发表机构
The GovLab, New York University; University of Toronto, School of Cities（纽约大学 GovLab; 多伦多大学城市学院）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本文提出以“杠杆”补充“话语权”，通过法律、制度、合同等六种来源赋予社区可执行影响力，并构建六维度框架审计社会许可是否真正重新分配权力。
AI 中文摘要
当代数据治理已趋同于参与式方法。公民会议、协商式民意调查、共同设计工作坊和社区咨询小组现常被提议用于建立信任并为数据重用争取社会许可。然而，这一共识建立在一个未经审视的假设之上：即赋予受影响社区话语权本身就能改变数据持有者的行为。本文认为，该领域需要以杠杆补充话语权：即个人和社区通过附加可信的法律、制度、合同、经济或声誉成本于被忽视之上，使自身参与产生实质影响的能力。借鉴劳资关系谈判理论、纠纷社会学以及詹姆斯·C·斯科特关于可辨识性的论述，我们将杠杆发展为一个分析范畴，其由三个属性定义：反事实性、可执行性和持久性。我们进一步论证，杠杆以认知可辨识性为前提——受影响公众通常无法对不可见、不可记录或不可质疑的系统施加成本；且大多数现有透明度工具服务于监管者和采购方而非被治理者。随后，我们梳理了社区和数据主体可获取杠杆的六个来源（法律与监管；制度决策；合同；经济；数据访问；政治与声誉），考察了聚合并维持杠杆的中介结构，并提出了一个六维度评估框架：义务、可执行性、后果、监督装备、可撤销性和制度持久性，用于审计任何社会许可过程是否真正重新分配权力。本文的核心主张是，名副其实的社会许可必须具有法律许可的属性：条件、许可方以及对违约的可执行救济措施。
英文摘要
Contemporary data governance has converged on participation. Citizens assemblies, deliberative polls, codesign workshops, and community advisory panels are now routinely suggested to build trust and secure a social license for the reuse of data. Yet this consensus rests on an unexamined assumption: that giving affected communities a voice will, on its own, change what data holders do. This paper argues that the field needs to complement voice with leverage: the capacity of individuals and communities to make their participation consequential by attaching credible legal, institutional, contractual, economic, or reputational costs to being ignored. Drawing on labor relations bargaining theory, the sociology of disputes, and James C. Scott's account of legibility, we develop leverage as an analytic category defined by three properties: it is counterfactual, enforceable, and durable. We further argue that leverage presupposes epistemic legibility affected publics can rarely impose costs on a system they cannot see, document, or contest; and that most existing transparency instruments equip regulators and procurers rather than the governed. We then map six sources from which communities and data subjects can derive leverage (legal and regulatory; institutional decision; contractual; economic; data access; and political and reputational), examine the intermediary structures that aggregate and sustain it, and propose a six dimension evaluative framework: obligation, enforceability, consequence, monitoring equipment, revocability, and institutional durability for auditing whether any social license process actually redistributes power. The paper's central claim is that a social license worth the name must share the properties of a legal license: conditions, a licensor, and enforceable remedies for breach.
Comments19 pages
