Policymaking in the Times of Social Media: What Has Changed in India? A Study of Telecom Sector ‘s e-Consultation Efforts
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/22pfav22Keywords:
Pre-legislative Consultation, Social Media, Participative Policy-making, web 2.0Abstract
Purpose: This paper aims to study the changes in policymaking brought about by the Government of India‘s adoption and promotion of social media under its Framework & Guidelines for Use of Social Media for Government Organisations (2012). The government states therein that ―the objective for the use of social media is not just to disseminate information but also to undertake public engagement for a meaningful public participation for formulation of public policy‖. The paper aims to capture the changes brought about in the policymaking and governance space as a result of the government opening up online communications channels (social media) with the citizenry. Through a case study of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India‘s e-consultation process, this paper attempts to find out ―the integration of social media environment in policy consultations‖ in India. Methodology/Approach: The paper through a review of literature first explores the concept of social media and establishes whether the current government websites fall in the domain of social media. It reviews how social media is being utilized by various governments across the world in the governance and public policy domain. It then through the case study of Telecom Authority of India website explores e-consultancy in the policy-making domain and analyses the changes brought about with social media. A random analysis of six TRAI consultancy papers is conducted. The methodology adopted includes content analysis of relevant online platforms of TRAI and stakeholder survey to explores citizens‘ perceptions of pre-legislative consultation. The paper then identifies the limitations/lacunae of the current social media use by TRAI. Findings: The paper finds that TRAI website has social media functionalities embedded and is functioning as social media platform to promote participative policy making. However, it finds there are limitations in the approach brought about by lack of active promotion of pre-legislative consultation on external social media platforms. While the TRAI website is a vibrant interactive space, external social media platforms are being used to broadcast official information and for self-promotion. There is little or no attempt to actively engage stakeholders. Although TRAI is at the forefront of pre-legislative consultation online, there is not much action on its other social media functionalities like discussion forum. Research limitations: The paper studies just one government website for government‘s participative policymaking activity using social media. More websites will be studied as part of ongoing research by the author to develop a more holistic picture Practical implications: The paper posits that government websites are social media if they have functionalities of social media embedded and the activities on the website promote networked and participative governance. This opens up space for further research in the field on how government websites can be made social media and used to promote participatory democracy. Secondly, the paper explores how the government has appropriated the media space via its web 2.0 websites and its presence on social media. This line of thinking can be explored further. There is very little literature on Indian governments experiments with social media. The field is vast, and its exploration can yield explosive results with vast implications. Fourth, the study of pre-legislative consultation on web 2.0 websites of the Government of India has deep implications for participatory democracy.
Originality/Value: This exploratory paper sets the path for further research in the field in India and contributes to the development of knowledge on the use of social media by governments to promote democratic values, trust and transparency.
Downloads
References
[1] Abdelsalam, H. M., Reddick, C. G., Gamal, S., & Al-Shaar, A. (2013). Social media in Egyptian government
websites: Presence, usage, and effectiveness. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 406-416.
[2] Agnes Gulyas (2013) THE INFLUENCE OF PROFESSIONAL VARIABLES ON JOURNALISTS‘ USES
AND VIEWS OF SOCIAL MEDIA, Digital Journalism, 1:2, 270-285, DOI: 10.1080/21670811.2012.7
[3] Banday, M. T., & Mattoo, M. M. (2013). Social media in E-governance: A study with special reference to
India. Social Networking, 2(02), 47.
[4] Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory democracy for a new age. Berkley & Los Angeles.
[5] Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: Egovernment and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government information
quarterly, 27(3), 264-271.
[6] Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Hansen, D. (2012). The impact of polices on government social media usage:
Issues, challenges, and recommendations. Government information quarterly, 29(1), 30-40.
[7] Brabham, D. C. (2008). Crowdsourcing as a model for problem solving: An introduction and
cases. Convergence, 14(1), 75-90.
[8] Bretschneider, S. I., & Mergel, I. (2011). Technology and public management information systems. The state
of public administration: Issues, challenges, and opportunities, 187-203.
[9] Bruno, N. (2011). Tweet first, verify later? How real-time information is changing the coverage of worldwide
crisis events. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, 2010-2011.
[10] Charalabidis, Y., & Loukis, E. (2012). Participative public policy making through multiple social media
platforms utilization. International Journal of Electronic Government Research (IJEGR), 8(3), 78-97.
doi:10.1109/ITNG.2010.171
[11] Cho, S. E., & Park, H. W. (2012). Government organizations‘ innovative use of the Internet: The case of the
Twitter activity of South Korea‘s Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries. Scientometrics, 90(1), 9-23.
[12] Cormode, G., & Krishnamurthy, B. (2008). Key differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. First
Monday, 13(6).
[13] Dawes, S. S. (2010, January). Information policy meta-principles: stewardship and usefulness. In System
Sciences (HICSS), 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 1-10). IEEE.
[14] Deuze, M. (2003). The web and its journalisms: considering the consequences of different types of
newsmedia online. New media & society, 5(2), 203-230.. (2001). The elements of journalism. New York:
Crown
[15] F. D. Wigand, "Twitter in Government: Building Relationships One Tweet at a Time," Information
Technology: New Generations, Third International Conference on(ITNG), Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, 2010,
pp. 563-567.
[16] Felten, E. (2009). Government online: Outreach vs. transparency. Retrieved on June, 1, 2010.
[17] Gillmor, D. (2009). Introduction: Toward a (new) media literacy in a media saturated world. In Journalism
and Citizenship (pp. 19-30). Routledge.
[18] Golbeck, J., Grimes, J. M., & Rogers, A. (2010). Twitter use by the US Congress. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(8), 1612-1621.
[19] Head, B. W. (2008). Wicked problems in public policy. Public policy, 3(2), 101.
[20] Hermida, A. (2012). Tweets and truth: Journalism as a discipline of collaborative verification. Journalism
Practice, 6(5-6), 659-668.
[21] Hofmann, Sara & Beverungen, Daniel & Räckers, Michael & Becker, Jörg. (2013). What makes local
governments' online communications successful? Insights from a multi-method analysis of Facebook.
Government Information Quarterly. 30. 387–396. 10.1016/j.giq.2013.05.013.
[22] Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social
Media. Business horizons, 53(1), 59-68.
[23] Kovach, B., & Rosenstiel, T. (2001). Are watchdogs an endangered species?. Columbia Journalism
Review, 40(1), 50.
[24] Lindgren, I., & Jansson, G. (2013). Electronic services in the public sector: A conceptual
framework. Government Information Quarterly, 30(2), 163-172.
[25] Meijer, A., & Thaens, M. (2013). Social media strategies: Understanding the differences between North
American police departments. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 343-350
[26] Mergel, I. (2013). A framework for interpreting social media interactions in the public sector. Government
Information Quarterly, 30(4), 327-334.
[27] Mossberger, K., Wu, Y., & Crawford, J. (2013). Connecting citizens and local governments? Social media
and interactivity in major US cities. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 351-358.
[28] Mundy, D., & Umer, Q. (2012). An analysis of UK Council use of the social network–Twitter. In 12th
European Conference on E-Government (ECEG 2012), Institute of Public Governanance and
Management, ESADE, Campus Sant Cugat, Barcelona.
[29] O‘Reilly, T. (2007). What is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generations software,
September 2005.
[30] Obar, J. A., & Wildman, S. S. (2015). Social media definition and the governance challenge-an introduction
to the special issue.
[31] Osimo, D. (2008). Web 2.0 in government: Why and how. Institute for Prospectice Technological Studies
(IPTS), JRC, European Commission, EUR, 23358.
[32] Ritzer, G., & Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production, consumption, prosumption: The nature of capitalism in the
age of the digital ‗prosumer‘. Journal of consumer culture, 10(1), 13-36.
[33] Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2012). Social media in state governments: Preliminary results
about the use of Twitter in Mexico.
[34] Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2013). Social media in state governments: Preliminary results
about the use of Facebook and twitter in México. In E-government implementation and practice in
developing countries (pp. 128-146). IGI Global.
[35] Zelizer, B. (2004). When facts, truth, and reality are God‐ terms: on journalism's uneasy place in cultural
studies. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 1(1), 100-119.
[36] Zheng, L., & Zheng, T., Innovation through social media in the public sector: Information and interactions,
Government Information Quarterly (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.01.011
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.