The growing digitalization of our society has led to a meteoric rise of large technology companies (Big Tech), which have amassed tremendous wealth and influence through their ownership of digital infrastructure and platforms. The recent launch of ChatGPT and the rapid popularization of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) act as a focusing event to further accelerate the concentration of power in the hands of the Big Tech. By using Kingdon’s multiple streams framework, this article investigates how Big Tech utilize their technological monopoly and political influence to reshape the policy landscape and establish themselves as key actors in the policy process. It explores the implications of the rise of Big Tech for policy theory in two ways. First, it develops the Big Tech-centric technology stream, highlighting the differing motivations and activities from the traditional innovation-centric technology stream. Second, it underscores the universality of Big Tech exerting ubiquitous influence within and across streams, to primarily serve their self-interests rather than promote innovation. Our findings emphasize the need for a more critical exploration of policy role of Big Tech to ensure balanced and effective policy outcomes in the age of AI.
{"title":"Why and how is the power of Big Tech increasing in the policy process? The case of generative AI","authors":"Shaleen Khanal, Hongzhou Zhang, Araz Taeihagh","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae012","url":null,"abstract":"The growing digitalization of our society has led to a meteoric rise of large technology companies (Big Tech), which have amassed tremendous wealth and influence through their ownership of digital infrastructure and platforms. The recent launch of ChatGPT and the rapid popularization of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) act as a focusing event to further accelerate the concentration of power in the hands of the Big Tech. By using Kingdon’s multiple streams framework, this article investigates how Big Tech utilize their technological monopoly and political influence to reshape the policy landscape and establish themselves as key actors in the policy process. It explores the implications of the rise of Big Tech for policy theory in two ways. First, it develops the Big Tech-centric technology stream, highlighting the differing motivations and activities from the traditional innovation-centric technology stream. Second, it underscores the universality of Big Tech exerting ubiquitous influence within and across streams, to primarily serve their self-interests rather than promote innovation. Our findings emphasize the need for a more critical exploration of policy role of Big Tech to ensure balanced and effective policy outcomes in the age of AI.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2024-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140317150","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Policies aimed at upskilling, motivating and/or disciplining the unemployed have remained a cornerstone of most OECD countries’ employment policies since the 1990s. Central to these policies is the idea of activation – i.e. the premise that benefit entitlement is conditional on one’s participation in some kind of activity. This article seek to understand how this idea of activation has proven so enduring by analyzing the international development of Activation Policies since 1990 through the lens offered by the concept of ideational robustness. It is analyzed how the robustness of the idea of activation has been continuously challenged through critiques raised against the effects, the legitimacy and the relevance of activation policies. Yet, in each of these moments of contest, proponents of the idea of activation succeeded in keeping the idea relevant as a point of reference for policymaking. They did so by rebalancing disciplinary and enabling approaches to activation, adding a new scope of application for activation policies, and rearticulating the underlying assumption about client agency. The analysis further reveals how these robustness mechanisms succeeded in appropriating the critiques due to their inscription within the technical and seemingly de-political language concerning effect evaluations, implementation deficits, and new forms of governance. Policymakers were thereby able to downplay normative questions of the legitimacy, fairness, and justice of activation policies. The idea of activation has thus taken on a status as an objective to be implemented as effective and efficiently as possible rather than as an idea to be discussed or challenged. However, while the idea of activation remains robust, the same cannot be said of the governance and implementation structures of activation policies. Our study suggest that the near-constant reforms of these governance arrangements and implementation structures during the last 30 years are partly a consequence of critique being skewed from the idea of activation to these structures and arrangements. The robustness of the idea of activation has thus, rather paradoxically, come about by reducing the robustness of specific activation policies and governance arrangements.
{"title":"Activation policy: bruised and battered but still standing","authors":"Niklas A Andersen, Flemming Larsen","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae013","url":null,"abstract":"Policies aimed at upskilling, motivating and/or disciplining the unemployed have remained a cornerstone of most OECD countries’ employment policies since the 1990s. Central to these policies is the idea of activation – i.e. the premise that benefit entitlement is conditional on one’s participation in some kind of activity. This article seek to understand how this idea of activation has proven so enduring by analyzing the international development of Activation Policies since 1990 through the lens offered by the concept of ideational robustness. It is analyzed how the robustness of the idea of activation has been continuously challenged through critiques raised against the effects, the legitimacy and the relevance of activation policies. Yet, in each of these moments of contest, proponents of the idea of activation succeeded in keeping the idea relevant as a point of reference for policymaking. They did so by rebalancing disciplinary and enabling approaches to activation, adding a new scope of application for activation policies, and rearticulating the underlying assumption about client agency. The analysis further reveals how these robustness mechanisms succeeded in appropriating the critiques due to their inscription within the technical and seemingly de-political language concerning effect evaluations, implementation deficits, and new forms of governance. Policymakers were thereby able to downplay normative questions of the legitimacy, fairness, and justice of activation policies. The idea of activation has thus taken on a status as an objective to be implemented as effective and efficiently as possible rather than as an idea to be discussed or challenged. However, while the idea of activation remains robust, the same cannot be said of the governance and implementation structures of activation policies. Our study suggest that the near-constant reforms of these governance arrangements and implementation structures during the last 30 years are partly a consequence of critique being skewed from the idea of activation to these structures and arrangements. The robustness of the idea of activation has thus, rather paradoxically, come about by reducing the robustness of specific activation policies and governance arrangements.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2024-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140317146","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Is it possible to develop a robust crisis management response in a system where governance is characterized by coercive power and adversarial bargaining rather than the diversity, inclusion, and openness highlighted by extant scholarship as conducive factors for robustness? Using two instances of crisis in the European Union—the Eurozone crisis (2010‒2015) and COVID-19 pandemic (2020‒2022)—the paper argues that how actors reinterpret existing rules and institutions offers an important source of robustness in crisis management. Based on the employment of a disaggregation of robustness into degrees of robustness, as well as the concepts of ideational and institutional power, we show how actors can counter the coercive power of dominant coalitions and open up for rule adaptation through reinterpretations of existing rules that, at least in the short term, can solidify the functioning of existing institutions faced by turbulence. In the context of the Eurozone crisis, ideational and institutional power thus enabled a moderately robust response without treaty reform. In the case of the pandemic, it was possible to convince (particularly German) policymakers of the need to employ new ideas about common debt. This meant less need to employ ideational and institutional power by other actors, leading to significantly more effective crisis management than in the Eurozone crisis, what the paper terms maximal robustness.
{"title":"Ideational robustness of economic ideas in action: the case of European Union economic governance through a decade of crisis","authors":"Martin B Carstensen, Vivien A Schmidt","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae011","url":null,"abstract":"Is it possible to develop a robust crisis management response in a system where governance is characterized by coercive power and adversarial bargaining rather than the diversity, inclusion, and openness highlighted by extant scholarship as conducive factors for robustness? Using two instances of crisis in the European Union—the Eurozone crisis (2010‒2015) and COVID-19 pandemic (2020‒2022)—the paper argues that how actors reinterpret existing rules and institutions offers an important source of robustness in crisis management. Based on the employment of a disaggregation of robustness into degrees of robustness, as well as the concepts of ideational and institutional power, we show how actors can counter the coercive power of dominant coalitions and open up for rule adaptation through reinterpretations of existing rules that, at least in the short term, can solidify the functioning of existing institutions faced by turbulence. In the context of the Eurozone crisis, ideational and institutional power thus enabled a moderately robust response without treaty reform. In the case of the pandemic, it was possible to convince (particularly German) policymakers of the need to employ new ideas about common debt. This meant less need to employ ideational and institutional power by other actors, leading to significantly more effective crisis management than in the Eurozone crisis, what the paper terms maximal robustness.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"73 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2024-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140317158","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Covid-19 pandemic sparked unprecedented political responses dramatically affecting societies, markets, and the lives of individuals. Under great uncertainty and turbulent conditions, governments adopted far-reaching political interventions to curb the pandemic. These interventions might therefore be expected to challenge key ideas underpinning liberal democracy. We analyze and compare how the political interventions seeking to curb the spread of the coronavirus in Denmark and Sweden challenged and possibly adapted three key ideas underpinning liberal democracy, namely, constitutionality, parliamentarism, and public responsiveness. When ideas are adapted in ways that advance their ability to stay relevant when faced with turbulence, we understand them as robust. Our study found both similarities and differences between the two countries. The idea of constitutionality was challenged in Denmark but remained robust in Sweden. The idea of parliamentarism appeared robust in both countries, whereas the idea of public responsiveness was adapted in neither country but challenged further in Sweden than in Denmark. Paradoxically, Denmark saw fewer adaptations to the liberal democratic ideas than Sweden yet appeared better prepared to protect lives during turbulent times. Our study suggests that liberal democracies must very carefully balance trade-offs between individual liberties and the protection of public health to preserve the core public ideas of constitutionality, parliamentarism, and public responsiveness.
{"title":"The ideational robustness of liberal democracy in the wake of the pandemic: comparing the Danish and Swedish cases","authors":"Åsa Knaggård, Peter Triantafillou","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae009","url":null,"abstract":"The Covid-19 pandemic sparked unprecedented political responses dramatically affecting societies, markets, and the lives of individuals. Under great uncertainty and turbulent conditions, governments adopted far-reaching political interventions to curb the pandemic. These interventions might therefore be expected to challenge key ideas underpinning liberal democracy. We analyze and compare how the political interventions seeking to curb the spread of the coronavirus in Denmark and Sweden challenged and possibly adapted three key ideas underpinning liberal democracy, namely, constitutionality, parliamentarism, and public responsiveness. When ideas are adapted in ways that advance their ability to stay relevant when faced with turbulence, we understand them as robust. Our study found both similarities and differences between the two countries. The idea of constitutionality was challenged in Denmark but remained robust in Sweden. The idea of parliamentarism appeared robust in both countries, whereas the idea of public responsiveness was adapted in neither country but challenged further in Sweden than in Denmark. Paradoxically, Denmark saw fewer adaptations to the liberal democratic ideas than Sweden yet appeared better prepared to protect lives during turbulent times. Our study suggests that liberal democracies must very carefully balance trade-offs between individual liberties and the protection of public health to preserve the core public ideas of constitutionality, parliamentarism, and public responsiveness.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2024-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140317246","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article examines the interplay between uncertainty, emotions, and scientific discourse in shaping COVID-19 policies in Quebec, Canada. Through the application of natural language processing (NLP) techniques, indices were developped to measure sentiments of uncertainty among policymakers, their negative sentiments, and the prevalence of scientific statements. The study reveals that while sentiments of uncertainty led to the adoption of stringent policies, scientific statements and the evidence they conveyed were associated with a relaxation of such policies, as they offered reassurance and mitigated negative sentiments. Furthermore, the findings suggest that scientific statements encouraged stricter policies only in contexts of high uncertainty. This research contributes to the theoretical understanding of the interplay between emotional and cognitive dynamics in health crisis policymaking. It emphasizes the need for a nuanced understanding of how science may be used in the face of uncertainty, especially when democratic processes are set aside. Methodologically, it demonstrates the potential of NLP in policy analysis.
{"title":"Exploring the role of uncertainty, emotions, and scientific discourse during the COVID-19 pandemic","authors":"Antoine Lemor, Éric Montpetit","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae010","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the interplay between uncertainty, emotions, and scientific discourse in shaping COVID-19 policies in Quebec, Canada. Through the application of natural language processing (NLP) techniques, indices were developped to measure sentiments of uncertainty among policymakers, their negative sentiments, and the prevalence of scientific statements. The study reveals that while sentiments of uncertainty led to the adoption of stringent policies, scientific statements and the evidence they conveyed were associated with a relaxation of such policies, as they offered reassurance and mitigated negative sentiments. Furthermore, the findings suggest that scientific statements encouraged stricter policies only in contexts of high uncertainty. This research contributes to the theoretical understanding of the interplay between emotional and cognitive dynamics in health crisis policymaking. It emphasizes the need for a nuanced understanding of how science may be used in the face of uncertainty, especially when democratic processes are set aside. Methodologically, it demonstrates the potential of NLP in policy analysis.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2024-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140192812","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The paper focuses on the role of the World Health Organization (WHO) in promoting a healthy world population as a generative and robust idea within health policy. The WHO’s health credo transcends national boundaries to promote health globally. It is embedded in norms, values, and standards promulgated by the organization and contributes in shaping the health responses of national governments. Ideational robustness refers to the ability of the WHO to adapt its health credo to changing contexts and circumstances, thus promoting the legitimacy of an international health order. Disturbances, including the Covid-19 pandemic, test the credo’s robustness, forcing the WHO to constantly work at reframing ideas to adapt to political forces and competing logics that structure the field of international health. Empirically, the paper is based on an historical analysis of the evolution of the health credo of the WHO since its inception. Qualitative content analysis of secondary sources, such as policy documents, explores how ideational work performed by WHO leaders impacts on the organization’s position and legitimacy. Ideational robustness appears to be largely influenced by leadership vision, preexisting organizational structure, and the political economy of international health. Ideational robustness appears as a powerful yet insufficient ingredient of policy success.
{"title":"The World Health Organization as an engine of ideational robustness","authors":"Jean-Louis Denis, Gaëlle Foucault, Pierre Larouche, Catherine Régis, Miriam Cohen, Marie-Andrée Girard","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae008","url":null,"abstract":"The paper focuses on the role of the World Health Organization (WHO) in promoting a healthy world population as a generative and robust idea within health policy. The WHO’s health credo transcends national boundaries to promote health globally. It is embedded in norms, values, and standards promulgated by the organization and contributes in shaping the health responses of national governments. Ideational robustness refers to the ability of the WHO to adapt its health credo to changing contexts and circumstances, thus promoting the legitimacy of an international health order. Disturbances, including the Covid-19 pandemic, test the credo’s robustness, forcing the WHO to constantly work at reframing ideas to adapt to political forces and competing logics that structure the field of international health. Empirically, the paper is based on an historical analysis of the evolution of the health credo of the WHO since its inception. Qualitative content analysis of secondary sources, such as policy documents, explores how ideational work performed by WHO leaders impacts on the organization’s position and legitimacy. Ideational robustness appears to be largely influenced by leadership vision, preexisting organizational structure, and the political economy of international health. Ideational robustness appears as a powerful yet insufficient ingredient of policy success.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"275 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2024-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140057780","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Rob Ralston, Belinda Townsend, Liz Arnanz, Fran Baum, Katherine Cullerton, Rodney Holmes, Jane Martin, Jeff Collin, Sharon Friel
The intensification of efforts by state and nonstate actors to address issues affecting global health has produced a patchwork of transnational regulatory governance. Within this field, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are expected to perform authoritative roles in holding business actors to account and enhance the democratic legitimacy of institutions via their participation in governance processes. While there exists a large body of conceptual and empirical research on global business regulation and private authority, we surprisingly know little about the governance functions of NGOs engaged in influencing the practices of corporations that produce health-harming commodities. This knowledge gap is especially pronounced in the issue area of noncommunicable diseases. This article begins to address this gap by mapping the networks of NGOs that engage in regulatory activities (rule-setting, monitoring, and enforcement) related to the (ultra)processed food and alcohol industries. We identify the networks of NGOs involved in global policy making across health, regulatory standards, and multistakeholder initiatives using nonstate actor submissions to consultations held by World Health Organization, UN Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), and the UN Global Compact. This paper examines NGO governance functions and their patterns of engagement and participation across institutional spheres. Overall, the article makes a twofold contribution to existing debates. First, we identify the governance functions through which NGOs attempt to hold corporations to account, contrasting their “watchdog” function with other governance functions. Second, we examine the representation of NGOs, highlighting asymmetries in participation of NGOs in the Global North and South.
国家和非国家行为者为解决影响全球健康的问题所做的努力不断加强，形成了一个跨国监管治理的拼凑体。在这一领域中，非政府组织（NGOs）有望发挥权威作用，对企业行为者进行问责，并通过参与治理过程增强机构的民主合法性。虽然有大量关于全球商业监管和私人权威的概念性和实证性研究，但令人惊讶的是，我们对非政府组织参与影响生产有害健康商品的企业的治理功能知之甚少。在非传染性疾病问题领域，这一知识空白尤为明显。本文通过绘制从事与（超）加工食品和酒类行业相关的监管活动（规则制定、监督和执行）的非政府组织网络图，开始填补这一空白。我们利用非国家行为者向世界卫生组织、联合国食品法典委员会（Codex）和联合国全球契约（UN Global Compact）举行的磋商会提交的材料，确定了参与全球卫生政策制定、监管标准和多方利益相关者倡议的非政府组织网络。本文探讨了非政府组织的治理职能及其在各机构领域的介入和参与模式。总体而言，本文对现有辩论做出了两方面的贡献。首先，我们确定了非政府组织试图追究企业责任的治理职能，并将其 "监督 "职能与其他治理职能进行了对比。其次，我们研究了非政府组织的代表性，强调了全球北方和南方非政府组织在参与方面的不对称。
{"title":"NGOs and Global Business Regulation of Transnational Alcohol and Ultra-Processed Food Industries","authors":"Rob Ralston, Belinda Townsend, Liz Arnanz, Fran Baum, Katherine Cullerton, Rodney Holmes, Jane Martin, Jeff Collin, Sharon Friel","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae002","url":null,"abstract":"The intensification of efforts by state and nonstate actors to address issues affecting global health has produced a patchwork of transnational regulatory governance. Within this field, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are expected to perform authoritative roles in holding business actors to account and enhance the democratic legitimacy of institutions via their participation in governance processes. While there exists a large body of conceptual and empirical research on global business regulation and private authority, we surprisingly know little about the governance functions of NGOs engaged in influencing the practices of corporations that produce health-harming commodities. This knowledge gap is especially pronounced in the issue area of noncommunicable diseases. This article begins to address this gap by mapping the networks of NGOs that engage in regulatory activities (rule-setting, monitoring, and enforcement) related to the (ultra)processed food and alcohol industries. We identify the networks of NGOs involved in global policy making across health, regulatory standards, and multistakeholder initiatives using nonstate actor submissions to consultations held by World Health Organization, UN Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), and the UN Global Compact. This paper examines NGO governance functions and their patterns of engagement and participation across institutional spheres. Overall, the article makes a twofold contribution to existing debates. First, we identify the governance functions through which NGOs attempt to hold corporations to account, contrasting their “watchdog” function with other governance functions. Second, we examine the representation of NGOs, highlighting asymmetries in participation of NGOs in the Global North and South.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"2013 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2024-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139945356","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Two critical policy questions will determine the impact of generative artificial intelligence (AI) on the knowledge economy and the creative sector. The first concerns how we think about the training of such models—in particular, whether the creators or owners of the data that are “scraped” (lawfully or unlawfully, with or without permission) should be compensated for that use. The second question revolves around the ownership of the output generated by AI, which is continually improving in quality and scale. These topics fall in the realm of intellectual property, a legal framework designed to incentivize and reward only human creativity and innovation. For some years, however, Britain has maintained a distinct category for “computer-generated” outputs; on the input issue, the EU and Singapore have recently introduced exceptions allowing for text and data mining or computational data analysis of existing works. This article explores the broader implications of these policy choices, weighing the advantages of reducing the cost of content creation and the value of expertise against the potential risk to various careers and sectors of the economy, which might be rendered unsustainable. Lessons may be found in the music industry, which also went through a period of unrestrained piracy in the early digital era, epitomized by the rise and fall of the file-sharing service Napster. Similar litigation and legislation may help navigate the present uncertainty, along with an emerging market for “legitimate” models that respect the copyright of humans and are clear about the provenance of their own creations.
{"title":"Good models borrow, great models steal: intellectual property rights and generative AI","authors":"Simon Chesterman","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae006","url":null,"abstract":"Two critical policy questions will determine the impact of generative artificial intelligence (AI) on the knowledge economy and the creative sector. The first concerns how we think about the training of such models—in particular, whether the creators or owners of the data that are “scraped” (lawfully or unlawfully, with or without permission) should be compensated for that use. The second question revolves around the ownership of the output generated by AI, which is continually improving in quality and scale. These topics fall in the realm of intellectual property, a legal framework designed to incentivize and reward only human creativity and innovation. For some years, however, Britain has maintained a distinct category for “computer-generated” outputs; on the input issue, the EU and Singapore have recently introduced exceptions allowing for text and data mining or computational data analysis of existing works. This article explores the broader implications of these policy choices, weighing the advantages of reducing the cost of content creation and the value of expertise against the potential risk to various careers and sectors of the economy, which might be rendered unsustainable. Lessons may be found in the music industry, which also went through a period of unrestrained piracy in the early digital era, epitomized by the rise and fall of the file-sharing service Napster. Similar litigation and legislation may help navigate the present uncertainty, along with an emerging market for “legitimate” models that respect the copyright of humans and are clear about the provenance of their own creations.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"88 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2024-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139750313","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This Special Issue and its seven contributions seek to shift the gaze of public policy scholarship toward the authorities, legitimacies, and influences of transnational actors on the creation and implementation of global policy and its transnational administration. It is, in large part, both a demonstration of the analytical and explanatory value of accounting for the influence of non-state actors on global issues as well as a normative reflection on what this means for already tenuous connections between publics and those that make decisions on their behalf in global forums. This Issue breaks with heterodox public policy approaches that center on the capabilities of states and international organizations to determine and to deliver global public policy and outcomes. Instead, we widen our gaze to capture the influence of transnational actors such as global commissions, transnational public–private partnerships, philanthropic foundations, non-government organization networks, domestic associations with global influence, quasi-judicial authorities, and global citizen activists. The articles discuss the impact of transnational actors on the policy and administrative spaces of global actors and states alike. By dispensing with the notion that the state and state-created international organizations are the primary locus for public policy and public administration scholarship, the included papers conclude with the implications for scholarship on transnational actor authorities and legitimacies.
{"title":"Actors, alterations, and authorities: three observations of global policy and its transnational administration","authors":"Kim Moloney, Tim Legrand","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae003","url":null,"abstract":"This Special Issue and its seven contributions seek to shift the gaze of public policy scholarship toward the authorities, legitimacies, and influences of transnational actors on the creation and implementation of global policy and its transnational administration. It is, in large part, both a demonstration of the analytical and explanatory value of accounting for the influence of non-state actors on global issues as well as a normative reflection on what this means for already tenuous connections between publics and those that make decisions on their behalf in global forums. This Issue breaks with heterodox public policy approaches that center on the capabilities of states and international organizations to determine and to deliver global public policy and outcomes. Instead, we widen our gaze to capture the influence of transnational actors such as global commissions, transnational public–private partnerships, philanthropic foundations, non-government organization networks, domestic associations with global influence, quasi-judicial authorities, and global citizen activists. The articles discuss the impact of transnational actors on the policy and administrative spaces of global actors and states alike. By dispensing with the notion that the state and state-created international organizations are the primary locus for public policy and public administration scholarship, the included papers conclude with the implications for scholarship on transnational actor authorities and legitimacies.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139676945","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Global policymaking often seeks to create processes for the effective delivery of public goods and services. What happens when individuals critique or dissent such policies? In this paper, we examine the case of two activists—Greta Thunberg and Disha Ravi—who have been mobilizing attention toward climate change since their teenage years, and who have been both celebrated and vilified for it. While climate change policies emphasize the importance of gender mainstreaming and youth participation, reactions garnered by these two activists are instructive in highlighting the narrow notion of “participation” that ungirds climate policy. Specifically, we show that Greta and Disha’s tactics do not readily jive with the postfeminist, neoliberal conceptualization of youth participation that emphasizes apolitical exercise of citizenship; valorizes girls’ activism only insofar as it enhances national economic growth; and views girls as symbols of hopeful futurities. Greta and Disha are instead what we call, “policy dissidents,” whose activism creates “tactical crevices.” We theorize tactical crevices as tentative and fleeting interruptions by the powerless that puncture prevailing logics through strikes and protests, and through consumption of discourses and materials in ways that those in power do not intend. The paper contributes to the study of girl activism broadly, and to notions of youth engagement (or disengagement) specifically, within the spheres of local and global politics.
{"title":"Policy dissidents: Understanding girl activism as creating “Tactical Crevices”","authors":"Shenila Khoja-Moolji, Mary Ann Chacko","doi":"10.1093/polsoc/puae001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae001","url":null,"abstract":"Global policymaking often seeks to create processes for the effective delivery of public goods and services. What happens when individuals critique or dissent such policies? In this paper, we examine the case of two activists—Greta Thunberg and Disha Ravi—who have been mobilizing attention toward climate change since their teenage years, and who have been both celebrated and vilified for it. While climate change policies emphasize the importance of gender mainstreaming and youth participation, reactions garnered by these two activists are instructive in highlighting the narrow notion of “participation” that ungirds climate policy. Specifically, we show that Greta and Disha’s tactics do not readily jive with the postfeminist, neoliberal conceptualization of youth participation that emphasizes apolitical exercise of citizenship; valorizes girls’ activism only insofar as it enhances national economic growth; and views girls as symbols of hopeful futurities. Greta and Disha are instead what we call, “policy dissidents,” whose activism creates “tactical crevices.” We theorize tactical crevices as tentative and fleeting interruptions by the powerless that puncture prevailing logics through strikes and protests, and through consumption of discourses and materials in ways that those in power do not intend. The paper contributes to the study of girl activism broadly, and to notions of youth engagement (or disengagement) specifically, within the spheres of local and global politics.","PeriodicalId":47383,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Society","volume":"85 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139676958","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：