ICTlogy Lifestream http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/feed en-us http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Sweetcron ictlogist@ictlogy.net Inclusive Development Index http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18904 Ictlogist: Created page with "http://reports.weforum.org/the-inclusive-development-index-2018/ <blockquote>The Inclusive Development Index (IDI) is an annual assessment of 103 countries’ economic perfor..."

http://reports.weforum.org/the-inclusive-development-index-2018/

<blockquote>The Inclusive Development Index (IDI) is an annual assessment of 103 countries’ economic performance that measures how countries perform on eleven dimensions of economic progress in addition to GDP. It has 3 pillars; growth and development; inclusion and; intergenerational equity – sustainable stewardship of natural and financial resources.

The IDI is a project of the [[World Economic Forum]]’s System Initiative on the Future of Economic Progress, which aims to inform and enable sustained and inclusive economic progress through deepened public-private cooperation through thought leadership and analysis, strategic dialogue and concrete cooperation, including by accelerating social impact through corporate action.</blockquote>

Main indicators: * Education * Basic services * Corruption / rents * Financial intermediation * Asset building * Employment * Fiscal transfers

[[Category:Indices]] [[Category:Data]] [[Category:Development]] [[Category:Data_Development]] [[Category:Indices_Development]]

]]>
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 01:47:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/wiki/index.php?title=Inclusive_Development_Index
The Chief Research Officer in consultancy firms http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18903 It is not unusual to hear that the university and consultancy firms go opposite ways: for the former, spending too much time in knowledge transfer has huge costs of opportunity, for it is time not invested on publishing in impact scientific journals; for the latter, most research just cannot be easily included in the client’s bill. What follows is just a simple exercise on how to embed research in consultancy, so that it does not become a mere overhead but an activity that has a direct measurable impact on the value chain. The scheme presents to sets (columns) of tasks that a chief research officer —or a research office, intelligence unit or knowledge management team, etc.— can perform within a consultancy firm. On the left, we have drawn the tasks that impact the internal client and thus improve others’ activities; on the right, we have drawn the tasks that can by directly put in the market as a product or a service. The Chief Research Officer in consultancy firms Activities have been grouped in five (more or less chronological) stages:

Research: which stands for more basic or less applied research, and consisting in gathering information, building theoretical models and providing strategic advice to the firm. On a more public branch, it can consist on creating measuring devices such as incides or custom measurements, sometimes commercialised as ad-hoc audits. Branding: part of research is diffusion. Conveniently tailored, it can contribute to strengthen the power of a brand, contribute to create a top-of-mind brand or even, by lobbying and media placing, to have an impact in the public agenda. Consulting: the research office can work with the consulting team in some projects (especially at the first and last stages of the project) to improve its quality. Mind the (*) in consulting, meaning that the research office should not work as a consulting team: research and analysis does require some distance from the research object and, most important, different (slower) tempos than regular consulting activities have. Training: a research office that learns should teach, both to other departments of the firm or directly as a service to the clients. Providing policy advice or openly publishing position and policy papers is another way to transfer knowledge to specific clients or openly to society. Innovation: closing the virtuous circle of research, modelling and improving methodologies is a way to capitalise the investment that the firm made in a research office, thus making it more efficient and effective.

This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as The Chief Research Officer in consultancy firms

]]>
Tue, 13 Feb 2018 01:50:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/20180213-the-chief-research-officer-in-consultancy-firms/
¿Tecnología o Sociedad de la Información? Una propuesta para el nuevo gobierno catalán http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18902 Rosetta, cortesía de Mini OzzY. La pasada legislatura fue un revulsivo a muchos niveles. El actual modelo de desarrollo de Sociedad de la Información no ha escapado a esta crisis. El caso más conocido, quizás, ha sido el papel central del Centro de Telecomunicaciones y Tecnologías de la Información (CTTI) y el Centro de Seguridad de la Información de Cataluña (CESICAT) en todo lo que ha hecho referencia a infraestructuras de comunicaciones y seguridad. Hemos tenido, sin embargo, también un interesante debate con el que tenía que pasar con los datos de la historia médica y el proyecto VISC+, cómo debían configurarse las políticas de transparencia, datos abiertos o gobierno abierto de la Generalitat, o cómo se transforma la comunicación con el ciudadano a través de canales telemáticos, entre otras muchas iniciativas. En los siguientes párrafos quiero hacer dos propuestas: que las infraestructuras deben seguir un proceso de descentralización para evitar la vulnerabilidad de tenerlas todas juntas; y que, por el contrario, los servicios deben tener, si no una centralización, sí un centro de coordinación que permita estrategias y políticas que sean compartidas de manera que aprendan conjuntamente y pongan el ciudadano en el centro. Desarrollo digital e infraestructuras El desarrollo digital —o, en su ausencia, la brecha digital— ha pasado por tres estadios desde que empezamos a hablar de las autopistas de la información durante la década de 1990. Hablamos de la primera fase como la de acceso (físico) a las infraestructuras, la segunda como la de la capacitación o las competencias digitales, y la tercera como la del uso efectivo y empoderador. Aunque las tres fases conviven en el tiempo hoy en día —también en Cataluña— es obvio que el peso se va desplazando cada vez más hacia la tercera. Y es, con esta cuestión bien presente, que deberíamos pensar las políticas de Sociedad de la Información en nuestro país. ¿Qué planes tenemos para el día siguiente del 21 de diciembre de 2017? La situación actual es fruto de las necesidades de cada momento y ha sido muy útil para el desarrollo del acceso a la tecnología y, en menor medida, el desarrollo de competencias en el ámbito de la transformación digital. Basta con mirar el organigrama de la Generalitat para ver el enorme esfuerzo que se ha realizado en materia de infraestructuras, seguridad, comunicaciones y alfabetización digital. Sin embargo, no habrá que buscar mucho en el organigrama: el grueso de las instituciones se agrupan bajo la Secretaría de Telecomunicaciones, Ciberseguridad y Sociedad Digital. Esta concentración, en mi opinión, ya no es necesaria. Es probable que las cuestiones de seguridad ya no tengan que depender de las “telecomunicaciones”, sino de quien se encarga de la seguridad, los policías o los servicios de inteligencia: Interior. Es también probable que las cuestiones de infraestructuras tecnológicas no tengan que depender de las “telecomunicaciones”, sino de quien se encarga de “poner las calles” cada día por la mañana, sean analógicos o digitales: Territorio, Infraestructuras, o como convengamos llamarlo. Es probable que la acreditación de competencias en uso de las TIC o el despliegue de telecentros y políticas de fomento del uso de Internet no tengan que depender de las “telecomunicaciones”, sino de quien se encarga de mejorar las capacidades de los ciudadanos y el tejido social del país (la respuesta al quién, más abajo). Por otra parte, esta concentración, además de responder a un modelo que poco a poco vamos dejando atrás (insisto: no renegamos de él porque ha sido muy útil hasta hoy) tiene unos riesgos obvios: es altamente frágil por el hecho de concentrar, en el mismo lugar, todas las infraestructuras digitales así como una gran parte de los usos estratégicos. Sociedad de la Información y el ciudadano en el centro Situémonos en la tercera fase, la del uso efectivo de las tecnologías digitales para el empoderamiento ciudadano. ¿Qué es lo que tenemos ahora? Por un lado un ciudadano que reúne en una persona física diferentes actores: un paciente, un estudiante, un activista, un consumidor, un emprendedor. Por otra, una dispersión de servicios que comparten, a menudo, necesidades, enfoques, metodologías y, incluso, soluciones. En salud se habla de envejecimiento activo, de comunidades de pacientes o de poner al paciente en el centro para darle más autonomía; en educación hablamos cada vez más de aprendizaje, de aprender a aprender, de comunidades de aprendizaje y de poner al estudiante en el centro para darle más autonomía; en gobernanza, hablamos de participación y co-gestión, de retorno de soberanía, de comunidades de interés y de poner al ciudadano en el centro para darle más autonomía; en economía, hablamos de cooperativismo, de empresas en red, de prosumidores, y de poner el consumidor o el emprendedor en el centro para darle más autonomía. No hace falta seguir. Prácticamente todos los ámbitos de la sociedad están siguiendo el mismo patrón: nuevas herramientas, nuevas formas de organización, mayor autonomía. Cuando hablamos que la Administración debe proporcionar una ventanilla única al ciudadano, esto no se puede conseguir sólo concentrando aquello que diseñamos e implementamos por separado. Al contrario, el diseño —y más si debe ser participado por el ciudadano en cualquiera de sus roles— también debe ser coordinado. Y esta coordinación no es sólo a la hora de implantar, sino de diagnosticar las necesidades, evaluar las opciones e integrar las soluciones. No creo que haya que pedir un Departamento del Ciudadano, aunque no me parece tampoco ninguna barbaridad: la gran empresa ya funciona con ejecutivos de cuentas que hacen de intérpretes entre el cliente y la organización. Pero sí un ente que coordine. Y permítaseme insistir: que coordine el trabajo de (por ejemplo) las direcciones generales de Modernización e Innovación de la Administración; de Transparencia, Datos Abiertos y Calidad Democrática; de Atención Ciudadana; de Difusión; o las áreas de Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación en Enseñanza y en Salud. Durante los dos tripartitos (2003-2010) estuvo en funcionamiento la Fundación Observatorio para la Sociedad de la Información de Cataluña (FOBSIC) que debía ser el think tank de la Sociedad de la Información en Cataluña. Seguramente los tiempos de la FOBSIC ya han pasado en cuanto a la sociedad en general, pero sí considero que hace falta un organismo que, dentro de la Generalitat (o junto a ella), detecte tendencias, haga análisis, diseñe propuestas y acompañe la transformación digital en la Administración. Este ente —o lo que sea—, más que coordinar —concepto que siempre tiene un sesgo jerárquico, de verticalidad— debe dar servicio a todos los niveles de la Administración, empezando por la Generalitat misma. Este servicio debe basarse en un diálogo constante entre todos los actores para que las propuestas de innovación que resulten (técnicas, metodológicas, organizativas) puedan probarse, escalarse y reproducirse, sin que cada uno tenga que reinventar la rueda una y otra vez. Porque la transformación digital debe hacer más eficiente, pero sobre todo más eficaz, el tránsito de la Administración a la Sociedad de la Información. Pero, no nos equivoquemos: esto no va de “modernizar la Administración”. O no solamente. Esto de transformar la sociedad. Lo que sirve para la Administración, puede servir para otros ámbitos; y, más importante, lo que aprende la Administración sólo lo aprenderá en un constante diálogo con la empresa, la universidad y la sociedad civil. Lo llaman el modelo de innovación de la cuádruple hélice, pero podemos llamar innovación abierta, innovación social, innovación social abierta, economía social, comunes digitales. Este ente debe tener, pues, forma de T: por una parte, dialogar de forma horizontal con todos los otros actores de la sociedad; por otra, ofrecer acompañamiento en vertical en todo el ámbito de la Administración. Esto va de cambiar la cultura de la Administración para que sus políticas públicas se acerquen más a este ciudadano del s.XXI que ya está aquí y que pide y necesita cosas distintas de quien lo gobierna. Podemos hacerlo cada uno por su parte o sumar y concentrar esfuerzos. Si nos creemos que la Administración debería hacer I+D+i sobre los servicios y políticas que pone en marcha, esta sería mi prioridad absoluta. Entrada originalmente publicada el 13 de diciembre de 2017, bajo el título Tecnologia o Societat de la Informació? Una proposta per al 21-D en Crític. Todos los artículos publicados en ese periódico pueden consultarse aquí bajo la etiqueta sentitcritic. Esta entrada publicada originalmente en SociedadRed como ¿Tecnología o Sociedad de la Información? Una propuesta para el nuevo gobierno catalán

]]>
Sun, 11 Feb 2018 01:01:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/sociedadred/20180211-tecnologia-o-sociedad-de-la-informacion-una-propuesta-para-el-nuevo-gobierno-catalan/
Perfil sociodemográfico de los internautas españoles 2018: la excluyente baja competencia digital http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18901 El Observatorio Nacional de las Telecomunicaciones y la Sociedad de la Información acaba de publicar la edición para 2018 de su Perfil sociodemográfico de los internautas. Análisis de datos INE 2017. Los datos hace años que no cambian mucho. En parte, por un buen motivo: el 80% de la población usa Internet semanalmente, lo que es una cifra muy elevada y, en consecuencia, difícil de mejorar de forma drástica. En parte, por un mal motivo: ese 20% de no usuarios o de usuarios poco frecuentes parece (casi) estancado y no parece que los esfuerzos por reducirlo estén dando frutos. Puede ser que las estrategias no sean las adecuadas, o que simplemente no nos estemos tomando en serio esta quinta parte de la población adulta española porque ya los damos por perdidos — más sobre esto más adelante. La Figura 1 muestra con qué frecuencia se conectan los españoles a Internet. En mi opinión, conectarse menos de una vez a la semana ya aleja a una persona de los beneficios más estratégicos de Internet: información, aprendizaje autónomo, participación política, cuidado activo de la propia salud y envejecimiento, oportunidades de socialización y, por supuesto, empleabilidad. Figura 1: Último acceso y frecuencia de uso de Internet. Fuente: ONTSI(2018). Perfil sociodemográfico de los internautas. Análisis de datos INE 2017. De entre los diversos factores que hay para no estar conectado se encuentra, siempre presente, la renta, tal y como muestra la Figura 2. Aunque no lo vamos a incluir aquí, el ONTSI también muestra como factores la educación y la edad. En realidad, cuando miramos los datos de cerca, se trata del mismo factor representado por variables emparejadas: la renta y el nivel educativo tienen una muy estrecha relación. Por otra parte, en España el nivel educativo y la edad tienen también recorridos paralelos, fruto de, entre otras cosas, la tardía industrialización de España, el también tardío desarrollo del Estado del Bienestar y, cómo no, la Guerra Civil. Dicho de otro modo, el bajo nivel de acceso a Internet es a la vez consecuencia y causa de exclusión social. Los más excluidos acceden menos a Internet y ese bajo acceso les va a vetar posibilidades de inclusión social. Figura 2: Acceso a Internet por renta. Fuente: ONTSI(2018). Perfil sociodemográfico de los internautas. Análisis de datos INE 2017. Vale la pena hacer un breve paréntesis aquí para combatir uno de los falsos mitos sobre la inmigración en España: que tiene bajo nivel educativo y que, además, vive de espaldas a la tecnología. Nada más lejos de la realidad. Son cuestiones sabidas hace tiempo (como muestran Boso y Ros, 2010 o Ros et al., 2012) pero los datos del ONTSI nos lo confirman: la población inmigrante tiene un nivel educativo entre medio y elevado, y vive conectada tanto entre el colectivo inmigrante, con los que han dejado en su país de origen, y con el colectivo de acogida. Figura 4: Acceso a Internet por nacionalidad. Fuente: ONTSI(2018). Perfil sociodemográfico de los internautas. Análisis de datos INE 2017. Pero volvamos a los conectados y los no conectados. Uno de los dramas —porque lo es— no es cuánto nos conectamos, sino cómo. Es decir, el uso cualitativo que hacemos de Internet, más allá del número de horas que nos sentamos frente a una pantalla. Y si más arriba decíamos que parecía que había un 20% de la población que no importaba a nadie, ahora podemos ampliar el porcentaje al 70%. Y sí, esta afirmación es muy fuerte. Según el sub-indicador de capacidades digitales del ONTSI (Figura 4), una cuarta parte de la población poco competente en materia digital, tanto manejando información como comunicación. Esta cifra debería hacer saltar todas las alarmas porque viene a decir que casi la mitad de la población (el 20% que no se conecta más el 25% que tiene una muy baja competencia digital) apenas sabe para qué sirve Internet — y, lo que es peor, en muchos casos o bien cree que no sirve para nada o bien cree que sí lo sabe aunque su juicio sobre sí mismo no pueda ser más falso. Este aspecto, la competencia digital, es ya fundamental para evitar la exclusión profesional y la exclusión social. Y ni el sistema educativo ni el entorno profesional están muy avanzados en esta cuestión. Por su parte, la Administración a menudo se ha centrado en los cables y ha obviado el uso que hacíamos de esto, con los patentes resultados que ahora presentamos. Figura 4: Capacidades digitales: información y comunicación. Fuente: ONTSI(2018). Perfil sociodemográfico de los internautas. Análisis de datos INE 2017. El problema de la competencia digital se agrava si hacemos más exigentes los requisitos. El indicador global de capacidades digitales (Figura 5) nos viene a decir que que solamente un 31% (de los que usan Internet!) es capaz de saber cuándo una noticia es falsa, cómo gestionar mejor su salud, como aprender con Internet, como participar mejor en democracia o como tener una estrategia de empleabilidad basada en la red. Es decir, un 69% tiene en casa (o en el bolsillo) una infrastructura que escapa a su control y un potencial que supera su comprensión. Dado que hay un 31% que sí lo sabe, esa brecha digital se convertirá (lo es ya, de hecho) en un nuevo vector de desigualdad social y exclusión — no e-exclusión, sino simple y llanamente exclusión, sin la “e-“. Figura 5: Capacidades digitales: indicador global. Fuente: ONTSI(2018). Perfil sociodemográfico de los internautas. Análisis de datos INE 2017. En resumidas cuentas, el uso de Internet nos muestra y a la vez refuerza que tenemos una cuarta parte de ciudadanos de primera y tres cuartas partes de ciudadanos de segunda. No es una sorpresa: lo vemos en la distribución de las rentas o en la composición de los cargos púbicos, por poner sólo dos ejemplos. Lo que sí es algo más sorprendente es que con el potencial nivelador que podría tener Internet, estemos librando tan mal esta batalla. Son ya casi 25 años de Internet abierta al público en general. Es una generación entera: no podemos decir que nos haya cogido por sorpresa. Ya no. Esta entrada publicada originalmente en SociedadRed como Perfil sociodemográfico de los internautas españoles 2018: la excluyente baja competencia digital

]]>
Sat, 10 Feb 2018 01:13:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/sociedadred/20180210-perfil-sociodemografico-de-los-internautas-espanoles-2018-la-excluyente-baja-competencia-digital/
Transformación digital: Administración y búsqueda de talento http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18900 Pozo iniciático, cortesía de Carlos Calamar. Uno de los temas recurrentes en la Administración, como ocurre en muchísimas otras instituciones, es cómo llevar a cabo la transformación digital. Y, dado que es una organización intensiva en conocimiento, con una fuerte cultura organizativa que depende en gran medida del equipo de personas que la componen, uno de los primeros restos a abordar para dicha transformación digital es la reflexión sobre sus propios equipos: ¿qué competencias deben tener? ¿cómo deben organizarse los equipos? ¿dónde encontrar personas con dichas competencias y capaces de organizarse de una determinada forma? ¿cómo formar en esas competencias y trabajo en equipo? No obstante, todas estas preguntas se suelen hacer desde una premisa: la Administración como organización que provee servicios y prestaciones. En mi opinión, hay en esta premisa una gran omisión. Esta omisión es el papel de la Administración en la ayuda a la toma de decisiones. Cuando se habla de las funciones de la Administración, de la Administración como proveedora de valor público, para mi sorpresa la Administración suele definirse únicamente como proveedora de servicios y prestaciones, dejando de lado una, para mí, función fundamental que es aportar datos, información y conocimiento para una mejor toma de decisiones, para hacer política (en el sentido de políticas públicas, policy). Esta función, al mismo, tiempo, a medida que avanza la transformación digital de la sociedad (no sólo de la Administración) se va haciendo más capilar a todos los ámbitos de toma de decisiones colectivas: no sólo dentro de las instituciones, sino fuera de ellas. Así, las tres patas del Gobierno Abierto (transparencia, participación, colaboración/co-gestión) asumen de forma implícita y a menudo explícita que la Administración aporta datos, escucha el ciudadano y colabora con él para, precisamente, tomar mejores decisiones. Se puede argumentar que estas decisiones son, en el fondo, para la mejor provisión de servicios y prestaciones. Pero esto nos dejaría fuera toda la creación de normas (el legislativo), así como el desarrollo de marcos culturales y de valores compartidos, donde la Administración tiene un papel fundamental como aglutinador de sensibilidades. Entre las normas y los marcos culturales podríamos situar además cuestiones de estrategias sociales e incentivos a los actores privados que, sin ser servicios ni prestaciones, sí forman parte de la actividad de la Administración y donde aporta, indudablemente, mucho valor. Esta omisión se arrastra y en mi opinión toma mayor importancia a medida que avanzamos de lo meramente estratégico hacia lo operativo en lo que en materia de talento se refiere. Es decir, cuando dejamos de decir que la Administración tiene unas funciones a ver qué tipo de personas deben contribuir a desarrollarlas y cómo: el talento de la organización. Al no considerar las decisiones colectivas cómo una de las funciones de apoyo de la Administración, cada vez más vamos cerrando la reflexión sobre la transformación digital en el ámbito institucional y dejamos fuera al ciudadano. Esto ha sido así siempre, y seguramente ha sido una buena aproximación en los últimos sigles. Pero si hablamos de transformación digital, es una cuestión cada vez menos cuestionable que uno de los principales impactos de esta transformación digital es la disputa de soberanías entre las instituciones y los ciudadanos. Cuando habitualmente se habla, por ejemplo, de nuevos canales de comunicación para la Administración, y se habla sobre todo de redes sociales, se habla de éstas como si se tratara de un espacio físico. Sin embargo, vistas desde el empoderamiento ciudadano y la toma de decisiones colectivas, las (plataformas de) redes sociales no son un espacio, sino el reflejo de la articulación de redes sociales (humanas, no digitales), de comunidades (de práctica, de aprendizaje), de colectivos que se han emancipado de las instituciones (públicas, privadas) para hacer cosas. Hacer cosas sin su intermediación y, por supuesto, sin su consentimiento o liderazgo. Si tomamos las redes sociales como meros espacios, la aproximación en clave de recursos humanos y equipos es la de meros espacios donde atraer talento donde es necesaria la presencia de la Administración, gestionar su marca como si de una organización cualquiera se tratara. Pero, de nuevo, bajo un prisma de transformación (que no mera evolución) social facilitada por la revolución digital, los canales digitales — al menos los que son relevantes para nuestro contexto — son “para-instituciones” de facto, con comportamientos similares a las instituciones clásicas hacia fuera, pero con funcionamientos de red hacia dentro. En estos espacios no vale el “ir a”, sino que la lógica debe ser “estar en”: no ir a las redes a buscar talento, sino estar en las redes para interactuar directamente con él. Presencia y gestión de marca es “ir”. Colaborar, cooperar, formar parte de estas comunidades, tiene una lógica muy diferente que requiere de nuevas aproximaciones a la cuestión del talento. Sucede lo mismo cuando hablamos de formación y reconocimiento: de nuevo, a menudo nos limitamos a los espacios estrictamente institucionales, corporativos, formales, para dejar fuera la rica y creciente naturaleza de las redes y comunidades emergentes facilitados o articuladas por las TIC. No obstante, las redes (informales) de profesionales, de innovación, de interés se compone sobre todo de profesionales que forman parte, al mismo tiempo, de otras redes de personas el trabajo e intereses de las cuales orbitan alrededor del trabajo de la Administración. Si queremos capturar talento, si queremos reconocer los méritos, si queremos formar, debemos tener en cuenta estos espacios, estos nuevos espacios que, en el fondo, son una punta de iceberg: no es el espacio que se ve sobre la superficie la parte importante, sino toda la lógica comunitaria que hay debajo. Pongamos un último ejemplo. Cuando se habla de nuevas tecnologías digitales se habla a menudo de comunicación multiplataforma o multicanal o incluso transmedia, se habla de interacción en línea, de movilidad o de ubicuidad, de redes sociales o medios sociales, de big data y data analytics. Y entonces aparece Blockchain como un principio en sí mismo (a menudo que pasa el tiempo, una tecnología sustituye a otra, pero el ejemplo sigue siendo válido). Es curioso ver cómo se incluye Blockchain (o cualquier otro desarrollo), que es una tecnología específica, junto a conceptos que no son tecnologías sino lógicas de funcionamiento o metodologías o impactos de determinadas tecnologías. No hablamos de teléfonos móviles, o 4G, o tabletas, sino de movilidad. En la misma línea, en lugar de Blockchain, seguramente sería justo hablar de gestión de la información y de toma de decisiones de forma distribuida. Y eso, la gestión de la información y la toma de decisiones de forma distribuida es del que toda esta reflexión: no podemos dejar fuera la toma de decisiones como función de la Administración, y no podemos hacerlo no sólo porque sea una función legítima de la Administración, sino que la ciudadanía se la está disputando. Y resolver esta disputa es, seguramente, el gran reto de la Administración cuando hablamos de transformación digital. Esta entrada publicada originalmente en SociedadRed como Transformación digital: Administración y búsqueda de talento

]]>
Wed, 24 Jan 2018 07:02:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/sociedadred/20180124-transformacion-digital-administracion-y-busqueda-de-talento/
Decidim.index. Juan Romero: managing conflict to improve the democratic process http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18899 Notes from the Decidim.index: indices for the democratic quality of online participation , organized by decidim.barcelona and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 19 January 2018. More notes on this event: decidim-index. Juan Romero: managing conflict to improve the democratic process The democratic process is not only a model for governance, but a model for living together. How do we manage conflict in democratic processes? Define, make explicit, mediate and measure. There are two different issues in conflicts: the dimensions of the conflict and the actors of the conflict. Measuring the debate can be difficult and especially difficult to manage if we had not prepared it in advance. Technologies and methodologies can help to structure deliberations. Argument mapping can be very useful to achieve such structuration and thus improve deliberation and the whole democratic process. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Decidim.index. Juan Romero: managing conflict to improve the democratic process

]]>
Fri, 19 Jan 2018 02:20:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/20180119-decidim-index-juan-romero-managing-conflict-to-improve-the-democratic-process/
Decidim.index. Miriam Sol & Carla Cordoncilo: Systems of indicators of quality http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18897 Notes from the Decidim.index: indices for the democratic quality of online participation , organized by decidim.barcelona and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 19 January 2018. More notes on this event: decidim-index. Miriam Sol & Carla Cordoncilo: evaluation system for the programme of active democracy The system was designed after the logical framework approach. A matrix of indicators (simple and complex indicators) was created and then came the design of the sources of verification. Finally, the evaluation system was created. Active democracy includes:

Citizen initiatives. Participatory processes. Citizen consultations. Participation bodies.

In this project the focus was put on participatory processes. Main dimensions: accessibility, diversity, plurality, traceability, transparency, operations. These aspects should not be measured outside of their context, as most of them are very sensitive to it. Thus, quality or achievement of specific thresholds in indicators should be measured in relationship with environmental values. E.g. diversity in participation has different meanings in neighbourhoods that have a multicultural social tissue or in neighbourhoods that are socially or culturally more homogeneous. Less diversity in the latter is to be expected, while low diversity in the former should be considered as a failure. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Decidim.index. Miriam Sol & Carla Cordoncilo: Systems of indicators of quality

]]>
Fri, 19 Jan 2018 02:01:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/20180119-decidim-index-miriam-sol-carla-cordoncilo-systems-of-indicators-of-quality/
Decidim.index. Sofia de Roa: Systems of indicators of quality http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18898 Notes from the Decidim.index: indices for the democratic quality of online participation , organized by decidim.barcelona and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 19 January 2018. More notes on this event: decidim-index. Sofia de Roa: Systems of indicators of quality The point of departure to design a system of indicators for democratic quality is transparency. Two types of organiations in relationship to transparency: 180º organization:

What for transparency: to disclose information from the past. Why transparency: external motivation: to look nice in transparency indices and gain recognition. What do we make transparent: operative aspects related to production, such as people, economy, structure and processes. How do we become transparent: on their own, with their own tools.

360º organization:

What for transparency: to disclose commitments and measure improvements. Why transparency: intrinsic motivation: responsibility, work well done, the common good. What do we make transparent: all the value chain, including vision and mission, values, strategies, etc. How do we become transparent: in a participatory way, with all stakeholders.

How to operationalize concepts such as diversity, democratic quality, gender balance, social autonomy, etc.? Systems of quality indicators: choose, improve, etc. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Decidim.index. Sofia de Roa: Systems of indicators of quality

]]>
Fri, 19 Jan 2018 01:38:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/20180119-decidim-index-sofia-de-roa-systems-of-indicators-of-quality/
World Electoral Freedom Index http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18896 Ictlogist: Created page with "http://www.fundalib.org/imle-2018/ Developed by the [http://www.fundalib.org/ Fundación para el Avance de la Libertad], the '''World Electoral Freedom Index''' is composed b..."

http://www.fundalib.org/imle-2018/

Developed by the [http://www.fundalib.org/ Fundación para el Avance de la Libertad], the '''World Electoral Freedom Index''' is composed by four sub-indices: * Index of political development * Index of active suffrage freedom * Index of passive suffrage freedom * index of voting empowerment

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

]]>
Mon, 08 Jan 2018 02:15:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/wiki/index.php?title=World_Electoral_Freedom_Index
OP@LL Conference (VII): Case Studies 3 http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18895 Notes from the OP@LL Conference: Online participation on the local level – a comparative perspective, organized by Düsseldorf Institute for Internet and Democracy and held in Dússeldorf, Germany, on 13-15 December 2017. More notes on this event: oppl. Case Studies 3 Anna Przybylska | University of Warsaw (Poland) ICT solutions for public consultations: Methodology and design of inDialogue Abstract: The aim of the presentation is to reflect on the design of the inDialogue software that has been developed to intervene in the organization of public consultation processes in local governments. The design has been informed by the results of empirical studies. In those studies, we evaluated the practice of public consultations in Poland refereeing to the norms constitutive for the model of deliberative consultations. The inDialogue software is expected to respond to the problems revealed during the evaluation. It helps to convey the knowledge about the methodology of public consultations and supports the teamwork for their better organization in the city hall. It facilitates planning of public consultations which can be conducted through face-to-face meetings and paper questionnaires as well as through online text or voice meetings and electronic questionnaires. The presentation starts with the overview of some theoretical assumptions and associated research findings relevant to the institutionalization of deliberation in public consultations. Following part analyses empirical data collected from the Polish local governments. In this background I will discuss tools and procedures of inDialogue software. Three areas of tension:

When the institutions of representative and participatory democracy are being integrated. Between the ideal of deliberation and the results of its implementation. When attempting to create a consolidated venue for public dialogue in a world of dispersed communication channels.

How are we going to attract people to use these tools? Efficacy of participation is the most powerful incentive. inDialogue is a participation software that has many functions. Not only does it deal with participation, but also planning, open government, etc. The software also features different roles/approaches, like the clerk’s interface with several actions that the leader of a participation initiative can undertake. Same for citizens, that have their own interface and the tasks that they can perform. Factors for the absorbtion of innovation:

Establishing partnerships: quadruple-helix model where several institutions have a different complementary role. Research and action. Evaluation and software amendments An umbrella or a network? Public sphere and scaling-up. Distribution roles.

José L Martí | Pompeu Fabra University Barcelona (Spain)Crowdlaw and the internal/external dimension of online local participation Abstract: One of the new paradigms that has been advocated to understand the new possibilities of local participation enhanced by the new technologies is the so-called crowdlaw, as a particular subtype of Open Government. Under this approach, ordinary citizens can be deeply involved in different stages of the legal cycle and through a variety of forms of participation. They can participate in information pooling, in deliberation, or in decision-making properly. And they can contribute in such a variety of forms to stages like public diagnostic, law and policy-making, law and policy enforcement, law and policy adjudication, law and policy control, and law and policy revision. This is seen by some as one of the most important innovations to come in the next years to improve government at different levels, and also at the local one. But one of the effects of adopting this new approach is that the boundaries between internal and external participation (the participation of local citizens or the participation of citizens from other towns, regions or states, is importantly blurred. In other words, crowdlaw is very good in enhancing both the internal and the external dimensions of local participation (i.e., citizens from other places, including other states may be involved in different ways in the local participation of our city and contribute largely to it. This may have crucial effects to the way we conceive local politics. This paper explores all these effects and implications, focusing particularly in the way in which public local participation should be conceived in this new scenario, and advances a new vision of how local politics, and particularly public local deliberation may scale up to extralocal (potentially global) politics. The demos problem: the traditional response to the question on whether one should be able to participate in a participatory process or a decision-making process in one’s own city/region/state is that yes, one should be able to participate. What if one is not formally recognized as a citizen in a given city? What if I have interests (relatives, friends, etc.) in other cities? Are they “my” city too? e-Democracy is transforming the traditional ways to approach such demos problem in a way that brings us necessarily to connect local democracy with global democracy. e-Democracy is deterritorializing politics, which were, almost by definition, always bound to a territory. Why participatory democracy?

It empowers people. It strengthens full inclusion. It improves the quality of decision-making.

But we must have an idea of who should be empowered, whose voices should be heard, what options should be put on the table.

Territorially-defined demos: which refers to a formal status, which in turn is based on residence. Functionally-defined demos: depending on the substantive issue.

And there even is yet another principle: the all-affected principle: all those who are potentially affected by the decision should be. The digital revolution is making the territory less and less important which, combined with globalization, makes the demos problem one of the most important now in participation. But this is where deliberation —not voting— gains a lot of meaning. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as OP@LL Conference (VII): Case Studies 3

]]>
Fri, 15 Dec 2017 06:32:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/20171215-opll-conference-vii-case-studies-3/
OP@LL Conference (VI): Evaluation of Online-Participation http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18894 Notes from the OP@LL Conference: Online participation on the local level – a comparative perspective, organized by Düsseldorf Institute for Internet and Democracy and held in Dússeldorf, Germany, on 13-15 December 2017. More notes on this event: oppl. Evaluation of Online-Participation Norbert Kersting | Universität Münster (Germany)Monitoring and Evaluation of E-Participation Abstract: Monitoring and evaluation Instruments of are meant to enhance the quality of policy implementation. It is obvious that in numerous cases this monitoring and evaluation of online and office participation does not exist or is not applied by external actors. In the participatory instruments of the invented space, monitoring and evaluation is often ignored, there is no time or there is no funding to implement it thoroughly. The paper refers to the long history of participatory research. It shows that there are numerous participatory methods, but only a few concepts of evaluation. It criticizes theoretical concepts leading to indicators such as the Arnstein ladder of Participation, political action studies, civic engagement and the theoretical and historical blindness of newer instruments. Finally, it argues that categories and concepts do not differ in research on online and offline participation-but the theoretical foundations of political participation do. How do we assess online participation? Is it possible to assess it with the same tools that are used to assess offline/traditional participation? Acknowledged crisis of representative democracy: lack of responsiveness and accountability, post-parliamentarism, post-democracy, against elections, against democracy… Jason Brennan states that we have trolls (they do not like anything, they are hooligans), hobbits (they actually do not care) and all the people in between, most of them cynics. In many countries in Europe there have been local government reforms in Europe, some of them including more participatory processes like direct democracy at the local level. Participatory instruments. Evaluation 1. Criteria:

Participation: openness and equality Rationality/transparency. Control, responsiveness. Efficiency.

Participatory instruments. Evaluation 2. Purposes

Brainstorming: sharing knowledge and ideas, capacity-building Planning: problem-solving, innovation, strategy or action plan, decision-making. Networking: building relationship, personal/leader development. Conflict resolution: dealing with conflict, generating awareness, sharing vision.

The formal part is also important: can we compare voting with demonstrations? Should we? With what instruments? Discussion Q: what could be done to do more and better evaluations of participatory processes? Kersting: benchmark good cases, have processes accepted in as many governments as possible, create standards, etc. Ismael Peña-López: maybe, from a rational-choice approach it is true that “politicians do not assess” participation. But from a post-marxist approach, taking into account the theories from Hannah Arendt or Antonio Gramsci, yes politicians plan participatory processes but not for the reasons to achieve “real impact” but to control the relate and a way of assessing it would just simply be winning the elections, or placing a specific topic on the public agenda and being hegemonic in this discourse. Maria A. Wimmer | Universität KoblenzEvaluation of e-Participation Initiatives There are a number of evaluation frameworks, with similarities and differences. The MOMENTUM evaluation approach has:

What to evaluate. Assets to be assessed: tools, processes, topics, policies. How to evaluate. Evaluation criteria: usability; appropriateness, interest, policies met). Main target of evaluation and impact towards target groups.

Efficiency: system quality, information quality, service quality. Efficacy: information, communication, decision, expectations. Effectiveness: what the current situation is and what the future situation looks like to be.

This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as OP@LL Conference (VI): Evaluation of Online-Participation

]]>
Fri, 15 Dec 2017 04:05:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/20171215-opll-conference-vi-evaluation-of-online-participation/
OP@LL Conference (V): Online and Offline Participation http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18893 Notes from the OP@LL Conference: Online participation on the local level – a comparative perspective, organized by Düsseldorf Institute for Internet and Democracy and held in Dússeldorf, Germany, on 13-15 December 2017. More notes on this event: oppl. Online and Offline Participation Herbert Kubicek | University of Bremen (Germany)How to combine online and offline forms of participation? Abstract: Expectations have been high that offering online, i.e. electronic or “e‑“communication channels in public participation will improve its outreach and quality. However, so far there is no empirical evidence that confirm these hopes. Applying a variety of research methods thea European Cooperation Project e2democracy presents empirical findings on the advantages and disadvantages of online communication compared to face-to-face communication in six consultation processes and seven collaborative citizen panels. To control for contextual differences, one of the consultation processes has been set up paralleling online and face-to-face meetings. In this case organizers showed a preference for face-to-face meetings as regards the content of contributions and the style of discussion. For the citizen panels collaborating with local governments to achieve climate targets, impacts in terms of CO2e savings and dropout rates have been compared for parallel processes online and via telephone. These comparisons, however, do not deliver clear performance profiles of the communication channels or a generalizable assessment of their appropriateness for particular objectives. The factors influencing the choice of communication channels are complex and the analysis shows that assessments depend on the type of participation and the role of an actor in the process as well as on time frames and contexts in which the assessments are made. Showing that none of the channels offers clear advantages over the other, we conclude that practitioners are well advised to follow a multi-channel strategy and offer a media mix of online and traditional modes of participation. ECRP project: comparative assessment of e-participation in the context of sustainable development and climate change. When we evaluate offline vs. online participation, we have to look at outputs, outcomes and impacts. To be able to do this, a quasi-experimental project was created so to be able to compare participation processes with the same subject and target audience online and offline. A public consultation was initiated on SDP’s programme in the state parliament election campaign in Bremen. People said that online takes less effort, but that the quality of deliberation is better offline and that local meetings create better community building. Regarding to content analysis and participation observation, we see that local meetings promote more reasoned arguments and that online forums are more biased towards expression of opinion. No big differences between civility (trolling) or innovativeness (new ideas) between local meetings and online forums. Online consultation did not attract significantly more voters, but it did provide higher legitimation, as there was full approval of the programme on the assembly without a single dissenting vote for the first time. When comparing the 7 cities of the project on CO2 savings, and how they compare in their results, there is no clear conclusion. There is no evidence for the assumed advantages of online participation. But there is no evidence either on why in some cases online seems to be better or even much better than offline. What seems clear is that the combination of offline and online participation seems to be, so far, the best bet. Discussion Paolo Spada: how did you communicate/invite the citizens to register to the online platform? Kubicek & Royo: there were several channels used to invite citizens to participate, offline, telephone and online. Ismael Peña-López: how did you facilitate the deliberation? how was the platform designed for such deliberation? Or was only a simple online forum? Kubicek: there was no analysis on how facilitation was similar or different in offline and onine platforms. Sonia Royo | University of Zaragoza (Spain)How to Keep Citizens Engaged? Advantages and Disadvantages of Online and Offline Citizen Participation Abstract: The objective is to help governments foster citizen participation. Therefore, it addresses the following issues: How can citizens be motivated to participate? What can be done to reduce abandonment rates? Are there any differences between offline and online participation regarding enrolment and abandonment? In order to answer these questions and provide policy recommendations, the authors rely on two case studies of Spanish cities allowing both online and offline participation. Objectives: to determine why and when do citizens abandon citizen participation projects that require long-term collaboration between citizens and administration; and to ascertain whether differences exist between online and offline citizen participation projects (especially in enrolment and drop-out rates. Internet facilitates weak ties and contributes to maintain strong ties. But is also true that network participants are more individualistic and shift their attention more quickly than offline. An initiative to reduce one’s own CO2 emissions was deployed in Zaragoza and Pamplona (two Spanish cities). People enrolled online or offline. Online participants were younger and had much higher educational levels. People enrolled in the project and more of them said they would participate online. At the end, there were more people participating offline rather than online: there were much more dropouts online rather than offline. In this case, the design of the participatory process was very simple and there does not seem to be a reason in differences of facilitation between the online and the offline versions. Most of the people offline were retired people, and would not dropout because of time reasons; on the other hand, more than half of the online participants that had dropped-out stated that it was due to lack of time. Most people will abandon in the very beginning of the initiative and will do that for the amount of time required to participate. There are other reasons for drop out, but they seem [personal opinion here] to be very related to the devotion of time: engaging in interaction, reading complementary resources, etc. Discussion Ismael Peña-López: it seems to me that the problem in dropping-out was not that people prefer offline to online, but the very different profile of he participants: elderly retired people offline, young working people online. When asked for the reasons for dropping out, more than 50% of the later stated that they had issues with the time they had to devote to the project; only 2% of the offline participants said it was because of time. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as OP@LL Conference (V): Online and Offline Participation

]]>
Fri, 15 Dec 2017 01:49:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/20171215-opll-conference-v-online-and-offline-participation/
OP@LL Conference (IV): Actors in the Field of Online Participation http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18892 Notes from the OP@LL Conference: Online participation on the local level – a comparative perspective, organized by Düsseldorf Institute for Internet and Democracy and held in Dússeldorf, Germany, on 13-15 December 2017. More notes on this event: oppl. Actors in the Field of Online Participation Mary K. Feeney | Arizona State University (USA)What does e-participation mean for managers in small to medium sized cities? US trends and research challenges Abstract: Since 2000, our team at the Center for Science, Technology and Environmental Policy Studies at ASU has been collecting data on 500 small and medium sized U.S. cities to understand the adoption and management of technology in local government. Drawing from four surveys (2010, 2012, 2014, 2016), website content data (2010 & 2014), and Twitter data (2017), I present some technology adoption trends in small to medium sized US cities and managerial responses to those efforts. These data provide insights into the organizational, technological, and socio-technical factors that shape local government online participation efforts in the American context. I then outline the challenges facing managers who seek to engage internal and external stakeholders via online mechanisms – including financial limitations, technical capacity, legal issues, and perceptual barriers – and discuss next steps for advancing research in this area. The research surveyed during 7 years the most common departments in small cities (700-900 small cities surveyed) in the US: community development, finance, mayor’s office, parks & recreation, police. There are consistent predictors of ICT usage and participation: city population, form of government, department type, technical capacity, resources, management. What is the role of management of participation? Manager views affect e-participation. Small cities are increasingly using technology, and using it better. But most of the times it is because they externalized the website to a firm that is using a market solution that has all the features one would expect. Municipalities are entering the social media arena. But they are having quite hard times. Sometimes these tools clash with the laws and norms, and have to be used with wisdom. Thus why management of ICTs, for communication and participation, is crucial. Most municipalities do not have the resources to run these tools, but they do have the pressure to adopt all of them. Karen Mossberger | Arizona State University (USA)Emerging Platforms for Online Engagement in US Local Governments – Who is innovating and how? Abstract: While the use of social media is widespread in local government, more structured forms of online participation are also beginning to appear at the local level, using a variety of commercial platforms that have become available in recent years. Examples include Peak Democracy’s cloud-based platform for online town hall meetings, MindMixer’s community engagement platform, Budget Allocator’s participatory budgeting software, and Balancing Act’s online budget simulator designed to encourage citizen participation. A recent survey of cities and counties in the US revealed that local governments who use such tools are still very much in the minority, as only 17% of respondents reported using these platforms. Still, such tools are becoming more prevalent, compared with earlier studies of online engagement in larger (and generally more innovative) local governments (Mossberger and Wu 2012); and a closer look may help to predict how such platforms will affect citizen engagement in the future. Using a 2016 national survey of Innovations and Emerging Practices in local government that was conducted by the International City/County Management Association and Arizona State University, we explore the use of online engagement platforms, in comparison with social media and with a number of offline forms of engagement. What characteristics predict use of such platforms, in terms of city size, demographics, metropolitan status, fiscal capacity and form of government, among other factors? Are such cities more likely to report use of many forms of public engagement, to be early adopters for other emerging practices, or both? What are their goals for citizen engagement? And, how successful do they feel the experience was? This paper will consist primarily of analysis of the survey data, but will also propose a design for further qualitative research. Several cities in the Phoenix metropolitan area have used these platforms, and Arizona State University is also part of a national partnership with local governments called the Alliance for Innovation. Based on findings from the survey data, further research will be proposed to explore the types of questions cities have addressed through these platforms, how they conducted outreach and participation, and how effective they were in terms of representativeness and deliberation, among other critera. How are local governments in the US using new online tools? Large cities are innovators, and in general social media has grown rapidly. It usually has to do with city managers wanting to experiment with whatever comes new, see if it works and what for. Importance of public participation goals: provide the public with objective information, obtain feedback, work directly with the public, partner with the public, hear input/ideas from the public, place dedcision-making in the hands of the public. Usage of citizen engagement tools: town hall meetings, city-appointed committee assignments, social media. What predicts use of emerging online platforms? The size of the population is very important. It is also important pre-existing offline engagement actitivities, even more important than social media use. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as OP@LL Conference (IV): Actors in the Field of Online Participation

]]>
Thu, 14 Dec 2017 08:34:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/20171214-opll-conference-iv-actors-in-the-field-of-online-participation/
OP@LL Conference (III): Case studies II http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18891 Notes from the OP@LL Conference: Online participation on the local level – a comparative perspective, organized by Düsseldorf Institute for Internet and Democracy and held in Dússeldorf, Germany, on 13-15 December 2017. More notes on this event: oppl. Case studies II Jonathan Mellon | University of Oxford / World BankDigital Citizen Engagement by the World Bank Abstract: Citizens are increasingly being offered the opportunity to participate in their government online. But who participates when digital participation is offered and who benefits from the outcomes of the process? We argue that the design of the platform constitutes a political institution which structures the way in which citizen inputs translate into policy outputs. We analyze three examples of digital citizen participation which offer different ways for citizens to interact with their local governments. First, we analyze participatory budgeting in both Brazilian municipalities and Paris both of which offer an online and offline component. We find that while the online process brings in a younger and more economically advantaged electorate, the policy outcomes do not seem to change compared with offline voting. This may be because the proposal selection tends to limit the extent to which different options differentially benefit groups in society. Second, we analyze the Fix My Street platform in the United Kingdom, which allows citizens to report local problems such as potholes. We find that the platform overrepresents economically advantaged and older citizens. These input inequalities map directly onto output inequalities as local governments largely deal with the reports without attempting to account for the input inequalities. Finally, we consider the change.org platform, which has been used to pressure decision makers at all levels. We find that the inequalities in terms of petition creation do not translate into inequalities in the outcomes because the signers largely hold the power in the system. Additionally, we find petitions targeted at local actors are more successful, probably because of the lower level of mobilization required to effect change and the greater likelihood that a single decision maker will have sole power to make the requested change. Unequal participant profiles imply unequal demands and thus unequal impact on citizens. Three case studies: participatory budgeting in Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil), Fix my Street (UK) and Change.org (UK). Participatory budgetig in Rio Grande do Sul People that use more the Internet participate more online. But there is not much difference between what people vote online or what they vote offline. Is it because the topics are transversal? Or too difficult and people vote randomly? Fix My Street Users are mainly male white men, educated, proficient online. Positive relationship with number of young people, no ethnical divide. Government mainly replicates unequal demands, as they are responsive to who reports, and who reports is biased by socio-economic status. Change.org Petitions are more successful at the local level, even if they get much less signatures supporting it. 57.3% of users are female, but only 44% of petitions are created by women. But female created petitions succeed at higher rates than male, up to 1.4 times the chance to succeed vs. male created petitions. Women mobilize more signatures than men, almost double in mean. Reason: the topics of interest are different between women and men. When women create a petition, it is more likely that it is of the interest of other women, as and because they are majority in the platform, they are more likely to support it and make it successful. Julia Drozdova | Volgograd Academy of Public Administration (Russia)E-government potential in management of migration risks. Abstract: Migration risks are an inevitable consequence of current social processes in Russia (uneven economic development, armed conflicts, and social transformations); these risks are constantly reproduced in conditions of social instability and inequality. The author considers migration risks as a measure of uncertainty and possible positive / negative after-effects that occur due to migration and are affected by the quality of their management and the technologies employed including information and communication technology that ensure accumulation of information, analytical effort and planning, organization of interaction between the population and the authorities. E-government is a necessary form of organizing the activity of government bodies including those regulating the migration processes. Its purpose is to provide, by means of information technologies, a new qualitative level of efficiency and convenience in retrieving information by the stakeholders of migration processes (the receiving and arriving population), to enhance the quality and accessibility of state services, to facilitate the procedure and to reduce the expectation period (obtaining international passports, residence permits, work permits, paying state duties, etc.), which can provide equal access to these resources, a uniform standard of service irrespective of the applicant status, and can clear administrative hurdles. The author working within the framework of RFFI 16-13-34011 grant Migration Risks in a Multiethnic Region: sociological and managerial analysis developed a pattern for organizing a management of migration risks which can be only implemented under an e-government. Considering the specifics of running migration processes, the structure of its organization is a multistage process including five steps: defining the goal, risk identification, data acquisition, counseling, monitoring and controlling the implementation of adaptation and integration programs that minimize the migration risks and imply electronic participation, a higher order of government / society interaction under e-government. In the author’s opinion, e-government should underlie the management of social risks since it has the required resources and opportunities. Identification of migration risks, establishing a feedback with the population, electronic participation of citizens in the development of practical guidelines on the management and minimization of the risks is an important issue within the framework of ensuring all-nation and regional security, creating a uniform social medium in the multiethnic space of Russian regions and the world. How can one manage migration risks (for the migrant, for the hosting community, etc.) with the help of e-government and online participation? e-Government should be able to enhance the interaction between people and the government. Citizens value differently the several categories of government information. Some categories are found to be very closed in delivering information, which can lead to uneven treatment of different citizens. Open information is needed to determine the migration risk management plan: goal, design, monitoring, etc. Social media can be a valuable source of information, but the data harvested should be used accordingly to data protection principles. 43% visiting population never visit the official website for migrants, 40% of them do it 1-2 times a month. Half of the people use the official website to access open data while the other half do a poor use of the website. General problems with online participation at the local level: digital inequality, unequal access to information on government activities, inadequate educational outreach activity, different approach to the issues of e-government development, mentality of public employees and people.

This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as OP@LL Conference (III): Case studies II

]]>
Thu, 14 Dec 2017 06:34:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/20171214-opll-conference-iii-case-studies-ii/
OP@LL Conference (II): Case Studies I http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18890 Notes from the OP@LL Conference: Online participation on the local level – a comparative perspective, organized by Düsseldorf Institute for Internet and Democracy and held in Dússeldorf, Germany, on 13-15 December 2017. More notes on this event: oppl. Case Studies I Soraya Vargas Cortes | Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil)E-participation in municipal governments in Brazil Abstract: One of the characteristics of the current crisis of liberal democracies is the challenge the fragmented civil society placed before traditional forms of participation, while many regard that organizations, such as political parties or trade unions, dot not represent their views and interests. Moreover, there are new forms of civil society mobilization and individual active participation through social media. Governments, in Brazil and elsewhere, have developed new mechanisms to reach collective actors and individuals taken advantage of the information technology and computer services (ITCS) there available. In Brazil, a federation with three levels of government, there is a growing interest in the subject of ‘e-participation’. However, most studies address federal and state level of government even considering that, since the 1990s, municipal administration has grown in importance, in terms of revenue, spending and functions. The paper will analyse the online participation of organizations and individuals in the decision-making at the municipal level of government in the country. The main source of data is available in the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística – IBGE) under the annualized database Research on Basic Municipal Information (Pesquisa de Informações Básicas Municipais – MUNIC). With new ICTs, government decision-making process is more disperse and transparent. And civil society demands for more participation. Governments can improve efficiency, increase accountability, respond to demands for more participation. But the digital divide can have a possible effect on participation, especially in lesser developed countries. Regional inequalities persist in the conditions offered by municipal governments to e-participation. This research uses a database of the 5,570 Brazilian municipalities (MUNIC). The development level of a given municipality and/or Brazilian state will determine the intensiveness of ICT usage for government and democracy: municipal websites, online transactions capacity, section to assure the right to information, information on expenditures, information on monitoring of government actions, etc. There is a regional digital divide reproducing the socioeconomic inequalities found among great Regions of Brazil. Digital exclusion and lesser possibilities of e-participation can further widen the historical socioeconomic gap between Northern and Southern regions of Brazil. Governments should be aware of this digital divide and design policies to reduce this new type of inequality. Ismael Peña-López | Open University of Catalonia (Spain)decidim.barcelona, from e-participation to the devolution of sovereignty Abstract: In September 2015, Madrid – the capital of Spain – initiated a participatory democracy project, Decide Madrid (Madrid decides), to enable participatory strategic planning for the municipality. Less than half a year after, in February 2016, Barcelona – the second largest city in Spain and capital of Catalonia – issued their own participatory democracy project: decidim.barcelona (Barcelona we decide). Both cities use the same free software platform as a base, and are guided by the same political vision. The Barcelona model is based on ubiquitous deliberation, openness, absolute transparency and accountability and pervasive participation to increase quantity and quality of proposals. In many ways, the model is the institutionalized version of the technopolitics ethos that emerged from the 15M Spanish Indignados Movement, was embedded in the political parties that came after them and ended up entering the governments of many Spanish municipalities. The initiative has implied important shifts in meaning, in legitimacy and in power and has a strong potential of becoming the needed bridge between new citizen movements and new ways of doing politics. It can also achieve an interesting stage if its evolution in several municipalities – autonomous but somewhat synchronized by common ethics and technology – leads to a network of local governments that can end up challenging the powers of the state.

decidim.barcelona, from e-Participation to the Devolution of Sovereignty from Ismael Peña-López

This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as OP@LL Conference (II): Case Studies I

]]>
Thu, 14 Dec 2017 04:09:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/20171214-opll-conference-ii-case-studies-i/
OP@LL Conference (I): Online Participation – stock taking http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18889 Notes from the OP@LL Conference: Online participation on the local level – a comparative perspective, organized by Düsseldorf Institute for Internet and Democracy and held in Dússeldorf, Germany, on 13-15 December 2017. More notes on this event: oppl. Online Participation – stock taking Paolo Spada | University of Coimbra (Portugal)The Untapped Potential of Participatory Systems Abstract: Participatory systems that combine multiple engagement processes have moved from being an isolated case in the Brazilian city of Canoas and the state of Rio Grande do Sul to a global trend. Many European cities in the last two years have begun to build prototype participatory systems in the form of web-containers that describe the variety of participatory processes implemented by the city and available to citizens. To date these participatory systems are still not fully developed and are not much more than a directory of participatory processes. However, some experiments have shown the great potential of these systems to allow for new and innovative engagement strategies coupled with advanced monitoring and research capabilities. In this presentation I will overview the emerging body of knowledge on participatory systems and I will highlight some of the untapped potential of participatory system, together with the risk that these new participatory technologies face. The presentation will leverage a vast array of case studies and practical examples from my own work in Brazil, UK, US, Canada, UK and Europe and will use research conducted over the course of the EMPATIA project in collaboration with the International Observatory of Participatory Democracy (IODP) and the Participedia Project. How to reach several types of citizens, or communities, or targets in a participatory process? Depending on how you design the process, you might leave outside some citizens. Multi-channel democratic innovations come to fix this. And then you have, as a step forward, participatory systems to integrate multiple democratic innovations each with its own domain. Of all the projects so far in Participedia (135), most cities have more than one project and in different platforms. And the majority are hybrid or face to face, diminishing the share of online only processes. There is a growing number of integrated systems. This is the real challenge, to integrate all the tools that come together in a participatory process. But integration comes with strings attached: who will be in charge of the management? who will control the controllers? Other problems of integration: complexity, transparency, accountability, autonomy, negative interactions… Advantages: diversification, differentiation, data, cross selling, efficiency, resilience, some other democratic goods, inclusion, etc. Discussion We need to define the “Lego blocks” of participation to be able to compare different initiatives, to design them better, to tell the core blocks from the complementary ones, etc. Panos Panagiotopoulos | Queen Mary University of London (UK)‘eParticipation research: from government platforms to new forms of interaction’. A Review . Abstract: Originally focusing on formal engagement on government platforms, eParticipation research now includes many new types of digital interactions such as social media and crowdsourcing applications. The presentation will review main developments based on accumulated experiences from the 9 years of the eParticipation track, IFIP 8.5 International Conference on eGovernment. We have gone from government platforms to new forms of interaction. Ubiquitous participation is moving people out from institutional platforms. The definition of e-Participation has been changing since the last ten years. Social media has gone from being something for youngsters, or to address young ones, to be arguably the most important part of any e-participation initiative, including regular government communication practices. Now social media is fully integrated into workflows, especially in:

Event-based communications like emergencies, Questions, complaint management and engagement with representatives crowdsourcing capabilities starting from basic social media monitoring.

This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as OP@LL Conference (I): Online Participation – stock taking

]]>
Thu, 14 Dec 2017 02:00:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/20171214-opll-conference-i-online-participation-stock-taking/
decidim.barcelona, from e-Participation to the Devolution of Sovereignty http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18888 OP@LL Conference. Online participation on the local level – a comparative perspective. 13-15 December 2017. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf Institute for Internet and Democracy More information: http://ictlogy.net/bibliography/reports/projects.php?idp=3491

]]>
Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:42:00 -0800 https://www.slideshare.net/ictlogist/decidimbarcelona-from-eparticipation-to-the-devolution-of-sovereignty
Article. Digital platforms: consumption groups and cooperatives vs. The Food Assembly in the case of Barcelona http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18887 Consumption groups and cooperatives in Barcelona (article) Ricard Espelt, Núria Vega and I have just published an article at on consumption cooperatives: Plataformas digitales: grupos y cooperativas de consumo versus La Colmena que dice sí, el caso de Barcelona (Digital platforms: consumption groups and cooperatives vs. The Food Assembly in the case of Barcelona). The article compares the emergence of agroconsumption groups and cooperatives in Barcelona since the mid 1990s with the most recent appearance of (presumably) platform cooperativism-based initiatives such as The Food Assembly. The main conclusions are that while agroconsumption groups and cooperatives are deeply rooted in the social and solidarity economy, and most of the times in the sharing economy, some platform-based initiatives not only do not share this principles but, as it is the case of The Food Assembly, they do not even match in what we understand by platform cooperativism. The article is in Spanish. An abstract in English follows and then the link for downloading the full paper. Abstract The cooperative tradition around the consumption of agro-food products has a strong historical background in the city of Barcelona. Even if we refer to the first modern consumer cooperatives, we realize that their task has twenty-five years of permanence (Espelt et al, 2015). More recently —in July 2014— appears in the city another initiative of consumption to facilitate direct sales between local producers and communities of consumers, called food assemblies. Although the origins and differences between models are evident, they both share some common aspects in their approaches —willingness to self-manage, disintermediation of production and building a community—, articulated as part of the so-called “Collaborative Economy”. For their part, both types of initiatives, although with a very different approach, have in technology an important backbone for their activity. In this article, we analyze the points of encounter and discrepancy between the two actors as a model, placing the research framework in the city of Barcelona, where —in March 2017— we located some sixty groups and consumer cooperatives (Espelt et al., 2015) And thirteen food assemblies, six in operation and seven under construction. Emphasizing as differential factors, economic, technical, legal aspects, type of governance, values associated with the model or linked to the relationship between people, producers, final product or space. Downloads

Article: Espelt, R., Peña-López, I. & Vega Rodríguez, N. (2017). “Plataformas digitales: grupos y cooperativas de consumo versus La Colmena que dice sí, el caso de Barcelona”. In Redes.com, 15, 145-174. Revista de estudios para el desarrollo social de la comunicación. Sevilla: NMI/Compolíticas.

This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Article. Digital platforms: consumption groups and cooperatives vs. The Food Assembly in the case of Barcelona

]]>
Fri, 08 Dec 2017 01:54:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/20171208-case-study-decidim-barcelona-spain-2/
Government as a platform for open social innovation http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18886 Open social innovation is defined as “the creative destruction that aims at making up new processes that can be appropriated by the whole of civil society” (Peña-López, 2014). One common denominator that can be found in successful initiatives that deal about political participation and engagement is that they use ICTs to remove barriers and/or equal the ground of participation (leaping the knowledge gap), create new platforms and projects shared by broad and multi-stakeholder communities (new processes phase) whose outputs and outcomes positively impact on the community and, at the same time, achieve reasonable levels of economical and especially social (self)sustainability (leveraging quadruple helix). In the figure below we have drawn a scheme that aims to synthesise the common points that we have found in our review of cases and that are also pointed at in the literature. In the following sections we will explain how the initiatives we analyzed address each of the four layers into which we schematized their operational design and why addressing every layer is crucial for the final success of the project. Government as a platform for open social innovation The point of departure: socio-economic status and the knowledge gap hypothesis In 1970, Tichenor et al. showed how mass media consumption did not necessarily had an evenly distributed positive impact on people’s knowledge. On the contrary, the impact depended on the point of departure, being much more significant on more highly educated segments of society. Thus, exposition to information depended on socio-economic status and did not add up to the pre-existing knowledge levels of the population, but had a multiplier effect: educated people will do better, uneducated people will do worse. This “knowledge gap hypothesis” has proven true not only related to information coming from mass media, but from other knowledge devices such as public libraries (Neuman & Celano, 2006), the Internet in general (Bonfadelli, 2002; Selwyn et al., 2005; Van Deursen & van Dijk, 2013), instructional technology (Warschauer et al., 2004; Warschauer, 2008; Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010; Horrigan, 2016; Patterson & Patterson; 2017) or social media and e-participation platforms (Yang & Zhiyong Lan, 2010; Anduiza et al., 2012; Robles et al, 2012; Schlozman, 2012; Gainous et al., 2013). Successful participation usually address as a first stance this situation. When addressing inequalities is not their first stance —such as in the case of projects explicitly addressed to employment— most projects include accompanying measures that aim at leveling the ground so that, according to their means, all players can engage in equal conditions. At this level, which we call the point of departure, it is important that there are instruments that contribute to leap the knowledge gap by providing basic and operational resources that enable objective choice (Welzel et al, 2003). In general, this stage is especially suitable for policies and programmes that address basic needs of the youth in particular and the citizenry in general. Beyond the obvious fact that individual development and progress is good per se, we want keep on stressing the fact that we have already stated: further measures to empower citizens will only work as desired if there are former leveling initiatives. Thus, formal education initiatives or employment programmes should be thought as a pre-requisite of higher level measures so that these can act as appropriate multipliers. The micro level: enabling the social tissue Once individuals are in (more or less) good conditions to be actual and active citizens, what naturally comes is that they coordinate to collectively promote initiatives. The more intertwined these citizens and their respective collectives are, the more resilient, sustainable, scalable and replicable their initiatives are. If basic conditions are a requisite for leveling participation and thus avoiding the unwanted outcomes of the knowledge gap, a tight social tissue increases the possibilities of success of a given social initiative. Projects that plan ahead in this train of thought, design devices to enable social tissue creation or to strengthen the existing one. Financial resources, facilitators (such as social workers), members of the Administration or researchers that bring in background and context, etc. contribute to this goal. Not surprisingly, face to face initiatives are more common at this stage, as they are welcome as better weavers of this social tissue. On the other hand, at this stage it is also worth noting that local leaders easily emerge when grassroots movements are fostered. Being crucial the strengthening of the social tissue, local leaders and grassroots movements, the role of the government has to be stealth: the government thus becomes a platform that provides context, facilitates and fosters interaction while staying in the background. Attempts of the government to move to the forefront are usually perceived as patronizing or intrusive, and thus have a discouraging effect. At this stage, Internet and social media initiatives should be addressed towards access to information and knowledge management, especially in knowledge-intensive sectors of both the productive economy and the civil society. But not only, digital skills on building digital personae or digital identities are key at this level so that the weaving of the social tissue can go beyond the local arena and, as we will see below, overcome barriers of time and space and enter the field of networking. The meso level: weaving the networks Citizens are usually part of different collectives and collectives usually operate at different levels or layers. Networks contribute to the exchange of knowledge between scattered individuals and collectives which would otherwise act as isolated nodes. But not only networks contribute to the articulation of collectives of collectives, but also contribute to the diversification of the typology of individuals and collectives involved in a given initiative. Networks become useful instruments to articulate multi-stakeholder partnerships —formally or tacitly— and, if well balanced in their nature, these networks can promote interactions and exchanges between governments, higher education and research organizations, the industry and civil society organizations. The Quadruple helix model of innovation posits (European Commission, 2016) that only such kinds of interactions between these four types of actors can really produce innovations that do respond to the needs of the society at large. We have found that the synchronization of layers is achieved by successful projects by means of networks. And that this synchronization is most of the times achieved by means of online platforms and other digital constructs. At this point, digital literacy (information literacy and media literacy) become a key aspect for further developments. On the one hand, because networks (either facilitated by digital means or not) have a logic that is much different from industrial hierarchical models. On the other hand, because, when powered by digital platforms, its mere operation does require capacitation in a broad range of digital skills. Networks, in a knowledge society, heavily rely on the gift economy and the ability to concentrate and distribute information that can be applied locally as knowledge. It is thus worth bearing in mind the complex constellation of literacies and competences that can be labelled as digital skills: technological literacy, informational literacy, media literacy, digital identity or e-awareness are just some of the names and concepts that are part of a set of skills that enable or foster other ones like creativity, teamworking, leadership or critical solving – or, in other words, XXIst-century skills (Ananiadou & Claro, 2006; OECD 2016a, 2016b). The macro level: mainstreaming and institutionalization If weaving the social tissue was the way to leverage the potential of now equal and individual citizens, institutionalization is the way to leverage the potential of quadruple helix-like networks. Many projects aim at raising their goals at the upmost level and seeing them going mainstream. Only institutions, through regulation and policy-making can realize this aspiration. Of course, most projects do not get to see their designs mainstreamed, especially during their limited time-spans. Thus, their proxy goal to mainstreaming and institutionalization is visibility. Successful projects are strong in advocacy and awareness rising, and they do it in two opposite directions. Firstly, as we just stated, by looking “up” towards the institutions, by showcasing and modelling, by comparing with other related projects. Secondly, by looking “down” to their communities, by assessing and evaluating their impacts, providing feedback to their citizens. This double aim —mainstreaming by “looking up” and laying strong foundations for social sustainability— are typical of successful projects. It is interesting to note how this stage is both the end of the process but also the beginning of a virtuous circle. On the one hand, it aims at creating social infrastructures —policy, regulation, institutions— so that the benefits of the projects can become structural and not temporary, as embedding them in established and stable social structures are the best bet for replication, scalability and sustainability at large. On the other hand, by establishing a dialogue with the citizens and looking for the individual impact, they address —this time with a top-down approach— the socio-economic layer where the whole process began in the first place. (note: paper prepared after the fieldwork of Alexandra Theben on the Impact of the Internet and Social Media on Youth Participation and Youth work.) Bibliography Ananiadou, K. & Claro, M. (2009). 21st Century Skills and Competences for New Millennium Learners in OECD Countries. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 41. Paris: OECD Publishing. Anduiza, E., Gallego, A. & Jorba, L. (2012). “Internet use and the political knowledge gap in Spain”. In Revista Internacional de Sociología, 70 (1), 129-151. Barcelona: IGOP. Bonfadelli, H. (2002). “The Internet and Knowledge Gaps: A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation”. In European Journal of Communication, 17 (1), 65-84. London: SAGE Publications. European Commission (2016). Open Innovation 2.0 Yearbook. Edition 2016. Brussels: European Commission. Gainous, J., Marlowe, A.D. & Wagner, K.M. (2013). “Traditional Cleavages or a New World: Does Online Social Networking Bridge the Political Participation Divide?”. In International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 26 (2), 145-158. New York: Springer Science+Business Media. Horrigan, J.B. (2016). Lifelong Learning and Technology. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Neuman, S.B. & Celano, D. (2006). “The Knowledge Gap: Implications of Leveling the Playing Field for Low-Income and Middle-Income Children”. In Reading Research Quarterly, 41 (2), 176–201. Newark: International Reading Association. OECD (2016a). Skills for a Digital World. 2016 Ministerial Meeting on the Digital Economy Background Report. Paris: OECD. OECD (2016b). New Skills for the Digital Economy. Paris: OECD. Patterson, R.W. & Patterson, R.M. (2017). “Computers and productivity: Evidence from laptop use in the college classroom”. In Economics of Education Review, 57, 66–79. London: Elsevier. Peña-López, I. (2014). “Innovació social oberta: l’organització política com a plataforma”. In Costa i Fernández, L. & Puntí Brun, M. (Eds.), Comunicació pel canvi social. Reflexions i experiències per una comunicació participativa, emancipadora i transparent, 59-75. Girona: Documenta Universitaria. Robles Morales, J.M., Molina Molina, Ó. & De Marco, S. (2012). “Participación política digital y brecha digital política en España. Un estudio de las desigualdades digitales”. In Arbor. Ciencia, Pensamiento y Cultura, 188 (756), 795-810. Berkeley: Berkeley Electronic Press. Schlozman, K.L., Verba, S. & Brady, H.E. (2010). “Weapon of the Strong? Participatory Inequality and the Internet”. In Perspectives on Politics, 8 (2), 487-509. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Selwyn, N., Gorard, S. & Furlong, J. (2005). “Whose Internet is it Anyway?: Exploring Adults’ (Non)Use of the Internet in Everyday Life”. In European Journal of Communication, 17 (1). London: SAGE Publications. Tichenor, P.J., Donohue, G.A. & Olien, C.N. (1970). “Mass media flow and differential growth in knowledge”. In Public Opinion Quarterly, 34 (2), 159 – 170. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Van Deursen, A. & van Dijk, J. (2013). “The digital divide shifts to differences in usage”. In New Media & Society, 16 (3), 507-526. London: SAGE Publications. Warschauer, M., Knobel, M. & Stone, L. (2004). “Technology and Equity in Schooling: Deconstructing the Digital Divide”. In Educational Policy, 18 (4), 562-588. London: SAGE Publications. Warschauer, M. (2008). “Laptops and Literacy: A Multi-Site Case Study”. In Pedagogies: An International Journal, 3 (1), 52-67. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis. Warschauer, M. & Matuchniak, T. (2010). “New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes”. In Review of Research in Education, 34 (1), 179-225. London: American Educational Research Association. Welzel, C., Inglehart, R. & Klingemann, H. (2003). “The theory of human development: A cross-cultural analysis”. In European Journal of Political Research, 42 (3), 341-379. Oxford: Blackwell. Yang, L. & Zhiyong Lan, G. (2010). “Internet’s impact on expert–citizen interactions in public policymaking—A meta analysis”. In Government Information Quarterly, 27 (4), 431-441. London: Elsevier. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Government as a platform for open social innovation

]]>
Thu, 30 Nov 2017 02:11:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/20171130-government-as-a-platform-for-open-social-innovation/
Quin futur per al reformisme democràtic. Amb Arnau Monterde i Ismael Peña-López http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18905 Quin futur per al reformisme democràtic. Amb Arnau Monterde i Ismael Peña-López

Quin futur per al reformisme democràtic? Anàlisi de les experiències conegudes a l'Estat espanyol Seminari a l'Ateneu Barcelonès, 12/06/2017 Cicle “La cultura del vot" (4) Amb Arnau... From: Ismael Peña-López Views: 9

0 ratings Time: 01:26:00 More in Science & Technology

]]>
Mon, 20 Nov 2017 07:34:00 -0800 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6CTrz0Qo_Q&feature=youtube_gdata