The economic value of data: discussion paper

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

HM Treasury (UK): “Technological change has radically increased both the volume of data in the economy, and our ability to process it. This change presents an opportunity to transform our economy and society for the better.

Data-driven innovation holds the keys to addressing some of the most significant challenges confronting modern Britain, whether that is tackling congestion and improving air quality in our cities, developing ground-breaking diagnosis systems to support our NHS, or making our businesses more productive.

The UK’s strengths in cutting-edge research and the intangible economy make it well-placed to be a world leader, and estimates suggest that data-driven technologies will contribute over £60 billion per year to the UK economy by 2020.1 Recent events have raised public questions and concerns about the way that data, and particularly personal data, can be collected, processed, and shared with third party organisations.

These are concerns that this government takes seriously. The Data Protection Act 2018 updates the UK’s world-leading data protection framework to make it fit for the future, giving individuals strong new rights over how their data is used. Alongside maintaining a secure, trusted data environment, the government has an important role to play in laying the foundations for a flourishing data-driven economy.

This means pursuing policies that improve the flow of data through our economy, and ensure that those companies who want to innovate have appropriate access to high-quality and well-maintained data.

This discussion paper describes the economic opportunity presented by data-driven innovation, and highlights some of the key challenges that government will need to address, such as: providing clarity around ownership and control of data; maintaining a strong, trusted data protection framework; making effective use of public sector data; driving interoperability and standards; and enabling safe, legal and appropriate data sharing.

Over the last few years, the government has taken significant steps to strengthen the UK’s position as a world leader in data-driven innovation, including by agreeing the Artificial Intelligence Sector Deal, establishing the Geospatial Commission, and making substantial investments in digital skills. The government will build on those strong foundations over the coming months, including by commissioning an Expert Panel on Competition in Digital Markets. This Expert Panel will support the government’s wider review of competition law by considering how competition policy can better enable innovation and support consumers in the digital economy.

There are still big questions to be answered. This document marks the beginning of a wider set of conversations that government will be holding over the coming year, as we develop a new National Data Strategy….(More)”.

Regulatory Technology – Replacing Law with Computer Code

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

LSE Legal Studies Working Paper by Eva Micheler and Anna Whaley: “Recently both the Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority have carried out experiments using new digital technology for regulatory purposes. The idea is to replace rules written in natural legal language with computer code and to use artificial intelligence for regulatory purposes.

This new way of designing public law is in line with the government’s vision for the UK to become a global leader in digital technology. It is also reflected in the FCA’s business plan.

The article reviews the technology and the advantages and disadvantages of combining the technology with regulatory law. It then informs the discussion from a broader public law perspective. It analyses regulatory technology through criteria developed in the mainstream regulatory discourse. It contributes to that discourse by anticipating problems that will arise as the technology evolves. In addition, the hope is to assist the government in avoiding mistakes that have occurred in the past and creating a better system from the start…(More)”.

Informational Autocrats

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Sergei M. Guriev and Daniel Treisman: “In recent decades, dictatorships based on mass repression have largely given way to a new model based on the manipulation of information. Instead of terrorizing citizens into submission, “informational autocrats” artificially boost their popularity by convincing the public they are competent.

To do so, they use propaganda and silence informed members of the elite by co-optation or censorship.

Using several sources – including a newly created dataset of authoritarian control techniques – we document a range of trends in recent autocracies that fit the theory: a decline in violence, efforts to conceal state repression, rejection of official ideologies, imitation of democracy, a perceptions gap between masses and elite, and the adoption by leaders of a rhetoric of performance rather than one aimed at inspiring fear….(More)”

Identifying Healthcare Fraud with Open Data

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Xuan Zhang et al: “Health care fraud is a serious problem that impacts every patient and consumer. This fraudulent behavior causes excessive financial losses every year and causes significant patient harm. Healthcare fraud includes health insurance fraud, fraudulent billing of insurers for services not provided, and exaggeration of medical services, etc. To identify healthcare fraud thus becomes an urgent task to avoid the abuse and waste of public funds. Existing methods in this research field usually use classified data from governments, which greatly compromises the generalizability and scope of application. This paper introduces a methodology to use publicly available data sources to identify potentially fraudulent behavior among physicians. The research involved data pairing of multiple datasets, selection of useful features, comparisons of classification models, and analysis of useful predictors. Our performance evaluation results clearly demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed method….(More)”.

Open innovation and the evaluation of internet-enabled public services in smart cities

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Krassimira Paskaleva and Ian Cooper in Technovation: This article is focused on public service innovation from an innovation management perspective. It presents research experience gained from a European project for managing social and technological innovation in the production and evaluation of citizen-centred internet-enabled services in the public sector.

It is based on six urban pilot initiatives, which sought to operationalise a new approach to co-producing and co-evaluating civic services in smart cities – commonly referred to as open innovation for smart city services. Research suggests that the evidence base underpinning this approach is not sufficiently robust to support claims being made about its effectiveness.

Instead evaluation research of citizen-centred internet-enabled urban services is in its infancy and there are no tested methods or tools in the literature for supporting this approach.

The paper reports on the development and trialing of a novel Co-evaluation Framework, indicators and reporting categories, used to support the co-production of smart city services in an EU-funded project. Our point of departure is that innovation of services is a sub-set of innovation management that requires effective integration of technological with social innovation, supported by the right skills and capacities. The main skills sets needed for effective co-evaluation of open innovation services are the integration of stakeholder management with evaluation capacities.”

Big Data: the End of the Scientific Method?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by S. Succi and P.V. Coveney at arXiv: “We argue that the boldest claims of Big Data are in need of revision and toning-down, in view of a few basic lessons learned from the science of complex systems. We point out that, once the most extravagant claims of Big Data are properly discarded, a synergistic merging of BD with big theory offers considerable potential to spawn a new scientific paradigm capable of overcoming some of the major barriers confronted by the modern scientific method originating with Galileo. These obstacles are due to the presence of nonlinearity, nonlocality and hyperdimensions which one encounters frequently in multiscale modelling….(More)”.

How to be a public entrepreneur

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Rowan Conway at the RSA: “Political theorist Elinor Ostrom was the first to coin the phrase “public entrepreneur” in her 1965 UCLA PhD thesis where she proposed that government actors should be the makers of purpose-driven businesses. She later went on to surprise the world of economics by winning a Nobel prize.

To the economic establishment Ostrom was a social scientist and her theories of common goods and public purpose enterprise ran counter to the economic orthodoxy. 44 years later, at the same time that she was taking the stage as the first (and only) woman to win a Nobel prize for economics, another California-based thinker was positing his own vision for entrepreneurship… “Move fast and break things” was famously Mark Zuckerberg’s credo for Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. “Unless you are breaking stuff,” he said in 2009, “you are not moving fast enough.” This phrase came to epitomise the “fail fast” start-up culture that has seeped into our consciousness and redefined modern life in the last decade.

Public vs Private entrepreneurs

So which of these two types of entrepreneurship should prevail? I’d say that they’re not playing on the same field and barely even playing the same game. While the Silicon Valley model glorifies the frat boys who dreamt up tech start-ups in their dorm rooms and took the “self-made” financial gains when big tech took off, public entrepreneurs are not cast from this mold. They are the government actors taking on the system to solve social and environmental problems and the idea of “breaking things” won’t appeal to them. “Moving fast”, however, speaks to their ambitions for an agile government that wants to make change in a digital world.

Public entrepreneurs are socially minded — but they differ from social entrepreneurs in that they carry out a public or state role. In a Centre for Public Impact briefing paper entitled “Enter the Public Entrepreneur” the difference is clear:

“While “social entrepreneurs” are people outside government, public entrepreneurs act within government and, at their heart, are a blend of two different roles: that of a public servant, and that of an entrepreneur. The underlying premise is that these roles are usually distinct but the skill sets they require need not be. Indeed, the future public servant will increasingly need to think and act like an entrepreneur — building new relationships, leveraging resources, working across sector lines and acting, and sometimes failing, fast.”

Today we publish a RSA Lab report entitled “Move Fast and Fix Things” in partnership with Innovate UK. The report examines the role of Public Entrepreneurs who want to find ways to move fast without leaving a trail of destruction. It builds on the literature that makes the case for public missionsand entrepreneurship in government and acts as a kind of “how to guide” for those in the public sector who want to think and act like entrepreneurs, but sometimes feel like they are pushing up against an immovable bureaucratic system.

Acting entrepreneurially with procurement

A useful distinction of types of government innovation by the European Commission describes “innovation in government” as transforming public administration, such as the shift to digital service provision and “innovation through government” as initiatives that “foster innovation elsewhere in society, such as the public procurement of innovation”. Our report looks at public procurement — specifically the Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI) — as a route for innovation through government.

Governments have catalytic spending power. The UK public sector alone spends over £251.5 billion annually procuring goods and services which accounts for 33% of public sector spend and 13.7% of GDP. A profound shift in practice is required if government is to proactively use this power to stimulate innovation in the way that Mariana Mazzucato, author of The Entrepreneurial State calls for. As Director of the UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose she advocates for “mission-oriented innovation” which can enable speed as it has “not only a rate, but also a direction” — purposefully using government’s purchasing power to stimulate innovation for good.

But getting procurement professionals to understand how to be entrepreneurial with public funds is no mean feat….(More)”.

‘Mayor for a Day’ – Is Gamified Urban Management the Way Forward?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Gianluca Sgueo: “…aims at describing the use, exploring the potential – but also at understanding the limits – of the use of ‘gamification’ strategies into urban management. Commonly defined as the introduction of game-design elements into non-game contexts, with the former aimed at making the latter more fun, gamification is recognised among the technological paradigms that are shaping the evolution of public administrations.

The paper is divided in three sections.

SECTION I discusses the definition (and appropriateness of) gamification in urban management, and locates it conceptually at the crossroads between nudging, democratic innovations, and crowdsourcing.

SECTION II analyses the potentials of gamified urban management. Four benefits are assessed: first, gamified urban management seems to encourage adaptation of policy-making to structural/societal changes; second, it offers a chance to local administrators to (re-)gain trust from citizens, and thus be perceived as legitimate; third, it adapts policy-making to budgetary challenges; fourth, it helps to efficiently tackle complex regulatory issues.

SECTION III of this paper turns to consider the risks related with the use of gamification in urban management. The first consists of the obstacles faced by participatory rights within gamified policies; the second risk is defined ‘paradox of incentives’; the third is related with privacy issues. In the concluding section, this paper advances some proposals (or, alternatively, highlight valuable theoretical and empirical research efforts) aimed at solving some of the most pressing threats posed by gamified urban management.

The main features of the case studies described in SECTIONS II and III are summarised in a table at the end of the paper….(More)”.

On the Bumpy Road Towards Open Government: The Not-Invented-Here Syndrome as a Major Pothole

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Lisa Schmidthuber, David Antons and Dennis Hilgers: “This paper investigates the role of public employees in absorbing external knowledge. Triggered by open government initiatives and open calls for participation, external actors are invited to integrate ideas, solutions, or experience into public organizations. Such exploitation of valuable external knowledge across organizational interfaces might, however, be hindered by negative attitudes of public employees towards external input. The rejection of outside knowledge by internal actors is known as the Not-Invented-Here syndrome. This paper sheds light on NIH attitudes in public organizations. After reviewing the state of the art of research on NIH, it emphasizes rethinking NIH in the public sector. The in-depth discussion of previous work thus serves to derive an extensive agenda for future research….(More)”

Cloud Communities: The Dawn of Global Citizenship?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper by Liav Orgad and Rainer Baubock: “New digital technologies are rapidly changing the global economy and have connected billions of people in deterritoralised social network. Will they also create new opportunities for global citizenship and alternatives to state-based political communities?

In his kick-off essay, Liav Orgad takes an optimistic view. Blockchain technology permits to give every human being a unique legal persona and allows individuals to associate in ‘cloud communities’ that may take on several functions of territorial states. 14 commentators discuss this vision.

Sceptics assume that states or business corporations have always found ways to capture and use new technologies for their purposes. They emphasise that the political functions of states, including their task to protect human rights, require territorial monopolies of legitimate coercion that cannot be provided by cloud communities.

Others point out that individuals would sort themselves out into cloud communities that are internally homogenous which risks to deepen political cleavages within territorial societies.

Finally, some authors are concerned that digital political communities will enhance global social inequalities through excluding from access those who are already worse off in the birthright lottery of territorial citizenship.

Optimists see instead the great potential of blockchain technology to overcome exclusion and marginalisation based on statelessness or sheer lack of civil registries; they regard it as a tool for enhancing individual freedom, since people are self-sovereign in controlling their personal data; and they emphasise the possibilities for emancipatory movements to mobilise for global justice across territorial borders or to create their own internally democratic political utopias.

In the boldest vision, the deficits of cloud communities as voluntary political associations with limited scope of power could be overcome in a global cryptodemocracy that lets all individuals participate on a one-person-one-vote basis in global political decisions….(More)”.