数字黑暗中的商议策略:英国的电子民主政策

IF 2.1 2区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS British Journal of Politics & International Relations Pub Date : 2013-02-04 DOI:10.1111/1467-856X.12004
Giles Moss, Stephen Coleman
{"title":"数字黑暗中的商议策略:英国的电子民主政策","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

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。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Deliberative Manoeuvres in the Digital Darkness: e-Democracy Policy in the UK

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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.
期刊最新文献
Crisis politics of dehumanisation during COVID-19: A framework for mapping the social processes through which dehumanisation undermines human dignity. Britain's COVID-19 battle: The role of political leaders in shaping the responses to the pandemic. COVID-19 vaccine apartheid and the failure of global cooperation. Alcohol policy, multi-level governance and corporate political strategy: The campaign for Scotland's minimum unit pricing in Edinburgh, London and Brussels. 'The Pope's own hand outstretched': Holy See diplomacy as a hybrid mode of diplomatic agency.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1