Framework and Definitions

The literature on institutional regulation related to ICT diffusion reveals a discrepancy in relation to the effects of coordinated efforts made by industry and trade associations and governmental units. This discrepancy is reflected in the body of literature focusing on institutional (especially governmental units) interventions (Lai & Guynes, 1997). Changes in the remote environment (e.g., regulation) and industry structures (Gregor & Johnston, 2001) are viewed as the most powerful causes for ICT adoption (King et al., 1994). Findings from this line of research indicate that deliberate institutional interventions or decisions to refrain from interventions play a vital role in technology diffusion. This position has been challenged by Johnston and Gregor (2000) who argue that "… deliberative coordinated action by an industry as a whole, or units purporting to represent such a group position, may be severely limited in effectiveness." The objective of this chapter is to analyze the nature of the type of deliberate coordinated action Johnston and Gregor (2000) refer to.

To analyze the action plans with respect to EDI diffusion, we make use of a two-by-two matrix (see Table 3) representing institutional involvement (low-high) and degree of EDI diffusion (low-high) in an attempt to categorize data on diffusion from different business sectors and public sector agencies. The intention is not to provide data on businesses or public sector agencies that have adopted EDI or to assess companies' use of EDI, but rather to illustrate the relative priorities with respect to EDI adoption in different business sectors and public sector agencies.

The categories in Table 3 indicate how a group of potential adopters engaged themselves in institutional efforts initiated by the partners involved in the national action plan for EDI. Institutional involvement is here defined as the decisions and nondecisions (Bachrach & Baratz, 1963) taken by governmental units, ministries, and business and trade associations to influence the content of the EDI Action Plan agenda (Laswell, 1936). In our view, the EDI Action Plan is primarily a pedagogical intervention rather than an economic incentive or normative action (Eckhoff, 1983; Henriksen, 2002). We also regard the EDI Action Plan as a discursive forum and leveler rather than as actions per se (Habermas, 1986).