This document provides an overview of retributive justice theory. The key points are: 1) Retributive justice theory focuses on punishing offenders according to the severity of their crimes rather than rehabilitating criminals. It is based on the principle that the threat of punishment deters criminal behavior. 2) The criminal justice system is designed to implement this theory through law enforcement agencies, courts, and prisons that incarcerate criminals to serve their sentences. 3) Proponents of retributive justice argue that punishment must be unpleasant enough to outweigh any pleasure gained from committing the crime in order to effectively deter criminal behavior.

1. Running head: RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE THEORY
1
RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE THEORY
2
Retributive Justice Theory
Columbia Southern University
MCJ 5135 Theory of Crime and Criminology
February 25, 2020
Retributive Justice Theory
Overview
The retributive justice theory places emphasis on the
punishment for a crime committed rather than the rehabilitation
of criminals. This theory ascertains that offenders should be
punished according to the magnitude of their crimes (Cavadino,
& Dignan, 1997). It also ascertains that the threat of punishment
to the offenders is the basis for deterrence of crimes. Offenders
or potential offenders get to understand the magnitude of their
punishment that awaits then hence shy away from committing a
crime. The focus of the theory is the applications of the rule of
law to ensure that all the perpetrators of a crime get punished in
accordance with the harm they caused in their commissions of a
crime (Vermeer, 2014). The criminal justice system is designed
to implement this theory as the focus on rehabilitations has
offended been deemed inefficient in discouraging crime. The
criminal justice system has the mandate to implement the law
and entails the law enforcement agencies, the court of law, and
the department of prisons where the criminal is incarcerated to
serve their sentences.

2. Although incarcerations have recently been regarded as
rehabilitation centers, the severity of the life in prison makes
the inmates more prone to violence than before. This implies
that the fear of such consequences prevents other people from
committing a crime (Hermann, 2017). Several other versions of
the same theory ascertain that rational choice and deterrence are
choices at hand before the commission of a crime. These
choices include abiding by the rules of society or violating the
same rules. Most of those who commit crimes take pleasure in it
despite the consequences (Nozick, 1981). The retributive
theory, therefore, ascertains that the punishment needs to be
way more unpleasant than the pleasure of committing a crime,
therefore, discouraging them from committing crimes. The
principles of deterrence, therefore, stipulate that is the
punishment for a crime is too severe; people will weigh the cost
and the benefits of the crime and shy away from it altogether.
Source analysis
The article from the criminal justice website provides a
comprehensive understanding of the three theories of criminal
justice. The focus, however, is on the retributive justice theory,
an aspect that has been discussed in detail in the article. The
article is very resourceful full and has in-depth information
about the topic under discussion, which is the criminal justice
theory (Cavadino & Dignan, 1997).
Justice with a Vengeance – Retributive Desire in Popular
Imagination provides insight into the implications of retributive
justice theory and how the punishment rendered is expected to
be of equal measure to the harm committed by the perpetrator.
The article also provides an outline of the research, whose
result showed the success of retributive justice reducing the rate
of a crime in any given society. The article indicates
similarities in the implications of retribution justice in

3. deterrence, an aspect that is based on the punishment for a
crime committed rather than rehabilitation. The retributions, as
indicated in the article, is incarcerations or death sentence
depending on the nature of the crime (Perry, 2006).
The article analyzes numerous concepts related to retribution
justice, particularly punishment for a crime committed. Like the
article from criminal justice, this article emphasizes the
deterrence based on the punishment fitted for a crime
committed. It has an extensive analysis of the causes of crime
and how retributive justice has managed to curb the rates of
crime.
References:
Cavadino, M & Dignan, J. (1997). Theories of Criminal Justice
(2nd ed.), p. 39. London: Sage
Hermann, D. H. (2017). Restorative justice and retributive
justice: An opportunity for cooperation or an occasion for
conflict in the search for justice. Seattle J. Soc. Just., 16, 71.
https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sjsj/vol16/iss1/11
Nozick, Robert (1981). Philosophical Explanations. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press. pp. 366–368.
ISBN9780674664791
Perry, R (2006) The Role of Retributive Justice in the Common
Law of Torts: A Descriptive Theory, Tennessee Law Review,
Vol. 73, p. 177
Vermeer, M. (2014). Power and retributive justice: How trait
information influences the fairness of punishment among power
holders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 190-
201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.10.004

4. Public Administration and Information
Technology
Volume 10
Series Editor
Christopher G. Reddick
San Antonio, Texas, USA
More information about this series at
http://www.springer.com/series/10796
Marijn Janssen • Maria A. Wimmer
Ameneh Deljoo
Editors
Policy Practice and Digital
Science
Integrating Complex Systems, Social
Simulation and Public Administration
in Policy Research
2123
Editors
Marijn Janssen Ameneh Deljoo
Faculty of Technology, Policy, and Faculty of Technology,

5. Policy, and
Management Management
Delft University of Technology Delft University of Technology
Delft Delft
The Netherlands The Netherlands
Maria A. Wimmer
Institute for Information Systems Research
University of Koblenz-Landau
Koblenz
Germany
ISBN 978-3-319-12783-5 ISBN 978-3-319-12784-2 (eBook)
Public Administration and Information Technology
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-12784-2
Library of Congress Control Number: 2014956771
Springer Cham Heidelberg New York London
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the
material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation,
reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other
physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software,
or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names,
trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that
such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general
use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume

6. that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication.
Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media
(www.springer.com)
Preface
The last economic and financial crisis has heavily threatened
European and other
economies around the globe. Also, the Eurozone crisis, the
energy and climate
change crises, challenges of demographic change with high
unemployment rates,
and the most recent conflicts in the Ukraine and the near East or
the Ebola virus
disease in Africa threaten the wealth of our societies in
different ways. The inability
to predict or rapidly deal with dramatic changes and negative
trends in our economies
and societies can seriously hamper the wealth and prosperity of
the European Union
and its Member States as well as the global networks. These
societal and economic
challenges demonstrate an urgent need for more effective and
efficient processes of
governance and policymaking, therewith specifically addressing
crisis management

7. and economic/welfare impact reduction.
Therefore, investing in the exploitation of innovative
information and commu-
nication technology (ICT) in the support of good governance
and policy modeling
has become a major effort of the European Union to position
itself and its Member
States well in the global digital economy. In this realm, the
European Union has
laid out clear strategic policy objectives for 2020 in the Europe
2020 strategy1: In
a changing world, we want the EU to become a smart,
sustainable, and inclusive
economy. These three mutually reinforcing priorities should
help the EU and the
Member States deliver high levels of employment, productivity,
and social cohesion.
Concretely, the Union has set five ambitious objectives—on
employment, innovation,
education, social inclusion, and climate/energy—to be reached
by 2020. Along with
this, Europe 2020 has established four priority areas—smart
growth, sustainable
growth, inclusive growth, and later added: A strong and
effective system of eco-
nomic governance—designed to help Europe emerge from the
crisis stronger and to
coordinate policy actions between the EU and national levels.
To specifically support European research in strengthening
capacities, in overcom-
ing fragmented research in the field of policymaking, and in
advancing solutions for
1 Europe 2020 http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm

8. v
vi Preface
ICT supported governance and policy modeling, the European
Commission has co-
funded an international support action called eGovPoliNet2. The
overall objective
of eGovPoliNet was to create an international, cross-
disciplinary community of re-
searchers working on ICT solutions for governance and policy
modeling. In turn,
the aim of this community was to advance and sustain research
and to share the
insights gleaned from experiences in Europe and globally. To
achieve this, eGovPo-
liNet established a dialogue, brought together experts from
distinct disciplines, and
collected and analyzed knowledge assets (i.e., theories,
concepts, solutions, findings,
and lessons on ICT solutions in the field) from different
research disciplines. It built
on case material accumulated by leading actors coming from
distinct disciplinary
backgrounds and brought together the innovative knowledge in
the field. Tools, meth-
ods, and cases were drawn from the academic community, the
ICT sector, specialized
policy consulting firms as well as from policymakers and
governance experts. These
results were assembled in a knowledge base and analyzed in
order to produce com-
parative analyses and descriptions of cases, tools, and scientific

9. approaches to enrich
a common knowledge base accessible via www.policy-
community.eu.
This book, entitled “Policy Practice and Digital Science—
Integrating Complex
Systems, Social Simulation, and Public Administration in Policy
Research,” is one
of the exciting results of the activities of eGovPoliNet—fusing
community building
activities and activities of knowledge analysis. It documents
findings of comparative
analyses and brings in experiences of experts from academia
and from case descrip-
tions from all over the globe. Specifically, it demonstrates how
the explosive growth
in data, computational power, and social media creates new
opportunities for policy-
making and research. The book provides a first comprehensive
look on how to take
advantage of the development in the digital world with new
approaches, concepts,
instruments, and methods to deal with societal and
computational complexity. This
requires the knowledge traditionally found in different
disciplines including public
administration, policy analyses, information systems, complex
systems, and com-
puter science to work together in a multidisciplinary fashion
and to share approaches.
This book provides the foundation for strongly multidisciplinary
research, in which
the various developments and disciplines work together from a
comprehensive and
holistic policymaking perspective. A wide range of aspects for
social and professional

10. networking and multidisciplinary constituency building along
the axes of technol-
ogy, participative processes, governance, policy modeling,
social simulation, and
visualization are tackled in the 19 papers.
With this book, the project makes an effective contribution to
the overall objec-
tives of the Europe 2020 strategy by providing a better
understanding of different
approaches to ICT enabled governance and policy modeling, and
by overcoming the
fragmented research of the past. This book provides impressive
insights into various
theories, concepts, and solutions of ICT supported policy
modeling and how stake-
holders can be more actively engaged in public policymaking. It
draws conclusions
2 eGovPoliNet is cofunded under FP 7, Call identifier FP7-ICT-
2011-7, URL: www.policy-
community.eu
Preface vii
of how joint multidisciplinary research can bring more effective
and resilient find-
ings for better predicting dramatic changes and negative trends
in our economies and
societies.
It is my great pleasure to provide the preface to the book
resulting from the
eGovPoliNet project. This book presents stimulating research by

11. researchers coming
from all over Europe and beyond. Congratulations to the project
partners and to the
authors!—Enjoy reading!
Thanassis Chrissafis
Project officer of eGovPoliNet
European Commission
DG CNECT, Excellence in Science, Digital Science
Contents
1 Introduction to Policy-Making in the Digital Age . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 1
Marijn Janssen and Maria A. Wimmer
2 Educating Public Managers and Policy Analysts
in an Era of Informatics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 15
Christopher Koliba and Asim Zia
3 The Quality of Social Simulation: An Example from Research
Policy Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Petra Ahrweiler and Nigel Gilbert
4 Policy Making and Modelling in a Complex World . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 57
Wander Jager and Bruce Edmonds
5 From Building a Model to Adaptive Robust Decision Making
Using Systems Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 75
Erik Pruyt

12. 6 Features and Added Value of Simulation Models Using
Different
Modelling Approaches Supporting Policy-Making: A
Comparative
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Dragana Majstorovic, Maria A.Wimmer, Roy Lay-Yee, Peter
Davis
and Petra Ahrweiler
7 A Comparative Analysis of Tools and Technologies
for Policy Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 125
Eleni Kamateri, Eleni Panopoulou, Efthimios Tambouris,
Konstantinos Tarabanis, Adegboyega Ojo, Deirdre Lee
and David Price
8 Value Sensitive Design of Complex Product Systems . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 157
Andreas Ligtvoet, Geerten van de Kaa, Theo Fens, Cees van
Beers,
Paulier Herder and Jeroen van den Hoven
ix
x Contents
9 Stakeholder Engagement in Policy Development: Observations
and Lessons from International Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 177
Natalie Helbig, Sharon Dawes, Zamira Dzhusupova, Bram
Klievink
and Catherine Gerald Mkude

13. 10 Values in Computational Models Revalued . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 205
Rebecca Moody and Lasse Gerrits
11 The Psychological Drivers of Bureaucracy: Protecting
the Societal Goals of an Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 221
Tjeerd C. Andringa
12 Active and Passive Crowdsourcing in Government . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 261
Euripidis Loukis and Yannis Charalabidis
13 Management of Complex Systems: Toward Agent-Based
Gaming for Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . 291
Wander Jager and Gerben van der Vegt
14 The Role of Microsimulation in the Development of Public
Policy . . . 305
Roy Lay-Yee and Gerry Cotterell
15 Visual Decision Support for Policy Making: Advancing
Policy
Analysis with Visualization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 321
Tobias Ruppert, Jens Dambruch, Michel Krämer, Tina Balke,
Marco
Gavanelli, Stefano Bragaglia, Federico Chesani, Michela
Milano
and Jörn Kohlhammer
16 Analysis of Five Policy Cases in the Field of Energy Policy .
. . . . . . . . 355
Dominik Bär, Maria A.Wimmer, Jozef Glova, Anastasia

14. Papazafeiropoulou and Laurence Brooks
17 Challenges to Policy-Making in Developing Countries
and the Roles of Emerging Tools, Methods and Instruments:
Experiences from Saint Petersburg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 379
Dmitrii Trutnev, Lyudmila Vidyasova and Andrei Chugunov
18 Sustainable Urban Development, Governance and Policy:
A Comparative Overview of EU Policies and Projects . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 393
Diego Navarra and Simona Milio
19 eParticipation, Simulation Exercise and Leadership Training
in Nigeria: Bridging the Digital Divide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 417
Tanko Ahmed
Contributors
Tanko Ahmed National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies
(NIPSS), Jos,
Nigeria
Petra Ahrweiler EA European Academy of Technology and
Innovation Assess-
ment GmbH, Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Germany
Tjeerd C. Andringa University College Groningen, Institute of
Artificial In-
telligence and Cognitive Engineering (ALICE), University of
Groningen, AB,
Groningen, the Netherlands

15. Tina Balke University of Surrey, Surrey, UK
Dominik Bär University of Koblenz-Landau, Koblenz, Germany
Cees van Beers Faculty of Technology, Policy, and
Management, Delft University
of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
Stefano Bragaglia University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
Laurence Brooks Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK
Yannis Charalabidis University of the Aegean, Samos, Greece
Federico Chesani University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
Andrei Chugunov ITMO University, St. Petersburg, Russia
Gerry Cotterell Centre of Methods and Policy Application in the
Social Sciences
(COMPASS Research Centre), University of Auckland,
Auckland, New Zealand
Jens Dambruch Fraunhofer Institute for Computer Graphics
Research, Darmstadt,
Germany
Peter Davis Centre of Methods and Policy Application in the
Social Sciences
(COMPASS Research Centre), University of Auckland,
Auckland, New Zealand
Sharon Dawes Center for Technology in Government,
University at Albany,
Albany, New York, USA

16. xi
xii Contributors
Zamira Dzhusupova Department of Public Administration and
Development Man-
agement, United Nations Department of Economic and Social
Affairs (UNDESA),
NewYork, USA
Bruce Edmonds Manchester Metropolitan University,
Manchester, UK
Theo Fens Faculty of Technology, Policy, and Management,
Delft University of
Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
Marco Gavanelli University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
Lasse Gerrits Department of Public Administration, Erasmus
University
Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Nigel Gilbert University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
Jozef Glova Technical University Kosice, Kosice, Slovakia
Natalie Helbig Center for Technology in Government,
University at Albany,
Albany, New York, USA
Paulier Herder Faculty of Technology, Policy, and Management,
Delft University
of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

17. Jeroen van den Hoven Faculty of Technology, Policy, and
Management, Delft
University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
Wander Jager Groningen Center of Social Complexity Studies,
University of
Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
Marijn Janssen Faculty of Technology, Policy, and
Management, Delft University
of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
Geerten van de Kaa Faculty of Technology, Policy, and
Management, Delft
University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
Eleni Kamateri Information Technologies Institute, Centre for
Research &
Technology—Hellas, Thessaloniki, Greece
Bram Klievink Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management,
Delft University
of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
Jörn Kohlhammer GRIS, TU Darmstadt & Fraunhofer IGD,
Darmstadt, Germany
Christopher Koliba University of Vermont, Burlington, VT,
USA
Michel Krämer Fraunhofer Institute for Computer Graphics
Research, Darmstadt,
Germany
Roy Lay-Yee Centre of Methods and Policy Application in the

18. Social Sciences
(COMPASS Research Centre), University of Auckland,
Auckland, New Zealand
Deirdre Lee INSIGHT Centre for Data Analytics, NUIG,
Galway, Ireland
Contributors xiii
Andreas Ligtvoet Faculty of Technology, Policy, and
Management, Delft Univer-
sity of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
Euripidis Loukis University of the Aegean, Samos, Greece
Dragana Majstorovic University of Koblenz-Landau, Koblenz,
Germany
Michela Milano University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
Simona Milio London School of Economics, Houghton Street,
London, UK
Catherine Gerald Mkude Institute for IS Research, University of
Koblenz-Landau,
Koblenz, Germany
Rebecca Moody Department of Public Administration, Erasmus
University
Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Diego Navarra Studio Navarra, London, UK
Adegboyega Ojo INSIGHT Centre for Data Analytics, NUIG,

19. Galway, Ireland
Eleni Panopoulou Information Technologies Institute, Centre
for Research &
Technology—Hellas, Thessaloniki, Greece
Anastasia Papazafeiropoulou Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK
David Price Thoughtgraph Ltd, Somerset, UK
Erik Pruyt Faculty of Technology, Policy, and Management,
Delft University of
Technology, Delft, The Netherlands; Netherlands Institute for
Advanced Study,
Wassenaar, The Netherlands
Tobias Ruppert Fraunhofer Institute for Computer Graphics
Research, Darmstadt,
Germany
Efthimios Tambouris Information Technologies Institute, Centre
for Research &
Technology—Hellas, Thessaloniki, Greece; University of
Macedonia, Thessaloniki,
Greece
Konstantinos Tarabanis Information Technologies Institute,
Centre for Research
& Technology—Hellas, Thessaloniki, Greece; University of
Macedonia, Thessa-
loniki, Greece
Dmitrii Trutnev ITMO University, St. Petersburg, Russia
Gerben van der Vegt Faculty of Economics and Business,
University of Groningen,

20. Groningen, The Netherlands
Lyudmila Vidyasova ITMO University, St. Petersburg, Russia
Maria A. Wimmer University of Koblenz-Landau, Koblenz,
Germany
Asim Zia University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA
Chapter 1
Introduction to Policy-Making in the Digital Age
Marijn Janssen and Maria A. Wimmer
We are running the 21st century using 20th century systems on
top of 19th century political structures. . . .
John Pollock, contributing editor MIT technology review
Abstract The explosive growth in data, computational power,
and social media
creates new opportunities for innovating governance and policy-
making. These in-
formation and communications technology (ICT) developments
affect all parts of
the policy-making cycle and result in drastic changes in the way
policies are devel-
oped. To take advantage of these developments in the digital
world, new approaches,
concepts, instruments, and methods are needed, which are able
to deal with so-
cietal complexity and uncertainty. This field of research is
sometimes depicted
as e-government policy, e-policy, policy informatics, or data
science. Advancing

21. our knowledge demands that different scientific communities
collaborate to create
practice-driven knowledge. For policy-making in the digital age
disciplines such as
complex systems, social simulation, and public administration
need to be combined.
1.1 Introduction
Policy-making and its subsequent implementation is necessary
to deal with societal
problems. Policy interventions can be costly, have long-term
implications, affect
groups of citizens or even the whole country and cannot be
easily undone or are even
irreversible. New information and communications technology
(ICT) and models
can help to improve the quality of policy-makers. In particular,
the explosive growth
in data, computational power, and social media creates new
opportunities for in-
novating the processes and solutions of ICT-based policy-
making and research. To
M. Janssen (�)
Faculty of Technology, Policy, and Management, Delft
University of Technology,
Delft, The Netherlands
e-mail: [email protected]
M. A. Wimmer
University of Koblenz-Landau, Koblenz, Germany
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 1
M. Janssen et al. (eds.), Policy Practice and Digital Science,
Public Administration and Information Technology 10, DOI
10.1007/978-3-319-12784-2_1

22. 2 M. Janssen and M. A. Wimmer
take advantage of these developments in the digital world, new
approaches, con-
cepts, instruments, and methods are needed, which are able to
deal with societal and
computational complexity. This requires the use of knowledge
which is traditionally
found in different disciplines, including (but not limited to)
public administration,
policy analyses, information systems, complex systems, and
computer science. All
these knowledge areas are needed for policy-making in the
digital age. The aim of
this book is to provide a foundation for this new
interdisciplinary field in which
various traditional disciplines are blended.
Both policy-makers and those in charge of policy
implementations acknowledge
that ICT is becoming more and more important and is changing
the policy-making
process, resulting in a next generation policy-making based on
ICT support. The field
of policy-making is changing driven by developments such as
open data, computa-
tional methods for processing data, opinion mining, simulation,
and visualization of
rich data sets, all combined with public engagement, social
media, and participatory
tools. In this respect Web 2.0 and even Web 3.0 point to the
specific applications of
social networks and semantically enriched and linked data

23. which are important for
policy-making. In policy-making vast amount of data are used
for making predictions
and forecasts. This should result in improving the outcomes of
policy-making.
Policy-making is confronted with an increasing complexity and
uncertainty of the
outcomes which results in a need for developing policy models
that are able to deal
with this. To improve the validity of the models policy-makers
are harvesting data to
generate evidence. Furthermore, they are improving their
models to capture complex
phenomena and dealing with uncertainty and limited and
incomplete information.
Despite all these efforts, there remains often uncertainty
concerning the outcomes of
policy interventions. Given the uncertainty, often multiple
scenarios are developed
to show alternative outcomes and impact. A condition for this is
the visualization of
policy alternatives and its impact. Visualization can ensure
involvement of nonexpert
and to communicate alternatives. Furthermore, games can be
used to let people gain
insight in what can happen, given a certain scenario. Games
allow persons to interact
and to experience what happens in the future based on their
interventions.
Policy-makers are often faced with conflicting solutions to
complex problems,
thus making it necessary for them to test out their assumptions,
interventions, and
resolutions. For this reason policy-making organizations

24. introduce platforms facili-
tating policy-making and citizens engagements and enabling the
processing of large
volumes of data. There are various participative platforms
developed by government
agencies (e.g., De Reuver et al. 2013; Slaviero et al. 2010;
Welch 2012). Platforms
can be viewed as a kind of regulated environment that enable
developers, users, and
others to interact with each other, share data, services, and
applications, enable gov-
ernments to more easily monitor what is happening and
facilitate the development
of innovative solutions (Janssen and Estevez 2013). Platforms
should provide not
only support for complex policy deliberations with citizens but
should also bring to-
gether policy-modelers, developers, policy-makers, and other
stakeholders involved
in policy-making. In this way platforms provide an information-
rich, interactive
1 Introduction to Policy-Making in the Digital Age 3
environment that brings together relevant stakeholders and in
which complex phe-
nomena can be modeled, simulated, visualized, discussed, and
even the playing of
games can be facilitated.
1.2 Complexity and Uncertainty in Policy-Making
Policy-making is driven by the need to solve societal problems
and should result in

25. interventions to solve these societal problems. Examples of
societal problems are
unemployment, pollution, water quality, safety, criminality,
well-being, health, and
immigration. Policy-making is an ongoing process in which
issues are recognized
as a problem, alternative courses of actions are formulated,
policies are affected,
implemented, executed, and evaluated (Stewart et al. 2007).
Figure 1.1 shows the
typical stages of policy formulation, implementation, execution,
enforcement, and
evaluation. This process should not be viewed as linear as many
interactions are
necessary as well as interactions with all kind of stakeholders.
In policy-making
processes a vast amount of stakeholders are always involved,
which makes policy-
making complex.
Once a societal need is identified, a policy has to be formulated.
Politicians,
members of parliament, executive branches, courts, and interest
groups may be
involved in these formulations. Often contradictory proposals
are made, and the
impact of a proposal is difficult to determine as data is missing,
models cannot
citizen
s
Policy formulation
Policy
implementation

26. Policy
execution
Policy
enforcement and
evaluation
politicians
Policy-
makers
Administrative
organizations
b
u
sin
esses
Inspection and
enforcement agencies
experts
Fig. 1.1 Overview of policy cycle and stakeholders
4 M. Janssen and M. A. Wimmer
capture the complexity, and the results of policy models are
difficult to interpret and

27. even might be interpreted in an opposing way. This is further
complicated as some
proposals might be good but cannot be implemented or are too
costly to implement.
There is a large uncertainty concerning the outcomes.
Policy implementation is done by organizations other than those
that formulated
the policy. They often have to interpret the policy and have to
make implemen-
tation decisions. Sometimes IT can block quick implementation
as systems have
to be changed. Although policy-making is the domain of the
government, private
organizations can be involved to some extent, in particular in
the execution of policies.
Once all things are ready and decisions are made, policies need
to be executed.
During the execution small changes are typically made to fine
tune the policy formu-
lation, implementation decisions might be more difficult to
realize, policies might
bring other benefits than intended, execution costs might be
higher and so on. Typ-
ically, execution is continually changing. Evaluation is part of
the policy-making
process as it is necessary to ensure that the policy-execution
solved the initial so-
cietal problem. Policies might become obsolete, might not work,
have unintended
affects (like creating bureaucracy) or might lose its support
among elected officials,
or other alternatives might pop up that are better.
Policy-making is a complex process in which many stakeholders

28. play a role. In
the various phases of policy-making different actors are
dominant and play a role.
Figure 1.1 shows only some actors that might be involved, and
many of them are not
included in this figure. The involvement of so many actors
results in fragmentation
and often actors are even not aware of the decisions made by
other actors. This makes
it difficult to manage a policy-making process as each actor has
other goals and might
be self-interested.
Public values (PVs) are a way to try to manage complexity and
give some guidance.
Most policies are made to adhere to certain values. Public value
management (PVM)
represents the paradigm of achieving PVs as being the primary
objective (Stoker
2006). PVM refers to the continuous assessment of the actions
performed by public
officials to ensure that these actions result in the creation of PV
(Moore 1995). Public
servants are not only responsible for following the right
procedure, but they also have
to ensure that PVs are realized. For example, civil servants
should ensure that garbage
is collected. The procedure that one a week garbage is collected
is secondary. If it is
necessary to collect garbage more (or less) frequently to ensure
a healthy environment
then this should be done. The role of managers is not only to
ensure that procedures
are followed but they should be custodians of public assets and
maximize a PV.

29. There exist a wide variety of PVs (Jørgensen and Bozeman
2007). PVs can be
long-lasting or might be driven by contemporary politics. For
example, equal access
is a typical long-lasting value, whereas providing support for
students at universities
is contemporary, as politicians might give more, less, or no
support to students. PVs
differ over times, but also the emphasis on values is different in
the policy-making
cycle as shown in Fig. 1.2. In this figure some of the values
presented by Jørgensen
and Bozeman (2007) are mapped onto the four policy-making
stages. Dependent on
the problem at hand other values might play a role that is not
included in this figure.
1 Introduction to Policy-Making in the Digital Age 5
Policy
formulation
Policy
implementation
Policy
execution
Policy
enforcement
and evaluation
efficiency

30. efficiency
accountability
transparancy
responsiveness
public interest
will of the people
listening
citizen involvement
evidence-based
protection of
individual rights
accountability
transparancy
evidence-based
equal access
balancing of interests
robust
honesty
fair

31. timelessness
reliable
flexible
fair
Fig. 1.2 Public values in the policy cycle
Policy is often formulated by politicians in consultation with
experts. In the PVM
paradigm, public administrations aim at creating PVs for society
and citizens. This
suggests a shift from talking about what citizens expect in
creating a PV. In this view
public officials should focus on collaborating and creating a
dialogue with citizens
in order to determine what constitutes a PV.
1.3 Developments
There is an infusion of technology that changes policy processes
at both the individual
and group level. There are a number of developments that
influence the traditional
way of policy-making, including social media as a means to
interact with the public
(Bertot et al. …