Building New Social Contracts: The Role of Digital Governance

SparkBlue
SparkBlue

This event has passed - a video recording is available below

Dear colleagues,

Thank you for joining the discussion. Please find a brief summary here as well as information about the event in the PDF document below. We encourage you to continue the discussion in the comments section below where you can share your views and perspectives, and upload relevant resources. We welcome your thoughts and contributions to the Future of Governance series, which is aimed at defining the direction of UNDP’s governance work in the years to come.

Guiding questions:

  1. How can inclusive digital governance systems help build new social contracts in a manner that promotes equilibrium not just between states and people but between different forces and interests in society?
  2. How can digital technologies be leveraged to balance foundational (e.g. civil registration/legal identity) and functional systems (e.g. health care, financial inclusion) to achieve inclusive service delivery and expand civic space?
  3. In what ways can digital technologies help reduce inequalities and close the ‘digital divide’, and how can we best navigate key ethical and human rights concerns in the digital governance space? 
Files

Comments (16)

Sarah Lister
Sarah Lister

Dear All
Thanks for attending the discussion this morning which was very rich. We will look carefully at the recording and the chat to make sure we fully absorb the many issues and good examples raised.
A couple of reflections from me:
i) Across the organization, we are all working on ‘digital governance’ issues in some way or other. While this conversation is convened by the governance team, it was a very deliberate choice to ask for contributions this morning from those who sit elsewhere. Many of us are grappling with similar issues and concerns, and we need to be talking with each other.
ii) The term ‘digital governance’ is itself problematic (which the specialists would always be quick to point out), reflecting also some of the difficulties around the many ways we use the term ‘governance’. This morning we touched on the following interlinked areas:
o The digital aspects of the governance systems which enable societies to function – the foundational and functional systems, the sectoral and the ‘whole of government’ aspects.
o Digital and democratic governance systems – how digital is changing democratic governance (for example, the opportunities and challenges around forms of representative governance, both old and new).
o The governance of digital. How the principles, norms and objectives of the UN should be applied to the rapidly evolving digital sphere to ensure inclusive and rights-based social contracts, and what UNDP’s role is in this.
iii) Due to i) and ii) (and other reasons) we struggle to have a coherent conversation around these issues and, as Rob noted at the end, work out what our organizational position should be. As many participants said, this is an urgent conversation.

This sparkblue conversation is a contribution to that organizational discussion. Please add your thoughts. And feel free to disagree with the above!

Sarah

Tariq Malik
Tariq Malik

Thanks Sarah for your reflections. For the coherent conversation around digital governance, I suggest we should define governance as a process through which state and non-state actors interact to design and implement policies within given set of formal and informal rules that shape and are shaped by power. Is 'digital' part powerful? Evidence suggests (case studies of countries Estonia, Denmark, South Korea, Bangladesh, and others) that it has transformative power (in terms of development dividends), if used ethically by implementation of policies that protect citizens rights. Additionally, introduction of Digital Governance ensures that people can participate in, and influence decision-making processes, which affect them closely, if they are counted and heard. Citizens no longer remain passive recipients of governance services provided to them, but can pro-actively decide the types and standards of governance services they want and the governance structures which can best deliver them. This strengthens the social contract. Digitization and digitization as articulated in UNDP Digital Strategy( https://digitalstrategy.undp.org/ ) has transformative power to enhance state capacity at one end, and empower citizens at the other side of social contract. Digital governance takes place at different levels, from international bodies, to national state institutions, to local government agencies, to community or business associations. These dimensions often overlap, creating a complex network of actors and interests.

Tariq Malik
Tariq Malik

Welcome colleagues and friends- for visiting the SparkBlue discussion page on the topic. I am delighted to be moderating the e-discussion this week. The e-discussion starts today. I am excited to learn and share. I hope to have a rich and inclusive discussion on this important topic. You all bring such an important and rich experience. Feel free to respond to any of the queries and comments; share links to resources; invite colleagues and other stakeholders particularly those in governments; reply to comments; like comments you agree with; pose questions on comments; let us have a lively discussion. Our discussion will be focused on the guiding questions stated above. Looking forward towards a vibrant e-discussion!

Farrukh Moriani
Farrukh Moriani

Thanks Mr. Malik for this opportunity to add our views and pose questions and for the intellectually stimulating discussion. I wanted to request if you can please explain why foundational systems anchored in digital ID matter for sustainable development in least developed or developing countries? In addition, I think we tend to exclude the developed countries when we discuss digital IDs, so I would appreciate it if you could also please explain the challenges that absence of digital ID can pose to citizens in developed countries. Many thanks.

Tariq Malik
Tariq Malik

Answering your second question Re: explain the challenges that absence of digital ID can pose to citizens in developed countries - Consider the popular case of Alecia Faith Pennington, the "girl who does not exist," -was born in Texas to conservative religious parents. Her birth was purposefully not recorded, this being seen by her parents as a way of making her "sovereign" and independent from wider, more secular, society. She lived on a farm, was home-schooled, and her medical treatment was provided in ways that left absolutely no medical records. Her plight became in September 2014 when she left home at age of 19, only to find that she was unable to provide sufficient documentary proof of her actual existence to obtain a birth certificate. Without some proof of existence, she could not function in society or the U.S. economy. She could not apply for Social Security Number to work or license to drive, nor could she hold a bank account. She was not covered by existing provisions for aliens or refugees; they came from "somewhere." but she came from "nowhere." Her situation was only resolved by the passage of special bill (HB 2794 -signed into law in Texas 06/2015) - Hence, an official proof of identity guaranteed by foundational system lies in the heart of social contract. Who gets to vote, who gets to receive social grant or pension payment, who gets to be seen by a doctor, who gets to open a banks account or even register a mobile phone number is increasingly a function of whose identity is recognized in foundational system!

Tariq Malik
Tariq Malik

Both excellent questions. Let me address one by one:
1. Why foundational systems anchored in digital ID matter for sustainable development?
Foundational Systems (National ID systems, Civil Registration & Vital Statistics Systems, Population Registers etc.) establish social contract b/w state and people, and are crucial tools for achieving sustainable development (empowering lives, reforming service delivery, ending extreme poverty, and other goals). Ensuring that everyone has access to identification in the explicit objective of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Target 16.9 - to "provide legal identity for all, including birth registration" by 2030." Additionally, digital identity embedded in foundational systems is also key enabler or contribute to many other SDG targets, such as financial and economic inclusion, social protection, healthcare and education for all, gender equality, child protection, agriculture, good governance, and safe and orderly migration. For these reasons, foundational systems (anchored in digital identification) is widely recognized as being informational and instrumental to realizing SDG promise to "leave no one behind."

Emanuele Sapienza
Emanuele Sapienza

Dear colleagues,

Many thanks for kicking off the Future of Governance consultations with such an interesting discussion!

I’d like to share some considerations on the intersection between digital innovation and participation, picking up on some of the important points made during the webinar.

1. “Digital innovation in governance” vs “Governance of digital innovation”

As Sarah pointed out the term “digital governance” really contains many different things.

A lot of the discussions we have been having (in UNDP and beyond) have been focused on digital innovation in governance – i.e. the ways in which digital technology can enhance the state’s ability to provide different services and, under appropriate conditions, enable a more fluid interaction between citizens and state institutions.

This is of course very important. However, it is equally important (perhaps more?) that we reflect on the governance of digital innovation – i.e. the different processes leading to decisions about technology development and application, including who gets to weigh in on these decisions, at which point and on what terms.

Arguably, a significant challenge of our times is that potentially very far-reaching technological development is taking place with very limited public input and (at least in some areas) democratic scrutiny. This is perhaps most obvious in relation to artificial intelligence (although the general principle applies also to other areas, such as biotechnology).

Given the above and as we explore implications for the future of UNDP’s governance offering, I feel it would be important to give further consideration to the role that UNDP may be play in “democratizing” technological development and potentially as a facilitator of participatory technology assessments.

2. Modeling for the people?

Advances in computational capacity have expanded opportunities to use dynamic modeling to simulate the complex effects of different policy options (including trade-offs and unintended consequences) in ways that are potentially very intuitive. An example of this is of course the iSDG model that UNDP has been applying in collaboration with the Millennium Institute.

Dynamic simulation modeling can be used to advance meaningful citizen participation in policy dialogue and to the improve the quality of public debate. However, in my opinion, this approach has been given insufficient attention to date. So, this is perhaps another area in which UNDP could play more of a role.

A separate, but potentially related theme is that of citizen science.

Technological innovation can enable citizen-generated data to become a (more) significant part of the public policy data ecosystems, with a range of positive effects (see for instance the work carried out on this by Paris 21). UNDP could play a supportive role in such processes by linking this complementary source of statistics with policy decision makers within state institutions.

3. The all-powerful state and the future of trust

Finally, on a point that has been raised by many during the webinar.

A lot has been made of (perceived) corruption and incompetence as the source of citizen distrust towards state institutions and a lot of emphasis has been placed on digital technology as a solution to some of these issues. There is certainly a lot of potential in this line of thinking. However, it is also worth asking: is there such a thing as “too much state capacity”?

As big data exponentially increases the state’s ability to “direct” behaviour (not only via surveillance, but also and equally importantly via nudging) do we risk to find ourselves in a situation where trust in institutions is actually weakened by technology, rather than strengthened? As several colleagues noted, it will be important for UNDP to play an active role in the debate on these issues, which carry potentially profound implications for the future of democracy.

I hope this is useful and look forward to the rest of the discussion!

Tariq Malik
Tariq Malik

Thank you very much Emanuele - the three excellent points re: governance, dynamic simulation modeling for citizen engagement for public policy development and using digital technologies to combat corruption and enhancing state capacity with checks and balance - are key takeaways. I agree all of these three have direct or indirect implications for the future of democracy.

Joel Jaisi
Joel Jaisi

Tariq Malik, that was very insightful presentation. Enhancing or building state capacity is good, but ensuring how state does not become big brother using foundational system to encroach in citizens privacy is a vital governance issue. Can you explain how foundational system should be governed to protect user privacy and rights, system security, and clear accountability and oversight?

Tariq Malik
Tariq Malik

Yes, that's unfortunately true. This requires a comprehensive legal framework with active citizens participation. Foundational Systems and digital transformation interventions must be underpinned by policies, laws and regulations that promote trust in the system, ensure data privacy and security, mitigate abuse such as unauthorized surveillance in violation of due process, and ensure government or agency's accountability. This usually includes an enabling law and regulations not only for foundational but functional systems as well as laws and regulations on data protection, digital or e-government, electronic transactions and commerce, cybersecurity and cybercrime, and freedom of information, among others. These laws and regulations on data privacy should include oversight from an independent body (e.g a national privacy commission) with appropriate powers and should protect citizens rights against inappropriate access and use of their data by third parties for commercial surveillance or profiling without informed consent or lawful purpose. It is also important that these legal frameworks should enable people with genuine choice and control over the use of their own data. International org. should conduct strong Advocacy campaigns on ethical use of data and prepare guidance notes to assist member states.

Joel Jaisi
Joel Jaisi

Tariq Malik , how do you thing we can strike a balance between protecting the rights of the citizens while also promoting the wide use of the foundational systems in service delivery. Because I see a case of probably over protection where data cannot be easily shared with service providers who need to integrate or validate with the citizen databases?

Tariq Malik
Tariq Malik

Joel Jaisi Maintaining user privacy and security of the foundational systems that process (collect, store, use, and disseminate) personal data is a fundamental concern, and yes striking a balance b/w over-protection and ethical use is important goal. Achieving this goal is possible through adopting a "Privacy-and-security-by-design" approach known as PbD first coined by Anne Cavoukian in 2011. PbD approach is characterized as proactive, not reactive; preventative not remedial approach. It's privacy by default, embedded in design that ensures privacy cradle to grave, secure lifecycle management of information, end-to-end. It requires architects and operators to keep the interests of individual supreme by offering such measures as strong privacy details, appropriate notice, and empowering user-friendly options -keeping it user-centric. By implementing privacy frameworks and international standards for use of personal data (such as FIPS, OECD, PbD, 2011-ISO/IEC29100, GDPR and others), trust deficit b/w user and agencies and businesses can be reduced on use of personal data. Strategies such as Encryption (PKI & digital signatures), Tokenization and then scrutinizing temper-proof logs for any unauthorized access - can protect privacy and use data for informed decision making for governance.

Tariq Malik
Tariq Malik

Hi colleagues, just sharing a blog written by our colleague Arkali arguing that the coronavirus pandemic has created a “perfect storm” to introduce reforms in core government functions. It has weakened some of the governments’ core functions and it presents an opportunity to introduce creative digital government solutions to improve service delivery. Please find enclosed the specific digital solutions from Serbia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Montenegro, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Georgia, and others for further discussion. https://www.eurasia.undp.org/content/rbec/en/home/blog/2020/covid-19-tr…


Please log in or sign up to comment.