‘Digital services lean heavily on the social infrastructure’
Governments worldwide invest huge sums in their digital services and data strategies. Efficiency and effectiveness are key. But these are not achieved for some people at least, says Professor of Public Policy Sarah Giest. This makes the intended digital inclusion far from inclusive, as she will explain in her inaugural lecture.
In taking up her chair in policy, innovation and sustainability on 13 September, Professor of Public Policy Sarah Giest will highlight the flipside of the digitalisation of government services.
A small but important group of people cannot keep up with the digital course the government has charted. They lack digital access, do not speak the language well enough or have bigger problems that demand all their attention. And applications are sometimes too complicated or the underlying dataset incorrectly configured, causing people to be excluded or discriminated against.
This is not without risk, Giest emphasises. It can alienate citizens from the government. ‘Was that letter written by a human or a machine? And who makes the decisions? An algorithm or a civil servant? If trust in the government drops, that has consequences for democracy, which then comes under pressure.’
People not machines
Digital inclusion really does need to start with inclusion, is Giest’s advice for governments. And equally important with digitalisation, she says, is to start with the worst-case scenario rather than what is going well. ‘What happens when digital services go wrong − if someone falls through the gaps or the algorithms are incorrect?’ These questions should be at the heart of policymaking.
And governments should always consider the offline alternative to digital services, and whether policies are built on data or experiences. Basing it on the latter improves the chances of good policy.
Giest mentions a popular government idea: the one-stop neighbourhood shop for all your questions and problems. ‘It sounds sexy, and the data may well show that people are often referred on and find that annoying. But a one-stop shop is a silly idea. First, there is no one person who knows everything and can help you with any question you might have. So you end up being referred somewhere else anyway.
‘And second, you don’t want to go to a one-stop shop at all if you are experiencing domestic abuse or living in abject poverty. Then you need privacy and someone who knows a lot about your problems. In short, it’s a plan that looks good on paper but doesn’t meet people’s real needs.’
What communities really need is a range of tailor-made services. And, as Giest’s technology research confirms, it always comes down to this anyway. ‘At the end of the day, it’s about people, not data and machines.’ So accessible help in the community is hugely important to closing the gap between citizens and digital government services.
Silicon Valley
The German-born public policy expert has long been fascinated by the relationship between governments and new technology. She previously studied biotechnology policymaking.
‘Should governments curb or embrace this and how do you go about that and to what effect? Those are the kinds of questions that interest me. After all, much stands to be gained from new technologies but there are always many blind spots. Social capital − the value of networks, relationships and social interactions that connect people and foster collaboration − is often one such blind spot.
For her PhD, Giest researched what makes innovative places like Silicon Valley so successful. ‘That success turned out to be mostly in very normal “people things”: a good network, good housing policy, proximity to good schools and health care… But the importance of such a good society is often overlooked.’
Social infrastructure
The same thing is true for digitalisation, says Giest. A lot of money is invested in automation, AI, smart cities and robotisation, but this forgets how many people depend on others to use this technology.
‘From their family members, a telephone helpline, a volunteer at the community centre, a librarian or a language buddy. Some people need a bit of guidance and can then manage by themselves whereas others need ongoing help. We know that these types of social networks and services provide important help, but how important they are and what they add to the equation is unknown.’
Giest wants to find out to what extent the digital infrastructure leans on the social infrastructure and the role data plays in this. This also raises the question of where exactly the responsibility for offline assistance lies. Much of this is provided by volunteers. They fill a gap in government accessibility, something for which the government can be held accountable.
Then there are the questions of how social capital in communities affects citizens’ ability to access digital public services, and how we can integrate existing statistics with experiences from these communities. ‘How do we measure the value of a public service? That’s what I want to explore.’
Cross-pollination between online and offline
For Giest’s mostly young students, this gap between the online and offline worlds is nothing new. They see their grandparents and fellow students who do not come from the Netherlands struggle with many of the problems. ‘They are better at switching between the digital and the real world. They understand the cross-pollination between these two worlds, how they strengthen each other, but they are better informed of the shortcomings.’
More young people – and a more diverse group of people in general – should therefore be involved in digitalisation policy. The group of policy professionals is much too homogeneous, she says. A more inclusive civil service would improve the policy. ‘A younger generation and definitely also people with a disability, for example, can greatly benefit digitalisation policy.’
Text: Marijn Kramp