This study reveals how consumption values affect e-government sustainability in Ghana, highlighting the role of post-use trust.
Purpose This study aims to analyse the implications of consumption values on sustainable e-government services while considering the mediating role of post-use trust. Design/methodology/approach The study used the variance-based structural equation model to test the hypothesised relationships. Data was collected from 321 participants through online survey. Findings The study revealed that social, epistemic and conditional values influence sustainable e-government. Functional, social, epistemic and conditional values significantly influence post-use trust in e-government services. Meanwhile, post-use trust influences sustainable e-government. Consequently, post-use trust fully mediated the relationship between functional value and sustainable e-government, while it partially mediated the relationship between social, conditional values and sustainable e-government. Research limitations/implications Firstly, data were collected from a section of the Ghanaian population, making it difficult to generalise the findings across the whole country. Besides, the study limited the participants’ experience of e-government to a single portal. Thirdly, cross-sectional data collection was used, making it difficult to track changes in respondents’ opinions. Practical implications Governments and policymakers would be able to prioritise investments in consumption values to reflect their significance towards sustainable e-government whilst promoting confidentiality and security of users’ data to enhance their trust in e-government services. Originality/value This study appears to be the first attempt to examine the multidimensional effect of consumption values on sustainable e-government while considering the mediating role of post-use trust in a developing economy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nimsaah et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: