Published on

presentation at ipp2014

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide


  1. 1. Policy 2.0 : a reality check David Osimo, IPP2014
  2. 2. Today’s talk • Theory of policy 2.0 • Examples I took part in • Lessons learnt from experience • Open questions and on-going work: policy 2.0 evaluation
  3. 3. The emergence of policy 2.0 2005 2008 2011+ Web 2.0 • Data is the intel inside • User as a producer • Many to many • Usability • Permanent beta Gov 2.0 • Politics (e.g. Obama, mySociety) • Public services (e.g. Fixmystreet, Appsfordemocracy) Policy 2.0 • Policy-making: • US “Policy Informatics Network” • EU“ICT for governance” funding • Open Policy work by UK cabinet • CROSSOVER roadmap E-rulemaking E-deliberation E-democracy
  4. 4. What is Policy 2.0 TOOLS • Open data • Social networks and crowdsourcing • Visualisation • Big data simulation • Serious gaming VALUES • Open up to external contributions earlier in the process • Enable peer-to-peer collaboration between participants • Design for unexpected questions/contributions (Raw data, open questions) • Be very clear and usable when you ask for help • Account for real humans not simplified abstract entities
  5. 5. Simulate impact of options Design Implement Evaluate Brainstorming solutions Set agenda Drafting proposals Revising proposals Ensure Buy-in Collaborativ e action Induce behavioural change Monitor Collect execution feedback Set priorities Identify problems Collect evidence Analyze data Uservoice, ideascale Etherpad Co-ment.com Social networks Challenge. gov Persuasive technologies Open data Participatr y sensing Open Data visualization Open discussion Collaborati ve visualizatio n Evidencechall enge.com Policy cycle Model and simulation Source: CROSSOVER roadmap
  6. 6. Simulate impact of options Design Implement Evaluate Ideamocracy.it Brainstorming solutions Set agenda Drafting proposals Revising proposals Ensure Buy-in Collaborativ e action Induce behavioural change Monitor Collect execution feedback Declaration on Set priorities Identify problems Collect evidence Analyze data OpenIdeo CommentNeelie. eu Linkedpoli cies.eu INCA awards Daeimplem entation.eu Open EU public services Digital Agenda Mid Term review Policy cycle Kublai evaluation Pledge Tracker
  7. 7. Lessons learnt Source: UNDP – Open Evidence
  8. 8. It’s not about “total citizens” • DAE Mid Term Review: More insightful than representative Contributions 1% left more than 50 contributions and more than 100 tweets 60% left 1 contributions and made 1 tweet People 6
  9. 9. It’s doesn’t have to be totally open to the crowd Open Declaration on European Public Services Open to all Digital Agenda Mid Term review Open to all, 2000 comments received, 1500 participants Pledge Tracker Only to those organisations committing to the Grand Coalition for Digital Jobs OpenIdeo Members of the OpenIdeo community Daeimplementation Collaborative platform for EU MS representative Young Advisors to VP Neelie Kroes Appointed Young Advisors Need for restricted online spaces
  10. 10. Not all the time open Fuente: http://ebiinterfaces.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/ux-people- autumn-2010-talks/ Open brainstorming Small groups drafting Open commenting Small group re-drafting Open endorsement EU Open Declaration:
  11. 11. A reality check: policy-making 2.0 still more promising than impactful • 2050 PATHWAYS : high usage (16K pathways created, 200 stakeholders involved in the building phase). Higher awareness by citizens. Output used by govt to back up the Carbon Strategy. • GLEAM: adopted by mainstream gov’t agency to anticipate disease spread through transportation. Adopted also for educational purposes • OPINION SPACE 3.0: significant participation (5K individuals) , endorsement at top level (Secretary of State Clinton) • URBANSIM: High usage by US local gov’t Lack of systematic robust evaluation of different policy-methods. Initial evidence points to the potential impact, but very far from counterfactual / RCT approach available to date.
  12. 12. Open questions – Does Policy 2.0 favour the participation of people beyond the “usual suspects”? Is it only for the elite? – Does it bring new relevant ideas useful for policy-making? – Does it actually lead to better policies?
  13. 13. Ongoing work: an evaluation framework Source: UNDP – Open Evidence
  14. 14. Value for money Cost per comment (EUR) 90 550 Kublai EU ePar cipa on project
  15. 15. There’s elite and elite: who benefits? Participate in policy debate Low quality of ideas High quality of ideas 15 Usual suspects No problem Not interested/interesting Missed opportunity Don’t participate in policy debate Source: adapted from Kublai evaluation
  16. 16. Application of logical framework to EU Community project Before joining Kublai... Significant correlation between 37% 47% 58% 26% I had used other services to support project prepara on I had received public funding I had managed an ini a ve (profit or I had dra ed a project 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% nonprofit) experience and benefit received Y N Experience Benefit
  17. 17. Remember the debate on universal right to vote • Perversity: it will reinforce the power of the elites • Futility: people won’t participate anyway • Jeopardy: it will lead to a rise in populism Hirschmann, The Rethorics of Reaction • BUT: participation has educational effects, as the worker through political discussion opens his mind beyond the limitations of the factory, understands the relation between personal interests and faraway events, and becomes member of the community Locke quoted in Bobbio, The Future of Democracy
  18. 18. Summing up • Policy 2.0 (or whatever we call it) is richer and more complex than crowdsourcing • It is a growing and promising trend in research and practice • There are open questions regarding its impact that deserve thorough scrutiny • Yet we should always remember that public involvement in policy-making is a goal in itself and it should not be justified by evidence, but by values
  19. 19. Thanks • dosimo@open-evidence.com • Egov20.wordpress.com • @osimod