Curated findings and actionable knowledge at the intersection of technology, innovation, and governance
Guide by TIAL: “We have created this guide as part of TIAL’s broader programme of work to help with the design of new institutions needed in fields ranging from environmental change to data stewardship and AI to mental health.
This guide covers all the necessary steps of creating a new institution:
Edelman: “The 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer reveals a new paradox at the heart of society. Rapid innovation offers the promise of a new era of prosperity, but instead risks exacerbating trust issues, leading to further societal instability and political polarization.
Innovation is accelerating – in regenerative agriculture, messenger RNA, renewable energy, and most of all in artificial intelligence. But society’s ability to process and accept rapid change is under pressure, with skepticism about science’s relationship with Government and the perception that the benefits skew towards the wealthy.
There is one issue on which the world stands united: innovation is being poorly managed – defined by lagging government regulation, uncertain impacts, lack of transparency, and an assumption that science is immutable. Our respondents cite this as a problem by nearly a two to one margin across most developed and developing countries, plus all age groups, income levels, educational levels, and genders. There is consensus among those who say innovation is poorly managed that society is changing too quickly and not in ways that benefit “people like me” (69%).
Many are concerned that Science is losing its independence: to Government, to the political process, and to the wealthy. In the U.S., two thirds assert that science is too politicized. For the first time in China, we see a contrast to their high trust in government: Three-quarters of respondents believe that Government and organizations that fund research have too much influence on science. There is concern about excessive influence of the elites, with 82% of those who say innovation is managed poorly believing that the system is biased in favor of the rich – this is 30 percentage points higher than those who feel innovation is managed well…(More)”.
Book edited by Corneliu Bjola and Ilan Manor: “In recent years, digital technologies have substantially impacted the world of diplomacy. From social media platforms and artificial intelligence to smartphone application and virtual meetings, digital technologies have proven disruptive impacting the norms, practices and logics of diplomats, states, and diplomatic institutions. Although the term digital diplomacy is commonly used by academics and diplomats, few works to date have clearly defined this term or offered a comprehensive analysis of its evolution. This handbook investigates digital diplomacy as a practice, as a process and as a form of disruption. Written by leading experts in the field, this comprehensive volume delves into the ways in which digital technologies are being used to achieve foreign policy goals, and how diplomats are adapting to the digital age.
The Oxford Handbook of Digital Diplomacy explores the shifting power dynamics in diplomacy, exploring the establishment of embassies in technology hubs, the challenges faced by foreign affairs departments in adapting to digital technologies, and the utilization of digital tools as a means of exerting influence. Utilizing a multidisciplinary approach, including theories from international relations, diplomacy studies, communications, sociology, internet studies, and psychology, the handbook examines the use of digital technologies for international development in the Global South, the efforts to combat digital disinformation in the Middle East, and the digital policies of countries in Europe and the Asia-Pacific. Through case studies and in-depth analysis, readers will gain a comprehensive understanding of the term “digital diplomacy” and the many ways in which diplomacy has evolved in the digital age…(More)”.
Toolkit by UK Policy Lab: “…enabling policymakers to convene stakeholders and work together to make decisions affecting regulation, using serious games. The toolkit will consist of game patterns for different use cases, a collection of case studies, guidance, and a set of tools to help policymakers to decide which approach to take. Work on RegBox is still in progress but in the spirit of being open and iterative we wanted to share and communicate it early. Our overarching challenge question is:
How can we provide engaging and participatory tools that help policymakers to develop and test regulations and make effective decisions? …
Policy Lab has worked on a range of projects that intersect with regulation and we’ve noticed a growing demand for more anticipatory and participatory approaches in this area. Regulators are having to respond to emerging technologies which are disrupting markets and posing new risks to individuals and institutions. Additionally, the government has just launched the Smarter Regulation programme, which is encouraging officials to use regulations only where necessary, and ensure their use is proportionate and future-proof. Because a change in regulation can have significant effects on businesses, organisations, and individuals it is important to understand the potential effects before deciding. We hypothesise that serious games can be used to understand regulatory challenges and stress-test solutions at pace..(More)”.
Article by Ben Feringa and Paul Nurse: “Central to human progress are three interconnected pillars. The first is pursuit of knowledge, a major component of which is the expansion of the frontiers of learning and understanding – something often achieved through science, driven by the innate curiosity of scientists.
The second pillar of progress is the need for stable democracies where people and ideas can mix freely. It is this free exchange of diverse perspectives that fuels the democratic process, ensuring policies are shaped by a multitude of voices and evidence, leading to informed decision-making that benefits all of society.
Such freedom of speech and expression also serves as the bedrock for scientific inquiry, allowing researchers to challenge prevailing notions without fear, fostering discovery, applications and innovation.
The third pillar is a fact-based worldview. While political parties might disagree on policy, for democracy to work well all of them should support and protect a perspective that is grounded in reliable facts, which are needed to generate reliable policies that can drive human progress….(More)”.
New Website and Resource by the International Network on Digital Self Determination: “Digital Self-Determination seeks to empower individuals and communities to decide how their data is managed in ways that benefit themselves and society. Translating this principle into practice requires a multi-faceted examination from diverse perspectives and in distinct contexts.
Our network connects different actors from around the world to consider how to apply Digital Self-Determination in real-life settings to inform both theory and practice.
Our main objectives are the following:
Article by Mark Malloch-Brown: “…There is a legitimate role for philanthropy in troubled times, but one that has to reflect them. No longer is it enough for established figures to use foundations and other philanthropies to prop up an existing order. The world of Hoffman or Bundy no longer exists, let alone that of Carnegie and Rockefeller. Today, the sector will find legitimacy only in its ability to help confront the manifold crises in ways others cannot.
In his 2018 book Just Giving, the political scientist Rob Reich brought a skeptical eye to the question of whether foundations have any valid purpose in liberal democracies but concluded that they can indeed be beneficial by fulfilling roles that only they can take on, through their distinctive constitutions. Reich identified two in particular: pluralism (foundations can challenge orthodoxies by pursuing idiosyncratic goals without clear electoral or market rationales) and discovery (foundations can serve as the “risk capital” for democratic societies, experimenting and investing for the long term). Precisely because entities in the philanthropic sector do not answer to voters or shareholders, they can be both radically urgent and radically patient: moving faster than other actors in response to a crisis or opportunity but also possessing far greater staying power, thus the ability to back projects whose success is judged in decades rather than months.
This approach demands that those who were once secular priests—the leaders of the philanthropic sector—abandon their cassocks and accept the mantle of the heretic. Only by challenging the system and agitating on its fringes can they realize their full potential in today’s crisis-bound world…(More)”
Article by Stephen M. Walt: “Am I proposing that we toss out the current curriculum, stop teaching microeconomics, democratic theory, public accounting, econometrics, foreign policy, applied ethics, history, or any of the other building blocks of today’s public policy curriculum? Not yet. But we ought to devote more time and effort to preparing them for a world that is going to be radically different from the one we’ve known in the past—and sooner than they think.
I have three modest proposals.
First, and somewhat paradoxically, the prospect of radical change highlights the importance of basic theories. Empirical patterns derived from past experience (e.g., “democracies don’t fight each other”) may be of little value if the political and social conditions under which those laws were discovered no longer exist. To make sense of radically new circumstances, we will have to rely on causal explanations (i.e., theories) to help us foresee what is likely to occur and to anticipate the results of different policy choices. Knowledge derived from simplistic hypothesis testing or simple historical analogies will be less useful than rigorous and refined theories that tell us what’s causing what and help us understand the effects of different actions. Even more sophisticated efforts to teach “applied history” will fail if past events are not properly interpreted. The past never speaks to us directly; all historical interpretation is in some sense dependent on the theories or frameworks that we bring to these events. We need to know not just what happened in some earlier moment; we need to understand why it happened as it did and whether similar causal forces are at work today. Providing a causal explanation requires theory.
At the same time, some of our existing theories will need to be revised (or even abandoned), and new ones may need to be invented. We cannot escape reliance on some sort of theory, but rigid and uncritical adherence to a particular worldview can be just as dangerous as trying to operate solely with one’s gut instincts. For this reason, public policy schools should expose students to a wider range of theoretical approaches than they currently do and teach students how to think critically about them and to identify their limitations along with their strengths…(More)”.
Article by Daron Acemoglu: “Chile’s failure to draft a new constitution that enjoys widespread support from voters is the predictable result of allowing partisans and ideologues to lead the process. Democratic institutions are built by delivering what ordinary voters expect and demand from government, as the history of Nordic social democracy shows…
There are plenty of good models around to help both developing and industrialized countries build better democratic institutions. But with its abortive attempts to draft a new constitution, Chile is offering a lesson in what to avoid.
Though it is one of the richest countries in Latin America, Chile is still suffering from the legacy of General Augusto Pinochet’s brutal dictatorship and historic inequalities. The country has made some progress in building democratic institutions since the 1988 plebiscite that began the transition from authoritarianism, and education and social programs have reduced income inequality. But major problems remain. There are deep inequalities not just in income, but also in access to government services, high-quality educational resources, and labor-market opportunities. Moreover, Chile still has the constitution that Pinochet imposed in 1980.
Yet while it seems natural to start anew, Chile has gone about it the wrong way. Following a 2020 referendum that showed overwhelming support for drafting a new constitution, it entrusted the process to a convention of elected delegates. But only 43% of voters turned out for the 2021 election to fill the convention, and many of the candidates were from far-left circles with strong ideological commitments to draft a constitution that would crack down on business and establish myriad new rights for different communities. When the resulting document was put to a vote, 62% of Chileans rejected it…(More)”
Article by Jack Stilgoe: “A survey published in October 2023 revealed what seemed to be a paradox. Over the past decade, self-driving vehicles have improved immeasurably, but public trust in the technology is low and falling. Only 37% of Americans said they would be comfortable riding in a self- driving vehicle, down from 39% in 2022 and 41% in 2021. Those that have used the technology express more enthusiasm, but the rest have seemingly had their confidence shaken by the failure of the technology to live up to its hype.
Purveyors and regulators of any new technology are likely to worry about public trust. In the short term, they worry that people won’t want to make use of new innovations. But they also worry that a public backlash might jeopardize not just a single company but a whole area of technological innovation. Excitement about artificial intelligence (AI) has been accompanied by a concern about the need to “build trust” in the technology. Trust—letting one’s guard down despite incomplete information—is vital, but innovators must not take it for granted. Nor can it be circumvented through clever engineering. When cryptocurrency enthusiasts call their technology “trustless” because they think it solves age-old problems of banking (an unavoidably imperfect social institution), we should at least view them with skepticism.
For those concerned about public trust and new technologies, social science has some important lessons. The first is that people trust people, not things. When we board an airplane or agree to get vaccinated, we are placing our trust not in these objects but in the institutions that govern them. We trust that professionals are well-trained; we trust that regulators have assessed the risks; we trust that, if something goes wrong, someone will be held accountable, harms will be compensated, and mistakes will be rectified. Societies can no longer rely on the face-to-face interactions that once allowed individuals to do business. So it is more important than ever that faceless institutions are designed and continuously monitored to realize the benefits of new technologies while mitigating the risks….(More)”.