Leave governance to the community

from Digital Public Goods QF Experiments in the Government The following is the original (excerpted) English text of the said panel conversation, which shows how Audrey Tang views "project governance". Some formatting has been done to the actual spoken language.

“...we do not structure it this way because then it will go back to the old, like the state must control the future of the project. Instead, we say no, this is a prize award that we give you for successfully attracting these many people to support you and for successfully demonstrating you have a positive social return on investment. Your success in demonstrating this is like writing a good novel or having a good film. So whatever matching funding we give you is a prize, a recognition, and so prize money does not carry any strings – you don’t have to change your course or your governance because you receive a prize from the government. Because it’s structured this way, it’s then much more smooth, because then the governance from those projects stays with the governance community in those projects. ...If we can discover more ways that can be structured like prizes, we can support them without necessarily having to control the direction of where the civil society is going.”

supplementary explanation

• “we do not structure it this way...”
  • The intent is not to have the national or local government "control" the project as in the case of conventional grants or government procurement.
• “this is a prize award...”
  • By treating the project as an "award," the government is prevented from taking control of the governance of the project itself.
• “prize money does not carry any strings...”
  • Since it is prize money, there is no obligation for the receiving organization to change its governance or operating policies.
• “it’s then much more smooth...”
  • The prize format makes the relationship between the government and the civil sector "velvety (smooth)" and facilitates cooperation while maintaining mutual independence.
    • Related: Smooth government procurement.

Thus, Audrey Tang explains that the "bounty-type" approach avoids excessive government interference, leaving the initiative (governance) of the project on the community side while also allowing for public support.

Conventional grants and procurement

• When government funds are received, the government tends to take over the direction of the project and even the decision-making authority.
• Governments, out of their responsibility to taxpayers, tend to try to interfere deeply in project operations.

Advantages of Prize Funding (Prize Funding)

• By making the nature of the funds "awards to be given later," the government will not have a strong influence on the management of the project.
• The project community does not lose its own decision-making authority when it receives funds.
• As a result, a "smooth" relationship between the government and the community is maintained, ensuring the independence of the project.
• He uses the expression "prize for successful demonstrations."

In short, by changing the system from "money given by the government = a means of controlling the project" to "rewards (prizes) for the results of the project," the governance (decision-making and management authority) is retained in the community, while public support is also provided. This is how it works.

Prize fund distribution. Prize QF

This page is auto-translated from /nishio/ガバナンスをコミュニティに残す using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I'm very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.