Paper by Eva Sørensen and Mark E. Warren: “While many democratic theorists recognise the necessity of reforming liberal democracies to keep pace with social change, they rarely consider what enables such reform. In this conceptual article, we suggest that liberal democracies are politically robust when they are able to continuously adapt and innovate how they operate when doing so is necessary to continue to serve key democratic functions. These functions include securing the empowered inclusion of those affected, collective agenda setting and will formation, and the making of joint decisions. Three current challenges highlight the urgency of adapting and innovating liberal democracies to become more politically robust: an increasingly assertive political culture, the digitalisation of political communication and increasing global interdependencies. A democratic theory of political robustness emphasises the need to strengthen the capacity of liberal democracies to adapt and innovate in response to changes, just as it helps to frame the necessary adaptations and innovations in times such as the present…(More)”
Establish data collaboratives to foster meaningful public involvement
Article by Gwen Ottinger: “…Data Collaboratives would move public participation and community engagement upstream in the policy process by creating opportunities for community members to contribute their lived experience to the assessment of data and the framing of policy problems. This would in turn foster two-way communication and trusting relationships between government and the public. Data Collaboratives would also help ensure that data and their uses in federal government are equitable, by inviting a broader range of perspectives on how data analysis can promote equity and where relevant data are missing. Finally, Data Collaboratives would be one vehicle for enabling individuals to participate in science, technology, engineering, math, and medicine activities throughout their lives, increasing the quality of American science and the competitiveness of American industry…(More)”.
Experts warn about the ‘crumbling infrastructure’ of federal government data
Article by Hansi Lo Wang: “The stability of the federal government’s system for producing statistics, which the U.S. relies on to understand its population and economy, is under threat because of budget concerns, officials and data users warn.
And that’s before any follow-through on the new Trump administration and Republican lawmakers‘ pledges to slash government spending, which could further affect data production.
In recent months, budget shortfalls and the restrictions of short-term funding have led to the end of some datasets by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, known for its tracking of the gross domestic product, and to proposals by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to reduce the number of participants surveyed to produce the monthly jobs report. A “lack of multiyear funding” has also hurt efforts to modernize the software and other technology the BLS needs to put out its data properly, concluded a report by an expert panel tasked with examining multiple botched data releases last year.
Long-term funding questions are also dogging the Census Bureau, which carries out many of the federal government’s surveys and is preparing for the 2030 head count that’s set to be used to redistribute political representation and trillions in public funding across the country. Some census watchers are concerned budget issues may force the bureau to cancel some of its field tests for the upcoming tally, as it did with 2020 census tests for improving the counts in Spanish-speaking communities, rural areas and on Indigenous reservations.
While the statistical agencies have not been named specifically, some advocates are worried that calls to reduce the federal government’s workforce by President Trump and the new Republican-controlled Congress could put the integrity of the country’s data at greater risk…(More)”
Impact Curious?
Excerpt of book by Priya Parrish: “My journey to impact investing began when I was an undergraduate studying economics and entrepreneurship and couldn’t find any examples of people harnessing the power of business to improve the world. That was 20 years ago, before impact investing was a recognized strategy. Back then, just about everyone in the field was an entrepreneur experimenting with investment tools, trying to figure out how to do well financially while also making positive change. I joined right in.
The term “impact investing” has been around since 2007 but hasn’t taken hold the way I thought (and hoped) it might. There are still a lot of myths about what impact investing truly is and does, the most prevalent of which is that doing good won’t generate returns. This couldn’t be more false, yet it persists. This book is my attempt to debunk this myth and others like it, as well as make sense of the confusion, as it’s difficult for a newcomer to understand the jargon, sort through the many false or exaggerated claims, and follow the heated debates about this topic. This book is for the “impact curious,” or anyone who wants more than just financial returns from their investments. It is for anyone interested in finding out what their investments can do when aligned with purpose. It is for anyone who wishes to live in alignment with their values—in every aspect of their lives.
This particular excerpt from my book, The Little Book of Impact Investing, provides a history of the term and activity in the space. It addresses why now is a particularly good time to make business do more and do better—so that the world can and will too…(More)”.
Silencing Science Tracker
About: “The Silencing Science Tracker is a joint initiative of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund. It is intended to record reports of federal, state, and local government attempts to “silence science” since the November 2016 election.
We define “silencing science” to include any action that has the effect of restricting or prohibiting scientific research, education, or discussion, or the publication or use of scientific information. We divide such actions into 7 categories as follows…(More)”
| Category | Examples | |
|---|---|---|
| Government Censorship | Changing the content of websites and documents to suppress or distort scientific information.Making scientific data more difficult to find or access.Restricting public communication by scientists. | |
| Self-Censorship | Scientists voluntarily changing the content of websites and documents to suppress or distort scientific information, potentially in response to political pressure. We note that it is often difficult to determine whether self-censorship is occurring and/or its cause. We do not take any position on the accuracy of any individual report on self-censorship. | |
| Budget Cuts | Reducing funding for existing agency programs involving scientific research or scientific education.Cancelling existing grants for scientific research or scientific education. We do not include, in the “budget cuts” category, government decisions to refuse new grant applications or funding for new agency programs. | |
| Personnel Changes | Removing scientists from agency positions or creating a hostile work environment.Appointing unqualified individuals to, or failing to fill, scientific positions.Changing the composition of scientific advisory board or other bodies to remove qualified scientists or add only industry-favored members.Eliminating government bodies involved in scientific research or education or the dissemination of scientific information. | |
| Research Hindrance | Destroying data needed to undertake scientific research.Preventing or restricting the publication of scientific research.Pressuring scientists to change research findings. | |
| Bias and Misrepresentation | Engaging in “cherry picking” or only disclosing certain scientific studies (e.g., that support a particular conclusion).Misrepresenting or mischaracterizing scientific studies.Disregarding scientific studies or advice in policy-making. | |
| Interference with Education | Changing science education standards to prevent or limit the teaching of proven scientific theories.Requiring or encouraging the teaching of discredited or unproven scientific theories.Preventing the use of factually accurate textbooks and other instructional materials (e.g., on religious grounds). |
Good government data requires good statistics officials – but how motivated and competent are they?
Worldbank Blog: “Government data is only as reliable as the statistics officials who produce it. Yet, surprisingly little is known about these officials themselves. For decades, they have diligently collected data on others – such as households and firms – to generate official statistics, from poverty rates to inflation figures. Yet, data about statistics officials themselves is missing. How competent are they at analyzing statistical data? How motivated are they to excel in their roles? Do they uphold integrity when producing official statistics, even in the face of opposing career incentives or political pressures? And what can National Statistical Offices (NSOs) do to cultivate a workforce that is competent, motivated, and ethical?
We surveyed 13,300 statistics officials in 14 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean to find out. Five results stand out. For further insights, consult our Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) report, Making National Statistical Offices Work Better.
1. The competence and management of statistics officials shape the quality of statistical data
Our survey included a short exam assessing basic statistical competencies, such as descriptive statistics and probability. Statistical competence correlates with data quality: NSOs with higher exam scores among employees tend to achieve better results in the World Bank’s Statistical Performance Indicators (r = 0.36).
NSOs with better management practices also have better statistical performance. For instance, NSOs with more robust recruitment and selection processes have better statistical performance (r = 0.62)…(More)”.
Nearly all Americans use AI, though most dislike it, poll shows
Axios: “The vast majority of Americans use products that involve AI, but their views of the technology remain overwhelmingly negative, according to a Gallup-Telescope survey published Wednesday.
Why it matters: The rapid advancement of generative AI threatens to have far-reaching consequences for Americans’ everyday lives, including reshaping the job market, impacting elections, and affecting the health care industry.
The big picture: An estimated 99% of Americans used at least one AI-enabled product in the past week, but nearly two-thirds didn’t realize they were doing so, according to the poll’s findings.
- These products included navigation apps, personal virtual assistants, weather forecasting apps, streaming services, shopping websites and social media platforms.
- Ellyn Maese, a senior research consultant at Gallup, told Axios that the disconnect is because there is “a lot of confusion when it comes to what is just a computer program versus what is truly AI and intelligent.”
Zoom in: Despite its prevalent use, Americans’ views of AI remain overwhelmingly bleak, the survey found.
- 72% of those surveyed had a “somewhat” or “very” negative opinion of how AI would impact the spread of false information, while 64% said the same about how it affects social connections.
- The only area where a majority of Americans (61%) had a positive view of AI’s impact was regarding how it might help medical diagnosis and treatment…
State of play: The survey found that 68% of Americans believe the government and businesses equally bear responsibility for addressing the spread of false information related to AI.
- 63% said the same about personal data privacy violations.
- Majorities of those surveyed felt the same about combatting the unauthorized use of individuals’ likenesses (62%) and AI’s impact on job losses (52%).
- In fact, the only area where Americans felt differently was when it came to national security threats; 62% of those surveyed said the government bore primary responsibility for reducing such threats…(More).”
Why Canada needs to embrace innovations in democracy
Article by Megan Mattes and Joanna Massie: “Although one-off democratic innovations like citizens’ assemblies are excellent approaches for tackling a big issue, more embedded types of innovations could be a powerful tool for maintaining an ongoing connection between public interest and political decision-making.
Innovative approaches to maintaining an ongoing, meaningful connection between people and policymakers are underway. In New Westminster, B.C., a standing citizen body called the Community Advisory Assembly has been convened since January 2024 to January 2025.
These citizen advisers are selected through random sampling to ensure the assembly’s demographic makeup is aligned with the overall population.
Over the last year, members have both given input on policy ideas initiated by New Westminster city council and initiated conversations on their own policy priorities. Notes from these discussions are passed on to council and city staff to consider their incorporation into policymaking.
The question is whether the project will live beyond its pilot.
Another similar and hopeful democratic innovation, the City of Toronto’s Planning Review Panel, ran for two terms before it was cancelled. In contrast, both the Paris city council and the state government of Ostbelgien (East Belgium) have convened permanent citizen advisory bodies to work alongside elected officials.
While public opinion is only one ingredient in government decision-making, ensuring democratic innovations are a standard component of policymaking could go a long way to enshrining public dialogue as a valuable governance tool.
Whether through annual participatory budgeting exercises or a standing citizen advisory body, democratic innovations can make public priorities a key focus of policy and restore government accountability to citizens…(More)”.
What’s a Fact, Anyway?
Essay by Fergus McIntosh: “…For journalists, as for anyone, there are certain shortcuts to trustworthiness, including reputation, expertise, and transparency—the sharing of sources, for example, or the prompt correction of errors. Some of these shortcuts are more perilous than others. Various outfits, positioning themselves as neutral guides to the marketplace of ideas, now tout evaluations of news organizations’ trustworthiness, but relying on these requires trusting in the quality and objectivity of the evaluation. Official data is often taken at face value, but numbers can conceal motives: think of the dispute over how to count casualties in recent conflicts. Governments, meanwhile, may use their powers over information to suppress unfavorable narratives: laws originally aimed at misinformation, many enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic, can hinder free expression. The spectre of this phenomenon is fuelling a growing backlash in America and elsewhere.
Although some categories of information may come to be considered inherently trustworthy, these, too, are in flux. For decades, the technical difficulty of editing photographs and videos allowed them to be treated, by most people, as essentially incontrovertible. With the advent of A.I.-based editing software, footage and imagery have swiftly become much harder to credit. Similar tools are already used to spoof voices based on only seconds of recorded audio. For anyone, this might manifest in scams (your grandmother calls, but it’s not Grandma on the other end), but for a journalist it also puts source calls into question. Technologies of deception tend to be accompanied by ones of detection or verification—a battery of companies, for example, already promise that they can spot A.I.-manipulated imagery—but they’re often locked in an arms race, and they never achieve total accuracy. Though chatbots and A.I.-enabled search engines promise to help us with research (when a colleague “interviewed” ChatGPT, it told him, “I aim to provide information that is as neutral and unbiased as possible”), their inability to provide sourcing, and their tendency to hallucinate, looks more like a shortcut to nowhere, at least for now. The resulting problems extend far beyond media: election campaigns, in which subtle impressions can lead to big differences in voting behavior, feel increasingly vulnerable to deepfakes and other manipulations by inscrutable algorithms. Like everyone else, journalists have only just begun to grapple with the implications.
In such circumstances, it becomes difficult to know what is true, and, consequently, to make decisions. Good journalism offers a way through, but only if readers are willing to follow: trust and naïveté can feel uncomfortably close. Gaining and holding that trust is hard. But failure—the end point of the story of generational decay, of gold exchanged for dross—is not inevitable. Fact checking of the sort practiced at The New Yorker is highly specific and resource-intensive, and it’s only one potential solution. But any solution must acknowledge the messiness of truth, the requirements of attention, the way we squint to see more clearly. It must tell you to say what you mean, and know that you mean it…(More)”.
What Could Citizens’ Assemblies Do for American Politics?
Essay by Nick Romeo: “Last July, an unusual letter arrived at Kathryn Kundmueller’s mobile home, in central Oregon. It invited her to enter a lottery that would select thirty residents of Deschutes County to deliberate for five days on youth homelessness—a visible and contentious issue in an area where the population and cost of living have spiked in recent years. Those chosen would be paid for their time—almost five hundred dollars—and asked to develop specific policy recommendations.
Kundmueller was being invited to join what is known as a citizens’ assembly. These gatherings do what most democracies only pretend to: trust normal people to make decisions on difficult policy questions. Many citizens’ assemblies follow a basic template. They impanel a random but representative cross-section of a population, give them high-quality information on a topic, and ask them to work together to reach a decision. In Europe, such groups have helped spur reform of the Irish constitution in order to legalize abortion, guided an Austrian pharmaceutical heiress on how to give away her wealth, and become a regular part of government in Paris and Belgium. Though still rare in America, the model reflects the striking idea that fundamental problems of politics—polarization, apathy, manipulation by special interests—can be transformed through radically direct democracy.
Kundmueller, who is generally frustrated by politics, was intrigued by the letter. She liked the prospect of helping to shape local policy, and the topic of housing insecurity had a particular resonance for her. As a teen-ager, following a falling-out with her father, she spent months bouncing between friends’ couches in Vermont. When she moved across the country to San Jose, after college, she lived in her car for a time while she searched for a stable job. She worked in finance but became disillusioned; now in her early forties, she ran a small housecleaning business. She still thought about living in a van and renting out her mobile home to save money…(More)”.