Published date: Oct 30 2023

Journal Title: KnE Social Sciences

Issue title: 5th Social and Humaniora Research Symposium (5th SoRes)

Pages: 433–445

DOI: 10.18502/kss.v8i18.14242

Pupung Purnamasaripupungpurnamasari@unisba.ac.idFaculty of Economic and Business, Universitas Islam Bandung, Indonesia

Noor Afza binti AmranTunku Puteri Intan Safinaz School of Accountancy, UUM College of Business, Malaysia

A. Harits Nu'manFaculty of Engineering, Universitas Islam Bandung, Indonesia

Rusman FrendikaFaculty of Economic and Business, Universitas Islam Bandung, Indonesia

Mohamad Naimi Mohamad NorTunku Puteri Intan Safinaz School of Accountancy, UUM College of Business, Malaysia

Mohamad Sharofi IsmailTunku Puteri Intan Safinaz School of Accountancy, UUM College of Business, Malaysia

This study investigates the correlation between the components of e-government services and corruption levels in Malaysia and Indonesia. Both countries have implemented various measures, including advanced e-government platforms and public participation, to combat corruption. However, instances of corruption have not shown a significant decline in either country. A total of 240 questionnaires were distributed to respondents from various sectors, including government, entrepreneurs, academia, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the media, in Indonesia and Malaysia. The Mann-Whitney U test was utilized to compare e-government services and corruption levels between the two countries. Interestingly, the results indicate variations in the e-government models adopted in Indonesia and Malaysia. In Malaysia, Government-to-Government (G2G) and Government-to-Citizen (G2C) interactions demonstrate a significant impact on corruption levels. In contrast, in Indonesia, Government-to-Business (G2B) and G2C interactions exhibit significant effects on corruption.

Keywords: e-government, Government to Government (G2G), Government to Business (G2B), Government to Citizenship (G2C), anti-corruption

[1] Nwadinobi EC, Peart A. E-government Development in Nigeria, Bank Verification No (BVN) an. Volume 8. EasyChair; 2018. https://doi.org/10.29007/h2tr.

[2] Park CH, Kim K. E-government as an anti-corruption tool: panel data analysis across countries. International Review of Administrative Sciences. 2020;86(4):691–707.

[3] Wu AM, Yan Y, Vyas L. Public sector innovation, e￿government, and anticorruption in China and India: insights from civil servants. Australian Journal of Public Administration. 2020;79(3):370–385.

[4] Abdalla S, Ip-Shing F. ”Framework for e-government assessment in developing countries: case study from Sudan,” Electronic Government, an International Journal. 2012;9(2):158–177.

[5] Siddique HR, Sharma A, Gupta SC, Murthy RC, Dhawan A, Saxena DK, et al. DNA damage induced by industrial solid waste leachates in Drosophila melanogaster: a mechanistic approach. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis. 2008 Apr;49(3):206–216.

[6] Nadjib A. Corruption Analysis in Religiosity Perspective. Journal of Talent Development and Excellence. 2020;12(2):2478–2489.

[7] Twizeyimana JD, Andersson A. The public value of E-Government – A literature review. Government Information Quarterly. 2019;36(2):167–178.

[8] Hamzah N, Mustari MI, Basiron B. Model of spiritual education for children among successful women in the public sector. Global Journal AlThaqafah. 2015;5(1):105–111.

[9] Sham FM, Yusof S. Religiosity of Muslim adolescents from single parent families living in government-subsidised settement. Global Journal Al-Thaqafah. 2015;5(2):1–12.

[10] Cressey D. Other people’s money, dalam: “Detecting and Predicting Financial Statement Fraud: The Effectiveness of The Fraud Triangle and SAS No. 99”. Journal of Corporate Governance and Firm Performance. 1953;13:53–81.

[11] Wells JT. Corporate fraud handbook: Prevention and detection. John Wiley & Sons; 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119351962.

[12] Yildiz M. Decision-making models used in e-government projects: evidence from Turkey. In: Morcol G, editor. Handbook of Decision-Making. Marcel Dekker Publications; 2007:395–416.

[13] Wathne C. Understanding corruption and how to curb it A synthesis of latest thinking, Norway: CMI. CHR. Michelsen Institute, 2021.

[14] SPP, Nurhasanah HR. ”Pengaruh Fraud Triangle Theory terhadap Kecurangan Laporan Keuangan dengan Komite Audit sebagai Variabel Moderasi”. Bandung Conference Series: Accountancy. 2022;2(2):1040–1048.

[15] Jain AK. Corruption: A Review. Journal of Economic Surveys. 2021;15(1):71–121.

[16] Rose-Ackerman S. Political corruption and democracy. Connecticut Journal of International Law. 1999;14(2).

[17] Fang Z. ”E-Government in digital era: concept, practice, and development.” International Journal of The Computer. The Internet and Management. 2002;10(2):1-22.

[18] Ahmad A, Naser A, Shebiab F. The impact of adopting e-government on reduce administrative corruption: empirical evidence from Kuwait’s public sector. Academy of Contemporary Research Journal. 2013;2(2):31–43.

[19] John CB, Paul TJ, Justin MG. Using ICTs to create a culture of transparancy: egovernment and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly. 2010;27(3):264–271.

[20] Muhamad N, Gani NA. A decade of corruption studies in Malaysia. Journal of Financial Crime. 2020;27(2):423–436.

[21] Sujarweni W. Metodologi Penelitian, Yogyakarta: Pustaka Baru Press, 2014.