Article Preview
Top1. Introduction
Days when politicians were attending political rallies, meetings or even visiting citizens door to door are gone. Today, more than ever before, new technologies reach a large number of citizens in a short time and cost-effective manner (Šuhel, 2013). Physical space moves to a virtual one, where people exchange opinions on current issues thus creating public opinion that influences both national and local politics (Trček & Lenarčič, 2003).
E-government is defined as the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in public administration for the purpose of providing traditional public administration services online in order to increase the efficiency and effectiveness in providing public services on the one hand and transparency and accountability of public administration on the other hand (Vrček & Musa, 2017). One of the main strategic goals of e-government is e-democracy (Al-Hujran et al., 2014). As part of e-democracy, e-participation is an e-government service aimed at increasing citizen participation in political decision-making and thus improving democratic processes (Šuhel, 2013). Or, as Le Blanc says, “e-participation is the use of information and communication technologies with the aim of involving citizens in decision-making processes of significant public relevance” (Le Blanc, 2020). Some would say digitalization of politics, and some politicisation of the Internet.
E-participation as a concept has been recorded in foundations of the EU (Lisbon Agreement, Article 8A says, “Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union”). Although a large number of papers related to e-participation has been found after literature review (which also refers to the relevance of the topic), there is a small number of researches about the drivers of adoption and intention to use public e-participation services. According to Davis, there are two reasons for researching the adoption of technology: the first one is to predict possible acceptance and the second one is to determine the reasons of non-acceptance and take the necessary measures to achieve acceptance (Davis, 1989). This study examines attitudes towards the public e-participation services acceptance. In addition, demand structure for public e-participation services is also of interest.
Accordingly, goals of this paper are as follows:
- •
To develop a multidimensional model of acceptance that will be used to explain the factors influencing the intention to use public e-participation services.
- •
To understand demand side structure for public e-participation services.
Assuming the existence of non-technological influencing factors (namely, non-technological factors often have an essential impact on the behavior of people), the existing and frequently used Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) becomes too restrictive for new insights. Furthermore, when this existing model becomes too restrictive, it is necessary to broaden it. Ultimately, such, usually more complex multidimensional model, needs to be explored.
Top2. Research Motivation
Low trust in both national and supranational governments and their institutions represents our reality. A Eurobarometer survey shows that European Union citizens have less and less trust in their national governments, parliaments and institutions within EU. In 2016, only 27% of respondents said they trusted their national governments, whereas more than 70% said they do not trust their government (Vrček & Musa, 2017). Trust in supranational EU institutions is somewhat better, but also weak.
It is worth noting that such weak figures related to trust are accompanied by a downward trend in voter turnout (Voter Turnout Database | International IDEA, n.d.).
How to reverse this trend? Can e-participation technologies influence the increase in voter turnout? Many authors believe that new technologies open up numerous possibilities for solving the problem of chronic mistrust.