The Case for Better Governance of Children’s Data: A Manifesto


The Case for Better Governance of Children’s Data: A Manifesto

Report by Jasmina Byrne, Emma Day and Linda Raftree: “Every child is different, with unique identities and their capacities and circumstances evolve over their lifecycle. Children are more vulnerable than adults and are less able to understand the long-term implications of consenting to their data collection. For these reasons, children’s data deserve to be treated differently.

While responsible data use can underpin many benefits for children, ensuring that children are protected, empowered and granted control of their data is still a challenge.

To maximise the benefits of data use for children and to protect them from harm requires a new model of data governance that is fitting for the 21st century.

UNICEF has worked with 17 global experts to develop a Manifesto that articulates a vision for a better approach to children’s data.

This Manifesto includes key action points and a call for a governance model purposefully designed to deliver on the needs and rights of children. It is the first step in ensuring that children’s rights are given due weight in data governance legal frameworks and processes as they evolve around the world….(More)”

Culture, Institutions and Social Equilibria: A Framework


Paper by Daron Acemoglu & James A. Robinson: “This paper proposes a new framework for studying the interplay between culture and institutions. We follow the recent sociology literature and interpret culture as a \repertoire”, which allows rich cultural responses to changes in the environment and shifts in political power. Specifically, we start with a culture set, which consists of attributes and the feasible connections between them. Combinations of attributes produce cultural configurations, which provide meaning, interpretation and justification for individual and group actions. Cultural figurations also legitimize and support different institutional arrangements. Culture matters as it shapes the set of feasible cultural figurations and via this channel institutions.

Yet, changes in politics and institutions can cause a rewiring of existing attributes, generating very different cultural configurations. Cultural persistence may result from the dynamics of political and economic factors – rather than being a consequence of an unchanging culture. We distinguish cultures by how fluid they are – whereby more fluid cultures allow a richer set of cultural configurations. Fluidity in turn depends on how specific (vs. abstract) and entangled (vs. free-standing) attributes in a culture set are. We illustrate these ideas using examples from African, England, China, the Islamic world, the Indian caste system and the Crow. In all cases, our interpretation highlights that culture becomes more of a constraint when it is less fluid (more hardwired), for example because its attributes are more specific or entangled. We also emphasize that less fluid cultures are not necessarily “bad cultures”, and may create a range of benefits, though they may reduce the responsiveness of culture to changing circumstances. In many instances, including in the African, Chinese and English cases, we show that there is a lot of fluidity and very different, almost diametrically-opposed, cultural configurations are feasible, often compete with each other for acceptance and can gain the upper hand depending on political factors….(More)”

Shape: The Hidden Geometry of Information, Biology, Strategy, Democracy, and Everything Else


Book by Jordan Ellenberg: “How should a democracy choose its representatives? How can you stop a pandemic from sweeping the world? How do computers learn to play Go, and why is learning Go so much easier for them than learning to read a sentence? Can ancient Greek proportions predict the stock market? (Sorry, no.) What should your kids learn in school if they really want to learn to think? All these are questions about geometry. For real.

If you’re like most people, geometry is a sterile and dimly remembered exercise you gladly left behind in the dust of ninth grade, along with your braces and active romantic interest in pop singers. If you recall any of it, it’s plodding through a series of miniscule steps only to prove some fact about triangles that was obvious to you in the first place. That’s not geometry. Okay, it is geometry, but only a tiny part, which has as much to do with geometry in all its flush modern richness as conjugating a verb has to do with a great novel.

Shape reveals the geometry underneath some of the most important scientific, political, and philosophical problems we face. Geometry asks: Where are things? Which things are near each other? How can you get from one thing to another thing? Those are important questions. The word “geometry,” from the Greek for “measuring the world.” If anything, that’s an undersell. Geometry doesn’t just measure the world—it explains it. Shape shows us how….(More)”.

Reimagining data responsibility: 10 new approaches toward a culture of trust in re-using data to address critical public needs


Commentary by Stefaan Verhulst in Data & Policy: “Data and data science offer tremendous potential to address some of our most intractable public problems (including the Covid-19 pandemic). At the same time, recent years have shown some of the risks of existing and emerging technologies. An updated framework is required to balance potential and risk, and to ensure that data is used responsibly. Data responsibility is not itself a new concept. However, amid a rapidly changing technology landscape, it has become increasingly clear that the concept may need updating, in order to keep up with new trends such as big data, open data, the Internet of things, and artificial intelligence, and machine learning. This paper seeks to outline 10 approaches and innovations for data responsibility in the 21st century….

10 New Approaches for Data Responsibility (Stefaan Verhulst)

Each of these is described at greater length in the paper, and illustrated with examples from around the world. Put together, they add up to a framework or outline for policy makers, scholars, and activists who seek to harness the potential of data to solve complex social problems and advance the public good. Needless to say, the 10 approaches outlined here represent just a start. We envision this paper more as an exercise in agenda-setting than a comprehensive survey…(More)”.

Establishing a Data Trust: From Concept to Reality


Blog by Stefaan Verhulst, Aditi Ramesh & Andrew Young, Peter Rabley & Christopher Keefe: “As ever-more areas of our public and private lives succumb to a process of datafication, it is becoming increasingly urgent to find new ways of managing the data lifecycle: how data is collected, stored, used, and reused. In particular, legacy notions of control and data access need to be reimagined for the twenty-first century, in ways that give more prominence to the public good and common interests – in a manner that is responsible and sustainable. That is particularly true for mapping data which is why The GovLab and FutureState, with the support of The Rockefeller Foundation, are partnering with PLACE to assist them in designing a new operational and governance approach for creating, storing and accessing mapping data: a Data Trust. 

PLACE is a non-profit formed out of a belief that mapping data is an integral part of the modern digital ecosystem and critical to unlocking economic, social and environmental opportunities for sustainable and equitable growth, development and climate resiliency; however, this data is not available or affordable in too many places around the world. PLACE’s goal is to bridge this part of the digital divide.

Blog#1 Infographic B.png

Five key considerations inform the design of such a new framework:

  • Governing Data as a Commons: The work of Elinor Ostrom (among others) has highlighted models that go beyond private ownership and management. As a non-excludable and non-rivalrous asset, data fits this model well: one entity’s control or “ownership” of data doesn’t limit another entity’s (non-excludable); and one entity’s consumption or use of data doesn’t prevent another entity from similarly doing so (non-rivalrous). A new framework for governance would emphasize the central role of  “data as a commons.”
  • Avoiding a “Tragedy of the Commons”: Any commons is susceptible to a “tragedy of the commons”: a phenomenon in which entities or individuals free-ride on shared resources, depleting their value or usability for all, resulting in a failure to invest in maintenance, improvement and innovation and in the process contributing negatively to the public interest . Any reimagined model for data governance needs to acknowledge this risk, and build in methods and processes to avoid a tragedy of the commons and ensure “data sustainability.” As further described below we believe that sustainability can best be achieved through a membership model.
  • Tackling Data Asymmetries and Re-Distribution of Responsibilities: Everyone is a participant in today’s “data commons,” but not all stakeholders benefit equally. One way to ensure the sustainability of a data commons is to require that larger players—e.g., the most profitable platforms, and other entities that disproportionately benefit from network effects—assume greater responsibilities to maintain the commons. These responsibilities can take many forms—financial, technical know-how, regulatory or legal prowess—and will vary by entity and each entity’s specialization. The general idea is that all stakeholders should have equal rights and access—but some will have greater responsibilities and may be required to contribute more.
  • Independent Trustees and Strong Engagement: Who should govern the data as a commons? Another way to avoid a tragedy of the commons is to ensure that a clear set of rules, principles and guidelines determine what is acceptable (and not), and what constitutes fair play and reasonable data access and use. These guidelines should be designed and administered by independent trustees, whose responsibilities, powers, terms and selection mechanisms are clearly defined and bounded. The trustees should be drawn from across geographies and sectors, representing as wide a range of interests and expertise as possible.In addition, trustees should steer responsible data access in a manner that is informed by input from experts, stakeholders, data subjects, and intended beneficiaries, using innovative ways of engagement and deliberations.
  • Inclusion and Protection: A data trust designed for the commons must “work” for all and especially the most vulnerable and marginalized among us. The identity of some people and communities is inextricably linked to location and, therefore, requires us to be especially mindful of the risks of abuse for such communities. How can we prevent surveillance or bias against indigenous groups, for example? Equally important, how can we empower communities with more understanding of and voice in how data is collected and used about their place? Such communities are front-and-center in the design of the Trust and its governance….(More)”.

The Tragedy of Climate Change


Essay by Bryan Doerries: “How terrible it is to know when, in the end, knowing gains you nothing,” laments the blind prophet Tiresias in Sophocles’ Oedipus the King. Oedipus had summoned him to reveal the source of the pestilence and ecological disaster ravaging Thebes. But Tiresias knew that the king would reject the truth. Today’s climate scientists and epidemiologists can relate.

Like Tiresias, modern-day scientists know where the planet is headed and why. They found out not through prophecies, but through countless double-blind experiments, randomized trials, and rigorous peer review. Their evidence is unimpeachable, and the consensus among them is overwhelming. But their secular augury cannot seem to overcome the willful indifference of politicians or the public. Knowing gains them nothing, because so few are listening.

If there is a way for scientists to get through to people and their leaders, the key will be to change not what they say, but how they say it. The language of science is dispassionate by design. By contrast, the manifold crises our planet faces are urgent and intense, and the individual and collective decisions that are fueling those crises have high emotional and ethical stakes. A virulent pandemic has taken the lives of three million people. The Earth is in the throes of a sixth mass extinction. And the problems are set to escalate.

We need a language to convey the gravity and complexity of the global tragedy that is unfolding, and the ancient Greeks supply it. Their tragedies are stories of people learning too late (usually by milliseconds). Their characters doggedly pursue what they believe to be right, barely comprehending the forces they face – chance, fate, habits, governments, gods, the weather. By the time they do, the characters have unwittingly made an irreversible – and devastating – mistake.

For centuries, Greek tragedies have been viewed as pessimistic expressions of a fatalistic society, which depict the futility of fighting destiny. But, for the Greeks, the effect of these stories may have been counterintuitive. By showing people just how narrow and fleeting their power to determine their own future was, the tragedies discouraged apathy. Highlighting how devastating self-delusion can be encouraged awareness. And providing the language for describing difficult experiences enhanced agency….(More)”

Open data for improved land governance


Guide by the Land Portal: “This Open Up Guide on Land Governance is a resource  aimed to be used by governments from developing countries to collect and release land-related data to improve data quality, availability, accessibility and use for improved citizen engagement, decision making and innovation. It sets out:

  1. Key datasets for land management accountability, and how they should be collected, stored, shared and published for improving land governance and transparency;
  2. Good data policies and frameworks, including metadata, standards and governance frameworks if available;
  3. Existing gaps or challenges in the policies and frameworks; and
  4. Use cases from real-life examples to illustrate the potential impact and transformation this type of data can provide in local contexts.

The Open Up Guide has been prepared for use by national and local government agencies with a mandate for or an interest in making their land governance data open and available for others to re-use. Land governance data generally comprises the data and information that agencies collect as they carry out their core land administration functions of land tenure, use, development and value. Some countries already collect and manage their land governance data in open and re-usable formats. Others may be seeking advice on how to start, how to expand their activities or how to test what they do against best practice.

Open land governance data, published in accordance with a government’s law and regulations, provides efficient and transparent government services and enables individuals, communities and businesses to run their lives ethically and with integrity.

The Guide is also intended to assist communities monitoring whether environmental protections are being upheld, and to support rights claims over geographical areas inhabited for generations; and for civil society organisations that can make use of land governance data to understand patterns of land deals, support environmental and social advocacy, and investigate and address corruption….(More)”.

Cooperative AI: machines must learn to find common ground


Paper by Allan Dafoe et al in Nature: “Artificial-intelligence assistants and recommendation algorithms interact with billions of people every day, influencing lives in myriad ways, yet they still have little understanding of humans. Self-driving vehicles controlled by artificial intelligence (AI) are gaining mastery of their interactions with the natural world, but they are still novices when it comes to coordinating with other cars and pedestrians or collaborating with their human operators.

The state of AI applications reflects that of the research field. It has long been steeped in a kind of methodological individualism. As is evident from introductory textbooks, the canonical AI problem is that of a solitary machine confronting a non-social environment. Historically, this was a sensible starting point. An AI agent — much like an infant — must first master a basic understanding of its environment and how to interact with it.

Even in work involving multiple AI agents, the field has not yet tackled the hard problems of cooperation. Most headline results have come from two-player zero-sum games, such as backgammon, chess, Go and poker. Gains in these competitive examples can be made only at the expense of others. Although such settings of pure conflict are vanishingly rare in the real world, they make appealing research projects. They are culturally cherished, relatively easy to benchmark (by asking whether the AI can beat the opponent), have natural curricula (because students train against peers of their own skill level) and have simpler solutions than semi-cooperative games do.

AI needs social understanding and cooperative intelligence to integrate well into society. The coming years might give rise to diverse ecologies of AI systems that interact in rapid and complex ways with each other and with humans: on pavements and roads, in consumer and financial markets, in e-mail communication and social media, in cybersecurity and physical security. Autonomous vehicles or smart cities that do not engage well with humans will fail to deliver their benefits, and might even disrupt stable human relationships…(More)”

Enabling Trusted Data Collaboration in Society


Launch of Public Beta of the Data Responsibility Journey Mapping Tool: “Data Collaboratives, the purpose-driven reuse of data in the public interest, have demonstrated their ability to unlock the societal value of siloed data and create real-world impacts. Data collaboration has been key in generating new insights and action in areas like public healtheducationcrisis response, and economic development, to name a few. Designing and deploying a data collaborative, however, is a complex undertaking, subject to risks of misuse of data as well as missed use of data that could have provided public value if used effectively and responsibly.

Today, The GovLab is launching the public beta of a new tool intended to help Data Stewards — responsible data leaders across sectors — and other decision-makers assess and mitigate risks across the life cycle of a data collaborative. The Data Responsibility Journey is an assessment tool for Data Stewards to identify and mitigate risks, establish trust, and maximize the value of their work. Informed by The GovLab’s long standing research and practice in the field, and myriad consultations with data responsibility experts across regions and contexts, the tool aims to support decision-making in public agencies, civil society organizations, large businesses, small businesses, and humanitarian and development organizations, in particular.

The Data Responsibility Journey guides users through important questions and considerations across the lifecycle of data stewardship and collaboration: Planning, Collecting, Processing, Sharing, Analyzing, and Using. For each stage, users are asked to consider whether important data responsibility issues have been taken into account as part of their implementation strategy. When users flag an issue as in need of more attention, it is automatically added to a customized data responsibility strategy report providing actionable recommendations, relevant tools and resources, and key internal and external stakeholders that could be engaged to help operationalize these data responsibility actions…(More)”.

Theories of Change


Book by Karen Wendt: “Today, it has become strikingly obvious that companies no longer operate in an environment where only risk return and volatility describe the business environment. The business has to deal with volatility plus uncertainty, plus complexity and ambiguity (VUCA): that requires new qualities, competencies, frameworks; and it demands a new mind set to deal with the VUCA environment in investment, funding and financing. This book builds on a new megatrend beyond resilience, called anti-fragility. We have had the black swan  (financial crisis) and the red swan (COVID) – the Bank for International Settlement is preparing for regenerative capitalism, block chain based analysis of financial streams and is aiming to prevent the “Green Swan” – the climate crisis to lead to the next lockdown. In the light of the UN 17 Sustainable Development Goals, what is required, is Theories of Change.

Written by experts working in the fields of sustainable finance, impact investing, development finance, carbon divesting, innovation, scaling finance, impact entrepreneurship, social stock exchanges, alternative currencies, Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs), ledger technologies, civil action, co-creation, impact management, deep learning and transformation leadership, the book begins by analysing existing Theories of Change frameworks from various disciplines and creating a new integrated model – the meta-framework. In turn, it presents insights on creating and using Theories of Change to redirect investment capital to sustainable companies while implementing the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Climate Agreement. Further, it discusses the perspective of planetary boundaries as defined by the Stockholm Resilience Institute, and investigates various aspects of systems, organizations, entrepreneurship, investment and finance that are closely tied to the mission ingrained in the Theory of Change. As it demonstrates, solutions that ensure the parity of profit, people and planet through dynamic change can effectively address the needs of entrepreneurs and business. By exploring these concepts and their application, the book helps create and shape new markets and opportunities….(More)”.