ICTlogy Lifestream http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/feed en-us http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Sweetcron ictlogist@ictlogy.net REDEM (V). Membership and Voice: Local and Global http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/19115 Notes from the conference Reconstructing Democracy in Times of Crisis: A Voter-Centred Perspective, organized by SciencesPo/CEVIPOF, and held in Paris, France, on 5 and 6 February 2020. More notes on this event: redem2020 Marcus Carlsen Häggrot, Goethe University, Frankfurt a.M. Nomads are usually excluded from the electoral process as they cannot be assigned to a specific constituency. Maybe we should reconsider the concept of constituency, especially when residence is decreasingly important in an increasingly mobile society — and most especially within the European Union, with so many expatriates. Single member plurality systems:

Pros: popular self-government, accountability, eliminates extremist parties Cons: unequal power over policy, vertical inequality, anonymity

Two round election systems put voters in a trade-off between maintaining their integrity or having to vote (in the 2nd round, considering their 1st option did not pass) the lesser undesired one. José Luis Martí, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona. Globalizing democracy, deterritorialisation and Crowdlaw A new reality:

Growing complexity Globalisation Digital revolution: deterritorialisation Crisis of democracy: dissatisfaction with institutions, populism, concentration of power, etc.

Globalising democracy: in the XVIIIth century, due to a new social, economic, technological and political scenario lead to a scaling-up of democracy, from the city level to the state level. Maybe, the new scenario coming on the XXIst century should lead us to the scaling-up of democracy, from the state level to the global level. On the other hand, we are witnessing the (new) rise of cities, the nearest administration to the citizen, able to coordinate between cities. The paradox is that cities are increasingly able to address global issues, while their demos is obviously not global. We certainly have to rethink the traditional approach to democracy and participation. Again, the need to deterritorialise democracy. And, besides the territorial factor, the deliberative phase and the voting phase of democracy get increasingly intertwined and their differences blur. e.g. liking a proposal on an online participation platform can mean nothing, can mean just endorsement of the idea and thus remain at the deliberation stage, or can boost the proposal and, past a threshold, make it binding, thus entering the voting phase. Elise Rouméas, CEVIPOF/Sciences Po. Do I go with my party or my beliefs? Compromise: a decision-making procedure based on reciprocal concessions. There are many reasons for compromise in face of conflict, and many times they have to do with the ethics of voting. What happens when, to reach a compromise, you “betray” some of your main principles? Tactical voting as an internal compromise. What is wrong, if anything, with tactical voting? Two main objections:

Wrong attitude: dishonesty, “gambling”. Wrong outcome: mediocrity, obscurity. Not a true revelation of preferences.

A positive case for tactical voting: we have the moral obligation to vote tactically when we have campaigned for a strategic voting. There also is the idea of reaching a second-best outcome when the optimum is not reachable. Ismael Peña López, Government of Catalonia

Towards a citizen-centered multi-level ecosystem of political engagement from Ismael Peña-López

Discussion Andre: are you proposing a guild-based democracy, with different levels of participation? Can we shift to a commons-based democracy? Andrei Poama: what is the role of representative democracy and elected members in such a democracy? Ismael Peña-López: we should certainly promote a commons-based democracy in the sense that anyone should have the tools to make collective decisions. Horizontal networks have proven to be effective, if appropriately facilitated, in diagnosing, deliberating and negotiating. Representative democracy institutions still have a crucial double role: (1) to nurture and take care of this democratic commons and (2) to provide the holistic vision required to connect the different dots and to be able to draw the big strategies, maybe too abstract for grassroots participation methodologies. Laurentiu: there’s the statement that shifting from hierarchies to networks does not necessarily means losing power. How to back this statement? Based on what theory? Ismael Peña-López:

Hierarchies are very sensible to voting with one’s feet: digitization scales-up the power of voting with one’s (e-)feet. Exiting the system (or circumventing it) is stronger than voice. Network effects are stronger than economies of scale. The estate/administration is the central node. Networks are based on a different currency: the gift economy. Institutionalising informal participation. Enforcing through law and budget.

Chiara Destri: are there externalities in such distributed models? What about accountability? Ismael Peña-López: in a distributed system, accountability is not accurately allocated to anyone and externalities (positive and negative) can go wild as they are difficult to bring inside the system. Institutions thus have the duty — and may be the best positioned — to institutionalise what is going on in a distributed network for collective decision-making, in order to internalize externalities and to allocate accountability. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as REDEM (V). Membership and Voice: Local and Global

]]>
Thu, 06 Feb 2020 07:36:00 -0800 https://ictlogy.net/20200206-redem-v-membership-and-voice-local-and-global/
REDEM (IV). The Demos, Partisanship and Technology http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/19114 Notes from the conference Reconstructing Democracy in Times of Crisis: A Voter-Centred Perspective, organized by SciencesPo/CEVIPOF, and held in Paris, France, on 5 and 6 February 2020. More notes on this event: redem2020 Ludvig Beckman, University of Stockholm You cannot be enfranchised if you do not have the real ways to participate in elections. By what kind of principle can we define the demos in a democracy? Is it the status of citizenship the same as the demos? If you are part of the demos it’s because you are affected by the decisions of this very same demos. How can we define how one is affected by such decisions? The fact that the state can coerce you to abide with the decision made, then you are affected. You are a subject if, according to the law, you have some duties abiding from the decisions made. The problem is that not always your jurisdiction coincides with the extent of the law. Andreas Brøgger Albertsen, Aarhus University Using voting advice applications (VAA) affects turnout. There is evidence that affects party choice and political references. VAA usage affects knowledge. And use of VAA depends on education, income, age, etc. and has discrimination effects. How are individual voter’s political preferences affected by receiving advice from a voting advice application? We find that VAA increases the likelihood of changing your vote if you receive incongruent advice in relationship with your own prior views. We should strive for differential effects counteracting existing inequalities. That is, to use VAA to affect those less prone to vote so to help them to take the decision of voting. VAA should also be improved to include ethical issues usually not covered by this kind of applications, including the ethics of influence. Also include the impact of VAA in candidate choice, not only party choice. Toni Gibea, University of Bucharest Role of experimental ethics in participation and voting. That is, how specific (social) experiments or experiences can affect one’s own judgement and, thus, how we are affecting people’s decisions. What are the ethics behind this? Should be taken into account. Sometimes, you don’t need to take specific actions to affect judgement and people’s decisions. If a given political candidate states that they will be implementing policies leading to the exclusion of a given minority, is that harming that minority? Are voters of such candidate actually contributing to harm that minority? How ethical is that? There is a debate whether reasoning improves intuition (dual-process model) or, on the contrary, reasoning finds ways to back and support former intuition (social intuition model). Chiara Destri, CEVIPOF/Sciences Po. Voting citizens and the ethics of democracy There is some failure to address actual democratic institutions when providing a justification of democracy: representation, mass participation organised through political parties; failure to to answer to the citizen “incompetence challenge”; failure to account for a democratic understanding of political obligation. Double role of citizens: as rule-takers, and as rule-givers, that is, “rule of the people, by the people, for the people”. What are the duties citizens have in their role as rule-givers? What is the distinctive content of democratic citizens’ political obligation? What is the political obligation of parties? What is the political obligation of representatives? Voting is an action which:

It is outcome-oriented: citizens vote for someone or something; contributory theory of voting. It expresses citizens’ attitudes and beliefs. It involves a relation between each citizen, what she votes for and other citizens: electoral results affect all, one votes together or against other citizens (both a cooperative and competitive dimension). It comes as the end of a process involving other aspects (public debate, political campaigning, deliberation).

Informed voting as due diligence: voting is a contribution to a result and a relation to other citizens. There is a duty to vote “well”, to get informed before voting. The outcome-oriented dimension of voting requires citizens to be collectively responsible for the outcomes. The relational dimension of voting requires citizens to be individual responsible with respect to their fellow citizens as co-authors of the law. It is consistent with pluralism and reconsiders citizens autonomous political rights. Parties have important motivational and epistemic functions. they organise political competition. The simplify the political discourse and develop policy platform. Make information publicly accessible. They are “catalyst to public justification”. Are venues of deliberation. Partisanship structures and supports political commitment. Representatives also do have a role. Representative democracy is quite different from direct democracy, both in the functioning and the justification. The constant tension between the democratic ideal and its representative institutionalisation: accountability to citizens, accountability to parties. Representation as a performative process whereby interests and political entities are also created and not simply taken as given. Discussion Toni Gibea: there is an interesting paradox in fake news where partisans are able to correctly identify fake news created by their opponents, but are genuinely unable to identify the fake news disseminated by their own parties. Ismael Peña-López: about VAAs, one of their problems is where they get the reference data from. They usually get them either from what a given party voted in the Parliament, or what a given party stated in their electoral programme. But there are deviations between those two references: parties can state one thing in their electoral programme and to the opposite when at the Parliament (for several reasons, legitimate or illegitimate). How to measure this bias/gap? How to include it in VAAs? This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as REDEM (IV). The Demos, Partisanship and Technology

]]>
Thu, 06 Feb 2020 03:26:00 -0800 https://ictlogy.net/20200206-redem-iv-the-demos-partisanship-and-technology/
REDEM (III). Open panel (I) http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/19113 Notes from the conference Reconstructing Democracy in Times of Crisis: A Voter-Centred Perspective, organized by SciencesPo/CEVIPOF, and held in Paris, France, on 5 and 6 February 2020. More notes on this event: redem2020 Pierre-Ettienne Vandamme, Université Libre de Bruxelles Add a layer of ethics of voting and deliberation around elections:

Enrich the message conveyed through votes. Stimulate public debates, before and after vote. Foster a more reflexive and public-spirited ethics of voting. Focus attention on policy proposals. Clarify the specific mandate conferred to elected representatives.

Need to think about institutional ways of fostering an ethics of voting. Traditional secret ballots send the message that all motivations are equally valid. Need to think about devices that both respect privacy and protects voters, incentivizing “deliberation within” on relevant considerations. Laurentiu Gheorghe, University of Bucharest Inequality splits society and opens the gates to demagogs. Big data and artificial intelligence helps in identifying the major trends of society, the major interests of society. This is in general good, but can be used in evil ways: to change the major trends of society, to affect the major interests of society. That is, to massively manipulate society. We should regulate this in some way: we have to preserve the freedom of building one’s own reasons to vote and the sense of that vote. Miljan Slavic, University of Belgrade The proceduralist approach: how we vote is very important. The way we design voting procedures/institutions determines the legitimacy and the outcome of the elections. Discussion Elise Rouméas: discrimination should not come free, it should have a cost both for politicians and voters that chose a discriminating programme/option. José Luis Martí: Sebastian Linares talks about the “democratic oath” as a programmatic compromise with values. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as REDEM (III). Open panel (I)

]]>
Wed, 05 Feb 2020 09:35:00 -0800 https://ictlogy.net/20200205-redem-iii-open-panel-i/
REDEM (II). Democracy, Rationality and Inequality http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/19111 Notes from the conference Reconstructing Democracy in Times of Crisis: A Voter-Centred Perspective, organized by SciencesPo/CEVIPOF, and held in Paris, France, on 5 and 6 February 2020. More notes on this event: redem2020 Andrei Poama, University of Leiden Is deliberation better than voting? Voting insulates vulnerable citizens, citizens that do not know or just cannot argue in front of other citizens on a deliberation. But they may be good enough at casting an informed vote. Voting protects vulnerable citizens from influence from others (which may be good, but also bad). Disenfranchising someone from their right to vote has been traditionally justified for criminals, although in many democracies disenfranchising is not allowed. There are other debates about enfranchising/disenfranchising vote for children or elderly people. Alexandru Volacu, University of Bucharest & Bucharest Center for Political Theory People usually have a negative view about the ethics of voting. About individual duties concerning voting, some people believe that they have the duty to vote as a sense of responsibility on what would happen if only “the others” voted; another point of view is that it is a right that costed a lot to have recognized, and thus it would be disrespectful not using it; last, many people believe that voting grants a right to political critique —and, inversely, if you do not vote you should not critizise what you don’t like. There is the debate whether people have the duty to “vote well”. But it may be more correct to speak about some instances where one can “vote badly” (e.g. most people would believe that selling your vote is not ok), but “voting well” is much more difficult to define. A usually accepted of “bad vote” is when it goes against your own interests, taking “bad” as non-rational. About institutional design, there’s the open debate on compulsory voting, allocating voting rights, the design of electoral systems, and the secrecy or openness of voting. Jonas Pontusson, University of Geneva There are cases where inequality has not increased (or actually decreased) and nevertheless voters have shifted towards populist/fascist options. So it is difficult to identify one single simple issue as the cause of the raise of populism. We have a large number of studies that confirm that the poor are less represented, that they vote less, and that middle income (not middle class) voters do not have the weight in policies that they would have considering their number. The different of affluent voters and poor voters is huge and in favour of affluent voters. Left parties seem to be increasingly shifting from poor voters to middle class / affluent voters. This implies a dispossession of poorer voters, leaving them with lesser options, while middle class voters have much more where to choose from. On the other hand, people tend to penalize candidates without a certain level of education or skills, and also penalize people earning above a certain threshold (e.g. twice as much as the average income). The problem being that people usually know the educational or professional background of a given candidate, but not their income. Dominik Gerber, Stockholm School of Economics in Riga. Sustaining democracy: citizen’s duties and the problem of demandingness Across the world, citizens are losing faith in democracy (perceived performance of democracy). Four approaches of the value of democracy, based on two axes: instrumental/non-instrumental and epistemic/non-epistemic. [I really could not follow this presentation] Interesting readings on the epistemic value of democracy:

List, Goodin (2001). Epistemic democracy. Generalizing the Condorcet Jury Theorem Warren (2017). A Problem-Based Approach to Democratic Theory Estlund (2013). Epistemic approaches to democracy. In Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Social Sciences, Volume 1

Discussion Chiara Destri: when we speak about parties, their characteristics and their behaviour, we should tell parties as an entity from parties as part of the party system. Quite often parties push in one way while the party system pushes to a different way. Q: delegation of vote, how would that be considered in terms of voting well/badly? Volacu: cannot see anything “wrong” in vote delegation, always considering that there is no trading in it. Q: usually, intuitions come first and then we rationalize them. What about if we have bad intuitions? Would that be voting badly even thought we honestly rationalized our voting? This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as REDEM (II). Democracy, Rationality and Inequality

]]>
Wed, 05 Feb 2020 07:30:00 -0800 https://ictlogy.net/20200205-redem-ii-democracy-rationality-and-inequality/
REDEM (I). Democratic Ethics and Politics http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/19110 Notes from the conference Reconstructing Democracy in Times of Crisis: A Voter-Centred Perspective, organized by SciencesPo/CEVIPOF, and held in Paris, France, on 5 and 6 February 2020. More notes on this event: redem2020 Martial Foucault. The rise of populism and the collapse of the left-right paradigm Politics of 2 new axes provides a comprehensive framework to understand anti-system forces in France, Europe and the USA:

Low life satisfaction and distrust in institutions are common to anti-system voters. Interpersonal trust: split between radical left/right votes.

Determinants:

Life satisfaction and distrust in institutions: highly correlated to economic insecurity. Interpersonal trust: mobility and loneliness in post-industrial societies

Policy consequences:

Redistribution and inequality. But part of the poor vote for anti-redistribute platforms. Policies to boost generalized trust and fight loneliness at work and in remote territories (e.g. post Yellow Vests recommendations.

Annabelle Lever, CEVIPOF/Sciences Po It is crucial that young people vote just so they can have some sense of ownership on elections, not only (though also) to legitimise the results of elections. The design of electoral processes is not neutral. Not only it can radically change the results of elections, but also the perception about its fairness and how it considers the different profiles of voters. Political scientists and their obsession with targeting has led to an alienating way of doing politics. People are aware of being targeted, of being manipulated. And they are sick of it. Valeria Ottonelli, University of Genoa. Citizens’ political prudence and the ethics of voting Prudence is the practical virtue that guides us in deliberating about the right course of action and acting accordingly, having in mind the science of the good and the particular circumstances ans stakes involved (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, book 6). We need to theorize political prudence so that it is compatible with other political principles such as passion, responsibility, etc. And taking into account numbers, pluralism or the relation between individual and collective virtues. The ethics of voting as an exercise of political prudence. Political prudence concerns the ethics of voting, demonstrating, deliberating, etc. The ethics of voting of a liberal democracy should be pluralistic, in the sense of plurality of considerations, and allowing different voters to state their preferences. Carys Roberts, Institute for Public Policy Research The system based on two major parties is in clear decline in the UK. The income gap has widened in recent times, and this has had an impact on voting turnout. There was a hope on increased turnout in youth, but it has not turned out to be true. Devolution of power to communities is a way to be explored when it comes to thinking in ways to strengthen democracy. Discussion José Luis Martí: maybe we have been focusing to much on elections and not on other ways of political involvement: organizing elections but also being involved on policy-making or design of public policies, etc. Chiara Destri: how the ethics of voting affects legitimacy? Annabelle Lever: treating people as rulers, not only as voters has an important impact. This includes how parties recruit and promote members. Politics have become professional in a very narrow point of view: middle class, highly educated, etc. losing plurality and the grassroots components. Ludvig Beckman: are duties of voters compatible with prudence? can our duty be not to exercise prudence? Valeria Ottonelli: there are examples, as not selling your vote, are a duty and are related to prudence. Miljan Slavic: how do we interpret not participating in elections or voting with blank or null votes? Some of them are actually being critical with the system and saying it is not legitimate. How do we interpret all of them? Annabelle Lever: one should assume the worst, that people are disgusted with the system, or the candidates, or the whole thing. Ismael Peña-López: we keep on insisting on how to engage youth, how to engage minorities, how to engage women, etc. in electoral participation. But we should not forget the other side of the equation: how do we make politicians more accountable, how do we make institutions more understandable, how to we make politics in general more transparent and honest, etc. We are in the middle of a paradox: as the world grew more complex, we shifted from direct to representative democracy; but now that the world is becoming even more complex, we demand that citizens are more informed and more engaged in politics; but, not to go back to direct democracy, but to “vote better”. Why not leveraging the effort we are demanding to citizens to improve decision making by letting them participate in deliberative or direct democracy instruments? Why not demand less to citizens and demand more instead to democratic institutions to reduce the complexity of the world for the citizens? This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as REDEM (I). Democratic Ethics and Politics

]]>
Wed, 05 Feb 2020 03:27:00 -0800 https://ictlogy.net/20200205-redem-i-democratic-ethics-and-politics/
REDEM (III). Open panel (I) http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/19112 Notes from the conference Reconstructing Democracy in Times of Crisis: A Voter-Centred Perspective, organized by SciencesPo/CEVIPOF, and held in Paris, France, on 5 and 6 February 2020. More notes on this event: redem2020 Pierre-Ettienne Vandamme, Université Libre de Bruxelles Add a layer of ethics of voting and deliberation around elections:

Enrich the message conveyed through votes. Stimulate public debates, before and after vote. Foster a more reflexive and public-spirited ethics of voting. Focus attention on policy proposals. Clarify the specific mandate conferred to elected representatives.

Need to think about institutional ways of fostering an ethics of voting. Traditional secret ballots send the message that all motivations are equally valid. Need to think about devices that both respect privacy and protects voters, incentivizing “deliberation within” on relevant considerations. Laurentiu Gheorghe, University of Bucharest Inequality splits society and opens the gates to demagogs. Big data and artificial intelligence helps in identifying the major trends of society, the major interests of society. This is in general good, but can be used in evil ways: to change the major trends of society, to affect the major interests of society. That is, to massively manipulate society. We should regulate this in some way: we have to preserve the freedom of building one’s own reasons to vote and the sense of that vote. Miljan Slavic, University of Belgrade The proceduralist approach: how we vote is very important. The way we design voting procedures/institutions determines the legitimacy and the outcome of the elections. Discussion Elise Rouméas: discrimination should not come free, it should have a cost both for politicians and voters that chose a discriminating programme/option. José Luis Martí: Sebastian Linares talks about the “democratic oath” as a programmatic compromise with values. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as REDEM (III). Open panel (I)

]]>
Wed, 05 Feb 2020 00:59:00 -0800 https://ictlogy.net/20200205-redem-iii-open-panel-i/
Towards a citizen-centered multi-level ecosystem of political engagement http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/19108 REDEM Workshop Reconstructing Democracy in Times of Crisis: A Voter-Centred Perspective, 5-6 February 2020

]]>
Sun, 02 Feb 2020 10:05:00 -0800 https://www.slideshare.net/ictlogist/towards-a-citizencentered-multilevel-ecosystem-of-political-engagement
Draft Opinion. Local and Regional Authorities in the permanent dialogue with citizens http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/19109 Draft Opinion “Local and Regional Authorities in the permanent dialogue with citizens” On 9 December 2019, the Catalan Government presented a working document at the 26th CIVEX commission meeting of the European Committee of the Regions. The aim of the working document was to spark a debate for an upcoming Opinion on the “Local and Regional Authorities in the permanent dialogue with citizens”. The working document had the following scheme:

Bridging the gap between what leaders see vs. what citizens see Lack of identification of EU issues with daily-life issues An ecosystem of infrastructures of participation Engaged citizens in a technopolitical paradigm Transforming the administration(s)

Now, a draft for that opinion has just been published for its discussion during the 2nd CIVEX commission meeting. As it happened with the working document, my colleague Mireia Borrell, Secretary for External Action and the European Union of the Government of Catalonia, acts as a rapporteur, while I am appointed as an expert to draft the opinion. A preliminary abstract of that opinion is as follow:

Proposes the setting-up of a Network of Open Participatory Governments, made up by regions and cities, with the purpose to translate upwards and downwards diagnoses, perceptions and proposals on European issues and decision-making; Proposes that the Committee of the Regions designs, implements and coordinates such a network in collaboration with all other European institutions; Expects that the Network of Open Participatory Governments can succeed in granularizing European policies and principles and breaking them into smaller, more understandable bits, thus contributing to bring them closer to the citizen, so that they can better draw the line that weaves macro-, meso- and micro-levels of policies; Suggests that the Network of Open Participatory Governments is piloted during the Conference on the Future of Europe to enlarge, extend, intensify and enhance the dialogue between European institutions and citizens through local and regional authorities, contributing to translate upwards and downwards the deliberations taking place at different levels; Wants to raise awareness on the fact that more and more citizens are moving towards a new paradigm of political engagement – technopolitics – which is characterized by horizontal relationships, distributed power and networks of collaboration, enabled and enhanced by digital technologies and open data, taking place in informal spaces and out of institutional circuits; Believes that there are new ways of listening to citizens, new ways of enabling citizens to engage and participate in policy-making, and that a new ecosystem to coordinate the proposals of citizens and the responses of a multi-level administration undoubtedly require a thorough transformation of the culture of administration(s).

Our proposal of the functioning of the Network of Open Participatory Governments is summarized in the following figure: Click to enlarge The full text that will be discussed in the next CIVEX commission can be downloaded below:

Working document: Peña-López, I. (2019). Local and Regional Authorities in the permanent dialogue with citizens. Brussels: European Committee of the Regions.

This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Draft Opinion. Local and Regional Authorities in the permanent dialogue with citizens

]]>
Fri, 31 Jan 2020 14:16:00 -0800 https://ictlogy.net/20200131-draft-opinion-local-and-regional-authorities-in-the-permanent-dialogue-with-citizens/
V-Dem http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/19106 Ictlogist: Created page with "https://www.v-dem.net/ <blockquote>Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) is a new approach to conceptualizing and measuring democracy. We provide a multidimensional and disaggregate..."

https://www.v-dem.net/

<blockquote>Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) is a new approach to conceptualizing and measuring democracy. We provide a multidimensional and disaggregated dataset that reflects the complexity of the concept of democracy as a system of rule that goes beyond the simple presence of elections. The V-Dem project distinguishes between five high-level principles of democracy: electoral, liberal, participatory, deliberative, and egalitarian, and collects data to measure these principles.</blockquote>

Main components: * Publicized laws and government data * Right to information * Civic participation * Complaint mechanisms

[[Category:Indices]] [[Category:Governance]] [[Category:Indices_Governance]]

]]>
Sat, 11 Jan 2020 04:13:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/wiki/index.php?title=V-Dem
Opinion Factsheet . Local and Regional Authorities in the permanent dialogue with citizens http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/19104 Opinion Factsheet “Local and Regional Authorities in the permanent dialogue with citizens” The European Union is entering a sort of constitutional process. The Conference on the Future of Europe will be a two-year time span devoted to reflect what the EU should be like in many issues, and aiming at institutionalizing this reflection in the form of formal agreements, maybe a new treaty, maybe even a/the constitution. There is —amongst many others— a big fear driving the conference: the huge disconnection between European institutions and citizens’ daily lives, that increasingly leads citizens to take shortcuts in the forms of populism. A populism that increasingly turns to be sheer fascism. This fear, though, can be turned into an opportunity to engage citizens more and better in public decision-making at the European level. This is the take of the European Committee of the Regions, that believes that European institutions may reconnect with their citizens by reestablishing the transmission chain between them by means of municipalities and regional governments. This summer, the European Committee of the Regions commissioned my colleague Mireia Borrell, Secretary for External Action and the European Union of the Government of Catalonia, to be the rapporteur of an upcoming opinion on Local and Regional Authorities in the permanent dialogue with citizens. I was appointed to support her as the technical “expert” to draft the opinion. On 9 December 2019 we presented a working paper/factsheet at the 26th CIVEX commission meeting. The document is structured as a set of strategic questions that can lead a debate on the problems causing the disconnect between political institutions and citizens, and how a structural ecosystem of citizen participation could bridge this growing chasm between representatives and people. Questions — and tentative proposals for each sub-set of questions — are grouped in the following topics:

Bridging the gap between what leaders see vs. what citizens see Lack of identification of EU issues with daily-life issues An ecosystem of infrastructures of participation Engaged citizens in a technopolitical paradigm Transforming the administration(s)

The document is publicly available and can be downloaded below. First, in its original language (English), then in the different official languages of the European Committee of the Regions. Full text downloads:

Working paper: Peña-López, I. (2019). Local and Regional Authorities in the permanent dialogue with citizens. Brussels: European Committee of the Regions.

BGCSDADEELENESETFIFRHRHUITLTLVMTNLPLPTROSKSLSV This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Opinion Factsheet . Local and Regional Authorities in the permanent dialogue with citizens

]]>
Thu, 26 Dec 2019 11:49:00 -0800 https://ictlogy.net/20191226-opinion-factsheet-local-and-regional-authorities-in-the-permanent-dialogue-with-citizens/
Opinion Factsheet . Local and Regional Authorities in the permanent dialogue with citizens http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/19103 Opinion Factsheet “Local and Regional Authorities in the permanent dialogue with citizens” The European Union is entering a sort of constitutional process. The Conference on the Future of Europe will be a two-year time span devoted to reflect what the EU should be like in many issues, and aiming at institutionalizing this reflection in the form of formal agreements, maybe a new treaty, maybe even a/the constitution. There is —amongst many others— a big fear driving the conference: the huge disconnection between European institutions and citizens’ daily lives, that increasingly leads citizens to take shortcuts in the forms of populism. A populism that increasingly turns to be sheer fascism. This fear, though, can be turned into an opportunity to engage citizens more and better in public decision-making at the European level. This is the take of the European Committee of the Regions, that believes that European institutions may reconnect with their citizens by reestablishing the transmission chain between them by means of municipalities and regional governments. This summer, the European Committee of the Regions commissioned my colleague Mireia Borrell, Secretary for External Action and the European Union of the Government of Catalonia, to be the rapporteur of an upcoming opinion on Local and Regional Authorities in the permanent dialogue with citizens. I was appointed to support her as the technical “expert” to draft the opinion. On 9 December 2019 we presented a working paper/factsheet at the 26th CIVEX commission meeting. The document is structured as a set of strategic questions that can lead a debate on the problems causing the disconnect between political institutions and citizens, and how a structural ecosystem of citizen participation could bridge this growing chasm between representatives and people. Questions — and tentative proposals for each sub-set of questions — are grouped in the following topics:

Bridging the gap between what leaders see vs. what citizens see Lack of identification of EU issues with daily-life issues An ecosystem of infrastructures of participation Engaged citizens in a technopolitical paradigm Transforming the administration(s)

The document is publicly available and can be downloaded below. First, in its original language (English), then in the different official languages of the European Committee of the Regions. Full text downloads:

Working paper: Peña-López, I. (2019). Local and Regional Authorities in the permanent dialogue with citizens. Brussels: European Committee of the Regions.

