MP Transparency, Communication Links and Social Media: A Comparative Assessment of 184 Parliamentary Websites

Journal of Legislative Studies

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 526-545

  Joshi, Devin ^a   Rosenfield, Erica ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DENVER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

communication; compulsory voting; democracy; e governance; Members of Parliament; parliamentary websites; parliaments; social media; transparency

Indexed keywords

EID: 84887086358     PISSN: 13572334     EISSN: 17439337     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13572334.2013.811940     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Allen, M. (2009). Civil disobedience and terrorism - Testing the limits of deliberative democracy. Theoria: A Journal of Social & Political Theory, 56(118), 15-39. doi: 10.3167/th.2009.5611803
2. Bell, D. (1973). The coming of post-industrial society: A venture in social forecasting, New York, NY: Basic Books.
3. Benkler, Y. (2007). The wealth of networks, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
4. BerntzenL.HealyM.HahamisP.DunvilleD.EstevesJ. (2006, October), Parliamentary web presence: A comparative review, Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on E-Government Pittsburgh, USA
5. Birch, S. (2009). Full participation: A comparative study of compulsory voting, New York, NY: United Nations University Press.
6. Boyd, D. M., Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1),Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x
7. BrockingtonD. (2005, September), Compulsory voting and political information: A cross-national examination, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association WashingtonDC
8. Carman, C. (2010). The process is the reality: Perceptions of procedural fairness and participatory democracy. Political Studies, 58, 731-751. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2010.00840.x
9. Carter, M. (1999). Speaking up in the Internet age: Use and value of constituent e-mail and congressional web-sites. Parliamentary Affairs, 52(3), 464-479. doi: 10.1093/pa/52.3.464
10. Chadwick, A., May, C. (2003). Interaction between states and citizens in the age of the Internet: 'e-Government' in the United States, Britain, and the European Union. Governance, 16(2), 271-300. doi: 10.1111/1468-0491.00216
11. Cheibub, J. A., Gandhi, J. & Vreeland, J. R. (2009). Democracy dataset. Retrieved 1 April 2011 from https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/cheibub/www/DD_page.html
12. Christensen, T., Laegreid, P. (2005). Trust in government: The relative importance of service satisfaction, political factors and demography. Public Performance and Management Review, 28(4), 487-511.
13. Coghill, K., Donohue, R., Holland, P., Richardson, A., Neesham, C. (2009). Capacity building for new parliamentarians: Survey of orientation and induction programmes. Journal of Legislative Studies, 15(4), 521-534. doi: 10.1080/13572330903302547
14. Coleman, S., Blumler, J. G. (2009). The Internet and democratic citizenship: Theory, practice and policy, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
15. Coleman, S., Taylor, J. A., Van de Donk, W. (1999). Parliament in the information age. Parliamentary Affairs, 52(3), 365-370. doi: 10.1093/pa/52.3.365
16. Dai, X., Norton, P. (2007). Parliamentary democracy online: Lessons from Europe. Journal of Legislative Studies, 13(3), 477-482. doi: 10.1080/13572330701500946
17. Franklin, M. N. (2004). Voter turnout and the dynamics of electoral competition in established democracies since 1945, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
18. Freedom House (2010). Freedom in the world, 2010, Retrieved 1 April 2011 from www.freedomhouse.org
19. Gerring, J., Thacker, S. C. (2008). A centripetal theory of democratic governance, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
20. Griffith, J. C. (2008). ICT in parliaments: Current practices, future possibilities. In United Nations (Eds.), World e-parliament report 2008. New York, NY: United Nations
21. Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2009). Do transparent government agencies strengthen trust?. Information Polity, 14(1), 173-186.
22. Gustafsson, N. (2010). This time it's personal: Social networks, viral politics and identity management. In RihaD.MajA. (Ed.), Emerging practices in cyberculture and social networking, (pp. 3-23). New York, NY: Rodopi.
23. Hall, P. A., Taylor, R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44, 936-957. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00343.x
24. Hartz-Karp, J., Briand, M. K. (2009). Institutionalizing deliberative democracy. Journal of Public Affairs, 9(2), 125-141. doi: 10.1002/pa.320
25. Inglehart, R., Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
26. Inter-Parliamentary Union (2000). Guidelines for the content and structure of parliamentary web sites. Retrieved 5 April 2011 from http://www.ipu.org/cntr-e/web.pdf
27. Inter-Parliamentary Union (2009). Guidelines for parliamentary websites.,Retrieved from http://www.ipu.org/PDF/publications/web-e.pdf
28. Jackman, S. (2001). Voting: Compulsory. In SmelserN. J.BatesP. B. (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences, (pp. 16,314-16,318). Amsterdam: Elsevier.24
29. Jackson, N. (2008). MPs and their e-newsletters: Winning votes by promoting constituency service. Journal of Legislative Studies, 14(4), 488-499. doi: 10.1080/13572330802442923
30. Jackson, N., Lilleker, D. (2011). Microblogging, constituency service and impression management: UK MPs and the use of Twitter. Journal of Legislative Studies, 17(1), 86-105. doi: 10.1080/13572334.2011.545181
31. Kingham, T. (2003). E-Parliaments: The use of information and communication technologies to improve parliamentary processes, Washington, DC: World Bank Institute Working Paper.Retrieved 10 April 2011 from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/WBI/Resources/wbi37210Kingham.pdf
32. Leston-Bandeira, C. (2007). The impact of the Internet on parliaments: A legislative studies framework. Parliamentary Affairs, 60(4), 655-674. doi: 10.1093/pa/gsm040
33. Lijphart, A. (1997). Unequal participation: Democracy's unresolved dilemma. American Political Science Review, 91(1), 1-14. doi: 10.2307/2952255
34. Lindh, M., Miles, L. (2007). Becoming electronic parliamentarians? ICT usage in the Swedish Riksdag. Journal of Legislative Studies, 13(3), 422-440. doi: 10.1080/13572330701500896
35. Linz, J. J. (1994). Presidential or parliamentary democracy: Does it make a difference?. In LinzJ. J.ValenzuelaA. (Ed.), The failure of presidential democracy, (pp. 3-87). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.I
36. Lipset, S. M. (1959). Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy. American Political Science Review, 53, 69-105. doi: 10.2307/1951731
37. Maciel, C., Roque, L., Garcia, A. C. B. (2010). Interaction and communication resources in collaborative e-democratic environments: The democratic citizenship community. Information Polity, 15(1), 73-88.
38. Mambrey, P., Neumann, H., Sieverdingbeck, K. (1999). Bridging the gap between parliament and citizen - The Internet services of the German Bundestag. Parliamentary Affairs, 52(3), 480-492. doi: 10.1093/pa/52.3.480
39. March, J. G., Olsen, J. P. (1984). The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life. American Political Science Review, 78(3), 734-749. doi: 10.2307/1961840
40. Neumayer, C., Raffl, C., Bichler, R. M. (2010). Politics and social software: Recommendations for inclusive ICTs. In RihaD.MajA. (Ed.), Emerging practices in cyber culture and social networking, (pp. 41-62). New York, NY: Rodopi.
41. Nijzink, L., Mozaffar, S., Azevedo, E. (2007). Parliaments and the enhancement of democracy on the African continent: An analysis of institutional capacity and public perceptions. Journal of Legislative Studies, 12(3-4), 311-335. doi: 10.1080/13572330600875563
42. Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
43. Norris, P. (2004a). Deepening democracy via e-governance.,Retrieved 25 April 2011 from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Acrobat/World%20Public%20Sector%20Report.pdf
44. Norris, P. (2004b). Electoral engineering: Voting rules and political behavior, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
45. Norris, P., Lovenduski, J. (1995). Political recruitment: Gender, race and class in the British Parliament, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46. Norton, P. (1994). The growth of the constituency role of the MP. Parliamentary Affairs, 47(4), 705-720.
47. Norton, P. (2007). Four models of political representation: British MPs and the use of ICT. Journal of Legislative Studies, 13(3), 354-369. doi: 10.1080/13572330701500771
48. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2003). Promise and problems of e-democracy: Challenges of online citizen engagement, Paris: Author.
49. Pina, V., Torres, L., Acerete, B. (2007). Are ICTs promoting government accountability? A comparative analysis of e-governance developments in 19 OECD countries. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 18(5), 583-602. doi: 10.1016/j.cpa.2006.01.012
50. Rehfeld, A. (2005). The concept of constituency: Political representation, democratic legitimacy, and institutional design, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
51. Robertson, S. P., Vatrapu, R. K., Medina, R. (2010). Off the wall political discourse: Facebook use in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Information Polity, 15(1), 11-31.
52. Setälä, M., Grönlund, K. (2006). Parliamentary websites: Theoretical and comparative perspectives. Information Polity, 11(1), 149-162.
53. Shirky, C. (2011). The political power of social media: Technology, the public sphere, and political change. Foreign Affairs, 90(1), 28-41.
54. Sobaci, Z. (2010). What the Turkish parliamentary web site offers to citizens in terms of e-participation: A content analysis. Information Polity, 15(3), 227-241.
55. Taylor, J. A., Burt, E. (1999). Parliaments on the web: Learning through innovation. Parliamentary Affairs, 52(3), 503-517. doi: 10.1093/pa/52.3.503
56. Trechsel, A., Kies, R., Mendez, F., Schmitter, P. C. (2003). Evaluation of the use of new technologies in order to facilitate democracy in Europe. Retrieved 20 April 2011 from http://cies.iscte.pt/en/destaques/pdf/1.pdf
57. United Nations (2008). World e-parliament report 2008, New York, NY: Author.
58. United Nations (2010). World e-parliament report 2010, New York, NY: Author.
59. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2008). UN e-government survey 2010: From e-government to connected governance, New York, NY: United Nations.
60. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2010). UN e-government survey 2010: Leveraging e-government at a time of financial and economic crisis, New York, NY: United Nations.
61. van Aaken, A., Voigt, S. (2011). Do individual disclosure rules for parliamentarians improve government effectiveness?. Economics of Governance, 12, 301-324. doi: 10.1007/s10101-011-0100-8
62. Ward, S., Lusoli, W. (2005). 'From weird to wired': MPs, the Internet and representative politics in the UK. Journal of Legislative Studies, 11(1), 57-81. doi: 10.1080/13572330500158276