Complexity and Social Networks Blog

« More on Iowa networks... | Main | Huck's network »

10 January 2008

Cary Coglianese: Weak Democracy, Strong Information: The Role of Information Technology in the Rulemaking Process

Below is a guest entry from one of the contributors to Governance and Information Technology: From Electronic Government to Information Government, Cary Coglianese, based on his chapter.

Weak Democracy, Strong Information:
The Role of Information Technology in the Rulemaking Process

Cary Coglianese

Policymakers and scholars predict that information technology will foster a "strong democracy" in the process of creating new government regulations, transforming -- indeed, some say "revolutionizing" -- the rulemaking process. Currently, the way government agencies like OSHA, EPA, and the FDA make new regulations remains relatively obscure, but several so-called e-rulemaking projects in the United States -- such as the creation of Regulations.Gov -- specifically aim to tap into the purported transformational potential of the Internet and increase the role citizens play in the regulatory process. For example, according to Peter Shane, one of the nation's leading scholars of law and information, the federal government’s current e-rulemaking initiative “seems to hold out the potential to enlarge significantly a genuine public sphere in which individual citizens participate directly to help make government decisions that are binding on the entire polity.”

Is this faith in the transformative power of information technology justified? Those who believe it is point to cases in which a large number of citizens have used the Internet to submit comments on proposed regulations. For example, hundreds of thousands of comments from the public came in on a U.S. Department of Agriculture rulemaking on organic foods, a Federal Communications Commission decision on the concentration of ownership of media outlets, and a U.S. Forest Service proceeding to ban roads in wilderness areas.

Yet despite the large absolute number of comments filed in a few highly controversial rulemakings, it is far from clear that information technology will, as a general matter, transform rulemaking into anything close to the ideals of strong democracy. For one thing, those rulemakings that generate comments in the hundreds of thousands still constitute only a minute fraction (even a fraction of a fraction) of the several thousands of new federal rules issued each year. By far, most rulemakings continue to elicit little attention from the public. Furthermore, for the exceedingly rare rule that may generate a half million or more comments, even this level of participation still represents only less than 5 percent of the total voting-age population in the United States. We know that participation by citizens in presidential elections — the most salient avenue for public participation in government — is quite low relative to other wealthy nations, so it would be surprising if the mere existence of information technology led to a consequential increase in participation over rulemaking in the U.S.

Major barriers to citizen participation in rulemaking will remain even with advances in information technology. One of these barriers is the specialized knowledge needed to participate meaningfully in the often highly technical decisions raised by rulemaking. Improving the accessibility of regulatory information on the Internet provides no guarantee that a significantly greater number of citizens will actually be able to process that information well. To imagine that information technology will dramatically increase citizens' involvement in rulemaking is a bit like imagining that making it possible to download technical automobile manuals or order car parts on-line will turn a great number of car owners into do-it-yourself mechanics. A small subset of people like engineers and car buffs will surely find it easier to fix their own cars, but most of us will be none the wiser. As long as most citizens lack more than the most rudimentary knowledge of how government works and of the technical issues underlying most rulemakings, information technology will not effectuate any but the most trivial change in ordinary citizens’ engagement in regulatory policymaking. Rather than inspiring members of the public to participate in the arcane or technical discussions surrounding government regulations, technology is instead being used by citizens to communicate with friends and family, follow sports and games, or engage in other forms of entertainment.

If information technology is not sufficient to engage a broad segment of the public in meaningful deliberation about regulatory policy issues, should e-rulemaking efforts be abandoned? Only if e-rulemaking’s sole or main purpose is to advance strong democracy. But notwithstanding the arguments made by its proponents, strong democracy is not the most realistic and compelling justification for e-rulemaking. A much more pragmatic objective is to expand and solidify the information base underlying regulatory decision-making. Regulators are undoubtedly better informed when they receive input from outside experts and interested parties. These outsiders bring distinct perspectives on regulatory problems based both on their differences in interests and differences in the scale or level at which they interact with a regulatory issue. The local sanitation engineer for the City of Milwaukee, for instance, will probably have useful insights about how new EPA drinking water standards should be implemented that might not be apparent to the American Water Works Association lobbyists in Washington, D.C. If e-rulemaking makes it more feasible for that local sanitation engineer, or other knowledgeable and motivated experts and affected interests across the country, to become aware of and submit comments on relevant regulations, then e-rulemaking can meaningfully expand the information base for regulators’ decisions.

As such, even though e-rulemaking is unlikely to achieve the goals of strong democracy, it is reasonable to expect regulators' decision making can be improved by allowing at least a somewhat broader set of well-organized and sophisticated actors to mobilize their resources, monitor government decision-making, and share potentially valuable information and insights with government officials. Rather than advancing "strong democracy," e-rulemaking seems more likely to achieve a more modest "weak democracy" -- but with the promise of delivering additional "strong information."

Posted by David Lazer at January 10, 2008 10:09 AM

.
• Business (3)
.
• Citizen Relationship Management (17)
.
• Commentary (7)
.
• Complexity (2)
.
• Current Trends (47)
.
• eGovernment (21)
.
• Events/Announcements (72)
.
• Innovation (14)
.
• Internet (18)
.
• Knowledge Sharing (20)
.
• Methodology (32)
.
• Networked Governance (18)
.
• Networks in political science (5)
.
• PNG Working Paper Series (6)
.
• Powerlaws (4)
.
• Reviews (2)
.
• Simulations (1)
.
• Small group networks (3)
.
• Small Worlds (2)
.
• SN in the news (72)
.
• Social Capital (3)
.
• Social Computing (12)
.
• Social Finance (1)
.
• Social Networking Platforms (11)
.
• Social Psychology (2)
.
• Social Software (25)
.
• Societal Networks (40)
.
• Technology (35)