Institutions for Affordances of Digital Platforms and Public Governability | South-Russian Journal of Social Sciences
Institutions for Affordances of Digital Platforms and Public Governability
Vol. 21 (2020) No. 3, Public Administration and Governance
Vol. 21 (2020) No. 3
Public Administration and Governance

Institutions for Affordances of Digital Platforms and Public Governability

Smorgunov L.V.
St.Petersburg State University
ORCID ID 0000-0002-2581-2975
PDF (Russian)
https://doi.org/10.31429/26190567-21-3-6-19
https://doi.org/10.31429/26190567-21-3-6-19

How to Cite Array

Smorgunov L.V. (2020) Institutions for Affordances of Digital Platforms and Public Governability. South-Russian Journal of Social Sciences, 21 (3), pp. 6-19. DOI: 10.31429/26190567-21-3-6-19 (In Russian)
Submission Date 2020-06-25
Accepted Date 2020-08-21
Published Date 2021-03-31

Copyright (c) 2020 Леонид Владимирович Сморгунов

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

Public governability on a digital platform is the affordance effect that occurs in networks with broad citizen participation. Network platforms provide collaboration based on an institutionalized form of interaction that is more efficient than competitive representation. Digital platforms provide the implementation of performative governance functions, including through their affordability for interaction. Collaborative public governance presupposes an appropriate technical platform that must have some qualities of affordability, that is, the ability to act as an intermediary for this type of interaction. The technological component, expressed in the concept of the state as a platform, is characterized by the presence of opportunities for cooperation. The idea of the article is that the system of affordability of digital platforms in the process of interaction ensures the formation and approval of the relevant institutions — norms, rules and practices. The digital institutional platform of the blockchain operates on the basis of institutions of equality, indifference, reciprocity and autonomy, provided by appropriate affordability systems. Using the example of the Moscow platform “Active Citizen” and the practice of voting, the affordability of blockchain technology is studied. For the institution of elections, the way of determining the conditions for the truth of the performed activity is the expression of choice, i. e. the ability of the system to record the will of the voter, to summarize the votes received and to present the overall result, while maintaining the conditions of anonymity, secrecy, publicity and honesty. In this regard, the blockchain as a system of fair choice has all the necessary qualities determined by the technological parameters of affordability. Blockchain is focused on procedural fairness, which is expressed in the technological possibilities of cooperation. Blockchain promises a new institutional type of social coordination based on affordability structures such as tokenization, reciprocity, self-binding, and self-organization.

Keywords

digital platforms, public governability, collaboration, affordance, blockchain

Acknowledgements

The research was carried out through the financial support of the Russian Scienсе Foundation, grant No 19-18-00210 “Political ontology of digitalization: Study of institutional bases for digital forms of governability”.

References

  1. Alekseev, R. A. (2018). Blokcheyn kak izbiratel’naya tekhnologiya novogo pokoleniya — perspektivy primeneniya na vyborakh v sovremennoy Rossii [Blockchain as The Electoral Technology of The New Generation — Prospects of Application for Elections in Modern Russia]. Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo oblastnogo universiteta [Bulletin of the Moscow State Regional University], 2, 3–10.
  2. Daramola, O. & Thebus, D. (2020). Architecture-Centric Evaluation of Blockchain-Based Smart Contract E-Voting for National Elections. Informatics, 16(7), 2–22. DOI: 10.3390/informatics7020016
  3. David, A., Sobolewski, M. & Vaccari, L. (2019). Blockchain for Digital Government. An Assessment of Pioneering Implementations in Public Services. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
  4. Davidson, S., De Filippi, P. & Potts, J. (2018). Blockchains and the Economic Institutions of Capitalism. Journal of Institutional Economics, 14(4), 638–659. DOI:10.1017/S1744137417000200
  5. Eriksson, K. & Vogt, H. (2013). On Self-Service Democracy: Configurations of Individualizing Governance and Self-Directed Citizenship. European Journal of Social Theory, 16(2), 153–173. DOI: 10.1177/1368431012459693
  6. Erohina, O. V. (2019). Tekhnologii elektronnogo golosovaniya v Rossii [Electronic Voting Technologies in Russia]. Vestnik universiteta [The Bulletine of University], 11, 5–11.
  7. Gibson, J. (1988). Ekologicheskiy podkhod k zritel’nomu vospriyatiyu [The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception]. Moscow: Progress.
  8. Gil-Garcia, R., Dawes, S. & Pardo, T. (2018). Digital Government and Public Management Research: Finding the Crossroads. Public Management Review, 20(5), 633–646. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2017.1327181
  9. Gillespie, T. (2010). The Politics of “Platforms”. New Media & Society, 12(3), 347–364. DOI: 10.1177/1461444809342738
  10. Gorwa, R. (2019). What is Platform Governance? Information, Communication & Society, 22(6), 854–871. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2019.1573914
  11. Janowski, T., Estevez, E. & Baguma, R. (2018). Platform Governance for Sustainable Development: Reshaping Citizen-Administration Relationships in the Digital Age. Government Information Quarterly, 35, 1–16. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2018.09.002
  12. Kiayias, A. et al, (2017). Ouroboros: A Provably Secure Proof-of-Stake Blockchain Protocol. Criptography ePrint Archive, 1–52.
  13. Krenjova, J. & Raudla, R. (2017). Policy Diffusion at the Local Level: Participatory Budgeting in Estonia. Urban Affairs Review, 3(4), 1–29. DOI: 10.1177/1078087416688961
  14. Kübler, D. Rochat, Ph., Woo, S. Y. & Heiden. N. van der. (2020). Strengthen Governability rather than Deepen Democracy: Why Local Governments Introduce Participatory Governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 86(3), 409–426. DOI: 10.1177/0020852318801508
  15. Kuteynikov, D. L. (2019). Osobennosti primeneniya tekhnologiy raspredelennykh reyestrov i tsepochek blokov (blokcheyn) v narodnykh golosovaniyakh [Peculiarities of Application of Technologies of Distributed Registers and Blockchain (Blockchain) for The Popular Vote]. Aktual’nyye problemy rossiyskogo prava [Actual Problems of Russian Law], 9(106), 41–52. DOI: 10.17803/1994–1471.2019.106.9.041–062
  16. Latour, B. (2020). Peresborka sotsial’nogo: vvedeniye v aktorno-setevuyu teoriyu [Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory]. Moscow: Izd. dom Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki.
  17. Neff, G., Jordan, T., McVeigh-Schultz, J. & Gillespie, T. (2012). Affordances, Technical Agency, and the Politics of Technologies of Cultural Production. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 56(2), 299–313. DOI: 10.1080/08838151.2012.678520
  18. O’Brien, D., Offenhuber, D., Baldwin-Philippi, J., Sands, M. & Gordon, E. (2017). Uncharted Territoriality in Coproduction: The Motivations for 311 Reporting. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(2), 320–335. DOI: 10.1093/jopart/muw046
  19. O’Reilly, T. (2010). Government as a Platform. In Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice (pp. 11–40). USA: O’Reilly Media, Sebastopol, Calif.
  20. Santos, M. & Faure, A. (2018). Affordance is Power: Contradictions Between Communicational and Technical Dimensions of WhatsApp’s End-to-End Encryption. Social Media & Society, 4(3), 1–16. DOI: 10.1177/2056305118795876
  21. Sigalov, K.E., Salin, P.B., Chuval’nikova, A.S. (2018). Primeneniye tekhnologii blokcheyn v prave, politike i gosudarstvennom upravlenii [Application of Blockchain Technology in Law, Politics and Public Administration]. Vestnik Rossiyskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Yuridicheskiye nauki [RUDN Journal of Law], 22(4), 565–580. DOI: 10.22363/2313-2337-2018-22-4-565-580
  22. Smorgunov, L. V. (2018). Blokcheyn kak institut protsedurnoy spravedlivosti [Blockchain as an Institution of Procedural Justice]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya [Polis. Political Studies], 5, 88–99. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2018.05.08
  23. Van Dijck, J., Poell, T. & De Waal, M. (2018). The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective World. New York: Oxford University Press.
  24. Volkova, N. A. (2019). Vozvrashcheniye modusov sushchestvovaniya Latura k “radikal’nomu empirizmu”: ot prepozitsiy k affordansam [The Return of Latour’s Modes of Existence to «Radical Empiricism»: from Prepositions to Affordances]. Sociologiya vlasti [Sociology of Authority], 31(2), 92–115.
  25. Wang, H. F., Wang, J. L. & Tang, Q. H. (2018). A Review of Application of Affordance Theory in Information Systems. Journal of Service Science and Management, 11, 56–70. DOI: 10.4236/jssm.2018.111006