BGCSDADEELENESETFIFRHRHUITLTLVMTNLPLPTROSKSLSV This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Opinion Factsheet . Local and Regional Authorities in the permanent dialogue with citizens

]]>
Thu, 26 Dec 2019 11:49:00 -0800 https://ictlogy.net/20191226-opinion-factsheet-local-and-regional-authorities-in-the-permanent-dialogue-with-citizens/
Experiència a Catalunya com a �model global de participació http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/19082 Fòrum de democracia local: Parlem de democracia deliberativa, 22 de novembre de 2019

]]>
Thu, 21 Nov 2019 10:20:00 -0800 https://www.slideshare.net/ictlogist/experincia-a-catalunya-com-a-model-global-de-participaci
Conference on Democratic Innovation (IV). Regional planning and collaboration http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/19080 Notes from the conference Conference on Democratic Innovation. Open territories. Rethinking the physical space with the citizens, organized by the Secretary of Transparency and Open Government of the Government of Catalonia, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 19 November 2019. More notes on this event: territorisoberts2019 Regional planning and collaborationChairs: Cristina Palés. Cap del Servei d’Educació Ambiental de la Generalitat de Catalunya Network for the Conservation of NatureMarc Vilahur, President Participation cannot take place at the end of a public policy decision, but has to be intrinsic to the whole project. Participation has to impact not only the key actors, but the whole of the citizenry and the whole of the Administration. When participation takes place at the beginning of a policy-making process, people tend to turn complains into proposals, tend not to say “no” but “I would like this”. Territory safekeeping is a formal agreement between someone that wants to use the territory and a civic organization that wants to take care of a given territory. In this case, civil society approaches better the territory than the Administration. There are communication and coordination channels needed between such organizations and the Administration, but the Administration should be able to step back and leave room for civil society organizations to play some roles related to the public good. Safekeeping agreements are formal agreements, but are non compulsive, based on goodwill, adapted to individual and collective needs. The experience of GeoinquietsMarc Torres, Membre de Geoinquiets i Geostart The change of culture in the Administration is a transformation, not just an evolution, on how public workers work. It is becoming more about reaching consensus, about talking to others and about listening to much more others. In many senses, this is what most innovative public workers were looking for: to open up their work, to be allowed to explain what they think and what they do, to address specific actors — not necessarily always the same ones —, to disclose working for the public good as the public good is a common matter. We have to think about the we, not about the I. With participation, we can address the citizens, but also let public workers share their experiences and their diagnosis. Participation is about building a knowledge network, a unique and collective network that thinks and acts. Participation is much more than contributing to a top-down project. Participation should also be understood as people doing things for the sake of it, as people taking the initiative to address and solve problems, with or without the Administration. Sometimes these grassroots initiatives are the seed of major collective planning projects or policy-making initiatives in general. This is also participation. We speak about co-deciding, but can we speak about co-participation? About designing the very same processes of participation? The experience of Mirapeix LawyersCarolina Mirapeix Most people realize that there are plans or regulations just when they want to do something, and the regulation would either not allow them to do it or force them to do it in a given way. This usually leads to conflict: people are surprised and, even worst, people tend to think that something illegitimate happened. “Why was I not warned? Why wasn’t I aware of this? When planning becomes norm, transparency and participation take on a new meaning. Participation has to come at the very beginning of planning. The diagnosis, the forecast, the responsibility of planning have to be shared by all actors, public and private. And for participation to be possible, information is a must. Information that is easy to find and easy to understand. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Conference on Democratic Innovation (IV). Regional planning and collaboration

]]>
Tue, 19 Nov 2019 05:08:00 -0800 https://ictlogy.net/20191119-conference-on-democratic-innovation-iv-regional-planning-and-collaboration/
Conference on Democratic Innovation (VI). Regional planning and collaboration http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/19079 Notes from the conference Conference on Democratic Innovation. Open territories. Rethinking the physical space with the citizens, organized by the Secretary of Transparency and Open Government of the Government of Catalonia, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 19 November 2019. More notes on this event: territorisoberts2019 Regional planning and collaborationChairs: Cristina Palés. Cap del Servei d’Educació Ambiental de la Generalitat de Catalunya Network for the Conservation of NatureMarc Vilahur, President Participation cannot take place at the end of a public policy decision, but has to be intrinsic to the whole project. Participation has to impact not only the key actors, but the whole of the citizenry and the whole of the Administration. When participation takes place at the beginning of a policy-making process, people tend to turn complains into proposals, tend not to say “no” but “I would like this”. Territory safekeeping is a formal agreement between someone that wants to use the territory and a civic organization that wants to take care of a given territory. In this case, civil society approaches better the territory than the Administration. There are communication and coordination channels needed between such organizations and the Administration, but the Administration should be able to step back and leave room for civil society organizations to play some roles related to the public good. Safekeeping agreements are formal agreements, but are non compulsive, based on goodwill, adapted to individual and collective needs. The experience of GeoinquietsMarc Torres, Membre de Geoinquiets i Geostart The change of culture in the Administration is a transformation, not just an evolution, on how public workers work. It is becoming more about reaching consensus, about talking to others and about listening to much more others. In many senses, this is what most innovative public workers were looking for: to open up their work, to be allowed to explain what they think and what they do, to address specific actors — not necessarily always the same ones —, to disclose working for the public good as the public good is a common matter. We have to think about the we, not about the I. With participation, we can address the citizens, but also let public workers share their experiences and their diagnosis. Participation is about building a knowledge network, a unique and collective network that thinks and acts. Participation is much more than contributing to a top-down project. Participation should also be understood as people doing things for the sake of it, as people taking the initiative to address and solve problems, with or without the Administration. Sometimes these grassroots initiatives are the seed of major collective planning projects or policy-making initiatives in general. This is also participation. We speak about co-deciding, but can we speak about co-participation? About designing the very same processes of participation? The experience of Mirapeix LawyersCarolina Mirapeix Most people realize that there are plans or regulations just when they want to do something, and the regulation would either not allow them to do it or force them to do it in a given way. This usually leads to conflict: people are surprised and, even worst, people tend to think that something illegitimate happened. “Why was I not warned? Why wasn’t I aware of this? When planning becomes norm, transparency and participation take on a new meaning. Participation has to come at the very beginning of planning. The diagnosis, the forecast, the responsibility of planning have to be shared by all actors, public and private. And for participation to be possible, information is a must. Information that is easy to find and easy to understand. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Conference on Democratic Innovation (VI). Regional planning and collaboration

]]>
Tue, 19 Nov 2019 05:08:00 -0800 https://ictlogy.net/20191119-conference-on-democratic-innovation-vi-regional-planning-and-collaboration/
Conference on Democratic Innovation (III). Regional planning and citizen participation http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/19081 Notes from the conference Conference on Democratic Innovation. Open territories. Rethinking the physical space with the citizens, organized by the Secretary of Transparency and Open Government of the Government of Catalonia, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 19 November 2019. More notes on this event: territorisoberts2019 Regional planning and citizen participationChairs: Laura Suñé. Sub-directora general de Participació Ciutadana de la Generalitat de Catalunya Regional planning guidelines in EuskadiRafael Sanchez Guerra. Tècnic del Govern Basc When one mainstreams citizen participation in policy-making (e.g. regional planning), participation is not something that is added somewhere in the project, but that is taken into account in all key points during the deployment of the project. Sometimes as a one time thing (e.g. a participatory processes), sometimes as a structural thing (e.g. advisory councils). Doing participation processes during the design of a political instrument may seem as it slows down things, but in reality it provides useful information and legitimacy that, afterwards, is less conflict, better instruments and, thus, policies that run smoother and faster. It is important to disclose all processes, to adapt language and concepts to the different target groups that one is addressing, be sure that everyone understands each other, have flexibility to adapt to different timings. Master regional plana of the Generalitat de CatalunyaJosep Armengol. Sub-director general d’Acció Territorial i de l’Hàbitat Urbà de la Generalitat de Catalunya Trust between different actors — especially between the Administration and the citizens — is a must. There is no way things will work in the future (or in the present) without increasing levels of trust. Indeed, oftentimes participation is not as much about policy-making but as trust-building. Initially, master plans in regional planning were regulated by the law. Thus, departments used to follow the regulation strictly, and implement participation processes where the law had put them. But it did not work. Citizen platforms would appear regardless of the regulated spaces for citizen participation. One also would doubt about whether citizen organizations were really democratic themselves, whether they represented many people or none, etc. Honest, flexible, ad-hoc participation processes came to improve this two-ways lack of trust. Participation has been rich in their contributions, in reducing conflict, in being able to tell who wants to build for the common good and who wants to destroy and who wants to make the public good work for one’s own private interest. Participation is now introduced at the very beginning of the process. It is not an information session, but a diagnosis and design session. Participation is open where decision-making is still open: it is crucial to match expectations with reality. Mapping actors correctly is also very important to gather all the different realities and views upon a given topic. Regional planning strategy in Aragón (EOTA)Carlos Jesús Oliván. Cap de Servei de Participació del Govern d’Aragó LAAAB methodology, based on an open and collaborative design of public policies, as in a lab. Using design thinking during the design of policies and also of participatory processes. For the regional planning strategy, participation sessions were turned into workshops, where real proposals had to be designed, not just stated. Besides, “real people” endorse or sponsor all proposals, so that one can come back to them for more details, etc. The return phase is crucial, and one has to clearly explain what proposals were accepted and put into practice, and which ones were not, and why. Participation processes are about building trust. Sometimes they may not be very productive in terms of content, but they are productive in terms of building citizenship. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Conference on Democratic Innovation (III). Regional planning and citizen participation

]]>
Tue, 19 Nov 2019 04:17:00 -0800 https://ictlogy.net/20191119-conference-on-democratic-innovation-iii-regional-planning-and-citizen-participation/
Conference on Democratic Innovation (III). Regional planning and citizen participation http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/19078 Notes from the conference Conference on Democratic Innovation. Open territories. Rethinking the physical space with the citizens, organized by the Secretary of Transparency and Open Government of the Government of Catalonia, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 19 November 2019. More notes on this event: territorisoberts2019 Regional planning and citizen participationChairs: Laura Suñé. Sub-directora general de Participació Ciutadana de la Generalitat de Catalunya Regional planning guidelines in EuskadiRafael Sanchez Guerra. Tècnic del Govern Basc When one mainstreams citizen participation in policy-making (e.g. regional planning), participation is not something that is added somewhere in the project, but that is taken into account in all key points during the deployment of the project. Sometimes as a one time thing (e.g. a participatory processes), sometimes as a structural thing (e.g. advisory councils). Doing participation processes during the design of a political instrument may seem as it slows down things, but in reality it provides useful information and legitimacy that, afterwards, is less conflict, better instruments and, thus, policies that run smoother and faster. It is important to disclose all processes, to adapt language and concepts to the different target groups that one is addressing, be sure that everyone understands each other, have flexibility to adapt to different timings. Master regional plana of the Generalitat de CatalunyaJosep Armengol. Sub-director general d’Acció Territorial i de l’Hàbitat Urbà de la Generalitat de Catalunya Trust between different actors — especially between the Administration and the citizens — is a must. There is no way things will work in the future (or in the present) without increasing levels of trust. Indeed, oftentimes participation is not as much about policy-making but as trust-building. Initially, master plans in regional planning were regulated by the law. Thus, departments used to follow the regulation strictly, and implement participation processes where the law had put them. But it did not work. Citizen platforms would appear regardless of the regulated spaces for citizen participation. One also would doubt about whether citizen organizations were really democratic themselves, whether they represented many people or none, etc. Honest, flexible, ad-hoc participation processes came to improve this two-ways lack of trust. Participation has been rich in their contributions, in reducing conflict, in being able to tell who wants to build for the common good and who wants to destroy and who wants to make the public good work for one’s own private interest. Participation is now introduced at the very beginning of the process. It is not an information session, but a diagnosis and design session. Participation is open where decision-making is still open: it is crucial to match expectations with reality. Mapping actors correctly is also very important to gather all the different realities and views upon a given topic. Regional planning strategy in Aragón (EOTA)Carlos Jesús Oliván. Cap de Servei de Participació del Govern d’Aragó LAAAB methodology, based on an open and collaborative design of public policies, as in a lab. Using design thinking during the design of policies and also of participatory processes. For the regional planning strategy, participation sessions were turned into workshops, where real proposals had to be designed, not just stated. Besides, “real people” endorse or sponsor all proposals, so that one can come back to them for more details, etc. The return phase is crucial, and one has to clearly explain what proposals were accepted and put into practice, and which ones were not, and why. Participation processes are about building trust. Sometimes they may not be very productive in terms of content, but they are productive in terms of building citizenship. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Conference on Democratic Innovation (III). Regional planning and citizen participation

]]>
Tue, 19 Nov 2019 04:17:00 -0800 https://ictlogy.net/20191119-conference-on-democratic-innovation-iii-regional-planning-and-citizen-participation/
Conference on Democratic Innovation (II). Regional planning, transparency and open data http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/19083 Notes from the conference Conference on Democratic Innovation. Open territories. Rethinking the physical space with the citizens, organized by the Secretary of Transparency and Open Government of the Government of Catalonia, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 19 November 2019. More notes on this event: territorisoberts2019 Regional planning, transparency and open dataChairs: Núria Espuny. Directora general de Transparència i Dades Obertes de la Generalitat de Catalunya Mar Santamaria. Urban planner, 300.000km/s Can we map cities differently? Instead of just a descriptive mapping based on buildings, roads, rivers, hills… can we map other information such as social or public assets? Yes, we can add layers to maps that include not only morphology, but behaviours, sensations, emotions. We can, for instance, map electrical consumption in the city at the block level. This can be helpful not only to know where consumption is, but to map poverty and social exclusion by tracking the determinants of specific electricity consumption patterns. Mapping not only assets, but uses, can be useful to find out how the social contract is being subverted by misuses of formerly agreed public assets. We can also map last-mile usage of public infrastructures, especially roads and streets. One can plan the city perfectly and find out that e.g. delivery of online purchases destroy all your planning. Mapping the way delivery services work and plan how this is happening can be done by using open data and it is a new way for urban planning. This is the case of the Use planning of Ciutat Vella (PDF) that mapped the usage or urban assets in the Barcelona district of Ciutat Vella (old downtown). Beyond planning, it deals about looking at citizens as an asset and as an active actor. And now urban planning is not anymore about making a static diagnosis of the situation, but about having tools for dynamic action. Under this paradigm, open data are a must. Open data are disclosing a new way of understanding the territory, of acting upon it, of assessing policy-making. Of course, if (open) data are a must, the governance of (open) data are also a must. Hence, the public/collective governance of data. And this includes, of course, citizen-generated data, not only data generated or published by the Administration. Miguel Mayorga, Jorge Rodríguez. Architects and urban planners, Mayorga-Fontana. Architects usually worked depicting things, while engineers usually worked with relationships. Now we can have a strong link between things and their relationships thanks to technology. The word ‘smart’ in ‘smart city’ is not about being smart, but about linking things and their relationships, stocks with flows. The city is made no more of things, but of things that have relationships with things. Participation is not a trend: it is here to stay. Participation helps to find patterns, to map relationships and behaviours. Data come from many sources. Some of them are open data generated by the Administration, other are big data generated automatically, other are data than one has to generate with qualitative and quantitative methodologies, such as polling, focus groups, etc. People are good “sensors”: they see, they watch, they reflect, they generate knowledge that can be “queried” with appropriate methodologies and technologies. Participation is about making the best of this “human sensors”, about getting the best from people. Camil Cofan. Sub-director general for Urban Planning, Generalitat de Catalunya Four steps in opening up regional planning:

2002: Management of regional planning records (GEU), to better manage documents and initiatives on regional and urban planning. 2007: Catalan register of regional planning (RPUC), to gather and publish all regional and urban plans in Catalonia. 2010: Catalan urban map (MUP), to map all regional and urban interventions. 2017: Open Data.

