Supply of and demand for e-democracy: A study of the Swedish case

The field that tries to answer, through comparative research, the question of what factors explain the existence of e-democracy is, despite several recent contributions, quite undeveloped. Due to strong theoretical foundations and extensive quantitative data, this article adds to this field with an overall ambition of not only explaining variation in supply of and demand for e-democracy but also examining how these two dimensions are related. The case in this article is Sweden and the analyses report several unexpected findings. E-democracy provided by Swedish municipalities is positively related to citizens' level of education and population figures but not to the level of technological development. With an analogous logic, citizens in Sweden are more inclined to use e-democratic functions if they have high levels of income and education and, also have experiences of using computers. However, no significant variation exists among different genders or age groups. When these two perspectives are combined no significant relationship emerges, indicating a discrepancy between supply of and demand for e-democracy. Finally, the fact that this inclination for citizens' involvement in e-democracy is solely determined by micro characteristics points to the importance of theoretical development.

[1]  C. Baldry.  Theories of The Information Society , 1988 .

[2]  Richard Rose,et al.  A Global Diffusion Model of e-Governance , 2005, Journal of Public Policy.

[3]  G. A. Marcoulides.  Multilevel Analysis Techniques and Applications , 2002 .

[4]  J. Fountain.  Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change , 2001 .

[5]  Johannes A.G.M..  Models of Democracy and Concepts of Communication. , 2000 .

[6]  Rickard Öhrvall.  "Det digitala torget - en studie av kommunala debattforum på Internet" , 2002 .

[7]  B. Loader,et al.  NETWORKING DEMOCRACY? , 2011 .

[8]  Jeremy Rose,et al.  The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging research area , 2008, Gov. Inf. Q..

[9]  Mete Yildiz,et al.  E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward , 2007, Gov. Inf. Q..

[10]  D. Bamber.  The Coming of Post-Industrial Society — A Venture in Social Forecasting , 1980 .

[11]  Larry Diamond,et al.  Economic Development and Democracy Reconsidered , 1992 .

[12]  Gro Sandkjær Hanssen,et al.  E‐communication: Strengthening the Ties between Councillors and Citizens in Norwegian Local Government? , 2008 .

[13]  K. V. Andersen,et al.  Costs of e‐participation: the management challenges , 2007 .

[14]  Jörgen Svensson,et al.  Explaining eDemocracy development: A quantitative empirical study , 2006, Inf. Polity.

[15]  N. Anthonisen,et al.  Preaching to the converted. , 2002, Canadian respiratory journal.

[16]  Ann Macintosh,et al.  eParticipation: The Research Gaps , 2009, ePart.

[17]  Tero Päivärinta,et al.  The Genre System Lens on E-Democracy , 2008, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[18]  Zizi Papacharissi.  The virtual sphere , 2002, New Media Soc..

[19]  Rosa Borge,et al.  ONLINE AND OFFLINE PARTICIPATION AT THE LOCAL LEVEL , 2009 .

[20]  S. Lipset.  Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy , 1959, American Political Science Review.

[21]  A. Roland,et al.  Does Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism. , 1995 .

[22]  William A. Galston,et al.  Political Knowledge, Political Engagement, and Civic Education , 2001 .

[23]  Åke Grönlund,et al.  ICT Is Not Participation Is Not Democracy - eParticipation Development Models Revisited , 2009, ePart.

[24]  C. Sunstein.  Republic.com 2.0 , 2007 .

[25]  William H. Dutton,et al.  The Internet and the Public: Online and Offline Political Participation in the United Kingdom , 2006 .

[26]  P. Norris,et al.  Digital Divide: Civic Engagement , 2001 .

[27]  Ann Macintosh,et al.  E-participation and Governance: Widening the net , 2005 .

[28]  Gustav Lidén.  Från demokrati till e-demokrati : En jämförande studie av demokratiutveckling i det moderna samhället , 2011 .

[29]  Thierry Vedel.  The Idea of Electronic Democracy: Origins, Visions and Questions , 2006 .

[30]  James K. Scott.  “E” the People: Do U.S. Municipal Government Web Sites Support Public Involvement? , 2006 .

[31]  Pascal Francq,et al.  Can Web 2.0 applications save e-democracy? A study of how new internet applications may enhance citizen participation in the political process online , 2008 .

[32]  Johannes A.G.M..  The deepening Divide: Inequality in the information society. , 2005 .

[33]  Leonardo Morlino,et al.  Assessing the quality of democracy , 2005 .

[34]  Donald F. Norris,et al.  A New Agenda for e-Democracy , 2005 .

[35]  Alexander H. Trechsel,et al.  Evaluation of the use of new technologies in order to facilitate democracy in Europe , 2004 .

[36]  Joachim Åström,et al.  Should democracy online be quick, strong, or thin? , 2001, CACM.

[37]  P. Hedström,et al.  Causal Mechanisms in the Social Sciences , 2010 .

[38]  Henry E. Brady,et al.  Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics , 1996 .

[39]  Å. Grönlund.  Emerging Electronic Infrastructures , 2003 .

[40]  Kaiju Chang,et al.  Testing the Development and Diffusion of E-Government and E-Democracy: A Global Perspective , 2011 .

[41]  Taewoo Nam,et al.  Whose e-democracy? The democratic divide in American electoral campaigns , 2011, Inf. Polity.

[42]  P. Furlong.  Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy , 1994 .

[43]  Signy Irene Vabo,et al.  Size and e‐Democracy: Online Participation in Norwegian Local Politics , 2009 .

[44]  Frank Webster,et al.  Theories of the Information Society (International Library of Sociology) , 2006 .

[45]  Timothy J. Robinson,et al.  Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications , 2002 .

[46]  Benjamin R. Barber,et al.  Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age , 1985 .

[47]  Rune Karlsen,et al.  Online and Undecided: Voters and the Internet in the Contemporary Norwegian Election Campaign , 2010 .

[48]  Robert Andersen.  Modern Methods for Robust Regression , 2007 .

[49]  P. Norris.  Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide , 2001 .

[50]  Cheryl Boudreau,et al.  What is Political Knowledge? , 1961, The Review of Politics.

[51]  Ali Pirannejad,et al.  Understanding the rise of e-participation in non-democracies: Domestic and international factors , 2012, Gov. Inf. Q..

[52]  J. Blumler,et al.  The Internet and Democratic Citizenship: Theory, Practice and Policy , 2009 .

[53]  Gustav Lidén.  Is e-democracy more than democratic? : An examination of the implementation of socially sustainable values in an e-Democratic processes , 2012 .

[54]  S. Huntington.  The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century , 1991 .

[55]  J. Ellul.  The Technological Bluff , 1990 .

[56]  A. Chadwick.  Web 2.0: New Challenges for the Study of E-Democracy in an Era of Informational Exuberance , 2009 .

[57]  C. Fuchs.  THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF DEFINING THE PARTICIPATORY, CO-OPERATIVE, SUSTAINABLE INFORMATION SOCIETY , 2010 .

[58]  T. Wohlers,et al.  The Digital World of Local Government: A Comparative Analysis of the United States and Germany , 2009 .

[59]  A. Chadwick.  Bringing E-Democracy Back In , 2003 .

[60]  S. Rokkan,et al.  Citizens, Elections, Parties: Approaches to the Comparative Study of the Processes of Development , 2009 .

[61]  Farid Shirazi.  Measuring E-Democracy Opportunities: A Global Perspective , 2009, HCI.

[62]  Samuel J. Best,et al.  Analyzing the representativeness of internet political participation , 2005 .

[63]  Henrik Serup Christensen,et al.  THE POLITICAL COMPETENCE OF INTERNET PARTICIPANTS , 2011 .

[64]  Rony Medaglia,et al.  Measuring the diffusion of eParticipation: A survey on Italian local government , 2007, Inf. Polity.

[65]  R. Krimmer,et al.  Towards the enhancement of e‐democracy: identifying the notion of the ‘middleman paradox’ , 2005, Inf. Syst. J..