The digital divide and e-government services

There is much research examining the digital divide and what it looks like in society. This research often describes the digital divide as yet another symptom of the current socio-economic division in our society. Based on this research, one would expect that online government services targeting the lower income population would not become a policy focus. However, around the United States, programs are being adopted to provide e-government services to low-income populations who are receiving public welfare benefits. This raises a question as to whether this population can avail itself of e-government services and whether e-government services generally serve to create differences in government service provision between the wealthy and better educated compared to the poor and less educated. Our findings indicate that, as would be expected in the American context, there is a digital divide gap between these two populations. This gap begins with access to the Internet but also extends to the use of e-government services among those who have Internet access. We see that education and income are strong predictors of both the use of e-government services and the volume of e-government services used. This has implications for the expansion and use of e-government in the U. S. and internationally.

[1]  Niki Rodousakis,et al.  The link between socio-economic background and Internet use: barriers faced by low socio-economic status groups and possible solutions , 2008 .

[2]  Christopher G. Reddick,et al.  Citizen interaction with e-government: From the streets to servers? , 2005, Gov. Inf. Q..

[3]  Laura Dianne Stanley,et al.  Beyond Access: Psychosocial Barriers to Computer Literacy Special Issue: ICTs and Community Networking , 2003, Inf. Soc..

[4]  Jason Wittenberg,et al.  Making the Most Of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation , 2000 .

[5]  David C. Yen,et al.  E-government: An analysis for implementation: Framework for understanding cultural and social impact , 2005, Gov. Inf. Q..

[6]  Awdhesh K. Singh,et al.  Integrating Internet, telephones, and call centers for delivering better quality e-governance to all citizens , 2008, Gov. Inf. Q..

[7]  Pieter Verdegem,et al.  Profiling the non-user: Rethinking policy initiatives stimulating ICT acceptance , 2009 .

[8]  D. McNabb Research Methods in Public Administration and Nonprofit Management: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches , 2002 .

[9]  Caroline J. Tolbert,et al.  Innovating in Digital Government in the American States , 2003 .

[10]  N. Selwyn Digital division or digital decision? A study of non-users and low-users of computers , 2006 .

[11]  S. Rivas,et al.  Cognitive ability and Internet use among older adults , 2006 .

[12]  Darrell M. West,et al.  State and Federal Electronic Government in the United States, 2008 , 2008 .

[13]  Shirley Ann Becker,et al.  E-government usability for older adults , 2005, CACM.

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

[15]  E. Hargittai,et al.  The disability divide in internet access and use , 2006 .

[16]  E. Hargittai,et al.  Digital Distinction: Status-Specific Types of Internet Usage , 2009 .

[17]  Frederick J. Riggins,et al.  The Digital Divide: Current and Future Research Directions , 2005, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[18]  J. V. Dijk Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings , 2006 .

[19]  Alexander van Deursen,et al.  Internet skills and the digital divide , 2011, New Media Soc..

[20]  Jonathan Wareham,et al.  Wireless Diffusion and Mobile Computing : Implications for the Digital Divide , 2004, ECIS.

[21]  D. Dillman Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method, 2nd ed. , 2007 .

[22]  Mary Beth Vogel-Ferguson,et al.  Family Employment Program (FEP) Study of Utah , 2008 .

[23]  Paul T. Jaeger,et al.  Transparency and technological change: Ensuring equal and sustained public access to government information , 2010, Gov. Inf. Q..

[24]  Gianluca Misuraca,et al.  “Mobile” e-government options: between technology-driven and user centric , 2007 .

[25]  José Ramón Gil-García,et al.  The role of IT literacy in defining digital divide policy needs , 2011, Gov. Inf. Q..

[26]  P. Chisnall Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method , 2007, Journal of Advertising Research.

[27]  José Ramón Gil-García,et al.  Understanding the complexity of electronic government: Implications from the digital divide literature , 2005, Gov. Inf. Q..

[28]  Maria Sourbati,et al.  ‘It could be useful, but not for me at the moment’: older people, internet access and e-public service provision , 2009, New Media Soc..

[29]  Mehdi Asgarkhani,et al.  DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AND ITS EFFECTIVENESS IN PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REFORM , 2005 .

[30]  France Bélanger,et al.  The impact of the digital divide on e-government use , 2009, CACM.

[31]  Janice C. Sipior,et al.  An Empirical Evaluation of E-Government Inclusion Among the Digitally Disadvantaged in the United States , 2010, Inf. Resour. Manag. J..

[32]  Gino Verleye,et al.  User-centered E-Government in practice: A comprehensive model for measuring user satisfaction , 2009, Gov. Inf. Q..

[33]  Henry E. Brady,et al.  Beyond SES: A Resource Model of Political Participation , 1995, American Political Science Review.

[34]  Neil Selwyn,et al.  Reconsidering Political and Popular Understandings of the Digital Divide , 2004, New Media Soc..

[35]  Leslie Budd,et al.  ‘EARLY ADOPTER’ CASE STUDIES OF EFFECTIVE MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN CITIZENS AND GOVERNMENT BY JANE VINCENT AND L ISA HARRIS , 2009 .

[36]  Henry E. Brady,et al.  Weapon of the Strong? Participatory Inequality and the Internet , 2010, Perspectives on Politics.