1

Digital Era Government and Politics

Academic Year 2013-14, Hilary term

Day and Time: TBC

Location: Seminar Room, OII, 1 St Giles

Course Providers

Dr Victoria Nash, Oxford Internet Institute, victoria.nash@oii.ox.ac.uk

Dr Jonathan Bright, Oxford Internet Institute, jonathan.bright@oii.ox.ac.uk

Background

In the digital era, political institutions, activities and relationships are increasingly mediated and shaped by the technologies of information and communication. This paper examines the impact of the Internet and related technologies on the core activities and institutions of government and politics and considers whether the developing use of these technologies serves to reinforce, undermine or otherwise alter traditional political models or patterns of behaviour.

Commentators have disagreed about the effect and importance of the internet and related technologies for politics and government. Utopian accounts predict the transformation of political life through Internet-based mediation, with ‘peer production’ and on-line networks enhancing political participation and technological innovation driving policy innovation. In contrast, dystopian arguments emphasise the risks and dangers of technologically strengthened government and the ‘database state’. A number of ‘politics-as-usual’ accounts underplay the likelihood of technology-driven change and the importance of the internet for politics and political theory, stressing that technologies reinforce existing relationships and inequalities. Meanwhile, mainstream political science has tended to ignore the phenomenon, appearing to view technological development as policy neutral with no profound implications for contemporary government and politics; many interesting questions remain consequently under-explored, for example, regarding the changing viability of pluralist, elitist, market liberal and cosmopolitan models of democracy. This course aims to equip students with the theoretical tools and empirical evidence necessary to identify, evaluate and critique these various positions and debates. It will enable students to investigate the implications of the Internet and related technologies for political participation and government, reviewing available evidence and new methodological approaches to the study of politics in the digital-era. Students will be asked to question and in some cases re-assess traditional approaches to the study of government and democracy in the light of such evidence. The course thereby provides students with the toolkit of concepts, theories, methods and principles to carry out ‘e-literate’ analysis of politics and policy and to conduct further postgraduate research in this field.

Course Objectives

By the end of the course, students should have an in-depth understanding of the changing nature of digital-era governance and politics and the theoretical, practical and ethical questions surrounding the role of the Internet and related technologies in political life. Specifically, students will:

2

Be able to understand and critically review theoretical approaches to digital-era governance and politics and be aware of the key arguments and debates surrounding its implications for political participation, policy-making and the shape of the contemporary state.

Have a sophisticated understanding of the potential for the Internet and other ICTs to shape political relationships, activities and outcomes.

Be aware of the empirical evidence available to assess the role of the internet and related technologies in politics and policy-making and to use it to question key micro-foundations of mainstream theoretical approaches.

Be familiar with the methodological tools necessary to research digital-era governance and politics nationally and internationally, and be in a position to embark on further research in this field.

This paper does not assume prior knowledge or study of politics and government. Students will thus be introduced to core concepts, theories and texts and will be expected to develop a significant degree of political fluency. In addition, students will be required to read emerging approaches to digital-era governance and politics and will be expected to critically assess this literature in the light of available empirical evidence. Reading lists and teaching will be organized in such a way that students are exposed to traditional texts and new and emerging studies in relation to each topic.

The course is international in scope. Due to the focus on democratic institutions and politics, the main countries covered in readings and discussions will be liberal democratic states; however, students are welcome to bring in examples from other states where appropriate. The last session (week 8) will have a particular focus on authoritarian states, and how they compare to changes in democratic systems.

Teaching Arrangements

The course is taught in eight weekly classes, each consisting of a lecture followed by student presentations and seminar discussion. Each student will be required to give one ten minute presentation on a specific aspect of the session topic or to review the argument of one or more of the books under the additional readings for each session topic. Details of these presentations will be agreed in Week 1.

From Week 2 onwards, core reading is indicated for each session of the course. In addition, we have listed some introductory or classic texts for each of the topics covered. We ask students who have not previously studied politics at postgraduate level to read at least one of these texts each week.

Assessment

Students will be assessed through a final essay that is no longer than 5000 words which must be submitted to the Examinations School by 12 noon of Monday of Week 1 of Trinity term.

Formative Assessment

All students will have to complete one short essay on any of the 8 topics covered (advised length: 1500-3000 words) for the purposes of formative assessment. This essay must be submitted by the end of Week 6 (Friday by 5pm). This essay will provide a means for students to obtain feedback on their progress before they submit the final essay. Students will also be given feedback on their oral presentations.

3

Submission of Assignments

All coursework should be submitted in person to the Examinations School by the stated deadline. All coursework should be put in an envelope and must be addressed to ‘The Chairman of Examiners for the MSc in Social Science of the Internet C/o The Clerk of Examination Schools, High Street. Students should also ensure they add the OII coversheet at the top of the coursework and that two copies of the coursework are submitted. Please note that all work must be single sided. An electronic copy will also need to be submitted to the department. Please note that all coursework will be marked anonymously and therefore only your candidate number is required on the coversheet.

Please note that work submitted after the deadline will be processed in the standard manner and, in addition, the late submission will be reported to the Proctors' Office. If a student is concerned that they will not meet the deadline they must contact their college office or examinations school for advice. For further information on submission of assessments to the examinations school please refer to http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/schools/oxonly/submissions/index.shtml. For details on the regulations for late and non-submissions please refer to the Proctors website at http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/proctors/info/pam/section9.shtml.

Any student failing this assessment will need to follow the rules set out in the OII Examining Conventions regarding re-submitting failed work. Topics

1. Public goods, the nature of politics and democracy 2. Elections, political parties and campaigns 3. Legislative politics in the Internet era 4. Political communication, agenda setting and public opinion 5. Democratic engagement and civil society 6. Digital citizenship and political inequality 7. Digital-era government and bureaucracy 8. The changing nature of politics: the end of the nation state?

Key to Readings A reading list is given below for each class. Weekly items marked with an asterisk (*) are essential reading and MUST be read by all students in preparation for the class. Items which are not marked with an asterisk are additional readings which need only be consulted in the preparation of student presentations or for essays.

General Readings

Chadwick, Andrew

Internet Politics: States, Citizens and New Communication Technologies. 2006. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bimber, Bruce Information and American Democracy: Technology in the Evolution of Political Power. 2003. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hindman, Matthew The Myth of Digital Democracy. 2008. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

4

Chadwick, Andrew

Howard, Philip N.

Handbook of Internet Politics. 2008. London: Routledge.

Hood, Christopher C.

Margetts, Helen Z.

Tools of Government in the Digital Age. 2007. London: Palgrave.

1. The nature of politics and democracy in the digital era

Instructors: Vicki Nash and Jonathan Bright In this session we will introduce and discuss key concepts which will be used throughout the course. We will look at politics, public goods and democracy in particular, exploring democratic principles of popular control and political equality of that control, as well as alternative models of democracy (pluralism, elitism, market liberalism). Democratic institutions: the role of elections, legislatures, elected representatives, parties, bureaucracy and the media in a democracy. Finally, we will discuss the general dimensions of an internet ‘effect’, in terms of the way the appearance of new communications technology affects previously settled social practices. Question: How might we start to assess the influence of the Internet on the extent to which a state may be regarded as democratic? Introductory texts to political science and democracy

Core Reading

*Chadwick, Andrew Internet Politics (2006) Chapter 1

*Farrell, Henry “The Consequences of the Internet for Politics” (2012) Annual Review of Political Science 15:35-52

(http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-polisci-030810-

Beetham, David Defining and Measuring Democracy. 1994. ECPR Sage Modern Politics Series Volume 36. London: Sage.

Especially Chapter 2 by David Beetham

Dahl, Robert A. Democracy and its Critics. 1989. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Dryzek, John

Dunleavy, Patrick

Theories of the Democratic State. 2009. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Colomer, Joseph M. Political Science. 2010. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Goodin, R.E

Klingemann, H-D.

A New Handbook of Political Science, esp. chapter 1 (1996) (NB full text available online via the Bodleian)

5

110815)

*Schmitter, P. C.

Karl, T.L.

“What Democracy is…and Is Not.” 1991. Journal of Democracy, 2(3): 75-88.

2. Elections, political parties and campaigns

Instructor: Jonathan Bright Widespread use of the Internet has changed the context of traditional modes of political activity – voting and party politics. Against a backdrop of overall decline in voter turnout and party membership throughout Europe, some have argued that the Internet holds the potential for increasing voter participation by re-invigorating election campaigning on-line and reconfiguring party systems. Others argue that change occurs only at the margins (by reducing the entry costs for smaller parties, for instance) or acts to reinforce existing inequalities (only larger political parties can dedicate the resources necessary for successful on-line campaigning). Meanwhile, formal electoral processes remain in many ways untouched by the digital age, with internet voting still a rarity. This session assesses the evidence for and against the argument that the Internet reconfigures electoral politics and campaigning. Question: Can the Internet reverse the decline in voter turnout AND/OR party membership across liberal democracies? Introductory texts on the contemporary democratic crisis

Franklin, Mark N. ‘The Parlous State of Democracy in Europe: A Comment’, http://www.eui.eu/Personal/Franklin/Democracy%20in%20Europe.pdf

Katz, Richard

Mair, Peter

Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Democracy The Emergence of the Cartel Party. 1995. Party Politics, 1(1), 5-28

Mair, Peter "Party Membership in Twenty European Democracies, 1980-2000.” 2001. Party Politics, 7(1): Pages 5-21.

Mair, Peter “Ruling the Void”. 2006. New Left Review 42. http://newleftreview.org/II/42/peter-mair-ruling-the-void

Bellamy, Richards “Democracy without democracy? Can the EU’s Democratic ‘Outputs’ be separated from Democratic ‘Inputs’?”. 2010. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(1), 2-19

Franklin, Mark N.

Voter Turnout and the Dynamics of Electoral Competition in Established Democracies Since 1945. 2004. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

6

Core Reading

*Alvarez, Michael

Trechsel, Alexander

“Internet Voting in Comparative Perspective: The Case of Estonia”, PS: Political Science and Politics”, 42(3), 497-505

*Wagner, Markus

Ruusuvirta, Outi

Matching voters to parties: Voting advice applications and models of party choice, 2012, Acta Politica, 47, 400-422

*Gibson, Rachel

Ward, Stephen

“Parties in the Digital Age: A Review Article.” 2009. Representation, 45(1): 87-100.

*Aral, Sinan Poked to vote. Nature. 2010. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7415/pdf/489212a.pdf

Nielsen, Rasmus “The Ground War Enters the Twenty-first Century”, Chapter 2 in Ground Wars. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Moynihan, Donald “Building Secure Elections: E-Voting, Security and Systems Theory”. 2004. Public Administration Review, 64(5), 515-528.

Bartlett, Jamie et al. New Political Actors in Europe: Beppe Grillo and the M5S. Demos Pamphlet. http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/26217/Beppe_Grillo_and_the_M5S_-_Demos_web_2013.pdf

Margetts, Helen Z. Cyber Parties, Chapter 45 in Katz, R. S. and Crotty, W. (Eds). 2006. Handbook of Party Politics. London: Sage.

3. Legislative politics in the Internet era

Instructor: Jonathan Bright

Many studies of the Internet’s impact on politics have focused on the potential of Internet-based mediation such as websites, blogs and e-mail to enhance the democratic relationship between members of the legislature and the citizens they represent. However representation is just one of several functions which legislatures traditionally fulfil, and it might be expected that ICTs could also have an impact on other core legislative roles and functions such as scrutiny or legitimation, or could even open legislatures up to new forms of democratic participation. This session will ask why (if at all) we might expect the use of the Internet and related technologies to alter or improve the nature of representation and legislative functioning and what evidence there is to suggest that any significant changes have as yet occurred. Question: ‘The Internet’s greatest impact on legislative function is not its potential to improve communication between representatives and citizens, but rather its capacity to render the activities of parliaments and parliamentarians more transparent.’ Discuss. Introductory texts on the role, functions and types of legislature

7

Kreppel, Amie Looking ‘Up’,‘Down’and ‘Sideways’: Understanding EU Institutions in Context, West European Politics 34 (1), 167-179

Loewenberg, Gerhard

Squire, Peverill

Kiewiet, Roderick D.

Legislatures: Comparative Perspectives on Representative Assemblies. 2002. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.

Pitkin, Hanna “Representation and Democracy: Uneasy Alliance”, 2004, Scandinavian Political Studies, 27(3), 335-342

Strom, Kaare Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies, 2000, European Journal of Political Research, 37(3), 261-289

Tsebelis, G. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. 2011. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Core reading

*Leston-Bandeira, Cristina The Impact of the Internet on Parliaments, 2007, Parliamentary Affairs, 60(4), 655-674

*Jackson, Nigel and Lilleker, Darren

Microblogging, Constituency Service and Impression Management: UK MPs and the Use of Twitter, 2011, Journal of Legislative Studies, 17(1), 86-105

*Papadopoulos, Yannis

Warin, Philippe

Are innovative, participatory and deliberative procedures in policy making democratic and effective?, 2007, European Journal of Political Research, 46(4), 445-472

Griffith, Jeffrey

Leston-Bandeira, Cristina

How Are Parliaments Using New Media to Engage with Citizens?, 2012, Journal of Legislative Studies, 18(3-4), 496-513

Hale, Scott

Margetts, Helen

Yasseri, Taha

Petition Growth and Success Rates on the UK No. 10 Downing Street Website, WebSci '13 Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM Web Science Conference, p.132-138

Karatzia, Anastasi The European Citizens Initiative: Giving Voice to EU Citizens. http://kslr.org.uk/blogs/europeanlaw/2013/05/15/the-european-citizens-initiative-giving-voice-to-eu-citizens/#_ftn18

Ostling, Alina Parliamentary Informatics Projects: Who are their users and what is their impact?, JeDEM 2012, 4(2), 279-300

4. Political communication, agenda setting and public opinion

Instructor: Jonathan Bright

8

The way we receive political information has long been a vital part of the process of democracy. Communication from the news media, from friends or colleagues, or from politicians themselves, helps shape what we think are the important political issues of the day (“agenda setting”), and how we think about them. The rise of the internet has had a variety of effects on this process. The business model of traditional media actors, especially print newspapers, is under increasing threat, with print sales declining rapidly and revenue from online advertising not filling the gap. At the same time, a variety of ‘new media’ actors are also emerging, under various rubrics: bloggers, citizen journalists, news aggregators, etc. But the consequences of these changes for democracy are still playing themselves out. Question: Does the internet make political communication more open and democratic? Introductory texts on political communication, agenda setting, and the crisis of the news media

Gitlin, Todd The whole world is watching. 1980. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Iyengar, Shanto

Kinder, Donald

News that Matters. 2010. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Scheufele, Dietram

Tewksbury, David

Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models. 2006. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9-20

McCombs, Maxwell E. Setting the Agenda: The Mass Media and Public Opinion. 2004. London: Polity.

Shaw, Donald L.

McCombs, Maxwell

The emergence of American political issues. 1977. St Paul, MN: West.

Core reading

*Deuze, Mark The Changing Context of News Work: Liquid Journalism and Monitorial Citizenship, 2006, International Journal of Communication, 2, 848-865

*Prior, Markus “Introduction”, Chapter 1 in Post broadcast democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

*Hindman “Political Traffic and the Politics of Search”. Chapter 4 in The Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton University Press.

Mitchelstein, Eugenia

Bozcowski, Pablo

“Between tradition and change: A review of recent research on online news production”, 2009, Journalism, 10(5), 562-586.

Blank, Grant

Dutton, William

Newman, Nick

“Social Media and the Changing Ecology of News”, International Journal of Internet Science, 2012, 7 (1), 6–22

9

Bimber, Bruce Information and American Democracy. 2003. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Introna, Lucas

Nissenbaum, Helen

‘Shaping the Web: Why the politics of search engines matters’, Information Society, 16(3), 169-185.

Roberts, Marilyn

Wanta, Wayne

Dzwo, Tzong-Horng

"Agenda setting and issue salience online." 2002. Communication Research 29:452-465.

5. Digital citizenship and political inequality

The expression of social differences as forms of political inequality have long been studied in political science. With the advent of digital era government, the question arises whether traditional sources of inequality are reproduced in digital form, or whether new patterns of political inequality have emerged. This question can be addressed at a variety of levels, including longstanding debates about the persistence of digital divides and access to political debate or services, as well as more nuanced consideration of how the voices of different groups are received in online civic spaces, thus raising policy-relevant questions about how best to support equality in both formal and informal opportunities for political engagement. This session will consider both examples of the available empirical evidence as well as the potential policy implications of inequality in an era where government services and political debate are increasingly ‘digital by default’. Classic texts on citizenship, participation and (in)equality

S. Verba et al Participation and Political Equality (1978)

R.J. Dalton Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Democracies, chapter 4 (2008 edition)

Burns, K. L

Schlozman, S. Verba

The Private Roots of Public Action (2001)

Core reading

*Mossberger, Karen

Tolbert, Caroline J.

McNeal, Ramona S.

Digital Citizenship: The Internet, Society, and Participation

*Gennaro, C. Di

Dutton, William

The Internet and the Public: Online and Offline Political Participation in the United Kingdom (2006) Parliamentary Affairs

*Levmore, Saul The Offensive Internet: Speech, Privacy and Reputation. 2012. Chapters by

10

Nussbaum, Martha C. Nussbaum and Citron.

Schuster, Julia Invisible feminists? Social media and young women’s political participation. 2013. Political Science 65 (1): 8-24

Norris, Pippa Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty and the Internet Worldwide (2001)

Fallon, Freddy

Williamson, Andy

Pack, Mark

Gender and Digital Politics (2011). Hansard Society

http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/blogs/edemocracy/archive/2011/07/07/digital-paper-gender-and-digital-politics.aspx

Morris, David S.

Morris, Jonathan S.

Digital Inequality and Participation in the Political Process: Real or Imagined?

Social Science Computer Review (June 2013 online only, print publication forthcoming)

6. Democratic engagement and civil society

Instructor: Vicki Nash Early theorists of democracy such as Mill and de Tocqueville recognised that healthy democratic political institutions depended upon the existence of a vigorous civil society in which the habits of participation might be developed and the dangers of political and social dogmas challenged. Modern democratic theory has continued to embrace this idea, and many proponents of the Internet have claimed that the new communication tools and networks it supports have the potential to invigorate civil society, with a particularly rich vein of literature emerging on this topic from social movement theory. Other theorists have countered such optimism with fears that the Internet may simply entrench existing social and political inequalities or even lead to a narrowing of personal interests and connections. This session will consider the theoretical underpinnings of both hypotheses and will ask what empirical evidence might be required to support or reject either view. Question: What reason, if any, do we have to believe that the Internet might strengthen civil society? Classic texts on the relationship between democracy and civil society

De Tocqueville, Alexis

Democracy in America (volumes 1 & 2). 2000. New York: Bantam Books. (Original work published 1835/1840)

Dahl, Robert A. Democracy and its Critics. 1989. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. 2000. New York: Simon & Schuster.

11

Core reading

*Sunstein, Cass R. Republic.com 2.0. 2007. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Chapter 1

*Neuman,W.R.

Bimber, B.

Hindman, M.

“The Internet and Four Dimensions of Citizenship” in Jacobs, L.R., & Shapiro R.Y. (2011) The Oxford Handbook of American Public Opinion and the Media.

*Boulianne, S. “Does Internet Use Affect Engagement? A Meta-Analysis of Research”. 2009. Political Communication, 26(2) p. 193-211.

Benkler, Yochai The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production transforms Markets and Freedom. 2007. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Chapters 6 & 7

Coleman, Stephen

Blumler, Jay. G

The Internet and Democratic Citizenship. 2009. Cambridge: CUP.

Chapters 5, 6 & 7

Bennett, W. Lance Couldry, N. and Curran, J. (Eds). Media Power: Alternative Media in a Networked World.

Chapter 2

Bimber, Bruce Information and American Democracy: Technology in the Evolution of Political Power. 2003. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chapters 5 & 6

Castells, Manuel The Internet Galaxy. 2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chapter 5

Chadwick, Andrew Internet Politics: States, Citizens and New Communication Technologies. 2006. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dahlgren, Peter Media and Political Engagement: Citizens, Communication & Democracy. 2009. Cambridge: CUP

Hindman, Matthew The Myth of Digital Democracy. 2009. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Oates, Sarah

Owen, Diana

Gibson, Rachel K.

The Internet and Politics: Citizens, Voters and Activists. 2006. London: Routledge.

Smith, Aaron et al. The Internet and Civic Engagement. 2008. PEW Internet and American Life Project. Washington D.C.: PEW Research Centre.

12

Van de Donk, Wim et al. Cyberprotest: New Media, citizens and social movements. 2004. London: Routledge.

7. Digital-era government and bureaucracy

Instructor: Helen Margetts Digital technologies have been seen by many to be the key to modernization of government, for example through a strengthening of Weberian rationality. Aproaches to the relationship between government and information technology rest on two key dimensions: the extent to which technology is likely to bring radical modernization and the extent to which the effects of that change are positive (as claimed by hyper-modernists) or negative (as prophesied by anti-modernists). Some claim the potential benefits of ‘digital era governance’ is replacing ‘new public management’ as a new paradigm for public administration, fuelled by new ‘Web 2.0’ applications, and the advent of more ‘open-book’ government. This session will explore the key approaches to digital era change in government and the implicit approach of mainstream public administration and public policy to the use of information technology – that information technology is policy neutral with little importance for the fundamentals of policy and administration. Question: Can digital technologies in government ‘out-Weber Weber’? Introductory texts on government and bureaucracy

Gerth, Hans H.

Mills, Charles W.

From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. 1948. London: Routledge. London.

Runciman, Walter G.

Max Weber: Selections in Translation. 1978. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pollitt, Christopher

Bouckaert, Geert

Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. 2004. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Core reading

*Dunleavy, Patrick

Margetts, Helen Z.

Tinkler, Jane

Bastow, Simon

“New Public Management is Dead – Long Live Digital-Era Governance.” 2005. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3): 467-494.

*Margetts, Helen Z. “Electronic Government: Method or Madness?” 2003. Inaugural Lecture, UCL. Published as School of Public Policy Working Paper no. 3.

Available at www.ucl.ac.uk.spp/

*Chadwick, Andrew Internet Politics: States, Citizens, and New Communication Technologies. 2006. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

13

Chapter 11

Derthick, Martha Agency Under Stress: The Social Security Administration in American Government. 1990. Washington: Brookings Institution.

Ferlie, Ewan

Lynn, Lawrence E.

Pollitt, Christopher

The Oxford Handbook of Public Management. 2005. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Frissen, Paul Politics, Governance and Technology: A Postmodern Narrative on the Virtual State. 1999. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Hood, Christopher C.

Margetts, Helen Z.

The Tools of Government in the Digital Age. 2007. London: Macmillan.

Kolb, David The Critique of Pure Modernity: Hegel, Heidegger and After. 1991. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Margetts, Helen Z. Information Technology in Government: Britain and America. 1999. London: Routledge.

Margetts, Helen Z.

Adler, M. (Ed). Administrative Justice in Context. 2010. Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.

Chapter 3: Developments in E-government

Dunleavy, Patrick

Margetts, Helen Z.

Digital-era Governance: IT Corporations, the State and e-Government. 2006. Oxford: Oxford University Press (revised paperback edition 2008).

8. The changing nature of politics: the end of the nation state? Instructors: Vicki Nash and Jonathan Bright From the early days of the Internet, commentators speculated on its contribution to the phenomenon of globalization, forecasting ‘the death of distance’, the increasing irrelevance of space and place, the incapability of governments to control the flow of information and capital across national boundaries and the evolution of a global information society or ‘regime’. Hyper-modernists have predicted the end of hierarchy and the nation state, through the simultaneous trends of global networks and ‘cyberculture’ and new forms of virtual local community and pluralist politics. In contrast, anti-modernists see information systems and databases leading almost inexorably to the ‘control’ or ‘surveillance’ state and have predicted the rise of a technologically strengthened bureaucracy with greater capacity to control citizens. In practice, the recent spread of global social unrest and the role of international social movements in its diffusion has highlighted the tensions between both accounts, as governments employ legal and technical means of restricting online debate, organization and action. This session therefore asks whether and how the nation state is changing in the digital era. Question: ‘Claims that the Internet and digital technologies would lead to the end of the nation state were fatally flawed; rather, such technologies have allowed national governments to strengthen power and control over their jurisdictions.’ Discuss.

14

Introductory texts on globalization

Held, D. Global Transformation: Politics, Economics and Culture. 1999. Polity. Cambridge.

Keohane and Nye, (1989) Power and Interdependence: World politics in transition, 2nd

edition. Scott, Foresman. London.

Core reading

*Everard, J. Virtual States: The Internet and the Boundaries of the Nation-State. 2000. London: Routledge.

*Deibert, R. ‘The geopolitics of internet control’, in Chadwick and Howard (eds.). Handbook of Internet Politics. 2009. London: Routledge.

*Castells, M. Communication Power. 2009. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chapter 1

*Grewal, D. S. Network Power. The Social Dynamics of Globlalization. 2008. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Chapter 7

Rosenau, J.

Singh, J.P

Information Technologies and Global Politics: the Changing Scope of Power and Governance. 2002. New York University Press.

Beniger, J. The Control Revolution: Technological and Economic Origins of the Information Society. Harvard University Press.

Brenner, Susan W. Cyberthreats: The Emerging Fault Lines of the Nation State. 2009. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Burnham, D. The Rise of the Computer State. 1983. London: Weidenfield and Nicolson.

Deibert, R.

Palfrey, J.

Rohozinski, R.

Zittrain, J

Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering. 2008. MIT Press.

Halpin, E. et al (eds. 2006)

Cyberwar, Netwar and the Revolution in Military Affairs (Palgrave Macmillan).

Lyon, D (ed.) Surveillance as Social Sorting: Privacy, Risk and Automated Discrimination. 2003. Routledge.

Morozov, E. The Net Delusion: How Not to Liberate the World. 2011. Penguin.

15

Mueller, M. L. Networks and States. 2010. MIT Press.