Uncategorized Archives - Page 96 of 325 - Progressive Policy Institute

Congress’ Anti-Tech Bills Will Not Prevent Algorithmic Harm to Consumers

Posted on February 7, 2022 by The Progressive Policy Institute

A new report from the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) explains how the ubiquity of algorithms and their ever-expanding sophistication often come at a cost to consumers and the public at large. And Congressional proposals to break up Big Tech companies, rather than address the root causes of “algorithmic harm,” represent a solution in search of a problem — not a sober assessment of this highly problematic phenomenon. The report, “Breaking Up Big Tech Will Not Prevent Algorithmic Harm to Society,” is authored by Dr. Kalinda Ukanwa, Assistant Professor of Marketing at the University of Southern California’s Marshall School of Business.

“This paper argues that forcing Big Tech companies to sell parts of their businesses will not prevent algorithms at large from circulating extremist, incendiary, and other harmful content,” writes Dr. Ukanwa. “Algorithms are everywhere, and they all operate on the same two guiding principles. To attack the algorithm problem at its roots, society must implement policy that applies to all algorithms.”

Although the way in which algorithms circulate content may not appear problematic at first glance, as Dr. Ukanwa explains, the patterns of recycling and amplifying content categories that typify them are what create echo chambers, often to harmful effect. In service of their main objective — increased engagement and greater profits for developers — algorithms can promote everything from biased understandings of societal concepts to blatantly harmful content.

The report concludes that current bills proposed in Congress are ill-equipped to protect consumers from algorithmic harm because they fail to take into account algorithmic design principles and the wide-ranging nature of algorithmic activity.

Read the full paper and expanded conclusion here:

Dr. Kalinda Ukanwa is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at the University of Southern California’s Marshall School of Business. A quantitative modeler, Professor Ukanwa researches how algorithmic bias, algorithmic decision-making, and consumer reputations impact firms. She is the winner of the 2018 Eli Jones Promising Young Scholar Award and a finalist for the 2018 INFORMS Service Science Best Student Paper Award, 2019 Howard/ AMA Doctoral Dissertation Award, and the 2020 AMS Mary Kay Doctoral Dissertation Award.

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.

###

Breaking Up Big Tech Will Not Prevent Algorithmic Harm to Society

Posted on February 7, 2022 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Algorithms are all around us. In the United States, a person could have hourly interactions with an algorithm and not even realize it. Some people use algorithm-driven devices like smartphones, digital clocks, or personal digital assistants (e.g., Amazon’s Alexa or Apple’s Siri) to wake them up in the morning. Others navigate to work, school, and other destinations with algorithmic GPS technologies, such as Google Maps, Apple Maps, Waze, or Garmin GPS devices. Many institutions use algorithms to decide whether applicants get jobs, places to live, seats at schools, loans from banks, insurance for medical bills, and public assistance benefits to feed themselves. In fact, when it comes to mobile or internet activity, almost every component of the digital world employs algorithms. Search engine results on Google, Bing, or Yahoo!, consumer product recommendations on Amazon or Netflix, customer service chatbots, and targeted digital advertisements are driven by algorithms. Using social media sites and mobile apps like Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, or Instagram means interacting with an algorithm. Their algorithms will monitor whether the content posted is appropriate or should be removed. They will determine whether posts will be featured or trending on other users’ feeds. At night, an algorithm may put people to sleep by reminding them that it is their bedtime based on their past sleeping behavior. Then algorithms wake us up again the next day, bright and early. It is easy to see why the claim that algorithms are everywhere is not hyperbole.

Regardless of what tasks algorithms are designed to accomplish, virtually all of them operate on two guiding principles: 1) optimize an objective they have been given, and 2) learn how they can best optimize that objective from historical data (i.e., training data).^[1] For example, Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen shared in interviews and congressional testimony that one of the biggest objectives of Facebook’s algorithms is to make money from the ads they display on their site. However, Ms. Haugen also testified that Facebook’s pursuit of this objective sometimes came at the cost of what was good for the public.^[2]

After Haugen’s bombshell testimony about the harm Facebook’s algorithms enact against everyday people, there has been a groundswell of support for congressional action to reduce algorithmic harms by breaking up Big Tech — the collective of top tech companies that run many aspects of billions of consumers lives. The notion is that breaking up Big Tech companies like Facebook, Google, Apple, and Twitter will free society from the algorithmic echo chambers that endlessly and increasingly circulate harmful content.^[3] However, breaking up Big Tech will not eradicate algorithmic harm. Why? Because virtually all algorithms operate on the previously mentioned two guiding principles: 1) optimize an objective, and 2) learn from training data how to best optimize that objective. Hence, the harrowing problems that algorithms perpetuate are not unique to algorithms deployed by Big Tech companies. Algorithms used by small companies, nonprofits, and governments operate the same way. While breaking up Big Tech could temporarily reduce the scale of harmful content, doing so will not stop algorithmic bias and echo chamber facilitation in its tracks. This is because other organizations deploying algorithms will fill the vacuum. As long as algorithms, in their current design, operate in the background of daily life, people will continue to suffer from harmful and biased algorithmic outcomes.

This is how algorithms work. To make money from an online ad, users must see or click on the ad. The ad within a page is surrounded by user-generated content. People are drawn to the page in the first place by the content posted. If Facebook’s algorithm is given the objective to maximize the number of views or clicks of the ad, then it will use information about user content and user viewing and clicking behaviors that led them to click on ads.

Algorithms continually evolve. Just as humans change as they learn new things, algorithms change by updating themselves as they learn from training data. In the case of the Facebook algorithm, to accomplish the objective of getting users to look at an ad and click on it, the algorithm must learn what kind of content users like. The algorithm accomplishes this task by inspecting the content users have typically viewed in the past. The algorithm seeks patterns in terms of content characteristics that increase user engagement (likes, clicks, and reshares of a post). Algorithms can also learn from patterns in content that users have posted themselves. For example, if a user frequently posts about, views, and engages with fashion, beauty, and weight loss content, the algorithm learns over time that the user is interested in those topics.

Algorithms often become even more advanced by learning which users have similar interests across an entire consumer base.^[4] This algorithmic capability is often called “look-alike modeling.”^[5] If the algorithm learns that the aforementioned user who seems to like beauty, fashion, and weight loss topics is a 16-year-old girl from a Columbus, Ohio, suburb, it may look at the behaviors of other teenaged girls who live in mid-western suburbs to discover general patterns that are common among them all. Then the algorithm exploits these learned similarities across users by sending them content they have not seen before about beauty, fashion, and weight loss. Because similar users are receiving in their content feed more of the same type of content that they may or may not have engaged with before, they stay longer on the site. Consequently, content and advertisement views increase.

Although this kind of content circulation might not seem problematic at first glance, this continual recycling and amplifying the same content categories to the same users is how echo chambers arise (scenarios where beliefs are reinforced and amplified inside a closed communication system).^[6] If girls are clicking on harmful content that leads to feeling bad about or even harming their bodies, the algorithm may exploit that knowledge and amplify the volume of similar content directed to those girls through trends, news feeds, and highlights of posts by friends in their networks. If algorithms learn that young men who feel disenfranchised from society like to click on extremist hate content, then algorithms will direct more content to them based on the same topics. Such potentially harmful recommendation patterns serve the algorithm’s main objective: to increase average engagement with content and the amount of time users spend on the site so that users view and click more ads (and deliver more profit to the algorithm’s developers).

Algorithms can also be problematic if they inherit a biased understanding of societal concepts. If user behavior or content is imbued with inherent biases, then the algorithm will also learn and amplify those biases. For example, imagine that a website creates a social media post with a list of the smartest people in the world. Say the post features the 2021 Nobel Prize winners, and the post generates a lot of engagement (likes, reshares, reposts). An algorithm would learn that this type of content is engaging and would update its understanding of the content characteristics associated with “smart.” Though most would agree that Nobel Prize winners are indeed some of the smartest people in the world, 77% of the 13 Nobel Prize winners in 2021 are white and male.^[7] The algorithm could learn from the website’s post and other widespread, highly engaging content that “smart” is associated with white and male. It will serve and boost similar content, and in doing so, produce mass-scale biased output that amplifies the idea that people who are not white and not male are not associated with “smart.”

Thoroughly solving the issues brought to light by Haugen first requires acknowledgement that algorithmic harm is not solely created by Big Tech. The algorithm problem spans across all sectors and organizations, large and small. An effective and feasible solution requires a tactical approach more closely aligned with the design and inner workings of algorithms. An effective solution must also consider the incentives at play for organizations like Facebook. For-profit firms will seek to maximize profit. They will consequently build profit maximization into the objectives of the algorithms they use. Therefore, one solution is to require that constraints be built into algorithmic objective functions to ensure that algorithms serve not only the firm’s goals, but also the public good. Research has shown that designing algorithms to maximize profits while minimizing social harm can be done.^[8]

While free market and commercial rights advocates might decry this proposal, opponents should note that similar restrictions are commonplace in other sectors of business activity. For example, mainstream TV entertainment companies have had to follow the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) rules for decades that limit the types of content they can expose the public to.^[9] It is plausible that TV entertainment companies could increase ratings and revenue if they included more hardcore pornographic or ultra-violent content in their entertainment products. But should they? Despite society’s regrettable predilections and companies’ constant pursuit of maximal profits, regulations successfully prevent viewers from seeing pornographic and ultra-violent content on mainstream TV in order to protect viewers from the social harm such content can cause. Importantly, there has been no need to break up big entertainment companies to achieve the objective of reducing social harm. Instead, regulators provide guidelines detailing what type of content was acceptable for viewers to be exposed to prevent public harm while also allowing companies to grow and flourish.

Regulators today can take a similar approach to reducing algorithmic harm. Algorithms can be reprogrammed to optimize their objective while fulfilling constraints designed to protect the public. For example, a Facebook algorithm could still identify and disseminate popular beauty content among teenage suburban girls, as long as the content does not contain glorification of anorexia, bulimia, or other body dysmorphic behaviors. Furthermore, Facebook could mitigate algorithmic bias in the beauty content served by incorporating characteristics that ensure content features a variety of beauty standards into their algorithm’s design.

To rebuild and reprogram algorithms with constraints requires substantial investment, resources, and research into algorithmic approaches that achieve company objectives while reliably minimizing societal harm. Modifying existing algorithms also requires firms to actively audit, monitor, and update their work because the algorithms learn from data and change constantly. To catalyze the process of algorithm redesign, a credible and capable third-party entity must be empowered to spur action. Fortunately, many of the large companies perpetuating algorithmic harm on a massive scale have the very resources required to successfully accomplish this task. The Big Tech companies in particular are best positioned to lead the way because they possess the knowledge, talent, and financial resources. In contrast, smaller companies with fewer resources may struggle to update their algorithms with the required restrictions, even if they possess the requisite knowledge.

