ICT and Citizen Efficacy: The Role of Civic Technology in Facilitating Government Accountability and Citizen Confidence

  • Rebecca RumbulEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 481)


This paper examines whether civic technology ICTs provide an effective method for enhancing the political efficacy of citizens and their perceived accountability of governments. Using a survey-based methodology, a quantitative analysis was conducted of the users of civic action sites in the UK, Kenya, South Africa and USA. The key question examined is whether the particularized or citizen-audit actions that these sites facilitate have a spill-over effect in altering the level to which citizens believe they are able to hold government to account. The results suggest that citizen efficacy and perceptions of government accountability are enhanced. Stark differences in user demographics between territories demonstrate a wide spectrum of civic technology usage, however, with common confidence in the efficacy of the ICT. The findings suggest that publication and user-facilitation of government information through the medium of civic technology in developed and developing countries increases feelings of external efficacy and government accountability.


ICT Civic technology Digital democracy Efficacy 


  1. 1.
    Escher, T.: Analysis of users and usage for UK Citizens Online Democracy. UK Citizens Online Democracy (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cantijoch, M., Galandini, S., Gibson, R.: It’s not about me, it’s about my community’: a mixed-method study of civic websites and community efficacy. New Media Soc., 1461444815616225 (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rumbul, R.: Who Benefits From Civic Technology? mySociety (2015).
  4. 4.
    Bertot, J.C., Jaeger, P.T., Grimes, J.M.: Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: e-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Gov. Inf. Q. 27(3), 264–271 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Olphert, W., Damodaran, L.: Citizen participation and engagement in the design of e-government services: the missing link in effective ICT design and delivery. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 8(9), 491 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Graham, L., Metaxas, P.T.: Of course it’s true; i saw it on the Internet!: critical thinking in the Internet era. Commun. ACM 46(5), 70–75 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johnson, T., Kaye, B.: Choosing is believing? How web gratifications and reliance affect internet credibility among politically interested users. Atlantic J. Commun. 18(1), 1–21 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kenski, K., Stroud, N.J.: Connections between Internet use and political efficacy, knowledge, and participation. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 50(2), 173–192 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bromley, C., Curtice, J., Seyd, B.: Political engagement, trust and constitutional reform. Br. Soc. Attitudes, 199–226 (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Forrest, A.L., Weseley, A.J.: To vote or not to vote? An exploration of the factors contributing to the political efficacy and intent to vote of high school students. J. Soc. Stud. Res. 31(1), 3 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Francis, J.D., Busch, L.: What we now know about “i don’t knows”. Public Opin. Q. 39(2), 207–218 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Balch, G.I.: Multiple indicators in survey research: the concept “sense of political efficacy”. Polit. Methodol. 1, 1–43 (1974)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Converse, P.E.: Change in the American electorate. In: Campbell, A., Converse, P.E. (eds.) The Human Meaning of Social Change, pp. 263–337. Russell Sage Foundation, New York (1972)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Niemi, R.G., Craig, S.C., Mattei, F.: Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 85, 1407–1413 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Finkel, S.E.: Reciprocal effects of participation and political efficacy: a panel analysis. Am. J. Polit. Sci., 891–913 (1985)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Abramson, P.R., Aldrich, J.H.: The decline of electoral participation in America. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 76, 502–521 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sjoberg, F.M., Mellon, J., Peixoto, T.: The effect of government responsiveness on future political participation. Available at SSRN 2570898 (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Anderson, D.M.: Cautious optimism about online politics and citizenship. In: Anderson, D.M., Cornfield, M. (eds.) The Civic Web: Online Politics and Democratic Values, pp. 19–34. Rowman & Littlefield, Oxford (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Craig, S.C., Maggiotto, M.A.: Measuring political efficacy. Polit. Methodol., 85–109 (1982)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bennett, W.L., Wells, C., Rank, A.: Young citizens and civic learning: two paradigms of citizenship in the digital age. Citizsh. Stud. 13(2), 105–120 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dimitrova, D.V., Shehata, A., Strömbäck, J., Nord, L.W.: The effects of digital media on political knowledge and participation in election campaigns: evidence from panel data. Commun. Res., 0093650211426004 (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Teorell, J., Torcal, M., Montero, J.R.: Political participation: mapping the terrain. In: van Deth, J.W., Montero, J.R., Westholm, A. (eds.) Citizenship and Involvement in European Democracies: A Comparative Analysis, pp. 334–357. Routledge, London (2007)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Parry, G., Moyser, G., Day, N.: Political Participation and Democracy in Britain. Cambridge University Press, New York (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Verba, S., Schlozman, K.L., Brady, H.E.: Voice and equality: civic voluntarism in american politics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1995)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cantijoch, M., Galandini, S., Gibson, R.K.: Civic websites and community engagement: a mixed methods study of citizen empowerment initiatives. In: APSA 2014 Annual Meeting Paper (2014)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Levi, M., Stoker, L.: Political trust and trustworthiness. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 3, 475–507 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nye Jr., J.S., Zelikow, P.D., King, D.C. (eds.): Why People Don’t Trust Government. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1997)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Norris, D.F., Fletcher, P.D., Holden, S.: Is your local government plugged in? Highlights of the 2000 electronic government survey. Prepared for the International City/County Management Association and Public Technology, Inc. (2001).
  29. 29.
    Thomas, J.C., Streib, G.: The new face of government: citizen-initiated contacts in the era of e-government. J. Public Adm. Res. Theor. 13(1), 83–102 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tolbert, C.J., Mossberger, K.: The effects of e-government on trust and confidence in government. Public Adm. Rev. 66(3), 354–369 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pasquier, M., Villeneuve, J.P.: Organizational barriers to transparency a typology and analysis of organizational behaviour tending to prevent or restrict access to information. Int. Rev. Admin. Sci. 73(1), 147–162 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ball, C.: What is transparency? Public Integrity 11(4), 293–308 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Usluel, Y.K.: Can ICT usage make a difference on student teachers’ information literacy self-efficacy. Libr. Inf. Sci. Res. 29(1), 92–102 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bundy, A.: Australian and New Zealand information literacy framework. Principles, standards and practice, 2 (2004)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bélanger, F., Carter, L.: Trust and risk in e-government adoption. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 17(2), 165–176 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Colesca, S.E.: Increasing e-trust: a solution to minimize risk in e-government adoption. J. Appl. Quant. Methods 4(1), 31–44 (2009)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Moon, M.J., Welch, E.W.: Same bed, different dreams? A comparative analysis of citizen and bureaucrat perspectives on e-government. Rev. Public Pers. Adm. 25(3), 243–264 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.mySocietyLondonUK

Personalised recommendations