See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333707815

E-Government as a Tool for Improving Entrepreneurship

Article  in  International Journal of Electronic Government Research · January 2019

DOI: 10.4018/IJEGR.2019010103

CITATIONS READS

5 608

2 authors, including:

Emad Abu-Shanab
Qatar University
217 PUBLICATIONS   3,328 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Open Government book View project

Research directions in E-government View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Emad Abu-Shanab on 25 July 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Electronic Government Research
Volume 15 • Issue 1 • January-March 2019

E-Government as a Tool for

Improving Entrepreneurship
Emad Ahmed Abu-Shanab, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar
Mohamad Osmani, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar

ABSTRACT

This article addresses the relationship between e-government development and entrepreneurship. The
study adopted an inductive approach, where it utilized archival data to test the relationship between
the two paradigms. The authors hypothesize that improving e-government initiatives will influence
entrepreneurship. Utilizing global data will guard for researcher biases and utilize the huge sample
size built in the archival data used. The two data sets included the UN’s e-government survey, and
the Global Entrepreneurship and Development Institute survey. Results indicated a full support of the
relationships assumed between the major dimensions of EGDI and GEI. Regression analysis indicated
that Online service Index and telecommunication Infrastructure index are significant predictors of
GEI, but failed to support the role of Human Capital Index. The coefficient of determination of the
regression equation estimated 69.2% of the variance in GEI. Further tests and research conclusions
are stated at the end.

Keywords
Electronic Government, Entrepreneurship, Global Entrepreneurship Index, Prediction, UN E-Government
Development Index

1. INTRODUCTION

The use of information and communication technology (ICT) in organizations, to improve performance
and introduce innovations, is becoming an essential dimension of organizational strategy. Public sector
is following the lead of private organizations in utilizing technology for the purpose of improving its
service provision to citizens (Oni et al., 2017; Panagiotopoulos et al., 2012) and the decision-making
process, aided with citizens’ participation (Quental and Gouveia, 2014). This paradigm is called
e-government, where it aims at improving the service provision to citizens, improving the democratic
and consultation process, and enhance the public sector performance (Abu-Shanab, 2017).
Research on e-government focused on direct relationships between such areas (service, democracy
and public performance) and utilized specific country’s analysis or citizens/employees surveys. On
the other hand, a different direction of research tried to map other relationships between e-government
development and diverse factors to establish an indirect connection between them. As an example,
the research published by Abu-Shanab and Harb (2013), where they tried to link the transparency

DOI: 10.4018/IJEGR.2019010103

Copyright © 2019, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.


36
 International Journal of Electronic Government Research
Volume 15 • Issue 1 • January-March 2019

provided by e-government and the open dimension of information and how it can enhance country’s
global rank in human rights.
The development of e-government means that government’s websites are offering suitable
information to citizens to encourage and provide the foundation for new business establishment.
Such opening is supported by publishing information on diverse economic sectors, new ventures, new
infrastructure projects, needed workforce, and new business opportunities. Such issue encourages the
evolvement of new ventures and encourage entrepreneurship openings. When talking about readiness,
research indicated that accessing services and acquiring needed licensing is the core of such level.
Cooper and Fotla (2017) state that readiness is the ability to overcome challenges facing entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurship is a field with numerous challenges. Based on this an indirect support between the
two paradigms is assumed. The relationship between e-government and entrepreneurship might seem
implicit, but can be tested with secondary data available on public and global websites.
This study will try to investigate the relationship between e-government development and
entrepreneurship using archival data. The data representing e-government is derived from the
United Nations’ survey (UNDESA, 2018), and the entrepreneurship data is derived from the Global
Entrepreneurship and Development Institute (GEDI, 2018). The following section will try to survey
the literature for some conceptual support for our claimed relationship. Followed by a research method
section, where we describe the two sets of data used. The fourth section discusses the results and data
analysis. Finally, conclusions and future work are depicted.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

The relationship between e-government and entrepreneurship is an implicit one, where most research
focused on direct relationship between e-government and service provision, public sector performance
and democracy. The following three sections will explore the literature related to both.

2.1. E-Government Background

E-government is characterized by using electronic systems and the Internet to improve public services
to citizens (Al-Yafi et al., 2016). This major stream of research (improving services to citizens)
defined e-government as simple as providing electronic services to citizens through the Internet
((Basu, 2004; Evans & Yen, 2006; Layne & Lee, 2001; Yildiz, 2007). On the other hand, and as
e-government is attracting more attention by scholars, research defined e-government as a channel
for providing public services through multiple electronic channels (Sharma & Qian, 2012), a tool for
refining the democratic system (Cook et al., 2002; Mason, 2011), a venue for improve government’s
performance (Cook, 2000; Navarra & Cornford, 2005), and an instrument for bridging the digital
divide (Cegarra-Navarroa et al., 2012).
The new developments in e-government, and the introduction of m-government made its services
accessible 24X7 and regardless of citizen’s location. M-government in its simplest definitions
represents the use of mobile technology to transform government operations (Schlaeger, 2012). Others
defined it as the use of mobile devices for providing citizens with customized, location-based, real-
time information and services (Al-Hujran, 2012). The importance of m-government stems from its
capacity to serve citizens in a convenient fashion. Such aspect is emphasized by the new and advanced
capabilities of mobile and smart phone.
Finally, and like private sector, public sector institutions stepped into the domain of social
media and tried to utilize such capacity to the benefits of e-government operations. Many (or
maybe most) governments utilized social networks (Like Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp) and other
social media outlets (Like YouTube, Blogs and wikis0 to vitalize the connection with citizens
(Mishaal & Abu-Shanab, 2017).

37
International Journal of Electronic Government Research
Volume 15 • Issue 1 • January-March 2019

In summary, e-government is contributing to many areas like improving service, enriching the
democratic and consultation practices, improving public sector’s performance and bridging the digital
divide. Still, we believe that e-government development indirectly influencing areas that would be
difficult to link. Entrepreneurship is one of the areas that benefit from e-government in two folds. The
first through the open information concept, where new businesses can find the needed information on
e-government pages when they start a new venture. The second direction comes from the infrastructure
and services that benefit new business and indicate how far such ventures can benefit from them.

2.2. Entrepreneurship Background

Entrepreneurship concept is the creation of new endeavors by individuals or groups and plays a vital
role in competitiveness in the current global complex economic situation (Lekmat & Chelliah, 2014).
Others define it as the act of developing, organizing and managing a business with all possible risks
for the aim of gaining profit (Cooper & Fotla, 2017). Entrepreneurs innovate and create business
opportunities, and thus increase the national work opportunities, the creation of new markets, and
contribute to the economic growth in any country.
Entrepreneurship is attracting much research as it is perceived by many as the solution for
economic issues in a country. The increased levels of unemployment and the uncertainty of existing
jobs (Job security and low payment), individuals are pursuing self-employment and trying their best
to start small businesses (Carlos, García, Ward & Hernández, 2017). The need of securing suitable
living conditions and the need to conquer financial troubles has pushed individuals to advance and
establish businesses to financially support their families and societies as well (Müller, 2016).
Many higher education institutions are integrating entrepreneurship in their curricula in many
fields and especially business administration. The aim is to develop the desirable human capital
and its associated skills and knowledge. Among the qualities that define successful entrepreneurs
are determination, passion for the business, willingness to improvise and readiness to accept
criticism (Cooper and Fotla, 2017). Other qualities like the readiness to overcome challenges are
major prerequisites for any entrepreneur. Such direction provokes entrepreneurship mindset and the
motivation for innovation. Governments and universities believe that this will lead to a well-prepared
work force that can address the diverse economic situations and sustain the countries national growth.

