This empirical study sees Open Government and Government 2.0 as a new ends and means of e-government in the United States. The analysis of the data from the Pew Research Center’s national survey (2009 Government Online) highlights what influences American citizens’ attitudes toward Open Government and Government 2.0. This article presents four main findings. First, while the use of existing e-government services does not significantly influence attitudes toward Open Government, recent use of Government 2.0 does contribute to positive attitudes toward Government 2.0. Second, those who value transactions with e-government have a positive attitude regarding Open Government and Government 2.0. Third, general trust in government leads to a positive attitude toward the new ends and means of e-government. Finally, frequent Web use and broadband adoption do not affect citizens’ attitudes concerning the new modes of e-government. The study reveals that citizens’ attitudes toward government workings do not change much with the introduction of new goals and tools of e-government.
Points for practitioners
A government may gain considerable popular support from the public by introducing to citizens new objectives and channels for the existing e-government. However, government practitioners should know that offering new directives and technological tools does not necessarily guarantee a positive response from citizens. When new goals and vehicles of e-government reach citizens, a set of conventional determinants, such as perceived value of government services and general trust in government, shapes the collective attitude toward new modes of e-government. Practitioners need to assess leverage by those fundamental factors.
AkmanİYaziciAMishraAArifogluA (2005) E-government: A global view and an empirical evaluation of some attributes of citizens. Government Information Quarterly22(2): 239–257.
2.
AnttiroikoA(2010) Innovation in democratic e-governance: Benefitting from Web 2.0 applications in the public sector. In: ReddickCG (ed.) Citizens and E-government: Evaluating Policy and Management, Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing, 110–130.
3.
Becker J, Niehaves B, Bergener P and Räckers M (2008) Digital divide in eGovernment: The eInclusion gap model. In: Wimmer MA, Scholl HJ and Ferro E (eds) Electronic Government: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference, EGOV 2008. Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer, 231–242.
4.
Bélanger F and 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, 4–7 January.
5.
BélangerFCarterL (2006b) The impact of the digital divide on e-government use. Communications of the ACM52(4): 132–135.
6.
BennettCJ (1991a) How states utilize foreign evidence. Journal of Public Policy11(1): 31–54.
7.
BennettCJ (1991b) Review article: What is policy convergence and what causes it?British Journal of Political Science21(2): 215–233.
8.
BennettCJ (1997) Understanding ripple effects: The cross-national adoption of policy instruments. Governance10(3): 213–233.
9.
BertotJCJaegerPTShulerJASimmonsSNGrimesJM (2009) Reconciling government documents and e-government: Government information in policy, librarianship, and education. Government Information Quarterly26(3): 433–436.
10.
BertotJCJaegerPTGrimesJM (2010) Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly27(3): 264–271.
11.
BirkinshawP (1997) Freedom of information. Parliamentary Affairs50(1): 164–181.
12.
BrantR (1990) Assessing proportionality in the proportional odds model for ordinal logistic regression. Biometrics46(4): 1171–1178.
13.
CarterLBélangerF (2005) The influence of perceived characteristics of innovating on e-government adoption. Electronic Journal of e-Government2(1): 11–20.
14.
ChoHHwangS(2010) Government 2.0 in Korea: Focusing on e-participation services. In: ReddickCG (ed.) Politics, Democracy and E-government: Participation and Service Delivery, Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing, 94–114.
15.
CronbachLJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika16: 297–334.
16.
DawesSS (2008) The evolution and continuing challenges of e-governance. Public Administration Review68(Supplement 1): S86–S102.
17.
DawesSS (2009) Governance in the digital age: A research and action framework for an uncertain future. Government Information Quarterly26(2): 257–264.
18.
DawesSS (2010) Stewardship and usefulness: Policy principles for information-based transparency. Government Information Quarterly27(4): 377–383.
19.
Dawes SS and Helbig N (2010) Information strategies for open government: Challenges and prospects for deriving public value from government transparency. Presented at the 9th International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP) WG 8.5 International Conference (EGOV 2010), Lausanne, Switzerland, 29 August–2 September.
EggersWD (2005) Government 2.0: Using Technology to Improve Education, Cut Red Tape, Reduce Gridlock, and Enhance Democracy, Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield.
22.
FerroEMolinariF (2009) Framing Web 2.0 in the process of public sector innovation: Going down the participation ladder. European Journal of ePractice9(1): 20–34.
23.
GoldfinchS (2007) Pessimism, computer failure, and information systems development in the public sector. Public Administration Review67(5): 917–929.
24.
GoldfinchSGauldRHerbisonP (2009) The participation divide? Political participation, trust in government, and e-government in Australia and New Zealand. Australian Journal of Public Administration68(3): 333–350.
