Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2011
New Ends, New Means, but Old Attitudes:
Citizens’ Views on Open Government and Government 2.0
Taewoo Nam
University at Albany, SUNY
[email protected]
Abstract
This paper sees open government and government
2.0 as a new ends and a new means of e-government.
Analyzing the Pew Research Center’s national survey
(2009 Government Online), it focuses on what
influences citizens’ attitude about open government
and government 2.0. Four main findings are
presented. First, using the existing e-government
services does not have a significant influence on
attitude for open government, but recent experience
of government 2.0 contributes to positive attitude for
government 2.0. Second, those who appreciate
transactions with e-government significantly have
positive attitude for open government and
government 2.0. Third, general trust in government
forms attitude for the new mode of e-government.
Last, frequent Web use and broadband adoption do
not affect citizen attitude for the new ends and means.
Conclusively, the study reveals that despite the
introduction of the new ends and means for egovernment, citizens’ attitude for what a government
newly does would not change much.
1. What is new for e-government?
Since its very beginning, the Obama
Administration has offered a new direction of
government: open government. Labeling it as a new
term may be misleading because citizens have seen
visions and efforts of opening government in diverse
contexts for so long as a government exists. This
paper, nevertheless, addresses something different
from “government as usual” [15-6]. Enabled and
facilitated by information and communication
technologies (ICTs), the U.S. government is seeing
relatively new opportunities for enhancing
governmental values citizens appreciate. The
digitally-enabled government has made important
benefits––making government information and
services more accessible to citizens, and creating
administrative and operational efficiencies [18].
Two buzzwords are currently penetrating through
the public sector: open government and government
2.0. On the trajectory of e-government development,
open government and government 2.0 seem
respectively a new ends and a new means of egovernment, not just in the United States but across
other developed and even some developing countries.
A motto for technology-enabled government is
moving from e-government (government 1.0) to open
government of being equipped with government 2.0
[29].
This paper pays attention to the transition of egovernment to new modes in terms of goals and
tools. What’s new in e-government is not merely for
government but also for the public as citizens,
customers and users. The research focus of the paper
is laid on citizens’ attitude about open government
and government 2.0. For the new topic of open
government and government 2.0, empirical research
needs to examine citizens’ view on e-government.
Evaluation on performance of new initiatives varies
and changes with citizens’ adoption of ICTs, their
usages of e-government services, their trust in
government, their perceived values on e-government
roles, and their personal sociodemographic attributes.
Those factors are considered as drivers for the new egovernment.
The paper raises a research question: What
influences citizens’ attitude about open government
and government 2.0? It is organized into four main
parts. First, drawing on extant literature, the paper
explores discussions and research in some focal
themes––i.e., open government, government 2.0, and
citizens’ attitude and perception on e-government––
and then establishes hypotheses based upon previous
findings. Second, it describes details of the secondary
dataset employed (2009 Government Online survey
by the Pew Research Center) and measurements.
Third, the analysis section interprets results of
multiple regressions, and tests hypotheses. Finally,
further discussions overarching statistical findings are
presented.
2. New themes and old themes
2.1. Open government
As open government has been historically used in
various contexts including freedom of information,
1530-1605/11 $26.00 © 2011 IEEE
1
Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2011
anti-corruption and transparency [8,28,34], the
concept per se cannot be a novel term coined for
these days. The U.S. government’s strong initiative,
notwithstanding, takes open government as its new
priority objective. On his very first day in White
House, President Obama signed Memorandum on
Transparency and Open Government, ushering in a
new era of open and accountable government meant
to bridge the gap between the American people and
their government. This study follows that practical
conceptualization of open government.
“My Administration is committed to creating an
unprecedented level of openness in Government.
We will work together to ensure the public trust and
establish a system of transparency, public
participation, and collaboration. Openness will
strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency
and effectiveness in Government (President Obama,
January 21, 2009)”
Through greater openness and new technologies,
the Administration seeks to empower the public to
influence the decisions that affect their lives. The role
of ICTs is central and fundamental to opening
government. The Open Government Initiative
upholsters core values of e-government––i.e.,
transparency, participation, and governance (through
collaboration). However, without a set of tangible
and concrete goals, the new governmental initiative
may leave rhetorical, as reported during earlier years
of e-government [19,28,37].
2.2. Government 2.0
E-government is now armed with new
technological means. Contemporaries see ubiquitous,
prevailing fashion of Web 2.0, which is the second
generation of Web access and use, characterized as
participatory, pervasive and integrated [21]. The
second generation Web technologies change the way
government delivers services and its relationship with
the public. Popular Web 2.0 technologies such as
social networking and social media (Facebook,
MySpace), wikis, blogs, micro blogs (Twitter), mashup, and multimedia sharing (YouTube, Flickr)
promote open and user-driven governance [20].
Government 2.0 refers to the use of Web 2.0
technologies to socialize and commoditize
government services, processes and data” [11].
Government can benefit from the collaborative
technologies at the heart of Web 2.0. Government 2.0
permits a two-way interaction between government
and its citizens through online comments, live chats,
and message threads. Tapscott et al [37] lauded
government 2.0 as a next generation of e-government
after the Millennium.
Table 1. Expectations for government 2.0
Government 2.0
y Facilitates achievement of e-government goals for efficiency,
effectiveness and democracy [12]
y Heightens the public’s awareness of and their ability to
provide feedback on policymaking [10]
y Broadens and boosts participation in e-government [2,10]
y Transforms government services from rigid bureaucratic
structures to more efficient and dynamic entities [12]
y Achieves greater transparency and productivity [12]
y Offers opportunities and challenges for public sector
innovation [22]
y Transforms governance [2,10]
y Transforms government processes [44]
y Better solves collective problems at various levels and
scopes of government [11]
y Provides government with an inexpensive way to garner the
expertise and feedback of millions of individuals [11]
y Plays as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies [6]
y Offers a new way to manage public policies, based on
openness, trust and meritocracy [27]
Hopes
that
government
2.0
improves
transparency, collaboration, participation and
openness are partially or substantially realized in
some areas, but are left as illusion in others [2,6,102,22,27,44]. Table 1 describes such hopes. In
contrast, government 2.0 faces skepticism.
Symbolizing governmental adoption of Web 2.0 as
government 1.5, Millard [20] cast an ambivalent
question: Is the current underperformance of
government 2.0 half-full or half-empty? What
government 2.0 actually does can be fact (reality) or
fiction (hype) [21,27]. The early recognition that the
reality of e-government lags behind its rhetoric [23]
recurs with governmental use of the newly emerging
technologies. Reasons for the rhetoric-reality gap are
various. For harnessing Web 2.0, the public sector is
underpaced behind businesses and civil societies.
Recognizing the policy-technology gap, Bertot et al
[6] claimed the government 2.0 Administration
resides in government 1.0 environment. The fact that
excessive enthusiasm (i.e., idolization, faddism,
technophilia and lomanism) for ICTs leads to
government failures in using technology and
developing systems [13] cannot be an exception for
government 2.0.
2.3. Citizens’ attitude on e-government
As mentioned in the start of the paper, new
technologies employed for the workings of
government influence citizens’ new attitude on
technologies and services changed by the
2
Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2011
technologies. Previous empirical studies have
surveyed citizens’ attitude and/or perception on egovernment in terms of trust, satisfaction and values.
There has been a gulf between public expectation and
perceived governmental performance [26,30].
Governmental performance is important as public
perception rather than as a matter of fact itself. The
public expectation-perception gap contributes to the
decline of public trust in government, and that is not
an exception to e-government [42]. As well, the
perceptual distance and information gap between the
public and government is one of the major reasons
for the decline of public trust in government.
Individuals’ longstanding perception can fixate
their attitude on government. Fancy technologies may
change citizens’ attitude more positively, or
contribute little to attitudinal change. Therefore, open
government pushed by government 2.0 needs to be
evaluated from citizens’ views. Along with
continuous expansion and advancement in
conventional e-government functions, various new
initiatives of e-government are believed to boost
citizens’ satisfaction with and trust in government
performance by strongly supporting the governmental
values such as transparency, participation and
collaboration.
There is a mix of concepts for empirical research
on how citizens view and use e-government: for
example, perception and attitude (satisfaction,
efficacy, trust and confidence). Various conceptual
models are presented or assumed in existing research.
Antecedents and determinants of online political
participation matter for the extent to which egovernment usages affect citizens’ attitudes [38].
Attention to sociodemographic conditions reveals
that the impact of e-government varies across groups
within the population [38,42-3]. The frequent use of
e-government has a great impact on trust in
government and attitude for e-government
[17,36,38]. Perceived use value of e-government
influences satisfaction with e-government [17] and
continuous usage of e-government [9,40].
Satisfaction with e-government is heavily associated
with trust in government [42].
3. Hypotheses
For an empirical analysis, e-government, despite a
generic understanding and use of the term, needs
operational definition. Its concept broadly includes
major internal (back office) aspects (i.e., intranet,
database and warehouse) and external (front office)
aspects
(i.e.,
Web-based
service
delivery,
transactional activities, and digital democracy for
transparent accountability) [19,23]. This study
focuses on those external functional components of egovernment in its practical operational definition.
Grounded on the literature review, the paper
identifies factors influencing citizens’ attitude for egovernment: e-government usage intensity, perceived
value of e-government, general trust in government,
and general use of the Internet. When
sociodemographic characteristics are controlled, the
study hypothesizes that those factors would affect
citizens’ attitude for open government and
government 2.0. It sets four hypotheses as follows.
H1. Citizens’ frequent use of e-government has
a positive influence on their attitude for new ends
(open government) and means (government 2.0) of
e-government.
H2. Citizens’ perceived value of e-government has
a positive influence on their attitude for new ends
(open government) and means (government 2.0) of
e-government.
H3. Citizens’ trust in government has a positive
influence on their attitude for new ends (open
government) and means (government 2.0) of
e-government.
H4. Citizens’ frequent use of the Internet has a
positive influence on their attitude for new ends
(open government) and means (government 2.0) of
e-government.
4. Data and measurements
This study analyzes the secondary data (2009
Government Online) from the national survey that the
Pew Research Center conducted by telephone
interviews during December in 2009. Not including
responses with missing values, the dataset (N=1,215)
used in the study was extracted from the original
random-sampled dataset (N=2,258). All respondents
are Internet users, regardless of the frequency of
using the Internet. Table 2 exhibits the demographic
distribution of the sample.
The six sociodemographic characteristics (age,
sex, race, education, income, and residential place)
manifest various segments of respondents. The
dataset also includes the type of communities where
respondents live: urban, suburban, and rural area.
Half of respondents live in suburban areas. 89% of
the sample has high-speed connection to the Internet
(e.g., broadband adoption: DSL, FiOS or Wi-Fi).
Self-identified partisanship is quite evenly distributed
in the sample, but the proportion of Republicans is
somewhat smaller than that of Democrats and
independents.
3
Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2011
Table 2. The sample distribution
Age
Mean = 51
Std Dev = 18
Min=18, Max=95
Sex
Race
Education
Household
Income
Residential
Place
Internet
connection
Partisanship
Categories
DotNets (born after 1976)
GenXers (between 1965 and 1976)
Baby Boomers (between 1946 and 1964)
Dutifuls (before 1946)
Male
Female
Non-White
White
High school incomplete
High school graduate
Some college level
Four-year college graduate
Post-graduate education
$30,000 or less
$30,001 ~ $50,000
$50,001 ~ $75,000
$75,001 ~ $100,000
$100,001 or more
Rural
Suburban
Urban
Dial-up connection
High-speed connection
Republican
Democrat
Independent or others
24%
18%
39%
19%
45%
55%
20%
80%
5%
23%
29%
25%
18%
24%
22%
18%
15%
21%
21%
52%
27%
11%
89%
26%
37%
37%
Data source: 2009 Government Online
(http://www.PewInternet.org/Shared-Content/Data-Sets/2009/December2009--Government-Online.aspx)
Table 3. The descriptive statistics of ordinal variables
Ordinal variables
Mean S.D Min Max
7
5.43 1.72 1
Frequency of using the Internet
Citizens’ attitude
3
2.22 0.70 1
[A1] General attitude for open government
5
[A2] Gov 2.0 makes government accessible 3.83 1.27 1
5
3.92 1.20 1
[A3] Gov 2.0 helps keep people informed
5
3.27 1.46 1
[A4] Gov 2.0 is NOT a waste of money
5
2.20 1.20 1
[A5] Gov 2.0 is delivers new information
Trust in government
4
2.26 0.66 1
[T1] Trust in general government
4
2.15 0.73 1
[T2] Trust in federal government
4
2.27 0.73 1
[T3] Trust in state government
4
2.40 0.76 1
[T4] Trust in local government
E-government use
5
1.46 1.22 0
[U1] Transactions
10
2.60 2.35 0
[U2] Information
4
0.33 0.70 0
[U3] Participation
5
0.71 0.08 0
[U4] Use of government 2.0 tools
E-government value
4
3.66 0.66 1
[V1] Provides information to the public
4
3.57 0.75 1
[V2] Allows people to complete tasks
4
3.61 0.70 1
[V3] Allows people to contact officials
Note. Originally, both [A4] and [A5] are statements with negative
meanings. They are reversely coded so that positive answers
consistently have higher scores in Likert scale.
Explanatory variables comprise various factors:
socioeconomic and demographic characteristics,
frequency of Internet use, use of high speed Internet,
trust in government, usage of e-government
(transactions, information, participation, and use of
government 2.0 tools), perceived value of egovernment use, and political party affiliation.
Outcome variables are citizens’ attitude about open
government and government 2.0. To test hypotheses,
the study employs ordered logistic regression for
ordinal dependent variables (three- or four-battery
items). Details of these measures are as follows.
Frequency of using the Internet
Web use
frequency is measured in seven ordinal points: 1)
Never (5%), 2) Less often (4%), 3) Every few weeks
(4%), 4) 1-2 days a week (13%), 5) 3-5 days a week
(15%), 6) About once a day (22%), and 7) Several
times a day (37%).
Citizens’ attitude for open government
This
variable was measured in terms of the perception on
openness and accessibility of government. The
original question is: “Would you say government is
now more open and accessible, less open and
accessible, or about the same as it was two years
ago?” The proportion of three response options is: 1)
Less open and accessible (16%), 2) About the same
(46%), and 3) More open and accessible (38%).
Citizens’ attitude for government 2.0 tools
Four
variables are related to citizens’ attitude for
government 2.0 tools such as blogs and social
networking sites (e.g., Facebook, MySpace and
Twitter). Those variables measured in Likert scale
are responses to four statements, as shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Attitude for government 2.0
Strongly Somewhat
Variables disagree disagree
[A2]
10%
10%
[A3]
9%
7%
[A4]
16%
24%
[A5]
28%
52%
Neutral
1%
1%
3%
1%
Somewhat Strongly
agree
agree
45%
34%
48%
35%
33%
25%
11%
8%
Trust in government
Citizens’ trust in federal,
state and local government is measured in a fourpoint scale. The level of trust in government (an
answer to the question “How much of the time can
you trust?”) is: 1) Never (17% for federal, 13% for
state, and 11% for local), 2) Some of the time (55%,
51%, and 45%, respectively), 3) Most of the time
(25%, 32%, and 38%), and 4) Just about always (3%,
4%, and 6%). The average of those three four-battery
responses represents the general level of citizens’
trust in government (Cronbach’s α=0.77).
Citizens’ use of informational service
This is the
summation of binary responses (Cronbach’s α=0.75).
The ten items related to information acquisition
through e-government are: 1) Information about a
public policy or issue (49%), 2) Advice or
information about a health or safety issue (26%), 3)
4
Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2011
Recreational or tourist information (33%), 4) Official
government documents or statistics (37%), 5)
Information about benefits (21%), 6) Information
about how to apply for a government job (16%), 7)
Government data on data.gov, recovery.gov or
usaspending.gov (17%), 8) Information on who
contributes to the campaigns of elected officials
(14%), 9) Text of any legislation (24%), and 10) How
money from the recent federal government stimulus
package is being spent (24%).
Citizens’ use of transactional service This measure
is the additive index of aggregating five binary
variables (Cronbach’s α=0.67). The collapsed items
are: 1) Renewing a driver’s license or auto
registration (32%), 2) Applying for a fishing, hunting
or other recreational license (11%), 3) Paying a fine
such as a parking ticket (12%), 4) Downloading
government forms (44%), and 5) Looking up what
services a government agency provides (47%).
Citizens’ participation in e-government
It also
summates binary responses of four activities in the
past 12 months (Cronbach’s α=0.62): 1) Participating
in an online town hall meeting (3%), 2) Posting
comments, queries or information in a blog, online
discussion, or online forum about a government
policy or public issue (10%), 3) Uploading photos or
videos online about a government policy or public
issue (7%), and 4) Joining a group online that tries to
influence government policies (12%).
Citizens’ adoption of government 2.0 tools
The
variable incorporates five binary items (Cronbach’s
α=0.65): 1) Following or becoming a fan of a
government agency on its social networking site
(9%), 2) Following a government agency or official
on Twitter (7%), 3) Reading the blog of a
government agency or official (15%), 4) Signing up
to receive email alerts from a government agency or
official (15%), and 5) signing up to receive text
messages from a government agency or official (4%).
Citizens’ perception on e-government value
Respondents’ perception on three statements is
measured in a four-point scale: 1) A government
agency provides general information to the public on
its website (2% for Very important, 4% for
Somewhat important, 20% for Not too important, and
74% for Not important at all), 2) A government
agency allows people to complete tasks on the
website, such as submitting applications or renewing
licenses (4%, 4%, 22%, and 70% respectively), and
3) A government agency allows people to contact
agency officials through the website (3%, 4%, 23%,
and 71%, respectively).
5. Analysis
What influences citizens’ attitude about open
government and government 2.0? This paper views
open government and government 2.0 as a new ends
and a new means for e-government. When open
government is regarded as a further extension of egovernment, a variety of factors considered in egovernment research would also serve as factors
determining the level of open government.
The paper sees the new direction of e-government
through the lens of citizens’ attitude, which is shaped
by perception on performance of open government
and efficacy of government 2.0. The study postulates
causal effects among factors derived from an array of
prior studies. By multivariate regressions, it analyzes
how those factors affect citizens’ attitude on the new
ends and means.
As a pre-regression analysis, pairwise correlation
deserves attention. Using government 2.0 tools is not
much associated with using the existing egovernment services. Government 2.0 use is also
only a little correlated with perceived value of egovernment and trust in government.
Table 5. Pairwise correlation matrix
[U1] E-gov use: Information
[U2] E-gov use: Transaction
[U3] E-gov use: Participation
[U4] E-gov use: Gov 2.0
[V1] E-gov value: Information
[V2] E-gov value: Transaction
[V3] E-gov value: Contact
[A1] Attitude for open gov
[A2] Attitude for Gov 2.0
[A3] Attitude for Gov 2.0
[A4] Attitude for Gov 2.0
[A5] Attitude for Gov 2.0
[T1] Trust in government
[T2] Trust in federal
[T3] Trust in state
[T4] Trust in local
U1
U2
U3
U4
1.00
0.55 1.00
0.43 0.20 1.00
0.37 0.27 0.30 1.00
0.22 0.20 0.11 0.13
0.18 0.27 0.08 0.13
0.21 0.20 0.13 0.14
0.08 0.11 0.00 0.09
0.11 0.12 0.04 0.13
0.08 0.06 0.07 0.15
0.18 0.18 0.12 0.16
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 -0.03
0.04 0.05 -0.03 0.09
0.01 0.05 -0.03 0.05
0.03 0.04 -0.03 0.12
0.07 0.04 0.01 0.07
V1
V2
V3
1.00
0.31 1.00
0.50 0.31 1.00
0.11 0.15 0.09
0.20 0.23 0.22
0.22 0.22 0.21
0.21 0.19 0.25
-0.12 -0.14 -0.15
0.10 0.11 0.09
0.12 0.15 0.05
0.08 0.10 0.09
0.05 0.11 0.09
A1
A2
1.00
0.25 1.00
0.22 0.60
0.21 0.39
-0.08 -0.32
0.23 0.21
0.33 0.19
0.21 0.20
0.12 0.16
A3
A4
A5
1.00
0.37 1.00
-0.32 -0.08 1.00
0.16 0.15 -0.10
0.13 0.13 -0.08
0.17 0.13 -0.08
0.14 0.15 -0.09
T1
T2
T3
1.00
0.73
0.83
0.77
1.00
0.55
0.47
1.00
0.59
5
Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2011
Table 6. Ordered logistic regressions
Attitude for open
government
E-government use
E-government use: Information
E-government use: Transaction
E-government use: Participation
E-government use: Government 2.0
E-government value
E-government value: Information
E-government value: Transaction
E-government value: Contact
Trust in government
Trust in government
Technology use
Frequency of Internet use
High-speed Internet
Political affiliation (Base=independent)
Republican
Democrat
Individual attributes
Age
Female
White
Education
Income
Suburban (Base=rural)
Urban
Cut 1
Cut 2
Cut 3
Cut 4
N
Log-likelihood
Log-ratio χ2
More
accessible
Attitude for government 2.0
More
Right use of
informed
budget
New way for
new information
-0.01
0.13*
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.03
-0.01
0.22***
0.03
-0.01
0.20*
0.27***
0.08***
-0.01
0.25**
0.16**
-0.04
0.02
-0.02
-0.01
0.04
0.30***
-0.02
0.05
0.36***
0.24*
0.19
0.47***
0.22*
0.19
0.13
0.38***
-0.20
-0.10
-0.35***
0.61***
0.32***
0.22**
0.11
0.07
0.03
0.09
-0.02
0.04
-0.01
-0.15
-0.01
-0.01
-0.03
-0.15
-0.73***
1.27***
-0.07
0.14
-0.03
0.03
-0.23
0.17
0.24
0.21
-0.01
0.20
0.11
-0.01
-0.02
0.12
-0.22
0.86
3.56
-0.01**
-0.11
0.01
0.02
-0.07*
-0.11
-0.11
-0.12
0.89
0.93
3.15
1,215
-939.42
89.04***
-0.01**
0.16
-0.22
-0.04
-0.04
-0.25
-0.40**
-0.13
0.61
0.75
3.29
1,215
-901.55
119.84***
0.00
-0.22
0.04
0.14***
-0.07**
0.15
-0.02
1.74
3.10
3.18
4.80
1,215
-1,100.02
116.94***
0.01
0.17
-0.19
0.00
-0.01
0.19
-0.05
-3.38
-0.89
-0.81
0.15
1,215
-923.08
43.36***
1,215
-692.73
202.50***
*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.10
H1. Citizens’ frequent use of e-government has
a positive influence on their attitude for new ends
(open government) and means (government 2.0) of
e-government.
The study adopts four types of e-government use:
information, transaction, participation, and use of
government 2.0 tools. Expectedly, users of
government 2.0 tend to have positive attitude about
government 2.0. Netizens connecting with social
networking and social media websites of government
agencies think that government 2.0 makes people
more accessible to government and more informed,
and it is a right use of government budget. Hence,
government 2.0 efficacy arises from frequent use and
at least frequent exposure to such websites. Even its
frequent users, however, do not recognize
government 2.0 as a vehicle for new information.
Citizens’ perception can be no better than a move and
spread by new technologies of existing information.
The result is not necessarily unfavorable for the role
of government 2.0. Users of government 2.0 already
feel efficacy that it makes them more informed about
government. Government 2.0 can be a new way of
diversifying information channels at a low cost, not a
way for providing and creating new information.
Attitude on open government is not influenced by
using e-government services. Users of transactional
services through e-government have positive attitude
of open government, but use of e-government
information and participation in e-democracy are not
associated with attitude for open government. Instead,
those who look for information on e-government and
participate in e-democracy support investment in
government 2.0.
Using government 2.0 contributes to positive
attitude for government 2.0. People who have ever
used e-government services do not necessarily have
significantly positive attitude for the new mode of egovernment.
H2. Citizens’ perceived value of e-government has
a positive influence on their attitude for new ends
(open government) and means (government 2.0) of
e-government.
6
Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2011
This study employs three variables of citizens’
perceived e-government value (values of information
acquisition, seamless and satisfactory transaction, and
easy contact to government officials). Respondents
who believe e-government facilitates transaction
would likely have positive attitude for open
government. The Open Government Initiative of the
current Administration lays a heavy emphasis on
open information. However, those who would likely
advocate open government feel transactional efficacy
of e-government rather than its informational values.
A compelling reason for the result is that the
informational openness required to federal agencies
by the presidential initiative is somewhat apart from
information directly helpful for citizens’ daily life.
People who perceive e-government value from
transactions tend to believe that government 2.0 helps
make people more accessible to government and
more informed about the workings of government.
By contrast, the belief that e-government is an
effective tool for contact with public officials causes
the belief that government 2.0 is not a waste of
government money. Although the Open Government
Initiative utilizes government 2.0, citizens’ attitude
on informational functions (as a way for new
information) of government 2.0 is negatively
predicted by their perceived e-government values.
Overall, citizens do not expect that various
mechanisms of government 2.0 provide and open
new information. These results imply that perceived
values of e-government use and potential benefits
from it are, to some extent and in some aspects,
translated into attitude for open government and
government 2.0.
H3. Citizens’ trust in government has a positive
influence on their attitude for new ends (open
government) and means (government 2.0) of
e-government.
The level of citizens’ general trust in government
positively affects their attitude for open government.
Those with a high level of general trust in
government keep continuous trust in government
despite changes in public policies and environments
[26]. Such people are likely to have positive attitude
for open government and government 2.0.
The effect of citizens’ trust in government is
overall supportive for open government and generic
benefits delivered by technological means of egovernment. Trust in government increases citizens’
efficacy of government 2.0 for more accessibility and
more informedness. Other two variables of attitude
about government 2.0 are not significantly predicted
by the effect of trust on citizen attitude. Government
2.0 efficacy enhanced by trust in government does
not significantly support governmental spending on
e-government transformation into 2.0 platforms.
Moreover, people with trust in government do not
much believe that government 2.0 effectively open
new information.
H4. Citizens’ frequent use of the Internet has
a positive influence on their attitude for new ends
(open government) and means (government 2.0) of
e-government.
Two technological factors are included as an
explanatory variable. The frequency of using the
Internet affects trust in government [36] and the
degree of using e-government [3,4,29]. Though little
research reports that Web use itself causes attitudinal
changes to citizens on e-government, there is a
crucial reason why it should be taken as a focal
variable. The variable of Web use captures the digital
divide, which fundamentally impedes a nation-wide
spread of e-government use. Thus, the significance
and magnitude of the variable indicate the influence
of the digital divide on citizens’ attitude about egovernment.
Another technology variable is broadband
adoption. When all other ways of faster networking
than dial-up connection are categorized as high-speed
Internet, 11% of Internet users do not adopt highspeed Internet. Since e-government services,
especially government 2.0 tools, require a moderately
high level of Web connection conditions, dial-up
Internet users may stay lagged behind benefiting
from use of new e-government features.
Unlike such expectation, citizens’ attitude is not
influenced by the frequency of Internet use and
access to high-speed Internet. As shown in Table 3,
the use of government 2.0 tools is in a very low level.
Most respondents have never experienced the new
social tools for open government. In this sense,
government 2.0 may seem like another rhetoric after
researchers [19,37] claimed the significant gap
between a targeted high e-government stage
(rhetoric) and an actual stage of e-government
maturity (reality). Despite the increasing number of
frequent Internet users and broadband users, the
expansion of technology use does not make positive
contribution to citizens’ attitude for government 2.0.
Attitude about open government is not also
affected by technology use. Almost half (46%) of
respondents said “about the same” in governmental
openness between the Obama Administration and its
predecessor. Government’s use of ICTs for openness
is not yet appealing to citizens enough to
significantly affect their attitude about government.
7
Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2011
What government wants to see––citizens’ enthusiasm
or at least positive attitude for open government and
government 2.0––does not appear with the help of the
closing divide in terms of physical access and usage
frequency.
Another way of explanation is possible. Both
open government and government 2.0 may be
recognized by citizens differently from conventional
services of e-government. Those who use frequently
the Internet are more likely to be satisfied with egovernment [36]. However, Internet use does not
contribute to citizens’ positive attitude for the new
version of e-government. The further extension of egovernment faces a challenge, in which only some
small segments of the total population (not expanded
to a majority of Internet users and general egovernment users) use government 2.0 and appreciate
the performance of open government. That may make
a participation or usage divide in adopting the new
mode of e-government.
The influence of control variables that are not
considered in hypotheses is worthy of attention.
Unlike the leverage of sociodemographic conditions
on usage of and participation in e-government [1,35,11,20-1,27,29,32], personal backgrounds overall do
not affect attitude about the new ends and means of
e-government. Attitude for open government makes
salient distinction between Republicans and
Democrats. The Open Government Initiative of the
Obama Administration is strongly supported by
citizens who self-identify themselves as Democrats.
6. Discussion and conclusion
This concluding section presents implications for
government practitioners (e.g., developers and
policymakers) and researchers. Prediction revealed
by statistical analysis can be both hope and challenge
for the further step toward open government from the
existing e-government. Along with testing
hypothetical causal effects, the paper highlighted who
is likely to be an advocate for open government and
government 2.0. Matching between attitude and
factors that are believed to affect attitude is not
simple. While some who use conventional egovernment services and perceive potential benefits
of e-government would translate their positive
attitude for e-government into support for open
government and government 2.0, others who do
neither use e-government services nor feel egovernment value do not have much interest in new
options for their e-government use. Usages and
values of the existing e-government influence attitude
for the new e-government to some extent.
Practitioners and academics of e-government need to
know implications overarching findings presented in
the analysis section. This study offers the following
propositions.
Proposition 1. Citizens’ perceived values matter for
their attitude about the new mode of e-government.
It seems that attitude is formed by perceived value
more than by actual usage of e-government. Those
who have already experienced government 2.0 have
positive attitude for it. However, the existing users of
e-government hardly show attitude favorable for
open government and government 2.0. Instead, those
who value potential benefits in transaction through egovernment are positive for open government and
government 2.0. A gap exists between those who use
transactional services and those who perceive
potential value from such services. Citizens’ attitude
about the new direction of e-government is more
greatly influenced by their perception on potential
value than by their actual experiences.
If
what
government
should
care
is
citizens’ attitude about government, what shapes their
value perception is crucial. The relations among
various factors are in a puzzle. E-government use and
e-government value perception are not so much
associated with each other, shown in Table 5. Other
possible contributors to e-government value
perception are trust in government and technology
use intensity. A mix of those diverse factors form
perceived value of e-government.
Proposition 2. Citizens’ general trust in government
is crucial for their attitude about the new mode of egovernment.
Trust in government without “e-” has a heavy
influence on citizen attitude on e-government. If
governmental efforts to change citizens’ attitude
hinge only on technological means, the effect of trust
would be limited. The fact that citizens’ support for
the new initiative of e-government is anchored by
trust in government requires government to consider
factors for boosting general trust as well as improve
technological convenience for using e-government.
However, trust is not a feeling or emotion easily
affected by external stimuli. Trust-building requires
long-term investment of government because trust is
established through long-term relationships [33,35].
While both open government and government 2.0 are
new to most individual citizens, e-government can be
still new to them when government is considered as
an object for trust. To those who do not trust
government much, the new ends and new means of egovernment look like illusions. With the same logic,
political partisanship (entailing trust in a specific
8
Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2011
party) matters for attitude about open government.
Citizens affiliated to the Democratic Party are
favorable for open government.
Proposition 3. Citizens’ attitudinal disparities on the
new mode of e-government reveal the difference from
the usage divide and the access divide.
Overall, Web use and e-government usage do not
significantly influence citizens’ attitude about the
new mode of e-government. The usage divide and the
access divide (so called, the digital divide) have little
impact on citizens’ attitude for open government and
government 2.0. Whereas perceived value and trust
matter for attitude (proposition 1 and 2), the impact
of technological factors causing the physical divide is
little. That is not necessarily converted to positive
interpretation because there might exist another
divide (i.e., the attitudinal divide for e-government).
Such a divide (strongly leveraged by perceived value
and trust) is shaped differently from the gap in
conventional e-government use.
In fact, open government as a new ends of egovernment in the Obama Administration is a
normatively right objective for government and
society. The jobs of government for the objective
need to be supported by the public because citizens
are not only customers and users of governmental
services but also (tax)payers for governmental
workings and voters who decide whether the current
administration continuously works for the next term.
Despite the normatively right direction for openness,
it doesn’t seem that the U.S. government gains a high
level of public recognition and perception. The
introduction of the new ends and means of egovernment does not contribute much to citizens’
supportive attitudes for government. To reach the
large populace of citizens and get much popular
support from them, government needs strategies that
make them feel efficacy of new technological tools
and think new e-government initiatives not as hype
and rhetoric but as hope and even real achievement.
7. References
[1] Akman, İ., Yazici, A., Mishra, A., & Arifoglu, A. (2005).
E-Government: A global view and an empirical evaluation
of some attributes of citizens. Government Information
Quarterly, 22(2), 239-257.
[2] Anttiroiko, A.-V. (2010). Innovation in democratic egovernance: Benefitting from Web 2.0 applications in the
public sector. In C. G. Reddick (Ed.), Citizens and EGovernment: Evaluating Policy and Management (pp. 110130). Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing.
[3] Bélanger, F., & Carter, L. (2006a). The effects of the digital
divide on e-government: An empirical evaluation. Paper
presented at the 39th Hawaii International Conference on
System Sciences (HICSS-39), Kauai, Hawaii.
[4] Bélanger, F., & Carter, L. (2006b). The impact of the
digital divide on e-government use. Communications of the
ACM, 52(4), 132-135.
[5] Becker, J., Niehaves, B., Bergener, P., & Räckers, M.
(2008). Digital divide in eGovernment: The eInclusion gap
model. In M. A. Wimmer, H. J. Scholl & E. Ferro (Eds.),
Electronic Government: Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference, EGOV 2008 (Turin, Italy, Aug 31
- Sep 5, 2008) (Vol. 5184, pp. 231-242). Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany: Springer.
[6] Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). 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), 264271.
[7] Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., Shuler, J. A., Simmons, S. N., &
Grimes, J. M. (2009). Reconciling government documents
and e-government: Government information in policy,
librarianship, and education. Government Information
Quarterly, 26(3), 433-436.
[8] Birkinshaw, P. (1997). Freedom of information.
Parliamentary Affairs, 50(1), 164-181.
[9] Carter, L., & Belanger, F. (2005). The influence of
perceived characteristics of innovating on e-government
adoption. The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 2(1),
11-20.
[10] Cho, H. J., & Hwang, S. (2010). Government 2.0 in
Korea: Focusing on e-participation services. In C. G.
Reddick (Ed.), Politics, Democracy and E-Government:
Participation and Service Delivery (pp. 94-114). Hershey,
PA: IGI Publishing.
[11] DiMaio, A. (2009). Government 2.0: A Gartner definition.
from
http://blogs.gartner.com/andrea_dimaio/2009/11/13/govern
ment-2-0-a-gartner-definition/
[12] Eggers, W. D. (2005). Government 2.0: Using Technology
to Improve Education, Cut Red Tape, Reduce Gridlock, and
Enhance Democracy. Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers.
[13] Goldfinch, S. (2007). Pessimism, computer failure, and
information systems development in the public sector.
Public Administration Review, 67(5), 917-929.
[14] Goldfinch, S., Gauld, R., & Herbison, P. (2009). The
participation divide? Political participation, trust in
government, and e-government in Australia and New
Zealand. Australian Journal of Public Administration,
68(3), 333-350.
[15] Golembiewski, R. T., & Gabris, G. (1995). Tomorrow's
city management: Guides for avoiding success-becomingfailure. Public Administration Review, 55(3), 240-246.
[16] Holzer, M., & Halachmi, A. (1996). Measurement as a
means of accountability. International Journal of Public
Administration, 19(11/12), 1921-1944.
9
Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2011
[17] Kolsaker, A., & Lee-Kelley, L. (2008). Citizens' attitudes
towards e-government and e-governance: A UK study.
International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(7),
723-738.
[18] Lathrop, D., & Ruma, L. (Eds.). (2010). Open
Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and
Participation in Practice. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media.
[19] Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional
e-government: A four stage model. Government
Information Quarterly, 18(2), 12-36.
[20] Millard, J. (2009). Government 1.5: Is the bottle half full
or half empty? European Journal of ePractice, 9(1), 35-50,
Available at
http://www.epractice.eu/files/European%20Journal%20epra
ctice%20Volume%209_201.pdf.
[21] Mintz, D. (2008). Government 2.0: Fact or fiction? Public
Manager, 36(4), 21-24.
[22] Molinari, E. F. F. (2009). Framing Web 2.0 in the process
of public sector innovation: Going down the participation
ladder. European Journal of ePractice, 9(1), 20-34,
Available at
http://www.epractice.eu/files/European%20Journal%20epra
ctice%20Volume%209_201.pdf.
[23] Moon, M. J. (2002). The evolution of e-government
among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality? Public
Administration Review, 62(4), 424-433.
[24] Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & Stansbury, M. (2003).
Virtual Inequality: Beyond the Digital Divide. Washington
D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
[25] Niehaves, B., & Becker, J. (2008). The age-divide in egovernment – data, iterpretations, theory fragments. In M.
Oya, R. Uda & C. Yasunobu (Eds.), Towards Sustainable
Society on Ubiquitous Networks: Proceedings of the 8th
IFIP Conference on e-Business, e-Services, and e-Society
(I3E 2008, Sep 24–16, 2008, Tokyo, Japan) (Vol. 286, pp.
279-287). Boston: Springer.
[32] Reddick, C. G. (2004a). Citizen interaction with egovernment: From the streets to servers? Government
Information Quarterly, 22(1), 38-57.
[33] Reddick, C. G. (2004b). A two-stage model of egovernment growth: Theories and empirical evidence for
U.S. cities. Government Information Quarterly, 21(1), 5164.
[34] Rose-Ackerman, S. (2008). Corruption and government.
International Peacekeeping, 15(3), 328-343.
[35] Sipior, J. C., & Ward, B. T. (2005). Bridging the digital
divide for e-government inclusion: A United States case
study. The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 3(3), 137146.
[36] Sweeney, A. D. P. (2007). Electronic government-citizen
relationships exploring citizen perspectives. Journal of
Information Technology & Politics, 4(2), 101-116.
[37] Tapscott, D., Williams, A. D., & Herman, D. (2008).
Government 2.0: Transforming Government and
Governance for the Twenty-First Century, New Paradigm,
Available at
http://www.collaborationproject.org/download/attachments/
3801180/Gov_Transforming.pdf?version=3801181.
[38] Tolbert, C., & Mossberger, K. (2003, May 18-21). The
effects of e-government on trust and confidence in
government. Paper presented at the Annual National
Conference on Digital Government Research (dg.o 2003),
Boston, MA.
[39] van de Walle, S., van Roosbroek, S., & Bouckaert, G.
(2008). Trust in the public sector: is there any evidence for
a long-term decline? International Review of Administrative
Sciences, 74(1), 47-64.
[40] Wangpipatwong, S., Chutimaskul, W., & Papasratorn, B.
(2008). Understanding citizen’s continuance intention to
use e-government website: A composite view of technology
acceptance model and computer self-efficacy. The
Electronic Journal of e-Government, 6(1), 55-64.
[26] Nye, J. S., Jr., Zelikow, P. D., & King, D. C. (Eds.).
(1997). Why People Don't Trust Government. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
[41] Warkentin, M., Gefen, D., Pavlou, P. A., & Rose, G. M.
(2002). Encouraging citizen adoption of e-government by
building trust Electronic Markets, 12(3), 157-162.
[27] Osimo, D. (2009). Editorial: Government 2.0 - hype,
hope, or reality? European Journal of ePractice, 9(1), 2-4,
Available at
http://www.epractice.eu/files/European%20Journal%20epra
ctice%20Volume%209_201.pdf.
[42] Welch, E. W., Hinnant, C. C., & Moon, M. J. (2005).
Linking citizen satisfaction with e-government and trust in
government. Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory, 15(3), 371–391.
[28] Parks, W. (1957). The open government principle:
Applying the right to know under the constitution The
George Washington Law Review, 26(1), 1-22.
[29] Parycek, P., & Sachs, M. (2009). Open government:
Information flow in Web 2.0. European Journal of
ePractice, 9(1), 59-70, Available at
http://www.epractice.eu/files/European%20Journal%20epra
ctice%20Volume%209_201.pdf.
[43] West, D. M. (2004). E-government and the transformation
of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public
Administration Review, 64(1), 15-27.
[44] Yong, J. S., & Koon, L. H. (2005). E-government:
Enabling public sector reform. In J. S. Yong (Ed.), Egovernment in Asia: Enabling Public Service Innovation in
the 21st Century (pp. 3-21). Singapore: Times Media.
[30] Peters, B. G. (2009). American Public Policy: Promise
and Performace (8th ed.). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
[31] Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and
Revival of American Community. New York: Touchstone.
10