Social Media, Political Institutions and the Principal–Agent Dilemma

  • Andrea Ceron


Chapter 1 presents the theoretical framework of the book. It starts to discuss the transformation from the Web 1.0 to the Web 2.0 and 3.0, to investigate whether this can produce a revolution or, alternatively, politics will continue as usual. After reviewing the existing literature, this chapter proposes two different frameworks, based on the principal–agent dilemma. One focuses on the idea that social media represent a new additional ‘principal’ for politicians. The other considers them as a tool available to traditional principals. These two frameworks will be tested through the book.


  1. Alvarez, M.R., & Hall, T. E. 2011. Electronic Elections: The Perils and Promises of Digital Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anstead, N., & Chadwick, A. (2009). Parties, election campaigning, and the internet: Toward a comparative institutional approach. In: Chadwick, A. & Howard, P.N. (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics. (pp. 56–71). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Avery, E.J., & Graham, M.W. (2013). Political public relations and the promotion of participatory, transparent government through social media. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 7(4), 274–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailard, C.S. (2012). Testing the internet’s effect on democratic satisfaction: A multi-methodological, cross-national approach. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9(2), 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bakker, T.P., and De Vreese, C. H. (2011). Good News for the Future? Young People, Internet Use, and Political Participation. Communication Research, 20(10), 1–20.Google Scholar
  6. Barberá, P. (2015). Birds of the same feather tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using Twitter data. Political Analysis, 23(1), 76–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bastos, M.T., Mercea, D., & Charpentier, A. (2015). Tents, tweets, and events: The interplay between ongoing protests and social media. Journal of Communication, 65(2), 320–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beauchamp, N. (2014). Predicting and interpolating state-level polling using Twitter textual data. Paper presented at the MPSA Annual National Conference, March 2014.Google Scholar
  9. Becher, M., & Sieberer, U. (2008). Discipline, electoral rules and defection in the Bundestag, 1983–94. German Politics, 17(3), 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Benkler, Y. 2006. The Wealth of Networks. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bennett, W.L., & Segerberg, A. 2013. The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bernauer, J., & Bräuninger, T. (2009). Intra-party preference heterogeneity and faction membership in the 15th German Bundestag: A computational text analysis of Parliamentary speeches. German Politics, 18(3), 385–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boireau, M. (2014). Determining political stances from twitter timelines: The belgian parliament case. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Electronic Governance and Open Society: Challenges in Eurasia (pp. 145–151).Google Scholar
  14. Bond, R., & Messing, S. (2015). Quantifying social media’s political space: Estimating ideology from publicly revealed preferences on facebook. American Political Science, 109(1), 62–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Boullianne, S. (2009). Does Internet use effect engagement? A meta-analysis of research. Political Communication, 26(2), 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burnap, P., & Williams, M. L. (2015). Cyber hate speech on twitter: An application of machine classification and statistical modelling for policy and decision making. Policy & Internet, 7(2), 223–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Burson-Marsteller, AA.VV. 2014. Twiplomacy: Heads of State and Government and Foreign Ministers on Twitter. New York: Burson-Marsteller.Google Scholar
  18. Carey, J.M. (2007). Competing principals, political institutions, and party unity in legislative voting. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 92–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carey, J.M. 2009. Legislative Voting and Accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Ceron, A. (2015c). Internet, news and political trust: The difference between social media and online media outlets. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(5), 487–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ceron, A. (2017). Intra-party politics in 140 characters. Party Politics, 23(1), 7–17.Google Scholar
  22. Ceron, A., & Curini, L. (2016). e-Campaigning in the 2014 European elections: The emphasis on valence issues in a two-dimensional multiparty system. Party Politics, 10.1177/1354068816642807.Google Scholar
  23. Ceron, A., & Memoli, V. (2016). Flames and debates: Do social media affect satisfaction with democracy?. Social Indicators Research, 126(1), 225–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ceron, A., & d’Adda, G. (2016). E-campaigning on Twitter: The effectiveness of distributive promises and negative campaign in the 2013 Italian election. New Media & Society, 18(9), 1935–1955.Google Scholar
