Platform Advocacy and the Threat to Deliberative Democracy

Businesses have long tried to influence political outcomes, but today, there is a new and potent form of corporate political power—Platform Advocacy. Internet-based platforms, such as Facebook, Google, and Uber, mobilize their user bases through direct solicitation of support and the more troubling exploitation of irrational behavior. Platform Advocacy helps platforms push policy agendas that create favorable legal environments for themselves, thereby strengthening their own dominance in the marketplace. This new form of advocacy will have radical effects on deliberative democracy. In the age of constant digital noise and uncertainty, it is more important than ever to detect and analyze new forms of political power. This Article will contribute to our understanding of one such new form and provide a way forward to ensure the exceptional power of platforms do not improperly influence consumers and, by extension, lawmakers

Costs and benefits of superfast broadband in the UK

This paper was commissioned from LSE Enterprise by Convergys Smart Revenue Solutions to stimulate an open and constructive debate among the main stakeholders about the balance between the costs, the revenues, and the societal benefits of ‘superfast’ broadband. The intent has been to analyse the available facts and to propose wider perspectives on economic and social interactions. The paper has two parts: one concentrates on superfast broadband deployment and the associated economic and social implications (for the UK and its service providers), and the other considers alternative social science approaches to these implications. Both parts consider the potential contribution of smart solutions to superfast broadband provision and use. Whereas Part I takes the “national perspective” and the “service provider perspective”, which deal with the implications of superfast broadband for the UK and for service providers, Part II views matters in other ways, particularly by looking at how to realise values beyond the market economy, such as those inherent in neighbourliness, trust and democrac

Competition policy review

This is the first comprehensive review of Australia’s competition laws and policy in over 20 years. The National Competition Policy Review (The Hilmer Review) of 1993 underpinned the development of the National Competition Policy – a co-operative initiative of the Commonwealth and State and Territory governments that the Productivity Commission found contributed to a surge in productivity, directly reduced some prices and stimulated business innovation. The subsequent Review of the Competition Provisions of the Trade Practices Act (The Dawson Review) of 2003 examined the operation of the competition laws and resulted in some strengthening of the provisions. There has been considerable change in the Australian economy since the Hilmer Report of the early 1990s and the boost in productivity that underpinned the growth in living standards over the past two decades is waning. The Competition Policy Review will examine the broader competition framework to ensure that it continues to play a role as a significant driver of productivity improvements and to ensure that the current laws are operating as intended and are effective for all businesses, big and small.   MESSAGE FROM THE PANEL This is our Final Report reviewing Australia’s competition policy, laws and institutions. The Panel undertook a stocktake of the competition policy framework across the Australian economy. Although reforms introduced following the Hilmer Review led to significant improvements in economic growth and wellbeing, the Panel believes that renewed policy effort is required to support growth and wellbeing now and into the future. To this end, we have reviewed Australia’s competition policy, laws and institutions to assess their fitness for purpose. Taken together, our recommendations comprise an agenda of reinvigorated microeconomic reform that will require sustained effort from all jurisdictions. We believe this commitment is necessary if Australia is to boost productivity, secure fiscal sustainability and position our economy to meet the challenges and opportunities of a rapidly changing world. Given the forces for change already bearing on the Australian economy, delaying policy action will make reform more difficult and more sharply felt. An early response will make the reform effort more manageable over time, allowing Australians to enjoy higher living standards sooner rather than later. The recommendations and views expressed in this Final Report draw upon the expertise and experience of each member of the Panel. Importantly, we have also had the benefit of hearing from a wide cross-section of the Australian community and from participants in all sectors of the economy

Doing Good and Looking Good in Global Humanitarian Reporting: Is Philanthrojournalism good news?

This chapter investigates if and how a private donor’s apparent motivation to ‘look good’ – or to generate symbolic capital – interacts with a news organization’s ability to ‘do good’ by producing public service content. We address this issue by reporting on the findings of a year-long study of the online humanitarian news organisation – IRIN – as it became primarily funded by a new donor. We argue that whilst it is possible that the Foundation’s pursuit of symbolic capital may have had some effect on how IRIN sought to ‘do good’, it did not appear to affect the extent to which IRIN was either willing or able to ‘do good’. Indeed, our analysis makes clear that the influence of the Foundation only had an effect on IRIN when it combined with other factors, especially journalists’ own values and organizational strategies. Ultimately, this case highlights the limits of generalized claims about the likely influence of a donor’s desire to ‘look good’ on a news organization

Developing an Agenda for Change for New Jersey's Urban Water Infrastructure

A water infrastructure crisis looms in New Jersey's oldest and largest cities -- cities that comprise nearly one-fifth of the state's population and are projected to absorb much of its future growth, and yet have combined sewer systems, which carry both sewage and rainwater, dating to the 19th century. These combined sewers include overflow relief points that, during rain events, often result in combined sewer overflows (CSOs), which discharge raw sewage into waterways. These combined systems can also result in raw sewage backing up into city streets, parks and homes, threatening public safety and health. Of the nation's 860 communities plagued historically by CSOs, just 84 have yet to upgrade their systems or adopt plans to address the problem. Twenty-one of those 84 communities -- one-quarter -- are located in New Jersey. Urban water infrastructure challenges in New Jersey are not limited to the 21 cities with combined sewers. Even outside the CSO cities, polluted stormwater runoff is the state's leading threat to water quality. Many sanitary and separate storm sewer pipes and water-supply lines in the state are more than 100 years old and showing their age. The annual statewide loss (via leaks) of treated drinking water is estimated at 20 -- 22 percent, with some distribution systems losing as much as 45 percent. Water main breaks and resulting service outages are a common aspect of life in many cities. In addition, preexisting flooding problems are being exacerbated by more intense rainfall events driven by climate change, and such events are expected to become more frequent in the future. Most notably, in October 2012 Hurricane Sandy dramatically exposed the vulnerability of many of New Jersey's urban water systems to flooding and other storm damage. Collectively, the problems stemming from aging and degraded water-supply, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure threaten to disrupt daily life, commerce and industry in these communities, and stunt their future economic prosperity.In May 2014, The Johnson Foundation at Wingspread partnered with New Jersey Future and the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation to convene a diverse group of New Jersey leaders to develop an agenda for change aimed at catalyzing action to address urban water infrastructure challenges in the state. Participants represented diverse perspectives, including those of local, state and federal government; public and investorowned water utilities; economic and community development organizations; environmental groups; businesses; and finance and technology companies. The discussions focused on establishing guiding principles for improving urban water infrastructure in New Jersey's cities, identifying the driver for action and agreeing on priority action steps to stimulate progress on the issue. The convening resulted in two products:a three-page consensus "Agenda for Change for New Jersey's Urban Water Infrastructure", which captured the collective priorities of the group, andthis report, which elaborates upon the consensus document and presents The Johnson Foundation's synthesis of the broader range of information, insights and ideas shared during the convening