Search

Begin New Search Topic Regulation Publication Year within 5 Years

111. Local community views on Marine Protected Areas on Greek islands

Author:
Lydia Avrami, Nicolas Demertzis, Antonis Armenakis, and Dmitra Syrou
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP)
Abstract:
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are usually designated in areas with intense human activity. An MPA is therefore a complex socioeconomic system whose success and/or failure, and ability to deliver environmental, social and economic benefits, depend on local communities and their sensitivities. This paper examines how recently designated MPAs on three islands in the Cyclades group (Kythnos, Milos and Santorini), with differently structured local economies and levels of touristic development, are perceived by their local communities. Data are drawn from a phone survey of local residents, and the results show that the awareness, attitudes and perceptions of the local groups differ significantly depending on the area and their stake in the MPA. How much local communities know about the MPA regulatory framework and its location, past experiences and socioeconomic factors are deemed good predictors for the local communities’ behaviors towards the MPAs. The positive interplay between the operation of an MPA and the development of scuba diving is also acknowledged, although the perceived trade-off between marine protection and fishers’ revenue remains the main challenge facing MPA implementation. The paper’s findings highlight the urgent need to deal with the information and knowledge deficit, and to bridge the gap between the perceptions and expectations of local communities and the MPAs’ actual output. Applying a participatory approach to MPA decision-making and operation would build capacity for effective implementation. Thus, the delimitation of the protection zones within the MPAs, and the provision of specific constraints, should be based on both ecological and socioeconomic criteria.
Topic:
Environment, Natural Resources, Public Opinion, Regulation, and Ecology
Political Geography:
Europe and Greece

112. Building public trust to successfully deploy AI in EU healthcare

Author:
Danielle Brady
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Policy Centre (EPC)
Abstract:
COVID-19 has underscored the importance of digital health: the digitalisation of healthcare would improve health systems’ resilience and service delivery, empower citizens, and bolster research and innovation. However, despite the many benefits of introducing technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) into the European healthcare sector, it also raises questions on its impact on the healthcare workers, the potential for new inequalities, privacy issues and public trust. Not to mention, broader questions on the ethics and social implications of AI. The EU’s Proposal for a Regulation Laying Down Harmonised Rules on Artificial Intelligence and the European Health Data Space address many of these concerns, but cannot combat them all alone. Without public trust, acceptance and understanding, AI’s full potential in healthcare will not be realised. Attention must be given to the communication of the benefits of AI in healthcare to the public, Europeans’ digital literacy, the upskilling of the EU health workforce, and the investment in AI technologies. Clear and convincing explanations regarding AI use in healthcare are required so that citizens understand their benefit and trust that their personal data will be handled safely. If the EU and its member states fail to build trust in the deployment of AI in healthcare, Europe will miss a chance to reap all the benefits that AI offers to its citizens and their health.
Topic:
Health, European Union, Regulation, Artificial Intelligence, COVID-19, Digitization, and Trust
Political Geography:
Europe

113. Barriers to Effective Whistleblowing in Botswana: Lessons from the Construction Industry

Author:
Marumo Omotoye
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Botswana Institute for Development Policy Analysis
Abstract:
Adopting Botswana’s construction industry as a case study, this Policy Brief examines key barriers to effective whistleblowing in Botswana. Data were drawn from 117 construction firms and interviews with regulators of this sector. Despite the enactment of the Whistleblowing Act 2016, the study finds the following key barriers to effective whistleblowing: (i) fear of retaliation or punishment, (ii) fear of job loss, (iii) absence of organisational whistleblowing policies, (iv) lack of incentive to report, (v) lack of education on whistleblowing, and (vi) insufficient action and follow-up on disclosures by authorities. From a policy perspective, there is a need to strengthen the existing legal protection offered to whistleblowers, their families and associates to ensure they are not subject to harm, retaliation or victimisation. There is also a need to increase levels of education and awareness on whistleblowing in general, and the Whistleblowing Act 2016 in particular.
Topic:
Corruption, Regulation, Whistle Blowing, and Construction
Political Geography:
Africa and Botswana

114. Piercing the Chinese Wall in Zrenjanin – Civic Activism VS. Linglong

Author:
Ivan Zivkov
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Case Study
Institution:
Belgrade Centre for Security Policy (BCSP)
Abstract:
What are the problems when it comes to the construction of the Linglong factory in Zrenjanin and how did the activists try to improve that process through institutions? Find out in the case study written by Ivan Zivkov. The violation of many regulations, abuse of public powers, disregard for civil rights and extreme lenience of the national, provincial and local authorities to one investor make up the so-far experience with the Chinese Linglong company building an enormous tyre factory near Zrenjanin. The Prosecutor’s Office and the Administrative Court have ignored the criminal charges and applications related to the construction of that factory. The public in Serbia is deprived of the knowledge on how the operations of the tyre manufacturer will impact the environment, food produced in it, the nearby special reservation of “Carska bara” and the health of the people living there. Dissemination of information on these problems is made difficult because the pro-regime media ignore them or sweep them under the carpet. The monitoring of the Linglong company’s investment and its consequences on Zrenjanin and Serbia during the past three years is systematically conducted only by civic activists, with assistance of several associations and independent media.
Topic:
Foreign Aid, Regulation, Civic Engagement, and Activim
Political Geography:
Europe and Serbia

115. UK-EU regulatory divergence tracker: third edition

Author:
Joël Reland, Jill Rutter, and Anand Menon
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
UK in a Changing Europe, King's College London
Abstract:
This is the third edition of the UK in a Changing Europe’s UK-EU regulatory divergence tracker, covering 27 cases of divergence since December 2021. There are fourteen cases of active divergence (where the UK – or some part of it – takes steps to move away from retained EU law), ten of passive divergence (where the EU legislates and the UK – or some part – does not follow), and three of procedural divergence (where the UK has to introduce new systems to manage policy absent substantive divergence). There are also eleven cases with an additional ‘internal impact’ label, to indicate where UK-EU divergence is leading either to divergence in regulation between different parts of the UK, or has some other impact on the operation of relations between the four UK governments.
Topic:
European Union, Regulation, and Brexit
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe

116. UK-EU regulatory divergence tracker: fourth edition

Author:
UK in a Changing Europe
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
UK in a Changing Europe, King's College London
Abstract:
UK in a Changing Europe’s series of regulatory divergence trackers provide an overview of where and how the UK has used its newfound regulatory freedoms to diverge from EU regulation. It identifies and analyses the most significant cases of divergence between the UK and EU which have taken place since Brexit. It explains what the changes are, what impact they are having, and likely further consequences. This is the fourth edition of the tracker, covering changes which have taken place since March 2022.
Topic:
European Union, Regulation, and Brexit
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe

117. UK-EU regulatory divergence tracker: fifth edition

Author:
UK in a Changing Europe
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
UK in a Changing Europe, King's College London
Abstract:
UK in a Changing Europe’s series of regulatory divergence trackers provide an overview of where and how the UK has used its newfound regulatory freedoms to diverge from EU regulation. It identifies and analyses the most significant cases of divergence between the UK and EU which have taken place since Brexit. It explains what the changes are, what impact they are having, and likely further consequences. This is the fifth edition of the tracker, covering changes which have taken place since May 2022. It finds there are 13 cases of active divergence (where the UK or some part of it changes its rules), nine of passive divergence (where the EU changes its rules and the UK does not follow), and three of procedural divergence (changes in the systems for managing pre-existing divergence). In addition, there are two cases of a new category – legal action – where the actions of one side result in the other initiating a legal dispute.
Topic:
European Union, Regulation, and Brexit
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe

118. Doing things differently? Policy after Brexit

Author:
UK in a Changing Europe
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
UK in a Changing Europe, King's College London
Abstract:
Brexit is done, but what does it mean? Doing things differently? Policy after Brexit brings together a number experts in their respective fields to investigate how policy and policymaking have changed in a range of sectors. We asked them to consider how changes so far compare to what was promised before Brexit, and to analyse what changes lie ahead and what their impact might be. Their contributions are divided into three sections: first, those policy areas (trade, immigration, agriculture, fisheries and subsidies) where Brexit compelled the UK to put in place alternative policies. Second, those retaining significant amounts of EU law where the government could think seriously about divergence (financial services, procurement, taxation, consumer protection, environmental policy, energy policy and aviation). A final section considers new or emergent sectors in which both the UK and EU are looking to dip their regulatory toes (climate change and net zero, data and digital, autonomous vehicles and bioscience).
Topic:
Agriculture, Immigration, European Union, Regulation, Brexit, Trade, Fishing, Subsidies, and Policymaking
Political Geography:
United Kingdom and Europe

119. AI Audit-Washing and Accountability

Author:
Ellen P. Goodman
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
We are still some distance from a worldwide robot takeover, but artificial intelligence (AI)—the training of computer systems with large data sets to make decisions and solve problems—is revolutionizing the way governments and societies function. AI has enormous potential: accelerating innovation, unlocking new value from data, and increasing productivity by freeing us from mundane tasks. AI can draw new inferences from health data to foster breakthroughs in cancer screening or improve climate modeling and early-warning systems for extreme weather or emergency situations. As we seek solutions to today’s vexing problems—climate disruption, social inequality, health crises—AI will be central. Its centrality requires that stakeholders exercise greater governance over AI and hold AI systems accountable for their potential harms, including discriminatory impact, opacity, error, insecurity, privacy violations, and disempowerment. In this context, calls for audits to assess the impact of algorithmic decision-making systems and expose and mitigate related harms are proliferating1 , accompanied by the rise of an algorithmic auditing industry and legal codification. These are welcome developments. Audits can provide a flexible co-regulatory solution, allowing necessary innovation in AI while increasing transparency and accountability. AI is a crucial element of the growing tech competition between authoritarian and democratic states—and ensuring that AI is accountable and trusted is a key part of ensuring democratic advantage. Clear standards for trustworthy AI will help the United States remain a center of innovation and shape technology to democratic values. The “algorithmic audit” nevertheless remains ill-defined and inexact, whether concerning social media platforms or AI systems generally. The risk is significant that inadequate audits will obscure problems with algorithmic systems and create a permission structure around poorly designed or implemented AI. A poorly designed or executed audit is at best meaningless and at worst even excuses harms that the audits claim to mitigate. Inadequate audits or those without clear standards provide false assurance of compliance with norms and laws, “audit-washing” problematic or illegal practices. Like green-washing and ethics-washing before, the audited entity can claim credit without doing the work. To address these risks, this paper identifies the core questions that need answering to make algorithmic audits a reliable AI accountability mechanism. The “who” of audits includes the person or organization conducting the audit, with clearly defined qualifications, conditions for data access, and guardrails for internal audits. The “what” includes the type and scope of audit, including its position within a larger sociotechnical system. The “why” covers audit objectives, whether narrow legal standards or broader ethical goals, essential for audit comparison. Finally, the “how” includes a clear articulation of audit standards, an important baseline for the development of audit certification mechanisms and to guard against audit-washing. Algorithmic audits have the potential to transform the way technology works in the 21st century, much as financial audits transformed the way businesses operated in the 20th century. They will take different forms, either within a sector or across sectors, especially for systems which pose the highest risk. But as algorithmic audits are encoded into law or adopted voluntarily as part of corporate social responsibility, the audit industry must arrive at shared understandings and expectations of audit goals and procedures. This paper provides such an outline so that truly meaningful algorithmic audits can take their deserved place in AI governance frameworks.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, Democracy, Regulation, Accountability, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
Global Focus

120. Decoding China’s “Common Prosperity” Drive

Author:
Xin Sun
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
LSE IDEAS
Abstract:
The term “common prosperity” has quickly risen to prominence in Chinese domestic politics amid an intense regulatory crackdown on China’s leading tech companies. However, this new policy agenda offers no clear road map or explicit policy instructions, giving way to various interpretations which while insightful do not depict the complete picture. In this strategic update, Xin Sun argues that the fundamental purpose of common prosperity is to support a new political order that keeps significant power in the hands of Xi and his closest allies and bolsters the supreme leader’s political survival in the coming decades.
Topic:
Regulation, Business, Domestic Policy, and Prosperity
Political Geography:
China and Asia