Riyadh Saudi Arabia

Abstract

This paper empirically examines whether Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates are initiating

and implementing e-government technologies. The main

question guiding this research was: what are the main

motives shaping the initiatives in the e-government

context. There perspectives were combined in a

framework for this research: institutional, functional

and strategic. Hypotheses were developed and tested in

the contest of these perspectives. The finding indicates a

combination of multiple motives. At the national

comparison level, United Arab Emirates initiatives are

influenced by functional purpose, and the Kingdom’s

initiatives are influenced by strategic motives.

Institutional motives influence initiations in both

countries.

1. INTRODUCTION

E-government has gained increasing attention in

public administration and policy arena in recent years

(Heeks & Bailur, 2007). Although a recent phenomenon

in general and more recent in the Gulf Cooperation

States, e-government appears to be omnipresent in all

public and private sectors. This hype in the popular

media and practice has precipitate research on e-

government from different perspectives. Some streams

examine the e-government as an efficient tool to

enhance public services, others view it a source for

better results. Parallel to the cost efficiencies and

outcome oriented literature, another stream

contemplates the pessimistic versus optimistic views of

the scholars on e-government (Heeks & Bailur, 2007). A

third and broader view examines whether technology

determines society or the society determines

technologies (Heeks & Bailur, 2007). Yet, in broader

terms, despite conflicting views on the impact outcome

and causal factors, it is obvious that e-government is

happening and is likely to stay regardless of what

conceptual shape it may take.

In narrower terms, prior research has focused on the

antecedent and the outcome of the e-government.

Although relevant and necessary to understand, they are

insufficient perspectives to answering specific

contextual questions. E-governments projects are

different, countries are different, and evaluative

mechanisms are different. So they raise different

questions specific to countries and regions. One such

question is related to three driving forces behind the e-

government initiatives in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

(KSA) and United Arab Emirates (UAE): institutional,

technological and functional or the combination. These

dimensions represent their respective perspectives.

Understanding these dimensions will explain the e-

government readiness at state level, its prospects and

challenges and the potential focus of the e-government

(whose purpose it may serve). Previously, however,

none of the approaches has systematically explained

what functional purposes draw the policy attention to

initiate and implement e-government.

Generally, it is plausible that a country specific

research is cased based. There are case based studies on

e-government such as in UK (Kesar & Jain, 2007) and

more so in Singapore (Siew & Leng, 2003). However,

cases are specific to the context and more often

qualitative studies. In contrast, quantitative studies are

rare because e-government is known to be a relevant

rather than general phenomenon. In this study, the cases

are combined with quantitative studies. There is a need

of a quantitative approach to explore the patterns and

antecedence to the e-government activities as the

technological advancements are converging and

globalization is on the horizon. Concurrently have two

attributes in one study, a quantitative case study on one

country eliminates the possible international differences.

The purpose of this study is to explore whether two

nations are involved in e-government, especially

focused on industrial purposes, and to explain the

phenomenon by examining the main functional motives.

The two states are United Arab Emirates (UAE) and

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Both are pursuing e-

government policies. The two are similar as well as

different. They are neighbours, culturally similar, and

institutionally members of the GCC (Gulf Cooperation

Council). The UAE is smaller in size (population and

area), but it is advanced in technology than that of the

KSA. This research project will also explain whether

these differences matter.

978-1-4244-2917-2/08/$25.00 ©2008 IEEE

AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF E-GOVERNMENT FORMULATION IN

Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University

altameem@yahoo.com

Abdullah A. Al-Tameem

819

KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA & UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

The structure of the paper comprises sections. The

next section develops a framework, the third section will

describe methods, the fourth section adds some results,

and the fifth section provides discussion and

conclusions.

2. FRAMEWORK

Contrary to most of the issues raised in other

contexts, the framework of this empirical study is based

on the driving motives to the e-government at initiatives,

focus and implementation.

Inter-State Influence (Institutional Motives): In

global environment, nations, rich and power, developed

and developing ones, and capitalist and socialist states

are affected by the advent of information and

communication technologies (Dahlman Carl et al.,

2001). These technologies are being adopted for

multiple reasons to fit in the global space (Jarvenpaa &

Ives, 1993). One is the institutional factor that

influences a nation adopting one or the other form of

government. Institutional influence stems from two

sources (Baliamousen-Lutz, 2003): formal institutions

and informal norms. Formal institutions such as World

Bank, United National and other such international

organizations influence a national to adapt to the

changing environment created by the internet and other

technological advancements. This influence may be the

result of the stringent rules and strings attached to

certain relations. One example is the regulation in WTO

(world trade organization) and the other is WIPO (world

intellectual property rights). The member countries as

well as others, at least in principles, are compelled to

follow such requirements.

In contrast, there are institutional influences

resulting from informal rules such as norms (Boisot,

1995; Castells, 1996). These norms are replicated from

one state from the others irrespective of rational and

functional purpose. The hype of e-government in

different environment, to some extent, is seen a hype.

Like formal institutions, the informal institutions trigger

e-government. That would mean the environment

enforces the implementation of a practice. And like the

formal institutions, these institutional factors enforce as

well as constrain actions (Heeks & Bailur, 2007).

However, formal and informal institutions are partial

forces behind e-government initiations.

Functional Motives: In some sectors of a national

enterprise, technology is seen as to determine the e-

government for its functional purpose. That would

imply that the implementation has become a sectoral

prerequisite. The sector may exist in the ex ante e-

government era. Presumably, the implementation of

information technology in a functional factor plays

performing role (Central & Telecommunications, 1999).

In principle, the higher the usage of a technology in the

sector, the better the outcome can be (Porter & Millar,

1985). For instance, information and communication

technology in financial sectors are relatively more

important than in agricultural sector. However, it can be

argued on the contrary. Irrespective of the industrial

sector, technology is important in one sector more than

the other, and it varies from country to country.

According to Perrow (1967), technology effects

structural and strategic initiatives in organizations.

Hence, based on functional motives, technology drives a

sector more than the others.

Some industrial sectors attract more technological

focus and therefore e-government for economic reasons.

E-government is viewed a prelude to economic growth

(Baliamousen-Lutz, 2003). Economic growth is

associated to the agendas in national policies

development (Easterly et al., 1991). Accordingly,

observations of the e-government in one sector more

than the other is likely to reflect the functional motives

behind that sector (Bekkers & Zouridis, 1999). Apart

from functional motives, strategic objectives in terms of

efficiency and effectiveness are likely to drive the e-

government initiations.

Efficiency & Effectiveness: Not only peer countries

initiatives drive e-government, but also there are future

expectations associated with the e-government

institutions. Some implementations are likely to be

viewed optimistic outcomes, while the other pessimistic

cost (Heeks & Bailur, 2007). The goal setting in

efficiencies and effectiveness may outweigh the

technological and institutional purposes. For instance,

some already powerful enterprises may intend to

enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the existing

rule of administration (Danziger et al., 1982). This

would imply strategic motives in order to obtain better

outcome and effective societies in the long run. In

contrast, it would imply to prevent unintended

consequences associated with negligence and ignorance

to efficiency and effectiveness (Connors, 1993).

Putting together, there are three propositions with

regards to the motives defined by the purpose behind the

initiatives of the government. The first proposition

represents institutional influence of other countries

(Easterly et al., 1991). The second proposition

represents the technological function within the targeted

sector (Datta, 2003). The third proposition represents the

strategic motives to the e-government (Porter & Millar,

1985). Each will partially explains the drivers behind e-

government activities, and together, they explain

comprehensive and multidimensional drivers. The basic

propositions are:

P1 Institutional factors are likely to influence e-

government either or both of the two countries: United

Arab Emirates and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

820

P2 Technological functional factors are likely to

influence e-government either or both of the two

countries: United Arab Emirates and the Kingdom of

Saudi Arabia

P3 Strategic factors are likely to influence e-

government either or both of the two countries: United

Arab Emirates and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

These three propositions are drawn on the

exploratory purpose of the study in mind. The author

has observed directly and indirectly the e-government

activities in the two cases (KSA and UAE).

Accordinlgy, these prepositions are intuitively informed

as well as deductively drawn. The next section

highlights the main research methods used in the study.

3. METHODS The two cases in the study presented data on

longitudinal dimension and cross-sectional dimensions.

In the former case, both countries have been

annunciating and implementing some levels of e-

government in different sectors and places in the

respective countries. UAE began e-government

activities earlier than the KSA did. The dataset is based

on the public announcements to the general media. The

media includes journals, magazines and news articles.

The data set does not include unsolicited information on

the internet. The dataset was obtained from Dow Jones

New Wires. This and such other sources are proprietary

data for commercial access. Therefore, the contributing

sources to this database are relatively reliable than the

others. Most of the contributors on the two cases are

GCC sources in particular and others allied partner in

the e-government activities to these countries in general.

For example, Malaysian involved in large e-government

project in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia refers to the

general source. Most of the data are based on general

literature such as magazines and news media. The entire

possible public announcement related to these two

countries comparison around e-government was the

potential candidate for analysis.

Figure 1. Database contexts

In this study multiple sources were accessed for the

data covering 10 years (1997 to 2006). Although e-

government concept exists in the literature since before

1997 (Yldiz, 2007), the momentum appears to be

gaining speed during 1997. Moreover, internet arrived in

1997 in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, so logically the

web based initiatives in wider context follow the post

internet era in both countries. The data on the two

countries were gathered from multiple sources. Factiva

Inc. provides access to the accumulated data from

multiple sources. Predominantly, these sources capture

almost all public announcements in all kind of

enterprises. These sources includes the combination of

The Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, Dow

Jones and Reuters newswires and the Associated Press,

as well as Reuters Fundamentals, and D&B company

profiles.

Figure 1 shows the patterns of attention given to the

e-government in the dataset. On the horizontal axis is

shown time in years, and on the vertical axis is the

percentage focus in a year, estimated on the total e-

government in these years. From 1996 to 1999,

apparently e-government has not diffused as much as in

the latter years. In 2000, it appears to the transition year

as well as turning point. In subsequent years from 2001

to 2006, apparently e-government has attained

substantial, consistent and stable attention in the news.

This implies that e-government initiates are indeed on

the rise in the two nations.

The unit of analysis was each peace of news that

ranged from 50 to 100 words on each piece. Most of

these were through online access because historically

data on the print is logistically infeasible and practically

inaccessible. In data gathering for the cases, at the

exploratory stage, the concept of e-government was the

focal test searched and selected for this research. In

other words, the objective focus was on the symbolic

represents rather than the semantic of the context.

821

The systematic information gathered entailed 15210

observations across the arena of e-government, three

main streams proportionally represented. In figure 1,

the overall yearly patterns are shown, in figures 2

through 4, some inter-sectional comparisons are shown

in terms of cross-national, technological function and

strategic purposes. In the sample, several categories in

each of the three streams of evidences had been

accounted for. These estimates of the categories were

measured in various variables.

Figure 2 shows the accumulative influence of GCC

in the region for individual countries’ reference. At the

individual national level, the UAE carries higher

proportion of e-government activities. The data were

gathered based on each observation of the piece of the

announcements. If the intended and expected

observation was found, it was coded as 1, and when

absence, it was coded 0. Therefore, all the variables are

binary variables, constituting yes =1, no =0. Across

multiple variables, each was based on binary qualitative

variables. These binary coding bounded for the logistic

regression analysis.

The measurement of variables proceeded from focal

to the subsequent peripheral controlled variables. The

focal variable was the bivariate link between the e-

government as an independent variable and the country

(whether implementing or not) as the dependent

variable. The effects of chance were eliminated by

including years as the controlled variables for measuring

the fixed effects. Once these links were established

exclusion of the chance factor, the alternative

explanations were inducted into the explanation. The

alternative three variables were the explanatory

variables in the framework: institutional, technological

and strategic.

In a logistic regression, the test statistics are

conducted based on the dependent dichotomous variable

predicted by the independent variables. The independent

variables could be either quantitative, qualitative or the

combination for a logistic regression analysis (Agresti,

1996). In this study, both sides rare binary variables.

Using STAT as the statistical tool, the multivariable

models were analysed by using logistic regression (logit

models). Based on the logistic regressions, the findings

are given in the next section.

Proposition analysis are conducted based on several

variables captures each dimensional section.

Institutional proposition draws evidences from the

country level variables, technological functional

proposition draws evidences from the sectors, and

strategic proposition draws evidences from two

variables, efficiency and effectiveness. These

independent variables are related to the motives outlined

in three areas. The dependent variables are whether e-

government activities exist in those functions.

Apart from the focal links, time effect is the main

controlled variable. The data comprises 10 years, so

each year is a dummy variable, and this there are ten

controlled variables. The accumulated controlled effects

are measured as: T0 = , where T0 = is fixed time, bi = is

the sum of the coefficients the year variables Ti (years).

The logistic model is = Log (y) = b0 + b1X1+ b2X2+

b3X3+ T0

4. RESULTS

The result section comprises tables 1 and 3 and

figures 2 through 4. The tables present descriptive

statistics and logistic regression. The figures show the

general in the e-government activities in the two

countries relative to other countries, industrial

applications, and the strategic propositions in those

activities. The results are outlined in the sequence of

testing three hypotheses followed by the correlation

coefficients. But before doing so, some analyses are

provided on the exploratory data in figures 2 to 4.

Figure 2 shows countries and international

organizations on the horizontal axis, and the percentage

weight capturing e-government announcements on the

vertical axis. This visual presentation is used for cross-

countries comparisons as well as relationships. From left

to right, World Bank and United National initiatives

cover 2% in contrast to the GCC (Gulf Cooperation

Council) about 20%. This makes it relevant and

important data set. At the country level, UAE is about

12% in contrast to the KSA which is only 1.4% of the

total. The gap between the UAE and KSA is huge but

not so surprising. The other countries in the region and

those that appear in the news related to the focal cases

are given in the rest of the bars. Malaysia appears more

than Singapore, which in turn appears even more than

Saudi in the context of the GCC. This gives a view of

the activities in general and shows the institutional

association in particular.

Figure 2. Cross-National Comparison

822

Figure 3 shows the ministries and functional sectors of

the two cases. On the horizontal axis are the ministries,

and on the vertical axis is the percentage weight each

sector attains in the total initiatives in the e-government.

From left to right, health sector, education,

commerce/trade, agricultural, financial, transport,

defence, reality estate and tourism were the focus of the

e-government announcements. Education, financial,

and commerce/trade received highest percentages,

39.6%, 39.5% and 37.5% respectively. This is followed

by Reality Estate (25.7%) and Health (21.9). Defence

(17%) and Agricultural/Farming (15.8%) are similar in

focus. Transport (9.1%) and Tourism (7.5%) are similar

in focus. This gives a gist of the focus of e-government

initiations and attention at the sector level.

Figure 3. Technological Functional Dimension

Figure 4 gives general as well as strategic motives based

on the purposes used in the announcements. On the

horizontal axis are multiple purposes and aims of the

initiatives. On the vertical axis are the percentage

weights these purposes receive in the focal focus.

Among all, the highest is given business improvements

and firms activities (49.6%). Administrative activities

received 11.8%. Citizen focused services (7.8%) and

result oriented projects (5%) received the third level of

focus. Efficiencies and effectiveness were in the range

of 2% to 3%. These were loser than the prevention of

failure and success (about 3%). The attention was given

to the paper work reduction processes. These are the

strategic purposes that set the context for the

quantitative analysis and results.

Figure 4. Strategic Goals in E-government

Table 1 shows descriptive statistics and correlation

coefficient. It is accumulative description of the two

cases. The first column shows all the variables included

in the test, both correlation and subsequent regressions.

The second and third columns present mean and

standard deviation summaries.

The rest of the columns show inter-variable correlations.

The assumption of autocorrelation has not be violated as

the correlation coefficient size has is less than half (r

<.5). This makes statistics valid for further analyses in

testing hypotheses.

823

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation

Table 2 shows results of a logistic regression on United

Arab Emirates. The first model in the table is based

model regressed on constant. The second model is

bivariate showing linkage between e-government and

the UAE. Model 2 shows time effect as control variable.

Model 3 through 5 show the results for three hypotheses

respectively. The first hypothesis is that institutional

factors influence on the e-government activities in the

UAE. The second hypothesis was that technological

functions influence e-government in the UAE, and the

third was the strategic motives influence it. Model 3 for

the first hypothesis shows partial confirmation.

Interestingly, the institutionally and geographically

proximal international institutions are positively

significant with UAE e-government activities (p<.05).

These are the members of the GCC countries. World

Bank is even highly significant (p<.001).

However, geographically and institutional distal

countries are negatively significant with the e-

government activities in the UAE (p<.001). Two

examples are the USA and the UK. These two countries

are the most active all socio-political and economic

activities in the region.

Model 4 shows sector significances. The result indicate

that health sector, education sector, defence sector and

commerce/trade sectors are positively significant

(p<.05) in the case of health and (p<.001) in the case of

education and defence. Commercial is significant at

(p<.01). However, telecommunication, agriculture,

reality, and tourism are either non-significant or

negatively significant. Model 5 shows non-significant

results in the case of efficiencies and effectives in the e-

government initiatives in the UAE. This suggests that

institutional and technological aspects partially

influence e-government, but the operational perspectives

do not. The last column in table 2 contains odd ratios for

cross-variable comparisons.

824

Table 2 United Arab Emirates E-government

Focus

Table 3 shows results of a logistic regression on the

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The test results are arranged

in table 3 similar to that in table 2 except the dependent

variable is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in table 3.

Following the sequence, models 3 to 5 test the three

hypotheses. Model 3 shows institutional influence on

the e-government. Although similar to the UAE in other

aspects, Oman is non-significant with the Kingdom at

(p<.05). World Bank and United Nation’s representation

is small in terms is small to be considered for the

analysis. Model 4 shows the influence of the sector on

the e-government activities in the Kingdom. In model 4,

the technological application sectors are shown.

Commerce/trade and financial sectors are significant at

(p<.001) and (p<.05) respectively. Others are non-

significant. Health and tourism sectors are absent

because insufficient sample size. Table 5 shows the role

of efficiencies and effectives. Unlike in UAE’s case,

effectives as a purpose behind e-government initiatives

in the KSA is highly significant (p<.001) and the

coefficient is significantly high (r = 1.78). However,

like in the UAE, efficiency motives are non-significiant

in the e-government in the Kingdom.

Table 3 Saudi Arabia E-government Focus

5. DISCUSSION

The paper began with two main purposes in mind:

exploratory purpose and explanatory purpose. The

reasoning behind exploratory approach was based on the

argument that despite there is hype in the e-government

initiatives and implementations in the two Gulf States,

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates;

little is systematically known on the ground. The

exploration of this study has established that there

indeed are some initiatives going on in reality and e-

government implementation is happening. Some of

these activities are similar between the two nations,

others are different, and yet in other UAE is more active

the Kingdom. Exploratory results depicted in figures 1

through 4, and correlation in table 1 set a context for

further systematic analysis for explanation to answer,

what is influencing these e-government activities.

The perspectives were based on a balance between

theory and non-theory approaches. Without some

framework guidance, the findings can lead to wider array

of concepts with lower level of relevance and use in the

contextualization process (Heeks & Bailur, 2007).

Therefore, the framework based on three sections

resulted from both the data and the prior theories (Heeks

& Bailur, 2007; Yldiz, 2007).

The findings suggest that in the UAE, the ratio of e-

government activities taking place is 2 times to the

activities not taking place. In KSA, the ratio of e-

government taking place is 1.6 times of not taking

places. The cross-nation ratio shows that the UAE to

KSA is 1.25 to 1 (UAE/KSA = 2/1.6). In other words,

825

there are more activities in the UAE than in the

Kingdom. This answers the first question whether there

is e-government, but it does not explain what is driving

it.

Findings in table 1 and 2 show interesting results.

First, in terms of institutions as influencing factors, the

two nations differ in diversity and intensity. In case of

UAE, there are more countries associated with its e-

government activities but the effect size is smaller. In

the case of KSA, there are fewer countries associated

with its activities, but the effect size is larger UAE. This

shows UAE is extensive while KSA is intensive in e-

government.

In the second segment of results, the situation is

similar. There are more sectors influencing the e-

government activities in UAE, but the size is relatively

small. In contrast, there are fewer sectors in Saudi

Arabia involved in e-government initiatives but the size

is larger than UAE. Other way put, there are more

sectors influence lesser pressure on the UAE, and there

are few sectors in KSA exerting more pressure on its e-

government. Finally, in efficiencies, UAE is larger in

size than the KSA, albeit both are non-significant in

efficiencies associated with their e-government

activities. In effective, KSA outweighs UAE in

significant and in size.

Intuitively said, UAE is a small country and

dependent on external resources. Its diverse response to

diverse requirements seems plausible. In contrast, KSA

is large and less diverse to the outside resources. So its

intensive focus seems plausible. On the global stage,

UAE is more in the news and coverage than the KSA in

terms of business, tourism and public policies. It

apparently is attaining more attraction. The first

inference is that both nations are weak in education

sector focused e-government. The next step is to further

conduct studies that are proximal to the people

interacting with the implementation of these e-

government projects. This will enable confirming and

strengthening the findings. The study as whole makes

theoretical, empirical and methodological contribution

with respect to the two case studies.

6. References [1] Agresti, A. 1996. An Introduction to Categorical

Data Analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

[2] Baliamousen-Lutz, M. 2003. An analysis of the

determinations and effects of ICT diffusion in

developing countries. Information Technology for

Development, 10: 151-169.

[3] Bekkers, V. J., & Zouridis, S. 1999. Electronic

serive delivery in public administration: Some trends

and issues. International Review of Administrative

Sciences, 65(2): 183-196. [4] Boisot, M. 1995. Information space: a framework for

learning in organizations, institutions and culture. London;

New York: Routledge.

[5] Castells, M. 1996. The rise of the network society.

Cambridge, Mass.; Oxford: Blackwell Publishers 1996.

Central, C., & Telecommunications, A. 1999. Managing

performance. Norwich: Format Publishing 1999.

[6] Connors, M. 1993. The race to the intelligent state:

towards the global information economy of 2005. Oxford,

UK; Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell Business.

[7] Dahlman Carl, J., Aubert, J.-E., & World Bank, I. 2001.

China and the knowledge economy: seizing the 21st

century. Washington, D.C.: World Bank 2001.

[8] Danziger, J. N., Dutton, W. H., & Kraemer, K. L. 1982.

Computers and politics: High Technology in American

local governments. New York: Columbia University Press.

[9] Datta, A. 2003. Information technology support for

knowledge management in the chemical process industry.

International Journal of Information Technology and

Management, 2: 111-121.

[10] Easterly, W., King, R., Levine, R., & Rebelo, S. 1991.

How do national polices affect long-run growth? A

research agenda. Working Paper Series: WPS 794,

Washington, DC:(The World Bank).

[11] Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case

study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4):

532-550.

[12] Heeks, R., & Bailur, S. 2007. Analyzing e-government

research: Perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods, and

practice. Government Information Quarterly, 24: 243-265.

[13] Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Ives, B. 1993. Organizing for

Global Competition: The Fit of Information Technology.

Decision Sciences, 24(3): 547.

[14] Kesar, S., & Jain, V. 2007. E-government

implementation challenges in the UK: a case study at the

Trading Standards Department. Electronic Government, an

International Journal, 4(5): 395-411.

[15] Perrow, C. 1967. A framework for the comparative

analysis of organizations. American Sociological Review,

32: 194-208.

[16] Porter, M. E. 2001. Strategy and the Internet. Harvard

Business Review, 79(3): 62-79.

[17] Porter, M. E., & Millar, V. E. 1985. How Information

gives you competitive advantage. Harvard Business

Review, 64(4): 149-160.

[18] Siew, L. S., & Leng, L. Y. 2003. E-Government in

Action: Singapore Case Study. Journal of Political

Marketing, 3/4: 19-30.

[19] Simon, H. 1959. Theories of Decision-Making in

Economics and behavioural science. American Economic

Review, 49: 253-283.

[20] Yldiz, M. 2007. E-government research: Reviewing

the literature, limitations, and ways forward.

Government Information Quarterly, 24: 646-665.

826