Role of Politics and Government in Digital Age

• Phong Thanh Nguyen
• Umasih Umasih
• Quyen Le Hoang Thuy To Nguyen
• Vy Dang Bich Huynh
• K. Shankar

Palabras clave: internet, political, government, social.

Resumen

The Internet has changed political conduct, from campaigning and voting for policy change, to dissent and even revolution. This represents a test to states, as political developments become progressively violent, flighty, and social orders harder to govern. To comprehend this drastically changed political world, we are reconsidering the models and theoretical structures of political theory and hypothesis, and creating social information science techniques to comprehend political conduct.

Citas

Dr Victoria Nash, Dr Jonathan Bright, “Digital Era Government and Poli- tics”, Oxford Internet Institute.

Barber, B. R. (2003). Strong democracy: participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press.

Bell, D. (1973). The coming of post-industrial society: a venture in social forecasting. New York: Basic books.

Chadwick, A. (2003). Bringing E-Democracy Back In Why it Matters for Future Research on EGovernance. Social Science Computer Review, 21(4), 443–455.

Borge, R., Colombo, C., & Welp, Y. (2009). Online and Offline Partici- pation at the Local Level. Information, Communication & Society, 12(6), 899–928.

Dahlberg, L. (2011). Re-constructing digital democracy: An outline of four “positions.” New Media & Society, 13(6), 855–872.

Eriksson, S. J. (22102014). Interview with Stefan J. Eriksson.

Firmstone, J., & Coleman, S. (2015). Public engagement in local govern- ment: the voice and influence of citizens in online communicative spaces. Information, Communication & Society, 18(6), 680–695.

Holzer, M., Zheng, Y., Manoharan, A., & Shark, A. (2014). Digital Gov- ernance in Municipalities Worldwide (2013-2014). Newark: National Center for Public Performance.

Kommunal Samling Gagnef. (2015). Kommunal Samling Gagnef.

Lidén, G. (2013). Supply of and demand for e-democracy: A study of the Swedish case. Information Polity, 18(3), 217–232.

Macintosh, A. (2004). Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. In System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii Interna- tional Conference on System Sciences (p. 10 pp.). Hawaii, USA.

Mahrer, H., & Krimmer, R. (2005). Towards the enhancement of e-de- mocracy: identifying the notion of the “middleman paradox.” Information Systems Journal, 15(1), 27–42.

Maseleno, A., Huda, M., Jasmi, K. A., Basiron, B., Mustari, I., Don, A. G., & bin Ahmad, R. (2019). Hau-Kashyap approach for student’s level of expertise. Egyptian Informatics Journal, 20(1), 27-32.

Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide?: civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Putnam, R. D. (1992). Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Reddick, C. G., & Norris, D. F. (2013). Social media adoption at the Amer- ican grass roots: Web 2.0 or 1.5? Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 498–507.

Sæbø, Ø., Rose, J., & Skiftenes Flak, L. (2008). The shape of eParticipa- tion: Characterizing an emerging research area. Government Information Quarterly, 25(3), 400–428.

Scott, J. K. (2006). “E” the People: Do U.S. Municipal Government Web Sites Support Public Involvement? Public Administration Review, 66(3), 341–353.

SKL. (2009). Information till alla - en granskning av kommunernas infor- mation till medborgarna. Stockholm: SKL.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Zakrisson, K. (26012015). Interview with Kris- tina Zakrisson.