Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Knowledge Management for Democratic Governance of Socio-Technical Systems

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Future of Digital Democracy

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 11300))

  • 1217 Accesses

Abstract

The Digital Transformation (DX) is a broad term describing the changes and innovations brought about by the introduction of information and communication technologies into all aspects of society. One such innovation is to empower bottom-up, self-governing socio-technical systems for a range of applications. Such systems can be based on Ostrom’s design principles for self-governing institutions for sustainable common-pool resource management. However, two of these principles, both focussing on self-determination, are vulnerable to distortion: either from within, as a narrow clique take control and run the system in their own, rather than the collective, interest; or from without, as an external authority constrains opportunities for self-organisation. In this chapter, we propose that one approach to maintaining ‘good’, ‘democratic’ self-governance is to appeal to the transparent and inclusive knowledge management processes that were critical to the successful and sustained period of classical Athenian democracy, and reproduce those in computational form. We review a number of emerging technologies which could provide the building blocks for democratic self-governance in socio-technical systems. However, the reproduction of analogue social processes in digital form is not seamless and not without impact on, or consequences for, society, and we also consider a number of open issues which could disrupt this proposal. We conclude with the observation that ‘democracy’ is not an end-state, and emphasise that self-governing socio-technical systems need responsible design and deployment of technologies that allow for continuous re-design and self-organisation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Ostrom’s eight common features of institutions are: lear boundaries, rule-environment congruence, participation in collective choice, monitoring and enforcement, graduated sanctions, fast and cheap dispute resolution, recognition of minimal rights to self-organise, nested enterprises—see [31] for details.

References

  1. Appel, A.: Ceci n’est pas une urne: on the internet vote for the assemblée des français de l’etranger. Princeton University and INRIA, June 2006. http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~appel/papers/urne-fr.pdf

  2. Artikis, A., Sergot, M.J., Paliouras, G.: An event calculus for event recognition. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 27(4), 895–908 (2015). http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6895142/

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bookstaber, R.: The End of Theory: Financial Crises, the Failure of Economics, and the Sweep of Human Interaction. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2017). http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10972.html

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Brennan, G., Pettit, P.: The Economy of Esteem. An Essay on Civil and Political Society. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2005). http://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-economy-of-esteem-9780199289813

    Google Scholar 

  5. Carr, N.: The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains. W. W. Norton & Company, New York (2010). http://books.wwnorton.com/books/The-Shallows/

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cavoukian, A.: Privacy by design [leading edge]. IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag. 31(4), 18–19 (2012). https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6387956/

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cheetham, D.R., Burgess, L., Ellis, M., Williams, A., Greenhalgh, R., Davies, A.: Does supervised exercise offer adjuvant benefit over exercise advice alone for the treatment of intermittent claudication? A randomised trial. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 27(1), 17–23 (2004). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1078588403004702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chevaleyre, Y., Endriss, U., Lang, J., Maudet, N.: A short introduction to computational social choice. In: van Leeuwen, J., Italiano, G.F., van der Hoek, W., Meinel, C., Sack, H., Plášil, F. (eds.) SOFSEM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4362, pp. 51–69. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-69507-3_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Diaconescu, A., Frey, S., Müller-Schloer, C., Pitt, J., Tomforde, S.: Goal-oriented holonics for complex system (self-)integration: concepts and case studies. In: 10th IEEE International Conference on Self-adaptive and Self-organizing Systems SASO, pp. 100–109 (2016). http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7774391/

  10. Diaconescu, A., Pitt, J.: Holonic institutions for multi-scale polycentric self-governance. In: Ghose, A., Oren, N., Telang, P., Thangarajah, J. (eds.) COIN 2014. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 9372, pp. 19–35. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25420-3_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Diaconescu, A., Pitt, J.: Technological impacts in socio-technical communities: values and pathologies. IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag. 36(3), 63–71 (2017). http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8038129/

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Evripidou, A., Toni, F.: Quaestio-it.com: a social intelligent debating platform. J. Dec. Syst. 23(3), 333–349 (2014). http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/12460125.2014.886496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Franklin, U.: The Real World of Technology. CBC Massey Lectures Series. Anansi Press, Toronto (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Frantz, C., Nowostawski, M.: From institutions to code: towards automated generation of smart contracts. In: 2016 IEEE 1st International Workshops on Foundations and Applications of Self* Systems (FAS*W), Augsburg, Germany, 12–16 September 2016, pp. 210–215 (2016). http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7789470/

  15. Hardin, G.: The tragedy of the commons. Science 162(3859), 1243–1248 (1968). http://science.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hardjono, T., Deegan, P., Clippinger, J.H.: Social use cases for the ID3 open mustard seed platform. IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag. 33(3), 48–54 (2014). http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6901333/

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hess, C., Ostrom, E.: Understanding Knowledge as a Commons. MIT Press, Cambridge (2006). http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/understanding-knowledge-commons

    Google Scholar 

  18. Jones, A.J., Sergot, M.: A formal characterisation of institutionalised power. Logic J. IGPL 4(3), 427–443 (1996). http://academic.oup.com/jigpal/article-abstract/4/3/427/708084

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Kowalski, R.: Logic-based open systems. In: Representation and Reasoning, pp. 125–134 (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kowalski, R., Sergot, M.: A logic-based calculus of events. New Gener. Comput. 4(1), 67–95 (1986). http://link.springer.com/10.1007/BF03037383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lamport, L.: The part-time parliament. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 16(2), 133–169 (1998). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=279229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lanier, J.: Who Owns the Future?. Simon & Schuster, New York (2013). http://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Who-Owns-the-Future/Jaron-Lanier/9781451654974

    Google Scholar 

  23. Macbeth, S., Pitt, J.: Self-organising management of user-generated data and knowledge. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 30(3), 237–264 (2015). http://doi.org/10.1017/S026988891400023X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Malhotra, A., Van Alstyne, M.: The dark side of the sharing economy... and how to lighten it. Commun. ACM 57(11), 24–27 (2014). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2668893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. McLuhan, M.: Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. McGraw Hill, New York (1964)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Michels, R.: Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy. Hearst’s International Library Co., New York (1915)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ober, J.: Democracy and Knowledge. Innovation and Learning in Classical Athens. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2008). http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8742.html

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ober, J.: Demopolis: Democracy Before Liberalism in Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2017). http://doi.org/10.1017/9781108226790

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Olson, M.: The Logic of Collective Action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1965). http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674537514

    Google Scholar 

  30. Oreskes, N., Conway, E.M.: Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Bloomsbury Press, London (2010). http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/merchants-of-doubt-9781596916104/

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ostrom, E.: Governing the Commons. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990). http://www.cambridge.org/core_title/gb/478715

  32. Ostrom, E.: Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems. Am. Econ. Rev. 100(3), 641–672 (2010). http://www.jstor.org/stable/27871226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Pasquale, F.: Black Box Society. The Secret Algorithms that Control Money and Information. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (2015). http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674368279

    Book  Google Scholar 

  34. Patkos, T., et al.: Privacy-by-norms privacy expectations in online interactions. In: IEEE International Conference on Self-adaptive and Self-organizing Systems SASO Workshops, pp. 1–6 (2015). http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7306528/

  35. Perret, C., Powers, S., Hart, E.: Emergence of hierarchy from the evolution of individual influence in an agent-based model. In: ECAL 2017: The Fourteenth European Conference on Artificial Life (2017). http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/isal_a_058

  36. Petruzzi, P.E., Pitt, J., Busquets, D.: Electronic social capital for self-organising multi-agent systems. ACM Trans. Auton. Adapt. Syst. 12(3), 13:1–13:25 (2017). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3124642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Pitt, J., et al.: Transforming big data into collective awareness. IEEE Comput. 46(6), 40–45 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Pitt, J., Nowak, A.: The reinvention of social capital for socio-technical systems. IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag. 33(1), 27–33 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Pitt, J., Busquets, D., Macbeth, S.: Distributive justice for self-organised common-pool resource management. ACM Trans. Auton. Adapt. Syst. 9(3), 14:1–14:39 (2014). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2629567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Pitt, J., Busquets, D., Riveret, R.: Procedural justice and ‘fitness for purpose’ of self-organising electronic institutions. In: Boella, G., Elkind, E., Savarimuthu, B.T.R., Dignum, F., Purvis, M.K. (eds.) PRIMA 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8291, pp. 260–275. Springer, Heidelberg (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-44927-7_18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  41. Pitt, J., Diaconescu, A.: Interactive self-governance and value-sensitive design for self-organising socio-technical systems. In: FAS* Workshop Proceedings: SASO\(^{\mathit{ST}}\) (2016). http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7789436/

  42. Pitt, J., Diaconescu, A., Bourazeri, A.: Democratisation of the SmartGrid and the active participation of prosumers. In: IEEE 26th International Symposium on Industrial Electronics (ISIE) (2017). http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8001505/

  43. Pitt, J., Jiang, J., Diaconescu, A.: On the minimal recognition of rights in holonic institutions. In: Cranefield, S., Mahmoud, S., Padget, J., Rocha, A.P. (eds.) COIN -2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10315, pp. 149–169. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66595-5_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  44. Pitt, J., Kamara, L., Sergot, M., Artikis, A.: Voting in multi-agent systems. Comput. J. 49(2), 156–170 (2006). https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8139364/

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Pitt, J., Schaumeier, J., Artikis, A.: Axiomatisation of socio-economic principles for self-organising institutions: concepts, experiments and challenges. ACM Trans. Auton. Adapt. Syst. 7(4), 39:1–39:39 (2012). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2382575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Popper, K.: The Open Society and Its Enemies (Merged Edition). Princeton University Press, Princeton (2013 [1945])

    Google Scholar 

  47. Prakken, H., Gordon, T.F.: Rules of order for electronic group decision making – a formalization methodology. In: Padget, J.A. (ed.) Collaboration between Human and Artificial Societies 1997. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1624, pp. 246–263. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/10703260_15

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  48. Rescher, N.: Distributive Justice. Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis (1966)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Robert, S.C., Robert, H., Evans, W.J., Honemann, D.H., J., B.T.: Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 10th edn. Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, MA (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Rychwalska, A., Roszczyńska-Kurasińska, M.: Value sensitive design for peer production systems: mediating social interactions. IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag. 36(3), 48–55 (2017). http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8038116/

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Santos, M.S., Pitt, J.: Emotions and norms in shared spaces. In: Balke, T., Dignum, F., van Riemsdijk, M.B., Chopra, A.K. (eds.) COIN 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8386, pp. 157–176. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07314-9_9

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  52. Sestini, F.: Collective awareness platforms: engines for sustainability and ethics. IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag. 31(4), 54–62 (2012). http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6387972/

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Southwood, N., Eriksson, L.: Norms and conventions. Philos. Explor. 14(2), 195–217 (2011). http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13869795.2011.569748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Surowiecki, J.: The Wisdom of Crowds. Little, Brown, Boston (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  55. Ulieru, M.: Blockchain and the real sharing economy: ‘uberisation’ demystified. LinkedIn, September 2016. http://www.linkedin.com/pulse/blockchain-real-sharing-economy-uberisation-dr-mihaela-ulieru/

  56. Vasalou, A., Hopfensitz, A., Pitt, J.: In praise of forgiveness: ways for repairing trust breakdowns in one-off online interactions. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 66(6), 466–480 (2008). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1071581908000232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Zuboff, S.: Big other: surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. J. Inf. Technol. 30(1), 75–89 (2015). http://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/jit.2015.5

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The first author has been partially supported by the Leverhulme Trust, Research Fellowship RF-2016-451.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2BT, UK

    Jeremy Pitt

  2. Departement INFRES, Télécom ParisTech, LTCI, Paris-Saclay University, 46 rue Barrault, 75013, Paris, France

    Ada Diaconescu

  3. Department of Political Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA

    Josiah Ober

Authors
  1. Jeremy Pitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ada Diaconescu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Josiah Ober
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeremy Pitt .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Pierluigi Contucci

  2. University of Bologna, Cesena, Italy

    Andrea Omicini

  3. University of Bologna, Cesena, Italy

    Danilo Pianini

  4. University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy

    Alina Sîrbu

Appendix A: Ostrom’s Institutional Design Principles

Appendix A: Ostrom’s Institutional Design Principles

Ostrom’s eight institutional design principles are [31, pp. 91–101]:

  1. 1.

    Clearly defined boundaries—“Individuals or households who have rights to withdraw resource units from the CPR must be clearly defined, as must the boundaries of the CPR itself.”

  2. 2.

    Congruence between appropriation and provision rules and local conditions—“Appropriation rules restricting time, place, technology, and/or quantity of resource units are related to local conditions and to provision rules requiring labor, materials, and/or money.”

  3. 3.

    Collective-choice arrangements—“Most individuals affected by the operational rules can participate in modifying the operational rules.”

  4. 4.

    Monitoring—“Monitors, who actively audit CPR conditions and appropriator behaviour, are accountable to the appropriators or are the appropriators.”

  5. 5.

    Graduated sanctions—“Appropriators who violate operational rules are likely to be assessed [sic] graduated sanctions (depending on the seriousness and context of the offence) by other appropriators, by officials accountable to these appropriators, or by both.”

  6. 6.

    Conflict-resolution mechanisms—“Appropriators and their officials have rapid access to low-cost local arenas to resolve conflicts among appropriators or between appropriators and officials.”

  7. 7.

    Minimal recognition of rights to organise—“The rights of appropriators to devise their own institutions are not challenged by external governmental authorities.”

  8. 8.

    Nested enterprises—“Appropriation, provision, monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution, and governance activities are organised in multiple layers of nested enterprises.”

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Pitt, J., Diaconescu, A., Ober, J. (2019). Knowledge Management for Democratic Governance of Socio-Technical Systems. In: Contucci, P., Omicini, A., Pianini, D., Sîrbu, A. (eds) The Future of Digital Democracy. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11300. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05333-8_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05333-8_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-05332-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-05333-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics