The diffusion of civic technology and open government in the United States

Abstract

Civic technology is a nascent force in the relationship between governments and communities. Elements of the civic technology ecosystem include open data, related information and communications technology (ICT) innovations and the organizational boundary-spanning practices of civic technology. This paper reports the results of an exploratory study of civic technology adoption by local governments in the United States. The research compares the 113 U.S. city governments recognized for their exemplary fiscal year 2012 popular annual financial reports (PAFRs) with the 49 municipalities in the U.S. state of Delaware that operate websites. Results suggest that a long term commitment to citizen involvement in government data and the size of the community are important predictors of adoption.

Keywords

Civic technology open data e-government e-governance local government transparency

References

Living Cities (2012). Field scan for civic technology. Available at https://www.livingcities.org/resources/131-field-scan-of-civic-technology.

Baraniuk,

(2013). The civic hackers reshaping your government. New Scientist, 218(2923), 36-39.

Goldstein,

& Dyson,

eds. (2013) Beyond Transparency. Washington, DC: Code for America.

Hébert,

M. K.

(2014). Come Hack with Me: Adapting Anthropological Training to Work in Civic Innovation. Practicing Anthropology, 36(2), 32-36.

Harris,

(2012). Nonprofits and Business: toward a Subfield of Nonprofit Studies. Nonprofit and voluntary sector quarterly, 41(5), 892-902.

LeRoux,

, & Feeney,

M. K.

(2014). Nonprofit Organizations and Civil Society in the United States. Routledge.

Ott,

J. S.

, & Dicke,

(Eds.). (2011). Understanding nonprofit organizations: Governance, leadership, and management. Westview Press.

Patel,

, Sotsky,

, Gourley,

, & Houghton,

(2013). The emergence of civic tech: Investments in a growing field. The Knight Foundation.

West,

D. M.

(2005). Digital government: Technology and public sector performance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

10.

Layne,

& Lee,

(2001). Developing fully functional E-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122.

11.

Moon,

M. J.

(2002). The evolution of e-government among municipalities: rhetoric or reality? Public Administration Review, 62(4), 424-433.

12.

Lips,

(2012). E-government is dead: Long live public administration 2.0. Information Polity, 17(3), 239-250.

13.

Durose

, Justice

, Skelcher

. Governing at arm's length: eroding or enhancing democracy? Policy & Politics. 2015 January; 43(1), 137-53. doi: 10.1332/030557314X14029325020059.

14.

Justice,

J. B.

, & Dülger,

(2009). Fiscal transparency and authentic citizen participation in public budgeting: The role of third-party intermediation. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 21(2), 254-288.

15.

Justice,

J. B.

& McNutt,

J. G.

(2013-2014). Social capital, e-government and fiscal transparency in the states. Public Integrity, 16(1), 5-24.

16.

Justice,

, McNutt,

& Smith,

(2011). Holding state governments accountable for the public purse: What institutional, organizational and environmental factors promote fiscal transparency? Paper read at the First Global Conference on Transparency Research. May 19-20, Newark, NJ.

17.

Justice,

J. B.

, & Tarimo,

(2012). NGOs holding governments accountable: Civil-society budget work. Public Finance and Management, 21(3), 204-236.

18.

Lathrop,

& Ruma,

(2010). (ed.) Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice. Sevastopol, CA: O'Reilly.

19.

Davis,

, Baxandall,

, & Pierannunzi,

(2012, March). Following the money 2012: How the 50 states rate in providing online access to government spending data. Retrieved June 5, 2012, from http://uspirg.org/reports/ usp/following-money-2012.

20.

U.S. City Open Data Census [Internet]. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Open Knowledge Foundation; 2015 [cited 2015 July 1]. Available from: http://us-city.census.okfn.org/.

21.

Germany,

J. B.

(ed.) (2006). Person to person to person: Harnessing the political power of on-line social networks and user generated content. Washington, DC. The Institute for politics, democracy and the Internet, George Washington University.

22.

O'Reilly,

(2005). Web 2.0: compact definition. Message posted to http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/10/web_20_ compact_definition.html.

23.

O'Reilly,

(2007). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications and Strategies, 65(1), 17-37.

24.

Hendler,

(2009). Web 3.0 Emerging. Computer, 42(1), 111-113. Hoffmann, L. (2012). Data mining meets city hall. Communications of the ACM, 55(6), 19-21.

25.

Atzori,

, Lera,

, & Morabito,

(2010). The internet of things: A survey. Computer networks, 54(15), 2787-2805.

26.

Cook,

D. J.

, & Das,

S. K.

(2012). Pervasive computing at scale: Transforming the state of the art. Pervasive and Mobile Computing, 8(1), 22-35.

27.

Desouza,

K. C.

, & Bhagwatwar,

(2012). Citizen apps to solve complex urban problems. Journal of Urban Technology, 19(3), 107-136.

28.

King,

S. F.

, & Brown,

(2007, December). Fix my street or else: using the internet to voice local public service concerns. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Theory and practice of electronic governance (pp. 72-80). ACM.

29.

Clark,

B. Y.

, & Brudney,

J. L.

(2014). Representation and Beyond: Coproduction and the New Information Technology. Available at SSRN 2473543.

30.

Clark,

B. Y.

, Brudney,

J. L.

, & Jang,

S. G.

(2013). Coproduction of government services and the new information technology: Investigating the distributional biases. Public Administration Review, 73(5), 687-701.

31.

Offenhuber,

(2015). Infrastructure legibility - a comparative analysis of open311-based citizen feedback systems. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8, 93-112.

32.

Suri,

M. V.

(2013). From Crowdsourcing Potholes to Community Policing: Applying Interoperability Theory to Analyze the Expansion of ``Open311''. Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University.

33.

Mills,

C. W.

(1959). The sociological imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

34.

Desouza,

K. C.

, & Bhagwatwar,

(2014). Technology-Enabled Participatory Platforms for Civic Engagement: The Case of US Cities. Journal of Urban Technology, 21(4), 25-50.

35.

Budhathoki,

N. R.

, & Haythornthwaite,

(2013). Motivation for Open Collaboration Crowd and Community Models and the Case of OpenStreetMap. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(5), 548-575.

36.

Goldstein,

, & Rotich,

(2008). Digitally networked technology in Kenya's 2007-2008 post-election crisis. Berkman Center Research Publication, 9.

37.

Okolloh,

(2009). Ushahidi, or `testimony': Web 2.0 tools for crowdsourcing crisis information. Participatory Learning and Action 59(1), 65-70.

38.

Davies,

(2015). Three provocations for civic crowdfunding. Information, Communication & Society, 18(3), 342-355.

39.

Johnson,

, & Robinson,

(2014). Civic Hackathons: Innovation, Procurement, or Civic Engagement? Review of Policy Research, 31(4), 349-357.

40.

Popyack,

J. L.

(2014). Prohacktivity, or one giant hack for mankind. ACM Inroads, 5(2), 40-52.

41.

Stepasiuk,

(2014). Civic hacking: A Motivational Perspective. New Visions in Public Affairs. 6, 21-30.

42.

Verba,

, Scholzman,

, Brody,

(1995). Voice and Equity: Civil Volunteerism in American Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

43.

Berry,

J. M.

(1977). Lobbying for the people. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

44.

Putnam,

R. D.

(2000). Bowling alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

45.

Skocpol,

(2003). Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life. Oklahoma City: University of Oklahoma Press.

46.

Norris,

(2002). Democratic phoenix: Reinventing political activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

47.

Smith,

(2008). From BarackObama.com to Change.gov: those active in the Obama campaign expect to be involved in promoting the administration. Retrieved from http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1068/post-election-voter-engagement.

48.

Gibson,

, & Cantijoch,

(2013). Conceptualizing and measuring participation in the age of the internet: Is online political engagement really different to offline? The Journal of Politics, 75(03), 701-716.

49.

Gordon,

, Baldwin-Philippi,

, & Balestra,

(2013). Why we engage: How theories of human behavior contribute to our understanding of civic engagement in a digital era. Berkman Center Research Publication, (21), 2008-09.

50.

Guo,

, & Saxton,

(2013). Tweeting Social Change: How Social Media Are Changing Nonprofit Advocacy, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 43(1), 57-79.

51.

Smith,

, Schlozman,

, Verba,

& Brady,

(2009). The internet and civic engagement. Washington, DC. PEW Internet and American Life Projects. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/15-The-Internet-and-Civic-Engagement.aspx.

52.

Rogers,

(2003). Diffusion of innovations. [5th Edition] New York: Free Press.

53.

Dillon,

& Morris,

M. G.

(1996). User acceptance of information technology: Theories and models. Annual Review of information science and technology, 31, 3-32.

54.

Robinson,

, Swan,

, & Newell,

(1996). The role of networks in the diffusion of technological innovation. Journal of Management Studies, 33(3), 333-359.

55.

Strang,

, & Soule,

S. A.

(1998). Diffusion in organizations and social movements: From hybrid corn to poison pills. Annual Review of Sociology, 22(1), 265-91.