Page 89 - Proceeding 2015

URS Nicolae FAMP

SOCIAL NETWORK USE IN ROMANIAN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: BIG CITIES, SMALL STEPS
CCASP

institutions are no exception. They are trying to use the new media instruments to reach their ”clients”:
the citizens, and are doing this by using one of two methods: creating colaborative networks of their own
or using the existing social sites.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 11 TH ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
The advantage of the first method is that the rules of the game can be decided by the public institution,
specifically for the intended purpose. One example is the online consultations for the new Iceland
Constitution (Landemore, 2015). The main disadvantage is that people are now very eager to be part of

yet another social network, especially when it is organized and administrated by public institutions.

The other way in which public administration keeps in contact with the public is through the established
social networks (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn). The main advantages are the number of users already

involved (scale does matter in this cases) and the fact that these people already spend a lot on time, on
average, on these sites and are used to comment, get involved in discussions and voice their opinion

(Urs, 2015). The main problems are not linked to the number of people involved – in the majority of
developed countries, more than 50% of people have Facebook accounts (Miniwatts Marketing Group,
30 th – 31 st October 2015 ”Strategic Management for Local Communities” Bucharest of a public institution is not automatically transferred to an official Facebook account, but it must be build
2015), not even technological, but cultural, administrative and organizational. The administrative authority

and maintained over time (McNutt, 2014).

Despite these obstacles, public administration institutions all over the world try to harness the power of

social networks to their needs, and they do this for two main reasons: they have a duty to communicate
with the public, and social networks are just a new tool (albeit with different modus operandi), and if they
are not trying to set the agenda, others will do so, and they will be forced to play just a ”fireman” role,

always responding to crises as they appear and develop, having less influence on how a story evolves.

4. THE CASE OF ROMANIA

Romanian public institutions are just beginning to learn how to use these new tools in their interaction
with the public. The rules of the game, which are different than those employed by traditional media
(newspapers, press agencies, radio, and TV stations), are not well understood. We can tell this just by

witnessing the arguments between institutions (for example, between the Presidency and the Prime
Minister Office), which are conducted in the open, through their Facebook accounts. Another such

improper use is using a social media account as the primary official communication channel. This not only
excludes all those that are not part of that social network (and the majority of those that are, because the
computer algorithms that govern what pieces of information a user receives are not transparent), but also

87