Algorithm vs. Algorithm

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Cary Coglianese and Alicia Lai: “Critics raise alarm bells about governmental use of digital algorithms, charging that they are too complex, inscrutable, and prone to bias. A realistic assessment of digital algorithms, though, must acknowledge that government is already driven by algorithms of arguably greater complexity and potential for abuse: the algorithms implicit in human decision-making. The human brain operates algorithmically through complex neural networks. And when humans make collective decisions, they operate via algorithms too—those reflected in legislative, judicial, and administrative processes. Yet these human algorithms undeniably fail and are far from transparent.

On an individual level, human decision-making suffers from memory limitations, fatigue, cognitive biases, and racial prejudices, among other problems. On an organizational level, humans succumb to groupthink and free-riding, along with other collective dysfunctionalities. As a result, human decisions will in some cases prove far more problematic than their digital counterparts. Digital algorithms, such as machine learning, can improve governmental performance by facilitating outcomes that are more accurate, timely, and consistent. Still, when deciding whether to deploy digital algorithms to perform tasks currently completed by humans, public officials should proceed with care on a case-by-case basis. They should consider both whether a particular use would satisfy the basic preconditions for successful machine learning and whether it would in fact lead to demonstrable improvements over the status quo. The question about the future of public administration is not whether digital algorithms are perfect. Rather, it is a question about what will work better: human algorithms or digital ones….(More)”.

The committeefication of collective action in Africa

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Caroline Archambault and David Ehrhardt: “Over the last century, Africa has witnessed considerable committeefication, a process by which committees have become increasingly important to organise collective action. Throughout the continent, committees have come to preside over everything from natural resource management to cultural life, and from peacebuilding to community consultation. What has been the impact of this dramatic institutional change on the nature and quality of collective action? Drawing on decades of anthropological research and development work in East Africa – studying, working with and working in committees of various kinds – this article presents an approach to addressing this question.

We show how committees have surface features as well as deep functions, and that the impact of committeefication depends not only on their features and functions but also on the pathways through which they proliferate. On the surface, committees aim for inclusive and deliberative decision making, even if they vary in the specifics of their missions, membership, decision-making rules, and level of autonomy. But their deep functions can be quite different: a façade for accessing recognition or resources; a classroom for learning leadership skills; or a club for elites to pursue their shared interests. The impact of these features and functions depends on the pathways through which they grow: autonomous from existing forms of collective action; in synergistic cooperation; or in competition, possibly weakening or even destroying existing local institutions.

Community-based development interventions often rely heavily on committeefied collective action. This paper identifies the benefits that this strategy can have, but also shows its potential to weaken or even destroy existing forms of collective action. On that basis, we suggest that it is imperative to turn more systematic analytical attention to committees, and assess the extent to which they are delivering development or crippling collective action in the guise of democracy and deliberation…(More)”.

This Is the Difference Between a Family Surviving and a Family Sinking

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Bryce Covert: “…The excitement around policymaking is almost always in the moments after ink dries on a bill creating something new. But if a benefit fails to reach the people it’s designed for, it may as well not exist at all. Making government benefits more accessible and efficient doesn’t usually get the spotlight. But it’s often the difference between a family getting what it needs to survive and falling into hardship and destitution. It’s the glue of our democracy.

President Biden appears to have taken note of this. Late last year, he issued an executive order meant to improve the “customer experience and service delivery” of the entire federal government. He put forward some ideas, including moving Social Security benefit claims and passport renewals online, reducing paperwork for student loan forgiveness and certifying low-income people for all the assistance they qualify for at once, rather than making them seek out benefits program by program. More important, he shifted the focus of government toward whether or not the customers — that’s us — are having a good experience getting what we deserve.

It’s a direction all lawmakers, from the federal level down to counties and cities, should follow.

One of the biggest barriers to government benefits is all of the red tape to untangle, particularly for programs that serve low-income people. They were the ones wrangling with the I.R.S.’s nonfiler portal while others got their payments automatically. Benefits delivered through the tax code, which flow so easily that many people don’t think of them as government benefits at all, mostly help the already well-off. Programs for the poor, on the other hand, tend to be bloated with barriers like income tests, work requirements and in-person interviews. It’s not just about applying once, either; many require people to continually recertify, going through the process over and over again.

The hassle doesn’t just cost time and effort. It comes with a psychological cost. “You get mad at the D.M.V. because it takes hours to do something that should only take minutes,” Pamela Herd, a sociologist at Georgetown, said. “These kind of stresses can be really large when you’re talking about people who are on a knife’s edge in terms of their ability to pay their rent or feed their children.”…(More)”.

