Tag Archives: public policy

The practical economist: Visioni urbane delivers the goods (with a side of Wikicracy)

Economists are commonly deemed to be more prone to abstract reasoning than to concrete action. There must be a grain of truth in this, because it is quite common to hear economists jokes in Economics Departments. This one, for example:

After a shipwreck, an economist ends up stranded on a desert island. He looks around and sees a wooden box, washed upon the shore by the waves. He opens it: it is full of canned food, nutritious and long-lasting! However, he does not have any tools to open the cans: is he doomed to starve amidst abundance? The economist does not lose his cool, and he tackles the problem the way his profession tas taught to to: “Assume I have a can-opener…”

Many of us yearn for concreteness. This is why I am so happy to fly to Potenza on Friday 4th: in May 2007 the Ministry of Economic Development asked me to help the Basilicata regional administration in designing a policy to build creative spaces, and now the first space (called Cecilia) is here, and the other four will follow in a matter of months. Not only have they been designed chiefly by the local creatives that are going to use them; they also come with clear guidelines for being turned over to private sector– and third sector entities or running them, which the competent local authorities have signed off to; and are integrated with a pretty advanced governance model of the Region’s cultural policy.

The project is called Visioni Urbane. I have dealt with it before. I’m told it’s becoming some sort of flagship project for the regional adiministration; the “Visioni Urbane method” is being demanded on tackling other policies (for example setting up a regional Film Commission), and the administration itself is building upon the partnership with the creatives created within Visioni Urbane to launch Matera’s bid for European Culture Capital 2019. It is no coincidence that the person in charge of Visioni Urbane, Rossella Tarantino, has been appointed as coordinator of that bid; and another Visioni veteran, Paolo Verri, is serving as scientific director.

My book Wikicrazia contains a lot of Visioni Urbane war stories, and the grandopening of Cecilia will include a book presentation. But what I’m really looking forward to is the joy of witnessing a policy that I helped to develop go live, live and so concrete that I can actually sit and listen to a concert in it. For an economist, this is a thrill, alas, all too rare.

The learning State: integrating social innovation into mainstream policy

1 Reply

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.