Government as Technology

Photo caption: The National Congress of Brazil — Brasília kind of looks like a circuit board

Writing about the iPad got me thinking (again) about why I care so much about technology. I’ll write another post about that, but I want to explore a tangential idea first: the idea that any form of government is a form of technology.

I started thinking about this after reading Anil Dash’s post wondering why we’re so much more interested in the iPad announcement than the State of the Union. I confessed to Michael that, while I share Anil’s concern, I was actually much more interested in the iPad than the State of the Union; the iPhone has made a noticeable impact on my daily life and I imagine an iPad could as well. The actual effects of the State of the Union are harder to pinpoint (which is not to say that the government doesn’t have an impact on my life).

Then Slate posted an article inspired by the iPad v. State of the Union debate asking “Which is more important: politics or technology?” with a dizzying list of examples of how technology is creating new markets, empowering jihadists, and otherwise enhancing or undermining the role of governments around the world. It’s really good.

But why politics or technology? Technology, broadly defined by Wikipedia “can…encompass broader themes, including systems, methods of organization, and techniques.”

Using this definition, any system of government is simply an application of technology.

Indeed, a legislative body is akin to an algorithm that receives inputs (votes, analysis from technocrats, etc) and produces outputs in the form of legislation. I’ve been having fun thinking of DC as an immensely buggy piece of software.

If you’re worried about how technology is impacting the government (I’m referring generically to the various levels of government in the United States), there might be some value in thinking of our government for what it is: a remarkable innovation that has effectively governed millions of people for over 230 years. It’s accomplished this by empowering its citizens (or at least making them feel empowered), informing them, defending them (or at least making them feel safe), building infrastructure, etc, etc, etc.

Now, look at how new innovations are doing these things better than the government (note that I’m not saying how “technology” is doing these things better).

I don’t believe that many governments will be able to innovate as rapidly as the private sector, and they will continue to become irrelevant in the face of more compelling technologies. This isn’t a bad thing per se, but it could make us more dependent on non-democratic organizations that have no incentive to serve the people who can’t afford their services. That would be a terrible thing.

Arnold Kling wrote a piece called Why the U.S. is Ungovernable in which he argues for a greater distribution of power among state and local governments to stoke more government innovation. He frames the problem:

The theory is that there is a discrepancy between trends in knowledge and power. Power in the United States is remarkably concentrated. We are creating increasingly specialized knowledge, which means that the information needed to make good decisions is located outside of Washington, D.C. And yet we have a central government attempting to do for 300 million people what governments in places like Singapore, Hong Kong, Denmark, and Switzerland do for many fewer people.

Kling’s argument makes sense to me. One of the major takeaways (for me) of all the “Government 2.0″ events and chatter of 2009 was that smaller governments can benefit the most from applying new citizen-facing technologies. I’m looking forward to the fruits of city-centric initiatives like Code for America and CityCamp.

Oh, and I’m trying to figure out how to make San Diego more innovative. Let me know if you have any ideas.