Evaluating E-Government Development among Africa Union Member States: An Analysis of the Impact of E-Government on Public Administration and Governance in Ghana
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. E-Government Policy Development in the African Union Member States
1.2. E-Government Policy Development in Ghana
1.3. Approaches to Monitoring E-Government Performance
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Approach, Data Source, and Analytical Tools
2.2. Entropy and TOPSIS Model
3. Results
4. Discussion
Policy Implication
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gartner. Gartner Forecasts Worldwide Government IT Spending to Grow 8% in 2023. 2023. Available online: https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2023-05-24-gartner-forecasts-worldwide-government-it-spending-to-grow-8-percent-in-2023 (accessed on 1 February 2023).
- Statista. Government IT Spending Worldwide from 2019 to 2023. Statista Research Department. 2023. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1154210/worldwide-government-it-spending-forecast-by-segment/ (accessed on 5 January 2023).
- Statista. IT Spending in the Middle East and Africa from 2017 to 2023 (in Billion U.S. Dollars). 2020. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/780908/europe-middle-east-africa-it-spending-segments/ (accessed on 5 January 2023).
- Alhassan, G.S. E-Governance for Sustainable Development in Ghana: Issues and Prospects. Master’s Thesis, American University in Cairo, Cairo, Egypt, 2020. Available online: https://fount.aucegypt.edu/etds/814 (accessed on 29 August 2023).
- Avotra, A.A.R.; Chengang, Y.; Marcelline, T.R.S.; Asad, A.; Yingfei, Y. Examining the Impact of E-Government on Corporate Social Responsibility Performance: The Mediating Effect of Mandatory Corporate Social Responsibility Policy, Corruption, and Information and Communication Technologies Development during the COVID era. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 737100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hochstetter, J.; Vásquez, F.; Diéguez, M.; Bustamante, A.; Arango-López, J. Transparency and E-Government in Electronic Public Procurement as Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stanford Medicine. White Paper: The Future of Electronic Health Records (Issue September). 2018. Available online: https://med.stanford.edu/content/dam/sm/ehr/documents/SM-EHR-White-Papers_v12.pdf (accessed on 19 September 2023).
- Hao, W.; Shah, S.M.A.; Nawaz, A.; Asad, A.; Iqbal, S.; Zahoor, H.; Maqsoom, A. The Impact of Energy Cooperation and the Role of the One Belt and Road Initiative in Revolutionizing the Geopolitics of Energy among Regional Economic Powers: An Analysis of Infrastructure Development and Project Management. Complexity 2020, 2020, 8820021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sabani, A.; Deng, H.; Thai, V. Evaluating the development of E-government in Indonesia. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, Melbourne, Australia, 3–5 April 2019; pp. 254–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nation. UN E-Government Knowledge Base. United Nations: Department of Economic and Social Affairs Working Paper. 2016. Available online: https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/Overview#whatis (accessed on 1 August 2023).
- World Bank. World Bank’s e-Government Website, Hosted by the e-Government Practice Group of the Information & Communication Technologies Sector Unit; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2015; Available online: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/digitaldevelopment/brief/e-government.print (accessed on 26 September 2023).
- Mensah, I.K. E-Government and Public Administration. In Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chapman, B.; Mosher, F.C.; Page, E.C. Public Administration. Encyclopedia Britannica. 2023. Available online: https://www.britannica.com/topic/public-administration (accessed on 1 November 2023).
- Bolívar, M.P.R.; Pérez, C.C.; Hernández, A.M.L. The Case of Spanish Regional Governments. The American Review of Public Administration. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 2007, 37, 142–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krah, R.D.Y.; Mertens, G. Transparency in Local Governments: Patterns and Practices of Twenty-first Century. State Local Gov. Rev. 2020, 52, 200–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ardielli, E.; Halásková, M. Assessment of E-government in EU countries. Sci. Pap. Univ. Pardubic. Ser. D Fac. Econ. Adm. 2015, 22, 4–16. [Google Scholar]
- Dhaoui, I. E-Government for Sustainable Development: Evidence from MENA Countries. J. Knowl. Econ. 2021, 13, 2070–2099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ardielli, E. Implementation of Good Governance Concept in the European Union Member Countries. In ICEI 2016; VŠB-TUO: Ostrava, Czechia, 2016; pp. 28–36. [Google Scholar]
- Hafkin, N. E-Government in Africa: An Overview of Progress made and Challenges ahead. In Prepared for the UNDESA/UNPAN Workshop on Electronic/Mobile Government in Africa: Building Capacity in Knowledge Management through Partnership. United Nations Economic Commission (Issue February). 2009. Available online: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/un/documents/un/unpan034002.pdf (accessed on 5 January 2016).
- African Union. The Africa Governance Report. 2019. Available online: https://africaportal.org/thematic-series/digital-id-dispatches-from-africa/ (accessed on 10 September 2023).
- Osei-Kojo, A. E-government and public service quality in Ghana. J. Public Aff. 2016, 17, e1620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ndangiza, A.F.N.; United Nations. APR Panel Briefing Paper APRM Achievements and Best Practices (Issue October). 2013. Available online: https://www.un.org/africarenewal/sites/www.un.org.africarenewal/files/amb_ndangiza_aprm_hlp.pdf (accessed on 28 September 2023).
- OECD. World Summit on Sustainable Development. 2022. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=255&nr=19733%0A (accessed on 27 September 2023).
- Gilles Eric FOADEY/NEPAD. The NEPAD e-Africa Commission becomes NEPAD e-Africa Programme. NEPAD. 2015. Available online: https://www.nepad.org/news/nepad-e-africa-commission-becomes-nepad-e-africa-programme (accessed on 18 September 2023).
- Minges, M.; Briceño-garmendia, C.; Williams, M.; Ampah, M.; Camos, D.; Shkratan, M. Information and Communications Technology in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Sector Review (Issue June). 2008. Available online: https://eu-africa-infrastructure-tf.net/attachments/library/aicd-background-paper-10-ict-sect-summary-en.pdf (accessed on 13 September 2023).
- Defitri, S.Y. The role of political will in enhancing e-government: An empirical case in Indonesia. Probl. Perspect. Manag. 2022, 20, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barrett, P.; Treves, A.; Shmis, T.; Ambasz, D.; Ustinova, M. The Impact of School Infrastructure on Learning. In International Development in Focus; World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Chopra, S. Future of Paper Receipts in United Arab Emirates. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Econ. Res. 2022, 7, 745–803. [Google Scholar]
- UN E-Government Report. E-Government Survey 2022: The Future of Digital Government; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Fiji E-Gov Survey MSQ 2022. 2022, p. 1. Available online: https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/Portals/egovkb/MSQ2022/Fiji%20E-Gov%20Survey%20MSQ%202022.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2023).
- Rorissa, A.; Demissie, D. An analysis of African e-Government service websites. Gov. Inf. Q. 2010, 27, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rwigema, P.-C. Digital technology and its relevance to political and social economic transformation. Case study of east african community region. Strat. J. Bus. Chang. Manag. 2020, 7, 1402–1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mwangi, E.W. Enhancing Electronic Government Services in Public Organizations in Kenya: Case of Huduma Postal City Square in Nairobi; University of Nairobi: Nairobi, Kenya, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Naicker, S. Developing a Framework for Business Analysis of Public Eservice Systems. Master’s Thesis, Durban University of Technology, Durban, South Africa, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- African Union. The Digital Transformation Strategy for Africa (2020–2030); African Union: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Tchao, E.T.; Keelson, E.; Aggor, C.; Amankwa, G.A.M. e-Government Services in Ghana—Current State and Future Perspective. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 14–16 December 2017; pp. 624–631. [Google Scholar]
- Achampong, E.K. The State of Information and Communication Technology and Health Informatics in Ghana. Online J. Public Health Inform. 2012, 4, ojphi.v4i2.4191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mensah, I.K. Overview of E-government Adoption and Implementation in Ghana. Int. J. Soc. Behav. Educ. Econ. Bus. Ind. Eng. 2016, 10, 61–72. Available online: https://waset.org/publications/10003316/overview-of-e-government-adoption-and-implementation-in-ghana (accessed on 22 September 2023).
- World Bank. Project Performance Assessment Report: Republic of Ghana eGhana Project (Issue 108359); World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- World Bank. Combined Project Information Documents/Integrated Safeguards; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2018; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
- Authority, N.I. Press Briefing by Nia on the National Identification System Project. 2021; pp. 1–13. Available online: https://nia.gov.gh/2021/07/01/press-briefing-by-nia-on-the-national-identification-system-project/ (accessed on 10 September 2023).
- Kubuga, K.K.; Abiam, S.; Nantogmah, F. Ghana’ s Digital Addressing Design—Reality Gulf. 2023, pp. 1–18. Available online: https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-2993597/v1/af6f24ce-b673-495e-92ee-ece66a4e9375.pdf?c=1687942792 (accessed on 29 August 2023).
- Ardielli, E. Use of TOPSIS Method for Assessing of Good Governance in European Union Countries. Rev. Econ. Perspect. 2019, 19, 211–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kettani, D.; Moulin, B. E-Government for Good Governance in Developing Countries: Empirical Evidence from the eFez Project (Issue June). 2014. Available online: http://www.anthempress.com/e-government-for-good-governance-in-developing-countries (accessed on 5 August 2023).
- Cichosz, M.; Wallenburg, C.M.; Knemeyer, A.M. Digital transformation at logistics service providers: Barriers, success factors and leading practices. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2020, 31, 209–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Economic Forum. World Economic Forum—Annual Report; World Economic Forum: Cologny, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- ITU. Measuring Digital Development: Facts and Figures. In ITU Publications. 2021. Available online: https://www.itu.int/itu-d/reports/statistics/facts-figures-2021/ (accessed on 5 November 2023).
- Lamrini, L.; Abounaima, M.C.; Alaoui, M.T. New distributed-topsis approach for multi-criteria decision-making problems in a big data context. J. Big Data 2022, 10, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EUROSTAT. Statistical Database. 2013. Available online: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/information_society/introduction (accessed on 20 June 2023).
- UN E-Government Report. E-Government Survey 2020: Digital Government in the Decade of Action for Sustainable Development; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Creswell, J.W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 3rd ed.; SAGE Publications Ltd.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2009; pp. 203–224. Available online: http://www.ceil-conicet.gov.ar/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Creswell-Cap-10.pdf (accessed on 20 July 2023).
- Hanine, M.; Boutkhoum, O.; Tikniouine, A.; Agouti, T. Application of an integrated multi-criteria decision making AHP-TOPSIS methodology for ETL software selection. SpringerPlus 2016, 5, 263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balogh, R.; Leonard, H.; Bourke, J.; Brameld, K.; Downs, J.; Hansen, M.; Glasson, E.; Lin, E.; Lloyd, M.; Lunsky, Y.; et al. Data Linkage: Canadian and Australian Perspectives on a Valuable Methodology for Intellectual and Developmental Disability Research. Intellect. Dev. Disabil. 2019, 57, 439–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wagner, J.B.; Kim, M.; Tassé, M.J. Technology Tools: Increasing Our Reach in National Surveillance of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. Intellect. Dev. Disabil. 2019, 57, 463–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhutia, P.W.; Phipon, R. Appication of ahp and topsis method for supplier selection problem. IOSR J. Eng. 2012, 2, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roszkowska, E. Multi-criteria decision making models by applying the TOPSIS method to crisp and interval data. Mult. Criteria Decis. Mak. Univ. Econ. Katow. 2011, 6, 200–230. [Google Scholar]
- Behzadian, M.; Otaghsara, S.K.; Yazdani, M.; Ignatius, J. A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Syst. Appl. 2012, 39, 13051–13069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christian, A.V.; Zhang, Y.; Salifou, C.K. Country Selection for International Expansion: TOPSIS Method Analysis. Mod. Econ. 2016, 7, 470–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, D.-Y.; Ma, Y.-Y.; Lin, H.-L. Using the Entropy and TOPSIS Models to Evaluate Sustainable Development of Islands: A Case in China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, P. Effects of normalization on the entropy-based TOPSIS method. Expert Syst. Appl. 2019, 136, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jablonsky, J. MS Excel based Software Support Tools for Decision Problems with Multiple Criteria. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2014, 12, 251–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yadav, V.; Karmakar, S.; Kalbar, P.P.; Dikshit, A. PyTOPS: A Python based tool for TOPSIS. SoftwareX 2019, 9, 217–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dinçer, S.E. Multi-criteria analysis of economic activity for European Union member states and candidate countries: TOPSIS and WSA applications. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. 2011, 21, 563–572. [Google Scholar]
- Azaare, J.; Wu, Z.; Zhu, Y.; Armah, G.; Engmann, G.M.; Kwadwo, S.M.; Ahia, B.N.K.; Ampaw, E.M. Measuring the Adequacy of Loss Distribution for the Ghanaian Auto Insurance Risk Exposure through Maximum Likelihood Estimation. Open J. Bus. Manag. 2022, 10, 846–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, P. Effects of the entropy weight on TOPSIS. Expert Syst. Appl. 2021, 168, 114186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ITU. Framework for A Set of E-Government Core Indicators. 2012. Available online: https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/partnership/Framework_for_a_set_of_E-Government_Core_Indicators_Final_rev1.pdf (accessed on 7 September 2023).
- Milani, A.; Shanian, A.; El-Lahham, C. A decision-based approach for measuring human behavioral resistance to organizational change in strategic planning. Math. Comput. Model. 2008, 48, 1765–1774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Longhurst, R.; Zealand, N. Interviews: In-Depth, Semi-Structured. In Ineternational Encyclopedia of Human Geography; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 580–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mansoor, M. Citizens’ trust in government as a function of good governance and government agency’s provision of quality information on social media during COVID-19. Gov. Inf. Q. 2021, 38, 101597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Norman, K.D.; Yvonna, S.L. The Qualitative Inquiry Reader; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rothstein, B.; Teorell, J. What Is Quality of Government? A Theory of Impartial Government Institutions. Governance 2008, 21, 165–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations. What is Good Governance? United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Ardielli, E. Evaluation of eHealth Deployment at Primary Care in the EU Member States by Usage of Selected MCDM Methods. Rev. Econ. Perspect. 2020, 20, 337–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demmke, C.; Hammerschmid, G.; Meyer, R. Decentralisation and Accountability as Focus of Public Administration Modernisation. Vienna. 2006. Available online: https://research.wu.ac.at/en/publications/decentralisation-and-accountability-as-focus-of-public-administra-6 (accessed on 28 September 2023).
- Yoon, K.; Hwang, C.-L. Multiple Attribute Decision Making; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1995; ISBN 9780803954861. [Google Scholar]
- Sadabadi, S.A.; Hadi-Vencheh, A.; Jamshidi, A.; Jalali, M. A New Index for TOPSIS based on Relative Distance to Best and Worst Points. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak. 2020, 19, 695–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dias, G.P. Global e-government development: Besides the relative wealth of countries, do policies matter? Transform. Gov. People Process. Policy 2020, 14, 381–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, S.M.; Yuan, Q. The Evolution of Information and Communication Technology in Public Administration. Public Adm. Dev. 2015, 35, 140–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reiff, M.; Surmanová, K.; Balcerzak, A.P.; Pietrzak, M.B. Multiple Criteria Analysis of European Union Agriculture. J. Int. Stud. 2016, 9, 62–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vasylieva, T.; Machová, V.; Vysochyna, A.; Podgórska, J.; Samusevych, Y. Setting up architecture for environmental tax system under certain socioeconomic conditions. J. Int. Stud. 2020, 13, 273–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Bank. The World Bank Annual Report 2017©; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2017; Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10986/27986 (accessed on 24 September 2023).
- Mo Ibrahim Report; Public Service In Africa, 2018. Available online: https://mo.ibrahim.foundation/sites/default/files/2021-06/2018-forum-report.pdf (accessed on 1 November 2023).
- Göll, E.; Zwiers, J. Technological trends in the Mena Region: The Cases of Digitalization and Information and Communications Technology (ICT). MENARA Working Papers (Volume 23, Issue November). 2018. Available online: http://ufmsecretariat.org (accessed on 24 September 2023).
- Tapsoba, B.A.M. The 5 Biggest Obstacles to E-Government. URBANET (GIZ’s Sector Project). Available online: https://www.urbanet.info/5-biggest-obstacles-to-e-government/ (accessed on 5 July 2023).
- Brown, D.C.G.; Toze, S. Information governance in digitized public administration. Can. Public Adm. 2017, 60, 581–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, D. Electronic government and public administration. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 2005, 71, 241–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suryotrisongko, H.; Jayanto, D.P.; Tjahyanto, A. Design and Development of Backend Application for Public Complaint Systems Using Microservice Spring Boot. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2017, 124, 736–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bank, T.W. Combined Project Information Documents/Integrated Safeguards Datasheet (PID/ISDS). 2019. Available online: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/660191570638647407/pdf/Project-Information-Document-Integrated-Safeguards-Data-Sheet-Municipal-Investment-Program-P166580.pdf (accessed on 29 August 2023).
- Pina, V.; Torres, L.; Acerete, B. Are ICTs promoting government accountability?: A comparative analysis of e-governance developments in 19 OECD countries. Crit. Perspect. Account. 2007, 18, 583–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adam, I.O. Examining E-Government development effects on corruption in Africa: The mediating effects of ICT development and institutional quality. Technol. Soc. 2020, 61, 101245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Country | EGDI World Ranking | OSI (i-1) | EPI (i-2) | HCI (i-3) | TII (i-4) | EGDI (i-5) | OGDI (i-6) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Algeria | 112 | 0.3743 | 0.2273 | 0.6956 | 0.6133 | 0.5611 | 0.1972 |
Botswana | 118 | 0.2740 | 0.1705 | 0.6932 | 0.6814 | 0.5495 | 0.2648 |
Cabo Verde | 110 | 0.4965 | 0.25 | 0.6507 | 0.5507 | 0.5660 | 0.3803 |
Côte d’Ivoire | 120 | 0.5467 | 0.375 | 0.5748 | 0.5186 | 0.5467 | 0.7606 |
Egypt | 103 | 0.5730 | 0.3523 | 0.6375 | 0.5579 | 0.5895 | 0.3127 |
Gabon | 116 | 0.3578 | 0.2045 | 0.6706 | 0.6279 | 0.5521 | 0.2141 |
Ghana | 106 | 0.5361 | 0.4545 | 0.6176 | 0.5934 | 0.5824 | 0.8310 |
Kenya | 113 | 0.6821 | 0.5795 | 0.5641 | 0.4305 | 0.5589 | 0.7268 |
Mauritius | 75 | 0.6282 | 0.4205 | 0.7733 | 0.7588 | 0.7201 | 0.7296 |
Morocco | 101 | 0.4721 | 0.2727 | 0.6350 | 0.6676 | 0.5915 | 0.4366 |
Namibia | 121 | 0.4316 | 0.25 | 0.6516 | 0.5133 | 0.5322 | 0.1775 |
Rwanda | 119 | 0.7935 | 0.6364 | 0.5322 | 0.3209 | 0.5489 | 0.7070 |
Seychelles | 85 | 0.4424 | 0.2273 | 0.7758 | 0.8198 | 0.6793 | 0.3296 |
South Africa | 65 | 0.7487 | 0.5909 | 0.7733 | 0.6850 | 0.7357 | 0.7662 |
Tunisia | 88 | 0.6031 | 0.5455 | 0.6911 | 0.6646 | 0.6530 | 0.7606 |
Zambia | 131 | 0.4414 | 0.375 | 0.6744 | 0.3909 | 0.5022 | 0.5493 |
OSI(C-1) | EPI(C-2) | HCI(C-3) | TII(C-4) | EGDI(C-5) | OGDI(C-6) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Vj | 0.3348 | 0.3207 | 0.3446 | 0.3382 | 0.3445 | 0.3109 |
dj | 0.6652 | 0.6793 | 0.6554 | 0.6618 | 0.6555 | 0.6891 |
wj | 0.1660 | 0.1696 | 0.1636 | 0.1652 | 0.1636 | 0.1720 |
Country | Ci | Country | Ci | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
South Africa | 0.0120 | 0.0756 | 0.8635 | Algeria | 0.0687 | 0.0260 | 0.2744 |
Mauritius | 0.0258 | 0.0643 | 0.7136 | Kenya | 0.0363 | 0.0626 | 0.6331 |
Seychelles | 0.0581 | 0.0451 | 0.4369 | Gabon | 0.0701 | 0.0254 | 0.2664 |
Tunisia | 0.0538 | 0.0651 | 0.5477 | Botswana | 0.0730 | 0.0289 | 0.2834 |
Morocco | 0.0533 | 0.0365 | 0.4063 | Rwanda | 0.0426 | 0.0696 | 0.6202 |
Egypt | 0.0522 | 0.0362 | 0.4096 | Côte d’Ivoire | 0.0434 | 0.0497 | 0.5339 |
Ghana | 0.0350 | 0.0583 | 0.6248 | Namibia | 0.0689 | 0.0217 | 0.2394 |
Cabo Verde | 0.0582 | 0.0298 | 0.3390 | Zambia | 0.0550 | 0.0354 | 0.3913 |
Above-Average-Performing Countries | Average-Performing Countries | Below-Average-Performing Countries |
---|---|---|
South Africa, Mauritius, Ghana, Kenya, and Rwanda | Seychelles, Cote d’Ivoire, Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, Cabo Verde, and Zambia | Algeria, Gabon, Botswana, And Namibia |
Indicators | e-Government Impact | Manual System Impact |
---|---|---|
Effectiveness and efficiency | Faster and more efficient due to automation Provides 24/7 access to services and information Ghana.gov server platform (https://www.ghana.gov.gh accessed on 1 September 2023) | Slower due to manual processes and paperwork Limited access to services and information due to office hours and physical location |
Responsiveness | Swift response to public-service users’ complaints | Delay in response to complaints |
Information dissemination | Efficient and effective dissemination of information | Ineffective information dissemination |
Cost-effectiveness | Reduced cost by reducing paperwork and staff needed | More expensive due to higher staffing and paperwork cost |
Transparency | Online access to information on the implementation of policies, decisions, and results of elections | Lacks transparency due to manual processes and limited public access to information |
Accountability | Can improve accountability through tracking and audit trails | Limited accountability due to manual processes and bureaucratic structures |
Flexibility | Can be more flexible and adaptable to changing needs | Limited flexibility due to manual processes and bureaucratic structures |
Security | Provides robust security measures to protect sensitive information | Vulnerable to data breaches and security threats, theft, fraud, and limited security measures |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Tiika, B.J.; Tang, Z.; Azaare, J.; Dagadu, J.C.; Otoo, S.N.-A. Evaluating E-Government Development among Africa Union Member States: An Analysis of the Impact of E-Government on Public Administration and Governance in Ghana. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1333. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031333
Tiika BJ, Tang Z, Azaare J, Dagadu JC, Otoo SN-A. Evaluating E-Government Development among Africa Union Member States: An Analysis of the Impact of E-Government on Public Administration and Governance in Ghana. Sustainability. 2024; 16(3):1333. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031333
Chicago/Turabian StyleTiika, Bernard John, Zhiwei Tang, Jacob Azaare, Joshua Caleb Dagadu, and Samuel Nii-Ayi Otoo. 2024. "Evaluating E-Government Development among Africa Union Member States: An Analysis of the Impact of E-Government on Public Administration and Governance in Ghana" Sustainability 16, no. 3: 1333. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031333