Paper by Linnet Taylor, Siddharth Peter de Souza, Aaron Martin, and Joan López Solano: “The field of data justice has been evolving to take into account the role of data in powering the field of artificial intelligence (AI). In this paper we review the main conceptual bases for governing data and AI: the market-based approach, the personal–non-personal data distinction and strategic sovereignty. We then analyse how these are being operationalised into practical models for governance, including public data trusts, data cooperatives, personal data sovereignty, data collaboratives, data commons approaches and indigenous data sovereignty. We interrogate these models’ potential for just governance based on four benchmarks which we propose as a reformulation of the Data Justice governance agenda identified by Taylor in her 2017 framework. Re-situating data justice at the intersection of data and AI, these benchmarks focus on preserving and strengthening public infrastructures and public goods; inclusiveness; contestability and accountability; and global responsibility. We demonstrate how they can be used to test whether a governance approach will succeed in redistributing power, engaging with public concerns and creating a plural politics of AI…(More)”.
Why Canada needs to embrace innovations in democracy
Article by Megan Mattes and Joanna Massie: “Although one-off democratic innovations like citizens’ assemblies are excellent approaches for tackling a big issue, more embedded types of innovations could be a powerful tool for maintaining an ongoing connection between public interest and political decision-making.
Innovative approaches to maintaining an ongoing, meaningful connection between people and policymakers are underway. In New Westminster, B.C., a standing citizen body called the Community Advisory Assembly has been convened since January 2024 to January 2025.
These citizen advisers are selected through random sampling to ensure the assembly’s demographic makeup is aligned with the overall population.
Over the last year, members have both given input on policy ideas initiated by New Westminster city council and initiated conversations on their own policy priorities. Notes from these discussions are passed on to council and city staff to consider their incorporation into policymaking.
The question is whether the project will live beyond its pilot.
Another similar and hopeful democratic innovation, the City of Toronto’s Planning Review Panel, ran for two terms before it was cancelled. In contrast, both the Paris city council and the state government of Ostbelgien (East Belgium) have convened permanent citizen advisory bodies to work alongside elected officials.
While public opinion is only one ingredient in government decision-making, ensuring democratic innovations are a standard component of policymaking could go a long way to enshrining public dialogue as a valuable governance tool.
Whether through annual participatory budgeting exercises or a standing citizen advisory body, democratic innovations can make public priorities a key focus of policy and restore government accountability to citizens…(More)”.
Information Ecosystems and Troubled Democracy
Report by the Observatory on Information and Democracy: “This inaugural meta-analysis provides a critical assessment of the role of information ecosystems in the Global North and Global Majority World, focusing on their relationship with information integrity (the quality of public discourse), the fairness of political processes, the protection of media freedoms, and the resilience of public institutions.
The report addresses three thematic areas with a cross-cutting theme of mis- and disinformation:
- Media, Politics and Trust;
- Artificial Intelligence, Information Ecosystems and Democracy;
- and Data Governance and Democracy.
The analysis is based mainly on academic publications supplemented by reports and other materials from different disciplines and regions (1,664 citations selected among a total corpus of over +2700 resources aggregated). The report showcases what we can learn from landmark research on often intractable challenges posed by rapid changes in information and communication spaces…(More)”.
What Could Citizens’ Assemblies Do for American Politics?
Essay by Nick Romeo: “Last July, an unusual letter arrived at Kathryn Kundmueller’s mobile home, in central Oregon. It invited her to enter a lottery that would select thirty residents of Deschutes County to deliberate for five days on youth homelessness—a visible and contentious issue in an area where the population and cost of living have spiked in recent years. Those chosen would be paid for their time—almost five hundred dollars—and asked to develop specific policy recommendations.
Kundmueller was being invited to join what is known as a citizens’ assembly. These gatherings do what most democracies only pretend to: trust normal people to make decisions on difficult policy questions. Many citizens’ assemblies follow a basic template. They impanel a random but representative cross-section of a population, give them high-quality information on a topic, and ask them to work together to reach a decision. In Europe, such groups have helped spur reform of the Irish constitution in order to legalize abortion, guided an Austrian pharmaceutical heiress on how to give away her wealth, and become a regular part of government in Paris and Belgium. Though still rare in America, the model reflects the striking idea that fundamental problems of politics—polarization, apathy, manipulation by special interests—can be transformed through radically direct democracy.
Kundmueller, who is generally frustrated by politics, was intrigued by the letter. She liked the prospect of helping to shape local policy, and the topic of housing insecurity had a particular resonance for her. As a teen-ager, following a falling-out with her father, she spent months bouncing between friends’ couches in Vermont. When she moved across the country to San Jose, after college, she lived in her car for a time while she searched for a stable job. She worked in finance but became disillusioned; now in her early forties, she ran a small housecleaning business. She still thought about living in a van and renting out her mobile home to save money…(More)”.
Sortition: Past and Present
Introduction to the Journal of Sortition: “Since ancient times sortition (random selection by lot) has been used both to distribute political office and as a general prophylactic against factionalism and corruption in societies as diverse as classical-era Athens and the Most Serene Republic of Venice. Lotteries have also been employed for the allocation of scarce goods such as social housing and school places to eliminate bias and ensure just distribution, along with drawing lots in circumstances where unpopular tasks or tragic choices are involved (as some situations are beyond rational human decision-making). More recently, developments in public opinion polling using random sampling have led to the proliferation of citizens’ assemblies selected by lot. Some activists have even proposed such bodies as an alternative to elected representatives. The Journal of Sortition benefits from an editorial board with a wide range of expertise and perspectives in this area. In this introduction to the first issue, we have invited our editors to explain why they are interested in sortition, and to outline the benefits (and pitfalls) of the recent explosion of interest in the topic…(More)”.
