Organizations do not always embrace strategies, structures, and processes that enhance their performance but, instead, react to and seek ways to accommodate pressures following external scrutiny and regulation.

1. Institutional and Non-Institutional
Influences on Local Governments’
e-Inclusion Program in the Philippines
Randy M. Tacogdoy, DPA
Sungkyunkwan University
University of Antique

2. s
To help address the digital divide
among citizens and communities and to
promote e-Inclusion, the Philippine
Community e-Center (CeC) program
was established.

3. Effective and successful
implementation of CeCs
as a government digital
inclusion program
depends on a multitude
of important and
interrelated factors.

4. Factors that may affect program success
Non-Institutional
External
 Competitive Pressure
Organizational
 Organization Size
 Institutional
Mimetic Pressure
Normative Pressure
Coercive Pressure

5.  Mimetic - results from direct peer imitation that
alleviates organizational uncertainty.
 Normative - results primarily from professional
standardization.
 Coercive - results from external demands
such as formal legal directives or from informal
pressures acting on dependent organizations
that encourage them to assume a particular structure
or meet particular cultural expectations.
 Institutional Theory  Institutional Isomorphic Pressures

6. Objective
To determine the influence of…
a. institutional isomorphic pressures
(mimetic, normative, and coercive); and
b. non-institutional factors of organizational
characteristics (organization size) and
environmental characteristics
(competition intensity)
… on the utilization and performance of
e-Inclusion program in LGUs in the
Philippines.

7. Hypotheses
1. Mimetic, normative, and coercive isomorphic
pressures, and competition among LGUs will
lead to utilization of e-Inclusion program in
local government units.
2. Big LGUs will have less utilization of e-Inclusion
program.

8. Methodology
 Units of analysis:
Municipal government
units with Community
e-Center program
under the eLGU project.
 Out of 98 municipalities,
45 had completed the
survey (46% of the
study population).

9. Methodology
 Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) analysis tested
sampling adequacy and to check the case to variable
ratio.
 Sampling in this study was found adequate at 0.631.
 Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity tested the validity and
suitability of the responses collected to the problem being
addressed through the study.
 Result was highly significant (p < 0.001).
 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was used to test
the factor structure demonstrating the intercorrelation among
the variables. Principal Component Analysis with Varimax
rotation method with Kaiser Normalization was employed.

10. Methodology
 Cronbach's alpha tested the reliability or the
consistency of the item-level errors within a single factor.
 Using the statistical software SPSS-AMOS,
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was
employed to confirm the factor structure extracted in the
EFA.

11. Result of the Exploratory Factor Analysis
(EFA)
Chronbach’s
Alpha
0.870
0.887
0.869
0.818
0.782
Cronbach's alpha should be above 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978).

12. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
Result of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis
(CFA)

13. The Structural Equation Model
(SEM)
Institutional Influences
Non-Institutional Influences

15. Institutional Factors and
CeCs’ Utilization and Performance
 Coercive isomorphic pressure significantly,
directly, and positively influences utilization.
 The greater coercive pressure there is, the more the
CeCs are utilized after an LGU adopts the project.
 Coercive pressure demonstrated indirect,
positive and significant effect to performance
through full mediation of utilization.
 Coercive pressure can have positive rather than
negative effect to performance albeit indirectly.
 Institutional pressure may not always prompt
organizations to trade performance for legitimacy as
opposed to results of other studies.

16.  Strongest influence of coercive
pressure to utilization was from
accountability to national
government (0.89).
 State-driven coercive isomorphism
(DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).
 Authority relations (Scott, 1987)
 The national government as the dominant
organization has a major role to play in
compelling non-dominant organizations
such as the municipal LGUs to support the
operation of their CeCs.
 Accountability to people (0.64) was the least influential
among the three institutional coercive pressures measured.
Institutional Factors and
CeCs’ Utilization and Performance

17. Institutional Factors and
CeCs’ Utilization and Performance
 Mimetic and normative isomorphic pressures
did not show significant influence on utilization
nor performance.
 The first 100 CeCs are pilot projects which may
have limited the mimetic pressure felt by LGUs.
 Positions in the CeCs (Center Manager, Center
Assistant) generally are only intervening tasks for
permanent employees.
 Post-adoption, LGUs with CeCs have limited
professional associations, conferences, or
publications which could serve as a venue for them
to socialize thus limits normative pressure.

18. Non-Institutional Factors and
CeCs Utilization and Performance
 Organizational size (income and population)
has a significant, negative but indirect influence
to performance.
 Bigger LGUs performed worse than smaller LGUs.
 Size is often associated with inertia in the post-
adoptive diffusion of e-business(Zhu and Kraemer,
2005).

19. Non-Institutional Factors and
CeCs’ Utilization and Performance
 External competitive pressure
did not show any significant
influence on utilization nor
performance.
 Competition is not a driving
force to the utilization of
e-Inclusion program among
municipal governments.
 Unlike in the private sector,
LGUs do not always feel the
need to outperform their rivals.

20. Conclusion
 The model generated in the study draws a
complex picture of e-Inclusion program utilization
processes and influences and the complementary
roles played by both organizational features and
institutional forces.
 LGUs are not just capable of generating
institutional pressures but also potentially very
vulnerable to these same pressures.
 This study shed light on the susceptibility of local
government organizations to institutional
isomorphic pressures particularly from higher
government authorities despite decentralization.

21. THANK YOU!