Enhancing the European Administrative Space (ComPAct)

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

European Commission: “Efficient national public administrations are critical to transform EU and national policies into reality, to implement reforms to the benefit of people and business alike, and to channel investments towards the achievement of the green and digital transition, and greater competitiveness. At the same time, national public administrations are also under an increasing pressure to deal with polycrisis and with many competing priorities. 

For the first time, with the ComPAct, the Commission is proposing a strategic set of actions not only to support the public administrations in the Member States to become more resilient, innovative and skilled, but also to strengthen the administrative cooperation between them, thereby allowing to close existing gaps in policies and services at European level.

With the ComPAct, the Commission aims to enhance the European Administrative Space by promoting a common set of overarching principles underpinning the quality of public administration and reinforcing its support for the administrative modernisation of the Member States. The ComPAct will help Member States address the EU Skills Agenda and the actions under the European Year of Skills, deliver on the targets of the Digital Decade to have 100% of key public services accessible online by 2030, and shape the conditions for the economies and societies to deliver on the ambitious 2030 climate and energy targets. The ComPAct will also help EU enlargement countries on their path to building better public administrations…(More)”.

Shifting policy systems – a framework for what to do and how to do it

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by UK Policy Lab: “Systems change is hard work, and it takes time. The reality is that no single system map or tool is enough to get you from point A to point B, from system now to system next. Over the last year, we have explored the latest in systems change theory and applied it to policymaking. In this four part blog series, we share our reflections on the wealth of knowledge we’ve gained working on intractable issues surrounding how support is delivered for people experiencing multiple disadvantage. Along the way, we realised that we need to make new tools to support policy teams to do this deep work in the future, and to see afresh the limitations of existing mental models for change and transformation.

Policy Lab has previously written about systems mapping as a useful process for understanding the interconnected nature of factors and actors that make up policy ecosystems. Here, we share our latest experimentation on how we can generate practical ideas for long-lasting and systemic change.

This blog includes:

  • An overview of what we did on our latest project – including the policy context, systems change frameworks we experimented with, and the bespoke project framework we created;
  • Our reflections on how we carried out the project;
  • A matrix which provides a practical guide for you to use this approach in your own work…(More)”.

Future Law, Ethics, and Smart Technologies

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book edited by John-Stewart Gordon: “This interdisciplinary textbook serves as a solid introduction to the future of legal education against the background of the widespread use of AI written by colleagues from different disciplines, e.g. law, philosophy/ethics, economy, and computer science, whose common interest concerns AI and its impact on legal and ethical issues. The book provides, first, a general overview of the effects of AI on major disciplines such as ethics, law, economy, political science, and healthcare. Secondly, it offers a comprehensive analysis of major key issues concerning law: (a) AI decision-making, (b) rights, status, and responsibility, (c) regulation and standardisation, and (d) education…(More)”.

Towards a Taxonomy of Anticipatory Methods: Integrating Traditional and Innovative Methods for Migration Policy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst
Towards a Taxonomy of Anticipatory Methods: Integrating Traditional and Innovative Methods for Migration Policy

Blog by Sara Marcucci, and Stefaan Verhulst: “…In this week’s blog post, we delineate a taxonomy of anticipatory methods, categorizing them into three distinct sub-categories: Experience-based, Exploration-based, and Expertise-based methods. Our focus will be on what the practical applications of these methods are and how both traditional and non-traditional data sources play a pivotal role within each of these categories. …Experience-based methods in the realm of migration policy focus on gaining insights from the lived experiences of individuals and communities involved in migration processes. These methods allow policymakers to tap into the lived experiences, challenges, and aspirations of individuals and communities, fostering a more empathetic and holistic approach to policy development.

Through the lens of people’s experiences and viewpoints, it is possible to create and explore a multitude of scenarios. This in-depth exploration provides policy makers with a comprehensive understanding of these potential pathways, which, in turn, inform their decision-making process…(More)”.

Data collaboration to enable the EU Green Deal

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Justine Gangneux: “In the fight against climate change, local authorities are increasingly turning to cross-sectoral data sharing as a game-changing strategy.

This collaborative approach empowers cities and communities to harness a wealth of data from diverse sources, enabling them to pinpoint emission hotspots, tailor policies for maximum impact, and allocate resources wisely.

Data can also strengthen climate resilience by engaging local communities and facilitating real-time progress tracking…

In recent years, more and more local data initiatives aimed at tackling climate change have emerged, spanning from urban planning to mobility, adaptation and energy management.

Such is the case of Porto’s CityCatalyst – the project put five demonstrators in place to showcase smart cities infrastructure and develop data standards and models, contributing to the efficient and integrated management of urban flows…

In Latvia, Riga is also exploring data solutions such as visualisations, aggregation or analytics, as part of the Positive Energy District strategy.  Driven by the national Energy Efficiency Law, the city is developing a project to monitor energy consumption based on building utility use data (heat, electricity, gas, or water), customer and billing data, and Internet of Things smart metre data from individual buildings…

As these examples show, it is not just public data that holds the key; private sector data, from utilities as energy or water, to telecoms, offers cities valuable insights in their efforts to tackle climate change…(More)”.

Addressing ethical gaps in ‘Technology for Good’: Foregrounding care and capabilities

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Alison B. Powell et al: “This paper identifies and addresses persistent gaps in the consideration of ethical practice in ‘technology for good’ development contexts. Its main contribution is to model an integrative approach using multiple ethical frameworks to analyse and understand the everyday nature of ethical practice, including in professional practice among ‘technology for good’ start-ups. The paper identifies inherent paradoxes in the ‘technology for good’ sector as well as ethical gaps related to (1) the sometimes-misplaced assignment of virtuousness to an individual; (2) difficulties in understanding social constraints on ethical action; and (3) the often unaccounted for mismatch between ethical intentions and outcomes in everyday practice, including in professional work associated with an ‘ethical turn’ in technology. These gaps persist even in contexts where ethics are foregrounded as matters of concern. To address the gaps, the paper suggests systemic, rather than individualized, considerations of care and capability applied to innovation settings, in combination with considerations of virtue and consequence. This paper advocates for addressing these challenges holistically in order to generate renewed capacity for change at a systemic level…(More)”.

Europe wants to get better at planning for the worst

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Sarah Anne Aarup: “The European Union is beset by doom and gloom — from wars on its doorstep to inflation and the climate crisis — not to mention political instability in the U.S. and rivalry with China.

All too often, the EU has been overtaken by events, which makes the task of getting better at planning for the worst all the more pressing. 

As European leaders fought political fires at their informal summit last week in Granada, unaware that Palestinian militants would launch their devastating raid on Israel a day later, they quietly started a debate on strategic foresight.

At this stage still very much a thought experiment, the concept of “open strategic autonomy” is being championed by host Spain, the current president of the Council of the EU. The idea reflects a shift in priorities to navigate an increasingly uncertain world, and a departure from the green and digital transitions that have dominated the agenda in recent years.

To the uninitiated, the concept of open strategic autonomy sounds like an oxymoron — that’s because it is.

After the hyper globalized early 2000s, trust in liberalism started to erode. Then the Trump-era trade wars, COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine exposed Europe’s economic reliance on powerful nations that are either latent — or overt — strategic rivals.

“The United States and China are becoming more self-reliant, and some voices were saying that this is what we have to do,” an official with the Spanish presidency told POLITICO. “But that’s not a good idea for Europe.”

Instead, open strategic autonomy is about shielding the EU just enough to protect its economic security while remaining an international player. In other words, it means “cooperating multilaterally wherever we can, acting autonomously wherever we must.”

It’s a grudging acceptance that great power politics now dominate economics…

The open strategic autonomy push is about countering an inward turn that was all about cutting dependencies, such as the EU’s reliance on Russian energy, after President Vladimir Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine.

“[We’re] missing a more balanced and forward-looking strategy” following the Versailles Declaration, the Spanish official said, referring to a first response by EU leaders to the Russian attack of February 24, 2022.

Spain delivered its contribution to the debate in the form of a thick paper drafted by its foresight office, in coordination with over 80 ministries across the EU…(More)”.

AI-tocracy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Peter Dizikes: “It’s often believed that authoritarian governments resist technical innovation in a way that ultimately weakens them both politically and economically. But a more complicated story emerges from a new study on how China has embraced AI-driven facial recognition as a tool of repression. 

“What we found is that in regions of China where there is more unrest, that leads to greater government procurement of facial-recognition AI,” says coauthor Martin Beraja, an MIT economist. Not only has use of the technology apparently worked to suppress dissent, but it has spurred software development. The scholars call this mutually reinforcing situation an “AI-tocracy.” 

In fact, they found, firms that were granted a government contract for facial-recognition technologies produce about 49% more software products in the two years after gaining the contract than before. “We examine if this leads to greater innovation by facial-recognition AI firms, and indeed it does,” Beraja says.

Adding it all up, the case of China indicates how autocratic governments can potentially find their political power enhanced, rather than upended, when they harness technological advances—and even generate more economic growth than they would have otherwise…(More)”.

Everybody is looking into the Future! 

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report as part of the “Anticipation and monitoring of emerging technologies and disruptive innovation” (ANTICIPINNOV) project, a collaboration between the European Commission Joint Research Centre with the European Innovation Council (EIC): “Growing volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity, present leading challenges in policy-making nowadays. Anticipatory thinking and foresight are of utmost importance to help explore trends, risks, emerging issues, and their potential implications and opportunities in order to draw useful insights for strategic planning, policy-making and preparedness.
The findings include a set of 106 signals and trends on emerging technologies and disruptive innovations across several areas of application based on a review of key reports on technology and innovation trends and signals produced by public and private entities outside of the EU institutions. Its goal is to strengthen the EIC’s strategic intelligence capacity through the use and development of anticipatory approaches that will – among other goals – support innovation funding prioritisation…(More)”.

Catastrophic Incentives: Why Our Approaches to Disasters Keep Falling Short

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Jeff Schlegelmilch and Ellen Carlin: “Societies are vulnerable to any number of potential disasters: earthquakes, hurricanes, infectious diseases, terrorist attacks, and many others. Even though the dangers are often clear, there is a persistent pattern of inadequate preparation and a failure to learn from experience. Before disasters, institutions pay insufficient attention to risk; in the aftermath, even when the lack of preparation led to a flawed response, the focus shifts to patching holes instead of addressing the underlying problems.

Examining twenty years of disasters from 9/11 to COVID-19, Jeff Schlegelmilch and Ellen Carlin show how flawed incentive structures make the world more vulnerable when catastrophe strikes. They explore how governments, the private sector, nonprofits, and academia behave before, during, and after crises, arguing that standard operational and business models have produced dysfunction. Catastrophic Incentives reveals troubling patterns about what does and does not matter to the institutions that are responsible for dealing with disasters. The short-termism of electoral politics and corporate decision making, the funding structure of nonprofits, and the institutional dynamics shaping academic research have all contributed to a failure to build resilience.

Offering a comprehensive and incisive look at disaster governance, Catastrophic Incentives provides timely recommendations for reimagining systems and institutions so that they are better equipped to manage twenty-first-century threats…(More)”.