---
title: 4-6 The Impact of East and South Asian Governments toward Civic Tech Development and the Relationship Between Them
tags: jothon, NDI
---
:::success
:book: Return to the homepage of the handbook: https://g0v.hackmd.io/@jothon/ctpbook_en

"g0v Civic Tech Project & Community Handbook" is licensed under CC BY-NC.
:::

# 4-6 The Impact of East and South Asian Governments Toward Civic Tech Development and the Relationship Between Them｜g0v Civic Tech Project & Community Handbook

### Chapter 4: Current Status of Civic Tech Projects and Communities in Other Asian Countries

## The Impact of East and South Asian Governments Toward Civic Tech Development and the Relationship Between Them

### 1. The Impact of Government Toward Civic Tech Development

Civic tech involves citizen participation in public affairs, social issues, and infrastructure related, using technology to complement government efforts and enhance efficiency. Therefore, the development of civic tech not only requires strong communication among citizens but also a certain degree of government openness. Both elements require government support for democracy and freedom of expression.

However, in some countries, particularly those that have heavily restricted internet access like Myanmar and China, limitations on freedom of expression and communication can hinder smooth, effective, and sustainable collaboration. These restrictions can even lead to personal safety concerns for citizens involved in civic tech projects and worries about whether their activities may impact the safety of family and friends. Such conditions are unfavorable for long-term, stable civic tech projects and would make it challenging to grow as a community. In terms of open government, without government support and data release, it is difficult to promote public-private cooperation and expand the application scope of civic tech. For example, when the COVID-19 pandemic began to spread globally in 2020, the engineering team from “Goodideas-Studio,” a collaborative partner of the g0v community, developed the “Convenience Store Mask Availability Reporting Map,” which provided real-time information on mask availability to the public. Later, with the government’s release of real-time inventory data from pharmacies, the “Pharmacy Mask Map” was successfully launched.

In countries with relatively closed governments, lower levels of democracy, and even hostility toward “freedom”, issues related to “human rights,” “privacy,” “personal safety,” and other security concerns, are crucial conditions for the civic tech projects development. It is challenging to collaborate transparently in an open-source manner and difficult to record the experiences of such projects. This means that there may be missing part of the project experience information, making it hard for knowledge and practices to be passed down over time. Moreover, contributors’ efforts may not be documented due to security risks. Recognizing and appreciating contributors is essential for maintaining communities and motivating individuals to continue contributing. Without acknowledgment and a sense of achievement, volunteer contributions and enthusiasm may gradually diminish.

### 2. Key Points of Collaborating with the Government

(1) Be an Equal Partnership, Not an Employment Relationship

When civic tech projects or communities receive government contracts or funding support, some government officials may adopt a top-down approach. However, what civic tech projects or communities truly seek is an equal partnership, not an employment relationship. A partnership should encompass not only financial support but also the share of the government’s powers, such as policy-making. Also, the hope is not to easily let turnover in political parties affect the willingness to continue supporting civic tech projects.

The most crucial aspect of partnership relationships is "mutual trust," which can be built by accomplishing tasks, establishing effective workflow, and nurturing equal relationships. Moreover, it should aim to remain unaffected by changes in political parties. While collaboration with the government is important, it is equally crucial to maintain interpersonal relationships within the community and establish independence to prevent undue influence due to changes in government partnerships.

(2) Facilitating Government and Civic Tech Collaboration

The first step is to motivate the government to collaborate. It is recommended to provide the government with domestic and international case studies, regulations, policies, and other information to enhance their understanding of civic tech and the potential benefits of collaboration. Additionally, competition among governments can also boost their motivation to cooperate. The second step involves deepening government officials' understanding of civic tech and its practical implementation. Creating a platform for public-private collaboration, offering civic tech education training for government employees, and organizing events like hackathons for public-private collaboration can help achieve this goal.

(3) Collaborating with Local Governments and Internal Civil Servants Can Facilitate Project Development

Compared to experiences in major cities, successful collaboration with smaller local governments can sometimes inspire other regions to follow suit. Furthermore, collaborating with internal civil servants who are responsible for project execution can lead to smoother communication and implementation.

(4) The Presence of Civic Tech Participants Transitioning into Public Sector Roles Can Impact Government Collaboration

From experiences in Japan and Taiwan, it is observed that when community or project participants come from government departments or join the public sector after engaging with the civic tech community, it increases the chances of projects collaborating with the government. This can include helping colleagues in the public sector seek advice from civic tech projects or communities and facilitating the immediate application of open government data.

(5) Government Institutions Need to Be Flexible and Adapt to Change

Public and private sectors differ in various aspects, such as work training and workflow, and they require time to coordinate when collaborating. For instance, the training of civil servants is often tailored to specific tasks and audiences, with limited training in areas like cross-departmental communication or project management. This can sometimes lead to difficulties in understanding civic tech project development details and methods. Additionally, bureaucratic structures can hinder the government's ability to respond to sudden changes or rapidly evolving social events. For example, overtime systems now may struggle to accommodate a surge in workload during emergencies, and standard procurement processes may impede timely public-private collaborations. Differences in training backgrounds and established work systems can often limit civil servants' capacity, resources, and time for understanding and executing collaborative efforts. It is advisable to believe that there are individuals within the system who are willing to bring about change and assist each other in getting resources and opportunities while understanding each other's perspectives. Furthermore, it's also important to devise government systems tailored for public-private cooperation, making it easier to promote and implement.

(6) Establish Collaborative Governance Models with Stakeholders for Cross-Departmental and Diverse Cultural Works

In cases where responsibilities span multiple government departments or where no specific department is responsible, private sector entities are often engaged through outsourcing (OT) or build-operate-transfer (BOT) arrangements, especially when it comes to the involvement of direct service to the public. However, when dealing with different cultures and communities, such as indigenous affairs, a shared governance approach may be more appropriate.

Taking the example of collaboration between the 'Taiwan Forestry and Nature Conservation Agency' and indigenous communities, a partnership was established for joint governance through a new system. Traditionally, such committees were initiated by government agencies, often with tribal leaders invited to participate. However, meetings often lacked clarity in discussing content and became shallow and bureautic. Therefore, the new joint governance model reverses the relationship dynamics. When a tribe or indigenous group initiates an idea, such as autonomous hunting management, forest byproduct collection, or running a cooperative, the Forestry Bureau assesses stakeholders and invites all relevant parties to form a joint governance committee. Each tribe then selects its representative. After the joint governance committee reaches a consensus, the Forestry Bureau and the management team sign an administrative contract, delegating administrative authority to the tribe for execution. This approach is less profit-oriented compared to traditional outsourcing or BOT arrangements.

However, collaborating with indigenous communities can be challenging due to historical and cultural differences, which may lead to mutual distrust and difficulties in reaching a consensus when establishing agreements. Therefore, continuous collaboration and communication platforms are essential. Taking hunting as an example, indigenous people are not allowed to hunt freely under the Wildlife Conservation Act and Forestry Act. Therefore, hunting organizations were established to create agreements and design various methods to encourage indigenous people to voluntarily report their hunting results. Organizational management structures were also put in place. Through scientific monitoring, once hunters became participants in these agreements, they were required to report their hunting results, which usually matched the monitoring outcomes. This approach, which emphasizes scientific management, enhanced conservation efforts. Utilizing a collaborative meeting model allowed the execution team to engage in more discussions and provided a platform to interact with other government departments, facilitating consensus and smooth execution. Furthermore, reporting and publicly disclosing hunting results contributed to building trust, thereby maintaining a balanced partnership in collaborative governance.