ipp2014
DESCRIPTION
presentation at ipp2014TRANSCRIPT
Policy 2.0 : a reality check
David Osimo, IPP2014
Today’s talk
• Theory of policy 2.0• Examples I took part in• Lessons learnt from experience• Open questions and on-going work: policy 2.0
evaluation
The emergence of policy 2.020082005 2011+
Web 2.0
• Data is the intel inside
• User as a producer• Many to many• Usability• Permanent beta
Gov 2.0
• Politics (e.g. Obama, mySociety)
• Public services (e.g. Fixmystreet, Appsfordemocracy)
Policy 2.0
• Policy-making:• US “Policy
Informatics Network”
• EU“ICT for governance” funding
• Open Policy work by UK cabinet
• CROSSOVER roadmap
E-rulemaking
E-democracy
E-deliberation
What is Policy 2.0
TOOLS• Open data• Social networks and
crowdsourcing• Visualisation• Big data simulation• Serious gaming
VALUES• Open up to external contributions
earlier in the process• Enable peer-to-peer collaboration
between participants• Design for unexpected
questions/contributions (Raw data, open questions)
• Be very clear and usable when you ask for help
• Account for real humans not simplified abstract entities
Design
Implement
Evaluate
Set agenda
Brainstorming solutions
Drafting proposals Revising
proposals
Induce behavioural change
Collaborative action
Ensure Buy-in
Monitor executionCollect
feedback
Identify problems
Collect evidence
Set priorities
Analyze data
Uservoice, ideascale
EtherpadCo-ment.com
Social networks
Persuasive technologies
Challenge.gov
Open data
Participatry sensing
Open Data visualization
Evidencechallenge.com
Collaborative
visualization
Open discussion
Policy cycle
Simulate impact of options
Model and simulation
DECISION
Source: CROSSOVER roadmap
Design
Implement
Evaluate
Set agenda
Brainstorming solutions
Drafting proposals Revising
proposals
Induce behavioural change
Collaborative action
Ensure Buy-in
Monitor executionCollect
feedback
Identify problems
Collect evidence
Set priorities
Analyze data
Ideamocracy.itOpenIdeo
CommentNeelie.eu
INCA awards
Daeimplementation.eu
Digital Agenda
Mid Term review
Open Declaration on
EU public services
Policy cycle
Simulate impact of options
DECISION
Kublai evaluation
Linkedpolicies.eu
Pledge Tracker
Lessons learnt
Source: UNDP – Open Evidence
It’s not about “total citizens”• DAE Mid Term Review: More insightful than
representative
It’s doesn’t have to be totally open to the crowd
Open Declaration on European Public Services
Open to all
Digital Agenda Mid Term review Open to all, 2000 comments received, 1500 participants
Pledge Tracker Only to those organisations committing to the Grand Coalition for Digital Jobs
OpenIdeo Members of the OpenIdeo communityDaeimplementation Collaborative platform for EU MS
representativeYoung Advisors to VP Neelie Kroes Appointed Young Advisors
Need for restricted online spaces
Not all the time open
Fuente: http://ebiinterfaces.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/ux-people-autumn-2010-talks/
Open brainstorming
Small groups drafting
Open commenting
Small group re-drafting
Open endorsement
EU Open Declaration:
A reality check: policy-making 2.0 still more promising than impactful
• 2050 PATHWAYS : high usage (16K pathways created, 200 stakeholders involved in the building phase). Higher awareness by citizens. Output used by govt to back up the Carbon Strategy.
• GLEAM: adopted by mainstream gov’t agency to anticipate disease spread through transportation. Adopted also for educational purposes
• OPINION SPACE 3.0: significant participation (5K individuals) , endorsement at top level (Secretary of State Clinton)
• URBANSIM: High usage by US local gov’tLack of systematic robust evaluation of different policy-methods.
Initial evidence points to the potential impact, but very far from counterfactual / RCT approach available to date.
Open questions
– Does Policy 2.0 favour the participation of people beyond the “usual suspects”? Is it only for the elite?
– Does it bring new relevant ideas useful for policy-making?
– Does it actually lead to better policies?
Ongoing work: an evaluation framework
Source: UNDP – Open Evidence
Value for money
Cost per comment (EUR)
15
There’s elite and elite: who benefits?
Usual suspects No problem
Not interested/interesting
Missed opportunity
Low quality of ideas High quality of ideas
Don’t participate in policy debate
Participate in policy debate
Source: adapted from Kublai evaluation
Application of logical framework to EU Community project
Before joining Kublai... Significant correlation between experience and benefit received
ExperienceY N
Bene
fit
Remember the debate on universal right to vote
• Perversity: it will reinforce the power of the elites• Futility: people won’t participate anyway• Jeopardy: it will lead to a rise in populism
• BUT: participation has educational effects, as the worker through political discussion opens his mind beyond the limitations of the factory, understands the relation between personal interests and faraway events, and becomes member of the community
Hirschmann, The Rethorics of Reaction
Locke quoted in Bobbio, The Future of Democracy
Summing up
• Policy 2.0 (or whatever we call it) is richer and more complex than crowdsourcing
• It is a growing and promising trend in research and practice
• There are open questions regarding its impact that deserve thorough scrutiny
• Yet we should always remember that public involvement in policy-making is a goal in itself and it should not be justified by evidence, but by values
