When forecasting and foresight meet data and innovation: toward a taxonomy of anticipatory methods for migration policy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Sara Marcucci, Stefaan Verhulst and María Esther Cervantes: “The various global refugee and migration events of the last few years underscore the need for advancing anticipatory strategies in migration policy. The struggle to manage large inflows (or outflows) highlights the demand for proactive measures based on a sense of the future. Anticipatory methods, ranging from predictive models to foresight techniques, emerge as valuable tools for policymakers. These methods, now bolstered by advancements in technology and leveraging nontraditional data sources, can offer a pathway to develop more precise, responsive, and forward-thinking policies.

This paper seeks to map out the rapidly evolving domain of anticipatory methods in the realm of migration policy, capturing the trend toward integrating quantitative and qualitative methodologies and harnessing novel tools and data. It introduces a new taxonomy designed to organize these methods into three core categories: Experience-based, Exploration-based, and Expertise-based. This classification aims to guide policymakers in selecting the most suitable methods for specific contexts or questions, thereby enhancing migration policies…(More)”

On the Shoulders of Others: The Importance of Regulatory Learning in the Age of AI

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Urs Gasser and Viktor Mayer-Schonberger: “…International harmonization of regulation is the right strategy when the appropriate regulatory ends and means are sufficiently clear to reap efficiencies of scale and scope. When this is not the case, a push for efficiency through uniformity is premature and may lead to a suboptimal regulatory lock-in: the establishment of a rule framework that is either inefficient in the use of its means to reach the intended goal, or furthers the wrong goal, or both.


A century ago, economist Joseph Schumpeter suggested that companies have two distinct strategies to achieve success. The first is to employ economies of scale and scope to lower their cost. It’s essentially a push for improved efficiency. The other strategy is to invent a new product (or production process) that may not, at least initially, be hugely efficient, but is nevertheless advantageous because demand for the new product is price inelastic. For Schumpeter this was the essence of innovation. But, as Schumpeter also argued, innovation is not a simple, linear, and predictable process. Often, it happens in fits and starts, and can’t be easily commandeered or engineered.


As innovation is hard to foresee and plan, the best way to facilitate it is to enable a wide variety of different approaches and solutions. Public policies in many countries to foster startups and entrepreneurship stems from this view. Take, for instance, the policy of regulatory sandboxing, i.e. the idea that for a limited time certain sectors should not or only lightly be regulated…(More)”.

The Preventative Shift: How can we embed prevention and achieve long term missions

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Demos (UK): “Over the past two years Demos has been making the case for a fundamental shift in the purpose of government away from firefighting in public services towards preventing problems arriving. First, we set out the case for The Preventative State, to rebuild local, social and civic foundations; then, jointly with The Health Foundation, we made the case to change treasury rules to ringfence funding for prevention. By differentiating between everyday spending, and preventative spending, the government could measure what really matters.

There has been widespread support for this – but also concerns about both the feasibility of measuring preventative spending accurately and appropriately but also that ring-fencing alone may not lead to the desired improvements in outcomes and value for money.

In response we have developed two practical approaches, covered in two papers:

  • Our first paper, Counting What Matters, explores the challenge of measurement and makes a series of recommendations, including the passage of a “Public Investment Act”, to show how this could be appropriately achieved.
  • This second paper, The Preventative Shift, looks at how to shift the culture of public bodies to think ‘prevention first’ and target spending at activities which promise value for money and improve outcomes…(More)”.

The New Control Society

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Jon Askonas: “Let me tell you two stories about the Internet. The first story is so familiar it hardly warrants retelling. It goes like this. The Internet is breaking the old powers of the state, the media, the church, and every other institution. It is even breaking society itself. By subjecting their helpless users to ever more potent algorithms to boost engagement, powerful platforms distort reality and disrupt our politics. YouTube radicalizes young men into misogynists. TikTok turns moderate progressives into Hamas supporters. Facebook boosts election denialism; or it censors stories doubting the safety of mRNA vaccines. On the world stage, the fate of nations hinges on whether Twitter promotes color revolutions, WeChat censors Hong Kong protesters, and Facebook ads boost the Brexit campaign. The platforms are producing a fractured society: diversity of opinion is running amok, consensus is dead.

The second story is very different. In the 2023 essay “The age of average,” Alex Murrell recounts a project undertaken in the 1990s by Russian artists Vitaly Komar and Alexander Melamid. The artists commissioned a public affairs firm to poll over a thousand Americans on their ideal painting: the colors they liked, the subjects they gravitated toward, and so forth. Using the aggregate data, the artists created a painting, and they repeated this procedure in a number of other countries, exhibiting the final collection as an art exhibition called The People’s Choice. What they found, by and large, was not individual and national difference but the opposite: shocking uniformity — landscapes with a few animals and human figures with trees and a blue-hued color palette..(more)”.

How Innovation Ecosystems Foster Citizen Participation Using Emerging Technologies in Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

OECD Report: “This report examines how actors in Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands interact and work together to contribute to the development of emerging technologies for citizen participation. Through in-depth research and analysis of actors’ motivations, experiences, challenges, and enablers in this nascent but promising field, this paper presents a unique cross-national perspective on innovation ecosystems for citizen participation using emerging technology. It includes lessons and concrete proposals for policymakers, innovators, and researchers seeking to develop technology-based citizen participation initiatives…(More)”.

Data Sovereignty and Open Sharing: Reconceiving Benefit-Sharing and Governance of Digital Sequence Information

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Masanori Arita: “There are ethical, legal, and governance challenges surrounding data, particularly in the context of digital sequence information (DSI) on genetic resources. I focus on the shift in the international framework, as exemplified by the CBD-COP15 decision on benefit-sharing from DSI and discuss the growing significance of data sovereignty in the age of AI and synthetic biology. Using the example of the COVID-19 pandemic, the tension between open science principles and data control rights is explained. This opinion also highlights the importance of inclusive and equitable data sharing frameworks that respect both privacy and sovereign data rights, stressing the need for international cooperation and equitable access to data to reduce global inequalities in scientific and technological advancement…(More)”.

Reimagining the Policy Cycle in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Sara Marcucci and Stefaan Verhulst: “The increasing complexity of global challenges, such as climate change, public health crises, and socioeconomic inequalities, underscores the need for a more sophisticated and adaptive policymaking approach. Evidence-Informed Decision-Making (EIDM) has emerged as a critical framework, leveraging data and research to guide policy design, implementation, and impact assessment. However, traditional evidence-based approaches, such as reliance on Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews, face limitations, including resource intensity, contextual constraints, and difficulty in addressing real-time challenges. Artificial Intelligence offers transformative potential to enhance EIDM by enabling large-scale data analysis, pattern recognition, predictive modeling, and stakeholder engagement across the policy cycle. While generative AI has attracted significant attention, this paper emphasizes the broader spectrum of AI applications (beyond Generative AI) —such as natural language processing (NLP), decision trees, and basic machine learning algorithms—that continue to play a critical role in evidence-informed policymaking. These models, often more transparent and resource-efficient, remain highly relevant in supporting data analysis, policy simulations, and decision-support.

This paper explores AI’s role in three key phases of the policy cycle: (1) problem identification, where AI can support issue framing, trend detection, and scenario creation; (2) policy design, where AI-driven simulations and decision-support tools can improve solution alignment with real-world contexts; and (3) policy implementation and impact assessment, where AI can enhance monitoring, evaluation, and adaptive decision-making. Despite its promise, AI adoption in policymaking remains limited due to challenges such as algorithmic bias, lack of explainability, resource demands, and ethical concerns related to data privacy and environmental impact. To ensure responsible and effective AI integration, this paper highlights key recommendations: prioritizing augmentation over automation, embedding human oversight throughout AI-driven processes, facilitating policy iteration, and combining AI with participatory governance models…(More)”.

