Cybernetic Governance

Description

Andrej Zwitter:

"The concept of cybernetic governance can be understood as a merger between the fields of cybernetics and governance. While both fields concern themselves with the control over systems, they have historically occupied different academic fields of inquiry, cybernetics being particularly relevant in engineering and the hard sciences and governance occupying predominantly the field of the social sciences.The need for developing the concept of cybernetic governance as a merger between these disciplines stems from novel technological developments that mirror such a merger through the convergence of otherwise separate but adjacent fields also in our daily life. This convergence can be identified in discussions surrounding the increasing augmentation of daily practices through AI, increasing integration of digital technologies in daily practices, and issues emerging from so-called cyborgs (Barfield & Williams, 2017) and the human being as a technology platform."

(https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-024-09763-9)

Characteristics

Andrej Zwitter:

"In terms of control mechanisms for the management of control systems, cybernetic governance shifts the attention away from classical raw materials and military prowess towards ways and means that facilitate the control of data and by data as well as the extraction of informational value from it. The governance literature provides insights which resources are particularly relevant for cyber-governance:

1. Data: The digital age has generated enormous amounts of data, which is a valuable resource for many stakeholders (Mayer-Schönberger & Cukier, 2013). However, the collection, use, and protection of data is a key issue in cybernetic governance.

2. Technology: With the increasing reliance on technology, the security of information systems and infrastructure is critical for cybernetic governance (Zwitter, 2014).

3. Human capital: Cybernetic governance also involves managing the human capital involved in the development, operation, and protection of digital systems (Lajili, 2015).

4. Intellectual property: Intellectual property rights are an important control mechanism in the digital economy, and the enforcement of these rights is crucial for the functioning and persistence cybernetic governance mechanisms (Xaydarov, 2022).

5. Infrastructure: The physical and digital infrastructure that supports the internet and digital communications is also central control mechanism that must be managed to ensure stable cybernetic governance (Wegrich et al., 2017).

The means of extracting value from data also changes from human and industrial productivity to artificial intelligence (AI) as an extraction method for informational value generation. A particular place might be given to generative AI as a tool for such value creation. Generative AI has the potential to generate value by using data to automate processes, improve decision-making, and create new opportunities for innovation and growth. More specifically, this can be done through various techniques such as generative design, content creation, and deep learning. Generative AI can also help to automate repetitive tasks and optimize processes, leading to increased efficiency.

From a regulatory perspective, cybernetic governance adds to the toolbox of control mechanisms in a variety of ways. Besides traditional governance tools such as policy, regulation and law, terms of use and similar asymmetric contracts (between large corporations and individual customers) pertaining to intellectual property law are used to regulate the behaviour of users whether in social media networks or in relation to blockchain and other distributed ledger technologies – both on-chain and off-chain regulation are to be considered (Atzori, 2017; Campbell-Verduyn, 2017; Hazenberg & Zwitter, 2020; Reijers et al., 2018). The code running digital networks as well as the user interfaces have regulatory function (Lessig, 1999). And the increasing use of bots, bot-nets, smart viruses and other smart digital (non-human) entities in cyberspace adds to the potential regulatory space (Blauth et al., 2022).

This widening of the governance space and mechanisms as well as the range of actors and the nature of resources has dramatic effect of how one conceptualizes governance as cybernetic governance. Coming back to the term kybernan, the term “cyberspace” was coined by science fiction author William Gibson in his 1984 novel “Neuromancer”. Whether intended by Gibson or not, from the perspective of cybernetic governance, cyberspace is not merely a digital space. It is at the same time a digital space as well as a digital control layer that governs and steers all other spaces – it is in and of itself the archetypical space of governance in the digital age."

(https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-024-09763-9)

History

Andrej Zwitter:

"The word governance (lat. gubernare) shares with cybernetics the same Greek root of kybernan meaning to steer or direct (Schneider & Hyner, 2006). In military parlance, cyber in the sense of the digital domain (the internet, other networks, IoT etc.) is often referred to as the fifth domain of warfare besides land, water, air, and space. However, rather than seeing it as a separate domain, it is useful to consider cyber(-space) a control layer on top of all other domains with impact on each of them.

The concept of cybernetic governance can still be considered in a infancy stage without sharp delineations and with contributions covering a varieties of governance domains and technology critiques. This covers, for example, the application of cybernetic theories to governance in the corporate domain, (Schwaninger, 2018) as well as also the governance of IT and digital infrastructures (Skeivys, 2016). Birnbaum’s idea of the cybernetic institution, which integrates existing governance models and emphasizes self-correcting processes, comes closest to what the etymological root of governance and cybernetics would suggest. Birnbaum argues that administrators can effectively coordinate and balance various subsystems within an institution by adopting leadership and management approaches consistent with cybernetic principles, including using multiple frames, increasing institutional monitoring systems’ sensitivity, and emphasizing selected elements of organizational life (Birnbaum, 1989). Another stream of cybernetic governance, based on Karl Deutsch’s The Nerves of Government, focuses on the role of information in its various forms and the management of information streams for decision-making (Peters, 2012). Yet another perspective is that of how to govern complexity through the application of complexity theories (Schneider, 2012).

Günter Anders’ (Anders, 2002) work on the Obsolesce of Man, a philosophical critique of technology and society, can be considered next to many other critiques of the effects of an encroaching digitalisation of many aspects of governance (Helbing et al., 2017; Zwitter, 2014). specifically a critique of the cybernetization of society (Nosthoff & Maschewski, 2019). In this context, one also has to view the idea of cybernetic citizenship as a concept closely related to the management of citizens through accumulation of and management through personal data, such as in the example of China’s social credit score (Reijers et al., 2023). In this context, it is worthwhile to mention the Chilean experiment with cybernetic governance as an application of Stafford Bier’s organizational cybernetics and the Viable System Model (which he viewed as a liberty machine, Beer, 1975) and its ultimate failure - the Cybersyn Project 1971–1973 (Espejo, 2014). The government of Chile, deeply impressed by the application of cybernetic theories of the management of complex systems invited one of the most eminent scholars in organizational cybernetics, Stafford Beer, to Chile to help the struggling socialist state out of its difficult socio-economic situation through introducing cybernetic principles in the governance of the state and its centralized industry and production. Beer was tasked to develop a computational algorithmic modelling and management system as an alternative to socialist central planning. In the words of one of the project managers, Espejo (2014):

The intention was measuring in real-time significant changes in the behavior of essential variables for workers and managers. Significant methodological and practical developments were made designing indices. Local people measured their daily actualities to compare them to their capabilities, or the best they could achieve with existing resources, and their potentialities, or the best they ought to achieve with investment to remove restrictions and bottlenecks. These indices were used to collect data in as near to real-time as practically possible and processed using a statistical formalism. The Cyberstride suite was the software for this processing. The data collection was underpinned by a significant modeling capacity. Operational researchers produced quantified flowcharts for plants, enterprises and sectors to work out their capabilities and bottlenecks, and discuss with managers potentialities to design performance indices.

The project ended on September 11, 1973, with a military coup d’état of Salvador Allende’s government. This does not take away from the alure of cybernetic governance, and similar ideas are currently being proposed in Peru (Rodriguez-Ulloa, 2022).

Conceptually cyber and cyberspace in the context of governance can be understood as an augmentation of control functions through adding a layer of digital means of information management, control and decision-making functions. The addition of this digital control and information layer adds a variety of variables to enhance regulation and thereby changes drastically what political science traditionally considers entities, resources, and regulatory mechanisms. From this perspective cybernetic governance refers to the ways in which entities manage and regulate cyberspace and the other domains through means available through cyberspace. It consequently consists of several additional key actors, including traditional actors such as states and corporations. Furthermore, it gives a special role to enterprises in the digital and technology domain (e.g. Nvidia, Google or Meta), online interest groups, hackers and hacktivists, cyber-criminals, and digital entities. The latter set of actors are typical for cyberspace and are much more attuned in using its tools (Hazenberg & Zwitter, 2021)."

(https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-024-09763-9)

Discussion

Cybernetics’ implications on governance

Andrej Zwitter:

"The implications of cybernetics in general and control theory and the law of requisite variety in particular are quite insightful for the further design of cybernetic governance principles. Ashby’s Law of requisite variety states that the variety of the regulator must be at least as great as the variety of the system being regulated. In cybernetic governance, regulatory variety refers to the number of different regulatory rules or mechanisms used to control a system.

For example, one can infer from Ashby’s insights into requisite variety that in order to deal with the effects of technology convergence and the increasing convergence of governance frameworks that there are in principle three strategies to deal with increased complexity

(1) increase in regulatory variety;

(2) decrease in allowed technological complexity through regulation;

(3) application of meta-regulation.

Ad (1), to deal with increasing technological complexity one can increase the regulatory variety. On the positive side, the convergence of regulatory frameworks can provide a more holistic approach to governance, leading to better coordination, more comprehensive policies, and more effective regulation. However, when regulatory variety increases, i.e. when governance frameworks converge for example through technology convergence, this can result in complex feedback effects between individual norms across governance domains and conflicting regulatory principles and mechanisms. Convergence can furthermore lead to increased regulatory complexity and administrative costs. With multiple regulatory bodies responsible for overseeing a specific governance domain, compliance costs can be substantial, especially for the regulator and for small and medium-sized businesses. This can create a barrier to entry for new entrants. Another negative effect of governance convergence is the reduction of regulatory clarity and the rule of law. When multiple regulatory bodies oversee a subject domain like the human platform, there can be confusion about which rules apply, which have precedence, and how they should be interpreted. This can lead to legal uncertainty, reducing the effectiveness of regulations and weakening the rule of law overall. Finally, the increase in complex feedback effects is another effect of governance convergence. The interconnected nature of digital technologies and cyberspace means that changes in one area can have unintended consequences in other areas. As a result, it can be challenging to anticipate and manage the feedback effects leading to unintended outcomes.

Ad (2), in order to manage converging governance fields and disruptions, a regulator can also resort to limit the complexity of a system – i.e. reduction of regulatory variety refers to the simplification or streamlining of regulatory frameworks in order to make them more manageable and effective. Reduction of agency space would be one approach in this governance approach. That means the space for human discretion or agency in decision-making is reduced. In other words, there may be fewer opportunities for humans to make decisions that are not fully determined by the regulatory framework, potentially limiting creativity and innovation. In the case of the human platform this strategy could be implemented by limiting the agency space of the human platform. In other words, the actors that work in relation to enhanced soldiers would be governed themselves tightly to abide by rules and regulations in their respective domain. To simplify the regulatory framework further, some technological integrations may need to be removed or reduced. For example, if a complex system of automated decision-making algorithms is difficult to regulate, it may need to be replaced with a simpler system that is easier to regulate. One could also limit the number of allowed technologies applied at the same time. This has the added value that a convergent field of governance benefits from clarity in the regulated space through the limitation of regulatory variety. A simpler regulatory framework can reduce the administrative costs associated with maintaining and enforcing regulations. By reducing the number of regulatory rules or mechanisms, it may be easier to monitor compliance and enforce regulations, leading to a reduction in administrative costs and of competing governance interests.

Ad (3), in the context of cybernetic governance, meta-regulation refers to a regulatory approach that focuses on establishing normative principles and regulations on a meta-level rather than specific rules and regulations for each specific governance matter that converges on one platform. This approach is designed to address the limitations of traditional regulation, which can be inflexible and struggle to keep up with rapidly evolving technologies and practices. Besides, this governance approach allows regulators to focus on broader principles and values that are relevant across a wide range of contexts, rather than attempting to prescribe specific rules and regulations. While meta-regulation can be more flexible than traditional regulation, it may also lead to an increase in outlier cases or situations that fall outside of the established ethical principles and norms. This can create regulatory gaps that need to be addressed to ensure that the system is functioning effectively. Meta-regulation often involves the establishment of generic principles and norms that can be applied across a wide range of contexts. For example, the Martens Clause is a generic principle in international humanitarian law to ensure that the protection of non-combatants is ensured in situations where specific rules of international humanitarian law do not exist.

...

IN CONCLUSION:

The growing use of human augmentation and AI agency is leading to a convergence of regulatory frameworks, including ethical codes, regulations on AI, regulations on the digital domain, and technological regulations under the umbrella of cybernetic governance. This convergence reflects the need to address the complex and multifaceted nature of technology governance and the increasing complexity that follows from technological convergence, which touch on a wide range of issues from privacy and security to the ethics of using AI in decision-making. As these technologies continue to evolve and become more integrated into our daily lives, it is becoming increasingly important to establish clear and consistent regulatory frameworks that can guide their development and use.

By converging different regulatory frameworks, policymakers and regulators can ensure that technologies are subject to a coherent and comprehensive set of rules and standards. This can help to mitigate the risks associated with these technologies, while also promoting their potential benefits in areas such as healthcare, education, and public safety. However, as with any regulatory convergence, there are also risks and challenges associated with this trend. It will be important for policymakers and regulators to carefully consider the potential unintended consequences of regulatory convergence, such as the reduction of agency space, competing governance domains or the weakening of the rule of law.

The convergence of regulatory frameworks related to human augmentation as discussed in the case of enhanced soldiers represents a critical trend in global governance. Addressing the complex and multifaceted governance challenges posed by converging technologies is not a simple and straight forward task, and policymakers and regulators are often limited in their capacity to ensure that innovations resulting from technology convergence are developed and used in a responsible and ethical manner. While governance convergence can bring benefits such as increased cooperation and coordination among different regulatory systems, it also poses challenges to effective decision-making. One of the major challenges is the increased complexity of decision-making. As different regulatory systems converge, the number of actors involved in and norms affected by decision-making may increase, leading to greater complexity and difficulty in achieving consensus.

Moreover, convergence can also reduce regulatory clarity and the rule of law. When regulatory systems with different legal frameworks converge, it can be difficult to establish clear and consistent regulatory standards. This can create confusion for regulated entities, as they may be subject to different or conflicting regulations in different jurisdictions. Additionally, governance convergence may lead to a weakening of the rule of law, as regulatory standards may become more ambiguous or subject to interpretation by cross-reference of different governance frameworks.

In order to mitigate the risks of increased complexity and reduced regulatory clarity, policymakers can instead focus on establishing clear and consistent regulatory standards based on three initial findings from merging governance and cybernetics with a specific view of Ashby’s law of requisite variety. Based on initial findings, cybernetic governance offers three possible governance responses that can be deployed in parallel to promote ethical and societal acceptability of emerging technologies: (1) increasing regulatory variety, (2) decreasing regulatory and agency space, and (3) applying meta-regulatory frameworks.

The case of the enhanced soldier and innovation approaches that view the human body as a technology platform illustrate the need for more effective and clear regulation. At the same time, they show that more regulation is not better. This article aimed to illustrate that insights from cybernetics can indeed help generate new governance principles that are adapted to deal with emergent problems caused by an increased reliance on digital control systems and the convergence of cyber-physical and cyber-biological technologies. It, therefore, indicates a need to further develop the yet emergent but still disjoint field of cybernetic governance. Insights from cybernetic governance would also yield applicability to other forms of technology-enabled governance mechanisms such as distributed ledger technology (e.g. blockchain enabled technologies), AI enabled technologies and the growing field of digital identity. Dangers of the misuse of such governance concepts for the further reduction of citizens’ agency and increased centralization of power amongst governmental and corporate agents must also not be overlooked. This might require further research for example on the combination with networked and more horizontal governance approaches and maybe also with the growing field digital democracy.

Cybernetic governance is emerging as a field of study that connects digital, normative, technology and bio-physical mechanisms of controlling systems and agents. It opens the space for traditional governance research just as much as for the computational social sciences and many other disciplines in a disciplinary agnostic approach. In a time of accelerating technology convergence, governance needs new, smarter, and more adaptive tools than traditional laws and regulations provide. Cybernetic governance might provide just these tools that modern, digital technology-driven societies need."

(https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-024-09763-9)

More information

* Article: Cybernetic governance: implications of technology convergence on governance convergence. By Andrej Zwitter. Ethics and Information Technology, Volume 26, article number 24, (2024)

URL = https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-024-09763-9

"Governance theory in political science and international relations has to adapt to the onset of an increasingly digital society. However, until now, technological advancements and the increasing convergence of technologies outpace regulatory efforts and frustrate any efforts to apply ethical and legal frameworks to these domains. This is due to the convergence of multiple, sometimes incompatible governance frameworks that accompany the integration of technologies on different platforms. This theoretical claim will be illustrated by examples such as the integration of technologies on the “human platform” as it is referred to in the case of enhanced soldiers. Hence, successful governance might require new approaches borrowed from a distant relative, namely cybernetics. Insights gained from cybernetics for governance theories might be able to give guidance for a more efficient and adaptive governance approach that is able to deal with increasing complexity caused by technology and governance convergence. While cybernetics itself might be considered a governance approach, it has had surprisingly little reception in the wider field of governance within the area of social and political sciences. This article will develop cybernetic governance as a set of expandable governance principles that are applicable to an increasingly complex digital and smart society. It thereby tries to further galvanise what could be termed cybernetic governance theory as a subject of worthwhile insights from the combination of otherwise largely the disjoined fields of cybernetics and governance."