When and how do governments succeed in introducing electronic voting (e-voting)? A qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) of 35 OECD countries

When and how do governments succeed in introducing electronic voting (e-voting)? A qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) of 35 OECD countries | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article When and how do governments succeed in introducing electronic voting (e-voting)? A qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) of 35 OECD countries Jieqiong WU, Julius Felix Gmeinwieser This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7583298/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Electronic voting (e-voting) is pivotal for modern democratic institutions in the digital age. Despite nearly six decades of e-voting technology development, significant disparities exist in its global introduction. Existing studies primarily focus on country-specific experiences, leading to limited generalizable insights into what defines successful e-voting introduction and its enablers. This study bridges this gap by proposing a comprehensive definition of successful e-voting introduction. We then explore on what grounds e-voting introduction succeeds or fails by applying fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to data from 35 OECD countries. Results reveal that the broader policy environments, digital readiness and citizens’ trust and ability to use technology significantly shape e-voting policies. High public trust and strong government commitment are essential to success, while low trust hampers progress. The study underscores the interplay of institutional and societal factors, rather than isolated influences, is the key driver of e-voting success. Policy success e-voting digitalization e-governance fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) public sector Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction The development of internet and communication technologies (ICTs) over the past three decades has driven the global adoption of electronic voting (e-voting) initiatives, marking a "second spring" of e-voting since the late 1990s (Trechsel, Kucherenko & Ferreira da Silva, 2016). E-voting, broadly defined as the use of electronic methods for casting votes, is crucial for modern democracies by facilitating efficient, secure, and inclusive voting processes (Gritzalis, 2002 ). As a cornerstone of e-democracy—the leveraging of ICTs to enhance political processes, foster citizen representation, and enable participatory policymaking (Hilbert, 2009 røe et al., 2021 )—e-voting provides access to political information and services, empowering informed citizen engagement (Abu-Shanab, Knight & Refai, 2010 ). Despite its relevance, e-voting introduction shows significant global disparities. While the number of countries employing e-voting in national elections and referenda doubled from 14 in 2013 to 28 in 2024 (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, IDEA, 2023), with approximately 23 percent of countries using it at national or sub-national levels and another 13.5 percent conducting feasibility studies or pilot tests (IDEA, 2023), many have encountered substantial challenges. For instance, Austria has raised concerns about the potential erosion of representative democracy (Mahrer & Krimmer, 2005 ), while the Netherlands has struggled with security issues and legal non-compliance (Harrison et al., 2023 ). Others have yet to attempt e-voting. These disparities raise a fundamental question: why do some countries successfully introduce e-voting while others do not? Existing research has largely focused on country-specific experiences. For example, studies have examined the pioneering efforts of European countries like Estonia and Switzerland (e.g., Gerlach & Gasser, 2009 ; Ehin et al., 2022 ). Research on African countries, including Nigeria and Ghana, highlighted technological and societal challenges unique to these contexts (e.g., Achieng & Ruhode, 2013 ; Adeshina & Ojo, 2020 ). In Asia, studies on countries like Indonesia and India have explored factors such as infrastructure, policy frameworks, and public trust (e.g., Avgerou, Masiero & Poulymenakou, 2019 ; Samihardjo & Lestari, 2021 ). While these studies provide valuable insights into localized experiences, few systematically define successful e-voting introduction or identify generalizable success factors. As a result, cross-country comparisons remain limited, and broader structural explanations are underdeveloped. Some small-N comparative studies (e.g., Górny, 2021 ; Mpekoa & Van Greunen, 2017) attempt to address this gap, but a comprehensive macro-level understanding of structural determinants—such as political, legal, technological, and societal conditions—remains lacking. After three decades of e-voting application and research, there is a pressing need to investigate how structural factors—and their interplay—affect the success or failure of e-voting introduction. Insights into these dynamics could guide future electoral innovations, strengthen democratic processes, and advance digital democracy in the digital age. This study seeks to address these gaps by answering the fundamental questions: When and how do some countries successfully introduce e-voting while some do not? In this paper, the term "e-voting introduction" refers to the legal or practical implementation of e-voting systems for elections or referenda with election management body participation. The paper makes three significant contributions. First, it develops a comprehensive conceptualization of e-voting success and failure. Adapting McConnell's (2015) Policy Success Framework (PSF), the study creates a nuanced framework that captures the complexities and subtleties associated with the introduction of e-voting systems. This framework is then applied to 35 member states of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), enabling a systematic evaluation and cross-country comparison of e-voting introduction success. Second, the paper identifies key structural explanatory conditions contributing to the success or failure of e-voting introduction. Drawing upon the Comprehensive E-Government Model (CEM, Schedler et al., 2003 ), the explanatory framework for policy success and failure (Blinded for review), and literature on e-voting, e-government and digitalization, it explores dynamics and relationships that previous studies have not fully addressed. Third, the paper provides a macro-level analysis of how various combinations of the identified explanatory conditions influence e-voting introductions across 35 OECD countries using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). While most existing e-voting studies focus on country-specific experiences, this cross-country comparison provides valuable insights into broader patterns and dynamics of e-voting introduction in diverse contexts. The paper begins by conceptualizing the successful introduction of e-voting and presenting the policy success explanatory model as a foundation for identifying structural factors. It then details the data and methods used in the analysis. After presenting the results, the study concludes by discussing key findings and their implications for future research and policy. E-voting and its successful introduction E-voting is generally seen as any type of vote casting that involves electronic means (e.g., Svensson & Leenes, 2003 ). A crucial distinction exists between electraonic machine voting and remote internet voting (i-voting). Machine voting involves the use of dedicated electronic devices at fixed public locations (e.g., polling stations) for recording and tallying votes. I-voting represents an advanced modality, allowing vote casting from various locations using devices such as phones or laptops with an internet connection (Svensson & Leenes, 2003 ). In this paper, the term "e-voting" is used in its broader sense, aligning with common scholarly usage. Whenever the discussion pertains specifically to “i-voting”, it will be explicitly referred to as that subcategory. E-voting introduction success E-voting involves decisions and actions taken by public authorities to establish and implement e-voting systems within the context of democratic processes, and as such, it is a form of public policy. This perspective permits the application of general models of policy evaluation to the specific domain of e-voting. Among these, the PSF developed by Allan McConnell and colleagues stands out as one of the few comprehensive approaches for conceptualizing and measuring policy success and failure (e.g., Marsh & McConnell, 2010 ; McConnell, 2015 ). Policy success and failure have at least four main attributes: process, program, politics, and the durability or temporal endurance of success across these three (McConnell, 2015 ). Table 1 summarizes the dimensions and indicators use to conceptualize and operationalize the success of e-voting introduction. Table 1 Dimensions and indicators for assessing success of e-voting introduction PSF dimension Criteria Indicators Process Legitimate process (LEG) The presence of a legal framework supporting e-voting Durable legitimacy of e-voting process (DLE) Durable legitimacy of e-voting process. Programmatic Higher turnout (HTO) Increased voter turnout, at least in certain social groups High-degree of e-voting implementation (HDI) Application of advanced technology and settings in e-voting Secured voting process (SEC) Minimal or nonexistent security breaches and technical failures during implementation Durable implementation of e-voting (DIM) Long-term, sustained e-voting implementation Political High trust (HTR) A high share of individuals interacting digitally with public authorities Durable or enhanced trust (ITR) This share is increasing over time The process dimension focuses on understanding how societies make collective choices in the public interest (McConnell, 2015 ). It involves examining the decision-making procedures, deliberations, and mechanisms used to shape and formulate policies. According to McConnell ( 2015 ), the success or failure of the process hinges on whether the government’s policy goals and instruments are preserved, whether the process confers legitimacy on the policy, and whether a sustainable coalition of supporting interests is built. In the context of e-voting, process success is closely related to legitimacy. Empirical research frequently measures legitimacy through throughput legitimacy, which assesses adherence to procedural norms that yield policy via a democratically accepted process (e.g., constitutional or quasi-constitutional procedures) (Blinded for review). Legitimacy in e-voting specifically refers to whether the legal framework permits e-voting and provides the necessary voter accountability (Krimmer, 2012 ). Thus, having a legal framework that supports e-voting is a prerequisite for process success in e-voting introduction. E-voting can only achieve process success if it is underpinned by a robust legal framework. The programmatic dimension focuses on the measures employed to address policy problems, encompassing various policy instruments (McConnell, 2015 ). Programmatic success has four indicators. First, the program should attain the government’s goals or specific program objectives. Second, the program should produce desirable outcomes for society. Third, a policy should create benefits for a specific target group, actor or interest. And last, a policy program should meet established criteria within the relevant policy domain. For e-voting, the goals and desired outcomes are inherently aligned. As a defining feature of e-democracy, e-voting aims to enhance citizens’ access to political information, services, and options, thereby promoting informed decision-making and active civic engagement and participation. It is thus anticipated that offering e-voting is expected to increase turnout, at least among certain groups of voters. Furthermore, scholars recognize different degrees of e-voting implementation as significant indicators of a country's progress in adopting e-voting (Licht et al., 2021 ). Generally, offering i-voting to the entire electorate represents the highest degree of e-voting implementation, while the absence of prior e-voting experiences reflects the lowest level. Building upon Licht et al.'s ( 2021 ) argument, we further differentiate degrees of e-voting implementation by examining the e-voting environment (controlled or not-controlled), technologies applied (machine-based or internet-based voting), level of implementation (e-voting apply in national or sub-national elections), legal effects (binding or non-binding) and scope of eligible voters (whether e-voting is available to all or specific groups in particular or all constituencies). Finally, voting, whether paper-based or electronic, must adhere to constitutional requirements such as generality, freedom, equality, secrecy, and directness (Gritzalis, 2002 ). A major challenge for e-voting is meeting these requirements while addressing security concerns associated with technology, such as data storage, misuse, and security breaches (Barcevičius et al., 2019 ; Scassa, 2014 ). Therefore, programmatic success for e-voting mandates the implementation of robust security measures to safeguard integrity voter data and ensure the of the electoral process. The politics dimension considers the political ramifications of processes and programs (McConnell, 2015 ). Political success involves enhancing the government's electoral prospects, reputation, and overall governance capacity. Factors such as agenda control and alignment with government values and visions also contribute to political success (McConnell, 2015 ). In the context of e-voting, political success is closely related to citizens’ confidence in using digital means for interaction with the public authorities, a core objective of e-government initiatives. The temporal dimension , also known as the endurance dimension, acknowledges the dynamic nature of evaluating success and failure, recognizing that the perception of these outcomes can evolve over time as the impacts of policies become apparent in the short or long term (McConnell, 2015 ). This dimension traverses the process, programmatic, and political dimensions. In this context, the success of e-voting is evidenced through the sustained preservation of its legitimacy, the continuity of its implementation, and the ongoing willingness of citizens to engage with public authorities via digital means. Concept aggregation McConnell ( 2015 ) proposes a typology with three distinct outcomes, ranging from resilient success/tolerable failure to policy failure/marginal success. In this study, we adapt McConnell's typology to define four degrees of success: full policy success, partial policy success, partial policy failure, and full policy failure. We begin by assessing the degree of success for each dimension individually. E-voting introduction is considered successful in process if the country has a legal framework supporting e-voting and the legitimacy of the system remains intact after adoption. In contrast, it is considered a process failure if the country never established any legal framework for e-voting. E-voting is programmatically successful if it increases voter turnout, achieves a high degree of implementation, or maintains a minimal or nonexistent number of security breaches during its operation. Additionally, programmatic success is given if e-voting is implemented with few or no discontinuations. Failure in this dimension occurs when e-voting trials or programs are never initiated. Politically, e-voting is successful if a high proportion of citizens use the internet to interact with public authorities, and this willingness improves over time. Failure is marked by stagnation in this willingness, even if internet use is initially high. In the second stage, we aggregate these assessments. A country achieves full success in e-voting introduction if it succeeds in all three dimensions. Partial success is given when it succeeds in two dimensions, and partial failure if it succeeds in only one. A full failure reflects lack of success across all dimensions. On what grounds can we explain the success and failure of e-voting? To understand the factors contributing to the success or failure of e-voting introduction, this study draws upon two frameworks: the CEM (Schedler et al., 2003 ) and the explanatory framework for policy success and failure (Blinded for review). The CEM outlines the key elements of e-government, along with management-related factors and structural conditions that shape its introduction (Schedler et al., 2003 ). Given our macro-level focus, we focus on the structural conditions—such as the political environment, technological development, law, and societal attitudes (Schedler et al., 2003 ). The structural conditions exert the most influence at the macro (national) level and are considered paramount for the introduction of e-voting as a subcategory of e-government (e.g., Krimmer, 2012 ; Schedler et al., 2003 ). To understand how these structural conditions affect the introduction of e-voting from a policy success perspective, we integrate them into the explanatory framework for policy success and failure (Blinded for review). This framework posits that policy success or failure results from the interaction of four key sets of factors: society, institution and policy process, individuals, and policy substance. The structural conditions considered in this study correspond primarily to the societal and institutional dimensions (see Table 2 ), which thus constitute the analytical focus. We exclude individual- and policy substance-related factors due to our macro-level focus and limitations in data availability, which would have restricted the empirical breadth of our study. Table 2 Summary of the conditions and directional expectations Explanatory framework dimension Explanatory condition Ceteris paribus , condition produces successful e-voting introduction (SUCCESS), when… Ceteris paribus , condition produces not successful e-voting introduction (~ SUCCESS), when… Society A relatively high level of technical infrastructure development (TII) present absent A relatively high level of trust in government (TRG) no directional expectation no directional expectation Aging society (AGE) absent present Institution/policy process Low legal interdependency among administrative units (LEI) present absent Independence of EMB from political influence (POI) present absent Note: A tilde (~) read as "NOT". It denotes the negation of an outcome or the absence of a condition or the outcome. Societal conditions A favourable societal context is crucial for policy success, encompassing both policy and political environments (Blinded for review). This factor captures the CEM structural conditions of technological development and society attitudes. Technological development Technology is a fundamental driver of digitalization (Di Giulio & Vecchio, 2023). For successful introduction of new programs such as e-voting, society must possess a compatible technological infrastructure and the capacity to integrate these systems with existing digital processes (Schedler et al., 2003 ). Moreover, citizens need access to appropriate technologies, which necessitates a robust ICT infrastructure. High broadband penetration, particularly in rural areas, is essential for the effective e-government services delivery (Mpekoa & van Greunen, 2017). Without adequate internet connectivity, efforts to enhance accessibility through e-governance are likely to fail (Licht et al., 2021 ). Therefore, a relatively high level of technical infrastructure development (TII) is expected to positively influence e-voting introduction success. Societal attitudes Societal attitudes toward technology and innovation are crucial for e-voting introduction (Krimmer, 2012 ), with citizens' trust and digital abilities being essential elements (Schedler et al., 2003 ). Citizens' trust in e-government of two key components: trust in the government as an institution and trust in the reliability of the enabling technology (Carter et al., 2016 ). Research suggests that trust in the government is more decisive for the adoption of e-government services than trust in technology itself (Sweeney, 2007). This study therefore focuses on how citizens' trust in government affects the introduction of e-voting. Studies on the relationship between trust in government and e-government introduction show mixed findings. Some indicate that higher levels of trust in government correlate with more intensive e-service use (e.g., Bélanger & Carter, 2008 ; Li, 2021 ), while others find no significant relationship (e.g., Torres, Pina, & Acerete, 2005 ; West, 2005 ). Given these inconsistent results, no directional expectation is formulated. Citizens' ability to use e-voting systems is heavily influenced by their digital literacy (Krimmer, 2012 ). Age, economic status, and education significantly affect individuals' ability to effectively navigate digital services (Van Deursen & Van Dijk, 2011 ). The age of a society is particularly impactful, as older generations often demonstrate lower levels of digital literacy (Botrić & Božić, 2021 ). This digital proficiency gap limits access to e-government services, reducing both trust in and demand for these systems, thereby hindering overall digitalization progress (Górny, 2021 ; Samihardjo & Lestari, 2021 ). Therefore, an aging society (AGE) is expected to negatively impact the introduction of e-voting. Institutional/policy-process related conditions Institutional and policy process-related factors help explain policy success or failure, focusing on structures, procedures, and processes (McConnell, 2016 ). A key element is the coordination of policy actions and functions, which reflects the influence of law as outlined in the CEM framework. Effective coordination, typically through a centralized agency, facilitates planning, research, implementation, and integration across sectors and jurisdictions, thereby reducing fragmentation and enhancing policy success (Blinded for review). The impacts of law The CEM structural condition of law significantly shapes the structural reforms required for e-government introduction by influencing their flexibility. Schedler et al. ( 2003 ) argue that restructuring administrative structures is often necessary for successful digitalization of public service delivery. E-government prioritizes efficiency, necessitating administrative procedure restructuring to support faster, more effective processes (Di Giulio & Vecchio, 2023; Schedler et al., 2003 ). Legal interdependency between administrative units is crucial for smoother reform processes. Kuhlmann and Bogumil ( 2021 , p. 103) emphasize the legal challenges federal systems pose to digitalization, particularly how interconnectivity issues hinder the uniform implementation of digital tools. Administrative and legal interdependencies can obstruct clear decision-making, especially when multiple actors are involved, as each actor's unique legal constraints complicate consensus (Jochimsen, 2022 ). In federal systems with dense regulations, administrative bodies often lack the autonomy to independently restructure processes, increasing the effort and costs of e-government projects and reducing their feasibility (Schedler et al., 2003 ). Therefore, low legal interdependency between administrative units (LEI) should positively influence the introduction of e-voting. Another institutional and policy-related condition is the design of electoral management bodies (EMBs). The power of politicians The CEM's condition of politics can be referred to as the extent to which politicians can influence e-governance (POI) (Schedler et al., 2003 ). This perception aligns with ongoing discussions about political power in digitalization. Political power is the degree to which elected officials and major interest groups have a stake in a particular policy (Di Giulio & Vecchi, 2023 ). Politicians who support digitalization may promote e-voting to increase participation and modernize electoral processes. However, resistance can arise from fears of losing control over traditional representation. This "middleman paradox," described by Mahrer & Krimmer ( 2005 ), reflects politicians' concerns that e-voting and increased civic engagement could reduce their influence. Established political systems often view current institutions as optimal for problem-solving, therefore, resisting changes (Mahrer, 2005 ). Politicians can hinder e-voting by exerting influence over EMBs, which coordinate and organize elections and potential reforms (IDEA, 2014). Thus, the absence of political influence on the design of EMBs (POI) shall positively influence the introduction of e-voting. Table 2 summarizes the conditions, and their directional expectations, used for counterfactual arguments. Data and methods We now elaborate on the cases analyzed, the data and methods employed. Case selection Our research focuses on member countries of the OECD, an international organization comprising democracies with market economies, to ensure sufficient heterogeneity. The methodological rigor of QCA necessitates substantial diversity in both outcome and condition sets; a lack of such diversity can limit meaningful comparisons (Oana, Schneider & Thomann, 2021 , pp. 47–48). While organizations like IDEA and the United Nations (UN) offer global data, we chose the OECD to meet this methodological demand. Additionally, limiting the analysis to OECD countries provides access to comprehensive datasets from the OECD online library, enabling a more controlled and methodologically rigorous analysis. Notably, South Korea, Colombia, and the United States were excluded from the analysis due to missing data, leaving 35 cases in the study. Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis We employ fsQCA to identify the necessary and sufficient conditions for success and failure in e-voting introduction. fsQCA has three underlying assumptions (Oana et al., 2021 ). First, e-voting success and failure may have more than one, not mutually exclusive, explanations (equifinality). Second, explanatory conditions impact e-voting introduction in combination, rather than in isolation (conjunctural causation). Finally, successful e-voting may have different explanations than failed e-voting introduction (asymmetrical causation). The analysis begins by identifying necessary conditions (supersets). Second, we evaluate sufficient conditions by analyzing a "truth table." This table systematically organizes all possible combinations of conditions and their relationship to the outcome. If the fuzzy set membership of most cases in a truth table row is less than or equal to their membership in the outcome, that row is considered a sufficient "path" (R packages QCA and SetMethods; Duşa, 2019 ; Oana & Schneider, 2018 ; Oana et al., 2021 ). We employ the Standard Analysis and theoretically informed directional expectations to deal with the "empirical logical remainders" (combinations of conditions not observed in the data). Parameters of fit in fsQCA Consistency, coverage and proportional reduction in inconsistency (PRI) are key parameters for evaluating QCA results (Oana et al., 2021 ). These parameters range from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating better fit. Consistency measures how well the results align with statements of necessity or sufficiency, while coverage shows how much of the outcome is explained by the conditions (Oana et al., 2021 ). For sufficiency, the recommended consistency value is 0.75 though this is not absolute (Oana et al., 2021 ). A trade-off exists between consistency and coverage. This paper prioritizes coverage and includes truth table rows with a maximum of one-third deviant cases and sufficiency consistency scores slightly below 0.75 for analysis. PRI quantifies how consistently a set of conditions leads to the outcome (Oana et al., 2021 ); scores below 0.5 indicate significant inconsistency. The details of the analysis, including truth tables and the R replication file, are provided in the online supplementary materials 1 . We now turn to the measurements and calibration of the outcome and condition sets. Measurement and calibration In the conceptualization section, we discussed the criteria and indicators and their aggregation to form the outcome set. Section 1 in Online Appendix A summarizes the operationalization and calibration of e-voting introduction success across the process, programmatic, political, and outcome set. This is based on qualitative content analysis of legal documents, government websites and reports, data collected from OECD, IDEA, among others, complemented by secondary literature. Table 3 summarizes the measurements and calibrations of the conditions (see Section 2 in Online Appendix A for full details). We now turn to the results. Table 3 Measurement and calibration of conditions Condition set Operationalization Measurement Fully out 0 Neither in or out 0.5 Fully in 1 TII The country’s infrastructure is supportive to digital services and e-government, focusing on internet usage, fixed broadband subscriptions etc. UN Telecommunication Infrastructure Index 2020 Source: https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/Data-Center 6.28 8.646 10 TRG The percentage of respondents who expressed confidence in the national government in the OECD survey OECD Well-Being 2022 2 , indicator “trust in national government” Source: https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?pg=0&snb=8&tm=future%20well%20being&df[ds]=dsDisseminateFinalDMZ&df[id]=DSD_HSL%40DF_HSL_FWB&df[ag]=OECD. WISE.WDP&df[vs]=1.1&hc[Topic]= 25.6 49.38 78 AGE The country’s median age CIA World Factbook data 2022 Source: https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/median- age/country-comparison 29.3 41 48.6 LEI Government structure IAEP dataset, variable “govstruct”; ECR data Low: Unitary-like system High: Confederation- and federal-like systems 3 Source: https://havardhegre.net/iaep/ 0 (High) - 1 (Low) POI The design of the EMB IDEA Electoral Management Design Database 2024 Independent: Independent and mixed model of EMB design. Not independent: Governmental model of EMB design. 4 Source: https://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/electoral-management-design-database 0 (Not independent) - 1 (Independent) Results Countries succeed in introducing e-voting Figure 1 illustrates the success of e-voting introduction across various cases, with more than half (57 percent) of the cases experienced some level of success. Among the fully successful cases, Estonia renowned for its advanced digital infrastructure and leadership in e-governance, has successfully introduced e-voting in terms of the process, implementation, and citizen participation. It is the only country in our case studies to implement i-voting nationwide. New Zealand restricts e-voting to overseas voters, while other countries offer it in selected constituencies. Among the partially successful cases, Mexico and Denmark stand out as the only ones where e-voting is still in use. However, Mexico faces challenges in the political dimension, while Denmark struggles with the process dimension due to a lack of a supporting legal framework. Germany, Japan, and the UK are often seen as having "abandoned" e-voting because they have not used it in recent electoral cycles or courts have ruled e-voting results unconstitutional (e.g., Darmawan, 2021 ; Harrison et al., 2023 ). However, current laws in these countries still allow for e-voting. Turkey has never implemented e-voting program despite having a legal framework and public willingness to interact with public authorities online. In less successful cases, Austria and Portugal initially implemented e-voting but later halted their efforts. In Austria, the Federal Constitutional Court annulled the 2009 e-voting pilot. Portugal replaced its legal framework, ending further development. Lithuania similarly repealed its legal basis without conducting trials. In the next sections, we analyze the conditions that led to the distinct outcomes: success in introducing e-voting (SUCCESS) and its failure (~ SUCCESS). While we identified no necessary conditions, our analysis reveals six sufficient paths to SUCCESS and three to ~ SUCCESS. Each path is illustrated with a typical case. Conditions for successful introduction of e-voting Table 4 presents the six paths that imply how e-voting introduction succeeds. Table 4 Intermediate solution for successful e-voting introduction (SUCCESS) Path Consistency PRI Coverage Unique coverage Cases 1 POI*TII*~LEI*~TRG 1.000 1.000 0.157 0.066 JP, NL, ES 2 ~LEI*TRG*~AGE*POI 1.000 1.000 0.126 0.035 MX; AU 3 ~LEI*TRG*AGE*~POI 0.791 0.711 0.133 0.133 BE; FI , DE, CH 4 POI*TII*LEI*TRG 0.719 0.589 0.160 0.160 IS, NZ; EE 5 LEI*~POI*~AGE*TII*~TRG 1.000 1.000 0.080 0.031 UK 6 LEI*~POI*~AGE*~TII*TRG 1.000 1.000 0.078 0.029 IE Notes: Solution consistency: 0.859; Solution coverage: 0.592; PRI: 0.767; Raw consistency:0.722. Italic: deviant cases in kind. Cases separated by semicolons belong to different truth table rows. Read *as AND, ~ as NOT. Details see Tables 5 and 7 in Online Appendix B. Regional trailblazers of e-voting Paths 1 and 4 describe the regional trailblazers of e-voting, emphasizing the critical role of a politically independent EMB (POI) and a society with higher readiness for digital services and e-government (TII) in successfully introducing e-voting. In path 1, these factors are coupled with relatively high interdependence among administrative units (~ LEI) and low public trust in government (~ TRG). Japan exemplifies this path as an early mover of e-voting in Asia. Since the late 1990s, Japan has become a leader in telecommunications, with 86 percent of households having fiber-optic access by 2023 (OECD, 2024a ). This digital expansion, driven by early adoption of ADSL, fiber-optic broadband and other technologies, laid the groundwork for further digital reforms (Japanese Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, 2022). The 2001 E-Japan Strategy further promoted innovation in digital services, creating a favorable environment for e-voting introduction (Iwasaki, 2010 ). Japan's governance structure, with a strong central government and semi-autonomous regional governments (~ LEI), necessitates inter-unit collaboration for national electoral reform. However, public trust in the national government has eroded since the 1990s (~ TRG), due to political scandals, economic stagnation, and perceived mismanagement of crises like the Fukushima disaster and the COVID-19 pandemic (Tokaji, 2022 ). Conversely, citizens exhibit greater trust in local governments (Kikuchi, 2023 ). This public sentiment, combined with Japan's electoral system—managed independently at the local level by electoral management committees (POI) (ACE Electoral Knowledge Network, n.d.)—makes municipalities ideal testing grounds for e-voting. The 2002 e-voting special law empowers municipalities to experiment with e-voting system under central oversight. In contrast, path 4 represents cases where a politically independent EMB (POI) and relatively high digital readiness (TII) are coupled with low legal interdependence among administrative units (LEI) and comparatively high public trust in the government (TRG). This path demonstrates how robust public trust can amplify a digitally advanced society’s capacity to adopt innovative technologies for democratic participation. Cases in this path are regional pioneers of i-voting in binding elections and referenda, with Iceland serving as a prototype. Iceland consistently ranks among the most digitally advanced countries globally, supported by a robust telecommunications infrastructure (TII). By 2022, Iceland achieved full internet penetration (ITU, 2022). This digital maturity is amplified by Icelanders' high trust in their government (TRG). 50 percent of Icelanders report high trust in their national government, exceeding the OECD average of 41 percent. Additionally, 62.5 percent believe their government uses personal data legitimately (OECD, 2023 ). Iceland’s unitary government centralizes power (LEI), mixed-model of EMB design (POI), and the 2008 eNation Strategy that aims to boost the country’s e-government leadership, leading to the launch of e-voting pilots (European Commission, 2016 ). E-voting strivers through small successes Paths 2 and 3 describe how confederations and federal-style systems (~ LEI) with relatively high public trust (TRG) introduce e-voting through incremental successes. These two conditions are combined with politically independent EMBs (POI) and a relatively young society (~ AGE) in path 2; and with politically dependent EMBs (~ POI) and a relatively old society (AGE) in path 3. Mexico exemplifies Path 2. Since 2005, Mexico has progressively expanded electronic voting for citizens living abroad, initially for subnational elections, then for selected constituencies, and eventually for national elections. This reflects a step-by-step approach to e-voting introduction, built on continuous innovation. Mexico operates as a federal republic with a strong central government alongside semi-autonomous regional governments (~ LEI). It’s politically independent EMBs at both local and federal levels, like the Electoral Institute of Mexico City, are receptive to digital reforms in the voting process (Vegas & Barrat, 2016 ). Citizens’ relatively high trust in public institutions (TRG) facilitated this process. In 2023, 54 percent of Mexicans reported high or moderately high trust in the federal government, also showing confidence in the government's ability to regulate and manage emerging technologies responsibly (OECD, 2024b ). Mexico’s relatively young population (~ AGE) further bolsters e-voting acceptance, as younger citizens tend to be more technologically literate and open to digital innovations. A 2019 survey showed 60 percent of respondents trusted e-voting results more than traditional methods, highlighting the synergy between demographics and technological advancement in Mexico's e-voting journey (Parametría, 2019 ). Switzerland exemplifies the third path to successful e-voting introduction. Its 26 highly autonomous cantons can tailor voting procedures, allowing localized e-voting experimentation (~ LEI). Since 2004, cantons like Basel-Stadt, St. Gallen, Thurgau, and Fribourg, have conducted e-voting trials in cantonal and National Council elections and referendums (Federal Chancellery, n.d.). This gradual, localized experimentation reflects a cautious yet innovative approach to e-voting. A cornerstone of Switzerland’s democratic system is the relatively high public trust in government (TRG). Rooted in the country’s long tradition of direct democracy, this trust is reinforced by frequent civic participation opportunities through referendums and initiatives (Linder & Mueller, 2021 ; Kriesi, 2005 ). Such participatory mechanisms empower citizens to influence government decisions, bolstering confidence in political institutions. Public trust in the Swiss government surpasses the OECD average by 23 percentage (OECD, 2024b ). This participatory structure not only strengthens public trust but may also mitigate concerns among politicians about losing influence within government-affiliated EMBs (~ POI). Countries on path 3 often initiate e-voting trials earlier than their peers. In Switzerland, this may benefit its aging population (AGE): younger voters familiar with e-voting are likely to maintain engagement as they age, sustaining participation over time (Gerlach & Gasser, 2009 ). E-voting success as a flash in the pan Paths 5 and 6 showcase the short-lived success of centrally driven e-voting initiatives in the UK and Ireland. Both paths demonstrate the significance of a strong central government with minimal regional administrative structures (LEI), a governmental model of EMB design (~ POI), and a relatively young population (~ AGE) for achieving early success in e-voting introduction. Path 5 combines these conditions with a relatively high readiness for digital services and e-government (TII) and a relatively low public trust in government (~ TRG), whereas Path 6 combines them with a relatively low digital readiness (~ TII) and a society with higher level of trust in government (TRG). The UK (Path 5) sought to lead in e-government, with e-voting positioned as a flagship initiative (Pratchett & Wingfield, 2004 ). Operating under a unitary governance model (LEI) and with a government-affiliated EMB (~ POI), the UK launched e-voting pilot schemes in 2002 and 2007 (Liptrott, 2006 ). These pilots successfully facilitated voting in a secure environment. However, the Electoral Commission concluded that the complexity of implementation and associated security risks were significant and unacceptable (Council of Europe, 2023 ). Consequently, no further trials have been conducted since 2007, marking the initiative as a short-term programmatic success. Despite this, the legal framework for e-voting remains intact, allowing for potential future use. While the UK currently exhibits a relatively small digital divide (~ AGE) and relatively high readiness for digital services (TII), low public trust in (~ TRG) government appears to hinder renewed e-voting efforts. As of 2023, only 27 percent of UK citizens expressed trust in their government, significantly below the OECD average (OCED, 2024c). Ireland, the typical case for path 6, share similar features. The country operates under a unitary system (LEI) with a national EMB affiliated with the government (~ POI). In 2000, the EMB initiated a procurement process for an e-voting system to improve the efficiency, accuracy, and usability of elections (De Cock et al., 2007 ). While the pilot achieved short-term programmatic success, security concerns and high costs led to the discontinuation of the initiative (Council of Europe, 2021 ). Ireland’s relatively young and digitally literate population (~ AGE) and comparatively high public trust in government (TRG), may contribute to the political success. However, the relatively low readiness for digital services remains (~ TII) may hinder future efforts to reintroduce e-voting. Figure 2 illustrates the scores of the cases for this solution, demonstrating reasonable explanatory power by accounting for thirteen out of twenty successful cases. Finland is noted as a deviant case, which will be discussed later. Conditions for e-voting introduction failure Table 5 summarizes the three paths explaining how countries fail to introduce e-voting (~ SUCCESS). Table 5 Intermediate solution of e-voting introduction failure (~ SUCCESS) Path Consistency PRI Coverage Unique coverage Cases 1 LEI*POI*AGE*~TII 0.853 0.810 0.286 0.151 HU, LV, LT, PL, SK, SI; PT 2 LEI*POI*~TRG*~AGE*TII 0.719 0.612 0.192 0.061 IL 3 ~LEI*~POI*~TRG*AGE*~TII 0.727 0.628 0.113 0.113 CZ, GR, IT Notes: Solution consistency: 0.789; Solution coverage: 0.460; PRI: 0.722; Raw consistency: 0.718. Italic: deviant cases in kind. Cases separated by semicolons belong to different truth table rows. Read *as AND, ~ as NOT. Details see tables 6 and 7 in Online Appendix B. “Good” institutions but “bad” society Paths 1 and 2 showcase how favorable institutional settings— low legal restrictions on the administrative units (LEI) and an independent EMB (POI)—can still lead to e-voting failure when societal conditions are unfavorable. Path 1 combines these institutional conditions with the necessary presence of relatively high digital divide (AGE) and relatively less robust telecommunication infrastructure (~ TII). Portugal illustrates this path. Its centralized legal system contributes to its low legal interdependence (LEI), and the EMB structure is a mixed model, comprising the National Electoral Commission—an independent body—and the Ministry of Internal Administration, which operates as a government agency (POI). However, Portugal has experienced significant demographic aging (AGE), with one of the lowest proportions of young people in the EU (12.8 percent) and one of the highest shares of older individuals (24.1 percent) as of 2024 (Eurostat, 2025 ). This aging demographic exacerbates the digital divide, particularly in rural areas where overall fixed broadband coverage is low (~ TII), and connectivity is often less reliable despite widespread mobile network access (European Commission, 2023 ). Path 2, represented by Israel, characterized by relatively low legal restrictions on administrative units (LEI), an independent EMB (POI), a relatively young population (~ AGE), robust telecommunication infrastructure (TII), but relatively low public trust in government (~ TRG). Despite meeting several conditions theoretically conducive to e-voting, the lack of trust in government appears to impede its successful introduction. The first two paths demonstrate that having a theoretically supportive institutional setting is insufficient for successfully introducing e-voting. Unfavorable societal conditions—such as weak technological infrastructure (~ TII), a significant digital divide (AGE), or low public trust in government (~ TRG)—can undermine efforts to introduce e-voting. The “perfect” victims Path 3 to e-voting introduction failure represents the "perfect" victim scenario, combining all proposed explanatory conditions in their expected directions. Greece exemplifies this path. Citizens' trust in the government is relatively low (~ TRG); in 2023, the percentage of Greeks reporting trust in the government was seven percentage points below the OECD average (OECD, 2024b ). Despite initiatives like the Digital Strategy 2020 , digital infrastructure lags behind EU peers (~ TII), with rural areas facing poor high-speed internet access (European Commission, 2023 ). Greece also has an aging population (AGE): 23 percent are over 65, a figure set to grow over the next three decades (AGE) (Neos Kosmos, 2024). Institutionally, Greece’s EMB is politically influenceable (~ POI). Its administrative system operates on national and sub-national levels. Nationally, Greece is divided into decentralized administrations. At the sub-national level, municipalities and regions manage local affairs with financial independence, though they remain under central oversight for broader policies (~ LEI) (Council of European Regions, n.d.). The interplay of these conditions creates a scenario where unfavorable society environment and institutional design hinder the introduction of e-voting. Figure 3 displays the cases scores on this solution. The solution covers ten out of fifteen unsuccessful cases. Italy is a deviant case, which will be discussed below. Post-QCA case discussions In this section, we discuss the deviant cases by comparing them with the cases on the same path (see online Table 8 in Online Appendix B). Finland is a deviant case of consistency in the third path to e-voting introduction success. Comparing Finland with Switzerland, the typical case on the same path, reveal the importance of sustained government commitment in e-voting introduction success. Finland experiences technical issues during e-voting usage in 2008 municipal elections, where incomplete instructions led to nearly two percent of e-votes not being recorded (Council of Europe, 2008 ). E-voting was subsequently suspended after a feasibility study concluded that the system was not mature enough to meet all requirements (Ministry of Justice, n.d.). Switzerland similarly encountered technical challenges with i-voting. In 2019, online voting was temporarily discontinued for four years due to security flaws, delays in project planning, and unforeseen costs. Unlike Finland, Switzerland redesigned its trial framework. Since 2019, the Federal Chancellery has tightened oversight, appointed independent experts, clarified canton–federal responsibilities, and set stricter technical rules (Council of Europe, 2023 ). Certification requirements were reduced, but technical precision increased. Current trials, capped at 10 percent of the electorate, focus on trust indictors and voter behavior (Council of Europe, 2021 , 2023 ). This cautious reintroduction reflects Switzerland’s commitment to maintaining voter trust and ensuring system integrity while embracing online voting technology. This comparison suggests that success in similar institutional contexts may hinge on governments addressing technical challenges, learning from setbacks, and keeping future introduction possible. Italy is a deviant case for consistency in e-voting introduction failure, sharing the third path to failure with Greece and the Czech Republic. However, unlike the other two, Italy follows a different trajectory and is also the least explained case of partial e-voting success. Since 2006, Legislative Decree No. 1 has allowed e-voting for voters with disabilities or in care/detention (Camera dei deputati, 2022 ). Local governments have since trialed e-voting in binding elections or referendums—e.g., Cremona (2006), Trentino (2008), and two Salento towns (2013)—with higher turnout and no major technical/security issues. Available data indicate that these experiments yielded increased voter turnout and no major technical or security issues. Italy’s success in the process and programmatic dimensions appears to be driven by its alignment with the EU digitalization agenda. Parliamentary records show multiple initiatives under Italy’s legal framework to modernize electoral processes, consistent with the EU’s 2030 digital decade goals (Camera dei deputati, 2022 ). In contrast, Czech Republic and Greece, cases sharing the same path, seem to lack similar motivations. They express concerns about cybersecurity, data manipulation, costs, voting secrecy and public trust as main obstacles to introducing e-voting (Council of Europe, 2021 , 2023 ). The comparison suggests that beyond structural and societal conditions, government motivation and policy alignment matter. Italy’s willingness to experiment—driven by EU priorities—appears to offset some institutional or societal limitations, while in Greece and the Czech Republic, persistent concerns stall progress. Discussions and conclusions This article examined the structural factors underlying global disparities in e-voting introduction, focusing on the interplay of institutional and societal conditions across 35 OECD countries. The analysis yields four key insights. First, e-voting introduction is a complex process shaped by both institutional actors and the broader policy and societal environment . Contrary to the theoretical expectations, e-voting can be introduced even in countries with high legal interdependence among administrative units or where EMBs are less open to it. The crux of the matter here is the broader policy environment and societal conditions (van Dijk, 2006 ). E-voting, as a form of e-government policy, is inherently tied to a country's digitalization strategy, as in Japan and Iceland. Favorable societal conditions can motivate this decision, particularly advanced technological infrastructures and high public trust. Well-developed telecommunication infrastructures provide the groundwork for further digital reforms (Margetts & Dunleavy, 2013 ; West, 2005 ), facilitating the country’s broader policy agenda on digitalization and promote experimentation with e-voting (e.g. Japan, Iceland and the UK). High trust in government may mitigate concerns among politicians about losing influence and the setbacks of aging society and motivate institutional actors to improve the current voting system, exemplified by Switzerland (Bannister & Connolly, 2011 ; Welch et al., 2005 ). This reflects path dependency, where earlier investments in digitalization strategies, technological infrastructure, and public trust create favourable conditions for e-voting introduction. Second, these conditions do not operate in isolation; instead, their interplay collectively determines the outcomes . This holistic perspective emphasizes the conjunctural causation of institutional and societal conditions (Oana et al., 2021 ), moving beyond studies focused on net effects. The findings also carry significant implications for technology acceptance theories, such as the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (Venkatesh et al., 2003 ; Liu et al., 2019 ). Unlike these models, which typically treat structural conditions merely as moderators, our study suggests they play a fundamental and direct role in shaping the success or failure of e-voting introduction. Third, government motivations and commitment are pivotal . Our post-QCA analysis of Finland and Italy indicates that a government's dedication to digital solutions and alignment with broader policy agendas can determine the success or failure of such initiatives. This emphasizes the critical role of governments as policy entrepreneurs, who drive changes, build coalitions, gain support, and leverage opportunities in digital reform (Gil-Garcia, Helbig & Ojo, 2014 ; Janssen & van der Voort, 2016 ). It also underscores the significance of policy leadership and vision, key concepts in digital-era governance (Dunleavy et al., 2006 ; Margetts & Dunleavy, 2013 ; Mergel et al., 2019 ). Fourth, institutional and societal conditions help explain different types of e-voting introduction success and failure . Political success is closely tied to societal factors, as citizens' attitudes toward the government and their digital literacy determine their willingness and consistency to engage with online public services (Bannister & Connolly, 2011 ; Mossberger et al., 2007 ). The criterion of higher voter turnout also reflects citizens’ attitudes and abilities to use e-voting technologies. Process success and the temporal success in process and programmatic dimensions are tied to government motivations and commitments, such as launching initiatives, creating supportive legal frameworks, and pursuing continued trials despite incremental progress. This complexity suggests that successful digital reforms require governments to invest not only in technology but also in building public trust, developing adaptable legal frameworks, and fostering institutional independence (Heeks, 2003 ; Irani et al., 2005 ). While insightful, this analysis has limitations. It focused on 35 OECD countries, limiting its representation of developing nations. Furthermore, data availability challenges excluded cases like Colombia, South Korea, and the US. Reliance on data-driven approach to determine some calibration thresholds and the limited diversity in fuzzy-set analysis may constrain the findings' generalizability. Future research should expand to non-OECD countries to understand how different political and economic contexts influence e-voting introduction. Integrating dynamic factors such as technological evolution, evolving cybersecurity threats, and shifts in public attitudes could provide a more longitudinal understanding of e-voting success and failure. Finally, examining managerial factors of CEM, such as strategic planning, operational organization, and administrative culture (Schedler et al., 2003 ), would complement this macro-level analysis, providing a more comprehensive view of digital governance and ultimately contributing to more inclusive and transparent democratic processes. Declarations Funding The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript. Author Contribution The authors share joint first authorship. The authors jointly developed the research ideas, research questions, and the theoretical framework.J. Gmeinwieser collected data on the explanatory conditions related to the Comprehensive E-Government Model. J. Wu collected data to assess the success of e-voting implementation across cases, conducted the data analysis, and drafted the manuscript. Data Availability Data is provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files. References Abu-Shanab, E., Knight, M., & Refai, H. (2010). E-voting systems: a tool for e-democracy. Management research and practice , 2 (3), 264–275. ACE Electoral Knowledge Network (n.d.). Japan: Mixed model electoral management for a mixed parallel electoral system . ACE Project. Last accessed on 30.09.2024. https://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/em/annex/electoral-management-case-studies/japan-mixed-model-electoral-management-for-a-mixed Achieng, M., & Ruhode, E. (2013). The adoption and challenges of electronic voting technologies within the South African context. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.2406 . Adeshina, S. A., & Ojo, A. (2020). Factors for e-voting adoption-analysis of general elections in Nigeria. Government Information Quarterly , 37 (3), 101257. Avgerou, C., Masiero, S., & Poulymenakou, A. (2019). Trusting e-voting amid experiences of electoral malpractice: The case of Indian elections. Journal of Information Technology , 34 (3), 263–289. Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2011). The trouble with transparency: a critical review of openness in e-government. Policy & Internet , 3 (1), 1–30. Barcevičius, E., Cibaitė, G., Codagnone, C., Gineikytė, V., Klimavičiūtė, L., Liva, G., & Vanini, I. (2019). Exploring Digital Government transformation in the EU. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg . Bélanger, F., & Carter, L. (2008). Trust and risk in e-government adoption. The journal of strategic information systems , 17 (2), 165–176. Botrić, V., & Božić, L. (2021). The digital divide and E-government in European economies. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja , 34 (1), 2935–2955. Camera dei deputati (2022). Digitalization of the electoral process and experimentation of electronic voting . Last accessed on 01.11.2024. https://temi.camera.it/leg18/temi/voto-elettronico-e-digitalizzazione-del-procedimento-elettorale.html Catt, H., Ellis, A., Maley, M., Wall, A., & Wolf, P. (2014). Electoral management design. International IDEA. Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance . https://www.idea.int/publications/catalogue/electoral-management-design-revised-edition Carter, L., & Bélanger, F. (2005). The utilization of e-government services: citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors. Information systems journal , 15 (1), 5–25. Carter, L., Weerakkody, V., Phillips, B., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2016). Citizen adoption of e-government services: Exploring citizen perceptions of online services in the United States and United Kingdom. Information Systems Management , 33 (2), 124–140. Council of Europe (2008). Report on Congress e-voting in Finland . https://www.coe.int/t/dgap/goodgovernance/Activities/E-voting/CoE_Studies/CG_CP(15)4%20report%20congress%20e-vote%20FINLAND%2012%2008.asp Council of Europe (2021). Replies to the questionnaire on new technologies in the electoral process . https://rm.coe.int/cddg-2021-5e-replies-to-questionnaire-on-new-technologies-2787-6853-63/1680a216f1 Council of Europe (2023). Compendium of replies to the questionnaire on e-voting and electoral management systems . https://rm.coe.int/cddg-2023-15-addendum-bil-compendium-of-replies-to-questionnaire-on-e-/1680ad3fb9 Council of European Regions (n.d.). Greece: Fiscal powers . Division of Powers. https://portal.cor.europa.eu/divisionpowers/Pages/Greece-Fiscal-Powers.aspx#:~:text=Greece%20is%20a%20unitary%20state,13%20regions%20(second%20level ). Darmawan, I. (2021). E-voting adoption in many countries: A literature review. Asian Journal of Comparative Politics , 6 (4), 482–504. De Cock, D., Bosselaers, A., Milgrom, E., Rijmen, V., Coudert, F., de Marneffe, O., Koeune, F., Lobelle, M., Pereira, O., Quisquater, J., & Vercauteren, F. (2007). BeVoting Study of Electronic Voting Systems. http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/281976 Di Giulio, M., & Vecchi, G. (2023). Implementing digitalization in the public sector. Technologies, agency, and governance. Public Policy and Administration , 38 (2), 133–158. Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Tinkler, J., & Bastow, S. (2006). Digital Era Governance–IT Corporations, the State and e-Government . Oxford University Press. Duşa, A. (2019). QCA with R: A comprehensive resource . Springer International Publishing. Ehin, P., Solvak, M., Willemson, J., & Vinkel, P. (2022). Internet voting in Estonia 2005–2019: Evidence from eleven elections. Government Information Quarterly , 39 (4), 101718. eGovernment in Iceland: February 2016, Edition 13.0 [PDF]. European Commission, & Europe, I. (2016). https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/inline-files/eGovernment%20in%20Iceland%20-%20February%202016%20-%2013_v1_00.pdf European Commission (2023). Broadband Coverage in Europe 2023 Final report . https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/digital-decade-2024-broadband-coverage-europe-2023 Eurostat (2025). Population structure and ageing . https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Population_structure_and_ageing Federal Chancellery (n.d.). E-voting. Swiss Confederation. https://www.bk.admin.ch/bk/en/home/politische-rechte/e-voting.html Gerlach, J., & Gasser, U. (2009). Three case studies from Switzerland: E-voting. Berkman Center Research Publication No , 3 (2009), 2020–2021. Gil-Garcia, J. R., Helbig, N., & Ojo, A. (2014). Being smart: Emerging technologies and innovation in the public sector. Government information quarterly , 31 , I1–I8. Górny, M. (2021). I-voting–opportunities and threats. Conditions for the effective implementation of Internet voting on the example of Switzerland and Estonia. Przegląd Politologiczny , (1), 133–146. Gritzalis, D. A. (2002). Principles and requirements for a secure e-voting system. Computers & Security , 21 (6), 539–556. Harrison, S., Vives, E., Gentile, G., & Bruter, M. (2023). Study on E-Voting Practices in the EU . London School of Economics and Political Science. https://www.lse.ac.uk/business/consulting/reports/study-on-e-voting-practices-in-the-eu Heeks, R. (2003). Most eGovernment-for-Development Projects Fail: How Can Risks be Reduced? iGovernment Working Paper no. 14. Hilbert, M. (2009). The maturing concept of e-democracy: From e-voting and online consultations to democratic value out of jumbled online chatter. Journal of Information Technology & Politics , 6 (2), 87–110. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) (2014). Electoral management design: The International IDEA handbook (2nd ed.). https://www.idea.int/sites/default/files/publications/electoral-management-design-2014.pdf International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) (2023). ICTs in Elections Database. Last accessed on 18.06.2023. https://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/icts-elections-database International Telecommunication Union (ITU) (2022). ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database, https://doi.org/10.5683/SP3/ESWWF6 Irani, Z., Love, P. E., Elliman, T., Jones, S., & Themistocleous, M. (2005). Evaluating e-government: learning from the experiences of two UK local authorities. Information Systems Journal , 15 (1), 61–82. Iwasaki, M. (2010). E-voting in Japan: A developing case? In 4th International Conference on Electronic Voting 2010 (pp. 283–295). Gesellschaft für Informatik eV. Janssen, M., & Van Der Voort, H. (2016). Adaptive governance: Towards a stable, accountable and responsive government. Government Information Quarterly , 33 (1), 1–5. Jochimsen, B. (2022). Klare Entscheidungsstrukturen im Föderalismus und nachhaltige Digitalisierung. ifo Schnelldienst , 75 (3), 7–10. Kikuchi, M. (2023). Public trust in government, Japan. Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance (pp. 11065–11071). Springer International Publishing. Kriesi, H. (2005). Direct democratic choice: The Swiss experience . Lexington Books. Krimmer, R. (2012). The evolution of e-voting: why voting technology is used and how it affects democracy. Tallinn University of Technology Doctoral Theses Series I: Social Sciences , 19 . Kuhlmann, S., & Bogumil, J. (2021). The digitalisation of local public services. Evidence from the German case. The Future of Local Self-Government (pp. 101–113). Palgrave Macmillan. Li, W. (2021). The role of trust and risk in Citizens’ E-Government services adoption: A perspective of the extended UTAUT model. Sustainability , 13 (14), 7671. Licht, N., Duenas-Cid, D., Krivonosova, I., & Krimmer, R. (2021). To i-vote or Not to i-vote: Drivers and Barriers to the Implementation of Internet Voting. In International Joint Conference on Electronic Voting (pp. 91–105). Springer, Cham. Linder, W., & Mueller, S. (2021). Swiss democracy: Possible solutions to conflict in multicultural societies (p. 295). Springer Nature. Liptrott, M. (2006). e-Voting in the UK: A Work in Progress. Electronic Journal of e-Government , 4 (2), 55–62. Liu, L., Cruz, A. M., & Rincon, A. M. R. (2019). Technology acceptance, adoption, and usability: arriving at consistent terminologies and measurement approaches. Everyday technologies in healthcare (pp. 319–338). CRC. Mærøe, A. R., Norta, A., Tsap, V., & Pappel, I. (2021). Increasing citizen participation in e-participatory budgeting processes. Journal of Information Technology & Politics , 18 (2), 125–147. Mahrer, H. (2005). Politicians as patrons for e-democracy? Closing the gap between ideals and realities. International Journal of Electronic Government Research (IJEGR) , 1 (3), 51–68. Mahrer, H., & Krimmer, R. (2005). Towards the enhancement of e-democracy: identifying the notion of the ‘middleman paradox’. Information systems journal , 15 (1), 27–42. Margetts, H., & Dunleavy, P. (2013). The second wave of digital-era governance: a quasi-paradigm for government on the Web. Philosophical transactions of the royal society A: mathematical, physical and engineering sciences , 371 (1987), 20120382. Marsh, D., & McConnell, A. (2010). Towards a framework for establishing policy success. Public administration , 88 (2), 564–583. McConnell, A. (2015). What is policy failure? A primer to help navigate the maze. Public Policy and Administration , 30 (3–4), 221–242. McConnell, A. (2016). A public policy approach to understanding the nature and causes of foreign policy failure. Journal of European Public Policy , 23 (5), 667–684. Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government information quarterly , 36 (4), 101385. Japanese Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC) (2022). White paper on information and communications in Japan 2022 . https://www.soumu.go.jp/johotsusintokei/whitepaper/eng/WP2022/2022-index.html Ministry of Justice, Finland. (n.d.). Electronic voting . https://vaalit.fi/en/electronic-voting1 Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. (2007). Digital citizenship: The Internet, society, and participation . MIt Press.Mpekoa, N., & Van Greunen, D. (2017). E-voting experiences: A case of Namibia and Estonia. In 2017 IST-Africa Week Conference (IST-Africa) (pp. 1–8). IEEE. Greece faces aging population crisis, expert warns . Neos Kosmos, & Kosmos, N. (2024, October 2). https://neoskosmos.com/en/2024/10/02/news/greece/greece-faces-aging-population-crisis-expert-warns/ Oana, I. E., Schneider, C. Q., & Thomann, E. (2021). Qualitative comparative analysis using R: A beginner's guide . Cambridge University Press. Oana, I. E., & Schneider, C. Q. (2018). SetMethods: an add-on R package for advanced QCA. The R Journal , 10(1): 507 – 33. https://journal.r-project.org/archive/2018/RJ-2018-031/index.html OECD. (2023). Government at a glance 2023. OECD Publishing . https://doi.org/10.1787/3d5c5d31-en OECD (2024a). Broadband statistics update . https://www.oecd.org/en/about/news/press-releases/2024/03/broadband-statistics-update.html OECD (2024b). OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions – 2024 Results: Building Trust in a Complex Policy Environment, OECD Publishing, Paris , https://doi.org/10.1787/9a20554b-en Parametría (2019). Trust in electronic voting results in Mexico in 2019. Statista . Last accessed on 30.09.2024., https://www.statista.com/statistics/1053529/mexico-electronic-voting-trust-confidence/ Pratchett, L., & Wingfield, M. (2004). Electronic voting in the United Kingdom: lessons and limitations from the UK experience. Electronic Voting and Democracy: A Comparative Analysis (pp. 172–189). Palgrave Macmillan UK. Samihardjo, R., & Lestari, S. (2021). E-Voting in Indonesia Election: Challenges and Opportunities. Review of International Geographical Education Online , 11 (6). Scassa, T. (2014). Privacy and open government. Future Internet , 6 (2), 397–413. Schedler, K., Summermatter, L., & Schmidt, B. (2003). Managing the electronic government: from vision to practice . IAP. Svensson, J., & Leenes, R. (2003). E-voting in Europe: Divergent democratic practice. Information Polity , 8 (1–2), 3–15. Sweeney, A. D. (2008). Electronic government-citizen relationships: Exploring citizen perspectives. Journal of information technology & Politics , 4 (2), 101–116. Tokaji, D. P. (2022). Comparative Election Administration: a legal perspective on electoral institutions. Comparative Election Law (pp. 436–458). Edward Elgar Publishing. Torres, L., Pina, V., & Acerete, B. (2005). E-government developments on delivering public services among EU cities. Government information quarterly , 22 (2), 217–238. Trechsel, A. H., Kucherenko, V. V., & Da Ferreira, F. (2016). Potential and challenges of e-voting in the European Union . Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs, European Parliament. Van Deursen, A., & Van Dijk, J. (2011). Internet skills and the digital divide. New media & society , 13 (6), 893–911. Van Dijk, J. A. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics , 34 (4–5), 221–235. Vegas, C., & Barrat, J. (2016). Overview of current state of E-voting worldwide. Real-World Electronic Voting (pp. 67–92). Auerbach. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly , 425–478. Wang, Y. D., & Emurian, H. H. (2005). An overview of online trust: Concepts, elements, and implications. Computers in human behavior , 21 (1), 105–125. Warkentin, M., Gefen, D., Pavlou, P. A., & Rose, G. M. (2002). Encouraging citizen adoption of e-government by building trust. Electronic markets , 12 (3), 157–162. Welch, E. W., Hinnant, C. C., & Moon, M. J. (2005). Linking citizen satisfaction with e-government and trust in government. Journal of public administration research and theory , 15 (3), 371–391. West, D. M. (2005). Digital government: Technology and public sector performance . Princeton University Press. Footnotes The online appendix is submitted for review. The online appendix and R replication file will be made available online, contingent on the publication status of the paper. For countries where 2022 data is not available, we use the latest available version. The IAEP dataset defines three types of government structures: a unitary-like system features with strong central government with few if any regional administrative structures, where such structures have no autonomy; and a federal-like system with strong central government with semi-autonomous regional political units or subordinate provincial governments. IDEA (2014, 2024) classifies EMBs as independent, mixed, or governmental. Mixed EMBs receive a score of 1 as their decision-makers are independent of the government. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Onlineappendix0910.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7583298","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":521832432,"identity":"72be5b6e-6ee9-405a-ba6f-d1a0f66041cd","order_by":0,"name":"Jieqiong WU","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Konstanz","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jieqiong","middleName":"","lastName":"WU","suffix":""},{"id":521832433,"identity":"21fca76e-e161-490b-8302-f201a67cd030","order_by":1,"name":"Julius Felix Gmeinwieser","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Konstanz","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Julius","middleName":"Felix","lastName":"Gmeinwieser","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-09-10 13:23:15","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7583298/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7583298/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":92518228,"identity":"396581fe-d478-4ad9-bbb9-95d476a35f62","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 14:32:33","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":320704,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Manuscriptwithoutappendix0910.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7583298/v1/8a660234b17988726168deda.docx"},{"id":92517701,"identity":"2b7f293d-ad42-4f85-b7a6-8acb76413fb9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 14:24:33","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":4089,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"46ed2d114d844892b59ecdfe6ab2049a.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7583298/v1/d7118e4c9586eca71d303de6.json"},{"id":92518229,"identity":"43ac92eb-3a39-491b-bad7-b1045fcfe9ce","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 14:32:33","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":125679,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlineappendix0910.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7583298/v1/96e59b98775efca229c657f5.docx"},{"id":92517705,"identity":"bf2b5bc9-9c3a-496d-a7ec-d34d5903fc83","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 14:24:33","extension":"xml","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":172615,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"46ed2d114d844892b59ecdfe6ab2049a1enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7583298/v1/0ee724984d653311e500ad00.xml"},{"id":92517703,"identity":"968c9a74-c6b0-4524-8ac5-eaceb0f50111","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 14:24:33","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":6257,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7583298/v1/81179634a757ce560d0d038c.png"},{"id":92517706,"identity":"aed7431b-5ee1-4e9b-8a5e-9806d5d5ce56","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 14:24:33","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":30829,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7583298/v1/562d668a00eb958e4de1b1b4.png"},{"id":92517704,"identity":"c91a9612-f898-45a3-814b-3ba8b573c687","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 14:24:33","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":29861,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7583298/v1/0659fd033989b5e62524fbc9.png"},{"id":92517707,"identity":"08ac654f-df6b-4fa4-a68c-018d31d46661","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 14:24:33","extension":"xml","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":171682,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"46ed2d114d844892b59ecdfe6ab2049a1structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7583298/v1/3ac8eee2742ff3db3f11a338.xml"},{"id":92517708,"identity":"66ff5b33-7bbd-40fd-a575-955bca8cf424","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 14:24:33","extension":"html","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":183248,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7583298/v1/fa629ab338925b22bdf8b176.html"},{"id":92518227,"identity":"04690caf-ad5d-49d7-a60f-3326081b7d82","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 14:32:33","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":6871,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSuccess in e-voting introduction across the cases\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7583298/v1/6da27bcb6eeb6a5f5ae0f4da.png"},{"id":92517698,"identity":"dd5051d8-da23-4258-a358-3c00b2172ff0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 14:24:33","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":115950,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eIntermediate solution of successful e-voting introduction (SUCCESS)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7583298/v1/949ee78458c26cf1d467df04.png"},{"id":92517696,"identity":"f53a6359-eb44-4b91-97bb-05661efc080a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 14:24:33","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":110761,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eIntermediate solution of e-voting introduction failure (~SUCCESS)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7583298/v1/97a5a1e8ecd7055bb9f989e9.png"},{"id":92519313,"identity":"b0417e8c-007d-4996-9a40-fb90b13a1525","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 14:40:34","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1406664,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7583298/v1/e2eece52-153b-413e-a57a-e25d7882de18.pdf"},{"id":92517700,"identity":"2165409a-42fc-43a3-b629-540ed119498b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 14:24:33","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":125679,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlineappendix0910.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7583298/v1/eb939e8e581fda71c6441af5.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"When and how do governments succeed in introducing electronic voting (e-voting)? A qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) of 35 OECD countries","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe development of internet and communication technologies (ICTs) over the past three decades has driven the global adoption of electronic voting (e-voting) initiatives, marking a \"second spring\" of e-voting since the late 1990s (Trechsel, Kucherenko \u0026amp; Ferreira da Silva, 2016). E-voting, broadly defined as the use of electronic methods for casting votes, is crucial for modern democracies by facilitating efficient, secure, and inclusive voting processes (Gritzalis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). As a cornerstone of e-democracy\u0026mdash;the leveraging of ICTs to enhance political processes, foster citizen representation, and enable participatory policymaking (Hilbert, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003er\u0026oslash;e et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026mdash;e-voting provides access to political information and services, empowering informed citizen engagement (Abu-Shanab, Knight \u0026amp; Refai, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite its relevance, e-voting introduction shows significant global disparities. While the number of countries employing e-voting in national elections and referenda doubled from 14 in 2013 to 28 in 2024 (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, IDEA, 2023), with approximately 23 percent of countries using it at national or sub-national levels and another 13.5 percent conducting feasibility studies or pilot tests (IDEA, 2023), many have encountered substantial challenges. For instance, Austria has raised concerns about the potential erosion of representative democracy (Mahrer \u0026amp; Krimmer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), while the Netherlands has struggled with security issues and legal non-compliance (Harrison et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Others have yet to attempt e-voting. These disparities raise a fundamental question: why do some countries successfully introduce e-voting while others do not?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eExisting research has largely focused on country-specific experiences. For example, studies have examined the pioneering efforts of European countries like Estonia and Switzerland (e.g., Gerlach \u0026amp; Gasser, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Ehin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Research on African countries, including Nigeria and Ghana, highlighted technological and societal challenges unique to these contexts (e.g., Achieng \u0026amp; Ruhode, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Adeshina \u0026amp; Ojo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). In Asia, studies on countries like Indonesia and India have explored factors such as infrastructure, policy frameworks, and public trust (e.g., Avgerou, Masiero \u0026amp; Poulymenakou, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Samihardjo \u0026amp; Lestari, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile these studies provide valuable insights into localized experiences, few systematically define successful e-voting introduction or identify generalizable success factors. As a result, cross-country comparisons remain limited, and broader structural explanations are underdeveloped. Some small-N comparative studies (e.g., G\u0026oacute;rny, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Mpekoa \u0026amp; Van Greunen, 2017) attempt to address this gap, but a comprehensive macro-level understanding of structural determinants\u0026mdash;such as political, legal, technological, and societal conditions\u0026mdash;remains lacking. After three decades of e-voting application and research, there is a pressing need to investigate how structural factors\u0026mdash;and their interplay\u0026mdash;affect the success or failure of e-voting introduction. Insights into these dynamics could guide future electoral innovations, strengthen democratic processes, and advance digital democracy in the digital age.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study seeks to address these gaps by answering the fundamental questions: \u003cem\u003eWhen\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003ehow\u003c/em\u003e do some countries successfully introduce e-voting while some do not? In this paper, the term \"e-voting introduction\" refers to the legal or practical implementation of e-voting systems for elections or referenda with election management body participation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe paper makes three significant contributions. First, it develops a comprehensive conceptualization of e-voting success and failure. Adapting McConnell's (2015) Policy Success Framework (PSF), the study creates a nuanced framework that captures the complexities and subtleties associated with the introduction of e-voting systems. This framework is then applied to 35 member states of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), enabling a systematic evaluation and cross-country comparison of e-voting introduction success.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecond, the paper identifies key structural explanatory conditions contributing to the success or failure of e-voting introduction. Drawing upon the Comprehensive E-Government Model (CEM, Schedler et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e), the explanatory framework for policy success and failure (Blinded for review), and literature on e-voting, e-government and digitalization, it explores dynamics and relationships that previous studies have not fully addressed. Third, the paper provides a macro-level analysis of how various combinations of the identified explanatory conditions influence e-voting introductions across 35 OECD countries using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA). While most existing e-voting studies focus on country-specific experiences, this cross-country comparison provides valuable insights into broader patterns and dynamics of e-voting introduction in diverse contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe paper begins by conceptualizing the successful introduction of e-voting and presenting the policy success explanatory model as a foundation for identifying structural factors. It then details the data and methods used in the analysis. After presenting the results, the study concludes by discussing key findings and their implications for future research and policy.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"E-voting and its successful introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eE-voting is generally seen as any type of vote casting that involves electronic means (e.g., Svensson \u0026amp; Leenes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). A crucial distinction exists between electraonic machine voting and remote internet voting (i-voting). Machine voting involves the use of dedicated electronic devices at fixed public locations (e.g., polling stations) for recording and tallying votes. I-voting represents an advanced modality, allowing vote casting from various locations using devices such as phones or laptops with an internet connection (Svensson \u0026amp; Leenes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). In this paper, the term \"e-voting\" is used in its broader sense, aligning with common scholarly usage. Whenever the discussion pertains specifically to \u0026ldquo;i-voting\u0026rdquo;, it will be explicitly referred to as that subcategory.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eE-voting introduction success\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eE-voting involves decisions and actions taken by public authorities to establish and implement e-voting systems within the context of democratic processes, and as such, it is a form of public policy. This perspective permits the application of general models of policy evaluation to the specific domain of e-voting. Among these, the PSF developed by Allan McConnell and colleagues stands out as one of the few comprehensive approaches for conceptualizing and measuring policy success and failure (e.g., Marsh \u0026amp; McConnell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; McConnell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePolicy success and failure have at least four main attributes: process, program, politics, and the durability or temporal endurance of success across these three (McConnell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e summarizes the dimensions and indicators use to conceptualize and operationalize the success of e-voting introduction.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDimensions and indicators for assessing success of e-voting introduction\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePSF dimension\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCriteria\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIndicators\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProcess\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLegitimate process (LEG)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe presence of a legal framework supporting e-voting\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDurable legitimacy of e-voting process (DLE)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDurable legitimacy of e-voting process.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProgrammatic\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigher turnout (HTO)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIncreased voter turnout, at least in certain social groups\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh-degree of e-voting implementation (HDI)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eApplication of advanced technology and settings in e-voting\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecured voting process (SEC)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMinimal or nonexistent security breaches and technical failures during implementation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDurable implementation of e-voting (DIM)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLong-term, sustained e-voting implementation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePolitical\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh trust (HTR)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eA high share of individuals interacting digitally with public authorities\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDurable or enhanced trust (ITR)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis share is increasing over time\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe \u003cb\u003eprocess dimension\u003c/b\u003e focuses on understanding how societies make collective choices in the public interest (McConnell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). It involves examining the decision-making procedures, deliberations, and mechanisms used to shape and formulate policies. According to McConnell (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), the success or failure of the process hinges on whether the government\u0026rsquo;s policy goals and instruments are preserved, whether the process confers legitimacy on the policy, and whether a sustainable coalition of supporting interests is built.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the context of e-voting, process success is closely related to legitimacy. Empirical research frequently measures legitimacy through throughput legitimacy, which assesses adherence to procedural norms that yield policy via a democratically accepted process (e.g., constitutional or quasi-constitutional procedures) (Blinded for review). Legitimacy in e-voting specifically refers to whether the legal framework permits e-voting and provides the necessary voter accountability (Krimmer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, having a legal framework that supports e-voting is a prerequisite for process success in e-voting introduction. E-voting can only achieve process success if it is underpinned by a robust legal framework.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe \u003cb\u003eprogrammatic dimension\u003c/b\u003e focuses on the measures employed to address policy problems, encompassing various policy instruments (McConnell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Programmatic success has four indicators. First, the program should attain the government\u0026rsquo;s goals or specific program objectives. Second, the program should produce desirable outcomes for society. Third, a policy should create benefits for a specific target group, actor or interest. And last, a policy program should meet established criteria within the relevant policy domain.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor e-voting, the goals and desired outcomes are inherently aligned. As a defining feature of e-democracy, e-voting aims to enhance citizens\u0026rsquo; access to political information, services, and options, thereby promoting informed decision-making and active civic engagement and participation. It is thus anticipated that offering e-voting is expected to increase turnout, at least among certain groups of voters.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, scholars recognize different degrees of e-voting implementation as significant indicators of a country's progress in adopting e-voting (Licht et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Generally, offering i-voting to the entire electorate represents the highest degree of e-voting implementation, while the absence of prior e-voting experiences reflects the lowest level. Building upon Licht et al.'s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) argument, we further differentiate degrees of e-voting implementation by examining the e-voting environment (controlled or not-controlled), technologies applied (machine-based or internet-based voting), level of implementation (e-voting apply in national or sub-national elections), legal effects (binding or non-binding) and scope of eligible voters (whether e-voting is available to all or specific groups in particular or all constituencies).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, voting, whether paper-based or electronic, must adhere to constitutional requirements such as generality, freedom, equality, secrecy, and directness (Gritzalis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). A major challenge for e-voting is meeting these requirements while addressing security concerns associated with technology, such as data storage, misuse, and security breaches (Barcevičius et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Scassa, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, programmatic success for e-voting mandates the implementation of robust security measures to safeguard integrity voter data and ensure the of the electoral process.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe \u003cb\u003epolitics dimension\u003c/b\u003e considers the political ramifications of processes and programs (McConnell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Political success involves enhancing the government's electoral prospects, reputation, and overall governance capacity. Factors such as agenda control and alignment with government values and visions also contribute to political success (McConnell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). In the context of e-voting, political success is closely related to citizens\u0026rsquo; confidence in using digital means for interaction with the public authorities, a core objective of e-government initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe \u003cb\u003etemporal dimension\u003c/b\u003e, also known as the endurance dimension, acknowledges the dynamic nature of evaluating success and failure, recognizing that the perception of these outcomes can evolve over time as the impacts of policies become apparent in the short or long term (McConnell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). This dimension traverses the process, programmatic, and political dimensions. In this context, the success of e-voting is evidenced through the sustained preservation of its legitimacy, the continuity of its implementation, and the ongoing willingness of citizens to engage with public authorities via digital means.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eConcept aggregation\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMcConnell (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) proposes a typology with three distinct outcomes, ranging from resilient success/tolerable failure to policy failure/marginal success. In this study, we adapt McConnell's typology to define four degrees of success: full policy success, partial policy success, partial policy failure, and full policy failure.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe begin by assessing the degree of success for each dimension individually. E-voting introduction is considered successful in process if the country has a legal framework supporting e-voting and the legitimacy of the system remains intact after adoption. In contrast, it is considered a process failure if the country never established any legal framework for e-voting.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eE-voting is programmatically successful if it increases voter turnout, achieves a high degree of implementation, or maintains a minimal or nonexistent number of security breaches during its operation. Additionally, programmatic success is given if e-voting is implemented with few or no discontinuations. Failure in this dimension occurs when e-voting trials or programs are never initiated.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePolitically, e-voting is successful if a high proportion of citizens use the internet to interact with public authorities, and this willingness improves over time. Failure is marked by stagnation in this willingness, even if internet use is initially high.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the second stage, we aggregate these assessments. A country achieves full success in e-voting introduction if it succeeds in all three dimensions. Partial success is given when it succeeds in two dimensions, and partial failure if it succeeds in only one. A full failure reflects lack of success across all dimensions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"On what grounds can we explain the success and failure of e-voting?","content":"\u003cp\u003eTo understand the factors contributing to the success or failure of e-voting introduction, this study draws upon two frameworks: the CEM (Schedler et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) and the explanatory framework for policy success and failure (Blinded for review).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe CEM outlines the key elements of e-government, along with management-related factors and structural conditions that shape its introduction (Schedler et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Given our macro-level focus, we focus on the structural conditions\u0026mdash;such as the political environment, technological development, law, and societal attitudes (Schedler et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). The structural conditions exert the most influence at the macro (national) level and are considered paramount for the introduction of e-voting as a subcategory of e-government (e.g., Krimmer, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Schedler et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo understand how these structural conditions affect the introduction of e-voting from a policy success perspective, we integrate them into the explanatory framework for policy success and failure (Blinded for review). This framework posits that policy success or failure results from the interaction of four key sets of factors: society, institution and policy process, individuals, and policy substance. The structural conditions considered in this study correspond primarily to the societal and institutional dimensions (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e), which thus constitute the analytical focus. We exclude individual- and policy substance-related factors due to our macro-level focus and limitations in data availability, which would have restricted the empirical breadth of our study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSummary of the conditions and directional expectations\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/caption\u003e\n\u003cthead\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExplanatory framework dimension\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExplanatory condition\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCeteris paribus\u003c/em\u003e, condition produces successful e-voting introduction (SUCCESS), when\u0026hellip;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCeteris paribus\u003c/em\u003e, condition produces not successful e-voting introduction (~\u0026thinsp;SUCCESS), when\u0026hellip;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSociety\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA relatively high level of technical infrastructure development (TII)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003epresent\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eabsent\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA relatively high level of trust in government (TRG)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eno directional expectation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eno directional expectation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAging society (AGE)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eabsent\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003epresent\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInstitution/policy process\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLow legal interdependency among administrative units (LEI)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003epresent\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eabsent\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIndependence of EMB from political influence (POI)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003epresent\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eabsent\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003ctfoot\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003eNote:\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tfoot\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA tilde (~) read as \"NOT\". It denotes the negation of an outcome or the absence of a condition or the outcome.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSocietal conditions\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA favourable societal context is crucial for policy success, encompassing both policy and political environments (Blinded for review). This factor captures the CEM structural conditions of technological development and society attitudes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTechnological development\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTechnology is a fundamental driver of digitalization (Di Giulio \u0026amp; Vecchio, 2023). For successful introduction of new programs such as e-voting, society must possess a compatible technological infrastructure and the capacity to integrate these systems with existing digital processes (Schedler et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, citizens need access to appropriate technologies, which necessitates a robust ICT infrastructure. High broadband penetration, particularly in rural areas, is essential for the effective e-government services delivery (Mpekoa \u0026amp; van Greunen, 2017). Without adequate internet connectivity, efforts to enhance accessibility through e-governance are likely to fail (Licht et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, \u003cem\u003ea\u003c/em\u003e relatively \u003cem\u003ehigh level of technical infrastructure development (TII)\u003c/em\u003e is expected to positively influence e-voting introduction success.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eSocietal attitudes\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSocietal attitudes toward technology and innovation are crucial for e-voting introduction (Krimmer, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e), with citizens' trust and digital abilities being essential elements (Schedler et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCitizens' trust in e-government of two key components: trust in the government as an institution and trust in the reliability of the enabling technology (Carter et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Research suggests that trust in the government is more decisive for the adoption of e-government services than trust in technology itself (Sweeney, 2007). This study therefore focuses on how citizens' trust in government affects the introduction of e-voting.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudies on the relationship between trust in government and e-government introduction show mixed findings. Some indicate that higher levels of trust in government correlate with more intensive e-service use (e.g., B\u0026eacute;langer \u0026amp; Carter, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Li, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), while others find no significant relationship (e.g., Torres, Pina, \u0026amp; Acerete, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; West, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Given these inconsistent results, no directional expectation is formulated.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCitizens' ability to use e-voting systems is heavily influenced by their digital literacy (Krimmer, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Age, economic status, and education significantly affect individuals' ability to effectively navigate digital services (Van Deursen \u0026amp; Van Dijk, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). The age of a society is particularly impactful, as older generations often demonstrate lower levels of digital literacy (Botrić \u0026amp; Božić, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). This digital proficiency gap limits access to e-government services, reducing both trust in and demand for these systems, thereby hindering overall digitalization progress (G\u0026oacute;rny, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Samihardjo \u0026amp; Lestari, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, \u003cem\u003ean aging society (AGE)\u003c/em\u003e is expected to negatively impact the introduction of e-voting.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eInstitutional/policy-process related conditions\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInstitutional and policy process-related factors help explain policy success or failure, focusing on structures, procedures, and processes (McConnell, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). A key element is the coordination of policy actions and functions, which reflects the influence of law as outlined in the CEM framework. Effective coordination, typically through a centralized agency, facilitates planning, research, implementation, and integration across sectors and jurisdictions, thereby reducing fragmentation and enhancing policy success (Blinded for review).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe impacts of law\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe CEM structural condition of law significantly shapes the structural reforms required for e-government introduction by influencing their flexibility. Schedler et al. (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) argue that restructuring administrative structures is often necessary for successful digitalization of public service delivery. E-government prioritizes efficiency, necessitating administrative procedure restructuring to support faster, more effective processes (Di Giulio \u0026amp; Vecchio, 2023; Schedler et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLegal interdependency between administrative units is crucial for smoother reform processes. Kuhlmann and Bogumil (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e, p. 103) emphasize the legal challenges federal systems pose to digitalization, particularly how interconnectivity issues hinder the uniform implementation of digital tools. Administrative and legal interdependencies can obstruct clear decision-making, especially when multiple actors are involved, as each actor's unique legal constraints complicate consensus (Jochimsen, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). In federal systems with dense regulations, administrative bodies often lack the autonomy to independently restructure processes, increasing the effort and costs of e-government projects and reducing their feasibility (Schedler et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, \u003cem\u003elow legal interdependency between administrative units (LEI)\u003c/em\u003e should positively influence the introduction of e-voting.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnother institutional and policy-related condition is the design of electoral management bodies (EMBs).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eThe power of politicians\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe CEM's condition of politics can be referred to as \u003cem\u003ethe extent to which politicians can influence e-governance\u003c/em\u003e (POI) (Schedler et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). This perception aligns with ongoing discussions about political power in digitalization. Political power is the degree to which elected officials and major interest groups have a stake in a particular policy (Di Giulio \u0026amp; Vecchi, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePoliticians who support digitalization may promote e-voting to increase participation and modernize electoral processes. However, resistance can arise from fears of losing control over traditional representation. This \"middleman paradox,\" described by Mahrer \u0026amp; Krimmer (\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), reflects politicians' concerns that e-voting and increased civic engagement could reduce their influence. Established political systems often view current institutions as optimal for problem-solving, therefore, resisting changes (Mahrer, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Politicians can hinder e-voting by exerting influence over EMBs, which coordinate and organize elections and potential reforms (IDEA, 2014). Thus, \u003cem\u003ethe absence of political influence on the design of EMBs (POI)\u003c/em\u003e shall positively influence the introduction of e-voting.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e summarizes the conditions, and their directional expectations, used for counterfactual arguments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eData and methods\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe now elaborate on the cases analyzed, the data and methods employed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eCase selection\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur research focuses on member countries of the OECD, an international organization comprising democracies with market economies, to ensure sufficient heterogeneity. The methodological rigor of QCA necessitates substantial diversity in both outcome and condition sets; a lack of such diversity can limit meaningful comparisons (Oana, Schneider \u0026amp; Thomann, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e, pp. 47\u0026ndash;48). While organizations like IDEA and the United Nations (UN) offer global data, we chose the OECD to meet this methodological demand. Additionally, limiting the analysis to OECD countries provides access to comprehensive datasets from the OECD online library, enabling a more controlled and methodologically rigorous analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNotably, South Korea, Colombia, and the United States were excluded from the analysis due to missing data, leaving 35 cases in the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eFuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe employ fsQCA to identify the necessary and sufficient conditions for success and failure in e-voting introduction. fsQCA has three underlying assumptions (Oana et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). First, e-voting success and failure may have more than one, not mutually exclusive, explanations (equifinality). Second, explanatory conditions impact e-voting introduction in combination, rather than in isolation (conjunctural causation). Finally, successful e-voting may have different explanations than failed e-voting introduction (asymmetrical causation).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe analysis begins by identifying necessary conditions (supersets). Second, we evaluate sufficient conditions by analyzing a \"truth table.\" This table systematically organizes all possible combinations of conditions and their relationship to the outcome. If the fuzzy set membership of most cases in a truth table row is less than or equal to their membership in the outcome, that row is considered a sufficient \"path\" (R packages QCA and SetMethods; Duşa, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Oana \u0026amp; Schneider, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Oana et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe employ the Standard Analysis and theoretically informed directional expectations to deal with the \"empirical logical remainders\" (combinations of conditions not observed in the data).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eParameters of fit in fsQCA\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsistency, coverage and proportional reduction in inconsistency (PRI) are key parameters for evaluating QCA results (Oana et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). These parameters range from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating better fit. Consistency measures how well the results align with statements of necessity or sufficiency, while coverage shows how much of the outcome is explained by the conditions (Oana et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor sufficiency, the recommended consistency value is 0.75 though this is not absolute (Oana et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). A trade-off exists between consistency and coverage. This paper prioritizes coverage and includes truth table rows with a maximum of one-third deviant cases and sufficiency consistency scores slightly below 0.75 for analysis. PRI quantifies how consistently a set of conditions leads to the outcome (Oana et al., \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e); scores below 0.5 indicate significant inconsistency.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe details of the analysis, including truth tables and the R replication file, are provided in the online supplementary materials\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e. We now turn to the measurements and calibration of the outcome and condition sets.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eMeasurement and calibration\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the conceptualization section, we discussed the criteria and indicators and their aggregation to form the outcome set. Section 1 in Online Appendix A summarizes the operationalization and calibration of e-voting introduction success across the process, programmatic, political, and outcome set. This is based on qualitative content analysis of legal documents, government websites and reports, data collected from OECD, IDEA, among others, complemented by secondary literature.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e summarizes the measurements and calibrations of the conditions (see Section 2 in Online Appendix A for full details). We now turn to the results.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"colspec\" align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMeasurement and calibration of conditions\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/caption\u003e\n\u003cthead\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCondition set\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOperationalization\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMeasurement\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFully out\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNeither in or out\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0.5\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFully in\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTII\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe country\u0026rsquo;s infrastructure is supportive to digital services and e-government, focusing on internet usage, fixed broadband subscriptions etc.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUN Telecommunication Infrastructure Index 2020\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/Data-Center\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e6.28\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e8.646\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTRG\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe percentage of respondents who expressed confidence in the national government in the OECD survey\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOECD Well-Being 2022\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e, indicator \u0026ldquo;trust in national government\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?pg=0\u0026amp;snb=8\u0026amp;tm=future%20well%20being\u0026amp;df[ds]=dsDisseminateFinalDMZ\u0026amp;df[id]=DSD_HSL%40DF_HSL_FWB\u0026amp;df[ag]=OECD. WISE.WDP\u0026amp;df[vs]=1.1\u0026amp;hc[Topic]=\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e25.6\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e49.38\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e78\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAGE\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe country\u0026rsquo;s median age\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCIA World Factbook data 2022\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/median-\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e age/country-comparison\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e29.3\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e41\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e48.6\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLEI\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGovernment structure\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIAEP dataset, variable \u0026ldquo;govstruct\u0026rdquo;; ECR data\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLow: Unitary-like system\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHigh: Confederation- and federal-like systems\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://havardhegre.net/iaep/\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0 (High)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1 (Low)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePOI\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe design of the EMB\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIDEA Electoral Management Design Database 2024\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIndependent: Independent and mixed model of EMB design.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot independent: Governmental model of EMB design.\u003csup\u003e4\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/electoral-management-design-database\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e0 (Not independent)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1 (Independent)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eCountries succeed in introducing e-voting\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e illustrates the success of e-voting introduction across various cases, with more than half (57 percent) of the cases experienced some level of success.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAmong the fully successful cases, Estonia renowned for its advanced digital infrastructure and leadership in e-governance, has successfully introduced e-voting in terms of the process, implementation, and citizen participation. It is the only country in our case studies to implement i-voting nationwide. New Zealand restricts e-voting to overseas voters, while other countries offer it in selected constituencies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAmong the partially successful cases, Mexico and Denmark stand out as the only ones where e-voting is still in use. However, Mexico faces challenges in the political dimension, while Denmark struggles with the process dimension due to a lack of a supporting legal framework. Germany, Japan, and the UK are often seen as having \"abandoned\" e-voting because they have not used it in recent electoral cycles or courts have ruled e-voting results unconstitutional (e.g., Darmawan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Harrison et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). However, current laws in these countries still allow for e-voting. Turkey has never implemented e-voting program despite having a legal framework and public willingness to interact with public authorities online.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn less successful cases, Austria and Portugal initially implemented e-voting but later halted their efforts. In Austria, the Federal Constitutional Court annulled the 2009 e-voting pilot. Portugal replaced its legal framework, ending further development. Lithuania similarly repealed its legal basis without conducting trials.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the next sections, we analyze the conditions that led to the distinct outcomes: success in introducing e-voting (SUCCESS) and its failure (~ SUCCESS). While we identified no necessary conditions, our analysis reveals six sufficient paths to SUCCESS and three to ~ SUCCESS. Each path is illustrated with a typical case.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConditions for successful introduction of e-voting\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e presents the six paths that imply how e-voting introduction succeeds.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntermediate solution for successful e-voting introduction (SUCCESS)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePath\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eConsistency\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePRI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCoverage\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnique coverage\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCases\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePOI*TII*~LEI*~TRG\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.157\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.066\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eJP, NL, ES\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e~LEI*TRG*~AGE*POI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.126\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.035\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMX; AU\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e~LEI*TRG*AGE*~POI\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.791\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.711\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.133\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.133\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBE; \u003cem\u003eFI\u003c/em\u003e, DE, CH\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePOI*TII*LEI*TRG\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.719\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.589\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.160\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.160\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIS, NZ; EE\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLEI*~POI*~AGE*TII*~TRG\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.080\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.031\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUK\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLEI*~POI*~AGE*~TII*TRG\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.078\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.029\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIE\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003eNotes: Solution consistency: 0.859; Solution coverage: 0.592; PRI: 0.767; Raw consistency:0.722. Italic: deviant cases in kind. Cases separated by semicolons belong to different truth table rows. Read *as AND, ~ as NOT. Details see Tables \u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e and 7 in Online Appendix B.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eRegional trailblazers of e-voting\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003ePaths 1 and 4 describe the regional trailblazers of e-voting, emphasizing the critical role of a politically independent EMB (POI) and a society with higher readiness for digital services and e-government (TII) in successfully introducing e-voting.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn path 1, these factors are coupled with relatively high interdependence among administrative units (~ LEI) and low public trust in government (~ TRG). Japan exemplifies this path as an early mover of e-voting in Asia. Since the late 1990s, Japan has become a leader in telecommunications, with 86 percent of households having fiber-optic access by 2023 (OECD, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024a\u003c/span\u003e). This digital expansion, driven by early adoption of ADSL, fiber-optic broadband and other technologies, laid the groundwork for further digital reforms (Japanese Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, 2022). The \u003cem\u003e2001 E-Japan Strategy\u003c/em\u003e further promoted innovation in digital services, creating a favorable environment for e-voting introduction (Iwasaki, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eJapan's governance structure, with a strong central government and semi-autonomous regional governments (~ LEI), necessitates inter-unit collaboration for national electoral reform. However, public trust in the national government has eroded since the 1990s (~ TRG), due to political scandals, economic stagnation, and perceived mismanagement of crises like the Fukushima disaster and the COVID-19 pandemic (Tokaji, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Conversely, citizens exhibit greater trust in local governments (Kikuchi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). This public sentiment, combined with Japan's electoral system—managed independently at the local level by electoral management committees (POI) (ACE Electoral Knowledge Network, n.d.)—makes municipalities ideal testing grounds for e-voting. The 2002 e-voting special law empowers municipalities to experiment with e-voting system under central oversight.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn contrast, path 4 represents cases where a politically independent EMB (POI) and relatively high digital readiness (TII) are coupled with low legal interdependence among administrative units (LEI) and comparatively high public trust in the government (TRG). This path demonstrates how robust public trust can amplify a digitally advanced society’s capacity to adopt innovative technologies for democratic participation. Cases in this path are regional pioneers of i-voting in binding elections and referenda, with Iceland serving as a prototype.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIceland consistently ranks among the most digitally advanced countries globally, supported by a robust telecommunications infrastructure (TII). By 2022, Iceland achieved full internet penetration (ITU, 2022). This digital maturity is amplified by Icelanders' high trust in their government (TRG). 50 percent of Icelanders report high trust in their national government, exceeding the OECD average of 41 percent. Additionally, 62.5 percent believe their government uses personal data legitimately (OECD, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIceland’s unitary government centralizes power (LEI), mixed-model of EMB design (POI), and the 2008 \u003cem\u003eeNation Strategy\u003c/em\u003e that aims to boost the country’s e-government leadership, leading to the launch of e-voting pilots (European Commission, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eE-voting strivers through small successes\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003ePaths 2 and 3 describe how confederations and federal-style systems (~ LEI) with relatively high public trust (TRG) introduce e-voting through incremental successes. These two conditions are combined with politically independent EMBs (POI) and a relatively young society (~ AGE) in path 2; and with politically dependent EMBs (~ POI) and a relatively old society (AGE) in path 3.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMexico exemplifies Path 2. Since 2005, Mexico has progressively expanded electronic voting for citizens living abroad, initially for subnational elections, then for selected constituencies, and eventually for national elections. This reflects a step-by-step approach to e-voting introduction, built on continuous innovation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMexico operates as a federal republic with a strong central government alongside semi-autonomous regional governments (~ LEI). It’s politically independent EMBs at both local and federal levels, like the Electoral Institute of Mexico City, are receptive to digital reforms in the voting process (Vegas \u0026amp; Barrat, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCitizens’ relatively high trust in public institutions (TRG) facilitated this process. In 2023, 54 percent of Mexicans reported high or moderately high trust in the federal government, also showing confidence in the government's ability to regulate and manage emerging technologies responsibly (OECD, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024b\u003c/span\u003e). Mexico’s relatively young population (~ AGE) further bolsters e-voting acceptance, as younger citizens tend to be more technologically literate and open to digital innovations. A 2019 survey showed 60 percent of respondents trusted e-voting results more than traditional methods, highlighting the synergy between demographics and technological advancement in Mexico's e-voting journey (Parametría, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSwitzerland exemplifies the third path to successful e-voting introduction. Its 26 highly autonomous cantons can tailor voting procedures, allowing localized e-voting experimentation (~ LEI). Since 2004, cantons like Basel-Stadt, St. Gallen, Thurgau, and Fribourg, have conducted e-voting trials in cantonal and National Council elections and referendums (Federal Chancellery, n.d.). This gradual, localized experimentation reflects a cautious yet innovative approach to e-voting.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA cornerstone of Switzerland’s democratic system is the relatively high public trust in government (TRG). Rooted in the country’s long tradition of direct democracy, this trust is reinforced by frequent civic participation opportunities through referendums and initiatives (Linder \u0026amp; Mueller, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Kriesi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Such participatory mechanisms empower citizens to influence government decisions, bolstering confidence in political institutions. Public trust in the Swiss government surpasses the OECD average by 23 percentage (OECD, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024b\u003c/span\u003e). This participatory structure not only strengthens public trust but may also mitigate concerns among politicians about losing influence within government-affiliated EMBs (~ POI).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCountries on path 3 often initiate e-voting trials earlier than their peers. In Switzerland, this may benefit its aging population (AGE): younger voters familiar with e-voting are likely to maintain engagement as they age, sustaining participation over time (Gerlach \u0026amp; Gasser, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eE-voting success as a flash in the pan\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003ePaths 5 and 6 showcase the short-lived success of centrally driven e-voting initiatives in the UK and Ireland. Both paths demonstrate the significance of a strong central government with minimal regional administrative structures (LEI), a governmental model of EMB design (~ POI), and a relatively young population (~ AGE) for achieving early success in e-voting introduction. Path 5 combines these conditions with a relatively high readiness for digital services and e-government (TII) and a relatively low public trust in government (~ TRG), whereas Path 6 combines them with a relatively low digital readiness (~ TII) and a society with higher level of trust in government (TRG).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe UK (Path 5) sought to lead in e-government, with e-voting positioned as a flagship initiative (Pratchett \u0026amp; Wingfield, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). Operating under a unitary governance model (LEI) and with a government-affiliated EMB (~ POI), the UK launched e-voting pilot schemes in 2002 and 2007 (Liptrott, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese pilots successfully facilitated voting in a secure environment. However, the Electoral Commission concluded that the complexity of implementation and associated security risks were significant and unacceptable (Council of Europe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Consequently, no further trials have been conducted since 2007, marking the initiative as a short-term programmatic success. Despite this, the legal framework for e-voting remains intact, allowing for potential future use.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile the UK currently exhibits a relatively small digital divide (~ AGE) and relatively high readiness for digital services (TII), low public trust in (~ TRG) government appears to hinder renewed e-voting efforts. As of 2023, only 27 percent of UK citizens expressed trust in their government, significantly below the OECD average (OCED, 2024c).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIreland, the typical case for path 6, share similar features. The country operates under a unitary system (LEI) with a national EMB affiliated with the government (~ POI). In 2000, the EMB initiated a procurement process for an e-voting system to improve the efficiency, accuracy, and usability of elections (De Cock et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). While the pilot achieved short-term programmatic success, security concerns and high costs led to the discontinuation of the initiative (Council of Europe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIreland’s relatively young and digitally literate population (~ AGE) and comparatively high public trust in government (TRG), may contribute to the political success. However, the relatively low readiness for digital services remains (~ TII) may hinder future efforts to reintroduce e-voting.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e illustrates the scores of the cases for this solution, demonstrating reasonable explanatory power by accounting for thirteen out of twenty successful cases. Finland is noted as a deviant case, which will be discussed later.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConditions for e-voting introduction failure\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e summarizes the three paths explaining how countries fail to introduce e-voting (~ SUCCESS).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntermediate solution of e-voting introduction failure (~ SUCCESS)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePath\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eConsistency\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePRI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCoverage\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnique coverage\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCases\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLEI*POI*AGE*~TII\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.853\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.810\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.286\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.151\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHU, LV, LT, PL, SK, SI; PT\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLEI*POI*~TRG*~AGE*TII\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.719\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.612\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.192\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.061\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIL\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e~LEI*~POI*~TRG*AGE*~TII\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.727\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.628\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.113\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.113\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCZ, GR, \u003cem\u003eIT\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003eNotes: Solution consistency: 0.789; Solution coverage: 0.460; PRI: 0.722; Raw consistency: 0.718. Italic: deviant cases in kind. Cases separated by semicolons belong to different truth table rows. Read *as AND, ~ as NOT. Details see tables 6 and 7 in Online Appendix B.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003e\u003cb\u003e“Good” institutions but “bad” society\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePaths 1 and 2 showcase how favorable institutional settings— low legal restrictions on the administrative units (LEI) and an independent EMB (POI)—can still lead to e-voting failure when societal conditions are unfavorable.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePath 1 combines these institutional conditions with the necessary presence of relatively high digital divide (AGE) and relatively less robust telecommunication infrastructure (~ TII). Portugal illustrates this path. Its centralized legal system contributes to its low legal interdependence (LEI), and the EMB structure is a mixed model, comprising the National Electoral Commission—an independent body—and the Ministry of Internal Administration, which operates as a government agency (POI).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, Portugal has experienced significant demographic aging (AGE), with one of the lowest proportions of young people in the EU (12.8 percent) and one of the highest shares of older individuals (24.1 percent) as of 2024 (Eurostat, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). This aging demographic exacerbates the digital divide, particularly in rural areas where overall fixed broadband coverage is low (~ TII), and connectivity is often less reliable despite widespread mobile network access (European Commission, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePath 2, represented by Israel, characterized by relatively low legal restrictions on administrative units (LEI), an independent EMB (POI), a relatively young population (~ AGE), robust telecommunication infrastructure (TII), but relatively low public trust in government (~ TRG). Despite meeting several conditions theoretically conducive to e-voting, the lack of trust in government appears to impede its successful introduction.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first two paths demonstrate that having a theoretically supportive institutional setting is insufficient for successfully introducing e-voting. Unfavorable societal conditions—such as weak technological infrastructure (~ TII), a significant digital divide (AGE), or low public trust in government (~ TRG)—can undermine efforts to introduce e-voting.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eThe “perfect” victims\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003ePath 3 to e-voting introduction failure represents the \"perfect\" victim scenario, combining all proposed explanatory conditions in their expected directions. Greece exemplifies this path. Citizens' trust in the government is relatively low (~ TRG); in 2023, the percentage of Greeks reporting trust in the government was seven percentage points below the OECD average (OECD, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024b\u003c/span\u003e). Despite initiatives like the \u003cem\u003eDigital Strategy 2020\u003c/em\u003e, digital infrastructure lags behind EU peers (~ TII), with rural areas facing poor high-speed internet access (European Commission, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Greece also has an aging population (AGE): 23 percent are over 65, a figure set to grow over the next three decades (AGE) (Neos Kosmos, 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInstitutionally, Greece’s EMB is politically influenceable (~ POI). Its administrative system operates on national and sub-national levels. Nationally, Greece is divided into decentralized administrations. At the sub-national level, municipalities and regions manage local affairs with financial independence, though they remain under central oversight for broader policies (~ LEI) (Council of European Regions, n.d.). The interplay of these conditions creates a scenario where unfavorable society environment and institutional design hinder the introduction of e-voting.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e displays the cases scores on this solution. The solution covers ten out of fifteen unsuccessful cases. Italy is a deviant case, which will be discussed below.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003ePost-QCA case discussions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this section, we discuss the deviant cases by comparing them with the cases on the same path (see online Table\u0026nbsp;8 in Online Appendix B).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinland is a deviant case of consistency in the third path to e-voting introduction success. Comparing Finland with Switzerland, the typical case on the same path, reveal the importance of sustained government commitment in e-voting introduction success. Finland experiences technical issues during e-voting usage in 2008 municipal elections, where incomplete instructions led to nearly two percent of e-votes not being recorded (Council of Europe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). E-voting was subsequently suspended after a feasibility study concluded that the system was not mature enough to meet all requirements (Ministry of Justice, n.d.).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSwitzerland similarly encountered technical challenges with i-voting. In 2019, online voting was temporarily discontinued for four years due to security flaws, delays in project planning, and unforeseen costs. Unlike Finland, Switzerland redesigned its trial framework. Since 2019, the Federal Chancellery has tightened oversight, appointed independent experts, clarified canton–federal responsibilities, and set stricter technical rules (Council of Europe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Certification requirements were reduced, but technical precision increased. Current trials, capped at 10 percent of the electorate, focus on trust indictors and voter behavior (Council of Europe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). This cautious reintroduction reflects Switzerland’s commitment to maintaining voter trust and ensuring system integrity while embracing online voting technology.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis comparison suggests that success in similar institutional contexts may hinge on governments addressing technical challenges, learning from setbacks, and keeping future introduction possible.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eItaly is a deviant case for consistency in e-voting introduction failure, sharing the third path to failure with Greece and the Czech Republic. However, unlike the other two, Italy follows a different trajectory and is also the least explained case of partial e-voting success.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSince 2006, Legislative Decree No. 1 has allowed e-voting for voters with disabilities or in care/detention (Camera dei deputati, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Local governments have since trialed e-voting in binding elections or referendums—e.g., Cremona (2006), Trentino (2008), and two Salento towns (2013)—with higher turnout and no major technical/security issues. Available data indicate that these experiments yielded increased voter turnout and no major technical or security issues.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eItaly’s success in the process and programmatic dimensions appears to be driven by its alignment with the EU digitalization agenda. Parliamentary records show multiple initiatives under Italy’s legal framework to modernize electoral processes, consistent with the EU’s 2030 digital decade goals (Camera dei deputati, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn contrast, Czech Republic and Greece, cases sharing the same path, seem to lack similar motivations. They express concerns about cybersecurity, data manipulation, costs, voting secrecy and public trust as main obstacles to introducing e-voting (Council of Europe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe comparison suggests that beyond structural and societal conditions, government motivation and policy alignment matter. Italy’s willingness to experiment—driven by EU priorities—appears to offset some institutional or societal limitations, while in Greece and the Czech Republic, persistent concerns stall progress.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussions and conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis article examined the structural factors underlying global disparities in e-voting introduction, focusing on the interplay of institutional and societal conditions across 35 OECD countries. The analysis yields four key insights.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFirst, \u003cem\u003ee-voting introduction is a complex process shaped by both institutional actors and the broader policy and societal environment\u003c/em\u003e. Contrary to the theoretical expectations, e-voting can be introduced even in countries with high legal interdependence among administrative units or where EMBs are less open to it. The crux of the matter here is the broader policy environment and societal conditions (van Dijk, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). E-voting, as a form of e-government policy, is inherently tied to a country's digitalization strategy, as in Japan and Iceland.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFavorable societal conditions can motivate this decision, particularly advanced technological infrastructures and high public trust. Well-developed telecommunication infrastructures provide the groundwork for further digital reforms (Margetts \u0026amp; Dunleavy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; West, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR85\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), facilitating the country’s broader policy agenda on digitalization and promote experimentation with e-voting (e.g. Japan, Iceland and the UK). High trust in government may mitigate concerns among politicians about losing influence and the setbacks of aging society and motivate institutional actors to improve the current voting system, exemplified by Switzerland (Bannister \u0026amp; Connolly, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Welch et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). This reflects path dependency, where earlier investments in digitalization strategies, technological infrastructure, and public trust create favourable conditions for e-voting introduction.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecond, \u003cem\u003ethese conditions do not operate in isolation; instead, their interplay collectively determines the outcomes\u003c/em\u003e. This holistic perspective emphasizes the conjunctural causation of institutional and societal conditions (Oana et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), moving beyond studies focused on net effects. The findings also carry significant implications for technology acceptance theories, such as the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (Venkatesh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Unlike these models, which typically treat structural conditions merely as moderators, our study suggests they play a fundamental and direct role in shaping the success or failure of e-voting introduction.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThird, \u003cem\u003egovernment motivations and commitment are pivotal\u003c/em\u003e. Our post-QCA analysis of Finland and Italy indicates that a government's dedication to digital solutions and alignment with broader policy agendas can determine the success or failure of such initiatives. This emphasizes the critical role of governments as policy entrepreneurs, who drive changes, build coalitions, gain support, and leverage opportunities in digital reform (Gil-Garcia, Helbig \u0026amp; Ojo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Janssen \u0026amp; van der Voort, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). It also underscores the significance of policy leadership and vision, key concepts in digital-era governance (Dunleavy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Margetts \u0026amp; Dunleavy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Mergel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFourth, \u003cem\u003einstitutional and societal conditions help explain different types of e-voting introduction success and failure\u003c/em\u003e. Political success is closely tied to societal factors, as citizens' attitudes toward the government and their digital literacy determine their willingness and consistency to engage with online public services (Bannister \u0026amp; Connolly, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Mossberger et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). The criterion of higher voter turnout also reflects citizens’ attitudes and abilities to use e-voting technologies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eProcess success and the temporal success in process and programmatic dimensions are tied to government motivations and commitments, such as launching initiatives, creating supportive legal frameworks, and pursuing continued trials despite incremental progress. This complexity suggests that successful digital reforms require governments to invest not only in technology but also in building public trust, developing adaptable legal frameworks, and fostering institutional independence (Heeks, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Irani et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile insightful, this analysis has limitations. It focused on 35 OECD countries, limiting its representation of developing nations. Furthermore, data availability challenges excluded cases like Colombia, South Korea, and the US. Reliance on data-driven approach to determine some calibration thresholds and the limited diversity in fuzzy-set analysis may constrain the findings' generalizability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFuture research should expand to non-OECD countries to understand how different political and economic contexts influence e-voting introduction. Integrating dynamic factors such as technological evolution, evolving cybersecurity threats, and shifts in public attitudes could provide a more longitudinal understanding of e-voting success and failure. Finally, examining managerial factors of CEM, such as strategic planning, operational organization, and administrative culture (Schedler et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e), would complement this macro-level analysis, providing a more comprehensive view of digital governance and ultimately contributing to more inclusive and transparent democratic processes.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors share joint first authorship. The authors jointly developed the research ideas, research questions, and the theoretical framework.J. Gmeinwieser collected data on the explanatory conditions related to the Comprehensive E-Government Model. J. Wu collected data to assess the success of e-voting implementation across cases, conducted the data analysis, and drafted the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eData is provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAbu-Shanab, E., Knight, M., \u0026amp; Refai, H. (2010). E-voting systems: a tool for e-democracy. \u003cem\u003eManagement research and practice\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(3), 264\u0026ndash;275.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eACE Electoral Knowledge Network (n.d.). \u003cem\u003eJapan: Mixed model electoral management for a mixed parallel electoral system\u003c/em\u003e. ACE Project. Last accessed on 30.09.2024. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/em/annex/electoral-management-case-studies/japan-mixed-model-electoral-management-for-a-mixed\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/em/annex/electoral-management-case-studies/japan-mixed-model-electoral-management-for-a-mixed\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAchieng, M., \u0026amp; Ruhode, E. (2013). The adoption and challenges of electronic voting technologies within the South African context. \u003cem\u003earXiv preprint arXiv:1312.2406\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdeshina, S. A., \u0026amp; Ojo, A. (2020). Factors for e-voting adoption-analysis of general elections in Nigeria. \u003cem\u003eGovernment Information Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e37\u003c/em\u003e(3), 101257.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAvgerou, C., Masiero, S., \u0026amp; Poulymenakou, A. (2019). Trusting e-voting amid experiences of electoral malpractice: The case of Indian elections. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Information Technology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(3), 263\u0026ndash;289.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBannister, F., \u0026amp; Connolly, R. (2011). The trouble with transparency: a critical review of openness in e-government. \u003cem\u003ePolicy \u0026amp; Internet\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;30.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarcevičius, E., Cibaitė, G., Codagnone, C., Gineikytė, V., Klimavičiūtė, L., Liva, G., \u0026amp; Vanini, I. (2019). Exploring Digital Government transformation in the EU. \u003cem\u003ePublications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eB\u0026eacute;langer, F., \u0026amp; Carter, L. (2008). Trust and risk in e-government adoption. \u003cem\u003eThe journal of strategic information systems\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(2), 165\u0026ndash;176.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBotrić, V., \u0026amp; Božić, L. (2021). The digital divide and E-government in European economies. \u003cem\u003eEconomic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(1), 2935\u0026ndash;2955.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCamera dei deputati (2022). \u003cem\u003eDigitalization of the electoral process and experimentation of electronic voting\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eLast accessed on\u003c/em\u003e 01.11.2024. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://temi.camera.it/leg18/temi/voto-elettronico-e-digitalizzazione-del-procedimento-elettorale.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://temi.camera.it/leg18/temi/voto-elettronico-e-digitalizzazione-del-procedimento-elettorale.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCatt, H., Ellis, A., Maley, M., Wall, A., \u0026amp; Wolf, P. (2014). Electoral management design. International IDEA. \u003cem\u003eInstitute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.idea.int/publications/catalogue/electoral-management-design-revised-edition\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.idea.int/publications/catalogue/electoral-management-design-revised-edition\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarter, L., \u0026amp; B\u0026eacute;langer, F. (2005). The utilization of e-government services: citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors. \u003cem\u003eInformation systems journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(1), 5\u0026ndash;25.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarter, L., Weerakkody, V., Phillips, B., \u0026amp; Dwivedi, Y. K. (2016). Citizen adoption of e-government services: Exploring citizen perceptions of online services in the United States and United Kingdom. \u003cem\u003eInformation Systems Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(2), 124\u0026ndash;140.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCouncil of Europe (2008). \u003cem\u003eReport on Congress e-voting in Finland\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.coe.int/t/dgap/goodgovernance/Activities/E-voting/CoE_Studies/CG_CP(15)4%20report%20congress%20e-vote%20FINLAND%2012%2008.asp\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.coe.int/t/dgap/goodgovernance/Activities/E-voting/CoE_Studies/CG_CP(15)4%20report%20congress%20e-vote%20FINLAND%2012%2008.asp\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCouncil of Europe (2021). \u003cem\u003eReplies to the questionnaire on new technologies in the electoral process\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://rm.coe.int/cddg-2021-5e-replies-to-questionnaire-on-new-technologies-2787-6853-63/1680a216f1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://rm.coe.int/cddg-2021-5e-replies-to-questionnaire-on-new-technologies-2787-6853-63/1680a216f1\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCouncil of Europe (2023). \u003cem\u003eCompendium of replies to the questionnaire on e-voting and electoral management systems\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://rm.coe.int/cddg-2023-15-addendum-bil-compendium-of-replies-to-questionnaire-on-e-/1680ad3fb9\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://rm.coe.int/cddg-2023-15-addendum-bil-compendium-of-replies-to-questionnaire-on-e-/1680ad3fb9\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCouncil of European Regions (n.d.). \u003cem\u003eGreece: Fiscal powers\u003c/em\u003e. Division of Powers. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://portal.cor.europa.eu/divisionpowers/Pages/Greece-Fiscal-Powers.aspx#:~:text=Greece%20is%20a%20unitary%20state,13%20regions%20(second%20level\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://portal.cor.europa.eu/divisionpowers/Pages/Greece-Fiscal-Powers.aspx#:~:text=Greece%20is%20a%20unitary%20state,13%20regions%20(second%20level\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDarmawan, I. (2021). E-voting adoption in many countries: A literature review. \u003cem\u003eAsian Journal of Comparative Politics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(4), 482\u0026ndash;504.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDe Cock, D., Bosselaers, A., Milgrom, E., Rijmen, V., Coudert, F., de Marneffe, O., Koeune, F., Lobelle, M., Pereira, O., Quisquater, J., \u0026amp; Vercauteren, F. (2007). \u003cem\u003eBeVoting Study of Electronic Voting Systems.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/281976\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/281976\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDi Giulio, M., \u0026amp; Vecchi, G. (2023). Implementing digitalization in the public sector. Technologies, agency, and governance. \u003cem\u003ePublic Policy and Administration\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e(2), 133\u0026ndash;158.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Tinkler, J., \u0026amp; Bastow, S. (2006). \u003cem\u003eDigital Era Governance\u0026ndash;IT Corporations, the State and e-Government\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDuşa, A. (2019). \u003cem\u003eQCA with R: A comprehensive resource\u003c/em\u003e. Springer International Publishing.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEhin, P., Solvak, M., Willemson, J., \u0026amp; Vinkel, P. (2022). Internet voting in Estonia 2005\u0026ndash;2019: Evidence from eleven elections. \u003cem\u003eGovernment Information Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e39\u003c/em\u003e(4), 101718.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eeGovernment in Iceland: February 2016, Edition 13.0\u003c/em\u003e [PDF]. European Commission, \u0026amp; Europe, I. (2016). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/inline-files/eGovernment%20in%20Iceland%20-%20February%202016%20-%2013_v1_00.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/inline-files/eGovernment%20in%20Iceland%20-%20February%202016%20-%2013_v1_00.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEuropean Commission (2023). \u003cem\u003eBroadband Coverage in Europe 2023 Final report\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/digital-decade-2024-broadband-coverage-europe-2023\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/digital-decade-2024-broadband-coverage-europe-2023\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEurostat (2025). \u003cem\u003ePopulation structure and ageing\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Population_structure_and_ageing\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Population_structure_and_ageing\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFederal Chancellery (n.d.). E-voting. Swiss Confederation. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.bk.admin.ch/bk/en/home/politische-rechte/e-voting.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.bk.admin.ch/bk/en/home/politische-rechte/e-voting.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGerlach, J., \u0026amp; Gasser, U. (2009). Three case studies from Switzerland: E-voting. \u003cem\u003eBerkman Center Research Publication No\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(2009), 2020\u0026ndash;2021.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGil-Garcia, J. R., Helbig, N., \u0026amp; Ojo, A. (2014). Being smart: Emerging technologies and innovation in the public sector. \u003cem\u003eGovernment information quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e, I1\u0026ndash;I8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eG\u0026oacute;rny, M. (2021). I-voting\u0026ndash;opportunities and threats. Conditions for the effective implementation of Internet voting on the example of Switzerland and Estonia. \u003cem\u003ePrzegląd Politologiczny\u003c/em\u003e, (1), 133\u0026ndash;146.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGritzalis, D. A. (2002). Principles and requirements for a secure e-voting system. \u003cem\u003eComputers \u0026amp; Security\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(6), 539\u0026ndash;556.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarrison, S., Vives, E., Gentile, G., \u0026amp; Bruter, M. (2023). \u003cem\u003eStudy on E-Voting Practices in the EU\u003c/em\u003e. London School of Economics and Political Science. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.lse.ac.uk/business/consulting/reports/study-on-e-voting-practices-in-the-eu\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.lse.ac.uk/business/consulting/reports/study-on-e-voting-practices-in-the-eu\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHeeks, R. (2003). \u003cem\u003eMost eGovernment-for-Development Projects Fail: How Can Risks be Reduced?\u003c/em\u003e iGovernment Working Paper no. 14.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHilbert, M. (2009). The maturing concept of e-democracy: From e-voting and online consultations to democratic value out of jumbled online chatter. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Information Technology \u0026amp; Politics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(2), 87\u0026ndash;110.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInternational Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) (2014). \u003cem\u003eElectoral management design: The International IDEA handbook\u003c/em\u003e (2nd ed.). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.idea.int/sites/default/files/publications/electoral-management-design-2014.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.idea.int/sites/default/files/publications/electoral-management-design-2014.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInternational Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) (2023). ICTs in Elections Database. Last accessed on 18.06.2023. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/icts-elections-database\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/icts-elections-database\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInternational Telecommunication Union (ITU) (2022). ITU World Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database, \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5683/SP3/ESWWF6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5683/SP3/ESWWF6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIrani, Z., Love, P. E., Elliman, T., Jones, S., \u0026amp; Themistocleous, M. (2005). Evaluating e-government: learning from the experiences of two UK local authorities. \u003cem\u003eInformation Systems Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(1), 61\u0026ndash;82.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIwasaki, M. (2010). E-voting in Japan: A developing case? In \u003cem\u003e4th International Conference on Electronic Voting 2010\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 283\u0026ndash;295). Gesellschaft f\u0026uuml;r Informatik eV.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJanssen, M., \u0026amp; Van Der Voort, H. (2016). Adaptive governance: Towards a stable, accountable and responsive government. \u003cem\u003eGovernment Information Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;5.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJochimsen, B. (2022). Klare Entscheidungsstrukturen im F\u0026ouml;deralismus und nachhaltige Digitalisierung. \u003cem\u003eifo Schnelldienst\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e75\u003c/em\u003e(3), 7\u0026ndash;10.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKikuchi, M. (2023). Public trust in government, Japan. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 11065\u0026ndash;11071). Springer International Publishing.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKriesi, H. (2005). \u003cem\u003eDirect democratic choice: The Swiss experience\u003c/em\u003e. Lexington Books.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKrimmer, R. (2012). The evolution of e-voting: why voting technology is used and how it affects democracy. \u003cem\u003eTallinn University of Technology Doctoral Theses Series I: Social Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e19\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKuhlmann, S., \u0026amp; Bogumil, J. (2021). The digitalisation of local public services. Evidence from the German case. \u003cem\u003eThe Future of Local Self-Government\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 101\u0026ndash;113). Palgrave Macmillan.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi, W. (2021). The role of trust and risk in Citizens\u0026rsquo; E-Government services adoption: A perspective of the extended UTAUT model. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(14), 7671.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLicht, N., Duenas-Cid, D., Krivonosova, I., \u0026amp; Krimmer, R. (2021). To i-vote or Not to i-vote: Drivers and Barriers to the Implementation of Internet Voting. In \u003cem\u003eInternational Joint Conference on Electronic Voting\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 91\u0026ndash;105). Springer, Cham.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLinder, W., \u0026amp; Mueller, S. (2021). \u003cem\u003eSwiss democracy: Possible solutions to conflict in multicultural societies\u003c/em\u003e (p. 295). Springer Nature.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiptrott, M. (2006). e-Voting in the UK: A Work in Progress. \u003cem\u003eElectronic Journal of e-Government\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(2), 55\u0026ndash;62.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu, L., Cruz, A. M., \u0026amp; Rincon, A. M. R. (2019). Technology acceptance, adoption, and usability: arriving at consistent terminologies and measurement approaches. \u003cem\u003eEveryday technologies in healthcare\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 319\u0026ndash;338). CRC.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eM\u0026aelig;r\u0026oslash;e, A. R., Norta, A., Tsap, V., \u0026amp; Pappel, I. (2021). Increasing citizen participation in e-participatory budgeting processes. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Information Technology \u0026amp; Politics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(2), 125\u0026ndash;147.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMahrer, H. (2005). Politicians as patrons for e-democracy? Closing the gap between ideals and realities. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Electronic Government Research (IJEGR)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(3), 51\u0026ndash;68.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMahrer, H., \u0026amp; Krimmer, R. (2005). Towards the enhancement of e-democracy: identifying the notion of the \u0026lsquo;middleman paradox\u0026rsquo;. \u003cem\u003eInformation systems journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(1), 27\u0026ndash;42.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMargetts, H., \u0026amp; Dunleavy, P. (2013). The second wave of digital-era governance: a quasi-paradigm for government on the Web. \u003cem\u003ePhilosophical transactions of the royal society A: mathematical, physical and engineering sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e371\u003c/em\u003e(1987), 20120382.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarsh, D., \u0026amp; McConnell, A. (2010). Towards a framework for establishing policy success. \u003cem\u003ePublic administration\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e88\u003c/em\u003e(2), 564\u0026ndash;583.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcConnell, A. (2015). What is policy failure? A primer to help navigate the maze. \u003cem\u003ePublic Policy and Administration\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(3\u0026ndash;4), 221\u0026ndash;242.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcConnell, A. (2016). A public policy approach to understanding the nature and causes of foreign policy failure. \u003cem\u003eJournal of European Public Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(5), 667\u0026ndash;684.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMergel, I., Edelmann, N., \u0026amp; Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. \u003cem\u003eGovernment information quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(4), 101385.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJapanese Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC) (2022). \u003cem\u003eWhite paper on information and communications in Japan 2022\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.soumu.go.jp/johotsusintokei/whitepaper/eng/WP2022/2022-index.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.soumu.go.jp/johotsusintokei/whitepaper/eng/WP2022/2022-index.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMinistry of Justice, Finland. (n.d.). \u003cem\u003eElectronic voting\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://vaalit.fi/en/electronic-voting1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://vaalit.fi/en/electronic-voting1\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., \u0026amp; McNeal, R. S. (2007). \u003cem\u003eDigital citizenship: The Internet, society, and participation\u003c/em\u003e. MIt Press.Mpekoa, N., \u0026amp; Van Greunen, D. (2017). E-voting experiences: A case of Namibia and Estonia. In \u003cem\u003e2017 IST-Africa Week Conference (IST-Africa)\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 1\u0026ndash;8). IEEE.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cem\u003eGreece faces aging population crisis, expert warns\u003c/em\u003e. Neos Kosmos, \u0026amp; Kosmos, N. (2024, October 2). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://neoskosmos.com/en/2024/10/02/news/greece/greece-faces-aging-population-crisis-expert-warns/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://neoskosmos.com/en/2024/10/02/news/greece/greece-faces-aging-population-crisis-expert-warns/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOana, I. E., Schneider, C. Q., \u0026amp; Thomann, E. (2021). \u003cem\u003eQualitative comparative analysis using R: A beginner's guide\u003c/em\u003e. Cambridge University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOana, I. E., \u0026amp; Schneider, C. Q. (2018). SetMethods: an add-on R package for advanced QCA. \u003cem\u003eThe R Journal\u003c/em\u003e, 10(1): 507\u0026thinsp;\u0026ndash;\u0026thinsp;33. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://journal.r-project.org/archive/2018/RJ-2018-031/index.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://journal.r-project.org/archive/2018/RJ-2018-031/index.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOECD. (2023). Government at a glance 2023. \u003cem\u003eOECD Publishing\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1787/3d5c5d31-en\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1787/3d5c5d31-en\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOECD (2024a). \u003cem\u003eBroadband statistics update\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.oecd.org/en/about/news/press-releases/2024/03/broadband-statistics-update.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.oecd.org/en/about/news/press-releases/2024/03/broadband-statistics-update.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOECD (2024b). \u003cem\u003eOECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions \u0026ndash; 2024 Results: Building Trust in a Complex Policy Environment, OECD Publishing, Paris\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1787/9a20554b-en\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi.org/10.1787/9a20554b-en\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eParametr\u0026iacute;a (2019). Trust in electronic voting results in Mexico in 2019. \u003cem\u003eStatista\u003c/em\u003e. Last accessed on 30.09.2024., \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.statista.com/statistics/1053529/mexico-electronic-voting-trust-confidence/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.statista.com/statistics/1053529/mexico-electronic-voting-trust-confidence/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePratchett, L., \u0026amp; Wingfield, M. (2004). Electronic voting in the United Kingdom: lessons and limitations from the UK experience. \u003cem\u003eElectronic Voting and Democracy: A Comparative Analysis\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 172\u0026ndash;189). Palgrave Macmillan UK.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSamihardjo, R., \u0026amp; Lestari, S. (2021). E-Voting in Indonesia Election: Challenges and Opportunities. \u003cem\u003eReview of International Geographical Education Online\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(6).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eScassa, T. (2014). Privacy and open government. \u003cem\u003eFuture Internet\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(2), 397\u0026ndash;413.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchedler, K., Summermatter, L., \u0026amp; Schmidt, B. (2003). \u003cem\u003eManaging the electronic government: from vision to practice\u003c/em\u003e. IAP.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSvensson, J., \u0026amp; Leenes, R. (2003). E-voting in Europe: Divergent democratic practice. \u003cem\u003eInformation Polity\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(1\u0026ndash;2), 3\u0026ndash;15.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSweeney, A. D. (2008). Electronic government-citizen relationships: Exploring citizen perspectives. \u003cem\u003eJournal of information technology \u0026amp; Politics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(2), 101\u0026ndash;116.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTokaji, D. P. (2022). Comparative Election Administration: a legal perspective on electoral institutions. \u003cem\u003eComparative Election Law\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 436\u0026ndash;458). Edward Elgar Publishing.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTorres, L., Pina, V., \u0026amp; Acerete, B. (2005). E-government developments on delivering public services among EU cities. \u003cem\u003eGovernment information quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(2), 217\u0026ndash;238.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTrechsel, A. H., Kucherenko, V. V., \u0026amp; Da Ferreira, F. (2016). \u003cem\u003ePotential and challenges of e-voting in the European Union\u003c/em\u003e. Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs, European Parliament.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan Deursen, A., \u0026amp; Van Dijk, J. (2011). Internet skills and the digital divide. \u003cem\u003eNew media \u0026amp; society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(6), 893\u0026ndash;911.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan Dijk, J. A. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. \u003cem\u003ePoetics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(4\u0026ndash;5), 221\u0026ndash;235.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVegas, C., \u0026amp; Barrat, J. (2016). Overview of current state of E-voting worldwide. \u003cem\u003eReal-World Electronic Voting\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 67\u0026ndash;92). Auerbach.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVenkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., \u0026amp; Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. \u003cem\u003eMIS quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, 425\u0026ndash;478.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang, Y. D., \u0026amp; Emurian, H. H. (2005). An overview of online trust: Concepts, elements, and implications. \u003cem\u003eComputers in human behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(1), 105\u0026ndash;125.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWarkentin, M., Gefen, D., Pavlou, P. A., \u0026amp; Rose, G. M. (2002). Encouraging citizen adoption of e-government by building trust. \u003cem\u003eElectronic markets\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(3), 157\u0026ndash;162.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWelch, E. W., Hinnant, C. C., \u0026amp; Moon, M. J. (2005). Linking citizen satisfaction with e-government and trust in government. \u003cem\u003eJournal of public administration research and theory\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(3), 371\u0026ndash;391.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWest, D. M. (2005). \u003cem\u003eDigital government: Technology and public sector performance\u003c/em\u003e. Princeton University Press.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Footnotes","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e The online appendix is submitted for review. The online appendix and R replication file will be made available online, contingent on the publication status of the paper.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e For countries where 2022 data is not available, we use the latest available version.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e The IAEP dataset defines three types of government structures: a unitary-like system features with strong central government with few if any regional administrative structures, where such structures have no autonomy; and a federal-like system with strong central government with semi-autonomous regional political units or subordinate provincial governments.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e IDEA (2014, 2024) classifies EMBs as independent, mixed, or governmental. Mixed EMBs receive a score of 1 as their decision-makers are independent of the government.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Policy success, e-voting, digitalization, e-governance, fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA), public sector","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7583298/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7583298/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eElectronic voting (e-voting) is pivotal for modern democratic institutions in the digital age. Despite nearly six decades of e-voting technology development, significant disparities exist in its global introduction. Existing studies primarily focus on country-specific experiences, leading to limited generalizable insights into what defines successful e-voting introduction and its enablers. This study bridges this gap by proposing a comprehensive definition of successful e-voting introduction. We then explore on what grounds e-voting introduction succeeds or fails by applying fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to data from 35 OECD countries. Results reveal that the broader policy environments, digital readiness and citizens\u0026rsquo; trust and ability to use technology significantly shape e-voting policies. High public trust and strong government commitment are essential to success, while low trust hampers progress. The study underscores the interplay of institutional and societal factors, rather than isolated influences, is the key driver of e-voting success.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"When and how do governments succeed in introducing electronic voting (e-voting)? A qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) of 35 OECD countries","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-09-30 14:24:28","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7583298/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"5cba9b70-3e06-4639-9d34-91d2fd9f3715","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 30th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-26T01:08:44+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-09-30 14:24:28","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7583298","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7583298","identity":"rs-7583298","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}