Facebook Use in Western European Local Governments: An Overall View

  • Enrique Bonsón
  • Melinda RatkaiEmail author
  • Sonia Royo
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 15)


The objective of this chapter is to provide an initial assessment of Facebook use by Western European municipalities considering two aspects: citizens’ engagement and municipalities’ activity. The sample for this study comprises the 15 earliest member countries of the EU represented by the five largest cities of each. Thus, data on 75 local governments are employed to test the following research questions: (1) How are Western European municipalities using Facebook? and (2) How are citizens engaging with their local government by using Facebook? In order to answer these questions, a set of metrics will be used that can help governments interpret and understand their impact in the use of social media. The answers to these questions will help to determine whether the use of social media is indeed increasing citizen participation in local governance. Results show that the use of Facebook by some of the biggest Western European local governments has become commonplace. Thus, the availability of a Facebook page is confirmed as a symbol of modernity and responsiveness, which may be perceived as particularly necessary for political legitimacy, especially in times of crisis. The audiences of the official Facebook pages of Western European municipalities are rather high. But a high number of fans does not automatically mean an engaged audience and citizen engagement, in general, is still low. Therefore, these findings suggest that the interest is limited on the part of citizens in terms of engaging in conversations with local governments.


European Union Local Government Social Medium Citizen Participation Social Medium Platform 
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 study has been carried out with the financial support of the Spanish National R&D Plan through research projects ECO2010-17463 and ECO2011-28267 (ECON-FEDER).


  1. Agostino, D. (2013). Using social media to engage citizens: A study of Italian municipalities. Public Relations Review, 39(3), 232–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Debei, M. M., Al-Lozi, E., & Papazafeiropoulou, A. (2013). Why people keep coming back to Facebook: Explaining and predicting continuance participation from an extended theory of planned behaviour perspective. Decision Support Systems, 55(1), 43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. (2014). Retrieved April 24, 2014, from
  4. Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 264–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Bonsón, E., Royo, S., & Ratkai, M. (2014). Facebook practices in Western European municipalities: An empirical analysis of activity and citizens’ engagement. Administration and Society. doi: 10.1177/0095399714544945
  7. 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(2), 123–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brainard, L. A., & McNutt, J. G. (2010). Virtual government–citizen relations: Informational, transactional, or collaborative? Administration & Society, 42(7), 836–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bryer, T. A., & Zavattaro, S. M. (2011). Social media and public administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 33, 325–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cabinet Office. (2009). Template Twitter strategy for government departments. London: Government Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
  11. Calder, B. J., Malthouse, E. C., & Schaedel, U. (2009). An experimental study of the relationship between online engagement and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23, 321–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chorianopoulos, I. (2002). Urban restructuring and governance: North-South differences in Europe and the EU URBAN initiative. Urban Studies, 39, 705–772. doi: 10.1080/00420980220119534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coursey, D., & Norris, D. F. (2008). Models of e-government: Are they correct? An empirical assessment. Public Administration Review, 68(3), 523–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ellison, N., & Hardey, M. (2013). Developing political conversations? Information, Communication & Society, 16(6), 878–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Farazmand, A. (2012). The future of public administration: Challenges and opportunities—a critical Perspective. Administration & Society, 44(4), 487–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hansard Society. (2009). MPs online: Connecting with constituents. London: Hansard Society.Google Scholar
  17. Ho, A., & Ni, A. N. (2004). Explaining the adoption of e-government features: a case study of Iowa county treasurers’ offices. American Review of Public Administration, 34(2), 164–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Joseph, R. C. (2012). E-Government meets social media: Realities and risks. IT Professional, 14(6), 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee, G., & Kwak, Y. H. (2012). An open government maturity model for social media-based public engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 492–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meijer, A., Koops, B. J., Pieterson, W., Overman, S., & ten Tije, S. (2012). Government 2.0: Key challenges to its realization. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 10(1), 59–69.Google Scholar
  21. Mergel, I. (2013). Social media adoption and resulting tactics in the U.S. federal government. Government Information Quarterly, 30(2), 123–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mergel, I., & Bretschneider, S. I. (2013). A three-stage adoption process for social media use in government. Public Administration Review, 73(3), 390–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Michel, H. (2005). E-Administration, e-Government, e-Governance and the learning city: A typology of citizenship management using ICTs. The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 3(4), 213–218.Google Scholar
  24. Musso, J., Weare, C., & Hale, M. (2000). Designing web technologies for local governance reform: Good management or good democracy? Political Communication, 17(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Neirotti, P., De Marco, A., Cagliano, A. C., Mangano, G., & Scorrano, F. (2014). Current trends in smart city initiatives: Some stylised facts. Cities, 38, 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Paek, H. J., Hove, T., Jung, Y., & Cole, R. T. (2013). Engagement across three social media platforms: An exploratory study of a cause-related PR campaign. Public Relations Review, 39, 526–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pew Internet Research Center. (2013b). Social media update 2013. Retrieved from
  29. Pew Internet Research Centre. (2013a). The demographics of social media users—2012. Retrieved February 2, 2013, from
  30. Purser, K. (2012). Using social media in local government: 2011 Survey report. Sydney, NSW, Australia: University of Technology, Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government.Google Scholar
  31. Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  32. Royo, S., Yetano, A., & Acerete, B. (2014). E-participation and environmental protection: Are local governments really committed? Public Administration Revie, 74(1), 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schellong, A., & Girrger, P. (2010). Government 2.0 in betaphase a analysis of eParticipation and web 2.0 applications of Germany’s 50 largest cities and 16 federal states (Policy Paper Series). Wiesbaden: CSC.Google Scholar
  34. Snead, J. T. (2013). Social media use in the U.S. executive branch. Government Information Quarterly, 30(1), 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. The Economist. (2011). Latitude. Retrieved March 22, 2013, from
  36. The European Institute. (2012). Europe’s North South divide—A stubborn chasm. Retrieved March 22, 2013, from
  37. Thomas, J. C., & Streib, G. (2005). E-Democracy, e-commerce, and e-research: Examining the electronic ties between citizens and governments. Administration & Society, 37(3), 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tolbert, C. J., & Mossberger, K. (2006). The effects of e-government on trust and confidence in government. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 354–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Torres, L., Pina, V., & Acerete, B. (2006). E-Governance developments in European Union cities: Reshaping government's relationship with citizens. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 19(2), 277–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wright, S. (2009). Political blogs, representation and the public sphere. Aslib Proceedings, 61(2), 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yetano, A., Royo, S., & Acerete, B. (2010). What is driving the increasing presence of citizen participation initiatives? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 28(5), 783–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zavattaro, S. M. (2013). Social media in public administration’s future: A response to Farazmand. Administration & Society, 45(2), 242–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Business AdministrationUniversidad de HuelvaHuelvaSpain
  2. 2.Faculty of Economics and BusinessUniversidad de ZaragozaZaragozaSpain

Personalised recommendations