Advertisement

Policy Making Improvement through Social Learning

  • Andrea Kő
  • András Gábor
  • Zoltán Szabó
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8061)

Abstract

The world for which policies have to be developed is becoming increasingly complex, uncertain and unpredictable. Citizens are better informed, have rising expectations and are making growing demands for services tailored to their individual needs. The traditional policy-making process – where identification of problems and solutions given are defined by a small group of politicians and experts – is characterized by several inefficiencies: risk of false identification of problems, misled setting of goals, wasted resources, unsatisfactory evaluation and, above all, inefficiently addressed societal problems. The main goal of paper is to address the above mentioned challenges through the exploitation of social learning and supporting ICT techniques for a more efficient and open policy making process. These will enable better motivation to participate by taking each opinion into account for the final solution. The paper discusses our Centralab ICT solution as a supporting environment for policy modeling. The aim of our solution is not to change policy-making processes but rather to support them with innovative ICT tools to reach the overall goal when policy-making results in better quality of democracy and improved civic capacity.

Keywords

e-government policy modeling ICT enabled policy making social learning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Baiocchi, G.: Militants and Citizens: The Politics of Participatory Democracy in Porto Alegre. Stanford University Press (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wolterstorff, N.: Understanding Liberal Democracy: Essays in Political Philosophy Edited by Terence Cuneo. Oxford University Press (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    OECD: Promise and Problems of E-Democracy. Challenges of Online Citizen Engagement. OECD Publications Service (2003), http://www.oecd.org/governance/public-innovation/35176328.pdf
  4. 4.
    Gramberger, P.S.D.M.: Citizens as partners, OECD Handbook on Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making, Published by : OECD Publishing (2001), http://www.ezd.si/fileadmin/doc/4_AKTIVNO_DRZAVLJANSTVO/Viri/Citizens_as_partners_hanbook_oecd.pdf
  5. 5.
    Aparajita, A., McConnachie, C., Sharma, D., Mehta, D., Carelli, F., Dhru, K.: A Compara-tive Survey of Procedures for Public Participation in the Legislative Process – Research Report, University of Oxford (2011), http://denning.law.ox.ac.uk/news/events_files/A_Comparative_Survey_of_Public_Participation_in_the_Legislative_Process.pdf
  6. 6.
    OECD: Evaluating Public Participation in Policy Making, OECD Publishing (2005), https://bvc.cgu.gov.br/bitstream/123456789/3674/1/evaluating_public_participation_policy_making.pdf
  7. 7.
    Cerda, B.C., Valenzuela, H.C.: Can Social Dialogue Be a Social Coordination Mechanism? Social Dialogue Policies in Chile between 1990 and 2010. Politics & Policy 40, 904–929 (2012), doi:10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00380.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bandura, A.: Social Learning Theory. General Learning Press, New York (1977)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Milbrath, L.W.: Envisioning a sustainable society. Learning our way out. State University of New York Press, New York (1989)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bertot, J.C., Jaeger, P.T., Grimes, J.M.: Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency? - E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly 27, 264–271 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jaeger, P.T., Bertot, J.C.: Designing, implementing, and evaluating user-centered and citizen-centered e-government. International Journal of Electronic Government Research 6(2), 1–17 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jaeger, P.T., Bertot, J.C.: Transparency and technological change - Ensuring equal and sustained public access to government information. Government Information Quarterly 27, 371–376 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gelders, D., Rijnja, G.: Dutch government communication professionals X-rayed - their role and attitude in public communication about policy intentions. Estudos em Comunicação (1), 26–42 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bannister, F., Connolly, R.: A Risk Framework for Electronic Voting. International Journal of Technology and Policy Management 7(2), 190–208 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lampathaki, F., Koussouris, S., Passas, S., Osimo, D., Mouzakitis, S., Tsavdaris, H., Charalabidis, Y., Askounis, D., De Luca, A., Bicking, M., Wimmer, M.: CROSSROAD: State of the Art Analysis. Brüsszel, European Commission (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Macintosh, A.R.: Argument visualization to support democratic decision-making. In: Proceedings of the eChallenges e.2004 Conference, Vienna, Austria (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Demirhan, K., Öktem, M.K.: Electronic Participation in the Policy Making Process: A Case Study. International Journal of e-Business and e-Government Studies 3(1) (2011), http://www.sobiad.org/eJOURNALS/journal_IJEBEG/arhieves/2011_1/05kamil_demirhan.pdf
  18. 18.
    Birkland, T.A.: An Introduction to the Policy Process: Theories, Concepts, and Models of Public, 2nd edn. M.E. Sharpe (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hill, M.: The Policy Process in the Modern State. Prentice-Hall, London (1997)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Parsons, W.: Public Policy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (1995)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hofferbert, R.: The Study of Public Policy. Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis (1974)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kiser, L., Ostrom, E.: The Three Worlds of Action. In: Ostrom, E. (ed.) Strategies of Political Inquiry, pp. 179–222. Sage, Beverly Hills (1982)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sabatier, P.: An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences 21, 129–168 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhang, Y., Liu, X., Wang, W.: Policy Life-cycle Model for Systems Management. IT Professional 7(2), 50–54 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Marriott, D.A.: Policy Service for Distributed Systems, PhD thesis. Imperial College of Science, Technology & Medicine, London (1997)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Koch, T.: Automated Management of Distributed Systems, Berichte aus der Informatik. Shaker Verlag (1997)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Avitable, M.: An Examination of Requirements for Metapolicies in Policy-Based Management, Thesis. Munich Technical University (1998)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    NAO (National Audit Office): Supporting innovation - Managing risk in government de-partments. HC 864 Session 1999-2000. The Stationery Office, London (2000) Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Edelenbos, J.: Managing stakeholder involvement in decision-making - a comparative analysis of six interactive processes in the Netherlands. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16(3), 417–446 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Saab, D.J.: The Ontology of Tags. In: Proceedings of the iConference 2010, February 3-6, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (2010)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Alves, H., Santanchè, A.: Folksonomized Ontologies – from social to formal. In: Proceedings of XVII Brazilian Symposium on Multimedia and the Web, pp. 58–65 (2011)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Muro, M., Jeffrey, P.: A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management processes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 51(3), 325–344 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Kő
    • 1
  • András Gábor
    • 2
  • Zoltán Szabó
    • 1
  1. 1.Corvinus University of BudapestHungary
  2. 2.Corvinno Technology Transfer Center Ltd.Hungary

Personalised recommendations