Governance and Information Technology: From Electronic Government to Information Government

by Viktor Mayer-Schonberger (Editor)

Experts discuss moving beyond the notion of electronic government and its focus on technology and efficiency to a broader concept of “information government” that incorporates the role of information flows within government, between government and citizens, and among citizens themselves. Developments in information and communication technology and networked computing over the past two decades have given rise to the notion of electronic government, most commonly used to refer to the delivery of public services over the Internet. This volume argues for a shift from the narrow focus of “electronic government” on technology and transactions to the broader perspective of information government—the information flows within the public sector, between the public sector and citizens, and among citizens—as a way to understand the changing nature of governing and governance in an information society. The chapters discuss the interplay between recent technological developments and evolving information flows, and the implications of different information flows for efficiency, political mobilization, and democratic accountability. The chapters are accompanied by short case studies from around the world, which cover such topics as electronic government efforts in Singapore and Switzerland, the U.S Environmental Protection Agency's effort to solicit input on planned regulations over the Internet, and online activism "cyberprotesting" globalization. Contributors
Robert D. Behn, Maria Christina Binz-Scharf, Herbert Burkert, Lorenzo Cantoni, Cary Coglianese, Martin J. Eppler, Jane E. Fountain, Monique Girard, Åke Grönlund, Matthew Hindman, Edwin Lau, David Lazer, Viktor Mayer-Schönberger, Ines Mergel, Gopal Raman, David Stark, Sandor Vegh, Darrell M. West

328 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2007

Reviews

[Wendelle]

(Read first 1/3) This book is pretty dry fare as one can imagine, there is one chapter that brought me some unease. In it, the author or scholar disparages the current trend in political participation of the citizenry, which is to send out emails composed and standardized by other organizations such as environmental advocacies, then attaching their signature, for perusal and influence on policymakers. The author dismisses these 'mass emails' as undesirable actions in participatory, deliberative democracy, because he belittles them as less than full action and are in effect only indicators of citizens' preference. He devalues them even further: he says that if the policymakers were looking for citizens' preference, policymakers would have sponsored a mass survey instead of a skewed, slanted feedback culled only from the most energized citizens on a particular topic.
This take is disconcerting, because it seems to denigrate earnest citizen feedback and appeals if they fall into a format that they the author doesn't approve of (a sheaf of letters released on the pushback of a virtual button). It also ignores that pragmatically speaking, special interest groups and focused advocacy groups have been a powerful force in deliberative democracy now, and the reach and persuasiveness of their lobbying overrides even mass citizens' representation, so singling out the instance when citizens express themselves as ignorable communication in a deliberative democracy seems rather prejudiced. Whether they are original compositions or not, sending out mass emails seems to be one of the few mediums that citizens can reach out to their representatives and voice their concerns. Overall, I think it's quite a leap, and furthermore a mistake, for the author to downplay or deride citizen-sent emails as mere indicators of preferences, instead of platforms that communicate essential or prioritized causes for citizens. It is a blunder I think to downgrade emails as outside of deliberative democracy. The citizens have researched the information on the internet, they have deliberated, they have taken their positions, they unfortunately don't have the privilege of lounging outside the halls of democracy all day to express their position