global voices, one world

It is not yet 9am, Sunday morning. Early sunlight shines through the window – it’s too fierce and I have to actually dim it with the curtains. Last night I ended up writing about Benkler’s three modes of production: the market, the firm and peer production. They all have different answers to the question: “how is decided who does what?” Under the market, the price mechanism determines supply and demand. Under the firm, hierarchy (in other words, your boss) tells you what you need to do. Under peer production, we decide for ourselves what we are interested in doing. It depends on transaction costs what mode makes most sense to employ. For example, if the market is not transparent and search costs are high, it makes sense to produce under the firm (employ personnel, pay wages) rather than leave it to the market. Advances in technology can change the dynamics of transaction costs – in theory they should lower transaction costs, for example, by making it easier to search. Often we overlook how technology increases transaction costs, for example, by overloading us with information. What Benkler argues, and illustrates with examples such as Wikipedia and Linux, is that the internet is able to lower transaction costs so drastically that a third mode of production is possible: peer production. Instead of relying on price or hierarchy to coordinate activities, people effectively self-sort and self-identify the things they want to do. People essentially do something they care about intrinsically, and this is often a pretty good indicator that they are good at it as well, although this is not necessarily the case. How do we check for quality? Under the market, theory goes that inferior products will be priced away. Under the firm, the boss will go after you. But what about the quality of work under peer production? Who checks, monitors and enforces sanctions when something is bad, unreliable, etc? The answer is: we all do. The process of quality control, of accreditation itself can also be peer produced. That’s what happens with Slashdot (karma points), Wikipedia (anyone can edit).

This is the theory – simplified, admittedly, but hopefully sufficient for now and I urge you to read Benkler for the full version of his arguments. For my project, I have two questions: first, the three modes of production as Benkler outlines them are more or less ideal types. But how would hybrid models look like, and under what conditions would they arise? As peer production continues to grow in relevance, we need to understand not only how it functions in isolation but how it interacts or complements other modes of production and what implications these hybrid models have for quality and sustainability. Second, for the specific project I am working on, what does all this means for journalism as a form of cultural production? How does a peer produced journalism look like? How sustainable is journalism under peer production? If peer production is self-identified, what implications does this have for the quality, reliability and objectivity of news when people cover issues they have a self-interest in?