2.3. E-Government and Entrepreneurship Relationship

According to Schnoll (2015), governments were the first and few entities that early used mainframe
computers and other types of technology. Such technology is needed to develop for creating
e-government websites. With the advent of the Internet and other ICTs, governments had the chance
improve the management of their transactions with the public as well as improving the efficiency and
transparency of their services. E-government makes acquisition of license, tax remittance, application
for identification of persons and property’s registration much easier (Schnoll, 2015).
Besley (2015) claims that countries that adopted e-government initiatives offer more conducive
business environments for investors and entrepreneurs (based on a review of The Doing Business
Report by the World Bank, 2015). The report indicates that businesses in countries with fast and
responsive e-government projects realize considerable benefits. Another study by Obeidat and Abu-
Shanab (2010) asserted that the influential relationship between e-government and the prosperity of
e-businesses requires more than adequate technical infrastructure. The authors claim that governments
need to work on technical, human, and policy infrastructure. Such conclusion makes a clear relationship
between the development of e-government and entrepreneurship efforts.
When talking about readiness, research indicated that accessing services and acquiring needed
licensing is the core of such level. Cooper and Fotla (2017) state that readiness is the ability to overcome
challenges facing entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship is a field with numerous challenges. The authors

38
 International Journal of Electronic Government Research
Volume 15 • Issue 1 • January-March 2019

identify problems faced when acquiring certification and business permits as a major impediment in
entrepreneurship, where many entrepreneurs abandoned their ventures due to discouragement from
governments while acquiring business permits.
Governments and authorities need to license businesses for the purposes of tax remittance,
accountability and for the general safety of the public. Licenses are mandatory before any business
can start its legal operations and presence of their business (Spinuzzi & Jakobs, 2016). If government
managed to facilitate such services to new businesses and entrepreneurs, and removed all obstacles
that hinder the startups, then such governments are referred to as enablers for business creation and
maintenance (Besley, 2015). E-government is the arm that makes such step easy and offer open
information to all new investors.
Another aspect that relates entrepreneurship to e-government is the concept of innovation.
Governments need to play the role of innovation incubator and encourage new ventures (Eurochambres,
2003). It is vital for governments to carry such role and help new entrepreneurs and aid in supporting
new ventures.
Based on the previous discussion, we can assume a relationship between entrepreneurship and
e-government. The argument behind such assumption is the contribution governments put toward
encouraging small and new businesses through services, infrastructure, processes and incubation.
Based on that we posit the following research question:

RQ: Is there a relationship between entrepreneurship and e-government?

3. RESEARCH METHOD

This study assumes a relationship between entrepreneurship and e-government. The unit of analysis
adopted in this study is the countries of the world, where data collected and analyzed are on global
level. The study adopted two famous measures for each variable. The first is the United Nations
Electronic development Index (EGDI). The second is the Global Entrepreneurship Index published
by The Global Entrepreneurship and Development Institute. Following is a short summary of both.

3.1. Global Entrepreneurship Index

The Global Entrepreneurship and Development Institute (GEDI) is a research institute that aims
at advancing knowledge in relation to entrepreneurship, economic development, and prosperity.
The Institute’s headquarter is in Washington D.C., USA. The institute was founded by a group of
entrepreneurship scholars from more than one university and center. The GEI measures both the
quality of entrepreneurship in a country and the extent and depth of the supporting entrepreneurial
ecosystem (GEDI, 2018).
The index is estimated from two major sources of data: individual surveys and institutional
data. The report does not explain the exact equations used for the estimation of the overall index. In
addition, some countries’ data is collected from peer contrasting. The data has its limitations. but this
is the case of most measures used in global surveys (similar to the e-government index). The GEI is
composed of three dimensions: the attitudes index, the abilities index, and the aspiration index. Table
1 shows the three dimensions and their related factors.
The 2018 report and data indicate that the top-ranked countries on the GEI are characterized by
being rich and mostly European. The list of countries included in the report covered 135 countries,
with the following countries ranked at the top (from top-down): United States of America, Switzerland,
Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, Sweden, France. Table 2 shows
the top 10 countries and their corresponding Index/rank. The table also associate the e-government
information for such countries. Studies which utilized the GEI and linked to some global variable are
limited one example was reported in the literature and it linked GEI with productivity and innovation
(Ács et al., 2018) both relationships were significant.

39
International Journal of Electronic Government Research
Volume 15 • Issue 1 • January-March 2019

Table 1. The dimensions of GEI (GEDI, 2018)

Dimension Sub-Dimension
Opportunity Perception
Startup Skills
Attitudes Index Risk Acceptance
Networking
Cultural Support
Opportunity Startup
Technology Absorption
Abilities Index
Human Capital
Competitors
Product Innovation
Process Innovation
Aspiration Index High Growth
Internationalization
Risk Capital

Table 2. The GEI for top 10 countries in the world (with corresponding EGDI data)

E-Gov EGDI GEI-

Country OSI TII HCI GEI
Rank 2018 Rank
United States of America 11 0.8769 0.9861 0.7564 0.8883 1 84%
Switzerland 15 0.852 0.8472 0.8428 0.866 2 80%
Canada 23 0.8258 0.9306 0.6724 0.8744 3 79%
United Kingdom 4 0.8999 0.9792 0.8004 0.9200 4 78%
Australia 2 0.9053 0.9722 0.7436 1 5 75%
Denmark 1 0.915 1 0.7978 0.9472 6 74%
Iceland 19 0.8316 0.7292 0.8292 0.9365 7 74%
Ireland 22 0.8287 0.8264 0.697 0.9626 8 74%
Sweden 5 0.8882 0.9444 0.7835 0.9366 9 73%
France 9 0.879 0.9792 0.7979 0.8598 10 69%

3.3. E-Government Development Index

E-government development index (EGDI) is an estimate of a country’s readiness to embrace
e-government initiatives. The Department of Economic and Social Affairs in the United Nations
issues a report each two years that reports the level of readiness of each country toward adopting
e-government. The measure was the e-government readiness index, and later became the e-government
development index. The E-government Development Index (EGDI) is a compounded index estimated to
measure countries’ achievements in three major dimensions: online service index, telecommunication
infrastructure index, and human capital index. The EGDI is calculated using a weighted average,

40
 International Journal of Electronic Government Research
Volume 15 • Issue 1 • January-March 2019

which includes many sub-dimensions (weights are 33% for each). The data depends on a survey
conducted by the UN offices across the word.
This study will adopt the EGDI reported by the UN for the year 2018 (UNDESA, 2018). The
report includes estimations for 193 countries in the year 2018. This study used the data available for
the year 2018 to match the same year used for the GEI data.
The Online Service Index (OSI) is a composite normalized score derived on the basis on an
Online Service Questionnaire (OSQ). The 2018 OSQ (OSQ) consists of 140 questions. The resulting
quantitative measure represents government’s capacity to inform, interact, transact and network with
citizens and businesses in a country. The OSI is based on a model developed by the UNDESA, which
defines the major levels of e-government development according to an evolving scale. The 2018 model
adopted a four levels model: Low, middle, high, and very high. Previously (in previous reports) the
index was called web-measure index and yielded five stages of e-government development: emerging
presence, enhanced presence, interactive presence, transactional presence and networked presence
(UNDESA 2010). In the report, e-government websites are ranked based on whether they provide
the required services according to a numerical classification.
The Telecommunication Infrastructure Index (TII) is a weighted average of five indicators that
measure country’s ICT infrastructure capacity. The indicators are based on a ration per capita to
normalize the indicators. The sub-measures used are fixed-telephone subscriptions (per 100), wireless
broadband subscriptions (per 100), fixed (wired)-broadband subscriptions (per 100), mobile-cellular
subscriptions (per 100), and people using the Internet (% population).
The Human Capital Index (HCI) is a composite measure of literacy rate in a country and a
combined measure of the primary, secondary and tertiary gross enrolment ratios and school period.
The indicator gives more weight adults’ literacy rate (33%) and the rest goes to three measures of
school enrolment (66%). The other measures are 1) combined primary, secondary and tertiary gross
enrolment ratio, 2) expected years of schooling, and 3) average years of schooling.
The EGDI was utilized in similar archival studies before but with older data sets. Examples of
such studies are the following: Abu-Shanab & Harb (2013) linked e-government with human rights,
and another study utilized data related to transparency and how it is enhanced by EGDI (Abu-Shanab,
2013). Based on the previous description of the indices, and the available data for us for the year
2018, we assume the following hypotheses:

H1: Countries with high EGDI will have high GEI?

Ha: Countries with high OSI will have high GEI?
Hb: Countries with high TII will have high GEI?
Hc: Countries with high HCI will have high GEI?

4. DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

The data used for analysis was the 2018 for both measures (GEI and EGDI). Using the same
year for both data sets supports the validity of our results and avoid the evolvement in countries’
performance on both measures. If we look at each measure and for the last few reports, we find that
some countries improve and forward their rank, while others would not. So based on a specific year,
we can conclude to a valid comparison. The data used for the GEI included 135 countries, while
the data included for the EGDI included 193 countries. The common set of countries included by
both reports totaled 133 countries.
The first step in analysis is to see the degree of association between the various components
of the EGDI and the GEI. The test included a correlation matrix estimation based on a bivariate
analysis. The Pearson’s Correlations matrix is shown in Table 3. The results indicate a strong and
significant correlation between all variables. If we focus on the GEI variable (last row) we can see
its significant association with all variables and with a high level (Hair et al., 1998). As for effect

41
International Journal of Electronic Government Research
Volume 15 • Issue 1 • January-March 2019

Table 3. The Pearson’s Correlations Matrix

Dimension EGDI OSI TII HCI GEI

E-government Development Index (EGDI) 1
Online Service Index (OSI) 0.895*** 1
Telecommunication Infrastructure Index (TII) 0.939*** 0.732*** 1
Human Capital Index (HCI) 0.910*** 0.686*** 0.850*** 1
Global Entrepreneurship Index (GEI) 0.819*** 0.682*** 0.827*** 0.741*** 1
***. Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed).
All data are adopted from the 2018 reports.

size, the sample required to acquire a 0.8 power (large enough) is 120, which is less than our sample
(Olbricht & Wang, 2018). Also, we need to inspect the correlations between the three independent
variables to satisfy discriminant validity, where all correlations were below the threshold of 0.85 to be
tautological. Finally, the correlation between the two major variables (EGDI vs. GEI) was 0.895***,
which represents a strong positive association. The R2 of such regression (simple regression as it
includes one independent variable) would be 0.801, which means that EGDI explains 80% of the
variance in GEI.
The second step in analysis is to predict the entrepreneurship capacity of a country based on the
three dimensions of e-government. Such step requires multiple regression analysis. Multiple regression
is a robust technique that takes into consideration the explanation of variance in the dependent variable
(the GEI) by multiple independent variables and for each of them (OSI, TII & HCI). The coefficient
of determination of the model R2 equal to 0.699 (Adjusted R2 = 0.692), with an F3,129 = 100.021 (p
< 0.001). The coefficient table of regression is shown in Table 4.
The previous results represent a strong positive association between the predictors and the
variables. The overall explanation of the variance in the GEI equals to 69.2%, which is considered a
strong substantial one (considering the sample size). We also can see that one of the predictors failed
to be a significant one (Human Capital Index), which means that hypotheses 1 and 2 were supported,
but not hypothesis 3. The prediction equation of the GEI is shown below:

GEI = 12.171*OSI + 54.211*TII + e

Finally, the association between the total data set does not mean that the development in
e-government services will influence the GEI based on the level of achievement seen. It is a similar
result as the OSI is a sub measure of EGDI, still classifying the countries according to e-government
development might yield different results. Thus, this study utilized an ANOVA test to see if the

Table 4. The regression coefficient table

Unstandardized Standardized
Predictors Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) -6.678 4.297 -1.554 0.123
Online Service Index (OSI) 12.171 5.827 0.150 2.089 0.039
Telecommunication Infrastructure Index (TII) 54.211 8.587 0.629 6.313 0.000
Human Capital Index (HCI) 10.891 9.798 0.104 1.112 0.268

42
 International Journal of Electronic Government Research
Volume 15 • Issue 1 • January-March 2019

means of the EGDI and GEI will differ according to the level of development in e-government. The
ANOVA test used the e-government level as an indicator (factor) and the EGDI/GEI as dependent
variables. Results yielded significant differences for all EGDI tests (which supports the classification
scheme setup by the UNDESA). As for the GEI data, all tests were significant except for the low
and middle levels, where no significant mean difference were projected. It is important to note here
that the sample size of the low level was 4 countries only. The UNDESA’s report can be considered
more comprehensive in covering the set of countries reported (193 vs. 135). The ANOVA test results
are shown in Table 5.

5. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK

This study tried to test the assumption that improving e-government initiatives will influence
entrepreneurship. Such claim can be tested in two folds; the first is to use global data with countries
as unit of analysis. The second path is to probe peoples’ opinions regarding such question. This study
utilized the first direction based on the merit of unit of analysis, and utilizing the huge effort built in
the UN’s e-government survey, and the GEI survey. Results indicated a full support of the bivariate
relationships assumed between the major dimensions of EGDI and GEI. The major research question
was to test the association between the EGDI and GEI and the results according to the correlation
matrix were significant.
The hypotheses testing for the joint association of all predictors when entered into the regression
model, where our regression table indicated two significant predictors (OSI & TII), but failed to
support the role of HCI in predicting GEI. The coefficient of determination when using the overall
EGDI was 0.80, and when using individual measures 0.692 (adjusted based on sample size). Finally,
we tested the influence of regions (based on the UNDESA’s classification of the countries of the
world) and concluded that the schema used is accurate and all regions were significantly different in
the two major variables (EGDI & GEI) except for the first level of GEI (based on its sample size).
This study utilized archival data (data available on the Internet for public use) to understand the
relationship between e-government development in a country and the entrepreneurship opportunities

Table 5. The ANOVA test based on e-government development levels

EGDI Data GEI Data

Region (I) J Mean Std. Mean Std.
Sig. Sig.
Difference (I-J) Error Difference (I-J) Error
2 -0.1733 0.0334 0.000 -6.01% 5.77% 0.782
1 (Low) 3 -0.4361 0.0329 0.000 -19.02% 5.70% 0.013
4 -0.6284 0.0336 0.000 -46.29% 5.81% 0.000
1 0.1733 0.0334 0.000 6.01% 5.77% 0.782
2 (Middle) 3 -0.2628 0.0133 0.000 -13.02% 2.30% 0.000
4 -0.4551 0.0148 0.000 -40.29% 2.56% 0.000
1 0.4361 0.0329 0.000 19.02% 5.70% 0.013
3 (High) 2 0.2628 0.0133 0.000 13.02% 2.30% 0.000
4 -0.1924 0.0138 0.000 -27.27% 2.38% 0.000
1 0.6284 0.0336 0.000 46.29% 5.81% 0.000
4 (Very high) 2 0.4551 0.0148 0.000 40.29% 2.56% 0.000
3 0.1924 0.0138 0.000 27.27% 2.38% 0.000

43
International Journal of Electronic Government Research
Volume 15 • Issue 1 • January-March 2019

open for people and businesses. Our study is the first to explore such questions using archival data.
It utilized a large survey sets conducted by UNs and the GEDI. The data is not large but represents
around 68% of the research defined population (based on a total of 195 reported countries in the world
(based on UNDESA (2018)), and the used data of 133 countries). The limitations of this study revolve
around the similarities of the surveys where our access to specific items and their corresponding data
limit our modification of data, thus might cause some tautology. Still, and regardless of this issue, we
consider our results an indicator to the strong influence of e-government development would have
on various aspects of economic and business ventures.
The implications of this study represent a direction for governments to pursue e-government
projects for their contribution to peoples’ lives. It is also evidenced that improving ICT infrastructure
directly impact GEI. Our results also indicate that the online services offered to the society through
e-government initiatives stand second in influencing GEI. Finally, when regressed alone, HCI shown
significant association with the success of GEI, but failed to jointly influence it through a multiple
regression setting. It is vital to understand that all dimensions were important, but when joined, their
commonalities might compete to discard the effect of individual predictors.
E-government is recognized for its contribution to improving services, public sector performance,
social inclusion, democratic life and consultations, and bridging the digital divide. This study added
an extra perspective to what is reported in the e-government literature, where it can facilitate business
establishment through its open data accessibility and innovation nurturing. E-government directly
influence the success of entrepreneurship efforts in the country which can lead in the future for
economic development and sustainability.
Future work is recommended to understand the nature of e-government projects and their influence
on a global bases (country level vs. citizens/businesses level). It is vital to make use of e-government
to understand its influence on other factors and may test our results utilizing other data sets. Future
research can utilize different data sets for entrepreneurship like the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor,
published by London Business School or any other data sets.

44
 International Journal of Electronic Government Research
Volume 15 • Issue 1 • January-March 2019

REFERENCES

Abu-Shanab, E. (2013). The Relationship between Transparency and E-government: An Empirical Support. In
Proceedings of the IFIP e-government conference 2013 (EGOV 2013), Koblenz, Germany, September 16-19
(pp. 84-91).
Abu-Shanab, E. (2017). E-government Contribution to Better Performance by Public Sector [IJEGR].
International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 13(2), 81–96. doi:10.4018/IJEGR.2017040105
Abu-Shanab, E., & Harb, Y. (2013). E-Government Readiness Association with Human Rights Index. Electronic
Government. International Journal (Toronto, Ont.), 10(1), 56–67.
Al-Hujran, O. (2012). Towards the utilization of m-government service in developing countries: A qualitative
e-investigation. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(5), 155–160.
Al-Yafi, K., Hindi, N., & Osman, I. (2016). A User-Centric Evaluation of e-Government Services in the GCC
Region: Case of State of Qatar. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 12(4), 15–34.
doi:10.4018/IJEGR.2016100102
Basu, S. (2004). E-government and developing countries: An overview. International Review of Law Computers
& Technology, 18(1), 109–132. doi:10.1080/13600860410001674779
Carlos, J., García, S., Ward, A., & Hernández, B. (2017). Entrepreneurship Education : State of the Art.
Propósitosy Representaciones, 5(2), 401–473.
Cegarra-Navarroa, J., Pachónb, J., & Cegarraa, J. (2012). E-government and citizens’ engagement with local
affairs through e-websites: The case of Spanish municipalities. International Journal of Information Management,
32(5), 469–478. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.02.008
Cook, M. (2000). What Citizens Want from E-Government. Center for Technology in Government. State
University of New York at Albany. Retrieved from https://www.ctg.albany.edu/
Cook, M., LaVigne, M., Pagano, C., Dawes, S., & Pardo, T. (2002) Making a Case for Local E-Government,
Publication of the Center for Technology in Government. Retrieved December 2016 from http://www.ctg.albany.
edu/publications/guides/making_a_case/making_a_case.pdf
Cooper, A., & Folta, T. (2017). Entrepreneurship and high‐technology clusters. In Handbook of Entrepreneurship
(pp. 348-367). Wiley.
Eurochambres. (2003). Eurochambres. eEUROPE 2005 Mid-Term Review.
Evans, D., & Yen, D. (2006). E-government: Evolving relationship of citizens and government, domestic, and
international development. Government Information Quarterly, 23(2), 207–235. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2005.11.004
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall, Inc.
Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional e-government: A four stage model. Government
Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122–136. doi:10.1016/S0740-624X(01)00066-1
Lekmat, L., & Chelliah, J. (2014). What Are The Antecedents to Creating Sustainable Corporate Entrepreneurship
in Thailand? Contemporary Management Research, 10(3), 181–202. doi:10.7903/cmr.11741
Mason, D. (2011) E-Government Takes Policy-Making Social. Retrieved from http://www.publicserviceeurope.
com/article/667/e-government-makes-policy-making-social
Mishaal, D., & Abu-Shanab, E. (2017). Utilizing Facebook by the Arab World Governments. International
Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age, 4(3), 53–78. doi:10.4018/IJPADA.2017070105
Navarra, D., & Cornford, T. (2005). ICT, Innovation and Public Management: Governance, Models &
Alternatives for e-Government Infrastructures. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Information
Systems, Regensburg, Germany, May 26-28.
Obeidat, R., & Abu-Shanab, E. (2010, August). Drivers of E-government and E-business in Jordan. Journal of
Emerging Technologies in Web Intelligence, 2(3), 204–211. doi:10.4304/jetwi.2.3.204-211

45
International Journal of Electronic Government Research
Volume 15 • Issue 1 • January-March 2019

Olbricht, G., & Wang, Y. (2018). Power and Sample Size Calculation. A SAS calculation procedure. Retrieved
from http://www.stat.purdue.edu/~bacraig/SCS/Power%20and%20Sample%20Size%20Calculation.doc
Oni, A. A., Ács, Z., Szerb, L., Lafuente, E., & Lloyd, A. (2018). The Global Entrepreneurship Index 2018. The
Global Entrepreneurship and Development Institute.
Oni, S., Mbarika, V., & Ayo, C. K. (2017). Empirical study of user acceptance of online political participation:
Integrating Civic Voluntarism Model and Theory of Reasoned Action. Government Information Quarterly,
34(2), 317–328. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2017.02.003
Panagiotopoulos, P., Al-Debei, M. M., Fitzgerald, G., & Elliman, T. (2012). A business model perspective for
ICTs in public engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 29(2), 192–202. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2011.09.011
Quental, C., & Gouveia, L. B. (2014). Web platform for public e-participation management: A case study.
International Journal of Civic Engagement and Social Change, 1(2), 1–22. doi:10.4018/ijcesc.2014040101
Schlaeger, J. (2012). The role of m-government in Western China development. In A. Abdel-Wahab & A. El-
Masry (Eds.), Mobile Information Communication Technologies Adoption in Developing Countries: Effects
and Implications. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-0882-5.ch211
Sharma, G., & Qian, X. (2012). Empirical investigation on adoption of e-governance services in developing
countries and ethical issues. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software
Engineering, 2(12), 19–27.
Yildiz, M. (2007). E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward. Government
Information Quarterly, 24(3), 646–665. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2007.01.002

Emad A. Abu-Shanab earned his PhD in business administration in the MIS area from Southern Illinois University
– Carbondale, USA, his MBA from Wilfrid Laurier University in Canada, and his bachelor’s in civil engineering
from Yarmouk University (YU) in Jordan. His research interest in areas like E-government, technology acceptance,
E-marketing, E-CRM, Digital divide, e-CRM, IT project management, and E-learning. Published many articles in
journals and conferences, and authored three books in e-government, and few book chapters. Dr. Abu-Shanab
worked as an assistant dean for students’ affairs, quality assurance officer in Oman, and the director of Faculty
Development Center at YU. He is an associate professor in the MIS Department and was the department chair.
Now Dr. Abu-Shanab works at Qatar University in the accounting and Information Systems Department.

46
View publication stats