Decentralized Information Platforms in Public Governance: Reconstruction of the Modern Democracy or Comfort Blinding?

Figures & data

Figure 1. The general logic of using information platforms within the caring governance concept (Janssen & Estevez, 2013).

Figure 2. The structure of www.GOV.UK, an open register ecosystem.

*Source: Government Digital Service (https://gds.blog.gov.uk/).

Figure 3. The structure of shared web hosting for UK government services without repeated administrative and technical resources (Singla, 2019, p. 34).

Figure 4. Organizational model and technical architecture of the Estonian X-Road.

*Source: (“X-Road Architecture,” 2021).

Figure 5. Comparison of the UK and Estonia on the two indicators of e-governance adopted in the European Union and being the closest to the citizen–state interaction (according to Eurostat, 2021; based on (EU Digital Agenda data, 2021)).

Table 1. Generalizations of digital challenges of the analyzed countries for further digital modernization of the public governance system.

Country	Challenges according to national context of digital reforms	What can change in the public governance system due to challenges
The UK	Customized public service platforms do not provide a place for private “from bottom” initiative for horizontal interaction of citizens; almost no user inclusion; asymmetry of power in favor of formal state institutions; asymmetry of information in the “principal–agent” system	Attitude of the political elite to the strengthening of the role of direct democracy; attitude of the state to private trusted registers, ecosystems, and infrastructure of services that exist in digital platforms and are provided on the basis of data from various state and public registers; redesigning government platforms as service ecosystems; requesting private organizations (e.g., DAO) for additional safeguards and accountability (getting out of the regulatory ”gray zone”)
Estonia	Significant investment in cybersecurity and distributed data storage; inclusion of citizens and their interaction; problems of coordination of social movements among its population	Improved blockchain-based cryptoprotection (request for codes for private encrypted blockchain systems for law enforcement purposes); requesting additional safeguards and accountability from private organizations (e.g., DAO) (getting out of the regulatory” gray zone”); partial redistribution of power between non-hierarchical and peer-to-peer structures; great political and administrative flexibility for attraction (emergence) of talent in digital “disruptive technologies” to the country; attitude of the state to private trusted registers, ecosystems, and infrastructure of services that exist in digital platforms and are provided on the basis of data from various state and public registers; redesigning state platforms as service ecosystems (transit from “comfortable” public governance to “state for communities of citizens”)
India	Extremely large-scale investment and technological infrastructure upgrades under the conditions of low consumption culture and poverty of a significant part of the population; the need for a long-term increase in the institutional capacity of the authorities to administer and coordinate various stakeholders; asymmetry of information in the “principal–agent” system	Further development of participatory governance through state digital platforms; redesigning government platforms as service ecosystems; strengthening the functions of coordination and incentivization, in particular, according to the model of paternalistic “playmaker state” (Gorodetskiy et al., 2020, p. 179)
Ukraine	The government’s lack of attention to the principle of building the Diia platform as a “register of registers” and a catalog of all documents containing significant data security risks; decline in the reputation of the relevant ministry and trust in the mobile application due to its technical problems; asymmetry of information in the “principal–agent” system; population’s superficial knowledge and decline in the standards and quality of education at all levels in Ukraine without a new nationwide “vision of the future”	Redesigning state platforms as service ecosystems (transit from “comfortable” public governance to “state for communities of citizens”); attitude of the state to private trusted registers, ecosystems and infrastructure of services that exist in digital platforms and are provided on the basis of data from various state and public registers; partial redistribution of power between non-hierarchical and peer-to-peer structures, etc.

*Source: made by the author taking into account (Dunayev & Kud, 2020; Kud, 2021).

Figure 6. Comparison of models of cooperation between companies: current one and new one within the European GAIA-X Ecosystem based on common rules and trust.

*Source: (GAIA-X, 2020, p. 12).

Figure 7. General logic of functioning of the ICON decentralized platform ecosystem using smart contracts.

Thus, since the research focus

Figure 8. Key elements of a democratic ecosystem.

*Source: (Blockmans, 2020, p. 2).

Table 2. Comparison of decentralized information platforms with other forms of providing public administrative services:SLEPT analysis.

Parameters important for the public governance system	Forms of providing public administrative services
	Decentralized information platform	Centralized information platform	Personal reception of citizens
Technological parameters (T)
1. Key technology	Distributed ledger technologies (blockchain)	Classic databases	Classic databases and paper media
2. Accounting object	Distributed ledger token and its accounting units	Identifier of information stored in classic databases	Records in classic paper or electronic databases
3. Property accounting	Information resource as an initial asset (for the purpose of accounting of property and personal non-property rights of subjects of legal relations)	Information in electronic form that is stored in classic databases and connected with a specific identifier (e.g., an article)	Information on paper and electronic media that is stored in classic databases and can be connected with a specific identifier (e.g., a number)
4. Unique configuration of model and services	Yes	Yes	No
5. Accuracy and quality of accounting	High (due to the key technology and divisibility of the accounting object)	High	Low
6. Reliability of accounting	Very high (due to the key technology and divisibility of the accounting object)	Medium	Low
Legal parameters (L)
7. Legal basis	Developer documents (code, public contract, etc.) and statutes and regulations of the state	Statutes and regulations of the state	Statutes and regulations of the state
8. Subject providing major services	Private and government entities	Public entities	Public entities
9. Need in developing a new legal framework	Finalization of laws is desirable	Rather no	No
Economic parameters (E)
10. Using resources of market forces to provide services	Yes	Rather no	No
11. Emergence of new services	Around needs	Around needs and public organizations	Around public organizations
Political parameters (P)
12. Political independence in implementation	Possible due to properties of the key technology	No	No
13. Form of democracy that can be supported	Direct and representative	Representative	Representative
Social parameters (S)
14. Strengthening of social cohesion	Through creating peer-to-peer online interest communities	No	Through direct and personal communication
15. Participative governance	Yes	Almost no	No

*Source: author’s development based on (Kud, 2021).

Table A. Comparison of key parameters of centralized and decentralized information platforms.

Parameter	CIP	DIP	Consequences of taking into account DIP parameter for public governance needs
A. Relationship system governance
Basic governance principle	Based on acquired rights in the hierarchy and market rules	Based on consensual forms of self-government and direct participation of citizens in decision-making (distributed trust) and market rules	Technological decentralization and use of cryptographic encryption as means of building trust and political arguments; removing intermediaries where possible
Participant coordination method	Centralized coordination creates additional added value for owners or higher ranks in the hierarchy, indicating the priority of “economy above politics”	Automatic consensus based on software protocol	A new cheaper way to provide a production “scale effect”; it is a consequence of scaling and increasing the coverage of participants
Way of building relationships between participants	Emphasis on hierarchical web networks with or without clear territory relation and on online interest groups	Emphasis on peer-to-peer web networks without clear territory relation and on online interest groups	Less transaction costs and time spent; promoting community participation compared to that of CIP; has great potential for creating new independent micro-communities
Leadership	De facto organized minority always represented by developers and owners, etc. (“technical elite”)	(1) either an organized minority, which may sometimes be represented by developers and owners, etc. (“technical elite”), (2) or a disorganized majority	Organized minority may have enhanced rights and may derive additional benefits from information asymmetry and register replication; unorganized majority acquires broader data access rights
Incentives	Pricing mechanisms	Crypto-incentives (distributed ledger tokens (A. Kud, 2020), etc.) and pricing mechanisms	Increased demand for new conditional values (distributed ledger tokens (A. Kud, 2020)) and backed digital assets (A. Kud, 2020); demand for a significantly improved way of value exchange and information accounting
Coercing participants to maintain “order”	Exists on the basis of rights in the hierarchy	No coercion at the base level, more equality and freedom for the participant	Improved subject-subject relations, more responsible participation; significantly wider range of roles for individuals (or stakeholders)
Decision-making	Centralized (major decisions are made by the platform owner)	Decentralized (community decides on the platform’s future in a democratic way)	Using the distributed architecture of permissioned blockchains for algorithmic control (smart contracts)
Taking into account unforeseen circumstances	Relatively flexible and does not require much time	Complicated or delayed due to waiting for a response or finding a new consensus of participants	Possibility to create a consensus model that will be slightly shifted towards decentralization and will be a two- or multilevel model of decentralized governance; increased cost of participant coordination; new conditions can be added to machine-readable contracts that may indeed be changed in the future
B. Access rights management
Access rules	Always granted	No access	All participants can consciously or automatically build their own organizational structures (networks and hierarchies) and develop part of the rules in them
Verification of transactions	Centralized	Decentralized	Transaction disintegration with reduction of transaction costs associated with opportunism and uncertainty
Information asymmetry	Exists (owners → “node” managers → participants)	Exists (developers → users; developers → service providers)	Open communities may easily cluster and defend their common position (their rights, requests for changes or new resources)
С. Infrastructure management
Ownership of data infrastructure	Proprietary	Distributed	High requirements for coordination and simplification, increased inspection and storage spending
Accessibility of data infrastructure	Private access	Public access	Requirement for reliable connection between a digital record and a corresponding event in the physical world, which requires certain reliable parties (oracles)
Data security	Ensured by the platform owner with granting certain rights to trusted developers	Ensured by both the platform owner and multiple replication of independently stored data with granting certain rights to trusted developers	Significantly more reliable data storage; dual data storage also ensures network node transparency
Examples	Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, Google, Diia, etc.	AirBNB (Geliskhanov et al., 2018, p. 26), GAIA-X, Steemit, Bitcoin, Ethereum, Bitbon System, etc.	Higher public trust in the country, supporting the sovereignty of the modern state

*Source: author’s development (see Kud, 2021) taking into account (Atzori, 2015; Pereira, 2019).

Comparison of decentralized information platforms with other forms of providing public administrative services by the “security” criterion.

Parameters important for the public governance system	Forms of providing public administrative services			Methods of the state influence, which may change in the case of application of DIP
	Decentralized information platform	Centralized information platform	Personal reception of citizens
Data confidentiality	Technological based on access rights, broad consensus of platform participants, data reliability, participants’ reputation	Technological based on access rights	Technological and legal based on access rights	Selective recognition of trusted private registers; provision of public goods; election technologies of direct democracy, etc.
Personal identification	Yes	Yes	Yes	Selective recognition of trusted private registers
Protection against fraud	Technological (due to peculiarities of the key technology)	Technological	Organizational for paper media; technological for electronic media	The same
Accuracy and consistency of data	High (due to the use of key technology and divisibility of the accounting object)	Medium	Medium, but not higher than that of CIP (due to the human factor)	Provision of public goods; civil-legal regulation of new relations around the accounting of rights to property and the property itself through the use of an information resource
Resistance to external unfriendly influence of foreign developers of information platforms	Possible due to the properties of the key technology and the advance preparation of the state and local IT developers	No	Possible if there is Internet connection	Introduction of compulsory state certification of software; preparation and distribution of special equipment (smartphones) among its citizens, etc.

*Source: author’s development based on (Kud, 2021).

Table B2. Comparison of decentralized information platforms with other forms of providing public administrative services by the “functionality” criterion.

Parameters important for the public governance system	Forms of providing public administrative services			Methods of the state influence, which may change in the case of application of DIP
	Decentralized information platform	Centralized information platform	Personal reception of citizens
Difficulty for the user	Knowledge is required	Knowledge is desirable	Almost no knowledge is required – for paper media; knowledge is desirable – for electronic media	Personnel training; involvement of non-government participants and higher education institutions; coordination of efforts of all participants
The need to create a digital infrastructure	There is a need to create one or involve a private one	Either available or is being improved by the government	Either available or is being improved by local authorities (network of local centers of administrative services)	Coordination of efforts of all participants; new target programming; visions of the future
Relative speed of service provision	High or instant	High or instant	Low	New sectoral policies; intersectoral policy; macroeconomic forecasting and planning; visions of the future
Geographic accessibility of technology	You must have a device connected to the Internet	You must have a device connected to the Internet	You must go to a center (for paper media); you must have a device connected to the Internet (for electronic queue)	Government and private investments in the high-speed Internet network; visions of the future
Open and flexible architecture	Yes	Rather no	No	New programs for labor markets (self-employed and frictional unemployed); forecasting new services online
Used registers	State and trusted private registers	State and in some cases also private ones	State registers	Selective recognition of trusted open registers
Adding related services to the ecosystem	Easy and relatively quick	Usually difficult	Very difficult and slow	Selective recognition of trusted open registers

*Source: author’s development based on (Kud, 2021).

Table B3. Comparison of decentralized information platforms with other forms of providing public administrative services by the “cost” criterion.

Parameters important for the public governance system	Forms of providing public administrative services			Methods of the state influence, which may change in the case of application of DIP
	Decentralized information platform	Centralized information platform	Personal reception of citizens
Initial investment	High (for market participants)	Lower than that for DIP (for market participants)	Very high (considering the number of centers of administrative services in Ukraine (see MinEconomy of Ukraine, 2020))	New political forms and state institutions for the formation of common interest outside of market self-regulation; emphasis in tax policy on business activity and volume of transactions
Operating expenses (for market participants, government, and users)	Low	Medium (to support organizational structures, etc.)	High (considering the number of centers of administrative services)	The same
Profit for the service provider	Possible (there may be rates in the ecosystem)	Possible	Rather no (provision of services is subsidized by the authorities)	The same; expansion of the society’s normative attitudes; improving the quality of government services by replacing them with private ones

*Source: author’s development based on (Kud, 2021).

Janssen, M., & Estevez, E. (2013). Lean government and platform-based governance — Doing more with less. Government Information Quarterly, 30(1), S1–S8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.11.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Singla, P. (2019). Government as a platform (GaaP): A new model for public service delivery. Executive master’s in innovative governance of large urban systems. Ecole polytechnique federale de Lausanne. 86. EPFL.

 Google Scholar

Estonia’s X-Road. https://x-road.global/architecture

 Google Scholar

EU Digital Agenda data. (2021). Analyse one indicator and compare countries: The UK and Estonia. https://digital-agenda-data.eu/charts/analyse-one-indicator-and-compare-countries#chart={%22indicator-group%22:%22egovernment%22,%22indicator%22:%22i_iugov12%22,%22breakdown%22:%22ind_total%22,%22unit-measure%22:%22pc_ind_ilt12%22,%22ref-area%22:[%22EE%22,%22UK%22]}

 Google Scholar

Gorodetskiy, A. E., Ya., R. A., & Grinberg, R. S. (2020). Economic theory of the state: A new paradigm of paternalism. (424). Aleteya. original in Russianhttp://www.econorus.org/pdf/Rubinstein_Grinberg_Gorodetsky_book_Aleteya_2020.pdf

 Google Scholar

Dunayev, I., & Kud, A. (2020). Designing the future for Ukraine: From intuitive prophecy towards scientific synthesis .Bulletin of Postgraduate educationIssue 12 (41) (Social and Behavioral Sciences Series), 142-159. https://doi.org/10.32405/2522‐9931/2522‐9958‐2020‐12(41)

 Google Scholar

Kud, A. A. 2021. Decentralized information platforms as a tool of public governance modernization. Bulletin of Postgraduate Education: Serie «manahement and Administration», № 1. Vol. 15(44), 233–274. http://umo.edu.ua/images/content/nashi_vydanya/visnyk_PO/15_44_2021/social/Bulletin_15_44_Social_and_behavioral_sciences_Kud_%D0%BD%20(1).pdf original in Ukrainian.

 Google Scholar

GAIA-X. (2020). Driver of digital innovation in Europe. Featuring the next generation of data infrastructure (pp. 30). www.data-infrastructure.eu/GAIAX/Redaktion/EN/Publications/gaia-x-driver-of-digital-innovation-in-europe.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=8

 Google Scholar

Blockmans, S. (2020). Democracy as an ecosystem/deliberative democracy in the EU. S. Blockmans & S. Russack (Eds.), CEPS. 396. https://www.ceps.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Deliberative-Democracy_2CU_Vol3.pdf

 Google Scholar

Kud, A. (2020). The phenomenon of virtual assets: Economic and legal aspects. International Journal of Education and Science, 3(3), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.26697/ijes.2020.4.3

 Google Scholar

Geliskhanov, I. Z., Yudina, T. N., & Babkin, A. V. (2018). Digital platforms in the economy: Essence, models, development trends. Academic and Technical Sheets of St. Petersburg State Pedagogical University: Economic Sciences, 11(6), 22–36. https://economy.spbstu.ru/userfiles/files/articles/2018/6/02_-Gelishanov-Yudina-Babkin.pdf

 Google Scholar

Atzori, M. (2015). Blockchain technology and decentralized governance: Is the state still necessary? (December 1, 2015). https://ssrn.com/abstract=2709713

 Google Scholar

MinEconomy of Ukraine. (2020). Information on administrative service centers in the regions of Ukraine (as of 01.01.2020). https://me.gov.ua/Documents/Detail?lang=uk-UA&id=288da497-975a-4de1-9bb0-7ad77b80fba9&title=InformatsiiaSchodoTsentrivNadanniaAdministrativnikhPoslugURegionakhUkraini-stanomNa01-110-2019

 Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in figshare.com at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14547249.v1.