Policy Laboratory Research Articles

Laboratories of Design: A Catalog of Policy Innovation Labs in Europe

To address both persistent and emerging social and environmental problems, governments around the world have been seeking innovative ways to generate policy solutions in collaboration with citizens. One prominent trend during recent decades is the proliferation of Policy Innovation Labs (PILs), in which the search for policy solutions is embedded within scientific laboratory-like structures. Spread across the public, private, and non-profit sectors, and often funded by local, regional, or national governments, PILs utilize experimental methods, testing, and measurement to generate innovative, evidence-based policy solutions to complex public issues. This catalog lists PILs in Europe. For each lab, a one-page profile specifies its vision, policy innovation approaches, methodologies, major projects, parent entity, funding sources, and its alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) call to action. For each lab we identify governmental, municipal, multi-sectorial, academic, non-profit, or private sector affiliation. The goals of compiling this catalog and making it available to citizens, scholars, NGOs, and public officials are to call attention to the growing spirit of citizen engagement in developing innovative policy solutions for their own communities and to facilitate collaboration and cross-pollination of ideas between organizations. Despite their increasing importance in public policy making, PILs are as yet understudied. This catalog will provide an opportunity for scholars to explore the function and value of community-oriented policy innovation as well as the effects of approaching policy making around disruptive social problems in a “scientific” way. Methodology: This catalog of policy innovation labs was compiled based on published reports, as well as a Google search for each individual country using the terms “policy lab” and “innovation lab,” first in English, then in the native language. Sometimes the labs themselves came up in the search results; for others, an article or a blog that mentioned them appeared. Next, each lab was searched specifically by name or by using an identified link. Each lab website that was identified was searched for other labs that were mentioned. Some labs were identified more than once, and a few that were found to be defunct or lacking a website were excluded. Innovation labs that referred only to technical or technological innovations were omitted. Only labs that relate to policy and to so-called “public innovation” were included in this catalog. Eligible PILs could be run and/or sponsored by local, regional, or national governments, universities, non-profit organizations, or the private sector. This resulted in a total of 212 European PILs. Notably, while the global proliferation of policy innovation labs is acknowledged by formal, global organizations, there are no clear-cut criteria to determine which organizations are considered PILs. Therefore, this catalog follows the precedent set by previous catalogs and identifies PILs as organizations that generate policy recommendations for social problems and public issues by employing a user-oriented design approach and utilizing experimental methods. Information about every lab was collected form its website, with minimal editing for coherence. For some labs, information was presented in English on its website; for others, information in the native language was translated into English using machine translation followed by human editing. Data for the catalog was collected between December 2019 and July 2020. PILs are opening and closing with increasing frequency so this catalog serves as a snapshot in time, featuring PILs that are currently active as of the time of compilation. Alignment with the UNDP’s 17 Sustainable Development goals was determined based on each lab’s policy areas of focus. These goals are “No Poverty, Zero Hunger, Good Health and Well-being, Quality Education, Gender Equality, Clean Water and Sanitation, Affordable and Clean Energy, Decent Work and Economic Growth, Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure, Reduced Inequality, Sustainable Cities and Communities, Responsible Consumption and Production, Climate Action, Life Below Water, Life on Land, Peace and Justice Strong Institutions, Partnerships to achieve the Goal.” The first to specify European PILs’ compatibility with SDG, this catalog follows in the footsteps of PIL catalogs created for the European Union, Canada and the United States, adding to a valuable and growing body of knowledge about human- and design-centred entrepreneurial approaches to policy making. This report is part of a larger BSF sponsored project examining PILs in OECD countries.

Evolution of policy labs and use of design for policy in UK government

At the intersection between theory and practice on “design” and “policy,” there is small but expanding knowledge base on the concept of “design for policy.” Government interest in design methods for policy-making has grown significantly since the late 1990s, particularly within policy labs. Policy labs are multidisciplinary government teams experimenting with a range of innovation methods, including design, to involve citizens in public policy development. There are more than 100 labs across the globe and around 14 at national and regional levels in the UK. While new policy labs continue to pop up, some are changing and some are closing their doors. How have the operating models of policy labs evolved? How might we enhance the resilience of labs? These are some of the questions explored in a 2-year Arts and Humanities Research Council Fellowship called People Powering Policy. The research draws on insight from established Labs including Policy Lab in the Cabinet Office, HMRC Policy Lab and the Northern Ireland Innovation Lab as well as emerging labs to address the research question: how might policy labs be developed, reviewed and evaluated? Based on interviews, workshops and immersive residencies the main outputs were a Typology of Policy Lab Financing Models and a Lab Proposition Framework for establishing, reviewing and evaluating policy labs. The typology outlines four models for UK labs financing models – Sponsorship (funding from one or multiple departments), Contribution (labs recover part of the costs of projects), Cost Recovery (labs charge for projects on a not-for-profit basis), Hybrid (labs benefit from multiple income sources such as Sponsorship, charging and knowledge exchange funding) and Consultancy (labs charge a consultancy rate with a profit margin to expand operations). The Lab Proposition Framework comprises of four components (1) Proposition – the vision, governance and finance models; (2) Product – the offering, user needs and tools; (3) People – the people skills, knowledge diffusion and wider capacity building; (4) Process – the routes to engagement, user journey and promotion mechanism.

Evaluating experimentation in the public sector: learning from a Brazilian innovation lab

This paper presents an initial evaluation of the GNova lab, with the aim of contributing to the policy lab literature and debate on the value generated by public sector innovation labs. GNova is a Brazilian federal government innovation lab dedicated to developing creative solutions to public policy problems through design-led experiments that involve the active participation of members of partner teams. In the context of a political transition, GNova carried out an evaluation process to assess the results of its projects. By using working principles as evaluation criteria, the process was design-led and consisted of two phases. The first was a workshop with project partners, followed by a series of in-depth interviews with participants in six selected projects. The findings were grouped into three types of effects (effects of the process, effects of products and effects of the participation). The evaluation, even though with a limited scope, confirmed the assumption that, in addition to effects from specific products delivered, the lab contributes to the development of competencies in the civil servants who participate in the process, in resonance with a public administration paradigm based on public value.

Foresight and design fictions meet at a policy lab: An experimentation approach in public sector innovation

This paper depicts a theoretical and methodological experimentation approach developed at the EU Policy Lab of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre. The approach is first framed by its larger institutional context and positioned in a back-end space of public sector innovation. With an internal and self-reflexive departure point, our purpose is to outline it as catalyst of future-oriented explorations, simultaneously nurtured by evidence-based knowledge, and its own transdisciplinary set of experimentation concepts and practices. In addition, to allow for its observation in a practical stage, the paper showcases an empirical illustration of the approach in a forward-looking project for policy advice. #Blockchain4EU was an exploration of existing, emerging or potential applications of blockchain in industrial and non-financial sectors, with attention to plausible near future applications and scenarios, and focus on possible policy, economic, social, technical, legal and environmental impacts. The approach is anchored on desk and qualitative research throughout the project. But its primary outputs emerge from participatory foresight, collective vision building and co-creation workshops, and the prototyping of speculative artefacts through multi-stakeholder engagement. The purpose is to stimulate anticipatory governance frameworks in general, and push the frontiers of what is common practice in policy when considering emerging technologies.

Social Model—Innovation and Behavioural Intervention as a Public Policy of Action within an Oncology and Loneliness Scope

The article presents concepts and the Public Health Policy University of Lisbon Lab project to answer questions about the macro-environment of cancer and loneliness. Although the biomedical model has considered the disease’s general symptoms, it takes a holistic approach to incorporate several other circumstances that influence health. Emotional, social, psychological, and economic factors mirror influencing layers that affect wellness. Portugal follows Europe’s tendency and simultaneously reflects its reality. Governmental internal policies, amplified by regulations, improve disease prevention and treatment. Nevertheless, it focuses on the general population instead of on the individual. Once cancer, one of the leading causes of global death, is perceived as an isolated incident, we believe macro-environmental circumstances, and not only biological ones, must be considered. Furthermore, cancer in the elderly intensifies solicitude, and expanded policies and actions demand individual health determinants. In the Portuguese Public Health Policy, we started a collaborative Oncology, Human Kinetics, and Public Health Policy project. This is the first project of the Public Health Policy Lab from the Institute of Social and Political Sciences of the University of Lisbon. Based on a brief review of two research projects on improving cancer patients’ health, we promote micro-organisational projects to deal with the social phenomena of loneliness, physical activity, and lifestyle. As a sequence of the well-known social determinants, we endorse political determinants as the basis for public health. The latest worldwide governmental trend is to create public labs as an innovation of political policymaking. Throughout this reflection, the need for a new rational approach specially designed for a social model is considered.

Laboratories of Design: A Catalog of Policy Innovation Labs in Europe

To address both persistent and emerging social and environmental problems, governments around the world have been seeking innovative ways to generate policy solutions in collaboration with citizens. One prominent trend during recent decades is the proliferation of Policy Innovation Labs (PILs), in which the search for policy solutions is embedded within scientific laboratory-like structures. Spread across the public, private, and non-profit sectors, and often funded by local, regional, or national governments, PILs utilize experimental methods, testing, and measurement to generate innovative, evidence-based policy solutions to complex public issues. This catalog lists PILs in Europe. For each lab, a one-page profile specifies its vision, policy innovation approaches, methodologies, major projects, parent entity, funding sources, and its alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) call to action. For each lab we identify governmental, municipal, multi-sectorial, academic, non-profit, or private sector affiliation. The goals of compiling this catalog and making it available to citizens, scholars, NGOs, and public officials are to call attention to the growing spirit of citizen engagement in developing innovative policy solutions for their own communities and to facilitate collaboration and cross-pollination of ideas between organizations. Despite their increasing importance in public policy making, PILs are as yet understudied. This catalog will provide an opportunity for scholars to explore the function and value of community-oriented policy innovation as well as the effects of approaching policy making around disruptive social problems in a “scientific” way. Methodology: This catalog of policy innovation labs was compiled based on published reports, as well as a Google search for each individual country using the terms “policy lab” and “innovation lab,” first in English, then in the native language. Sometimes the labs themselves came up in the search results; for others, an article or a blog that mentioned them appeared. Next, each lab was searched specifically by name or by using an identified link. Each lab website that was identified was searched for other labs that were mentioned. Some labs were identified more than once, and a few that were found to be defunct or lacking a website were excluded. Innovation labs that referred only to technical or technological innovations were omitted. Only labs that relate to policy and to so-called “public innovation” were included in this catalog. Eligible PILs could be run and/or sponsored by local, regional, or national governments, universities, non-profit organizations, or the private sector. This resulted in a total of 212 European PILs. Notably, while the global proliferation of policy innovation labs is acknowledged by formal, global organizations, there are no clear-cut criteria to determine which organizations are considered PILs. Therefore, this catalog follows the precedent set by previous catalogs and identifies PILs as organizations that generate policy recommendations for social problems and public issues by employing a user-oriented design approach and utilizing experimental methods. Information about every lab was collected form its website, with minimal editing for coherence. For some labs, information was presented in English on its website; for others, information in the native language was translated into English using machine translation followed by human editing. Data for the catalog was collected between December 2019 and July 2020. PILs are opening and closing with increasing frequency so this catalog serves as a snapshot in time, featuring PILs that are currently active as of the time of compilation. Alignment with the UNDP’s 17 Sustainable Development goals was determined based on each lab’s policy areas of focus. These goals are “No Poverty, Zero Hunger, Good Health and Well-being, Quality Education, Gender Equality, Clean Water and Sanitation, Affordable and Clean Energy, Decent Work and Economic Growth, Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure, Reduced Inequality, Sustainable Cities and Communities, Responsible Consumption and Production, Climate Action, Life Below Water, Life on Land, Peace and Justice Strong Institutions, Partnerships to achieve the Goal.” The first to specify European PILs’ compatibility with SDG, this catalog follows in the footsteps of PIL catalogs created for the European Union, Canada and the United States, adding to a valuable and growing body of knowledge about human- and design-centred entrepreneurial approaches to policy making. This report is part of a larger BSF sponsored project examining PILs in OECD countries.

Science, Technology & Innovation for Sustainability in Small Island States: Key Implications for Policy and Practice

This Policy Brief follows the discussions of two online workshops the Island Policy Lab conducted in 2020. The webinars received speakers from different fields – academics, think-tanks, governmental officials and analysts from intergovernmental organizations – and discussed innovation and technology acquisition and implementation issues in Small Island Developing States (SIDS) as well as ways to improve efforts for SIDS to get access to newer technologies.

Building an Engaged Himalayan Sustainability Science

The Himalayan region is facing a new crisis under climate change, rapid economic transformation, and escalating geopolitical tensions. A large body of Himalayan sciences has endeavored to understand this challenge but has failed to engage meaningfully with the local people and policymakers. I argue for a new engaged Himalayan sustainability science that not only understands and interprets the emerging challenges but also strengthens societal capability.

Understanding and comparing HIV-related law and policy environments: cross-national data and accountability for the global AIDS response

Law and policy differences help explain why, as HIV-related science has advanced swiftly, some countries have realised remarkable progress on AIDS while others see expanding epidemics. We describe the structure...

Using Policy Labs as a process to bring evidence closer to public policymaking: a guide to one approach

While robust evidence is one ingredient in the policymaking process, it is by no means the only one. Engaging with policymakers and the policymaking process requires collaborative working models, navigating through the experiences, values and perspectives of policymakers and other stakeholders, as well as communicating evidence in an accessible manner. As a response to these requirements, over recent years there has been proliferation of activities that engage producers of evidence (specifically, academics), policymakers, practitioners, and the public in policy formulation, implementation and evaluation. In this article, we describe one engagement approach for facilitating research evidence uptake into policy and practice—an activity called a ‘Policy Lab’—as conducted by the team at The Policy Institute at King’s College London on numerous policy challenges over the past four years. Drawing on our experience in running 15 Policy Labs between January 2015 and September 2019, we (a) provide a guide to how we have run Policy Labs, while sharing our learning on what has worked best in conducting them and (b) demonstrate how these labs can contribute to bringing evidence closer to policymaking, by comparing their characteristics to enablers for doing so identified in the literature. While this approach to Policy Labs is not the only one of its kind, we suggest that these types of Labs manifest characteristics identified in previous studies for influencing the policymaking process; namely: providing a forum for open, honest conversations around a policy topic; creating new networks, collaborations and partnerships between academics and policymakers; synthesising available evidence on a policy topic in a robust and accessible format; and providing timely access to evidence relevant to a policy issue. We recognise the limitations of measuring and evaluating how these Labs change policy in the long-term and recommend viewing the Policy Lab as part of a process for engaging evidence and policymaking and not an isolated activity. This process serves to build a coalition through participation of diverse communities (thereby establishing ‘trust’), work on the language and presentation of evidence (thereby enabling effective ‘translation’ of evidence) and engage policymakers early to respond when policy windows emerge (thereby taking into account ‘timing’ for creating policy action).

정책개발 방법론으로서 영국과 핀란드의 폴리시랩 (Policy Lab) 탐색: 스포츠정책에의 함의를 중심으로

정책개발 방법론으로서 영국과 핀란드의 폴리시랩 (Policy Lab) 탐색: 스포츠정책에의 함의를 중심으로

Justice and health: The Lancet–Health Equity and Policy Lab Commission

Justice forms the foundation for what we owe each other and what fairness among human beings and institutions involves. Globally, there are large inequalities in health outcomes and opportunities for health. Not only is the global burden of disease distributed unevenly but capabilities to prevent and treat disease are also asymmetrical; those in greatest need often have the least access to human, physical, and financial resources for health. Global health justice provides an account of what justice across our planet embodies, offers solutions to global health problems, and identifies who has responsibilities and what those responsibilities entail for addressing these problems.

Improving science-policy interface: Lessons from the policy lab methodology in Nepal's community forest governance

Whether and how science can improve public policy is a highly contested topic in both the scholarly domains and the world of policy and practice. The research community often finds itself frustrated over the continued neglect of research evidence by policy makers. At the same time, policy makers see researchers as addressing their own questions of curiosity, and not those of concern to policy makers. In the context of this ongoing research-policy divide, this paper presents experimental work on the research-policy linkage conducted in Nepal's forest sector. The insights presented here emerged from applying what is increasingly known as the “Policy Lab” methodology. We designed and operationalised this method to facilitate policy uptake of research on forestry and food security within the context of community forestry governance in the country. The method comprised facilitating the two-way interaction between the research team and policy actors. Underpinning this method were six Policy Lab events organized during 2014–2019 as part of an action research project aiming to enhance livelihoods and food security of local communities in the Nepalese hills. We found that Policy Lab methodology, if organized using the suggested principles, can help improve the much-needed link between research and policy. The study has also exposed new issues of concern that merit attention at the science-policy interface.

(Transport) history as policy lab for democratic governance

In the past decades we witnessed a rise of public participation in transport and land-use projects, and often those practices have been formalised in a solid juridical framework. In the Netherlands and other EU-countries, the cornerstones of this participatory planning framework are the Environmental Impact Study and the Environment Impact Assessment. However, historical appraisals of the impact of these instruments on participatory processes are lacking. Using the case study of the contested Dutch motorway project passing through the Amelisweerd forest (1970s), this paper aims to appraise the role of deliberative democracy concepts and practices. This paper is a plea for a novel academic agenda driven by the research questions: to what extent have participatory processes in transport, land-use and water management policies had an impact on deliberative democracy concepts and practices? Which role did citizens and users have in shaping the decision-making process?

Policy labs in Europe: political innovation, structure and content analysis on Twitter

Recent years have seen a veritable boom in the creation of policy labs. These institution-based innvation laboratories aim to open up the processes of public policy design to the social stakeholders involved. In 2016, the European Union Policy Lab commissioned a report that identified 64 such laboratories in Europe. In the present study, we use network analysis to reveal the structure of the relationships between the 42 of these labs that have a presence on Twitter. We then conduct a content analysis of their tweets to identify the topics of interest. Our results describe a fragmented, country-based network and the principal concepts and key issues addressed by these institutions.

Multidimensional measure of immigrant integration

The successful integration of immigrants into a host country's society, economy, and polity has become a major issue for policymakers in recent decades. Scientific progress in the study of immigrant integration has been hampered by the lack of a common measure of integration, which would allow for the accumulation of knowledge through comparison across studies, countries, and time. To address this fundamental problem, we propose the Immigration Policy Lab (IPL) Integration Index as a pragmatic and multidimensional measure of immigrant integration. The measure, both in the 12-item short form (IPL-12) and the 24-item long form (IPL-24), captures six dimensions of integration: psychological, economic, political, social, linguistic, and navigational. The measure can be used across countries, over time, and across different immigrant groups and can be administered through short questionnaires available in different modes. We report on four surveys we conducted to evaluate the empirical performance of our measure. The tests reveal that the measure distinguishes among immigrant groups with different expected levels of integration and also correlates with well-established predictors of integration.

New Medications for the Treatment of Diabetes.

New Medications for the Treatment of Diabetes.

Identifying Barriers to Appropriate Use of Metabolic/Bariatric Surgery for Type 2 Diabetes Treatment: Policy Lab Results.

Despite increasing recognition of the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of bariatric/metabolic surgery in the treatment of type 2 diabetes, few patients who may be appropriate candidates and may benefit from this type of surgery avail themselves of this treatment option. To identify conceptual and practical barriers to appropriate use of surgical procedures, a Policy Lab was hosted at the 3rd World Congress on Interventional Therapies for Type 2 Diabetes on 29 September 2015. Twenty-six stakeholders participated in the Policy Lab, including academics, clinicians, policy-makers, industry leaders, and patient representatives. Participants were provided with a summary of available evidence about the cost-effectiveness of bariatric/metabolic surgery and the costs of increasing the use of bariatric/metabolic surgery, using U.K. and U.S. scenarios as examples of distinct health care systems. There was widespread agreement among this group of stakeholders that bariatric/metabolic surgery is a legitimate and cost-effective approach to the treatment of type 2 diabetes in obese patients. The following four building blocks were identified to facilitate policy changes: 1) communicating the scale of the costs and harms associated with rising prevalence of type 2 diabetes; 2) properly articulating the role of bariatric/metabolic surgery for certain population groups; 3) identifying new funding sources for bariatric/metabolic surgery; and 4) incorporating bariatric/metabolic surgery into the appropriate clinical pathways. Although more research is needed to identify specific clinical scenarios for the prioritization of bariatric/metabolic surgery, the case appears to be strong enough to engage relevant policy-makers and practitioners in a concerted discussion of how to better use metabolic surgical resources in conjunction with other interventions in good diabetes practice.

Building a Public Health Law and Policy Curriculum to Promote Skills and Community Engagement

This article describes implementation of a longitudinal curriculum in public health law, building on doctrinal coursework with skills-based coursework and opportunities for interdisciplinary, community-based engagement and service learning. It specifically describes development of a Policy Practicum, giving an example of how law students can learn policy skills and skills of effective community coalition work through a healthy homes partnership, highlighting areas where the curriculum can incorporate interdisciplinary education. It offers lessons learned during the curriculum-building process, and concludes with a more intensive service-learning strategy through the development of a Policy Lab.

Toward a Theory of Social Innovation

Produced by the Innovation Policy Lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto.