The Generative Mechanisms Of Open Government Data

The exponentially growing production of data enables global connectivity as well as increased openness and sharing, which turn into a powerful force that is changing the global economy and society. Governments around the world have become active participants in this evolution by opening up their data for access and re-use by public and private agents alike. The recent phenomenon of Open Government Data (OGD) has spread around the world, driven by the proposition that opening government data has the ability to generate both economic and social value. However, a review of the academic research and the popular press reveals only sporadic attention given to various aspects with no overarching framework that explains how OGD generates value. We apply a critical realist approach to uncover the generative mechanisms that serve to explain this relationship. First, we present a strategic framework with four archetypical generative mechanisms. The framework outlines the different pathways to value generation and highlights the current tension between the private/public and economic/social domains. Second, we offer a conceptual model that provides a systematic way of articulating and examining further the generation of value from OGD

A Portrait of the Internet as a Young Man

In brief, the core theory of Jonathan Zittrain’s1 2008 book The Future of the Internet - and How to Stop It is this: good laws, norms, and code are needed to regulate the Internet, to prevent bad laws, norms, and code from compromising its creative capabilities and fettering its fecund flexibility. A far snarkier if less alliterative summary would be “We have to regulate the Internet to preserve its open, unregulated nature.” Zittrain posits that either a substantive series of unfortunate Internet events or one catastrophic one will motivate governments to try to regulate cyberspace in a way that promotes maximum stability, which will inhibit or possibly even preclude future technological innovations that rely on open access to the tools and systems that comprise the Internet. To head this off, he calls for a “transition to a networking infrastructure that is more secure yet roughly as dynamic as the current one,” which will be achieved by collaborative efforts, “a 21st century international Manhattan Project which brings together people of good faith in government, academia, and the private sector for the purpose of shoring up the miraculous information technology grid that is too easy to take for granted and whose seeming self-maintenance has led us into an undue complacence.” Zittrain uses brief, informal accounts of past events to build two main theories that dominate the book. First, he claims that open access, which he calls generativity, is under threat by a trend toward closure, which he refers to as tetheredness, which is counterproductively favored by proprietary entities. Though consumers prefer openness and the autonomy it confers, few take advantage of the opportunities it provides, and therefore undervalue it and too readily cede it in favor of the promise of security that tetheredness brings. Second, he argues that if the Internet is to find salvation it will be by the grace of “true netizens,” volunteers acting collectively in good faith to cultivate positive social norms online. Zittrain is a creative thinker and entertaining speaker, and his book is engaging and informative in much the same ways that his talks are, loaded with pop culture references and allegorical tales about technology and the once and future Internet. Zittrain uses numerous anecdotes to support his dual hypotheses, exhaustively affirming that open innovative tools and systems are essential for online life to flourish, and his contention that the Internet is exceedingly vulnerable to bad actors (a proposition I have never seen another cyberlaw scholar seriously question). But he isn’t very clear about the specific attributes of laws or regulations that could effectively foster enhanced security without impairing dynamism. He also seems to have a discomfitingly elitist view about who should be making policy decisions about the Internet’s future: like-minded, self-appointed, and knowledgeable volunteers with the time, interest, and expertise to successfully maneuver sectors of the Internet into the form or direction he thinks best

ICT, open government and civil society

Abstract This paper explores the rise of ICTs as instruments of government reform and the implication of their use from the vantage point of the relations between democratic governance, the aims of Buen Vivir, and the role of civil society. We discuss some of the contradictions inherent in the nature and organisation of ICTs, particularly in connection to such e-government projects as “smart cities” and participatory budgeting, and focus on the centrality of social relationships, political agency and the operations of social capital as elements that determine the success of these initiatives in the promotion of democratic practice. We also examine the relevance of social capital and user control to organisational structure and the ways in which structure relates to social innovation and the access, transfer and diffusion of knowledge as a common good. The paper concludes with a discussion of the significance of ICTs as instruments of civil empowerment and introduces the notion of “generative democracy” as a means of re-imagining and realigning the role and powers of the state and civil society for the social production of goods and services

The political phenomenology of war reporting

Drawing on interviews with war correspondents, editors, political and military personnel, this article investigates the political dimension of the structuration and structuring effects of the reporter’s experience of journalism. Self-reflection and judgements about colleagues confirm that there are dominant norms for interpreting and acting in conflict scenarios which, while contingent upon socio-historical context, are interpreted as natural. But the prevalence of such codes masks the systematically misrecognized symbolic systems of mystification and ambivalence – systems which reproduce hierarchies and gatekeeping structures in the field, but which are either experienced as unremarkable, dismissed with irony and cynicism, or not present to the consciousness of the war correspondent. The article builds on recent theories of journalistic disposition, ideology, discourse and professionalism, and describes the political dimension of journalistic practice perceived in the field as apolitical. It addresses the gendering of war correspondence, the rise of the journalist as moral authority, and questions the extent to which respondent reflections can be defensibly analytically determined