaningful Connectivity Index	Normalized Progress Score, 0-100 (Population covered by at least a 3G mobile network (%),Population covered by at least a 4G/LTE mobile network (%),Mobile broadband Internet traffic per subscription (GB), Fixed broadband Internet traffic per subscription (GB), Individuals owning a mobile phone (%))	ITU ICT Development Index (2023)
Process	Global Cybersecurity Index	Index Value (0-1)	ITU-GSMA Mobile Connectivity Index (2023)
Output	GDP	GDP per capita (current US$)	World Bank (2023)
Outcome	Life ladder	The Cantril ladder. evaluate their current life, The Gallup World Poll	World Happiness Report by United Nations (2023)
	Healthy life expectation	Data from the World Health Organization (WHO) Global Health Observatory data repository
	Social support	Having someone to count on in times of trouble.

Measurement

Our dependent variable is subjective wellbeing. We use indicators and their respective subindices from the World Happiness Index (WHI), including life ladder satisfaction, healthy life expectancy, and social support. WHI, an annual publication of the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network, ranks countries based on how happy their citizens perceive themselves to be; it aims to provide a holistic view of the state of global happiness and guide policymakers in creating conditions that can improve citizen well-being and quality of life.

The life ladder indicator operationalizes people's subjective well-being, on a scale of 0–10. It is derived from the Cantril Ladder, which asks survey participants to imagine a ladder with steps numbered from 0 at the bottom to 10 at the top. They are then asked to indicate on which step of the ladder they feel they personally stand at the present time (Helliwell et al., 2023). A higher score indicates a higher level of perceived well-being and satisfaction with life. Healthy life expectancy captures a population's overall physical health and quality of life, with an eye to enhancing healthcare systems, promoting healthy lifestyles, and addressing social determinants of health. Social support refers to the perceived availability of assistance and support from social networks, including family, friends, and the community. Social support can significantly impact an individual's mental and emotional health, providing a buffer against stress and enhancing wellbeing.

Our main explanatory variables come from the International Telecommunication Union's (ITU) Digital Development Index (IDI) and Global Cybersecurity Index (GCI). The IDI contains a total of 10 global indicators that capture citizen access to and uptake of information and communications technologies (ICT), divided into universal, or basic connectivity (three measures) and meaningful, or quality connectivity (six measures). Universal connectivity indicators include percentage of individuals using the internet, percentage of households with internet access at home, and mobile broadband internet traffic per subscription (GB). Indicators of meaningful connectivity measure the percentage of the population with a 3G/4G mobile network, mobile and fixed broadband internet traffic, basket prices of mobile and internet usage, and the percentage of residents who own a mobile phone.

The Global Cybersecurity Index (GCI) is assessed along five pillars––(i) legal measures, (ii) technical measures, (iii) organizational measures, (iv) capacity development, and (v) cooperation––and then aggregated into an overall score. We use normalized scores.

Economic development and urbanization are commonly used as control variables in the literature on ICT and happiness (Helliwell et al., 2019, 2024; Woo, 2018). This study employs the logarithm of GDP, population density, and the logarithm of land area as control variables. Furthermore, we include means of schooling and the number of physicians per 1,000 population to control additional factors of health and education.

We summarize clear definition of indices for this study in Table 1

Results

Digital Development and Subjective Wellbeing

Table 2 shows the regression results of analyzing relationships among ICT connectivity, cyberspace governance, and aggregate subjective wellbeing across countries. The results partial support hypothesis 1 which posits that increased digital development, as measured by internet connectivity and access to digital technologies, is positively associated with higher levels of life satisfaction. The results indicate that the ITU Universal Connectivity Index (IUCI) exerts a statistically significant positive effect on life satisfaction (β = 0.418, p < 0.05) and perceived social support (β = 0.461, p < 0.05). These findings suggest that greater internet connectivity enhances subjective well-being by fostering social interactions and strengthening perceived social networks.

Table 2.

Regression Models: Cross-Country Regression Results on ICT Connectivity, Cyberspace Security, and Aggregate Citizen Wellbeing.

	Model 1 (Life Ladder)	Model 2 (Heathy Life Expectancy)	Model 3 (Perceived Social Support)
ITU Universal Connectivity Index (IUCI)	0.418**	0.0999	0.461**
	(0.201)	(0.119)	(0.183)
ITU Meaningful Connectivity Index (IMCI)	−0.358	−0.0668	−0.287
	(0.223)	(0.128)	(0.222)
Global Cyber Security Index (GCSI)	0.355***	0.239***	0.268***
	(0.0628)	(0.0474)	(0.0713)
Log GDP	0.232***	0.189***	0.251***
	(0.0606)	(0.0423)	(0.0648)
Region (ITU-D Regions, Africa)
Arab States	−0.427	7.467*	−10.66
	(7.495)	(4.166)	(6.850)
Asia-Pacific	3.009	9.491**	−2.191
	(5.709)	(3.719)	(5.571)
CIS	−2.950	3.506	4.563
	(15.66)	(11.10)	(20.61)
Europe	22.71***	26.99***	23.33**
	(8.683)	(6.109)	(9.319)
The Americas	22.93***	14.43***	7.932
	(7.166)	(4.740)	(7.908)
Urban Population (%)	0.0840	0.0609	0.0330
	(0.0813)	(0.0538)	(0.0783)
Log Country Size	−0.315	−0.871	−1.264
	(1.678)	(1.047)	(1.709)
Latitude	0.0136	0.00296	−0.00320
	(0.0579)	(0.0458)	(0.0630)
Access to Education	0.0516	0.0200	0.0626
	(0.0444)	(0.0306)	(0.0429)
Access to Health Service	0.127	0.0952*	0.177*
	(0.0823)	(0.0499)	(0.0927)
Constant	−16.17	−12.18*	−12.57
	(10.83)	(6.327)	(10.73)
F	18.50***	23.63***	16.64***
R²	0.6286	0.6838	0.6036
Adjusted R²	0.5946	0.6548	0.5674
N	168	168	168

Robust SE in parenthesis, *p < 0.1, **p < .05, ***p < .01.

However, IUCI does not exhibit a statistically significant relationship with healthy life expectancy (β = 0.099, p > 0.1), indicating that internet connectivity alone may not directly influence public health outcomes. Furthermore, the ITU Meaningful Connectivity Index (IMCI) does not demonstrate statistical significance in any of the models (β = -0.066, p > 0.1), suggesting that the quality of digital access does not necessarily translate into improved life satisfaction or well-being. These results reveal the importance of distinguishing between different dimensions of digital development. While basic internet connectivity contributes to subjective well-being and social support, it does not appear to directly enhance physical health outcomes.

The results of subgroup analyses provide further support for Hypothesis 2, as the relationship between digital development and well-being indeed varies based on economic development levels. The results of the subgroup analysis are presented in Tables 3 and 4. For high-income countries, ITU Universal Connectivity Index (IUCI) and ITU Meaningful Connectivity Index (IMCI) do not exhibit statistically significant effects on life satisfaction (Model 4), healthy life expectancy (Model 5), or perceived social support (Model 6). These findings suggest that in economically developed nations, higher levels of digital connectivity may not be a decisive factor in enhancing well-being, as these countries likely already possess advanced digital infrastructure and widespread internet access. In contrast, the results for middle-income countries present a different pattern. While IUCI remains insignificant for life satisfaction (Model 7) and healthy life expectancy (Model 8), it exhibits a positive and statistically significant effect on perceived social support (β = 0.281, p < 0.1). This suggests that in middle-income nations, increasing internet connectivity may enhance individuals’ perceived access to social networks and support systems.

Table 3.

Regression Results by Country Income: High Income Countries.

	Model 4 (Life Ladder)	Model 5 (Heathy Life Expectancy)	Model 6 (Perceived Social Support)
ITU Universal Connectivity Index (IUCI)	0.266	−0.118	0.0516
	(0.588)	(0.476)	(0.797)
ITU Meaningful Connectivity Index (IMCI)	0.549	−0.0820	0.946
	(1.658)	(1.238)	(1.970)
Global Cyber Security Index (GCSI)	0.386***	0.420***	0.413***
	(0.117)	(0.0913)	(0.149)
Constant	−64.97	19.24	−86.97
	(127.6)	(96.20)	(148.1)
F	13.07***	11.05***	6.79***
R²	0.7943	0.7656	0.6675
Adjusted R²	0.7335	0.6963	0.5692
N	58	58	58

Robust SE in parenthesis, *p < 0.1, **p < .05, ***p < .01.

Table 4.

Regression Results by Country Income: Middle Income Countries.

	Model 7 (Life Ladder)	Model 8 (Heathy Life Expectancy)	Model 9 (Perceived Social Support)
ITU Universal Connectivity Index (IUCI)	−0.0101	−0.0277	0.281*
	(0.194)	(0.100)	(0.165)
ITU Meaningful Connectivity Index (IMCI)	−0.0240	0.0997	−0.0829
	(0.203)	(0.108)	(0.199)
Global Cyber Security Index (GCSI)	0.154**	0.0925**	0.0625
	(0.0673)	(0.0420)	(0.0769)
Constant	−8.732	−9.435	−6.926
	(9.739)	(5.684)	(9.239)
F	8.95***	13.81***	9.33***
R²	0.5714	0.6729	0.5816
Adjusted R²	0.5076	0.6242	0.5193
N	109	109	109

Robust SE in parenthesis, *p < 0.1, **p < .05, ***p < .01.

Cybersecurity and Subjective Wellbeing

Results from Table 2 reveals that across the full sample, GCSI exhibits a strong and statistically significant positive association with life satisfaction (β=0.355, p < 0.01), healthy life expectancy (β=0.239, p < 0.01), and perceived social support (β=0.268, p < 0.01). These results suggest that stronger governance of cyberspace, including cybersecurity measures, regulatory frameworks, and digital trust mechanisms, contributes to improved well-being.

According to Table 3, in high-income countries, GCSI remains strongly significant across all models (p < 0.01), with positive effects on life satisfaction (β=0.386), healthy life expectancy (0.420), and perceived social support (β=0.413). This indicates that in high-income nations, cybersecurity governance is a crucial determinant of well-being, possibly due to the higher reliance on digital infrastructure for daily life, work, and social interactions. In middle-income countries, as Table 4 shows, GCSI remains significant for life satisfaction (β=0.154, p < 0.05) and healthy life expectancy (β=0.093, p < 0.05), though its effect on perceived social support is not statistically significant.

Interaction Effects: Digital Development and Cybersecurity

To further examine the role of cyberspace governance in shaping well-being, interaction terms between the ITU Meaningful Connectivity Index (IMCI) and the Global Cyber Security Index (GCSI) were included in the analysis. Table 5 presents the results of these interaction effects, providing additional insights into the conditional relationships between digital development, cybersecurity, and well-being. While meaningful connectivity (IMCI) alone appears to have a negative effect, this effect is offset or even reversed when combined with strong cybersecurity governance. This may indicate that digital connectivity alone is insufficient to enhance well-being and may even create risks (e.g., misinformation, cybercrime, or digital inequality). However, when cybersecurity measures are effectively implemented, they enable a safer and more reliable digital environment, thus amplifying the benefits of meaningful connectivity.

Table 5.

Interaction Terms.

	Model 10 (Life Ladder)	Model 11 (Heathy Life Expectancy)	Model 12 (Perceived Social Support)
ITU Universal Connectivity Index (IUCI)	0.363*	0.0683	0.419**
	(0.199)	(0.114)	(0.183)
ITU Meaningful Connectivity Index (IMCI)	−0.628***	−0.220*	−0.494**
	(0.213)	(0.127)	(0.221)
Global Cyber Security Index (GCSI)	−0.547***	−0.272**	−0.423**
	(0.163)	(0.123)	(0.192)
IMCI * Cyber Security (GCSI)	0.0110***	0.00623***	0.00842***
	(0.00225)	(0.00176)	(0.00266)
Constant	12.03	3.808	9.044
	(10.31)	(5.967)	(10.95)
F	19.27***	23.66***	16.49***
R²	0.6554	0.7001	0.6194
Adjusted R²	0.6214	0.6705	0.5818
N	168	168	168

Robust SE in parenthesis, *p < 0.1, **p < .05, ***p < .01.

Discussion

Although the global expansion of digital technologies has significantly enhanced connectivity and information access, scholarly attention to the theoretical linkages between ICT development, governance quality, and citizen well-being remains limited. This study contributes to filling this gap by empirically demonstrating that while digital access is positively associated with well-being, its impact is considerably amplified in contexts characterized by strong cybersecurity governance.

The integration of systems theory with the government competitiveness framework, tested through regression analyses, demonstrates that among ICT access, connectivity quality, and cybersecurity, cybersecurity governance emerges as the most significant determinants of subjective well-being and happiness across nations. These findings not only underscore the foundational role of digital infrastructure, but also highlight how state capacity in cybersecurity governance amplifies the well-being benefits of digital access—both in middle- and high-income countries.

The results highlight several significant contributions to the existing literature on digital development, governance, and well-being. First, this study extends the digital well-being framework by demonstrating that cybersecurity governance plays a role that is at least as critical—if not more so—than digital access itself in shaping life satisfaction, health outcomes, and perceived social support. While previous research has primarily focused on the benefits of infrastructural development perspective such as internet connectivity and digital inclusion, the findings underscore that the mere expansion of digital access is insufficient to enhance well-being in the absence of robust cybersecurity governance. This highlights the need to integrate digital security considerations into broader discussions on digital well-being.

Second, the study illuminates the economic contingency of digital development effects, offering empirical evidence that the impact of both digital connectivity and cybersecurity governance is highly context-dependent. The subgroup analysis reveals that these effects vary systematically across different levels of economic development, reinforcing the notion that one-size-fits-all digital policies may fail to deliver uniform benefits across diverse socio-economic contexts. This finding calls for a more nuanced, context-sensitive approach to digital governance, wherein digital infrastructure expansion is complemented by economic and institutional conditions that enable its effective utilization.

Finally, this study advances digital governance research by introducing interaction effects into the analysis of digital connectivity and well-being. By incorporating interaction terms, the findings provide robust empirical support for the argument that the positive effects of digital access are contingent upon the strength of cybersecurity governance. This insight challenges the prevailing assumption that digital expansion alone suffices to enhance well-being, suggesting instead that digital policies must be designed in conjunction with governance mechanisms that ensure the security and trustworthiness of digital environments. Future research should build upon this approach by examining how different dimensions of digital governance—such as data privacy regulations, misinformation control, and AI ethics—interact with digital access to shape societal outcomes.

From a policy implication perspective, the findings of this study offer critical insights for policymakers, international organizations, and digital regulators seeking to optimize the societal benefits of digital transformation. First, a balanced approach to digital expansion and cybersecurity governance is imperative. The results indicate that merely increasing internet access is insufficient to enhance well-being; rather, digital expansion must be accompanied by robust cybersecurity frameworks to ensure safe and meaningful digital participation. Without adequate governance mechanisms, the risks associated with digital connectivity—such as cyber threats, misinformation, and digital exclusion—may offset its potential benefits. Policymakers should therefore prioritize the development of comprehensive cybersecurity regulations, enforcement mechanisms, and public awareness initiatives alongside efforts to expand digital infrastructure. Welby (2019) contended that to optimize the correlation between digital government initiatives and citizen well-being, governmental emphasis should extend beyond material advantages related to service quality, incorporating the intellectual and emotional benefits arising from an alternative approach to governmental interactions with constituents.

Second, digital policies must be tailored to a country's economic conditions. Our subgroup analysis reveals that the relationship between digital development and well-being varies significantly depending on economic development levels. In high-income countries, where digital penetration is already extensive, policy efforts should focus on strengthening digital trust, data protection, and cybersecurity measures to sustain public confidence in digital systems. In contrast, middle-income countries must continue expanding digital access while simultaneously investing in cybersecurity infrastructure to mitigate risks and ensure that digital connectivity translates into tangible well-being improvements. This differentiated approach underscores the importance of aligning digital governance strategies with the specific developmental needs and technological maturity of each country.

In fact, governments across the world have already commenced efforts to regulate cyberspace to ensure citizen welfare. For instance, the UK government enacted the Online Safety Act 2023, a comprehensive set of laws aimed at protecting both children and adults in the online environment. In the United States, Florida has legally banned social media accounts for children under 14, with a “stringent social media law that could profoundly affect the quality of life for many children and teenagers” (Caturano, 2023).² Overuse of technology, especially mobile phones and the internet, has been associated with detrimental effects on adults’ mental health, such as decreased social skills and elevated sadness (Scott et al., 2017).

Conclusion and Limitation

As digital infrastructure becomes increasingly central to daily life, cybersecurity has emerged as a critical determinant of subjective well-being and life satisfaction. Secure digital environments foster trust in online interactions, financial transactions, and public services, thereby enhancing individuals perceived safety and social stability (Anderson & Moore, 2006; Van Deursen et al., 2017). Conversely, cybersecurity threats—including data breaches, cybercrime, and digital surveillance—can exacerbate psychological distress, erode institutional trust, and undermine overall life satisfaction (Bada et al., 2019; Belanger & Carter, 2012). This study contributes to the growing body of research on digital governance and well-being by empirically examining how ICT development and digitalization affect subjective well-being across countries with varying economic conditions. Our study findings reveal that digitalization alone does not guarantee improvements in well-being; government capacity—particularly in the realm of cybersecurity and rights-based digital governance—emerges as a critical factor in translating digital infrastructure into meaningful well-being outcomes. This underscores the need for policymakers to move beyond a narrow focus on service efficiency and instead adopt human-centered digital strategies that prioritize inclusion, trust, and citizen welfare. Our research also reveals that nations with robust cybersecurity governance frameworks tend to report higher levels of digital trust and well-being, as secure cyber ecosystems enable citizens to engage confidently in digital economic, social, and governmental activities (Johnson & Acemoglu, 2023; Welby, 2019; Ruohonen et al., 2016).

This study has some limitations, which we discuss along with additional avenues for future research. This study lies in its reliance on composite national-level indices to represent full complexity of ICT infrastructure, government capacity, and subjective well-being. While these indices offer a useful basis for comparisons and allow for the integration of complex data into standardized formats, they inevitably involve simplifications and assumptions that may not fully capture the institutional, cultural, and contextual nuances across countries (Freudenberg, 2003). Another limitation is that the analysis relied on cross-sectional data on a sample of cross-national level. Longitudinal data are essential for identifying causal relationships and deepening our understanding of the research questions. Future research could benefit from the use of more disaggregated and multidimensional indicators measured over multiple years to understand the more robust relationship of digital development and subjective well-being. While limitations exist, the study advances understanding of how cyberspace serves as an extended domain for well-being outcomes for citizens, contingent upon the strength of government capacity.

Footnotes

Funding

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-025S1A6B5A01003729).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Hemin Choi

Notes

Author Biographies

Hemin Choi is an assistant professor in the Department of Urban Policy and Administration in the College of Urban Sciences at Incheon National University. Her research interests include urban management and policy design, with a recent focus on citizen-centric Urban AI and co-creation, the design of AI-driven public service delivery, and innovative behavior in public bureaucracies.

Tobin Im is a professor at the Graduate School of Public Administration at Seoul National University. His research focuses on government competitiveness, organizational theory, and comparative public administration.

References

Anderson

Moore

(2006). The economics of information security. science, 314(5799), 610–613. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1130992

Bada

Sasse

A. M.

Nurse

J. R.

(2019). Cyber security awareness campaigns: Why do they fail to change behaviour. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.02672

Belanger

Carter

(2012). Digitizing government interactions with constituents: An historical review of e-government research in information systems. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(5), 1–394. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00295

Booker

C. L.

Skew

A. J.

Kelly

Y. J.

Sacker

(2015). Media use, sports participation, and well-being in adolescence: Cross-sectional findings from the UK household longitudinal study. American Journal of Public Health, 105(1), 173–179. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301783

Caturano

(2023, May 23). Social media could have a “profound risk” on kids and teens, US surgeon general warns. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/social-media-profound-risk-kids-teens-us-surgeon/story?id=99537853

Chung

K. H.

(2022). Happiness in developing countries: Can government competitiveness substitute for formal institutions? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 88(3), 899–918. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523211000421

Deaton

(2008). Income, health, and well-being around the world: Evidence from the gallup world poll. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22(2), 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.22.2.53

Delsignore

Aguilar-Latorre

Garcia-Ruiz

Oliván-Blázquez

(2023). Measuring happiness for social policy evaluation: A multidimensional index of happiness. Sociological Spectrum, 43(1), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/02732173.2022.2163444

Delsignore

Aguilar-Latorre

Oliván-Blázquez

(2021). Measuring happiness in the social sciences: An overview. Journal of Sociology, 57(4), 1044–1067. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783321991655

10.

DeNardis

(2014). The global war for internet governance. Yale University Press.

11.

Diener

(1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542.

12.

Diener

Harter

Arora

(2010). Wealth and happiness across the world: Material prosperity predicts life evaluation, whereas psychosocial prosperity predicts positive feeling. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(1), 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018066

13.

Diener

Sapyta

J. J.

Suh

(1998). Subjective well-being is essential to well-being. Psychological Inquiry, 9(1), 33–37. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0901_3

14.

Easton

(1957). An approach to the analysis of political systems. World Politics, 9(3), 383–400. https://doi.org/10.2307/2008920

15.

Elmassah

Hassanein

E. A.

(2022). Digitalization and subjective wellbeing in Europe. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance, 24(1), 52–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPRG-05-2021-0060

16.

Fountain

J. E.

(2001). The virtual state: Transforming American government? National Civic Review, 90, 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/ncr.90305

17.

Fountain

J. E.

(2004). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Rowman & Littlefield.

18.

Freudenberg

(2003). Composite Indicators of Country Performance: A Critical Assessment. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers No. 2003/16. OECD Publishing.

19.

Gartzke

(2013). The myth of cyberwar: Bringing war in cyberspace back down to earth. International Security, 38(2), 41–73. https://doi.org/10.1162/ISEC_a_00136

20.

Gasco Hernandez

(2024). Reflections on three decades of digital transformation in local governments. Local Government Studies, 50(6), 1028–1040. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2024.2410830

21.

Gasco-Hernandez

Nasi

Cucciniello

Hiedemann

A. M.

(2022). The role of organizational capacity to foster digital transformation in local governments: The case of three European smart cities. Urban Governance, 2(2), 236–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ugj.2022.09.005

22.

Gil-Garcia

J. R.

(2012). Enacting electronic government success: An integrative study of government-wide websites, organizational capabilities, and institutions (Vol. 31). Springer.

23.

Gil-Garcia

J. R.

Pardo

T. A.

Nam

(2015). What makes a city smart? Identifying core components and proposing an integrative and comprehensive conceptualization. Information Polity, 20(1), 61–87.

24.

Glasze

Cattaruzza

Douzet

Dammann

Bertran

M. G.

Bômont

Braun

Danet

Desforges

Géry

Grumbach

(2023). Contested spatialities of digital sovereignty. Geopolitics, 28(2), 919–958. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2022.2050070

25.

Gross

M. L.

Canetti

Vashdi

D. R.

(2017). Cyberterrorism: Its effects on psychological well-being, public confidence and political attitudes. Journal of Cybersecurity. https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyw018

26.

Harknett

R. J.

Stever

J. A.

(2011). The new policy world of cybersecurity. Public Administration Review, 71(3), 455–460. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.2011.71.issue-3

27.

Helliwell

J. F.

Huang

Wang

(2019). Changing world happiness. World Happiness Report, 2019(2), 11–46.

28.

Helliwell

J. F.

Huang

Norton

Wang

Goff

(2023). Statistical Appendix for “World happiness, trust and social connections in times of crisis,” Chapter 2 of World Happiness Report 2023. World Happiness Report 2023.

29.

Helliwell

J. F.

Huang

Shiplett

Wang

(2024). Happiness of the younger, the older, and those in between. World Happiness Report. https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2024/happiness-of-the-younger-the-older-and-those-in-between/#ranking-of-happiness-2021-2023

30.

A. T. K.

(2015). Challenges in building effective and competitive government in developing countries. The American Review of Public Administration, 45(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074013501856

31.

Hartley

(2019). Aligning needs and capacities to boost government competitiveness. Public Organization Review, 19(1), 119–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-017-0388-0

32.

Ingrams

Manoharan

Schmidthuber

Holzer

(2020). Stages and determinants of e-government development: A twelve-year longitudinal study of global cities. International Public Management Journal, 23(6), 731–769. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2018.1467987

33.

Inkster

Knibbs

Bada

(2023). Cybersecurity: A critical priority for digital mental health. Frontiers in Digital Health, 5, 1242264. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2023.1242264

34.

International Telecommunication Union . (2008). Measuring the Information Society. ITU.

35.

International Telecommunication Union . (2017). Measuring the information society report 2017. ITU. https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/publications/mis2017.aspx

36.

International Telecommunication Union . (2021). Global cybersecurity index 2020. ITU. https://www.itu.int/hub/publication/d-str-gci-01-2021/

37.

Johnson

Acemoglu

(2023). Power and progress: Our thousand-year struggle over technology and prosperity.

38.

Kaufmann

Kraay

Zoido-Lobatón

(1999). Governance matters. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2196.

39.

Kavetsos

Koutroumpis

(2011). Technological affluence and subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32(5), 742–753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2011.05.004

40.

Kello

(2017). The virtual weapon and international order. Yale University Press.

41.

Kempeneer

Heylen

(2023). Virtual state, where are you? A literature review, framework and agenda for failed digital transformation. Big Data & Society, 10(1), 20539517231160528. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517231160528

42.

Kraut

Kiesler

Boneva

Cummings

Helgeson

Crawford

(2002). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 49–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.2002.58.issue-1

43.

Kraut

Patterson

Lundmark

Kiesler

Mukophadhyay

Scherlis

(1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017–1031. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.9.1017

44.

Lambach

(2020). The territorialization of cyberspace*. International Studies Review, 22(3), 482–506. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viz022

45.

Luna

D. E.

Duarte-Valle

Picazo-Vela

Luna-Reyes

L. F.

(2015). Digital governance and public value creation at the state level. Information Polity, 20(2-3), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-150360

46.

MacLean

Titah

(2022). A systematic literature review of empirical research on the impacts of e-government: A public value perspective. Public Administration Review, 82(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13413

47.

Maiti

Awasthi

(2020). ICT Exposure and the level of wellbeing and progress: A cross country analysis. Social Indicators Research, 147(1), 311–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-019-02153-5

48.

Meijer

(2018). Datapolis: A public governance perspective on “smart cities”. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 1(3), 195–206.

49.

Meijer

Bolívar

M. P. R.

(2016). Governing the smart city: A review of the literature on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(2), 392–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314564308

50.

Mellander

Florida

Rentfrow

(2012). The creative class, post-industrialism and the happiness of nations. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 5(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsr006

51.

Möllers

(2021). Making digital territory: Cybersecurity, techno-nationalism, and the moral boundaries of the state. Science, technology. & Human Values, 46(1), 112–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243920904436

52.

Montgomery

(2013). Happy city: Transforming our lives through urban design. Penguin UK.

53.

Moon

M. J.

(2002). The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality? Public Administration Review, 62(4), 424–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00196

54.

Mueller

M. L.

(2020). Against sovereignty in cyberspace. International Studies Review, 22(4), 779–801. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viz044

55.

OECD. (2013). OECD guidelines on measuring subjective well-being. OECD Publishing.

56.

Pollard

E. L.

Lee

P. D.

(2003). Child well-being: A systematic review of the literature. Social Indicators Research, 61(1), 59–78. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021284215801

57.

Primack

B. A.

Shensa

Sidani

J. E.

Whaite

E. O.

Lin

L. y.

Rosen

Colditz

J. B.

Radovic

Miller

(2017). Social Media use and perceived social isolation among young adults in the U.S. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 53(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2017.01.010

58.

Rath

Harter

J. K.

(2010). Wellbeing: The five essential elements. Simon and Schuster.

59.

Reggi

Gil-Garcia

J. R.

(2021). Addressing territorial digital divides through ICT strategies: Are investment decisions consistent with local needs? Government Information Quarterly, 38(2), 101562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101562

60.

Rid

(2013). Cyberwar and peace: Hacking can reduce real-world violence. Foreign Affairs, 92(6), 77–87.

61.

Rosen

A. O.

Holmes

A. L.

Balluerka

Hidalgo

M. D.

Gorostiaga

Gómez-Benito

Huedo-Medina

T. B.

(2022). Is social Media a new type of social support? Social Media use in Spain during the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed methods study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(7), 3952. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19073952

62.

Ruohonen

Hyrynsalmi

Leppänen

(2016). An outlook on the institutional evolution of the European Union cyber security apparatus. Government Information Quarterly, 33(4), 746–756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.10.003

63.

Scott

D. A.

Valley

Simecka

B. A.

(2017). Mental health concerns in the digital age. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 15(3), 604–613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-016-9684-0

64.

Sen

(1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press.

65.

Shakya

H. B.

Christakis

N. A.

(2017). Association of Facebook use with compromised well-being: A longitudinal study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 185(3), 203–211.

66.

Singer

J. D.

Willett

J. B.

(2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. Oxford university press.

67.

Suárez Álvarez

Vicente

M. R.

(2023). Going “beyond the GDP” in the digital economy: Exploring the relationship between internet use and well-being in Spain. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 1–10.

68.

Topp

C. W.

Østergaard

S. D.

Søndergaard

Bech

(2015). The WHO-5 well-being index: A systematic review of the literature. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 84(3), 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1159/000376585

69.

Twenge

J. M.

(2019). More time on technology, less happiness? Associations between digital-Media use and psychological well-being. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(4), 372–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419838244

70.

Twenge

J. M.

Martin

G. N.

Keith Campbell

(2018). Decreases in psychological well-being among American adolescents after 2012 and links to screen time during the rise of smartphone technology. Emotion, 18(6), 765–780. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000403

71.

Valeriano

Maness

R. C.

(2015). Cyber war versus cyber realities: Cyber conflict in the international system. Oxford University Press.

72.

Van Deursen

A. J.

Helsper

Eynon

Van Dijk

J. A.

(2017). The compoundness and sequentiality of digital inequality. International Journal of Communication, 11, 452–473.

73.

Welby . (2019). “The impact of digital government on citizen well-being,” OECD Working Papers on Public Governance 32, OECD Publishing.

74.

Woo

(2018). Good governance and happiness: Does technical quality of governance lead to happiness universally in both rich and poor countries? Journal of International and Area Studies, 25(1), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.23071/jias.2018.25.1.37