World Bank Cancels Flagship ‘Doing Business’ Report After Investigation

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Josh Zumbrun: “The World Bank canceled a prominent report rating the business environment of the world’s countries after an investigation concluded that senior bank management pressured staff to alter data affecting the ranking of China and other nations.

The leaders implicated include then World Bank Chief Executive Kristalina Georgieva, now managing director of the International Monetary Fund, and then World Bank President Jim Yong Kim.

The episode is a reputational hit for Ms. Georgieva, who disagreed with the investigators’ conclusions. As leader of the IMF, the lender of last resort to struggling countries around the world, she is in part responsible for managing political pressure from nations seeking to advance their own interests. It was also the latest example of the Chinese government seeking myriad ways to burnish its global standing.

The Doing Business report has been the subject of an external probe into the integrity of the report’s data. On Thursday, the bank released the results of that investigation, which concluded that senior bank leaders including Ms. Georgieva were involved in pressuring economists to improve China’s 2018 ranking. At the time, she and others were attempting to persuade China to support a boost in the bank’s funding….(More)”.

Process Science: The Interdisciplinary Study of Continuous Change

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Jan vom Brocke et al: “The only constant in our world is change. Why is there not a field of science that explicitly studies continuous change? We propose the establishment of process science, a field that studies processes: coherent series of changes, both man-made and naturally occurring, that unfold over time and occur at various levels. Process science is concerned with understanding and influencing change. It entails discovering and understanding processes as well as designing interventions to shape them into desired directions. Process science is based on four key principles; it (1) puts processes at the center of attention, (2) investigates processes scientifically, (3) embraces perspectives of multiple disciplines, and (4) aims to create impact by actively shaping the unfolding of processes. The ubiquitous availability of digital trace data, combined with advanced data analytics capabilities, offer new and unprecedented opportunities to study processes through multiple data sources, which makes process science very timely….(More)”.

Are emerging technologies helping win the fight against corruption? A review of the state of evidence

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Isabelle Adam and Mihály Fazekas: “Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is often thought of as a uniformly positive tool making governments more transparent, accountable, and less corrupt. However, the evidence on it is mixed and often misunderstood. Hence, this article carries out a systematic stocktaking of ICT tools’ impact on corruption, offering a nuanced and context-dependent assessment. The tools reviewed are digital public services, crowdsourcing platforms, whistleblowing tools, transparency portals, distributed ledger technology, and artificial intelligence. We scrutinise the evidence both on ICTs’ anticorruption effectiveness and misuse for corruption. Drawing on the commonalities across technologies, we find that ICT can support anti-corruption by impacting public scrutiny in numerous ways: enabling reporting on corruption, promoting transparency and accountability, facilitating citizen participation and government-citizen interactions. However, ICT can also provide new corruption opportunities through the dark web, cryptocurrencies, or the misuse of technologies such as centralised databases. The introduction of ICT tools does not automatically translate into anti-corruption outcomes; rather, impact hinges on the matching between ICT tools and the local context, including support for and skills in using technology….(More)”

Exploring a new governance agenda: What are the questions that matter?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Nicola Nixon, Stefaan Verhulst, Imran Matin & Philips J. Vermonte: “…Late last year, we – the Governance Lab at NYU, the CSIS Indonesia, the BRAC Institute of Governance and Development, Bangladesh and The Asia Foundation – joined forces across New York, Jakarta, Dhaka, Hanoi, and San Francisco to launch the 100 Governance Questions Initiative. This is the latest iteration of the GovLab’s broader initiative to map questions across several domains.

We live in an era marked by an unprecedented amount of data. Anyone who uses a mobile phone or accesses the internet is generating vast streams of information. Covid-19 has only intensified this phenomenon. 

Although this data contains tremendous potential for positive social transformation, much of that potential goes unfulfilled. In the development context, one chief problem is that data initiatives are often driven by supply (i.e., what data or data solutions are available?) rather than demand (what problems actually need solutions?). Too many projects begin with the database, the app, the dashboard–beholden to the seduction of technology– and now, many parts of the developing world are graveyards of tech pilots. As is well established in development theory but not yet fully in practice, solution-driven governance interventions are destined to fail.

The 100 Questions Initiative, pioneered by the GovLab, seeks to overcome the chasm between supply and demand. It begins not by searching for what data is available, but by asking important questions about the biggest challenges societies and countries face, and then seeking more targeted and relevant data solutions. In doing this, it narrows the gap between policy makers and constituents, providing opportunities for improved evidence-based policy and community engagement in developing countries. As part of this initiative, we seek to define the ten most important questions across several domains, including Migration, Gender, Employment, the Future of Work, and—now–Governance.

