The EU’s AI Power Play: Between Deregulation and Innovation

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Raluca Csernatoni: “From the outset, the European Union (EU) has positioned itself as a trailblazer in AI governance with the world’s first comprehensive legal framework for AI systems in use, the AI Act. The EU’s approach to governing artificial intelligence (AI) has been characterized by a strong precautionary and ethics-driven philosophy. This ambitious regulation reflects the EU’s long-standing approach of prioritizing high ethical standards and fundamental rights in tech and digital policies—a strategy of fostering both excellence and trust in human-centric AI models. Yet, framed as essential to keep pace with U.S. and Chinese AI giants, the EU has recently taken a deregulatory turn that risks trading away democratic safeguards, without addressing systemic challenges to AI innovation.

The EU now stands at a crossroads: it can forge ahead with bold, home-grown AI innovation underpinned by robust regulation, or it can loosen its ethical guardrails, only to find itself stripped of both technological autonomy and regulatory sway. While Brussels’s recent deregulatory turn is framed as a much needed competitiveness boost, the real obstacles to Europe’s digital renaissance lie elsewhere: persistent underfunding, siloed markets, and reliance on non-EU infrastructures…(More)”

How Media Ownership Matters

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Rodney Benson, Mattias Hessérus, Timothy Neff, and Julie Sedel: “Does it matter who owns and funds the media? As journalists and management consultants set off in search of new business models, there’s a pressing need to understand anew the economic underpinnings of journalism and its role in democratic societies.

How Media Ownership Matters provides a fresh approach to understanding news media power, moving beyond the typical emphasis on market concentration or media moguls. Through a comparative analysis of the US, Sweden, and France, as well as interviews of news executives and editors and an original collection of industry data, this book maps and analyzes four ownership models: market, private, civil society, and public. Highlighting the effects of organizational logics, funding, and target audiences on the content of news, the authors identify both the strengths and weaknesses various forms of ownership have in facilitating journalism that meets the democratic ideals of reasoned, critical, and inclusive public debate. Ultimately, How Media Ownership Matters provides a roadmap to understanding how variable forms of ownership are shaping the future of journalism and democracy…(More)”.

From Software to Society — Openness in a changing world

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Henriette Litta and Peter Bihr: “…takes stock and looks to the future: What does openness mean in the digital age? Is the concept still up to date? The study traces the development of openness and analyses current challenges. It is based on interviews with experts and extensive literature research. The key insights at a glance are:

Give Openness a purpose. Especially in times of increasing injustice, surveillance and power monopolies, a clear framework for meaningful openness is needed, as this is often lacking. Companies market ‘open’ products without enabling co-creation. Political actors invoke openness without strengthening democratic control. This is particularly evident when dealing with AI. AI systems are complex and are often dominated by a few tech companies – which makes opening them up a fundamental challenge. The dominance of some tech companies is also massively exploited, which can lead to the censorship of other opinions.

Protect Openness by adding guard rails. Those who demand openness must also be prepared to get involved in political disputes – against a market monopoly, for example. According to Litta and Bihr, this requires new licence models that include obligations to return and share, as well as stricter enforcement of antitrust law and data protection. Openness therefore needs rules…(More)”.

Government ‘With’ The People 

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Nathan Gardels: “The rigid polarization that has gripped our societies and eroded trust in each other and in governing institutions feeds the appeal of authoritarian strongmen. Poised as tribunes of the people, they promise to lay down the law (rather than be constrained by it) and put the house in order not by bridging divides, but by targeting scapegoats and persecuting political adversaries who don’t conform to their ideological and cultural worldview.

The alternative to this course of illiberal democracy is the exact opposite: engaging citizens directly in governance through non-partisan platforms that encourage and enable deliberation, negotiation and compromise, to reach consensus across divides. Even as politics is tilting the other way at the national level, this approach of participation without populism is gaining traction from the bottom up.

The embryonic forms of this next step in democratic innovation, such as citizens’ assemblies or virtual platforms for bringing the public together and listening at scale, have so far been mostly advisory to the powers-that-be, with no guarantee that citizen input will have a binding impact on legislation or policy formation. That is beginning to change….

Claudia Chwalisz, who heads DemocracyNext, has spelled out the key elements of this innovative process that make it a model for others elsewhere:

  • “Implementation should be considered from the start, not as an afterthought. The format of the final recommendations, the process for final approval, and the time needed to ensure this part of the process does not get neglected need to be considered in the early design stages of the assembly.
  • Dedicated time and resources for transforming recommendations into legislation are also crucial for successful implementation. Bringing citizens, politicians, and civil servants together in the final stages can help bridge the gap between recommendations and action. While it has been more typical for citizens’ assemblies to draft recommendations that they then hand onward to elected officials and civil servants, who review them and then respond to the citizens’ assembly, the Parisian model demonstrates another way.
  • Collaborative workshops where consensus amongst the triad of actors is needed adds more time to the process, but ensures that there is a high level of consensus for the final output, and reduces the time that would have been needed for officials to review and respond to the citizens’ assembly’s recommendations.
  • Formal institutional integration of citizens’ assemblies through legal measures can help ensure their recommendations are taken seriously and ensures the assembly’s continuity regardless of shifts in government. The citizens’ assembly has become a part of Paris’s democratic architecture, as have other permanent citizens’ assemblies elsewhere. While one-off assemblies typically depend on political will at a moment in time and risk becoming politicized — i.e. in being associated with the party that initially launched the first one — an institutionalized citizens’ assembly anchored in policy and political decision-making helps to set the foundation for a new institution that can endure.
  • It is also important that there is regular engagement with all political parties and stakeholders throughout the process. This helps build cross-partisan support for final recommendations, as well as more sustainable support for the enduring nature of the permanent citizens assembly.”…(More)”.

Accounting for State Capacity

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Kevin Hawickhorst: “The debates over the Department of Government Efficiency have revealed, if nothing else, that the federal budget is obscure even to the political combatants ostensibly responsible for developing and overseeing it. In the executive branch, Elon Musk highlights that billions of dollars of payments are processed by the Treasury without even a memo line. Meanwhile, in Congress, Republican politicians highlight the incompleteness of the bureaucracy’s spending records, while Democrats bemoan the Trump administration’s dissimulation in ceasing to share budgetary guidance documents. The camp followers of these obscure programs are thousands of federal contractors, pursuing vague goals with indefinite timelines. As soon as the ink on a bill is dry, it seems, Congress loses sight of its initiatives until their eventual success or their all-too-frequent failure.

Contrast this with the 1930s, when the Roosevelt administration provided Congress with hundreds of pages of spending reports every ten days, outlining how tax dollars were being put to use in minute detail. The speed and thoroughness with which these reports were produced is hard to fathom, and yet the administration was actually holding its best information back. FDR’s Treasury had itemized information on hundreds of thousands of projects, down to the individual checks that were written. Incredibly, politicians had better dashboards in the era of punch cards than we have in the era of AI. The decline in government competence runs deeper than our inability to match the speed and economy of New Deal construction: even their accounting was better. What happened?

Political scientists discuss the decline in government competence in terms of “state capacity,” which describes a government’s ability to achieve the goals it pursues. Most political scientists agree that the United States not only suffers from degraded state capacity in absolute terms, but has less state capacity today than in the early twentieth century. A popular theory for this decline blames the excessive proceduralism of the U.S. government: the “cascade of rigidity” or the “procedure fetish.”

But reformers need more than complaints. To rebuild state capacity, reformers need an affirmative vision of what good procedure should look like and, in order to enact it, knowledge of how government procedure is changed. The history of government budgeting and accounting reform illustrates both. There were three major eras of reform to federal accounting in the twentieth century: New Deal reforms of the 1930s, conservative reforms of the 1940s and 1950s, and liberal reforms of the 1960s. This history tells the story of how accounting reforms first built up American state capacity and how later reforms contributed to its gradual decline. These reforms thus offer lessons on rebuilding state capacity today…(More)”.

Federated learning for children’s data

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Roy Saurabh: “Across the world, governments are prioritizing the protection of citizens’ data – especially that of children. New laws, dedicated data protection authorities, and digital infrastructure initiatives reflect a growing recognition that data is not just an asset, but a foundation for public trust. 

Yet a major challenge remains: how can governments use sensitive data to improve outcomes – such as in education – without undermining the very privacy protections they are committed to uphold?

One promising answer lies in federated, governance-aware approaches to data use. But realizing this potential requires more than new technology; it demands robust data governance frameworks designed from the outset.

Data governance: The missing link

In many countries, ministries of education, health, and social protection each hold pieces of the puzzle that together could provide a more complete picture of children’s learning and well-being. For example, a child’s school attendance, nutritional status, and family circumstances all shape their ability to thrive, yet these records are kept in separate systems.

Efforts to combine such data often run into legal and technical barriers. Centralized data lakes raise concerns about consent, security, and compliance with privacy laws. In fact, many international standards stress the principle of data minimization – the idea that personal information should not be gathered or combined unnecessarily. 

“In many countries, ministries of education, health, and social protection each hold pieces of the puzzle that together could provide a more complete picture of children’s learning and well-being.”

This is where the right data governance frameworks become essential. Effective governance defines clear rules about how data can be accessed, shared, and used – specifying who has the authority, what purposes are permitted, and how rights are protected. These frameworks make it possible to collaborate with data responsibly, especially when it comes to children…(More)”

Addressing Digital Harms in Conflict

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Henriette Litta and Peter Bihr: “…takes stock and looks to the future: What does openness mean in the digital age? Is the concept still up to date? The study traces the development of Openness and analyses current challenges. It is based on interviews with experts and extensive literature research. The key insights at a glance are:

  • Give Openness a purpose.
  • Protect Openness by adding guard rails.
  • Open innovation and infrastructure need investments.
  • Openness is not neutral.
  • Market domination needs to be curtailed…(More)”.

How to Break Down Silos and Collaborate Across Government

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by Jessica MacLeod: “…To help public sector leaders navigate these cultural barriers, I use a simple but powerful framework: Clarity, Care, and Challenge. It’s built from research, experience, and what I’ve seen actually shift how teams work. You can read more about the framework in my previous article on high-performing teams. Here’s how this framework relates to breaking down silos:

  • Clarity → How We Work:
    Clear priorities, aligned expectations, and a shared understanding of how individual work connects to the bigger picture.
  • Care → How We Relate:
    Trust, psychological safety, and strong collaboration.
  • Challenge → How We Achieve:
    Stretch goals, high standards, and a culture that encourages innovation and growth.

Silos thrive in ambiguity. If no one can see the work, understand the language, or map who owns what, collaboration dies on arrival.

When I work with public sector teams, one of the first things I look for is how visible the work is. Can people across departments explain where things stand on a project today? Or what the context is behind a project? Do they know who’s accountable? Can they locate the latest draft of the work without digging through three email chains?

Often, the answer is no, and it’s not because people aren’t trying. It’s because our systems are optimized for siloed visibility, not shared clarity.

Here’s what that looks like in practice:

  • A particular acronym means one thing to IT, another to leadership, and something entirely different to community stakeholders.
  • “Launch” for one team means public announcement. For another, it means testing a feature with a pilot group.
  • Documents live in private folders, on individual desktops, or in tools that don’t talk to each other…(More)”.

Reimagining Data Governance for AI: Operationalizing Social Licensing for Data Reuse

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Stefaan Verhulst, Adam Zable, Andrew J. Zahuranec, and Peter Addo: “…introduces a practical, community-centered framework for governing data reuse in the development and deployment of artificial intelligence systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). As AI increasingly relies on data from LMICs, affected communities are often excluded from decision-making and see little benefit from how their data is used. This report,…reframes data governance through social licensing—a participatory model that empowers communities to collectively define, document, and enforce conditions for how their data is reused. It offers a step-by-step methodology and actionable tools, including a Social Licensing Questionnaire and adaptable contract clauses, alongisde real-world scenarios and recommendations for enforcement, policy integration, and future research. This report recasts data governance as a collective, continuous process – shifting the focus from individual consent to community decision-making…(More)”.

Humanitarian aid depends on good data: what’s wrong with the way it’s collected

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Vicki Squire: The defunding of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), along with reductions in aid from the UK and elsewhere, raises questions about the continued collection of data that helps inform humanitarian efforts.

Humanitarian response plans rely on accurate, accessible and up-to-date data. Aid organisations use this to review needs, monitor health and famine risks, and ensure security and access for humanitarian operations.

The reliance on data – and in particular large-scale digitalised data – has intensified in the humanitarian sector over the past few decades. Major donors all proclaim a commitment to evidence-based decision making. The International Organization for Migration’s Displacement Tracking Matrix and the REACH impact initiative are two examples designed to improve operational and strategic awareness of key needs and risks.

Humanitarian data streams have already been affected by USAID cuts. For example, the Famine Early Warning Systems Network was abruptly closed, while the Demographic and Health Surveys programme was “paused”. The latter informed global health policies in areas ranging from maternal health and domestic violence to anaemia and HIV prevalence.

The loss of reliable, accessible and up-to-date data threatens monitoring capacity and early warning systems, while reducing humanitarian access and rendering security failures more likely…(More)”.