Progress in Global Assessments of E-Democracy: Refined Measurements and New Findings

  • Gustav Lidén


How information and communication technologies (ICTs) shape the conditions for the creation of an electronic democracy (e-democracy) is the subject matter of a rising field. However, prior studies are both inconsistent with regard to findings and have drawbacks in the operationalization of the concept at a global level. This chapter addresses voids in previous research by looking at an established measurement of e-democracy and making a refinement of this very measurement. This is done through assessing a data set that spans both time and space and includes all countries of the world. The findings, relating to e-democracy on a global scale, show the positive influence of technology and population size but also emphasize the need for more theoretical groundwork that future research can benefit from.


  1. Anduiza Perea, E., Jensen, M. J., & Jorba, L. (2012). Digital media and political engagement worldwide: A comparative study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Åström, J. (2001). Should democracy online be quick, strong, or thin? Communications of ACM, 44(1), 49–51. doi: 10.1145/357489.357505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Åström, J., Karlsson, M., Linde, J., & Pirannejad, A. (2012). Understanding the rise of e-participation in non-democracies: Domestic and international factors. Government Information Quarterly, 29(2), 142–150. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2011. 09.008.
  4. Beck, N., & Katz, J. N. (1995). What to do (and not to do) with Time-Series Cross-Section data. The American Political Science Review, 89(3), 634–647. doi: 10.2307/2082979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell, D. (1973). The coming of post-industrial society: A venture in social forecasting. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  6. Bessant, J. (2014a). Democracy bytes: New media, new politics and generational change. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved from
  7. Bessant, J. (2014b). The political in the age of the digital: Propositions for empirical investigation. Politics, 34(1), 33–44. doi: 10.1111/1467-9256.12015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bimber, B., & Copeland, L. (2013). Digital media and traditional political participation over time in the US. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 10(2), 125–137. doi: 10.1080/19331681.2013.769925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Calista, D. J., & Melitski, J. (2013). Digitized government among countries worldwide from 2003 to 2010: Performance discrepancies explained by comparing frameworks. International Journal of Public Administration, 36(3), 222–234. doi: 10.1080/01900692.2012.721246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chadwick, A. (2006). Internet politics: States, citizens, and new communication technologies. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Chadwick, A. (2008). Web 2.0: New challenges for the study of e-Democracy in an era of informational exuberance. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 5, 9.Google Scholar
  12. Chatfield, A. T., & Alhujran, O. (2009). A cross-country comparative analysis of e-government service delivery among Arab countries. Information Technology for Development, 15(3), 151–170. doi: 10.1002/itdj.20124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coleman, S., & Blumler, J. G. (2009). The Internet and democratic citizenship: Theory, practice and policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coleman, S., & Norris, D. F. (2005). A new agenda for e-Democracy. (SSRN Scholarly Paper No ID 1325255). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.Google Scholar
  15. Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dahl, R. A., & Tufte, E. R. (1973). Size and democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Diamond, L. (1999). Developing democracy: Toward consolidation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Dutton, W. H. (2013). Internet studies: The foundations of a transformative field. In The Oxford handbook of Internet studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Finkel, S. E. (1995). Causal analysis with panel data. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Freedom House. (20151027). Freedom in the world comparative and historical data. Retrieved from
  21. Gibson, R. K., & McAllister, I. (2014). Normalising or equalising party competition? Assessing the impact of the web on election campaigning. Political Studies, n/a-n/a. doi: 10.1111/1467-9248.12107.
  22. Grönlund, Å. (2011). Connecting eGovernment to real government – The failure of the UN eParticipation index. In M. Janssen, H. J. Scholl, M. A. Wimmer, & Y. Tan (Eds.), Electronic government (pp. 26–37). Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gulati, G. J., Williams, C. B., & Yates, D. J. (2014). Predictors of on-line services and e-participation: A cross-national comparison. Government Information Quarterly, 31(4), 526–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hacker, K. L., & van Dijk, J. (Eds.). (2000). Digital democracy: Issues of theory & practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Hadenius, A., & Teorell, J. (2004). Same, same – But different: Assessing alternative indices of democracy. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  26. Held, D. (2006). Models of democracy (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  27. Jho, W., & Song, K. J. (2015). Institutional and technological determinants of civil e-Participation: Solo or duet? Government Information Quarterly. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2015.09.003.
  28. Jorba, L., & Bimber, B. (2012). The impact of digital media on citizenship from a global perspective. In Digital media and political engagement worldwide: A comparative study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Karpf, D. (2012). Social science research methods in Internet time. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 639–661. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2012. 665468.
  30. Katchanovski, I., & La Porte, T. (2005). Cyberdemocracy or Potemkin e-Villages? Electronic governments in OECD and post-communist countries. International Journal of Public Administration, 28(7–8), 665–681. doi: 10.1081/PAD-200064228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Katz, J., & Halpern, D. (2013). Political and developmental correlates of social media participation in government: A global survey of national leadership websites. International Journal of Public Administration, 36(1), 1–15. doi: 10.1080/01900692.2012.713286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Keele, L., & Kelly, N. J. (2006). Dynamic models for dynamic theories: The ins and outs of lagged dependent variables. Political Analysis, 14(2), 186–205. doi: 10.1093/pan/mpj006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kersting, N. (2012). The future of electronic democracy. In Electronic democracy (pp. 11–54). Opladen: Barbara Budrich Publishers.Google Scholar
  34. Koc-Michalska, K., Gibson, R., & Vedel, T. (2014). Online campaigning in France, 2007–2012: Political actors and citizens in the aftermath of the Web.2.0 evolution. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 11(2), 220–244. doi: 10.1080/19331681.2014.903217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Larsson, H., & Grönlund, Å. (2014). Future-oriented eGovernance: The sustainability concept in eGov research, and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 137–149. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2013.07.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lee, B. (2014). Window dressing 2.0: Constituency-level web campaigns in the 2010 UK general election. Politics, 34(1), 45–57. doi: 10.1111/1467-9256.12029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lee, C., Chang, K., & Berry, F. S. (2011). Testing the development and diffusion of e-Government and e-Democracy: A global perspective. Public Administration Review, 71(3), 444–454. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02228.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lidén, G. (2015). Technology and democracy: validity in measurements of e-democracy. Democratization, 22(4), 698–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lidén, G. (2016). Inequality in local digital politics: How different preconditions for citizen engagement can be explained. Policy & Internet, 8(3), 270–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lilleker, D. G., Pack, M., & Jackson, N. (2010). Political parties and Web 2.0: The liberal democrat perspective. Politics, 30(2), 105–112. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9256.2010.01373.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Macintosh, A., Coleman, S., & Schneeberger, A. (2009). eParticipation: The research gaps. In A. Macintosh & E. Tambouris (Eds.), Electronic participation (Vol. 5694, pp. 1–11). Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Marshall, M. G., Jaggers, K. R., & Gurr, K. (20151027). Polity IV project: Political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800–2014. Retrieved from
  43. Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide?: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Papacharissi, Z. (2010). A private sphere: democracy in a digital age. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  45. Persson, M. (2013). Education and political participation. British Journal of Political Science, 1–15 (FirstView). doi: 10.1017/S0007123413000409.
  46. Potnis, D. D., & Pardo, T. A. (2011). Mapping the evolution of e-Readiness assessments. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 5(4), 345–363. doi: 10.1108/17506161111173595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rose, R. (2005). A global diffusion model of E-Governance. Journal of Public Policy, 25(1), 5–27. doi: 10.1017/S0143814X05000279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sæbø, Ø., Rose, J., & Skiftenes Flak, L. (2008). The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging research area. Government Information Quarterly, 25(3), 400–428. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2007.04.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Saglie, J., & Vabo, S. I. (2009). Size and e-Democracy: Online participation in Norwegian local politics. Scandinavian Political Studies, 32(4), 382–401. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9477.2009.00235.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sartori, G. (1970). Concept misformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review, 64(4), 1033–1053. doi: 10.2307/1958356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schlozman, K. L., Verba, S., & Brady, H. E. (2010). Weapon of the strong? Participatory inequality and the Internet? Perspectives on Politics, 8(2), 488–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Susha, I., & Grönlund, Å. (2012). eParticipation research: Systematizing the field. Government Information Quarterly, 29(3), 373–382. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2011.11.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. The World Bank. (20151026). World development indicators. Retrieved from
  54. United Nations. (2003). UN Global E-government survey 2003. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.Google Scholar
  55. United Nations. (2004). Global e-government readiness report 2004: Towards access for opportunity. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.Google Scholar
  56. United Nations. (2005). Global e-government readiness report 2005: From E-Government to E-Inclusion. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.Google Scholar
  57. United Nations. (2008). Un e-government survey 2008: From e-government to connected governance. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.Google Scholar
  58. United Nations. (2010). E-Government survey 2010: Levering e-Government at a time of financial and economic crisis. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.Google Scholar
  59. United Nations. (2012). E-Government survey 2012: E-Government for the people. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.Google Scholar
  60. United Nations. (2014). E-Government survey 2014: E-Government for the future we want. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.Google Scholar
  61. Vaccari, C. (2013). Digital politics in Western democracies: A comparative study. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Vedel, T. (2006). The idea of electronic democracy: Origins, visions and questions. Parliamentary Affairs, 59(2), 226–235. doi: 10.1093/pa/gsl005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Viborg Andersen, K., Henriksen, H. Z., Secher, C., & Medaglia, R. (2007). Costs of e-participation: The management challenges. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 1(1), 29–43. doi: 10.1108/17506160710733689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gustav Lidén
    • 1
  1. 1.Mid Sweden UniversitySundsvallSweden

Personalised recommendations