Uwe Serdült
email: uwe.serdult@zda.uzh.ch

Thomas Milic

Disentangling Digital Divide and Trust Internet Voting Affinity in Switzerland

Keywords: internet voting, e-voting, digital divide, online participation, digital democracy, trust in technology

In Switzerland internet voting is currently being introduced in a piecemeal fashion. Since the first trials in 2003 an increasing number of Swiss cantons is offering the digital voting channel to its citizens either living in Switzerland or abroad. So far the question whether the introduction of internet voting in Switzerland would increase the digital divide, favoring the well educated, economically better off citizens could not be answered in a conclusive way. As yet bi-and multi-variate regression analyses of survey data showed that general trust in the internet and in internet voting in particular outweigh the effect of the typical digital divide variables. There is, however, so far no study trying to disentangle the two types of variables by applying structural equation modeling. In the present study we test whether digital divide variables have a direct effect on general support of internet voting in the Swiss population or whether they should rather be treated as exogenous variables of general trust in the Internet and of internet voting in particular. We therefore put forward a structural equation model which helps us to disentangle direct and indirect effects on internet voting affinity. In order to test our model we are using the first Swiss population survey exclusively conducted on the topic of internet voting in April 2016.

Introduction

As in other federalist countries such as Australia and Canada internet voting in Switzerland is currently being introduced in a piecemeal fashion. Since the first trial in 2003 an increasing number of cantons is offering the digital voting channel to its citizens either living in Switzerland or abroad. So far the question whether the introduction of internet voting in Switzerland would increase the digital divide, favoring the well educated, economically better off citizens could not be answered in a conclusive way. As yet bi-and multi-variate regression analyses of survey data showed that general trust in the internet as well as trust in internet voting in particular outweigh the effect of the typical digital divide variables. However, so far no study has tried to disentangle the two types of variables by applying structural equation modeling (SEM). In the present study we are trying to fill this gap by testing whether digital divide variables have a direct effect on general support of internet voting or whether they should rather be treated as antecedent variables of trust factors.

First, we set up the stage by describing a bit more in detail the context of Swiss internet voting and then review the current state of empirical studies in the next section. In the theoretical part we briefly discuss the issue of digital divide, the calculus of voting and the technology acceptance model (TAM) which we are using to draw up the hypotheses for our structural equation model. In the methodological part we present the survey data from 2016 and the method of partial least squares (PLS) modeling. In the empirical part we are reporting the measurement model and the results from the analysis. We conclude by a discussion of our main findings and suggestions for further research.

The Context of Swiss Internet Voting

In Switzerland the implementation of elections and referendums are a subnational matter. It is therefore the cantons and local executives who maintain vote registries, organise elections and determine voting results. Each canton maintains an Electoral Management Board (EMB) in charge of organising and administering elections as well as referendums on all three state levels. Smaller variants of the cantonal EMBs can be found in all of the approximately 2,350 Swiss municipalities. However, it is important to note that the cantonal political rights legislation is subject to federal approval [START_REF] Maurer | Internet Voting and Federalism: The Swiss case[END_REF] such that only the Federal Council (highest national executive power in Switzerland) has the authority to approve internet voting trials and to formulate the specific conditions under which the new digital channel can be implemented. There are detailed provisions on prerequisites for internet voting trials put forward in a federal ordinance. Cantons are, however, completely free whether they want to offer internet voting or not. As a general principle, and unlike on the local level in Canada, all other voting channels, i.e. ballot box and postal voting, remain open.

Remote voting is already very much the norm in Switzerland. In the bigger cities more than 90 percent of citizens are postal voters. Given Switzerland's success in establishing postal voting over the past 30 years as a preferred method of voting [START_REF] Gasser | Electronic Voting: Approaches, Strategies, and Policy Issues-A Report from Switzerland[END_REF][START_REF] Geser | Electronic voting in Switzerland[END_REF][START_REF] Luechinger | The Impact of Postal Voting on Participation: Evidence for Switzerland[END_REF], there was hope that the internet as a new channel would be quickly adopted by the Swiss electorate in general and in particular by the young voters -a group usually displaying low participation rates. Due to the frequency of voting in Switzerland's referendum democracy [START_REF] Serdült | Referendums in Switzerland[END_REF], further arguments supporting the introduction of internet voting put forward in the debate were that it will speed up the vote counting process and reduce the number of invalid votes. In the early 2000s, with the federal administration providing financial support, the decentralised implementation of internet voting models began first in Geneva and soon thereafter also in Neuchâtel and Zurich. Three distinct models were developed, with the biggest difference between Zurich and Geneva being that the first is operated by a private company for a very decentralised local government system and the second one for a strongly centralised system developed and maintained mainly by the canton itself. Internet voting in Neuchâtel is different in that it is part of a cantonal e-government portal for which citizens have to register in person and can also be used for various other administrative transactions such as filing tax statements [START_REF] Serdült | Fifteen Years of Internet Voting in Switzerland: History, Governance and Use[END_REF].

The first internet voting3 trial for a binding referendum vote was held in 2003 in the Geneva based municipality of Anières. Zurich and Neuchâtel held their own trials in the following two years. The success of the trials in the three pilot cantons led the Swiss Federal Council to officially give the green light in May 2006 to the step-by-step rollout of internet voting; not only across the whole country, but importantly also for Swiss residents living abroad [START_REF] Maurer | Internet Voting and Federalism: The Swiss case[END_REF][START_REF] Monecke | semPLS: structural equation modeling using partial least squares[END_REF], due in particular to the difficulties that they encounter with postal voting [START_REF] Christin | Qui vote par Internet ? Une approche scientifique des scrutins de Carouge et Meyrin[END_REF][START_REF] Lohmöller | Latent Variable Path Modeling with Partial Least Squares[END_REF]. In 2015, Swiss residents living abroad from roughly half of the 26 cantons were given the option to vote online. Rather than develop their own internet voting systems, the nonpilot cantons have chosen to adopt one of the existing models specifically either that of Zurich or Geneva. Neuchâtels specialised model was originally not easily transferable to other cantons. Trials were then put on hold in Zurich in 2011 [START_REF] Beroggi | Internet Voting: An Empirical Evaluation[END_REF]. In the meantime, the Canton Aargau took on the role of administrator for the consortium using the Zurich internet voting model. However, in the fall 2015, two months before the national elections this consortium comprising nine cantons did not get permission to use its system due to some flaws discovered on the occasion of an external security audit. Thereafter the Zurich-Aargau consortium dissolved. More recently, the Swiss Post joined forces with the canton of Neuchâtel and so far was able to bring the cantons of Fribourg and Basel City on board. Several other cantons are still in the process of choosing one of the two remaining systems so that the current situation is quite dynamic.

Current State of Research

There are several solid empirical studies analysing the socio-demographic profile of internet voters, eg. for Canada [START_REF] Goodman | Internet Voting in a Local Election in Canada[END_REF][START_REF] Goodman | The Patchwork of Internet Voting in Canada[END_REF], Estonia [START_REF] Trechsel | E-voting and electoral participation[END_REF][START_REF] Alvarez | Internet voting in comparative perspective: the case of Estonia[END_REF][START_REF] Solvak | E-voting in Estonia: Technological Diffusion and other Developments Over Ten Years[END_REF], Norway [START_REF] Saglie | Internet Voting and the Secret Ballot in Norway: Principles and Popular Understandings[END_REF] as well as the USA [START_REF] Alvarez | The Likely Consequences of Internet Voting for Political Representation[END_REF][START_REF] Solop | Digital Democracy Comes of Age: Internet Voting and the 2000 Arizona Democratic Primary Election[END_REF] just to cite a few of them. They are all documented in a comprehensive meta study [START_REF] Serdült | Who are the Internet Voters[END_REF]. For this paper, however, we limit our discussion to the directly relevant studies drawing on Switzerland.

The pioneer of Swiss internet voting, the Canton of Geneva, was also the first one to commission several studies. Combining online survey data for the municipalities of Carouge and Meyrin with the respective vote registry data [START_REF] Christin | Qui vote par Internet ? Une approche scientifique des scrutins de Carouge et Meyrin[END_REF] found that internet voters tended to be younger and male. 30 to 50 years old men seemed to be specially prone to this new voting channel. In addition, results from the online survey suggested that a higher degree of education and, not surprisingly, the availability of a computer and internet access are further crucial factors explaining the preference for the online voting channel. Similar conclusions could be drawn from [START_REF] Serdült | Umfrage bei Stimmberechtigten der Zürcher Gemeinden Bertschikon, Bülach und Schlieren anlässlich des Pilotversuchs zum Vote électronique vom 27[END_REF] presenting survey data from the Canton of Zurich. On the occasion of the national and cantonal referendum votes in fall 2004 a more thorough telephone survey among 1'014 voters as well as nonvoters in four Geneva pilot municipalities showed that young, male voters with high income and educational level are over-represented among internet voters [START_REF] Christin | Analyse du scrutin du 26 septembre 2004 dans quatre communes genevoises[END_REF]. Nevertheless, the global multivariate model revealed that neither demographic nor political variables are good predictors in order to explain the choice of the voting channel. All these variables turn insignificant in the multivariate ICT model. Regarding the variables included in the ICT model such as IT skills, type of internet connection, trust in the internet and trust in the internet voting mechanism remain significant, the last one being the strongest predictor.

In 2009, when the first Swiss cantons such as Neuchâtel, Geneva and Basle City started to offer internet voting to Swiss citizens living abroad, further studies were conducted. According to an analysis drawing on official vote registry data as well as two online surveys for Swiss abroad internet voters registered in the canton of Geneva, the profile of Swiss abroad internet voters and postal voters were compared [START_REF] Serdült | Internet Voting for the Swiss Abroad of Geneva: First Online Survey Results[END_REF]. Young (the 30-39 as well as the 40-49 cohort using this channel more often than the 18-29) and male Swiss abroad were the most likely users of the online channel. Thirdly, the more distant the country of residence the more likely the person is to vote online. Further studies based on the 2011 election survey data from SELECTS corroborated these findings. Voters whose country of residence does not boarder Switzerland, with high IT skills and good political knowledge are more likely to use the online channel [START_REF] Germann | Internet Voting for Expatriates: The Swiss Case[END_REF].

The hitherto most comprehensive study on the Geneva based internet voting trials [START_REF] Sciarini | Etude du vote par internet dans le canton de Genève: Rapport final à l'intention de la Commission externe d'évaluation des politiques publiques[END_REF] best illustrates the interaction of socio-demographic and ICT-related moderator variables. The authors compared traditional voters (ballot box and mail) with e-voters using survey data of a sample of the whole electorate of Geneva (partly telephone survey, partly online survey) as well as of an online poll of internet voters only. Their findings suggest that although male and young voters with a high level of education, high household income, high political and computing knowledge are indeed overrepresented among e-voters, all these variables turn insignificant in a multivariate model which includes the variables frequency of internet use and trust in internet transactions and communication.

Summing up, after more than a decade of internet voting practice in Switzerland studies seem to suggest that digital divide issues are not related to the new voting channel. However, there remains a puzzle to resolve. It might very well be the case that digital divide variables do not affect internet voting affinity directly but in an indirect way if they were to influence the variables most closely linked to internet voting such as ease of use and trust in the internet. Previous studies did not address this option properly. Simple descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations and even multivariate regression analyses do not provide enough discretionary power to disentangle the respective effects of digital divide variables, factors of convenience, worries about security issues and trust in the internet. Inspired by more recent studies such as [START_REF] Nemeslaki | Could on-line voting boost desire to vote? Technology acceptance perceptions of young Hungarian citizens[END_REF][START_REF] Powell | e-Voting intent: A comparison of young and elderly voters[END_REF] we aim at making a further contribution in this respect, in a first instance by testing more elaborate causal modelling on very recent survey data for the Swiss case.

Theoretical Considerations

Digital Divide

Not on internet voting in particular but rather on the access and use of the Internet in general, there is the well-known argument that the new technological options favor the better off and well educated strata of society. This phenomenon is usually described as the digital divide. The digital divide [START_REF] Hargittai | Digital Inequality[END_REF] is at the same time technological (lack of access in remote areas, the global South), economic (lack of access to a computer at home) and cognitive (lack of skills to use ICTs) [START_REF] Ferro | The role of IT literacy in defining digital divide policy needs[END_REF]. According to [START_REF] Norris | Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide[END_REF] the most worrying characteristic of the digital divide is the fact that it follows existing cleavages in society and might increase inequalities further. Other authors, however, point out that such a socio-economic distortion will most likely fade away over time as mobile ICTs are becoming widely available also in more remote places and equipment is getting more affordable [START_REF] Alvarez | Point, click, and vote: The future of Internet voting[END_REF].

Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

In addition to theoretical arguments along the digital divide track we consider the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to be of particular relevance for this study. The TAM [START_REF] Davis | User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models[END_REF] posits that user's perceived usefulness and effort are major explanatory factors for the acceptance of a technology. Applications in line with ours but with slightly different foci of research such as [START_REF] Powell | e-Voting intent: A comparison of young and elderly voters[END_REF][START_REF] Nemeslaki | Could on-line voting boost desire to vote? Technology acceptance perceptions of young Hungarian citizens[END_REF] are demonstrations of the relevance of TAM in the realms of internet voting.

The Calculus of Voting

According to the calculus of voting [START_REF] Riker | A Theory of the Calculus of Voting[END_REF] one of the major factors affecting an individual voter's decision to turn out for an election is the cost of voting. Many voting reforms hence are trying to facilitate the voting procedure, for example by allowing for remote voting, advance voting periods and finally also by introducing internet voting. Empirical studies showed that convenience reforms of voting can indeed have a tangible effect on participation rates. Postal voting increased participation in Switzerland [START_REF] Luechinger | The Impact of Postal Voting on Participation: Evidence for Switzerland[END_REF] and the United States [START_REF] Gronke | Convenience Voting[END_REF] by three to four percentage points. Whether internet voting can add to the further reduction of the cost of voting on top of postal voting is still an open debate and might depend on the context. In Switzerland where internet voting is being introduced on top of generalized postal voting, the extra convenience reform does not seem to make a difference [START_REF] Germann | Internet Voting and Turnout: Evidence from Switzerland[END_REF]. However, irrespective of an eventual effect of internet voting on aggregate turnout in a constituency it can still have an effect on the perception of potential voters on internet voting and should therefore be taken into account.

Hypotheses

In this contribution we aim at bringing the debate on the question whether internet voting should be regarded as a digital divide issue to a higher level by trying to disentangle relevant variables and concepts which have proven to be of relevance in previous research. From such previous research on internet voting in Switzerland but also from elsewhere we know that trust in the internet in general as well as trust in internet voting in particular do have a strong effect on the actual use, the intent to use and approval rates for internet voting. However, discarding digital divide factors to be at play because they cancel out in multiple regressions would be premature. In case the very same digital divide variables cancel out as direct causes of internet voting affinity are affecting the respective trust variables, and those in return do load on our dependent variable, we would be back to square one. We argue that such an indirect effect of digital divide via the trust components was not properly tested in empirical studies before. We suggest this task can be achieved by applying better statistical techniques, namely by using structural equation modeling.

As depicted in Figure 1 further below, our structural path model with internet voting affinity as the dependent variable is defined by a group of exogenous variables such as gender, education, age and income as well as of further endogenous components. In addition to being directly linked with the endogenous components convenience, political integration, use and trust of the internet and safety concerns, the exogenous variables can have both a direct or indirect effect on internet voting affinity.

H1 -Direct effects of socio-economic variables: In the light of detailed meta studies [START_REF] Serdült | Who are the Internet Voters[END_REF] direct effects of exogenous digital divide variables such as age, gender, income and education on the affinity to internet voting as our dependent variable are unlikely. We therefore expect those variables not to have a significant effect or at best a very minor one. Refuting hypothesis H1 would thus lead us to conclude that there is no major digital divide among the Swiss population regarding support for the new voting channel.

H2 -Direct effect of intermediate variables: Following our discussion of the current state of research and theory we suspect certain intermediate components to affect Swiss citizen's degree of affinity towards internet voting.

The first component in our path dependency model summarizes items evaluating the convenience aspect of internet voting (comp1). Do respondents of the survey think that internet voting is more convenient (argu2) and simpler (argu5) to handle than postal voting? Do they think it is about time (argu3) to introduce internet voting because they realize there is a gap between all the things they do in their daily lives with the help of the Internet such as onlineshopping, booking all kinds of leisure activities and using it in their respective work environment but not for voting (egov2).

The second component brings together items measuring how strongly a citizen is integrated in political activities(comp2). Foremost we can measure the degree of political involvement by asking about the interest in political matters in general (polint) as well as the frequency of participation in formal political events (part) such as referendum votes and elections.

The third component comprises core aspects of TAM, namely internet use and trust (comp3). Survey participants were asked how much they trust transactions over the Internet (trustint) and how often they are using it (useint).

The fourth component groups items about security concerns (comp4). Do respondents think that a vote via the Internet is easier to manipulate than a postal vote (argu4)? Do they even think there is a danger of foreign secret services monitoring the vote and thus breaching vote secrecy (argu6)?

H3 -Indirect effect of socio-economic variables: Previous research suggests that the internet use and trust component is taking out all direct effects of digital divide variables on internet voting affinity. However, an indirect effect could still be at play and been overlooked so far. In case digital divide variables have a direct effect on the internet use and trust component (c3) and if that same component is having a substantial effect on internet affinity we should conclude that digital divide is playing a role. We are thus looking for strong, statistically significant paths leading from socio-economic variables to the dependent variable via c3.

Data and Methods

The Swiss Internet Voting Survey 2016

To test our hypotheses 4 we are drawing on the data of a recently conducted population survey [START_REF] Milic | Attitudes of Swiss citizens towards the generalisation of e-voting[END_REF] with the exclusive aim to gain more detailed insights to internet voting affinity in Switzerland. The poll was carried out by the agency LINK between the 11th and the 21th April 2016 using computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI). The target population is composed by all Swiss citizens eligible to vote between 18 and 79 years of age. The sample consists of 1'228 respondents. Switzerland has three main linguistic regions: Populationwise, the German speaking part is the largest one, comprising 70 percent of the whole Swiss population. The French speaking part is making up around 20 and the Italian speaking part around 5 percent of the whole population. Thus, a disproportionated stratified sampling design was chosen in order to over-sample the two linguistic minorities. In turn, specific design weights were used to compensate for this disproportionate stratification.

All the questions and answer categories used in the analysis are summarized in Table 4 in the Appendix. Most items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale, where "Don't know" answers were included into the middle category. This is certainly true for the arguments which were tested within the survey. These arguments represent statements about internet voting, with which the respondents could agree or disagree with.

We are fully aware of the limitations we are facing with survey data asking about internet voting affinity. Using internet voting affinity as our main dependent variable is one major step away from explaining actual behaviour. Supporting the generalisation of internet voting and actually choosing that particular voting channel are of course two separate matters.

Partial Least Squares Modelling

We analysed our hypotheses with the help of partial least squares path modelling (PLS-PM). PLS-PM analysis has become an established tool in many fields of research, particularly when there are more than just a few, highly collinear factors explaining the response variable. Generally speaking, PLS-PM belongs to the family of structural equation models (SEM) which in turn, are a blend of different statistical techniques such as confirmatory factor analysis, path analysis, causal modelling with latent variables, and multiple regression. Especially when dealing with latent constructs, SEM is the most preferred methodology of choice. Additionally, our goal is to disentangle factors of internet voting affinity which are situated at different levels of explanation. To estimate such a complex multi-step cause-effect relationship, multiple regression analysis is not a suitable approach. Instead, path modelling in general and PLS-PM in particular are preferable for this sort of research problem.

As we pointed out before, PLS-PM can be thought of a robust structural equation modelling approach. In contrast to covariance-based SEM, the PLS approach does not reproduce a sample covariance matrix, but rather seeks to maximize the explained variance of the endogenous variables by iteratively estimating partial model relationships with OLS regressions [START_REF] Hair | PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet[END_REF]. Another distinctive feature of PLS is the fact that in PLS the latent variable scores are estimated and treated as error-free substitutes of the corresponding indicators. In contrast, CB-SEM always includes an error term either for the indicators. Additionally, PLS has much less rigid distributional assumptions than covariance-based SEM techniques (CBSEM). For example, it does not require the normality assumption. In contrast, most CBSEM techniques require hard distributional assumptions [START_REF] Monecke | semPLS: structural equation modeling using partial least squares[END_REF]. Finally, PLS-PM does not have rigid demands on sample size making it suitable for a variety of models and purposes. Because of these advantages, PLS-PM was chosen as method of analysis. PLS analysis was performed with the SmartPLS software [START_REF] Ringle | SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt[END_REF] using the PLS algorithm [START_REF] Lohmöller | Latent Variable Path Modeling with Partial Least Squares[END_REF].

6 Empirical Analysis

The measurement model

In a first step, we tested our measurement model. In Table 1 we present the results of a principal component analysis (PCA) for all latent variables in use. As we can see, the factor loadings on the second (political integration), third (internet use and trust) and fourth (security concerns) component (comp2-4) are rather strong (above .55), while the loadings on the first component (convenience) are only fairly strong (between .4 and .45). Clearly, the convenience and the trust-usage component have a lot in common. Both indicators of the third component (trust in the Internet and Internet use) load rather strongly on the first component, too. Thus, the discriminant validity of both factors is closer to the lower than to the upper limit of acceptability. This makes also sense from a theoretical point of view. In order to gauge superior convenience of internet voting over postal voting, one has to be familiar with and trustful of the Internet in general. Respondents lacking any experience with the Internet or deeply distrusting it are extremely unlikely to having a preference of internet voting over postal voting. The second factor, however, is overwhelmingly independent of other indicators. In other words, political involvement is indeed independent from internet use, internet trust, internet voting affinity and general safety concerns. The same applies to the fourth component, although to a somewhat lesser degree.

As we can see in Table 2 construct validity is on a fairly good level: The average variance extracted amounts between .56 and .77, the composite reliability between .68 and .87 and Cronbach's alpha between .41 and .79.

Keeping certain limitations of our measurement model such as the border line discriminant power between the convenience and the trust component in mind we have prepared the grounds for the estimation of a PLS model.

Results

Our path model contains four exogenous variables and five endogenous variables (including the main dependent variable internet voting affinity). The model is reflective, i.e. the manifest variables of one block are considered to reflect their corresponding latent variable. For the sake of better visibility Figure 1 only shows significant paths between latent variables for standardized regression coefficients 3 differ somewhat from the ones displayed in Figure 1 since the latter is a representation of a model re-estimating only the paths which proved to be statistically significant in the full model as displayed in Figure 1. Missing cases were replaced by the mean of the remaining observations.

Internet use and trust

[+] 0.033

Security concerns

[+] 0.545

Internet voting affinity

[+]

Age

[+]

Education

[+]

Income

[+]

Sex

The first important point we can notice is the complete absence of direct and statistically significant paths from our exogenous variables to the phenomenon to explain, internet voting affinity. H1 can thus safely be refuted en bloc.

Regarding direct effects between the endogenous components 1-4 we can see that there is only one significant and strong path from the convenience component (c1) to internet voting affinity. All other components link to the dependent variable to such a minor degree that we do not take them into account. With a β of .71 the relationship between a positive evaluation of internet voting as being a convenient channel for voting and internet voting affinity is very strong. While the strength of this relationship is not surprising as such it is rather the absence of any strong connection between the other components and the dependent variable which is surprising.

The relatively strong path between the internet use and trust component (c3) and the convenience component (c1) can make sense intuitively but is probably owed to a large degree to some internal cohesion between the two which already became apparent when testing for discrimination between the components in Table 1. Furthermore, respondents with higher internet use and trust in internet transactions tend to be less concerned about security issues. However, with a β of only -.14 this relation does not seem to be particularly strong.

Looking at each of our exogenous variables in turn, we note that there is no significant partial regression path stemming from gender to any other variable in our model. There is a relatively strong relation between education and the degree of political integration (β=.3 in Figure 1) and only a minor one towards the internet use and trust component. In that sense our model displays reassuring results. It is common knowledge in political and educational science that a higher degree of political integration corresponds with a better education, a higher economic status as well as higher age. The political integration component is actually not the most relevant for us but it was necessary to have it in the model as a control variable. In order to refute H3 we particularly focus on the internet use and trust component (c3) and check whether strong paths from digital divide variables continue to our dependent variable. However, this is not the case. Although education and income are somewhat or moderately related to the internet use and trust component we do not find the continuation further on to the dependent variable. We find the same pattern with age. The negative link (β=-.3 in Figure 1) from age to the internet use and trust component is quite strong though.

Discussion

The results of the PLS model estimates suggest we can safely disregard a strong direct correlation between digital divide variables such as sex, education, age and income on the affinity to internet voting (H1). From the endogenous components we only find the convenience aspects to having a strong direct effect on internet voting affinity. The fact that the degree of political integration is almost unrelated to our dependent variable is a first hint pointing at the fact that digital divide might not be at play here either. Since a higher degree of education and a higher income do seem to have a moderately positive effect on political participation, a continuation of a strong path from this component to internet voting affinity would have meant that internet voting mostly finds support among the politically active strata of Swiss citizens. But this is not the case. We find the same pattern for the use and trust of the internet component. We would have expected this component to being related to digital divide factors and to also have an impact on internet voting affinity. This is clearly not the case either. The component that moderated almost all digital divide factors out of the equation in previous regression analyses is largely unrelated to our dependent variable. The security concerns component seems to be largely unrelated to the core concepts in the model either. Except for the strong convenience component effect on internet voting affinity we can thus also refute direct effects of the endogenous part of the model (H2). Regarding potential expected indirect effect of digital divide via one of our four endogenous components -in particular the one via the use and trust in the internet component -we only find one via the convenience component which in return is unrelated to digital divide variables. We should therefore also refute major indirect effects (H3).

The current PLS model, however, shows an aspect we so far have rather neglected. Age seems to exert a stronger influence on endogenous components than expected. Focusing on the main digital divide variables such as sex, education and income in this study we might have neglected another phenomenon. The strongest partial regression coefficient pointing to the internet use and trust component is actually the age. For the moment we can only speculate. However, further studies should eventually focus on the question whether the digital divide is not rather an generational gap rather than one of economic and cognitive resources (see [START_REF] Friemel | The digital divide has grown old: Determinants of a digital divide among seniors[END_REF][START_REF] Powell | e-Voting intent: A comparison of young and elderly voters[END_REF]).

More geared towards the substantive part of our model a word of caution is at order regarding the quality of some of the endogenous components of our model. In particular, there is a doubt whether the separation of the components convenience and trust in the internet can be upheld. The PCA as well as the relatively strong path link between the two suggests that they might have more in common than what we display in the model. In case the respective endogenous components ought to be regarded as one, and in light of the presence of the very strong link from the convenience component to our dependent variable as well as some of the digital divide variables moderately linking to it, an indirect effect would have to be reconsidered. In a nutshell, in order to gain a clearer insight on potential effects of digital divide variables operating in an indirect way as put forward in H3, there is some further conceptual work at order. In addition, a data set designed for that particular purpose could also help to improve the situation.

Last but not least, we should address some of the further pitfalls we might face with the present study. Firstly, our dependent variable is internet voting affinity and not the use of internet voting per se. Further Swiss data should be re-analysed in order to remedy this shortcoming. Furthermore, the Swiss case might be a peculiar one and not extend easily to other countries. This problem can only be overcome by comparative studies.

Fig. 1 .

 1 Fig. 1. PLS model estimates for all significant paths greater than .1

Table 1 .

 1 Rotated component matrix of the independent variables (PCA)

	Variables	comp1 comp2 comp3 comp4
	More comfortable than postal voting	0.40 -0.15 -0.23	0.24
	It is about time to introduce e-voting 0.45 -0.06 -0.29	0.08
	Simpler than postal voting	0.44 -0.04 -0.24 -0.02
	Demand for e-voting	0.43 0.07 -0.20 -0.02
	Political interest	-0.01 0.67 -0.15	0.15
	Participation frequency	-0.01 0.68 -0.07	0.15
	Trust in the Internet	0.35	0.07 0.56 -0.03
	Internet use	0.31	0.09 0.64 0.18
	E-Voting can easily be manipulated -0.05 -0.14	0.06 0.72
	Secret services might hack the system -0.21 -0.12 -0.06 0.58

Table 2 .

 2 Construct validity and reliabilityThe full results of the model test with bootstrapping are shown in Table3further below. Note that regression coefficients in Table

	Components AVE	Composite reliability	Cronbach's Alpha	R 2
	E-voting affinity				.531
	Component 1	.613	.864	.790	.071
	Component 2	.774	.873	.710	.118
	Component 3	.684	.812	.543	.242
	Component 4	.563	.682	.411	.017
	AVE=Average variance extracted
	higher than 0.1.

It would be more precise to speak of internet or online voting. The term e-voting can also entail, for example touchscreen voting devices, which are used in voting booths. However, in Switzerland the term e-voting is commonly used, also by the authorities as a synonym for internet voting.

In a further step the data collected in studies such as[START_REF] Serdült | Umfrage bei Stimmberechtigten der Zürcher Gemeinden Bertschikon, Bülach und Schlieren anlässlich des Pilotversuchs zum Vote électronique vom 27[END_REF][START_REF] Serdült | Internet Voting for the Swiss Abroad of Geneva: First Online Survey Results[END_REF] should be re-analysed in a similar fashion.

Variable

Label Wording and answer categories E-voting affinity evote Generally speaking, are you in favour or against the introduction of e-voting? 1:"totally against"; 2:"rather against"; 3:"rather in favor"; 4:"totally in favor".

Participation frequency part

Usually less than half of the electorate participates in referendums. How is it with you? Lets say there were ten in a given year. In how many would you have participated? Answers from 0-10. Interest in politics polint In general, how strongly are you interested in politics? 1:"very much interested"; 2:"rather interested"; 3:"rather not interested"; 4:"not interested at all". E-voting convenience argu2 When voting electronically it is possible to vote with a simple mouse click from ones home. This is more comfortable than postal voting. 1:"completely agree"; 2:"rather agree"; 3:"dont know"; 4:"rather disagree"; 5:"completely disagree". Zeitgeist argu3 Nowadays nearly everything can be done via the Internet. Hence it is time for e-voting to be universally available. 1:"compl. agree"; 2:"rather agree"; 3:"dont know"; 4:"rather disagree"; 5:"compl. disagree".

Postal voting easier argu5

The postal vote is so simple, that e-voting is not needed. 1:"completely disagree"; 2:"rather disagree"; 3:"dont know"; 4:"rather agree"; 5:"completely agree". Trust in the internet trustint much do you trust in internet transactions? 1:"not at all"; 2:"rather not"; 3:"depends on the transaction"; 4:"rather"; 5:"completely". Internet usage useint How often do you use the Internet? 1:"never"; 2:"less than several times a month"; 3:"several times a month"; 4:"once per week"; 5:"several times per week"; 6:"once per day"; 7:"several times per day". Demand for e-voting egov2 Demand for services by government agencies: the possibility to cast ones ballot online. Scale from 0 (unnecessary) to 10 (very necessary) Easier to manipulate argu4 Its easier to manipulate a vote via the Internet than via postal vote. 1:"completely agree"; 2:"rather agree"; 3:"dont know"; 4:"rather disagree"; 5:"completely disagree". Worries about security argu6 With e-voting there is a danger of foreign secret services monitoring the vote. 1:"completely agree"; 2:"rather agree"; 3:"dont know"; 4:"rather disagree"; 5:"completely disagree".


Lyudmila Vidiasova

Dmitrii Trutnev
email: trutnev@ego-center.ru

Evgenii Vidiasov
email: vidyasov@lawexp.com

Revealing the factors influencing e-participation development in Russia

Keywords: E-participation, expert survey, factors of development, assessment

International rankings of e-participation development provide useful information for making strategic decisions for a more successful information society development. However, when we start the interpretation of the ranking details, it is important to consider the context, as well as national factors and existed barriers on the way. The paper presents some results and conclusions drawn from the expert survey and aiming to detect the factors which affect e-participation development in Russia. The authors conducted an expert poll with the participation of 41 experts from government, business, NGO, scientific and education structures, and city-activists. The survey results allowed to detect the target of eparticipation tools development in Russia; to determine the factors that influence positively and negatively on its development. The major finding of the survey showed the following trend: e-participation tools in Russia served to optimize the authorities' work and fight such barriers as administrative, regulative and lack of citizens' trust in e-participation tools.

Introduction

The global trends belonged to the term "e-participation" assume a technological mechanism for linking citizens' demands and needs and the politicians. According to the last world ranking on E-participation development prepared by UN in 2016 [8], the world leadership in this field belongs to the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Singapore, Canada, Finland, Italy. Russia occupies the 32nd place losing two positions from the previous rating and receiving 91,2% (out of 100) for e-information, 63,2% for e-consultation and just 28,6% for e-decision-making directions.

With the purpose to determine the reasons for such un-proportional development we conducted an expert survey focusing on factors which influence positively and negatively on e-participation development in Russia.

E-participation development factors

Russia, following global trends, attempts to activate the citizens' participation in solving various issues of state and public life through ICT [START_REF] Vidiasova | A framework for e-participation effectiveness assessment[END_REF]. Over the past few years several legal acts that form the basis of electronic interaction between the state bodies and the citizens have been adopted. For instance, the Concept for e-democracy mechanisms development in the Russian Federation till 2020, developed by the Ministry of Communications and Mass Communications, forms the institutional environment for this phenomenon.

The concept determines a direct relationship between the transition to e-democracy practice and the process of strengthening and further development of Russian civil society: "... the active introduction of ICT in the social and political relations can significantly enhance the ability of Russian citizens in terms of their social and political participation and creating conditions for the civil activity growth, which contributes to the formation of a qualitatively new level of citizen activity" [START_REF]Concept for e-democracy mechanisms in Russia development till[END_REF]. In addition, the Concept identifies several barriers for e-democracy development in Russia. The following barriers from the list related to e-participation: the lack of efficiency, poor organization and technical support, inadequate attention to the issues of citizens' identification and authentication, digital divide in the Russian regions, inequality between the federal, regional and municipal levels.

When we looked at the world research practice, we found a variety of factors that determine the success of e-participation development. According to the South Korean survey, conducted in 2015 in 125 countries around the world, there is a statistically significant correlation between the degree of citizens' e-participation and groups of indicators characterizing ICT development, the level of democracy, political institutions and human capital (literacy, education, income, etc.) [START_REF] Whasun | Institutional and technological determinants of civil e-Participation: Solo or duet?[END_REF]. J. Fountain argues that the institutional and organizational contexts act as an intermediary in ICT implementation [START_REF] Fountain | Building the Virtual State[END_REF]. Without a conceptual scheme that incorporates e-participation in politics, government, institutional structure and behavior, researchers can only ascertain the destructive internecine fighting bureaucracy and individual cases of outstanding innovation, but they are not able to recognize the more general models of institutional behavior.

For effective political participation, A.Kurochkin highlights the presence of a stable institutional environment (legal and informal institutions), defining clear rules for all actors, as well as guaranteeing their freedom of activity in the network [START_REF] Kurochkin | Public administration and innovation policy in a network society[END_REF]. I. Kharechko also draws attention to the fact that e-democracy should be developed and implemented in society in parallel with the electronic board. The author points out the need for a unified national technical platform, adapted to the needs and IT skills of ordinary citizens, as well as the supervisory organizational structure for monitoring and analysis the situation in the regions development [START_REF] Kharechko | E-democracy as a model to improve political participation of citizens: foreign experience[END_REF].

According to J.Parfenova's survey, a low level of trust in public authorities serves a critical factor of e-participation development, affecting the low use of e-participation tools [START_REF] Parfenova | Formation of a stable institutional environment as a condition of communicative efficiency of the network of political participation[END_REF]. Foreign researchers, among the reasons for citizens' low online activity, stressed the insufficient politicians' involvement in e-participation projects. This fact entails the reduction of citizens' confidence and disbelief that their opinions are taken into account in policy-making [START_REF] Charalabidis | Momentum Deliverable 2.7: E-Participation Projects Consolidated Results[END_REF].

A.Golubeva and D. Ishmatova noted that the lack of institutional support and political involvement is a major obstacle to the successful implementation of e-participation [START_REF] Golubeva | E-Democracy in Russia: the formation of the tradition of political awareness and participation[END_REF]. Furthermore, it may be institutional and political resistance to the development of new participation forms, since they can undermine the authority of established political institutions, expanding access to decision-making processes and, as a result, changing the political balance of power [START_REF] Macintosh | E-Participation: The Research Gaps[END_REF]. According to the European studies, poor support for projects at the institutional and administrative levels, as well as resistance to e-participation development usually influence negatively on citizens' activity [START_REF] Charalabidis | Momentum Deliverable 2.7: E-Participation Projects Consolidated Results[END_REF].

According to A.Golubeva and D.Ishmatova findings, the main reason for the low level of citizens' participation is the lack of confidence in the political process and lack of trust in influence on the state policy. These researchers underline the transparency of e-participation results and its impact on political decisions. Also, the initiation of eparticipation projects is likely to face the problem of institutional and political resistance. From the opposite side, the citizens' indifference to political life is another factor impeding the development.

Thus, in the field of e-participation regulatory and institutional environment, a contradictory situation is observed in Russia. On the one hand, ICT is a powerful tool for civic and political participation, and on the other -an effective instrument for political control. This view is also supported by the Russian researchers A. Sokolov and E. Grushina, [START_REF] Sokolov | Terms of development of political activity on the Internet[END_REF] who say that "the spread of the Internet, power delegitimizing, the protest increases, and social tension -all this results in Internet activities' growth. At the same time, the "anti-piracy" law, an attempt to introduce roll-call identification lead to restriction of Internet activity".

Based on literature review, we analyzed research results and revealed more than 30 factors detected by foreign and the Russian scientists. Then we organized an expert research group and systemized them into the following lists of factors that influence the e-participation development:

• human capital characteristics [START_REF] Satish | Contextual Factors, E-Participation, And E-Government Development: Testing A Multiple-Mediation Model[END_REF],

• scale of technological development [START_REF] Astrom | Understanding the rise of e-participation in non-democracies: domestic and international factors[END_REF],

• level of democracy, nature of participation [START_REF] Karlsson | Exploring web participation approaches in public e-services development[END_REF],

• decision-making procedures and its legal acceptance [START_REF] Nour | A Context-Based Integrative Framework for E-Government Initiatives[END_REF];

• institutional and political resistance [START_REF] Macintosh | E-Participation: The Research Gaps[END_REF] / reform orientation [START_REF] Alreemy | Critical Success Factors (CSFs) for Information Technology Governance (ITG)[END_REF]; • different stakeholders' involvement [START_REF] Weerakkody | E-Government Implementation Strategies in Developed and Transition Economies: A Comparative Study[END_REF]:

• digital divide and level of adequate skills [START_REF] Karlsson | Exploring web participation approaches in public e-services development[END_REF] and regional differentiation [START_REF] Domnina | Development of mechanisms of e-democracy in modern Russia[END_REF]:

• privacy concerns and autonomy, identification procedures [START_REF] Gil-Garcia | E-Government Success Factors: Mapping Practical Tools to Theoretical Foundations[END_REF][START_REF] Delopoulos | Barriers and Opportunities for the Adoption of e-Governance services[END_REF];

• trust to e-participation tools [START_REF] Scherer | Trust in e-participation: literature review and emerging needs[END_REF] and government institutions [START_REF] Charalabidis | Momentum Deliverable 2.7: E-Participation Projects Consolidated Results[END_REF];

• level of income and social welfare [START_REF] Lancee | Income inequality and participation: A comparison of 24 European countries[END_REF]; • existence of the monitoring system [START_REF] Bershadskaya | Understanding E-Government Development Barriers in CIS Countries and Exploring Mechanisms for Regional Cooperation[END_REF].

The analysis of research publications leads to the conclusion that the variety of factors makes an impact on e-participation development in both directions, positive and negative. In this research, we used this data to create a questionnaire for experts to assess different factors influence on e-participation in Russia.

Research methodology

In this survey, we understood e-participation as "the process of engaging citizens through ICTs in policy, decision-making, and service design and delivery in order to make it participatory, inclusive, and deliberative" [START_REF]UNDESA: Developing capacity for participatory governance through e-participation: engaging citizens in policy and decision-making process using ICTs[END_REF].

With the aim to detect the factors that influence positively and negatively on e-participation in Russia, we conducted an expert poll survey. The poll has been organized in August-September 2016. The list of experts being invited to the survey included representatives of federal, regional and municipal authorities, scientific structures and IT-companies. The listed consisted of 121 respondents. We also checked the data on active e-participation portals, revealed its' activists and contacted them directly with the purpose to involve this part of the targeted audience in the survey. Ultimately, 41 experts took part in the survey: 39%-from government, 32%-from science and education, 12% -from business, 10% -from NGOs and 7%-active portals' users.

The majority of experts have been working in e-governance and e-participation sphere for 3-10 years. Moreover, 14.6% of them had more than ten years' experience in this field.

The research addressed the following issues:

─ detecting the purpose of e-participation tools development; ─ determine the factors influence positively on e-participation development in Russia: ─ revealing the barriers of e-participation development in Russia.

An automated questionnaire was designed for the survey. The experts received the questionnaire containing questions of closed and open types. According to research methodology, we created lists of barriers and positively influence factors which experts could evaluate using a special scale. The correspondence between the list of factors revealed from the literature review and those appeared in the questionnaire is presented at table 1. In addition, experts were encouraged to supplement the questionnaire with their own suggestions and comments, as well as to provide solutions on the current barriers.

Research findings

The experts were asked to detect the purpose of e-participation tools' development in Russia. This question supposed to show not the experts' knowledge in the regulations but their personal opinions and feelings about the current situation. It's interesting to note, that 1/5 part of experts underlined the optimization of the administrative process, focusing more on civil servants' side than on citizens (fig. 1). It also should be noted that the 3rd most popular answer touched the ostentatious nature of this phenomenon in Russia: the experts supposed that some of the actions in the field of opening governments and involving citizens' in the political process just seemed to act like real eparticipation tools. However, these tools don't work well in real life. Some of the experts also made an accent on the fact that institutions of direct democracy (treatment, civil initiatives) are still more popular in Russia. In this way, the developing tools repeat the political landscape of the state very much. The experts from business companies were rather skeptical about the increasing citizens' activity in the socio-political life of the country. The respondents from science and education sphere often mentioned the desire to meet international standards. While answering this question, the experts could also give their comments on eparticipation tools development. Some experts noted the uneven development of regional e-participation tools, together with the established quite formal purposes. "The goal of creating visibility of public participation and the possibility to make proposals is a dominant at the regional level, with exception of top-ranked regions ", -said the expert -a representative of a scientific structure.

The respondents evaluated the importance of the possible factors e-participation tools development, using a 5-marks scale, where: 1 -not significant, and 5 -very significant. Figure 2 represents average marks which experts gave to all the factors from the proposed list. The study found that the greatest significance belonged the following factors: easy use of tools (about 90% of respondents noted these factors as very significant), civil servants' responsibility for the timely reaction to citizens' requests, and quick feedback. Almost 78% of the respondents indicated a positive impact on e-participation tools development in the case when citizens got real benefits from their involvement in new services creation.

Fig. 2. Factors influencing positively on e-participation development in Russia, experts' evaluation

Among the other important factors listed by the experts, we should note the following:

• a significant number of e-participation successful cases resulted in decision-making;

• mandatory actions on supported decisions, • 100% mandatory publication of the decisions taken by officials and their public evaluation.

Using the same scale, the experts rated the barriers of e-participation development in Russia. Figure 3 summarizes this assessment. The higher average rank in the graph means a higher importance of the existed barrier in Russia.

The most significant barriers to e-participation development, according to experts, linked with the administrative barriers, as well as the absence of a legal framework covering the authorities' working procedures with citizens' electronic applications (80.5% and 75.6% of experts respectively marked them as "very significant" or " rather significant"). The second group of important barriers addressed the human capital issues, such as low level of trust in e-participation tools, lack of motivation while communicating with authorities via the Internet, and insufficient usability level of existed services. During the research, we have summarized experts' proposals to address the most critical issues. The respondents suggested the development of regulations with penalties for the late response to citizens' applications or incomplete feedback. Some experts, however, believed that such mechanisms had already existed and functioned, but due to the lack of responsible civil servants' qualification and/or their insufficient number, the authorities could not cope with the flow of requests effectively.

As a possible way to overcome the low trust, the experts proposed a stronger advertising and promotion of e-participation tools, including information about successful cases of real participation in decision-making processes. It's very important to show not just the cases from international practice, but national stories as well. The experts paid special attention to the transparency and openness of e-participation mechanisms in order to improve the level of citizens' confidence, as well as the feedback efficiency. One of the experts expressed the following opinion: "if participation is anonymous, citizens are willing to participate. While publishing their data caused fears that this information could be used against themselves". As a possible way to improve the situation, the expert pointed out the necessity to save the anonymity of published petitions. Also, the expert highlighted the idea of block-chain technology and external audit introduction in the authorities.

Conclusions

The study found several administrative, regulatory, institutional and human-capital related barriers for e-participation development in Russia. The experts confirmed that the declared purposes of e-participation tools development in Russia related to the improvement of authorities' administrative procedures and providing a way to apply the authorities online. However, the inner nature peculiarities of these initiatives in Russia lead to their low-performance and don't create any benefits for stakeholders. That all results in a low citizens' inclusion in the decision-making processes.

The study showed a correspondence between the key barriers of e-participation tools development and the factors which should be managed to improve the situation:

• administrative barriers and the need to actively involve civil servants' in e-participation tools' usage; • lack of proper regulations and the need to establish civil servants' responsibility for timely reaction to citizens' requests, • low citizens' trust and the proposal to increase personal benefits and motivation in e-participation tools, • insufficient usability and the necessity to provide quick feedback and alerts system.

The research results lead to the assumption that institutional development could provide a positive impact on more comprehensive e-participation tools creation. Another important conclusion is about the opposite effect: if citizens see personal benefit in the proposed e-participation services and their possible ability to influence on state policy, they are ready to overcome the serious administrative and technical barriers on their own. Conversely, the absence of significant values makes administrative and technical barriers insurmountable due to the lack of citizens' interest.

The conducted research has some limitations due to the focus on experts' assessment. Taking into considerations the opinions of active e-participation tools' users (involved in the survey), we tried to reveal those respondents who already used such tools, because it isn't very much popular now. But the opinions of the citizens who don't use the tools, or even don't use the Internet stay unstudied now.

The experts also noted the importance of drawing up a comprehensive evaluation criteria for e-participation assessment including the following parameters: citizens' demand, the tools' credibility, transparency, social needs, qualitative changes as a result of e-participation tools, citizens' level of trust, level of motivation, the degree of influence on the actual decision-making.

The authors are going to continue the future research in the following directions:

─ to expand the scope of the study to cover various target groups among the population; ─ measuring political, social and economic impacts from e-participation tools' use by citizens to find the emerging benefits and opportunities for public values creation; ─ detailed analysis of successful and not successful e-petitions for detection the public mood and forecasting the most critical issues and possible protests.

Fig. 1 .

 1 Fig. 1. Expert's answers to question "What is the purpose of e-participation tools development in Russia?", %

  an opportunity to discuss political life with the link-minded Other Providng a new way to send the complaints Increasing citizens' activity in political life Following international standards Creation a visability of citizens' political inclusion Providing citizens with an opportunity to apply to authorities legally and structured Optimization of the authorities' work

  Civil servants' responsibility for timely reactionEasy registration and use of tools

Fig. 3 .

 3 Fig. 3. Barriers to e-participation development in Russia, experts' evaluation

Table 1 .

 1 The correspondence of the factors used in the survey with the list of factors revealed from literature review

	Literature review	Questionnaire
		Factors for development	Barriers
	Human capital characteristics	Citizens' computer literacy	Low computer literacy
		Citizens' benefits
	Scale of technological development	Easy use	Insufficient usability
		Quality of information
		Quick confirmation, alerts
	Level of democracy, nature of partic-	Leaders and activists' existence	Administrative barriers
	ipation		Lack of motivation
	Decision-making procedures and its	Proper regulations	Administrative barriers
	legal acceptance	Civil servants' responsibility for
		timely response
	Institutional and political resistance/	Political activity	Political indifference
	reform orientation	Promotion
	Different stakeholders' involvement	Business involvement	Lack of motivation and benefits
		NGO's involvement
		Civil servants' active involvement
	Digital divide and level of adequate	Citizens' motivation	Digital divide
	skills

Acknowledgements

This work was conducted with support of the Grant of the President of the Russian Federation to young scientists №MK-5953.2016.6 "The research of e-participation tools development factors in Russian Federation".