A Study of E-government and Political Indicators in Developing Nations with and Without Access-to-Information Laws

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


This study examines a number of measurements of e-government, political openness, and level of development in developing nations with and without access-to-information laws (N = 150). With nearly every e-government measurement and both political openness measurements, developing nations with access-to-information laws had, on average, the strongest scores. Nations considering the legislation followed with the second strongest scores. When level of development was factored in, the e-government measurement strength was still higher, on average, in the countries with access-to-information legislation, but the differences were not as great.


Civil Liberty United Nations Development Program Gross National Income Poor Nation Government Information 
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. Ackerman, J. M., & Sandoval-Ballesteros, I. E. (2006). The global explosion of freedom of information laws. Administrative Law Review, 58(85), 85–130.Google Scholar
  2. Article XIX. (2009). Index of/publications/global-issues/freedom-of-information. Retrieved July 4, 2009, from http://www.article19.org/publications/global-issues/freedom-of-information
  3. Avgerou, C. (2008). Information systems in developing countries: A critical research review. Journal of Information Technology, 23, 133–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banisar, D. (2004). Freedom of information and access to information laws around the world 2004. Retrieved November 15, 2004, from http://freedominfo.org/survey/global_survey2004.pdf
  5. Banisar, D. (2006, September). Freedom of information around the world 2006: A global survey of access to government information laws. London: Privacy International.Google Scholar
  6. Bimber, B. (1999). The Internet and citizen communication with government: Does the medium matter? Political Communication, 16(4), 409–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blanton, T. (2002). The world’s right to know. Foreign Policy, July/August, 50–58.Google Scholar
  8. Ciborra, C. (2005). Interpreting E-government and development: Efficiency, transparency or governance at a distance? Information Technology & People, 18(3), 260–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative. (n.d.). Right to information – international. Retrieved January 29, 2010, from http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai/rti/international/laws_&_papers.htm
  10. Farazmand, A. (1999). Globalization and public administration. Public Administration Review 59(6), 509–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Florini, A. M. (2007). The battle over transparency. In A. M. Florini (Ed.), The right to know: Transparency for an open world (pp. 1–16). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Foerstel, H. N. (1999). Freedom of information and the right to know – The origins and application of the Freedom of Information Act. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  13. Freedom House. (1988–2008). Electoral Democracy Data. Retrieved September 7, 2009, from http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fiw09/CompHistData/ElectoralDemocracyTable.xls.
  14. Freedom House. (2007). Freedom in the world comparative and historical data. Retrieved June 18, 2009, from http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2007
  15. Gauld, R., Gray, A., & McComb, S. (2009). How responsive is E-government? Evidence from Australia and New Zealand. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hafeez, S. (2004). United Nations global E-government readiness report 2004. New York: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Public Administration and Development Management.Google Scholar
  17. Haque, M. S. (2002). E-governance in India: its impact on relations among citizens, politicians and public servants. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 68(2), 231–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heeks, R. (2005). E-government as a carrier of context. Journal of Public Policy, 25(1), 51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Horsely, J. P. (2007). China adopts first nationwide open government information regulations. Retrieved August 3, 2007, from http://www.freedominfo.org/features /20070509.htm
  20. Islam, R. (2006). Does more transparency go along with better governance? Economics & Politics, 18(2), 121–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jaeger, P. T., & Thompson, K. M. (2003). E-government around the world: Lessons, challenges, and future directions. Government Information Quarterly, 20(4), 389–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kalathil, S. (2003). Dot com for dictators. Foreign Policy, March/April 2003, 42–49.Google Scholar
  23. Kluver, R. (2005). The architecture of control: A Chinese strategy for e-Governance. Journal of Public Policy, 25(1), 75–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. La Porte, T.M., Demchak, C.C., & de Jong, M. (2002). Democracy and bureaucracy in the age of the Web – Empirical findings and theoretical speculations. Administration and Society, 34(4), 411–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Martin, R., & Feldman, E. (1998). Access to information in developing countries: Why is access important in developing countries? Berlin: Transparency International.Google Scholar
  26. McMillan, J. (2005). Promoting transparency in Angola. Journal of Democracy, 16(3), 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McIntosh, T. (2006, March 22). Freedom of information laws added to the development agenda. Freedominfo.org. Retrieved June 29, 2009 from http://freedominfo.org/features/20060322.htm.
  28. Mendel, T. (2008). Freedom of information: A comparative legal survey. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved June 29, 2009, http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/files/26159/12054862803freedom_information_en.pdf/freedom_information_en.pdf Google Scholar
  29. Moon, M.J., Welch, E.W., & Wong, W. (2005). What drives global governance? An exploratory study at a macro level. Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences – 2005. Google Scholar
  30. Norris, P. (2003). Digital divide – Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Otenyo, E. E., & Lind, N. S. (2004). Faces and phases of transparency reform in local government. International Journal of Public Administration, 27(5), 287–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Piotrowski, S. J. (2007). Governmental transparency in the path of administrative reform. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  33. Prattipati, S. N. (2003). Adoption of e-Governance: Differences between countries in the use of online government services. Journal of American Academy of Business, 1(2), 386–391.Google Scholar
  34. Reddick, C. G. (2005). Citizen interaction with E-government: From the streets to servers? Government Information Quarterly, 22(1), 38–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Relly, J. E. (2009). The diffusion of access-to-information legislation: A cross-national contextual analysis. Paper presented for the Communication Law and Policy Division at the International Communication Association conference in Chicago (2009).Google Scholar
  36. Relly, J. E., & Sabharwal, M. (2009). Perceptions of transparency of government policymaking: A cross-national study. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 148–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Right2info.org. (2008). Access to information laws: Overview and statutory goals. Retrieved June 30, 2009, from http://right2info.org/access-to-information-laws/access-to-information-laws-overview-and-statutory
  38. Roberts, A. (2002). Administrative discretion and the Access to Information Act: An “internal law” on open government. Canadian Public Administration, 45(2), 175–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Roberts, A. (2004). A partial revolution: The diplomatic ethos and transparency in intergovernmental organizations. Public Administration Review, 64(4), 410–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Roberts, A. (2006). Blacked out: Government secrecy in the information age. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rose, R. (2005a). A global diffusion model of e-Governance. Journal of Public Policy, 25(1), 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rose, R. (2005b). Introduction: The Internet and governance in a global context. Journal of Public Policy, 25(1), 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tanner Hawkins, E., & Hawkins, K. A. (2003). Bridging Latin America’s digital divide: government policies and Internet access. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 80(3), 646–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tromp, S. (2008, September). World FOI chart. Retrieved June 30, 2009, from http://www3.telus.net/index100/foi
  45. United Nations Development Program. (n.d.). UNDP and access to information. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from http://www.undp.org/governance/docs/A2I_Pub_FastFacts.pdf
  46. United Nations. (2006). United Nations Member States. Retrieved July 28, 2009, from http://www.un.org/en/members/index.shtml
  47. United Nations Development Program. (2008a, December). Mainstreaming anti-corruption in development – Anti-corruption practice note. Retrieved September 7, 2009, from http://www.undp.org/governance/docs/Mainstreaming_Anti-Corruption_in_Development.pdf.
  48. United Nations. (2008b). U.N. E-government survey 2008. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Division for Public Administration and Development Management.Google Scholar
  49. Vleugels, R. (2008, September 22). Overview of all 86 FOIA countries. Retrieved June 30, 2009, from http://right2info.org/laws/Vleugels-Overview-86-FOIA-Countries-9.08.pdf
  50. Von Haldenwang, C. (2004). Electronic government (E-Government) and Development. The European Journal of Development Research, 16(2), 417–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Welch, E. W., & Fulla, S. (2005). Virtual interactivity between government and citizens: The Chicago Police Department’s citizen ICAM application demonstration case. Political Communication, 22(2), 215–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Welch, E. W., & Wong, W. (2001). Global information technology pressure and government accountability: The mediating effect of domestic context on Website openness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(4), 509–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. West, D. M. (2008). Governance studies at Brookings: Improving technology utilization in electronic government around the world. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  54. Wong, W., & Welch, E. (2004). Does E-government promote accountability? A comparative analysis of Website openness and government accountability. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 17(2), 275–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. World Bank. (2005). World Development Report 2006: Equity and development. Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations