2021 – 2022 Governance & Digitalisation
Hoorcollege 1: How did we get here?
Digitalisation – “A digital transformation that includes a number of interconnected and evolving
technologies” (OECD)
Governance – A change in the role of the state from intervention and control to steering and coordination
(Bevir, 2010)
Elke dag:
- 500 miljoen tweets
- 294 biljoen e-mails
- 4 miljoen gigabytes van Facebookdata
- 65 biljoen WhatsApp berichten
- 3,5 biljoen Google zoekopdrachten
- 4 TBs data geproduceerd door connected auto’s
Digitalisatie stijgt elk jaar 59 keer, dus 463 EB data wordt
gecreëerd elke dag. Over 150 jaar is er meer energie dan de aarde momenteel in staat is te produceren
voor alle menselijke activiteiten.
De impact van digitale technologie op governance
- Interne impact is binnen de governance
- Externe impact is in de omgeving rondom de governance, beïnvloedt hoe de governance werkt
Intern
Digitalisatie
Extern
Een interne kijk op impact van digitalisatie: Darrell West
- Billboard fase
o Websites and e-mail
- Partial service delivery
o Betalen van parking, het kopen van een
bibliotheek kaart, etc.
- Portal stage
o Digitale ID-systemen
- Interactive democracy
o De liberalisatie en coproductie
Een externe kijk op impact van digitalisatie
Public commons
- Vrijheid en gelijkheid
o Niemand vertelt je wat je moet doen of laten
- Toegankelijkheid
o Iedereen kan krijgen wat hij of zij nodig heeft
- Onafhankelijkheid
o Niet bevooroordeeld, vertrouwen op je nieuwsbronnen
- Pluralisme
o Het is goed om verschillende blikken op een onderwerp te hebben
Yuval Noah Harari
, - Kunstmatige intelligentie zal steeds meer mensen verdringen
o Robots en/of machines zullen menselijke banen overnemen, bijvoorbeeld een robot barista
of een ticketautomaat i.p.v loket.
- Wereldwijde ecologie van informatie (Cyber river)
o In plaats van een fysieke rivier hebben we een digitale rivier om onze samenleving
werkende te houden.
- De verschuiving
o Nationale economieën beperkt tot nationale wetten en regelgeving werkt niet meer.
o Landen moeten samenwerken en niet zich binden aan hun eigen wetten en regelgeving,
want anders zullen bedrijven wat zij moeten hebben in een ander land zoeken.
▪ Global minded vs. national minded
- Daling van de traditionele links en rechts verdeling
3 belangrijke uitdagingen die het gevolg zijn van digitalisatie
1. Information complexity
o Veel data (volume, snelheid and variabiliteit)
o Meerdere informatiebronnen
o Geautomatiseerde informatieproductie
o Een politiek van informatie
o Machtige technologische bedrijven
2. Public accountability
o Algoritmische vooringenomenheid
o Algoritmische dekking
o Cyber criminaliteit
o Machtige technologische bedrijven
3. Public service quality
o Surveillance
o Privacy
o Digitale ongelijkheid
o Dysfunctie
Conclusie week 1
- Digitalisatie is constant aan het veranderen, wat leidt tot spannende innovaties in de publieke
sector met hoge hoeveelheden nieuwe data.
- Maar dit heeft een grote invloed voor governance
- Intern wordt de overheid steeds meer gedigitaliseerd, geïntegreerd en interactief
- Extern staat de overheid voor een turbulente public informatie commons en economische en
politieke veranderingen.
- Er zijn drie belangrijke uitdagingen die het gevolg zijn:
o Information complexity
o Public accountability
o Public service quality
West, D. M. (2005, Introduction, pages 1-21). Digital government: Technology and public sector
performance. Princeton: Princeton University Press. (OA)
Despite the prevalence (invloed) of online options, there are three unanswered questions that form the
heart of this research:
- First, how much are the Internet and other digital delivery systems transforming the public sector?
- Second, what determines the speed and breadth of e-government adoption?
- Third, what are the consequences of digital technology for public sector performance, the political
process, and democracy?
,E-government is a field in which practitioners and theorists need to address one another and share their
respective insights. It is vitally important that
- We have clear conceptual frameworks for the analysis of e-government.
- It also is crucial that these frameworks rest on empirical analysis that shows what is happening and
what problems need to be addressed
Traditional bricks-and-mortar agencies Digital delivery systems
- hierarchical, linear, and one-way in their - nonhierarchical, nonlinear, interactive, and
communications style available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a
week
The Internet will transform government. By facilitating two-way interaction, electronic governance has
been hailed (wordt geprezen als) to improve service delivery (dienstverlening) and responsiveness
(reactievermogen) to citizens. Stephen Goldsmith, President George W. Bush’s Special Advisor for Faith-
Based and Community Initiatives, says “electronic government will not only break down boundaries and
reduce transaction costs between citizens and their governments but between levels of government as
well.”
Jeffrey Seifert and Matthew Bonham argue digital government has the potential to transform
governmental efficiency, transparency, citizen trust, and political participation in transitional democracies.
The classic model of large-scale transformation
System transformation is defined as a “complete change in character, condition,” or “epochal
breakthroughs (baanbrekende doorbraak).” In this perspective, change is rapid and abrupt, and visible to
social observers. Often spurred either by scientific breakthroughs or economic improvements that
facilitate the availability of the new Electronic Government technology, large-scale change produces
revolutions in individual behavior and organizational activities.
New technologies enhance (verbeteren) communication by overcoming (overwinnen) geographical
distance, promoting ideological variety, opening citizens to more diverse viewpoints, and encouraging
deliberation. These benefits give the Internet unusually great promise as a tool for democracy.
An alternative model stresses (benadrukt) incrementalism
Charles Lindblom regarding organizational decision making, this kind of change is characterized as a
“muddling through” process. In the world of government, Lindblom suggested, politics dominates, and
organizations are more likely to muddle through decisions and rely on smallscale change. It is not always
the most rational decision that emerges based on costs and benefits. Rather, choices get made based on
who is best organized, strongest politically, or in control of the bureaucratic structure. The political
character of public-sector decision-making limits the speed of change and how quickly new technologies
get incorporated into the governmental process. Government policies typically evolve through small-scale
steps, not large-scale transformations Abrupt and dramatic revolutions in political behavior are rare.
Evolution, not revolution, is the more common norm.
Rather than rushing to embrace new technology, major political and economic interests slow the pace of
technical innovation until they can figure out how to make sure their own vested interests
are well-protected. This keeps the danger from new technology as low as possible, and forces technology
to accommodate existing power structures rather than the other way around.
Beside these two models, there are also mid-level models because there are lots of ways that shifts can
occur in the middle of the change spectrum:
- Logical incrementalism/ secular change model
- Suggests that significant change can take place within organizations on a step-by-step basis even
outside of a revolutionary change model. The cumulative impact of steady, incremental change
, over a long period of time is major, he (James Quinn) suggests.
placing audio or visual materials online, using interactive mechanisms, and personalizing websites
are examples
In the same vein, Fountain’s notion of “enacted (uitgevoerde) technology” discusses change that is
substantial even if it trails proponents’ projections. Fountain points out that the alterations that emerge in
this situation still can be significant even if they fall short of what was predicted by those who created the
new technology.
In essence, both writers offer an insight into an alternative model of technological change emphasizing
gradual, secular change that unfolds slowly but surely over time, and eventually leads to major changes in
how organizations function. EXAMPLE: The automobile is a good illustration of a secular change model. It
took decades after the placement, but it was not until decades later that cars began to transform the social
and political landscape.
Four general stages of e-government development that distinguish where government agencies are on the
road to transformation:
1) The billboard stage
- Limitations: Citizens can see information, but not alter (wijzigen/omzetten) it to their own ends.
Government websites utilizing this approach offer the advantage of access to information, but do not allow
citizens to search the site, send feedback, or order government services. Without the ability to “engage” a
government website, citizens cannot take advantage of the technology’s capacity for two-way
communications or personalize the website to their own specific interests.
2) The partial service-delivery stage
- Limitation: most government agencies are slow to incorporate (opnemen) truly interactive features onto
their websites. Citizens are not able to “personalize” their website or engage in conversation with public
officials. There is little way to take full advantage of the power of digital technologies.
3) The portal stage with fully executable and integrated service delivery
- Limitations: it is characterized more by a service-delivery mentality than by a vision of transforming
