OECD Report: “The swift evolution of AI technologies calls for policymakers to consider and proactively manage AI-driven change. The OECD’s Expert Group on AI Futures was established to help meet this need and anticipate AI developments and their potential impacts. Informed by insights from the Expert Group, this report distils research and expert insights on prospective AI benefits, risks and policy imperatives. It identifies ten priority benefits, such as accelerated scientific progress, productivity gains and better sense-making and forecasting. It discusses ten priority risks, such as facilitation of increasingly sophisticated cyberattacks; manipulation, disinformation, fraud and resulting harms to democracy; concentration of power; incidents in critical systems and exacerbated inequality and poverty. Finally, it points to ten policy priorities, including establishing clearer liability rules, drawing AI “red lines”, investing in AI safety and ensuring adequate risk management procedures. The report reviews existing public policy and governance efforts and remaining gaps…(More)”.
The Motivational State: A strengths-based approach to improving public sector productivity
Paper by Alex Fox and Chris Fox: “…argues that traditional approaches to improving public sector productivity, such as adopting private sector practices, technology-driven reforms, and tighter management, have failed to address the complex and evolving needs of public service users. It proposes a shift towards a strengths-based, person-led model, where public services are co-produced with individuals, families, and communities…(More)”.
Operational Learning
International Red Cross: “Operational learning in emergencies is the lesson learned from managing and dealing with crises, refining protocols for resource allocation, decision-making, communication strategies, and others. The summaries are generated using AI and Large Language Models, based on data coming from Final DREF Reports, Emergency Appeal reports and others…(More)”
More-than-human governance experiments in Europe
Paper by Claudia Chwalisz & Lucy Reid: “There is a growing network of people and places exploring and practising how governance and policy design can draw on more-than-human intelligences.
‘More-than-human’ was initially coined by David Abram in his 1997 book The Spell of the Sensuous. The term refers to the animate earth and the impossibility of separating our human- ness from our relationship with it. Our exploration related to governance has been around how we might meaningfully consider our relationship with the living world when taking decisions.
We have undertaken a short exploratory research project to learn who is conducting new governance experiments in Europe to begin to map the field, learn from best practices, and share these findings…
There were three main types of approaches to applying the idea of more-than-human governance in practice, sometimes with an overlap:
- Rights-based;
- Representation-focused, and
- Artistic.
We identified four key groups we felt were missing from our initial research and discussions:
- Indigenous voices;
- More non-specialists and artists;
- A few critical voices, and
- People using technology in novel ways that reshape our relationship with the living world…(More)”
Voice and Access in AI: Global AI Majority Participation in Artificial Intelligence Development and Governance
Paper by Sumaya N. Adan et al: “Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly emerging as one of the most transformative technologies in human history, with the potential to profoundly impact all aspects of society globally. However, access to AI and participation in its development and governance is concentrated among a few countries with advanced AI capabilities, while the ‘Global AI Majority’ – defined as the population of countries primarily encompassing Africa, Latin America, South and Southeast Asia, and parts of Eastern Europe – is largely excluded. These regions, while diverse, share common challenges in accessing and influencing advanced AI technologies.
This white paper investigates practical remedies to increase voice in and access to AI governance and capabilities for the Global AI Majority, while addressing the security and commercial concerns of frontier AI states. We examine key barriers facing the Global AI Majority, including limited access to digital and compute infrastructure, power concentration in AI development, Anglocentric data sources, and skewed talent distributions. The paper also explores the dual-use dilemma of AI technologies and how it motivates frontier AI states to implement restrictive policies.
We evaluate a spectrum of AI development initiatives, ranging from domestic model creation to structured access to deployed models, assessing their feasibility for the Global AI Majority. To resolve governance dilemmas, we propose three key approaches: interest alignment, participatory architecture, and safety assurance…(More)”.
Uniting the UK’s Health Data: A Huge Opportunity for Society’
The Sudlow Review (UK): “…Surveys show that people in the UK overwhelmingly support the use of their health data with appropriate safeguards to improve lives. One of the review’s recommendations calls for continued engagement with patients, the public, and healthcare professionals to drive forward developments in health data research.
The review also features several examples of harnessing health data for public benefit in the UK, such as the national response to the COVID-19 pandemic. But successes like these are few and far between due to complex systems and governance. The review reveals that:
- Access to datasets is difficult or slow, often taking months or even years.
- Data is accessible for analysis and research related to COVID-19, but not to tackle other health conditions, such as other infectious diseases, cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes and dementia.
- More complex types of health data generally don’t have national data systems (for example, most lab testing data and radiology imaging).
- Barriers like these can delay or prevent hundreds of studies, holding back progress that could improve lives…
The Sudlow Review’s recommendations provide a pathway to establishing a secure and trusted health data system for the UK:
- Major national public bodies with responsibility for or interest in health data should agree a coordinated joint strategy to recognise England’s health data for what they are: a critical national infrastructure.
- Key government health, care and research bodies should establish a national health data service in England with accountable senior leadership.
- The Department of Health and Social Care should oversee and commission ongoing, coordinated, engagement with patients, public, health professionals, policymakers and politicians.
- The health and social care departments in the four UK nations should set a UK-wide approach to streamline data access processes and foster proportionate, trustworthy data governance.
- National health data organisations and statistical authorities in the four UK nations should develop a UK-wide system for standards and accreditation of secure data environments (SDEs) holding data from the health and care system…(More)”.
Normative Foundations for International Data Governance: Goals and Principles
Proposed Foundations by the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination: “…suggests a set of common goals and principles that could form the normative basis for international data governance. The document does not present universally agreed goals and principles but seeks to provide an input to ongoing and future deliberations on the topic, including within the context of follow-up to the Global Digital Compact and other intergovernmental processes. Prepared by the HLCP Working Group on international data governance, the document seeks to complement existing standards and principles and builds on the Group’s previous paper “International Data Governance: Pathways to Progress”, which outlined a vision and steps towards the promotion of data governance grounded in human rights and sustainable development through a multistakeholder consultative approach.
Central to the document are three overarching goals: value, trust, and equity. Value highlights the necessity for an enabling environment that fosters responsible data use and reuse, alongside the critical importance of interoperability to facilitate effective data sharing. Trust is cultivated through a human rights-based approach, prioritizing data protection and privacy, while ensuring accountability and high standards of data quality throughout the lifecycle. Equity is promoted by empowering individuals and communities exercise control over their personal data and ensuring that the benefits of data access are distributed fairly, particularly to vulnerable and marginalized groups…(More)”.
Towards effective governance of justice data
OECD working paper: “…explores the role of data governance in advancing people-centred justice systems. It outlines the objectives, values, and practices necessary to harness data effectively, drawing on OECD policy instruments. The paper provides actionable insights for policymakers aiming to implement data-driven justice reforms. It also addresses the challenges and opportunities presented by digital transformation in the justice sector, advocating for a strategic approach that balances innovation with the protection of fundamental rights. It incorporates lessons from data governance activities and experiences in justice and other relevant sectors. This paper is essential reading for those involved in modernisation of justice and data governance…(More)”.
Federated Data Infrastructures for Scientific Use
Policy paper by the German Council for Scientific Information Infrastructures: “…provides an overview and a comparative in-depth analysis of the emerging research (and research related) data infrastructures NFDI, EOSC, Gaia-X and the European Data Spaces. In addition, the Council makes recommendations for their future development and coordination. The RfII notes that access to genuine high-quality research data and related core services is a matter of basic public supply and strongly advises to achieve coherence between the various initiatives and approaches…(More)”.
Unlocking Green Deal Data: Innovative Approaches for Data Governance and Sharing in Europe
JRC Report: “Drawing upon the ambitious policy and legal framework outlined in the Europe Strategy for Data (2020) and the establishment of common European data spaces, this Science for Policy report explores innovative approaches for unlocking relevant data to achieve the objectives of the European Green Deal.
The report focuses on the governance and sharing of Green Deal data, analysing a variety of topics related to the implementation of new regulatory instruments, namely the Data Governance Act and the Data Act, as well as the roles of various actors in the data ecosystem. It provides an overview of the current incentives and disincentives for data sharing and explores the existing landscape of Data Intermediaries and Data Altruism Organizations. Additionally, it offers insights from a private sector perspective and outlines key data governance and sharing practices concerning Citizen-Generated Data (CGD).
The main conclusions build upon the concept of “Systemic Data Justice,” which emphasizes equity, accountability, and fair representation to foster stronger connections between the supply and demand of data for a more effective and sustainable data economy. Five policy recommendations outline a set of main implications and actionable points for the revision of the INSPIRE Directive (2007) within the context of the common European Green Deal data space, and toward a more sustainable and fair data ecosystem. However, the relevance of these recommendations spills over Green Deal data only, as they outline key elements to ensure that any data ecosystem is both just and impact-oriented…(More)”.