Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
MTZ-Fachkongress

Antriebe und Energiesysteme von morgen


Austausch von Automobil- und Energiewirtschaft

Am 14./15. Mai geht es in Chemnitz um die Mobilitätswende durch Elektro- und Wasserstofffahrzeuge.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Buchtitelbild

2017 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

1. Social Media, Political Institutions and the Principal–Agent Dilemma

verfasst von : Andrea Ceron

Erschienen in: Social Media and Political Accountability

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

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.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Nächstes Kapitel Research Design and Methods
Fußnoten
7
Alternative approaches also exist. One of these looks at the network structure of the SNS accounts of voters and political elites to estimate their policy positions (e.g., Barberá 2015; Bond and Messing 2015; Ecker 2015).
 
Literatur
Alvarez, M.R., & Hall, T. E. 2011. Electronic Elections: The Perils and Promises of Digital Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
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.
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.
Barberá, P. (2015). Birds of the same feather tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using Twitter data. Political Analysis, 23(1), 76–91.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
Beauchamp, N. (2014). Predicting and interpolating state-level polling using Twitter textual data. Paper presented at the MPSA Annual National Conference, March 2014.
Becher, M., & Sieberer, U. (2008). Discipline, electoral rules and defection in the Bundestag, 1983–94. German Politics, 17(3), 293–304.CrossRef
Benkler, Y. 2006. The Wealth of Networks. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Bennett, W.L., & Segerberg, A. 2013. The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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).
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.CrossRef
Boullianne, S. (2009). Does Internet use effect engagement? A meta-analysis of research. Political Communication, 26(2), 193–211.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
Burson-Marsteller, AA.VV. 2014. Twiplomacy: Heads of State and Government and Foreign Ministers on Twitter. New York: Burson-Marsteller.
Carey, J.M. (2007). Competing principals, political institutions, and party unity in legislative voting. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 92–107.CrossRef
Carey, J.M. 2009. Legislative Voting and Accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.CrossRef
Ceron, A. (2017). Intra-party politics in 140 characters. Party Politics, 23(1), 7–17.
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.
Ceron, A., & Memoli, V. (2016). Flames and debates: Do social media affect satisfaction with democracy?. Social Indicators Research, 126(1), 225–240.CrossRef
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.
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
Ceron, A., Curini, L., & Iacus, S.M. 2017. Politics and Big Data: Nowcasting and Forecasting Elections with Social Media. London: Routledge.
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.CrossRef
Coleman, S., & Blumler, J.G. 2009. The Internet and Democratic Citizenship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
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.
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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​.
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.
Fox, R.L., & Ramos, J. (Eds.) (2012). iPolitics: Citizens, Elections and Governing in the New Media Era. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Franch, F. (2013). (Wisdom of the Crowds)2: 2010 UK election prediction with social media. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 10(1), 57–71.CrossRef
Gainous, J., & Wagner, K.M. 2014. Tweeting to Power. The Social Media Revolution in American Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Gibson, R.K. (2015). Party change, social media and the rise of ‘citizen-initiated’ campaigning. Party Politics, 21(2), 183–197.CrossRef
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.
Gonçalves, G., & Serra, J.P. (Eds.) (2016). Politics and Web 2.0: The Participation Gap. Wilmington: Vernon.
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
Hindman, M. 2009. The Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
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.CrossRef
Howard, P.N. 2005. New Media Campaigns and the Managed Citizen. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Howard, P.N., & Hussain, M.M. (2011). The role of digital media. Journal of Democracy, 22(3), 35–48.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
Jacobs, K., & Spierings, N. (2016). Social Media, Parties and Political Inequalities. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
Karlsson, M., & Åström, J. (2016). The political blog space: A new arena for political representation?. New Media & Society, 18(3), 465–483.CrossRef
Khazaeli, S., & Stockemer, D. (2013). The Internet: A new route to good governance. International Political Science Review, 34(5), 463–482.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.
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.CrossRef
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​.
Larsson, A.O., & Svensson, J. (2014). Politicians online – identifying current research opportunities. First Monday, 19(4), 7 April 2014.
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
Lipow, A., & Seyd, P. (1996). The politics of anti-partyism. Parliamentary Affairs, 49(2), 273–284.CrossRef
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.
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.CrossRef
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.
Mair, P. (2006). Ruling the void: The hollowing of Western democracy. New Left Review, 42, 25–51.
Margetts, H. (2006). Cyber parties. In: Katz, R.S. & Crotty, W. (Eds.), Handbook of Party Politics (pp. 528–535). London: Sage.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.
Norris, P. 2011. Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
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.
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.
Pedersen, K., & Saglie, J. (2005). New technology in ageing parties: Internet use in Danish and Norwegian parties. Party Politics, 11(3), 359–377.CrossRef
Pitkin, H. F. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Scarrow, S.E. 2015. Beyond Party Members: Changing Approaches to Partisan Mobilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
Shapiro, A. 1999. The Control Revolution: How the Internet Is Putting Individuals in Charge and Changing the World We Know. New York: Affairs.
Shirky, C. (2011). The political power of social media. Technology, the public sphere, and political change. Foreign Affairs, 90(1), 1–9.
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 7(3), 321–326.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
Tolbert, C.J., & McNeal, R.S. (2003). Unraveling the effects of the internet on political participation?. Political Research Quarterly, 56(2), 175–185.CrossRef
Tolbert, C. J., & Mossberger, K. (2006). The effects of e-government on trust and confidence in government. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 354–369.CrossRef
Tromble, R. (2016). Thanks for (actually) responding! How citizen demand shapes politicians’ interactive practices on Twitter. New Media & Society, 10.1177/1461444816669158.
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
Whiteley, P. (2011). Is the party over? The decline of party activism and membership across the democratic world. Party Politics, 17(1), 21–44.CrossRef
Wright, S. (2012). Politics as usual? Revolution, normalization and a new agenda for online deliberation. New Media & Society, 14(2), 244–261.CrossRef
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​.
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.
Metadaten
Titel
Social Media, Political Institutions and the Principal–Agent Dilemma
verfasst von
Andrea Ceron
Copyright-Jahr
2017
Buch
Social Media and Political Accountability

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-52626-3

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-52627-0

Copyright-Jahr: 2017

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52627-0_1