Advertisement

Public Organization Review

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 409–428 | Cite as

Explaining Citizens’ E-Participation Use: the Role of Perceived Advantages

  • Yueping Zheng
  • Hindy Lauer Schachter
Article

Abstract

This article analyzes some of the reasons people choose e-participation over traditional involvement forums as a way of having public policy input. The research aimed to see whether people perceived that e-participation has time, cost, quality, and transparency advantages over traditional participation channels which some researchers have suggested is the case. The study also wanted to investigate whether perceiving one or more of these advantages has an impact on whether a person uses e-participation. Using data from the 2012 EU eGovernment Benchmark-User survey we found that people who perceive these advantages are more likely to use e-participation but the various advantages have different impacts. Saving time has the strongest impact on use. Perceiving quality and transparency advantages also impacts use, but a perceived cost advantage does not. In addition, we found that people are more likely to use e-participation if they are satisfied with a jurisdiction’s website and application design. These findings have implications for how governments should design and market websites if they want to increase e-participation.

Keywords

E-participation E-government Citizen participation 

References

  1. Abramson, P. R., & Aldrich, J. H. (1982). The decline of electoral participation in America. American Political Science Review, 76(03), 502–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anduiza, E., Gallego, A., & Cantijoch, M. (2010). Online political participation in Spain: the impact of traditional and internet resources. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 7(4), 356–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brady, H. E., Verba, S., & Schlozman, K. L. (1995). Beyond SES: a resource model of political participation. American Political Science Review, 89(02), 271–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bryson, J. M., Quick, K. S., Slotterback, C. S., & Crosby, B. C. (2013). Designing public participation processes. Public Administration Review, 73(1), 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W. E. (1954). The voter decides. Evanston: Row, Peterson.Google Scholar
  6. Chen, Y. C., & Dimitrova, D. V. (2006). Electronic government and online engagement: citizen interaction with government via web portals. International Journal of Electronic Government Research (IJEGR), 2(1), 54–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chung, J. E., Park, N., Wang, H., Fulk, J., & McLaughlin, M. (2010). Age differences in perceptions of online community participation among non-users: an extension of the technology acceptance model. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1674–1684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coglianese, C. (2004). Internet and citizen participation in rulemaking. A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 1(1), 33–57.Google Scholar
  9. Colombo, C. (2010). E-participation experiences and local government in Catalonia: an explanatory analysis. In E. Tambouris, A. Macintosh, & O. Glassey (Eds.), IFIP (International Federation for Information Processing) 2nd International Conference on eParticipation (pp. 82–94). Lausanne: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Comber, M. K. (2003). Civics curriculum and civic skills: recent evidence. The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE)[online]. Available: http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_Civics_Curriculum_Skills.pdf.
  11. European Commission (2009). European eParticipation summary report. Retrieved April 5, 2015, from. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/european-eparticipation-summary-report.
  12. European Commission (2012). 2012 European Union (EU) eGovernment benchmark – user survey. Retrieved April 6, 2015, from. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/eGov%20Benchmark%202012%20insight%20report%20published%20version%200.1%20_0.pdf.
  13. George, J., & Jones, G. (2012). Understanding and managing organizational behavior (6th ed.). Boston: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  14. Gibson, R. (2002). Elections online: assessing internet voting in light of the Arizona Democratic Primary. Political Science Quarterly, 116(4), 561–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ginossar, T. (2008). Online participation: a content analysis of differences in utilization of two online cancer communities by men and women, patients and family members. Health Communication, 23(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kakabadse, A., Kakabadse, N. K., & Kouzmin, A. (2003). Reinventing the democratic governance project through information technology? A growing agenda for debate. Public Administration Review, 63(1), 44–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kenski, K., & Stroud, N. J. (2006). Connections between internet use and political efficacy, knowledge, and participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(2), 173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Klesner, J. L. (2004). Social capital and political participation in Latin America. Paper prepared for delivery at the XXV International Congress of the Latin American Studies Association, Las Vegas. Retrieved April 5, 2015, from http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/PSci/Fac/klesner/Klesner_Social_Capital_lasa_2004.pdf.
  19. Lee, J., & Kim, S. (2014). Active citizen e-participation in local governance: do individual social capital and e-participation management MATTER?. In System Sciences (HICSS), 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 2044–2053). IEEE.Google Scholar
  20. Macintosh, A. (2004). Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. In System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE. Retrieved April 5, 2015, from. http://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/hicss/2004/2056/05/205650117a.pdf
  21. Medaglia, R. (2007). Measuring the diffusion of eParticipation: a survey on Italian Local Government. Information Polity, 12(4), 265–280.Google Scholar
  22. Medaglia, R. (2012). eParticipation research: moving characterization forward (2006–2011). Government Information Quarterly, 29(3), 346–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Neblo, M. A., Esterling, K. M., Kennedy, R. P., Lazer, D. M., & Sokhey, A. E. (2010). Who wants to deliberate—and why? American Political Science Review, 104(03), 566–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nie, N. H., Junn, J., & Stehlik-Barry, K. (1996). Education and democratic citizenship in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 national election study. American Political Science Review, 85, 1407–1413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Norris, D., & Reddick, C. (2013). Local e-government in the United States: transformation or incremental change? Public Administration Review, 73(1), 165–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Peixoto, T. (2009). Beyond theory: e-participatory budgeting and its promises for eParticipation. European Journal of ePractice, 7(5), 1–9.Google Scholar
  28. Phang, C. W., & Kankanhalli, A. (2008). A framework of ICT exploitation for e-participation initiatives. Communications of the ACM, 51(12), 128–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Plutzer, E. (2002). Becoming a habitual voter: inertia, resources, and growth in young adulthood. American Political Science Review, 96(01), 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Royo, S., Yetano, A., & Acerete, B. (2014). E-participation and environmental protection: are local governments really committed? Public Administration Review, 74(1), 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Saglie, J., & Vabo, S. I. (2009). Size and e-democracy: online participation in Norwegian local politics. Scandinavian Political Studies, 32(4), 382–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schlozman, K. L., Verba, S., & Brady, H. E. (2010). Weapon of the strong? Participatory inequality and the internet. Perspectives on Politics, 8(02), 487–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Skoric, M. M., Ying, D., & Ng, Y. (2009). Bowling online, not alone: online social capital and political participation in Singapore. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 14(2), 414–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Spiezio, K. E., Baker, K. Q., & Boland, K. (2006). General education and civic engagement: an empirical analysis of pedagogical possibilities. The Journal of General Education, 54(4), 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Torres, L., Pina, V., & Acerete, B. (2006). E-governance developments in European Union Cities: reshaping government’s relationship with citizens. Governance, 19(2), 277–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., Brady, H., & Nie, N. H. (1993a). Citizen activity: who participates? What do they say? American Political Science Review, 87(02), 303–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., Brady, H., & Nie, N. H. (1993b). Race, ethnicity and political resources: participation in the United States. British Journal of Political Science, 23(04), 453–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Woo-Young, C. (2005). Online civic participation, and political empowerment: online media and public opinion formation in Korea. Media, Culture & Society, 27(6), 925–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wright, S., & Street, J. (2007). Democracy, deliberation and design: the case of online discussion forums. New Media & Society, 9(5), 849–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zavestoski, S., Shulman, S., & Schlosberg, D. (2006). Democracy and the environment on the internet electronic citizen participation in regulatory rulemaking. Science, Technology & Human Values, 31(4), 383–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zheng, Y., Schachter, H. L., & Holzer, M. (2014). The impact of government form on e-participation: a study of New Jersey Municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, 31(4), 653–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sun Yat Sen UniversityGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.School of ManagementNew Jersey Institute of TechnologyNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations