The Use of Facebook to Promote Engagement with Local Governments in Spain

  • Arturo Haro De Rosario
  • Alejandro Sáez Martín
  • María Del Carmen Caba PérezEmail author
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 15)


Social media have changed how governments communicate with society, encouraging participation and the interaction of citizens in public affairs. The main aim of this study is to analyse the online practices of Spanish local governments, through Facebook, to examine the factors that influence these practices and to determine citizens’ mood in this respect. The results obtained show that the popularity and virality of municipal Facebook pages are greater than their followers’ degree of commitment. Users take a positive view of the pages, and the type of information most commonly shared on Facebook by Spanish local governments is of a social nature. Factors that influence local government’s Facebook practices include the level of internet use among the population, the level of municipal debt, the number of inhabitants and the economic capacity of the population.


Social Network Local Government Stakeholder Theory Political Competition Voluntary Disclosure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This research was carried out with financial support from the Regional Government of Andalusia (Spain), Department of Innovation, Science and Enterprise (Research Projects P10-SEJ-06628 and P11-SEJ-7700) and FPU/2013 grant from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (MCINN).


  1. Agostino, D. (2013). Using social media to engage citizens: A study of Italian municipalities. Public Relations Review, 39, 232–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akadwani, A. M. (2014). Gravitating towards Facebook (GoToFB): What it is? and how can it be measured? Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 270–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alcaide, L., Caba, C., & López, A. (2013). Public managers’ perceptions of e-government efficiency: A Case study of Andalusian municipalities. EGPA Annual Conference, 11–13 September 2013, Edinburgh, Scotland.Google Scholar
  4. Alt, J., & Dreyer, D. (2006). Fiscal transparency, political parties, and debt in OECD countries. European Economic Review, 50(6), 1403–1439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonsón, E., Torres, L., Royo, S., & Flores, F. (2012). Local e-government 2.0: Social media and corporate transparency in municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 123–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonsón, E., & Ratkai, M. (2013). A set of metrics to assess stakeholder engagement and social legitimacy on a corporate Facebook page. Online Information Review, 37(5), 787–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonsón, E., Royo, S., & Ratkai, M. (2013). Analysis of European municipalities’ Facebook channels activity and citizens’ engagement. XVII Congreso AECA “Ética y emprendimiento: valores para un nuevo desarrollo”, Pamplona (Spain).Google Scholar
  8. Bonsón, E., Royo, S., & Ratkai, M. (2014). Facebook practices in Western European Municipalities: An empirical analysis of activity and citizens’ engagement. Administration & Society,
  9. Bortree, D., & Seltzer, T. (2009). Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis of environmental advocacy groups’ Facebook profiles. Public Relations Review, 35(3), 317–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bretschneider, S. I., & Mergel, I. (2010). Technology and public management information systems: Where have we been and where are we going. In D. C. Menzel & H. J. White (Eds.), The state of public administration: Issues, problems and challenges (pp. 187–203). New York: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  11. Chi, F., & Yang, N. (2010). Twitter in Congress: Outreach vs. transparency. Social Sciences, 1–20.Google Scholar
  12. Deegan, C. (2006). Legitimacy theory. In Z. Hogue (Ed.), Methodological issues in accounting research: Theories and methods (pp. 161–182). London: Spiramus Press.Google Scholar
  13. Deegan, C., & Samkin, G. (2009). New Zealand financial accounting. Sydney: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  14. Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. The Pacific Sociological Review, 18, 122–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. EC (2003). Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the Re-use of Public Sector Information.
  16. Ellison, N. R., & Hardey, M. (2014). Social media and local government: Citizenship, consumption and democracy. Local Government Studies, 40(1), 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Facebook, (2013a). Key facts. Facebook.
  18. Facebook, (2013b). The annual Facebook emagazine.
  19. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman Press.Google Scholar
  20. Frost, G., & Semaer, M. (2002). Adoption of environmental reporting and management practices: An analysis of New South Wales public sector entities. Financial Accountability and Management, 18, 103–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gallego, I., García, I. M., & Rodríguez, L. (2009). Universities’ websites: Disclosure practices and the revelation of financial information. The International Journal of Digital Accounting Research, 9, 153–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gandía, J. L., & Archidona, M. C. (2008). Determinants of web site information by Spanish city councils. Online Information Review, 32(1), 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gaventa, J., & Valderrama, C. (1999). Participation, citizenship and local governance. Workshop Report. Paper presented at the workshop on strengthening participation in local governance. Institute of Development Studies, June 21–24, 1999, Brighton.Google Scholar
  24. Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G. (2010). Transparency of public decision-making: Towards trust in local government? Policy and Internet, 2(1), 5–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Guthrie, J., Petty, R., & Ricceri, F. (2006). The voluntary reporting of intellectual capital: comparing evidence from Hong Kong and Australia. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7(2), 254–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ho, A. T. K. (2002). Reinventing local governments and the e-government initiative. Public Administration Review, 62(4), 434–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hoffman, D. L., & Fodor, M. (2010). Can you measure the ROI of your social media marketing? MIT Sloan Management Review, 52(1), 40–49.Google Scholar
  28. Hong, H. (2013). Government websites and social media’s influence on government-public relationships. Public Relations Review, 39, 346–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Holzer, M, & Kim, S.T. (2005). Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide, A Longitudinal Assessment of Municipal Web Sites Throughout the World. The E-Governance Institute, Rutgers University, Newark and the Global e-policy e-government Institute, Sungkyunkwan, University.Google Scholar
