Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Progress in Global Assessments of E-Democracy: Refined Measurements and New Findings

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
International E-Government Development

  • 793 Accesses

Abstract

How information and communication technologies (ICTs) shape the conditions for the creation of an electronic democracy (e-democracy) is the subject matter of a rising field. However, prior studies are both inconsistent with regard to findings and have drawbacks in the operationalization of the concept at a global level. This chapter addresses voids in previous research by looking at an established measurement of e-democracy and making a refinement of this very measurement. This is done through assessing a data set that spans both time and space and includes all countries of the world. The findings, relating to e-democracy on a global scale, show the positive influence of technology and population size but also emphasize the need for more theoretical groundwork that future research can benefit from.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Existing alternatives are for example Freedom House’s Freedom on the Net and the Open Net Initiative. The basic shortcoming of these measurements is that a considerable proportion of the countries of the world are excluded.

  2. 2.

    FHP is based on average score between Freedom House’s two indexes and Polity IV with imputed data for countries from which data is missing. The index has been scaled down, ranging from 0.0 (low democracy) to 1.0 (high democracy). Values are imputed for countries for which data on Polity IV is missing. This is done by regressing Polity IV on the average Freedom House measure.

  3. 3.

    This excludes South Sudan since the country joined the UN in 2011.

References

  • Anduiza Perea, E., Jensen, M. J., & Jorba, L. (2012). Digital media and political engagement worldwide: A comparative study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ã…ström, J. (2001). Should democracy online be quick, strong, or thin? Communications of ACM, 44(1), 49–51. doi:10.1145/357489.357505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ã…ström, J., Karlsson, M., Linde, J., & Pirannejad, A. (2012). Understanding the rise of e-participation in non-democracies: Domestic and international factors. Government Information Quarterly, 29(2), 142–150. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2011. 09.008.

  • Beck, N., & Katz, J. N. (1995). What to do (and not to do) with Time-Series Cross-Section data. The American Political Science Review, 89(3), 634–647. doi:10.2307/2082979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D. (1973). The coming of post-industrial society: A venture in social forecasting. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bessant, J. (2014a). Democracy bytes: New media, new politics and generational change. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved from http://www.palgraveconnect.com/doifinder/10.1057/9781137308269

  • Bessant, J. (2014b). The political in the age of the digital: Propositions for empirical investigation. Politics, 34(1), 33–44. doi:10.1111/1467-9256.12015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bimber, B., & Copeland, L. (2013). Digital media and traditional political participation over time in the US. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 10(2), 125–137. doi:10.1080/19331681.2013.769925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calista, D. J., & Melitski, J. (2013). Digitized government among countries worldwide from 2003 to 2010: Performance discrepancies explained by comparing frameworks. International Journal of Public Administration, 36(3), 222–234. doi:10.1080/01900692.2012.721246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chadwick, A. (2006). Internet politics: States, citizens, and new communication technologies. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chadwick, A. (2008). Web 2.0: New challenges for the study of e-Democracy in an era of informational exuberance. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 5, 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatfield, A. T., & Alhujran, O. (2009). A cross-country comparative analysis of e-government service delivery among Arab countries. Information Technology for Development, 15(3), 151–170. doi:10.1002/itdj.20124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, S., & Blumler, J. G. (2009). The Internet and democratic citizenship: Theory, practice and policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, S., & Norris, D. F. (2005). A new agenda for e-Democracy. (SSRN Scholarly Paper No ID 1325255). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R. A., & Tufte, E. R. (1973). Size and democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, L. (1999). Developing democracy: Toward consolidation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, W. H. (2013). Internet studies: The foundations of a transformative field. In The Oxford handbook of Internet studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Finkel, S. E. (1995). Causal analysis with panel data. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Freedom House. (20151027). Freedom in the world comparative and historical data. Retrieved from www.freedomhouse.org

  • Gibson, R. K., & McAllister, I. (2014). Normalising or equalising party competition? Assessing the impact of the web on election campaigning. Political Studies, n/a-n/a. doi:10.1111/1467-9248.12107.

  • Grönlund, Ã…. (2011). Connecting eGovernment to real government – The failure of the UN eParticipation index. In M. Janssen, H. J. Scholl, M. A. Wimmer, & Y. Tan (Eds.), Electronic government (pp. 26–37). Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, G. J., Williams, C. B., & Yates, D. J. (2014). Predictors of on-line services and e-participation: A cross-national comparison. Government Information Quarterly, 31(4), 526–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, K. L., & van Dijk, J. (Eds.). (2000). Digital democracy: Issues of theory & practice. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadenius, A., & Teorell, J. (2004). Same, same – But different: Assessing alternative indices of democracy. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Held, D. (2006). Models of democracy (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jho, W., & Song, K. J. (2015). Institutional and technological determinants of civil e-Participation: Solo or duet? Government Information Quarterly. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2015.09.003.

  • Jorba, L., & Bimber, B. (2012). The impact of digital media on citizenship from a global perspective. In Digital media and political engagement worldwide: A comparative study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karpf, D. (2012). Social science research methods in Internet time. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 639–661. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2012. 665468.

  • Katchanovski, I., & La Porte, T. (2005). Cyberdemocracy or Potemkin e-Villages? Electronic governments in OECD and post-communist countries. International Journal of Public Administration, 28(7–8), 665–681. doi:10.1081/PAD-200064228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J., & Halpern, D. (2013). Political and developmental correlates of social media participation in government: A global survey of national leadership websites. International Journal of Public Administration, 36(1), 1–15. doi:10.1080/01900692.2012.713286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keele, L., & Kelly, N. J. (2006). Dynamic models for dynamic theories: The ins and outs of lagged dependent variables. Political Analysis, 14(2), 186–205. doi:10.1093/pan/mpj006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kersting, N. (2012). The future of electronic democracy. In Electronic democracy (pp. 11–54). Opladen: Barbara Budrich Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koc-Michalska, K., Gibson, R., & Vedel, T. (2014). Online campaigning in France, 2007–2012: Political actors and citizens in the aftermath of the Web.2.0 evolution. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 11(2), 220–244. doi:10.1080/19331681.2014.903217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsson, H., & Grönlund, Ã…. (2014). Future-oriented eGovernance: The sustainability concept in eGov research, and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 137–149. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2013.07.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, B. (2014). Window dressing 2.0: Constituency-level web campaigns in the 2010 UK general election. Politics, 34(1), 45–57. doi:10.1111/1467-9256.12029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C., Chang, K., & Berry, F. S. (2011). Testing the development and diffusion of e-Government and e-Democracy: A global perspective. Public Administration Review, 71(3), 444–454. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02228.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lidén, G. (2015). Technology and democracy: validity in measurements of e-democracy. Democratization, 22(4), 698–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lidén, G. (2016). Inequality in local digital politics: How different preconditions for citizen engagement can be explained. Policy & Internet, 8(3), 270–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lilleker, D. G., Pack, M., & Jackson, N. (2010). Political parties and Web 2.0: The liberal democrat perspective. Politics, 30(2), 105–112. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9256.2010.01373.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macintosh, A., Coleman, S., & Schneeberger, A. (2009). eParticipation: The research gaps. In A. Macintosh & E. Tambouris (Eds.), Electronic participation (Vol. 5694, pp. 1–11). Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, M. G., Jaggers, K. R., & Gurr, K. (20151027). Polity IV project: Political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800–2014. Retrieved from http://www.systemicpeace.org/

  • Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide?: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Papacharissi, Z. (2010). A private sphere: democracy in a digital age. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Persson, M. (2013). Education and political participation. British Journal of Political Science, 1–15 (FirstView). doi:10.1017/S0007123413000409.

  • Potnis, D. D., & Pardo, T. A. (2011). Mapping the evolution of e-Readiness assessments. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 5(4), 345–363. doi:10.1108/17506161111173595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, R. (2005). A global diffusion model of E-Governance. Journal of Public Policy, 25(1), 5–27. doi:10.1017/S0143814X05000279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sæbø, Ø., Rose, J., & Skiftenes Flak, L. (2008). The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging research area. Government Information Quarterly, 25(3), 400–428. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2007.04.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saglie, J., & Vabo, S. I. (2009). Size and e-Democracy: Online participation in Norwegian local politics. Scandinavian Political Studies, 32(4), 382–401. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9477.2009.00235.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sartori, G. (1970). Concept misformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review, 64(4), 1033–1053. doi:10.2307/1958356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlozman, K. L., Verba, S., & Brady, H. E. (2010). Weapon of the strong? Participatory inequality and the Internet? Perspectives on Politics, 8(2), 488–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Susha, I., & Grönlund, Ã…. (2012). eParticipation research: Systematizing the field. Government Information Quarterly, 29(3), 373–382. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2011.11.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The World Bank. (20151026). World development indicators. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/

  • United Nations. (2003). UN Global E-government survey 2003. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2004). Global e-government readiness report 2004: Towards access for opportunity. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2005). Global e-government readiness report 2005: From E-Government to E-Inclusion. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2008). Un e-government survey 2008: From e-government to connected governance. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2010). E-Government survey 2010: Levering e-Government at a time of financial and economic crisis. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2012). E-Government survey 2012: E-Government for the people. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2014). E-Government survey 2014: E-Government for the future we want. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaccari, C. (2013). Digital politics in Western democracies: A comparative study. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vedel, T. (2006). The idea of electronic democracy: Origins, visions and questions. Parliamentary Affairs, 59(2), 226–235. doi:10.1093/pa/gsl005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viborg Andersen, K., Henriksen, H. Z., Secher, C., & Medaglia, R. (2007). Costs of e-participation: The management challenges. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 1(1), 29–43. doi:10.1108/17506160710733689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mid Sweden University, Sundsvall, Sweden

    Gustav Lidén

Authors
  1. Gustav Lidén
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Accounting and Finance, University of Granada, Granada, Spain

    Laura Alcaide Muñoz

  2. Department of Accounting and Finance, University of Granada, Granada, Spain

    Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lidén, G. (2018). Progress in Global Assessments of E-Democracy: Refined Measurements and New Findings. In: Alcaide Muñoz, L., Rodríguez Bolívar, M. (eds) International E-Government Development . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63284-1_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation