The Effectiveness of E-Governance on Public Service Delivery in Zanzibar. Case Study: Business and Property Registration Authority (BPRA)

This study assessed the effectiveness of e-governance on public service delivery in Zanzibar. Specifically, the study examined the contribution of e-governance in improving the accessibility of public service, the impact of e-governance in facilitating resource utilization on the delivery of public service, and the effect of e-governance in enhancing accountability on the public service delivery in public Institutions with a focus on three key variables: accessibility, resource utilization, and accountability. Accessibility is critical in ensuring that more citizens can engage with digital services, while effective resource utilization enhances the system’s capacity to meet public needs and accountability, though slightly less impactful, is vital for maintaining public trust and transparency in service delivery. Using a quantitative approach data was collected from 70 respondents. The findings indicate that accessibility has the strongest positive effect on public service delivery, followed by resource utilization and accountability, all of which are statistically significant. Accessibility has the strongest positive impact on Public Service Delivery with a notable unstandardized coefficient (B = 0.675) and standardized coefficient (β = 0.456). This suggests that for every one-unit increase in ACB, there is a corresponding increase of 0.675 units in PSD. While Resource Utilization and Accountability have smaller coefficients than ACB, their effects are nonetheless statistically significant. Resource Utilization (B = 0.320, β = 0.287) has a stronger effect than Accountability (B = 0.245, β = 0.198), indicating that effective resource allocation is more closely tied to perceived service delivery than accountability mechanisms. The study concludes that improving digital access, optimizing resources, and enhancing accountability mechanisms are essential for the success of e-governance initiatives in public institutions. Recommendations for policy improvements and further research are provided to guide the continued development of e-governance systems for better public service delivery.

E-governance, E-Governance Initiatives, Resource Utilization, Public Service delivery

1. Ali, R., and Khamis, A. (2022). Challenges in Public Sector Resource Management in Zanzibar: A Case Study. Journal of Public Administration and Governance, 12(1), 45-63. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Abdallah, S., and Mohamed, A. (2020). The Impact of Electronic Health Records on Health Service Delivery in Zanzibar. East African Health Research Journal, 4(2), 85-92. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Ajibade, T. (2018). Perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use influence users' attitudes toward using technology. Journal of Information Technology and Application, 15(2), 45-58. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Ali, M., and Khamis, S. (2021). Government Electronic Payment Gateway and Its Impact on Public Financial Management in Zanzibar. Journal of Public Administration and Policy Research, 13(1), 43-52. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Almazroi, A., and Ali, S. (2019). User Satisfaction with E-Government Services: A Study of Online Platforms. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Andersen, T. B. (2019). E-Government as an anti-corruption strategy. Information Economics and Policy, 21(3), 201-210. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Bannister, F., and Connolly, R. (2014). Governance and the Role of E-Governance in the Digital Age. International Journal of Public Administration. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., and Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies." Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 264-271). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Cordella, A., and Bonina, C. M. (2012). "A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: A theoretical reflection." Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 512-520). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Christensen, T., and Laegreid, P. (2001). New Public Management: The Transformation of Ideas and Practice. Public Administration Review, 61(6), 758-765. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Dada, D. (2018). E-Governance and Public Service Delivery in Nigeria: A Review of the Literature. Journal of African Business. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Fernando, F. (2021). Digital governance and accountability: The role of ICT in enhancing public sector transparency in Brazil. Information Polity, 26(2), 121-136. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Githinji, M. (2022). Bureaucratic Inefficiencies in East African Government Services: A Comparative Study. African Journal of Public Affairs, 14(2), 89-104. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Gomez, R., and Wright, A. (2021). The Impact of Resource Utilization on E-Governance System Performance: Evidence from European Union Member States. Journal of European Public Policy, 28(7), 987-1004. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Gupta, S., Sharma, R., and Mehta, P. (2023). Impact of e-Governance on Service Delivery in India: A Case Study of Online Tax Filing. Journal of Digital Government, 12(3), 234-250. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Heeks, R. (2001). "Understanding e-Governance for Development. Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of Manchester. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Heald, D. (2018). Public Value and Public Services: A Review of Theory and Practice. Public Administration Review, 78(5), 859-868. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Holliday, A., and MacDonald, C. (2016). Qualitative Research Methods (3rd ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Hood, C. (1991). A Public Management for All Seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3-19. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Jain, R., and Sharma, A. (2020). E-Governance and Accessibility: A Study of Digital Inclusion in Developing Countries. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 17(1), 58-73. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Juma, H., and Issa, S. (2019). Capacity Building for E-Government Implementation in Zanzibar: Challenges and Prospects. African Journal of Information Systems, 11(3), 120-135. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Karen, M., Tolbert, C. J., and Franko, W. (2019). E-Government and public accountability: Evidence from local governments in the United States. Public Administration Review, 79(4), 545-558. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Kettunen, P., and Kallio, J. (2020). Digital Divide and E-Governance: Lessons from Finland. Government Information Quarterly, 37(3), 101-115. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Kothari C. R. (2005). Research Methodology; Methods and Techniques, New Age International (P) Limited, Publishers. New Delhi. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Komba, G. (2021). Assessing the Impact of Electronic Procurement on Public Sector Efficiency: The Case of TANePS in Tanzania. International Journal of Public Administration, 44(3), 256-269. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Khan, M. A., and Ahmed, S. (2023). Resource Utilization in E-Governance Systems: Analyzing Cost-Efficiency and Resource Allocation. International Journal of Public Administration, 46(4), 489-505. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Kumar, S., and Sarker, T. (2018). Assessing the Impact of E-Governance on Public Service Accessibility: A Case Study of the European Union. Government Information Quarterly, 35(3), 389-398. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Lall, R., and Williams, H. (2022). E-Government Portals and the Improvement of Service Delivery in the UK: User Satisfaction Perspectives. Journal of Digital Government, 19(3), 199-215. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Li, X., and Ndungu, P. (2022). Optimizing Resource Utilization in E-Governance: Case Studies from Asia and Africa. Government Information Quarterly, 39(2), 201-213. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Mekonen, E. M. (2021). Assessing Mobile Accessibility of E-Government Services: A Review of Current Practices. International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Mbeche, I., and Oladejo, M. (2023). Evaluating the Impact of E-Governance on Service Delivery: A Case Study Approach. International Journal of Digital Governance, 12(3), 45-60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Mishra, A., Nguvamwiza, G., and Zubaida, I. (2021). Geographic Disparities in Public Service Delivery: A Zanzibar Perspective. African Geographical Review, 20(4), 357-372. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Mnyawi, M., and Pazi, S. (2020). The Impact of Government Electronic Payment Gateway on Revenue Collection in Tanzania. Journal of Public Administration and Policy Research, 12(1), 43-52. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Mulgan, R. (2017). Accountability: An ever-expanding concept? Public Administration, 78(3), 555-573. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Mwinyi, Z. (2021). Cybersecurity Challenges in Zanzibar's E-Government Initiatives. Journal of Cybersecurity and Privacy, 10(1), 45-60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Nsabimana, D., and Uwizeyimana, D. E. (2020). E-Government and Service Delivery in Rwanda: The Case of Irembo Platform. Journal of Public Administration and Development Alternatives, 5(2), 35-52. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Nguyen, P., and Wang, Y. (2021). Evaluating E-Governance Initiatives and Their Impact on Accessibility in Public Services: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Public Administration, 44(5), 381-393. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Ofori, D. F., and Mensah, J. K. (2020). Optimizing Resource Utilization for Effective Service Delivery in the Public Sector. Public Policy and Administration Research, 10(4), 45-55. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Ojo, A. (2019). Improving Public Sector Efficiency through Digital Governance: The Nigerian IPPIS Experience. International Journal of Public Administration, 42(5), 427-437. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Otieno, A. (2021). The Impact of E-Government on Service Delivery in Kenya: A Case Study of the eCitizen Platform. Journal of Public Administration and Policy Research, 13(1), 19-30. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Pardo, T. A., and Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2021). Online Tax Administration: The Impact of E-Government on Tax Filing Efficiency. Public Administration Review, 81(1), 58-70. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Park, J., and Patel, S. (2020). Evaluating Resource Allocation in E-Governance Systems: A Systematic Review of Methodologies and Best Practices. Public Administration Review, 80(5), 782-796. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Pollitt, C., and Bouckaert, G. (2017). Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis - Into the Age of Austerity. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Rashidi, H., and Stokes, P. (2022). Digital Accessibility and Citizen Engagement in Public Service Delivery. Government Information Quarterly, 39(1), 101-111. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Reddick, C. G., and Roy, J. (2019). Digital Government in Canada: Key Innovations and Outcomes. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 253-264. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Reed, M. S., Evely, A. C., and Fazey, I. (2021). Understanding Public Engagement in Public Services. Public Administration, 87(3), 56-75. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Suleiman, H. (2020). Addressing the Digital Divide in Zanzibar: Strategies for Inclusive E-Government. Journal of Digital Inclusion, 8(1), 67-80. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Subhash, B. (2020). E-Government and accountability: A case study on the impact of e-government initiatives on public sector accountability in India. World Development, 134, 105037. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill, A. (2016). Research Methods for Business Students (7th ed.). Harlow: Pearson. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Suri, M., and Rajan, K. (2023). The Digital India Initiative: Bridging the Digital Divide in Public Service Delivery. Indian Journal of Public Policy, 18(3), 212-228. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Tan, B., and Teo, H. H. (2022). Smart Nation: Leveraging Technology for Effective Public Service Delivery in Singapore. Government Information Quarterly, 39(2), 140-154. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Tan, W., and Chong, C. (2019). The Role of E-Governance in Enhancing Accessibility to Public Services: Evidence from Southeast Asia. Asian Journal of Public Affairs, 12(2), 115-130. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Turban, E., Pollard, C., and Wood, G. (2018). Information Technology for Management: On-Demand Strategies for Performance, Growth, and Sustainability. Wiley. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. United Nations. (2020). E-Government Survey 2020: Digital Government in the Decade of Action for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from UN E-Government Survey [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Vassil, K. (2021). E-Residency and Digital Governance: The Estonian Experience. European Journal of ePractice, 25(1), 112-126. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Wirtz, B. W., and Schellong, A. (2020). Transparency and Accountability in E-Government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 30(4), 680-695. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. World Bank. (2023). Digital Government and Inclusivity: Overcoming Barriers to E-Governance Access in Developing Countries. World Bank Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Zanzibar E-Government Authority. (2023). E-Government Strategy and Implementation Report. Zanzibar E-Government Agency Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Zafar, S., Azhar, M., and Shah, S. (2020). The Role of E-Governance in Enhancing Public Service Delivery in Pakistan. International Journal of Public Administration, 43(5), 410-421. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Predictive Health Monitoring Systems for Electric Vehicle Powertrains Using Edge AI and CAN Bus Data
• Internship Portals: A Systematic Review of Current Platforms and Future Directions
• Towards Better Urban Mobility: A Comprehensive Assessment of Pedestrian Infrastructure in Naval, Biliran Province, Philippines
• An Affordable and Sustainable Efficient Color Sorting System Using Arduino and TCS3200 Sensor
• Financial Stress and Mobility Patterns: Implication for Transportation Policy Among Jeepney Passengers