Digital Transformation and Public Policies E-Book

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 329

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2023

Beschreibung

The extent of digitalization and the use of digital tools no longer need to be demonstrated. While companies have been integrating the challenges of such a transformation for more than 20 years, the public sector is lagging behind. Digital Transformation and Public Policies studies the mechanisms of the digital transformation of public organizations. It explores how this new deal, driven mainly by platforms, resonates with new public policies and how digital technology is redrawing the relationship between the governors and the governed. This book, the result of transdisciplinary collaboration between researchers, aims to answer these questions by focusing on several cases: public innovation policies, health data and social policies with fiscal microsimulation devices.

Leseprobe

Table of Contents

Cover

Title Page

Copyright Page

Acknowledgments

About the Authors

Introduction

References

1 From Crowdsourcing to Inclusiveness

1.1. Open innovation and crowdsourcing: two closely related phenomena

1.2. Platforms, innovation contests and inclusiveness or how to better articulate innovation and society?

1.3. The European context: a proactive approach to open innovation

1.4. European contests and inclusiveness: two case studies

1.5. Discussion and conclusion

1.6. Acknowledgments

1.7. References

2 The Regulation of Public Data

2.1. Tenfold attraction for health data, new digitized tools: towards truly innovative practices?

2.2. Towards an economic valuation of health data in the name of a sovereignty imperative

2.3. A contested regulatory vision

2.5. References

3 Access Policies to Digital Resources of Administration through the Lens of Microsimulation

3.1. From a circumvented closure to a progressive and non-systematic opening of data (1951–2001)

3.2. The movement to open up at the turn of the 2010s: from retreat to institutional change

3.3. The movement to open up codes: free consent versus forced freedom

3.4. Discussion: different conceptions of opening up quality?

3.5. References

4 How to Characterize Public Innovation Platforms? Crossed Perspectives

4.1. Platforms in economics and management

4.2. From innovation intermediation platforms (IIPs) to public innovation intermediation platforms (PIIPs)

4.3. The contribution of engineering sciences to the analysis of PIIPs: some directions to explore

4.4. Discussion and conclusion

4.5. Acknowledgments

4.6. References

Conclusion

References

List of Authors

Index

Other titles from iSTE in Information Systems, Web and Pervasive Computing

End User License Agreement

List of Tables

Introduction

Table I.1

Citizen/government relations (adapted from Linders 2012)

Chapter 1

Table 1.1

The main types of crowdsourcing in the literature of economics and

...

Table 1.2

The essential steps in the development of an open contest

Table 1.3

Recent contests launched by the EIC (European Innovation Council)1

...

Chapter 2

Table 2.1

Measurements during the 4th edition – October 2009

Table 2.2

Measurements during the 5th edition – January 2012

Table 2.3

Measurements of the 6th edition

Table 2.4

Measures in the 7th edition – April 2016 (Mr. Valls’ government)

...

Table 2.5

Measures in the 8th edition – May–July 2018 (É. Philippe governmen

...

Table 2.6

Measurements during the 9th edition – June 2021 (J. Castex governm

...

Table 2.7

Departmental health initiatives

Chapter 3

Table 3.1

Summary of data sources used by each microsimulation model

Table 3.2

Successful applications made by the Ouvre-boîte association since

...

Chapter 4

Table 4.1

Paying side and free side: examples of two-sided activities

Table 4.2

Organization of intermediation at Innocentive.com and Challenge.Go

...

Table 4.3

Two visions to characterize a platform

List of Illustrations

Chapter 3

Figure 3.1

Major steps in opening up jurisdictional data in the history of m

...

Figure 3.2

The Director of the DG Trésor tweets about the release of a compl

...

Chapter 4

Figure 4.1

Types of platforms

Figure 4.2

The product lifecycle model

Guide

Cover Page

Title Page

Copyright Page

Acknowledgments

About the Authors

Introduction

Table of Contents

Begin Reading

Conclusion

List of Authors

Index

Other titles from iSTE in Information Systems, Web and Pervasive Computing

Wiley End User License Agreement

Pages

iii

iv

ix

x

xi

xii

xiii

xiv

xv

xvi

xvii

xviii

xix

xx

xxi

xxii

xxiii

xxiv

xxv

xxvi

xxvii

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

161

163

164

165

Series EditorJean-Charles Pomerol

Digital Transformation and Public Policies

Current Issues

Edited by

Valérie RevestIsabelle Liotard

First published 2023 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the undermentioned address:

ISTE Ltd  

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.  

27-37 St George’s Road  

111 River Street  

London SW19 4EU  

Hoboken, NJ 07030  

UK  

USA  

www.iste.co.uk

www.wiley.com

© ISTE Ltd 2023

The rights of Valérie Revest and Isabelle Liotard to be identified as the authors of this work have been

asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s), contributor(s) or editor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of ISTE Group.

Library of Congress Control Number: 2023930948

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication DataA CIP record for this book is available from the British LibraryISBN 978-1-78630-794-1

Acknowledgments

This collective work is the result of the Ounap (Outils numériques et action publique1) research program supported by MSH-LSE between 2018 and 2021. The research that led to the writing of Chapters 1 and 4 was also supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement no. 822781 GROWINPRO – Growth Welfare Innovation Productivity.

We would like to thank the staff of the MSH-LSE and its director, Gilles Pollet, for their support throughout the program. We would also like to thank Carole Boulai for her support during the research project, Anne Deshors for her support during the finalization stage, as well as Lisa Hamour and Camille Barailla, students in the master’s degree program in economics and social sciences at the Université Lumière Lyon 2, for their participation in this research during their master’s internship. We would also like to thank the members of the Ounap research group who did not participate directly in this work, but who contributed to our thinking thanks to the exchanges that took place during many months. Our warm thanks are addressed to Philippe Barbet for his attentive re-reading of one of the chapters. His suggestions and comments were invaluable.

Chapter 4 has a special status because it is the product of many discussions and interactions with our colleagues in engineering and information sciences. It owes its existence to Aicha Sekhari and Jannik Laval of the DISP laboratory (Université Lumière Lyon 2), whom we sincerely thank for having broadened our horizon on these disciplines, and enlightening us on the possibilities of bringing the social sciences and engineering sciences together.

Note

1

Literally translated as Digital Tools and Public Action.

About the Authors

Franck Bessis is a lecturer in economics at the Université Lumière Lyon 2 and a member of the Triangle laboratory (UMR 5206). Inspired by the socio-economics of conventions, his research questions the interventions of economic knowledge in the elaboration of public policies, and in particular the uses of static microsimulation for the elaboration of socio-fiscal reforms. He has published on these themes in Socio-économie du travail (2017) and Politix (2021).

Paul Cotton is pursuing a PhD in political science (Cifre contract) under the supervision of Gilles Pollet at Sciences Po Lyon, and is attached to the Triangle laboratory (UMR 5206). His work focuses on the evolution of knowledge and repertoires of reform mobilized to transform public action at central and regional levels since 2008. In particular, he is interested in the evolution of the uses, conditions of development and factors of abandonment of public policy evaluation. He has published on the theme of economic expertise in Politix (2021).

Claudine Gay is a lecturer at the Université Lumière Lyon 2, deputy director of the IUT Lumière and researcher at the Triangle laboratory (UMR 5206). She is jointly responsible for the master’s degree in innovation and intellectual property management and has been working on innovation for the past 20 years in a multidisciplinary approach, combining economics to understand the challenges and environment of innovation and management to understand the strategic steering and managerial aspects of innovation.

Isabelle Liotard is a lecturer in economics at the Université Sorbonne Paris Nord and a researcher at the CEPN (UMR 7234). Her research focuses on the digital economy, digital platforms and open innovation. Her work focuses on the effects of digital transformation on companies and the public sector. One field of research is the emergence of alternative organizational forms such as fablabs. She has published on these themes in the journals Technological Forescasting and Social Change and Innovations.

Valérie Revest is a professor of economics at the Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3, iaelyon School of Management, Magellan. Her research focuses on the financing of innovation, innovation platforms and the transformation of public innovation policies. She has published in international journals such as the Journal of Evolutionary Economics or Industrial and Corporate Change. She has participated in several European research projects, and was responsible for a program on digitalization and public policy.

Audrey Vézian is a research fellow in sociology and political science at the CNRS in the Triangle laboratory (UMR 5206). Her research focuses on the definition and implementation of biomedical policies as well as on their implications within the medical community. In particular, she is interested in the development of artificial intelligence in the health sector, and its consequences on the organization and practices of healthcare professionals.

Introduction

Analyzing the impact of digital transformations on public policies: a necessity

Currently, according to a broad consensus, digital technologies are radically restructuring entire industries. The multiplication and availability of vast sets of digital data from heterogeneous sources, coupled with an increasingly rapid and less costly analysis capacity, are opening the way to new expertise in fields as varied as biomedicine, mobility policies, commercial operations and even romantic relationships. This increased digitalization brought about by the growing computerization of organizations, or the development of mobile applications, connected objects, social media and collaborative platforms, is leading to profound changes in the behavior and strategies of companies. In the private sector, these technologies are driving new business models and new modes of organization and interaction, which can even take the form of hubs (Lansati and Lhakani 2017). At the global level, the most profitable companies are based on digital platforms, where a few players share markets, and expand through network effects (Evans and Schmalensee 2017). The largest capitalizations are represented by the platforms Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet and Amazon (Cusumano et al. 2019).

In line with this trend, governments also see support for the production and use of digital data as one of the pillars of their economic and social development, as demonstrated by the massive investments made in recent years in sectors as varied as health and homeland security. Of course, the desire to translate social reality into figures to use them as a basis for government techniques is not new (Desrosières 1993). But the exponential development of digital data tends to extend and multiply the capacities of putting society into figures (Cardon 2019), and by doing so, reform the possibilities of government. Not only do all aspects of social life seem to be affected by the rise of these technologies, allowing some to foresee the possibility of identifying the laws of the social world’s function (Ollion and Boelaert 2015), but also the very foundations of state architecture are being profoundly disrupted (Colin and Verdier 2015).

Indeed, the promoters of the digital revolution see in the emergence of a “new” data policy a transformation of the traditional conception of the State and its modes of intervention. The deployment of this “new form of public action” based on regulation by data (Chevallier and Cluzel-Métayer 2018) would give rise to profound recompositions in existing modes of governance. This is how new concepts – e-government, open government or citizen sourcing (Linders 2012; Nam 2012; Strasser et al. 2018) – emerge. The latter allow for the arrival of new actors, the emergence of new, more depoliticized knowledge and instruments targeting individual conduct, as well as new forms of collective action (Le Galès 2019). Deployed in a context marked by a strong mistrust of traditional political power, these digital technologies are presented as a means of addressing the democratic deficit of contemporary societies, thus feeding in a double movement the notions of open government and citizen sourcing (Nam 2012). In other words, these new technologies of government are seen by policymakers as new sources of rationality (giving an original reading of social interactions and attitudes) that are likely to contribute to an improvement of the function of political, administrative and social institutions. By simultaneously reinforcing the capacities of expression and communication as well as the possibilities of action for each individual around new collective forms (platforms, etc.) (Cardon 2019), the rise of the digital tool leads to a renewal with a form of policy science, “a science of public action and for public action” concerned with “improving the effectiveness of public policies by rationalizing state action” (Hassenteufel 2011). In this way, it contributes to making the knowledge generated inseparable from normative orientations, according to which, among other things, citizens would like to be not only users, but also active participants in public policy. It is in this context that new concrete modalities of public policy have emerged in the form of smarter procurements, new financing mechanisms, digital platforms and advanced models of public policy.

While the impact of digital technologies in the private sector is the subject of an abundant literature ((Barlatier 2016; Škare and Soriano 2021) among others), we finally know little about the variety of effects of digital technologies on the public sector, and more precisely on public policies. In the wake of the previous reflections, the purpose of this book is to study the impact of the development of digital tools on public action. The aim is to provide answers to the following questions: how does the introduction of digital technologies transform the ways in which public policies are formulated and implemented? What uses are made of these technologies, do they contribute to modifying the practices, representations and objectives of the actors involved in the conduct of public action? Finally, to what extent do digital technologies modify the relationship between the governors and the governed? More precisely, we need to consider the place and role of usage, the question of data governance and the possibility for citizens to co-construct policies with the public actor (Mergel et al. 2019).

This collective work is the result of a research program supported by the MSH-LSE between 2018 and 20211, and is based on an interdisciplinary approach, bringing together several HSS (Humanities and Social Science) disciplines. The use of several approaches allows for a better understanding of the issues and consequences of digitalization on public actions and policies. The dialogue within the disciplinary fields of HSS seems unavoidable to grasp an issue as complex and multidimensional as the transformation of public policies. Indeed, while political science seems to be at the heart of this issue, sociological, economic and managerial approaches are complementary to understand the different facets of the design, implementation and evaluation of public policies. Thus, this book is presented as a desire to federate complementary knowledge and skills, to set the first milestones, in order to co-construct a multidimensional approach to the issue of the impact of digital tools on public action.

New forms of governance and their effects

Following the example of many works in HSS (Cardon 2019; Mabi 2021), our approach consists of analyzing in a more precise way the real implications of the support policies brought to the new digital technologies in the field of public action, and more globally, in questioning the real dynamics on democratic life. However, despite the numerous obstacles identified (technical, etc.) that invite us to qualify the revolutionary dimension generated by the rise of new digital technologies (Parasie 2013; Cardon 2019), the fact remains that they structure public programs whose implementation shakes up the practices of actors (administrative, citizens, etc.) and, more globally, the daily life of the administrations in which they are implemented. The advent of the Internet at the turn of the century amplified academic studies on the subject, but at the same time increased the number of terms used to describe governments’ digital transformations and their ability to foster forms of collaboration with stakeholders (Linders 2012): crowdsourcing, citizen sourcing (Torres 2007), collaborative government, Wiki Government, open government, do-it-yourself government (Dunleavy and Margetts 2010), government as a platform. In the following, we propose a preliminary terminological approach to the concepts used in this work.

From e-government to open government

The encounter between new technologies and public action has manifested itself in the concept of e-government. The latter refers to the use of information and communication technologies by public sector organizations (Janssen and Estevez 2013). The appearance of this concept in the academic literature dates back to the 1970s (Grönlund and Horan 2005). Estonia is often associated with an example of a country with a form of e-government: secure electronic identity card, centralization of individual data regarding income tax, digitalized medical prescriptions, to which are added other targeted services (Margetts and Naumann 2017). Initially, the concept of e-government focused on the provision of services to citizens and the internal workings of government. Over time, practitioners and researchers have moved away from an overly technocentric approach to focus more on the role of citizens in creating new services. According to Janssen and Estevez (2013), the concept of e-government has gone through three phases over time: the initial e-government phase (adopting ICT to deliver services), the t-government phase (transformational government: reforming the bureaucracy) and the l-government phase (lean government: doing more with less).

The notion of e-government has gradually evolved to give rise in particular to the concept of open government. In the United States, open government was one of the Obama administration’s flagship projects, with the implementation of new portals giving access to new information and inviting citizens to contribute (Mergel 2015; Robert 2018). Open government is a movement particularly driven by the New Public Management (NPM) movement (Bezes 2007). On the one hand, the production of and access to massive data by public decision-makers would enable the improvement of the effectiveness of public policies, as well as democracy (Noveck 2009; Lathrop and Ruma 2010). These technologies would offer the possibility for actors to make quick decisions and solve problems in a much more flexible way (Barlatier 2016). They would thus improve the efficiency of decision-making. On the other hand, the effects of digital tools on public action would be more complex to analyze and ambivalent.

The case of Open Data is particularly revealing. This term refers to data that anyone can access, use or share. The essential criteria of Open Data are availability, reuse and distribution, and universal participation (definition of the Open Knowledge Foundation in 2005). This movement questions the limits set by various professional secrets such as statistical secrecy or tax secrecy. The tension between Open Data and professional secrecy invites us to think of certain data, in particular personal data, as “contested” public resources, in the sense that their manipulation to inform public action raises moral controversies and thus requires adjustments likely to appease the contestation2. What improvements are needed today to guarantee the acceptability of greater circulation of personal data within and outside the administration?

Conversely, there is also a growing reliance by the State on databases owned by private firms: examples include the use of cell phone data to measure the distribution of the population over the territory in times of containment (Semecurbe et al. 2020) or the use of cash register data to reduce the maintenance costs of the consumer price index (Blanchet and Givord 2017). In this last example, private intermediaries “contribute fully to the definition of the quality conventions of the products (goods and services) that go into the composition of prices” (Jany-Catrice 2019, p. 38). If Open Data concerns exclusively data collected by the State, then the use of private databases to guide its action risks limiting with these new “black boxes” the promises of transparency of public action that accompany this movement. As in the case of the use of personal data for commercial purposes, this situation may give rise to new claims and lead to new arrangements regarding the ownership of this data3.

Yu and Robinson (2012) caution about the non-interchangeability between the notions of open government and Open Data. In other words, the positive technological discussions should not hide the need for in-depth exchanges on priorities in terms of policy decisions. Moreover, the choice of data made available by public decision-makers is the result of a social construction. We select the data that we will make accessible, and that in some way reflect and correspond to the worldviews of those who want to mobilize them (Parasie 2013). These data can also be sought after by interest groups, such as lobbyists (Robert 2017), or monetized and commercialized and thus diverted from their initial objectives.

The concepts of e-government or open government cannot be understood and analyzed without comparing them with the place of stakeholders and in particular the citizen in the system. In our opinion, the term citizen must be taken in a broad definition that includes not only the average individual but also organizations from civil society (associations, NGOs, etc.), private actors (companies), researchers, etc. Citizen sourcing is a major pillar that we will define below.

From open government to citizen sourcing

The willingness of the public sector to implement citizen sourcing is a strong marker of recent years (Breul 2010; Nam 2012). The citizen can contribute to certain actions, co-produce a service jointly with the public actor and play either an active or passive role in the scheme (Androtsoupolou 2017). In this sense, they can alternately have a role of user and chooser or maker and shaper in the decisions (Lukensmeyer and Torres 2008).

Work in public management especially sheds useful light on the devices government agencies put in place to invite citizens to help (Surowieki 2004; Lukensmeyer and Torres 2008; Misuraca 2009; Johannessen and Olsen 2010; Steen et al. 2016; Bekkers and Tummers 2018). These forms are identified under the term co-production (Bovaird and Lofler 2012) and include co-initiation, co-design, co-implementation, co-delivery and co-evaluation (Mergel 2020). Co-initation identifies needs, expected outcomes and users (Sorensen and Torfing 2018). Co-design helps improve processes to achieve desired outcomes (Nabatchi et al. 2017; Loeffler and Bovaird 2019): by incorporating user and community experience in creating, planning, improving public services, the government is part of an outside-in approach. Co-delivery occurs when outside organizations produce services with the State (Brandsen and Pestoff 2006; Brandsen and Honingh 2016) (IT service providers, user testing by users). Brandsen and Pestoff (2006) define co-delivery as:

Co-delivery refers to a mode of organization in which citizens participate in the production of services from which they benefit, at least in part. The term can also refer to the autonomous provision of public services by citizens, without direct state intervention but with state financial support and regulatory oversight.

Finally, co-evaluation focuses on the monitoring and evaluation of public services. Traditionally, outcome evaluation activities have been carried out by public officials or external consultants. However, in the context of co-production, the State and ordinary citizens can cooperate to assess the quality of services, the problems encountered and/or the points for improvement. The co-evaluation is generally retrospective in nature; it looks to the past and is interested in activities that have already taken place. However, the results of co-evaluation exercises can be used prospectively to redesign or improve services (Nabatchi et al. 2017).

Some of the data of the administrations is the basis of their assertions in terms of public policy evaluation. Under these conditions, making these data available helps to challenge the monopoly of economic expertise historically held by the administration in France. The use by Parliament of researchers authorized to work on administrative data can also increase the proposition and evaluation capacities of the legislative branch. Within the administration itself, the circulation of data, reinforced by the Open Data movement, modifies relations between departments, by questioning the effectiveness of existing partitions. This is particularly visible when different teams within the administration work independently on the development of tools with identical purposes. The effects of Open Data can then be reinforced by those of Open Access: beyond making data available, the opening of computer codes, calculation formulas, models, algorithms, proof and government tools makes possible not only innovative controls and solutions that come from outside the State, but also simplified collaborations between its services.

The involvement of citizens (and more broadly of what we call stakeholders) in a co-construction approach with the public actor has been the subject of other works highlighting the use of digital tools to promote this imbrication. The digital environment makes it possible to set up citizen-centered governance, including in particular active citizen sourcing (Linders 2012; Mergel 2015). Knowledge sharing then becomes essential for the public actor who must set up new digital spaces that enable creativity and collaboration (Godenhjelm et al. 2018).

Linders (2012) categorizes three possible forms of connecting citizens with government via digital tools, taking three possible directions: bottom-up, top-down and transversal. The first category is based on citizen sourcing (citizen to government), whereby the citizen takes on the role of partner with the government. The public helps government to be more responsive and effective. The government holds principal responsibility, but citizens influence direction and outcomes, improve government situational awareness and can even help to execute government services on a daily basis. Linders (2012) also highlights the government as a platform (government to citizen) category: here, the government makes its knowledge and IT infrastructure available to the public who has paid for their development. By doing so, the government can help citizens improve their productivity, decision-making and daily well-being. The government is not responsible for the resulting activity, but it can leverage its platform and influence to foster greater public value. Finally, in do-it-yourself government (citizen to citizen), connected citizens can effectively self-organize and new opportunities for co-production citizen to citizen can emerge. In this informal arrangement, the government does not play an active role in the daily activities but can provide a facilitating framework. Moreover, these connections occur at three fundamental stages according to Linders (2012): at the design stage, government/citizen relations allow for reflection on the form, objectives and rules that the service will take; at the execution stage, it is about producing the public service. At the monitoring and evaluation stage, it is a matter of evaluating and possibly correcting the public service. The intersection of these three stages with the three forms of relationship leads Linders (2012) to propose Table I.1, specifying the different tools mobilized.

Table I.1Citizen/government relations (adapted from Linders 2012)

Citizen sourcing

Government platform

Do-it-yourself government

Design

Consultation, sharing of ideas and opinions

Inform and influence

Self-organization of citizens

Execution/production

Crowdsourcing and co-delivery

Ecosystem and embedding of communities of citizens

Self-service (the citizen takes care of the service)

Monitoring/evaluation

Citizen reporting activities (information, intelligence)

“Open book” government

Self-check

General methodology and presentation of chapters

As we mentioned earlier, the ambition of our work is to grasp the real effects – desired or unexpected – of the use of digital technologies in the development of new forms of public action and/or the processes by which these effects are generated. Thus, we wish to highlight not only the characteristics of the instruments used, but also the weight of the environment and the actors’ strategies in the observed dynamics in order to better question the conditions of its deployment (Kuhlman et al. 2019). This posture thus consists of being just as attentive to the consequences of public action as to the way in which they occur (Revillard 2018). Thus, we distance ourselves from purely evaluative and/or forecasting research insofar as the question of the effectiveness of public action cannot be limited to an analysis of the compliance (or non-compliance) of the targeted results. Therefore, by giving different disciplinary approaches – economic sciences, political sciences and sociology – it is more broadly an issue of questioning (putting into discussion) how the rise of digital technology in society invites us to reinvent our modes of knowledge production and evaluation of public action.

This book is organized into four chapters. Chapter 1 examines the impact of digitalization on the European Commission’s (EC) innovation policy through the mobilization of new political instruments: platform-based innovation contests. According to the authors, I. Liotard and V. Revest, this innovation incentive scheme is a first response to the EC’s desire to implement a policy of stimulating and supporting open and inclusive innovation, following both the model advocated by Chesbrough (2006) in the private sector and the orientation given by the concept of responsible research and innovation developed by Europe. The results tend to show that if the contest system reveals a certain degree of openness compared to more traditional policy instruments, they could tend towards more inclusiveness of citizens in the different phases of the competition. In addition, a lack of multidisciplinarity is observed among the mobilized stakeholders. This research thus illustrates the attempts of a public decision-maker to transform its mode of action by using a device derived from crowdsourcing. This research is based on the exploitation of official documents, on the EC web portal, as well as on interviews conducted with competition managers.

The issue of access to health data is at the heart of Chapter 2. Indeed, from the 1990s, the latter aroused great enthusiasm on the part of public and private actors under the joint impetus of the explosion of data production in this field and the increase in computing power capacities at lower cost, facilitating their linking. The author, A. Vézian, highlights, on the one hand, the beneficial effects of this abundance: facilitating access to public health databases, stimulating research based on the application of artificial intelligence to health data, and promoting the transfer of innovations in the private sector. However, on the other hand, it points to the questions related to the mode of regulation of this data policy by examining the characteristics of the mechanisms of governance in the French health sector. The latter appear stabilized around a strong proximity between health professionals and political personnel, by the central role of alliances between State/scientists/companies, and finally by strong institutional constraints leading to a weak convergence within the health administration of the processing of Big Data applied to health. This chapter is based on the analysis of the grey literature in this field as well as on a series of interviews with the administrative and professional actors involved in these approaches.

In the context of public action, data can be used to feed theoretical models. This is the issue addressed by F. Bessis and P. Cotton in Chapter 3, through the examination of microsimulation models used to evaluate redistribution policies. The authors show the role played by microsimulation actors in this policy of data accessibility, and address the issue of maintaining a plurality and a sharing of expertise and conventions between administrations and academics. This work is based on a historical perspective of the current configuration, reconstructed from a series of interviews conducted with actors who have contributed to the development of these models and their dissemination over the past 30 years.

Chapter 4 takes the form of an original essay proposing a reflection on the notion of public platforms from an interdisciplinary approach that crosses the views of the social sciences (economics and management) and the engineering sciences. This cross-reading highlights the multiple facets of platforms oriented towards economic and managerial objectives as well as their diversity. The authors, I. Liotard, V. Revest and C. Gay, focus on platforms intended to support innovation. The two main contributions of this chapter are the following. First, a new concept is proposed: that of “public innovation intermediary platforms”, based on the study of two innovation intermediation platforms (private and public). Second, engineering sciences pay particular attention to the design of this type of platform, which can be useful to the public actor in deploying these tools.

References

Androutsopoulou, A., Karacapilidis, N., Loukis, E., Chaealabidis, Y. (2017). Towards an integrated and inclusive platform for open innovation in the public sector.

E-Democracy–Privacy-Preserving, Secure, Intelligent E-Government Services: 7th International Conference, E-Democracy 2017

, Athens.

Barlatier, P.J. (2016). Management de l’innovation et nouvelle ère numérique – Enjeux et perspectives.

Revue française de gestion

, 42(254), 55–63.

Barraud de Lagerie, P. and Kessous, E. (2014). La mise en marché des “données personnelles” ou la difficile extension du marché à la personne. In

Marchés contestés : quand le marché rencontre la morale

, Steiner, P. and Trespeuch, M. (eds). Presses Universitaire du Mirail, Toulouse.

Bekkers, V. and Tummers, L. (2018). Innovation in the public sector: Towards an open and collaborative approach.

International Review of Administrative Sciences

, 84(2), 209–213.

Bezes, P. (2007). Construire des bureaucraties wébériennes à l’ère du New Public Management ?

Critique Internationale

, 2, 9–29.

Blanchet, D. and Givord, P. (2017). Données massives, statistique publique et mesure de l’économie. In L’économie française. Comptes et dossiers. Report, Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques, Paris, 59–77.

Bovaird, T. and Lofler, E. (2012). From engagement to co-production: The contribution for users and communities to outcomes and public value.

Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations

, 23(4), 1119–1138.

Brandsen, T. and Honingh, M. (2016). Distinguishing different types of coproduction: A conceptual analysis based on the classical definitions.

Public Administration Review

, 76(3), 427–435.

Brandsen, T. and Pestoff, V. (2006). Co-production, the third sector and the delivery of public services: An introduction.

Public Management Review

, 8(4), 493–501.

Breul, J.D. (2010). Practitioner’s perspective – Improving sourcing decisions.

Public Administration Review

, 70(s1), s193–s200.

Cardon, D. (2019).

Culture numérique

. Presses de Sciences Po, Paris.

Chevallier, J. and Cluzel-Métayer, L. (2018). Introduction.

Revue française d’administration publique

, 3(167), 463–470.

Colin, N. and Verdier, H. (2015).

L’âge de la multitude – Entreprendre et gouverner après la révolution numérique

. Dunod, Paris.

Collège d’experts (2020). Faire de la France une économie de rupture technologique. Soutenir les marchés émergents à forts enjeux de compétitivité. Report to the Ministre de l’Économie et des finances and the Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la recherche et de l’innovation, Paris.

Cusumano, M.A., Gawer, A., Yoffie, D.B. (2019).

The Business of Platforms. Strategy in the Age of Digital Competition, Innovation, and Power

. HarperCollins, New York.

Desrosières, A. (1993).

La politique des grands nombres. Histoire de la raison statistique.

La Découverte, Paris.

Evans, D.S. and Schmalensee, R. (2017).

De précieux intermédiaires : comment Blablacar, Facebook, Paypal ou Uber créent de la valeur

. Odile Jacob, Paris.

Godenhjelm, S. and Johanson J.E. (2018). Les effets de l’inclusion des parties prenantes sur l’innovation dans les projets du secteur public.

Revue internationale des sciences administratives

, 84(1), 47–67.

Grönlund, Å. and Horan, T.A. (2005). Introducing e-gov: History, definitions, and issues.

Communications of the Association for Information Systems

, 15(1), 713–729.

Hassenteufel, P. (2011).

Sociologie politique : l’action publique

. Armand Colin, Paris.

Iansiti, M. and Lakhani, K.R. (2017). Managing our hub economy.

Harvard Business Review

, 10, 117.

Janssen, M. and Estevez, E. (2013). Lean government and platform-based governance – Doing more with less.

Government Information Quarterly

, 30, S1–S8.

Jany-Catrice, F. (2019). L’indice des prix à la consommation en France : acteurs et conflits autour de sa mesure.

Revue française de socio-économie

, 22(1), 19–43.

Johannessen, J.A. and Olsen, B. (2010). The future of value creation and innovations: Aspects of a theory of value creation and innovation in a global knowledge economy.

International Journal of Information Management

, 30(6), 502–511.

Kuhlmann, S., Stegmaier, P., Konrad, K. (2019). The tentative governance of emerging science and technology – A conceptual introduction.

Research Policy

, 48(5), 1091–1097.

Lathrop, D. and Ruma, L. (2010).

Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice

. O’Reilly Media, Newton.

Le Galès, P. (2019). Gouvernance. In

Dictionnaire des politiques

, Boussaguet, L. (ed.). Presses de Sciences, Paris.

Linders, D. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media.

Government Information Quarterly

, 29(4), 446–454.

Lukensmeyer, C.J. and Torres, L.H. (2008). Citizensourcing: Citizen participation in a networked nation. In

Civic Engagement in a Network Society

, Yang, K. and Bergrud, E. (eds). Information Age Publishing, Charlotte.

Mabi, C. (2021). La “civic tech” et “la démocratie numérique” pour “ouvrir” la démocratie ?

Réseaux

, 225, 215–248.

Margetts, H. and Naumann, A. (2017). Government as a platform: What can Estonia show the world? Research document, University of Oxford.

Mergel, I. (2015). Opening government: Designing open innovation processes to collaborate with external problem solvers.

Social Science Computer Review

, 33(5), 599–612.

Mergel, I. (2020). La co-création de valeur publique par les directions du numérique : une comparaison internationale.

Action publique, recherche et pratique

, 6, 6–16.

Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews.

Government Information Quarterly

, 36(4), 101385.

Misuraca, G.C. (2009). e-Government 2015: Exploring m-government scenarios, between ICT-driven experiments and citizen-centric implications.

Technology Analysis & Strategic Management

, 21(3), 407–424.

Nabatchi, T., Sancino, A., Sicilia, M. (2017). Varieties of participation in public services: The who, when, and what of co-production.

Public Administration Review

, 77(5), 766–776.

Nam, T. (2012). Suggesting frameworks of citizen-sourcing via Government 2.0.

Government Information Quarterly

, 29(1), 12–20.

Ollion, É. and Boelaert, J. (2015). Au-delà des big data. Les sciences sociales et la multiplication des données numériques.

Sociologie

, 6, 295–310 [Online]. Available at:

https://doi-org.ezp.em-lyon.com/

.

Parasie, S. (2013). Des machines à scandale : éléments pour une sociologie morale des bases de données.

Réseaux

, 178–179, 127–161.