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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide
Norris, P. (2001) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139164887 · Cited by 2,921
Research works printed but not linked: 18
- 10.1287/isre.4.1.88 · DOI
- Coleman Stephen, 2005, A New Agenda for E‐Democracy, International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 1, 69
- Coursey David, 2005, The Municipal Yearbook 2005, 14
- Coursey David, 2001, Handbook of Public Information Systems, 331
- 10.2307/3380116 · DOI
- 10.1177/0894439303259892 · DOI
- 10.1081/PAD-120003292 · DOI
- Fountain Jane, 2001, Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change
- 10.1177/0894439303256567 · DOI
- Holden Stephen H., 2003, Electronic Government at the Local Level: Progress to Date and Future Issues, Public Productivity and Management Review, 26, 1
- 10.4018/jegr.2006010101 · DOI
- 10.7312/krae93774 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0740-624X(01)00066-1 · DOI · Paper page
- Lowi Theodore J, 1969, The End of Liberalism: Ideology, Policy, and the Crisis of Public Authority
- 10.4018/jegr.2006100103 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00431.x · DOI · Paper page
- Ronaghan Stephen A, 2001, Benchmarking E‐Government: A Global Perspective
- 10.1080/02185370108434189 · DOI
Cited by
Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews
Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002 · Cited by 1,990
An empirical validation of a unified model of electronic government adoption (UMEGA)
Dwivedi, Y. K., Rana, N. P., Janssen, M., Lal, B., Williams, M. D., & Clement, M. (2017) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2017.03.001 · Cited by 622
Connecting citizens and local governments? Social media and interactivity in major U.S. cities
Mossberger, K., Wu, Y., & Crawford, J. (2013) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2013.05.016 · Cited by 459
Adoption of online public grievance redressal system in India: toward developing a unified view
Rana, N. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., Williams, M. D., & Weerakkody, V. (2016) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.019 · Cited by 274
Tangi, L., Janssen, M., Benedetti, M., & Noci, G. (2021) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102356 · Cited by 265
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.