PPI Releases New Report on Regulatory Reform

NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 10, 2013

PRESS CONTACT:
Steven Chlapecka—schlapecka@ppionline.org, T: 202.525.3931

Regulatory Improvement Commission Would Drive Growth and Innovation

WASHINGTON—The creation of an independent, Congressionally-authorized Regulatory Improvement Commission (RIC) is the most effective way to address the build-up of regulations over time affecting businesses, says a new report released today by the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI).

The report, Regulatory Improvement Commission: A Politically-Viable Approach to U.S. Regulatory Reform, is by PPI’s Chief Economic Strategist Dr. Michael Mandel and PPI economist Diana G. Carew. It was prepared for a conference on “Regulating in the Digital Economy” held in Washington DC on May 9 and sponsored by the Kauffman Foundation.

The natural accumulation of federal regulations over time imposes an unintended but significant cost to businesses and economic growth. President Obama’s approach to regulatory look back has made some headway in clearing the regulatory underbrush but much more needs to be done. No satisfactory process currently exists for retrospectively improving or removing regulations.

“The status quo of agency self-review is not, and has never been, an effective way to address old or outdated regulations affecting consumers, as well as small and large businesses,”says one of the report’s authors, Diana G. Carew. “Regulations are important to a well-functioning economy, but a regulatory system that facilitates innovation is a critical part of a high-growth strategy – that means we need to address regulatory accumulation using a different, politically-viable approach.”

That approach, the report argues, is to establish a Regulatory Improvement Commission (RIC) that would be tasked by Congress to review the cost-effectiveness of existing regulations. Modeled after the success of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC), the RIC would review regulations as submitted by the public and pass along a recommendation to Congress on a package of 15-20 regulations. Once Congress votes on the package, in an up-or-down vote, the RIC would be dissolved until Congress decides to restart the process.

The RIC would be politically viable even in today’s charged Washington environment. It could independently take on regulatory reform in small pieces with no preconceived agenda, thus building trust over time.

 

 

Regulatory Improvement Commission: A Politically-Viable Approach to U.S. Regulatory Reform

The natural accumulation of federal regulations over time imposes an unintended but significant cost to businesses and to economic growth. However, no effective process currently exists for retrospectively improving or removing regulations. This paper first puts forward three explanations for how regulatory accumulation itself imposes an economic burden, and how this burden has historically been addressed with little result. We then propose the creation of an independent Regulatory Improvement Commission (RIC) to reduce regulatory accumulation. We conclude by explaining why the RIC is the most effective and politically-viable approach.

A well-functioning regulatory system is an essential part of a high-growth economy. Regulations drive business decisions, such as where to locate production and where to invest in the local workforce. They provide guidelines that keep the air clean, protect consumers, and ensure worker safety. Smart regulations enable the capital markets to function properly, financing the trades, contracts, and insurance that allows businesses to survive and grow.

A successful high-growth strategy requires a regulatory system that balances innovation and growth with consumer well-being. A regulatory structure that is too prescriptive could restrict investment in job-creating innovation if companies are overwhelmed by costly rules, hampering potential economic growth. On the other hand, a regulatory structure that is too relaxed may threaten the environment or unnecessarily place consumers at risk.

A regulatory system that achieves this balance must include a mechanism for addressing regulatory accumulation—what we define as the natural buildup of regulations over time.

Regulatory accumulation is both a process and an outcome of our reactive regulatory structure. Over time regulations naturally accumulate and layer on top of existing rules, resulting in a maze of duplicative and outdated rules companies must comply with.

However, our current regulatory system has no effective process for addressing regulatory accumulation. Every president since Jimmy Carter has mandated self-evaluation by regulatory agencies, but for various reasons this approach has been met with limited success.

In this paper we propose the creation of an independent Regulatory Improvement Commission (RIC), to be authorized by Congress on an ongoing basis. The RIC will review regulations as submitted by the public and present a recommendation to Congress for an up or down vote. It will have a simple, streamlined process and be completely transparent. Most importantly, it will review regulations en masse in a way that is politically viable.

Download “205.2013-Mandel-Carew_Regulatory-Improvement-Commission_A-Politically-Viable-Approach-to-US-Regulatory-Reform”

Photo credit: Shutterstock

How the FCC Could Shape a Mobile Data-Driven Economy

Tom Wheeler, President Obama’s nominee to be the next chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), has a critical choice to make if he is confirmed by the Senate. The direction he takes with mobile broadband regulation will set the future pace of U.S. growth and innovation. It also will have major implications for government at all levels, on issues ranging from public-safety communications to rural health care to economic development.

If confirmed, Wheeler would come to the FCC at a critical juncture: The agency is at a regulatory fork in the road. For three years in a row, the FCC has been unable to conclude, in its annual mobile competition report, whether or not the mobile phone market is competitive. This is not simply a technical issue. Rather, it highlights an internal debate: The FCC can’t decide what regulatory framework to apply to the mobile broadband market and, by extension, to the entire digital network.

Continue reading at Governing HERE.

“Cut and Invest” vs. Austerity

President Obama’s new budget attempts to define a progressive alternative to conservative demands for a politics of austerity. Having just returned from a gathering of center-left parties in Copenhagen, I can report that European progressives are wrestling with the same challenge, and are reaching similar conclusions.

There was wide agreement that the wrong answer is to revert to “borrow and spend” policies that have mired transatlantic economies in debt, while failing to stimulate sustained economic growth. The right answer is a “cut and invest” approach that shifts spending from programs that support consumption now to investments that will make our workers and companies more productive and competitive down the road.

“You can only have a Nordic model if you’re competitive,” declared conference host Helle Thorning-Schmidt, prime minister of Denmark. “In this country, we cannot tax more; it’s that simple,” she added. “If you like the welfare state, if you want to sustain it, you have to take the tough decisions.” Continue reading ““Cut and Invest” vs. Austerity”

The New Politics of Production

It’s easy enough to get progressives to agree that austerity is not the answer to the malaise that pervades the transatlantic world. What’s hard is to forge consensus around a new vision for reviving the west’s economic dynamism. One reason is that the policies necessary to put the United States and Europe back on a high-growth path will disrupt old arrangements and social bargains forged and defended by centre-left parties.

Progressives nonetheless need a new growth narrative, and it must begin with an accurate diagnosis of our core economic dilemma. Many US liberals believe it is weak economic demand, and call for more government spending to stimulate consumption. That’s the standard Keynesian remedy, but it’s insufficient at best because it doesn’t deal with the US economy’s structural weaknesses: lagging investment and innovation; eroding mid-level jobs and stagnant wages; a dearth of workers with technical skills; and, unsustainable budget and trade deficits. None of these problems can be fixed by boosting consumption.

What if progressives made expanding production rather than consumption the organising principle of their economic policy? What if they tackled the imperatives of economic investment, innovation and wealth creation with the same passion they normally reserve for fairness and wealth distribution? Stronger economic growth by itself may not be sufficient to reverse the disturbing rise of economic inequality. But it is the necessary precondition for progressive success in getting people back to work, lifting the middle class, allaying class friction and nativism, and restoring the allure of market democracy.

Here, from an American perspective, are some key steps toward a progressive politics of production:

1. Recognise that slow growth is the fundamental problem

Between 2001 and 2012, the US economy turned in its worst economic performance since before World War II. Annual growth rates averaged just 1.6 per cent (and were lackluster even before the recession and financial crisis hit). The situation in Europe, of course, is far worse: growth in the eurozone was negative (0.4 per cent) last year, and unemployment topped 11 per cent. The transatlantic economies simply aren’t growing fast enough to create jobs for all who need work, finance the social benefits they’ve promised, and sustain their high living standards. They’ve resorted instead to heavy borrowing, and so are mired in a dreary politics of debt and fiscal retrenchment.

2. Shift resources from consumption to investment

More than 40 per cent of the US budget goes to three social insurance programmes: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Automatic, formuladriven spending on health and retirement benefits will double by mid-century as the baby boomers surge into retirement. Such “mandatory” outlays have drastically narrowed Congressional discretion and relentlessly squeezed out domestic spending, now just 14 per cent of the budget and falling. That means less money to modernise America’s ageing infrastructure, plug gaps in our education and worker training systems, and nurture science and technology – not to mention protecting the environment, ensuring public safety and helping people escape poverty. In short, the promises made by politicians long retired or dead are constraining the government’s fiscal flexibility and capacity to grapple with today’s challenges. Instead of imagining that they can evade this dilemma solely by taxing the rich, progressives need to take welfare spending off auto-pilot and shift resources from present consumption to investments that will make our people and businesses more productive in the future.

3. Cut health costs by boosting productivity

Although medical inflation has slowed over the past three years, public health spending is still on a collision course with demographics. Yet many Democrats have dug in their heels against reforms that would “bend down” the health cost curve. This confronts progressives with a Hobson’s Choice: either borrow more to cover the yawning gap between contributions and benefits, or raise taxes on working families. Instead, they ought to trim benefits for affluent retirees, and be open to ways to spur competition among providers to offer higher quality and more efficient care. Over the long term, however, the key to restraining overall US health spending – now 17 per cent of the economy – is raising medical productivity. This will require more technological innovation, not less as many budget analysts assume.

4. Embrace pro-growth tax reform

Given that the rich have reaped the lion’s share of US economic gains, it’s no wonder that progressives want them to pay more in taxes. Rather than focus exclusively on fairness, however they ought to view tax policy as an instrument for spurring productive investment and growth. Since new enterprises contribute disproportionately to net job creation, for example, it makes sense to lower taxes on business start-ups. More broadly, progressives should champion reform of America’s perverse corporate tax code. Its high top rate (35 per cent) leads US companies to shift income abroad, depriving the Treasury of revenue and leaving $1.7 billion in earnings stranded abroad that could otherwise be invested at home. And the code is riddled with loopholes and special breaks that steer companies toward activities that are tax-favoured rather than toward those that can make them more productive and competitive.

5. Enable the “data-driven economy”

Data-driven activities – the production, distribution and use of digital information of all kinds – have become the leading edge of economic innovation and growth in the United States. Since the smart phone was introduced in 2007, the nascent “App” sector has created more than 500,000 jobs. Fueled by major private investment in mobile broadband, mobile commerce doubled in 2012 to $25 billion, about 11 per cent of all e-commerce sales. Europe is also getting a big economic boost from digital commerce. Roberto Masiero of Think!, an innovation-oriented thinktank in Milan, estimates that the Internet economy added almost 500 billion euros to eurozone growth in 2010, equivalent to 4.1 percent of Europe’s GDP. Now “big data” processing and the integration of IT into healthcare, education and energy are poised to spark big gains in productivity – if regulators don’t get in the way. In the United States, for example, regulators persist in applying top-down rules governing telephony to the new medium of broadband communication. And while Europe-wide regulation is a positive step forward, many analysts worry that the EU’s forthcoming data protection regulation could hobble homegrown innovation and disadvantage US companies. Progressives on both sides of the Atlantic should work toward harmonising rules that promote more, not less, data-driven trade and that strike a sensible balance between economic innovation and important values like privacy and data security.

6. Don’t give up on manufacturing

While hugely important, the broadband revolution alone won’t deliver the balanced growth and mid-level jobs western societies need to rebuild the middle class. Rather than concede the permanent loss of manufacturing jobs to offshoring, progressives should develop new strategies aimed at “import recapture.” Thanks to a confluence of factors – rising wages in China, the shale gas boom and recognition that advanced manufacturing requires that design and engineering not be separated from production – major US companies are beginning to “onshore” production. Germany and the Nordic countries have shown that high-wage economies can remain competitive in manufacturing by emphasising premium quality, advanced techniques and intensive workforce training regimes. While we shouldn’t expect dramatic leaps in manufacturing employment, even modest increases will have knockoff effects on employment in related activities. Progressives can’t reverse the impact of globalisation, but we can rebalance it in favour of domestic production.

7. Lower state-imposed obstacles to growth

US conservatives never fail to affix the epithet “job killing” before the word “regulation.” This is empirically false and ignores the essential role that regulation plays in making markets work and keeping powerful actors honest. Still, it’s a mistake for progressives to defend regulations as reflexively as conservatives attack them. Between these extremes there is ample room for common-sense efforts to improve the regulatory climate for growth. PPI’s work, for example, has shown that the accumulated weight of old rules imposes large compliance and opportunity costs on firms, especially small and medium-sized enterprises. The problem isn’t that governments keep writing new rules, but that they have no mechanism for rescinding old ones. What’s needed are institutional innovations – like PPI’s idea for a “Regulatory Improvement Commission” that would periodically prune or modify old rules. By championing regulatory improvement, progressives would underscore their commitment to growth as well as their resolve to reform, not just expand, the public sector. Omitted from this list are other crucial elements of a progressive highgrowth strategy, including better education and training systems, skills-based immigration reform, tougher trade enforcement and energy innovation. But it illustrates the magnitude of the policy changes required to get America and Europe out of their slow-growth rut. Rapid innovation and growth are disruptive, and these changes will blur old partisan lines and discomfit old political allies. But the payoff – a surge of innovation and production across the transatlantic, and the chance to restore shared prosperity – is surely worth the risk.

