‘Regulatory Gaming’ – A Look Into the European Union’s Attempts to Engage Citizens With Playful Design

Gianluca Sgueo
{"title":"‘Regulatory Gaming’ – A Look Into the European Union’s Attempts to Engage Citizens With Playful Design","authors":"Gianluca Sgueo","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3518068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"What will democratic systems in the European Union (EU) look like in the next decade and beyond? Will tech-savvy policy-makers respond to the demands of citizens in an effective and timely manner? Or will the much-celebrated ‘co-creation’ of public policies via digital tools continue to remain an empty slogan? \n \nIn this Chapter, we move from a broad reflection on the impact that technology is having on all levels of society, and particularly on human relations, to an analysis of the role of technology in the policy cycle. We claim that technology has dramatically changed both the number of ‘connections’ between citizens and public regulators, and their quality. We also argue that the outcomes of this enhanced interconnectivity have been uneven, and the results not always positive. \n \nOverall, citizens (and corporations) have benefited from the enhanced ‘access’ they have gained vis-a-vis public authorities through new communication channels. These benefits, however, have not been mirrored by equally significant progresses in design and implementation of public policy. Public authorities have struggled with the impact of new technologies on policy-making. \n \nCommunities and citizens now expect public regulators to respond both immediately and effectively to their demands. However, for the most part public regulators have been unable or unwilling to effectively harness new technologies to foster participatory and inclusive governance. As a result, the legitimacy of public regulators has been politically and legally challenged by dissatisfied communities and stakeholders. \n \nThe chapter focuses on the EU, which is often accused of not being inclusive or democratic. As EU institutional responsibilities have expanded over time, calls for greater openness have increased. Conventional narratives of the EU’s democratic deficit paint a picture of a dysfunctional decision-making system run by elites located in Brussels. In reality, we claim in this chapter, EU institutions continually seek to enhance and increase interactions with stakeholders, with experimental efforts having intensified over the last decade. \n \nThis Chapter makes two contributions toward improving our understanding of experimental approaches to the democratisation of EU policy-making. First, it identifies and critically examines two models of experimentalism of EU policy-making. “Exploratory experimentalism” focuses on exploration and discovery. Over the last two decades, most of the EU’s efforts to foster participation have been this type. “Evaluative experimentalism”, instead, explores the feasibility and potential of a new policy intervention. We argue that design-thinking – i.e. the approach to policy-making from a design perspective – is one promising form of evaluative experimentalism currently tested in EU policy-making. We maintain that design-thinking might deliver the right solutions for building more inclusive, engaging, and interactive channels of cooperation between citizens and EU institutions. \n \nSecond, this Chapter develops a new regulatory model, which it calls the “regulatory gaming” model. Regulatory gaming makes use of design-thinking, and more precisely of playful design, to foster civic engagement. A few examples are discussed in this Chapter. These include prize challenges, scenario simulations, and online serious games. The outcomes of regulatory gaming are still uncertain. Some observers believe fun-design enables EU administrations to adapt to contemporary societal, political and legal challenges. Critics, however, describe playful policy-making as a mere institutional make-up, incapable of successfully addressing the challenge of democracy. They raise ethical, legal, and political concerns, The conclusive section of this Chapter will discuss five challenges for regulatory-gaming, and will speculate on possible solutions from EU decision-makers.","PeriodicalId":288317,"journal":{"name":"International Political Economy: Globalization eJournal","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Political Economy: Globalization eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3518068","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

What will democratic systems in the European Union (EU) look like in the next decade and beyond? Will tech-savvy policy-makers respond to the demands of citizens in an effective and timely manner? Or will the much-celebrated ‘co-creation’ of public policies via digital tools continue to remain an empty slogan? In this Chapter, we move from a broad reflection on the impact that technology is having on all levels of society, and particularly on human relations, to an analysis of the role of technology in the policy cycle. We claim that technology has dramatically changed both the number of ‘connections’ between citizens and public regulators, and their quality. We also argue that the outcomes of this enhanced interconnectivity have been uneven, and the results not always positive. Overall, citizens (and corporations) have benefited from the enhanced ‘access’ they have gained vis-a-vis public authorities through new communication channels. These benefits, however, have not been mirrored by equally significant progresses in design and implementation of public policy. Public authorities have struggled with the impact of new technologies on policy-making. Communities and citizens now expect public regulators to respond both immediately and effectively to their demands. However, for the most part public regulators have been unable or unwilling to effectively harness new technologies to foster participatory and inclusive governance. As a result, the legitimacy of public regulators has been politically and legally challenged by dissatisfied communities and stakeholders. The chapter focuses on the EU, which is often accused of not being inclusive or democratic. As EU institutional responsibilities have expanded over time, calls for greater openness have increased. Conventional narratives of the EU’s democratic deficit paint a picture of a dysfunctional decision-making system run by elites located in Brussels. In reality, we claim in this chapter, EU institutions continually seek to enhance and increase interactions with stakeholders, with experimental efforts having intensified over the last decade. This Chapter makes two contributions toward improving our understanding of experimental approaches to the democratisation of EU policy-making. First, it identifies and critically examines two models of experimentalism of EU policy-making. “Exploratory experimentalism” focuses on exploration and discovery. Over the last two decades, most of the EU’s efforts to foster participation have been this type. “Evaluative experimentalism”, instead, explores the feasibility and potential of a new policy intervention. We argue that design-thinking – i.e. the approach to policy-making from a design perspective – is one promising form of evaluative experimentalism currently tested in EU policy-making. We maintain that design-thinking might deliver the right solutions for building more inclusive, engaging, and interactive channels of cooperation between citizens and EU institutions. Second, this Chapter develops a new regulatory model, which it calls the “regulatory gaming” model. Regulatory gaming makes use of design-thinking, and more precisely of playful design, to foster civic engagement. A few examples are discussed in this Chapter. These include prize challenges, scenario simulations, and online serious games. The outcomes of regulatory gaming are still uncertain. Some observers believe fun-design enables EU administrations to adapt to contemporary societal, political and legal challenges. Critics, however, describe playful policy-making as a mere institutional make-up, incapable of successfully addressing the challenge of democracy. They raise ethical, legal, and political concerns, The conclusive section of this Chapter will discuss five challenges for regulatory-gaming, and will speculate on possible solutions from EU decision-makers.
“监管游戏”——欧盟试图用好玩的设计吸引公民的尝试
欧盟(EU)的民主制度在未来十年甚至更长时间内会是什么样子?精通科技的决策者能否有效及时地回应市民的需求?或者,通过数字工具广为人知的“共同创造”公共政策是否仍将是一句空洞的口号?在本章中,我们从广泛反思技术对社会各个层面的影响,特别是对人际关系的影响,转向分析技术在政策周期中的作用。我们声称,技术极大地改变了公民与公共监管机构之间“联系”的数量和质量。我们还认为,这种互联性增强的结果是不平衡的,结果并不总是积极的。总体而言,公民(和公司)受益于他们通过新的沟通渠道获得的与公共当局面对面的增强“访问”。然而,这些好处并没有反映在公共政策的设计和执行方面取得同样重大的进展。公共当局一直在努力应对新技术对决策的影响。社区和公民现在期望公共监管机构立即有效地回应他们的要求。然而,在很大程度上,公共监管机构无法或不愿有效地利用新技术来促进参与性和包容性治理。因此,不满的社区和利益相关者从政治和法律上挑战了公共监管机构的合法性。这一章的重点是欧盟,它经常被指责不包容或不民主。随着欧盟机构职责的不断扩大,要求进一步开放的呼声也越来越高。关于欧盟民主赤字的传统叙述描绘了一幅由布鲁塞尔精英管理的功能失调的决策体系的图景。实际上,我们在本章中声称,欧盟机构不断寻求加强和增加与利益相关者的互动,在过去十年中,实验努力得到了加强。本章对提高我们对欧盟决策民主化的实验方法的理解做出了两项贡献。首先,它确定并批判性地考察了欧盟政策制定的两种实验主义模式。“探索性实验主义”注重探索和发现。在过去的二十年里,欧盟促进参与的大部分努力都是这种类型的。相反,“评估性实验主义”探讨的是一项新政策干预的可行性和潜力。我们认为,设计思维——即从设计角度制定政策的方法——是目前在欧盟政策制定中测试的一种有前途的评估实验主义形式。我们认为,设计思维可能为公民和欧盟机构之间建立更具包容性、参与性和互动性的合作渠道提供正确的解决方案。其次,本章提出了一种新的监管模式,称之为“监管博弈”模式。监管游戏利用设计思维,更准确地说是好玩的设计,来促进公民参与。本章讨论了几个例子。其中包括奖品挑战、场景模拟和在线严肃游戏。监管博弈的结果仍不确定。一些观察人士认为,有趣的设计使欧盟政府能够适应当代的社会、政治和法律挑战。然而,批评人士将俏皮的政策制定描述为纯粹的制度构成,无法成功应对民主的挑战。它们引发了道德、法律和政治方面的担忧。本章的结论性部分将讨论监管游戏面临的五大挑战,并将推测欧盟决策者可能提出的解决方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信