The strategy on open data aims at being useful both for the Administration and the individual citizens (especially professionals or regional and urban planning). The idea is to have a unique tool that works well for many purposes. The Observatory of the Territory aims at gathering all data and information on regional planning in a single place. Discussion Ismael Peña-López: What are the incentives that professionals have to be involved in opening data with the Administration? Mar Santamaria: To better understand the data, how they were created, what is their source. Be able to find new ways to apply data, to improve one’s own projects. Miguel Mayorga: Participation is a must and has come to stay. Anyone, Administration and citizens, should acknowledge that. And participation should be mainstreamed, we should learn how to better measure times and timelines, how to map and engage different actors, etc. Technology can help in levelling languages, concepts, etc. between the different actors gathered around a project. Núria Espuny: participation in opening data also helps the Administration to identify the priorities and where the bigger returns are. Jorge Rodríguez: it is important to involve people before the public decision is made, not after, when we just inform of the decision. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Conference on Democratic Innovation (II). Regional planning, transparency and open data

]]>
Tue, 19 Nov 2019 03:09:00 -0800 https://ictlogy.net/20191119-conference-on-democratic-innovation-ii-regional-planning-transparency-and-open-data/
Conference on Democratic Innovation (II). Regional planning, transparency and open data http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/19077 Notes from the conference Conference on Democratic Innovation. Open territories. Rethinking the physical space with the citizens, organized by the Secretary of Transparency and Open Government of the Government of Catalonia, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 19 November 2019. More notes on this event: territorisoberts2019 Regional planning, transparency and open dataChairs: Núria Espuny. Directora general de Transparència i Dades Obertes de la Generalitat de Catalunya Mar Santamaria. Urban planner, 300.000km/s Can we map cities differently? Instead of just a descriptive mapping based on buildings, roads, rivers, hills… can we map other information such as social or public assets? Yes, we can add layers to maps that include not only morphology, but behaviours, sensations, emotions. We can, for instance, map electrical consumption in the city at the block level. This can be helpful not only to know where consumption is, but to map poverty and social exclusion by tracking the determinants of specific electricity consumption patterns. Mapping not only assets, but uses, can be useful to find out how the social contract is being subverted by misuses of formerly agreed public assets. We can also map last-mile usage of public infrastructures, especially roads and streets. One can plan the city perfectly and find out that e.g. delivery of online purchases destroy all your planning. Mapping the way delivery services work and plan how this is happening can be done by using open data and it is a new way for urban planning. This is the case of the Use planning of Ciutat Vella (PDF) that mapped the usage or urban assets in the Barcelona district of Ciutat Vella (old downtown). Beyond planning, it deals about looking at citizens as an asset and as an active actor. And now urban planning is not anymore about making a static diagnosis of the situation, but about having tools for dynamic action. Under this paradigm, open data are a must. Open data are disclosing a new way of understanding the territory, of acting upon it, of assessing policy-making. Of course, if (open) data are a must, the governance of (open) data are also a must. Hence, the public/collective governance of data. And this includes, of course, citizen-generated data, not only data generated or published by the Administration. Miguel Mayorga, Jorge Rodríguez. Architects and urban planners, Mayorga-Fontana. Architects usually worked depicting things, while engineers usually worked with relationships. Now we can have a strong link between things and their relationships thanks to technology. The word ‘smart’ in ‘smart city’ is not about being smart, but about linking things and their relationships, stocks with flows. The city is made no more of things, but of things that have relationships with things. Participation is not a trend: it is here to stay. Participation helps to find patterns, to map relationships and behaviours. Data come from many sources. Some of them are open data generated by the Administration, other are big data generated automatically, other are data than one has to generate with qualitative and quantitative methodologies, such as polling, focus groups, etc. People are good “sensors”: they see, they watch, they reflect, they generate knowledge that can be “queried” with appropriate methodologies and technologies. Participation is about making the best of this “human sensors”, about getting the best from people. Camil Cofan. Sub-director general for Urban Planning, Generalitat de Catalunya Four steps in opening up regional planning:

2002: Management of regional planning records (GEU), to better manage documents and initiatives on regional and urban planning. 2007: Catalan register of regional planning (RPUC), to gather and publish all regional and urban plans in Catalonia. 2010: Catalan urban map (MUP), to map all regional and urban interventions. 2017: Open Data.

The strategy on open data aims at being useful both for the Administration and the individual citizens (especially professionals or regional and urban planning). The idea is to have a unique tool that works well for many purposes. The Observatory of the Territory aims at gathering all data and information on regional planning in a single place. Discussion Ismael Peña-López: What are the incentives that professionals have to be involved in opening data with the Administration? Mar Santamaria: To better understand the data, how they were created, what is their source. Be able to find new ways to apply data, to improve one’s own projects. Miguel Mayorga: Participation is a must and has come to stay. Anyone, Administration and citizens, should acknowledge that. And participation should be mainstreamed, we should learn how to better measure times and timelines, how to map and engage different actors, etc. Technology can help in levelling languages, concepts, etc. between the different actors gathered around a project. Núria Espuny: participation in opening data also helps the Administration to identify the priorities and where the bigger returns are. Jorge Rodríguez: it is important to involve people before the public decision is made, not after, when we just inform of the decision. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Conference on Democratic Innovation (II). Regional planning, transparency and open data

]]>
Tue, 19 Nov 2019 03:09:00 -0800 https://ictlogy.net/20191119-conference-on-democratic-innovation-ii-regional-planning-transparency-and-open-data/
Conference on Democratic Innovation (I). An architect meets a biologist http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/19084 Notes from the conference Conference on Democratic Innovation. Open territories. Rethinking the physical space with the citizens, organized by the Secretary of Transparency and Open Government of the Government of Catalonia, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 19 November 2019. More notes on this event: territorisoberts2019 An architect meets a biologistItziar González, arquitecta, Institut Cartogràfic de la ReVoltaFerran Miralles, director general de Polítiques Ambientals i Medi NaturalChairs: Nel·la Saborit, Enginyera civil del Gabinet Tècnic del Pla Estratègic Metropolità de Barcelona Saborit: what is the importance of regional planning? Itziar González: the good thing about regional planning is that a collective plans how it wants to live, and does it collectively. But we have to make compatible the “vertical” approach with the “horizontal” approach. If it is too much vertical, it usually goes top-down and forgets or undervalues the feelings and approaches of the ones in the bottom. We should speak more about co-operation and collaboration instead of just “planning”. Ferran Miralles: regional planning is like the hardware that other softwares use to run upon. Regional planning is about efficiency and efficacy. Planning is, above all, about scales, about addressing the most appropriate scale. The scale will determine what is efficient and what is effective and at what level. Nel·la Saborit: what is the relationship between regional planning and open government? Ferran Miralles: there is one approach to open data that is knowing what is out there and/or showing what is being done. But we have to shift from descriptive mapping to impact mapping. We have to be able to listen to what the territory talks. Open data adds value to mapping, makes it able to measure impacts or outcomes and not only outputs or results. Evidence-based decision-making should be the norm, but oftentimes decisions are made after personal feelings or impressions. Open data can address this bias. Itziar González: regional planning is deliberative, is complex, has to go down to the ground. Regional planning has to be brought naturally into the public agenda and be part of the daily lives of people. When people can speak-out they can provide rich data and approaches to policy-making. Open data is about trust, is about solving problems, is about disclosing the whole process, beginning with values. Itziar González: what do we expect from the territory? An economic revenue or a sustainable place to live in? These are approaches that need to find a common ground, which will only come from deliberation. Ferran Miralles: the further the decision is from the citizens, the more the need to participate and encourage participation. One of the roles of the Administration should be to guarantee the coherence between different political or collective decisions, that what is done at one lever or in one place is not undone elsewhere by other decisions. When there is trust, regional planning is no more a zero-sum game, a fight, but an agora to reach long-term agreements. Itziar González: regional planning should not be a static discipline, but a dynamic one. The world changes, people change, and so should policy-making in general and regional planning in particular. Let’s think of regional planning as a guide, not as a framework. Ferran Miralles: as important as an accurate diagnosis is an accurate monitoring and assessment. And an added problem is that when there is lack of trust, plans are difficult to change — and thus adapt to the new realities that monitoring and assessment uncover. Nel·la Saborit: maybe we should stop talking about regional planning and talk instead about regional processes. What are the big challenges today? Itziar González: listen, listen and listen. And build trust. And empower public servants. Ferra Miralles: citizens have to be clear on whether they want total control and guarantees in what matters the Administration, or whether they prefer more trust that gives some freedom back to the Administration, with post-hoc control and accountability. [my take in this is surely part of the job of public controllers could be taken by individual citizens by means of transparency an open data. It surely needs a change of culture, training new intermediaries and totally opening all the infrastructures of public decision-making.] Itziar González: we need to reset public spaces, make them more deliberative, re-balance legitimacy and authority between public bodies and citizens. Ferran Miralles: we have to strengthen the communication channels between the Administration and the citizens, especially when it comes to citizen assemblies, councils, etc. That these bodies have all the information, that they have feedback, etc. Discussion Ramón Pintó: trust has to be earned. And the Administration should take the first steps towards regaining trust. Laura Suñé: There is lot of room to improve things without making more and more regulations. Sometimes talking is enough. But talking, deliberation, requires time, quality information, etc. Roger Buch: what are your experiences on citizen deliberation? Is it productive? Itziar González: if one creates spaces for deliberation, if one maps correctly all actors and especially minorities, then this investment pays back. It is also a good idea that deliberation processes have different intensities: there are people that want to decide, others to speak out, others to be informed. It is all fair, and one has to make compatible different levels of commitment and that these different spaces feed each other. Ferran Miralles: projects work better when they are about specific things and when there is time enough to sit and talk. Jordi Güell: we have been talking about participation between the Administration and citizens, but we also need participation or co-operation between different levels of the Administration. Itziar González: better actor mapping could contribute to that, by acknowledging that e.g. municipalities also are actors that should have their own voice. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Conference on Democratic Innovation (I). An architect meets a biologist

]]>
Tue, 19 Nov 2019 01:47:00 -0800 https://ictlogy.net/20191119-conference-on-democratic-innovation-i-an-architect-meets-a-biologist/
Conference on Democratic Innovation (I). An architect meets a biologist http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/19076 Notes from the conference Conference on Democratic Innovation. Open territories. Rethinking the physical space with the citizens, organized by the Secretary of Transparency and Open Government of the Government of Catalonia, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 19 November 2019. More notes on this event: territorisoberts2019 An architect meets a biologistItziar González, arquitecta, Institut Cartogràfic de la ReVoltaFerran Miralles, director general de Polítiques Ambientals i Medi NaturalChairs: Nel·la Saborit, Enginyera civil del Gabinet Tècnic del Pla Estratègic Metropolità de Barcelona Saborit: what is the importance of regional planning? Itziar González: the good thing about regional planning is that a collective plans how it wants to live, and does it collectively. But we have to make compatible the “vertical” approach with the “horizontal” approach. If it is too much vertical, it usually goes top-down and forgets or undervalues the feelings and approaches of the ones in the bottom. We should speak more about co-operation and collaboration instead of just “planning”. Ferran Miralles: regional planning is like the hardware that other softwares use to run upon. Regional planning is about efficiency and efficacy. Planning is, above all, about scales, about addressing the most appropriate scale. The scale will determine what is efficient and what is effective and at what level. Nel·la Saborit: what is the relationship between regional planning and open government? Ferran Miralles: there is one approach to open data that is knowing what is out there and/or showing what is being done. But we have to shift from descriptive mapping to impact mapping. We have to be able to listen to what the territory talks. Open data adds value to mapping, makes it able to measure impacts or outcomes and not only outputs or results. Evidence-based decision-making should be the norm, but oftentimes decisions are made after personal feelings or impressions. Open data can address this bias. Itziar González: regional planning is deliberative, is complex, has to go down to the ground. Regional planning has to be brought naturally into the public agenda and be part of the daily lives of people. When people can speak-out they can provide rich data and approaches to policy-making. Open data is about trust, is about solving problems, is about disclosing the whole process, beginning with values. Itziar González: what do we expect from the territory? An economic revenue or a sustainable place to live in? These are approaches that need to find a common ground, which will only come from deliberation. Ferran Miralles: the further the decision is from the citizens, the more the need to participate and encourage participation. One of the roles of the Administration should be to guarantee the coherence between different political or collective decisions, that what is done at one lever or in one place is not undone elsewhere by other decisions. When there is trust, regional planning is no more a zero-sum game, a fight, but an agora to reach long-term agreements. Itziar González: regional planning should not be a static discipline, but a dynamic one. The world changes, people change, and so should policy-making in general and regional planning in particular. Let’s think of regional planning as a guide, not as a framework. Ferran Miralles: as important as an accurate diagnosis is an accurate monitoring and assessment. And an added problem is that when there is lack of trust, plans are difficult to change — and thus adapt to the new realities that monitoring and assessment uncover. Nel·la Saborit: maybe we should stop talking about regional planning and talk instead about regional processes. What are the big challenges today? Itziar González: listen, listen and listen. And build trust. And empower public servants. Ferra Miralles: citizens have to be clear on whether they want total control and guarantees in what matters the Administration, or whether they prefer more trust that gives some freedom back to the Administration, with post-hoc control and accountability. [my take in this is surely part of the job of public controllers could be taken by individual citizens by means of transparency an open data. It surely needs a change of culture, training new intermediaries and totally opening all the infrastructures of public decision-making.] Itziar González: we need to reset public spaces, make them more deliberative, re-balance legitimacy and authority between public bodies and citizens. Ferran Miralles: we have to strengthen the communication channels between the Administration and the citizens, especially when it comes to citizen assemblies, councils, etc. That these bodies have all the information, that they have feedback, etc. Discussion Ramón Pintó: trust has to be earned. And the Administration should take the first steps towards regaining trust. Laura Suñé: There is lot of room to improve things without making more and more regulations. Sometimes talking is enough. But talking, deliberation, requires time, quality information, etc. Roger Buch: what are your experiences on citizen deliberation? Is it productive? Itziar González: if one creates spaces for deliberation, if one maps correctly all actors and especially minorities, then this investment pays back. It is also a good idea that deliberation processes have different intensities: there are people that want to decide, others to speak out, others to be informed. It is all fair, and one has to make compatible different levels of commitment and that these different spaces feed each other. Ferran Miralles: projects work better when they are about specific things and when there is time enough to sit and talk. Jordi Güell: we have been talking about participation between the Administration and citizens, but we also need participation or co-operation between different levels of the Administration. Itziar González: better actor mapping could contribute to that, by acknowledging that e.g. municipalities also are actors that should have their own voice. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Conference on Democratic Innovation (I). An architect meets a biologist

]]>
Tue, 19 Nov 2019 01:47:00 -0800 https://ictlogy.net/20191119-conference-on-democratic-innovation-i-an-architect-meets-a-biologist/