Dona.d F. Norris University of Maryland, Baltimore County Christopher G. Reddick University of Texas at San Antonio Local E-Government in the United States: Transformation or Incremental Change? The findings of this article indicate that e-government has developed incrementally and has not been transformative, as many early writers envisioned. In this article, the authors address the recent trajectory of local e-gouernment in the United States and compare it with the predictions of early e-govemment writings, using empirical data from two nationwide surveys of e-govern- ment among American local governments. The authors findtha: local e-government has not produced the results that those writings predicted. Instead, its development has largely been incremental, and local e-government is mainly about delivering information and services online, followed by a few transactions and limited inter activity. Local e-government is also mainly one way, from govern- ment to citizens, and there is little or no evidence that it is transjormatiue in any way This disparity between early predictions and actual results is partly attributable to the incremental nature of American public administration. Other reasons include a lack of attention by earl) writers to the history of information technology in government and the influence of technological determinism on those writings. For much of the past two decades, govern-ments across the globe have been adopt-ing and expanding an innovative means of delivering government information and services to citizens (G2C), businesses (G2B), and governments (G2G). This phenomenon has come to be known as electronic government or e-government. Today, all national governments, nearly all subnational govern- ments, and most local govern- ments of any size have official Web sites through which they deliver information and services electronically, 24 hours per day, seven days per week. By almost any standard, this is an incred- ible story of technology adop- tion by governments over a very short period of time. As we will discuss in the literature review, in the early days of e-government, numerous predictions were made about its development or evolution, many of which were highly optimistic, suggesting that e-government would be not only ever expanding but also ever progressive. E-government, so the claims went, would improve the effectiveness and efficiency of government information and service delivery. It would also lead to an end state that would include the integration of information and service delivery both within and among governments, would trans- form governments themselves, would fundamentally transform relations between governments and the governed, and, ultimately, would produce electronic democracy. Empirical studies conducted in recent years have increasingly called into question the validity and accu- racy of such predictions, suggesting that they were not informed by relevant prior literature, were te ...

1. Dona.d F. Norris
University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Christopher G. Reddick
University of Texas at San Antonio
Local E-Government in the United States: Transformation
or Incremental Change?
The findings of this article
indicate that e-government has
developed incrementally and
has not been transformative, as
many early writers envisioned.
In this article, the authors address the recent trajectory of
local e-gouernment in the United States and compare it
with the predictions of early e-govemment writings, using
empirical data from two nationwide surveys of e-govern-
ment among American local governments. The authors
findtha: local e-government has not produced the results
that those writings predicted. Instead, its development
has largely been incremental, and local e-government is
mainly about delivering information and services online,
followed by a few transactions and limited inter activity.
Local e-government is also mainly one way, from govern-
ment to citizens, and there is little or no evidence that it
is transjormatiue in any way This disparity between early
predictions and actual results is partly attributable to the
incremental nature of American public administration.

2. Other reasons include a lack of attention by earl) writers
to the history of information technology in government
and the influence of technological determinism on those
writings.
For much of the past two decades, govern-ments across the
globe have been adopt-ing and expanding an innovative means
of
delivering government information and services to
citizens (G2C), businesses (G2B), and governments
(G2G). This phenomenon has come to be known as
electronic government or e-government. Today, all
national governments, nearly all subnational govern-
ments, and most local govern-
ments of any size have official
Web sites through which they
deliver information and services
electronically, 24 hours per day,
seven days per week. By almost
any standard, this is an incred-
ible story of technology adop-
tion by governments over a very
short period of time.
As we will discuss in the literature review, in the early
days of e-government, numerous predictions were
made about its development or evolution, many
of which were highly optimistic, suggesting that
e-government would be not only ever expanding but
also ever progressive. E-government, so the claims
went, would improve the effectiveness and efficiency
of government information and service delivery. It
would also lead to an end state that would include
the integration of information and service delivery
both within and among governments, would trans-

3. form governments themselves, would fundamentally
transform relations between governments and the
governed, and, ultimately, would produce electronic
democracy.
Empirical studies conducted in recent years have
increasingly called into question the validity and accu-
racy of such predictions, suggesting that they were not
informed by relevant prior literature, were technologi-
cally deterministic, and were mostly guesswork (e.g.,
Coursey and Norris 2008). Other studies have shown
that the development of e-government simply has not
followed the path foreseen by earlier, more optimistic
works.
This article has two principal purposes. The first is to
discuss findings from two nationwide surveys of local
e-government in the United States, in 2004 and 2011.
In so doing, we paint a picture of recent trends and
the current state of local e-government. The second
purpose is to use these data to compare the current
state of local e-government
against the predictions of the
early writings. As we will show,
the findings of this article
indicate that e-government has
developed incrementally and
has not been transformative, as
many early writers envisioned.
The structure of this article is as follows: We begin
with a brief review of the literature on e-government
in which we consider some of the early claims about
e-governmenr and then examine more recent empirical
works that report actual e-government trends. Next,

4. we discuss the methodology that we used to collect
Donald f. Norris is professor and chair
of the Department of Public Policy and
director of the Maryland lnstitute for Policy
AnalySiS and R'seaf(h at the University of
Maryland, Baltimore County. He specializes
in urban politics. public management. and
the adoption. management. and impacts of
information technology. induding electromc
government. in public organizations.
E-mail: [email protected]
Christopher G. Reddick is professor
and chair 01 the Department of Public
Administration at the University of Texas
at San Antonio. His research and teaching
interests are in information technology and
public sector organizations.
E-mail: [email protected]
Public Administration Review,
VoI.73.ilS.I.Pp·16H75.©2011by
The American Society for Publk Administration.
001: IO.lllIj. 1540·6210.2012.02647.x.
Local E-Government in the United States: Transformation or
Incremental Change? 165
, ,
and analyze the empirical data for this article. We then present
the
empirical findings from this research and compare them with

5. empiri-
cal findings from an earlier local e-government survey. Finally,
we
draw conclusions and endeavor to explain the variance between
our
findings and the early optimistic predictions about e-
government.
Previous Studies
E-government observers can be divided into at least three
camps,
depending on how they view this phenomenon (Norris 2001).
First,
there are the cyber-optimists, who generally believe uncritically
that
only good things will come from e-government. Then there are
the
cyber-pessimists, who, in a mirror image of the cyber-optimists,
believe that all things "e" can only produce negative results. In
between are the cyber-realists, who (in the words of Harry
Truman's
fictional economist) might say that, on the one hand, e-
government
will be a good thing but, on the other, it will be a bad thing.
Many, if not most, of the early writers on the subject of e-gov-
ernment fell into the cyber-optimist camp. Cyber-optimists
were particularly well represented among the relatively few but
nevertheless influential scholars who penned the early norma-
tive models of e-government (i.e., Baum and Di Maio 2000;
Hiller and Belanger 2001; Layne and Lee 2001; Ronaghan 2002;
Wescott 2001). Among other things, these models claimed that
e-government would evolve naturally through several steps or
phases, moving from the provision of basic information and
services to transactions, interaction, "joined-up government"
(the

6. horizontal and vertical integration of information and service
provision within and among governments), to e-transformation
and e-democracy.
These models and other cyber-optimist works have had
consider-
able influence within the field of e-government research, and
many
works published since then continue to promote an optimistic
view
of e-government. Here are but a few examples:
From the scholarly literature:
• Paradigm shift to citizen-centric government (Ho 2002)
• Citizen access and participation (Seifert and Peterson 2002)
• Hybrid model of democracy facilitated by technology (Ant-
tiroiko 2003)
• Improved citizen contact with government (Thomas and Streib
2003)
• Improved relationships between citizens and their
governments
(Lee, Tan, and Trimi 2005)
• Providing for new forms of citizen participation and improv-
ing democratic processes (Forcella 2006, citing the European
Commission's position on the potential of e-governrnent)
• Enhancing access, transparency, efficiency, and quality
(Bekkers
and Homburg 2007, citing other authors who made such
claims)

7. " Improved government transparency (Bolivar, Perez, and
Hernandez 2007)
From advocates:
e Ability to enhance democracy (Silcock 2001)
• Citizen engagement (Toregas 2001)
166 Public Administration Review • .January IFebruary 2013
• E-participation/e-democracy (Bertelsmann Foundation 2001)
• Citizen empowerment (Council for Excellence in Government
2001)
o Citizen trust in governmem (OECD 2003)
• Citizen engagement (Clift 2004)
• Responsive participatory democracy (Clift 2004)
A quotation from a 2001 article in the British journal
Parliamentary
Affairs is emblematic of the optimistic claims made for
e-governmem:
By harnessing the advances in technology, making services
more accessible through multiple channels and more respon-
sive by providing 'joined-up' services, the citizen has access to
information relating to services through one point of contact.
It will be a consumer-led revolution bringing with it more
efficient government, more transparent ways of doing business
with the different branches of government; a two-way path of
consultation and collaboration; a new level of accountability
for elected and unelected officials; and more open and respon-
sive politics. (Silcock 2001, 101)
Summarizing his reading of the early literature claiming
positive

8. results from e-government, Garson (2004) noted that after the
adoption of e-services and attendant transaction cost reductions,
another claim of proponents was that e-government would
reverse
the loss of social capital in the United States through the use of
the
same (i.e., electronic) technology to promote citizen
involvement in
government (i.e., e-dernocracy). Similar claims for improving
social
capital and democratic involvement are found in the European
literature on e-government as well.
While these and other claims about e-government continue to
reso-
nate among scholars and observers of e-government, an
important
empirical question is whether and the extent to which e-
governmenr
meets these claims in actual practice. The small bur growing
empiri-
cal literature on e-government strongly suggests a different set
of
e-government outcomes. In an article published in 2008,
Coursey
and Norris found that local e-government in the United States
had
not progressed as the normative models predicted. Instead, local
e-government was mainly about delivering information and
services
online, with very few transactions and limited interactive
capability.
Other empirical studies of e-government have produced similar
findings. For example, service delivery has been the primary
focus of

9. e-government in various locations: Flanders (Kampen, Snijkers,
and
Bouckaert 2005), the European states (Eynon and Dutton 2007;
Torres, Pina, and Royo 2005), the United Kingdom
(McLoughlin
and Cornford 2006), Canada (Roy 2006,2007), Australia
(Dunleavy et al. 2008), the Arab nations (Chatfield and
Alhujran
2009), Greece (O'Neill 2009; Itrona, Hayes, and Petrakaki
2010),
and Italian local governments (Nasi and Frosini 2010). Finally,
over-
all, implementation of e-government initiatives has been
disappoint-
ing (Bekkers and Homberg 2007),
We cite these works because they are representative of the
relatively
few empirical studies of e-government. We do not cite empirical
works that validate claims made in cyber-oprlmist writings
because,
after an extensive review of the e-government literature, we
have nor
been able to hnd any.) This is not to say that
there is a paucity of works that make optimis-
tic predictions about e-government. Far from
it. Rather, our point is that after an in-depth
literature review, the empirical studies that we
identified=-rhar is, studies that have investi-
gated the actual state of e-government-have
found e-government mainly to involve the
delivery of information and service, not

10. e-dernocracy or e-transformation.
Our point is that after an
in-depth literature review, the
empirical studies that we identi-
fied-that is, studies that have
investigated the actual state of
e-government-have found
e-government mainly to involve
the delivery of information and
service, not e-democracy or
e-transformation.On balance, then, the findings from the
literature strongly suggest that the claims
made by the normative models and in other
cyber-optimist works are inconsistent with
the empirical reality of e-government. We test
this finding in this article using data from two
nationwide surveys of local e-governmenr in
the United States.
We use the concept of incre-
mental change to help explain
one of the principal findings of
this study, that is, why e-gov-
ernrnent has or has not lived up
to its predicted transformative
potential.
Public administration scholars have long
tried to explain ways to innovate, reform, or

11. transform government. Reform in govern-
ment is often difficult because, among other
things, it involves diverse stakeholders whose
interests are not synonymous and often conflict. This tends to
result in change, if it happens at all, being incremental in order
to
accommodate those interests. Lindblom (1959) first proposed
that
organizational decision making should be characterized as
"mud-
dling through." He argued that organizational change is not
rational
in an economic sense, but rather, decisions are made on the
margins
by those most organized politically or in control of public
organiza-
tions. This view of incremental change was later famously
applied
robudget decision making in the U.S. Congress, where
Wildavsky
(1984) found that the best predictor of next year's budget is the
cur-
rent year's. Incremental theory has also been applied to public
sector
information systems, showing that although computers do have
the
potential to change organizations, most change has been
incremen-
tal (Kraemer and King 1986).
Some scholars have touted e-governrnent as a way for
transformative
change to occur within public administration, essentially
moving
away from incremental change to more systematic reform that
has

12. a long-lasting impact on government (Ho 2002; Torres, Pina,
and
Royo 2005). In this view, e-governrnent is a way to transform
the
traditional relationship between government and citizens such
that
government becomes more response and accountable to citizen's
wishes. Others, however, have argued that e-governrnent may
only
result in incremental change in government service delivery
through
the automation of existing business processes (Scholl 2005;
West
2004).
In e-governrnent research, there is also debate over the degree
of
change-ranging from incremental to transformational (West
2005). O'Neill (2009) argues that transformational change from
e-government must be differentiated between instrumental
change,
meaning changes in service delivery, versus more systematic or
radical changes in existing governance relationships. Others
argue
that e-government has the potential to create a paradigm shift
that
changes existing organi~ational dynamics
moving towards digital governance-mean-
ing a more joined-up, holistic, citizen-focused
government (Dunleavy er al. 2005).
West (2005) arg.lesthat e-government and
change can be characterized along a contin-
uum from incremental, to secular, and finally
transformational, with secular change unfold-

13. ing slowly over time but eventually leading
to major change. An important example that
he USesis the internal combustion engine,
which was developed in 1885 but did not take
off until the 1950s and 1960s with the mass
assembly of the automobile, the development
of interstate highways, and suburbaniza-
tion. Finally, Fountain (2001) argues that
e-governrnent change may start out as being
transformational at first but may not live up
to expectations. That is, change happens, but
it takes time for it blossom. Therefore, govern-
ments go through a period of optimism then
pessimism.
We use the concept of incremental change to
help explain one of the principal findings of this study, that is,
why
e-government has or has not lived up to its predicted
transformative
potential.
Research Methods
To produce the data needed for this study, we contracted with
the
International City/County Management Association (ICMA) to
conduct a survey of e-government among American local
govern-
ments. The questionnaire that we used for this study was based
in
part on the 2004 ICMA local e-government survey (e.g.,
Coursey
2005; Norris and Moon 2005). That survey examined a range of
local e-government issues and, in rum, was based on the ICMA's
2000 and 2002 local e-governmem surveys (e.g., Holden,
Norris,

14. and Fletcher 2003; Moon 2002; Norris and Moon 2005).
Because we wanted to be able to compare the results from our
2011
survey with data from the 2004 survey, we based the 2011
instru-
ment on that from 2004. However, recognizing that much has
changed in the world of e-governmem in the seven years
between
the surveys, we needed to update the 2004 instrument at least
some-
what to capture recent e-government issues and trends.
Therefore, prior to developing the 2011 instrument, we asked a
convenience sample oflocal information technology (IT)
directors
and chief information officers to review the 2004 instrument
and
make recommendations to us based on their expert knowledge
of
local e-government developments and recent trends since then
(see
appendix). Armed with these expert practitioners' suggestions,
we
worked cooperatively with the ICMA survey research staff to
write
the 2011 questionnaire. While many of the questions were
identi-
cal to those in the 2004 ICMA survey, we added a number of
new
questions. In order to keep the length of the survey manageable,
as we added new questions to the 2011 instrument, we deleted a
nearly equal number from the 2004 instrument. (Copies of the
Local E-Government in the United States: Transformation or
Incremental Change? 161

15. Tab'~ 1 Characteristics oi Local Governments Surveyed and
Respondin9 to the
2011 survey
Respondents
Number of Municipalities!
Counties Surveyed No. Percent
Total 4,452 1,326 29.8
Cities 3,302 1,021 30.9
Counties 1,150 305 26.5
Population group
Large governments 223 88 39.5
Medium-scale governments 2,062 676 32.8
Small-scale governments 2,167 562 25.9
Geographic region
Northeast 999 198 19.8
North-Central 1,234 361 29.3
South 1,417 460 32.5
West 802 307 38.3
Metro status
Central 858 323 37.6

