How does e-government development affect public trust in the government in China?

Abstract

Information technology has altered the way governments have traditionally governed, and there are differing perspectives on the influence of this shift on government trust. Using 2016, 2018, and 2020 China Family Panel Studies and Statistical Yearbook data, this paper explores how e-government development affects public trust in the government. According to this study, e-government development increases public trust in the government by approximately 1.9%. This might be because the development of e-government facilitates better government performance and encourages public interest in politics, both of which increase public trust in the government. The research examines the heterogeneity of different demographic groups and reveals that the beneficial effects of e-government development on public trust in government exist among young people, men, and people with high levels of government trust. These findings help explain the link between digital governance and political trust and have important policy implications for enhancing urban governance in the digital era.

Keywords

China digital governance e-government political trust

Introduction

Social and political trust is seen as a prerequisite for a good society (Levi and Stoker, 2000), and strengthening public trust in government is one of the primary goals of modern governance and has been the focus of a great deal of theory and research. Discussion of this issue has sparked several suggestions for government changes, including market-based or entrepreneurial reforms to achieve more effective government administration (Tolbert and Mossberger, 2006). Technology, especially e-government, is seen by many as an important method for improving public trust in government (Bannister and Connolly, 2011).

Many countries are currently looking for e-government applications to help increase citizens’ trust in the government. e-Government is viewed as a potentially transformational technology breakthrough capable of improving government services to citizens, increasing citizen satisfaction with the government, and possibly even helping reverse the trend of diminishing citizen trust in the government (Morgeson et al., 2011). However, some discrepancies exist in the research on the link between e-government development and citizen trust in the government. Some studies have reported positive impacts, arguing that the development of e-government increases public trust in government (Li and Shang, 2023), whereas others have reported no significant relationship between the two (Horsburgh et al., 2011), and some scholars have reported a negative relationship between them (Goldfinch et al., 2009). In modern society, public trust in government is vital in shaping the sustainability of citizen–government relations (Cai, 2023; Wang and Guan, 2023), and studying the shifts of public trust in government and its influencing factors is both theoretically and practically important. Moreover, previous research has focused mostly on Western countries, and the interpretative validity of the relevant findings in China needs to be reviewed. As a developing country undergoing rapid progress in information technology, investigating the impact of digital governance on citizens’ trust in government in China and how it works may have important value for other countries (Yang et al., 2021).

By utilizing 2016, 2018, and 2020 China Family Panel Studies (CFPS) and China Statistical Yearbook data, this study explores the effects and mechanisms of e-government development on public trust in government. The primary contributions of this study include the following. First, the majority of prior studies on this topic have focused on Western countries. This work examines the influence of China's e-government development on public trust in the government, offering new evidence for research on related issues. Second, this study highlights the importance of government performance and political interest in increasing public trust in the government. The study concludes that the advancement of e-government is beneficial for enhancing government performance and directing people's attention to political information, both of which increase public trust in government. Third, this study examines the heterogeneity of populations with different characteristics. The above analysis has substantial policy implications for improving government trust in the context of digital governance.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: The second section presents the literature review and research hypothesis, the third section presents the data and methodology used in the paper, the fourth section presents the empirical results, and the fifth section presents the discussion and conclusion.

Literature review and research hypothesis

Public trust in government

Trust is the psychological state of expectation that one person or group can rely on the words, promises, or statements of another person or group (Rousseau et al., 1998). To trust a person, a group, or an organization is to presume that they are reliable and expect that they will act as they should. As an important goal long pursued by modern public governance, government trust is the public's evaluation of government credibility generated through interaction with the government (Wang and Guan, 2023). Newton and Norris (2000) view trust in institutions as a central indicator of how the public potentially feels about their politics. From a micropsychological standpoint, government trust refers to the positive expectations and confidence that the public builds throughout their contact with the government. It typically derives from their assessment of the government's integrity and goodness and whether they believe the government is competent, effective, or professional in its decision-making (Grimmelikhuijsen, 2012; Miller and Listhaug, 1990).

Political trust has frequently been explained from two distinct perspectives: institutional and cultural theories. Institutional theory holds that political trust is endogenous and that trust in institutions is based on rationality, which depends on citizens’ evaluations of institutional performance (Mishler and Rose, 2001). Institutional theories emphasize how institutional performance influences trust, often focusing on objective and subjective assessments of political and economic performance, democratic processes, etc. (Verboord et al., 2025). According to this theory, the public's perception of the government's economic and political performance is a significant factor in determining their trust in the government (Porumbescu, 2016). That is, individuals’ trust in the government may change depending on their view of government performance (Moon, 2003; Morgeson and Petrescu, 2011; Welch et al., 2005), with positive performance increasing their level of trust because it is evidence of competence, while poor performance decreases their level of trust (Keele, 2007).

Cultural theory assumes that public trust in political institutions is exogenous and that institutional trust is an extension of interpersonal trust (Mishler and Rose, 2001). According to cultural theory, political trust is based on cultural values, and individual sociocultural values can shape the way people perceive institutions through social learning (Verboord et al., 2025). For example, Inglehart (1977) observes that in industrialized countries, political trust falls as materialist values give way to postmaterialist values. Tsfati and Ariely (2014) also reported that postmaterialist culture emphasizes individual rights, leading to increased criticism and scepticism of governmental institutions.

In recent years, the use of information technology in the government sector has resulted in a number of advantages, including increased government accountability to citizens, increased public access to information, and increased government efficiency (Carter and Bélanger, 2005). Information technology appears to offer governments the opportunity to enhance public trust by increasing administrative transparency, efficiency, and governmental performance (Moon, 2003). Moreover, the use of information technology promotes public political involvement behaviour (Boulianne, 2015), and it is predicted to increase citizens’ awareness and understanding of political concerns, potentially affecting their trust in government. This study attempts to explain how the development of e-government affects public trust in government under the trend of digitalization.

Impact of e-government development on public trust in government

Information technology is viewed as a catalyst for a revolution in government by integrating and sharing knowledge and resources to provide people with efficient, cost-effective, and transparent services (Weerakkody et al., 2016). e-Government refers to the use of the internet or other digital means by governments to integrate management and services to facilitate information dissemination, service delivery, and interaction (Ma and Wu, 2020). Countries such as the USA and the UK are currently promoting the growth of e-government, as well as the construction of digital government, to strengthen public trust in government (Li and Shang, 2023). As with other countries, China has actively promoted e-government to help the government obtain public support and legitimacy (Chen et al., 2023). Much of the current research in public administration highlights e-government's ability to change people's trust in government, although related studies have not achieved consistent findings.

Several studies have suggested that technology-driven change has the potential to increase citizen trust (Bannister and Connolly, 2011). Using case studies of e-government use in Seoul and the USA, Moon (2003) discovered that information technology is a potentially useful tool for governments to deliver services and help them restore public trust by improving transparency, cost efficiency, effectiveness, and policy engagement. Tolbert and Mossberger (2006) used Pew survey data to investigate the link between e-government use, views about e-government, and trust in government, and they reported that e-government can increase trust in the government by improving contact with citizens and perceived responsiveness. Li and Shang's (2023) study also revealed that citizens’ use of e-government was able to restore their trust in government by influencing their evaluations of government integrity, performance, and responsiveness.

However, in contrast to the view that e-government adoption will increase citizens’ trust in government, it has been argued that in some respects, the e-government revolution has yet to realize its potential to change public trust in government (West, 2004). Horsburgh et al. (2011), on the basis of an analysis of data from Australians and New Zealanders, reported that there was no relationship between trust in government agencies and various e-government functions. Morgeson et al. (2011) explored the relationship between e-government and citizens’ trust using data from 787 users of US federal government service terminals and the American Customer Satisfaction Index. The findings indicate that while e-government adoption may increase citizens’ confidence in the future performance of the government agencies with which they interact, it does not increase citizens’ satisfaction with agency interactions or their overall trust in the federal government. Furthermore, Goldfinch et al.'s (2009) survey of 438 telephone interviews in Australia and 500 telephone interviews in New Zealand revealed that lower levels of trust in government were connected with greater levels of specific forms of involvement, including e-government engagement.

Although some studies have explored the relationship between e-government development and public trust in government, there is still a lack of clarity about the link between the two. Moreover, previous studies have not explored in detail the channels through which e-government affects government trust, and relevant studies have focused mainly on Western countries. Using China as an example, this study investigates the influence of e-government development on public trust in the government and possible mechanisms, with the goal of providing reference for other countries to promote e-government to increase institutional trust.

Research hypothesis

e-Government has the potential to improve government performance and reduce citizens’ sense of alienation from the government (Im et al., 2014), which may affect public trust in the government. Existing studies have argued that e-government can enhance public trust in the government by bringing the government and citizens closer together (Pina et al., 2009). Thus, the study argues that the development of e-government has great potential to improve public trust in the government and proposes Hypothesis 1:

Hypothesis 1: e-Government development contributes to improving public trust in the government.

According to institutional theory, institutional performance is an important factor affecting government trust (Verboord et al., 2025). The transformation of traditional government administration to one that utilizes information technology to incorporate transparency and accountability into its work, functions, and activities has improved government services and increased efficiency (Mahmood et al., 2019). Information technology-driven government transformation may affect individuals’ trust in government by improving government performance. Porumbescu (2016) and Mahmood et al. (2020) reported that the development of e-government can alter individuals’ perceptions of public sector performance, consequently influencing their trust in the government. Thus, this study argues that the development of e-government is conducive to improving government performance, thereby enhancing public trust in the government, and proposes Hypothesis 2:

Hypothesis 2: e-Government development improves public trust in the government by enhancing government performance.

Cultural theory views trust as exogenous, resulting from standards outside the political arena that individuals absorb during the socialization process. From this perspective, trust is influenced by various elements, including sociodemographic characteristics, the national context, religion, and subjective perceptions of welfare. Mass media, as a socialization medium, can build or erode trust by exaggerating or downplaying events involving political players and institutions (Lissitsa, 2021). At present, the internet is gradually becoming an important tool for citizens to share and receive political information and current affairs (Chen et al., 2016). e-Government websites allow citizens to better understand the capabilities of government and the reasons for its actions, which can help reduce citizens’ feelings of alienation from government work and potentially increase citizens’ trust in government (Tolbert and Mossberger, 2006). While citizens understand that the information provided on government websites is subjective, they are more likely to trust the government and its services if they are aware of its activities (Mahmood et al., 2019). Thus, this study argues that the development of e-government can improve the public's trust in government by promoting their political interests and proposes Hypothesis 3:

Hypothesis 3: e-Government development improves public trust in the government by promoting people's political interests.

Furthermore, the study takes into account the variation among different groups. First, age and gender have been identified as major demographic variables influencing the adoption of information technology and related applications (Okunola et al., 2017). It is widely assumed that younger generations are more tech-savvy than older generations are (Reddick et al., 2020). A study by Gauld et al. (2010) revealed that the older an individual is, the lower the level of use and support for information technology and e-government are. Moreover, research has indicated that compared with women, men use search engines to access information more frequently (Bonfadelli, 2002) and use e-government portals more often (Venkatesh et al., 2014). Thus, this study argues that the younger generations and men are more likely to benefit from the development of e-government, resulting in an increase in their trust in government, and proposes Hypotheses 4 and 5:

Hypothesis 4: The development of e-government improves young people's trust in the government.

Hypothesis 5: The development of e-government improves men's trust in government.

Second, echo chamber theory states that people tend to consume content that reinforces their beliefs (Garrett, 2009). According to echo chamber theory, individuals actively seek media content that tends to echo their own ideology. As a result, those who are more satisfied with government institutions are more inclined to seek out information that supports their original beliefs, whereas people who are critical of political institutions will seek out similar information (Lissitsa, 2021). Parent et al. (2005) argued that individuals with pre-existing trust in government and high levels of internal self-efficacy will have their trust reinforced through electronic interactions with government, whereas distrustful, low self-efficacy individuals will not experience an increase in trust regardless of the interaction medium. Thus, the study argues that the positive impact of e-government development on public political trust may exist only in the population with a high level of trust in the government and proposes Hypothesis 6:

Hypothesis 6: The positive impact of e-government development on public trust in the government exists among people with high levels of trust in the government.

Data, variables, and methods

Data

The individual-level data utilized in this paper are drawn from the 2016, 2018, and 2020 China Family Panel Studies. The CFPS, conducted by the Institute of Social Science Survey at Peking University, covers all members of a sample household and aims to collect data at the individual, family, and community levels, including information on economic activity, education, work, and health. Compared with cross-sectional data, mixed cross-sectional data can increase sample size, improve sample representativeness, and yield more precise estimates and test statistics (Wooldridge, 2015). As a result, in this study, the CFPS data from different years were merged for empirical analysis. Moreover, the provincial characteristic data utilized in the study were obtained from the China Statistical Yearbook, and after the individual and provincial data were matched, 17,310 final valid samples were used for empirical analysis.

In this study, the level of e-government development in each province is measured using the government's ability to provide government services online. The index is constructed by the E-Government Research Center of the Party School of the Communist Party of China Central Committee (National Academy of Governance) on the basis of the United Nations E-Government Survey and Assessment Framework. The index takes into account the coverage, accuracy, and maturity of online services, allowing for a more thorough assessment of each province's e-government development.

To measure public trust in the government, individuals’ trust in local officials is selected. “How would you rate your level of trust in local government officials?” with 0–10 representing very distrustful to very trustful, respectively. This indicator was chosen because local government officials and managers play an essential role in encouraging e-government adoption and popularization (Reddick et al., 2011).

For government performance, the paper uses public evaluations of government performance as a measure. “What is your overall assessment of the work of your county, city, or district government over the past year?” where 1–5 represent much achievement, some achievement, not much achievement, no achievement, and worse than before, respectively. For ease of understanding, the paper transposes the indicator, meaning that the larger the value is, the greater the public's evaluation of government performance. Moreover, for individual political interests, the paper utilizes the frequency with which individuals use the internet for political information. Specifically, the study uses individuals’ responses to the following question: “How many days in the past week did you learn about politics through online news?”

In addition, the paper controls for provincial characteristic variables, including population size and gross regional product per capita, as well as individual characteristic variables, including gender, age, and income. Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of the variables used in the paper. The mean value of public trust in the government is 4.933, indicating that overall, the public has a moderate level of trust in the government. Moreover, the average level of e-government development in the sample areas is 81.967.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics of variables.

Variable	Observations	Mean	Standard deviation	Minimum	Maximum
Characteristics of individuals
Public trust in government	17,310	4.933	2.570	0	10
Public evaluation of government performance	17,048	3.399	0.923	1	5
Public interest in political information	13,204	4.237	2.845	0	7
Age	17,310	38.040	12.183	16	83
Marital status^a	17,310	0.740	0.439	0	1
Gender^b	17,310	0.587	0.492	0	1
Type of household registration^c	17,310	0.283	0.450	0	1
Years of education	17,310	9.952	4.755	0	22
Political identity^d	17,310	0.035	0.184	0	1
Annual income of work (yuan/year)	17,310	36,319.73	27,351.63	1400	195,600
Characteristics of provinces
e-Government development level	93	81.967	7.969	56.33	95.38
Gross regional product per capita (yuan)	93	64,268.76	29,083.92	27,643	164,889
Population size (10,000)	93	4501.613	2899.03	331	12,624
Unemployment rate (%)	93	3.218	0.609	1.4	4.6

According to the individual's marital status: married is assigned a value of 1, and otherwise 0.

According to the individual's gender: men are assigned a value of 1 and women 0.

According to the individual's household type: non-agricultural households are assigned a value of 1, and agricultural households are assigned a value of 0.

According to whether the individual is a member of the party: the party member is assigned a value of 1; otherwise, it is 0.

Econometric model

To investigate the impact of e-government development on public trust in government, a model (1) is constructed as follows:

G o v e r n m e n t_t r u s t_{p i t} = σ_{0} + σ_{1} e_g o v e r n m e n t_{p t} + σ_{2} X_{p t} + σ_{3} Y_{p i t} + δ_{p} + θ_{t} + μ_{p i t}

(1)

where

G o v e r n m e n t_t r u s t_{p i t}

is the level of trust in the government of individual i in province p in year t;

e_g o v e r n m e n t_{p t}

is the level of e-government development in province p in year t; X_pt is the provincial characteristic variable of province p in year t, such as gross regional product per capita and population size;

Y_{p i t}

is the individual characteristic variable of individual i in province p in year t, such as age, gender, and marital status;

δ_{p}

is the provincial fixed effect;

θ_{t}

is the year fixed effect; and μ _pit is the residual term. Furthermore, the research uses mediation modelling to investigate whether the development of e-government improves individuals’ trust in the government through channels such as improving government performance and increasing individuals’ political interest.

Results

The impact of e-government development on public trust in government

Table 2 presents the effect of e-government development on public trust in government. Column (1) considers only individual characteristics, and it is clear that the improvement in the level of e-government significantly promotes public trust in the government. The results in Column (2), which introduce provincial characteristic factors, continue to show that the development of e-government is conducive to increasing public trust in the government, further confirming Hypothesis 1. In terms of economic implications, for every increase by one standard deviation in the level of e-government development, public trust in government increases by 1.9%. Furthermore, the level of individual trust in the government increases as annual income from work increases, and party members have a higher level of trust in the government.

Table 2.

The impact of e-government development on public trust in government.

	Public trust in government
	(1)	(2)
Log (e-government development level)	0.752*	1.068**
	(0.421)	(0.434)
Age	−0.065***	−0.066***
	(0.012)	(0.012)
Age × Age	0.001***	0.001***
	(0.000)	(0.000)
Marital status	−0.173***	−0.173***
	(0.056)	(0.056)
Gender	−0.179***	−0.178***
	(0.040)	(0.040)
Type of household registration	−0.113**	−0.113**
	(0.046)	(0.046)
Years of education	0.016***	0.016***
	(0.005)	(0.005)
Political identity	0.901***	0.898***
	(0.106)	(0.106)
Log (annual income of work)	0.066***	0.067***
	(0.024)	(0.024)
Log (gross regional product per capita)		−0.338
		(0.405)
Log (population size)		−1.578**
		(0.620)
Unemployment rate		0.124
		(0.081)
Constant	1.624	15.987**
	(1.905)	(6.857)
Provincial fixed effect	Yes	Yes
Year fixed effect	Yes	Yes
Observations	17,310	17,310
R ²	0.046	0.047

Note: Standard errors in parentheses, *p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.

Robustness tests

Instrumental variable estimates

To strengthen the robustness of the results, this paper performs instrumental variable estimation. The degree of terrain slope is an important factor affecting the construction of information infrastructure (Kolko, 2012), and the development of e-government depends on the development of information infrastructure. The distance to coastal ports influences regional socioeconomic development, urbanization, and other factors (Christensen and McCord, 2016) and also affects the development of e-government in the region. Moreover, the terrain slope and the distance to the coastal port comprise intrinsic geographic information for regions that can match the exogenous assumptions of instrumental variables. Thus, in this paper, the terrain slope and the distance to the nearest coastal port in each province are used as instrumental variables for e-government development. In the empirical study, this paper refers to the method of Angrist and Krueger (1991) and introduces the interaction terms of the above variables with the year dummy variable as an instrumental variable into the model, using the two-stage least squares (2SLS) method for analysis. Columns (1) and (2) of Table 3 show the results of the analysis.

Table 3.

Results of the analysis of instrumental variables.

	2SLS		LIML
	The first-stage	The second-stage	Public trust in government
	e-Government development level	Public trust in government	Public trust in government
	(1)	(2)	(3)
Terrain slope × Year dummy variable	−0.008***(0.001)
Distance to the nearest coastal port × Year dummy variable	−0.001*(0.000)
Log (e-government development level)		3.097*	3.103*
Log (e-government development level)		(1.850)	(1.855)
Constant	1.426***	11.988	11.976
	(0.154)	(7.736)	(7.741)
Individual characteristic factors	Yes	Yes	Yes
Provincial characteristic factors	Yes	Yes	Yes
Provincial fixed effect	Yes	Yes	Yes
Year fixed effect	Yes	Yes	Yes
Observations	17,310	17,310	17,310
R ²	0.768	0.046	0.046

Note: Standard errors in parentheses, *p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.

2SLS, two-stage least squares; LIML, limited information maximum likelihood.

The regression results of the first stage show that the instrumental variables are significantly negatively correlated with the development level of regional e-government. The underidentification test reveals that the p-value of the Kleibergen–Paap rk LM statistic is 0.000, rejecting the null hypothesis of being unidentifiable. Furthermore, the weak instrumental variable test demonstrates that the Cragg–Donald Wald F statistic surpasses the Stock–Yogo test's critical value at the 10% level, rejecting the null hypothesis of the weak instrumental variable. The second-stage instrumental variable estimation results are similar to those of the benchmark regression. To improve the robustness of the analysis, this study uses the limited information maximum likelihood (LIML) method, which is insensitive to weak instrumental variables. Column (3) reveals that the estimated coefficients of LIML are extremely close to those of 2SLS, implying that there are no weak instrumental variables.

Propensity score matching method

The study employs the propensity score matching approach to address selection bias. First, it converts the e-government development variable into a dummy variable, assigning a value of 1 to regions above the median level of e-government development in each year and 0 to those below or equal to the median. The study performs 1:1 nearest neighbor matching on the treatment group samples, with the caliper radius set to 0.05, and the logit model is used to estimate the propensity score. The kernel density functions before and after matching between the treated and control groups are shown in Figure 1. There is a difference in the kernel density function between the two groups before matching, while the kernel density function of the two groups is closer after matching, indicating that the variable characteristics of the two groups are similar after matching.

Figure 1.

Kernel density of the treated and control groups.

The average treatment effects on the treated group revealed that the level of trust in the government in the treatment group was significantly greater than that in the control group, with a difference of 0.163 (the t-value is 2.98). The results still support the study's hypothesis.

Ordered logit model

Considering that the explanatory variables in this paper are ordinal variables, a robustness test is carried out using the ordered logit model, and the results of the analysis are shown in Table 4. Column (1) presents the results of the analysis controlling only for individual characteristics, and it can be seen that the development of e-government has increased public trust in the government. The results in Column (2), with the further addition of provincial characteristics, still indicate that the development of e-government improves public trust in the government. The above results again validate the paper's findings.

Table 4.

Ordered logit model analysis results.

	Public trust in government
	(1)	(2)
Log (e-government development level)	0.632**	0.864***
	(0.299)	(0.306)
Individual characteristic factors	Yes	Yes
Provincial characteristic factors	/	Yes
Provincial fixed effect	Yes	Yes
Year fixed effect	Yes	Yes
Observations	17,310	17,310
Pseudo R²	0.011	0.011
Wald χ²	837.15	839.19
Probability > χ²	0.000	0.000

Note: Standard errors in parentheses, *p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.

How e-government development affects public trust in government

This paper further examines the possible mechanism through which the development of e-government affects public trust in the government, and the results are shown in Table 5. Columns (1) and (2) test whether e-government development improves public trust in government by contributing to government performance. Column (1) analyses the impact of e-government development on government performance, and the results indicate that e-government development significantly improved government performance. Column (2) further controls for the mediating variable of government performance based on the benchmark regression, and the results show that e-government development and the improvement of public evaluation of government performance have a positive effect on public trust in government. Moreover, this study further tested the significance of the mediating effect of government performance using the bootstrap method (bootstrap random sampling set at 5000 times). The results indicate that the mediating effect of government performance is significantly positive, with an indirect effect of 0.311 (p = 0.041), and the 95% confidence interval does not include 0. The above findings confirm Hypothesis 2 that e-government development enhances public trust in government by promoting government performance.

Table 5.

How e-government development affects public trust in government.

	Public evaluation of government performance	Public trust in government	Public interest in political information	Public trust in government
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
Log (e-government development level)	0.332**(0.162)	0.779*(0.416)	1.763***(0.555)	0.992**(0.484)
Public evaluation of government performance		0.936***(0.022)
Public interest in political information				0.058***(0.008)
Constant	2.408	13.405**	6.975	18.325**
	(2.442)	(6.564)	(8.424)	(7.547)
Individual characteristic factors	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Provincial characteristic factors	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Provincial fixed effect	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Year fixed effect	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Observations	17,048	17,048	13,204	13,204
R ²	0.031	0.157	0.075	0.060

Note: Standard errors in parentheses, *p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.

Columns (3) and (4) test whether e-government development improves public trust in government by promoting public political interest. Column (3) analyses the impact of e-government development on the public's interest in politics, and the results indicate that e-government development significantly increases the public's interest in political information. Column (4) further controls for the mediating variable of the public's political interest based on the benchmark regression, and the results show that e-government development and an increase in the public's interest in political information positively affect the public's trust in government. Moreover, the bootstrap test results indicate that the mediating effect of the public's political interest is significantly positive, with an indirect effect of 0.103 (p = 0.004), and the 95% confidence interval does not include 0. The above findings confirm Hypothesis 3 that e-government development improves public trust in the government by increasing the public's political interest.

Heterogeneity test

Finally, the heterogeneity of different populations is explored. Columns (1) and (2) in Table 6 show the results of the heterogeneity analysis for different age groups. The results show that for young people (under 60 years old), the development of e-government has increased their trust in the government, while the impact on older people (60 years and older) has not been significant. Columns (3) and (4) of Table 6 present the results of the heterogeneity analyses for different gender groups. The results show that for men, the development of e-government has increased their trust in the government, while the impact on women has not been significant. The above findings confirm Hypotheses 4 and 5.

Table 6.

Heterogeneity analysis results.

	Public trust in government
	60 years old and above	Under 60 years old	Men	Women	Individuals with high government trust	Individuals with low government trust
	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
Log (e-government development level)	−3.208	1.191***	1.247**	0.825	1.857***	−0.181
Log (e-government development level)	(2.799)	(0.441)	(0.577)	(0.656)	(0.403)	(0.373)
Constant	56.856*	14.330**	19.527**	12.320	27.601***	26.124***
	(34.380)	(7.009)	(9.435)	(9.881)	(5.977)	(6.147)
Individual characteristic factors	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Provincial characteristic factors	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Provincial fixed effect	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Year fixed effect	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Observations	825	16,485	10,169	7141	6323	10,987
R ²	0.084	0.046	0.055	0.047	0.093	0.052

Note: Standard errors in parentheses, *p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.

Additionally, the heterogeneity of the population with different levels of government trust is analysed. In this study, the sample is divided into two groups on the basis of median government trust in different years and regions: individuals with high levels of government trust (those whose trust in the government is greater than the median) and individuals with low levels of government trust (those whose trust in the government is less than or equal to the median). The results in Columns (5) and (6) of Table 6 reveal that e-government development increases trust in the government for individuals who already have a high level of trust, but the impact is not significant for those who have a low level of trust in the government. This finding confirms Hypothesis 6.

Discussion and conclusion

Information technology is now playing an increasingly essential role in public administration, and e-government platforms are rapidly becoming vital tools for authorities to communicate directly with the public and to transmit large amounts of information to them. Using 2016, 2018, and 2020 CFPS and China Statistical Yearbook data, this study explores the impact of e-government development on public trust in the government. The results of this study reveal that e-government development increases public trust in the government and that public trust in the government can increase by approximately 1.9%. This positive impact may be explained by the development of e-government being conducive to improving government performance and increasing public interest in political information, thus improving public trust in the government. This paper further analyses the heterogeneity of this effect and reveals that a positive effect of e-government development on public trust in the government exists among young people, men, and those who have a high level of trust in the government.

This study aims to contribute to the ongoing debate by exploring how e-government development affects public trust in the government. The findings of this study support the opinions of Tolbert and Mossberger (2006), Li and Shang (2023), and others, who believe that e-government development increases government trust. This study, which draws on institutional and cultural theory, examines how e-government development influences public trust in the government, offering a new perspective for understanding the relationship between the two.

The findings of this study have significant practical implications for other countries seeking to build or restore political trust through digital methods. It highlights the positive impact of e-government development and demonstrates the importance of channels such as generating political interest in promoting political trust. Specifically, first, the development of e-government will make governments more flexible, efficient, and open; overcome time and geographical barriers; and offer more high-quality governmental services to society. The use of information technology allows governments to run more effectively and deliver better services, which helps to improve the public's perception of the government. As a result, it is critical to fully exploit the role of e-government in enhancing service delivery performance so that citizens may perceive an increase in government performance under digital governance, allowing them to improve their trust in the government.

Second, new digital platforms have broadened residents' access to political information. Social media and other online channels enable residents to access information about government activities, public policies, and the operational performance of the political system more easily. Increased exposure to information about the public sector may shape how individuals evaluate government, as such information is often used as a heuristic for assessing governmental efficacy and integrity. As a result, emphasis should be placed on the use of information technology platforms to spark the public's interest in politics and encourage residents to learn more about government information and relevant policies, thereby creating favourable conditions for increasing their trust in the government.

Third, we should also note that the impact of the use of e-government on citizens’ trust in the government is limited, and its positive impact seems to be confined to groups such as young people and those who are initially inclined to trust the government. As a result, the focus should be given to groups such as citizens with lower levels of trust in government, and boosting their level of trust in the government is a vital step towards building a positive connection between the government and the public. More studies are needed to better understand the benefits that diverse populations gain from using e-government, as well as its association with citizens’ perceptions of the public sector.

Furthermore, while the rapid expansion of e-government has given many benefits to urban governance, it has also faced many challenges, such as cybersecurity and service quality, which may affect citizens’ trust in the government. Thus, in the process of e-government development, it is crucial to better realize data security, ensure service quality, etc.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Qimeng Cai

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Qimeng Cai is a lecturer at the School of Politics and Public Administration, Zhengzhou University. Her research focuses on digital governance and public policy.

References

Angrist

Krueger

(1991) Does compulsory school attendance affect schooling and earnings? The Quarterly Journal of Economics 106(4): 979–1014.

Bannister

Connolly

(2011) Trust and transformational government: a proposed framework for research. Government Information Quarterly 28(2): 137–147.

Bonfadelli

(2002) The internet and knowledge gaps: a theoretical and empirical investigation. European Journal of Communication 17(1): 65–84.

Boulianne

(2015) Social media use and participation: a meta-analysis of current research. Information, Communication & Society 18(5): 524–538.

Cai

(2023) Public trust in the Chinese government and life satisfaction during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. International Review of Administrative Sciences 89(4): 1165–1185.

Carter

Bélanger

(2005) The utilization of e-government services: citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors. Information Systems Journal 15: 5–25.

Chen

Chan

Lee

(2016) Social media use and democratic engagement: a comparative study of Hong Kong, Taiwan, and China. Chinese Journal of Communication 9(4): 348–366.

Chen

Liang

, et al. (2023) Responsive e-government in China: a way of gaining public support. Government Information Quarterly 40(3): 101809.

Christensen

McCord

(2016) Geographic determinants of China’s urbanization. Regional Science and Urban Economics 59: 90–102.

10.

Garrett

(2009) Echo chambers online?: politically motivated selective exposure among internet news users. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14(2): 265–285.

11.

Gauld

Goldfinch

Horsburgh

(2010) Do they want it? Do they use it? The ‘demand-side’of e-Government in Australia and New Zealand. Government Information Quarterly 27(2): 177–186.

12.

Goldfinch

Gauld

Herbison

(2009) The participation divide? Political participation, trust in government, and e-government in Australia and New Zealand. Australian Journal of Public Administration 68(3): 333–350.

13.

Grimmelikhuijsen

(2012) Linking transparency, knowledge and citizen trust in government: an experiment. International Review of Administrative Sciences 78(1): 50–73.

14.

Horsburgh

Goldfinch

Gauld

(2011) Is public trust in government associated with trust in e-government? Social Science Computer Review 29(2): 232–241.

15.

Cho

Porumbescu

, et al. (2014) Internet, trust in government, and citizen compliance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 24(3): 741–763.

16.

Inglehart

(1977) Political dissatisfaction and mass support for social change in advanced industrial society. Comparative Political Studies 10(3): 455–472.

17.

Keele

(2007) Social capital and the dynamics of trust in government. American Journal of Political Science 51(2): 241–254.

18.

Kolko

(2012) Broadband and local growth. Journal of Urban Economics 71(1): 100–113.

19.

Levi

Stoker

(2000) Political trust and trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science 3(1): 475–507.

20.

Shang

(2023) How does e-government use affect citizens’ trust in government? Empirical evidence from China. Information & Management 60(7): 103844.

21.

Lissitsa

(2021) Effects of digital use on trust in political institutions among ethnic minority and hegemonic group—A case study. Technology in Society 66: 101633.

22.

(2020) Citizen engagement and co-production of e-government services in China. Journal of Chinese Governance 5(1): 68–89.

23.

Mahmood

Weerakkody

Chen

(2019) The influence of transformed government on citizen trust: insights from Bahrain. Information Technology for Development 25(2): 275–303.

24.

Mahmood

Weerakkody

Chen

(2020) The role of information and communications technology in the transformation of government and citizen trust. International Review of Administrative Sciences 86(4): 708–728.

25.

Miller

Listhaug

(1990) Political parties and confidence in government: a comparison of Norway, Sweden and the United States. British Journal of Political Science 20(3): 357–386.

26.

Mishler

Rose

(2001) What are the origins of political trust? Testing institutional and cultural theories in post-communist societies. Comparative Political Studies 34(1): 30–62.

27.

Moon

(2003) Can IT help government to restore public trust? Declining public trust and potential prospects of IT in the public sector. In: Sprague

(ed.) Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2003). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society, Article 1174303.

28.

Morgeson

Petrescu

(2011) Do they all perform alike? An examination of perceived performance, citizen satisfaction and trust with US federal agencies. International Review of Administrative Sciences 77(3): 451–479.

29.

Morgeson

VanAmburg

Mithas

(2011) Misplaced trust? Exploring the structure of the e-government-citizen trust relationship. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21(2): 257–283.

30.

Newton

Norris

(2000) Confidence in public institutions: faith, culture, or performance? In: Pharr

Putnam

(eds) Disaffected Democracies: What’s Troubling the Trilateral Democracies? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 52–73.

31.

Okunola

Rowley

Johnson

(2017) The multi-dimensional digital divide: perspectives from an e-government portal in Nigeria. Government Information Quarterly 34(2): 329–339.

32.

Parent

Vandebeek

Gemino

(2005) Building citizen trust through e-government. Government Information Quarterly 22(4): 720–736.

33.

Pina

Torres

Royo

(2009) E-government evolution in EU local governments: a comparative perspective. Online Information Review 33(6): 1137–1168.

34.

Porumbescu

(2016) Placing the effect? Gleaning insights into the relationship between citizens’ use of e-government and trust in government. Public Management Review 18(10): 1504–1535.

35.

Reddick

Abdelsalam

Elkadi

(2011) The influence of e-government on administrative discretion: the case of local governments in Egypt. Public Administration and Development 31(5): 390–407.

36.

Reddick

Enriquez

Harris

, et al. (2020) Determinants of broadband access and affordability: an analysis of a community survey on the digital divide. Cities 106: 102904.

37.

Rousseau

Sitkin

Burt

, et al. (1998) Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review 23(3): 393–404.

38.

Tolbert

Mossberger

(2006) The effects of e-government on trust and confidence in government. Public Administration Review 66(3): 354–369.

39.

Tsfati

Ariely

(2014) Individual and contextual correlates of trust in media across 44 countries. Communication Research 41(6): 760–782.

40.

Venkatesh

Sykes

Venkatraman

(2014) Understanding e-government portal use in rural India: role of demographic and personality characteristics. Information Systems Journal 24(3): 249–269.

41.

Verboord

Janssen

Kristensen

, et al. (2025) Institutional trust and media use in times of cultural backlash: a cross-national study in nine European countries. The International Journal of Press/Politics 30(3): 752–774.

42.

Wang

Guan

(2023) Can sunlight disperse mistrust? A meta-analysis of the effect of transparency on citizens’ trust in government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 33(3): 453–467.

43.

Weerakkody

Omar

El-Haddadeh

, et al. (2016) Digitally-enabled service transformation in the public sector: the lure of institutional pressure and strategic response towards change. Government Information Quarterly 33(4): 658–668.

44.

Welch

Hinnant

Moon

(2005) Linking citizen satisfaction with e-government and trust in government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15(3): 371–391.

45.

West

(2004) E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review 64(1): 15–27.

46.

Wooldridge

(2015) Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach, 6th ed. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

47.

Yang

Dong

Chen

(2021) Government’s economic performance fosters trust in government in China: assessing the moderating effect of respect for authority. Social Indicators Research 154: 545–558.