Advertisement

Online Activity of Deputies and Public Policy Effectiveness: Moscow Local Authorities’ Case

  • Galina Nikiporets-TakigawaEmail author
  • Olga Popova
  • Victor Kazanin
Conference paper
First Online:
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 947)

Abstract

The paper discusses the growing potential of the social networks to get transparency of the political process which is enhanced through the trans-formation of one-way broadcasting into the interactive communication and involvement of the citizens to the policy making, and then assess the practice of this communication and involvement based on the mapping of the usage of the social networks for the communication of the deputies of the local authorities of the sixteen districts of the largest Moscow okrug with the local citizens. The methodology of the study comprises the assessment of the political communication of the deputies in social networks based on three factors: coverage, activeness and involvement. In view of the worldwide practice, theoretical premises and the up to date Russian legislation we qualify the online professional behavior of the local authorities representatives as violation of the regulation and the effective public policy. Finally, recommendations how to deal with the low level of the online activity of the politicians in view of the effective public policy making are offered.

Keywords

Social networks Public policy Public sphere Political process Information technology Local self government 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Americans’ trust in mass media sinks to new low. Gallup.com. http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trustmass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx. Accessed 06 Mar 03 2018
  2. 2.
    Arceneaux, K., Johnson, M., Murphy, C.: Polarized political communication, oppositional media hostility, and selective exposure. J. Polit. 74, 174–186 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berners-Lee, T., Hall, W., Hendler, J., O’Hara, K., Shadbolt, N., Weitzner, D.: A framework for web science. Found. Trends Web Sci. 1(1), 1–130 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cambridge Analytica: ex-director says firm pitched detailed strategy to Leave.EU. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/17/cambridge-analytica-brittany-kaiser-leave-eu-brexit. Accessed 06 Mar 2018
  5. 5.
    Chadwick, A., Anstead, N.: Parties, election campaigning, and the internet. In: Chadwick, A., Howard, P. (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics, pp. 56–76. Routledge, London, UK (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cicero, M.T.: On the State. MYSL, Moscow (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dahl, R.: On Democracy. Yale University Press, New Haven (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deuze, M.: Media life and the mediatization of the lifeworld. In: Hepp, A., Krotz, F. (eds.) Mediatized Worlds: Culture and Society in a Media Age, pp. 207–220. Palgrave Macmillan, London (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Digital in 2018: world`s internet users pass the four billion mark. We are social. https://wearesocial.com/blog/2018/01/global-digital-report-2018. Accessed 05 May 2018
  10. 10.
    Foot, K., Schneider, S.: Web Campaigning. MIT Press, Cambridge (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guynn, J.: Meet the woman who coined #BlackLivesMatter. USA Today, 03 April 2015Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Habermas, J.: Democracy. Mind. Morality. Nauka, Moscow (1992)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Habermas, J.: The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory. Polity Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Habermas, J.: Structural Change of the Public Sphere. Ves’ Mir, Moscow (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hindman, M.: The Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    How Facebook could help swing the US election. NewScientist (2012). http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22261-how-facebook-could-help-swing-the-us-election.html. Accessed 03 Jan 2014
  17. 17.
    Howard, P., Duffy, A., Freelon, D., Hussain, M., Mari, W., Mazaid, M.: Opening closed regimes: what was the role of social media during the Arab Spring? Project on Information Technology & Political Islam (PITPI) (2011). www.pITPI.org. Accessed 15 Sept 2017
  18. 18.
    Isaac, M., Shane, S.: Facebook’s Russia-linked ads came in many disguises. The New York Times, 10 February 2017Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ivanov, I.S., Zueva, O.O.: The internet-technologies use in electoral campaign (the case of the Moscow mayoral electoral campaign 2013. Locus: People Soc. Cult. Mean. 3, 66–72 (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kazakov, M.Y.: ‘Public sphere’ by J. Habermas: implementation of the online-discourse. Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo universiteta 3(31), 125–130 (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Кovachich L.: Big brother 2.0. How China build digital dictatorship. Moscow Carnegie Center. http://carnegie.ru/commentary/71546. Accessed 06 Apr 2018
  22. 22.
    Lilleker, D.G., Vedel, T.: The Internet in campaigns and elections. In: Dutton, W.H. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Internet Studies, pp. 401–420. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Margolis, M., Resnick, D.: Politics as Usual: The Cyberspace ‘Revolution’. Sage Press, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mazzoleni, G., Schulz, W.: Mediatization of politics: a challenge for democracy? Polit. Commun. 16(3), 247–261 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mikheev, D.S.: Transparency in local government through the prism of the constitutional provisions. Eurasian Advocacy 4(5), 81–83 (2013)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nikiporets-Takigawa, G.: Protest 2:0: through networked consolidation to participation: why Russian Manezhka cannot become Ukrainian Maidan. Russ. J. Commun. 6(3), 246–259 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Norris, P.: Preaching to the Converted? Pluralism, participation and party websites. Party Polit. 9(1), 21–45 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Papacharissi, Z.: The virtual sphere: the internet as a public sphere. New Media Soc. 4(1), 9–27 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Press release No. 3388. Social networks: who goes there and why? https://wciom.ru/index.php?id=236&uid=116254. Accessed 28 May 2018
  30. 30.
    Press release No. 3435. TV vs internet: a dispute of generations. https://wciom.ru/index.php?id=236&uid=116341. Accessed 20 May 2018
  31. 31.
    Sabato, L.: The Year of Obama: how Barack Obama Won the White House. Logman, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shneiderman, B.: Web science: a provocative invitation to computer science. Commun. ACM 50(6), 25–27 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sokolov, A.V., Solovieva, A.V.: Mobilization in sociopolitical campaigns. Vlast’ 21(11), 55–58 (2013)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stanton, J.: The man behind Obama’s online election campaign. Web 2.0 convergence (2009). http://www.digitalcommunitiesblogs.com/web_20_convergence/2009/04/the-man-behind-obamas-online-e.php. Accessed 06 Sept 2018
  35. 35.
    Trippi, J.: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised: Democracy, the Internet and the Overthrow of Everything. Harper Collins, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
  37. 37.
  38. 38.
  39. 39.
    Factors behind the student youth absenteeism in a Russian megacity (St. Petersburg case) project № 106-9131-879 (2017)Google Scholar
  40. 40.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Galina Nikiporets-Takigawa
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Olga Popova
    • 3
  • Victor Kazanin
    • 2
  1. 1.University of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Russian State Social UniversityMoscowRussian Federation
  3. 3.Saint Petersburg State UniversitySankt-PetersburgRussian Federation

Personalised recommendations

Cite paper

Buy options