World Bank paper: “…examines the data sources and methodologies used in economic research on corruption by analyzing 339 journal articles published in 2022 that include Journal of Economic Literature codes. The paper identifies the most commonly used data types, sources, and geographical foci, as well as whether studies primarily investigate the causes or consequences of corruption. Cross-country composite indicators remain the dominant measure, while single country studies more frequently utilize administrative data. Articles in ranked journals are more likely to employ administrative and experimental data and focus on the causes of corruption. The broader dataset of 882 articles highlights the significant academic interest in corruption across disciplines, particularly in political science and public policy. The findings raise concerns about the limited use of novel data sources and the relative neglect of research on the causes of corruption, underscoring the need for a more integrated approach within the field of economics…(More)”.
What Autocrats Want From Academics: Servility
Essay by Anna Dumont: “Since Trump’s inauguration, the university community has received a good deal of “messaging” from academic leadership. We’ve received emails from our deans and university presidents; we’ve sat in department meetings regarding the “developing situation”; and we’ve seen the occasional official statement or op-ed or comment in the local newspaper. And the unfortunate takeaway from all this is that our leaders’ strategy rests on a disturbing and arbitrary distinction. The public-facing language of the university — mission statements, programming, administrative structures, and so on — has nothing at all to do with the autonomy of our teaching and research, which, they assure us, they hold sacrosanct. Recent concessions — say, the disappearance of the website of the Women’s Center — are concerning, they admit, but ultimately inconsequential to our overall working lives as students and scholars.
History, however, shows that public-facing statements are deeply consequential, and one episode from the 20-year march of Italian fascism strikes me as especially instructive. On October 8, 1931, a law went into effect requiring, as a condition of their employment, every Italian university professor to sign an oath pledging their loyalty to the government of Benito Mussolini. Out of over 1,200 professors in the country, only 12 refused.
Today, those who refused are known simply as “I Dodici”: the Twelve. They were a scholar of Middle Eastern languages, an organic chemist, a doctor of forensic medicine, three lawyers, a mathematician, a theologian, a surgeon, a historian of ancient Rome, a philosopher of Kantian ethics, and one art historian. Two, Francesco Ruffini and Edoardo Ruffini Avondo, were father and son. Four were Jewish. All of them were immediately fired…(More)”
2025 Ratings for Digital Participation Tools
People-Powered Report: The latest edition of our Digital Participation Tool Ratings evaluates 30 comprehensive tools that have been used to support digital participation all over the world. This year’s ratings offer more information and insights on each tool to help you select a suitable tool for your context and needs. We also researched how AI tools and features fit into the current digital participation landscape.
For the last four years, People Powered has been committed to providing governments and organizations with digital participation guidance, to enable people leading participatory programs and citizen engagement efforts to effectively select and use digital participation tools by providing guidance and ratings for tools. These ratings are the latest edition of the evaluations first launched in 2022. Further guidance about how to use these tools is available from our Guide to Digital Participation Platforms and Online Training on Digital Participation…(More)”.
Political Responsibility and Tech Governance
Book by Jude Browne: “Not a day goes by without a new story on the perils of technology: from increasingly clever machines that surpass human capability and comprehension to genetic technologies capable of altering the human genome in ways we cannot predict. How can we respond? What should we do politically? Focusing on the rise of robotics and artificial intelligence (AI), and the impact of new reproductive and genetic technologies (Repro-tech), Jude Browne questions who has political responsibility for the structural impacts of these technologies and how we might go about preparing for the far-reaching societal changes they may bring. This thought-provoking book tackles some of the most pressing issues of our time and offers a compelling vision for how we can respond to these challenges in a way that is both politically feasible and socially responsible…(More)”.
Getting the Public on Side: How to Make Reforms Acceptable by Design
OECD Report: “Public acceptability is a crucial condition for the successful implementation of reforms. The challenges raised by the green, digital and demographic transitions call for urgent and ambitious policy action. Despite this, governments often struggle to build sufficiently broad public support for the reforms needed to promote change. Better information and effective public communication have a key role to play. But policymakers cannot get the public to choose the side of reform without a proper understanding of people’s views and how they can help strengthen the policy process.
Perceptual and behavioural data provide an important source of insights on the perceptions, attitudes and preferences that constitute the “demand-side” of reform. The interdisciplinary OECD Expert Group on New Measures of the Public Acceptability of Reforms was set up in 2021 to take stock of these insights and explore their potential for improving policy. This report reflects the outcomes of the Expert Group’s work. It looks at and assesses (i) the available data and what they can tell policymakers about people’s views; (ii) the analytical frameworks through which these data are interpreted; and (iii) the policy tools through which considerations of public acceptability are integrated into the reform process…(More)”.
Should AGI-preppers embrace DOGE?
Blog by Henry Farrell: “…AGI-prepping is reshaping our politics. Wildly ambitious claims for AGI have not only shaped America’s grand strategy, but are plausibly among the justifying reasons for DOGE.
After the announcement of DOGE, but before it properly got going, I talked to someone who was not formally affiliated, but was very definitely DOGE adjacent. I put it to this individual that tearing out the decision making capacities of government would not be good for America’s ability to do things in the world. Their response (paraphrased slightly) was: so what? We’ll have AGI by late 2026. And indeed, one of DOGE’s major ambitions, as described in a new article in WIRED, appears to have been to pull as much government information as possible into a large model that could then provide useful information across the totality of government.
The point – which I don’t think is understood nearly widely enough – is that radical institutional revolutions such as DOGE follow naturally from the AGI-prepper framework. If AGI is right around the corner, we don’t need to have a massive federal government apparatus, organizing funding for science via the National Science Foundation and the National Institute for Health. After all, in Amodei and Pottinger’s prediction:
By 2027, AI developed by frontier labs will likely be smarter than Nobel Prize winners across most fields of science and engineering. … It will be able to … complete complex tasks that would take people months or years, such as designing new weapons or curing diseases.
Who needs expensive and cumbersome bureaucratic institutions for organizing funding scientists in a near future where a “country of geniuses [will be] contained in a data center,” ready to solve whatever problems we ask them to? Indeed, if these bottled geniuses are cognitively superior to humans across most or all tasks, why do we need human expertise at all, beyond describing and explaining human wants? From this perspective, most human based institutions are obsolescing assets that need to be ripped out, and DOGE is only the barest of beginnings…(More)”.
On Democratic Organizing and Organization Theory
Paper by Julie Battilana, Christine M. Beckman, and Julie Yen: “As threats to democracy endanger the rights and freedoms of people around the world, scholars are increasingly interrogating the role that organizations play in shaping democratic and authoritarian societies. Just as societies can be more or less democratic, so, too, can organizations. This essay, in honor of ASQ’s 70th volume, argues for a deeper focus in organizational research on the extent to which organizations themselves are democratic and the outcomes associated with these varied models of organizing. First, we provide a framework for considering the extent to which organizations are democratically organized, accounting for the varied ways in which workers can participate in their organizations. Second, we call for research on the outcomes associated with democratic organizing at both the organizational and societal levels. We build from research arguing that the extent to which workers participate in organizational decision making can spill over to impact their expectations of and participation in civic life. Moving forward, we argue it is critical to recognize that questions of democracy and authoritarianism concern not only the political contexts in which organizations are embedded but also how organizations themselves are structured and contribute to society…(More)”
Panels giving scientific advice to Census Bureau disbanded by Trump administration
Article by Jeffrey Mervis: “…U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick has disbanded five outside panels that provide scientific and community advice to the U.S. Census Bureau and other federal statistical agencies just as preparations are ramping up for the country’s next decennial census, in 2030.
The dozens of demographers, statisticians, and public members on the five panels received nearly identical letters this week telling them that “the Secretary of Commerce has determined that the purposes for which the [committee] was established have been fulfilled, and the committee has been terminated effective February 28, 2025. Thank you for your service.”
Statistician Robert Santos, who last month resigned as Census Bureau director 3 years into his 5-year term, says he’s “terribly disappointed but not surprised” by the move, noting how a recent directive by President Donald Trump on gender identity has disrupted data collection for a host of federal surveys…(More)”.
Government data is disappearing before our eyes
Article by Anna Massoglia: “A battle is being waged in the quiet corners of government websites and data repositories. Essential public records are disappearing and, with them, Americans’ ability to hold those in power accountable.
Take the Department of Government Efficiency, Elon Musk’s federal cost-cutting initiative. Touted as “maximally transparent,” DOGE is supposed to make government spending more efficient. But when journalists and researchers exposed major errors — from double-counting contracts to conflating caps with actual spending — DOGE didn’t fix the mistakes. Instead, it made them harder to detect.
Many Americans hoped DOGE’s work would be a step toward cutting costs and restoring trust in government. But trust must be earned. If our leaders truly want to restore faith in our institutions, they must ensure that facts remain available to everyone, not just when convenient.
Since Jan. 20, public records across the federal government have been erased. Economic indicators that guide investments, scientific datasets that drive medical breakthroughs, federal health guidelines and historical archives that inform policy decisions have all been put on the chopping block. Some missing datasets have been restored but are incomplete or have unexplained changes, rendering them unreliable.
Both Republican and Democratic administrations have played a role in limiting public access to government records. But the scale and speed of the Trump administration’s data manipulation — combined with buyouts, resignations and other restructuring across federal agencies — signal a new phase in the war on public information. This is not just about deleting files, it’s about controlling what the public sees, shaping the narrative and limiting accountability.
The Trump administration is accelerating this trend with revisions to official records. Unelected advisors are overseeing a sweeping reorganization of federal data, granting entities like DOGE unprecedented access to taxpayer records with little oversight. This is not just a bureaucratic reshuffle — it is a fundamental reshaping of the public record.
The consequences of data manipulation extend far beyond politics. When those in power control the flow of information, they can dictate collective truth. Governments that manipulate information are not just rewriting statistics — they are rewriting history.
From authoritarian regimes that have erased dissent to leaders who have fabricated economic numbers to maintain their grip on power, the dangers of suppressing and distorting data are well-documented.
Misleading or inconsistent data can be just as dangerous as opacity. When hard facts are replaced with political spin, conspiracy theories take root and misinformation fills the void.
The fact that data suppression and manipulation has occurred before does not lessen the danger, but underscores the urgency of taking proactive measures to safeguard transparency. A missing statistic today can become a missing historical fact tomorrow. Over time, that can reshape our reality…(More)”.
Beyond Answers Presented by AI: Unlocking Innovation and Problem Solving Through A New Science of Questions
Paper by Stefaan Verhulst and Hannah Chafetz: “Today’s global crises–from climate change to inequality–have demonstrated the need for a broader conceptual transformation in how to approach societal issues. Focusing on the questions can transform our understanding of today’s problems and unlock new discoveries and innovations that make a meaningful difference. Yet, how decision-makers go about asking questions remains an underexplored topic.
Much of our recent work has focused on advancing a new science of questions that uses participatory approaches to define and prioritize the questions that matter most. As part of this work, we convened an Interdisciplinary Committee on Establishing and Democratizing the Science of Questions to discuss why questions matter for society and the actions needed to build a movement around this new science.
In this article, we provide the main findings from these gatherings. First we outline several roles that questions can play in shaping policy, research innovation. Supported by real-world examples, we discuss how questions are a critical device for setting agendas, increasing public participation, improving coordination, and more. We then provide five key challenges in developing a systematic approach to questions raised by the Committee and potential solutions to address those challenges. Existing challenges include weak recognition of questions, lack of skills and lack of consensus on what makes a good question.
In the latter part of this piece, we propose the concept of The QLab–a global center dedicated to the research and practice of asking questions. Co-developed with the Committee, the QLab would include five core functions: Thought Leadership, Architecting the Discovery of Questions, Field Building, Institutionalization and Practice, and Research on Questioning. By focusing on these core functions, The QLab can make significant progress towards establishing a field dedicated to the art and science of asking questions…(More)”.