Paper by Evangelos Pournaras, et al: “Voting methods are instrumental design element of democracies. Citizens use them to express and aggregate their preferences to reach a collective decision. However, voting outcomes can be as sensitive to voting rules as they are to people’s voting choices. Despite the significance and inter-disciplinary scientific progress on voting methods, several democracies keep relying on outdated voting methods that do not fit modern, pluralistic societies well, while lacking social innovation. Here, we demonstrate how one can upgrade real-world democracies, namely by using alternative preferential voting methods such as cumulative voting and the method of equal shares designed for a proportional representation of voters’ preferences. By rigorously assessing a new participatory budgeting approach applied in the city of Aarau, Switzerland, we unravel the striking voting outcomes of fair voting methods: more winning projects with the same budget and broader geographic and preference representation of citizens by the elected projects, in particular for voters who used to be under-represented, while promoting novel project ideas. We provide profound causal evidence showing that citizens prefer proportional voting methods, which possess strong legitimacy without the need of very technical specialized explanations. We also reveal strong underlying democratic values exhibited by citizens who support fair voting methods such as altruism and compromise. These findings come with a global momentum to unleash a new and long-awaited participation blueprint of how to upgrade democracies…(More)”.
Making the case for collaborative digital infrastructure to scale regenerative food supply networks
Briefing paper from the Food Data Collaboration: “…a call to action to collaborate and invest in data infrastructure that will enable shorter, relational, regenerative food supply networks to scale.
These food supply networks play a vital role in achieving a truly sustainable and resilient food system. By embracing data technology that fosters commons ownership models, collaboration and interdependence we can build a more inclusive and dynamic food ecosystem in which collaborative efforts, as opposed to competitive businesses operating in silos, can achieve transformative scale.
Since 2022, the Food Data Collaboration has been exploring the potential for open data standards to enable shorter, relational, regenerative food supply networks to scale and pave the way towards a healthier, more equitable, and more resilient food future. This paper explores the high level rationale for our approach and is essential reading for anyone keen to know more about the project’s aims, achievements and future development…(More)”.
Using Gamification to Engage Citizens in Micro-Mobility Data Sharing
Paper by Anu Masso, Anniki Puura, Jevgenia Gerassimenko and Olle Järv: “The European Strategy for Data aims to create a unified environment for accessing, sharing, and reusing data across sectors, institutions, and individuals, with a focus on areas like mobility and smart cities. While significant progress has been made in the technical interoperability and legislative frameworks for data spaces, critical gaps persist in the bottom-up processes, particularly in fostering social collaboration and citizen-driven initiatives. What is often overlooked is the need for effective citizen engagement and collaborative governance models to ensure the long-term viability and inclusivity of these data spaces. In addition, although principles for successful data sharing are well-established in sectors like healthcare, they remain underdeveloped and more challenging to implement in areas such as mobility. This article addresses these gaps by exploring how gamification can drive bottom-up data space formation, engaging citizens in data-sharing and fostering collaboration among private companies, local governments, and academic institutions. Using bicycle usage as an example, it illustrates how gamification can incentivise citizens to share mobility data for social good, promoting more active and sustainable transportation in cities. Drawing on a case study from Tallinn (Estonia), the paper demonstrates how gamification can improve data collection, highlighting the vital role of citizen participation in urban planning. The article emphasises that while technological solutions for data spaces are advancing, understanding collaborative governance models for data sharing remains crucial for ensuring the success of the European Union’s data space agenda and driving sustainable innovation in urban environments…(More)”.
How Being Watched Changes How You Think
Article by Simon Makin: “In 1785 English philosopher Jeremy Bentham designed the perfect prison: Cells circle a tower from which an unseen guard can observe any inmate at will. As far as a prisoner knows, at any given time, the guard may be watching—or may not be. Inmates have to assume they’re constantly observed and behave accordingly. Welcome to the Panopticon.
Many of us will recognize this feeling of relentless surveillance. Information about who we are, what we do and buy and where we go is increasingly available to completely anonymous third parties. We’re expected to present much of our lives to online audiences and, in some social circles, to share our location with friends. Millions of effectively invisible closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras and smart doorbells watch us in public, and we know facial recognition with artificial intelligence can put names to faces.
So how does being watched affect us? “It’s one of the first topics to have been studied in psychology,” says Clément Belletier, a psychologist at University of Clermont Auvergne in France. In 1898 psychologist Norman Triplett showed that cyclists raced harder in the presence of others. From the 1970s onward, studies showed how we change our overt behavior when we are watched to manage our reputation and social consequences.
But being watched doesn’t just change our behavior; decades of research show it also infiltrates our mind to impact how we think. And now a new study reveals how being watched affects unconscious processing in our brain. In this era of surveillance, researchers say, the findings raise concerns about our collective mental health…(More)”.
How the UK could monetise ‘citizen data’ and turn it into a national asset
Article by Ashley Braganza and S. Asieh H. Tabaghdehi: “Across all sectors, UK citizens produce vast amounts of data. This data is increasingly needed to train AI systems. But it is also of enormous value to private companies, which use it to target adverts to consumers based on their behaviour or to personalise content to keep people on their site.
Yet the economic and social value of this citizen-generated data is rarely returned to the public, highlighting the need for more equitable and transparent models of data stewardship.
AI companies have demonstrated that datasets hold immense economic, social and strategic value. And the UK’s AI Opportunities Action Plan notes that access to new and high-quality datasets can confer a competitive edge in developing AI models. This in turn unlocks the potential for innovative products and services.
However, there’s a catch. Most citizens have signed over their data to companies by accepting standard terms and conditions. Once citizen data is “owned” by companies, this leaves others unable to access it or forced to pay to do so.
Commercial approaches to data tend to prioritise short-term profit, often at the expense of the public interest. The debate over the use of artistic and creative materials to train AI models without recompense to the creator exemplifies the broader trade-off between commercial use of data and the public interest.
Countries around the world are recognising the strategic value of public data. The UK government could lead in making public data into a strategic asset. What this might mean in practice is the government owning citizen data and monetising this through sale or licensing agreements with commercial companies.
In our evidence, we proposed a UK sovereign data fund to manage the monetisation of public datasets curated within the NDL. This fund could invest directly in UK companies, fund scale-ups and create joint ventures with local and international partners.
The fund would have powers to license anonymised, ethically governed data to companies for commercial use. It would also be in a position to fast-track projects that benefit the UK or have been deemed to be national priorities. (These priorities are drones and other autonomous technologies as well as engineering biology, space and AI in healthcare.)…(More)”.
Future design in the public policy process: giving a voice to future generations
Paper by Marij Swinkels, Olivier de Vette & Victor Toom: “Long-term public issues face the intergenerational problem: current policy decisions place a disproportionate burden on future generations while primarily benefitting those in the present. The interests of present generations trump those of future generations, as the latter play no explicit part as stakeholders in policy making processes. How can the interests of future generations be voiced in the present? In this paper, we explore an innovative method to incorporate the interests of future generations in the process of policymaking: future design. First, we situate future design in the policy process and relate it to other intergenerational policymaking initiatives that aim to redeem the intergenerational problem. Second, we show how we applied future design and provide insights into three pilots that we organized on two long-term public issues in the Netherlands: housing shortages and water management. We conclude that future design can effectively contribute to representing the interests of future generations, but that adoption of future design in different contexts also requires adaptation of the method. The findings increase our understanding of the value of future design as an innovative policymaking practice to strengthen intergenerational policymaking. As such, it provides policymakers with insights into how to use this method…(More)”.
Why Generative AI Isn’t Transforming Government (Yet) — and What We Can Do About It
Article by Tiago C. Peixoto: “A few weeks ago, I reached out to a handful of seasoned digital services practitioners, NGOs, and philanthropies with a simple question: Where are the compelling generative AI (GenAI) use cases in public-sector workflows? I wasn’t looking for better search or smarter chatbots. I wanted examples of automation of real public workflows – something genuinely interesting and working. The responses, though numerous, were underwhelming.
That question has gained importance amid a growing number of reports forecasting AI’s transformative impact on government. The Alan Turing Institute, for instance, published a rigorous study estimating the potential of AI to help automate over 140 million government transactions in the UK. The Tony Blair Institute also weighed in, suggesting that a substantive portion of public-sector work could be automated. While the report helped bring welcome attention to the issue, its use of GPT-4 to assess task automatability has sparked a healthy discussion about how best to evaluate feasibility. Like other studies in this area, both reports highlight potential – but stop short of demonstrating real service automation.
Without testing technologies in real service environments – where workflows, incentives, and institutional constraints shape outcomes – and grounding each pilot in clear efficiency or well-being metrics, estimates risk becoming abstractions that underestimate feasibility.
This pattern aligns with what Arvind Narayanan and Sayash Kapoor argue in “AI as Normal Technology:” the impact of AI is realized only when methods translate into applications and diffuse through real-world systems. My own review, admittedly non-representative, confirms their call for more empirical work on the innovation-diffusion lag.
In the public sector, the gap between capability and impact is not only wide but also structural…(More)”
Urban Development Needs Systems Thinking
Article by Yaera Chung: “More than three decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, cities in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA) continue to grapple with economic stagnation, aging infrastructure, and environmental degradation while also facing new pressures from climate change and regional conflicts. In this context, traditional city planning, which tackles problems in isolation, is struggling to keep up. Urban strategies often rely on siloed, one-off interventions that fail to reflect the complexity of social challenges or adapt to shifting conditions. As a result, efforts are frequently fragmented, overlook root causes, and miss opportunities for long-term, cross-sector collaboration.
Instead of addressing one issue at a time, cities need to develop a set of coordinated, interlinked solutions that tackle multiple urban challenges simultaneously and align efforts across sectors. As part of a broader strategy to address environmental, economic, and social goals at once, for example, cities might advance a range of initiatives, such as transforming biowaste into resources, redesigning streets to reduce air pollution, and creating local green jobs. These kinds of “portfolio” approaches are leading to lasting and systems-level change.
Since 2021, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has been collaborating with 15 cities across EECA to solve problems in ways that embrace complexity and interconnectedness. Selected through open calls under two UNDP initiatives, Mayors for Economic Growth and the City Experiment Fund, these cities demonstrated a strong interest in tackling systemic issues. Their proposals highlighted the problems they face, their capacity for innovation, and local initiatives and partnerships.
Their ongoing journeys have surfaced four lessons that can help other cities move beyond conventional planning pitfalls, and adopt a more responsive, inclusive, and sustainable approach to urban development…(More)”.
The EU’s AI Power Play: Between Deregulation and Innovation
Article by Raluca Csernatoni: “From the outset, the European Union (EU) has positioned itself as a trailblazer in AI governance with the world’s first comprehensive legal framework for AI systems in use, the AI Act. The EU’s approach to governing artificial intelligence (AI) has been characterized by a strong precautionary and ethics-driven philosophy. This ambitious regulation reflects the EU’s long-standing approach of prioritizing high ethical standards and fundamental rights in tech and digital policies—a strategy of fostering both excellence and trust in human-centric AI models. Yet, framed as essential to keep pace with U.S. and Chinese AI giants, the EU has recently taken a deregulatory turn that risks trading away democratic safeguards, without addressing systemic challenges to AI innovation.
The EU now stands at a crossroads: it can forge ahead with bold, home-grown AI innovation underpinned by robust regulation, or it can loosen its ethical guardrails, only to find itself stripped of both technological autonomy and regulatory sway. While Brussels’s recent deregulatory turn is framed as a much needed competitiveness boost, the real obstacles to Europe’s digital renaissance lie elsewhere: persistent underfunding, siloed markets, and reliance on non-EU infrastructures…(More)”
How Media Ownership Matters
Book by Rodney Benson, Mattias Hessérus, Timothy Neff, and Julie Sedel: “Does it matter who owns and funds the media? As journalists and management consultants set off in search of new business models, there’s a pressing need to understand anew the economic underpinnings of journalism and its role in democratic societies.
How Media Ownership Matters provides a fresh approach to understanding news media power, moving beyond the typical emphasis on market concentration or media moguls. Through a comparative analysis of the US, Sweden, and France, as well as interviews of news executives and editors and an original collection of industry data, this book maps and analyzes four ownership models: market, private, civil society, and public. Highlighting the effects of organizational logics, funding, and target audiences on the content of news, the authors identify both the strengths and weaknesses various forms of ownership have in facilitating journalism that meets the democratic ideals of reasoned, critical, and inclusive public debate. Ultimately, How Media Ownership Matters provides a roadmap to understanding how variable forms of ownership are shaping the future of journalism and democracy…(More)”.