Computer World: Digital Public Services and Well-Being in Europe

Keypoints for Practitioners

Introduction

Digital transformation in the public sector has reshaped the way public services are designed and delivered (Liu et al., 2025; Gasco Hernandez, 2024; Milakovich, 2022). It has generated new ways of interaction between public administration, businesses and citizens at different levels of government (Jansen & Ølnes, 2016; Lindgren et al., 2019; Lynn et al., 2022). These new capabilities and improvements driven by technological advancements have stimulated a shift from the traditional agency-centric approaches towards a more citizen-centric digital service delivery (Martin, 2008; Milakovich, 2022; Zyzak & Martinussen, 2024). Within this evolving landscape, digital public services (DPS) or e-government relate to government services provided to citizens, businesses, and organizations through digital technologies, intending to improve efficiency and enhance the quality of service delivery (Liu et al., 2025; Lynn et al., 2022). Thus, DPS holds a promise of improving citizens’ experience with government services and participation in the digital space, potentially leading to greater overall well-being. However, it may also risk excluding vulnerable groups, thereby negatively affecting their well-being (Liu et al., 2025; Welby, 2019). While there is now an extensive literature on the stages of e-government evolution as well as its implementation and adoption (Khan, 2024), we still have limited knowledge about whether DPS promote well-being or not. Attempting to fill this gap, we combined country indicators on DPS in Europe with survey data to examine this issue. More specifically, we aim to understand the relationship between DPS and subjective life satisfaction, and whether this is moderated by inequalities and internet use.

While we may take it for granted that DPS improve our access to and influence over public services, thereby leading to increased well-being in the population, there is an increasing concern that citizens’ capacity to engage with DPS is moderated by their social position and context (UN, 2019) or material access (Van Deursen & van Dijk, 2018). The term ‘digital divide’ has emerged as a central concept to describe this, referring to “the gap between individuals, households, businesses and geographic areas at different socio-economic levels with regard both to their opportunities to access information and communication technologies (ICTs) and to their use of the internet for a wide variety of activities” (OECD, 2001, p. 5). The evidence suggests that these social inequalities in access to and use of digital technologies are evident not only in developing countries but also exist in rich economies (Lynn et al., 2022), and that the COVID-19 pandemic may have widened rather than narrowed this digital divide since more services are available only online (Lai & Widmar, 2021). As noted by Murgea (2023, p. 326), the pandemic can be considered the largest experience of forced digitalisation humanity has known, which allows us to “re-examine digitalisation's impact on well-being, considering the scarcity of the previous studies and the contradictory results found in the literature”.

Against this backdrop, this study addresses the impact of DPS on citizens’ well-being, and the possible moderating role of inequalities and internet use, using individual and country-level data from 24 European countries in 2018, 2020 and 2022. To the best of our knowledge, it is the first study to combine survey data with country indicators on DPS. DPS was measured by the e-government component of the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) from the European Commission. We use multi-level modelling to investigate the relationship between DPS and life satisfaction and to uncover whether this is moderated by internet use and the digital access (reflected by age, gender, income, and education). The analysis also controlled for health status, marital status, employment status, and foreign backgroundat the individual level and GDP per capita and other types of digitalization of the society at the country level.

The rest of the paper is organised as follows. In the next section, we present the few previous studies that have looked at well-being in the context of DPS. In section 3, we then outline a theoretical framework in order to place our study in context and motivate our main theoretical arguments. We build on the technology acceptance model (Davis, 1989) and the digitalization paradox (Wang et al., 2025), as well as the ‘access divide’ framework proposed by Lynn et al. (2022), which distinguishes between four types of digital inequalities: age, gender, income, and education. Next, section 4 presents our data and methods, outlines our empirical model, and presents the results. Finally, we discuss and conclude our findings in the context of the theoretical perspectives.

Digital Public Services and Well-Being: What do we Know so far?

The research on DPS has focused on a wide variety of areas (Haug et al., 2023). The literature includes topics such as satisfaction (Prokop & Tepe, 2022; Fathya et al., 2023), design (Grimsley & Meehan, 2007), the digital divide (Ebbers et al., 2016; Helbig et al., 2009), public value creation (Nielsen & Persson, 2017; Panagiotopoulos et al., 2019) or value co-creation (Zyzak & Martinussen, 2024; Zyzak et al., 2024), performance (Lim & Tang, 2008), digital leadership (Salih, 2024; Van Wart et al., 2019), citizen participation in policymaking (Rethemeyer, 2006), citizen-government relations (Tolbert & Mossberger, 2006) to name a few. However, the interplay between DPS and citizens’ well-being has been examined only to a limited extent and still requires further scholarly attention (Khan, 2024).

One of the few exceptions is a contribution by Elmassah and Hassanein (2022), which analysed the effect of digitalisation on 28 European countries’ subjective well-being by using macro (aggregate level) indicators. While the study did not focus specifically on DPS, it employed both the composite DESI index as well as its single components from 2014 to 2019. Well-being was measured through the self-reporting life satisfaction index published by the World Happiness Report, and the analysis furthermore included several country-level control variables to capture time-varying influences across countries: GDP per capita, life expectancy at birth, corruption perceptions, confidence in national government, inflation rate and unemployment rate. The findings showed that two DESI components were negatively related to life satisfaction: human capital and DPS. The remaining three components – internet connectivity, use of the internet, and integrated technology – were, on the other hand, positively related to life satisfaction.

Ionescu-Feleagă et al. (2022) also investigated the relationship between digitalisation and happiness in the EU, focusing on the subsequent period 2019–21. They also used the DESI indicator as a measure of digitalisation and the World Happiness Index to measure well-being. Using simple correlation analysis for each of the three years, the results showed positive relationships between the DPS dimension and happiness, i.e., the opposite finding of Elmassah and Hassanein (2022).

In another study, Murgea (2023) analyzed data from 2017 to 2022 across EU member states, employing both the DESI index and the World Happiness Index to explore country-level trends. Controlling for population density, the study also tested the relevance of the sub-dimensions of the DESI index, and statistically significant correlations were found only in the case of internet users’ skills, fixed broadband coverage, mobile broadband, and e-governance, all negatively related to happiness.

Finally, Khan (2024) drew on technological determinism theory to hypothesize a relationship between e-government maturity and a country's well-being. Utilizing macro-level data from 123 countries, the study demonstrated that higher levels of e-government maturity contribute directly to national well-being and indirectly through their influence on corruption perception and healthy life expectancy. Here, well-being was measured by an indicator drawn from the Gallup World Poll (GWP), while e-government maturity was operationalised using the Online Service Index from the UN e-government survey report.

As this review of the handful of studies shows, the relationship between DPS and well-being requires a broader debate, with a clear need for more empirical studies. The few studies that have examined the role of DPS for well-being have all used countries as the unit of analysis, typically involving country-level fixed effects models or general cross-sectional linear regression, and arrived at different conclusions. The argument made in this study is that it is important to consider the inequalities/access divide when setting out to assess the relationship between digital public services and well-being. In the next section, we outline a theoretical framework applied to this study.

Theoretical Framework: TAM, Digitalization Paradox, and Access Divide

Our study generally departs from the theory of technological determinism, which is the idea that technology shapes society. The theory posits that technology is the primary driver of social and cultural change, and that the intrinsic capabilities of digital technologies determine the direction of societal change, and create societal effects that are inherent, autonomous, and independent (Kallinikos, 2011; Henman, 2010; MacKenzie & Wajcman, 1985; Lips, 2019). A technologically deterministic approach thus suggests that the capabilities of new technologies drive changes in how governments operate and deliver services to citizens. Yet, the specific links between DPS (or e-government) and individual or collective well-being remain insufficiently theorized and empirically examined. The current understanding of these relationships is still emerging, with limited insight into the underlying mechanisms (Khan, 2024; Prokop & Tepe, 2022).

The technology acceptance model (TAM), developed by Fred Davis in 1989, is a widely recognized theoretical framework that explains how users accept and use new technological products and services (Davis, 1989; Davis et al., 1989). While TAM has been extensively applied in fields such as business and management (especially in marketing), and computer science, its use within the social sciences has been comparatively limited (see Musa et al., 2024). We argue that this theory is relevant to DPS as it helps understand and predict citizens’ adoption of digital services. In line with the TAM, we assume that the role DPS might play for well-being will depend on the extent to which citizens perceive these services as beneficial. TAM suggests that perceived usefulness and ease of use are key factors influencing the intention to use new technology, including DPS. According to the model, users are more likely to adopt DPS if they believe it will improve their performance or effectiveness in completing tasks. If users perceive that the use of DPS saves them time, reduces effort, or provides them with better access to information compared to traditional methods, it could thus positively affect their well-being. Similarly, the perceived ease of use refers to how simple and straightforward users perceive the technology to be, and if DPS are perceived as difficult to navigate or understand, users are less likely to adopt it, regardless of its perceived usefulness. User-friendly interfaces and intuitive design are seen as crucial for encouraging adoption of DPS, and the lack of such may thus translate into frustration and unhappiness.

The digitalization paradox, which postulates that increased digitalization may not always lead to expected improvements, is also a relevant perspective to understanding DPS (e.g., Wang et al., 2025). The paradox highlights the potential for unintended consequences and challenges when implementing digital technologies in government, such as reduced efficiency, increased inequalities, or decreased trust in public institutions. Rather than simplifying processes, DPS may create new layers of complexity, increase workloads for officials, and foster resistance due to fear of change or loss of control, and fail to deliver intended value if organizational capacity and human factors are not adequately addressed. It is because a paradox arises when two seemingly contradictory elements coexist in a way that is both interdependent and inseparable (Zou, 2022). This creates a dynamic where efforts to innovate and be more efficient can paradoxically lead to increased burdens and hinder desired outcomes. For example, while digital platforms are meant to streamline and integrate services, poorly implemented DPS can lead to increased data entry, complex user interfaces, and new technical problems that increase the workload and stress for public officials as well as frustration and dissatisfaction for users. Another example is that DPS might promise simplicity and convenience for users, but if these are not delivered, it can lead to frustration and mistrust. DPS may also lead to co-production challenges: digital tools designed to foster co-production between citizens and public officials can, in practice, create a dysfunctional dynamic that increases burdens for officials and negatively influences their engagement, thereby undermining service delivery.

Furthermore, a technologically deterministic approach implies adopting the latest technologies as solutions to public service challenges, sometimes without fully considering the specific needs of citizens or the existing infrastructure. This may lead to a shift towards online platforms and digital interfaces, potentially creating a digital divide where some citizens are excluded due to a lack of access or digital literacy. The promise of DPS is based on two important assumptions rooted in digital inclusion: first, that citizens have equal and widespread access to the internet regardless of where they live, and second, that they possess the skills and resources required for online interaction with public bodies (Pors, 2015; Williams et al., 2016; Lindgren et al., 2019; Lynn et al., 2022; Van Deursen & van Dijk, 2018). An ‘access divide’ means that specific cohorts of the population have access to the internet and digital services while others do not (Lynn et al., 2022), typically due to factors such as income, education, and age. However, as Lynn and colleagues note, the physical access divide seems to have evolved into a skills divide since public and private initiatives have secured widespread access to connectivity. Citizens’ ability to use the internet and online search experience is therefore now becoming a key determinant of adoption and use of DPS (Bélanger & Carter, 2009; Van Deursen & Van Dijk, 2010). Hence, the digital access divide may not only hinder the use of DPS; the digitalisation of public services may even contribute to the digital inequalities (Ebbers et al., 2016).

The research field identifies four main drivers of the digital (or access) divide: age, income, education, and gender (e.g., Elena-Bucea et al., 2020; Lynn et al., 2022). The first type of driver, also referred to as the grey digital divide (Lynn et al., 2022), relates to the ageing populations across modern countries. On the one hand, the physical and social isolation often experienced by older people may be mitigated by meaningful digital social networks, depending on their access and skills to use these technologies effectively (Francis et al., 2019). On the other hand, recent evidence from the EU-28 countries suggests that increasing age is negatively associated (more so than education, gender, or income) with the use of digital services and social networking (Elena-Bucea et al., 2020) and that this relationship is exponential rather than linear for those over 70 years (Friemel, 2016). Age is therefore considered to be one of the main drivers when it comes to ICT adoption. The generational divide is considered especially important for the daily appropriation of ICT and is often labeled as ‘digital natives’ versus ‘digital immigrants’. The former group, the younger age, was born and grew up in the digital age surrounded by ICT, whereas the latter group, the elderly, had to adapt themselves to ICT (Ballano et al., 2014; Prensky, 2001). Given their non-intuitive ICT skills and usage, digital immigrants have been shown to display signs of computer anxiety and technophobia (Van Dijk, 2012; Vroman et al., 2015). Another important aspect of the grey digital divide has to do with the design of digital services for the elderly. Due to the lack of face-to-face interaction with users to correct errors, there is a risk that digital services may increase misclassifications and inaccurate profiling (Lolich & Timonen, 2022). The technology behind digital services in the area of elder care is typically developed by young middle-class men (Irani, 2015). Similarly, those evaluating the services are often younger, better educated, and more digitally skilled than older users (Poli et al., 2019), which may lead to a binary stereotyping of older adults as empowered consumers of technology or as vulnerable people at risk (Lolich & Timonen, 2022).

The second driver identified in the literature is the income digital (or access) divide. The level of income is regarded as a major reason for the access divide (United Nations, 2012; World Bank, 2016), and is regarded as an important driver of the digital development of countries (Cruz-Jesus et al., 2017). Income impacts both internet access (Van Deursen et al., 2016) and usage (Zhang, 2013), and has several distinctive qualities compared to other dimensions of social inequality that might be linked to internet use. First, income has a stronger potential for reciprocal causation than fully exogenous variables such as sex, race, and age (and to a lesser extent education and citizenship status). Low income leads to non-use of the internet, which may in turn result in lower income in a mutually reinforcing pattern of economic isolation. Secondly, whereas education can capture dimensions of skills and training as well as economic resources, income is more directly related to the economic barriers to internet use, such as the ability to pay (Martin & Robinson, 2007). Income was regarded as particularly crucial in the early days of technology diffusion since owning a computer was then regarded as an optional luxury, which only those with higher income could afford (Cuervo & Menéndez, 2006; Wong et al., 2015; Lindblom & Räsänen, 2017).

The education digital (or access) divide is a third barrier to the adoption and use of ICT. The use of ICT is typically complex and technical, which makes education an important predictor for engaging in online activities (Van Deursen et al., 2016). Recent evidence from Europe suggests that education is strongly linked to the adoption of e-services and social networking, and that in the former case, education was more important than age, gender, and income (Elena-Bucea et al., 2020). It has also been shown that government spending on education is directly linked to access and thereby use of ICT in both developed and developing countries (Pick & Azari, 2008). Since many websites are in English, language skills represent a further barrier to ICT access and usage (UN, 2012). Education may thus enable people to overcome digital complexity, providing prospects for future employment and life opportunities (Pick & Nishida, 2015). The term ‘digital vicious cycle’ has been used to describe the process in which digital exclusion may negatively impact on access to education, work, and other opportunities (Baum et al., 2014). Furthermore, Lolich and Timonen (2022) discuss the potential inequalities that may arise from digitalising education. While earlier concerns focused on wealthier students gaining early internet access, developing digital skills, and thereby widening the digital divide, current attention has shifted to how digital open educational resources may exacerbate inequalities in students’ capacity to build social capital (Lolich & Timonen, 2022). The advantages of a ‘traditional’ study at a university include access to face-to-face connections, personal relationships and physical presence, which cannot be gained through their online counterparts (Selwyn, 2014). Digital education may thus potentially affect students in the amount and type of work they can obtain in the future, if more valued educational credentials are correlated with better-quality and higher-paid employment (Lolich & Timonen, 2022).

Finally, the gender digital (or access) divide reflects the inequalities related to gender. The access to and usage of ICT is often impacted by gender differences, which again typically relates to aspects such as complex familial, institutional, religious, societal and stereotypical beliefs (Cooper, 2006). These digital disparities are more visible in developing nations, where the gender gap in accessibility and use of ICTs increases existing inequalities. Evidence from the EU suggests relative parity between men and women in use of internet, but a significant gender gap remains in specialist digital skills, though the gap is closing in internet user skills (European Commission, 2021). Studies furthermore indicate that women rate their internet skills consistently lower than men, with the exception of ‘information navigation skills’ (Van Deursen et al., 2016), which might be taken as an indication of the so-called ‘confidence gap’ (Guillen, 2018). Inequalities in internet usage and access have been widely documented, also in cross-national studies (e.g., Buchi et al., 2016; Galperin, 2017; Ono & Zavodny, 2007), but the consequences of digital inequalities for individuals’ subjective well-being remain largely unclear (Buchi et al., 2018), and not least in the context of DPS. The departure of this study is that the benefits of DPS in terms of well-being are moderated by the digital inequalities related to age, income, education, and gender. As we have seen, the few previous studies on the relationship between DPS and well-being have been unable to deal with this, as they have all utilised aggregated country-level data.

Data and Methods

The relationship between digitalization of public services and well-being is analysed through multi-level analysis of 73,37 individuals at level 1 and 24 European countries at level 2, with observations from 2018, 2020, and 2022. The information on digitalization of public services was obtained from the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI), which monitors Europe's overall digital performance and tracks the progress of the EU countries regarding their digital competitiveness. The DESI is a composite index that summarizes relevant indicators of the countries’ digital development, and is typically used to examine individual countries or in cross-country comparisons (e.g., Elmassah & Hassanein, 2022; Lixăndroiu, 2018; Moroz, 2017; Murgea, 2023; Stoica & Bogoslov, 2017). The DESI indicator on DPS was merged with corresponding yearly data on well-being from the European Social Survey (ESS), based on the latest three waves (9th to 11th wave, 2018 to 2022). ESS is an academically driven cross-national survey conducted across Europe since its establishment in 2001, and there is widespread consensus about the high quality of ESS data, even in direct comparison to other surveys of similar purpose and scope (Kolarz et al., 2017). Data collection was based on face-to-face interviews with individuals aged 15 and above living in private households. Response rates ranged from 28 per cent in Germany in 2018 to 77 per cent in Portugal in 2012 and are overall similar to previous rounds of the ESS ¹ .

Results

From model 1 in Table 2 we see that digitalization of public services has a negative association with life satisfaction, where a one-unit increase in digital public services is associated with a 0,64-unit reduction in life satisfaction. This means that a 1 standard deviation increase in DPS is associated with a 1 standard deviation reduction in life satisfaction, reflecting a relatively large association. Model 2 displays the analysis of the moderating role of use of internet, where we find that individuals who use the internet frequently have an additional negative effect of DPS compared to individuals who only occasionally or never use the internet. Further, other types of digitalization of society are found to be negatively correlated with well-being, while high use of internet is found to have a positive association. The remaining control variables have findings as expected.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

	mean	sd	min	Max
Life satisfaction	7.1	2.1	0	10
DPS	14.7	3.3	8.1	21.8
DESI (control)	9.5	2.3	5.5	15.9
Age	52	18	15	90
Poor health	0.36	0.5	0.0	1.0
Female	0.54	0.5	0.0	1.0
Married	0.52	0.5	0.0	1.0
Low educ	0.20	0.4	0.0	1.0
Income (decile)	5.46	2.8	1.0	10.0
High internet	0.80	0.4	0.0	1.0
Unemployed	0.02	0.1	0.0	1.0
Foreigner	0.08	0.3	0.0	1.0
GDP pc	321	112	163	843

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Associations Between Digital Public Services and Well-Being and the Moderating Role of use of Internet.

	(1)	(2)
DPS	−0.641***	−0.558***
	(0.045)	(0.046)
High_internet	0.313***	0.722***
	(0.022)	(0.162)
DPS*High_internet		−0.034***
		(0.010)
DESI	−3.432***	−2.982***
	(0.402)	(0.403)
Age	−0.054***	−0.052***
	(0.002)	(0.002)
Age2	0.001***	0.001***
	(0.000)	(0.000)
Poor health	−0.996***	−0.981***
	(0.016)	(0.016)
Female	0.102***	0.101***
	(0.014)	(0.014)
Married	0.314***	0.316***
	(0.016)	(0.016)
Low educ	−0.096***	−0.091***
	(0.019)	(0.020)
Income (decile)	0.125***	0.125***
	(0.003)	(0.003)
Unemployed	−0.517***	−0.519***
	(0.053)	(0.052)
Foreigner	−0.039	−0.030
	(0.025)	(0.025)
GDPpc	0.005***	0.004***
	(0.000)	(0.000)
2020	1.713***	1.533***
	(0.120)	(0.120)
2022	3.884***	3.489***
	(0.266)	(0.267)
Level 2
Random slope		0.095***
		(0.030)
Variance	7.679***	6.692***
	(2.410)	(2.149)
Individuals	79,270	79,270
Countries	24	24
ICC	0.669	0.644
−2LL	328,816	328,808

SE in parentheses.

***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.

The full tables displaying the results for the third set of analyses are presented in the supplementary material, where all four extensions of the interaction terms are found to be statistically significant. Figures 1–4 illustrate these findings, showing the estimated marginal effects across different combinations of internet use and the four variables representing the access divide: age, education, income and gender.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Age of Respondent.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Education.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Income.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

Gender: Female.

Figure 1 shows that the largest variation in predicted marginal effects based on the use of internet is found among younger individuals, where those who have a high use of internet have a larger negative association with DPS than those with low use. However, this is not the case for individuals between 50 and 75, where the relationship appears to be independent of internet use. For individuals above 80, we can again identify a gap in predicted marginal effects based on the use of the internet.

As shown in Figure 2, the variation in life satisfaction associated with internet use is smaller among individuals with higher levels of education, where the individuals with low education and low use of internet are the least negatively affected by DPS, although the use of internet appears to be a more important moderator than educational background. Figure 3 displays a similar pattern for income, where individuals with low income and low use of internet are the least negatively affected by DPS. Education at a higher level instead of medium level appears to be less important in this respect. Finally, Figure 4 illustrates that the negative effects on life satisfaction from DPS are smaller among women than men if the use of internet is low; however, the two groups appear equal if the use of internet is high, where the negative effect is larger for this group than for those who use the internet less frequently. In other words, individuals typically expected to be disadvantaged in their use of digital technologies appear to be the least negatively affected by DPS.

Discussion

Surprisingly few scholars have studied the relationship between DPS and well-being, considering how profoundly digital interfaces change public service encounters (Khan, 2024; Prokop & Tepe, 2022; Lindgren et al., 2019). Our study provides novel insights by investigating how the frequency of internet use moderates the relationship between DPS and well-being, and how this relationship is further moderated by the four main drivers of the digital (or access) divide: age, income, education, and gender. We analyzed 24 European countries building on the most recent data available and utilizing multilevel analysis. Our findings suggest that the DPS has a negative association with well-being, thereby adding a critical dimension to the ongoing discourse surrounding the relationship between DPS and individual quality of life. This is in line with another recent study on digitalization and happiness in the EU, which found that digitalization has a negative impact on happiness at the aggregate country level (Murgea, 2023). Elmassah and Hassanein (2022) and Ionescu-Feleagă et al. (2022) found, on the other hand, positive relationships between digitalization (measured by DESI) and European countries’ score on the World Happiness Index. This ambivalence clearly highlights the need for more research on the role of digitalization in general, and DPS in particular, for citizens’ well-being.

The public services are far behind the private services in terms of taking advantage of digital interfaces. Most of the attention has been on the technological infrastructure and design features aspects of DPS (e.g., Grimsley & Meehan, 2007; Verdegem & Verleye, 2009; Nielsen & Persson, 2017; Lynn et al., 2022), while the end-user perspective remains relatively unexplored. Yet, given that citizens’ satisfaction with DPS is supposed to be key to their success (Prokop & Tepe, 2022), ignorance of this aspect may result in low acceptance and adoption rates (e.g., Pleger et al., 2020). Whereas policymakers can be expected to welcome digital solutions as a way of reducing personal costs, it is more difficult to infer why citizens should prefer a digital interface over face-to-face communication (Prokop & Tepe, 2022). The main argument for why citizens should be more satisfied with DPS has to do with convenience (Meuter et al., 2000): it allows public service users to avoid in-person appointments, save time, and promotes a feeling of being more in control of the service process (e.g., Bateson, 2000). However, as Prokop and Tepe (2022) emphasize, these assumptions are mainly derived from private sector evidence on customer satisfaction. Another supposed benefit, typically advocated by policymakers, is that digital services may offer citizens non-monetary benefits, mainly in the form of reduced administrative burdens. Whether such non-monetary benefits of DPS are reflected in citizens’ satisfaction has, on the other hand, been little examined. Representing one of the few exceptions, the study by Prokop and Tepe (2022) found that replacing face-to-face communication with a digital interface had no effect on citizens’ satisfaction. In contrast, Khan (2024) demonstrated that a higher level of e-government maturity in a country directly contributes to its well-being.

Our study departed from the common assumption that digital solutions should lead to higher satisfaction with public services, and thereby promote more general well-being. Although our findings do not rule out the possibility that DPS may enhance service satisfaction while simultaneously exerting a negative influence on overall well-being, we contend that the most plausible interpretation is that digital interactions can adversely impact citizens through multiple pathways. The digital government is assumed to empower citizens by allowing them to interact proactively with government and service providers (Milakovich, 2022). It should offer new ways for citizens to share their views and express dissatisfaction, thus enhancing their capacity to engage with politicians and tailor public services to their needs (Welby, 2019). Digital services represent a break with the traditional way of offering public services (Haug et al., 2023; Zyzak & Martinussen, 2024), reduce the direct interaction with the service provider, require an understanding of the system, and can often provide a poorly created digital infrastructure/service design or absence of information that often corresponds with the lack of user digital skills (Osborne, 2020). In many cases, therefore, the partial or full replacement of civil servants by digital interfaces may instead lead to more frustration and time consumption in the use of public services.

Interestingly enough, our findings suggest that people who use the internet the most appear to have the greatest negative associations with DPS. In light of the digital paradox theory (Wang et al., 2025), this may at first appear counterintuitive. However, as individuals with low use of the internet are less exposed to digital platforms, they are also to a larger extent relieved of the additional work and stress associated with DPS. When individuals do not possess the necessary skills or appliances for the use of DPS, they are more likely to be permitted over-the-counter assistance or to receive help from social networks, which may reduce the negative impact on these individuals. Furthermore, the non-use of the internet is not always about a lack of skills and equipment: it may also reflect a deliberate choice to disengage from online society (Van Deursen & Van Dijk, 2010, 2018). In such cases, the decision to disengage from digital technologies can be understood as an autonomous voluntary action, with the ‘hidden’ personal reasons typically reflecting some form of agency or related concepts such as intentionality, choice, motivation, purposiveness, freedom, and creativity (see e.g., Safarov, 2021; Van Deursen & van Dijk, 2018 for a good discussion). In our study, the individuals with low use of the internet are, in general, less satisfied with life, but this effect is largely reflected by the variables ‘low use of internet’ and ‘digitalization of the economy and society’, and when these are controlled for, the additional effect of digitalization of the public sector is less important.

While it is intuitive to think that younger individuals, with their higher digital literacy, would naturally be more positive about DPS, the TAM and paradox theories invite us to look deeper. Younger individuals are more connected, but they are more aware of data privacy risk and many DPS might not be perceived as beneficial to them as to other groups (e.g., pension or tax systems). Especially, perceived usefulness and ease of use factors of TAM (Davis, 1989; Davis et al., 1989), might explain the negative association between DPS and life satisfaction for the youngest group. Although they have digital skills, they might not perceive that digital services are easy to navigate as other digital interactions they experience, or they do not see the advantages of the provided DPS in their respective context. Compared to older individuals, they are more reliant on manoeuvring digital platforms to obtain information, and also less likely to call for help. Much more scholarly attention and guidance have been given to older (often called digital immigrants) disabilities, gender and ethnicity (e.g., Vroman et al., 2015; Van Dijk, 2012; Cooper, 2006), leaving a significant research gap concerning younger generations, often perceived as digital nativeness, what our study shows that is taken for granted and insufficiently problematized in academic discourse.

Our findings also suggest that the moderating role of internet use is stronger for more educated individuals as well as those at higher income levels, for whom DPS is associated with lower life satisfaction. This can be linked to the broader discussion on the type and quality of public services, where quality is often conceptualized as the absence of service failure (Prokop & Tepe, 2022). However, when individuals are confronted with economic or social costs stemming from such failures, they may become more critical about DPS. By contrast, for individuals with low education and income – reflecting the most frequent users of social services – digitalisation may have a positive impact on well-being, as the reduction of face-to-face interactions can diminish the potential stigma associated with applying for these services (see more in Pinker & Pinker, 2017).

Finally, the use of the internet is less important for the relationship between DPS and well-being for gender; however, women with low internet use are significantly less negatively affected in terms of well-being than men, while women with high use of internet use are found to have a similar impact as men. This result only slightly aligns with the study by Macaya et al. (2021), who identified gender disparities in the use of e-government services. Their study underscores gender as a key determinant of digital inequality. Macaya et al. (2021) argue that digital services are inherently non-neutral and that restricted access or limited usage may exacerbate existing social inequalities.

Conclusion

The adoption of digital solutions is taking place at a time where governments are also emphasising that all policies, innovations and investments should improve well-being. DPS are generally expected to provide higher transparency, efficiency and responsiveness from public organisations, thereby leading to more satisfied citizens. Our results do not support this: on the contrary, DPS are associated with less well-being. Contrary to most of the previous studies, our result demonstrated that the implementation of DPS appears to correlate with a decline in reported well-being. This unexpected outcome suggests that the implementation of digital solutions to enhance public services may not automatically translate into improved citizen experiences or perceptions. Instead, it raises critical questions about the design, accessibility, and inclusivity of these systems.

It is important to mention that our study is not exempt from limitations. As discussed above, the experience with DPS encounters is likely to vary with the types of services. In particular, it is reasonable to expect that there is a difference between health and social services on the one hand, and the more technical services on the other, such as taxes, customs, VAT, etc. A better and more detailed indicator of digitalisation, allowing us to distinguish between different categories of public services, might thus uncover that some services are negatively related to well-being, while others are not.