1. Introduction
The rapid advancement of digital technology has led to the widespread adoption of e-government systems, transforming public administration by enhancing efficiency, transparency, accessibility, and citizen engagement [1]. Recognized as a vital component of sustainable governance, e-government not only streamlines bureaucratic processes and reduces operational costs but also serves as a mechanism to foster social inclusion and equal access to public services [2]. The integration of digital platforms into public services aligns with the global agenda for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions), by fostering more inclusive and accessible governance models [3].
Despite its potential, e-government implementation often exacerbates rather than alleviates digital inequalities, particularly in countries with low digital penetration rates and weak regulatory safeguards. The digital divide remains a critical issue, with disparities in digital access and skills disproportionately affecting marginalized communities, such as low-income households, rural populations, elderly individuals, and persons with disabilities [4]. The 2023 ITU report indicates that 2.6 billion people worldwide remain offline, with the majority residing in Africa (60% offline) and parts of South Asia (52% offline), where digital infrastructure and training programs remain inadequate [5]. Even in developed nations, disparities persist—data from Eurostat (2022) show that while 93% of urban residents in the EU have broadband access, only 78% of rural households can access reliable digital services, exacerbating regional inequalities [6]. In Latin America, the adoption of e-government remains constrained by affordability issues, where high mobile data costs prevent widespread engagement with digital services [7]. In Latin America, the adoption of e-government remains constrained by affordability issues, where high mobile data costs prevent widespread engagement with digital services.
The literature on e-government adoption has largely focused on technological efficiency, service optimization, and user satisfaction, frequently employing quantitative methodologies that emphasize adoption rates and service delivery improvements [8]. However, these studies often neglect the lived experiences of marginalized communities in navigating digital public services, overcoming accessibility barriers, and adapting to digital governance models [9]. Moreover, policy discussions on digital inclusion frequently overlook localized strategies that address socio-economic and infrastructural barriers in underdeveloped and emerging economies [10]. While some studies have examined digital literacy initiatives and broadband expansion programs, they often fail to critically assess how e-government policies influence digital equity at the grassroots level [4].
Empirical evidence suggests that marginalized groups continue to face significant barriers to digital participation, including limited internet connectivity, high costs of digital devices, inadequate digital education programs, and bureaucratic inefficiencies in e-government service design [11]. For instance, a 2023 World Bank report highlights that in Sub-Saharan Africa, fewer than 30% of women have access to digital financial services, reflecting the intersection of gender disparities and digital exclusion. In Indonesia, a study on digital exclusion among the elderly in Yogyakarta revealed that senior citizens struggle to access e-government services due to unfamiliarity with digital tools and a lack of institutional support [12]. Similarly, research on digital governance in Latin America found that indigenous communities face structural exclusion due to language barriers and a lack of culturally adaptive e-government interfaces [13].
However, despite these findings, a substantial research gap remains in exploring practical, policy-driven strategies for enhancing digital inclusion in e-government. Most research focuses on identifying digital access disparities rather than proposing concrete policy solutions that governments can implement to mitigate digital exclusion [14].
Regarding the research questions, to address this research gap, this study shifts the focus from merely identifying digital divide factors to exploring actionable strategies and policy interventions that enhance e-government accessibility. Specifically, this study seeks to answer the following key questions:
▪. How do marginalized communities experience access to and usage of e-government services across different socio-economic and geopolitical contexts?
▪. What policy-driven strategies can effectively reduce digital exclusion and enhance e-government accessibility?
▪. How can governments design and implement inclusive e-government frameworks within the broader context of sustainable governance?
By utilizing comparative case studies, thematic analysis, and policy evaluation frameworks, this study contributes to the development of evidence-based, scalable strategies for digital inclusion. The findings are expected to support policymakers, digital strategists, and scholars in public administration in designing adaptive e-government policies that minimize structural inequalities and promote inclusive digital governance.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Digital Transformation in Public Administration and Sustainable Governance
In recent years, digital transformation has significantly reshaped public administration by enhancing efficiency, increasing transparency, and fostering greater citizen engagement. Governments worldwide are integrating big data, artificial intelligence (AI), and digital governance frameworks to improve service delivery and policy implementation (expanded discussion on implementation models and cross-national adoption) [15]. However, the extent and effectiveness of digital government adoption vary significantly across countries, influenced by factors such as economic development, regulatory frameworks, and digital literacy levels. These variations underscore the need for comparative studies that assess the determinants and outcomes of digital governance implementation across different national contexts [16].
The adoption of big data analytics enables public institutions to enhance decision-making and streamline administrative processes, demonstrating a clear link between digital innovation and improved government performance (additional evidence on efficiency and automation benefits) [17]. Moreover, AI applications in the public sector are expanding, offering predictive analytics, automated decision-making, and personalized citizen services. However, these advancements also raise concerns regarding ethics, accountability, and public trust (further elaboration on algorithmic accountability and bias mitigation) [18].
Sustainable governance is another critical dimension of digital transformation in public administration. The transition from traditional e-government to digital government emphasizes not only technological advancements but also the development of citizen-centric policies that ensure long-term sustainability (clearer distinction between e-government and digital government paradigms) [19]. However, public trust in digital governance remains a decisive factor in determining the success of these initiatives. Studies indicate that while digital tools can enhance transparency and accountability, their effectiveness depends on citizens’ perceptions of government institutions and their trust in digital systems (revised to include recent findings on public trust dynamics) [20].
While digitalization offers numerous advantages, it also introduces several sustainability challenges. Research suggests that although digital transformation improves efficiency, it may also exacerbate socio-economic inequalities if access to digital services remains unevenly distributed [21]. Over-reliance on digital infrastructure without robust regulatory frameworks can result in digital exclusion, cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and bureaucratic inefficiencies (enhanced discussion on regulatory responses and policy gaps) [22,23]. Additionally, the increasing integration of AI-driven governance models has raised concerns regarding algorithmic bias, data privacy, and ethical governance (expanded explanation on regulatory safeguards and ethical AI principles) [24]. Thus, for digital transformation to effectively contribute to sustainable governance, policymakers must strike a balance between technological innovation and the need for inclusivity, transparency, and accountability in public administration.
2.2. E-Government and Social Inclusion
The integration of e-government has transformed the accessibility of public services, promoting efficiency, inclusivity, and citizen engagement. Governments worldwide are leveraging digital platforms to simplify administrative processes, enhance transparency, and provide seamless online interactions [25].
The adoption of AI-driven chatbots, blockchain for secure transactions, and mobile applications for public services has facilitated greater accessibility for citizens, particularly in urban and semi-urban areas [26]. However, the effectiveness of e-government still relies heavily on digital literacy levels and user adoption, which vary across different demographic and socio-economic groups [27].
Despite its benefits, the adoption of e-government remains challenging for marginalized groups, including those in rural areas, elderly populations, and individuals with disabilities. Limited infrastructure, unstable internet connectivity, and insufficient digital education programs continue to hinder widespread adoption [28]. Additionally, public distrust in digital platforms—driven by concerns over cybersecurity, data privacy, and government surveillance—exacerbates resistance toward e-government service [29]. Addressing these barriers requires inclusive policies, significant investments in broadband expansion, and user-friendly digital solutions tailored to vulnerable populations.
E-government plays a crucial role in advancing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions). By strengthening institutional accountability, reducing bureaucratic inefficiencies, and ensuring equitable access to services, digital governance fosters greater trust in public institutions [30]. However, for e-government to be an effective tool in reducing social inequalities, policymakers must implement targeted interventions such as digital upskilling programs and regulatory frameworks for data protection to ensure that technological advancements contribute to equitable and sustainable governance [31].
2.3. Challenges of Digital Divide and Equity in E-Government
The digital divide remains a critical obstacle to the successful implementation of e-government, particularly in developing nations and rural regions. Prior studies highlight that disparities in internet access, digital literacy, and affordability of technology contribute to unequal participation in digital public services [32]. Socio-economic factors—including income level, education, and geographic location—significantly influence an individual’s ability to engage with e-government platforms [33]. Furthermore, infrastructural limitations, fragmented policy frameworks, and inadequate institutional support continue to hinder efforts to promote equitable access to digital governance [34]. Despite various initiatives aimed at enhancing inclusivity, research suggests that citizen trust in digital platforms, awareness of e-government services, and cultural perceptions of technology adoption remain key determinants of e-government engagement [35].
The effectiveness of digital inclusion policies varies across nations, depending on government commitment, regulatory environments, and investments in digital infrastructure [36]. Countries that implement robust cybersecurity measures, multilingual interfaces, and comprehensive digital training programs tend to experience higher levels of citizen participation in e-government services. However, gaps persist in regions with low internet penetration and limited ICT adoption, further exacerbating existing social inequalities. An emerging approach to bridging the digital divide is through Digital Inclusive Finance, which enhances financial accessibility and digital literacy among underserved populations. Studies from China indicate that the expansion of digital financial services—such as mobile payments, microloans, and blockchain-based financial inclusion platforms—has significantly improved economic participation and reduced social inequalities in rural areas [32]. By integrating Digital Inclusive Finance within e-government strategies, governments can facilitate greater digital adoption, particularly among low-income and unbanked populations, thereby strengthening economic resilience and digital inclusivity.
Addressing these challenges requires targeted policy interventions, strong public–private sector collaboration, and adaptive strategies tailored to the needs of marginalized communities. Research indicates that governments must prioritize digital equity by developing user-centric policies, enhancing accessibility features, and implementing proactive engagement strategies to ensure that e-government systems are inclusive and beneficial to all citizens.
2.4. Research Gap and Theoretical Framework
Existing studies on e-government adoption primarily focus on technological infrastructure, efficiency, and policy implementation [37], often neglecting sustainability dimensions, such as long-term equitable access and digital inclusion. While prior research has examined factors such as digital infrastructure and regulatory frameworks, studies on how e-government ensures social inclusion and sustainable governance remain limited [30]. Additionally, there is limited research on the role of socio-economic disparities, digital literacy gaps, and institutional trust in shaping citizens’ adoption of e-government services [38]. These factors have been particularly critical in urban–rural digital divides, where limited infrastructure and engagement strategies hinder participation in digital governance [39].
The role of structural inequalities in shaping digital inclusion policies remains underexplored, particularly in understanding how government-led digital initiatives may reinforce or mitigate social and economic disparities [36]. Recent studies highlight the need for adaptive policy frameworks to bridge digital gaps and foster inclusive governance [40,41].
To provide a structured comparison of previous studies and highlight the research gap, Table 1 has been expanded to clearly present the drawbacks of existing studies and explicitly differentiate this study’s contribution.
To bridge these research gaps, this study employs the Digital Divide Theory, as proposed by Jan van Dijk, which highlights the multidimensional nature of digital inequality, emphasizing the role of motivation, material access, skills, and usage in shaping disparities in e-government adoption [47]. Meanwhile, the TAM provides insights into behavioral aspects, such as perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and user acceptance of digital services [48]. However, its traditional framework does not fully account for structural barriers like digital literacy gaps, infrastructure disparities, and trust in technology [45]. By integrating the Digital Divide Theory, this study offers a more holistic model that captures both behavioral and structural constraints in e-government adoption [46].
3. Methodology
3.1. Research Approach
This study employed a qualitative exploratory approach, using case study research to investigate the challenges of digital inclusion in e-government services. A case study approach was chosen due to its ability to capture in-depth insights into contextual factors, policy implementations, and user experiences, particularly in underserved communities where quantitative data alone may not fully represent digital exclusion realities. An exploratory qualitative method was particularly suitable for understanding the lived experiences, barriers to digital adoption, and policy effectiveness rather than merely measuring adoption rates through quantitative surveys [49]. By conducting in-depth case studies, this study aimed to identify key accessibility barriers, digital literacy issues, and trust-related factors that influence the adoption of e-government services [50].
To ensure a balanced representation of digital inclusion challenges, the study focused on a comparative analysis of urban and rural areas where e-government initiatives have been implemented but continue to face significant adoption barriers. Urban locations provide insights into technological advancements, user expectations, and digital infrastructure readiness, whereas rural and remote regions highlight connectivity limitations, socio-economic disparities, and policy implementation challenges. The selection criteria for case study locations included the following: ▪. The presence of active e-government services (e.g., digital identity systems, online public service portals, mobile-based governance applications). ▪. Variation in broadband penetration and digital literacy levels to assess different socio-economic contexts. ▪. Regional disparities in government-led digital inclusion policies, particularly in marginalized and economically disadvantaged communities.
Data collection involved semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders—including government officials, policy experts, and community representatives—alongside observational studies and document analysis of policy reports, digital literacy programs, and e-government initiatives. This multi-method approach ensured a comprehensive understanding of the interplay between policy frameworks, digital accessibility, and user adoption trends [4].
To provide a structured understanding of these relationships, Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual framework for digital inclusion in e-government adoption. This framework integrated the Digital Divide Theory and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to examine the factors influencing e-government adoption, highlighting the role of trust, accessibility, and institutional policies in shaping digital inclusion outcomes.
3.2. Case Selection and Participants
This study employed purposive sampling to select case study locations and participants. The selection criteria are designed to ensure representation of diverse socio-economic and infrastructural conditions, allowing for a nuanced understanding of digital inclusion challenges. By including both urban and rural regions, the study captured variations in digital access, policy effectiveness, and citizen engagement with e-government services.
Case Study Locations: ▪. Urban Areas: cities with well-developed digital infrastructure but persistent gaps in accessibility for marginalized groups, such as elderly citizens, low-income communities, and persons with disabilities. These locations offer insights into how digital services are adopted in high-connectivity environments, highlighting barriers beyond technical infrastructure, including affordability and digital literacy constraints. ▪. Rural Areas: regions with limited technological infrastructure, where e-government adoption is hindered by poor internet access, digital illiteracy, and limited government outreach programs. These areas provide a contrast to urban settings, emphasizing the role of economic disparity and infrastructural limitations in shaping digital inclusion.
Participants: To capture a comprehensive perspective on digital inclusion challenges and policy implementation, this study involves multiple stakeholder groups who influence or are affected by digital governance. The inclusion of diverse participants ensures that findings reflect both user experiences and institutional perspectives. Participants are selected from three key groups: ▪. Marginalized citizens—Individuals from low-income backgrounds, elderly populations, and persons with disabilities, who often experience barriers in accessing digital services. Their participation provides insights into real-world challenges faced by vulnerable communities in utilizing e-government platforms. ▪. Government officials—Representatives from local and regional e-government departments responsible for policy formulation, digital infrastructure development, and public engagement strategies. Their input helps assess institutional challenges in implementing digital inclusion initiatives. ▪. NGO representatives—Organizations actively engaged in digital literacy programs, advocacy for digital rights, and community-driven digital inclusion efforts in underserved regions. Their perspectives offer critical insights into policy gaps and grassroots solutions for enhancing digital participation.
A total of 30–40 participants are expected to be interviewed across these categories, ensuring a balanced representation of perspectives from different sectors and socio-economic backgrounds.
3.3. Data Collection Methods
The study employed a multi-method qualitative approach to ensure a comprehensive and triangulated understanding of the barriers to digital inclusion in e-government. Combining primary and secondary data sources enhanced the reliability and depth of the findings. Three primary techniques were used:
In-Depth Interviews:
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with purposively selected participants from three key groups:
▪. Marginalized citizens—to understand their experiences, digital skill gaps, and difficulties in accessing e-government services, particularly among low-income populations, elderly individuals, and persons with disabilities. ▪. Government officials—to gain insights into policy implementation, institutional constraints, and strategic plans for digital inclusion at local and national levels. ▪. NGO representatives—to explore their roles in promoting digital literacy, advocating for digital rights, and bridging the digital divide in underserved communities.
The interviews focused on key themes such as barriers to e-government adoption, digital accessibility challenges, trust and security concerns, and policy-driven solutions, ensuring a structured yet flexible approach to qualitative data collection [25].
Participant Observation:
▪. Researchers conducted on-site observations at public service centers, community internet hubs, digital literacy workshops, and e-government kiosks to document how different social groups interact with digital services. ▪. Observations aimed to identify usability challenges, common accessibility barriers, and levels of digital literacy among various demographic groups, particularly focusing on underserved communities. ▪. This method provided real-world insights into digital inclusion efforts by assessing the practical effectiveness of e-government services and identifying potential design flaws in digital interfaces [51]
Document Analysis:
▪. Systematic review of government policies, strategy documents, and official reports related to e-government implementation and digital inclusion efforts. ▪. Examination of legislative frameworks, digital transformation policies, regulatory guidelines, and inclusion initiatives to evaluate their effectiveness in ensuring equitable access to e-government services and public administration digitization. ▪. Comparative analysis of international best practices and policy models to assess how different regulatory approaches influence digital inclusion outcomes [33,52]
By combining interviews, observations, and policy analysis, the study enhanced methodological rigor and ensured a multi-perspective approach to assessing e-government accessibility. A summary of these methods is presented in Table 2 below.
3.4. Data Analysis Method
This study employed thematic analysis [53] to systematically analyze qualitative data. Thematic analysis is particularly suitable for identifying patterns and insights in participant experiences, allowing for a structured examination of digital inclusion challenges in e-government services. This approach enabled the categorization of qualitative data into meaningful themes that align with research objectives and theoretical frameworks.
Steps in thematic analysis: (1). Data familiarization: transcribing interviews, reviewing observation notes, and coding policy documents to gain an initial understanding of digital inclusion barriers. (2). Generating initial codes: identifying key patterns related to accessibility constraints, digital literacy disparities, and policy inefficiencies in e-government adoption. (3). Searching for themes: categorizing codes into broader analytical themes such as usability and accessibility challenges, social constraints, institutional barriers, and trust in digital governance. (4). Reviewing themes: refining the thematic categories to ensure alignment with research objectives, theoretical models (e.g., Digital Divide Theory, Technology Acceptance Model), and policy frameworks. (5). Defining and naming themes: structuring findings into distinct insights that reflect key challenges and opportunities for enhancing e-government adoption and digital equity. (6). Producing the final report: synthesizing results into a structured, evidence-based narrative, with clear implications for digital inclusion strategies and policy recommendations.
Regarding triangulation for validity and reliability, to enhance the credibility, trustworthiness, and methodological rigor of findings, this study employed triangulation techniques to minimize bias and ensure data consistency: ▪. Data triangulation: comparing insights from interviews, observations, and policy document analysis to verify consistency across different data sources. ▪. Method triangulation: utilizing multiple qualitative data collection techniques (e.g., interviews, participant observations, and document analysis) to cross-validate findings and enhance reliability. ▪. Researcher triangulation: engaging multiple researchers in the coding and analysis process to reduce subjective bias and enhance the robustness of thematic interpretations [54].
By implementing rigorous thematic analysis and triangulation, this study provided an evidence-based understanding of digital inclusion challenges in e-government, offering actionable recommendations for policymakers.
By implementing rigorous thematic analysis and triangulation strategies, this study ensured a structured, evidence-based understanding of digital inclusion challenges in e-government, contributing to policy design and digital governance frameworks.
4. Findings and Discussion
4.1. Digital Inclusion Challenges for Marginalized Communities
4.1.1. Technical Barriers
Digital inclusion in e-government is heavily influenced by technical constraints, particularly in internet accessibility, device affordability, platform usability, cybersecurity risks, and infrastructure disparities. Studies indicate that rural and marginalized communities often experience a lack of broadband infrastructure, making it difficult for them to access online public services [55]. Even in urban areas where internet connectivity is more widespread, high subscription costs and inadequate digital infrastructure disproportionately exclude low-income groups from e-government participation [56].
Furthermore, accessibility issues extend beyond connectivity. Many e-government platforms are not designed with universal usability in mind, leading to exclusionary experiences for individuals with disabilities, low digital literacy, or outdated devices [57]. Additionally, algorithmic bias in AI-driven public services can further disadvantage marginalized populations, as automated decision-making systems may fail to account for socio-economic disparities and accessibility needs. These technical barriers significantly hinder digital participation, as outlined in Table 3 below.
Despite various government-led initiatives, internet penetration and broadband affordability remain significant obstacles, particularly in developing nations. Research suggests that rural and remote communities often face disproportionately higher costs for internet access, further limiting their ability to engage with e-government platforms [58,59]. Additionally, systemic underinvestment in digital infrastructure for rural areas continues to exacerbate existing digital inequalities [60].
Usability concerns and accessibility barriers remain critical challenges. Many e-government websites and mobile applications are not optimized for visually impaired users, non-native speakers, or those with limited digital literacy, leading to lower engagement and exclusion from digital public services [36].
Moreover, cybersecurity fears—exacerbated by a lack of digital literacy—further deter individuals from adopting e-government services. Research suggests that individuals with limited digital literacy are more susceptible to online fraud, phishing scams, and identity theft, leading to widespread hesitancy in engaging with digital public services [61].
To bridge these gaps, governments must prioritize investments in broadband expansion, device affordability programs, and accessible e-government designs. Additionally, AI-driven public service platforms must be carefully monitored to prevent algorithmic bias that could reinforce digital exclusion. Without addressing these fundamental barriers, the goal of universal digital inclusion in public administration will remain unattainable.
4.1.2. Social Barriers
Social factors play a critical role in determining the extent to which marginalized communities adopt and trust e-government services. While technical limitations are a major concern, low digital literacy, cultural resistance, economic disparities, gender-related constraints, algorithmic bias in digital services, and distrust in government digital systems also significantly impact digital inclusion. Studies suggest that individuals who lack confidence in using technology or distrust digital platforms are less likely to engage with online public services, even when infrastructure and devices are available [62].
A summary of the key social barriers to e-government adoption is presented in Table 4 below.
Regarding low digital literacy and technical skill deficiencies, limited digital literacy remains one of the most significant barriers to e-government adoption. Many marginalized individuals, particularly the elderly and those with lower educational backgrounds, struggle to navigate online platforms, complete digital transactions, and interpret e-government services [62]. Studies indicate that a lack of basic digital skills prevents users from accessing essential public services, reinforcing social and economic exclusion [63,64]. Additionally, digital interfaces that are not designed with accessibility in mind further disadvantage users with limited literacy or cognitive disabilities.
Regarding cultural perceptions and resistance to digital services, cultural attitudes also play a crucial role in shaping digital adoption behaviors. Research suggests that many individuals still prefer in-person interactions with government officials, as they perceive face-to-face engagements as more trustworthy compared to digital services [29,65,66]. Furthermore, communities in traditional societies often express skepticism toward automated decision-making systems, fearing that algorithmic bias may result in unfair outcomes in service allocation [67].
Regarding socio-economic disparities in digital participation, the digital divide is closely linked to broader economic inequalities. Lower-income populations often prioritize necessities such as food, housing, and healthcare over investments in technology, internet services, or digital literacy training [68]. As a result, e-government adoption is significantly lower among households that struggle to afford smartphones, laptops, or broadband subscriptions, thereby reinforcing social stratification.
Regarding gender-based digital disparities, women in certain regions face additional barriers to digital participation due to socio-economic restrictions, limited digital literacy, and cultural norms that discourage technology use [69]. Studies indicate that women in low-income households are less likely to have independent access to digital devices, further widening gender disparities in e-government usage. Furthermore, gender bias in AI-driven public services may reinforce inequalities, as algorithms trained on biased datasets can disproportionately disadvantage women in areas such as financial access, job opportunities, and welfare distribution. Addressing these inequalities requires targeted digital inclusion initiatives that ensure women’s participation in digital governance.
Regarding mistrust in the government and data privacy concerns, public skepticism toward government-managed digital systems remains a major obstacle to widespread adoption. Studies indicate that concerns over personal data privacy, government surveillance, and cybersecurity risks significantly reduce citizens’ willingness to engage with e-government services [66,70,71]. Research highlights that individuals who lack awareness of data protection policies or feel vulnerable to cyber threats are significantly less likely to engage with digital governance, as concerns over identity theft and unauthorized data access create major barriers to trust in e-government platforms [72].
To mitigate these social barriers, governments must invest in digital literacy programs, promote cultural shifts toward e-government, and implement transparent data privacy regulations. Additionally, greater scrutiny is needed to ensure that AI-driven e-government services are fair, transparent, and inclusive. Without addressing trust issues, economic disparities, and accessibility gaps, achieving universal digital inclusion in public administration will remain a challenge.
4.1.3. Institutional Barriers
Institutional barriers play a crucial role in shaping the effectiveness and inclusivity of e-government initiatives. While technical and social challenges hinder individual adoption, outdated regulations, fragmented governance structures, the absence of structured digital literacy programs, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and funding constraints further limit the scalability of digital public services. Studies indicate that governments often prioritize digital infrastructure over policies that ensure equitable access, leading to persistent digital divides [73].
A summary of the key institutional barriers affecting e-government adoption is presented in Table 5 below.
Regarding outdated and rigid e-government regulations, governments often struggle to update regulatory frameworks to keep pace with technological advancements, resulting in rigid policies that hinder innovation [73,74]. Many e-government laws remain outdated, failing to address emerging concerns such as data protection, interoperability, algorithmic transparency, and accessibility. The absence of clear regulatory safeguards for AI-driven public services exacerbates digital exclusion, as biased algorithms and opaque decision-making processes may unintentionally disadvantage marginalized users. This regulatory lag prevents flexibility in policy implementation and slows down the adoption of user-centric digital services [36,61,75].
Regarding insufficient government-led digital literacy programs, despite the increasing digitization of public services, many governments do not adequately invest in digital literacy programs for marginalized populations. Studies suggest that countries with structured digital training initiatives report higher e-government adoption rates, as they equip users with the necessary skills to navigate online platforms [61,75]. Without such programs, elderly individuals, low-income citizens, and rural populations remain disconnected from digital governance, reinforcing social inequalities. Additionally, the digital divide is further widened by the lack of multilingual e-government services, which disproportionately affects linguistic minorities and migrant communities.
Regarding bureaucratic fragmentation and a lack of cross-sector collaboration, e-government initiatives frequently suffer from governance silos and overlapping mandates, leading to inefficient and fragmented digital transformation efforts. Studies indicate that a lack of interdepartmental coordination and limited collaboration with private-sector entities weakens the effectiveness of digital governance [76]. Additionally, governments often fail to engage civil society organizations in the policymaking process, limiting the potential for inclusive digital governance frameworks. Without strong public–private partnerships, governments struggle to scale up inclusive digital services, further widening the accessibility gap.
Regarding limited accessibility in policy design, a major institutional weakness in digital transformation policies is the failure to incorporate accessibility standards. Many national e-government strategies do not adequately address the needs of people with disabilities or those with low digital literacy, resulting in exclusive digital services [77,78]. Governments must ensure that universal design principles and inclusive digital interfaces are embedded into policy frameworks to promote equal access for all users. In addition, research highlights that the lack of clear enforcement mechanisms for digital accessibility laws further limits their effectiveness, leaving many government platforms non-compliant with international accessibility standards.
Regarding funding limitations for digital inclusion strategies, governments in developing nations often allocate insufficient budgets to digital inclusion programs, prioritizing physical infrastructure over accessibility enhancements. Studies indicate that digital governance investments are frequently directed toward technological deployment rather than fostering equitable adoption and usability, thereby exacerbating digital inequalities [79]. Without financial incentives for private-sector partnerships or targeted funding for underserved communities, many digital inclusion programs remain short-lived and fail to create a long-term impact. Without dedicated funding for accessibility initiatives, literacy programs, and user engagement strategies, marginalized populations remain underserved in digital governance frameworks.
To address these institutional barriers, policymakers must modernize regulatory frameworks, enhance cross-sector collaboration, and allocate sufficient resources to digital literacy and accessibility programs. Furthermore, clear enforcement mechanisms for accessibility and data protection policies must be established to ensure that e-government initiatives remain inclusive, transparent, and adaptable to evolving technological landscapes. Without addressing these structural challenges, achieving sustainable and inclusive e-government adoption will remain difficult.
4.2. Strategies to Improve Digital Inclusion in E-Government
Addressing digital inclusion challenges requires a combination of targeted strategies that enhance digital literacy, implement inclusive policy frameworks, address algorithmic bias in digital services, leverage best practices from other countries, and foster collaboration among key stakeholders. While infrastructure and technology deployment are crucial, the success of e-government adoption depends on ensuring equitable access and usability for all citizens [33,36,80]
A summary of the key strategies to improve digital inclusion in e-government is presented in Table 6 below.
4.2.1. Government and NGO-Led Digital Literacy Programs
Digital literacy is a fundamental enabler of e-government adoption. Studies indicate that many marginalized individuals struggle with basic digital skills, preventing them from fully utilizing online public services [81]. Limited exposure to digital tools, a lack of culturally relevant training materials, and minimal formal education on online security further exacerbate these challenges, making digital exclusion a persistent issue. To address this, governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have launched digital literacy programs, particularly targeting low-income communities, elderly populations, and people with disabilities.
One example is national digital training initiatives, such as Singapore’s ’Seniors Go Digital’ program, which offers free workshops and hands-on training for older adults to enhance their confidence in using online government services [82]. Similarly, NGOs like the Digital Empowerment Foundation (DEF) in India focus on grassroots digital literacy efforts, providing localized training sessions and community-based IT support to bridge the digital divide in underserved regions [83]. In Latin America, programs such as Mexico’s Puntos México Conectado have demonstrated the effectiveness of community-based digital learning hubs, where citizens receive free internet access, IT training, and guidance on using e-government services.
Despite these efforts, digital literacy programs often suffer from inadequate funding and a lack of long-term sustainability. Studies indicate that nations with well-structured digital education frameworks exhibit higher rates of e-government adoption, emphasizing the importance of continuous investment, public–private collaboration, and scalable implementation strategies [61,84]. Furthermore, research highlights the need for adaptive digital literacy curricula that evolve alongside technological advancements, ensuring that citizens remain equipped to navigate emerging e-government platforms.
4.2.2. Best Practices from Other Countries in Bridging the Digital Divide
Several countries have successfully implemented inclusive digital transformation policies that reduce barriers to e-government adoption. By analyzing these best practices, policymakers can adapt and implement proven strategies tailored to local socio-economic conditions and governance structures. Comparative analyses indicate that countries with strong institutional support, robust regulatory frameworks, and public–private partnerships are more likely to achieve sustainable digital inclusion outcomes.
For example, Estonia’s e-Residency and Digital ID system has been widely recognized as one of the most inclusive digital governance frameworks globally. The country has integrated user-friendly authentication mechanisms, multilingual support, and strong cybersecurity protections, ensuring that all citizens, including non-residents, can securely access government services online [85,86]. Additionally, Estonia’s proactive digital literacy campaigns and mandatory digital skills education in schools have contributed to high adoption rates of e-government services among its population.
Meanwhile, Finland’s “Broadband for All” initiative ensures equal access to high-speed internet as a legal right, reducing regional disparities in digital inclusion [87]. This policy demonstrates the importance of recognizing internet access as a fundamental service, particularly in rural and underserved areas. In contrast, South Korea has implemented ‘Digital New Deal’ policies aimed at reducing gender and generational digital disparities through subsidized device programs and the establishment of community digital literacy centers [88]. Furthermore, South Korea’s approach includes targeted financial incentives for low-income households, ensuring that affordability does not become a barrier to digital participation.
These global examples emphasize that digital inclusion strategies must be comprehensive, integrating policies for accessibility, affordability, and education. Governments must customize these best practices to suit their own technological capacities, economic constraints, and demographic challenges. Additionally, the success of these initiatives highlights the need for a whole-of-government approach, where cross-sector collaboration plays a key role in ensuring equitable digital transformation.
4.2.3. Public–Private and Community Partnerships for Inclusive Digital Ecosystems
Collaboration between governments, private-sector actors, and civil society organizations is essential to building a sustainable and inclusive digital ecosystem. Studies suggest that multi-stakeholder partnerships can significantly enhance accessibility, affordability, and the overall reach of digital services [89,90]. By leveraging the expertise, resources, and technological capabilities of private-sector entities, governments can implement more scalable and effective e-government solutions that cater to diverse user needs.
One effective model is the Google–government partnership in Indonesia, where Google collaborates with local authorities to provide free digital skills training for small businesses and rural entrepreneurs, enhancing digital inclusion in underserved regions [91]. Additionally, this partnership has expanded to include AI-driven tools for micro-enterprises, helping local businesses transition to digital platforms and access financial services more efficiently.
Another notable initiative is Microsoft’s AI for Accessibility program, which works alongside government agencies to develop inclusive technology solutions for persons with disabilities [92]. This initiative aims to bridge accessibility gaps by leveraging artificial intelligence to enhance digital tools such as speech-to-text applications, real-time captioning, and adaptive interfaces for individuals with visual and motor impairments. Incorporating AI-powered accessibility solutions into mainstream e-government services can significantly improve user engagement among marginalized groups.
Furthermore, several governments have integrated AI-powered accessibility solutions into their e-government platforms, making digital public services more accessible to diverse user groups. For example, in Canada, AI-driven virtual assistants help citizens with disabilities navigate government websites and complete digital transactions more effectively [93]. Similarly, the European Union’s partnership with Microsoft has led to the deployment of AI-based sign language interpretation tools, improving service accessibility for the hearing-impaired [94]. Such initiatives highlight the role of artificial intelligence and assistive technology in closing digital accessibility gaps.
To ensure the long-term success of these initiatives, governments must create regulatory environments that encourage investment and innovation while maintaining strong digital rights protections. A multi-sectoral approach—involving businesses, non-profits, academia, and citizen groups—is necessary to address the complexities of digital inclusion in e-government. Additionally, governments should establish public–private funding mechanisms to ensure that digital accessibility projects remain financially sustainable and continue evolving with technological advancements.
4.3. Policy Implications for Sustainable Digital Governance
Achieving sustainable digital governance requires coherent and inclusive policy frameworks that ensure equitable access to e-government services while aligning with long-term sustainability goals. As digital transformation accelerates, governments must adopt strategic policies that integrate digital inclusion, accessibility, and sustainability to prevent widening digital disparities [95,96]. Additionally, digital governance policies must consider socio-economic, infrastructural, and technological constraints to ensure realistic implementation and long-term feasibility.
A summary of the key policy recommendations for sustainable digital governance is presented in Table 7 below.
4.3.1. Recommendations for Inclusive E-Government Policy Design
For digital governance to be effective and inclusive, policymakers must ensure that e-government platforms are designed with accessibility, usability, and equity in mind. Studies highlight that citizens with disabilities, elderly populations, linguistic minorities, and rural communities often face barriers in accessing digital public services due to poor interface design, language limitations, a lack of assistive technology integration, and low digital literacy levels [56,57,97].
Governments should mandate accessibility standards based on universal design principles, ensuring that all e-government platforms comply with WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) and incorporate multilingual support, screen readers, adaptive user interfaces, and AI-powered accessibility tools [97]. Additionally, automated voice navigation systems and real-time language translation features should be integrated to support non-native speakers and users with visual impairments. User-centered design approaches should also be prioritized to improve digital engagement, participatory governance, and service accessibility, particularly among marginalized communities.
4.3.2. Sustainability-Based Digital Policies to Prevent Digital Exclusion
A major challenge in sustainable digital governance is ensuring consistent, long-term investment in digital inclusion initiatives. Many governments prioritize physical digital infrastructure development but fail to allocate sufficient resources for digital literacy programs, cybersecurity protections, regulatory enforcement, and affordability measures, leading to persistent digital exclusion [98]. Furthermore, short-term funding cycles and fragmented policy implementation often result in ineffective or unsustainable digital inclusion efforts, particularly in developing economies.
To address this, policymakers must implement sustainability-focused digital policies that accomplish the following: ▪. Guarantee long-term funding for digital literacy initiatives, particularly in low-income and rural areas, through multi-year budget allocations and public–private partnerships. ▪. Promote digital affordability measures, such as subsidized internet access, tax incentives for low-cost digital devices, and zero-rating policies that allow free access to essential e-government services for underserved populations. ▪. Ensure cybersecurity and data protection frameworks that enhance public trust in e-government platforms. Studies suggest that implementing robust cybersecurity policies, transparent data governance regulations, and strict user consent mechanisms can significantly improve citizen confidence in digital public services [99]. Additionally, governments should establish independent digital rights oversight bodies to monitor data privacy compliance and prevent misuse of personal information.
By adopting a holistic, sustainability-driven approach, governments can ensure equitable digital access while strengthening the long-term resilience and adaptability of e-government systems.
4.3.3. Integrating Digital Inclusion into National Sustainability Strategies and SDGs
The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) emphasize inclusive, participatory, and transparent governance (SDG 16), reduced inequalities (SDG 10), and universal access to quality education (SDG 4). Incorporating digital inclusion into these global objectives is essential for ensuring equitable access to public services, digital education, and economic opportunities [100].
Policymakers must embed digital inclusion strategies into national sustainability frameworks, ensuring alignment with the following: ▪. SDG 4 (Quality Education): Expanding digital literacy programs as a core component of national education strategies, integrating ICT-based learning tools, and providing specialized digital training for educators. ▪. SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure): Investing in broadband expansion, public Wi-Fi networks, and last-mile connectivity solutions to ensure equitable access, particularly in rural and remote communities. ▪. SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): Addressing gender, economic, and geographic disparities in digital access through targeted financial aid for digital tools, inclusive digital training, and localized policy interventions. ▪. SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions): Enhancing e-government transparency, strengthening cybersecurity measures, and implementing AI-driven ethical governance frameworks to safeguard digital rights.
By embedding digital inclusion into national sustainability strategies, governments can foster a resilient, inclusive, and future-ready e-government ecosystem that supports long-term socio-economic development and global digital equity.
4.4. Contribution to Theory and Practice
The findings of this study contribute to both theoretical advancements in digital inclusion and e-government as well as practical applications for policymakers seeking to implement sustainable, inclusive digital public services. By integrating insights from the Digital Divide Theory and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), this study provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the socio-technical barriers to e-government adoption. Additionally, it offers policy-driven recommendations that can guide governments, NGOs, and private-sector actors in fostering a more equitable digital governance ecosystem.
A summary of the key theoretical and practical contributions is presented in Table 8 below.
4.4.1. Contribution to Digital Inclusion and E-Government Literature
This study enhances the existing literature by expanding Digital Divide Theory and Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) perspectives to include sustainability considerations in digital governance. Prior research has largely focused on technical and infrastructural barriers, while this study highlights institutional, social, and economic dimensions as key determinants of e-government adoption and digital equity [101].
Additionally, this study contributes to e-government scholarship by proposing a policy-driven digital inclusion framework, emphasizing the role of long-term investment, multi-stakeholder collaboration, and accessibility-centered design [102]. These insights extend current theoretical models by demonstrating how sustainability and policy interventions shape digital governance outcomes.
4.4.2. Practical Implications for Digital Public Service Design
The findings also have direct practical implications for policymakers and practitioners in designing inclusive, sustainable e-government services. Governments must move beyond infrastructure deployment and prioritize human-centered digital policies that address affordability, accessibility, and digital literacy gaps [33,57].
Key policy recommendations derived from this study include the following: ▪. Integrating digital inclusion into national e-government strategies to ensure accessibility for marginalized populations. ▪. Strengthening cross-sector partnerships between the government, industry, and civil society to improve digital service reach and sustainability [98,103]. ▪. Embedding accessibility standards in e-government platforms to accommodate users with disabilities and low digital literacy. ▪. Developing long-term digital literacy programs to enhance public engagement and trust in e-government systems [61,104].
By applying these insights, governments can create digital public services that are not only technologically advanced but also socially inclusive and sustainable.
5. Conclusions
This study explored the multi-dimensional challenges and solutions for digital inclusion in e-government, emphasizing the need for comprehensive, policy-driven strategies to ensure sustainable, accessible, and equitable digital public services. By analyzing technical, social, and institutional barriers, this study highlighted key obstacles that hinder the adoption of e-government services, particularly among marginalized populations. The findings indicate that inadequate digital literacy, affordability issues, and fragmented governance structures remain critical roadblocks to achieving full digital inclusion.
Additionally, the study proposed a set of strategic interventions—including digital literacy programs, public–private partnerships, regulatory safeguards, and accessibility-driven policy frameworks—to bridge the digital divide. Empirical evidence suggests that multi-stakeholder engagement, long-term investment in digital capacity building, and AI-powered accessibility tools can significantly enhance user adoption and trust in e-government services.
A summary of the key findings, policy recommendations, and future research directions is discussed below.
5.1. Summary of Key Findings
This study identified several key challenges that impede digital inclusion in e-government and proposed policy-based solutions to address these issues. The main findings are summarized as follows: (1). Technical barriers: Limited broadband infrastructure, high internet costs, device affordability constraints, and cybersecurity concerns remain significant obstacles to e-government adoption, particularly in rural and low-income communities [105,106]. Governments must prioritize investments in last-mile broadband expansion, implement targeted subsidies for digital devices, and integrate cybersecurity awareness initiatives to enhance user confidence and digital participation. (2). Social barriers: Limited digital literacy, cultural resistance, and gender and socio-economic disparities continue to hinder access to digital public services, particularly among vulnerable populations [36,61,107]. To address these gaps, government-led and NGO-supported digital literacy programs must be tailored to the specific needs of elderly populations, individuals with disabilities, and economically disadvantaged groups, ensuring equitable participation in digital governance. (3). Institutional barriers: Outdated regulatory frameworks, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and insufficient interdepartmental coordination continue to obstruct the effectiveness of e-government initiatives. Governments must modernize regulatory frameworks, enhance policy coherence across agencies, and establish adaptive governance structures that align digital inclusion policies with long-term sustainability goals [108]. (4). Strategies for digital inclusion: Case studies from leading digital governance nations—such as Singapore, Estonia, and South Korea—demonstrate that integrating digital inclusion policies within national development plans and sustainability frameworks significantly enhances e-government accessibility and effectiveness [109]. Lessons from these models highlight the role of cross-sector partnerships, digital equity policies, and AI-powered accessibility solutions in advancing inclusive digital governance. (5). Policy implications: Sustainable e-government policies must prioritize inclusivity and long-term investments in accessibility, digital literacy, and public trust-building measures. Research indicates that multi-stakeholder collaborations between government, private-sector actors, and civil society organizations are critical in fostering an equitable, resilient, and future-ready digital ecosystem [30,80,110].
These findings emphasize the importance of a holistic, multi-dimensional approach that integrates technological advancements, social inclusion policies, and institutional reforms to bridge the digital divide in public services.
5.2. Policy and Practical Implications
To ensure sustainable and inclusive digital governance, policymakers must implement evidence-based strategies that address the challenges identified in this study. The following policy recommendations are proposed: (1). Enhancing digital literacy and capacity building: ▪. Governments should implement nationwide digital literacy programs, integrating AI-assisted learning tools and localized content, specifically designed for elderly users, individuals with disabilities, and marginalized communities, to enhance digital accessibility and foster greater participation in e-government services [111,112]. ▪. Collaboration with NGOs, educational institutions, and private-sector partners can expand digital literacy outreach and ensure sustainable funding for long-term impact. (2). Investing in accessible and affordable digital infrastructure: ▪. Governments must prioritize broadband expansion in rural and underserved regions through regulatory incentives, public investment, and universal service policies to bridge connectivity gaps. ▪. Encouraging public–private partnerships to provide subsidized digital devices, tax incentives for low-cost ICT solutions, and financial assistance for internet access in low-income households is essential in bridging the digital divide and ensuring equitable access to e-government services [113,114]. (3). Regulatory reforms for inclusive e-government policies: ▪. E-government frameworks should mandate compliance with international accessibility standards (e.g., WCAG guidelines, ISO 30071-1) to accommodate diverse user needs. ▪. Strengthening cybersecurity laws, consumer data protection regulations, and AI ethics guidelines is crucial for enhancing public trust and ensuring transparency in algorithmic decision-making. Research suggests that well-regulated data protection policies, cybersecurity governance, and user-centered consent mechanisms significantly impact citizen confidence in digital platforms [115]. (4). Integration with the sustainability goals (SDGs): ▪. Ensuring that digital inclusion policies align with national sustainability frameworks and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is essential for fostering equitable access to digital resources. Specifically, integrating these policies with SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 9 (Infrastructure and Innovation), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Strong Institutions) can enhance digital governance resilience and long-term sustainability [116]. ▪. Governments should incorporate digital inclusion metrics into national SDG reporting frameworks to ensure accountability and continuous policy improvements.
By adopting these policy measures, governments can reduce digital exclusion, enhance institutional effectiveness, foster socio-economic development, and strengthen public trust in digital governance systems.
5.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions
While this study provides valuable insights into digital inclusion strategies, it has certain limitations that should be addressed in future research.
5.3.1. Limitations of the Study
While this study provides valuable insights into the challenges and strategies for enhancing digital inclusion in e-government, several limitations must be acknowledged. These limitations relate to the geographical scope, methodological constraints, and policy implementation challenges, which should be addressed in future research.
(1). Geographical scope: This study primarily focuses on selected regional contexts, limiting its generalizability to other geopolitical and socio-economic environments. Future research should adopt a broader comparative framework, incorporating cross-national and longitudinal analyses to assess digital inclusion dynamics across different governance models.
(2). Methodological constraints: ▪. The qualitative approach used in this study provides in-depth insights into digital inclusion barriers and policy strategies but lacks statistical generalizability. ▪. Future research should adopt mixed-method approaches, combining quantitative surveys, experimental studies, and big data analytics to enhance the robustness and generalizability of findings in digital inclusion and e-government adoption [117].
(3). Policy implementation gaps:
▪. While best practices from developed nations (e.g., Estonia, Singapore, and South Korea) have demonstrated success in e-government implementation, their direct applicability to developing economies remains uncertain due to socio-economic disparities, governance structures, and digital infrastructure gaps. ▪. Future research should examine localized policy adaptations, integrating behavioral insights, regulatory flexibility, and contextualized digital literacy initiatives to enhance digital governance effectiveness in diverse regional contexts [118,119].
5.3.2. Future Research Directions
While this study provides critical insights into digital inclusion in e-government, several areas remain underexplored. Future research should focus on expanding comparative frameworks, leveraging emerging technologies, and analyzing behavioral factors to strengthen digital governance strategies.
(1). Comparative cross-country analyses: Investigating how different policy models impact e-government adoption rates in diverse socio-economic and political environments. A multi-regional approach can provide deeper insights into best practices, regulatory effectiveness, and contextual barriers that influence digital inclusion.
(2). Technology-driven approaches for digital inclusion: Emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain, cloud computing, and edge computing play a crucial role in enhancing accessibility and security in digital public services. These technologies facilitate AI-powered virtual assistants, decentralized identity management, and adaptive digital interfaces, enabling automated service delivery, secure transactions, and scalable digital infrastructure. Future studies should assess the ethical, regulatory, and socio-economic implications of these technologies in digital inclusion strategies [120,121].
(3). Public trust and behavioral studies: Investigating how perceptions of cybersecurity, digital privacy, and government transparency influence citizen engagement in e-government platforms. Understanding behavioral patterns can help policymakers design trust-building measures, strengthen user-centered digital policies, and improve adoption rates of online public services.
By addressing these research gaps, future studies can further enhance evidence-based policy frameworks and contribute to the development of sustainable, inclusive, and technology-driven digital governance models.
Conceptualization, G.H.D. and S.P.; methodology, O.S.; software, S.P.; validation, G.H.D., O.S. and S.P.; formal analysis, S.P.; investigation, G.H.D.; resources, O.S.; data curation, G.H.D.; writing—original draft preparation, S.P.; writing—review and editing, G.H.D.; visualization, O.S.; supervision, O.S.; project administration, O.S.; funding acquisition, G.H.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author(s).
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
| AI | Artificial Intelligence |
| DEF | Digital Empowerment Foundation |
| E-Gov | Electronic Government |
| ICT | Information and Communication Technology |
| MDGs | Millennium Development Goals |
| NGO | Non-Governmental Organization |
| PPP | Public–Private Partnership |
| SDGs | Sustainable Development Goals |
| TAM | Technology Acceptance Model |
| UN | United Nations |
| WCAG | Web Content Accessibility Guidelines |
Footnotes
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.
Figure 1 Conceptual framework for digital inclusion in e-government adoption.
Summary of research gaps and contributions.
| Existing Focus | Identified Gap | Our Contribution | New References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Focus on technological infrastructure and efficiency of e-government adoption | Lack of emphasis on sustainability dimensions of digital governance, particularly long-term equitable access and inclusion | Integrates sustainability and social inclusion perspectives in digital transformation discourse. This study explicitly addresses the intersection of digital transformation and sustainable governance, providing a structured framework for assessing long-term access equity. | Examines the transformative potential of e-government in public administration, highlighting transparency, cost-efficiency, and accessibility but notes challenges like infrastructure gaps and cybersecurity issues [ Discusses how electronic governance fosters digital inclusion and sustainable development but lacks empirical evidence on marginalized communities [ |
| Analysis of e-government adoption factors (e.g., policy and technology acceptance) | Limited focus on socio-economic disparities, digital literacy, and trust in institutions as key adoption determinants | Examines socio-economic and trust-based factors that influence adoption disparities across different communities. Unlike prior studies, this study includes empirical analysis of marginalized populations and their digital adoption barriers. | Highlights the lack of digital infrastructure and digital divide in urban and rural municipalities, affecting citizen engagement and participation in governance processes [ Explores the role of public officials and knowledge intermediaries in sustaining digital public participation, emphasizing participatory design and system adaptation [ |
| Studies on sustainable digital transformation | Minimal discussion on how structural inequalities shape digital inclusion policies | Proposes adaptive policy frameworks to address digital disparities and foster inclusion. This study offers an interdisciplinary perspective by combining digital governance principles with social sustainability dimensions. | Examines barriers to e-government engagement among marginalized groups and structural inequalities in digital governance [ Analyzes participatory governance models and power negotiation, highlighting the role of digital exclusion in limiting collective agency [ |
| Use of Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) for behavioral analysis of digital service adoption | Focuses on user perceptions (usefulness, ease of use) but lacks engagement with broader digital divide challenges | Combines TAM with Digital Divide Theory to offer a holistic understanding of e-government adoption barriers. This study enhances TAM’s explanatory power by incorporating structural factors such as infrastructure inequality and digital trust. | Examines IT/IS adoption by public-sector employees rather than citizens, incorporating digital divide constructs and trust in technology [ Analyzes barriers to e-government use at the municipal level in Mexico, integrating TAM, Diffusion of Innovations (DOI), and web trust models to highlight how digital exclusion affects service adoption [ |
Summary of data collection methods.
| Method | Description | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| In-Depth Interviews | Semi-structured interviews with marginalized citizens, government officials, and NGO representatives. | Understanding experiences, perceptions, and challenges in e-government adoption. |
| Participant Observation | Direct observations at public service centers, internet hubs, and e-government kiosks. | Identifying usability issues and accessibility barriers in digital services. |
| Document Analysis | Review of government policies, reports, and legislative frameworks on digital inclusion. | Evaluating the effectiveness of policies in promoting e-government accessibility. |
Technical barriers to digital inclusion in e-government.
| Barrier | Description | Impact on Digital Inclusion |
|---|---|---|
| Limited Internet Access | Rural and low-income areas lack reliable broadband infrastructure. | Restricts marginalized communities from accessing e-government services. |
| Device Affordability | High costs of smartphones, tablets, and computers limit digital participation. | Excludes low-income groups, elderly populations, and persons with disabilities. |
| Usability and Accessibility | Many e-government platforms lack adaptive design, multilingual support, and accessibility features. | Hinders engagement among users with disabilities and low digital literacy. |
| Cybersecurity Concerns | Fear of fraud, data breaches, and lack of cybersecurity training discourage online service use. | Reduces trust in digital governance and adoption of online services. |
| Cybersecurity and Algorithmic Bias | Fear of fraud, data breaches, and biases in AI-driven e-government services discourage online service use. | Reduces trust in digital governance and disproportionately affects marginalized users. |
| Infrastructure Disparities | Urban areas receive more investment in digital infrastructure than rural regions. | Worsens the digital divide due to unequal access to e-government services. |
Social barriers to digital inclusion in e-government.
| Barrier | Description | Impact on Digital Inclusion |
|---|---|---|
| Low Digital Literacy | Elderly and less-educated populations struggle to use online platforms. | Limits engagement with e-government services and digital transactions. |
| Cultural Resistance | Preference for face-to-face interactions and distrust in digital systems. | Leads to reluctance in adopting e-government solutions. |
| Socio-economic Disparities | Lower-income groups prioritize basic needs over technology investments. | Inhibits access to internet services and digital literacy programs. |
| Gender-Based Barriers | Women face additional socio-economic restrictions that limit technology access. | Exacerbates gender-based digital exclusion. |
| Algorithmic Bias in Digital Services | AI-based public services may unintentionally favor digitally skilled users over marginalized groups. | Creates unequal access to e-government platforms and reinforces digital exclusion. |
| Government Mistrust and Privacy Concerns | Citizens fear data misuse, surveillance, and cybersecurity threats. | Reduces public willingness to engage with e-government platforms. |
Institutional barriers to digital inclusion in e-government.
| Barrier | Description | Impact on Digital Inclusion |
|---|---|---|
| Outdated Regulations | Legal frameworks fail to keep pace with technological advancements. | Prevents innovation and adaptability in e-government policies. |
| Fragmented Governance Structures | Overlapping jurisdictions and lack of clear accountability delay digital initiatives. | Creates inefficiencies in policy implementation and slows e-government adoption. |
| Lack of Digital Literacy Programs | Insufficient investment in digital training for marginalized groups. | Excludes low-income and elderly populations from e-government services. |
| Bureaucratic Fragmentation | Limited interdepartmental coordination and private-sector collaboration. | Leads to inefficient and disconnected digital transformation initiatives. |
| Limited Accessibility in Policies | National digital strategies fail to address accessibility needs. | Excludes people with disabilities and those with low digital literacy. |
| Funding Limitations | Governments allocate minimal budgets to digital inclusion programs. | Prioritizes infrastructure over accessibility and user engagement. |
Strategies to improve digital inclusion in e-government.
| Strategy | Description | Expected Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Government and NGO-led Digital Literacy Programs | Expanding digital education initiatives to marginalized communities. | Improves digital skills, enabling wider e-government adoption. |
| Inclusive Policy Frameworks for E-Government | Embedding accessibility standards, multilingual interfaces, and universal design principles into e-government policies. | Ensures that digital public services are inclusive and accessible to all citizens. |
| Best Practices from Other Countries | Learning from successful global models in bridging the digital divide. | Provides scalable solutions tailored to local contexts. |
| Regulation of AI-Driven Public Services | Establishing guidelines to mitigate algorithmic bias and ensure fair access to e-government platforms. | Reduces digital exclusion caused by automated decision-making systems. |
| Public–Private and Community Partnerships | Strengthening collaboration between governments, businesses, and civil society. | Enhances accessibility, affordability, and digital service reach. |
Policy recommendations for sustainable digital governance.
| Policy Focus | Description | Expected Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Inclusive E-Government Design | Implementing accessibility standards and user-friendly interfaces for all citizens. | Enhances digital service usability and adoption across diverse populations. |
| Regulatory Safeguards for AI-Driven Public Services | Ensuring fairness, transparency, and accountability in algorithmic decision-making. | Prevents bias in digital governance and enhances trust in e-government systems. |
| Sustainability-Based Digital Policies | Ensuring long-term investment in digital infrastructure, literacy, and cybersecurity. | Reduces digital exclusion and promotes equitable access to e-government services. |
| Integration with SDGs and National Strategies | Aligning digital inclusion policies with broader sustainability goals (e.g., SDG 4, 9, 10, 16). | Promotes synergy between digital transformation efforts and sustainable development objectives. |
Contributions to theory and practice.
| Contribution | Description | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Theoretical Contribution | Extends Digital Divide Theory by incorporating sustainability and policy perspectives in e-government adoption. | Provides a deeper understanding of how structural and policy factors influence digital inclusion. |
| Practical Contribution | Offers policy recommendations for inclusive, accessible, and sustainable e-government services. | Helps governments design digital public services that reduce disparities and enhance user engagement. |
| Methodological Contribution | Employs a multi-method approach, combining policy analysis with empirical findings. | Strengthens the reliability of digital inclusion research by integrating diverse data sources. |
1. Oztaskin, H.S.; Iyit, N.; Alkan, O. Citizen attitudes towards e-government services during the COVID-19 pandemic: A case in Türkiye. Heliyon; 2024; 10, e35041. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e35041] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39157374]
2. Basu, S. E-government and developing countries: An overview. Int. Rev. Law Comput. Technol.; 2004; 18, pp. 109-132. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13600860410001674779]
3. Lubis, S.; Purnomo, E.P.; Lado, J.A.; Hung, C.-F. Electronic governance in advancing sustainable development goals through systematic literature review. Discov. Glob. Soc.; 2024; 2, 77. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s44282-024-00102-3]
4. Mesa, D. Digital divide, e-government and trust in public service: The key role of education. Front. Sociol.; 2023; 8, 1140416. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2023.1140416]
5. ITU. Global Offline Population Steadily Declines to 2.6 Billion People in 2023. Available online: https://www.itu.int/itu-d/reports/statistics/2023/10/10/ff23-internet-use/?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed on 20 March 2025).
6. IAP. Digital Skills in the Global South: Gaps, Needs, and Progress. Available online: https://iap.unido.org/articles/digital-skills-global-south-gaps-needs-and-progress?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed on 20 March 2025).
7. Sanders, C.K.; Scanlon, E. The Digital Divide Is a Human Rights Issue: Advancing Social Inclusion Through Social Work Advocacy. J. Hum. Rights Soc. Work.; 2021; 6, pp. 130-143. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41134-020-00147-9]
8. Ilieva, G.; Yankova, T.; Ruseva, M.; Dzhabarova, Y.; Zhekova, V.; Klisarova-Belcheva, S.; Mollova, T.; Dimitrov, A. Factors Influencing User Perception and Adoption of E-Government Services. Adm. Sci.; 2024; 14, 54. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/admsci14030054]
9. Skariah, B.; Joseph, J.; Joseph, J.J.; Antony, M.; Joseph, N.; Joseph, S.G. Barriers To E-Governance Adoption in Rural and Marginalized Communities: Challenges and Strategies for Digital Inclusion. Int. Res. J. Adv. Eng. Manag. (IRJAEM); 2024; 2, pp. 3809-3817. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47392/irjaem.2024.0566]
10. Chen, Y.N.; Chen, H.M.; Huang, W.; Ching, R.K. E-Government Strategies in Developed and Developing Countries. Selected Readings on Global Information Technology; IGI Global: Hershey, PE, USA, 2006; pp. 327-346. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-116-2.ch020]
11. Raihan, M.M.; Subroto, S.; Chowdhury, N.; Koch, K.; Ruttan, E.; Turin, T.C. Dimensions and barriers for digital (in)equity and digital divide: A systematic integrative review. Digit. Transform. Soc.; 2024; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/DTS-04-2024-0054]
12. Laksmi, P.W.; Dinakrisma, A.A.; Abdiel, T.; Susanto, A.P.; Pujitresnani, A.; Lukmana, A.A.I.; Yusuf, P.A. Digital divide: Knowledge, attitudes and practices toward mobile phone and apps use among Indonesian older adults residing in a megapolitan city. Gerontechnology; 2024; 23, pp. 1-13. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4017/gt.2024.23.1.845.03]
13. Wahyunengseh, R.D.; Hastjarjo, S.; Mulyaningsih, T.; Suharto, D.G. Digital Governance and Digital Divide: A Matrix of the Poor’s Vulnerabilities. Policy Gov. Rev.; 2020; 4, pp. 152-166. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.30589/pgr.v4i2.296]
14. Watson, C.; Parnaby, A.W.; Kharrufa, A. Precarious Experiences: Citizens’ Frustrations, Anxieties and Burdens of an Online Welfare Benefit System. arXiv; 2024; arXiv: 2405.08515
15. Mergel, I.; Edelmann, N.; Haug, N. Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Gov. Inf. Q.; 2019; 36, 101385. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002]
16. Lee, J.W. Big Data Strategies for Government, Society and Policy-Making. J. Asian Finance, Econ. Bus.; 2020; 7, pp. 475-487. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no7.475]
17. Wirtz, B.W.; Weyerer, J.C.; Geyer, C. Artificial Intelligence and the Public Sector—Applications and Challenges. Int. J. Public Adm.; 2018; 42, pp. 596-615. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2018.1498103]
18. Janowski, T. Digital government evolution: From transformation to contextualization. Gov. Inf. Q.; 2015; 32, pp. 221-236. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.001]
19. Mahmood, M. Enhancing Citizens’ Trust and Confidence in Government through Digital Transformation. Int. J. Electron. Gov. Res.; 2016; 12, pp. 99-110. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4018/ijegr.2016010105]
20. Trittin-Ulbrich, H.; Scherer, A.G.; Munro, I.; Whelan, G. Exploring the dark and unexpected sides of digitalization: Toward a critical agenda. Organization; 2020; 28, pp. 8-25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1350508420968184]
21. Criado, J.I.; Sandoval-Almazan, R.; Valle-Cruz, D.; Ruvalcaba-Gómez, E.A. Chief information officers’ perceptions about artificial intelligence. First Monday; 2020; 26, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v26i1.10648]
22. Atencio, G.S.; Ramírez, M.U. importance of cyber protection in the power grid in the face of an uncertain future. J. Appl. Res. Technol.; 2024; 22, pp. 284-294. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22201/icat.24486736e.2024.22.2.2318]
23. Schmittner, C.; Veledar, O.; Faschang, T.; Macher, G.; Brenner, E. Fostering Cyber Resilience in Europe: An In-Depth Exploration of the Cyber Resilience Act. European Conference on Software Process Improvement; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; Volume 2179.
24. Kalkan, G. The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Corporate Governance. J. Corp. Financ. Res.; 2024; 18, pp. 17-25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17323/j.jcfr.2073-0438.18.2.2024.17-25]
25. Ruijer, E.; Piotrowski, S. Introduction to the special issue on Inclusion and E-Government: Progress and Questions for Scholars of Social Equity. Inf. Polity; 2022; 27, pp. 425-432. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3233/ip-229017]
26. Al-Mushayt, O.S. Automating E-Government Services with Artificial Intelligence. IEEE Access; 2019; 7, pp. 146821-146829. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/access.2019.2946204]
27. Brimkulov, U.; Baryktabasov, K. E-Government Development in the Central Asian States: Best Practices, Challenges and Lessons Learned. International E-Government Development; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 121-154. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63284-1_6]
28. Vassilakopoulou, P.; Hustad, E. Bridging Digital Divides: A Literature Review and Research Agenda for Information Systems Research. Inf. Syst. Front.; 2021; 25, pp. 955-969. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-10096-3] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33424421]
29. Aleisa, N. Key factors influencing the e-government adoption: A systematic literature review. J. Innov. Digit. Transform.; 2024; 1, pp. 14-31. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/jidt-09-2023-0016]
30. Castro, C.; Lopes, C. Digital Government and Sustainable Development. J. Knowl. Econ.; 2021; 13, pp. 880-903. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00749-2]
31. Sahraoui, S. E-inclusion as a further stage of e-government?. Transform. Gov. People Process Policy; 2007; 1, pp. 44-58. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506160710733698]
32. Ali, K.S.; Faroque, A.R. Addressing the Complexity of the Digital Divide and the Role of Government in Addressing It: Role of Government in Bridging the Digital Divide. Fostering Sustainable Businesses in Emerging Economies; Emerald Publishing Limited: Leeds, UK, 2023; pp. 127-145. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80455-640-520231009]
33. Morte-Nadal, T.; Esteban-Navarro, M.A. Digital Competences for Improving Digital Inclusion in E-Government Services: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review Protocol. Int. J. Qual. Methods; 2022; 21, 16094069211070935. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/16094069211070935]
34. Pedersen, K. E-government transformations: Challenges and strategies. Transform. Gov. People Process Policy; 2018; 12, pp. 84-109. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/tg-06-2017-0028]
35. Tremblay-Cantin, C.-A.; Mellouli, S.; Cheikh-Ammar, M.; Khechine, H. E-government Service Adoption by Citizens: A Literature Review and a High-level Model of Influential Factors. Digit. Gov. Res. Pr.; 2023; 4, pp. 1-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3580369]
36. Omweri, F.S. A Systematic Literature Review of E-Government Implementation in Developing Countries: Examining Urban-Rural Disparities, Institutional Capacity, and Socio-Cultural Factors in the Context of Local Governance and Progress towards SDG 16.6. Int. J. Res. Innov. Soc. Sci.; 2024; VIII, pp. 1173-1199. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/ijriss.2024.808088]
37. Perez-Morote, R.; Rosa, C.P.; Cortes, E.A. Exploring the Relation Between the Digital Divide and Government’s Effort to Develop E-Participation. Research Anthology on Citizen Engagement and Activism for Social Change; IGI Global: Hershey, PE, USA, 2022; pp. 997-1018. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-3706-3.ch054]
38. Agbabiaka, O. The Public Value Creation of eGovernment. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance; Galway, Ireland, 4–6 April 2018; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 143-153. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3209415.3209416]
39. Molobela, T.T. Implementing e-participation platforms to enhance citizen engagement and participation within South African municipalities. eJournal eDemocracy Open Gov.; 2025; 17, pp. 80-103. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.29379/jedem.v17i1.953]
40. Kő, A.; Kotsis, G.; Tjoa, A.M.; Khalil, I. Electronic Government and the Information Systems Perspective. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference, EGOVIS 2024; Naples, Italy, 26–28 August 2024; Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; Volume 14913.
41. Scott, K.; George, A.S.; Harvey, S.A.; Mondal, S.; Patel, G.; Sheikh, K. Negotiating power relations, gender equality, and collective agency: Are village health committees transformative social spaces in northern India?. Int. J. Equity Health; 2017; 16, pp. 1-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12939-017-0580-4] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28911327]
42. Zhang, M.; Kaur, M. Toward a theory of e-government: Challenges and opportunities, a literature review. J. Infrastructure, Policy Dev.; 2024; 8, 7707. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24294/jipd.v8i10.7707]
43. Mohammadian, H.D.; Langari, Z.G.; Wittberg, V. Cyber Government for Sustainable Governance: Examining Solutions to Tomorrow’s Crises and Implications through the 5th wave theory, Edu 5.0 concept, and 9PSG model. Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON); Tunis, Tunisia, 28–31 March 2022; pp. 1737-1746.
44. Ayodele, O.; Plantinga, P.; Sanchez-Bentacourt, D.; Dlamini, S.; Dlamini, N. How Do Researchers and Public Officials Co-Navigate e-Participation Implementation? An Action-Research Experience with South African Municipalities. Systems; 2025; 13, 125. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/systems13020125]
45. Gholami, R.; Singh, N.; Agrawal, P.; Espinosa, K.; Bamufleh, D. Information Technology/Systems Adoption in the Public Sector. J. Glob. Inf. Manag.; 2021; 29, pp. 172-194. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4018/JGIM.20210701.oa8]
46. Lopez-Sisniega, C. Barriers to electronic government use as perceived by citizens at the municipal level in Mexico. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on e-Government, ICEG 2009; Tallinn, Estonia, 21–22 May 2009; pp. 130-138.
47. Van Dijk, J.A. The Deepening Divide: Inequality in the Information Society; Sage Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
48. AlHadid, I.; Abu-Taieh, E.; Alkhawaldeh, R.S.; Khwaldeh, S.; Masa’deh, R.; Kaabneh, K.; Alrowwad, A. Predictors for E-Government Adoption of SANAD App Services Integrating UTAUT, TPB, TAM, Trust, and Perceived Risk. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2022; 19, 8281. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148281]
49. Creswell, J.W.; Poth, C.N. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches; Sage Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
50. Yin, R.K. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods; Sage Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
51. Bastardo, R.; Pavão, J.; Rocha, N.P. Methodological Quality of User-Centered Usability Evaluation of Digital Applications to Promote Citizens’ Engagement and Participation in Public Governance: A Systematic Literature Review. Digital; 2024; 4, pp. 740-761. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/digital4030038]
52. Mariani, I.; Bianchi, I. Conceptualising Digital Transformation in Cities: A Multi-Dimensional Framework for the Analysis of Public Sector Innovation. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 8741. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15118741]
53. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol.; 2006; 3, pp. 77-101. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa]
54. Patton, M.Q. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice; Sage Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
55. Lněnička, M.; Máchová, R. A theoretical framework to evaluate ICT disparities and digital divides: Challenges and implications for e-government development. Rev. Econ. Perspect.; 2022; 22, pp. 25-51. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2478/revecp-2022-0002]
56. Allmann, K.; Radu, R. Digital footprints as barriers to accessing e-government services. Glob. Policy; 2022; 14, pp. 84-94. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13140]
57. Ciesielska, M.; Rizun, N.; Chabik, J. Assessment of E-government inclusion policies toward seniors: A framework and case study. Telecommun. Policy; 2022; 46, 102316. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2022.102316]
58. Waller, P. Digital Government: Overcoming the Systemic Failure of Transformation. Digital Transformation Through Policy Design with ICT-Enhanced Instruments. SSRN Electron. J.; 2016; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2803233]
59. Xianbin, T.; Qiong, W. Sustainable Digital Economy Through Good Governance: Mediating Roles of Social Reforms and Economic Policies. Front. Psychol.; 2021; 12, 773022. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.773022] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34899522]
60. Lin, J.; Carter, L.; Liu, D. Privacy concerns and digital government: Exploring citizen willingness to adopt the COVIDSafe app. Eur. J. Inf. Syst.; 2021; 30, pp. 389-402. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0960085x.2021.1920857]
61. AbdulKareem, A.K.; Oladimeji, K.A. Cultivating the digital citizen: Trust, digital literacy and e-government adoption. Transform. Gov. People Process Policy; 2024; 18, pp. 270-286. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/tg-11-2023-0196]
62. Adade, D.; de Vries, W.T. An extended TOE framework for local government technology adoption for citizen participation: Insights for city digital twins for collaborative planning. Transform. Gov. People Process Policy; 2024; 19, pp. 53-73. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/tg-01-2024-0025]
63. Bhatti, M.A.; Hussain, A.; Ahmad, T.I.; Nawaz, M.A. E-Government Development and its Role in Enhancing Government Effectiveness and Public Sector Governance. Rev. Appl. Manag. Soc. Sci.; 2025; 8, pp. 375-389. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47067/ramss.v8i1.467]
64. Hasan, A.; Alenazy, A.A.; Habib, S.; Husain, S. Examining the drivers and barriers to adoption of e-government services in Saudi Arabia. J. Innov. Digit. Transform.; 2024; 1, pp. 139-157. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JIDT-09-2023-0019]
65. Elgohary, E.; Abdelazyz, R. The impact of employees’ resistance to change on implementing e-government systems: An empirical study in Egypt. Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Dev. Ctries.; 2020; 86, e12139. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/isd2.12139]
66. Fadrial, R.; Sujianto,; Simanjuntak, H.T.R.F.; Wirman, W. A Qualitative Study on the Influencing Factors of E-Government Adoption to Improve Public Trust in Local Government: Case Study of Rokan Hulu Municipality. Indones. J. Comput. Sci.; 2024; 13, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.33022/ijcs.v13i3.3931]
67. Mohammed, M.A.; De-Pablos-Heredero, C.; Botella, J.L.M. A Systematic Literature Review on the Revolutionary Impact of Blockchain in Modern Business. Appl. Sci.; 2024; 14, 11077. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/app142311077]
68. Ranchordás, S. The Digitization of Government and Digital Exclusion: Setting the Scene. The Role of Law in Cyberspace; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 125-148. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07377-9_7]
69. Ariansyah, K.; Setiawan, A.B.; Darmanto, D.; Nupikso, D.; Budhirianto, S.; Hidayat, D.; Hikmaturokhman, A. Darmanto Digital inclusion for all? A gender-disaggregated analysis of e-government service use in Indonesia. Transform. Gov. People Process Policy; 2023; 17, pp. 655-672. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/tg-04-2023-0043]
70. Bayaga, A.; Kyobe, M.; Ophoff, J. Criticism of the role of trust in e-government services. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Information Communications Technology and Society (ICTAS); Durban, South Africa, 11–12 March 2020; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 1-6. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICTAS47918.2020.233973]
71. Pandey, J.K. Public trust and collaborative e-governance performance: A study on government institutions and services. Transform. Gov. People Process Policy; 2023; 17, pp. 510-531. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/tg-08-2023-0113]
72. Schneider, G.B.C. The Importance of Cybersecurity in Digital Government Implementations. Cogn. Sci. J.; 2025; 8, e585. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.38087/2595.8801.585]
73. Saeed, S.; Altamimi, S.A.; Alkayyal, N.A.; Alshehri, E.; Alabbad, D.A. Digital Transformation and Cybersecurity Challenges for Businesses Resilience: Issues and Recommendations. Sensors; 2023; 23, 6666. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s23156666]
74. Chen, C.-L.; Lin, Y.-C.; Chen, W.-H.; Chao, C.-F.; Pandia, H. Role of Government to Enhance Digital Transformation in Small Service Business. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 1028. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13031028]
75. Tabasum, T.; Khan, S.A.K.; Khan, S.A.; Hussain, M. Is e-governance reduce poverty and enhancing social welfare? Analyzing the efficiency of public service delivery, digital literacy, and accessibility. J. Child. Lit. Soc. Issues; 2024; 3, pp. 34-50. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.71085/joclsi.03.01.53]
76. Nwokorie, E.C. Independent Regulatory Agencies in Coordination of Public-Private Partnerships and Other Economic Institutions. Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 6602-6610. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66252-3_2616]
77. Martínez-Peláez, R.; Ochoa-Brust, A.; Rivera, S.; Félix, V.G.; Ostos, R.; Brito, H.; Félix, R.A.; Mena, L.J. Role of Digital Transformation for Achieving Sustainability: Mediated Role of Stakeholders, Key Capabilities, and Technology. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 11221. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su151411221]
78. Zallio, M.; Clarkson, P.J. Designing the metaverse: A study on inclusion, diversity, equity, accessibility and safety for digital immersive environments. Telemat. Inform.; 2022; 75, 101909. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2022.101909]
79. Dhaoui, I. E-Government for Sustainable Development: Evidence from MENA Countries. J. Knowl. Econ.; 2021; 13, pp. 2070-2099. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00791-0]
80. Chohan, S.R.; Hu, G. Strengthening digital inclusion through e-government: Cohesive ICT training programs to intensify digital competency. Inf. Technol. Dev.; 2020; 28, pp. 16-38. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2020.1841713]
81. Pazmiño-Sarango, M.; Naranjo-Zolotov, M.; Cruz-Jesus, F. Assessing the drivers of the regional digital divide and their impact on eGovernment services: Evidence from a South American country. Inf. Technol. People; 2021; 35, pp. 2002-2025. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/itp-09-2020-0628]
82. Marzo, R.R. Bridging the Gap: Understanding and Fostering Intergenerational Communication in the Digital Age. Intergenerational Relations—Contemporary Theories, Studies and Policies; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2024; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1003205]
83. Bansal, N.; Shreelakshmi, P. Democratizing India: The Role of Media in Political Activism and Youth Empowerment. Public Adm. Law Rev.; 2024; 2, pp. 42-50. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.36690/2674-5216-2024-2-42-50]
84. Inakefe, G.I.; Bassey, V.U.; Ikeanyibe, O.M.; Nwagboso, C.I.; Agbor, U.I.; Ebegbulem, J.; Mbonu, F.I.; Ike, G.U. Digital Literacy and E-Governance Adoption for Service Delivery in Cross River State Civil Service. Int. J. Electron. Gov. Res.; 2023; 19, pp. 1-23. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4018/ijegr.328327]
85. Diaz, J. Towards More ‘E-Volved’ Democracy: An Exploration of Digital Governance in Estonia and the Lessons it Holds for Strengthening Democracy in the United States. SSRN Electron. J.; 2020; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3999376]
86. Espinosa, V.I.; Pino, A. E-Government as a Development Strategy: The Case of Estonia. Int. J. Public Adm.; 2024; 48, pp. 86-99. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2024.2316128]
87. Lehtinen, E.; Poutanen, S.; Kovalainen, A. Librarians bridging the digital divide: Experiences from Finland. J. Access Serv.; 2023; 20, pp. 120-140. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15367967.2023.2292210]
88. Kim, J.; Lee, Y. Practical Approach to Bridging the Digital Divide: Developing and Implementing a VR-Based Physical Activity Program for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities. J. Digit. Contents Soc.; 2024; 25, pp. 843-853. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.9728/dcs.2024.25.4.843]
89. Gritsenko, D. Advancing UN digital cooperation: Lessons from environmental policy and governance. World Dev.; 2023; 173, 106392. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2023.106392]
90. Žuvela, A.; Dragija, M.Š.; Jelinčić, D.A. Partnerships in Heritage Governance and Management: Review Study of Public–Civil, Public–Private and Public–Private–Community Partnerships. Heritage; 2023; 6, pp. 6862-6880. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/heritage6100358]
91. Yuhertiana, I.; Izaak, W.C.; Rahmawati, A.; Sucahyati, D. Creative performance of lecturers in post-pandemic COVID 19: Evidence from Indonesia. Cogent Educ.; 2024; 11, 2369974. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2369974]
92. Radanliev, P.; De Roure, D.; Novitzky, P.; Sluganovic, I. Accessibility and inclusiveness of new information and communication technologies for disabled users and content creators in the Metaverse. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol.; 2023; 19, pp. 1849-1863. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2023.2241882] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37585705]
93. Albous, M.R.; Alboloushi, B. AI-Driven Innovations in E-Government: How Is AI Reshaping the Public Sector?. Harnessing AI, Blockchain, and Cloud Computing for Enhanced e-Government Services; IGI Global Scientific Publishing: Hershey, PE, USA, 2025; pp. 93-118. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-7678-2.ch004]
94. Chandramma, R.; Babu, K.S.; Ranjith, K.S.; Sinha, A.K.; Neerugatti, V.; Reddy, D.S. Enhancing E-learning Accessibility through AI (Artificial Intelligence) and Inclusive Design. Proceedings of the 2025 6th International Conference on Mobile Computing and Sustainable Informatics (ICMCSI); Chhukha, Bhutan, 1 January 2025; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, pp. 1466-1471. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICMCSI64620.2025.10883148]
95. Li, H.; Xu, J. Impact of Digital Government on Digital Transformation of Enterprises from the Perspective of Urban Economic Sustainable Development. Sustainability; 2024; 16, 2667. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su16072667]
96. Ishengoma, F.; Shao, D. A framework for aligning e-government initiatives with the sustainable development goals. J. Innov. Digit. Transform.; 2025; 2, pp. 73-89. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JIDT-09-2024-0025]
97. Al-Mamary, Y.H.; Alshallaqi, M. Making Digital Government More Inclusive: An Integrated Perspective. Soc. Sci.; 2023; 12, 557. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/socsci12100557]
98. Kibria, G.; Hong, P. E-government in Asian countries: A conceptual framework for sustainable development. Transform. Gov. People Process Policy; 2024; 18, pp. 616-637. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/TG-01-2023-0003]
99. Hartanto, D.; Dalle, J.; Akrim, A.; Anisah, H.U. Perceived effectiveness of e-governance as an underlying mechanism between good governance and public trust: A case of Indonesia. Digit. Policy Regul. Gov.; 2021; 23, pp. 598-616. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/DPRG-03-2021-0046]
100. Das, D.K. Exploring the Symbiotic Relationship between Digital Transformation, Infrastructure, Service Delivery, and Governance for Smart Sustainable Cities. Smart Cities; 2024; 7, pp. 806-835. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/smartcities7020034]
101. Apriliyanti, I.D.; Kusumasari, B.; Pramusinto, A.; Setianto, W.A. Digital divide in ASEAN member states: Analyzing the critical factors for successful e-government programs. Online Inf. Rev.; 2021; 45, pp. 440-460. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/OIR-05-2020-0158]
102. Breisinger, C.; Keenan, M.; Mbuthia, J. A Way Forward: Policy-Driven Transformation; International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI): Washington, DC, USA, 2023; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2499/9780896294561_19]
103. Nel, D. Allocation of Risk in Public Private Partnerships in Information and Communications Technology. Int. J. eBusiness eGovernment Stud.; 2020; 12, pp. 17-32. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.34111/ijebeg.202012102]
104. Li, Y.; Li, G. The Impacts of Digital Literacy on Citizen Civic Engagement—Evidence from China. Digit. Gov. Res. Pr.; 2022; 3, pp. 1-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3532785]
105. Alabdali, S.A.; Pileggi, S.F.; Cetindamar, D. Influential Factors, Enablers, and Barriers to Adopting Smart Technology in Rural Regions: A Literature Review. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 7908. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15107908]
106. Perera, P.; Selvanathan, S.; Bandaralage, J.; Su, J.-J. The impact of digital inequality in achieving sustainable development: A systematic literature review. Equal. Divers. Incl. Int. J.; 2023; 42, pp. 805-825. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EDI-08-2022-0224]
107. Burlacu, S.; Rădulescu, C.-V.; Bălu, E.P.; Dobre, F. Socio-cultural Sustainability for Resilience in Public Services: Strategies for Achieving Inclusive and Equitable Service Delivery. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev.; 2023; 12, 29. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2023.v12n3p29]
108. Millard, J. Impact of Digital Transformation on Public Governance; European Union: Luxemburg, 2023.
109. Peine, A.; Meissner, A.; Wanka, A. Digitalisation and population ageing: Social policy dimensions of the digital divide and innovation. A Research Agenda for Ageing and Social Policy; Edward Elgar Publishing: Northampton, MA, USA, 2024; pp. 131-149. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781802208139.00017]
110. La Cruz, G.A.P.; Rabetino, R.; Kantola, J. Unveiling the shades of partnerships for the energy transition and sustainable development: Connecting public–private partnerships and emerging hybrid schemes. Sustain. Dev.; 2022; 30, pp. 1370-1386. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.2288]
111. Fridayani, H.D.; Hakim, M.L.; Chiang, L.C. Inclusive Development through Smart Environmental Strategies and Digital Innovation: Empowering Informal Businesses in Semarang, Indonesia. E3S Web Conf.; 2024; 594, 02002. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202459402002]
112. Pareek, P.; Hajra, R.; Mohapatra, H. Empowering Public Officials by Bridging the Digital Divide with Smart Technology for Public Services. Digital Competency Development for Public Officials: Adapting New Technologies in Public Services; IGI Global: Hershey, PE, USA, 2025; pp. 419-452. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-6547-2.ch016]
113. Bordoloi, K.; Timung, B.; Das, A.M.; Doloi, G. Digital Platforms as Catalysts for Public-Private Partnerships in Achieving Sustainable Development Goals. Advancing Sustainable Development Goals with Educational Technology; IGI Global: Hershey, PE, USA, 2024; pp. 181-208. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-8242-4.ch007]
114. Abass, L.A.; Usuemerai, P.A.; Ibikunle, O.E.; Alemede, V.; Nwankwo, E.I.; Mbata, A.O. Public-private partnerships to enhance healthcare access and affordability. Int. J. Multidiscip. Res. Growth Eval.; 2024; 5, pp. 1327-1344. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.54660/.IJMRGE.2024.5.4.1327-1344]
115. Al-Hawamleh, A.M. Investigating the multifaceted dynamics of cybersecurity practices and their impact on the quality of e-government services: Evidence from the KSA. Digit. Policy, Regul. Gov.; 2024; 26, pp. 317-336. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/DPRG-11-2023-0168]
116. Kluiters, L.; Srivastava, M.; Tyll, L. The impact of digital trust on firm value and governance: An empirical investigation of US firms. Soc. Bus. Rev.; 2022; 18, pp. 71-103. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/sbr-07-2021-0119]
117. Hooda, A.; Singla, M. Core—Competencies—A key to future—Oriented and sustainable e-governance implementation: A mixed method research. Transform. Gov. People Process Policy; 2020; 15, pp. 80-107. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/tg-12-2019-0122]
118. Mourtzis, D.; Angelopoulos, J.; Panopoulos, N. A Literature Review of the Challenges and Opportunities of the Transition from Industry 4.0 to Society 5.0. Energies; 2022; 15, 6276. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en15176276]
119. Asmawa,; Hakim, A.; Hermawan,; Hayat, A. Transforming Public Policy in Developing Countries: A Comprehensive Review of Digital Implementation. J. ICT Stand.; 2024; 12, pp. 337-364. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13052/jicts2245-800x.1235]
120. Younus, M.; Purnomo, E.P.; Nurmandi, A.; Mutiarin, D.; Manaf, H.A.; Mumtaz, F.; Khairunnisa, T. Analyzing the trend of government support for cloud computing usage in e-government architecture. J. Cloud Comput.; 2025; 14, 14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13677-025-00735-y]
121. Androutsopoulou, M.; Askounis, D.; Carayannis, E.G.; Zotas, N. Leveraging AI for Enhanced eGovernment: Optimizing the Use of Open Governmental Data. J. Knowl. Econ.; 2024; pp. 1-36. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02317-w]
© 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/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
1 Program Studi Administrasi Publik, Universitas Moestopo, Jakarta 10270, Indonesia
2 Universitas Padjajaran, Bandung 45363, Indonesia; [email protected]
3 Program Doktor Manajemen, Universitas Putra Indonesia YPTK, Padang 25145, Indonesia