7. CROWDLAW | 25 GLOBAL CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT CASE STUDIES
This section summarizes findings from analyzing 25 examples of public engagement in lawmaking using an original taxonomy. An expanded taxonomy is discussed in the final section (Research Agenda). Detailed case study descriptions are available in Appendix I.
This is a draft version of the report (dated October 12, 2017) and will be updated in November.
To identify relevant cases of crowdlaw in action, we solicited advice from Podemos regarding the cases they had reviewed in developing their draft law, as well as from our team of advisors. In addition, we drew upon existing knowledge bases, including the Open Government Partnership, Participedia and the GovLab blog. We reviewed dozens of cases from across the globe and selected 25 for in-depth analysis (Figure 9). Aggregate data about the cases is offered in this section.
These case studies were chosen to provide a diverse survey of crowdlaw practices at different levels of government, including both municipal, regional or provincial, and national models. We also sought to profile initiatives where the public is asked to participate in different ways that range from commenting to drafting. Finally, we included engagement examples that offer instructive lessons for crowdlaw, despite not being defined as crowdlaw.
For more on our cases, see our case study repository.
Taxonomy overview
Throughout our research, we documented salient features of crowdlaw initiatives, cataloguing and comparing them based on six factors. (In the final section, we describe an expanded multi-factor taxonomy for future, more in-depth research):
We have endeavored to comment on the successes and challenges for each model based on the information available. These aggregated findings provide the basis for our recommendations in Section 2. We present organized information about the 25 case studies Appendix I: Case Studies as well as in the Case Study Repository.
We are continuously adding cases and updating information about existing cases and invite additions, suggestions, and corrections to these resources.
As crowdlaw initiatives proliferate and differentiate, we expect that a broader array of examples will become available for each phase of the legislative process. But for now, the activities in our 25 cases break down as follows:
1) Task: 23 out of 25 cases solicited ideas or proposals from participants. Six sought evidence or expertise in one form or another. Seven platforms allowed for drafting of legislative text and only one process provided a specific action other than drafting for the public to do.
2) Methods: 18 cases held hosted consultations, in the sense that the government structured the crowdsourcing opportunity (e.g., for a specific government purpose, like working on a consultation sponsored by a representative or seeking input for a constitution) or else narrowed the call thematically or in terms of subject focus. Nine platforms had an “open call” capacity where participant input did not respond to a specific platform request, and 12 platforms had standard discussion fora.
3) Stage: The majority of cases covered the propose (19) and comment (18) stages, whereas there were relatively fewer examples of citizen involvement in the implement and evaluate stages. Examples of participation in the evaluate stage were focused more on monitoring outcomes than on evaluating the impact and effectiveness of an implemented law.
4) Platform: 21 were websites, 2 were mobile applications, and 10 provided some form of offline engagement.
5) Legal framework: 6 cases had a law formally associated with the process.
6) Evaluation: We found no institutionalized practices for assessing the quality or the impact of laws developed with crowdlaw in contrast to those developed without public input.
- Gabriella Capone and Beth Noveck
Next posts in the series:
- #8. CrowdLaw | Expanded Recommendations
- #9. CrowdLaw | An Agenda for Research and Experimentation
- #10. CrowdLaw | Acknowledgements
Or go to the first post in the series and table of contents here.
