Crowdsourcing global governance: sustainable development goals, civil society, and the pursuit of democratic legitimacy

Original Paper

Abstract

To what extent can crowdsourcing help members of civil society overcome the democratic deficit in global environmental governance? In this paper, I evaluate the utility of crowdsourcing as a tool for participatory agenda-setting in the realm of post-2015 sustainable development policy. In particular, I analyze the descriptive representativeness (e.g., the degree to which participation mirrors the demographic attributes of non-state actors comprising global civil society) of participants in two United Nations orchestrated crowdsourcing processes—the MY World survey and e-discussions regarding environmental sustainability. I find that there exists a perceptible demographic imbalance among contributors to the MY World survey and considerable dissonance between the characteristics of participants in the e-discussions and those whose voices were included in the resulting summary report. The results suggest that although crowdsourcing may present an attractive technological approach to expand participation in global governance, ultimately the representativeness of that participation and the legitimacy of policy outputs depend on the manner in which contributions are solicited and filtered by international institutions.

Keywords

Sustainable development Crowdsourcing Democracy Civil society Environmental governance 

Abbreviations

HDI

Human Development Index

MDGs

Millennium Development Goals

NGOs

Non-governmental organizations

SDGs

Sustainable Development Goals

UN

United Nations

UNDG

United Nations Development Group

UNDP

United Nations Development Programme

UNEP

United Nations Environment Programme

References

  1. Aitamurto, T. (2012). Crowdsourcing for democracy: New era in policymaking. Committee for the Future, Parliament of Finland. https://www.academia.edu/2399833/Crowdsourcing_for_Democracy_New_Era_In_Policy_Making. Accessed 18 January 2015.
  2. Aitamurto, T., & Landemore, H. (2015). Five design principles for crowdsourced policymaking: Assessing the case of crowdsourced off-road traffic law in Finland. Journal of Social Media for Organizations, 2(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
  3. Bäckstrand, K. (2006). Democratizing global environmental governance? Stakeholder democracy after the World Summit on Sustainable Development. European Journal of International Relations, 12(4), 467–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barro, R. J., & Lee, J. W. (2013). A new data set of educational attainment in the world, 1950–2010. Journal of Development Economics, 104, 184–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernauer, T., & Betzold, C. (2012). Civil society in global environmental governance. Journal of Environment and Development, 21(1), 62–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernstein, S. (2004). Legitimacy in global environmental governance. Journal of International Law and International Relations, 1(1–2), 139–166.Google Scholar
  7. Bexell, M., Tallberg, J., & Uhlin, A. (2010). Democracy in global governance: The promises and pitfalls of transnational actors. Global Governance, 16, 81–101.Google Scholar
  8. Biermann, F. (2007). ‘Earth System Governance’ as a crosscutting theme of global change research. Global Environmental Change, 17, 326–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Biermann, F., & Pattberg, P. (2008). Global environmental governance: Taking stock, moving forward. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 33, 277–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonanni, L. (2015). Why information sharing is essential to climate resilience: Lessons from superstorm Sandy. sustainablebrands.com. http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/marketing_comms/leonardo_bonanni/why_information_sharing_essential_climate_resilience. Accessed 29 January 2015.
  11. Bott, M., Gigler, B. S., & Young, G. (2011). The role of crowdsourcing for better governance in fragile state contexts. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Bott, M., & Young, G. (2012). The role of crowdsourcing for better governance in international development. Fletcher Journal of Human Security, 27, 47–70.Google Scholar
  13. Brabham, D. C. (2009). Crowdsourcing the public participation process for planning projects. Planning Theory, 8(3), 242–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brabham, D. C. (2013). Crowdsourcing. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Castells, M. (2008). The new public sphere: Global civil society, communication networks, and global governance. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616, 78–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6, 307–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Charalabidis, Y., Triantafillou, A., Karkaletsis, V., & Loukis, E. (2012). Public policy formulation through non moderated crowdsourcing in social media. In E. Tambouris, A. Macintosh, & Ø. Sæbø (Eds.), Electronic participation. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Coleman, S. (Ed.). (2001). 2001: Cyber space odyssey: The internet in the UK election. London: Hansard Society.Google Scholar
  19. Dutil, P. (2015). Crowdsourcing as a new instrument in the government’s arsenal: Explorations and considerations. Canadian Public Administration, 58(3), 363–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Estelles-Arolas, E., & González-Ladrón-de-Guevara, F. (2012). Towards an integrated crowdsourcing definition. Journal of Information Science, 38(2), 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fisher, D., & Green, J. F. (2004). Understanding disenfranchisement: Civil society and developing countries’ influence and participation in global governance for sustainable development. Global Environmental Politics, 4(3), 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ford, L. H. (2003). Challenging global environmental governance: Social movement agency and global civil society. Global Environmental Politics, 3(2), 120–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Freeman, J., & Quirke, S. (2013). Understanding e-democracy. eJournal of e-Democracy and Open Government, 5(2), 141–154.Google Scholar
  24. Gao, H., Barbier, G., & Goolsby, R. (2011). Harnessing the crowdsourcing power of social media for disaster relief. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 26(3), 10–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Geiger, D., Seedorf, S., Schulze, T., Nickerson, R., & Schader, M. (2011). Managing the crowd: Towards a taxonomy of crowdsourcing processes. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Americas Conference on Information Systems. Detroit, MI.Google Scholar
  26. Gemmill, B., Ivanova, M., & Chee, Y. L. (2002). Designing a new architecture for global environmental governance. In World Summit for Sustainable Development briefing papers. London: International Institute for Environment and Development. http://www.poptel.org.uk/iied/test/searching/ring_pdf/wssd_21_international_environmental_governance.pdf. Accessed 22 January 2015.
  27. Goodchild, M. F., & Glennon, J. A. (2010). Crowdsourcing geographic information for disaster response: A research frontier. International Journal of Digital Earth, 3(3), 231–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gray, R. (2014). Crowdsourcing for policy innovation. Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy.Google Scholar
  29. Gupta, A. (2010). Transparency in global environmental governance: A coming of age? Global Environmental Politics, 10(3), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Haas, P. M. (2004). Addressing the global governance deficit. Global Environmental Politics, 4(4), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Haythornthwaite, C. (2012). Democratic process in online crowds and communities. eJournal of e-Democracy and Open Government, 4(2), 160–170.Google Scholar
  32. Hildebrandt, L., Gallegos, M. C., Chan, L., Makam, P., & Nsabimana, J. (n.d.). Outreach report: Consultation on environmental sustainability in the post-2015 development agenda. Outreach Support Team for the Thematic Consultation on Environmental Sustainability in the Post-2015 Development Agenda. http://www.worldwewant2015.org/file/357718/download/389222. Accessed 5 February 2015.
  33. Howe, J. (2006). The rise of crowdsourcing. Wired Magazine. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/crowds.html. Accessed 22 January 2015.
  34. Internet world users by language. (2014). Internet World Stats. http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.html. Accessed 7 February 2015.
  35. Landemore, H. (2015). Inclusive constitution-making: The Icelandic experiment. Journal of Political Philosophy, 23(2), 166–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lehdonvirta, V., & Bright, J. (2015). Crowdsourcing for public policy and government. Policy and Internet, 7(3), 263–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lemos, M. C., & Agrawal, A. (2006). Environmental governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31, 297–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. MYWorld2015 analytics. (2013). MY World: The United Nations global survey for a better world. http://data.myworld2015.org/. Accessed 5 February 2015.
  39. Nasiritousi, N., Hjerpe, M., & Linner, B. -O. (2014). The roles of non-state actors in climate change governance: Understanding agency through governance profiles. International Environmental Agreements, 1–14.Google Scholar
  40. Netchaeva, I. (2002). E-government and e-democracy. Gazette: The International Journal for Communication Studies, 64(5), 467–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Peters, B. G. (1994). Agenda-setting in the European Community. Journal of European Public Policy, 1(1), 9–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Prpić, J., Shukla, P. P., Kietzmann, J. H., & McCarthy, I. P. (2015a). How to work a crowd: Developing crowd capital through crowdsourcing. Business Horizons, 58(1), 77–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Prpić, J., Taeihagh, A., & Melton, J. (2014). A framework for policy crowdsourcing. Presented at the Oxford Internet Policy and Politics Conference, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  44. Prpić, J., Taeihagh, A., & Melton, J. (2015b). The fundamentals of policy crowdsourcing. Policy and Internet, 7(3), 340–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Radu, R., Zingales, N., & Calandro, E. (2015). Crowdsourcing ideas as an emerging form of multistakeholder participation in internet governance. Policy and Internet, 7(3), 362–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation, 141, 2417–2431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rudge, M. (2014). Can ordinary people shape development outcomes? In Global development goals: Partnerships for progress. UNA-UK.Google Scholar
  48. Sachs, J. D. (2012). From millennium development goals to sustainable development goals. Lancet, 379, 2206–2211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Saward, M. (2000). Less than meets the eye: Democratic legitimacy and deliberative theory. In M. Saward (Ed.), Democratic innovation: Deliberation, representation and association (pp. 66–77). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Scherr, J. (2012). Reflections on the race to Rio: Crowdsourcing sustainability at earth summit 2012. Switchboard, from NRDC. http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jscherr/reflections_on_the_race_to_rio.html. Accessed 22 January 2015.
  51. Scholte, J. A. (2002). Civil society and democracy in global governance. Global Governance, 8(3), 281–304.Google Scholar
  52. Seltzer, E., & Mahmoudi, D. (2013). Citizen participation, open innovation, and crowdsourcing: Challenges and opportunities for planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 28(1), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Somerville, P. (2011). Democracy and participation. Policy and Politics, 39(3), 417–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Speth, J. G., & Haas, P. M. (2006). Global environmental governance. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  55. Spiliotopoulou, L., Charalabidis, Y., Loukis, E., & Diamantopoulou, V. (2014). A framework for advanced social media exploitation in government for crowdsourcing. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 8(4), 545–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tyler, T. R. (1998). Trust and democratic governance. In V. Braithwaite & M. Levi (Eds.), Trust and governance (pp. 269–294). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  57. UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2015). World Population Prospects, the 2015 Revision. http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Download/Standard/Population/. Accessed 9 February 2016.
  58. UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda. (2012). Realizing the future we want for all: Report to the secretary-general. New York. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/Post_2015_UNTTreport.pdf. Accessed 22 January 2015.
  59. UNDG. (2013). A million voices: The world we want | A sustainable future with dignity for all. http://www.undg.org/docs/13183/f_UNDG_MillionVoices_Web_full.pdf. Accessed 24 January 2015.
  60. UNDG. (2014). Human development report 2014: Sustaining human progress: Reducing vulnerabilities and building resilience. New York: http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr14-report-en-1.pdf. Accessed 29 January 2015.
  61. UNDP. (2013). Breaking down the silos: Integrating environmental sustainability in the post-2015 agenda. http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/environment-energy/integrating-environmental-sustainability-post-2015.html. Accessed 5 February 2015.
  62. UNDP. (2015). Human development report 2015: Work for Human Development. New York: http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2015_human_development_report_1.pdf. Accessed 9 February 2016.
  63. UNGA. (2011). Accelerating progress towards the Millennium Development Goals: Options for sustained and inclusive growth and issues for advancing the United Nations development agenda beyond 2015 (A/66/126). http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Resources/Attach/Capacity/manila/Presentations/A_66_126.pdf. Accessed 29 January 2015.
  64. UNGA. (2014). The road to dignity by 2030: Ending poverty, transforming all lives and protecting the planet (A/69/700). http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/69/700&Lang=E. Accessed 14 October 2015.
  65. Van Dijk, J., & Hacker, K. (2003). The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. The Information Society, 19, 315–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Warkentin, C. (2001). Reshaping world politics: NGOs, the internet, and global civil society. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  67. Zook, M., Graham, M., Shelton, T., & Gorman, S. (2010). Volunteered geographic information and crowdsourcing disaster relief: A case study of the Haitian earthquake. World Medical and Health Policy, 2(2), 7–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political Science and Public AdministrationUniversity of North FloridaJacksonvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations