Tag Archives: complexity

The learning State: integrating social innovation into mainstream policy

I joined a Council of Europe workgroup on Quality job creation through social links and social innovation (the social innovation part is a recent add to the group’s name, and I think I am partly responsible for the add). One of the issues we are discussing is this: given that there is an interesting group of people who started calling themselves social innovators; given that these people seem to have potential for improving the society they (and we) live in; given that they look like a new kind of social and economic agent, as such requiring a new kind of public policy – the ones in place for firms and nonprofit orgs might not work in their case; given all this, it follows that public authorities might soon be required to do new things, perhaps radically new ones. That’s great; but how do public authorities actually learn?

This looks like a relevant question to me. I have worked on pilot government initiatives hailed by some as innovative, like Kublai or Visioni Urbane; the challenge they now face is integration into mainstream policy, becoming a part of the default arsenal for their parent authorities to do their job. Thanks to the Council of Europe’s support I have been able to look deeper into the issue. My provisional conclusion is that the prevailing learning model for public authorities is rational-Weberian and way off the mark. Here’s how it works:

a new issue, after its importance has been validated by the scientific community, gains importance in the eye of the public opinion.
politicians, competing for votes, include it in the list of issues they promise to tackle once elected.
after taking office, representatives embed action to be taken thereabout into law.
new law is enacted into policy

This model is elegant but useless. It only works if (1) alternative courses of actions can be identified, discussed and selected already in the democratic debate phase; (2) the electorate has effective means to enforce their pact with its representatives, constraining them to keep their promise by making law; (3) law enactment is “linear”, i.e. a law translates unambiguously in a course of action at the level of the executive branch (the main tool for law enactment is generally assumed to be the impersonal, rational Weberian bureaucracy); (4) and policy is a one way street: government acts upon society, trying to mould it according to its goals, whereas society does not exert any influence on government, save through the democratic process. None of this is even remotely true.

So what? So it makes more sense to abandon Weber and the mechanism metaphor for framing governance, and embrace an ecosystem metaphor instead. I propose to look at public authorities as complex adapive systems, coevolving with society and the economy. Teaching them to deal with social innovation – or anything they never experienced before – means helping them to think of economic and social agents as driven by evolutionary forces that reward the fittest. Policy, then, works best by shaping the fitness landscape, and letting agents work their way through it towards the desired outcome. It is a policy that enables and incentivizes agents to give input, rather than forcing outcomes top-down. This has clear implication for designing policies in practice. One of them is that a constitutional architecture that enables bottom-up learning (like Common law) is inherently superior to one that does not.

If you care about this topic, you can read the paper: the Council of Europe authorized me to share it online. Thanks to Gilda Farrell and Fabio Ragonese for the kind concession.

Lo Stato che impara: come integrare l’innovazione sociale nelle politiche mainstream

2 Replies

Faccio parte di un gruppo di lavoro al Consiglio d’Europa che si occupa di “Quality job creation through social links and social innovation” (l’espressione “social innovation” è un’aggiunta recente al nome del gruppo; di questa aggiunta credo di essere in parte responsabile). Uno dei problemi che ci stiamo ponendo è questo: stante che esiste un gruppo di persone interessanti, che chiamano se stessi innovatori sociali; stante che queste persone sembrano avere un potenziale per migliorare la società che abitano; stante che sembra si tratti di soggetti di nuovo tipo – che, quindi, richiedono politiche pubbliche di nuovo tipo, diverse da quelle per le imprese e per il mondo del non profit; stante tutto questo, ne consegue che alle autorità pubbliche si richiede di fare cose nuove, forse anche radicalmente nuove. Bene. Ma come imparano le istituzioni?

Mi sembra una domanda importante. Ho lavorato a progetti pilota pubblici apprezzati come innovativi (Kublai o Visioni Urbane, per esempio); la sfida che attende questi progetti è la trasformazione in metodi che fanno parte del normale arsenale con cui le autorità che li hanno varati affrontano il mondo. Con il sostegno del Consiglio d’Europa ho potuto affrontare il problema in modo strutturato. La mia conclusione provvisoria è che il modello prevalente di apprendimento per le autorità pubbliche è razionale-weberiano e completamente sbagliato. Funziona così:

Un problema nuovo viene avvertito dalla pubblica opinione
Politici in concorrenza tra loro per i voti degli elettori lo incorporano nelle loro piattaforme elettorali, insieme alle soluzioni che propongono
Una volta eletti, i rappresentanti del popolo legiferano in conseguenza delle loro piattaforme elettorali
La nuova legge si trasforma, in modo lineare, in policy, cioè in azione da parte del governo

Questo modello è elegante ma inutilizzabile. Richiederebbe (1) che politiche alternative (per esempio: carbone pulito vs. rinnovabile vs. nucleare per la politica energetica) potessero venire discusse in profondità e in modo razionale già nelle campagne elettorali; (2) che l’elettorato avesse modi efficaci di vincolare gli eletti alle loro promesse elettorali; (3) che la conversione di una legge in policy fosse “lineare” e non richiedesse interpretazione da parte dell’esecutivo; e (4) che le politiche fossero una strada a senso unico, cioè un fenomeno che influenza la società ma non ne viene a sua volta influenzato. Nessuno di questi requisiti è soddisfatto, nemmeno lontanamente.

E allora? Allora ha più senso abbandonare Weber e la metafora del meccanismo come strumento per capire l’azione di governo, e abbracciare invece, quella dell’ecosistema. Propongo di considerare le autorità pubbliche come sistemi adattivi complessi che coevolvono con la società e l’economia. Insegnare loro ad avere a che fare con l’innovazione sociale – o qualunque cosa nuova, al di fuori della loro esperienza – significa cercare di aiutarle a pensare gli agenti economici e sociali come mossi dalle forze dell’evoluzione, che naturalmente premiano il più adatto. La policy, in questo contesto, diventa l’atto di strutturare un fitness landscape che porti gli agenti ad incamminarsi verso il risultato auspicato. Invece di preterminare i propri esiti top-down, essa abilita e incentiva gli agenti a fornirle input. Questo ha precise conseguenze sulla progettazione dell’azione di governo in pratica. Una di queste è che un’architettura costituzionale che abilita l’apprendimento dal basso (come la Common law) è intrinsecamente superiore a una che non lo fa.

Se ti interessa l’argomento puoi leggere il paper (in inglese): il Consiglio d’Europa mi ha autorizzato a condividerlo. Grazie a Gilda Farrell e Fabio Ragonese per la gentile concessione.

Narratives of innovation: techno tarot@Drumbeat

2 Replies

According to David Lane, sometimes we need to make decisions in a condition that he calls of ontological uncertainty. That means we have no means of painting an exhaustive picture of the situation and of the full range of moves we can possibly make; and certainly we are unable to foresee the consequences of the few moves we can imagine. In a famous article, David asks us to consider the situaton of a Bosnian diplomat trying to bring an end to the bloodshed in his country in early September 1995:

It is very difficult to decide who are his friends and who his foes. First he fights against the Croats, then with them. His army struggles against an army composed of Bosnian Serbs, but his cousin and other Muslim dissidents fight alongside them. What can he expect from the UN securiy forces, from the NATO bombers, from Western politicians, from Belgrade and Zagreb, from Moscow? Who matters and what do they want? On whom can he rely, for what? He doesn’t know – and when he thinks he does, the next day it changes.

How to make decisions in such a situation? Answer: by telling yourself stories. Humans are good at storytelling: if you recognize yourself as the hero of a story, he will inspire your course of action, just like Don Quixote changed his life to model it in on medieval chivalry epics.

Innovation often happens in ontological uncertainty conditions. It is certainly possible to have a well defined goal in terms of producing an artefact, but the market system that depends on what people will use that artifact for – is always emergent. Movable type printing was a well-defined R&D project, but Gutenberg could not have forseen Aldus Manutius’s portable book and and the Umanesimo movement in Italy in the Renaissance; Henry Ford rationalized car production, but he could not have foreseen bedroom communities and mass commuting. To build and bring to market an innovation means acting in a changing context, like that of our Bosnian diplomat. And that requires storytelling.

Nadia El-Imam has come up with the idea to help people to tell stories about themselves and what they are doing with technology. She uses a special deck of tarot cards she designed herself (in lieu of the Hermit and the Magician she has arcana like the Server, the Developer and the Interface). Dressed up as a gypsy fortune teller, she offered to divine the future of the various geeks gathered at Mozilla Drumbeat in Barcelona. It was a roaring success, with a permanent queue of people waiting to interrogate her tarot. Among them, entrepreneur and venture capitalist Joi Ito (in the video). Engaging with Nadia and the cards, innovators make sense of what they are doing, and look for a way to complete their quests.

In their own unusual way, Nadia’s techno tarot are a platform, that lends itself to be used for collecting ethnographic data on innovation, for technology counseling and who knows for what else. I am quite curious to see how it all evolves.