Is open gov self-correcting? (RE: April OGD Workshop @ USDA)

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gary Berg-Cross on April 19, 2010 at 4:19pm

I think that open government (OG) may be “Self correcting” depending on what “open government” is or becomes. People who want it to have a degree of self correction or self repair may allow this property to emerge and thrive. There may be some who would thwart it.

I take one of the meaning of “Self correcting” in the sense of Canon’s (1939) concept homeostasis referring to the self-regulating mechanisms of an organism that enable it to maintain its essential physiological variables, such as body temperature and blood pressure in a state of dynamic balance. When we look at OG as an open system, just like our bodies, made up of unstable, interacting “parts”. Like our bodies OG exists/ live under conditions radical uncertainty. This subjects it to continuously changing conditions that can change its state and make it less functional. Can it maintain favorable states and return to them when change occurs?

One way bodies does this self-correction is by (negative) feedback loops to remain living-and-growing in their environment for entire life-spans. So building in such loops is essential. Conscious organisms not only do this but they figure out just what must be done to remain living; how to obtain necessary resources and ; how to avoid getting damaged. So a good cognitive system is needed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Barry Camson on April 20, 2010 at 10:54am

RE: Is Open Gov self-correcting?

This is a challenging question. Certainly agencies would need to be able to modify plans. You are asking, how would they know what needs to be modified?

My guess is that the evaluation period is fairly long term. Are data sets posted on the internet making a difference in citizen engagement? Is citizen input being asked for and made use of to influence policy? Have efforts internal to organizations to collaborate more having a positive effect? These will be things difficult to measure even if a baseline for evaluation could be established. I think that the effect of these initiatives will be positive. There will always be more that can be done. We could be on the lookout for negative and unintended consequences. For example in being more participative, does a given leader apply this by giving up their legal authority? Being participative does not require this and such an approach would likely lead to negative outcomes. We could look out for these kinds of things. Mostly, I think that organization members should be in on-going dialogue with one another and counterparts outside the organization sharing best practices and concerns.I think that is the best means to provide for on-going self-correction.

• ▶ Reply