Governing Cross-Border Challenges


OECD Report: “Issues facing governments are increasingly complex and transboundary in nature, making existing governance mechanisms unsuitable for managing them. Governments are leveraging new governance structures and mechanisms to connect and collaborate in order to tackle issues that cut across borders. Governance arrangements with innovative elements can act as enablers of cross-border government collaboration and assist in making it more systemic.

This work has led to the identification of three leading governance approaches and associated case studies, as discussed below….

Theme 1: Building cross-border governance bodies…

Theme 2: Innovative networks tackling cross-border collaboration…

Theme 3: Exploring emerging governance system dynamics…(More)”.

How to Fix Social Media


Essay by Nicholas Carr: “Arguments over whether and how to control the information distributed through social media go to the heart of America’s democratic ideals.

It’s a mistake, though, to assume that technological changes, even profound ones, render history irrelevant. The arrival of broadcast media at the start of the last century set off an information revolution just as tumultuous as the one we are going through today, and the way legislators, judges, and the public responded to the earlier upheaval can illuminate our current situation. Particularly pertinent are the distinctions between different forms of communication that informed the Supreme Court’s decision in the Carlin case — and that had guided legal and regulatory policy-making throughout the formative years of the mass media era. Digitization has blurred those distinctions at a technical level — all forms of communication can now be transmitted through a single computer network — but it has not erased them.

By once again making such distinctions, particularly between personal speech and public speech, we have an opportunity to break out of our current ideological bind and create a democratic framework for governing social media that is consistent with the country’s values and traditions….(More)”.

False Positivism


Essay by Peter Polack: “During the pandemic, the everyday significance of modeling — data-driven representations of reality designed to inform planning — became inescapable. We viewed our plans, fears, and desires through the lens of statistical aggregates: Infection-rate graphs became representations not only of the virus’s spread but also of shattered plans, anxieties about lockdowns, concern for the fate of our communities. 

But as epidemiological models became more influential, their implications were revealed as anything but absolute. One model, the Recidiviz Covid-19 Model for Incarceration, predicted high infection rates in prisons and consequently overburdened hospitals. While these predictions were used as the basis to release some prisoners early, the model has also been cited by those seeking to incorporate more data-driven surveillance technologies into prison management — a trend new AI startups like Blue Prism and Staqu are eager to get in on. Thus the same model supports both the call to downsize prisons and the demand to expand their operations, even as both can claim a focus on flattening the curve. …

The ethics and effects of interventions depend not only on facts in themselves, but also on how facts are construed — and on what patterns of organization, existing or speculative, they are mobilized to justify. Yet the idea persists that data collection and fact finding should override concerns about surveillance, and not only in the most technocratic circles and policy think tanks. It also has defenders in the world of design theory and political philosophy. Benjamin Bratton, known for his theory of global geopolitics as an arrangement of computational technologies he calls “theStack,” sees in data-driven modeling the only political rationality capable of responding to difficult social and environmental problems like pandemics and climate change. In his latest book, The Revenge of the Real: Politics for a Post-Pandemic World, he argues that expansive models — enabled by what he theorizes as “planetary-scale computation” — can transcend individualistic perspectives and politics and thereby inaugurate a more inclusive and objective regime of governance. Against a politically fragmented world of polarized opinions and subjective beliefs, these models, Bratton claims, would unite politics and logistics under a common representation of the world. In his view, this makes longstanding social concerns about personal privacy and freedom comparatively irrelevant and those who continue to raise them irrational…(More)”.

Who do the people want to govern?


Paper by John R Hibbing et al: “Relative to the well-developed theory and extensive survey batteries on people’s preferences for substantive policy solutions, scholarly understanding of people’s preferences for the mechanisms by which policies should be adopted is disappointing. Theory rarely goes beyond the assumption that people would prefer to rule themselves rather than leave decisions up to elites and measurement rests largely on four items that are not up to the task. In this article, we seek to provide a firmer footing for “process” research by 1) offering an alternative theory holding that people actually want elites to continue to make important political decisions but want them to do so only after acquiring a deep appreciation for the real-world problems facing regular people, and 2) developing and testing a battery of over 50 survey items, appropriate for cross-national research, that extend understanding of how the people want political decisions to be made…(More)”.

Why the world needs more Mavericks


Essay by Ian Burbidge: “As we turn our minds to the work that will be needed following the global pandemic of Covid-19, the challenges that confront society remain significant: from preventing the climate crisis to tackling racial justice, improving mental health to ending poverty. We need new ways of thinking and acting in the world. 

For those of us of a certain age ’Maverick’ will evoke images of an uber-confident fighter pilot buzzing control towers and generally flouting the rules of the navy in the 1980s Top Gun movie. A common feature of those at the top of their game, who are seemingly untouchable in their work, or who simply see things differently, is that the unusual perspective and skillset from which they operate enables them to push the boundaries of what’s common or acceptable practice.

Without someone stretching the realms of what’s possible in the first place there isn’t room for the rest of us to experiment or play with the new possibilities that open up as a result.

Sometimes this can stretch a limiting mindset, just as the 4 minute mile was once thought to be beyond the possibility of the human body. Sometimes it simply breaks new ground, as Kevin Peterson’s switch hit in cricket did. Sometimes it confounds social expectations, as Emilia Earhart being the first woman to make a solo non-stop transatlantic flight. Some are well known, others less so. Wynne Fletcher, my Nan, trained during the second world war as a wireless mechanic yet on arrival at a Lincolnshire airbase was sent to the typing pool. She soon found a way to overcome the assumptions of the base commander and do the job she was really there for, ensuring the equipment on board the aircraft was operating effectively, on occasion accompanying the crew on bombing sorties.

Conformists don’t tend to push boundaries or challenge convention because the very act of operating within the rules suggests a mindset or approach that is not going to be comfortable outside of them.

Of course, we need people like this; they provide the stable foundation that creates the order without which everything falls apart. Dynamic change happens from a place of stability. But it can’t happen without those who catalyse such change. To do that, they have to see and do things differently, and that’s a core characteristic of those we call mavericks.

Samuel Maverick was a Texas lawyer, politician and land baron who refused to brand his calves. His logic was if all the other cattle owners branded theirs then any unbranded animals would be recognised as his. This created a new kind of unbranded brand, and inadvertently increased his stock as a result. Samuel went against the grain. It’s from him that we draw the Oxford English dictionary definition of a maverick as someone who “thinks and acts in an independent way, often behaving differently from the expected or usual way”.

Understanding the value that such people bring to the world is therefore an important contribution to our account of what it takes to create change and bring value to the world, especially if we care about pushing humanity forward….(More)”.

Democratizing and technocratizing the notice-and-comment process


Essay by Reeve T. Bull: “…When enacting the Administrative Procedure Act, Congress was not entirely clear on the extent to which it intended the agency to take into account public opinion as reflected in comments or merely to sift the comments for relevant information. This tension has simmered for years, but it never posed a major problem since the vast majority of rules garnered virtually no public interest.

Even now, most rules still generate a very anemic response. Internet submission has vastly simplified the process of filing a comment, however, and a handful of rules generate “mass comment” responses of hundreds of thousands or even millions of submissions. In these cases, as the net neutrality incident showed, individual commenters and even private firms have begun to manipulate the process by using computer algorithms to generate comments and, in some instances, affix false identities. As a result, agencies can no longer ignore the problem.

Nevertheless, technological progress is not necessarily a net negative for agencies. It also presents extraordinary opportunities to refine the notice-and-comment process and generate more valuable feedback. Moreover, if properly channeled, technological improvements can actually provide the remedies to many of the new problems that agencies have encountered. And other, non-technological reforms can address most, if not all of, the other newly emerging challenges. Indeed, if agencies are open-minded and astute, they can both “democratize” the public participation process, creating new and better tools for ascertaining public opinion (to the extent it is relevant in any given rule), and “technocratize” it at the same time, expanding and perfecting avenues for obtaining expert feedback….

As with many aspects of modern life, technological change that once was greeted with naive enthusiasm has now created enormous challenges. As a recent study for the Administrative Conference of the United States (for which I served as a co-consultant) has found, agencies can deploy technological tools to address at least some of these problems. For instance, so-called “deduplication software” can identify and group comments that come from different sources but that contain large blocks of identical text and therefore were likely copied from a common source. Bundling these comments can greatly reduce processing time. Agencies can also undertake various steps to combat unwanted computer-generated or falsely attributed comments, including quarantining such comments and issuing commenting policies discouraging their submission. A recently adopted set of ACUS recommendations partly based on the report offer helpful guidance to agencies on this front.

Unfortunately, as technology evolves, new challenges will emerge. As noted in the ACUS report, agencies are relatively unconcerned with duplicate comments since they possess the technological tools to process them. Yet artificial intelligence has evolved to the point that computer algorithms can produce comments that are both indistinguishable from human comments and at least facially appear to contain unique and relevant information. In one recent study, an algorithm generated and submitted…(More)”

What is the Power Footprint of International Organizations?


Blog at WeRobotics: “It’s undeniable that international nonprofit organizations headquartered in the West hold a vast amount of power compared to local organizations in the “Majority World”. Systemic factors, such as colonialism and racism, have enabled international nonprofit organizations (INGOs) to increase their authority, control, and influence in multiple industries like humanitarian aid and global development. You might say that these NGOs have a large “power footprint.” Power itself is of course not inherently bad. All organizations need some level of power to drive change. But power can become menacing when centralized and rooted in a singular worldview. The result, as we’ve seen in the INGO space, is a Western-centric system that drives change in a foreign-led, top-down, and techno-centric manner…

How do we measure our own power footprints to create more visibility and transparency? Can we co-create practical metrics to measure the power footprint of INGOs? Can we make the consequences or byproducts of said footprints more visible? Can we gain inspiration from other fields? How is the carbon footprint measured, for example?…

We realize full well that measuring power footprints is a wholly different undertaking to measuring carbon footprints. Analogies can capture the imagination and serve as powerful metaphors, however. Heavy industries have significant positive impact by creating countless jobs and higher standards of living. Over time, however, the cumulative impact of large carbon footprints triggers a global climate emergency. In a similar vein, the massive power footprints of INGOs may be contributing to another global emergency: the pandemic of inequality. There’s lots to unpack here, so we’re working on a longer peer-reviewed piece that expands on these ideas and several other points that we don’t have the space to get into here.

In sum, we know that power is relational, complicated, and polarizing. We also know we’ve got to start somewhere. We need to co-create a transparent mechanism to make the invisible visible and ensure that the reduction of power footprints is real and not just symbolic. The alternative is to continue having the same conversations over and over without ever doing something to affect change. So we’ve developed 5 very preliminary metrics for illustrative purposes, and applied them to our own INGO, WeRobotics.

Each proposed metric is rooted in a question to ourselves and fellow INGOs:

  1. Are our country offices (or equivalent) independent?
  2. Are they locally-led?
  3. Can they exit at any time?
  4. Are we ceding market share?
  5. Do we have a clear Endgame or exit strategy?…(More)”

Americans Need a Bill of Rights for an AI-Powered World


Article by Eric Lander and Alondra Nelson: “…Soon after ratifying our Constitution, Americans adopted a Bill of Rights to guard against the powerful government we had just created—enumerating guarantees such as freedom of expression and assembly, rights to due process and fair trials, and protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Throughout our history we have had to reinterpret, reaffirm, and periodically expand these rights. In the 21st century, we need a “bill of rights” to guard against the powerful technologies we have created.

Our country should clarify the rights and freedoms we expect data-driven technologies to respect. What exactly those are will require discussion, but here are some possibilities: your right to know when and how AI is influencing a decision that affects your civil rights and civil liberties; your freedom from being subjected to AI that hasn’t been carefully audited to ensure that it’s accurate, unbiased, and has been trained on sufficiently representative data sets; your freedom from pervasive or discriminatory surveillance and monitoring in your home, community, and workplace; and your right to meaningful recourse if the use of an algorithm harms you. 

Of course, enumerating the rights is just a first step. What might we do to protect them? Possibilities include the federal government refusing to buy software or technology products that fail to respect these rights, requiring federal contractors to use technologies that adhere to this “bill of rights,” or adopting new laws and regulations to fill gaps. States might choose to adopt similar practices….(More)”.

Why you should develop a Rules as Code-enabled future


Blog by Tim de Sousa: “In 2021, Rules as Code (RaC) is truly hitting its stride. More governments are exploring the concept of machine-consumable legislation, regulation and policy, research institutes have been established, papers and reports are being published, tools and platforms are being built, and multi-disciplinary teams are learning new ways to draft and implement rules by getting their hands dirty.

RaC is still an emerging practice. Much of the current discussion about RaC is centred on introductory questions such as why and how we should code rules (and we’ve tried to answer those questions here), but to understand the true potential of RaC, we have to take a longer view.

In this two-part series, I set out some possible optimistic futures that could be enabled by RaC. We have to ask ourselves what kind of world we want to build with coded rules. so we can better plan how to get there.

Trustworthy automated decisions

The first reaction that RaC practitioners are often faced with is the fear of the killer robot. What happens if the automated system makes a wrong decision? What if that decision hurts someone? This is not an unfounded fear – we have seen poorly implemented and poorly used automated systems raise debts that are not owed, and lead to the arrest of innocent people. All human-built systems have flaws, and RaC-enabled systems are not immune.

As a former administrative lawyer and someone who grapples with the ethical uses of technology on a daily basis, the use of RaC to help people understand what decisions are being made and how they’re being made – that is, to enable trustworthy automated decisions – is particularly compelling.

Administrative law is the body of law that regulates how governments make decisions. In common law countries, this generally includes requirements that only relevant matters should be taken into account, irrelevant matters should not be, reasons should be given for decisions, and there should be workable avenues for merits reviews of decisions…(More)”

Old Dog, New Tricks: Retraining and the Road to Government Reform


Essay by Beth Noveck: “…To be sure, one strategy for modernizing government is hiring new people with fresh skills in the fields of technology, data science, design, and marketing. Today, only 6 percent of the federal workforce is under 30 and, if age is any proxy for mastery of these in-demand new skills, then efforts by non-profits such as the Partnership for Public Service and the Tech Talent Project to attract a younger generation to work in the public sector are crucial. But we will not reinvent government fast enough through hiring alone.

The crucial and overlooked mechanism for improving government effectiveness is, therefore, to change how people work by training public servants across departments to use data and collective intelligence at each stage of the problem-solving process to foster more informed decision-making, more innovative solutions to problems, and more agile implementation of what works. All around the world we have witnessed how, when public servants work differently, government solves problems better.

Jonathan Wachtel, the lone city planner in Lakewood, Colorado, a suburb of Denver, has been able to undertake 500 sustainability projects because he knows how to collaborate and codesign with a network of 20,000 residents. When former Mayor of New Orleans Mitch Landrieu launched an initiative to start using data and resident engagement to address the city’s abysmal murder rate, that effort led to a 25 percent reduction in homicides in two years and a further decline to its lowest levels in 50 years by 2019. Because Samir Brahmachari, former Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, of the government of India, turned to crowdsourcing and engaged the assistance of 7,900 contributors, he was able to identify six already-approved drugs that showed promised in the fight against tuberculosis….(More)”.