Paper by Michael J. Burstein and Fiona Murray: “Innovation prizes in reality are significantly different from innovation prizes in theory. The former are familiar from popular accounts of historical prizes like the Longitude Prize: the government offers a set amount for a solution to a known problem, like £20,000 for a method of calculating longitude at sea. The latter are modeled as compensation to inventors in return for donating their inventions to the public domain. Neither the economic literature nor the policy literature that led to the 2010 America COMPETES Reauthorization Act — which made prizes a prominent tool of government innovation policy — provides a satisfying justification for the use of prizes, nor does either literature address their operation. In this article, we address both of these problems. We use a case study of one canonical, high profile innovation prize — the Progressive Insurance Automotive X Prize — to explain how prizes function as institutional means to achieve exogenously defined innovation policy goals in the face of significant uncertainty and information asymmetries. Focusing on the structure and function of actual innovation prizes as an empirical matter enables us to make three theoretical contributions to the current understanding of prizes. First, we offer a stronger normative justification for prizes grounded in their status as a key institutional arrangement for solving a specified innovation problem. Second, we develop a model of innovation prize governance and then situate that model in the administrative state, as a species of “new governance” or “experimental” regulation. Third, we derive from those analyses a novel framework for choosing among prizes, patents, and grants, one in which the ultimate choice depends on a trade off between the efficacy and scalability of the institutional solution….(More)”
Innovating for pro-poor services: Why politics matter
Nathaniel Mason, Clare Cummings and Julian Doczi for ODI insights: “To solve sustainable development challenges, such as the provision of universal access to basic services, we need new ideas, as well as old ideas applied in new ways and new places. The pace of global innovation, particularly digital innovation, is generating optimism, positioning the world at the start of the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’.1 Innovation can make basic services cheaper, more accessible, more relevant and more desirable for poor people. However, we also know few innovations lead to sustainable, systemic change. The barriers the this are often political – including problems related to motivation, power and collective action. Yet, just as political factors can prevent innovations from being widely adopted, politically smart approaches can help in navigating and mitigating these challenges. And, because innovations can alter the balance of power in societies and markets, they can both provoke new and challenging politics themselves and also help unlock systemic political change. When and why does politics affect innovation? What does this mean for donors, foundations and impact investors backing innovations for development?…(More)
Technology and politics: The signal and the noise
Special Issue of The Economist: “…The way these candidates are fighting their campaigns,each in his own way, is proof that politics as usual is no longer an option. The internet and the availability of huge piles of data on everyone and everything are transforming the democratic process, just as they are upending many industries. They are becoming a force in all kinds of things,from running election campaigns and organising protest movements to improving public policy and the delivery of services. This special report will argue that, as a result, the relationship between citizens and those who govern them is changing fundamentally.
Incongruous though it may seem, the forces that are now powering the campaign of Mr Trump—as well as that ofBernie Sanders, the surprise candidate on the Democratic side (Hillary Clinton is less of a success online)—were first seen in full cry during the Arab spring in 2011. The revolution in Egypt and other Arab countries was not instigated by Twitter, Facebook and other social-media services, but they certainly help edit gain momentum. “The internet is an intensifier,” says Marc Lynch of GeorgeWashington University, a noted scholar of the protest movements in the region…..
However, this special report will argue that, in the longer term, online crusading and organising will turn out to matter less to politics in the digital age than harnessing those ever-growing piles of data. The internet and related technologies, such as smart phones and cloud computing, make it cheap and easy not only to communicate but also to collect, store and analyse immense quantities of information. This is becoming ever more important in influencing political outcomes.
America’s elections are a case in point. Mr Cruz with his data savvy is merely following in the footsteps of Barack Obama, who won his first presidential term with the clever application of digital know-how. Campaigners are hoovering up more and more digital information about every voting-age citizen and stashing it away in enormous databases.With the aid of complex algorithms, these data allow campaigners to decide, say, who needs to be reminded to make the trip to the polling station and who may be persuaded to vote for a particular candidate.
No hiding place
In the case of protest movements, the waves of collective action leave a big digital footprint. Using ever more sophisticated algorithms, governments can mine these data.That is changing the balance of power. In the event of another Arab spring, autocrats would not be caught off guard again because they are now able to monitor protests and intervene when they consider it necessary. They can also identify and neutralise the most influential activists. Governments that were digitally blind when the internet first took off in the mid-1990s now have both a telescope and a microscope.
But data are not just changing campaigns and political movements; they affect how policy is made and public services are offered. This is most visible at local-government level. Cities have begun to use them for everything from smoothing traffic flows to identifying fire hazards. Having all this information at their fingertips is bound to change the way these bureaucracies work, and how they interact with citizens. This will not only make cities more efficient, but provide them with data and tools that could help them involve their citizens more.
This report will look at electoral campaigns, protest movements and local government in turn. Readers will note that most of the examples quoted are American and that most of the people quoted are academics. That is because the study of the interrelationship between data and politics is relatively new and most developed in America. But it is beginning to spill out from the ivory towers, and is gradually spreading to other countries.
The growing role of technology in politics raises many questions. How much of a difference, for instance, do digitally enabled protest surges really make? Many seem to emerge from nowhere, then crash almost as suddenly, defeated by hard political realities and entrenched institutions. The Arab spring uprising in Egypt is one example. Once the incumbent president, Hosni Mubarak, was toppled, the coalition that brought him down fell apart, leaving the stage to the old powers, first the Muslim Brotherhood and then the armed forces.
In party politics, some worry that the digital targeting of voters might end up reducing the democratic process to a marketing exercise. Ever more data and better algorithms, they fret, could lead politicians to ignore those unlikely to vote for them. And in cities it is no tclear that more data will ensure that citizens become more engaged….(More)
See also:
Crowdsourced Health
Book by Elad Yom-Tov: “Most of us have gone online to search for information about health. What are the symptoms of a migraine? How effective is this drug? Where can I find more resources for cancer patients? Could I have an STD? Am I fat? A Pew survey reports more than 80 percent of American Internet users have logged on to ask questions like these. But what if the digital traces left by our searches could show doctors and medical researchers something new and interesting? What if the data generated by our searches could reveal information about health that would be difficult to gather in other ways? In this book, Elad Yom-Tov argues that Internet data could change the way medical research is done, supplementing traditional tools to provide insights not otherwise available. He describes how studies of Internet searches have, among other things, already helped researchers track to side effects of prescription drugs, to understand the information needs of cancer patients and their families, and to recognize some of the causes of anorexia.
Yom-Tov shows that the information collected can benefit humanity without sacrificing individual privacy. He explains why people go to the Internet with health questions; for one thing, it seems to be a safe place to ask anonymously about such matters as obesity, sex, and pregnancy. He describes in detrimental effects of “pro-anorexia” online content; tells how computer scientists can scour search engine data to improve public health by, for example, identifying risk factors for disease and centers of contagion; and tells how analyses of how people deal with upsetting diagnoses help doctors to treat patients and patients to understand their conditions….(More)
“Big data” and “open data”: What kind of access should researchers enjoy?
Paper by Gilles Chatellier, Vincent Varlet, and Corinne Blachier-Poisson in Thérapie: “The healthcare sector is currently facing a new paradigm, the explosion of “big data”. Coupled with advances in computer technology, the field of “big data” appears promising, allowing us to better understand the natural history of diseases, to follow-up new technologies (devices, drugs) implementation and to participate in precision medicine, etc. Data sources are multiple (medical and administrative data, electronic medical records, data from rapidly developing technologies such as DNA sequencing, connected devices, etc.) and heterogeneous while their use requires complex methods for accurate analysis. Moreover, faced with this new paradigm, we must determine who could (or should) have access to which data, how to combine collective interest and protection of personal data and how to finance in the long-term both operating costs and databases interrogation. This article analyses the opportunities and challenges related to the use of open and/or “big data”, … (More)”
The Social Intranet: Insights on Managing and Sharing Knowledge Internally
Paper by Ines Mergel for IBM Center for the Business of Government: “While much of the federal government lags behind, some agencies are pioneers in the internal use of social media tools. What lessons and effective practices do they have to offer other agencies?
“Social intranets,” Dr. Mergel writes, “are in-house social networks that use technologies – such as automated newsfeeds, wikis, chats, or blogs – to create engagement opportunities among employees.” They also include the use of internal profile pages that help people identify expertise and interest (similar to Facebook or LinkedIn profiles), and that are used in combination with other social Intranet tools such as on-line communities or newsfeeds.
The report documents four case studies of government use of social intranets – two federal government agencies (the Department of State and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration) and two cross-agency networks (the U.S. Intelligence Community and the Government of Canada).
The author observes: “Most enterprise social networking platforms fail,” but identifies what causes these failures and how successful social intranet initiatives can avoid that fate and thrive. She offers a series of insights for successfully implementing social intranets in the public sector, based on her observations and case studies. …(More)”
On-demand service could be Uber for blood collection
Springwise: Collecting blood for clinical and medical testing can be an arduous process, involving lots of travel, with the added annoyance of patients not turning up to appointments, and time wasted with doctors and phlebotomists.
But now a new phlebotomy service, Iggbo, is looking to change that. Blood collectors can become a freelancer with the new on-demand app; rather than employing a full-time phlebotomist, doctors can use the app to employ a freelancer who is paid per donation collected. The phlebotomists can collect donations at home, rather than having patients wait around for someone to take their blood.
Physicians can book clinical blood donations and Iggbo sends out the request via its smartphone app to its freelance phlebotomists. Iggbo also sends a number of reminders using text and email to ensure patients remember their appointments, and helps to book a new phlebotomist if something falls through.
The app even features an Uber-like ratings system, and Iggbo says it carefully vets all its collectors to ensure the service is safe and efficient. The company says the service will improve the efficiency of the healthcare system for blood testing and collection, and in doing so reduce overall costs….(More)”
“Streetfight” by Janette Sadik-Khan
Review by Amrita Gupta in Policy Innovations of the book Streetfight: “Janette Sadik-Khan was New York City’s transportation commissioner from 2007-2013. Under her watch, the city’s streets were reimagined and redesigned to include more than 60 plazas and 400 miles of bike lanes—radical changes designed to improve traffic and make spaces safer for everybody. Over seven years, New York City underwent a transportation transformation, played out avenue by avenue, block by block. Times Square went from being the city’s worst traffic nightmare to a two-and-a-half acre outdoor sitting area in 2009. Citi Bike, arguably her biggest success, is the nation’s largest bike share system, and the city’s first new transit system in over half a century. In Streetfight, Sadik-Khan breaks down her achievements into replicable ideas for urban planners and traffic engineers everywhere, and she also reminds us that the fight isn’t over. As part of Bloomberg Associates, she now takes the lessons from New York City’s streets to metropolises around the world.
The old order vs the new order
The crux of the problem, she explains, is that until recently, cities of the future were thought to be cities built for cars, not cities that encouraged human activity on the street.
Understanding what city-building used to mean is key to understanding how our cities are failing us today. Sadik-Khan offers a quick recap of New York City through recent decades. The historical lesson holds; in many ways, cities in every continent grew along a similar trajectory. Streets were designed to keep traffic moving, but not to support the life alongside it. The old order—which Sadik-Khan writes is typified by Robert Moses—took the auto-centric view that pedestrians, public transit, and bike riders were all hindrances in the path of cars.
Sadik-Khan calls for a more equitable and relevant city, one that prioritizes accessibility and convenience for everybody. Her generation of planners aims to transform roads, tunnels, and rail tracks—the legacy hardware of their predecessors—and repurpose them into public spaces to walk, bike, and play.
The strength of the book lies in just how effectively it dispels the misconceptions that most citizens, and indeed, urban planners, have held onto for decades. There are plenty of surprises in Streetfight.
Sadik-Khan shows that people’s ideas about safety can be obsolete. For instance, bike lanes don’t make accidents more likely, they make the streets safer. The statistics show that bike riders actually protect pedestrians by altering the behavior of drivers. Sadik-Khan states that bike ridership in New York City quadrupled from 2000-2012; and as the number of riders increases, so too does the safety of the street.
The assumption, for instance, that reducing lanes or closing them entirely creates gridlock, is entirely wrong. Sadik-Khan’s interventions in New York City —providing pedestrian space and creating fewer but more orderly lanes for vehicles—actually improved traffic. And she uses taxi GPS data to prove it….
In fact, Sadik-Khan makes the claim that the economic power of sustainable streets is probably one of the strongest arguments for implementing dramatic change. Cities need data—think retail rents, shop sales, travel speeds, vehicle counts—to defend their interventions, and then to measure their effectiveness. Yet, she writes, unfortunately there are few cities anywhere that have access to reliable numbers of this kind….
Sadik-Khan emphasizes time and again that change can happen quickly and affordably. She didn’t have to bulldoze neighborhoods, or build new bridges and highways to transform the transportation network of New York City. Planners can reorder a street without destroying a single building.
Streetfight is a handbook that prioritizes paint, planters, signs, and signals over mega-infrastructure projects. We are told that small-scale interventions can have transformative large-scale impacts. Sadik-Khan’s pocket parks, plazas, pedestrian-friendly road redesigns, and parking-protected bike lanes are all the proof we need. For planners in developing countries, this should serve as both guide and encouragement.
