Governance DG with Dr. Michael Thompson
Yesterday, we had the second session of the governance discussion group, and invited Dr. Michael Thompson.
He kicked off the session with the story of Arsenal Football Club. In this story, Arsenal (market actor), the City Council (hierarchy actor), and local residents (egalitarian actor) were negotiating on expansion/re-location of the Highbury football stadium, and came up with the solution for all, the current Emirate Stadium. The new stadium, he explains, is an example of the clumsy solution, which was not possible without the presence of all three voices.
He further explains that the presence of the three voices is necessary but not sufficient condition. It is important that these three voices are communicated constructively. Here, he introduces his version of Steven Ney’s 3×3 matrix of democracy. In addition to the original two dimensions, accessibility and responsiveness as two dimensions, the dimension of deliberative quality makes it 3-D matrix.
The participants seems to accept the descriptive capability of this 3×3 matrix, but left with two important questions.
1. In the case of Arsenal Football Club, there are some incentives for each actor to constructively negotiate, e.g. loyalty to the club and the long history. However, in many cases (maybe because of the conflicting nature of the three voices) actors are not willing to cooperate. So, is it possible to design such communicative environment? and if so, how?
2. In the 3×3 matrix, as you move toward the right-top corner (i.e. democratic institution), the cost of decision-making seems to increase (not only financial terms, but also time etc.). So, is democratic institution always better? and if so, why?
Ney emphasizes that the 3×3 matrix is a set of hypothesis to be tested, and that the implication of different institutional types are not 100% clear. If democratic institution may not always better, the prescriptive power of this theory remains uncertain.