1. . 信息政策 Information Policy

2. Government ’ s Two Information Roles 政府的两个信息角色 Government as regulator of information flow in society 信息监管者：政府对信息在社会中的流动规则 进行监管 Government as user and producer of information 信息使用者和生成者：政府本身也使用和生成 信息

3. Government ’ s information roles 政府与信息相关的角色 Regulator of information flow in society 信息在社会中的流动的 监管者 Information collector, producer, provider & user 信息的采集者、 生成者、提供者、 和使用者

4. Government ’ s first information role 政府的第一个与信息相关的角色 公共信息政策 Regulator of information flow in society 信息在社会中的流动的 监管者 Information collector, producer, provider & user 信息的采集者、 生成者、提供者、 和使用者

5. 公共信息政策 Public Information Policy 为电子治理提供法律基础 legitimizing foundation 为政府、企业、个人对信息的采集、使用、保护、与 共享明确规则与条件 Specify the rules and conditions under which information is gathered, used, protected, and shared by government, individual and the private sector

6. Gavin’s Typology Gavin 信息政策分类法 Access Privacy Propriety Other societal, political, or economic values 其他社会、政治与经济价值 获取权 所有权 隐私权

7. - Three types of information policy conflicts: 三类信息冲突 1. How to establish, implement, or define a single information value? 如何建立，执行或界定某一种信息价值观？ 2. A conflict between an information value and some other competing actual or perceived societal, political, or economic values such as national security, public decency and public safety etc. 一种信息价值观与其他社会，政治与经济价值观间的冲突（如国家安 全，公 共道德，公共安全等） 3. A conflict between any two or among all three information values: access rights, proprietary rights and privacy rights 三种信息价值观之间的冲突：获取信息的权利，信息的所有权， 隐私权 Gavin’s Typology Gavin 信息政策分类法

8. Rowlands’ Framework

9. Rowlands’ Framework Rowlands’ 信息政策框架 Rowlands’s Model (1996) Rowlands 的理论模型 - Two sets of opposing forces: 两对矛盾 “Access vs. Secrecy” “ 获取与保密 ” “Public good vs. Tradable commodity” “ 公共产品与可买卖的商品 ” - Four quadrants 四个象限 - Balance and compromise between the opposing forces 矛盾间的 “ 平衡 ” 与 “ 妥协 ”

10. Two Themes 两个主题 Conflict among values 价值观之间的冲突 Compromise 妥协 Information policy is the products of striking a balance among competing values 信息政策是在各种互相对立的价值观之间寻求 平衡的产物

11. Regulator Role: 信息监管角色 In this role, government treats information as an object of policy, that is, its intention is to regulate or protect information itself 政府将信息视为政策的对象，从而对信息 加以监管或保护

12. Government ’ s second information role 政府的第二个与信息相关的角色 Regulator of information flow in society 信息在社会中的流动的 监管者 Information collector, producer, provider & user 信息的采集者、 生成者、提供者、 和使用者

13. Principles of information use within government 政府内部信息使用原则 Stewardship 保管 Usefulness 使用

14. Information Stewardship Principle 信息保管原则 A conservative principle that addresses: 保守的原则，针对以下方面 treatment of government information as a fiduciary responsibility of all agencies 将信息视为所有政府部门的保管对象 data collection decisions and methods 数据采集决策与方法 data definition, quality, and integrity 数据定义、质量与整合 information & system security 信息与系统安全 confidentiality protections 保密 records management and disposition 记录管理和储存

15. Information Use Principle 信息使用原则 An expansive principle that addresses: 扩展的原则，针对以下方面： Information as an asset of government programs 将信息视为政府项目的资产 information sharing within government & with others 政府内部以及政府与其他组织间的信息共享 information-handling skills of public employees 政府工作人员的信息处理能力 information and technology as agents of change in Programs ， services ， the relationship between government and citizens 将信息和技术视为推动项目、服务以及政府和公民间关系变革的媒介

16. Participant role 信息参与角色 As a participant in the information society, government itself is a collector, user and disseminator of information 作为信息社会的参与者，政府本身是信息得的采 集者、使用者和传播者 In this role, government treats information as an instrument of policy 在这一角色中，政府将信息视为政策的工具 Values are always involved 总是会牵涉都价值观的问题 To play this role effectively, stewardship and usefulness principles must work together 为了有效扮演这一角色，保管与使 用的原则必须同时运用

17. Summary 总结 Government has two roles in the information policy environment: 政府在信息政策环境中具有两种角色： Policy maker 政策制定者 Caretaker of and user of information 信息的保管与使用者

18. Case Study

21. Cross-national Information Policy Conflict

22. Cross-national Conflict Both national governments guarded their own information policies firmly. A cross-national conflict appeared between the two countries prominently. Regulating the Internet is International Practice - Chinese officials argued that regulating the Internet is an international practice. They asserted that access to the Internet in western countries is also subject to restriction and what the Chinese government does is just the same thing. - When the US government denounced China’s Internet control for the sake of political suppression, the Chinese government mainly defended its information policy for social and cultures concerns such as pornography, terrorism, protection of teenagers etc.

23. Strong Pressure Imposed by Government on Multinational Firms - the U.S. government criticized the practices of the three firms in China - the Chinese government officials imposed strong pressure on multinational firms and insisted that they should comply with Chinese laws and regulations when doing business in China.

24. Compromises were Made by Multinational Firms Faced with the dilemma, multinational companies took a pragmatic approach in order to survival in business. All three companies have made compromises and taken efforts to strike a balance between the two countries. They did not ignore the information policy of either country; at the same time they did not make absolute concessions to either side. Degree of Compromise Varies Across Firms A comparison among three companies’ practices in China reveals a variation across them in terms of the direction and degree of making compromises. Yahoo seemingly goes farthest towards China’s policy; Google goes farthest in favor of the American value; Microsoft stands in the middle.

25. Variables Influencing Firms Practices - Governmental Factor: Both the U.S and Chinese government attempted to pull the multinational firms to their side. The strength of their pressures and determinations to enforce their information policies could have an impact on a firm's decisions. - Market Factors: Market factors includes market attractiveness and the degree of competition. - Societal Factors: Societal actors such as media, domestic and international nonprofit organizations, universities and the general public together could also have significant impacts on multinational firms’ practices. - Internal Factors: Internal factors includes the degree of the American headquarter's control over its local operations in China and a firm's own preferences about information policy.

26. Multinational Firms’ Efforts: - Being constrained by the given environment, all three companies also attempted to transform their business environments. - They called for collective industry efforts to develop industry common practices and government involvement in reconciling the conflict between the two countries. - wish that the Internet itself will transform the political and social conditions in China and in long run will reduce the conflict between the two countries.

27. Analysis Applying Galvin and Rowlands’ s models: Conflicts and compromises between values occur in both US and China. However, the governments of the two countries take different approaches to strike a balance between these values. China’s Balance Free Access to Information Access National Security, Political and Social Stability, Economic Security Public Moral Ethnic harmony etc. Restriction Free Access to Information National Security, Political and Social Stability, Economic Security Public Moral Ethnic harmony etc. The US’s Balance AccessRestriction

28. Conceptual Framework China’s Balance Point Restriction Access The US’s Balance Point Access Restriction (Political Distance+Culture Distance) Cross-national Conflict Conceptual Framework of Cross-national Information Policy Conflict Regarding Access to Information The U.S. China Government Factors Market Factors Societal Factors Internal Factors Google Yahoo Microsoft Multinational Companies’ Balance Point

29. Analysis Nature of cross-national information policy conflict: With regard to access to information, it is NOT simply about a battle between the value of “free access to information” versus the value of “restricting information” It is about a conflict caused by the distance between two countries’ different approaches in the process of striking a balance between “access” and “restriction” It is more of a problem of “degree” than “direction” While Galvin and Rowlands defined domestic information policy conflict as conflicts among competing values, cross-national information policy conflict could be defined as “conflicts between nations’ different approaches in the process of striking balances among competing values”

30. Analysis Differences between countries reflect political, social, economic and culture value in these countries. However, who have the rights to decide a country’s balance point? Leaders only or Stakeholders together?

31. Implication for Policymakers Government as a regulator Government as an information users Government as a negotiator in cross-national conflict

32. Implication for Policymakers Government as a regulator Multinational firms’ compromises seem to be common and inevitable, policymakers in one particular country may need to think about how far firms are allowed to go towards the other side and whether a boundary needs to be set to limit their choices. In order to pull a multinational firm’s balance point towards its side, besides imposing political pressures on firms, a government may also need to take into consideration other factors such as market, society and firms’ internal arrangements. Besides imposing pressures, a national government may need to take a government-to-government approach and communicate with the national government of the other country in order to reduce the degree of the conflict and enforce its information policy more effectively.

33. Implication for Policymakers Government as an information user Due to globalization and increasing interdependence among countries, a national government often needs to share information with other nations on issues such as epidemic diseases, border control, anti-terrorism etc. Cross-national information policy conflict could be a barrier for transnational information sharing. In order to achieve the goal of transnational information sharing successfully, a national government needs to negotiate directly with the government of other countries to reconcile the conflict.

34. Implication for Policymakers Government as a negotiator in international arena A national government could reduce the degree of cross-national conflict, namely, to shorten the length of the lever between the two countries. A shorter lever could help a government to play its role more effectively as both a regulator and an information user A national government could shorten the length of the lever in two ways: bringing the other nation’s position closer to itself or moving itself closer to the other nation as a result compromise. Whenever possible, a national government tends to choose the former way. In reality it may be more often to see both approaches occurring at the same time. Therefore, both countries may have to make some compromise in order to reconcile the conflict.

35. Implication for Policymakers Government as a negotiator in international arena The degree of cross-national conflict could change over time with a country’s political, economic and cultural transformation. Therefore, policymakers of one country may be able to reduce the degree of cross-national conflict through influencing the fundamental political, economic and cultural context in another country. Policymaker might need to deal with cultural distance and political distance separately. Although the former is usually less controversial and more acceptable than the latter, the former could actually be more difficult to deal with, because culture is deeply embedded in people’s beliefs and behaviors.

36. Implication for Policymakers Government as a negotiator in international arena Cross-national information policy conflict is not simply about a battle between the value of “free access to information” and the value of “restricting information”, but about a difference between two countries’ approaches in the process of striking a balance between two values. Keeping this in mind, policy makers may be able to find more common languages in negotiations, or could even look for allies in the other country who share the same value with them.