The Behavioral Code

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Benjamin van Rooij and Adam Fine: “Why do most Americans wear seatbelts but continue to speed even though speeding fines are higher? Why could park rangers reduce theft by removing “no stealing” signs? Why was a man who stole 3 golf clubs sentenced to 25 years in prison?

Some laws radically change behavior whereas others are consistently ignored and routinely broken. And yet we keep relying on harsh punishment against crime despite its continued failure.

Professors Benjamin van Rooij and Adam Fine draw on decades of research to uncover the behavioral code: the root causes and hidden forces that drive human behavior and our responses to society’s laws. In doing so, they present the first accessible analysis of behavioral jurisprudence, which will fundamentally alter how we understand the connection between law and human behavior.

The Behavioral Code offers a necessary and different approach to battling crime and injustice that is based in understanding the science of human misconduct—rather than relying on our instinctual drive to punish as a way to shape behavior. The book reveals the behavioral code’s hidden role through illustrative examples like:

   • The illusion of the US’s beloved tax refund
   • German walls that “pee back” at public urinators
   • The $1,000 monthly “good behavior” reward that reduced gun violence
   • Uber’s backdoor “Greyball” app that helped the company evade Seattle’s taxi regulators
   • A $2.3 billion legal settlement against Pfizer that revealed how whistleblower protections fail to reduce corporate malfeasance
   • A toxic organizational culture playing a core role in Volkswagen’s emissions cheating scandal
   • How Peter Thiel helped Hulk Hogan sue Gawker into oblivion…(More)”.

Effective and Trustworthy Implementation of AI Soft Law Governance

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Introduction by Carlos Ignacio Gutierrez, Gary E. Marchant and Katina Michael: “This double special issue (together with the IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Dec 2021) is dedicated to examining the governance of artificial intelligence (AI) through soft law. This kind of law is considered “soft” as opposed to “hard” because it comes in the form of governance programs whose goal is to create substantive expectations that are not directly enforceable by government [1], [2]. Soft law materializes out of necessity to enable a technological innovation to thrive and not be hampered by disparate heterogeneous practices that may negatively impact its trajectory, causing a premature “valley of death” exit scenario [3]. Soft laws are meant to be “just in time” to grant industry fundamental guidance when dealing with complex socio-technical assemblages that may have significant socio-legal implications upon diffusion into the market. Anticipatory governance is closely connected with soft law, in that intended and unintended consequences of a new technology may well be anticipated and proactively addressed [4].

Soft law’s role in governance is to influence the implementation of new technologies whose inception into society have outpaced hard law. Its usage is not meant to diminish the need for regulations, but rather be considered an interim solution when the roll-out of a new technology is happening rapidly, resisting the urge to create reactive and premature laws that may well take too long to enter legislation in a given state. Mutual agreement and conformance toward common goals and technical protocols through soft law among industry representatives, associated government agencies, auxiliary service providers, and other stakeholders, can lead to positive gains. Including the potential for societal acceptance of a new technology, especially where there are adequate provisions to safeguard the customer and the general public…(More)”.

Shared Measures: Collective Performance Data Use in Collaborations

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Alexander Kroll: “Traditionally, performance metrics and data have been used to hold organizations accountable. But public service provision is not merely hierarchical anymore. Increasingly, we see partnerships among government agencies, private or nonprofit organizations, and civil society groups. Such collaborations may also use goals, measures, and data to manage group efforts, however, the application of performance practices here will likely follow a different logic. This Element introduces the concepts of “shared measures” and “collective data use” to add collaborative, relational elements to existing performance management theory. It draws on a case study of collaboratives in North Carolina that were established to develop community responses to the opioid epidemic. To explain the use of shared performance measures and data within these collaboratives, this Element studies the role of factors such as group composition, participatory structures, social relationships, distributed leadership, group culture, and value congruence…(More)”.

Metrics at Work: Journalism and the Contested Meaning of Algorithms

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Angèle Christin: “When the news moved online, journalists suddenly learned what their audiences actually liked, through algorithmic technologies that scrutinize web traffic and activity. Has this advent of audience metrics changed journalists’ work practices and professional identities? In Metrics at Work, Angèle Christin documents the ways that journalists grapple with audience data in the form of clicks, and analyzes how new forms of clickbait journalism travel across national borders.

Drawing on four years of fieldwork in web newsrooms in the United States and France, including more than one hundred interviews with journalists, Christin reveals many similarities among the media groups examined—their editorial goals, technological tools, and even office furniture. Yet she uncovers crucial and paradoxical differences in how American and French journalists understand audience analytics and how these affect the news produced in each country. American journalists routinely disregard traffic numbers and primarily rely on the opinion of their peers to define journalistic quality. Meanwhile, French journalists fixate on internet traffic and view these numbers as a sign of their resonance in the public sphere. Christin offers cultural and historical explanations for these disparities, arguing that distinct journalistic traditions structure how journalists make sense of digital measurements in the two countries.

Contrary to the popular belief that analytics and algorithms are globally homogenizing forces, Metrics at Work shows that computational technologies can have surprisingly divergent ramifications for work and organizations worldwide…(More)”.

Data saves lives: reshaping health and social care with data

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

UK Department of Health and Social Care: “In England and in every community around the world, digital developments have been essential to the pandemic response. People have accessed advice and care remotely in unprecedented numbers, helping keep them and their families safe. World class genomics helped identify and track new variants. Daily analysis allowed problems to be understood rapidly, and resources redeployed. Staff worked remotely. And the COVID-19 vaccination service was mobilised in record time.

Such an efficient and effective response was only possible because of investment in digital systems, innovation and skills over the last few years, and the partnerships forged between digital, clinical and operational colleagues.

The opportunity now is for the health and care sector to apply such approaches with increased urgency and consistency to both our long-term challenges and to the immediate tasks of rebuilding from the pandemic. We have a responsibility to do both.

The Digital Transformation Plan sets out the overarching vision for how we will digitise, connect and transform the health and care sector. This data strategy explains in more detail the role that data will play in that transformation and how it can inspire effective collaboration across the NHS, adult social care, and public health, help us care for people in the best possible way, and ensuring that our citizens have the best experience possible when using the system.

There are 3 key priorities which underpin this strategy:

  • first to build understanding on how data is used and the potential for data-driven innovation, improving transparency so the public has control over how we are using their data
  • second to make appropriate data sharing the norm and not the exception across health, adult social care and public health, to provide the best care possible to the citizens we serve, and to support staff throughout the health and care system
  • third to build the right foundations – technical, legal, regulatory – to make that possible…(More)”.

A 680,000-person megastudy of nudges to encourage vaccination in pharmacies

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Katherine L. Milkman et al: “Encouraging vaccination is a pressing policy problem. To assess whether text-based reminders can encourage pharmacy vaccination and what kinds of messages work best, we conducted a megastudy. We randomly assigned 689,693 Walmart pharmacy patients to receive one of 22 different text reminders using a variety of different behavioral science principles to nudge flu vaccination or to a business-as-usual control condition that received no messages. We found that the reminder texts that we tested increased pharmacy vaccination rates by an average of 2.0 percentage points, or 6.8%, over a 3-mo follow-up period. The most-effective messages reminded patients that a flu shot was waiting for them and delivered reminders on multiple days. The top-performing intervention included two texts delivered 3 d apart and communicated to patients that a vaccine was “waiting for you.” Neither experts nor lay people anticipated that this would be the best-performing treatment, underscoring the value of simultaneously testing many different nudges in a highly powered megastudy….(More)”.

Society won’t trust A.I. until business earns that trust

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by François Candelon, Rodolphe Charme di Carlo and Steven D. Mills: “…The concept of a social license—which was born when the mining industry, and other resource extractors, faced opposition to projects worldwide—differs from the other rules governing A.I.’s use. Academics such as Leeora Black and John Morrison, in the book The Social License: How to Keep Your Organization Legitimate,define the social license as “the negotiation of equitable impacts and benefits in relation to its stakeholders over the near and longer term. It can range from the informal, such as an implicit contract, to the formal, like a community benefit agreement.” 

The social license isn’t a document like a government permit; it’s a form of acceptance that companies must gain through consistent and trustworthy behavior as well as stakeholder interactions. Thus, a social license for A.I. will be a socially constructed perception that a company has secured the right to use the technology for specific purposes in the markets in which it operates. 

Companies cannot award themselves social licenses; they will have to win them by proving they can be trusted. As Morrison argued in 2014, akin to the capability to dig a mine, the fact that an A.I.-powered solution is technologically feasible doesn’t mean that society will find its use morally and ethically acceptable. And losing the social license will have dire consequences, as natural resource companies, such as Shell and BP, have learned in the past…(More)”