Progress in Global Assessments of E-Democracy: Refined Measurements and New Findings
How information and communication technologies (ICTs) shape the conditions for the creation of an electronic democracy (e-democracy) is the subject matter of a rising field. However, prior studies are both inconsistent with regard to findings and have drawbacks in the operationalization of the concept at a global level. This chapter addresses voids in previous research by looking at an established measurement of e-democracy and making a refinement of this very measurement. This is done through assessing a data set that spans both time and space and includes all countries of the world. The findings, relating to e-democracy on a global scale, show the positive influence of technology and population size but also emphasize the need for more theoretical groundwork that future research can benefit from.
- Åström, J., Karlsson, M., Linde, J., & Pirannejad, A. (2012). Understanding the rise of e-participation in non-democracies: Domestic and international factors. Government Information Quarterly, 29(2), 142–150. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2011. 09.008.
- Bell, D. (1973). The coming of post-industrial society: A venture in social forecasting. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Bessant, J. (2014a). Democracy bytes: New media, new politics and generational change. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved from http://www.palgraveconnect.com/doifinder/10.1057/9781137308269
- Chadwick, A. (2006). Internet politics: States, citizens, and new communication technologies. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Chadwick, A. (2008). Web 2.0: New challenges for the study of e-Democracy in an era of informational exuberance. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 5, 9.Google Scholar
- Coleman, S., & Norris, D. F. (2005). A new agenda for e-Democracy. (SSRN Scholarly Paper No ID 1325255). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.Google Scholar
- Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Dahl, R. A., & Tufte, E. R. (1973). Size and democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Diamond, L. (1999). Developing democracy: Toward consolidation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
- Freedom House. (20151027). Freedom in the world comparative and historical data. Retrieved from www.freedomhouse.org
- Gibson, R. K., & McAllister, I. (2014). Normalising or equalising party competition? Assessing the impact of the web on election campaigning. Political Studies, n/a-n/a. doi: 10.1111/1467-9248.12107.
- Hacker, K. L., & van Dijk, J. (Eds.). (2000). Digital democracy: Issues of theory & practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Hadenius, A., & Teorell, J. (2004). Same, same – But different: Assessing alternative indices of democracy. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
- Held, D. (2006). Models of democracy (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
- Jho, W., & Song, K. J. (2015). Institutional and technological determinants of civil e-Participation: Solo or duet? Government Information Quarterly. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2015.09.003.
- Jorba, L., & Bimber, B. (2012). The impact of digital media on citizenship from a global perspective. In Digital media and political engagement worldwide: A comparative study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Karpf, D. (2012). Social science research methods in Internet time. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 639–661. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2012. 665468.
- Kersting, N. (2012). The future of electronic democracy. In Electronic democracy (pp. 11–54). Opladen: Barbara Budrich Publishers.Google Scholar
- Marshall, M. G., Jaggers, K. R., & Gurr, K. (20151027). Polity IV project: Political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800–2014. Retrieved from http://www.systemicpeace.org/
- Papacharissi, Z. (2010). A private sphere: democracy in a digital age. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
- Persson, M. (2013). Education and political participation. British Journal of Political Science, 1–15 (FirstView). doi: 10.1017/S0007123413000409.
- The World Bank. (20151026). World development indicators. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/
- United Nations. (2003). UN Global E-government survey 2003. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.Google Scholar
- United Nations. (2004). Global e-government readiness report 2004: Towards access for opportunity. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.Google Scholar
- United Nations. (2005). Global e-government readiness report 2005: From E-Government to E-Inclusion. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.Google Scholar
- United Nations. (2008). Un e-government survey 2008: From e-government to connected governance. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.Google Scholar
- United Nations. (2010). E-Government survey 2010: Levering e-Government at a time of financial and economic crisis. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.Google Scholar
- United Nations. (2012). E-Government survey 2012: E-Government for the people. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.Google Scholar
- United Nations. (2014). E-Government survey 2014: E-Government for the future we want. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.Google Scholar
- Vaccari, C. (2013). Digital politics in Western democracies: A comparative study. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar