E-government Adoption Landscape Zambia: Context, Issues, and Challenges

  • Bwalya Kelvin Joseph
Part of the Integrated Series in Information Systems book series (ISIS, volume 25)


This chapter aims to investigate the level of adoption of e-government at the individual level by ordinary citizens in Zambia. It looks at the factors that inhibit or encourage the adoption of e-government. The chapter reviews the literature to investigate the citizens’ behavioral intention to adopt e-government by applying the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model to explore individual adoption and diffusion of e-government services. E-government projects implemented as pilots for e-government implementation feasibility are presented. The chapter further looks at the different challenges, opportunities, and issues regarding e-government adoption and encapsulation into the Zambian contextual environment, and further discusses a possible conceptual model which may offer a balanced e-government adoption criterion involving a combination of electronic and participatory services. This is being done by incorporating different characteristics from different e-government adoption models in practice in different countries and how these models can be harmonized to come up with an optimal model that takes care of the local context. This e-government adoption model may further be extended to be used as an e-government adoption model for the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region.

Concerns in the study of encapsulation of e-government into the social economic realms of Zambia start from the very basic aspect of probing whether the country has basic ICT infrastructure and the political will to implement e-government systems. This suffices to point to the fact that before even thinking of putting in place appropriate legal, institutional, and regulatory frameworks, e-government systems in Zambia should be built on building the confidence and trust in it by the ordinary citizens. Has this been done?


Technology Acceptance Model Intellectual Property Right Southern African Development Community Wireless Asynchronous Transfer Mode Southern African Development Community Region 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Al-Shafi, S., & Weerakkody, V. (2009). Understanding citizen’s behavioural intention in the adoption of e-Government services in the state of Qatar. Paper presented at 17th European conference on information systems, ECIS 2009, June 8–10, Verona, Italy.Google Scholar
  2. Bertot, J. C., & Jaeger P. T. (2008). The e-Government paradox: Better customer service doesn’t necessarily cost less. Government Information Quarterly, 25(2), 149–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bwalya, K. J. (2009). Factors affecting e-Government adoption in Zambia. Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries (EJISDC), 38(4), 1–13.Google Scholar
  4. Carlsson, C., Carlsson, J., Hyvonen, K., Puhakainen, J., & Walden, B. (2006, January 04–07). Adoption of mobile devices/services – Searching for answers with the UTAUT. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, USA, 1(1), 132–148.Google Scholar
  5. Carter L., & Weerakkody, V. (2008). E-Government adoption: A cultural comparison, information systems frontiers. Springer, 10(4), 473–482.Google Scholar
  6. Colesca, S. (2007). The main factors of on-line trust, Economia. Seria management. ASE Publishing House, 10(2), 27–37.Google Scholar
  7. Colesca, S. (2009). Increasing E-trust: A solution to minimize risk in e-Government adoption. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods (JAQM), 4(1), 31–44.Google Scholar
  8. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(1), 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis, F. D., Baggozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111–1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dimitrova, D., & Chen, Y. C. (2006). Profiling the adopters of e-Government information services: the influence of psychological characteristics, civic mindedness, and information channels. Social Science Computer Review, 24(2), 172–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Engebretsen, T. (2005). Acceptance of information technology by health research projects in low-income countries: Intention to use and acceptance of using EpiHandy (IUAUE). Master’s Thesis. Norway: University of Bergen.Google Scholar
  13. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  14. Grandison, T., & Sloman, M. A. (2000). Survey of trust in internet applications. IEEE Communications Survey and Tutorials, 3(4), 2–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heeks, R. (2003). Achieving success/avoiding failure in e-Government projects. IDPM, University of Manchester. Retrieved July 16, 2009, from
  16. Johnson, D. S., & Grayson, K. (2005). Cognitive and affective trust in service relationships. Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 500–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marchewka, J., Liu, C., & Kostiwa, K. (2007). An application of the UTAUT model for understanding student perceptions. Using Course Management Software. Communications of the IIMA, 7(2), 93–104.Google Scholar
  18. Marche, S., & McNiven, J. (2003). E-Government and e-Governance: The future isn’t what it used to be. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 20 (1), 74–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mehrtens, J., Cragg, P. B., & Mills, A. M. (2001). A model of internet adoption by SMEs. Information and Management, 39(1), 165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mulozi, D. L. (2008). Rural access: Options and challenges for connectivity and energy in Zambia, international institute for communication and development (IICD) thematic report. Retrieved September 3, 2009, from
  21. Riley, T. (2003). E-Governance vs. E-Government. ICT and Governance, Retrieved July 30, 2009, from
  22. Saxena, K. B. C. (2005). Towards excellence in e-governance. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18(6), 498–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Spremi´c, M., Šimurina, J., Jakovi´c, B., & Ivanov, M. (2009). E-government in transition economies. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 5(3), 518–526.Google Scholar
  24. Srivastava, S. C., & Thompson, S. H. (2005). Citizen trust development for e-Government adoption: Case of Singapore. In Proceedings of Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, 2005, pp. 721–724.Google Scholar
  25. Stiftung, B. (2002). Balanced E-Government: E-Government – Connecting efficient administration and responsive democracy. A study by the Bertelsmann Foundation. Retrieved March 23, 2009, from
  26. Tassabehji, R., & Elliman, T. (2006). Generating citizen trust in e-Government using a trust verification agent: A research note. European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (EMCTS). Retrieved May 18, 2009, from
  27. Thompson, G., Frances, J., Levacic, R., & Mitchell, K. (1991). Markets, hierarchies and network. The coordination of social life. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Tibenderana, P., & Ogao, P. J. (2008). Information communication technologies acceptance and use among university communities in Uganda: A model for hybrid library services end-users. International Journal of Computing and ICT Research, Special Issue, 1(1), 391–410.Google Scholar
  29. United Nations Report. (2008). UN e-Government survey 2008: From e-Government to connected governance. UN White paper. ISBN 978 -92-1-123174-8. Google Scholar
  30. Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., Maruping, L. M., & Bala, H. (2008). Predicting different conceptualizations of systems use: The competing roles of behavioural intention, facilitating conditions and behavioural expectation. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 483–502.Google Scholar
  31. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a Ufified Vieg. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.Google Scholar
  32. Warkentin, M., Gefen, D., Pavlou, P. A., & Rose, G. (2002). Encouraging citizen adoption of e-Government by building trust. Electronic Markets, 12(3), 57–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wauters, P., & Lörincz, B. (2008). User satisfaction and administrative simplification within the perspective of eGovernment impact: Two faces of the same coin? European Journal of ePractice, 4(2), 1–10.Google Scholar
  34. Yang, H. I., & Yang, H. L. (2005). The role of personality traits the UTAUT model under onlinestocking. Contemporary Management Research, 3(1), 69–82.Google Scholar
  35. Yildiz, M. (2007). E-Government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 646–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zanello, G., & Maassen, P. (2009). Strengthening citizen agency through ICT: An extrapolation for Eastern Africa. Paper presented at Governing Good and Governing Well: The First Global Dialogue on Ethical and Effective Governance, Amsterdam, May 28–30, 2009.Google Scholar
  37. Zhang, P. L., & Sun, H. (2006). Affective quality and cognitive absorption. Extending technology acceptance research. In: Proceedings International Conference on System Sciences. Kauai, Hawaii.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of BotswanaGaboroneBotswana

Personalised recommendations