The Impact of the Digital Divide on the Adoption of e-Government in Greece
Abstract
The adoption of e-government services and the active e-participation of citizens may be affected by the pre-dominant socio-economic inequalities. The current study examined the impact of the digital divide to the use of e-government and e-participation services. We used the micro-data from the national survey on the use of Information and Communication Technologies by the Greek households and individuals. This survey was conducted by the Greek Statistical Authority in 2017, in a representative sample of the Greek population (n = 3321). We analyzed the data using logistic regression equations. According to the results, the social exclusion factors may influence the use of e-government services. The most important socio-economic factors affecting the decision to use e-government services are the educational level, age and citizenship. The e-participation of the citizens in various democratic processes is only influenced by their educational attainment. This work highlights the impact of the digital divide to every aspect of our digital life. The state should implement policies to address the digital divide focusing on the vulnerable social subgroups, such as the low-educated and older people. The findings of our research may help the policymakers to conceptualize the effect of the digital divide to e-government adoption, in a multidimensional and integrative way.
Keywords: e-government, Greece, digital divide, e-services, digital skills
References
[1] World Bank (2008), “Definition of e-government”, available at: http://web.worldbank.org/ WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTINFORMATIONANDCOMMUNICATIONANDTECHNOLOGIES/ EXTEGOVERNMENT/0,,contentMDK:20507153BmenuPK:702592BpagePK:148956BpiPK: 216618BtheSitePK:702586,00.html (accessed 11 April 2019).Bélanger, F., & Carter, L. (2009). The impact of the digital divide on e-government use. Communications of the ACM, 52(4), 132-135.
[2] Thompson, D., Rust, R. T., & Rhoda, J. (2005). The business value of e-government for small firms. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 16(4), 385-407.
[3] Pieterson, W., & Van Dijk, J. (2007, May). Channel Choice Determinants; An exploration of the factors that determine the choice of a service channel in citizen initiated contacts. In Proceedings of the 8th annual international conference on Digital government research: bridging disciplines & domains (pp. 173-182). Digital Government Society of North America.
[4] Capgemini (2012). Public services online ‘digital by default or by detour?’ Assessing user centric Egovernment performance in Europe — eGovernment benchmark 2012. Final Background Report. Brussels: Delivered for the European Commission, DG Connect.
[5] Savoldelli, A., Codagnone, C., & Misuraca, G. (2014). Understanding the e-government paradox: Learning from literature and practice on barriers to adoption. Government Information Quarterly, 31, S63-S71.
[6] United Nations (2012), United Nations e-Government Survey 2012: E-Government for the People, United Nations, New York, NY
[7] Zhao, F., Shen, K. N., & Collier, A. (2014). Effects of national culture on e-government diffusion—A global study of 55 countries. Information & Management, 51(8), 1005-1016.
[8] Bélanger, F., & Carter, L. (2009). The impact of the digital divide on e-government use. Communications of the ACM, 52(4), 132-135.
[9] International Telecommunication Union (ITU) (2011), Measuring the information society. Annual report of International Telecommunication Union, ITU, Geneva.
[10] Bruno, G., Esposito, E., Genovese, A. and Gwebu, L.K. (2010), “A critical analysis of current indexes for digital divide measurement”, The Information Society: An International Journal, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 16-28.
[11] Van Deursen, A., & Van Dijk, J. (2011). Internet skills and the digital divide. New media & society, 13(6), 893-911.
[12] Van Deursen, A. J., & Van Dijk, J. A. (2015). Toward a multifaceted model of internet access for understanding digital divides: an empirical investigation. The Information Society, 31(5), 379-391.
[13] Van Deursen, A., Van Dijk, J., & Ebbers, W. (2006). Why e-government usage lags behind: explaining the gap between potential and actual usage of electronic public services in the netherlands. In International Conference on Electronic Government (pp. 269-280). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
[14] Goldfinch, S., Gauld, R., & Herbison, P. (2009). The participation divide? political participation, trust in government, and e-government in Australia and New Zealand. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 68(3), 333-350.
[15] Colesca, S. E., & Dobrica, L. (2008). Adoption and use of e-government services: The case of Romania. Journal of applied research and technology, 6(3), 204-217.
[16] Gounopoulos, E., Kokkonis, G., Valsamidis, S., & Kontogiannis, S. (2018). Digital Divide in Greece-A Quantitative Examination of Internet Nonuse. In A. Karasavvoglou, S. Goić, P. Polychronidou, P. Delias (Eds), Economy, Finance and Business in Southeastern and Central Europe (pp. 889-903). Springer, Cham.
[17] Van Dijk, J., (2005). The Deepening Divide Inequality in the Information Society. Thousand Oaks, London: Sage Publications.
[18] Rosenberg, D. (2019). Use of e-government services in a deeply divided society: A test and an extension of the social inequality hypotheses. New Media & Society, 21(2), 464-482.
[19] Krishnan, S., Teo, T. S., & Lim, J. (2013). E-participation and E-government maturity: A global perspective. In International Working Conference on Transfer and Diffusion of IT (pp. 420-435). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
[20] Luna-Reyes, L. F., Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Romero, G. (2012). Towards a multidimensional model for evaluating electronic government: Proposing a more comprehensive and integrative perspective. Government Information Quarterly, 29(3), 324-334.
[21] Montagnier, P. & Wirthmann, Α., (2011). Digital Divide: from Computer Access to Online Activities- A Micro Data Analysis. OECD Digital Economy Working Papers no. 189, OECD.
[22] Hargittai, E. and Hinnant, A. (2008). Digital Inequality: Differences in Young Adults’ Use of the Internet. Communication Research, 35(5), pp.602-621.