International Journal of Public Administration

ISSN: 0190-0692 (Print) 1532-4265 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lpad20

E-participation: A Strategic Framework

Bernd W. Wirtz, Peter Daiser & Boris Binkowska

To cite this article: Bernd W. Wirtz, Peter Daiser & Boris Binkowska (2018) E-participation:
A Strategic Framework, International Journal of Public Administration, 41:1, 1-12, DOI:
10.1080/01900692.2016.1242620

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2016.1242620

Published online: 08 Nov 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2479

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 33 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lpad20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
2018, VOL. 41, NO. 1, 1–12
https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2016.1242620

E-participation: A Strategic Framework

Bernd W. Wirtz, Peter Daiser, and Boris Binkowska
Chair for Information and Communication Management, German University of Administrative Sciences Speyer, Speyer, Germany

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Despite the rising scientific and practical relevance of e-participation, the field still suffers from a E-participation; instruments;
diffuse, heterogeneous state of knowledge and our understanding of successful e-participation public demand orientation;
strategies and implementation is very limited. This situation is seen as a key reason why public target orientation;
e-participation initiatives in practice often fall short of expectations. Against this background, strategic framework
this study compiles the existing insights from the interdisciplinary scientific literature to deduce a
unifying definition and propose an integrated strategic e-participation framework that concep-
tually combines important strategic and organizational factors as well as environmental drivers of
e-participation.

Since the 1960s, citizen participation has been a funda-
mental instrument used by governments to enhance
governmental legitimacy, foster public trust in govern-
ment, and improve transparency of decision-making
processes (Fedotava, Teixeira, & Alvelos, 2014;
Lourenço & Costa, 2007). Then, about two decades
ago, citizen participation entered a new era. The revo-
lutionary spread of information and communication
technologies (ICT) changed the way individuals, orga-
nizations, and governments used to communicate and
interact (Alawneh, Al-Refai, & Batiha, 2013). In this
context, especially the development of social media
had a substantial influence by transforming the
Internet from a passive one-way communication infor-
mation storage and retrieval system into an interactive
two-way communication platform (Mc Grath, Elbanna,
Hercheui, Panagiotopoulos, & Saad, 2011). These tech-
nological developments laid the groundwork for elec-
tronic participation (e-participation).
Since “ICT can bring things closer to the individual
and be a tool to actively follow events and issues and
provide input” (Millard et al., 2009, p. 5), the expecta-
tions of e-participation are high. Royo, Yetano, and
Acerete (2015, p. 323), for example, saw e-participation
as “a cost-effective tool to actively involve citizens.”
Furthermore, governments have become aware of the
growing public interest to enhance government trans-
parency and accountability through better use of ICT
(Hart & Teeter, 2003). Hence, governments around the
world try to utilize the potential of ICT for e-participa-
tion to inform, consult, and empower public
stakeholders (Millard et al., 2009; Peristera, Mentzas,
Tarabanis, & Abecker, 2009; Phang & Kankanhalli,
2008).
E-participation is also an important topic in scien-
tific research. It has received considerable attention
from a variety of disciplines, including contributions
from political science, management, psychology, and
economics, as well as technology-oriented studies.
This interdisciplinary background, however, causes a
heterogeneous epistemological, methodological, and
normative research landscape that hinders the estab-
lishment of common grounds, which could support the
field’s scientific advancement (Medaglia, 2012).
Furthermore, inconsistencies of central concepts and a
deficit of comprehensive theoretical contributions limit
systematic knowledge creation (Macintosh & Whyte,
2008; Sanford & Rose, 2007; Susha & Grönlund,
2012). In summary, e-participation research is still
regarded as under-developed (Bonsón, Royo, &
Ratkai, 2015; Jho & Song, 2015; Medaglia, 2012;
Vicente & Novo, 2014) and the field may benefit from
a guiding conceptual approach (Susha & Grönlund,
2012).
Against this background, Sæbø, Rose, and Flak (2008)
called for—among other things—better frameworks to
improve the application of e-participation and Medaglia
(2012, p. 347) mentioned that the e-participation
“research area is still in need of refinement”. Macintosh
and Whyte (2008, p. 28) saw a need for further knowl-
edge “on how and when to use tools in which contexts,
also, on how to combine tools to enable inclusive

CONTACT Bernd W. Wirtz ls-wirtz@uni-speyer.de Chair for Information and Communication Management, German University of Administrative
Sciences Speyer, Freiherr-vom-Stein-Str. 2, Speyer 67346, Germany.
© 2016 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 B. W. WIRTZ ET AL.
engagement”. Moreover, e-participation research should
aim “to refocus government on its customers—citizens
and businesses—and provide the models, technologies,
and tools for more effective and efficient public admin-
istration systems as well as more participatory decision
processes” (Peristera et al., 2009, p. 14). These claims are
underlined by the findings of our literature research.
Although we could identify nine e-participation-related
frameworks, none of the identified studies investigates
e-participation from a strategic perspective. Such a fra-
mework could support the strategic employment of
e-participation instruments, aiming to achieve certain
public targets while also satisfying the needs of particular
demand groups.
Therefore, the objective of this study is to elaborate an
integrated strategic e-participation framework that pro-
vides a strategic roadmap for the implementation of
e-participation initiatives by conceptually considering
important strategic and organizational factors and envir-
onmental drivers. In particular, the integrated strategic
framework tries to support researchers and public officials
with a strategic approach concerning a systematic, com-
binatory use of e-participation instruments, serving as a
conceptual guideline from an instruments perspective.
Apart from that, the strategic e-participation framework
shall provide further guidance to future e-participation
research and shall support public officials in the shaping
and implementation of e-participation initiatives by pre-
senting a transferable method for identifying relevant
e-participation aspects. To achieve these aims, we employ
insights from the scientific political science, public admin-
istration, and strategy literature.
The study is presented in the following structure:
First, we illustrate the origin and the development of
e-participation and develop an integrative working
definition. This is followed by an overview of related
e-participation studies. Subsequently, we present the
e-participation factors and drivers that were identified
in the literature and conceptually combine them into
an integrated strategic e-participation framework. The
paper closes with presenting the findings and implica-
tions for practice and research.
Origin and development of e-participation
The roots of e-participation date back to the 1960s. At that
time, citizen participation started to become a topic of
increasing interest (cf. Arnstein, 1969; Burke, 1968; Sewell
& Phillips, 1979). In connection with the digitalization
developments, which allowed to bring democratic pro-
cesses closer to the citizens, first ideas on ICT-based
democracy implementation were presented in the 1980s
(Kim, 2008). “E-democracy articulates political and
democratic procedures involving citizens in societal deci-
sion-making in various ways through the use of ICT”
(Kim, 2008, p. 179) and takes the forms of “e-voting,
e-consultation and e-participation” (Kersten, 2003, p.
127). Thus, e-participation is generally seen as a subfield
of e-democracy (Sanford & Rose, 2007; Susha &
Grönlund, 2012). Since e-participation today receives
“attention from a number of different disciplines and
scientific backgrounds” (Medaglia, 2012, p. 346), it
becomes increasingly perceived as an independent
research area, although it still features a strong link with
e-democracy (Medaglia, 2012; Susha & Grönlund, 2012).
In general, e-participation is regarded an emerging
field of study, which—as typical for young fields of
research—lacks a mature theory foundation (Macintosh,
2006; Sæbø et al., 2008). Its research progress is partly
hindered by the heterogeneity of the e-participation lit-
erature, which can mainly be attributed to its interdisci-
plinary background. This situation is seen as an impeding
element concerning the consolidation of the topic’s theo-
retical foundation and the development of theory build-
ing (Susha & Grönlund, 2012). For example, there is still
no commonly accepted definition of the term ‘e-partici-
pation’ (Peristera et al., 2009). At least, it is widely agreed
upon that e-participation basically constitutes the utiliza-
tion of ICT to exert influence and provide input on
governmental actions through deliberation and active
decision-making initiatives (cf. OECD, 2003; Phang &
Kankanhalli, 2008; Susha & Grönlund, 2012; Wimmer,
2007). Thus, e-participation can be a crucial element of
democratic societies by fostering citizen trust in govern-
ment (Cooper, Bryer, & Meek, 2006; Yang, 2005), enhan-
cing governmental legitimacy (Fung, 2006), and
improving governmental responsiveness (Buček &
Smith, 2000; Yang & Holzer, 2006). Moreover, based on
increased participation opportunities through the use of
ICT, e-participation is supposed to encourage a fair and
efficient society and government (Sæbø et al., 2008).
Definitions of e-participation
Based on our literature search, we identified five defini-
tions of e-participation. Although this is not a definitive
list, these are regarded meaningful and are thus used as
a foundation for this study’s working definition: The
OECD (2003) describes e-participation as active parti-
cipation via ICT in the form of “a relationship based on
partnership with government in which citizens actively
engage in defining the process and content of policy-
making” (OECD, 2001, p. 23). Macintosh (2006, p. 365)
defined e-participation as “the use of information and
communication technologies to broaden and deepen
political participation by enabling citizens to connect