Gather, Share, Build

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Nithya Ramanathan & Jim Fruchterman: “Recent milestones in generative AI have sent nonprofits, social enterprises, and funders alike scrambling to understand how these innovations can be harnessed for global good. Along with this enthusiasm, there is also warranted concern that AI will greatly increase the digital divide and fail to improve the lives of 90 percent of the people on our planet. The current focus on funding AI intelligently and strategically in the social sector is critical, and it will help ensure that money has the largest impact.

So how can the social sector meet the current moment?

AI is already good at a lot of things. Plenty of social impact organizations are using AI right now, with positive results. Great resources exist for developing a useful understanding of the current landscape and how existing AI tech can serve your mission, including this report from Stanford HAI and Project Evident and this AI Treasure Map for Nonprofits from Tech Matters.

While some tech-for-good companies are creating AI and thriving—Digital Green, Khan Academy, and Jacaranda Health, among many—most social sector companies are not ready to build AI solutions. But even organizations that don’t have AI on their radar need to be thinking about how to address one of the biggest challenges to harnessing AI to solve social sector problems: insufficient data…(More)”.

Advanced Flood Hub features for aid organizations and govern

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Announcement by Alex Diaz: “Floods continue to devastate communities worldwide, and many are pursuing advancements in AI-driven flood forecasting, enabling faster, more efficient detection and response. Over the past few years, Google Research has focused on harnessing AI modeling and satellite imagery to dramatically accelerate the reliability of flood forecasting — while working with partners to expand coverage for people in vulnerable communities around the world.

Today, we’re rolling out new advanced features in Flood Hub designed to allow experts to understand flood risk in a given region via inundation history maps, and to understand how a given flood forecast on Flood Hub might propagate throughout a river basin. With the inundation history maps, Flood Hub expert users can view flood risk areas in high resolution over the map regardless of a current flood event. This is useful for cases where our flood forecasting does not include real time inundation maps or for pre-planning of humanitarian work. You can find more explanations about the inundation history maps and more in the Flood Hub Help Center…(More)”.

Why these scientists devote time to editing and updating Wikipedia

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Christine Ro: “…A 2018 survey of more than 4,000 Wikipedians (as the site’s editors are called) found that 12% had a doctorate. Scientists made up one-third of the Wikimedia Foundation’s 16 trustees, according to Doronina.

Although Wikipedia is the best-known project under the Wikimedia umbrella, there are other ways for scientists to contribute besides editing Wikipedia pages. For example, an entomologist could upload photos of little-known insect species to Wikimedia Commons, a collection of images and other media. A computer scientist could add a self-published book to the digital textbook site Wikibooks. Or a linguist could explain etymology on the collaborative dictionary Wiktionary. All of these are open access, a key part of Wikimedia’s mission.

Although Wikipedia’s structure might seem daunting for new editors, there are parallels with academic documents.

For instance, Jess Wade, a physicist at Imperial College London, who focuses on creating and improving biographies of female scientists and scientists from low- and middle-income countries, says that the talk page, which is the behind-the-scenes portion of a Wikipedia page on which editors discuss how to improve it, is almost like the peer-review file of an academic paper…However, scientists have their own biases about aspects such as how to classify certain topics. This matters, Harrison says, because “Wikipedia is intended to be a general-purpose encyclopaedia instead of a scientific encyclopaedia.”

One example is a long-standing battle over Wikipedia pages on cryptids and folklore creatures such as Bigfoot. Labels such as ‘pseudoscience’ have angered cryptid enthusiasts and raised questions about different types of knowledge. One suggestion is for the pages to feature a disclaimer that says that a topic is not accepted by mainstream science.

Wade raises a point about resourcing, saying it’s especially difficult for the platform to retain academics who might be enthusiastic about editing Wikipedia initially, but then drop off. One reason is time. For full-time researchers, Wikipedia editing could be an activity best left to evenings, weekends and holidays…(More)”.