It has been widely recognised that USA President Obama’s election campaign was greatly helped by web 2.0 technologies. While not the sole precursor to a new era of government via web 2.0, it certainly has increased the focus on new ways that governments can interact with citizens and communities.
An article in the Australian newspaper makes this point about the new USA Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton and her State Department’s use of web 2.0 tools such as Twitter, Facebook, Flicker and Youtube.
In Great Britain, perhaps a more sophisticated web 2.0 response is being undertaken, with the launch of a website to encourage online debate about the Digital Britain report on the future digital economy and society and policies in the area.
4 responses so far ↓
1 Steve Hopkins // Mar 4, 2009 at 3:47 pm
This is an interesting topic and example. The launch of http://www.change.gov fromt he Obama campaign has really encouraged community uptake (including global involvement) around what the US should prioritise in its efforts to turn the US around.
Another interesting example that connects citizens to government is the popular http://www.yougov.co.uk which surveys people living in the UK about their thoughts on given issues. Yougov has become the defacto voice of the people, in a similar way as http://www.getup.com.au has gone about it here. Yougov surveys are often quoted in the paper in the UK, and represent the population so well many ministers refernece it when presenting their own policy positions.
The lesson? If you haven’t already started to connect with your user base (your public, in the Government examples above) you better get started soon before someone else starts asking them about you!
2 Yvonne R Thompson // Apr 9, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Web 2.0 is ofcourse very viral, and there is real potential in blogs and particularly in Twitter.
Doing is Learning, and Repetition Reinforces Learning. There is an old adage about having to hear and believe something 7 times before we actually ‘know’ it.
Twitter is the perfect lsitening device, thre are whispers out there that may become very loud voices as a ‘meme’ or idea takes hold. Twitter is also a good information dissemination (ie nagging) device for government, particularly for key messages that need to be constantly reinforced.
Using social media is a win-win, because not only can we improve and share single source information (ie and potentially reduce duplication) , government can learn that there is nothing to fear from direct, open and honest discourse with citizens, and the public can become more knowledgable and hence resilient.
This is also inherently democratic, as it also potentially devolves some power away from the spin doctors, and particularly from special interest groups and all of the other traditional arbitrators, false experts, and intermediaries who control the messages and also frequently monopolise the conversation with government
Social media can fundamentally change the way in which government and citizens interract.
I am also professionally and personally interested in the potential for innovation, streamlining and accountability that accompanies open information, and ‘crowd sourcing’ as a means for increased citizens engagement in policy making.
My background is in public policy in the USA and Canada, where I did research and data modeling, in areas such as environmental risk assessment, and forecasting crime prediction and mapping. In Australia I find that evidence based policy is compromised by a virtually impenetrable catacombe (sic?) of government data silos and generally ineffective means of community consultation. As a society, we face some very real challenges in the future, around issues such as demographics, housing, environment, resources and emergency management, to name a few.
As citizens, I do not believe that we can continue to treat government as the parent and expect that government will solve all of these problems for us.
3 stewart // May 4, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Hi Yvonne,
I agree with most of your comments, but I’m not entirely sure that social networking is democractic at all.
It may be empowering for the already empowered majority who have their own Internet access service.
But with a continuing digital divide, social networking, and all other Net based services, are neither democratic or democratizing.
Arguably, they entrench the power of the already powerful.
(Not entirely a devils advocate!!!)
4 Yvonne R Thompson // May 12, 2009 at 6:00 pm
I’d fully agree that social networking in and of itself is not purely “democratic” , so long as it still depends on costly (either in time or money) Internet access to participate. And as we do see with twitter there is plenty of bias inserted that it gets invaded by unpleasant marketing forces etc.
I do think however that there are opportunities for innovation, for government to use the internet based transactions as an opportunity to listen, engage and communicate more broadly.
That would not be about the “chatter” or noise from the organized spinners, but rather at that very basic , extemporaneous level where there is a citizen to government transaction.
Citizen to government transactions occur in the millions at the most basis levels, such as paying parking fines, seeking advice or documents, renewing drivers licence or registration, obtaining permits or access to services such as medical facilities, public transport information etc etc Some of these, increasingly are done via the web, or may eventually web enabled . Right now we are passive recipients of often limited services in this regard. Web 2.0 opens the door for users to engage and ask for more or better service from government.
That said, the digital divide problem is very real.
This may increase, as expensive commercial aps are embedded in mobile phones. This may be particularly the case where government has neglected fundamental information infrastructure and the private sector fills the gap, but at a high user cost per transaction. (eg spatial information and location based services )
This may lead to further de-investment (is that a word?) in the fundamental government information infrastructure to a degree that then requires govt to ” buy back” the data as part of a web service. Might government departments offering services previously free over the counter now start increasingly passing on the cost to citizens, making fee for service an increasingly common part of every citizen-government transaction?
Well, the banks are doing it, $2 for every withdrawal from a machine is a not democratizing, and such fees are increasingly common in government transactions.
Those with money and short on time will pay readily, those short on money may be left with no free alternative.
Submit your comments or experiences.