Moving from coproduction to commonization of digital public goods and services
Corresponding Author
Sébastien Shulz
Costech, Université de Technologie de Compiègne, Compiègne, France
Dimmons (IN3), Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain
Correspondence
Sébastien Shulz, Costech, Université de Technologie de Compiègne, Compiègne, France.
Email: [email protected]; [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Sébastien Shulz
Costech, Université de Technologie de Compiègne, Compiègne, France
Dimmons (IN3), Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain
Correspondence
Sébastien Shulz, Costech, Université de Technologie de Compiègne, Compiègne, France.
Email: [email protected]; [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
The hybridization of digital commons and public administration institutions led by bureaucratic entrepreneurs is a relatively recent phenomenon that has received limited attention in the literature. The term coined to describe this evolution is the “commonization” of digital public goods and services. I define commonization as the integration of shared property, peer production, and self-governance into public administration. To explore the democratizing potential of commonization, I conducted a qualitative study comparing two case studies in France and Spain (Barcelona). My approach involves 44 semistructured interviews and online observations analyzed through the analytical framework of institutional work. The findings highlight five factors that enhance, and two that hinder, citizen power in co-governance arrangements. In conclusion, I identify the theoretical and practical implications of commonizing digital public goods and services, providing valuable insights for practitioners and scholars, particularly in the New Public Governance paradigm.
REFERENCES
- Ackerman, John. 2004. “Co-Governance for Accountability: Beyond ‘Exit’ and ‘Voice’.” World Development 32(3): 447–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2003.06.015.
- Agranoff, Robert. 2006. “Inside Collaborative Networks: Ten Lessons for Public Managers.” Public Administration Review 66(s1): 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00666.x.
- Attard, Judie, Fabrizio Orlandi, Simon Scerri, and Sören Auer. 2015. “A Systematic Review of Open Government Data Initiatives.” Government Information Quarterly 32(4): 399–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.006.
-
Barry, Emily, and Frank Bannister. 2014. “Barriers to Open Data Release: A View from the Top.” Information Polity 19(1,2): 129–152. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-140327.
10.3233/IP-140327 Google Scholar
- Bates, Joe. 2014. “The Strategic Importance of Information Policy for the Contemporary Neoliberal State: The Case of Open Government Data in the United Kingdom.” Government Information Quarterly 31(3): 388–395.
- Bauwens, Michel. 2005. “The Political Economy of Peer Production.” CTheory. https://journals.uvic.ca/index.php/ctheory/article/view/14464.
- Benkler, Yochai. 2006. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press.
- Blanco, Ismael, Yunailis Salazar, and Iolanda Bianchi. 2020. “Urban Governance and Political Change under a Radical Left Government: The Case of Barcelona.” Journal of Urban Affairs 42(1): 18–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2018.1559648.
- Bollier, David. 2008. Viral Spiral: How the Commoners Built a Digital Republic of their Own. New York: The New Press.
- Boyle, James. 2003. “The Second Enclosure Movement and the Construction of the Public Domain.” Law and Contemporary Problems 66(1): 33–74.
- Brabham, Daren C. 2013. Using Crowdsourcing in Government. Collaboration across Boundaries Series. Whashington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
- Brandsen, Taco, and Victor Pestoff. 2006. “Co-Production, the Third Sector and the Delivery of Public Services.” Public Management Review 8(4): 493–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030601022874.
- Chun, Soon, Stuart Shulman, Rodrigo Sandoval Almazan, and Eduard Hovy. 2010. “Government 2.0: Making Connections between Citizens, Data and Government.” Information Polity 15: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-2010-0205.
- Clark, Benjamin Y., Jeffrey L. Brudney, and Sung-Gheel Jang. 2013. “Coproduction of Government Services and the New Information Technology: Investigating the Distributional Biases.” Public Administration Review 73(5): 687–701. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12092.
-
Coleman, E. Gabriella. 2012. Coding Freedom: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Hacking. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
10.2307/j.ctt1r2gbj Google Scholar
- de Rosnay, Melanie Dulong, and Katleen Janssen. 2014. “Legal and Institutional Challenges for Opening Data across Public Sectors: Towards Common Policy Solutions.” Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 9(3): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-18762014000300002.
-
Dulong de Rosnay, Mélanie, and Felix Stalder. 2020. “Digital Commons.” Internet Policy Review 9(4): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.14763/2020.4.1530.
10.14763/2020.4.1530 Google Scholar
- Dutil, Patrice. 2015. “Crowdsourcing as a New Instrument in the government's Arsenal: Explorations and Considerations.” Canadian Public Administration 58(3): 363–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12134.
-
Dutil, Patrice A., Cosmo Howard, John Langford, and Jeffrey Roy. 2008. “Rethinking Government-Public Relationships in a Digital World.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics 4(1): 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1300/J516v04n01_06.
10.1300/J516v04n01_06 Google Scholar
- Fattori, Tommaso. 2013. “From the Water Commons Movement to the Commonification of the Public Realm.” South Atlantic Quarterly 112(2): 377–387. https://doi.org/10.1215/00382876-2020253.
- Fenwick, John, Karen Johnston Miller, and Duncan McTavish. 2012. “Co-Governance or Meta-Bureaucracy? Perspectives of Local Governance ‘Partnership’ in England and Scotland.” Policy & Politics 40(3): 405–422. https://doi.org/10.1332/147084411X581907.
- Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2006. “Five Misunderstandings about Case-Study Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 12(2): 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363.
- Goldstein, Brett, and Lauren Dyson. 2013. Beyond Transparency: Open Data and the Future of Civic Innovation. San Francisco: Code for America Press.
-
Grear, Anna, and David Bollier. 2020. The Great Awakening: New Modes of Life Amidst Capitalist Ruins. Santa Barbara: Punctum Books.
10.2307/jj.2353884 Google Scholar
- Guest, Greg, Kathleen M. MacQueen, and Emily E. Namey. 2011. Applied Thematic Analysis. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
- Harrison, Sara, and Peter Johnson. 2019. “Challenges in the Adoption of Crisis Crowdsourcing and Social Media in Canadian Emergency Management.” Government Information Quarterly 36(3): 501–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.04.002.
- Hars, Alexander, and Shaosong Ou. 2002. “Working for Free? Motivations for Participating in Open-Source Projects.” International Journal of Electronic Commerce 6(3): 25–39.
- Hess, Charlotte, and Elinor Ostrom. 2007. Understanding Knowledge as a Commons – From Theory to Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
-
Janssen, Katleen. 2012. “Open Government Data and the Right to Information: Opportunities and Obstacles.” The Journal of Community Informatics 8(2). https://openjournals.uwaterloo.ca/index.php/JoCI/article/view/3042.
10.15353/joci.v8i2.3042 Google Scholar
- Kostakis, Vasilis. 2011. “Commons-Based Peer Production and the Neo-Weberian State: Synergies and Interdependencies.” Administrative Culture XII(2): 146–161.
-
Kozinets, Robert V. 2015. Netnography: Redefined. En ligne: SAGE.
10.1002/9781118767771.wbiedcs067 Google Scholar
- Lathrop, Daniel, and Laurel Ruma. 2010. Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice. Cambridge, MA: O'Reilly.
-
Lawrence, Thomas B., Roy Suddaby, and Bernard Leca. 2009. Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations, 1st ed. Cambridge, UK: New York: Cambridge University Press.
10.1017/CBO9780511596605 Google Scholar
- Lawrence, Thomas, Roy Suddaby, and Bernard Leca. 2011. “Institutional Work: Refocusing Institutional Studies of Organization.” Journal of Management Inquiry 20(1): 52–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492610387222.
- Lessig, Lawrence. 2001. The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World, 1st ed. New York: Random House.
- Linders, Dennis. 2012. “From E-Government to we-Government: Defining a Typology for Citizen Coproduction in the Age of Social Media.” Government Information Quarterly, Social Media in Government – Selections from the 12th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (dg.o2011), 29(4): 446–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.003.
- Liu, Helen K. 2021. “Crowdsourcing: Citizens as Coproducers of Public Services.” Policy & Internet 13(2): 315–331. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.249.
- McMullin, Caitlin. 2021. “Challenging the Necessity of New Public Governance: Co-Production by Third Sector Organizations under Different Models of Public Management.” Public Administration 99(1): 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12672.
- Mehta, Amisha M., Axel Bruns, and Judith Newton. 2017. “Trust, but Verify: Social Media Models for Disaster Management.” Disasters 41(3): 549–565. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12218.
- Nabatchi, Tina, Alessandro Sancino, and Mariafrancesca Sicilia. 2017. “Varieties of Participation in Public Services: The Who, when, and What of Coproduction.” Public Administration Review 77(5): 766–776. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12765.
- Noveck, Beth Simone. 2009. Wiki Government: How Technology Can Make Government Better, Democracy Stronger, and Citizens more Powerful. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.
- O'Reilly, Tim. 2011. “Government as a Platform.” Innovations 6(1): 13–40.
- Osborne, Stephen. 2006. “The New Public Governance?” Public Management Review 8(3): 377–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030600853022.