with one another and with their elected representa-
tives”. Concerning the definition of Sæbø, Rose, and
Flak (2008, p. 400), e-participation “involves the exten-
sion and transformation of participation in societal
democratic and consultative processes mediated by
information and communication technologies (ICT),
primarily the Internet. It aims to support active citizen-
ship with the latest technology developments, increasing
access to and availability of participation in order to
promote fair and efficient society and government.”
According to the description of the United Nations
(2014), e-participation includes the three dimensions
e-information, e-consultation, and e-decision-making.
Thus, e-participation enables “participation by providing
citizens with public information and access to informa-
tion without or upon demand,” engages “citizens in con-
tributions to and deliberation on public policies and
services,” and empowers “citizens through co-design of
policy options and co-production of service components
and delivery modalities” (United Nations, 2014, p. 197).
From the digital single market perspective of the
European Commission, “eParticipation helps people
engage in politics and policy-making and makes the deci-
sion-making processes easier to understand, thanks to
Information and Communication Technologies”
(European Commission, 2015).
Although these five definitions show differences, there
are substantial overlaps concerning the general under-
standing of e-participation. A common feature is that
e-participation uses ICT-enabled interconnections
between the government and its stakeholders. Through
the closer connection, the stakeholders experience an
empowerment, allowing them to exert influence on policy
content and processes, and thus supporting their active
engagement in policy-making. Against this background,
we apply the term e-participation in the following way:
E-participation is a participatory process that is enabled
by modern information and communication technolo-
gies, includes stakeholders in the public decision-making
processes through active information exchange, and thus
fosters fair and representative policy-making.
Existing e-participation frameworks in the
scientific literature
A couple of scholars have already addressed the field’s
issue concerning the previously described conceptual
deficits by creating theoretical frameworks to enhance
our understanding of e-participation. In total, we iden-
tified nine e-participation-related frameworks, which
we classify into three e-participation framework cate-
gories: application-oriented (focus on e-participation
usage and realization), system-oriented (focus on the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 3
e-participation system and processes), and evaluation-
oriented (focus on e-participation assessment).
We found two application-oriented e-participation
frameworks. Phang and Kankanhalli (2008) pursued an
objective-driven approach. Their framework points out
which participatory technique (e.g., public hearing, citi-
zen panel, citizen survey) and corresponding ICT tools
(e.g., web portal, online chat, online survey) are appro-
priate to achieve certain desired objectives of e-partici-
pation initiatives. The second application-oriented
framework, which was proposed by Tambouris et al.
(2007b), investigates e-participation and its relation
with traditional citizen participation. Their framework
provides valuable insights for both relating participa-
tion areas with participatory techniques and the latter
with ICT tools as well as examining the way emerging
technologies can trigger new participation areas, demo-
cratic processes, and ICT tools.
From a system-oriented perspective, we identified
three e-participation frameworks. Kersten (2003) pre-
sented a framework for system design, deployment, and
use for participatory decision-making within an
e-democracy environment. Furthermore, the author
illustrates the implementation process of the framework
as well as the experiences of diverse system usage
experiments with large numbers of users. Kim (2008)
elaborated a process scheme of public group decision-
making, which the author challenges against the experi-
ence of a participatory budgeting case in Brazil. He
suggested that the perceived impact of the participation
as well as effective communication tools and support
are important factors to increase citizen participation.
Scherer and Wimmer (2012) investigated the applica-
tion of enterprise architectures frameworks (Zachman
Framework and TOGAF) for e-participation. From the
analysis they derive a five phase model for e-participa-
tion projects: (I) project initiation, (II) project design,
(III) project implementation, (IV) participation, and
(V) evaluation.
Concerning an evaluation-oriented approach, we
found four e-participation-related frameworks that
pursue an evaluation-oriented approach. Macintosh
(2004) presented an analytical framework for character-
izing e-participation based on the OECD (2001) three
stage classification of public participation (information,
consultation, and active participation). Her framework
makes an important contribution since it constitutes
not only one of the first e-participation frameworks,
but in addition, helps to define emerging best practices.
Another concept for assessing e-participation initia-
tives was elaborated by Tambouris, Liotas, and Tarabanis
(2007a). They introduce a straightforward framework for
assessing e-participation initiatives, which focuses on
4 B. W. WIRTZ ET AL.
partial aspects of their previously introduced one (cf.
Tambouris et al. 2007b). The evaluation is mainly based
on investigating the participation area, the participation
methods, and the ICT tools applied. Macintosh and
Whyte (2008) introduced a framework for the assessment
of e-participation projects, which aims at supporting
local government in planning e-participation initiatives
and improving the quality of their e-participation tools.
Therefore, they suggest a systematic approach on a wide
range of evaluation criteria. Loukis, Xenakis, and
Charalabidis (2010) suggested a specific evaluation fra-
mework for e-participation pilots in the legislation pro-
cess of parliaments, which is based on the existing
concepts for the evaluation of information systems,
e-participation, and traditional public participation.
Their framework features three evaluation perspectives:
evaluation of the used process, the applied ICT tools, and
the political outcomes.
Summarizing, the existing e-participation frame-
works serve a specific purpose with a strong focus on
tactical e-participation planning and implementation or
assessing specific e-participation projects. Since we
could not identify an integrated strategic e-participa-
tion framework, our literature findings underpin the
previously mentioned academic shortcomings of the
field (cf. Medaglia, 2012; Peristera et al., 2009), which
thus, seems to be still in need for further theoretical
and conceptual work (cf. Sæbø et al., 2008; Susha &
Grönlund, 2012). In particular, we also missed a focus
on the e-participation users or customers (cf. Peristera
et al., 2009). Given the lack of a conceptual framework
that provides a strategic roadmap for the implementa-
tion of e-participation initiatives, the objective of this
paper is to fill this research gap and thus, develop an
integrated strategic framework for e-participation that
shall give further guidance to future research and pro-
vide strategic implementation advice to public officials.
Integrated strategic e-participation framework
A growing number of governments worldwide have
launched e-participation initiatives. Their motivation
stems from the hope to accomplish various targets, such
as increase overall participation and improve the quality
of public policies. However, in most cases the impact and
sustainability of these initiatives does not meet the expec-
tations of governments and administrations (Macintosh,
2006; Sæbø et al., 2008; UNPAN, 2013). According to
Islam (2008), the reason for this lies in the lack of effective
frameworks with concrete guidelines for the implementa-
tion of e-participation initiatives.
This assumption is underlined by the findings of our
literature review. While there is a rich body of literature
outlining the targets of e-participation (e.g., Åström,
Granberg, & Khakee, 2011; Chun & Cho, 2012; Li &
Feeney, 2013; Phang & Kankanhalli, 2008; Sobaci, 2010;
Tambouris et al., 2007), it remains silent about how to
achieve them. However, without proper knowledge
about the latter, any ad-hoc launch of e-participation
initiatives may impair the effective achievement of its
target. Based on this situation, we see a pressing need to
develop an integrated framework that incorporates
strategic key aspects of e-participation.
For this purpose, we reviewed e-participation and
strategy literature to identify important strategic and
organizational factors as well as external drivers and
systematically combine them into a conceptual frame-
work. The identified factors (e-participation targets,
forms, strategies, instruments, and demand groups)
and drivers (accountability, transparency, stakeholders,
and technology) are presented in the following and
conceptually summarized in an integrated strategic
e-participation framework.
E-participation targets
The starting point of the integrated strategic framework
is the pursued e-participation targets. From the litera-
ture, we identified six key targets: (1) increase overall
participation, (2) enhance information provision, (3)
improve quality of public policies, (4) strengthen public
trust, (5) improve and share responsibility for policy-
making, and (6) raise public awareness and under-
standing for policy issues.
The overall increase of citizen participation in the
decision-making process is a frequently named target of
e-participation initiatives (e.g., Chun & Cho, 2012; Li &
Feeney, 2013; Macintosh, 2004; Ona, 2013). This is not
only a matter of increasing the availability of participa-
tion opportunities but also of lowering the entry
threshold by facilitating access supported by the use
of ICT. Moreover, research points toward the impor-
tance of high participation, especially in a democratic
context because “the more voices behind a political
proposition, the greater its chances of success” (Sæbø,
Rose, & Nyvang, 2009, p. 48) and the greater its general
transparency and openness (Loukis et al., 2010).
Another e-participation target is the enhancement of
information provision (e.g., Li & Feeney, 2013; Loukis
et al., 2010; Macintosh, 2004; Sobaci, 2010), which is
not only about increasing the quantity but also the
quality of available information. Furthermore, informa-
tion provision is an essential aspect of e-participation
since information is seen as a prerequisite for participa-
tion (Sæbø et al., 2008).

E-participation initiatives are also aimed at improv-
ing the quality of public policies (Loukis et al., 2010;
OECD, 2003; Phang & Kankanhalli, 2008; Tambouris
et al., 2007). Here, governments take advantage of the
two-way communication enabled by modern ICT and
draw on valuable input and expertise given by stake-
holders (Loukis et al., 2010). Moreover, higher quality
of policies are expected to strengthen citizen accep-
tance, leading to more efficient implementation
(OECD, 2003).
The strengthening of public trust in governments
and public administration constitutes a further e-parti-
cipation target (e.g., Kim & Lee, 2012; Loukis et al.,
2010; OECD, 2003). This is an important target from
the governmental perspective since it can “[reverse] the
declining confidence in politics and key public institu-
tions” (Loukis et al., 2010, p. 31), a trend that many
advanced democracies have been facing for quite some
time now (Nye, Zelikow, & King, 1997). The last two
targets of e-participation are to improve and share the
responsibility for policy making (e.g., Kim & Lee, 2012;
Loukis et al., 2010; OECD, 2003; Sobaci, 2010) and to
raise public awareness and understanding for policy
issues (e.g., Chun & Cho, 2012; Phang & Kankanhalli,
2008). Having clarified the e-participation targets, the
next step is to determine the desired form of
e-participation.
E-participation forms
To conceptually divide the different forms of e-participa-
tion, we draw on an established categorization of public
participation. We decided to adapt the classification of the
International Association for Public Participation since it
provides a widely-accepted, sophisticated spectrum of
interactions between government and the community
(Vogel, Moulder, & Huggins, 2014). The five categories
are (1) information—provide balanced and objective
information to the public, (2) consult—obtain public
feedback and expertise, (3) involve—consider public con-
cerns and aspirations by working directly with the public,
(4) collaborate—incorporate public input by partnering
with the public, and (5) empower—leave the final deci-
sion with the public (IAP2, 2007).
These categories also constitute different levels of
public impact on the decision-making process. At the
information level, citizens are mere consumers of infor-
mation. At the consultation level, citizens become pas-
sive agents who are heard upon governmental request.
At the involvement, collaboration, and empowerment
levels, which all represent an active participation of
public stakeholders, they become active agents in the
decision-making process (OECD, 2001). Once the key
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 5
e-participation targets have been established and the
associated forms are selected accordingly, the determi-
nation of a suitable strategy for the e-participation
initiative constitutes the next logical step.
E-participation strategies
Since the literature on e-participation lacks a thorough
examination of its strategic application, a look into the
general strategy literature was worthwhile. Concerning
strategy alignment, the theory of transaction costs pro-
vides a meaningful criterion. From an interorganiza-
tional perspective, the theory of transaction costs can
be applied to analyze an optimal level of integration to
reduce organizational costs (Klein, Crawford, & Alchian,
1978; Williamson, 1975). Following this approach,
which is based on the assumption that different levels
of integration possess different transaction cost, three
distinctive forms of integration emerge from which three
types of strategies can be derived (cf. for the following
Wirtz & Langer, 2016): The isolated e-participation
strategy, the combined e-participation strategy, and the
integrated e-participation strategy. These strategies dif-
fer significantly concerning the integration and coordi-
nation of the applied e-participation instruments. Thus,
the strategy chosen determines the degree of integration
and coordination of the instruments.
The isolated e-participation strategy is characterized
by a low integration and an independent coordination
of instruments. Following this strategy, instruments are
managed individually, regardless of their respective
strengths, weaknesses, and combinatory effects. As a
result, potential synergy effects between the different
instruments cannot be addressed actively. Additionally,
the low coordination of e-participation instruments
may cause an uncoordinated approach toward the
demand groups, leading to competition and cannibali-
zation among demand group participants. However,
this strategy causes less integration and coordination
effort than the other strategies, which require addi-
tional e-participation coordination and management.
The combined e-participation strategy constitutes a
more sophisticated strategy, which distinguishes itself
by addressing particular synergies between the instru-
ments used. Although the instruments are still mana-
ged individually, these are—at the same time—loosely
interconnected to achieve a coordinated approach
toward the demand groups. This situation, in which
instruments are both intertwined and in competition
with each other, is called coopetition. As a result, there
is still competition among e-participation instruments,
but it is alleviated compared to the isolated strategy.
6 B. W. WIRTZ ET AL.
The integrated e-participation strategy is the most
sophisticated approach, in which all instruments are
completely coordinated. Taking into account the indi-
vidual strengths and weaknesses of instruments, their
application is managed in such a way that they comple-
ment each other. This means that the instruments are
used in complementary way, and thus do not compete
with each other. Hence, synergy effects can be fully
exploited and the competition between instruments is
actively managed. Successfully realizing an integrated
e-participation strategy thus requires a high level of
centralized e-participation integration and coordination
competence.
E-participation instruments
Given the scope of this investigation and the plethora
of available e-participation instruments, we refer to the
study of Tambouris et al. (2007) at this point. They
scrutinized several e-participation projects concerning
the applied tools and applications and derived a con-
ceptual categorization that provides a suitable frame for
classifying e-participation instruments. Their categori-
zation includes 17 categories that “range from weblogs
and web portals to the more sophisticated consultation
platforms, argument visualization tools and natural
language interfaces” (Tambouris et al., 2007, p. 4).
The selection of the e-participation instruments
must take place against the background of the pursued
e-participation targets, the associated e-participation
forms, and the desired e-participation strategy, sup-
porting a goal-oriented application of instruments.
Furthermore, the selection has to particularly consider
the respective e-participation demand groups since
their engagement is the vital factor for e-participation
initiatives (Gummerus, Liljander, Weman, & Pihlström,
2012). In summary, the final set of instruments should
reflect a goal-oriented and recipient-friendly selection
of e-participation instruments.
E-participation demand groups
E-participation demand groups are regarded as target
groups that are directly involved in and addressed by
e-participation initiatives. For a conceptual classification
of e-participation stakeholders, we follow the categoriza-
tion of the e-government value activity system model,
which classifies them into citizens, private organizations,
and public organizations (Wirtz & Daiser, 2015).
Since they are the focus of e-participation initiatives,
the success of these undertakings stands and falls with
the engagement of these groups (Gummerus et al.,
2012). Hence, it is no surprise that the majority of the
e-participation targets are directly related to demand
groups. The increase of participation, the improvement
of the quality of public policies, the strengthening of
public trust, the sharing of responsibility, and the rais-
ing of public awareness clearly depend on the behavior
and perception of demand groups.
However, actively engaging e-participation demand
groups in e-participation initiatives does not happen by
itself. There are various conditions, such as technical
access, necessary skills, usage habits, as well as expected
and experienced benefits (Albrecht et al., 2008), which
need to be fulfilled, so that the demand groups can take
part in e-participation initiatives. Although the strategic
and organizational factors presented provide a first
direction for setting the strategy of an e-participation
initiative, there are further aspects that have to be taken
into account. From a strategy perspective, regarding
strategy as a link between the organization and its
environment (Grant, 2005), it is essential to also con-
sider the relevant external drivers of e-participation.
Drivers of e-participation
Transparency is not only an objective of e-participation
(Hart & Teeter, 2003), but also a significant driver. It is
mainly associated with various positive effects and may be
regarded “as a pillar of the democratic ideal” (Ala’i &
Vaughn, 2014, p. 249). For instance, due to its “sunlight”
effect, transparency is believed to reduce misconduct of
governments (Etzioni, 2010, p. 2). Furthermore, transpar-
ency is expected to enhance public trust (Kim & Lee, 2012;
Kweit, 2004; Vigoda-Gadot, 2006; Wang & Wan Wart,
2007). In general, e-participation initiatives are based on
the assumption that the provision of information and the
interactivity between government and citizens will
enhance the overall transparency of decision-making in
public policy (Macintosh, 2004; OECD, 2003). Here, both
adequate general public access to information (Dawes,
2010; Noveck, 2009) as well as the timely provision of
information (McDermott, 2010) are of crucial
importance.
Accountability, just like transparency, is another
important driver for e-participation and an essential
part of democratic governance (Gummerus et al.,
2012). It is an institutionalized relationship that ensures
that governments can be hold responsible for their
actions and disclose results transparently (Bovens,
2006). Furthermore, accountability and transparency
are closely linked, since they are mutually dependent
and reinforcing. Transparency and accountability, for
instance, can reduce corruption (Kim, Kim, & Lee,
2009; Maor, 2004).

Concerning technology, there is a rich body of lit-
erature that focuses on its role in e-participation initia-
tives (Medaglia, 2012; Sæbø et al., 2008). The
widespread adoption of the Internet is considered to
be a major external driver of e-participation since it
provides the technological foundation for e-participa-
tion initiatives (Chadwick, 2003). Furthermore, the
advent of social media technologies which facilitated
online social interactions, has accelerated the impetus
for governments to achieve the goals of transparency,
collaboration, and civic participation (Bertot, Jaeger,
Munson, & Glaisyer, 2010; Evans & Campos, 2013).
Besides web sites, there are many forms of ICT with
the potential to support participation, such as chat
technologies, online forums, wikis, blogs, social media,
electronic voting, and group decision support systems
(Sæbø et al., 2008).
Finally, stakeholders are a further driver for e-parti-
cipation. Besides participants who provide direct input
to the participation process (demand groups), the term
stakeholders also includes the entities that provide
e-participation services, public officials who decide on
initiatives, politicians and political parties who fund
such projects, citizens who may not be active partici-
pants but nevertheless be affected by the outcomes, etc.
(Aichholzer et al., 2007). Stakeholders’ interest to
enhance transparency and accountability of govern-
ments coupled with the development of modern ICT
has induced governments to launch e-participation
initiatives to increase communication and participation
in political processes (Bekkers, 2004; Best & Krueger,
2005; Curwell et al., 2005; Hart & Teeter, 2003). Thus,
the pressure exerted by stakeholders is a crucial driver
for e-participation initiatives (García-Sánchez,
Rodríguez-Domínguez, & Gallego-Álvarez, 2011).
Summarizing, this section outlines the targets,
forms, strategies, and instruments of e-participation as
well as the role of the demand groups for the success of
e-participation initiatives. Additionally, four environ-
mental drivers of e-participation have been introduced,
which in summary leads to the following integrated
strategic e-participation framework, which is shown in
Figure 1.
Discussion of findings, implications, and
limitations
Following our working definition, e-participation is a
participatory online process that includes stakeholders
into public decision-making to foster a fair and repre-
sentative policy-making. This process should be sys-
tematically prepared by e-participation providers to
ensure the achievement of the pursued objectives and
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 7
to actively maximize the outcome and benefits of e-par-
ticipation initiatives. Following the findings of our lit-
erature-based approach, e-participation providers
should thus be fully aware of important strategic and
organizational factors (pursued e-participation targets,
corresponding e-participation forms, desired e-partici-
pation strategy, suitable e-participation instruments,
and e-participation demand groups) as well as environ-
mental drivers (accountability, transparency, stake-
holders, and technology). This seems reasonable since
all of these aspects have a substantial traceable influ-
ence on the design, planning, and implementation of
e-participation initiatives.
In addition, successful e-participation requires a
strategic and operative fit of the selected instruments
as well as a fit between the different instruments
applied. Therefore, the decision for a mono-instrumen-
tal or multi-instrumental approach and the optimiza-
tion of the strategic and operative fit of the selected
instrument or instruments are fundamental aspects for
e-participation initiatives. In this context, the instru-
ment-target fit, the instrument-form fit and the instru-
ment-demand group fit are of vital importance. The
instrument-target fit sets the general frame for the
selection of the e-participation instruments. These
have to be chosen and applied in a way that supports
the defined targets of the e-participation initiative. For
this purpose, the instrument-form fit and instrument-
demand group fit are important criteria. The instru-
ment-form fit assumes that not all instruments are
suitable for all kinds of e-participation forms. Thus,
the selection of instruments needs to be based on the
pursued e-participation forms.
From an instrument-demand group fit perspective, the
selection and design of the instruments selected have to
suit the recipients’ preferences with the aim to ease and
increase participation. A number of studies have outlined
various beneficial impacts of technology-mediated inter-
action between governments and citizens. For instance,
well-structured web sites foster active citizen participation
(Coleman, Lieber, Mendelson, & Kurpius, 2008), the dif-
fusion of mobile technologies enables new forms of spon-
taneous political mobilization (Suárez, 2006), and citizens
become valuable co-producers rather than being passive
consumers in the decision-making process (Berthon &
Williams, 2007; Han, 2009). In this context, especially the
technical access and skills of the particular demand
groups must be considered. One should keep in mind
that e-participation initiatives are rather built upon estab-
lished technologies than on technology innovations
(Panopoulou, Tambouris, & Tarabanis, 2010). In addi-
tion, the availability of adequate technological capacities
on both sides, governments and citizenry, determines the
8 B. W. WIRTZ ET AL.
Figure 1. Integrated strategic e-participation framework.
design, deployment, and use of particular e-participation
technologies.
From a strategy perspective, e-participation providers
may choose between three strategies (isolated, combined,
and integrated), which mainly differ concerning the inte-
gration and coordination of the instruments. This choice
should particularly take into account the strategic and
organizational factors which build the internal circle of
the e-participation framework. Given that the internal
circle is influenced by a set of external drivers (account-
ability, transparency, stakeholders, and technology), the
defined e-participation strategy needs to be challenged
against the expected impact that may result from these
drivers. Given a combined or integrated strategy, a further
challenge arises since demand groups may use several
instruments during the e-participation initiative. They
may, for example, communicate via chat rooms and con-
sultation platforms and take part in an online survey as
well as collaborative management systems. Thus, e-parti-
cipation providers should ensure a homogeneous appear-
ance via the different instruments applied and have a
central database system, in which relevant information
comes together.
Although such a multi-instrumental approach seems
challenging at first glance, it may also bring along
several advantages. Tailor-made interaction interfaces
through multiple customized e-participation instru-
ments aim at increasing demand group participation
and enhancing information provision. Moreover, mul-
tiple suitable e-participation instruments are likely to
also enhance the quality of the contributions since the
government and the demand groups can communicate
and interact via several channels. This would likely
increase citizen trust since more and better informed
demand groups share responsibility for policy-making.
However, a combined or integrated strategy requires a
systematic integration and continuous coordination of
the applied instruments. Therefore, a responsible per-
son or department that is assigned with these tasks
should be denominated to ensure clear responsibilities.
The study provides public officials with a clear con-
ceptual guidance and straightforward recommendations
on e-participation. Following and applying these insights
supports e-participation providers in systematically plan-
ning and arranging e-participation initiatives. Moreover,
the strategic e-participation framework illustrates an
extensive set of factors and drivers that helps public
officials to identify relevant e-participation aspects.
Against this background, the proposed strategic frame-
work should have a positive impact on the target achieve-
ment, outcomes, and benefits of e-participation
undertakings. From a scientific perspective, this study

contributes to the academic literature in several ways. The
proposed strategic e-participation framework tries to fill
an existing research gap by providing a conceptual road-
map for e-participation initiatives. Moreover, the asso-
ciated identification of important strategic and
organizational factors as well as environmental drivers
of e-participation shall stimulate and serve as a guide to
the scientific debate. At the same time, we hope that the
strategic framework reduces differences of opinion and
harmonizes research efforts concerning influential aspects
of e-participation by providing a systematic examination
of these factors and drivers from the field’s heterogeneous,
interdisciplinary literature.
Given the conceptual deductive character of this study,
the investigation has its limitations, which provide some
interesting research questions and several possibilities for
future research. Thus, we hope our study stimulates
future research on e-participation to advance knowledge
of this important phenomenon. Especially, we see a need
for sound empirical studies, which are needed to chal-
lenge the integrated strategic framework since it is mainly
based on available insights from scientific literature.
Moreover, it seems useful to investigate the specific
needs and preferences of the e-participation demand
groups as well as the differences between them to derive
potential effects that have to be considered in selecting the
instruments and the strategy. In this context, further
insights into the complementary fit of different instru-
ments and their combination possibilities would be help-
ful. Moreover, interesting questions remain concerning
the relations between the individual factors and drivers.
Are there, for example, special relations that have a domi-
nant character for instrument selection or are there parti-
cular combinations of e-participation forms, strategies,
and instruments that generally improve e-participation
performance?
Conclusion
Although e-participation is of high scientific and practical
relevance, the field still suffers from a diffuse, heteroge-
neous state of knowledge. Moreover, it currently does not
provide comprehensive concepts for successfully imple-
menting e-participation. This situation is seen as a key
reason why e-participation initiatives in practice often fall
short of expectations. Against this background, this study
is based on available findings of the scientific literature to
propose an integrated strategic e-participation framework
that conceptually combines important strategic and orga-
nizational factors as well as environmental drivers of
e-participation.
Given the continually growing public interest for more
and better e-participation, public administration needs to
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 9
better harness the related potential to give account for
their actions and enhance joint policy making, meaning
that government and citizens can be partners and share
the responsibility for decisions. To do so, the findings of
the study suggest that e-participation providers first have
to take into account particular strategic and organiza-
tional factors (e-participation targets, forms, strategies,
instruments, and demand groups) as well as environmen-
tal drivers (transparency, stakeholders, technology, and
accountability) before setting their e-participation strat-
egy. Neglecting any of these aspects—be it for want of
information, carelessness, ignorance or any other reason
—may hinder the e-participation initiative in delivering
its full potential.
In other words, if these aspects are not systematically
considered and determined beforehand, the e-participa-
tion initiative is likely to fail since set e-participation
targets will probably be missed. Moreover, such an
approach also hinders the selection of a decent strategy
(isolated, combined, and integrated). Without a precise
and comprehensive plan of the e-participation initiative
that puts the spotlight on the respective demand
groups, an adequate strategic and operative fit of the
selected instruments is very difficult to determine. In
this context, a clear demand group orientation cannot
be emphasized enough since the demand groups are the
core of any e-participation initiative.
From an e-participation provider’s perspective,
choosing the right channels is also of utmost importance
since they are the interface to the public stakeholders.
Here, public officials should keep in mind that—as the
proverb says—the worm must appeal to the fish, not the
fisherman. Key aspects to consider are the preferences,
technical access, and skills of the targeted demand
groups.
Against the conceptual nature of this study, future
research should challenge the findings and drawn con-
clusion. However, the study presents the first integrated
strategic e-participation framework that provides a stra-
tegic roadmap for the developing and implementing
e-participation initiatives. With this in mind, we believe
that the proposed framework meets the objectives of
this study since it provides a clear guidance to future
e-participation research and supports public officials in
shaping and implementing e-participation initiatives.
References
Aichholzer, G., Lippa, B., Moss, G., Scherer, S., Schneider,
C., Westholm, H., . . . Winkler, R. (2007). Interdisciplinary
framework to address the socio-technical and political
challenges of eParticipation. Bremen, Germany: DEMO-
net Deliverable 6.2.
10 B. W. WIRTZ ET AL.
Ala’i, P., & Vaughn, R. G. (2014). Research handbook on
transparency. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Alawneh, A., Al-Refai, H., & Batiha, K. (2013). Measuring
user satisfaction from e-Government services: Lessons
from Jordan. Government Information Quarterly, 30(30),
227–228.
Albrecht, S., Kohlrausch, N., Kubicek, H., Lippa, B., Märker,
O., Trénel, M., . . . Wiedwald, C. (2008). eParticipation –
Electronic participation of citziens and the business commu-
nity in egovernment: Study on behalf of the federal ministry
of the interior, division IT 1. Retrieved May 20, 2016, from
http://www.ifib-consult.de/publikationsdateien/study_e-
participation_engl.pdf
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation.
Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–
224. doi:10.1080/01944366908977225
Åström, J., Granberg, M., & Khakee, A. (2011). Apple Pie–
Spinach metaphor: Shall e-democracy make participatory
planning more wholesome? Planning Practice and Research,
26(5), 571–586. doi:10.1080/02697459.2011.626723
Bekkers, V. (2004). Virtual policy communities and respon-
sive governance: Redesigning on-line debates. Information
Polity, 9(3–4), 193–203.
Berthon, P., & Williams, C. B. (2007). Stages of e-democracy:
Towards an open-source political model. International
Journal of Information Technology and Management, 6(2–
4), 329–342. doi:10.1504/IJITM.2007.014007
Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., Munson, S., & Glaisyer, T. (2010).
Engaging the public in open government: Social media tech-
nology and policy for governments transparency. Retrieved
May 20, 2016, from http://tmsp.umd.edu/TMSPreports_
files/6.IEEE-Computer-TMSP-Government-Bertot-
100817pdf.pdf
Best, S. J., & Krueger, B. S. (2005). Analyzing the representa-
tiveness of internet political participation. Political
Behavior, 27(2), 183–216. doi:10.1007/s11109-005-3242-y
Bonsón, E., Royo, S., & Ratkai, M. (2015). Citizens’ engage-
ment on local governments’ Facebook sites. An empirical
analysis: The impact of different media and content types
in Western Europe. Government Information Quarterly, 32
(1), 52–62. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2014.11.001
Bovens, M. (2006). Analysing and assessing public account-
ability. A conceptual framework. Retrieved May 20, 2016,
from http://edoc.vifapol.de/opus/volltexte/2011/2459/pdf/
egp_connex_C_06_01.pdf
Buček, J., & Smith, B. (2000). New approaches to local
democracy: Direct democracy, participation and the
‘third sector’. Environment and Planning C: Government
and Policy, 18, 3–16. doi:10.1068/c9950
Burke, E. M. (1968). Citizen participation strategies. Journal
of the American Institute of Planners, 34(5), 287–294.
doi:10.1080/01944366808977547
Chadwick, A. (2003). Bringing E-democracy back in: Why it
matters for future research on E-governance. Social Science
Computer Review, 21(4), 443–455. doi:10.1177/
0894439303256372
Chun, S. A., & Cho, J. (2012). E-participation and transparent
policy decision making. Information Polity, 17, 129–145.
Coleman, R., Lieber, P., Mendelson, A. L., & Kurpius, D. D.
(2008). Public life and the internet: If you build a better
website, will citizens become engaged? New Media &
Society, 10(2), 179–201. doi:10.1177/1461444807086474
Cooper, T. L., Bryer, T. A., & Meek, J. W. (2006). Citizen-
centered collaborative public management. Public
Administration, 66(s1), 76–88. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
6210.2006.00668.x
Curwell, S., Deakin, M., Cooper, I., Paskaleva-Shapira, K.,
Ravetz, J., & Babicki, D. (2005). Citizens’ expectations of
information cities: Implications for urban planning and
design. Building Research & Information, 33(1), 55–66.
doi:10.1080/0961321042000329422
Dawes, S. S. (2010). Stewardship and usefulness: Policy principles
for information-based transparency. Government Information
Quarterly, 27(4), 377–383. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2010.07.001
Etzioni, A. (2010). Is transparency the best disinfectant?
Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(4), 389–404.
doi:10.1111/jopp.2010.18.issue-4
European Commission. (2015). eParticipation. Digital Single
Market, Digital Economy & Society. Retrieved May 11,
2016, from https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/
eparticipation
Evans, A. M., & Campos, A. (2013). Open government initia-
tives: Challenges of citizen participation. Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management, 32(1), 172–185. doi:10.1002/
pam.2013.32.issue-1
Fedotava, O., Teixeira, L., & Alvelos, H. (2014). Citizens’
engagement using communication technologies. In M.
Khosrowpour (Eds.), Encyclopedia of information science
and technology (3rd ed., pp. 2709–2718). Hershey, PA:
Information Science Reference.
Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex gov-
ernance. Public Administration, 66(s1), 66–75. doi:10.1111/
j.1540-6210.2006.00667.x
García-Sánchez, I., Rodríguez-Domínguez, L., & Gallego-
Álvarez, I. (2011). The relationship between political fac-
tors and the development of E-Participatory government.
The Information Society, 27(4), 233–251. doi:10.1080/
01972243.2011.583816
Grant, R. M. (2005). Contemporary strategy analysis (5th ed.).
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Gummerus, J., Liljander, V., Weman, E., & Pihlström, M.
(2012). Customer engagement in a Facebook brand com-
munity. Management Research Review, 35(9), 857–877.
doi:10.1108/01409171211256578
Han, J. (2009). Korea’s beef crisis: The Internet and democ-
racy. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 63(4),
505–528. doi:10.1080/10357710903312579
Hart, D. P., & Teeter, M. R. (2003). The New E-Government
equation: Ease, engagement, privacy and protection.
Washington, DC: Council for Excellence in Government
IAP2. (2007). Spectrum of Public Participation. Retrieved May
18, 2016, from http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.iap2.org/
resource/resmgr/imported/IAP2%20Spectrum_vertical.pdf.
Islam, M. S. (2008). Towards a sustainable e-Participation
implementation model. European Journal of Epractice, 5
(10), 1–12.
Jho, W., & Song, K. J. (2015). Institutional and technological
determinants of civil e-Participation: Solo or duet?
Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), 488–495.
doi:10.1016/j.giq.2015.09.003
Kersten, G. E. (2003). e-democracy and participatory decision
processes: Lessons from e-Negotiation experiments. Journal
of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 12(2-3), 127–143.
doi:10.1002/mcda.352

Kim, J. (2008). A model and case for supporting participatory
public decision making in e-democracy. Group Decision and
Negotiation, 17(3), 179–193. doi:10.1007/s10726-007-9075-9
Kim, S., Kim, H., & Lee, H. (2009). An institutional analysis
of an e-government system for anti-corruption: The case
of OPEN. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 42–
50. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2008.09.002
Kim, S., & Lee, J. (2012). E-Participation, transparency, and
trust in local government. Public Administration Review,
72(6), 819–828.
Klein, B., Crawford, R. G., & Alchian, A. A. (1978). Vertical
Integration, appropriable rents, and the competitive con-
tracting process. The Journal of Law and Economics, 21(2),
297–326. doi:10.1086/466922
Kweit, M. G. (2004). Citizen participation and citizen eva-
luation in disaster recovery. The American Review of
Public Administration, 34(4), 354–373. doi:10.1177/
0275074004268573
Li, M.-H., & Feeney, M. K. (2013). Adoption of electronic
technologies in local U.S. governments: Distinguishing
between E-Services and communication technologies. The
American Review of Public Administration, 44(1), 75–91.
doi:10.1177/0275074012460910
Loukis, E., Xenakis, A., & Charalabidis, Y. (2010). An evalua-
tion framework for e-participation in parliaments.
International Journal of Electronic Governance, 3(1), 25–
47. doi:10.1504/IJEG.2010.032729
Lourenço, R. P., & Costa, J. P. (2007). Incorporating citizens’
views in local policy decision making processes. Decision
Support Systems, 43(4), 1499–1511. doi:10.1016/j.
dss.2006.06.004
Macintosh, A. 2004. Characterizing e-participation in policy-
making. In System Sciences 2004: Proceedings of the 37th
Annual Hawaii International Conference, edited by IEEE,
pp. 117–26. New York: IEEE.
Macintosh, A. (2006). eParticipation in Policy-making: The
research and the challenges. In P. M. Cunningham, & M.
Cunningham (Eds.), Exploiting the knowledge economy:
Issues, applications and case studies (pp. 364–369).
Amsterdam, the Netherlands: IOS Press.
Macintosh, A., & Whyte, A. (2008). Towards an evaluation
framework for eParticipation. Transforming Government, 2
(1), 16–30. doi:10.1108/17506160810862928
Maor, M. (2004). Feeling the heat? Anticorruption mechan-
isms in comparative perspective. Governance, 17(1), 1–28.
doi:10.1111/gove.2004.17.issue-1
McGrath, K., Elbanna, A., Hercheui, M., Panagiotopoulos, P.,
& Saad, E. (2011). Exploring the democratic potential of
online social network: The scopte and limitations of
e-Participation. Communications of the Association for
Information System, 30(16), 239–254.
McDermott, P. (2010). Building open government.
Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 401–413.
doi:10.1016/j.giq.2010.07.002
Medaglia, R. (2012). eParticipation research: Moving charac-
terization forward (2006–2011). Government Information
Quarterly, 29(3), 346–360. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2012.02.010
Millard, J., Nielsen, M. M., Warren, R., Smith, S., Macintosh,
A., Tarabanis, K., . . . Parisopoulos, K. (2009). European
eParticipation Summary Report: November 2009. ICT for
Government and Public Services. Retrieved May 10, 2016,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 11
from https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/
european-eparticipation-summary-report
Noveck, B. S. (2009). Wiki government: How technology can
make government better, democracy stronger, and citizens
more powerful. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution
Press.
Nye, J. S., Zelikow, P. D., & King, D. C. (eds.). (1997). Why
people don’t trust government (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
OECD. (2001). Citizens as partners: Information, consultation
and public participation in policy-making. Paris, France:
OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2003). Promises and problems of E-Democracy:
Challenges of online citizen engagement. Retrieved May
11, 2016, from http://www.oecd.org/gov/digital-govern
ment/35176328.pdf
Ona, S. (2013). Exploring the use of new technologies in
participation practices in legilsation. Journal of
E-Governance, 36(2), 79–91.
Panopoulou, E., Tambouris, E., & Tarabanis, K. (2010).
eParticipation Initiatives in Europe: Learning from practi-
tioners. In D. Hutchison, T. Kanade, J. Kittler, J. M.
Kleinberg, F. Mattern, J. C. Mitchell, M. Naor, et al. (Eds.).
Electronic participation (Vol. 6229, pp. 54–65). Lecture Notes
in Computer Science. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany:
Springer.
Peristera, V., Mentzas, G., Tarabanis, K. A., & Abecker, A.
(2009). Transforming E-government and E-participation
through IT. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 24(5), 14–19.
doi:10.1109/MIS.2009.103
Phang, C. W., & Kankanhalli, A. (2008). A framework of ICT
exploitation for e-participation initiatives. Communications
of the ACM, 51(12), 128–132. doi:10.1145/1409360
Royo, S., Yetano, A., & Acerete, B. (2015). ‘Crowdsourcing’ as
a tool for e-participation: Two experiences regarding CO
emissions at municipal level. Electronic Commerce
Research, 15(3), 323–348. doi:10.1007/s10660-015-9183-6
Sæbø, Ø., Rose, J., & Flak, L. S. (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
Sæbø, Ø., Rose, J., & Nyvang, T. (2009). The role of social
networking services in eParticipation. In A. Macintosh, &
E. Tambouris (Eds.), Electronic participation: First
International Conference, ePart 2009 Linz, Austria,
August 31–September 4, 2009 Proceedings (Vol. 5694, pp.
46–55). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Sanford, C., & Rose, J. (2007). Characterizing eParticipation.
International Journal of Information Management, 27(6),
406–421. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2007.08.002
Scherer, S., & Wimmer, M. A. (2012). E-participation and
enterprise architecture frameworks: An analysis.
Information Polity, 17(2), 147–161.
Sewell, W. R. D., & Phillips, S. (1979). Models for evaluation
of public participation programmes. Natural Resources
Journal, 19(2), 337–358.
Sobaci, Z. (2010). What the Turkish parliamentary web site
offers to citizens in terms of eparticipation: A content
analysis. Information Polity, 15(3), 227–241.
Suárez, S. L. (2006). Mobile democracy: Text messages,
voter turnout and the 2004 Spanish general election.
12 B. W. WIRTZ ET AL.
Representation, 42(2), 117–128. doi:10.1080/
00344890600736358
Susha, I., & Grönlund, A. (2012). eParticipation research:
Systematizing the field. Government Information
Quarterly, 29(3), 373–382. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2011.11.005
Tambouris, E., Liotas, N., & Tarabanis, K. (2007a). A frame-
work for assessing eParticipation projects and tools. In R.
H. Sprague (Ed.), Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii
International conference on system sciences (pp. 1–10). Los
Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
Tambouris, E., Liotas, N., Kaliviotis, D., & Tarabanis, K.
(2007b). A framework for scoping eParticipation. In J. B.
Cushing, & T. A. Pardo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th
Annual International conference on digital government
research (pp. 288–289). Philadelphia, PA: Digital
Government Research Center.
United Nations. (2014). E-Government Survey 2014:
E-government for the future we want. Retrieved May 11,
2016, from https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/por
tals/egovkb/documents/un/2014-survey/e-gov_complete_
survey-2014.pdf
UNPAN. (2013). Measuring and evaluating E-participation:
Assessment of readiness at the country level. Retrieved May
18, 2016, from http://workspace.unpan.org/sites/Internet/
Documents/METEP%20framework_18%20Jul_MOST%
20LATEST%20Version.pdf
Vicente, M. R., & Novo, A. (2014). An empirical analysis of
e-participation. The role of social networks and e-govern-
ment over citizens’ online engagement. Government
Information Quarterly, 31(3), 379–387. doi:10.1016/j.
giq.2013.12.006
Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2006). Citizens’ perceptions of politics and
ethics in public administration: A Five-Year national study
of their relationship to satisfaction with services, trust in
governance, and voice orientations. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 17(2), 285–305.
doi:10.1093/jopart/muj018
Vogel, R., Moulder, E., & Huggins, M. (2014). The extent of
public participation: ICMA survey explores public engage-
ment and the tenor of civic discourse. Public Management,
96(2), 6–10.
Wang, X. H., & Wan Wart, M. (2007). When public participa-
tion in administration leads to trust: An empirical assess-
ment of managers? perceptions. Public Administration
Review, 67(2), 265–278. doi:10.1111/puar.2007.67.issue-2
Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis
and antitrust implications: A study in the economics of
internal organization. New York, NY: Free Press.
Wimmer, M. A. (2007). Ontology for an e-participation virtual
resource centre. In T. Janowski, & T. A. Pardo (Eds.), ICEGOV
2007: 1st International conference on theory and practice of
electronic governance (pp. 89–98). New York, NY: ACM.
Wirtz, B. W., & Daiser, P. (2015). E-Government: Strategy process
instruments. Speyer, Germany: Textbook for the Digital
Society. Retrieved May 11, 2016, from http://www.uni-
speyer.de/files/de/Lehrstühle/Wirtz/WirtzDaiser_2015_E-
Government.pdf
Wirtz, B. W., & Langer, P. F. (2016). Public multichannel
management – An integrated framework of off- and online
multichannel government services. Public Organization
Review (First online 15 June 2016). 1–18. doi:10.1007/
s11115-016-0356-0
Yang, K. F. (2005). Public administrators’ trust in citizens: A
missing link in citizen involvement efforts. Public
Administration Review, 65(3), 273–285. doi:10.1111/
puar.2005.65.issue-3
Yang, K. F., & Holzer, M. (2006). The performance-turst link:
Implications for performance measurement. Public
Administration Review, 66(1), 114–126. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
6210.2006.00560.x