Innovation doesn’t need big dollars behind it to be effective, and most ideas are scalable for cities big and small. What it does need, however, is street smarts. Sadik-Khan makes it clear that the key to getting projects to move ahead is support on the ground, and enough political capital to pave the way. Planners everywhere need to encourage participation, invite ideas, and be more transparent about proposals, she writes. But they also need to be willing to put up a fight….(More)”
Access to Government Information in the United States: A Primer
Wendy Ginsberg and Michael Greene at Congressional Research Service: “No provision in the U.S. Constitution expressly establishes a procedure for public access to executive branch records or meetings. Congress, however, has legislated various public access laws. Among these laws are two records access statutes,
- the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA; 5 U.S.C. §552), and
- the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. §552a),
and two meetings access statutes,
- the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA; 5 U.S.C. App.), and
- the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. §552b).
These four laws provide the foundation for access to executive branch information in the American federal government. The records-access statutes provide the public with a variety of methods to examine how executive branch departments and agencies execute their missions. The meeting-access statutes provide the public the opportunity to participate in and inform the policy process. These four laws are also among the most used and most litigated federal access laws.
While the four statutes provide the public with access to executive branch federal records and meetings, they do not apply to the legislative or judicial branches of the U.S. government. The American separation of powers model of government provides a collection of formal and informal methods that the branches can use to provide information to one another. Moreover, the separation of powers anticipates conflicts over the accessibility of information. These conflicts are neither unexpected nor necessarily destructive. Although there is considerable interbranch cooperation in the sharing of information and records, such conflicts over access may continue on occasion.
This report offers an introduction to the four access laws and provides citations to additional resources related to these statutes. This report includes statistics on the use of FOIA and FACA and on litigation related to FOIA. The 114th Congress may have an interest in overseeing the implementation of these laws or may consider amending the laws. In addition, this report provides some examples of the methods Congress, the President, and the courts have employed to provide or require the provision of information to one another. This report is a primer on information access in the U.S. federal government and provides a list of resources related to transparency, secrecy, access, and nondisclosure….(More)”
The Wisdom of Networks – and the Lessons of Wikipedia
Philip Reitinger at the Analogies Project: “Douglas Merrill said “All of us are smarter than any of us.” This motto of crowdsourcing – looking to the information that can arise from the combined observation by and intelligence of many – is also the prescription for a more secure cyber future. Crowdsourcing security among machines – rather than people – is our best path forward.
Attackers have the advantage online for many reasons, including the ability to leverage a simple error into a significant compromise, to scale attacks more readily than defenses can scale, and to attack at a distance. While the maxim that defenders have to be right all the time, while attackers only have to be right once, is not literally true, it conveys the dilemma of defenders. The connectivity of our devices and agents is inexorably increasing, creating more targets for attack. The complexity of the software we use and the network we must defend is also increasing, making an attack on the individual target or the network easier. And the criticality of our connected systems to our lives is also growing and will continue to grow. Together, this means that we live in a world of steadily increasing risk.
In this environment, the good guys and gals have one significant but counter-intuitive advantage: the size of the network being defended. The soaring prevalence of smart devices is a risk only until it is not, until we combine the abilities of these devices to observe, to induce, and to act to defend the network itself. The cyber ecosystem is the greatest sensor network imaginable, and the data generated by its sensors can drive collective intelligence and collective action to stem threats and isolate infections. The ability of the network components to defend the network may make the future of cybersecurity on the Internet look very much like Wikipedia – one of the best known examples of crowdsourcing – with some obvious failures, but if of importance, generally quickly corrected….
What is necessary to enable the crowdsourcing of defense among network components? A few years ago, while I was at the Department of Homeland Security, it published a paper entitled “Enabling Distributed Security in Cyberspace: Building a Healthy and Resilient Cyber Ecosystem with Automated Collective Action.” This paper posits three requirements:
- Automation so the network can act at Internet speed;
- Interoperability so the barriers to effective collective (network or “crowd”) action are those we impose by policy, as opposed to those imposed on us by technology or process; and
- Authentication to enhance the decision-making and action of the network against attacks.
It has been five years since the paper was published, and I still think these are the key elements of a more secure Internet future. Until we enable the network to defend itself, using its own wisdom of crowds (of agents), offense wins. People should do what people do best, adjust how the network defends itself, and take action when necessary based on intuition, rather than responding to alerts. So when you think about future Internet security problems, think about Stephen Colbert and Wikipedia….(More)”