Deliberative Manoeuvres in the Digital Darkness: e-Democracy Policy in the UK

IF 2.1 2区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Giles Moss, Stephen Coleman
{"title":"Deliberative Manoeuvres in the Digital Darkness: e-Democracy Policy in the UK","authors":"Giles Moss,&nbsp;Stephen Coleman","doi":"10.1111/1467-856X.12004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p><i>This article</i></p><ul>\n \n <li>Critically reviews e-democracy policy thinking in the UK.</li>\n \n <li>Surveys and evaluates e-democracy activity in key areas, including online forums, open government and data, e-petitioning, and more recent ‘crowdsourcing’ initiatives.</li>\n \n <li>Defends the on-going importance of a more deliberative approach to e-democracy policy and practice.</li>\n </ul>\n <p>This paper evaluates the UK Government's e-democracy policy and considers what lesson should be learned for future policy and practice. Despite some isolated examples of success, we argue that policy experimentation in the area has been disappointing overall, especially when compared with the ambitious rhetoric that has surrounded it, and has failed to culminate in a coherent strategy for using the Internet to support democratic citizenship. Our analysis emphasizes the on-going importance of online deliberation in achieving inclusive, informed, and negotiated policy formation and political decision-making. In the absence of inclusive sites and practices of public deliberation, the democratic value of non-deliberative experiments with petitioning and crowdsourcing and recent government efforts to open up public information and data for citizen auditing and evaluation is likely to remain limited.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51479,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Politics & International Relations","volume":"16 3","pages":"410-427"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2013-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/1467-856X.12004","citationCount":"56","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Politics & International Relations","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-856X.12004","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 56

Abstract

This article

  • Critically reviews e-democracy policy thinking in the UK.
  • Surveys and evaluates e-democracy activity in key areas, including online forums, open government and data, e-petitioning, and more recent ‘crowdsourcing’ initiatives.
  • Defends the on-going importance of a more deliberative approach to e-democracy policy and practice.

This paper evaluates the UK Government's e-democracy policy and considers what lesson should be learned for future policy and practice. Despite some isolated examples of success, we argue that policy experimentation in the area has been disappointing overall, especially when compared with the ambitious rhetoric that has surrounded it, and has failed to culminate in a coherent strategy for using the Internet to support democratic citizenship. Our analysis emphasizes the on-going importance of online deliberation in achieving inclusive, informed, and negotiated policy formation and political decision-making. In the absence of inclusive sites and practices of public deliberation, the democratic value of non-deliberative experiments with petitioning and crowdsourcing and recent government efforts to open up public information and data for citizen auditing and evaluation is likely to remain limited.

数字黑暗中的商议策略:英国的电子民主政策
本文批判性地回顾了英国的电子民主政策思想。调查和评估关键领域的电子民主活动,包括在线论坛、公开政府和数据、电子请愿和最近的“众包”倡议。为电子民主政策和实践中更为审慎的方法的持续重要性辩护。本文对英国政府的电子民主政策进行了评估,并认为未来的政策和实践应该吸取哪些教训。尽管有一些孤立的成功例子,但我们认为,该领域的政策实验总体上令人失望,特别是与围绕它的雄心勃勃的言论相比,并且未能最终形成一个连贯的战略,利用互联网来支持民主公民。我们的分析强调了在线审议在实现包容、知情和协商的政策制定和政治决策方面的持续重要性。在缺乏包容性网站和公共审议实践的情况下,请愿和众包等非审议实验的民主价值,以及最近政府为公民审计和评估开放公共信息和数据的努力,可能仍然有限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: BJPIR provides an outlet for the best of British political science and of political science on Britain Founded in 1999, BJPIR is now based in the School of Politics at the University of Nottingham. It is a major refereed journal published by Blackwell Publishing under the auspices of the Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom. BJPIR is committed to acting as a broadly-based outlet for the best of British political science and of political science on Britain. A fully refereed journal, it publishes topical, scholarly work on significant debates in British scholarship and on all major political issues affecting Britain"s relationship to Europe and the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信