Government Information Quarterly 39 (2022) 101663
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Government Information Quarterly
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/govinf
Effects of Predictors of Citizens’ Attitudes and Intention to Use Open
Government Data and Government 2.0
Ariel Antônio Conceição de Souza a, Marcia Juliana d’Angelo a, *, Raimundo Nonato Lima Filho b
a
b
Fucape Business School, Av. Fernando Ferrari, 1358 – Boa Vista, 29075-505 Vitória, ES, Brazil
FACAPE – Campus Universitário, s/n – Vila Eduardo, 56.300-00 Petrolina, PE, Brazil
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords:
Citizen’s attitude
Open government
Government 2.0
Open data
Public value
This research proposes a holistic and integrative theoretical model to discuss the effects of eight predictors of
citizens’ attitudes towards open government and Government 2.0, and whether these attitudes influence their
intention to use open government data in Brazil, one of the founding countries of the Open Government Part­
nership (OGP). Findings show the effects of six predictors of citizens’ attitudes towards open government and
government 2.0. In essence, these predictors are ease of use, usefulness, intrinsic motivation, political satisfac­
tion, government trust, and intensity of internet use. This study also indicates that education, income, and region
influence the ease of use and usefulness of open data. These findings also mean that public managers and political
parties still have “homework’ to do to stimulate citizens’ behavior towards open government and government
2.0. These initiatives encompass the government portals quality and data transparency improvement through less
restrictive laws. Also, improve politicians’ job performance.
According to Kelly, Mulgan and Muers (2002, p. 4), ‘public value
refers to the value created by the government through services, laws,
regulations, and other actions. In a democracy, this value is ulti­
mately defined by the public themselves’. In this sense, a public
governance model which provides government open data and access
to them is a way to create public value to citizens through social
control (Ladeur, 2017). Citizens need to be aware of their political,
social and environmental responsibilities (Boivaird & Russel, 2003).
1. Introduction
Therefore, academic and professional scenarios have faced new
research questions and new challenges due to the combination of egovernment with the continuous advance of technology (Wirtz & Daiser,
2018). Similarly, the emergence of further information and communi­
cation technologies has led to innovations in the democratic process
based on the transparency of government actions, citizens’ political
participation, and collaboration between governments and citizens
(Wirtz, Weyerer, & Rösch, 2017a, 2017b). These three aspects constitute
the principles of open government (Chun, Shulman, Sandoval, & Hovy,
2010; Lee & Kwak, 2012), gaining attention from the public and the
scientific community (Wirtz et al., 2017a, 2017b) and popularity in the
political landscape (Meijer, Curtin, & Hillebrandt, 2012).
Open government is ‘the extent to which external actors can monitor
and influence government processes through access to government in­
formation and decision-making arenas’ (Grimmelikhuijsen & Feeney,
2016, p. 4). It is a concept that relates access to government information
to the public’s view and access to decision-making areas to the public’s
voice (Meijer et al., 2012). Open government is an innovation arising
from the electronic government concept but with a higher focus on in­
formation (Abu-Shanab, 2015). In this context, innovative resources
contribute to the e-government system. For instance, online commu­
nities and social networks, which are part of a new Web 2.0, inserted in
the public area, became known as government 2.0. This innovative
approach enables governments to assess their duty in society and their
relationship with citizens (Anttiroiko, 2010).
Thus, ‘open Government and Government 2.0 seem to be, respec­
tively, the new ends and new means of e-government’ (Nam, 2012, p.
347). In this sense, open government as a political attitude or process
manifests itself through open government data (Wirtz et al., 2017a,
2017b). In this research, we follow the concept of Janssen, Charalabidis
and Zuiderwijk (2012, p. 258), which open data ‘as non-privacyrestricted and non-confidential data which is produced with public
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: marciadangelo@fucape.br (M.J. d’Angelo).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101663
Received 6 April 2020; Received in revised form 18 March 2021; Accepted 6 December 2021
Available online 7 January 2022
0740-624X/© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
A.A.C. Souza et al.
Government Information Quarterly 39 (2022) 101663
money and is made available without any restrictions on its usage or
distribution’. Open data trigger more participation and engagement
with government and represents a materialized example of open gov­
ernment’s central values (Susha, Zuiderwijk, Janssen, & Grönlund,
2015).
Given the configuration of attitudes and intentions as antecedents of
actual behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005), this study proposes a more
holistic and integrative theoretical model to discuss, in Brazil, the effects
of predictors of citizens’ attitudes towards open government and the
Government 2.0, furthermore, whether these attitudes influence their
intention to use open government data. In particular, eight predictors –
ease of use, usefulness, extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, internet
competence, political satisfaction, trust in government and intensity of
internet use.
Several studies have already shown some factors that may impact
‘citizens’ attitudes towards e-government and open government and
their intention to use open government data. Factors such as perceived
ease of use (Sipior, Ward, & Connolly, 2011; Wang & Lo, 2013); moti­
vation (Hutter, Füller, & Koch, 2011; Purwanto, Zuiderwijk, & Janssen,
2018) and trust in government (Horsburgh, Goldfinch, & Gauld, 2011;
Nam, 2012).
However, open government research is still in its embryonic state
(Wirtz et al., 2017a, 2017b) since the use of open data is still recent,
requiring a more significant political and social maturity (Cunha et al.,
2015). As there are recommendations to understand this issue in other
countries (Wirtz et al., 2017a, 2017b), it is appropriate to conduct this
research, particularly in Brazil, one of the founding countries of the
Open Government Partnership (OGP). This initiative was launched in
September 2011 by eight countries (Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Norway,
the Philippines, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United
States) committed to making their governments more open and
accountable to their citizens (OGP – Open Government Partnership,
2018). The current Brazilian political context, in part due to the crisis
caused by the denunciation of corrupt acts from 2015 (Gohn, 2016) and
the expected reduction of corruption as one of the benefits of open
government (Meijer et al., 2012), corroborates the relevance of this
research.
Moreover, as for citizens’ attitudes, there is a need for more empir­
ical research (Nam, 2012; Wirtz et al., 2017a, 2017b). There are gaps in
whether citizens who are dissatisfied with the current political situation
are willing to contribute to open government initiatives (Wijnhoven,
Ehrenhard, & Kuhn, 2015). Finally, most national studies on e-govern­
ment use qualitative methods, with themes related to history, evolution
and characteristics, accountability, internet purchases and open gov­
ernment data (Barbosa, 2017), with no quantitative approaches such as
the proposal of this research.
The main research contribution is to show the effects of primary
predictors already considered in the international literature in the atti­
tudes and intention to use open government in a more holistic and
integrative theoretical model, in Brazil, one of the founding countries of
the Open Government Partnership (OGP) initiative. The countries that
founded this initiative – Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Norway, the
Philippines, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States –
have different social, political, economic and cultural contexts. There­
fore, the predictors’ effects are not necessarily the same among these
countries due to their idiosyncrasies. Also, Brazil is one of the leading
economies worldwide, the largest economy in Latin American. There­
fore, it is necessary to understand this public administration phenome­
non, especially nowadays, considering the pandemic Covid-19.
According to World Health Organization (2021), Brazil occupies the
second position for confirmed cases (11,603,535) and deaths (282,17).
The data are from the open data from the states.
2. Research model and hypotheses
2.1. Government 2.0, open government and open data
For Bertot, Jaeger, and Grimes (2010) and Bertot, Jaeger, and Han­
sen (2012), the term web 2.0 refers to social media, including blogs,
Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, a set of online tools which favor social
interaction. For Sivarajah, Irani, and Weerakkody (2015), governments
use these second-generation web-based technologies to formulate open
policies, communication campaigns, and public service.
The impacts of web 2.0 on the public sector occur in several ways.
News and information to citizens enhance public sector transparency.
Besides, information and communication technologies (ICT) enable new
participation forms, improving citizen understanding and engagement
(Bonsón, Torres, Royo, & Flores, 2012). ICTs are useful tools for iden­
tifying corrupt behavior, increasing transparency, and providing a
means for society to monitor government processes (Shim & Eom,
2008).
Concerning the term open government, it had one of the earliest
known uses in the 1950s. During later decades, political actors were
used as a synonym for social agents’ access to previously undisclosed
government information (Yu & Robinson, 2012). Over time, the defi­
nition of transparency, collaboration, and participation due to open data
and open actions enhances this approach (Gascó, 2015).
In this perspective, the advancement of information and communi­
cation technologies is one of the triggers for the beginning of open
government (Grimmelikhuijsen & Feeney, 2016), contributing to
generating a culture of information sharing (Hansson, Belkacem, &
Ekenberg, 2015). Also, modern technologies serve as a foundation for a
new democratic era in which transparency of government action, citizen
political participation, and government-citizen collaboration are on the
same level (Wirtz et al., 2017a, 2017b).
The literature has addressed transparency, participation, and
collaboration as critical dimensions of open government (Lee & Kwak,
2012; Ganapati & Reddick, 2014; Hansson et al., 2015; Wirtz et al.,
2017a, 2017b; Piotrowski, 2017). However, other factors such as
accountability, regulations, technology, and acceptance or trust in
government make up an open government structure (Wirtz & Birk­
meyer, 2015).
In the open government implementation process, government
agencies need to acquire new skills and technologies, empower em­
ployees, and improve network infrastructure (Lee & Kwak, 2012). They
also need to overcome some obstacles such as the need for cultural
change to create norms and open government practices, problems in
information management, technical issues and lack of resources and
motivation to participate (Hansson et al., 2015).
Open government data is the dataset that anyone can access, which
in itself is not only the publication of data but also includes users’
feedback in order to improve governmental performance and mecha­
nisms for monitoring’ (Parycek, Hochtl, & Ginner, 2014, p. 81). Ac­
cording to Yang, Lo, and Shiang (2015), open data is closely related to
the advances of information and communication technologies (ICTs)
and constitutes an essential policy in the public area worldwide.
Government and the public comprising people, businesses and nonprofit organizations Open data can share through online government
platforms (Yang et al., 2015) such as data.gov in the US. USA, data.gov.
uk in the United Kingdom, govdata.de in Germany (Wirtz et al., 2017a,
2017b) and data.gov.br in Brazil (Controladoria Geral da União [CGU],
2016). In this sense, there are three types of citizens in an open public
administration — the open citizens, who get involved actively and
effectively. The closed citizens, who do not wish to be involved in
consultation and participation processes). Also, the silent citizens, that
have a great desire to be informed by the public institution, but do not
wish to be involved in the consultation process) (Duţu & Diaconu,
2017).
The implementation of open government data brings benefits in the
2
A.A.C. Souza et al.
Government Information Quarterly 39 (2022) 101663
organizational, social, and economic spheres (Parycek et al., 2014).
Managing information and making data available quickly results in
several benefits. Thus, some of the public administration benefits are a
better image, more data for choosing the government representative,
and can contribute towards economic growth through the emergence of
new forms of business (Parycek et al., 2014).
Data can contribute to making the public more aware of government
work (Lee & Kwak, 2012) by enabling citizens to co-create and control
government (Kornberger, Meyer, Brandtner, & Höllerer, 2017). On the
other hand, Hansson et al. (2015) state that one of the problems is data
interpretation, which ends up losing its usefulness when it is not un­
derstood, and the right resources are lacking to interpret it. Govern­
ments need to provide means to use open data and not just data access
(Janssen et al., 2012).
attitudes and intentions define people’s behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein,
2005).
Several studies on other topics have shown that attitude is a reliable
factor in predicting intention (Beck & Ajzen, 1991; Chiang, Wuttke,
Knauf, Sun, & Tso, 2009; Cox, 2012; Ho, Lwin, Yee, & Lee, 2017; Mou &
Lin, 2015). For example, in the relationship between consumers and
companies mediated by social media, Cheung and To (2016) showed
that attitudes towards service co-creation in social media are positively
related to co-creation consumers’ intention. Jafarkarimi, Saadatdoost,
Sim, and Hee (2016) pointed out that attitudes in favor of unethical
behaviors influence antithetical behavioral intent on social networking
sites.
In this research, it is argued that the attitude towards open govern­
ment and e-government is a ‘more concrete behavioral stance of the
intention to use open government data’ (Wirtz et al., 2017a, 2017b, p.
2). Besides, it is essential to note that government 2.0 is the combination
of electronic government with web 2.0 (Anttiroiko, 2010), whose in­
novations also determine citizens’ attitudes (Nam, 2012). Wang and Lo
(2013), in a quantitative behavioral study in Taiwan, showed that citi­
zens’ attitudes towards the use of government websites have positive
and significant effects on the intention to use government websites. In a
more recent study, using the Theory of Planned Behavior and seeking to
understand the use of political research aggregation sites, Hopp and
Sheehan (2020) identified that the positive evaluations of these sites
positively influence the intention to use them.
Thus, supported by Ajzen (1991), the following hypotheses will be
tested:
2.2. Citizen’s intention to use open government data
The intention is ‘the immediate antecedent of real behavior’ (Ajzen &
Fishbein, 2005, p.194). According to the Planned Behavior Theory, it is
‘determined by the individual’s attitude towards behavior’ (Ajzen,
1991, p.188), an extension of Rational Action Theory (Ajzen & Fishbein,
1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). It was designed to predict and explain
human behavior in various specific contexts. For example, in the
adoption of technology (Mathieson, 1991); health promotion (Conner,
Norman, & Bell, 2002), e-commerce adoption (Pavlou, & Fygenson., M.,
20066), sustainability (Liu, Sheng, Mundorf, Redding, & Ye, 2017) and
use of social networking sites (Baker & White, 2010; Kim, Lee, Sung, &
Choi, 2016).
In the context of social media and network sites provided by gov­
ernments to citizens, Wang and Lo (2013) found that the intention to use
government sites is shaped by trust in the government and the facili­
tating conditions, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use.
Alzahrani, Al-Karaghouli, and Weerakkody (2017) concluded that the
intention to use an online website is related to the citizen’s willingness
to get involved in these websites’ government services.
When analyzing the behavioral intention to use and accept data from
open government, Saxena and Janssen (2017) showed an increase in the
use and acceptance of data among respondents. In this study, while men
can access open data sets according to their purposes and professional
experiences, women are likely to use data sets motivated by personal
interests. Also, younger respondents are more inclined to accept and use
open data (Saxena & Janssen, 2017).
In the relationship between the quality and intentions constructs,
Khan, Moon, Swar, Zo, and Rho (2012) found that the quality of e-ser­
vice influences Afghan citizens’ intentions to use e-government services,
whereas Purwanto et al. (2018) found the low quality of the data has not
prevented citizens from engaging in the open government initiative in
Indonesia. Social altruism is an intrinsic motivation driver for citizens to
start and continue to engage with open electoral data. This result is
contrary to some previous studies Zuiderwijk et al., 2012). The context
of citizen engagement in this study is associated with transparency and
responsibility; therefore, data availability is more important than
quality.
Hypothesis 1a. Citizens’ attitudes towards open government posi­
tively influence the intention to use open government data.
Hypothesis 1b. Citizens’ attitudes towards government 2.0 positively
influence the intention to use open government data.
2.4. Perceived ease of use and usefulness
Open government data is on portals, such as open data.gov in the
United States, data.gov.uk in the United Kingdom, govdata.de in Ger­
many, and dados.gov.br, in Brazil. It is worth noting that governments
use the internet to provide data about governmental actions to citizens,
who, in turn, need to have knowledge and skills to access and use these
platforms (Wirtz et al., 2017a, 2017b).
Therefore, open government is a concept related to electronic gov­
ernment, based on the extensive use of Information and Communica­
tions Technology (ICT) (Abu-Shanab, 2015). Technology is essential in
using open government data, which must be observed in the information
system since they are in digital format (Wirtz et al., 2017a, 2017b). In
this perspective, there are several areas of study. As well as being within
the scope of public administration, Davis’s (1986) technology accep­
tance model explains the acceptance or use of information systems
(Ozkan & Kanat, 2011; Sipior et al., 2011; Wang & Lo, 2013; Wirtz,
Piehler, & Daiser, 2015) and according to this model, the perceived
utility is understood as ‘as the degree to which an individual believes
that using a particular system would increase their job performance.
Whereas ease of use is perceived as ‘the degree to which an individual
believes that using a particular system would be free of a physical and
mental effort’. Both affect attitude (Davis, 1986, p. 26).
An electronic government system’s perceived usefulness strongly
influenced citizens’ attitudes (Ozkan & Kanat, 2011). When a citizen
recognizes a service as proper, it means the service is easy to use and
2.3. Citizen’s attitude concerning open government and Government 2.0
The Theory of Rational Action defines attitude as an ‘acquired pre­
disposition to respond favorably or unfavorably concerning a given
object’ (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, p. 6). According to the authors, beliefs,
3
A.A.C. Souza et al.
Government Information Quarterly 39 (2022) 101663
government data positively influences citizens’ attitudes towards open
government; and government 2.0 (b).
learn. Sipior et al. (2011) associate the perceived ease of use with the use
of electronic government services and the perceived utility; however, it
does not associate the perceived utility with the services’ use. The
findings by Wang and Lo (2013) suggest that the perceived utility and
the perceived ease of use positively affect citizens’ attitudes. Zuiderwijk,
Janssen, and Dwivedi (2015) showed that the perceived ease of use,
which is referred to in the study as effort expectation, is not related to
the behavioral intention to use and accept open data technologies. Wirtz
et al. (2017a, 2017b) confirmed that perceived utility and ease of use are
associated with citizens’ intention to use open government data. The
perceived utility concept refers to a measure in which the citizen be­
lieves that open government data optimizes his performance. Ease of use
is a citizens’ effort to use open government data to find and understand
the data and the practicality of the technological platforms that provide
the data.
Based on the technology acceptance model, these definitions, the
studies mentioned, and that the perceived ease of use has a causal effect
on the perceived utility (Davis, 1986), the study proposes the following
hypotheses:
2.6. Internet competence
Internet competence is a ‘set of attitudes regarding the perceived
individual experience in using internet-based applications and plat­
forms’ (Wirtz et al., 2015, p. 79). In the study by Marco, Robles, and
Antino (2014), internet competence, operationalized as a digital skill,
positively affects citizens’ digital political participation. In Wirtz et al.
(2015), internet competence was considered a direct determinant of the
intention to continue using electronic government portals. In the
research by Wirtz et al. (2017a, 2017b), internet competence is signif­
icantly related to citizens’ intention to use open government data.
This study assumes that citizens’ competence with the internet is
associated with their attitudes towards open government and govern­
ment 2.0; therefore, the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 7. Internet competence positively influences citizens’ at­
titudes towards open government; and government 2.0 (b).
Hypothesis 2. The ease of use concerning open government data
positively influences citizens’ usefulness.
2.7. Political satisfaction and trust in government
Hypothesis 3. The ease of use concerning open government data
positively influences citizens’ attitudes towards open government (a);
and government 2.0 (b).
Satisfaction can be understood as a judgment that a citizen makes
about a product or service (Van Ryzin, 2005). In the context of this
research, it is a citizen’s judgment on politics in general. Citizen trust is
understood as ‘a cognitive reflection of the information and data ob­
tained by the public concerning government performance ‘(Welch,
Hinnant, & Moon, 2005, p. 374), which showed that citizens’ satisfac­
tion with the government e-mail is positively related to the use of the
government website and confidence in the government. For Hether­
ington and Rudolph (2008), trust in the government is higher than
government policies’ satisfaction. For Nam (2012), it relates to a posi­
tive association between citizens’ attitudes towards government 2.0 and
government trust.
Citizens’ confidence in adopting electronic government, according to
Alzahrani et al. (2017), is influenced by several factors: technology
(quality of the system, quality of service and quality of information),
government agencies (reputation and experiences), aspects of citizens
(gender, education, willingness to trust and experience on the internet)
and risk (security, privacy and performance). In this context, for VigodaGadot, Shoham, Schwabsky, and Ruvio (2008), public sector innovation
in a greater democratic perspective affects trust and satisfaction with
public administration. This finding is the same perspective as Ariely
(2013), who believes that better institutional performance increases
citizens’ satisfaction, which increases the government’s positive
assessment.
Duţu and Diaconu (2017) showed that citizens’ satisfaction in­
fluences their participation in an open public administration. They also
showed that when citizens negatively perceive public administration
and public managers’ activities, they rely less on management in general
and on their representatives. On the one hand, although citizens’
dissatisfaction with the current political situation does not mean less
propensity to get involved in open government projects (Wijnhoven
et al., 2015). On the other hand, confidence and satisfaction in gov­
ernment institutions can be recovered with e-participation tools
enabling citizens to propose and decide on local issues (Naranjo-Zolotov,
Oliveira, & Casteleyn, 2019). Ma and Zheng (2017), regarding citizen
Hypothesis 4. The usefulness concerning open government data
positively influences citizens’ attitudes towards open government (a);
and government 2.0 (b).
2.5. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
The Theory of Motivation explains, in a general way, the factors that
lead an individual to exhibit a particular behavior (Wirtz et al., 2017a,
2017b). According to Ryan and Deci (2000), the Theory of SelfDetermination (Deci & Ryan, 1985) proposes two types of motivation,
extrinsic and intrinsic, which are due to reasons or objectives and give
rise to an action. For the authors, extrinsic motivation ‘pertains when­
ever an activity is done to attain some separable outcome. In contrast,
intrinsic motivation ‘refers to doing an activity simply for the enjoyment
of the activity itself, rather than its instrumental value’ (Ryan & Deci,
2000, p. 60).
Intrinsic motivation occurs when the individuals act due because of
factors related to fun or challenge, and not external stimuli, pressures, or
rewards (Ryan & Deci, 2000). This kind of motivation has a positive
relationship with citizens’ intention to use open government data (Wirtz
et al., 2017a, 2017b). Like citizens’ political interests, motivation is the
primary motivator for open government involvement (Hutter et al.,
2011). Alternatively, social altruism is a reliable driver for citizens to
start and continue engaging with open electoral data (Purwanto et al.,
2018). Finally, fun is an essential factor motivating citizens to partici­
pate in open government projects (Wijnhoven et al., 2015). Therefore,
we propose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 5. The citizens’ extrinsic motivation to use open govern­
ment data positively influences citizens’ attitudes towards open gov­
ernment; and government 2.0 (b).
Hypothesis 6. The citizens’ intrinsic motivation to use open
4
A.A.C. Souza et al.
Government Information Quarterly 39 (2022) 101663
Fig. 1 presents the theoretical model of this research.
satisfaction being influenced by electronic government’s performance,
suggest a positive relationship between the different purposes of use (einformation, e-service and e-participation) with general satisfaction of
the citizen. Klein and Robison (2020) showed that citizens’ trust in the
government is affected by their partisan attitudes. Citizens who see
ideological allies in office report greater confidence than those who do
not, as their social media use levels have increased.
Given the above, the following hypotheses are suggested:
3. Methodological procedures
The present study is a quantitative, descriptive, and cross-sectional
approach. The target audience and the sample consist of Brazilian citi­
zens. Thus, it is a non-probabilistic sample, due to accessibility,
composed of people willing to answer the questionnaire available in the
Google Forms tool. The link was sent to researchers’ contacts and groups
through WhatsApp, Facebook, and E-mail. The researchers asked the
respondents to share the link with other citizens in the message,
generating the snowball effect.
The questionnaire consists of 11 constructs validated by the litera­
ture. The constructs intention to use open government data (three
items), perceived ease of use (three questions), perceived utility (four
questions), extrinsic motivation (one item), intrinsic motivation (two
items) and internet competence (three items) from the measurement
scale of Wirtz et al. (2017a, 2017b). The constructs attitude towards
open government (one item), attitude towards government 2.0 (four
items) and internet usage intensity (one item) are from the study by Nam
(2012). The political satisfaction construct (two items) originates from
Wijnhoven et al. (2015). Finally, the trust in government construct
(three items) comes from the study by Wang and Lo (2013). It is worth
mentioning that, after translating the questionnaire statements, to
facilitate the understanding of the respondents, some statements were
adapted using the term ‘the government through social networks (e.g.,
Facebook, Twitter) and social media (e.g., YouTube), Blog)’ to refer to
the term ‘government 2.0’.
We used a five-point item scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to
5 (strongly agree) for these measures. Except for the question ‘how often
do you use the internet?’, which is a seven-item scale ranging from 1
(never), 2 (rarely), 3 (every week), 4 (1–2 days a week), 5 (3–5 days a
Hypothesis 8. Political satisfaction positively influences citizens’ at­
titudes towards open government; and government 2.0 (b).
Hypothesis 9. Trust in government positively influences citizens’ at­
titudes towards open government; and government 2.0 (b).
2.8. The intensity of internet use
A fact that has gained notoriety worldwide is the use of the internet
in governments’ operations (Wang & Lo, 2013). The internet is a means
of communication, in which information generally becomes accessible,
having low cost and allowing users to obtain information (Alcaide
Muñoz, Rodríguez Bolívar, & López Hernández, 2017).
In the study by Welch et al. (2005), citizens who use the internet
more often have a higher predisposition to be satisfied with e-govern­
ment. According to Sweeney (2008), citizens’ use of the internet facili­
tates access to e-government services. However, the frequency of
Internet use and citizens’ attitudes towards new forms of electronic
government did not have a statistically significant relationship in Nam
(2012).
Given the above, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 10. The frequent use of the internet positively influences
citizens’ attitudes towards open government; and government 2.0 (b).
Fig. 1. Theoretical research model.
5
A.A.C. Souza et al.
Government Information Quarterly 39 (2022) 101663
week), 6 (about once a day), to 7 (several times a day). Finally, there
were questions about demographic data: gender, age, education, in­
come, marital status and region of residence. The questionnaire is in
Appendix A.
Also, a pre-test was carried out with 39 respondents to check if they
had any questions or suggestions to improve the questionnaire. Thus, the
vocabulary was simplified and adapted to the Brazilian reality, accord­
ing to the feedback received. After these changes, the questionnaire was
made available again for the target audience.
We received 420 responses, 16 times the rule as rough guidance for
minimum sample size, according to Hair, Sarstedt, Ringle, and Mena
(2012). We used SmartPLS, version 3.3.3, to analyze the data and test
the hypotheses (Hair, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2011; Ringle, Wende, &
Becker, 2015), following the recommendations of Hair et al. (2012) of
algorithm settings of a maximum of 300 iterations and a bootstrapping
of 5000 subsamples.
the composite reliability (CR) is at least 0,70, and the extracted average
variance (AVE) is at least 0,50, meeting the criteria of Hair et al. (2012).
Therefore, these results sustain the validity of the measurement model.
Concerning discriminant validity (Table 2), the extracted average
variance’s square root is higher than the correlations between the con­
structs meeting Fornell & Larcker (1981) criteria. Moreover, according
to Table 3, the rule of cross-loadings (Barclay, Higgins, & Thompson,
1995; Chin, 1998a, 1998b) is also met since the variables’ loadings in
their respective latent constructs are above the other loadings. Finally,
the research model’s discriminant validity is also supported by the
Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) criteria. The constructs reach a
maximum load of 0.90, as shown in Table 4 (Henseler, Ringle, & Sar­
stedt, 2015). This criterion shows the robustness of the discriminative
validity of the constructs used in this research.
The intensity of Internet Use (IIUSE), Extrinsic Motivation (EXM),
and Attitude Concerning Open Government (ATOG) was measured with
one variable.
3.1. Sample demographic data
4.2. Hypotheses test
Regarding the sample profile, 44% are male, and 56% female. Most
participants are in the age group of 30 to 39 years (33%). Concerning
education, the most significant number of participants has a graduate
degree (34,5%), followed by an undergraduate degree (33,5%), while
high school is 32%. Survey respondents concentrate on a monthly in­
come up to R$5000.00 or US$ 1.000,00 (81%). Married and single, they
account for 85.7% of the study’s target audience, which has a higher
concentration in the country’s northeast region (71%), followed by the
southeast region (19%).
According to Table 5, considering a confidence interval of 95% and
99%, findings show that the attitude towards open government (β =
0,243 e p-value = 0,000) and government 2.0 (β = 0,331 e p-value =
0,000) are statistically significant and affect the intention to use open
government data. Thus, hypotheses H1a and H1b are supported. In this
sample, the more citizens’ attitudes towards these new forms of elec­
tronic government, the higher their intention to use open government
data.
The relationship between perceived ease of use is significant to the
usefulness (β = 0,614 and p-value = 0,000), supporting hypothesis H2.
Therefore, the higher the ease of use perceived by citizens, the higher
their perception of usefulness concerning open government data.
The evidence shows effects of four predictors of citizens’ attitudes
towards open government in Brazil. The ease of use (β = 0,256 and pvalue = 0,000), supporting hypothesis H3a; the intrinsic motivation – e.
g., like to find out about public administration and politics through open
government data – (β = 0,119 and p-value = 0,048), supporting hy­
pothesis H6a; the trust in government (β = 0,151 e p-value = 0,004),
supporting hypothesis H9a; and the intensity of use (β = 0,117 e p-value
= 0,022), supporting hypothesis H10a. The higher these predictors, the
more Brazilian citizens perceive that the government actions and in­
formation are more open and accessible. The other predictors – useful­
ness, extrinsic motivation (have the feeling that using open government
data gives the citizen an advantage), internet competence, and political
satisfaction – does not influence citizens’ attitudes towards open gov­
ernment. Therefore, the hypotheses H4a (β = 0,079 and p-value =
0,321), H5a (β = − 0,019 and p-value = 0,754), H7a (β = 0,070 and pvalue = 0,221) and H8a (β = 0,036 and p-value = 0,337) were not
supported in this study.
The evidence also shows effects of four predictors of citizens’ atti­
tudes to government 2.0 in Brazil. The perceived ease of use (β = 0,267
and p-value = 0,000), supporting hypothesis H3b; the usefulness (β =
0,278 and p-value = 0.000), supporting hypothesis H4b; the political
satisfaction (β = 0,083 and p-value = 0,021), supporting hypothesis
H8b; the trust in government (β = 0,180 and p-value = 0,000), sup­
porting hypothesis H9b. The higher these predictors, the more Brazilian
citizens perceive that the government, through social networks (e.g.,
Facebook, Twitter) and social media (e.g., You Tube, Blog), helps to
keep people informed, providing new information. For them, this kind of
investment is not a waste of money. The other predictors – extrinsic and
intrinsic motivation, internet competence, and intensity of internet use –
does not influence citizens’ attitudes towards electronic government.
Therefore, the hypotheses H5b (β = 0,041 and p-value = 0,453), H6b (β
= 0,062 and p-value = 0,269), H7b (β = − 0,012 and p-value = 0,806)
and H10b (β = 0,003 and p-value = 0,941) were not supported in this
study.
4. Data analysis
4.1. The validity of the measurement model
Concerning convergent validity (Table 1), the first criteria consid­
ered the analysis of external loadings. As a result, the loads were above
0,70 for most variables, except for ATEG3 = 0,612. Cronbach’s Alpha
was above 0,70 for most latent variables, except for ‘trust in govern­
ment’, 0,672. Despite this result, as shown in Table 2, for all constructs,
Table 1
Factor loadings and Cronbach’ ‘s Alpha.
Latent variables
Attitude towards Government
Electronic
Trust in Government
Internet Competence
Perceived Ease of Use
Intention to Use
Intrinsic Motivation
Political Satisfaction
Perceived Utility
Indicators
Factor
loadings
ATEG1
ATEG2
ATEG3
ATEG4
TGOV1
TGOV2
ICOM1
ICOM2
ICOM3
PUE1
PUE2
PUE3
IU1
IU2
IU3
INM1
INM2
POS1
POS2
PUTI1
PUTI2
PUTI3
PUTI4
0,839
0,874
0,609
0,852
0,886
0,849
0,878
0,892
0,808
0,786
0,848
0,788
0,894
0,932
0,900
0,939
0,941
0,943
0,939
0,909
0,928
0,916
0,885
Alpha de
Cronbach
0,805
0,672
0,824
0,738
0,895
0,869
0,870
0,930
Note: The intensity of Internet Use (IIUSE), Extrinsic Motivation (EXM), and
Attitude Concerning Open Government (ATOG) were measured with one
variable.
6
A.A.C. Souza et al.
Government Information Quarterly 39 (2022) 101663
Table 2
Converging and discriminating validity by fornell & lacker criteria (1981).
Attitude Government 2.0 (ATEG)
Internet competence (ICOM)
Intrinsic Motivation (INM)
Intention to use (IU)
Political satisfaction (POS)
Perceived ease (PUE)
Perceived utility (PUTI)
Trust in government (TGOV)
AVE
CR
ATEG
ICOM
INM
IU
POS
PUE
PUTI
TGOV
0,641
0,740
0,885
0,826
0,885
0,653
0,827
0,752
0,875
0,895
0,939
0,934
0,939
0,849
0,950
0,859
0,801
0,417
0,440
0,461
0,190
0,570
0,572
0,446
0,860
0,471
0,540
0,002
0,576
0,607
0,338
0,940
0,609
0,032
0,492
0,617
0,320
0,909
0,003
0,545
0,642
0,236
0,941
0,198
0,010
0,226
0,808
0,622
0,407
0,909
0,383
0,867
Note: AVE: Average Variance extracted; CC: Composite Reliability; Bold data shows the square root of the extracted average variance.
Table 3
Discriminating validity by cross loadings criteria (Chin, 1998a, 1998b).
Attitude
government 2.0
Internet
competence
Intrinsic
motivation
Intention to Use
Political
satisfaction
Perceived ease of
use
Perceived utility
Trust in
government
ATEG1
ATEG2
ATEG3
ATEG4
ICOM1
ICOM2
ICOM3
INM1
INM2
IU1
IU2
IU3
POS1
POS2
PUE1
PUE2
PUE3
PUTI1
PUTI2
PUTI3
PUTI4
TGOV1
TGOV2
Attitude
government 2.0
Internet
competence
Intrinsic
motivation
Intention
to
Use
Political
satisfaction
Perceived ease
of use
Perceived
utility
Trust in
government
0,836
0,873
0,612
0,853
0,415
0,304
0,347
0,414
0,414
0,440
0,442
0,373
0,185
0,172
0,425
0,468
0,498
0,537
0,515
0,519
0,509
0,423
0,346
0,298
0,313
0,352
0,368
0,877
0,891
0,810
0,436
0,449
0,502
0,497
0,473
0,016
− 0,012
0,576
0,436
0,345
0,567
0,545
0,538
0,558
0,301
0,285
0,357
0,354
0,338
0,358
0,450
0,399
0,356
0,939
0,942
0,518
0,560
0,583
0,046
0,014
0,484
0,381
0,297
0,572
0,544
0,585
0,541
0,288
0,267
0,336
0,330
0,408
0,403
0,480
0,444
0,467
0,558
0,587
0,894
0,932
0,900
0,004
0,001
0,654
0,342
0,256
0,599
0,571
0,613
0,550
0,239
0,167
0,206
0,217
0,031
0,141
0,017
− 0,028
0,016
0,008
0,053
− 0,022
− 0,036
0,069
0,943
0,939
0,067
0,170
0,274
0,022
0,053
0,008
0,029
0,148
0,252
0,461
0,469
0,331
0,540
0,557
0,484
0,436
0,448
0,478
0,522
0,498
0,466
0,206
0,165
0,786
0,848
0,788
0,555
0,538
0,551
0,617
0,379
0,325
0,408
0,455
0,407
0,546
0,606
0,499
0,446
0,594
0,567
0,570
0,626
0,551
0,053
0,004
0,600
0,457
0,416
0,909
0,928
0,916
0,885
0,362
0,299
0,402
0,383
0,244
0,382
0,329
0,266
0,271
0,290
0,313
0,220
0,197
0,229
0,216
0,209
0,239
0,375
0,398
0,333
0,341
0,366
0,355
0,886
0,848
Note: The intensity of Internet Use (IIUSE), Extrinsic Motivation (EXM), and Attitude Concerning Open Government (ATOG) were measured with one variable.
Table 4
Discriminant validity by Heterotrait-Monotrait Rácio Criteria (Henseler et al., 2015).
Attitude
government 2.0
Attitude Government
2.0 (ATEG)
Internet competence
(ICOM)
Intrinsic Motivation
(INM)
Intention to use (IU)
Political satisfaction
(POS)
Perceived ease of use
(PUE)
Perceived utility (PUTI)
Trust in government
(TGOV)
Internet
competence
Intrinsic
motivation
Intention
to
Use
Political
satisfaction
Perceived ease
of use
Perceived
utility
Trust in
government
0,511
0,529
0,552
0,547
0,628
0,691
0,223
0,029
0,042
0,053
0,738
0,711
0,597
0,634
0,262
0,660
0,687
0,686
0,702
0,044
0,732
0,600
0,451
0,418
0,302
0,301
0,590
0,482
Note: The intensity of Internet Use (IIUSE), Extrinsic Motivation (EXM), and Attitude Concerning Open Government (ATOG) were measured with one variable.
7
A.A.C. Souza et al.
Government Information Quarterly 39 (2022) 101663
Hypothesis
Original
sample
Standard
deviation
t
pvalue
H1a
0,243
0,058
4206
0,000
H1b
0,331
0,062
5382
0,000
H2
0,614
0,032
19,106
0,000
About the relevance of significant relationships, the coefficients of
determination (R2), an effect which ranges from 0 to 1, evidence a
reasonable (moderate) predictive accuracy for intention to use open
government data (R2 = 0,552); attitude towards government 2.0 (R2 =
0,478); perceived usefulness (R2 = 0,497); and attitude towards open
government (R2 = 0,328). The values are around 0,50, according to
Hair, Ringle and Sarstedt (2011) and Hair, Sarstedt, Hopkins and Kup­
pelwieser (2014). However, it is a substantial predictive accuracy
because it is a study in the field of social sciences (Cohen, 1988). The
effect size for the path between ease of use and usefulness is large (f2 =
0,429) and small for the remaining paths model (Cohen, 1988). Finally,
the variance inflation factor (VIF) values are less than 5,000, indicating
no multicollinearity problems for each indicator in the model.
Fig. 2 shows the final proposed model.
H3a
0,256
0,063
4093
0,000
5. Additional analysis
H3b
0,267
0,051
5202
0,000
H4a
0,079
0,080
0,992
0,321
H4b
0,278
0,066
4245
0,000
H5a
− 0,019
0,062
0,313
0,754
H5b
0,041
0,055
0,750
0,453
H6a
0,119
0,060
1981
0,048
H6b
0,062
0,057
1105
0,269
H7a
0,070
0,057
1224
0,221
H7b
− 0,012
0,051
0,245
0,806
H8a
0,036
0,037
0,959
0,337
H8b
0,083
0,036
2304
0,021
H9a
0,151
0,052
2880
0,004
H9b
0,180
0,046
3885
0,000
H10a
0,117
0,051
2287
0,022
H10b
0,003
0,042
0,074
0,941
Table 5
Coefficients of the structural model.
Attitude Open
Government - >
Intention to use
open government
data
Attitude
Government 2.0 > Intention to use
open government
data
Ease of use - >
Usefulness
Ease of use - >
attitude open
government
Ease of use - >
attitude
government 2.0
Usefulness - >
attitude open
government
Usefulness - >
attitude
government 2.0
Extrinsic motivation
- > attitude open
government
Extrinsic motivation
- > attitude
government 2.0
Intrinsic motivation
- > attitude open
government
Intrinsic motivation
- > attitude
government 2.0
Internet
competence - >
attitude open
government
Internet
competence - >
Attitude
Government 2.0
Political satisfaction
- > attitude open
government
Political satisfaction
- > attitude
government 2.0
Trust in
Government - >
Attitude Open
Government
Trust in
Government - >
Attitude
Government 2.0
Intensity of internet
use - > Attitude
Open
Government
Intensity of internet
use - > Attitude
Government 2.0
Since this study is about attitudes and intentions of Brazilian citizens
towards open and electronic government, we also provided a multigroup
comparison analysis between pre-defined data groups – gender, age,
marital status, education, income, and region.
Gender refers to male and female respondents. In Brazil, women
comprise 52%, and men 48% of the population (Pnad, 2019). The age
group refers to millennials (up to 29 years old), including two younger
generation cohorts – millennials and generation Z. The post-millennials
(above 29 years old) also include two older generation cohorts X and
baby boomers. In Brazil, people under 30 years of age are 42% (Pnad,
2019).
The marital status category was split into two groups – married +
common-law marriage and not married (single, widowed, and
divorced). Education refers to respondents with high school degrees and
undergraduate/postgraduate degrees. In Brazil, the illiteracy rate of
people aged 15 and over is estimated at 7%. The North and Northeast
regions have the highest illiteracy rates – 14% and 8%, respectively.
Unlike the Southeast (3%), South (3%) and Midwest (5%) regions. The
proportion of people aged 25 or over who completed compulsory pri­
mary education, at least in high school, is 49% (Pnad, 2019).
Regarding income, in Brazil, the social pyramid encompasses five
groups based on the per capita monthly household income criteria from
the number of minimum wages (IBGE, 2017). So, the low-income group
comprises the E, D and C social classes, with an income up to R$ 5.000 or
US$ 1000.00. The higher-income group, A and B, social classes, with an
income higher than R$ 5.000 or US$ 1000.00. For Brazilians, the actual
average monthly income is R$ 2.308,00 or US$ 462.00 (Pnad, 2019).
The regions were split into two groups. The wealthiest regions
(Southeast, South and Midwest) representing 80% of the gross domestic
product and an average monthly income of R$ 1.032,00 or US$ 206.40.
Moreover, the poorest ones (North and Northeast) representing 20% of
the gross domestic product and an average monthly income of R$
425,00 or US$ 85.00 (Pnad, 2019).
For these analyses, we use the Measurement Invariance Assessment
(MICOM). It is a calculation through the ‘permutation algorithm to test if
these pre-defined data groups have statistically significant differences in
their group-specific parameter estimates (e.g., outer weights, outer
loadings and path coefficients). It also supports the MICOM procedure
for analyzing measurement invariance’ (Ringle et al., 2015). After we
had run 5.000 permutations, we had checked the configural invariance
(MICOM) and had excluded variables, if applicable, from constructs. The
MICOM procedures are in Table 6 for each group.
The multigroup analysis, in Table 7, shows five significant differ­
ences in path coefficient between pre-defined data groups – education,
income, and region.
There is one difference in the education group in the relationship
between attitudes towards open government and intention to use open
government data (diff = − 0,453). The most educated citizens perceive
the government actions and information as more open and accessible,
R2 adjusted: Intention to use open government data (0,552); attitude towards
open government (0,328); attitude towards government 2.0 (0,478); perceived
usefulness (0,497).
8
PUE2
A.A.C. Souza et al.
PUE1
0,786
0,848
Ease of use
0,788
PUE3
0,614***
PUTI1
0,909
PUTI2
0,928
0,267***
0,256***
PUTI3
Usefulness
0,916
ATGO
0,885
R2 = 0,497
PUTI4
0,278***
1,000
0,079
EXM
1,000
Extrinsec
motivation
Attitude towards
open government
0,041
INM1
0,939
INM2
0,941
Intrinsic
motivation
0,894
9
ICOM2
ICOM3
0,878
0,892
POS1
0,939
Political
satisfaction
-0,012
R2 = 0,552
Attitude towards
electronic
government
0,083**
0,180***
0,839
0,151***
0,886
TGOV2
0,849
IIUSE
1,000
Trust in
government
Intensity of
internet use
0,003
ATGE1
0,874
ATGE2
0,609
ATGE3
0,852
ATGE4
0,117***
p-values: *** Significance at 0,01; ** Significance at 0,05
Fig. 2. Final proposed model.
Government Information Quarterly 39 (2022) 101663
TGOV1
0,331***
R2 = 0,478
0,036
0,943
0,900
Intention to use
open government
data
0,808
POS1
0,932
0,243***
R2 = 0,328
0,070
Internet
competence
IU3
0,119**
0,062
ICOM1
IU2
IU1
-0,019
A.A.C. Souza et al.
Government Information Quarterly 39 (2022) 101663
Table 6
MICOM procedures.
Pre-defined data
groups
Configural
invariance
(Step 1)
Configural
invariance
(Step 2)
Variables
excludeda
Compositional
invariance
(Step 2)
Equal means values and
variances
(Step3)
Measurement
invariance
Gender
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Full
Age
Yes
No
No
No
No
Marital status
Education
Income
Region
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
PUE3; TGOV1;
EXM
EXM, INM2,
PUTI 2, ATOG
EXM
None
ICOM1; IU1
ICOM1
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Full
Partial
Partial
Partial
a
See Appendix for details.
and so, they intend and are interested in using open government data
(path coefficient = 0,353). Unlike the citizens who had studied up to
high school (path coefficient = − 0,100).
In the relationship between ease of use and usefulness of the elec­
tronic government and open government data, there are three signifi­
cant differences in path coefficient between education (diff = 0,196),
income (diff = 0,250) and region groups (diff = 0,146). Those who
studied up to high school (path coefficient = 0,719), with a monthly
income up to R$ 5.000 or US$ 1000.00 (path coefficient = 0,650) and
who live in the poorest regions in Brazil – Northeast and North – (path
coefficient = 0,638), perceive the ease of use the electronic government
and open government data influences these data usefulness. Unlike more
educated citizens – at least under graduation, besides post-graduation –
(path coefficient = 0,524), with higher income (path coefficient =
0,399) and who live in the richest regions – South, Southeast and Center
East – (path coefficient = 0,492), respectively.
Finally, in the relationship between internet competence and atti­
tude government 2.0, there is one significant difference in the income
group’s path coefficient (diff = 0,355). The higher the citizens’ income
(path coefficient = − 0,317), the more they perceive they can solve most
of their problems with the internet by themselves and help their less
experienced friends with computers. Therefore, through social net­
works, they perceive the government is willing to keep people informed,
providing new information about government actions – their attitudes
towards electronic government. Unlike low-income citizens (path coef­
ficient = 0,038).
positive impact on the performance of their activities (Davis, 1986).
They also perceive the government as more open and accessible.
Therefore, they are more willing to obtain government information
through social networks (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) and social media (e.g.,
YouTube, Blog), the tools used by government 2.0.
In this perspective, the Brazilian government has created initiatives
to implement open data at the federal, state and municipal levels, as well
as in the three branches (executive, legislative and judicial), in addition
to initiatives to expand participation in public policies (Cunha et al.,
2015). In the study by Ingrams (2017), when analyzing government
initiatives launched in 50 OGP member countries, Brazil was victorious
in transparency initiatives in the 2012–2013 period. According to Open
Data Barometer, Brazil occupies the 18th position in 114 countries
(World Wide Web Foundation, 2017).
On the other hand, these findings show that government portals need
to be friendly, transparent, and accessible to obtain higher citizens’
engagement. Second, the government needs to improve data trans­
parency. Brazil, since 2011, although it has advanced to accomplish the
Law of Information Access requirements – Law no. 12.527/2011 (Brasil,
2011) with several transparency initiatives, still have a long way to meet
information demand. According to the Public Transparency Program
from Getulio Vargas Foundation (FGV. Fundação Getulio Vargas, 2018),
the federal government is resistant to release information. The modifi­
cation in this law, through Decree no. 9.716/2019 (Brasil, 2019), allows
the public employees who occupy commissioned positions (with no
permanent link) to classify federal government data as top secret and
secret information — those with the highest level of secrecy of 25 years
and 15 years, respectively, illustrate the resistance.
Third, citizens need to have access to the internet. Therefore, tech­
nology is a contributing factor to open government. Countries with
problems with telecommunications infrastructure and information and
communication technologies (ICT) can compromise citizens’ attitudes
and intentions towards open data (Wirtz & Birkmeyer, 2015). In this
sample, 71% of respondents are in the Northeast region, which, on the
one hand, has advanced in infrastructure for high-speed internet access.
On the other hand, 51% of households do not have internet, primarily
due to the connection price. Regarding Brazilian municipalities, 42% of
the total and 24% in Northeast and North regions do not yet have access
to the internet through the optical fibre (Pnad, 2019; Ministry of Com­
munications, 2021).
6. Discussion of results
Findings show the effects of six predictors of citizens’ attitudes to­
wards open government and government 2.0. In essence, these pre­
dictors are ease of use, usefulness, intrinsic motivation, political
satisfaction, government trust, and intensity of internet use.
On the one hand, it is worth mentioning that the ease of use impacts
the perception of the usefulness of open government data and corrob­
orates the study by Wirtz et al. (2017a, 2017b), in Germany, by Wang
and Lo (2013), in Taiwan, and by Ozkan and Kanat (2011), in Turkey. In
Brazil, citizens who perceive themselves to be free from physical and
mental effort (Davis, 1986) when understanding and using open gov­
ernment data realize the usefulness of this information. They perceive a
10
A.A.C. Souza et al.
Government Information Quarterly 39 (2022) 101663
Regarding the citizen’s trust in the government, when realizing their
privacy protection when using websites and the promised services are
available via the website, the citizen understands the government as
more open and accessible. They also feel more willing to use the tools
provided by the government 2.0. In other words, their attitudes, in the
context of this research, are influenced by security and privacy. These
findings are compatible with the studies by Nam (2012) in the United
States and Wang and Lo (2013), as well as with the study by Wijnhoven
et al. (2015), in Germany, in which dissatisfaction with the current
political situation is indicative of participation in government projects.
However, it is essential to emphasize that trust in the government
cannot be measured only by technological innovation, but specifically,
in the use of websites. Citizen confidence in government in general, in
public institutions and their representatives, is an essential factor in
shaping their attitudes. As open government and government 2.0 are
innovative resources and still unknown to most people, citizens who are
dissatisfied with public administration end up relying less on govern­
ment (and if they do not trust these innovations, they may seem illusory)
(Nam, 2012). Therefore, political parties in Brazil need to show job
performance. However, according to ‘The Democracy Face’ survey
(INTC, 2019), although 65% of the Brazilian population prefers de­
mocracy to any other form of government and 52% are satisfied with
democracy, 71% do not trust political parties, and 50% does not trust the
national congress.
All the factors discussed above can instigate the Brazilian citizens to
get involved and informed about open government actions (Hutter et al.,
2011), since the intrinsic motivation influences positively the attitude
towards open government, corroborating the studies by Purwanto et al.
(2018), Wirtz et al. (2017a, 2017b) and Wijnhoven et al. (2015). The
Brazilian citizens can feel challenged to find out public administration
and politics through open government data (Wirtz et al., 2017a, 2017b)
is fun (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Wijnhoven et al., 2015).
Finally, education, income, and region are the socio-economic
characteristics that most influences Brazilian citizens’ attitudes to­
wards open government and government 2.0, especially in the rela­
tionship between ease of use and usefulness. It is essential to highlight
that other reasons for not using the internet services are lack of interest
in accessing the internet and no resident knows how to use the internet
(Pnad, 2019). This finding can be an exciting result for public man­
agement, especially for open data use since 51% of the Brazilian popu­
lation has not yet completed high school (Pnad, 2019). The wealthiest
regions (Southeast, South and Midwest) present an average monthly
income of R$ 1.032,00 or US$ 206.40. Moreover, the poorest ones
(North and Northeast), an average monthly income of R$ 425,00 or US$
85.00 (Pnad, 2019). These findings can also be helpful for countries in a
similar situation.
There is no difference in gender and marital status groups. One
explanation is that women are 52% in Brazil, and men comprise 48% of
the population (Pnad, 2019). Moreover, in this research, 44% are male,
and 56% female. That is, the proportions are very close. Brazilians are
getting married less over time regarding marital status, dropping 2,7%
and staying less time married (13,8 years).
In summary, these findings show that the public value creation from
open and 2.0 governments in Brazil might be under threat! According to
Kelly, Mulgan and Muers (2002, p. 4), in a democracy, the public value,
through services, laws, regulation and other actions from government, is
ultimately a perception from the citizens, that is, their preferences
determine it, expressed through a variety of means and refracted
through the decisions of elected politicians.
Due to the Brazilian technology infrastructure, public managers and
politicians’ job performance, levels of portal quality and data trans­
parency, and restrictive laws, apparently, the citizens do not perceive
this public value. In other words, they are not empowered enough to
exercise the social control of public management efficiently. Empow­
erment means the citizens might access the necessary resources to make
decisions and influence them to pursue their well-being (Davis, Theron,
Table 7
Multigroup comparison test results.
Difference between pre-defined data groups
Path coefficients original difference (group dummy (0,0) - group dummy (1,0))
Attitude Open
Government - >
Intention to use
open government
data
Attitude
Government 2.0 > Intention to use
open government
data
Ease of use - >
Usefulness
Ease of use - >
Attitude Open
Government
Ease of use - >
Attitude
Government 2.0
Usefulness - >
Attitude Open
Government
Usefulness - >
Attitude
Government 2.0
Extrinsic Motivation
- > Attitude Open
Government
Extrinsic Motivation
- > Attitude
Government 2.0
Intrinsic Motivation
- > Attitude Open
Government
Intrinsic Motivation
- > Attitude
Government 2.0 0
Internet
Competence - >
Attitude Open
Government
Internet competence
- > Attitude
Government 2.0
Political Satisfaction
- > Attitude Open
Government
Political Satisfaction
- > Attitude
Government 2.0
Trust in Government
- > Attitude Open
Government
Trust in Government
- > Attitude
Government 2.0
Intensity of use - >
Attitude Open
Government
Intensity of use - >
Attitude
Government 2.0
Gender
Marital
Status
Education
Income
Region
0,052
− 0,050
− 0,453***
0,048
0,029
− 0,143
− 0,025
0,622
0,185
0,095
− 0,129
0,031
0,196***
0,250***
0,146**
0,018
0,182
− 0,027
− 0,235
0,056
− 0,037
− 0,148
0,149
− 0,174
0,039
0,106
− 0,266
− 0,136
− 0,257
0,154
0,275
0,062
0,055
− 0,253
0,138
–
–
0,017
0,255
− 0,101
–
–
0,074
0,189
− 0,090
− 0,131
0,137
0,008
0,126
0,009
− 0,209
0,059
0,126
− 0,013
− 0,088
− 0,103
− 0,071
0,051
0,115
− 0,106
0,204
− 0,144
− 0,046
0,355***
0,042
0,028
− 0,060
− 0,048
0,018
0,063
0,110
0,069
− 0,039
0,059
0,082
− 0,104
0,057
0,164
0,033
− 0,125
− 0,100
0,109
− 0,179
0,124
− 0,078
− 0,066
− 0,033
− 0,114
0,084
0,036
-0,010
-0,095
0,019
0,057
0,047
Permutation p-values: *** Significance at 0,01; ** Significance at 0,05. Dummies:
Gender: (0) Female = 237; (1) Male = 183; (0) Millennials (up 29 years old) =
134; Age: (1) Post millennials (above 29 years old) = 286; Marital status: (0)
Married = 215; (1) Single, divorced and widower: 205; Education: (0) High
school = 135; (1) Under graduation and post-graduation = 285; Income: (0) Up
to R$ 5.000 or US$ 1000.00 = 340; (1) Higher than R$ 5.000 or US$ 1000.00 =
80; Region: (0) Live in Northeast and North = 308; (1)) Live in South, Southeast
and Center East = 112.
11
A.A.C. Souza et al.
Government Information Quarterly 39 (2022) 101663
& Maphunye, 2004; De Beer & Swanepoel, 2004).
So, besides the technology infrastructure, Brazilian public managers
and political parties still have homework to do – a preparation – to
stimulate citizens to use open data. These initiatives encompass the
government portals quality and data transparency improvement
through less restrictive law and improve the politicians’ job
performance.
This study had limitations regarding the non-probabilistic sample,
which does not generalize the results for the entire Brazilian population;
however, it is worth mentioning that it indicates the individuals’
behavior. Concerning the cross-section, the data collected refer to a
certain point in time, not allowing conclusions of temporal variations in
the attitudes and intentions investigated. Besides, constructs like the
intensity of internet use, extrinsic Motivation, and attitude concerning
open government were measured with one variable and trust in gov­
ernment and political satisfaction, with two variables. So, the insights
from these findings should be read with caution.
We recommend addressing other literature constructs on the elec­
tronic government model for future research, such as expectation or
perception of value. Also, longitudinal studies investigate how citizens’
behavior concerning open government and government 2.0 changes
over time — considering that the web is continuously evolving, incor­
porating new resources into the electronic government system. Finally,
the researchers could join the research efforts using the same model in
the countries part of the Open Government Partnership (OGP) initiative
to compare the results. The findings can help to launch initiatives to
improve citizens’ involvement in government actions.
7. Final considerations
In the theoretical part, firstly, the study contributes to showing the
effects of six predictors of citizens’ attitudes towards open government
and government 2.0 in a country that is a signatory to the Open Gov­
ernment Partnership (Open Government Partnership - OGP). Emerging
countries, such as Brazil, face the challenge of improving the internet
access infrastructure and attract their citizens to get involved in open
data. Doing so, this study contributes to showing research in other
countries, as suggested by Wirtz et al. (2017a, 2017b). Second, this
study provides a quantitative empirical investigation, going beyond
national qualitative studies, as recommended by Barbosa (2017) and
extending the relationship of variables, contributing to political and
social maturation of the use of open data (Cunha et al., 2015).
In practice, this study can contribute by providing helpful informa­
tion so that government policymakers can direct open government ini­
tiatives, educate citizens about the value and usefulness of electronic
government, to involve society more, contributing to social control. The
developers of web systems at the governmental level can make the sites
more comfortable to use regarding citizens finding and understanding
the available information, making the sites more interactive, and
improving the relationship between government and citizens. These
actions can increase public confidence in the government.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the funding from 14o Academic Excellence Award
from Fucape Business School.
Appendix A
Original constructs and variables
Attitudes towards open
government
Attitudes towards electronic
government
Intensity of internet use
Intention to use open
government data
Ease of use
Usefulness
ATOG
ATEG1
ATEG2
ATEG3
ATEG4
IIUSE
IU1
IU2
IU3
PUE1
PUE2
PUE3
UPE1
UPE2
UPE3
UPE4
Extrinsic motivation
Intrinsic motivation
Internet competence
Political satisfaction
Trust in government
MEX1
MIN1
MIN2
COIN1
COIN2
COIN3
SPO1
SPO2
COFG1
COFG2
COFG3
Would you say government is now more open and accessible, less open and accessible, or about the
same as it was two years ago? *
Government 2.0 makes government accessible
Government 2.0 helps keep people informed
Government 2.0 is NOT a waste of money
Government 2.0 delivers new information
Internet use intensity is measured as the frequency of Internet use*
I intend to use open government data when I have the opportunity to do so
I can imagine using open government data
I am interested in using open government data.
Learning to handle open government data is easy for me
Portals that provide open government data usually have a clear and understandable layout
I think open government data are easy to find
Open government data are a useful source of information for citizens
Using open government data enhances information quality
Using open government data enhances information quantity
Using portals that provide open government data makes it easier for me to obtain public
information.
I need to have the feeling that using open government data gives me an advantage
I enjoy informing myself about public administration and politics by means of open government
data
I enjoy using open government data.
Basically, I find my way around well on websites
I trust myself to help my friends search the internal who are less experienced with computers
I could solve most of my problems with the internet by myself
Political parties in Germany are doing a good job*
Politicians in Germany acquit themselves well*
The government protects individual privacy via websites
The government delivers the promised services via websites
Government service websites are definitely not tricky
Source
Nam (2012)
Nam (2012)
Nam (2012)
Wirtz, Weyerer, and Rösch
(2017a, b)
Wirtz, Weyerer, and Rösch,
2017a, b)
Wirtz, Weyerer, and Rösch
(2017a, b)
Wirtz, Weyerer, and Rösch
(2017a, b)
Wirtz, Weyerer, and Rösch
(2017a, b)
Wirtz, Weyerer, and Rösch
(2017a, b)
Wijnhoven, Ehrenhard, and
Kuhn (2015)
Wang and Lo (2013)
* Adaptation for Brazil and Portuguese: ATOG: Government is now more open and accessible.
ATEG: Government 2.0 = The use of social networks (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) and social media (e.g., YouTube, Blog) by the government …
IIUSE: How often do you use the internet?
SPO: Political parties in Brazil are doing a good job; Politicians in Brazil acquit themselves well.
12
A.A.C. Souza et al.
Government Information Quarterly 39 (2022) 101663
A five-item scale – 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) for all constructs, except for the intensity of internet use – a seven-item scale ranging from 1 (never), 2
(rarely), 3 (every week), 4 (1–2 days a week), 5 (3–5 days a week), 6 (about once a day), to 7 (several times a day).
References
FGV. Fundação Getulio Vargas. (2018). Programa de Transparência Pública. Available in
https://transparencia.ebape.fgv.br/pesquisa.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res., 18(1), 39–50. https://
doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
Ganapati, S., & Reddick, C. G. (2014). The use of ICT for open government in US
municipalities: Perceptions of chief administrative officers. Public Performance &
Management Review, 37(3), 365–387.
Gascó, M. (2015). Special issue on open government: An introduction. Social Science
Computer Review, 33(5), 535–539.
Gohn, M. D. G. M. (2016). Manifestações de protesto nas ruas no Brasil a partir de Junho
de 2013: novíssimos sujeitos em cena. Revista Diálogo Educacional, 16(47), 125–146.
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G., & Feeney, M. K. (2016). Developing and testing an integrative
framework for open government adoption in local governments. Public
Administration Review, 77(4), 579–590.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal
of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152.
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of
partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 414–433.
Hansson, K., Belkacem, K., & Ekenberg, L. (2015). Open government and democracy: A
research review. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev., 33(5), 540–555.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing
discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.
Hetherington, M. J., & Rudolph, T. J. (2008). Priming performance, and the dynamics of
political trust. The Journal of Politics, 70(2), 498–512.
Ho, S. S., Lwin, M. O., Yee, A. Z., & Lee, E. W. (2017). Understanding factors associated
with Singaporean adolescents’ intention to adopt privacy protection behavior using
an extended theory of planned behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social
Networking, 20(9), 572–579.
Hopp, T., & Sheehan, K. (2020). Understanding citizen attendance to poll aggregation
websites through an extended application of the theory of planned behavior. Journal
of Information Technology & Politics, 1–17.
Horsburgh, S., Goldfinch, S., & Gauld, R. (2011). Is public trust in government associated
with trust in e-government? Social Science ComputerReview, 29(2), 232–241.
Hutter, K., Füller, J., & Koch, G. (2011). Why citizens engage in open government
platforms. Lecture Notes in Informatics (LNI)-Proceedings (Vol, 192).
IBGE. (2017). Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatísticas. https://educa.ibge.gov.br
/jovens/materias-especiais/20787-uso-de-internet-televisao-e-celular-no-brasil.html
.
Ingrams, A. (2017). The transparency performance puzzle: A fuzzy set qualitative
comparative analysis of policy failure in open government initiatives. Information
Polity, 22(1), 25–39.
INTC. (2019). Instituto da Democracia e da Democratização da Comunicação. ‘The
Democracy Face’ survey. Available in https://www.institutodademocracia.org/s
ingle-post/2020/01/27/Resultados-A-Cara-da-Democracia-2019.
Jafarkarimi, H., Saadatdoost, R., Sim, A. T. H., & Hee, J. M. (2016). Behavioral intention
in social networking sites ethical dilemmas: An extended model based on theory of
planned behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 545–561.
Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y., & Zuiderwijk, A. (2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and
myths of open data and open government. Information Systems Management, 29(4),
258–268.
Khan, G. F., Moon, J., Swar, B., Zo, H., & Rho, J. J. (2012). E-government service use
intentions in Afghanistan: Technology adoption and the digital divide in a war-torn
country. Information Development, 28(4), 281–299.
Kim, E., Lee, J. A., Sung, Y., & Choi, S. M. (2016). Predicting selfie-posting behavior on
social networking sites: An extension of theory of planned behavior. Computers in
Human Behavior, 62, 116–123.
Klein, E., & Robison, J. (2020). Like, post, and distrust? How social media use affects
Trust in Government. Political Communication, 37(1), 46–64.
Kornberger, M., Meyer, R. E., Brandtner, C., & Höllerer, M. A. (2017). When bureaucracy
meets the crowd: Studying ‘open government’ in the Vienna City Administration.
Organization Studies, 38(2), 179–200.
Lee, G., & Kwak, Y. H. (2012). An open government maturity model for social mediabased public engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 492–503.
Liu, Y., Sheng, H., Mundorf, N., Redding, C., & Ye, Y. (2017). Integrating norm activation
model and theory of planned behavior to understand sustainable transport behavior:
Evidence from China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 14(12), 1593.
Ma, L., & Zheng, Y. (2017). National e-government performance and citizen satisfaction:
A multilevel analysis across European countries. International Review of
Administrative Sciences, 0(0), 1–21.
Marco, S. D., Robles, J. M., & Antino, M. (2014). Digital skills as a conditioning factor for
digital political participation. Communications-The European Journal of
Communication Research, 39(1), 43–65.
Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance
model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research, 2(3),
173–191.
Abu-Shanab, E. A. (2015). Reengineering the open government concept: An empirical
support for a proposed model. Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), 453–463.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behaviour. The handbook of
attitudes, 173(221), 31.
Alcaide Muñoz, L., Rodríguez Bolívar, M. P., & López Hernández, A. M. (2017).
Transparency in governments: A meta-analytic review of incentives for digital versus
hard-copy public financial disclosures. The American Review of Public Administration,
47(5), 550–573.
Alzahrani, L., Al-Karaghouli, W., & Weerakkody, V. (2017). Analysing the critical factors
influencing trust in e-government adoption from citizens’ perspective: A systematic
review and a conceptual framework. International Business Review, 26(1), 164–175.
Anttiroiko, A. (2010). Innovation in democratic E-governance: Benefitting from web 2.0
applications in the public sector. International Journal of Electronic Government
Research, 6(2), 18–36.
Ariely, G. (2013). Public administration and citizen satisfaction with democracy: Crossnational evidence. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 79(4), 747–766.
Baker, R. K., & White, K. M. (2010). Prever o uso de sites de redes sociais por
adolescentes a partir de uma teoria estendida da perspectiva do comportamento
planejado. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1591–1597.
Barbosa, A. R. (2017). Perfil da produção científica brasileira sobre governo eletrônico.
Revista Eletrônica Gestão e Serviços, 8(1), 1785–1810.
Barclay, D. W., Higgins, C. A., & Thompson, R. (1995). The partial least squares approach
to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as illustration. Technology
Studies, 2(2), 285–309.
Beck, L., & Ajzen, I. (1991). Predicting dishonesty actions using the theory of planned
behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 25, 285–301.
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.
Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Hansen, D. (2012). The impact of polices on government
social media usage: Issues, challenges, and recommendations. Government
Information Quarterly, 29(1), 30–40.
Bonsón, E., Torres, L., Royo, S., & Flores, F. (2012). Local e-government 2.0: Social media
and corporate transparency in municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, 29
(2), 123–132.
Brasil. (2019). Decree no 9.716, 26 February 2019. Repeals provisions that regulate Law no.
12,527, of November 18, 2011 – Information Access Law. Available in http://www.pla
nalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2019-2022/2019/Decreto/D9716.htm.
Brasil. (2011). Law no. 12,527, of November 18, 2011 – Information Access Law. Regulates
access to information. Available in http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato201
9-2022/2019/Decreto/D9716.htm.
Cheung, M. F., & To, W. M. (2016). Service co-creation in social media: An extension of
the theory of planned behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 260–266.
Chiang, F., Wuttke, H., Knauf, R., Sun, C., & Tso, T. (2009). Students’ attitudes toward
using innovative information technology for learning based on theory of planned
behavior. International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning (iJAC), 2(4), 9–14.
Chin, W. W. (1998a). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling.
In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336).
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chin, W. W. (1998b). Issues and opinions on SEM. Management Information Systems
Quarterly, 22(1), 7–16.
Chun, S., Shulman, S., Sandoval, R., & Hovy, E. (2010). Government 2.0: Making
connections between citizens, data and government. Information Polity, 15(1,2), 1–9.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2. ed.). New York:
Psy-chology Press.
Conner, M., Norman, P., & Bell, R. (2002). The theory of planned behavior and healthy
eating. Health Psychol., 21(2), 194–201.
Cox, J. (2012). Information systems user security: A structured model of the knowingdoing gap. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1849–1858.
Cunha, M. A. V. C. D., Rosina, M. S. G., Teixeira, M. A. C., Silva, A. P. D., Lazzari, E. A.,
Silva, M. C. F. D., & Spinola, L. (2015). Dados abertos nos municípios, estados e
governo federal brasileiros. In CEAPG-Centro de Estudos em Administração Pública e
Governo (EAESP) e GEPI-Grupo de Ensino e Pesquisa em Inovação (Direito SP).
Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user
information systems: Theory and results (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology).
Davis, I., Theron, F., & Maphunye, J. (2004). Participatory development in South Africa: A
development management perspective. Pretoria: Van Schaik.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenun Press.
Duţu, A., & Diaconu, M. (2017). Community participation for an open public
administration: Empirical measurements and conceptual framework design. Cogent
Business & Management, 4(1), 1–22.
13
A.A.C. Souza et al.
Government Information Quarterly 39 (2022) 101663
Who. World Health Organization. (2021). WHO coronavirus (COVID-19) dashboard.
Available in https://covid19.who.int/.
Wijnhoven, F., Ehrenhard, M., & Kuhn, J. (2015). Open government objectives and
participation motivations. Government Information Quarterly, 32(1), 30–42.
Wirtz, B. W., & Birkmeyer, S. (2015). Open government: Origin, development, and
conceptual perspectives. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(5),
381–396.
Wirtz, B. W., & Daiser, P. (2018). A meta-analysis of empirical e-government research
and its future research implications. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 84
(1), 144–163.
Wirtz, B. W., Piehler, R., & Daiser, P. (2015). E-government portal characteristics and
individual appeal: An examination of e-government and citizen acceptance in the
context of local administration portals. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing,
27(1), 70–98.
Wirtz, B. W., Weyerer, J. C., & Rösch, M. (2017a). Citizen and open government: An
empirical analysis of antecedents of open government data. International Journal of
Public Administration, 41(4), 308–320.
Wirtz, B. W., Weyerer, J. C., & Rösch, M. (2017b). Open government and citizen
participation: An empirical analysis of citizen expectancy towards open government
data. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 0(0), 1–21.
World Wide Web Foundation. (2017). Open Data Baromenter. Global Report – Fourth
Edition. Available in https://opendatabarometer.org/doc/4thEdition/ODB-4thEdi
tion-GlobalReport.pdf.
Yang, T. M., Lo, J., & Shiang, J. (2015). To open or not to open? Determinants of open
government data. Journal of Information Science, 41(5), 596–612.
Yu, H., & Robinson, D. G. (2012). The new ambiguity of open government. UCLA L. Rev.
Discourse, 59, 178–208.
Zuiderwijk, A., Janssen, M., Choenni, S., Meijer, R., Alibaks, R. S., & Sheikh_Alibaks, R..
(2012). Socio-technical impediments of open data. Electronic Journal of eGovernment, 10(2), 156–172.
Zuiderwijk, A., Janssen, M., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2015). Acceptance and use predictors of
open data technologies: Drawing upon the unified theory of acceptance and use of
technology. Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), 429–440.
Ministry of Communications. (2021). Pesquisa mostra que 82,7% dos domicílios
brasileiros têm acesso à internet. Available in: https://www.gov.br/mcom/pt-br/no
ticias/2021/abril/pesquisa-mostra-que-82-7-dos-domicilios-brasileiros-tem-acesso
-a-internet.
Meijer, A. J., Curtin, D., & Hillebrandt, M. (2012). Open government: Connecting vision
and voice. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(1), 10–29.
Mou, Y., & Lin, C. A. (2015). Exploring podcast adoption intention via perceived social
norms, interpersonal communication, and theory of planned behavior. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59, 475–493.
Nam, T. (2012). Citizens’ attitudes toward open government and government 2.0.
International Review of Administrative Sciences, 78(2), 346–368.
Naranjo-Zolotov, M., Oliveira, T., & Casteleyn, S. (2019). Citizens’ intention to use and
recommend e-participation. Information Technology and People.
OGP – Open Government Partnership. (). About. Disponível em. www.opengovpa
rtnership.org/about/about-ogp. Acesso em: 11 Dez.
Ozkan, S., & Kanat, I. E. (2011). E-government adoption model based on theory of
planned behavior: Empirical validation. Government Information Quarterly, 28(4),
503–513.
Parycek, P., Hochtl, J., & Ginner, M. (2014). Open government data implementation
evaluation. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 9(2),
80–99.
Pavlou, P. A., & Fygenson., M.. (2006). Understanding and predicting electronic
commerce adoption: An extension of 16 T. Hopp and K. Sheehan the theory of
planned behavior. MIS Quarterly, 30, 115–143.
Piotrowski, S. J. (2017). The ‘open government reform’ movement: The case of the open
government partnership and US transparency policies. The American Review of Public
Administration, 47(2), 155–171.
PNAD. (2019). Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicílios Contínua. Available in https
://www.ibge.gov.br/estatisticas/sociais/trabalho/9171-pesquisa-nacional-por-amos
tra-de-domicilios-continua-mensal.html?=&t=o-que-e.
Purwanto, A., Zuiderwijk, A., & Janssen, M. (2018, May). Citizen engagement in an open
election data initiative: A case study of Indonesian’s Kawal Pemilu. In Proceedings of
the 19th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Governance in
the Data Age (p. 62). ACM.
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2015). SmartPLS 3 Boenningstedt: SmartPLS
GmbH. http://www.smartpls.com.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions
and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.
Saxena, S., & Janssen, M. (2017). Examining open government data (OGD) usage in India
through UTAUT framework. Foresight, 19(4), 421–436.
Shim, D. C., & Eom, T. H. (2008). E-government and anti-corruption: Empirical analysis
of international data. International Journal of Public Administration, 31(3), 298–316.
Sipior, J. C., Ward, B. T., & Connolly, R. (2011). The digital divide and t-government in
the United States: Using the technology acceptance model to understand usage.
European Journal of Information Systems, 20(3), 308–328.
Sivarajah, U., Irani, Z., & Weerakkody, V. (2015). Evaluating the use and impact of web
2.0 technologies in local government. Government Information Quarterly, 32(4),
473–487.
Susha, I., Zuiderwijk, A., Janssen, M., & Grönlund, Å. (2015). Benchmarks for evaluating
the progress of open data adoption: Usage, limitations, and lessons learned. Social
Science Computer Review, 33(5), 613–630.
Sweeney, A. D. (2008). Electronic government-citizen relationships: Exploring citizen
perspectives. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 4(2), 101–116.
Van Ryzin, G. G. (2005). Testing the expectancy disconfirmation model of citizen
satisfaction with local government. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 16(4), 599–611.
Vigoda-Gadot, E. R. A. N., Shoham, A., Schwabsky, N., & Ruvio, A. (2008). Public sector
innovation for Europe: A multinational eight-country exploration of Citizens’
perspectives. Public Administration, 86(2), 307–329.
Wang, H. J., & Lo, J. (2013). Determinants of citizens’ intent to use government websites
in Taiwan. Information Development, 29(2), 123–137.
Welch, E. W., Hinnant, C. C., & Moon, M. J. (2005). Linking citizen satisfaction with egovernment and trust in government. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 15(3), 371–391.
Ariel Antônio Conceição de Souza Bachelor of Science in Accounting from the State
University of Bahia (UNEB) and a Master’s in Controllership and Public Accounting from
Fucape Business School.
Marcia Juliana d’Angelo Associate Professor of Strategy & Organization at Fucape
Business School. Ph.D. and Master in Business Administration (with distinction) from
Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie. She also holds a Master of Business Administration
(MBA) degree from Warwick Business School, England. Coordinator and researcher of the
Center for Studies in Sustainability of Organizations (CESO) at Fucape Business School.
Member of the Scientific Editorial Board of the Brazilian Business Review (BBR). A
reviewer of national and international journals.
Raimundo Nonato Lima Filho PhD in Controllership and Accounting from the University
of São Paulo (USP) and PhD in Administration from the Federal University of Bahia
(UFBA), he has a Post-Doctorate degree from the Federal University of Paraíba (UFPB). He
is a Professor at the University of Pernambuco (UPE) and the Educational Authority of the
São Francisco Valley (AEVSF).
14