Algorithmic Self-Governance and the Design of Socio-Technical Systems

The Digital Society is increasingly characterised by an ecosystem of smart, socio-technical applications. Unlike biological ecosystems, each application, and indeed the entire socio-technical ecosystem, is critically dependent on human-centred, mutually agreed, conventional rules for its effective and efficient operation, and inter-operation. This paper is concerned with exploring how to represent, reason with, and exploit these rules. In particular, it proposes the idea of algorithmic selfgovernance, which interleaves dynamic social psychology, holonic systems and self-organising electronic institutions, can provide a basis for developing socio-technical (eco)systems which empower solutions to largescale collective action problems. We conclude by suggesting that this provides an innovative approach to the development of smart(er) cities.

[1]  Daniele Miorandi,et al.  "Programming" Social Collective Intelligence , 2014, IEEE Technology and Society Magazine.

[2]  Dídac Busquets,et al.  Distributive Justice for Self-Organised Common-Pool Resource Management , 2014, TAAS.

[3]  Elinor Ostrom,et al.  Foundations of Social Capital , 2003 .

[4]  T. Beauchamp.  Distributive justice. , 2019, Bioethics digest.

[5]  Alexander Artikis,et al.  Interleaving multi-agent systems and social networks for organized adaptation , 2011, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[6]  Anton Nijholt,et al.  Computational Social Sciences , 2022, Encyclopedia of Big Data.

[7]  Andrzej Nowak,et al.  The Dynamics of Societal Transition: Modeling Nonlinear Change in the Polish Economic System , 2005 .

[8]  Marek J. Sergot,et al.  A logic-based calculus of events , 1989, New Generation Computing.

[9]  Tom Holvoet,et al.  Fundamentals of Holonic Systems and Their Implications for Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems , 2008, 2008 Second IEEE International Conference on Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems Workshops.

[10]  Alexander Artikis,et al.  Axiomatization of Socio-Economic Principles for Self-Organizing Institutions: Concepts, Experiments and Challenges , 2012, TAAS.

[11]  Marek J. Sergot,et al.  A Formal Characterisation of Institutionalised Power , 1996, Log. J. IGPL.

[12]  Jeremy V. Pitt,et al.  In praise of forgiveness: Ways for repairing trust breakdowns in one-off online interactions , 2008, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[13]  W. Lam,et al.  Governing Irrigation Systems in Nepal: Institutions, Infrastructure, and Collective Action , 1998 .

[14]  THOMAS HARDJONO,et al.  Social Use Cases for the ID3 Open Mustard Seed Platform , 2014, IEEE Technology and Society Magazine.

[15]  B. Latané,et al.  From private attitude to public opinion: A dynamic theory of social impact. , 1990 .

[16]  Jeremy V. Pitt,et al.  Emotions and Norms in Shared Spaces , 2013, COIN@AAMAS/PRIMA.

[17]  Christine M. Pearson,et al.  The price of incivility. , 2013, Harvard business review.

[18]  T. Shallice.  What ghost in the machine? , 1992, Nature.

[19]  Tore Frängsmyr,et al.  Les Prix Nobel , 2000 .

[20]  HERBERT A. SIMON,et al.  The Architecture of Complexity , 1991 .

[21]  E. Ostrom.  Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems , 2010, American Economic Review.

[22]  Alexander Artikis,et al.  Run-time composite event recognition , 2012, DEBS.

[23]  E. Ostrom.  Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems , 2010, American Economic Review.