Global Worker Voice Network
In The You On AI Field Guide
The proposal responds to a specific governance vacuum: AI systems developed in San Francisco can restructure labor markets in Manila, reshape educational practices in Nairobi, alter information environments in Dhaka — without any of the affected populations having access to any governance mechanism through which they might influence the deployment decisions that affect their lives. The existing international institutional architecture provides almost no mechanism for addressing this vacuum.
The design draws on precedents from transnational labor organizing (particularly the International Trade Union Confederation), global social movements (such as La Via Campesina), and the World Wide Views methodology developed by the Danish Board of Technology. Each provides partial models that the Network would integrate and adapt for the specific challenges of AI governance across supply chains.
The legitimacy-not-authority distinction is central to the proposal's feasibility. Conventional governance approaches would require creating new international institutions with formal authority — a process that typically requires decades and frequently fails. The Network avoids this barrier by deriving its governance weight from the democratic legitimacy of its deliberative process, which can be established through implementation rather than through negotiation of new international frameworks. Positions produced through genuine cross-border deliberation by affected workers carry legitimacy that industry position papers and government communiqués do not possess, and that legitimacy can be deployed in international forums as a counterweight to dominant interests.
The connection to the developer in Lagos trope from You On AI is explicit in Fung's analysis. The capability democratization that AI tools enable — the developer who can now build what previously required a team — occurs within a governance landscape that remains radically undemocratic. The Network addresses the governance dimension of this condition: not the technical capability gap, which AI is closing, but the institutional voice gap, which AI is widening.
Origin
The Network proposal emerged from Fung's extension of empowered participatory governance to the global level. The specific design synthesizes multiple precedents: the International Trade Union Confederation (transnational labor representation), the Danish Board of Technology's World Wide Views methodology (simultaneous cross-national deliberation), and various global social movements that have built legitimacy without formal international authority.
The Ash Center's December 2024 workshop on AI and democracy movements informed the design by documenting the specific capacity decline civil society organizations have experienced across national contexts. The Network is proposed as a structural response to this decline, creating cross-border capacity that compensates for domestic weakness.
Key Ideas
Legitimacy without formal authority. The Network derives governance weight from democratic deliberation rather than from institutional mandate, avoiding the barriers to creating new international institutions.
Cross-border deliberation addresses transnational disruption. AI's effects cross national boundaries; the governance response must do the same.
Practical knowledge across contexts. Workers in different national settings bring different practical knowledge; the combination produces insights none could achieve alone.
Structural response to civil society decline. Cross-border capacity compensates for the documented weakening of domestic civil society organizations across multiple contexts.