Demokratik bir katalizör olarak E-devlet: OECD ülkelerinden kanıtlar (2006–2024)

Öz

Bu çalışma, 2006–2024 dönemi boyunca 38 OECD ülkesinde e-devlet gelişimi ile demokrasi arasındaki nedensel ilişkiyi incelemektedir. E-devletin etkinlik artışı, maliyetlerin düşürülmesi ve hizmet sunumunun iyileştirilmesi gibi idari faydaları geniş bir biçimde incelenmiş olsa da, demokratik yönetişim üzerindeki daha kapsamlı etkileri görece daha az araştırılmıştır. Bu makale, literatürdeki bu boşluğu ele alarak, E-Devletteki ilerlemelerin demokratik performansı güçlendirip güçlendirmediğini sormaktadır. Özellikle, Birleşmiş Milletler E-Devlet Gelişim Endeksi (EGDI) ile Economist İstihbarat Birimi’nin (Intelligence Unit) Demokrasi Endeksi (EIU) arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemektedir. Analiz, birden fazla kuramsal çerçeveye dayanmaktadır. “Kurumsal Teori”, dijital reformların çoğunlukla meşruiyet arayışıyla şekillendirildiğini ve daha geniş yönetişim yapıları içinde kurumsallaştığını vurgularken; “Teknoloji Kabul Modeli” ve “Yeniliklerin Yayılımı” gibi kullanıcı merkezli yaklaşımlar, vatandaşların e-devlet hizmetlerini nasıl benimsediğini ve onlarla nasıl etkileşime girdiğini açıklamaktadır. Bu çerçeveler birlikte ele alındığında, e-devletin demokrasiye etkisinin yalnızca kurumsal tasarıma değil, aynı zamanda vatandaşların güvenine, dijital okuryazarlığa ve toplumsal kapsayıcılığa bağlı olduğunu göstermektedir. Yöntemsel olarak, çalışma panel veri yaklaşımını benimsemekte ve yatay kesit bağımlılığı, birim kök, eğim homojenliği, eşbütünleşme, Dumitrescu-Hurlin ve Panel Granger nedensellik testleri gibi çok sayıda ekonometrik test uygulamaktadır. Bulgular, açık bir tek yönlü ilişki ortaya koymaktadır: e-devletteki ilerlemelerin, özellikle şeffaflık, hesap verebilirlik ve vatandaş katılımı boyutlarında demokratik kalitedeki artışların istatistiksel bir öncülü ve öngörücüsü olduğu ortaya koyulmuştur. Ters yönde ise bir nedensellik bulunmamıştır. Bu sonuçlar hem akademi hem de politika için önemli çıkarımlar sunmaktadır. Bulgular, dijital dönüşümün demokratik güçlenme için öngörücü bir itici güç işlevi görebileceğini; ancak bunun esasen OECD ülkelerinde görülen katılımcı ve kurallara dayalı sistemlerin bulunduğu bağlamlarda geçerli olduğunu ampirik olarak ortaya koymaktadır. Öte yandan, daha zayıf kurumlara, düşük dijital okuryazarlığa veya sembolik dijital reformlara sahip OECD dışı bağlamlarda benzer sonuçların ortaya çıkmayabileceği vurgulanmaktadır. Bu nedenle politika yapıcılar, salt teknolojik uygulamaların ötesine geçerek katılımcılığı ve kapsayıcılığı önceleyen dijital stratejilere yönelmelidir. Kuramsal yaklaşımları sağlam ampirik kanıtlarla birleştiren bu araştırma, literatürdeki önemli bir boşluğu doldurmakta ve dijital yönetişimin demokratik direnci nasıl güçlendirebileceğine dair uygulanabilir içgörüler sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• E-devlet gelişim endeksi
• demokrasi endeksi
• OECD dijital dönüşüm
• Dumitrescu ve Hurlin testi
• panel veri
• Granger nedensellik test

E-government as a democratic catalyst: evidence from OECD countries (2006–2024)

Abstract

This study investigates the causal relationship between e-government development and democracy across 38 OECD countries over the period 2006–2024. While the administrative benefits of e-government such as efficiency gains, cost reduction, and improved service delivery are well established, its broader implications for democratic governance remain less explored. This paper addresses that gap by asking whether advancements in e-government contribute to strengthening democratic performance. Specifically, it examines whether progress in the United Nations E-Government Development Index (EGDI) is associated with measurable improvements in the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index (EIU). The analysis is grounded in multiple theoretical perspectives. Institutional Theory highlights how digital reforms are often motivated by legitimacy-seeking behavior and embedded within broader governance structures. Meanwhile user-centered frameworks such as the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and Diffusion of Innovations (DOI) explain how citizens adopt and engage with e-government services. Taken together, these frameworks suggest that the democratic impact of e-government depends not only on institutional design but also on citizen trust, digital literacy, and social inclusion. Methodologically, the study applies a panel data approach and employs advanced panel econometric techniques, including tests for cross-sectional dependence, unit roots, slope heterogeneity, cointegration, and Dumitrescu-Hurlin Granger causality. The results demonstrate a clear unidirectional relationship: improvements in e-government statistically precede and predict gains in democratic quality, particularly in transparency, accountability, and citizen participation. No evidence is found for the reverse relationship. These findings carry important implications for both scholarship and policy. They empirically suggest that digital transformation can serve as a predictive driver for democratic strengthening, but primarily in contexts with participatory and rule-based systems, as found in OECD countries. At the same time, the study cautions that such outcomes may not materialize in non-OECD contexts, where weaker institutions, lower digital literacy, or symbolic adoption of digital reforms may limit democratic benefits. Policymakers are therefore encouraged to move beyond technical deployment and prioritize inclusive, citizen-centered digital strategies that reduce participation gaps and safeguard democratic values. By integrating theoretical perspectives with robust empirical evidence, this research contributes to closing a key gap in the literature and offers actionable insights into how digital governance can reinforce democratic resilience.

Keywords

• E-government development index (EGDI)
• democracy index
• OECD digital transformation
• Dumitrescu and Hurlin test
• panel data
• Granger causality test

References

1. Aranyossy, M. (2022). User adoption and value of e-government services. citizen-centric empirical study from Hungary. Acta Oeconomica, 72(4), 477-497. https://doi.org/10.1556/032.2022.00032
2. Aswar, K., Ermawati, E., Juliyanto, W., Andreas, A. & Wiguna, M. (2022). Adoption of e-government by Indonesian state universities: An application of technology acceptance model. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 20(1), 396-406. http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.20(1).2022.32
3. Avgerou, C. (2000). IT and organizational change: An institutionalist perspective. Information Technology & People, 13(4), 234–262. https://doi.org/10.1108/09593840010359464
4. Azmi, S.N., Khan T., Azmi, W., & Azhar, N. (2023). A panel cointegration analysis of linkages between international trade and tourism: case of India and South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) countries. Qual Quant, (57), 5157-5176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-022-01602-7
5. Balaskas, S., Panagiotarou A., & Rigou, M. (2022). The influence of trustworthiness and technology acceptance factors on the usage of e-government services during COVID-19: A case study of post COVID-19 Greece. Administrative Sciences, 12(4), 129. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12040129
6. Bélanger, F., & Carter, L. (2008). Trust and risk in e-government adoption. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 17(2), 165-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2007.12.002
7. Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111
8. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

9. DeLone, W. H. & McLean, E. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60-95. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.3.1.60
10. DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
11. Dumitrescu, E.-I., & Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, (29)4, 1450-1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2012.02.014
12. Economist Intelligence Unit. (2025). Democracy Index. London: The Economist Intelligence Unit. Retrieved from: https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2024/
13. European Commission. 26 September 2003. The role of eGovernment for Europe’s future (COM(2003) 567 final). Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52003DC0567
14. Fisher, E. (2012). E-Governance and E-Democracy: Questioning technology-centered categories. In The Oxford Handbook of Governance, ed. D. Levi-Faur. New York: Oxford University Press: 569-583. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.013.0040
15. Granger, C. W. J. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica, (37)3, 424-438. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912791
16. Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, (115)1, 53-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7
17. Joshi, P. R., & Islam, S. (2018). E-Government maturity model for sustainable E-Government services from the perspective of developing countries. Sustainability, 10(6), 1882. https://doi:10.3390/su10061882
18. Karpa, D. & Rochlitz, M. (2024). Authoritarian surveillance and public support for digital governance solutions. Comparative Political Studies, 58(10), 2237–2265 https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140241290208
19. OECD. (2021). The E-Leaders handbook on the governance of digital government. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from: https://www.oecd.org/gov/digital-government/e-leaders-handbook-on-the-governance-of-digital-government.pdf
20. Persyn, D., & Westerlund, J. (2008). Error-correction–based cointegration tests for panel data. The STATA journal, 8(2), 232-241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0800800205
21. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. Cambridge Working Papers. Economics, 1240(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.5113
22. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross‐section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
23. Pesaran, M. H.. & Yamagata, T. (2008).Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, (142)1 50–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
24. Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A., & Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias‐adjusted LM test of error cross‐section independence. The Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105-127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-423X.2007.00227.x
25. Rana, N. P., Dwivedi, Y. K. and Williams, M. D. (2013). Evaluating alternative theoretical models for examining citizen centric adoption of E-Government. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 7(1), 27-49. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506161311308151
26. Scholta, H., Mertens, W., Kowalkiewicz, M., & Becker, J. (2019). From one-stop shop to no-stop shop: An e-government stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 36(1): 11-26. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
27. Scott, R. W. (1995). Institutions and Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
28. Swamy, P. A. (1970). Efficient inference in a random coefficient regression model. Econometrica, 38(2), 311-323. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913012
29. Thompson, N., Mullins, A., & Chongsutakawewong, T. (2020). Does high e-government adoption assure stronger security? Results from a cross-country analysis of Australia and Thailand. Government Information Quarterly, 37(1),101408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101408
30. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2025). United Nations E-Government Knowledgebase. United Nations. Retrieved from: https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/Data-Center
31. Westerlund, J. (2007). Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(6), 709-748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00477.x
32. World Bank. (2024). World Bank Country and Lending Groups. Retrieved from: https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519
33. Zhang, M. & Kaur, M. (2024). Toward a theory of E-government: Challenges and opportunities, A literature review. Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development, 8(10), 7707. https://doi.org/10.24294/jipd.v8i10.7707
34. Zucker, L. G. (1987). Institutional theories of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, (13): 443-464, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.13.080187.002303