The path for AI in poor nations does not need to be paved with billions

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Editorial in Nature: “Coinciding with US President Donald Trump’s tour of Gulf states last week, Saudi Arabia announced that it is embarking on a large-scale artificial intelligence (AI) initiative. The proposed venture will have state backing and considerable involvement from US technology firms. It is the latest move in a global expansion of AI ambitions beyond the existing heartlands of the United States, China and Europe. However, as Nature India, Nature Africa and Nature Middle East report in a series of articles on AI in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) published on 21 May (see go.nature.com/45jy3qq), the path to home-grown AI doesn’t need to be paved with billions, or even hundreds of millions, of dollars, or depend exclusively on partners in Western nations or China…, as a News Feature that appears in the series makes plain (see go.nature.com/3yrd3u2), many initiatives in LMICs aren’t focusing on scaling up, but on ‘scaling right’. They are “building models that work for local users, in their languages, and within their social and economic realities”.

More such local initiatives are needed. Some of the most popular AI applications, such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google Gemini, are trained mainly on data in European languages. That would mean that the model is less effective for users who speak Hindi, Arabic, Swahili, Xhosa and countless other languages. Countries are boosting home-grown apps by funding start-up companies, establishing AI education programmes, building AI research and regulatory capacity and through public engagement.

Those LMICs that have started investing in AI began by establishing an AI strategy, including policies for AI research. However, as things stand, most of the 55 member states of the African Union and of the 22 members of the League of Arab States have not produced an AI strategy. That must change…(More)”.

Europe’s dream to wean off US tech gets reality check

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Pieter Haeck and Mathieu Pollet: “..As the U.S. continues to up the ante in questioning transatlantic ties, calls are growing in Europe to reduce the continent’s reliance on U.S. technology in critical areas such as cloud services, artificial intelligence and microchips, and to opt for European alternatives instead.

But the European Commission is preparing on Thursday to acknowledge publicly what many have said in private: Europe is nowhere near being able to wean itself off U.S. Big Tech.

In a new International Digital Strategy the EU will instead promote collaboration with the U.S., according to a draft seen by POLITICO, as well as with other tech players including China, Japan, India and South Korea. “Decoupling is unrealistic and cooperation will remain significant across the technological value chain,” the draft reads. 

It’s a reality check after a year that has seen calls for a technologically sovereign Europe gain significant traction. In December the Commission appointed Finland’s Henna Virkkunen as the first-ever commissioner in charge of tech sovereignty. After few months in office, European Parliament lawmakers embarked on an effort to draft a blueprint for tech sovereignty. 

Even more consequential has been the rapid rise of the so-called Eurostack movement, which advocates building out a European tech infrastructure and has brought together effective voices including competition economist Cristina Caffarra and Kai Zenner, an assistant to key European lawmaker Axel Voss.

There’s wide agreement on the problem: U.S. cloud giants capture over two-thirds of the European market, the U.S. outpaces the EU in nurturing companies for artificial intelligence, and Europe’s stake in the global microchips market has crumbled to around 10 percent. Thursday’s strategy will acknowledge the U.S.’s “superior ability to innovate” and “Europe’s failure to capitalise on the digital revolution.”

What’s missing are viable solutions to the complex problem of unwinding deep-rooted dependencies….(More)”

Reliable data facilitates better policy implementation

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Ganesh Rao and Parul Agarwal: “Across India, state government departments are at the forefront of improving human capabilities through education, health, and nutrition programmes. Their ability to do so effectively depends on administrative (or admin) data1 collected and maintained by their staff. This data is collected as part of regular operations and informs both day-to-day decision-making and long-term policy. While policymaking can draw on (reasonably reliable) sample surveys alone, effective implementation of schemes and services requires accurate individual-level admin data. However, unreliable admin data can be a severe constraint, forcing bureaucrats to rely on intuition, experience, and informed guesses. Improving the reliability of admin data can greatly enhance state capacity, thereby improving governance and citizen outcomes.  

There has been some progress on this front in recent years. For instance, the Jan Dhan-Aadhaar-Mobile (JAM) trinity has significantly improved direct benefit transfer (DBT) mechanisms by ensuring that certain recipient data is reliable. However, challenges remain in accurately capturing the well-being of targeted citizens. Despite significant investments in the digitisation of data collection and management systems, persistent reliability issues undermine the government’s efforts to build a data-driven decision-making culture…

There is growing evidence of serious quality issues in admin data. At CEGIS, we have conducted extensive analyses of admin data across multiple states, uncovering systemic issues in key indicators across sectors and platforms. These quality issues compound over time, undermining both micro-level service delivery and macro-level policy planning. This results in distorted budget allocations, gaps in service provision, and weakened frontline accountability…(More)”.

