Editor’s note: In this post, the third in a series drawing from Fergus Hanson's new book, "Internet Wars: The Struggle for Power in the 21st Century," Hanson analyzes the growing trend of online petitioning influencing policymaking, but argues the caveat that the nature of online campaigning is not always conducive to good policy.

Last federal election, the Obama campaign spent nearly $1 billion to get 66 million voters out to support the president’s victory.

So as the 2016 election approaches, large lists of politically-minded individuals have special value. And it just so happens in the last five years some very large lists have emerged.

These lists are controlled by online citizen-aggregation sites. The largest, Change.org, now reports more than 100 million users, but others are also huge: Avaaz reports 42 million and Care2 32 million.

So far, the operators of these sites have not directed their members in the same way as some of their overseas counterparts.

Two of the largest U.S. organizations—Change and Care2—are for-profit B-corporations and sell access to their membership, often for a hefty fee. They rely almost exclusively on petitions. This is probably driven by commercial motivations to grow membership with a view to selling access to it. But petitions are limited in their ability to effect change, especially as politicians become desensitized to them.

In other parts of the world, the model has evolved to become much more overtly political. A good example is one of the first movers in the space, GetUp!, an Australian-based group. It uses crowd sourcing to fund its secretariat, raising over $5.7 million from tens of thousands of micro donations averaging $11.50 each. It uses these funds to run successful high court challenges and other publicity (and pressure) generating stunts. It stations members at polling booths during elections and uses its members’ shareholder rights to hijack corporate meetings.

This trend is one of the radical new ways the Internet has allowed the masses to aggregate their voice in order to exert influence on decision makers. Suddenly, people are able to do this on a regular basis, outside formal structures like trade unions and political parties.

It also provides great influence to the individuals leading the campaigning sites. They can exercise this by shaping which campaigns have most prominence on a site and allocating in-house resources to help the campaigns they like with editing of material, generating media, and behind the scenes lobbying.

There is a now a long list of examples where these organizations have exerted significant influence on corporations and politicians, but in many ways they are still undergoing significant evolution.

The shift to a broader repertoire than simple petitions and more hands-on political engagement seems likely.

There is also a potential evolution underway in their politics. Most campaigning sites are openly progressive in orientation, but this is changing. In late 2012, Change.org controversially shifted its policy to allow advertising from non-progressively aligned groups. Conservative groups have also started to mobilize online, a prominent example being the Heritage Foundation in the United States, which now has a significant online presence.

Whatever their political leanings, the policy reality of this new force is messy.

The nature of online campaigning is not always conducive to good policy because the groups lack institutional policymaking expertise and often launch campaigns off the backs of crises, allowing little time to think through consequences.

Ironically, these people-power sites also face a question of legitimacy. Three hundred very vocal people with a clever campaign can sometimes drive change that the majority wouldn’t necessarily support. The nature of the Internet can also occasionally make it hard to distinguish between the views of local nationals and foreign citizens voicing their concerns from abroad. Finally, there is the question of the legitimacy of the heads of these organizations who can be unelected business people with out-sized influence.

This is not the only way the Internet is empowering citizens and disrupting global power dynamics. Internet Wars looks at three messy, but intriguing ways citizen power is reshaping the world.

Read the first part in the series, “Big issues facing the Internet: Economic espionage,” and the second, "Waging (cyber)war in peacetime."

Recent developments in the U.S. economy present opportunities and challenges for how to effectively promote widely shared economic prosperity in a changing labor market. The proliferation of nontraditional and contingent employment relationships, fostered in part by new technology platforms, creates new opportunities, but also new regulatory, legal, and public policy challenges. Consumers and workers alike now use online technology and apps to contract for specific, on-demand services such as cleaning, handiwork, shopping, cooking, driving, and landscaping. These developments constitute what has been referred to as the “online gig” or “on-demand” economy, where work is taking place in a series of one-off gigs, rather than in an ongoing relationship with a single employer. The emergence of the online gig economy has increased policy interest in the issue of contingent work arrangements, which broadly include independent contractors as well as part-time, temporary, seasonal, or subcontracted workers.

In some respects, these on-demand gigs benefit both workers and the economy, and help to support job growth and household incomes in the post–Great Recession labor market recovery. Such gigs often feature flexible hours, low or no training costs, and generally few barriers to worker entry. These features have enabled gig-economy workers, including those with other jobs, to generate new income or to supplement their primary incomes during difficult times in a strained job market. Moreover, customers purchasing such on-demand services have benefited from the convenience and availability of services as well as the low cost at which they are often offered.

However, other aspects of the gig economy have raised some concerns. First, these jobs generally confer few employer-provided benefits and workplace protections. This stands in contrast to traditional employer–employee relationships that often come with manifold assurances and protections, such as overtime compensation, minimum wage protections, health insurance, disability insurance, unemployment insurance, maternity and paternity leave, employer-sponsored retirement plans, workers’ compensation for injuries, paid sick leave, and the ability to engage in collective action. Second, technological developments occurring in the workplace have come to blur the legal definitions of the terms “employee” and “employer” in ways that were unimaginable when employment regulations like the Wagner Act of 1935 and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 were written. The evolution of the work relationship over time has led to important regulatory gaps. Some observers perceive that the online gig economy is leading to a rise in the share of work arrangements that are precarious, as compared to traditional employer–employee arrangements, and that the enhanced flexibility of the marketplace has come at a cost of economic security for many workers. In fact, systematic and timely data on contingent work arrangements are hard to come by so economists are still trying to figure out how common and widespread they are and what their impact on workers’ economic security might be. The absence of systematic data makes it all the more difficult to analyze the costs and benefits of contingent work arrangements for workers and businesses, and thus inform the appropriate policy and regulatory response. While the online gig economy is bringing this challenge to the fore, the broader issues surrounding classification and protection of contingent workers are not new or isolated. Importantly, the use of subcontracted and temporary workers, and workers with irregular or on-call shifts, also may require new regulatory frameworks.

In this framing paper, The Hamilton Project describes the broader economic context of contingent employer–employee relationships and where the emerging on-demand gig economy fits in this context. It also highlights the regulatory and measurement gaps that need to be resolved.

Downloads

• Full paper

Event Information

On July 5, the Center for Universal Education at Brookings and the partners of the world’s first development impact bond for education held an online a discussion of the first year’s enrollment and learning results. The impact bond provides financing for Educate Girls, a non-profit that aims to increase enrollment for out-of-school girls and improve learning outcomes for girls and boys in Rajasthan, India. The UBS Optimus Foundation has provided upfront risk capital to Educate Girls and, contingent on program targets being met, will be paid back their principal plus a return by the Children's Investment Fund Foundation. Instiglio, a non-profit organization specializing in results-based financing mechanisms, serves as the program intermediary.

The webinar explored the experiences so far, the factors affecting the initial results, the key learnings, and ways these will inform the development of the programs it moves forward. The partners shared both positive and negative learnings to start a transparent discussion of the model and where, and how, it can be most effective.

Chaired by Emily Gustafsson-Wright, a fellow at the Center for Universal Education, the discussion featured Safeena Husain of Educate Girls, Phyllis Costanza of UBS Optimus Foundation, and Avnish Gungadurdoss of Instiglio. For further background on impact bonds as a financing mechanism for education and early childhood development in low- and middle-income countries, please see the Center for Universal Education’s report.

Further information on the outcome metrics and evaluation design in the Educate Girls Development Impact Bond » (PDF)

Watch a recording of the webinar via WebEx »