Is Open Government Faltering ?

[Michael Hardner]

BBC

The United States initiative, data.gov, set off with similar goals to those outlined by George Osborne today, but has now hit a few roadbumps.

Last month, its funding was slashed as part of the budget settlement between the White House and the House of Representatives, and its very survival appears to be under threat.

It's in the interest of a lot of bureaucrats and politicians to keep data under wraps. Is Open Gov in trouble ?

[Shady]

BBC

It's in the interest of a lot of bureaucrats and politicians to keep data under wraps. Is Open Gov in trouble ?

What does so-called open government mean?

[Michael Hardner]

This is an 'ok' description:

Open government is the governing doctrine which holds that citizens have the right to access the documents and proceedings of the government to allow for effective public oversight.[1] In its broadest construction it opposes reason of state and racist considerations, which have tended to legitimize extensive state secrecy. The origins of open government arguments can be dated to the time of the European Enlightenment: to debates about the proper construction of a then nascent democratic society.

Among recent developments is the theory of open source governance, which advocates the application of the philosophies of the free software movement to democratic principles to enable interested citizens to get more directly involved in the legislative process.

wiki

'free software' movement, though, is about open source... which is a little software centric. The idea is to get government information on the web for all to see - especially budgets. The movements sometimes gets bogged down in technology concerns.

[Shady]

This is an 'ok' description:

wiki

'free software' movement, though, is about open source... which is a little software centric. The idea is to get government information on the web for all to see - especially budgets. The movements sometimes gets bogged down in technology concerns.

Arent budgets already available in paper form and online?

[Michael Hardner]

Arent budgets already available in paper form and online?

There are some examples where this is done well, but far more examples where only the top level budgets are put out. As to how truthful those numbers are, the Sunlight Foundation speaks to that here in the US example:

Last fall, we conducted a data quality analysis of the grants data present in USASpending.gov. We called the project Clearspending. Basically, we used another source of government data that provided annual spending estimates for each grant program and compared it with the grant totals for each program in USASpending.gov to see how close they were. We also looked to see if spending was reported completely, and on time (full methodology here). We found nearly $1.3 trillion worth of spending that either didn't match with the other government data, was late, or incompletely reported.

That's a lot of money.

Sunlight Foundation

[eyeball]

Is Open Government Faltering?

I'd say the concept of government itself is what's faltering. I see little point in continuing down the path we're on, it's unsustainable in just about every way I can think of.

I really think anarchy has a valid purpose here - like a ecosystem that needs to be disturbed every now and then to restart the process of evolution.

[Michael Hardner]

I'd say the concept of government itself is what's faltering. I see little point in continuing down the path we're on, it's unsustainable in just about every way I can think of.

I really think anarchy has a valid purpose here - like a ecosystem that needs to be disturbed every now and then to restart the process of evolution.

Anarchy won't happen. If it did, it would be a horrible situation for millions.

I find it kind of glib to just state that it has a valid purpose, in a system such as ours which self-corrects all the time. We grumble about government, but would we rather have mass violence and disorder ? Seriously, it's a bit much.

[Shady]

BBC

It's in the interest of a lot of bureaucrats and politicians to keep data under wraps. Is Open Gov in trouble ?

Also, open government is ultimately up to the voters, not some special funding related to another government agency. And I'm not sure that all data should be available to the public anyways. At least not without some type of fee. Collecting data can be very expensive. I've worked for the MNR. Do you think it's cheap to fly planes around Ontario to take aerial photos? Do you think it's cheap to find certain protected species of plants or animals? It doesn't make sense just to give it away.

Anyways, politician's actions matter more when it comes to open government. Right now Barack Obama meets with people across the street from the White House so that he doesn't need to disclose who he meets with. Bush on the other hand, met with people in the White House, and used executive priviledge as a means to not disclose the contents of said meetings. It looks like Obama's taken things a step further in the wrong direction. Only legislation and/or him losing his re-election will change that.

[Shady]

I find it kind of glib to just state that it has a valid purpose, in a system such as ours which self-corrects all the time. We grumble about government, but would we rather have mass violence and disorder ? Seriously, it's a bit much.

Exactly. Overall, our government works fairly well. It can always be improved. But when one looks around the world, we see how bad things really could be. Anyone that suggests anarchy really doesn't have much of a grasp on reality.

[Michael Hardner]

Also, open government is ultimately up to the voters, not some special funding related to another government agency.

Agreed 100%. The government has to release the data, though, as they think that they 'own' it.

And I'm not sure that all data should be available to the public anyways. At least not without some type of fee. Collecting data can be very expensive. I've worked for the MNR. Do you think it's cheap to fly planes around Ontario to take aerial photos? Do you think it's cheap to find certain protected species of plants or animals? It doesn't make sense just to give it away.

Not all data. Certainly some should be paid for. But performance data, budget numbers and so on are collected now and are necessary for the public to assess how governments are performing and living up to their promises and planning.

Anyways, politician's actions matter more when it comes to open government. Right now Barack Obama meets with people across the street from the White House so that he doesn't need to disclose who he meets with. Bush on the other hand, met with people in the White House, and used executive priviledge as a means to not disclose the contents of said meetings. It looks like Obama's taken things a step further in the wrong direction. Only legislation and/or him losing his re-election will change that.

This is an example of needless government secrecy and a culture of concealment. This needs to be broken - the first government that does it will be heroes.

[Michael Hardner]

Exactly. Overall, our government works fairly well. It can always be improved. But when one looks around the world, we see how bad things really could be. Anyone that suggests anarchy really doesn't have much of a grasp on reality.

I would classify this as 'crowing'.

[eyeball]

Anarchy won't happen. If it did, it would be a horrible situation for millions.

Well sure it would, in the short-term, and I was thinking billions actually. As has been said a collective cheer would go up from just about every ecosystem on the planet should we ever bee cut back to a more sustainable level.

I find it kind of glib to just state that it has a valid purpose, in a system such as ours which self-corrects all the time. We grumble about government, but would we rather have mass violence and disorder ? Seriously, it's a bit much.

But that's just it there is no self-correcting going on. It's still the government versus the governed which it pretty much always has been since we climbed down out of the trees. I'm not trying to be glib at all, I'm quite matter-of-factly describing a very real evolutionary process. The term disturbance-regime is a well recognized concept amongst evolutionary biologists. We've been stagnating and now seem to be regressing. Needless to say the failure to adapt is what knocks most species back on their assess.

[eyeball]

This is an example of needless government secrecy and a culture of concealment. This needs to be broken - the first government that does it will be heroes.

The first government that does will have learned the lesson that anarchy delivers.

I guess I subscribe to the idea that the path to enlightenment is a painful one. The lessons just sink in better.

[Michael Hardner]

Well sure it would, in the short-term, and I was thinking billions actually. As has been said a collective cheer would go up from just about every ecosystem on the planet should we ever bee cut back to a more sustainable level.

Right. So billions suffer, and we're all cheerful at the end of it because ? Do you have any guarantee that the new system would be any better ?

But that's just it there is no self-correcting going on. It's still the government versus the governed which it pretty much always has been since we climbed down out of the trees. I'm not trying to be glib at all, I'm quite matter-of-factly describing a very real evolutionary process. The term disturbance-regime is a well recognized concept amongst evolutionary biologists. We've been stagnating and now seem to be regressing. Needless to say the failure to adapt is what knocks most species back on their assess.

That is crap. Faced with the depression, our open society adopted social reforms that remain to this day - creating a hybrid of pure capitalism and socialism. Totalitarian socialism rightly died 20 years ago. Monarchies and dictatorships continue to fall. No self-correcting ?

In your view, we climbed down out of the trees and everything is the same. So let's forget about evolution, the neolithic era, ancient civilizations, the reformation, the industrial revolution, the consumer society...

Hypberbole.

[Michael Hardner]

The first government that does will have learned the lesson that anarchy delivers.

I guess I subscribe to the idea that the path to enlightenment is a painful one. The lessons just sink in better.

There is always pain for some.

[eyeball]

Right. So billions suffer, and we're all cheerful at the end of it because ? Do you have any guarantee that the new system would be any better ?

None whatsoever, but as you said in a related thread on "Hard Choices Ahead", things are getting worse not better.

That is crap. Faced with the depression, our open society adopted social reforms that remain to this day - creating a hybrid of pure capitalism and socialism. Totalitarian socialism rightly died 20 years ago. Monarchies and dictatorships continue to fall. No self-correcting ?

Not where it really matters no.

In your view, we climbed down out of the trees and everything is the same. So let's forget about evolution, the neolithic era, ancient civilizations, the reformation, the industrial revolution, the consumer society...

Has the Golden Rule (he who has the gold rules) really ever changed that much?

Hypberbole.

I admit it's not a very optimistic outlook.

[Michael Hardner]

Not where it really matters no.

Has the Golden Rule (he who has the gold rules) really ever changed that much?

Personal freedom, increased leisure time and life expectancy - all the benefits acquired in human history... nothing is better ?

Really.

[Shady]

Personal freedom, increased leisure time and life expectancy - all the benefits acquired in human history... nothing is better ?

Really.

Exactly. Much has gotten better. Nobody has any context anymore. And what people like eyeball propose is for us to devolve, not evolve.

[eyeball]

Personal freedom, increased leisure time and life expectancy - all the benefits acquired in human history... nothing is better ?

Really.

Sure things have gotten better in a material sense but I think this is all up in the air now because of our inability and even unwillingness in many cases to govern ourselves openly, transparently and accountably. We're getting closer to the point where the inescapable consequences of this will become more apparent in the ecosystems that fuel our economic growth or appearance of growth.

I suspect we've actually long been in a serious deficit when it comes to the natural capital of our planet and we've been living off inertia and the stored up fat of the land these last few decades. The best trees are gone, the big fish have all been caught, the oil closest to the surface has all been pumped out and most accessible ore deposits dug up. Much of the wealth these created is gone and what's left is largely in the hands of the wealthiest few amongst us.

We don't have the planet for the taking that we've been accustomed to but we do have the same sorts of governing structures that assume we can and indeed must keep taking. There is definitely a bottleneck up ahead and trying to squeeze through it under governments that are deliberately secretive and duplicitous truly will make things far worse.

[Michael Hardner]

Sure things have gotten better in a material sense but I think this is all up in the air now because of our inability and even unwillingness in many cases to govern ourselves openly, transparently and accountably. We're getting closer to the point where the inescapable consequences of this will become more apparent in the ecosystems that fuel our economic growth or appearance of growth.

I submit that the powers that be try to find ways of getting out of the public eye, and they succeed. After awhile, though, the people wake up and get angry.

As for your other point: things are better in the material sense, and in the sense of freedoms. You don't think that our progress in accepting different races, in freedom of religion, sexual orientation, social and physical mobility and freedom of association, and the loosening of gender roles doesn't give people a better ability to pursue happiness ?

I suspect we've actually long been in a serious deficit when it comes to the natural capital of our planet and we've been living off inertia and the stored up fat of the land these last few decades. The best trees are gone, the big fish have all been caught, the oil closest to the surface has all been pumped out and most accessible ore deposits dug up. Much of the wealth these created is gone and what's left is largely in the hands of the wealthiest few amongst us.

We're all wealthier, in many more ways than materially.

The gradual recognition world wide that human rights are sacrosanct is

We don't have the planet for the taking that we've been accustomed to but we do have the same sorts of governing structures that assume we can and indeed must keep taking. There is definitely a bottleneck up ahead and trying to squeeze through it under governments that are deliberately secretive and duplicitous truly will make things far worse.

As I said, there is change coming.

[Remiel]

You talk about Open Government as a means to introduce oversight to government, Michael, but I think you are missing or glossing over a more important goal. The better purpose of an open government is, in my opinion, to give citizens and citizen groups the information and tools they need for policy innovation. That is to say that a large part of understanding what should be done with our nations resources is dependant on what is being done with our nations resources.

Perhaps this is something of a matter of semantics, but the way you approach this in some ways seems to have as its purpose that government ought to do less wrong, whereas the real victories of open government will always like in people discovering how to do more right.

[Michael Hardner]

You talk about Open Government as a means to introduce oversight to government, Michael, but I think you are missing or glossing over a more important goal. The better purpose of an open government is, in my opinion, to give citizens and citizen groups the information and tools they need for policy innovation. That is to say that a large part of understanding what should be done with our nations resources is dependant on what is being done with our nations resources.

Perhaps this is something of a matter of semantics, but the way you approach this in some ways seems to have as its purpose that government ought to do less wrong, whereas the real victories of open government will always like in people discovering how to do more right.

I'm intrigued by your post Remiel, though I'm not sure I understand.

It seems to me that you're saying once people see what money is spent on, they may demand innovation rather than improvement ? If so, then yes I think that is a likely result in the medium term.

In any case, the light needs to come into what government is doing. Whether that will happen before a libertarian victory and utter gutting and slashing of everything is my newest question. But given that the popular libertarian candidate in America right now seems to be talking about massive military cuts, maybe that's not such a bad idea.

[Remiel]

I'm intrigued by your post Remiel, though I'm not sure I understand.

It seems to me that you're saying once people see what money is spent on, they may demand innovation rather than improvement ? If so, then yes I think that is a likely result in the medium term.

What I mean is this: Say I am a concerned (I am), industrious (I am probably not) citizen, who think government can do better. So I think to myself, " I wonder what is really happening in government. Sure, the government releases a budget, but that only tells us the broadest, most useless strokes. " If I want to find out what is actually happening at the micro level, there is virtually no way that can be done. What open government should do for me is to make that sort of information accessible, so that any citizen with free time and the will can take a look at the books and figure out what is going on, and maybe even come up with ways to improve it.

Ultimately, what I am saying is probably not that different from what you are saying, but the way you look at it is like trying to sell politicians vinegar ("We know you are up to no good and we are going to get you!"), whereas I think my way is more likely trying to sell them honey ("We all want the country to work better, and if you openned the books, you could get a lot of free labour!"). That is perhaps a little simplistic on my part, but I am sure you get the idea.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Remiel