Case Study by Cities of Service: “Mexico City was faced with a massive task: drafting a constitution. Mayor Miguel Ángel Mancera, who oversaw the drafting and adoption of the 212-page document, hoped to democratize the process. He appointed a drafting committee made up of city residents and turned to the Laboratório para la Ciudad (LabCDMX) to engage everyday citizens. LabCDMX conducted a comprehensive survey and employed the online platform Change.org to solicit ideas for the new constitution. Several petitioners without a legal or political background seized on the opportunity and made their voices heard with successful proposals on topics like green space, waterway recuperation, and LGBTI rights in a document that will have a lasting impact on Mexico City’s governance….(More)”.
Crowdsourced reports could save lives when the next earthquake hits
Charlotte Jee at MIT Technology Review: “When it comes to earthquakes, every minute counts. Knowing that one has hit—and where—can make the difference between staying inside a building and getting crushed, and running out and staying alive. This kind of timely information can also be vital to first responders.
However, the speed of early warning systems varies from country to country. In Japan and California, huge networks of sensors and seismic stations can alert citizens to an earthquake. But these networks are expensive to install and maintain. Earthquake-prone countries such as Mexico and Indonesia don’t have such an advanced or widespread system.
A cheap, effective way to help close this gap between countries might be to crowdsource earthquake reports and combine them with traditional detection data from seismic monitoring stations. The approach was described in a paper in Science Advances today.
The crowdsourced reports come from three sources: people submitting information using LastQuake, an app created by the Euro-Mediterranean Seismological Centre; tweets that refer to earthquake-related keywords; and the time and IP address data associated with visits to the EMSC website.
When this method was applied retrospectively to earthquakes that occurred in 2016 and 2017, the crowdsourced detections on their own were 85% accurate. Combining the technique with traditional seismic data raised accuracy to 97%. The crowdsourced system was faster, too. Around 50% of the earthquake locations were found in less than two minutes, a whole minute faster than with data provided only by a traditional seismic network.
When EMSC has identified a suspected earthquake, it sends out alerts via its LastQuake app asking users nearby for more information: images, videos, descriptions of the level of tremors, and so on. This can help assess the level of damage for early responders….(More)”.
Does increased ‘participation’ equal a new-found enthusiasm for democracy?
Blog by Stephen King and Paige Nicol: “With a few months under our belts, 2019 looks unlikely to be the year of a great global turnaround for democracy. The decade of democratic ‘recession’ that Larry Diamond declared in 2015 has dragged on and deepened, and may now be teetering on the edge of becoming a full-blown depression.
The start of each calendar year is marked by the release of annual indices, rankings, and reports on how democracy is faring around the world. 2018 reports from Freedom House and the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) highlighted precipitous declines in civil liberties in long-standing democracies as well as authoritarian states. Some groups, including migrants, women, ethnic and other minorities, opposition politicians, and journalists have been particularly affected by these setbacks. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, the number of journalists murdered nearly doubled last year, while the number imprisoned remained above 250 for the third consecutive year.
Yet, the EIU also found a considerable increase in political participation worldwide. Levels of participation (including voting, protesting, and running for elected office, among other dimensions) increased substantially enough last year to offset falling scores in the other four categories of the index. Based on the methodology used, the rise in political participation was significant enough to prevent a decline in the global overall score for democracy for the first time in three years.
Though this development could give cause for optimism we believe it could also raise new concerns.
In Zimbabwe, Sudan, and Venezuela we see people who, through desperation and frustration, have taken to the streets – a form of participation which has been met with brutal crackdowns. Time has yet to tell what the ultimate outcome of these protests will be, but it is clear that governments with autocratic tendencies have more – and cheaper – tools to monitor, direct, control, and suppress participation than ever before.
Elsewhere, we see a danger of people becoming dislocated and disenchanted with democracy, as their representatives fail to take meaningful action on the issues that matter to them. In the UK Parliament, as Brexit discussions have become increasingly polarised and fractured along party political and ideological lines, Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt warned that there was a threat of social unrest if Parliament was seen to be frustrating the ‘will of the people.’
While we see enhanced participation as crucial to just and fair societies, it alone will not be the silver bullet that saves democracy. Whether this trend becomes a cause for hope or concern will depend on three factors: who is participating, what form does participation take, and how is participation received by those with power?…(More)”.
The global South is changing how knowledge is made, shared and used
Robert Morrell at The Conversation: “Globalisation and new technology have changed the ways that knowledge is made, disseminated and consumed. At the push of a button, one can find articles or sources from all over the world. Yet the global knowledge economy is still marked by its history.
The former colonial nations of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries – the rich countries of Europe and North America which are collectively called the global North (normally considered to include the West and the first world, the North contains a quarter of the world’s population but controls 80% of income earned) – are still central in the knowledge economy. But the story is not one simply of Northern dominance. A process of making knowledge in the South is underway.
European colonisers encountered many sophisticated and complex knowledge systems among the colonised. These had their own intellectual workforces, their own environmental, geographical, historical and medical sciences. They also had their own means of developing knowledge. Sometimes the colonisers tried to obliterate these knowledges.
In other instances colonisers appropriated local knowledge, for instance in agriculture, fisheries and mining. Sometimes they recognised and even honoured other knowledge systems and intellectuals. This was the case among some of the British in India, and was the early form of “Orientalism”, the study of people and cultures from the East.
In the past few decades, there’s been more critique of global knowledge inequalities and the global North’s dominance. There have also been shifts in knowledge production patterns; some newer disciplines have stepped away from old patterns of inequality.
These issues are examined in a new book, Knowledge and Global Power: Making new sciences in the South (published by Wits University Press), which I co-authored with Fran Collyer, Raewyn Connell
OECD survey reveals many people unhappy with public services and benefits
Report by OECD: “Many people in OECD countries believe public services and social benefits are inadequate and hard to reach. More than half say they do not receive their fair share of benefits given the taxes they pay, and two-thirds believe others get more than they deserve. Nearly three out of four people say they want their government to do more to protect their social and economic security.
These are among the findings of a new OECD survey, “Risks that Matter”, which asked over 22,000 people aged 18 to 70 years old in 21 countries about their worries and concerns and how well they think their government helps them tackle social and economic risks.
This nationally representative survey finds that falling ill and not being able to make ends meet are often at the top of people’s lists of immediate concerns. Making ends meet is a particularly common worry for those on low incomes and in countries that were hit hard by the financial crisis. Older people are most often worried about their health, while younger people are frequently concerned with securing adequate housing. When asked about the longer-term, across all countries, getting by in old age is the most commonly cited worry.
The survey reveals a dissatisfaction with current social policy. Only a minority are satisfied with access to services like health care, housing, and long-term care. Many believe the government would not be able to provide a proper safety net if they lost their income due to job loss, illness or old age. More than half think they would not be able to easily access public benefits if they needed them.
“This is a wake-up call for policy makers,” said OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría. “OECD countries have some of the most advanced and generous social protection systems in the world. They spend, on average, more than one-fifth of their GDP on social policies. Yet, too many people feel they cannot count fully on their government when they need help. A better understanding of the factors driving this perception and why people feel they are struggling is essential to making social protection more effective and efficient. We must restore trust and confidence in government, and promote equality of opportunity.”
In every country surveyed except Canada, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands, most people say that their government does not incorporate the views of people like them when designing social policy. In a number of countries, including Greece, Israel, Lithuania, Portugal and Slovenia, this share rises to more than two-thirds of respondents. This sense of not being part of the policy debate increases at higher levels of education and income, while feelings of injustice are stronger among those from high-income households.
Public perceptions of fairness are worrying. More than half of respondents say they do not receive their fair share of benefits given the taxes they pay, a share that rises to three quarters or more in Chile, Greece, Israel and Mexico. At the same time, people are calling for more help from government. In almost all countries, more than half of respondents say they want the government to do more for their economic and social security. This is especially the case for older respondents and those on low incomes.
Across countries, people are worried about financial security in old age, and most are willing to pay more to support public pension systems… (More)”.
State Capability, Policymaking and the Fourth Industrial Revolution
Demos Helsinki: “The world as we know it is built on the structures of the industrial era – and these structures are falling apart. Yet the vision of a new, sustainable and fair post-industrial society remains unclear. This discussion paper is the result of a collaboration between a group of
In the discussion paper, we set out to explore what the main opportunities and concerns that accompany the Fourth Industrial Revolution for policymaking and knowledge systems are particularly in middle-income countries. Overall, middle-income countries are home to five billion of the world’s seven billion people and 73 per cent of the world’s poor people; they represent about one-third of the global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and are major engines of global growth (World Bank 2018).
The paper is co-produced with Capability (Finland), Demos Helsinki (Finland), HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation (Switzerland), Politics & Ideas (global), Southern Voice (global), UNESCO Montevideo (Uruguay) and Using Evidence (Canada).
The guiding questions for this paper are:
– What are the critical elements of the Fourth Industrial Revolution?
– What does the literature say about the impact of this revolution on societies and economies, and in particular on middle-income countries?
– What are the implications of the Fourth Industrial Revolution for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in middle-income countries?
– What does the literature say about the challenges for governance and the ways knowledge can inform policy during the Fourth Industrial Revolution
Full discussion paper: “State Capability, Policymaking and the Fourth Industrial Revolution: Do Knowledge Systems Matter?”
…
Democracy Beyond Voting and Protests
Sasha Fisher at Project Syndicate: “For over a decade now, we have witnessed more elections and, simultaneously, less democracy. According to Bloomberg, elections have been occurring more frequently around the world. Yet Freedom House finds that some 110 countries have experienced declines in political and civil rights over the past 13 years.
As democracy declines, so does our sense of community. In the United States, this is evidenced by a looming loneliness epidemicand the rapid disappearance of civic institutions such as churches, eight of which close every day. And though these trends are global in nature, the US exemplifies them in the extreme.
This is no coincidence. As Alexis de Tocqueville pointed out in the 1830s, America’s founders envisioned a country governed not by shared values, but by self-interest. That vision has since defined America’s institutions, and fostered a hyper-individualistic society.
Growing distrust in governing institutions has fueled a rise in authoritarian populist movements around the world. Citizens are demanding individual economic security and retreating into an isolationist mentality
And yet we know that “user engagement” works, as shown by countless studies and human experiences. For example, an evaluation conducted in Uganda found that the more citizens participated in the design of health programs, the more the perception of the health-care system improved. And in Indonesia, direct citizen involvement in government decision-making has led to higher satisfaction with government services
While the Western world suffers from over-individualization, the most notable governance and economic innovations are taking place in the Global South. In Rwanda, for example, the government has introduced policies to encourage grassroots solutions that strengthen citizens’ sense of community and shared accountability. Through monthly community-service meetings, families and individuals work together to build homes for the needy, fix roads, and pool funds to invest in better farming practices and equipment.
Imagine if over 300 million Americans convened every month for a similar purpose. There would suddenly be billions more citizen hours invested in neighbor-to-neighbor interaction and citizen action.
This was one of the main effects of the Village Savings and Loan Associations that originated in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Within communities, members have access to loans to start small businesses and save for a rainy day. The model works because it leverages neighbor-to-neighbor accountability. Likewise, from Haiti to Liberia to Burundi and beyond, community-based health systems have proven effective precisely because health workers know their neighbors and their needs. Community health workers go from home to home, checking in on pregnant mothers and making sure they are cared for. Each of these solutions uses and strengthens communal accountability through shared engagement – not traditional vertical accountability lines.
If we believe in the democratic principle that governments must be accountable to citizens, we should build systems that hold us accountable to each other – and we must engage beyond elections and protests. We must usher in a new era of community-driven democracy – power must be decentralized and placed in the hands of families and communities.
