Recent works have coined the term Online Political Efficacy (OPE) to assess the impact of Internet use on the perceived political empowerment of citizens. As the classic concept of political efficacy distinguishes between internal (IPE) and external (EPE) efficacies, we seek to confirm the usefulness of a new indicator of political efficacy for online engagement and assess the impact of the territory where people reside on OPE. Although OPE is mostly explained by the same determinants that account for IPE, the center-periphery divide influences OPE and IPE in opposite directions. Those who reside in the territorial—and political—periphery believe more strongly that they can use Internet to participate in public affairs (OPE), though they do not feel more competent in doing so (IPE). The democratizing power of Internet helps bridge the center-periphery social and political territorial divide.
AbramsonPR (1983) Political Attitudes in America: Formation and Change. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman and Company.
2.
AbramsonPR (1987) Las actitudes políticas en norteamérica. Primera edición. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Grupo Editor Latinoamericano.
3.
AdamsPCGhoseR (2003) India.com: the construction of a space between. Progress in Human Geography27(4): 414–437.
4.
AgarwalRAnimeshAPrasadK (2009) Research note: social interactions and the “digital divide”—explaining variations in Internet use. Information Systems Research20(2): 277–294.
5.
AgostinoDArnaboldiM (2016) A measurement framework for assessing the contribution of social media to public engagement: an empirical analysis on Facebook. Public Management Review18(9): 1289–1307.
6.
AndrewsREntwistleTGuarneros -MezaV (2019) Local government size and political efficacy: do citizen panels make a difference?International Journal of Public Administration42(8): 664–676.
7.
BalchGI (1974) Multiple indicators in survey research: the concept “sense of political efficacy.”Political Methodology1(2): 1–43.
8.
BargstedMASommaNM (2013) Social cleavages and political dealignment in contemporary Chile, 1995–2009. Party Politics22(1): 105–124.
9.
BestSJKruegerBS (2005) Analyzing the representativeness of Internet political participation. Political Behavior27(2): 183–216.
10.
BollenKARabe-KeskethSSkrondalA (2008) Structural equation models. In: CollierDBox-SteffensmeierJM (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 432–455.
11.
BoulianneS (2009) Does Internet use affect engagement? A meta-analysis of research. Political Communication26(2): 193–211.
12.
BoulianneS (2019) Revolution in the making? Social media effects across the globe. Information, Communication & Society22(1): 39–54.
13.
CairncrossF (1997) The Death of Distance: How the Communications Revolution is Changing Our Lives. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
14.
CampbellACoversePEMillerWE, et al. (1960) The American Voter. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
CardosoFFalettoE (1976) Dependencia y Desarrollo En América Latina. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Siglo XXI Editores.
17.
CarraraS (2012) Towards e-ECIs? European participation by online pan-European mobilization. Perspectives on European Politics and Society13(3): 352–369.
18.
Center for the Digital Future (2016) The World Internet Project International Report. 6th ed. Available at: www.digitalcenter.org
19.
ChenCBaiYWangR (2019) Online political efficacy and political participation: a mediation analysis based on the evidence from Taiwan. New Media & Society21(8): 1667–1696.
20.
ChengYLiangJLeungL (2014) Social network service use on mobile devices: an examination of gratifications, civic attitudes and civic engagement in China. New Media & Society17(7): 1096–1116.
21.
CoversePE (1972) Change in the American electorate. In: CampbellAConversePE (eds) The Human Meaning of Social Change. New York: Russell SAGE Foundation, pp. 263–338.
22.
CraigSCNiemiRGSilverGE (1990) Political efficacy and trust: a report on the NES Pilot Study items. Political Behavior12(3): 289–314.
23.
DennisEMartinJDHassanF (2019) Media Use in the Middle East, 2019: A Seven-Nation Survey. Doha, Qatar: Northwestern University in Qatar.
24.
EllisonNHardeyM (2014) Social media and local government: citizenship, consumption and democracy. Local Government Studies40(1): 21–40.
25.
Espinar-RuizEGonzález-RioMJ (2015) Uso de Internet y prácticas políticas de los jóvenes españoles. Convergencia69: 13–38.
26.
FierroPArocaPNaviaP (2020) How people access the Internet and the democratic divide: evidence from the Chilean region of Valparaiso 2017, 2018 and 2019. Technology in Society63: 101432.
27.
FinkelSE (1985) Reciprocal effects of participation and political efficacy: a panel analysis. American Journal of Political Science29(4): 891–913.
28.
GibsonRKLusoliWWardS (2005) Online participation in the UK: testing a “contextualised” model of Internet effects. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations7(4): 561–583.
29.
Gil de ZúñigaHBarnidgeMSchermanA (2017) Social media social capital, offline social capital, and citizenship: exploring asymmetrical social capital effects. Political Communication34(1): 44–68.
30.
Gil de ZúñigaHJungNValenzuelaS (2012) Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication17(3): 319–336.
31.
Gil de ZúñigaHMolyneuxLZhengP (2014) Social media, political expression, and political participation: panel analysis of lagged and concurrent relationships. Journal of Communication64(4): 612–634.
32.
GrahamMDe SabbataSStraumannRK, et al. (2018) Uneven digital geographies . . . and why they matter. In: Orangotango+K (ed.) This Is Not an Atlas. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag, pp. 310–318.
33.
HansenKMTue PedersenR (2014) Campaigns matter: How Voters became knowledgeable and efficacious during election campaigns. Political Communication31: 303–324.
34.
HargittaiE (2002) Second-level digital divide: differences in people’s online skills. First Monday7(4). Available at: https://firstmonday.org/article/view/942/864 (accessed 28 August 2019).
35.
Haro-de-RosarioASáez-MartínAdel Carmen Caba-PérezM (2016) Using social media to enhance citizen engagement with local government: Twitter or Facebook?New Media & Society20: 29–49.
36.
HirzallaFvan ZoonenLde RidderJ (2011) Internet use and political participation: reflections on the mobilization/normalization controversy. The Information Society27: 1–15.
37.
HoffmannCPLutzC (2019) Digital divides in political participation: the mediating role of social media self-efficacy and privacy concerns. Policy & Internet13: 6–29.
38.
KenskiKStroudNJ (2006) Connections between internet use and political efficacy, knowledge, and participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media50(2): 173–192.
39.
KimJWParkSSangY (2020) A longitudinal study on the effects of motivational mobile application uses on online news engagement. International Journal of Mobile Communications18(3): 327–342.
40.
KneuerMDattsM (2020) E-democracy and the matter of scale: revisiting the democratic promises of the Internet in terms of the spatial dimension. Politische Vierteljahresschrift61(2): 285–308.
41.
KwonKHShaoCNahS (2021) Localized social media and civic life: motivations, trust, and civic participation in local community contexts. Journal of Information Technology & Politics18: 55–69.
42.
LeónRMezaS (2020) Brecha en el uso de internet: Desigualdad digital en el 2020. Santiago de Chile, Chile: Fundación País Digital.
43.
LidénG (2016) Inequality in local digital politics: how different preconditions for citizen engagement can be explained. Policy & Internet8(3): 270–291.
44.
LipsetSMRokkanS (1967) Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments: An Introduction. In: LipsetSMRokkanS (eds) Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives. New York, The Free Press, pp. 1–64.
45.
McDonnellJ (2020) Municipality size, political efficacy and political participation: a systematic review. Local Government Studies46(3): 331–350.
46.
MartinJDMartinsRJNaqviS (2018) Media use predictors of online political efficacy among Internet users in five Arab countries. Information, Communication & Society21(1): 129–146.
47.
MinS-J (2010) From the digital divide to the democratic divide: Internet skills, political interest, and the second-level digital divide in political Internet use. Journal of Information Technology & Politics7(1): 22–35.
48.
MorrellME (2003) Survey and experimental evidence for a reliable and valid measure of internal political efficacy. Public Opinion Quarterly67(4): 589–602.
49.
MorrisDSMorrisJS (2013) Digital inequality and participation in the political process. Social Science Computer Review31(5): 589–600.
50.
MossbergerKTolbertCJBowenD, et al. (2012) Unraveling different barriers to Internet use: urban residents and neighborhood effects. Urban Affairs Review48(6): 771–810.
51.
NorrisP (2001) Digital Divide? Civic Engagement, Information Poverty and the Internet Worldwide. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52.
OECD (2020) Digital Government in Chile—Improving Public Service Design and Delivery (OECD Digital Government Studies). Paris: OECD Publishing.
53.
OgnyanovaKBall-RokeachSJ (2015) Political efficacy on the Internet: a media system dependency approach. Communication and Information Technologies Annual9: 3–27.
54.
PirannejadAJanssenM (2017) Internet and political empowerment: towards a taxonomy for online political empowerment. Information Development35(1): 80–95.
55.
PurdySJ (2017) Internet use and civic engagement: A structural equation approach. Computers in Human Behavior71: 318–326.
56.
PutnamRD (1995) Tuning in, Tuning out: the strange disappearance of social capital in America. PS: Political Science and Politics28(4): 664–683.
57.
RigginsFJDewanS (2005) The digital divide: current and future research directions. Journal of the Association for Information Systems6(12): Article 13.
58.
RobinsonLCottenSROnoH, et al. (2015) Digital inequalities and why they matter. Information, Communication & Society18(5): 569–582.
59.
RodriguesMMezaOD (2018) “Is there anybody out there?” Political implications of a territorial integration. Journal of Urban Affairs40(3): 426–440.
60.
Rodríguez-PoseA (2018) The revenge of the places that don’t matter (and what to do about it). Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society11(1): 189–209.
61.
Rodríguez-PoseA (2020) The rise of populism and the revenge of the places that don’t matter. LSE Public Policy Review1(1): 4.
62.
RoweGFrewerLJ (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values30(2): 251–290.
63.
SaglieJVaboSI (2009) Size and e-democracy: online participation in Norwegian local politics. Scandinavian Political Studies32(4): 382–401.
64.
SartoriG (2005) Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Colchester: ECPR Press.
65.
SasakiF (2016) Online political efficacy (OPE) as a reliable survey measure of political empowerment when using the Internet. Policy & Internet8(2): 197–214.
66.
SasakiF (2017) Does Internet use provide a deeper sense of political empowerment to the less educated?Information, Communication & Society20(10): 1445–1463.
67.
ScheufeleDANisbetMC (2002) Being a citizen online. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics7(3): 55–75.
68.
SchlozmanKLVerbaSBradyHE (2010) Weapon of the strong? Participatory inequality and the Internet. Perspectives on Politics8(2): 487–509.
69.
ScullyTR (1992) Rethinking the Center: Party Politics in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Chile. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
70.
StephensMPoorthuisA (2015) Follow thy neighbor: connecting the social and the spatial networks on Twitter. Special Issue on Volunteered Geographic Information53: 87–95.
71.
SylvesterDEMcGlynnAJ (2009) The digital divide, political participation, and place. Social Science Computer Review28(1): 64–74.
72.
TakhteyevYGruzdAWellmanB (2012) Geography of Twitter networks. Capturing Context: Integrating Spatial and Social Network Analyses34(1): 73–81.
73.
TorcalMMainwaringS (2003) The political recrafting of social bases of party competition: Chile, 1973–95. British Journal of Political Science33(1): 55–84.
74.
VelasquezALaRoseR (2015) Social media for social change: social media political efficacy and activism in student activist groups. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media59(3): 456–474.
75.
VicenteMRLópezAJ (2011) Assessing the regional digital divide across the European Union-27. Telecommunications Policy35(3): 220–237.
76.
WagnerKMGrayTJGainousJ (2017) Digital information consumption and external political efficacy in Latin America: does institutional context matter?Journal of Information Technology & Politics14(3): 277–291.
77.
WallersteinI (1974) The Modern World System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press.
78.
WilhelmAG (2000) Democracy in the Digital Age: Challenges to Political Life in Cyberspace. New York: Routledge.
79.
YangHCDeHartJL (2016) Social media use and online political participation among college students during the US election 2012. Social Media + Society2: 1–18.
80.
ZhangS (2019) Public participation in the Geoweb era: defining a typology for geo-participation in local governments. Cities85: 38–50.
