How to Measure the Digital Diplomacy Efficiency: Problems and Constraints

  • Radomir BolgovEmail author
  • Sergey Bogdanovich
  • Vatanyar Yag’ya
  • Marina Ermolina
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 674)


The paper provides preliminary results of the comparative overview of e-participation projects development within the e-governance institutional structure in the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) member-states. The authors analyze (1) Legal base on e-governance and e-participation; (2) E-governance institutions and stuff; (3) Participation instruments of public engagement. In future the authors plan to elaborate the methodology of e-participation processes monitoring in the countries of the EAEU, and to examine the issue of e-governance institutions effectiveness in the EAEU region.

The purpose of research is to identify the challenges and opportunities of government’s digital diplomacy effectiveness assessment. The authors review the up-to-date studies of digital diplomacy effectiveness assessment, generalize the international experience in the evaluation and practical implementation of digital diplomacy, as well as develop the proposals on indicators and criteria of digital diplomacy effectiveness assessment. The authors consider the effectiveness of digital diplomacy on three different levels: the level of information delivered to foreign audience, the level of influence, and the level of interaction with the foreign audience.

The authors find out that foreign policy strategies of leading powers do not contain references to the criteria for digital diplomacy effectiveness, with the exception of the United States. Therefore, the authors have attempted to develop such criteria and constraints that need to be discussed.


Social media Digital diplomacy Influence on audience Effectiveness assessment Evaluation 


  1. 1.
    Abdulateef, E.: USAID’s First Public Engagement Campaign: Measuring Public Engagement. Glob. Media J. 21, 1–8 (2012).
  2. 2.
    Egner, M.: Between Slogans and Solutions. A Frame-Based Assessment Methodology for Public Diplomacy. Pardee RAND Graduate School (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    IT Strategic Plan 2011–2013 Fiscal Years. U.S. Department of State.
  4. 4.
    IT Strategic Plan 2014–2016 Fiscal Years. U.S. Department of State.
  5. 5.
    Kelley, J.R.: Between ‘take-offs’ and ‘crash landings’: situational aspects of public diplomacy. In: Snow, N., Taylor, P.M. (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy, pp. 72–85, Routledge, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kersaint, M.: Exploring Public Diplomacy 2.0. A Comparison of German and U.S. Digital Public Diplomacy in Theory and Practice. Ph.D. Dissertation. Faculty for Cultural Studies, European University Viadrina Frankfurt (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nye, Jr., J.: Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Post can see only 16% of the fans? The truth about the coverage on Facebook, 28 March 2013. (in Russia).
  9. 9.
    The US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy (2010).
  10. 10.
    Zuckerberg should know better In:, 31 December 2013. (in Russian).

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Radomir Bolgov
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sergey Bogdanovich
    • 1
  • Vatanyar Yag’ya
    • 1
  • Marina Ermolina
    • 1
  1. 1.St. Petersburg State UniversitySt. PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations