20250311

COMMUNICATION. New Public Governance in practice: a toolbox model for public policy in times of networks, uncertainty and complexity

I here present my communication for the 4th Congress of Economics and Business of Catalonia 2025 organized by the College of Economists of Catalonia. The communication is titled New Public Governance in practice: a toolbox model for public policy in times of networks, uncertainty and complexity and proposes and applied model to transform public Administrations in order to face this new era of complexity, uncertainty and networks.

The theoretical background is that of New Public Governance that has been building momentum for the last 20 years approximately. The intended contribution of my paper is not to build up on theory, but how to bring all this theory into practice, how to provide something public managers can cling on to foster the much needed transformation of public Administrations.

The original paper is in Catalan, but can also be downloaded in English and Spanish — automatically translated, with just some minor revisions, so some errors may remain.

The communication will formally be presented on April 8th, 2025, 18:00h, at the College of Economists of Catalonia.

Abstract

With the decline of the great ideologies of the 20th century and the ongoing revision of the socioeconomic model and social contract in the 21st century, the concept of an entrepreneurial administration has gained significant momentum. This administration is envisioned as one capable of dialogue and engagement with other actors in its ecosystem, asserting its voice in designing a constituent process centred on the general interest, as well as economic, social, and environmental sustainability in an increasingly dynamic, complex, and uncertain environment. Although conceptually framed as “New Public Governance,” this model still faces substantial challenges in practical implementation. These challenges arise both within internal organizational structures—such as procedural inefficiencies, scope of competencies, and relationships between units and different administrations—and in the delivery of public policies and services, including effectiveness, efficiency, and citizen engagement. This article examines the critical factors necessary to implement this model, drawing on a constellation of instruments designed to drive profound transformation. These instruments aim for systemic impact beyond immediate results, recognizing the inherent difficulties in establishing clear causal relationships, reaching unanimous diagnoses, and charting stable paths of action. Our analysis is structured around six key levers of change: governance, organization, talent, processes, quality in management, and democratic quality. The findings point toward an administration that focuses less on direct execution and more on enabling: acting as a platform that facilitates, articulates, energizes, and structures ecosystems of actors to achieve broadly shared objectives and impacts. Ultimately, this approach seeks to open the public system to greater collaboration with the civic, economic, political, and social ecosystems.

Downloads

logo of PDF file
English:
Peña-López, I. (2025). New Public Governance in practice: a toolbox model for public policy in times of networks, uncertainty and complexity. 4th Congress of Economics and Business of Catalonia 2025. Barcelona: Col·legi d’Economistes de Catalunya.
logo of PDF file
Català (original):
Peña-López, I. (2025). Nova Governança Pública aplicada: un model de caixa d’eines per a la política pública en temps d’incertesa i complexitat. 4rt Congrés d’Economia i Empresa de Catalunya 2025. Barcelona: Col·legi d’Economistes de Catalunya.
logo of PDF file
Castellano:
Peña-López, I. (2025). Nueva Gobernanza Pública aplicada: un modelo de caja de herramientas para la política pública en tiempos de incertidumbre y complejidad. 4º Congreso de Economía y Empresa de Catalunya 2025. Barcelona: Col·legi d’Economistes de Catalunya.

Bibliography

Anderson, A.A. (2006). The Community Builder's Approach to Theory of Change. A practical guide to theory development. New York: The Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change.
Associació Catalana de Gestió Pública & ESADE (2003). Repensar el paper del gestor públic en el segle XXI. Actes del I Congrés Català de Gestió Pública. Barcelona, 26 i 27 de setembre de 2002. Materials, 19. Barcelona: Escola d'Administració Pública de Catalunya.
Associació Catalana de Gestió Pública & Escola d'Administració Pública de Catalunya (2008). Reflexió > Acció > Valor públic. Actes del II Congrés Català de Gestió Pública. Materials, 23. Barcelona: Escola d'Administració Pública de Catalunya.
Barbrook-Johnson, P. & Penn, A.S. (2022). Systems Mapping. How to build and use causal models of systems. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Blamey, A. & Mackenzie, M. (2007). “Theories of Change and Realistic Evaluation”. In Evaluation, 13 (4), 439-455. London: SAGE Publications.
Brest, P. (2000). “The Power of Theories of Change”. In Stanford Social Innovation Review, Spring 2000, 47-51. Palo Alto: Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society.
Brouwer, H., Woodhill, J., Hemmati, M., Verhoosel, K. & van Vugt, S. (2016). The MSP Guide. How to design and facilitate multi-stakeholder partnerships. 3rd edition. Wageningen: Wageningen University and Research, WCDI, and Rugby, UK: Practical Action Publishing.
Brouwer, H. & Brouwers, J. (2017). The MSP Tool Guide. Sixty tools to facilitate multi-stakeholder partnerships. Wageningen: Wageningen University and Research, WCDI, and Rugby, UK: Practical Action Publishing.
Brugnach, M., Dewulf, A., Pahl-Wostl, C. & Taillieu, T. (2008). “Toward a Relational Concept of Uncertainty: about Knowing Too Little, Knowing Too Differently, and Accepting Not to Know”. In Ecology & Society, 13 (2). Dedham: Resilience Alliance.
Brugué Torruella, Q., Canal, R. & Payà, P. (2010a). Transversalidad en los proyectos locales: de la teoría a la práctica. Informe Kaleidos. Bellaterra: IGOP, Kaleidos.
Brugué Torruella, Q., Canal, R. & Payà, P. (2010b). “¿Inteligencia administrativa para abordar “problemas malditos”? El caso de las comisiones interdepartamentales”. In Gestión y Política Pública, 24 (1), 85-130. Ciudad de México: CIDE.
Brugué Torruella, Q. (2022). Organizaciones que saben, organizaciones que aprenden. Madrid: Instituto Nacional de Administración Pública.
Bryson, J.M., Crosby, B.C. & Bloomberg, L. (2014). “Public Value Governance: Moving Beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New Public Management”. In Public Administration Review, 74 (1), 445-456. Indianapolis: Wiley, American Society for Public Administration.
Carson, L. (2018). Framing the Remit. Sydney: The newDemocracy Foundation.
Col·legi d'Economistes de Catalunya (Ed.) (2018). El sector públic a la Catalunya del futur. 3r Congrés d'Economia i Empresa de Catalunya. Cap a un model eficient i equitatiu. Barcelona: Col·legi d'Economistes de Catalunya.
Connell, J.P., Kubisch, A.C., Schorr, L.B. & Weiss, C.H. (Eds.) (1995). New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, Methods and Contexts. Queenstown: Aspen Institute.
Connell, J.P. & Kubisch, A.C. (1998). “Applying a Theory of Change Approach to the Evaluation of Comprehensive Community Initiatives: Progress, Prospects, and Problems”. In Fullbright-Anderson, K., Kubisch, A.C. & Connell, J.P. (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Theory, measurement, and analysis. Volume 2. Queenstown: Aspen Institute.
Cortés Abad, Ó. (2024). “Situación de la dirección pública profesional en España. Análisis comparado en el sector público estatal y autonómico”. In Documentación Administrativa, (12), 8-27. Madrid: Instituto Nacional de Administración Pública.
Cortés Carreres, J.V. (2021). “Carrera horizontal y evaluación del desempeño”. In Cantero Martínez, J. (Coord.), Continuidad versus transformación: ¿qué función pública necesita España?, Capítulo 14, 401-446. Madrid: Instituto Nacional de Administración Pública.
Crosby, B.C., 't Hart, P. & Torfing, J. (2019). “Public value creation through collaborative innovation”. In Public Management Review, 19 (5). London: Routledge.
Cuenca Cervera, J.J. (2021). “Evaluar el desempeño mediante un enfoque de objetivos. Una aplicación práctica”. In Cantero Martínez, J. (Coord.), Continuidad versus transformación: ¿qué función pública necesita España?, Capítulo 12, 343-372. Madrid: Instituto Nacional de Administración Pública.
Denhardt, R.B. & Denhardt, J.V. (2000). “The New Public Service: Serving Rather Than Steering”. In Public Administration Review, 60 (6), 549-559. Indianapolis: Wiley, American Society for Public Administration.
Design Council (2021). Beyond Net Zero. A Systemic Design Approach. London: Design Council.
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S. & Tinkler, J. (2006). Digital-Era Governance: IT Corporations, the State, and E-Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dunleavy, P. & Margetts, H. (2024). “Data science, artificial intelligence and the third wave of digital era governance”. In Public Policy and Administration, First published online August 14, 2024. London: SAGE Publications.
Durham, E., Baker, H., Smith, M., Moore, E. & Morgan, V. (2014). The BiodivERsA Stakeholder Engagement Handbook. Paris: BiodivERsA.
Earl, S., Carden, F. & Smutylo, T. (2017). Outcome Mapping: Building Learning and Reflection into Development Programs. Ottawa: IDRC.
Echegaray Eizaguirre, L., Urbano Ortega, I. & Barrutieta Anduiza, G. (2017). Design Thinking. Un modelo para la aplicación en la Administración Pública. Madrid: Instituto Nacional de Administración Pública.
European Commission & Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented research & innovation in the European Union – A problem-solving approach to fuel innovation-led growth. Brussels: Publications Office of the European Union.
European Commission, Chicot, J., Kuittinen, H. & Lykogianni, E. (2018). Mission-oriented research and innovation – Assessing the impact of a mission-oriented research and innovation approach – Final report. Brussels: Publications Office of the European Union.
European Commission, Türk, A., Arrilucea, E. & Kristensen, F.S. (2018). Mission-oriented research and innovation – Inventory and characterisation of initiatives – Final report. Brussels: Publications Office of the European Union.
European Commission & Mazzucato, M. (2019). Governing Missions in the European Union. Brussels: Publications Office of the European Union.
Farneti, F., Padovani, E. & Young, A. (2010). “Governance of outsourcing and contractual relationships”. In Osborne, S.P. (Ed.), The New Public Governance? Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance, Chapter 15, 255-269. London: Routledge.
Font i Llovet, T., Barrero Rodríguez, C., Díez Sastre, S., Galindo Caldés, R., Rivero Ortega, R., Solé Vilanova, J. & Vilalta Reixach, M. (2023). Repensar el govern local: perspectives actuals. Col·lecció Institut d'Estudis de l'Autogovern, 16. Barcelona: Institut d'Estudis d'Autogovern.
Generalitat de Catalunya (2005). Llibre Blanc de la Funció Pública Catalana. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya.
Gorriti Bontigui, M. (2018). “Innovar en selección desde la evidencia empírica y las nuevas competencias”. In Revista Vasca de Gestión de Personas y Organizaciones Públicas, Número especial 2, Procesos selectivos, 66-85. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Instituto Vasco de Administración Pública.
Gorriti Bontigui, M. (2024a). “La carrera horizontal en las administraciones públicas desde los recursos humanos: el job crafting”. In Revista Vasca de Gestión de Personas y Organizaciones Públicas, (27), 8-25. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Instituto Vasco de Administración Pública.
Gorriti Bontigui, M. (2024b). “La planificación estratégica de recursos humanos en las Administraciones públicas españolas del siglo XXI”. In Documentación Administrativa, (13), 10–32. Madrid: Instituto Nacional de Administración Pública.
Goulden, A. & Kattel, R. (2022). Designing and implementing mission-oriented policies: Tools and resources from the field. London: UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose.
Greenway, A. & Loosemore, T. (2015). The Radical How. London: UK 2040 Options Nesta, Public Digital.
Hartley, J. (2005). “Innovation in Governance and Public Services: Past and Present”. In Public Money & Management, 25 (1), 27-34. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.
Hartley, J., Sørensen, E. & Torfing, J. (2013). “Collaborative Innovation: A Viable Alternative to Market Competition and Organizational Entrepreneurship”. In Public Administration Review, 73 (6), 821-830. Indianapolis: Wiley, American Society for Public Administration.
International Development Research Center (2017). The Research Quality Plus (RQ+) assessment instrument. Ottawa: IDRC.
Keane, T., Caffin, B., Soto, M., Chauhan, A., Krishnaswamy, R., Van Dijk, G. & Wadhawan, M. (2014). DIY Toolkit. Development Impact & You. Practical tools to trigger & support social innovation. London: Nesta.
Kelly, G., Mulgan, G. & Muers, S. (2002). Creating Public Value: An Analytical Framework for Public Service Reform. Discussion paper prepared for the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit, United Kingdom. London: Strategy Unit, UK Cabinet Office.
Krogh, A.H. & Triantafillou, P. (2024). “Developing New Public Governance as a public management reform model”. In Public Management Review, 26 (10), 3040–3056. London: Routledge.
Liyanage, H. (2009). Theory of change. Impact assessment. Colombo: Sarvodaya – Fusion,.
Mapelli Marchena, C. (2021). “Experiencias comparadas para abordar procesos de cambio en el empleo público”. In Cantero Martínez, J. (Coord.), Continuidad versus transformación: ¿qué función pública necesita España?, Capítulo 2, 37-62. Madrid: Instituto Nacional de Administración Pública.
Martí-Costa, M., Barres, R. & Termes, A. (2020). La governança de l’emergència complexa: la covid-19. Actuacions, adaptació organitzativa i innovacions de l’Ajuntament de Barcelona. Barcelona: IERM, Ajuntament de Barcelona.
Mazzucato, M. (2017). Mission-Oriented Innovation Policy: Challenges and Opportunities. UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose, Working Paper Series (IIPP WP 2017-01). London: UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose.
Mazzucato, M. & Ryan-Collins, J. (2022). “Putting value creation back into “public value”: from market-fixing to market-shaping”. In Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 25 (4), 345-360. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.
Mazzucato, M. (2023). Governing the economics of the common good: from correcting market failures to shaping collective goals. UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose, Working Paper Series (IIPP WP 2023-08). London: UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose.
McLean, R., Ofir, Z., Etherington, A., Acevedo, M. & Feinstein, O. (2022). RQ+. Research Quality Plus. Evaluating Research Differently. Ottawa: IDRC.
Meadows, D.H. (2009). Thinking in Systems. A Primer. Abingdon: Earthscan.
Mikkelsen, K.H. & Røiseland, A. (2024). “Managing portfolios of Co-creation projects in the public sector organization”. In Public Management Review, Published online: 30 May 2024. London: Routledge.
Monteiro, B. & Dal Borgo, R. (2023). Supporting decision making with strategic foresight: An emerging framework for proactive and prospective governments. OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 63. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J. & Mulgan, G. (2010). The open book of social innovation. London: NESTA.
Nesta (2016). UK Evidence Ecosystem for Social Policy. February 2016. London: Nesta.
Nguyen, H., Drejer, I. & Marquès, P. (2024). “Citizen engagement in public sector innovation: exploring the transition between paradigms”. In Public Management Review, Published online: 04 May 2024. London: Routledge.
OECD (2017). Skills for a High Performing Civil Service. OECD Public Governance Reviews. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD (2020a). Improving Governance with Policy Evaluation. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD (2021a). The design and implementation of mission-oriented innovation policies. A new systemic policy approach to address societal challenges. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers No. 100. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD (2021b). The OECD Framework for digital talent and skills in the public sector. OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 45. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD (2023). The Principles of Public Administration. 2023 edition. Paris: OECD.
Ofir, Z., Schwandt, T., Duggan, C. & McLean, R. (2016). RQ+. Research Quality Plus. A Holistic Approach to Evaluating Research. Ottawa: IDRC.
Omidyar Group (2017). Systems Practice. Redwood City: The Omidyar Group.
Osborne, D. & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing Government. How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading: William Patrick.
Osborne, S.P. (2010a). “Public governance and public services delivery: a research agenda for the future”. In Osborne, S.P. (Ed.), The New Public Governance? Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance, Chapter 23, 413-428. London: Routledge.
Osborne, S.P. (2010b). “The (New) Public Governance: a suitable case for treatment?”. In Osborne, S.P. (Ed.), The New Public Governance? Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance, Chapter 1, 1-16. London: Routledge.
Peach, K., Berditchevskaia, A. & Bass, T. (2020). Collective Intelligence Design Playbook. (beta). London: Nesta.
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.
Peña-López, I. (2018). “Fomento de la participación democrática no formal e informal. De la democracia de masas a las redes de la democracia”. In Laboratorio de Aragón Gobierno Abierto (Ed.), Abrir instituciones desde dentro. Hacking Inside Black Book, Capítulo 11, 113-124. Zaragoza: LAAAB, Gobierno de Aragón.
Peña-López, I. (2019a). “L’Estat com a plataforma: la participació ciutadana per la preservació de l’Estat com a bé comú”. In Nota d'Economia, 105, 193-208. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya.
Peña-López, I. (2019b). Shifting participation into sovereignty: the case of decidim.barcelona. Barcelona: Huygens Editorial.
Peña-López, I. (2020). “El ecosistema de gobernanza pública: las instituciones como infraestructuras abiertas para la toma de decisiones colectivas”. In Reniu i Vilamala, J.M. & Meseguer, J.V. (Eds.), ¿Política confinada? Nuevas tecnologías y toma de decisiones en un contexto de pandemia, Capítulo 2, 53-71. Cizur Menor: Thompson-Reuters/Aranzadi.
Peña-López, I. (2023a). “La gestión integral del talento en la Administración centrada en la política pública de impacto”. In Gairín Sallán, J. & López-Crespo, S. (Coords.), Aprendizaje e inteligencia colectiva en las organizaciones después de la pandemia, Capítulo 3.2, 131-137. Comunicación en el Simposio "De la función pública al Servicio público: hacia un nuevo modelo de aprendizaje y desarrollo" del VII Congreso Internacional EDO 2023, 18/05/2023. Madrid: Praxis-La Ley.
Peña-López, I. (2023b). “Managing complexity for systemic impact: responses to VUCA and BANI environments”. In ICTlogy, 22 August 2023. Barcelona: ICTlogy.
Pollitt, C. & Bouckaert, G. (2000). Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.
Ramia, I., Powell, A., Stratton, K., Stokes, C., Meltzer, A. & Muir, K. (2021). Roadmap to social impact: Your step-by-step guide to planning, measuring and communicating social impact. Sydney: The Centre for Social Impact.
Ramió Matas, C. (2021). “El modelo anticuado y fragmentado de la Función Pública en España: algunas propuestas”. In Cantero Martínez, J. (Coord.), Continuidad versus transformación: ¿qué función pública necesita España?, Capítulo 5, 125-154. Madrid: Instituto Nacional de Administración Pública.
Ramos, J., Sweeney, J.A., Peach, K. & Smith, L. (2020). Our futures: by the people, for the people. How mass involvement in shaping the future can solve complex problems. London: Nesta.
Ravetz, J.R. (1999). “What is Post-Normal Science”. In Futures, 31 (7), 647-653. London: Elsevier.
Saltelli, A. & Funtowicz, S. (2017). “What is science’s crisis really about?”. In Futures, 91 (1), 5-11. London: Elsevier.
Schwendinger, F., Topp, L. & Kovacs, V. (2022). Competences for Policymaking — Competence Frameworks for Policymakers and Researchers working on Public Policy. Brussels: Publications Office of the European Union.
Sellick, V. (2019). 20 Tools for Innovating in Government. London: Nesta.
Siebers, V. & Torfing, J. (2018). “Co-creation as a new form of citizen engagement: Comparing Danish and Dutch experiences at the local government level”. In International Public Management Review, 18 (1/2), 187-208. Phoenix: Arizona State University.
Start, D. & Hovland, I. (2004). Tools for Policy Impact: A Handbook for Researchers. London: Overseas Development Institute.
Stein, D. & Valters, C. (2012). Understanding Theory of Change in International Development. London: JSRP, The Asia Foundation.
Stoker, G. (2006). “Public Value Management: A New Narrative for Networked Governance?”. In American Review of Public Administration, 36 (1), 41-27. London: SAGE Publications.
Tõnurist, P. & Hanson, A. (2020). Anticipatory innovation governance: Shaping the future through proactive policy making. OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 44. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Torfing, J. & Triantafillou, P. (2013). “What’s in a Name? Grasping New Public Governance as a Political-Administrative System”. In International Review of Public Administration, 18 (2), 9-25. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.
Torfing, J. (2019). “Collaborative innovation in the public sector: the argument”. In Public Management Review, 21 (1), 1-11. London: Routledge.
Torfing, J., Sørensen, E. & Røiseland, A. (2019). “Transforming the Public Sector Into an Arena for Co-Creation: Barriers, Drivers, Benefits, and Ways Forward”. In Administration & Society, 51 (5), 795– 825. London: SAGE Publications.
UK Government Office for Science (2022). Systems thinking: An Introductory Toolkit for Civil Servants. London: Government of the UK.
UK Government Office for Science (2023a). An introductory systems thinking toolkit for civil servants. Updated 12 January 2023. London: Government of the UK.
UK Government Office for Science (2023b). Systems thinking case study bank. Updated 12 January 2023. London: Government of the UK.
UK Government Office for Science (2023c). The civil servant's systems thinking journey. Updated 12 January 2023. London: Government of the UK.
UNDP & Agirre Lehendakaria Center (2023). Listening to the Present, Designining the Future: A Guide to Deep Listening. Bangkok: UNDP.
UNDP (2023b). UNDP Portfolio Approach Competency Framework. Bangkok: UNDP.
UNDP Global Centre for Public Service Excellence (2018). Foresight Manual. Empowered Futures for the 2030 Agenda. Singapore: UNDP.
van der Heijden, K. (1997). “Scenarios, Strategy, and the Strategy Process”. In Presearch. Provoking strategic conversation, 1 (1). Emeryville: Global Business Network.
Wittmann, F., Lindner, R., Hufnagl, M. & Roth, F. (2022). Mission-oriented innovation policy for transformative change. A toolbox for implementation and impact assessment. Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer Institute for Systems.
Wittmann, F., Hummler, A., Posch, D. & Lindner, R. (2024). Missions with Impact. A practical guide to formulating effective missions. Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer Institute for Systems.