CONCLUSION

Current bills proposed in Congress and the Senate are not well-equipped to protect consumers from algorithmic harm because the underlying policies do not take algorithmic design principles and the ubiquitous nature of algorithmic activity into account. Presently, the proposed legislation aims to ameliorate algorithmic harm by restricting the power that Big Tech platforms currently have over smaller home-grown competitive offerings. However, this article argues that forcing Big Tech companies to sell parts of their businesses will not prevent algorithms at large from circulating extremist, incendiary, and other harmful content. Algorithms are used by large companies and small, and by for-profits and nonprofits. Algorithms are everywhere, and they all operate on the same two guiding principles. To attack the algorithm problem at its roots, society must implement policy that applies to all algorithms. Breaking up Big Tech will not accomplish that objective.

DOWNLOAD THE REPORT

REFERENCES

^[1] Stuart J. Russell and Peter Norvig, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 4th ed., (Hoboken, NJ: Pearson, 2020).

^[2] Seth Flaxman, Sharad Goel, and Justin M. Rao, “Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online News Consumption,” Public Opinion Quarterly 80, no. S1 (2016): pp. 298-320, https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw006.

^[3] Cat Zakrzewski and Cristiano Lima, “Former Facebook Employee Frances Haugen Revealed as ‘Whistleblower’ Behind Leaked Documents that Plunged the Company Into Scandal,” The Washington Post, October 4, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/03/facebook-whistleblower-frances-haugen-revealed/.

^[4] Jun Yan et al., “How Much Can Behavioral Targeting Help Online Advertising?” ACM Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on World Wide Web, April 2009, https://doi.org/10.1145/1526709.1526745.

^[5] Anna Mariam Chacko et al., “Customer Lookalike Modeling: A Study of Machine Learning Techniques for Customer Lookalike Modeling,” Intelligent Data Communication Technologies and Internet of Things: Proceedings of ICICI 2020, February 2021, pp. 211-222, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-9509-7_18.

^[6] Kelly Hewett et al., “Brand Buzz in the Echoverse,” Journal of Marketing 80, no. 3 (May 2016): pp. 1-24, https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0033.

^[7] Niklas Elmehed, “All Nobel Prizes 2021 – NobelPrize.org,” Nobel Prize, https://www.nobelprize.org/all-nobel-prizes-2021/.

^[8] Kalinda Ukanwa and Roland T. Rust. “Algorithmic Bias in Service,” USC Marshall School of Business, (November 2021), https://ssrn.com/abstract=3654943.

^[9] “Obscene, Indecent and Profane Broadcasts,” Federal Communications Commission, accessed January 30, 2022, https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts.

PPI Applauds Passage of America COMPETES Act

Posted on February 4, 2022 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Today, the House of Representatives passed the America COMPETES Act, which will help ease supply chain tension, invest in American innovation, and strengthen our standing in the race to technological leadership.

Aaron White, Director of Communications for the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) released the following statement:

“The Progressive Policy Institute is encouraged to see the House passage of the America COMPETES Act, a companion bill to the Senate’s bipartisan United States Innovation and Competition Act, which will invest in American innovation, ease the tensions on U.S. and global supply chains, and strengthen America’s standing in our race with China for technological leadership.

“This bill has the potential to spur long-term growth through significant investment in scientific innovation and new-age manufacturing and logistics advancements. The American technology sector has long been a leading global innovator; by investing in emerging technologies, research and development, the future workforce and the U.S. high-tech productive base, America can once again lead the world with a robust 21st century economy and expand opportunity for generations to come.

“Notably, it is unfortunate that House Republicans refused to vote for legislation that mirrored bipartisan bills and committee provisions, particularly given the Senate was willing to compromise and pass their companion bill on a bipartisan vote months ago. Important issues like supporting American innovation, technological leadership, and strengthening our economy should transcend partisanship, especially as we recover from the pandemic.

“We must acknowledge that there is still room for improvement. As the Senate and House begin the conference process for the United States Innovation and Competition Act and the America COMPETES Act, PPI encourages conference committee members to more closely examine the trade provisions within the final bill, and take the time needed — through hearings, public comments or other means — to consider the wide ranging implications for U.S. exporters and importers of several of the bill’s trade provisions.

“We also encourage the conference committee to consider reverse the Trump and GOP-era tax increase on scientific research that took effect this year. If left in place, this tax change threatens to undo much of the good that this legislation would do for American innovation. Finally, we hope lawmakers will wait for an official score from the Congressional Budget Office before voting on passage of the bill in its final form. Even if some public investments generate high enough returns to justify borrowing to pay for them, as PPI believes may be the case for some provisions in this bill, it is essential that our leaders have the necessary information to consider all the costs and tradeoffs.

“We thank Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Schumer for their continued work in advancing this legislative package, and congratulate President Biden for spearheading this historic advancement in American economic leadership. The finished product will be a major win for American workers, consumers, and manufacturers alike.”

###

New IFP Report Argues U.S. Faces New “Sputnik Moment”

Posted on February 3, 2022 by The Progressive Policy Institute

U.S. Technological Innovation Needs Government Procurement to Succeed

Ongoing geopolitical pressures, primarily the modern rise of China, have brought American technological superiority back to the fore as a central political objective. By revitalizing corporate science and economic innovation through government procurement, policymakers can promote U.S. scientific leadership while protecting our national security, argues a new report from the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI)’s Innovation Frontier Project.

The report, authored by Sharon Belenzon and Larisa C. Cioaca of Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business, is titled “Government Procurement: A Policy Lever to Revitalize Corporate Scientific Research.” It details the history of government procurement from the 1957 Sputnik shock to the rise of China, along with evidence that an increase in procurement contracts leads firms to invest more in upstream R&D, especially when private market incentives are weaker.

“There’s no reason that America can’t lead the world again in science and technology. And as the authors of this report argue, the rise of China represents not only a threat, but an opportunity,” said Jack Karsten, Managing Director of the Innovation Frontier Project at PPI. “By bolstering corporate scientific research with the right targeted reforms to the procurement process, the U.S. government can constructively address the national security challenges it faces while reinvigorating domestic innovation.”

Belenzon and Cioaca call for the government to incentivize the participation of the private sector in procurement, while still responsibly and efficiently managing taxpayer dollars. They recommend that policymakers consider returning to the practice of rewarding firms that demonstrate technological superiority, encouraging domestic innovation while keeping us competitive abroad.

PPI releases this report as the U.S. House of Representatives considers the America COMPETES Act, a package meant to address supply chain issues, increase domestic production, and invest in American scientific and technological leadership. The legislation would appropriate $45 billion to prevent supply chain shortages and disruptions and $52 billion for semiconductor production in America, along with a collection of bipartisan science, research and technology bills.

Read PPI’s report and its full conclusion here:

Based in Washington, D.C., and housed in the Progressive Policy Institute, the Innovation Frontier Project explores the role of public policy in science, technology and innovation. The project is managed by Jack Karsten. Learn more by visiting innovationfrontier.org.

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.

###

Media Contact: Aaron White – awhite@ppio nline.org

Living with COVID in the New Year and Beyond

Posted on February 3, 2022September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

As variants of the COVID-19 virus continue to emerge, it’s becoming more and more clear that this epidemic is becoming endemic. As the world continues to grapple with the reality that this virus is here to stay, how do we begin to live in our new normal, and how do we balance the tradeoffs between combating the spread of COVID-19 and letting normal life resume?

Last week, PPI’s Director of Health Policy Arielle Kane brought together an esteemed panel of experts, including Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA) and Dr. Leana Wen, for a panel event to discuss living with COVID in the New Year and Beyond. This episode is a segment of their conversation.

Learn more about the Progressive Policy Institute here.

Telehealth helps low-income individuals access care, but disparities persist with video use

Posted on February 3, 2022September 18, 2024 by Alyssa Brown

A new study found low-income people were more likely than other groups to use telehealth services during the pandemic, proving that telehealth does increase access to needed care for underserved people.

Telehealth use skyrocketed during the pandemic when restrictions around telehealth use were eased. In particular, Medicare expanded the number of services allowed to be delivered via telehealth and allowed greater flexibility with the acceptable technology platforms providers could use, even expanding audio-only services. However, though audio-only services are an important part of telehealth, video-enabled telehealth allows for a better patient interaction and may be better in many clinical situations.

The study found that people earning less than $25,000 were more likely to use audio-only services and less likely to have video appointments than other groups. Without addressing barriers like unequal broadband distribution and limited access to video-capable devices, telehealth won’t live up to its potential.

Using data from the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey from April to October 2021, researchers at HHS’ office of Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) found that a quarter of respondents reported using telehealth in the previous four weeks. While there was some variation across demographic groups, the most significant disparities were between those who used audio versus video telehealth services.

Video telehealth rates were higher among young adults ages 18 to 24 (72.5% reported using video telehealth), those earning at least $100,000 (68.8%), those with private insurance (65.9%), and white individuals (61.9%). Conversely, video telehealth use was lowest among those without a high school diploma (38.1%), adults ages 65 and older (43.5%), and Latino (50.7%), Asian (51.3%), and Black individuals (53.6%).

For people without access to broadband internet, phone visits can make it easier to access to care. But video appointments allow for more physical examination, better communication, and a more substantial patient-provider relationship. Further, a video connection allows a provider to have a glimpse into the patient’s home where some social indicators may increase understanding of a patient’s health condition.

But video appointments require video-capable devices, broadband access, software literacy, and often English proficiency. These all prevent barriers for older patients, lower-income patients, non-English speaking patients, and those who don’t have privacy in their homes.

The report underscores the urgency of bringing high-speed broadband to everyone, so that telehealth doesn’t become another example of health disparities where only the relatively affluent can take full advantage of the easy access and lower costs digital health enables. While Medicare has decided to permanently cover audio-only mental health visits if the patient doesn’t have access to video capable devices, a video connection allows for more expansive clinical evaluation for other types of care. Payers should not limit access to audio-only services at this time, but rather should push for broadband expansion so that more people can access video-enabled care.

Trade Fact of the Week: Florida’s sea turtle nest counts are growing

Posted on February 2, 2022September 18, 2024 by Alyssa Brown

FACT:

Florida’s sea turtle nest counts are growing.

