The impact of political efficacy on citizens' e-participation in digital government

Lai, Ruqiang; Beh, LooSee Article The impact of political efficacy on citizens' e-participation in digital government Administrative Sciences Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Lai, Ruqiang; Beh, LooSee (2025) : The impact of political efficacy on citizens' eparticipation in digital government, Administrative Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 15, Iss. 1, pp. 1-23, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15010017 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/321162 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Received: 22 October 2024 Revised: 1 December 2024 Accepted: 2 January 2025 Published: 5 January 2025 Citation: Lai, R., & Beh, L.-S. (2025). The Impact of Political Efficacy on Citizens’ E-Participation in Digital Government. Administrative Sciences, 15(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/ admsci15010017 Copyright: © 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/). Article The Impact of Political Efficacy on Citizens’ E-Participation in Digital Government Ruqiang Lai 1,* and Loo-See Beh 1,2 1 Faculty of Business and Economics, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia; [email protected] 2School of Business and Technology, IMU University, Kuala Lumpur 57000, Malaysia *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Citizens’ e-participation determines the successes and failures of digital government or e-government. However, its results to date have not been satisfactory. IT adoption models dominate previous studies. However, citizens’ psychological factors have been overlooked. The field has fallen into the trap of “technological solutionism.” This research focuses on political efficacy and collected self-reported data from 388 respondents through an online questionnaire. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling was carried out for data analyses. The results showed that e-participation intention positively affects e-participation behavior. Both internal political efficacy and external political efficacy have a positive significant relationship with e-participation intention. Additionally, descriptive analysis results revealed the relationships between citizens’ demographic factors and their influence on e-participation, including gender, age, monthly income, education level, political affiliation, and occupation. This research provides further empirical evidence and insightful knowledge for scholars, enriching political efficacy theory. Government officials can benefit from this research where targeted measures can be developed. Keywords: political efficacy; e-participation; digital government; China; PLS-SEM 1. Introduction Citizens’ e-participation determines the successes and failures of digital government or e-government (United Nations,2020a), since citizens can participate in government policymaking and political agendas through digital government in addition to receiving public services (Macintosh,2004). Furthermore, e-participation mechanisms can increase government accountability, better respond to citizens’ needs, and improve policies and legislative measures (Peixoto & Fox,2016). Therefore, countries’ digital governments in the world have paid much attention to improving citizens’ e-participation (United Nations, 2020b), including China’s digital government (CNNIC,2023). E-participation is expected to increase the interaction between citizens and the government, but the results to date are unsatisfactory (United Nations,2020b). For instance, European Union citizens’ participation in electronic consultations and votes (national or local) has remained largely silent between 2014 and 2019 (United Nations,2020b). In the Irish government’s portal OpenConsult, citizens are underutilizing services (Connaughton, 2022). The same situation is occurring in China. The report released by the E-Government Research Center in the Chinese Academy of Governance showed that the user usage level of digital government nationwide is still very low in China. Only 15 regions exceeded the mean value of the user-usage indicator among 32 provincial governments in China, accounting for only 46.88% (Wang,2022). Additionally, a survey conducted by Zheng et al. (2022) Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 17 https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15010017 Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 17 2 of 23 showed that 64.89% of 11,719 respondents had never participated in relevant activities through the digital government platform, indicating a low level of citizens’ e-participation. The low level of citizens’ e-participation remains a significant risk for e-participation initiatives (Islam,2008). Despite the platform’s best efforts, citizens did not participate at the expected level or quality, meaning that the digital platform did not achieve the expected results, and its success was limited (Wirtz et al.,2018). Critics argue that such e-participation initiatives are entirely government-centric (Pirannejad et al.,2019) and cannot achieve their goals (Alarabiat et al.,2021). Previous scholars have put much effort into studying e-participation in digital government (Zolotov et al.,2018;Adnan et al.,2022). The research has essentially approached this from two perspectives: technical and non-technical (Adnan et al.,2022). IT adoption theories dominate previous studies, such as the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al.,2003), the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis,1985), the Diffusion Of Innovation (DOI) (Rogers,2003), and Information System Success Model (ISSM) (Delone & Mclean,2003). Therefore, the belief that “neutral” (digital) technology can solve societal problems and challenges is the core of contemporary academic and policy thinking on e-participation. However, critics have argued that the field has fallen into the trap of “technological solutionism” (Lember,2022). Using a single IT adoption model hardly provides a strong theoretical foundation (Medaglia,2012;Susha & Gronlund,2012) and has an insufficient explanatory power for factors other than IT. Technology is generally neutral, and it is up to the citizens who use it to achieve its designated effects. As human groups, citizens do not focus only on the technology itself when using it. The psychological dynamics involved are also influenced by many factors of the society in which they live. This reminds us that we need to analyze and interpret citizens’ e-participation behavior from the perspective of social psychology and draw on other theories to study e-participation. Behavior is usually determined by intention (Malhotra & McCort,2001). Therefore, a growing number of scholars have focused on investigating how to increase citizens’ e-participation intention (EPI) (Naranjo-Zolotov et al.,2019;Oliveira & Garcia,2019; Panopoulou et al.,2021). However, previous studies have mostly been conducted on social media (Oser et al.,2022) or other platforms (Novo Vázquez & Vicente,2019). They lacked investigation on digital government platforms in China. Social media is different from digital government platforms. As a newly official and important channel for citizens’ political participation, research on digital government platforms in China needs more attention. In addition, evidence has shown that political efficacy influences e-participation intention (Novo Vázquez & Vicente,2019;Oni et al.,2017). E-participation has similar characteristics to traditional offline participation (Sanchez-Nielsen & Lee,2013) and is also influenced by political efficacy (Chan & Guo,2013;Park,2015;Sharoni,2012;Yao et al., 2022). However, previous studies have not provided more insights. Scholars commonly measure political efficacy only as a holistic concept. Political efficacy has two dimensions, i.e., internal political efficacy and external political efficacy (Prats & Meunier,2021;Oser et al.,2022). They are different, and hence cannot be measured and exprobrated together. Moreover, the relationships between them and e-participation on digital government platforms are unclear and need to be investigated. Certainly, citizens’ socio-demographic characteristics are control variables that warrant attention, as they do have an impact on political efficacy (Wolak,2018;Wu,2003). Therefore, this research is dedicated to answering four research questions. Research Question 1: What is the effect of citizens’ e-participation intention on e-participation behavior on China’s digital government platform? Research Question 2: How does citizens’ internal political efficacy influence e-participation intention? Research Question 3: Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 17 3 of 23 How does citizens’ external political efficacy affect e-participation intention? Research Question 4: What is the relationship between citizens’ demographic factors and their influence on e-participation? This research constructs a quantitative model to investigate the impact of both internal and external political efficacy on citizens’ e-participation in China’s digital government platforms. It fills the research gaps in the empirical study of e-participation and the theory of political efficacy. It benefits scholars and government officials by providing knowledge of the relationship between political efficacy and citizens’ e-participation. More insightful measures thus can be formulated to improve citizens’ e-participation on digital government platforms. 2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development 2.1. E-Participation on the Digital Government Platform An early definition of e-participation refers to “a relationship based on partnership with government in which citizens actively engage in defining the process and content of policy-making” (OECD,2003, p. 55). Macintosh (2006, pp. 364–369) defined e-participation as “the use of information and communication technologies to broaden and deepen political participation by enabling citizens to connect with one another and with their elected representatives,” while a definition from Sæbø et al. (2008) emphasized the stakeholders of e-participation, which referred to a social activity, mediated by ICT, involving interaction between citizens, the public administration, and politicians. The United Nations views e-participation as a branch of e-government; hence, their definition is “the process of engaging citizens through ICTs in policy, decision-making, and service design and delivery so as to make it participatory, inclusive, and deliberative” (United Nations,2020b). The definition of e-participation continues to evolve with the developing technology over time. We can easily observe from previous definitions that scholars have emphasized the key role of citizens in it. As the demand side of digital government e-participation initiatives (United Nations,2020a), citizens’ participation determines the success or failure of these undertakings (Gummerus et al.,2012). Bottom-up participation from citizens to the government becomes an important complement to top-down government initiation methods on digital government platforms (van Waart et al.,2016). The ladder of citizen participation proposed by Arnstein (1969) served as an important basis for classifying the stages of e-participation. They were summarized by scholars in three stages: informing, consultation, and placation-affiliate (Pristl & Billert,2022). Based on this, different scholars put forward different levels of e-participation. For instance, Macintosh (2004) considered that e-participation includes three levels: e-Enabling, e-Engaging, and e-Empowering. The further evolvement of the classification of e-participation by Santamaria-Philco et al. (2019) denoted three levels for e-participation, i.e., e-informing, e-consultative, and e-collaboration. However, most of these classifications are based on the perspective of the e-participation service provider, i.e., the government, and not purely on the citizens’ perspective. The United Nations divided e-participation into three levels: E-information, Econsultation, and E-decision-making (UN,2014, p. 63). This model turns what was passive into active participation. “E-information enables participation by providing citizens with public information and access to information upon demand. E-consultation engages people in deeper contributions to and deliberation on public policies and services. E-decision-making empowers people through co-design of policy options and co-production of service components and delivery modalities.” Therefore, this model aims to bring empowerment to the people. Distinguishing between citizens’ e-participation intention and actual e-participation behavior is essential for understanding and improving citizens’ engagement through digital government platforms. Citizens’ e-participation intention reflects their willingness Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 17 4 of 23 and psychological readiness to participate. Actual e-participation behavior encompasses the real actions taken by citizens in response to these intentions (Malhotra & McCort, 2001). However, high intention does not always translate into action; studies indicate that while intentions can explain a portion of the variance in behavior (typically between 18 and 23%), they do not account for all of it, leading to what is known as the intention– behavior gap (Conner & Norman,2022). Scholars have also demonstrated that while many citizens express a desire to participate in e-participation initiatives, actual participation rates often fall short (Zheng,2017;Zheng & Schachter,2017). For instance, the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) identifies constructs like performance expectancy and effort expectancy as significant predictors of intention to use e-participation tools (Naranjo-Zolotov et al.,2019). Understanding these constructs helps in designing better e-participation initiatives that can effectively convert intention into action. For local governments promoting e-participation, recognizing this distinction allows for targeted strategies that not only encourage intention but also facilitate actual participation. Therefore, distinguishing between e-participation intention and actual behavior is vital for developing effective e-participation strategies. It enhances civic engagement and ensure that citizens’ voices are genuinely heard in the decision-making processes. Identically, it is crucial to distinguish the e-participation intention and actual eparticipation behavior in the Chinese context. Scholars have argued that the behavioral intention model (the influence of intention on behavior) needs greater explicit cross-cultural assessment even though it is considered to be universally applicable (Malhotra & McCort, 2001). Studies indicate that high e-participation intention does not always translate directly into high e-participation behavior (Choi & Song,2020). Hence, to understand the actual e-participation behavior, it is important to understand the basis on which individual citizens make their decisions (Zheng & Schachter,2017). For instance, many social and psychological variables influence whether and how individuals participate, demographic characteristics such as age, gender, education, and political affiliation, and psychological factors such as social capital and political efficacy. It is well known that China is a powerful party state with a top-down political system and a state-regulated media system. Chinese citizens have relatively limited options for traditional offline political participation, and consequently political apathy is widespread. Although citizens may have a strong intention to participate, actual participatory behavior may be reduced due to these factors. E-participation in digital government is complementary to traditional channels of political participation, and it is worth exploring whether it suffers from the same problems among citizens as conventional political participation (Xu et al.,2022). Therefore, it is necessary to explore whether citizens’ e-participation intentions translate into actual high levels of e-participation behavior in China. The behavioral intention model has been widely demonstrated in studies of e-government adoption and e-participation (Ahmed et al.,2015; Alryalat et al.,2015;Rana et al.,2015;Thao,2017). The following hypothesis was assumed to test the same logic on China’s digital government platforms. Hypothesis 1. Citizens’ intention of e-participation has a positive effect on their actual eparticipation behaviors on the digital government platform. 2.2. Political Efficacy Political efficacy first came from Campbell et al. (1954, p. 187); it referred to “the feeling that individual political action does have, or can have, an impact on the political process, that is, that it is worthwhile to perform one’s civic duties.” It is a psychological definition and one of the most prominent factors influencing an individual’s political behavior (Aish & Jöreskog, 1990). In this definition, the subject of political efficacy is the citizen and the object is politics. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 17 5 of 23 In addition, Campbell views political efficacy as an individual’s intrinsically subjective perception of politics and self-measurement regarding his or her own political competence. Lane (1959) considered that political efficacy should be comprised of two different components: Firstly, internal political efficacy, which means that individuals believe they have more influence over the government when compared with others. Secondly, external political efficacy, which means that a person believes the government will address his or her concerns when confronting the political system. Lane’s view is accepted by the majority of scholars (Bene,2020;Boulianne & Ohme,2022;Lee,2006;Prats & Meunier,2021;Wu et al.,2022). Internal and external political efficacy levels are not only theoretically distinct (Clarke et al.,2010) but empirical studies have also shown a weak correlation between them (Balch,1974;Bene,2020;Prats & Meunier,2021). Hence, it is necessary to separate political efficacy into two parts. Internal political efficacy refers to “beliefs about one’s own competence to understand, and to participate effectively in politics” (Niemi et al.,1991, pp. 1407–1408). It is a crucial precursor to citizens’ political participation. Individuals with a stronger internal efficacy believe their political actions can have an impact (Hu,2016). The more confident people feel in their own political capabilities, the more likely they are to actively engage in the political process. In contrast, those with low internal efficacy may feel powerless and be less likely to get involved, leading to political apathy or cynicism. Evidence has shown that people with higher internal political efficacy are more likely to engage in political activities like voting, conventional political participation, and even unconventional participation (Reichert,2016). Therefore, internal efficacy shapes both the intention and the actual behavior of citizens when it comes to participating in politics. It helps to motivate people to get involved in the political process. Likewise, internal political efficacy has a significant influence on citizens’ e-participation or online political participation (Oni et al.,2017). The more confident people feel in their internal political efficacy, the more likely they are to engage in online political activities (Chen et al.,2019). The more people feel capable of understanding and influencing politics, the more motivated they are to participate politically through digital channels. It can be considered that internal political efficacy is a key factor driving citizens’ e-participation. Therefore, it proposes the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 2. Citizens’ internal political efficacy has a positive effect on their intention to engage in e-participation. External political efficacy refers to “beliefs about the responsiveness of governmental authorities and institutions to citizens’ demands” (Niemi et al.,1991, pp. 1407–1408). It represents an individual’s subjective assessment of the role of citizens within the political system and their ability to influence political processes (OECD,2021). People with high external political efficacy feel that the political system and actors are responsive to ordinary citizens and allow them to have a say in government actions (Finkel,1985). The more people feel the political system is attentive to their demands, the more likely they are to get involved in the political process. People with higher external efficacy are more likely to engage in both direct forms of participation (e.g., voting, attending rallies) and indirect forms (e.g., contacting officials) (Mead,2018). Conversely, low external political efficacy can undermine political engagement (Etzel,2023). Hence, external political efficacy is considered a crucial factor shaping political participation (OECD,2023). External political efficacy has been proven to positively affect both traditional and e-participation (Zaiter et al.,2023). Individuals with higher external political efficacy believe that they can effectively express their views or suggestions to the authorities and receive substantive responses through digital channels. For instance, the research findings from Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 17 6 of 23 Novo Vázquez and Vicente (2019) showed that individuals with higher external political efficacy are more likely to engage in e-participation in Spanish smart cities. Therefore, it proposes the following hypothesis to test the same logic in China’s digital government. Hypothesis 3. Citizens’ external political efficacy has a positive effect on their intention to engage in e-participation. 3. Methodology 3.1. Research Instruments A 5-point Likert-type scale was employed for the survey. The 5-point Likert-type scale has fewer options and is relatively simple for respondents, thus reducing their level of frustration. Respondents are more likely to understand it and therefore have higher response rates and response quality (Dawes,2008;Sachdev & Verma,2004). The scale of e-participation behavior (EPB) is modified from Zheng (2017). It used the frequency of participation to measure. Each item was measured on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The e-participation intention (EPI) scale is altered from Mensah et al. (2020). Both the internal political efficacy (IPE) and external political efficacy (EPE) scales are adapted from Liu (2017). All these items were measured ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). 3.2. Sampling and Data Collection Three provincial digital government platforms were selected as the representatives. They are the Guang Dong digital government platform Yue Sheng Shi ( 粤省事 ), the Jiang Xi digital government platform Gan Fu Tong ( 赣服通 ), and the Shan Xi digital government platform San Jin Tong ( 三晋通 ), which fall into three levels: very high, high, and medium, respectively, according to the official report (Wang,2022). Theoretically, the services of the digital government should cover all citizens, and all citizens should be the target population of the study. However, due to many practical barriers such as facilities and equipment, education level, digital literacy, etc., many citizens are subjectively or objectively unable to use and participate on digital government platforms. Therefore, netizens in these three provinces are the target population of this study. Convenience sampling in non-probability sampling was selected since the target population is extremely large. This approach is uncomplicated, easier to apply, has fewer rule restrictions, a lower cost, and is time-saving (Bhardwaj,2019;Etikan,2016;Gerlich et al.,2018;Stratton,2021). Interested participants can be recruited voluntarily; hence, it can collect their self-reported data (Edgar & Manz, 2017;Winton & Sabol,2022). According to Krejcie and Morgan (1970), the minimum sample size of this study is identified as 384. The survey is conducted via an online questionnaire and data are collected on the platform wj.qq.com, which is similar to Amazon Mechanical Turk and has 3 million registered samples covering China; thus, it can locate the three provinces precisely. In addition, all the items in the questionnaire are set as compulsory. It prohibits duplicate respondents by blocking the same network IP addresses of the respondents’ accounts. Data collection started in August 2023 and ended in October 2023. We offered a reward of RMB 5 (approximately USD 0.7) to respondents who validly completed the survey to incentivize active participation. A total of 534 responses were received. After data screening, 121 responses that did not correctly answer the two attention test items were excluded. After calculating univariate and multivariate outliers (Hair,2019), 25 cases were removed. Finally, 388 valid responses were identified. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 17 7 of 23 3.3. Data Analysis Technique The Partial Least Square Structural Equation Model (PLS-SEM) is used for the data analysis. It is more appropriate than Covariance-Based Structural Equation Modeling (CB-SEM) because this study explores the relationships and explains a theory that was not yet developed (Rigdon,2012). Moreover, PLS-SEM has more advantages than CB-SEM, such as its capacity to be used with small sample sizes and non-normal data distributions (Civelek,2018;Hair et al.,2011). SPSS 27.0 and Smart PLS 4.0 were adopted to execute statistical analyses. 4. Results 4.1. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents The results reveal that respondents were evenly distributed among the three provinces surveyed, respondents in Guang Dong province comprised 35.6%, those in Jiang Xi province 32%, and those in Shan Xi province 32.5%. Male respondents comprised 42.8% and female respondents 57.2%. The majority of respondents were between the ages of 20 and 29, which comprised 61.1%. Respondents with a monthly income of RMB 3001 to 5000 comprised 30.7%, followed by respondents with a monthly income of RMB ≥ 5001 (27.1%), 1001–3000 (25.8%), and ≤ 1000 (16.5%). Most respondents were well educated with a college degree, 38.9%, and a bachelor’s degree, 37.1%, together constituting more than half of all respondents. In terms of political affiliation, the vast majority, 88.7%, of respondents had no affiliation. Respondents working in private companies comprised 31.7%, followed by students (26.5%) and those working in state companies (19.8%), etc. Table 1displays a summary of respondents’ profiles. According to the newest Statistical Report on China’s Internet Development (CNNIC,2024), as of June 2024, the ratio of men to women for internet users in China was 50.8:49.2. The proportion of the internet user group aged 50 and above was 33.3% and much less than those aged below 50. However, due to time and financial constraints, as well as the online questionnaire used, it was not possible to precisely control the proportion of the sample distribution. Overall, the sample distribution is relatively balanced and consistent with the socio-demographic characteristics profile when compared with the national statistics, thus making it representative. Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents. Variables Categories Frequency Percent (%) Province Guang Dong Province 138 35.6 Jiang Xi Province 124 32 Shan Xi Province 126 32.5 Gender Male 166 42.8 Female 222 57.2 Age ≤19 46 11.9 20–29 237 61.1 30–39 77 19.8 40–49 15 3.9 50–59 12 3.1 ≥60 1 0.3 Monthly income ≤1000 64 16.5 1001–3000 100 25.8 3001–5000 119 30.7 ≥5001 105 27.1 Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 17 8 of 23 Table 1. Cont. Variables Categories Frequency Percent (%) Education level Middle school and below 24 6.2 High school 51 13.1 College 151 38.9 Bachelor 144 37.1 Postgraduate and above 18 4.6 Political Affiliation the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) 36 9.3 Democracy Party 8 2.1 No affiliation 344 88.7 Occupation Government 2 0.5 State companies 77 19.8 Private companies 123 31.7 Self-employed 54 13.9 Unemployed 25 6.4 Retired 4 1 Student 103 26.5 4.2. Measurement Model Detecting and addressing non-response bias is crucial in survey research as it helps to ensure the validity and reliability of the data collected. It can not only assess the representativeness of the sample but can also enhance the generalizability of the findings (Cheung et al.,2017;Halbesleben & Whitman,2013). An independent samples t-test was adopted in this study to detect non-response bias. By comparing the means between the two groups of early response and late response, the differences between the predictors and criterion variables were found (Koch & Blohm,2016). This study sequenced the 388 valid samples according to their response time and took the first 20% and the last 20% as the two groups for comparison analysis. From the independent samples t-test results, it can be found that there is no significant difference (p> 0.05) in the statistical results between early response (n = 78) and late response (n = 78). Therefore, there is no non-response bias in this study. Common method variance (CMV) may exist, since all data were collected from one source in this research. It may threaten the validity of the conclusions about the relationship between measurements (Podsakoff et al.,2003). Two approaches were conducted to detect CMV. Harman’s single-factor test is one of the most popular methods. In this research, the single factor accounted for 19.66% of the variance. Hence, it is not greater than 50%, indicating a good result (Podsakoff et al.,2012). According to the suggestions from Kock et al. (2012) and Kock (2015), in PLS-SEM, a full collinearity assessment method based on variance inflation factor (VIF) is recommended to detect CMV. In this approach, all variables are regressed against a common random variable, and single-source data are free of bias if the VIF ≤ 3.3. After calculation, all constructs had VIF values less than 3.3. Based on the above results, there is no CMV in this research. Subsequently, the PLS algorithm was carried out for measurement model analysis. According to Hair et al. (2019), factor loadings above 0.708 are recommended. Meanwhile, values from 0.40 to 0.70 are acceptable and retention depends on the ability to increase the AVE value (Hulland,1999;Wong,2013). Since all the constructs’ average variance extracted (AVE) in this research is greater than threshold of 0.5, indicating a good result, there is no need to remove the items whose loadings are between 0.40 and 0.70. A Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.70 to 0.95 is acceptable (Tavakol & Dennick,2011). Results of the composite reliability criterion between 0.70 and 0.95 indicate satisfactory to good reliability levels (Sarstedt et al.,2021). Details are shown in Table 2, where all results present good reliability. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 17 15 of 23 higher than those who are working in state companies, working in private companies, selfemployed, unemployed, and students. As for e-participation intention, citizens working in the government, those working in state companies, and students score higher than those who are unemployed and retired. Regarding external political efficacy, citizens working in state companies and students score higher than the unemployed, retired, and those working in private companies. Table 13 shows the details. 5. Discussion The purpose of this study is to present a rationale and empirical evidence on how political efficacy affects citizens’ e-participation in digital government. In order to achieve this objective, it was hypothesized that citizens’ e-participation intention would positively influence actual e-participation behavior. Two separate hypotheses were also established, i.e., internal political efficacy and external political efficacy would positively influence citizens’ e-participation intention, respectively. Finally, the data collected from 388 respondents were statistically analyzed using PLS-SEM. Research Question 1 was, “What is the effect of citizens’ e-participation intention on e-participation behavior on China’s digital government platform?” The related Hypothesis 1 explored the relationship between e-participation intention and actual behavior. It found that citizens’ e-participation intention has a significant positive relationship with e-participation behaviors ( β = 0.317, t = 7.215, p< 0.05). This indicates that citizens who have a stronger intention to engage in e-participation will be more likely to perform eparticipation behaviors. This finding is consistent with the previous studies of ElKheshin and Saleeb (2016) and Hooda et al. (2022). It confirms and reinforces that intention is the key issue in enhancing behavior. Therefore, enhancing citizens’ e-participation intention is the focal point needed to address the low e-participation rate. Research Question 2 was, “How does citizens’ internal political efficacy influence e-participation intention?” and the related Hypothesis 2 explored the relationship between internal political efficacy and e-participation intention. It found that internal political efficacy has a significant positive relationship with e-participation intention ( β = 0.326, t = 6.574, p< 0.05). It indicates that citizens with a higher level of internal political efficacy will have a stronger e-participation intention. This finding is consistent with the previous studies of Gil de Zúñiga et al. (2017), Koo et al. (2016), Lai and Beh (2024), and Lebrument et al. (2021). Citizens have more political information and greater self-confidence in participating in political activities, which leads to a stronger intention to participate in political activities. This has been verified not only in traditional forms of political participation but also in e-participation, a form of political participation based on new technologies. Research Question 3 was, “How does citizens’ external political efficacy affect eparticipation intention?” and the related Hypothesis 3 explored the relationship between external political efficacy and e-participation intention. It found that external political efficacy has a significant positive relationship with e-participation intention ( β = 0.323, t = 6.793, p< 0.05). This result indicates that citizens with a higher external political efficacy will have a stronger e-participation intention. This finding is also consistent with the previous studies of Koo et al. (2016), Lai and Beh (2024), and Lebrument et al. (2021). Citizens’ trust in government authorities is based on the government’s responsiveness to citizens’ demands in a timely and effective manner. Stronger trust further strengthens citizens’ intention to participate in political activities, including e-participation. Research Question 4 was, “What is the relationship between citizens’ demographic factors and their influence on e-participation?” The results found there is a significant difference in internal political efficacy and external political efficacy based on gender. Men have better internal political efficacy than women. This finding is in line with the previous Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 17 16 of 23 studies of Fraile and de Miguel Moyer (2022), Fraile and Marinova (2024), Grasso and Smith (2022), and Matthieu (2023). The current result indicates that there is a persistent gender gap in internal political efficacy, where women tend to have lower levels of perceived competence and ability to participate in politics compared to men. On the contrary, women have better external political efficacy than men. This finding is not consistent with the previous studies of Heger and Hoffmann (2021) and Mulder (2023), whose findings showed no significant relationship between gender and external political efficacy. The current result indicates that Chinese women have a stronger belief in government authorities than Chinese men. However, there is no significant difference in citizens’ e-participation behavior, e-participation intention, internal political efficacy, and external political efficacy based on their age. In terms of citizens’ monthly income, there is also no significant difference in citizens’ e-participation behavior, e-participation intention, internal political efficacy, and external political efficacy regarding their monthly income. Regarding the education level, there is a significant difference in citizens’ eparticipation behavior, internal political efficacy, and external political efficacy. Higher levels of education are associated with greater political efficacy, both internal efficacy and external political efficacy. This finding is consistent with the previous studies of Petersen (2018), Mulder (2023), and Schulz (2005). The cognitive and motivational effects of education, such as providing individuals with greater political knowledge and skills, contribute to enhancing their political efficacy. In addition, citizens possessing a higher degree of education have greater e-participation behavior than those without. This finding is in line with the previous studies of Larreguy and Marshall (2013) and Persson (2013,2015). It indicates that individuals with higher levels of education tend to participate in politics to a greater extent than those with lower levels of education. In terms of political affiliation, there is a significant difference in citizens’ eparticipation behavior based on their political affiliation. Citizens with no affiliation are lower than those in the CCP and the Democracy Party. This finding is consistent with the previous studies of Jiang (2023), Kim and Chen (2016), and Paudel et al. (2018). Political affiliation can strongly influence individuals’ political behaviors. It found that being affiliated with a political party can cause people to change their views on political issues and their voting behavior. In addition, there is a significant difference in citizens’ e-participation behavior, eparticipation intention, and external political efficacy based on their occupation. Citizens working in the government have greater e-participation behavior than those who are working in state companies or private companies, self-employed, unemployed, and students. Nevertheless, the results of e-participation intention, internal political efficacy, and external political efficacy are almost the same. The findings indicate that people working within the public sector will have greater political participation behavior and intention, as well as a higher (internal and external) political efficacy than those working outside the public sector, while those with job earnings will have greater political participation behavior and intention, as well as a higher (internal and external) political efficacy, compared with those without. This indicates occupational salary does provide more autonomy, control, or higher participation levels of political efficacy, while precarious or unstable employment can diminish people’s sense of political influence and engagement. These findings are consistent with Azzollini and Macmillan (2023), Prats and Meunier (2021), Ni et al. (2022), and Sobel (1993). 6. Conclusions This study provides empirical validation of the factors influencing Chinese citizens’ behavior and intention to engage in e-participation on digital government platforms. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 17 17 of 23 Previous studies of citizens’ e-participation have focused on technology adoption and lacked psychological factors. This study focused on citizens’ political efficacy, investigating both internal and external political efficacy. In addition, most previous research on eparticipation has focused on social media and rarely on digital government platforms. This study investigated the impact of political efficacy on e-participation on digital government platforms. Therefore, it contributes to filling the research gaps in the field of e-participation on digital government platforms. This study validated the applicability of political efficacy in the Chinese context. The concept of political efficacy originated in the West, and most studies have also been based on Western contexts, while research in the Chinese context is still relatively rare. This study effectively validated political efficacy in the Chinese context, thus contributing to a more applicable context for research. Moreover, this study clearly distinguished two dimensions of political efficacy for validation, achieving a higher granularity of research, which has often been overlooked and missing in previous studies. Therefore, this study expanded the research boundaries of political efficacy. This study also provides some valuable implications for government sector administrators. First, citizens’ e-participation intention directly affects e-participation behavior. Hence, it is necessary to take some measures to enhance citizens’ e-participation intention to use the digital government platform. Administrators can conduct comprehensive research to understand citizens’ needs, preferences, and challenges, which can help to design a platform that meets citizens’ expectations. They can also conduct regular testing of the platform to identify and resolve any problems in its usage as well as provide an accessible environment, including approaches such as disability-oriented and multilingual design, to meet the needs of different groups. The government can also enhance the propaganda of the digital government platform to raise awareness of its existence and benefits, and simultaneously organize digital skills training seminars to empower citizens on how to use the digital government platforms. In addition, the government can also launch incentive programs or reward policies for citizens who actively use digital government platforms. Due to the popularity of mobile devices, attention should be paid to the optimization of the mobile-use platforms such as mobile apps, and others such as the WeChat mini program. Further, policies and regulations on data security and privacy can be enhanced to guarantee users’ trust in the security of their personal information, simplifying the process to avoid redundant data input and enhance the user’s interactive experience. To ensure continual usage, citizens can be encouraged to be regularly involved to continuously improve and update the platform. By adopting the above strategies, citizens can be further encouraged to engage in e-participation on digital government platforms. Second, political efficacy (internal and external) has been demonstrated to have a significant impact on citizens’ e-participation on digital government platforms. Therefore, administrators need to pay great attention to enhancing citizens’ internal and external political efficacy. Several proven approaches can be implemented such as comprehensive civic education programs in schools to teach students about the political system, government structures, and the importance of civic engagement. Campaigns can be launched to disseminate information about political processes, policies, and the role of citizens in them. Such steps also demonstrate that government transparency does occur by providing easy access to information, government documents, and decision-making processes via town hall meetings and forums where citizens can interact with officials, ask questions, and express concerns. Citizens can also access information about government activities and policies and through workshops on topics such as how to navigate government websites, understand policy proposals, and effectively communicate with elected people’s representatives by utilizing social media and other online platforms to engage citizens in Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 17 18 of 23 discussions, share information, and gather feedback on policies. Such moves can promote a sense of ownership and involvement, distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources, and understand different perspectives. At the same time, we recommend that initiatives are supported on fact-checking information and promoting accuracy in political discourse. Such support also provides avenues for citizens to get involved in volunteering work and community service, fostering a sense of civic responsibility. This further demonstrates that policies and initiatives are inclusive and that the diverse needs and perspectives of the population can be considered. By combining these approaches, administrators can contribute to building a more politically informed, engaged, and efficacious citizenry. There are some limitations and future directions of this study. Firstly, the data in this study are non-tracking survey data; thus, it is difficult to longitudinally examine the trends and characteristics of citizens’ political efficacy on e-participation intention over time. It is recommended that future research conduct a longitudinal study to observe the changing effects on e-participation intention over time. Secondly, limited by time and finance, internet users were randomly selected for the study; thus, the conclusions should be cautiously generalized to the whole country. Future research can try to conduct a nationwide survey, though it has to be institution-based. Lastly, this study only investigated the influence of political efficacy on citizens’ eparticipation on digital government platforms. However, the influences on citizens’ eparticipation in digital government are multifaceted and comprehensive, including both technological and non-technological. Future research could explore the influence of more factors, such as combining the technology adoption models, TAM, UTAUT, etc. Alternatively, knowledge could be gained from other disciplines for interdisciplinary research, such as regional economic development indicators. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.L.; methodology, R.L.; software, R.L.; validation, R.L.; formal analysis, R.L.; investigation, R.L.; resources, R.L.; data curation, R.L.; writing—original draft preparation, R.L.; writing—review and editing, R.L. and L.-S.B.; visualization, R.L.; supervision, L.-S.B.; project administration, R.L.; funding acquisition, R.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Universiti Malaya Research Ethics Committee (UMREC) (UM.TNC2/UMREC_2811; 31 July 2023). Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study. Data Availability Statement: Data will be made available on request from the corresponding author. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. References Adnan, M., Ghazali, M., & Othman, N. Z. S. (2022). E-participation within the context of e-government initiatives: A comprehensive systematic review. Telematics and Informatics Reports,8, 100015. [CrossRef] Ahmed, T., Alhadi, N., & Seliaman, M. E. (2015, April 26–29). Acceptance of e-government services in Sudan: An empirical investigation. 2015 International Conference on Cloud Computing (ICCC) (pp. 1–4), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. [CrossRef] Aish, A.-M., & Jöreskog, K. G. (1990). A panel model for political efficacy and responsiveness: An application of LISREL 7 with weighted least squares. Quality and Quantity,24(4), 405–426. [CrossRef] Alarabiat, A., Soares, D., & Estevez, E. (2021). Determinants of citizens’ intention to engage in government-led electronic participation initiatives through Facebook. Government Information Quarterly,38(1), 101537. [CrossRef] Alryalat, M. A. A., Rana, N. P., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2015). Citizen’s adoption of an e-government system. International Journal of Electronic Government Research,11(4), 1–23. [CrossRef] Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners,35(4), 216–224. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 17 19 of 23 Azzollini, L., & Macmillan, R. (2023). Are “bad” jobs bad for democracy? Precarious work and electoral participation in Europe. Frontiers in Political Science,5, 1176686. [CrossRef] Balch, G. I. (1974). Multiple indicators in survey research: The concept “sense of political efficacy”. Political Methodology,1(2), 1–43. Belanche, D., Casaló, L. V., & Flavián, M. (2024). Human versus virtual influences, a comparative study. Journal of Business Research,173, 114493. [CrossRef] Bene, M. (2020). Does context matter? A cross-country investigation of the effects of the media context on external and internal political efficacy. International Journal of Comparative Sociology,61(4), 264–286. [CrossRef] Bhardwaj, P. (2019). Types of sampling in research. Journal of the Practice of Cardiovascular Sciences,5(3), 157. [CrossRef] Boulianne, S., & Ohme, J. (2022). Pathways to environmental activism in four countries: Social media, environmental concern, and political efficacy. Journal of Youth Studies,25(6), 771–792. [CrossRef] Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W. E. (1954). The voter decides (pp. xiii, 242). Row, Peterson, and Co. Chan, M., & Guo, J. (2013). The role of political efficacy on the relationship between facebook use and participatory behaviors: A comparative study of young American and Chinese adults. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,16(6), 460–463. [CrossRef] Chen, C., Bai, Y., & Wang, R. (2019). Online political efficacy and political participation: A mediation analysis based on the evidence from Taiwan. New Media & Society,21(8), 1667–1696. [CrossRef] Cheung, K. L., ten Klooster, P. M., Smit, C., de Vries, H., & Pieterse, M. E. (2017). The impact of non-response bias due to sampling in public health studies: A comparison of voluntary versus mandatory recruitment in a Dutch national survey on adolescent health. BMC Public Health,17(1), 276. [CrossRef] Choi, J., & Song, C. (2020). Factors explaining why some citizens engage in E-participation, while others do not. Government Information Quarterly,37(4), 101524. [CrossRef] Civelek, M. E. (2018). Comparison of covariance-based and partial least square structural equation modeling methods under nonnormal distribution and small sample size limitations. Eurasian Academy of Sciences Eurasian Econometrics, Statistics & Empirical Economics Journal,10, 39–50. Clarke, H. D., Kornberg, A., & Scotto, T. J. (2010). Accentuating the Negative? Methodology,6(3), 107–117. [CrossRef] CNNIC. (2023). The 51th statistical report on China’s internet development. Available online: https://www.cnnic.com.cn/IDR/ ReportDownloads/202307/P020230707514088128694.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2025). CNNIC. (2024). The 54th statistical peport on China’s internet development. Available online: https://www.cnnic.net.cn/NMediaFile/ 2024/0906/MAIN17255881028985DZD0SVVQH.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2024). Connaughton, B. (2022). The implementation of e-participation platforms in Ireland: The case of OpenConsult. In T. Randma-Liiv, & V. Lember (Eds.), Engaging citizens in policy making (pp. 196–208). Edward Elgar Publishing. [CrossRef] Conner, M., & Norman, P. (2022). Understanding the intention-behavior gap: The role of intention strength. Frontiers in Psychology,13, 923464. [CrossRef] Davis. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results [Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology]. Dawes, J. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales. International Journal of Market Research,50(1), 61–104. [CrossRef] Delone, W. H., & Mclean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems,19(4), 9–30. [CrossRef] Edgar, T. W., & Manz, D. O. (2017). Research methods for cyber security. Syngress. ElKheshin, S., & Saleeb, N. (2016, December 20–21). A conceptual model for E-government adoption in Egypt. 2016 11th International Conference on Computer Engineering & Systems (ICCES) (pp. 254–259), Cairo, Egypt. [CrossRef] Etikan, I. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1. [CrossRef] Etzel, M. (2023). Value orientation and external political efficacy: Assessing the relationship between traditional values, progressive politics and political responsiveness. Comparative European Politics. [CrossRef] Finkel, S. E. (1985). Reciprocal effects of participation and political efficacy: A panel analysis. American Journal of Political Science,29(4), 891. [CrossRef] Fraile, M., & de Miguel Moyer, C. (2022). Risk and the gender gap in internal political efficacy in Europe. West European Politics,45(7), 1462–1480. [CrossRef] Fraile, M., & Marinova, D. (2024). Closing the gender gap in internal political efficacy? Gender roles and the masculine ethos of politics in Spain. Political Behavior,46, 2287–2311. [CrossRef] Gerlich, R. N., Drumheller, K., Clark, R., & Baskin, M. B. (2018). Mechanical turk: Is it just another convenience sample? Global Journal of Business Disciplines,2(1), 45–55. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 17 20 of 23 Gil de Zúñiga, H., Diehl, T., & Ardévol-Abreu, A. (2017). Internal, external, and government political efficacy: Effects on news use, discussion, and political participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,61(3), 574–596. [CrossRef] Grasso, M., & Smith, K. (2022). Gender inequalities in political participation and political engagement among young people in Europe: Are young women less politically engaged than young men? Politics,42(1), 39–57. [CrossRef] Gummerus, J., Liljander, V., Weman, E., & Pihlström, M. (2012). Customer engagement in a Facebook brand community. Management Research Review,35(9), 857–877. [CrossRef] Hair, J. F. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage. Hair, J. F. (Ed.). (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage. 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. [CrossRef] Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review,31(1), 2–24. [CrossRef] Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Whitman, M. V. (2013). Evaluating survey quality in health services research: A decision framework for assessing nonresponse bias. Health Services Research,48(3), 913–930. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Heger, K., & Hoffmann, C. P. (2021). Feminism! What is it good for? The role of feminism and political self-efficacy in women’s online political participation. Social Science Computer Review,39(2), 226–244. [CrossRef] 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. [CrossRef] Hooda, A., Gupta, P., Jeyaraj, A., Giannakis, M., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2022). The effects of trust on behavioral intention and use behavior within e-government contexts. International Journal of Information Management,67, 102553. [CrossRef] Hu, R. (2016). The impact of Chinese political efficacy and political participation on their trust in the police. The Journal of Chinese Sociology,3(1), 3. [CrossRef] Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal,20(2), 195–204. [CrossRef] Islam, M. S. (2008). Towards a sustainable e-participation implementation model. European Journal of ePractice,5(10). Available online: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:796551/FULLTEXT01.pdf (accessed on 5 September 2022). Jiang, Y. (2023). The impact of political ideology, knowledge and participation on electoral conspiracy endorsement. Frontiers in Political Science,5, 1069468. [CrossRef] Kim, Y., & Chen, H.-T. (2016). Social media and online political participation: The mediating role of exposure to cross-cutting and like-minded perspectives. Telematics and Informatics,33(2), 320–330. [CrossRef] Koch, A., & Blohm, M. (2016). Nonresponse bias (GESIS survey guidelines). GESIS Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences. Available online: http://www.gesis.org/gesis-survey-guidelines/statistics/nonresponse-bias/ (accessed on 1 March 2024). Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM. International Journal of e-Collaboration,11(4), 1–10. [CrossRef] Kock, N., Kock, N., Lynn, G., & Stevens Institute of Technology. (2012). Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: An illustration and recommendations. Journal of the Association for Information Systems,13(7), 546–580. [CrossRef] Koo, J., Koo, J., & Kim, J. (2016). The effects of the SNS activities of politicians on political efficacy and the intention to participate in voting. Asia Pacific Journal of Information Systems,26(1), 22–40. [CrossRef] Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement,30(3), 607–610. [CrossRef] Lai, R., & Beh, L.-S. (2024). The roles of Zhongyong and political efficacy on citizens’ e-participation in digital government platform. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy. [CrossRef] Lane, R. E. (1959). Political life: Why people get involved in politics. Free Press. Available online: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id= VdE1AAAAIAAJ (accessed on 1 August 2023). Larreguy, H. A., & Marshall, J. (2013). The effect of education on political engagement in weakly institutionalized democracies: Evidence from Nigeria. Available online: https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/bwgape/files/education _ in _ nigeria.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2025). Lebrument, N., Zumbo-Lebrument, C., Rochette, C., & Roulet, T. J. (2021). Triggering participation in smart cities: Political efficacy, public administration satisfaction and sense of belonging as drivers of citizens’ intention. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,171, 120938. [CrossRef] Lee, F. L. F. (2006). Collective efficacy, support for democratization, and political participation in Hong Kong. International Journal of Public Opinion Research,18(3), 297–317. [CrossRef] Lember, V. (2022). Engaging citizens in policy making: The potential and challenges of e-participation. In T. Randma-Liiv, & V. Lember (Eds.), Engaging citizens in policy making (pp. 1–10). Edward Elgar Publishing. [CrossRef] Liu, B. (2017). Social media use and political participation in China: The mediating role of political efficacy [Master’s thesis, University of South Florida]. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 17 21 of 23 Ma, Y., Leng, C., & Wang, H. (2024). Optimal subsampling bootstrap for massive data. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics,42(1), 174–186. [CrossRef] Macintosh, A. (2004, January 5–8). Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (p. 10), Big Island, HI, USA. [CrossRef] Macintosh, A. (2006). eParticipation in policy-making: The research and the challenges. Exploiting the Knowledge Economy: Issues, Applications and Case Studies,3, 364–369. Malhotra, N. K., & McCort, J. D. (2001). A cross-cultural comparison of behavioral intention models—Theoretical consideration and an empirical investigation. International Marketing Review,18(3), 235–269. [CrossRef] Matthieu, J. (2023). Where are we with closing the gender gap in internal political efficacy? European Journal of Politics and Gender,6(3), 456–461. [CrossRef] Mead, S. M. (2018). Efficacy and political participation: How can i make a difference? Northern Illinois University. Medaglia, R. (2012). eParticipation research: Moving characterization forward (2006–2011). Government Information Quarterly,29(3), 346–360. [CrossRef] Mensah, I. K., Zeng, G., & Luo, C. (2020). e-Government services adoption: An extension of the unified model of electronic government adoption. SAGE Open,10(2), 215824402093359. [CrossRef] Mulder, L. E. M. (2023). On-site citizenship education: An effective way of boosting democratic engagement and reducing inequalities among young people? Political Behavior,45(2), 511–535. [CrossRef] Naranjo-Zolotov, M., Oliveira, T., & Casteleyn, S. (2019). Citizens’ intention to use and recommend e-participation. Information Technology & People,32(2), 364–386. [CrossRef] Ni, J., Shen, Y., Chen, C., & Liu, X. (2022). The influence of occupational values on college students’ willingness to apply for civil servants: The mediating role of political efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology,13, 1020863. [CrossRef] Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 national election study. American Political Science Review,85(4), 1407–1413. [CrossRef] Novo Vázquez, A., & Vicente, M. R. (2019). Exploring the determinants of e-participation in smart cities. In M. P. Rodríguez Bolívar, & L. Alcaide Muñoz (Eds.), E-participation in smart cities: Technologies and models of governance for citizen engagement (Vol. 34, pp. 157–178). Springer International Publishing. OECD. (2021). Government at a Glance 2021. OECD. [CrossRef] OECD. (2023). Government at a Glance 2023. OECD. [CrossRef] OECD (Ed.). (2003). Promise and problems of e-democracy: Challenges of online citizen engagement. OECD. Oliveira, C., & Garcia, A. C. B. (2019). Citizens’ electronic participation: A systematic review of their challenges and how to overcome them. International Journal of Web Based Communities,15(2), 1. [CrossRef] Oni, A. A., Oni, S., Mbarika, V., & Ayo, C. K. (2017). Empirical study of user acceptance of online political participation: Integrating civic voluntarism model and theory of reasoned action. Government Information Quarterly,34(2), 317–328. [CrossRef] Oser, J., Grinson, A., Boulianne, S., & Halperin, E. (2022). How political efficacy relates to online and offline political participation: A multilevel meta-analysis. Political Communication,39(5), 607–633. [CrossRef] Ozili, P. K. (2023). The acceptable R-square in empirical modelling for social science research. In Social Research Methodology and Publishing Results (pp. 134–143). IGI Global. [CrossRef] Panopoulou, E., Tambouris, E., & Tarabanis, K. (2021). An eParticipation acceptance model. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing,9(1), 188–199. [CrossRef] Park, C. S. (2015). Pathways to expressive and collective participation: Usage patterns, political efficacy, and political participation in social networking sites. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,59(4), 698–716. [CrossRef] Paudel, U. R., Gupta, R., Poudel, S., & Adhikari, K. (2018). Political party perception and voting behavior of people: A study of communication perspective from Nepal. Advances in Literary Study,6(4), 179–192. [CrossRef] Peixoto, T., & Fox, J. (2016). When does ICT-enabled citizen voice lead to government responsiveness? IDS Bulletin,41(1), 23–39. [CrossRef] Persson, M. (2013). Does education cause participation in politics? University of Gothenburg. Persson, M. (2015). Education and political participation. British Journal of Political Science,45(3), 689–703. [CrossRef] Petersen, K. (2018). A study of the correlation between education level, political efficacy, and the willingness to serve in the field of public administration [Master’s thesis, California State University, Northridge]. Pirannejad, A., Janssen, M., & Rezaei, J. (2019). Towards a balanced e-participation index: Integrating government and society perspectives. Government Information Quarterly,36(4), 101404. [CrossRef] Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,88(5), 879–903. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology,63(1), 539–569. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 17 22 of 23 Prats, M., & Meunier, A. (2021). Political efficacy and participation: An empirical analysis in European countries. (OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, Vol. 46). OECD. [CrossRef] Pristl, A.-C., & Billert, M. S. (2022, June 18–24). Citizen participation in increasingly digitalized governmental environments—A systematic literature review. ECIS 2022, Timis ,oara, Romania. Rana, N. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., Lal, B., & Williams, M. D. (2015, July 5–9). Assessing citizens’ adoption of a transactional e-government system: Validation of the extended decomposed theory of planned behavior (DTPB). PACIS 2015, Singapore. Reichert, F. (2016). How internal political efficacy translates political knowledge into political participation: Evidence from Germany. Europe’s Journal of Psychology,12(2), 221–241. [CrossRef] Rigdon, E. E. (2012). Rethinking partial least squares path modeling: In praise of simple methods. Long Range Planning,45(5–6), 341–358. [CrossRef] Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Simon and Schuster. Sachdev, S. B., & Verma, H. V. (2004). Relative Importance of Service Quality Dimensions: A Multisectoral Study. Journal of Services Research,4(1), 93. Sæbø, Ø., Rose, J., & Skiftenes Flak, L. (2008). The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging research area. Government Information Quarterly,25(3), 400–428. [CrossRef] Sanchez-Nielsen, E., & Lee, D. (2013, January 7–10). eParticipation in practice in Europe: The case of “puzzled by policy: Helping you be part of EU”. 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1870–1879), Wailea, HI, USA. [CrossRef] Santamaria-Philco, A., Canos Cerda, J. H., & Penades Gramaje, M. C. (2019). Advances in e-participation: A perspective of last years. IEEE Access,7, 155894–155916. [CrossRef] Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C., & Hair, J. (2021). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (pp. 1–47). Springer International Publishing. [CrossRef] Schulz, W. (2005, September 8–10). Political efficacy and expected political participation among lower and upper secondary students. ECPR General Conference, Budapest, Hungary. Sharoni, S. (2012). e-Citizenship: Trust in government, political efficacy, and political participation in the internet era. Electronic Media & Politics,1(8), 119–135. Sobel, R. (1993). From occupational involvement to political participation: An exploratory analysis. Political Behavior,15(4), 339–353. [CrossRef] Stratton, S. J. (2021). Population research: Convenience sampling strategies. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine,36(4), 373–374. [CrossRef] Susha, I., & Gronlund, A. (2012). eParticipation research: Systematizing the field. Government Information Quarterly,29(3), 373–382. [CrossRef] Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education,2, 53–55. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Thao, V. T. T. (2017). The effect of power distance on e-government adoption in Vietnam: Empirical investigation using UTAUT model. International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology,4(5), 245–249. UN (Ed.). (2014). United Nations e-government survey 2014: E-government for the future we want. United Nations. United Nations (Ed.). (2020a). Digital government in the decade of action for sustainable development. United Nations. United Nations. (2020b). E-participation: A quick overview of recent qualitative trends. (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) Working Papers, Vol. 163). United Nations. [CrossRef] van Waart, P., Mulder, I., & de Bont, C. (2016). A participatory approach for envisioning a smart city. Social Science Computer Review, 34(6), 708–723. [CrossRef] Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly,27(3), 425–478. [CrossRef] Wang, Y. (2022). 2022 Survey and assessment report on the capacity of provincial governments and key cities for integrated government services. (Survey Report on E-Government Development in China). E-Government Research Center in Chinese Academy of Governance. Winton, B. G., & Sabol, M. A. (2022). A multi-group analysis of convenience samples: Free, cheap, friendly, and fancy sources. International Journal of Social Research Methodology,25(6), 861–876. [CrossRef] Wirtz, B. W., Daiser, P., & Binkowska, B. (2018). E-participation: A strategic framework. International Journal of Public Administration, 41(1), 1–12. [CrossRef] Wolak, J. (2018). Feelings of political efficacy in the fifty states. Political Behavior,40(3), 763–784. [CrossRef] Wong, K. K.-K. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques using SmartPLS. Marketing Bulletin, 24(1), 1–32. Wu, C. L. (2003). Psycho-political correlates of political efficacy. Journal of Black Studies,33(6), 729–760. [CrossRef] Wu, Y., Su, I. Y., & Hu, R. (2022). Chinese reluctance to report crime: Political efficacy, group care and hukou. Criminology & Criminal Justice,22(5), 733–754. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 17 23 of 23 Xu, P., Johnson, K., & Rundlett, A. (2022). E-participation in contemporary China: A comparison with conventional offline participation. Chinese Public Administration Review,13(3), 150–161. [CrossRef] Yao, Y., Xu, P., & University of Massachusetts. (2022). The power of electronic channels and electronic political efficacy: Electronic participation discourse. Communications of the Association for Information Systems,50(1), 25–51. [CrossRef] Zaiter, R., Sabbagh, N., & Koabaz, M. (2023). The impact of social media on political efficacy and real-life netizens political participation (Lebanon-case study). International Journal of Professional Business Review,8(5), e02153. [CrossRef] Zheng, Y. (2017). Explaining citizens’ e-participation usage: Functionality of e-participation applications. Administration & Society, 49(3), 423–442. [CrossRef] Zheng, Y., Kong, C., Deng, Y., Li, C., Liao, C., & Yang, X. (2022). A demand-driven picture of digital government: Perception, use and evaluation. E-Government,6, 2–21. [CrossRef] Zheng, Y., & Schachter, H. L. (2017). Explaining citizens’ e-participation use: The role of perceived advantages. Public Organization Review,17(3), 409–428. [CrossRef] Zolotov, M. N., Oliveira, T., & Casteleyn, S. (2018). E-participation adoption models research in the last 17 years: A weight and meta-analytical review. Computers in Human Behavior,81, 350–365. [CrossRef] Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.