Policy Makers’ Perceptions About Social Media Platforms for Civic Engagement in Public Services. An Empirical Research in Spain

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 25)

Abstract

Policy informatics and Social Network Analysis are new set of theories seeking to explain how governments are embracing new technologies for improving policy making and relational links with citizens. Under this framework, local governments are now moving to the creation of networks for making public decisions and monitoring public actions. This chapter seeks to identify the perceptions of policy makers in Spanish municipalities about the influence of Web 2.0 technologies on: (a) the relational benefits among members of the networks; (b) the capacities of actors to lead these networks and their influence on the design, construction, and management of public sector services; and (c) the capacities of social networks for improving government legitimacy and accountability. Findings indicate that policy makers do not take advantage of the capabilities that have Web 2.0 technologies to enhance the participation of citizens in public sector management, and they only use social media tools as new channels for unidirectional communication and representation of the local government, which limits the capacity of these technologies for citizen engagement in public policies.

Keywords

Web 2.0 technologies Relational benefits Policy informatics Social network analysis 

List of Abbreviations

IAB

IAB Spain Research

ICT

Information and communication technologies

IDA

International Development Association

SNSI

Spanish National Statistics Institute

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was carried out with financial support from the Regional Government of Andalusia (Spain), Department of Innovation, Science and Enterprise (Research project number P11-SEJ-7700).

References

  1. Adam S, Kriesi H (2007) The network approach. Theories Policy Process 2:189–220Google Scholar
  2. Berry J, Portney K, Thomson K (1993) The rebirth of urban democracy. Brookings Institution Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertot JC, Jaeger PT, Hansen D (2012) The impact of polices on government social media usage: issues, challenges, and recommendations. Gov Inf Q 29(1):30–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertot JC, Jaeger PT, Munson S, Glaisyer T (2010) Social media technology and government transparency. Computer 11:53–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bertram D (2007) Likert scales. Retrieved June 28, 2014, from the University of Calgary, Department of Computer Science Web Site: http://poincare.matf.bg.ac.rs/~kristina/topic-dane-likert.pdf
  6. Bonsón E, Torres L, Royo S, Flores F (2012) Local e-government 2.0: social media and corporate transparency in municipalities. Gov Inf Q 29(2):123–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brainard LA, Derrick-Mills T (2011) Electronic commons, community policing, and communication. Adm Theory Prax 33(3):383–410Google Scholar
  8. Briggs XS (2008) Democracy as problem solving: civic capacity in communities across the globe. MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cegarra Navarro JG, Córdoba Pachón JR, Moreno Cegarra JL (2012) E-government and citizen’s engagement with local affairs through e-websites: the case of Spanish municipalities. Int J Inf Manag 32(5):469–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chang AM, Kannan PK (2008) Leveraging web 2.0 in government. IBM Center for the Business of Government, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  11. Chun S, Shulman S, Sandoval-Almazan R, Hovy E (2010) Government 2.0: marking connections between citizens, data and government. Inf Polity 15(1):1–9Google Scholar
  12. Collison D, Lorraine N, Power D (2003) An exploration of corporate attitudes to the significance of environmental information for stakeholders. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 19(4):199–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cordella A, Tempini N (2015) E-government and organizational change: reappraising the role of ICT and bureaucracy in public service delivery. Gov Inf Q 32(3):279–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dawes SS, Helbig N (2015) The value and limits of government information resources for policy informatics. Governance in the Information Era: Theory and Practice of Policy Informatics, 25Google Scholar
  15. Dixon BE (2010) Towards e-government 2.0: an assessment of where e-government 2.0 is and where it is headed. Public Adm Manag 15(2):418–454Google Scholar
  16. Dörry S, Decoville A (2013) Governance and transportation policy networks in the cross-border metropolitan region of Luxembourg: a social network analysis. European Urban and Regional Studies, 0969776413490528Google Scholar
  17. Dunn-Rankin P, Knezek GA, Wallace SR, Zhang S (2004) Scaling methods. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  18. Edelenbos J, Klijn EH, Steijn B (2011) Managers in governance networks: how to reach good outcomes? Int Public Manag J 14(4):420–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Edwards HR, Hoefer R (2010) Are social work advocacy groups using web 2.0 effectively? J Policy Pract 9(3–4):220–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Emerson TLN, Conroy SJ, Stanley W (2007) Ethical attitudes of accountants: recent evidence from a practitioners’ survey. J Bus Ethics 71(1):73–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Furtado BA, Sakowski PAM, Tóvolli MH (2015). A complexity approach for public policies. Discussion Paper, Institute for Applied Economic Research, BrasiliaGoogle Scholar
  22. Gallego R, Barzelay M (2010) Public management policymaking in Spain: the politics of legislative reform of administrative structure, 1991–1997. Governance 23(2):277–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gandía JL, Marrahí L, Huguet D (2016) Digital transparency and web 2.0 in Spanish city councils. Gov Inf Q 33(1):28–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gibson A (2010) Local by social. How local authorities can use social media to achieve more for less. NESTA, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Gomes R, Sousa L (2012) Contributions to the development of local e-government 2.0. Future Internet 4(4):882–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Graells-Costa J (2011) Administración colaborativa y en red. El profesional de la información 20(3):345–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hibbing JR, Theiss-Morse E (2002) Stealth democracy: Americans’ beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ho ATK (2002) Reinventing local governments and the e-government initiative. Public Adm Rev 62(4):434–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hodge DR, Gillespie D (2003) Phrase completions: an alternative to Likert scales. Soc Work Res 27(1):45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Huijboom N, Van den Broek T, Frissen V, Kool L, Kotterink B, Nielsen M, Millard J (2009) Public Services 2.0: The Impact of Social Computing on Public Services. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Joint Research Centre, European Commission, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  31. IAB Spain Research (IAB) (2014) V Estudio Anual de Redes Sociales. IAB, MadridGoogle Scholar
  32. International Development Association (IDA) (2011) Information and communication technology agency of Sri Lanka (ICTA), vol 3. Colombo-05, Sri LankaGoogle Scholar
  33. Jiang M, Xu H (2009) Exploring online structures on Chinese government portals: citizen political participation and government legitimation. Soc Sci Comput Rev 27(2):174–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johnston EW, Desouza KC (eds) (2015) Governance in the information era: theory and practice of policy informatics. Taylor & Francis, Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. KimY, Johnston E (2008) Policy informatics v1. 0. In: Proceedings of the Minnowbrook 3 ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  36. Krishnamurthy R, Bhagwatwar A, Johnston EW, Desouza KC (2013) A glimpse into policy informatics: the case of participatory platforms that generate synthetic empathy. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 33(21):365Google Scholar
  37. Lampe C, LaRose R, Steinfield C, DeMaagd K (2011) Inherent barriers to the use of social media for public policy informatics. Innov J Public Sect Innov J 16(1):1–17Google Scholar
  38. Larsson AO (2013) Bringing it all back home? Social media practices by Swedish municipalities. Eur J Commun 28(6):681–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Leighninger M (2011) Using online tools to engage – and be engaged by – the public. IBM Center for The Business of Government, IBM Center for The Business of Government, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  40. Li D (2011) Online social network acceptance: a social perspective. Internet Res 21(5):562–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Li Q (2013) A novel Likert scale based on fuzzy sets theory. Expert Syst Appl 40(5):1609–1618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Likert R (1932) A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 140:1–55Google Scholar
  43. Linders D (2011) We-government: an anatomy of citizen co-production in the information age. In: Proceedings of the 12th annual international conference on digital government research, DG.O 2011, College Park, MD, USAGoogle Scholar
  44. Linders D (2012) From e-government to we-government: defining a typology for citizen co-production in the age of social media. Gov Inf Q 29(4):446–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Margetts H, Dunleavy P (2013) The second wave of digital-era governance: a quasi-paradigm for government on the web. Philos Trans R Soc A 371:20120382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McMillan P, Medd A, Hughes P (2008) Change the world or the world will change you: the future of collaborative government and web 2.0, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu www.deloitte.com
  47. Meijer A, Thaens M (2010) Alignment 2.0: strategic use of new internet technologies in government. Gov Inf Q 27(2):113–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Meijer A, Thaens M (2013) Social media strategies: understanding the differences between north American police departments. Gov Inf Q 30(4):343–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Meijer AJ, Koops BJ, Pieterson W, Overman S, Tije S (2012) Government 2.0: key challenges to its realization. Electron J e-Gov 10(1):59–69Google Scholar
  50. Mergel I (2013) Social media adoption and resulting tactics in the US federal government. Gov Inf Q 30(2):123–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mergel I (2016) Social media institutionalization in the US federal government. Gov Inf Q 33(1):142–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Moon MJ (2002) The evolution of e-government among municipalities: rhetoric or reality? Public Adm Rev 62(4):424–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Morison J (2010) Gov 2.0: towards a user generated state? Mod Law Rev 73(4):551–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Munro HA, Roberts M, Skelcher C (2008) Partnership governance and democratic effectiveness community leaders and public managers as dual intermediaries. Public Policy Adm 23(1):61–79Google Scholar
  55. Norman G (2010) Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Adv Health Sci Educ 15(5):625–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. O’Reilly T (2007) What is web 2.0: design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Commun Strateg 65:18–37Google Scholar
  57. Oakerson RJ (1999) Governing local public economies: creating the civic metropolis. ICS Press, RichmondGoogle Scholar
  58. Orange Foundation (2014) eEspaña. Informe anual 2014 sobre el desarrollo de la sociedad de la información en España. Fundación Orange, MadridGoogle Scholar
  59. Osimo D (2008) Web 2.0 in Government: Why? and How? Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Joint Research Centre, European Commission. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European CommunitiesGoogle Scholar
  60. Peedu G (2011) Enhancing public service user experience in information society. Master Thesis. Tallinn University, EstoniaGoogle Scholar
  61. Peters BG (2001) The future of governing. University Press of Kansas, LawrenceGoogle Scholar
  62. Picazo-Vela S, Gutiérrez-Martínez I, Luna-Reyes LF (2012) Understanding risks, benefits, and strategic alternatives of social media applications in the public sector. Gov Inf Q 29(4):504–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rodríguez Bolívar MP (2015) Policy makers’ perceptions on the transformational effect of web 2.0 technologies on public services delivery. Electron Commerce Res, 1–28Google Scholar
  64. Roscoe JT (1975) Fundamental research statistics for the behavioural sciences, 2nd edn. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  65. Rowe G, Frewer L (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values 30(2):251–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Russell CJ, Bobko P (1992) Moderated regression analysis and Likert scales: too coarse for comfort. J Appl Psychol 77(3):336–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Saiz MP (2011) La Ley de Economía Sostenible: La sostenibilidad financiera del Sector Público. Revista de Contabilidad y dirección 13:21–42Google Scholar
  68. Scott JK (2006) “E” the people: do U.S. municipal government web sites support public involvement? Public Adm Rev 66(3):341–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Shkabatur J (2011) Cities @ crossroads: digital technology and local democracy in America. Brooklyn Law Rev 76(4):1413Google Scholar
  70. Sirianni C (2009) Investing in democracy: engaging citizens in collaborative governance. Brookings Institution Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  71. Smith KA (2004) Voluntary reporting performance measures to the public: a test of accounting reports from U.S. cities. Int Public Manag J 7(1):19–48Google Scholar
  72. Soderlund M, Rosegren S (2007) Receiving word-of-mouth from the service customer: an emotion-based effectiveness assessment. J Retail Consum Serv 14(2):123–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sørensen E (2004) Democratic governance and the role of public administrators. In: Bogason P, Kensen S, Miller HT (eds) Tampering with tradition: the unrealized authority of democratic agency, pp 107–130Google Scholar
  74. Sørensen E, Torfing J (2011) Enhancing collaborative innovation in the public sector. Adm Soc 43(8):842–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Spanish National Statistics Institute (SNSI) (2014) Internet document available at: http://www.ine.es/inebmenu/mnu_padron.htm. Accessed 1 June 2014
  76. Spector PE (1992) Summated rating scale construction: an introduction. Sage, Newbury ParkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Thaler M, Sunstein C (2009) Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  78. Tuomi I (2002) Theory of innovation: change and meaning in the age of internet. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  79. Tyler TR (2006) Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  80. Valtysson B (2010) Access culture: web 2.0 and cultural participation. Int J Cult Policy 16(2):200–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. van der Graaf A, Otjes S, Rasmussen A (2015) Weapon of the weak? The social media landscape of interest groups Eur J Commun, 0267323115612210Google Scholar
  82. Verdegem P, Verleye G (2009) User-centered E-government in practice: a comprehensive model for measuring user satisfaction. Gov Inf Q 26(3):487–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis: methods and applications, vol 8. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  84. Welch EW (2012) The rise of participative technologies in government. In: Transformational government through eGov practice: Socioeconomic, cultural, and technological issues, pp 347–367Google Scholar
  85. Wirtz BW, Piehler R, Ullrich S (2013) Determinants of social media website attractiveness. J Electron Commerce Res 14(1):11–33Google Scholar
  86. Wonodi CB, Privor-Dumm L, Aina M, Pate AM, Reis R, Gadhoke P, Levine OS (2012) Using social network analysis to examine the decision-making process on new vaccine introduction in Nigeria. Health Policy Plan 27(suppl 2):ii27–ii38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Yang KF, Holzer M (2006) The performance-trust link: implications for performance measurement. Public Adm Rev 66(1):114–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Zeng D (2015) Policy informatics for smart policy-making. IEEE Intell Syst 30(6):2–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Accounting and Finance, Faculty of Business StudiesUniversity of GranadaGranadaSpain

Personalised recommendations