Open government data and e-gov services: prospects for increasing social trust

Purpose: This study aims to analyze the impact of Open Government Data (OGD) on social trust formation in public administration in Kazakhstan, testing the OGD value creation theory in a highly digitalized environment that has not achieved the expected level of public trust.

Methodology: The research employs quantitative analysis of data from the Kazakhstan Digital Inclusiveness Survey using R software. Correlation and regression analyses were used to evaluate relationships between socio-demographic factors, platform usage, satisfaction, accessibility, and trust levels. Additionally, thematic content analysis of respondents' open-ended answers was applied.

Results: Contrary to expectations, socio-demographic factors minimally impact trust levels in OGD, while service quality and user satisfaction emerge as key determinants. Significant trust disparities were found across digital channels: official websites receive substantially lower ratings (3.448) compared to government social media (8.094) and news sources (9.745). Statistical analysis showed that platform accessibility moderates relationships between certain demographic factors and trust.

Originality: The study identifies a novel "circle of trust" mechanism connecting usage frequency, service satisfaction, and trust levels in a self-reinforcing cycle. This concept offers new perspectives on bridging the gap between formal digital platform implementation and public value creation. The findings indicate that for governments seeking to build public trust, merely creating digital platforms is insufficient; they must ensure data reliability and develop verification mechanisms that foster a comprehensive open data ecosystem.

1. Wirtz, B. W., Weyerer, J. C., Becker, M., & Müller, W. M. (2022). Open government data: A systematic literature review of empirical research. Electronic Markets, 32(4), 2381–2404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525- 022-00582-8

2. UN E-Government Survey 2024 | Public Institutions. (n.d.). Retrieved May 3, 2025, from URL: https:// publicadministration.desa.un.org/publications/un-e-government-survey-2024-0

3. Moon, K., Shin, B., Park, J., & Levinskaya, V. (2024). Kazakhstan Digital Inclusiveness Survey Data (KOICA Project No. 2021-07) [Dataset]. Harvard Dataverse. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/TCQ4E9

4. Bjerde, A., & Demirgüç-Kunt, A. (2021). Digitalization and data can vastly improve public service delivery for citizens. Retrieved May 3, 2025, from URL: https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/europeandcentralasia/digitalization-and-data-can-vastly-improve-public-service-delivery-citizens

5. ODIN. (2024). Kazakhstan Open Data Inventory Profile. Open Data Inventory. Retrieved May 3, 2025, from URL: https://odin.opendatawatch.com/Report/countryProfileUpdated/KAZ?year=2024

6. Maerz, S. F. (2016). The electronic face of authoritarianism: E-government as a tool for gaining legitimacy in competitive and non-competitive regimes. Government Information Quarterly, 33(4), 727–735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.08.008

7. Žuffová, M. (2020). Do FOI laws and open government data deliver as anti-corruption policies? Evidence from a cross-country study. Government Information Quarterly, 37(3), 101480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101480

8. Fang, J., Zhao, L., & Li, S. (2024). Exploring open government data ecosystems across data, information, and business. Government Information Quarterly, 41(2), 101934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2024.101934

9. Wang, V., & Shepherd, D. (2020). Exploring the extent of openness of open government data – A critique of open government datasets in the UK. Government Information Quarterly, 37(1), 101405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101405

10. Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G., Piotrowski, S. J., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2020). Latent transparency and trust in government: Unexpected findings from two survey experiments. Government Information Quarterly, 37(4), 101497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101497

11. Šlibar, B., & Mu, E. (2022). OGD metadata country portal publishing guidelines compliance: A multicase study search for completeness and consistency. Government Information Quarterly, 39(4), 101756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101756

12. Lindstedt, C., & Naurin, D. (2010). Transparency is not Enough: Making Transparency Effective in Reducing Corruption. International Political Science Review, 31(3), 301–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512110377602

13. Ripamonti, J. P. (2024). Does being informed about government transparency boost trust? Exploring an overlooked mechanism. Government Information Quarterly, 41(3), 101960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2024.101960

14. Benmohamed, N., Shen, J., & Vlahu-Gjorgievska, E. (2024). Public value creation through the use of open government data in Australian public sector: A quantitative study from employees’ perspective. Government Information Quarterly, 41(2), 101930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2024.101930

15. Chen, M., Cao, Y., & Liang, Y. (2023). Determinants of open government data usage: Integrating trust theory and social cognitive theory. Government Information Quarterly, 40(4), 101857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101857

16. Hein, A., Engert, M., Ryu, S., Schaffer, N., Hermes, S., & Krcmar, H. (2023). Building open government data platform ecosystems: A dynamic development approach that engages users from the start. Government Information Quarterly, 40(4), 101878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101878

17. Bonina, C., & Eaton, B. (2020). Cultivating open government data platform ecosystems through governance: Lessons from Buenos Aires, Mexico City and Montevideo. Government Information Quarterly, 37(3), 101479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101479

18. Reggi, L., & Dawes, S. S. (2022). Creating Open Government Data ecosystems: Network relations among governments, user communities, NGOs and the media. Government Information Quarterly, 39(2), 101675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101675

19. Larsson, K. K. (2021). Digitization or equality: When government automation covers some, but not all citizens. Government Information Quarterly, 38(1), 101547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101547

20. Charalabidis, Y., Zuiderwijk, A., Alexopoulos, C., Janssen, M., Lampoltshammer, T., & Ferro, E. (2018). Open Government Data: Areas and Directions for Research. In Y. Charalabidis, A. Zuiderwijk, C. Alexopoulos, M. Janssen, T. Lampoltshammer, & E. Ferro (Eds.), The World of Open Data: Concepts, Methods, Tools and Experiences (pp. 173–194). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90850-2_9

21. Frolova E.A. (2016). Prozrachnost' i podotchetnost' vlasti kak neot"emlemyj element effektivnogo instituta social'noj otvetstvennosti. Journal of Economic Regulation, 3 (2016), https://doi.org/10.17835/2078-5429.2016.7.3.020-033 (In Russian)

22. Knox, C., & Janenova, S. (2019). The e-government paradox in post-Soviet countries. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 32(6), 600–615. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-08-2018-0173