ICTlogy Lifestream http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/feed en-us http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Sweetcron ictlogist@ictlogy.net decidim.barcelona, from e-Participation to the Devolution of Sovereignty http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18888 OP@LL Conference. Online participation on the local level – a comparative perspective. 13-15 December 2017. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf Institute for Internet and Democracy More information: http://ictlogy.net/bibliography/reports/projects.php?idp=3491

]]>
Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:42:00 -0800 https://www.slideshare.net/ictlogist/decidimbarcelona-from-eparticipation-to-the-devolution-of-sovereignty
Article. Digital platforms: consumption groups and cooperatives vs. The Food Assembly in the case of Barcelona http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18887 Consumption groups and cooperatives in Barcelona (article) Ricard Espelt, Núria Vega and I have just published an article at on consumption cooperatives: Plataformas digitales: grupos y cooperativas de consumo versus La Colmena que dice sí, el caso de Barcelona (Digital platforms: consumption groups and cooperatives vs. The Food Assembly in the case of Barcelona). The article compares the emergence of agroconsumption groups and cooperatives in Barcelona since the mid 1990s with the most recent appearance of (presumably) platform cooperativism-based initiatives such as The Food Assembly. The main conclusions are that while agroconsumption groups and cooperatives are deeply rooted in the social and solidarity economy, and most of the times in the sharing economy, some platform-based initiatives not only do not share this principles but, as it is the case of The Food Assembly, they do not even match in what we understand by platform cooperativism. The article is in Spanish. An abstract in English follows and then the link for downloading the full paper. Abstract The cooperative tradition around the consumption of agro-food products has a strong historical background in the city of Barcelona. Even if we refer to the first modern consumer cooperatives, we realize that their task has twenty-five years of permanence (Espelt et al, 2015). More recently —in July 2014— appears in the city another initiative of consumption to facilitate direct sales between local producers and communities of consumers, called food assemblies. Although the origins and differences between models are evident, they both share some common aspects in their approaches —willingness to self-manage, disintermediation of production and building a community—, articulated as part of the so-called “Collaborative Economy”. For their part, both types of initiatives, although with a very different approach, have in technology an important backbone for their activity. In this article, we analyze the points of encounter and discrepancy between the two actors as a model, placing the research framework in the city of Barcelona, where —in March 2017— we located some sixty groups and consumer cooperatives (Espelt et al., 2015) And thirteen food assemblies, six in operation and seven under construction. Emphasizing as differential factors, economic, technical, legal aspects, type of governance, values associated with the model or linked to the relationship between people, producers, final product or space. Downloads

Article: Espelt, R., Peña-López, I. & Vega Rodríguez, N. (2017). “Plataformas digitales: grupos y cooperativas de consumo versus La Colmena que dice sí, el caso de Barcelona”. In Redes.com, 15, 145-174. Revista de estudios para el desarrollo social de la comunicación. Sevilla: NMI/Compolíticas.

This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Article. Digital platforms: consumption groups and cooperatives vs. The Food Assembly in the case of Barcelona

]]>
Fri, 08 Dec 2017 01:54:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/20171208-case-study-decidim-barcelona-spain-2/
Government as a platform for open social innovation http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18886 Open social innovation is defined as “the creative destruction that aims at making up new processes that can be appropriated by the whole of civil society” (Peña-López, 2014). One common denominator that can be found in successful initiatives that deal about political participation and engagement is that they use ICTs to remove barriers and/or equal the ground of participation (leaping the knowledge gap), create new platforms and projects shared by broad and multi-stakeholder communities (new processes phase) whose outputs and outcomes positively impact on the community and, at the same time, achieve reasonable levels of economical and especially social (self)sustainability (leveraging quadruple helix). In the figure below we have drawn a scheme that aims to synthesise the common points that we have found in our review of cases and that are also pointed at in the literature. In the following sections we will explain how the initiatives we analyzed address each of the four layers into which we schematized their operational design and why addressing every layer is crucial for the final success of the project. Government as a platform for open social innovation The point of departure: socio-economic status and the knowledge gap hypothesis In 1970, Tichenor et al. showed how mass media consumption did not necessarily had an evenly distributed positive impact on people’s knowledge. On the contrary, the impact depended on the point of departure, being much more significant on more highly educated segments of society. Thus, exposition to information depended on socio-economic status and did not add up to the pre-existing knowledge levels of the population, but had a multiplier effect: educated people will do better, uneducated people will do worse. This “knowledge gap hypothesis” has proven true not only related to information coming from mass media, but from other knowledge devices such as public libraries (Neuman & Celano, 2006), the Internet in general (Bonfadelli, 2002; Selwyn et al., 2005; Van Deursen & van Dijk, 2013), instructional technology (Warschauer et al., 2004; Warschauer, 2008; Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010; Horrigan, 2016; Patterson & Patterson; 2017) or social media and e-participation platforms (Yang & Zhiyong Lan, 2010; Anduiza et al., 2012; Robles et al, 2012; Schlozman, 2012; Gainous et al., 2013). Successful participation usually address as a first stance this situation. When addressing inequalities is not their first stance —such as in the case of projects explicitly addressed to employment— most projects include accompanying measures that aim at leveling the ground so that, according to their means, all players can engage in equal conditions. At this level, which we call the point of departure, it is important that there are instruments that contribute to leap the knowledge gap by providing basic and operational resources that enable objective choice (Welzel et al, 2003). In general, this stage is especially suitable for policies and programmes that address basic needs of the youth in particular and the citizenry in general. Beyond the obvious fact that individual development and progress is good per se, we want keep on stressing the fact that we have already stated: further measures to empower citizens will only work as desired if there are former leveling initiatives. Thus, formal education initiatives or employment programmes should be thought as a pre-requisite of higher level measures so that these can act as appropriate multipliers. The micro level: enabling the social tissue Once individuals are in (more or less) good conditions to be actual and active citizens, what naturally comes is that they coordinate to collectively promote initiatives. The more intertwined these citizens and their respective collectives are, the more resilient, sustainable, scalable and replicable their initiatives are. If basic conditions are a requisite for leveling participation and thus avoiding the unwanted outcomes of the knowledge gap, a tight social tissue increases the possibilities of success of a given social initiative. Projects that plan ahead in this train of thought, design devices to enable social tissue creation or to strengthen the existing one. Financial resources, facilitators (such as social workers), members of the Administration or researchers that bring in background and context, etc. contribute to this goal. Not surprisingly, face to face initiatives are more common at this stage, as they are welcome as better weavers of this social tissue. On the other hand, at this stage it is also worth noting that local leaders easily emerge when grassroots movements are fostered. Being crucial the strengthening of the social tissue, local leaders and grassroots movements, the role of the government has to be stealth: the government thus becomes a platform that provides context, facilitates and fosters interaction while staying in the background. Attempts of the government to move to the forefront are usually perceived as patronizing or intrusive, and thus have a discouraging effect. At this stage, Internet and social media initiatives should be addressed towards access to information and knowledge management, especially in knowledge-intensive sectors of both the productive economy and the civil society. But not only, digital skills on building digital personae or digital identities are key at this level so that the weaving of the social tissue can go beyond the local arena and, as we will see below, overcome barriers of time and space and enter the field of networking. The meso level: weaving the networks Citizens are usually part of different collectives and collectives usually operate at different levels or layers. Networks contribute to the exchange of knowledge between scattered individuals and collectives which would otherwise act as isolated nodes. But not only networks contribute to the articulation of collectives of collectives, but also contribute to the diversification of the typology of individuals and collectives involved in a given initiative. Networks become useful instruments to articulate multi-stakeholder partnerships —formally or tacitly— and, if well balanced in their nature, these networks can promote interactions and exchanges between governments, higher education and research organizations, the industry and civil society organizations. The Quadruple helix model of innovation posits (European Commission, 2016) that only such kinds of interactions between these four types of actors can really produce innovations that do respond to the needs of the society at large. We have found that the synchronization of layers is achieved by successful projects by means of networks. And that this synchronization is most of the times achieved by means of online platforms and other digital constructs. At this point, digital literacy (information literacy and media literacy) become a key aspect for further developments. On the one hand, because networks (either facilitated by digital means or not) have a logic that is much different from industrial hierarchical models. On the other hand, because, when powered by digital platforms, its mere operation does require capacitation in a broad range of digital skills. Networks, in a knowledge society, heavily rely on the gift economy and the ability to concentrate and distribute information that can be applied locally as knowledge. It is thus worth bearing in mind the complex constellation of literacies and competences that can be labelled as digital skills: technological literacy, informational literacy, media literacy, digital identity or e-awareness are just some of the names and concepts that are part of a set of skills that enable or foster other ones like creativity, teamworking, leadership or critical solving – or, in other words, XXIst-century skills (Ananiadou & Claro, 2006; OECD 2016a, 2016b). The macro level: mainstreaming and institutionalization If weaving the social tissue was the way to leverage the potential of now equal and individual citizens, institutionalization is the way to leverage the potential of quadruple helix-like networks. Many projects aim at raising their goals at the upmost level and seeing them going mainstream. Only institutions, through regulation and policy-making can realize this aspiration. Of course, most projects do not get to see their designs mainstreamed, especially during their limited time-spans. Thus, their proxy goal to mainstreaming and institutionalization is visibility. Successful projects are strong in advocacy and awareness rising, and they do it in two opposite directions. Firstly, as we just stated, by looking “up” towards the institutions, by showcasing and modelling, by comparing with other related projects. Secondly, by looking “down” to their communities, by assessing and evaluating their impacts, providing feedback to their citizens. This double aim —mainstreaming by “looking up” and laying strong foundations for social sustainability— are typical of successful projects. It is interesting to note how this stage is both the end of the process but also the beginning of a virtuous circle. On the one hand, it aims at creating social infrastructures —policy, regulation, institutions— so that the benefits of the projects can become structural and not temporary, as embedding them in established and stable social structures are the best bet for replication, scalability and sustainability at large. On the other hand, by establishing a dialogue with the citizens and looking for the individual impact, they address —this time with a top-down approach— the socio-economic layer where the whole process began in the first place. (note: paper prepared after the fieldwork of Alexandra Theben on the Impact of the Internet and Social Media on Youth Participation and Youth work.) Bibliography Ananiadou, K. & Claro, M. (2009). 21st Century Skills and Competences for New Millennium Learners in OECD Countries. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41. Paris: OECD Publishing. Anduiza, E., Gallego, A. & Jorba, L. (2012). “Internet use and the political knowledge gap in Spain”. In Revista Internacional de Sociología, 70 (1), 129-151. Barcelona: IGOP. Bonfadelli, H. (2002). “The Internet and Knowledge Gaps: A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation”. In European Journal of Communication, 17 (1), 65-84. London: SAGE Publications. European Commission (2016). Open Innovation 2.0 Yearbook. Edition 2016. Brussels: European Commission. Gainous, J., Marlowe, A.D. & Wagner, K.M. (2013). “Traditional Cleavages or a New World: Does Online Social Networking Bridge the Political Participation Divide?”. In International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 26 (2), 145-158. New York: Springer Science+Business Media. Horrigan, J.B. (2016). Lifelong Learning and Technology. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Neuman, S.B. & Celano, D. (2006). “The Knowledge Gap: Implications of Leveling the Playing Field for Low-Income and Middle-Income Children”. In Reading Research Quarterly, 41 (2), 176–201. Newark: International Reading Association. OECD (2016a). Skills for a Digital World. 2016 Ministerial Meeting on the Digital Economy Background Report. Paris: OECD. OECD (2016b). New Skills for the Digital Economy. Paris: OECD. Patterson, R.W. & Patterson, R.M. (2017). “Computers and productivity: Evidence from laptop use in the college classroom”. In Economics of Education Review, 57, 66–79. London: Elsevier. Peña-López, I. (2014). “Innovació social oberta: l’organització política com a plataforma”. In Costa i Fernández, L. & Puntí Brun, M. (Eds.), Comunicació pel canvi social. Reflexions i experiències per una comunicació participativa, emancipadora i transparent, 59-75. Girona: Documenta Universitaria. Robles Morales, J.M., Molina Molina, Ó. & De Marco, S. (2012). “Participación política digital y brecha digital política en España. Un estudio de las desigualdades digitales”. In Arbor. Ciencia, Pensamiento y Cultura, 188 (756), 795-810. Berkeley: Berkeley Electronic Press. Schlozman, K.L., Verba, S. & Brady, H.E. (2010). “Weapon of the Strong? Participatory Inequality and the Internet”. In Perspectives on Politics, 8 (2), 487-509. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Selwyn, N., Gorard, S. & Furlong, J. (2005). “Whose Internet is it Anyway?: Exploring Adults’ (Non)Use of the Internet in Everyday Life”. In European Journal of Communication, 17 (1). London: SAGE Publications. Tichenor, P.J., Donohue, G.A. & Olien, C.N. (1970). “Mass media flow and differential growth in knowledge”. In Public Opinion Quarterly, 34 (2), 159 – 170. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Van Deursen, A. & van Dijk, J. (2013). “The digital divide shifts to differences in usage”. In New Media & Society, 16 (3), 507-526. London: SAGE Publications. Warschauer, M., Knobel, M. & Stone, L. (2004). “Technology and Equity in Schooling: Deconstructing the Digital Divide”. In Educational Policy, 18 (4), 562-588. London: SAGE Publications. Warschauer, M. (2008). “Laptops and Literacy: A Multi-Site Case Study”. In Pedagogies: An International Journal, 3 (1), 52-67. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis. Warschauer, M. & Matuchniak, T. (2010). “New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes”. In Review of Research in Education, 34 (1), 179-225. London: American Educational Research Association. Welzel, C., Inglehart, R. & Klingemann, H. (2003). “The theory of human development: A cross-cultural analysis”. In European Journal of Political Research, 42 (3), 341-379. Oxford: Blackwell. Yang, L. & Zhiyong Lan, G. (2010). “Internet’s impact on expert–citizen interactions in public policymaking—A meta analysis”. In Government Information Quarterly, 27 (4), 431-441. London: Elsevier. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Government as a platform for open social innovation

]]>
Thu, 30 Nov 2017 02:11:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/20171130-government-as-a-platform-for-open-social-innovation/
Appropriating Technology for Accountability (XII). So what? http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18883 Notes from the Appropriating Technology for Accountability, part of the Making All Voices Count program, organized by Institute of Development Studies and held in Brighton, UK, on 25-26 October 2017. More notes on this event: allvoicescount. So what?Chair: Prof Melissa Leach, IDS Deus Rweyemamu, independent Governments are especially receptive to new proposals in times of crisis: Wait for a crisis to bring your solution to the government. Before scaling up, think of scaling down: can it be done more effectively? Can it be done more efficiently? Etc. Technology is a pain-killer, but it is not the cure. Adi Eyal, Open Up Specific technologies require specific methodologies and specific environments. Same for people: you need to find the right people for any given scenario. Do not choose the technology: choose the technologist. Edwin Huizing, Hivos, Making All Voices Count; Projects have not to become too technical or too institutional if we expect people to own them. Civil society space is shrinking. We need to create space, and this is done by building trust in civil society actions and with citizenry at large. Judith Herbertson, DFID; There is an interesting negotiation between civil society organizations, which want to push an issue forward, and governments, which should represent all citizens. This negotiation can be — and should be — a creative effort to achieve consensus around common lines of action. Let’s stop talking about “failure” and let’s talk instead about what worked, what did not work and what can be done differently. Joe Powell, OGP Support Unit Civil servants have to be considered part of civil society, actors that have to be included in projects about governance and democracy. Governments are part of society too. We need a coalition of leadership from civil servants, subnational leaders and civil society organizations. Opening spaces in governments should bring dividends for politicians, so that they have incentives to do it. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Appropriating Technology for Accountability (XII). So what?

]]>
Thu, 26 Oct 2017 09:16:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20171026-appropriating-technology-for-accountability-xii-so-what/
Appropriating Technology for Accountability (XI). Lessons about supporting work in this field http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18882 Notes from the Appropriating Technology for Accountability, part of the Making All Voices Count program, organized by Institute of Development Studies and held in Brighton, UK, on 25-26 October 2017. More notes on this event: allvoicescount. Lessons about supporting work in this fieldChairs: Ellen Pieterse How could you the work in this field be better supported? Ideally, research should provide ground for the design of intervention projects, and then come back to these projects and, more than assess them (which is OK), do more research after them. Constraints (time, money, convenience) make that, sometimes, research and practice, though related, are not intertwined and enriching one each other. Pre-grants, to design better projects, provide some evidence, etc. could be an option to have better designed and better grounded projects. In knowledge intensive projects, creating a community to exchange knowledge between different people involved in different projects can be a way to support each other, identify best practices, develop capacity, identify trends and core issues in the field, etc. It is usually said that an organization that learns, an organization that adapts to the context, is better. But have we measured this improved performance? We should. We should measure the relationship between learning organizations and successful organizations. The cycle of projects, beginning and ending every three or four years make it more difficult to apply what you learned in either the same or the next project. How do we continue to learn and build knowledge in the long run. How can programmes like MAVC enable, capture and use internal learning to be more adaptive? The best way to encourage learning is to incentivize it. There has to be an experiencing of an issue to learn from it, and then a period of reflection to settle knowledge. This should be included in the design (funds, resources, etc.) of the project. Fostering communities of practice also helps in building knowledge together. When there are synergies in sharing knowledge, in the sense that the collective can achieve higher grounds than acting individually, then collaboration makes sense and is a sufficient incentive to learn together. E.g. in qualitative research, where results might be difficult to compare, sharing methodologies, sharing approaches, working together may imply that the individual results can be compared and thus produce an “extra” piece of knowledge, which is the comparison itself. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Appropriating Technology for Accountability (XI). Lessons about supporting work in this field

]]>
Thu, 26 Oct 2017 08:19:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20171026-appropriating-technology-for-accountability-xi-lessons-about-supporting-work-in-this-field/
Appropriating Technology for Accountability (X). What has MAVC learnt about supporting work in this field? http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18881 Notes from the Appropriating Technology for Accountability, part of the Making All Voices Count program, organized by Institute of Development Studies and held in Brighton, UK, on 25-26 October 2017. More notes on this event: allvoicescount. What has MAVC learnt about supporting work in this field?Framer: Fletcher Tembo, Programme Director, MAVC How you actualize your theory of change as a project deploys? Can you? Should you? Testing is fundamental, and adjusting your assumptions the most clever thing to do. But not only the “theory” has to adapt, but also program management. In such a flexible, liquid environment, trust and relationships play an important role, as they let you move quickly and with confidence. It is important to include an adequate inception phase for building an appropriate consortium. Host: Walter Flores, CEGSS (Centre for Equity in Health Systems Governance), GuatemalaPanellists: Helena Bjuremalm, Sida; Debby Byrne, MAVC; David Sasaki, William & Flora Hewlett Foundation; Lu Ecclestone, Department for International Development; Michael Canares, Web Foundation/Open Data Lab Jakarta How do we turn the new knowledge that we have into new practices? How do we select people? According to the challenges? Their experience? Their capacity? Choosing is a matter of who you exclude from your project, which is hard. The usual suspects may be good, because they have proven their value in the past, but also bad, just because they are “usual”, meaning that maybe not new people or new approaches will come from them. Are donors comfortable with experimentation? Sometimes donors find a “window of opportunity” due to some political will to foster a specific issues, and then they take the chance to try something new, with new people. The problem is that these windows of opportunity sometimes remain open for very limited time, and hence programs are designed in a rush, without taking into account all the variables that matter. On the other hand, sometimes there is a sense of urgency to foster a field and when the opportunity comes one feels like it is now or never. New landscapes come with new approaches and tools: innovative governance work requires innovative monitoring, evaluation and learning. Having a flexible, multilayer/multistakeholder network can be very handy. Each organization/layer can concentrate on what they do best (draw the general strategy, find the partners, develop the projects, etc.). Rigid and hierarchical structures, who want to have control over the whole program, may not be the best option. E.g. donors should commit the money and get out of the way, after participating in identifying what success looks like. In this new scenario, fostering collaboration instead of competition is the way, especially complementary collaboration. Grant making architecture should be inclusive by design and more prone to assume risks. Keys to design proposals: think big, think of the partners, think about the problems to be solved, think about your liaison with other civic organizations and/or individual citizens at large. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Appropriating Technology for Accountability (X). What has MAVC learnt about supporting work in this field?

]]>
Thu, 26 Oct 2017 06:48:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20171026-appropriating-technology-for-accountability-x-what-has-mavc-learnt-about-supporting-work-in-this-field/
Appropriating Technology for Accountability (IX). Open Government Partnership http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18880 Notes from the Appropriating Technology for Accountability, part of the Making All Voices Count program, organized by Institute of Development Studies and held in Brighton, UK, on 25-26 October 2017. More notes on this event: allvoicescount. Open Government PartnershipBreakout session What are the challenges and opportunities in trying to bring the OGP ‘closer to the people’? There is a need to link what happens at the national level and what happens at the local level. See if there is a thread linking both (or more) levels). What is the enabling environment that exists at the local level? Can it be transposed at other levels? (and vice-versa) Open government is about generating new types of citizen engagement. What role do technologies play in this? Access to technology is an absolute priority. But effective use of access comes with specific skills and in specific cultural contexts. The government could co-own a system with the people. Can we have open government without open data about budgeting or expenditure? There is a difference between seeing open government as a tool and seeing it as a governance strategy for a change of democratic culture. In this sense, it might be very different to approach open government from the transparency and accountability point of view or the collaboration (and co-management) point of view. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Appropriating Technology for Accountability (IX). Open Government Partnership

]]>
Thu, 26 Oct 2017 04:50:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20171026-appropriating-technology-for-accountability-ix-open-government-partnership/
Appropriating Technology for Accountability (VIII). Open Government Partnership http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18879 Notes from the Appropriating Technology for Accountability, part of the Making All Voices Count program, organized by Institute of Development Studies and held in Brighton, UK, on 25-26 October 2017. More notes on this event: allvoicescount. Open Government PartnershipFramer: Alan Hudson, Global Integrity Political transitions and tech:

Adapting to political tarnsitions and challenges. Revising assumptions and approaches to technology.

Multiple models:

No blueprints for localising OGP. Evolving and tailored strategies. Value of learning journeys and exchanges. Increasing effectiveness and impact.

What might be the implications for OGP?

Political transitions and tech. Multiple models, tailored approaches. Value of supporting real-time learning. … in country (sub-national) and cross-country… … about political (and technical ) challenges.

Host: Munyema Hasan, Open Government Partnership Support UnitPanellists: Patrick Lim: INCITE-Gov; Maria Lauranti PRAKARSA; Suyoto Ngartep Mustaja: Regent, Bojonegoro Regency, Indonesia; Brendan Halloran, International Budget Partnership/OGP Independent Reporting Mechanism; Benjamin Diokno, Secretary of Budget and Management, Government of Philippines While national level OGP frames the world-wide debate of open government, the sub-national level of OGP aims at being much more specific, ambitious and especially applied to the reality of citizens’ everyday life. There is the belief, among political representatives, that transparency goes in detriment to power: “if I am transparent, people will not need the government, and I will be useless”. This is just false. On the contrary, transparency builds trust, and with trust comes legitimacy and thus more power to make decisions and to do things. Open government — and the Open Government Partnership — is a political project, not a tool. OGP needs to be a wider project of open governance which builds openness norms to survive political transitions. Political transition is a constant. If a program is good, new governments should adopt it and improve it. Open government is about citizen oriented governance. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Appropriating Technology for Accountability (VIII). Open Government Partnership

]]>
Thu, 26 Oct 2017 03:50:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20171026-appropriating-technology-for-accountability-viii-open-government-partnership/
Appropriating Technology for Accountability (VII). Governance actors, processes and relationships http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18878 Notes from the Appropriating Technology for Accountability, part of the Making All Voices Count program, organized by Institute of Development Studies and held in Brighton, UK, on 25-26 October 2017. More notes on this event: allvoicescount. Governance actors, processes and relationshipsFramer: Vanessa Herringshaw, independent/MAVC What is doing technology to intermediaries (and infomediaries) between the government and the citizens? Is technology bringing in new actors to the democratic game? The landscape of actors is increasingly complex, with new actors, new behaviors, new relationships, new tools. The days of isolated political intervention are over. Are technological platforms for petitioning or for interrogating the government? For demanding or for collaboration? Are for public services users or for citizens? How do tech platforms reframe the way we understand citizens and citizen engagement? How does it impact on governance and politics? Facilitator: Tim Davies, Practical ParticipationParticipants: Lily Tsai, MIT; Sarah Lister, UNDP Oslo Governance Centre; Gaia Gozzo, CARE; Anu Joshi, IDS; Alex Howard, Sunlight Foundation; Kate McAlpine, Community for Children’s Rights Ltd; Shandana Mohmand, IDS; Steadman Noble, VSO; Kate Bingley, Christian Aid In the actual governance landscape, is it changing or are there just the usual suspects? Citizens need evidence of government responsiveness before deciding to engage, so to measure the effectiveness of their engagement. Even more, sometimes citizens are punished (literally or figuratively) for engaging. Punishment sometimes sparks more participation, but many times stops people from engaging. There is some evidence that the more democratic competition, the more information, people tend to reinforce their former beliefs. This is counter-intuitive, but it has to do with excess of information and economies of time. On the other hand, governments are more responsive when the information source is reliable or, even more, accountable. Civil society organizations have a role in legitimizing, giving credibility to citizen-generated and citizen-owned data for governance actors, so that that data is trustworthy. We have to think creatively on how to shift incentives of engagement. Where are journalists in this debate? Why is there a divorce between people in NGOs and journalists? This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Appropriating Technology for Accountability (VII). Governance actors, processes and relationships

]]>
Thu, 26 Oct 2017 02:16:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20171026-appropriating-technology-for-accountability-vii-governance-actors-processes-and-relationships/
Appropriating Technology for Accountability (VI). Take-away thoughts http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18877 Notes from the Appropriating Technology for Accountability, part of the Making All Voices Count program, organized by Institute of Development Studies and held in Brighton, UK, on 25-26 October 2017. More notes on this event: allvoicescount. John Gaventa, IDS The importance of history. In the past, most of the things that people learned from projects would get lost, forgotten. Now, there’s so many ways to report information and share knowledge that it makes it more likely that people will be able to retrieve this knowledge and apply it to their upcoming projects. The scale of technological change is phenomenal. This is a unique moment in history… or isn’t it? Or is it just a transitional moment in history? The current context. Technology shapes society, and society shapes technology. But this is happening for good and for bad: new technologies are also empowering and giving voice to criminal networks. Technology has increased the questioning of what constitutes legitimate information, legitimate voice, legitimate data… and about data, where does it come from, whose is it, etc. How do algorithms work… are algorithms legitimate voice? Are they good, bad or it depends? How do we trust new voices, human or automatic? Technology is giving voice and it is destroying voice. Is voice truly voice or is it the echoing of what powerful people want us to hear? How change happens. Would we had had this meeting five years ago, would our statements, conclusions, doubts have been the same? What difference does technology make? What is going on with society, is it due to technology? Is it not? Is our understanding of the role of technology influenced by the social context? Is it influenced by technology or the other way round? Transparency is enabling, but it is not enough. But, maybe, if we add some other things to technology — i.e. inclusion, politics, etc. — then maybe yes there is an ongoing and transformative change. How we think change might happen in the future? Is there a dichotomy about technology? Or can we harness the potential of technology while being aware of its risks? It may not be “either or”, but both. We have to work both ends of the equation. We have to be the equation. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Appropriating Technology for Accountability (VI). Take-away thoughts

]]>
Wed, 25 Oct 2017 09:12:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20171025-appropriating-technology-for-accountability-vi-take-away-thoughts/
Appropriating Technology for Accountability (V). Tech as part of the mix http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18876 Notes from the Appropriating Technology for Accountability, part of the Making All Voices Count program, organized by Institute of Development Studies and held in Brighton, UK, on 25-26 October 2017. More notes on this event: allvoicescount. Breakout session: Tech as part of the mix How can offline and online activities be better integrated? Try not to think about online vs. offline. Try to think about the people behind participation, as the people are the same and won’t change depending on the platform or modality of participation. An actor — facilitator, reporter — can transpose what happens offline into a digital platform and, at the same time, this facilitator or reporter can monitor what goes on online and transpose it to offline debates. The role of this bridge-actor is thus crucial. Try not to duplicate efforts and/or tasks. What online or offline activities can help overcome the risks of exclusion? Combine traditional technology (e.g. radio) with newer one (e.g. social media) to keep a balance of channels and platforms. The role of intermediaries or infomediaries becomes very important for those who cannot access some specific channels, not only online ones, but especially those. Use both channels — online and offline — is the surest bet. Sometimes the choice between offline and online might not be straightforward. Where some people would see online as a driver of exclusion, some might see online as safer (e.g. in violent environments where people can be physically abducted by totalitarian regimes) or more comfortable (e.g. for people that are shy or value anonymity). So, we should not consider ex-ante that offline equals old and inefficient and that online equals exclusion for some marginalized. Context matters. Online tools should just be a part of a greater toolset, and chose the tools according to needs. There’s a blind spot in most projects where ideology is taken as non-existent, while this is mostly not true. Technology is not neutral, and neither is the people that design any kind of participatory project: who are the beneficiaries of a project, who are the managers, what are the priorities (goals, outputs, outcomes, etc.) This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Appropriating Technology for Accountability (V). Tech as part of the mix

]]>
Wed, 25 Oct 2017 08:39:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20171025-appropriating-technology-for-accountability-v-tech-as-part-of-the-mix/
Appropriating Technology for Accountability (IV). Tech as part of the mix (I) http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18884 Notes from the Appropriating Technology for Accountability, part of the Making All Voices Count program, organized by Institute of Development Studies and held in Brighton, UK, on 25-26 October 2017. More notes on this event: allvoicescount. Tech as part of the mixFramer: Duncan Edwards Technologies that work to channel or amplify voice may increase the ability of government to ‘hear’ citizens more loudly or clearly, but are not necessarily sufficient to lead to ‘listening’ or responsiveness. Where there is willingness and commitment tech can assist in gathering, aggregating and synthesising voices and data and helping governments to be more attuned to needs and the realities of service provision and receipt. Tech may offer different opportunities across the various sites and levels of government. Technologies may have a role in strategies to gain greater commitment to responsiveness on the part of government where it doesn’t exist already. The internal dynamics and politics of the state and of bureaucracies are important background conditions. The ‘social design’ of tech for accountability programming needs to fully address issues of capacity and agency; of citizen and state groupings, and of individuals and organisations. Technologies can be used effectively to support processes of empowerment; the building of agency, sense of self-worth and confidence, and the status that comes from having experiences recognised and validated. How far tech contributes to the building of individual and collective capacities depends very heavily on how it is integrated in to wider processes and activities. We can say that forms of intermediation and interlocution are essential to making a tech-for-accountability effort work. Some of this intermediation is about connecting the online and digital with offline processes. This is particularly important where the aim is citizen mobilisation. These processes are even more important given the tendency of tech-enabled feedback mechanisms to individualise and disaggregate experiences and voices. Although we have known for some time that intermediation and infomediation is key to making tech for transparency and advocacy projects work effectively, it seems that these roles are not sufficiently planned in too many projects and that in particular those that can effectively connect technologists with communities, or intermediaries who are connected to communities, are not engaged at an early enough stage. Unchecked, digital processes further exclude the already marginalised on the basis of income and material resources, as well as distance from urban centres, gender norms, literacy, language barriers, and so on. Without addressing inequalities in access we risk creating a world where only online or digitised voices count. Used in certain ways, tech can be part of processes that reduce marginalisation by ensuring that less-heard voices are heard and given legitimacy. Technology provides some spaces for those experiencing certain marginalisations —for example LGBT voices— to make connections. Legitimacy is a factor across the ecosystem of actors – for communities and citizen, intermediaries and NGOs, and for state actors. Different types of data are seen as more and less legitimate —citizen-generated data is often de-legitimised once it reaches governments, but this is potentially less the case when it has entered ‘invited spaces’ created by governments— for example feedback or grievance logging platforms. The real or perceived risks of surveillance and reprisal —and distrust in the supposed anonymity of tech systems —presents a significant barrier to many citizens engaging with these technologies and new platforms. One of the roles identified for intermediaries is building trust; between actors, in the data itself, and in the messages or narratives drawn from it. Host: Ellen Pieterse, Independent/MAVCPanellists: Koketso Moeti, Amandla.mobi; Tabitha Hrynick, freelance researcher; Tiago Peixoto, World Bank; Ismael Peña-López, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (what follows are my own points, as I could not take notes from my co-panellists’ contributions) The Internet does not add up, it just multiplies. That is, the socio-economic status of the people using the Internet matters the final outcomes of Internet usage. In this sense, weaving social tissue is key to level the ground and have strong foundations upon which to build any kind of participatory process. On the other hand, this social tissue enables “bridges” between traditional participation and online or technopolitical participation. Without a thick social tissue, these layers may evolve independently one from another. But these “bridges” do not happen just because: facilitation is very important for the spreading of ideas and for deliberation to take place. Thus, it is a matter of how technology enables wider and stronger social tissue by making weak ties more relevant, by identifying emergent critical masses, and contributing to the self-awareness of critical masses and trends and patterns. Technology makes it possible to “hack” the system, circumvent (non-functional) democratic institutions and provide new ways to participate even where there were none. Though it is true that true information is difficult to gather due to too much “noise” (e.g. “fake news”), it is also true that technology makes it easier to “unmask” false information. Accountability is a matter of nearness. This is why we are witnessing a rise of municipalism. This could even lead to a network of participatory cities if citizens believe that national politics are out of reach, but are nevertheless able to “synchronize” local politics in a wide geographic area. The combination of citizens weaving networks easily while officials succeeding in making them formal and institutionalizing them can be a powerful driver for change. It is important to note the key role of officials, not (as much) politicians. When we speak about intermediaries between citizens and politicians, it is possible that some of these intermediaries actually are officials from the government. There is a devolution of sovereignty going on. Successful e-participation projects usually have some devolution of sovereignty embedded in them. This devolution is not only in decision-making, but also in the very same design of the project: meta-projects about the governance of the e-participation project are crucial for its social acceptance and sustainability. Devolution of sovereignty comes with a requisite: democratic culture. Thus, not only technology skills but democratic or participation skills are required for e-participation projects to succeed. And, again, the existing social tissue becomes more relevant, as it is by leveraging the existing social tissue (e.g. civil society organizations) that the potential of participation can be realized. This democratic culture or skills can be improved with how to’s, shared procedures and protocols, with the work of facilitators (e.g. officials) or intermediaries (e.g. local leaders and civil society organizations. But, are these projects really empowering citizens and, especially, minorities? Yes, they are. And we find evidence in:

Minorities not feeling represented by civil society organisations. Minorities whose ideas or needs have low momentum or no critical mass. Minorities that usually could not overcome barriers to participation.

On the other hand, technology is not only to empower minorities, but can also be used to boost traditional channels and actors, or be the core of a knowledge management strategy or device. There is an ongoing debate on whether improving traditional ways of participation or setting up new revolutionary or disruptive ways.

Usually, improving the traditional ways works best. But, an avant-garde of pioneers is needed to advance and innovate. We need a place where traditional meets new and new meets traditional. Enabling many types of participation by increasing the granularity of participation works very well as a bridge between traditional and new.

It is not true that e-participation disintermediates, but what we actually see is shifts in intermediation actors. Or even an increase of them, especially if traditional and new ways of participation live together. Intermediaries include technologists, experts in facilitation methodologies, leaders to foster participation and engagement (e.g. traditional organizations), “inside” intermediaries or champions (e.g. government officials). And, of course, actors that can make all this people work together, building bridges (or networks), inviting them to be part of the design of the initiative. It is worth bearing in mind that most technopolitical movements won’t engage in “thick” ways of participation as they do not adscribe to institutions or hierarchies but networks. They will expect not discrete participation but continuous one, where the cycle of information-deliberation-negotiation-decision-accountability feeds the next iteration in a continuum. Thus, it is not about direct democracy, but about open government. In this train of thought, institutions don’t have to “act open”, but “be open”. They have to earn legitimacy not in one initiative, but in a whole attitude. This attitude usually shows when the institution does not limit herself to opening data, but the whole process of decision-making, including its protocols and infrastructures (e.g. free software). This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Appropriating Technology for Accountability (IV). Tech as part of the mix (I)

]]>
Wed, 25 Oct 2017 07:39:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20171025-appropriating-technology-for-accountability-iv-tech-as-part-of-the-mix-i/
Appropriating Technology for Accountability (III). Tech per se http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18875 Notes from the Appropriating Technology for Accountability, part of the Making All Voices Count program, organized by Institute of Development Studies and held in Brighton, UK, on 25-26 October 2017. More notes on this event: allvoicescount. Breakout session: Tech per se What are we learning about how to design tech for accountable governance? Can we focus on the whole system and not just individual initiatives? How will the system be affected by our actions? How can we change the system so that it is responsive to the needs of citizens — instead of trying to patch the system where it does not work. There is a need to correctly identify the problems so that technology can be applied as a specific solution, not a generic solution in the search for problems to be solved. We have to begin with the weakest link — the citizen — and then build the whole project after that. We have to avoid abstract concepts e.g. improve efficiency of the government, and try instead to identify smaller problems that can be addressed more or less directly and assessed for their improvement. Where do you see innovation and creativity — including the use of existing technologies — in this field? Government intentions or will should be embedded in the participatory projects: citizens have to trust their governments and their governments’ intentions so that commitment and engagement happens. How can we ensure that technologies are adapted to fit the context? When governments don’t want to listen, and the biggest problem is coordination of citizens, technology can play a very important part. Assembling people is crucial and technology usually is very effective in this field. Importance of partnerships between citizens and governments. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Appropriating Technology for Accountability (III). Tech per se

]]>
Wed, 25 Oct 2017 05:04:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20171025-appropriating-technology-for-accountability-iii-tech-per-se/
Appropriating Technology for Accountability (II). Tech per se http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18874 Notes from the Appropriating Technology for Accountability, part of the Making All Voices Count program, organized by Institute of Development Studies and held in Brighton, UK, on 25-26 October 2017. More notes on this event: allvoicescount. Round table: Tech per seFramer: Indra de Lanerolle, University of Witswatersrand/MAVCChair: Linda Raftree (independent)Panellists: Declan Ottaro, Ushahidi – MAVC; Erica Hagen, Groundtruth; Lina Dencik, University of Cardiff; Tony Roberts, IDS Technologies create enormous opportunities for generating and using data and amplifying and connecting voices — including those of marginalised citizens. Scaling and replication is a complex process. Disruption may be the wrong approach. The sector needs to follow more adaptive processes that take account of the affordance and roles of the specific technologies. Technology cannot be understood outside of the cultural and social framework where it was designed and where it will be applied. What roles can play technology? Erica Hagen: distribute information and, most especially, the outcomes of applying this information. Tony Roberts: availability, affordability, awareness, ability, accessibility. These are the five “levels of access/exclusion” of technology appropriation, to make sense of technology. Most of the time, more than doing “new” things with technology, we have to address these 4A. Lina Dencik: the challenges of using technological platforms where people already are is that one can’t control how info travels, allows surveillance. We have also to be aware of the core processes of activism and how data can enhance them — not replace them with “data porn”. Declan Ottaro: we have to remove the stigma that technology does not work for people. Sometimes “projects have to fail”, as this is the nature of innovation: essay and error, fail fast… and correct faster. But after that, we have to be sure that technology is useful for people. And the biggest incentive for citizens to use technology is getting a response from their government. Erica Hagen: one of the things that technology can do well is unlocking the black box of decision-making and participation, making some processes more visible and understandable, especially in what concerns people relationships. Tony Roberts: we have to begin with people and not technology, and especially with movements, with actions that can be enhanced with the application of technology. Declan Ottaro: we have to prepare for change, to be flexible and adapt to always changing people needs. Tony Robert: technology is not neutral and tends to reproduce patterns of domination and exclusion. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Appropriating Technology for Accountability (II). Tech per se

]]>
Wed, 25 Oct 2017 03:59:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20171025-making-all-voices-count-ii-tech-per-se/
Appropriating Technology for Accountability (I). Rosie McGee: What roles do and don’t technologies play in citizen voice and transparency for achieving accountable and responsive governance? http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18873 Notes from the Appropriating Technology for Accountability, part of the Making All Voices Count program, organized by Institute of Development Studies and held in Brighton, UK, on 25-26 October 2017. More notes on this event: allvoicescount. What roles do and don’t technologies play in citizen voice and transparency for achieving accountable and responsive governance?Dr Rosie McGee, Making All Voices Count, IDS Not everyone is online. Obvious as this is, planning for e-participation or any kind of online activities to improve democracy have to take this into account. For people to be empowered by ICTs they have to, at least, have access to such technologies. Making All Voices Count is addressing quite a big set of problems that deal with the quality of democracy, as it is shown in the program’s theory of change. What roles can technologies play in generating information or data that can be used for accountability and responsiveness purposes? The problem is that transparency or information are never sufficient. If they were, most problems could be solved by ICTs providing access to information and data. But reality is much more complex. Why would we expect that technology could ever transform governance issues that are fundamentally about power? Citizens have to engage with information. Information has not only to be public, but accessible, manageable, reusable, etc. Citizens not only need access to information, but also need to have a voice in public issues. That is, they need to be listened to, they have to have feedback pathways. These pathways usually include intermediaries that link citizens with governments and vice-versa. Political will to address a problem. Transparency itself will not change government attitudes itself. There have to be activist initiatives to increase the cost of governments of not acting. Deliberation is indispensable. And deliberation, debate, is quite a leap forward from transparency. Transparency should, thus, be complemented with spaces, platforms, etc. that promote dialogue, based on trust. These deliberative spaces have to take into account the different profiles of people participating in them: minorities, people excluded from deliberation or from society as a whole, different recognition of others’ voices, etc. The new institutional environment emerging requires new skills too. Both citizens and representatives need a new set of skills to be able to make the best of technology for democracy. These skills are not only about technology, but about civic participation and democracy at large. If these skill needs are not met, technologies can actually eclipse citizens’ voices and undermine or obstruct accountability and responsiveness. Discussion Q: What are the realistic timelines for impact? Rosie McGee: This is indeed a good question. It depends heavily on the context, but as this is a transformation and not just a minor improvement, we should be realistic about the time span that deep changes will require. Q: There are two important issues in civic participation online. First, fear of being labelled politically and attacked because of your ideology; second, political online propaganda and even online harassment of people that support some given ideologies. Q: We speak a lot about “technological poverty”, but very little on “time poverty” and the cost of participation in terms of dedication, time, etc. Rosie McGee: a first step to this is that new ways of doing things does not imply a huge change for people. The challenge is how to let people do things as always but improve the outcomes of this traditional way of participating. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Appropriating Technology for Accountability (I). Rosie McGee: What roles do and don’t technologies play in citizen voice and transparency for achieving accountable and responsive governance?

]]>
Wed, 25 Oct 2017 02:39:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20171025-appropriating-technology-for-accountability-i-rosie-mcgee-what-roles-do-and-dont-technologies-play-in-citizen-voice-and-transparency-for-achieving-accountable-and-responsive-governance/
Case study. decidim.barcelona, Spain http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18872 decidim.barcelona (Spain), case study The last report of the collaboration with IT for Change has just been published: decidim.barcelona, Spain. Voice or chatter? Case studies. It belongs to the research project titled Voice or Chatter? Using a Structuration Framework Towards a Theory of ICT-mediated Citizen Engagement, and produced with the financial support of Making All Voices Count, a programme working towards a world in which open, effective and participatory governance is the norm and not the exception. This Grand Challenge focuses global attention on creative and cutting-edge solutions to transform the relationship between citizens and their governments. Making All Voices Count is supported by the U.K. Department for International Development (DFID), U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, and Omidyar Network (ON), and is implemented by a consortium consisting of Hivos, the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) and Ushahidi. The programme is inspired by and supports the goals of the Open Government Partnership. In the following links can be found all the outputs of the aforementioned project:

Case studies Issue papers and policy briefs State of the art reports

The report which I have penned deals about the Barcelona (Spain) city council participation program called decidim.barcelona. Following I reproduce the executive summary and the link to download the full report. Executive summary In September 2015, Madrid —the capital of Spain— initiated a participatory democracy project, Decide Madrid (Madrid decides), to enable participatory strategic planning for the municipality. Six month after, Barcelona – the second largest city in Spain and capital of Catalonia – began its own participatory democracy project, decidim.barcelona (Barcelona we decide) in February 2016. Both cities use the same free software platform as a base, and are guided by the same political vision. The success of these initiatives and the strong political vision behind them have spawned plenty of other initiatives in the country – especially in Catalonia – that are working to emulate the two big cities. These cities are sharing free-software-based technology, procedures and protocols, their reflections – both on open events and formal official meetings. What began as a seemingly one-time project has grown in scale. Available open documentation suggests that decidim.barcelona has increased the amount of information in the hands of the citizens, and gathered more citizens around key issues. There has been an increase in participation, with many citizen created proposals being widely supported, legitimated and accepted to be part of the municipality strategic plan. As pluralism has been enhanced without damaging the existing social capital, we can only think that the increase of participation has led to an improvement of democratic processes, especially in bolstering legitimacy around decision making. A meta-project has indeed opened the design and development of the project itself to the citizens themselves. This can be summarized in four key points:

Deliberation becomes the new democracy standard Openness becomes the pre-requisite for deliberation Accountability and legislative footprint emerge as an important by-product to achieve legitimacy Participation leads to more pluralism and stronger social capital, which fosters deliberation, thus closing the (virtuous) circle of deliberative democracy.

What remains to be analyzed is the strength and stability of the new relationships of power and how exactly these will challenge the preceding systemic structures and lead to newer ones. The culture of participation was hitherto scarce and mainly dealt with managing the support of citizens in top-down type initiatives. Changing the mindset implied turning many of the departments and processes of the City Council upside down – a need for new coordination structures, a new balance between the central administration and the districts, a speeding up of the slow tempos of the administration, and new ways to manage public-private partnerships. Using Anthony Giddens’ Structuration theory, this case study examines the e-participation initiative of the City Council of Barcelona (Spain), decidim.barcelona. The study analyzes the inception and first use of decidim.barcelona for the strategic plan of the municipality in the years 2016-2019. The case of the participatory process of the City Council of Barcelona to co-design, along with the citizens, the strategic plan 2016-2019 of the municipality is an important milestone, both in the local politics of the region, and in Spanish politics in general. It embodied the demands of the many that took to the streets in May 2011. The grassroots movement in Barcelona self-organized and won the local elections in May 2015, bringing their hacker and technopolitics ethos to the forefront of local politics. Not only does the way participatory process of early 2016 was put into practice matter, but also how it was technically designed and integrated into the core of policy making in sustainable and replicable ways. This is evidenced in the widespread adoption of this model across other Spanish cities and also by supra-municipal entities. The model, and the tool, is being replicated by Localret (a consortium of Catalan municipalities) and the Barcelona County Council. Both these institutions will replicate the initiative (participation model and technological platform) in other municipalities, while also creating a coordination team to share experiences and methodologies or prioritize needs for improvement. The 180º turn that decidim.barcelona represents in governance goes beyond just “listening” to citizens and “giving them a voice”. In this case, citizens are:

Invited to design and improve upon the participatory process Invited to contribute proposals that will be debated and could translate into binding legislation (provided some technical and social thresholds are reached). Invited to monitor and assess both the process in its procedures as in its outcomes (in what has been called the Metadecidim initiative).

This has been done not by substituting other channels of participation but by improving the traditional ways to engage in local politics (face-to-face, channeled through civil society organizations or other institutions) by complementing them with new ICT-mediated mechanisms. This case study is divided into three main sections. First, we examine the institutionalization of the ethos of the 15M Spanish Indignados movement, the context building up to the decidim.barcelona initiative. In the next section the methodology, the case, its design and philosophy are discussed in greater detail. Anthony Giddens’ Structuration theory and Bruno Latour’s Actor-Network theory are unpacked here. In the final section, the results of the project are analyzed and the shifts of the initiative in meaning, norms and power, both from the government and the citizen end are discussed. Downloads

Full report: Peña-López, I. (2017). decidim.barcelona, Spain. Voice or chatter? Case studies. . Bengaluru: IT for Change.

Related works Official reports Peña-López, I. (2017). decidim.barcelona, Spain. Voice or chatter? Case studies. Bengaluru: IT for Change. Peña-López, I. (2017). Citizen participation and the rise of the open source city in Spain. Bengaluru: IT for Change. Peña-López, I. (2017). State of the Art: Spain. Voice or chatter? Using a Structuration Framework Towards a Theory of ICT-mediated Citizen Engagement. Bengaluru: IT for Change. Other writings Peña-López, I. (2017). “Participation in Spanish Municipalities: The Makings of a Network of Open cities”. In ICTlogy, March 2016, (162). Barcelona: ICTlogy. Peña-López, I. (2016). “Participación electrónica en los municipios. De la emancipación ciudadana a la red de ciudades abiertas”. In Revista Internacional de Pensamiento Político, 11, 63-88. Sevilla: Universidad Pablo de Olavide. Peña-López, I. (2016). Technopolitics, ICT-based participation in municipalities and the makings of a network of open cities. Drafting the state of the art and the case of decidim.barcelona. ICTlogy Working Paper Series #3. Barcelona: ICTlogy. Speeches Peña-López, I. (2017). Sovereignty in the digital age. Keynote speech at the All Digital Summit, Barcelona 4-5 October 2017. Barcelona: All Digital. Peña-López, I. (2017). decidim.barcelona. from e-participation to the devolution of sovereignty. “ICT-mediated citizen engagement: Voice or Chatter?” webinar 5 July 2017. Bengaluru: IT for Change. Peña-López, I. (2017). Voice or chatter? Transforming democracy in technopolitical institutions. Civic Tech: creating and enabling networks for a liquid democracy. Maker Faire. 18 June de 2017 Barcelona: Caixa Fòrum. Barcelona: Ateneu Barcelonès. Peña-López, I. (2017). Voz o propaganda? Transformación democrática y tecnopolítica. Seminar for Civic tech? Utopías para el cambio, 3 July 2017. Barcelona: Escuela Cívica. Peña-López, I. (2017). Veu o propaganda? Transformació democràtica a les institucions tecnopolítiques. Cicle “La cultura del vot”: Quin futur per al reformisme democràtic? Anàlisi de les experiències conegudes a l’Estat espanyol. 12 de juny de 2017. Barcelona: Ateneu Barcelonès. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Case study. decidim.barcelona, Spain

]]>
Tue, 10 Oct 2017 03:13:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20171010-case-study-decidim-barcelona-spain/
The digital revolution is not (only) the fourth industrial revolution http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18885 In 2016, Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum wrote a seminal article called The Fourth Industrial Revolution, where he stated that what [he] consider[s] to be the fourth industrial revolution is unlike anything humankind has experienced before and that there is an ongoing digital revolution [that] combines multiple technologies that are leading to unprecedented paradigm shifts in the economy, business, society, and individually. It is not only changing the “what” and the “how” of doing things but also “who” we are. I mostly agree not only with Schwab’s former statements, but in what he presents in his work in general. The problem is with its title and the bias that the title itself and people later have put on the concept: that the digital revolution is about the industry, about firms, about productivity, about jobs, about the GDP. There have been two major revolutions in the history of humankind: the Neolithic Revolution or Agricultural Revolution, and the Industrial Revolution. The latter has been divided into three (sub)industrial revolutions. Calling the Digital Revolution not the third major revolution in humankind, but the fourth phase of the Industrial Revolution is, to me, misleading. Let us see, in Table 1, a summary of some characteristics of the Industrial Revolution and its four sub-revolutions. It does not aim at being a perfect or an unquestionable description, just a general approach to the phenomenon:

Topic / Stage First Second Third Fourth

Working system Factory Division of labour Ford system Kanban Robotics, artificial intelligence

Production Mechanization Mass production, assembly line Electronics, PC, Internet, ICTs Cyber physical systems, nanotechnology,

Energy Water, steam and coal Oil, hydroelectric, electricity Renewables and smart grid Renewables and smart grid

Transportation Steam engine, railroads Internal combustion engine, roads Electric transportation and logistics Autonomous transportation, drones

Communication Steam printing Telephone Communications andcomputing Internet of things

Table 1. The four industrial revolutions.Adapted by several sources by Ismael Peña-López. This is not exactly what Schwab describes in The Fourth Industrial Revolution, but it is definitely what most people have in mind when speaking about the also called Industrial Revolution 4.0. Even Schwab’s World Economic Forum’s Center for the Fourth Industrial Revolution itself falls into the bias for the industry. Out of the nine areas of focus of the Center (Accelerating Innovation in Production for Small and Medium Enterprises, Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, Autonomous Vehicles, Blockchain, Digital Trade and Cross-Border Data Flows, The Future of Drones and Tomorrow’s Airspace, Internet of Things and Connected Devices, A New Vision for the Ocean, Precision Medicine) only the later two are slightly society-centered and not mainly economy-centered. It is only shocking to speak about a revolution that is going to change “everything” and then only point at issues that, although of the direst importance, only affect a part of our lives. Complementing that approach, we could have a more comprehensive look at what the digital revolution is already changing or has a lot of potential of changing. To do such exercise, we can look at what changed in the former two biggest revolutions: the Agricultural Revolution and the first two Industrial Revolutions. In the table that follows (Table 2) four stages are characterized: the Paleolithic, taken as a starting point for humankind; the Neolithic, as the outcome of the Agricultural Revolution; the Industrial Age, as the outcome of the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution(s); and the Information Age, as the outcome of the Digital Revolution. Of course these are just approximate definitions whose purpose is to highlight the importance of the Digital Revolution beyond the boundaries of the industry or even the Economy.

Topic / Age Paleolithic Neolithic Industrial Age Information Age

Relationships of production Recollection Submission of nature Submission of energy Factory Network

Relationships of experience “Biological” Public sphere Institutionalized / intermediated Liquid

Relationships of power Brute force Hierarchies & Nobility Bourgeoisie Digerati

Economy Nature Land Capital Relationships / knowledge

Who supports Diffuse Central knowledge Scientific knowledge Digital commons, AI

Living Nomadic Settlements Cities Ubiquity / No spaces

Culture “Utilitarian” Art Entertainment Artivism / Hacktivism

Work Generic Division, specialization Substitution physical labor Substitution intellectual labor

Learning Informal Centralized Industrialized Self-directed, heutagogic

Table 2. The three main human revolutions.Source: Ismael Peña-López. It is obvious that the use of some concepts is far from “correct” (for instance, the row that depicts Culture is more than arguable, among many others). The aim of Table 2 is to move away from the instrumental changes of our society (e.g. whether we will drive our own cars or they will have a high degree of autonomy) and put the focus instead in the changes of paradigm that may come with the Digital Revolution (e.g. will spaces matter at all?). It is, thus, a material for reflection. And a call to put under the spotlight societal changes, not only economic, industrial or production changes. And, when we look at how humans will relate one with each other, how humans relate with nature, how we produce things, how the balances of power may change, etc. the potential of change is astonishingly high. We may be facing a radical transformation. And we should be driving it, instead of be driven by it. Related readings Castells, M. (2000). “Materials for an exploratory theory of the network society”. Castells, M. (2001). La Era de la Información: Economía, Sociedad y Cultura. Vol. 1: La sociedad red. Greenwood, J. (1999). “The Third Industrial Revolution: Technology, Productivity, and Income Inequality”. IDC & World Times (1996). The 1996 IDC/World Times Information Imperative Index – Toward the Third Revolution. Mokyr, J. (1997). “Are We Living in the Middle of an Industrial Revolution?”. Peña-López, I. (2009). Measuring digital development for policy-making: Models, stages, characteristics and causes. Peña-López, I. (2017). “Centralization vs. decentralization tensions in the Digital Economy”. Rifkin, J. (2011). The Third Industrial Revolution. How Lateral Power is Transforming Energy, the Economy, and the World. Solow, R.M. (1987). “We’d better watch out”. Triplett, J.E. (1999). “The Solow Productivity Paradox: What Do Computers Do to Productivity?”. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as The digital revolution is not (only) the fourth industrial revolution

]]>
Tue, 26 Sep 2017 10:28:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20170926-the-digital-revolution-is-not-only-the-fourth-industrial-revolution/
Report. Evaluation of the Open Data for Development program http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18870 From October 2016 to June 2017, Manuel Acevedo and I conducted the evaluation of the Open Data for Development program, a USD 15 million initiative (direct plus indirect funding) led by IDRC, the Government of Canada, The World Bank and DFID / UK Aid. This has been a terrific experience on many levels. The most important one was acknowledging how advanced the field is and, even more important, how deep the sensation is that a point of no return has been crossed in terms of open data, open government, transparency, accountability, open development, etc. Some important outcomes will, of course, still take some time to take place, but the path is been paved and the trend is gaining momentum quickly, adding up critical mass at each stage. The collaboration and excellent attitude of all the actors involved in the project (we interviewed 41 people and read more than 150 working documents and 128 bibliographic references) was another aspect of the work that is worth highlighting. Special gratitude goes to Fernando Perini, Erika Malich, Katie Clancy and Tricia Wind at IDRC. It is not every day that one finds people so willing to have their work thoroughly scrutinized, to explain things without making excuses, to expect the evaluation to be an opportunity to learn and to improve. Same goes for the team at the World Bank and the Government of Canada (especially Amparo Ballivian and Yohanna Loucheur, respectively). This impression of people taking seriously their work, including third parties’ evaluation and insights is confirmed not only by the publication of the report with the evaluation of the Open Data for Development program, but also the publication of the response of the Management of the program to our evaluation, providing both context and commitment to the recommendations made by the evaluators. Below can be downloaded the three documents generated by the evaluation: the full final report, the executive report and the management’s response. If I am allowed to, I would like to state that both Manuel and I are quite proud of the recommendations we made at the final section of our evaluation. Of course, the recommendations come from the many and richest inputs that everyone we talked to or read about kindly gave us. These recommendations are as follows.

OD4D: greater emphasis on the right side of the OD4D equation (i.e. “for development”) Reticulating OD4D: towards an expanded network vision for OD4D Build capacity for gender-purposeful programming Invest in strategic partnerships Greater engagement with the D4D community Support OD intermediaries Place knowledge management at the core of OD4D implementation processes

We hope the evaluation and, especially, the recommendations are useful not only for the program but for the whole open data and open data for development community. We remain at the disposal of anyone in need of more information, doubts or suggestions. Abstract: The evaluation focuses on both accountability and learning. The primary intention of the evaluation is to provide accountability to the program’s management and organizational governance structures for program results. In addition, it reflects upon OD4D’s implementation in order to inform future programming on open data for development themes. The process was guided by five evaluative questions, on (1) Results, (2) Design, (3) Management, (4) Policy and (5) Gender. The evaluation report addresses these five topics, and also refers to some cross-cutting issues which were identified during the process. The analysis is completed with a final section with key recommendations for the upcoming new phase of the program. Downloads:

Full report: Acevedo, M. & Peña-López, I. (2017). Evaluation of the Open Data for Development program. Final report. Ottawa: IDRC.

Executive summary: Acevedo, M. & Peña-López, I. (2017). Evaluation of the Open Data for Development program. Executive report. Ottawa: IDRC.

Management’s response: International Development Research Center (2017). Management’s response to the independent evaluation of the OD4D program. Ottawa: IDRC.

This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Report. Evaluation of the Open Data for Development program

]]>
Tue, 15 Aug 2017 03:26:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20170815-report-evaluation-of-the-open-data-for-development-program/
Thesis Defence. Francisco Jurado: Political representation in the age of Internet. The case of Spain http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18869 Thesis defence by Francisco Jurado entlitled Political representation in the age of Internet. The case of Spain, in Barcelona at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. July 18, 2017. Francisco Jurado: Thesis Defence. Francisco Jurado: Political representation in the age of Internet. The case of Spain

If your browser does not support iframes, please visit https://prezi.com/qg2lgwuii7qr/la-representacion-politica-en-la-era-de-internet/ [click here to enlarge]

What is democracy today? Is democracy always about being represented and some third parties making decisions in the name of the citizen? The concept of democracy has certainly shifted towards representative democracy. This specific understanding of democracy has been accompanied by laws that strengthen the idea of representative democracy and the emergence of a number of institutions to accommodate this way of working. Initially there were three main actors — citizens, representatives and institutions — plus political parties to articulate the relationship between citizens and representatives. With the evolution of political parties, specially towards the cartel model, parties have taken the place of representatives and even embedded themselves into institutions. Political Representation today is a legal relationship, non-disposable by the citizen, low binding for the citizen, and mediated (and conditioned) by political parties. How is the Internet challenging this status quo? There have been many initiatives of many kinds (Decidim Barcelona, Appgree, Quorum, Qué Hacen los diputados, etc.) that are challenging the idea of representation. Pitkin lists five characteristics of political representation that are necessarily changing with the digital revolution and the reasons behind the emergence of social movements in the XXIst century, especially after the Arab Spring and, for the case of Spain, the 15M Indignados Movement:

Autorization Accountability Representativeness Symbolic representation Receptivity

e.g. autorization changes meaning when people can for instance vote in primaries, or perform some degree of direct democracy within an e-participation initiative. The potential of these tools majorly depends on usage, especially how representatives use them or allow their use by citizens. Discussion Sebastián Martín Martín: how are this shifts affecting the definition of the people, the demos? Are we just looking at citizens as individuals only and forgetting that, since Rousseau, the people is something else, is the individuals but also the collective? Sebastián Martín Martín: what if representative democracy is no more what it used to be, and embedding technopolitics in it is not feasible just because the assumption that there is such a represented sovereignty is not true? What if sovereignty resides not in the people but elsewhere (e.g. the European Commission) and thus cannot be devolved? Sebastián Martín Martín: what if digital agoras are not Habermasian agoras, but places of polarization, hate speech, misinformation, etc.? What has happened elsewhere (e.g. Iceland)? Joaquim Brugué Torruella: can we generalize these initiatives? Isn’t it too early to propose a new comprehensive model for digital democracy? Joaquim Brugué Torruella: are we talking about Internet? Or are we talking about a new trend towards direct democracy? Is it true that “there is no way back” because of the Internet, or are there other reasons for a dire change in democracy and society? Do we need to improve representation, or intermediation, with independence of the existence of the Internet? Joaquim Brugué Torruella: is the Internet just a new aggregator of wills, or is it something else? Do we know how many people actually want to be represented? How many people are actually disenchanted by representation and why? Is it a crisis of inefficacy of politicians, or a crisis of inability to deliver of politics? Joan Font Fabregas: is this a research on the impact of representation, or about the possibilities or potentials of the Internet to improve democracy? Is it the same thing? Joan Font Fabregas: it is arguable that digital tools have a huge potential for transformation, but can we tell which ones work better than other ones? What are the drawbacks? Will all of them work in the same direction, or can they produce different (even opposing) conclusions? Francisco Jurado: It is true that the Internet will neither solve “everything” nor will the results be independent on the specific usage given to digital tools. It is also true that it is difficult to make some statements about the potential of the Internet in politics. Will it deliver? Will it be revolutionary? We honestly do not know… yet. The research can only point at gates that seem to be opening and peek inside to see how a probable future would be like. But it seems obvious that if something as basic as communication has so deeply changed, it is to be expected that everything that is built upon commnication — as politics — will necessarily change and quite deeply. PS: congratulations, Dr. Jurado! This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Thesis Defence. Francisco Jurado: Political representation in the age of Internet. The case of Spain

]]>
Tue, 18 Jul 2017 04:34:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20170718-thesis-defence-francisco-jurado-political-representation-in-the-age-of-internet-the-case-of-spain/
e-Participation: from capacity building to governance http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18868 Mapping and assessing e-participation: from digital skills to digital empowerment When we aim at seeing who is doing what in terms of e-participation (and in political participation in general) it is quite usual to look at the capacities that individuals have to perform a given action and how many of these actions actually took place. In other words, and in the field of e-participation, we look at the level of digital literacy of individuals in a community and how they engaged in the e-participation initiatives that were offered to them. This perspective has, at least, two issues that need being addressed. The first one is quite obvious and has been the focal point of some initiatives like UNPAN’s series of e-Government surveys (UNPAN, 2016). That is, that not only citizens but also the Administration (and everything that spins around it: all other powers, political parties and lobbies, etc.) need to be e-ready. This e-readiness should, at least, be taken into consideration in two different fronts: whether there are the technological infrastructures available and whether public servants can use them and have the appropriate digital skills (Peña-López, 2010). But these skills – both now at the citizen and the public sector levels – are not only about achieving a sufficient degree of knowledge in handling some specific hardware. First of all, there is the capacity (Sen, 1980) to make conscious and subjective choices in one’s own benefit (not just “using); second, there is the power to make choices that are effective, that can actually take place and make an impact (or, at least, increase the potential for that impact) (Welzel et al., 2003). This is crucial, because we do know that the digital divide in politics (Robles et al., 2012) affect the outcomes of policy-making, but it is much more complex than just a matter of access (Cantijoch, 2014). We have growing evidence that the Internet and politics engage in a virtuous (or vicious, depending on the spin) circle (Colombo et al., 2012) that either leads to more empowerment and political efficacy, with an increase of Internet usage, and back to empowerment and efficacy – or just the opposite in cases of lack of Internet and/or different attitudes toward participation. Thus, if the digital divide actually shifts to differences in usage (Van Deursen, van Dijk) and not just in a matter of intensity of engagement, it is crucial to accurately map and assess how both individuals and institutions are ready for e-participation, and how and what initiatives have been put in practice to improve the e-readiness of the actors that participate in politics. But this is only half the equation: how ready actors are. What about what they are doing and, more interestingly, where and how they are doing it? Mapping and assessing e-participation: from digital participation to digital governance e-Participation: from capacity building to empowerment The other half of the equation is where would institutions and people put their e-readiness at work. But if the very concept of skills, capacities and effective usage has changed, so have the concepts of “places” and “means” in the digital age. Many institutions nowadays have their design rooted in the scientific and the industrial revolutions. The advancements of science (including the ethics and philosophy of the Enlightenment) and the advancements of technology provided solid ground where to build, among other things, liberal democracies and the institutions that make them up: parliaments, governments, the judiciary system, political parties, lobbies and civic organizations, etc. But most of these grounds exist no more, or at least they have been direly transformed in their inhibiting potential, especially in what implies coincidence of time, space and the cost to coordinate interactions, exchanges and transactions in general (Benkler, 2002). In this new landscape, networks emerge instead of hierarchical organizations, creating new institutions and reshaping the old ones (Benkler, 2006). In political participation, this means the creation of new spaces and strategies for information, communication and civic action (Castells, 2009, 2012) that, notwithstanding, often fall outside of the mapped territories and below the line of the radar of democratic institutions. These new, unmapped territories range from what has been called lurking (Nonneke & Preece, 2003) or slacktivism (Christensen, 2011) to para-institutions (Peña-López et al., 2014), but it is arguable that these new e-participation extra-representative or extra-institutional practices are as legitimate and useful as other traditional ones (Peña-López, 2013). On the one hand, because it may be interesting to approach these initiatives not as an “exit”, in terms of Albert O. Hirschman (1970), but as citizens moving away from institutions that do not answer to their needs and into other new institutions that may, that is, they are voting with their feet (Tiebout, 1956) but not in terms of municipality but in terms of democratic institutions. Still today we see reactions (again in the sense of Hirschman, 1991) that tend to redirect extra-institutional participation towards institutions, that tend to silent these initiatives because they harm democracy or because they are useless. We here propose, instead, to map and characterize all the initiatives that, after having built capacity on actors (individuals or collectives, institutions or distributed networks), not only aim at attracting them to traditional ways of participation but enable new spaces and actions by creating the conditions to support bottom-up distributed e-participation initiatives. Naming and framing issues, identifying the relevant actors, feeding actors with the relevant information, facilitating appropriate exchanges between approaches and positions, easing negotiation, fostering decisions, setting the ground for appropriate accountability. This landscape can but grow. The later it is appropriately measured and facilitated, the more difficult it will be to establish bridges between capacity building and intervention, and between institutional interventions and distributed and networked civic actions. References Benkler, Y. (2002). “Coase’s Penguin, or Linux and the Nature of the Firm”. In The Yale Law Journal, 112 (3), 369–446. New Haven: The Yale Law Journal Company. Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press. Cantijoch, M. (2014). La desigualdad digital, ¿una nueva fuente de desigualdad política?. ZOOM Político/2014/23. Madrid: Fundación Alternativas. Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Cambridge: Oxford University Press. Castells, M. (2012). Redes de indignación y esperanza. Madrid: Alianza Editorial. Christensen, H.S. (2011). “Political activities on the Internet: Slacktivism or political participation by other means?”. In First Monday, February 2011, 16 (2). [online]: First Monday. Colombo, C., Galais, C. & Gallego, A. (2012). “El uso de Internet y las actitudes políticas. Datos cuantitativos y cualitativos de España”. In Arbor. Ciencia, Pensamiento y Cultura, 188 (756), 751-766. Berkeley: Berkeley Electronic Press. Hirschman, A.O. (1970). Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Hirschman, A.O. (1991). The Rhetoric of Reaction. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Nonneke, B. & Preece, J. (2003). “Silent Participants: Getting to Know Lurkers Better”. In Lueg, C. & Fisher, D. (Eds.), From Usenet to CoWebs: Interacting with Social Information Spaces, Chapter 6, 110-132. London: Springer. Peña-López, I. (2010). “From laptops to competences: bridging the digital divide in higher education”. In Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento (RUSC), Monograph: Framing the Digital Divide in Higher Education, 7 (1). Barcelona: UOC. Peña-López, I. (2013). “Casual Politics: From slacktivism to emergent movements and pattern recognition”. In Balcells, J., Cerrillo i Martínez, A., Peguera, M., Peña-López, I., Pifarré de Moner, M.J. & Vilasau, M. (Coords.), Big Data: Challenges and Opportunities, 339-358. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Internet, Law & Politics. Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, 25-26 June, 2013. Barcelona: UOC-Huygens Editorial. Peña-López, I., Congosto, M. & Aragón, P. (2014). “Spanish Indignados and the evolution of the 15M movement on Twitter: towards networked para-institutions”. In Journal of Spanish Cultural Studies, 15 (1-2), 189-216. New York: Routledge. Robles Morales, J.M., Molina Molina, Ó. & De Marco, S. (2012). “Participación política digital y brecha digital política en España. Un estudio de las desigualdades digitales”. In Arbor. Ciencia, Pensamiento y Cultura, 188 (756), 795-810. Berkeley: Berkeley Electronic Press. Sen, A. (1980). “Equality of What?”. In The Tanner Lecture on Human Values, I, 197-220. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tiebout, C.M. (1956). “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures”. In Journal of Political Economy, 64 (5), 416-424. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. UNPAN (2016). UN e-Government Survey 2016. E-Government in Support of Sustainable Development. New York: UNPAN. Van Deursen, A. & van Dijk, J. (2013). “The digital divide shifts to differences in usage”. In New Media & Society, 16 (3), 507-526. London: SAGE Publications. Welzel, C., Inglehart, R. & Klingemann, H. (2003). “The theory of human development: A cross-cultural analysis”. In European Journal of Political Research, 42 (3), 341-379. Oxford: Blackwell. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as e-Participation: from capacity building to governance

]]>
Fri, 07 Jul 2017 23:46:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20170708-e-participation-from-capacity-building-to-governance/