Paper by Carolina Aguerre and Carla Bonina: “Digital technologies have a recognised potential to build more efficient, credible, and innovative public institutions in Latin America. Despite progress, digital transformation in Latin American governments remains limited. In this work, we explore a peculiar yet largely understudied opportunity in the region: pursuing digital government transformation as a collaborative process between the government and civil society organisations. To do so, we draw from information systems research on digital government and platforms for development, complemented with governance theory from political science and conduct an interpretive in-depth case study of an urban reporting platform in Montevideo called ‘Por Mi Barrio’. The study reveals three mutually reinforced orders of governance in the trajectory of the project and explain how the collaboration unfolded over time: (i) a technical decision to use open platform architectures; (ii) the negotiation of formal and informal rules to make the project thrive and (iii) a shared, long-term ideology around the value of open technologies and technical sovereignty grounded in years of political history. Using a contextual explanation approach, our study helps to improve our understanding on the governance of collaborative digital government platforms in Latin America, with specific contributions to practice…(More)”.
UN adopts Chinese resolution with US support on closing the gap in access to artificial intelligence
Article by Edith Lederer: “The U.N. General Assembly adopted a Chinese-sponsored resolution with U.S. support urging wealthy developed nations to close the widening gap with poorer developing countries and ensure that they have equal opportunities to use and benefit from artificial intelligence.
The resolution approved Monday follows the March 21 adoption of the first U.N. resolution on artificial intelligence spearheaded by the United States and co-sponsored by 123 countries including China. It gave global support to the international effort to ensure that AI is “safe, secure and trustworthy” and that all nations can take advantage of it.
Adoption of the two nonbinding resolutions shows that the United States and China, rivals in many areas, are both determined to be key players in shaping the future of the powerful new technology — and have been cooperating on the first important international steps.
The adoption of both resolutions by consensus by the 193-member General Assembly shows widespread global support for their leadership on the issue.
Fu Cong, China’s U.N. ambassador, told reporters Monday that the two resolutions are complementary, with the U.S. measure being “more general” and the just-adopted one focusing on “capacity building.”
He called the Chinese resolution, which had more than 140 sponsors, “great and far-reaching,” and said, “We’re very appreciative of the positive role that the U.S. has played in this whole process.”
Nate Evans, spokesperson for the U.S. mission to the United Nations, said Tuesday that the Chinese-sponsored resolution “was negotiated so it would further the vision and approach the U.S. set out in March.”
“We worked diligently and in good faith with developing and developed countries to strengthen the text, ensuring it reaffirms safe, secure, and trustworthy AI that respects human rights, commits to digital inclusion, and advances sustainable development,” Evans said.
Fu said that AI technology is advancing extremely fast and the issue has been discussed at very senior levels, including by the U.S. and Chinese leaders.
“We do look forward to intensifying our cooperation with the United States and for that matter with all countries in the world on this issue, which … will have far-reaching implications in all dimensions,” he said…(More)”.
Positive Pathways report
Report by Michael Lawrence and Megan Shipman: “Polycrisis analysis reveals the complex and systemic nature of the world’s problems, but it can also help us pursue “positive pathways” to better futures. This report outlines the sorts of systems changes required to avoid, mitigate, and navigate through polycrisis given the dual nature of crises as harmful disasters and opportunities for transformation. It then examines the progression between three prominent approaches to systems change—leverage points, tipping points, and multi-systemic stability landscapes—by highlighting their advances and limitations. The report concludes that new tools like Cross-Impact Balance analysis can build on these approaches to help navigate through polycrisis by identifying stable and desirable multi-systemic equilibria…(More)”
A systematic analysis of digital tools for citizen participation
Paper by Bokyong Shin et al: “Despite the increasing use of digital tools for citizen participation, their ecosystem and functionality remain underexplored. What digital tools exist, and how do they help citizens engage in policymaking? This article addresses this gap by examining the supply side of digital tools for citizen participation. We compiled a comprehensive dataset of 116 digital tools from three public repositories. Using the collective intelligence genome framework, adapted for the e-participation context, we systematically examined the dynamics and trends of these tools through cluster analyses. Our findings highlight the potential of digital participatory tools to facilitate the flow of information from citizens to governments using advanced technologies. However, a prominent deficiency was identified in disseminating accountability information to citizens regarding how policy decisions are made, realised, and assessed. These findings offer valuable insights and notable gaps in the digital tool ecosystem…(More)”.
Satisfaction with democracy has declined in recent years in high-income nations
Pew Research Center: “..Since 2017, we’ve regularly asked people in 12 economically advanced democracies how satisfied they are with the state of their democracy. Overall, satisfaction declined in these countries between 2017 and 2019 before bouncing back in 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Since 2021, however, people in these nations have become more frustrated with their democracies. A median of 49% across these 12 nations were satisfied with the way their democracy was working in 2021; today, just 36% hold this view. (The 2024 survey was conducted before the European Parliament elections in June.)
Satisfaction is lower today than it was in 2021 in nine of the 12 nations where we have asked the question consistently. This includes six countries where satisfaction has dropped by double digits: Canada, Germany, Greece, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Satisfaction has not increased in any of the 12 countries surveyed…(More)”
AI, data governance and privacy
OECD Report: “Recent AI technological advances, particularly the rise of generative AI, have raised many data governance and privacy questions. However, AI and privacy policy communities often address these issues independently, with approaches that vary between jurisdictions and legal systems. These silos can generate misunderstandings, add complexities in regulatory compliance and enforcement, and prevent capitalising on commonalities between national frameworks. This report focuses on the privacy risks and opportunities stemming from recent AI developments. It maps the principles set in the OECD Privacy Guidelines to the OECD AI Principles, takes stock of national and regional initiatives, and suggests potential areas for collaboration. The report supports the implementation of the OECD Privacy Guidelines alongside the OECD AI Principles. By advocating for international co-operation, the report aims to guide the development of AI systems that respect and support privacy…(More)”.
Unlocking the Potential of Data: Innovative Policies for Responsible Data Reuse and Addressing Data Asymmetries
Testimony by Stefaan Verhulst to the German Bundestag: “Let me begin by highlighting the potential of data when used and reused responsibly. Although we hear much about the risks of using data–and many of the fears are indeed justified–it’s also important to keep in mind the very real possibilities that data offers for advancing the public good.
We live in a datafied world, characterized by an unprecedented supply–even glut–of data. In this world, data has become a critical resource for informing policy and decision-making processes. When properly analyzed and utilized, data can play a critical role in helping policymakers–and other stakeholders–address a range of critical problems, in sectors as diverse as public health, climate, innovation and economic development, combating urban decay–and much more.
Sometimes this data is readily available. Most of the time it is not. One of the areas with the biggest potential–yet also significant challenges–is data reuse – data already collected for one purpose using it for another. Data reuse can provide invaluable insights into current phenomena, help us understand the causes of emerging trends, and guide us in developing effective solutions to pressing challenges. Moreover, analysis from data re-use can serve as a powerful tool for anticipating future developments and prescribing targeted interventions…
Despite the very potential of data and data reuse, it’s undeniable we face significant challenges in realizing data’s full societal value.
One of the primary obstacles is a lack of access to high-quality, timely data by the public sector, civil society, and other groups that are working toward the public good.
We live in a paradoxical situation today, marked both by the availability of an unprecedented amount of data, but also by unprecedented asymmetries in access to that data for reuse in the public interest.
I believe that the growing asymmetries between those who have data (often from the private sector) and those who are best positioned to use it for the public good, represents one of the major challenges of our era.
Data policy to date has primarily focused on preventing the misuse of data, often for valid reasons as mentioned earlier. However, this approach has inadvertently overlooked the missed uses of data – the opportunities we fail to capitalize on due to overly restrictive policies or lack of innovative frameworks for data sharing and utilization…
Given these challenges, what can policymakers do? What steps can policymakers such as yourselves – and other stakeholders, from the private sector, academia and civil society – take to help maximize the potential of our datafied society and economy, and to ensure that the benefits of our data age are maximized in as equitable and inclusive a manner as possible?..(More)” (German) (See also: Experten: Innovative Ansätze in der Datenpolitik nötig).
Illuminating Lived Experience
Lab Note from the Sydney Policy Lab: “The lived experiences of people involved in care – from informal and formal care workers to the people they support – is foundational to the Australia Cares project. To learn from the ways people with lived experience are included in co-design and research methods, the Sydney Policy Lab initiated reflective research that has resulted in a Lab Note on Illuminating Lived Experience (pdf, 1MB).
Through a series of interviews, dialogues and collaborative writing processes, co-authors explored tensions between different approaches and core concepts underpinning lived experience methods and shared examples of those methods in practice.
Illuminating Lived Experience poses questions that may help guide researchers and policymakers seeking to engage people with lived experience and three core principles we believe are required for such engagements.
The Lab Note aims to encourage researchers to be creative in the ways co-design and lived experience are approached while being true to the critical roots of participatory methodologies. Rather than prescribing methods, the principles and practices developed are offered as a guide – a starting point for play…(More)”
The 4M Roadmap: A Higher Road to Profitability by Using Big Data for Social Good
Report by Brennan Lake: “As the private sector faces conflicting pressures to either embrace or shun socially responsible practices, companies with privately held big-data assets must decide whether to share access to their data for public good. While some managers object to data sharing over concerns of privacy and product cannibalization, others launch well intentioned yet short-lived CSR projects that fail to deliver on lofty goals.
By embedding Shared-Value principles into ‘Data-for-Good’ programs, data-rich firms can launch responsible data-sharing initiatives that minimize risk, deliver sustained impact, and improve overall competitiveness in the process.
The 4M Roadmap by Brennan Lake, a Big-Data and Social Impact professional, guides managers to adopt a ‘Data-for-Good’ model that emphasizes four key pillars of value-creation: Mission, Messaging, Methods, and Monetization. Through deep analysis and private-sector case studies, The 4M Roadmap demonstrates how companies can engage in responsible data sharing to benefit society and business alike…(More)”.
Preparing Researchers for an Era of Freer Information
Article by Peter W.B. Phillips: “If you Google my name along with “Monsanto,” you will find a series of allegations from 2013 that my scholarly work at the University of Saskatchewan, focused on technological change in the global food system, had been unduly influenced by corporations. The allegations made use of seven freedom of information (FOI) requests. Although leadership at my university determined that my publications were consistent with university policy, the ensuing media attention, I feel, has led some colleagues, students, and partners to distance themselves to avoid being implicated by association.
In the years since, I’ve realized that my experience is not unique. I have communicated with other academics who have experienced similar FOI requests related to genetically modified organisms in the United States, Canada, England, Netherlands, and Brazil. And my field is not the only one affected: a 2015 Union of Concerned Scientists report documented requests in multiple states and disciplines—from history to climate science to epidemiology—as well as across ideologies. In the University of California system alone, researchers have received open records requests related to research on the health effects of toxic chemicals, the safety of abortions performed by clinicians rather than doctors, and the green energy production infrastructure. These requests are made possible by laws that permit anyone, for any reason, to gain access to public agencies’ records.
These open records campaigns, which are conducted by individuals and groups across the political spectrum, arise in part from the confluence of two unrelated phenomena: the changing nature of academic research toward more translational, interdisciplinary, and/or team-based investigations and the push for more transparency in taxpayer-funded institutions. Neither phenomenon is inherently negative; in fact, there are strong advantages for science and society in both trends. But problems arise when scholars are caught between them—affecting the individuals involved and potentially influencing the ongoing conduct of research…(More)”