Psychology and Behavioral Economics: Applications for Public Policy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book edited by Kai Ruggeri: “…offers an expert introduction to how psychology can be applied to a range of public policy areas. It examines the impact of psychological research for public policymaking in economic, financial, and consumer sectors; in education, healthcare, and the workplace; for energy and the environment; and in communications.

Your energy bills show you how much you use compared to the average household in your area. Your doctor sends you a text message reminder when your appointment is coming up. Your bank gives you three choices for how much to pay off on your credit card each month. Wherever you look, there has been a rapid increase in the importance we place on understanding real human behaviors in everyday decisions, and these behavioral insights are now regularly used to influence everything from how companies recruit employees through to large-scale public policy and government regulation. But what is the actual evidence behind these tactics, and how did psychology become such a major player in economics? Answering these questions and more, this team of authors, working across both academia and government, present this fully revised and updated reworking of Behavioral Insights for Public Policy.

This updatecovers everything from how policy was historically developed, to major research in human behavior and social psychology, to key moments that brought behavioral sciences to the forefront of public policy. Featuring over 100 empirical examples of how behavioral insights are being used to address some of the most critical challenges faced globally, the book covers key topics such as evidence-based policy, a brief history of behavioral and decision sciences, behavioral economics, and policy evaluation, all illustrated throughout with lively case studies.

Including end-of-chapter questions, a glossary, and key concept boxes to aid retention, as well as a new chapter revealing the work of the Canadian government’s behavioral insights unit, this is the perfect textbook for students of psychology, economics, public health, education, and organizational sciences, as well as public policy professionals looking for fresh insight into the underlying theory and practical applications in a range of public policy areas….(More)”.

The Rise of the Pandemic Dashboard

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Marie Patino: “…All of these dashboards were launched very early in the pandemic,” said Damir Ivankovic, a PhD student at the University of Amsterdam. “Some of them were developed literally overnight, or over three sleepless nights in certain countries.” With Ph.D. researcher Erica Barbazza, Ivankovic has been leading a set of studies about Covid-19 dashboards with a network of researchers. For an upcoming paper that’s still unpublished, the pair have talked to more than 30 government dashboard teams across Europe and Asia to better understand their dynamics and the political decisions at stake in their creation. 

The dashboard craze can be traced back to Jan. 22, 2020, when graduate student Ensheng Dong, and Lauren Gardner, co-director of Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Systems Science and Engineering, launched the JHU interactive Covid dashboard. It would quickly achieve international fame, and screenshots of it started popping up in newspapers and on TV. The dashboard now racks up billions of daily hits. Soon after, cartography software company ESRI, through which the tool was made, spun off a variety of Covid resources and example dashboards, easy to customize and publish for those with a license. ESRI has provided about 5,000 organizations with a free license since the beginning of Covid.

That’s generated unprecedented traffic: The most-viewed public dashboards made using ESRI are all Covid-related, according to the company. The Johns Hopkins dash is number one. It made its data feed available for free, and now multiple other dashboards built by government and even news outlets, including Bloomberg, rely on Johns Hopkins to update their numbers. 

Public Health England’s dashboard is designed and hand-coded from scratch. But because of the pandemic’s urgency, many government agencies that lacked expertise in data analysis and visualization turned to off-the-shelf business analytics software to build their dashboards. Among those is ESRI, but also Tableau and Microsoft Power BI.

The pros? They provide ready-to-use templates and modules, don’t necessitate programming knowledge, are fast and easy to publish and provide users with a technical lifeline. The cons? They don’t enable design, can look clunky and cluttered, provide little wiggle room in terms of explaining the data and are rarely mobile-friendly. Also, many don’t provide multi-language support or accessibility features, and some don’t enable users to access the raw data that powers the tool. 

Dashboards everywhere
A compilation of government dashboards….(More)”.

Goldman Sachs will soon launch its own version of LinkedIn

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Sarah Butcher at EFC: “Sometime soon, it will happen. After two years of construction, Goldman Sachs is expected to launch its own version of LinkedIn – first at Goldman, and then into the world at large. 

Known as Louisa, the platform was conceived by Rohan Doctor, a former head of bank solutions sales at Goldman Sachs in Hong Kong. Doctor submitted his idea for a kind of “internal LinkedIn network” to Accelerate, Goldman Sachs’ internal incubator program in 2019. He’s been building it from New York ever since. It’s thought to be ready soon.

Neither Doctor nor Goldman Sachs would comment for this article, but based on statements Doctor has made on his LinkedIn profile and recent job advertisements for members of his team, Louisa is a “collective intelligence platform” that will enable Goldman staff to connect with each other and to share information in a more meaningful and intuitive way. In doing so, it’s hoped that Goldman will be able to improve knowledge transfer within the firm and that Goldman people will be able to serve clients better as a result.

Goldman has built Louisa around artificial intelligence. When an employee asks Louisa a question, the platform uses natural language processing (NLP) techniques like named entity recognition, language modelling and query parsing to understand the kind of information that’s being sought. Data from user interactions is then used to build user preference feedback loops and user representation models that can target content to particular users and suggest topics. Network analysis is used to identify how users are engaging with each other, to suggest other users or groups of users to engage with, and to look at how Louisa’s features are being used by particular user clusters…(More)”.

Where Is Everyone? The Importance of Population Density Data

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Data Artefact Study by Aditi Ramesh, Stefaan Verhulst, Andrew Young and Andrew Zahuranec: “In this paper, we explore new and traditional approaches to measuring population density, and ways in which density information has frequently been used by humanitarian, private-sector and government actors to advance a range of private and public goals. We explain how new innovations are leading to fresh ways of collecting data—and fresh forms of data—and how this may open up new avenues for using density information in a variety of contexts. Section III examines one particular example: Facebook’s High-Resolution Population Density Maps (also referred to as HRSL, or high resolution settlement layer). This recent initiative, created in collaboration with a number of external organizations, shows not only the potential of mapping innovations but also the potential benefits of inter-sectoral partnerships and sharing. We examine three particular use cases of HRSL, and we follow with an assessment and some lessons learned. These lessons are applicable to HRSL in particular, but also more broadly. We conclude with some thoughts on avenues for future research….(More)”.

Gathering Strength, Gathering Storms

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

The One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence (AI100) 2021 Study Panel Report: “In the five years since we released the first AI100 report, much has been written about the state of artificial intelligence and its influences on society. Nonetheless, AI100 remains unique in its combination of two key features. First, it is written by a Study Panel of core multi-disciplinary researchers in the field—experts who create artificial intelligence algorithms or study their influence on society as their main professional activity, and who have been doing so for many years. The authors are firmly rooted within the field of AI and provide an “insider’s” perspective. Second, it is a longitudinal study, with reports by such Study Panels planned once every five years, for at least one hundred years.

This report, the second in that planned series of studies, is being released five years after the first report.  Published on September 1, 2016, the first report was covered widely in the popular press and is known to have influenced discussions on governmental advisory boards and workshops in multiple countries. It has also been used in a variety of artificial intelligence curricula.   

In preparation for the second Study Panel, the Standing Committee commissioned two study-workshops held in 2019. These workshops were a response to feedback on the first AI100 report. Through them, the Standing Committee aimed to engage a broader, multidisciplinary community of scholars and stakeholders in its next study. The goal of the workshops was to draw on the expertise of computer scientists and engineers, scholars in the social sciences and humanities (including anthropologists, economists, historians, media scholars, philosophers, psychologists, and sociologists), law and public policy experts, and representatives from business management as well as the private and public sectors…(More)”.

Designing geospatial data portals

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Guidance by The Geospatial Commission: “…for developers and designers to increase the discoverability and usefulness of geospatial data through user-focused data portals….Data portals differ by the data they provide and the audiences they serve. ‘Data portals’ described within this guidance are web-based interfaces designed to help users find and access datasets. Optimally, they should be built around metadata records which describe datasets, provide pointers to where they can be located and explain any restrictions or limitations in their use.

Although more and more geospatial data is being made available online, there are users who are confused about where to go, who to trust and which datasets are most relevant to answering their questions.

In 2018 user researchers and designers across the Geo6 came together to explore the needs and frustrations experienced by users of data portals containing geospatial data.

Throughout 2019 and 2020 the Geo6 have worked on solutions to address pain points identified by the user research conducted for the Data Discoverability project. This guidance provides high-level general recommendations, however, exact requirements for any given portal will vary depending on the needs of your target audience and according to the data volumes and subject matters covered. This resource is not a replacement for portal-specific user research and design work…(More)”.

Carbonwashing: A New Type of Carbon Data-Related ESG Greenwashing

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Soh Young In and Kim Schumacher: “Despite the increased attention and capital incentives around corporate sustainability, the development of sustainability reporting standards and monitoring systems has been progressing at a slow pace. As a result, companies have misaligned incentives to deliberately or selectively communicate information not matched with actual environmental impacts or make largely unsubstantiated promises around future ambitions. These incidents are broadly called “greenwashing,” but there is no clear consensus on its definition and taxonomy. We pay particular attention to the threat of greenwashing concerning carbon emission reductions by coining a new term, “carbonwashing.” Since carbon mitigation is the universal goal, the corporate carbon performance data supply chain is relatively more advanced than that of the entire sustainability data landscape. Nonetheless, the threat of carbonwashing persists, even far more severe than general greenwashing due to the financial values attached to corporate carbon performance. This paper contextualizes sustainable finance-related carbonwashing via an outline of the communication as well as the measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) of carbon emission mitigation performance. Moreover, it proposes several actionable policy recommendations on how industry stakeholders and government regulators can reduce carbonwashing risks…(More)”.

The Global Drive to Control Big Tech

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by the Freedom House: “In the high-stakes battle between states and technology companies, the rights of internet users have become the main casualties. A growing number of governments are asserting their authority over tech firms, often forcing the businesses to comply with online censorship and surveillance. These developments have contributed to an unprecedented assault on free expression online, causing global internet freedom to decline for an 11th consecutive year.

Global norms have shifted dramatically toward greater government intervention in the digital sphere. Of the 70 states covered by this report, a total of 48 pursued legal or administrative action against technology companies. While some moves reflected legitimate attempts to mitigate online harms, rein in misuse of data, or end manipulative market practices, many new laws imposed excessively broad censorship and data-collection requirements on the private sector. Users’ online activities are now more pervasively moderated and monitored by companies through processes that lack the safeguards featured in democratic governance, such as transparency, judicial oversight, and public accountability.

The drive toward national regulation has emerged partly due to a failure to address online harms through self-regulation. The United States played a leading role in shaping early internet norms around free speech and free markets, but its laissez-faire approach to the tech industry created opportunities for authoritarian manipulation, data exploitation, and widespread malfeasance. In the absence of a shared global vision for a free and open internet, governments are adopting their own approaches to policing the digital sphere. Policymakers in many countries have cited a vague need to retake control of the internet from foreign powers, multinational corporations, and in some cases, civil society.

This shift in power from companies to states has come amid a record-breaking crackdown on freedom of expression online. In 56 countries, officials arrested or convicted people for their online speech. Governments suspended internet access in at least 20 countries, and 21 states blocked access to social media platforms, most often during times of political turmoil such as protests and elections. As digital repression intensifies and expands to more countries, users understandably lack confidence that government initiatives to regulate the internet will lead to greater protection of their rights…(More)”.

Aspiring to greater intellectual humility in science

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Rink Hoekstra and Simine Vazire: “The replication crisis in the social, behavioural, and life sciences has spurred a reform movement aimed at increasing the credibility of scientific studies. Many of these credibility-enhancing reforms focus, appropriately, on specific research and publication practices. A less often mentioned aspect of credibility is the need for intellectual humility, or being transparent about and owning the limitations of our work. Although intellectual humility is presented as a widely accepted scientific norm, we argue that current research practice does not incentivize intellectual humility. We provide a set of recommendations on how to increase intellectual humility in research articles and highlight the central role peer reviewers can play in incentivizing authors to foreground the flaws and uncertainty in their work, thus enabling full and transparent evaluation of the validity of research…

A recent editorial in Nature Human Behaviour laments the fact that academia prefers clear and polished stories over honest but less clear-cut ones, with “research projects [presented] as conclusive narratives that leave no room for ambiguity or for conflicting or inconclusive results” (p. 1). Although honesty and clarity are not mutually exclusive, the pressure resulting from this probably impacts the quality and validity of our scientific work. Most journals still seem to favor clear stories, despite an arguably larger risk of these having validity issues. This presents a real dilemma for authors – especially those who do not have the luxury of a tenured position – who would like to put intellectual humility front and center: In order to increase the odds of getting a publication, they are encouraged to present their stories as better than they actually are. Being more honest or humble likely has a negative effect on their CVs. In the following, we’ll present a constructive solution for this apparent stalemate, which reverses the reward structure in such a way that authors are encouraged to write papers that “tell it like it is”….(More)”.

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)”.