Open Government, Social Media and Western Balkan Countries

IF 1.6 Q3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Central European Public Administration Review Pub Date : 2018-11-19 DOI:10.17573/CEPAR.2018.2.02
M. Mabić, Dražena Gašpar
{"title":"Open Government, Social Media and Western Balkan Countries","authors":"M. Mabić, Dražena Gašpar","doi":"10.17573/CEPAR.2018.2.02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses the presence and activity on the field of social media in the countries that belonged to the same state in the past: Bosnia and Herzegovina (BIH), Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia – these named as Western Balkan Countries (WBCs) – and, Slovenia and Croatia as EU member states. The authors have analysed the official profiles of the respective countries on social media and calculated the Facebook Assessment Index (FAI) for WBCs, and Croatia and Slovenia as a benchmark. The results show that Twitter and Facebook are the most used social media. In WBCs group, the FAI index could not be calculated for BIH and Serbia, while the other two countries had high index values. Benchmark countries have lower values but they are significantly highlighted by individual sub-indices. The governments of the researched countries mostly publish promotional information about their work. Consequently, they have a relatively small number of friends/followers/subscribers and comments/shares/likes on social media. Therefore, these countries fail to use the full potential of social media to increase visibility and transparency of their work and to ensure communication channel for idea and information exchange between government and citizens, making the public policies design more inclusive and increasing trust between government and citizens. The findings provide an insight into the nature of activity on social media in WBCs. While FAI scores show that WBCs do not lag far behind established benchmarks, the research proves that some of the weights proposed in the literature and used in the calculation of FAI index are too simplified to adequately evaluate posts on the Facebook pages. Hence, this article contributes above all to the awareness regarding further potentials and the interdisciplinary aspects of stately social media usage, in theory and practice alike.","PeriodicalId":53802,"journal":{"name":"Central European Public Administration Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European Public Administration Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17573/CEPAR.2018.2.02","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

This article analyses the presence and activity on the field of social media in the countries that belonged to the same state in the past: Bosnia and Herzegovina (BIH), Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia – these named as Western Balkan Countries (WBCs) – and, Slovenia and Croatia as EU member states. The authors have analysed the official profiles of the respective countries on social media and calculated the Facebook Assessment Index (FAI) for WBCs, and Croatia and Slovenia as a benchmark. The results show that Twitter and Facebook are the most used social media. In WBCs group, the FAI index could not be calculated for BIH and Serbia, while the other two countries had high index values. Benchmark countries have lower values but they are significantly highlighted by individual sub-indices. The governments of the researched countries mostly publish promotional information about their work. Consequently, they have a relatively small number of friends/followers/subscribers and comments/shares/likes on social media. Therefore, these countries fail to use the full potential of social media to increase visibility and transparency of their work and to ensure communication channel for idea and information exchange between government and citizens, making the public policies design more inclusive and increasing trust between government and citizens. The findings provide an insight into the nature of activity on social media in WBCs. While FAI scores show that WBCs do not lag far behind established benchmarks, the research proves that some of the weights proposed in the literature and used in the calculation of FAI index are too simplified to adequately evaluate posts on the Facebook pages. Hence, this article contributes above all to the awareness regarding further potentials and the interdisciplinary aspects of stately social media usage, in theory and practice alike.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
开放政府、社交媒体和西巴尔干国家
本文分析了过去属于同一国家的社会媒体领域的存在和活动:波斯尼亚和黑塞哥维那(BIH),科索沃,黑山,塞尔维亚,前南斯拉夫的马其顿共和国-这些被称为西巴尔干国家(wbc) -以及斯洛文尼亚和克罗地亚作为欧盟成员国。作者分析了各自国家在社交媒体上的官方资料,并计算了wbc的Facebook评估指数(FAI),并将克罗地亚和斯洛文尼亚作为基准。结果显示,Twitter和Facebook是使用最多的社交媒体。在wbc组中,波黑和塞尔维亚的FAI指数无法计算,而其他两个国家的指数值较高。基准国家的价值较低,但它们在个别分类指数中得到了显著突出。被研究国家的政府大多发布有关其工作的宣传信息。因此,他们在社交媒体上的朋友/追随者/订阅者和评论/分享/点赞数量相对较少。因此,这些国家未能充分利用社交媒体的潜力,提高其工作的可见性和透明度,确保政府与公民之间思想和信息交流的沟通渠道,使公共政策设计更具包容性,增加政府与公民之间的信任。这一发现为了解wbc社交媒体活动的本质提供了一个视角。虽然FAI分数表明wbc与既定基准相差不大,但该研究证明,文献中提出的一些权重以及用于计算FAI指数的权重过于简化,无法充分评估Facebook页面上的帖子。因此,本文首先有助于在理论和实践中认识到庄严的社交媒体使用的进一步潜力和跨学科方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
28.60%
发文量
7
期刊最新文献
Absence of an Oral Hearing in Administrative Disputes: Business’ Attitudes Towards Corruption in Selected Central European Countries Selflessness: An International Comparative Analysis of a Much-Needed Public Value Does Context Matter? Governance Models in Local Administration Trends in the Digitalisation of Public Administrations – in Light of EU Legislation and Domestic Developments
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1