Paper by Marij Swinkels, Olivier de Vette & Victor Toom: “Long-term public issues face the intergenerational problem: current policy decisions place a disproportionate burden on future generations while primarily benefitting those in the present. The interests of present generations trump those of future generations, as the latter play no explicit part as stakeholders in policy making processes. How can the interests of future generations be voiced in the present? In this paper, we explore an innovative method to incorporate the interests of future generations in the process of policymaking: future design. First, we situate future design in the policy process and relate it to other intergenerational policymaking initiatives that aim to redeem the intergenerational problem. Second, we show how we applied future design and provide insights into three pilots that we organized on two long-term public issues in the Netherlands: housing shortages and water management. We conclude that future design can effectively contribute to representing the interests of future generations, but that adoption of future design in different contexts also requires adaptation of the method. The findings increase our understanding of the value of future design as an innovative policymaking practice to strengthen intergenerational policymaking. As such, it provides policymakers with insights into how to use this method…(More)”.
Urban Development Needs Systems Thinking
Article by Yaera Chung: “More than three decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, cities in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA) continue to grapple with economic stagnation, aging infrastructure, and environmental degradation while also facing new pressures from climate change and regional conflicts. In this context, traditional city planning, which tackles problems in isolation, is struggling to keep up. Urban strategies often rely on siloed, one-off interventions that fail to reflect the complexity of social challenges or adapt to shifting conditions. As a result, efforts are frequently fragmented, overlook root causes, and miss opportunities for long-term, cross-sector collaboration.
Instead of addressing one issue at a time, cities need to develop a set of coordinated, interlinked solutions that tackle multiple urban challenges simultaneously and align efforts across sectors. As part of a broader strategy to address environmental, economic, and social goals at once, for example, cities might advance a range of initiatives, such as transforming biowaste into resources, redesigning streets to reduce air pollution, and creating local green jobs. These kinds of “portfolio” approaches are leading to lasting and systems-level change.
Since 2021, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has been collaborating with 15 cities across EECA to solve problems in ways that embrace complexity and interconnectedness. Selected through open calls under two UNDP initiatives, Mayors for Economic Growth and the City Experiment Fund, these cities demonstrated a strong interest in tackling systemic issues. Their proposals highlighted the problems they face, their capacity for innovation, and local initiatives and partnerships.
Their ongoing journeys have surfaced four lessons that can help other cities move beyond conventional planning pitfalls, and adopt a more responsive, inclusive, and sustainable approach to urban development…(More)”.
Can We Trust Social Science Yet?
Essay by Ryan Briggs: “Everyone likes the idea of evidence-based policy, but it’s hard to realize it when our most reputable social science journals are still publishing poor quality research.
Ideally, policy and program design is a straightforward process: a decision-maker faces a problem, turns to peer-reviewed literature, and selects interventions shown to work. In reality, that’s rarely how things unfold. The popularity of “evidence-based medicine” and other “evidence-based” topics highlights our desire for empirical approaches — but would the world actually improve if those in power consistently took social science evidence seriously? It brings me no joy to tell you that, at present, I think the answer is usually “no.”
Given the current state of evidence production in the social sciences, I believe that many — perhaps most — attempts to use social scientific evidence to inform policy will not lead to better outcomes. This is not because of politics or the challenges of scaling small programs. The problem is more immediate. Much of social science research is of poor quality, and sorting the trustworthy work from bad work is difficult, costly, and time-consuming.
But it is necessary. If you were to randomly select an empirical paper published in the past decade — including any studies from the top journals in political science or economics — there is a high chance that its findings may be inaccurate. And not just off by a little: possibly two times as large, or even incorrectly signed. As an academic, this bothers me. I think it should bother you, too. So let me explain why this happens…(More)”.
What Happens When AI-Generated Lies Are More Compelling than the Truth?
Essay by Nicholas Carr: “…In George Orwell’s 1984, the functionaries in Big Brother’s Ministry of Truth spend their days rewriting historical records, discarding inconvenient old facts and making up new ones. When the truth gets hazy, tyrants get to define what’s true. The irony here is sharp. Artificial intelligence, perhaps humanity’s greatest monument to logical thinking, may trigger a revolution in perception that overthrows the shared values of reason and rationality we inherited from the Enlightenment.
In 1957, a Russian scientist-turned-folklorist named Yuri Mirolyubov published a translation of an ancient manuscript—a thousand years old, he estimated—in a Russian-language newspaper in San Francisco. Mirolyubov’s Book of Veles told stirring stories of the god Veles, a prominent deity in pre-Christian Slavic mythology. A shapeshifter, magician, and trickster, Veles would visit the mortal world in the form of a bear, sowing mischief wherever he went.
Mirolyubov claimed that the manuscript, written on thin wooden boards bound with leather straps, had been discovered by a Russian soldier in a bombed-out Ukrainian castle in 1919. The soldier had photographed the boards and given the pictures to Mirolyubov, who translated the work into modern Russian. Mirolyubov illustrated his published translation with one of the photographs, though the original boards, he said, had disappeared mysteriously during the Second World War. Though historians and linguists soon dismissed the folklorist’s Book of Veles as a hoax, its renown spread. Today, it’s revered as a holy text by certain neo-pagan and Slavic nationalist cults.
Mythmaking, more than truth seeking, is what seems likely to define the future of media and of the public square.
Myths are works of art. They provide a way of understanding the world that appeals not to reason but to emotion, not to the conscious mind but to the subconscious one. What is most pleasing to our sensibilities—what is most beautiful to us—is what feels most genuine, most worthy of belief. History and psychology both suggest that, in politics as in art, generative AI will succeed in fulfilling the highest aspiration of its creators: to make the virtual feel more authentic than the real…(More)”
How Media Ownership Matters
Book by Rodney Benson, Mattias Hessérus, Timothy Neff, and Julie Sedel: “Does it matter who owns and funds the media? As journalists and management consultants set off in search of new business models, there’s a pressing need to understand anew the economic underpinnings of journalism and its role in democratic societies.
How Media Ownership Matters provides a fresh approach to understanding news media power, moving beyond the typical emphasis on market concentration or media moguls. Through a comparative analysis of the US, Sweden, and France, as well as interviews of news executives and editors and an original collection of industry data, this book maps and analyzes four ownership models: market, private, civil society, and public. Highlighting the effects of organizational logics, funding, and target audiences on the content of news, the authors identify both the strengths and weaknesses various forms of ownership have in facilitating journalism that meets the democratic ideals of reasoned, critical, and inclusive public debate. Ultimately, How Media Ownership Matters provides a roadmap to understanding how variable forms of ownership are shaping the future of journalism and democracy…(More)”.
Accounting for State Capacity
Essay by Kevin Hawickhorst: “The debates over the Department of Government Efficiency have revealed, if nothing else, that the federal budget is obscure even to the political combatants ostensibly responsible for developing and overseeing it. In the executive branch, Elon Musk highlights that billions of dollars of payments are processed by the Treasury without even a memo line. Meanwhile, in Congress, Republican politicians highlight the incompleteness of the bureaucracy’s spending records, while Democrats bemoan the Trump administration’s dissimulation in ceasing to share budgetary guidance documents. The camp followers of these obscure programs are thousands of federal contractors, pursuing vague goals with indefinite timelines. As soon as the ink on a bill is dry, it seems, Congress loses sight of its initiatives until their eventual success or their all-too-frequent failure.
Contrast this with the 1930s, when the Roosevelt administration provided Congress with hundreds of pages of spending reports every ten days, outlining how tax dollars were being put to use in minute detail. The speed and thoroughness with which these reports were produced is hard to fathom, and yet the administration was actually holding its best information back. FDR’s Treasury had itemized information on hundreds of thousands of projects, down to the individual checks that were written. Incredibly, politicians had better dashboards in the era of punch cards than we have in the era of AI. The decline in government competence runs deeper than our inability to match the speed and economy of New Deal construction: even their accounting was better. What happened?
Political scientists discuss the decline in government competence in terms of “state capacity,” which describes a government’s ability to achieve the goals it pursues. Most political scientists agree that the United States not only suffers from degraded state capacity in absolute terms, but has less state capacity today than in the early twentieth century. A popular theory for this decline blames the excessive proceduralism of the U.S. government: the “cascade of rigidity” or the “procedure fetish.”
But reformers need more than complaints. To rebuild state capacity, reformers need an affirmative vision of what good procedure should look like and, in order to enact it, knowledge of how government procedure is changed. The history of government budgeting and accounting reform illustrates both. There were three major eras of reform to federal accounting in the twentieth century: New Deal reforms of the 1930s, conservative reforms of the 1940s and 1950s, and liberal reforms of the 1960s. This history tells the story of how accounting reforms first built up American state capacity and how later reforms contributed to its gradual decline. These reforms thus offer lessons on rebuilding state capacity today…(More)”.
Addressing Digital Harms in Conflict
Report by Henriette Litta and Peter Bihr: “…takes stock and looks to the future: What does openness mean in the digital age? Is the concept still up to date? The study traces the development of Openness and analyses current challenges. It is based on interviews with experts and extensive literature research. The key insights at a glance are:
- Give Openness a purpose.
- Protect Openness by adding guard rails.
- Open innovation and infrastructure need investments.
- Openness is not neutral.
- Market domination needs to be curtailed…(More)”.
How to Break Down Silos and Collaborate Across Government
Blog by Jessica MacLeod: “…To help public sector leaders navigate these cultural barriers, I use a simple but powerful framework: Clarity, Care, and Challenge. It’s built from research, experience, and what I’ve seen actually shift how teams work. You can read more about the framework in my previous article on high-performing teams. Here’s how this framework relates to breaking down silos:
- Clarity → How We Work:
Clear priorities, aligned expectations, and a shared understanding of how individual work connects to the bigger picture. - Care → How We Relate:
Trust, psychological safety, and strong collaboration. - Challenge → How We Achieve:
Stretch goals, high standards, and a culture that encourages innovation and growth.
Silos thrive in ambiguity. If no one can see the work, understand the language, or map who owns what, collaboration dies on arrival.
When I work with public sector teams, one of the first things I look for is how visible the work is. Can people across departments explain where things stand on a project today? Or what the context is behind a project? Do they know who’s accountable? Can they locate the latest draft of the work without digging through three email chains?
Often, the answer is no, and it’s not because people aren’t trying. It’s because our systems are optimized for siloed visibility, not shared clarity.
Here’s what that looks like in practice:
- A particular acronym means one thing to IT, another to leadership, and something entirely different to community stakeholders.
- “Launch” for one team means public announcement. For another, it means testing a feature with a pilot group.
- Documents live in private folders, on individual desktops, or in tools that don’t talk to each other…(More)”.
The Technopolar Paradox
Article by Ian Bremmer: “In February 2022, as Russian forces advanced on Kyiv, Ukraine’s government faced a critical vulnerability: with its Internet and communication networks under attack, its troops and leaders would soon be in the dark. Elon Musk—the de facto head of Tesla, SpaceX, X (formerly Twitter), xAI, the Boring Company, and Neuralink—stepped in. Within days, SpaceX had deployed thousands of Starlink terminals to Ukraine and activated satellite Internet service at no cost. Having kept the country online, Musk was hailed as a hero.
But the centibillionaire’s personal intervention—and Kyiv’s reliance on it—came with risks. Months later, Ukraine asked SpaceX to extend Starlink’s coverage to Russian-occupied Crimea, to enable a submarine drone strike that Kyiv wanted to carry out against Russian naval assets. Musk refused—worried, he said, that this would cause a major escalation in the war. Even the Pentagon’s entreaties on behalf of Ukraine failed to convince him. An unelected, unaccountable private citizen had unilaterally thwarted a military operation in an active war zone while exposing the fact that governments had remarkably little control over crucial decisions affecting their citizens and national security.
This was “technopolarity” in action: a technology leader not only driving stock market returns but also controlling aspects of civil society, politics, and international affairs that have been traditionally the exclusive preserve of nation-states. Over the past decade, the rise of such individuals and the firms they control has transformed the global order, which had been defined by states since the Peace of Westphalia enshrined them as the building blocks of geopolitics nearly 400 years ago. For most of this time, the structure of that order could be described as unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar, depending on how power was distributed among countries. The world, however, has since entered a “technopolar moment,” a term I used in Foreign Affairs in 2021 to describe an emerging order in which “a handful of large technology companies rival [states] for geopolitical influence.” Major tech firms have become powerful geopolitical actors, exercising a form of sovereignty over digital space and, increasingly, the physical world that potentially rivals that of states…(More)”.
“R&D” Means Something Different on Capitol Hill
Article by Sheril Kirshenbaum: “My first morning as a scientist-turned-Senate-staffer began with a misunderstanding that would become a metaphor for my impending immersion into the complex world of policymaking. When my new colleagues mentioned “R&D,” I naively assumed they were discussing critical topics related to research and development. After 10 or so confused minutes, I realized they were referring to Republicans and Democrats—my first lesson in the distinctive language and unique dynamics of congressional work. The “R&D” at the center of their world was vastly different than that of mine.In the 20 years since, I’ve moved between academic science positions and working on science policy in the Senate, under both Republican and Democratic majorities. My goal during these two decades has remained the same—to promote evidence-based policymaking that advances science and serves the public, regardless of the political landscape. But the transition from scientist to staffer has transformed my understanding of why so many efforts by scientists to influence policy falter. Despite generations of scholarly research to understand how information informs political decisions, scientists and other academics consistently overlook a crucial part of the process: the role of congressional staffers.
The staff hierarchy shapes how scientific information flows to elected officials. Chiefs of staff manage office operations and serve as the member’s closest advisors. Legislative directors oversee all policy matters, while legislative assistants (LAs) handle specific issue portfolios. One or two LAs may be designated as the office “science people,” although they often lack formal scientific training. Committee staffers provide deeper expertise and institutional knowledge on topics within their jurisdiction. In this ecosystem, few dedicated science positions exist, and science-related topics are distributed among staff already juggling multiple responsibilities…(More)”