Our finances are a mess – could behavioral science help clean them up?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Katy Davis at the Conversation: “Typical approaches to solving problematic finances are either to “educate” people about the need to save more or to “incentivize” savings with monetary rewards.

But when we look at traditional financial education and counseling programs, they have had virtually no long-term impact on behavior. Similarly, matched savings programs are expensive and have shown mixed results on savings rates. Furthermore, these approaches often prioritize the need for savings while treating debt repayment as a secondary concern.

Education and incentives haven’t worked because they are based on problematic assumptions about lower-income consumers that turn out to be false….

The good news is that a range of simple, behaviorally informed solutions can easily be deployed to tackle these problems, from policy innovations to product redesign.

For instance, changing the “suggested payoff” in credit card statements for targeted segments (i.e., those who were already paying in full) could help consumers more effectively pay down debt, as could allowing tax refunds to be directly applied toward debt repayment. Well-designed budgeting tools that leverage financial technology could be integrated into government programs. The state of California, for example, is currently exploring ways to implement such technologies across a variety of platforms.

But the public and private sectors both need to play a role for these tools to be effective. Creating an integrated credit-and-saving product, for example, would require buy-in from regulators along with financial providers.

While these banking solutions may not close the economic inequality gap on their own, behaviorally informed design shifts can be the missing piece of the puzzle in these efforts to fix major problems.

Our research indicates that people already want to be doing a better job with their finances; we just need to make it a little less difficult for them….(More)”

How to Hold Governments Accountable for the Algorithms They Use

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

 in Slate: “In 2015 more than 59 million Americans received some form ofbenefit from the Social Security Administration, not just for retirement but also for disability or as a survivor of a deceased worker. It’s a behemoth of a government program, and keeping it solvent has preoccupied the Office of the Chief Actuary of theSocial Security Administration for years. That office makes yearly forecasts of key demographic (such as mortality rates) or economic (for instance, labor forceparticipation) factors that inform how policy can or should change to keep theprogram on sound financial footing. But a recent Harvard University study examinedseveral of these forecasts and found that they were systematically biased—underestimating life expectancy and implying that funds were on firmer financialground than warranted. The procedures and methods that the SSA uses aren’t openfor inspection either, posing challenges to replicating and debugging those predictivealgorithms.

Whether forecasting the solvency of social programs, waging a war, managingnational security, doling out justice and punishment, or educating the populace,government has a lot of decisions to make—and it’s increasingly using algorithms tosystematize and scale that bureaucratic work. In the ideal democratic state, theelectorate chooses a government that provides social goods and exercises itsauthority via regulation. The government is legitimate to the extent that it is heldaccountable to the citizenry. Though as the SSA example shows, tightly heldalgorithms pose issues of accountability that grind at the very legitimacy of thegovernment itself.

One of the immensely useful abilities of algorithms is to rank and prioritize hugeamounts of data, turning a messy pile of items into a neat and orderly list. In 2013 theObama administration announced that it would be getting into the business ofranking colleges, helping the citizens of the land identify and evaluate the “best”educational opportunities. But two years later, the idea of ranking colleges had beenneutered, traded in for what amounts to a data dump of educational statistics calledthe College Scorecard. The human influences, subjective factors, and methodologicalpitfalls involved in quantifying education into rankings would be numerous. Perhapsthe government sensed that any ranking would be dubious—that it would be riddledwith questions of what data was used and how various statistical factors wereweighted. How could the government make such a ranking legitimate in the eyes ofthe public and of the industry that it seeks to hold accountable?

That’s a complicated question that goes far beyond college rankings. But whatever theend goal, government needs to develop protocols for opening up algorithmic blackboxes to democratic processes.

Transparency offers one promising path forward. Let’s consider the new risk-assessment algorithm that the state of Pennsylvania is developing to help make criminal sentencing decisions. Unlike some other states that are pursuing algorithmiccriminal justice using proprietary systems, the level of transparency around thePennsylvania Risk Assessment Project is laudable, with several publicly available in-depth reports on the development of the system….(More)’

Data Could Help Scholars Persuade, If Only They Were Willing to Use It

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paul Basken at the Chronicle of Higher Education: “Thanks to what they’ve learned from university research, consultants like Matthew Kalmans have become experts in modern political persuasion. A co-founder of Applecart, a New York data firm, Mr. Kalmans specializes in shaping societal attitudes by using advanced analytical techniques to discover and exploit personal connections and friendships. His is one of a fast-growing collection of similar companies now raising millions of dollars, fattening businesses, and aiding political campaigns with computerized records of Facebook exchanges, high-school yearbooks, even neighborhood gossip.

Applecart uses that data to try to persuade people on a range of topics by finding voices they trust to deliver endorsements. “You can use this sort of technology to get people to purchase insurance at higher rates, get people to purchase a product, get people to do all sorts of other things that they might otherwise not be inclined to do,” said Mr. Kalmans, a 2014 graduate of the University of Pennsylvania. And in building such a valuable service, he’s found that the intellectual underpinnings are often free. “We are constantly reading academic papers to get ideas on how to do things better,” Mr. Kalmans said. That’s because scholars conduct the field experiments and subsequent tests that Mr. Kalmans needs to build and refine his models. “They do a lot of the infrastructural work that, frankly, a lot of commercial companies don’t have the in-house expertise to do,” he said of university researchers. Yet the story of Applecart stands in contrast to the dominant attitude and approach among university researchers themselves. Universities are full of researchers who intensively study major global problems such as environmental destruction and societal violence, then stop short when their conclusions point to the need for significant change in public behavior.

Some in academe consider that boundary a matter of principle rather than a systematic failure or oversight. “The one thing that we have to do is not be political,” Michael M. Crow, the usually paradigm-breaking president of Arizona State University, said this summer at a conference on academic engagement in public discourse. “Politics is a process that we are informing. We don’t have to be political to inform politicians or political actors.” But other academics contemplate that stance and see a missed opportunity to help convert the millions of taxpayer dollars spent on research into meaningful societal benefit. They include Dan M. Kahan, a professor of law and of psychology at Yale University who has been trying to help Florida officials cope with climate change. Mr. Kahan works with the four-county Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact, which wants to redesign roads, expand public transit, and build pumping stations to prepare for harsher weather. But Mr. Kahan says he and his Florida partners have had trouble getting enough

But Mr. Kahan says he and his Florida partners have had trouble getting enough policy makers to seriously consider the scale of the problem and the necessary solutions. It’s frustrating, Mr. Kahan said, to see so much university research devoted to work inside laboratories on problems like climate, and comparatively little spent on real-world needs such as sophisticated messaging strategies. “There really is a kind of deficit in the research relating to actually operationalizing the kinds of insights that people have developed from research,” he said. That deficit appears to stem from academic culture, said Utpal M. Dholakia, a professor of marketing at Rice University whose work involves testing people’s self-control in areas such as eating and shopping. He then draws conclusions about whether regulations or taxes aimed at changing behaviors will be effective. Companies find advanced personal behavioral data highly useful, said Mr. Dholakia, who works on the side to help retailers devise sales strategies. But his university, he said, appears more interested in seeing him publish his findings than take the time to help policy makers make real-world use of them. “My dean gets very worried if I don’t publish a lot.” Because universities h

That deficit appears to stem from academic culture, said Utpal M. Dholakia, a professor of marketing at Rice University whose work involves testing people’s self-control in areas such as eating and shopping. He then draws conclusions about whether regulations or taxes aimed at changing behaviors will be effective. Companies find advanced personal behavioral data highly useful, said Mr. Dholakia, who works on the side to help retailers devise sales strategies. But his university, he said, appears more interested in seeing him publish his findings than take the time to help policy makers make real-world use of them. “My dean gets very worried if I don’t publish a lot.” …(More)

Global fact-checking up 50% in past year

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Mark Stencel at Duke Reporters’ Lab: “The high volume of political truth-twisting is driving demand for political fact-checkers around the world, with the number of fact-checking sites up 50 percent since last year.

The Duke Reporters’ Lab annual census of international fact-checking currently counts 96 active projects in 37 countries. That’s up from 64 active fact-checkers in the 2015 count. (Map and List)

Active Fact-checkers 2016A bumper crop of new fact-checkers across the Western Hemisphere helped increase the ranks of journalists and government watchdogs who verify the accuracy of public statements and track political promises. The new sites include 14 in the United States, two in Canada as well as seven additional fact-checkers in Latin America.There also were new projects in 10 other countries, from North Africa to Central Europe to East Asia…..

The growing numbers have even spawned a new global association, the International Fact-Checking Network hosted by the Poynter Institute, a media training center in St. Petersburg, Florida.

