Government as a Platform: Services, Participation and Policies

Part of the Media Business and Innovation book series (MEDIA)


Using the productive abilities and capacities of citizens, the state has the opportunity to reinvigorate and upgrade its services. However, integrating citizens as free producers in the value creation chain requires new interfaces and specific institutional arrangements that both encourage self-organisation of citizens and provide some direction for their actions. The state could establish virtual platforms, tools and structures to collect and direct this surplus of ideas and capabilities. Although hopes for an augmented digital political participation still seem unjustified, there are indications that the integration of citizens in the delivery of services will lead to an increase in political participation, as new social relationships emerge that also have a political claim.


Social Medium Political Participation Smart Phone Deliberative Democracy Virtual Platform 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Al-Ani, A. (2013). Widerstand in Organisationen, Organisationen im Widerstand. Virtuelle Plattformen, Edupunks und der nachfolgende Staat. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Ani, A. (2014). Edupunks und neue universitäre Strukturen. In F. Keuper & H. Arnold (Eds.), Campus innovation—Education, qualification and digitalization (pp. 111–129). Berlin: Logos.Google Scholar
  3. Al-Ani, A., Stumpp, S., & Schildhauer, T. (2014). Crowd Studie 2014: Die Crowd als Partner der deutschen Wirtschaft (HIIG Working paper 2/2014). Retrieved from
  4. Anheier, H., & Korreck, S. (2013). Governance innovations (The Governance report 2013, pp. 83–116). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Anheier, H. K., & Nassauer, A. (2012). The swarm intelligence. Mapping subterranean politics in Germany. Country report Germany (Working Paper). Berlin.Google Scholar
  6. Arrow, K. (1974). The limits of organization. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  7. Arrow, K. (2012). Social choice and individual values. Mansfield Centre: Martino Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Bauwens, M. (2005, January 12). The political economy of peer production. In Retrieved from
  9. Bauwens, M. (2010). Peer-to-peer relationality. The City and Anonymity. Retrieved from
  10. Bauwens, M. (2012). Blueprint for P2P society: The partner state & ethical economy. Retrieved from
  11. Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks. How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bollier, D. (2004, August 11). The commons as a movement. In Commons Magazine ( Retrieved from
  13. Bollier, D. (2014). The flok society vision of a post-capitalist economy. Retrieved from
  14. Brown, M. T. (2010). Civilizing the economy. A new economics of provision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clarence, E., & Gabriel, M. (2014). People helping people. The future of public services. Retrieved from
  16. Crouch, C. (2004). Post-democracy. Oxford: Polity.Google Scholar
  17. Dauvergne, P., & Lebaron, G. (2014). Protest Inc. The corporatization of activism. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  18. Der Standard. (2012, November 6). Die Bürger müssen eingebunden werden. Gisela Erler, in Baden-Württemberg Staatsrätin für Bürgerbeteiligungen, über die “Politik des Gehörtwerdens”, intelligentes Beteiligen und Minderheiten als Sensoren. p. 9.Google Scholar
  19. Fischaleck, F. (2012). Demokratie reloaded. Politik und Kommunikation, 2, 12–13.Google Scholar
  20. Fischer-Lescano, A., & Teubner, G. (2004, Summer). The vain search for legal unity in the fragmentation of global law. The Michigan Journal of International Law, 25, 1000–1046.Google Scholar
  21. Fox, K. (2011). Africa’s mobile economic revolution. Half of Africa’s one billion population has a mobile phoneAnd not just for talking. The power of telephony is forging a new enterprise culture, from banking to agriculture to healthcare. Retrieved from
  22. Friedrichsen, M. (2015). Neue politische Kommunikation durch Medienwandel. In M. Friedrichsen & R. A. Kohn (Eds.), Digitale Politikvermittlung (pp. 9–24). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  23. Fuhr, H. (2005). Constructive pressures and incentives to reform: Globalization and its impact on public sector performance and governance in developing countries. In R. Hodges (Ed.), Governance and the public sector (pp. 525–549). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  24. Gilding, P. (2011). The great disruption. New York, NY: Bloomsberry Press.Google Scholar
  25. Habermas, J. (1998). Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  26. Hardin, G. (1968, December 13). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1234–1238.Google Scholar
  27. Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2004). Multitude. War and democracy in the age of empire. New York, NY: Penguin.Google Scholar
  28. Hess, C., & Ostrom, E. (2011). Introduction: An overview of the knowledge commons. In C. Hess & E. Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding knowledge as commons (pp. 3–27). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Holloway, J. (2005). Change the world without taking power. The meaning of revolution today. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kamenetz, A. (2010). Edupunks, Edupreneur, and the coming transformation of higher education. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. Kamenetz, A. (2011). The Edupunk’s guide to education. To a DIY credential. Retrieved from
  32. Kruse, P. (2010). Rechts, Links, Mitte—Raus! Vom politischen Wagnis der Partizipation. Interview von Ulrike Reinhard. In H. Heuermann & U. Reinhard (Eds.), Reboot_D—Digitale Demokratie (pp. 44–59). Oldenburg: Whoiss.Google Scholar
  33. Lessig, L. (2004). Free culture—The nature and future of creativity. London: Open Source Press.Google Scholar
  34. Marglin, S. (1974). What do bosses do? The Review of Radical Political Economics, 6(2), 60–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mickoleit, A. (2014). Social media use by governments: A policy primer to discuss trends, identify policy opportunities and guide decision makers (OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No 26). OECD Public Publishing. Retrieved from doi: 10.1787/5jxrcmghmk0s-en.
  36. Mitra, S., Angwal, R., Chatterjee, S., Jha, R. S., & Kapur, R. (2005). Acquisition of computing literacy on shared public computers: Children and the “Hole in the Wall”. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(3), 407–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Neuberger, O. (2000). Individualisierung und Organisierung. Die Wechselseitige Erzeugung von Individuum und Organisation durch Verfahren. In G. Ortmann, J. Sydow, & K. Türk (Eds.), Theorien der organisation (pp. 487–522). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Noveck, B. S. (2009). Wiki government. How technology can make government better, democracy stronger, and citizens more powerful. New York, NY: Brookings.Google Scholar
  39. O’Reilly, T. (2009). Government 2.0.: It’s all about the platform. In H. Heuermann & U. Reinhard (Eds.), Reboot_D—Digitale Demokratie (pp. 60–67). Oldenburg: Whoiss.Google Scholar
  40. O’Reilly, T. (2010). Government 2.0.: It’s all about the platform. Innovations, 6, 13–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Oram, A. (2007). In search of micro-elites: How to get user-generated content. Retrieved from
  42. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. P2P Foundation. (2014). Benjamin Barber on city based global governance. Retrieved from
  44. Ratto, M., & Boler, M. (Eds.). (2014). DIY citizenship. Critical making and social media. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  45. Rifkin, J. (2011). The third industrial revolution. How lateral power is transforming energy, the economy, and the world. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  46. Salam, R. (2010, March 11). The dropout economy. Time Magazin Special. Retrieved from,28804,1971133_1971110_1971126,00.html#ixzz1kBWJK4vq
  47. Schwarz, T. (2013). Island: Die Crowdsourcing-Verfassung ist gescheitert. Netzpiloten. Retrieved from
  48. Send, H., & Schildhauer, T. (2014). Online Mitmachen und Entscheiden. Partizipationsstudie 2014. Retrieved from
  49. Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody. The power of organizing without organizations. New York, NY: Penguin.Google Scholar
  50. Shirky, C. (2010). Cognitive surplus, how technology makes consumers into collaborators. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  51. Shirky, C. (2011, January/February). The political power of social media. Communications technology will help promote freedom—But it might take a while. Foreign Affairs, 90(1), 28–41.Google Scholar
  52. Sifry, M. L. (2004). The rise of open-source politics. Retrieved from
  53. The Guardian. (2011). Mob rule: Iceland crowdsources its next constitution. Retrieved from
  54. The Guardian. (2014). 3D printing could offer developing countries savings on replica lab kit. Retrieved from
  55. Varoufakis, Y. (2014). Can the internet democratise capitalism? Retrieved from
  56. Virno, P. (2008). Grammatik der Multitude. Vienna: Turia & Kant.Google Scholar
  57. Wallerstein, A. (2013). Structural crisis. Or why capitalists may no longer find capitalism rewarding. In A. Wallerstein et al. (Eds.), Does capitalism have a future? (pp. 9–35). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Alexander von Humboldt Institut für Internet und GesellschaftBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations