The effects of e-participation on voice and accountability: are there differences between countries?

References

• Ahmed, S., Wang, Y., & Tully, M. (2023). Perils of political engagement? Examining the relationship between online political participation and perceived electoral integrity during 2020 US election. Journal of information technology & politics, 1, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2023.2275255
   Google Scholar
• Akmentina, L. (2022). E-participation and engagement in urban planning: Experiences from the Baltic cities. Urban Research & Practice, 624–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2022.2068965
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alcaide Muñoz, L., & Rodríguez Bolívar, M. P. (2021). Different levels of smart and sustainable cities construction using e-Participation tools in european and central asian countries. Sustainability, 13(6), 3561. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063561
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alford, J., & Hughes, O. (2008). Public value pragmatism as the next phase of public management. The American Review of Public Administration, 38(2), 130–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074008314203
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen, B., Tamindael, L. E., Bickerton, S. H., & Cho, W. (2020). Does citizen coproduction lead to better urban services in smart cities projects? An empirical study on e-participation in a mobile big data platform. Government Information Quarterly, 37(1), 101412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101412
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alonso, G., & Castro, S. L.-D. (2016). Technology helps, people make: A smart city governance framework grounded in deliberative democracy. Smarter as the new urban agenda: A comprehensive view of the 21st century city (pp. 333–347). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Androniceanu, A., & Georgescu, I. (2022). E-participation in Europe: A comparative perspective. Public Administration Issues, 5, 7–29. https://doi.org/10.17323/1999-5431-2022-0-5-7-29
   Google Scholar
• Asher, M., Leston-Bandeira, C., & Spaiser, V. (2019). Do Parliamentary Debates of e-Petitions Enhance Public Engagement With Parliament? An Analysis of Twitter Conversations. Policy & Internet, 11(2), 149–171. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.194
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Australia. (2022). Official Australian Government information. Available from: https://www.australia.gov.au/ [Accessed 2022/3/19].
   Google Scholar
• Bahrain’s Information and eGovernment Authority. (2022). Tawasul: Submit Your Case. Avaulable at: https://services.bahrain.bh/wps/portal/tawasul (accessed 20 March 2022).
   Google Scholar
• Becker, D., & Bendett, S. (2015). Crowdsourcing solutions for disaster response: Examples and lessons for the US government. Procedia Engineering, 107, 27–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.06.055
   Google Scholar
• Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 264–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolívar, M. P. R. (2017). Policy makers’ perceptions about social media platforms for civic engagement in public services. An empirical research in Spain. Policy Analytics, Modelling, and Informatics: Innovative Tools for Solving Complex Social Problems, 2018, E1–E1. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61762-6_19
   Google Scholar
• Bonsón, E., Torres, L., Royo, S., & Flores, F. (2012). Local e-government 2.0: Social media and corporate transparency in municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, 29(2), 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.10.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boulianne, S. (2020). Twenty years of digital media effects on civic and political participation. Communication Research, 47(7), 947–966. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218808186
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braga, L. V., & Gomes, R. C. (2018). Electronic participation, government effectiveness, and accountability. Revista do Serviço Público, 69(1), 111–144. https://doi.org/10.21874/rsp.v69i1.1017
   Google Scholar
• Bragazzi, N. L., Dai, H., Damiani, G., Behzadifar, M., Martini, M., & Wu, J. (2020). How big data and artificial intelligence can help better manage the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(9), 3176. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093176
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brazil. (2022). Noosfero. Available from: http://www.participa.br/ [Accessed 2022/3/19].
   Google Scholar
• Brewer, G. A., Choi, Y. J., & Walker, R. M. (2008). Linking Accountability, corruption, and government effectiveness in Asia: An examination of World Bank Governance Indicators. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Brinkerhoff, D. W., & Wetterberg, A. (2016). Gauging the effects of social accountability on services, governance, and citizen empowerment. Public Administration Review, 76(2), 274–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12399
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Callen, T. (2016). Gross domestic product: An economy’s all. IMF. Available from: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/Series/Back-to-Basics/gross-domestic-product-GDP [Accessed 23 February 2024].
   Google Scholar
• Chan, F. K. Y., Thong, J. Y. L., Brown, S. A., & Venkatesh, V. (2021). Service Design and Citizen Satisfaction with E-Government Services: A Multidimensional Perspective. Public Administration Review, 81(5), 874–894. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13308
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi, H., Park, M. J., & Rho, J. J. (2017). Two-dimensional approach to governmental excellence for human development in developing countries: Combining policies and institutions with e-government. Government Information Quarterly, 34(2), 340–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.03.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coelho, T. R., Cunha, M. A., & Pozzebon, M. (2022). Eparticipation practices and mechanisms of influence: An investigation of public policymaking. Government Information Quarterly, 39(2), 101667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101667
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• David, L. B. (2020). E-participation: A quick overview of recent qualitative trends. United Nations, Department of Economics and Social AffairsWorking Papers, 163.
   Google Scholar
• Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., & Tinkler, B. J. (2006). New Public Management Is Dead--Long Live Digital-Era Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467–494. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durkiewicz, J., & Janowski, T. (2020). Towards synthetic and balanced digital government benchmarking Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Eportugal. (2022). Your portol of public services. Available from: https://eportugal.gov.pt/home [Accessed 2022/3/19].
   Google Scholar
• Epstein, D., Newhart, M., & Vernon, R. (2014). Not by technology alone: The “analog” aspects of online public engagement in policymaking. Government Information Quarterly, 31(2), 337–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Escher, T., & Riehm, U. (2017). Petitioning the german bundestag: Political equality and the role of the internet. Parliamentary Affairs, 70(1), 132–154. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsw009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia Alonso, R., & Lippez-De Castro, S. (2016). Technology helps, people make: A smart city governance framework grounded in deliberative democracy. In J. R. Gil-Garcia, T. A. Pardo, & T. Nam (Eds.), Smarter as the New Urban Agenda: A Comprehensive View of the 21st Century City (pp. 333–347). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17620-8_18.
   Google Scholar
• Grover, P., Kar, A. K., & Dwivedi, Y. (2022). The evolution of social media influence - a literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, 2(2), 100116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjimei.2022.100116
   Google Scholar
• Gulati, G. J. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.07.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halachmi, A., & Greiling, D. (2013). Transparency, E-Government, and accountability. Public Performance & Management Review, 36(4), 572–584. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576360404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanisch, M., Goldsby, C. M., Fabian, N. E., & Oehmichen, J. (2023). Digital governance: A conceptual framework and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 162, 113777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113777
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison, T. M., & Sayogo, D. S. (2014). Transparency, participation, and accountability practices in open government: A comparative study. Government Information Quarterly, 31(4), 513–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.08.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill, L., & Alport, K. (2009). E-Government Diffusion, Policy, and Impact - Advanced Issues and Practices. IGI Global.
   Google Scholar
• Hu, Q., & Zheng, Y. (2020). Smart city initiatives: A comparative study of American and Chinese cities. Journal of Urban Affairs, 43(4), 504–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2019.1694413
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ifinedo, P., Anwar, A., & Cho, D. (2021). Using panel data analysis to uncover drivers of E-Participation progress. Journal of Global Information Management, 29(3), 212–235. https://doi.org/10.4018/JGIM.2021050109
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ingrams, A., & Schachter, H. L. (2019). E-participation opportunities and the ambiguous role of corruption: A model of municipal responsiveness to sociopolitical factors. Public Administration Review, 79(4), 601–611. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13049
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James, O., & Petersen, C. (2018). International rankings of government performance and source credibility for citizens: Experiments about e-government rankings in the UK and the Netherlands. Public Management Review, 20(4), 469–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1296965
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• John, C. B., Paul, T. J., & Derek, H. (2011). The impact of polices on government social media usage: Issues, challenges, and recommendations. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.04.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kabanov, Y. (2022). Refining the UN E-participation index: Introducing the deliberative assessment using the varieties of democracy data. Government Information Quarterly, 39(1), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101656
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karkin, N., & Janssen, M. (2020). Structural changes driven by e-petitioning technology: Changing the relationship between the central government and local governments. Information Technology for Development, 26(4), 837–855. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2020.1742078
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2010). The worldwide governance indicators: A summary of methodology, data and analytical issues. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 5430(1), 1–28.
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy, R., & Scholl, H. J. (2016). E-regulation and the rule of law: Smart government, institutional information infrastructures, and fundamental values. Information Polity, 21(1), 77–98. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-150368
   Google Scholar
• Kneuer, M., & Harnisch, S. (2016). Diffusion of e-government and e-participation in Democracies and Autocracies. Global Policy, 7(4), 548–556. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12372
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korea. (2022). National tax department. Available from: https://www.nts.go.kr/ [Accessed 2022/3/19].
   Google Scholar
• Kotina, H., Stepura, M., & Kondro, P. (2022). How does active digital transformation affect the efficiency of governance and the sustainability of public finance? The ukrainian case. Baltic journal of economic studies, 8(1), 75–82. https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2022-8-1-75-82
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krassimira Antonova, Paskaleva. (2009). Enabling the smart city: The progress of city e-governance in Europe. International Journal of Innovation and regional development, 1(4), 405–422. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIRD.2009.02273
   Google Scholar
• Leroux, K., Fusi, F., & Brown, A. G. (2020). Assessing e-government capacity to increase voter participation: Evidence from the U.S. Government Information Quarterly, 37(3), 101483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101483
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, Z. (2016). Psychological empowerment on social media: Who are the empowered users? Public Relations Review, 42(1), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindquist, E. A., & Huse, I. (2017). Accountability and monitoring government in the digital era: Promise, realism and research for digital-era governance. Canadian Public Administration, 60(4), 627–656. https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12243
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopez-Lopez, V., Iglesias-Antelo, S., Vazquez-Sanmartin, A., Connolly, R., & Bannister, F. (2018). E-government, transparency & reputation: An empirical study of Spanish local government. Information Systems Management, 35(4), 276–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2018.1503792
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lowenkron, B. F. (2006). Human rights, civil society, and democratic governance in Russia: Current situation and prospects for the future. Available from: https://xueshu.baidu.com/usercenter/paper/show?paperid=08a63fa4d8d97520131b1de315e2500f&site=xueshu_se&hitarticle=1 [Accessed 2022/3/19].
   Google Scholar
• Lu, J., & Luo, C. (2019). Development consensus in the Internet context: Penetration, freedom, and participation in 38 countries. Information Development, 36(2), 288–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666919848815
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maclean, D., & Titah, R. (2022). A Systematic Literature Review of Empirical Research on the Impacts of e-Government: A Public Value Perspective. Public Administration Review, 82(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13413
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malodia, S., Dhir, A., Mishra, M., & Bhatti, Z. A. (2021). Future of e-government: An integrated conceptual framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 173, 121102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mao, Z., Zou, Q., Yao, H., & Wu, J. (2021). The application framework of big data technology in the COVID-19 epidemic emergency management in local government—a case study of Hainan Province, China. Bmc Public Health, 21(1), https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12065-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Margetts, H., & Dunleavy, P. (2013). The second wave of digital-era governance: A quasi-paradigm for government on the Web. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 371(1987), https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0382
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matheus, R., Janssen, M., & Janowski, T. (2021). Design principles for creating digital transparency in government. Government Information Quarterly, 38(1), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101550
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mergel, I. (2014). Social media adoption: Toward a representative, responsive or interactive government? Proceedings of the 15th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, 2014, 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1145/2612733.2612740
   Google Scholar
• Meyerhoff Nielsen, M., & Millard, J. (2020). Local context, global benchmarks: Recommendations for an adapted approach using the UN E-Government Development Index as an example. The 21st Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, 2020, 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1145/3396956.3396969
   Google Scholar
• Milakovich, M. E. (2012). Digital governance: New technologies for improving public service and participation. International Review of Public Administration, 17(2), 175–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2012.10805235
   Google Scholar
• Norris, D. F. (2010). E-Government 2020: Plus ça change, plus c'est la meme chose. Public Administration Review, 70(S1), S180–S181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02269.x
   Google Scholar
• Oni, S., Oni, A. A., Ibietan, J., & Deinde-Adedeji, G. O. (2020). E-consultation and the quest for inclusive governance in Nigeria. Cogent Social Sciences, 6(1), 1823601. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2020.1823601
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Panagiotopoulos, P., Klievink, B., & Cordella, A. (2019). Public value creation in digital government. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101421
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pánek, J., Marek, L., Pászto, V., & Valůch, J. (2017). The Crisis Map of the Czech Republic: The nationwide deployment of an Ushahidi application for disasters. Disasters, 41(4), 649–671. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12221
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parycek, P., Sachs, M., Virkar, S., & Krimmer, R. (2017). Voting in E-Participation: A set of requirements to support accountability and trust by electoral committees. Electronic Voting: Second International Joint Conference, E-Vote-ID 2017, Bregenz, Austria, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 10615, 42–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68687-5_3
   Google Scholar
• Paskaleva, K. A. (2009). Enabling the smart city: The progress of city e-governance in Europe. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 1(4), 405–422. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIRD.2009.022730
   Google Scholar
• Perez-Morote, R., Rosa, C. P., & Cortes, E. A. (2020). Exploring the relation between the digital divide and government's effort to develop e-participation. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 16(3), 26–44. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEGR.2020070102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perri, L. D., & Setzler, K. (2002). Towards holistic governance: The new reform agenda. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave, 10(2002), 978.
   Google Scholar
• Pina, V., Torres, L., & Acerete, B. (2007). Are ICTs promoting government accountability?: A comparative analysis of e-governance developments in 19 OECD countries. Critical Perspectives On Accounting, 18(5), 583–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2006.01.012
   Google Scholar
• Pinto, F., Macadar, M. A., & Pereira, G. V. (2022). The potential of eParticipation in enlarging individual capabilities: A conceptual framework. Information Technology for Development, 29(2-3), 276–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2022.2136129
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pirannejad, A., & Janssen, M. (2017). Internet and political empowerment: Towards a taxonomy for online political empowerment. Information Development, 35(1), 80–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666917730118
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pirannejad, A., Janssen, M., & Rezaei, J. (2019). Towards a balanced E-Participation Index: Integrating government and society perspectives. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanchez-Tortolero, R., Márquez-González, J., & Vérnaez-Hernández, G. (2019). Participation and citizen empowerment platform for e-governance: Communal integration system (SINCO). Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, 2019, 212–219. https://doi.org/10.1145/3326365.3326393
   Google Scholar
• Santamaria-Philco, A., Cerda, J., & Gramaje, M. (2019). Advances in e-participation: A perspective of last years. IEEE Access, 7, 155894–155916. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2948810
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sæbø, Ø. (2011). Understanding TwitterTM Use among Parliament Representatives: A Genre Analysis. International Conference on Electronic Participation, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23333-3_1.
   Google Scholar
• Scupola, A., & Mergel, I. (2022). Co-production in digital transformation of public administration and public value creation: The case of Denmark. Government Information Quarterly, 39(1), 101650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101650
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Secinaro, S., Brescia, V., Iannaci, D., & Jonathan, G. M. (2022). Does citizen involvement feed on digital platforms? International Journal of Public Administration, 45(9), 708–725. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2021.1887216
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sein, M. K., Thapa, D., Hatakka, M., & Sæbø, Ø. (2019). A holistic perspective on the theoretical foundations for ICT4D research. Information Technology for Development, 25(1), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2018.1503589
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma, S., Kar, A. K., Gupta, M. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Janssen, M. (2022). Digital citizen empowerment: A systematic literature review of theories and development models. Information Technology for Development, 28(4), 660–687. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2022.2046533
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheryazdanova, G., & Butterfield, J. (2017). E-government as an anti-corruption strategy in Kazakhstan. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 14(1), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2016.1275998
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silal, P., & Saha, D. (2021). Impact of national e-participation levels on inclusive human development and environmental performance: The mediating role of corruption control. Government Information Quarterly, 38(4), 101615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101615
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonofski, A., Fink, J., & Burnay, C. (2021). Supporting policy-making with social media and e-participation platforms data: A policy analytics framework. Government Information Quarterly, 38(3), 101590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101590
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sivarajah, U., Weerakkody, V., Waller, P., Lee, H., Irani, Z., Choi, Y., Morgan, R., & Glikman, Y. (2016). The role of e-participation and open data in evidence-based policy decision making in local government. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 26(1), 64–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/10919392.2015.1125171
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, S., Macintosh, A., & Millard, J. (2011). A three-layered framework for evaluating e-participation. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 4(4), 304. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEG.2011.046013
   Google Scholar
• Stratu-Strelet, D., Gil-Gómez, H., Oltra-Badenes, R., & Oltra-Gutierrez, J. V. (2021). Critical factors in the institutionalization of e-participation in e-government in Europe: Technology or leadership? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 164, 120489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120489
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tai, K., Porumbescu, G., & Shon, J. (2020). Can e-participation stimulate offline citizen participation: An empirical test with practical implications. Public Management Review, 22(2), 278–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1584233
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toots, M. (2019). Why e-participation systems fail: The case of Estonia's Osale.ee. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), 546–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.02.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trapero, A., Parra, V., Sánchez, V. (2019). Stem and gender gap in latin america (Vol. 9, pp. 137–158).
   Google Scholar
• Twizeyimana, J. D., & Andersson, A. (2019). The public value of e-government - a literature review. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uganda. (2022). U-Report uganda. Available from: https://ureport.ug/ [Accessed 2022/3/19].
   Google Scholar
• United Nations. (2003). UN Global E-government Survey 2003: E-government at the Crossroads.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations. (2020). E-Government survey 2020: Digital government in the decade of action for sustainable development.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations. (2022). Least developed countries (LDCs) | department of economic and social affairs. Available from: https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/least-developed-country-category.html [Accessed 16 August 2022].
   Google Scholar
• Vázquez Parra, J. C., & Arredondo Trapero, F. (2019). Voice and accountability and information technology for Latin America. Business & Economic Horizons,, 19, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.15208/pieb.2019.1
   Google Scholar
• Waheduzzaman, W., & Khandaker, S. (2022). E-participation for combating corruption, increasing voice and accountability, and developing government effectiveness: A cross-country data analysis. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 81(4), 549–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12544
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, C. C., Medaglia, R., & Zheng, L. (2018). Towards a typology of adaptive governance in the digital government context: The role of decision-making and accountability. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), 306–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.08.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• West, D. M. (2004). E-Government and the Transformation of Service Delivery and Citizen Attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00343.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong, W., & Welch, E. (2004). Does E-Government Promote Accountability? A Comparative Analysis of Website Openness and Government Accountability. Governance-An International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions, 17(2), 275–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2004.00246.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Bank. (2020). Worldwide Governance Indicators. Avaulable from: http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/ (accessed 23 March 2022).
   Google Scholar
• Xin, G., Esembe, E. E., & Chen, J. (2023). The mixed effects of e-participation on the dynamic of trust in government: Evidence from Cameroon. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 82(1), 69–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12569
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xinhua News Agency. (2022). Make suggestions for the "14th Five-Year Plan" and draw a new blueprint together. Avaulable from: http://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/jyssw/ [Accessed 19 March 2022]
   Google Scholar
• Yang, Y., Deng, W., Zhang, Y., & Mao, Z. (2021). Promoting public engagement during the COVID-19 crisis: How effective is the wuhan local government's information release? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(1), 118. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010118
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yusup, Y. M., Mokhtar, U. A., & Yusof, Z. M. (2018). Access to Government Information: Case Study in Malaysia. KDIR, 2018, 436–442.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, Y., Zhang, W., & Wang, J. (2024). Effect of digital skills on citizens digital participation: Mediating effects of political interest, social issues concern and national identity. Kybernetes, https://doi.org/10.1108/K-08-2023-1567
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zheng, Y. (2016). The impact of E-participation on corruption: A cross-country analysis. International Review of Public Administration, 21(2), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2016.1186457
   Google Scholar
• Zheng, Y., Hatakka, M., Sahay, S., & Andersson, A. (2018). Conceptualizing development in information and communication technology for development (ICT4D). Information Technology for Development, 24(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2017.1396020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zissis, D., Lekkas, D., & Papadopoulou, A. E. (2009). Competent electronic participation channels in electronic democracy. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 7(2), 195–208. https://academic-publishing.org/index.php/ejeg/article/view/502.
   Google Scholar
• Zou, Q., Mao, Z., Yan, R., Liu, S., & Duan, Z. (2023). Vision and reality of e-government for governance improvement: Evidence from global cross-country panel data. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 194, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122667
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar