Does Facebook penetration improve governance? A re fl ection on the World Governance Indicators of 185 countries
Md. Manjur Morshed and Tanmoy Mazumder
Abstract
Purpose–Social media creates a public sphere, which functions as the third wheel of governance. This study aims to examine the relationship between Facebook penetration and the World Bank’s World Governance Indicators.
Design/methodology/approach – First, a Pearson correlation was estimated between Facebook penetration and governance indicators. Second, ordinary least squares analysis was used to examine a variety of additional economic and population factors, including Facebook penetration. In both instances, the colinearity of the variables is examined.
Findings–The findings indicate that there is no conclusive correlation between Facebook penetration and governance; however, the opposite is true for developing, emerging and least developed countries, though the relationship is not uniform across regions. In addition, per capita gross domestic product and population dynamics, specifically the proportion of the population aged 15–64, have a significant impact on governance measures. The colinearity of the variables suggests that governance is a broad concept, and that the direct correlation between Facebook penetration and governance may be misleading.
Research limitations/implications–Future research should incorporate panel data from other social media platforms, such as Twitter and Reddit, to better understand temporal factors and the relationship between social media penetration and governance.
Practical implications–This paper opens up new avenue for investigation on the impact of social media on governance.
Social implications–This paper can contribute to the complexity of social media as means for voice and accountability. In addition, the paper mentions how social media can be used more neutrally to ensure exposure to diverse perspectives.
Originality/value– The growing importance of the internet and the popularity of social networking websites are generating a great deal of scholarly attention. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there is almost no literature that links Facebook penetration and governance. This paper intends to fill this void.
Keywords Social media, Public realm, Echo-chamber, Threshold effect, Correlation Paper typeResearch paper
1. Introduction
Social media has evolved into an integral part of governance. Due to technological advancements, such as smartphones, affordable internet and user-friendliness, Facebook has grown to be the world’s largest social media platform. As of the first quarter of 2021, there were approximately 2.8 billion monthly active Facebook users, and Facebook remains the world’s most active social media platform (Kemp, 2021). Social media’s penetration, particularly Facebook’s, has ramifications for government and governance. Several implications have been identified, including social movement (Nazmul and Arefin, 2014), online activism (Yang, 2009), political activism (Shaheen, 2008), political change (Attia et al., 2011;Marzoukiet al., 2012), democracy promotion (Jha and Kodila-Tedika, 2020),
Md. Manjur Morshed and Tanmoy Mazumder are both based at Urban and Regional Planning, Khulna University of Engineering and Technology, Khulna, Bangladesh.
Received 28 July 2021 Revised 8 December 2021 7 March 2022
31 May 2022 Accepted 7 July 2022
Conflicts of interest/competing interests:The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Authors’ contributions:The first author claims credit for idea generation, writing and processing the manuscript. The second author was responsible for data collection, analysis and mapping.
public and private service delivery (Obar and Wildman, 2015) and marketing and value cocreation (Marandiet al., 2010). Several other studies examined Facebook’s role in natural resource governance (Kodila-Tedika, 2021). However, almost no literature exists that establishes a link between Facebook penetration and governance. This study seeks to fill that void.
Since the 1970s, the orthodoxy of neo-liberalism has emphasized governance, rather than government, as a means of delivering public services (Lee and McBride, 2007). The existing political system’s failure to respond to the views and needs of all, combined with skepticism toward the for-profit private sector, resulted in the discourse of governance and accountability (Stoker, 1998). Second, neoliberalism stipulates the exchange and coproduction of ideas between the state and civil society–through the establishment of a public realm (Swilling, 1997) –to achieve collective benefit (Morshed and Asami, 2015;
Rakodi, 2003). There are significant arguments against the concepts of governance and accountability discussed previously. To begin, the public realm’s definition became more complicated with the rise of social media as a public platform for exchanging ideas and opinions, as well as for organizing and forming organizations. Social media has increased freedom of expression and facilitated the emergence of new forms of citizen journalism, alternative media and dissent (DeNardis and Hackl, 2015), all of which have a mixed effect on society. Second, the concept of good governance is frequently predicated on the provision of public services. Because governance is a broad concept, assessing its performance is complex and requires the inclusion of a variety of dimensions.
The World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGIs) are the most widely used indicator of governance. Governance is defined by the World Bank as “the traditions and institutions through which a country’s authority is exercised” (Kaufmannet al., 2011, p. 3).
This definition of governance encompasses three broad components. One, the process by which governments are selected, monitored and replaced. Two, the capacity for the formulation and implementation of policies that are both effective and rational. Three, citizens and the state must respect the institutions that govern economic and social interactions. Following that, each component of governance has two measures, totaling six quantifiable indicators of governance. The six governance indicators are as follows:
1. voice and accountability;
2. political stability and the absence of violence/terrorism;
3. government effectiveness;
4. regulatory quality;
5. rule of law; and 6. corruption control.
These six components are intended to capture the capacity of the government to operate, formulate and implement policies and regulate social and economic relations between the state and its citizens (Kaufmannet al., 2011;Kaufmann and Kraay, 2008).
The increasing importance of the internet and the popularity of social networking sites have attracted considerable scholarly interest. Jha and Sarangi (2017), for example, found a negative correlation between global Facebook penetration and corruption.Jha and Kodila- Tedika (2020) found a strong positive correlation between Facebook penetration and democracy, emphasizing that the correlation is stronger in low-income countries than in high- income countries. Similarly, a recent study byAsongu and Odhiambo (2019)established a positive correlation between Facebook penetration and governance through the use of WGIs in low-income African countries (for the classification of countries based on economic status, Fantom and Serajuddin, 2016). Given the significant impact of Facebook penetration on governance, it is critical to ascertain whether the findings ofAsongu and Odhiambo (2019)
apply to other regions’ low-income countries, as well as to middle- and high-income countries. Thus, this study provides a global perspective, encompassing 185 countries.
Against this backdrop, the purpose of this study is to determine the relationship between Facebook penetration and the WGIs. Based on data availability, we attempt to establish a statistical relationship between Facebook penetration and the governance measures in 185 countries worldwide. In addition, we investigate the impact of Facebook penetration on the overall governance of countries with varying economic and socioeconomic statuses. We also take into account four additional factors that positively affect social media use. First, higher-income households are more likely to use social media than lower-income households (Hruska and Maresova, 2020). Thus, the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of a country can be a determinant of social media penetration. Second, young people (18–44 years old) use social media at a higher rate than the rest of the age groups (Hruska and Maresova, 2020;Pew Research Center, 2015). Third, urbanization increases demand for internet connectivity (Craiget al., 2014), resulting in an increase in social media usage. Fourth, because higher education tends to increase social media use (Hruska and Maresova, 2020), and because this study takes a global view, we consider the literacy rate of adults (15 years and older) as a predictor of social media use.
The hypothesis of this paper are the followings:
H1. GDP per capita, the proportion of the population aged 15–64, the proportion of the urban population and the adult literacy rate – these four variables significantly determine the number of Facebook users.
H2. Apart from the aforementioned four factors, Facebook penetration has a positive effect on overall governance measures.
H3. Facebook penetration has a consistent effect on governance across countries of various regions and income/development statuses.
The rest of the sections of the paper are as follows. Section 2 of the paper describes the methods. Sections 3, 4 and 5 encompasses analysis, discussion and conclusion, respectively.
2. Methods 2.1 Study country
The study covers a total of 185 countries. Fifty-two are African, 46 are Asian, 40 are European, 23 are North American, 12 are South American and 12 are Oceanian (Figure 1).
In addition, we classify countries according to their economic status, i.e. developing countries (Table 1), and governance indicators, i.e. the top 50 countries.
2.2 Data
The temporal scope of this study is constrained by data availability. Facebook user data for 2019 is collected from the website of the World Population Review (2021). The WGIs, population, percentage of urban population, percentage of total population ages 15–64, GDP and adult literacy rate by country are collected from the World Bank website (World Bank, 2021).
The World Bank publishes a variety of temporal statistics for each country, with the most recent data available for 2019 (supplemental material). While we attempted to collect all data for 2019, we used the most recent available data in some cases to avoid missing values. For instance, the most recent available data on Argentina’s adult literacy rate is for 2018.Table 2contains descriptive statistics. In addition, a thorough examination of online sources complements the review of journal articles.
Table 2 Descriptive statistics
Variables Mean SD N
Facebook penetration (total Facebook
users/total population) 40.61 23.52 185
GDP per capita (current US$) 16,411.79 24,015.09 184
Urban population (% of the total population) 60.18 23.13 185
Population ages 15–64 (% of the total
population) 63.45 6.15 176
Literacy rate, adult total (% of people age 15
and above) 83.94 17.08 143
Control of corruption (percentile rank) 47.86 29.24 185
Government effectiveness (percentile rank) 48.82 29.34 185
Political stability and absence of violence/
terrorism (percentile rank) 47.64 28.98 185
Regulatory quality (percentile rank) 49.21 29.27 185
Rule of law (percentile rank) 48.44 29.39 185
Voice and accountability (percentile rank) 49.17 28.99 185
Overall governance (Sum of six indicators of
governance) 291.15 161.60 185
Figure 1 Study countries by their Facebook penetration rate
Table 1 Study countries
Region Africa Asia Oceania Europe
North America
South America
Grand Total
Developed region 3 2 32 3 40
Emerging region 5 11 1 3 8 28
Developing region 15 24 6 7 16 4 72
Least developed region 32 8 4 1 45
Grand total 52 46 12 40 23 12 185
2.3 Data processing and analysis method
The total number of Facebook users was divided by the total population to determine the respective countries’ Facebook penetration rate. The aggregate measure of governance is the sum of the normalized values of the six governance indicators (the WGIs).
To reduce data redundancy and improve internal integrity, all data were normalized (0 to 1 range) using the min–max normalization technique (Manimekalai and Kavitha, 2018).
Equation (1)is used to normalize the data.
y¼ ðxmin xð ÞÞ max xð Þ min xð Þ
ð Þ (1)
wherexdenotes the value of a country; min(x) and max(x) denote the lowest and highest values, respectively, among the 185 countries; andydenotes the normalized value ofx.
Pearson’s correlation analysis was used to determine the relationship between Facebook penetration and the WGIs. In addition, we classified countries by governance indicators, economic status and continent. In addition, we examine the colinearity between the WGIs and the five factors, including the rate of Facebook penetration. Finally, ordinary least square (OLS) was used to determine the contribution of Facebook penetration and the remaining (four) factors to the governance measures. IBM SPSS Statistics was used to perform data preprocessing and analysis. ArcGIS was used to create the Facebook penetration map.
3. Results
3.1 Facebook penetration and governance
Table 3summarizes the relationship between Facebook penetration and governance in 185 countries. According to the table, North America has the highest rate of Facebook penetration. South America and Oceania, respectively, have the second and third highest rates of Facebook penetration. Africa has the lowest rate of Facebook penetration. The order of the continents’ Facebook penetration indicates a positive correlation with economic development. Our analysis generally classifies countries into the following categories: all countries; the top and bottom 50 countries by governance measures; developed, developing, emerging and least developed countries; and continents.
Europe is ranked first in terms of governance (Table 3). Oceania and North America come in second and third place, respectively, in terms of governance. Africa, like Facebook penetration, ranks last in governance measures. It is worth noting that countries on the same continent, for example, Japan and Indonesia, differ significantly in terms of governance, population distribution and economic status (Figure 1).
Table 3 Overview of Facebook penetration and overall governance by continents Continent
Study countries
Total population (million)
Total Facebook users (million)
Facebook penetrationrate
Average normalized governance value
North America 23 573.17 374.02 65.26 0.58
South America 12 427.06 266.47 62.40 0.45
Oceania 12 40.83 19.51 47.79 0.64
Europe 40 794.25 323.29 40.70 0.76
Asia 46 4533.07 980.51 21.63 0.42
Africa 52 1297.37 204 15.72 0.28
Note:For example, for North America, average normalized governance = (sum value of 23 countries’ normalized value of governance)/23
3.2 Facebook penetration and the Worldwide Governance Indicators
Pearson’s correlation coefficient between Facebook penetration and the WGIs is shown in Table 4. In addition, the table examines the correlations between countries based on their groupings. Colinearity between various governance indicators is statistically explained in this process.
Table 4 demonstrates that Facebook penetration is positively correlated with the overall governance of all countries and continents. However, there is no significant correlation between the top 50 and bottom 50 countries’ governance measures and Facebook penetration. At the same time, there is no significant correlation between developed countries’ governance measures and Facebook penetration. On the contrary, Facebook penetration and governance measures have a significant positive correlation in developing, emerging and least developed countries.
Individual governance indicators show a significant (at the 0.01 level) positive correlation with Facebook penetration in all countries and continents except Oceania. Similar to the correlation between governance measures and Facebook penetration, there is no significant correlation between the top 50 and bottom 50, nor between developed countries’
control of corruption and Facebook penetration. Rather than that, the control of corruption in developing, emerging and least developed countries is positively correlated with Facebook penetration. As expected, there is a high degree of collinearity between the individual governance indicators and overall governance measures. The remainder ofTable 4is self- explanatory in light of the preceding discussion.
3.3 Facebook penetration and governance across regions
Figure 2 shows that except for Oceania, there is no significant correlation between Facebook penetration and governance for developed countries. On the contrary, developing or least developed countries, or both, show significant correlation between Facebook penetration and governance. A positive correlation between Facebook penetration and governance is noted inTable 4. However, the correlation appears to be significant for developing and least developed countries. This is an indication that Facebook penetration has a threshold effect on governance, which disappears at a particular level of wealth. The threshold effect of Facebook penetration on governance is further explored using OLS analysis in the following section.
3.4 Ordinary least square analysis
An OLS analysis is used to explain overall governance as a function of per capita GDP, the proportion of urban population, the proportion of population aged 15–64 and the adult literacy rate. The results inTable 5 (R-squared 0.633, ANOVA significance level at 0.00) indicate that per capita GDP, the percentage of population aged 15–64 and the rate of Facebook penetration, all significantly explain governance measures (at the 0.05 level). The distribution of residuals was found normal.
The OLS (forward) results indicate that the largest contributor is per capita GDP, which, together with the constant value, accounts for 68% of the variance of the governance measure. (Table 5, Model 1). In addition, the percentage of the population between the ages of 15 and 64 years is a significant factor in determining governance measures. The addition of the percentage of the population aged 15–64 variable in the model explains an additional 9.4% of the governance measures (Table 5, Model 2). GDP per capita, the proportion of the population aged 15–64 and Facebook penetration, in combination with the constant value, account for 80.10% of governance measures (Table 5, Model 3). In terms of overall governance measures, Facebook penetration has a threshold effect of 2.7% (Rvalue change = 0.801–0.774). Similarly, including Facebook penetration in the model explains an
Table 4 Correlation between Facebook penetration and WGIs
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Facebook penetration (1) 1
Overall governance (2)
All country 0.607 1
First 50 countries by overall governance 0.136 1 Last 50 countries by overall governance 0.115 1
Developed countries 0.075 1
Developing countries 0.590 1
Emerging countries 0.547 1
Least developed countries 0.474 1
North America 0.799 1
South America 0.757 1
Oceania 0.775 1
Europe 0.587 1
Asia 0.595 1
Africa 0.470 1
Control of corruption (3)
All country 0.584 0.959 1
First 50 countries by overall governance 0.008 0.794 1 Last 50 countries by overall governance 0.100 0.818 1
Developed countries 0.133 0.913 1
Developing countries 0.618 0.931 1
Emerging countries 0.505 0.963 1
Least developed countries 0.400 0.929 1
Government effectiveness (4)
All country 0.642 0.942 0.905 1
First 50 countries by overall governance 0.032 0.766 0.724 1 Last 50 countries by overall governance 0.273 0.770 0.676 1
Developed countries 0.102 0.886 0.903 1
Developing countries 0.610 0.902 0.872 1
Emerging countries 0.430 0.916 0.873 1
Least developed countries 0.487 0.877 0.812 1
Political stability and absence of violence/terrorism (5)
All country 0.472 0.858 0.792 0.724 1
First 50 countries by overall governance 0.039 0.483 0.209 0.160 1 Last 50 countries by overall governance 0.033 0.487 0.097 0.258 1
Developed countries 0.038 0.713 0.455 0.445 1
Developing countries 0.382 0.829 0.729 0.640 1
Emerging countries 0.452 0.814 0.753 0.672 1
Least developed countries 0.568 0.867 0.714 0.690 1
Regulatory quality (6)
All Country 0.628 0.933 0.867 0.941 0.691 1
First 50 countries by overall governance 0.035 0.726 0.584 0.814 0.016 1 Last 50 countries by overall governance 0.110 0.801 0.611 0.584 0.183 1
Developed countries 0.050 0.934 0.889 0.851 0.499 1
Developing countries 0.576 0.871 0.771 0.892 0.561 1
Emerging countries 0.533 0.924 0.827 0.890 0.647 1
Least developed countries 0.310 0.809 0.760 0.847 0.538 1
Rule of law (7)
All country 0.596 0.971 0.941 0.923 0.801 0.907 1
First 50 countries by overall governance 0.057 0.883 0.702 0.837 0.248 0.785 1 Last 50 countries by overall governance 0.065 0.828 0.804 0.736 0.184 0.620 1
Developed countries 0.168 0.951 0.937 0.887 0.566 0.899 1
Developing countries 0.619 0.942 0.894 0.860 0.725 0.836 1
Emerging countries 0.486 0.943 0.929 0.916 0.716 0.866 1
Least developed countries 0.396 0.956 0.871 0.846 0.778 0.783 1
(continued)
Table 4
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Voice and accountability (8)
All country 0.434 0.869 0.799 0.716 0.742 0.754 0.802 1
First 50 countries by overall governance 0.379 0.640 0.391 0.163 0.124 0.265 0.437 1 Last 50 countries by overall governance 0.035 0.651 0.551 0.225 0.047 0.591 0.424 1
Developed countries 0.018 0.902 0.737 0.703 0.627 0.881 0.800 1
Developing countries 0.247 0.688 0.540 0.407 0.594 0.456 0.552 1
Emerging countries 0.530 0.831 0.811 0.605 0.610 0.746 0.673 1
Least developed countries 0.293 0.846 0.764 0.555 0.726 0.549 0.790 1
Notes:Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two tailed).Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two tailed)
Figure 2 Correlation between the WGIs and Facebook penetration across regions (a) North America; (b) South America; (c) Oceania; (d) Europe; (e) Asia; (f) Africa
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
–1.2 –1 –0.8 –0.6 –0.4 –0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Developed Developing** Least Developed
Emerging
Correlation
–0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Developed Developing Least Developed**
Emerging
Correlation
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Developed** Developing** Least Developed
Emerging
Correlation
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Developed Developing** Least Developed
Emerging
Correlation
–1 –0.8 –0.6 –0.4 –0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Developed Developing** Least Developed*
Emerging
Correlation
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Developed Developing Least Developed**
Emerging
Correlation
Notes: **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two tailed); *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two tailed)
additional 4.2% of data variability (R-squared change 0.42). This indicates that Facebook penetration has effect on governance of middle-income countries (Figure 2), which disappears as countries become wealthy or developed.
Table 6shows the degree of collinearity among the significant factors affecting governance measures. The table demonstrates significant colinearity (at the 0.01 level) between per capita GDP and Facebook penetration (0.433), between the percentage of population aged 15–64 and Facebook penetration (0.579) and between the percentage of urban population and Facebook penetration (0.579). These findings suggest that per capita GDP, as well as the percentage of population aged 15–64 and the percentage of urban population, all have a significant effect on the number of Facebook users.
Similar OLS analysis was performed to ascertain the factors that influence governance on various continents. Africa, Asia, Europe and North America, all had statistically significant results (ANOVA0.05). No significant (at the 0.05 level) factor was found for Oceania and South America. Only per capita GDP was identified as a significant factor in Asian governance. Two factors were found to have significant impacts on Europe’s governance:
per capita GDP and Facebook penetration. No significant factor was found for African and North American governance measures.
4. Discussion
Facebook penetration shows a significant correlation with governance measures in 185 countries. However, when countries are classified into distinct subgroups, the correlations produce mixed results (Table 3). Facebook penetration is not significantly correlated with either the top or bottom 50 countries or with developed country governance measures. On the contrary, correlations are significant across all countries and continents, as well as across the governance measures in developing, emerging and least developed countries.
Previous research on the influence of social media on governance and democracy also produced mixed results.Jha and Sarangi (2017), for example, found a negative correlation between Facebook penetration and corruption control.Jha and Kodila-Tedika (2020)found
Table 6 Co-linearity among factors of overall governance
Factors
Correlations Facebook
penetration
Per capita GDP
Percentage of urban population
Population age 15–64
Literacy rate Facebook penetration 1
Per capita GDP 0.433 1
Urban population 0.579 0.435 1
Population age 15–64 0.579 0.053 0.471 1
Literacy rate 0.150 0.108 0.130 0.141 1
Note:Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two tailed) Table 5 Ordinary least square output
Model R R-square
Adjusted R-square
Std. Error of the Estimate
Change statistics R-square
change Fchange df1 df2 Sig. F change
1 0.680a 0.463 0.458 0.20542753 0.463 112.729 1 131 0.000
2 0.774b 0.600 0.594 0.17793984 0.137 44.599 1 130 0.000
3 0.801c 0.642 0.633 0.16906639 0.042 6.599 1 129 0.011
Notes:aPredictors: (constant), per capita GDP. bPredictors: (constant), per capita GDP and population age 15–64. cPredictors:
(constant), per capita GDP and population age 15–64 and Facebook penetration.dDependent variable: overall governance
a strong positive correlation between social media and democracy, which is stronger in low- income countries than in high-income countries. Asongu and Odhiambo observed a positive correlation between Facebook penetration and governance measures using the WGIs in African contexts (2019). Our finding is consistent with Asongu and Odhiambo (2019), as all African countries belong to developing, emerging or least developed categories. However, this positive correlation between Facebook penetration and governance indicators is not consistent across regions. Correlations are significant for developing countries in Asia, Europe, North America and Oceania, as well as for least developed countries in Africa, Asia and South America, but are less significant for developed and emerging countries.
Three variables were found to be significant in explaining the overall governance measures:
per capita GDP, percentage of population aged 15–64 and Facebook penetration. Among the three variables, per capita GDP has the highest effect, accounting for 68% (Table 5, model 1) of the governance measures. When the percentage of population aged 15–64 is included, an additional 9.4% of governance measures are explained (Table 5, Model 2).
Finally, Facebook penetration has the least impact on governance measures, with a 2.7%
threshold (Table 5, Model 3). As there was no correlation between Facebook penetration and governance measures in developed countries, this provides additional evidence that Facebook penetration has a negligible effect on developed countries’ governance performance. As a result, it can be concluded that developed countries already have a robust governance infrastructure, and that Facebook penetration does not add value to governance measures. On the contrary, Facebook penetration can serve as a compensatory measure for low-income countries’ lack of good governance infrastructure.
Governance is a broad concept, and the WGIs exhibit significant collinearity. As a result, it is understandable that improving a single WGI is difficult without also improving the others (see also Table 4). Collinearity among significant governance factors indicates that per capita GDP, the proportion of urban population and the proportion of population aged 15–64, all contribute significantly to Facebook penetration (Table 6). These findings corroborate prior research indicating that a country’s income (Hruska and Maresova, 2020), urbanization rate (Craiget al., 2014) and young population (Pew Research Center, 2015), all contribute positively to social media use. This, however, reflects the population dynamics of developing, emerging and least developed countries, where the rate of urbanization is high and the population is younger than in developed countries [United Nations (UN), 2019]. We did not find any correlation between Facebook penetration and adult literacy. This is largely due to Facebook’s ease of use, which requires little formal educational. Our findings contradict Asongu and Odhiambo’s (2019)assertion that Facebook penetration benefits African governance, and the evidence in this paper suggests that Asia and Europe’s per capita GDP overwhelmingly determine governance measures.
Governance encompasses more than government. Similarly, governance is more than the accountability for public and private sector service delivery. While we do not delve into specific indicators of the WGIs, governance is intended to facilitate mutual exchange and coproduction of ideas within or between the three intersecting spheres of public, private and civil society (Rakodi, 2003). Thus, the WGIs’ primary component is the voice and accountability indicator. As a social media platform, Facebook enables the exchange of ideas to create a public realm (Swilling, 1997). The findings of this study indicate a significant correlation between Facebook penetration and the governance component of voice and accountability. However, Facebook’s empowerment of voice and accountability has some drawbacks. For instance, in Bangladesh, sectarian violence sparked by a Facebook post compelled the government to pass the Digital Security Act in 2018. On the hind side, the act is frequently criticized as draconian, effectively silencing free speech [Deutsche Welle (DW), 2021].
Governments’ responses to Facebook penetration as a means of expression and accountability vary. Among the positives, government organizations are now using Facebook to share information, collect data and hear out constituents’ grievances. For instance, almost all government organizations in Bangladesh have their own Facebook pages. Even law enforcement agencies have been responding aggressively to viral Facebook posts and incidents (BBC Bangla, 2021). On the contrary, Facebook has been a vehicle for disseminating false information and a battleground for political campaigns. There have been significant concerns about spreading misinformation on social media, particularly during the current COVID-19 pandemic (WHO, 2021). Facebook’s two-tier algorithmic structure functions as a censorship mechanism, limiting exposure to diverse perspectives. Rather than that, it fosters echo-chambers by encouraging the formation of like-minded groups and peers, framing and reinforcing a shared narrative. Among the major social media platforms, namely, Facebook, Twitter and Reddit, Facebook has the most segregated content (Cinelliet al., 2021;Freedom House, 2018).
Globally, internet freedom is eroding, and governments are increasingly targeting social media platforms to stifle information dissemination during antigovernment protests (Kelly et al., 2016). Another well-publicized concern is how Cambridge Analytica used Facebook data during the 2016 US presidential election (Ward, 2018). This is inconsistent with the fundamental concept of governance: “[. . .] the process by which governments are selected, monitored and replaced [. . .] and the respect of the citizens and state for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among them” (Kaufmann and Kraay, 2008). On the one hand, social media platforms are under increasing pressure to moderate content as a result of racial hatred, misinformation and violence. On the other hand, government responses have included information filtering (Yang, 2009), temporary suspension of services and site blocking (Shaheen, 2008) and legal measures, such as Bangladesh’s Digital Security Act. Striking a balance between these two-pronged issues continues to be a challenge.
5. Conclusion
In this paper, we examine Facebook as a means of establishing a public realm conducive to good governance. Following that, we examined the associations between Facebook penetration and governance measures (the WGIs) for 185 countries. First, correlations between Facebook penetration and the WGIs are calculated for all countries and subgroups of countries. Second, colinearity between the WGIs is estimated to demonstrate that the concept of governance is a comprehensive one. Third, an OLSs analysis is used to explain the overall governance measures using Facebook penetration and a few economic and population factors.
The study found that Facebook penetration has an effect on developing, emerging and least developed countries’ governance. The correlations between Facebook penetration and governance measures, on the other hand, are not consistent across regions. On the contrary, Facebook penetration appears to have no effect on developed country governance measures, implying that good governance infrastructure is already in place in developed countries. GDP per capita is the most important determinant, accounting for 68% of governance measures alone. GDP per capita, the proportion of the population aged 15–64 and Facebook penetration, all account for 80.10% of governance measures.
Subsequently, Facebook penetration has a 2.7% threshold effect on governance measures.
In conclusion, our findings indicate that Facebook penetration has a sizable impact on the governance of countries in transition where the good governance infrastructure is still insufficient. The recommendation is that greater emphasis should be placed on expanding access to Facebook in developing countries in Asia, Europe, North America and Oceania, as well as in the least developed countries in Africa, Asia and South America, which can contribute to those countries’ good governance.
Social media platforms have revolutionized the way people associate, organize and engage in online activism. As a result, it has positioned itself as the third wheel of governance, alongside the public and private sectors. However, this paper was unable to establish a direct correlation between Facebook penetration and governance. One of the major limitations is the absence of panel data. As a result, the paper is unable to account for the temporal relationship between Facebook penetration and governance. In addition, the paper ignores qualitative characteristics of internet access such as speed, reliability and use. Second, social media platforms have evolved into more than just a forum for the exchange of ideas in recent years. Extensive use of social media platforms does not imply engagement in the domain of the WGIs. Panel data mining of Facebook, as well as other social media platforms such as Twitter and Reddit, users targeting time spent on WGIs- related echo chambers, can certainly contribute to a better understanding of social media’s impact on governance.
Content moderation and limiting access to information on social media are incompatible with the fundamental principle of establishing a public realm and exposure to diverse viewpoints. Social media platforms can subcontract content moderation responsibilities and, thus, establish polycentric Facebook governance regimes (Medzini, 2022). Similarly, the authority to block websites and restrict access to social media platforms can be delegated to a third-party within a country’s geographic unit to ensure greater access to information and exposure to diverse viewpoints to foster the development of a public realm of governance.
References
Asongu, S.A. and Odhiambo, N.M. (2019), “Governance and social media in African countries: an empirical investigation”, Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 411-425, doi: 10.1016/j.
telpol.2018.10.004.
Attia, A.M., Aziz, N., Friedman, B. and Elhusseiny, M.F. (2011), “Commentary: the impact of social networking tools on political change in Egypt’s ‘revolution 2.0’”,Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 369-374, doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2011.05.003.
BBC Bangla (2021), “Police: reluctance to file a case at the police station, they are active if the incident goes viral on Facebook”, available at:www.bbc.com/bengali/news-57609424
Cinelli, M., De Francisci Morales, G., Galeazzi, A., Quattrociocchi, W. and Starnini, M. (2021), “The echo chamber effect on social media”,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 118 No. 9, p. e2023301118, doi:10.1073/pnas.202330111.
Craig, S.G., Hoang, E. and Kohlhase, J.E. (2014), “The impact of the internet on urban vitality: does closeness in cyber-space substitute for urban space?”, (preliminary draft), available at:www.uh.edu/
kohlhase/CraigHoangKohlhase_internet_WP_Oct_2014.pdf
DeNardis, L. and Hackl, A.M. (2015), “Internet governance by social media platforms”, Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 39 No. 9, pp. 761-770, doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2015.04.003.
Deutsche Welle (DW) (2021), “How is Bangladesh’s digital security act muzzling free speech?” available at:www.dw.com/en/how-is-bangladeshs-digital-security-act-muzzling-free-speech/a-56762799 Fantom, N. and Serajuddin, U. (2016), “The world bank’s classification of countries by income”,World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, available at:http://econ.worldbank.org
Freedom House (2018), “Freedom on the net. The rise of digital authoritarianism”, Washington, DC, available at:https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FOTN_2018_Final_Booklet_11_1_2018.pdf Hruska, J. and Maresova, P. (2020), “Use of social media platforms among adults in the United States– behavior on social media”,Societies, Vol. 10 No. 1, p. 27, doi:10.3390/soc10010027.
Jha, C.K. and Kodila-Tedika, O. (2020), “Does social media promote democracy? Some empirical evidence”,Journal of Policy Modeling, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 271-290, doi:10.1016/j.jpolmod.2019.05.010.
Jha, C.K. and Sarangi, S. (2017), “Does social media reduce corruption?”Information Economics and Policy, Vol. 39, pp. 60-71, doi:10.1016/j.infoecopol.2017.04.001.
Kaufmann, D. and Kraay, A. (2008), “Governance indicators: where are we, where should we be going?”
The World Bank Research Observer, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 1-30, doi:10.1093/WBRO/LKM012.
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A. and Mastruzzi, M. (2011), “The worldwide governance indicators: methodology and analytical issues 1”,Hague Journal on The Rule of Law, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 220-246, doi:10.1017/
S1876404511200046.
Kelly, S., Truong, M., Shahbaz, A., Earp, M., White, J. and Dlougatch, R. (2016), “Silencing the messenger:
communication apps under pressure”, Freedom House, available at: https://web.archive.org/web/
20170621010335/,https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FOTN_2016_BOOKLET_FINAL.pdf Kemp, S. (2021), “Digital 2021 April statshot report — DataReportal – global digital insights”, DataReportal, available at:https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2021-april-global-statshot
Kodila-Tedika, O. (2021), “Natural resource governance: does social media matter?”Mineral Economics, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 127-140, doi:10.1007/s13563-020-00234-3.
Lee, S. and McBride, S. (2007), “Introduction: neo-Liberalism, state power and global governance in the twenty-first century”,Neo-Liberalism, State Power and Global Governance, pp. 1-24, doi:10.1007/978-1- 4020-6220-9_1.
Manimekalai, K. and Kavitha, A. (2018), “Missing value imputation and normalization techniques in myocardial infarction”,ICTACT Journal on Soft Computing, Vol. 3, p. 8, doi:10.21917/ijsc.2018.0230.
Marandi, E., Little, E. and Hughes, T. (2010), “Innovation and the children of the revolution: Facebook and value co-creation”,The Marketing Review, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 169-183, doi:10.1362/146934710x505762.
Marzouki, Y., Skandrani-Marzouki, I., Bejaoui, M., Hammoudi, H. and Bellaj, T. (2012), “The contribution of Facebook to the 2011 Tunisian revolution: a cyberpsychological insight”,Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 237-244, doi:10.1089/CYBER.2011.0177, available at:https://
Home.Liebertpub.Com/Cyber
Medzini, R. (2022), “Enhanced self-regulation: the case of Facebook’s content governance”,New Media
& Society, Vol. 24 No. 10, pp. 2227-2251, doi:10.1177/1461444821989352.
Morshed, M.M. and Asami, Y. (2015), “The role of NGOs in public and private land development: the case of Dhaka city”,Geoforum, Vol. 60, pp. 4-13, doi:10.1016/J.GEOFORUM.2015.01.001.
Nazmul, Md. and Arefin. (2014), “Facebook as a virtual space in formatting new form of social movements: a study on Shahbag uprising”,Dhaka University Institutional Repository, available at:http://
localhost:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/1488
Obar, J.A. and Wildman, S. (2015), “Social media definition and the governance challenge: an introduction to the special issue”,Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 39 No. 9, pp. 745-750, doi:10.1016/j.
telpol.2015.07.014.
Pew Research Center (2015), “Those with lower levels of education are less likely to use social media”, available at:www.pewresearch.org/internet/chart/social-media-users-over-time-by-educational-attainment/
Rakodi, C. (2003), “Politics and performance: the implications of emerging governance arrangements for urban management approaches and information systems”, Habitat International, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 523-547, doi:10.1016/S0197-3975(03)00004-3.
Shaheen, M.A. (2008), “Use of social networks and information seeking behavior of students during political crises in Pakistan: a case study”,International Information & Library Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 142-147, doi:10.1016/j.iilr.2008.07.006.
Stoker, G. (1998), “Public-private partnerships and urban governance”, Partnerships in Urban Governance, pp. 34-51, doi:10.1007/978-1-349-14408-2_3.
Swilling, M. (1997),Governing Africa’s Cities, Witwatersrand University Press.
United Nations (UN) (2019), “2019 revision of world population prospects”, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, available at: www.un.org/development/desa/publications/world- population-prospects-2019-highlights.html
Ward, K. (2018), “Social networks, the 2016 US presidential election, and Kantian ethics: applying the categorical imperative to Cambridge Analytica’s behavioral microtargeting”,Journal of Media Ethics, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 133-148, doi:10.1080/23736992.2018.1477047.
WHO (2021), “Fighting misinformation in the time of COVID-19”,one click at a time, available at:www.who.
int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/fighting-misinformation-in-the-time-of-covid-19-one-click-at-a-time
World Bank (2021), “Data catalogjdata catalog”, available at:https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/
World Population Review (2021), “Facebook users by country 2021”, available at:https://worldpopulationreview.
com/country-rankings/facebook-users-by-country
Yang, G. (2009), “China since Tiananmen: online activism”,Journal of Democracy, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 33-36, doi:10.1353/jod.0.0094.
Supplementary material
The supplementary material for this article can be found online.
Corresponding author
Md. Manjur Morshed can be contacted at:[email protected]
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details:[email protected]