designing effective participatory policy-making

86
DESIGNING EFFECTIVE PARTICIPATORY POLICY-MAKING Damien Lanfrey - Donatella Solda MIUR - Ministry of Education, University and Research

Upload: damiendonatella

Post on 17-Jul-2015

53 views

Category:

Government & Nonprofit


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Designing effective participatory policy-making

DESIGNING EFFECTIVE PARTICIPATORY

POLICY-MAKINGDamien Lanfrey - Donatella Solda

MIUR - Ministry of Education, University and Research

Page 2: Designing effective participatory policy-making

TODAYINTRO

• DONATELLA AND DAMIEN: WHO WE ARE, WHAT WE DO

DESIGNING ENGAGEMENT

• THE WIDE (SOCIAL AND LEGAL) ROOTS OF ENGAGEMENT

• THE CHALLENGES OF OPEN GOVERNMENT IN THE DIGITAL AGE

• A FRAMEWORK FOR DESIGNING AND ASSESSING PARTICIPATORY POLICY-MAKING

HOW INSTITUTIONS APPROACH INNOVATION IN POLICY DESIGN

• BODIES

• PATHS, ROUTES AND MODELS

• CASE STUDIES + GROUP WORK

Page 3: Designing effective participatory policy-making

The Wide (Legal and Social) roots of

Engagement

Page 4: Designing effective participatory policy-making

CONTEXT

• OpenGovernment policy: pro-active disclosure of information and for engagement with citizens and stakeholders.• Stated goals: strengthen accountability of institutions, increasing legitimacy and efficiency of decision and policy making• sought externalities: filling the democratic gap, reinforce social identity and attain social justice

PLANS AND PRINCIPLES

• US OpenGovernment Directive and the Memorandum for the OpenGovernment initiative (Obama, Feb 2009)• EU Towards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue (2002), PlanD for Democracy (2005), Better Regulation

initiative (2005) and Smart regulation (2012).

BY SUBJECT AND INITIATIVES

• environment: [1991] ESPOO Convention on Environmental Impact assessment in a transboundary context; [1992] RIO Declaration on Environment and Development; 1998 Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters; 2000 European Landscape Convention

• constitution-making: India [1950], Bosnia-Herzegovina [1995], Uganda [1995], Poland [1997], Timor-Leste [2002], Afghanistan [2004], Bolivia [2009], Kenya [2005; 2010]

• Peer-to-patent: remedying the information deficit of Patent Offices, such as in the case of establishing prior art which is central to the quality of an examined patent. The peer-to-patent projects show that the Patent community - which is a relatively clear and competent community with a critical view on the development of the patent system - is capable of supporting the process (Noveck 2006)

The Legal Roots of Open Government / 1

Page 5: Designing effective participatory policy-making

The Legal Roots of Open Government / 2 STATED GOALS

• ACCOUNTABILITY “The Governments will be forced to act according to justice only if their actions could be constantly challenged through the publicity: there won’t be any justice if the political action cannot be publicly known” Immanuel Kant, “Perpetual Peace. A philosophical sketch” (1795).

• EFFICIENCY make use of shared and local knowledge, well adapted and needed decisions and rules• LEGITIMACY increased acceptance and respect of the final decision/rule

SOUGHT EXTERNALITIES

• Reinforcement of local identity • Promote timely disclosure of relevant information• Make use of place-specific knowledge and social norms • Learning and improving the quality of debate• Create trust, strengthen institutional legitimacy and face democratic deficit • Support in tackling conflicts• Representing heterogeneity and attaining social justice

ENABLING FACTORS

• ICT evolution has opened a useful array of sources and tools • Institutions recognize the need to involve iteratively interested parties and groups• Citizens manifest increasing expectations from the dialogue with the institutions

Page 6: Designing effective participatory policy-making

Italian Constitutional Reforms

Devolution - Reform of Title V

12.04.2013 First document

of the “wisemen”

2013

2001

20.01.1998 Draft legislation

18.10.2001 Legge Costituzionale

n. 3/2001

26.09.2000 Unified text approved

08.03.2001 Final version

approved

07.10.2001 Referendum

turnout 34% Yes 62%No 36%

25.06.1944 Norm to call for a consultation at the end of the war on the form of government and to elect a

Constitution Assembly

02.06.1946 Referendum “Istituzionale”

[Monarchy v. Republic]Election of the Constitution Assembly

31.01.1948 Publication of the Italian Constitution

Monarchy v. RepublicConstitutional Assembly 1948

17.10.2003 Draft Legislation

2006

25-26.06.2006 Referendum

18.11.2005 Legislation published

25.03/15.10.2005 Final version

approved

Part II of the Constitution

06.2013 extra-

parliamentary working group

08.07.2013 Public

Consultation opens

08.10.2013 Public

Consultation closes

12.11.2013 Report to the

Parliament

turnout 52% Yes 39% No 61%

Part II of the Constitution

Page 7: Designing effective participatory policy-making

Failures and Debates

12.04.2013 First document

of the “wisemen”

2013

17.10.2003 Draft Legislation

2006

25-26.06.2006 Referendum

18.11.2005 Legislation published

25.03/15.10.2005 Final version

approved

Reform Part II of the Italian Constitution

06.2013 extra-

parliamentary working group

08.07.2013 Public

Consultation opens

08.10.2013 Public

Consultation closes

12.11.2013 Report to the

Parliament

turnout 52% Yes 39% No 61%

Reform Part II of the Constitution

--.--.20-- Referendum

18.07.2003 Draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe

2006

Consultative Referendum29.10.2004 Treaty signed in

Rome

04.10.2003 [IGC]

InterGovernmental Conference starts

Constitution for Europe

Yes Spain, Luxembourg No France, The Netherlands

15.12.2001 Laeken

Declaration

European Convention for the Future of Europe

Ratification period [by October 2006]

Lithuania, Hungary, Slovenia, Italy, Austria, Greece, Malta,

Cyprus, Latvia, Belgium, Estonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Germany, Finland

Ratification

suspended: Czech Republic, Denmark, Ireland, Poland, Portugal,

Sweden, UK

COM(2005)494 final Plan D

for Democracy Dialogue Debate

Page 8: Designing effective participatory policy-making

The many conceptual roots of

Engagement

Page 9: Designing effective participatory policy-making

The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement

Page 10: Designing effective participatory policy-making

The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementPolitical roots [Bennett, Coleman]: Participation as emerging forms of citizenship

Communication roots [Bimber, Shirky]: Every bit counts, communication = collective action

Organizational roots [Bennett, Earl & Kimport, Chadwick]: Collective action as organizational change

Philanthropic roots filantropiche [Fine, Kanter]: Reimagining our links to social causes

Conflictual and symbolic roots [Diani, Della Porta]: Social movement theories, alternative spaces in society, framing processes, mobilizing structures, political opportunities

Macro-theories [Benkler, Castells]: Collective action as power-shifting (communicative and economic) Techno-Legal roots [Bollier, Lessig]: Code as law, power of digital architectures/artifacts, remix

New media roots [Loader and Mercea, Manovich]: Social media, new modes of engagement, narratives, genres, new media theories

Design roots [various]: open design, p2p design, user-centred design, service design, design for policy

(Social) Innovation roots [Mulgan et al]: hybridity, iteration, social impact

Page 11: Designing effective participatory policy-making

The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementAs “ladder” of activities

Page 12: Designing effective participatory policy-making

The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementBy Mode of Production

Ladders can also be interpreted horizontally, emphasizing varying degrees

in terms of modes of production

Page 13: Designing effective participatory policy-making

The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementAs Civic Tech Categories

As emerging “fields” of the civic tech sector, defined by the proliferation of tools (Young

Foundation) or practices (Heller)

Page 14: Designing effective participatory policy-making

The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementAs Civic Tech Categories

Page 15: Designing effective participatory policy-making

The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementAs Civic Tech Categories

Page 16: Designing effective participatory policy-making

The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementBy Impact over System Vs Mode of Production

Melucci (1996) built a framework to understand all forms of collective action

Page 17: Designing effective participatory policy-making

The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement

Sifry (2014) summarized the debates over frameworks for

categorizing public engagement

By Impact over System Vs Mode of Production

Page 18: Designing effective participatory policy-making

The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementAs “format work”

A Scuola di OpenCoesione, a 6-step lesson plan for engaging students through open data in civic

monitoring of cohesion funds expenditure

Page 19: Designing effective participatory policy-making

The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementBy Leveraging Participation “Styles”

Take the example of kiva.org, the online social lending platform. It is way more than the lending

practice, leveraging many “engagement paths”

Page 20: Designing effective participatory policy-making

The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementBy Leveraging Participation “Styles”

The “tight community” path

Page 21: Designing effective participatory policy-making

The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementBy Leveraging Participation “Styles”

The “loose community” path

Page 22: Designing effective participatory policy-making

The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementBy Leveraging Participation “Styles”

Leveraging existing communities

Page 23: Designing effective participatory policy-making

The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementBy Leveraging Participation “Styles”

Communities as distributed governance

Page 24: Designing effective participatory policy-making

The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementBy Leveraging Participation “Styles”

The Education Path

Page 25: Designing effective participatory policy-making

The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementBy Leveraging Participation “Styles”

The “instrumental” Path

Page 26: Designing effective participatory policy-making

The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementBy Leveraging Participation “Styles”

The individual/utilitarian Path

Page 27: Designing effective participatory policy-making

The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementBy Leveraging Participation “Styles”

The “Ambassador” Path

Page 28: Designing effective participatory policy-making

The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementBy Leveraging Participation “Styles”

The “every bit counts” Path

Page 29: Designing effective participatory policy-making

The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementBy Leveraging Participation “Styles”

The “Generative” Path

Case 1: Poverty2Prosperity

Created by Scott, KivaFriends member Allows other Kiva users to make loans automatically to safe funds Fosters non-generative, simplified engagement

Case 2: 101 Cookbooks Blog

Created by Heidi , author of the Cookbooks blog Posted on September 3rd, 2008 + instructions 763 lenders, 38,000$ in loans

Page 30: Designing effective participatory policy-making

The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementBy Leveraging Participation “Styles”

kiva.org, the online social lending platform, is way more than the lending practice, leveraging

many “engagement paths”

Page 31: Designing effective participatory policy-making

So, engagement can be interpreted in many ways

As “ladder” of activities

By “mode of production”

As civic tech “categories”

Impact over the system Vs Mode of production

By leveraging “participation styles”

As “format work”

Page 32: Designing effective participatory policy-making

Engagement in the DIGITAL AGE

Page 33: Designing effective participatory policy-making

E-Participation Dilemmas“VOICES FAILING TO BE HEARD” (Keen, 2007; Hindman, 2009)

“LARGELY UNCHANGED HABITS” (Bimber, 2003, 2009)

“PSEUDO PARTICIPATION” (Noveck, 2004)

“THICK COMPETITIVE ELITISM” (Davis, 2011)

“SLACKTIVISM” (Morozov, Gladwell)

“CYBERPOLARIZATION” (Sunstein, Dahlberg)

Page 34: Designing effective participatory policy-making

Online consultations, “no longer an exotic experience” (Shane, 2012) BUT: failure to deliver (various scholars, at various stages, 2005-2014) Two recurring problems:

“[...] few online forums for political expression are tied to in any ascertainable, accountable way to actual governmental policy making” (Shane, 2012). “most most exercises in online deliberation attract relatively small numbers of participants” (Shane, 2012)

A negative spiral

Weak link to policy

Low numbers

Low impact in policy

Low trust, apathy

Low attention from polity & policy

Lower trust, numbers “A recessive spiral”

Page 35: Designing effective participatory policy-making

A Democratic GapE-DEMOCRACY FROM BELOW [A TALE OF POTENTIAL] • [Bimber, Shirky] communication = collective action

• [Bennett, Earl & Kimport, Chadwick] Online collective action as organizational change

• [Fine, Kanter] Reinventing advocacy, link to causes

• [Diani, Della Porta] Online mobilization potential, alternative spaces

• [Benkler, Castells] Online collective action as power-shifting (communicative and economic)

• [Bollier, Lessig] Code as law, power of digital architectures/artifacts

• [Loader and Mercea] Social media, new modes of engagement

BUT [Morozov, Gladwell] Slacktivism

BUT [Sunstein, Dahlberg] Cyberpolarization, cybercascades

E-DEMOCRACY FROM ABOVE

• LOW NUMBERS

• NOT COST-EFFECTIVE

• LOW IMPACT IN POLICY

• LOW TRUST

• “GOV AS PLATFORM” VISION NOT FULLY REALIZED

E-DEMOCRACY: A “HIGHLY VULNERABLE POTENTIAL”

“NO DETERMINISTIC PROPENSITIES OF ICT” (Coleman)

Page 36: Designing effective participatory policy-making

Case Study: PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS IN THE ITALIAN CONTEXT

Page 37: Designing effective participatory policy-making

The “Attempts” Phase

OGP - Action Plan

Numbers: very low, “usual suspects”

Impact: minimallow diffusion for the themea detailed report

Main Issues: lack of debate, closed networks, numbers not sufficient to legitimate the policy

Spending Review

Numbers: very high, but mostly useless

Impact: very low (“complaint box”)not demonstrable, low accountabilitynegative on tools

Main Issues: the tools used, too simplistic, and low accountability

Valore Legale Titolo di Studio (Legal value of degrees)

Numbers: high, but negative debate, and resultsImpact: “unfortunately” for the Gov, very high: Activism from various groupsPolicy was interrupted and Gov “lost”No accountability on the process

Main Issues: how the debate was managed, the relationship between tools and objectives

35.335 questionnaires in 30 days 550.000 messages in 28 days few dozens of comments

Page 38: Designing effective participatory policy-making

The “Tools” Phase

HIT2020: Horizon 2020 Italy - 2012

Numbers: good, but partisanship and lack of attention from non-research world

Impact: Over the policy drafingRich analysis (report)Higher participation than EU equivalentClarity of the process

Main issues: partisanship, lack of attention from non-research world

Italian position on Internet General Principles (IGF) - 2012

Numbers: decent, but, low engagement across networks besides info-tech world

Impact:co-drafting(partially) international credibilityissue awarenessgood value of physical workshops

Main Issues: tools, lack of literacy, timing, short policy window

Digital Agenda (AdiSocial) - 2012

Numbers: decent, but lack of communication

Impact: multipleInfluence over working groupsLeveraging diversityConsistency with auditionsFirst innovations with toolsA rich report on the process

Main Issues: lack of time, low inter-ministerial coordination, communication, accessibility

3000 users, 343 ideas, 1967 comments, 11.000 votes in 35 days

760 users, 159 ideas, 480 comments 3500 votes in 44 days

4272 questionnaires + 3500 users, 133 ideas, 500 comments, 7500 votes in 35 days

Page 39: Designing effective participatory policy-making

The “Paths” Phase

Destination Italy

Numbers: decent, but negative agenda

Impact: very direct: policy was “adjusted” in various partsclear priorities from participantsstakeholder engagement (e.g. think tank)

Main Issues: political instability, lack of debate

PartecipaGov: Constitutional Reforms

Numbers: very high (largest in Europe)

Impact: debatable, ongoing, soft, DELAYEDKeeping constitutional reforms high in the agenda; educational, knowledge development; very detailed report; very clear findings from citizens

Main Issues: political instability, limited offline debate

Social Innovation Agenda co-design

Numbers: low, but significant stakeholder network

Impact: limited, but high intangible valueCo-drafting of the agenda; Institutional working groups launched and few projects launched; International attention; Cultural impact

Main Issues: political instability

85 stakeholders involved, 250 inputs in 5 areas, 1 month

131.676 Q1 + 71.385 Q2 = 214.000 contributions 77000 textual comments, 595 ideas, 1763 comments

475.000 visits, 9:34 minutes per visit, 3 months278 comments , 369 questionnaires, 167 ideas, 23 position

papers, 30.000 participants, 2 months

Page 40: Designing effective participatory policy-making

Designing the Participation process

200k people involved largest online consultation by a gov in europe

PartecipaGov (Public Consultation on Constitutional Reforms) has been organized around a multi-phase process designed through a range of participation means, media campaigns and engagement occasions.

Page 41: Designing effective participatory policy-making

Case Study:

La Buona Scuola

Page 42: Designing effective participatory policy-making

Designing “La Buona Scuola”

La Buona Scuola (a comprehensive school reform proposal + engagement plan) involved the design of a 6-months policy process including expert groups, a public consultation, a national tour, a communication and media strategy.

Page 43: Designing effective participatory policy-making

Designing “La Buona Scuola”

La Buona Scuola (a comprehensive school reform proposal) consultation involved 3 main participation “paths”: 7-section questionnaires, 16 co-design themes and a strategy for live debating.

Page 44: Designing effective participatory policy-making

Designing “La Buona Scuola”

La Buona Scuola (a comprehensive school reform proposal) consultation: every participation path underlies a thick organizational process, including administrative regional offices, stakeholders’ engagement and political liaising

Page 45: Designing effective participatory policy-making

Designing “La Buona Scuola”

1.8M people involved

DEBATESTOUR STAGES300 people per debate POSITION PAPERS

Rapporti degli Uffici Scolastici Regionali

207k1.3 M

20 115204040

200kdocumented online

1.5 Mdocumented by Regional Offices

Page 46: Designing effective participatory policy-making

A Learning Curve

• Innovation/expansion in tools

• A shift from tools to processes

• A wider variety of processes put in place

• Organizational thickness

• Stronger, more directed impact

• Much more variables involved in design

• Demonstrating that Government can also handle participation

• A (mildly) positive public debate, or at least a public debate

Page 47: Designing effective participatory policy-making

A FRAMEWORK FOR DESIGNING (AND ASSESSING) PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

Page 48: Designing effective participatory policy-making

Why A Framework?• Too much focus on technologies (technocratic approach) and on designing “the perfect

software for the perfect citizen” • Too little focus on organizational and institutional aspects, need for more “inside the box”

approaches (Chadwick, 2011) • Need a better focus on information dynamics (i.e. attention scarcity) • Inability to locate e-participation within a wider social context, too much focus on “online

interactions” • A need to fill the e-democracy from below and above mismatch by better understanding the

many dimensions of civic engagement • Need for multi-dimensional, context-aware and staged approaches • Multi-disciplinarity (Dawes, 2009) • Raising the bar (practice), enriching the debate (intellectual) • Designing for impact (thus, innovation?)

Page 49: Designing effective participatory policy-making

A Framework for designing engagementoutcomes and externalities

outputs

media and symbolic space

modelling and organizational dimension, participation process

pre-conditions to participation and motivations participation

culturedigital culture

social needs and intereststrustinformation

organizational and institutional fitnessreachlivenessrichness

activism and advocacy

occasions & eventsdebate

1

2

3

4

Page 50: Designing effective participatory policy-making

A Framework for designing engagement

1 pre-conditions to participation and motivations

participation culture

digital culture

social needs and intereststrustinformation

dialogue democratic behavior

netiquette

access to relevant information content clarity

clear explanation of the processclear link to facts, sources and

policy contents

participatory pact (static or dynamic)

clear link to policy cyclecentrality in policy

security of the platformInformation management

openness to challenge

relevanceurgency

link to current debateopportunity

framing processesidentities

e-skillsdigital dividenetiquette

a pilot model - 1

Page 51: Designing effective participatory policy-making

A Framework for designing engagement1 pre-conditions to participation and motivations

informationaccess to relevant information

content clarityclear explanation of the processclear link to facts, sources and

policy contents

a pilot model - 1

clear link to facts, sources access to relevant information

content clarity

Page 52: Designing effective participatory policy-making

A Framework for designing engagement1 pre-conditions to participation and motivations

a pilot model - 1

trustparticipatory pact (static or dynamic)

clear link to policy cyclecentrality in policy

security of the platformInformation management

openness to challenge

participatory pact / social trust

technical trust / security

centrality in policyinformation management

Page 53: Designing effective participatory policy-making

netiquette

A Framework for designing engagement1 pre-conditions to participation and motivations

a pilot model - 1

participation culturedialogue

democratic behaviornetiquette“participation day”

rewarding democratic behavior

Page 54: Designing effective participatory policy-making

A Framework for designing engagement1 pre-conditions to participation and motivations

a pilot model - 1

digital culturee-skills

digital dividenetiquette

digital divide digital literacy

Page 55: Designing effective participatory policy-making

A Framework for designing engagement

2 modelling participation and organizational dimension

a pilot model - 2

organizational and institutional fitness

reachliveness

organizational micro-politicsboundary work

partnering

richnessenhancing participation styles

ladder of engagementflexibility of participation paths

customization social technographics

ability to produce step-goods, remix,

transcoding

communication effortsvirality and diffusion

mechanism, partneringappeal

storytellingmedia presence

Page 56: Designing effective participatory policy-making

A Framework for designing engagement

2 modelling participation and organizational dimension

a pilot model - 2

The digital economy moved the richness/reach (quality/quantity) threshold, but attention scarcity keeps it relevant

Page 57: Designing effective participatory policy-making

A Framework for designing engagement2 modelling participation and organizational dimension

richnessenhancing participation styles

building ladders of engagementflexibility of participation paths

customization social technographics

54% of respondents to Q1 (8 questions) also completed Q2

(24 questions)

Building ladders of engagement

light weight v. heavy weight production models

Flexibiity of participation paths

a pilot model - 2

Page 58: Designing effective participatory policy-making

A Framework for designing engagement2 modelling participation and organizational dimension

communication effortsvirality

partneringappeal

storytellingmedia presence

mobile

tablet

Desktop

designing for mobility

partnering

digital storytelling

reachcommunication efforts

a pilot model - 2

Page 59: Designing effective participatory policy-making

A Framework for designing engagement2 modelling participation and organizational dimension

livenessability to produce step-goods, remix,

transcoding

GOV.UK/performance

analytics dashboard

participation mapping

semantics and argument visualization

debate mapping

a pilot model - 2

Page 60: Designing effective participatory policy-making

A Framework for designing engagement2 modelling participation and organizational dimension

livenessability to produce step-goods, remix,

transcoding

a pilot model - 2

Page 61: Designing effective participatory policy-making

A Framework for designing engagement2 modelling participation and organizational dimension

a pilot model - 1

Main reasons for e-participation failure(Chadwick, 2011)Budget Constraints and Organizational Instability Policy Shifts Political Ambivalence Legal Risks and Depoliticization Outsourcing / Insourcing

organizational and institutional fitnessorganizational micro-politics / hierarchies

boundary workinstitutional and political partnering

understand the organization

get ready for policy shifts

budget constraints

political ambivalence

Page 62: Designing effective participatory policy-making

A Framework for designing engagement

3 media and symbolic dimension

a pilot model - 3

activism and advocacy

occasions & eventsdebate

contribution from public debatefostering democratic

occasionsdesign thinking

social innovation

agonistic dimension

Page 63: Designing effective participatory policy-making

A Framework for designing engagement3 media and symbolic dimension

a pilot model - 3

debatecontribution from public

debate

Page 64: Designing effective participatory policy-making

A Framework for designing engagement3 media and symbolic dimension

a pilot model - 3

occasions & events

fostering democratic occasions

accreditationdesign thinking

social innovation

Social Innovation Agenda 2013IBAC 2014 (Destinazione Italia)

Design jams as goal-setter

Page 65: Designing effective participatory policy-making

A Framework for designing engagement3 media and symbolic dimension

a pilot model - 3

activism and advocacy

leveraging the agonistic dimension

Page 66: Designing effective participatory policy-making

A Framework for designing engagement

4 outputs, outcomes and externalities

a pilot model - 4

outcomes and externalitiesaccountability efficiency legitimacy

awareness identityconflictsheterogeneity social justicetrust

Page 67: Designing effective participatory policy-making

A Framework for designing engagement4 outputs, outcomes and externalities

a pilot model - 4

outcomes and externalitiesaccountability efficiency legitimacy

awareness identityconflictsheterogeneity social justicetrustquantity vs quality of debate

who is saying what/how groups behave

turning noise into meaning

cost-effectiveness, completion rates, user satisfaction

actual feedbacks

Page 68: Designing effective participatory policy-making

A Framework for designing engagement4 outputs, outcomes and externalities

a pilot model - 4

outcomes and externalitiesaccountability efficiency legitimacy

awareness identityconflictsheterogeneity social justicetrust

conversion rates

- Direct + Search = 62% of total Q1 completed - Campaigns + Referrals = 38% of total Q1 completed - Mobile + Tablet contributes for 14% of Q1 completed - Facebook + Twitter = 7% of of Q1 completed - Main institutional websites = 18,4% of Q1 completed

11%1%1%1%1%1%1%

2%4%

4%

4%

6%

17%

45%

Direct Google FacebookAgenzia Entrate Governo.it INPSACI Comuni MITTiConsiglio.com Province INAILTwitter Other

capturing moments

stickiness

Page 69: Designing effective participatory policy-making

A Framework for designing engagementa pilot model - 4

outputs

citizens’ input expected impact in the policy cycle

weak

strong

type of input

simple

complex

co-management

co-design resource allocation

e-deliberation

endorsement

feedback gathering

information - awareness

outcomes and externalitiesaccountability efficiency legitimacy

awareness identityconflictsheterogeneity social justicetrust

4

Page 70: Designing effective participatory policy-making

A Framework for designing engagement4 outputs, outcomes and externalities

a pilot model - 4

decision and policy cycle

implementation

design

evaluation

adoption

endorsement

monitoring

solutions

issues identification

ex ante impact assessment

ex post impact assessment

resources allocation

emerging societal needs

drafting

co-design

e-deliberation

sustainability

buy-invisualization

feedback-gathering

e-deliberation

Page 71: Designing effective participatory policy-making

2 Challenges for Group Work

• Reach and engage Italian researchers abroad, leveraging their potential as strategic community for MIUR, italian society and Italy’s productive system

• strengthen schools as community centers, opened after hours as meeting point for families, society at large, public administrations, entrepreneurial bodies

design a policy solution to

Keep in mind the framework you learned today. Your solution must address as many

variables as possible

Page 72: Designing effective participatory policy-making

END OF

PART 1

Page 73: Designing effective participatory policy-making

PART 2 A broader perspective on

innovation in Policy design

Page 74: Designing effective participatory policy-making

how institutions approach innovation in policy design

AGENCIES, DEPARTMENTS, PROGRAMS, INDEPENDENT ENTITIES

Page 75: Designing effective participatory policy-making

how institutions approach innovation in policy designOffice of Information and Regulatory Affairs - US The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is located within the Office of Management and Budget and was created by Congress with the enactment of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (PRA). OIRA carries out several important functions, including reviewing Federal regulations, reducing paperwork burdens, and overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs.

Behavioural Insights Team - UK The Behavioural Insights Team, often called the ‘Nudge Unit’, applies insights from academic research in behavioural economics and psychology to public policy and services.In addition to working with almost every government department, we work with local authorities, charities, NGOs, private sector partners and foreign government, developing proposals and testing them empirically across the full spectrum of government policy.

The Presidential Innovation Fellows (PIF) program pairs top innovators from the private sector, non-profits, and academia with top innovators in government to collaborate during focused 6-13 month “tours of duty” to develop solutions that can save lives, save taxpayer money, and fuel job creation. Each team of innovators is supported by a broader community of interested citizens throughout the country.

Independent charity that works to increase the innovation capacity of the UK. The organisation acts through a combination of practical programmes, investment, policy and research, and the formation of partnerships to promote innovation across a broad range of sectors.Originally funded by a £250 million endowment from the UK National Lottery, now kept in trust, and its interests are used to meet charitable objects and to fund and support projects.

AGENCIES, DEPARTMENTS, PROGRAMS, INDEPENDENT BODIES

Page 76: Designing effective participatory policy-making

how institutions approach innovation in policy design

PATHS, ROUTES AND MODELS

Page 77: Designing effective participatory policy-making

how institutions approach innovation in policy design

- political polarization - democracy dilemmas - process foul

Participation: good governance practice (not compulsory)- internal decisions: specialized information held by diverse people within the executive branch

- public comment: draft rules undergoing analysis and feedback from other levels of gov, businesses, interest groups

- substantive, technical, non political, agreeable

Efficiency: evidence based policy making

Test, Learn,Adapt: Developing Public Policy with Randomised Controlled Trials (9 steps)

- short terms costs vs major long term benefits

- Moneyball regulations: substituting empirical data for long-standing dogmas, intuitions, anedocte-driven judgements

Simplification: nudges, paths, framing

Choice Architecture: default rules vs active choice

information on consequences together with clear, explicit and actionable instructions

[Sunstein-Thaler] Positive reinforcement and indirect suggestions to try to achieve non forced compliance

Page 78: Designing effective participatory policy-making

how institutions approach innovation in policy design

A PROPOSED CASE STUDY: #GOODLAW

Page 79: Designing effective participatory policy-making

how institutions approach innovation in policy design

#Good law Participation Efficiency Simplification

Page 80: Designing effective participatory policy-making

how institutions approach innovation in policy design

Participation

Efficiency

Simplification

Improving Parliamentary and public scrutiny of legislation has been a government objective in recent years, seeking to improve both democratic engagement and legislative quality.

Setting out policy targets in legislation can be “a low-cost way for governments to give the appearance of vigorous action” and a way to strategically influence (or limit) the decision-

making of future governments

consultation and engagement are important. But traditional consultation exercises can feel burdensome and unrewarding; and generic questions asked in a consultation may generate cluttered feedback that is difficult to analyse and to integrate into the policy or the draft bill.In an increasingly complicated policy- making context, consultations that are not predominantly reactive often work better than the traditional model.

- Volume (number and length of statutes and regulations)- Quality (addressing political and social objectives, harmonious, clear and well-integrated, in time and efficiently - Perception of disproportionate complexity (layered and heavily amended, ambiguous or contradictory provisions)

- unnecessary (target unachievable, redundant, unnecessary burdens) - ineffective (it does not achieve intended objectives, fragmented or problematic implementation, substantial negative outcomes) - inaccessible (difficult to identify and access up-to-date versions, language and style, lack of guidance)

necessary, effective, clear, coherent and accessible legislation It is about the content of law, its architecture, its language and its accessibility – and about the links between those things.

#Good law

Page 81: Designing effective participatory policy-making

how institutions approach innovation in policy design

#Legislate?!The Cabinet Office has brought out a board game "Legislate?!": a fun way to learn about the passage of laws from Bill to Act

Page 82: Designing effective participatory policy-making

how institutions approach innovation in policy design

A PROPOSED CASE STUDY: MIUR’S NEW NATIONAL PLAN FOR

DIGITAL SCHOOLS (2015)

Page 83: Designing effective participatory policy-making

how institutions approach innovation in policy design

WHERE WE COME FROM

1st phase (2007-2012) classrooms as labs, rather than in labs

• Classrooms 2.0: 416• Schools 2.0: 14 schools• Interactive whiteboards:

35.000 • Digital publishing: 20 schools

2nd phase (2012-2014)

• Classrooms 2.0: 905• Schools 2.0: 21 schools• Interactive whiteboards: 1.931• Plan for “Isolated schools”: 45• 38 “digital training centers”

created• Wi-fi in school

In total… • Roughly 130M investments

+ 20M from Regions• 90,000 teachers trained• 25% of secondary schools

with fast broadband (15% of primary schools)

• 78% of labs connected, 56% with LIM

• 46% of rooms connected (32% with LIM)

• 58% of electronic registers

Page 84: Designing effective participatory policy-making

how institutions approach innovation in policy design

WHERE WE COME FROM

Starting point: a critical analysis of the context

• We trained 90,000 teachers, but don’t know about impact (and snowballing effects)

• Inconsistent policies over time• Lack of systemic vision and, especially,

impact• Hard technology rather than soft• No support for school (cultural issues)

This means:

• Our training schemes weren’t effective• The “classroom as labs” vision proved too

tech-centered, and too expensive• Teachers tried to absorb innovation, but

mostly couldn’t deliver to students• Skills policy mostly linked to tech rather

than a comprehensive vision on literacy• Fragmented projects, low impact: what to

incubate?

Page 85: Designing effective participatory policy-making

how institutions approach innovation in policy design

WHERE WE NEED TO GO1. Not true that digital natives know it all: digital literacy is broadening, and formats are (e.g. MOOC). We need to develop a strategy/service to involve the private sector, civil society and creatives to leverage the “engagement as format work” path.

2. Teachers’ training needs to become permanent and structural: it needs to regard almost 800,000 teachers. How do we organize it, leveraging innovative schools and teachers.

3. We need to create a link between digital skills and the kind of careers they produce (entrepreneurship, emerging jobs, science, research).

4. We need to develop schemes that leverage public + private investments in school infrastructures, connectivity in particular

5. We need to modernize school labs and school spaces, and change the way we think of them as linked to digital education