Evaluating Citizen Adoption and Satisfaction of E-government in Mississippi

Governments at all levels are faced with the challenge of transformation and the need to reinvent government systems in order to deliver efficient and cost effective services, information, and knowledge through information and communication technologies. Electronic government, or e-government, is defined as a way for governments to use the most innovative information and communication technologies, particularly web-based Internet applications, to provide citizens and businesses with more convenient access to government information and services, to improve the quality of the services, and to provide greater opportunities to participate in democratic institutions and processes. E-government presents a tremendous impetus to move forward in the 21st century with higher quality, cost-effective, government services, and a better relationship between citizens and government. Notwithstanding the tremendous potential of e-government applications to deliver public sector services more efficiently and effectively, the citizenry must adopt and continually leverage these virtual offerings, such as renewing a driver’s license, for measurable value to be gained. In the process of designing and developing Web-based services which offer citizens both appropriate information and worthwhile services that are more convenient than traditional government transactions, public sector agencies must thoroughly recognize the elements that impact citizen adoption of and satisfaction with e-government. This research considers theoretical foundations from the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), the Web Trust Model (WTM), and SERVQUAL to form a parsimonious model of citizen adoption and satisfaction for e-government services. This theory-oriented framework unites three research areas by asserting that an amalgamation of factors – technology adoption, trust, and service quality – influence an individual’s adoption propensity and service quality perception. Significant findings suggest usefulness, or end-user convenience, to be the principal determinant of e-government adoption and satisfaction, unaffected even when controlling demographic variables such as race, income, and education are introduced. Additionally, future implications of this research are discussed

Is the responsibilization of the cyber security risk reasonable and judicious?

Cyber criminals appear to be plying their trade without much hindrance. Home computer users are particularly vulnerable to attack by an increasingly sophisticated and globally dispersed hacker group. The smartphone era has exacerbated the situation, offering hackers even more attack surfaces to exploit. It might not be entirely coincidental that cyber crime has mushroomed in parallel with governments pursuing a neoliberalist agenda. This agenda has a strong drive towards individualizing risk i.e. advising citizens how to take care of themselves, and then leaving them to face the consequences if they choose not to follow the advice. In effect, citizens are “responsibilized .” Whereas responsibilization is effective for some risks, the responsibilization of cyber security is, we believe, contributing to the global success of cyber attacks. There is, consequently, a case to be made for governments taking a more active role than the mere provision of advice, which is the case in many countries. We conclude with a concrete proposal for a risk regulation regime that would more effectively mitigate and ameliorate cyber risk

Cyber security responsibilization:an evaluation of the intervention approaches adopted by the Five Eyes countries and China

Governments can intervene to a greater or lesser extent in managing the risks their citizens face. They can adopt a maximal intervention approach (e.g. COVID-19) or a handsoff approach, effectively “responsibilizing” their citizens (e.g. unemployment). To manage the cyber risk, governments publish cyber-related policies. The question that we wanted to answer was: “What intervention stances do governments adopt in supporting individual citizens managing their personal cyber risk?” We pinpointed the cyber-related responsibilities that several governments espoused, applying a “responsibilization” analysis. We identified those that applied to citizens, and thereby revealed their cyber-related intervention stances. Our analysis revealed that most governments adopt a minimal cyber-related intervention stance in supporting their individual citizens. Given the increasing number of successful cyber attacks on individuals, it seems time for the consequences of this stance to be acknowledged and reconsidered. We argue that governments should support individual citizens more effectively in dealing with cyber threats