.342
4.5E-3(5.2E-3)
.391
Percent of Households With
—
—
.13(0.17)
.449
Internet Access
Average Number of
-1.27(0.73)
. 083
-.91(.52)
.073
Computers Per Library
Organizational Capacity
Task Force
-3.20(2.74)
.242
-1.91(2.19)
.381
Electronic Commerce Score
—
—
-.14(0.37)
.709
West E-government Score
.29(0.15)
.060
.22(0.12)
.048
Legislative Social Media Use
2.35(1.22)
.055
2.07(0.98)
. 035
Constant
-2.89(8.57)
.736
-7.21(10.50)
.492
Pseudo R2
.6589
.6356
LR Chi2
35.94
.0003
34.67
.0016
N
49
49
250 Ramona McNeal
measure of e-government and the extend of legislative social media use
infl uenc
fl
e state compliance with this federal policy.
Logistic regression estimates with standard errors in parentheses.
Reported probabilities are based on two-tailed tests. Statistically signifi-
cant coeffi
fficients at .10 or less in bold.
Some of the fi
findings were expected. Measures of demand or need were
not found to be related to adoption in this policy area which is consis-
tent with the e-government literature (McNeal et al., 2003; Tolbert et al.,
2008). The only exception was the measure for average number of comput-
ers per library and it was negatively related to policy adoption. The fi nd
fi
ings
suggest that the greater availability of computers at public libraries, the less
likely that the state will take policy action to extend broadband access.
Need or citizen demand has not typically been found to bring about adop-
tion of e-government initiatives. Although this fi
finding is consistent with the
e-government literature, it contradicts Goggin et al. (1990) who argue that
public awareness of a problem is a signifi
ficant predictor of political activi-
ties. It is likely that because both e-government and telecommunication
policy are technical, they are unlikely to be salient with the general public.
Like the general public, interest groups were not found to play an impor-
tant role in the implementation of this policy. Surprisingly, the measure of
telecommunication service providers was not found to be significant and
the measure for good government interest groups was found to be signifi-
cant but not in the direction predicted.
Goggin et al. (1990) argue that even though actors at the federal, state,
and local levels may attempt to infl
fluence state policy, the state may ignore
these messages and enact its own preferences. The fi
findings are in fact
suggesting this is happening for actors within the state for this issue area.
There is evidence however that federal-level inducement has had some
infl
fluence on state behavior. In both models, states who had accepted
larger grants from the State Broadband Initiative program where more
likely to implement policy that was consistent with the goals of the fed-
eral government. On the other hand, monies collected for infrastructure
from BTOP were not related to state policy actions. The main differ-
ence between these two programs is fl ex
fl
ibility. Monies from BTOP is for
extending or updating telecommunication infrastructure, whereas grants
from the State Broadband Initiative is for a variety of projects that help
the states compete in the digital economy, which may include expansion
of Internet access.
Whereas Goggin et al. (1990) argue that states may choice to ignore
messages from other political actors, how much freedom they have to do
so is based on state resources (state capacity). Nevertheless, the fi nd
fi
ings
point to only a few examples of state capacity which are related to the level
of state compliance. The fi
first is Republican-controlled state governments.
This fi
finding, although not intuitive, is consistent with the e-government
State Response to Obama’s Broadband Access Policy 251
literature that fi
finds that states with greater proportions of Republicans in
the state legislature are more likely to innovate in the area of e-government
(McNeal et al., 2003; Tolbert et al., 2008; Hale & McNeal, 2011). This
result has been attributed to the cost-cutting capacity and effi
ci
ffi ency associ-
ated with e-government. The fi
final two examples of state capacity found to
infl uenc
fl
e implementation of these programs are West’s (2007) innovation
index—a measure of the overall state ranking of government websites and
the extent to which legislative agencies and caucuses rely on social media.
Both are indicators of the extent to which e-government has been adopted
in the state.
6 CONCLUSION
Because the United States has a federalist system, implementation of
national policies often requires the cooperation of other levels of govern-
ment. Whether they chose to cooperate depends on how credible they
believe the federal government’s request for assistance is and if they have
suffi
fficient resources that permit them the freedom to ignore these mes-
sages. The results from this study fi n
fi d that the policies under the Obama
administration have not altered the path that the states have chosen in the
adoption of e-government strategies. Those states that have already taken
greater steps toward adopting e-government approaches for delivering
informational services are the ones most likely to adopt policies that are
consistent with the current administration’s goals of extending broadband
service. Two factors may be resulting in states staying on their current
policy paths. The fi
first is that this is a highly technical area and less likely
to be salient among the general public. There may be little demand for
change coming from within the state. The second is that whereas e-gov-
ernment strategies can result in cost-cutting and effi
c
ffi iency, it requires sig-
nificant initial investments. During these difficult economic times, states
may be unwilling to undertake new projects that are expensive even with
the promise of future savings.
These fi
findings must, however, be considered with the understanding
that this study is preliminary. The goal of the Goggin et al. (1990) Com-
munication M
odel is to depict implementation over time and determine
why there is variation in how states implement federal laws. This study
relies on a cross-sectional study that depicts state action at one point in
time. In addition, the dependent variables under this framework include
both outputs and outcomes. This study has only examined outputs by the
state government or policy adoption. Outcomes include the impact a law
has on society. These limitation results from this policy area being rela-
tively new; the Recovery Act was only enacted in 2009. Future research can
improve upon this initial study through utilizing a time-series approach
252 Ramona McNeal
and including measures of outcomes such as percentage of households with
Internet access, and availability of service providers in rural areas as depen-
dent variables.
REFERENCES
Atkinson, R. D., & Wilhelm, T. (2002). The best states for e-commerce. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.
Baller Herbst Law Group. (2011). State restrictions on community broadband ser-
vices or other public communications initiatives. Retrieved March 23, 2011,
from http://www.baller.com/pdfs/BallerStateBarriers(1–1-11).pdf
Carvin, A., Conte, C., & Gilbert, A. (2001). The E-rate in America: A tale of four cities. In B. M. Campaign (Ed.). The digital divide: Facing a crisis or creating a myth? (pp. 223–242). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dickard, N. (2003). Edtech 2002: Budget challenges, policy shifts and digital
opportunity. In N. Dickard (Ed.), The Sustainability challenge: Taking ddtech
to the next level. Benton Foundation and the Education Development Centers
for Children and Technology. Retrieved May 7, 2004, from http://www.benton.
org/publibrary/sustainability/sus_challenge.html
Federal Communication Commission. (2010). National broadband plan: Connect-
ing America. Retrieved March 25, 2011, from http://www.broadband.gov/
Fiber-to-the-Home Council, (2009). Municipal fi
fiber to the home deployments.
Retrieved August 20, 2010, from http://www.ftthcouncil.org/sites
Goggin, M., Bowman, A .O., Lester, J. P., & O’Toole, L. J., Jr. (1990). Implementation theory and practice: Toward a third generation. New York: HarperCol-
lins Publishers.
Hale, K., & McNeal, R. (2011). Technology, politics, and e-commerce: Internet
sales tax and interstate cooperation. Government Information Quarterly,
28(2), 262–270.
Markell, D. (1993). The federal superfund program: Proposals for strength-
ening the federal/state relationship. William and Mary Journal of Envi-
ronmental Law. 18, 1–82.
McNeal, R., Tolbert, C., Mossberger, K., & Dotterweich, L. (2003). Innovating in digital government in the American states. Social Science Quarterly. 84(1), 52–70.
McNeal, R., Hale, K., & Dotterweich, L. (2008). Citizen-government interaction
and the Internet: Expectations and accomplishments in contact, quality and
trust. Journal of Information Technology & Politics. 5(2): 213–229.
National Council of State Legislatures. (2010a). Broadband statutes. Retrieve April
19, 2010, from http://www.ncls.org/dafault.aspx?tabid=13455
National Council of State Legislatures. (2010b). Partisan composition of state leg-
islatures. Retrieved April 19, 2010, from http://www.ncls.org
National Council of State Legislatures. (2010c). State broadband task forces, com-
missions or authorities and other broadband resources. Retrieved April 19,
2010, from http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/telecommunications-informa-
tion-technology/state-broadband-task-forces-commissions-or-autho.aspx
National Council of State Legislatures. (2011). Legislative social media sites.
Retrieved July 20, 2011, from http://www.ncls.org/default.aspx?tabid=13409
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). (2010).
Digital nation: 21st Century America’s progress toward universal broadband
Internet access. Retrieved January 20, 2011, from http://www.ntia.doc.gov
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). (2011a).
State broadband initiative . Retrieved March 5, 2011, from http://www2.ntia.
doc.gov/SBDD
State Response to Obama’s Broadband Access Policy 253
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). (2011b).
Grants awarded: broadband infrastructure projects. Retrieved April 18, 2011,
from http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/awards
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). (2011c).
National broadband map . Retrieved April 9, 2011, from http://www.broad-
bandmap.gov
Nicholas, K. (2003). Geo-political barriers and rural Internet access: The regulatory
role in constructing the digital divide. The Information Society. 19, 287–295.
Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the
Internet worldwide. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pardo, T. (2000). Realizing the promise of digital government: It’s more than build-
ing a website. Information Impacts Magazine. Retrieved March 12, 2004, from
http://www.cisp.org/imp/october_2000
Project Vote Smart. (2010). Issue organizations. Retrieved February 17, 2010,
from http://www.votesmart.org/issue_group.php
Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board. (2010). Recovery funds satellite
broadband to rural America. Retrieved February 12, 2011, from http://www.
recovery.gov
Stover, S. (1999). Rural Internet connectivity. Rural Policy Research Institute.
Retrieved April 10, 2001, from http://www.rupi.org/
Tolbert, C. J., Mossberger, K., & McNeal, R. (2008). Innovation and learning:
Measuring e-government performance in the American states 2000–2004. Pub-
lic Administration Review. 68(3): 549–563.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). Population density. Retrieved December 18, 2011,
from http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Statistical Abstracts in the United States 2012. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Election Project. (2011). Voter-age turnout in the states. Retrieved May 15,
2011, from http://www.elections.gmu.edu/voter-turnout.htm
Walker, J. (1969). The Diff
ffusion of innovation among the American states. Ameri-
can Political Science Review. 63(3): 880–899.
West, D. (2004). E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citi-
zen attitudes. Public Administration Review. 64(1): 15–27.
West, D. (2007). State and federal e-government in the United States, 2007. Center
for Public Policy, Brown University. Retrieved February 19, 2008, from http://
www.brown.edu/Departments/Taubman_Center/minisite/policyreports/index.
html
Contributors
EDITORS
Christopher G. Reddick is an Associate Professor and Chair of the
Department of Public Administration at the University of Texas at San
Antonio. Dr. Reddick’s research and teaching interests are in informa-
tion technology and public sector organizations. Dr. Reddick recently
edited the two volume book entitled Handbook of Research on Strat-
egies for Local E-Government Adoption and Implementation: Com-
parative Studies. He is also author of the book Homeland Security
Pr
eparedness and Information Systems, which deals with the impact
of information technology on homeland security preparedness.
Vishanth Weerakkody is a Senior Lecturer and Director of Undergradu-
ate Studies at the Business School at Brunel University, UK. His current
research interests include electronic government, process transforma-
tion and change, and technology adoption and diff
ffusion in the public
sector. As well as being Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of
Electronic Government Research, he is Associate Editor for a number
of leading journals. He has edited several books and published over
100 articles in peer reviewed journals and conferences on the themes of
public sector transformation and e-government. At present, he serves as
Track Co- Chair for e-government at a number of International Confer-
ences including the Americas Conference on Information Systems and
the European Conference on Information Systems. Prior to his career in
academia, Dr Weerakkody spent several years working in the IT indus-
try as a systems and process analyst.
CONTRIBUTORS
Laura Alcaide Muñoz is Lecturer in Financial Economic and Accounting
Department of the University of Granada. She is interested in how e-gov-
ernment has favored the process of reform and modernization of public
256 Contributors
administrations, giving rise to greater accessibility to public information
and services, and information transparency, this latter aspect being a
key factor in the accountability of public administration. She has been
author of articles published in International Journal of Digital Account-
ing Research and Administration & Society and a chapter in a book
published by IGI Global.
Leonidas G. Anthopoulos is an Assistant Professor at the Project Manage-
ment Department of the TEI of Larissa (Greece). At his previous job
positions at the Hellenic Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Information
Society S.A. (Greece) etc. he was responsible for planning and manag-
ing multiple IT and e-government projects, and complex computer sys-
tems for Greek government and for various public organizations. He is
the author of several articles published in prestigious scientifi c j
fi ournals,
books, and international conferences. His research interests concern,
among others, e-government and e-Strategic management, enterprise
architecture, social networks and engineering project management.
Public Sector Transformation Through E-Government Page 44