Advertisement

Members of European Parliament (MEPs) on Social Media: Understanding the Underlying Mechanisms of Social Media Adoption and Popularity

  • G. LappasEmail author
  • A. Triantafillidou
  • P. Yannas
Article

Abstract

The present study examines the usage of social media (i.e. Facebook and Twitter) by Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) of the 8th and 7th legislative term. Specifically, it examines the differences in social media usage between MEPs of the current legislature (2014–2019) and MEPs of the preceding period (2009–2014). Moreover, it tests the impact of several predictors on MEPs’ social media adoption and popularity, as measured by the number of social media supporters. Differences in social media usage of MEPs were found to be explained by variables such as parliamentarians’ gender, Euro-party affiliation, and country of origin. Further, the results suggest that the social media popularity of MEPs can be predicted by the European region from which political actors originate, the ideology of their Euro-party affiliation, and the type of committee to which MEPs are assigned. In addition, the study sheds light on how the two platforms (Facebook and Twitter) differ in regard to the factors that impact MEPs’ social media popularity.

Keywords

Social media MEPs European standing committees Social media popularity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Yannacopoulou Anastasia for her constructive comments in the revised version of the manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Vergeer, M., Hermans, L., & Cunha, C. (2013). Web campaigning in the 2009 European Parliament elections: A cross-national comparative analysis. New Media & Society, 15(1), 128–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Scherpereel, J. A., Wohlgemuth, J., & Schmelzinger, M. (2017). The adoption and use of Twitter as a representational tool among Members of the European Parliament. European Politics and Society, 18(2), 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nulty, P., Theocharis, Y., Popa, S. A., Parnet, O., & Benoit, K. (2016). Social media and political communication in the 2014 elections to the European Parliament. Electoral Studies, 44, 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wilde, P., Michailidou, A., & Trenz, H. J. (2014). Converging on Euroscepticism: Online polity contestation during European Parliament elections. European Journal of Political Research, 53(4), 766–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Larsson, A. O. (2015). The EU Parliament on Twitter—Assessing the permanent online practices of parliamentarians. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 12(2), 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Karantzeni, D., & Gouscos, D. (2013). eParticipation in the EU: Re-focusing on social media and young citizens for reinforcing European identity. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 7(4), 477–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Servent, A. R. (2018). The European Parliament. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sweeney, M. (2018). Peak Social Media? Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat fail to make new friends. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/aug/10/peak-social-media-facebook-twitter-and-snapchat-fail-to-make-new-friends. Accessed October 24, 2018.
  9. 9.
    Vaccari, C., & Nielsen, R. K. (2013). What drives politicians’ online popularity? An analysis of the 2010 US midterm elections. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 10(2), 208–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Glassman, M. E., Straus, J. R., & Shogan, C. J. (2013). Social networking and constituent communications: members’ use of Twitter and Facebook during a two-month period in the 112th Congress. CRS Report for Congress. http://piperreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Social-Media-Use-by-Congress-CRS-March-2013.pdf. Accessed October 28, 2018.
  11. 11.
    Vergeer, M., Hermans, L., & Sams, S. (2013). Online social networks and micro-blogging in political campaigning: The exploration of a new campaign tool and a new campaign style. Party Politics, 19(3), 477–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Obholzer, L., & Daniel, W. T. (2016). An online electoral connection? How electoral systems condition representatives’ social media use. European Union Politics, 17(3), 387–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Williams, C.B. & Gulati, G.J. (2010). Communicating with constituents in 140 characters or less: Twitter and the diffusion of technology innovation in the United States Congress. SSRN, http://ssrn.com/paper=1817053.
  14. 14.
    Nielsen, R. K., & Vaccari, C. (2013). Do people “like” politicians on Facebook? Not really. Large-scale direct candidate-to-voter online communication as an outlier phenomenon. International Journal of Communication, 7, 2333–2356.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Westlake, M. (1994). A modern guide to the European Parliament. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rhinard, M. (2002). The democratic legitimacy of the European Union committee system. Governance, 15(2), 185–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Piedrafita, S. (2014). Who calls the shots in the committees of the new European Parliament? CEPS Special Reports. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2531602. Accessed October 22, 2018.
  18. 18.
    McElroy, G. (2006). Committee representation in the European Parliament. European Union Politics, 7(1), 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marcilly, C. (2014). Assessment of and lessons learnt during the 7th Legislature of the European Parliament 2009–2014. European Issues, No. 309. Foundation Robert Schuman Policy Paper. https://www.robert-schuman.eu/en/european-issues/0308-assessment-of-and-lessons-learnt-during-the-7th-legislature-of-the-european-parliament-2009-2014. Accessed October 28, 2018.
  20. 20.
    Whitaker, R. (2011). The European Parliament’s Committees: National party influence and legislative empowerment. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Neuhold, C. (2001). The ‘Legislative Backbone’ keeping the institution upright? The role of European Parliament Committees in the EU Policy-Making Process. European Integration online Papers (EIoP), 5(10), 2018.  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.302785.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yordanova, N. (2009). The rationale behind committee assignment in the European Parliament: Distributive, informational and partisan perspectives. European Union Politics, 10(2), 253–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fasone, C., & Lupo, N. (2015). Transparency vs. informality in legislative committees: Comparing the US House of Representatives, the Italian Chamber of Deputies and the European Parliament. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 21(3), 342–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shahin, J., & Neuhold, C. (2007). ‘Connecting Europe’: The use of ‘new’information and communication technologies within European parliament standing committees. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 13(3), 388–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bogle, G., Champagne, M., Swartz, M., & Hughes, J. (2013). Comparison of congressional social media and cosponsorship networks in the 112th House of Representatives. Paper presented at Sixth annual meeting of the political networks section of the American Political Science Association (APSA). http://www.polinetworks.org/uploads/papers/Twitter_cosponsorship_final_mc.pdf. Accessed October 22, 2018.
  26. 26.
    Porter, M. A., Mucha, P. J., Newman, M. E., & Warmbrand, C. M. (2005). A network analysis of committees in the US House of Representatives. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(20), 7057–7062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chi, F., & Yang, N. (2011). Twitter adoption in Congress. Review of Network Economics, 10(1), 1446–9022.  https://doi.org/10.2202/1446-9022.1255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Daniel, W. T., Obholzer, L., & Hurka, S. (2017). Static and dynamic incentives for Twitter usage in the European Parliament. Party Politics.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068817747755.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bale, T., Green-Pedersen, C., Krouwel, A., Luther, K. R., & Sitter, N. (2010). If you can’t beat them, join them? Explaining social democratic responses to the challenge from the populist radical right in Western Europe. Political Studies, 58(3), 410–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stanyer, J., Salgado, S., & Strömbäck, J. (2016). Populist Actors as Communicators or Political Actors as Populist Communicators. In T. Aalberg, F. Esser, C. Reinemann, J. Stromback, & C. De Vreese (Eds.), Populist political communication in Europe (pp. 353–364). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Digital Media and Communication DepartmentWestern Macedonia University of Applied SciencesKastoriaGreece
  2. 2.Department of Business AdministrationUniversity of West AtticaEgaleo, AthensGreece

Personalised recommendations