When we achieve community-driven democracy, we will engage with one another and with our governments – not just on special occasions, but continuously, because our democracy and freedom depend on us….(More)” (See also Index on Trust in Institutions)
How Tech Utopia Fostered Tyranny
Jon Askonas at The New Atlantis: “The rumors spread like wildfire: Muslims were secretly lacing a Sri Lankan village’s food with sterilization drugs. Soon, a video circulated that appeared to show a Muslim shopkeeper admitting to drugging his customers — he had misunderstood the question that was angrily put to him. Then all hell broke loose. Over a several-day span, dozens of mosques and Muslim-owned shops and homes were burned down across multiple towns. In one home, a young journalist was
Mob violence is an old phenomenon, but the tools encouraging it, in this case, were not. As the New York Times reported in April, the rumors were spread via Facebook, whose newsfeed algorithm prioritized high-engagement content, especially videos. “Designed to maximize user time on site,” as the Times article describes, the newsfeed algorithm “promotes whatever wins the most attention. Posts that tap into negative, primal emotions like anger or fear, studies have found, produce the highest engagement, and so proliferate.” On Facebook in Sri Lanka, posts with incendiary rumors had among the highest engagement rates, and so were among the most highly promoted content on the platform. Similar cases of mob violence have taken place in India, Myanmar, Mexico, and elsewhere, with misinformation spread mainly through Facebook and the messaging tool WhatsApp.
Follow The New AtlantisThis is in spite of Facebook’s decision in January 2018 to tweak its algorithm, apparently to prevent the kind of manipulation we saw in the 2016 U.S. election, when posts and election ads originating from Russia reportedly showed up in newsfeeds of up to 126 million American Facebook users. The company explained that the changes to its algorithm will mean that newsfeeds will be “showing more posts from friends and family and updates that spark conversation,” and “less public content, including videos and other posts from publishers or businesses.” But these changes, which Facebook had tested out in countries like Sri Lanka in the previous year, may actually have exacerbated the problem — which is that incendiary content, when posted by friends and family, is guaranteed to “spark conversation” and therefore to be prioritized in newsfeeds. This is because “misinformation is almost always more interesting than the truth,” as Mathew Ingram provocatively put it in the Columbia Journalism Review.
How did we get here, from Facebook’s mission to “give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together”? Riot-inducing “fake news” and election meddling are obviously far from what its founders intended for the platform. Likewise, Google’s founders surely did not build their search engine with the intention of its being censored in China to suppress free speech, and yet, after years of refusing this demand from Chinese leadership, Google has recently relented rather than pull their search engine from China entirely. And YouTube’s creators surely did not intend their feature that promotes “trending” content to help clickbait conspiracy-theory videos go viral.
These outcomes — not merely unanticipated by the companies’ founders but outright opposed to their intentions — are not limited to social media. So far, Big Tech companies have presented issues of incitement, algorithmic radicalization, and “fake news” as merely bumps on the road of progress, glitches and bugs to be patched over. In fact, the problem goes deeper, to fundamental questions of human nature. Tools based on the premise that access to information will only enlighten us and social connectivity will only make us more humane have instead fanned conspiracy theories, information bubbles, and social fracture. A tech movement spurred by visions of libertarian empowerment and progressive uplift has instead fanned a global resurgence of populism and authoritarianism.
Despite the storm of criticism, Silicon Valley has still failed to recognize in these abuses a sharp rebuke of its sunny view of human nature. It remains naïvely blind to how its own aspirations for social engineering are on a spectrum with the tools’ “unintended” uses by authoritarian regimes and nefarious actors
Index: Trust in Institutions 2019
By Michelle Winowatan, Andrew J. Zahuranec, Andrew Young, Stefaan Verhulst
The Living Library Index – inspired by the Harper’s Index – provides important statistics and highlights global trends in governance innovation. This installment focuses on trust in institutions.
Please share any additional, illustrative statistics on open data, or other issues at the nexus of technology and governance, with us at [email protected]
Global Trust in Public Institutions
- Percentage of citizens globally with trust in institutions: 52% – 2019
- Most trusted institution globally: United Nations (59%) – 2019
- Global trust in NGOs: 56% – 2019
- Percentage of people around the world who trust their government: 47% – 2019
- Countries with the lowest trust in their public institutions: Russia (29%), Japan (39%), Spain (40%), Ireland (42%), and United Kingdom: 43% – 2019
- Most Trusted Institution in Latin America: The Church (65%) – 2017
Trust in Government
United States
- Americans who say their democracy is working at least “somewhat well:” 58% – 2018
- Number who believe sweeping changes to their government are needed: 61% – 2018
- Percentage of Americans expressing faith in election system security: 45% – 2018
- Percentage of Americans expressing an overarching trust in government: 40% – 2019
- How Americans would rate the trustworthiness of Congress: 4.1 out of 10 – 2017
- The judicial system: 5.2 out of 10 – 2017
- The civil service: 5.4 out of 10 – 2017
- The police: 6.2 out of 10 – 2017
- Number who have confidence elected officials act in the best interests of the public: 25% – 2018
- Amount who trust the federal government to do what is right “just about always or most of the time”: 18% – 2017
- Americans with trust and confidence in the federal government to handle domestic problems: 2 in 5 – 2018
- International problems: 1 in 2 – 2018
- US institution with highest amount of confidence to act in the best interests of the public: The Military (80%) – 2018
- Most favorably viewed level of government: Local (67%) – 2018
- Most favorably viewed federal agency: National Park Service (83% favorable) – 2018
- Least favorable federal agency: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (47% unfavorable) – 2018
United Kingdom
- Overall trust in government: 42% – 2019
- Number who think the country is headed in the “wrong direction:” 7 in 10 – 2018
- Those who have trust in politicians: 17% – 2018
- Amount who feel unrepresented in politics: 61% – 2019
- Amount who feel that their standard of living will get worse over the next year: Nearly 4 in 10 – 2019
- Trust the national government handling of personal data:
- Seeking consent when it comes to data collection: Fewer than 1 in 3 – 2018
- Being transparent about how it is used: 1 in 4 – 2018
- Protecting personal data: Fewer than 1 in 3 – 2018
- Encrypting data: Fewer than 1 in 3 – 2018
- Managing data in the source’s best interests: Fewer than 1 in 3 – 2018
European Union
- Public trust in the European Union: 59% – 2018
- Citizens who are optimistic about the future of the European Union: 66% – 2018
- Most trusted institution in the European Union: European Parliament (50%) – 2018
- Highest level of trust in the European Parliament: Sweden (71%) – 2018
- Lowest level of trust in the European Parliament: Greece (39%) – 2018
- Highest source of concern about the internet during the pre-election period: Disinformation and Misinformation on the Internet (almost 3 in 4 expressed concerns) – 2018
- Country with the highest concern: Spain and Greece (84%) – 2018
- Country with the lowest concern: Estonia (56%) – 2018
- Overall Concern for elections being manipulated through cyberattacks: 61% – 2018
- Highest Concern: Spain (74%) – 2018
- Lowest Concern: Estonia (42%) – 2018
- Most confident their country was doing what was needed to prevent illegal or fraudulent election activities: Finland (88%) – 2018
- Least confidence: Bulgaria (31%) – 2018
- Number of EU member-states satisfied with free and fair elections in their country: 27 – 2018
- Number of EU member-states dissatisfied with free and fair elections 1 (Bulgaria) – 2018
- Europeans who are convinced that the EU is a secure place to live in: 7 in 10, declining since 2015 – 2018
- EU citizens trust in the European national governments: 49% – 2018
- EU countries with the highest trust in government: Luxembourg (almost 3 in 4) – 2018
- EU countries with the lowest trust in government: Greece (about 1 in 10) – 2018
- Those who think that the national authorities are doing enough to combat terrorism: 6 in 10 – 2018
- Most trusted actor to address corruption: Police – 2017
- France: 6.1 out of 10 – 2017
- Germany: 6.8 out of 10 – 2017
- Italy: 5.1 out of 10 – 2017
- Slovenia: 5.9 out of 10 – 2017
- United Kingdom: 5.9 out of 10 – 2017
- Those who are confident that justice always prevails over injustice in their country: 39% – 2017
- Support for the independence of European courts and judges: almost 1 in 2 – 2018
- General public who think the independence of European courts and judges is good: 56% – 2018
Africa
- Trust in government across Africa: 57% – 2016
- Most trusted institutional actor across Africa: Religious Leaders (72%) – 2016
- Least trusted: Opposition Party (36%) – 2016
- Country with highest level of trust in the state (president or prime minister, army and police): Niger (86%) – 2016
- Lowest: Nigeria (31%) – 2016
- Highest trust in the courts: Niger (82%) – 2016
- Lowest: Madagascar (29%) – 2016
- Highest Trust in Parliament: Namibia (74%) – 2016
- Lowest: Nigeria (25%) – 2016
Latin America
- Confidence in government across Latin America: Only 1 in 4 trust their leaders – 2018
- Highest confidence in government: Nicaragua (42%) – 2017
- Lowest confidence in government: Brazil (8%) – 2017
- Highest confidence in the legislature: Venezuela (37%) – 2017
- Lowest confidence in the legislature: Paraguay (10%) – 2017
- Highest Confidence in Political Parties: Uruguay (25%) – 2017
- Lowest Confidence in Political Parties: Brazil (7%) – 2017
- Dissatisfaction with democracy: 13 in 20 – 2017
- Confidence in political parties: 3 in 20 – 2017
- Overall Trust in the Judiciary: 34% – 2018
Other
- Most trusted institution in China: Government (86%) – 2019
- What the Chinese public considers to be the largest problem facing the country: Corrupt Officials (49%) – 2016
- Number of people who trust their government in India: 17 in 20 – 2017
- Canada: about 2 in 3 – 2017
- Russia: about 2 in 3 – 2017
- Mexico: less than 1 in 5 – 2017
- Lebanon: 3 in 20 – 2017
Trust in Media
- Percentage of people around the world who trust the media: 47% – 2019
- Rating of news trustworthiness in the United States: 4.5 out of 10 – 2017
- In South Korea: 4.0 out of 10 – 2017
- Number of citizens who trust the press across the European Union: Almost 1 in 2 – 2019
- France: 3.9 out of 10 – 2019
- Germany: 4.8 out of 10 – 2019
- Italy: 3.8 out of 10 – 2019
- Slovenia: 3.9 out of 10 – 2019
- Percentage of European Union citizens who trust the radio: 59% – 2017
- EU citizens who do not actively participate in political discussions on social networks because they don’t trust online social networks: 3 in 10 – 2018
- Those who are confident that the average person in the United Kingdom can tell real news from ‘fake news’: 3 in 10 – 2018
Trust in Business
- Global trust in business: 56% – 2019
- Number of Americans who believe pharmaceutical companies have too much power: More than 4 in 5 – 2018
- Banks and Financial Institutions: Almost 3 in 4 – 2018
- Advertisers: Over 7 in 10 – 2018
- Energy Industry: Over 11 in 20 – 2018
- Technology Companies: 11 in 20 – 2018
- The most trusted business sector globally: Technology (78%) – 2019
- Americans who trust technology companies to “do what is right:” More than 17 in 20 – 2018
- British citizens who feel technology companies will seek their consent on data collection: 25% trust; 27% distrust – 2018
- British citizens who feel technology companies will be transparent on how they use data: 23% trust; 33% distrust – 2018
- British citizens who feel technology companies will protect personal data: 26% trust; 29% distrust – 2018
- British citizens who trust technology companies to encrypt their personal data: 31% trust; 25% distrust – 2018
- Least trusted business sector globally: Financial Services (57%) – 2019
- Trustworthiness of the Financials Services industry as rated by French citizens: 3.9 out of 10 – 2017
- Germans: 4.5 out of 10 – 2017
- Italians: 3.5 out of 10 – 2017
- Slovenians: 4.5 out of 10 – 2017
- South Koreans: 5.1 out of 10 – 2017
- Brits: 4.9 out of 10 – 2017
- Americans: 5.6 out of 10 – 2017
- Millennials who trust in companies to keep their personal information private: 44%, the highest compared to other generations – 2016
- Percentage of American citizens confident that business leaders will act in the best interests of the public: 45% – 2018
- Professions least trusted to tell the truth in the United Kingdom: Advertising Executives (16%) – 2018
Sources
- 1. Many unhappy with
current political system. Pew Research Center, 2017. - Afrobarometer: Round 6. Afrobarometer. 2016.
- Ambitious SDG goal confronts challenging realities: Access to justice is still elusive for many Africans. Afrobarometer, 2017.
- Chinese Public Sees More Powerful Role in World, Names U.S. as Top Threat. Pew Research Center, 2016.
- Confiana en los partidos políticos cae nueve puntos porcentuales desde 2013, se acentúa la crisis de respresentación. Latinobarometro, 2017.
- Confianza en el congreso cae doce puntos porcentuales desde 2010 en América Latina. La crisis de representación se acentúa. Latinobarometro, 2017.
- Corruption. European Commission, 2017.
- Data Security: Not a Big Concern for Millennials. Gallup, 2016.
- Desde 2010 la satisfacción con la democracia en América Latina ha caído 14 puntos porcentuales. Latinobarometro, 2017.
- Edelman Trust Barometer. Edelman, 2019.
- Eurobarometer interactive: And, for each of them, please tell me if you tend to trust it or not to trust it? The European Parliament. European Commission, 2018.
- Eurobarometer Interactive: I would like to ask you a question about how much trust you have in certain media and institutions. For the following media and institutions, please tell me if you tend to trust it or tend not to trust it: Radio. European Commission, 2017.
- Eurobarometer Interactive: I would like to ask you a question about how much trust you have in certain media and institutions. For the following media and institutions, please tell me if you tend to trust it or tend not to trust it: Television. European Commission, 2017.
- Eurobarometer Interactive: I would like to ask you a question about how much trust you have in certain media and institutions. For the following media and institutions, please tell me if you tend to trust it or tend not to trust it: The Internet. European Commission, 2017.
- Eurobarometer Interactive: I would like to ask you a question about how much trust you have in certain media and institutions. For the following media and institutions, please tell me if you tend to trust it or tend not to trust it: Online social networks. European Commission, 2017.
- Eurobarometer: Democracy and elections. European Commission, 2018.
- European Parliament the most trusted EU institution. European Parliament, 2018.
- Fairness, inequality and inter-generational mobility. European Commission, 2018.
- Ipsos MORI Almanac 2018. Ipsos MORI, 2018.
- Job performance of MPs, local
councillors : Are representatives serving voters or themselves? Afrobarometer, 2016. - La confianza en los gobiernos latinoamericanos alcanza su nivel más bajo desde 2004. Latinobarometro, 2017.
- Latin American Economic Outlook 2018: Rethinking Institutions for Development. OECD Development Centre, 2018.
- Perceived independence of the national justice systems in the EU among companies. European Commission, 2018.
- Perceived independence of the national justice systems in the EU among the general public. European Commission, 2018.
- The State of the Nation. Ipsos MORI, 2018.
- Trust in Government. Gallup Poll, 2018.
- Trust in the Digital Era. Pew Research Center, 2018.
- Trust in the military exceeds trust in other institutions in Western Europe and U.S. Pew Research Center, 2018.
- Trust, Facts, and Democracy: 1. Democracy and government, the U.S. political system, elected officials and governmental institutions. Pew Research Centre, 2018.
- Trustlab. OECD, 2017.
Inside the world’s ‘what works’ teams
Jen Gold at What Works Blog: “There’s a small but growing band of government teams around the world dedicated to making experiments happen. The Cabinet Office’s What Works Team, set up in 2013, was the first of its kind. But you’ll now find them in Canada, the US, Finland, Australia, Colombia, and the UAE.
All of these teams work across government to champion the testing and evaluation of new approaches to public service delivery. This blog takes a look at the many ways in which we’re striving to make experimentation the norm in our governments.
Unsurprisingly we’re all operating in very different contexts. Some teams were set up in response to central requirements for greater experimentation. Take Canada, for instance. In 2016 the Treasury Board directed departments and agencies to devote a fixed proportion of programme funds to “experimenting with new approaches” (building on Prime Minister Trudeau’s earlier instruction to Ministers). An Innovation and Experimentation Team was then set up in the Treasury Board to provide some central support.
Finland’s Experimentation Office, based in the Prime Minister’s Office, is in a similar position. The team supports the delivery of Prime Minister Juha Sipilä’s 2016 national action plan that calls for “a culture of experimentation” in public services and a series of flagship policy experiments.
Others, like the US Office of Evaluation Sciences (OES) and the Behavioural Economics Team of the Australian Government (BETA), grew out of political interest in using behavioural science experiments in public policy. But these teams now run experiments in a much broader set of areas.
What unites us is a focus on helping public servants generate and use new evidence in policy decisions and service delivery