Global Youth Participation Index – GYPI

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

About: “The GYPI Report offers a powerful, data-driven overview of youth political participation in over 141 countries. From voting rights to civic activism, the report explores how young people engage in politics and where gaps persist. Inside, you’ll find:

  • Global rankings and country-level scores across four key dimensions of youth participation: Socio-Economic, Civic Space, Political Affairs and Elections,
  • Regional insights and thematic trends,
  • Actionable recommendations for policymakers, civil society, and international organisations.

Whether you’re a decision-maker, activist, researcher, or advocate, the report gives you the tools to better understand and strengthen youth participation in public life…(More)”.

Inclusive Rule-Making by International Organisations

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book edited by Rita Guerreiro Teixeira et al: “…explores the opportunities and challenges of implementing inclusive rule-making processes in international organisations (IOs). Expert authors examine the impact of inclusiveness across a wide range of organisations and policy issues, from climate change and peace and security to energy governance and securities regulation.

Chapters combine novel academic research with insights from IO practitioners to identify ways of making rule-making more inclusive, building on the ongoing work of the Partnership of International Organisations for Effective International Rule-Making. They utilise both qualitative and quantitative research methods to analyse the functions and consequences of inclusive rule-making; mechanisms for citizen participation; and the challenges of engaging with private actors and for-profit stakeholders. Ultimately, the book highlights key strategies for maintaining favourable public perceptions and trust in international institutions, emphasizing the importance of making rule-making more accountable, legitimate and accessible…(More)”.

Five dimensions of scaling democratic deliberation: With and beyond AI

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Sammy McKinney and Claudia Chwalisz: “In the study and practice of deliberative democracy, academics and practitioners are increasingly exploring the role that Artificial Intelligence (AI) can play in scaling democratic deliberation. From claims by leading deliberative democracy scholars that AI can bring deliberation to the ‘mass’, or ‘global’, scale, to cutting-edge innovations from technologists aiming to support scalability in practice, AI’s role in scaling deliberation is capturing the energy and imagination of many leading thinkers and practitioners.

There are many reasons why people may be interested in ‘scaling deliberation’. One is that there is evidence that deliberation has numerous benefits for the people involved in deliberations – strengthening their individual and collective agency, political efficacy, and trust in one another and in institutions. Another is that the decisions and actions that result are arguably higher-quality and more legitimate. Because the benefits of deliberation are so great, there is significant interest around how we could scale these benefits to as many people and decisions as possible.

Another motivation stems from the view that one weakness of small-scale deliberative processes results from their size. Increasing the sheer numbers involved is perceived as a source of legitimacy for some. Others argue that increasing the numbers will also increase the quality of the outputs and outcome.

Finally, deliberative processes that are empowered and/or institutionalised are able to shift political power. Many therefore want to replicate the small-scale model of deliberation in more places, with an emphasis on redistributing power and influencing decision-making.

When we consider how to leverage technology for deliberation, we emphasise that we should not lose sight of the first-order goals of strengthening collective agency. Today there are deep geo-political shifts; in many places, there is a movement towards authoritarian measures, a weakening of civil society, and attacks on basic rights and freedoms. We see the debate about how to ‘scale deliberation’ through this political lens, where our goals are focused on how we can enable a citizenry that is resilient to the forces of autocracy – one that feels and is more powerful and connected, where people feel heard and empathise with others, where citizens have stronger interpersonal and societal trust, and where public decisions have greater legitimacy and better alignment with collective values…(More)”

Community-Aligned A.I. Benchmarks

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

White Paper by the Aspen Institute: “…When people develop machine learning models for AI products and services, they iterate to improve performance. 

What it means to “improve” a machine learning model depends on what you want the model to do, like correctly transcribe an audio sample or generate a reliable summary of a long document.

Machine learning benchmarks are similar to standardized tests that AI researchers and builders can score their work against. Benchmarks allow us to both see if different model tweaks improve the performance for the intended task and compare similar models against one another.

Some famous benchmarks in AI include ImageNet and the Stanford Question Answering Dataset (SQuAD).

Benchmarks are important, but their development and adoption has historically been somewhat arbitrary. The capabilities that benchmarks measure should reflect the priorities for what the public wants AI tools to be and do. 

We can build positive AI futures, ones that emphasize what the public wants out of these emerging technologies. As such, it’s imperative that we build benchmarks worth striving for…(More)”.

Participatory Approaches to Responsible Data Reuse and Establishing a Social License

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Chapter by Stefaan Verhulst, Andrew J. Zahuranec & Adam Zable in Global Public Goods Communication (edited by Sónia Pedro Sebastião and Anne-Marie Cotton): “… examines innovative participatory processes for establishing a social license for reusing data as a global public good. While data reuse creates societal value, it can raise concerns and reinforce power imbalances when individuals and communities lack agency over how their data is reused. To address this, the chapter explores participatory approaches that go beyond traditional consent mechanisms. By engaging data subjects and stakeholders, these approaches aim to build trust and ensure data reuse benefits all parties involved.

The chapter presents case studies of participatory approaches to data reuse from various sectors. This includes The GovLab’s New York City “Data Assembly,” which engaged citizens to set conditions for reusing cell phone data during the COVID-19 response. These examples highlight both the potential and challenges of citizen engagement, such as the need to invest in data literacy and other resources to support meaningful public input. The chapter concludes by considering whether participatory processes for data reuse can foster digital self-determination…(More)”.

5 Ways AI is Boosting Citizen Engagement in Africa’s Democracies

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Peter Agbesi Adivor: “Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly influencing democratic participation across Africa. From campaigning to voter education, AI is transforming electoral processes across the continent. While concerns about misinformation and government overreach persist, AI also offers promising avenues to enhance citizen engagement. This article explores five key ways AI is fostering more inclusive and participatory democracies in Africa.

1. AI-Powered Voter Education and Campaign

AI-driven platforms are revolutionizing voter education by providing accessible, real-time information. These platforms ensure citizens receive standardized electoral information delivered to them on their digital devices regardless of their geographical location, significantly reducing the cost for political actors as well as state and non-state actors who focus on voter education. They also ensure that those who can navigate these tools easily access the needed information, allowing authorities to focus limited resources on citizens on the other side of the digital divide.

 In Nigeria, ChatVE developed CitiBot, an AI-powered chatbot deployed during the 2024 Edo State elections to educate citizens on their civic rights and responsibilities via WhatsApp and Telegram. The bot offered information on voting procedures, eligibility, and the importance of participation.

Similarly, in South Africa, the Rivonia Circle introduced Thoko the Bot, an AI chatbot designed to answer voters’ questions about the electoral process, including where and how to vote, and the significance of participating in elections.

These AI tools enhance voter understanding and engagement by providing personalized, easily accessible information, thereby encouraging greater participation in democratic processes…(More)”.

Making Civic Trust Less Abstract: A Framework for Measuring Trust Within Cities

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Stefaan Verhulst, Andrew J. Zahuranec, and Oscar Romero: “Trust is foundational to effective governance, yet its inherently abstract nature has made it difficult to measure and operationalize, especially in urban contexts. This report proposes a practical framework for city officials to diagnose and strengthen civic trust through observable indicators and actionable interventions.

Rather than attempting to quantify trust as an abstract concept, the framework distinguishes between the drivers of trust—direct experiences and institutional interventions—and its manifestations, both emotional and behavioral. Drawing on literature reviews, expert workshops, and field engagement with the New York City Civic Engagement Commission (CEC), we present a three-phase approach: (1) baseline assessment of trust indicators, (2) analysis of causal drivers, and (3) design and continuous evaluation of targeted interventions. The report illustrates the framework’s applicability through a hypothetical case involving the NYC Parks Department and a real-world case study of the citywide participatory budgeting initiative, The People’s Money. By providing a structured, context-sensitive, and iterative model for measuring civic trust, this report seeks to equip public institutions and city officials with a framework for meaningful measurement of civic trust…(More)“.

Upgrading Democracies with Fairer Voting Methods

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Evangelos Pournaras, et al: “Voting methods are instrumental design element of democracies. Citizens use them to express and aggregate their preferences to reach a collective decision. However, voting outcomes can be as sensitive to voting rules as they are to people’s voting choices. Despite the significance and inter-disciplinary scientific progress on voting methods, several democracies keep relying on outdated voting methods that do not fit modern, pluralistic societies well, while lacking social innovation. Here, we demonstrate how one can upgrade real-world democracies, namely by using alternative preferential voting methods such as cumulative voting and the method of equal shares designed for a proportional representation of voters’ preferences. By rigorously assessing a new participatory budgeting approach applied in the city of Aarau, Switzerland, we unravel the striking voting outcomes of fair voting methods: more winning projects with the same budget and broader geographic and preference representation of citizens by the elected projects, in particular for voters who used to be under-represented, while promoting novel project ideas. We provide profound causal evidence showing that citizens prefer proportional voting methods, which possess strong legitimacy without the need of very technical specialized explanations. We also reveal strong underlying democratic values exhibited by citizens who support fair voting methods such as altruism and compromise. These findings come with a global momentum to unleash a new and long-awaited participation blueprint of how to upgrade democracies…(More)”.

Engagement Integrity: Ensuring Legitimacy at a time of AI-Augmented Participation

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Stefaan G. Verhulst: “As participatory practices are increasingly tech-enabled, ensuring engagement integrity is becoming more urgent. While considerable scholarly and policy attention has been paid to information integrity (OECD, 2024; Gillwald et al., 2024; Wardle & Derakhshan, 2017; Ghosh & Scott, 2018), including concerns about disinformation, misinformation, and computational propaganda, the integrity of engagement itself — how to ensure collective decision-making is not tech manipulated — remains comparatively under-theorized and under-protected. I define engagement integrity as the procedural fairness and resistance to manipulation of tech-enabled deliberative and participatory processes.

My definition is different from prior discussions of engagement integrity, which mainly emphasized ethical standards when scientists engage with the public (e.g., in advisory roles, communication, or co-research). The concept is particularly salient in light of recent innovations that aim to lower the transaction costs of engagement using artificial intelligence (AI) (Verhulst, 2018). From AI-facilitated citizen assemblies (Simon et al., 2023) to natural language processing (NLP) -enhanced policy proposal platforms (Grobbink & Peach, 2020) to automated analysis of unstructured direct democracy proposals (Grobbink & Peach, 2020) to large-scale deliberative polls augmented with agentic AI (Mulgan, 2022), these developments promise to enhance inclusion, scalability, and sense-making. However, they also create new attack surfaces and vectors of influence that could undermine legitimacy.

This concern is not speculative…(More)”.

Government ‘With’ The People 

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Nathan Gardels: “The rigid polarization that has gripped our societies and eroded trust in each other and in governing institutions feeds the appeal of authoritarian strongmen. Poised as tribunes of the people, they promise to lay down the law (rather than be constrained by it) and put the house in order not by bridging divides, but by targeting scapegoats and persecuting political adversaries who don’t conform to their ideological and cultural worldview.

The alternative to this course of illiberal democracy is the exact opposite: engaging citizens directly in governance through non-partisan platforms that encourage and enable deliberation, negotiation and compromise, to reach consensus across divides. Even as politics is tilting the other way at the national level, this approach of participation without populism is gaining traction from the bottom up.

The embryonic forms of this next step in democratic innovation, such as citizens’ assemblies or virtual platforms for bringing the public together and listening at scale, have so far been mostly advisory to the powers-that-be, with no guarantee that citizen input will have a binding impact on legislation or policy formation. That is beginning to change….

Claudia Chwalisz, who heads DemocracyNext, has spelled out the key elements of this innovative process that make it a model for others elsewhere:

  • “Implementation should be considered from the start, not as an afterthought. The format of the final recommendations, the process for final approval, and the time needed to ensure this part of the process does not get neglected need to be considered in the early design stages of the assembly.
  • Dedicated time and resources for transforming recommendations into legislation are also crucial for successful implementation. Bringing citizens, politicians, and civil servants together in the final stages can help bridge the gap between recommendations and action. While it has been more typical for citizens’ assemblies to draft recommendations that they then hand onward to elected officials and civil servants, who review them and then respond to the citizens’ assembly, the Parisian model demonstrates another way.
  • Collaborative workshops where consensus amongst the triad of actors is needed adds more time to the process, but ensures that there is a high level of consensus for the final output, and reduces the time that would have been needed for officials to review and respond to the citizens’ assembly’s recommendations.
  • Formal institutional integration of citizens’ assemblies through legal measures can help ensure their recommendations are taken seriously and ensures the assembly’s continuity regardless of shifts in government. The citizens’ assembly has become a part of Paris’s democratic architecture, as have other permanent citizens’ assemblies elsewhere. While one-off assemblies typically depend on political will at a moment in time and risk becoming politicized — i.e. in being associated with the party that initially launched the first one — an institutionalized citizens’ assembly anchored in policy and political decision-making helps to set the foundation for a new institution that can endure.
  • It is also important that there is regular engagement with all political parties and stakeholders throughout the process. This helps build cross-partisan support for final recommendations, as well as more sustainable support for the enduring nature of the permanent citizens assembly.”…(More)”.