Centre for Digital Governance
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (33)
- Part of a Book (19)
- Working Paper (12)
- Contribution to a Periodical (5)
- Doctoral Thesis (3)
- Book (2)
- Preprint (2)
- Editorship book (1)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Journal (1)
Keywords
Why do local governments create and reform public service companies, given their uncertain economic benefits and potential damage to accountability and service transparency? Taking an extended transaction cost perspective, we argue that corporatization—the provision of public services by publicly owned companies—is a function of fiscal hardship, the decision maker’s economic orientation and the level of operator transparency. Using a two-way fixed effects regression, we test this expectation on 680 investment reports of 34 German cities from 1998 to 2017, representing 11,062 year-corporatized entity combinations. We show that the drivers of corporatization are sensitive to the depth of local ownership analyzed. In doing so, we highlight the theoretical need and potential for conceptual differentiation between ownership levels along a corporation’s lineage. Exploiting the data’s panel structure, we also find that the intensity of corporatization has heightened since the late 1990s, largely due to increasingly complex corporate structures of indirect ownership.
Tech companies and the public interest: the role of the state in governing social media platforms
(2023)
In the early days of the internet, it was hoped that digital technology would bring about democracy and positive outcomes for society. Recently, the debate has shifted towards tech lash with many critics pointing towards technology companies undermining democracy, stability, and sustainability. As a result, a new consensus seems to be emerging among policymakers, companies, and civil societal actors that self-regulation has to move towards co-regulation. This Special Issue of Information, Communication and Society draws together cutting-edge contributions on three core themes in scholarly and policy discourse on platform regulation: First, the papers in this special issue enhance empirical understandings of the role of the state in governing social media platforms developing in the United States, Europe, and Sub-Saharan Africa. Second, they provide a holistic framework to understand policy problems that need to be addressed, which helps to develop and evaluate new policy initiatives. Finally, papers point towards three approaches in governing social media platforms and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of content moderation, process-based co-regulation, as well as competition regulation and alternative business models.
KI und datengesteuerte Kampagnen: Eine Diskussion der Rolle generativer KI im politischen Wahlkampf
(2023)
Social media campaigning is increasingly linked with anti-democratic outcomes, with concerns to date centring on paid adverts, rather than organic content produced by a new set of online political influencers. This study systematically compares voter exposure to these new campaign actors with candidate-sponsored ads, as well as established and alternative news sources during the US 2020 presidential election. Specifically, we examine how far higher exposure to these sources is linked with key trends identified in the democratic deconsolidation thesis. We use data from a national YouGov survey designed to measure digital campaign exposure to test our hypotheses. Findings show that while higher exposure to online political influencers is linked to more extremist opinions, followers are not disengaging from conventional politics. Exposure to paid political ads, however, is confirmed as a potential source of growing distrust in political institutions.
Concerns over online hatespeech have prompted governments to strengthen social media governance. However, claims by policy-makers and political activists regarding the effectiveness and likely consequences of legal regulations remain largely untested. We rely on qualitative interviews and two expert surveys to examine the behavior of public relations professionals in response to online hatespeech when having the option of using the new user-complaint mechanism under the German Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG). Our findings reveal that strategies depend on whether professionals work at public sector institutions, business, or civil society organizations and political parties. Public sector institutions are likely to report to the platform, but not under NetzDG. Civil society organizations are likely to choose content moderation, counterspeech, and other forms of intervention. Businesses deploy a wide range of strategies. In practice, Germany's procedural approach relying on user-complaint mechanisms to deal with online hatespeech is not used by experts as a means to combat online harassment.
The European Union (EU) has been leading the world with its influential digital regulation. However, the EU’s legislative process is sufficiently complex and careful that some national legislation clearly influenced by the EU’s AI Regulation is already in place in other countries, before the law has even been finalized in the EU. Meanwhile, other states and regions are just beginning to develop AI policy. For both the EU and such others, we here describe the outcomes of the first round of legislative action by one of the EU’s two legislative bodies, the European Parliament, in terms of modifying the Artificial Intelligence Act. The Parliament has introduced a number of changes we consider to be enormously important, some in a very good way, and some in a very bad way. At stake is whether the AI Act really brings the power and strength of product law to continuously scale improved practice on products in the EU with intelligent components, or whether the law becomes window-dressing aimed only at attacking a few elite actors post hoc. We describe here the EU process, the changes and our recommendations.