THE NUMBERS:

Average counts of green turtle nests at 27 Florida “core index beaches,” two-year average*

2020-2021 ~23,000 nests
2010-2011 ~10,000 nests
2000-2001 ~4,000 nests
1990-1991 ~1,000 nests

* Florida Wildlife Commission; using two-year averages as green turtle nesting totals appear to vary in a two-year cycle. These are not total statewide (or U.S.) nesting estimates; they are counts of nesting at 27 long-studied beaches, representing about 10% of the known Florida nesting beaches.

WHAT THEY MEAN:

Here’s a good idea: Somewhere around 320 B.C., proto-conservationist Mencius offers King Hui of Liang (near present-day Kaifeng) a simple solution to a complex problem:

“If you ban nets with fine mesh from ponds, there will be more fish and turtles than the people can eat. If you ban axes from the forests on the hillsides except in the proper season, there will be more timber than the people can use.”

Twenty-three centuries later, and in the ocean rather than in ponds, all seven sea turtle species are “endangered,” “threatened,” or “critically endangered.” As large, armored reptiles with few natural predators, these turtles are very tough. Their nesting season this summer will be roughly the 150 millionth; the series has outlasted not only the last seven ice ages, but the end-of-Cretaceous asteroid that wiped out their early contemporaries the ammonite and the plesiosaur.

But maybe they are no longer tough enough. Some are caught and traded for shell jewelry. Many more fall victim to “by-catch,” as shrimp and fishing fleets suck them into bag-shaped shrimp trawl nets or catch them on long lines meant for shark and tuna. And many more, with beach erosion and harvesting of nests for eggs, never hatch at all. This series of losses accelerated in the mid-20th century; to take one example, the global estimate of nesting leatherback females done by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature dropped from about 90,000 in 1980 to 54,000 in 2010.

How to respond? Sea turtle protection in the United States may, tentatively, be succeeding, with a mix of three measures:

(1) Trade restriction: The 184 countries and territories in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, the world’s first international trade-and-environment agreement, listed all sea turtles in ‘Appendix I,’ in the 1980s, banning trade in turtle jewelry and other products.

(2) By-catch reduction: To reduce by-catch, the United States in 1987 banned sale or import of shrimp caught by boats which do not use Turtle Excluder Devices or “TEDs.” These are barred metal grills — something like the wide meshes like those Mencius recommended for fishnets in ponds — placed in the neck of the bag-shaped shrimp nets to let mistakenly captured turtles swim out. They cost about $375. Each summer, the State Department publishes a list of countries which, through compliance with this rule, can export ocean-caught shrimp to the U.S. The most recent certifies 41 countries and territories as “equivalent” to the U.S. in turtle protection, and thus able to export wild-caught shrimp to the United States.

(3) Beach protection: National and state laws, and local regulations set aside beaches for nesting, and limit their use. As an example, Florida’s Marine Turtle Conservation Act (passed in 1991 under then-Gov. Lawton Chiles) bars over-building, lighting schemes that can disorient hatchlings in season, and disruption of nesting by tourists.

Does it work? Tentatively, yes. Florida’s green turtle population is a case in point: while totals vary up and down each year, Florida Wildlife Commission figures shows about 20 times as many nests in the 2020/2021 season as there were in the early 190s, when the national TED and Florida beach protection laws began. Kemp’s Ridley turtle nesting levels (almost exclusively on a single stretch of Mexican beach, though with outposts in Texas and Cape Hatteras) are up from a near-extinction low of 200 in the 1980s to about 5000 a decade ago, and perhaps as many as 20,000 in 2020. On a larger scale, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s estimate of leatherback nesting females has risen from 54,000 in 2010 to 64,000 as of 2020, and looks ahead under current population trends (driven by strong growth in Atlantic populations) to 79,000-110,000 by 2040.

Just a start, of course. Hardly Mencius’ “more than you can eat”; and (as an example) the IUCN’s optimistic take on Atlantic leatherbacks is offset by continuing Pacific leatherback decline. And apparently positive trends remain open to newer questions about rising ocean temperatures, acidification, plastics accumulation, and beach erosion as sea levels rise. But this said, a promising start and some validation for Mencius’ rather old, still simple, and still good idea.

ABOUT ED

Ed Gresser is Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at PPI.

Ed returns to PPI after working for the think tank from 2001-2011. He most recently served as the Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Trade Policy and Economics at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). In this position, he led USTR’s economic research unit from 2015-2021, and chaired the 21-agency Trade Policy Staff Committee.

Ed began his career on Capitol Hill before serving USTR as Policy Advisor to USTR Charlene Barshefsky from 1998 to 2001. He then led PPI’s Trade and Global Markets Project from 2001 to 2011. After PPI, he co-founded and directed the independent think tank ProgressiveEconomy until rejoining USTR in 2015. In 2013, the Washington International Trade Association presented him with its Lighthouse Award, awarded annually to an individual or group for significant contributions to trade policy.

Ed is the author of Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy (2007). He has published in a variety of journals and newspapers, and his research has been cited by leading academics and international organizations including the WTO, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund. He is a graduate of Stanford University and holds a Master’s Degree in International Affairs from Columbia Universities and a certificate from the Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union.

Read the full email and sign up for the Trade Fact of the Week

Targeting App Stores Reduces Consumer Choice in the Market for Mobile Devices

Posted on February 1, 2022September 18, 2024 by Alyssa Brown

A bipartisan group of legislators is looking to improve competition within app stores and lower barriers to entry for developers in the market for mobile apps, though the reality of the bill’s impact is decidedly less clear. The Open App Markets Act would require that companies — namely Google and Apple — allow applications to be downloaded onto their operating systems from sources other than their respective app stores in a process known as sideloading. The bill also prohibits companies from requiring that apps facilitate in-app transactions through an operating system’s own payment mechanisms — an issue that took center stage in the 2020 lawsuit in which Epic Games sought to bypass the 30% revenue cut taken by Apple’s app store by implementing an external payment process. While the intention may be to promote competition, this bill misrepresents current industry standards by targeting practices of two major companies which are commonplace among competitors. The consequences of this action will fall on consumers, who will lose the ability to choose preferred methods of obtaining mobile apps by forcing identical business models between competing companies.

Approximately 85% of apps listed on the Apple App Store do not charge consumers or enable in-app purchases of any kind, meaning the commission fees for which this bill seeks to provide alternatives are irrelevant to the vast majority of developers utilizing the marketplace. Because of this, the 1.8 million apps available on Apple’s platform can reach billions of iOS users worldwide at a low cost. However, for those which do enable transactions — many of which operate within the realm of mobile games similar to those offered by Epic — the fees imposed by the Apple and Google app stores both currently operate at or below levels consistent with the standard set by the market. Apple and Google both collect 30% commission on digital goods and services and both implement a model where fees on subscriptions fall to 15% after a year. Both companies also lower fees to 15% for developers making under $1 million in revenue in order to lower barriers to entry for small developers. This is on par with the 30% fee charged by the Samsung Galaxy Store, Amazon App Store, and gaming platforms such as the Microsoft Store on Xbox consoles and the PC gaming store Steam.

In addition to disrupting current industry standards, efforts targeting Apple and Google’s app stores disregard the impact the bill will have on consumer choice in the market for mobile devices. Sideloading apps from sources other than Apple and Google’s approved listings is a useful feature for those who want to customize their devices and maintain a higher level of control over software installed, but there are significant security risks associated with doing so which are left unacknowledged by the Senate legislation. Google’s Android operating system currently allows users to enable the ability to sideload apps from unknown sources, but users doing so assume the risks associated with downloading untested software, potentially exposing their devices to malware. App store review processes are in place to ensure that apps work as intended and do not pose harm to users prior to becoming available to consumers. When sideloading, users have a limited amount of information about the applications source and content, and if the app has not been through the approval processes needed to list an app on a major app store, it is all too easy to misrepresent the content of the app, exposing consumers to potentially dangerous applications. This risk is heightened on any app which requires transactions, as payment information can be easily compromised by unknown third parties when operating outside an operating system’s payment platform. In 2020, Apple’s app review process rejected more than 48,000 apps containing hidden content or undocumented features, as well as 215,000 for privacy concerns, which Apple says saved consumers more than $1.5 billion in fraudulent transactions.

Despite the risks, the autonomy that comes with the Android model is a draw for many consumers as they choose between competing mobile operating systems. For the more tech-savvy consumer, security risks can be mitigated by the ability to make informed choices, and the results can be an enhanced level of functionality on mobile devices which are therefore customized to meet the needs of the individual user. But the average consumer may not want to weigh the benefits and risks of every download they make. App stores which are designed for the specific operating system ensure a level of security, and the payment systems used make it so that financial information is not compromised by exposure to unknown third parties. By requiring that Apple follow the lead of Google and enable sideloading on their devices, consumers lose the option to take advantage of this ensured security and will be open to malware — a practice which Apple has reported results in Android devices having an estimated 15 to 47 times more infections from malicious software compared to their iOS counterparts.

A common critique of this bill is that by targeting only two major companies, the Senate is artificially deciding winners and losers in a market where competition is already present. By manipulating the market to require identical business models by leading app stores, this critique appears especially salient. The assurance of safeguards for privacy and security is a feature of Apple products, and if a consumer feels confident in their ability to monitor their own security risks when downloading unapproved applications from third-party sources, switching costs to another operating system are relatively low from an antitrust perspective. It is thus not the role of Congress to regulate what is considered an ideal business model in areas where innovation and competition are present, particularly when that regulation exposes the everyday consumer to significant security risks.

RAS REPORTS: Celebrating National School Choice Week

Posted on February 1, 2022September 18, 2024 by The Progressive Policy Institute

In this week’s episode of RAS Reports, Curtis Valentine and Tressa Pankovits, Co-Directors of PPI’s Reinventing America’s Schools Project, celebrate National School Choice Week by discussing new developments in the movement to provide access to affordable, quality education to all of America’s youth. The hosts highlight Innovation Schools in Indianapolis, IN which serve as a prime example of the benefits of granting schools the flexibility to make decisions tailored to the specific needs of their student body. Curtis and Tressa discuss how these “schools of choice” attract high-quality teachers, produce higher learning outcomes, and gives parents more power to decide what educational environment is best for their student.

Learn more about the Reinventing America’s Schools Project here.

Learn more about the Progressive Policy Institute here.

PPI’s Mosaic Economic Project Statement on Biden’s Federal Reserve Nominations

Posted on February 1, 2022 by The Progressive Policy Institute

Jasmine Stoughton, Program Lead for the Mosaic Economic Project at the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), released the following response in reaction to Biden’s Federal Reserve Nominations:

“President Biden’s nomination of the Hon. Sarah Bloom Raskin, Dr. Lisa Cook, and Dr. Philip Jefferson to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is a key step toward ensuring stable economic growth that will be felt by every American, and it is a demonstration of Biden’s commitment to uplift leaders that reflect the diversity of our country.

“Raskin, Cook, and Jefferson are well-respected and highly qualified to serve on the Board. Combined, they have decades of experience in academia and government and have each shown extraordinary judgement and skill throughout their careers.

“Diversity in leadership is among the most important elements of successful governance. If the Senate confirms Biden’s nominations, the complete Board will be majority women for the first time in its 108-year history. Incredibly, Cook will be the first Black woman to serve on the Board, and Jefferson will be the fifth Black governor — representation that is long overdue.”

The Mosaic Economic Project is a network of diverse women with expertise in the fields of economics and technology. Mosaic programming aims to bring new voices to the policy arena by connecting cohort members with opportunities to engage with top industry leaders, lawmakers, and the media.

Follow the Progressive Policy Institute.

Follow the Mosaic Economic Project.

###

Media Contact: Aaron White – awhite@ppionline.org

PPI Statement on Historic Federal Reserve Nominations

Posted on February 1, 2022 by The Progressive Policy Institute

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) released the following statements ahead of the Senate Banking Committee’s hearing on the nominations of the Hon. Sarah Bloom Raskin, Dr. Lisa Cook, and Dr. Philip Jefferson for the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System:

“President Biden has overseen a year of remarkable achievement in restoring economic growth, with steady job creation and strong evidence of wage increases. With the economy stabilized after the COVID-19 pandemic experience but concerns about inflation rising, the country needs both professional management and imaginative policy in the coming years,” said Ed Gresser, Vice President and Director of Trade and Global Markets for PPI.

“President Biden’s excellent nominations for the Federal Reserve Board of Governors demonstrate his awareness of this challenge. The current chair and nominee for vice chair, Jerome Powell and Lael Brainard, are exceptional public servants who have helped to steer the Fed through the turbulence of the Trump years and the COVID crisis, and fully merit confirmation. New nominees Lisa Cook, Sarah Bloom Raskin, and Phillip Jefferson are outstanding economists who will bring a diversity of strengths and experience to the Fed, with its dual mandate of price stability and full employment, and will help ensure that the Board of Governors takes its next steps with consideration for both macroeconomic consequences and impacts on Americans at all income levels and in all walks of life. This is a very strong group of nominees which will serve the country well during a very complex time, and deserves support,” concluded Gresser.

“The Progressive Policy Institute applauds President Biden and the Biden-Harris administration for this historic, diverse, and highly qualified slate of nominees to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. At a time when our nation faces several economic challenges — caused primarily by the COVID-19 pandemic and evolving variants — this group will bring steady, competent leadership. America is getting back on track after an unimaginable health and economic crisis, and President Biden is proving his commitment to Build Back Better by prioritizing strong leadership in every facet of the federal government,” said Sarah Paden, Vice President and National Political Director.

Follow the Progressive Policy Institute.

###

Media Contact: Aaron White; awhite@ppionline.org

Among Swing Voters, Inflation and Health Care Costs are Top of Mind

Posted on January 31, 2022 by The Progressive Policy Institute

The high cost of health care has been at or near the top of voters’ concerns in recent election cycles. According to a series of focus groups with swing voters commissioned recently by the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), high prices for everything are now their chief worry, with the issue of inflation and the high cost of health care being raised unprompted in every listening session.

Nonetheless, these voters aren’t demanding radical or systemic change in America’s health care system. They mostly expressed satisfaction with their current health insurance, as well as the outcomes of their own interactions with their health care providers. They have little knowledge about proposals in Washington aimed at lowering medical and drug costs.

“What these pivotal voters want most are simple, direct, and concrete actions that help them lower their medical and drug bills,” said PPI President Will Marshall. “For example, they strongly favored PPI’s proposal for capping out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs.”

Conducted by IMPACT Research (formerly ALG Research), the focus groups took a deep dive into all aspects of health care. They consisted of five diverse groups of swing voters — senior men in Philadelphia and college educated suburban women in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Latino men and college educated suburban women in Arizona; and college educated men in Georgia and Black women in Georgia.

Here are key takeaways from IMPACT Research’s report:

1. Inflation is the most top of mind issue to these voters and they are especially sensitive to any cost increases in their daily lives, health care included. Most are acutely aware that their health care costs have risen unabated year after year.
2. They don’t dislike their current insurance and have very positive things to say about their own point-of-care experiences. Their concerns about cost aren’t enough for them to want to swap the current system for something similar to the nationalized health care systems in Canada or England.
3. Neither party is trusted to bring down health care costs. Although Democrats have taken the lead in Washington on health cost containment, even Democrats in these groups don’t give the party any credit for these efforts because they don’t see their medical bills going down.
4. None of the participants had any real knowledge of or strong preferences for reforms or policy solutions under debate in Washington to bring down health care or prescription costs. This includes allowing Medicare to negotiate drug pricing, which many assume already happens.
5. What they are looking for are concrete ways to help lower out-of-pocket costs their insurance doesn’t cover. They enthusiastically favor a direct approach — capping out-of-pocket prescription costs as a percent of income or total annual expenses.
6. They are less interested in indirect measures to control the costs of care and prescriptions, or wholesale change that compromises the quality, choice, and access that to them defines the American health care system. Some voters are also wary of too-harsh restrictions that could results in less innovation which they see as a positive attribute of our current system.

Read the full brief here.

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.

Follow the Progressive Policy Institute.

###

Media Contact: Aaron White; awhite@ppionline.org

The America COMPETES Act Rightly Prioritizes Technological Innovation to Drive Growth

Posted on January 28, 2022September 18, 2024 by Alyssa Brown

As the United States engages in what the Biden administration has referred to as “strategic competition” with China over economic leadership, a newly released House bill seeks to secure America’s role on the global stage by promoting technological innovation. The America COMPETES Act both stimulates investment in research and revitalizes industrial capabilities in the American technology sector. From funding research in new network technologies to eliminating green card caps for recipients of doctoral degrees in STEM fields, the bill acknowledges that the key to facilitating long term economic growth is investment in scientific development. It is promising to see Democrats encourage innovation as a driver of growth and, while not perfect, the bill provides much needed resources to address numerous areas where the American economy has fallen behind.

Over the past two decades, American domestic expenditure on research and development as a share of GDP has risen only slightly while other major economic rivals have experienced significant gains. In 2003, American investment in R&D made up approximately 2.6% of gross domestic product, compared to 3.1% in 2019. Over the same period, China and South Korea effectively doubled their own R&D spending as a share of GDP, with South Korea boasting 4.6% of GDP being attributed to R&D spending compared to 2.3% in 2003, and China seeing an increase from 1.1% to 2.2%. Additionally, between 2012 and 2021, the Chinese government made significant investments into higher education, increasing the number of PhD graduates in the country by 40%. To keep up, it is essential for the U.S. to support STEM programs at every level of education, from K-12 to those pursuing advanced degrees. The House seeks to accomplish this with this bill, prioritizing research across STEM fields to facilitate purpose-driven R&D to address pressing societal challenges such as environmental sustainability, while also supporting a new generation of teachers, researchers and professionals trained in STEM. These are worthy investments in domestic talent which can drive long run growth.

Another notable aspect of the bill is the focus on domestic manufacturing of tech-sector inputs, such as microchips, to address shortages of input goods which currently threaten to interrupt production of products such as cars, medical equipment, and consumer tech devices. Included is an allocated $52 billion to support the domestic production of semiconductors, a product market which has faced shortages heavily exacerbated by the ongoing pandemic. The Department of Commerce reported this week that demand for chips increased 17% from 2019 to 2021 with no comparable increase in supply. In 2019, buyers of semiconductor products had a median inventory of 40 days, compared to just five days in 2021 — meaning a week-long disruption in the supply chain has the potential to cripple high-tech industries reliant on microchips the short term, an especially daunting threat in the era of pandemic shutdowns. The Department of Commerce found that a driving force behind the issue was a lack of production capacity, and with the U.S. currently accounting for just 12% of global production. Funding to expand this has the potential to go a long way in addressing supply shortages while also opening new opportunities for domestic production and trade.

The bill enjoys wide support among House Democrats as well as President Biden, who applauded the bipartisan effort to promote America’s ability to compete in the global economy. The Senate version — the United States Innovation and Competition Act — passed with 68 votes in May of 2021, highlighting the bipartisan nature of the issue.

However, one controversial difference between the House and Senate bills as they impact the American tech sector is the inclusion of the SHOP SAFE Act in the House bill. The SHOP SAFE Act was introduced last September and sought to reduce the prevalence of counterfeit products sold online by imposing legal liability on e-commerce platforms for the sale of counterfeit goods. However, because many e-commerce platforms rely on the presence of third-party sellers, this would force small and large platforms to scrutinize even the smallest sellers to avoid penalties. This well-intentioned provision will likely hurt smaller e-commerce platforms who lack the tools to moderate listings on their sites to the level required to avoid penalty. Companies are given avenues to avoid liability if moderation procedures for listings follow certain practices, but the vague standard given will make it difficult for smaller platforms to compete with large e-commerce sites which can do so effectively at a relatively low cost. While much of the bill promotes the American technology industry’s ability to compete, this type of penalty will undermine the ability for U.S. companies to compete with Chinese giants such as Alibaba in the e-commerce space, running counter to the legislations intended purpose.

Ultimately, the America COMPETES Act has the potential to spur long term growth through significant investment in scientific innovation and emerging technology. Though imperfect, the sentiment behind the bill is a positive one. The American technology sector has long been a leading global innovator and by investing in the future of the industry Congress can promote both global competition and a robust domestic economy driven by new technologies.

Marshall for The Hill: How Biden Can Get His Presidency Back on Course

Posted on January 28, 2022 by The Progressive Policy Institute

By Will Marshall

President Biden’s fall from political grace has been swift and steep. He began 2021 basking in the gratitude and approval of a solid majority of Americans and ended it only marginally less unpopular than former President Donald Trump.

What happened? Last week Biden blamed Republican obstructionism, marveling that not one voted for the $1.9 trillion bill Congress passed last March to fight the pandemic and speed the economic recovery. He’s also had to endure non-stop political sabotage by Trump, who in refusing to accept the voters’ thumbs down in 2020 has shredded yet another vital norm of American democracy.

Nonetheless, the White House missed an important opportunity in not making more of the president’s big bipartisan breakthrough — passing the first major infrastructure bill in decades. Instead, they attempted to use it as leverage in an unsuccessful bid to pressure dissident Senate Democrats into supporting the strictly partisan reconciliation bill.

Read the full piece in The Hill.