Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Alexandra Horobet
 -- 1816 2023-07-04 11:01:42 |
2 layout
Camila Xu
Meta information modification 1816 2023-07-05 03:22:16 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Horobeț, A.L.; Mnohoghitnei, I.; Zlatea, E.M.L.; Smedoiu-Popoviciu, A. Determinants of E-Government Use in the European Union. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/46383 (accessed on 04 July 2024).
Horobeț AL, Mnohoghitnei I, Zlatea EML, Smedoiu-Popoviciu A. Determinants of E-Government Use in the European Union. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/46383. Accessed July 04, 2024.
Horobeț, Alexandra Lavinia, Irina Mnohoghitnei, Emanuela Marinela Luminița Zlatea, Alexandra Smedoiu-Popoviciu. "Determinants of E-Government Use in the European Union" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/46383 (accessed July 04, 2024).
Horobeț, A.L., Mnohoghitnei, I., Zlatea, E.M.L., & Smedoiu-Popoviciu, A. (2023, July 04). Determinants of E-Government Use in the European Union. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/46383
Horobeț, Alexandra Lavinia, et al. "Determinants of E-Government Use in the European Union." Encyclopedia. Web. 04 July, 2023.
Determinants of E-Government Use in the European Union
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/soc13060150

Efficient governments, defined as those that provide digital public services and effectively support their citizens through modern tools and channels, can be the result of a variety of factors, including education, urbanization, infrastructure, and economic growth as measured by GDP per capita.

e-government government efficiency education internet use

1. Introduction

Efficient digital public services, or e-government, can increase the transparency of administration, increase savings for businesses and governments alike, and facilitate more active participation in democratic practices [1]. While there are many studies aimed at deconstructing the relationship between a government and its citizens, it is still unclear which factors lead to the adoption of e-government services or the relationship between costs and benefits. From declining cash use and documenting economic transactions and interactions, to better collection of taxes and saving costs, and opportunity costs in terms of compliance, the e-government paradigm can accelerate economic growth [2].
A significant increase in the use of information technologies in government functions and procedures has become a relevant factor in society and economic activities but it is, of course, subject to the availability of the relevant infrastructure [3].
The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated governments’ digital transformation, but different countries find themselves at very different stages in their digital journeys. In general, European countries have been early adopters of e-government, prompting the EU to commit to provide all key public services online by 2030 [4]. However, significant differences remain, in part due to disparities in funding and digital infrastructure, as well as political will more broadly. Some countries offer comprehensive e-government portals that cover healthcare access, taxation, or digital ID, while others only offer basic services such as online forms [5]. The European Commission [4] scores Estonia and Malta as the most mature, but some Eastern European countries score nearly half on the same scale. Estonia is often considered a world leader in e-government, not just because of its innovative solutions such as digital ID, but also because of its comprehensive online services for citizens and businesses alike [6].

2. Determinants of E-Government Use in the European Union

The relationship between a government and its citizens has already been empirically examined in many studies, but evidence is mixed, and it remains unclear how an efficient government can contribute to economic growth. Empirical analysis varies in terms of scope, considering the regional contexts, the models used and the examined periods, but government efficiency is generally found to positively impact the economy and the functioning of society, with beneficial implications for countries’ economic growth and competitiveness. The most important and relevant findings of previous studies are discussed, which are also summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of extant literature on government actions and government efficiency.
Authors Period and Region/Countries/Entities Studied Empirical Model Main Input Variable(s) Output(s)
Hauner and Kyobe [7] 1980–2004; 114 countries Panel model Education and health spending
Years of schooling
Income per capita		 Government efficiency
Voghouei and Jamali [8] 2003–2010; 51 countries Dynamic panel model—system-GMM Information technology expenditure by government
Total information technology expenditure in economy
Consumer price index
Transparency
Corruption
Ethnic fractionalization		 Government efficiency (government spending as share of GDP)
Lizińska et al. [9] 2015–2016
1220 municipalities in Poland		 Survey Number of tasks actually implemented by local governments
Number of tasks which could be implemented		 Institutional efficiency of local
governments
Balaguer-Coll et al. [10] 2009–2015; The Valencian Region Robust order methodology Population density
Unemployed job seekers
Disposable income
Accommodation vacancies
Political ideology of the incumbent party Herfindahl index
Voter turnout in local elections
Tax revenues
Transfer revenues
Indebtedness
Number of mistakes in the budgetary statements		 Index of (in)efficiency
Halaskova et al. [11] 2012–2015 and 2015–2018; 27 EU countries Data envelopment analysis (DEA) Local government expenditure by function Government effectiveness
Corruption perceptions Index
Wen et al. [12] 1996–2018; 166 countries Panel data Government efficiency
Bureaucracy quality		 Patents and trademarks
Ding et al. [13] 2002–2018; 156 countries Panel data Government efficiency Health outcomes (disability-adjusted life years (DALYs))
Reinecke and Schmerer [14] 2001–2006; Chinese firms Panel data regression Government efficiency
Firm age
Sales
State-owned enterprises
Employment and capital stock
Total factor productivity (TFP)		 Export share on total output
Chen and Yoon [15] 2010–2016; A-share listed firms from 27 Chinese provincial government 2SLS regression Administrative efficiency of local governments R&D expenditure over total assets
Number of patent applications
Amir and Gokmenoglu [16] 2002–2015; 31 OECD countries Panel data model Government efficiency
Corruption
Employment
Population
Urbanization		 Financial development
Gupta and Verhoeven [17] 1984–1995; 37 countries in Africa Free disposal hull (FDH) analysis Education and health spending by the government Life expectancy
Infant mortality
Immunizations against diseases
School enrolment
Adult illiteracy
Geys [18] 2000; Flemish region in Belgium Stochastic parametric reference technology Current expenditures in the municipality Number of subsistence grants beneficiaries
Number of students in local primary schools
Public recreational facilities
Length of municipal roads.
Liu et al. [19] 2007; 22 Local governments in
Taiwan		 Data envelopment analysis (DEA) model; Sharpe ratio. Employment
Accumulation of fixed assets		 Real disposable income per capita
Unemployment rate
Volume of waste clearance
Air pollution
Asatryan and De Witte [20] 2003–2011; German State of Bavaria Fully non-parametric approach Per capita expenditure Pupil population
Child population
Elderly patient population
Green and recreational areasEmployees paying social security
Chang et al. [21] 1990–2014; 31 OECD countries Group-mean dynamic common correlated estimator (DCCE) panel regression
Panel cointegration
Vector-error-correction model (VECM)		 Corruption, political ideology
Real per capita GDP
FDI
Oil prices
Electricity regulation
Gas regulation		 Energy intensity
Seo et al. [22] 2015–2016; 42 central administrative agencies in the Republic of Korea Data envelopment analysis (DEA) IT budget
Number of employees		 Number of policies for the adoption of Government 3.0
Number of open public data (API)
Number of public services that can be applied for online
Alonso and
Andrews [23]		 2002–2008; local governments in the United Kingdom Dynamic panel data model Total per capita service expenditure, excluding expenditure on central administration. Fiscal decentralization
Fiscal deprivation
Number of pupils attending the General Certificate of Secondary Education examination
Older people being helped to live at home
Waste management
Chen and
Paudel [24]		 2004–2017; 30 provinces in China Malmquist–Luenberger index
Dynamic panel model		 Number of people employed by government
Provincial-owned economic capital stock
Annual financial expenditure.		 GDP per capita
Unemployment rate
Consumer price index
Ratio of middle school teachers to students
Density of transportation infrastructure
Number of hospital beds per capita
Number of cases of corruption per 10,000 people
Rate of labor dispute settlement
Pacheco et al. [25] 2008–2018; 324 Chilean municipalities Parametric models and panel data Expenditure on personnel
Consumer goods and services
Expenditure on education
Expenditure on health
Transfers to health services and centres
Transfers to public education schools
Municipality population
Distance to the regional capital		 Rural and urban municipal education establishments;
Enrolment in municipal education establishments
Health facilities
Maintained green areas;
Cleaning services, waste collection and
landfill services
Drinking water coverage
Social organizations
Extant literature on the effects of government efficiency is abundant. For example, Balaguer-Coll et al. [26] showed that government efficiency in neighboring Spanish municipalities positively affects local government’s own efficiency. Other OECD-focused studies strongly indicate that government efficiency, measured by employment, urbanization, and government spending, has a positive effect on financial development [16]. Greater government efficiency is also found to lead to a reduction in energy intensity by enhancing overall energy efficiency [21]. Clear links have also been established between government efficiency and democracy—for example, intense democratic activity which promotes competition is associated with higher efficiency in the provision of goods and services [20] while corruption is found to decrease government efficiency [16].
More recently, the literature has also turned to exploring the effects of e-government. For example, some studies have found that e-government efficiency positively affects the output and innovation investment by reducing rent-seeking opportunities, reducing bureaucracy, and improving the overall technological abilities of government staff [12][15]. Seo et al. [22] examined e-government efficiency in Korea and found citizen-centric IT service integration and IT investment to be key driving factors. Furthermore, Voghouei and Jamali [8] argue that government efficiency responds in a positive way to changes in information technology expenditure, whether in the government or in broader society. Moreover, in certain countries, government inefficiency sharpens the domestic technology gaps by providing inappropriate advantages to firms that are already well ingrained and leads to slower technology penetration rates [27].
More broadly, government expenditure is also widely used in conjunction with government efficiency. Individuals assess the ‘price/quantity’ of government policies by considering the level of spending on (or taxation for) public goods provision simultaneously with how much public goods they receive [18]. Hauner and Kyobe [7] underline that higher government expenditure relative to GDP tends to be associated with lower efficiency. On the other hand, improvements in educational attainment and health output are feasible by correcting inefficiencies in government spending on education and health [17]. Ding et al. [13] have also shown that increases in government efficiency can significantly improve health outcomes.
Government efficiency is not the only aspect that could be enhanced by e-government; education is another important factor [28]. Indeed, Horobet et al. [29] find that in the EU, education plays a key role both in digitalization and financial development, with no significant differences between Western and Eastern European economies. Cerna et al. [30] show that education has quickly adapted to the accelerated digitalization instilled by the COVID-19 pandemic, making it even more relevant when discussing its impact on digitalization.
Digitalization, measured by either internet use or number of mobile subscriptions, is key when discussing e-government [1]. DESA [31] finds that most UN countries have a national digital government strategy in place, and that in nearly all countries, people’s as well as authorities’ digital engagement has increased. In the long run, digitalization could lead to a paradigm shift towards a digital-first society, with new forms of digital money, enabling novel and more efficient ways of interacting with services [32][33]. However, the road ahead remains long. Spacek et al. [34] have shown that the level of digitalization in Central and Eastern European countries remains modest.
Dobrolyubova et al. [35] found no direct cause and effect relationship between the digitalization of government and other governance indicators such as effectiveness. Further, Ahmad et al. [36] show that many public services remain manual because their digital equivalent is inadequate, featuring blank web pages, invalid forms, or out of date information. This suggests that e-government involves more than just the tools that allow citizens to interact with their governments in digital form; it also involves rethinking processes so that they can become digital-first and making interaction with government easier, cheaper, and quicker [1]. Indeed, Mensah et al. [37] and Chen et al. [38] conclude that the use of e-government services is not predicted by the performance, effort, or social influence but instead by the perceived service quality and trust in government.
Several studies that associate local authorities’ efficiency with state government efficiency as a whole, because of its positive influence on the competitiveness of a country. In this regard, Liu et al. [19] find that the operating performance of local governments has a strong influence on a country’s competitiveness. Additionally, the paper of Reinecke and Schmerer [14] highlights a positive correlation between firm size and export shares, as stimulated by high governmental efficiency. In fact, it stands out that larger firms in provinces with more efficient provincial governments have higher export rates. When it comes to the population, Chen et al. [24] demonstrated that an improvement in government efficiency in the urban area can increase the urban population. When considering other perspectives, EU countries’ efficiency appears to be more strongly linked to their effectiveness than the overall perception of corruption [11].
Some studies have revealed that many local governments do not fully apply the available tools to streamline the provision of administrative services [9]. When it comes to fiscal decentralization, it is positively related to productive efficiency, but there is a negative relationship between socioeconomic deprivation and efficiency [23].

References

  1. European Commission. eGovernment and Digital Public Services. 2022. Available online: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/egovernment (accessed on 20 February 2023).
  2. Mouna, A.; Nedra, B.; Khaireddine, M. International comparative evidence of e-government success and economic growth: Technology adoption as an anti-corruption tool. Transform. Gov. People Process. Policy 2020, 14, 713–736.
  3. Khan, F.N.; Majeed, M.T. ICT and e-Government as the sources of economic growth in information age: Empirical evidence from South Asian economies. South Asian Stud. 2020, 34, 227–249.
  4. European Commission. eGovernment Benchmark 2022. Available online: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/egovernment-benchmark-2022 (accessed on 20 February 2023).
  5. Deloitte. E-Government in Europe: Rebooting the Public Service. 2021. Available online: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/lu/Documents/public-sector/lu-e-government-in-europe.pdf (accessed on 20 February 2023).
  6. OECD. Education at a Glance 2022: OECD Indicators. OECD iLibrary. 2022. Available online: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/510a82b5-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/510a82b5-en (accessed on 20 January 2023).
  7. Hauner, D.; Kyobe, A. Determinants of Government Efficiency. World Dev. 2010, 38, 1527–1542.
  8. Voghouei, H.R.; Jamali, G.R. E-government adoption and implementation barriers: A case study of Iranian organizations. Inform. Technol. Dev. 2018, 24, 478–505.
  9. Lizińska, W.; Marks-Bielska, R.; Babuchowska, K.; Wojarska, M. Factors contributing to the institutional efficiency of local governments in the administrative area. Equilibrium 2017, 12, 339–353.
  10. Balaguer-Coll, M.T.; Brun-Martos, M.I.; Márquez-Ramos, L.; Prior, D. Local government efficiency: Determinants and spatial interdependence. Appl. Econ. 2019, 51, 1478–1494.
  11. Halaskova, R.; Halaskova, M.; Gavurova, B.; Kocisova, K. The Local Governments Efficiency in the EU Countries: Evaluation by Using the Data Envelopment Analysis. Montenegrin J. Econ. 2022, 18, 127–137.
  12. Wen, J.; Deng, P.; Zhang, Q.; Chang, C.-P. Is Higher Government Efficiency Bringing about Higher Innovation? Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2021, 27, 626–655.
  13. Ding, Y.; Chin, L.; Li, F.; Deng, P. How Does Government Efficiency Affect Health Outcomes? The Empirical Evidence from 156 Countries. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 9436.
  14. Reinecke, A.; Schmerer, H.-J. Government efficiency and exports in China. J. Chin. Econ. Bus. Stud. 2017, 15, 249–268.
  15. Chen, H.; Yoon, S.S. Government efficiency and enterprise innovation—Evidence from China. Asian J. Technol. Innov. 2019, 27, 280–300.
  16. Amir, A.; Gokmenoglu, K.K. Analyzing the Role of Government Efficiency on Financial Development for OECD Countries. Rev. Econ. Perspect. 2020, 20, 445–469.
  17. Gupta, S.; Verhoeven, M. The efficiency of government expenditure: Experiences from Africa. J. Policy Model. 2001, 23, 433–467.
  18. Geys, B. Looking across borders: A test of spatial policy interdependence using local government efficiency ratings. J. Urban Econ. 2006, 60, 443–462.
  19. Liu, S.C.; Peng, C.J.; Wu, P.C. Local government efficiency evaluation: Consideration of undesirable outputs and super-efficiency. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 2011, 5, 4746–4754.
  20. Asatryan, Z.; De Witte, K. Direct democracy and local government efficiency. Eur. J. Political Econ. 2015, 39, 58–66.
  21. Chang, C.-P.; Wen, J.; Zheng, M.; Dong, M.; Hao, Y. Is higher government efficiency conducive to improving energy use efficiency? Evidence from OECD countries. Econ. Model 2018, 72, 65–77.
  22. Seo, I.; Kim, Y.; Choi, J. Assessment of efficiency in public service–focused on Government 3.0 case in Korea. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. 2018, 29, 1161–1184.
  23. Alonso, J.M.; Andrews, R. Fiscal decentralisation and local government efficiency: Does relative deprivation matter? Environ. Plan. C Politics-Space 2019, 37, 360–381.
  24. Chen, Z.; Paudel, K.P. Economic openness, government efficiency, and urbanization. Rev. Dev. Econ. 2021, 25, 1351–1372.
  25. Pacheco, F.; Sánchez, R.; Villena, M.G. Estimating local government efficiency using a panel data parametric approach: The case of Chilean municipalities. Appl. Econ. 2021, 53, 292–314.
  26. Balaguer-Coll, M.T.; Narbón-Perpiñá, I.; Peiró-Palomino, J.; Tortosa-Ausina, E. Quality of government and economic growth at the municipal level: Evidence from Spain. J. Reg. Sci. 2021, 62, 96–124.
  27. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). Human Development Report 2020: The Next Frontier: Human Development and the Anthropocene. 2020. Available online: https://hdr.undp.org/content/human-development-report-2020 (accessed on 28 January 2023).
  28. Akman, I.; Yazici, A.; Mishra, A.; Arifoglu, A. E-Government: A global view and an empirical evaluation of some attributes of citizens. Gov. Inf. Q. 2005, 22, 239–257.
  29. Horobet, A.; Mnohoghitnei, I.; Zlatea, E.M.L.; Belascu, L. The Interplay between Digitalization, Education and Financial Development: A European Case Study. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2022, 15, 135.
  30. Cerna, M.; Hejdukova, P. COVID-19 Pandemic: New Opportunities for Employment and Education? EJIS 2022, 14, 252–264.
  31. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA). UN E-Government Survey 2022. Available online: https://desapublications.un.org/publications/un-e-government-survey-2022 (accessed on 20 February 2023).
  32. Mnohoghitnei, I.; Horobeț, A.; Belașcu, L. Bitcoin is so Last Decade—How Decentralized Finance (DeFi) could Shape the Digital Economy. Eur. J. Interdiscip. Stud. 2022, 14, 87–99.
  33. Constantinescu, R.; Edu, T. Internet of Things (IoT) as an Instrument to Improve Business and Marketing Strategies. A Literature Review. Eur. J. Interdiscip. Stud. 2022, 14, 143–154.
  34. Spacek, D.; Csoto, M.; Urs, N. Questioning the Real Citizen-Centricity of e-Government Development: Digitalization of G2C Services in Selected CEE Countries. NISPAcee J. Public Adm. Policy 2020, 13, 213–243.
  35. Dobrolyubova, E.; Klochkova, E.; Alexandrov, O. Digitalization and Effective Government: What Is the Cause and What Is the Effect? In Digital Transformation and Global Society. DTGS 2019. Communications in Computer and Information Science; Alexandrov, D., Boukhanovsky, A., Boukhanovsky, A., Kabanov, Y., Koltsova, O., Musabirov, I., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; Volume 1038.
  36. Ahmad, J.; Nilwana, A.; Hamid, H. Digitalization Era: Website Based E-Government. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2021; Volume 717, p. 012047.
  37. Mensah, I.K.; Zeng, G.; Luo, C. E-Government Services Adoption: An Extension of the Unified Model of Electronic Government Adoption. SAGE Open 2020, 10, 215824402093359.
  38. Chen, L.; Aklikokou, A.K. Determinants of E-government Adoption: Testing the Mediating Effects of Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use. Int. J. Public Adm. 2020, 43, 850–865.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Economics
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Alexandra Lavinia Horobeț
,
Irina Mnohoghitnei
,
Emanuela Marinela Luminița Zlatea
,
Alexandra Smedoiu-Popoviciu
View Times: 295
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 05 Jul 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback