Things Fall Apart: How Social Media Leads to a Less Stable World


Commentary by Curtis Hougland at Knowledge@Wharton: “James Foley. David Haines. Steven Sotloff. The list of people beheaded by followers of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) keeps growing. The filming of these acts on video and distribution via social media platforms such as Twitter represent a geopolitical trend in which social media has become the new frontline for proxy wars across the globe. While social media does indeed advance connectivity and wealth among people, its proliferation at the same time results in a markedly less stable world.
That social media benefits mankind is irrefutable. I have been an evangelist for the power of new media for 20 years. However, technology in the form of globalized communication, transportation and supply chains conspires to make today’s world more complex. Events in any corner of the world now impact the rest of the globe quickly and sharply. Nations are being pulled apart along sectarian seams in Iraq, tribal divisions in Afghanistan, national interests in Ukraine and territorial fences in Gaza. These conflicts portend a quickening of global unrest, confirmed by Foreign Policy magazine’s map of civil protest. The ISIS videos are simply the exposed wire. I believe that over the next century, even great nations will Balkanize — break into smaller nations. One of the principal drivers of this Balkanization is social media Twitter .
Social media is a behavior, an expression of the innate human need to socialize and share experiences. Social media is not simply a set of technology channels and networks. Both the public and private sectors have underestimated the human imperative to behave socially. The evidence is now clear with more than 52% of the population living in cities and approximately 2 billion people active in social media globally. Some 96% of content emanates from individuals, not brands, media or governments — a volume that far exceeds participation in democratic elections.
Social media is not egalitarian, though. Despite the exponential growth of user-generated content, people prefer to congregate online around like-minded individuals. Rather than seek out new beliefs, people choose to reinforce their existing political opinions through their actions online. This is illustrated in Pew Internet’s 2014 study, “Mapping Twitter Topic Networks from Polarized Crowds to Community Clusters.” Individuals self-organize by affinity, and within affinity, by sensibility and personality. The ecosystem of social media is predicated on delivering more of what the user already likes. This, precisely, is the function of a Follow or Like. In this way, media coagulates rather than fragments online….”

Driving Innovation With Open Data


Research Article by The GovLab’s Joel Gurin (Chapter 6 in the report, “The Future of Data-Driven Innovation.”):  The chapters in this report provide ample evidence of the power of data and its business potential. But like any business resource, data is only valuable if the benefit of using it outweighs its cost. Data collection, management, distribution, quality control, and application all come at a price—a potential obstacle for companies of any size, though especially for small and medium-sized enterprises.
Over the last several years, however, the “I” of data’s return on investment (ROI) has become less of a hurdle, and new data-driven companies are developing rapidly as a result. One major reason is that governments at the federal, state, and local level are making more data available at little or no charge for the private sector and the public to use. Governments collect data of all kinds—including scientific, demographic, and financial data—at taxpayer expense.
Now, public sector agencies and departments are increasingly repaying that public investment by making their data available to all for free or at a low cost. This is Open Data. While there are still costs in putting the data to use, the growing availability of this national resource is becoming a significant driver for hundreds of new businesses. This chapter describes the growing potential of Open Data and the data-driven innovation it supports, the types of data and applications that are most promising, and the policies that will encourage innovation going forward. Read and download this article in PDF format.

Codifying Collegiality: Recent Developments in Data Sharing Policy in the Life Sciences


New paper by Genevieve Pham-Kanter et al in PLoS ONE: “Over the last decade, there have been significant changes in data sharing policies and in the data sharing environment faced by life science researchers. Using data from a 2013 survey of over 1600 life science researchers, we analyze the effects of sharing policies of funding agencies and journals. We also examine the effects of new sharing infrastructure and tools (i.e., third party repositories and online supplements). We find that recently enacted data sharing policies and new sharing infrastructure and tools have had a sizable effect on encouraging data sharing. In particular, third party repositories and online supplements as well as data sharing requirements of funding agencies, particularly the NIH and the National Human Genome Research Institute, were perceived by scientists to have had a large effect on facilitating data sharing. In addition, we found a high degree of compliance with these new policies, although noncompliance resulted in few formal or informal sanctions. Despite the overall effectiveness of data sharing policies, some significant gaps remain: about one third of grant reviewers placed no weight on data sharing plans in their reviews, and a similar percentage ignored the requirements of material transfer agreements. These patterns suggest that although most of these new policies have been effective, there is still room for policy improvement.”

OSHA Will Put Workplace Safety Data Online as 'Nudge' to Employers


Josh Eidelson at Bloomberg BusinessWeek: “Starting in January, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration will require employers to notify the government within 24 hours every time someone loses an eye, suffers an amputation, or gets admitted to the hospital with an injury sustained at work. The agency estimates that tens of thousands of injuries go unreported. “Workplace injuries and fatalities are absolutely preventable,” Labor Secretary Thomas Perez said in early September. “These new requirements will help OSHA focus its resources and hold employers accountable for preventing them.”

The rule replaces regulations that require companies to report only incidents that result in three or more hospitalizations—“catastrophes,” in agency parlance. (Workplace deaths will still have to be reported within 8 hours.) OSHA head David Michaels, an assistant secretary in the Department of Labor, announced on Sept. 11 that the injury data will be made public on OSHA’s website.
The site already includes information on worker fatalities and catastrophes….
OSHA is one of several federal agencies taking the name-and-shame approach. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is considering a plan to begin online posting of first-person narratives culled from consumer complaints about banks, credit card companies, and payday lenders. Other agencies already put recall and complaint information online, including the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. OSHA’s smaller sibling agency, the Mine Safety and Health Administration, lists on its website workplace incidents like fires that could have harmed someone but didn’t.
The idea is that people increasingly accustomed to looking up product reviews on Amazon.com and restaurant reviews on Yelp might do the same when they choose an employer, car, or credit card company. “Exposing problems early can help other consumers avoid similar problems before they become victims, too,” CFPB Director Richard Cordray said in July. “The market could react to problems as they occur, not years later.”…”

Americans know surprisingly little about their government, survey finds


The Annenberg Public Policy Center: “Americans show great uncertainty when it comes to answering basic questions about how their government works, a national survey conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania has found.
The survey of 1,416 adults, released for Constitution Day (Sept. 17) in conjunction with the launch of the Civics Renewal Network, found that:

  • While little more than a third of respondents (36 percent) could name all three branches of the U.S. government, just as many (35 percent) could not name a single one.
  • Just over a quarter of Americans (27 percent) know it takes a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate to override a presidential veto.
  • One in five Americans (21 percent) incorrectly thinks that a 5-4 Supreme Court decision is sent back to Congress for reconsideration.

“Although surveys reflect disapproval of the way Congress, the President and the Supreme Court are conducting their affairs, the Annenberg survey demonstrates that many know surprisingly little about these branches of government,” said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC). “This survey offers dramatic evidence of the need for more and better civics education.”

The Civics Renewal Network

To address the problem, APPC and 25 other nonpartisan organizations, including the Library of Congress, the National Constitution Center, the U.S. Courts, the National Archives, and the Newseum, announced the launch of the Civics Renewal Network, a unique partnership among some of the nation’s leaders in civics education. The network offers free, high-quality resources for teachers through the one-stop website www.civicsrenewalnetwork.org….”

Creating a national citizen engagement process for energy policy


Paper by Nick Pidgeon et al in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS): “This paper examines some of the science communication challenges involved when designing and conducting public deliberation processes on issues of national importance. We take as our illustrative case study a recent research project investigating public values and attitudes toward future energy system change for the United Kingdom. National-level issues such as this are often particularly difficult to engage the public with because of their inherent complexity, derived from multiple interconnected elements and policy frames, extended scales of analysis, and different manifestations of uncertainty. With reference to the energy system project, we discuss ways of meeting a series of science communication challenges arising when engaging the public with national topics, including the need to articulate systems thinking and problem scale, to provide balanced information and policy framings in ways that open up spaces for reflection and deliberation, and the need for varied methods of facilitation and data synthesis that permit access to participants’ broader values. Although resource intensive, national-level deliberation is possible and can produce useful insights both for participants and for science policy.”

Prizes for Saving: The Social Mobility Case


Stuart Butler at Brookings: “The American Savings Promotion Act (H.R. 3374), a bipartisan bill passed by the House of Representatives this week (yes, it does sometimes happen) could lift economic mobility in America by boosting savings, especially in lower income neighborhoods. The bill removes legal impediments to banks and thrift institutions offering “prize-linked savings” products (PLS). There’s a companion bill awaiting action in the Senate.
Building personal savings is a critical element in moving up the economic ladder. A cushion of capital can tide a household over a setback, such as unexpected health costs, and help mobility in a positive way, such as moving across town for a better job. Developing the habit of saving, even in a small scale, is connected to other positive behaviors, such as completing college….

All Should Seek Prizes (For Saving)

Prize-linked savings (PLS) accounts aim to entice people into saving more. Unlike traditional savings accounts, which now pay out a fraction of one percent interest, institutions offering PLS pool the interest from all accounts, hold a drawing and distribute the accumulated interest as “prizes”, from a few dollars to a million or more. It appeals to the gambler’s instinct, like a lottery. But unlike a lottery, a “loser” still ends up with a bundle of savings.
PLS accounts have a long history and there are versions in several countries. The United Kingdom has been a leader, establishing national premium bonds in 1957, dubbed “savings with a thrill.” The bonds pay no interest, but each year bond-holders have chances of winning from the equivalent of a few dollars to about $1.5 million. Roughly one-third of Britons own the bonds, with a disproportionate number of modest-income individuals and first-time savers as bondholders.

Moving to Prize-Linked Savings

Some U.S. states have opened the door through state laws that permit credit unions to open PLS accounts. For instance, in 2009 a group of Michigan credit unions established “Save to Win” accounts, with monthly prizes ranging up to thousands of dollars, that successfully attracted non-traditional savers. Federally-charted financial institutions have so far been prevented from offering PLS accounts by unduly wide statutes and regulations, aimed mainly at organized crime. The new bill would curb the impact of those laws and enable PLS accounts to flourish. Let’s hope the Senate follows suit.”

Fighting Inequality in the New Gilded Age


Book Review by K. Sabeel Rahman in the Boston Review:

White Collar Government: The Hidden Role of Class in Economic Policy Making 
Nicholas Carnes
The Promise of Participation: Experiments in Participatory Governance in Honduras and Guatemala
Daniel Altschuler and Javier Corrales
Making Democracy Fun: How Game Design Can Empower Citizens and Transform Politics
Josh Lerner

“In the years since the financial crisis, the realities of rapid economic recovery for some and stagnant wages for most has made increasingly clear that we live in a new Gilded Age: one marked by growing income inequality, decreasing social mobility, and concentrated corporate power. At the same time, we face an increasingly dysfunctional political system, apparently incapable of addressing these fundamental economic challenges.
This is not the first time the country has been caught in this confluence of economic inequality and political dysfunction. The first Gilded Age, in the late nineteenth century, experienced a similar moment of economic upheaval, instability, inequality, rising corporate power, and unresponsive government. These challenges triggered some of the most powerful reform movements in American history: the labor and antitrust movements, the Populist movement of agrarian reformers, and the Progressive movement of urban social and economic reformers. These reformers were not perfect—their record on racial and ethnic inequality is especially glaring—but they were enormously successful in creating new institutions and ideas that reshaped our economy and our politics. In particular, many of them were convinced that to address economic inequality, they had to first democratize politics, creating more robust forms of accountability and popular sovereignty against the influence of economic and political elites….
With his new book, White Collar Government: The Hidden Role of Class in Economic Policy-Making (2013), Nicholas Carnes argues that there is a third, even more important source of elite political influence: the dominance of upper class individuals in the composition of legislatures themselves. Despite the considerable external pressures of donors, constituent preferences, parties, and interest groups, legislators still possess significant discretion, and as a result their personal views about economic policy matter. Legislators of different class backgrounds, Carnes demonstrates, have distinct views on everything from labor to welfare programs and anti-poverty policies, to the very idea of government itself. On unemployment, labor rights, tax policy, and corporate protections, many of the central economic policy issues of our time involve a cleavage between wealthy and working class interests. The underrepresentation of the working class results in an underrepresentation of working class interests, exacerbating income inequality. “Whether our political system listens to one voice or another depends not just on who’s doing the talking or how loud they are,” writes Carnes; “it also depends on who’s doing the listening.”….
In The Promise of Participation: Experiments in Participatory Governance in Honduras and Guatemala (2013), Daniel Altschuler and Javier Corrales focus similar questions to those animating Carnes’ account: What institutional contexts enable ordinary citizens—especially poorer ones—to expand their representation in decision-making? What expands their knowledge of issues, their political networks, and their willingness to participate more broadly to advocate for their interests? To gain traction on this question, they undertook the first large-scale study of participatory governance, examining the nation-wide community-managed schools program in Honduras and Guatemala. These programs operated in areas that conventionally might be considered inhospitable to participatory governance: poor, rural districts. These programs engaged parents by giving them management and administrative duties in the daily activities of the school. In both countries, the programs were established to both address pervasive disparities in educational attainment, and to improve the accountability of government officials in delivering basic services to the poor….
In Making Democracy Fun: How Game Design Can Empower Citizens and Transform Politics, Lerner takes a practitioners’ look at participatory governance. Lerner is the Executive Director of the Participatory Budgeting Project, a non-profit dedicated to adapting participatory budgeting systems and implementing them in cities such as New York, Chicago, and Boston. Where Altschuler and Corrales are primarily concerned with the macro-institutional contexts that make participatory governance systems work well, Lerner’s insights revolve around the micro-practices of how to make participation effective at the face-to-face level….
Our recent experience of economic inequality has fueled the rise of a new social science of economic inequality and oligarchy, most recently and famously captured in the debates over Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century. But we also need a constructive account of what a more responsive and representative democratic politics looks like, and how to achieve it. Reformers coming out of the Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century similarly located the roots of economic inequality in political inequality. The era of Standard Oil and J.P. Morgan (the man, before the firm), and of widening income inequality was also the era of dysfunctional machine politics and a conservative Supreme Court that stymied social reform. These challenges fueled reform movements that struggled to restore popular sovereignty and genuine democracy—proposing everything from antitrust restraints on corporate power, to the first campaign finance systems, to new procedures for popular elections of Senators, party primaries, and direct democratic referenda. It was during this period that state and federal governments experimented with antitrust laws, rate regulation, and labor regulation. Many of the economic ideas first developed out of this ferment came to fruition in the New Deal.
Today we see the echoes of this zeal in the debates around campaign finance reform and the problem of “too-big-to-fail” banks. But reviving genuine democratic equality to address economic inequality requires a broader view of potential democratizing reforms. Carnes reminds us that the identity of who governs matters as much for class and economic policy as for any other dimension of representation. But Altschuler, Corrales, and Lerner suggest as well the importance of looking outside legislatures. Governing involves more than writing statutes; it is solving disputes, administering social services, implementing directives at the local level. And these are spaces where the prospects for greater political power—especially on the part of economically marginalized groups—may even be greater than at national scale legislatures. The proliferation of open government efforts in the United States—from governmental transparencyto engaging citizens to report potholes—suggests a growing reform interest in creating alternative channels for participation and representation. But too often these efforts are more limited than their rhetoric, focusing more narrowly on making existing policies well known or efficient, rather than empowering participants to challenge and reshape them. These books underscore that genuine democratic reform requires actually empowering ordinary citizens to drive the business of governing.”
 
 
 

5 great apps backed with open data


Jeanne Holm at OpenSource.com: “Data.gov has taken open source to heart. Beyond just providing open data and open source code, the entire process involves open civic engagement. All team ideas, public interactions, and new ideas (from any interaction) are cross-posted and entered in Github. These are tracked openly and completed to milestones for full transparency. We also recently redesigned the website at Data.gov through usability testing and open engagement on Github.
Today, I want to share with you just five of the hundreds of applications that have been developed by the public using open government data. These are examples of the kind of apps, visualizations, and analyses that are created from working with developers, educators, and businesses on a specific challenge at events that pull the community together, like data jams, meetups, and conferences.

Archimedes

Archimedes makes tools that give quantitative models to doctors and patients so that they can find effective interventions, predict how interventions will affect an individual’s health risk, and help decision-makers analyze health outcomes….

Trulia

Trulia provides insights into neighborhoods where you might be interested in moving. Looking at the homes and apartments for sale and rent, trends and prices in real estate, and neighborhood characteristics, Trulia gives you the data to make decisions about buying, selling, renting, and moving….

HelloWallet

HelloWallet helps people to manage their money, and to learn about and start making investments. Some of the subjects for individuals include retirement readiness, debt levels, emergency savings, and health savings….

SaferCar

Consumers looking for a new car, can find a safer car by using the SaferCar app from the Department of Transportation. Powered by data on five-star safety ratings from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, consumers can look at new and used car ratings, recalls and complaints, and information about installing child seats….

Red Cross Hurricane

The Safety.Data.gov community of Data.gov held a Safety Datapalooza and brought together developers, businesses, NGOs, and government participants to brainstorm ways to put government data to use to improve the lives of citizens in America. A 90-day challenge was issued to create some of these apps and concepts, and one was with the Red Cross to create an app that would help people find safe ways to move around during a natural disaster. This included rail, roads, buses, and airports–which were open and what schedules they were running on. These data were provided by the Department of Transportation. As Hurricane Sandy descended on the east coast, we accelerated the development of the Red Cross Hurricane app and launched the app as the Hurricane touched ground…”

Online Petitions Proposed to Offer New Yorkers a New Way to Speak Out


in The New York Times:  “Since introducing a petition site in 2011 and promising to respond to any request that received enough signatures, the White House has been compelled to release its beer recipe, inform Texas that it would not be permitted to secede and weigh the merits of a “Death Star” for national defense.

“The administration,” the response to that petition read, “does not support blowing up planets.”

So it is perhaps with some trepidation that New York City lawmakers consider a local model: an online petition system that would allow residents to ask anything they want of their public officials and, with sufficient support, receive a response.

“Not everyone can go to a public hearing,” said the bill’s sponsor, Councilman James Vacca, Democrat of the Bronx. “This would be a way for people to register their views collectively.”

The proposal to create something resembling a Reddit for the body politic was introduced on Wednesday by Mr. Vacca and referred to the City Council’s Committee on Technology, of which he is chairman. Spokesmen for Mayor Bill de Blasio and Melissa Mark-Viverito, the Council speaker, said their offices were reviewing the bill.

Mr. Vacca’s office said the petition system would be the first of its kind on the municipal level anywhere, a claim that could not be immediately confirmed. Under his bill, the city’s Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications would determine the threshold number of electronic signatures that would prompt a response. The department would also be asked to establish the website, creating a system that “allows city agencies or public authorities to post public responses” to the petitions….

Dick Dadey, the executive director of Citizens Union, a civic group, called the petition proposal “a novel idea” worthy of debate. But he sounded several notes of caution, wondering whether the setup might be subject to manipulation, favoring “a preordained outcome directed by public officials” on a given issue….”