Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 582

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Models of E‐Government: Are They Correct? An Empirical Assessment

Coursey, David, Norris, Donald F.·2008·Public Administration Review

Abstract

Research into e‐government is relatively new. Nevertheless, much contemporary thinking and writing about e‐government is driven by normative models that appeared less than a decade ago. The authors present empirical evidence from three surveys of local e‐government in the United States to test whether these models are accurate or useful for understanding the actual development of e‐government. They find that local e‐government is mainly informational, with a few transactions but virtually no indication of the high‐level functions predicted in the models. Thus, the models do not accurately describe or predict the development of e‐government, at least among American local governments. These models, though intellectually interesting, are purely speculative, having been developed without linkage to the literature about information technology and government. The authors offer grounded observations about e‐government that will useful to scholars and practitioners alike.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00888.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. 10.1287/isre.4.1.88 · DOI
  2. Coleman Stephen, 2005, A New Agenda for E‐Democracy, International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 1, 69
  3. Coursey David, 2005, The Municipal Yearbook 2005, 14
  4. Coursey David, 2001, Handbook of Public Information Systems, 331
  5. 10.2307/3380116 · DOI
  6. 10.1177/0894439303259892 · DOI
  7. 10.1081/PAD-120003292 · DOI
  8. Fountain Jane, 2001, Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change
  9. 10.1177/0894439303256567 · DOI
  10. Holden Stephen H., 2003, Electronic Government at the Local Level: Progress to Date and Future Issues, Public Productivity and Management Review, 26, 1
  11. 10.4018/jegr.2006010101 · DOI
  12. 10.7312/krae93774 · DOI
  13. 10.1016/S0740-624X(01)00066-1 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Lowi Theodore J, 1969, The End of Liberalism: Ideology, Policy, and the Crisis of Public Authority
  15. 10.4018/jegr.2006100103 · DOI
  16. 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00431.x · DOI · Paper page
  17. Ronaghan Stephen A, 2001, Benchmarking E‐Government: A Global Perspective
  18. 10.1080/02185370108434189 · DOI

Cited by

See all 582

Metadata

Authors
Coursey, D., & Norris, D. F.
Venue
Public Administration Review
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-03-24
Volume
68
Issue
3
Pages
523-536
ISSN
  • 0033-3352 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-6210
OpenAlex
W1968394405
Cited by
582
References
2
FWCI
230.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Models of E‐Government: Are They Correct? An Empirical Assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00888.x
The paper
Coursey, D., & Norris, D. F. (2008). Models of E‐Government: Are They Correct? An Empirical Assessment. Public Administration Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00888.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.