Share:

20201208

REPORT. Catalan Participation Lab Network. Public facilities and social innovation

When working with the idea of the citizen participation ecosystem from the point of view of a national government, one of the basic questions is how the Administration should nurture and facilitate such ecosystem. There are, at least, two approaches that have been traditionally explored.

  • On the one hand, the Administration can fund the creation or growth of a body of professionals that can contribute to deploy a number of citizen participation initiatives all over a given territory. These professionals can work at the higher level of the Administration or can be distributed or scattered on lower levels of the Administration (i.e. local administrations), but the result is to be able to cover most necessities with a good amount of trained and dedicated professionals.
  • On the other hand, and sometimes compatible with the former approach, the Administration can fund the creation or growth of a constellation of facilities that would run initiatives specifically devoted to the promotion of citizen participation. They can have many names depending on their particular focus or especialization: citizen labs, living labs, social innovation labs, fabrication labs (fab labs), maker spaces, etc.

The problem with these approaches is, at least, double:

  • They are not very economically sustainable, as they require and maintaining groups of people and networks of facilities with a single purpose and which can very difficult be replicated or scaled outside of their specific area of intervention. Of course this is a goal worth aiming at, but for starters it makes the investment very demanding.
  • They are not very socially sustainable, as they divert the attention and focus of the citizen, which now has new places to go, which can be good, but also bad: people have a limited capability to gather at and to focus their attention on.

Another approach is to leverage the fact that there are already public facilities on place and that people are already using them and gathering around them. Thus, instead of creating a new network of people and facilities in addition to the existing ones, another approach could be creating a new network of people and facilities upon the existing ones, or in other words, overlapping new goals and uses with the already existing ones.

The Catalan ParticipaLab Network aims at just that. We borrowed the name from the successful ParticipaLab initiative of the Medialab-Prado in Madrid (Spain) but with the idea not to create a new big facility, not even a network of small facilities, but to weave a network of citizen labs by providing a portfolio of new content and services to the already existing networks. The logic behind it is to follow Artur Serra’s ideas on citizen labs, who proposes thinking of citizen labs as we do in public health systems: there is a large network of primary health care you go to when you feel sick, a second network of regional hospitals you are sent to if things get complicated, and national network of top-level hospitals you are sent to when the situation becomes really bad. Same would apply to citizen participation and social innovation.

With that logic in mind, big top-level citizen labs would be the top-level hospitals of democratic innovation; regional networks of living labs or fab labs or maker spaces would be the regional hospitals, and… and already existing public facilities should be able to act as primary democratic innovation points of access for the general population at the local level.

A first approach to this scheme I drafted it at The role of public facilities and civic centres in a citizen participation ecosystem.

After this first scheme, my colleague Yago Bermejo and I (much more him than I, truth be told) developed the main principles, guiding lines and preliminary portfolio for such a network of public facilities devoted to citizen innovation for quality democracy.

The result is the report Xarxa ParticipaLab de Cataluña. Equipamientos ciudadanos e innovación social [Catalan Participation Lab Network. Public facilities and social innovation], which is expected to be the blueprint and roadmap to deploy such a network from the Catalan Government. The report is in Spanish and Catalan and can be downloaded below.

Downloads

logo of PDF file
Documento completo:
Bermejo, Y. & Peña-López, I. (2020). Xarxa ParticipaLab de Cataluña. Equipamientos ciudadanos e innovación social. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya.
logo of PDF file
Document complet:
Bermejo, Y. & Peña-López, I. (2020). Xarxa ParticipaLab de Catalunya. Equipaments ciutadans i innovació social. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya.

Share:

20201118

GUIDE. Guide to gender mainstreaming in participatory processes

Although I had been long interested on gender studies, during December 2018 and the first months of 2019 I began to actively search for documents that dealt with the issue of gender (discrimination, inequality, etc.) on citizen participation. I found out that there was quite a lot of literature on gender and democratic institutions, but nothing specifically on gender mainstreaming in participatory processes.

So, at the Directorate General of Citizen Participation and Electoral Processes we decided to do our own research and project on the issue. With the valuable help of Fundació Surt, and after an initial training, we analyzed public procurement, the facilitation of events, the evaluation processes, information and communication protocols, etc. under the light of gender mainstreaming.

The result was triple. First, the aforementioned analysis and evaluation; second, a set of internal protocols to improve our own work; third, a Guide to gender mainstreaming in participatory processes so that anyone in the field of citizen participation can use and apply in their own citizen participation instruments.

The guide has been published in Catalan and English (see below) and the whole project was distinguished by the IOPD with a special mention in their distinction on the “Best Practice in Citizen Participation”, the award given annually by the International Observatory on Participatory Democracy to recognize public policies implemented by local governments.

Below one can download the guide and access the bibliography I personally used on gender planning and evaluation methodologies in relationship with citizen participation.

Downloads

logo of PDF file
English version:
Parés Martín, L., Sola García, M., Pacheco i Canals, J., Rodà Goula, B. & Peña-López, I. (2020). Guide to gender mainstreaming in participatory processes. Guies breus de participació ciutadana, 8. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya.
logo of PDF file
Catalan version:
Parés Martín, L., Sola García, M., Pacheco i Canals, J., Rodà Goula, B. & Peña-López, I. (2020). Guia de transversalitat de gènere en els processos participatius. Guies breus de participació ciutadana, 8. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya.

Bibliography

Agència Catalana de Cooperació al Desenvolupament (2010). Directrius d'equitat entre les dones i els homes de la cooperació al desenvolupament de la Generalitat de Catalunya. Barcelona: ACCD.
Agència Catalana de Cooperació al Desenvolupament (2016). Enfocament de gènere i basat en Drets Humans (EGiBDH). Barcelona: ACCD.
Agència Catalana de Cooperació al Desenvolupament (2017). Pràctiques i experiències en el marc de l'enfocament de gènere i basat en Drets Humans (EGiBDH). Barcelona: ACCD.
Ajuntament de Barcelona (2016). Guia de contractació pública social. Barcelona: Ajuntament de Barcelona.
Ajuntament de Barcelona (2019a). Barcelona ciutat digital. La tecnologia al servei de la ciutadania. Balanç del Pla Barcelona Ciutat Digital (2015-2019). Barcelona: Ajuntament de Barcelona.
Ajuntament de Barcelona (2019b). Barcelona digital city. Putting technology at the service of people. Barcelona Digital City Plan (2015-2019). Barcelona: Ajuntament de Barcelona.
Ajuntament de Barcelona (2019c). Decidim, la plataforma digital oberta i lliure per la participació i la innovació democràtica. Informe 2016-2019. Barcelona: Ajuntament de Barcelona.
Ajuntament de Barcelona (2019d). Guia d'ús no sexista del llenguatge. 10 punts per visibilitzar les dones en el llenguatge. Barcelona: Ajuntament de Barcelona.
Ajuntament de Barcelona (2019e). Guia de comunicació inclusiva. Per construir un món més igualitari. Barcelona: Ajuntament de Barcelona.
Ajuntament de Barcelona (2019f). Urbanisme i gènere: marxes exploratòries de vida quotidiana. Quaderns metodològics feministes #1. Barcelona: Ajuntament de Barcelona.
Alonso Álvarez, A. (2017). Moviment feminista i govern de la ciutat. Metodologia per a la transversalitat participativa. Barcelona: Ajuntament de Barcelona.
Amat Garcia, C., Cardona Tamayo, H., Goula Mejón, J. & Saldaña Blasco, D. (2014). Walking India. Equal Saree research from 2010 to 2013. Barcelona: Equal Saree.
Amat Garcia, C., Cardona Tamayo, H., Goula Mejón, J. & Saldaña Blasco, D. (2015). Camina Tamshi. Recomanacions urbanes amb perspectiva de gènere. Barcelona: Equal Saree.
Astelarra Bonomi, J. (Dir.) (2003). Buenas prácticas y auditoría de género: Instrumentos para políticas locales. Barcelona: Diputació de Barcelona.
Batalla Edo, E. (Dir.) (2011). Manual per a la incorporació de la perspectiva de gènere a l'àmbit del comerç urbà. Col·lecció Documents de Treball, Sèrie Desenvolupament Econòmic, 13. Barcelona: Diputació de Barcelona.
Berbel Sánchez, S. & Geronès i Rovira, M. (2008). “Participació política de les dones”. In Bodelón, E. & Giménez, P. (Coords.), Desenvolupant els drets de les dones: Àmbits d'intervenció de les polítiques de gènere, Capítol 12, 199-231. Col·lecció Estudis, Sèrie Igualtat i Ciutadania, 2. Barcelona: Diputació de Barcelona.
Bofill Levi, A. (2008). Guia per al planejament urbanístic i l'ordenació urbanística amb la incorporació de criteris de gènere. Col·lecció Eines 11. Barcelona: Institut Català de les Dones.
Carter, A.J., Croft, A., Lukas, D. & Sandstrom, G.M. (2019). “Women’s visibility in academic seminars: Women ask fewer questions than men”. In PLOS ONE, 14 (2). San Francisco: Public Library of Science.
Ciocoletto, A. & Col·lectiu Punt 6 (2014). Espais per a la vida quotidiana. Auditoria de Qualitat Urbana amb perspectiva de Gènere. Barcelona: Col·lectiu Punt 6.
Col·lectiu Punt 6 (2011). Construyendo entornos seguros desde la perspectiva de género. Col·leccions CiP, Informes número 5, 2011. Barcelona: ICPS.
Col·lectiu Punt 6 (2013). Dones treballant. Guia de reconeixement urbà amb perspectiva de gènere. Barcelona: Col·lectiu Punt 6.
Delatte, M., Guijarro, B., Almirall, J., Llop, N., Adell, H. & Medrano, A. (2018). Anàlisi de la participació de dones en els espais institucionals i socials mixtos de la ciutat de Barcelona. Barcelona: Ajuntament de Barcelona, Liquen Data Lab.
DFID PPA Learning Partnership Gender Group (2015a). A Theory of Change on Gender Equality & Women's and Girls' Empowerment. London: ActionAid UK; Christian Aid.
DFID PPA Learning Partnership Gender Group (2015b). What Works to Achieve Gender Equality and Women's and Girls' Empowerment?. London: ActionAid UK; Christian Aid.
Ecologistas en Acción (2018). Patriarcalitest. Madrid: Ecologistas en Acción.
European Institute for Gender Equality (2016a). Gender Equality in Academia and Research. GEAR tool. Brussels: European Institute for Gender Equality.
European Institute for Gender Equality (2016b). Gender Equality Training. Gender mainstreaming toolkit. Brussels: European Institute for Gender Equality.
European Institute for Gender Equality (2016c). Institutional transformation. Gender mainstreaming toolkit. Brussels: European Institute for Gender Equality.
European Institute for Gender Equality (2017). Gender Impact Assessment. Gender mainstreaming toolkit. Brussels: European Institute for Gender Equality.
European Institute for Gender Equality (2018). Gender equality and youth: opportunities and risks of digitalisation. Brussels: European Institute for Gender Equality.
Galligan, Y. & Clavero, S. (2008). Assessing gender democracy in the European Union. A methodological framework. RECON Online Working Paper 2008/16. Oslo: ARENA.
Galligan, Y. & Clavero, S. (2012). Deliberative Processes and Gender Democracy. Case Studies from Europe. RECON Report No 17. Oslo: ARENA.
Garcia Ramilo, C. & Cinco, C. (2005). Gender Evaluation Methodology for Internet and ICTs. A learning tool for change and empowerment. Melville: Association for Progressive Communications.
Garcia Sànchez, A. (2008). “Polítiques i estratègies d'igualtat en l'àmbit local. L'experiència de l'Ajuntament de Sant Feliu de Llobregat”. In Bodelón, E. & Giménez, P. (Coords.), Construint els drets de les dones: Dels conceptes a les polítiques locals, Capítol 7, 149-165. Col·lecció Estudis, Sèrie Igualtat i Ciutadania, 1. Barcelona: Diputació de Barcelona.
Gelambí Torrell, M. (2016). Guia pràctica per a la realització de polítiques transversals de gènere en l'àmbit municipal. Col·lecció Eines, Sèrie Benestar i Ciutadania, 2. Barcelona: Diputació de Barcelona.
Generalitat de Catalunya & Institut Català de les Dones (2018). Guia per a la incorporació de la perspectiva de gènere en els contractes públics. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya, Institut Català de les Dones.
Generalitat de Catalunya (2017). Model d'informe de diagnosi d'igualtat de dones i homes. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya.
Generalitat de Catalunya (2018b). Igualtat de dones i homes a empreses i organitzacions. Guia pràctica per diagnosticar-la. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya.
Gensana Riera, M.À. (2005). Informes d'impacte de gènere. Col·lecció Eines 1. Barcelona: Institut Català de les Dones.
Government of Himachal Pradesh (2009). 10 steps for integrating gender into the policy-making process. Shimla: Government of Himachal Pradesh.
Inter-Agency Standing Committee (2017). The Gender Handbook for Humanitarian Action. Geneva: IASC.
Inter-Parliamentary Union (2016). Evaluating the gender sensitivity of parliaments, a self-assessment toolkit. Geneva: Inter-Parliamentary Union.
International Development Research Center (2016). Gender equality in digital development and innovation. Networked Economies’ strategy for improving gender and inclusion outcomes. Ottawa: IDRC.
Kuga Thas, A.M., Garcia Ramilo, C. & Sabanes Plou, D. (2010). Facilitators Guide for GEM Workshops. Melville: Association for Progressive Communications.
Kuga Thas, A.M. & Garcia Ramilo, C. (2010). Gender Analysis for ICT Localisation Initiatives. Melville: Association for Progressive Communications.
Kuga Thas, A.M. (2011). Gender Evaluation for Rural ICT for Development. Melville: Association for Progressive Communications.
Medina Bustos, A., Mompart Penina, A., Rubio Cillán, A., Vergara Garcia, F. & Zaragoza Cosin, S. (2018). Guia per a la introducció de la perspectiva de gènere en la planificació en salut. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya.
Norris, P. & Krook, L. (2011). Gender Equality in Elected Office: A Six-Step Action Plan. Warsaw: OSCE/ODIHR.
Ortiz Escalante, S. & Gutiérrez Valdivia, B. (2015). “Planning from below: using feminist participatory methods to increase women's participation in urban planning”. In Gender & Development, 23 (1), 113-126. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.
Pujol Furriols, P. (2007). La participació de les dones en els municipis. Col·lecció Participació Ciutadana, 3. Barcelona: Departament d’Interior, Relacions Institucionals i Participació.
Sabanes Plou, D. (2011). Gender Evaluation for Telecentres. Melville: Association for Progressive Communications.
Sachdeva, N. & Peebles, D. (2010). Gender evaluation final report. Pan Asia networking program. Ottawa: IDRC.
Saldaña Blasco, D., Goula Mejón, J. & Cardona Tamayo, H. (2018a). El pati de l’escola en igualtat. Guia de diagnosi i d’intervenció amb perspectiva de gènere. 2a edició. Santa Coloma de Gramenet: Equal Saree, Ajuntament de Santa Coloma de Gramenet.
Saldaña Blasco, D., Goula Mejón, J. & Cardona Tamayo, H. (2018b). El pati de l’escola en igualtat. Guia de diagnosi i d’intervenció amb perspectiva de gènere. Material de suport. Santa Coloma de Gramenet: Equal Saree, Ajuntament de Santa Coloma de Gramenet.
UN Women (2014). Gender equality capacity assessment tool. New York: UN Women.
UNDP (2014). Making Joint Gender Programmes Work. New York: UNDP.
UNESCO Bangkok (2009). Promoting Gender Equality in Education. Bangkok: UNESCO Bangkok.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe & World Bank Institute (2010). Developing Gender Statistics: A Practical Tool. Geneva: United Nations.
United Nations Human Settlements Programme (2008). Gender in Local Government: A Sourcebook for Trainers. Nairobi: UNHABITAT.
United Nations Human Settlements Programme (2012). Gender Toolkit. New York: OCHA.
United Nations Population Fund & United Nations Development Fund for Women (2006). Gender responsive budgeting in practice: a training manual. New York: UNFPA, UNIFEM.
Xarxa d'Economia Solidària de Catalunya (2017a). Eina d'observació de gènere. Barcelona: XES.
Xarxa d'Economia Solidària de Catalunya (2017b). Reunions roDONES. Barcelona: XES.

Share:

20201011

BOOK CHAPTER. The ecosystem of public governance: institutions as open infrastructures for collective decision-making

At the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis I wrote about the differential impact of crisis in the Information Society based on the first fact that were quickly becoming evident before our eyes and at plain sight.

Shortly after, professors Josep M. Reniu and Víctor Meseguer led a monography on how the COVID-19 crisis was impacting democratic institutions and what to do about it. The book ¿Política confinada? Nuevas tecnologías y toma de decisiones en un contexto de pandemia [Confined politics? New technologies and decision-making in a pandemic context] focuses on how institutions are responding to a pandemic that keeps people at home or away from each other, and how they are figuring out ways of keeping in touch with citizens and keep performing the tasks they have been committed to.

I wrote a book chapter, the second one, with the aim to provide a wide landscape on how democratic institutions and the democratic arena are configuring themselves, and how the pandemic crisis may be an accelerator to it. On El ecosistema de gobernanza pública: las instituciones como infraestructuras abiertas para la toma de decisiones colectivas [The ecosystem of public governance: institutions as open infrastructures for collective decision-making] I take the idea of the citizen participation ecosystem to a higher level, trying to scale it up to the global public governance level.

To do so, I introduce the concept of ecosystems on social sciences, which have been applied with much success —in my opinion— to describe the quick deployment of digital business infrastructures. I describe such ecosystems as knowledge communities and infrastructures that wrok in open and shared ways, aiming at the building of a digital commons. Following, I review the idea of ‘the state as a platform’, ending up with a definition and proposal of the ecosystem of public governance, which I define as:

A public governance ecosystem is a technopolitical, self-organized, autopoietic, replicable and scalable system that articulates actors, spaces and instruments around a set of open and distributed infrastructures rich on knowledge for collective decision-making.

A preprint of the whole chapter (in Spanish) and the bibliography I used can be accessed below.

Downloads

logo of PDF file
Preprint:
Peña-López, I. (2020). “El ecosistema de gobernanza pública: las instituciones como infraestructuras abiertas para la toma de decisiones colectivas”. In Reniu i Vilamala, J.M. & Meseguer, J.V. (Eds.), ¿Política confinada? Nuevas tecnologías y toma de decisiones en un contexto de pandemia, Capítulo 2, 53-71. Cizur Menor: Thompson-Reuters/Aranzadi.

Bibliography

Adner, R. & Kapoor, R. (2010). “Value Creation in Innovation Ecosystems: How the Structure of Technological Interdependence Affects Firm Performance in New Technology Generations”. In Strategic Management Journal, 31 (3), 306-333. Indianapolis: John Wiley and Sons.
Al-Ani, A. (2017). “Government as a Platform: Services, Participation and Policies”. In Kamalipour, Y. & Friedrichsen, M. (Eds.), Digital Transformation in Journalism and News Media: Media Management, Media Convergence and Globalization, Chapter 14, 179-196. Boston: Springer International Publishing.
Atluri, V., Dietz, M. & Henke, N. (2017). “Competing in a world of sectors without borders”. In McKinsey Quarterly, 2017 Number 3, 32-47. New York: McKinsey.
Boley, H. & Chang, E. (2007). “Digital Ecosystems: Principles and Semantics”. In Digital EcoSystems and Technologies Conference, 2007. DEST'07. Inaugural IEEE-IES, 398-403. Washington, DC: IEEE.
Bria, F. (Dir.) (2015). Growing a digital social innovation ecosystem for Europe. DSI final report. Brussels: European Commission.
Calzada Mujika, I. & Almirall, E. (2020). “Data ecosystems for protecting European citizens’ digital rights”. In Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Ahead-of-print. Published online 21 April 2020. Bradford: Emerald.
Carayannis, E.G., Barth, T.D. & Campbell, D.F. (2012). “The Quintuple Helix innovation model: global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation”. In Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 1 (2). Boston: Springer.
Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.
Castells, M. (2012). Redes de indignación y esperanza. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
Ceccagnoli, M., Forman, C., Huang, E. & Wu, D. (2012). “Cocreation of Value in a Platform Ecosystem: The Case of Enterprise Software”. In MIS Quarterly, 36 (1), 263-290. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Chesbrough, H.W. (2003). “The Era of Open Innovation”. In MIT Sloan Management Review, Spring 2003, 35-41. Cambridge: MIT Sloan School of Management.
Dawes, S.S., Vidiasova, L. & Parkhimovich, O. (2016). “Planning and designing open government data programs: An ecosystem approach”. In Government Information Quarterly, 33 (1), 15-27. London: Elsevier.
Dini, P., Darking, M., Rathbone, N., Vidal, M., Hernández, P., Ferronato, P., Briscoe, G. & Hendryx, S. (2005). The Digital Ecosystems Research Vision: 2010 and Beyond. Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission (2012). Open Innovation 2012. Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission (2013). Open Innovation 2.0 Yearbook. Edition 2013. Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission (2016). Open Innovation 2.0 Yearbook. Edition 2016. Brussels: European Commission.
Fuster, M. (2018). “Qualities of the different models of platforms”. In Fuster, M. (Ed.), Sharing Cities: A worldwide cities overview on platform economy policies with a focus on Barcelona, Chapter IV, 125-158. Barcelona: UOC.
Harrison, T.M., Pardo, T.A. & Cook, M. (2012). “Creating Open Government Ecosystems: A Research and Development Agenda”. In Future Internet, 4 (4), 900-928. Basel: MDPI.
Heimstädt, M., Saunderson, F. & Heath, T. (2014). “Conceptualizing Open Data Ecosystems: A Timeline Analysis of Open Data Development in the UK”. In Parycek, P. & Edelmann, N. (Eds.), CeDEM14. Proceedings of the International Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government 2014, 245-255. 21-23 May 2014, Danube University Krems, Austria. Krems: Edition Donau-Universität Krems.
Iansiti, M. & Levien, R. (2004). “Strategy as Ecology”. In Harvard Business Review, March 1, 2004. Cambridge: Harvard University.
Janowski, T., Pardo, T.A. & Davies, J. (2012). “Government Information Networks – Mapping Electronic Governance cases through Public Administration concepts”. In Government Information Quarterly, 29 (1), S1-S10. London: Elsevier.
Ju, J., Liu, L. & Feng, Y. (2019). “Design of an O2O Citizen Participation Ecosystem for Sustainable Governance”. In Information Systems Frontiers, 21 (3), 605–620. Cham: Springer Nature.
Kurban, C., Peña-López, I. & Haberer, M. (2017). “What is technopolitics? A conceptual scheme for understanding politics in the digital age”. In IDP. Revista de Internet, Derecho y Ciencia Política, 24. Barcelona: Universitat Oberta de Catalunya.
Lupiáñez-Villanueva, F., Theben, A., Porcu, F. & Peña-López, I. (2018). Study on the impact of the internet and social media on youth participation and youth work. Brussels: European Commission.
Nachira, F., Nicolai, A., Dini, P., Le Louarn, M. & Rivera León, L. (Eds.) (2007). Digital Business Ecosystems. Brussels: European Commission.
O’Reilly, T. (2011). “Government as a Platform”. In Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 6 (1), 13-40. Cambridge: MIT Press.
OECD Council (2017). Recommendation of the Council on Open Government. Paris: OECD.
Peña-López, I. (2011). “Striving behind the shadow – The dawn of Spanish politics 2.0”. In van der Hof, S. & Groothuis, M. (Eds.), Innovating Government. Normative, policy and technological dimensions of modern government, Chapter 8, 129-147. The Hague: TMC Asser Press.
Peña-López, I. (2014a). “Casual politics: del clicktivismo a los movimientos emergentes y el reconocimiento de patrones”. In Cotarelo, R. & Olmeda, J.A. (Eds.), La democracia del siglo XXI. Política, medios de comunicación, internet y redes sociales, Capítulo 10, 211-229. II Jornadas españolas de ciberpolítica, 28 de mayo de 2013. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales.
Peña-López, I. (2014b). “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.
Peña-López, I. (2018). “Fomento de la participacio?n democra?tica no formal e informal. De la democracia de masas a las redes de la democracia”. In Laboratorio de Aragón Gobierno Abierto (Ed.), Abrir instituciones desde dentro. Hacking Inside Black Book, Capítulo 11, 113-124. Zaragoza: LAAAB, Gobierno de Aragón.
Peña-López, I. (2019a). Convirtiendo participación en soberanía: el caso de decidim.barcelona. Barcelona: Huygens Editorial.
Peña-López, I. (2019b). “L’Estat com a plataforma: la participació ciutadana per la preservació de l’Estat com a bé comú”. In Nota d'Economia, 105, 193-208. Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya.
Peña-López, I. (2020). “El impacto diferencial de las crisis en la Sociedad del Conocimiento”. In Gutiérrez-Rubí, A. & Pont Sorribes, C. (Coords.), Comunicación política en tiempos de coronavirus, Capítulo 25, 142-147. Barcelona: Cátedra Ideograma–UPF de Comunicación Política y Democracia.
Raymond, E.S. (1999). The Cathedral & the Bazaar. (revised edition: original edition 1999). Sebastopol: O’Reilly.
Saveri, A., Rheingold, H. & Vian, K. (2005). Technologies of Cooperation. Palo Alto: Institute for the Future.
Scholz, T. (2016). Platform Cooperativism. Challenging the Corporate Sharing Economy. New York: Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1943). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. (2003 edition). New York: Routledge.
Serra, A. (2013). “Tres problemas sobre los laboratorios ciudadanos. Una mirada desde Europa”. In Organización de Estados Iberoamericanos, Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad, 8 (23), 283-298. Buenos Aires: Centro de Estudios sobre Ciencia, Desarrollo y Educación Superior.
Surowiecki, J. (2004). The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few. London: Abacus.
von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Zuiderwijk, A. & Janssen, M. (2013). “Open data policies, their implementation and impact: A framework for comparison”. In Government Information Quarterly, 31 (1), 17-29. London: Elsevier.
Zuiderwijk, A., Janssen, M. & Davis, C. (2014). “Innovation with open data: Essential elements of open data ecosystems”. In Information Polity, 19 (1), 17-33. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Share:

20200420

BOOK CHAPTER. The differential impact of crisis in the Information Society

The crisis of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is having an unequal impact on people, thus worsening the also unequal impact of globalization and the transition into the Information Society.

It is not only that wealthier and healthier people have more resources to face the crisis, but also that the way society is being reshaped (new relationships of production, experience and power) is also making more evident where we are facing as a society and what is becoming more obsolete. And the coronavirus crisis is especially hitting hard those tasks and institutions becoming obsolete.

But not only.

While two worlds overlap —the aging Industrial Era and the upcoming Information Era— there are also several views overlapping, and casting shadows that distort reality. There are some production sectors that are seen as obsolete by those in the Information Era, but that is becase positive externalities of their functions are not being taken into account.

This reflection has just been published as a book chapter, where I describe the uneven impact of the COVID-19, and why some social functions are really obsolete, but why some others should be revalued so that they do not disappear —and, on the contrary, should be treated with care.

The full book is called Comunicación política en tiempos de crisis (Political communication in times of crisis), coordinated by Antoni Gutiérrez-Rubí and Carles Pont Sorribes, to whom I am really thankful for putting together the book in such short time and by quickly inviting me to part of it.

My book chapter is entitled El impacto diferencial de las crisis en la Sociedad del Conocimiento (The differential impact of crisis in the Information Society) and can be downloaded below. All texts are in Spanish.

Downloads

logo of PDF file
Full chapter:
Peña-López, I. (2020). “El impacto diferencial de las crisis en la Sociedad del Conocimiento”. In Gutiérrez-Rubí, A. & Pont Sorribes, C. (Coords.), Comunicación política en tiempos de coronavirus, Capítulo 25, 142-147. Barcelona: Cátedra Ideograma–UPF de Comunicación Política y Democracia.
logo of PDF file
Full book:
Gutiérrez-Rubí, A. & Pont Sorribes, C. (Coords.) (2020) Comunicación política en tiempos de coronavirus. Barcelona: Cátedra Ideograma–UPF de Comunicación Política y Democracia.

Share:

20200131

Draft Opinion. Local and Regional Authorities in the permanent dialogue with citizens

Cover of the draft opinion "Local and Regional Authorities in the permanent dialogue with citizens"
Draft Opinion “Local and Regional Authorities in the permanent dialogue with citizens”

On 9 December 2019, the Catalan Government presented a working document at the 26th CIVEX commission meeting of the European Committee of the Regions.

The aim of the working document was to spark a debate for an upcoming Opinion on the “Local and Regional Authorities in the permanent dialogue with citizens”. The working document had the following scheme:

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

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

A preliminary abstract of that opinion is as follow:

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

Our proposal of the functioning of the Network of Open Participatory Governments is summarized in the following figure:

The full text that will be discussed in the next CIVEX commission can be downloaded below:

logo of DOCX file
Working document:
Peña-López, I. (2020). Local and Regional Authorities in the permanent dialogue with citizens. Draft Opinion. Brussels: European Committee of the Regions.

Share: