Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Designing effective participatory policy-making

350 views

Published on

Damien Lanfrey and Donatella Solda. How to design impactful participatory policy processes and leverage innovation in policy design.
First presented at the Service Design Master Degree @ Poli.Design in Milan, March 20th 2015.

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Designing effective participatory policy-making

  1. 1. DESIGNING EFFECTIVE PARTICIPATORY POLICY-MAKINGDamien Lanfrey - Donatella SoldaMIUR - Ministry of Education, University and Research
  2. 2. TODAY INTRO • 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
  3. 3. The Wide (Legal and Social) 
 roots of Engagement
  4. 4. 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) • EUTowards 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
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. Italian Constitutional Reforms Devolution - Reform of TitleV 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. Republic Constitutional 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
  7. 7. 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 
 DraftTreaty 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 

  8. 8. The many conceptual roots of Engagement
  9. 9. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement
  10. 10. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement Political 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
  11. 11. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement As “ladder” of activities
  12. 12. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement By Mode of Production Ladders can also be interpreted horizontally, emphasizing varying degrees in terms of modes of production
  13. 13. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement As Civic Tech Categories As emerging “fields” of the civic tech sector, defined by the proliferation of tools (Young Foundation) or practices (Heller)
  14. 14. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement As Civic Tech Categories
  15. 15. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement As Civic Tech Categories
  16. 16. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement By Impact over System Vs Mode of Production Melucci (1996) built a framework to understand all forms of collective action
  17. 17. 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
  18. 18. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement As “format work” A Scuola di OpenCoesione, a 6-step lesson plan for engaging students through open data in civic monitoring of cohesion funds expenditure
  19. 19. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement By 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”
  20. 20. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement By Leveraging Participation “Styles” The “tight community” path
  21. 21. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement By Leveraging Participation “Styles” The “loose community” path
  22. 22. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement By Leveraging Participation “Styles” Leveraging existing communities
  23. 23. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement By Leveraging Participation “Styles” Communities as distributed governance
  24. 24. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement By Leveraging Participation “Styles” The Education Path
  25. 25. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement By Leveraging Participation “Styles” The “instrumental” Path
  26. 26. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement By Leveraging Participation “Styles” The individual/utilitarian Path
  27. 27. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement By Leveraging Participation “Styles” The “Ambassador” Path
  28. 28. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement By Leveraging Participation “Styles” The “every bit counts” Path
  29. 29. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement By 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
  30. 30. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement By Leveraging Participation “Styles” kiva.org, the online 
 social lending platform, is way more than the lending practice, leveraging many “engagement paths”
  31. 31. 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”
  32. 32. Engagement in the DIGITALAGE
  33. 33. 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)
  34. 34. 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”
  35. 35. A Democratic Gap E-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)
  36. 36. Case Study: PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS IN THE ITALIAN CONTEXT
  37. 37. The “Attempts” Phase OGP - Action Plan Numbers: very low,“usual suspects” Impact: minimal low diffusion for the theme a 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 accountability negative 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 results Impact:“unfortunately” for the Gov, very high: Activism from various groups
 Policy 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
  38. 38. The “Tools” Phase HIT2020: Horizon 2020 Italy - 2012 Numbers: good, but partisanship and lack of attention from non-research world Impact: Over the policy drafing Rich analysis (report) Higher participation than EU equivalent Clarity 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 credibility issue awareness good 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: multiple Influence over working groups Leveraging diversity Consistency with auditions First innovations with tools
 A 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
  39. 39. The “Paths” Phase Destination Italy Numbers: decent, but negative agenda Impact: very direct: policy was “adjusted” in various parts clear priorities from participants stakeholder 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, DELAYED Keeping 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 value Co-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 months 278 comments , 369 questionnaires, 167 ideas, 23 position papers, 30.000 participants, 2 months
  40. 40. 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.
  41. 41. Case Study: La Buona Scuola
  42. 42. 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.
  43. 43. 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.
  44. 44. 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
  45. 45. Designing “La Buona Scuola” 1.8M people involved DEBATESTOUR STAGES
 300 people per debate POSITION PAPERS Rapporti degli 
 Uffici Scolastici Regionali 207k 1.3 M 20 115204040 200k documented online 1.5 M documented by Regional Offices
  46. 46. 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
  47. 47. A FRAMEWORKFOR 
 DESIGNING (AND ASSESSING) PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
  48. 48. 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?)
  49. 49. A Framework for designing engagement outcomes and externalities outputs media and symbolic space modelling and organizational dimension, participation process pre-conditions to participation and motivations participation culture digital culture social needs and interests trustinformation organizational and institutional fitnessreachlivenessrichness activism and advocacy occasions 
 & eventsdebate 1 2 3 4
  50. 50. A Framework for designing engagement 1 pre-conditions to participation and motivations participation culture digital culture social needs and interests trust information dialogue 
 democratic behavior netiquette access to relevant information
 content clarity
 clear explanation of the process
 clear link to facts, sources and policy contents participatory pact 
 (static or dynamic)
 clear link to policy cycle
 centrality in policy
 security of the platform
 Information management
 openness to challenge relevance
 urgency
 link to current debate
 opportunity framing processes
 identities e-skills
 digital divide
 netiquette a pilot model - 1
  51. 51. A Framework for designing engagement 1 pre-conditions to participation and motivations information access to relevant information
 content clarity
 clear explanation of the process
 clear link to facts, sources and policy contents a pilot model - 1 clear link to facts, sources access to 
 relevant information content clarity
  52. 52. A Framework for designing engagement 1 pre-conditions to participation and motivations a pilot model - 1 trust participatory pact 
 (static or dynamic)
 clear link to policy cycle
 centrality in policy
 security of the platform
 Information management
 openness to challenge participatory pact / social trust technical trust / security centrality in policyinformation management
  53. 53. netiquette A Framework for designing engagement 1 pre-conditions to participation and motivations a pilot model - 1 participation culture dialogue 
 democratic behavior netiquette“participation day” rewarding democratic behavior
  54. 54. A Framework for designing engagement 1 pre-conditions to participation and motivations a pilot model - 1 digital culture e-skills
 digital divide
 netiquette digital divide digital literacy
  55. 55. A Framework for designing engagement 2 modelling participation and organizational dimension a pilot model - 2 organizational and institutional fitness reach liveness organizational micro-politics
 boundary work
 partnering richness enhancing participation styles
 ladder of engagement
 flexibility of participation paths
 customization
 social technographics ability to produce 
 step-goods, remix, transcoding communication efforts
 virality and diffusion mechanism, partnering
 appeal
 storytelling
 media presence
  56. 56. 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
  57. 57. A Framework for designing engagement 2 modelling participation and organizational dimension richness enhancing participation styles
 building ladders of engagement
 flexibility 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
  58. 58. A Framework for designing engagement 2 modelling participation and organizational dimension communication efforts
 virality partnering
 appeal
 storytelling
 media presence mobile tablet Desktop designing for mobility partnering digital storytelling reach communication efforts a pilot model - 2
  59. 59. A Framework for designing engagement 2 modelling participation and organizational dimension liveness ability to produce 
 step-goods, remix, transcoding GOV.UK/performance analytics dashboard participation 
 mapping semantics and argument visualization debate mapping a pilot model - 2
  60. 60. A Framework for designing engagement 2 modelling participation and organizational dimension liveness ability to produce 
 step-goods, remix, transcoding a pilot model - 2
  61. 61. A Framework for designing engagement 2 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 fitness organizational micro-politics / hierarchies
 boundary work
 institutional and political partnering understand the organization get ready for policy shifts budget constraints political ambivalence
  62. 62. A Framework for designing engagement 3 media and symbolic dimension a pilot model - 3 activism and advocacy occasions 
 & events debate contribution from public debate fostering democratic occasions
 design thinking
 social innovation agonistic dimension
  63. 63. A Framework for designing engagement 3 media and symbolic dimension a pilot model - 3 debate contribution from public debate
  64. 64. A Framework for designing engagement 3 media and symbolic dimension a pilot model - 3 occasions 
 & events fostering democratic occasions accreditation
 design thinking
 social innovation Social Innovation Agenda 2013 IBAC 2014 (Destinazione Italia) Design jams as goal-setter
  65. 65. A Framework for designing engagement 3 media and symbolic dimension a pilot model - 3 activism and advocacy leveraging the agonistic dimension
  66. 66. A Framework for designing engagement 4 outputs, outcomes and externalities a pilot model - 4 outcomes and externalities accountability efficiency legitimacy awareness identityconflictsheterogeneity social justicetrust
  67. 67. A Framework for designing engagement 4 outputs, outcomes and externalities a pilot model - 4 outcomes and externalities accountability efficiency legitimacy awareness identityconflictsheterogeneity social justicetrust quantity vs quality of debate who is saying what/how groups behave turning noise into meaning cost-effectiveness, completion rates, user satisfaction actual feedbacks
  68. 68. A Framework for designing engagement 4 outputs, outcomes and externalities a pilot model - 4 outcomes and externalities accountability 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 Facebook Agenzia Entrate Governo.it INPS ACI Comuni MIT TiConsiglio.com Province INAIL Twitter Other capturing moments stickiness
  69. 69. 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 externalities accountability efficiency legitimacy awareness identityconflictsheterogeneity social justicetrust 4
  70. 70. A Framework for designing engagement 4 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-in visualization feedback- gathering e-deliberation
  71. 71. 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
  72. 72. END OF PART 1
  73. 73. PART 2A broader perspective on innovation in Policy design
  74. 74. how institutions approach innovation in policy design AGENCIES, DEPARTMENTS, PROGRAMS, INDEPENDENT ENTITIES
  75. 75. how institutions approach innovation 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 InsightsTeam, 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
  76. 76. how institutions approach innovation in policy design PATHS, ROUTES AND MODELS
  77. 77. 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
  78. 78. how institutions approach innovation in policy design A PROPOSED CASE STUDY: #GOODLAW
  79. 79. how institutions approach innovation in policy design #Good law Participation Efficiency Simplification
  80. 80. 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
  81. 81. 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
  82. 82. how institutions approach innovation in policy design A PROPOSED CASE STUDY: MIUR’S NEW NATIONAL PLAN FOR DIGITAL SCHOOLS (2015)
  83. 83. 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
  84. 84. 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?
  85. 85. how institutions approach innovation in policy design WHERE WE NEED TO GO 1. 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
  86. 86. THANK YOU!
 @damienlanfrey
 damien.lanfrey@istruzione.it @dskutz donatella.soldakutzmann@istruzione.it

×