Theorizing the functions and patterns of agency in the policymaking process
Paper by Giliberto Capano, et al: “Theories of the policy process understand the dynamics of policymaking as the result of the interaction of structural and agency variables. While these theories tend to conceptualize structural variables in a careful manner, agency (i.e. the actions of individual agents, like policy entrepreneurs, policy leaders, policy brokers, and policy experts) is left as a residual piece in the puzzle of the causality of change and stability. This treatment of agency leaves room for conceptual overlaps, analytical confusion and empirical shortcomings that can complicate the life of the empirical researcher and, most importantly, hinder the ability of theories of the policy process to fully address the drivers of variation in policy dynamics. Drawing on Merton’s concept of function, this article presents a novel theorization of agency in the policy process. We start from the assumption that agency functions are a necessary component through which policy dynamics evolve. We then theorise that agency can fulfil four main functions – steering, innovation, intermediation and intelligence – that need to be performed, by individual agents, in any policy process through four patterns of action – leadership, entrepreneurship, brokerage and knowledge accumulation – and we provide a roadmap for operationalising and measuring these concepts. We then demonstrate what can be achieved in terms of analytical clarity and potential theoretical leverage by applying this novel conceptualisation to two major policy process theories: the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) and the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF)…(More)”.
Digital Governance: Confronting the Challenges Posed by Artificial Intelligence
Book edited by Kostina Prifti, Esra Demir, Julia Krämer, Klaus Heine, and Evert Stamhuis: “This book explores the structure and frameworks of digital governance, focusing on various regulatory patterns, with the aim of tackling the disruptive impact of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. Addressing the various challenges posed by AI technologies, this book explores potential avenues for crafting legal remedies and solutions, spanning liability of AI, platform governance, and the implications for data protection and privacy…(More)”.
Anticipatory Governance: Shaping a Responsible Future
Book edited by Melodena Stephens, Raed Awamleh and Frederic Sicre: “Anticipatory Governance is the systemic process of future shaping built on the understanding that the future is not a continuation of the past or present, thus making foresight a complex task requiring the engagement of the whole of government with its constituents in a constructive and iterative manner to achieve collective intelligence. Effective anticipatory governance amplifies the fundamental properties of agile government to build trust, challenge assumptions, and reach consensus. Moreover, anticipatory governance sets the foundation to adapt to exponential change. This seismic shift in the governance environment should lead to urgent rethinking of the ways and means governments and large corporate players formulate strategies, design processes, develop human capital and shape instiutional culture to achieve public value.
From a long-term multigenerational perspective, anticipatory governance is a key component to ensure guardrails for the future. Systems thinking is needed to harness our collective intelligence, by tapping into knowledge trapped within nations, organizations, and people. Many of the wicked problems governments and corporations are grappling with like artificial intelligence applications and ethics, climate change, refugee migration, education for future skills, and health care for all, require a “system of systems”, or anticipatory governance.
Yet, no matter how much we invest in foresight and shaping the future, we still need an agile government approach to manage unintended outcomes and people’s expectations. Crisis management which begins with listening to weak signals, sensemaking, intelligence management, reputation enhancement, and public value alignment and delivery, is critical. This book dives into the theory and practice of anticipatory governance and sets the agenda for future research…(More)”
Data solidarity: Operationalising public value through a digital tool
Paper by Seliem El-Sayed, Ilona Kickbusch & Barbara Prainsack: “Most data governance frameworks are designed to protect the individuals from whom data originates. However, the impacts of digital practices extend to a broader population and are embedded in significant power asymmetries within and across nations. Further, inequities in digital societies impact everyone, not just those directly involved. Addressing these challenges requires an approach which moves beyond individual data control and is grounded in the values of equity and a just contribution of benefits and risks from data use. Solidarity-based data governance (in short: data solidarity), suggests prioritising data uses over data type and proposes that data uses that generate public value should be actively facilitated, those that generate significant risks and harms should be prohibited or strictly regulated, and those that generate private benefits with little or no public value should be ‘taxed’ so that profits generated by corporate data users are reinvested in the public domain. In the context of global health data governance, the public value generated by data use is crucial. This contribution clarifies the meaning, importance, and potential of public value within data solidarity and outlines methods for its operationalisation through the PLUTO tool, specifically designed to assess the public value of data uses…(More)”.
The Bridging Dictionary
About: “What if generative AI could help us understand people with opposing views better just by showing how they use common words and phrases differently? That’s the deceptively simple-sounding idea behind a new experiment from MIT’s Center for Constructive Communication (CCC).
It’s called the Bridging Dictionary (BD), a research prototype that’s still very much a work in progress – one we hope your feedback will help us improve.
The Bridging Dictionary identifies words and phrases that both reflect and contribute to sharply divergent views in our fractured public sphere. That’s the “dictionary” part. If that’s all it did, we could just call it the “Frictionary.” But the large language model (LLM) that undergirds the BD also suggests less polarized alternatives – hence “bridging.”
In this prototype, research scientist Doug Beeferman and a team at CCC led by Maya Detwiller and Dennis Jen used thousands of transcripts and opinion articles from foxnews.com and msnbc.com as proxies for the conversation on the right and the left. You’ll see the most polarized words and phrases when you sample the BD for yourself, but you can also plug any term of your choosing into the search box. (For a more complete explanation of the methodology behind the BD, see https://bridgingdictionary.org/info/ .)…(More)”.