1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Political Science
  4. Volume 15, 2012
  5. Article

Annual Review of Political Science

Volume 15, 2012

The Consequences of the Internet for Politics

Abstract

Political scientists are only now beginning to come to terms with the importance of the Internet to politics. The most promising way to study the Internet is to look at the role that causal mechanisms such as the lowering of transaction costs, homophilous sorting, and preference falsification play in intermediating between specific aspects of the Internet and political outcomes. This will allow scholars to disentangle the relevant causal relationships and contribute to important present debates over whether the Internet exacerbates polarization in the United States, and whether social media helped pave the way toward the Arab Spring uprisings of 2011. Over time, ever fewer political scientists are likely to study the Internet as such, as it becomes more and more a part of everyday political life. However, integrating the Internet's effects with present debates over politics, and taking proper advantage of the extraordinary data that it can provide, requires good causal arguments and attention to their underlying mechanisms.

Keyword(s): Arab Spring, homophily, information cascades, information technology, polarization, preference falsification
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-030810-110815
2012-06-15
2025-01-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/polisci/15/1/annurev-polisci-030810-110815.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-030810-110815&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abdulla RA. 2007. Islam, jihad, and terrorism in post-9/11 Arabic discussion boards. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 12:1063–81 [Google Scholar]
  2. Adamic LA, Glance N. 2005. The political blogosphere and the 2004 US election: divided they blog. Proc. 3rd Int. Workshop on Link Discov.36–43 New York: Assoc. Comput. Mach. [Google Scholar]
  3. Aday S, Farrell H, Lynch M, Sides J, Kelly J, Zuckerman E. 2010. Blogs and Bullets: New Media in Contentious Politics Report no. 65 Washington, DC: U.S. Inst. Peace31 [Google Scholar]
  4. Ahmed A, Xing EP. 2010. Staying informed: supervised and semi-supervised multi-view topical analysis of ideological perspective. Proc. 2010 Conf. Empir. Meth. Nat. Lang. Process. Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist. [Google Scholar]
  5. Al Malky R. 2007. Blogging for reform: the case of Egypt. Arab. Media Soc. 1:1–31 [Google Scholar]
  6. Albert R, Jeong H, Barabàsi A-L. 2000. Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. Nature 406:378–82 [Google Scholar]
  7. Ammori M. 2005. Shadow government: private regulation, free speech, and lessons from the Sinclair blogstorm. Mich. Telecomm. Tech. Law Rev. 12:1–73 [Google Scholar]
  8. Benford R, Snow D. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: an overview and an assessment. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 26:611–39 [Google Scholar]
  9. Benkler Y. 2006. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom New Haven, CN: Yale Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  10. Benkler Y, Shaw A. 2010. A Tale of Two Blogospheres: Discursive Practices on the Left and Right. Berkman Cent. Res. Publ. No. 2010–6; Harvard Public Law Work. Pap. No. 10–33 Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bennett WL, Iyengar S. 2008. A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. J. Commun. 58:707–31 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bennett WL, Iyengar S. 2010. The shifting foundations of political communication: responding to a defense of the media effects paradigm. J. Commun. 60:35–39 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bimber BA. 1998. The Internet and political transformation: populism, community, and accelerated pluralism. Polity 31:133–60 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bimber BA. 2012. Digital media and citizenship. Sage Handbook of Political Communication HA Simetko, M Scammell Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage In press [Google Scholar]
  15. Bimber BA, Davis R. 2003. Campaigning Online: The Internet in US Elections New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  16. Boas T, Dunning T, Bussell J. 2005. Will the digital revolution revolutionize development? Drawing together the debate. Stud. Comp. Int. Dev. 40:95–110 [Google Scholar]
  17. Chadwick A. 2006. Internet Politics: States, Citizens, and New Communication Technologies New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  18. Chambers S. 2003. Deliberative democratic theory. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 6:307–26 [Google Scholar]
  19. Coase RH. 1960. The problem of social cost. J. Law Econ. 3:1–44 [Google Scholar]
  20. Conover MD, Ratkiewicz J, Francisco M, Gonçalves B, Flammini A, Menczer F. 2011. Political polarization on Twitter. Proc. 5th Int. AAAI Conf. Weblogs Soc. Media. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press [Google Scholar]
  21. Deibert R, Palfrey JG, Rohozinski R, Zittrain J. 2010. Access Controlled: The Shaping of Power, Rights, and Rule in Cyberspace Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  22. Deibert R, Rohozinski R. 2010. Liberation versus control: the future of cyberspace. J. Democracy 21:43–57 [Google Scholar]
  23. delli Carpini MX, Cook FL, Jacobs LR. 2004. Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: a review of the empirical literature. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 7:315–44 [Google Scholar]
  24. Diamond L. 2010. Liberation technology. J. Democr. 21:69–83 [Google Scholar]
  25. DiMaggio P, Hargittai E, Celeste C, Shafer S. 2004. Digital inequality: from unequal access to differentiated use. Social Inequality K Neckman 355–400 New York: Russell Sage Found. [Google Scholar]
  26. DiMaggio P, Hargittai E, Neuman WR, Robinson JP. 2001. Social implications of the Internet. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 27:307–36 [Google Scholar]
  27. Dyczok M. 2005. Breaking through the information blockade: election and revolution in Ukraine 2004. Can. Slavon. Pap. 47:241–64 [Google Scholar]
  28. Elster J. 2007. Explaining Social Behavior: More Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  29. Etling B. 2009. Mapping the Arabic Blogosphere: Politics, Culture, and Dissent Berkman Cent. Res. Publ. 2009-06 Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  30. Faris R. 2008. Revolutions without revolutionaries? Network theory, Facebook, and the Egyptian blogosphere. Arab Media Soc. http://www.arabmediasociety.com/?article=694 [Google Scholar]
  31. Faris R, Etling B. 2008. Madison and the smart mob: the promise and limitations of the Internet for democracy. Fletcher Forum World Aff. 32:65–85 [Google Scholar]
  32. Farrell H, Drezner D. 2008. The power and politics of blogs. Public Choice 134:15–30 [Google Scholar]
  33. Fiorina M, Abrams S. 2008. Political polarization in the American public. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 11:563–88 [Google Scholar]
  34. Freelon D. 2011. The MENA Protests on Twitter: Some Empirical Data http://dfreelon.org/2011/05/19/the-mena-protests-on-twitter-some-empirical-data/ [Google Scholar]
  35. Froomkin AM. 1997. The Internet as a source of regulatory arbitrage. Borders in Cyberspace: Information Policy and the Global Information Infrastructure B Kahin, C Nesson 462–543 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  36. Gentzkow M, Shapiro JM. 2010. Ideological segregation online and offline NBER Work. Pap. No. 15916 Cambridge, MA:: Nat. Bur. Econ. Res. [Google Scholar]
  37. Gibson R, McAllister I. 2011. Do online election campaigns win votes? The 2007 Australian YouTube election. Polit. Commun. 28:227–44 [Google Scholar]
  38. Gibson R, Rommele A, Ward S. 2003. German parties and Internet campaigning in the 2002 federal election. Ger. Polit. 12:79–108 [Google Scholar]
  39. Gibson R, Ward S. 2000. A proposed methodology for studying the function and effectiveness of party and candidate Web sites. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 18:301–19 [Google Scholar]
  40. Gladwell M. 2010. Small change: why the revolution will not be Tweeted. New Yorker Oct. 4 42–49 [Google Scholar]
  41. Goldsmith JL. 1998. Against cyberanarchy. Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 65:1199–250 [Google Scholar]
  42. Golub B, Jackson MO. 2010. Using selection bias to explain the observed structure of Internet diffusions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107:1–4 [Google Scholar]
  43. Gomez R, Manuel, Leskovec J, Krause A. 2010. Inferring networks of diffusion and influence. Proc. 16th ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. Knowl. Discov. Data Min. New York: Assoc. Comput. Mach. [Google Scholar]
  44. Hardin R. 1990. The social evolution of cooperation. The Limits of Rationality K Cook, M Levi 358–78 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  45. Hargittai E, Shafer S. 2006. Differences in actual and perceived online skills: the role of gender. Soc. Sci. Quart. 87:432–48 [Google Scholar]
  46. Hargittai E, Gallo J, Kane M. 2008. Cross-ideological discussions among conservative and liberal bloggers. Public Choice 134:67–86 [Google Scholar]
  47. Hindman M. 2005. The real lessons of Howard Dean: reflections on the first digital campaign. Perspect. Polit. 3:121–28 [Google Scholar]
  48. Hindman M. 2010. The Myth of Digital Democracy Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  49. Howard P, Hussain MM. 2011. The upheavals in Egypt and Tunisia: the role of digital media. J. Democr. 22:35–48 [Google Scholar]
  50. Howard PN. 2010. The Digital Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Information Technology and Political Islam New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  51. Johnson DR, Post D. 1995. Law and borders—the rise of law in cyberspace. Stanford Law Rev. 48:1367–91 [Google Scholar]
  52. Johnson SB. 2005. Two ways to emerge, and how to tell the difference between them. Extreme Democracy J Lebkowsky, M Ratcliff http://extremedemocracy.com/chapters/Chapter%20Six-Emergence.pdf [Google Scholar]
  53. Kalathil S, Boas TC. 2003. Open Networks, Closed Regimes: The Impact of the Internet on Authoritarian Rule Washington, DC: Carnegie Endow. [Google Scholar]
  54. King G. 2011. Ensuring the data-rich future of the social sciences. Science 331:719–21 [Google Scholar]
  55. Kricheli R, Livne Y, Magaloni B. 2010. Taking to the Streets: Theory and Evidence on Protests Under Authoritarianism. SSRN Work. Pap. Series. Rochester, NY: Soc. Sci. Res. Netw 46 [Google Scholar]
  56. Kuran T. 1997. Private Truths, Public Lies: The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  57. Lawrence E, Sides J, Farrell H. 2010. Self-segregation or deliberation? Blog readership, participation, and polarization in American politics. Perspect. Polit. 8:141–57 [Google Scholar]
  58. Lazer D, Pentland AS, Adamic L, Aral S, Barabasi AL. et al. 2009. Life in the network: the coming age of computational social science. Science 323:721–23 [Google Scholar]
  59. Leskovec J, Backstrom L, Kleinberg J. 2009. Meme-tracking and the dynamics of the news cycle. Proc. 15th ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. Knowl. Discov. Data Min New York: Assoc. Comput. Mach. [Google Scholar]
  60. Lessig L. 1999. Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace New York: Basic Books [Google Scholar]
  61. Levinson C, Coker M. 2011. The secret rally that sparked an uprising. Wall Street J. Feb. 11 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704132204576135882356532702.html [Google Scholar]
  62. Liben-Nowell D, Kleinberg J. 2008. Tracing information flow on a global scale using internet chain-letter data. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105:4633 [Google Scholar]
  63. Lohmann S. 1994. The dynamics of informational cascades: the Monday demonstrations in Leipzig, East Germany, 1989–91. World Polit. 47:42–101 [Google Scholar]
  64. Lotan G, Graeff E, Ananny M, Gaffney D, Pearce I, boyd d. 2011. The revolutions were Tweeted: information flows during the 2011 Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions. Int. J. Commun. 5:1375–405 [Google Scholar]
  65. Lynch M. 2006. Al-Qaeda's constructivist turn Rep. Praeger Secur. Int. http://psi.praeger.com [Google Scholar]
  66. Lynch M. 2007. Young brothers in cyberspace. Middle East Rep. 245:26 [Google Scholar]
  67. Lynch M. 2011. After Egypt: the limits and promise of online challenges to the authoritarian Arab state. Perspect. Polit. 9:301–10 [Google Scholar]
  68. Lynch M. 2012. The New Arab Politics New York: PublicAffairs Books In press [Google Scholar]
  69. Macedo S. 2005. Democracy at Risk: How Political Choices Undermine Citizen Participation and What We Can Do About It Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. [Google Scholar]
  70. McAdam D, Tarrow S, Tilly C. 2001. Dynamics of Contention New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  71. McCarty NM, Poole KT, Rosenthal H. 2006. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches Cambridge, MA: MIT Press [Google Scholar]
  72. McFaul M. 2005. Transitions from postcommunism. J. Democr. 16:5–19 [Google Scholar]
  73. McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM. 2001. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 27:415–44 [Google Scholar]
  74. Milner HV. 2006. The digital divide: the role of political institutions in technology diffusion. Comp. Polit. Stud. 39:176–99 [Google Scholar]
  75. Morozov E. 2009. More analysis of Twitter's role in Moldova. Net Effect. http://neteffect.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/07/more_analysis_of_twitters_role_in_moldova [Google Scholar]
  76. Morozov E. 2011a. The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom New York: PublicAffairs Books [Google Scholar]
  77. Morozov E. 2011b. Whither Internet control?. J. Democr. 22:62–74 [Google Scholar]
  78. Mungiu-Pippidi A, Munteanu I. 2009. Moldova's “Twitter Revolution”.. J. Democr. 20:136–42 [Google Scholar]
  79. Munson SA, Resnick P. 2011. The prevalence of political discourse in non-political blogs. Proc. 5th Int. AAAI Conf. Weblogs Soc. Media233–40 Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press [Google Scholar]
  80. Munson SA, Resnick P. 2010. Presenting diverse political opinions: How and how much?. Proc. 28th Int. Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst.1457–66 New York: Assoc. Comput. Mach. [Google Scholar]
  81. Mutz DC. 2006. Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative Versus Participatory Democracy New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  82. Negroponte N. 1995. Being Digital New York: Knopf [Google Scholar]
  83. Newman A. 2010. What you want depends on what you know: firm preferences in an information age. Comp. Polit. Stud. 43:1286–1312 [Google Scholar]
  84. Norris P. 2001. Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  85. Origgi G. 2012. Designing wisdom through the Web: reputation and the passion for ranking. Collective Wisdom H Landemore, J Elster New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  86. Oweidat N, Benard C, Stahl D, Kildani W, O'Connell E, Grant A. 2008. The Kefaya Movement: A Case Study of a Grassroots Reform Initiative Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corp. [Google Scholar]
  87. Page SE. 2008. The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  88. Prior M. 2007. Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  89. Przeworski A, Teune H. 1970. The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry New York: Wiley-Interscience [Google Scholar]
  90. Putnam RD. 2001. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community New York: Simon & Schuster [Google Scholar]
  91. Ritter DP, Trechsel AH. 2011. Revolutionary Cells: On the Role of Texts, Tweets and Status Updates in Nonviolent Revolutions Florence, Italy: Eur. Univ. Inst. [Google Scholar]
  92. Schlozman KL, Verba S, Brady HE. 2010. Weapon of the strong? Participatory inequality and the Internet. Perspect. Polit. 8:487–509 [Google Scholar]
  93. Schmitt M. 2003. Dean's penguin: or, technology and the nature of political interaction. The Decembrist. http://markschmitt.typepad.com/decembrist/2003/12/deans_pengun_or.html [Google Scholar]
  94. Sennett R. 1977. The Fall of Public Man Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  95. Shalizi CR. 2007. Social Media as Windows on the Social Life of the Mind. http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.4911 [Google Scholar]
  96. Shalizi CR, Thomas A. 2011. Homophily and contagion are generically confounded in observational social network studies. Sociol. Method. Res. 40:211 [Google Scholar]
  97. Shirky C. 2003. Power laws, weblogs, and inequality. Clay Shirky's Writings About the Internet. http://www.shirky.com/writings/powerlaw_weblog.html [Google Scholar]
  98. Shirky C. 2009. Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations New York: Penguin [Google Scholar]
  99. Shirky C. 2011. The political power of social media. Foreign Aff. 90:28–41 [Google Scholar]
  100. Skocpol T. 2004. Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life Tulsa, OK: Univ. Okla. Press [Google Scholar]
  101. Skocpol T, Williamson V. 2011. The Tea Party and the Remaking of American Conservatism New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  102. Slee T. 2011. The identity economics of popular uprisings Unpublished manuscript [Google Scholar]
  103. Stodden V. 2010. The scientific method in practice: reproducibility in the computational sciences. MIT Sloan Sch. Work. Pap. No. 4773-10 Cambridge, MA: MIT Sloan [Google Scholar]
  104. Sunstein CR. 2002. Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  105. Swire P. 1998. Of elephants, mice, and privacy: international choice of law and the Internet. Univ. Penn. Law Rev. 153:1975–2005 [Google Scholar]
  106. Thompson DF. 2008. Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 11:497–520 [Google Scholar]
  107. Tufekci Z, Wilson C. 2012. Social media and the decision to participate in collective action: observations from Tahrir Square. J. Commun. In press [Google Scholar]
  108. Vaccari C. 2008. Surfing to the Elysée: the Internet in the 2007 French elections. Fr. Polit. 6:1–22 [Google Scholar]
  109. Wilcox C. 2008. Internet fundraising in 2008: A new model?. The Forum 6:1Art. 6 [Google Scholar]
  110. Wojcieszak M, Mutz D. 2009. Online groups and political discourse: do online discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement?. J. Commun. 59:40–56 [Google Scholar]
  111. Yardi S, boyd d. 2010. Dynamic debates: an analysis of group polarization over time on Twitter. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 30:316–27 [Google Scholar]
  112. Zhou DX, Resnick P, Mei Q. 2011. Classifying the political leaning of news articles and users from user votes. Proc. 5th Int. AAAI Conf. Weblogs Soc. Media417–24 Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-030810-110815
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

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