On this occasion, we invited over 100 experts and practitioners in governance and data science –whom we call “bilinguals”– from various organizations, companies, and government agencies to identify what they see as the most pressing governance questions in their respective domains. Over 100 bilinguals were encouraged to prioritize potential impact, novelty, and feasibility in their questioning — moving toward a roadmap for data-driven action and collaboration that is both actionable and ambitious.   

By June, the bilinguals had articulated 170 governance-related questions. Over the next couple of months, these were sorted, discussed and refined during two rounds of collaboration with the bilinguals; first to narrow down to the top 40 and then to the top 10. Bilinguals were asked what, to them, are the most significant governance questions we must answer with data today? The result is the following 10 questions:…(More)” ( Public Voting Platform)”.

Climate change versus children: How a UNICEF data collaborative gave birth to a risk index

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Jess Middleton at DataIQ: “Almost a billion children face climate-related disasters in their lifetime, according to UNICEF’s new Children’s Climate Risk Index (CCRI).

The CCRI is the first analysis of climate risk specifically from a child’s perspective. It reveals that children in Central African Republic, Chad and Nigeria are at the highest risk from climate and environmental shocks based on their access to essential services….

Young climate activists including Greta Thunberg contributed a foreword to the report that introduced the index; and the project has added another layer of pressure on governments failing to act on climate change in the run-up to the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference – set to be held in Glasgow in November.

While these statistics make for grim reading, the collective effort undertaken to create the Index is evidence of the power of data as a tool for advocacy and the role that data collaboratives can play in shaping positive change.

The CCRI is underpinned by data that was sourced, collated and analysed by the Data for Children Collaborative with UNICEF, a partnership between UNICEF, the Scottish Government and University of Edinburgh hosted by The Data Lab.

The collaboration brings together practitioners from diverse backgrounds to provide data-driven solutions to issues faced by children around the world.

For work on the CCRI, the collaborative sought data, skills and expertise from academia (Universities of Southampton, Edinburgh, Stirling, Highlands and Islands) as well as the public and private sectors (ONS-FCDO Data Science Hub, Scottish Alliance for Geoscience, Environment & Society).

This variety of expertise provided the knowledge required to build the two main pillars of input for the CCRI: socioeconomic and climate science data.

Socioeconomic experts sourced data and provided analytical expertise in the context of child vulnerability, social statistics, biophysical processes and statistics, child welfare and child poverty.

Climate experts focused on factors such as water scarcity, flood exposure, coastal flood risk, pollution and exposure to vector borne disease.

The success of the project hinged on the effective collaboration between distinct areas of expertise to deliver on UNICEF’s problem statement.

The director of the Data for Children Collaborative with UNICEF, Alex Hutchison, spoke with DataIQ about the success of the project, the challenges the team faced, and the benefits of working as part of a diverse collective….(More). (Report)”

You Have More Influence Than You Think

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Vanessa Bohns: “An original investigation of our hidden power to persuade, and how to wield it wisely.

If you’ve ever felt ineffective, invisible, or inarticulate, chances are you weren’t actually any of those things. Those feelings may instead have been the result of a lack of awareness we all seem to have for how our words, actions, and even our mere presence affect other people.

In You Have More Influence Than You Think social psychologist Vanessa Bohns draws from her original research to illustrate why we fail to recognize the influence we have, and how that lack of awareness can lead us to miss opportunities or accidentally misuse our power.

Weaving together compelling stories with cutting edge science, Bohns answers the questions we all want to know (but may be afraid to ask): How much did she take to heart what I said earlier? Do they know they can push back on my suggestions? Did he notice whether I was there today? Will they agree to help me if I ask?

Whether attending a meeting, sharing a post online, or mustering the nerve to ask for a favor, we often assume our actions, input, and requests will be overlooked or rejected. Bohns and her work demonstrate that people see us, listen to us, and agree to do things for us much more than we realize—for better, and worse.

You Have More Influence Than You Think offers science-based strategies for observing the effect we have on others, reconsidering our fear of rejection, and even, sometimes, pulling back to use our influence less. It is a call to stop searching for ways to gain influence you don’t have and to start recognizing the influence you don’t realize you already have…(More)”.

UN urges moratorium on use of AI that imperils human rights

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Jamey Keaten and Matt O’Brien at the Washington Post: “The U.N. human rights chief is calling for a moratorium on the use of artificial intelligence technology that poses a serious risk to human rights, including face-scanning systems that track people in public spaces.

Michelle Bachelet, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, also said Wednesday that countries should expressly ban AI applications which don’t comply with international human rights law.

Applications that should be prohibited include government “social scoring” systems that judge people based on their behavior and certain AI-based tools that categorize people into clusters such as by ethnicity or gender.