-
Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: New York: Cambridge University Press.
10.1017/CBO9780511807763 Google Scholar
- Pera, Marina, and Iolanda Bianchi. 2022. “Governmentality, the Local State, and the Commons: An Analysis of Civic Management Facilities in Barcelona.” Social Inclusion 10(1): 115–125. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v10i1.4732.
- Pestoff, Victor, Taco Brandsen, and Bram Verschuere. 2012. New Public Governance, the Third Sector, and Co-Production. Londres: Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/New-Public-Governance-the-Third-Sector-and-Co-Production/Pestoff-Brandsen-Verschuere/p/book/9780415897136.
- Pezziardi, Pierre, and Henri Verdier. 2017. Des Startup d'Etat à L'Etat Plateforme: La Croissance Économique. Paris: La Fondation pour l'innovation politique.
- Philippe, Edouard. 2019. Référé Sur La Valorisation Des Données de l'Institut National de l'information Géographique et Forestière (IGN), de Météo-France et Du Centre d'études et d'expertise Sur Les Risques, de l'environnement, La Mobilité et l'aménagement (CEREMA): L'enjeu de l'ouverture Des Données Publiques. Paris, France: Premier ministre.
- Pollitt, Christopher, and Geert Bouckaert. 2011. Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis – New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State, 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Rhodes, Rod. 2000. “ Governance and the Public Administration.” In Debating Governance, edited by Jon Pierre. Oxford: New York: Oxford University Press.
10.1093/oso/9780198295143.003.0004 Google Scholar
- Rotta, Maurício José, Denilson Sell Ribeiro, Roberto Carlos, Pacheco dos Santos, and Tan Yigitcanlar. 2019. “Digital Commons and Citizen Coproduction in Smart Cities: Assessment of Brazilian Municipal E-Government Platforms.” Energies 12(14): 2813. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12142813.
- Ruijer, Erna, Francoise Détienne, Michael Baker, Jonathan Groff, and Albert J. Meijer. 2020. “The Politics of Open Government Data: Understanding Organizational Responses to Pressure for More Transparency.” The American Review of Public Administration 50(3): 260–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074019888065.
- Scassa, Teresa. 2013. “Legal Issues with Volunteered Geographic Information.” The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien 57(1): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00444.x.
-
Schweik, Charles M., and Robert C. English. 2012. Internet Success: A Study of Open-Source Software Commons. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10.7551/mitpress/9780262017251.001.0001 Google Scholar
-
Shulz, Sébastien. 2019. “Can Free Software Tackle the Lack of Transparency in the Tax and Welfare System?” Revue Francaise de Science Politique 69(5): 845–868.
10.3917/rfsp.695.0845 Google Scholar
- Sieber, Renee E., and Peter A. Johnson. 2011. “Motivations Driving Government Adoption of the Geoweb.” GeoJournal 77: 667–680.
- Sorrentino, Maddalena, Mariafrancesca Sicilia, and Michael Howlett. 2018. “Understanding Co-Production as a New Public Governance Tool.” Policy and Society 37(3): 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1521676.
- Stallman, Richard M. 1999. “ The GNU Operating System and the Free Software Movement.” In Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution, 1st ed., edited by Chris DiBona, Sam Ockman, and Mark Stone, 53–71. Beijing: Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly.
- Teske, Paul, and Mark Schneider. 1994. “The Bureaucratic Entrepreneur: The Case of City Managers.” Public Administration Review 54(4): 331–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/977380.
- Thomas, John Clayton. 2013. “Citizen, Customer, Partner: Rethinking the Place of the Public in Public Management.” Public Administration Review 73(6): 786–796. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12109.
- Thomas, John Clayton, and Gregory Streib. 2003. “The New Face of Government: Citizen-Initiated Contacts in the Era of E-Government.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13(1): 83–101.
- Wirtz, Bernd W., Robert Piehler, Marc-Julian Thomas, and Peter Daiser. 2016. “Resistance of Public Personnel to Open Government: A Cognitive Theory View of Implementation Barriers towards Open Government Data.” Public Management Review 18(9): 1335–1364. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1103889.
- Xu, Corey Kewei, and Tian Tang. 2020. “Closing the Gap or Widening the Divide: The Impacts of Technology-Enabled Coproduction on Equity in Public Service Delivery.” Public Administration Review 80(6): 962–975. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13222.
- Zhu, Xiaohua. 2017. “The Failure of an Early Episode in the Open Government Data Movement: A Historical Case Study.” Government Information Quarterly 34: 256–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.03.004.