David Coursey Arizona State University Donald F.

Norris University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Models of E-Government: Are They Correct? An Empirical Assessment

New Perspectives on E-Government

Research into e-government is relatively new. Nevertheless, much contemporary thinking and writing about e-government is driven by normative models that appeared less than a decade ago. The authors present empirical evidence from three surveys of local e-government in the United States to test whether these models are accurate or useful for understanding the actual development of e-government. They nd that local e-government is mainly informational, with a few transactions but virtually no indication of the high-level functions predicted in the models. Thus, the models do not accurately describe or predict the development of e-government, at least among American local governments. These models, though intellectually interesting, are purely speculative, having been developed without linkage to the literature about information technology and government. The authors oer grounded observations about e-government that will useful to scholars and practitioners alike.

adoption of information technology in governmental organizations, which has developed over the past 30 years. Indeed, Fountains (2001) work has been criticized as ignoring seminal works from that literature (Grafton 2004; Danziger 2004). The e-government literature contains ve works that oer explicit theories or models of e-government relative to its growth and development. Four of these works were published in 2001, and one was published in 2000, a mere handful of years into the e-government era. Two of these works were published in scholarly journals (Layne and Lee 2001; Wescott 2001), one was part of a report by a well-known consulting group (Baum and Di Maio 2000), one was part of an international e-government benchmarking eort undertaken by the United Nations and the American Society for Public Administration (Ronaghan 2001), and one was part of a report written for the IBM Center for the Business of Government (Hiller and Blanger 2001). These models are partly descriptive, partly predictive, and partly normative. It can even be asserted that some, like that published by the Gartner Group (Baum and Di Maio 2000), may promote e-government service sales (more technology is better) rather than unbiased theory building, with a bent toward prescription over description. Overall, all purport to describe what might be considered the normal evolution of e-government from its most basic element (a rudimentary governmental presence on the World Wide Web) to fully developed e-government. Based on empirical examination, it appears that, for the most part, the descriptions in these models provide a reasonably accurate portrait of e-government in its early stages, from initial Web presence to information provision to interactivity. Beyond this, however, the models become both predictive and normative and their empirical accuracy declines precipitously. The models predict that e-government will move beyond information provision and interactivity to become fully transactional. They also predict that

David Coursey is a visiting scholar at Arizona State Universitys Decision Theater (www.decisiontheater.org). He specializes in public management, information technology, and research methods. Most of his recent work is in public service motivation, measurement models and theory, and e-government. Email: david.coursey@asu.edu Donald F. Norris is chair and professor in the Department of Public Policy and director of the Maryland Institute for Policy Analysis and Research at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. He is a specialist in public management, urban affairs, and the application, uses, and impacts of information technology (including electronic government) in public organizations. His works have been published in a number of scholarly journals. E-mail: norris@umbc.edu

esearch into the phenomenon of electronic government (or e-government) is relatively new.1 Research articles on this subjectthat is, articles based on more than intellectual speculation and rumination and instead based on data from some form of empirical exercise, such as surveys, case studies, focus groups, or analysis of data from large data setsbegan to appear only in 1999 (Norris and Lloyd 2006). This is not surprising, because the eld of e-government itself is not much more than a dozen years old at this writing. Ocial governmental sites delivering information and services rst began appearing on the World Wide Web in the mid-1990s. Not only is e-government research nascent, there is sparse theory development and testing (Norris and Lloyd 2006), with the arguable exception of models predicting individual user adoption, such as the technology acceptance model (Davis 1989), or those from institutional and policy perspectives (e.g., Fountain 2001). Even so, theoretical explanations of why government organizations develop and adopt e-government are less mature, and few are grounded either in actual e-government research or in the prior literature on the

Models of E-Government

523

e-government will fundamentally transform the relationship between governments and citizens. At this point, nearly all of the models become quite normative when describing a fully developed e-government, and they assert what e-government should become. The models implicitly presume that fully transactional systems are better and that more citizen interaction equals improved service. The models are similar in many respects. They all predict the linear development or evolution of e-government from a basic online presence to full integration, seamlessness, and transformation. They all suggest or explicitly state that this development is progressive (each successive stage of e-government is better than the previous one) and stepwise (governments have to proceed through each step in a series). Four of the models are similar in the specic steps that they predict, whereas the fth (Layne and Lee 2001) is an outlier in terms of the precise steps, although not in the direction of the development. There has now been enough experience and study to ask whether these models and their predictions and normative expectations are accurate and, therefore, useful to scholars and practitioners of e-government, or whether they need revision (or worse, rejection). In this article, we ask whether the models are accurate; we present empirical evidence from the actual development of e-government among local governments in the United States; and we test whether that development is consistent with the predictions of the models. Finally, we discuss the implications of our empirical ndings for models of e-government and for the continuing study of e-government. E-Government Models Figure 1 shows the steps that the ve models predict for the development or evolution of e-government. What follows is a brief discussion of each model. As readers will note, although the models dier somewhat

in their nomenclature, they are highly similar in predicting the progressive development of e-government from a basic presence on the Web to results that can only be considered quite extraordinaryseamlessness, joined-up government, and transformation. We begin with Baum and Di Maios (2000) model because it was the rst one published. Baum and Di Maio predict that e-government will move from a Web presence in which governments provide basic information to a second stage that produces interactivity or the ability of citizens to contact governmental organizations and ocials online. This is followed by a transactional stage in which citizens will be able to conduct business online with governments. The nal stage in this model is called transformation. For Baum and Di Maio and for other writers, transformation means that e-government will cause or permit the relationship between citizens and governments to fundamentally change in positive ways, generally producing much more citizen-centric and responsive government and thereby increasing citizen trust in government dramatically. Baum and Di Maio, however, like nearly all writers on e-government, provide specics about the before-and-after conditions of the transformation and the mechanisms at work to produce the transformationthat is, the relationship between citizens and governments today, what it will be like at the end of e-government, and why. Hiller and Blangers (2001) model suggests a slightly dierent progression than the other models and also predicts a somewhat dierent end point. Stages one and two in this model are similar to those in most models: information followed by two-way communication (interactivity). Hiller and Blanger predict that the third stage will be the integration of data and information within and among governments. Integration is followed by a transactional stage, and Hiller and Blanger predict that at its end point, e-government

