Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 2008 Download : 1355

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to analyse the impact of e-government on corruption perception index using a cross-country study. Furthermore, this study aims to examine the most effective e-government components in combating corruption and compare the effects of e-government in developed and developing countries. E-Government is measured using the E-Government Development Index (EGDI), consisting of online services index, human capital index, and telecommunications infrastructure index. The sample for this study consists of 521 observations from 122 countries from 2009 to2013. Our results show that there is a negative effect of e-government implementation towards corruption perception index. Furthermore, based on the elaboration of the e-government component, it was found that the variable infrastructure has a negative effect and the variable human resource dimension a positive effect on corruption perception index. This means that the development of e-government infrastructure can have a significant role in reducing perceptions of corruption in a country, while the dimensions of human resources have a dangerous side that can actually increase perceptions of corruption. There are differences in the effect of e-government on developed and developing countries. In developed countries, the implementation of e-government is in the phase of transaction and transformation which make his impact effective regarding corruption eradication. In developing countries, e-government has only reached the information and interaction phase so that it has not been effective enough to combat corruption.

Keywords

e-government corruption cross country studies transparency

Article Details

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

References

  1. Andersen, T. B. (2009). E-Government as an anti-corruption strategy. Information Economics and Policy, 21(3), 201-210.
  2. Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. (2012). Report to the nations on occupational fraud and abuse.
  3. Attila, G. (2012). Agency problems in public sector. Annals of Faculty of Economics, 1(1), 708-712.
  4. Baum, C. & DiMaio, A. (2000). Gartner’s Four Phases of E-Government Model. Gartner Group.
  5. Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 264-271.
  6. Bhatnagar, S. (2003). E-Government and access to information (pp. 24-32). United Nations, Global Corruption Report 2003.
  7. Chawla, R., & Bhatnagar, S. (2004). Online delivery of land titles to rural farmers in Karnataka, India. The international bank for reconstruction and development, the World Bank.
  8. Cuillier, D., & Piotrowski, S. J. (2009). Internet information-seeking and its relation to support for access to government records. Government Information Quarterly, 26, 441449.
  9. Dutt, P. (2009). Trade protection and bureaucratic corruption: An empirical investigation. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadi-enne d’e´conomique, 42(1), 155–183.
  10. Elbahnasawy, N. G., & Revier, C. F. (2012). The determinants of corruption: Cross-country-panel-data analysis. The Developing Economies, 50(4), 311-333.
  11. Elbahnasawy, N. G. (2014). E-government, internet adoption, and corruption: An empirical investigation. World Development, 57, 114-126.
  12. Freedom House (2013). Freedom of the press 2013. Tersedia dari http://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FOTP%202013%20Booklet%20Final%20 Complete%20-%20Web.pdf
  13. Freille, S., Haque, M. E., & Kneller, R. (2007). A contribution to the empirics of press freedom and corruption. European Journal of Political Economy, 23(4), 838–862.
  14. Heeks, R. (1998). Information technology and public sector corruption. Information systems for public sector management working paper series no. 4. Manchester, UK: Institute for Development Policy and Management.
  15. Heritage Foundation (2010). 2010 index of economic freedom. Tersedia dari http://www.heritage.org/index/download.
  16. International Monetary Fund (2015). World economic outlook databases. Tersedia dari http://www.imf.org/external/ns/cs.aspx?id=28.
  17. Kim, S., Kim, H. J., & 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.
  18. Klitgaard, R. (1988). Controlling corruption. University of California Press.
  19. Kolstad, I., & Wiig, A. (2009). Is transparency the key to reducing corruption in resource-rich countries? World Development, 37(3), 521–532.
  20. Krishnan, S., Teo, T. S. H., & Lim, V. K.G. (2013). Examining the relationships among e-government maturity, corruption, economic prosperity and environmental degradation: A cross-country analysis. Information & Management, 50, 638-649.
  21. Liu, J., & Lin, B. (2012) Government auditing and corruption control: Evidence from China’s provincial panel data. China Journal of Accounting Research, 5, 163-186.
  22. Lio, M. C., Liu, M. C., & Ou, Y. P. (2011). Can internet reduce corruption? A cross-country study based on dynamic panel data models. Government Information Quarterly, 28(1), 47-53.
  23. Ojha, A., Palvia, S., & Gupta, M. P. (2008). A model for impact of e-government on corruption: Exploring theoretical foundations. Critical thinking in e-governance. In: the 6th international conference on e-government (ICEG 2008) (pp. 160-170). New Delhi, India.
  24. Prasojo, E., Kurniawan, T., dan Holidin, D. (2007). Analysis of Government Systems in Indonesia. Jakarta: Universitas Indonesia dan Australia: University of New South Wales. Relly,
  25. J. E., & Sabharwal, M. (2009). Perceptions of transparency of government policymaking: A cross-national study. Government Information Quarterly, 26, 148-157.
  26. Shim, D. C., & Eom, T. H. (2009). Anticorruption effects of information and communication technology (ICT) and social capital. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75, 99-116.
  27. Svensson, J. (2005). Eight questions about corruption. Journal of Economic Perspective, 19(3), 19-42.
  28. Transparency International (2013). Tersedia dari http://files.trans-parency.org/content/ download/702/3015/file/CPI2013_DataBundle.zip
  29. Transparency International (2014). Corruption Perceptions Index 2014: Clean Growth at Risk. Tersedia dari http://www.transparency.org/news/press-release/corruption_perceptions_index_ 2014_clean_growth_at_risk.
  30. Treisman, D. (2000). The causes of corruption: A cross-national study. Journal of Public Economics, 76, 399-457
  31. Treisman, D. (2007). What we have learned about the causes of corruption from ten years of cross-national empirical research? Annual Reviews Political Science, 10, 211-244.
  32. United Nations Development Program (2006). Fighting corruption with e-government applications. APDIP e-note 8.
  33. United Nations Development Program (2008). Tackling corruption, transforming lives: Accelerating human development in Asia and the Pacific. New Delhi, India: Macmillan Publishers.
  34. United Nations (2010). United Nations e-government survey 2010: Leveraging e-government at a time of financial and economic crisis. New York: Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Tersedia dari http://www.unpan.org/e-govkb/global_reports/08report.htm
  35. United Nations (2014). United Nations e-government survey 2014: E-Government for the future we want. Tersedia dari https://publicadministration.un.org/e-govkb/Portals/egovkb/ Documents/un/2014-Survey/E-Gov_Complete_Survey-2014.pdf
  36. World Bank (2012). World development indicators. Tersedia dari http://www.data.worldbank. org/ indicator/all
  37. World Bank (2012). Worldwide governance indicators. Tersedia dari http://info.worldbank. org/ governance/wgi/index.asp