To Understand Global Migration, You Have to See It First

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Data visualization by The New York Times: “In the maps below, Times Opinion can provide the clearest picture to date of how people move across the globe: a record of permanent migration to and from 181 countries based on a single, consistent source of information, for every month from the beginning of 2019 through the end of 2022. These estimates are drawn not from government records but from the location data of three billion anonymized Facebook users all over the world.

The analysis — the result of new research published on Wednesday from Meta, the University of Hong Kong and Harvard University — reveals migration’s true global sweep. And yes, it excludes business travelers and tourists: Only people who remain in their destination country for more than a year are counted as migrants here.

The data comes with some limitations. Migration to and from certain countries that have banned or restricted the use of Facebook, including China, Iran and Cuba, is not included in this data set, and it’s impossible to know each migrant’s legal status. Nevertheless, this is the first time that estimates of global migration flows have been made publicly available at this scale. The researchers found that from 2019 to 2022, an annual average of 30 million people — approximately one-third of a percent of the world’s population — migrated each year.

If you would like to see the data behind this analysis for yourself, we made an interactive tool that you can use to explore the full data set…(More)”

Engaging Youth on Responsible Data Reuse: 5 Lessons Learnt from a Multi-Country Experiment

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Elena Murray, Moiz Shaikh and Stefaan G. Verhulst: “Young people seeking essential services — like mental health care, education, or public benefits — are often asked to share personal data in order to access the service, without having any say in how it is being collected, shared or used, or why. If young people distrust how their data is being used, they may avoid services or withhold important information, fearing misuse. This can unintentionally widen the very gaps these services aim to close.

To build trust, service providers and policymakers must involve young people in co-designing how their data is collected and used. Understanding their concerns, values, and expectations is key to developing data practices that reflect their needs. Empowering young people to develop the conditions for data re-use and design solutions to their concerns enables digital self determination.

The question is then: what does meaningful engagement actually look like — and how can we get it right?

To answer that question, we engaged four partners in four different countries and conducted:

  • 1000 hours of youth participation, involving more than 70 young people.
  • 12 youth engagement events.
  • Six expert talks and mentorship sessions.

These activities were undertaken as part of the NextGenData project, a year-long global collaboration supported by the Botnar Foundation, that piloted a methodology for youth engagement on responsible data reuse in Moldova, Tanzania, India and Kyrgyzstan.

A key outcome of our work was a youth engagement methodology, which we recently launched. In the below, we reflect on what we learnt — and how we can apply these learnings to ensure that the future of data-driven services both serves the needs of, and is guided by, young people.

Lessons Learnt:…(More)”

A graph illustrating the engagement cycle on data literacy: Foster Data Literacy, Develop Real-World Use Cases, Align with Local Realities, Optimise Participation, Implement Scalable Methodologies
A Cycle for Youth Engagement on Data — NextGenData Project

How randomised trials became big in development economics

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Seán Mfundza Muller, Grieve Chelwa, and Nimi Hoffmann at the Conversation: “…One view of the challenge of development is that it is fundamentally about answering causal questions. If a country adopts a particular policy, will that cause an increase in economic growth, a reduction in poverty or some other improvement in the well-being of citizens?

In recent decades economists have been concerned about the reliability of previously used methods for identifying causal relationships. In addition to those methodological concerns, some have argued that “grand theories of development” are either incorrect or at least have failed to yield meaningful improvements in many developing countries.

Two notable examples are the idea that developing countries may be caught in a poverty trap that requires a “big push” to escape and the view that institutions are key for growth and development.

These concerns about methods and policies provided a fertile ground for randomised experiments in development economics. The surge of interest in experimental approaches in economics began in the early 1990s. Researchers began to use “natural experiments”, where for example random variation was part of a policy rather than decided by a researcher, to look at causation.

But it really gathered momentum in the 2000s, with researchers such as the Nobel awardees designing and implementing experiments to study a wide range of microeconomic questions.

Randomised trials

Proponents of these methods argued that a focus on “small” problems was more likely to succeed. They also argued that randomised experiments would bring credibility to economic analysis by providing a simple solution to causal questions.

These experiments randomly allocate a treatment to some members of a group and compare the outcomes against the other members who did not receive treatment. For example, to test whether providing credit helps to grow small firms or increase their likelihood of success, a researcher might partner with a financial institution and randomly allocate credit to applicants that meet certain basic requirements. Then a year later the researcher would compare changes in sales or employment in small firms that received the credit to those that did not.

Randomised trials are not a new research method. They are best known for their use in testing new medicines. The first medical experiment to use controlled randomisation occurred in the aftermath of the second world war. The British government used it to assess the effectiveness of a drug for tuberculosis treatment.

In the early 20th century and mid-20th century American researchers had used experiments like this to examine the effects of various social policies. Examples included income protection and social housing.

The introduction of these methods into development economics also followed an increase in their use in other areas of economics. One example was the study of labour markets.

Randomised control trials in economics are now mostly used to evaluate the impact of social policy interventions in poor and middle-income countries. Work by the 2019 Nobel awardees – Michael Kremer, Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo – includes experiments in Kenya and India on teacher attendance, textbook provision, monitoring of nurse attendance and the provision of microcredit.

The popularity, among academics and policymakers, of the approach is not only due to its seeming ability to solve methodological and policy concerns. It is also due to very deliberate, well-funded advocacy by its proponents….(More)”.

A World With a Billion Cameras Watching You Is Just Around the Corner

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Liza Lin and Newley Purnell at the Wall Street Journal: “As governments and companies invest more in security networks, hundreds of millions more surveillance cameras will be watching the world in 2021, mostly in China, according to a new report.

The report, from industry researcher IHS Markit, to be released Thursday, said the number of cameras used for surveillance would climb above 1 billion by the end of 2021. That would represent an almost 30% increase from the 770 million cameras today. China would continue to account for a little over half the total.

Fast-growing, populous nations such as India, Brazil and Indonesia would also help drive growth in the sector, the report said. The number of surveillance cameras in the U.S. would grow to 85 million by 2021, from 70 million last year, as American schools, malls and offices seek to tighten security on their premises, IHS analyst Oliver Philippou said.

Mr. Philippou said government programs to implement widespread video surveillance to monitor the public would be the biggest catalyst for the growth in China. City surveillance also was driving demand elsewhere.

“It’s a public-safety issue,” Mr. Philippou said in an interview. “There is a big focus on crime and terrorism in recent years.”

The global security-camera industry has been energized by breakthroughs in image quality and artificial intelligence. These allow better and faster facial recognition and video analytics, which governments are using to do everything from managing traffic to predicting crimes.

China leads the world in the rollout of this kind of technology. It is home to the world’s largest camera makers, with its cameras on street corners, along busy roads and in residential neighborhoods….(More)”.

Government at a Glance 2019

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

OECD Report: “Government at a Glance provides reliable, internationally comparative data on government activities and their results in OECD countries. Where possible, it also reports data for Brazil, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, India, Indonesia, the Russian Federation and South Africa. In many public governance areas, it is the only available source of data. It includes input, process, output and outcome indicators as well as contextual information for each country.

The 2019 edition includes input indicators on public finance and employment; while processes include data on institutions, budgeting practices and procedures, human resources management, regulatory government, public procurement and digital government and open data. Outcomes cover core government results (e.g. trust, inequality reduction) and indicators on access, responsiveness, quality and citizen satisfaction for the education, health and justice sectors.

Governance indicators are especially useful for monitoring and benchmarking governments’ progress in their public sector reforms.Each indicator in the publication is presented in a user-friendly format, consisting of graphs and/or charts illustrating variations across countries and over time, brief descriptive analyses highlighting the major findings conveyed by the data, and a methodological section on the definition of the indicator and any limitations in data comparability….(More)”.

The Rising Threat of Digital Nationalism

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Akash Kapur in the Wall Street Journal: “Fifty years ago this week, at 10:30 on a warm night at the University of California, Los Angeles, the first email was sent. It was a decidedly local affair. A man sat in front of a teleprinter connected to an early precursor of the internet known as Arpanet and transmitted the message “login” to a colleague in Palo Alto. The system crashed; all that arrived at the Stanford Research Institute, some 350 miles away, was a truncated “lo.”

The network has moved on dramatically from those parochial—and stuttering—origins. Now more than 200 billion emails flow around the world every day. The internet has come to represent the very embodiment of globalization—a postnational public sphere, a virtual world impervious and even hostile to the control of sovereign governments (those “weary giants of flesh and steel,” as the cyberlibertarian activist John Perry Barlow famously put it in his Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace in 1996).

But things have been changing recently. Nicholas Negroponte, a co-founder of the MIT Media Lab, once said that national law had no place in cyberlaw. That view seems increasingly anachronistic. Across the world, nation-states have been responding to a series of crises on the internet (some real, some overstated) by asserting their authority and claiming various forms of digital sovereignty. A network that once seemed to effortlessly defy regulation is being relentlessly, and often ruthlessly, domesticated.

From firewalls to shutdowns to new data-localization laws, a specter of digital nationalism now hangs over the network. This “territorialization of the internet,” as Scott Malcomson, a technology consultant and author, calls it, is fundamentally changing its character—and perhaps even threatening its continued existence as a unified global infrastructure.

The phenomenon of digital nationalism isn’t entirely new, of course. Authoritarian governments have long sought to rein in the internet. China has been the pioneer. Its Great Firewall, which restricts what people can read and do online, has served as a model for promoting what the country calls “digital sovereignty.” China’s efforts have had a powerful demonstration effect, showing other autocrats that the internet can be effectively controlled. China has also proved that powerful tech multinationals will exchange their stated principles for market access and that limiting online globalization can spur the growth of a vibrant domestic tech industry.

Several countries have built—or are contemplating—domestic networks modeled on the Chinese example. To control contact with the outside world and suppress dissident content, Iran has set up a so-called “halal net,” North Korea has its Kwangmyong network, and earlier this year, Vladimir Putin signed a “sovereign internet bill” that would likewise set up a self-sufficient Runet. The bill also includes a “kill switch” to shut off the global network to Russian users. This is an increasingly common practice. According to the New York Times, at least a quarter of the world’s countries have temporarily shut down the internet over the past four years….(More)”

African countries are missing the data needed to drive development

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

David Pilling at the Financial Times: “When statisticians decided to track how well African countries were doing in moving towards their 2030 UN sustainable development goals, they discovered a curious thing: no one had the faintest idea. More accurately, on average, African governments keep statistics covering only about a third of the relevant data. To be fair, the goals, which range from eradicating poverty and hunger to creating sustainable cities and communities, are overly complicated and sometimes unquantifiable.

The millennium development goals that they superseded had eight goals with 21 indicators. The SDGs have 17, with 232 indicators. Yet statisticians for the Mo Ibrahim Foundation, which compiled the report, are on to something. African states don’t know enough about their people. 

In this age of mass surveillance, that might seem counterintuitive. Surely governments, not to mention private companies, have too much information on their citizenry? In fact, in many African nations with weak states, big informal economies and undocumented communities, the problem is the reverse. How many people are there in Nigeria? What is the unemployment rate in Zimbabwe? How many people in Kibera, a huge informal settlement in Nairobi, have access to healthcare? The answers to such basic questions are: we don’t really know.  Nigeria last conducted a census in 2006, when the population — a sensitive topic in which religion, regionalism and budget allocations are messily intertwined — came out at 140m. These days it could be 180m or 200m. Or perhaps more. Or less.

President Muhammadu Buhari recently complained that statistics quoted by international bodies, such as those alleging that Nigeria has more people living in absolute poverty than India, were “wild estimates” bearing “little relation to facts on the ground”. The riposte to that is simple. Work out what is happening and do something about it. Likewise, unemployment is hard to define, let alone quantify, in a broken economy such as Zimbabwe’s where cited jobless statistics range from 5 to 95 per cent. Is a struggling subsistence farmer or a street-side hawker jobless or gainfully employed?

For that matter what is the status of a government employee who receives her salary in a useless electronic currency?  According to Seth Berkley, chief executive of the Vaccine Alliance, keeping tabs on unregistered people in the sprawling “slums” of Africa’s increasingly massive megacities, is harder than working out what is going on in isolated villages. If governments do not know whether a person exists it is all too easy to ignore their rights — to healthcare, to education or to the vote. The Mo Ibrahim Foundation found that only eight countries in Africa register more than 90 per cent of births. Tens of millions of people are literally invisible. Mr Ibrahim, a Sudanese billionaire, calls data “the missing SDG”….(More)”