Do Technocrats Put Democracy at Risk?
Akhlaque Haque, Ph.D.
Geospatial Solutions, October 2001
The benefits of GIS in local government as obvious -- it has provided greater efficiency in policy implementation through faster access to data, as well as a more efficient platform for disseminating information. It's no surprise then that -- less than 10 years since desktop GIS came on the scene -- more than 80.000 local government agencies are using some form of GIS technology.
Though its success has been impressive in the short run, over the long term, public administrators must be mindful of the broader implications of GIS to ensure that the technology is compatible with the rubric of democratic values. Because of GIS's power of information dissemination, policy makers are now relying heavily on GIS technical experts to interpret maps and make political decisions about everything from redistricting and reapportionment to transportation.
The problem is that, although these technical experts, who I refer to as technocrats, may know how to input and analyze data using GIS, they may not necessarily know how to read the data or may not have a deep understanding of what the resulting analysis means in terms of public policy implications. Therefore, relying too heavily on these individuals to make political decisions could threaten democratic decision-making and lead to policy decisions that miss the mark.
In addition, GIS users -- when expected to supply data and analysis to decision makers -- may be forced to use data that are unreliable or not directly applicable to a given study. Even with good data and the best of intentions, a community's vital interest can be ignored.
What's the solution?
Those who deal with GIS must not only be thoroughly trained in cartography, but also critically aware that their role has great impact in broader policy decisions that concern citizens. If technocrats are being asked to participate in making policy decisions, they must also be trained in those areas through professional workshops and public-administration learning programs. More importantly, there must be a greater awareness of how GIS use is linked to democratic decision-making, and technocrats should be limited in the decisions they're allowed to make to minimize the risks associated with the exercise of their powers.
In addition to professionalization of technocrats, data dissemination is a critical issue for keeping GIS tuned to democratic values. About 90 percent of the data for GIS are produced and house in local government agencies. Yet, a single local government agency with GIS capability doesn't often find itself armed with information to understand a problem. Clearly, this is because other data relevant to making a sound judgment about the issue are owned by another local agency. Therefore, to make good use of GIS, data must be disseminated freely—at least on the regional level.
Data is power—share the wealth
Regionalization of data has gained a lot of popularity in recent years. Notably, the Regional Geographic Information System project in Kent County, Michigan, has linked more than 20 cities, townships and government organizations to achieve one of the largest, most comprehensive enterprise GIS implementations ever undertaken. With large numbers of local governments going online, this can become a standard arrangement for local governments with the help of an umbrella agency.
Furthermore, governments should disseminate whatever data they can to avoid concentrating knowledge in the hands of a few. The fear of data winding up in he wrong hands and possibly violating the U.S. Privacy Act—which enables individuals to prevent records collected for one purpose without their consent—is understandable. However, concern about concentrating data control in just a few agencies is also justified. Local governments with tight budgets, who have already invested considerable resources into a GIS, might see selling data to private companies as a good revenue source to support their GIS department.
Local agencies with more data will have more power and more revenue-generating capacity. This might be a primary reason why many local governments are reluctant to share their data. Rather than selling it piecemeal to big companies, local governments must find innovated ways to share the data among themselves.
Democracy—cause or effect?
Certainly the proliferation of GIS shouldn't be curtailed in public service settings. Indeed, the information is a vital government resource, and the use of GIS to date doesn't contradict that thesis. But how we choose to apply this technology is an all-important consideration. In a fundamental way, this will help determine the relationship between those who control technology and those who engage in governance. Ultimately, it will determine whether democratic values are the cause or the effect of that relationship.
This editorial appeared in the October 2001 issue of Geospatial Solutions magazine.
