Exploring U.S. e-diplomacy and non-state actors' increasing communicative influence
Pages 347 - 354
Abstract
In the present "information as commodity" age, government agencies around the globe view information as not only an asset but also a national security priority. Under pressures to rapidly gather, process, and disseminate information, government agencies, specifically those involved in diplomacy, are transforming their relationships with non-state actors for the purpose of expanding their information capabilities and resources. Generally speaking, non-state actors (such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs), international governmental organizations (IGOs), the media, and corporations) have a propensity to effectively deploy and utilize communication technology for innovative information exchange from geographically dispersed sites around the world. This exploratory study examines national governments increasing information dependencies on non-state actors. The impact of new government information partnerships afford non-state actors with a more influential role in diplomatic processes. Using the U.S. Department of State as the case study, this work synthesizes literature on the nature, functions, and information assets involved in diplomacy to explicate how digital government is changing state and non-state communicative dynamics and influences.
References
[1]
Bimber, B. 2003. Information and American Democracy: Technology in the Evolution of Political Power. Cambridge University Press.
[2]
Bollier, D. 2003. The Rise of Netpolitik: How the Internet is Changing International Politics and Diplomacy: A Report of the Eleventh Annual Aspen Institute Roundtable on Information Technology. The Aspen Institute.
[3]
Castells, M. 2000. The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture, Volume 1: The Rise of the Network Society (2nd ed.). Blackwell Publishers.
[4]
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). 1998. Reinventing Diplomacy in the Information Age: A Report of the CSIS Advisory Panel on Diplomacy in the Information Age. The CSIS Press.
[5]
Cheney, G. 1983. On the various and changing meanings of organizational membership: A field study of organizational membership. Communication Monographs. 50, 4, 342--362.
[6]
Cohen, S. G. and Mankin, D. 2002. Complex collaborations in the new global economy. Elsevier.
[7]
Collin Marks, S. 2000. Watching the Wind: Conflict Resolution During South Africa's Transition to Democracy. United States Institute of Peace.
[8]
DeSanctis, G. and Poole, M. S. 1997. Transitions in teamwork in new organizational forms. Advances in Group Processes. 14, 157--176.
[9]
Diehl, P. F. (Ed.). 2005. The Politics of Global Governance: International Organizations in an Interdependent World. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
[10]
Dizard, W. P. 2002. State creates E-Diplomacy Office to coordinate user needs with IT. Government Computing News. DOI = http://www.gcn.com/print/21_27/19909-1.html.
[11]
Euske, N. A. and Roberts, K. H. 1987. Evolving perspectives in organization theory: Communication implications. F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, L. W. Porter, Eds. Handbook of Organizational Communication: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, Sage, 420--443.
[12]
Fernandez, 2007. Remarks before the Future Trends Foundation for Strategic Studies and Dialogue, November 29, 2007 at Friendship Hall. DOI = http://sudan.usembassy.gov/ev-112907.html
[13]
Finger, S. M. 2002. Inside the World of Diplomacy: The U.S. Foreign Service in a Changing World. Praeger Publishers.
[14]
Fitzduff, M. 2002. Beyond Violence: Conflict Resolution Processes in Northern Ireland: UNU Policy Perspectives, Vol. 7. Brookings Institution Press.
[15]
Fitzduff, M. and Church, C. (Eds). 2004. NGOs at the Table: Strategies for Influencing Policies in Areas of Conflict. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
[16]
Friedman, T. L. 2005. The World is Flat: A Brief History of The Twenty-first Century. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
[17]
Halliday, F. 2001. The romance of non-state actors. D. Josselin, W. Wallace, W., Eds. Non-state actors in world politics. Palgrave Publishers, New York, NY, pp. 21--37.
[18]
Hollingshead, A. B., Fulk, J., and Monge, P. 2002. Fostering intranet knowledge-sharing: An integration of transactive memory and public goods approaches. P. Hinds and S. Kisler (Eds.) Distributed work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 436--466.
[19]
Holmes, J. P. 2003. E-Diplomacy: Using technology to advance foreign relations. DOI = http://www.state.gov/s/p/of/proc/17914.htm.
[20]
Josselin, D. and Wallace, W. 2001. Non-state actors in world politics: A framework. D. Josselin, W. Wallace, W., Eds. Non-state actors in world politics. Palgrave Publishers, New York, NY, pp. 1--37.
[21]
Kelman, H. 1996. The interactive problem-solving approach. C. A. Crocker, F. O. Hampson, Eds. Managing global chaos: Sources of and responses to international conflict. United States Institute of Peace, Washington, DC, pp. 501--520.
[22]
Lievrouw, L. A., Bucy, E. P., Finn, T. A., Frindte, W., Gershon, R. A., Haythornthwaite, C., Kohler, T., Metz, J. M. and Sundar, S. S. 2001. Bridging the subdisciplines: An overview of communication and technology research. W. B. Gudykunst, Ed. Communication Yearbook, 24. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 271--296.
[23]
Natsios, A. S. 1995. NGOs and the UN system in complex humanitarian emergencies: Conflict or cooperation? Third World Quarterly. 16, 3, 405--420.
[24]
Nonaka, I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge of creation. Organization Science. 5, 1, 14--37.
[25]
Plischke, E. 1999. U.S. Department of State: A Reference History. Greenwood Press.
[26]
ReliefWeb. 2008. DOI = http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/hlp.nsf/db900ByKey/AboutReliefWeb?OpenDocumentAbout ReliefWeb.
[27]
Reus-Smit, C. 1999. The Moral Purpose of the State: Culture, Social Identity, and Institutional Rationality in International Relations. Princeton University Press.
[28]
Riordan, S. 2003. The New Diplomacy. Polity Press.
[29]
Smith, P. H. n.d. Public diplomacy: What's our cotext?" DOI = http://www.diplomacy.edu/Books/mdiplomacy_book/smith/regular/smith-6.htm.
[30]
Stohl, M. and Stohl, C. 2005. Human rights, nation states, and NGOs: Structural holes and the emergence of global regimes. Communication Monographs. 72, 4, 442--467.
[31]
Stone, D. 2001. The 'policy research' knowledge elite and global policy processes, D. Josselin, W. Wallace, Eds. Non-state Actors in World Politics. Palgrave Publishers, New York, NY, 113--132.
[32]
U.S. Department of State. 2004. IT Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2006--2010 Goals Paper: Empowering Diplomacy (Publication No. 11146). U.S. Government Printing Office.
[33]
U.S. Department of State. 2005. Diplomacy: The U.S. Department of State at Work (Publication No. 11201). U.S. Government Printing Office.
[34]
U.S. Department of State. 2006. Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. DOI = http://www.state.gov/r/.
[35]
U.S. Department of State. 2006. Transformational diplomacy fact sheet. DOI = http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2006/59339.htm.
[36]
U.S. Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development. 2003. Security, Democracy, Prosperity: Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2004--2009: Aligning Democracy and Development Assistance (Publication No. 11084). Government Printing Office.
[37]
U.S. Department of State Khartoum Public Diplomacy Office. 2007. Public diplomacy office. DOI = http://sudan.usembassy.gov/publicaffairssection.html.
[38]
Weiss, C. 2005. Science, technology and international relations. Technology in Society. 27, 295--313.
[39]
Weick, K. 2001. Making sense of the organization. Blackwell Publishers.
Index Terms
- Exploring U.S. e-diplomacy and non-state actors' increasing communicative influence
Recommendations
Exploring Online Structures on Chinese Government Portals
This article explores the communicative structures of Chinese government web sites and their implications for citizen political participation. Taking issue with the party-state's dubious claim of building a transparent, service-oriented, and democratic ...
Influence of IoT Policy on Quality of Life: From Government and Citizens' Perspectives
In this study, an attempt was taken to identify the issues concerning to regulations and governance which could substantially influence the citizens of India relating to adoption of the Internet of Things. The objective of this study is to highlight ...
Exploring Public Sector’s Roles in Collaborative Consumption – A Research Agenda
Electronic ParticipationAbstractMotivated by the growing significance of sharing economy within our society, we here discuss which role the public sector may have within collaborative consumption (CC). CC refers to a business model grounded on peer-to-peer based sharing of goods ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
May 2008
488 pages
ISBN:9781605580999
- Conference Chairs:
- Monique Charbonneau,
- Lester Diamond,
- Stuart Shulman,
- Program Chairs:
- Soon Ae Chun,
- Marijn Janssen,
- J. Ramon Gil-Garcia
Sponsors
- Routledge
- Springer
- Elsevier
- Cefrio
- NCDG: National Center for Digital Government
Publisher
Digital Government Society of North America
Publication History
Published: 18 May 2008
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Conference
dg.o '08
Sponsor:
- NCDG
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 150 of 271 submissions, 55%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 386Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)10
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 11 Jan 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in