How can we measure productivity in the public sector?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Ravi Somani at the World Bank: “In most economies, the public sector is a major purchaser of goods, services and labor. According to the Worldwide Bureaucracy Indicators, globally the public sector accounts for around 25% of GDP and 38% of formal employment. Generating efficiency gains in the public sector can, therefore, have important implications for a country’s overall economic performance.  

Public-sector productivity measures the rate with which inputs are converted into desirable outputs in the public sector. Measures can be developed at the level of the employee, organization, or overall public sector, and can be tracked over time. Such information allows policymakers to identify good and bad performers, understand what might be correlated with good performance, and measure the returns to different types of public expenditures. This knowledge can be used to improve the allocation of public resources in the future and maximize the impact of the public purse.

But how can we measure it?

However, measuring productivity in the public sector can be tricky because:

  • There are often no market transactions for public services, or they are distorted by subsidies and other market imperfections.
  • Many public services are complex, requiring (often immeasurable) inputs from multiple individuals and organizations.
  • There is often a substantial time lag between investments in inputs and the realization of outputs and outcomes.

This recent World Bank publication provides a summary of the different approaches to measuring productivity in the public sector, presented in the table below.  For simplicity, the approaches are separated into: ‘macro’ approaches, which provide aggregate information at the level of an organization, sector, or service as a whole; and ‘micro’ approaches, which can be applied to the individual employee, task, project, and process.   
 

Macro and Micro Approaches to measure public-sector productivity

There is no silver bullet for accurately measuring public-sector productivity – each approach has its own limitations.  For example, the cost-weighted-output approach requires activity-level data, necessitates different approaches for different sectors, and results in metrics with difficult-to-interpret absolute levels.  Project-completion rates require access to project-level data and may not fully account for differences in the quality and complexity of projects. The publication includes a list of the pros, cons, and implementation requirements for each approach….(More)”.

The Mathematics of How Connections Become Global

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Kelsey Houston-Edwards at Scientific American: “When you hit “send” on a text message, it is easy to imagine that the note will travel directly from your phone to your friend’s. In fact, it typically goes on a long journey through a cellular network or the Internet, both of which rely on centralized infrastructure that can be damaged by natural disasters or shut down by repressive governments. For fear of state surveillance or interference, tech-savvy protesters in Hong Kong avoided the Internet by using software such as FireChat and Bridgefy to send messages directly between nearby phones.

These apps let a missive hop silently from one phone to the next, eventually connecting the sender to the receiver—the only users capable of viewing the message. The collections of linked phones, known as mesh networks or mobile ad hoc networks, enable a flexible and decentralized mode of communication. But for any two phones to communicate, they need to be linked via a chain of other phones. How many people scattered throughout Hong Kong need to be connected via the same mesh network before we can be confident that crosstown communication is possible?

Mesh network in action: when cell-phone ranges overlap, a linked chain of connections is established.
Credit: Jen Christiansen (graphic); Wee People font, ProPublica and Alberto Cairo (figure drawings)

A branch of mathematics called percolation theory offers a surprising answer: just a few people can make all the difference. As users join a new network, isolated pockets of connected phones slowly emerge. But full east-to-west or north-to-south communication appears all of a sudden as the density of users passes a critical and sharp threshold. Scientists describe such a rapid change in a network’s connectivity as a phase transition—the same concept used to explain abrupt changes in the state of a material such as the melting of ice or the boiling of water.

A phase transition in a mesh network: the density of users suddenly passes a critical threshold.
Credit: Jen Christiansen (graphic); Wee People font, ProPublica and Alberto Cairo (figure drawings)

Percolation theory examines the consequences of randomly creating or removing links in such networks, which mathematicians conceive of as a collection of nodes (represented by points) linked by “edges” (lines). Each node represents an object such as a phone or a person, and the edges represent a specific relation between two of them. The fundamental insight of percolation theory, which dates back to the 1950s, is that as the number of links in a network gradually increases, a global cluster of connected nodes will suddenly emerge….(More)”.

What the drive for open science data can learn from the evolving history of open government data

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Stefaan Verhulst, Andrew Young, and Andrew Zahuranec at The Conversation: “Nineteen years ago, a group of international researchers met in Budapest to discuss a persistent problem. While experts published an enormous amount of scientific and scholarly material, few of these works were accessible. New research remained locked behind paywalls run by academic journals. The result was researchers struggled to learn from one another. They could not build on one another’s findings to achieve new insights. In response to these problems, the group developed the Budapest Open Access Initiative, a declaration calling for free and unrestricted access to scholarly journal literature in all academic fields.

In the years since, open access has become a priority for a growing number of universities, governments, and journals. But while access to scientific literature has increased, access to the scientific data underlying this research remains extremely limited. Researchers can increasingly see what their colleagues are doing but, in an era defined by the replication crisis, they cannot access the data to reproduce the findings or analyze it to produce new findings. In some cases there are good reasons to keep access to the data limited – such as confidentiality or sensitivity concerns – yet in many other cases data hoarding still reigns.

To make scientific research data open to citizens and scientists alike, open science data advocates can learn from open data efforts in other domains. By looking at the evolving history of the open government data movement, scientists can see both limitations to current approaches and identify ways to move forward from them….(More) (French version)”.

Wikipedia Is Finally Asking Big Tech to Pay Up

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Noam Cohen at Wired: “From the start, Google and Wikipedia have been in a kind of unspoken partnership: Wikipedia produces the information Google serves up in response to user queries, and Google builds up Wikipedia’s reputation as a source of trustworthy information. Of course, there have been bumps, including Google’s bold attempt to replace Wikipedia with its own version of user-generated articles, under the clumsy name “Knol,” short for knowledge. Knol never did catch on, despite Google’s offer to pay the principal author of an article a share of advertising money. But after that failure, Google embraced Wikipedia even tighter—not only linking to its articles but reprinting key excerpts on its search result pages to quickly deliver Wikipedia’s knowledge to those seeking answers.

The two have grown in tandem over the past 20 years, each becoming its own household word. But whereas one mushroomed into a trillion-dollar company, the other has remained a midsize nonprofit, depending on the generosity of individual users, grant-giving foundations, and the Silicon Valley giants themselves to stay afloat. Now Wikipedia is seeking to rebalance its relationships with Google and other big tech firms like Amazon, Facebook, and Apple, whose platforms and virtual assistants lean on Wikipedia as a cost-free virtual crib sheet.

Today, the Wikimedia Foundation, which operates the Wikipedia project in more than 300 languages as well as other wiki-projects, is announcing the launch of a commercial product, Wikimedia Enterprise. The new service is designed for the sale and efficient delivery of Wikipedia’s content directly to these online behemoths (and eventually, to smaller companies too)….(More)”.

Using Data and Citizen Science for Gardening Success

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Elizabeth Waddington: “…Data can help you personally by providing information you can use. And it also allows you to play a wider role in boosting understanding of our planet and tackling the global crises we face in a collaborative way. Consider the following examples.

Grow Observatory

This is one great example of data gathering and citizen science. Grow Observatory is a European citizen’s observatory through which people work together to take action on climate change, build better soil, grow healthier food and corroborate data from the new generation of Copernicus satellites.

Twenty-four Grow communities in 13 European countries created a network of over 6,500 ground-based soil sensors and collected a lot of soil-related data. And many insights have helped people learn about and test regenerative food growing techniques.

On their website, you can explore sensor locations, or make use of dynamic soil moisture maps. With the Grow Observatory app, you can get crop and planting advice tailored to your location, and get detailed, science-based information about regenerative growing practices. Their water planner also allows small-scale growers to learn more about how much water their plants will need in their location over the coming months if they live in one of the areas which currently have available data…

Cooperative Citizen Science: iNaturalist, Bioblitzes, Bird Counts, and More

Wherever you live, there are many different ways to get involved and help build data. From submitting observations on wildlife in your garden through apps like iNaturalist to taking part in local Bioblitzes, bird counts, and more – there are plenty of ways we can collect data that will help us – and others – down the road.

Collecting data through our observations, and, crucially, sharing that data with others can help us create the future we all want to see. We, as individuals, can often feel powerless. But citizen science projects help us to see the collective power we can wield when we work together. Modern technology means we can be hyper-connected, and affect wider systems, even when we are alone in our own gardens….(More)”

Lessons from all democracies

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

David Stasavage at Aeon: “Today, many people see democracy as under threat in a way that only a decade ago seemed unimaginable. Following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, it seemed like democracy was the way of the future. But nowadays, the state of democracy looks very different; we hear about ‘backsliding’ and ‘decay’ and other descriptions of a sort of creeping authoritarianism. Some long-established democracies, such as the United States, are witnessing a violation of governmental norms once thought secure, and this has culminated in the recent insurrection at the US Capitol. If democracy is a torch that shines for a time before then burning out – think of Classical Athens and Renaissance city republics – it all feels as if we might be heading toward a new period of darkness. What can we do to reverse this apparent trend and support democracy?

First, we must dispense with the idea that democracy is like a torch that gets passed from one leading society to another. The core feature of democracy – that those who rule can do so only with the consent of the people – wasn’t invented in one place at one time: it evolved independently in a great many human societies.

Over several millennia and across multiple continents, early democracy was an institution in which rulers governed jointly with councils and assemblies of the people. From the Huron (who called themselves the Wendats) and the Iroquois (who called themselves the Haudenosaunee) in the Northeastern Woodlands of North America, to the republics of Ancient India, to examples of city governance in ancient Mesopotamia, these councils and assemblies were common. Classical Greece provided particularly important instances of this democratic practice, and it’s true that the Greeks gave us a language for thinking about democracy, including the word demokratia itself. But they didn’t invent the practice. If we want to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of our modern democracies, then early democratic societies from around the world provide important lessons.

The core feature of early democracy was that the people had power, even if multiparty elections (today, often thought to be a definitive feature of democracy) didn’t happen. The people, or at least some significant fraction of them, exercised this power in many different ways. In some cases, a ruler was chosen by a council or assembly, and was limited to being first among equals. In other instances, a ruler inherited their position, but faced constraints to seek consent from the people before taking actions both large and small. The alternative to early democracy was autocracy, a system where one person ruled on their own via bureaucratic subordinates whom they had recruited and remunerated. The word ‘autocracy’ is a bit of a misnomer here in that no one in this position ever truly ruled on their own, but it does signify a different way of organising political power.

Early democratic governance is clearly apparent in some ancient societies in Mesopotamia as well as in India. It flourished in a number of places in the Americas before European conquest, such as among the Huron and the Iroquois in the Northeastern Woodlands and in the ‘Republic of Tlaxcala’ that abutted the Triple Alliance, more commonly known as the Aztec Empire. It was also common in precolonial Africa. In all of these societies there were several defining features that tended to reinforce early democracy: small scale, a need for rulers to depend on the people for knowledge, and finally the ability of members of society to exit to other locales if they were unhappy with a ruler. These three features were not always present in the same measure, but collectively they helped to underpin early democracy….(More)”

The Handbook: How to regulate?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Handbook edited by the Regulatory Institute: “…presents an inventory of regulatory techniques from over 40 jurisdictions and a basic universal method. The Handbook is based on the idea that officials with an inventory of regulatory techniques have more choices and can develop better regulations. The same goes for officials using methodological knowledge. The Handbook is made available free of charge because better regulations benefit us all….

The purpose of the Handbook is to assist officials involved in regulatory activities. Readers can draw inspiration from it, can learn how colleagues have tackled a certain regulatory challenge and can even develop a tailor-made systematic approach to improve their regulation. The Handbook can also be used as a basis for training courses or for self-training.

The Handbook is not intended to be read from A to Z. Instead, readers are invited to pick and choose the sections that are relevant to them. The Handbook was not developed to be the authoritative source of how to regulate, but to offer in the most neutral and objective way possibilities for improving regulation…

The Handbook explores the empty space between:

  • the constitution or similar documents setting the legal frame,
  • the sector-specific policies followed by the government, administration, or institution,
  • the impact assessment, better regulation, simplification, and other regulatory policies,
  • applicable drafting instructions or recommendations, and
  • the procedural settings of the respective jurisdiction….(More)”.

Female Victims of Gendered Violence, Their Human Rights and the Innovative Use of Data Technology to Predict, Prevent and Pursue Harms

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Jamie Grace: “This short paper has the objective of making the case for more investment to explore the use of data-driven technology to predict, prevent and pursue criminal harms against women. The paper begins with an overview of the contemporary scale of the issues, and the current problem of recording data on serious violent and sexual offending against women, before moving on to consider the current status and strength of positive obligations under UK human rights law to protect victims of intimate partner violence. The paper then looks at some examples of how data tech can augment policing of serious criminal harms against women, before turning to consider some of the legal problems concerning potential bias, inaccuracies and transparency that can dog ‘predictive policing’ in particular. Finally, a conclusion is offered up which explores the degree to which investment and exploration of the predictive policing of intimate partner violence must be pursued at the same time as better oversight mechanisms are also developed for the use of machine learning technology in public protection roles, since the two emphases go hand in hand…(More)”.

Thinking systems

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Geoff Mulgan: “…describes methods for understanding how vital everyday systems work, and how they could work better, through improved shared cognition – observation, memory, creativity and judgement – organised as commons.

Much of our life we depend on systems: interconnected webs of activity that link many organisations, technologies and people. These bring us food and clothing; energy for warmth and light; mobility including rail, cars and global air travel; care, welfare and handling of waste. Arguably the biggest difference between the modern world and the world of a few centuries ago is the thickness and complexity of these systems. These have brought huge gains.

But one of their downsides is that they have made the world around us harder to understand or shape. A good example is the Internet: essential to much of daily life but largely obscure and opaque to its users. Its physical infrastructures, management, protocols and flows are almost unknown except to specialists, as are its governance structures and processes (if you are in any doubt, just ask a random sample of otherwise well-informed people). Other vital systems like those for food, energy or care are also hardly visible to those within them as well as those dependent on them. This makes it much harder to hold them to account, or to ensure they take account of more voices and needs. We often feel that the world is much more accessible thanks to powerful search engines and ubiquitous data. But try to get a picture of the systems around you and you quickly discover just how much is opaque and obscure.

If you think seriously about these systems it’s also hard not to be struck by another feature. Our systems generally use much more data and knowledge than their equivalents in the past. But this progress also highlights what’s missing in the data they use (often including the most important wants and needs). Moreover, huge amounts of potentially relevant data is lost immediately or never captured and how much that is captured is then neither organised nor shared. The result is a strangely lop-sided world: vast quantities of data are gathered and organised at great expense for some purposes (notably defense or click-through advertising)

So how could we recapture our systems and help them make the most of intelligence of all kinds? The paper shares methods and approaches that could make our everyday systems richer in intelligence and also easier to guide. It advocates:

· A cognitive approach to systems – focusing on how they think, and specifically how they observe, analyse, create and remember. It argues that this approach can help to bridge the often abstract language of systems thinking and practical action

· It advocates that much of this systems intelligence needs to be organised as a commons – which is very rarely the case now

· And it advocates new structures and roles within government and other organisations, and the growth of a practice of systems architects with skills straddling engineering, management, data and social science – who are adept at understanding, designing and improving intelligent systems that are transparent and self-aware.

The background to the paper is the great paradox of systems right now: there is a vast literature, a small industry of consultancies and labs, and no shortage of rhetorical commitment in many fields. Yet these have had at best uneven impact on how decisions are made or large organisations are run….(More)”.

Biden Creates Road Map for Equitable State and Local Data

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Daniel Castro at GovTech: “On his first day in office, President Biden issued a flurry of administrative actions to reverse a number of President Trump’s policies and address the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. One of these included an executive order to advance racial equity and provide support for underserved communities. Notably, the order recognizes that achieving this goal will be difficult, if not impossible, without better data. This is a lesson that many state and local governments should take to heart by revisiting their collection policies to ensure data is equitable.

The executive order establishes that it is the policy of the Biden administration to “pursue a comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all, including people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality.” To that end, the order dedicates a section to establishing an interagency working group on equitable data tasked with identifying inadequacies in federal data collection policies and programs, and recommending strategies for addressing any deficiencies.   

An inability to disaggregate data prevents policymakers from identifying disparate impacts of government programs on different populations in a variety of areas including health care, education, criminal justice, workforce and housing. Indeed, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has found that “data collection and reporting are essential to effective civil rights enforcement, and that a lack of effective civil rights data collection is problematic.”

This problem has repeatedly been on display throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, at the outset of the pandemic last year, nearly half of states did not report data on race or ethnicity on those who were tested, hospitalized or died of COVID-19. And while the government has tried to take a data-driven response to the COVID-19 pandemic, a lack of data about different groups means that their needs are often hidden from policymakers….(More)”.