From Open Government to Living Policy Making

1. From Open Government to Living Policy making Damien Lanfrey + Donatella Solda Policy Advisors, Ministry of Education, University and Research, Italy

2. Part 1: Lesson plan DESIGNING ENGAGEMENT FOR POLICY (AKA OPEN GOVERNMENT) 1.1THE MANY CONCEPTUAL ROOTS OF ENGAGEMENT GW. IDENTIFYING A TOOL FOR MANAGING ENGAGEMENT 1.2 SOME CHALLENGES OF ENGAGEMENT IN THE DIGITAL AGE 1.3 CASE STUDIES FROM OPEN GOVERNMENT DESIGN: PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS 1.4 A FRAMEWORK FOR DESIGNING PARTICIPATORY POLICY-MAKING GW. GROUP-WORK CHALLENGE: APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK

3. Part 2: Lesson plan LIVING POLICY MAKING GW. PART 1 GROUP-WORK PITCH AND DISCUSSION 2.1 COMPLETING THE FRAMEWORK: THE POLICY CYCLE 2.2 INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN: STATE OF THE ART 2.3 FROM OPEN POLICY TO LIVING POLICY-MAKING GW. APPLIED LIVING POLICY MAKING & FINAL DISCUSSION

4. Part 1: Designing Engagement towards Policy 1

5. Is it possible to design impactful engagement towards policy ? CHALLENGES / 1

6. CHALLENGES / 2 Is it possibile to model a theory on Engagement ?

7. SOME PILLARS FOR THE DAY there is no such thing as “participation for   participation’s sake”

8. SOME PILLARS FOR THE DAY enough with the “idealized citizen”

9. SOME PILLARS FOR THE DAY when it comes to government (policy & politics) scale makes a difference

10. 1.1 The (many) conceptual roots of Engagement

11. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement

12. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement Politics Advocacy Governance mobilization Design (Experience/Service/ Process/System) Law-Making [Sunstein, Thaler] Community Organizing [Alinsky] Communication / Information Systems [tech-makers themselves] Education (pedagogy, skills, learning patterns) Citizenship +

13. 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

14. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement As “ladder” of activities

15. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement As “ladder” of activities Source: Forrester

16. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement As “ladder” of activities Source: Forrester

17. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement As “ladder” of activities Credits: Beth Kanter

18. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement By Mode of Production Crowds Communities

19. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement By Mode of Production Crowds Communities Credits: Haythornthwaite

20. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement Crowds and Communities Credits: Pew Research Centre

21. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement As Citizenship practice Credits: Nathaniel Heller

22. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement As Civic Tech Categories As emerging “fields” of the civic tech sector, defined by the proliferation of tools (Credits: Young Foundation)

23. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement As Civic Tech Categories

24. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement As Civic Tech Categories

25. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement By Impact over the system Melucci's (1996)framework categorizes all forms of collective action

26. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement Sifry's (2014) summary of debates on categorizing public engagement By Impact over System Vs Mode of Production

27. 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

28. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement 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”

29. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement Leveraging Participation “Styles” The “tight community” path

30. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement Leveraging Participation “Styles” The “community” path

31. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement Leveraging Participation “Styles” Leveraging existing communities

32. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement Leveraging Participation “Styles” Communities as distributed governance

33. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement Leveraging Participation “Styles” The Education Path

34. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement Leveraging Participation “Styles” The “instrumental” Path

35. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement Leveraging Participation “Styles” The individual/utilitarian Path

36. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement Leveraging Participation “Styles” The “Ambassador” Path

37. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement Leveraging Participation “Styles” The “every bit counts” Path

38. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement 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

39. The Many Conceptual Roots of Engagement Leveraging Participation “Styles” kiva.org, the online   social lending platform, is way more than the lending practice. it leverages many “engagement paths”

40. So, engagement can be interpreted in many ways “Ladder” of activities Mode of production Civic tech categories Impact over the system Leveraging “participation styles” “format work”

41. GROUP WORK IDENTIFYING A TOOL (or combo of up to 2 tools) FOR MANAGING ENGAGEMENT GROUP 1: the Council of Rome wants to gather opinions and ideas from citizens before drafting the next traffic plan GROUP 2: the Ministry of Economic Development has just launched its policy brief on startups and wants to hear from stakeholders and the public before final revisions (40 minutes)

42. GROUP WORK

43. Engagement in the Digital Age 1.2

44. 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)

45. 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”

46. E-participation Dilemmas

47. E-participation Dilemmas

48. Case Study: PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS  in Italy (2012-2015) 1.3

49. 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

50. 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

51. 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

52. Case Study: PartecipaGov public consultation on constitutional reforms

53. PartecipaGov: designing the participation process

54. 200k people involved at the time: largest online consultation by a gov in europe PartecipaGov (Public Consultation on Constitutional Reforms) has been organized around a multi-phase process designed through a range of participation means, media campaigns and engagement occasions. PartecipaGov: designing the participation process

55. PartecipaGov: participation paths Enabling different “layers” of engagement Having the highest participation possible for a Government consultation “Respecting” the subject: constitutional reforms. Qualifying engagement progressively: from Q1 to Q2 to public debates Putting pressure on institutions Providing clear indications for constitutional reforms Consulting ex-ante to avoid ex-post failure (referendum)

56. PartecipaGov: QUESTIONNAIRE #1

57. PartecipaGov: QUESTIONNAIRE #2

58. PartecipaGov: Public debates

59. PartecipaGov: COMMUNICATION STRATEGY Partecipa alla Consultazione Pubblica online indetta dal Governo per conoscere il parere dei cittadini sulle riforme della Costituzione. Potrai esprimere la tua opinione su temi chiave per l’assetto e il funzionamento del nostro Paese. Partecipare è semplice: basta collegarsi al sito www.partecipa.gov.it e compilare due veloci questionari entro l’8 ottobre. Un’occasione unica per costruire, tutti insieme, un Paese più moderno ed efficiente.

60. PartecipaGov: ENGAGEMENT (MEDIA CAMPAIGNS) - Spike of users: + 50%, +100%, +200% depending on timing - Spike of mobile users: from 5% to 30-40% - Participation slows in 10 minutes (mobile especially) - Participation increases again (more desktop users + social) - Campaigns contribution steady

61. Tv spikes Vs Web spikes TG2 (20) UnoMattina (7am) + start campaignsIlPost (11am) Re-launch + TG5 (13) Ad campaign Web = fragmented, apart from social PA campaigns + institutional websites = lower but constant contributionMedia necessary, debate necessary PartecipaGov: GENERAL ENGAGEMENT METRICS

62. PartecipaGov: ONLINE ENGAGEMENT METRICS 200k people involved largest online consultation by a gov in europe PartecipaGov (Public Consultation on Constitutional Reforms) has been organized around a multi-phase process designed through a range of participation means, media campaigns and engagement occasions. Conversion Rates Desktop: 29,3% (n=80.976) Tablet: 25,22% (n=7.638) Mobile: 16,3% (n=11.295)

63. PartecipaGov: PARTICIPANTS’ DEMOGRAPHICS Q1 Q2

64. PartecipaGov: CONVERSION RATES TermometroPolitico.it: 48% (n=203) TiConsiglio.com: 43,4% (n=618) Governo.it: 39% (n=3.271) Direct: 31,3% (n=40.062) ACI Banner: 31,3% (n=1.374) IlPost: 30,5% (n=269) INPS Banner: 30,1% (n=2.916) Total: 27,5% Facebook web: 25,5% (n=5.379) Province websites: 24,1% (n=1.058) All Campaigns: 23% (n=11.966) Comuni websites: 22,5% (n=1.521) Twitter: 19% (n=985) All referrals: 19,9% (n=35.291) Facebook mobile: 11% (n=3.186) - Social media lower conversion rate (inﬂuenced by mobile) - Tablet higher conversion than mobile, but lower than desktop  - .Gov websites (+Governo.it) effective with 39% conversion  - Web-zines also effective, though lower absolute numbers

65. Case Study: La Buona Scuola  Public consultation on education reform

66. La Buona Scuola

67. La Buona Scuola: designing the participation process La Buona Scuola (a comprehensive school reform proposal + engagement plan) involved the design of a 6-months policy process including expert groups, a public consultation, a national tour, a communication and media strategy.

68. La Buona Scuola (a comprehensive school reform proposal) consultation involved 3 main participation “paths”: A 7-section questionnaires, 16 co-design themes and a strategy for live debating. La Buona Scuola: participation paths

69. La Buona Scuola consultation: every participation path underlies a thick organizational process, including administrative regional offices, stakeholders’ engagement and political liaising La Buona Scuola: offline events as key strategy

70. 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 reached La Buona Scuola: consultation final numbers

71. A Learning Curve • Innovation/expansion in tools • A shift from tools to processes • A wider variety of processes put in place • More “organizational work” • Stronger, more directed impact • Much more variables involved in design • Demonstrating that Government can handle participation • A (mildly) positive public debate (or at least a debate)

72. A FRAMEWORKFOR   DESIGNING (AND ASSESSING) PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT 1.4

73. 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?)

74. 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

75. 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

76. 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

77. 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

78. 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 rewarding democratic behavior

79. 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

80. 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

81. 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

82. 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 Flexibility of participation paths a pilot model - 2

83. 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 reach communication efforts a pilot model - 2

84. 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

85. A Framework for designing engagement 2 modelling participation and organizational dimension liveness ability to produce   step-goods, remix, transcoding a pilot model - 2

86. A Framework for designing engagement 2 modelling participation and organizational dimension Main reasons for e-participation failure  (Chadwick, 2011) Budget Constraints and Organizational Instability Policy Shifts Political Ambivalence Legal Risks and Depoliticization Outsourcing / Insourcing organizational and institutional ﬁtness organizational micro-politics / hierarchies  boundary work  institutional and political partnering understand the organization budget constraints political ambivalence a pilot model - 2

87. 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

88. A Framework for designing engagement 3 media and symbolic dimension a pilot model - 3 debate contribution from public debate

89. 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

90. A Framework for designing engagement 3 media and symbolic dimension a pilot model - 3 activism and advocacy leveraging the agonistic dimension

91. A Framework for designing engagement 4 outputs, outcomes and externalities a pilot model - 4 outcomes and externalities accountability efﬁciency legitimacy awareness identityconﬂictsheterogeneity social justicetrust

92. 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

93. 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

94. GROUP WORK APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK GROUP 1 & 2: The Government wants to raise awareness about European citizenship in the context of the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the signing of the “Rome Treaty”. Framework conditions: high euro skepticism (varying degrees by country), revision of EU general budget, Brexit referendum by October 2016  Possible Subjects: the “four freedoms” of European Union: people circulation (Research,Tourism, Workers), Goods circulation (Duties and taxation), Services (e.g. uniﬁed mobile roaming, Internet purchases, Digital single market) and Capital circulation (e.g. Monetary union, the Banking system). What you need to do: Prepare a timeline for organizing engagement between now and March 25th 2017 (when a celebration with all EU Ministers for a new declaration will be held). Details required:Timeline, tools & techniques used, partners involved, barriers to overcome, incentives to be leveraged, participation phases, communication strategy, outputs and outcomes expected

95. Part 2 Living Policy design

96. Part 2: Lesson plan “LIVING POLICY” DESIGN GW - GROUP-WORK PITCH FROM PART 1 & DISCUSSION 2.1 - COMPLETINGTHE FRAMEWORK:THE POLICY CYCLE 2.2 - INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN: STATE OFTHE ART 2.3 - FROM OPEN POLICYTO LIVING POLICY-MAKING GW APPLIED LIVING POLICY CHALLENGE & FINAL DISCUSSION

97. GROUP-WORK APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK Context: The EU is celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome. The EU bodies and Member States intends to raise awareness about European citizenship. Framework conditions: high euro skepticism (varying degrees by country), revision of EU general budget, Brexit referendum by October 2016.The celebration with all EU Prime Ministers will include a new declaration. Possible Subjects: the “four freedoms” of European Union: people circulation (Students, Research,Tourism,Workers), Goods circulation (Duties and taxation), Services (e.g. uniﬁed mobile roaming, Internet purchases, Digital single market) and Capital circulation (e.g. Monetary union, Banking system). What you need to do: Prepare a timeline of events for organizing engagement between now and March 25th 2017. Details required:Timeline, tools & techniques used, partners involved, barriers to overcome, incentives to be leveraged, participation phases, communication strategy, outputs and outcomes expected

98. GROUP-WORK examples

99. GROUP-WORK examples

100. GROUP-WORK PITCH FROM PART 1   FINAL GROUP WORK  --  DISCUSSION (40 minutes)

101. The Legal   roots of Engagement 2.1

102. 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 - 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

103. 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   Failures and Debates

104. 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 Italian Constitutional Reforms

105. — STATED GOALS • ACCOUNTABILITY “The Governments will be forced to act according to justice only if their actions could be constantly challenged through the publicity: there won’t be any justice if the political action cannot be publicly known” Immanuel Kant,“Perpetual Peace.A philosophical sketch” (1795). • EFFICIENCY make use of shared and local knowledge, well adapted and needed decisions and rules • LEGITIMACY increased acceptance and respect of the ﬁnal decision/rule The Legal Roots of Open Government / 2

106. —SOUGHT EXTERNALITIES • Reinforcement of local identity • Promote timely disclosure of relevant information • Make use of place-specific knowledge and social norms • Learning and improving the quality of debate • Create trust, strengthen institutional legitimacy and face democratic deficit • Support in tackling conflicts • Representing heterogeneity and attaining social justice   —ENABLING FACTORS • ICT evolution has opened a useful array of sources and tools • Institutions recognize the need to involve iteratively interested parties and groups • Citizens manifest increasing expectations from the dialogue with the institutions The Legal Roots of Open Government / 2

107. Completing the framework The Policy Cycle 2.1

108. The Policy Cycle long term decision & policy   cycle action for   change or improvement drafting decision adoption deployment implementation evaluation review impact   assessment

109. A Framework for designing engagement decision & policy   cycle case for change deployment evaluation decision implementation

110. A Framework for designing engagement exante decision & policy   cycle action for change   or improvement drafting decision adoption solutions issues identiﬁcation ex ante impact assessment resources allocation co-design e-deliberation petitions advocacy

111. A Framework for designing engagement decision & policy   cycle adoption deployment implementation endorsement buy - in ecosystems & communities innovative procurement awareness agile policy making

112. A Framework for designing engagement evaluation impact   assessment decision & policy   cycle monitoring sustainability deployment co-management pay-for-success gathering data for quality and quantitative assessment accelerators watch-dog

113. action for   change or improvement A Framework for designing engagement decision & policy   cycle ex post impact assessment emerging societal needs feedback- gathering e- deliberation evaluation review

114. Outputs , Outcomes and Externalities implementation design evaluation adoption endorsement monitoring solutions issues identiﬁcation ex ante impact assessment ex post impact assessment resources allocation emerging societal needs drafting co-design e-deliberation sustainability buy-in visualization feedback- gathering e-deliberation decision & policy   cycle

115. A Framework for engagement outputs citizens’ input expected impact  in the policy cycle weak strong type of input simple complex co-management co-design  resource allocation e-deliberation endorsement feedback gathering information - awareness outcomes and externalities accountability efﬁciency legitimacy awareness identityconﬂictsheterogeneity social justicetrust

116. Innovations in Policy Design 2.2

117. 1.POLICY DRAFTING 1.PARTICIPATION & GOOD GOVERNANCE 2.EFFICIENCY & EVIDENCE-BASED 3.SIMPLIFICATION & NUDGING 2.INNOVATION TEAMS 3.PROCUREMENT OF SOLUTIONS INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

118. A. POLICY DRAFTING INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

119. 1. PARTICIPATION - political polarization - democracy dilemmas - process foul - internal decisions: specialized information held by diverse people within the executive branch - public comment: draft rules undergoing analysis and feedback from other levels of gov, businesses, interest groups - substantive, technical, non political, agreeable good governance practice (not compulsory) OPEN GOV INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

120. 2. EFFICIENCY EVIDENCE BASED POLICY-MAKING Test, Learn,Adapt: Developing Public Policy with Randomised Controlled Trials (9 steps) - short terms costs vs major long term beneﬁts - Moneyball regulations: substituting empirical data for long-standing dogmas, intuitions, anedocte-driven judgements DATA-DRIVEN INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

121. 3. SIMPLIFICATION NUDGES, PATHS, FRAMING BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCESChoice Architecture:   default rules vs active choice information on consequences together with clear, explicit and actionable instructions [Sunstein-Thaler] Positive reinforcement and indirect suggestions to try to achieve non forced compliance INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

122. CASE STUDY: #GOODLAW INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

123. #Good law Participation Efficiency Simplification INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

124. Participation  Efficiency  Simplification  Improving Parliamentary and public scrutiny of legislation has been a government objective in recent years, seeking to improve both democratic engagement and legislative quality. Setting out policy targets in legislation can be “a low-cost way for governments to give the appearance of vigorous action” and a way to strategically influence (or limit) the decision- making of future governments consultation and engagement are important. But traditional consultation exercises can feel burdensome and unrewarding; and generic questions asked in a consultation may generate cluttered feedback that is difficult to analyse and to integrate into the policy or the draft bill. In an increasingly complicated policy- making context, consultations that are not predominantly reactive often work better than the traditional model. - Volume (number and length of statutes and regulations)  - Quality (addressing political and social objectives, harmonious, clear and well-integrated, in time and efficiently  - Perception of disproportionate complexity (layered and heavily amended, ambiguous or contradictory provisions) - unnecessary (target unachievable, redundant, unnecessary burdens)  - ineffective (it does not achieve intended objectives, fragmented or problematic implementation, substantial negative outcomes)   - inaccessible (difficult to identify and access up-to-date versions, language and style, lack of guidance) #Good law 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.  INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

125. #Legislate?! The Cabinet Office has brought out a board game "Legislate?!":   a fun way to learn about the passage of laws from Bill to Act INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

126. CASE STUDY: DYI INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

127. INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

128. B. INNOVATION TEAMS INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

129. 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.

130. C. PROCUREMENT OF SOLUTIONS INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

131. CHALLENGE PRIZES INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

133. •Pay only for success and establish an ambitious goal without having to predict which team or approach is most likely to succeed.  •Reach beyond the “usual suspects” to increase the number of citizen solvers and entrepreneurs tackling a problem.  •Bring out-of-discipline perspectives to bear.  •Increase cost-effectiveness to maximize the return on taxpayer contributions.  •Inspire risk-taking by offering a level playing ﬁeld through credible rules and robust judging mechanisms. challenge prizes INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

134. challenge prizes INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

135. INNOVATIVE & Pre-Commercial PROCUREMENT INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

138. PAY-FOR-SUCCESS SCHEMES INNOVATIONS IN POLICY DESIGN

140. Principles for LIVING POLICY-MAKING 2.3

141. Living Policy-Making 1.DESIGNING IMPACT-DRIVEN ACTIONS 2.DESIGNING FOR AGILITY 3.FROM RULES TO COMMUNITIES 4.FROM PROJECTS TO ECOSYSTEMS 5.ACCELERATORS

142. EXAMPLES: SOCIAL IMPACT BONDS, PAY FOR SUCCESS SCHEMES Financial schemes that reward the social impact generated by a publicly- funded program (pay for success) or repay private funding (a “social impact” bond issued by the public) through savings • DESIGNING IMPACT-DRIVEN ACTIONS Living Policy-Making

143. • From courses to learning experiences • From certiﬁcation to continuous assessment and badging • From funding for courses to “pay for success” • Training as professional development, rather than an obligation Example: shaping teachers’ training • Very little impact from courses across time and countries • Certiﬁcation increasingly less relevant • Italian teachers more in need than their peers around the globe • The age factor • The “fear” factor (low skills-low motivation) • DESIGNING IMPACT DRIVEN ACTIONS Living Policy-Making

144. Example: the school curriculum • “National indications” are a rigid and ineffective policy tool • Teachers training ineffective, especially for “new” skills (e.g. digital literacy) • Students demotivated by traditional didactics • FROM RULES TO COMMUNITIES Living Policy-Making

145. Example: innovating the school curriculum • Turning classroom activities into national & global communities • Teachers become facilitators, students as project managers • Gamiﬁcation + “Format work” (e.g. Data expedition, role-playing) • FROM RULES TO COMMUNITIES Living Policy-Making

146. Innovating the school curriculum • Every classroom projects becomes a community project: the ﬁnal step requires a strategy for local engagement • FROM RULES TO COMMUNITIES Living Policy-Making

147. School curriculum as national partnership code.org + Programma il Futuro: a national partnership between MIUR, Italian Informatics professors andTech companies to bring coding classes to every Italian student • FROM RULES TO COMMUNITIES Living Policy-Making

148. • FROM RULES TO COMMUNITIES Sustaining the policy by leveraging a community of tinkerers.The format “instruction” becomes common standard Living Policy-Making

149. Every student gets engaged in the “Olympics of entreprenership” AN ENTRY-LEVEL CURRICULUM   FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN EVERY SCHOOL A CONTEST, HACKATHON, CAMP, TECH GARAGE IN EVERY REGION 1,000 STUDENTS WIN “ACCELERATION” • FROM PROJECTS to ECOSYSTEMS Living Policy-Making

150. • ACCELERATORS Schoolkits Living Policy-Making

151. • ACCELERATORS challenges for models of labs and spaces  to spur innovation in learning environments Living Policy-Making

152. • ACCELERATORS A “Digital ambassador” in every school to: • Organize internal training for teachers and motivate those more resistant to change • Develop and share innovative and effective digital practice • Engage communities for digital innovation (e.g. local communities, parents) and spur student-led innovation Living Policy-Making

153. CASE STUDY: THE NATIONAL PLAN FOR DIGITAL SCHOOLS (2015)

154. 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

155. 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?

156. 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

157. Studenti Docenti Longitudinalità

158. Poli e snodi formativi I poli (scuole capofila di rete) e gli snodi (sedi di corso) sono individuati mediante tre diversi bandi. I poli per la formazione degli animatori digitali (DM 435/15) e per il team per l’innovazione (DM 762/14) sono già stati individuati e visibili al seguente indirizzo: https://goo.gl/WgjQhH. Fino al 23 febbraio è possibile candidarsi come snodo formativo per i percorsi destinati al Personale scolastico e finanziati attraverso le risorse del PON 2014-2020 D.M.   762/2014 PON   2014/20 D.M.   435/2015 Animatori   digitali Team per   l’innovazione Personale scolastico cliccare per ingrandire

159. how institutions approach innovation in policy design

160. GROUP WORK APPLIED   “LIVING” POLICY-MAKING GROUP 1 The Ministry of education needs to improve the ways to talk to, listen to, empower and enable innovation from “Digital School Ambassadors” (8,300 people, 1.000 Eur minimum budget, every school grade). GROUP 2 The recent school reform has introduced 200-300 hours of VocationalTraining experiences during last 3 years of Upper Secondary school. Resources are100 Mln/year, to be used mainly by schools directly and, in a percentage, to mentor and coordinateVET projects.

161. THANK YOU!  @damienlanfrey  damien.lanfrey@istruzione.it @dskutz donatella.soldakutzmann@istruzione.it

From Open Government to Living Policy Making

Du liest eine Vorschau.

Hier ansehen

From Open Government to Living Policy Making

Weitere Verwandte Inhalte

Diashows für Sie (18)

Andere mochten auch (20)

Ähnlich wie From Open Government to Living Policy Making (20)

Aktuellste (20)