25.
GolembiewskiRTGabrisG (1995) Tomorrow’s city management: Guides for avoiding success-becoming-failure. Public Administration Review55(3): 240–246.
26.
HolzerMHalachmiA (1996) Measurement as a means of accountability. International Journal of Public Administration19(11/12): 1921–1944.
27.
JaegerPTThompsonKM (2003) E-government around the world: Lessons, challenges, and future directions. Government Information Quarterly20(4): 389–394.
28.
KolsakerALee-KelleyL (2008) Citizens’ attitudes towards e-government and e-governance: A UK study. International Journal of Public Sector Management21(7): 723–738.
29.
LathropDRumaL (2010) Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice, Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
30.
LayneKLeeJ (2001) Developing fully functional e-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly18(2): 12–36.
31.
LongJS (1997) Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables, Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
32.
McDermottP (2010) Building open government. Government Information Quarterly27(4): 401–413.
33.
MillardJ (2009) Government 1.5: Is the bottle half full or half empty?European Journal of ePractice9(1): 35–50.
34.
MintzD (2008) Government 2.0: Fact or fiction?Public Manager36(4): 21–24.
35.
MoonMJ (2002) The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality?Public Administration Review62(4): 424–433.
36.
MossbergerKTolbertCJMcNealRS (2008) Digital Citizenship: The Internet, Society, and Participation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37.
MossbergerKTolbertCJStansburyM (2003) Virtual Inequality: Beyond the Digital Divide, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
38.
Nam T (2012) Suggesting frameworks of citizen-sourcing via Government 2.0. Government Information Quarterly 29(1): 12–20.
39.
Niehaves B and Becker J (2008) The age-divide in e-government: Data, interpretations, theory fragments. Paper presented at the 8th IFIP Conference on e-Business, e-Services, and e-Society (I3E 2008), Tokyo, Japan, 24–26 September.
40.
NyeJSZelikowPDKingDC (1997) Why People Don’t Trust Government, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41.
OsimoD (2009) Editorial: Government 2.0 – hype, hope, or reality?European Journal of ePractice9(1): 2–4.
42.
ParksW (1957) The open government principle: Applying the right to know under the constitution. George Washington Law Review26(1): 1–22.
43.
ParycekPSachsM (2009) Open government: Information flow in Web 2.0. European Journal of ePractice9(1): 59–70.
44.
PetersBG (2009) American Public Policy: Promise and Performance, 8th edn. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
45.
PutnamRD (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York: Touchstone.
46.
ReddickCG (2004a) Citizen interaction with e-government: From the streets to servers?Government Information Quarterly22(1): 38–57.
47.
ReddickCG (2004b) A two-stage model of e-government growth: Theories and empirical evidence for US cities. Government Information Quarterly21(1): 51–64.
48.
Rose-AckermanS (2008) Corruption and government. International Peacekeeping15(3): 328–343.
49.
SipiorJCWardBT (2005) Bridging the digital divide for e-government inclusion: A United States case study. Electronic Journal of e-Government3(3): 137–146.
50.
SweeneyADP (2007) Electronic government-citizen relationships: Exploring citizen perspectives. Journal of Information Technology & Politics4(2): 101–116.
Tolbert CJ and Mossberger K (2003) 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, 18–21 May.
53.
Van de WalleSvan RoosbroekSBouckaertG (2008) Trust in the public sector: Is there any evidence for a long-term decline?International Review of Administrative Sciences74(1): 47–64.
54.
WangpipatwongSChutimaskulWPapasratornB (2008) Understanding citizens’ continuance intention to use e-government website: A composite view of technology acceptance model and computer self-efficacy. Electronic Journal of e-Government6(1): 55–64.
55.
WarkentinMGefenDPavlouPARoseGM (2002) Encouraging citizen adoption of e-government by building trust. Electronic Markets12(3): 157–162.
56.
WelchEWHinnantCCMoonMJ (2005) Linking citizen satisfaction with e-government and trust in government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory15(3): 371–391.
57.
WestDM (2004) E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review64(1): 15–27.
58.
WolmanH (1992) Understanding cross national policy transfers: The case of Britain and the US. Governance5(1): 27–45.
59.
YongJSKoonL(2005) E-government: Enabling public sector reform. In: YongJS (ed.) E-government in Asia: Enabling Public Service Innovation in the 21st Century, Singapore: Times Media, 3–21.
60.
ZukinCKeeterSAndolinaMJenkinsKDelli CarpiniMX (2006) A New Engagement? Political Participation, Civic Life, and the Changing American Citizen, New York: Oxford University Press.
