IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v40y2023i4p573-588.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The persuasive role of the past: Policy feedback and citizens' acceptance of information communication technologies during the COVID‐19 pandemic in China

Author

Listed:
  • Yue Guo
  • Lei Zhou
  • Jidong Chen

Abstract

How can the enforcement of policies in the past influence a society's future adoption of information communication technologies (ICTs)? In this paper, we tackle this question by exploring how past e‐governance policies influence citizens' willingness to use the health QR code, which is a COVID‐19 tracing app widely used in China's pandemic control. Past policies regarding smart‐city development in China involve two aspects: the construction of electronic infrastructure and the applications of specific technologies. Empirical analysis based on a nationwide dataset in China suggests that past policies exhibit persuasive effects and influence citizens' acceptance of the health QR code. Specifically, e‐governance applications in cities significantly enhance citizens' acceptance through the demonstration of their usefulness. However, the construction of e‐governance infrastructure per se does not have the same impact on citizens' acceptance. By connecting citizens' acceptance of new technology with past e‐governance policies, the study illustrates a nuanced policy feedback mechanism through which past policies can substantially reshape public opinion by policy outcomes. ¿Cómo puede la aplicación de políticas en el pasado influir en la futura adopción de tecnologías de la información y la comunicación (TIC) en una sociedad? En este documento, abordamos esta pregunta explorando cómo las políticas de gobierno electrónico anteriores influyen en la voluntad de los ciudadanos de usar el código QR de salud, que es una aplicación de rastreo de COVID‐19 ampliamente utilizada en el control de la pandemia en China. Las políticas anteriores con respecto al desarrollo de ciudades inteligentes en China involucran dos aspectos: la construcción de infraestructura electrónica y las aplicaciones de tecnologías específicas. El análisis empírico basado en un conjunto de datos a nivel nacional en China sugiere que las políticas anteriores exhiben efectos persuasivos e influyen en la aceptación del código QR de salud por parte de los ciudadanos. Específicamente, las aplicaciones de gobierno electrónico en las ciudades mejoran significativamente la aceptación de los ciudadanos a través de la demostración de su utilidad. Sin embargo, la construcción de infraestructura de gobierno electrónico per se no tiene el mismo impacto en la aceptación de los ciudadanos. Al conectar la aceptación de las nuevas tecnologías por parte de los ciudadanos con las políticas anteriores de gobierno electrónico, el estudio ilustra un mecanismo matizado de retroalimentación de políticas a través del cual las políticas anteriores pueden remodelar sustancialmente la opinión pública mediante los resultados de las políticas. 过去的政策执行如何影响社会对信息通信工具(ICTs)未来应用的接受程度？在本文中我们通过检验过去的城市数字化发展政策如何影响公众对于使用健康码的意愿来回答这一问题。健康码是一种中国广泛应用于新冠疫情(COVID‐19)防控中的轨迹追踪程序。以往中国的城市数字化政策涉及两方面：数字基础设施建设和公共服务数字化应用。基于一项中国全国范围调查数据的实证分析表明，过去的数字化发展政策呈现出“说服效应”影响了公众对于健康码的接受度，特别是公共服务数字化应用通过证明其有效性显著提高了公民的接受度。然而，数字基础设施建设没有对公民的接受度产生反馈影响。通过将公民对新技术的接受度与过去的城市数字化发展政策相联系，本研究阐明了一种微妙的政策反馈机制，过去的政策能在该机制中通过政策产出显著改变公众观念。

Suggested Citation

  • Yue Guo & Lei Zhou & Jidong Chen, 2023. "The persuasive role of the past: Policy feedback and citizens' acceptance of information communication technologies during the COVID‐19 pandemic in China," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(4), pages 573-588, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:40:y:2023:i:4:p:573-588
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12506
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12506
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.12506?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Schneider, Anne & Ingram, Helen, 1993. "Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(2), pages 334-347, June.
    2. Lin, Yanliu, 2018. "A comparison of selected Western and Chinese smart governance: The application of ICT in governmental management, participation and collaboration," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(10), pages 800-809.
    3. Seunghwan Myeong & Yongmin Kwon & Hyungjun Seo, 2014. "Sustainable E-Governance: The Relationship among Trust, Digital Divide, and E-Government," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(9), pages 1-21, September.
    4. Weaver, Kent, 2010. "Paths and Forks or Chutes and Ladders?: Negative Feedbacks and Policy Regime Change," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(2), pages 137-162, August.
    5. Soma Pillay & P. S. Reddy & Damian Morgan, 2017. "Institutional isomorphism and whistle-blowing intentions in public sector institutions," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(4), pages 423-442, April.
    6. Soss, Joe & Schram, Sanford F., 2007. "A Public Transformed? Welfare Reform as Policy Feedback," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 101(1), pages 111-127, February.
    7. Shouzhi Xia, 2017. "E-Governance and Political Modernization: An Empirical Study Based on Asia from 2003 to 2014," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-14, July.
    8. Daniel Polman & Gerry Alons, 2021. "Reap what you sow: implementing agencies as strategic actors in policy feedback dynamics," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(4), pages 823-848, December.
    9. Carsten Daugbjerg & Adrian Kay, 2020. "Policy feedback and pathways: when change leads to endurance and continuity to change," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 253-268, June.
    10. Mettler, Suzanne, 2002. "Bringing the State Back In to Civic Engagement: Policy Feedback Effects of the G.I. Bill for World War II Veterans," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 96(2), pages 351-365, June.
    11. Viswanath Venkatesh & Fred D. Davis, 2000. "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 186-204, February.
    12. Xiao Tang & Zhengwen Liu & Hongtao Yi, 2018. "Performance Ranking and Environmental Governance: An Empirical Study of the Mandatory Target System," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 35(5), pages 750-772, September.
    13. Kirs, Peeter & Bagchi, Kallol, 2012. "The impact of trust and changes in trust: A national comparison of individual adoptions of information and communication technologies and related phenomenon," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 431-441.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Srinivas Yerramsetti & Manish Anand & Adrian Ritz, 2022. "Digitalized Welfare for Sustainable Energy Transitions: Examining the Policy Design Aspects of the Cooking Gas Cash Transfers in India," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-20, August.
    2. Kasper Ampe & Erik Paredis & Lotte Asveld & Patricia Osseweijer & Thomas Block, 2021. "Power struggles in policy feedback processes: incremental steps towards a circular economy within Dutch wastewater policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(3), pages 579-607, September.
    3. Matt Guardino & Suzanne Mettler, 2020. "Revealing the “Hidden welfare state†: How policy information influences public attitudes about tax expenditures," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(1).
    4. Edmondson, Duncan L. & Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S., 2019. "The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    5. Brendan Moore & Andrew Jordan, 2020. "Disaggregating the dependent variable in policy feedback research: an analysis of the EU Emissions Trading System," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 291-307, June.
    6. Jacqueline Chattopadhyay, 2017. "Is the ACA's Dependent Coverage Provision Generating Positive Feedback Effects Among Young Adults?," Poverty & Public Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(1), pages 42-70, March.
    7. Avi Ben-Bassat & Momi Dahan, 2016. "Biased Policy and Political Behavior," CESifo Working Paper Series 6269, CESifo.
    8. Heather Millar & Matthew Lesch & Linda A. White, 2019. "Connecting models of the individual and policy change processes: a research agenda," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(1), pages 97-118, March.
    9. Jingjing Zeng & Meng Yuan & Richard Feiock, 2019. "What Drives People to Complain about Environmental Issues? An Analysis Based on Panel Data Crossing Provinces of China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, February.
    10. Luisa Fernanda Rodriguez-Hevía & Julio Navío-Marco & Luis Manuel Ruiz-Gómez, 2020. "Citizens’ Involvement in E-Government in the European Union: The Rising Importance of the Digital Skills," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-19, August.
    11. H. Abbie Erler, 2012. "A New Face of Poverty? Economic Crises and Poverty Discourses," Poverty & Public Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(4), pages 183-204, December.
    12. Plutzer, Eric, 2010. "Do highly exclusive social welfare programs increase political inequality? A comparative analysis of the 50 US states," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Inequality and Social Integration SP I 2010-201, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    13. Marques, Marcelo, 2021. "How do policy instruments generate new ones? Analysing policy instruments feedback and interaction in educational research in England, 1986-2014," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    14. Carsten Daugbjerg & Adrian Kay, 2020. "Policy feedback and pathways: when change leads to endurance and continuity to change," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 253-268, June.
    15. Sebastian Sewerin & Daniel Béland & Benjamin Cashore, 2020. "Designing policy for the long term: agency, policy feedback and policy change," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 243-252, June.
    16. Saeideh Sharifi fard & Ezhar Tamam & Md Salleh Hj Hassan & Moniza Waheed & Zeinab Zaremohzzabieh, 2016. "Factors affecting Malaysian university students’ purchase intention in social networking sites," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 1182612-118, December.
    17. Maddison, Jonathan & Watts, Richard, 2011. "The technological fix as a frame in media debates about tailpipe emissions," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 294-303.
    18. Fritz Sager & Yvan Rielle, 2013. "Sorting through the garbage can: under what conditions do governments adopt policy programs?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 46(1), pages 1-21, March.
    19. Chou, Jui-Sheng & Gusti Ayu Novi Yutami, I, 2014. "Smart meter adoption and deployment strategy for residential buildings in Indonesia," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 336-349.
    20. Philippe Cohard, 2020. "Information Systems Values: A Study of the Intranet in Three French Higher Education Institutions," Post-Print hal-02987225, HAL.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:40:y:2023:i:4:p:573-588. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.