Article by Sanchayan Banerjee et al: “Promoting agency – people’s ability to form intentions and to act on them freely – must become a primary objective for Behavioural Public Policy (BPP). Contemporary BPPs do not directly pursue this objective, which is problematic for many reasons. From an ethical perspective, goals like personal autonomy and individual freedom cannot be realised without nurturing citizens’ agency. From an efficacy standpoint, BPPs that override agency – for example, by activating automatic psychological processes – leave citizens ‘in the dark’, incapable of internalising and owning the process of behaviour change. This may contribute to non-persistent treatment effects, compensatory negative spillovers or psychological reactance and backfiring effects. In this paper, we argue agency-enhancing BPPs can alleviate these ethical and efficacy limitations to longer-lasting and meaningful behaviour change. We set out philosophical arguments to help us understand and conceptualise agency. Then, we review three alternative agency-enhancing behavioural frameworks: (1) boosts to enhance people’s competences to make better decisions; (2) debiasing to encourage people to reduce the tendency for automatic, impulsive responses; and (3) nudge+ to enable citizens to think alongside nudges and evaluate them transparently. Using a multi-dimensional framework, we highlight differences in their workings, which offer comparative insights and complementarities in their use. We discuss limitations of agency-enhancing BPPs and map out future research directions…(More)”.
Nexus: A Brief History of Information Networks From the Stone Age to AI
Book by Yuval Noah Harari: “For the last 100,000 years, we Sapiens have accumulated enormous power. But despite all our discoveries, inventions, and conquests, we now find ourselves in an existential crisis. The world is on the verge of ecological collapse. Misinformation abounds. And we are rushing headlong into the age of AI—a new information network that threatens to annihilate us. For all that we have accomplished, why are we so self-destructive?
Nexus looks through the long lens of human history to consider how the flow of information has shaped us, and our world. Taking us from the Stone Age, through the canonization of the Bible, early modern witch-hunts, Stalinism, Nazism, and the resurgence of populism today, Yuval Noah Harari asks us to consider the complex relationship between information and truth, bureaucracy and mythology, wisdom and power. He explores how different societies and political systems throughout history have wielded information to achieve their goals, for good and ill. And he addresses the urgent choices we face as non-human intelligence threatens our very existence.
Information is not the raw material of truth; neither is it a mere weapon. Nexus explores the hopeful middle ground between these extremes, and in doing so, rediscovers our shared humanity…(More)”.
Policies must be justified by their wellbeing-to-cost ratio
Article by Richard Layard: “…What is its value for money — that is, how much wellbeing does it deliver per (net) pound it costs the government? This benefit/cost ratio (or BCR) should be central to every discussion.
The science exists to produce these numbers and, if the British government were to require them of the spending departments, it would be setting an example of rational government to the whole world.
Such a move would, of course, lead to major changes in priorities. At the London School of Economics we have been calculating the benefits and costs of policies across a whole range of government departments.
In our latest report on value for money, the best policies are those that save the government more money than they cost — for example by getting people back to work. Classic examples of this are treatments for mental health. The NHS Talking Therapies programme now treats 750,000 people a year for anxiety disorders and depression. Half of them recover and the service demonstrably pays for itself. It needs to expand.
But we also need a parallel service for those addicted to alcohol, drugs and gambling. These individuals are more difficult to treat — but the savings if they recover are greater. Again, it will pay for itself. And so will the improved therapy service for children and young people that Labour has promised.
However, most spending policies do cost more than they save. For these it is crucial to measure the benefit/cost ratio, converting the wellbeing benefit into its monetary equivalent. For example, we can evaluate the wellbeing gain to a community of having more police and subsequently less crime. Once this is converted into money, we calculate that the benefit/cost ratio is 12:1 — very high…(More)”.
Even laypeople use legalese
Paper by Eric Martínez, Francis Mollica and Edward Gibson: “Whereas principles of communicative efficiency and legal doctrine dictate that laws be comprehensible to the common world, empirical evidence suggests legal documents are largely incomprehensible to lawyers and laypeople alike. Here, a corpus analysis (n = 59) million words) first replicated and extended prior work revealing laws to contain strikingly higher rates of complex syntactic structures relative to six baseline genres of English. Next, two preregistered text generation experiments (n = 286) tested two leading hypotheses regarding how these complex structures enter into legal documents in the first place. In line with the magic spell hypothesis, we found people tasked with writing official laws wrote in a more convoluted manner than when tasked with writing unofficial legal texts of equivalent conceptual complexity. Contrary to the copy-and-edit hypothesis, we did not find evidence that people editing a legal document wrote in a more convoluted manner than when writing the same document from scratch. From a cognitive perspective, these results suggest law to be a rare exception to the general tendency in human language toward communicative efficiency. In particular, these findings indicate law’s complexity to be derived from its performativity, whereby low-frequency structures may be inserted to signal law’s authoritative, world-state-altering nature, at the cost of increased processing demands on readers. From a law and policy perspective, these results suggest that the tension between the ubiquity and impenetrability of the law is not an inherent one, and that laws can be simplified without a loss or distortion of communicative content…(More)”.
Policy Fit for the Future
Primer by the Australian Government: “The Futures Primer is part of the “Policy Fit for the Future” project, building Australian Public Service capability to use futures techniques in policymaking through horizon scanning, visioning and scenario planning. These tools help anticipate and navigate future risks and opportunities.
The tools and advice can be adapted to any policy challenge, and reflect the views of global experts in futures and strategic foresight, both within and outside the APS…The Futures Primer offers a range of flexible tools and advice that can be adapted to any policy challenge. It reflects the views of global experts in futures and strategic foresight, both within and outside the APS…(More)”.
Regulating the Direction of Innovation
Paper by Joshua S. Gans: “This paper examines the regulation of technological innovation direction under uncertainty about potential harms. We develop a model with two competing technological paths and analyze various regulatory interventions. Our findings show that market forces tend to inefficiently concentrate research on leading paths. We demonstrate that ex post regulatory instruments, particularly liability regimes, outperform ex ante restrictions in most scenarios. The optimal regulatory approach depends critically on the magnitude of potential harm relative to technological benefits. Our analysis reveals subtle insurance motives in resource allocation across research paths, challenging common intuitions about diversification. These insights have important implications for regulating emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, suggesting the need for flexible, adaptive regulatory frameworks…(More)”.
Governments Empower Citizens by Promoting Digital Rights
Article by Julia Edinger: “The rapid rise of digital services and smart city technology has elevated concerns about privacy in the digital age and government’s role, even as cities from California to Texas take steps to make constituents aware of their digital rights.
Earlier this month, Long Beach, Calif., launched an improved version of its Digital Rights Platform, which shows constituents their data privacy and digital rights and information about how the city uses technologies while protecting digital rights.
“People’s digital rights are no different from their human or civil rights, except that they’re applied to how they interact with digital technologies — when you’re online, you’re still entitled to every right you enjoy offline,” said Will Greenberg, staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), in a written statement. The nonprofit organization defends civil liberties in the digital world.
Long Beach’s platform initially launched several years ago, to mitigate privacy concerns that came out of the 2020 launch of a smart city initiative, according to Long Beach CIO Lea Eriksen. When that initiative debuted, the Department of Innovation and Technology requested the City Council approve a set of data privacy guidelines to ensure digital rights would be protected, setting the stage for the initial platform launch. Its 2021 beta version has now been enhanced to offer information on 22 city technology uses, up from two, and an enhanced feedback module enabling continued engagement and platform improvements…(More)”.
Harnessing Technology for Inclusive Prosperity
Book edited by Brahima Sangafowa Coulibaly and Zia Qureshi: “Transformative new technologies are reshaping economies and societies. But as they create new opportunities, they also pose new challenges, not least of which is rising inequality. Increased disparities and related anxieties are stoking societal discontent and political ferment. Harnessing technological transformation in ways that foster its benefits, contain risks, and build inclusive prosperity is a major public policy challenge of our time and one that motivates this book.
In what ways are the new technologies altering markets, business models, work, and, in turn, economic growth and income distribution? How are they affecting inequality within advanced and emerging economies and the prospects for economic convergence between them? What are the implications for public policy? What new thinking and adaptations are needed to realign institutions and policies, at national and global levels, with the new dynamics of the digital era?
This book addresses these questions. It seeks to promote ideas and actions to manage digital transformation and the latest advances in artificial intelligence with foresight and purpose to shape a more prosperous and inclusive future…(More)”
Is peer review failing its peer review?
Article by First Principles: “Ivan Oransky doesn’t sugar-coat his answer when asked about the state of academic peer review: “Things are pretty bad.”
As a distinguished journalist in residence at New York University and co-founder of Retraction Watch – a site that chronicles the growing number of papers being retracted from academic journals – Oransky is better positioned than just about anyone to make such a blunt assessment.
He elaborates further, citing a range of factors contributing to the current state of affairs. These include the publish-or-perish mentality, chatbot ghostwriting, predatory journals, plagiarism, an overload of papers, a shortage of reviewers, and weak incentives to attract and retain reviewers.
“Things are pretty bad and they have been bad for some time because the incentives are completely misaligned,” Oranksy told FirstPrinciples in a call from his NYU office.
Things are so bad that a new world record was set in 2023: more than 10,000 research papers were retracted from academic journals. In a troubling development, 19 journals closed after being inundated by a barrage of fake research from so-called “paper mills” that churn out the scientific equivalent of clickbait, and one scientist holds the current record of 213 retractions to his name.
“The numbers don’t lie: Scientific publishing has a problem, and it’s getting worse,” Oransky and Retraction Watch co-founder Adam Marcus wrote in a recent opinion piece for The Washington Post. “Vigilance against fraudulent or defective research has always been necessary, but in recent years the sheer amount of suspect material has threatened to overwhelm publishers.”..(More)”.
Illuminating ‘the ugly side of science’: fresh incentives for reporting negative results
Article by Rachel Brazil: “Editor-in-chief Sarahanne Field describes herself and her team at the Journal of Trial & Error as wanting to highlight the “ugly side of science — the parts of the process that have gone wrong”.
She clarifies that the editorial board of the journal, which launched in 2020, isn’t interested in papers in which “you did a shitty study and you found nothing. We’re interested in stuff that was done methodologically soundly, but still yielded a result that was unexpected.” These types of result — which do not prove a hypothesis or could yield unexplained outcomes — often simply go unpublished, explains Field, who is also an open-science researcher at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. Along with Stefan Gaillard, one of the journal’s founders, she hopes to change that.
Calls for researchers to publish failed studies are not new. The ‘file-drawer problem’ — the stacks of unpublished, negative results that most researchers accumulate — was first described in 1979 by psychologist Robert Rosenthal. He argued that this leads to publication bias in the scientific record: the gap of missing unsuccessful results leads to overemphasis on the positive results that do get published…(More)”.