This document summarizes a talk on policy 2.0 and lessons learned from experiences with these tools and processes. It describes the emergence of policy 2.0 since 2005 based on earlier movements in web 2.0, government 2.0, and e-rulemaking. Key tools of policy 2.0 include open data, social networks, and crowdsourcing. While promising, there are still open questions around whether policy 2.0 truly leads to more participation beyond "usual suspects" or new policy ideas. Ongoing work aims to develop frameworks to better evaluate these initiatives.

1. Policy 2.0 : a reality check
David Osimo, IPP2014

2. Today’s talk
• Theory of policy 2.0
• Examples I took part in
• Lessons learnt from experience
• Open questions and on-going work: policy 2.0
evaluation

3. The emergence of policy 2.0
2005 2008 2011+
Web 2.0
• Data is the intel
inside
• User as a producer
• Many to many
• Usability
• Permanent beta
Gov 2.0
• Politics (e.g.
Obama, mySociety)
• Public services (e.g.
Fixmystreet,
Appsfordemocracy)
Policy 2.0
• Policy-making:
• US “Policy
Informatics
Network”
• EU“ICT for
governance”
funding
• Open Policy work
by UK cabinet
• CROSSOVER
roadmap
E-rulemaking
E-deliberation
E-democracy

4. What is Policy 2.0
TOOLS
• Open data
• Social networks and
crowdsourcing
• Visualisation
• Big data simulation
• Serious gaming
VALUES
• Open up to external
contributions earlier in the
process
• Enable peer-to-peer
collaboration between
participants
• Design for unexpected
questions/contributions (Raw
data, open questions)
• Be very clear and usable when
you ask for help
• Account for real humans not
simplified abstract entities

5. Simulate impact
of options
Design
Implement
Evaluate
Brainstorming
solutions
Set agenda
Drafting
proposals Revising
proposals
Ensure
Buy-in
Collaborativ
e action
Induce
behavioural
change
Monitor
Collect execution
feedback
Set priorities
Identify
problems
Collect
evidence
Analyze data
Uservoice,
ideascale
Etherpad
Co-ment.com
Social
networks
Challenge.
gov
Persuasive
technologies
Open data
Participatr
y sensing
Open Data
visualization
Open
discussion
Collaborati
ve
visualizatio
n
Evidencechall
enge.com
Policy
cycle
Model and
simulation
Source: CROSSOVER roadmap

6. Simulate impact
of options
Design
Implement
Evaluate
Ideamocracy.it
Brainstorming
solutions
Set agenda
Drafting
proposals Revising
proposals
Ensure
Buy-in
Collaborativ
e action
Induce
behavioural
change
Monitor
Collect execution
feedback
Declaration on
Set priorities
Identify
problems
Collect
evidence
Analyze data
OpenIdeo
CommentNeelie.
eu
Linkedpoli
cies.eu
INCA
awards
Daeimplem
entation.eu
Open
EU public
services
Digital
Agenda
Mid Term
review
Policy
cycle
Kublai
evaluation
Pledge
Tracker

7. Lessons learnt
Source: UNDP – Open Evidence

8. It’s not about “total citizens”
• DAE Mid Term Review: More insightful than
representative
Contributions
1% left more than 50 contributions and more than 100 tweets
60% left 1 contributions and made 1 tweet
People
6

9. It’s doesn’t have to be totally open to
the crowd
Open Declaration on European Public
Services
Open to all
Digital Agenda Mid Term review Open to all, 2000 comments received,
1500 participants
Pledge Tracker Only to those organisations committing to
the Grand Coalition for Digital Jobs
OpenIdeo Members of the OpenIdeo community
Daeimplementation Collaborative platform for EU MS
representative
Young Advisors to VP Neelie Kroes Appointed Young Advisors
Need for restricted online spaces

10. Not all the time open
Fuente: http://ebiinterfaces.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/ux-people-
autumn-2010-talks/
Open
brainstorming
Small groups
drafting
Open
commenting
Small group
re-drafting
Open
endorsement
EU Open
Declaration:

11. A reality check: policy-making 2.0 still
more promising than impactful
• 2050 PATHWAYS : high usage (16K pathways created, 200
stakeholders involved in the building phase). Higher
awareness by citizens. Output used by govt to back up the
Carbon Strategy.
• GLEAM: adopted by mainstream gov’t agency to anticipate
disease spread through transportation. Adopted also for
educational purposes
• OPINION SPACE 3.0: significant participation (5K individuals) ,
endorsement at top level (Secretary of State Clinton)
• URBANSIM: High usage by US local gov’t
Lack of systematic robust evaluation of different policy-methods.
Initial evidence points to the potential impact, but very far
from counterfactual / RCT approach available to date.

12. Open questions
– Does Policy 2.0 favour the participation of people
beyond the “usual suspects”? Is it only for the
elite?
– Does it bring new relevant ideas useful for policy-making?
– Does it actually lead to better policies?

13. Ongoing work: an evaluation framework
Source: UNDP – Open Evidence

14. Value for money
Cost per comment (EUR)
90
550
Kublai EU ePar cipa on
project

15. There’s elite and elite: who benefits?
Participate in policy debate
Low quality of ideas High quality of ideas
15
Usual suspects No problem
Not
interested/interesting
Missed opportunity
Don’t participate in policy debate
Source: adapted
from Kublai
evaluation

16. Application of logical framework to EU
Community project
Before joining Kublai... Significant correlation between
37%
47%
58%
26%
I had used other services to support project
prepara on
I had received public funding
I had managed an ini a ve (profit or
I had dra ed a project
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
nonprofit)
experience and benefit received
Y N
Experience
Benefit

17. Remember the debate on universal right
to vote
• Perversity: it will reinforce the power of the elites
• Futility: people won’t participate anyway
• Jeopardy: it will lead to a rise in populism
Hirschmann, The Rethorics of Reaction
• BUT: participation has educational effects, as the
worker through political discussion opens his mind
beyond the limitations of the factory, understands
the relation between personal interests and faraway
events, and becomes member of the community
Locke quoted in Bobbio, The Future of Democracy

18. Summing up
• Policy 2.0 (or whatever we call it) is richer and more
complex than crowdsourcing
• It is a growing and promising trend in research and
practice
• There are open questions regarding its impact that
deserve thorough scrutiny
• Yet we should always remember that public
involvement in policy-making is a goal in itself and it
should not be justified by evidence, but by values

19. Thanks
• dosimo@open-evidence.com
• Egov20.wordpress.com
• @osimod