13th European Conference on eGovernment – ECEG 2013 1 | Page 399

Donald Norris and Christopher Reddick

4.4 percent to 8.2 percent( still miniscule). Those indicating no citizen demand diminished slightly( from 79.8 percent to 72.5 percent).“ Some” citizen demand remained at around three in 10 respondents( 29.0 percent in 2006 and 32.2 percent in 2011).

Table 8: Are citizen grass‐roots groups or organizations actively pushing for e‐participation opportunities within your local government?

Some grassroots demand 115 15.8 124 19.4 Significant grassroots demand 32 4.4 52 8.2

These results are highly consistent with results from previous questions in the survey – only 32.9 percent of governments said that they adopted e‐participation activities due to citizen demand; 45.8 percent of governments said that lack of citizen demand was a barrier to the adoption of e‐participation; and 47.8 percent said that lack of citizen uptake was a barrier. This finding is also consistent with other studies, as reported in our literature review that found that few citizens actually participate in e‐participation programs and projects.

5. Conclusion

Perhaps the most striking finding from this study of e‐democracy at the grassroots is that few American local governments have adopted e‐participation and those that have been adopted, for the most, have not involved meaningful citizen participation. These findings are highly consistent with the results of other empirical studies of e‐democracy around the world that we reported in our literature review.

Data from the 2011 survey strongly suggest two explanatory factors: lack of funding and lack of demand. Evidence from other research suggests yet a third possible explanation – the early writings that suggested that e‐democracy would evolve naturally from e‐Government were wrong.

First, the responding governments cited lack of funding as the most frequently barrier to their adopting e‐ participation. This was also the most frequently cited barrier in the 2006 survey. Respondents also cited the need to upgrade technology, lack of technology staff, difficulty justifying costs, and lack of technology expertise as barriers – all of which are directly related to lack of funding. This finding is also consistent with surveys of e‐Government at the American grassroots, where lack of funding nearly always tops the list of barriers to adoption( e. g., Coursey and Norris, 2008).

A second important reason for the lack of local e‐democracy in the US may well be lack of demand – from local officials and citizens. When asked specifically about barriers to e‐participation, 42.1 percent of local governments cited lack of demand by elected officials. When asked if local appointed officials promote e‐ participation, a plurality of governments( 38.0 percent) reported that elected officials do not support or promote e‐participation, and a slightly smaller fraction( 31.1 percent) said that these officials provided only“ some” support. Only 30.9 percent said that elected officials actively promoted e‐participation. Nearly equal proportions of respondents said that local appointed officials did not promote( 47.3 percent) or did actively promote e‐participation( 43.6 percent), while one‐third( 32.3 percent) said that appointed officials provided some support.

When asked about barriers to adopting e‐participation, 47.8 percent of governments said that when they had provided opportunities for e‐participation, few citizens had participated. Nearly as many( 45.8 percent) cited lack of citizen demand specifically as a barrier. When asked about citizen demand for e‐participation, nearly two thirds( 72.5 percent( down only 7.3 percent since 2006) said there was little or no grassroots demand, while only 8.2 percent said that there was significant demand.

Third, the literature on e‐Government increasingly points to the probability that early predictions for e‐ Government were simply wrong. In part, they were based on a lack of or an incomplete understanding of the prior relevant literature related to this subject( Coursey and Norris, 2008; Kraemer and King, 2006; and Danziger and Andersen, 2002). Another reason why these predictions were incorrect is that they were technologically deterministic( Coursey and Norris, 2008).

377