Information Polity

This article critically examines developments in CCTV (Closed Circuit Television) policy and provision in the UK, with specific reference to the 'evidence-based' approach to policy-making and service provision. The main features of the CCTV revolution are examined from a policy perspective, so that intertwined changes in purpose and technological configuration are illuminated. The underlying premise of evidence-based policy is that a robust and reliable evidence-base exists and that this body of knowledge is used rationally to inform changes in policy and practice. However, in the case of CCTV, there are a range of issues associated with the evidence-base which seem to contradict the logic of continued CCTV provision. In this article, these issues are explored through what are called five CCTV 'fallacies'. These fallacies raise important questions, not just about the ongoing provision of CCTV, but the nature of modern policy innovation and policy-making procedures.

In this article we have explored the significance of specific intermediary organizations for collaborative innovation in the Dutch Employment and Social Security sector: 'infomediaries'. Infomediaries have been established to promote and support collaboration between other organizations through informational and technology centered intermediary services. However, how they actually do so in practice is not yet well understood. The aim of this article is threefold. First, it offers a conceptual underpinning for infomediaries and their activities. Second, the article offers an empirically informed insight in the actual ways in which infomediaries facilitate and promote collaborative innovation. Finally, we connect the empirical phenomenon of the infomediary organization to the wider debate on the role of intermediary organizations in innovation. Despite the fact that infomediary activities are constrained by a resilient institutional dynamic not malleable to burgeoning inter-organizational collaboration, we argue that they help promote collaborative innovation through the provision of services aimed at aligning the 'business', 'informational' and 'technology' domains of several collaborating organizations on a strategic, structural or operational level. Our research suggests that infomediaries are relevant to collaborate innovation by bringing about alignment in specific ways. They act as symbolic analysts in the conceptualization of new collaborative arrangements between parties; as discursive instigators in the development and framing of a collaborative discourse; and finally as bricoleurs providing parties with practical, makeshift tools and coproducing instruments.

Enforcement agencies increasingly use disclosure as a regulatory instrument to promote compliance and govern societal risks: data about companies are disclosed to expose their level of compliance. This innovative instrument, called the 'pillory', differs from traditional instruments such as financial incentives ('the carrot'), legal sanctions ('the stick') and government communication ('the sermon'). The 'pillory' aims to inform and activate the stakeholder environments of companies and, in so doing, encourage them to push for better compliance. Based on case studies of the National Veterinary and Food Administration, the British Environment Agency and the Dutch Provincial Environmental Inspectorate, this article attempts to determine the conditions under which Internet-mediated disclosure contributes to the moderation of societal risks. It is concluded that inspectees (businesses, supervised organizations) are sensitive to reputational damage even though they are seldom confronted with the visible actions of stakeholders. Disclosure affects the behavior of 'small offenders', who care about their reputations, more than that of 'large offenders', who only react to harsh measures. The'pillory' is a useful instrument, even though serious offenders still need to be punished with 'the stick'. In the reflection, we argue that the rise of this innovative regulatory instrument can be attributed to the availability of technology and the changing role of government in a network society.

This article examines policy activity surrounding the implementation of privacy regulations in three European countries, Denmark, Sweden and the UK, following the ratification of the 1995 European Union Directive on Data Protection. It highlights the convergence and divergence of policy embedded in the policy transfer process and stresses not only the complexity of policy transfer, but also the degree to which policy innovation is shaped by existing institutional settings and the processes associated with policy implementation. The article uses Dolowitz and Marsh's 'Policy Transfer Model' as an analytical tool to unpack the regulatory environment surrounding the governance of privacy. This illuminates the main features of the policy process in each of the three case study countries and also the tendency to focus on policy formation at the expense of policy implementation. In the case of the 1995 European Union Directive on Data Protection the three cases examined here demonstrate that multiple regulatory regimes and policy divergence are embedded in the harmonisation (or convergence) process, and that different countries approach the regulation of privacy and data protection in quite different ways.

Do European Union (EU) institutions shape national eGovernment policies and strategies? Is there a process of eGovernment Europeanization in operation? If so, what are the most relevant Europeanization mechanisms within this policy field? How do they work in institutional terms and what are their implications for public sector innovation? These are some of the key questions this paper addresses. To date, national eGovernment strategies and policies have to some extent been shaped by European institutions; this study tackles this phenomenon and seeks to provide some conclusions from the point of view of public policy innovation. In so doing, it concentrates on two different theoretical sources: Europeanization and new institutionalism. This paper also analyzes the most relevant mechanisms deployed by EU institutions to frame national policies, strategies, norms, ideas, and actions in the field of eGovernment using, above all, the open method of coordination (OMC)(benchmarking, good practice exchange, etc.). The results of this paper shed light on various aspects of this European frame, and how specific instruments operate, by addressing domestic administrative systems and arrangements. Institutional theory facilitates the understanding of this type of policy-learning processes and debates, constraints and drivers for policy innovation derived form European institutions, as well as problems concerning potential applications of the OMC as a common framework for working across European policy areas.