Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Explaining Citizens’ E-Participation Use: the Role of Perceived Advantages

  • Published:
Public Organization Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article analyzes some of the reasons people choose e-participation over traditional involvement forums as a way of having public policy input. The research aimed to see whether people perceived that e-participation has time, cost, quality, and transparency advantages over traditional participation channels which some researchers have suggested is the case. The study also wanted to investigate whether perceiving one or more of these advantages has an impact on whether a person uses e-participation. Using data from the 2012 EU eGovernment Benchmark-User survey we found that people who perceive these advantages are more likely to use e-participation but the various advantages have different impacts. Saving time has the strongest impact on use. Perceiving quality and transparency advantages also impacts use, but a perceived cost advantage does not. In addition, we found that people are more likely to use e-participation if they are satisfied with a jurisdiction’s website and application design. These findings have implications for how governments should design and market websites if they want to increase e-participation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. List of 32 EU Countries involved: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom

References

  • Abramson, P. R., & Aldrich, J. H. (1982). The decline of electoral participation in America. American Political Science Review, 76(03), 502–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anduiza, E., Gallego, A., & Cantijoch, M. (2010). Online political participation in Spain: the impact of traditional and internet resources. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 7(4), 356–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, H. E., Verba, S., & Schlozman, K. L. (1995). Beyond SES: a resource model of political participation. American Political Science Review, 89(02), 271–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryson, J. M., Quick, K. S., Slotterback, C. S., & Crosby, B. C. (2013). Designing public participation processes. Public Administration Review, 73(1), 23–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W. E. (1954). The voter decides. Evanston: Row, Peterson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y. C., & Dimitrova, D. V. (2006). Electronic government and online engagement: citizen interaction with government via web portals. International Journal of Electronic Government Research (IJEGR), 2(1), 54–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung, J. E., Park, N., Wang, H., Fulk, J., & McLaughlin, M. (2010). Age differences in perceptions of online community participation among non-users: an extension of the technology acceptance model. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1674–1684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coglianese, C. (2004). Internet and citizen participation in rulemaking. A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 1(1), 33–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, C. (2010). E-participation experiences and local government in Catalonia: an explanatory analysis. In E. Tambouris, A. Macintosh, & O. Glassey (Eds.), IFIP (International Federation for Information Processing) 2nd International Conference on eParticipation (pp. 82–94). Lausanne: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comber, M. K. (2003). Civics curriculum and civic skills: recent evidence. The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE)[online]. Available: http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_Civics_Curriculum_Skills.pdf.

  • European Commission (2009). European eParticipation summary report. Retrieved April 5, 2015, from. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/european-eparticipation-summary-report.

  • European Commission (2012). 2012 European Union (EU) eGovernment benchmark – user survey. Retrieved April 6, 2015, from. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/eGov%20Benchmark%202012%20insight%20report%20published%20version%200.1%20_0.pdf.

  • George, J., & Jones, G. (2012). Understanding and managing organizational behavior (6th ed.). Boston: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, R. (2002). Elections online: assessing internet voting in light of the Arizona Democratic Primary. Political Science Quarterly, 116(4), 561–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginossar, T. (2008). Online participation: a content analysis of differences in utilization of two online cancer communities by men and women, patients and family members. Health Communication, 23(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kakabadse, A., Kakabadse, N. K., & Kouzmin, A. (2003). Reinventing the democratic governance project through information technology? A growing agenda for debate. Public Administration Review, 63(1), 44–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenski, K., & Stroud, N. J. (2006). Connections between internet use and political efficacy, knowledge, and participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(2), 173–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klesner, J. L. (2004). Social capital and political participation in Latin America. Paper prepared for delivery at the XXV International Congress of the Latin American Studies Association, Las Vegas. Retrieved April 5, 2015, from http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/PSci/Fac/klesner/Klesner_Social_Capital_lasa_2004.pdf.

  • Lee, J., & Kim, S. (2014). Active citizen e-participation in local governance: do individual social capital and e-participation management MATTER?. In System Sciences (HICSS), 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 2044–2053). IEEE.

  • Macintosh, A. (2004). Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. In System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE. Retrieved April 5, 2015, from. http://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/hicss/2004/2056/05/205650117a.pdf

  • Medaglia, R. (2007). Measuring the diffusion of eParticipation: a survey on Italian Local Government. Information Polity, 12(4), 265–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medaglia, R. (2012). eParticipation research: moving characterization forward (2006–2011). Government Information Quarterly, 29(3), 346–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neblo, M. A., Esterling, K. M., Kennedy, R. P., Lazer, D. M., & Sokhey, A. E. (2010). Who wants to deliberate—and why? American Political Science Review, 104(03), 566–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nie, N. H., Junn, J., & Stehlik-Barry, K. (1996). Education and democratic citizenship in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 national election study. American Political Science Review, 85, 1407–1413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, D., & Reddick, C. (2013). Local e-government in the United States: transformation or incremental change? Public Administration Review, 73(1), 165–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peixoto, T. (2009). Beyond theory: e-participatory budgeting and its promises for eParticipation. European Journal of ePractice, 7(5), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phang, C. W., & Kankanhalli, A. (2008). A framework of ICT exploitation for e-participation initiatives. Communications of the ACM, 51(12), 128–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plutzer, E. (2002). Becoming a habitual voter: inertia, resources, and growth in young adulthood. American Political Science Review, 96(01), 41–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Royo, S., Yetano, A., & Acerete, B. (2014). E-participation and environmental protection: are local governments really committed? Public Administration Review, 74(1), 87–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saglie, J., & Vabo, S. I. (2009). Size and e-democracy: online participation in Norwegian local politics. Scandinavian Political Studies, 32(4), 382–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlozman, K. L., Verba, S., & Brady, H. E. (2010). Weapon of the strong? Participatory inequality and the internet. Perspectives on Politics, 8(02), 487–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skoric, M. M., Ying, D., & Ng, Y. (2009). Bowling online, not alone: online social capital and political participation in Singapore. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 14(2), 414–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiezio, K. E., Baker, K. Q., & Boland, K. (2006). General education and civic engagement: an empirical analysis of pedagogical possibilities. The Journal of General Education, 54(4), 273–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torres, L., Pina, V., & Acerete, B. (2006). E-governance developments in European Union Cities: reshaping government’s relationship with citizens. Governance, 19(2), 277–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., Brady, H., & Nie, N. H. (1993a). Citizen activity: who participates? What do they say? American Political Science Review, 87(02), 303–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., Brady, H., & Nie, N. H. (1993b). Race, ethnicity and political resources: participation in the United States. British Journal of Political Science, 23(04), 453–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woo-Young, C. (2005). Online civic participation, and political empowerment: online media and public opinion formation in Korea. Media, Culture & Society, 27(6), 925–935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S., & Street, J. (2007). Democracy, deliberation and design: the case of online discussion forums. New Media & Society, 9(5), 849–869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zavestoski, S., Shulman, S., & Schlosberg, D. (2006). Democracy and the environment on the internet electronic citizen participation in regulatory rulemaking. Science, Technology & Human Values, 31(4), 383–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, Y., Schachter, H. L., & Holzer, M. (2014). The impact of government form on e-participation: a study of New Jersey Municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, 31(4), 653–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sun Yat Sen University, Guangzhou, China

    Yueping Zheng

  2. School of Management, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, 07102, USA

    Hindy Lauer Schachter

Authors
  1. Yueping Zheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hindy Lauer Schachter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hindy Lauer Schachter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zheng, Y., Schachter, H.L. Explaining Citizens’ E-Participation Use: the Role of Perceived Advantages. Public Organiz Rev 17, 409–428 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-016-0346-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-016-0346-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation