From Digits to Delight: Unravelling the Inﬂuence of E-Government Maturity on Public Happiness in Indonesia

Abstract

This study investigates the impact of e-Government initiatives on public happiness through ordered probit analysis. Utilizing data from two distinct sources—a survey measuring happiness levels and a provincial e-Government Index—the research uncovers significant insights. Specifically, it identifies a notable negative relationship between the advancement of e-Government initiatives and public happiness levels. Robustness tests, instrumental variable analyses, and heterogeneity assessments further substantiate these findings. Moreover, this study contributes to the ongoing discourse on the influence of technological advancements in public sector on citizen happiness. It underscores the necessity for nuanced policy interventions to align technological progress with societal welfare objectives. These findings offer valuable guidance for policymakers navigating the evolving landscape of digital governance practices in their pursuit of enhancing citizen well-being.

Keywords

e-government maturity subjective well-being public happiness Indonesia

Keypoints for Practitioners

Governments must address technical aspects while ensuring accessibility, transparency, and usability for all citizens.

Governments need a balanced approach, considering efficiency and equity, aiming for optimal outcomes in service delivery, accountability, and citizen satisfaction.

It is important to implement robust measurement frameworks is essential for continuously assessing citizen perceptions and experiences of e-Government services.

Introduction

The pursuit of happiness and the strategies for achieving greater happiness have become increasingly pertinent in contemporary policy and governance studies (Diener et al., 2003; Helliwell et al., 2020). This shift reflects a broader recognition among policymakers and scholars that happiness is not merely an abstract concept but a vital component of public policy that can significantly influence societal well-being (Stiglitz et al., 2009; Veenhoven, 2010). The rising emphasis on happiness as a subjective well-being indicator is driven by the limitations of traditional economic indicators, such as GDP, which fail to capture overall welfare and the negative impacts of harmful consumption (Diener, 1984; Graham, 2012; Stiglitz et al., 2009). However, the adoption of public happiness as a policy objective remains contested due to concerns about measurability. Critics argue that happiness, as a mental state, lacks observable ordering and transitivity, making effective measurement difficult (Angner, 2013). The opponents also contend that happiness is complex, multifaceted, and a long-term activity rather than a set of mental states, challenging simple metrics (Angier, 2015). On the other hands, the proponents argue that happiness is measurable, supported by methodological advancements and growing consensus on its measurability (Frey, 2018; Helliwell et al., 2023; Stiglitz et al., 2009). For over six decades, univariable metrics have been used to quantify happiness, gaining broad acceptance in social sciences (Delsignore et al., 2021), reinforcing happiness's relevance in public policy.

The shift in the public sector toward a more citizen-focused approach reflects a growing recognition of the importance of aligning government services with the expectations and experiences of the public. Drawing from the private sector's emphasis on service quality and responsiveness, the reinventing government movement—emerging in the late 1980s—advocates reorienting public administration to prioritize the needs of end users (Ho, 2002). Within this framework, Osborne and Gaebler (1992) argue that citizens should be treated as “customers,” placing them at the center of service design and delivery. In the digital age, e-government embodies this movement by promoting citizen-oriented governance—enhancing internal efficiency while reorganizing services externally around users’ needs, thus moving beyond bureaucratic convenience to deliver greater public value (Ho, 2002; Layne & Lee, 2001).

Unfortunately, despite the increasing recognition of happiness as a fundamental policy objective and the growing adoption of e-government, research on their relationship remains limited (Al Ali et al., 2020; Moynihan et al., 2015; Shamsi et al., 2018; Welby, 2019). Specifically, the impact of e-government maturity on happiness and quality of life remains unclear and underexplored, revealing a gap in understanding its broader benefits (Khan, 2024a). Addressing this gap is crucial for policymakers and researchers to better understand how digital transformation influences societal well-being.

This study addresses the research gap by analyzing the societal impact of digital transformation, particularly the relationship between e-government maturity and public happiness in Indonesia, using national-level data. First, by focusing on e-government maturity—assessed by the Ministry of State Apparatus Empowerment and Bureaucratic Reform—rather than users’ subjective evaluations, as in Al Ali et al. (2020) and Fan et al. (2022), this study provides a more standardized measure of e-government initiatives. This approach allows for a deeper understanding of local governments’ readiness and capacity to deliver effective digital services and their broader implications for societal well-being. Second, while prior research (Ahangama & Krishnan, 2023; Karpenko et al., 2023; Khan, 2024b; Welby, 2019) has examined the relationship between digital government transformation and well-being, this study specifically investigates its impact on public happiness, offering a more targeted contribution to the literature. Additionally, unlike previous studies that primarily focus on the national level (Ahangama & Krishnan, 2023; Ionescu-Feleagă et al., 2022; Karpenko et al., 2023; Khan, 2024b), this research conducts a subnational-level analysis, enabling more granular insights. In the Indonesian context, this study provides broader generalizability than that of Frinaldi et al. (2023), which focuses solely on The National Agency for Drug and Food Control (NADFC), and Assyahri and Frinaldi (2021), which examines a single regency-level agency.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 conducts a literature review, while Section 3 delineates the methodology employed. Section 4 presents the findings, followed by Section 5, which presents discussions and implications. Finally, Section 6 concludes the study.

Literature Review

This section will delve into established theories of happiness, identifies key determinants influencing happiness levels, and critically examines the potential impact of e-government maturity on overall happiness of the citizenry.

Happiness is a complex, multidimensional construct shaped by life evaluations, social comparisons, and access to resources (Shin & Johnson, 1978). It is often conflated with related concepts such as life satisfaction, with some scholars using these terms interchangeably (Ebrahim et al., 2013). Veenhoven (2015) even considers happiness synonymous with life satisfaction and subjective well-being. Meanwhile, others consider happiness and life satisfaction as components of SWB (Murillo Muñoz & Rentería, 2023). In this study, however, we adopt the perspective that life satisfaction is a component of happiness. The integration of life satisfaction into the happiness construct reflects the conceptualization of happiness used in the 2021 national survey on happiness levels, which serves as the main data source for this study. It is also consistent with with the conceptual foundations of the hedonic perspective on happiness, which will be discussed in more detail below.

Happiness is understood in multiple ways, ranging from a mood associated with good health to a mental state that individuals can consciously influence (Rodríguez-Hernández, 2019). Thus, happiness is examined within subjective well-being studies, which assess personal evaluations of life overall (Diener, 1984; Diener et al., 2010). Two prominent perspectives dominate the field: hedonic and eudaimonic perspective (Ryan & Deci, 2001). The hedonic perspective on happiness prioritizes positive emotions and overall life satisfaction, underscoring the importance of participating in enjoyable activities that satisfy desires and boost pleasure (Kahneman, 1999). Meanwhile, the concept of eudaimonia, rooted in Aristotelian philosophy (Ryan & Deci, 2001; Waterman, 2013), addresses both the content and the process of living a fulfilling life (Ryan et al., 2013). It entails aligning one's life with their authentic self and actualizing personal potentials. It is associated with meaning, purpose, and high functioning (DeHaan & Ryan, 2014; Lomas & VanderWeele, 2023; Rodríguez-Hernández, 2019). Happiness is also culturally constructed. In Western contexts like the U.S., it is often associated with the fulfillment of desires, whereas in East Asia and Europe, it is more closely linked to concepts of good fortune (Oishi, 2010). Importantly, happiness is not only an individual pursuit but also a collective policy goal, as governments seek to improve the well-being of their citizens (Sizer, 2010; Tandoc & Takahashi, 2013).

At the same time, the digital age introduces new complexities to the discourse on happiness. While digital technologies—including social media and online platforms—can improve access to information, foster social connections, and streamline public service delivery, research in psychology underscores their ambivalent effects on mental health and well-being. Excessive screen exposure, frequent social media use, and engagement in algorithm-curated environments have been linked to heightened anxiety, reduced attention, and distorted self-perceptions (Przybylski & Weinstein, 2017; Twenge et al., 2018). Additionally, Deak (2023) finds that internet use is associated with decreased happiness, further reinforcing the importance of a cautious, evidence-based approach. These findings challenge overly optimistic narratives about the role of digital technologies in enhancing happiness and underscore the need to critically evaluate their psychological and social ramifications. This caution is also relevant for e-government, which depends on internet access and may carry similar risks that affect user well-being and public happiness.

Numerous mechanisms explain how e-government affects happiness. These mechanisms are not mutually exclusive and often overlap in shaping individual well-being. The following sections explore key contributors to public happiness and examine e-government's role in influencing them.

First, Quality public service delivery is essential for enhancing public happiness, as it directly impacts citizens’ quality of life. Efficient services such as healthcare, education, transportation, and social welfare foster well-being and satisfaction. In this context, happiness reflects positive experiences, including public recognition of well-being improvements from government policies (Dakin et al., 2022; Knight & Gunatilaka, 2024). One of the primary ways in which public service delivery contributes to public happiness is through the provision of essential services that meet the basic needs of individuals and communities. Various studies have confirmed this relationship. For instance, in China, government trustworthiness, responsiveness, and efficient service delivery significantly enhance life satisfaction, underscoring the crucial role of technical efficiency in promoting happiness (Liu et al., 2020). Another study highlights the importance of e-service quality in Jakarta, showing that better digital public services enhance trust and satisfaction, reinforcing the link between accessible, efficient e-services and public well-being (Fadrial et al., 2024). Hogan et al. (2016) also show that the quality of government services, including education, healthcare, and social services, strongly predicts happiness, particularly among older residents. In this context, e-government plays a vital role in enhancing service delivery and promoting overall citizen well-being. Aligned with the citizen-centric government movement, mature e-government systems are expected to enhance public services and, in turn, boost public happiness (Ding, 2022). Moon (2002) underscores that IT can significantly boost the efficiency of internal management and enhance the quality of services delivered to the public. Similarly, Dawes (2008) highlights the critical role of e-governance, underpinned by ICTs, in supporting public services, government administration, and the democratic process. Building on the broader impacts of IT and e-governance as identified by Moon (2002) and Dawes (2008), the study by Chukwuemeka et al. (2017) provides specific empirical evidence from Federal University Ndufu-Alike Ikwo, demonstrating how e-government directly improves service delivery through enhanced worker performance.

Second, public engagement in decision-making plays a crucial role in enhancing public happiness (Barker & Martin, 2011). Effective public participation can lead to better governance outcomes, as seen in environmental governance where public involvement significantly promoted individual happiness by improving satisfaction with governance performance (Zheng & Yang, 2019). E-government strengthens public participation through digital mechanisms, fostering democratic responsiveness and trust in governance (West, 2004). Research further highlights the impact of participatory e-government initiatives. Renteria and Varela-Castro (2023) identify three participatory platform designs that shape civic engagement, while Sundberg and Holmström (2024) outline four governance modes in citizen-centric digital government. These studies collectively demonstrate how advanced e-government systems can foster civic participation, leading to empowerment and community connection.

Third, public trust in government plays a vital role in shaping public happiness. When citizens believe their government acts in their best interest and fulfills its commitments, their overall well-being improves. Trust in government reduces perceived social risks, fostering a greater sense of security and stability, which enhances happiness (Hong & Zhang, 2020). In this case, e-government strengthens trust between citizens and the government by enhancing transparency and accountability. As López-López et al. (2018) highlighted, e-government services improve transparency, providing citizens with greater insight into administrative processes and fostering public trust. By making information more accessible, e-government helps citizens understand government actions and decisions, reinforcing confidence (Mahmood et al., 2019; Pina et al., 2009). Additionally, e-government enhances accountability by making government processes more visible and traceable, reducing corruption and increasing public confidence in governance (Mahmood et al., 2019; Pina et al., 2009; Sukmana & Meinel, 2016).

Fourth, economic factors are also crucial determinants of happiness. Given the strong relationship between economic indicators like GDP per capita and happiness, as shown by Lee and Goh (2023), the influence of e-Government implementation on public happiness can also be elucidated through its role in fostering economic and social advancement. Global research on the impact of e-government on economic development and societal well-being has gained considerable attention. For instance, Androniceanu and Georgescu (2021) investigate e-government's evolution in EU states, revealing its relationship with improved governance, reduced corruption, enhanced citizen participation, and economic advancement. Advanced e-government systems are pivotal in augmenting governmental efficiency and socio-economic progress. In a related study, Androniceanu et al. (2022) explore factors influencing the well-being and economic development of EU countries from 2019 to 2021. Their findings indicate that e-government, alongside metrics such as the Human Development Index and labor productivity, significantly impacts societal well-being, illustrating the transformative power of digitalization. Additionally, e-government promotes sustainable economic growth by enhancing transparency, accountability, and efficiency in governance, thereby creating a stable economic environment that positively influences public happiness (Castro & Lopes, 2022; Goloshchapova et al., 2023).

While e-government maturity has the potential to enhance public happiness, it also important to recognize the presents challenges that may undermine the happiness. Issues such as system complexity and usability issues, the digital exclusion, over-reliance on technology or depersonalization, and resistance to change can reduce public happines. To ensure that the benefits of e-government are equitably distributed, these risks must be carefully managed. First, as e-government systems mature, they often become more complex, which can lead to usability challenges for citizens. Many e-government websites suffer from poor usability, which affects user interaction and task performance. Studies have shown that usability scores for e-government websites are often low, indicating significant room for improvement (Huang & Brooks, 2011; Verkijika & De Wet, 2018). When citizens encounter difficulties navigating these systems, their overall experience with public services may diminish, leading to feelings of helplessness and decreased happiness. Second, the advancement of e-government may unintentionally exacerbate the digital divide, restricting access for individuals with limited internet connectivity or inadequate digital literacy. van Dijk (2005) highlights how investments in sophisticated e-government solutions can unintentionally exclude marginalized groups, leading to frustration and reduced well-being. The ongoing digital transformation may not offer equal opportunities to all, often reinforcing social inequalities and widening disparities in public service accessibility (Bartikowski et al., 2018). Third, the increasing reliance on technology in e-government can lead to a depersonalization of public services. The focus on automation and efficiency can result in services that do not fully meet the needs of citizens, as they may lack the personal touch and adaptability that human interactions provide (Cajander & Eriksson, 2007; Shovkovyy, 2024). Additionally, as the e-government system more mature, the role of civil servants is often reduced to overseeing automated processes rather than engaging in meaningful interactions with citizens, which can diminish the quality of service (Cajander & Eriksson, 2007). Finally, the maturity of e-government systems may face resistance from citizens accustomed to conventional service delivery methods, particularly those with limited technological proficiency (Talukder et al., 2024).

In Indonesian context, the evaluation of public happiness began with the Happiness Level Measurement Survey (SPTK), launched by the Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS) in 2013 at the national level, and expanded in 2014 to include both provincial and national assessments. Subsequent surveys conducted in 2017 and 2021 have further refined the measurement framework to align with global developments in happiness assessment, focusing on dimensions such as life satisfaction, affect (emotional states), and eudaimonia (sense of life's meaning) (BPS, 2021). Since its inception in 2014, the happiness index has exhibited a steady increase, rising from 68.28 in 2014 to 70.69 in 2017, and further to 71.49 in 2021 (BPS, 2022).

Meanwhile, the e-government initiative in Indonesia is grounded in its aspiration to bolster governance, aiming to foster enhanced public participation, transparency, and accountability, consequently mitigating the risks associated with corruption, collusion, and nepotism (Martitah et al., 2021). This strategic endeavor, backed by presidential directives and relevant regulations, is meticulously overseen by the Ministry of State Apparatus Empowerment and Bureaucratic Reform, ensuring adherence to the Electronic-Based Government System (SPBE) assessment framework, while the Ministry of Communication and Information takes charge of infrastructure provision. Concurrently, strategic plans for e-government development, encompassing the establishment of cost-effective service systems, inter-governmental management protocols, IT optimization strategies, and engagement with the private sector, are being actively pursued (Minardi, 2017). In line with these efforts, the government has embarked on comprehensive assessments of e-government maturity, as mandated by Presidential Regulation No. 95/2018, delineated across four key domains: SPBE Internal Policy, SPBE Governance, SPBE Management, and SPBE Services, as detailed in Ministerial Regulation No. 59 of 2020. Since its initial assessment in 2018, the National e-Government Maturity Index has continued to rise. The assessment results indicate that the index was recorded at 2.34 on a scale of 5 in 2022 and has improved to 2.79 in 2023 (Erlangga, 2024). This assessment offers a nuanced evaluation, differing from many studies, such as that by Zautashvili (2017) that presents e-government maturity models focusing on resources, processes, technology, infrastructure, and web presence, while Napitupulu (2016) proposes seven stages specific to e-government portals. Additionally, e-government maturity measurement by Joshi and Islam (2018) aligns with sustainable principles concerning cost efficiency, timeliness, service effort, and adoption rates.

Based on the literature review and within the Indonesian context, Figure 1 presents the conceptual model illustrating how e-government maturity influences public happiness.

Figure 1.

The Conceptual Model of e-Government and Public Happiness Relationship. Note: the Dashed Lines Signify That This Study Does not Explicitly Examine the Relationship.

Methodology

Dataset

This study adopts a cross-sectional design to examine the relationship between the-government maturity and public happiness within the Indonesian context. Data pertaining to e-government maturity are sourced from evaluations conducted by the Indonesian Ministry of State Apparatus Utilization and Bureaucratic Reform. Meanwhile, the dataset encompassing public happiness levels and associated control variables originates from the Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS) Indonesia. Specifically, the data concerning happiness levels, individual-level factors, and household-level control variables are sourced from the latest survey data available, conducted as part of the Happiness Level Measurement Survey (Survei Pengukuran Tingkat Kebahagiaan, SPTK). This survey serves as a pivotal tool for comprehensively assessing the subjective well-being of Indonesian citizens, capturing their happiness levels and the myriad factors that influence them. The 2021 SPTK represents the latest available survey data, and thus, this study utilizes the E-Government Index from the same year.

Measures

This study primarily aims to explore the relationship between e-Government maturity and public happiness in Indonesia. The dependent variable, public happiness, is measured using individuals’ self-reported happiness levels, as indicated by their responses to the survey question coded R1501, which asks: “How happy is [NAME] with your life overall?” Here, [NAME] refers to the respondent's name. This query aligns with Veenhoven's (1984) definition of happiness as a subjective, individual judgment of life as a whole, based on personal perceptions, rather than specific aspects or objective states, and not applicable to groups or events. Respondents are then asked to rate their overall happiness on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 represents “very unhappy” and 10 represents “very happy.” This scale mirrors those employed in surveys such as the World Happiness Report (Helliwell et al., 2020) and by Rukumnuaykit and Pholphirul (2016) in Thailand. Despite criticisms of self-reported measures, they offers direct insight into an individual's subjective well-being, capturing personal perceptions and emotions that may not be evident through external indicators (Oishi & Diener, 2014; van Hoorn, 2018).

Meanwhile, the main explanatory variable under scrutiny is the e-Government maturity index, ranging from 0 to 5. This index is composed of four domains—SPBE Internal Policy, SPBE Governance, SPBE Management, and SPBE Services—and functions as a measure of e-Government initiative maturity across local administrations in Indonesia. A higher score on this index signifies a more developed and mature e-Government system. Moreover, due to limitations in the SPTK data that restrict our ability to identify and merge observations with external data only at the provincial level, we utilize the e-Government maturity index at the provincial level as the primary explanatory variable.

In addition to the main variables, several control variables are incorporated into the analysis to account for potential confounding factors. These control variables encompass a range of individual, household, and regional characteristics. For instance, demographic variables such as gender, age, and education level are included to capture individual-level differences. Household variables, including income and family size, are also considered to account for socio-economic status. Regional variables such as urban or rural residence, as well as the island cluster of residence and gini ratio.

Table 1 presents a comprehensive inventory of all variables used in the study, accompanied by their descriptions and corresponding means or proportions. This detailed overview enables a thorough understanding of the factors under investigation and their respective contributions to Indonesian subjective well-being. By considering a wide array of variables, this study aims to provide valuable insights into the relationship between e-Government maturity and subjective well-being, contributing to the advancement of e-Government policies and practices in Indonesia.

Table 1

Summary of Outcome and Explanatory Variables.

Variables	Description	Mean/Proportion
Outcome variable
Public happiness	Public happiness (on a scale of 0 to 10)	7.76
Variable of interest
e-Government index	e-Government maturity index at provincial level (on a scale of 0 to 5)	2.57
Individual control variables
Male	1 if the respondent is male, and 0 otherwise	48.93%
Age	Age of the respondent (years)	47.43
Education
None	1 If none education level is completed, 0 otherwise	18.51%
Primary	1 If respondent's highest education is elementary school and junior highs school, 0 otherwise	46.93%
Secondary	1 If respondent's highest education is senior highs school, 0 otherwise	24.55%
Tertiary	1 If respondent's highest education is higher education (Bachelor, Master, and Doctoral), 0 otherwise	10.01%
Marital status	1 if respondent is married, 0 otherwise	81.26%
Household control variables
Income
IDR < 1.8 million	1 If respondent's family income is IDR < 1.8 million, 0 otherwise	28.51%
IDR 1.8–n<3 million	1 If respondent's family income is IDR 1.8–<3 million, 0 otherwise	31.37%
IDR 3–<4.8 million	1 If respondent's family income is IDR 3–<4.8 million, 0 otherwise	20.32%
IDR 4.8–<7 million	1 If respondent's family income is IDR 4.8–<7 million, 0 otherwise	11.10%
>IDR 7 million	1 If respondent's family income is >IDR 7 million, 0 otherwise	8.71%
Family size		3.77
Regional control variables
Urban	1 if respondent's location is urban, 0 otherwise	43.09%
Island cluster
Java	1 If respondent resides in Java, 0 otherwise	32.33%
Bali and Nusa Tenggara	1 If respondent resides in Bali and Nusa Tenggara, 0 otherwise	7.68%
Kalimantan	1 If respondent resides in Kalimantan, 0 otherwise	9.95%
Maluku and Papua	1 If respondent resides in Maluku and Papua, 0 otherwise	8.02%
Sumatera	1 If respondent resides in Sumatera, 0 otherwise	28.78%
Sulawesi	1 If respondent resides in Sulawesi, 0 otherwise	13.25%
Gini Ratio at Province Level	Gini ratio at province level	0.351
N		74,684

Note: Categorical variables are expressed as proportions (%), whereas numeric variables are presented as means.

Source: authors' calculation based on 2021 SPTK and 2021 SPBE Index.

Estimation Method

The analysis employs an ordered probit regression model to explore the relationship between public happiness and e-Government maturity index, considering the ordinal nature of the outcome variable, which ranges from 0 to 10. The model estimates parameters using maximum likelihood estimation, allowing for the examination of how e-Government maturity influences different levels of public happiness. The outcome variable, denoted as H*, represents the unobservable latent variable underlying public happiness, which described as a function of e-Government maturity G at the province p and set of control variables X, which consists of individual level i, household h, and area level variables a, through a linear relationship. This relationship is represented by the equation (1).

W_{i} * = α + β G_{p} + γ X_{i, h, r} + ε_{i}

(1)

W* denotes the latent outcome variable, which cannot be directly observed. However, we can observe the response categories, as presented in equation (2).

W = j, i f α_{j - 1} \leq H * \leq α_{j}

(2)

W represents the observed ordinal outcome variable, specifically indicating the level of subjective wellbeing, namely public happiness. The threshold parameter α_j defines the boundaries for each category j, which distinguish the different levels of the happiness variable. Typically, the initial threshold is set at 0.

Furthermore, we adopt an instrumental variable approach to mitigate endogeneity bias inherent in the analysis. One essential criterion for an instrumental variable is that it should impact the endogenous variable—in this case, the e-Government maturity index—while having no direct effect on public happiness other than through its influence on e-Government maturity. In this regard, we leverage provincial government spending on Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and the educational attainment of governors as instrumental variables for the e-Government maturity index. Provincial government expenditure on ICT signifies the commitment of local governments to the digital transformation of public services, encompassing the realm of e-Government services. This variable is presented in its logarithmic form. Meanwhile, the educational level of governors likely reflects a deeper understanding of e-Government benefits, fostering proactive development and adoption, and advancing e-Government within their jurisdiction. Additionally, governors with advanced educational backgrounds may exhibit stronger leadership capabilities and managerial skills, enabling them to effectively allocate resources and mobilize stakeholders to support e-Government initiatives. This variable is ordinal and represents the educational attainment levels of regional leaders, specifically governors in this instance. As per prevailing regulations, the roles of regional leadership roles mandate a minimum educational qualification of high school completion. Therefore, high school attainment is established as the baseline, denoted by a value of 0. Meanwhile, educational levels of a bachelor's degree, master's degree, and doctoral degree, along with their equivalents, are sequentially assigned values of 1, 2, and 3, respectively. These values reflect the ascending order of educational attainment beyond high school, representing progressively higher levels of academic accomplishment.

When instrumental variables are employed, the analysis typically involves a two-stage regression approach. In the first stage, the endogenous variable, e-government maturity in this instance, is instrumented using selected instrumental variables. Subsequently, the predicted values of e-government maturity obtained from this stage are incorporated as regressors in equation (1) to model public happiness.

Results

Estimated Results

Table 2 delineates the findings derived from ordered probit analyses, meticulously examining the nuanced relationship between e-government index along with various control variables and public happiness. Remarkably, the results reveal a statistically significant and negative coefficient of e-Government index (β=-0.086, p < 0.01). This unexpected finding indicates that as the e-Government maturity advances within a province, there is an observable decline in the level of public happiness within that province. Such a counterintuitive revelation underscores the complex dynamics at play between technological advancements in governance and the holistic well-being of society.

Table 2.

Estimated Results.

Explanatory variables	DV: Public happiness
Main variable
e-Gov Index	−0.086***
Individual control variables
Male = 1	−0.076***
Age	0.000
Education (No schooling is the baseline)
Primary	0.084***
Secondary	0.165***
Tertiary	0.334***
Marital status	0.241***
Household control variables
Income (IDR < 1.8 million is the baseline)
IDR 1.8–<3 million	0.153***
IDR 3–<4.8 million	0.277***
IDR 4.8–<7 million	0.417***
>IDR 7 million	0.502***
Family size	−0.003
Area control variables
Urban = 1	−0.007
Island cluster (Java is the baseline)
Bali and Nusa Tenggara	−0.113***
Kalimantan	0.035*
Maluku and Papua	0.131***
Sumatera	−0.092***
Sulawesi	0.256***
Gini Ratio	−2.773***
N	74,684
Pseudo R2	0.025
Chi Square	6,077.753
P-Value	0.000

Note: * p < .1; ** p < .05; *** p < .01

Source: authors' analysis results

Instrumental Variabel Approach Estimated Results

Table 3 presents the estimated results derived from analyses utilizing ordered probit with instrumental variables. In the first stage, where the e-government index is regressed against two instrumental variables—Log government spending on ICT and Governor education level—along with control variables, the analysis reveals that both instrumental variables are statistically significant at p < .01 and exhibit positive coefficients (0.086 for Log government spending on ICT and 0.059 for Governor education level), as anticipated. These findings suggest that higher commitment by provincial local governments to digital transformation, as evidenced by increased spending on ICT, correlates positively with the maturity index of their e-Government service. Similarly, a higher educational level among governors is associated with a higher e-Government maturity index. Furthermore, the results for the second or main stage unveil a noteworthy pattern: a statistically significant negative relationship between the e-Government Index and public happiness (β = -0.108, p < .01). This finding corroborates that of the ordered probit model presented in Table 3, indicating a nuanced dynamic wherein advancements in e-Government initiatives, aimed at streamlining governance and public service delivery through digital means, appear to be intricately linked with a decrease in overall societal happiness levels.

Table 3.

Estimated Results of IV Approach.

	2^nd stage	1^st stage
Main variable
e-Gov Index	−0.108**
Individual control variables
Male = 1	−0.076***	0.001
Age	0.000	0.001***
Education (No schooling is the baseline)
Primary	0.084***	−0.005
Secondary	0.166***	0.015***
Tertiary	0.335***	0.012*
Marital status	0.241***	0.002
Household control variables
Income (IDR < 1.8 million is the baseline)
IDR 1.8–<3 million	0.154***	0.012***
IDR 3–<4.8 million	0.277***	−0.005
IDR 4.8–<7 million	0.417***	−0.021***
>IDR 7 million	0.501***	−0.032***
Family size	−0.003	0.001
Area control variables
Urban = 1	−0.006	0.041***
Island cluster (Java is the baseline)
Bali and Nusa Tenggara	−0.114***	−0.024***
Kalimantan	0.028	−0.244***
Maluku and Papua	0.107*	−1.019***
Sumatera	−0.090***	0.085***
Sulawesi	0.233***	−0.980***
Gini Ratio	−2.642***	4.910***
Instrumental Variables
Log government spending on ICT		0.086***
Governor education level		0.059***
N		74,684
Pseudo R2		0.025
Chi Square		6,077.753
P-Value		0.000

Note: (1) * p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .01; (2) Ref: Reference. All estimated results with a reference are relative to each reference

Source: authors' analysis

Robustness Test

To bolster the credibility of our findings, we conducted rigorous robustness checks by altering the original model specifications. This process entails the inclusion or exclusion of various control variables to gauge their impact on the empirical outcomes (Lu and White, 2014). Employing the checkrob command in Stata 16 (Barslund, 2007), we executed this examination, estimating the regression of the dependent variable on the key variable alongside all conceivable permutations of control variables. The objective of this analysis is to mitigate the risk of omitted variable bias, which emerges when crucial variables are overlooked in the model, potentially resulting in endogeneity issues. Through systematically evaluating the model with different sets of control variables, the study can ascertain the consistency of the empirical findings and ascertain the robustness of the results.

The robustness analysis scrutinizes the correlation between the dependent variable and various combinations of the main and control variables through a sequence of regressions, resulting in the evaluation of 32,768 regressions for the primary variable. The results, depicted in Table 4, uniformly indicate negative coefficients of e-Government maturity across all scenarios (100%), affirming the observed result presented in Table 2. Moreover, the coefficients related to the e-Government maturity index are statistically significant in all sixteen regressions conducted. Notably, the average coefficient value is −0.176, ranging from −0.248 to −0.075. Thus, it can be deduced that, despite fluctuations in magnitude, e-Government maturity consistently correlates with decreased public happiness.

Table 4.

Robustness Test Results.

				Percentage
	Max	Min	Mean	Sig.	Positive	Negative	Obs
Main variable
e-Gov Index	−0.075	−0.248	−0.176	100%	0%	100%	32,768
Control Variables
Individual control variables	Yes (6 Variables)				16,384
Household control variables	Yes (2 Variables)				16,384
Region control variables	Yes (7 Variables)				16,384

Source: authors' analysis

Heterogeneity Analysis

The heterogeneity analysis results in Table 5 offer nuanced insights into the relationship between e-Government initiatives and public happiness across different demographic and geographical contexts. When examining urban and rural areas separately, the analysis reveals notable differences in the impact of the e-Government index on public happiness. In urban areas, a statistically significant negative association is observed, indicating that as e-Government maturity increases, public happiness tends to decrease. Meanwhile, within rural areas, although the negative correlation persists and remains statistically significant, the extent of its impact is considerably diminished, approximately half in magnitude compared to urban locales. This suggests that the influence of e-Government initiatives on public happiness may vary depending on the urban-rural divide, with urban residents experiencing a more pronounced decline in happiness relative to their rural counterparts.

Table 5.

Heterogeneity Analysis Results.

	Urban	Rural	Male	Female	Java	Outside Java
Explanatory variables	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
Main variable
e-Gov Index	−0.127***	−0.065***	−0.099***	−0.072***	−0.116**	−0.094***
Control variables
Individual control variables	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Household control variables	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Region control variables	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
N	32,182	42,502	36,540	38,144	24,143	50,541
Pseudo R2	0.030	0.020	0.023	0.025	0.022	0.021
Chi Square	3,120.512	2,803.896	2,764.113	3,128.156	1,771.083	3,531.510
P-Value	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000

Note: (1) * p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .01;

Source: authors' analysis

Furthermore, the heterogeneity analysis disaggregated by gender sheds light on gender-specific differences in the relationship between e-Government maturity and public happiness. Both male and female respondents exhibit statistically significant negative associations between the e-Government index and public happiness, indicating a consistent pattern across genders. However, the effect size appears slightly stronger for male respondents compared to female respondents, suggesting potential gender disparities in the perception of e-Government services and their impact on subjective well-being.

Additionally, the analysis stratified by geographical location, specifically Java versus outside Java, unveils intriguing regional variations in the relationship between e-Government initiatives and public happiness. In Java, a statistically significant negative association is evident, suggesting that residents of Java experience a decline in happiness as e-Government maturity increases. Conversely, outside Java, while the negative association remains significant, the effect size is somewhat attenuated. This implies that the impact of e-Government maturity on public happiness may be more pronounced in Java compared to regions outside Java, indicating potential regional disparities in the perception and utilization of e-Government services.

Overall, the heterogeneity analysis underscores the importance of considering demographic and geographical factors in understanding the complex relationship between e-Government initiatives and public happiness. By examining these variations, policymakers and stakeholders can tailor e-Government strategies to address the diverse needs and preferences of different population groups and geographic regions, ultimately enhancing the effectiveness and inclusivity of e-Government initiatives nationwide.

Discussion and Implications

This research examines the relationship between provincial-level e-Government maturity and public subjective well-being, specifically measured through happiness levels. This research focus represents a departure from the predominant trend in existing literature, which primarily centers on examining the impact of e-Government on diverse aspects such as public service quality (Aritonang, 2017), transparency enhancement (Bisogno et al., 2022; Cifuentes-Faura, 2022; Faura-Martínez & Cifuentes-Faura, 2020; Ibrahimy et al., 2023), coruption reduction (Adam, 2020; Ahluwalia & Merhi, 2022; Alam et al., 2023; Ibrahimy et al., 2023; Ismail et al., 2020; Lupu & Lazăr, 2015; Rustiarini, 2019; Seiam & Salman, 2024), trust and confidence on government improvement (Li & Shang, 2023; Tolbert & Mossberger, 2006), as well as reducing shadow or informal economy (Elbahnasawy, 2021; Veiga & Rohman, 2017; Williams, 2023). This realignment aligns with the paradigmatic evolution observed in the governmental reinvention movement since the 1980s, emphasizing a fundamental shift towards a citizen-centric approach (Ho, 2002), which epitomizes the essence of e-government (United Nations, 2008). At the core of this approach lies the overarching goal of improving citizen or public well-being, which is the central focus of our study, particularly centered on subjective well-being.

The analysis results stemming from the ordered probit regression, as depicted in the Table 2, which is supported by the results of ordered probit with instrumental variables as presented in Table 3 show the unexpected results, suggesting that as e-Government maturity progresses within a province is assoiated with a decrease in public happiness levels within the province. Furthermore, the robustnes test and heterogeneity analysis results perfectly uphold the finding.

The finding that e-Government maturity negatively associated with public wellbeing challenges the prevailing assumption that advancements in e-Government initiatives inevitably translate into improved overall public well-being. Citizen-centric government, the ideal expression of e-government (United Nations, 2008), entails a comprehensive understanding of citizens’ needs and the primary factors driving satisfaction. Moreover, the advancement of e-Government initiatives offers time-saving advantages for individuals by eliminating the necessity for direct engagement in service access (Al Ali et al., 2020; Ma & Zheng, 2019). This benefit allows individuals to reallocate their saved time toward other meaningful activities, such as spending more time with family or pursuing leisure pursuits. These attributes, acknowledged for their positive implications, contribute to the enhancement of public well-being, including the promotion of public happiness. However, the observed negative relationship between e-Government maturity and public happiness suggests that the mechanisms underlying the relationship are more complex than previously assumed.

The finding underscores the importance of considering contextual factors and socio-political dynamics when implementing e-Government initiatives. While e-Government may enhance administrative efficiency and accessibility to services, it may also introduce challenges such as digital exclusion, usability, privacy concerns, or perceptions of government overreach, which could negatively influence public happiness. As delineated by Ariansyah et al. (2023), several prerequisites must be addressed to facilitate the successful adoption of e-Government initiatives and consequently realize their intended impact, including public happiness. Firstly, it is imperative to mitigate any misconceptions surrounding e-Government, particularly among socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. The prevalence of misconceptions, such as the belief that e-Government services exclusively intended for the socioeconomically privileged people, serves as a deterrent for socioeconomically marginalized individuals from utilizing these services (Ariansyah et al., 2023). Consequently, such misperceptions may exacerbate feelings of exclusion and contribute to heightened levels of public discontent. Secondly, individuals who are socioeconomically disadvantaged often encounter challenges related to the affordability of internet services, which are essential for accessing e-Government services. Admaja and Ariansyah (2017) illustrate that financial constraints persist as significant barriers to accessing improved mobile internet services in Indonesia. Thirdly, access availability and digital skills are other mandatory factors required for utilizing the e-Government service (Ariansyah et al., 2023). Unfortunately, the study also shows that only a little portion of samples have these required factors. This will further exacerbate the feeling of exclusion, thereby leading to increased unhappiness. Furthermore, the results highlight the need for a reevaluation of e-Government strategies and their alignment with broader societal goals, including citizens’ subjective experiences of governance. Research indicates that e-government websites often suffer from poor usability, with assessments frequently yielding low scores, signaling substantial room for improvement (Huang & Brooks, 2011; Verkijika & De Wet, 2018). Addressing this issue requires a deeper understanding of citizen expectations and a focus on developing user-friendly systems to enhance the overall quality and usability of e-government services.

Another possible explanation for this unexpected relationship is that the increasing digitalization of e-government services may inadvertently diminish the human element in public service delivery, weakening citizen-government engagement. As e-government systems mature, civil servants’ roles often shift from direct service provision to overseeing automated processes, reducing meaningful citizen interactions and potentially lowering service quality (Cajander & Eriksson, 2007). Moreover, prioritizing automation and operational efficiency may lead to services that fall short of addressing citizens’ diverse needs, as they often lack the flexibility and personalized engagement that human interactions offer (Cajander & Eriksson, 2007; Shovkovyy, 2024).

Finally, this unexpected relationship may also stem from the broader impact of technological advancements on physical and mental issues. Research indicates that electronic device and internet use can disrupt sleep by suppressing melatonin production and altering circadian rhythms due to blue light exposure (Qanash et al., 2021; Tähkämö et al., 2019). Additionally, excessive social media use has been associated with increased depression and anxiety, while internet addiction correlates with social isolation and other mental health concerns, underscoring the adverse psychological effects of prolonged digital engagement (Lin et al., 2016; Wan Abdul Ghani et al., 2019).

Overall, these findings prompt a reexamination of the assumptions and theoretical frameworks guiding e-Government research and practice, emphasizing the importance of considering the nuanced and context-specific nature of the relationship between e-Government initiatives and citizen well-being.

Policy and Practical Implications

The negative relationship between e-government maturity and public happiness presents complex practical and policy implications that demand careful attention from policymakers, government officials, and practitioners. However, this finding does not suggest that reducing e-government maturity is the solution. Rather, it highlights the need for strategic interventions to mitigate potential drawbacks while ensuring that the benefits of digital governance are equitably distributed.

Firstly, these results underscore the importance of adopting a holistic approach to e-Government implementation that prioritizes citizen-centric design and user experience. Governments should focus not only on the technical aspects of digital service delivery but also on ensuring accessibility, transparency, and usability for all citizens. This may entail investing in user-friendly interfaces, providing digital literacy training, and ensuring equitable access to online services, particularly for marginalized or disadvantaged populations. By prioritizing user satisfaction and engagement, governments can mitigate potential negative impacts on public happiness while maximizing the benefits of e-Government initiatives.

Secondly, policymakers should recognize the potential trade-offs between efficiency gains and citizen well-being in e-Government implementation. While e-Government may streamline administrative processes and reduce costs, it may also inadvertently erode trust in government or exacerbate feelings of alienation among citizens. Therefore, policymakers should adopt a balanced approach that considers both efficiency and equity concerns, striving to achieve optimal outcomes in terms of service delivery, accountability, and citizen satisfaction.

Additionally, it is important to monitor and evaluate the impact of e-Government initiatives on public happiness over time. Governments should implement robust measurement frameworks and data collection mechanisms to assess citizen perceptions and experiences of e-Government services continuously. This will enable policymakers to identify potential areas for improvement, address emerging challenges, and refine e-Government strategies to better align with citizens’ needs and preferences.

Furthermore, policymakers should prioritize inclusivity and digital equity in e-Government policies and programs. Efforts to bridge the digital divide, promote digital literacy, and ensure accessibility for all citizens are essential for mitigating disparities in access to e-Government services and preventing further marginalization of vulnerable groups. By fostering a more inclusive digital society, governments can enhance public trust, promote social cohesion, and ultimately contribute to greater overall happiness and well-being among citizens.

In conclusion, the findings underscore the need for a nuanced and citizen-centric approach to e-Government policymaking and implementation. By prioritizing user satisfaction, equity, and inclusivity, governments can harness the potential of digital technologies to improve governance outcomes and enhance public happiness in the digital age.

Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Research Directions

This study sheds light on the relationship between e-Government maturity and public happiness, revealing a significant negative impact of e-Government initiatives on the public subjective well-being. The findings challenge the assumptions regarding the inherently positive effects of e-Government on public satisfaction and underscore the need for a more nuanced understanding of the factors shaping citizen happiness in the digital era. The results derived from instrumental variable analysis, robustness tests, and heterogeneity assessments, which include sample division by gender and geographical contexts, collectively serve to strengthen and augment the findings elucidated in this study.

However, it's important to acknowledge several limitations inherent in this study. First, while self-reported measures can capture personal perceptions and emotions that may not be evident through external indicators and remain widely used and valuable metric in public policy research, they are susceptible to response biases, Self-reported happiness is influenced by personal perceptions, cultural influences, and expectations, which may not accurately reflect the well-being. Social desirability bias can further distort responses, leading to over- or underestimation of happiness. Second, the SPTK dataset solely offers province names and IDs, limiting our ability to directly associate public happiness data with the e-government maturity index at a more granular level. Consequently, in this study, we could only assess the relationship between e-government maturity index at the provincial level and public happiness. Therefore, future research endeavors could explore the utilization of e-government maturity indices at lower levels of local governance, such as the municipal or district level, to gain a more nuanced understanding of their interplay with public happiness. Third, although instrumental variable analysis assists in mitigating endogeneity issues, the selection of instrumental variables could potentially introduce biases or measurement inaccuracies. For instance, while our study uses leaders’ educational attainment as an instrument for e-government maturity, assuming it enhances their understanding of e-governance and its benefits, this presents a one-dimensional view of leadership capability. Other factors, such as experience, digital literacy, and adaptability, may also play a critical role, highlighting the need for a more comprehensive approach in future research.

Furthermore, this study unveils numerous promising directions for future research. First, given the potential biases in self-reported happiness, future research should incorporate complementary approaches, such as behavioral indicators or longitudinal studies, to better capture the impact of e-government maturity on public subjective well-being. Second, as our study utilizes cross-sectional study design, longitudinal investigations hold significant potential to offer profound insights into the evolving dynamics between e-Government initiatives and public happiness across time. By leveraging longitudinal data, researchers can meticulously monitor shifts in e-Government maturity and public sentiment, thereby facilitating more rigorous causal analyses. Second, qualitative research methods, such as in-depth interviews or focus groups, could complement quantitative analyses by providing richer insights into the underlying mechanisms driving the observed relationship. Qualitative research could uncover citizens’ perceptions, experiences, and attitudes towards e-Government services, offering valuable context for interpreting quantitative findings. Furthermore, comparative studies across different countries or regions could help identify contextual factors influencing the relationship between e-Government maturity and public happiness. By comparing e-Government initiatives in diverse socio-political contexts, researchers can discern common patterns, as well as unique challenges and opportunities, shaping the impact of e-Government on citizen subjective well-being.

Overall, while this study highlights the relationship between e-Government maturity and public happiness, it also opens new avenues for research and inquiry. By addressing the limitations outlined here and exploring future research directions, scholars can contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the role of e-Government in shaping citizen subjective well-being.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We extend our appreciation to Indonesian Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform and Statistics Indonesia (BPS) for their invaluable assistance in providing access to the essential data required for this research. We are also deeply indebted to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback and insightful comments, which have greatly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of this paper.

Funding

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

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Author Biographies

Kasmad Ariansyah is currently a senior researcher at National Research and Innovation Agency of the Republic of Indonesia (BRIN). He received the bachelor's degree in electrical engineering from Mercubuana University, and master's degree in economics from Universitas Indonesia. His research focuses on social informatics, digital economy, and ICT policy.

Diana Sari is a researcher at the National Research and Innovation Agency of the Republic of Indonesia (BRIN). She received the bachelor's degree in physics and master's degree in electrical engineering from Institut Teknologi Bandung. Her research interest in ICT policy and innovation, smart city, and social informatics.

Zulfia Hanum Alfi Syahr is a researcher at the National Research and Innovation Agency of the Republic of Indonesia (BRIN). She received the bachelor's degree in education and master's degree in management from Indonesia Open University. Her research interest in public service management, public administration and judicial management.

Azwar Aswin is a researcher at the National Research and Innovation Agency of the Republic of Indonesia (BRIN). He holds a master's degree in public administration from Nasional University and another in American Studies from the University of Indonesia. He completed his undergraduate studies at Mulawarman University. His research interests lie in public policy and public participation.

Madya Putra Yaumil Ahad is a researcher at the National Research and Innovation Agency of the Republic of Indonesia (BRIN). He received the bachelor's degree in governmental studies and master's degree in sociology from University of Muhammadiyah Malang. His research focuses on public policy, public sector innovation and human resources management in public sector.

Metha Claudia Agatha Silitonga is a researcher at the National Research and Innovation Agency of the Republic of Indonesia (BRIN). She holds a bachelor's degree in Sociology from Padjadjaran University. Metha's research interest focuses on exploring the structure and dynamics of society from a public policy perspective.

References

Adam

I. O.

(2020). Examining E-government development effects on corruption in Africa: The mediating effects of ICT development and institutional quality. Technology in Society, 61, 101245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101245

Admaja

A. F. S.

Ariansyah

(2017). The barriers of long term evolution (LTE) adoption: Indonesian consumers perspective. 2017 International Conference on Broadband Communication, Wireless Sensors and Powering (BCWSP), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/BCWSP.2017.8272567

Ahangama

Krishnan

(2023). Impact of AI readiness and E-participation implementation of a government on the well-being of its citizens. E-Service Journal, 15(1), 29–59. https://doi.org/10.2979/esj.00002

Ahluwalia

Merhi

(2022). Can effective E-government implementation disrupt corruption? An exploratory study. In Chandani

Divekar

Nayak

J. K.

(Eds.), Achieving $5 trillion economy of India (pp. 177–185). Springer Nature.

Al Ali

Stephens

Pereira

(2020). The effect of perceptions of government service and reputation on nation happiness. Mohammed Bin Rashid School of Government.

Alam

Aftab

Abbas

Ugli

K. M. M.

Bokhari

S. A. A.

(2023). Impact of E-government initiatives to combat corruption mediating by behavioral intention: A quantitative analysis from emerging economies. Sustainability, 15(3), 2694. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032694

Androniceanu

Georgescu

(2021). E-Government in European countries, a comparative approach using the principal components analysis. NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 14(2), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.2478/nispa-2021-0015

Androniceanu

Georgescu

Sabie

O. M.

(2022). The impact of digitalization on public administration, economic development, and well-being in the EU countries. Central European Public Administration Review, 20(2), 9–31. https://doi.org/10.17573/cepar.2022.2.01

Angier

(2015). Happiness: Overcoming the skill model. International Philosophical Quarterly, 55(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.5840/ipq201511226

10.

Angner

(2013). Is it possible to measure happiness?: The argument from measurability. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 3(2), 221–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-013-0065-2

11.

Ariansyah

Setiawan

A. B.

Nupikso

Budhirianto

Hidayat

Hikmaturokhman

(2023). Digital inclusion for all? A gender-disaggregated analysis of e-government service use in Indonesia. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 17(4), 655–672. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-04-2023-0043

12.

Aritonang

(2017). The impact of E-government system on public service quality in Indonesia. European Scientific Journal, 13, 99. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2017.v13n35p99

13.

Assyahri

Frinaldi

(2021). Work Culture of Digital Governance Impacting on Citizen Happiness Obtained by Department of Population and Civil Registration of Pariaman City. Proceedings of the 1st Tidar International Conference on Advancing Local Wisdom Towards Global Megatrends, TIC 2020, 21-22 October 2020, Magelang, Jawa Tengah, Indonesia. Proceedings of the 1st Tidar International Conference on Advancing Local Wisdom Towards Global Megatrends, TIC 2020, 21-22 October 2020, Magelang, Jawa Tengah, Indonesia, Magelang, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.21-10-2020.2311930

14.

Barker

Martin

(2011). Participation: The happiness connection. Journal of Public Deliberation, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.120.

15.

Barslund

(2007). CHECKROB: Stata module to perform robustness check of alternative specifications. Retrieved September 12, 2022, from Statistical Software Components S456837, Boston College Department of Economics website: https://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s456837.html

16.

Bartikowski

Laroche

Jamal

Yang

(2018). The type-of-internet-access digital divide and the well-being of ethnic minority and majority consumers: A multi-country investigation. Journal of Business Research, 82, 373–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.05.033

17.

Bisogno

Cuadrado-Ballesteros

Santis

(2022). Do e-government initiatives and e-participation affect the level of budget transparency? International Public Management Journal, 25(3), 365–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2022.2042437

18.

BPS. (2021). Indeks Kebahagiaan 2021. Badan Pusat Statistik. https://www.bps.go.id/id/publication/2021/12/27/ba1b0f03770569b5ac3ef58e/indeks-kebahagiaan-2021.html .

19.

BPS. (2022). Indeks Kebahagiaan Menurut Provinsi, 2014-2021. Badan Pusat Statistik. https://www.bps.go.id/id/statistics-table/2/NjAxIzI=/indeks-kebahagiaan-menurut-provinsi.html .

20.

Cajander

Å.

Eriksson

(2007). Automation and e-government services—A widened perspective1st International Workshop on Design and Evaluation of e-Government Applications and Services, 3–6. Rio de Janeiro.

21.

Castro

Lopes

(2022). Digital government and sustainable development. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 13(2), 880–903. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00749-2

22.

Chukwuemeka

E. E.

Ubochi

E. I.

Okechukwu

E. U.

(2017). Effect of E-government on service delivery in federal university Ndufualike Ikwo, Ebodnyi State. Review of Public Administration and Management, 05(01), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.4172/2315-7844.1000203

23.

Cifuentes-Faura

(2022). The impact of e-government on transparency in the European union: A multivariate analysis. Electronic Government, an International Journal, 18(1), 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1504/EG.2022.119610

24.

Dakin

B. C.

Tan

N. P.

Conner

T. S.

Bastian

(2022). The relationship between prosociality, meaning, and happiness in everyday life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 23(6), 2787–2804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-022-00526-1

25.

Dawes

S. S.

(2008). The evolution and continuing challenges of E-governance. Public Administration Review, 68(s1), S86–S102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00981.x

26.

Deak

(2023). Internet use, social support, and sense of well-being from a generational perspective. In 2023 IEEE 21st jubilee international symposium on intelligent systems and informatics (SISY). (pp. 559–564). Pula, Croatia: IEEE, https://doi.org/10.1109/SISY60376.2023.10417897 .

27.

DeHaan

C. R.

Ryan

R. M.

(2014). Chapter 3 - symptoms of wellness: Happiness and eudaimonia from a self-determination perspective. In Sheldon

K. M.

Lucas

R. E.

(Eds.), Stability of happiness (pp. 37–55). Academic Press.

28.

Delsignore

Aguilar-Latorre

Oliván-Blázquez

(2021). Measuring happiness in the social sciences: An overview. Journal of Sociology, 57(4), 1044–1067. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783321991655

29.

Diener

(1984). Subjective Well-Being (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 2162125). https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2162125.

30.

Diener

Kahneman

Helliwell

(2010). International Differences in Well-Being (1st ed.). Oxford University Press.

31.

Diener

Oishi

Lucas

R. E.

(2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 403–425. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145056

32.

Ding

Y. Z.

(2022). Public service and public happiness: Inferences from big weibo datasets for 31 Chinese provincial governments. Frontiers in Big Data, 5, 833703. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2022.833703

33.

Ebrahim

Botha

Snowball

(2013). Determinants of life satisfaction among race groups in South Africa. Development Southern Africa, 30(2), 168–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2013.797227

34.

Elbahnasawy

N. G.

(2021). Can e-government limit the scope of the informal economy? World Development, 139, 105341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105341

35.

Erlangga

(2024). Kementerian PANRB Umumkan Hasil Evaluasi SPBE Tahun 2023. Kementerian Pendayagunaan Aparatur Negara dan Reformasi Birokrasi. https://www.menpan.go.id/site/berita-terkini/kementerian-panrb-umumkan-hasil-evaluasi-spbe-tahun-2023.

36.

Fadrial

Sujianto

F. S.

Wirman

Wibowo

W. S.

(2024). Fostering trust through bytes: Unravelling the impact of E-government on public trust in indonesian local government. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 19, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.28945/5317

37.

Fan

Epadile

Qalati

S. A.

Qureshi

N. A.

(2022). The effects of eGovernment efficiency on subjective wellbeing. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 768540. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.768540

38.

Faura-Martínez

Cifuentes-Faura

(2020). Does e-government promote transparency and the fight against corruption in the European union? International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 16(4), 42–57. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEGR.2020100103

39.

Frey

B. S.

(2018). Economics of Happiness. Springer.

40.

Frinaldi

Putri

N. E.

Embi

M. A.

(2023). Public sector performance and digital-governance effectiveness predicted by community happiness as a representation of culture. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 10(2), 90–108. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejecs/1398

41.

Goloshchapova

Yamashev

Skornichenko

Strielkowski

(2023). E-Government as a key to the economic prosperity and sustainable development in the post-COVID era. Economies, 11(4), 112. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies11040112

42.

Graham

(2012). The Pursuit of Happiness: An Economy of Well-Being. Brookings Institution Press.

43.

Helliwell

J. F.

Layard

Sachs

J. D.

De Neve

J.-E.

(2020). World Happiness Report 2020. Sustainable Development Solutions Network. https://happiness-report.s3.amazonaws.com/2020/WHR20.pdf .

44.

Helliwell

J. F.

Layard

Sachs

J. D.

De Neve

J.-E.

Aknin

L. B.

(2023). World Happiness Report 2023. Sustainable Development Solutions Network. https://happiness-report.s3.amazonaws.com/2020/WHR20.pdf .

45.

A. T.-K.

(2002). Reinventing local governments and the E-government initiative. Public Administration Review, 62(4), 434–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00197

46.

Hogan

M. J.

Leyden

K. M.

Conway

Goldberg

Walsh

McKenna-Plumley

P. E.

(2016). Happiness and health across the lifespan in five major cities: The impact of place and government performance. Social Science & Medicine, 162, 168–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.06.030

47.

Hong

Zhang

(2020). Political news and happiness: The difference between traditional media and new media use. Chinese Journal of Communication, 13(4), 370–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/17544750.2020.1731562

48.

Huang

Brooks

(2011). Addressing e-government website usability: A users’ centred evaluation. 173–183.

49.

Ibrahimy

M. M.

Virkus

Norta

(2023). The role of e-government in reducing corruption and enhancing transparency in the Afghan public sector: A case study. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 17(3), 459–472. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-10-2022-0135

50.

Ionescu-Feleagă

Ionescu

BȘ

Stoica

O. C.

(2022). The impact of digitalization on happiness: A European perspective. Mathematics, 10(15), 2766. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10152766

51.

Ismail

Fathonih Prabowo

Hartati

Redjeki

(2020). Transparency and corruption: Does E-government effective to combat corruption? International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 24(4), 5396–5404. https://doi.org/10.37200/IJPR/V24I4/PR201636

52.

Joshi

P. R.

Islam

(2018). E-Government maturity model for sustainable E-government services from the perspective of developing countries. Sustainability, 10(6), 1882. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061882

53.

Kahneman

(1999). Objective happiness. In Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 3–25). Russell Sage Foundation.

54.

Karpenko

Zaporozhets

Tsedik

Vasiuk

Osmak

(2023). Digital transformations of public administration in countries with transition economies. European Review, 31(6), 569–588. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798723000522

55.

Khan

(2024a). Can E-government influence well-being? An empirical investigation. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2024.2371436

56.

Khan

(2024b). E-Government and well-being: A cross-country study. In Sharma

S. K.

Dwivedi

Y. K.

Metri

Lal

Elbanna

(Eds.), Transfer, diffusion and adoption of next-generation digital technologies (pp. 321–329). Springer Nature Switzerland.

57.

Knight

Gunatilaka

(2024). The quality of society and happiness: Fairness, trust, and community in China. Journal of Happiness Studies, 25(7), 92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-024-00724-z

58.

Layne

Lee

(2001). Developing fully functional E-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0740-624X(01)00066-1

59.

Lee

Y.-Y.

Goh

K.-L.

(2023). The happiness-economic well-being nexus: New insights from global panel data. Sage Open, 13(4), 21582440231199659. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231199659

60.

Shang

(2023). How does e-government use affect citizens’ trust in government? Empirical evidence from China. Information & Management, 60(7), 103844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2023.103844

61.

Lin

L. Y.

Sidani

J. E.

Shensa

Radovic

Miller

Colditz

J. B.

Hoffman

B. L.

Giles

L. M.

Primack

B. A.

(2016). Association between social Media use and depression among U.S. Young adults. Depression and Anxiety, 33(4), 323–331. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22466

62.

Liu

Gao

Huang

(2020). Better government, happier residents? Quality of government and life satisfaction in China. Social Indicators Research, 147(3), 971–990. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-019-02172-2

63.

Lomas

VanderWeele

T. J.

(2023). Toward an Expanded Taxonomy of Happiness: A Conceptual Analysis of 16 Distinct Forms of Mental Wellbeing. Journal of Humanistic Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1177/00221678231155512

64.

López-López

Iglesias-Antelo

Vázquez-Sanmartín

Connolly

Bannister

(2018). e-Government, transparency & reputation: An empirical study of spanish local government. Information Systems Management, 35(4), 276–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2018.1503792

65.

Lupu

Lazăr

C. G.

(2015). Influence of e-government on the level of corruption in some EU and non-EU states. Procedia Economics and Finance, 20, 365–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00085-4

66.

Zheng

(2019). National e-government performance and citizen satisfaction: A multilevel analysis across European countries. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 85(3), 506–526. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852317703691

67.

Mahmood

Weerakkody

Chen

(2019). The influence of transformed government on citizen trust: Insights from Bahrain. Information Technology for Development, 25(2), 275–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2018.1451980

68.

Martitah

Arifin

Sumarto

Widiyanto

(2021). Confronting E-government adoption in Indonesian local government. Journal of Indonesian Legal Studies, 6(2), 279–306. https://doi.org/10.15294/jils.v6i2.47795

69.

Minardi

(2017). E-government service in Singapore and Indonesia third international conference on social and political sciences (ICSPS 2017) . https://doi.org/10.2991/icsps-17.2018.60 .

70.

Moon

(2002). The evolution of E-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality. Public Administration Review, 62(4), 424–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00196 .

71.

Moynihan

D. P.

DeLeire

Enami

(2015). A life worth living: Evidence on the relationship between prosocial values and happiness. The American Review of Public Administration, 45(3), 311–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074013493657

72.

Murillo Muñoz

J. A.

Rentería

M. F.

(2023). Subjective well-being and domain satisfactions in Colombian university students. Interdisciplinaria. Revista de Psicología y Ciencias Afines, 40(2), 245–263. https://doi.org/10.16888/interd.2023.40.2.15

73.

Napitupulu

(2016). E-Government maturity model based on systematic review and meta-ethnography approach. Jurnal Bina Praja, 8(2), 263–275. https://doi.org/10.21787/jbp.08.2016.263-275

74.

Oishi

(2010). Culture and well-being: Conceptual and methodological issues. In Diener

Kahneman

Helliwell

(Eds.), International differences in well-being (pp. 34–69). Oxford University Press.

75.

Oishi

Diener

(2014). Can and should happiness be a policy goal? Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732214548427

76.

Osborne

Gaebler

(1992). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. Plume.

77.

Pina

Torres

Royo

(2009). E-government evolution in EU local governments: A comparative perspective. Online Information Review, 33(6), 445–454. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520911011052.

78.

Przybylski

A. K.

Weinstein

(2017). A large-scale test of the goldilocks hypothesis: Quantifying the relations between digital-screen use and the mental well-being of adolescents. Psychological Science, 28(2), 204–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616678438

79.

Qanash

Al-Husayni

Falata

Halawani

Jahra

Murshed

Alhejaili

Ghabashi

Alhashmi

(2021). Effect of electronic device addiction on sleep quality and academic performance among health care students: Cross-sectional study. JMIR Medical Education, 7(4), e25662. https://doi.org/10.2196/25662

80.

Renteria

Varela-Castro

(2023). A landscape of participatory platform architectures: Ideas, decisions, and mapping. Information Polity, 28(3), 341–358. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-211520

81.

Rodríguez-Hernández

(2019). The eudemonic and hedonic role of happiness in a population with high levels of life satisfaction. International Journal of Social Psychology, 34(2), 230–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2019.1576323

82.

Rukumnuaykit

Pholphirul

(2016). Happiness from social capital: An investigation from micro data in rural Thailand. Community Development, 47(4), 562–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2016.1206584

83.

Rustiarini

N. W.

(2019). The role of e-government in reducing corruption: A systematic review. Jurnal Perspektif Pembiayaan Dan Pembangunan Daerah, 7(3), 269–286. https://doi.org/10.22437/ppd.v7i3.8311

84.

Ryan

R. M.

Curren

R. R.

Deci

E. L.

(2013). What humans need: Flourishing in aristotelian philosophy and self-determination theory. In The best within us: Positive psychology perspectives on eudaimonia (pp. 57–75). American Psychological Association.

85.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141

86.

Seiam

D. A.

Salman

(2024). Examining the global influence of e-governance on corruption: A panel data analysis. Future Business Journal, 10(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-024-00319-3

87.

Shamsi

R. S. H. A.

Ameen

A. A.

Isaac

Shibami

A. H. A.-

Khalifa

G. S.

(2018). The impact of innovation and smart government on happiness: Proposing conceptual framework. International Journal of Management and Human Science (IJMHS, 2(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.31674/ijmhs.

88.

Shin

D. C.

Johnson

D. M.

(1978). Avowed happiness as an overall assessment of the quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 5(1–4), 475–492. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00352944

89.

Shovkovyy

(2024). Defining Electronic Bureaucracy and Bureaucratism. Suranaree Journal of Social Science, 18(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.55766/sjss-2-2024-257400

90.

Sizer

(2010). Good and good for you: An affect theory of happiness. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 80(1), 133–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2009.00313.x

91.

Stiglitz

Sen

Fitoussi

(2009). Report of the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress (CMEPSP).

92.

Sukmana

Meinel

(2016). E-government and security evaluation tools comparisonfor Indonesian e-government system. 4th International Conference on Information and Network Security, 96–103. https://doi.org/10.1145/3026724.3026741

93.

Sundberg

Holmström

(2024). Citizen-centricity in digital government research: A literature review and integrative framework. Information Polity, 29(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-220047

94.

Tähkämö

Partonen

Pesonen

A.-K.

(2019). Systematic review of light exposure impact on human circadian rhythm. Chronobiology International, 36(2), 151–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/07420528.2018.1527773

95.

Talukder

M. S.

Islam

Q. T.

Karim

(2024). Facilitators and inhibitors of attitude and word-of-mouth intention toward adoption of digital municipal service systems: A stimulus-organism-response approach. PLoS ONE, 19(12), e0315009. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315009

96.

Tandoc

E. C.

Takahashi

(2013). The Complex road to happiness: The influence of human development, a healthy environment and a free press. Social Indicators Research, 113(1), 537–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0109-6

97.

Tolbert

C. J.

Mossberger

(2006). The effects of E-government on trust and confidence in government. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 354–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00594.x

98.

Twenge

J. M.

Joiner

T. E.

Rogers

M. L.

Martin

G. N.

(2018). Increases in depressive symptoms, suicide-related outcomes, and suicide rates among U.S. Adolescents after 2010 and links to increased new Media screen time. Clinical Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702617723376

99.

United Nations. (2008). UN E-Government Survey 2008: From e-Government to Connected Governance. United Nations. https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/Reports/UN-E-Government-Survey-2008 .

100.

van Dijk

J. A. G. M.

(2005). The Network Society: Social Aspects of New Media. Sage.

101.

van Hoorn

(2018). Is the happiness approach to measuring preferences valid? Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 73, 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2018.02.002

102.

Veenhoven

(1984). Conditions of Happiness. Springer Netherlands.

103.

Veenhoven

(2010). Greater happiness for a greater number. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11(5), 605–629. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-010-9204-z

104.

Veenhoven

(2015). The overall satisfaction with life: Subjective approaches. In Glatzer

Camfield

Møller

Rojas

(Eds.), Global handbook of quality of life (pp. 207–238). Springer Netherlands.

105.

Veiga

Rohman

I. K.

(2017). e-Government and the shadow economy: Evidence from across the globe. In Janssen

Axelsson

Glassey

Klievink

Krimmer

Lindgren

Parycek

Scholl

H. J.

Trutnev

(Eds.), Electronic government (pp. 105–116). Springer International Publishing.

106.

Verkijika

S. F.

De Wet

(2018). A usability assessment of e-government websites in sub-saharan Africa. International Journal of Information Management, 39, 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.11.003

107.

Wan Abdul Ghani

W. S.

Ramlee

Ramli

Zamri

Ghazali

A. R.

(2019). The study of internet addiction with depression, anxiety and social isolation. Advances In Business Research International Journal, 5(2), 137. https://doi.org/10.24191/abrij.v5i2.10014

108.

Waterman

A. S.

(2013). Introduction: Considering the nature of a life well-lived—intersections of positive psychology and eudaimonist philosophy. In The best within us: Positive psychology perspectives on eudaimonia (pp. 3–17). American Psychological Association.

109.

Welby

(2019). The impact of digital government on citizen well-being (OECD Working Papers on Public Governance No. 32; OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, Vol. 32). OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/24bac82f-en

110.

West

D. M.

(2004). E-Government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00343.x

111.

Williams

C. C.

(2023). Introduction to formalising the informal economy using an E-government approach. In Williams

C. C.

(Ed.), Formalization of the informal economy: An e-government approach (pp. 1–20). Springer Nature Switzerland.

112.

Zautashvili

(2017). E-government maturity model by growth level of E-services delivery. Journal of Technical Science and Technologies, 6(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.31578/jtst.v6i2.131

113.

Zheng

Yang

R. Y.

(2019). Environmental regulation, public participation and happiness: Empirical research based on Chinese general social survey of 2015. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 17(4), 9317–9332. https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1704_93179332