The Influence of External Institutional Pressures on Local E-Government Adoption and Implementation: A Coercive Perspective within an Indonesian Local E-Government Context

  • Nurdin Nurdin
  • Rosemary Stockdale
  • Helana Scheepers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7443)

Abstract

Adoption and implementation of e-government within local government organizations are influenced by many external factors. These factors are often perceived as forces or pressures that influence local government decisions to adopt and implement the initiatives. This study uses the concept of coercive force from institutional theory to explain those external pressures influencing e-government adoption and implementation within a local government in Bali province in Indonesia. An interpretive case study approach is adopted to empirically understand the external pressures on local government adoption and implementation of e-government. Our findings show that four institutional external forces, central government, regulations, local citizens and limitation in financial resources, have strongly influenced the regency to adopt and implement e-government systems to improve their administration and services performance.

Keywords

institutional theory coercive local government e-government Indonesia 

References

  1. 1.
    Heeks, R., Bailur, S.: Analyzing E-Government Research: Perspectives, Philosophies, Theories, Method, and Practice. Government Information Quarterly 24(2), 243–263 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ho, A.T.-K., Ni, A.Y.: Explaining the Adoption of E-Government Features: A Case Study of IOWA County Treasurer’s Offices. The American Review of Public Administration 34(2), 164–180 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baddeley, M.: Using E-cash in the New Economy: An Economic Analysis of Micro-Payment Systems. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research 5(4), 239–253 (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frumkin, P., Gelaskiewicz, J.: Institutional Isomorphism and Public Sector Organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 283–307 (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jun, K.-N., Weare, C.: Institutional Motivations in the Adoption of Innovations: The Case of E-Government. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 21(3), 495–519 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kim, S., Kim, H.J., Lee, H.: An institutional analysis of an e-government system for anti-corruption: The case of OPEN. Government Information Quarterly 26(1), 42–50 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liang, H., et al.: Assimilation of Enterprise Systems: The Effect of Institutional Pressure and The Mediating Role of Top Management. MIS Quarterly 31(1), 58–87 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Teo, H.H., Wei, K.K., Benbasat, I.: Predicting Intention to Adopt: Interorganizational Linkages: An Institutional Perspective. MIS Quarterly 27(1), 19–49 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tolbert, P.S., Zucker, L.G.: Institutional Sources of of Change in the Formal Structure of Organizations: The Diffusion of Civil Services Reform, 1880-1935. Administrative Science Quarterly 28(1), 22–39 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    DiMaggio, P.J., Powell, W.W.: The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism And Collective Rationality In Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review 48(2), 147–160 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jensen, T.B., Kjaergaard, A., Svejvig, P.: Using Institutional Theory with Sensemaking Theory: A Case Study of Information System Implementation in Healthcare. Journal of Information Technology 24, 343–353 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tsamenyi, M., Cullen, J., González, J.M.G.: Changes in accounting and financial information system in a Spanish electricity company: A new institutional theory analysis. Management Accounting Research 17(4), 409–432 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Geels, F.W.: From Sectoral System of Innovation to Socio-Technical Systems Insight about Dynamics and Change from Sociology and Institutional Theory. Research Policy 33(6-7), 897–920 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zucker, L.G.: Institutional Theories of Organization Annual Review Sociology 13, 443–464 (1987)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    DiMaggio, P.J., Powell, W.W.: The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective rationality in Organizational Fields. In: Powell, W.W., DiMaggio, P.J. (eds.) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1991)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Berke, P.R., Dixon, J., Ericksen, N.: Coercive and cooperative intergovernmental mandates: a comparative analysis of Florida and New Zealand environmental plans. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 24(3), 451–468 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cho, C.-L., Wright, D.S.: Managing Carrots and Sticks: Changes in State Administrators’ Perceptions of Cooperative and Coercive Federalism During the 1990s. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 31(2), 57–80 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mizruchi, M.S., Fein, L.C.: The Social Construction of Organizational Knowledge: A Study of the Uses of Coercive, Mimetic, and Normative Isomorphism. Administrative Science Quarterly 44(4), 653–683 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kamal, M., Weerakkody, V., Irani, Z.: Analyzing the role of stakeholders in the adoption of technology integration solutions in UK local government: An exploratory study. Government Information Quarterly 28(2), 200–210 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Beynon-Davies, P., Martin, S.: Electronic Local government and the Modernization Agenda: Progress and Prospects for Public Service Improvement. Local Government Studies 30(2), 214–229 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Irani, Z., et al.: Evaluating E-Government: Learning From the Experiences of Two Local UK Authorities. Information Systems Journal 15(1), 61–82 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Elander, I., Montin, S.: Decentralisation and Control: central-local government relations in Sweden. Policy & Politics 18(3), 165–180 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wollmann, H.: Local Government Systems: From Historic Divergence Towards Convergence? Great Britain, France, and Germany as Comparative Case in Point, in Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, pp. 33-55 (2000)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wilson, D.: Unravelling control freakery: redefining central-local government relations. British Journal of Politics & International Relations 5(3), 317–346 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Scott, R.W.: Institutions and Organizations. Sage Publications, London (1995)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Griffin, D., Halpin, E.: An Exploratory Evaluation of UK Local e-Government From an Accountability Perspective. The Electronic Journal of e-Government 3(1), 13–28 (2005)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Apfelroth, J.: The Open Government Act: A Proposed Bill to Ensure The Efficient Implementation of the Freedom of Information Act. Administrative Law Review 58(1), 219–234 (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Agusti, C.-i.-M.: The Regulation of Diffusion of Public sector Information via Electronic Means: Lessons from the Spanish Regulation. Government Information Quarterly 28(2), 188–199 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Devadoss, P.R., Pan, S.L., Huang, J.C.: Structurational analysis of e-government initiatives: a case study of SCO. Decision Support Systems 34(3), 253–269 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Markus, M.L., Robey, D.: Information Technology and Organizational Change: Causal Structural in Theory and research. Management Science 34(5), 583–598 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Deakins, E., Dillon, S.M.: E-Government in New Zealand: the Local Authority Perspective. The International Journal of Public Sector Management 15(5), 375–398 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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. Government Information Quarterly 27(3), 264–271 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yin, R.K.: The Case Study Crisis: Some Answers. Administrative Science Quarterly 26(1), 58–65 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Walsham, G.: Interpreting Case Studies in IS Research: Nature and Method. European Journal of Information Systems 4, 74–81 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Walsham, G.: Doing Interpretive Research. European Journal of Information Systems 15(3), 320–330 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stockdale, R., Standing, C.: An interpretive approach to evaluating information systems: A content, context, process framework. European Journal of Operational Research 173(3), 1090–1102 (2006)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Scheepers, R., Scheepers, H.: Contexts of Relevance in Explanatory Case Studies in Information Systems: Ubiquitous Information Technology Implementation in Organizations. In: ICIS 2003 Proceedings, paper 3 (2003)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Strauss, A., Corbin, J.M.: Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks (1990)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Depdagri (2004) Penjelasan atas Undang Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor. 32 Tahun (2004)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Delmas, M., Toffel, M.W.: Stakeholders and Environmental Management Practices: An Institutional Framework. Business and Strategy Management 13, 209–222 (2004)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Reij, C., Waters-Bayer, A.: Entering Research and Development in Land Husbandry Through Farmer Innovation. In: Reij, C., Watres-Bayer, A. (eds.) Farmer Innovation in Africa: A Source of Inspiration for Agricultural Development. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London (2001)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Martin, B., Byrne, J.: Implementing E-Government: Widening the Lens. Electronic Journal of E-Government 1(1), 11–22 (2003)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Moodley, S.: The Promise of E-Development? A Critical Assessment of the State ICT for Poverty Reduction Discourse in South Africa. In: Perspectives on Global Development & Technology, pp. 1–26. Brill Academic Publishers (2005)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Cecchini, S., Raina, M.: Electronic Government and the Rural Poor: The Case of Gyandoot. Information Technologies and International Development 2(2), 65–75 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Davis, L.E., North, D.C.: Institutional Change and American Economic Growth. Cambridge University Press, London (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Myers, M.: Qualitative Research and The Generalizability, The Qualitative Report (2000)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Schofiell, J.W.: The Qualitative Researcher’s Companion. In: Huberman, A.M., Miles, M.B. (eds.) Sage Publications, London (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nurdin Nurdin
    • 1
  • Rosemary Stockdale
    • 1
  • Helana Scheepers
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Information and Communication TechnologiesSwinburne University of TechnologyAustralia

Personalised recommendations