Digital technologies have substantial environmental impacts. The EU’s 2022 Digital Services Act (DSA) requires the largest platforms and search engines to regularly assess “systemic risks” to various social interests – including public health, physical wellbeing, security, and fundamental rights – and to reasonably and proportionately mitigate these risks. Climate change and other escalating environmental crises severely threaten these interests. Accordingly, this policy brief argues that the DSA requires these companies to take reasonable measures to reduce their environmental impacts.
This should notably include following best practices to minimise energy and water usage, including “sustainability by design” obligations to pursue less energy- and resource-intensive technologies, design choices, and business practices wherever possible. It should also include measures addressing platforms’ indirect environmental impacts, such as the facilitation of environmentally-damaging behaviour by third-party businesses. Since the DSA’s risk mitigation obligations apply specifically to the largest platforms – which exercise significant influence over broader technological and commercial ecosystems – regulatory pressure on these companies to take such measures could have outsized environmental benefits.
This policy brief by Rachel Griffin, PhD candidate at Sciences Po Law School, offers a legal analysis of the DSA’s relevance to environmental policy and explains why environmental risks are within its scope. It then outlines appropriate measures to mitigate platforms’ direct and indirect environmental impacts. It concludes with recommendations for platform companies, regulators, and civil society on how to realise the Digital Services Act’s potential to help secure a more sustainable tech industry.
The EU Digital Service Acts signals a move away from self-regulation towards co-regulation of social media platforms within the European Union. To address online harms and rising platform power the DSA clarifies responsibilities of platforms and outlines a new technology regulatory framework to increase oversight. One key oversight instrument constitutes Article 40 of the DSA, which lays out data access for vetted researchers, who add value to regulators and the broader public as creators of knowledge, educators, advisors, innovators, and watchdogs. Currently, the EU Commission and national governments make important decisions regarding Digital Service Coordinators (DSCs) that play a key role in implementation. Based on expertise on European public administration and political science we lay out key challenges and success factors of DSCs that will play a role in promoting successful cooperation between DSCs and researchers. We provide three recommendations: First, we recommend to strengthen transfer of scientific knowledge into policy-making by processing publicly accessible publications within public administrative bodies. To this end, capacities of DSCs need to be increased. In addition, we also point towards the database of vetted researchers collected by the Board of DSCs as important resource in order to strengthen knowledge transfer. Second, the DSC network requires agile institutions with fast response time in order to enable researchers to play a constructive role in implementation. This also includes institutional procedures between DSCs and the Intermediary Body and Data Protection Agencies. To avoid delay in implementation agile institution-building needs to start now. Finally, institutional safeguards will help to avoid strategic choice of companies of the DSC of establishment. At the same time, the Irish DSC's capacity should be strengthened compared to other national DSCs since most large intermediary services providers have their European headquarters in Ireland.
Corporatization has gained scholarly attention in recent years, yet little is known regarding why many corporations are eventually terminated, and what happens to their form and functions thereafter. Reinternalizing services is one option local governments may pursue. This paper focuses on the impact of tensions (systemic contradictions) on this final resolution reached: Do local governments choose or refuse reinternalization? Conducting machine learning, I predict termination outcomes based on an original dataset of 244 ceased English and German companies (2010–2020). The results show that macrosystemic tensions are more relevant for resourcing decisions and reinternalization is less likely to be caused by formal ownership issues.
This research deconstructs complexity as a key challenge of intergovernmental digitalisation projects. While much of the literature acknowledges that the fundamental restructuring coupled with technical capacity that these joint projects require leads to increased complexity, little is known about how different types of complexity interact within the collaborative process. Using established concepts of substantive, strategic, and institutional complexity, we apply complexity theory in collaborative digital environments. To do so, eight digital projects are analysed that differ by state structure and government level. Using a cross-case design with 50 semi-structured expert interviews, we find that each digitalisation project exhibits all types of complexity and that these complexities overlap. However, clear differences emerge between national and local level projects, suggesting that complexity in digitalisation processes presents different challenges for collaborative digitalisation projects across contexts.