Submit Comment

show all (0)
There are no comments. Click the text to your left to make a new comment.
1 0

Notions of collaborative democracy and communicative government (Noveck 2010; Noveck 2009; Boland Coleman 2008) seek to reframe relationships between citizen and state in an era of OGD: focusing on how state employees and citizens can work together to solve problems. Noveck’s notion of collaborative democracy is articulated as a critique of direct and deliberative democracy. Rather than openness supporting procedurally uniform dialogue and deliberation between citizens, an emphasis on “[c]ollaboration shifts the focus to the effectiveness of decision making and outputs.” (Noveck 2010, p.62). The strong emphasis on action, and upon “breaking down a problem into component parts that can be parceled out and assigned to members of the public and officials” (ibid.) draws on ideas from open-source development and from software development patterns (Dierking 2010), and upon ideas of crowd-sourcing and open innovation (Von Hippel 2005; Lakhani 2009), opening up data in order that specialists from outside the bureaucracy can input alongside officials, and that platforms may be developed to harness the ‘wisdom of crowds’ (Sifry 2010; Noveck 2006). Boland and Coleman emphasize the nature of communicative government as a reaction to the rationalist decision making models of New Public Management, questioning the role of government as interpreter of data, and advocating for raw-data rather than contextualized data in government transparency (Boland Colman forthcoming; Boland Coleman 2008). Using raw-data, they suggest, citizens can apply their own interpretations and in dialogue with local and national government suggest alternative priorities in interactive ways – often in dialogue with officials rather than elected representatives.