Algorithmic governance: A modes of governance approach

Abstract

This article examines how modes of governance are reconfigured as a result of using algorithms in the governance process. We argue that deploying algorithmic systems creates a shift toward a special form of design‐based governance, with power exercised ex ante via choice architectures defined through protocols, requiring lower levels of commitment from governing actors. We use governance of three policy problems – speeding, disinformation, and social sharing – to illustrate what happens when algorithms are deployed to enable coordination in modes of hierarchical governance, self‐governance, and co‐governance. Our analysis shows that algorithms increase efficiency while decreasing the space for governing actors' discretion. Furthermore, we compare the effects of algorithms in each of these cases and explore sources of convergence and divergence between the governance modes. We suggest design‐based governance modes that rely on algorithmic systems might be re‐conceptualized as algorithmic governance to account for the prevalence of algorithms and the significance of their effects.

Federated Digital Platforms: Value Chain Integration for Sustainable Infrastructure Planning and Delivery

“…Agility is a form of adhocracy and emphasizes flows and iterations. Resilience promotes self-organization and robustness through rapid adaptation, while antifragility suggests that improvement occurs even in the face of shocks [47,72]. Such project and work flexibility are required to manage digital technologies that are themselves disruptive.…”

Sustainable Infrastructure 4.0 - Value Chain Integration through Federated Digital Platforms

“…Agility is a form of adhocracy and emphasizes flows and iterations. Resilience promotes selforganization and robustness through rapid adaptation, while antifragility suggests that improvement occurs even in the face of shocks [15,37]. Such project and work flexibility are required to manage digital technologies that are themselves disruptive.…”

Conceptualizing contemporary markets: Introduction to the special issue

“…Second, conceptual paucity limits our capacity to contribute to current debates about the regulation of frontier data-driven markets (Campbell-Verduyn et al., 2017; Gritsenko and Wood, 2020). Technological changes affect the nature of the objects of market exchange, as flows of information and data increasingly evolve from an infrastructural role in facilitating and undergirding market processes, into commodities in their own right, the value of which is largely determined by the algorithmic affordances possible to market actors.…”