A Cross-Country Comparative Analysis of E-gov Service Delivery Among Arab Countries

A Cross-Country Comparative Analysis ofE-Government Service Delivery amongArab Countries

Akemi Takeoka ChatfieldSchool of Information Systems and Technology, Faculty of Informatics, Universityof Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]

Omar AlhujranSchool of Information Systems and Technology, Faculty of Informatics, Universityof Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Much of the existing e-government research focuses on developed countries. Although a relativelysmall number of studies explored Arab e-government development, they did so in a single countrycontext. This article provides an insight into the current state of Arab e-government developments.A cross-country comparative analysis of e-government Web sites and portals was conducted on16 Arab countries to assess their development stages in e-government service delivery capability.Further comparative analysis was performed between the top Arab e-governments and the globaltop e-governments in developed countries with regard to “e-democracy,” often the highest level e-government service delivery capability identified in the literature. The results confirm a wide digitaldivide that remains between the Arab countries and the leading developed countries. Importantly,however, the results also show a wide digital divide even among the Arab countries studied, par-ticularly in the development of advanced e-government service delivery capabilities. These resultshave important implications for developing countries in managing both economic and non-economicresources effectively for successful e-government development. C© 2009Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: e-government; developing countries; service delivery capabilities; development stages;Arab countries; e-democracy

1. INTRODUCTION

Electronic government (e-government) refers to the rapidly emerging global phenomenonof the use of information and communication technology (ICT) as the new way forwardin public administration. E-government development very often aims to improve publicservice delivery capability, as well as public administration governance, transparency, andaccountability through the development of e-government service delivery capability. How-ever, e-government development projects often involve a complex network of stakeholders,

Syed Nasirin and Anastasia Papazafeiropoulou are the accepting Guest Editors for this article.

Information Technology for Development, Vol. 15 (3) 151–170 (2009) C© 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Published online 15 June 2009 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/itdj.20124

151

152 CHATFIELD AND ALHUJRAN

including international donors, private-sector ICT vendors, and ICT investment partners,giving rise to large-scale complex projects.

The failure of e-government projects is high in developing countries (Dada, 2006). A2003 survey conducted by the United Nations (UN) of its 191 member nations showed largevariances in e-government service delivery capability development (UN, 2003). The surveyresults found that the leading e-governments, such as the United States, Denmark, Swe-den, the UK, South Korea, and Australia, successfully developed advanced e-governmentservice delivery capabilities. These advanced capabilities range from the provision of se-cure financial transactions (i.e., online payment of parking tickets and income tax) to theprovision of electronic democracy (or e-democracy) that enables the public to participatein online public consultations and policy making.

In this article, the term e-democracy represents a new public service delivery capability. Itdoes not imply that the online provision of e-democracy to the public automatically makes astate or a government democratic. In contrast to the leading e-governments, however, mostother e-government Web sites and portals remain informational, offering limited onlinecapabilities. Similarly, existing academic literature on e-government is based on surveysand case studies, reporting many innovative practices, but also some large-scale projectfailures in developed and developing countries (Lee, Tan, & Trimi, 2005).

Much of the existing e-government research focuses on developed countries, however.Although a relatively small number of studies explored Arab e-government development,they did so in a single country context (Abusin, 2007; AL-Shehry, Rogerson, Fairweather,& Prior, 2006; Ciborra and Navarra, 2005). In consequence, little is known about the currentstate of Arab e-government developments. The major aim of this article, therefore, is toprovide an insight into e-government development stages of e-government service deliveryamong 16 Arab countries. In this article, we also compare these Arab countries to the globaltop six e-governments in developed countries, particularly with regard to e-democracy: thehighest level advanced e-government service capability identified in the literature.

The structure of this article is as follows. The next section discusses a normative modelof e-government maturity, identifying four distinct stages of e-government service deliverycapabilities. In the third section, we discuss the global digital divide in the context ofe-government research. In the fourth section, our research methodology is discussed, andin the fifth section, our research results are presented. In the sixth section, we discusssome key insights to the results found in this research. In the final section, we present ourconclusions, discussing this research’s contributions and limitations, and suggest futureresearch directions.

2. E-GOVERNMENT SERVICE DELIVERY CAPABILITYDEVELOPMENT STAGES

E-government service delivery capabilities can be assessed by identifying and analyzinge-government development stages. A review of the literature finds different e-governmentstage models, with respect to the number of stages ranging from two to six, and with regardto different aims and perspectives for each progressive stage. However, nearly all of the stagemodels intend to identify e-government service delivery capability development (Chandlerand Emanuels, 2002; Howard, 2001; Layne and Lee, 2001; Moon, 2002; Reddick, 2004;Siau and Long, 2005; UN, 2003). Although a detailed discussion of these different stagemodels is beyond the scope of this research, it should be noted that the recent research

Information Technology for Development DOI: 10.1002/itdj

CROSS-COUNTRY COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF E-GOVERNMENT 153

compared and contrasted the different e-government stage models for metasynthesis (Siauand Long, 2005), and user-centric public value proposition (Chatfield and Alhujran, 2007).

For our research purpose, it is important to underscore that a normative model of e-government maturity is useful as a benchmark measure to evaluate the progressive devel-opment of e-government service delivery capabilities. However, there are large variationsacross the different stage models in the literature. Furthermore, although the stage modelswere neither rigorously validated nor grounded in theory, they make primary theoretical con-tributions that are similar to those made by Nolan’s stage model (King and Kraemer, 1984).For example, normative models of e-government maturity make explicit the importanceof the dynamic interplay between external and internal forces and between socioeconomicfactors (i.e., government size) and technological factors (i.e., in-house new ICT capabilitymaturity), all of which contribute to shaping e-government capability development.

Based on prior research on e-government development stages from a user-centric perspec-tive, we identify the following four progressive stages of e-government maturity: one-wayinformation flows; two-way interaction; payment transaction; and e-democracy (Chatfieldand Alhujran, 2007). In discussing the four stages, we do not assume their automatic linearprogression. Rather, we argue that technologically, organizationally, and politically, it re-quires greater economic (e.g., funding and sustainable budget) and non-economic resources(e.g., strategic leadership and project management skills) to successfully move from a lowerstage to a higher stage.

It is technologically quite feasible for governments to launch an official e-governmentWeb site or portal, offering one-way information flows from government to the public(e.g., government information services and forms download) (Stage 1); or two-way in-teraction between government and the public (i.e., sending e-mail inquiry and uploadingcompleted forms) (Stage 2). However, it is far more complex and difficult to provide moreadvanced service capabilities, such as secure payment transactions (i.e., online payment ofdriver’s license renewal fees) (Stage 3) or e-democracy (i.e., online public consultations,policy making, and e-voting) (Stage 4). These advanced service capabilities require strate-gic management of the complex interplay among technological, organizational, cultural,and political factors that are found in large-scale, multiyear IT projects involving diversestakeholders. In the following section, the four e-government service delivery stages andtheir associated online capabilities are discussed and that information will be used later toevaluate and classify Arab e-government service delivery capabilities.

2.1 One-Way Information Flows

The first stage of e-government service delivery capability development is characterizedby one-way information flows from the government online to the public. The governmentlaunches an e-government Web site or Internet portal for its citizens and businesses. TheWeb site/portal provides the online access to government information services through theInternet. Citizens and businesses can access their government’s Web site or portal throughan Internet service provider. Although the portal or Web site access is made available on-line, this first stage of e-government service delivery offers rather rudimentary and limitedinformation-processing capabilities, which are characterized as one-way information flowsfrom the government to the public. Prime examples of capabilities at this stage includesearching a government database and downloading and/or printing a selective set of gov-ernment forms, policies, or documents that are made available online by the government.



2.2 Two-Way Interaction

In contrast to the previous stage, e-government service delivery capability at this stage ofdevelopment facilitates two-way interaction, or a two-way information exchange betweenthe government and the public. Citizens can contact government services via e-mail, com-plete forms online at an e-government Web site/portal, or upload completed forms and sendthem over the Internet from government kiosks. A user-centric stage model of e-governmentdevelopment assumes greater public value creation opportunities at this stage, for both thepublic and the government.

2.3 Payment Transactions

The previous two stages suggest the provision of overall improved government access thatis made possible through a new online channel over the Internet. Perceived public value ofe-government service delivery—from a user-centric model of e-government development—includes the convenience and speed of government services, because an e-governmentonline channel means the availability of government services anytime—24 hours a day, 7days a week (or 24/7 service delivery)—and anywhere through the Internet without waitingfor a long time. Waiting in line is a problem often associated with public administrationface-to-face “service.” However, this stage differs from the previous two stages becausee-government service delivery capability at this development stage offers online financialpayment transaction capabilities. Online secure payment and information privacy issuesare raised, making it difficult for many governments to move to this stage from the previousstage.

2.4 e-Democracy

This stage of e-government service delivery capability enables the public to participate in theprocess of public consultations and policy making. Greater public engagement is expectedto have a positive impact on public governance: greater transparency and accountability.Hence, e-democracy in the form of greater public participation in online consultations isbelieved to move the government forward, by making representative democracy more ef-fective and by enabling good public governance. The government’s leadership in promotinggreater public participation is critically important for this stage. Here, it is assumed that ef-fective public access to government information through the earlier stages is a preconditionfor achieving success in greater public engagement at this e-democracy stage.

The UN adopts an e-participation index as a proxy for measuring capability maturityin e-democracy among its members. E-participation is a weighted average score based onthe provision of structures and processes that facilitate e-information, e-consultation, ande-decision making. On the one hand, the 2003 UN Survey of its member states showsthat e-information is reasonably well supported in terms of a Web comment form anda calendar/directory of upcoming government events (57% and 55%, respectively) (UN,2003). On the other hand, e-consultation and e-decision making are relatively rare, evenin developed countries. With regard to e-consultation, a formal online consultation facilitywas found in only 14% of member countries, and online feedback on policies and activitiesis even lower (9%). Similarly, e-decision making received poor results; for example, only25% of member countries provide an online poll/survey, and 26% provide an open-ended



TABLE 1. UN Survey Results on E-Participation

E-Participation No. of Countries % of Countries

Is there a calendar/directory of upcoming government events? 96 55Is there a Web comment form? 99 57Is a response timeframe indicated for submitted forms/e-mails? 12 7Is there an online poll/survey? 43 25Is there a formal online consultation facility? 24 14Is there an open-ended discussion forum? 45 26Does the online construction allow feedback on policies and

activities?15 9

Is there a direct/clear statement or policy encouraging citizenparticipation?

13 8

Source: UN, 2003.

discussion forum. Table 1 summarizes the UN Survey results on e-participation capabilitiesamong the member states.

3. DIGITAL DIVIDE

The term “digital divide” is very often defined narrowly to refer to the gap between personswho have physical access to digital ICT, and those who do not. More broadly, however,the digital divide has multiple dimensions beyond the access to existing ICT infrastructure(Bertot, 2003). For example, prior research identified the dimensions along socioeconomic(rich/poor); gender; geographical (urban/rural); racial (dominant majority/minority); andcultural (positive/negative attitudes toward the Internet, its Western roots, and its culturalvalue implications) factors. What is clear in the literature is the importance of economicresources that are required to build effective ICT infrastructure. However, what is notclearly articulated in the literature is the digital divide along the other dimensions ofknowledge-based resources (i.e., literacy and computer skills) at an individual level, andcompetence-based organizational resources (i.e., effective strategic leadership). There isthe need for a better understanding of these dimensions of the digital divide: the invisiblegap between persons who have knowledge- and competence-based resources and thosewho do not.

3.1 Global Digital Divide in the Context of Research on e-Governmentfor Development

In the context of research on e-government for development, the concept of the globaldigital divide can be useful in evaluating e-government development stages along theexisting economic divisions in the world (e.g., a comparative analysis of e-governments indeveloped countries versus those in developing countries).

Figure 1 shows a scatter diagram of the global top 10 e-government countries, andthe bottom 10 countries, of a total of 173 member states that participated in the annuale-government readiness self-assessment—an annual survey conducted by the United States(UN, 2003). A list of the top and the bottom 10 countries is shown in Appendix A. InFigure 1, the x-axis represents gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, and y-axis shows



Figure 1 A scatter diagram of the global digital divide.

the e-government readiness index. E-readiness is a weighted average score of three factorsselected by the UN as salient: Web measure, telecommunication infrastructure index, andhuman capacity index. A scatter diagram in Figure 1 shows the global digital divide alongthe traditional dimension of the national government’s economic resources as measured byGDP per capita. The scatter diagram shows two clear clusters of e-governments. The top10 e-government nations are clustered toward the top right corner of the scatter diagram(demonstrating the importance of economic resources). The bottom 10 e-governments aremore tightly clustered at the bottom left corner (also demonstrating the likely impact ofeconomic resources). This scatter diagram is consistent with the assumption in the digitaldivide and e-government research literature about the importance of economic resources.

3.2 Global Digital Divide in the Context of e-Democracy

Although there is a wide range of definitions of e-democracy, what is common in thesedefinitions is the assumption of normative goals of e-democracy: to enhance democraticstructures and processes and to enable citizen engagement in public consultations for policymaking through the application of new technology (Coleman and Norris, 2005). There aresome efforts to operationalize e-democracy (e.g., the UN e-participation index discussedearlier).

Figure 2 shows a scatter diagram of the global top 10 and bottom 10 e-governments withthe most, and the least, e-democracy capability maturity (respectively). The 20 countriesand their statistics are listed in Appendix B. It must be noted that the 20 countries shownhere are not identical to those shown in Figure 1. Unlike the previous scatter diagram, Figure2 does not have two clear clusters. The bottom 10 countries all having a zero e-participationindex and are clustered closely in the bottom left corner of the scatter diagram. Theglobal top 10 countries with respect to the provision of e-democracy capability are widelyscattered along the x-axis. This suggests that, although economic resources are importantfor the development of advanced e-government service delivery such as e-democracy, itis not the only determinant. The e-participation index is computed on each nation’s self-report. Therefore, further research is required for an independent assessment of e-democracy



Figure 2 Global digital divide in the context of e-democracy.

delivery capability. In this article, we explore e-democracy delivery capability in the contextof developing countries, with particular attention to Arab countries.

4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

To provide insight into the current state of Arab e-government developments, we addressedissues of the digital divide on two fronts. First, we addressed issues of a digital dividewithin the Arab countries in terms of existing e-government service delivery capabilities.To address these issues, a cross-country comparative analysis of e-government Web sitesand portals was conducted across 16 Arab countries to assess their development stages ine-government service delivery capability. Second, we addressed issues of a digital dividebetween the top Arab e-government developments and the global top e-governments indeveloped countries, particularly in terms of e-democracy discussed in the previous section.We approach this second question by comparing the provision of e-democracy capabilitiesby the top Arab e-governments to that of the leading global e-governments in developedcountries. As discussed earlier, we have selected “e-democracy” here because it oftenrepresents the highest level of e-government service delivery capability in the normativemodels of e-government maturity.

National government Web sites and portals were assessed independently by two experts,using the four stages of e-government service delivery capability development discussedin Section 2. In other words, an analysis of e-government development stages focuses onwhat functionalities are offered to users who visit the portal and Web sites. The two expertsof Web site analysis researched and compiled independently a list of Arab e-governmentportals, or relevant Web sites if portals for a single entry point did not exist. Next, weevaluated independently 16 Arab national e-governments using the explicit evaluationcriteria shown in Table 2. For example, we evaluated the provision of a secure e-paymentgateway; the provision of end-to-end services; the availability of an SMS gateway; qualityand quantity of e-government services provided to the public; and the provision of e-democracy facilities (e.g., e-polling, e-voting, online policy discussion forum). Finally, the



TABLE 2. Criteria Used to Evaluate Arab E-Governments

E-Government Development Stage Evaluation Criteria

One-way information flows • Are there e-government Web sites and/or e-governmentportals?

• Is contact information provided in the Web sites?• Are the government policies and documents available

online?• Is the search capability provided?• Can the citizens download and/or print a selected set of

government forms?Two-way interaction • Can citizens upload forms and reports?

• Can they contact government agencies via e-mail?• Is there an SMS gateway?

Payment transaction • Can citizens conduct secure online payment transactionsthrough the e-government portal and/or e-government Websites?

E-democracy • Is there evidence of the provision of the followinge-democracy capabilities?◦ E-voting (pilot and at polling stations)◦ E-petition◦ Online discussion forums◦ Online poll/survey◦ Feedback on policies and activities

two experts compared, discussed, and validated the evaluation results, having achievedconsensus in more than 90% of the Web site functionalities. We resolved a few casesof disagreements where there was ambiguity, and we reevaluated the ambiguous cases.Furthermore, the expert judgments were cross-validated using the secondary data sourcesincluding the e-participation index published by the UN (2005).

For the purpose of the portal and Web site analysis, users are defined as citizens, busi-nesses, government employees, and other government agencies. Based on our preliminaryresearch, we have decided to focus exclusively on national level e-government develop-ments, excluding the state and municipal levels of e-governments. This focus is justifiableas the great majority, if not all, of the Arab countries have invested in e-government devel-opments heavily at the national government level.

4.1 Evaluation of e-Government Service Delivery Capabilities

The four development stages of e-government service delivery capabilities discussed in Sec-tion 2 are used to evaluate and classify the development stages of the Arab e-governments:one-way information flows, two-way interaction, payment transaction, and e-democracy.

4.2 Research Samples

4.2.1 Developing Countries in the Arab World. A total of 20 Arab countries’portals or Web sites were reviewed independently by the two experts. However, due to alack of relevant information, Libya, Somalia, Palestine, and Mauritania were omitted forfurther analysis, and hence are not reported in this article. Table 3 lists our sample of 16



TABLE 3. Resource Characteristics of 16 Arab Countries

Literacy 2005 Internet UsersGDP per Capita (% of) Literacy Literacy (% of)

Country (in US$ 2006) (population) 2003 Male 2003 Female (population)

Developed countriesUnited States 43,500 99.0 99.0 99.0 68.8Denmark 37,000 99.0 99.0 99.0 69.0Sweden 31,600 99.0 99.0 99.0 75.4UK 31,400 99.0 99.0 99.0 62.0South Korea 24,200 99.0 99.2 96.6 69.4Australia 32,900 99.0 99.0 99.0 72.4

Arab gulf and YemenUAE 49,700 77.9 76.1 81.7 53.7Bahrain 25,300 89.1 91.9 85.0 21.9Qatar 29,400 89.0 89.1 88.6 24.7Kuwait 21,600 83.5 85.1 81.7 28.9Oman 14,100 75.8 83.1 67.2 7.9Saudi Arabia 13,800 78.8 84.7 70.8 11.8Yemen 900 50.2 70.5 30.0 1.0

Arab heartlandJordan 4,900 91.3 95.9 86.3 10.7Lebanon 5,500 87.4 93.1 82.2 18.1Syria 4,000 76.9 89.7 64.0 5.8Iraq 1,900 40.4 55.9 24.4 0.1

Arab North AfricaAlgeria 7,700 70.0 78.8 61.0 5.8Tunisia 8,600 74.3 83.4 65.3 9.4Morocco 4,400 51.7 64.1 39.4 13.8

Arab East AfricaEgypt 4,200 57.7 68.3 46.9 6.3Sudan 2,300 61.1 71.8 50.5 6.8

Source: CIA, 2006; UN, 2003.

Arab countries and their demographics. The relevant information was gathered from theCIA Factbook (2006) Web site for each country, including information on economic andnon-economic resources: GDP per capita as a measure of national wealth; average nationalliteracy; male average literacy; female average literacy; and number of Internet users relativeto the entire population. The existing Arab region classification scheme (Aladwani, 2003)was used to group the 16 countries geographically. Our sample includes six countries fromArab Gulf countries and Yemen; four Arab heartland countries, three Arab North-Africancountries, and two Arab East-African countries.

4.2.2 Developed Countries. Table 3 also lists six leading e-government countries inthe world to serve as the benchmark group against which the Arab e-government develop-ments were compared and contrasted. We selected the United States, Denmark, Sweden,the UK, South Korea, and Australia based on the e-government readiness index computedand published by the UN (UN, 2005), which is used to rank order its member nations.Figure 3 shows a scatter diagram of the six leading global e-governments versus the sixleading Arab e-governments.



Figure 3 Leading global e-governments versus leading Arab e-governments.

5. RESULTS

The results of this research show that a wide digital divide still exists between Arab countriesand leading developed countries. More importantly, however, the results also show a widedigital divide even among the Arab countries studied, particularly in the development ofadvanced e-government service delivery capabilities. These results are summarized andpresented in Table 3.

For the benchmark group, we identified the United States, Denmark, Sweden, the UK,South Korea, and Australia as the world’s e-government leaders, according to the 2005UN Survey (UN, 2005). Our cross-country comparative analysis shows that the benchmarkgroup countries have a single-entry-point national e-government portal. They also providethe public with advanced e-government service delivery capabilities in payment transac-tions. Furthermore, they all offer some kind of e-democracy capabilities to citizens. Wewill discuss e-democracy capabilities in detail in the next section.

In the remaining section, we classify the 16 Arab countries based on where they are interms of their e-government service delivery capability, using the normative e-governmentstage model discussed in Section 2: one-way information flows, two-way interaction,payment transaction, and e-democracy.

5.1 Clustering Arab E-Governments

There is a wide digital divide, even across the Arab sample. Based on the stages ofe-government development (e.g., at a payment transaction stage), the 16 e-governmentsare clustered into one of the following three groups: Arab e-government leaders; Arabe-government up-and-comers with some promising or innovative e-government servicedelivery capabilities; or Arab e-government laggards, which are far behind other Arabcounterparts in terms of their online service delivery capabilities available to the public.In other words, the criterion for clustering the Arab e-governments is their overall servicedelivery capabilities that are offered to the public on their Web sites or Web portals.

5.1.1 Arab E-Government Leaders. The United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, andQatar are identified as the Arab e-government leaders. They all have a single-entry-point



national e-government portal and provide payment transaction capabilities to users ofe-government services. In addition, they all offer some level of e-democracy capabilitiesto their citizens. However, they have not reached the levels of payment transaction ande-democracy capabilities offered by the top three e-government countries: the United States,Denmark, and Sweden.

5.1.2 Arab E-Government Up-and-Comers. The majority of the Arab countries areclustered into this group: Jordan, Lebanon, Kuwait, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Tunisia,Algeria, Oman, and Syria. Within this group, however, we noted further divisions. Jordan,Egypt, Kuwait, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia are more advanced than the others in the groupin terms of overall e-government service delivery capabilities. Moreover, they have a setof clear ICT and e-government strategies in place, which are accompanied by a strongcommitment of the government leadership to provide better e-government services to theircitizens and businesses—hence creating greater public value.

5.1.3 Arab E-Government Laggards. This group of the Arab countries includes Su-dan, Yemen, and Iraq. This group lags far behind the other Arab countries in terms ofe-government service delivery capabilities, such as two-way interactions, payment transac-tions, and e-democracy. Moreover, the group in general has fewer e-government Web siteswith limited services and information content.

5.2 Development Stages of E-Government Service Delivery Capabilities

Based on prior research on a user-centric e-government development model (Chatfield andAlhujran, 2007), we discuss the Arab e-governments in one of the following four stages ofdevelopment discussed in Section 2. Table 4 lists the two samples and their e-governmentservice delivery capability development stages observed in the study.

5.2.1 One-Way Information Flow Capabilities. The majority of the Arab countriesare currently at this information stage of e-government development. The 10 countries inour sample are at this information stage: Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Tunisia, Algeria,Syria, Morocco, Sudan, Yemen, and Iraq. Of the 10, only Lebanon and Morocco providea portal that serves as a single entry point to all government agencies, whereas the othershave only government Web sites. On their official Web sites, these countries provide usefulinformation about their services, contact details, and links to other governmental Web sites.

5.2.2 Two-Way Interaction Capabilities. Of the 16 Arab countries, six countries(listed in Table 5) provide two-way interaction between government and citizens (G2C)and/or between government and businesses (G2B).

5.2.3 Payment Transaction Capabilities. Among the Arab countries, only threegovernments (listed in Table 6) provide online payment transaction capabilities to theircitizens and/or businesses.

5.2.4 E-Democracy Capabilities in our Arab Sample. Of the 16 Arab countries,seven (listed in Table 7) offer some e-democracy capabilities.



TABLE 4. E-Government Service Delivery Capabilities of the Samples

One-Way Two-Way PaymentInformation Flows Interaction Transaction E-Democracy

World E-Government Leaders (top six)

United States√ √ √ √

Denmark√ √ √ √

Sweden√ √ √ √

UK√ √ √ √

South Korea√ √ √ √

Australia√ √ √ √

Arab E-Government Leaders

UAE√ √ √ √

Bahrain√ √ √ √

Qatar√ √ √ √

Arab E-Government Up-and-Comers

Jordan√ √ √

Lebanon√ √

Kuwait√ √ √

Egypt√ √ √

Saudi Arabia√

Oman√

Tunisia√

Algeria√

Morocco√

Syria√

Arab E-Government Laggards

Sudan√

Yemen√

Iraq√

5.2.5 E-Democracy Capabilities in Our Sample of Developed Countries

5.2.4.1 United States. Through the official internet portal for the U.S. government(Firstgov.gov), U.S. citizens can find, view, and comment on regulations and other actionsfor all federal agencies. “Chat” with the government service is also provided through theU.S. government portal. By using this service, citizens can ask the government a questionabout federal agencies, programs, benefits, or services. Furthermore, citizens can contacttheir elected officials directly from the portal and share with them thoughts on currentevents, issues of interest, and government policy.

Furthermore, the U.S. government has developed an online system called “Thomas”(http://thomas.loc.gov/) through which citizens can access the text of a proposed bill or apublic law, and debates in the Congressional Record, and send e-mails to members of theHouse of Representatives and Senate on particular issues. In the 2004 election, the U.S.federal government tested a pilot e-voting system for 100,000 overseas voters (Gefen, Rose,Warkentin, & Pavlou, 2005).

5.2.4.2 Denmark. Denmark was one of the first countries in the world to providee-democracy services to citizens online. During the elections for European Parliament



TABLE 5. Evidence of the Arab Countries’ Two-Way Interaction Capabilities

Examples from E-Government Portal/Web Sites Country

Through the government portal, citizens can download forms and governmentdocuments. Also, a search facility is provided. Businesses can also benefit from avariety of online services (e.g., online company registration, modifying of company’sinformation, and registration in the online suppliers record).

UAE

Citizens can use the e-government portal to search and download forms. Examples ofthe provided online services for individuals include: booking for smart cardsappointment, submit meter readings, view personal information, and getting thenational exam results.

Bahrain

The e-government portal provides citizens, businesses, visitors, and government with avariety of online services, such as renewal of expired driver’s licenses and renewal ofexpired or damaged health cards.

Qatar

Many ministries and government agencies have established an online presence byproviding informational Web sites. On their Web sites, the ministries also providecitizens and businesses with the ability to search databases and download forms anddocuments. In addition, businesses benefit from online registration provided by thegovernment, for example, the Aqaba Special Economic Zone(http://www.aqabazone.com) electronically enabled Enterprise Registration andPermitting, which allows investors to acquire their licenses and permits online.

Jordan

Citizens can use the e-government portal to renew their smart national identification (ID)cards, enquire about their civil ID number, and access other ministries’ online services.

Kuwait

The e-government portal provides citizens, businesses, visitors, and the government witha convenient collection of information and services, such as a way to request nationalID, replacement cards, and vehicle infringements and license renewal.

Egypt

in 2004, approximately 15,000 Danish citizens had the chance to try the e-voting system(IDABC, 2003). Another example of e-voting in Denmark was in 2006 by the Ministryof Education (http://eng.uvm.dk/) during its first electronic election of the school boards(IDABC, 2006).

TABLE 6. Evidence for the Arab Countries’ Payment Transaction Capabilities


By launching the e-Dirham system in 2001 (http://www.e-dirham.gov.ae/), the UAE wasthe first to introduce an electronic payment system countrywide in the Arab world.The Ministry of Finance and Industry provides this payment tool to improve revenuecollection efficiency and to provide the public with a new means of secure andconvenient payment. For example, citizens can pay their bills, traffic fines, and licenserenewal fees by either getting e-Dirham cards from the Ministry of Finance andIndustry or using their own credit cards. To shorten the waiting line at the ministriesand departments, the Ministry of Finance and Industry also has introduced thee-Stamp to authenticate the prepaid smart cards using the e-Dirham system.

UAE

Electronic payments can be made through the government portal (https://www.e.gov.bh/pub/wps/portal). For example, citizens can pay their water and electricity bills, vehicledues payments, and vehicle registration fees through the government portal using theircredit cards. However, registration is required for the electronic payment servicesoffered on the portal.

Bahrain

By using Qtel’s online service (https://webcare.qtel.com.qa), citizens and businesses cancheck their bills, view unbilled usage, change their billing address, and make theirpayments. In addition, they can pay their electricity and water bills, traffic valuations,and Red Crescent fund through a secure electronic payment gateway.

Qatar



TABLE 7. Evidence of the Arab Countries’ E-Democracy Capabilities


The federal e-government portal does not provide citizens with any e-democracyfacilities. However, at the state level, Dubai’s e-government portal provides anopinion-polling facility to get citizens’ opinions regarding issues of interest.

UAE

The kingdom of Bahrain was the first Arab country to introduce the e-voting system. In2001, on the national action charter, and again in parliamentary elections in 2002, thee-vote service was provided to Bahrain’s citizens (Kostopoulos, 2003). In addition,Bahrainis can post their opinions to senators through the Shura Forum(http://www.shura.gov.bh/forum). This forum allows and encourages citizens toparticipate in the decision-making process by providing them with this governmentaldiscussion forum through which they can discuss and post their opinions regardingimportant societal issues. Bahrain’s portal provides citizens with a comprehensive setof services including heath, traffic, employment, municipal, and information services.This makes the government more transparent and accountable to its citizens.

Bahrain

The portal provides citizens with the ability to post their inquiries, complaints,recommendations, and comments regarding any e-government service.

Qatar

Jordanians can post their questions and comments to government officials through the“Ask the Government” folder in the Jordan Information Centre Web site(http://www.jordan.jo). By using the online polling mechanism, discussion forums,and online consultation facilities provided on this Web site, Jordanians have theability to exchange opinions and viewpoints on issues of importance withgovernments and with other citizens.

Jordan

Citizens can use the e-government portal to place their inquiries, complaints,recommendations, and comments regarding the services provided by e-government.

Lebanon

The portal provides citizens with online polling mechanisms to get their opinions andviewpoints regarding issues of interest. In addition, citizens can join the mailing listprovided in the portal to get up-to-date information regarding e-government services.Furthermore, citizens can send their suggestions and comments to the governmentthrough the government portal.

Kuwait

Citizens can use the e-government portal to post their inquiries, complaints,recommendations, and comments regarding the services provided by e-government.

Egypt

To support e-democracy, a Danish debate forum has been made available to citizens,political parties, and interested organizations to open dialogue among them. All debatesare shown on danmarksdebatten.dk. Through the e-democracy Web site (www.nordpol.dk),Danish citizens are invited to participate in the political decision-making process. This Website allows both citizens and politicians to define an agenda of topics on which a dialogueis needed. This aims to make the decision-making process more transparent and to attainmore qualified decisions.

5.2.4.3 Sweden. The Swedish government’s Official Report on Democracy 2002 wasthe starting point toward systematic trials for using IT to enhance local democracy inSweden. The government consults citizens regarding its plans and policies through theWeb. An example of this consultation was in 2000, when Swedish towns were consultedon a series of efforts to renew their town politics (Gronlund, 2002).

Swedish citizens have free access to official documents, enabling them to provide theiropinions regarding these documents. In addition, citizens can use the online discussionforms provided on Swedish government Web sites to exchange their opinions. One exampleof these forums is the Top Managers Forum, which was created in 2004 by the Ministry



TABLE 8. E-Democracy Capabilities of the Two Samples

E-Voting (pilot and Online DiscussionCountry at polling stations) E-Petition Forums E-Polling Feedback

World E-Government Leaders

United States√ √ √ √

Denmark√ √ √ √

Sweden√ √ √ √

UK√ √ √ √ √

South Korea√ √ √ √

Australia√ √ √ √ √

Arab E-Government Leaders

UAE√ √

Bahrain√ √ √ √

Qatar√ √

Jordan√ √ √

Lebanon√

Kuwait√

of Finance. This forum consists of some of the state agencies, the Swedish Association ofLocal Authorities, and the Swedish Federation of County Councils (Swedish GovernmentOffices, 2004).

5.2.4.4 UK. The e-democracy Web site (http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/e-envoy/briefings-top/$file/edemocracy.htm) aims to use technology to increase British people’sawareness and participation in local decision making. It aims also to make it easy for citi-zens across the country to get involved in the democratic process. Furthermore, communitiesand government discussion forums are provided (http://forum.communities.gov.uk).

In May 2002 and 2003, the UK hosted the world’s largest experiment in e-voting. Underthe pilot project, voters in local authorities throughout the UK were able to choose fromthe most expansive range of new voting technologies ever deployed. In addition, using apetition system (http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/), citizens can create, sign, and send petitionsonline directly to British government.

5.2.4.5 South Korea. South Korea is among the most internet-connected nations in theworld, with a more than 66% penetration rate (Internet World Stats, 2007). Because ofthis high level of Internet penetration, citizens can easily get any information, includinggovernment documents and policies. Furthermore, they can express their opinions andideas regarding issues of interest (Kim S., 2006). The Korean government offers its citizensthe opportunity to participate in government administration by requesting their voting andhearings electronically. Political parties also incorporated the Internet into their electioncampaign tools. This incorporation was clear during the 2002 presidential election (Kim,2006). According to Hachigian and Wu (2003), this election became a textbook exampleof the power of IT. In this election, Internet voting was tested. Furthermore, the electionof President Roh Moo-hyun in 2002 was largely due to his Internet-based supporters’organization called Nosamo. This virtual community of supporters successfully raisedmore than $7 million over the Internet.



5.2.4.6 Australia. In Australia, government agencies across the country have tradition-ally involved citizens in the decision-making process. With the increasing use of ICT bycitizens and the initiation of e-government as a means of enhancing service delivery tocitizens, the opportunity arises for government to increase the involvement and the par-ticipation of citizens in the e-democracy process. Such participation may include onlinediscussion forums, e-surveys, online policy consultation, e-petitions, e-voting, and moreinnovative forms of online participation (Australian Government Information ManagementOffice, 2007).

Citizens can take advantage of several online opportunities to be informed or to getinvolved in government. For example, citizens can e-mail their parliament member onany issue of interest. Also, citizens can create, sign, and submit their petitions online.Furthermore, Australian citizens can access official documents and provide their opinionsand ideas regarding these documents. Additionally, according to the Australian IT (2007)defense force, personnel serving overseas were able to vote electronically in the 2007federal election for the first time. In summary, Table 8 lists five measures of e-democracycapabilities found in the two samples analyzed in this research.

6. DISCUSSION

The digital divide between developed countries and developing countries has been longdebated in the academic literature in a number of disciplines, including information systemsand IT. This cross-country comparative analysis research on e-government developmentsin the Arab countries, and the world’s top e-governments in developed countries, providesconfirmatory evidence for the continuous digital divide. However, we did not measure howwide or narrow this digital divide is as compared to the past.

This research provides insights into the presence of a wide digital divide even amonga sample of the 16 Arab countries analyzed. Of the 16, UAE, Bahrain, and Qatar areclassified as the Arab e-government leaders because they all offer the public advancede-government service delivery capabilities such as the provision of secure online paymenttransaction channels and the provision of e-democracy forums and e-voting structures andprocesses. In comparison, Yemen, Iraq, and Sudan seem to be the Arab e-governmentlaggards because they clearly lack advanced online service delivery capabilities providedby the Arab e-government leaders. The large differences between these two groups interms of the provision of e-government service delivery capabilities may be explained bythe differences in economic and human resources that exist between the two groups (asshown in Table 3). On average, the Arab e-government leaders are much wealthier thanthe laggards, as measured by the group average GDP per capita, $34,800 in comparison to$1,700 (2006 estimation). This is consistent with the scatter diagram of the global digitaldivide (Figure 1) presented in Section 3. Furthermore, the average literacy rate of the Arabe-government leaders is significantly higher than that of the laggards, as measured by thegroup average literacy rate—85.3% in contrast to 50.7%.

However, national wealth alone does not explain the presence of a wide digital divideacross the Arab sample. Jordan, for example, has a $4,900 GDP per capita (also 2006estimation). It is far below the group average GDP per capita for the Arab e-governmentleaders. Despite this lack of economic resources, Jordan has developed relatively high-leveladvanced e-government service delivery capabilities, namely, two-way interaction and e-democracy. To a lesser extent, other Arab e-government up-and-comers such as Egypt,



Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Lebanon also have developed some promising or innovativee-government service delivery capabilities, despite their levels of economic resources.

7. CONCLUSIONS

In the context of research on e-government for development, the concept of the globaldigital divide can be usefully applied to evaluating e-government development stagesalong the existing economic divisions in the world. This research presented insights intothe current landscape of e-government developments in the 16 Arab countries througha cross-country comparative analysis of their e-government service delivery capabilities.This research makes critical contributions to the existing e-government literature. First,evidence found in the study raises our awareness of a wide digital divide that exists evenamong the Arab developing countries studied. Second, the disparity in the provision of ad-vanced e-government service delivery capabilities—even among the relatively homogenouseconomic group—suggests the critical importance of knowledge- and competence-basedresources, for they are critically important for effective and efficient use of new ICTsadopted by e-governments, and for the sustainable development of the new digital econ-omy particularly in developing countries. Finally, this research differs from the previouse-government studies that largely focused on developed countries or an Arab e-governmentin a single country context. By adopting a cross-country comparative analysis researchstrategy, this research has provided new insights into the global digital divide in the contextof e-government for development.

Our research limitations include that our results represent a static, snapshot view of thecurrent landscape of the Arab e-government service delivery capabilities through a cross-country comparative analysis conducted at one particular point in time. In the dynamicallychanging e-government development environment, such a static view provides some limi-tations to our analysis and understanding. However, in light of a clear lack of research one-government development stages in the Arab developing countries, our research approachmay be justified at this exploratory stage. Further research is required to address this lim-itation with a longitudinal cross-country analysis over a longer period of time, to assesschanges in e-government development.

APPENDIX A

A List of the Top and Bottom Ten Countries

Country GDP per Capita (in US$ 2006) E-Government Readiness Index

Top TenUSA 43,500 0.927Sweden 31,600 0.840Australia 32,900 0.831Denmark 37,000 0.820UK 31,400 0.814Canada 35,600 0.806Norway 46,300 0.778Switzerland 34,000 0.764Germany 31,900 0.762Finland 33,700 0.761

(Continued)



Continued

Country GDP per Capita (in US$ 2006) E-Government Readiness Index

Bottom TenBurkina Faso 1,300 0.135Guinea 2,100 0.132Ethiopia 1,000 0.128Sierra Leone 900 0.126Afghanistan 800 0.118Timor-Leste 800 0.087Niger 1,000 0.060Somalia 600 0.049Marshall Islands 2,900 0.038Palau 7,600 0.009

Source: (CIA, 2006; United Nations, 2003).GDP per capita estimates (2006) for all countries, except Afghanistan (2004).

APPENDIX B

A List of the Top and Bottom Ten Countries

Country GDP per Capita (in US$ 2006) E-Participation Index

Top TenUSA 43,500 1.00UK 31,400 0.97Chile 12,700 0.83Canada 35,600 0.83Estonia 20,300 0.76New Zealand 26,200 0.69Philippines 5,000 0.67Netherlands 32,100 0.64France 31,100 0.64Australia 32,900 0.62

Bottom TenSierra Leone 900 0Solomon Islands 600 0Somalia 600 0Suriname 7,100 0Swaziland 5,200 0Syria 4,100 0Tajikistan 1,300 0Tonga 2,200 0Tuvalu 1,600 0Uzbekistan 2,000 0

Source: (CIA, 2006; United Nations, 2003).GDP per capita estimates (2006) for all countries, except Solomon Island and Tonga (2005) and Tuvalu (2002).

REFERENCES

Abusin, M. (2007, June). Government of Sudan e-government initiative: Challenges and opportunities.Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on e-Government, Haagse Hogeschool, Den Haag,the Netherlands.



AL-Shehry, A., Rogerson, S., Fairweather, N. B., & Prior, M. (2006, September).The motivations forchange towards e-government adoption: Saudi Arabia as a case study. eGovernment Workshop’06 (eGOV06), Brunel University, West London, UK.

Aladwani, A. (2003). Key internet characteristics and e-commerce issues in Arab countries. Infor-mation Technology and People, 16(1), 9–20.

Australian Government Information Management Office (2007). E-democracy community of practice.Retrieved February 7, 2007, from http://www.agimo.gov.au/resources/cop/e-democracy

Australian IT (2007). Diggers get a test shot at e-voting. Retrieved February 7, 2007, fromhttp://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,20283822%5E15306%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html

Bertot, J. (2003). The multiple dimensions of the digital divide: more than the technology “haves”and “have nots.” Government Information Quarterly, 20, 185–191.

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). (2006). The World Factbook. Retrieved February 10, 2007, fromhttps://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

Chandler, S., & Emanuels, S. (2002). Transformation not automation. Proceedings of the 2nd Euro-pean Conference on e-Government, St. Catherine’s College, Oxford, UK.

Chatfield, A., & Alhujran, O. (2007). An analysis of e-government maturity models from a user-centric perspective: Toward a public value proposition. Proceedings of EEE’07 - The 2007 Interna-tional Conference on e-Learning, e-Business, Enterprise Information Systems, and e-Government,Monte Carlo Resort, Las Vegas, Nevada, June 25–28, 2007.

Ciborra, C., & Navarra, D. (2005). Good governance, development theory, and aid policy: Risksand challenges of e-government in Jordan. Journal of Information Technology for Development,11(2), 141–159.

Coleman, S., & Norris, D. (2005). A new agenda for e-democracy. Oxford Internet Institute, ForumDiscussion Paper No. 4, January 2005.

Dada, D. (2006). The failure of e-government in developing countries. The Electronic Journal onInformation Systems in Developing Countries, 26(7), 1–10.

Gefen, D., Rose, G., Warkentin, M., & Pavlou, P. (2005). Cultural diversity and trust in IT adoption:A comparison of potential e-voters in the USA and South Africa. Journal of Global InformationManagement, 13(1), 54–78.

Gronlund, A. (2002). Emerging infrastructures for e-democracy. e-Service Journal, 2(1), 62–89.Hachigian, N., & Wu, L. (2003). Political implications of the information revolution in Asia. Retrieved

February 3, 2007, from http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph reports/MR1719/MR1719.ch2.pdfHoward, M. (2001). e-Government across the globe: How will “e” change government. Government

Finance Review, 17(4), 6–9.Internet World Stats. (2007). Internet usage statistics in Asia. Retrieved February 5, 2007, from

http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats3.htm#asiaInteroperable Delivery of European e-Government Services to Public Administrations, Businesses

and Citizens (IDABC). (2003). Denmark to experiment e-voting in 2004 European elections.Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/1539/333

Interoperable Delivery of European e-Government Services to Public Administrations, Businesses andCitizens (IDABC). (2006). Danish school board to be elected electronically. Retrieved February 2,2007, from http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/5253/333

Kim, B. (2006). E-Democracy in the Information Age: The Internet and the 2002 Presidential Electionin South Korea. Graduate Journal of Asia-Pacific Studies, 4(2), 53–62

Kim, S. (2006, April). Converging e-democracy and e-government model toward an evolutionarymodel of e-governance: The case of South Korea. UNDP-APDIP/UNCRD Regional Workshopon Capacity Building of Asia Pacific. Bangkok, Thailand.

King, J., & Kraemer, K. (1984). Evolution and organizational information systems: An assessmentof Nolan’s stage model. Communications of the ACM, 27(5), 466–475.

Kostopoulos, G. (2003). E-government in the Arabian gulf: A vision toward reality. Proceedings ofIADIS International Conference on e-Society, Lisbon, Portugal.

Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional e-government: A four stage model. Govern-ment Information Quarterly, 18(1), 122–136.

Lee, S., Tan, X., & Trimi, S. (2005). Current practices of leading e-government countries. Commu-nications of the ACM, 48(10), 99–104.

Mahrer, H., & Krimmer, R. (2005). Towards the enhancement of e-democracy: Identifying the notionof the middleman paradox. Information Systems Journal, 15(1), 27–42.



Moon, M. (2002). The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality? PublicAdministration Review, 62(4), 424–433.

Reddick, C. (2004). A two-stage model of e-government growth: Theories and empirical evidencefor U.S. cities. Government Information Quarterly, 21(1), 51–64.

Siau, K., & Long, Y. (2005). Synthesizing e-government stage models—a meta-synthesis basedon meta-ethnography approach. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 105(4), 443–458.

Swedish Government Offices. (2004). The principle of public access to official documents. RetrievedFebruary 15, 2007, from http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2853/a/18096

United Nations (UN). (2003). World public sector report 2003: e-government at the crossroads. NewYork: United Nations.

United Nations (UN). (2005). UN global e-government readiness report 2005: from e-governmentto e-inclusion. Retrieved February 1, 2007, from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan021888.pdf

Akemi Takeoka Chatfield is a senior lecturer in Information Technology and served as Head of theE-Government & E-Governance Research Group at the School of Information Systems and Technol-ogy, Faculty of Informatics, University of Wollongong in New South Wales, Australia. She has a Ph.D.in Business Administration (MIS and applied statistics) from Texas Tech University. Her researchinterests include transformational impacts of e-government, e-governance, e-government in devel-oping countries, and public-sector interagency radio frequency identification (RFID) and geospatial(GPS and GIS) information sharing for disaster prevention and management. She has published twopapers in Journal of Management Information Systems and her other work in Communications ofthe ACM, Electronic Journal of E-Government, and other leading journals. Akemi has governmentmanagerial experiences, particularly strategic management and large-scale IT project management.

Omar Alhujran is a Ph.D. candidate in the School of Information Systems and Technology at the Uni-versity of Wollongong-Australia. He received his bachelor’s degree in computer science from Mu’tahUniversity, Jordan, and Master of Science in computing from the University of Technology/Sydney.His work has been presented in several international conferences such as European Conference one-Government; International Conference on e-Learning, e-Business, Enterprise Information Systems,and e-Government; ACS/IEEE International Conference on Computer Systems and Applications;and European Conference on Mobile Government. His research interests include e-government ande-government adoption in developing countries.


Documents

A Cross-Country Comparative Analysis of E-gov Service Delivery Among Arab Countries