CALL FOR PAPERS - ICPP 2019 T02P14 - IT-Mediated Platforms and the Public Sector: Applications of Sharing Economy, Blockchains and Crowdsourcing

CALL FOR PAPERS - ICPP 2019 T02P14 - IT-Mediated Platforms and the Public Sector: Applications of Sharing Economy, Blockchains and Crowdsourcing
   

5bf7ffba86fa0.jpg

CALL FOR PAPERS

 

T02P14 - IT-Mediated Platforms and the Public Sector: Applications of Sharing Economy, Blockchains and Crowdsourcing

http://www.ippapublicpolicy.org/conference/icpp4-montreal-2019/panel-list/10/panel/it-mediated-platforms-and-the-public-sector-applications-of-sharing-economy-block-chains-and-crowd-sourcing/858

Panel Chair: Araz Taeihagh, NUS  

 

Abstract submission deadline: 30 January 2019

Platforms significantly increase the ease of interactions and transactions in society. In the public sector, platforms are a way to improve public service delivery and solve increasingly “wicked” problems that characterize societies today (Head 2008; Hautamäki & Oksanen 2018; Janssen & Estevez 2013; Layne & Lee 2001; Bertot et al. 2010). Aided with information technology, public agencies can derive insights from a critical mass of citizens through platforms and improve citizen participation, transparency, policy design, and political legitimacy (Prpić et al. 2015; Taeihagh 2017; Voorberg et al. 2015; Bason 2010; Needham 2008; Christensen et al. 2015).
 
Platforms will transform public sector innovation, but how they are implemented and managed can introduce various risks. Platforms can diminish accountability, reduce job security for individuals, widen the digital divide and inequality, undermine privacy, and can be manipulated by crowds (Taeihagh 2017b; Loukis et al. 2017; Hautamäki & Oksanen 2018). Fragmentation among multiple platforms and the difficulty of attracting sufficient of citizen participation may also undermine platforms’ effectiveness (Hautamäki & Oksanen 2018; Janssen & Estevez 2013). Furthermore, countries without strong governance mechanisms and property rights to attract the required capital investments may face challenges in building platforms (Taeihagh 2017b). Currently, studies have yet to evaluate the extent to which platforms improve public service outcomes (Voorberg et al. 2015).
 
More recently, governments have experimented with blockchain-enabled platforms in areas such as e-voting, digital identity and storing public records (Cheng et al. 2017; Swan 2015; Wolfond 2017; Hou 2017). Blockchain's distributed, open and immutable nature offers many benefits for governments, including greater transparency, reduced corruption, greater efficiency and increased citizen participation (Ølnes et al. 2017). However, governments need to mitigate blockchain’s emerging risks such as security vulnerabilities, privacy concerns, and conflicts resulting from governance challenges (Li et al. 2017; Trump et al. 2018; Mattila & Seppälä 2018). Also, more research into the organisational changes in the public sector to accommodate blockchain-enabled applications and platforms is required (Ølnes et al. 2017).
 
This panel welcomes papers that explore IT-mediated platforms’ implications for the public sector. Key research questions to be addressed are:

 ·    Theoretical, conceptual or empirical studies that evaluate the effects of IT-mediated platforms on public service delivery and analyse how these platform activities affect the perceived political legitimacy of governments.

·    Examining the different types of challenges and risks that arise from adoption/implementation of IT-mediated platforms for public service delivery and the governance strategies to address these risks.

·    Analysis of the roles of different actors in influencing policy outcomes through participation in platforms and at different stages of policy making.

·    Theoretical and conceptual analysis of how IT-mediated platforms contribute to policy learning to improve public service delivery.

·    Examining the different types of platform governance structures in blockchain, their risks and unintended consequences (e.g. coordination challenges), and the organisational, administrative and institutional changes in the public sector to accommodate blockchain-enabled platforms.

·    Single and comparative case studies across different countries, sectors and types of IT-mediated platforms (e.g. blockchain, sharing economy, crowdsourcing

 

Abstract submission deadline 30 January 2019

More details about T02P14 - IT-Mediated Platforms and the Public Sector: Applications of Sharing Economy, Block-chains and Crowd-sourcing can be found at the ICPP Panel list below:

http://www.ippapublicpolicy.org/conference/icpp4-montreal-2019/panel-list/10/panel/it-mediated-platforms-and-the-public-sector-applications-of-sharing-economy-block-chains-and-crowd-sourcing/858

 I hope you will join us for a stimulating set of presentations at ICPP4.

——

Araz Taeihagh (DPhil, Oxon)
National University of Singapore 

469B Bukit Timah Road
Li Ka Shing Building, Level 2, #02-10
Singapore 259771

Email:    spparaz@nus.edu.sg

              araz.taeihagh@new.oxon.org
Twitter:  @arazTH

Website: www.taeihagh.com

 

PDF VERSION

REFERENCES

Bason, C. (2010). The innovation ecosystem. In (Ed.), Leading public sector innovation: Co-creating for a better society. : Policy Press, Retrieved 24 Oct. 2018
 
Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). 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(3), 264-271.
 
Cheng, S., Daub, M., Domeyer, A., & Lundqvist, M. (2017). Using blockchain to improve data management in the public sector. Digital McKinsey
 
Christensen, H. S., Karjalainen, M., & Nurminen, L. (2015). Does crowdsourcing legislation increase political legitimacy? the case of avoin ministeriö in Finland. Policy & Internet, 7(1), 25-45. doi:10.1002/poi3.80
 
Hautamäki, A., & Oksanen, K. (2018). Digital Platforms for Restructuring the Public Sector. In Collaborative Value Co-creation in the Platform Economy (pp. 91-108). Springer, Singapore.
 
Head, B. W. (2008). Wicked problems in public policy. Public policy, 3(2), 101.
 
Hou, H. (2017, July). The application of blockchain technology in E-government in China. In Computer Communication and Networks (ICCCN), 2017 26th International Conference on(pp. 1-4). IEEE.
 
Janssen, M., & Estevez, E. (2013). Lean government and platform-based governance—Doing more with less. Government Information Quarterly, 30, S1-S8.
 
Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional E-government: A four-stage model. Government information quarterly, 18(2), 122-136.
 
Li, X., Jiang, P., Chen, T., Luo, X., & Wen, Q. (2017). A survey on the security of blockchain systems. Future Generation Computer Systems.
 
Loukis, E., Charalabidis, Y., & Androutsopoulou, A. (2017). Promoting open innovation in the public sector through social media monitoring. Government Information Quarterly, 34(1), 99-109. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2016.09.004
 
Mattila, J., & Seppälä, T. (2018). Distributed Governance in Multi-sided Platforms: A Conceptual Framework from Case: Bitcoin. In Collaborative Value Co-creation in the Platform Economy (pp. 183-205). Springer, Singapore.
 
Needham, C. (2008). Realising the potential of co-production: negotiating improvements in public services. Social policy and society, 7(2), 221-231.
 
Ølnes, S., Ubacht, J., & Janssen, M. (2017). Blockchain in government: Benefits and implications of distributed ledger technology for information sharing.
 
Ølnes, S., & Jansen, A. (2017, September). Blockchain Technology as s Support Infrastructure in e-Government. In International Conference on Electronic Government (pp. 215-227). Springer, Cham.
 
Prpić, J., Taeihagh, A., & Melton, J. (2015). The fundamentals of policy crowdsourcing. Policy & Internet, 7(3), 340-361.
 
Swan, M. (2015). Blockchain: Blueprint for a new economy. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly.
 
Taeihagh, A. (2017a). Crowdsourcing: a new tool for policy-making? Policy Sciences Journal, 50(4):629-647
 
Taeihagh, A. (2017b). Crowdsourcing, Sharing Economies and Development, Journal of Developing Societies, Vol 33(2): 191–222. DOI: 10.1177/0169796X17710072
 
Trump, B. D., Wells, E., Trump, J., & Linkov, I. (2018). Cryptocurrency: Governance for what was meant to be ungovernable. Environment Systems and Decisions, 38(3), 426-430.
 
Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J., & Tummers, L. G. (2015). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333-1357.
 
Wolfond, G. (2017). A Blockchain Ecosystem for Digital Identity: Improving Service Delivery in Canada’s Public and Private Sectors. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(10).

CALL FOR PAPERS - Research Workshop on (Re) Imagining Policy Tools: New Directions in Theory and Practice

                                                                     

 

CALL FOR PAPERS

Research Workshop on

(Re) Imagining Policy Tools: New Directions in Theory and Practice

Yonsei University Seoul

March 15-16, 2019

 

Convenors:

 M Ramesh and Araz Taeihagh, National University of Singapore,

Michael Howlett, Simon Fraser University, Canada,

M. Jae Moon, Yonsei University, Korea

 

The recent proliferation of interest in policy design years has reignited interest in the analysis of policy tools. Not only are new tools and new tool hybrids such as nudging and co-production being (re)discovered and new areas of application of old tools being found, such as crowd-sourcing and co-design, but older tools are also being used in new contexts, such as advisory commissions and information provision. It is time to survey and compare these developments and (re)contextualize them within the existing literature on substantive and procedural policy instruments and policy design. 

The workshop will address and provide information on topics including:  

1.             The extent of “newness” of policy tools like nudges and crowd-sourcing vis a vismoretraditional tools like information provision and public participation;

2.             The nature and uses of “procedural tools” in general and their role in contemporary policy designs;

3.             Issues around “policy mixes”,  including those related their nature as well as issues concerning their evolution and processes such as sequencing, layering, stretching and patching;

4.             “Tool calibrations” in all their various dimensions, including their design implications and how they affect policy change;

5.             The nature of the “mechanisms” that tools activate in order to affect target behaviour: that is, better understanding why tools actually 'work' and why they are complied with;

6.             Empirical evidence on administrator, public and political behaviour around choices of policy tools; 

7.             The nature of tool’ “volatility” or the likelihood and ease with which a tool or mix can be gamed/violated by targets or implementors and its design implications;

8.             The relationship between tools and “platforms”: that is, specific kinds of ‘meta-tools’which are open-ended and multi-functional and provide the foundation for the use of other more directed tools.

Proposals from all disciplines, approaches and perspectives are welcome, so long as they shed new light on critical aspects of policy tools. Novelty, creativity, and rigour will be the main criteria for selecting proposals.High quality papers will be selected for publication as a special issue in an international journal, to be identified after proposals have been reviewed. 

A limited number of travel grants to cover the cost of economy-class travel and accommodation will be provided. 

Please send proposals (500 words) along with authors’ names, institutional affiliations, Email, and list of relevant publications to IlJoo Park at policytool2019@gmail.com no later than November 30, 2018.

Screenshot 2018-11-13 at 6.00.53 PM.png