Computer World: Digital Public Services and Well-Being in Europe

Abstract

Although research on the digitalization of public services has focused on many different areas, the role of digital public services (DPS) in shaping citizens’ well-being is a rather under-researched topic. This study investigates how inequalities and internet usage influence the relationship between digital public services (DPS) and individual well-being. Drawing on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), the digitalization paradox, and broader theories of digital inclusion, we analyse individual- and country-level data from 24 European countries across three waves: 2018, 2020, and 2022. DPS are operationalized using the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI), a composite indicator developed by the European Commission to assess digital performance and progress across EU member states. Multi-level analysis was used to investigate the relationship between DPS and life satisfaction and to uncover whether this is moderated by use of the internet and inequalities related to the four main drivers of digital access: age, gender, income, and education. Our findings reveal a counterintuitive trend: higher levels of DPS are associated with lower reported well-being, particularly among individuals presumed to possess advanced digital skills. These results underscore the need for more inclusive and human-centered approaches to digital public service design.

Keywords

digitalization public services well-being digital inequalities Europe

Keypoints for Practitioners

Prioritize user-centered design in digital public services.

Assess both administrative and psychological costs of digitalization.

Support systems should ensure everyone benefits from digital transitions, protecting vulnerable groups and avoiding burdens on active users.

Combining digital and human interaction may protect citizens’ emotional and social well-being.

Introduction

Digital transformation in the public sector has reshaped the way public services are designed and delivered (Liu et al., 2025; Gasco Hernandez, 2024; Milakovich, 2022). It has generated new ways of interaction between public administration, businesses and citizens at different levels of government (Jansen & Ølnes, 2016; Lindgren et al., 2019; Lynn et al., 2022). These new capabilities and improvements driven by technological advancements have stimulated a shift from the traditional agency-centric approaches towards a more citizen-centric digital service delivery (Martin, 2008; Milakovich, 2022; Zyzak & Martinussen, 2024). Within this evolving landscape, digital public services (DPS) or e-government relate to government services provided to citizens, businesses, and organizations through digital technologies, intending to improve efficiency and enhance the quality of service delivery (Liu et al., 2025; Lynn et al., 2022). Thus, DPS holds a promise of improving citizens’ experience with government services and participation in the digital space, potentially leading to greater overall well-being. However, it may also risk excluding vulnerable groups, thereby negatively affecting their well-being (Liu et al., 2025; Welby, 2019). While there is now an extensive literature on the stages of e-government evolution as well as its implementation and adoption (Khan, 2024), we still have limited knowledge about whether DPS promote well-being or not. Attempting to fill this gap, we combined country indicators on DPS in Europe with survey data to examine this issue. More specifically, we aim to understand the relationship between DPS and subjective life satisfaction, and whether this is moderated by inequalities and internet use.

While we may take it for granted that DPS improve our access to and influence over public services, thereby leading to increased well-being in the population, there is an increasing concern that citizens’ capacity to engage with DPS is moderated by their social position and context (UN, 2019) or material access (Van Deursen & van Dijk, 2018). The term ‘digital divide’ has emerged as a central concept to describe this, referring to “the gap between individuals, households, businesses and geographic areas at different socio-economic levels with regard both to their opportunities to access information and communication technologies (ICTs) and to their use of the internet for a wide variety of activities” (OECD, 2001, p. 5). The evidence suggests that these social inequalities in access to and use of digital technologies are evident not only in developing countries but also exist in rich economies (Lynn et al., 2022), and that the COVID-19 pandemic may have widened rather than narrowed this digital divide since more services are available only online (Lai & Widmar, 2021). As noted by Murgea (2023, p. 326), the pandemic can be considered the largest experience of forced digitalisation humanity has known, which allows us to “re-examine digitalisation's impact on well-being, considering the scarcity of the previous studies and the contradictory results found in the literature”.

Against this backdrop, this study addresses the impact of DPS on citizens’ well-being, and the possible moderating role of inequalities and internet use, using individual and country-level data from 24 European countries in 2018, 2020 and 2022. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first study to combine survey data with country indicators on DPS. DPS was measured by the e-government component of the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) from the European Commission. We use multi-level modelling to investigate the relationship between DPS and life satisfaction and to uncover whether this is moderated by internet use and the digital access (reflected by age, gender, income, and education). The analysis also controlled for health status, marital status, employment status, and foreign backgroundat the individual level and GDP per capita and other types of digitalization of the society at the country level.

The rest of the paper is organised as follows. In the next section, we present the few previous studies that have looked at well-being in the context of DPS. In section 3, we then outline a theoretical framework in order to place our study in context and motivate our main theoretical arguments. We build on the technology acceptance model (Davis, 1989) and the digitalization paradox (Wang et al., 2025), as well as the ‘access divide’ framework proposed by Lynn et al. (2022), which distinguishes between four types of digital inequalities: age, gender, income, and education. Next, section 4 presents our data and methods, outlines our empirical model, and presents the results. Finally, we discuss and conclude our findings in the context of the theoretical perspectives.

Digital Public Services and Well-Being: What do we Know so far?

The research on DPS has focused on a wide variety of areas (Haug et al., 2023). The literature includes topics such as satisfaction (Prokop & Tepe, 2022; Fathya et al., 2023), design (Grimsley & Meehan, 2007), the digital divide (Ebbers et al., 2016; Helbig et al., 2009), public value creation (Nielsen & Persson, 2017; Panagiotopoulos et al., 2019) or value co-creation (Zyzak & Martinussen, 2024; Zyzak et al., 2024), performance (Lim & Tang, 2008), digital leadership (Salih, 2024; Van Wart et al., 2019), citizen participation in policymaking (Rethemeyer, 2006), citizen-government relations (Tolbert & Mossberger, 2006) to name a few. However, the interplay between DPS and citizens’ well-being has been examined only to a limited extent and still requires further scholarly attention (Khan, 2024).

One of the few exceptions is a contribution by Elmassah and Hassanein (2022), which analysed the effect of digitalisation on 28 European countries’ subjective well-being by using macro (aggregate level) indicators. While the study did not focus specifically on DPS, it employed both the composite DESI index as well as its single components from 2014 to 2019. Well-being was measured through the self-reporting life satisfaction index published by the World Happiness Report, and the analysis furthermore included several country-level control variables to capture time-varying influences across countries: GDP per capita, life expectancy at birth, corruption perceptions, confidence in national government, inflation rate and unemployment rate. The findings showed that two DESI components were negatively related to life satisfaction: human capital and DPS. The remaining three components – internet connectivity, use of the internet, and integrated technology – were, on the other hand, positively related to life satisfaction.

Ionescu-Feleagă et al. (2022) also investigated the relationship between digitalisation and happiness in the EU, focusing on the subsequent period 2019–21. They also used the DESI indicator as a measure of digitalisation and the World Happiness Index to measure well-being. Using simple correlation analysis for each of the three years, the results showed positive relationships between the DPS dimension and happiness, i.e., the opposite finding of Elmassah and Hassanein (2022).

In another study, Murgea (2023) analyzed data from 2017 to 2022 across EU member states, employing both the DESI index and the World Happiness Index to explore country-level trends. Controlling for population density, the study also tested the relevance of the sub-dimensions of the DESI index, and statistically significant correlations were found only in the case of internet users’ skills, fixed broadband coverage, mobile broadband, and e-governance, all negatively related to happiness.

Finally, Khan (2024) drew on technological determinism theory to hypothesize a relationship between e-government maturity and a country's well-being. Utilizing macro-level data from 123 countries, the study demonstrated that higher levels of e-government maturity contribute directly to national well-being and indirectly through their influence on corruption perception and healthy life expectancy. Here, well-being was measured by an indicator drawn from the Gallup World Poll (GWP), while e-government maturity was operationalised using the Online Service Index from the UN e-government survey report.

As this review of the handful of studies shows, the relationship between DPS and well-being requires a broader debate, with a clear need for more empirical studies. The few studies that have examined the role of DPS for well-being have all used countries as the unit of analysis, typically involving country-level fixed effects models or general cross-sectional linear regression, and arrived at different conclusions. The argument made in this study is that it is important to consider the inequalities/access divide when setting out to assess the relationship between digital public services and well-being. In the next section, we outline a theoretical framework applied to this study.

Theoretical Framework: TAM, Digitalization Paradox, and Access Divide

Our study generally departs from the theory of technological determinism, which is the idea that technology shapes society. The theory posits that technology is the primary driver of social and cultural change, and that the intrinsic capabilities of digital technologies determine the direction of societal change, and create societal effects that are inherent, autonomous, and independent (Kallinikos, 2011; Henman, 2010; MacKenzie & Wajcman, 1985; Lips, 2019). A technologically deterministic approach thus suggests that the capabilities of new technologies drive changes in how governments operate and deliver services to citizens. Yet, the specific links between DPS (or e-government) and individual or collective well-being remain insufficiently theorized and empirically examined. The current understanding of these relationships is still emerging, with limited insight into the underlying mechanisms (Khan, 2024; Prokop & Tepe, 2022).

The technology acceptance model (TAM), developed by Fred Davis in 1989, is a widely recognized theoretical framework that explains how users accept and use new technological products and services (Davis, 1989; Davis et al., 1989). While TAM has been extensively applied in fields such as business and management (especially in marketing), and computer science, its use within the social sciences has been comparatively limited (see Musa et al., 2024). We argue that this theory is relevant to DPS as it helps understand and predict citizens’ adoption of digital services. In line with the TAM, we assume that the role DPS might play for well-being will depend on the extent to which citizens perceive these services as beneficial. TAM suggests that perceived usefulness and ease of use are key factors influencing the intention to use new technology, including DPS. According to the model, users are more likely to adopt DPS if they believe it will improve their performance or effectiveness in completing tasks. If users perceive that the use of DPS saves them time, reduces effort, or provides them with better access to information compared to traditional methods, it could thus positively affect their well-being. Similarly, the perceived ease of use refers to how simple and straightforward users perceive the technology to be, and if DPS are perceived as difficult to navigate or understand, users are less likely to adopt it, regardless of its perceived usefulness. User-friendly interfaces and intuitive design are seen as crucial for encouraging adoption of DPS, and the lack of such may thus translate into frustration and unhappiness.

The digitalization paradox, which postulates that increased digitalization may not always lead to expected improvements, is also a relevant perspective to understanding DPS (e.g., Wang et al., 2025). The paradox highlights the potential for unintended consequences and challenges when implementing digital technologies in government, such as reduced efficiency, increased inequalities, or decreased trust in public institutions. Rather than simplifying processes, DPS may create new layers of complexity, increase workloads for officials, and foster resistance due to fear of change or loss of control, and fail to deliver intended value if organizational capacity and human factors are not adequately addressed. It is because a paradox arises when two seemingly contradictory elements coexist in a way that is both interdependent and inseparable (Zou, 2022). This creates a dynamic where efforts to innovate and be more efficient can paradoxically lead to increased burdens and hinder desired outcomes. For example, while digital platforms are meant to streamline and integrate services, poorly implemented DPS can lead to increased data entry, complex user interfaces, and new technical problems that increase the workload and stress for public officials as well as frustration and dissatisfaction for users. Another example is that DPS might promise simplicity and convenience for users, but if these are not delivered, it can lead to frustration and mistrust. DPS may also lead to co-production challenges: digital tools designed to foster co-production between citizens and public officials can, in practice, create a dysfunctional dynamic that increases burdens for officials and negatively influences their engagement, thereby undermining service delivery.

Furthermore, a technologically deterministic approach implies adopting the latest technologies as solutions to public service challenges, sometimes without fully considering the specific needs of citizens or the existing infrastructure. This may lead to a shift towards online platforms and digital interfaces, potentially creating a digital divide where some citizens are excluded due to a lack of access or digital literacy. The promise of DPS is based on two important assumptions rooted in digital inclusion: first, that citizens have equal and widespread access to the internet regardless of where they live, and second, that they possess the skills and resources required for online interaction with public bodies (Pors, 2015; Williams et al., 2016; Lindgren et al., 2019; Lynn et al., 2022; Van Deursen & van Dijk, 2018). An ‘access divide’ means that specific cohorts of the population have access to the internet and digital services while others do not (Lynn et al., 2022), typically due to factors such as income, education, and age. However, as Lynn and colleagues note, the physical access divide seems to have evolved into a skills divide since public and private initiatives have secured widespread access to connectivity. Citizens’ ability to use the internet and online search experience is therefore now becoming a key determinant of adoption and use of DPS (Bélanger & Carter, 2009; Van Deursen & Van Dijk, 2010). Hence, the digital access divide may not only hinder the use of DPS; the digitalisation of public services may even contribute to the digital inequalities (Ebbers et al., 2016).

The research field identifies four main drivers of the digital (or access) divide: age, income, education, and gender (e.g., Elena-Bucea et al., 2020; Lynn et al., 2022). The first type of driver, also referred to as the grey digital divide (Lynn et al., 2022), relates to the ageing populations across modern countries. On the one hand, the physical and social isolation often experienced by older people may be mitigated by meaningful digital social networks, depending on their access and skills to use these technologies effectively (Francis et al., 2019). On the other hand, recent evidence from the EU-28 countries suggests that increasing age is negatively associated (more so than education, gender, or income) with the use of digital services and social networking (Elena-Bucea et al., 2020) and that this relationship is exponential rather than linear for those over 70 years (Friemel, 2016). Age is therefore considered to be one of the main drivers when it comes to ICT adoption. The generational divide is considered especially important for the daily appropriation of ICT and is often labeled as ‘digital natives’ versus ‘digital immigrants’. The former group, the younger age, was born and grew up in the digital age surrounded by ICT, whereas the latter group, the elderly, had to adapt themselves to ICT (Ballano et al., 2014; Prensky, 2001). Given their non-intuitive ICT skills and usage, digital immigrants have been shown to display signs of computer anxiety and technophobia (Van Dijk, 2012; Vroman et al., 2015). Another important aspect of the grey digital divide has to do with the design of digital services for the elderly. Due to the lack of face-to-face interaction with users to correct errors, there is a risk that digital services may increase misclassifications and inaccurate profiling (Lolich & Timonen, 2022). The technology behind digital services in the area of elder care is typically developed by young middle-class men (Irani, 2015). Similarly, those evaluating the services are often younger, better educated, and more digitally skilled than older users (Poli et al., 2019), which may lead to a binary stereotyping of older adults as empowered consumers of technology or as vulnerable people at risk (Lolich & Timonen, 2022).

The second driver identified in the literature is the income digital (or access) divide. The level of income is regarded as a major reason for the access divide (United Nations, 2012; World Bank, 2016), and is regarded as an important driver of the digital development of countries (Cruz-Jesus et al., 2017). Income impacts both internet access (Van Deursen et al., 2016) and usage (Zhang, 2013), and has several distinctive qualities compared to other dimensions of social inequality that might be linked to internet use. First, income has a stronger potential for reciprocal causation than fully exogenous variables such as sex, race, and age (and to a lesser extent education and citizenship status). Low income leads to non-use of the internet, which may in turn result in lower income in a mutually reinforcing pattern of economic isolation. Secondly, whereas education can capture dimensions of skills and training as well as economic resources, income is more directly related to the economic barriers to internet use, such as the ability to pay (Martin & Robinson, 2007). Income was regarded as particularly crucial in the early days of technology diffusion since owning a computer was then regarded as an optional luxury, which only those with higher income could afford (Cuervo & Menéndez, 2006; Wong et al., 2015; Lindblom & Räsänen, 2017).

The education digital (or access) divide is a third barrier to the adoption and use of ICT. The use of ICT is typically complex and technical, which makes education an important predictor for engaging in online activities (Van Deursen et al., 2016). Recent evidence from Europe suggests that education is strongly linked to the adoption of e-services and social networking, and that in the former case, education was more important than age, gender, and income (Elena-Bucea et al., 2020). It has also been shown that government spending on education is directly linked to access and thereby use of ICT in both developed and developing countries (Pick & Azari, 2008). Since many websites are in English, language skills represent a further barrier to ICT access and usage (UN, 2012). Education may thus enable people to overcome digital complexity, providing prospects for future employment and life opportunities (Pick & Nishida, 2015). The term ‘digital vicious cycle’ has been used to describe the process in which digital exclusion may negatively impact on access to education, work, and other opportunities (Baum et al., 2014). Furthermore, Lolich and Timonen (2022) discuss the potential inequalities that may arise from digitalising education. While earlier concerns focused on wealthier students gaining early internet access, developing digital skills, and thereby widening the digital divide, current attention has shifted to how digital open educational resources may exacerbate inequalities in students’ capacity to build social capital (Lolich & Timonen, 2022). The advantages of a ‘traditional’ study at a university include access to face-to-face connections, personal relationships and physical presence, which cannot be gained through their online counterparts (Selwyn, 2014). Digital education may thus potentially affect students in the amount and type of work they can obtain in the future, if more valued educational credentials are correlated with better-quality and higher-paid employment (Lolich & Timonen, 2022).

Finally, the gender digital (or access) divide reflects the inequalities related to gender. The access to and usage of ICT is often impacted by gender differences, which again typically relates to aspects such as complex familial, institutional, religious, societal and stereotypical beliefs (Cooper, 2006). These digital disparities are more visible in developing nations, where the gender gap in accessibility and use of ICTs increases existing inequalities. Evidence from the EU suggests relative parity between men and women in use of internet, but a significant gender gap remains in specialist digital skills, though the gap is closing in internet user skills (European Commission, 2021). Studies furthermore indicate that women rate their internet skills consistently lower than men, with the exception of ‘information navigation skills’ (Van Deursen et al., 2016), which might be taken as an indication of the so-called ‘confidence gap’ (Guillen, 2018). Inequalities in internet usage and access have been widely documented, also in cross-national studies (e.g., Buchi et al., 2016; Galperin, 2017; Ono & Zavodny, 2007), but the consequences of digital inequalities for individuals’ subjective well-being remain largely unclear (Buchi et al., 2018), and not least in the context of DPS. The departure of this study is that the benefits of DPS in terms of well-being are moderated by the digital inequalities related to age, income, education, and gender. As we have seen, the few previous studies on the relationship between DPS and well-being have been unable to deal with this, as they have all utilised aggregated country-level data.

Data and Methods

The relationship between digitalization of public services and well-being is analysed through multi-level analysis of 73,37 individuals at level 1 and 24 European countries at level 2, with observations from 2018, 2020, and 2022. The information on digitalization of public services was obtained from the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI), which monitors Europe's overall digital performance and tracks the progress of the EU countries regarding their digital competitiveness. The DESI is a composite index that summarizes relevant indicators of the countries’ digital development, and is typically used to examine individual countries or in cross-country comparisons (e.g., Elmassah & Hassanein, 2022; Lixăndroiu, 2018; Moroz, 2017; Murgea, 2023; Stoica & Bogoslov, 2017). The DESI indicator on DPS was merged with corresponding yearly data on well-being from the European Social Survey (ESS), based on the latest three waves (9th to 11th wave, 2018 to 2022). ESS is an academically driven cross-national survey conducted across Europe since its establishment in 2001, and there is widespread consensus about the high quality of ESS data, even in direct comparison to other surveys of similar purpose and scope (Kolarz et al., 2017). Data collection was based on face-to-face interviews with individuals aged 15 and above living in private households. Response rates ranged from 28 per cent in Germany in 2018 to 77 per cent in Portugal in 2012 and are overall similar to previous rounds of the ESS¹.

Dependent Variable: Life Satisfaction

The dependent variable reflecting well-being is based on data from the European Social Survey, and the following question: “All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole nowadays?”, where the respondent rated their satisfaction from 0 to 10, where 0 means extremely dissatisfied and 10 means extremely satisfied.

Independent Variable: Digitalization of Public Services

To capture digitalization of public services, the independent variable, we utilised the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI). The index is composed of four dimensions capturing: 1) human capital, reflecting user skills related to the internet and digital technologies, 2) connectivity, which reflects broadband accessibility related to coverage and prices, 3) integration of digital technology, reflecting digitalization of businesses and e-commerce, and 4) digital public services reflected by the use of e-Government for citizens and businesses. Our paper will focus on the fourth dimension. The measure of DPS reflects a composite index based on: 1) the share of individuals who have used the internet to interact with public authorities, 2) the amount of pre-filled public service online forms, 3) the share of administrative steps that citizens can conduct online, 4) the share of public services needed to start a business that are available online, and 5) a composite indicator reflecting open data, including open data policy, the estimated impact of open data and the characteristics of the national data portal (see European Commission, 2021 – findings from 2018 and 2020).

Controls

The analyses also included control variables at both the individual and country levels. A particularly important factor we would have liked to account for is internet skills, as these may influence the relationship between DPS and life satisfaction. Individuals with high internet skills are expected to be better able to utilise DPS for their own gain than those with lower skills, making internet skills a likely confounding factor in our analyses. Since the ESS data unfortunately do not contain a direct measure of internet skills, we used a variable reflecting the respondents’ frequency of internet use as a proxy for internet skills. This variable was based on the following question: ‘People can use the internet on different devices such as computers, tablets and smartphones. How often do you use the internet on these or any other devices, whether for work or personal use?’, with the answer categories: ‘never’, ‘only occasionally’, ‘a few times a week’, ‘most days’ and ‘every day’. We re-coded the item into a dummy variable, with the value of 1 for high use (‘a few times a week’, ‘most days’ and ‘every day’) and 0 for low use (‘never’, ‘only occasionally’).

We also included the following variables at the individual level: age, female, low education (1 = completed lower secondary school or education at a lower level, but not completed higher secondary school, and 0 = otherwise), income (expressed in deciles), poor health (1 = general health reported to be ‘fair’, ‘bad’ or ‘very bad’ and 0 = otherwise), married, unemployed, and born outside the county. At the country level the models included an index of the remaining three DESI components² to control for other types of digitalization of society, as well as GDP per capita (in Purchasing Power Standards, collected from Eurostat) to control for the state of the economy, as well as time-fixed effects to account for non-observed variation. See Table 1 for descriptive statistics.

Estimation Techniques

We estimated three different models. The first model investigated the unique relationship between DPS and well-being, controlling for other individual and country level variables. The second model tested the possible moderating effects associated with the use of internet. Finally, the third set of analyses explored whether the access divide – captured by age, gender, education, and income – moderates the relationship between DPS and well-being through three-way interactions with internet use. For the analyses with cross-level interactions, random slopes were included for the variables representing the lower levels as recommended by Heisig and Schaeffer (2019).

Results

From model 1 in Table 2 we see that digitalization of public services has a negative association with life satisfaction, where a one-unit increase in digital public services is associated with a 0,64-unit reduction in life satisfaction. This means that a 1 standard deviation increase in DPS is associated with a 1 standard deviation reduction in life satisfaction, reflecting a relatively large association. Model 2 displays the analysis of the moderating role of use of internet, where we find that individuals who use the internet frequently have an additional negative effect of DPS compared to individuals who only occasionally or never use the internet. Further, other types of digitalization of society are found to be negatively correlated with well-being, while high use of internet is found to have a positive association. The remaining control variables have findings as expected.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

	mean	sd	min	Max
Life satisfaction	7.1	2.1	0	10
DPS	14.7	3.3	8.1	21.8
DESI (control)	9.5	2.3	5.5	15.9
Age	52	18	15	90
Poor health	0.36	0.5	0.0	1.0
Female	0.54	0.5	0.0	1.0
Married	0.52	0.5	0.0	1.0
Low educ	0.20	0.4	0.0	1.0
Income (decile)	5.46	2.8	1.0	10.0
High internet	0.80	0.4	0.0	1.0
Unemployed	0.02	0.1	0.0	1.0
Foreigner	0.08	0.3	0.0	1.0
GDP pc	321	112	163	843

Table 2.

Associations Between Digital Public Services and Well-Being and the Moderating Role of use of Internet.

	(1)	(2)
DPS	−0.641***	−0.558***
	(0.045)	(0.046)
High_internet	0.313***	0.722***
	(0.022)	(0.162)
DPS*High_internet		−0.034***
		(0.010)
DESI	−3.432***	−2.982***
	(0.402)	(0.403)
Age	−0.054***	−0.052***
	(0.002)	(0.002)
Age²	0.001***	0.001***
	(0.000)	(0.000)
Poor health	−0.996***	−0.981***
	(0.016)	(0.016)
Female	0.102***	0.101***
	(0.014)	(0.014)
Married	0.314***	0.316***
	(0.016)	(0.016)
Low educ	−0.096***	−0.091***
	(0.019)	(0.020)
Income (decile)	0.125***	0.125***
	(0.003)	(0.003)
Unemployed	−0.517***	−0.519***
	(0.053)	(0.052)
Foreigner	−0.039	−0.030
	(0.025)	(0.025)
GDPpc	0.005***	0.004***
	(0.000)	(0.000)
2020	1.713***	1.533***
	(0.120)	(0.120)
2022	3.884***	3.489***
	(0.266)	(0.267)
Level 2
Random slope		0.095***
		(0.030)
Variance	7.679***	6.692***
	(2.410)	(2.149)
Individuals	79,270	79,270
Countries	24	24
ICC	0.669	0.644
−2LL	328,816	328,808

SE in parentheses.

***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.

The full tables displaying the results for the third set of analyses are presented in the supplementary material, where all four extensions of the interaction terms are found to be statistically significant. Figures 1–4 illustrate these findings, showing the estimated marginal effects across different combinations of internet use and the four variables representing the access divide: age, education, income and gender.

Figure 1.

Age of Respondent.

Figure 2.

Education.

Figure 3.

Income.

Figure 4.

Gender: Female.

Figure 1 shows that the largest variation in predicted marginal effects based on the use of internet is found among younger individuals, where those who have a high use of internet have a larger negative association with DPS than those with low use. However, this is not the case for individuals between 50 and 75, where the relationship appears to be independent of internet use. For individuals above 80, we can again identify a gap in predicted marginal effects based on the use of the internet.

As shown in Figure 2, the variation in life satisfaction associated with internet use is smaller among individuals with higher levels of education, where the individuals with low education and low use of internet are the least negatively affected by DPS, although the use of internet appears to be a more important moderator than educational background. Figure 3 displays a similar pattern for income, where individuals with low income and low use of internet are the least negatively affected by DPS. Education at a higher level instead of medium level appears to be less important in this respect. Finally, Figure 4 illustrates that the negative effects on life satisfaction from DPS are smaller among women than men if the use of internet is low; however, the two groups appear equal if the use of internet is high, where the negative effect is larger for this group than for those who use the internet less frequently. In other words, individuals typically expected to be disadvantaged in their use of digital technologies appear to be the least negatively affected by DPS.

Discussion

Surprisingly few scholars have studied the relationship between DPS and well-being, considering how profoundly digital interfaces change public service encounters (Khan, 2024; Prokop & Tepe, 2022; Lindgren et al., 2019). Our study provides novel insights by investigating how the frequency of internet use moderates the relationship between DPS and well-being, and how this relationship is further moderated by the four main drivers of the digital (or access) divide: age, income, education, and gender. We analyzed 24 European countries building on the most recent data available and utilizing multilevel analysis. Our findings suggest that the DPS has a negative association with well-being, thereby adding a critical dimension to the ongoing discourse surrounding the relationship between DPS and individual quality of life. This is in line with another recent study on digitalization and happiness in the EU, which found that digitalization has a negative impact on happiness at the aggregate country level (Murgea, 2023). Elmassah and Hassanein (2022) and Ionescu-Feleagă et al. (2022) found, on the other hand, positive relationships between digitalization (measured by DESI) and European countries’ score on the World Happiness Index. This ambivalence clearly highlights the need for more research on the role of digitalization in general, and DPS in particular, for citizens’ well-being.

The public services are far behind the private services in terms of taking advantage of digital interfaces. Most of the attention has been on the technological infrastructure and design features aspects of DPS (e.g., Grimsley & Meehan, 2007; Verdegem & Verleye, 2009; Nielsen & Persson, 2017; Lynn et al., 2022), while the end-user perspective remains relatively unexplored. Yet, given that citizens’ satisfaction with DPS is supposed to be key to their success (Prokop & Tepe, 2022), ignorance of this aspect may result in low acceptance and adoption rates (e.g., Pleger et al., 2020). Whereas policymakers can be expected to welcome digital solutions as a way of reducing personal costs, it is more difficult to infer why citizens should prefer a digital interface over face-to-face communication (Prokop & Tepe, 2022). The main argument for why citizens should be more satisfied with DPS has to do with convenience (Meuter et al., 2000): it allows public service users to avoid in-person appointments, save time, and promotes a feeling of being more in control of the service process (e.g., Bateson, 2000). However, as Prokop and Tepe (2022) emphasize, these assumptions are mainly derived from private sector evidence on customer satisfaction. Another supposed benefit, typically advocated by policymakers, is that digital services may offer citizens non-monetary benefits, mainly in the form of reduced administrative burdens. Whether such non-monetary benefits of DPS are reflected in citizens’ satisfaction has, on the other hand, been little examined. Representing one of the few exceptions, the study by Prokop and Tepe (2022) found that replacing face-to-face communication with a digital interface had no effect on citizens’ satisfaction. In contrast, Khan (2024) demonstrated that a higher level of e-government maturity in a country directly contributes to its well-being.

Our study departed from the common assumption that digital solutions should lead to higher satisfaction with public services, and thereby promote more general well-being. Although our findings do not rule out the possibility that DPS may enhance service satisfaction while simultaneously exerting a negative influence on overall well-being, we contend that the most plausible interpretation is that digital interactions can adversely impact citizens through multiple pathways. The digital government is assumed to empower citizens by allowing them to interact proactively with government and service providers (Milakovich, 2022). It should offer new ways for citizens to share their views and express dissatisfaction, thus enhancing their capacity to engage with politicians and tailor public services to their needs (Welby, 2019). Digital services represent a break with the traditional way of offering public services (Haug et al., 2023; Zyzak & Martinussen, 2024), reduce the direct interaction with the service provider, require an understanding of the system, and can often provide a poorly created digital infrastructure/service design or absence of information that often corresponds with the lack of user digital skills (Osborne, 2020). In many cases, therefore, the partial or full replacement of civil servants by digital interfaces may instead lead to more frustration and time consumption in the use of public services.

Interestingly enough, our findings suggest that people who use the internet the most appear to have the greatest negative associations with DPS. In light of the digital paradox theory (Wang et al., 2025), this may at first appear counterintuitive. However, as individuals with low use of the internet are less exposed to digital platforms, they are also to a larger extent relieved of the additional work and stress associated with DPS. When individuals do not possess the necessary skills or appliances for the use of DPS, they are more likely to be permitted over-the-counter assistance or to receive help from social networks, which may reduce the negative impact on these individuals. Furthermore, the non-use of the internet is not always about a lack of skills and equipment: it may also reflect a deliberate choice to disengage from online society (Van Deursen & Van Dijk, 2010, 2018). In such cases, the decision to disengage from digital technologies can be understood as an autonomous voluntary action, with the ‘hidden’ personal reasons typically reflecting some form of agency or related concepts such as intentionality, choice, motivation, purposiveness, freedom, and creativity (see e.g., Safarov, 2021; Van Deursen & van Dijk, 2018 for a good discussion). In our study, the individuals with low use of the internet are, in general, less satisfied with life, but this effect is largely reflected by the variables ‘low use of internet’ and ‘digitalization of the economy and society’, and when these are controlled for, the additional effect of digitalization of the public sector is less important.

While it is intuitive to think that younger individuals, with their higher digital literacy, would naturally be more positive about DPS, the TAM and paradox theories invite us to look deeper. Younger individuals are more connected, but they are more aware of data privacy risk and many DPS might not be perceived as beneficial to them as to other groups (e.g., pension or tax systems). Especially, perceived usefulness and ease of use factors of TAM (Davis, 1989; Davis et al., 1989), might explain the negative association between DPS and life satisfaction for the youngest group. Although they have digital skills, they might not perceive that digital services are easy to navigate as other digital interactions they experience, or they do not see the advantages of the provided DPS in their respective context. Compared to older individuals, they are more reliant on manoeuvring digital platforms to obtain information, and also less likely to call for help. Much more scholarly attention and guidance have been given to older (often called digital immigrants) disabilities, gender and ethnicity (e.g., Vroman et al., 2015; Van Dijk, 2012; Cooper, 2006), leaving a significant research gap concerning younger generations, often perceived as digital nativeness, what our study shows that is taken for granted and insufficiently problematized in academic discourse.

Our findings also suggest that the moderating role of internet use is stronger for more educated individuals as well as those at higher income levels, for whom DPS is associated with lower life satisfaction. This can be linked to the broader discussion on the type and quality of public services, where quality is often conceptualized as the absence of service failure (Prokop & Tepe, 2022). However, when individuals are confronted with economic or social costs stemming from such failures, they may become more critical about DPS. By contrast, for individuals with low education and income – reflecting the most frequent users of social services – digitalisation may have a positive impact on well-being, as the reduction of face-to-face interactions can diminish the potential stigma associated with applying for these services (see more in Pinker & Pinker, 2017).

Finally, the use of the internet is less important for the relationship between DPS and well-being for gender; however, women with low internet use are significantly less negatively affected in terms of well-being than men, while women with high use of internet use are found to have a similar impact as men. This result only slightly aligns with the study by Macaya et al. (2021), who identified gender disparities in the use of e-government services. Their study underscores gender as a key determinant of digital inequality. Macaya et al. (2021) argue that digital services are inherently non-neutral and that restricted access or limited usage may exacerbate existing social inequalities.

Conclusion

The adoption of digital solutions is taking place at a time where governments are also emphasising that all policies, innovations and investments should improve well-being. DPS are generally expected to provide higher transparency, efficiency and responsiveness from public organisations, thereby leading to more satisfied citizens. Our results do not support this: on the contrary, DPS are associated with less well-being. Contrary to most of the previous studies, our result demonstrated that the implementation of DPS appears to correlate with a decline in reported well-being. This unexpected outcome suggests that the implementation of digital solutions to enhance public services may not automatically translate into improved citizen experiences or perceptions. Instead, it raises critical questions about the design, accessibility, and inclusivity of these systems.

It is important to mention that our study is not exempt from limitations. As discussed above, the experience with DPS encounters is likely to vary with the types of services. In particular, it is reasonable to expect that there is a difference between health and social services on the one hand, and the more technical services on the other, such as taxes, customs, VAT, etc. A better and more detailed indicator of digitalisation, allowing us to distinguish between different categories of public services, might thus uncover that some services are negatively related to well-being, while others are not.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Pål Erling Martinussen

Oda Nordheim

Barbara Zyzak

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Notes

References

Ballano

Uribe

A. C.

Munté-Ramos

RÀ

(2014). Young users and the digital divide: Readers, participants or creators on internet? Communication & Society, 27(4), 147–156. https://doi.org/10.15581/003.27.4.147-155

Bateson

J. E. G.

(2000). Perceived control and the service experience. In Swartz

T. A.

Iacobucci

(Eds.), Handbook of services marketing and management (pp. 127–144). Sage Publications.

Baum

Newman

Biedryzcki

(2014). Vicious cycles: Digital technologies and determinants of health in Australia. Health Promotion International, 29(2), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/das062

Bélanger

Carter

(2009). The impact of the digital divide on e-government use. Communications of the ACM, 52(4), 132–135. https://doi.org/10.1145/1498765.1498801

Büchi

Festic

Latzer

(2018). How social well-being is affected by digital inequalities. International Journal of Communication, 12(21), 3686–3706. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/8780/2450

Büchi

Just

Latzer

(2016). Modeling the second-level digital divide: A five-country study of social differences in internet use. New Media & Society, 18(11), 2703–2722. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815604154

Cooper

(2006). The digital divide: The special case of gender. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(5), 320–334. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00185.x

Cruz-Jesus

Oliveira

Bacao

Irani

(2017). Assessing the pattern between economic and digital development of countries. Information Systems Frontiers, 19(4), 835–854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-016-9634-1

Cuervo

M. R. V.

Menéndez

A. J. L.

(2006). A multivariate framework for the analysis of the digital divide: Evidence for the European union-15. Information & Management, 43(6), 756–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.05.001

10.

Davis

F. D.

(1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

11.

Davis

F. D.

Bagozzi

R. P.

Warshaw

P. R

. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003. https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/2632151 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982

12.

Ebbers

W. E.

Jansen

M. G.

van Deursen

A. J.

(2016). Impact of the digital divide on e-government: Expanding from channel choice to channel usage. Government Information Quarterly, 33(4), 685–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.08.007

13.

Elena-Bucea

Cruz-Jesus

F.,

Oliveira

, et al. (2020). Assessing the role of age, education, gender and income on the digital divide: Evidence for the European Union. Information Systems Frontiers, 23(4), 1007–1021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-10012-9

14.

Elmassah

Hassanein

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

15.

European Commission. (2021). Women in digital scoreboard. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/women-digital-scoreboard-2021

16.

Fathya

V. N.

Viverita

Hati

S. R. H.

Astuti

R. D.

(2023). Customer satisfaction with electronic public services: An 18 years of systematic literature review. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 20(4), 759–812. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-022-00350-6

17.

Francis

Ball

Kadylak

Cotten

S. R.

(2019). Aging in the digital age: Conceptualizing technology adoption and digital inequalities. In Ageing and digital technology (pp. 35–49). Springer.

18.

Friemel

T. N.

(2016). The digital divide has grown old: Determinants of a digital divide among seniors. New Media & Society, 18(2), 313–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814538648

19.

Galperin

(2017). Why are half of Latin Americans not online? A four-country study of reasons for internet non-adoption. International Journal of Communication, 11, 3332. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/6287/2114

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.

Grimsley

Meehan

(2007). E-government information systems: Evaluation-led design for public value and client trust. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(2), 134–148. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000674

22.

Guillen

(2018). Is the confidence gap between men and women a myth?Harvard Business Review, 2–5. https://merit.url.edu/ca/publications/is-the-confidence-gap-between-men-and-women-a-myth-2/.March 26

23.

Haug

Dan

Mergel

(2023). Digitally-induced change in the public sector: A systematic review and research agenda. Public Management Review, 26(7), 1963–1987. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2234917

24.

Heisig

J. P.

Schaeffer

(2019). Why you should always include a random slope for the lower-level variable involved in a cross-level interaction. European Sociological Review, 35(2), 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcy053

25.

Helbig

Gil-Garciá

J. R.

Ferro

(2009). Understanding the complexity of electronic government: Implications from the digital divide literature. Government Information Quarterly, 26, 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2008.05.004

26.

Henman

(2010). Governing electronically: E-government and the reconfiguration of public administration, policy and power. Palgrave Macmillan.

27.

Ionescu-Feleagă

Ionescu

B.-Ș.

Stoica

O. C.

(2022). The impact of digitalization on happiness: A European perspective. Mathematics, 10, 2766. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10152766

28.

Irani

(2015). Hackatons and the making of entrepreneurial citizenship. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 40(5), 799–824. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243915578486

29.

Jansen

Ølnes

(2016). The nature of public e-services and their quality dimensions. Government Information Quarterly, 33(4), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.08.005

30.

Kallinikos

(2011). Governing through technology: Information artefacts and social practice. Palgrave Macmillan.

31.

Khan

(2024). Can E-government influence well-being? An empirical investigation. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2024.2371436

32.

Kolarz

Angelis

Krčál

Simmonds

Traag

Wain

(2017). Comparative impact study of the European Social Survey (ESS) ERIC, Technopolis (Group). https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/sites/default/files/2023-06/ESS-Impact-study-Final-report.pdf

33.

Lai

Widmar

N. O.

(2021). Revisiting the digital divide in the COVID-19 era. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 43(1), 458–464. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13104

34.

Lim

J. H.

Tang

S.-Y.

(2008). Urban E-government initiatives and environmental decisión performance in Korea. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 18(1), 109–138. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum005

35.

Lindblom

Räsänen

(2017). Between class and status? Examining the digital divide in Finland, the United Kingdom, and Greece. Information Society, 33(3), 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2017.1294124

36.

Lindgren

Madsen

C. Ø.

Hofmann

Melin

(2019). Close encounters of the digital kind: A research agenda for the digitalization of public services. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), 427–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.03.002

37.

Lips

(2019). Digital government: Managing public sector reform in the digital era. Routledge.

38.

Liu

Zhou

Liang

(2025). Digital inclusion in public services for vulnerable groups: A systematic review for research themes and goal-action framework from the lens of public service ecosystem theory. Government Information Quarterly, 42(2), 102019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2025.102019

39.

Lixăndroiu

(2018). Digital competitiveness indicators and the e-government process in Romania. Journal of Smart Economic Growth, 3(2), 107–122. https://mail.jseg.ro/index.php/jseg/article/view/47

40.

Lolich

Timonen

(2022). Digitalisation of public services as a challenge to social justice. In Yerkes

M. A.

Bal

(Eds.), Solidarity and social justice in contemporary societies (pp. 191–200). Palgrave Macmillan.

41.

Lynn

Rosati

Conway

Curran

Fox

O’Gorman

(2022). Digital public services. In Lynn

Rosati

Conway

Curran

Fox

O’Gorman

(Eds.), Digital towns (pp. 49–68). MacMillan.

42.

Macaya

J. F. M.

Ribeiro

M. M.

Jereissati

dos Reis Lima

Cunha

M. A.

(2021). Gendering the digital divide: The use of electronic government services and implications for the digital gender gap. Information Polity, 26(2), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-200307

43.

MacKenzie

Wajcman

(Eds.). (1985). The social shaping of technology (pp. 1–16). Open University Press.

44.

Martin

(2008). Digital literacy and the “digital society”. "Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies, and Practices", 30(151), 151–176.

45.

Martin

S. P.

Robinson

J. P.

(2007). The income digital divide: Trends and predictions for levels of internet use. Social Problems, 54(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2007.54.1.1

46.

Meuter

M. L.

Ostrom

A. L.

Roundtree

R. I.

Bitner

M. J.

(2000). Self-service technologies: Understanding customer satisfaction with technology-based service encounters. Journal of Marketing, 64(3), 50–64. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.64.3.50.18024

47.

Milakovich

M. E.

(2022). Digital Governance. Applying Advanced Technologies to Improve Public Service. Routlege.

48.

Moroz

(2017). The level of development of the digital economy in Poland and selected European countries: A comparative analysis. Foundations of Management, 9(1), 175. https://doi.org/10.1515/fman-2017-0014

49.

Murgea

(2023). Digitalisation and happiness in the European Union, Ovidius Unviersity Annals. Economic Science Series, 23(2), 335–342.

50.

Musa

H. G.

Fatmawati

Nuryakin

Suyanto

(2024). Marketing research trends using technology acceptance model (TAM): A comprehensive review of researches (2002–2022). Cogent Business & Management, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2329375

51.

Nielsen

P. A.

Persson

J. S.

(2017). Useful business cases: Value creation in IS projects. European Journal of Information Systems, 26(1), 66–83. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41303-016-0026-x

52.

OECD. (2001). Understanding the digital divide. OECD Digital Economy Papers, 49. OECD Publishing.

53.

Ono

Zavodny

(2007). Digital inequality: A five country comparison using microdata. Social Science Research, 36(3), 1135–1155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2006.09.001

54.

Osborne

S. P.

(2020). Public service logic: creating value for public service users, citizens, and society through public service delivery, Routledge critical studies in public management. Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.

55.

Panagiotopoulos

Klievink

Cordella

(2019). Public value creation in digital government. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101421

56.

Pick

J. B.

Azari

(2008). Global digital divide: Influence of socioeconomic, governmental and accessibility factor on information technology. Information Technology for Development, 14(February), 91–115. https://doi.org/10.1002/itdj.20095

57.

Pick

J. B.

Nishida

(2015). Digital divides in the world and its regions: A spatial and multivariate analysis of technological utilization. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 91(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.12.026

58.

Pinker

. (2017) Stigma and social welfare. In: Social policy and welfare pluralism, Selected writing of Robert Pinker (pp. 61–68). Policy Press.

59.

Pleger

L. E.

Mertes

Rey

Brüesch

(2020). Allowing users to pick and choose: A conjoint analysis of end-user preferences of public e-services. Government Information Quarterly, 37(4), 101473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101473

60.

Poli

Kelfve

Motel-Klingebiel

(2019). A research tool for measuring nonparticipation of older people in research on digital health. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 1487. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7830-x

61.

Pors

A. S.

(2015). Becoming digital—passages to service in the digitized bureaucracy. Journal of Organizational Ethnography, 4(2), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOE-08-2014-0031

62.

Prensky

(2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 2: Do they really think differently?On the Horizon, 9(6), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424843

63.

Prokop

Tepe

(2022). Talk or hype? The effect of digital interfaces on citizens’ satisfaction with standardized public services. Public Admin, 100(2), 427–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12739

64.

Rethemeyer

R. K.

(2006). Policymaking in the age internet: Is the internet tending to make policy networks more or less inclusive?. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(2), 259–284. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mul001

65.

Safarov

(2021). Personal experiences of digital public services access and use: Older migrants’ digital choices. Technology in Society, 66, 101627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101627

66.

Salih

A. M.

(2024). Digital Leadership: Evidence from Theory and Practice. Taylor & Francis.

67.

Selwyn

(2014). Distrusting educational technology: critical questions for changing times. Routledge.

68.

Stoica

E. A.

Bogoslov

I. A.

(2017). A comprehensive analysis regarding DESI country progress for Romania relative to the European average trend. Balkan Region Conference on Engineering and Business Education, 2(1), 258–266. https://doi.org/10.1515/cplbu-2017-0034

69.

Tolbert

C. J.

Mossberger

(2006). The effects of E-government on trust and confidence in government. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 354–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00594.x

70.

United Nations. (2012). E-government survey 2012. United Nations e-government survey 2012. United Nations.

71.

United Nations. (2019). World Public Sector Report 2019: The role of public institutions in the implementation of the SDGs. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. https://publicadministration.un.org/en/Research/World-Public-Sector-Reports

72.

Van Deursen

A. J.

van Dijk

J. A.

(2018). The first-level digital divide shifts from inequalities in physical access to inequalities in material access. New Media & Society, 21(2), 354–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818797082

73.

Van Deursen

A. J. A. M.

Helsper

E. J.

Enyon

(2016). Development and validation of the internet skills scale (ISS). Information, Communication & Society, 19(6), 804–823. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1078834

74.

Van Deursen

A. J. A. M.

Van Dijk

(2010). Internet skills and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 13(6), 893–911. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810386774

75.

Van Dijk

J. A.

(2012). The evolution of the digital divide-the digital divide turns to inequality of skills and usage. In Digital enlightenment yearbook 2012 (pp. 57–75). IOS Press.

76.

Van Wart

Roman

Wang

Liu

(2019). Operationalizing the definition of e-leadership: Identifying the elements of e-leadership. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 85(1), 80–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852316681446

77.

Verdegem

Verleye

(2009). User-centered E-government in practice: A comprehensive model for measuring user satisfaction. Government Information Quarterly, 26(3), 487–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2009.03.005

78.

Vroman

K. G.

Arthanat

Lysack

(2015). “Who over 65 is online?” older adults’ dispositions toward information communication technology. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.018

79.

Wang

Ran

(2025). Decoding paradoxes in digital government: Strategies for the pursuit of public value. Public Administration, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.70008

80.

Welby

(2019). The impact of digital government on citizen well-being. OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 32. Paris: OECD Publishing.

81.

Williams

Philip

Farrington

Fairhurst

(2016). ‘Digital by default’ and the ‘hard to reach’: Exploring solutions to digital exclusion in remote rural areas. Local Economy, 31(7), 757–777. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269094216670938

82.

Wong

Y. C.

K. M.

Chen

Zeng

(2015). Digital divide challenges of children in low-income families: The case of Shanghai. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 33(1), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2014.998576

83.

World Bank. (2016). World development report 2016: Digital dividends. World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2016

84.

Zhang

W. J.

(2013). Research of Teacher-student Relationship Based on the creativity Development of Students. Master’s Thesis, Shandong Normal University.

85.

Zou

(2022). Leveraging digital infrastructure for pandemic governance: Preparation, praxis, and paradox. Public Performance & Management Review, 46(1), 140–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2022.2130946

86.

Zyzak

Martinussen

P. E.

(2024). OK Computer: Applying the public service logic on digital health services. Public Management Review, 26(11), 3342–3364. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2024.2337080

87.

Zyzak

Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek

Jensen

M. R.

(2024). Public value management in digital transformation: A scoping review. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 37(7), 845–863. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-02-2024-0055