Open Data for Developing Economies

Curated on Posted on by Andrew Young

By Andrew Young, Stefaan Verhulst, and Juliet McMurren
This edition of the GovLab Selected Readings was developed as part of the Open Data for Developing Economies research project (in collaboration with WebFoundation, USAID and fhi360). Special thanks to Maurice McNaughton, Francois van Schalkwyk, Fernando Perini, Michael Canares and David Opoku for their input on an early draft. Please contact Stefaan Verhulst (stefaan@thegovlab.org) for any additional input or suggestions.
Data-and-its-uses-for-Governance-1024x491
Open data is increasingly seen as a tool for economic and social development. Across sectors and regions, policymakers, NGOs, researchers and practitioners are exploring the potential of open data to improve government effectiveness, create new economic opportunity, empower citizens and solve public problems in developing economies. Open data for development does not exist in a vacuum – rather it is a phenomenon that is relevant to and studied from different vantage points including Data4Development (D4D), Open Government, the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and Open Development. The below selected readings provide a view of the current research and practice on the use of open data for development and its relationship to related interventions.
Selected Reading List (in alphabetical order)

Annotated Selected Readings List (in alphabetical order)

Open Data and Open Government for Development

Benjamin, Solomon, R. Bhuvaneswari, P. Rajan, Manjunatha, “Bhoomi: ‘E-Governance’, or, An Anti-Politics Machine Necessary to Globalize Bangalore?” CASUM-m Working Paper, January 2007, http://bit.ly/2aD3vZe. 

  • This paper explores the digitization of land titles and their effect on governance in Bangalore. The paper takes a critical view of digitization and transparency efforts, particularly as best practices that should be replicated in many contexts.
  • The authors point to the potential of centralized open data and land records databases as a means for further entrenching existing power structures. They found that the digitization of land records in Bangalore “led to increased corruption, much more bribes and substantially increased time taken for land transactions,” as well allowing “very large players in the land markets to capture vast quantities of land when Bangalore experiences a boom in the land market.”
  • They argue for the need “to replace politically neutered concepts like ‘transparency’, ‘efficiency’, ‘governance’, and ‘best practice’ conceptually more rigorous terms that reflect the uneven terrain of power and control that governance embodies.

McGee, Rosie and Duncan Edwards, “Introduction: Opening Governance – Change, Continuity and Conceptual Ambiguity,” IDS Bulletin, January 24, 2016. http://bit.ly/2aJn1pq.  

  • This introduction to a special issue of the IDS Bulletin frames the research and practice of leveraging opening governance as part of a development agenda.
  • The piece primarily focuses on a number of “critical debates” that “have begun to lay bare how imprecise and overblown the expectations are in the transparency, accountability and openness ‘buzzfield’, and the problems this poses.”
  • A key finding on opening governance’s uptake and impact in the development space relates to political buy-in:
    • “Political will is generally a necessary but insu cient condition for governance processes and relationships to become more open, and is certainly a necessary but insu cient condition for tech-based approaches to open them up. In short, where there is a will, tech-for-T&A may be able to provide a way; where there isn’t a will, it won’t.”

Open Data and Data 4 Development

3rd International Open Data Conference (IODC), “Enabling the Data Revolution: An International Open Data Roadmap,” Conference Report, 2015, http://bit.ly/2asb2ei. 

  • This report, prepared by Open Data for Development, summarizes the proceedings of the third IODC in Ottawa, ON. It sets out an action plan for “harnessing open data for sustainable development”, with the following five priorities:
    1. Deliver shared principles for open data
    2. Develop and adopt good practices and open standards for data publication
    3. Build capacity to produce and use open data effectively
    4. Strengthen open data innovation networks
    5. Adopt common measurement and evaluation tools
  • The report draws on 70 impact accounts to present cross-sector evidence of “the promise and reality of open data,” and emphasizes the utility of open data in monitoring development goals, and the importance of “joined-up open data infrastructures,” ensuring wide accessibility, and grounding measurement in a clear understanding of citizen need, in order to realize the greatest benefits from open data.
  • Finally, the report sets out a draft International Open Data Charter and Action Plan for International Collaboration.

Hilbert, Martin, “Big Data for Development: A Review of Promises and Challenges,” Development Policy Review, December 13, 2015, http://bit.ly/2aoPtxL.

  • This article presents a conceptual framework based on the analysis of 180 articles on the opportunities and threats of big data for international development.
  • Open data, Hilbert argues, can be an incentive for those outside of government to leverage big data analytics: “If data from the public sector were to be openly available, around a quarter of existing data resources could be liberated for Big Data Analytics.”
  • Hilbert explores the misalignment between “the level of economic well-being and perceived transparency of a country” and the existence of an overarching open data policy. He points to low-income countries that are active in the open data effort, like Kenya, Russia and Brazil, in comparison to “other countries with traditionally high perceived transparency,” which are less active in releasing data, like Chile, Belgium and Sweden.

International Development Research Centre, World Wide Web Foundation, and Berkman Center at Harvard University, “Fostering a Critical Development Perspective on Open Government Data,” Workshop Report, 2012, http://bit.ly/2aJpyQq. 

  • This paper considers the need for a critical perspective on whether the expectations raised by open data programmes worldwide — as “a suitable remedy for challenges of good governance, economic growth, social inclusion, innovation, and participation” — have been met, and if so, under what circumstances.
  • Given the lack of empirical evidence underlying the implementation of Open Data initiative to guide practice and policy formulation, particularly in developing countries, the paper discusses the implementation of a policy-oriented research agenda to ensure open data initiatives in the Global South “challenge democratic deficits, create economic value and foster inclusion.”
  • The report considers theories of the relationship between open data and impact, and the mediating factors affecting whether that impact is achieved. It takes a broad view of impact, including both demand- and supply-side economic impacts, social and environmental impact, and political impact.

Open Data for Development, “Open Data for Development: Building an Inclusive Data Revolution,” Annual Report, 2015, http://bit.ly/2aGbkz5. 

  • This report — the inaugural annual report for the Open Data for Development program — gives an overview of outcomes from the program for each of OD4D’s five program objectives:
    1. Setting a global open data for sustainable development agenda;
    2. Supporting governments in their open data initiatives;
    3. Scaling data solutions for sustainable development;
    4. Monitoring the availability, use and impact of open data around the world; and
    5. Building the institutional capacity and long-term sustainability of the Open Data for Development network.
  • The report identifies four barriers to impact in developing countries: the lack of capacity and leadership; the lack of evidence of what works; the lack of coordination between actors; and the lack of quality data.

Stuart, Elizabeth, Emma Samman, William Avis, Tom Berliner, “The Data Revolution: Finding the Missing Millions,” Open Data Institute Research Report, April 2015, http://bit.ly/2acnZtE.

  • This report examines the challenge of implementing successful development initiatives when many citizens are not known to their governments as they do not exist in official databases.
  • The authors argue that “good quality, relevant, accessible and timely data will allow willing governments to extend services into communities which until now have been blank spaces in planning processes, and to implement policies more efficiently.”
  • In addition to improvements to national statistical offices, the authors argue that “making better use of the data we already have” by increasing openness to certain datasets held by governments and international organizations could help to improve the situation.
  • They examine a number of open data efforts in developing countries, including Kenya and Mexico.
  • Finally, they argue that “the data revolution could play a role in changing the power dynamic between citizens, governments and the private sector, building on open data and freedom of information movements around the world. It has the potential to enable people to produce, access and understand information about their lives and to use this information to make changes.”

United Nations Independent Expert Advisory Group on a Data Revolution for Sustainable Development. “A World That Counts, Mobilizing the Data Revolution,” 2014, http://bit.ly/2am5K28.

  • This report focuses on the potential benefits and risks data holds for sustainable development. Included in this is a strategic framework for using and managing data for humanitarian purposes. It describes a need for a multinational consensus to be developed to ensure data is shared effectively and efficiently.
  • It suggests that “people who are counted”—i.e., those who are included in data collection processes—have better development outcomes and a better chance for humanitarian response in emergency or conflict situations.
  • In particular, “better and more open data” is described as having the potential to “save money and create economic, social and environmental value” toward sustainable development ends.

The World Bank, “Digital Dividends: World Development Report 2016.” http://bit.ly/2aG9Kx5. 

  • This report examines “digital dividends” or the development benefits of using digital technologies in the space.
  • The authors argue that: “To get the most out of the digital revolution, countries also need to work on the “analog complements”—by strengthening regulations that ensure competition among businesses, by adapting workers’ skills to the demands of the new economy, and by ensuring that institutions are accountable.”
  • The “data revolution,” which includes both big data and open data is listed as one of four “digital enablers.”
  • Open data’s impacts are explored across a number of cases and developing countries and regions, including: Nepal, Mexico, Southern Africa, Kenya, Moldova and the Philippines.
  • Despite a number of success stories, the authors argue that: “sustained, impactful, scaled-up examples of big and open data in the developing world are still relatively rare,” and, in particular, “Open data has far to go.” They point to the high correlation between readiness, implementation and impact of open data to GDP per capita as evidence of the room for improvement.

Open Data and Open Development

Reilly, Katherine and Juan P. Alperin, “Intermediation in Open Development: A Knowledge Stewardship Approach,” Global Media Journal (Canadian Edition), 2016, http://bit.ly/2atWyI8. 

  • This paper examines the intermediaries that “have emerged to facilitate open data and related knowledge production activities in development processes.”
  • In particular, they study the concept of “knowledge stewardship,” which “demands careful consideration of how—through what arrangements—open resources can best be provided, and how best to maximize the quality, sustainability, buy-in, and uptake of those resources.”
  • The authors describe five models of open data intermediation:
    • Decentralized
    • Arterial
    • Ecosystem
    • Bridging
    • Communities of practice

Reilly, Katherine and Rob McMahon, “Quality of openness: Evaluating the contributions of IDRC’s Information and Networks Program to open development.” International Development Research Centre, January 2015, http://bit.ly/2aD6h0U. 

  • This reports describes the outcomes of IRDC’s Information and Networks (I&N) programme, focusing, in particular, those related to “quality of openness” of initiatives as well as their outcomes.
  • The research program explores “mechanisms that link open initiatives to human activities in ways that generate social innovations of significance to development. These include push factors such as data holders’ understanding of data usage, the preparedness or acceptance of user communities, institutional policies, and wider policies and regulations; as well as pull factors including the awareness, capacity and attitude of users. In other words, openly networked social processes rely on not just quality openness, but also on supportive environments that link open resources and the people who might leverage them to create improvements, whether in governance, education or knowledge production.”

Smith, M. and L. Elder, “Open ICT Ecosystems Transforming the Developing World,” Information Technologies and International Development, 2010, http://bit.ly/2au0qsW.

  • The paper seeks to examine the hypothesis that “open social arrangements, enabled by ICTs, can help to catalyze the development impacts of ICTs. In other words, open ICT ecosystems provide the space for the amplification and transformation of social activities that can be powerful drivers of development.”
  • While the focus is placed on a number of ICT interventions – with open data only directly referenced as it relates to the science community – the lessons learned and overarching framework are applicable to the open data for development space.
  • The authors argue for a new research focus on “the new social activities enabled by different configurations of ICT ecosystems and their connections with particular social outcomes.” They point in particular to “modules of social practices that can be applied to solve similar problems across different development domains,” including “massive participation, collaborative production of content, collaborative innovation, collective information validation, new ‘open’ organizational models, and standards and knowledge transfer.”

Smith, Matthew and Katherine M. A. Reilly (eds), “Open Development: Networked Innovations in International Development,” MIT Press, 2013, http://bit.ly/2atX2hu.

  • This edited volume considers the implications of the emergence of open networked models predicated on digital network technologies for development. In their introduction, the editors emphasize that openness is a means to support development, not an end, which is layered upon existing technological and social structures. While openness is often disruptive, it depends upon some measure of closedness and structure in order to function effectively.
  • Subsequent, separately authored chapters provide case studies of open development drawn from health, biotechnology, and education, and explore some of the political and structural barriers faced by open models.  

van den Broek, Tijs, Marijn Rijken, Sander van Oort, “Towards Open Development Data: A review of open development data from a NGO perspective,” 2012, http://bit.ly/2ap5E8a. 

  • In this paper, the authors seek to answer the question: “What is the status, potential and required next steps of open development data from the perspective of the NGOs?”
  • They argue that “the take-up of open development data by NGOs has shown limited progress in the last few years,” and, offer “several steps to be taken before implementation” to increase the effectiveness of open data’s use by NGOs to improve development efforts:
    • Develop a vision on open development and open data
    • Develop a clear business case
    • Research the benefits and risks of open development data and raise organizational and political awareness and support
    • Develop an appealing business model for data intermediaries and end-users
    • Balance data quality and timeliness
    • Dealing with the data obesity
    • Enrich quantitative data to overcome a quantitative bias
    • Monitor implementation and share best practices.

Open Data and Development Goals

Berdou, Evangelia, “Mediating Voices and Communicating Realities: Using Information Crowdsourcing Tools, Open Data Initiatives and Digital Media to Support and Protect the Vulnerable and Marginalised,” Institute of Development Studies, 2011, http://bit.ly/2aqbycg.

  • This report examines the potential of “open source information crowdsourcing platforms like Ushahidi, and open mapping and data initiatives like OpenStreetMap, are enabling citizens in developing countries to generate and disseminate information critical for their lives and livelihoods.”
  • The authors focus in particular on:
    • “the role of the open source social entrepreneur as a new development actor
    • the complexity of the architectures of participation supported by these platforms and the need to consider them in relation to the decision-making processes that they aim to support and the roles in which they cast citizens
    • the possibilities for cross-fertilisation of ideas and the development of new practices between development practitioners and technology actors committed to working with communities to improve lives and livelihoods.”
  • While the use of ICTs and open data pose numerous potential benefits for supporting and protecting the vulnerable and marginalised, the authors call for greater attention to:
    • challenges emerging from efforts to sustain participation and govern the new information commons in under-resourced and politically contested spaces
    • complications and risks emerging from the desire to share information freely in such contexts
    • gaps between information provision, transparency and accountability, and the slow materialisation of projects’ wider social benefits

Canares, Michael, Satyarupa Shekhar, “Open Data and Sub-national Governments: Lessons from Developing Countries,”  2015, http://bit.ly/2au2gu2. 

  • This synthesis paper seeks to gain a greater understanding of open data’s effects on local contexts – ”where data is collected and stored, where there is strong feasibility that data will be published, and where data can generate the most use and impact” – through the examination of nine papers developed as part of the Open Data in Developing Countries research project.
  • The authors point to three central findings:
    • “There is substantial effort on the part of sub-national governments to proactively disclose data, however, the design delimits citizen participation, and eventually, use.”
    • Context demands different roles for intermediaries and different types of initiatives to create an enabling environment for open data.”
    • “Data quality will remain a critical challenge for sub-national governments in developing countries and it will temper potential impact that open data will be able to generate.

Davies, Tim, “Open Data in Developing Countries – Emerging Insights from Phase I,” ODDC, 2014, http://bit.ly/2aX55UW. 

  • This report synthesizes findings from the Exploring the Emerging Impacts of Open Data in Developing Countries (ODDC) research network and its study of open data initiatives in 13 countries.
  • Davies provides 15 initial insights across the supply, mediation, and use of open data, including:
    • Open data initiatives can create new spaces for civil society to pursue government accountability and effectiveness;
    • Intermediaries are vital to both the supply and the use of open data; and
    • Digital divides create data divides in both the supply and use of data.

Davies, Tim, Duncan Edwards, “Emerging Implications of Open and Linked Data for Knowledge Sharing Development,” IDS Bulletin, 2012, http://bit.ly/2aLKFyI. 

  • This article explores “issues that development sector knowledge intermediaries may need to engage with to ensure the socio-technical innovations of open and linked data work in the interests of greater diversity and better development practice.”
  • The authors explore a number of case studies where open and linked data was used in a development context, including:
    • Open research: IDS and R4D meta-data
    • Open aid: International Aid Transparency Initiative
    • Open linked statistics: Young Lives
  • Based on lessons learned from these cases, the authors argue that “openness must serve the interests of marginalised and poor people. This is pertinent at three levels:
    • practices in the publication and communication of data
    • capacities for, and approaches to, the use of data
    • development and emergent structuring of open data ecosystems.

Davies, Tim, Fernando Perini, and Jose Alonso, “Researching the Emerging Impacts of Open Data,” ODDC, 2013, http://bit.ly/2aqb6uP. 

  • This research report offers a conceptual framework for open data, with a particular focus on open data in developing countries.
  • The conceptual framework comprises three central elements:
    • Open Data
      • About government
      • About companies & markets
      • About citizens
    • Domains of governance
      • Political domains
      • Economic domains
      • Social domains
    • Emerging Outcomes
      • Transparency & accountability
      • Innovation & economic growth
      • Inclusion & empowerment
  • The authors describe three central theories of change related to open data’s impacts:
    • Open data will bring about greater transparency in government, which in turn brings about greater accountability of key actors to make decisions and apply rules in the public interest;
    • Open data will enable non-state innovators to improve public services or build innovative products and services with social and economic value; open data will shift certain decision making from the state into the market, making it more efficient;
    • Open data will remove power imbalances that resulted from asymmetric information, and will bring new stakeholders into policy debates, giving marginalised groups a greater say in the creation and application of rules and policy.

Montano, Elise and Diogo Silva, “Exploring the Emerging Impacts of Open Data in Developing Countries (ODDC): ODDC1 Follow-up Outcome Evaluation Report,” ODDC, 2016, http://bit.ly/2au65z7.

  • This report summarizes the findings of a two and a half year research-driven project sponsored by the World Wide Web Foundation to explore how open data improves governance in developing countries, and build capacity in these countries to engage with open data. The research was conducted through 17 subgrants to partners from 12 countries.
  • Upon evaluation in 2014, partners reported increased capacity and expertise in dealing with open data; empowerment in influencing local and regional open data trends, particularly among CSOs; and increased understanding of open data among policy makers with whom the partners were in contact.

Smith, Fiona, William Gerry, Emma Truswell, “Supporting Sustainable Development with Open Data,” Open Data Institute, 2015, http://bit.ly/2aJwxsF. 

  • This report describes the potential benefits, challenges and next steps for leveraging open data to advance the Sustainable Development Goals.
  • The authors argue that the greatest potential impacts of open data on development are:
    • More effectively target aid money and improve development programmes
    • Track development progress and prevent corruption
    • Contribute to innovation, job creation and economic growth.
  • They note, however, that many challenges to such impact exist, including:
    • A weak enabling environment for open data publishing
    • Poor data quality
    • A mismatch between the demand for open data and the supply of appropriate datasets
    • A ‘digital divide’ between rich and poor, affecting both the supply and use of data
    • A general lack of quantifiable data and metrics.
  • The report articulates a number of ways that “governments, donors and (international) NGOs – with the support of researchers, civil society and industry – can apply open data to help make the SDGs a reality:
    • Reach global consensus around principles and standards, namely being ‘open by default’, using the Open Government Partnership’s Open Data Working Group as a global forum for discussion.
    • Embed open data into funding agreements, ensuring that relevant, high-quality data is collected to report against the SDGs. Funders should mandate that data relating to performance of services, and data produced as a result of funded activity, be released as open data.
    • Build a global partnership for sustainable open data, so that groups across the public and private sectors can work together to build sustainable supply and demand for data in the developing world.”

The World Bank, “Open Data for Sustainable Development,” Policy Note, August 2015, http://bit.ly/2aGjaJ4. 

  • This report from the World Bank seeks to describe open data’s potential for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, and makes a number of recommendations toward that end.
  • The authors describe four key benefits of open data use for developing countries:
    • Foster economic growth and job creation
    • Improve efficiency, effectiveness and coverage of public services
    • Increase transparency, accountability, and citizen participation
    • Facilitate better information sharing within government
  • The paper concludes with a number of recommendations for improving open data programs, including:
    • Support Open Data use through legal and licensing frameworks.
    • Make data available for free online.
    • Publish data inventories for the government’s data resources.
    • Create feedback channels to government from current and potential data users.
    • Prioritize the datasets that users want.

Open Data and Developing Countries (National Case Studies)

Beghin, Nathalie and Carmela Zigoni, “Measuring Open Data’s Impact on Brazilian National and Sub-National Budget Transparency Websites and Its Impacts on People’s Rights,” 2014, http://bit.ly/2au3LaQ.

  • This report examines the impact of a Brazilian law requiring government entities to “provide real-time information on their budgets and spending through electronic means.” The authors explore “whether the national and state capitals are in fact using principles and practices of open data in their disclosures, and has evaluated the emerging impacts of open budget data disclosed through the national transparency portal.”
  • The report leveraged a “quantitative survey of budget and financial disclosures, and qualitative research with key stakeholders” to explore the “role of technical platforms and intermediaries in supporting the use of budget data by groups working in pursuit of social change and human rights.”
  • The survey found that:
    • The information provided is complete
    • In general, the data are not primary
    • Most governments do not provide timely information
    • Access to information is not ensured to all individuals
    • Advances were observed in terms of the availability of machine-processable data
    • Access is free, without discriminating users
    • The minority presents data in non-proprietary format
    • It is not known whether the data are under license

Boyera, S., C. Iglesias, “Open Data in Developing Countries: State of the Art,” Partnership for Open Data, 2014, http://bit.ly/2acBMR7. 

  • This report provides a summary of the State-of-the-Art study developed by SBC4D for the Partnership for Open Data (POD).
  • A series of interviews and responses to an online questionnaire yielded a number of findings, including:
    • “The number of actors interested in Open Data in Developing Countries is growing quickly. The study has identified 160+ organizations. It is important to note that a majority of them are just engaging in the domain and have little past experience. Most of these actors are focused on OD as an objective not a tool or means to increase impact or outcome.
    • Local actors are strong advocates of public data release. Lots of them are also promoting the re-use of existing data (through e.g. the organization of training, hackathons and alike). However, the study has not identified many actors practically using OD in their work or engaged in releasing their own data.
    • Traditional development sectors (health, education, agriculture, energy, transport) are not yet the target of many initiatives, and are clearly underdeveloped in terms of use-cases.
    • There is very little connection between horizontal (e.g. national OD initiatives) and vertical (sector-specific initiatives on e.g. extractive industry, or disaster management) activities”

Canares, M.P., J. de Guia, M. Narca, J. Arawiran, “Opening the Gates: Will Open Data Initiatives Make Local Governments in the Philippines More Transparent?” Open LGU Research Project, 2014, http://bit.ly/2au3Ond. 

  • This paper seeks to determine the impacts of the Department of Interior and Local Government of the Philippines’ Full Disclosure Policy, affecting financial and procurement data, on both data providers and data users.
  • The paper uncovered two key findings:
    • “On the supply side, incentivising openness is a critical aspect in ensuring that local governments have the interest to disclose financial data. While at this stage, local governments are still on compliance behaviour, it encourages the once reluctant LGUs to disclose financial information in the use of public funds, especially when technology and institutional arrangements are in place. However, LGUs do not make an effort to inform the public that information is available online and has not made data accessible in such a way that it can allow the public to perform computations and analysis. Currently, no data standards have been made yet by the Philippine national government in terms of format and level of detail.”
    • “On the demand side, there is limited awareness on the part of the public, and more particularly the intermediaries (e.g. business groups, civil society organizations, research institutions), on the availability of data, and thus, its limited use. As most of these data are financial in nature, it requires a certain degree of competence and expertise so that they will be able to make use of the data in demanding from government better services and accountability.”
  • The authors argue that “openness is not just about governments putting meaningful government data out into the public domain, but also about making the public meaningfully engage with governments through the use of open government data.” In order to do that, policies should “require observance of open government data standards and a capacity building process of ensuring that the public, to whom the data is intended, are aware and able to use the data in ensuring more transparent and accountable governance.”

Canares, M., M. Narca, and D. Marcial, “Enhancing Citizen Engagement Through Open Government Data,” ODDC, 2015, http://bit.ly/2aJMhfS. 

  • This research paper seeks to gain a greater understanding of how civil society organizations can increase or initiate their use of open data. The study is based on research conducted in “two provinces in the Philippines where civil society organizations in Negros Oriental province were trained, and in the Bohol province were mentored on accessing and using open data.
  • The authors seek to answer three central research questions:
    • What do CSOs know about open government data? What do they know about government data that their local governments are publishing in the web?
    • What do CSOs have in terms of skills that would enable them to engage meaningfully with open government data?
    • How best can capacity building be delivered to civil society organizations to ensure that they learn to access and use open government data to improve governance?
  • They provide a number of key lessons, including:
    • Baseline condition should inform capacity building approach
    • Data use is dependent on data supply
    • Open data requires accessible and stable internet connection
    • Open data skills are important but insufficient
    • Outcomes, and not just outputs, prove capacity improvements

Chattapadhyay, Sumandro, “Opening Government Data through Mediation: Exploring the Roles, Practices and Strategies of Data Intermediary Organisations in India,” ODDC, 2014, http://bit.ly/2au3F37. 

  • This report seeks to gain a greater understanding of the current practice following the Government of India’s 2012 National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy.
  • Cattapadhyay examines the open government data practices of “various (non-governmental) ‘data intermediary organisations’ on the one hand, and implementation challenges faced by managers of the Open Government Data Platform of India on the other.
  • The report’s objectives are:
    • To undertake a provisional mapping of government data related activities across different sectors to understand the nature of the “open data community” in India,
    • To enrich government data/information policy discussion in India by gathering evidence and experience of (non­governmental) data intermediaries regarding their actual practices of accessing and sharing government data, and their utilisation of the provisions of NDSAP and RTI act, and
    • To critically reflect on the nature of open data practices in India.

Chiliswa, Zacharia, “Open Government Data for Effective Public Participation: Findings of a Case Study Research Investigating The Kenya’s Open Data Initiative in Urban Slums and Rural Settlements,” ODDC, April 2014, http://bit.ly/2au8E4s. 

  • This research report is the product of a study of two urban slums and a rural settlement in Nairobi, Mobasa and Isiolo County, respectively, aimed at gaining a better understanding of the awareness and use of Kenya’s open data.
  • The study had four organizing objectives:
    • “Investigate the impact of the Kenyan Government’s open data initiative and to see whether, and if so how, it is assisting marginalized communities and groups in accessing key social services and information such as health and education;
    • Understand the way people use the information provided by the Open Data Initiative;
    • Identify people’s trust in the information and how it can assist their day-to-day lives;
    • Examine ways in which the public wish for the open data initiative to improve, particularly in relation to governance and service delivery.”
  • The study uncovered four central findings about Kenya’s open data initiative:
    • “There is a mismatch between the data citizens want to have and the data the Kenya portal and other intermediaries have provided.
    • Most people go to local information intermediaries instead of going directly to the government data portals and that there are few connections between these intermediaries and the wider open data sources.
    • Currently the rural communities are much less likely to seek out government information.
    • The kinds of data needed to support service delivery in Kenya may be different from those needed in other places in the world.”

Lwanga-Ntale, Charles, Beatrice Mugambe, Bernard Sabiti, Peace Nganwa, “Understanding how open data could impact resource allocation for poverty eradication in Kenya and Uganda,” ODDC, 2014, http://bit.ly/2aHqYKi. 

  • This paper explores case studies from Uganda and Kenya to explore an open data movement seeking to address “age-old” issues including “transparency, accountability, equity, and the relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of governance.”
  • The authors focus both on the role “emerging open data processes in the two countries may be playing in promoting citizen/public engagement and the allocation of resources,” and the “possible negative impacts that may emerge due to the ‘digital divide’ between those who have access to data (and technology) and those who do not.
  • They offer a number of recommendations to the government of Uganda and Kenya that could be more broadly applicable, including:
    • Promote sector and cross sector specific initiatives that enable collaboration and transparency through different e-transformation strategies across government sectors and agencies.
    • Develop and champion the capacity to drive transformation across government and to advance skills in its institutions and civil service.

Sapkota, Krishna, “Exploring the emerging impacts of open aid data and budget data in Nepal,” Freedom Forum, August 2014, http://bit.ly/2ap0z5G. 

  • This research report seeks to answer a five key questions regarding the opening of aid and budget data in Nepal:
    • What is the context for open aid and budget data in Nepal?
    • What sorts of budget and aid information is being made available in Nepal?
    • What is the governance of open aid and budget data in Nepal?
    • How are relevant stakeholders making use of open aid and budget data in Nepal?
    • What are the emerging impacts of open aid and budget data in Nepal?
  • The study uncovered a number of findings, including
    • “Information and data can play an important role in addressing key social issues, and that whilst some aid and budget data is increasingly available, including in open data formats, there is not yet a sustainable supply of open data direct from official sources that meet the needs of the different stakeholders we consulted.”
    • “Expectations amongst government, civil society, media and private sector actors that open data could be a useful resource in improving governance, and we found some evidence of media making use of data to drive stories more when they had the right skills, incentives and support.”
    • “The context of Nepal also highlights that a more critical perspective may be needed on the introduction of open data, understanding the specific opportunities and challenges for open data supply and use in a country that is currently undergoing a period of constitutional development, institution building and deepening democracy.”

Srivastava, Nidhi, Veena Agarwal, Anmol Soni, Souvik Bhattacharjya, Bibhu P. Nayak, Harsha Meenawat, Tarun Gopalakrishnan, “Open government data for regulation of energy resources in India,”ODDC, 2014, http://bit.ly/2au9oXf. 

  • This research paper examines “the availability, accessibility and use of open data in the extractive energy industries sector in India.”
  • The authors describe a number of challenges being faced by:
    • Data suppliers and intermediaries:
      • Lack of clarity on mandate
      • Agency specific issues
      • Resource challenges
      • Privacy issues of commercial data and contractual constraints
      • Formats for data collection
      • Challenges in providing timely data
      • Recovery of costs and pricing of data
    • Data users
      • Data available but inaccessible
      • Data accessible but not usable
      • Timeliness of data
  • They make a number of recommendations for addressing these challenges focusing on:
    • Policy measures
    • Improving data quality
    • Improving effectiveness of data portal

van Schalkwyk, François, Michael Caňares, Sumandro Chattapadhyay and Alexander Andrason “Open Data Intermediaries in Developing Countries,” ODDC, 2015, http://bit.ly/2aJztWi. 

  • This paper seeks to provide “a more socially nuanced approach to open data intermediaries,” moving beyond the traditional approach wherein data intermediaries are “presented as single and simple linkages between open data supply and use.”
  • The study’s analysis draws on cases from the Emerging Impacts of Open Data in Developing Countries (ODDC) project.
  • The authors provide a working definition of open data intermediaries: An open data intermediary is an agent:
    • positioned at some point in a data supply chain that incorporates an open dataset,
    • positioned between two agents in the supply chain, and
    • facilitates the use of open data that may otherwise not have been the case.
  • One of the studies key findings is that, “Intermediation does not only consist of a single agent facilitating the flow of data in an open data supply chain; multiple intermediaries may operate in an open data supply chain, and the presence of multiple intermediaries may increase the probability of use (and impact) because no single intermediary is likely to possess all the types of capital required to unlock the full value of the transaction between the provider and the user in each of the fields in play.”

van Schalkwyk, François, Michelle Willmers and Tobias Schonwetter, “Embedding Open Data Practice,” ODDC, 2015, http://bit.ly/2aHt5xu. 

  • This research paper was developed as part of the ODDC Phase 2 project and seeks to address the “insufficient attention paid to the institutional dynamics within governments and how these may be impeding open data practice.”
  • The study focuses in particular on open data initiatives in South Africa and Kenya, leveraging a conceptual framework to allow for meaningful comparison between the two countries.
  • Focusing on South Africa and Kenya, as well as Africa as a whole, the authors seek to address four central research questions:
    • Is open data practice being embedded in African governments?
    • What are the possible indicators of open data practice being embedded?
    • What do the indicators reveal about resistance to or compliance with pressures to adopt open data practice?
    • What are different effects of multiple institutional domains that may be at play in government as an organisation?

van Schalkwyk, Francois, Michelle Willmers, and Laura Czerniewicz, “Case Study: Open Data in the Governance of South African Higher Education,” ODDC, 2014, http://bit.ly/2amgIFb. 

  • This research report uses the South African Centre for Higher Education Transformation (CHET) open data platform as a case study to examine “the supply of and demand for open data as well as the roles of intermediaries in the South African higher education governance ecosystem.
  • The report’s findings include:
    • “There are concerns at both government and university levels about how data will be used and (mis)interpreted, and this may constrain future data supply. Education both at the level of supply (DHET) and at the level of use by the media in particular on how to improve the interpretability of data could go some way in countering current levels of mistrust. Similar initiatives may be necessary to address uneven levels of data use and trust apparent across university executives and councils.”
    • “Open data intermediaries increase the accessibility and utility of data. While there is a rich publicly-funded dataset on South African higher education, the data remains largely inaccessible and unusable to universities and researchers in higher education studies. Despite these constraints, the findings show that intermediaries in the ecosystem are playing a valuable role in making the data both available and useable.”
    • “Open data intermediaries provide both supply-side as well as demand-side value. CHET’s work on higher education performance indicators was intended not only to contribute to government’s steering mechanisms, but also to contribute to the governance capacity of South African universities. The findings support the use of CHET’s open data to build capacity within universities. Further research is required to confirm the use of CHET data in state-steering of the South African higher education system, although there is some evidence of CHET’s data being referenced in national policy documents.”

Verhulst, Stefaan and Andrew Young, “Open Data Impact: When Demand Supply Meet,” The GovLab, 2016, http://bit.ly/1LHkQPO. 

  • This report provides a taxonomy of the impacts open data is having on a number of countries around the world, comprising:
    • Improving Government
    • Empowering Citizens
    • Creating Opportunity
    • Solving Public Problems
  • The authors describe four key enabling conditions for creating impactful open data initiatives:
    • Partnerships
    • Public Infrastructure
    • Policies and Performance Metrics
    • Problem Definition

Additional Resource:
World Bank Readiness Assessment Tool

  • To aid in the assessment “of the readiness of a government or individual agency to evaluate, design and implement an Open Data initiative,” the World Bank’s Open Government Data Working Group developed an openly accessible Open Data Readiness Assessment (ODRA) tool.

Why Social Ventures Need Systems Thinking

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Vanessa Kirsch, Jim Bildner and Jeff Walker at Harvard Business Review: “…Over almost two decades, the social enterprise space has been learning how direct impact and systems change work together. The work our entrepreneurs face today is more complex than ever and requires a set of tools and a framework designed to address the complexity inherent when innovations are integrated into existing systems like school districts, welfare agencies, health departments, and corporate structures.

These insights, and the fact that so many of our systemic social challenges remain intractable, has led us to try to better understand what critical levers need to be “pulled” when entrepreneurs are trying to change systems.

The trail to this new approach has been blazed by many extraordinary leaders, some of whom we have funded. These leaders evidence five key characteristics to their approach:

Systems thinking. An individual or organization must first be able to put forward a new solution or set of solutions to a pressing social challenge. This sounds obvious, but we’re suggesting that organizational theories of change, business plans, and other foundational materials need to reflect systems thinking. The most important tool in the new systems entrepreneur’s suite is the ability to embed the solution into the larger system being targeted…

Research and analysis. Beyond technical understanding of solution X and its application to problem Y, systems entrepreneurs must have a deep understanding of the system or systems they are trying to change and all the factors that shape it. Marwell developed an early “influencer map” that gave him a clear understanding of the players, from the federal government to industry and communities, he would need to engage as partners. He also developed a national diagnostic website called SchoolSpeedTest to create a bigger body of data about the problem of limited internet access, with the support of the Federal Communications Commission and 100 other organizations from across sectors.

Communications. Maintaining transparent and compelling communications both internally among collaborative stakeholders and externally with key audiences is crucial to the success of a systems change effort. Marwell knew that he would need to raise awareness of the problem in order to drive through his solution, so he launched a public awareness campaign around broadband access. So Marwell gathered a list of 50 CEOs – Republicans and Democrats alike – to write the FCC, and organized letters from governors, mayors, and education-technology leaders.

Policy. As difficult as it may be to achieve in the politically polarized time we live in, changing policy is often absolutely critical to changing the underlying system that constrains the social change required. Marwell saw this opportunity early on, and he set his sights on updating the Telecommunications Act of 1996’s “E-Rate” discounted pricing provision, which had been wildly successful bringing internet access to 99% of public schools and libraries, but hadn’t kept pace with internet advances. He leveraged his network and was able to start building his case for change in meetings with FCC and White House officials.

Measurement and evaluation. Distinct from the place-setting research and analysis mentioned above, measurement and evaluation is about creating consistent and ongoing data to guide strategy and increase accountability….(More)”

From smart city to open city: Lessons from Jakarta Smart City

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Putri, D.A., CH Karlina, M., Tanaya, J., at the Centre for Innovation Policy and Governance, Indonesia: “In 2011, Indonesia started its Open Government journey when along with seven other countries it initiated Open Government Partnership. Following the global declaration, Indonesia launched the Open Government Indonesia (OGI) in January 2012 with the aim to introduce open government reforms, including open data. This initiative is supported by Law No. 14/2008 on Freedom of Information. Despite its early stage, the implementation of Open Government in Indonesia has shown promising developments, with three action plans enacted in the last four years. In the Southeast Asian region, Indonesia could be considered a pioneer in implementing the open data initiative at national as well as sub-national levels. In some cases, the open data initiative at sub- national level has even surpassed the progress at the national level. Jakarta, for example, became the first city to have its own gubernatorial bylaw on data and system management, which requires the city administration and agencies to open its public data, thus leading to the birth of open data initiatives in the city. The city also have Jakarta Smart City that connect sub-districts officials with the citizen. Jakarta Smart City is an initiative that promote openness of the government through public service delivery. This paper aims to take a closer look on the dynamics of citizens-generated data in Jakarta and how Jakarta smart city program contributes to the implementation of open data….(More)”

Mapping Momentum

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Rachel Sinha and Tim Draimin:”As we hurtle towards a human community of 9.7 billion people by the year 2050, coupled with new technologies and the growing challenges of our planet’s carrying capacity, there is more and more discussion of systems and how they change or are created. The post-war era has witnessed an unprecedented growth of global, national and regional systems but systemic challenges like climate change and inequality are undermining the viability and resilience of our 20th century systems.

It’s against this backdrop that a movement is starting to gain traction. A community of practitioners trying to shift incumbent systems no longer fit for purpose and build new ones that work for our current reality.

But this field is nascent and largely unsupported. In this publication, we have created two maps designed to shine a light on the work of this group of pioneers. We offer these with the hypothesis that the field will be better able to organize itself if it can see itself more clearly. Our theory of change? A clearer picture leads to greater connectivity, connectivity leads to stronger networks, and accelerates the best initiatives we so badly need if we are to effectively shift systems….(More)”

Is internet freedom a tool for democracy or authoritarianism?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

 and  in the Conversation: “The irony of internet freedom was on full display shortly after midnight July 16 in Turkey when President Erdogan used FaceTime and independent TV news to call for public resistance against the military coup that aimed to depose him.

In response, thousands of citizens took to the streets and aided the government in beating back the coup. The military plotters had taken over state TV. In this digital age they apparently didn’t realize television was no longer sufficient to ensure control over the message.

This story may appear like a triumphant example of the internet promoting democracy over authoritarianism.

Not so fast….This duality of the internet, as a tool to promote democracy or authoritarianism, or simultaneously both, is a complex puzzle.

The U.S. has made increasing internet access around the world a foreign policy priority. This policy was supported by both Secretaries of State John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.

The U.S. State Department has allocated tens of millions of dollars to promote internet freedom, primarily in the area of censorship circumvention. And just this month, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a resolution declaring internet freedom a fundamental human right. The resolution condemns internet shutdowns by national governments, an act that has become increasingly common in variety of countries across the globe, including Turkey, Brazil, India and Uganda.

On the surface, this policy makes sense. The internet is an intuitive boon for democracy. It provides citizens around the world with greater freedom of expression, opportunities for civil society, education and political participation. And previous research, including our own, has been optimistic about the internet’s democratic potential.

However, this optimism is based on the assumption that citizens who gain internet access use it to expose themselves to new information, engage in political discussions, join social media groups that advocate for worthy causes and read news stories that change their outlook on the world.

And some do.

But others watch Netflix. They use the internet to post selfies to an intimate group of friends. They gain access to an infinite stream of music, movies and television shows. They spend hours playing video games.

However, our recent research shows that tuning out from politics and immersing oneself in online spectacle has political consequences for the health of democracy….Political use of the internet ranks very low globally, compared to other uses. Research has found that just 9 percent of internet users posted links to political news and only 10 percent posted their own thoughts about political or social issues. In contrast, almost three-quarters (72 percent) say they post about movies and music, and over half (54 percent) also say they post about sports online.

This inspired our study, which sought to show how the internet does not necessarily serve as democracy’s magical solution. Instead, its democratic potential is highly dependent on how citizens choose to use it….

Ensuring citizens have access to the internet is not sufficient to ensure democracy and human rights. In fact, internet access may negatively impact democracy if exploited for authoritarian gain.

The U.S. government, NGOs and other democracy advocates have invested a great deal of time and resources toward promoting internet access, fighting overt online censorship and creating circumvention technologies. Yet their success, at best, has been limited.

The reason is twofold. First, authoritarian governments have adapted their own strategies in response. Second, the “if we build it, they will come” philosophy underlying a great deal of internet freedom promotion doesn’t take into account basic human psychology in which entertainment choices are preferred over news and attitudes toward the internet determine its use, not the technology itself.

Allies in the internet freedom fight should realize that the locus of the fight has shifted. Greater efforts must be put toward tearing down “psychological firewalls,” building demand for internet freedom and influencing citizens to employ the internet’s democratic potential.

Doing so ensures that the democratic online toolkit is a match for the authoritarian one….(More)”

There aren’t any rules on how social scientists use private data. Here’s why we need them.

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

 at SSRC: “The politics of social science access to data are shifting rapidly in the United States as in other developed countries. It used to be that states were the most important source of data on their citizens, economy, and society. States needed to collect and aggregate large amounts of information for their own purposes. They gathered this directly—e.g., through censuses of individuals and firms—and also constructed relevant indicators. Sometimes state agencies helped to fund social science projects in data gathering, such as the National Science Foundation’s funding of the American National Election Survey over decades. While scholars such as James Scott and John Brewer disagreed about the benefits of state data gathering, they recognized the state’s primary role.

In this world, the politics of access to data were often the politics of engaging with the state. Sometimes the state was reluctant to provide information, either for ethical reasons (e.g. the privacy of its citizens) or self-interest. However, democratic states did typically provide access to standard statistical series and the like, and where they did not, scholars could bring pressure to bear on them. This led to well-understood rules about the common availability of standard data for many research questions and built the foundations for standard academic practices. It was relatively easy for scholars to criticize each other’s work when they were drawing on common sources. This had costs—scholars tended to ask the kinds of questions that readily available data allowed them to ask—but also significant benefits. In particular, it made research more easily reproducible.

We are now moving to a very different world. On the one hand, open data initiatives in government are making more data available than in the past (albeit often without much in the way of background resources or documentation).The new universe of private data is reshaping social science research in some ways that are still poorly understood. On the other, for many research purposes, large firms such as Google or Facebook (or even Apple) have much better data than the government. The new universe of private data is reshaping social science research in some ways that are still poorly understood. Here are some of the issues that we need to think about:…(More)”

Data as a Means, Not an End: A Brief Case Study

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Tracie Neuhaus & Jarasa Kanok  in the Stanford Social Innovation Review: “In 2014, City Year—the well-known national education nonprofit that leverages young adults in national service to help students and schools succeed—was outgrowing the methods it used for collecting, managing, and using performance data. As the organization established its strategy for long-term impact, leaders identified a business problem: The current system for data collection and use would need to evolve to address the more-complex challenges the organization was undertaking. Staff throughout the organization were citing pain points one might expect, including onerous manual data collection, and long lag times to get much-needed data and reports on student attendance, grades, and academic and social-emotional assessments. After digging deeper, leaders realized they couldn’t fix the organization’s challenges with technology or improved methods without first addressing more fundamental issues. They saw City Year lacked a common “language” for the data it collected and used. Staff varied widely in their levels of data literacy, as did the scope of data-sharing agreements with the 27 urban school districts where City Year was working at the time. What’s more, its evaluation group had gradually become a default clearinghouse for a wide variety of service requests from across the organization that the group was neither designed nor staffed to address. The situation was much more complex than it appeared.

With significant technology roadmap decisions looming, City Year engaged with us to help it develop its data strategy. Together we came to realize that these symptoms were reflective of a single issue, one that exists in many organizations: City Year’s focus on data wasn’t targeted to address the very different kinds of decisions that each staff member—from the front office to the front lines—needed to make. …

Many of us in the social sector have probably seen elements of this dynamic. Many organizations create impact reports designed to satisfy external demands from donors, but these reports have little relevance to the operational or strategic choices the organizations face every day, much less address harder-to-measure, system-level outcomes. As a result, over time and in the face of constrained resources, measurement is relegated to a compliance activity, disconnected from identifying and collecting the information that directly enables individuals within the organization to drive impact. Gathering data becomes an end in itself, rather than a means of enabling ground-level work and learning how to improve the organization’s impact.

Overcoming this all-too-common “measurement drift” requires that we challenge the underlying orthodoxies that drive it and reorient measurement activities around one simple premise: Data should support better decision-making. This enables organizations to not only shed a significant burden of unproductive activity, but also drive themselves to new heights of performance.

In the case of City Year, leaders realized that to really take advantage of existing technology platforms, they needed a broader mindset shift….(More)”

Research in the Crowdsourcing Age, a Case Study

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by  (Pew): “How scholars, companies and workers are using Mechanical Turk, a ‘gig economy’ platform, for tasks computers can’t handle

How Mechanical Turk WorksDigital age platforms are providing researchers the ability to outsource portions of their work – not just to increasingly intelligent machines, but also to a relatively low-cost online labor force comprised of humans. These so-called “online outsourcing” services help employers connect with a global pool of free-agent workers who are willing to complete a variety of specialized or repetitive tasks.

Because it provides access to large numbers of workers at relatively low cost, online outsourcing holds a particular appeal for academics and nonprofit research organizations – many of whom have limited resources compared with corporate America. For instance, Pew Research Center has experimented with using these services to perform tasks such as classifying documents and collecting website URLs. And a Google search of scholarly academic literature shows that more than 800 studies – ranging from medical research to social science – were published using data from one such platform, Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, in 2015 alone.1

The rise of these platforms has also generated considerable commentary about the so-called “gig economy” and the possible impact it will have on traditional notions about the nature of work, the structure of compensation and the “social contract” between firms and workers. Pew Research Center recently explored some of the policy and employment implications of these new platforms in a national survey of Americans.

Proponents say this technology-driven innovation can offer employers – whether companies or academics – the ability to control costs by relying on a global workforce that is available 24 hours a day to perform relatively inexpensive tasks. They also argue that these arrangements offer workers the flexibility to work when and where they want to. On the other hand, some critics worry this type of arrangement does not give employees the same type of protections offered in more traditional work environments – while others have raised concerns about the quality and consistency of data collected in this manner.

A recent report from the World Bank found that the online outsourcing industry generated roughly $2 billion in 2013 and involved 48 million registered workers (though only 10% of them were considered “active”). By 2020, the report predicted, the industry will generate between $15 billion and $25 billion.

Amazon’s Mechanical Turk is one of the largest outsourcing platforms in the United States and has become particularly popular in the social science research community as a way to conduct inexpensive surveys and experiments. The platform has also become an emblem of the way that the internet enables new businesses and social structures to arise.

In light of its widespread use by the research community and overall prominence within the emerging world of online outsourcing, Pew Research Center conducted a detailed case study examining the Mechanical Turk platform in late 2015 and early 2016. The study utilizes three different research methodologies to examine various aspects of the Mechanical Turk ecosystem. These include human content analysis of the platform, a canvassing of Mechanical Turk workers and an analysis of third party data.

The first goal of this research was to understand who uses the Mechanical Turk platform for research or business purposes, why they use it and who completes the work assignments posted there. To evaluate these issues, Pew Research Center performed a content analysis of the tasks posted on the site during the week of Dec. 7-11, 2015.

A second goal was to examine the demographics and experiences of the workers who complete the tasks appearing on the site. This is relevant not just to fellow researchers that might be interested in using the platform, but as a snapshot of one set of “gig economy” workers. To address these questions, Pew Research Center administered a nonprobability online survey of Turkers from Feb. 9-25, 2016, by posting a task on Mechanical Turk that rewarded workers for answering questions about their demographics and work habits. The sample of 3,370 workers contains any number of interesting findings, but it has its limits. This canvassing emerges from an opt-in sample of those who were active on MTurk during this particular period, who saw our survey and who had the time and interest to respond. It does not represent all active Turkers in this period or, more broadly, all workers on MTurk.

Finally, this report uses data collected by the online tool mturk-tracker, which is run by Dr. Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis of the New York University Stern School of Business, to examine the amount of activity occurring on the site. The mturk-tracker data are publically available online, though the insights presented here have not been previously published elsewhere….(More)”

Postal big data: Global flows as proxy indicators for national wellbeing

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Data Driven Journalism: “A new project has developed an innovative means to approximate socioeconomic indicators by analyzing the network of international postal flows.

The project used 14 million aggregated electronic postal records from 187 countries collected by the Universal Postal Union over a four-year period (2010-2014) to create an international network showing the way post flows around the world.

In addition, the project builds upon previous research efforts using global flow networks, derived from the five following open data sources:

For each network, a country’s degree of connectivity for incoming and outgoing flows was quantified using the Jaccard coefficient and Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient….

To understand these connections in the context of socioeconomic indicators, the researchers then compared these positions to the values of GDP, Life expectancy, Corruption Perception Index, Internet penetration rate, Happiness index, Gini index, Economic Complexity Index, Literacy, Poverty, CO2 emissions, Fixed phone line penetration, Mobile phone users, and the Human Development Index.

007.png

Image: Spearman rank correlations between global flow network degrees and socioeconomic indicators (CC BY 4.0).

From this analysis, the researchers revealed that:

  • The best-performing degree, in terms of consistently high performance across indicators is the global degree, suggesting that looking at how well connected a country is in the global multiplex can be more indicative of its socioeconomic profile as a whole than looking at single networks.
  • GDP per capita and life expectancy are most closely correlated with the global degree, closely followed by the postal, trade and IP weighed degrees – indicative of a relationship between national wealth and the flow of goods and information.
  • Similarly to GDP, the rate of poverty of a country is best represented by the global degree, followed by the postal degree. The negative correlation indicates that the more impoverished a country is, the less well connected it is to the rest of the world.
  • Low human development (high rank) is most highly negatively correlated with the global degree, followed by the postal, trade and IP degrees. This shows that high human development (low rank) is associated with high global connectivity and activity in terms of incoming and outgoing flows of information and goods. ….Read the fully study here.”

Priorities for the National Privacy Research Strategy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst
James Kurose and Keith Marzullo at the White House: “Vast improvements in computing and communications are creating new opportunities for improving life and health, eliminating barriers to education and employment, and enabling advances in many sectors of the economy. The promise of these new applications frequently comes from their ability to create, collect, process, and archive information on a massive scale.

However, the rapid increase in the quantity of personal information that is being collected and retained, combined with our increased ability to analyze and combine it with other information, is creating concerns about privacy. When information about people and their activities can be collected, analyzed, and repurposed in so many ways, it can create new opportunities for crime, discrimination, inadvertent disclosure, embarrassment, and harassment.

This Administration has been a strong champion of initiatives to improve the state of privacy, such as the “Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights” proposal and the creation of the Federal Privacy Council. Similarly, the White House report Big Data: Seizing Opportunities, Preserving Values highlights the need for large-scale privacy research, stating: “We should dramatically increase investment for research and development in privacy-enhancing technologies, encouraging cross-cutting research that involves not only computer science and mathematics, but also social science, communications and legal disciplines.”

Today, we are pleased to release the National Privacy Research Strategy. Research agencies across government participated in the development of the strategy, reviewing existing Federal research activities in privacy-enhancing technologies, soliciting inputs from the private sector, and identifying priorities for privacy research funded by the Federal Government. The National Privacy Research Strategy calls for research along a continuum of challenges, from how people understand privacy in different situations and how their privacy needs can be formally specified, to how these needs can be addressed, to how to mitigate and remediate the effects when privacy expectations are violated. This strategy proposes the following priorities for privacy research:

  • Foster a multidisciplinary approach to privacy research and solutions;
  • Understand and measure privacy desires and impacts;
  • Develop system design methods that incorporate privacy desires, requirements, and controls;
  • Increase transparency of data collection, sharing, use, and retention;
  • Assure that information flows and use are consistent with privacy rules;
  • Develop approaches for remediation and recovery; and
  • Reduce privacy risks of analytical algorithms.

With this strategy, our goal is to produce knowledge and technology that will enable individuals, commercial entities, and the Federal Government to benefit from technological advancements and data use while proactively identifying and mitigating privacy risks. Following the release of this strategy, we are also launching a Federal Privacy R&D Interagency Working Group, which will lead the coordination of the Federal Government’s privacy research efforts. Among the group’s first public activities will be to host a workshop to discuss the strategic plan and explore directions of follow-on research. It is our hope that this strategy will also inspire parallel efforts in the private sector….(More)”