Can the power of platforms be harnessed for governance?

Although not as eye-catching as their business counterparts, many public and private institutions are currently experimenting with using platforms as a strategy of governance. Governance platforms are now being constructed by a wide array of actors at different geographical scales and across a wide range of issue areas. Although often enabled by digital technology, governance platforms fundamentally embody a new organizing logic to achieve distributed participation and mobilization. While private platforms are transforming the way that companies create and market their products or services and shifting the fundamental logic of how value is produced and appropriated, can this powerful organizing logic be harnessed for public as well as private purposes? We investigate how governance platforms generate powerful effects and survey the extant literature on governance platforms. We conclude that governance platforms do demonstrate promise, although they face a number of challenges.     

Policy design and public support for carbon tax: Evidence from a 2018 US national online survey experiment

Public support for policy instruments is influenced by perceptions of how benefits and costs are distributed across various groups. We examine different carbon tax designs outlining different ways to distribute tax revenues. Using a national online sample of 1,606 US respondents, we examine support for a $20/ton carbon tax that is: (1) revenue neutral: revenue is returned to citizens via tax cuts; (2) compensation-focused: revenue is directed to helping actors disproportionately hurt by the tax; (3) mitigation-focused: revenue funds projects reducing carbon emissions; and (4) adaptation-focused: revenue is directed to enhancing community resilience to extreme weather events. We find devoting revenue to mitigation raises overall support for carbon tax by 6.3 per cent versus the control (54.9 per cent) where no information on spending is provided. Other frames raise support in specific subgroups only. Revenue neutrality raises support among lower-income households (+6.6 per cent) and political independents (+9.4 per cent), while compensation increases support among lower-income repondents (+6.1 per cent).     

The new policy sciences: combining the cognitive science of choice,multiple theories of context,and basic and applied analysis

It is time to imagine a new policy sciences. The policymaking world has moved on since its first design. So too has our understanding of it. The original policy sciences were contextualized, problem-oriented, multi-method, and focused on using scientific research towards the realization of greater human dignity. We introduce a new policy sciences that builds on such aims. We describe the need for realistic depictions of ‘rational’ and ‘irrational’ choice, multiple theories to portray the multifaceted nature of complex contexts, and the combination of applied and basic research. To set this new agenda, we build on two foundational strategies: identifying advances in the psychology of decision-making and describing how policy theories depict policymaking psychology in complex contexts.     

From Participatory Reform to Social Capital: Micro‐Motives and the Macro‐Structure of Civil Society Networks

Although a wide‐ranging literature explores the favorable effects of social capital, it is only relatively recently that systematic attention has been directed to the manner in which social networks emerge and the consequent implications for civic engagement and collaborative governance. This article employs advanced social network statistical models to examine civic network emergence following a participatory reform in Los Angeles. Findings suggest that the reform fostered a number of favorable network attributes supportive of democratic participation. At the same time, subtle but ubiquitous effects of socioeconomic sorting had the unintended and undesirable effect of elevating higher‐status actors within the emergent civic network. These findings suggest that macro‐level policy interventions are required to foster the development of ties that promote cross‐talk among socioeconomically distinct community groups.     

The dimensions of dangerousness revisited

In this article, we extend our previous study on clinical predictions of violence using the Dangerous Behavior Rating Scale by increasing follow-up interval from 2 to 6 years and supplying new data on prediction-outcome correlations for multidiscipline assessors. A total of 162 accused persons remanded for evaluations at METFORS were assessed using three criterion measures: subsequent violence, criminality, and general incidents. Statistical analyses revealed a range of predictive performance, contingent on several conditions including the identities of evaluators, categories of subjects, and length and context of follow-up. Even prognostications yielding the highest magnitude coefficients, reaching 53 in the case of psychometric forecasts of behavior in psychiatric hospitals, failed to account for more than 28% of the prediction-outcome covariance. Implications of the results are considered for the future role of the dangerousness construct.The research project described in this article was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Canadian Psychiatric Research Foundation, the Solicitor General Canada, the LaMarsh Research Program on Violence and Conflict Resolution, the Ontario Ministry of Health, Simon Fraser University, the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, and the psychopathy project supported under the sustaining grant provided by the Solicitor General, Canada, to the Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto. Thanks for their perceptive commentaries to Ronald Roesch and the two anonymous reviewers ofLaw and Human Behavior. Acknowledged as well are the contributions of the many research assistants and representatives of mental health, police, justice, and correctional agencies who collaborated in the compilation of these data. Research assistance was provided by Michelle Grossman, Simon Hanbury, Lily Keoskerian, Ed Tymosiak, and Cheri Wilner. Bill Glackman offered technical help with the data analysis. A version of this paper was originally presented at the 1991 Meeting of the American Society of Criminology in San Francisco.Clarke Institute of Psychiatr