1932

Abstract

How do the Internet and social media affect political outcomes? We review empirical evidence from the recent political economy literature, focusing primarily on work that considers traits that distinguish the Internet and social media from traditional off-line media, such as low barriers to entry and reliance on user-generated content. We discuss the main results about the effects of the Internet in general, and social media in particular, on voting, street protests, attitudes toward government, political polarization, xenophobia, and politicians’ behavior. We also review evidence on the role of social media in the dissemination of fake news, and we summarize results about the strategies employed by autocratic regimes to censor the Internet and to use social media for surveillance and propaganda. We conclude by highlighting open questions about how the Internet and social media shape politics in democracies and autocracies.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-081919-050239
2020-08-02
2024-06-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/economics/12/1/annurev-economics-081919-050239.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-081919-050239&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Acemoglu D, Hassan TA, Tahoun A 2018. The power of the street: evidence from Egypt's Arab Spring. Rev. Financ. Stud. 31:1–42
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Adena M, Enikolopov R, Petrova M, Santarosa V, Zhuravskaya E 2015. Radio and the rise of the Nazis in prewar Germany. Q. J. Econ. 130:1885–939
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Algan Y, Guriev S, Papaioannou E, Passari E 2017. The European trust crisis and the rise of populism. Brook. Pap. Econ. Act. Fall 309–82
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Allcott H, Braghieri L, Eichmeyer S, Gentzkow M 2020. The welfare effects of social media. Am. Econ. Rev. 110:3629–76
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Allcott H, Gentzkow M. 2017. Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. J. Econ. Perspect. 31:211–36
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Allcott H, Gentzkow M, Yu C 2019. Trends in the diffusion of misinformation on social media. Res. Politics 6: https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168019848554
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  7. Amorim G, Costa Lima R, Sampaio B 2018. Broadband Internet and protests: evidence from the Occupy movement Work. Pap., Univ. Fed. Pernambuco Recife, Braz.:
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Ananyev M, Xefteris D, Zudenkova G, Petrova M 2019. Information and communication technologies, protests, and censorship Work. Pap., Universitat Pompeu Fabra Barcelona:
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Autor D, Dorn D, Hanson G, Majlesi K 2016. Importing political polarization? The electoral consequences of rising trade exposure NBER Work. Pap 22637
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Autor D, Dorn D, Hanson G, Majlesi K 2017. A note on the effect of rising trade exposure on the 2016 presidential elections Work. Pap., Mass. Inst. Technol Cambridge:
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bail CA, Guay B, Maloney E, Combs A, Hillygus DS et al. 2020. Assessing the Russian Internet Research Agency's impact on the political attitudes and behaviors of American Twitter users in late 2017. PNAS 117:243–50
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bakshy E, Messing S, Adamic LA 2015. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science 348:1130–32
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Barberá P. 2015. How social media reduces mass political polarization: evidence from Germany, Spain, and the US Work. Pap., New York Univ New York:
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Barberá P, Wang N, Bonneau R, Jost JT, Nagler J et al. 2015. The critical periphery in the growth of social protests. PLOS ONE 10:e0143611
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Barrera O, Guriev S, Henry E, Zhuravskaya E 2020. Facts, alternative facts, and fact checking in times of post-truth politics. J. Public Econ. 182:104123
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Besley T, Prat A. 2006. Handcuffs for the grabbing hand? Media capture and government accountability. Am. Econ. Rev. 96:720–36
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Bessone P, Campante F, Ferraz C, Souza PC 2019. Internet access, social media, and the behavior of politicians: evidence from Brazil Work. Pap., Mass. Inst. Technol Cambridge:
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bond RM, Fariss CJ, Jones JJ, Kramer ADI, Marlow C et al. 2012. A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature 489:295–98
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Boxell L, Gentzkow M, Shapiro JM 2017. Greater Internet use is not associated with faster growth in political polarization among US demographic groups. PNAS 114:10612–17
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Bursztyn L, Egorov G, Enikolopov R, Petrova M 2019. Social media and xenophobia: evidence from Russia NBER Work. Pap 26567
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Cagé J. 2020. Media competition, information provision and political participation: evidence from French local newspapers and elections, 1944–2014. J. Public Econ. 185:104077
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Campante F, Durante R, Sobbrio F 2018. Politics 2.0: the multifaceted effect of broadband Internet on political participation. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 16:1094–136
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Cantoni D, Yang DY, Yuchtman N, Zhang YJ 2019. Protests as strategic games: experimental evidence from Hong Kong's antiauthoritarian movement. Q. J. Econ. 134:1021–77
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Chen Y, Yang DY. 2019. The impact of media censorship: 1984 or brave new world. Am. Econ. Rev. 109:2294–332
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Colantone I, Stanig P. 2018. The trade origins of economic nationalism: import competition and voting behavior in Western Europe. Am. J. Political Sci. 62:936–53
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Conover M, Ratkiewicz J, Francisco M, Goncalves B, Menczer F, Flammini A 2011. Political polarization on Twitter Paper presented at the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media Barcelona, Spain: July 17–21
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Dal Bó E, Finan F, Folke O, Persson T, Rickne J 2018. Economic losers and political winners: Sweden's radical right Work. Pap., Univ. Calif Berkeley:
    [Google Scholar]
  28. DellaVigna S, Gentzkow M. 2010. Persuasion: empirical evidence. Annu. Rev. Econ. 2:643–69
    [Google Scholar]
  29. DellaVigna S, La Ferrara E 2015. Economic and social impacts of the media. Handbook of Media Economics 1 S Anderson, J Waldfogel, D Stromberg 723–68 Amsterdam: Elsevier
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Diamond L, Plattner M. 2010. Liberation technology. J. Democr. 21:69–83
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Diermeier D. 2011. Reputation Rules: Strategies for Building Your Company's Most Valuable Asset New York: McGraw-Hill
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Donati D. 2019. Mobile Internet access and political outcomes: evidence from South Africa Work. Pap., Univ. Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona Spain:
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Dustmann C, Eichengreen B, Otten S, Sapir A, Tabellini G, Zoega G 2017. Europe's Trust Deficit: Causes and Remedies London: Cent. Econ. Policy Res.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Edmond C. 2013. Information manipulation, coordination, and regime change. Rev. Econ. Stud. 80:1422–58
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Egorov G, Guriev S, Sonin K 2009. Why resource-poor dictators allow freer media: a theory and evidence from panel data. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 103:645–68
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Eichengreen B. 2018. The Populist Temptation: Economic Grievance and Political Reaction in the Modern Era New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Enikolopov R, Makarin A, Petrova M 2020. Social media and protest participation: evidence from Russia. Econometrica In press
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Enikolopov R, Makarin A, Petrova M, Polishchuk L 2017. Social image, networks, and protest participation Work. Pap., Univ. Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona Spain:
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Enikolopov R, Petrova M. 2015. Media capture. Handbook of Media Economics 1 S Anderson,J Waldfogel, D Stromberg 687–700 Amsterdam: Elsevier
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Enikolopov R, Petrova M, Sonin K 2018. Social media and corruption. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 10:150–74
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Falck O, Gold R, Heblich S 2014. E-lections: voting behavior and the Internet. Am. Econ. Rev. 104:2238–65
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Farrell H. 2012. The consequences of the Internet for politics. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 15:35–52
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Fergusson L, Molina C. 2019. Facebook causes protests CEDE Work. Pap. 41, Univ. Los Andes Bogotá, Colombia:
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Fetzer T. 2019. Did austerity cause Brexit. Am. Econ. Rev. 109:113849–86
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Field M, Wright M. 2018. Russian trolls sent thousands of pro-Leave messages on day of Brexit referendum, Twitter data reveals. Telegraph Oct. 17 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/10/17/russian-iranian-twitter-trolls-sent-10-million-tweets-fake-news/
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Frey CB, Berger T, Chen C 2018. Political machinery: Did robots swing the 2016 U.S. presidential election?. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 34:418–42
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Furceri D, Papageorgiou C, Ahir H 2019. Global incidents of corruption index Work. Pap., Int. Monet. Fund Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Gavazza A, Nardotto M, Valletti T 2019. Internet and politics: evidence from U.K. local elections and local government policies. Rev. Econ. Stud. 86:2092–135
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Gennaioli N, Tabellini G. 2019. Identity, beliefs, and political conflict Work. Pap., Bocconi Univ., Milan Italy:
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Gentzkow M, Shapiro JM. 2006. Media bias and reputation. J. Political Econ. 114:280–316
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Gentzkow M, Shapiro JM. 2011. Ideological segregation online and offline. Q. J. Econ. 126:1799–839
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Ghonim W. 2012. Revolution 2.0: The Power of the People Is Greater than the People in Power: A Memoir New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Gladwell M. 2010. Small change: why the revolution won't be tweeted. The New Yorker Sept 27
    [Google Scholar]
  54. González F. 2019. Collective action in networks: evidence from the Chilean student movement Work. Pap., Pontif. Univ. Catol. Chile Santiago:
