From Open Government to Living Policy making Damien Lanfrey + Donatella Solda Policy Advisors, Ministry of Education, University and Research, Italy
From Open Government to
Living Policy making Damien Lanfrey + Donatella Solda
Policy Advisors, Ministry of Education, University and Research, Italy
Part 1: Lesson planDESIGNING ENGAGEMENT FOR POLICY (AKA OPEN GOVERNMENT) 1.1 THE MANY CONCEPTUAL ROOTS OF ENGAGEMENT
GW. IDENTIFYING A TOOL FOR MANAGING ENGAGEMENT
1.2 SOME CHALLENGES OF ENGAGEMENT IN THE DIGITAL AGE
1.3 CASE STUDIES FROM OPEN GOVERNMENT DESIGN: PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
1.4 A FRAMEWORK FOR DESIGNING PARTICIPATORY POLICY-MAKING
GW. GROUP-WORK CHALLENGE: APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK
Part 2: Lesson planLIVING POLICY MAKING
GW. PART 1 GROUP-WORK PITCH AND DISCUSSION
2.1 COMPLETING THE FRAMEWORK: THE POLICY CYCLE
2.2 INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN: STATE OF THE ART
2.3 FROM OPEN POLICY TO LIVING POLICY-MAKING
GW. APPLIED LIVING POLICY MAKING & FINAL DISCUSSION
Part 1: Designing Engagement
towards Policy
1
Is it possible to design impactful engagement towards policy ?
CHALLENGES / 1
CHALLENGES / 2
Is it possibile to model a theory on Engagement ?
SOME PILLARS FOR THE DAY
there is no such thing as “participation for
participation’s sake”
SOME PILLARS FOR THE DAY
enough with the “idealized citizen”
SOME PILLARS FOR THE DAY
when it comes to government (policy & politics)
scale makes a difference
1.1
The (many) conceptual roots of
Engagement
The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
Politics Advocacy Governance mobilization
Design (Experience/Service/
Process/System)
Law-Making [Sunstein, Thaler]
Community Organizing [Alinsky]
Communication / Information Systems
[tech-makers themselves]
Education (pedagogy, skills,
learning patterns)
Citizenship
+
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
The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementAs “ladder” of activities
The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementAs “ladder” of activities
Source: Forrester
The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementAs “ladder” of activities
Source: Forrester
The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementAs “ladder” of activities
Credits: Beth Kanter
The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementBy Mode of Production
Crowds Communities
The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementBy Mode of Production
Crowds Communities
Credits: Haythornthwaite
The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementCrowds and Communities
Credits: Pew Research Centre
The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementAs Citizenship practice
Credits: Nathaniel Heller
The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementAs Civic Tech Categories
As emerging “fields” of the civic tech sector, defined by the
proliferation of tools (Credits: Young Foundation)
The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementAs Civic Tech Categories
The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementAs Civic Tech Categories
The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementBy Impact over the system
Melucci's (1996)framework categorizes all forms of collective action
The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
Sifry's (2014) summary of debates on categorizing public engagement
By Impact over System Vs Mode of Production
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
The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementLeveraging 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”
The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementLeveraging Participation “Styles”
The “tight community” path
The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementLeveraging Participation “Styles”
The “community” path
The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementLeveraging Participation “Styles”
Leveraging existing communities
The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementLeveraging Participation “Styles”
Communities as distributed governance
The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementLeveraging Participation “Styles”
The Education Path
The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementLeveraging Participation “Styles”
The “instrumental” Path
The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementLeveraging Participation “Styles”
The individual/utilitarian Path
The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementLeveraging Participation “Styles”
The “Ambassador” Path
The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementLeveraging Participation “Styles”
The “every bit counts” Path
The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementLeveraging 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
The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementLeveraging Participation “Styles”
kiva.org, the online social lending platform, is way more
than the lending practice. it leverages many “engagement paths”
So, engagement can be interpreted in many ways
“Ladder” of activities
Mode of production
Civic tech categories
Impact over the system
Leveraging “participation styles”“format work”
GROUP WORK
IDENTIFYING A TOOL (or combo of up to 2 tools) FOR MANAGING ENGAGEMENT
GROUP 1: the Council of Rome wants to gather opinions and ideas from citizens before drafting the next traffic plan
GROUP 2: the Ministry of Economic Development has just launched its policy brief on startups and wants to hear from stakeholders and the public before final revisions
(40 minutes)
GROUP WORK
Engagement in the Digital Age
1.2
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)
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”
E-participation Dilemmas
E-participation Dilemmas
Case Study: PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
in Italy (2012-2015)
1.3
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
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 comments3500 votes in 44 days
4272 questionnaires + 3500 users, 133 ideas, 500 comments, 7500 votes in 35 days
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 contributions77000 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
Case Study:
PartecipaGovpublic consultation
on constitutional reforms
PartecipaGov: designing the participation process
200k people involved at the time: 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.
PartecipaGov: designing the participation process
PartecipaGov: participation paths
Enabling different “layers” of
engagement
Having the highest participation possible for a Government consultation
“Respecting” the subject: constitutional reforms.
Qualifying engagement progressively: from Q1 to Q2 to public debates
Putting pressure on institutions
Providing clear indications for constitutional reforms
Consulting ex-ante to avoid ex-post failure
(referendum)
PartecipaGov: QUESTIONNAIRE #1
PartecipaGov: QUESTIONNAIRE #2
PartecipaGov: Public debates
PartecipaGov: COMMUNICATION STRATEGY
Partecipa alla Consultazione Pubblica online indetta dal Governo per conoscere il parere dei cittadini sulle riforme della Costituzione. Potrai esprimere la tua opinione su temi chiaveper l’assetto e il funzionamento del nostro Paese. Partecipareè semplice: basta collegarsi al sito www.partecipa.gov.it e compilare due veloci questionari entro l’8 ottobre. Un’occasione unicaper costruire, tutti insieme, un Paese più moderno ed efficiente.
PartecipaGov: ENGAGEMENT (MEDIA CAMPAIGNS)
- Spike of users: + 50%, +100%, +200% depending on timing- Spike of mobile users: from 5% to 30-40%- Participation slows in 10 minutes (mobile especially)- Participation increases again (more desktop users + social)- Campaigns contribution steady
Tv spikes Vs Web spikes
TG2 (20) UnoMattina (7am) + start campaignsIlPost (11am) Re-launch + TG5 (13)Ad campaign
Web = fragmented, apart from social PA campaigns + institutional websites = lower but constant contributionMedia necessary, debate necessary
PartecipaGov: GENERAL ENGAGEMENT METRICS
PartecipaGov: ONLINE ENGAGEMENT METRICS
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.
Conversion Rates
Desktop: 29,3% (n=80.976)
Tablet: 25,22% (n=7.638)
Mobile: 16,3% (n=11.295)
PartecipaGov: PARTICIPANTS’ DEMOGRAPHICS
Q1 Q2
PartecipaGov: CONVERSION RATES
TermometroPolitico.it: 48% (n=203)
TiConsiglio.com: 43,4% (n=618)
Governo.it: 39% (n=3.271)
Direct: 31,3% (n=40.062)
ACI Banner: 31,3% (n=1.374)
IlPost: 30,5% (n=269)
INPS Banner: 30,1% (n=2.916)
Total: 27,5%
Facebook web: 25,5% (n=5.379)
Province websites: 24,1% (n=1.058)
All Campaigns: 23% (n=11.966)
Comuni websites: 22,5% (n=1.521)
Twitter: 19% (n=985)
All referrals: 19,9% (n=35.291)
Facebook mobile: 11% (n=3.186)
- Social media lower conversion rate (influenced by mobile)- Tablet higher conversion than mobile, but lower than desktop- .Gov websites (+Governo.it) effective with 39% conversion - Web-zines also effective, though lower absolute numbers
Case Study:
La Buona ScuolaPublic consultation on education reform
La Buona Scuola
La Buona Scuola: designing the participation process
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.
La Buona Scuola (a comprehensive school reform proposal) consultation involved 3 main participation “paths”: A 7-section questionnaires, 16 co-design themes and a strategy for live debating.
La Buona Scuola: participation paths
La Buona Scuola consultation: every participation path underlies a thick organizational process, including administrative regional offices, stakeholders’ engagement and political liaising
La Buona Scuola: offline events as key strategy
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 Mreached
La Buona Scuola: consultation final numbers
A Learning Curve
• Innovation/expansion in tools
• A shift from tools to processes
• A wider variety of processes put in place
• More “organizational work”
• Stronger, more directed impact
• Much more variables involved in design
• Demonstrating that Government can handle participation
• A (mildly) positive public debate (or at least a debate)
A FRAMEWORK FOR DESIGNING (AND ASSESSING) PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
1.4
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?)
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
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
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
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
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
rewarding democratic behavior
A Framework for designing engagement1 pre-conditions to participation and motivations
a pilot model - 1
digital culturee-skills
digital dividenetiquette
digital divide digital literacy
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
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
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
Flexibility of participation paths
a pilot model - 2
A Framework for designing engagement2 modelling participation and organizational dimension
communication effortsvirality
partneringappeal
storytellingmedia presence
mobile
tablet
Desktop
designing for mobility
partnering
reachcommunication efforts
a pilot model - 2
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
A Framework for designing engagement2 modelling participation and organizational dimension
livenessability to produce step-goods, remix,
transcoding
a pilot model - 2
A Framework for designing engagement2 modelling participation and organizational dimension
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
budget constraints
political ambivalence
a pilot model - 2
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
A Framework for designing engagement3 media and symbolic dimension
a pilot model - 3
debatecontribution from public
debate
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
A Framework for designing engagement3 media and symbolic dimension
a pilot model - 3
activism and advocacy
leveraging the agonistic dimension
A Framework for designing engagement
4 outputs, outcomes and externalities
a pilot model - 4
outcomes and externalitiesaccountability efficiency legitimacy
awareness identityconflictsheterogeneity social justicetrust
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
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
GROUP WORKAPPLYING THE FRAMEWORK
GROUP 1 & 2: The Government wants to raise awareness about European citizenship in the context of the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the signing of the “Rome Treaty”.
Framework conditions: high euro skepticism (varying degrees by country), revision of EU general budget, Brexit referendum by October 2016
Possible Subjects: the “four freedoms” of European Union: people circulation (Research, Tourism, Workers), Goods circulation (Duties and taxation), Services (e.g. unified mobile roaming, Internet purchases, Digital single market) and Capital circulation (e.g. Monetary union, the Banking system).
What you need to do: Prepare a timeline for organizing engagement between now and March 25th 2017 (when a celebration with all EU Ministers for a new declaration will be held). Details required: Timeline, tools & techniques used, partners involved, barriers to overcome, incentives to be leveraged, participation phases, communication strategy, outputs and outcomes expected
Part 2 Living Policy
design
Part 2: Lesson plan
“LIVING POLICY” DESIGN
GW - GROUP-WORK PITCH FROM PART 1 & DISCUSSION
2.1 - COMPLETING THE FRAMEWORK: THE POLICY CYCLE
2.2 - INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN: STATE OF THE ART
2.3 - FROM OPEN POLICY TO LIVING POLICY-MAKING
GW APPLIED LIVING POLICY CHALLENGE & FINAL DISCUSSION
GROUP-WORKAPPLYING THE FRAMEWORK
Context: The EU is celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome. The EU bodies and Member States intends to raise awareness about European citizenship.
Framework conditions: high euro skepticism (varying degrees by country), revision of EU general budget, Brexit referendum by October 2016. The celebration with all EU Prime Ministers will include a new declaration.
Possible Subjects: the “four freedoms” of European Union: people circulation (Students, Research, Tourism, Workers), Goods circulation (Duties and taxation), Services (e.g. unified mobile roaming, Internet purchases, Digital single market) and Capital circulation (e.g. Monetary union, Banking system).
What you need to do: Prepare a timeline of events for organizing engagement between now and March 25th 2017. Details required: Timeline, tools & techniques used, partners involved, barriers to overcome, incentives to be leveraged, participation phases, communication strategy, outputs and outcomes expected
GROUP-WORK examples
GROUP-WORK examples
GROUP-WORK
PITCH FROM PART 1 FINAL GROUP WORK
--DISCUSSION
(40 minutes)
The Legal roots of
Engagement
2.1
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 - 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
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
Failures and Debates
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
Italian Constitutional Reforms
— 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
The Legal Roots of Open Government / 2
—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
The Legal Roots of Open Government / 2
Completing the framework
The Policy Cycle
2.1
The Policy Cycle
long term decision & policy
cycle
action for change or improvement
drafting
decision
adoption
deployment
implementation
evaluation
review
impact assessment
A Framework for designing engagement
decision & policy cycle
case for change
deployment
evaluation
decision
implementation
A Framework for designing engagement
ex ante
decision & policy cycle
action for change or improvement
drafting
decision
adoption
solutions
issues identification
ex ante impact assessment
resources allocation
co-design
e-deliberation
petitions
advocacy
A Framework for designing engagement
decision & policy cycle
adoption
deployment
implementation
endorsement
buy - in
ecosystems & communities
innovative procurement
awareness
agile policy making
A Framework for designing engagement
evaluation
impact assessment
decision & policy cycle
monitoring
sustainability
deploymentco-management
pay-for-success
gathering data for quality and quantitative assessment
accelerators
watch-dog
action for change or improvement
A Framework for designing engagement
decision & policy cycle
ex post impact assessment
emerging societal needs
feedback-gathering
e-deliberation
evaluation
review
Outputs , Outcomes and Externalities
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
decision & policy cycle
A Framework for engagement
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
Innovations in
Policy Design
2.2
1.POLICY DRAFTING 1.PARTICIPATION & GOOD GOVERNANCE2.EFFICIENCY & EVIDENCE-BASED3.SIMPLIFICATION & NUDGING
2.INNOVATION TEAMS 3.PROCUREMENT OF SOLUTIONS
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN
A. POLICY DRAFTING
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN
1. PARTICIPATION
- political polarization- democracy dilemmas- process foul
- 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
good governance practice (not compulsory)
OPEN GOV
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN
2. 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
DATA-DRIVEN
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN
3. SIMPLIFICATION NUDGES, PATHS, FRAMING
BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCES
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
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN
CASE STUDY: #GOODLAW
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN
#Good law Participation Efficiency Simplification
INNOVATIONS 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)
#Good lawnecessary, 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.
INNOVATIONS 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
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN
CASE STUDY: DYI
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN
B. INNOVATION TEAMS
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN
Office 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.
C. PROCUREMENT
OF SOLUTIONS
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN
CHALLENGE PRIZES
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN
•Pay only for success and establish an ambitious goal without having to predict which team or approach is most likely to succeed.
•Reach beyond the “usual suspects” to increase the number of citizen solvers and entrepreneurs tackling a problem.
•Bring out-of-discipline perspectives to bear.
•Increase cost-effectiveness to maximize the return on taxpayer contributions.
•Inspire risk-taking by offering a level playing field through credible rules and robust judging mechanisms.
challenge prizes
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN
challenge prizes
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN
INNOVATIVE & Pre-Commercial
PROCUREMENT
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN
PAY-FOR-SUCCESS SCHEMES
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN
INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN
Principles for LIVING
POLICY-MAKING
2.3
Living Policy-Making
1.DESIGNING IMPACT-DRIVEN ACTIONS
2.DESIGNING FOR AGILITY 3.FROM RULES TO COMMUNITIES 4.FROM PROJECTS TO ECOSYSTEMS 5.ACCELERATORS
EXAMPLES: SOCIAL IMPACT BONDS, PAY FOR SUCCESS SCHEMES
Financial schemes that reward the social impact generated by a publicly-funded program (pay for success) or repay private funding (a “social impact” bond issued by the public)
through savings
• DESIGNING IMPACT-DRIVEN ACTIONS Living Policy-Making
• From courses to learning experiences• From certification to continuous
assessment and badging • From funding for courses to “pay for
success”• Training as professional development,
rather than an obligation
Example: shaping teachers’ training
• Very little impact from courses across time and countries
• Certification increasingly less relevant• Italian teachers more in need than their
peers around the globe• The age factor• The “fear” factor (low skills-low motivation)
• DESIGNING IMPACT DRIVEN ACTIONS Living Policy-Making
Example: the school curriculum
• “National indications” are a rigid and ineffective policy tool
• Teachers training ineffective, especially for “new” skills (e.g. digital literacy)
• Students demotivated by traditional didactics
• FROM RULES TO COMMUNITIES Living Policy-Making
Example: innovating the school curriculum • Turning classroom activities into national & global communities• Teachers become facilitators, students as project managers• Gamification + “Format work” (e.g. Data expedition, role-playing)
• FROM RULES TO COMMUNITIES Living Policy-Making
Innovating the school curriculum • Every classroom projects becomes a community project: the final
step requires a strategy for local engagement
• FROM RULES TO COMMUNITIES Living Policy-Making
School curriculum as national partnership code.org + Programma il Futuro: a national partnership between MIUR, Italian Informatics professors and Tech companies to bring coding classes to every Italian student
• FROM RULES TO COMMUNITIES Living Policy-Making
• FROM RULES TO COMMUNITIES
Sustaining the policy by leveraging a community of tinkerers. The format “instruction” becomes common standard
Living Policy-Making
Every student gets engaged in the “Olympics of entreprenership”
AN ENTRY-LEVEL CURRICULUM FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP
IN EVERY SCHOOL
A CONTEST, HACKATHON, CAMP, TECH GARAGE IN EVERY REGION
1,000 STUDENTS WIN “ACCELERATION”
• FROM PROJECTS to ECOSYSTEMS
Living Policy-Making
• ACCELERATORSSchoolkits
Living Policy-Making
• ACCELERATORSchallenges for models of labs and spaces
to spur innovation in learning environments
Living Policy-Making
• ACCELERATORS
A “Digital ambassador” in every school to: • Organize internal training for teachers and
motivate those more resistant to change• Develop and share innovative and effective
digital practice• Engage communities for digital innovation (e.g.
local communities, parents) and spur student-led innovation
Living Policy-Making
CASE STUDY: THE NATIONAL PLAN
FOR DIGITAL SCHOOLS (2015)
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
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?
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
Studenti Docenti
Longitudinalità
Poli e snodi formativi
I poli (scuole capofila di rete) e gli snodi (sedi di corso) sono individuati mediante tre diversi bandi. I poli per la formazione degli animatori digitali (DM 435/15) e per il team per l’innovazione (DM 762/14) sono già stati individuati e visibili al seguente indirizzo: https://goo.gl/WgjQhH. Fino al 23 febbraio è possibile candidarsi come snodo formativo per i percorsi destinati al Personale scolastico e finanziati attraverso le risorse del PON 2014-2020
D.M. 762/2014
PON 2014/20
D.M. 435/2015
Animatori digitali
Team per l’innovazione
Personale scolastico
cliccare per ingrandire
how institutions approach innovation in policy design
GROUP WORKAPPLIED
“LIVING” POLICY-MAKINGGROUP 1
The Ministry of education needs to improve the ways to talk to, listen to, empower and enable innovation from “Digital School Ambassadors” (8,300 people, 1.000 Eur minimum budget, every school grade).
GROUP 2
The recent school reform has introduced 200-300 hours of Vocational Training experiences during last 3 years of Upper Secondary school. Resources are100 Mln/year, to be used mainly by schools directly and, in a percentage, to mentor and coordinate VET projects.
THANK YOU! @damienlanfrey
[email protected] @dskutz