Generic Mechanisms Influencing e-Initiative Adoptions: Perceptions of Key Actors

  • Mark LiptrottEmail author
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 5)


This chapter draws on research into variables influencing Election Officers’ decision-making on e-voting adoption in the UK with additional data from a senior executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators (AEA).

The qualitative research underpinned by the realist paradigm focused on the 2003 and 2007 e-voting pilot programmes. Following a review of relevant literature, the enquiry involved a series of semi-structured interviews with samples of Election Officers in authorities that joined the 2003 and 2007 pilot programmes and a sample of those who had declined to join. An interview with a senior executive of the AEA verified the findings.

The results suggest a series of broad-based lessons that can be used to better inform e-government policy design. The lessons result from the limitations in the pilot evaluation strategy which failed to identify reasons that local authorities declined participation in the e-voting pilot programme.

The conclusion suggests that the values and beliefs of actors involved in local e-policy adoption decision-making are pivotal. It further suggests that there are practical steps that, if taken by policymakers, have the potential to address mechanisms that influence against voluntary e-government policy adoption.


Local Authority Central Government Pilot Programme Voter Turnout Vote Method 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Anderson J (2002) Public policy making, 4th edn. Houghton Mifflin, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarez R, Hall T (2004) Point, click and vote. Brookings Institution, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Armstrong M (2009) Armstrong’s handbook of human resource management practice. Kogan Page, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Birch S, Watt B (2004) Remote electronic voting: free, fair and secret? Political Quarterly. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Cabinet Office (2012) ‘Digital landscape civil service reform’ plan. Accessed 9 Feb 2013
  6. Committee on Standards in Public Life (2007) Review of the Electoral Commission. HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Cross M (2004) Public domain. The Guardian, 10 June, p 11Google Scholar
  8. Dawson P (1994) Organisational change: a processual approach. Chapman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Dolan P, Hallsworth M, Halpern D, King D, Vlaev I (2010) Mindscape: influencing behaviour through public policy. Accessed 10 Jan 2012
  10. Downs A (1957) An economic theory of democracy. Harper Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Dye T (2002) Understanding public policy, 10th edn. Prentice Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Eason K (1998) Informational technology and organisational change. Taylor Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Electoral Commission (2002) Public opinion and the 2002 elections. Electoral Commission, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Electoral Commission (2003) Voting for change. Electoral Commission, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Electoral Commission (2005) Election results. Accessed 30 Nov 2005
  16. Electoral Commission (2007a) Electronic voting summary. Electoral Commission, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Electoral Commission (2007b) Statutory evaluation of electoral pilot schemes. Electoral Commission, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Electoral Commission (2010) Election results. Accessed 30 Aug 2010
  19. European Institute of Public Participation (EIPP) (2009) Public participation in Europe: an international perspective. Accessed 5 Dec 2012
  20. Fairweather B, Rogerson S (2002) Implementation of e-voting in the UK: technical options report. DCA, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Government (GR) (2007) Government’s response to the Electoral Commission’s recommendations on the May 2007 electoral pilot schemes. Ministry of Justice, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Hertting N, Verdung E (2012) Purposes and criteria in network evaluation: how far does standard evaluation vocabulary take us? Evaluation 18(1):27–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hill M (2005) The public policy process, 4th edn. Pearson, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  24. Hill A, Notti J (2009) Costing customer time research paper. HMRC, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Hogwood B, Gunn L (1988) Policy analysis for the real world. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Joint Information Systems Committee (JSIC) (2011) System implementation. Accessed 4 Oct 2011
  27. Kersting N, Baldersheim H (eds) (2004) Electronic voting and democracy: a comparative analysis. Palgrave, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Kilmas L (2012) Why are some states dumping their electronic voting machines and going back to paper? Accessed 13 Nov 2012
  29. Koussouris S, Charalabidis Y, Askounis D (2011) A review of the European Union eParticipation action pilot projects. In: Prosser A (ed) Transforming government: people, process and policy. Bingley, Emerald, pp 8–19Google Scholar
  30. Kuo L (2013) Electronic voting is failing the developing world while the US and Europe abandon it Accessed 6 Apr 2013
  31. Lindblom C, Woodhouse E (1993) The policy making process, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  32. Mercuri R (2010) Electronic voting. Accessed 6 Nov 2011
  33. Miles M, Huberman M (1994) Qualitative data analysis. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Minogue M (1993) Theory and practice in public policy and administration. In: Hill M (ed) The policy process: a reader. Harvester Wheatsheaf, London, pp 10–33Google Scholar
  35. Nixon P, Koutrakou V (2008) Europe: rebooting the system. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Norris P (2001) Digital divide. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. O’Reilly T (2012) Government digital strategy. Accessed 26 Feb 2013
  38. Parker S (2003) Cross culture.,946454,00.html. Accessed 24 Oct 2003
  39. Patton M (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Peralta R (2003) Issues, non-issues and cryptographic tools for Internet-based voting. In: Gritalis D (ed) Secure electronic voting. Kluwer, Boston, pp 153–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pettigrew A, Ferlie E, McKee L (1994) Shaping strategic change. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. Pratchet L, Lowndes V (2004) Developing democracy in Europe: an analytical summary of the Council of Europe’s acquis. Council of Europe Publishing, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  43. Pressman J, Wildavsky A (1984) Implementation, 3rd edn. University of Berkeley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. Roberts A (2010) (Interview) Newsnight [television program] BBC2 22:35Google Scholar
  45. Rogers E (2003) Diffusion of innovations, 5th edn. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Rose R (1989) Politics in England, 5th edn. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. Rose R (2005) Learning from comparative public policy. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  48. Rowntree Charitable Trust and the Rowntree Reform Trust (RFT) (2006) Power to the people: an independent enquiry into Britain’s democracy. The Power Inquiry, LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. Saebo O, Rose J, Flak LS (2008) The shape of e-Participation: characterising an emerging research area. Govern Inform Q 25:400–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sanderson I (2002) Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Publ Admin 80(1):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Scammell R (2013) Internet voting a success in two European countries. Accessed 3 Aug 2013
  52. Schein E (2004) Organisational culture and leadership. Wiley, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  53. Schofield W (1998) Survey sampling. In: Sapsford R, Jupp V (eds) Data collection and analysis. Sage, London, pp 26–56Google Scholar
  54. Serour M, Henderson-Sellers B (2002) The role of organisational culture on the adoption and diffusion of software engineering process: an empirical study. In: Bunker D, Wilson D, Elliot S (eds) The adoption and diffusion in an IT environment of critical change. Pearson, Australia, pp 76–88Google Scholar
  55. Sobh R, Perry C (2006) Research design and data analysis in realism research. Eur J Market 40(11/12):1194–1209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sorgaard P (2004) Co-ordination of e-government: between politics and pragmatics. In: Damsgaard J, Henriksen H (eds) Networked information technologies diffusion and adoption. Kluwer, London, pp 53–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stake R (2000) Case studies. In: Denzin N, Lincoln Y (eds) Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd edn. Sage, London, pp 435–454Google Scholar
  58. The Independent Commission Alternative Voting Methods (ICAVM) (2002) Elections in the 21st century: from paper ballot to e-voting. Electoral Reform Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  59. Wallstrom M (2010) Plan D for democracy, dialogue and debate. Accessed 27 Apr 2011
  60. Waugh P (2003) E-voting trials at council polls led to fall in turnout. Accessed 1 Jul 2005Google Scholar
  61. Work Foundation (2002) Government must ‘be bolder’ on eDemocracy. Accessed 26 Sep
  62. Wright R (2006) Consumer behaviour. Cengage Learning EMEA, AndoverGoogle Scholar
  63. Yin R (2003) Case study research design and methods. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Edge Hill UniversityOrmskirkUK

Personalised recommendations