IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/porgrv/v17y2017i3d10.1007_s11115-016-0346-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Yueping Zheng

    (Sun Yat Sen University)

  • Hindy Lauer Schachter

    (New Jersey Institute of Technology)

Abstract

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

Suggested Citation

  • Yueping Zheng & Hindy Lauer Schachter, 2017. "Explaining Citizens’ E-Participation Use: the Role of Perceived Advantages," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 409-428, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:porgrv:v:17:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11115-016-0346-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11115-016-0346-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11115-016-0346-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11115-016-0346-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Verba, Sidney & Schlozman, Kay Lehman & Brady, Henry & Nie, Norman H., 1993. "Citizen Activity: Who Participates? What Do They Say?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(2), pages 303-318, June.
    2. Verba, Sidney & Schlozman, Kay Lehman & Brady, Henry & Nie, Norman H., 1993. "Race, Ethnicity and Political Resources: Participation in the United States," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(4), pages 453-497, October.
    3. Niemi, Richard G. & Craig, Stephen C. & Mattei, Franco, 1991. "Measuring Internal Political Efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 85(4), pages 1407-1413, December.
    4. Abramson, Paul R. & Aldrich, John H., 1982. "The Decline of Electoral Participation in America," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 76(3), pages 502-521, September.
    5. Neblo, Michael A. & Esterling, Kevin M. & Kennedy, Ryan P. & Lazer, David M.J. & Sokhey, Anand E., 2010. "Who Wants To Deliberate—And Why?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 104(3), pages 566-583, August.
    6. Brady, Henry E. & Verba, Sidney & Schlozman, Kay Lehman, 1995. "Beyond SES: A Resource Model of Political Participation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 89(2), pages 271-294, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Xin Ye & Xiaoyan Su & Zhijun Yao & Lu-an Dong & Qiang Lin & Shuo Yu, 2023. "How Do Citizens View Digital Government Services? Study on Digital Government Service Quality Based on Citizen Feedback," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-24, July.
    2. Osman, Ibrahim H. & Anouze, Abdel Latef & Irani, Zahir & Lee, Habin & Medeni, Tunç D. & Weerakkody, Vishanth, 2019. "A cognitive analytics management framework for the transformation of electronic government services from users’ perspective to create sustainable shared values," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 278(2), pages 514-532.
    3. Filipiak Beata Zofia & Dylewski Marek, 2018. "A Real Or a Marginal Trend in Participatory Budgets in Local Governments," Financial Internet Quarterly (formerly e-Finanse), Sciendo, vol. 14(4), pages 12-21, December.
    4. Yueping Zheng & Liang Ma, 2022. "How Citizen Demand Affects the Process of M-Government Adoption: An Empirical Study in China," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 1407-1433, December.
    5. Pérez-Morote, Rosario & Pontones-Rosa, Carolina & Núñez-Chicharro, Montserrat, 2020. "The effects of e-government evaluation, trust and the digital divide in the levels of e-government use in European countries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    6. John Coffie Azamela & Zhiwei Tang & Owusu Ackah & Swanzy Awozum, 2022. "Assessing the Antecedents of E-Government Adoption: A Case of the Ghanaian Public Sector," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(2), pages 21582440221, May.
    7. Patrycja Szarek-Iwaniuk & Adam Senetra, 2020. "Access to ICT in Poland and the Co-Creation of Urban Space in the Process of Modern Social Participation in a Smart City—A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-21, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Conroy-Krutz, Jeffrey, 2018. "Media exposure and political participation in a transitional African context," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 224-242.
    2. Jörg Dollmann, 2022. "The Political Integration of Immigrants: How Pre- and Postmigration Contexts Matter," Journal of International Migration and Integration, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 1091-1125, September.
    3. Rachel Milstein Sondheimer & Donald P. Green, 2010. "Using Experiments to Estimate the Effects of Education on Voter Turnout," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(1), pages 174-189, January.
    4. André Pirralha, 2017. "Political Participation and Wellbeing in the Netherlands: Exploring the Causal Links," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 12(2), pages 327-341, June.
    5. Shelleka Gupta & Vinay Chauhan, 2023. "Understanding the Role of Social Networking Sites in Political Marketing," Jindal Journal of Business Research, , vol. 12(1), pages 58-72, June.
    6. Joseph DiGrazia, 2014. "Individual Protest Participation in the United States: Conventional and Unconventional Activism," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 95(1), pages 111-131, March.
    7. Rebecca Lessem & Sarah Niebler & Carly Urban, 2023. "Do house prices affect campaign contributions?," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(2), pages 629-660, July.
    8. Jennifer Oser & Jan E. Leighley & Kenneth M. Winneg, 2014. "Participation, Online and Otherwise: What's the Difference for Policy Preferences?," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1259-1277, December.
    9. Christopher Ojeda, 2015. "Depression and Political Participation," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1226-1243, November.
    10. Chee Wei Phang & Atreyi Kankanhalli & Bernard C. Y. Tan, 2015. "What Motivates Contributors vs. Lurkers? An Investigation of Online Feedback Forums," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 773-792, December.
    11. Fierro, Pedro & Aroca, Patricio & Navia, Patricio, 2020. "How people access the internet and the democratic divide: Evidence from the Chilean region of Valparaiso 2017, 2018 and 2019," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    12. Jung-In Jo & Hyun Jin Choi, 2019. "Enigmas of grievances about inequality: Effects of attitudes toward inequality and government redistribution on protest participation," International Area Studies Review, Center for International Area Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, vol. 22(4), pages 348-368, December.
    13. Jansesberger, Viktoria, 2024. "Storms, floods, landslides and elections in India's growing metropolises: Hotbeds for political protest?," Working Papers 28, University of Konstanz, Cluster of Excellence "The Politics of Inequality. Perceptions, Participation and Policies".
    14. Christoph Engel & Luigi Mittone & Azzurra Morreale, 2024. "Outcomes or participation? Experimentally testing competing sources of legitimacy for taxation," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 62(2), pages 563-583, April.
    15. Denny,Elaine Kathryn & Dow,David & Levy,Gabriella & Villamizar-Chaparro,Mateo, 2022. "Extortion and Civic Engagement among Guatemalan Deportees," Policy Research Working Paper Series 10020, The World Bank.
    16. Lily - Trinh Hoang Hong Hue, 2019. "Gender Differences of Citizen Participation in Local Government: The Case of Vietnam," Journal of Public Administration and Governance, Macrothink Institute, vol. 9(3), pages 225-238, December.
    17. Bourguignon, Francois, 2005. "The Effect of Economic Growth on Social Structures," Handbook of Economic Growth, in: Philippe Aghion & Steven Durlauf (ed.), Handbook of Economic Growth, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 27, pages 1701-1747, Elsevier.
    18. Ronconi, Lucas & Zarazaga S.J., Rodrigo, 2015. "Labor Exclusion and the Erosion of Citizenship Responsibilities," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 453-461.
    19. Antoci Angelo & Sabatini Fabio & Sodini Mauro, 2009. "Will growth and technology destroy social interaction? The inverted U-shape hypothesis," wp.comunite 0057, Department of Communication, University of Teramo.
    20. Evelien Tonkens & Imrat Verhoeven, 2019. "The civic support paradox: Fighting unequal participation in deprived neighbourhoods," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 56(8), pages 1595-1610, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:porgrv:v:17:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11115-016-0346-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.