16. Suburban 2,318 685 29.6
Independent 1,276 318 24.9
Form of government
Cities
Mayor-council 1,197 232 19.4
Council-manager 1,883 742 39.4
Commission 70 17 24.3
Town meeting 106 22 20.8
Representative town meeting 46 8 17.4
Counties
Council-administrator (manager) 735 229 31.2
Council-elected executive 415 76 18.3
Source: Norris and Reddick, 2011 E-Government Survey.
survey instruments and the results from both surveys can be
found
at the lCMA Web site.)
In the spring of 20 11, the ICMA mailed the survey [Q all
munici-
pal governments with populations of 10,000 and greater and ro
all
county governments of the same size that have ejected
executives
or appointed managers (a total of 4,452 governments). The
ICMA
provided an online option for completing the survey ro the local
government respondents. About three-quarters of respondents
returned paper surveys, while about one-quarter completed [he

17. online version. The ICMA sent a second mailing to local
govern-
ments that had not responded to the first mailing.
Approximately 30 percent of the sample completed the 2011
survey
(1,326 local governments out of 4,452 surveyed). Table 1 shows
the
characteristics of both the sample and the responding local
govern-
ments. In terms of population size, large local governments with
populations of 250,000 or greater were substantially
overrepresented
in the sample, while medium-sized local governments were
slightly
overrepresented, and smaller local governments with
populations
under 25,000 were somewhat underrepresented in the sample.
Comparing form and type of government, cities responded at
about the average of all respondents. while county governments
were slightly underrepresented. Among municipal governmems,
mayor-council governments were underrepresented. ~nd
council-
manager and council-administrator were overrepresented.
Among
counties, council-manager or council-administrator forms were
slightly overrepresented, while council-elected executive
governments
were substantially underrepresented. The West and the South
were:
168 Public Administration Review ·.January IFebruary 2013
';~,
.:.-:

18. overrepresented, while the Northeast was underrepresented.
Finally, :
central cities were overrepresented in the sample, while
independent
cities were underrepresented in the sample. Within these
limitations,
the sample is generally representative ofV.S. local governments.
The 2011 survey had a lower response rate than the 2004 sur-
vey, which was 42.9 percent. The ICMA has noticed a decline in
responses to its surveys in recent years and attributes this, in
part,
to the impact of the Great Recession on local staff cutbacks. As
a
result, local governments understandably have fewer resources
to
devote to completing surveys (Moulder 2011).
In the following sections, we provide our analysis of data from
the
questions from the 2011 survey and a comparison to data from
selected questions from the 2004 survey. The 2004 version
surveyed
local governments with populations of 2,500 and greater, while
the
2011 survey was sent only to larger local governments with
popula-
tions of 10,000 or greater. This is important, as larger local
govern-
ments are more likely to be adopters of e-government (Holden,
Fletcher, and Norris 2003). In order to provide a more accurate
comparison, we only examined local governments with
populations
of 10,000 or greater for the 2004 data set.

19. In order to explore the major issues that affect e-government at
the
local level, we use descriptive statistics or frequencies of
responses in
[he tables presented in this article. In addition, to measure
causal-
ity, we conducted cross tabulations and correlation coefficients.
The
dependent variables are the survey questions on e-government
adop-
tion. The independent variables are the following measures,
taken
from previous research, which are standard variables in the
ICMA
data set:
• Population: large (more than 250,000), medium (25,000-
249,000), or small (fewer than 25,000)
• Type of government: city or county
• Form of government: mayor-councilor council-manager (for
cities) and council-administrator, or council-elected executive
(for counties)
• Region: West, South, North-Central, or Northeast
• Metropolitan status: central. suburban, or independent city
To the leMA data set, we added three new independent variables
that describe certain socioeconomic and demographic
characteristics
of the populations served by the local governments:
• Median household income in 2009 inflation-adjusted dollars
• Percentage of white population
• Percentage graduate or professional degree

20. We expected to find a typical pattern of statistical relationships
between the dependent variables (e-government adoption) and
inde-
pendent variables (local government characteristics and
demograph-
ics). For instance, larger local governments, city (versus
county)
governments. local governments with professional managers,
local
governmenrs in the Western and Southern regions of the United
States, and central cities within metropolitan areas are more
likely
to have adopted e-government. (e.g., Holden, Fletcher, and
Norris
2003; Norris and Campillo 2002; Norris and Demeter 1999). We
also expected that local governments with higher median
household
Table 2 Online Local E-Government Services
Percent
2004
Number Percent
2011.
Number
Information and communication
Council agenda/minutes
Codes/ordinances

21. Forms that can be downloaded for manual completion (e.g.,
voter registration, building permits, etc.)
Employment information/applications
Online communication with individual elected and appointed
officials
Geographic information systems (GIS)mapping/data
E-newsletters sent to residents/businesses
E-alerts
Streaming video
Video on demand
Mobile apps (iPhone or Droid)
Customer relationship management (CRM)/311
Interactive voice response (lVR)
Podcasts
Moderated discussions
Instant messaging (1M)
Chat rooms
Transaction-based services
Online requests for services, such as pothole repair
Online payments of utility bills
Online requests for local government records
Online registration for use of recreational facilities/activities,
such as classesand picnic areas
Online payments of fines/fees
Online delivery of local government records to the requestor
Online payments of taxes
Online completion and submission of permit applications
Online completion and submission of business license
applications/renewals
Online property registration, such as animal. bicycle
registration
Online voter registration
1,483 86.6
1,303 77.4

22. 1,199 71.2
1,303 77.1
1,215 73.6
639 38.9
531 32.6
221 13.9
586
224
522
370
183
363
218
215
133
61
50
34.8
13.6
31.1
22.4
11.0
220
13.2
12.8
8.1
3.9
3.2
1,169 93.5
1.124 90.9
1,097 88.6

23. 1,096 88.0
843 68.7
784 64.8
754 64.1
739 60.3
632 50.7
557 45.4
199 17.0
195 17,2
189 16,7
133 11.6
84 7.3
83 7.1
32 2,8
700 57.9
613 53.4
597 49,7
571 47,9
474 40.5
433 36.7
417 35,9
398 33,7
256 22.1
142 12,5
101 9,0
Sources: Norris and Reddick, 2011 E-Government Survey and
2004 ICMA E-Government Survey. Blank cells indicate that a
question was not asked in the 2004 survey,
incomes, larger white populations, and greater percentages of
resi-
dents with graduate or professional degrees would be more

24. likely to
have adopted e-government,
We conducted cross tabulations using chi-square statistics on
the
first five independent variables because they are discrete choice
vari-
ables. We used Pearson correlation coefficients on the three
socio-
economic and demographic independent variables because they
are
continuous variables. The major survey findings are reported in
the
following section.
Local E-Government in the United States in 2011
We begin by reporting the information and services that local
governments offer electronically on their Web sites. Following
Coursey and Norris (2008), we divided e-government informa-
tion and service offerings into two categories: (1) information
and
communication and (2) transaction-based services. The former,
the
"low-hanging fruit," are inarguably easier and less costly to
automate
and place on Web sites. The latter, because of their greater
complex-
ity, are more difficult and more costly to offer, We report our
results
in table 2.
'The data clearly show that, with one exception, the percentage
of local governments offering information and communication
applications on their Web sites has grown, in many cases
consider-
ably, since 2004. Of the eight such applications in both the 2004

25. and 2011 surveys, only online communication with elected and
appointed officials actually declined (by about 5 percentage
points),
All others increased from a low of 13 percentage points to a
high of
40 points. Indeed, four of the eight had been adopted by more
than
88 percent of reporting local governments, three by more than
two-
thirds, and one by more than half. This leads us to conclude, not
surprisingly, that for basic e-government information and
commu-
nication applications, local governments are offering more of
them
th~n ever before.
However, with respect to the nine more recent information and
communication applications in the 2011 survey (not part of the
2004 survey), few local governments offered any of them,
except
for e-alerts (60.3 percent) and video on demand (45.4 percent),
All
of the rest were offered by 17 percent or fewer local
governments.
This is probably because these applications are relatively new
and
also because of the complexity and cost of adding them to a
local
government's array of e-government applications. Local govern-
ments may also be concerned about the "take-up" associated
with
these applications. However, this inference is beyond the scope
of
the data, and therefore, further research is needed.

26. Next we looked at transaction-based services. On the one hand,
adoptions increased, some quite considerably. On the other
hand,
only three such services had been adopted by half or more of
responding local governments (requests for services, 57.9
percent;
payment of utility bills, 53.4 percent; and requesting records,
49.7
percent). Two others (online registration and payment of fees
and
fines) ranged between 41 percent and 48 percent adoption, All
others fell below about one-third of local governments, of
which
Local E-Government in the United States: Transformation or
Incremental Change? 169
Table 3 LocalGovernment SocialMedia Use
2011
Number Percent
Does your local government use social media? Yes
No
Ifso. what social media applications are used?
(843 reporting)
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Blogs
Flickr
Other

27. 849 67.5
408 32.5
779 92.4
588 69.8
382 45.3
170 20.2
132 15.7
79 9.4
Source: Norrisand Reddick.2011 E-Government Survey.
two fell below 20 percent. As we suggested earlier. transaction-
based
services are more difficult and more costly to automate on local
Web
sites, and this is likely the most important reason that local
govern-
ments have not rushed into adoption. Also. as with the newer
serv-
ices. local governments may be concerned that if they place
these
services online. users will not be attracted to them ("If we build
it.
they will NOT come"). However, answers to these questions
will
require further research.
After inquiring about which services were part of local e-
govern-
merit offerings. we asked whether these services involved
mostly
one-way communications with citizens or whether they were
inter-
activeltransaction oriented. More than half of the respondents
said

28. that their e-government applications were mostly one-way
commu-
nications with citizens (53.2 percent). Somewhat less than one-
third
(31.2 percent) said that the applications were somewhere
between
one-way communication and interactive/transaction-oriented.
Just under one in six 05.5 percent) said that their e-government
applications were mostly interactive/transaction oriented. These
findings are consistent with the notion that e-government
remains
mostly about delivering services and information in one direc-
tion. But there is some evidence. at least from these
respondents,
that e-government may be moving. albeit slowly, in the
direction
of interactiviry and transactions, a direction predicted by the
early
Iiterature,
An examination of cross tabulations and correlation coefficients
for the demographic variables and local government
characteristics
showed findings similar to previous research. There were
effects on
e-government service use for larger-population local
governments.
metropolitan status. region of the country, city type
government.
form of government. median household income. and graduate or
professional degree attainment (p = .05).
When the 2004 local e-government survey was conducted. social
media such as Facebook (launched in February 2004) and
Twitter
(March 2006) either did not exist at all or did not exist in the

29. world
of local government. Since the rollout of these and other social
media. however. their worldwide adoption and use have been
phe-
nomenal. In 2011, Facebook had more than 800 million
subscrib-
ers, and Twitter had more than 200 million users (Wikipedia
2011a.
2011 b). With such a rapid worldwide uptake, we wondered
whether
U.S. local governments had adopted these and other social
media as
part of their e-government offerings. Table 3 presents the
results of
questions that we asked in the 2011 survey about local adoption
of
social media.
110 Public Administration Review 0 January I February 2013
Table 4 Why Does Your LocalGovernment ProvideE.-
GovernmentServices?
2011
Citizen access to local government information
Citizen access to the local government
Citizen access to elected officials
Save money
Citizen access to appointed officials
Citizen participation in governmentfe·democracy
Produce revenue
Other
Number
1.207
1,108

30. 870
856
825
804
212
825
Percent
97.7
89.7
70.4
69.3
66.8
65.1
17.2
66.8
Source: Norrisand Reddick,2011 E-Government Survey.
Two-thirds (67.5 percent) oflocal governments had adopted at
least
one social medium-this, in less than seven years for Facebook
and
less than five for Twitter. More than nine in 10 local
governments
that had a social medium (92.4 percent) had adopted Facebook,
seven in ten (69.8 percent) had adopted Twitter. JUSt under half
(45.3 percent) had adopted You'Tube, one in five (20.2 percent)
had adopted blog, and about one in six (15.7 percent) had
adopted
Flickr. By almost any standard. the adoption of social media by
U.S.
local governments has been amazing.

31. In addition to understanding whether local governments had
adopted social media, we wanted to know whether the use of
social
media was mostly one-way communication from the
governments
outward or mostly two way. A strong majority of local
governmems
said mostly one way (60.6 percent), followed by less than a
quarter
(22.7 percent) who felt that it was somewhere between one way
and two way. Fewer than one in seven governments (13.7
percent)
said mostly two way. These findings should not be surprising,
for at
least two reasons. First, most e-government applications are
one-way
communications, and, second. local government adoption of
social
media is a relatively new phenomenon.
An examination of cross tabulations and correlation coefficients
for the demographic variables and local government
characteristics
showed results similar to previous research. Social media use
was
significant with increased population, metropolitan status, form
of government. region of the country. and city type government
(p = .05). However, there was a weaker relationship between
median
household income and the deployment of social media (p = .06).
In addition to wanting to learn whether local governments had
adopted e-government. we also wanted to know why they did so.
Norris (2005). using a focus group methodology. found that
local gov-
ernments adopted e-government mostly to provide information

32. and
services online and also to provide citizen access to
governmental offi-
cials. The findings of this survey are quite consistent with that
study.
As shown in table 4. access was the main reason that local gov-
ernments provided e-services, Nearly all local governments
(97.7
percent) said that they did so to provide citizen access to local
government information; 89.7 percent said citizen access to
local
government itself; 70.4 percent said citizen access to local
elected
officials; and 66.8 percent said citizen access to appointed
officials.
Two other reasons were offered by substantial fractions of local
governments: 69.3 percent said save money, and 65.1 percent
said
citizen participation. Very few of the responding governments
said
that they adopted e-government to produce revenue (17.2
percent).
Tabl" 5 Barriers to local c-Government initiatives
2004 2011
Number Percent Number Percent
When we asked which was the most important reason for
provid-
ing e-services, we found that citizen access to local government
information was far and away the most important (58.2 percent),
followed by citizen access to local government (26.8 percent),

33. while only 7 percent said citizen participation/e-democracy.
This
further confirms the importance of access, particularly access to
information and to the local government, and further dimin-
ishes the importance of e-participation, at least to these local
governments.
While the data so far show that local govern-
ments have expanded their e-government
offerings and more governments are offering
more information and services online, cer-
tainly not all offer a wide range of e-services.
Moreover, the more transaction-oriented or
interactive a service is, the less likely it is that
local governments will adopt it. Why might
this be so? Clearly, one reason might be the
existence of barriers to adoption, a conclusion
found by previous studies (e.g., Coursey and
Norris 2008).
An examination of cross tabulations and correlation coefficients
for the demographic variables and local government
characteristics
showed findings similar to previous research. Why governments
pro-
vided e-government services increased with population,
metropoli-
[an status, region of the country, city type government, and
form of
government (p = .05). The demographic characteristics show
that
median household income and graduate and professional degree
attainment influence why local governments adopted e-
governrnent
services (p = .05).

34. lack of financial resources 1,050 57.0 835 67.3
Lack of technologylWeb staff in the IT department 974 52.9 571
46.0
Issuesregarding security 680 36.9 380 30.6
Issuesrelated to convenience fees for online transactions 574
31.2 372 30.0
Difficulty justifying return on investment 591 32.1 357 28.8
Lack of technologylWeb staff in the operating departments 334
26.9
Lack of technologylWeb expertise in the operating departments
579 31.4 284 22.9
Staff resistance to change 305 16.6 283 22.8
Need to upgrade technology (PCs, networks, etc.) 378 20.5 279
22.5
Issuesregarding privacy 521 28.3 232 18.7
Web site does not accept payment by credit card. 479 27.0 225
18.1
Lack of information about e-government's applications in the
operating departments 235 12.8 213 17.2
Lack of collaboration among departments 304 16.5 206 16.6
Lack of resident/business interest/demand 414 22,5 177 14.3
Lack of technologylWeb expertise in the IT department 173
13.9
Inadequate bandwidth 146 7.9 100 B.l
Lack of support from elected officials 198 10.7 93 7.5
Lack of information about e-government's applications in the IT
department 235 12.8 86 6.9
Resident/business resistance to change 84 4.6 55 4.4
Lack of support from top administrators 54 4.4
Other 102 8.2
Sources: Norris and Reddick, 2011 e-Government Survey and
2004 ICMA E-Government Survey.Blank cells indicate that a
question was not asked in the 2004 survey.
continue to confron t the same types of barriers. However, at

35. least
one significant change is noteworthy-fewer local governments
reported confronting most barriers (10 of 17 in the 2004
survey),
even though in some cases, the changes were small. Only four
bar-
riers were noted by more local governments in 2011 than 2004,
but
none of these increased by more than 6 percentage points. There
was essentially no change in the number of governments
reporting
three barriers.
Lack of financial resources remained the top barrier in 2011, as
it
was in 2004, with 67.3 percent oflocal governments saying that
this was the case (up 10.3 percent from 2004), and this was the
only
barrier noted by more than half of the responding governments.
That lack of financial resources continues to be a barrier to
local
e-government deployment should not be surprising. Historically
(at
least since the first ICMA e-government survey in 2000), it has
been
listed as a barrier by a large fraction of governments. In
addition, the
current economic downturn has affected local government
budgets
quite negatively.
As in the 2004 survey, lack of technology
and Web staff in the IT department came in
second in order of barriers reported in 2011.
However, nearly 7 percent fewer govern-
ments reported that this was a barrier. This

36. decrease and others may be attributable to
local governments gaining greater experience
with e-government: learning from and, dare
we say, copying other local governments; the
availability of better e-government applica-
tions that are easier to implement; and a host
of other possible explanations. It is not likely,
given the current economy, that local governments would have
been
able to expand their technology staffing either in their IT
depart-
ments or in operating departments. Whatever the case, learning
why
fewer local governments report barriers to e-government would
be
fertile ground for further investigation.
While the data so far show
that local governments have
expanded their e-government
offerings and more governments
are offering more information
and services online, certainly
not all offer a wide range of
e-services,
Table 5 reveals a number of barriers that local governments
have
experienced with respect to implementing e-government. The .
data suggest, however, that in terms of the barriers themselves,
not
much changed between 2004 and 2011. That is, local

37. governments
Local E-Government in the United States: Transformation or
Incremental Change? 171
Another reason is that many of the optimistic claims about e-
gov-
ernment were technologically deterministic (e.g., Coursey and
Norris 2008)-a sort of "if we build it, they will come" notion. If
e-government exists, certainly good (indeed a specific set of
good)
things will result. How else to explain claims that were so at
odds
with findings from the previous literature and that have turned
out
to be so inconsistent with empirical reality?
The third and arguably most important reason is found in the
very
nature of public administration, at least in the United States, It
is decidedly incremental. As we indicated earlier in this article,
a
singularly important paradlgm for understanding public
adminis-
tration in the United States is incrementalism. Under that
theory,
change comes in small increments as public administration
"mud-
dles through" from year to year. Rarely are there fundamental
shifts or changes in public administration. This theory has been
used successfully to help explain why information technology
has not wrought fundamental changes in government organiza-
tions (Kraemer and King 1986). We would argue that although
American local governments adopted e-government very

38. quickly,
the actual development of e-government has moved rather
slowly.
E-government has not produced and is not likely to produce
reform
or transformative change in these governments (see also Norris
2010).
In conclusion, although local governments provide more e-
govern-
ment today than previously, experience fewer barriers to its
adop-
tion, and report mostly positive changes from it, e-governrnent
remains almost primarily about delivering services and informa-
tion along with some transactions and interactions. E-
government
remains also a mostly one-way activity from governments
outward.
There is little or no evidence from these data that e-government
has transformed information and service
delivery, has transformed the governments
themselves, or has changed relationships
between the governments and the governed.
With Norris (2010) and Coursey and Norris
(2008), we would expect that an examination
of e-government in five or 10 years will find
e-government patterns and results strikingly
similar to what we found in this survey in
2011. One exception to this may be local
government use of social media, although
today, that use is predominantly one way. In
any event, further research into local e-government will be
needed
to keep pace with its future trajectory and impacts.
David Molchany, Deputy County Executive, Fairfax County,

39. Virginia (previously Chief Information Officer, Fairfax County)
Elliot Schlanger, Chief Information Officer, State of Maryland
(previously Chief Information Officer, City of Baltimore)
Paul Thorn, IT Manager, City of Annapolis, Maryland
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank the University of Maryland, Baltimore
County's Re-
search Venture Fund, and the College of Public Policy research
grant at
the University of Texas at San Antonio, which enabled us to
conduct
the survey that produced the data on which this article is based.
Note
I. One of the authors of this paper, assisted by graduate research
assistants, under-
took an extensive review of the e-government literature
produced between 1990
and 2010. This review produced more than 870 citations of
works that appeared
in refereed journals. The author then reviewed the abstracts of
all of these works
to determine which were relevant to the subject of this article.
He then reviewed
all articles deemed relevant. It was on the basis of this review
that we have been
unable to find any works that, with empirical data, support the

40. claims of the
early e-government models and the cyber-optirnisrs regarding
the evolution or
development of e-governrnent (see Norris, Zimmerman, and
Stewart 20 II).
References
Antriroiko, Ari-Veikko. 2003. Building Strong E-Democracy:
The Role of
Technology in Developing Democracy in the Informarion Age.
Communications
of the ACM 46(9): 121-28.
Baurn, Christopher H., and Andrea Di Maio. 2000. Gartner's
Four Phases of
E-Government Model. hnp:llwww.gartner.comlid=317292
[accessed October
28,2012].
Bekkers, Victor, and Vincent Homburg. 2007. The Myths
of E-Government: Looking beyond the Assumptions
of a New and Better Government. Information Society
23(5): 373-82.
There is little or no evidence
from these data that e-govern-
ment has transformed informa-

41. tion and service delivery, has
transformed the governments
themselves, or has changed rela-
tionships between the govern-
ments and the governed.
Berrelsmann Foundation. 2001. E-Government-
Connecting Efficient Administration and Responsive
Democracy. http://www.eamericas.org/documentos/
BerteismanFoundationeGov02.pdf [accessed October
28,2012].
Bolivar, Manuel Pedro Rodrfguez, Carmen Caba Perez, and
Antonio M. Lopez Hernandez. 2007. E-Government
and E-Financial Reporring: The Case of Spanish Regional
Governments. American Review of Public Administration 37(2):
142-77.
Chatfield, Akerni T., and Omar Alhujran. 2009. A Cross-
Country Comparative
Analysis of E-Governmenr Service Delivery among Arab
Countries. Information
Tecimology for Deoelopment 15(3): 151-70.
Clift, Steven. 2004. E-Government and Democracy:

42. Representation and Citizen
Engagement in the Information Age. http://www.mail-
archive.com/[email protected]
Iists.umn.edu/msgOOI61.html [accessed October 28,2012].
Council for Excellence in Government. 2000. E-Government:
The Next American
Revolution. Washington, DC: Council for Excellence in
Government.
Coursey, David. 2005. E-Go~ernment: Trends, Benefits, and
Challenges. In The
Municipal Year Book 2005, 14-21. Washington, DC:
International City/County
Management Association.
Coursey, David, and Donald F. Norris. 2008. Models of E-
Government: Are
They Correct? An Empirical Assessment. Public Administration
Review 68(3):
523-36.
Appendix: Expert Practitioners
We wish to acknowledge and express our appreciation to the
follow-
ing local government officials who reviewed the 2004 survey
instru-
ment and provided comments and suggestions that we then used
in
developing the 2011 instrument. Any errors or omissions are

43. those
of the authors and in no way reflect on these officials or their
advice.
Michael Cannon, ChiefInformation Officer, City of Rockville,
Maryland
Ira Levy, Director of Technology and Communication Services,
Howard County, Maryland
114 Public Administration Review • Jan uary I February 2013
degree attainment all were associated with changes from local
e-governrnent (p = .05).
Conclusions
Data from the 2011 survey oflocal e-government paint a picture
of the gradual, if not incremental, expansion of e-government at
the American grassroots. By 2004, nearly all local governments
of
any size in the United States had adopted e-government and
were
mainly providing information and services, along with a limited
range of transactions and interactions on their Web sites
(Coursey
2005; Coursey and Norris 2008; Norris and Moon 2005). By
2011,
American local governments were offering greater arrays of
informa-
tion, services, transactions, and interactions online through their
Web sites. However, information and services continued to
prevail
(versus transactions and interactions) on local government Web
sites in 2011. This is partly, if not mainly, because information

44. and
services represent the "low-hanging fruit" and are easier and
less
costly to automate on Web sites. It may also be, although we
cannot
know from these data, that uptake rates are greater for
information
and services (in any event, this is a question for further
research).
Whatever the reason or reasons, this empirical reality stands in
stark
contrast to the predictions of the normative models and the
claims
of the cyber-optirnists that e-government would naturally
evolve
from the provision of basic information and services to transac-
tional, interactive e-government, horizontal and vertical
integration,
and to e-dernocracy and e-transformation.
The 2011 survey sought also to capture local government
adoption
of more recent innovations in e-government. Here we looked
into
local government use of social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter,
and
YouTube). We found amazing adoption rates of these
technologies
(two-thirds oflocal governments had adopted at least one social
medium, of which nearly all had adopted Facebook), although it
is too early to assess the impacts of this adoption. Clearly, more
research into the use of these technologies by local governments
will
be needed to understand their ramifications.
The barriers that local governments face in adopting e-

45. government
have not changed much since the 2004 survey. However, the
data
suggest two notable findings. First, not only is lack of funding
the
number-one barrier, but also the fraction of local governments
saying that lack of funding is a barrier increased by more than
10
percentage points over 2004. This may be the result of the
recent
economic downturn, or it may be the result of the reality that
e-government is not cheap and is a net add-on to already cash-
strapped local governments. Or, of course, it may be a bit of
each.
Second, the fraction of governments reporting barriers declined
for
most of the barriers. This would suggest that, with more
experience
with e-government and presumably more success, fewer govern-
ments are reporting barriers to adoption. One final note about
barriers should be heartening: very few respondents said that
lack
of support for e-government from top appointed or elected
officials
Wasa barrier to adoption.
One important question thatthe 2011 survey asked that previ-
ous surveys did not include was why local governments adopted
e-governrnent. To paraphrase a saying from the real estate
business
(real estate being about location, location, location), e-
governrnent
is all about access, access, access to local government
information,
the local government itself, and local officials. This compares

46. well
with Norris's findings from 2005.
Additionally, however, local governments said that two other
impor-
tant reasons for e-government were to save money and to
facilitate
citizen participation or e-dernocracy, It is not possible to know
from
one question in a survey what local governments fully intended
when
they said that they adopted e-government in part to save money
or
to facilitate e-participation or e-democracy, And clearly, we
cannot
know whether these or, indeed, other intended outcomes have
been
realized. Therefore, the impacts of e-government should
continue to
be on the research agendas of scholars studying this
phenomenon.
Nevertheless, it seems significant that local governments today
considered saving money and e-parricipation important reasons
for e-government. This is among the few pieces of evidence
from
this survey to suggest that at least a couple of the early claims
for
e-government (that it would produce efficiency, i.e., save
money and
e-dernocracy) might have merit.
Evidence from the 2011 survey also confirms that most e-
services
are one way, although there appears to be a slight trend toward
their becoming more transactional and interactive. Likewise,

47. local
government use of social media is mostly one way, but with less
evidence of these becoming more transactional and interactive.
When we conducted cross tabulations among the variables, we
found a typical and expected pattern that is largely consistent
with
prior scholarship. For the most part, larger local governments,
cities
(versus counties), professionally managed governments, govern-
ments in the West and South, central cities in metropolitan
areas,
and local governments with higher median incomes, with higher
a
percentage of white residents, and with higher average
educational
attainment were more likely to have adopted aspects of e-
govern-
ment. The only exception was with respect to barriers to e-
govern-
ment adoption. There, we found inconsistent results.
As shown here, there is little in the data from this study to
indicate
that e-government, at least among U.S. local governments, has
con-
sistendy produced results that match up well with early claims
about
e-government. This leads us to conclude that local e-
governrnent
in the United States is moving slowly orincrementally rather
than
delivering transformative change, a finding that is consistent
with
other empirical works (e.g., Coursey and Norris 2008; Norris
and

48. Moon 2005).
An obvious question at this point is why the empirical results
from
this study are so at odds with the claims of the cyber-oprimists.
One
reason is that those claims largely were made without much, if
any,
basis in the prior literature (e.g., Coursey and Norris 2008). Had
their authors consulted that literature, we are convinced that
they
would have come to conclusions similar to those of Kraemer
and
King (2006) and Danziger and Andersen (2002), who found no
basis in the literature on IT and government for suggestions that
e-government would produce government reform or transforma-
tion. With such an understanding of the literature, the authors of
the normative models and other cyber-optimists would not, we
believe, have made claims about the transformative potential of
e-government.
Local E-Government in the United States: Transformation or
Incremental Change? 173
Table 6 Changes from Local E-Government
Number Percent Number Per~ent
2004 2011
Improved customer service 944 51.2 1,032 86.6
Improved local government communication with the public
1,069 58.0 933 78.3
Increased efficiency of business processes 419 22.7 616 51.7
Increasedtime demands on IT staff 592 49.7

49. Increased citizen contact with elected and appointed officials
640 34.7 552 46.3
Changed the role of departmental staff 560 30.4 465 39.0
Decreasedtransaction times 448 37.6
Changed the role of IT staff 414 34.7
Re-engineeredlre-engineering business processes 454 24.6 403
33.8
Reduced time demands on departmental staff 444 24.1 345 28.9
Increased time. demands on departmental staff 496 26.9 329
27.6
Reduced administrative costs 195 10.6 292 24.5
Reduced the number of departmental staff 94 7.9
Reduced time demands on IT staff 64 5.4
Generated revenue from fees, advertising 24 1.3 59 4.9
Reduced the number of IT staff 46 2.5 38 3.2
'Sources:Norris and Reddick, 2011 E-Government Survey and
2004 leMA E-Government Survey. Blank cells indicate that a
question was not asked in the 2004 survey.
The cross tabulations and correlation coefficients here showed
inconsistent results. We cannot say with confidence that these
bar-
riers are statistically significant with the local government
character-
istics of population size, metropolitan status, region of the
country,
city type, and form of government. The same can be said for the
correlation coefficients of the demographic factors of median
house-
hold income, white population, and percentage with
professional
or graduate degrees. However, the statistics showed that lack of
cooperation among departments was a greater barrier for larger
local
governments and for communities with higher median household
incomes (p = .01). In addition, form of government was

50. statistically
significant with the barrier staff resistance to change (p = .01).
When we asked which was the most important barrier in 2011 (a
question not asked in 2004), lack of financial resources clearly
came
in first (42.4 percent), followed by lack of technology and Web
staff
in the IT department (13.3 percent). Given the responses in
table 5,
these findings are not surprising.
As noted in the introduction, many of the early claims about
e-government suggested that nothing but good things would
Bow
from it, and quickly. Both the 2004 and 2011 surveys included
questions about the changes that local governments perceived
were
the result of e-government (table 6). This is one way to begin to
assess the impacts of e-government. The 2011 survey contained
16
change categories, of which 11 were contained in both the 2004
and
2011 surveys.
Perhaps the first thing to notice is how few
governments actually reported changes
occurring from e-governrnent, a finding
that is consistent with previous studies (e.g.,
Coursey and Norris 2008). Only four impacts
were reponed by half or more of the local
governments: improved customer service
(86.6 percent), improved communication
with the public (78.3 percent), improved
business process efficiency (51.7 percent),
and increased time demands on IT staff (49.7 percent). Three of

51. these should be considered positive and were impacts predicted
by
the cyber-oprimisrs. But one change (increased time demands
on
departmental staff) must be considered negative. The remaining
12
changes were reported by fewer than half of the responding
govern-
ments. Among these, seven were reported by fewer than 30
percent,
of which four were reported by fewer than 10 percent, In addi-
tion, all of the 11 changes asked in both surveys were reponed
by
a higher percentage of governments in 2011 than in 2004,
ranging
from less than 1 percent to more than 35 percent of governments
reporting.
We then asked the respondents to indicate which of the listed
posi-
tive and negative changes was the most significant, The top
two,
with nearly indistinguishable response rates of about one-third
of
governments each, were improved communication with the
public
(35.0 percent) and improved customer service (34.7 percent).
Increased efficiency of business operations was identified as the
most
significant positive change by only one in 10 governments (11.0
percent). The most significant negative changes were increased
time
demands on IT staff, reponed by more than half of governments
(52.8 percent), and increased time demands on departmental
staff,

52. reported by about a quarter (24.1 percent). The changed role of
IT staff came in third, but with only 5,7 percent of governments
reporting it,
Three main conclusions seem to follow from these data. The
first is
that so few governments reported changes that it is not yet
possible
to attribute a large number of impacts to e-government. Second,
most of the reported changes were positive, and this is not a
trivial
matter because they represent significant improvements in
service
to citizens and in internal efficiency that are
perceived to be attributable to e-governmenr.
Third, however, not all of the predicted posi-
tive impacts were reported by local govern-
ments, and not all reported impacts were
positive.
Perhaps the first thing to notice
is how few governments actu-
ally reported changes occurring
from e-government, a finding
that is consistent with previous
studies, An examination of cross tabulations and
correlation coefficients for the demographic
variables and local government characteristics
showed findings similar to previous research. Increased
population,
metropolitan status, region of the country, city type

53. government,
form of government, median household income, and graduate
172 Public Administration Review ·.,January IFebruary 2013
Danziger, James N., and Kim Viborg Andersen. 2002.lhe
Impacts ofInformation
Technology on'Public Administration: An Analysis of Empirical
Research
from rhe "Golden Age" ofTransformarion. International [ourna!
of Public
Administration 25(5): 591-627.
Dunleavy, Patrick, Helen Margerrs, Simon Bastow, and lane
Tinkler. 2005. New
Public Management Is Dead-Long Live Digital-Era Governance.
[oumal of
Public Administration Research and Ibeory 16(3): 467-94.
---. 2008. Australian E-Government in Comparative Perspective.
Australian
Journal of Political Science 43(1): 13-26.
Eynon, Rebecca, and William H. Dutton, 2007. Barriers to
Networked
Governments: Evidence from Europe. Prometheus 25(3): 225-
42.
Forcella, Mariagrazia. 2006. E-Democracy: Strategies and New
Horizons for the

54. European Union Policies. Journal of E-Government 3(2): 99-
107.
Fountain, Jane E. 2001. Building the Virtual State: Information
Technology and
Institutional Change. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution
Press.
Garson, G. David. 2004. The Promise of Digital Government. In
Digital
Government: Principles and Best Practices, edited by Alexei
Pavlichev and G.
David Garson, 2-15. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Hiller, janine S., and France Belanger. 2001. Privacy Strategies
for Electronic
Government. In E-Govemment 2001, edited by Mark A.
Abramson and Grady
E. Means, 163-79. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Ho, Alfred Tat-Kei, 2002. Reinventing Local Governments and
the E-Government
Initiative. Public Administration Review 62(4): 434-44.
Holden, Stephen H., Donald E Norris, and Patricia D. Fletcher.
2003. Electronic
Government at the Local Level: Progress to Date and Future
Issues. Public
Productivity and Management Review 26(3): 1-20.

55. Inrrona, Lucas, Niall Hayes, and Dimirra Petrakaki. 20 I O. The
Working Out of
Modernization in the Public Sector: The Case of an E-
Government Initiative in
Greece. International journal of Public Administration 33(1):
11-25.
Kampen, Jar! K, Kris Snijkers, and Geerr Bouckaerr. 2005.
Public Priorities
Concerning the Development of E-Government in Flanders.
Social Science
Computer Review 23(1): 136-39.
Kraemer, Kenneth L, and John Leslie King. 1986. Computing
and Public
Organizations. Special issue, Public Administration Review 46:
488-96.
---. 2006. Information Technology and Administrative Reform:
Will
E-Government Be Different? International Journal of Electronic
Government
Research 2(1): 1-20.
Layne, Karen, and Jungwoo Lee. 200 I. Developing Fully
Functional E-Government:
A Four Stage Model. Gov.1l'nmmt Information Olmrterfy 18(2):
J 22-36.

56. Lee, Sang M., Xin Tan, and Silvana Trim;' 2005. Current
Practices of Leading
E-Government Countries. Communications 0/ the ACM 48(1 0):
99-104.
Lindblom. Charles. 1959. The Science of "Muddling Through."
Public
Administration Review 19(2): 79-8B.
McLoughlin, Ian, and James Cornford. 2006. Transformational
Change in the
Local State? Enacting E-Government in English Local
Authorities. Journal 0/
Management and Organization 12(3): 195-20B.
Moon, M. lac. 2002. The Evolution ofE-Government among
Municipalities:
Rhetoric or Reality? Pub/ic Administration Review 62(4): 424-
33.
Moulder, Evelina. 2011. Personal Communication from Evelina
Moulder, Director of
Survey Research, International City/County Management
Association, November 7.
Nasi, Greta, and Francesca Frosini. 2010. Vision and Practice
ofE-Government: An
Empirical Study. Financial Accountability and Management
26(1): 85-10 L
Norris, Donald E 2005. Electronic Democracy at the American
Grassroots.

57. Intrmationei fournai of Electronic Government Research 1(3):
1-14.
---.2010. E-Government: Plus ya Change, Plus c'esr la Meme
Chose. Special
issue, Public Administration Review 70: IBO-81.
Norris, Donald E, and Diana Campillo. 2002. Factors Affecting
the Adoption of
Leading Edge Information Technology by Local Governments.
Working paper,
Maryland Institute for Policy Analysis and Research, University
of Maryland,
Baltimore County.
Norris, Donald F., and Lori A. Demeter. 1999. Computing in
American City
Governments. In 1999 Municipal Yearbook, 10-19. Washington,
DC:
International City/County Management Association.
Norris, Donald E, and M. jae Moon. 2005. Advancing E-
Government at the
Grassroots: Tortoise or Hare? Pubic Administration Revitw
65(1); 64-75.
Norris, Donald E, with Tonya Zimmerman and Nichole Stewart.
2011.
E-Government Literature Review, 1990-2010. Maryland
Institute for Policy

58. Analysis and Research, University of Maryland, Balrimore
County.
Norris, Pippa. 2001. Digita! Divide: Civic Engagement,
Information Poverty. and the
Internet Worldwide. New York: Cambridge University Press.
O'Neill, Rose. 2009. The Transforrnarive Impact of E-
Government on Public
Governance in New Zealand. Public Management Review 11
(6): 751-70.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD). 2003. Policy
Brief The E-Government Imperative: Main Findings. Paris:
OECD.
Ronaghan, Stephen A. 2002. Benchmarking E-Government: A
Global Perspective. New
York: United Nations Division for Public Economics and Public
Administration
and American Society for Public Administration.
http://unpanl.un.orglintra-
doclgroups/publicldocumentsfun/unpan021 547. pdf [accessed
October 28,
2012).
Roy, Jeffrey. 2006. E-Service Delivery and New Governance

59. Capacities: "Service
Canada" as a Case Study. International Journal of Seruices
Technology and
Management 7(3): 253-71.
---. 2007. Electronic Service Delivery in a Multi-Channel Public
Sector: An
Assessment of the Government of Canada. International Journal
of Information
Technology and Management 6(2-4): 148-69.
Scholl, Hans]. 2005. Organizational Transformation through E-
Government: Myth
or Reality? Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3591: I-II.
Seifert, Jeffrey W, and Eric Petersen. 2002. The Promise of All
Things E?
Expectations and Challenges of Emergent Electronic
Government. Perspectives on
GlobaL Development and Technology 1(2): 193-212.
Silcock, Rachel. 2001. "What Is E-Governmenr? Parliamentary
Affairs 54(1): 88-101.
Thomas, John c., and Gregory Streib. 2003. The New Face of
Government: Citizen-
Initiated Contacts in the Era of E-Government. Journal of
Public Administration
Research and Theory 13(1): 83-102.

60. Torcgas, Costas. 2001. The Politics of E-Gov; The Upcoming
Snuggle for Redefining
Civic Engagement. National Civic Review 90(3): 235-40.
Torres, Lourdes, Vicente Pina, and Sonia Royo. 2005. E-
Government and the
Transformation of Public Administrations in the EU Countries:
Beyond
NPM or Just a Second Wave of Reforms? Online Information
Review 29(5):
531-53.
Wescott, Clay. 2001. E-Governmenr in the Asia- Pacific
Region. Asian Journal of
Political Science 9(2): 1-24.
West, Darrell M. 2004. E-Government and the Transformation
of Service Delivery
and Citizen Attitudes. Public Administration Review 64(1): 15-
27.
---. 2005. Digital Government: Technology and Public Sector
Performance.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wikipedia. 2011a. Facebook.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook [accessed
November 4,201 I).

61. ---. 2011b. Twitter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wikifTwitter
[accessed November
4,2011].
Wildavsky, Aaron. 1984. The Politics of the Budgetary Process.
4th ed. Boston: Little,
Brown.
Local E-Government in the United States: Transformation or
Incremental Change? 175
Review of Reading Materials 0-10 points
Used no citings
0points
Used 1 citings
6points
Used 2 citings
8points
10 Used the required 3 citings
10points
Paper Organization 0-5 points
Not organized Click to edit level
0points
Average paper---weak in two areas---intro or main body or
summary/conclusionClick to edit level
2points
CWell organized paper— weak in one area: intro, main body, or
summary/conclusionlick to edit level
3points
Well organized paper---strong introduction, main body and
summary/conclusion

62. 5points
Policy Concepts/theories Linked to Analysis and
Experience/Example(s)/Personal Observation 0-10 points
Lack of concepts/theories linked to analysis
0points
Minimal concepts development and application with minimal
analysis
6points
Two well-developed concepts that demonstrate analysis and
application
8points
Three well-developed concepts that demonstrate analysis and
application
10points
Paper Format and Style (APA)Click to edit criterion 0-5 points
Very poor work with many errors without using APA style
0points
Many errors with minimal use of APA style
2points
Some format and style errors
3points
Excellent format and style, no grammatical or punctuation
errors including correct use of reference citations
5points
Followed Guidance---Paper Length, Due Date 0-5 points
No work
0points
Missed both—paper length and due date
2points
Missed paper length or due date
3points
Met paper length (2-3 pages) and due date
5points

63. Governments Must Find New Ways to Encourage Citizen Take-
Up of eGovernment,
Accenture Study Finds
Majority of Citizens Use Government Web Sites Primarily for
Information Rather Than
Transactions
WASHINGTON; May 4, 2004 – A majority of regular Internet
users visit government Web sites
only to gather information on topics of interest such as tourism
or health, rather than to conduct
online transactions such as filing taxes and applying for
passports, according to a new research study
released today by Accenture.
The study, "eGovernment Leadership: High Performance,
Maximum Value," is Accenture’s fifth
annual global study of electronic government, or eGovernment,
which is defined as governments
providing information about services, as well as the ability to
conduct government transactions, via
the Internet. This year Accenture conducted both quantitative
and qualitative research to learn about
attitudes and practices regarding eGovernment. The study is
based on results of a survey of 5,000
regular Internet users in 12 countries in North America, Europe
and Asia, as well as a quantitative
assessment of the maturity of eGovernment services in 22
countries.

64. Regular Internet Users
Saving time and money are the primary reasons that citizens
who use the Internet said they would
conduct transactions with governments online. In every country
except Sweden, at least 75 percent
of the survey respondents said that they would make greater use
of eGovernment if it saved them
time, and 70 percent said they would do so if it saved them
money. Among respondents in Sweden,
the figures were 60 percent and 48 percent, respectively.
However, despite such interest in online government services,
the study found that citizens rarely
take advantage of them. The top reasons that the Internet users
surveyed gave for rarely or never
visiting government Web sites include difficulty finding the
correct site (up to 26 percent), ease of
conducting business by telephone (up to 20 percent) or in
person (up to 34 percent), on-line privacy
concerns (up to 18 percent) and Internet security issues (up to
17 percent). Actual percentages varied
depending on whether the country had low, medium or high
Internet penetration rates.
"While there appears to be good understanding of the potential
for eGovernment to save time and
money, there is a considerable gap in citizen expectations that it
can actually deliver on that
promise," said Stephen J. Rohleder, group chief executive of
Accenture’s Government operating
group. "This poses a challenge for those striving to become
high-performance governments. They
need to find innovative new ways to market their offerings,
improve citizen awareness of the
benefits, and increase take-up of online services."

65. Emerging Trends
The study identified five trends that are emerging in
eGovernment:
After a period of rapid expansion, the pace of eGovernment
advances is slowing and many
countries have hit a plateau of eGovernment maturity.
Leaders in eGovernment are reaping tangible savings by being
able to deliver enhanced
government services while making operations more cost
effective.
Promoting eGovernment is becoming a growing priority in order
to drive up usage.
As countries reach eGovernment maturity, they face new
challenges in integrating services.
While some governments seek to integrate services across their
own agencies and departments
(horizontal integration), leaders in eGovernment are tackling
the more-complex challenge of
integrating local, state, federal and even international services
(vertical integration).
There is growing interest in offering personalised services to
the individual citizen. By
identifying and segmenting their citizen/user base, governments
are able to provide citizens
with more-relevant services and information—quicker and more
cost-effectively.
"The slowdown in the deployment and use of government
portals suggests that some countries are
finally realising that portals alone won’t achieve the promise of

66. what technology can do for them,"
said John Kost, managing vice president for Government
Research Worldwide at Gartner, Inc., a
leading technology research and advisory firm. "Moving
forward, governments should focus on a
coherent multi-channel strategy in which services should be
citizen-centric, rather than program- or
agency-centric."
For the fourth consecutive year Canada ranked first out of the
22 countries evaluated in terms of
eGovernment maturity, or the level to which a government has
developed an online presence.
Singapore and the United States shared the second-place
ranking, followed closely by Australia,
Denmark, Finland and Sweden, which were tied for the fourth
place. France ranked eighth, the
Netherlands and the United Kingdom tied for ninth, and
Belgium, Ireland and Japan jointly held the
eleventh position.
The study found that advances in maturity on the whole are
slowing down, as most countries have
reached plateaus in terms of innovation, progress and impact
related to the breadth and depth of
services they offer. As a result, even the countries with the
most-advanced eGovernment presences
still have work to do to derive greater public-sector value.
The study also revealed gaps between the online services that
governments provide for citizens and
the ways citizens view and actually use these programs,
pointing to a historical problem
governments have faced in accurately assessing the value of
their eGovernment strategies. In
response to this need, the study discusses Accenture’s Public

67. Sector Value model, a new tool
designed to help government agencies analyse how they can
deliver increased value at a time when
budgets are shrinking. While not focused exclusively on
eGovernment, the model’s principles can
be applied to help governments better manage their online
programs.
"High-performance governments meet their statutory obligations
and citizen expectations in the
most cost-effective manner possible, continually striving for
more and better outcomes for less and
less cost," said Vivienne Jupp, managing partner of Accenture’s
Global eGovernment Services. "By
extracting maximum value from every resource expended, they
transform service delivery. That is
why eGovernment is such an important lever for delivering
value."
About the Research
Behaving as citizens and businesses, Accenture researchers in
22 selected countries used the Internet
in an attempt to fulfill 206 service needs that might typically be
provided by a national government.
The 22 countries were Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada,
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany,
Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands,
Norway, Portugal, Singapore, South
Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United
States. The researchers accessed and
assessed the Web sites of national government agencies to
determine the quality and maturity of
services and the level at which business can be conducted
electronically with government. Services
were assessed across 12 major sectors: agriculture; defense;
eDemocracy; education; human

68. services; immigration, justice and security; postal; procurement;
regulation; participation; revenue
and customs; and transport.
In addition to the eGovernment maturity research, Accenture
conducted quantitative research on
citizens’ perceptions and practices related to eGovernment in 12
countries. The citizen survey was
conducted by an independent market research company,
Lansdowne Market Research (part of the
Millward Brown Group), from Jan. 5 through Jan. 23, 2004. The
12 countries sampled were
Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland,
Singapore, Spain, Sweden, the United
Kingdom and the United States. Four hundred regular Internet
users were surveyed in each country
(with the exception of the United States, where 600 regular
Internet users were surveyed). Regular
Internet users were defined as individuals who used the Internet
at least once a week from any
location.
Polls were conducted via telephone, using random-digit dialing.
Poll respondents in each country
included Internet users only; the survey results do not represent
a sample of the entire population of
Internet users and non-users alike.
[1] Quotas were set to match the known profile of regular users
in each country.
About Accenture
Accenture is a global management consulting, technology

69. services and outsourcing company.
Committed to delivering innovation, Accenture collaborates
with its clients to help them become
high-performance businesses and governments. With deep
industry and business process expertise,
broad global resources and a proven track record, Accenture can
mobilise the right people, skills,
and technologies to help clients improve their performance.
With approximately 90,000 people in 48
countries, the company generated net revenues of US$11.8
billion for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31,
2003. Its home page is www.accenture.com.
http://www.accenture.com/home.asp