Stefaan Verhulst
Cass R. Sunstein in the Journal of Consumer Policy: “Some people believe that nudges undermine human agency, but with appropriate nudges, neither agency nor consumer freedom is at risk. On the contrary, nudges can promote both goals. In some contexts, they are indispensable. There is no opposition between education on the one hand and nudges on the other. Many nudges are educative. Even when they are not, they can complement, and not displace, consumer education….(More)”.
Robert Metcalfe at OUP Blog: “Do neighbourhoods matter to outcomes? Which classroom interventions improve educational attainment? How should we raise money to provide important and valued public goods? Do energy prices affect energy demand? How can we motivate people to become healthier, greener, and more cooperative? These are some of the most challenging questions policy-makers face. Academics have been trying to understand and uncover these important relationships for decades.
Many of the empirical tools available to economists to answer these questions do not allow causal relationships to be detected. Field experiments represent a relatively new methodological approach capable of measuring the causal links between variables. By overlaying carefully designed experimental treatments on real people performing tasks common to their daily lives, economists are able to answer interesting and policy-relevant questions that were previously intractable. Manipulation of market environments allows these economists to uncover the hidden motivations behind economic behaviour more generally. A central tenet of field experiments in the policy world is that governments should understand the actual behavioural responses of their citizens to changes in policies or interventions.
Field experiments represent a departure from laboratory experiments. Traditionally, laboratory experiments create experimental settings with tight control over the decision environment of undergraduate students. While these studies also allow researchers to make causal statements, policy-makers are often concerned subjects in these experiments may behave differently in settings where they know they are being observed or when they are permitted to sort out of the market.
For example, you might expect a college student to contribute more to charity when she is scrutinized in a professor’s lab than when she can avoid the ask altogether. Field experiments allow researchers to make these causal statements in a setting that is more generalizable to the behaviour policy-makers are directly interested in.
To date, policy-makers traditionally gather relevant information and data by using focus groups, qualitative evidence, or observational data without a way to identify causal mechanisms. It is quite easy to elicit people’s intentions about how they behave with respect to a new policy or intervention, but there is increasing evidence that people’s intentions are a poor guide to predicting their behaviour.
However, we are starting to see a small change in how governments seek to answer pertinent questions. For instance, the UK tax office (Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs) now uses field experiments across some of its services to improve the efficacy of scarce taxpayers money. In the US, there are movements toward gathering more evidence from field experiments.
In the corporate world, experimenting is not new. Many of the current large online companies—such as Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft—are constantly using field experiments matched with big data to improve their products and deliver better services to their customers. More and more companies will use field experiments over time to help them better set prices, tailor advertising, provide a better customer journey to increase welfare, and employ more productive workers…(More).
See also Field Experiments in the Developed World: An Introduction (Oxford Review of Economic Policy)
Collection of POVs aggregated by Thomas Carothers at Foreign Policy: “New technologies offer important tools for empowerment — yet democracy is stagnating. What’s up?…
THe current moment confronts us with a paradox. The first fifteen years of this century have been a time of astonishing advances in communications and information technology, including digitalization, mass-accessible video platforms, smart phones, social media, billions of people gaining internet access, and much else. These revolutionary changes all imply a profound empowerment of individuals through exponentially greater access to information, tremendous ease of communication and data-sharing, and formidable tools for networking. Yet despite these changes, democracy — a political system based on the idea of the empowerment of individuals — has in these same years become stagnant in the world. The number of democracies today is basically no greater than it was at the start of the century. Many democracies, both long-established ones and newer ones, are experiencing serious institutional debilities and weak public confidence.
How can we reconcile these two contrasting global realities — the unprecedented advance of technologies that facilitate individual empowerment and the overall lack of advance of democracy worldwide? To help answer this question, I asked six experts on political change, all from very different professional and national perspectives. Here are their responses, followed by a few brief observations of my own.
1. Place a Long Bet on the Local By Martin Tisné
2. Autocrats Know How to Use Tech, Too By Larry Diamond
3. Limits on Technology Persist By Senem Aydin Düzgit
4. The Harder Task By Rakesh Rajani
5. Don’t Forget Institutions By Diane de Gramont
6. Mixed Lessons from Iran By Golnaz Esfandiari
7. Yes, It’s Complicated byThomas Carothers…(More)”
Book by Stephen Few: “In this age of so-called Big Data, organizations are scrambling to implement new software and hardware to increase the amount of data they collect and store. However, in doing so they are unwittingly making it harder to find the needles of useful information in the rapidly growing mounds of hay. If you don’t know how to differentiate signals from noise, adding more noise only makes things worse. When we rely on data for making decisions, how do we tell what qualifies as a signal and what is merely noise? In and of itself, data is neither. Assuming that data is accurate, it is merely a collection of facts. When a fact is true and useful, only then is it a signal. When it’s not, it’s noise. It’s that simple. In Signal, Stephen Few provides the straightforward, practical instruction in everyday signal detection that has been lacking until now. Using data visualization methods, he teaches how to apply statistics to gain a comprehensive understanding of one’s data and adapts the techniques of Statistical Process Control in new ways to detect not just changes in the metrics but also changes in the patterns that characterize data…(More)”
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Press Release: “…the acting Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator, Andy Slavitt, announced a new policy that for the first time will allow innovators and entrepreneurs to access CMS data, such as Medicare claims. As part of the Administration’s commitment to use of data and information to drive transformation of the healthcare delivery system, CMS will allow innovators and entrepreneurs to conduct approved research that will ultimately improve care and provide better tools that should benefit health care consumers through a greater understanding of what the data says works best in health care. The data will not allow the patient’s identity to be determined, but will provide the identity of the providers of care. CMS will begin accepting innovator research requests in September 2015.
“Data is the essential ingredient to building a better, smarter, healthier system. Today’s announcement is aimed directly at shaking up health care innovation and setting a new standard for data transparency,” said acting CMS Administrator Andy Slavitt. “We expect a stream of new tools for beneficiaries and care providers that improve care and personalize decision-making.”
Innovators and entrepreneurs will access data via the CMS Virtual Research Data Center (VRDC) which provides access to granular CMS program data, including Medicare fee-for-service claims data, in an efficient and cost effective manner. Researchers working in the CMS VRDC have direct access to approved privacy-protected data files and are able to conduct their analysis within a secure CMS environment….
Examples of tools or products that innovators and entrepreneurs might develop include care management or predictive modeling tools, which could greatly benefit the healthcare system, in the form of healthier people, better quality, or lower cost of care. Even though all data is privacy-protected, researchers also will not be allowed to remove patient-level data from the VRDC. They will only be able to download aggregated, privacy-protected reports and results to their own personal workstation. …(More)”
Beth Noveck in Governing: “What makes open data a powerful tool for governing better is the ability of people inside and outside of institutions to use the same data to create effective policies and useful tools, visualizations, maps and apps. Open data also can provide the raw material to convene informed conversations about what’s broken and the empirical foundation for developing solutions. But to realize its potential, the data needs to be truly open: not only universally and readily accessible but also structured for usability and computability.
One area where open data has the potential to make a real difference — and where some of its current limitations are all too apparent — is in state-level regulation of nonprofits. In May, a task force comprising the Federal Trade Commission together with 58 agencies from all 50 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit against the Cancer Fund group of nonprofits and the individuals who run them. The complaint alleges that the groups are sham charities that spend “the overwhelming majority of donated funds supporting the Individual Defendants, their families and friends, and their fundraisers.” State officials spotted telltale signs of abuse and fraud by studying information the organizations had submitted in their federal nonprofit tax returns and state-by-state registration forms.
Nonprofit tax returns and registration forms are the public’s (and government’s) primary window into the workings of America’s enormous and economically impactful nonprofit sector. Every year in the United States, approximately 1.5 million registered tax-exempt organizations file a version of the federal Form 990, the tax return for tax-exempt organization, with the Internal Revenue Service and state tax authorities. These forms collect details on the organizations’ financial, governance and organizational structure to the end of ensuring that they are deserving of their tax-exempt status. All but 10 states also require that nonprofits file state-specific registration forms. The information these filings contain about executive compensation, fundraising expenses and donation activities can help regulators spot possible bad actors and alert each other to targets for further investigation.
Yet despite the richness and utility of the information contained in these filings, major barriers prevent regulators from efficiently sharing and analyzing the data..(More)”
ODI: “New research has been published today (1 June) by the Open Data Institute showing that open data is reaching every sector of UK industry.
In various forms, open data is being adopted by a wide variety of businesses – small and large, new and old, from right across the country. The findings from Open data means business: UK innovation across sectors and regions draw on 270 companies with a combined turnover of £92bn and over 500k employees, identified by the ODI as using, producing or investing in open data as part of their business. The project included desk research, surveys and interviews on the companies’ experiences.
Key findings from the research include:
- Companies using open data come from many sectors; over 46% from outside the information and communication sector. These include finance & insurance, science & technology, business administration & support, arts & entertainment, health, retail, transportation, education and energy.
- The most popular datasets for companies aregeospatial/mapping data (57%), transport data (43%) and environment data (42%).
- 39% of companies innovating with open data are over 10 years old, with some more than 25 years old, proving open data isn’t just for new digital startups.
- ‘Micro-enterprises’ (businesses with fewer than 10 employees) represented 70% of survey respondents, demonstrating athriving open data startup scene. These businesses are using it to create services, products and platforms. 8% of respondents were drawn from large companies of 251 or more employees….
- The companies surveyed listed 25 different government sources for the data they use. Notably, Ordnance Survey data was cited most frequently, by 14% of the companies. The non-government source most commonly used was OpenStreetMap, an openly licenced map of the world created by volunteers….(More)
Libby Plummer at Wareable: “The real news behind the rise of wearable tech isn’t so much the gadgetry as the gigantic amount of personal data that it harnesses.
Concerns have already been raised over what companies may choose to do with such valuable information, with one US life insurance company already using Fitbits to track customers’ exercise and offer them discounts when they hit their activity goals.
Despite a mildly worrying potential dystopia in which our own data could be used against us, there are plenty of positive ways in which companies are using vast amounts of connected data to make the world a better place…
Parkinson’s disease research
Apple Health ResearchKit was recently unveiled as a platform for collecting collaborative data for medical studies, but Apple isn’t the first company to rely on crowdsourced data for medical research.
The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research recently unveiled a partnership with Intel to improve research and treatment for the neurodegenerative brain disease. Wearables are being used to unobtrusively gather real-time data from sufferers, which is then analysed by medical experts….
Saving the rhino
Connected data and wearable tech isn’t just limited to humans. In South Africa, the Madikwe Conservation Project is using wearable-based data to protect endangered rhinos from callous poachers.
A combination of ultra-strong Kevlar ankle collars powered by an Intel Galileo chip, along with an RFID chip implanted in each rhino’s horn allows the animals to be monitored. Any break in proximity between the anklet and horn results in anti-poaching teams being deployed to catch the bad guys….
Making public transport smart
A company called Snips is collecting huge amounts of urban data in order to improve infrastructure. In partnership with French national rail operator SNCF, Snips produced an app called Tranquilien to utilise location data from commuters’ phones and smartwatches to track which parts of the rail network were busy at which times.
Combining big data with crowdsourcing, the information helps passengers to pick a train where they can find a seat during peak times, while the data can also be useful to local businesses when serving the needs of commuters who are passing through.
Improving the sports fan experience
We’ve already written about how wearable tech is changing the NFL, but the collection of personal data is also set to benefit the fans.
Levi’s Stadium – the new home of the San Francisco 49ers – opened in 2014 and is one of the most technically advanced sports venues in the world. As well as a strong Wi-Fi signal throughout the stadium, fans also benefit from a dedicated app. This not only offers instant replays and real-time game information, but it also helps them find a parking space, order food and drinks directly to their seat and even check the lines at the toilets. As fans use the app, all of the data is collated to enhance the fan experience in future….
Creating interactive art
Don’t be put off by the words ‘interactive installation’. On Broadway is a cool work of art that “represents life in the 21st Century city through a compilation of images and data collected along the 13 miles of Broadway that span Manhattan”….(More)”
Matt Ford at the Atlantic: “An abundance of data has fueled the reform movement, but from prisons to prosecutors, crucial questions remain unquantified.
After Ferguson, a noticeable gap in criminal-justice statistics emerged: the use of lethal force by the police. The federal government compiles a wealth of data on homicides, burglaries, and arson, but no official, reliable tabulation of civilian deaths by law enforcement exists. A partial database kept by the FBI is widely considered to be misleading and inaccurate. (The Washington Post has just released a more expansive total of nearly 400 police killings this year.) “It’s ridiculous that I can’t tell you how many people were shot by the police last week, last month, last year,” FBI Director James Comey told reporters in April.
This raises an obvious question: If the FBI can’t tell how many people were killed by law enforcement last year, what other kinds of criminal-justice data are missing? Statistics are more than just numbers: They focus the attention of politicians, drive the allocation of resources, and define the public debate. Public officials—from city councilors to police commanders to district attorneys—are often evaluated based on how these numbers change during their terms in office. But existing statistical measures only capture part of the overall picture, and the problems that go unmeasured are often also unaddressed. What changes could the data that isn’t currently collected produce if it were gathered?….
Without reliable official statistics, scholars often must gather and compile necessary data themselves. “A few years ago, I was struck at how many police killings of civilians we seemed to be having in Philadelphia,” Gottschalk said as an example. “They would be buried in the newspaper, and I was stunned by how difficult it was to compile that information and compare it to New York and do it on a per-capita basis. It wasn’t readily available.” As a result, criminal-justice researchers often spend more time gathering data than analyzing it.
This data’s absence shapes the public debate over mass incarceration in the same way that silence between notes of music gives rhythm to a song. Imagine debating the economy without knowing the unemployment rate, or climate change without knowing the sea level, or healthcare reform without knowing the number of uninsured Americans. Legislators and policymakers heavily rely on statistics when crafting public policy. Criminal-justice statistics can also influence judicial rulings, including those by the Supreme Court, with implications for the entire legal system.
Beyond their academic and policymaking value, there’s also a certain power to statistics. They have the irreplaceable ability to both clarify social issues and structure the public’s understanding of them. A wealth of data has allowed sociologists, criminologists, and political scientists to diagnose serious problems with the American criminal-justice system over the past twenty years. Now that a growing bipartisan consensus recognizes the problem exists, gathering the right facts and figures could help point the way towards solutions…(More)”
Robert Rotberg at the Conversation: “…Citizens everywhere desire “good governance” – to be governed well within their nation-states, their provinces, their states and their cities.
Governance is more useful than “democracy” if we wish to understand how different political rulers and ruling elites satisfy the aspirations of their citizens.
But to make the notion of “governance” useful, we need both a practical definition and a method of measuring the gradations between good and bad governance.
What’s more, if we can measure well, we can diagnose weak areas of governance and, hence, seek ways to make the weak actors strong.
Governance, defined as “the performance of governments and the delivery of services by governments,” tells us if and when governments are in fact meeting the expectations of their constituents and providing for them effectively and responsibly.
Democracy outcomes, by contrast, are much harder to measure because the meaning of the very word itself is contested and impossible to measure accurately.
For the purposes of making policy decisions, if we seek to learn how citizens are faring under regime X or regime Y, we need to compare governance (not democracy) in those respective places.
In other words, governance is a construct that enables us to discern exactly whether citizens are progressing in meeting life’s goals.
Measuring governance: five bundles and 57 subcategories
Are citizens of a given country better off economically, socially and politically than they were in an earlier decade? Are their various human causes, such as being secure or being free, advancing? Are their governments treating them well, and attempting to respond to their various needs and aspirations and relieving them of anxiety?
Just comparing national gross domestic products (GDPs), life expectancies or literacy rates provides helpful distinguishing data, but governance data are more comprehensive, more telling and much more useful.
Assessing governance tells us far more about life in different developing societies than we would learn by weighing the varieties of democracy or “human development” in such places.
Government’s performance, in turn, is according to the scheme advanced in my book On Governance and in my Index of African Governance, the delivery to citizens of five bundles (divided into 57 underlying subcategories) of political goods that citizens within any kind of political jurisdiction demand.
The five major bundles are Security and Safety, Rule of Law and Transparency, Political Participation and Respect for Human Rights, Sustainable Economic Opportunity, and Human Development (education and health)….(More)”