Promises, Promises

Some of the growth has come in the form of promise-tracking. Since January 2015, fact-checkers launched six sites in five countries devoted to tracking the status of pledges candidates and party leaders made in political campaigns. In Tunisia, there are two new sites dedicated to promise-tracking — one devoted to the country’s president and the other to its prime minister.

There are another 20 active fact-checkers elsewhere that track promises,…

Nearly two-thirds of the active fact-checkers (61 of 96, or 64 percent) are directly affiliated with a new organization. However this breakdown reflects the dominant business structure in the United States, where 90 percent of fact-checkers are part of a news organization. That includes nine of 11 national projects and 28 of 30 state/local fact-checkers…The story is different outside the United States, where less than half of the active fact-checking projects (24 of 55, or 44 percent) are affiliated with news organizations.

The other fact-checkers are typically associated with non-governmental, non-profit and activist groups focused on civic engagement, government transparency and accountability. A handful are partisan, especially in conflict zones and in countries where the lines between independent media, activists and opposition parties are often blurry and where those groups are aligned against state-controlled media or other governmental and partisan entities….(More)“

Smarter State Case Studies

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

“Just as individuals use only part of their brainpower to solve most problems, governing institutions make far too little use of the skills and experience of those inside and outside of government with scientific credentials, practical skills, and ground-level street smarts. New data-rich tools—what The GovLab calls technologies of expertise—are making it possible to match the supply of citizen and civil servant talent to the demand for it in government to solve problems.

The Smarter State Case Studies examine how public institutions are using technologies of expertise, including:

Talent Bank – Professional, social and knowledge networks
Collaboration – Platforms for group work across silos
Project Platforms – Places for inviting new participants to work on projects
Toolkits – Repositories for shared content

Explore the design and key features of these novel platforms; how they are being implemented; the challenges encountered by both creators and users and the anticipated impact of these new ways of working.
The case studies can be found at http://www.thegovlab.org/smarterstate.html
To share a case study, please contact: maria@thegovlab.org“

Five ways tech is crowdsourcing women’s empowerment

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Zara Rahman in The Guardian: “Around the world, women’s rights advocates are crowdsourcing their own data rather than relying on institutional datasets.

Citizen-generated data is especially important for women’s rights issues. In many countries the lack of women in positions of institutional power, combined with slow, bureaucratic systems and a lack of prioritisation of women’s rights issues means data isn’t gathered on relevant topics, let alone appropriately responded to by the state.

Even when data is gathered by institutions, societal pressures may mean it remains inadequate. In the case of gender-based violence, for instance, women often suffer in silence, worrying nobody will believe them or that they will be blamed. Providing a way for women to contribute data anonymously or, if they so choose, with their own details, can be key to documenting violence and understanding the scale of a problem, and thus deciding upon appropriate responses.

Crowdsourcing data on street harassment in Egypt

Using open source platform Ushahidi, HarassMap provides women with a way to document incidences of street harassment. The project, which began in 2010, is raising awareness of how common street harassment is, giving women’s rights advocates a concrete way to highlight the scale of the problem….

Documenting experiences of reporting sexual harassment and violence to the police in India

Last year, The Ladies Finger, a women’s zine based in India, partnered with Amnesty International to support its Ready to Report campaign, which aimed to make it easier for survivors of sexual violence to file a police complaint. Using social media and through word of mouth, it asked the community if they had experiences to share about reporting sexual assault and harassment to the police. Using these crowdsourced leads, The Ladies Finger’s reporters spoke to people willing to share their experiences and put together a series of detailed contextualised stories. They included a piece that evoked a national outcry and spurred the Uttar Pradesh government to make an arrest for stalking, after six months of inaction….

Reporting sexual violence in Syria

Women Under Siege is a global project by Women’s Media Centre that is investigating how rape and sexual violence is used in conflicts. Its Syria project crowdsources data on sexual violence in the war-torn country. Like HarassMap, it uses the Ushahidi platform to geolocate where acts of sexual violence take place. Where possible, initial reports are contextualised with deeper media reports around the case in question….

Finding respectful gynaecologists in India

After recognising that many women in her personal networks were having bad experiences with gynaecologists in India, Delhi-based Amba Azaad began – with the help of her friends – putting together a list of gynaecologists who had treated patients respectfully called Gynaecologists We Trust. As the site says, “Finding doctors who are on our side is hard enough, and when it comes to something as intimate as our internal plumbing, it’s even more difficult.”…

Ending tech-related violence against women

In 2011, Take Back the Tech, an initiative from the Association for Progressive Communications, started a map gathering incidences of tech-related violence against women. Campaign coordinator Sara Baker says crowdsourcing data on this topic is particularly useful as “victims/survivors are often forced to tell their stories repeatedly in an attempt to access justice with little to no action taken on the part of authorities or intermediaries”. Rather than telling that story multiple times and seeing it go nowhere, their initiative gives people “the opportunity to make their experience visible (even if anonymously) and makes them feel like someone is listening and taking action”….(More)

A Government of the Future

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

White House Fact Sheet on The President’s Fiscal Year 2017 Budget: “…The President is committed to driving last­ing change in how Government works – change that makes a significant, tangible, and positive difference in the economy and the lives of the American people. Over the past seven years, the Administration has launched successful efforts to modernize and improve citizen-facing services, eliminate wasteful spending, reduce the Federal real property footprint, improve the use of evidence to improve program performance, and spur innova­tion in the private sector by opening to the public tens of thousands of Federal data sets and inno­vation assets at the national labs.

Supporting the President’s Management Agenda. The Budget includes investments to continue driving the President’s Management Agenda by improving the service we provide to the American public; leveraging the Federal Government’s buying power to bring more value and efficiency to how we use taxpayer dollars; opening Government data and research to the private sector to drive innovation and economic growth; promoting smarter information technology; modernizing permitting and environmental review processes; creating new Idea Labs to support employees with promising ideas; and, attracting and retaining the best talent in the Federal workforce.

Supporting Digital Service Delivery for Citizens. In 2014 the Administration piloted the U.S. Digital Service, a unit of innovators, entrepreneurs, and engineers. This team of America’s best digital experts has worked in collaboration with Federal agencies to implement streamlined and effective digital technology practices on the Nation’s highest priority programs. This work includes collaborating with the Department of Education to launch the new College Scorecard to give stu­dents, parents, and their advisors most reliable national data to help with college choice and supporting the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) transition to launch the new myUSCIS which makes it easier for users to access information about the immigration process and immigration ser­vices. To institutionalize the dramatic improve­ments that this approach has demonstrated, the Budget supports the Administration’s aggressive goal of hiring and placing 500 top technology and design experts to serve in the Government by January 2017.

Strengthening Federal Cybersecurity. As outlined above, the Budget provides $19 billion in resources for cybersecurity. This includes the creation of a new $3.1 billion revolving fund, the Information Technology Modernization Fund (ITMF), to retire the Government’s antiquated IT systems and transition to more secure and efficient modern IT systems, funding to streamline governance and secure Federal networks, and investments to strengthen the cybersecurity workforce and cybersecurity education across society.

Building Evidence and Encouraging Innovation. The President has made it clear that policy decisions should be driven by evidence so that the Federal government can do more of what works and less of what does not. The Administration’s evidence-based approaches have resulted in important gains in areas ranging from reducing veteran homelessness, to improving educational outcomes, to enhancing the effectiveness of international development programs. The Budget invests in expanding evidence-based approaches, developing and testing effective practices, and enhancing government’s capacity to build and use evidence, in particular by expanding access to administrative data and further developing Federal, State, local, and tribal data infrastructure.

Reorganizing Government to Succeed in the Global Economy. The Budget also includes proposals to consolidate and reorganize Government agencies to make them leaner and more efficient, and it increases the use of evidence and evaluation to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely on programs that work….(More). See also President Barack Obama’s FY 2017 Budget for the U.S. Government

New Tools for Collaboration: The Experience of the U.S. Intelligence Community

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

IBM Center for Business of Government: “This report is intended for an audience beyond the U.S. Intelligence Community—senior managers in government, their advisors and students of government performance who are interested in the progress of collaboration in a difficult environment. …

The purpose of this report is to learn lessons by looking at the use of internal collaborative tools across the Intelligence Community. The initial rubric was tools, but the real focus is collaboration, for while the tools can enable, what ultimately matters are policies and practices interacting with organizational culture. It looks for good practices to emulate. The ultimate question is how and how much could, and should, collaborative tools foster integration across the Community. The focus is analysis and the analytic process, but collaborative tools can and do serve many other functions in the Intelligence Community—from improving logistics or human resources, to better connecting collection and analysis, to assisting administration and development, to facilitating, as one interlocutor put it, operational “go” decisions. Yet it is in the analytic realm that collaboration is both most visible and most rubs against traditional work processes that are not widely collaborative.

The report defines terms and discusses concepts, first exploring collaboration and coordination, then defining collaborative tools and social media, then surveying the experience of the private sector. The second section of the report uses those distinctions to sort out the blizzard of collaborative tools that have been created in the various intelligence agencies and across them. The third section outlines the state of collaboration, again both within agencies and across them. The report concludes with findings and recommendations for the Community. The recommendations amount to a continuum of possible actions in making more strategic what is and will continue to be more a bottom-up process of creating and adopting collaborative tools and practices….(More)”

Political Speech Generation

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Valentin Kassarnig at arXiv: “In this report we present a system that can generate political speeches for a desired political party. Furthermore, the system allows to specify whether a speech should hold a supportive or opposing opinion. The system relies on a combination of several state-of-the-art NLP methods which are discussed in this report. These include n-grams, Justeson & Katz POS tag filter, recurrent neural networks, and latent Dirichlet allocation. Sequences of words are generated based on probabilities obtained from two underlying models: A language model takes care of the grammatical correctness while a topic model aims for textual consistency. Both models were trained on the Convote dataset which contains transcripts from US congressional floor debates. Furthermore, we present a manual and an automated approach to evaluate the quality of generated speeches. In an experimental evaluation generated speeches have shown very high quality in terms of grammatical correctness and sentence transitions….(More)”

Direct democracy may be key to a happier American democracy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

 and in the Conversation: “Is American democracy still “by the people, for the people?” According to recent research, it may not be. Martin Gilens at Princeton University confirms that the wishes of the American working and middle class play essentially no role in our nation’s policy making. A BBC story rightly summarized this with the headline: US Is an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy.

However new research by Benjamin Radcliff and Gregory Shufeldt suggests a ray of hope.

Ballot initiatives, they argue, may better serve the interests of ordinary Americans than laws passed by elected officials….

Today, 24 states allow citizens to directly vote on policy matters.

This year, more than 42 initiatives already are approved for the ballot in 18 states.

Voters in California will decide diverse questions including banning plastic bags, voter approval of state expenses greater than US$2 billion dollars, improving school funding, and the future of bilingual education.

The people of Colorado will vote on replacing their current medical insurance programs with a single payer system, and in Massachusetts people may consider legalizing recreational marijuana….

However, many have pointed to problems with direct democracy in the form of ballot initiatives.

Maxwell Sterns at the University of Maryland, for example, writes that legislatures are better because initiatives are the tools of special interests and minorities. In the end, initiatives are voted upon by an unrepresentative subset of the population, Sterns concludes.

Others like Richard Ellis of Willamette University argue that the time-consuming process of gathering signatures introduces a bias toward moneyed interests. Some suggest this has damaged direct democracy in California, where professional petition writers andpaid signature gatherers dominate the process. Moneyed interests also enjoy a natural advantage in having the resources that ordinary people lack to mount media campaigns to support their narrow interests.

To curb this kind of problem, bans on paying people per signature are proposed in many states, but have not yet passed any legislature. However, because Californians like direct democracy in principle, they have recently amended the process to allow for a review and revision, and they require mandatory disclosures about the funding and origins of ballot initiatives.

Finally, some say initiatives can be confusing for voters, like the two recent Ohio propositions concerning marijuana, where one ballot proposition essentially canceled out the other. Similarly, Mississippi’s Initiative 42 required marking the ballot in two places for approval but only one for disapproval, resulting in numerous nullified “yes” votes.

Routes to happiness

Despite these flaws, our research shows that direct democracy might improve happiness in two ways.

One is through its psychological effect on voters, making them feel they have a direct impact on policy outcomes. This holds even if they may not like, and thus vote against, a particular proposition. The second is that it may indeed produce policies more consistent with human well being.

The psychological benefits are obvious. By allowing people literally to be the government, just as in ancient Athens, people develop higher levels of political efficacy. In short, they may feel they have some control over their lives. Direct democracy can give people political capital because it offers a means by which citizens may place issues on the ballot for popular vote, giving them an opportunity both to set the agenda and to vote on the outcome.

We think this is important today given America’s declining faith in government. Overall today only 19 percent believe the government is run for all citizens. The same percentage trusts government to mostly do what is right. The poor and working classes are even more alienated….(More)”