  30. Huang, C. (2010). Board, ownership and performance of banks with a dual board system: Evidence from Taiwan. Journal of Management and Organization, 16(2), 219–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kent, M., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through World Wide Web. Public Relations Review, 24, 321–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28, 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kent, M., Taylor, M., & White, W. J. (2003). The relationship between web site design and organizational responsiveness to stakeholders. Public Relations Review, 29, 63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Licha, I. (2002). Citizen participation and local government in Latin America: Advances, challenges and best practices. Washington, DC: Inter American Development Bank.Google Scholar
  35. Linders, D. (2011). We-government: An anatomy of citizen coproduction in the information age. Paper presented at the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times, June 12–15, 2011, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  36. McAllister, S. M. (2012). How the world’s top universities provide dialogic forums for marginalized voices. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 319–327.Google Scholar
  37. Moon, M. J. (2002). The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality? Public Administration Review, 62(4), 424–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moreno, M. (2013). 5 métricas en social media para evaluar tu gestión de comunicación.
  39. Nah, S., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Modeling the adoption and use of social media by nonprofit organizations. New Media & Society, 15(2), 294–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. National Institute of Statistics (2012). Spanish National Accounts. National Institute of Statistics.
  41. National Institute of Statistics (2013). Population figures and Demographic Censuses. National Institute of Statistics.
  42. Ni, A. Y., & Bretschneider, S. (2007). The decision to contract out: A study of contracting for e-Government services in state governments. Public Administration Review, 67(3), 531–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Norris, D. F., & Reddick, C. G. (2013). Local e-government in the United States: Transformation or incremental change? Public Administration Review, 73(1), 165–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Oakerson, R. J. (1999). Governing local public economies: Creating the civic metropolis. Richmond, VA: ICS Press.Google Scholar
  45. Peters, K., Chen, Y., Kaplan, A. M., Ognibeni, B., & Pauwels, K. (2013). Social media metrics—A framework and guidelines for managing social media. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 27, 281–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pina, V., Torres, L., & Royo, S. (2010). Is e-government promoting convergence towards more accountable local governments? International Public Management Journal, 13(4), 350–380.Google Scholar
  47. Purser, K. (2012). Using social media in local government: 2011 survey report. Sydney: Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government, University of Technology.Google Scholar
  48. Rodríguez, L., Garcia, I. S., & Gallego, I. (2011). Determining factors of e-Government development: A worldwide national approach. International Public Management Journal, 14(2), 218–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rybalko, S., & Seltzer, T. (2010). Dialogic communication in 140 characters or less: How Fortune 500 companies engage stakeholders using Twitter. Public Relations Review, 36(4), 336–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sæbø, Ø., Rose, J., & Nyvang, T. (2009). The role of social networking services in eParticipation. In A. Macintosh & E. Tambouris (Eds.), Electronic participation: Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 46–55). Linz: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sáez-Martín, A., Haro-de-Rosario, A., & Caba-Perez, C. (2014). A vision of social media in the Spanish smartest cities. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 8(4), 521–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sandoval, R., & Gil, J. R. (2012). Government-citizen interactions using web 2.0 tools: The case of Twitter in Mexico. In C. G. Reddick & S. K. Aikins (Eds.), Web 2.0 technologies and democratic governance: Political, policy and management implications (pp. 233–248). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Serrano, C., Rueda, M., & Portillo, P. (2009). Factors influencing e-disclosure in local public administrations. Environment and Planning C, 27(2), 355–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Snead, J. T. (2013). Social media use in the U.S. Executive branch. Government Information Quarterly, 30, 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Styles, A. K., & Tennyson, M. (2007). The accessibility of financial reporting of U.S. municipalities on the Internet. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, 19(1), 56–92.Google Scholar
  56. Strecker, A. (2011). Flocking to Facebook: How local governments can build citizen engagement. Paper presented at the annual Capstone Conference for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Public Administration Program, Chapel Hill, NC.Google Scholar
  57. Sun, T., & Wu, G. (2012). Traits, predictors, and consequences of Facebook self-presentation. Social Science Computer Review, 30(4), 419–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Takagi, K., Rzepka, R., & Araki, K. (2011). Just keep tweeting, dear: web-mining methods for helping a social robot understand user needs. AAAI Spring Symposium—Technical Report, SS-11-05, 60–65.
  59. Tolbert, C. J., Mossberger, K., & McNeal, R. (2008). Institutions, policy and e-government in the American states. Public Administration Review, 68, 549–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Towner, T. L., & Dulio, D. A. (2012). New media and political marketing in the United States: 2012 and beyond. Journal of Political Marketing, 11(1/2), 95–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. U.S. Census Bureau (2011). U.S. & World Population Clocks.
  62. Waters, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How non-profit organisations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review, 35(2), 102–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Waters, R. D., Tindall, T. J., & Morton, T. S. (2010). Media catching and the journalist—Public relations practitioners relationship: How social media are changing the practice of media relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22(3), 241–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Watt, P. (2004). Financing local government. Local Government Studies, 30(4), 609–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wright, D. K., & Hinson, M. D. (2009). Examining how public relations practitioners actually are using social media. Public Relations Journal, 3(3), 1–33.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arturo Haro De Rosario
    • 1
  • Alejandro Sáez Martín
    • 1
  • María Del Carmen Caba Pérez
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Economics and BusinessUniversity of AlmeríaAlmeríaSpain

Personalised recommendations