Publications

This guide for public officials and policy makers outlines eight models for institutionalising representative public deliberation to improve collective decision making and strengthen democracy. Deliberative bodies like citizens’ assemblies create the democratic spaces for broadly representative groups of people to learn together, grapple with complexity, listen to one another, and find common ground on solutions. Increasingly, public authorities are reinforcing democracy by making use of deliberative processes in a structural way, beyond one-off initiatives that are often dependent on political will. The guide provides examples of how to create structures that allow representative public deliberation to become an integral part of how certain types of public decisions are taken.

Evaluations of representative deliberative processes do not happen regularly, not least due to the lack of specific guidance for their evaluation. To respond to this need, together with an expert advisory group, the OECD has developed Evaluation Guidelines for Representative Deliberative Processes. They aim to encourage public authorities, organisers, and evaluators to conduct more comprehensive, objective, and comparable evaluations. These evaluation guidelines establish minimum standards and criteria for the evaluation of representative deliberative processes as a foundation on which more comprehensive evaluations can be built by adding additional criteria according to specific contexts and needs. The guidelines suggest that independent evaluations are the most comprehensive and reliable way of evaluating a deliberative process. For smaller and shorter deliberative processes, evaluation in the form of self-reporting by members and/or organisers of a deliberative process can also contribute to the learning process.

UNESCO member states adopt the first ever global agreement on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence

Governments are created and run by humans, who can experience the same behavioural biases and barriers as individuals in society. Therefore, it makes sense to explore how behavioural insights (BI) can be applied to the governance of regulatory policy making, and not just to the design of regulations themselves. Applying BI can help improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the decision-making process, which can, in turn, help improve regulatory decisions. This paper maps the ways in which barriers and biases can affect the institutions, processes and tools of regulatory governance, with a focus on regulatory oversight bodies and regulatory management tools. It concludes with practical ways governments can translate these findings into research and reforms that can help future-proof regulatory policy making and ensure it is agile, responsive and fit for tackling important and complex policy challenges.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a peculiar case of General Purpose Technology that differs from other examples in history because it embeds specific uncertainties or ambiguous character that may lead to a number of risks when used to support transformative solutions in the public sector. AI has extremely powerful and, in many cases, disruptive effects on the internal management, decision-making and service provision processes of public administration. Over the past few years, the European Union and its Member States have designed regulatory policies and initiatives to mitigate the AI risks and make its opportunities a reality for national, regional and local government institutions. ‘AI Watch’ is one of these initiatives which has, among its goals, the monitoring of European Union’s industrial, technological, and research capacity in AI and the development of an analytical framework of the impact potential of AI in the public sector. This report, in particular, follows a previous landscaping study and collection of European cases, which was delivered in 2020. This document first introduces the concept of AI appropriation in government, seen as a sequence of two logically distinct phases, respectively named adoption and implementation of related technologies in public services and processes. Then, it analyses the situation of AI governance in the US and China and contrasts it to an emerging, truly European model, rooted in a systemic vision and with an emphasis on the revitalised role of the member states in the EU integration process, Next, it points out some critical challenges to AI implementation in the EU public sector, including: the generation of a critical mass of public investments, the availability of widely shared and suitable datasets, the improvement of AI literacy and skills in the involved staff, and the threats associated with the legitimacy of decisions taken by AI algorithms alone. Finally, it draws a set of common actions for EU decision-makers willing to undertake the systemic approach to AI governance through a more advanced equilibrium between AI promotion and regulation. The three main recommendations of this work include a more robust integration of AI with data policies, facing the issue of so-called “explainability of AI” (XAI), and broadening the current perspectives of both Pre-Commercial Procurement (PCP) and Public Procurement of Innovation (PPI) at the service of smart AI purchasing by the EU public administration. These recommendations will represent the baseline for a generic implementation roadmap for enhancing the use and impact of AI in the European public sector.

The 2021 edition includes input indicators on public finance and employment; process indicators include data on institutions, budgeting practices, human resources management, regulatory governance, public procurement, governance of infrastructure, public sector integrity, open government and digital government. Outcome indicators cover core government results (e.g. trust, political efficacy, inequality reduction) and indicators on access, responsiveness, quality and satisfaction for the education, health and justice sectors. Governance indicators are useful for monitoring and benchmarking governments’ progress in their public sector reforms.