Development of a Digital Inclusion Model for Enhancing Citizen e-Participation in Public Governance: A Conceptual Framework for Kazakhstan
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.68081/df0yjn45Keywords:
digital inclusion, e-participation, public governance, digital divide, institutional responsiveness, civic efficacy, KazakhstanAbstract
Digital government can widen opportunities for citizens to obtain information, express views, and contribute to public decisions. However, the availability of online platforms does not guarantee equal or meaningful participation. Citizens may remain excluded because of unreliable access, limited digital skills, inaccessible interfaces, low trust, weak civic confidence, or the expectation that public institutions will not respond. This article develops a Digital Inclusion–e-Participation in Governance (DI-EPG) model for analysing these interrelated barriers in Kazakhstan and comparable digitalising states. The model is constructed through a theory-driven synthesis of digital inequality, technology acceptance, civic efficacy, e-participation, and responsive-governance literature, supplemented by analysis of Kazakhstan’s digital-government context. It treats citizen digital inclusion as a multidimensional capability comprising meaningful access, digital skills, accessibility and usability, trust and digital safety, and perceived relevance and motivation. The model proposes that these dimensions influence e-information, e-consultation, and e-decision-making both directly and indirectly through civic efficacy and participation readiness. Institutional responsiveness is positioned as both a direct determinant of continued participation and a moderator of the relationship between readiness and actual participation. The article specifies testable hypotheses, measurement indicators, and an empirical validation design using a multilingual citizen survey, structural equation modelling, and follow-up interviews. The proposed framework shifts attention from the mere provision of digital channels to citizens’ practical ability to use them and to see evidence that their participation matters.
References
Amanbek, Y., Balgayev, I., Batyrkhanov, K., & Tan, M. (2018). Adoption of e-government in the Republic of Kazakhstan. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1802.06951
Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission. (2022, April 15). ACRC is committed to resolve 20 million civil complaints yearly filed with the Commission. https://www.acrc.go.kr/board.es?act=view&bid=62&list_no=38675&mid=a20301000000&nPage=9&tag=
Bélanger, F., & Carter, L. (2008). Trust and risk in e-government adoption. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 17(2), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2007.12.002
Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W. E. (1954). The voter decides. Row, Peterson.
Carter, L., & Bélanger, F. (2005). The utilization of e-government services: Citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors. Information Systems Journal, 15(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2005.00183.x
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), 271–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0491.00216
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Electronic Government of Kazakhstan. (2026). Electronic appeals: How to submit and track an appeal through e-Otinish. Official e-government portal of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
Government Digital Service. (2024, September 30). Understanding accessibility requirements for public sector bodies. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/accessibility-requirements-for-public-sector-websites-and-apps
Government Digital Service. (2025, December 18). Assisted digital support: An introduction. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/helping-people-to-use-your-service/assisted-digital-support-introduction
Government of Kazakhstan. (2026a). Digitalisation: The eGov.kz portal was officially launched on 12 April 2006. Official government portal of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
Helsper, E. J. (2021). The digital disconnect: The social causes and consequences of digital inequalities. SAGE.
Le Blanc, D. (2020). E-participation: A quick overview of recent qualitative trends (DESA Working Paper No. 163). United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
Lee, C.-P., Chang, K., & Berry, F. S. (2011). Testing the development and diffusion of e-government and e-democracy: A global perspective. Public Administration Review, 71(3), 444–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02228.x
Linders, D. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 446–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.003
Macintosh, A. (2004). Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2004.1265300
Medaglia, R. (2012). eParticipation research: Moving characterization forward (2006–2011). Government Information Quarterly, 29(3), 346–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.02.010
Nam, T. (2012). Suggesting frameworks of citizen-sourcing via Government 2.0. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.07.005
National Development Council. (2018, April 11). Directions for implementing online participation in public policy. https://theme.ndc.gov.tw/lawout/EngLawContent.aspx?KW=%E8%A1%8C%E6%94%BF&id=62&lan=E
Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. American Political Science Review, 85(4), 1407-1413. https://doi.org/10.2307/1963953
Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge University Press.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2020). Innovative citizen participation and new democratic institutions: Catching the deliberative wave. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/339306da-en
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2026). Digital Government Index and Open, Useful and Re-usable Data Index: 2025 results and key findings (OECD Working Papers on Public Governance No. 90). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/6347ec74-en
Ragnedda, M., Ruiu, M. L., & Addeo, F. (2022). The self-reinforcing effect of digital and social exclusion: The inequality loop. Telematics and Informatics, 72, 101852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2022.101852
Riigikogu. (2025, November 20). Riigikogu discussed the development of civil society and the role of collective proposals. https://www.riigikogu.ee/en/sitting-reviews/riigikogu-discussed-the-development-of-civil-society-and-the-role-of-collective-proposals/
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Alfred A. Knopf.
Susha, I., & Grönlund, Å. (2012). eParticipation research: Systematizing the field. Government Information Quarterly, 29(3), 373–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.11.005
Sæbø, Ø., Rose, J., & Flak, L. S. (2008). The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging research area. Government Information Quarterly, 25(3), 400–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2007.04.007
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2024). UN e-government survey 2024: Accelerating digital transformation for sustainable development. United Nations.
United Nations Development Programme. (2024). Digital inclusion in a dynamic world. UNDP.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. MIT Press.
World Wide Web Consortium. (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Aigerim Amirova, Miras Mukanov

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
