Suchergebnisse

How should we think about the basic principles that should govern a society?

There’s a stereotypical hero in any number of movies and books, who is standing alone against the big project that is going to ruin the environment, ruin the community, or both. (In a slightly alternative version, the big project has already started to ruin the environment or the neighborhood.) If the hero is not already a … Continue reading Zoning: Tradeoffs of Localized and Centralized Decision-Making
The post Zoning: Tradeoffs of Localized and Centralized Decision-Making first appeared on Conversable Economist.

Folks who know me as a facilitator know that one of my first and favorite questions in planning a meeting is "who's deciding?" It's a question that can be counter-cultural for groups that are unaccustomed to clearly defining the decision-making process. And yet, leaving the question unanswered or unclear is one of the fastest ways... Read More
The post The fastest way to kill collaboration? Obscure decision making. appeared first on Interaction Institute for Social Change.

Who loves the latest shiny thing? Children maybe? Depends on the kid. Cats and dogs perhaps? Again, probably depends. What about funders, publishers, and researchers? Now that is an easier question to answer. Whether in talks provided by the tax-exempt 'cult of TED', or in open letters calling for a moratorium, the attention digital technologies receive today is extensive, especially those that are labelled 'artificial intelligence'. This noise comes with calls for a new ad hoc human right against being subject to automated decision-making (ADM). While there is merit in adopting new laws dedicated to so-called AI, the procedural mechanisms that can implement existing law require strengthening. The perceived need for new substantive rules to govern new technology is questionable at best, and distracting at worst. Here we would like to emphasise the importance of implementing existing law more effectively in order to better regulate ADM. Improving procedural capacities across the legal frameworks on data protection, non-discrimination, and human rights is imperative in this regard.

Ingvild Reymert Two newly published papers investigate variation in professorial recruitment both across countries and disciplines but also within these processes which must be understood as sequential decision-making processes. Academic recruitments are crucial decision-making processes for universities where those hired are responsible for carrying out the universities’ two key missions: teaching and research. Academic recruitments […]
The post Professorial recruitment – sequential decision-making processes differing across countries and disciplines appeared first on Europe of Knowledge.

AI and algorithmic decision-making tools already influence many aspects of our lives and are likely to become increasingly embedded within businesses and governments. Drawing on recent research and examples from across the social sciences, Frederic Gerdon and Frauke Kreuter outline where and how social science is vital to the ethical use of algorithmic decision-making systems. … Continued

No, this is wrong: Offshore wind projects to receive subsidies boost after auction flopClaire Coutinho to announce 70pc increase to guaranteed price offered to developersThere are detailed complaints being made about it. For example, one claim (which we do not endorse, nor claim is either true or wrong, merely present it):Remember its not £73. That's in 2012 money.The new cap is more like £96 in current money.The European spot price for gas is around €60 per MWh currently.But whether that's true or not the decision is still wrong. It violates the basic logic about climate change, that sort of wrong.To start with the very basics. The claim is that emissions cause costs. We've certainly no problem with the idea that there are externalities - markets are great things but many things are not included in markets and are therefore not great. The answer is to include those things in markets so that markets can work their greatness upon them. So, how much should we do about something? Our aim is the maximisation of human utility over time. The universe - sadly, the cow - imposes limitations and constraints upon us in that task. Resources are, after all, scarce. We also know that doing anything has costs - at very minimum there are opportunity costs, near always there will also be direct costs. So, whatever the thing, problem, constraint or externality we should do the amount that maximises that utility. This means balancing the costs of doing the thing - no, costs here do not mean mere money, they mean those other things we cannot do because we devote our scarce resources to do this thing - against the benefits of doing that thing to so maximise utility. So, the price of wind power changes. Why doesn't matter. A bait and switch by developers, a change in real world prices, makes no difference. Therefore the optimal amount of wind power to maximise utility changes. That is, wind power changes in price therefore we should have a different amount of wind power - not change wind power prices via subsidy so that we get the same amount of wind power. This is true of every decision about climate change. Whether to do adaptation or mitigation, which specific energy technology to use - solar, wind, fossil, geothermal, whatever - which transport, what foods to eat and everything. When prices change we should be changing the quantity demanded of each of them - that's in fact what prices are for, to tell us about quantity.It's not economic to stick towers of steel in the North Sea environment? Well, then it's not economic is it, we should do less of that. We're even willing to agree - for the sake of this argument - that it's no one's fault, this change in offshore wind power prices. It is still true that the change itself, the rise, means we should have less of it. Instead, more whatever - fossil, carbon capture, solar, tidal, geological hydrogen, geothermal and on and on. Prices have changed, as is obvious. Therefore the correct answer is that both supply and demand should.We therefore present how that meeting with Ms. Coutinho should have gone:Offshore Wind Developers (for it is they): "Minister, we can't build at these prices, just can't."Ms Coutinho: "Well, thanks for trying, Guys. Goodbye."

On March 28, 2024, a majority decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Dickson v. Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation held that Canada's constitutional bill of rights, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("the Charter"), applied against an Indigenous government's residency requirements for election to the government's Council. However, the majority also held that a section of the Charter that offers some protective effect for Indigenous governments would protect this residency requirement from a challenge under the Charter. The case reaches significant determinations but with some messy splits amongst the seven justices who sat on the case.

This is my marmalade-making time of the year. Not because it's the only time I can get hold of Seville oranges – I can get hold of the MaMade tins any time of year, and have only ever gotten fresh ones to use one time that I happened to visit a friend in Arizona who […]

In this blog, we hear from APHA's Hira Naveed as she explains why she is proud to champion International Day for Women in Statistics and Data Science.

It is important, when considering immigration into the UK, to distinguish between migrants who come here to improve their lot in life and asylum seekers, who come to escape civil war or persecution in their home countries.Some who cross the channel and enter illegally are not asylum seekers, with a high proportion being economic migrants. They already have asylum in France. 45,755 crossed the channel in dinghies in 2022 and were not immediately returned. The system allows lawyers to tell people to claim they were trafficked in order to claim to be asylum seekers instead of the economic migrants they actually are.The UK has lost control of its borders, while qualified and skilled would-be legal immigrants face daunting costs, paperwork and delays. The two issues both have to be addressed if the problem is to be resolved.        For skilled personnel and those with jobs waiting in the UK, the solution is to auction visas that would allow them to come and settle and work. The visas would be paid for, not by the applicants, but by the firms wishing to employ them, and the auction process would ensure that those admitted would be the ones who would add the highest value to the British economy. This could be streamlined, with offices in the countries from which applicants sought to come to the UK. The UK could decide the overall numbers, and then have British and international firms bidding for the numbers they wanted to employ here.Several countries, including the US and some EU members, make business (or 'golden') visas available, sometimes with a fast track to citizenship, for those who invest a minimum sum or who purchase a requisite amount of property in the country. This ensures that the recipients will be net economic contributors to the countries they apply to. The UK should establish a similar scheme for foreign nationals prepared to invest here.For those who are crossing the channel in small boats, the policy should be to make it clear that those who enter the country illegally will not be allowed to stay. It must be resolved by Parliament that no international or European court will interfere with this determination. Instead of being housed in hotels or barges or other temporary accommodation, they should be immediately deported with no process that will prevent this. Australia and Denmark have used versions of this policy.Much more could and should be done to prevent them from coming in the first place. Just as people who buy used cars with cash are subject to surveillance in case terrorist use is planned, the UK, in cooperation with its European allies, should establish that purchasers of dinghies should be subject to surveillance to determine if they have any legitimate uses for them. It might be useful to have tracking devices incorporated into dinghies so that their movements can be tracked.Once it becomes more difficult for illegal crossings to be made, and there is certainty that none who do so will be allowed to stay, the UK will have reasserted control over its borders and will be able to process those applying to come here legitimately to take up jobs, or who are genuine asylum seekers, usually wishing to join relatives in the UK, and can be admitted as part of the UK's humanitarian contribution to a worldwide problem.

On the day the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution demanding a ceasefire in Gaza, U.S. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller deflected press questions about whether the U.S. would compel Israel to comply by saying that the resolution was "non-binding."He went on to say that "it's nonbinding in that it does not impose any new obligations on the parties, but we do believe it should be respected, that it carries weight, and that it should be implemented, as has always been our belief when it comes to UN Security Council resolutions."Contrary to the U.S. position, U.N. ambassadors from China and Mozambique, as well as the UK's former U.N. envoy, have publicly stated that it is binding, along with U.N. Secretary General spokesperson Farhan Haq, who said "all the resolutions of the Security Council are international law, so to that extent, they are as binding as international law is."The resolution, which passed last week with 14 votes in favor and one abstention from the U.S., primarily demands an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan, the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, and guaranteed humanitarian access to address their medical and other humanitarian needs.Resolutions are formal expressions of the will of the Security Council and are backed by the power of international law. Experts who spoke with RS counter the U.S. position, saying that implicit in the resolution is an obligation for the parties involved to comply. Meanwhile, they say it is understood that member states, collectively or on their own, can take measures that will compel parties to comply. More importantly, experts complain that Washington appears to be selectively interpreting international law to favor its political objectives — in this case to protect Israel — an action that could have consequences for its legitimacy in the eyes of the rest of the world moving forward. International law scholar and Yale Law School professor Asli Bâli said Article 25 of the U.N. Charter suggests that all the council's decisions are to be deemed binding. It states that U.N. members "agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter." Some argue that this passage only applies to resolutions that reference Chapter 7 of the charter, which outlines the powers the council has to respond to security threats. Bâli disagrees, citing a 1970 decision from the International Court of Justice in which the justices agreed with the broader reading of the U.N. charter.Another dispute over what constitutes a binding resolution has to do with what language is being used. Eran Sthoeger, a lawyer and adviser on international law, says that along with clear reference to Chapter 7 and Article 39 of the charter, which empowers the Security Council to assess threats to international peace and security, the Security Council uses the term "decides'' when it wants to be clear that a resolution is binding. Since none of these elements are present in the ceasefire resolution, it should not be considered binding on members, Sthoeger argues. However, international law scholar and Washburn University Professor Craig Martin told RS that, while this resolution does not use the exact word "decide," the language of making a "demand" similarly creates an obligation on member states."It's hard to understand how anyone could suggest there is any ambiguity or uncertainty of the obligation this creates," he said.Bâli cites previous resolutions passed by the council that demonstrate that the use of the word "decide" is not needed for a resolution to be treated as binding and enforceable. One example is Resolution 678, passed in 1990 in order to provide Iraq with a final chance to withdraw forces from Kuwait, in which the council "demand[ed] that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions." Iraq's failure to comply with that resolution triggered military action from member states, led by the U.S.Ian Hurd, a professor at Northwestern University who focuses on international law, said retroactive disputes over whether the resolution is binding are reflective of the U.S. attempting to interpret international law in a way that advances its interests."The U.S. is trying to split the difference between its friends and its enemies and find its own advantageous path," Hurd told RS. Bâli adds that the U.S. claiming the resolution is non-binding means that it can defend supplying arms to Israel. The U.S. position is not without potential consequences. Washington's insistence that this resolution is non-binding in the face of well-established interpretation of charter provisions and Security Council precedent "is once again eroding the normative power of the international legal system," Martin said, adding that it contributes to a growing perception that international law is an instrument of political power for the U.S. and its allies.By abstaining on the ceasefire vote, Hurd says, the U.S. nonetheless increased its pressure on Israel to protect civilians and to follow humanitarian law in Gaza. How the U.S. responds if Israel does not comply with this resolution will reveal whether Washington intends to take a firmer stance on this issue, or not.

We may not readily describe Duarte Agostinho as a success. But it does offer an excellent opportunity to clarify what we mean by 'success' in this context. Arguably, this depends on our expectations – whether that's to generate attention, trigger mobilization, seek judicial engagement with an issue, clarify the law, or pursue a given outcome, among others.

I recommend Evan Ellis' post at Global Americans on his recently completed year at the U.S. State Department Policy Planning Staff. He now returns to the U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute. It is a useful read both for its insider look and its discussion of "why does this matter?"Here is a key point:The problem is also compounded by the fundamental orientation of the State Department to tell our partners what we think and want, rather than listening to what they think and want. While seasoned diplomats know better in their personal interaction, I observed the balance of the work that came across my desk to be about "transmitting" rather than "receiving." Every high-level meeting involves the preparation of "talking points" seeking to advance an agenda, too seldom did they include questions about what our partners thought or needed.This echoes Lars Schoultz's In Their Own Best Interest, where he questions all "uplifting" aid, the effects of which are never measured. We can check boxes on delivery and execution, but not on whether it actually makes lives better. Making lives better requires starting with what our partners actually want. This has often been true, but is accentuated in the Trump era.In my own work, I did not see substantial evidence that the strategy and policy documents of each organization are actively used as guides to action by the other, beyond superficial references to fundamental documents such as the National Security Strategy. I also witnessed and participated in the drafting of some interagency documents, but beyond the somewhat useful exercise of meeting and coordinating about their wording, I did not perceive that the result meaningfully impacted the direction of either state or the other U.S. government entities involved.This is clearly a Trump administration problem, though past administrations were clearly not immune.  Unlike the past, though, the essential problem now is that policy is made by tweet, with government agencies scrambling to interpret it just like the rest of us. How do you feel like you're doing something meaningful when the president ignores you?I appreciate these kinds of perspectives. As a side note, as he does not address it, I know a number of people who have moved from academia to policy making and back, and I know their view of of the relevance and accuracy of academic work changed dramatically. I have not felt great temptation to try the policy making world myself, even as I recognize that even in small doses it would make us better analysts. Subscribe in a reader