Journal Press India^®

Author Details ( * ) denotes Corresponding author

The objective of this study is to understand the initiative of e-Governance in India. The paper examines an essential element for the success of e-Initiates of Government of India, i.e., the e-readiness of people, for the state of Madhya Pradesh. Several studies have been reviewed that have helped in understanding the concept of digital governance along with case study of ‘AADHAAR’ project. The study reflects on the e-Governance initiatives taken by other developed and developing countries and also compared with Indian projects. Governments throughout the world have become more apt to offer public information and services via online platform and this exercise of government initiative is known as e-Governance. The appreciating finding of the study is that users are participating actively in ‘AADHAAR’ project and results of questionnaire show the proactive input and acceptance of information and communication technology initiative of government even from the low income respondents. The technological aid and government role in providing ICT infrastructure is also significant.

Keywords

e-Governance; e-Readiness; Technology; Aadhaar

1. Aldin, A.,  Rahim,  A . A., & Al. Athmay (2015). Demographic factors as determinants of e-governance adoption: A field study in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 9 (2), 159-180.
2. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl, & J. Beckman (Eds.). Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11-39). Heidelberg: Springer.
3. Ayanso, A., Chatterjee, D., & Cho, D. I. (2011). E-Government readiness index: A methodology and analysis. Government Information Quarterly, 28 (4), 522-532.
4. Bannister, F. (2007). The curse of the benchmark: an assessment of the validity and value of e-government comparisons. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73 (2), 171-188.
5. Budhiraja, R., & Sachdeva, S. (2002). E-readiness assessment (India). etrieved  from http://unpan1. un. org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN014673.pdf.
6. Chuttur, M. Y. (2009). Overview of the technology acceptance model: Origins, developments and future directions. Working Papers on Information Systems, 9(37), 9-37.
7. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13 (3), 319-340.
8. Goel, S., Dwivedi, R., & Sherry, A. M. (2012). Critical factors for successful implementation of E-governance programs: a case study of HUDA. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 13 (4), 233-244.
9. Ionescu, L. (2013). The impact that e-government can have on reducing corruption and enhancing transparency. Economics, Management, and Financial Markets, 8(2), 210-215.
10. Jun, K. N., Wang, F., & Wang, D. (2014). E-government use and perceived government transparency and service capacity: Evidence from a Chinese local government. Public Performance & Management Review, 38 (1), 125-151.
11. Kluver, R. (2005). The architecture of control: A Chinese strategy for e-governance. Journal of Public Policy, 25(1), 75-97.
12. Kumar, P. (2013). e-Governance in India: A Prognosis. IUP Journal of Information Technology, 9(2), 62-69.
13. Lee, H., Irani, Z., Osman, I. H., Balci, A., Ozkan, S., & Medeni, T. D. (2008). Research note: toward a reference process model for citizen-oriented evaluation of e-government services. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 2(4), 297-310.
14. Liu, T. S. (2012). Assessing and modeling the readiness of electronic government. International Journal of Electronic Commerce Studies, 3(2), 251-269.
15. Mallat, N. (2007). Exploring consumer adoption of mobile payments-A qualitative study. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 16(4), 413-432.
16. Mishra, U., & Sharma, M. (2013). Human factors affecting the adaptability of e-governance the Indian public sector. Journal of E-Governance, 36(3), 136-142.
17. Ostasius, E., & Laukaitis, A. (2015). Reference model for e-government monitoring, evaluation and benchmarking. Engineering Economics, 26 (3), 255-263.
18. Rehman, M., Esichaikul, V., & Kamal, M. (2012). Factors influencing e-government adoption in Pakistan. Transforming Government: People. Process and Policy, 6(3), 258-282.
19. Song, H. J. (2010). Building e-governance through reform: the Korean experience. Journal of E-Governance, 33(1). 49-60.
20. Tavana, M., Zandi, F., & Katehakis, M. N. (2013). A hybrid fuzzy group ANP-TOPSIS framework for assessment of e-government readiness from a CiRM perspective. Information & Management, 50, 383-397.
21. Tsohou, A., Lee, H., Irani, Z., Weerakkody, V., Osman, I. H., Anouze, A. L., & Medeni, T. (2013). Proposing a reference process model for the citizen-centric evaluation of e-government services. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 7 (2), 240-255.
22. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 37(3), 425-478.
23. Verma, R. K., & Kumari, A. (2010). e-Governance at grassroots level in South Asia: a study of citizen-centric e-panchayats in India.  Asia-Pacific Journal of Rural Development, 20(1), 131-149.
24. Weerakkody, V., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Kurunananda, A. (2009). Implementing e-government in Sri Lanka: Lessons from the UK. e-Government initiatives in Developing World: Challenges and Opportunities, 15 (3), 171-192.
25. Weerakkody, V., El-Haddadeh, R.., & Al-Shafi, S. (2011). Exploring the complexities of e-government implementation and diffusion in a developing country: Some lessons from the State of Qatar. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 24(2), 172-196.