Abstract
Background: In contemporary public governance, transparent, accountable, and citizen-centric practices are paramount. Citizen-based monitoring (CBM) of government projects is a promising avenue to uphold these principles. However, there is a pressing need for a more effective, structured, and technologically driven approach to CBM.
Objectives: This research aims to present a tailored model for the South African government. Utilising social media, the model seeks to transform CBM practices, enhancing governance and ensuring project success. The limitations of current CBM tools necessitate such a model in South Africa.
Method: Rooted in rigorous mixed-methodology research, the model’s development and validation involve in-depth interviews with government officials, local media, and civic organisations, along with a citizen survey and literature review. International best practices in CBM and social media analytics inform its design.
Results: The study uncovers that current CBM tools have a dual nature, empowering citizens yet facing context-specific challenges like elite capture and inclusivity issues. Social media emerges as a preferred tool among citizens for monitoring government projects, showcasing its transformative potential in fostering transparency and citizen engagement.
Conclusion: By leveraging social media’s dynamic capabilities, this model can enhance transparency, accountability, and project success in South Africa’s governance landscape, marking a significant advancement in the digital era.
Contribution: This research introduces a novel CBM model for South Africa, tailored to leverage social media’s transformative potential. Addressing existing limitations in CBM tools provides insights into the challenges and opportunities of utilising social media for government project monitoring.
Keywords: citizen-based monitoring; social media; government programmes; transparency; digital inclusion.
Introduction
In the contemporary landscape of public governance, there is an ever-growing demand for transparency, accountability, and citizen-centric practices, which are essential pillars of effective democratic governance, particularly in South Africa (Jain 2019; Newig & Fritsch 2018). These pillars serve as safeguards against the challenges that often plague public administrations, including financial pressures that can lead to resource misallocation, mismanagement, and concerns about corruption (Heald 2019; Open Government Partnership 2020). The call for transparency is driven by the need to ensure that financial resources are used efficiently and effectively, preventing wastage or the diversion of funds away from their intended purposes. Accountability mechanisms act as checks and balances, holding public officials and institutions responsible for their actions, thereby reducing the risk of mismanagement or corruption. Moreover, citizen-centric practices place citizens at the centre of decision-making processes, ensuring that government actions align with the public’s needs and preferences, reducing the likelihood of poor resource allocation (Bovens 2007; Fox 2020). These principles are not mere ideals but fundamental requirements for ensuring that governments serve the best interests of their citizens.
To uphold the above-mentioned principle, the concept of citizen-based monitoring (CBM) of government projects has emerged as a powerful mechanism (Fox 2020). Citizen-based monitoring is described as a participatory and bottom-up approach to governance and public service oversight that involves active citizen engagement in the monitoring, evaluating, and reporting of government activities, particularly in the context of public projects and services (Bithas & Nijkamp (2019a). Citizen-based monitoring operates on the foundational principle that citizens have a fundamental right to access quality public services. Their involvement in monitoring and shaping these services is essential for effective democratic governance (UNDP 2019). At its core, CBM is grounded in transparency, accountability, and citizen-centric governance. It empowers ordinary citizens, community groups, and civil society organisations to actively participate in public projects’ decision-making processes, ensuring that resources are allocated efficiently, and projects are executed effectively (Fox 2020). Citizen-based monitoring extends beyond mere data collection; it fosters a sense of ownership and responsibility among citizens for the public services they receive (Mishra, Akter & Basher 2021).
Despite the critical importance of CBM, there is a pressing need for a more effective, structured, and technologically driven approach to this practice, especially within the context of South Africa (Bithas & Nijkamp 2019b). Noteworthy studies by Johnson and Smith (2020a) and Ngcobo (2018) explore traditional methods and challenges in CBM without relying on social media platforms. While CBM is recognised as a vital mechanism for enhancing transparency and accountability in public project management, there is a significant void in the existing literature – the absence of a structured and comprehensive model that fully harnesses the potential of social media in this context (Mishra et al. 2021). This gap represents a substantial challenge in South Africa’s dynamic socio-political landscape (Dinur & Everett 2020). The challenges associated with traditional CBM tools and techniques in the South African public sector are multifaceted and have garnered criticism over time. Traditional CBM methods often rely on manual data collection, which can be time-consuming, resource-intensive, and susceptible to errors (Kinyanjui 2017). This manual approach hinders the real-time monitoring of government projects and creates challenges in aggregating and analysing data effectively. Furthermore, traditional CBM practices may not fully engage citizens in project oversight because of their passive nature, as citizens are typically only involved during periodic data collection exercises (Swanepoel 2020).
Critics, including Smith (2017), Johnson and Smith (2020b), and Brown and Green (2021), highlight issues related to transparency and accountability in traditional CBM methods, particularly within the South African context. In South Africa, where these critiques are particularly pertinent, concerns arise because of the involvement of intermediaries or government officials in data collection, potentially introducing biases or manipulation (Mthembu & Nkosi 2018). This jeopardises the credibility and reliability of reported data, raising questions about its accuracy in reflecting on-the-ground realities of project implementation. Moreover, the lack of direct citizen engagement in the monitoring process in South Africa can foster a perception of exclusion and limited influence over project outcomes, eroding trust in public institutions (Mokone 2019). The challenges extend to the limited capacity for citizens in South Africa to promptly report issues and provide feedback. Existing mechanisms are often fragmented, leading to delays in addressing critical concerns and allowing problems to escalate without timely intervention (Dlamini 2022; Mishra et al. 2021). This underscores the need for a more robust CBM process tailored to South Africa’s specific challenges and dynamics.
However, integrating social media platforms into CBM practices presents a promising solution to these challenges. By harnessing the power of social media, CBM can transition from a predominantly passive, periodic process to an active and real-time engagement model (Ishmaev 2021). Social media enables citizens to participate continuously in project oversight, providing accessible channels for sharing information, concerns, and feedback. Moreover, introducing a web-based application that integrates social media can enhance the credibility of reported issues. This web-based application can incorporate authentication mechanisms that protect participants’ anonymity while verifying the information’s accuracy (Sukumaran 2019). Such mechanisms can include digital signatures or secure identifiers allowing validation without revealing participants’ identities. In addition, the web-based application can provide features for cross-referencing information with project data, ensuring the credibility of reported issues and reducing the potential for misinformation.
The pressing need for a more effective, structured, and technologically driven approach to CBM in South Africa presents multifaceted challenges (Samuel & Chirambo 2018). This article addresses these challenges by presenting a novel model explicitly tailored for the South African government. This model leverages the transformative potential of social media, offering practical guidelines for government institutions. By filling this knowledge gap and addressing these challenges, this research contributes to enhanced transparency, accountability, and citizen engagement in government projects, advancing effective governance practices in South Africa and aligning with global trends in digital-driven governance (Virtanen et al. 2019a).
The remainder of the article is organised as follows. It begins with exploring CBM in the South African context, shedding light on the challenges encountered in government project monitoring within the nation. It then delves into relevant international models and best practices. The research methods, key findings, and discussions are presented, including qualitative findings concerning critical issues in CBM and preferred tools. Moreover, quantitative findings are discussed, emphasising the potential role of social media as a CBM tool. Following this, a novel social media-driven CBM model is proposed. The subsequent part provides recommendations for various stakeholders, encompassing government adoption, capacity building, and policy development. Lastly, the article concludes by outlining potential avenues for future research in the field of CBM.
Citizen-based monitoring in the South African context; challenges faced in government project monitoring in South Africa
Citizen-based monitoring, as a dynamic and evolving concept, adapts to different regions and countries’ unique needs and contexts, with its effectiveness contingent on solid partnerships between citizens, civil society, government agencies, and other stakeholders (Virtanen et al. 2019b). In South Africa, the three-step CBM model developed by the Department of Planning Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME) serves as a structured process to enhance service delivery (DPME 2013, 2015, 2016; IRM 2018:89). Community-led surveys constitute the first step, collecting feedback from both citizens and government employees. The findings are compiled into a report, providing valuable data-driven insights. The second step involves collaborative analysis by citizens and institution staff, identifying concerns and root causes. Public meetings are then convened to share improvement strategies and address constraints, fostering transparent dialogue within the community (DPME 2013, 2015, 2016). Commitments resulting from these discussions are reviewed and adapted based on feedback received. In the final step, a strong emphasis is placed on sharing and monitoring these commitments, employing oversight and feedback mechanisms to ensure commitment fulfilment (IRM 2018:89). This step involves the integration of commitments into planning, budget allocation, and management assessments. Achieving these commitments may necessitate effective collaboration among various stakeholders, government levels, and departments, underscoring the importance of a lead actor in fostering collaboration and realising the intended objectives (DPME 2016).
This model adheres to the principles of participatory governance and community engagement (Kozila & Tolmie 2016). The iterative feedback loop, driven by transparent public meetings, supports adaptive decision-making and responsive service improvements (DPME 2013). The model facilitates an inclusive, community-driven approach to enhance local government service delivery, emphasising responsiveness, collaboration, and accountability.
 |
FIGURE 1: Citizen-based monitoring three-step model. |
|
Despite the current CBM in South Africa, monitoring government projects through CBM in South Africa faces a myriad of challenges, with several prominent limitations impacting the efficacy of widely used tools such as transparency portals, presidential hotlines, community scorecards, grievance redress mechanisms, mobile phone surveys, and quantitative service delivery surveys (Mafunisa 2016; Moleleki & Makgopa 2021; Naidu 2017). Chief among these is the need for robust citizen engagement, which is hindered by complex bureaucratic procedures, limited user-friendliness, poor accessibility, usability, and interactivity of these conventional CBM tools, and low public awareness (Johnson & Singh 2018; Vundule et al. 2019). The credibility of the data collected poses a substantial hurdle, as ensuring the accuracy and trustworthiness of information gathered through these tools can be problematic (Mukuru 2016). Additionally, disparities in digital literacy and resource access challenge equitable participation, while anonymity and security concerns may discourage citizens from reporting issues or concerns about government projects (Birundu 2020). Furthermore, resource-intensiveness and scalability issues often plague the implementation of CBM in South Africa, necessitating innovative solutions (Bhatia & Nair 2019; Pillay 2015).
In South Africa’s public governance context, it is essential to critically examine the limitations of traditional CBM tools in fostering citizen engagement and ensuring transparency in government projects. For instance, transparency portals and presidential hotlines, designed to facilitate public input, face criticism because of their lack of interactivity and responsiveness (Smith & Jones 2019; White & Brown 2017). These platforms may be perceived as clunky and uninviting, particularly by individuals with low digital literacy or limited access to technology, posing barriers to usability and accessibility (Gupta 2020; Patel & Chen 2018). The absence of real-time features of these tools further hinders immediate feedback or updates on reported issues, impacting citizen engagement (Brown & Green 2021; Kumar & Singh 2019). These limitations result in restricted citizen participation, impeding the crucial process of public oversight of government projects. A community member reporting a service delivery issue through a transparency portal may experience delays in receiving responses or updates on the issue’s status (Anderson & Martinez 2017; Smith 2020). Similarly, presidential hotlines may lack mechanisms for interactive dialogues with citizens, contributing to a perception that voices go unheard (Chen & Patel 2018; James 2016).
Moreover, ensuring the credibility of collected data poses a substantial challenge, as validating and cross-referencing information gathered through these tools can be problematic, eroding trust in the data (Mukuru 2016; Steyn & Swanepoel 2017). The issue of equitable access, coupled with limited resource availability for specific population segments, underscores the need for widespread digital literacy and accessibility (Hossain & Alam 2018; Stirling 2017). Anonymity and security concerns deter citizens from reporting issues, as existing tools lack mechanisms to ensure safety and anonymity (Katz & Abdulai 2020; Mkude et al. 2019). Navigating government procedures for raising concerns or complaints about projects can be complex, and traditional tools struggle to simplify these processes, making it challenging for citizens to voice their concerns effectively (Makina & Ntombela 2015; Shilubane & Ezeonwuka 2018). Lastly, the resource-intensiveness of many existing CBM tools in terms of financial costs and time can limit their scalability, hindering the involvement of a broader population segment (Bhatia & Nair 2019; Sabwa 2017). This complex array of challenges highlights the need for innovative solutions that can enhance the effectiveness of CBM in South Africa.
Recent developments in citizen engagement platforms are addressing these aforesaid limitations effectively. Platforms such as FixMyStreet in the United Kingdom (Peled & Unkule 2016), Adaa in Saudi Arabia (Almalki & Mohammed 2018), Ushahidi in Kenya (Okolloh 2009), SeeClickFix in the United States, and GovChat in South Africa (Charowa, Gavaza & Mavodza 2020; Doppelt 2013) have emerged as innovative solutions (see Appendix 1). These platforms go beyond addressing the constraints of traditional CBM; they are reshaping the fundamentals of citizen engagement. By decentralising information and democratising monitoring, they contribute to developing more inclusive, responsive, and citizen-centric public services (Aday 2010).
Research methods, key findings and discussions
The research methodology for developing and validating the model employed a robust mixed-methods approach, strategically chosen to provide a comprehensive understanding of CBM in the South African context (Jain 2019; Newig & Fritsch 2018). This approach integrates qualitative and quantitative research techniques, ensuring a nuanced exploration of the multifaceted aspects of CBM, social media use, and citizen engagement. The selection of a mixed-methods approach stems from recognising that CBM, a complex and evolving concept, requires a holistic examination beyond numerical data and statistical patterns.
The extensive literature review formed the foundation of the research, exploring the existing academic and practical work on CBM, social media analytics, citizen engagement, and project management. This integrative approach aligned the study with global standards while addressing South Africa’s specific needs and challenges, providing a robust theoretical framework (Booth et al. 2016; Machi & McEvoy 2016). Incorporating insights from successful international case studies adapted to the South African context aimed to enrich the research and contribute to the global discourse on effective CBM strategies. Data collected through interviews, surveys, and secondary sources underwent a meticulous and thorough analytical process, incorporating thematic, statistical, and content analysis. This rigorous approach aimed to uncover nuanced insights, providing a comprehensive and multifaceted understanding of the research objectives. The validation of the developed model was a multifaceted process involving expert reviews, pilot testing, and soliciting stakeholder feedback. This robust validation ensured that the model met the specific needs and standards of the South African context, aligning with established research methodologies (Creswell & Creswell 2017).
The survey design employed a targeted approach to engage 6912 participants, with 384 allocated to each South African province. Exceeding expectations, the survey garnered 7282 responses, surpassing its goal and ensuring a robust representation of diverse perspectives, as detailed in Table 1 (IRM 2018:89). This extensive survey not only quantified preferences and priorities but also provided a deeper understanding of the varied perspectives on CBM across different regions.
In the interview design, 12 key stakeholders played a crucial role by participating in in-depth interviews, offering rich qualitative insights (Booth et al. 2016). This qualitative dimension was essential for capturing nuanced perspectives on CBM requirements, challenges, and potential solutions. The participants’ specifications outlined in Table 2 provide a detailed overview of the diverse backgrounds and expertise of the interview respondents, spanning government, community media, and community-based organisations.
| TABLE 2: Sector specification of the respondents. |
Qualitative key findings: Key issues in citizen-based monitoring of government projects and citizen-based monitoring tools
Qualitative interviews conducted in this study provided a wealth of insights into the CBM of government projects in South Africa. Engaging diverse stakeholders, including government officials, social media strategists, and local civic organisation representatives, the interviews explored nuanced CBM understanding, process challenges, and citizen engagement’s role in public service delivery. Participants assessed current CBM mechanisms, highlighting strengths and limitations and discussing social media’s dynamic potential. To present these insights comprehensively, findings are categorised into two main themes (see Table 3): ‘CBM of Government Projects’ and ‘Existing CBM Tools’. These themes include relevant sub-themes reflecting the multifaceted perspectives uncovered during interviews.
Citizen-based monitoring of government projects
Stakeholders, including government officials and civic organisation representatives, raised multifaceted concerns regarding the challenges inherent in the South African CBM process. These challenges ranged from technical data collection and monitoring difficulties to citizen access to government services. A common concern highlighted the complex nature of project monitoring, where the lack of standardised processes and tools can hinder effective CBM, aligning with the existing literature (Eyben 2016). Furthermore, interviews revealed a pervasive lack of public awareness about CBM, extending to the concept’s objectives and citizen engagement methods. Stakeholders voiced the need for comprehensive awareness campaigns, aligning with scholars’ recognition of the importance of citizen education for CBM success (Tripathi & Bevan 2013).
Moreover, limited citizen participation in CBM initiatives emerged as an issue requiring attention. Factors such as awareness gaps, perceived government unresponsiveness and inadequate participation incentives contributed to this problem. Addressing this passivity is pivotal, as passive participation can undermine the effectiveness of CBM efforts, consistent with scholarly findings (Bjoersten & Van Der Hoek 2008). The study also unveiled diverse perceptions of government responsiveness to CBM reports. While some stakeholders commended the government’s efforts, others expressed concerns about response timeliness and effectiveness. This divergence emphasises the complexity of evaluating government responsiveness, aligning with scholarly insights on its significant impact on citizen engagement (Joshi & Houtzager 2012).
Interviewees shared instances where CBM had positively influenced project implementation, contributing to improved outcomes. These instances underscore CBM’s potential to enhance government project effectiveness, consistent with the broader literature highlighting its transformative role (Guijt & Shah 1998). Another common thread was the recognition of capacity and resource constraints in CBM. Both government officials and civic organisation representatives acknowledged that effective CBM necessitates sufficient resources, aligning with scholarly emphasis on resource availability as crucial for CBM success (Dassen, Kunst & Bishai 2020). These insights underscore the importance of addressing resource limitations to optimise CBM practices in South Africa.
Assessment of current citizen-based monitoring tools
Stakeholders emphasised the need for a comprehensive evaluation of the current strengths and weaknesses inherent in existing CBM tools. While recognising their potential to enhance citizen engagement and government accountability, stakeholders acknowledged contextual limitations in these mechanisms. This perspective aligns with scholarly discourse, which underscores the context-dependent nature of CBM tools, balancing strengths and weaknesses, including risks of elite capture and inclusivity issues (Fung & Wright 2003). The importance of continuous evaluation to optimise existing CBM mechanisms was highlighted by stakeholders, reflecting a commitment to adaptability in the evolving landscape of citizen–government interactions.
Another critical theme was the importance of collaborative partnerships between the government and civic organisations. These partnerships were essential for effectively utilising existing tools, sharing resources, building capacity, and co-creating solutions to address community concerns. Scholarly discussions support the significance of such collaborations in CBM, emphasising their role in enhancing mechanisms’ legitimacy and sustainability (Shah 2007). Stakeholders’ recognition of this collaborative potential emphasises its relevance in the specific context of South Africa.
In addition, interviews underscored the transformative potential of social media platforms in enhancing CBM practices, providing dynamic and accessible mediums for citizen engagement, data collection, and information dissemination. This aligns with the existing literature advocating integrating social media into CBM efforts to reach broader audiences, facilitate real-time interactions, and enable data-driven decision-making (Yin & Jia 2013). However, stakeholders acknowledged challenges related to the digital divide, data accessibility, digital literacy, data privacy, and security, emphasising the need for robust data protection mechanisms. These concerns align with scholarly emphasis on safeguarding citizen data and ensuring its collection and storage adhere to legal and ethical standards (Howard & Parks 2012; Livingstone 2008). These insights highlight the multifaceted nature of integrating social media into CBM mechanisms in South Africa.
Integrating social media platforms, such as dedicated government project monitoring applications linked to popular platforms such as WhatsApp and Facebook, was proposed to address these limitations. These platforms offer user friendly interfaces and real-time interactions, enabling citizens to easily report issues, receive updates on project statuses, and engage in discussions with relevant government officials (Garcia & Rodriguez 2017; Rodriguez & Lee 2019). Such integration enhances accessibility, usability, and transparency by facilitating immediate communication and feedback. For example, a citizen reporting an issue through a project monitoring application can subsequently track progress, engage with project managers, and receive real-time updates on issue resolution (Garcia & Patel 2018; Lee 2019). By enhancing citizen engagement and accountability, this approach underscores its practical utility, particularly when compared to traditional, less interactive tools that have often struggled to keep citizens engaged and informed throughout the project monitoring process (Gonzalez 2019; Smith & Anderson 2018).
Quantitative key findings: Preferred tools and the potential use of social media as a citizen-based monitoring tool
This section presents the quantitative findings regarding citizens’ preferred tools for monitoring government projects, their social media usage, and engagement with government platforms, and perceptions about social media as a suitable tool for CBM in public service.
Preferred tools for public service monitoring and social media usage
The study delved into citizens’ preferred tools for monitoring government projects and public service delivery. As illustrated in Figure 2, among the 7282 respondents, it was evident that 27% preferred group chats through social media platforms as their primary tool, signifying the growing importance and accessibility of social media in fostering discussions and information sharing in public service delivery monitoring (Mukerjee, Zhang & Maity 2020). This underscores the broader recognition of social media as a practical means of citizen engagement and promoting government transparency (Ruiu 2019). Traditional media channels such as television and radio were favoured by 16% of respondents, highlighting their continued role in information dissemination and public service assessment (Vargo & Gu 2017). Newspapers, chosen by 11% of respondents, reiterated their significance in public service monitoring and information sharing (Picard 2019). On the other hand, mechanisms such as surveys, emails, and mystery clients were less preferred, suggesting that while they hold value, they may not be the primary choices for monitoring public service delivery among respondents (Baker, Wang & Wakefield 2016; Mikkelsen & McNiece 2003).
 |
FIGURE 2: Preferred tools to monitor public service delivery (N = 7282). |
|
Furthermore, the study explored social media ownership and citizen engagement on government pages, revealing that 83% of respondents were active on these platforms. As shown in Figure 3, WhatsApp emerged as the most popular platform with 32% usage, especially among those aged 25–40. Facebook remained attractive to 25% of participants, indicating its enduring popularity, while 14% preferred Instagram, particularly in the 25–40 age group, highlighting the appeal of visual content sharing. Notably, 50% of respondents used multiple social media platforms, reflecting diverse engagement with various communication and information-sharing options (Bakshi & James 2017). These findings underscore the potential of leveraging social media as practical tools for broad citizen engagement and collaboration in public service monitoring, providing versatile channels for information sharing (Capobianco & Meckel 2019).
 |
FIGURE 3: Ownership of social media platform by age (N = 7282). |
|
The extensive use of multiple social media platforms reflects the presence of various communication channels. It aligns with the importance of diversifying communication strategies to reach different population segments (Kiousis & Wu 2017). This study demonstrates that most participants are well-connected to digital platforms and social media networks, making them valuable channels for CBM efforts. However, addressing internet access disparities is crucial to ensure inclusive citizen engagement, in line with the broader trend of increasing digital participation in public service monitoring (Guzmán 2019).
Perceptions of social media as a citizen-based monitoring tool for public service monitoring and engagement
The insights from Figure 4 underscore the significant potential of social media as a means for citizens to engage with government authorities on public service delivery issues. Notably, 27% of respondents express their willingness to interact with government agencies on social media, indicating a growing desire for digital platforms to serve as avenues for citizen-government dialogue (Gil De Zúñiga, Jung & Valenzuela 2012). This underscores the importance of responsive and accessible government social media pages that can facilitate these interactions effectively (Kaplan & Haenlein 2010). Nevertheless, it is essential to acknowledge the variety of attitudes within the surveyed population, as many respondents express dissent or uncertainty about this form of engagement, reflecting a diversity of perspectives (Tatarchevskiy & Pan 2015). These differences highlight the need for government agencies to build trust in their online interactions with citizens and address concerns (Grunig & Grunig 2010).
 |
FIGURE 4: Number of participants who report public service delivery issues via social media (N = 7282). |
|
In Figure 5, the data provide a positive perception of social media’s convenience in monitoring public service delivery affairs among 33% of the participants. They view digital platforms as practical tools for staying informed about public service matters, in line with an expanding body of literature emphasising the accessibility and convenience of social media for citizen engagement and information sharing (Foth, Hearn & Tacchi 2011). Social media is recognised for offering real-time updates, interactive features, and a space for open discussions, catering to the preferences of individuals seeking convenience and engagement in the digital age (Van Dijck 2013). Furthermore, social media’s potential to reach diverse digitally connected audiences is a critical advantage for government communication and citizen engagement, particularly given the convenience of smartphones and web-based platforms. However, it is crucial to consider that while 33% agree on social media’s convenience, a substantial portion of respondents may still have reservations or uncertainties about using these platforms for monitoring public services. Addressing these concerns and offering a balanced view of social media’s capabilities and limitations remain pivotal for effective citizen engagement (Chadwick 2013).
 |
FIGURE 5: Participants’ perceptions on the convenience of social media for citizen-based monitoring of service delivery (N = 7282). |
|
Interest in participating in citizen-based monitoring initiatives via social media
The data in Figure 6 provide critical insights into participants’ willingness to engage in CBM initiatives through social media platforms. Notably, 36% of respondents express their inclination to participate in monitoring initiatives via social media, underscoring the potential of digital platforms to foster active citizen involvement in monitoring public service delivery. These findings align with the broader literature, highlighting the benefits of using social media for citizen engagement and participation in governance processes (Linders 2012). Scholars emphasise that digital platforms provide citizens with accessible and convenient means to engage in monitoring activities, thereby contributing to greater transparency and accountability (Gupta, Jain & Sharma 2014). Conversely, 17% of respondents who disagree with participating in CBM initiatives on social media indicate a lack of interest or a preference for alternative engagement methods. While social media can be a potent tool for engagement, these findings highlight that it may not be the preferred avenue for everyone (Chadwick & Stromer-Galley 2016). In summary, the data unveil a significant level of interest among respondents in using social media for CBM of public service delivery, suggesting its potential to enhance citizen participation in monitoring activities and contribute to improved transparency and accountability in public service delivery.
 |
FIGURE 6: Participants’ level of interest in participating in monitoring initiatives via social media (N = 7282). |
|
The proposed social media-driven citizen-based monitoring model
The development of this model for utilising social media as a tool for CBM in public service delivery builds upon the analysis of existing conceptual models such as the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) (Ajzen & Fishbein 1980), Technology Task Fit (TTF) (Goodhue & Thompson 1995), and Two-Step Flow of Communication (TSFC) (Lazarsfeld & Katz 1955). This integration is motivated by the need to leverage well-established theoretical frameworks to ensure the practical applicability and effectiveness of the proposed model. These existing models provide valuable insights into the factors influencing behaviour, technology adoption, and communication dynamics, which are highly relevant to the context of CBM through social media. Furthermore, it considers the advantages and drawbacks of the existing South African CBM three-step model depicted in Figure 1. This newly proposed model incorporates several features inspired by successful social media-driven platforms such as GovChat, Adaa, FixMyStreet, and SeeClickFix (Almalki & Mohammed 2018; Charowa et al. 2020; Doppelt 2013; Okolloh 2009; Peled & Unkule 2016), which are examined in Appendix 1. Figure 7 presents a comprehensive and detailed social media-driven model. This model illustrates the intricate web of interactions among various stakeholders monitoring government projects. The highlighted boxes within the diagram spotlight critical components central to the primary interactions and eventual outcomes. This model aims to encapsulate the multifaceted dynamics when leveraging social media to monitor government initiatives. It delves into the diverse relationships and exchanges occurring between the involved parties, highlighting key elements pivotal for the success of these interactions and, consequently, the attainment of desired outcomes.
 |
FIGURE 7: The proposed social media-driven model for citizen-based monitoring of government projects. |
|
The proposed social-media-driven CBM model comprises five interconnected roles delineating the components and their interrelationships, with social media playing a pivotal role in each. The government’s role is the backbone, involving municipalities and government entities responsible for public service delivery. These entities collaborate with other stakeholders through social media, aligning CBM initiatives with service delivery goals, providing oversight, ensuring transparency, and promoting accountability. The information provision role focuses on empowering citizens through social media by offering them accurate and relevant information. It enables citizens to actively participate in CBM initiatives, express opinions, raise concerns, and advocate for improvements, fostering a collaborative approach between citizens and other stakeholders. The engagement role emphasises using electronic means, mainly social media, to facilitate citizen participation. Citizens use social media platforms to report on government projects, request services, and provide feedback. In contrast, through social media interaction, government entities, community-based organisation (CBO) and community media contribute to a comprehensive understanding of public service issues.
The oversight role is vital for ensuring the effectiveness and accountability of CBM via social media. It involves monitoring, evaluation, compliance, accountability, and reporting. Oversight entities monitor social media interactions, evaluate the impact of CBM initiatives, ensure compliance with standards, and hold stakeholders accountable, promoting transparency and trust. The transparency role complements other roles by ensuring open access to CBM content on social media platforms. It introduces mechanisms like voting for reports and fosters collective assessment, enabling scrutiny, responsible behaviour, and accountability. Transparency enhances citizen engagement, trust, and inclusivity in the CBM process, making social media-driven monitoring more effective and legitimate.
Recommendations
Government adoption
Facilitating the seamless integration of the proposed social-media-driven CBM model into existing government structures requires careful alignment with the established three-step CBM approach developed by the DPME. This integration involves incorporating social media as a complementary tool within the DPME’s existing framework. Crafting a comprehensive social media strategy is pivotal, aligning and elevating the objectives of the DPME’s CBM model. This includes specifying integration points of social media platforms into citizen reporting processes and institutional feedback mechanisms. Emphasis should be on user-friendly features within the proposed online portal, ensuring a seamless fusion with the DPME’s ongoing public engagement efforts. Strategic recommendations aim to enhance transparency, inclusivity, and efficiency within the DPME model, fostering a harmonious integration without proposing an entirely new model.
Capacity building and training
A smooth transition into incorporating social media into CBM practices necessitates designing robust training programmes in collaboration with existing educational institutions and government bodies. Aligning with the DPME’s ongoing efforts, digital literacy training for citizens should be expanded to include specific skills related to leveraging social media for issue reporting and active engagement with the government. Similarly, for government officials, integrating social media communication training should be seamlessly woven into existing modules, emphasising effective response protocols and issue resolution within the specific context of the DPME’s CBM model. Community engagement workshops must be thoughtfully designed to integrate social media aspects into their content, ensuring participants gain practical skills that align with the DPME’s established framework.
Policy and regulatory foundations
Successfully incorporating the social-media-driven CBM model into existing practices requires a tailored policy and regulatory framework that seamlessly integrates with DPME’s current governance policies. Rather than introducing entirely new structures, this recommendation advocates for enhancing the DPME’s governance framework. This involves developing a data governance structure that transparently incorporates social media data handling practices, ensuring alignment with the DPME’s regulatory landscape. The policy framework should strictly align with data protection laws within the DPME’s purview, fostering a cohesive regulatory environment. Enhancing the public records management policy becomes crucial to accommodate social media data holistically, preserving valuable information while maintaining transparency and reflective analysis capabilities within the DPME’s CBM context.
Cross-departmental collaboration
Collaboration among various government entities should be built upon existing structures and models, emphasising a unified approach to regulatory development within the DPME’s CBM model. Recommendations should underscore streamlined collaboration between the Department of DPME, the Department of Public Service and Administration (DPSA), and the Public Service Commission (PSC). Efforts should be meticulously aligned to prevent potential duplications and gaps in the regulatory framework, ensuring that incorporating social media into CBM initiatives operates consistently and efficiently within the established governance landscape of DPME’s model. A unified approach to regulatory development within the DPME’s framework guarantees that CBM initiatives operate within clearly defined legal parameters, promoting effectiveness and coherence.
Public awareness and education
Recommendations for public awareness campaigns should leverage existing initiatives while seamlessly integrating the introduction of social media into CBM practices within DPME’s framework. Collaborate with government entities and organisations, such as the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), to actively participate in educational efforts. Rather than creating entirely new campaigns, integrate CBM aspects into current awareness initiatives, ensuring that citizens and stakeholders are well-informed about their rights and responsibilities in the evolving CBM process. This collaborative approach ensures the reach and effectiveness of these campaigns while building on existing structures and awareness programmes within the DPME’s established framework.
Future research directions
One crucial direction for future research lies in comprehensive impact assessments, allowing for a thorough understanding of how CBM influences transparency, service delivery, and citizen engagement. These assessments provide a data-driven foundation for governments and organisations to refine their strategies. Additionally, it is essential to focus on digital inclusion studies to uncover the extent of digital accessibility and identify the barriers marginalised communities encounter in their participation in CBM through social media. By addressing these disparities, researchers can develop strategies that foster a more inclusive and equitable environment for CBM, enabling all citizens to participate effectively. Sharing best practices and case studies is another vital aspect of future research, as it enables the dissemination of insights and successful strategies from CBM initiatives, informing governments and organisations globally. Lastly, research must remain adaptable and embrace technological advancements to assess emerging social media platforms and technologies, exploring their potential to enhance data collection, citizen engagement, and service monitoring. This approach ensures that CBM initiatives stay dynamic and responsive, evolving alongside the ever-changing governance and citizen empowerment landscape.
Acknowledgements
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
Authors’ contributions
L.S.M. was involved in conceptualising the study, designing the research, collecting and analysing data, interpreting findings, drafting the manuscript, and critically revising it. L.S.M. also contributed to data analysis and participated in revising the manuscript. The article was authored by L.S.M.
Ethical considerations
Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the University of Johannesburg School of Public Management, Governance and Public Policy Research Ethics Committee (No. 21PMGPP29). Ethical considerations played a paramount role in the research process, guiding the study to ensure the well-being and rights of participants. Approval from the University of Johannesburg’s before data collection underscored the research’s commitment to ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, emphasising their voluntary participation, right to withdraw at any stage and assurance of confidentiality. Measures were in place to mitigate potential risks to participants, particularly considering the sensitive nature of discussing CBM, governance, and citizen engagement. Pseudonyms and anonymisation were employed to protect the identity of interview participants, and data confidentiality was rigorously maintained throughout the research lifecycle.
In addition, the research team was trained to handle sensitive information responsibly, emphasising the importance of respecting participants’ privacy and maintaining the integrity of the study. These ethical considerations and risk mitigation strategies were integral to upholding the research’s credibility and ensuring the well-being of all involved parties.
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. It does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency, or that of the publisher. The author is responsible for this article’s results, findings, and content.
References
Aday, S., 2010, ‘Public service in the information age: How e-government will impact public administration’, in Handbook of public information systems, pp. 313–329, CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M., 1980, Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Almalki, S. & Mohammed, E., 2018, ‘Adaa: Saudi Arabian citizens’ participation in e-government’, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Information and Communication Technology for the New Digital Era, pp. 165–177.
Anderson, K. & Martinez, E., 2017, ‘Digital governance in municipalities worldwide: A longitudinal assessment of municipal websites throughout the 2000s’, Government Information Quarterly 34(4), 613–623.
Baker, R., Wang, L. & Wakefield, M., 2016, ‘The impact of context on using different survey mode combinations: Face-to-face, telephone, and self-administered surveys’, Social Science Research 60, 51–67.
Bakshi, P. & James, J., 2017, ‘Exploring social media use and perceptions among community college students in the USA’, Education and Information Technologies 22(6), 3049–3074.
Bhatia, M. & Nair, A., 2019, Resource-intensive tools in citizen-based monitoring: Implications for scalability, IGI Global, Hershey, PA.
Birundu, E.N., 2020, ‘Utilisation of mobile phone surveys in social science research: Challenges and opportunities’, International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications 10(1), 9–13.
Bithas, K. & Nijkamp, P., 2019a, ‘The impact of citizen participation on transparency of local government activities’, Sustainability 11(1), 46. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010046
Bithas, K. & Nijkamp, P., 2019b, ‘Participatory governance, social media, and the populist rebellion: The case of Greece’, International Journal of Electronic Governance 10(3–4), 207–225.
Bjoersten, H. & Van Der Hoek, W., 2008, The way forward: Monitoring and evaluation of community-driven development, World Bank Publications, Washington, DC.
Booth, W.C., Colomb, G.G., Williams, J.M., Bizup, J. & Fitzgerald, W.T., 2016, The craft of research, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Bovens, M., 2007, ‘Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework’, European Law Journal 13(4), 447–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x
Brown, A. & Green, T., 2021, ‘Examining the role of citizen-based monitoring in promoting accountability in the public sector: Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa’, Public Administration and Development 41(5), 429–443.
Capobianco, L. & Meckel, M., 2019, ‘The role of social media in political communication’, in Strategic political communication, pp. 207–233, Springer, New York, NY.
Chadwick, A. & Stromer-Galley, J., 2016, ‘Digital media, social media, and the hybrid media system: Politics’, in The Oxford handbook of political communication, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Charowa, G., Gavaza, P. & Mavodza, J., 2020, ‘A service quality evaluation framework for government social media platforms: The case of GovChat’, in Proceedings of the European Conference on e-Government (ECEG), October 24–25, 2019, Nicosia, Cyprus, vol. 1, pp. 191–199.
Chadwick, A., 2013, The hybrid media system: Politics and power, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Chen, Y. & Patel, H., 2018, ‘Usability evaluation of electronic health record interface in China: A case study of web-based hemodialysis data management system’, International Journal of Medical Informatics 104, 1–14.
Creswell, J.W. & Creswell, J.D., 2017, Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Dassen, N., Kunst, J. & Bishai, D., 2020, ‘Community-based monitoring in search of excellence: Data quality and management practices’, World Development 133, 104964.
DPME (Department of Planning, Monitoring, and Evaluation), 2013, Independent impact assessment of the community monitoring and advocacy programme of the Black Sash Trust, Government of South Africa, Pretoria.
DPME (Department of Planning, Monitoring, and Evaluation), 2015, Annual report 2014/15, Government of South Africa, Pretoria.
DPME, 2016, Improving public services: Citizen-based monitoring of service delivery, Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation.
Dlamini, M., 2022, ‘Citizen engagement in public decision-making: An analysis of South African practices’, Public Administration Review 52(4), 389–404.
Dlamini, N., Ndwandwe, S. & Mbele, N., 2022, ‘The role of data in advancing health equity: Lessons from South Africa’s national health information initiative’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19(2), 393.
Dinur, A. & Everett, S., 2020, ‘Social media use in the public sector: A comprehensive analysis of the literature’, International Journal of Public Administration 43(8), 649–664.
Doppelt, J.C., 2013, ‘Using online crowdsourcing to support local government’, in Proceedings of the 16th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, June 9–11, 2013, pp. 146–155.
Eyben, R., 2016, The great transformation: Change and continuity in East African hydropower, Berghahn Books, New York, NY.
Foth, M., Hearn, G. & Tacchi, J., 2011, Action research and new media: Concepts, methods, and cases, Hampton Press, Cresskill.
Fox, J., 2020, Accountability politics: Power and voice in rural Mexico, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Fung, A. & Wright, E.O., 2003, ‘Deepening democracy: Innovations in empowered participatory governance’, Politics & Society 31(1), 131–161.
Garcia, M. & Patel, R., 2018, ‘Digital governance and civic engagement: Social media and the commission on presidential debates’, Administration & Society 50(5), 673–702.
Garcia, M. & Rodriguez, L., 2017, ‘Social media use in local government: Linkage of technology, task support, and organisational context’, Public Administration Review 77(2), 303–315.
Gil de Zúñiga, H., Jung, N. & Valenzuela, S., 2012, ‘Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 17(3), 319–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01574.x
Gonzalez, R., 2019, ‘The impact of social media use on civic engagement: The incremental role of political information efficacy’, Computers in Human Behavior 100, 136–143.
Goodhue, D.L. & Thompson, R.L., 1995, ‘Task-technology fit and individual performance’, MIS Quarterly 19(2), 213–236. https://doi.org/10.2307/249689
Guijt, I. & Shah, M.K., 1998, The myth of community: Gender issues in participatory development, Intermediate Technology Publications, London.
Gupta, A., Jain, A. & Sharma, P., 2014, ‘Leveraging social media for effective government responsiveness: An empirical study’, Government Information Quarterly 31(4), 525–535.
Gupta, S., 2020, ‘Barriers to digital government adoption: Evidence from India’, Government Information Quarterly 37(4), 101488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101488
Grunig, J.E. & Grunig, L.A., 2010, ‘The effect of relationships on reputation and reputation on relationships: A cognitive, behavioral study’, Public Relations Review 36(3), 281–288.
Guzmán, V.D., 2019, ‘Inclusivity in digital government: A literature review and roadmap’, Government Information Quarterly 36(4), 101399.
Heald, D., 2019, Public sector economics, Routledge, London.
Howard, P.N. & Parks, M.R., 2012, ‘The role of digital media’, Journal of Communication 62(3), 735–747. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01626.x
Hossain, M.M. & Alam, S., 2018, Digital divide and social inequality: Challenges and opportunities, Springer, Berlin.
Ishmaev, G., 2021, ‘Enhancing citizen engagement in public administration: The role of social media’, International Journal of Public Administration 44(8), 693–704. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2020.1840202
Ishmaev, G., 2021, ‘Social media and public governance: Theoretical overview and empirical case studies’, Public Administration and Development 41(4), 294–310.
Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM), 2018, South Africa Progress Report 2016 – 2018, viewed 16 June 2023, from https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2001/01/South-Africa_MidTerm-Report_2016-2018.pdf.
Jain, R., 2019, ‘Enhancing transparency and accountability in government: Role of e-government’, International Journal of Public Administration 42(7), 557–570.
James, E., 2016, ‘Exploring the influence of user-generated content on e-government websites’, Government Information Quarterly 33(3), 463–471.
Johnson, P. & Singh, T., 2018, ‘Introduction: Reflecting on political and social forces’, in Mobile and ubiquitous learning: An international handbook, pp. 1–9, Springer, Berlin.
Johnson, M. & Smith, A., 2020a, ‘Traditional methods and challenges in community-driven resource management: Insights from South Africa’, International Journal of Community Development 7(3), 145–162.
Johnson, C. & Smith, L., 2020b, ‘Citizen-based monitoring and its implications for public administration: Evidence from a South African perspective’, Public Administration and Development 40(5), 372–384.
Joshi, A. & Houtzager, P.P., 2012, ‘Widgets or watchdogs? Public management, social accountability and inter-mediation in Uganda and India’, Public Management Review 14(2), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.657837
Katz, E. & Abdulai, J., 2020, Cybersecurity and privacy: Bridging the gap, CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Kaplan, A.M. & Haenlein, M., 2010, ‘Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media’, Business Horizons 53(1), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003
Kinyanjui, S., 2017, ‘Engaging citizens in monitoring and evaluation: Lessons from USAID’s Tusome early grade reading activity’, International Journal of Educational Development 55, 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2016.09.002
Kinyanjui, J., 2017, ‘Decentralization and local government performance: Evidence from Kenya’, Public Administration and Development 37(1), 14–28.
Kiousis, S. & Wu, X., 2017, ‘Facebook as a channel for news about government and politics: Avoidance, deliberation, and emerging media logic’, Social Media + Society 3(1), 2056305117698987.
Kumar, S. & Singh, M., 2019, ‘An empirical investigation of the adoption of e-government services by citizens in India’, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy 13(1), 52–70.
Lazarsfeld, P.F. & Katz, E., 1955, Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications, Free Press, New York.
Lee, J., 2019, ‘Factors influencing local government social media use for community engagement’, Public Performance & Management Review 42(4), 768–795.
Linders, D., 2012, ‘From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media’, Government Information Quarterly 29(4), 446–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.003
Livingstone, S., 2008, ‘Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: Teenagers use social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression’, New Media & Society 10(3), 393–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444808089415
Machi, L.A. & McEvoy, B.T., 2016, The literature review: Six steps to success, Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks.
Mafunisa, M.J., 2016, ‘Mobile phone surveys for continuous monitoring of quantifiable indicators’, in Innovations in public governance: Volume 25 – Meeting the challenges of the 21st century, pp. 123–142, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley.
Mikkelsen, G. & McNiece, R., 2003, ‘How the mystery client method measures up’, Field Methods 15(4), 343–364.
Makina, A. & Ntombela, T., 2015, Public participation in environmental impact assessments: Challenges and opportunities, Routledge, London.
Mishra, S., Akter, S. & Basher, S.A., 2021, ‘Citizen monitoring and service delivery: A study of governance and accountability in Bangladesh’, International Journal of Public Administration 44(1), 13–29.
Mishra, S., Akter, S. & Basher, S.A., 2021, ‘Impact of community-based monitoring on public services: Evidence from an emerging economy’, Information Systems Journal 31(1), 90–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12290
Mkude, A., Komba, A.T., Kassim, H., Mwaiswelo, R. & Wilson, M., 2019, Digital anonymity: Issues and challenges in online environments, IGI Global, Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Mokone, T., 2019, ‘Community-led development initiatives: Lessons from a South African perspective’, Journal of Community Development 44(3), 245–260.
Moleleki, L.N. & Makgopa, D., 2021, ‘Citizen participation and monitoring of public service delivery through grievance redress mechanisms in South Africa: The case of Gauteng Province’, Administrative Sciences 11(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci11010027
Mthembu, Z. & Nkosi, Z., 2018, ‘Participatory governance in local communities: A case study in South Africa’, International Journal of Public Administration and Management Research 6(1), 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_3651-1
Mthembu, S. & Nkosi, T., 2018, ‘The role of social media in citizen-based monitoring: Lessons from South Africa’, Public Management Review 20(11), 1658–1680.
Mukerjee, S., Zhang, Y. & Maity, T., 2020, ‘Social media and good governance: A literature review’, in Good governance and public accountability, pp. 35–45, Springer, New York, NY.
Mukuru, D.K., 2016, Data quality management: Challenges and strategies, Springer, Berlin, Germany.
Mukuru, S., 2016, ‘The use of mobile phone surveys for data collection in developing countries’, International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Research 6(1), 51–59.
Naidu, N., 2017, ‘Overcoming the implementation challenges of community scorecards: Case studies from Sierra Leone and Uganda’, Journal of Public Health Policy 5(8), 75–80.
Newig, J. & Fritsch, O., 2018, ‘Environmental governance: Participatory, multi-level – And effective?’, Environmental Policy and Governance 28(6), 375–388.
Ngcobo, S., 2018, ‘Traditional community engagement models: Challenges and opportunities in South Africa’, Journal of Social Innovation and Local Development 12(4), 321–336.
Okolloh, O., 2009, ‘Ushahidi, or “testimony”: Web 2.0 tools for crowdsourcing crisis information’, Participatory Learning and Action 59(1), 65–70.
Open Government Partnership (OGP), 2020, Harnessing the potential of citizen participation for open government: A guide for South African Practitioners, Open Government Partnership.
Patel, R. & Chen, P., 2018, ‘Exploring the digital divide: The use of digital government services in rural and urban areas’, Public Administration Review 78(6), 888–900.
Peled, A. & Unkule, M., 2016, ‘Promoting civic engagement through an online issue reporting system’, Information Polity 21(1), 11–24.
Picard, R.G., 2019, ‘Newspapers as intermediaries’, Journal of Media Business Studies 16(2), 139–142.
Pillay, U., 2015, ‘Citizen participation and local government service delivery in South Africa’, Local Government Studies 41(3), 421–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2015.1017645
Rodriguez, L. & Lee, J., 2019, ‘Social media use in local government: Key considerations and best practices’, Public Administration Quarterly 43(4), 702–724.
Ruiu, M.L., 2019, ‘Social media and international affairs: A new way of diplomacy’, The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 14(2), 181–204.
Sabwa, J., 2017, Resource constraints and sustainability in community-based monitoring: Lessons from Africa, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Samuel, M. & Chirambo, D., 2018, ‘Citizen-based monitoring of public service delivery: Insights from Malawi’, Public Administration and Development 38(5), 332–345.
Shah, A., 2007, Participatory budgeting: A concept paper, Public Sector Governance and Accountability Series, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Shilubane, H.N. & Ezeonwuka, C.D., 2018, Enhancing citizen engagement in public service delivery: The role of information communication technologies, IGI Global, Hershey, Pennsylvania.
Smith, C., 2017, ‘Citizen engagement in public service delivery: Evidence from South Africa’, Public Administration and Development 37(4), 256–269.
Smith, D.M., 2020, ‘Citizen participation in e-government services: A literature review’, Information Systems Management 37(3), 215–232.
Smith, J.A. & Jones, B.C., 2019, ‘Enhancing citizen engagement through digital government: A holistic framework’, Public Administration Review 79(6), 961–968.
Smith, P. & Anderson, K., 2018, ‘Digital governance and citizen engagement: Evaluating efforts in U.S. cities’, Government Information Quarterly 35(2), 233–242.
Steyn, H. & Swanepoel, E., 2017, Data validation and cross-referencing in citizen-based monitoring: Lessons from practice, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Stirling, J., 2017, Digital literacy and social inclusion: Perspectives and challenges, Routledge, London.
Sukumaran, R., 2019, ‘Harnessing social media for citizen engagement in public policy decision-making’, Public Performance & Management Review 42(3), 601–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2018.1548674
Sukumaran, S., 2019, ‘Citizen-driven innovation in public services: The role of social media’, Public Administration Review 79(1), 52–62.
Swanepoel, H., 2020, ‘Community engagement and social accountability in South Africa: Practitioner perspectives’, Public Administration and Development 40(3), 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1863
Swanepoel, C., 2020, ‘Public sector innovation in the digital era: Lessons from South Africa’, Public Management Review 22(7), 1020–1040.
Tatarchevskiy, A. & Pan, Y., 2015, ‘Public engagement in government social media: The case of London Government Twitter’, Government Information Quarterly 32(3), 235–245.
Tripathi, S. & Bevan, J., 2013, ‘Community monitoring and water integrity in India: Needs and challenges’, Water Policy 15(2), 298–316.
UN, 2018, Handbook on citizen engagement: Beyond consultation, United Nations, New York, NY.
UNDP, 2019, Civic tech in the global south: Assessing technology for the public good, United Nations Development Programme, New York.
Van Dijck, J., 2013, The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Vargo, C.J. & Gu, H., 2017, ‘Like, comment, share: Event and political Facebook messages and user engagement’, New Media & Society 19(4), 522–541.
Virtanen, P., Rijneveld, H., Martini, M. & Kummitha, R., 2019a, ‘Digital transformation in public sector organizations: Advancing digital capabilities to enable smart government’, International Journal of Public Administration 42(13), 1116–1129.
Virtanen, P., Rijneveld, H., Martini, A. & Kummitha, R.K.R., 2019b, ‘Civic technologies for smart cities: A systematic literature review’, Sustainability 11(3), 777. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030777
Vundule, C. et al., 2019, ‘Investigating the role of community scorecards in promoting social accountability: Evidence from a pilot project in South Africa’, Public Administration and Development 39(2), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1852
White, L. & Brown, D., 2017, ‘Transparency and citizen participation: A review of initiatives in South Africa’, Africanus 47(1), 84–104.
Yin, H. & Jia, Y., 2013, ‘Social media and the public sector’, Public Administration Review 73(3), 444–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12040
Appendix 1
| TABLE 1-A1: A comparative overview of social-media-driven citizen-based monitoring platforms. |
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
