Open Government: A Tool for Democracy?

Blasio, Emiliana De; Sorice, Michele

doi:10.20901/ms.7.14.3

Cited by 10 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Policy documents were scrutinized using a content analysis technique (i.e., counting code frequencies), which was blended with more qualitative approaches (Hajer, 2002;Hajer & Wagenaar, 2003;Jones et al, 2014;Krippendorff, 2013;Rothmayr Allison & Engeli, 2014). This model of policy analysis has been used in several previous studies (De Blasio, 2018;De Blasio & Selva, 2016;De Blasio & Sorice, 2016). Here, we coded segments corresponding to three items:…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who Is Responsible for Disinformation? European Approaches to Social Platforms’ Accountability in the Post-Truth Era

Blasio

Selva

2021

American Behavioral Scientist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines counterdisinformation policies to investigate how European countries are shaping the meaning and boundaries of social platforms’ accountability. We describe the cultural determinants of social platforms’ accountability through a content analysis technique that considered principles, actors, and instruments, resulting in four models of social platform accountability: accountability set by law, codecided accountability, regulated self-regulation, and pure self-regulation. Our results suggest that most of the 11 countries in this study maintain specific positions on the role of digital media in society. At the same time, some patterns of convergence were evident: the weakening of State control in favor of freedom of information; the enhancement of transparency in social platforms’ politics-related activities as a guiding principle to ensure public monitoring; and the standardization of a multistakeholder model of coregulation. The article also focuses on the technological dimension of social platform accountability, enabling us to recognize the degree to which different models rely on algorithms. It then problematizes the limitations and risks of social platforms’ accountability.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who Is Responsible for Disinformation? European Approaches to Social Platforms’ Accountability in the Post-Truth Era

Blasio

Selva

2021

American Behavioral Scientist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Estonia publishes the early stage of draft laws and their development on the government website and allows citizens and interested parties to provide feedback and share their knowledge (World Bank 2016). By integrating mechanisms of civic engagement with conventional accountability mechanisms (such as political checks and balances, audit systems, and administrative rules), governments can help civil society actively participate in decision-making processes (Malena, Forster, and Singh 2004;De Blasio and Sorice 2016). Inputs from civil society can result in responsive governance if feedback on policy implementation is used for improvement (World Bank 2021).…”

Section: • 81mentioning

confidence: 99%

Europe and Central Asia Economic Update, Spring 2021: Data, Digitalization, and Governance

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.Nothing herein shall constitute or be considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved.

show abstract

“…In this case, the latter constitutes a moment of potential synthesis between the forms of "exit" and those of "voice". In other words, in addition to social apathy there are at least two other possibilities for "voice": on one side is the populist appeal as a sort of "claim for representation" (Saward 2010), and on the other side is a voice often consisting of the most advanced experiences of democratic innovations (De Blasio and Sorice 2016;Smith 2009; della Porta 2013). The populist response to the risk of exit, however, consists of a substantial conceptual overlap between "delegates" and "trustees", of the constant appeal to direct democracy and, often, of the adoption of plebiscitary (and sometimes authoritarian) leadership 6 .…”

Section: Populism As Hyper-representationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In reality, the new public management approach has empowered the managerial model of e-government, creating a strange situation in which a tool created to improve social participation has been transformed into a new element to increase apathy ("why participate if we are only responding targets and not protagonists in policy making?"). It has also been noted that very often, there is conceptual overlapping among open government, e-government and e-democracy in European public policies on institutional reshaping and digital participation (De Blasio and Sorice 2016). On the other hand, this overlapping is absolutely natural if edemocracy is conceived as a tool to make consulting people (and voting / e-voting / i-voting) more efficient and not as a tool for active political participation 16 .…”

Section: Taboo Breakermentioning

confidence: 99%

El auge de los partidos populistas entre la tecnología, la e-democracia y el proceso de despolitización

Blasio

Sorice

2018

Rev. int. sociol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

En la última década, la crisis económica y la desconfianza en las instituciones democráticas han contribuido a una gran crisis de los partidos políticos en toda Europa. Estas son algunas de las causas que llevaron a la formación de movimientos políticos con características puramente populistas como reemplazo de los organismos intermediarios tradicionalmente deslegitimados. La crisis de la representación es la crisis de la idea de representación posterior a 1945 como una herramienta para aumentar la participación popular. Hemos notado una convergencia entre algunos llamamientos populistas a la democracia directa y los enfoques neoliberales más radicales que pretenden reducir la participación de la gente, incluso si apelamos a algunas formas de “representación sustituta”. Los antecedentes teóricos de este documento se basan en las relaciones entre la “representación sustituta” y la institucionalización de los movimientos neopopulistas, que se transformaron rápidamente en partidos neopopulistas. En otras palabras, podemos destacar la extraña unión de narraciones tecnológicas sobre democracia directa con mitos de tecnocracia y la superposición de tecnopopulismo con democracia directa y “democracia electrónica directa” (que es profundamente diferente de democracia electrónica participativa y deliberativa). El objetivo del documento es analizar las conexiones entre las formas emergentes de populismo (como el tecopopulismo), la retórica sobre la importancia de la comunicación digital para el mejoramiento de la democracia y los procesos de despolitización.

show abstract

Open Government: A Tool for Democracy?

Cited by 10 publications

References 1 publication

Who Is Responsible for Disinformation? European Approaches to Social Platforms’ Accountability in the Post-Truth Era

Who Is Responsible for Disinformation? European Approaches to Social Platforms’ Accountability in the Post-Truth Era

Europe and Central Asia Economic Update, Spring 2021: Data, Digitalization, and Governance

El auge de los partidos populistas entre la tecnología, la e-democracia y el proceso de despolitización

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About