Democracy relies on an informed citizenry to hold governments accountable. The shift to a global economy places pressures on governments and other information providers to commodify the creation and distribution of information. This paper discusses globalisation as a major factor affecting the transformation of democratic process through information technology.

TITLE: Does democracy scale? How globalisation values impact on organisational interactivity

sub-title: A theoretical perspective on an ethnographic case study in the Australian government.

This paper presents the findings of a two year longitudinal case study with the Australian Department of Finance and Administration.

Keywords: Democracy, Globalisation, Public Sector, Organisational Interactivity, Australia

Karin Geiselhart, [then] PhD student, Faculty of Communication, University of Canberra, Australia

Abstract

Traditional liberal concepts of democracy and citizenship rely on an informed citizenry to hold governments accountable. The shift to a global economy creates additional layers of complexity, attenuated accountability, and exponential growth in the information necessary for informed decision-making. The ascent of ‘policy elites’ and ‘symbolic analysts’ has altered the environment in which policy debates occur. Changes in the value placed on information also place pressures on governments to commodify their information holdings and distribution. Taken together, these trends encourage an economic-rationalist approach to information policy and technology as cost-saving instruments, rather than methods for improving social outcomes. The potential for transforming democratic process through information technology can be inhibited if power structures increasingly limit participation to policy elites. This restricts recognition that communication infrastructure is an important component of social policy.

Evidence is given for the growing conflict between ideals of active citizenship and pressures which restrict the agenda for debate. The values of globalisation flow through to patterns of government reform, and down to the agency level. Australian government information policy is analysed in relation to its impact on democratic policy processes. These observations are placed in a theoretical framework which links change across several scales, drawing on case study evidence from the author’s two year ethnographic study of corporate culture and information infrastructure in the Australian Department of Finance.

Title: Does democracy scale? The challenges within government

Speculation about the effects of new communication technologies focuses on how homes, businesses and education will change. Less common is public consideration of the implications for communication itself, particularly in relation to citizens and their government. There has been little analysis of the changes that have already become entrenched through the widespread use of computerisation in government over the last twenty years.

A long trail of rationalisation, instrumental applications of technology, and changing values concerning information have led to a weakening of centuries old concepts about the nature of government and citizenship, and the possible interactions between them. First, underlying assumptions about information and communication which can be found in classic liberal theories of government are presented. This leads to some implications of recent reforms to the public sector for the treatment of information, both within government organisations and in their wider communications with the public. These changes will be linked to the enervating effects which conflicting concepts of public service have within government agencies. Finally, the possibility of revitalising concepts of active citizenship is considered, with reference to current theories and existing examples of the democratic use of technology.

Locke and Hobbes conceived as government as a covenant, or contract between ruler and ruled. The governed consented to sacrifice some of their autonomy to the state, in return for protection from outside threats. The work of government was narrowly circumscribed by ideas of ‘the common good’, and those who might enforce the contract of accountability formed a limited subset of society.

The majority was excluded from the decision-making process, but not necessarily from the formation of public morality. For what Locke called ‘the law of opinion or reputation’ allowed for the creation and modification of public will. This was sustained by mundane social interactions, through which people express their approval or disapproval. The concepts of civil society or a public sphere can be traced back to that time. (Hindess 1996)

Thus, even the illiterate had a form of participation, through their ability to communicate with each other. Leaflets, street corner speeches and the press would have also contributed to the flow of information. Communication was central to maintaining the role of government.

Jeffersonian attitudes towards the necessity of a free flow of information as a prerequisite for participatory democracy led to a fervent belief in freedom of speech and the power of a free press. Public libraries have come to enshrine these enlightened philosophies. Librarians can be considered the ideal intellectual worker for a number of reasons, and (Kadie 1996) suggests that any disputes over decency, access, and censorship in electronic media can be resolved by reference to the rich set of intellectual freedom principles which have guided librarians. These cover the freedom to read, exhibit spaces and bulletin boards, confidentiality, censorship, diversity in collecting, to name just a few issues now surfacing on the information superhighways. Another characteristic of librarians which sets them apart from other groups which are custodians of knowledge is their professional predisposition towards sharing information. Not surprisingly, librarians have been quick not just to adopt new technologies, but to offer a clear-headed perspective on the opportunities and challenges which new approaches to knowledge present for the library as an institution. (Missingham 1997)

In Australia, British social liberalism of the late nineteenth century strongly influenced a wide range of institutional development (Sawer 1996), including libraries. The threats which globalisation and the commodification of information present to libraries in their role as developing an informed citizenry was recognised before the Internet brought such issues to the fore. (Reinecke 1989)

Governments are still the key regulators of information flow. Access to information is still considered part of the ‘common good’, and a prerequisite to democratic participation. But does this ideal still hold true for the nation-state in an increasingly globalised and information-based economy? If not, where and how is the change occurring? The pivotal function of new technologies in either supporting or suppressing public deliberation and normative consensus, while not often a mass media topic, has been recognised by many communications scholars. (Dahl, 1989, p 338, Zimmerman 1995, Aikens 1996, McChesney 1996, Calabrese 1996, Schaefer 1995, Sclove 1995)

The growth in scale and complexity has been seen as a threat to the notion of representative democracy. (Dahl 1989) Access to and deliberation over accurate information relevant to citizens’ interests has turned plurality into a mine field, as sophisticated technology in the hands of large corporations and public relations firms counters genuine grass roots activism, spread disinformation and undermine environmental protection.(Stauber and Rampton 1995, Beder 1997) Such triumphs of dollar democracy would not be possible without a globalised and highly convergent information technology industry.

The near-universal trends in public sector reform over recent decades provides an important context for a consideration of the role of new technology in democratic processes. These reforms have themselves influenced the ways in which information is presented to citizens. The next section discusses these public sector changes and their impact on the ways in which government applies interactive technologies in particular, both internally and for external communication with citizens. The examples come from the Australian public sector, but others will no doubt find resonances within their own countries.

This section outlines the direction of the reforms which have swept public administrations since the 1980s, followed by an indication of the way this sea change has affected internal decision making and applications of information technology in government administration. The much vaunted advances in managing information have not been applied in value-neutral ways, but have rather reflected and reinforced the dominant political and economic structures. This is the pattern which has been identified at global, national and departmental levels. (McChesney 1996, Stauber 1995, Lyon 1988, Preissl 1997, Henman 1996, Spurgeon 1997)

The changes to government administrations are intimately related to the changes in communication technologies and structures which are now so important for both public and private life. As Lyon points out, governments have had a pervasive role in these changes, and were everywhere ‘implicated in the research, development and marketing of information technology’. (Lyons, 1988, p 34-35)

Since the industrial revolution, ways of life and communicating have been hugely transformed. Beniger (1986) places this within a wider context of four ‘control revolutions’ in terrestrial history, each linked to changes in the processing of information. The current age is characterised by an exponential growth in volume and complexity of information, along with vigorous efforts to understand, use and direct this information. For governments, the range of functions has vastly increased, while the trust placed in it has decreased, leading to highly ambivalent attitudes towards the state and its spending. (Peters 1989 p 251, Self 1989 p 37) It is a widespread belief that government should withdraw from as much of the welfare sphere as will be politically tolerated. A more extreme faction sees government itself as a form of welfare, a blundering megalith which interferes with ‘natural’ market adjustments. Certainly the nation state as currently formulated is under threat, and subtle messages that the corporate sector can fill the gaps through its recognition of the need for global stability and sustainability (Hart 1997, Magretta 1997) must be considered critically.

Increasingly, the viability of the state is measured in money, as the corporate interests which have the wherewithal to influence public agendas vie with the state for influence. Therefore government policy making is intimately linked to the ability to monitor, track, evaluate and quantify vast flows of financial and social information. The question then arises: which values do governments choose to support with their information armories, and how are these linked to concepts of government in its role as administrator and maintainer of public norms?

A partial answer may be found in an analysis of the pervasive transformation of public sectors. The increasing application of ever-broader computing systems to government may be considered part of a wider convergence between the public and private sectors, which places a high regard on ‘instrumental’ efficiency and accountability. (Considine 1988) Widespread ‘reforms’ to the public sector have sought to apply the standards and practices of business as models. These have been been widely documented, and are global in their application (Zifcak 1994, Peters 1996). A corollary is the redefinition and reduction of citizens to economic units, or consumers. (Mintzberg 1996, Considine 1988, McChesney 1996) The bureaucratic procedures of the public sector may be considered a barrier to economic progress. (Ives 1994)

Although there is variation and even contradiction in the way these reforms have been applied (Peters 1996), the general features have been characterised as:

adoption of business plans and revenue targets; introduction of guidelines in place of inflexible rules; a move away from centralised controls; application of market practices such as user pays; more flexible work and pay arrangements, and more emphasis on client needs (Ives 1994)

A different analysis describes four key concepts as: an emphasis on quantifiable, single purpose economically measurable outputs, neglect of the political dimensions of public organisations, a focus on integration in preference to decentralised forms of service development and delivery; and an unwarranted optimism about the potency of technical rationality under central direction. (Considine 1988)

Considine believes that more important than the scale of change is the transformation of ‘ideals, rationales and legitimations for public organisations.’ (1988 pg 4) The emphasis on risk minimisation, quantification, simulation and surveillance (Bogard 1996, Henman 1996) creates a subtle yet aggressive attack on traditional Weberian models of administration which followed precedent, relied on widely understood codes of practice and were carried out by officials without vested interests in the outcomes. (Considine 1988)

There is not space in this paper for either a detailed outline or a full critique of these reforms, although many have pointed out their limited usefulness and the critical role which ideology has played (Peters 1996, Zifcak 1994, p 44) Considering the enormous pressures generated by globalisation, it is no wonder that the direction of the reforms seems to be independent of the nominal ideological orientation of the governments which implement them. (Zifcak 1994 p 155 ) Certainly the 1996 election of a Liberal government in Australia led to an escalation in the pace, but not the direction, of public sector and wider policy changes, after thirteen years of Labor. It is clear that an underlying shift in values and functions of government is occurring (Calabrese 1996, Considine 1988, Mintzberg 1996), independent of the structural permutations which muddy the conceptual waters.

These models of reform reflect an acceptance of rational actor theory, which assumes individuals are willing and able to make decisions based on maximisation of personal benefit, by assessing the abundant and accurate information they have at hand. They ‘contract’ for goods and services, presumably in an open market-place of choice and diversity. Such concepts have their roots, as implied above, in the origins of social contract theory. A growing number of writers, however, seek to draw attention to the fact that these assumptions have never provided an accurate model of the consumer market place, much less of citizen’s relationships with government.

My interest here is in examining how these new managerial principles have affected the inner workings of government, in terms of decision making within agencies and the application of computerised technologies. Again, my examples will be Australian.

A steady stream of administrative and legislative change of the sort outlined above has diminished social security and participative processes, both for public sector employees and for the wider community. ‘Democratic and equity agendas were progressively eclipsed’. (Zifcak 1994, p 155) Considine (1988) also notes the damaging effect of corporate managerialism on democratic processes. If success were measured in social or democratic outcomes, these reforms must be considered abysmal failures. A number of social and environmental indicators are substantially worse now than in the mid-1980s (for example, Gregory 1995).

A liberal philosophy of government requires that an ‘administration’s values can be expected, more or less to reflect those of society. (Zifcak 1994 p 139) We must then ask what is being measured, and what values are being reflected. Are people choosing governments which decrease social wages and equity? In the reconstructed government of instant processing and electronic commerce, does the business of government deliver the information necessary for informed consent?

The way control is exercised at the level of the individual, the family, the group, and particularly the workplace can be called forms of governance. (Foucault, as discussed in Hindess 1996) The importance of internal governance of the workplace has been recognised as a template for wider democratic process and learning. (Dahl 1989 p 329, Sclove 1995, Zimmerman 1995, Pateman 1970) This is particularly true of federal employees. Their ability to act responsibly, and their understanding of what that means, is greatly affected by their organisational structures. Further, their decisions impact more broadly than their own agency. For central policy agencies, repercussions can be national; for regional officers, serving at front desks, their discretionary actions can be where real implementation occurs. (Peters 1988)

In Canberra, source of the current author’s research and experience, the continual and escalating upheavals since the late 1980s have resulted in a dramatic loss of morale and sense of purpose, along with job security. One agency has taken the word ‘morale’ out of their annual staff surveys, after repeated dismal results. Although there is much rhetoric about learning organisations and finding new ways of working, the dominant structures remain strongly hierarchical. As Considine (1988) points out, this ‘contradicts current private management precepts.’ (Considine 1988)

From a policy perspective, there is now less interest in or possibility of real dialogue with community groups and representative social welfare bodies. In some cases, funding for national or consultative organisations has been cut back or eliminated. Feedback within agencies is diminished, as goals are set at higher levels. Political appointments are evident, sometimes in the form of familial connections between the rich, the famous and the duly elected.

At the level of the agency, or the office threatened with absorption, workers learn to keep quiet or get out. Those who remain perceive that their career hopes lie in going with the flow.

One prediction from these trends is a decreased emphasis on industrial democracy processes, and a greater acquiescence with managerial dictates. Consultative mechanisms, where they continue, function within a narrowly circumscribed frame of reference. The new Public Service Act sets the stage for much more individualised and fragmented public sector work force, with many more private, short term contractual employment arrangements.

These measures are consonant with changes in the private sector, but with an important difference. The private sector has a clear ‘bottom line’ and well defined goals: the purpose of improved efficiency is to improve profits, and growth is a desirable corollary. There are no large and complex social goals to be achieved. The public sector, on the other hand, is charged with maintaining democratic process, in a basic way, in keeping with liberal concepts of government.

The current shift in values towards a supposedly neutral business model has caught many public sector managers in a double bind. The pursuit of efficiency and cost-effectiveness in delivering agreed-upon government services is not a problem for them, although all the usual power struggles will impede that progress. However, for the public sector, efficiency is now being associated with diminished function and, in many cases, the eventual elimination of their agency. Managers know they are expected to get on with managing, but are unsure and insecure of what they are meant to achieve and what it might mean for them personally. The persistence of hierarchical management prevents real solutions, or even realistic discussion and definition of the problem, from surfacing. Everyone ducks for cover, in a downward spiral of extreme busy-ness with no resolution.

These, then, are some of the ways which the ‘macro’ view impacts on key internal actors and processes. The corporatisation of government colonises smaller scales. They are reflected in changes to consultative practices and the provision of information, as well as in the uses of information technology. We turn now to how these changes in the role of government have been realised in relation to information technology, and the implications for information as a public resource.

The decision to outsource virtually all Australian government information technology (and many corporate service) functions is an interesting, and still unfolding, case study of decision-making at the highest levels.

Outsourcing brings another set of consequences into play, including issues of confidentiality and privacy in the handling of personal information; accountability measures when contracts are increasingly labelled ‘commercial in confidence’; and the potential deskilling of large numbers of professional groups if services migrate overseas. For example, outsourcing may place increasing amounts of information crucial to the public good in the hands of private companies which are not subject to Freedom of Information or Privacy Act considerations.

Problems of productivity measurement are a bete noir for advocates of greater computerisation. Questioning the ultimate benefits resulting from the introduction of computerisation is not new (Attewell 1996), and is possibly growing, as dependency on these technologies increases. Also, the basis on which predictions of economic benefit are made are likely to reflect a bias towards the commodification of information and a neglect of social issues. (Preissl 1997, Branscomb 1994)

Heimler, drawing on Canadian experience, describes in some detail how the ‘productivity paradox’ takes hold in hierarchies that implement IT without making the necessary shift in ‘mental models’. (Heimler 1996) His analysis illustrates what can happen when managerial principles are enacted for information technology, without the benefit of organisational reengineering. Only non-trivial restructuring can bring about fundamental change in bureaucracies. (Martin 1997 p 13) Lack of consensus on long-term goals promotes conflicting messages and allows temporary alliances to obfuscate even straightforward tasks.

Heimler argues that IT cannot improve productivity in current government hierarchies, because the sheer volume and velocity of information overwhelms the decision makers at the top. Thus, new IT systems tend to bog down because staff and clients haven’t been involved in legitimate consultation, and bottom-up communication is suppressed. Participation in information technology design has always presented problems for all types of organisations. (Dahlbom 1996, Boddy 1996) Without such participation, solutions tend to mirror beliefs of those at the top, and as the crisis increases, the ‘need to be seen to be doing something outweighs the need to be thinking about things’ Despite corporate plans, Heimler says government fails to act as a mediator, as the ‘bureaucratic model does not focus on value, creativity, vision, problem solving and client service.’

One outcome of this bleak scenario is that ‘policy and program responses tend to look and feel the same across a range of portfolios’. Drawing on the literature of learning organisations, he suggests that one way out would be to truly devolve decision-making from the over-loaded top, and look for more lateral forms of accountability. However, given that such approaches involving team building and bottom-up decision making are ‘knowledge driven’ (rather than power-driven), more often the outcome is to ‘further strengthen the centre of government, adding more and yet more politicians, bureaucrats, experts and computers in the desperate hope of outrunning the acceleration of complexity.’(Heimler 1996)

Heimler’s analysis resembles Considine’s (1988) critique of the corporate management framework, which disguises tighter central control with devolved control over resources, but not policy. The contributions of all but the executive are seen as primarily and essentially technical, as agencies are forced into ever greater integration, uniformity and consistency among government services and activities.

If this is the prevalent mind-set, then the relatively modest recognition of the potential for electronic consultation is no surprise. As one government official succinctly put it: ‘the technology is lateral, but the structures are vertical’. Other anecdotes are more revealing: when offered an electronic list for wide discussion of a particular policy issue, the shocked reply from an executive officer was ‘You mean we wouldn’t be able to control who we communicate with?’ Given the authoritarian structures which dominate, and the insecure environment in which many public servants operate, it would be difficult to imagine that a strong sense of ‘moral autonomy’ would be thriving in the public sector. Yet without such reflective development at the organisational level, broader challenges to the status quo are unlikely. (Zimmerman 1995)

Alternative ways of working which challenge such paradigms are difficult to introduce, and are thus rarely costed or measured. Costs to the Commonwealth in 1993/94 for IT to support service delivery alone was estimated at $1.4 billion, with possibly several hundred million dollars in additional costs per year due to ineffective use of information management tools. (IMSC Report 1966, p 11) Methods and technologies which build on existing patterns, offering more speed or less time, are more welcome. Improvements to client services, rather than building better democratic process, have been the major focus of government IT efforts, so much so that other possibilities are considered tangential, with a few notable exceptions. As one senior officer involved with the area observed: ‘The service delivery people have hijacked the IT agenda.’

One aspect of IT which shows great potential for encouraging participation is interactivity. This can be either individual, group, or massed. If the ‘dumb terminal’ typifies a passive and powerless relation to a technology and its masters, then the World Wide Web is the model of unbounded, open-ended communication, where producers and receivers of information entwine freely (McChesney 1996, Negroponte 1996).

There is already a large literature on electronic democracy (Street, 1997, for example). Different views have emerged: do we seek simply more information to the public, or active deliberation? Some writers have voiced concerns that trivial, consumerist forms of electronic democracy, such as television phone-ins, detract from public understanding of what real participation could mean. (Calabrese 1997, Zimmerman 1995)

Zuboff’s (1988) concept of the ‘informating’ potential of IT is useful here. She found some companies realised automation creates a new data stream which might allow employees to become more productive, if they understood the ideas behind the technology and were able to derive conclusions. The alternative was using workers to simply monitor what passed by on the screen, which led to deskilling and a halt to learning. Similar concepts of feedback loops emerge in the learning organisation literature: double loop learning is reflective, and examines basic assumptions. (Senge 1992, Agyris 1973)

Interactivity with computers has a similar set of boundaries. Weak interactivity simply replaces other media and follows the same pattern, but with increased possibilities of surveillance. An example is having draft policy documents available for comment via email. This is the ‘your views have been noted’ approach. Strong interactivity, on the other hand, allows these comments to be transparently available to those who made them, and to others, collectively, with provision for further development. This is the discussion data-base model.

Non-electronic examples of a transparent process can be found in various government enquires which provide copies of all submissions to all submitters. This can result in thousands of pages of testimony or commentary, delivered at government expense to hundred of individuals and organisations. The advantages of making such information available electronically are considerable. These include cost-savings and the ability to search on keywords to find important connections.

Beyond that, one would look for earlier input, before the draft document has already winnowed out the less conforming options for action, or the less vital possibilities for reform. Considine’s (1994) distinction between developmental and instrumental policy functions is useful here. By and large, the developmental goal is missing from government information efforts.

Many factors affect the potential for electronic democracy within the Australian Public Service, including security concerns, existing structures, the novelty of the technologies, and drives towards cost-savings. (Geiselhart 1996a)

Most agencies also have web pages, and many put up documents for discussion and comment. Overwhelmingly, these follow the ‘weak’ pattern of interactivity, with no provision for examination of the comments others have made. Also, draft policy documents have already been through a development process limited to upper echelons of the bureaucracy and selected non-government organisations. The shift towards electronic provision of documents also creates new access problems, with down-loading and printing difficulties, as well as training and categorising challenges. (Preissl 1997, Missingham 1997, Gilbert 1996)

The pattern found in studies of computer mediated communication (Perin 1991, Clement 1994) tends to be repeated, of horizontal collaboration between members clustering at the middle management level. Flow-on to the subscribers’ home agency is uncertain, implicit and tangential, rather than intentionally exploited. Some officers prefer to stay with factual exchanges, noting that they haven’t time for philosophy. Prominent disclaimers distance their statements from the official position of their agencies, although, as one officer observed, ‘I don’t believe there is any such thing as an off the record conversation.’ The ‘textualising’ of communication on interactive systems (Zuboff 1988) encourages a cautious approach. Some non-government lists have government members, and vice versa, further inhibiting critical expression, particularly if there are funding links. Such lists also tend to have a life cycle, with ebbs and flows of interest and intensity.

Perhaps most revealing of all is the narrowing and near collapse of the CIRG-L list, which was set up as part of the Commonwealth Internet Reference Group, managed by a progressive and civic minded officer in the Office of Government Information Technology. These middle level officers, mostly technologists, would meet and then communicate electronically to discuss issues of importance to the development of the Internet in the Commonwealth. For a while the author was part of the physical CIRG, and found the meetings and contacts very useful. In early 1996 the range of topics was declared narrowed to certain aspects of implementation, and the list grew very quiet. Meetings still occur with reduced frequency. Many contacts in government Internet areas have never heard of CIRG. Thus, the potential of CIRG to become policy actors is reduced, despite their expertise. They are primarily implementers, not policy shapers.

Thus, although theoretically open and encouraging of participation, such interactive initiatives are unlikely to have a formal role in guiding or redirecting government policy. Structural and cultural norms and expectations ensure that such effects are dampened from within, unless informed and motivated influences higher up the ladder recognise the potential such forums offer.

Similar patterns have emerged in the researcher’s case studies of interactive policy development within agencies. State of the art computer shops in government, which use the most advanced technologies in highly efficient ways, sometimes have no mechanisms for internal discussion. In one such agency, the lagging attempts to introduce groupware were explained by one informant: ‘It’s hard to make a business case for that sort of thing.’

However, where they exist, electronic initiatives for wide discussion and information within workplaces can be successful in contributing to a feeling of participation and belonging, as the researcher found in one department with an extensive bulletin board system. Other departments are successfully using groupware.

Overall, the initiation of interactive projects in the Commonwealth fits the policy model proposed by Considine (1994). Players on different levels make proposals, and some get up and running, for a variety of reasons. The desire of agencies to be part of the Internet revolution, or the pressures to become more cost-effective, lead to a variety of programs. Some survive, particularly if supported at the higher levels, while others collapse before benefits materialise. Dependencies and legitimation generally bow towards upper structures, leading to an emphasis developing measurable efficiencies in centralised, large-scale client - government projects. Citizen-to citizen communication, or development of citizen-government interaction in the fullest sense is given a much lower priority.

But even at the highest levels of policy formulation for uses of government IT, a diversity of views injects life into the process. A vestigial commitment to a social liberal view of citizen participation as a essential ingredient in national development acts as counterpoint to economic rationalist thinking.

The mission statement for the Office of Government Information Technology, for example, focuses on the instrumental goals: ‘To add significant value to agencies' application of Information Management & Communications in improving program delivery and administration’.

Likewise, the vision for the Framework & Strategies for Information Technology in the Commonwealth of Australia - Exposure Draft (1995), has an orientation towards achievable economies and efficiencies:

‘The Commonwealth will be a world leader in government administration and in the cost-effective provision of affordable, equitable and accessible Australian government information and services.

Australians will have seamless access - that is, through common interfaces - to a range of government information and services appropriate to the client group, wherever it is cost-effective to do so.’

What is missing is Zuboff’s (1988)‘informating’ dimension, or Considine’s (1994) developmental function. This is a common oversight in government documents of this kind. The UK Green Paper (1996) makes it clear from the title: ‘government.direct: A prospectus for the Electronic Delivery of Government Services’, that it is offering a business model. Its intention is to ‘change fundamentally and for the better the way that government provides services to citizens and businesses. Services will be more accessible, more convenient, easier to use, quicker in response and less costly to the taxpayer.’

The examples given are drawn from business, and the overall pattern very much resembles what one would expect from private enterprise, but no more. There is much mention of ‘rationality’ and cost savings. There is some acknowledgment of the potential for participation in the policy process (via email) and of citizen’s rights: ‘In addition to improvements in service delivery, the proposals in this Green Paper will help citizens to involve themselves more in the democratic process. Both Citizen’s Charter information and basic statutory information will be widely accessible electronically.’(p 31) This looks like a one-way information flow, rather than strong interactivity.

A draft Community Information Strategy for the ACT (1996) listed key information which should be available electronically, but omitted contentious urban planning issues from this inventory.

A refreshing contrast is provided by an Australian Government document on ‘Management of Government Information as a National Strategic Resource’ (1996). Here, too, the title is an accurate guide to the tone and intent of the document; in this case to provide a thoughtful and comprehensive outline of the issues involved in using government information collectively for broad national objectives.

While the terms of reference for the Information Management Steering Committee (IMSC) are modest (p 1), the document shows a pervasive awareness of the need to address social as well as economic issues, and the potential to create a framework for individuals to interact richly with government, rather than simply as clients for government services: ‘it will no longer be acceptable for government to consider clients as transactions waiting in a queue. Australians will become better informed individuals….’ (p 10)

The need to integrate business plans and achieve cost-effectiveness through information management is an important component, but this is not viewed in isolation. Technical and legal aspects of information management are placed in a values framework, informed by theoretical understanding and discussion of information society concepts and prominent overseas projects, such as North Star in Minnesota. There is no backing away from recognition that the Australian Public Service will need to change from within to meet these challenges (p 9).

A section on Electronic Democracy goes well beyond the platitude offered in the UK paper, and suggests that the Internet can assist by allowing earlier and wider input into policy processes. This is an example of both ‘informating’ and the possibility of greater lateral accountability, as Au Coin (quoted in Heimler 1996) has recommended.

However, it would be premature to assume that a benevolent or even a uniform approach to government information will prevail. The number of actors on the information management stage is large, and they are all still learning their lines. Considering the scope of the issues covered, diversity and conflict of views is to be expected. Approximately a dozen players are already involved in electronic commerce. An officer with an interest in the IMSC report said that electronic democracy issues were deliberately treated lightly, so as not to stir up a backlash. The influential head of the IMSC project has left the public sector for an academic position far from Canberra. Tracking of information management projects in the researcher’s case studies suggests that idealistic plans for implementation can easily fall by the wayside.

Bogard (1996) has painted a ‘social science fiction’ in which ‘hypercontrol’ reaches its logical destination, where simulation and modelling, combined with ever more intense surveillance, replace any need for real-world experimentation. With all parameters built into the model, and powerful processors to consider every possibility, other approaches become quaint. Bogard’s scenarios are not unbelievable, based as they are on actual events. In fact, they are broadly confirmed by Henman’s (1996) study of computerisation in policy work at the Department of Social Security. Henman found that the effects of computerisation were to increase quantification, central control, monitoring, evaluation, and surveillance. Modelling and dependence on computers become essential to any policy proposals, and tend to place policy decisions in the technical, rather than social, realm. Andersen (1997) has written about the need for an overtly political role among those who simulate government policies.

Although there is much cause for concern in the above analysis, there is also enormous opportunity for redirecting the use of electronic technologies in government to support democratic process. Sclove is an advocate of a multi-faceted approach to the problems of democracy, scale, and technology. His seminal work, Democracy and Technology (1995), is both a philosophical approach to the links between these topics, and a guide to how it can, and is, being done.

Just considering modelling and simulation, for example, raises the possibility of alternative models. The idea that we are choosing our future now is strongly put forward by McChesney (1996). The actors and the scripts are not yet set, and leverage is available. The critical point is that those who are involved, either as policy developers, academics, or technicians, have an obligation to act on behalf of those who are not yet aware of the enormous power which telecommunications holds for control on an unprecedented scale. Those who acquiesce, ignore the warning signs, or shoot the messengers, accept a role of pawns without power.

Models which work, which deliver, such as public library systems, need to put forward as success stories on an economic, social, institutional and worker level. It has often been said among public servants that the Australian government does lots of good things, but they never tell anyone about it. The advances in equity and the glimmerings of a truly civil society must be what is measured, promoted and used as a basis for coalition-building. The failures of personal courage to take such stands are rooted in the workings of power and its relation to governance. Power is omnipresent, at the level of introducing a new computer system (Warne 1995, Dahlbom 1996, Boddy 1996), or choosing between competing sets of values in policy development.

It is clear that the role of government in directing and demonstrating democratic uses for information technology is complex, and cannot be resolved in isolation from other issues relating to technology and democratic process. Those who work within government, and have some understanding of their responsibilities as shapers of social policy, are often caught up in the enervated moral atmosphere that relentlessly trickles down from upper echelons. Senior managers, on the other hand, would point to their political masters as the point of ultimate accountability, who would, in turn, would proudly cite the latest polls. At all levels, the inculcation of reflection and development of a critical consciousness is sacrificed to short term, narrowly viewed outcomes.

Meanwhile, the application of high technology to destroy democratic participation and promote private gain proceeds unabated, aided by vast amounts of money and the public relations industry. (Stauber 1995) While it may be currently true, as Dahl (1988) mused and Cerf (1996) asserted, that ‘Democracy doesn’t scale’, vested interests inimical to democracy suffer few restraints. Nor do the individuals implementing these tactics seem to worry about their stunted moral development. They are envied for their ‘success.’

Ironically, this pattern leads to a tragedy of the commons situation, where many pursue their self interest at the expense of the whole. The applications of information technology in government are fraught with difficulties for officials whose main aim is to minimise personal risk and become detached instruments of someone else’s will. The dissonances which are now arising as the information highways unfold have many of the characteristics of a self-organising system (Birrer 1997), and are possibly amenable to mathematical modelling. The author has suggested elsewhere that fractal patterns may be evident in the ways organisational structures and information technology interact. (Geiselhart 1996b) That is, similar patterns and conflicts are repeated at different orders of magnitude, such as the agency, the corporation, or nationally. If this analysis is supported by the evidence, then Birrer’s (1997) proposal that both the prisoner’s dilemma and the tragedy of the commons can be seen in the properties of the emerging information society could be taken as a warning that the system may reach a bifurcation point where options close up. He recommends monitoring the trends of decentralisation, deregulation and privatisation for their real content and effects.

This, of course, presumes that those who monitor can agree on whether the outcomes bode well or ill. Thus, we must return to the concept of government as a keeper of the common wealth. If notions of normative government are to be revitalised, the path is not obscure. The advice to start with empowerment and action at the level of the workplace, as noted above, needs to be taken seriously. Any flow-on to other scales should be carefully tracked. As indicated in the Australian government evidence above, this would not be easy, but a start would be more democratic uses of technology within agencies. Sclove’s (1995) democratic design criteria could then become internalised at a level capable of exerting wider influence. Such initiatives are still possible, if presented as assisting in becoming a learning organisation. Role plays which tease out prisoner’s dilemma situations, and help develop solutions, are another avenue for stimulating moral and social development at the micro level. (Zimmerman 1995)

Beyond that, Birrer’s (1997) hopes for greater participation and information about technological impacts can probably only be realised through profound structural change. Zimmerman (1995) advocates the ‘social dismantlement and reconstruction of tech systems deemed contrary to the principles of moral autonomy and democracy’ (p 98) This would be facilitated, he believes, by creating public trusts to manage the technologies which are most crucial to the socio-technical order: transport, communications, energy. Biological engineering and the pharmaceutical and chemical industries might also qualify.

The concepts of democratic participation and their liberal underpinnings are not out of date, but they urgently need reexamination and revitalisation. Not just technical, but moral linkages to desired norms need to be reestablished.

Bibliography

Government.Direct: A Prospectus for the Electronic Delivery of Government Services (UK Green Paper) 1996 URL: http://www.open.gov.uk/citu/gdirect/ind1.htm

Aikens, Scott 1996 ''The Democratization of Systems of Public Opinion Formation'' International Symposium on Technology and Society. Technical Expertise and Public Decisions. Proceedings; Princeton University. Princeton, NJ. URL: http://www.dar.cam.ac.uk/gsa1001/Paper1.html

Argyris, Chris 1973 On Organizations of the Future; Sage: London.

Beniger, James R. 1986 The Control Revolution - Technological and Economic Origins of the Information Society Harvard University Press: Cambridge

Boddy, David; Gunson, Nicky 1996 Organizations in the Network Age Routledge: London

Bogard, William 1996 The Simulation of Surveillance - Hypercontrol in Telematic Societies Cambridge University Press: Cambridge

Branscomb, Anne Wells 1994 Who Owns Information? from privacy to public access Basic Books: New York

Calabrese, Andrew; Borchert, Mark, 1996 'Prospects for electronic democracy in the United States: rethinking communication and social policy' Media, Culture and Society 18 (2) 249-268

Canberra Wired - a draft community information strategy for the ACT March 1996, ACT Department of Urban Services

Clement, Andrew 1994 'Computing at work: Empowering Action by low-level users' Communications of the ACM 37 (1) 53-63

Considine, Mark 1988 'The Corporate Management Framework as Administrative Science: A Critique' Australian Journal of Public Administration XLVII (1) 4-18

Considine, Mark 1994 Public Policy: A Critical Approach Macmillan: Melbourne

Dahl, Robert A. 1989 Democracy and Its Critics Yale University Press: New Haven and London

Dahlbom, B.; Mathiassen, L. 1996 ‘Power in Systems Design’, in Computerization and Controversy 2nd ed.; Rob Kling, Editor; Academic Press: San Diego, 1996; 903-906

Geiselhart, Karin 1996a 'Factors Affecting the Spread of Electronic Democracy in the Australian Public Service' AUSWEB 96, The Second World Wide Web Conference; Gold Coast, Queensland

Geiselhart, Karin 1996b 'Accountability modelling and on-line policy development in the Australian Public Service' Proceedings INET '96. Annual Conference, Internet Society; Montreal

Gilbert, Catherine, 1996 'Information Technology for the Delivery of Useful Parliamentary Information' A Forum on Government Policy and Information Technology; Parliament House, NSW

Gregory, RB; Hunter, B 1995 The Macro Economy and the Growth of Ghettos and Urban Poverty in Australia, Discussion Paper No 325; Centre for Economic Policy Research, Australian National University: Canberra.

Hart, Stuart L. 1997 'Beyond Greening: Strategies for a Sustainable World' Harvard Business Review, (Jan-Feb) 67-76

Heimler, Peter 1996 'The Problem of Hierarchy in Government' International Symposium on Technology and Society 'Technical Expertise and Public Decisions'; Princeton, New Jersey. IEEE Society

Henman, Paul 1996 Constructing Families and Disciplining Bodies, PhD Thesis, University of Queensland, 1996

[1] Hindess, Barry 1996 Discourses of Power - From Hobbes to Foucault Blackwell: Oxford

Ives, David, 1994 'Next Steps in Public Management' Australian Journal of Public Administration 53 (No 3) 335-340

Kadie, C. M. 1996 ‘Applying Library Intellectual Freedom Principles to Public and Academic Computers’, in Computerization and Controversy, 2nd ed.; Rob Kling, Editor; Academic Press: San Diego, 569-579

Lyon, David 1988 The Information Society - Issues and Illusions Polity Press: Cambridge

Magretta, Joan 1997 'Growth Through Global Sustainability' Harvard Business Review, (Jan-Feb) 79-88

Martin, Brian; Callaghan, Sharon; Fox; Wells, Rosie; Cawte, Mary, 1997 Challenging Bureaucratic Elites; Schweik Action: Wollongong.

McChesney, Robert 1996 'The Internet and US Communication Policy-Making in Historical and Critical Perspective' Journal of Communication , (Winter) 98-119

Mintzberg, Henry, 1996 'Managing Government - governing management' Harvard Business Review, (May-June) 75-83

Missingham, Roxanne 1997 'Will You Still Need Me When I'm 64? Libraries and the Internet' Information Online and OnDisc 97; Sydney

Negroponte, Nicholas 1996 Being Digital Hodder Headline Australia Pty Limited: Rydalmere, NSW

Office of Government Information Technology Framework and Strategies for Information in the Commonwealth of Australia - Exposure Draft 1995.

Pateman, Carole 1970 Participation and Democratic Theory Cambridge University Press: London

Perin, Constance 1991 'Electronic social fields in bureaucracies ' Communications of the ACM 34 (12) 75-82

Peters, Guy 1996 Contradictions in Public Sector Reform: Reflections on Current Practice; Delivered at the ANU 50th Anniversary Public Lecture Series, The Australian National University, Canberra.

Peters, Guy. 1989 The Politics of Bureaucracy Longman: New York

Preissl, Brigitte 1997 'Information technology: A Critical Perspective on its Economic Effects' Prometheus 15 (1)

Preliminary Report of the Information Management Steering Committee on Information; Management in the Commonwealth Government.1996 Management of Government Information As a National Strategic Resource URL: http://www.nla.gov.au/imsc/es.html

Reinecke, Ian 1989 ‘Information as a free public good’, in Wilson, Helen, ed. Australian Communications and the Public Sphere, Essays in Memory of Bill Bonney, Macmillan: Sydney and Melbourne, 147-162

Sawer, Marian 1996 The Ethical State: Social Liberalism and Citizenship Traditions in Australia; presented at the History Department, University of Western Australia

Schaefer, Richard F. 1995 'National information infrastructure policy: a theoretical and normative approach' Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy 5 (2) 4-13

Sclove, Richard E. 1995 Democracy and Technology The Guilford Press: New York

Self, P. ‘Redefining the Role of Government’, in What Should Government Do?; Coaldrake, P.; Nethercote, J. R., Hale & Iremonger, eds.: Sydney, 1989; 13-42

Senge, Peter 1992 The Fifth Discipline; Random House: Sydney.

Spurgeon, C. 1997 The Digital Value of Communication. PhD Thesis, University of Technology, Sydney

Stauber, John; Rampton, Sheldon. 1995 Toxic Sludge Is Good for You! Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry Common Courage Press: Monroe, Maine

Street, John 1997 'Remote Control? Politics, Technology and 'Electronic Democracy'' European Journal of Communication 12 (1) 27-42

Warne, Leoni 1995 ‘Organisational Power and Information System Development: Findings from a Case Study of a large Public Sector Project' ACIS 95; 461-479

Zifcak, Spencer 1994 The New Managerialism: Administrative Reform in Whitehall and Canberra Open University Press: Buckingham and Philadelphia

Zimmerman, Andrew D. 1995 'Toward a More Democratic Ethic of Technological Governance' Science, Technology and Human Values 20 (1) 86-107

Zuboff, Shoshana 1988 In the Age of the Smart Machine - The Future of Work and Power Heinemann Professional Publishing: Oxford