Sara Marcucci, Natalia González Alarcón, S. Verhulst, Elena Wüllhorst
Abstract Data has become a critical trans-national and cross-border resource. Yet, the lack of a well-defined approach to using it poses challenges to harnessing its value. This article explores the increasing importance of global data governance due to the rapid growth of data, and the need for responsible data practices. The purpose of this paper is to compare approaches and identify patterns in the emergent data governance ecosystem within sectors close to the international development field, ultimately presenting key takeaways and reflections on when and why a global data governance framework may be needed. Overall, the paper provides information about the conditions when a more holistic, coordinated transnational approach to data governance may be needed to responsibly manage the global flow of data. The report does this by (a) considering conditions specified by the literature that may be conducive to global data governance, and (b) analyzing and comparing existing frameworks, specifically investigating six key elements: purpose, principles, anchoring documents, data description and lifecycle, processes, and practices. The article closes with a series of final recommendations, which include adopting a broader concept of data stewardship to reconcile data protection and promotion, focusing on responsible reuse of data to unlock socioeconomic value, harmonizing meanings to operationalize principles, incorporating global human rights frameworks to provide common North Stars, unifying key definitions of data, adopting a data lifecycle approach, incorporating participatory processes and collective agency, investing in new professions with specific roles, improving accountability through oversight and compliance mechanisms, and translating recommendations into practical tools.
{"title":"Informing the Global Data Future: Benchmarking Data Governance Frameworks","authors":"Sara Marcucci, Natalia González Alarcón, S. Verhulst, Elena Wüllhorst","doi":"10.1017/dap.2023.24","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2023.24","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Data has become a critical trans-national and cross-border resource. Yet, the lack of a well-defined approach to using it poses challenges to harnessing its value. This article explores the increasing importance of global data governance due to the rapid growth of data, and the need for responsible data practices. The purpose of this paper is to compare approaches and identify patterns in the emergent data governance ecosystem within sectors close to the international development field, ultimately presenting key takeaways and reflections on when and why a global data governance framework may be needed. Overall, the paper provides information about the conditions when a more holistic, coordinated transnational approach to data governance may be needed to responsibly manage the global flow of data. The report does this by (a) considering conditions specified by the literature that may be conducive to global data governance, and (b) analyzing and comparing existing frameworks, specifically investigating six key elements: purpose, principles, anchoring documents, data description and lifecycle, processes, and practices. The article closes with a series of final recommendations, which include adopting a broader concept of data stewardship to reconcile data protection and promotion, focusing on responsible reuse of data to unlock socioeconomic value, harmonizing meanings to operationalize principles, incorporating global human rights frameworks to provide common North Stars, unifying key definitions of data, adopting a data lifecycle approach, incorporating participatory processes and collective agency, investing in new professions with specific roles, improving accountability through oversight and compliance mechanisms, and translating recommendations into practical tools.","PeriodicalId":93427,"journal":{"name":"Data & policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41770378","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Many international organisations have recently acknowledged the significance of whistleblowing in preventing institutional corruption, particularly in the public sector. Likewise, many countries have enacted whistleblower protection laws, though a robust whistleblower protection system certainly requires much more than legislation. One challenge in developing effective protection systems is finding empirical evidence to evaluate existing systems. Can we measure the effectiveness of whistleblower protection systems accross different countries? What conditions do we need to make the whistleblower protection system work effectively in the public sector? This paper investigates two cases: South Korea and the Republic of Kosovo. South Korean data comes from the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission of South Korea, while its counterpart from Kosovo comes from a survey of 400 public officials about whistleblower protection. By analysing both datasets, this paper creates a new index that evaluates the effectiveness of whistleblower protection. Composed of quantitative and qualitative sub-indices, the index serves as a digital comparison tool for assessing whistleblower protection systems across different countries and at different times. In addition to enacting high-quality laws, this index identifies several additional measures that can strengthen whistleblower protection systems in the public sector.
许多国际组织最近都承认了举报在防止机构腐败方面的重要性，特别是在公共部门。同样，许多国家都制定了保护举报人的法律，尽管健全的举报人保护制度当然需要的不仅仅是立法。开发有效保护系统的一个挑战是寻找经验证据来评估现有系统。我们能否衡量不同国家的举报人保护制度的有效性?要使举报人保护制度在公共部门有效地发挥作用，我们需要什么条件?本文调查了两个案例:韩国和科索沃共和国。韩国的数据来自韩国反腐败和民权委员会(Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission of South Korea)，而科索沃的数据来自一项针对400名公职人员的关于保护举报人的调查。通过分析这两个数据集，本文创建了一个评估举报人保护有效性的新指标。该指数由定量和定性分项指数组成，是评估不同国家和不同时期举报人保护制度的数字比较工具。除了制定高质量的法律外，该指数还确定了一些可以加强公共部门举报人保护制度的其他措施。
{"title":"Evaluating the effectiveness of whistleblower protection: A new index","authors":"Shpresa Kaçiku Baljija, Kyoung-sun Min","doi":"10.1017/dap.2023.20","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2023.20","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Many international organisations have recently acknowledged the significance of whistleblowing in preventing institutional corruption, particularly in the public sector. Likewise, many countries have enacted whistleblower protection laws, though a robust whistleblower protection system certainly requires much more than legislation. One challenge in developing effective protection systems is finding empirical evidence to evaluate existing systems. Can we measure the effectiveness of whistleblower protection systems accross different countries? What conditions do we need to make the whistleblower protection system work effectively in the public sector? This paper investigates two cases: South Korea and the Republic of Kosovo. South Korean data comes from the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission of South Korea, while its counterpart from Kosovo comes from a survey of 400 public officials about whistleblower protection. By analysing both datasets, this paper creates a new index that evaluates the effectiveness of whistleblower protection. Composed of quantitative and qualitative sub-indices, the index serves as a digital comparison tool for assessing whistleblower protection systems across different countries and at different times. In addition to enacting high-quality laws, this index identifies several additional measures that can strengthen whistleblower protection systems in the public sector.","PeriodicalId":93427,"journal":{"name":"Data & policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47328863","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
P. Kamath, Nachiket Gudi, C. Staunton, A. Jacob, Oommen John
Abstract The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to the irrational use of drugs in the absence of clinical management guidelines. Access to individual participant data (IPD) from clinical trials aids the evidence synthesis approaches. We undertook a rapid review to infer IPD sharing intentions based on data availability statements by the principal investigators (PIs) of drug and vaccine trials in the context of COVID-19. Searches were conducted on PubMed (NCBI). We considered randomized controlled trial (RCT) publications from January 1, 2020, to October 31, 2021. IPD sharing intentions were inferred based on the data availability statements in the full-text manuscript publications. We included 180 articles. Of these, 81.7% (147/180) of the publications have arrived from the findings of the RCTs alone, 12.8% (23/180) of the publications were protocol publications alone, and 5.6% (10/180) of the RCTs had both published protocol and publication from the trial findings. We have reported IPD sharing intentions separately in RCT protocol publications (n = 23 + 10) and publications from RCT findings (n = 147 + 10). Among RCT protocol publications, one-third (11/33) of the PIs intended to share IPD. In fact, over half of the PIs (52.2%, 82/157) in their published RCT findings intended to share IPD. However, information to share about IPD was missing for 57.6% (19/33) of RCT protocols and 38.2% (60/157) of published RCT findings. Stakeholders must work together to ensure that overarching factors, such as legislation that governs clinical trial practices, are streamlined to bolster IPD sharing mechanisms.
{"title":"Individual participant data sharing intentions and practices during the coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic: A rapid review","authors":"P. Kamath, Nachiket Gudi, C. Staunton, A. Jacob, Oommen John","doi":"10.1017/dap.2023.26","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2023.26","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to the irrational use of drugs in the absence of clinical management guidelines. Access to individual participant data (IPD) from clinical trials aids the evidence synthesis approaches. We undertook a rapid review to infer IPD sharing intentions based on data availability statements by the principal investigators (PIs) of drug and vaccine trials in the context of COVID-19. Searches were conducted on PubMed (NCBI). We considered randomized controlled trial (RCT) publications from January 1, 2020, to October 31, 2021. IPD sharing intentions were inferred based on the data availability statements in the full-text manuscript publications. We included 180 articles. Of these, 81.7% (147/180) of the publications have arrived from the findings of the RCTs alone, 12.8% (23/180) of the publications were protocol publications alone, and 5.6% (10/180) of the RCTs had both published protocol and publication from the trial findings. We have reported IPD sharing intentions separately in RCT protocol publications (n = 23 + 10) and publications from RCT findings (n = 147 + 10). Among RCT protocol publications, one-third (11/33) of the PIs intended to share IPD. In fact, over half of the PIs (52.2%, 82/157) in their published RCT findings intended to share IPD. However, information to share about IPD was missing for 57.6% (19/33) of RCT protocols and 38.2% (60/157) of published RCT findings. Stakeholders must work together to ensure that overarching factors, such as legislation that governs clinical trial practices, are streamlined to bolster IPD sharing mechanisms.","PeriodicalId":93427,"journal":{"name":"Data & policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48735607","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Governments all over the world are rapidly embracing digital technologies for information collection, governance, and social control. Recent studies suggest citizens may accept or even support digital surveillance. By using an online survey dataset on public opinion about facial recognition technology, contact tracing apps, and the social credit system in China, Germany, the US, and the UK, this article shows that these studies have overlooked a small yet significant group of digital technology doubters. Our results show that while up to 10% of Chinese citizens belong to the group of “digital doubters,” this group is the largest in Germany with 30% of citizens. The US and the UK are in the middle with approximately 20%. While citizens who belong to this group of digital doubters worry about privacy and surveillance issues, their attitudes can also be explained by them not being convinced of the benefits of digital technologies, including improved efficiency, security, or convenience. We find that the more citizens lack trust in their government, the more likely they are to belong to the group of digital doubters. Our findings demonstrate that in both democratic and authoritarian states, there are citizens opposing the adoption of certain digital technologies. This underscores the importance of initiating societal debate to determine the appropriate regulations that align with these societal preferences.
{"title":"Digital doubters in different political and cultural contexts: Comparing citizen attitudes across three major digital technologies","authors":"Genia Kostka","doi":"10.1017/dap.2023.25","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2023.25","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Governments all over the world are rapidly embracing digital technologies for information collection, governance, and social control. Recent studies suggest citizens may accept or even support digital surveillance. By using an online survey dataset on public opinion about facial recognition technology, contact tracing apps, and the social credit system in China, Germany, the US, and the UK, this article shows that these studies have overlooked a small yet significant group of digital technology doubters. Our results show that while up to 10% of Chinese citizens belong to the group of “digital doubters,” this group is the largest in Germany with 30% of citizens. The US and the UK are in the middle with approximately 20%. While citizens who belong to this group of digital doubters worry about privacy and surveillance issues, their attitudes can also be explained by them not being convinced of the benefits of digital technologies, including improved efficiency, security, or convenience. We find that the more citizens lack trust in their government, the more likely they are to belong to the group of digital doubters. Our findings demonstrate that in both democratic and authoritarian states, there are citizens opposing the adoption of certain digital technologies. This underscores the importance of initiating societal debate to determine the appropriate regulations that align with these societal preferences.","PeriodicalId":93427,"journal":{"name":"Data & policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45773275","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jacob L. Macdonald, Mark Green, M. Gibin, Simon Leech, A. Singleton, P. Longley
{"title":"Local Data Spaces: Leveraging trusted research environments for secure location-based policy research in the age of coronavirus disease-2019 – CORRIGENDUM","authors":"Jacob L. Macdonald, Mark Green, M. Gibin, Simon Leech, A. Singleton, P. Longley","doi":"10.1017/dap.2023.23","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2023.23","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":93427,"journal":{"name":"Data & policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43724511","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
E. Tan, Maxime Petit Jean, Anthony Simonofski, Thomas Tombal, Bjorn Kleizen, M. Sabbe, Lucas Bechoux, Pauline Willem
Abstract The use of artificial intelligence and algorithmic decision-making in public policy processes is influenced by a range of diverse drivers. This article provides a comprehensive view of 13 drivers and their interrelationships, identified through empirical findings from the taxation and social security domains in Belgium. These drivers are organized into five hierarchical layers that policy designers need to focus on when introducing advanced analytics in fraud detection: (a) trust layer, (b) interoperability layer, (c) perceived benefits layer, (d) data governance layer, and (e) digital governance layer. The layered approach enables a holistic view of assessing adoption challenges concerning new digital technologies. The research uses thematic analysis and interpretive structural modeling.
{"title":"Artificial intelligence and algorithmic decisions in fraud detection: An interpretive structural model","authors":"E. Tan, Maxime Petit Jean, Anthony Simonofski, Thomas Tombal, Bjorn Kleizen, M. Sabbe, Lucas Bechoux, Pauline Willem","doi":"10.1017/dap.2023.22","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2023.22","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The use of artificial intelligence and algorithmic decision-making in public policy processes is influenced by a range of diverse drivers. This article provides a comprehensive view of 13 drivers and their interrelationships, identified through empirical findings from the taxation and social security domains in Belgium. These drivers are organized into five hierarchical layers that policy designers need to focus on when introducing advanced analytics in fraud detection: (a) trust layer, (b) interoperability layer, (c) perceived benefits layer, (d) data governance layer, and (e) digital governance layer. The layered approach enables a holistic view of assessing adoption challenges concerning new digital technologies. The research uses thematic analysis and interpretive structural modeling.","PeriodicalId":93427,"journal":{"name":"Data & policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44621436","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Bribery for access to public goods and services remains a widespread and seemingly innocuous practice which disproportionately targets the poor and helps keep them poor. Furthermore, its aggregate effects erode the legitimacy of government institutions and their capacity to fairly administer public goods and services as well as protection under the law. Drawing on original evidence using social norms methodology, this research tests underlying beliefs and expectations which sustain persistent forms of bribery and draws attention to the presence of pluralistic ignorance and consequent collective action problems. With examples focused on bribery in traffic law enforcement, healthcare, and education—three critical areas where bribery is often identified as an entrenched practice—this article contributes new evidence of: (a) the presence of pluralistic ignorance, a common social comparison error, surrounding bribery behavior; (b) differing social evaluations of bribe-solicitation; and finally, (c) how this context might exacerbate collective action problems. This empirical case study of Nigeria shows that even though more people are likely to be directly affected by bribery during routine interactions with public officials and institutions and many believe this practice is wrong, most people incorrectly believe that others in their community tolerate or even accept bribery behavior.
{"title":"Petty bribery, pluralistic ignorance, and the collective action problem","authors":"Leena K. Hoffmann, R. Patel","doi":"10.1017/dap.2023.19","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2023.19","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Bribery for access to public goods and services remains a widespread and seemingly innocuous practice which disproportionately targets the poor and helps keep them poor. Furthermore, its aggregate effects erode the legitimacy of government institutions and their capacity to fairly administer public goods and services as well as protection under the law. Drawing on original evidence using social norms methodology, this research tests underlying beliefs and expectations which sustain persistent forms of bribery and draws attention to the presence of pluralistic ignorance and consequent collective action problems. With examples focused on bribery in traffic law enforcement, healthcare, and education—three critical areas where bribery is often identified as an entrenched practice—this article contributes new evidence of: (a) the presence of pluralistic ignorance, a common social comparison error, surrounding bribery behavior; (b) differing social evaluations of bribe-solicitation; and finally, (c) how this context might exacerbate collective action problems. This empirical case study of Nigeria shows that even though more people are likely to be directly affected by bribery during routine interactions with public officials and institutions and many believe this practice is wrong, most people incorrectly believe that others in their community tolerate or even accept bribery behavior.","PeriodicalId":93427,"journal":{"name":"Data & policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43693178","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Giovanni Liva, Marina Micheli, S. Schade, A. Kotsev, Matteo Gori, Cristiano Codagnone
the
这个
{"title":"City data ecosystems between theory and practice: A qualitative exploratory study in seven European cities – CORRIGENDUM","authors":"Giovanni Liva, Marina Micheli, S. Schade, A. Kotsev, Matteo Gori, Cristiano Codagnone","doi":"10.1017/dap.2023.21","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2023.21","url":null,"abstract":"the","PeriodicalId":93427,"journal":{"name":"Data & policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45742508","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jacob L. Macdonald, Mark Green, M. Gibin, Simon Leech, A. Singleton, Paul Longely
Abstract This work explores the use of Trusted Research Environments for the secure analysis of sensitive, record-level data on local coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) inequalities and economic vulnerabilities. The Local Data Spaces (LDS) project was a targeted rapid response and cross-disciplinary collaborative initiative using the Office for National Statistics’ Secure Research Service for localized comparison and analysis of health and economic outcomes over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Embedded researchers worked on co-producing a range of locally focused insights and reports built on secure secondary data and made appropriately open and available to the public and all local stakeholders for wider use. With secure infrastructure and overall data governance practices in place, accredited researchers were able to access a wealth of detailed data and resources to facilitate more targeted local policy analysis. Working with data within such infrastructure as part of a larger research project involved advanced planning and coordination to be efficient. As new and novel granular data resources become securely available (e.g., record-level administrative digital health records or consumer data), a range of local policy insights can be gained across issues of public health or local economic vitality. Many of these new forms of data however often come with a large degree of sensitivity around issues of personal identifiability and how the data is used for public-facing research and require secure and responsible use. Learning to work appropriately with secure data and research environments can open up many avenues for collaboration and analysis.
{"title":"Local Data Spaces: Leveraging trusted research environments for secure location-based policy research in the age of coronavirus disease-2019","authors":"Jacob L. Macdonald, Mark Green, M. Gibin, Simon Leech, A. Singleton, Paul Longely","doi":"10.1017/dap.2023.14","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2023.14","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This work explores the use of Trusted Research Environments for the secure analysis of sensitive, record-level data on local coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) inequalities and economic vulnerabilities. The Local Data Spaces (LDS) project was a targeted rapid response and cross-disciplinary collaborative initiative using the Office for National Statistics’ Secure Research Service for localized comparison and analysis of health and economic outcomes over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Embedded researchers worked on co-producing a range of locally focused insights and reports built on secure secondary data and made appropriately open and available to the public and all local stakeholders for wider use. With secure infrastructure and overall data governance practices in place, accredited researchers were able to access a wealth of detailed data and resources to facilitate more targeted local policy analysis. Working with data within such infrastructure as part of a larger research project involved advanced planning and coordination to be efficient. As new and novel granular data resources become securely available (e.g., record-level administrative digital health records or consumer data), a range of local policy insights can be gained across issues of public health or local economic vitality. Many of these new forms of data however often come with a large degree of sensitivity around issues of personal identifiability and how the data is used for public-facing research and require secure and responsible use. Learning to work appropriately with secure data and research environments can open up many avenues for collaboration and analysis.","PeriodicalId":93427,"journal":{"name":"Data & policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45256996","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract To harness the promises of digital transformation, different players take different paths. Departing from corporate-driven (e.g., the United States) and state-led (e.g., China) approaches, in various documents, the European Union states its goal to establish a citizen-centric data ecosystem. However, it remains contentious the extent to which the envisioned digital single market can enable the creation of public value and empower citizens. As an alternative, in this article, we argue in favor of a fair data ecosystem, defined as an approach capable of representing and keep in balance the data interests of all actors, while maintain a collective outlook. We build such ecosystem around data commons—as a third path to market and state approaches to the managing of resources—coupled with open data (OD) frameworks and spatial data infrastructures (SDIs). Indeed, based on literature, we claim that these three regimes complement each other, with OD and SDIs supplying infrastructures and institutionalization to data commons’ limited replicability and scalability. This creates the preconditions for designing the main roles, rules, and mechanisms of a data republic, as a possible enactment of a fair data ecosystem. While outlining here its main traits, the testing of the data republic model is open for further research.
{"title":"A fourth way to the digital transformation: The data republic as a fair data ecosystem","authors":"S. Calzati, B. Van Loenen","doi":"10.1017/dap.2023.18","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2023.18","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract To harness the promises of digital transformation, different players take different paths. Departing from corporate-driven (e.g., the United States) and state-led (e.g., China) approaches, in various documents, the European Union states its goal to establish a citizen-centric data ecosystem. However, it remains contentious the extent to which the envisioned digital single market can enable the creation of public value and empower citizens. As an alternative, in this article, we argue in favor of a fair data ecosystem, defined as an approach capable of representing and keep in balance the data interests of all actors, while maintain a collective outlook. We build such ecosystem around data commons—as a third path to market and state approaches to the managing of resources—coupled with open data (OD) frameworks and spatial data infrastructures (SDIs). Indeed, based on literature, we claim that these three regimes complement each other, with OD and SDIs supplying infrastructures and institutionalization to data commons’ limited replicability and scalability. This creates the preconditions for designing the main roles, rules, and mechanisms of a data republic, as a possible enactment of a fair data ecosystem. While outlining here its main traits, the testing of the data republic model is open for further research.","PeriodicalId":93427,"journal":{"name":"Data & policy","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57162353","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","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：