Shaping Network Society

There are not many instances when a governmental memo shaped the political philosophy of a generation. Clearly Kennan’s Long Telegram comes to mind:

The ‘Long Telegram’ was sent by George Kennan from the United States Embassy in Moscow to Washington, where it was received on February 22nd 1946. The telegram was prompted by US enquiries about Soviet behaviour, especially with regards to their refusal to join the newly created World Bank and International Monetary Fund. In his text, Kennan outlined Soviet belief and practice and proposed the policy of ‘containment‘, making the Telegram a key document in the history of the Cold War. The name ‘long’ derives from the telegram’s 8000 word length. (quote from About.com)

The social media community believes Obama’s Transparency/Participation/Collaboration memo will have a similar impact on our century. The framework implied in the memo has been taken up governments worldwide, real world policies have been implemented, and the “access-to-information-legislation” topic has moved from arcane to center field. It is surprising, however, that not much is known about the background/history of the memo. Who drafted it? Who developed the TPC framework? Who brought the topic onto the agenda? Who knows more? Who can point me to the relevant people?

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?

Beth Novack, the author of WikiGovernment (Brookings 2009), is the new deputy CTO for Open Government of the Obama Administration. She is leading the Open Government Initiative. After a brainstorm phase, we are moving into the discussion phase today. Read her White House blog-posting here.

As we are setting up Government 2.0 parallel to our existing democratic institutions, it is time to re-visit the pre-2009 writing and experiences on participatory forms of governance. Ruckelhaus’ experiments in the EPA with town halls come to mind or any text written by Archon Fung.

And we should not forget to ask the questions that we have been asking of governance ever since Cleisthenes introduced democracy to Athens in 508 BC: Who was participating in the brainstorm sessions? How heavy-handed was the moderation? How are opinions aggregated? Do we have access to the raw postings to hold government accountable on the issues? How is the discussion organized? What forms of structural power are instituted in the process? Who are the people that are participating? What are their backgrounds? What percentage of the US population is participating? Are participants representative? What would count as a success?