Post on 16-Jul-2015
transcript
DESIGNING EFFECTIVE PARTICIPATORY
POLICY-MAKINGDamien Lanfrey - Donatella Solda
MIUR - Ministry of Education, University and Research
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
The Wide (Legal and Social) roots of
Engagement
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
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
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
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
The many conceptual roots of
Engagement
The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
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 EngagementBy Mode of Production
Ladders can also be interpreted horizontally, emphasizing varying degrees
in terms of modes of production
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)
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 System Vs Mode of Production
Melucci (1996) built a framework to understand all forms of collective action
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
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 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”
The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementBy Leveraging Participation “Styles”
The “tight community” path
The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementBy Leveraging Participation “Styles”
The “loose community” path
The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementBy Leveraging Participation “Styles”
Leveraging existing communities
The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementBy Leveraging Participation “Styles”
Communities as distributed governance
The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementBy Leveraging Participation “Styles”
The Education Path
The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementBy Leveraging Participation “Styles”
The “instrumental” Path
The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementBy Leveraging Participation “Styles”
The individual/utilitarian Path
The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementBy Leveraging Participation “Styles”
The “Ambassador” Path
The Many Conceptual Roots of EngagementBy Leveraging Participation “Styles”
The “every bit counts” Path
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
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”
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”
Engagement in the DIGITAL AGE
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”
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)
Case Study: PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS IN THE ITALIAN CONTEXT
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 comments 3500 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 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
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.
Case Study:
La Buona Scuola
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.
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.
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
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
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
A FRAMEWORK FOR DESIGNING (AND ASSESSING) PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
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
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
Flexibiity 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
digital storytelling
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
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
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
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
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
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
END OF
PART 1
PART 2 A broader perspective on
innovation in Policy design
how institutions approach innovation in policy design
AGENCIES, DEPARTMENTS, PROGRAMS, INDEPENDENT ENTITIES
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
how institutions approach innovation in policy design
PATHS, ROUTES AND MODELS
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
how institutions approach innovation in policy design
A PROPOSED CASE STUDY: #GOODLAW
how institutions approach innovation in policy design
#Good law Participation Efficiency Simplification
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
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
how institutions approach innovation in policy design
A PROPOSED CASE STUDY: MIUR’S NEW NATIONAL PLAN FOR
DIGITAL SCHOOLS (2015)
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
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?
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
THANK YOU! @damienlanfrey
damien.lanfrey@istruzione.it @dskutz
donatella.soldakutzmann@istruzione.it