print

Blockchain as Institution of Procedural Justice

Smorgunov L.V.,

Head of Political Governance Department, Faculty of Political Science, Saint Petersburg State University, l.smorgunov@spbu.ru

elibrary_id: 208776 | ORCID: 0000-0002-2581-2975 | RESEARCHER_ID: H-4986-2013

DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2018.05.08

Rubric: Theory and Methodology of Political Studies

For citation:

Smorgunov L.V. Blockchain as Institution of Procedural Justice. – Polis. Political Studies. 2018. No. 5. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2018.05.08

Abstract

In the theory of public policy, it is essential to find a fair procedure that could be used to obtain an equitable result in the course of choosing and making public decisions. Blockchain, as a network of distributed registers, is often positioned as a political institution that ensures the fairness of decisions by voting on the basis of a pure procedure. Political theory distinguishes between pure, perfect and imperfect procedural justice. The last two types of procedural justice are based on the criterion of a fair result, which is achieved on the basis of a perfect and imperfect procedure. Pure procedural justice is indifferent to a certain resulting criterion; it can be used to solve any issues. This article analyzes the political ontology of the pure procedural justice of blockchain technology, which relies not on the legal nature of the constitution of interaction in the network, but on the technical and social immediacy of cooperation and joint production. These qualities of pure procedural justice in the blockchain, as shown in the article, are provided by the relevant protocols and create the conditions for maintaining a reputation, forming an autonomous identity and building a special trust regime. An equally fair consensus procedure based on reciprocity and autonomy is also important. The article proves that such an institutional configuration of the blockchain acts as an analog of the political concept of J. Rawls’s justice as honesty. The empirical basis of the study is the analysis of cases of using blockchain-voting on the platform “Active citizen” (Moscow). 

Keywords

blockchain; procedural fairness; reputation; autonomous identity; trust; reciprocity; collaboration; “Active citizen”.

 Full Text 

Antonopulos A. Mastering Bitcoin: Unlocking Digital Crypto-Currencies. Sebastopol, Ca.: O’Reilly. 2014. 298 p.

Bancroft A., Reid P.S. Challenging the Techno-Politics of Anonymity: the Case of Cryptomarket Users. – Information, Communication & Society. 2017. Vol. 20. No. 4. 497-512. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1187643

Bjerg O. How is Bitcoin Money? – Theory, Culture and Society. 2016. Vol. 33. No. 1. P. 53-72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276415619015

Blanc J. Making Sense of the Plurality of Money: a Polanyian Attempt. SASE 29th Annual Meeting (Society for the

Advancement of Socio-Economics). Lyon, France. 2017. 24 p.
Carnwell R., Carson A. The Concepts of Partnership and Collaboration. – Effective Practice in Health, Social Care and Criminal Justice: A Partnership Approach. 2nd ed. Ed. by R. Carnwell, J. Buchanan. Maidenhead: Open Universities Press. 2008. P. 3-21.

Clemons E., Dewan R., Kauffman R., Weber Th. Understanding the Information-Based Transformation of Strategy and Society. – Journal of Mangement Information Systems. 2017. Vol. 32. No. 2. P. 425-456.

Cusumano M. Technology Strategy and Management: the Bitcoin Ecosystem. – Communication of the ACM. 2014. Vol. 57. No. 10. P. 22-24.

Danaher J., Hogan M., Noone Ch. Algorithmic Governance: Developing a Research Agenda Through the Power of Collective Intelligence. – Big Data & Society. 2017. Vol. 4. No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717726554

Davidson S., De Filippi P., Potts J. Blockchains and the Economic Institutions of Capitalism. – Journal of Institutional Economics. 2018. Vol. 14. No. 4. P. 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137417000200

Dos Santos R. On the Philosophy of Bitcoin / Blockchain Technology: Is it a Chaotic, Complex System? – Metaphilosophy. 2017. Vol. 48. No. 5. P. 620-633.

Greengard S. Internet of Things. Cambridge: MIT Press. 2015. 232 p.
Manski S. The Building the Blockchain World, Technological Commonwealth or Just More of the Same. – Strategic Change. 2017. Vol. 26. No. 5. P. 511-522. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2151

Moore D., Rid T. Cryptopolitik and the Darknet, Survival. – Global Politics and Strategy. 2016. Vol. 58. No. 1. P. 7-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2016.1142085

Rawls J. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 1999. 538 p.
Reijers W., O’Brolchain F., Haynes P. Governance in Blockchain Technologies & Social Contract Theories. – Ledger. 2016. Vol. 1. No. 1. P. 134-151. https://doi.org/10.5915/LEDGER.2016.62

Scott B., Loonam J., Kumar V. Exploring the Rise of Blockchain Technology: Towards Distributed Collaborative Organizations. – Strategic Change. 2017. Vol. 26. No. 5. P. 423-428. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2142

Shermin V. Disrupting Governance with Blockchains and Smart Contracts. –Strategic Change. 2017. Vol. 26. No. 5. P. 499-509. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2150

Swam M., De Filippi P. Towards a Philosophy of Blockchain: A Symposium. – Metaphilosophy. 2017. Vol. 48. No. 5. P. 603-619. https://doi.org/10.1111/meta.12270
Swan M. Blockchain. Sebastopol, Ca.: O’Reilly Media. 2015. 149 p. URL: https://coingrats.nl/Blockchain-Blueprint-for-a-new-Economy.pdf (accessed 01.07.2018).


Velasko P. Computing Ledgers and the Political Ontology of the Blockchain. – Metaphilosophy. 2017. Vol. 48. No. 5. P. 712-726.


Vikram D., Metcalf D., Hooper M. Blockchain Enabled Applications: Understand the Blockchain Ecosystem and How to Make It Work for You. Orlando, Fe.: Apress. 2017. 218 p.   

See also: