信息政策
Information Policy
.
Government’s Two Information
Roles 政府的两个信息角色

Government as regulator of information flow
in society
信息监管者：政府对信息在社会中的流动规则
进行监管

Government as user and producer of
information
信息使用者和生成者：政府本身也使用和生成
信息
Government’s information roles
政府与信息相关的角色
Information collector,
producer, provider
& user 信息的采集者、
生成者、提供者、
和使用者
Regulator of information
flow in society
信息在社会中的流动的
监管者
Government’s first information role
政府的第一个与信息相关的角色
公共信息政策
Information collector,
producer, provider
& user 信息的采集者、
生成者、提供者、
和使用者
Regulator of information
flow in society
信息在社会中的流动的
监管者
公共信息政策
Public Information Policy


为电子治理提供法律基础
legitimizing foundation
为政府、企业、个人对信息的采集、使用、保护、与
共享明确规则与条件
Specify the rules and conditions under which
information is gathered, used, protected, and shared
by government, individual and the private sector
Gavin’s Typology
Gavin 信息政策分类法
获取权
Access
所有权
Other societal, political,
or economic values
其他社会、政治与经济价值
隐私权
Gavin’s Typology
Gavin 信息政策分类法
-
Three types of information policy conflicts: 三类信息冲突
1. How to establish, implement, or define a single information value?
如何建立，执行或界定某一种信息价值观？
2. A conflict between an information value and some other competing
actual or perceived societal, political, or economic values such as
national security, public decency and public safety etc.
一种信息价值观与其他社会，政治与经济价值观间的冲突（如国家安
全，公 共道德，公共安全等）
3. A conflict between any two or among all three information values:
access rights, proprietary rights and privacy rights
三种信息价值观之间的冲突：获取信息的权利，信息的所有权，
隐私权
Rowlands’ Framework
Rowlands’ Framework
Rowlands’ 信息政策框架

Rowlands’s Model (1996) Rowlands的理论模型
- Two sets of opposing forces: 两对矛盾
“Access vs. Secrecy” “获取与保密”
“Public good vs. Tradable commodity”
“公共产品与可买卖的商品”
- Four quadrants
四个象限
- Balance and compromise between the opposing forces
矛盾间的“平衡”与“妥协”
Two Themes 两个主题
Conflict among values 价值观之间的冲突
 Compromise 妥协

Information policy is the products of striking a
balance among competing values
信息政策是在各种互相对立的价值观之间寻求
平衡的产物
Regulator Role: 信息监管角色

In this role, government treats
information as an object of policy, that is,
its intention is to regulate or protect
information itself
政府将信息视为政策的对象，从而对信息
加以监管或保护
Government’s second
information role
政府的第二个与信息相关的角色
Information collector,
producer, provider
& user 信息的采集者、
生成者、提供者、
和使用者
Regulator of information
flow in society
信息在社会中的流动的
监管者
Principles of information use
within government
政府内部信息使用原则
Stewardship
保管
Usefulness
使用
Information Stewardship Principle
信息保管原则

A conservative principle that addresses:
保守的原则，针对以下方面






treatment of government information as a fiduciary
responsibility of all agencies
将信息视为所有政府部门的保管对象
data collection decisions and methods 数据采集决策与方法
data definition, quality, and integrity 数据定义、质量与整合
information & system security 信息与系统安全
confidentiality protections 保密
records management and disposition 记录管理和储存
Information Use Principle
信息使用原则

An expansive principle that addresses:
扩展的原则，针对以下方面：




Information as an asset of government programs
将信息视为政府项目的资产
information sharing within government & with others
政府内部以及政府与其他组织间的信息共享
information-handling skills of public employees
政府工作人员的信息处理能力
information and technology as agents of change in
Programs， services， the relationship between government and citizens
将信息和技术视为推动项目、服务以及政府和公民间关系变革的媒介

Participant role 信息参与角色

As a participant in the information society,
government itself is a collector, user and
disseminator of information
作为信息社会的参与者，政府本身是信息得的采
集者、使用者和传播者



In this role, government treats information as an instrument of
policy 在这一角色中，政府将信息视为政策的工具
Values are always involved 总是会牵涉都价值观的问题
To play this role effectively, stewardship and usefulness
principles must work together 为了有效扮演这一角色，保管与使
用的原则必须同时运用
Summary 总结

Government has two roles in the
information policy environment:
政府在信息政策环境中具有两种角色：


Policy maker 政策制定者
Caretaker of and user of information
信息的保管与使用者
Case Study
Case Study
Case Study
Cross-national
Information Policy Conflict

Cross-national Conflict
Both national governments guarded their own information
policies firmly. A cross-national conflict appeared between
the two countries prominently.

Regulating the Internet is International Practice
- Chinese officials argued that regulating the Internet is an
international practice. They asserted that access to the
Internet in western countries is also subject to restriction and
what the Chinese government does is just the same thing.
- When the US government denounced China’s Internet control
for the sake of political suppression, the Chinese government
mainly defended its information policy for social and cultures
concerns such as pornography, terrorism, protection of
teenagers etc.

Strong Pressure Imposed by Government on
Multinational Firms
- the U.S. government criticized the practices of the
three firms in China
- the Chinese government officials imposed strong
pressure on multinational firms and insisted that they
should comply with Chinese laws and regulations
when doing business in China.

Compromises were Made by Multinational Firms
Faced with the dilemma, multinational companies took a
pragmatic approach in order to survival in business. All three
companies have made compromises and taken efforts to
strike a balance between the two countries. They did not
ignore the information policy of either country; at the same
time they did not make absolute concessions to either
side.

Degree of Compromise Varies Across Firms
A comparison among three companies’ practices in China
reveals a variation across them in terms of the direction and
degree of making compromises. Yahoo seemingly goes
farthest towards China’s policy; Google goes farthest in favor
of the American value; Microsoft stands in the middle.

Variables Influencing Firms Practices
- Governmental Factor:
Both the U.S and Chinese government attempted to pull the multinational firms
to their side. The strength of their pressures and determinations to enforce
their information policies could have an impact on a firm's decisions.
- Market Factors:
Market factors includes market attractiveness and the degree of
competition.
- Societal Factors:
Societal actors such as media, domestic and international nonprofit
organizations, universities and the general public together could also have
significant impacts on multinational firms’ practices.
- Internal Factors:
Internal factors includes the degree of the American headquarter's control
over its local operations in China and a firm's own preferences about
information policy.

Multinational Firms’ Efforts:
- Being constrained by the given environment, all three
companies also attempted to transform their business
environments.
- They called for collective industry efforts to develop
industry common practices and government involvement
in reconciling the conflict between the two countries.
- wish that the Internet itself will
transform the political and social conditions in China and
in long run will reduce the conflict between the two countries.
Analysis

Applying Galvin and Rowlands’ s models:
Conflicts and compromises between values occur in both US and
China.
However, the governments of the two countries take different
approaches to strike a balance between these
values.
National
Security,
Political and Social Stability,
Economic Security
Public Moral
Ethnic harmony etc.
Free Access to
Information
Access
Restriction
The US’s Balance
National Security,
Political and Social Stability,
Economic Security
Public Moral
Ethnic harmony etc.
Free Access to
Information
Access
Restriction
China’s Balance
Conceptual Framework
Access
Restriction
The US’s Balance Point
Restriction
Access
China’s Balance Point
Cross-national Conflict
(Political Distance+Culture Distance)
China
The U.S.
Google Microsoft Yahoo
Multinational Companies’
Balance Point
• Government Factors
• Market Factors
• Societal Factors
• Internal Factors
Conceptual Framework of Cross-national Information Policy Conflict
Regarding Access to Information
Analysis
Nature of cross-national information policy conflict:




With regard to access to information, it is NOT simply about a
battle between the value of “free access to information” versus
the value of “restricting information”
It is about a conflict caused by the distance between two
countries’ different approaches in the process of striking a
balance between “access” and “restriction”
It is more of a problem of “degree” than “direction”
While Galvin and Rowlands defined domestic information policy
conflict as conflicts among competing values, cross-national
information policy conflict could be defined as “conflicts
between nations’ different approaches in the process of
striking balances among competing values”
Analysis


Differences between countries reflect political, social,
economic and culture value in these countries.
However, who have the rights to decide a country’s
balance point? Leaders only or Stakeholders
together?
Implication for Policymakers



Government as a regulator
Government as an information users
Government as a negotiator in cross-national
conflict
Implication for Policymakers
Government as a regulator

Multinational firms’ compromises seem to be common and
inevitable, policymakers in one particular country may need to
think about how far firms are allowed to go towards the other
side and whether a boundary needs to be set to limit their
choices.

In order to pull a multinational firm’s balance point towards its
side, besides imposing political pressures on firms, a government
may also need to take into consideration other factors such as
market, society and firms’ internal arrangements.

Besides imposing pressures, a national government may need to
take a government-to-government approach and communicate
with the national government of the other country in order to
reduce the degree of the conflict and enforce its information
policy more effectively.
Implication for Policymakers
Government as an information user

Due to globalization and increasing interdependence among
countries, a national government often needs to share
information with other nations on issues such as epidemic
diseases, border control, anti-terrorism etc.

Cross-national information policy conflict could be a barrier for
transnational information sharing.

In order to achieve the goal of transnational information sharing
successfully, a national government needs to negotiate directly
with the government of other countries to reconcile the conflict.
Implication for Policymakers
Government as a negotiator in international arena

A national government could reduce the degree of cross-national
conflict, namely, to shorten the length of the lever between the two
countries. A shorter lever could help a government to play its role
more effectively as both a regulator and an information user

A national government could shorten the length of the lever in two
ways: bringing the other nation’s position closer to itself or moving
itself closer to the other nation as a result compromise.

Whenever possible, a national government tends to choose the
former way.

In reality it may be more often to see both approaches occurring at
the same time. Therefore, both countries may have to make some
compromise in order to reconcile the conflict.
Implication for Policymakers
Government as a negotiator in international arena

The degree of cross-national conflict could change over time with a
country’s political, economic and cultural transformation. Therefore,
policymakers of one country may be able to reduce the degree of
cross-national conflict through influencing the fundamental political,
economic and cultural context in another country.

Policymaker might need to deal with cultural distance and political
distance separately. Although the former is usually less controversial
and more acceptable than the latter, the former could actually be
more difficult to deal with, because culture is deeply embedded in
people’s beliefs and behaviors.
Implication for Policymakers
Government as a negotiator in international arena

Cross-national information policy conflict is not simply about a battle
between the value of “free access to information” and the value of
“restricting information”, but about a difference between two countries’
approaches in the process of striking a balance between two values.

Keeping this in mind, policy makers may be able to find more common
languages in negotiations, or could even look for allies in the other
country who share the same value with them.