Articles from Policy & Internet, Economics, Policy, Politics & Government

How Can Digitalisation Close the VAT Gap? Insights for Policymakers

by Hana Zídková 16/12/2024

By embracing digital transformation, policymakers can create more efficient, transparent, and fair tax systems that benefit both governments and taxpayers.

by Hana Zídková 16/12/2024

Close-up of a calculator and pen on a bar graph, representing finance and accounting.

The digitalisation of tax administration is a hot topic in the EU, with significant implications for VAT collection. Our recent study explores how the level of e-government, measured by the E-Government Development Index (EGDI), impacts VAT evasion, specifically the VAT gap, across EU Member States from 2003 to 2020. The findings reveal that higher levels of digitalisation in tax administration significantly reduce the VAT gap, highlighting the importance of digital transformation in public services. Why is this research important to policymakers? Here are three key elements that resonate with their needs: Enhanced Efficiency and Transparency: Digitalisation improves the efficiency of tax collection by reducing information asymmetry between taxpayers and tax authorities. This exchange leads to better compliance and less tax evasion. Policymakers can leverage these insights to advocate for more robust digital infrastructure in tax administration, ensuring that tax systems are transparent and efficient. Tailored Policy Measures: The study shows that the impact of digitalisation varies between original and new EU Member States. For instance, while digitalisation and corruption perception significantly affect the VAT gap in the original Member States, new Member States are more influenced by household consumption and standard VAT rates. This differentiation suggests that policymakers should tailor their digitalisation strategies to the specific needs and contexts of their countries Combatting Tax Evasion: The research underscores the role of digital tools in combatting VAT fraud, including carousel fraud. By implementing measures such as electronic invoicing and real-time transaction reporting, policymakers can significantly reduce opportunities for tax evasion. These tools not only enhance revenue collection but also build public trust in the tax system. The findings suggest that investing in digitalisation is not just a technological upgrade but a strategic move to enhance tax compliance and reduce evasion. Policymakers should focus on: Promoting digital literacy among taxpayers to ensure they can effectively use e-government services. Implementing comprehensive digital reporting systems to track transactions and detect fraud Customising digitalisation efforts…

Articles from Policy & Internet, Governance & Security, Policy, Politics & Government

The Power of Digital Participation – How Online Tools Affect and Are Affected by Policy Conflicts

by Ilana Schröder 16/12/2024

Can e-participation improve policy processes, or do existing conflicts hinder its potential?

by Ilana Schröder 16/12/2024

Vibrant abstract pattern of illuminated red LED lights forming a dynamic design.

Involving local communities in political decisions is essential for transparent governance. This involvement is especially important in controversial issues, such as the siting of infrastructure, where a balance must be struck between the collective benefits of projects and the personal costs for nearby residents. However, despite efforts to engage communities, participation processes often lead to protests, loss of trust, and project blockades. This is where e-participation tools can play a significant role. As digital transformation reshapes governance, an increasing number of online platforms are being integrated into traditional participation processes. These platforms aim to make participation more inclusive and transparent by allowing individuals to engage regardless of their location or the time and by fostering a space for clear knowledge exchange. Nonetheless, how effective are communities in accessing these tools, particularly when conflicts are already intense? Can e-participation improve policy processes, or do existing conflicts hinder its potential? Our recent article published in Policy & Internet, titled “Digital Citizen Participation in Policy Conflict and Concord: Evaluation of a Web-Based Planning Tool for Railroad Infrastructure” by Ilana Schröder and Nils C. Bandelow, explores these questions. The research examines the performance of e-participation in both low- and high-conflict settings by focusing on a web-based tool that allows citizens to propose alternative railroad routes. Study participants were asked to use the online tool in a hypothetical scenario characterized as either conflictual or consensual. They then assessed the tool’s ability to promote inclusion, transparency, conflict resolution, and efficiency in the decision-making process. Here are the key findings: E-Participation Can Enhance Transparency and Mutual Understanding: Participants in both low- and high-conflict scenarios indicated that digital participation tools help enhance transparency in decision-making processes. When used effectively, these tools clarify planning criteria, include local knowledge, and improve mutual understanding among stakeholders. Therefore, e-participation tools can help reduce conflict escalation and facilitate creative solutions to complex issues. Digital Tools Aren’t a One-Size-Fits-All Solution: While digital platforms have…

Articles from Policy & Internet, Democracy, Governance & Security, Policy, Politics & Government

A plot on democracy: has the role of e-petitioning changed with the mainstreaming of conspiracy theories?

by Ben Lyall 16/12/2024

The emergence of conspiracy theories within petitions is paradoxical: why target these beliefs at the government using an official government channel?

by Ben Lyall 16/12/2024

Silhouette of a hand placing a vote into a ballot box, symbolizing democracy.

In an era of increased digitisation, e-petitions have become a popular form of political engagement. However, as the parameters of truth, democracy, false news, and conspiracy are challenged, so too is the original role of parliamentary petitioning. In our article, published in Policy & Internet, my co-author and I argue that the amplification of conspiracy theories shifts the goalposts for e-petitioning in terms of function. Specifically, unlike traditional petitions, they are not primarily aimed at producing policy changes. Instead, they function as social objects that achieve various community outcomes while adhering to petition rules. Signatures on these petitions, although lacking automatic results, signal popularity. Thus, the content of petitions can serve as a platform for airing shared grievances on topics such as immigration, economics, and health—and can even experiment with new forms of communication, such as emojis. As it is known, petitions alone rarely lead to policy changes, though they often reflect public sentiment and can significantly impact protest campaigns or social movements. E-petitions exist in various formats, with private platforms like Change.org being among the most well-known. In Australia, there are different types of e-petitioning, and it’s important to distinguish between them. The first type is private e-petitions, which serve as gathering spaces for individuals united by a common cause. The second type is parliamentary petitions, which can be initiated at either the state or federal level. Parliamentary petitioning is a process entrenched in parliamentary conventions. The petitions committee enforces rules that enable Australian residents and citizens to express concerns to Parliament and has some authority to compel action from government representatives. While rare, there are notable examples of e-petitions that have led to meaningful change. For instance, the Senate inquiry into media diversity, initiated by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in 2020, started with e-petitioning. Similarly, changes to teacher education requirements, which received numerous petitions in 2021, are currently being implemented. Our recent article for Policy & Internet…

Politics & Government, Tools

Follow to be followed: Analyzing The centrality of Ministries of Foreign Affairs in Twitter Networks

by Dr Ilan Manor 12/01/2024 Leave a Comment

Through Twitter, diplomats can comment on world events in near-real time, narrate their state’s actions and justify state policies.

by Dr Ilan Manor 12/01/2024 Leave a Comment

Although they are often described as antiquated and change resistant institutions, Ministries of Foreign Affairs (MFAs) have proven to be innovative, utilizing new digital technologies towards the obtainment of traditional diplomatic goals. Since 2008, MFAs have launched digital Embassies in virtual worlds, migrated to social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter (now X), created digital diplomacy departments tasked with training diplomats, employed big data and sentiment analysis to inform the policy formulation process and launched dedicated smartphone applications. In a recent study, published in Policy & Internet, Elad Segev and I sought to analyze Twitter networks of MFAs. Previous studies suggest that although MFAs operate numerous social media profiles, they are most active on Twitter. Through Twitter, diplomats can comment on world events in near-real time, narrate their state’s actions and justify state policies. Moreover, Twitter enables diplomats to interact with elite audiences including journalists, policy makers and other diplomatic institutions. Indeed, studies suggest that diplomatic institutions follow one another on Twitter and that diplomats view their peers’ Twitter profile as an important source of information. For instance, MFAs may follow peers to identify policy shifts, diplomatic priorities and state’s positions on events shaping the world. Few studies to date have mapped MFA networks on Twitter or tried to examine which factors contribute to the popularity, or centrality of MFAs in a Twitter network of their peers. It is possible that Twitter networks of MFAs mirror offline networks of diplomacy. In such an instance, one might expect that world powers would attract the most peers on Twitter. Yet it is also possible that Twitter networks differ from offline networks and that MFAs from peripheral states may attract more peers than world powers. In our study, we strove to both map MFA networks on Twitter and identify factors that contribute to the network centrality of an MFA among a network of its peers. To do so, we analyzed the Twitter network…

Politics & Government

Internet Companies in China: Where Private Interests and Government Intervention Clash

by Dr Anson Au 09/01/2024

China is perhaps one of the most digitalized societies worldwide. Part of this sweep has been abetted by the rise of large Internet companies that offer key services for everyday social and economic life in the general population.

by Dr Anson Au 09/01/2024

Digitalization has swept through the global economy worldwide. China is perhaps one of the most digitalized societies worldwide. Part of this sweep has been abetted by the rise of large Internet companies that offer key services for everyday social and economic life in the general population. Such services touch upon social networking sites to enable digital connectivity over geographical distances and time, payment infrastructure to facilitate digital transactions and money transfers, and new platforms to expand video game options and video communication (such as short videos). The prominence of these services has been lucrative for Internet companies. But their success has also made them a ripe target for regulation. My latest work examined the latest policies that have emerged out of China in response to the growth of Internet companies. Internet companies in China have leveraged their rich balance sheets to acquire or purchase minority stakes in smaller companies deemed conducive to growth. The most salient of these purchases include Tencent’s acquisition of a minority stake in California-based Snapchat and Alibaba’s stake in Chinese streaming platform MangoTV. The two cases capture the growing lengths to which Internet companies would search for new investment targets and engines of growth. Companies were not only looking to acquire competitors, they were also looking to acquire firms beyond the Internet sector and even national borders. This volley of acquisition activity was one of the major legislative battlegrounds for China’s policy crackdown. New policies urged stringent reporting guidelines that covered Internet firm activities across national borders, curbed internal anti-competitive practices, and institutionalized new channels of oversight through a collaboration of government ministries. If balance sheets were the only thing companies needed to acquire without limit, we would see private interests totalize social and economic life, resulting in greater inequality and the recession of government powers (and public interests). These concerns aboutthe growing influence of Internet companies are a story that is not restricted to China.…

Governance & Security

How to Decolonise the State of Policy in the Digital Space

by Professor John Hartley 07/12/2023

In his latest editorial for Policy and Internet, John Hartley argues that a whole-of-humanity effort to meet the challenges of the ‘digital information space’ is impossible, unless we draw from those who have experienced colonialism.

by Professor John Hartley 07/12/2023

In November 2023, the OECD convened a conference in Paris to ‘identify effective policy responses to the urgent challenges’ member countries face in the ‘information space’. It warned: Today, less than a quarter of citizens say they trust their news media and a majority worry that journalists, governments and political leaders purposely mislead them. In this context, the instantaneous and global spread of information, targeted disinformation campaigns that deceive and confuse the public, and rapidly changing media markets pose a fundamental threat to democracies. As the OECD recognises, ‘a new governance model is needed to establish a whole-of-society approach to fight mis- and disinformation and preserve freedom of speech.’ However, as I argued in a Policy and Internet editorial, a whole-of-humanity effort to meet these challenges is impossible to achieve through incumbent political arrangements. This quagmire is the result of the ‘information space’ of the Internet being riven by enmities and conflict. Purposeful opposition to this digital ‘New World’ is treated as criminal gangsterism. Anyone who is not one of ‘us’ must be one of ‘them’ – an enemy. As per Ronfeldt and Arquilla, there are plenty: China, Russia, Iran, Wikileaks, criminal cartels (hacking, fraud, ransom), along with religious and nationalist ‘terrorists’ (Palestinians, Kurds, or Kashmiri but not Israel, Türkiye, or India). Andreessen adds accelerationist activists for libertarian sovereignty, while Marwick and others include far-right populists and populism. However, an additional challenge impedes on universally-inclusive efforts. Namely, the privileged status of OECD countries and their nations that is currently being challenged. According to Frydl, people in OECD countries like to think of themselves as affluent, advanced, and mostly white. However, I argue, as life becomes increasing digitalised, these very people are beginning to learn what it feels like to be messed around, their lives harmed and resources farmed by unaccountable external agents that owe no allegiance to anyone. That is, citizens in OECD countries are somewhat learning what colonialism is through challenges to sovereignty and security delivered via the digital ‘information…

Call for Papers, Submissions Closed

P&I Special Issue 2023 Call for Paper – Datafication. Platformisation. Metaverse. Global Internet Policy or a Fractured Communication Future?

by Jonathon Hutchinson 29/09/2022

Within our current online and hyper-connected lives, is it possible to have such a thing as global internet policy?

by Jonathon Hutchinson 29/09/2022

*Submissions for this event have closed. Please refer to the event page for further details* Datafication. Platformisation. Metaverse. Global Internet Policy or a Fractured Communication Future? Special Issue Call for Papers, Volume 15, Issue 4 Datafication. Platformisation. Metaverse. What is the state of global internet policy? Within our current online and hyper-connected lives, is it possible to have such a thing as global internet policy? Building off the 2022 Policy & Internet Conference, this special issue addresses the complex and multiple perspectives of internet policy from around the globe. As we evolve through the Anthropocene and attempt to navigate the significant challenges humanity currently faces, we are consistently reminded of the most pressing critical issues of our epoch. Economic systems are the point of breaking, industrial action mobilised by unions is at an all-time high, inflation is rising, workers’ pay continues to fall, and the stability of our political systems has come into question. Our health systems are under unfathomable stress, refugee numbers are increasing through displacement, and the war in Ukraine continues, all of which adds to the growing global societal, economic and political pressures. And yet, concurrently, our connectivity through digital media and its surrounding environments is at an all-time high, arguably from the rise of technology players providing suites of social media platforms and its supporting infrastructures that enable a seamless and convenient, always-on lifestyle. The same app that enables us to chat with our friends and family can also book our rideshares, order our food, pay for our purchases and tempt us to become internet celebrities. What was once framed as user generated content activity has now become a normalised cultural pastime, as TikTok influencers feed the demotic turn that sees ordinary folk become internet superstars in rather small timeframes. At the same time, policymakers are reforming legislation to address the incomprehensible imbalance of power that is generated by technology giants. One of the immediate issues…

Call for Papers, Submissions Closed

Special Issue Call for Papers – The Regulation Turn?

by Jonathon Hutchinson 16/04/2021

Do these technologies offer ease of connectivity, or do they have the potential to be weaponised and misappropriated to further political agendas?

by Jonathon Hutchinson 16/04/2021

*Submissions for this event have closed. Please refer to the event page for further details* Policy & Internet Journal: CFP Special Issue – Issue 1, 2022 Special Issue Editors: Jonathon Hutchinson, University of Sydney & Milica Stilinovic, University of Sydney The Internet Regulation Turn? Policy, internet and technology With the recent media focus on the regulation of social media platforms within our society, users, citizens, human rights advocacy groups, policymakers and content producers have all questioned the validity of these communication technologies. Do these technologies offer ease of connectivity, or do they have the potential to be weaponised and misappropriated to further political agendas, disrupt democratic processes, and abuse an individual’s right to (or assumption of) privacy? Recently, we have observed governments calling on platforms to account for their misalignment with local media markets. Regulators are asking platform providers for increased transparency into their distribution processes. Advocacy groups are asking for increased visibility. The custodians of the internet (Gillespie, 2018) are asking for better tools to manage their communities. At the same time, users are questioning the uses of their data. Nonetheless, our societies are enjoying the benefits of our contemporary communication technologies for a variety of reasons. We see new markets emerging based on platform economic models, increased connectivity in times of physical isolation, new trends and connections are emerging, new cultural conventions are being forged between disparate individuals, and friends and families enjoy the increased ease and connectivity of communicating with their loved ones. To say ‘if you do not pay for the product, you are the product’ (Orlowski, 2020) grossly misrepresents the entirety of the social dilemma we have found ourselves in – a hyper- commercialised and politicised internet of the 2020s. To combat this, we are observing several versions of a ‘Balkinized splinternet’ (Lemley, 2020) emerging, where nations and users are designing and creating their own version of what was conceived as a way to share…

Ethics

Could Counterfactuals Explain Algorithmic Decisions Without Opening the Black Box?

by David Sutcliffe 15/01/2018

Exploring the role of algorithms in our everyday lives, and how a “right to explanation” for decisions might be achievable in practice

by David Sutcliffe 15/01/2018

Algorithmic systems (such as those deciding mortgage applications, or sentencing decisions) can be very difficult to understand, for experts as well as the general public. Image: Ken Lane (CC BY-NC 2.0).

The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has sparked much discussion about the “right to explanation” for the algorithm-supported decisions made about us in our everyday lives. While there’s an obvious need for transparency in the automated decisions that are increasingly being made in areas like policing, education, healthcare and recruitment, explaining how these complex algorithmic decision-making systems arrive at any particular decision is a technically challenging problem—to put it mildly. In their article “Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPR” which is forthcoming in the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, Sandra Wachter, Brent Mittelstadt, and Chris Russell present the concept of “unconditional counterfactual explanations” as a novel type of explanation of automated decisions that could address many of these challenges. Counterfactual explanations describe the minimum conditions that would have led to an alternative decision (e.g. a bank loan being approved), without the need to describe the full logic of the algorithm. Relying on counterfactual explanations as a means to help us act rather than merely to understand could help us gauge the scope and impact of automated decisions in our lives. They might also help bridge the gap between the interests of data subjects and data controllers, which might otherwise be a barrier to a legally binding right to explanation. We caught up with the authors to explore the role of algorithms in our everyday lives, and how a “right to explanation” for decisions might be achievable in practice: Ed: There’s a lot of discussion about algorithmic “black boxes” — where decisions are made about us, using data and algorithms about which we (and perhaps the operator) have no direct understanding. How prevalent are these systems? Sandra: Basically, every decision that can be made by a human can now be made by an algorithm, which can be a good thing. Algorithms (when we talk about artificial intelligence) are very good at spotting patterns and…

Economics, Governance & Security, Interviews

Digital platforms are governing systems—so it’s time we examined them in more detail

by David Sutcliffe 29/08/2017

It’s important that we take a multi-perspective view of the role of digital platforms in contemporary society.

by David Sutcliffe 29/08/2017

Digital platforms strongly determine the structure of local interactions with users; essentially representing a totalitarian form of control. Image: Bruno Cordioli (Flickr CC BY 2.0).

Digital platforms are not just software-based media, they are governing systems that control, interact, and accumulate. As surfaces on which social action takes place, digital platforms mediate—and to a considerable extent, dictate—economic relationships and social action. By automating market exchanges they solidify relationships into material infrastructure, lend a degree of immutability and traceability to engagements, and render what previously would have been informal exchanges into much more formalised rules. In his Policy & Internet article “Platform Logic: An Interdisciplinary Approach to the Platform-based Economy”, Jonas Andersson Schwarz argues that digital platforms enact a twofold logic of micro-level technocentric control and macro-level geopolitical domination, while supporting a range of generative outcomes between the two levels. Technology isn’t ‘neutral’, and what designers want may clash with what users want: so it’s important that we take a multi-perspective view of the role of digital platforms in contemporary society. For example, if we only consider the technical, we’ll notice modularity, compatibility, compliance, flexibility, mutual subsistence, and cross-subsidisation. By contrast, if we consider ownership and organisational control, we’ll observe issues of consolidation, privatisation, enclosure, financialisation and protectionism. When focusing on local interactions (e.g. with users), the digital nature of platforms is seen to strongly determine structure; essentially representing an absolute or totalitarian form of control. When we focus on geopolitical power arrangements in the “platform society”, patterns can be observed that are worryingly suggestive of market dominance, colonisation, and consolidation. Concerns have been expressed that these (overwhelmingly US-biased) platform giants are not only enacting hegemony, but are on a road to “usurpation through tech—a worry that these companies could grow so large and become so deeply entrenched in world economies that they could effectively make their own laws.” We caught up with Jonas to discuss his findings: Ed.: You say that there are lots of different ways of considering “platforms”: what (briefly) are some of these different approaches, and why should they be linked up…