Advertisement

The Single Point of Failure

  • Beth Simone NoveckEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Information Technology and Law Series book series (ITLS, volume 20)

Abstract

The patent system is just one example of how government institutions create single points of failure by concentrating decision-making power in the hands of the few, whether legislators in Congress, cabinet officials in the executive branch, or bureaucrats in agencies. Administrative practices are constructed around the belief that government professionals know best how to translate broad legislative mandates into specific regulatory decisions in the public interest. Governance, the theory goes, is best entrusted to a bureaucracy operating at one removed from the pressure of electoral politics and the biased influence of the public at large 

Keywords

Government Institution Direct Democracy Deliberative Democracy Bush Administration Participatory Democracy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Abbreviation

USPTO

United States Patent and Trademark Office

References

  1. Ackerman BA, Fishkin J (2004) Deliberation day. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson H (2008a) Intellectual property and free expression. Lecture, Stanford University, 27 May 2008 (notes on file with author)Google Scholar
  3. Anderson N (2008b) Big content gloats as Bush signs Pro-IP Act. Ars Technica, 14 October 2008. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081014-bush-signs-pro-ip-act-big-content-gloats.html
  4. Ashcroft J (2001) The Freedom of Information Act. Memorandum for all heads of departments and agencies. 12 October 2001Google Scholar
  5. Baker M, Mozilla Foundation chairman of the board (2008) Summer 2008 Goals. 14 May 2008. http://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2008/05/14/
  6. Balkin JM (2004) Digital speech and democratic culture: a theory of freedom of expression for the information society. N Y Univ Law Rev 79:1–58Google Scholar
  7. Bangeman E (2007) RIAA versus grandma, Part II: the showdown that wasn’t. 16 December 2007. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/12/riaa-versus-grandma-part-ii-the-showdown-that-wasnt.ars
  8. Barber BR (1984) Strong democracy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  9. Bohman J (1996) Public deliberation: pluralism, complexity, and democracy. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  10. Borland J (2003) RIAA settles with 12-year-old girl. 9 September 2003. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1027-5073717.html
  11. Chadwick A (2006) Internet politics: states, citizens, and new communications technologies. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Collins ED (1901) Committees of correspondence of the American revolution. Annual report of the American Historical Association, pp 245–271Google Scholar
  13. Cowell FR (1975) The Athenaeum: club and social life in London. Heinemann, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Cronin TH (2006) Direct democracy: the politics of initiative, referendum, and recall. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  15. Czapanskiy K, Manjoo R (2008) The right of public participation in the law-making process and the role of the legislature in the promotion of this right. Univ Md School of Law Leg Stud 42:31Google Scholar
  16. Fishkin JS (1991) Debating democracy and deliberation: new directions for democratic reform. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  17. Fountain H (2008) A cloth to cut the mercury risk from lightbulbs. New York Times, 8 July 2008Google Scholar
  18. Gerth HH, Wright Mills C (eds) (1991) From Max Weber: essays in sociology. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Guimary D (1975) Citizens groups and broadcasting. Praeger, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Gup T (2007) Nation of secrets: the threat to democracy and the American way of life. Doubleday, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Kiel P (2007) Bush admin: what you don’t know can’t hurt us, 2007 Version. 23 November 2007. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/004766.php
  22. Kosslyn SM (2006) On the evolution of human motivation: the role of social prosthetic systems. In: Platek SM et al (eds) Evolutionary cognitive neuroscience. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  23. Krauthammer C (1992) Ross Perot and the call in Presidency. Time, 13 July 1992Google Scholar
  24. Lunder S, Houlihan J (2008) EPA Axes Panel Chair at request of chemical industry lobbyists. March 2008. http://www.ewg.org/reports/decaconflict
  25. Macintosh A, Coleman S (2003) Promise and problems of E-democracy: challenges of online citizen engagement. OECDGoogle Scholar
  26. Meiklejohn A (1960) Political freedom: the constitutional powers of the people. Harper, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Meskell D (2007) New opportunities for involving citizens in the democratic process. USA Services Intergovernmental Newsletter 20:1–3. http://www.usaservices.gov/events_news/documents/USAServicesNewsletterFall-07.pdf Google Scholar
  28. Miller E (2008) You can markup the bills on the mortgage industry bail out. 22 September 2008. http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2008/09/22/
  29. Mooney C (2005) The Republican war on science. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. More People See Federal Government as Secretive; Nearly All Want to Know Where Candidates Stand on Transparency (2008) Sunshine Week, 15 March 2008. http://www.sunshineweek.org/sunshineweek/secrecypoll08, Accessed October 2008
  31. Mutz DC (2006) Hearing the other side: deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Newport F (2008) Bush’s 69% job disapproval rating highest in Gallup history. 22 April 2008. http://www.gallup.com/poll/106741/bushs-69-job-disapproval-rating-highest-gallup-history.aspx
  33. Noveck BS (2005) A democracy of groups. First Monday, December 2005. http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1289/1209
  34. Noveck BS (2009) Wiki government: how technology can make government better, democracy stronger and citizens more powerful. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  35. Nye J (2008) Picking a President. Democracy J Issue 10 Fall 2008:19–28Google Scholar
  36. Oram A (2007) In search of microelites: how to get user-generated content. 14 November 2007. http://radar.oreilly.com/2007/11/in-search-of-microelites-how-t.html
  37. Page SE (2007) The difference: how the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools and societies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  38. Ruhl JB, Salzman J (2006) In defense of regulatory peer review. Wash Univ Law Rev 84:1–61Google Scholar
  39. Sapien J (2008) Industry-packed Federal Advisory Board told DOE to double U.S. coal consumption. 19 May 2008. http://www.propublica.org/article/industry-packed-federal-advisory-board-told-doe-to-double-us-coal-consumpti
  40. Schudson M (1998) The good citizen: a history of American civil life. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Sclove RE (1996) Democracy and technology. Guilford, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Shane PM (ed) (2004) Democracy online: the prospects for political renewal through the Internet. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Skocpol T, Fiorina MP (eds) (1999) Civic engagement in American democracy. Brookings, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  44. Sorkin M (2003) Starting from zero: reconstructing downtown New York. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Sunstein C (2003) Why societies need dissent. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  46. Terkel A (2008) Bush administration hides more data, shuts down Website tracking U.S. economic indicators. 13 February 2008. http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/13/economic-indicators
  47. Tetlock PE (2005) Expert political judgment: how good is it? How can we know? Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  48. Union of Concerned Scientists (2005) Restoring scientific integrity in policy making: scientists sign-on statement. 8 February 2005. http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/scientists-sign-on-statement.html
  49. Union of Concerned Scientists (2008) Interference at EPA: science and politics at the U.S. environmental protection agency. 23 April 2008. http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/interference-at-the-epa.html
  50. Volokh E (2001) How might cyberspace change American politics. Loyola Los Angel Law Rev 34:1213–1220Google Scholar
  51. Wald M (2007) A U.S. alliance to update the lightbulb. New York Times, 14 March 2007Google Scholar
  52. Wooley AW et al (2007) Using brain-based measures to compose teams: how individual capabilities and team collaboration strategies jointly shape performance. Soc Neurosci 2:96–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wyatt E, Bagli CV (2002) Visions of ground zero: the public; officials rethink building proposal for ground zero. New York Times, 21 July 2002Google Scholar
  54. Zinn H (2007) A power governments cannot suppress. City Lights, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the authors 2011 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Information Law and Policy, New York Law SchoolNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations