NPSC Blog

In April last year, I published a post on what I considered to be the 5 principles for Govt 2.0, one of which was open source government. This week, some academics form Princeton University have published a paper, still in draft, with the wonderful – if only slightly melodramatic – title, Government Data and the Invisible Hand, that considers this very issue.

To recap, the concept of open sourcing government is essentially about allowing third parties (citizens, companies, non-profits, etc.,) direct access via APIs to government data, so:

that individuals, communities and businesses are able to interact with government web applications in ways that are useful to them.
5 principles for Govt 2.0

The UK Cabinet Office released a report in June last year that looked at what this would mean for their public management system. The economic impact alone, as the report makes clear, had the potential to make a significant contribution:

2006 figures from the Office of Fair Trading that estimate that improved availability of information to re-users could double the direct market value of public sector information to £1.1 billion per year.
The value of government information

The Princeton paper authors, however, seem to be going some way further, calling for the US federal government to reduce the role it plays in presenting online information to citizens. The authors argue that the key role for federal agencies should be opening up their data, rather than building websites that provide a platform (and by inference, not a particularly good one) and a filter for people to access the information.

Their premise is an attractive one. That government

should focus on creating a simple, reliable and publicly accessible infrastructure that “exposes” the underlying data. [... The Government should] require that federal websites themselves use the same open systems for accessing the underlying data as they make available to the public at large.
Government Data and the Invisible Hand, p1.

Effectively, this means that government agencies could focus their attention (and taxpayer dollars) on the quality and accessibility of the information, and not on the presentation level. It’s a compelling proposition, particularly when you consider the current state of the namespace (in any jurisdiction, really).

The authors argue that the market, in the form of these third parties developing applications that reuse the government data, will drive economies of innovation and accessibility that are beyond anything that government itself could hope to provide. They list some of these advanced features:

• advanced search
• RSS feeds
• links to information sources
• mashups with other data sources
• discussion forums and wikis
• data visualization
• automated content and topic analysis
• collaborative filtering and crowdsourcing analysis

It is worth pointing out that some of these advanced features are already part of the namespace here; albeit with mixed success. Advanced search, RSS feeds, and wikis are all essential elements of the .govt.nz space.

There are a couple of concerns that I have. The authors acknowledge that in some case there will be no private actor willing to step forward and create a compelling website based on the data. The notion that government makes all information accessible, irrespective of it’s apparent value, is a fundamental one. Abrogating that responsibility to third parties seems fraught with potential to disadvantage some sections of the community. Mike W leaves a comprehensive comment to this effect on Ed Felten’s blog (one of the authors of the paper).

As an aside, ensuring that people can access a government data set via a visualization (like EveryBlock, for example) using a screenreader can be done, but it is hard work…

More of a concern, however, is the notion that we can either continue to try to build usable websites or simply outsource innovation in the namespace. I don’t see, as the authors apparently do, that the two are mutually exclusive. Indeed, there is an argument that government should retain and build more capability for innovation, rather than adopt practices that would encourage this sort of activity to atrophy.

Those concerns aside, however, what the authors of the paper are proposing is both an effective and efficient approach to transformed government. We should be seriously considering the same here in New Zealand.

Photo: kool_skatcat