48.The Impact of Extracurricular Activity on Student Academic Performance, University of California, Sacramento, available at: http://www.csus.edu/oir/research%20projects/student%20activity%20report%202009.pdf
49.B Schwarz, The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less, Harper Perennial (2004); Renata Salecl, Choice, Profile Books (2010).
50.Daniel Kahneman and Amos Twersky, Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, 185 Science (4157), 1124 et seq. (1974).
51.For a fascinating account of the genesis of applied behavioural sciences, see Daniel Kahneman, Thinking Fast and Slow, FSG (2001).
52.At the time of publication of this book, the members of the Eurozone are: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain.
53.Eric J. Johnson and Daniel Goldstein, ‘Do Defaults Save Lives?’, Science, Vol. 21, pp. 1338–1339 (Nov 2003).
54.See, for example, Suzanne Higgs and Jason Thomas, ‘Social Influence and Eating’, Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 9, pp. 1–6 (June 2016); T. Cruwys, K.E. Bevelander and R.C. Hermans, ‘Social modeling of eating: a review of when and why social influence affects food intake and choice’, Appetite, Vol. 86, pp. 3–18 (2015).
55.To know the genesis of this research, see Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, Farrar, Straus and Giroux (2011).
56.Dan Ariely, writing in response to an online Q&A on Quora, 20 November 2016: quora.com/session/Dan-Ariely/1
57.Gerard Hastings, The Marketing Matrix: How the corporation gets its power – and how we can reclaim it, Routledge (2012).
58.Charles Duhigg, ‘How Companies Learn Your Secrets’, New York Times, Feb. 16, 2012.
59.For an introduction to Big Data, see Viktor Mayer-Schönberger and Kenneth Cukier, Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think, John Murray (2013).
60.Adam D. I. Kramer, Jamie E. Guillory and Jeffrey T. Hancock, ‘Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social network’, PNAS, Vol. 111 (24) pp. 8788–8790 (2014).
61.Robert M. Bond et al., ‘A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization’, Nature, Vol. 489 (13 September 2012).
62.Immanuel Kant, Kant’s Principles of Politics, including his essay on Perpetual Peace. A Contribution to Political Science, trans. W. Hastie, Clark (1891).
63.Ibid.
64.Jennifer Stark and Nicholas Diakopoulos, ‘Uber seems to offer better service in areas with more white people. That raises some tough questions’, Washington Post, March 10, 2016.
65.Ibid.
66.Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms that Control Money and Information, Harvard University Press (2015).
67.To know more, check the MIT Affect Computing Research group at: http://affect.media.mit.edu/projects.php
68.‘Tesco’s In-Store Ads Watch You – and It Looks Like You Need Coffee’, Businessweek.com, 4 November 2014; Kevin Rawlinson, ‘Facial recognition technology: How well does it work?’, 3 February 2015.
69.Yohei Kawaguchi et al., ‘Face Recognition-based Lecture Attendance System’: http://www.mm.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp/old/research/doc/682/FRLASinAEARU.pdf. See also ‘Chinese lecturer to use facial-recognition technology to check boredom levels among his students’, The Telegram, 12 September 2016.
70.Richard Fording and Sanford Schram, ‘The Cognitive and Emotional Sources of Trump Support: The Case of Low-Information Voters’, unpublished paper mentioned in Richard Fording and Sanford Schram, ‘Low information voters are a crucial part of Trump’s support’, Washington Post, November 7, 2016.
71.It claimed publicly to have 5,000 data points on each of the 200 million voters in the 2016 US elections.
72.Sendil Mullainathan and Eldar Shafir, Scarcity: Why having too little means so much, Henry Holt (2013).
Part II – The Solution
1.Fran Peavey, Heart Politics, New Society Publishers (1986), p. 176.
2.Albert Hirschman, Exit Voice and Loyalty, Harvard University Press (1970). According to his theory, in any form of relationship, we have essentially two possible responses when we perceive a decrease in quality or benefit to us: we can exit (withdraw from the relationship); or, we can voice (attempt to repair or improve the relationship through communication of the complaint, grievance or proposal for change).
3.The Economist Intelligence Unit, ‘Motivated by impact: A new generation seek to make their mark’, 21 July 2016.
4.The amount of lobbying efforts by the corporate world is truly unprecedented. In the US, the $2.6 billion in reported corporate lobbying spending is now more than the combined under $2 billion budget for the entire Senate ($860 million) and the entire House ($1.18 billion). In the EU, business accounts for roughly 90 per cent of all reported lobbying expenditures in the EU. See ‘7,000 and counting – Lobbying meetings of the European Commission’, Transparency International (2015).
5.Ibid.
6.Ibid.
7.Eric Lipton and Brooke Williams, ‘How Think Tanks Amplify Corporate America’s Influence’, New York Times, August 7, 2016.
8.Charlemagne, ‘The dodgy side of Brussels think-tanks’, Economist, 17 August 2009.
9.For a study of UK and German think tanks, see Hartwig Pautz, Think-Tanks, Social Democracy and Social Policy, Palgrave Macmillan (2012).
10.The US has more think tanks than the next nine countries worldwide combined. See Jesper Dahl Kelstrup, The Politics of Think Tanks in Europe, Routledge (2016).
11.Ibid.
12.Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway, Merchants of Doubt, Bloomsbury (2010).
13.The legal systems govern lobbying only insofar as it qualifies as professional lobbying, i.e. a service provided by a third party against remuneration.
14.James Madison, Federalist papers, no. 63, New York Packet, November 23, 1787.
15.See Reno v. ACLU, U.S. 521 (1997).
16.For a sober analysis of the actual role of the internet in democratising our society, see Micah Sifry, The Big Disconnect: Why the Internet Hasn’t Changed Politics (Yet), OR Books (2014).
17.See Lynn Sanders, ‘Against Deliberation’, Political Theory, Vol. 25, n. 3 (June 1997).
18.Rumely v. United States, 197 F.2d 166, 173–174, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1952).
19.Alberto Alemanno, ‘Stakeholder Engagement in Regulatory Policy’, Regulatory Policy Outlook, OECD Publishing (2015).
20.See, for example, J. Dryzek, Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations, Oxford University Press (2000).
21.Rowe and Frewer, ‘A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms’, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 30, Issue 2, pp. 251–290 (2016).
22.OECD, Indicators of Regulatory Management Systems, Regulatory Policy Committee, 2009 Report.
23.Adam Grant, Originals: How Non-Conformists Move the World, Penguin Random House (2016).
24.Cynthia R. Farina and Mary J. Newhart, ‘Rulemaking 2.0: Understanding and Getting Better Public Participation’, Cornell Law School (2013). Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=ceri
25.Chris Welzel and Russel Dalton, The Civic Culture Transformed: From Allegiant to Assertive Citizens, Cambridge University Press (2015).
26.For a theory of the public sphere, Michael Edwards, Civil Society, Polity Press, 2014, p. 66 ss, 115.
27.Antonio R. Damasio, Descartes’ error: emotion, reason, and the human brain, Penguin (1995).
28.Dacher Keltner, The Power Paradox, Allen Lane (2016), p. 22.
29.Manuel Castells, Communication Power, Oxford University Press (2009).
30.This is self-government by citizens as opposed to representative government in the name of the citizens. Benjamin Barber, Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age, University of California Press (1984).
31.C. Cohen and J. Kahne, Participatory Politics: New Media and Youth Politi
cal Action, MacArthur Foundation Youth and Participatory Politics Research Networks (June 2012).
32.Michael Edwards, Civil Society, Polity Press (2014,) p. 122.
33.Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon & Schuster (2000).
34.See, for example, C. Pateman, Participation and Democratic Theory, Cambridge University Press (1970).
35.Micah Sifry, The Big Disconnect: Why the Internet Hasn’t Changed Politics (Yet), OR Books (2014), p. 150.
36.Christopher H. Achen and Larry M. Bartels, Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government, Princeton (2016), p. 19.
37.See Jamie Bartlett and Heather Grabbe, E-democracy in the EU: the opportunities for digital politics to re-engage voters and the risks of disappointment, Demos (2016), p. 8.; Heather Grabbe and Stefan Lehne, Emotional Intelligence for EU Democracy, Carnegie Europe (2015).
38.Christopher H. Achen and Larry M. Bartels, Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government, Princeton (2016).
39.James Madison, Federalist papers, no. 63, New York Packet, November 23, 1787.
40.Sherman J. Clark, ‘A Populist Critique of Direct Democracy’, Harvard Law Review, 112(2):434 (December 1988).
41.J. Bourgon, ‘Responsive, Responsible and Respected Government: Toward a New Public Administration Theory’, International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 73, pp. 7–26 (2016).
42.Jason Stanley, How Propaganda Works, Princeton (2015), p. 7.
Part III – The Toolbox
1.OECD, ‘Government at a Glance 2013’, OECD Publishing, p. 19.
2.Reeve Bull, Making the Administrative State ‘Safe for Democracy’: A Theoretical and Practical Analysis of Citizen Participation in Agency Decisionmaking, ACUS, pp. 11–13 (2013).
3.David Lowery and Virginia Grey, ‘A neopluralist perspective on research on organized interests’, Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 57, pp. 163–75 (2004).
4.Revolving Doors, Corporate Europe Observatory, available at: http://corporateeurope.org/power-lobbies/revolving-doors
5.www.startupticker.ch/en/news/may-2016/another-ambitious-privacy-start-up-with-headquarter-in-switzerland
6.On data protection advocacy, see: https://iapp.org/news/a/an-advocacy-storm-is-coming-could-it-water-your-garden/
7.Andrew Pollack, ‘Drug Goes From $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight’, New York Times, September 20, 2015.
8.Alan Webber, ‘What’s So New About the New Economy?’, Harvard Business Review Jan–Feb. 1993; William Isaacs, ‘Dialogue: The Art Of Thinking Together’, September 14, 1999.
9.Kyle Peterson, Marc Pfitzer, ‘Lobbying for good’, Stanford Social Innovation Review (Winter 2009).
10.For an overview of behavioural informed regulation, see Alberto Alemanno and Alessandro Spina, ‘Nudging Legally – On Checks and Balances of Behavioral Regulation’, International Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 12, Issue 2 (2014).
11.RCTs are specific experiments, widely used in the medical field, in which the efficacy of an intervention is studied by comparing the effects of the intervention on a study population, which is randomly allocated in different subgroups. The subgroups are exposed to a differential course of treatment: one of them – the control group – is not treated (or receives a ‘placebo’), whilst the other subgroup – the intervention group – is exposed to the treatment. The impact of the intervention is then measured by comparing the results in both subgroups.
12.David Krackhardt and Jeffrey R. Hanson, ‘Informal Networks: The Company Behind the Chart’, Harvard Business Review (July–August 1993).
13.Jan Beyers, ‘Voice and Access: Political Practices of European Interest Associations’, European Union Politics, Vol. 5, Issue 2, pp. 211–240 (2004).
14.For an introduction to the US system, Craig Holman, ‘The Structure and Organisation of Congress and the Practice of Lobbying’, The Lobbying Manual, ABA 2009, p. 585. For an introduction to the EU system, watch ‘Understanding Europe: Why it Matters and What it Can Offer You’, available on Coursera.
15.R. Parker and A. Alemanno, ‘Towards Effective Regulatory Cooperation Under TTIP: A Comparative Overview of the EU and US Legislative and Regulatory Systems’, European Commission, Brussels (May 2014).
16.Article 11(3) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
17.New Zealand Parliament, Parliament Brief: Select Committees, How Parliament Work Fact Sheets, available at: www.parliament.nz
18.Sociaal-Economische Raad (2013), Energieakkoord voor duurzame groei, available at: http://www.ser.nl/nl/publicaties/overige/2010-2019/2013/energieakkoord-duurzame-groei.aspx
19.The commitment to assess the scope for further action to strengthen the protection of whistle-blowers in EU law was affirmed by President Juncker in the Letter of Intent complementing his 2016 State of the Union speech and in the 2017 Commission Work Programme.
20.See, Bruno Frey et al., ‘Direct Democracy and the Constitution’, in A. Marciano (ed.), ‘Constitutional Mythologies: New Perspectives on Controlling the State’, Studies in Public Choice, Vol. 23 (2011), and, for a EU perspective, Alberto Alemanno, ‘Unpacking the Principle of Openness in EU Law – Transparency, Participation and Democracy’, European Law Review (2014).
21.Charles Blankart, ‘Bewirken Referenden und Volksinitiativen einen Unterschied in der Politik?’ Staatwissenschaften und Staatspraxis, Vol. 3, pp. 509–524; Matt Qvortrup, ‘Power to the People! But How? The Different Uses of Referendums Around the World’, Political Studies Review (2014).
22.Victor Cuesta-Lopez, ‘A Comparative Approach to the Regulation on the European Citizens’ Initiative’, Perspectives on European Politics and Society, Vol. 13, Issue 3, pp. 257–269 (2011).
23.For an overview, see Nancy Roberts and Raymond Trevor Bradley, ‘Stakeholder Collaboration and Innovation: A Study of Public Policy Initiation at the State Level’, Journal of Applied Behavioural Sciences, Vol. 27, pp. 209–227 (1991).
24.OECD, Regulatory Policy in Perspective, p. 124.
25.For more information and guidelines, see the Petitions Web Portal of the European Parliament: https://petiport.secure.europarl.europa.eu//petitions/en/main
26.For more information, see: https://petition.parliament.uk/help
27.Koussouris Sotirios, Yannis Charalabidis and Dimitrios Askounis ‘A review of the European Union eParticipation action pilot projects’, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 5, pp. 8–19 (2011).
28.For an account of the FOIA movement from one of its leaders, see Helen Darbishire, ‘A Right Emerges: The History of the Right of Access to Information and Its Link with Freedom of Expression’, in Peter Molnar, Free Speech and Censorship around the World, CEU Press (2014).
29.See the webpage of Right2INFO.org for an up-to-date presentation of good law and practice that could be helpful to advocates seeking to promote the right to information. Sweden’s Freedom of the Press Act of 1766 is the oldest in the world.
30.United States Supreme Court in NLRB v. Robbins Tire Co. 437 U.S. 214, 242 (1978).
31.David Babbs, ‘Forest sell-off U-turn is a victory for people power’, Guardian, 17 February 2011.
32.Henry Jenkins et al., By Any Media Necessary – The New Youth Activism, NYU (2016).
33.Corey Binns, ‘Civil Rights Goes Digital’, Stanford Social Innovation Review (Winter 2016), pp. 15–16.
34.Henry Jenkins, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, NYU Press (2006).
35.Emma Howard, ‘How “clicktivism” has changed the face of political campaigns’, Guardian, 24 September 2014.
36.For a critique of ‘clickactivism’, see Stuart Shulman, ‘The Case Against Mass E-mails: Perverse Incentives and low Quality Public Participation in U.S. Federal Rulemaking’, Policy & Internet, Vol. 1, pp. 23–53 (2009). For a response, see David Karpf, ‘Online Political Mobilization from the Advocacy Group’s Perspective: Looking Beyond Clicktivism’, Vol. 2: Iss. 4, Article 2
(2010).
37.Communication from the Commission on the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Water and sanitation are a human right! Water is a public good, not a commodity!’, Brussels, 19.3.2014 COM(2014) 177 final.
38.Duncan Matthews, ‘The Rise and Fall of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA): Lessons for the European Union’, Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies, Research Paper No. 127/2012. Available at: SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2161764
39.Danah Boyd, It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens, Yale University Press (2014).
40.Kyle Peterson and Marc Pfitzer, ‘Lobbying for Good’, Stanford Social Innovation Review (Winter 2009).
41.Ibid.
42.Mary-Hunter McDonnell, ‘Radical Repertoires: The Incidence and Impact of Corporate-Sponsored Social Activism’, Organization Science, Vol. 27 (2016).
43.Ibid.
44.The Taproot Foundation is a 501 non-profit organisation that engages design, marketing, IT, strategic management and human resources professionals in pro bono service projects to build the infrastructure of other non-profit organisations. Its global pro directory is available at: https://www.taprootfoundation.org/about-probono/global-pro-bono
45.Vanessa Chase Lockshin, The Storytelling Non-Profit – A practical guide to telling stories that raise money and awareness, Lockshin Consulting Inc (2016).
46.Nathalie Kylander and Christopher Stone, ‘The Role of Brand in the Nonprofit Sector’, Stanford Social Innovation Review (Spring 2012).
47.If you would like to learn more about non-profit storytelling: Julie Dixon, ‘Building a Storytelling Culture’, Stanford Social Innovation Review, 27 October 2014.
48.Walter Lippman, Public Opinion, Harcourt, Brace and Company (1922).
49.George Monbiot, An Activist’s Guide to Exploiting the Media, Bookmarks (2001).
50.Lina Srivastava, ‘About and Basic Framework, Transmedia Activism’, available at: www.transmedia-activism.com
51.The concept of Disco Soup started in Germany, when young people were cooking a ‘protest soup’ for a demonstration against agro-industrial practices.
Lobbying for Change Page 23