Abstract

SOCIAL NETWORK USE IN ROMANIANPUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: BIG CITIES,SMALL STEPSUTILIZAREA REŢELELORSOCIALE ÎN
ADMINISTRAŢIA PUBLICĂ
DIN ROMÂNIA. ORAŞE
MARI, PAŞI MICI
Nicolae URS
Assistant Professor PhD., College of Political,
Administrative and Communication Sciences, ”BabeșBolyai” University, Cluj-Napoca
E-mail: urs@fspac.ro

Abstract

Public institutions are more and more required touse the new communication paradigm brought by
the so-called web 2.0, in which a big role is playedby social networks. In this paper, we analyzed theFacebook accounts of the Romanian Counties
Capital Cities, plus those of the 6 Bucharest Sectors.
We have also tried to gauge the importance thatthese cities give to e-government, using as a proxy
the number of people reserved in the organizational
chart for the IT department. Our findings show that
all of the cities taken into account use a Facebook
account, but the new communication paradigm
requested by this new media actor is not yet wellunderstood. This could be also linked to therelatively low priority given to ICTs and to egovernment development.
Keywords:

social networks,
Facebook, local government.

e-government,

RezumatAdministrația publică este din ce în ce mai presată să înțeleagă șisă utilizeze noua paradigmă de comunicare adusă de dezvoltarea
așa-numitului web 2.0, în care o parte esențială e reprezentată derețelele sociale.
În această lucrare, am analizat conturile de Facebook aleprimăriilor reședințelor de județ din România, plus primăriile celor
6 sectoare ale capitalei și Primăria generală București. Amîncercat de asemenea să evaluăm importanța pe care acesteorașe o acordă e-guvernării, folosind pentru asta numărul deoameni angajați in departamentele de IT din fiecare primărie.
Rezultatele ne arată că cele mai multe primării folosesc
Facebook, dar noul stil de comunicare folosit de aceste rețele desocializare nu este încă în general înțeles corect. Acest lucru
poate fi legat și de prioritatea scăzută acordată utilizării noilor
tehnologii în toate primăriile analizate.
Cuvinte cheie: rețele sociale, e-guvernare, Facebook,administrație publică locală.

JEL CODES: D73, H1, O33, H7, Z18………………
Keyword…………………

Proceedings of the 11th Administration and Public
Management International Conference”Strategic Management for Local Communities”

URS Nicolae

FAMP

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

CCASP

1. INTRODUCTIONPROCEEDINGS OF THE 11TH ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE”Strategic Management for Local Communities”
30th – 31st October 2015
Bucharest

E-government services are increasingly seen, even in Romania, as part of the public institution’s raisond’etre. More than half of Romanians use the internet on a regularly basis, and most of the new connections
to the internet are made from mobile devices (smartphones and tablets). Being able to interact with public
administration from anywhere and with ease is something that people (especially young people) expect.
This is particularly evident in big cities, where over 70% of people use the internet.
This trend of demanding more and better services is intertwined with changes in media consumption
patterns. More and more people use social media as one of the most important (if not the most important)source of information. Aside from that, social media sites offer something that the traditional media could
not provide: easy two-way interaction and constant updating. The old media paradigm of one-to-many isblown away by hundreds of millions of users, connected through a bewilderingly complex network, manyof them plugged-in round the clock.
Public administration institutions are expected to take part in this global discussion. The advantages areevident: increase unmediated contact with citizens, greater visibility for government projects, and quick
response in case of emergencies. But seizing these benefits requires a paradigm shift in the way public
institution communicate with the public.
In this paper, we analyzed the Facebook accounts of the Romanian Counties Capital Cities, plus thoseof the 6 Bucharest Sectors. We have also tried to gauge the importance that these cities give to egovernment, using as a proxy the number of people reserved in the organizational chart for the IT
department.
Our findings show that all of the cities taken into account use a Facebook account, but the newcommunication paradigm requested by this new media actor is not yet well understood. This could bealso linked to the relatively low priority given to ICTs and to e-government development.

2. THE INTERNET AND THE CHANGE IN COMMUNICATION PATTERNSAt the time we write this article, more than 3.2 billion people are using the internet on a regular basis(Telecommunication Development Bureau, 2015). Of these, over 2 billion are using social media (Kemp,
2015). These numbers will surely be out of date by the time this article is published. Internet and social
media user growth rate shows little signs of slowing, at least for now.

85

URS Nicolae

FAMP

CCASP

SOCIAL NETWORK USE IN ROMANIAN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: BIG CITIES, SMALL STEPSThis applies to Romania, too. The number of Romanians using the internet grew to over 11 million,
Marketing Group, 2015).
These numbers are part of a story. It is a story of the gulf that is widening between the ways in whichgovernments are used to communicate with the citizens and the way the increasingly connected citizens
expect to get information from these institutions.
This paradigm is changing with great speed, especially after the advent of the so-called web 2.0. In thefirst decade and a half of internet life, the webpages created were used for little more than static displayof information. The public institutions were relatively quick to colonize this new medium of information,
partly because they wanted to be seen as modern and up-to-date, partly because the paradigm was little
different than what they were used to. One-to-many communication was already part of the public
institutions day-to-day operation.
Beginning around 2005, the internet began to rapidly change its offering. The way in which users wereusing the internet went through a paradigm shift. New sites, which were not based on simply displaying
information, but leveraged collaboration and the creation of various types of social networks grew
exponentially. These sites were very diverse in subject and purpose, but they relied on one common
commodity: the users were the main providers of content (blogs, wikis, Flickr), goods (eBay), friends(Facebook), relevance (Google PageRank), feedback and reputation (eBay, TripAdvisor), storing capacityand file transfer (P2P) or connectivity and computing power (Wi-Fi sharing, fold-at-home) (Osimo, 2008).
All these were reunited under the somewhat vaguely defined term of web 2.0. They changed the way weinteract with the internet. If we take a look at the global top 30 most visited sites, they are either searchengines or web 2.0 sites (social networks, wikis, cloud service providers, blogging platforms, or online
shops).
The information mix that users put together to stay informed has changed rapidly over the last few years.
More and more people get a lot or a majority of information online. Moreover, social networks, andespecially Facebook and Twitter are becoming an important news source for their users (AssociatedPress-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, 2015) (in Romania Twitter is not that popular, so the goto site remains Facebook).

3. PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REACTION
With the user preferences changing, those that can adjust better to their habits stand to gain. The fight isfor the user’s attention, and as such, those that want to reach the public must adapt. Public administration

86

PROCEEDINGS OF THE 11TH ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE”Strategic Management for Local Communities”
30th – 31st October 2015
Bucharest

meaning 56.3% of the population. There are over 8 million Romanian users on Facebook (Miniwatts

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

FAMP

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
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 11TH ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE”Strategic Management for Local Communities”
30th – 31st October 2015
Bucharest

or using the existing social sites.
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 ofyet 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 establishedsocial networks (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn). The main advantages are the number of users alreadyinvolved (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 ofdeveloped countries, more than 50% of people have Facebook accounts (Miniwatts Marketing Group,2015), not even technological, but cultural, administrative and organizational. The administrative authorityof a public institution is not automatically transferred to an official Facebook account, but it must be build
and maintained over time (McNutt, 2014).
Despite these obstacles, public administration institutions all over the world try to harness the power ofsocial 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 thecomputer algorithms that govern what pieces of information a user receives are not transparent), but also

87

URS Nicolae

FAMP

CCASP

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

look unprofessional (if the message uses the colloquial style suited for social networks) or stiff and out ofIf we look at the categorization proposed by Mergel and Bretschneider, public administration institutions
usually go through three stages in their implementation of social networks in their communication mix. In
the first one, public institutions or even individual public servants experiment with the new technologies
or networks, usually outside the approved communication policies. The second stage proves the need tocreate and agree upon rules and regulation for the use of these new communication tools, to put order
into the often unruly experimentations. The third phase sees the creation of dedicated departments, theimplementation of rules and clear procedures, and the fading of these communication technologies into
the background noise of day-to-day operation (Mergel & Bretschneider, 2013).
According to Eurostat, 61.7% of Romanians used the internet In the last year, and 44% on Romanians
use the internet to take part in social networks (of which over 41% have a Facebook account). If we lookat the way the government takes advantage of the increasing number of people online, we see that only
11% of Romanians had any online interaction with public administration institutions (local or national) in
the last 12 months. These lack of progress can also be linked to the fact that Romania takes one of thelast places in the rankings on all 6 items quantified by the UE in e-government development (connectivity,
human capital, internet use, integration of digital technology, digital public services, and R&D). Reachingout to these frequent internet users through social media could increase the use of existing online
government services and spur the development of new ones.

5. METHODOLOGY
Despite some isolated efforts at educating public servants in this field, the general perception is that
Romanian public administration institutions are still mostly struggling when it comes to use social media
in an appropriate way. To test this perception, we have analyzed the Facebook accounts of the Romaniancounty seats, plus the Bucharest City Hall and the City Halls of the capital’s 6 sectors. We also wanted toascertain in a way the importance that the municipalities to the employment of ITC in the back-office. As
a proxy for this, we measured the number of people employed by the ITC Department).
We chose Facebook because over 8.3 million Romanians use this social network (Facebrands.ro, 2015)
and because the others social networks are not as widely used: LinkedIn, mainly used for professional
networking is less suited to the bidirectional communication needed by public institutions; Twitter has no
big following in Romania – around 370,000 open accounts, but only about a tenth are maintained.

88

PROCEEDINGS OF THE 11TH ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE”Strategic Management for Local Communities”
30th – 31st October 2015
Bucharest

touch (if the style used is a more official-sounding one).

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

FAMP

CCASP

The data were collected between January 1st 2014 and March 30th 2015 (454 days). We started in our
analysis with 48 city halls, but in the end we gathered data only for 34 among them. The reasons for thisPROCEEDINGS OF THE 11TH ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE”Strategic Management for Local Communities”
30th – 31st October 2015
Bucharest

wee manifold: some of them had no Facebook page (Brăila, Buftea, Buzău, Călărași, Focșani, Miercurea
Ciuc, Satu Mare, and Vaslui), they had very few or no posts - very few meaning under 5 posts (Bistrița,Pitești, Sectorul 5, Slobozia, and Suceava), their page was created too late for our research (Zalău, inJuly 2015), or we could not find out the number of people in their IT Department (Drobeta Turnu Severin).
We should also note that, from these 34 Facebook pages, 7 of them are not institutional, but fan pagesof the mayors, used instead of a city hall page – Andrei Chiliman (Bucharest sector 1), Ciprian Prisăcaru
(Târgoviște), Cristian Popescu Piedone (Sectorul 4), Emil Boc (Cluj-Napoca), Iulian Bădescu (Ploiești),Nicolae Robu (Timișoara), Robert Negoiță (Bucharest sector 3). The data were collected using thesoftware FacePager, cleaned in Google Refine, and interpreted with the help of Microsoft Excel andTableau Desktop.
The following categories of information were analyzed: the number of posts, the type of message, thecontent, number of likes, number of shares, number of comments, and total number of likes/fans of thepage.

6. FINDINGS
We found that the way in which public administration institutions use their Facebook account varies widely,
and the success of their interactions is also very different from one city hall to another. The next chartshows the number of posts in the 454 days for each account that had more than 100 posts in this interval(just over half of them):

89

URS Nicolae

FAMP

SOCIAL NETWORK USE IN ROMANIAN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: BIG CITIES, SMALL STEPSIașiBrașov
Sector 6
Giurgiu
OradeaAlba Iulia
Emil Boc (Cluj-Napoca)
Robert Negoiță (Sector 3)
Tirgu Mures
Primaria Generala București
Nicolae Robu (Timișoara)
Râmnicu Vâlcea
Deva
Alexandria
Cristian Popescu Piedone…
Sector 2
Sfântu GheorgheBotoșaniConstanța

1994
1649
1164
929
773
764
555
509
342
327
282
276
259
257
209
187
181
136
107

FIGURE 1 – NUMBER OF POSTS
Source: The Author

If we look at the number of likes/fans each page has, we can see that the first 4 places are all fan pagesof the mayors, used as official accounts of the institutions. It seems that people on Facebook like tocommunicate not just with an organization, but with a person they can relate to.

90

PROCEEDINGS OF THE 11TH ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE”Strategic Management for Local Communities”
30th – 31st October 2015
Bucharest

CCASP

URS Nicolae

FAMP

SOCIAL NETWORK USE IN ROMANIAN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: BIG CITIES, SMALL STEPSPROCEEDINGS OF THE 11TH ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE”Strategic Management for Local Communities”
30th – 31st October 2015
Bucharest

Cristian Popescu Piedone…

CCASP

74454

Robert Negoiță (Sector 3)

33410

Emil Boc (Cluj-Napoca)

20908

Nicolae Robu (Timișoara)

16460

Alba Iulia

13199

Iași

11866

Slatina

10818

Baia Mare

6665

Andrei Chiliman (Sector 1)

6645

Iulian Bădescu (Ploiești)

6478

Arad

6141

Oradea5795

Reșița5702

Brașov

5301

Ciprian Prisăcaru (Târgoviște)5052

FIGURE 2 – NUMBER OF LIKES/FANS
Source: The Author

We wanted to see how successful their communication is, and, in social media, this is measured by the
number of people involved in conversation, which act, in a way, as the messengers (they spread themessage far and wide, to their network of friends and followers). If we look just at the number of suchinteractions per post (likes, comments, shares), we can see that Cristian Popescu Piedone had by far thebiggest such number.

91

URS Nicolae

FAMP

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

Cristian Popescu Piedone…
Nicolae Robu (Timișoara)
Ciprian Prisăcaru…
Iulian Bădescu (Ploiești)Robert Negoiță (Sector 3)
Slatina
Emil Boc (Cluj-Napoca)
Andrei Chiliman (Sector 1)GalațiArad
Alba Iulia
Sibiu
Bacău
OradeaConstanța
TulceaIași
Piatra Neamț
Drobeta Turnu-Severin
Primaria Generala București
Tirgu Mures
Alexandria
Sector 6
Râmnicu Vâlcea
Botoșani
Baia Mare
DevaBrașov
Giurgiu
Craiova
Târgu-Jiu
Sector 2
Sfântu GheorgheReșița961,04

321,64313,21
218,03133,07
112,60103,83
90,12
76,15
66,12
61,03
50,00
42,17
37,02
36,61
36,22
36,13
27,63
25,66
21,17
21,07
18,56
17,86
16,72
14,40
13,69
13,64
8,85
8,72
7,25
7,17
6,78
3,21
0,83

FIGURE 3 – INTERACTION RATE
Source: The Author

The instrument used by most researchers when studying the success of Facebook communication is theengagement rate. This is represented by the total number of interactions (Likes, Comments and Shares)
per number of followers or fans. A score of 1 is generally considered a good result, one over 0.5 gets a

92

PROCEEDINGS OF THE 11TH ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE”Strategic Management for Local Communities”
30th – 31st October 2015
Bucharest

CCASP

URS Nicolae

FAMP

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

CCASP

passing grade (Leander, 2015). We have eliminated from this ranking the pages that had a low number

PROCEEDINGS OF THE 11TH ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE”Strategic Management for Local Communities”
30th – 31st October 2015
Bucharestof posts (under 100).
Nicolae Robu (Timișoara)
Cristian Popescu Piedone (Sector 4)
Constanța
Botoșani
Râmnicu Vâlcea
OradeaDeva
Alexandria
Primaria Generala București
Tirgu Mures
Emil Boc (Cluj-Napoca)
Sfântu Gheorghe
Alba Iulia
Giurgiu
Sector 6
Robert Negoiță (Sector 3)
Sector 2IașiBrașov

1,95
1,29
1,08
0,85
0,69
0,64
0,63
0,60
0,56
0,54
0,50
0,47
0,46
0,44
0,42
0,40
0,33
0,30
0,17

FIGURE 4 – ENGAGEMENT RATE
Source: The Author

It seems that only three pages pass the test for what is considered a good engagement rate.
There are a number of interesting numbers in our results (for example, Cristian Popescu Piedone had avery loyal following, even if he did not post that often – on average once every two days) or that Iași,despite posting on average more than 4 posts a day did not seems to find the know how to engage it’sfollowers).
We wanted to find out how important ICTs are for these municipalities. As such, we scrutinized theirorganizational charts to find how many people their ICT department employs and what percentage they
represent from the total number of personnel.

93

URS Nicolae

FAMP

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

SibiuGalați
Deva
București
Sector 2
Sector 6
Ploiești
Târgu-JiuReșițaPiatra Neamț
Alba Iulia
Brașov
Baia Mare
OradeaIași
Craiova
Sector 3
Constanța
Arad
Giurgiu
Tirgu Mures
Cluj-Napoca
Târgoviște
Botoșani
SlatinaTimișoara
Râmnicu Vâlcea
Sfântu Gheorghe
Sector 4
Alexandria
BacăuSector 1
Tulcea

3,85%
3,54%
3,41%
3,20%
3,02%
2,73%
2,61%
2,37%
2,31%
1,78%
1,67%
1,59%
1,50%
1,37%
1,28%
1,28%
1,18%
1,00%
0,96%
0,95%
0,87%
0,84%
0,78%
0,75%
0,74%
0,71%
0,70%
0,66%
0,64%
0,51%
0,31%
0,29%
0,19%
FIGURE 5 – EMPLOYEES IN ICT (%)
Source: The Author

The results varied from municipality to municipality, with the winner appearing to be Sibiu (the ICT
department has, on paper, 17 staff). The problem is that, after talking with the head of this department,

94

PROCEEDINGS OF THE 11TH ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE”Strategic Management for Local Communities”
30th – 31st October 2015
Bucharest

CCASP

URS Nicolae

FAMP

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

CCASP

we found out that only 9 of the 17 positions are occupied. The same situation can be encountered in othercity halls (Cluj-Napoca has 8 people, on paper, but only 4 people are actually hired). This part of the
PROCEEDINGS OF THE 11TH ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE”Strategic Management for Local Communities”
30th – 31st October 2015
Bucharest

dataset is thus flawed, but it helps in painting an even bleaker picture of the importance given to ICT in
the Romanian city halls.
It seems to be no correlation between the percent of people in city halls employed by the ICT departments
and the success of their Facebook presence, and the probable answer is that the Facebook account (orfan page) is usually maintained by the people in the communication department of the institution.
engagement rate

ICT positions

2,50

4,0%
3,5%

2,00

3,0%
2,5%

1,50

2,0%
1,00

1,5%
1,0%

0,50

0,5%

0,00

0,0%

FIGURE 6 – COMPARISON BETWEEN ICT EMPLOYEES AND ENGAGEMENT RATE
Source: The Author

CONCLUSIONS
The main conclusion of this research is that the vast majority of the county seats city halls still have a lot
to learn on how to take advantage of social networks to engage the citizens. The potential for realcommunication between public institutions and the citizens exists, but the interest for this varies a lot,depending on the city, but it is usually quite low.
If we look at the fact that the top 2 pages in the engagement ranking and the top 4 pages in interaction
rate ranking are fan pages, we can come to a preliminary conclusion that Romanians like to be able toput a face on the public institution (in this case, the mayor being the face of the city hall).

95

URS Nicolae

FAMP

CCASP

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

Some pages were more effective than others in stoking dialogue and interactions. A semantical analysis
Our hypothesis (to be verified in another paper) is that official messages written in a more colloquial tone,
from the citizen’s perspective or with the point of view of the public taken into account, and sprinkled witha number of personal messages from the mayor is one path to creating an engaged community.
If we should place the use of Facebook in Romanian county seats official (or quasi-official) pages in the
categorization offered by Mergel and Bretschneider, they would probably be at the beginning of thesecond stage: the public servants feel the need to have on official presence in social media, but the rules
and regulation for this are not in place yet and the people in charge are not yet fully familiar with theadvantages, disadvantages and idiosyncrasies of the new communication medium.
REFERENCES
Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. (2015). How Millennials Get News: Inside
the Habits of America’s First Digital Generation. Chicago: American Press Institute .
Facebrands.ro. (2015, 10 02). Date demografice Facebook România. Retrieved from Facebrands:
http://www.facebrands.ro/demografice.html
Kemp, S. (2015, January 22). Global Digital & Social Media Stats: 2015. Retrieved from Social Media
Today: http://www.socialmediatoday.com/content/global-digital-social-media-stats-2015
Landemore, H. (2015). ”Inclusive Constitution-Making: The Icelandic Experiment”, Journal of Political
Philosophy, vol. 23, no 2, pp. 166-191.
Leander, M. (2015, 10 02). What is a good Engagement Rate on a Facebook Page? Here is a benchmark
for you. Retrieved from Michael Leander Direct MArketing Consulting & Speaking:
http://www.michaelleander.me/blog/facebook-engagement-rate-benchmark/
McNutt, K. (2014). ”Public engagement in the Web 2.0 era: Social collaborative technologies in a public
sector context”, Canadian Public Administration, vol. 57, no 1, pp. 49-70.
Mergel, I., Bretschneider, S.I. (2013). ”A Three-Stage Adoption Process for Social Media Use in
Government”, Public Administration Review, vol. 73, no 3, pp. 390-400.
Miniwatts Marketing Group (2015, November 15). Internet World Stats. Retrieved from Internet World
Stats: http://www.internetworldstats.com/
Miniwatts Marketing Group (2015, 10 02). Internet in Europe Stats. Retrieved from Internet World Stats:
http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats4.htm
Osimo, D. (2008). Web 2.0 in Government: Why and How? Luxembourg: Office for Official Publicationsof the European Communities.
Telecommunication Development Bureau. (2015). ICT Facts and Figures. Geneva: International
Telecommunication Union.
Urs, N. (2015). ”Folosirea social media în administrația publică din România”, Revista Transilvană deȘtiințe Administrative, vol. 18, no 1, pp.124-132.

96

PROCEEDINGS OF THE 11TH ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE”Strategic Management for Local Communities”
30th – 31st October 2015
Bucharest

could reveal more about the difference between the pages that were successful and those that were not.