Step 1 Layne and Lee (2001) Baum and Di Maio (2000) Ronaghan (2001) Hiller and Blanger (2001) Wescott (2001)

Step 2 Catalogue

Step 3 Transaction

Step 4 Vertical integration Transaction

Step 5 Horizontal integration Transformation

Step 6

Presence

Interaction

Emerging presence

Enhanced presence Information dissemination Enable interorganizational and public access to information

Interactive Two-way communication Two-way communication

Transactional government Integration

Seamless Transaction Participation

E-mail and internal network

Exchange of value

Digital democracy

Joined-up government

Figure 1 The Models Steps

524 Public Administration Review May | June 2008

will enable or produce e-participation. In this model, e-government is clearly expected to evolve to a higher plane at which citizens have moved beyond accessing information and services, interacting with governmental ocials, and transacting business with government. At this stage, citizens participate electronically in the very activities of governance. The models oered by Ronaghan (2001) and Wescott (2001) argue that the initial presence on the Web of at least some governments (mainly, third-world nations) is very primitive and not quite informational. Rather, this emerging presence represents simply the establishment of a Web site with not much substance to it. In Ronaghans model, governments at this stage morph to a second stage, which is an enhanced presence in which governmental information is made available on an ocial Web site 24/7. The next two stages in Ronaghans model, interactivity and transactional government, are quite similar to the stages found in three of the four other models. The nal stage in Ronaghans model is seamlessness. This involves both the horizontal and vertical integration of governmental information and services, and it is a condition that permits citizens to access such services regardless of the type or level of government in which the information or services are located. Like Ronaghan, Wescott suggests that for some governments, the initial step in e-government is not much more than a mere presence on the Web. Successive e-government steps, however, are not unlike those predicted by the other modelsinformation provision, interactivity, transactions (what Wescott calls exchange of value), digital democracy (similar to Hiller and Blangers participation), and joined-up government (similar to Ronaghans seamlessness). We have chosen to discuss Layne and Lees (2001) model last because it is somewhat of an outlier compared to the other models. Layne and Lee argue that e-government begins with what they call cataloguing, or the basic provision of mostly static information online. They predict that e-government will then move to a transactional stage. Up to this point, their model is substantially similar to the other models reviewed here. From this point, however, Layne and Lees model diverges from the other models. It predicts that the third stage of e-government will be vertical integration, which involves upper and lower levels of government sharing data and information online. The nal step in Layne and Lees model is horizontal integration, which means the sharing of data and information online across departments within governments. These models all predict the linear, stepwise, and progressive development of e-government. Governments begin with a fairly basic, in some cases even

primitive, Web presence. They pass through predictable stages of e-government, such as interactivity, transactions, and integration, and then arrive at an e-government nirvana. This nal step is described variously as either the seamless delivery of governmental information and services, e-participation, e-democracy, governmental transformation, or some combination of the above. The models do not, however, tell us how this progression or evolution will occur or how long it will take to fully unfold. In particularand this should be quite troublesome for students of public organizationsthe models do not tell us how governments will overcome the numerous and signicant barriers (e.g., nancial, legal, organizational, technological, political), for example, to the integration of governmental information and services. Normatively, these models also tell us that more e-government is better. E-government that is interactive, transactional, and integrated is better. E-government should (and will) be used by governments to provide for interactivity, transactions, and integration. And e-government should (and will) produce e-participation or e-democracy and a fundamental transformation in the relationship between governments and citizens. As we have previously indicated, we believe that it is time to examine these models with empirical data to see whether their predictions have come to pass. We describe our data and methods for doing so in the next section of this paper. Data, Methods, and Research Questions The data for this article come from three nationwide surveys of local e-government that were conducted in 2000 and 2002 by the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) and Public Technology Incorporated and in 2004 by the ICMA. The ICMA samples are derived from the relative population distributions of key demographic variables or stratied on such variables as form of government and region. Table 1 provides descriptives by various classications. Sample variation is always an issue in multiyear surveys. Table 1 demonstrates that the samples are remarkably consistent on key demographics. Another question is how well the surveys represent the true population of U.S. local governments. Council-manager governments are overrepresented and mayor-council governments are underrepresented by a few percentages. But the population sample frequencies are very similar to the entire United States. Hence, the form of government dierence does not appear to be related to population response variation. As the e-government samples do not include county commissions or cities with populations under 10,000 for two years, the ICMA data (see table 1 notes) for other full-population values cannot be accurately derived. However, the
Models of E-Government 525

Table 1 Representativeness and Response Rates of ICMA Electronic Government Surveys** Percent of responses Survey year Population group More than 1,000,000 500,0001,000,000 250,000499,999 100,000249,999 50,00099,999 25,00049,999 10,00024,999 5,000-9,999 2,500-4,999 Geographic region Northeast North-central South West Metropolitan status Central Suburban Independent Form of government City Mayor-council Council-manager Other County Council-administrator Council-elected executive 2002 Census* 0.8 1.0 3.0 8.2 13.7 22.9 48.9 1.2 0.1 2000 0.8 1.1 2.7 9.6 14.3 23.7 46.0 1.4 0.5 16.3 27.6 32.9 23.3 19.5 53.9 26.6 28.4 45.3 5.6 9.0 11.6 18.5 56.3 3.7 10.6 11.1 2002 0.6 0.9 2.7 9.3 14.3 23.3 47.7 1.2 0.1 18.3 28.8 31.9 21.0 21.0 54.7 24.4 21.7 54.2 4.0 8.9 10.8 2004 0.7 1.6 2.9 10.8 15.6 23.0 44.0 1.1 0.2 16.6 28.1 33.2 22.2 22.8 52.5 24.6 19.2 55.3 3.9 9.9 11.6

*From ICMA breakdown of U.S. Bureau of the Census 2002 data on local governments (ICMA 2005, xi), including counties regardless of population and municipal areas with populations of more than 10,000. **Response rates by year: 2000, 50.2%; 2002, 52.6%; 2004, 42.9%.

relative breakdowns are still quite similar to the population data (see ICMA 2005, xiixiii). Overall, the samples do not display signicant variation in key demographics, which might alter the interpretation of change. However, there is some imbalance in the form of government. The 2000 survey was mailed to all municipalities with populations greater than 10,000 and all counties with council-administrator (manager) or council-elected executive forms of government. The response rate was 50.2 percent. The 2002 and 2004 surveys were mailed to all municipalities with populations of 2,500 or more and all counties with council-manager or councilelected executive forms of government. The response rates to the surveys were 52.6 percent and 42.4 percent in 2002 and 2004, respectively. In order to provide for direct comparisons between the surveys, we used data from all responding counties but only data from municipalities with populations greater than 10,000 from the 2002 and 2004 surveys. For more details on the sampling, see the various ICMA Municipal Yearbook organization of data sections (ICMA 2001, 2003, 2005). Copies of the actual surveys are available from the ICMA. With a few exceptions, the respondents to all three surveys were reasonably representative of U.S. local governments as a whole. As might be expected, the surveys varied somewhat in the question sets and instructions. Two dierences
526 Public Administration Review May | June 2008

are relevant to this study. First, in 2000 and 2002, respondents were specically told not to answer questions if they did not have Web sites. This instruction was not repeated in 2004. This led to the possibility, though in only a few cases, of respondents without Web sites answering questions in 2004. Ideally, responses from governments without Web sites should be included, especially regarding barriers to adoption. However, it is not possible to do so given the 2000 and 2002 survey designs. To determine which governments did not have Web sites for 2004, we chose to use the assumption that a survey with no identication of any Web-provided information or service meant that the government did not have a Web site. A second issue is that the 2000 survey asked about internal versus contracted-out services separately. Outsourced services were not included in Norris and Moons (2005) review of the 2000 and 2004 results. Here, we chose to include the outsourced services from the 2000 survey to provide a better comparison of the 2002 and 2004 results. All change and barrier items were checkbox responses. Hence, failure to check a box does not necessarily indicate no but could be missing data. We chose to presume an unmarked box was missing data if the respondent did not indicate any items. Certainly, it is possible that a local government could indicate no changes or barriers at all, but this is a better assumption

than presuming all unmarked boxes are no. Hence, we counted items without a marked checkbox as no only if the respondent did indicate at least one change or barrier. The eect of this coding schema is to inate the previously reported percentages (Norris and Moon 2005).

Evidence In the following pages, we address the extent to which U.S. commonplace, the delivery local governments have estabof anything but basic lished ocial sites on the World For 2004, it is apparent that although information is not. The Wide Web through which they Web sites are commonplace, the delivdeliver information and services, only services provided by ery of anything but basic information is their adoption of online services, at least a majority of local not. The only services provided by at changes that they report as a result least a majority of local governments are governments were of e-government, and barriers to nontransactional. Overall, nontransacnontransactional. the adoption of e-government tional services are the most common, that they report. Next, we adfollowed by nonnancial, and nancial dress whether it can be reasontransactions. Few local governments ably inferred from the data that the adoption oer nancial transactions (all between 11 percent of e-government is related to the changes reported and 14 percent). There is, however, variation among and whether, in any event, the changes reported are other service categories. For example, 35 percent consistent with the models of e-government. reported providing requests for services, such as pothole repair, but only 3 percent reported providing for Adoption of Web Sites voter registration and 8 percent for business licensing To begin with, we are interested in knowing how within nonnancial transactions. many local governments have any form of Web presence (table 2) and whether this gure has changed There are two likely explanations for these variations. over time. Clearly, the vast majority (96.2 percent in One is that the study did not control for local govern2004) have Web sites, up from 83.6 percent in 2000 ments for which such services are not germane. For (almost a 13 percent gain) and 87.7 percent in 2002 example, many local governments may not conduct (an 8.5 percent increase). Today, a 96.2 percent adopvoter or business registration (e.g., a city defers to a tion rate means that nearly all local governments of county, local government defers to the state). Also, any size (populations of more than 10,000) are arguably, less common services are more technically or engaged in some level of e-government. managerially complex to develop. Simple requests for pothole repair or registering for a softball league are Online Services relatively uncomplicated compared with business There is a major dierence between a simple Web licensing and voter registration. presence and actually providing real-time transactions and applications. Here, we can begin to understand In addition to current service levels, there is the issue both Web site sophistication and the extent to which of how quickly Web services have spread among local local e-government is consistent with the predictions governments. It should be noted that the dierences of the e-government models. reported here between 2000 and 2002 are less than those provided by Norris and Moon (2005). They do All three surveys asked local governments with Web not include outsourced services for 2000, which, sites to report the information and services that they unlike the 2002 and 2004 surveys, were separated provided through their Web sites (table 3). Not all from internal oerings. services were included in every survey. The services can be roughly divided into nontransactional, nonFor nonnancial transactions, most services showed nancial, and nancial transactions. Transactional fair gains between 2000 and 2002. However, with the applications require some two-way exchange of data exception of recreational program registration, there was little meaningful change between 2002 and 2004. We also found scant dierences in nonnancial transTable 2 Web Site Adoption actions between 2002 and 2004, with the possible 2000 2002 2004 exception of downloadable forms (72 percent versus Percent N Percent N Percent N 66 percent). Financial transactions showed the greatYes 83.6 1,571 87.7 1,866 96.2 1,791 est relative change between 2002 and 2004, approxiNo 16.4 308 12.3 262 3.8 71 mately doubling over the two years. However, their
Models of E-Government 527

and storage, at least on the host side. For example, users complete online job applications, which are stored in a host database. Under the e-government models, transactional services would be presumed to be more advanced or sophisticated. Such online submissions are at least more technically complex to develop than a nontransactional system in which users can only . . . it is apparent that download a copy of the job application although Web sites are to complete oine.

Table 3 Online Service Adoption 2000 Percent Financial transactions Tax payments Utility payments Fee and ne payments Nonnancial transactions Permit applications Business licenses and renewals Government record requests Recreational program registration Service requests Voter registration Property registration Nontransactional/informational Government record delivery Download forms for manual completion Communicate with government ofcials GIS, interactive maps Council agendas and minutes Codes and ordinances Emailed newsletter to residents Streaming video Employment information, applications 4.9 3.7 5.1 7.0 4.9 20.6 10.4 24.8 4.1 1.7 16.0 N 57 43 59 81 56 237 120 286 47 20 184 Percent 6.6 6.1 5.6 11.4 5.8 32.3 15.8 33.3 2.4 3.3 21.3 65.7 76.0 2002 N 115 105 98 202 101 577 274 589 41 45 372 1,067 1,276 Percent 13.4 13.7 11.1 13.1 8.1 31.4 22.6 35.1 3.3 3.9 22.1 71.8 74.1 39.2 87.4 78.1 32.9 13.9 77.7 2004 N 220 224 183 218 133 524 370 588 51 61 363 1,203 1,215 639 1,489 1,307 531 221 1,305

absolute percentages remained low showing an overall low rate of adoption. Overall, the results indicate that most Web services, with the exception of some nontransactional and informational services, have not been adopted by many American local governments. Perhaps more disconcerting, there is little evidence of substantially increased adoption of Web services except among nancial transactions, which are still uncommon. This suggests that among governments that have embraced e-government, the use of the Web for real business purposes is far from a reality. It also suggests that the development of e-government is not progressing as predicted by the principal normative models in the eld. However, as would be expected by the models, more basic e-government oerings (information and nontransactional services) have been fairly widely adopted. Thus, even after 10 years of adoption,
Table 4 Changes Attributed to E-Government 2000 Percent Cost impacts Reduced number of staff Increased non-tax revenues Reduced administrative costs Noncost impacts Reduced time demands on staff Increased demands on staff Reengineered business processes Business process more efcient Increased citizen contact with elected and appointed ofcials Improved communication to public Improved customer service 0.7 0.6 5.0 8.2 21.1 17.5 13.3 N 11 10 78

e-government remains mainly informational; it is not highly interactive or transactional as the models predict; and it is not moving with any speed toward an interactive and transactional state.
Changes Resulting from E-Government

The surveys asked local governments about the changes that they attributed to their e-government eorts (table 4). We present them in table 4 as cost and noncost impacts. Nearly all of the impacts, as written in the ICMA questionnaire, are positive. Only increased demands on sta can be seen as a negative impact. Arguably, reengineered business processes could be viewed as a neutral impact, except that business process reengineering is clearly part of the rhetoric around e-government (i.e., e-government will result in business process reengineering, which, in turn, will produce greater governmental eciencies). Hence, we view business process reengineering as a

2002 Percent 1.3 0.9 7.9 17.1 33.0 24.1 19.6 38.0 N 24 16 148 320 620 453 368 712 Percent 2.6 1.3 10.9 25.0 27.6 25.3 23.5 35.8 59.6 52.8

2004 N 46 24 195 447 494 453 420 641 1,068 945

129 332 275 209

528

Public Administration Review May | June 2008

positive impact. The results for 2000 and 2002 are a bit higher (generally one to 3 percent) than those reported by Norris and Moon (2005) because of coding dierences.

Overall, for 2004, the number of The lack of governments reporting positive stang is related to the changes, especially changes with lack of nancial resources, For 2004, the two most commonly clear cost impacts, was not substanas local governments nd cited problems were lack of nantially dierent from previous years. Only three changes were indicated cial resources (57 percent) and it hard to compete with by more than a third of local governlack of technology or Web sta the private sector for ments: increased citizen contact with (53 percent). Stang and nancial skilled information ocials (36 percent), improved problems within government infortechnology sta. public communication (60 percent), mation technology are not new to and customer service (53 percent). e-government but are likely It is very important to realize that exacerbated by it. The lack of these are changes that should not be judged solely e-government stang is related to the lack of nancial from the perspective of the local government resources, as local governments nd it hard to comcitizens may have a diering evaluationbut clearly, pete with the private sector for skilled information local governments tend most commonly to cite these technology sta. Additionally, the reported lack of related citizen interaction benets. Not all changes are nancial resources as an e-government barrier is unpositive. More governments noted increased (28 perderstandable given recent pressure on local governcent) rather than reduced demands (25 percent) on ment budgets and e-governments dependence on sta. Direct cost impacts are all quite low, especially general revenue nancing (Coursey 2005). reducing the number of sta (3 percent) and increasing nontax revenues such as from Web site advertising No other barrier was cited by a majority of govern(1 percent). This suggests that local governments are ments, although six barriers were reported by between not reaping the often touted nancial gains from a quarter and a third of respondents. These were secue-government. This nding, that direct nancial savrity issues (37 percent), diculty justifying return on ings are dicult to obtain, is well known from the investment (33 percent), issues related to convenience information technology and government literature. fees (32 percent), lack of technology/Web expertise (31 percent), privacy issues (29 percent), and lack of Results for positive eects that have indirect costs or demand (23 percent). Thus, only eight of 16 pereectiveness implications, such as sta time demands, ceived barriers were cited by more than one in four of are decidedly mixed. Business process reengineering these governments. that results in more ecient processes may also save money, at least in cost avoidance to support growth in It is interesting that the lack of support from elected service demands, but only about one-fourth of govocials (11 percent), sta resistance (17 percent), and ernments reported any business process reengineering. resident resistance (5 percent) are all among least cited barriers. The sta resistance result reects previous What about changes over time? Most reported research nding that government personnel are not changes increased slightly over the technophobes and do value new three surveys, with the possible technology (Bretschneider and Too often, governments exception of increased demands on Wittmer 1993). develop Web applications sta, which increased from 2000 to 2002 and then decreased between without any consideration The lack of resident or business 2002 and 2004. With this excepof real citizen demand. A demand (23 percent) is also intertion, the greatest amount of change esting. Too often, governments eld of dreams appeared to occur between 2000 develop Web applications without perspective existsif we and 2002 and leveled o between any consideration of real citizen build it, they will come. 2002 and 2004. demand. A eld of dreams perspective existsif we build it, they will come. Yet local ocials and Barriers to E-Government even e-government enthusiasts will admit that Not unlike other technological innovations, there is a lack of demand for e-government, and e-government faces numerous potential barriers to e-government is being driven primarily from the top adoption and development. The surveys asked local down by governments themselves (i.e., the governgovernments to indicate whether they had encounment of the United Kingdom) or by the professional tered a number of possible barriers. We report these
Models of E-Government 529

barriers across four domains: technical, political and organizational, legal, and nancial (table 5). Not all questions were asked in each survey. The percentages for 2000 and 2002 are higher than those reported by Norris and e-government Moon (2005) because of coding dierences.

Table 5 Barriers to E-Government 2000 Percent Technical capabilities Lack of technology/Web staff Lack of technology/Web expertise Lack of information on e-government applications Web site does not accept credit cards Bandwidth issues Need to upgrade PCs, networks Political and organizational Lack of support from elected ofcials Lack of collaboration among departments Staff resistance to change Resident resistance to change Lack of business/resident interest or demand Legal Issues related to convenience fees for online transactions Privacy issues Security issues Financial Difculty justifying return on investment Lack of nancial resources 58.1 40.0 24.9 29.5 10.6 N 913 629 391 463 167 Percent 56.9 36.4 16.2 26.0 10.9 17.4 15.1 2002 N 1067 682 304 487 205 327 284 2004 Percent 53.0 31.4 12.7 27.9 8.2 20.5 10.7 16.9 17.0 4.6 22.8 N 950 563 228 499 146 367 192 302 304 82 408

25.0 25.1 38.3 48.2

393 395 602 757

30.9 33.5 42.4 33.4 53.3

580 628 795 627 1000

31.8 28.6 37.4 32.5 57.4

570 513 669 582 1028

norms of information technology departments and management ocials of local governments (e.g., see Coleman and Norris 2005). Legal issues, collectively, are quite prominent. Convenience fees (32 percent), privacy issues (29 percent), and security (37 percent) all relate to complex, varying legal concerns requiring extensive coordination among various ocials and departments to resolve and cross over into volatile political issues. It would be reasonable to assume that as governments collectively gain more experience with e-government, there should be a reduction in perceived barriers. Somewhat fewer governments reported technical barriers across the three surveys, particularly a lack of information on e-government applications (25 percent, 16 percent, and 13 percent, respectively) and a lack of technology Web expertise (40 percent, 36 percent, and 31 percent, respectively). The only other discernable trend is that there was greater change between 2000 and 2002 in the responses of the local governmentswhether increasing or decreasingabout barriers than between 2002 and 2004.

Adoption and Change

E-government adoption is predicted to be related to various changes, mostly presumed positive, in local governments. Hence, we would expect that local governments adopting more services would report greater change. Furthermore, we would expect the level and type of change to vary with adopted services. For example, if the e-government models are correct, nancial services should have a stronger relationship to change, both cost and noncost related, than nonnancial or nontransactional. In tables 3 and 4, we present summated measures of the various online service adoption and change items. In the survey, these were checkbox items indicating whether a change had been noted (e.g., has reduced the number of sta) or a particular service adopted (e.g., online payment of taxes). We summed each of these to create overall measures of the number of changes or adoptions. We categorized services as nancial, nonnancial, or nontransactional/informational. We categorized the change items as either cost or noncost. Tables 6 and 7 present our correlations between services and changes. The increased demands on sta item was considered a negative
Table 7 Service Adoption by Changes, 200204 (Kendalls tau-b correlations) All Changes Cost .188 .154 .169 .154 Noncost .288 .181 .235 .264

Table 6 Service Adoption by Changes, 200004 (Kendalls tau-b correlations) All Changes All services Financial transactions Nonnancial transactions .175 .168 .157 Cost .170 .142 .158 Noncost .162 .158 .145

All services Financial transactions Nonnancial transactions Nontransactional

.294 .189 .241 .267

Note: All correlations signicant at p < .001.

Note: All correlations signicant at p < .001.

530

Public Administration Review May | June 2008

impact and subtracted from the index for changes. Table 6 presents data for 200004, while table 7 presents data for 200204, only where additional measures were available for both years (cf. tables 3 and 4). The data in table 6 for the 200004 period show a very modest relationship between the number of noted online services and changes. All correlations were signicant at the p < .001 level. However, as indicated by the Kendalls tau-b statistics, none of the strengths exceeded .175. The associations are somewhat stronger for 200204 (table 7), which suggests that experience with e-government, both within and among local governments, may strengthen the linkage between adoption and change. The e-government models, however, suggest that more sophisticated adoptions, such as nancial transactions, should have a stronger relationship to change. The data for 200004 are mixed, but the results for 200204 strongly suggest otherwise. Nontransactional services (.267), followed by nonnancial transactions (.241), have a stronger relationship to overall change than nancial transactions. Even specically for cost impacts, nancial transactions (.154) do not demonstrate a stronger relationship. Thus, nontransactional (less sophisticated) services have a greater relationship to reported changes than nancial transactions (more sophisticated services). Possibly, this could be attributable to experience with the form of service as local governments have adopted more nontransactional services (cf. table 3). However, the models tell us that nancial transactions should have far clearer connections to change than nonnancial services something that is not shown by these data.
Barriers and Services

table 9 reports additional items included only in the 2002 and 2004 surveys (cf. table 4). Overall, there is a very weak negative association between all reported barriers and services (correlations of .090 for 200004 and .094 for 200204). Only for technical barriers, such as lack of technology Web sta and expertise, do the correlations exceed .100. Does this suggest that barriers have no relationship to service adoption? Not necessarily. First, the results are only for local governments that have already established Web site operations. It may be that these often touted barriers are more important in launching egovernment eorts. Also, the barrier items did not, unfortunately, ask local governments to assess how great a hindrance each barrier was to their eorts. Instead, it simply asked whether each barrier existed. Even so, the results do not support the view that a strong relationship exists between barriers and services. Technical barriers appear the most important, a nding mirrored by the way in which many local governments reported it as a barrier (see table 5). But even here, the correlations are weak. Much of the egovernment literature stresses bridging organizational boundaries and related political and legal problems as signicant hurdles to e-government. Yet these barriers are far more germane to more complicated, encompassing applications (e.g., those involving interactivity and transactions). It may be that these barriers become more important as local governments expand into such services. However, as previously discussed, the survey results show that few local governments actually oer sophisticated services via the Web. Additionally, technical barriers inhibit all service levels, so regardless of the stage of e-government development, technical problems may be consistently reported as a primary problem. There is no evidence of a stronger relationship between political and legal barriers to more complex services as might be expected from the e-government literature. Another interesting nding is that the correlations between legal barriers and services, though very small, are all positive, implying that more legal barriers are
Table 9 Barriers by Service Adoption, 200204 (Kendalls tau-b correlations)

Local governments that report more barriers to egovernment should also report the adoption of fewer services. Additionally, those that have adopted more sophisticated services (such as nancial transactions) should report a dierent pattern of barriers. For example, political and legal issues should be more germane to transactional versus informational services. Tables 8 and 9 present correlations between barriers and services. Table 8 presents data for 200004, while

Table 8 Barriers by Service Adoption, 200004 (Kendalls tau-b correlations) All services All barriers Technical capabilities Political and organizational Legal Financial .090 .155 .052 .039** .059 Financial .045 .104 .032* .045 .014*** Nonnancial .090 .141 .050 .026*** .064 All barriers Technical capabilities Political and organizational Legal Financial

All services Financial .094 .200 .017*** .062 .054 .036** .107

Nonnancial Nontransactional .098 .166 .055 .168 .000 .076 .020***

.033*** .025*** .055 .044* .027*** .069

Note: All correlations signicant at p < .001 except where noted. *p < .01; **p < .05; ***p > .05.

Note: All correlations signicant at p < .001 except where noted. *p < .01: **p < .05; ***p > .05.

Models of E-Government

531

related to greater service adoption. This may be because such legal issues as privacy, security, and convenience fees occur more often with complex e-government operations. Hence, governments with more services and operating transactional applications encounter these as barriers, whereas those with nontransactional sites do not. This does suggest some weak support for the predictions of the e-government models. However, it is critical to remember these correlations are extremely small and, as such, they probably are not substantively meaningful. Conclusions and Implications Local e-government in the United States is only about a dozen years old. Yet more than nine in 10 (96.2 percent) local governments with populations greater than 10,000 have established ocial sites on the World Wide Web through which they oer information and services. However, the e-government oerings reported by these governments are limited, relatively unsophisticated, and primarily involve information and nontransactional services. Few local governments provide nonnancial transactions, and fewer still provide nancial transactions via their Web sites. Moreover, in recent years, the adoption of e-government services has slowed considerably and, in some areas, seems to have halted. These ndings oer some support but also raise important questions about the principal normative models of e-government. The ndings support the models in that most local governments have adopted e-government, at least at the basic level predicted by models, and have done so in a very short period of time. The ndings raise questions about the models in that they are clearly at odds with the models predictions that governments will move stepwise toward the adoption of more sophisticated e-government oerings, moving from information to transactions to integration and ultimately to transformation. This predicted movement is not happening, or if it is, the movement is glacial in its speed. Another important nding from these data is that few governments reported any changes that are attributable to e-government, especially changes involving cost impacts. And not all the reported changes were positive, even though positive change is an important part of the mantra surrounding e-government and is clearly expected by the models. Additionally, local governments reported fewer changes attributable to e-government between 2002 and 2004 than between 2000 and 2002, suggesting that the movement through the stages of e-government (if there are stages) is neither as accelerated nor as simple as the models posit. If e-government were evolving as the models predict, greater numbers of governments would have reported changes, and they would have reported more positive changes.
532 Public Administration Review May | June 2008

We found a modest association between adoption and reported changes. But the changes were more associated with nonnancial services. This nding is also at odds with the models that predict the ever-increasing adoption of more sophisticated applications which, in turn, will produce more and greater positive changes. Local governments reported a number of barriers to the adoption of e-government. But only two barriers were reported by more than half of the governments and only four were reported by one-third or more of the governments. Fewer barriers were reported in 2004 than in 2002, suggesting that as governments gain more experience with e-government, they are less plagued by barriers. However, the models miss or ignore the possibility that barriers to e-government adoption exist. Indeed, this is a serious limitation of the models that, until now, has not been identied in the literature. The models assume, quite uncritically, that governments will increasingly adopt more and better e-government. We know of no theories of innovation adoption that suggest that innovations are adopted without problems. For example, it is possible that certain barriers (money, sta, infrastructure, others) may be more or less important to dierent governments (large versus small governments, wealthy versus poor governments), at dierent times in the adoption process (early adopters versus laggards), and with respect to dierent types of applications (low-hanging fruit versus high-end applications). This would be a reasonable interpretation of the empirical data on barriers to the adoption of e-government. However, the models provide no guidance here and instead simply assume a progressive adoption of e-government, sans barriers. We found a weak negative association between barriers and adoption. But U.S. local governments are still oering fairly basic e-government menus. Surely, after 10 years of e-government, we should expect some empirical validation of the models predictions of the road to transactional, interactive, and transformational e-government. We found no such evidence. Why are there such great inconsistencies between the models and these empirical ndings? First, the models were created in a vacuum. They were based on neither extant theory nor empirical data. This is not dissimilar to the expert systems theories developed in the 1980s, which predicted growth along a level of technical sophistication. These theories had virtually no recognition of existing information technology adoption literature, partly because many of these models came from engineering, not business or public administration (i.e., Coursey and Shangraw 1989). Expert systems advocates believed that such applications would become increasingly technically sophisticated,

handling more complex tasks and replacing human expertise. Yet the models did not account for the real barriers of legal limitations, lack of human contact in transferring knowledge to younger and less experienced employees, and expert resistance, among other political and organizational issues. Thus, expert systems, all the rage in the late 1980s, are today an afterthought among information technologies in government decision making. Like expert systems, e-government models were also developed without any linkage to the rich literature about information technology and government that is now 30 years old, or to what little empirical literature about e-government that was available in 2000 and 2001. Thus, while intellectually interesting, the models are almost purely speculative. They were not models per se but guesses about what e-government might be and how it might develop. As it turns out, this guesswork was only partly correct. But why should such an outcome be unexpected? On what basis could or should one guess that there would be stages of e-government, especially a specic number of stages? That governments would have to move stepwise through these stages? That the nal stages of e-government would produce a literal transformation in the relations between citizens and governments in which both citizen participation and trust in government would dramatically increase? That nearly all of the consequences of e-government would be positive? What foundation is there for any of these guesses? Upon reection, they appear consistent with what Pippa Norris (2001) calls cyber-optimism and what others might consider technological determinism, problems that have plagued our understanding of the adoption of previous information technology innovations. The models were certainly not connected to the research into information technology and government that might have more eectively informed and underpinned their guesses.

There do not appear to be discernable steps or stages in e-government. Rather, after an initial e-government presence, governments adopt e-government slowly and incrementally. E-government is not linear. Late adopters of e-government need not start at the most basic level of e-government. They can and do learn from the experiences of other governments and the private sector and begin with more sophisticated oerings. E-government is not necessarily continually progressive in its technical development, nor is it without problemsmore is not necessarily always better, and some consequences are not positive. E-government probably has great potential to do or be many things, and some of those things cannot be anticipatedthis is true of technological innovation in general. But some of the potentials of e-government suggested by the models (e.g., seamlessness and e-transformation) seem not to have been based on a careful reading or a realistic understanding of the prior literature that importantly informs this eld (see, e.g., Danziger and Andersen 2002; Kraemer and King 2006). E-government, like information technology in government before it, will probably not produce governmental reform or transformation but instead can be expected to support the interests of the dominant political-administrative coalitions within governmental organizations (Kraemer and King 2006). Tougher applications, more costly applications, and applications for which there is little demand, if added at all, probably will be added later and more slowly. Technology is not likely a primary barrier to e-government, especially as governments gain experience. Organizational and political factors are likely to signicantly aect e-government application development, performance, and adoption.

These ndings should have special meaning for govEmpirical ndings from this research allow us to make ernmental managers. To begin with, managers should some statements about e-government that provide a be appropriately skeptical of the claims made about better understanding of this phenome-government. Often, such claims enon than is possible from reading the come from a decidedly technologiAt the end of the day, models. Among these statements are at cally deterministic perspective e-government is what it is, If we build it, they will least the following: not what it was predicted come!and are not based on E-government is mainly an addempirical assessment. Based on to be, and empirical on to traditional ways of delivering the prior history of information ndings provide a more governmental information and technology in government accurate, if also decidedly (see especially Danziger and services, not a substitute for them. more prosaic portrait of Thus, the onus is on e-government Andersen 2002; Kraemer and e-government than the researchers to refrain from reinventKing 2006), we do not expect ing the wheel of previous research. that e-government will produce principal models. The burden of proof that somehow many, if any, immediate and e-government should be presumed dramatic results. Rather, we so dierent from preceding innovation as to require expect that e-government will advance slowly and totally new, unconnected scholarship is on them. incrementally. Initially, at least, it will require substantial
Models of E-Government 533

investment by governments, with little overall impact by way of cost reduction or productivity improvement. At the end of the day, e-government is what it is, not what it was predicted to be, and empirical ndings provide a more accurate, if also decidedly more prosaic, portrait of e-government than the principal models. It is on these ndings, not on the speculations of e-government models or the hype surrounding the eld, that our understanding of e-government ought to be based. If these models of e-government are as challenged as we have shown them to be, what theoretical directions appear useful? Any theory needs plausible, grounded, and testable predictions to guide the development and maintenance of e-government services. We need to escape the simplistic documentation of service delivery and technological advancement approaches dominating the literature. It is far beyond the scope of this paper to explicate alternative theory, but readers should perhaps consider three useful directions. One course is to deploy the traditional public information technology theory of reinforcement politics: that information technology is developed and managed in such a way as to simply reinforce existing power arrangements (Kraemer, Dutton, and Northrup 1981). Such a theory is very skeptical of e-democracy promises and increased citizen involvement. Some case study work examining the nascent development of e-government in Florida supports reinforcement theory (e.g., Coursey and Killingsworth 2001). A second is to ground understanding of e-government in decision making: How do services aect the underlying decision tasks of organizations? Such an approach has been used for expert systems (e.g., Coursey and Shangraw 1989). This would be particularly helpful to developers, as decision complexity, including stakeholders, varying outcomes and benets, among many other attributes, are critical development factors. Finally, a policy-making and institutional focus (e.g., Fountain 2001) can help discover and explain complex interactions across policy factors. Such traditional frameworks as Lowis (1969) distribution, regulation, and redistribution typology can anchor e-government in a more purposive cost benet orientation as a guide to prospective stakeholder development issues. To those who would aver that it is too early to assess the impacts of e-government, we respectfully disagree. At this writing, e-government has been around for at least a dozen years. Certainly, it is time to begin to examine its early impacts. We would agree, however, that the unfolding of e-government is likely to be a slow and incremental process, and therefore, the results shown here should be considered preliminary. Indeed, for these reasons, we believe that scholars
534 Public Administration Review May | June 2008

should continue to conduct systematic research into egovernment and its impacts. Like all research, our ndings should be couched within their limitations. First, these are cross-sectional surveys, and there is some variation in the pool of responding governments. Hence, some variation is attributable to the pool, not just dierences in activity, although there are scant dierences in key demographics between the samples and population (table 1). Currently, we are conducting research segmenting only governments responding to each survey, but even so, there is no guarantee that respondents were constant and that participation did not change as a result of e-government related reasons (e.g., those more involved in e-government may be more likely to respond to all the surveys, hence presenting a misleading overestimate of change). Of course, standard statistical analysis presumes sample variationhence the use of dependent sample tests with more statistical power in such panel cases. Second, even with a panel design, the issue of e-government experience is signicant and not clearly addressed. Unfortunately, this is not directly measured in all three surveys. The ICMA should strongly consider asking about year of rst activity by area, such as transactional, citizen participation, and so forth. No doubt, experience is probably a critical factor. We plan on attempting to track this information directly in future research by contacting the local governments responding to each survey. Also, a test for response mortality across the three surveys will be conducted on a variety of e-government items and government characteristics. Third, we did nd that the samples tended to slightly overrepresent council-manager compared to mayorcouncil governments. The exact eect on assessed barriers, changes, and provided services is dicult to ascertain. Presuming that the dierence is not attributable to population and potentially larger governments with greater resources, it could simply be that council-manager governments with more professional administration are more likely to complete such surveys for professional associations such as the ICMA. Still, the samples are remarkably stable in their key demographics, including form of government, such that variation over the three periods can be more readily attributed to real change and not variation in the sample makeup. Fourth, this study focuses on American local governments. Clearly, international eorts should be considered in future research development and testing. Finally, the question concerning changes and adoption are simple nominal items that do not consider the maturity and extensiveness of a service delivery

or how much change has actually occurred. For example, two governments may both indicate some cost savings, but they may be dramatically dierent in magnitude. The same goes for adoption. One city may have just begun online fee collection for one service, whereas another has such payments for a number of its units. Obviously, these are critical considerations and future ICMA surveys should strongly consider items that tap not only the existence of service and changes, but also their diusion and intensity. Future research into local e-government should move beyond the examination of local governments that have adopted e-government. It would be valuable to examine local governments that have not adopted to learn what has kept them from adopting. The data for this analysis came from the responses of governmental ocials. It would also be valuable in future research to examine citizen uptake and use of e-government. Now that e-government has been built, do citizens come? Once they arrive, what do they nd, and what do they think of what is there? More importantly, and usually an afterthought, what about those who are not using e-government? Why do people not use the Web sites? Finally, future research should endeavor to get at issues of the maturity and sophistication of e-government oerings (not all services are equal), intensity of use (versus simply whether a service exists), and measures of impacts beyond the opinions of local governmental ocials. Each of these added research dimensions will further our understanding of e-government in important ways.

Note
1. We dene e-government as the electronic delivery of governmental information and services, 24 hours per day, seven days per week (Holden, Norris, and Fletcher 2003). E-government is provided principally, although not exclusively, via the Internet. E-government is also distinct from prior generations of information technology applications in government because it is mainly outward facingthat is, government to citizen (G2C), government to business (G2B), and government to government (G2G)rather than inwardly facing (i.e., the automation of routine governmental functions such as nance and accounting and record keeping).

References
Baum, Christopher H., and Andrea Di Maio. 2000. Gartners Four Phases of E-government Model. http://www.gartner.com [accessed January 28, 2008]. Bretschneider, Stuart, and D. Wittmer. 1993. Organizational Adoption of Microcomputer

Technology: The Role of Sector. Information Systems Research 4(1): 88108. Coleman, Stephen, and Donald F. Norris. 2005. A New Agenda for E-Democracy. International Journal of Electronic Government Research 1(3): 69 82. [See the full Oxford Internet Institute Forum Discussion Paper no. 4 at http://www.umbc.edu/ mipar and www.oii.ox.ac.uk] Coursey, David. 2005. E-Government: Trends, Benets, and Challenges. In The Municipal Yearbook 2005, 1421. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association. Coursey, David, and Jennifer Killingsworth. 2001. Managing Web Services: Lessons from Florida. In Handbook of Public Information Systems, 2nd ed., edited by G. David Garson, 33145. New York: Marcel Dekker/CRC. Coursey, David, and R. Shangraw. 1989. Expert System Technology for Managerial Applications: A Typology. Public Productivity and Management Review 12(3): 23762. Danziger, James N. 2004. Innovation in Innovation: The Technology Enactment Framework. Social Science Computer Review 22(1): 100110. Danziger, James N., and Kim Viborg Andersen. 2002. The Impacts of Information Technology on Public Administration: An Analysis of Empirical Research from the Golden Age of Transformation. International Journal of Public Administration 25(5): 591627. Davis, Fred D. 1989. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly 13(3): 31940. Fountain, Jane. 2001. Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Grafton, Carl. 2003. Shadow Theories in Fountains Theory of Technology Enactment. Social Science Computer Review 21(4): 41116. Hiller, Janine S., and France Blanger. 2001. Privacy Strategies for Electronic Government. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government. http://www.businessofgovernment.org/pdfs/ HillerReport.pdf [accessed January 28, 2008]. Holden, Stephen H., Donald F. Norris, and Patricia D. Fletcher. 2003. Electronic Government at the Local Level: Progress to Date and Future Issues. Public Productivity and Management Review 26(3): 120. International City/County Management Association (ICMA). 200105. Municipal Yearbook. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association. Kraemer, Kenneth L., and John L. King. 2006. Information Technology and Administrative Reform: Will E-Government Be Dierent? International Journal of Electronic Government Research 2(1): 120. Models of E-Government 535

Kraemer, Kenneth L., William H. Dutton, and Alana Northrup. 1981. The Management of Information Systems. New York: Columbia University Press. Layne, Karen, and Jungwoo Lee. 2001. Developing Fully Functional E-Government: A Four Stage Model. Government Information Quarterly 18(2): 12236. Lowi, Theodore J. 1969. The End of Liberalism: Ideology, Policy, and the Crisis of Public Authority. New York: W. W. Norton. Norris, Donald F., and Benjamin A. Lloyd. 2006. The Scholarly Literature on E-Government: Characterizing a Nascent Field. International Journal of Electronic Government Research 2(4). Norris, Donald F., and M. Jae Moon. 2005. Advancing E-Government at the Grass Roots:

Tortoise or Hare? Public Administration Review 65(1): 6475. Norris, Pippa. 2001. Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ronaghan, Stephen A. 2001. Benchmarking E-Government: A Global Perspective. New York: United Nations Division for Public Economics and Public Administration and American Society for Public Administration. http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/ documents/UN/UNPAN021547.pdf [accessed January 28, 2008]. Wescott, Clay. 2001. E-Government in the AsiaPacic Region. Asian Journal of Political Science 9(2): 124.

Did you know Any university that has a current, paid subscription to PAR may make copies for course-pack use provided the copies are not being made/distributed for commercial gain. That means its easier than ever to use PAR in the classroom! Check with your university library for more information.

536

Public Administration Review May | June 2008