Publications

This report analyses the skills and capacities governments need to strengthen evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM) and identifies a range of possible interventions that are available to foster greater uptake of evidence. Increasing governments’ capacity for evidence-informed is a critical part of good public governance. However, an effective connection between the supply and the demand for evidence in the policy-making process remains elusive. This report offers concrete tools and a set of good practices for how the public sector can support senior officials, experts and advisors working at the political/administrative interface. This support entails investing in capability, opportunity and motivation and through behavioral changes. The report identifies a core skillset for EIPM at the individual level, including the capacity for understanding, obtaining, assessing, using, engaging with stakeholders, and applying evidence, which wasdeveloped in collaboration with the European Commission Joint Research Centre. It also identifies a set of capacities at the organisational level that can be put in place across the machinery of government, throughout the role of interventions, strategies and tools to strengthen these capacities. The report concludes with a set of recommendations to assist governments in building their capacities.

This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the LIBE Committee, examines the impact on fundamental rights of Artificial Intelligence in the field of law enforcement and criminal justice, from a European Union perspective. It presents the applicable legal framework (notably in relation to data protection), and analyses major trends and key policy discussions. The study also considers developments following the Covid-19 outbreak. It argues that the seriousness and scale of challenges may require intervention at EU level, based on the acknowledgement of the area’s specificities.

Artificial intelligence (AI) already plays a role in deciding what unemployment benefits someone gets, where a burglary is likely to take place, whether someone is at risk of cancer, or who sees that catchy advertisement for low mortgage rates. Its use keeps growing, presenting seemingly endless possibilities. But we need to make sure to fully uphold fundamental rights standards when using AI. This report presents concrete examples of how companies and public administrations in the EU are using, or trying to use, AI. It focuses on four core areas – social benefits, predictive policing, health services and targeted advertising.

This report is published in the context of AI Watch, the European Commission knowledge service to monitor the development, uptake and impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for Europe, launched in December 2018 as part of the Coordinated Plan on the Development and Use of AI Made in Europe. The report presents the results of the mapping of the use of AI in support of public services in the EU. The analysis serves to contribute landscaping the current state of the art in the field, and provide a preliminary overview of Member States efforts to integrate AI in their government operations and adopt AI-enabled innovations in the public sector. From the analysis it emerges that the interest on the use of AI within governments to support redesigning governance processes and policy-making mechanisms, as well as to improve public services delivery and engagement with citizens is growing. Governments across the EU are exploring the potential of AI use to improve policy design and evaluation, while reorganising the internal management of public administrations at all levels. Indeed, when used in a responsible way, the combination of new, large data sources with advanced machine learning algorithms could radically improve the operating methods of the public sector, thus paving the way to pro-active public service delivery models and relieving resource constrained organisations from mundane and repetitive tasks.

​

The EU has unveiled an ambitious plan to regulate online platforms, and the European Commission is proposing to introduce ex ante regulation to ensure that markets characterised by large platforms acting as digital gatekeepers remain fair and competitive for innovators, businesses, and new market entrants. The introduction of an ex ante regulatory framework that could limit online platforms' commercial freedom and give wide-ranging enforcement powers to regulators would be a far-reaching step. Against this background, this briefing explains the rationale for regulating digital gatekeepers in the EU and provides an overview of the key policy questions currently under discussion. Recent reports and studies have shown how a few large platforms have the ability to apply a range of practices that raise significant competition issues. The limitation of competition law – essentially applied ex-post after the anti-competitive practices have been implemented – has sparked a debate on whether EU competition rules are still fit for purpose and whether such platforms should not instead be regulated ex ante so as to provide upfront clarity about what behaviour towards users and competitors is acceptable. In this respect, the policy discussion focuses on a number of issues, in particular, how to identify online gatekeepers that should be subject to ex ante regulation, what conduct should be outlawed for those gatekeepers, what obligations should be placed on them (such as data portability and interoperability), and how such innovative regulations should be enforced. Finally, the briefing highlights the initial views of a number of stakeholders.

This report presents the final results of the research “Exploring Digital Government Transformation in the EU: understanding public sector innovation in a data-driven society”, in short DigiGov. After introducing the design and methodology of the study, the report provides a summary of the findings of the comprehensive analysis of the state of the art in the field, conducted reviewing a vast body of scientific literature, policy documents and practitioners generated reports in a broad range of disciplines and policy domains, with a focus on the EU. The scope and key dimensions underlying the development of the DigiGov-F conceptual framework are then presented. This is a theory-informed heuristic instrument to help mapping the effects of Digital Government Transformation and able to support defining change strategies within the institutional settings of public administration. Further, the report provides an overview of the findings of the empirical case studies conducted, and employing experimental or quasi-experimental components, to test and refine the conceptual framework proposed, while gathering evidence on impacts of Digital Government Transformation, through identifying real-life drivers and barriers in diverse Member States and policy domains. The report concludes outlining future research and policy recommendations, as well as depicting possible scenarios for future Digital Government Transformation, developed as a result of a dedicated foresight policy lab. This was conducted as part of the expert consultation and stakeholder engagement process that accompanied all the phases of the research implementation. Insights generated from the study also serve to pave the way for further empirical research and policy experimentation, and to contribute to the policy debate on how to shape Digital Europe at the horizon 2040.

​

Stakeholder participation in regulatory processes has become increasingly common. The literature on citizen, customer and consumer participation in regulation shows a rise in these types of engagement, based primarily on individual case studies. However, we lack a solid empirical base for the discussion of this trend. This paper asks to what extent and why this rise in participation in regulatory policy-making occurs, creating a cross-sector, cross-country map of participatory regulation. The research is based on a quantitative, dictionary-based analysis of regulatory agencies' annual reports from 1998 to 2017 (n = 781). The findings show a rise in the use of terms related to participation over time, with the notable exceptions of financial and environmental regulators. These terms are most commonly used in EU level agencies, in Australia and France, while being rarely used in the German and Austrian cases. Our analysis shows that polity level variation is a key driver of how regulators use terms related to participation, and argues that such participation is less common in countries in which stakeholder participation is carried out at the national level through centralized corporatist institutions.

​