View source for Steven Livingston on Networks in Areas of Limited Statehood as an Alternative Mode of Governance



Video via http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ip5as_bBvTE#!

=Description=

"ANN-SONIC Fourth Annual International Seminar on Network Theory: Networked Social Movements and Network Theory

Presentation summary by Martin Hilbert and Jieun Shin:

"Steven Livingston (Ph.D., U of Washington) is Professor of Media and Public Affairs and International Affairs at The George Washington University and the director of the School of Media and Public Affairs’ Political Communication Program. He also holds a joint appointment in the Elliott School of International Affairs, is a research professor in the Political Science Department, and is a Faculty Associate in the Space Policy Institute. Livingston’s research and teaching focus on media/information technology and international affairs. He is particularly interested in the role of information technology and media in national security policymaking.

Steven Livingston began his presentation by showing a 2*2 matrix (four quadrant map) that classified statehood as weak and consolidated on one axis and information abundance and scarcity on the other axis.

His research focuses on quadrant 1 where the state is weak, yet the degree of information is abundant. He argues that, due to the massive diffusion of digital ICT, a considerable part of the world’s population now lives in these so-called “areas of limited statehood” where the state is incapable of governance, but information is abundant.

 

Then he introduced a BBC news report tracing buying trends in mobile phones around the world.  In 2010, there were more than 5 billion mobile phone subscribers around the world. Of these consumers, Africans are buying mobile phones at a world record rate, and over one third of Africa’s entire population owns and operates a mobile phone. Because today’s mobile phones enable social communication among users (text messaging, Facebook, Twitter), citizens can share information which can unite people in creating political movements. Consequently, the world has begun to witness mobile-phone-driven social movements in Africa, Latin America, and other developing regions. Livingstone referred to this phenomenon as technology-enabled collective action.

 

Despite its power, information sharing can only do so much if the government is not available to respond to crises. Livingston expressed this using an analogy relating bits to atoms.  In his example, if many bits (information) are available but no atoms (governance) exist, then the bits are useless without government support regardless of the amount of information. For instance, Columbia University launched a SMS-based information alert system called the Voix des Kivus project in Eastern Congo. The project provided residents with cell phones so that they could text real time information about events that take place in hard-to-reach areas. However, since there was no efficient governance for these areas (no moving atoms), the situations did not improve much. In other words, even in cases where technology provides public goods, accountability and responsibility issues remain unsolved."
(http://ascnetworksnetwork.org/ann-conference/2012-conference/steven-livingston-2012-conference)


=Discussion=

==Q and A after the presentation==

"Q: I think the conceptualization of governance may need to be broadened. States provide police service, health care, and so on. Aside from state governments, other organizations such as NGOs, UN peace keepers, and self-organized local communities can also provide similar services. I believe that your idea needs a lot of stitches to work alongside governance.
        
A: I am not optimistic about the capacities of NGOs. Vast regions of countries are still untouched by these types of organizations. Clustering of NGOs is quite interesting. They cluster around hot spots and only certain areas. So it is difficult to classify them as official governance.

 

    
Q: On the bits and atoms dynamics, if you free yourself from two variables, I think you will have much more interesting dynamics. For instance, does it have to be states or official statehood? There is self-organized police security in Mexico. They have strong accountability.
    
Q: We can think of instances where information abundance is a result of weak statehood. Because some states are incapable of regulating telecommunication, commercial mobile companies are able to grow. Strong governance may dampen business sector activities.
        
A: I agree that weak state can introduce business opportunities. I think it’s a good observation.

 

    
Q: What kind of role do private actors play in your model? My sense is that even in consolidated states, private sectors such as private security will become bigger and bigger. Now, people protest against Wall Mart before they protest against states.
        
A: I am interested in understanding how advancement of information in weak states facilitates and achieves public goods. My focus is not on the protest model.

 

    
Q: The distinction between weak state and strong state is ambiguous. Most people in the world do not think they are governed legitimately, even in the countries that are considered consolidated. How should consolidated states be defined?
        
A: Almost two thirds of the whole population lives in the weak states. States lack legitimacy more and more all over the globe. If that is true, we are forced to relax the assumption of consolidated state. Then we are really placing value and meaning on technologies."


==Contextual Commentary by Mayo Fuster Morell==

"Which context might feed more the increase of the commons, countries with a state presence or those of limited statehood?

I recently met Steven Livingston (Professor School of Media and Public Affairs; The George Washington University) and his work brought me to think common-based peer production (CBPP) from a perspective that I found interesting.

Steven Livingston addressed the question of Digitally Enabled Collective Action in Areas of Limited Statehood. One of the contribution of his work is to do a critique of the focus of scholars analyzing Digitally Enabled Collective Action only in countries of the North where the state is “strong” (even if in crisis); instead he suggests to take attention to the cases in which there is a limited statehood. Which is actually - the lack of State coverage but expanding ICT adoption - the condition in which live a large part of the population in the world. Here you could find a presentation of him.

What this brought me to think is the context of CBPP. To my understanding there has been a limited analysis of the context in CBPP. Most of the research has focused on “how” CBPP works from the perspective of “internal” organizational (and many times micro) aspects, while not considering the macro contextual variables. Yes, there is a sense that the crisis of the state might feed the raise of CBPP, but to my knowledge, there has not been done empirical research which actually has look and “test” the effect of the context in CBPP. For example, if Wikipedias or FLOSS grown more in countries with particular state modalities. Which is a type of question that has been addressed in social movement research.

If we think in terms of level of statehood and CBPP. One could think;
1) that – perhaps surprisingly - CBPP might emerge more in contexts of limited statehood (where there is a lack or weak state) and strong ICT adoption (such as mobile phones in certain African countries), than in context of strong statehood.
In terms of social movements organizing, this would explain the “surprise” of the Arab Spring, a place where it was not easy to expect that was going to be the place in which a global wave of mobilization was going to start.

2) Or that CBPP might emerge both in contexts of limited and strong statehood, but that the raising of the CBPP in these diverse contexts might be feed by diverse causes/processes. In other words, an “strong” statehood might favor CBPP as well as a limited statehood but for divers forces.

Of course, there is also the discussion not on the “level” but the type of State - that supporting the commons (such as some cases in Latino-America) or that basically an instrument for corporate interest. In any case, this perspective could provide some insights in the debate of the triangle State-commons-market.

In sum, my intuition is that to keep an eye in CBPP in context of limited statehood might result in some surprises. However, in these context, CBPP might raise in other modalities (for example, with the case of Ushahidi mapping) different than the “traditional” cases such as Wikipedia and FLOSS, which might make them more difficult to be identified, but also contribute to move the discussion on CBPP beyond these classic examples."
(http://www.onlinecreation.info/?p=688)



[[Category:P2P State Approaches]]

[[Category:Webcasts]]

[[Category:Governance]]