The Impact of Political Trust on E-Government Services Adoption

The Impact of Political Trust on E-Government Services Adoption

Isaac Kofi Mensah
Copyright: © 2020 |Pages: 21
DOI: 10.4018/IJTD.2020100102
OnDemand:
(Individual Articles)
Available
$37.50
No Current Special Offers
TOTAL SAVINGS: $37.50

Abstract

This study explored the impact of political trust on the adoption of e-government services in China. The data for this study was generated through a research questionnaire instrument. The technology acceptance model (TAM) was used as the theoretical framework for the study while the analysis was done with SPSS. The results indicated that political trust is a significant predictor of the intention to use e-government services. The results also demonstrated that whilst political trust was not significant in predicting the perceived usefulness of e-government services, it was significant in determining the perceived ease of use of e-government services. In addition, this study has shown that political trust has a significant moderating effect on both the impact of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use on the intention to use e-government services. The implications of these findings are discussed.
Article Preview
Top

1. Introduction

The application of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in the administration of public sector and governmental agencies particularly concerning improving the delivery of public services is termed e-government. E-government is also considered as the means through which the government and its public sector agencies interact with citizens and businesses in terms of exchange of information, public services and democratic engagement through the powerful medium of ICT (Bwalya, Chris, & Mandla, 2010; Gomes & Laureano, 2018). The implementation of e-government has many benefits which include the simplification of access to government official documents and data, efficient and cost-effective delivery of public services (Alryalat, Rana, & Dwivedi, 2020; Cordelia, 2007; Ntulo & Otike, 2013). It can also ensure transparency and minimize corruption, availability of 24-hour services without physical demarcation and enhance communication or interaction between government and citizens (Bertot, Jaeger, & Grimes, 2010; Ciborra, 2009; Ntulo & Otike, 2013).

The factors influencing the demand side of e-government has been studied over a decade now. The demand side of e-government has to do with the uptake issues relating to the adoption of e-government services. Studies such as Gauld, Goldfinch, and Horsburgh (2010) and Kunstelj, Jukić, and Vintar (2007) have explored the e-government adoption issues from the demand side. From the demand side of e-government, factors such as perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and perceived risk (Mou, Shin, & Cohen, 2017; Santhanamery & Ramayah, 2018), and performance expectancy, effort expectancy, security issues and social influence (Ismailova, 2017; Mansoori, Sarabdeen, & Tchantchane, 2018; Rabaa'i, 2017), have been explored about their impact on the decision of users to engage in the use of e-government services. Also, service quality dimensions (Khanra & Joseph, 2017a, 2017b; Yaghoubi & Rigi, 2017) and trust issues and national culture (Merhi, 2018; Nam, 2018) have been explored. Among these factors, the issue of trust which is the main concern for this current study has been explored in two directions. The first direction has to do with trust in government and the second is trust in the internet (Alzahrani, Al-Karaghouli, & Weerakkody, 2017, 2018). Whilst trusts in respect of these two directions have been explored in the literature, there is a little study that has examined the impact of political trust on the adoption of e-government services.

Complete Article List

Search this Journal:
Reset
Volume 15: 1 Issue (2024): Forthcoming, Available for Pre-Order
Volume 14: 1 Issue (2023)
Volume 13: 4 Issues (2022): 1 Released, 3 Forthcoming
Volume 12: 4 Issues (2021)
Volume 11: 4 Issues (2020)
Volume 10: 4 Issues (2019)
Volume 9: 4 Issues (2018)
Volume 8: 4 Issues (2017)
Volume 7: 4 Issues (2016)
Volume 6: 4 Issues (2015)
Volume 5: 4 Issues (2014)
Volume 4: 4 Issues (2013)
Volume 3: 4 Issues (2012)
Volume 2: 4 Issues (2011)
Volume 1: 4 Issues (2010)
View Complete Journal Contents Listing