    [Google Scholar]
  55. González-Bailón S, Borge-Holthoefer J, Rivero A, Moreno Y 2011. The dynamics of protest recruitment through an online network. Sci. Rep. 1:197
    [Google Scholar]
  56. González-Bailón S, Wang N. 2016. Networked discontent: the anatomy of protest campaigns in social media. Soc. Netw. 44:95–104
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Gorodnichenko Y, Pham T, Talavera O 2018. Social media, sentiment and public opinions: evidence from #Brexit and #USElection NBER Work. Pap 24631
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Grinberg N, Joseph K, Friedland L, Swire-Thompson B, Lazer D 2019. Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Science 363:374–78
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Guess A, Lach S, Reifler J 2018. Selective exposure to misinformation: evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. Work. Pap., Princeton Univ Princeton, NJ:
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Guess A, Nagler J, Tucker J 2019. Less than you think: prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Sci. Adv. 5:eaau4586
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Guiso L, Herrera H, Morelli M, Sonno T 2018. Populism: demand and supply EIEF Work. Pap. 1703, Einaudi Inst. Econ. Finance Rome:
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Guriev S, Melnikov N, Zhuravskaya E 2020. 3G Internet and confidence in government CEPR Work. Pap. 14022, Cent. Econ. Policy Res. London:
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Halberstam Y, Knight B. 2016. Homophily, group size, and the diffusion of political information in social networks: evidence from Twitter. J. Public Econ. 143:73–88
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Hendel I, Nyhan B, Reifler J 2017. Consumers activism: the cottage cheese boycott. RAND J. Econ. 48:972–1003
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Henry E, Zhuravskaya E, Guriev S 2020. Checking and sharing alt-facts CEPR Work. Pap. 14738, Cent. Econ. Policy Res. London:
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Hobbs WR, Roberts ME. 2018. How sudden censorship can increase access to information. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 112:621–36
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Huang H, Yeh YY. 2019. Information from abroad: foreign media, selective exposure and political support in China. Br. J. Political Sci. 49:611–36
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Independent 2019. Rise in hate crime is the product of our divisive age—social media giants must now step up to the plate. Independent Feb. 5 https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/hate-crime-all-party-parliamentary-group-social-media-facebook-twitter-instagram-pinterest-a8764451.html
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Inglehart R. 2018. The age of insecurity: Can democracy save itself. Foreign Aff 97:20–28
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Jones JJ, Bond RM, Bakshy E, Eckles D, Fowler JH 2017. Social influence and political mobilization: further evidence from a randomized experiment in the 2012 U.S. presidential election. PLOS ONE 12:e0173851
    [Google Scholar]
  71. King G, Pan J, Roberts ME 2013. How censorship in China allows government criticism but silences collective expression. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 107:1–18
    [Google Scholar]
  72. King G, Pan J, Roberts ME 2014. Reverse-engineering censorship in China: randomized experimentation and participant observation. Science 345:1251722
    [Google Scholar]
  73. King G, Pan J, Roberts ME 2017. How the Chinese government fabricates social media posts for strategic distraction, not engaged argument. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 111:484–501
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Krastev I. 2018. Eastern Europe's illiberal revolution: the long road to democratic decline. Foreign Aff 97:49–56
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Larson J, Nagler J, Ronen J, Tucker J 2019. Social networks and protest participation: evidence from 130 million Twitter users. Am. J. Political Sci. 63:690–705
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Laub Z. 2019. Hate speech on social media: global comparisons Backgr. Rep., Counc. Foreign Relat New York: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/hate-speech-social-media-global-comparisons
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Lelkes Y, Sood G, Iyengar S 2017. The hostile audience: the effect of access to broadband Internet on partisan affect. Am. J. Political Sci. 61:5–20
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Liu-Thompkins Y. 2019. A decade of online advertising research: what we learned and what we need to know. J. Advert. 48: https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2018.1556138
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  79. Lorentzen P. 2014. China's strategic censorship. Am. J. Political Sci. 58:402–14
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Manacorda M, Tesei A. 2020. Liberation technology: mobile phones and political mobilization in Africa. Econometrica 88:533–67
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Martin D, Shapiro J, Nedashkovskaya M 2018. Recent trends in online foreign influence efforts. J. Inform. Warfare 18: https://www.jinfowar.com/journal/volume-18-issue-3/recent-trends-online-foreign-influence-efforts
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Miner L. 2015. The unintended consequences of Internet diffusion: evidence from Malaysia. J. Public Econ. 132:66–78
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Mitchell A, Gottfried J, Fedeli S, Stocking G, Walker M 2019. Many Americans say made-up news is a critical problem that needs to be fixed Tech. Rep., Pew Res. Cent Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Mocanu D, Rossi L, Zhang Q, Karsai M, Quattrociocchi W 2015. Collective attention in the age of (mis)information. Comput. Hum. Behav. 51:1198–204
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Morozov E. 2011. The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom New York: Perseus
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Mosquera R, Odunowo M, McNamara T, Guo X, Petrie R 2020. The economic effects of Facebook. Exp. Econ. 23:575602
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Mounk Y, Foa RS. 2018. The end of the democratic century: autocracy's global ascendance. Foreign Aff 97:29–38
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Müller JW. 2016. What Is Populism? Philadelphia: Univ. Pa. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Müller K, Schwarz CR. 2018. Fanning the flames of hate: social media and hate crime CAGE Online Work. Pap. Ser. 373, Univ. Warwick Coventry, UK:
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Müller K, Schwarz CR. 2019. From hashtag to hate crime: Twitter and anti-minority sentiment Work. Pap., Princeton Univ Princeton, NJ:
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Nyhan B, Porter E, Reifler J, Wood T 2019. Taking fact-checks literally but not seriously? The effects of journalistic fact-checking on factual beliefs and candidate favorability. Political Behav https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09528-x
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  92. Petrova M, Sen A, Yildirim P 2020. Social media and political contributions: the impact of new technology on political competition Work. Pap., Univ. Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona Spain:
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Pomerantsev P. 2019. This Is Not Propaganda: Adventures in the War Against Reality New York: Faber & Faber
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Qin B, Strömberg D, Wu Y 2017. Why does China allow freer social media? Protests versus surveillance and propaganda. J. Econ. Perspect. 31:117–40
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Qin B, Strömberg D, Wu Y 2019. Social media, information networks, and protests in China Work. Pap., Stockholm Univ Stockholm, Swed.:
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Roberts ME. 2018. Censored: Distraction and Diversion Inside China's Great Firewall Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Rosenberg M, Confessore N, Cadwalladr C 2018. How Trump consultants exploited the Facebook data of millions. New York Times March 17 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-trump-campaign.html
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Rotesi T. 2018. Do social media matter? The impact of Twitter on political participation Work. Pap., Bocconi Univ., Milan Italy:
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Schaub M, Morisi D. 2019. Voter mobilisation in the echo chamber: broadband Internet and the rise of populism in Europe. Eur. J. Political Res. In press https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12373
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  100. Settle JE. 2018. Frenemies: How Social Media Polarizes America Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Shane S. 2017. The fake Americans Russia created to influence the election. New York Times Sept. 7 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/us/politics/russia-facebook-twitter-election.html
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Sifry ML. 2011. Wikileaks and the Age of Transparency Berkeley, CA: Counterpoint
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Silverman C. 2016. This analysis shows how viral fake election news stories outperformed real news on Facebook. BuzzFeed Nov. 16 www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Steinert-Threlkeld ZC, Mocanu D, Vespignani A, Fowler J 2015. Online social networks and offline protest. EPJ Data Sci 4:19
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Sunstein CR. 2001. Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Sunstein CR. 2017. #republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Swire B, Berinsky A, Lewandowsky, Ecker U 2017. Processing political misinformation: comprehending the Trump phenomenon. R. Soc. Open Sci. 4: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160802
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  108. Theocharis Y, Barberá P, Fazekas Z, Popa SA, Parnet O 2016. A bad workman blames his tweets: the consequences of citizens' uncivil Twitter use when interacting with party candidates. J. Commun. 66:1007–31
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Tucker JA, Roberts ME, Barberá P, Theocharis Y 2017. From liberation to turmoil: social media and democracy. J. Democr. 28:46–59
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Tufekci Z. 2018. How social media took us from Tahrir Square to Donald Trump. MIT Technology Review Aug 14
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Van Kessel S. 2015. Populist Parties in Europe London: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Vosoughi S, Roy D, Aral S 2018. The spread of true and false news online. Science 359:1146–51
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Yanagizawa-Drott D, Rao A, Petrova M, Enikolopov R, Bursztyn L 2020. Echo chambers: Does online network structure affect political polarization? Work. Pap., Univ. Zurich Zurich, Switz.:
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-081919-050239
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error