Rethinking e-government failure
A readiness-based assessment of Indonesia’s digitalization efforts
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22110600 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Rusmini Rusmini (0000-0001-7402-0678, Padjadjaran University, corresponding author), Nandang Alamsah Deliarnoor (0000-0002-3145-0069, Padjadjaran University), Neneng Yani Yuningsih (0000-0002-2789-1929, Padjadjaran University), Novie Indrawati Sagita (0000-0003-3396-7392, Padjadjaran University) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Volume | 11 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Publication date | 2025-12-31 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Cogent Social Sciences (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2331-1886 • E-ISSN: 2331-1886 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/23311886.2025.2559867 |
| OpenAlex | W4414597395 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 66 |
This research aims to investigate the factors affecting the success and failure of e-government implementation in four Indonesian regions—South Papua, Papua Highlands, West Java, and Yogyakarta—by analyzing social, economic, and infrastructural influences according to Ibn Khaldun’s social changes theory. Employing a qualitative, exploratory case study approach, data were collected from government documents, scientific articles, online sources, and policy reports, with data triangulation ensuring validity. Data analysis involved thematic synthesis, correlating qualitative insights with socio-economic variables such as access to basic services and regional development indices. Findings indicate that regions with higher socio-economic and infrastructural development, such as West Java and Yogyakarta, exhibit more successful e-government practices, while regions facing economic injustice, societal instability, and infrastructural deficiencies, like South Papua and Papua Highlands, encounter significant challenges, this conditions in line with some studies that stated the countries with high prosperity percentage and basic service access more succeeded in e-government implementation. Previous research has shown that factors contributing to e-government failure include a lack of digital literacy, trust, and limited internet access. Meanwhile, this study, which views e-government as a form of social change, highlights that meeting basic needs, promoting social cohesion, and reducing disparities are crucial to increasing e-government effectiveness. This research offers a new perspective on the effective implementation model of egovenment as a social transformation in public services, the implementation of this model encourages technological innovation while providing fulfillment of basic needs in public services, to overcome structural gaps in digital governance
Digital divide · Exploratory research · Indonesian · Prosperity · Public policy · Qualitative research · The Internet · Thematic analysis · E-Government and Public Services · FinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance · Local Governance and Development
Benefits, Adoption Barriers and Myths of Open Data and Open Government
Do Social Media, Good Governance, and Public Trust Increase Citizens’ e-Government Participation? Dual Approach of PLS-SEM and fsQCA
Bridging the digital divide through digital infrastructure
Developing a sustainability strategy for e-government system in regional government
The Rise of the Network Society
Social Organization Participation, Government Governance and the Equalization of Basic Public Services
Implications of Governance, Natural Resources, and Security Threats on Economic Development
Evaluation of the implementation of electronic government in Ghana
Securitization of a Political Conflict in Southeast Asia
The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism
Information Systems and Developing Countries
Syed Farid Alatas, Applying Ibn Khaldun
Different approaches to Spanish e-government
Governing the inner "periphery." Spatial security governance of the Highlands in Papua New Guinea since the colonial period
External territorial threat, state capacity, and civil war
Governance and the Cycle of Violence in Papua
| Highly cited | No |
|---|