  25. Ceron, A., Curini, L., Iacus, S.M., & Porro, G. (2014). Every tweet counts? How sentiment analysis of social media can improve our knowledge of citizens’ political preferences with an application to Italy and France. New Media & Society, 16(2), 340–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ceron, A., Curini, L., & Iacus, S.M. (2015). Using sentiment analysis to monitor electoral campaigns: Method matters. Evidence from the United States and Italy. Social Science Computer Review, 33(1), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ceron, A., Curini, L., & Iacus, S.M. 2017. Politics and Big Data: Nowcasting and Forecasting Elections with Social Media. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Chadwick, A., & Stromer-Galley, J. (2016). Digital media, power, and democracy in parties and election campaigns: Party decline or party renewal?. International Journal of Press/Politics, 21(3), 283–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Coleman, S., & Blumler, J.G. 2009. The Internet and Democratic Citizenship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Curini, L., Marangoni, F., & Tronconi, F. (2011). Rebels with a cause – but which one? Defections from legislative party unity in Italy and their individual and institutional determinants. Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica, 41(3), 385–409.Google Scholar
  31. De 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
  32. Dekker, R., & Bekkers, V. (2015). The contingency of governments’ responsiveness to the virtual public sphere: A systematic literature review and meta-synthesis. Government Information Quarterly,
  33. Dimitrova, D.V., Shehata, A., Strömbäck, J., & Nord, L.R. (2014). The effects of digital media on political knowledge and participation in election campaigns: Evidence from panel data. Communication Research, 41(1), 95–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Druckman, J.N., Kifer, M.J., & Parkin, M. (2010). Timeless strategy meets new medium: Going negative on congressional campaign web sites, 2002–2006. Political Communication, 27(1), 88–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ecker, A. (2015). Estimating policy positions using social network data: Cross-validating position estimates of political parties and individual legislators in the polish parliament. Social Science Computer Review, doi:  10.1177/0894439315602662.Google Scholar
  36. Evans, H.K., Cordova, V., and Sipole, S. (2014). Twitter style: An analysis of how house candidates used Twitter in their 2012 campaigns. PS: Political Science & Politics, 47(2), 454–462.Google Scholar
  37. Fox, R.L., & Ramos, J. (Eds.) (2012). iPolitics: Citizens, Elections and Governing in the New Media Era. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Franch, F. (2013). (Wisdom of the Crowds)2: 2010 UK election prediction with social media. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 10(1), 57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gainous, J., & Wagner, K.M. 2014. Tweeting to Power. The Social Media Revolution in American Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Giannetti, D., & Laver, M. (2009). ‘Party cohesion, party discipline, party factions in Italy. In: Giannetti, D. & Benoit, K. (Eds.), Intra-Party Politics and Coalition Government. (pp. 146–168). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Gibson, R.K. (2015). Party change, social media and the rise of ‘citizen-initiated’ campaigning. Party Politics, 21(2), 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gibson, R.K., & McAllister, I. (2014). Normalising or equalising party competition? Assessing the impact of the web on election campaigning. Political Studies, doi:  10.1111/1467–9248.12107.Google Scholar
  43. Gonçalves, G., & Serra, J.P. (Eds.) (2016). Politics and Web 2.0: The Participation Gap. Wilmington: Vernon.Google Scholar
  44. Graham, T., Jackson, D., & Broersma, M. (2016). New platform, old habits? Candidates’ use of Twitter during the 2010 British and Dutch general election campaigns. New Media & Society, 18(5), 765–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Grant, W.J., Moon, B., & Grant, J.B. (2010). Digital dialogue? Australian politicians’ use of the social network tool Twitter. Australian Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 579–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Grimmer, J., & Stewart, B.M. (2013). Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis, 21(3), 267–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Groshek, J., & Dimitrova, D. (2011). A cross-section of voter learning, campaign interest and intention to vote in the 2008 American election: Did Web 2.0 matter?. Communication Studies Journal, 9, 355–375.Google Scholar
  48. Gueorguieva, V. (2008). Voters, Myspace, and Youtube the impact of alternative communication channels on the 2006 election cycle and beyond. Social Science Computer Review, 26(3), 288–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hilbert, M. (2009). The maturing concept of e-democracy: From e-voting and online consultations to democratic value out of jumbled online chatter. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 6(2), 87–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hindman, M. 2009. The Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Hosch-Dayican, B., Chintan, A., & Kees, A. (2016). How do online citizens persuade fellow voters? Using Twitter during the 2012 Dutch parliamentary election campaign. Social Science Computer Review, 34(2), 135–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Howard, P.N. 2005. New Media Campaigns and the Managed Citizen. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Howard, P.N., & Hussain, M.M. (2011). The role of digital media. Journal of Democracy, 22(3), 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Im, T., Cho, W., Porumbescu, G., & Park, J. (2014). Internet, trust in government, and citizen compliance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(3), 741–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Jacobs, K., & Spierings, N. (2016). Social Media, Parties and Political Inequalities. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Jamal, A.A., Keohane, R.O., Romney, D., & Tingley, D. (2015). Anti-Americanism and anti-interventionism in arabic Twitter discourses. Perspectives on Politics, 13(1), 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Karlsson, M., & Åström, J. (2016). The political blog space: A new arena for political representation?. New Media & Society, 18(3), 465–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Khazaeli, S., & Stockemer, D. (2013). The Internet: A new route to good governance. International Political Science Review, 34(5), 463–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. King, G., Pan, J., & Roberts, M.E. (2013). How censorship in China allows government criticism but silences collective expression. American Political Science Review, 107(2), 326–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. King, G. (2014). Restructuring the social sciences: Reflections from Harvard’s institute for quantitative social science. PS: Political Science and Politics, 47(1), 165–172.Google Scholar
  61. Larsson, A.O. (2013). “Rejected bits of program code”: Why notions of “Politics 2.0” remain (mostly) unfulfilled. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 10(1), 72–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Larsson, A.O., & Ihlen, Ø. (2015). Birds of a feather flock together? Party leaders on Twitter during the 2013 Norwegian elections. European Journal of Communication, doi:  10.1177/0267323115595525.Google Scholar
  63. Larsson, A.O., & Svensson, J. (2014). Politicians online – identifying current research opportunities. First Monday, 19(4), 7 April 2014.Google Scholar
  64. Lee, E.-J., & Jang, J.-W. (2013). Not so imaginary interpersonal contact with public figures on social network sites: How affiliative tendency moderates its effects. Communication Research, 40(1), 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lee, E., & Shin, S.Y. (2012). Are they talking to me? Cognitive and affective effects of interactivity in politicians’ Twitter communication. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 15(10), 515–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lilleker, D.G., Koc-Michalska, K., Schweitzer, E.J., Jacunski, M., Jackson, N., & Vedel, T. (2011). Informing, engaging, mobilizing or interacting: Searching for a European model of web campaigning. European Journal of Communication, 26(3), 195–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lipow, A., & Seyd, P. (1996). The politics of anti-partyism. Parliamentary Affairs, 49(2), 273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Livne, A., Simmons, M.P., Adar, E., & Adamic, L.A. (2011). The party is over here: Structure and content in the 2010 election. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  69. Lusoli, W., & Ward, S. (2004). Digital rank-and-file: Party activists’ perceptions and use of the Internet. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 6(4), 453–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Mackay, J.B. (2010). Gadgets, gismos, and the web 2.0 election. In: Hendricks, J.A. & Denton, R.E. jr (Eds.), Communicator‐in‐Chief: How Barack Obama Used New Media Technology to Win the White House (pp. 19–36). Lanham, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  71. Mair, P. (2006). Ruling the void: The hollowing of Western democracy. New Left Review, 42, 25–51.Google Scholar
  72. Margetts, H. (2006). Cyber parties. In: Katz, R.S. & Crotty, W. (Eds.), Handbook of Party Politics (pp. 528–535). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. McNeal, R., Hale, K., & Dotterweich, L. (2008). Citizen–government interaction and the internet: Expectations and accomplishments in contact, quality, and trust. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 5(2), 213–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Mercea, D. (2017). Building contention word-by-word: Social media usage in the European stop ACTA movement. In: Barisione, M. & Michailidou, A. (Eds.), Social Media and European Politics: Rethinking Power and Legitimacy in the Digital Era. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  75. Norris, P. 2011. Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. O’Connor, B., Balasubramanyan, R., Routledge, B. R., & Smith, N. A. (2010). From tweets to polls: Linking text sentiment to public opinion time series. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  77. Parmelee, J.H., & Bichard, S.L. 2012. Politics and the Twitter Revolution: How Tweets Influence the Relationship between Political Leaders and the Public. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  78. Pedersen, K., & Saglie, J. (2005). New technology in ageing parties: Internet use in Danish and Norwegian parties. Party Politics, 11(3), 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Pitkin, H. F. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  80. Scarrow, S.E. 2015. Beyond Party Members: Changing Approaches to Partisan Mobilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Schlozman, K.L., Verba, S., & Brady, H.E. (2010). Weapon of the strong? Participatory inequality and the internet. Perspectives on Politics, 8(2), 487–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Schweitzer, E.J. (2008). Innovation or normalization in e-campaigning? A longitudinal content and structural analysis of German party websites in the 2002 and 2005 national elections. European Journal of Communication, 23(4), 449–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Shapiro, A. 1999. The Control Revolution: How the Internet Is Putting Individuals in Charge and Changing the World We Know. New York: Affairs.Google Scholar
  84. Shirky, C. (2011). The political power of social media. Technology, the public sphere, and political change. Foreign Affairs, 90(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
  85. Sieberer, U. (2015). Using MP statements to explain voting behaviour in the German Bundestag: An individual level test of the Competing Principals Theory. Party Politics, 21(2), 284–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Spirling, A., & Quinn, K.M. (2010). Identifying intra-party voting blocs in the UK House of Commons. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 490, 447–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Stoycheff, E., & Nisbet, E. C. (2014). What’s the bandwidth for democracy? Deconstructing Internet penetration and citizen attitudes about governance. Political Communication, 31(4), 628–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Strandberg, K. (2013). A social media revolution or just a case of history repeating itself? The use of social media in the 2011 Finnish parliamentary elections. New Media & Society, 15(8), 1329–1347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Sudulich, M.L., & Wall, M. (2010). Every little helps: Cyber campaigning in the 2007 Irish general election. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 7(4), 340–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 7(3), 321–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Sunstein, C.R. 2001. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  92. Sylwester, K., & Purver, M. (2015). Twitter language use reflects psychological differences between democrats and republicans. PLoS ONE, 10(9), e0137422. 10.1371/journal.pone.0137422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Tolbert, C.J., & McNeal, R.S. (2003). Unraveling the effects of the internet on political participation?. Political Research Quarterly, 56(2), 175–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Tolbert, C. J., & Mossberger, K. (2006). The effects of e-government on trust and confidence in government. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 354–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Tromble, R. (2016). Thanks for (actually) responding! How citizen demand shapes politicians’ interactive practices on Twitter. New Media & Society, 10.1177/1461444816669158.Google Scholar
  96. Tufekci, Z., & Wilson, C. (2012). Social media and the decision to participate in political protest: Observations from Tahrir square. Journal of Communication, 62(2), 363–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Vaccari, C., & Valeriani, A. (2016). Party campaigners or citizen campaigners? How social media deepen and broaden party-related engagement. International Journal of Press/Politics, 21(3), 294–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Vergeer, M., & Hermans, L. (2013). Campaigning on Twitter: Micro-blogging and online social networking as campaign tools in the 2010 general elections in the Netherlands. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18(4), 399–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Vergeer, M., Hermans, L., & Sam, 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
  100. Waters, R.D., & Williams, J.M. (2011). Squawking, tweeting, cooing, and hooting: Analyzing the communication patterns of government agencies on Twitter. Journal of Public Affairs, 11(4), 353–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Welch, E. W., Hinnant, C.C., & Moon, M. J. (2005). Linking citizen satisfaction with egovernment and trust in government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(3), 371–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Whiteley, P. (2011). Is the party over? The decline of party activism and membership across the democratic world. Party Politics, 17(1), 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Wright, S. (2012). Politics as usual? Revolution, normalization and a new agenda for online deliberation. New Media & Society, 14(2), 244–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Zeitzoff, T., Kelly, J., & Lotan, G. (2015). Using social media to measure foreign policy dynamics: An empirical analysis of the Iranian–Israeli confrontation (2012–13). Journal of Peace Research, doi:  10.1177/0022343314558700.Google Scholar
  105. Barisione, M., & Ceron, A. (2017). A digital movement of opinion? Criticizing austerity through social media. In: Barisione, M. & Michailidou, A. (Eds.), Social Media and European Politics: Rethinking Power and Legitimacy in the Digital Era. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Ceron
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Social and Political SciencesUniversity of MilanMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations