Assessing electronic service delivery in municipalities: determinants and financial consequences of e-government implementation

ABSTRACT In the Netherlands, electronic service delivery has become an important issue in many municipalities. Using the Internet for service delivery is seen as an important element of e-government. Based on 2014–2016 panel data for all Dutch municipalities, we show that there is a large variety among the municipalities in the extent to which they offer their service delivery digitally. By exploring the factors that may explain the differences among the municipalities, some trends can be discerned. Most notably is the strong relationship of e-government adoption with demographic characteristics, such as population, population density and both older age and younger age groups. Remarkably, we did not find an influence of education and income. Finally, we did not observe a relation between municipal allocated costs and level of e-maturity, hereby leaving the question open if and how e-government can lead to cost reductions.

[1]  A. Ho.  Reinventing Local Governments and the E‐Government Initiative , 2002 .

[2]  Rui Cunha Marques,et al.  Revisiting the determinants of local government performance , 2014 .

[3]  Jose Manuel Ruano de la Fuente,et al.  E-Government Strategies in Spanish Local Governments , 2014 .

[4]  Concetta Metallo,et al.  Factors influencing social media use in local governments: The case of Italy and Spain , 2016, Gov. Inf. Q..

[5]  Tony J. Carrizales.  Functions of E-Government: A Study of Municipal Practices , 2008 .

[6]  N. Selwyn,et al.  Is It Only About Internet Access? An Empirical Test of a Multi-dimensional Digital Divide , 2006, EGOV.

[7]  Helle Zinner Henriksen,et al.  E-government maturity models: Extension of the Layne and Lee model , 2006, Gov. Inf. Q..

[8]  Reto Steiner,et al.  Effects of amalgamations: evidence from Swiss municipalities , 2017 .

[9]  S. Colesca.  Understanding Trust in e-Government , 2009 .

[10]  Xavier Fageda,et al.  Similar problems, different solutions: comparing refuse collection in the Netherlands and Spain. , 2008, Public administration.

[11]  Yuan Long,et al.  Using Social Development Lenses to Understand E-Government Development , 2006, J. Glob. Inf. Manag..

[12]  Antonio Cordella,et al.  A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: A theoretical reflection , 2012, Gov. Inf. Q..

[13]  Christopher Pollitt,et al.  Joined-up Government: A Survey , 2003 .

[14]  A. Manoharan.  A Study of the Determinants of County E-Government in the United States , 2013 .

[15]  France Bélanger,et al.  The utilization of e‐government services: citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors * , 2005, Inf. Syst. J..

[16]  T. Groot,et al.  The Influence of New Public Management Practices on Product Costing and Service Pricing Decisions in Dutch Municipalities , 2004 .

[17]  C. Hood,et al.  Joined-up government , 2005 .

[18]  Patrick Dunleavy,et al.  New public management is dead. Long live digital-era governance , 2005 .

[19]  Alexander van Deursen,et al.  Improving digital skills for the use of online public information and services , 2009, Gov. Inf. Q..

[20]  J. Blom‐Hansen,et al.  Size, Democracy, and the Economic Costs of Running the Political System , 2014 .

[21]  M. Allers,et al.  The Effects of Local Government Amalgamation on Public Spending, Taxation, and Service Levels: Evidence from 15 Years of Municipal Consolidation , 2016 .

[22]  Greta Nasi,et al.  ONLINE SERVICE PROVISION: ARE MUNICIPALITIES REALLY INNOVATIVE? THE CASE OF LARGER MUNICIPALITIES IN ITALY , 2011 .

[23]  George A. Boyne,et al.  Size, Structure and Administrative Overheads: An Empirical Analysis of English Local Authorities , 2009 .

[24]  Hernán Astudillo,et al.  Conception, development and implementation of an e-Government maturity model in public agencies , 2011, Gov. Inf. Q..

[25]  G. Hj,et al.  Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy , 1992 .

[26]  Laura Alcaide-Muñoz,et al.  Scientometric Study of the Progress and Development of e-Government Research During the Period 2000–2012 , 2016, Inf. Technol. Dev..

[27]  V. Homburg,et al.  Diffusion of Personalised Services among Dutch Municipalities: Evolving Channels of Persuasion , 2014 .

[28]  Uwe Matzat,et al.  An empirical test of stage models of e-government development: Evidence from Dutch municipalities , 2017, Inf. Soc..

[29]  Suresha,et al.  e-Government maturity models , 2010 .

[30]  M. J. Moon.  The Evolution of E-Government among Municipalities: Rhetoric or Reality? , 2002 .

[31]  Jungwoo Lee,et al.  Developing fully functional E-government: A four stage model , 2001, Gov. Inf. Q..

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

[33]  Petter Gottschalk,et al.  Maturity levels for interoperability in digital government , 2009, Gov. Inf. Q..

[34]  E. Rogers,et al.  Diffusion of innovations , 1964, Encyclopedia of Sport Management.

[35]  R. Gradus,et al.  Municipalities’ Contracting Out Decisions: An Empirical Study on Motives , 2013 .