AI-based technologies can be a force for good but they can also “have negative, even catastrophic, effects if they are used without sufficient regard to how they affect people’s human rights,” Bachelet said in a statement.

Her comments came along with a new U.N. report that examines how countries and businesses have rushed into applying AI systems that affect people’s lives and livelihoods without setting up proper safeguards to prevent discrimination and other harms.

“This is not about not having AI,” Peggy Hicks, the rights office’s director of thematic engagement, told journalists as she presented the report in Geneva. “It’s about recognizing that if AI is going to be used in these human rights — very critical — function areas, that it’s got to be done the right way. And we simply haven’t yet put in place a framework that ensures that happens.”

Bachelet didn’t call for an outright ban of facial recognition technology, but said governments should halt the scanning of people’s features in real time until they can show the technology is accurate, won’t discriminate and meets certain privacy and data protection standards….(More)” (Report).

Introducing collective crisis intelligence

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blogpost by Annemarie Poorterman et al: “…It has been estimated that over 600,000 Syrians have been killed since the start of the civil war, including tens of thousands of civilians killed in airstrike attacks. Predicting where and when strikes will occur and issuing time-critical warnings enabling civilians to seek safety is an ongoing challenge. It was this problem that motivated the development of Sentry Syria, an early warning system that alerts citizens to a possible airstrike. Sentry uses acoustic sensor data, reports from on-the-ground volunteers, and open media ‘scraping’ to detect warplanes in flight. It uses historical data and AI to validate the information from these different data sources and then issues warnings to civilians 5-10 minutes in advance of a strike via social media, TV, radio and sirens. These extra minutes can be the difference between life and death.

Sentry Syria is just one example of an emerging approach in the humanitarian response we call collective crisis intelligence (CCI). CCI methods combine the collective intelligence (CI) of local community actors (e.g. volunteer plane spotters in the case of Sentry) with a wide range of additional data sources, artificial intelligence (AI) and predictive analytics to support crisis management and reduce the devastating impacts of humanitarian emergencies….(More)”

A Vulnerable System: The History of Information Security in the Computer Age

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Andrew J. Stewart: As threats to the security of information pervade the fabric of everyday life, A Vulnerable System describes how, even as the demand for information security increases, the needs of society are not being met. The result is that the confidentiality of our personal data, the integrity of our elections, and the stability of foreign relations between countries are increasingly at risk.

Andrew J. Stewart convincingly shows that emergency software patches and new security products cannot provide the solution to threats such as computer hacking, viruses, software vulnerabilities, and electronic spying. Profound underlying structural problems must first be understood, confronted, and then addressed.

A Vulnerable System delivers a long view of the history of information security, beginning with the creation of the first digital computers during the Cold War. From the key institutions of the so-called military industrial complex in the 1950s to Silicon Valley start-ups in the 2020s, the relentless pursuit of new technologies has come at great cost. The absence of knowledge regarding the history of information security has caused the lessons of the past to be forsaken for the novelty of the present, and has led us to be collectively unable to meet the needs of the current day. From the very beginning of the information age, claims of secure systems have been crushed by practical reality.

The myriad risks to technology, Stewart reveals, cannot be addressed without first understanding how we arrived at this moment. A Vulnerable System is an enlightening and sobering history of a topic that affects crucial aspects of our lives….(More)”.

Social welfare gains from innovation commons: Theory, evidence, and policy implications

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Jason Potts, Andrew W. Torrance, Dietmar Harhoff and Eric A. von Hippel: “Innovation commons – which we define as repositories of freely-accessible, “open source” innovation-related information and data – are a very significant resource for innovating and innovation-adopting firms and individuals: Availability of free data and information reduces the innovation-specific private or open investment required to make the next innovative advance. Despite the clear social welfare value of innovation commons under many conditions, academic innovation research and innovation policymaking have to date focused almost entirely on enhancing private incentives to innovate by enabling innovators to keep some types of innovation-related information at least temporarily apart from the commons, via intellectual property rights.


In this paper, our focus is squarely on innovation commons theory, evidence, and policy implications. We first discuss the varying nature of and contents of innovation commons extant today. We summarize what is known about their functioning, their scale, the value they provide to innovators and to general social welfare, and the mechanisms by which this is accomplished. Perhaps somewhat counterintuitively, and with the important exception of major digital platform firms, we find that many who develop innovation-related information at private cost have private economic incentives to contribute their information to innovation commons for free access by free riders. We conclude with a discussion of the value of more general support for innovation commons, and how this could be provided by increased private and public investment in innovation commons “engineering”, and by specific forms of innovation policymaking to increase social welfare via enhancement of innovation commons….(More)”.