Shaping Network Society

In the following video Beth Noveck outlines her vision for a world where public value is created by self-selected experts collaborating on platforms that mirror the collaboration process back to the participants:

LInk

This is new political theory, counter-intuitive from a Habermasian deliberative democracy perspective. It shows that it makes sense to “listen carefully” to technology.

I just started reading it, but I have already been using the core argument of Beth Noveck’s WikiGovernment: How Technology Can Make Government Better, Democracy Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful (Brookings 2009) several times in conversations, so let me put it down in writing. Beth Noveck argues that we are at a point in history where we can move from antiquated modes of collective governance (representative democracy) to a more effective mode (collaborative democracy). This goes beyond the Habermasian notion of deliberative democracy, because it assumes that the there is excess capacity in citizens that can be utilized not just for public decision making (governance), but for the creation of public value (goods and services). Public value creation processes must be designed with the following issues in mind:

a. Egalitarian self-selection: anybody can participate, but only the experts in a specific field will. This is “democratic” because as humans we have the capacity to work together and bring our specific skill sets/knowledge/experience to the table.

b. Visual deliberation: the processes of collaboration must be distinctly designed to further the ex-ante defined goal. The visualization of the collaborating group becomes a governance tool, insofar that it provides an outside perspective on the group for the group.

c. Collaboration: in democratic practice, collaboration is under-appreciated. Participation today can go beyond once-a-year elections.

Read the book and come back here to discuss it. I hope to post a full review later in the week.

What makes technologically mediated social interactions different? What are the conditions of possibility of networked governance?

The Technology Principle: Network Society is mediated through technology. Corollaries:

• The Path Dependency Principle: Path dependency makes it costly for us to exercise choice and leave any given network.
• The Scale and Network Effects Principle: Network effects are the glue of network society.
• The Critical Mass Principle: Some things only work when a critical mass is present.
• The Modularity Principle: Modularity allows complexity by combining simple parts.
• The Granularity Principle: The smaller the useful contribution, the easier the scalability.

The Social Principle: Any network participant chooses to participate or to leave at any point in time. Corollaries:

• The Consensus Principle: Decisions in choice-communities are made by consensus (not unanimity…and forking is allowed)‏.
• The Outcome Legitimacy Principle: The legitimacy of a policy that aims to create public value is derived from the public value created (as defined by its stakeholders choice to stay-or-leave).
• ‏The Peer Collaboration Principle: Commons are produced by peers, for peers.
• The Transparency Principle: Transparency takes the role of democracy as the standard which any governance situation is evaluated against, this necessitates documentation (transparency through time).
• The Reflexivity Principle: any decision-making situation can be reflected at all times (this is what Beth Noveck calls visual deliberation).

Anything I am missing? What types of governance does such a world allow? What are the limits and possibilities of networked governance?