Good Governance and Public Trust: Assessing The Mediating Effect of E-Government in Pakistan

LEX LOCALIS - JOURNAL OF LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT
Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 299 - 320, April 2019
Good Governance and Public Trust: Assessing the

Mediating Effect of E-Government in Pakistan
ARIF JAMEEL, MUHAMMAD ASIF & ABID HUSSAIN 1
Abstract Administrative practices have always been acknowledged

as a crucial tool for establishing good governance. Strong evidence
shows that good governance extensively influences citizens’
behaviors toward government. This study empirically examines how
good governance promote public trust with possibly mediating role
of e-government. A field survey was conducted by distributing
questionnaires to 1000 Pakistani individuals. The response rate was
76.3%. Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation
modelling were used to analyze the data. The results confirmed the
casual relationship between good governance and public trust. The
results also reveal that e-government plays a mediating role in the
relationship between good governance and public trust. The findings
may be practically useful for both research and policy making, since
it investigated the citizens' perspective of good governance, public
trust and e-government.
Keywords: • good governance • public trust • e-government •

structural equation modeling (SEM) • Pakistan
CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: Arif Jameel, Zhejiang University, School of Public Affairs,

Zijingang Campus, Hangzhou, 310058, China, email: arifjamil24@gmail.com. Muhhamad
Asif, Zhejiang University, School of Public Affairs, Zijingang Campus, Hangzhou, 310058,
China, email: asif.ma015@gmail.com. Abid Hussain, Zhejiang University, School of
Public Affairs, Zijingang Campus, Hangzhou, 310058, China, email:
abidhusssain02@gmail.com.
https://doi.org/10.4335/17.2.299-320(2019)
ISSN 1581-5374 Print/1855-363X Online © 2019 Lex localis
Available online at http://journal.lex-localis.press.
300 LEX LOCALIS - JOURNAL OF LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT
A. Jameel, M. Asif & A. Hussain: Good Governance and Public Trust:
Assessing the Mediating Effect of E-Government in Pakistan
1 Introduction
Public trust and good governance practices have normally been observed as
directly interrelated. This is a rotating question in an individual’s mind is “Whom
should 1 be wary of if not the states who wields great power with great
temptations to abuse it” (Bentham, 1999). Public trust in government is considered
as “the sine qua none of the good governance... While good governance breeds
trust, trust is a prerequisite for democratic governance in the first place”(Blind,
2007). For the legitimacy and sustainability of any democratic system, trust is
deemed to be one of the most important factors. (Bouckaert, 2012) described three
levels of public trust in government. “At the macro-level, trust relates to political
institutions and the functioning of democracy. At the meso-level, trust relates to
policy making - the ability of governments to manage economic and social issues
and to generate positive expectations for future well-being. Finally, at the micro-
level, trust refers to the impact of government on people's daily lives through
service delivery. Although distinct, these three levels interact and a significant lag
in trust at one level may affect trust at other levels and influence policy
outcomes”.
For promoting good governance in any democratic government, public trust is

considered one of the essential component (Clark & Lee, 2001). States having
greater citizens trust can function more efficiently, effectively and smoothly than
those with low trust (Chen & Shi, 2001). Over the past 30 years, research studies
have shown a worrying trend of public trust in democratic government has
dropped down dramatically in the United States (Cooper, Knotts, & Brennan,
2008; Van de Walle, Van Roosbroek, & Bouckaert, 2008). Public trust has also
undergone a serious collapse across the developed nations, such as Canada, Japan
and the western world (Christopher, Watts, McCormick, & Young, 2008;
Hetherington, 1999; S. Kim, 2010). Reversing the falling-off in public trust in
states built on analyzing the concerned components connected with a decrease in
public trust has been the main attention of a great deal of research and theory in
the United States and other developed nations (Levi & Stoker, 2000). In this
context, this kind of trust is deemed significant for social, political and economic
development for a multiplicity of reasons. Without having low trust, individuals
may take out voluntary obedience of regulations and demands of government, or
even though aggressively resist policies of government (Levi & Stoker, 2000;
Nye, Zelikow, & King, 1997) making the state frail of performing the duties
needed of it (Nye et al., 1997). Trust assists lessen complexity and get
effectiveness and efficiency in government sector administration (Raab, 1998),
containing permitting democratic governments to advantage from the voluntary
obedience of public (Tyler, 1998) rather than through more costly mechanisms of
coercion and control.
LEX LOCALIS - JOURNAL OF LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT 301
The purpose of this study is to contribute to the research work linking good
governance practices and public trust in government. Using large sample survey
data from 3 major cities in Pakistan, we present a quantitative analysis of the
relationship between good governance and public trust and the possible mediating
effect of e-government on that relationship. The fundamental aim of early research
has only been to investigate the direct effect of good governance components.
Thus, in this study, we build a theoretical and empirical method to investigate the
mediating effect associated with good governance components outcomes.
2 Review of Literature and Hypotheses
2.1 Good Governance
According to Kaufmann and Kraay (2010), governance is a custom, practice,

values, and organizations through which power in a state is executed involving the
government selection procedure, replacement of government and accountability,
honor and rights for citizens and ability of the state to devise and employ its
policies. The term governance is a wide notion that functions at all stages and
governance are better as it reacts to the shared or joint problems of people and
satisfies citizens’ needs and demands with suitable and generally accepted method
(Griffin, 2010). There is not a single perfect model for good governance which
might be perfect in all conditions (Saich, 2007). Good governance is not only a
procedure but also a structure which directs the socio-economic and political
relations and it applies to numerous features or elements like participation,
transparency, accountability and voice, responsiveness and rule of law (Qudrat-I
Elahi, 2009).
The elements of good governance acknowledged by the World Bank also pursued
the people-centric approach. These elements consist of accountability or voice
which denotes to participation of people to choose their government, freedom in
speech, media, association, political constancy and dearth of terrorism; regulatory
quality is defined that ability to devise and apply these regulatory or controlling
strategies and the rule of law that means is defined to what degree citizens do
believe in the policies and laws of community and control of corruption
(Kaufmann & Kraay, 2010) . In democratic governments, participation or voice of
people in elected a government is basically a key precondition of any democracy.
Waheduzzaman (2010) elucidate that IMF and World Bank believe participation
as a significant component of good governance. Meaning of rule of law is a legal
and fair framework which is implemented without any personal biases. Dion
(2010) defines impartiality and neutrality in the rule of law that rules and laws are
relevant to every citizen uniformly with no citizen must have partiality in the
implementation of rules and laws. The aspect accountability is a very important
feature of good governance that is like a slab to form good governance (Rahaman,
2008; Ray, 1999). Accountability is defined as to what extent one should
answerable to their higher authority, officials or public for his actions (Shafritz,
Russell, & Borick, 2015). Responsiveness is defined as that organizations and
procedures of state try to serve every citizen within a specific and appropriate time
framework. Transparency denotes to the lucidity and accessibility of information
and decisions for those who have a stake for that particular information
(Mimicopoulos, Kyj, Sormani, Bertucci, & Qian, 2007). Responsiveness is
described as preferred practice to achieve good governance completely from the
viewpoint of individuals. Salminen and Ikola-Norrbacka (2010) illustrated it as
how in timely government authorities fix their mistakes or missteps and react to
the problems of people.
Zubair and Khan (2014) conducted a study to explore the general statement that if
political stability, rule of law, voice and accountability and mechanisms for con-
trol of corruption present, then “good governance” and economic development
would be the results in Pakistan.
Figure 1: Theoretical research model
2.2 Good Governance and Public Trust
Good governance components can affect public trust in a positive manner. Prior
research advocated that good governance have a certain impact on citizens’ trust
and confidence in their government (Caillier, 2010; Park & Blenkinsopp, 2011).
Trust in the governmental system is frequently referred to as confidence in the
governmental system or political trust (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham,
2010). According to Thomas (1998), citizens’ trust in the state institution can be
measured by the level to which the people have faith in the government system to
work in the best welfares of community. Hetherington (1999) stated citizen trust
as a fundamental evaluative orientation towards the government established on
how well the state is functioning according to citizen’s normative expectations.
Miller and Listhaug (1998) defined trust in the state as a basic assessment of
whether or not the state is operating in line with the normative prospects held by
the individuals. Public trust is a difficult notion that is very hard to recognize; a
generally admitted explanation but it is very essential to form it in government and
institutions to build the authenticity of government procedures. If individuals have
trust in the state, they are likely to obey willingly with the commands and rules
(Caillier, 2010). Trusted government officers enjoy greater autonomy and dis-
cretion as compared to the distrusted public officials (Fard & Rostamy, 2007). The
phenomenon of trust covers both public officials and politician.
Furthermore, public trust is widely seen as an important factor promoting good

government in any political system (Clark & Lee, 2001). Those States having
greater citizens trust can operate more efficiently, effectively and smoothly than
those with low trust (Chen & Shi, 2001). It is proved that the lack of governance
implementation is a contributing element to the rise of bad governance corruption
which has badly damaged the trust in states. Such as Osifo (2012) investigated in
his qualitative research a strong connection between citizens’ trust in public
administration and ethical governance functioning. Lee, Tan, and Trimi (2005)
found the significant and optimistic relationship among transparency,
accountability, participation, and public trust consisted on interviews with
Information and Communications Technology (ICT) expert, policy-makers and
government officers around eight developed states. Similarly, Kim and Kim
(2007) proved a significant effect of accountability, transparency, and
participation on public trust in the state, in which they are attached in reform
measures. Heald (2006) and Park & Blenkinsopp (2011) examined in their study
that transparency has a positive effect on trust.
Though, Grimmelikhuijsen (2012) claimed in his experimental research that the

role of transparency whether it establishes public trust or provides individuals with
additional information to criticize and blame the government continuously. The
findings expressed that the level of public trust declined if people are displeased
with government transparency. Based on these findings, the following hypotheses
are proposed:
H1: Good governance is positively associated with public trust.
H1 (a): Voice and accountability are positively associated with public trust.
H1 (b): Rule of law is positively associated with public trust.
H1 (c): Transparency is positively associated with public trust.
H1 (d): Ease in the administrative system is positively associated with public
trust.
H1 (e): Responsiveness is positively associated with public trust.
2.3 E-Government and Public Trust
E-government and citizen trust relationship in a government is a subject of the

significant interest (Tolbert & Mossberger, 2006; West, 2004). E-government has
the capacity of providing better-quality facilities to the people (Chadwick & May,
2003; Morgeson III, VanAmburg, & Mithas, 2010). But contrarily, this pivotal
mechanism recommends that the use of government websites may precedent to
positive viewpoints to e-government, which, in the result, may urge enhanced
citizens trust or confidence in the state usually (Tolbert & Mossberger, 2006).
A research on e-government execution in Canada investigating a sample of

individuals’ opinions about e-government websites, such as Furlong (2005)
attained that e-services seem to offer people with a more pleasing experience. As a
result of this greater satisfaction, the scholar identified that ‘‘the government of
Canada can state, based upon quantitative data, that e-services do enhance citizen
trust by providing a more satisfying user experience’’ (Furlong, 2005). Alike to
the results from Canadian research on e-government websites, but using a sample
of individual opinions of experiences with e-government websites at the both state
and central levels in the USA a sample consisted on of 806 people were gathered
in 2001 by the ‘‘Council for Excellence in Government’’ Welch, Hinnant, and
Moon (2004) identified a positive link between satisfaction with e-government
websites and public trust in State.
Utilizing a sample of 2001 same respondents, e-government website consumers

from the ‘‘Pew Internet and American Life Project,’’ Tolbert and Mossberger
(2006) proved that even though e-government has positive relationship with public
trust in local or municipal government by means of perceived procedure and
transaction enhancements, no such advantages are yet experienced by the central
or state governments. Similarly, in different studies e-government has been
projected as a key factor for boosting public trust in several states (Chadwick &
May, 2003; West, 2004) Based on the above theoretical and empirical evidence
we hypothesized:
H2: E-government is positively associated with public trust.
2.4 The Mediating Role of E-Government
To empirically show the significance of these relationships, research on mediating

impacts helps to examine whether the relationship between said variables is direct
or whether it arises indirectly by some third mediating variable (Shaver, 2005).
Particularly upon the feeble research background relating such fundamental
relationships disclosed in the prior review of the literature. Some social science
scholars explored the direct effect of good governance practices on public trust
and confidence in the government (Caillier, 2010; Park & Blenkinsopp, 2011;
Zhao & Hu, 2017). This research seeks to determine whether e-government acts as
a mediator between certain good governance factors and public trust. A number of
studies have provided the theoretical and empirical background for the mediation
effect of e-government on citizen trust in government (Ma & Zheng, 2017;
Morgeson & Petrescu, 2011; Welch & Hinnant, 2003).
Similarly, Cegarra-Navarro, Pachón, and Cegarra (2012) found a mediating

influence of e-government between information communication technologies and
civic engagement. Santhanamery and Ramayah (2014) tested trust in system
empirically as a mediator between the independent variables (perceived
usefulness) and the dependent variables (e-government). Chadwick and May
(2003), Tolbert and Mossberger (2006) and West (2004) investigated e-
government as a predictor of citizens’ trust in government. Scholars have
extensively discussed how good governance elements including transparency,
accountability, rule of law, responsiveness and ease in the administration are
related to e-government and public trust in government (Caillier, 2010; Ma &
Zheng, 2017; Park & Blenkinsopp, 2011).
Furthermore, Park and Blenkinsopp (2011) recommended public good governance

organizations can increase and improve the public trust by executing electronic-
government practices such as websites, endorsing the Information
Communications Technology-based public service delivery and making its
procedure more easy and transparent to increase accountability. Thus, the current
study examined the research model that includes electronic- government as the
mediator on the relationship between good governance and public trust in
Pakistan. Based on the extant literature, we propose that e-government plays a
mediating role between the good governance elements and public trust. Therefore,
the following hypotheses are proposed:
H3: E-government mediates the positive relationship between good governance
and public trust.
H3 (a): E-government mediates the positive relationship between voice and
accountability and public trust.
H3 (b): E-government mediates the positive relationship between good rule of
law and public trust.
H3 (c): E-government mediates the positive relationship between transparency
and public trust.
H3 (d): E-government mediates the positive relationship between ease in
administrative system and public trust.
H3 (e): E-government mediates the positive relationship between responsiveness
and public trust.
3 Method
3.1 Research Design and Sample
The present research was designed to examine the mediating role of e-government
on the relationship between good governance practices and public trust in the
perspective of a developing nation i.e. Pakistan. For collecting responses from a
large number of samples a field survey methodology is employed. To improve the
validity of data, survey technique was applied. For quantitative research, the
survey is a good method for checking the relationship among the observed
variables, and surveys are commonly used in the social sciences (Zhuang &
Lederer, 2003).
Primarily, a sample consisted of 1000 Pakistani citizens was selected for the data
collection. For choosing the sample, the minimum age limit was 18 years, because
those respondents fill this questionnaire who have a minimum education of high
school diploma and who could clearly read and understand it. The other aim was
to involve them is that the age of to cast vote in Pakistan is 18 years (Pak.Const.
amend. XVIII.) thus, they were likely to have some viewpoint about politics,
affiliation with a political party and awareness about e-government, usage of e-
government services and the operation of government. Because of the ease of
access, convenient sampling technique was employed to draw the sample from the
designated population. This sampling method has low generalizability owing of
the large sample size, this method was employed to conduct the survey. These
people were approached in three major metropolitan populated cities of the
country regardless of any gender, religion, and occupation. Out of the 1000
distributed questionnaires, only 763 (76.3%) complete responses were received.
The respondents were assured the confidentiality of information provided by
them.
3.2 Measurement Development
The questionnaire for this research was adapted from published literature. A five-
point Likert- scale ranging from 1 “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” were
employed to measure the variables of the study. The particular measures are
depicted below, along with the values of the Cronbach’s alpha for observed
variable measurement.
3.3 Good Governance
We measured good governance using thirty-items from Salminen and Ikola-

Norrbacka (2010). This thirty-items measure has multi-item subscales
corresponding to five dimensions: Example questions for each of five dimensions
are: (1) accountability (“Municipal government is independent”); (2) rule of law
(“Municipal laws are applicable to all people equally”); (3) transparency

(“Municipal administration provides proper information about system”); (4) ease
in administrative system (“Municipal/Local administration is simple and easy”);
and (5) responsiveness (“Citizens are heard in their Municipal problems”).
Individual reliability of each dimension ranged from 0.86 to 0.94. Overall
Cronbach’s alpha for good governance items was 0.9 disclosing sufficient
reliability (α > .70).
3.4 E-Government
To assess e-government, we used 17-items two dimensional from Welch and

Hinnant (2003) and Zhuang and Lederer (2003). Sample items are; (1) e-service
(“Through browsing the Municipal government website, I can identify the
required documents to complete the e-service”); (2) e-administration
(“Completing my transactions with Municipal government through e-
administration procedures are better than doing it manually”). Overall Cronbach’s
alpha for e-government was 0.92 indicating adequate reliability (α > .70).
3.5 Public Trust
To evaluate the citizens’ trust and confidence regard to government, we used the
eight-item from the study of (Salminen & Ikola-Norrbacka, 2010). Sample item
include “Municipal government services are provided on time. Cronbach’s alpha
for public trust was 0.93 indicating good reliability (α > .70).
4 Data Analyses and Result
For analyzing and empirically assessing the proposed research model SPSS and
AMOS 23.0 was used. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed
(shown in figure 1) to test all hypotheses. Basically, SEM is a statistical method
that instantaneously evaluates the validity and reliability of the measures of
hypothetical constructs and assesses the relationships amid these constructs
(Kline, 1998). It is applied to investigate measurement and structural models with
multiple items constructs, and it is usually employed research about public
administration (Morgeson III et al., 2010). Particularly, the measurement model
checks the reliability and validity of particular indicators for the conforming
construct (also called as a latent variable).
Descriptive statistics, means, standard deviations (SD) and Person’s correlation of

all variables are shown in Table 1. The results show significant and positive
correlations among all constructs. Based on exploratory factor analysis of good
governance we performed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). According to
Jöreskog and Sörbom (1982), SEM presents a maximum-likelihood estimation of
the entire system in a hypothesized model and makes possible the assessment of
variables with the data. Fit indices are shown in table 2 where the chi-square (χ2)
value, degrees of freedom (df), value of χ2/df, comparative fit index (CFI),
Bollen’s incremental fit index (IFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), standardized root
mean square residual (SRMR), root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA), non-centrality parameter (NCP), and minimum value of the
discrepancy (FMIN) were adopted to estimate model fit (shown in Table 2). All
these values are above or at recommended standards (McNeish, 2017).
Table 1: Correlations analysis
Constructs Mea SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
n
1. E-services 2.97 .812 -
2. Accountability 2.85 .819 .312** -
3. Ease 2.28 .793 .352** .387** -
administration
4. E-administration 4.01 .624 .317** .256** .220* -
*
5. Public Trust 3.56 .765 .494** .260** .215* .462** -

*
6. Rule of Law 3.94 .598 .295** .221** .189* .478** .432* -

* *
7. Responsiveness 4.14 .676 .240** .155** .238* .474** .345* .507** -

* *
8. Transparency 4.21 .802 .228** .135** .142* .467** .366* .444** .554** -
* *
Significance of Correlations: ** p < 0.01
Table 2: Model fit indices
Fit indices Model value Reference value Overall model fit

χ2/df 3.46 <5.00 Yes
CFI 0.95 >0.90 Yes
IFI 0.95 >0.90 Yes
TLI 0.94 >0.90 Yes
Standardized 0.04 <0.05 Yes
RMR
RMSEA 0.057 <0.10 Yes
NCP 2445.7 >NCP saturated (.00) Yes
<NCP independence
(50068.5)
FMIN 4.50 >FMIN saturated (.00) Yes
<FMIN independence
(67.0)
Furthermore, internal consistency is also tested by measuring composite

reliability, discriminant validity and convergent validity for each factor to support
more authenticity of data and model (see Table 3). Composite reliability (CR) for
each factor is ranged from 0.780 to 0.963 which is exceeding the cutoff criteria
(CR > 0.7) (Hu et al. 1999) while the values of average variance extracted for each
loaded construct ranged from 0.541 to 0.844 shows convergent validity as it
should be greater than 0.50 often used as threshold (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). To
measure discriminant validity, each value of square root of average variance
extracted (AVE) is greater than all inter-factor correlations as recommended by
Shaffer et al (2016). All items used in this study have a significant level of
(p<0.001).
Table 3: Composite reliability
CR AVE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1.E-Admin .963 .745 .863
2. E-Serve .945 .689 .295*** .830
3. Resp .932 .634 .507*** .219*** .796
4. Trust .935 .673 .484*** .428*** .386*** .820
5. Ease .938 .720 .218*** .288*** .174*** .215*** .848
6. Law .934 .745 .437*** .213*** .492*** .396*** .146*** .863
7. ACC .780 .541 .274*** .308*** .138** .308*** .379*** .251*** .736
8. Trans .915 .844 .497*** .266*** .595*** .406*** .146*** .416*** .162*** .919
Note: E-Admin: E Administration; E-Serve: E Services; Resp: Responsiveness; Trust:
Public Trust; Ease: Ease in Administration; Law: Rule of Law; Acc: Accountability; Trans:
Transparency
Significance of Correlations: ** p < 0.010, *** p < 0.001
4.1 Common Method Bias
To check the common method bias, we use Harman's single factor test. According
to the Chang, Van Witteloostuijn, and Eden (2010) and Podsakoff, MacKenzie,
Lee, and Podsakoff (2003), Harman's single-factor test is a diagnostic technique
that “actually does nothing to statistically control for (or partial out) method
effects.” The results showed that all items of the conceptual model could be
categorized into eight factors, and the first factor only explains 33.83% of the
variance. The results suggest that common bias is less than 50%. Thus, there is no
issue in this data.
4.2 Measurement Model
In the present study, the measurement model was assessed based on CFA.
Initially, we assessed the measurement model by testing the content, convergence,
and discernment validities. Construct validity is the most difficult approach (Joshi,
Malhotra, Lim, Ostbye, & Wong, 2010) but it is necessary for the present research
because the meaning of the construct may change during data collection and
respondents might perceive different meaning (Drost, 2011). Therefore,
researchers put special attention on the data collection phase. For content
validation, a pilot test of 50 samples responses to the questionnaire was conducted
before the major data collection to measure the reliability and validity. During this
process, we dropped some items, as well as improving the convergent and

discriminant validities and the alpha values. Convergent validity examines the
degree to which a construct is correlated with the conceptual model's other
constructs. Convergent validity was measured by testing the AVE, Cronbach's
alpha, and composite reliability (CR) values and the factor loadings.
Table 4: Confirmatory factor analysis of measurement model
Latent factor Construct/ Factors Items EFA CFA α

Accountability A1 .726 .58 .86
A2 .902 .98
A3 .665 .54
A4 .905 .99
Rule of Law R1 .858 .98 .93
R2 .698 .65
R3 .864 .97
R4 .704 .63
R5 .865 .97
R6 .877 .88
R7 .772 .91
R8 .867 .77
Transparency T1 .720 .98 .88
T2 .793 .80
T3 .812 .82
Ease in administrative system E1 .779 .73 .94
E2 .837 .79
E3 .922 .98
E4 .857 .81
E5 .858 .80
E6 .907 .97
E7 .855 .98
Responsiveness R1 .767 .83 .93
R2 .807 .89
R3 .778 .78
R4 .732 .80
R5 .797 .78
R6 .819 .83
R7 .795 .72
R8 .730 .75
Public trust PT1 .694 .75 .93
PT2 .805 .86
PT3 .786 .83
PT4 .808 .86
PT5 .796 .82
PT6 .773 .82
PT7 .833 .85
PT8 .812 .86
E-government EG1 .906 .98 .92
EG2 .753 .70
EG3 .669 .60
EG4 .653 .62
EG5 .915 .98
EG6 .885 .83
EG7 .877 .83
EG8 .904 .98
EG9 .772 .77
EG10 .788 .84
EG11 .868 .93
EG12 .883 .96
EG13 .848 .82
EG14 .719 .72
EG15 .876 .95
EG16 .867 .93
EG17 .850 .82
Cronbach's alpha is the most frequently used statistical tool for measuring
construct reliability (Gefen, Straub, & Boudreau, 2000), which refers to internal
consistency between the items of a latent variable. Construct reliability indicates
that construct items are free from random error and results are consistent.
Acceptable values for construct reliability are higher than 0.70 (Keil et al., 2000),
and all constructs in the current analysis have Cronbach's alpha values higher than
0.70 (shown in Table 4).
4.3 Structural Model Assessment and Hypothesis Testing
The statistical tests of the theoretical model in terms of reliability and validity
showed a good fit of the data to the conceptual model, a positive sign that the
model was ready for hypotheses testing. Table 1 shows the mean, standard
deviation and correlation of the variables. Correlation analysis was performed to
measure the linear relationship between the constructs. Correlation means the
association between the variables. Accountability, rule of law, transparency, ease
in administrative system and responsiveness were positively related to public trust
(respectively, r = 0.26, r = 0.43, r = 0.36, r = 0.21, r = 0.34 P < 0.001). The
correlations between e-government and public trust based on average correlation
of all two dimensions of e-government where each dimension have a positive
correlation with all variables shown in table 1) are noted (r = 0.49) and (r = 0.46)
respectively with a significance level of (p<0.01). The second step was to run the
structural equation model to determine whether the hypotheses find support. SEM
technique was used to examine the impact of the independent variables on
dependent variables. Data analysis of the conceptual model shows that the
antecedents' variables (accountability, rule of law, transparency, ease in
administrative system and responsiveness) have a significant influence on the
dependent variable (e-government, public trust).
In addition, the results of the direct effect of accountability on public trust (β =

0.29; p < .01), the direct effect of rule of law on public trust (β = 0.28; p < 0.01),
the direct effect of rule of law public trust (β = 0.28; p < .01), the direct effect of
transparency on public trust (β = 0.24; p < .01), the direct effect of ease in
administrative system on public trust (β = 0.34; p < .01) , and the direct effect of
responsiveness on public trust (β = 0.31; p < .01) all have significant predictors of
public trust. The direct effect of e-government on public trust (β = 0.43; p < .01
were both statistically significant. Hypotheses 1 and 2 were thus supported.
Figure 2: SEM direct effects of both independent and mediator variables on

dependent variable for hypotheses testing
Transparency
.24**
Accountability .29**
.28**
Rule of Law
Trust
.34**
Ease
Administration
.31**
Responsiveness
.43**
E-Government
For testing hypotheses 3 which are about the mediation effects of e-government
between good governance and public trust in government, we select two
procedures recommended by (Baron & Kenny, 1986; James, Mulaik, & Brett,
2006). Baron and Kenny (1986) research concerned with regression weights and
correlation of studied variable and for full mediation support four criterions should
be met, First, the independent variable (good governance) should have a
significant relationship with a mediator (e-government). Second, good governance
should have a significant relationship with dependent variables (public trust).
Third, the mediator should be significantly and positively related to dependent
variables. Finally, the direct relationship between independent variables and
dependent variables must be insignificant in the presence of a mediator in the
regression equation.
Although the mediation for the present study is proved with the help of Baron and
Kenny’s recommendations yet James and Brett (1984) suggested to adopt
confirmatory approaches like structural equation modeling (SEM) to test
mediation as Baron and Kenny (1986) model is believed as theoretical or
contributory mediation model. The basic difference between SEM techniques and
Baron and Kenny’s method is that SEM uses a parsimonious principle for full
mediation while Baron and Kenny’s technique is used for partial mediation only.
Furthermore, James et al. (2006) have suggested another two-step approach to test
mediation. Actually, this approach is also based on SEM and Baron and Kenny’s
strategy. First, it should be confirmed whether hypothesized mediation is partial or
full. For this purpose, the prior studies and theories are hoped to provide a
sufficient base-line in determining partial or full mediation. If these theories or
studies provide insufficient evidence for partial or full mediation then it is
recommended to choose a parsimonious model to test full mediation as it can be
rejected easily in sciences (Mulaik, 2001). Secondly, when the mediation is
confirmed then it is suggested to test it using structural equation modeling (SEM)
approach With the recommendations of (Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, & Chen,
2005), we made six nested models and compare them (as Shown in Table 5).
Table 5: Structural comparison of all models
Models and Structure χ2 Df SRM TLI CFI RMSEA

P
1 Resp EG Trust and Resp Trust 3679.56 1007 .1073 .940 .947 .059
2 Ease EG Trust and Ease Trust 8324.41 1007 .1635 .937 .944 .061
3 Law EG Trust and Law Trust 3722.58 1007 .1203 .939 .940 .059
4 Acc EG Trust and Acc Trust 3785.54 1007 .1482 .938 .945 .060
5 Trans EG Trust and Trans Trust 3670.69 1003 .1176 .940 .947 .059
6 Hypothesized model (All IV’s EG Trust 3469.29 997 .0709 .944 .951 .057
and All IV’s Trust
To test for the hypothesized model, a series of six restricted hierarchical models
were estimated shown in table 5. In model one, the mediating effect of e-
government between responsiveness and public trust as well as the direct
relationship between responsiveness public and trust was estimated. In model two
the mediating role of e-government between ease in administrative system and
public trust as well as a direct relationship between ease in administrative system
and public trust was tested. Whereas in model three the mediating role of e-
government between rule of law and public trust as well as the direct relationship
between rule of law and public trust was analyzed. While in the fourth model the
mediating effect between accountability and public trust as well as the direct
relationship between accountability and public trust was explored. While in model
five the mediating effect between transparency and public trust as well as the
direct relationship between transparency and public trust was calculated. Finally,
in the hypothesized model mediating effect of e-government was measured on the
relationship between all IV’s (responsiveness, ease in the administrative system,
rule of law, accountability and transparency) and public trust as well direct effect
of all IV’s were also estimated with the public trust.
It is shown in Table 5 that chi-square difference is not significant while comparing

the hypothesized model to all other models and the direct paths in the other three
models are also insignificant. These findings recommend that hypothesized Model
is a best-fitted model as compare to others. It also provides strong evidence to
support hypotheses 3 and proves that e-government mediates these relationships.
Moreover, as shown in Figure 3, the paths from responsiveness, ease in
administrative system, rule of law, accountability and transparency to e-
government are significant (β = 0.30, β = 0.18, β = 0.22, β = 0.27, β = 0.38;
p<0.01) respectively. While paths from e-government to public trust (β = 0.78; p <
0.01) is also significant and shows positive and strong relationships. It is evident
from figure 3 that the direct paths from responsiveness to public trust (β = 0.08; p
> 0.05), ease in administrative system to public trust (β = 0.12; p > 0.05),
transparency to public trust (β = -0.14; p > 0.05) are insignificant and proves full
mediation as direct relationship between independent variable to dependent
variables disappeared and non-significant. In meanwhile, path from rule of law to
public trust (β = 0.24; p < 0.01) and path from accountability to public trust (β =
0.19; p < 0.05) are significant and proves partial mediation. Furthermore, the
positive coefficient (β) value of the relationship between e-government and public
trust also support hypothesis 3.
Figure 3: SEM modeling showing mediating effects
Significance at: **= p<0.01; * = p<0.05; NS = Non-Significant

5 Discussion and Conclusion
The main aim of this research was to investigate the theoretical and empirical
relationships between good governance components and public trust in the
presence of e-government as a mediator in Pakistan. Our findings also confirm
previous studies, in this study, all hypotheses formulated about the theoretical
relationships among variable have been accepted. The results about hypotheses
testing show that accountability has a positive impact on public trust and it
supports the study findings of Fard and Rostamy (2007) that accountability is
required to promote good governance and citizens' trust. The hypothesis that rule
of law has a positive impact on citizens' trust is consistent with the study of
Connell and Mannion (2006) who found that rule of law is crucial to building the
citizens' trust.
The hypothesis that responsiveness has a positive impact on public trust is

consistent with the study conducted by (Caillier, 2010). The hypotheses that
simplicity of administrative system positively increases the public trust which was
also observed in the study of (Pillay, 2004; Ray, 1999). The hypotheses that good
governance components have a positive impact on public trust and e-government
mediates this relationship is also consistent with the study of Alaaraj and Hassan
(2016) who assessed the general opinions, attitudes, and expectations of public
trust, good governance dimensions and e-government practices. However, no one
did not particularly explore the direct impact of good governance on public trust
with a mediating role of e-government. In this research, it has been analyzed that
e-government strengthens and positively mediate the relationship between good
governance and public trust. Furlong (2005) discussed that e-government services
increase the public trust at a large level and it is also proved through researches
that e-government positively influence the public trust. All hypothesis testing
shows the positive mediation of e-government on the relationship between good
governance and public trust.
The study concludes that good governance practices enhance citizens' trust in
governance which is one of the core pillars upon which the buildings of justice
and political system are built. The citizens' trust is necessary because it has dual
process effects. This happens because it increases social cohesion which
ultimately affects governments' ability to govern efficiently. OCED (2013) also
found that “Trust in government seems to be especially critical in crisis situations,
such as natural disasters, economic crisis or political unrest which focuses
attention on the core functions of public governance. The capacity of governments
to manage crises and to implement successful exit strategies is often a condition
for their survival and for their re-election. In the aftermath of major disasters, lack
of trust may hamper emergency and recovery”. It is also concluded that good
governance is associated with the functioning of the civil servants who always
need public trust.
Better good governance practices perpetuated by e-government practices increase

public trust and all these have a combined effect on growing the capacity of social
or civil institutes to work for the common good. E-government opened a new door
to the social and economic capital, which does allow the government to work
efficiently, thus bring an increase in citizens' trust. In the light of above
discussion, we conclude that it is particularly important to develop strategies at all
levels and government institutions should introduce any form of e-government
practices in order to rebuild or save the public trust in government. This is in the
best interest of the national development as lower public trust in government
discourages citizens to follow rules and regulations which increase law
enforcement cost. On the other hand, the increased trust may foster investment by
the public which ultimately brings the economic development.
The Government of Pakistan needs to be responsive to those demands. For change

to be effective, it must be embedded "in the societies concerned and cannot be
imposed from the outside”. In Pakistan, sustainable development is impossible
without good governance, and without which corporate as well as civil society
cannot thrive. The government of Pakistan should embrace such a governance-
based approach that improves transparency and combat corruption. For this, the
most crucial step could be to ensure that every citizen in the country is granted
equal rights, protection, and opportunities under the law. This policy is key to
combat all mal-governance practices. By addressing the intense magnitude of
inequality across the country and by caring basic human rights of citizens such as
education, justice, health, and nutrition; the government of Pakistan can gain trust
and confidence of its citizens which might accelerate good governance and
growth. In order to promote e-government technology among people especially
public sector employees; civil service employees must be provided with education
and training on e-government operations.
Overall, this study contributes to the literature by conceptually and empirically by

combining good governance, public trust, and e-government in the context of a
developing country. The findings may be practically useful for both research and
policy making, since, it investigated the individual dimensions of good gover-
nance, public trust and e-government. The research findings suggest
recommendations for addressing the e-government modeling in developing
countries; hence, it opens the way for future studies on the reflection of ethics and
culture on good governance and public trust. For future research, complex relation
among these three variables can be analyzed through other statistical tools to get
more detailed results and qualitative research can be conducted to confirm the
quantitative study based on Transparency International and World Bank reports.
Future researches could also be conducted in order to investigate societal
characteristics like culture in detail as well as could compare the results of
developed and developing country.
References:
Alaaraj, H. & Hassan, S. (2016) Does Good Governance Mediate Relationship Between E-
Government and Public Trust in Lebanon?, International Review of Management and
Marketing, 6(3), pp. 500-509.
Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986) The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations, Journal of
personality and social psychology, 51(6), pp. 1173-1182.
Bentham, J. (1999) Political Tactics Ed Michael James, Cyprian Blamires, and Catherine
Pease-Watkin (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Blind, P. K. (2007) Building trust in government in the twenty-first century: Review of
literature and emerging issues. Paper presented at the 7th Global Forum on
Reinventing Government Building Trust in Government.
Bouckaert, G. (2012) Trust and public administration; Administration, 60(1), pp. 91-115.
Caillier, J. (2010) Citizen trust, political corruption, and voting behavior: Connecting the
dots, Politics & Policy, 38(5), pp. 1015-1035.
Cegarra-Navarro, J.-G., Pachón, J. R. C. & Cegarra, J. L. M. (2012) E-government and
citizen's engagement with local affairs through e-websites: The case of Spanish
municipalities, International Journal of Information Management, 32(5), pp. 469-478.
Chadwick, A., & May, C. (2003) Interaction between States and Citizens in the Age of the
Internet:“e‐Government” in the United States, Britain, and the European Union,
Governance, 16(2), pp. 271-300.
Chang, S.-J., Van Witteloostuijn, A. & Eden, L. (2010) From the editors: Common method
variance in international business research (Berlin: Springer).
Chen, X. & Shi, T. (2001) Media effects on political confidence and trust in the People's
Republic of China in the post-Tiananmen period, East Asia, 19(3), pp. 84-118.
Christopher, S., Watts, V., McCormick, A. K. H. G. & Young, S. (2008) Building and
maintaining trust in a community-based participatory research partnership, American
Journal of Public Health, 98(8), pp. 1398-1406.
Clark, J. R., & Lee, D. (2001) The optimal trust in government, Eastern Economic Journal,
27(1), pp. 19-34.
Co-operation, O. f. E. & Development (2013) Trust in government, policy effectiveness
and the governance agenda (Paris: OECD Publishing).
Connell, N. & Mannion, R. (2006) Conceptualisations of trust in the organisational
literature: some indicators from a complementary perspective, Journal of health
organization and management, 20(5), pp. 417-433.
Cooper, C. A., Knotts, H. G. & Brennan, K. M. (2008) The importance of trust in
government for public administration: The case of zoning, Public Administration
Review, 68(3), pp. 459-468.
Dion, M. (2010) What is corruption corrupting? A philosophical viewpoint, Journal of
Money Laundering Control, 13(1), pp. 45-54.
Drost, E. A. (2011) Validity and reliability in social science research, Education Research
and perspectives, 38(1), pp. 105-124.
Fard, H. D. & Rostamy, A. A. A. (2007) Promoting public trust in public organizations:
Explaining the role of public accountability, Public Organization Review, 7(4), pp. 331-
344.
Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error, Journal of marketing research, 18(1),
pp. 39-50.
Furlong, S. (2005) E-government in Canada: Building public trust through citizen-centric

governance, Cataloging-in-Publication data provided by the Inter-American
Development Bank Felipe Herrera Library, 61, available at:
http://myweb.rollins.edu/tlairson/pek/knowledgeeconomy.pdf#page=70 (September 13,
2018).
Gefen, D., Straub, D. & Boudreau, M.-C. (2000) Structural equation modeling and
regression: Guidelines for research practice, Communications of the association for
information systems, 4(1), article 7.
Griffin, L. (2010) The limits to good governance and the state of exception: a case study of
North Sea fisheries, Geoforum, 41(2), pp. 282-292.
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G. (2012) Transparency and trust. An experimental study of online
disclosure and trust in government (Utrecht: University Utrecht).
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R. & Tatham, R. (2010) Multivariate Data
Analysis New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. Alih bahasa: Soleh Rusyadi Maryam.
Jilid, 2.
Heald, D. A. (2006) Varieties of transparency Transparency: The Key to Better
Governance?: Proceedings of the British Academy 135 (Oxford: Oxford University
Press).
Hetherington, M. J. (1999) The effect of political trust on the presidential vote, 1968–96,
American Political Science Review, 93(2), pp. 311-326.
James, L. R. & Brett, J. M. (1984) Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation, Journal
of applied psychology, 69(2), pp. 307-321.
James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A. & Brett, J. M. (2006) A tale of two methods, Organizational
research methods, 9(2), pp. 233-244.
Jöreskog, K. G. & Sörbom, D. (1982) Recent developments in structural equation
modeling, Journal of marketing research, 19(4), pp. 404-416.
Joshi, V. D., Malhotra, R., Lim, J. F., Ostbye, T. & Wong, M. (2010) Validity and
reliability of the expectations regarding aging (ERA-12) instrument among middle-aged
Singaporeans, Ann Acad Med Singapore, 39(2), pp. 394-398.
Kaufmann, D. K. & Kraay, A. (2010) A. and Mastruzzi, M. 2010, The Worldwide
Governance Indicators: A Summary of Methodology, Data and Analytical Issues.
World Bank Policy Research Working Paper(5430) (Washington D.C.: The World
Bank).
Keil, M., Tan, B. C., Wei, K.-K., Saarinen, T., Tuunainen, V. & Wassenaar, A. (2000) A
cross-cultural study on escalation of commitment behavior in software projects, MIS
quarterly, 24(2), pp. 299-325.
Kim, B. S. & Kim, J. H. (2007) Increasing trust in government through more participatory
and transparent government (Seoul: Presidential Committee on Government Innovation
& Decentralization, Republic of Korea).
Kim, S. (2010) Public trust in government in Japan and South Korea: Does the rise of
critical citizens matter?, Public Administration Review, 70(5), pp. 801-810.
Kline, R. B. (1998) Software review: Software programs for structural equation modeling:
Amos, EQS, and LISREL, Journal of psychoeducational assessment, 16(4), pp. 343-
364.
Lee, S. M., Tan, X. & Trimi, S. (2005) Current practices of leading e-government
countries. Communications of the ACM, 48(10), pp. 99-104.
Levi, M. & Stoker, L. (2000) Political trust and trustworthiness, Annual review of political
science, 3(1), pp. 475-507.
Ma, L. & Zheng, Y. (2017) Does e-government performance actually boost citizen use?
Evidence from European countries, Public Management Review, 10, pp. 1-20.
McNeish, D. (2017) Thanks coefficient Alpha, we’ll take it from here, Psychol Methods,
23(3), pp. 412-433.
Miller, A. H. & Listhaug, O. (1998) Policy preferences and political distrust: A comparison
of Norway, Sweden and the United States, Scandinavian Political Studies, 21(2), pp.
161-187.
Mimicopoulos, M. G., Kyj, L., Sormani, N., Bertucci, G. & Qian, H. (2007) Public
governance indicators: A literature review (Waashngton D.C.: United Nations,
Department of Economic and Social Affairs).
Morgeson, F. V. & Petrescu, C. (2011) Do they all perform alike? An examination of
perceived performance, citizen satisfaction and trust with US federal agencies,
International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(3), pp. 451-479.
Morgeson III, F. V., VanAmburg, D. & Mithas, S. (2010) Misplaced trust? Exploring the
structure of the e-government-citizen trust relationship, Journal of public
administration research and theory, 21(2), pp. 257-283.
Mulaik, S. A. (2001) The curve-fitting problem: An objectivist view, Philosophy of
Science, 68(2), pp. 218-241.
Nye, J. S., Zelikow, P. & King, D. C. (1997) Why people don't trust government (Harvard
University Press).
Osifo, O. C. (2012) The effects of ethical governance on public trust: a comparative
analysis of anti-corruption policies and procedures in Nigeria, Ghana, and Cameroon,
Acta Wasaensia (270) (Vaasa: Universitas Wasaensis).
Park, H. & Blenkinsopp, J. (2011) The roles of transparency and trust in the relationship
between corruption and citizen satisfaction, International Review of Administrative
Sciences, 77(2), pp. 254-274.
Pillay, S. (2004) Corruption–the challenge to good governance: a South African
perspective, International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(7), pp. 586-605.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y. & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies, Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), pp. 879-903.
Qudrat-I Elahi, K. (2009) UNDP on good governance, International Journal of Social
Economics, 36(12), pp. 1167-1180.
Raab, C. D. (1998) Electronic confidence: Trust, information and public administration, In:
Snellen, I. Th. M & Van De Donk, W. B. H. J. (eds.) Public Administrations in an
Information Age: A Handbook (Amsterdam: IOS Press), pp. 113-133.
Rahaman, M. M. (2008) Parliament and good governance: a Bangladeshi perspective,
Japanese Journal of Political Science, 9(1), pp. 39-62.
Ray, B. (1999) Good governance, administrative reform and socio-economic realities: A
South Pacific perspective, International Journal of Social Economics, 26(1/2/3), pp.
354-369.
Saich, T. (2007) China in 2006: focus on social development, Asian Survey, 47(1), pp. 32-
43.
Salminen, A. & Ikola-Norrbacka, R. (2010) Trust, good governance and unethical actions
in Finnish public administration, International Journal of Public Sector Management,
23(7), pp. 647-668.
Santhanamery, T. & Ramayah, T. (2014) Explaining the e-Government usage using
expectation confirmation model: The case of electronic tax filing in Malaysia, In:
Anthopoulos, L. G. & Reddick, C. G. (eds.) Government e-Strategic Planning and

Management (Berlin: Springer), pp. 287-304.
Shafritz, J. M., Russell, E. W. & Borick, C. (2015) Introducing public administration,
(London: Routledge).
Shaver, J. M. (2005) Testing for mediating variables in management research: Concerns,
implications, and alternative strategies, Journal of management, 31(3), pp. 330-353.
Thomas, C. W. (1998) Maintaining and restoring public trust in government agencies and
their employees, Administration & Society, 30(2), pp. 166-193.
Tolbert, C. J. & Mossberger, K. (2006) The effects of e‐government on trust and
confidence in government, Public Administration Review, 66(3), pp. 354-369.
Tyler, T. R. (1998) Trust and democratic governance, In: Braithwaite, V., Levi, M., Cook,
K. S. & Hardin, R. (eds.) Trust and governance (New York: JSTOR), p. 269.
Van de Walle, S., Van Roosbroek, S. & Bouckaert, G. (2008) Trust in the public sector: is
there any evidence for a long-term decline?, International Review of Administrative
Sciences, 74(1), pp. 47-64.
Waheduzzaman, W. (2010) People's Participation For Good Governance:
Conceptualisation In Bangladesh Context, availabe at: https://www.anzam.org/wp-
content/uploads/pdf-manager/864_ANZAM2010-203.PDF (October 18, 2018).
Wang, H., Law, K. S., Hackett, R. D., Wang, D. & Chen, Z. X. (2005) Leader-member
exchange as a mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and
followers' performance and organizational citizenship behavior, Academy of
management Journal, 48(3), pp. 420-432.
Welch, E. W. & Hinnant, C. C. (2003) Internet use, transparency, and interactivity effects
on trust in government. Paper presented at the System Sciences, 2003. Proceedings of
the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on.
Welch, E. W., Hinnant, C. C. & Moon, M. J. (2004) Linking citizen satisfaction with e-
government and trust in government, Journal of public administration research and
theory, 15(3), pp. 371-391.
West, D. M. (2004) E‐government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen
attitudes, Public Administration Review, 64(1), pp. 15-27.
Zhao, D. & Hu, W. (2017) Determinants of public trust in government: Empirical evidence
from urban China, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 83(2), pp. 358-377.
Zhuang, Y. & Lederer, A. L. (2003) An instrument for measuring the business benefits of
e-commerce retailing, International Journal of electronic commerce, 7(3), pp. 65-99.
Zubair, S. S. & Khan, M. A. (2014) Good Governance: Pakistan's Economic Growth and
Worldwide Governance Indicators, Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences,
8(1), pp. 258-271.

Good Governance and Public Trust: Assessing The Mediating Effect of E-Government in Pakistan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Good Governance and Public Trust: Assessing The Mediating Effect of E-Government in Pakistan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Good Governance and Public Trust: Assessing The Mediating Effect of E-Government in Pakistan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEX LOCALIS - JOURNAL OF LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT

Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 299 - 320, April 2019

Good Governance and Public Trust: Assessing the

Abstract Administrative practices have always been acknowledged

Keywords: • good governance • public trust • e-government •

CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS: Arif Jameel, Zhejiang University, School of Public Affairs,

For promoting good governance in any democratic government, public trust is

2 Review of Literature and Hypotheses

2.1 Good Governance

According to Kaufmann and Kraay (2010), governance is a custom, practice,

Figure 1: Theoretical research model

2.2 Good Governance and Public Trust

Furthermore, public trust is widely seen as an important factor promoting good

Though, Grimmelikhuijsen (2012) claimed in his experimental research that the

2.3 E-Government and Public Trust

E-government and citizen trust relationship in a government is a subject of the

A research on e-government execution in Canada investigating a sample of

Utilizing a sample of 2001 same respondents, e-government website consumers

2.4 The Mediating Role of E-Government

To empirically show the significance of these relationships, research on mediating

Similarly, Cegarra-Navarro, Pachón, and Cegarra (2012) found a mediating

Furthermore, Park and Blenkinsopp (2011) recommended public good governance

3.1 Research Design and Sample

3.2 Measurement Development

3.3 Good Governance

We measured good governance using thirty-items from Salminen and Ikola-

(“Municipal laws are applicable to all people equally”); (3) transparency

To assess e-government, we used 17-items two dimensional from Welch and

3.5 Public Trust

4 Data Analyses and Result

Descriptive statistics, means, standard deviations (SD) and Person’s correlation of

Table 1: Correlations analysis

5. Public Trust 3.56 .765 .494** .260** .215* .462** -

6. Rule of Law 3.94 .598 .295** .221** .189* .478** .432* -

7. Responsiveness 4.14 .676 .240** .155** .238* .474** .345* .507** -

Significance of Correlations: ** p < 0.01

Table 2: Model fit indices

Fit indices Model value Reference value Overall model fit

Furthermore, internal consistency is also tested by measuring composite

Table 3: Composite reliability

4.1 Common Method Bias

4.2 Measurement Model

process, we dropped some items, as well as improving the convergent and

Table 4: Confirmatory factor analysis of measurement model

Latent factor Construct/ Factors Items EFA CFA α

4.3 Structural Model Assessment and Hypothesis Testing

In addition, the results of the direct effect of accountability on public trust (β =

Figure 2: SEM direct effects of both independent and mediator variables on

Table 5: Structural comparison of all models

Models and Structure χ2 Df SRM TLI CFI RMSEA

It is shown in Table 5 that chi-square difference is not significant while comparing

Figure 3: SEM modeling showing mediating effects

Significance at: **= p<0.01; * = p<0.05; NS = Non-Significant

5 Discussion and Conclusion

The hypothesis that responsiveness has a positive impact on public trust is

Better good governance practices perpetuated by e-government practices increase

The Government of Pakistan needs to be responsive to those demands. For change

Overall, this study contributes to the literature by conceptually and empirically by

Furlong, S. (2005) E-government in Canada: Building public trust through citizen-centric

5. Public Trust 3.56 .765 .494 .260 .215* .462** -

6. Rule of Law 3.94 .598 .295 .221 .189* .478** .432* -

7. Responsiveness 4.14 .676 .240 .155 .238* .474** .345* .507** -