This is an excerpt from Progressive Governance: The Politics of Growth, Stability and Reform, a collection of memos published by Policy Network. Download the entire publication here: Will-Marshall-Chapter

Progressive Policy Institute to Host Media Teleconference Featuring Robert Shapiro to Discuss the Case for Broad Corporate Tax Reform

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 15, 2013

PRESS CONTACT: Steven Chlapecka – schlapecka@ppionline.org T: 202.525.3931

Progressive Policy Institute to Host Media Teleconference Featuring Robert Shapiro to Discuss the Case for Broad Corporate Tax Reform

Teleconference to take place in Advance of Release of Shapiro’s Newest Policy Memo: Anatomy of a Special Tax Break and The Case for Broad Corporate Tax Reform

Washington, D.C. – On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 at 11 a.m. EST, join the Progressive Policy Institute and economist Robert Shapiro, chairman of Sonecon LLC and former Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs. Shapiro will outline findings from his forthcoming PPI policy memo, “Anatomy of a Special Tax Break and The Case for Broad Corporate Tax Reform”. The memo dissects Section 199 as a case study in the way special tax breaks distort economic decisions, add undue complexity and force rates up by leaking revenue.

WHO: Dr. Robert Shapiro, Chairman, Sonecon LLC; Senior Policy Fellow, Georgetown University McDonough School of Business

WHEN: 11 a.m. EST, Wednesday, March 20

Media wishing to participate or interested in an advance copy of the report, contact Steven Chlapecka at 202.525.3931 or schlapecka@ppionline.org.

RSVP to: schlapecka@ppionline.org to receive dial-in information.

– END –

Rethinking the U.S. Presidency

In an article for NPR, Linton Weeks discusses alternatives to adapt the U.S. presidency to the challenges of today. He cites Raymond A. Smith’s May 2012 policy brief:

The Progressive Policy Institute’s Smith believes that the president and the nation could benefit from strengthening the role played by the president’s executive committee — the Cabinet. “Generally speaking,” Smith says, “I think that presidents have not made good use of the Cabinet.”

In the past 50 years, Smith argues in his 2012 essay The Fine Art of Cabinet-Making: Five Ways to Build a Stronger Executive Team, the power of the presidential Cabinet has waned while the power of professional White House staffers has waxed, narrowing the breadth of opinions and views.

These days, Smith writes, Cabinet “meetings are often little more than occasional photo ops to bring together POTUS, the VP, the heads of the 15 executive departments and a few other ‘cabinet-rank’ officials such as the heads of the Office of Management and Budget and the Environmental Protection Agency, the Ambassador for the United Nations, and the U.S. Trade Representative.”

Read the entire article.

What Privacy Means to Americans vs. Europeans

Paul W. Taylor discusses the different attitudes towards privacy in American and European contexts in Governing Magazine, using PPI’s recent conference in Rome as a backdrop.

In October, I stopped for lunch at an outdoor osteria on Via della Lungara just east of the Tiber River. The pizza served there — puffy Neapolitan crust with buffalo mozzarella and fresh San Marzano tomatoes — was just the early part of a multicourse meal that always includes wine. Compare that to the American pie, a main course with its chewy crust smothered in tomato sauce, cheese and a seemingly endless variety of toppings. It almost always is accompanied by beer. All sorts of pies and slices get called pizza in the U.S., while the name and geographical distinctiveness of Neapolitan pizza is protected under European Union law.

On that trip, just two blocks from the osteria, an international gathering at John Cabot University, a private American liberal arts school in Rome, was considering another transatlantic divide — privacy in an era of big data — that has striking similarities to the different ways Americans and Europeans cook and serve pizza.

Read the entire article here.

Ending the Endless Election Season

National elections in the United States now stretch out over nearly 24 months, with each new electoral cycle seeming to start up almost as soon as the last has ended. By contrast, British law allows elections in the United Kingdom to last no more than 17 working days. In 2005, for instance, the electoral season began on April 11 with the formal dissolution of Parliament and the vote was taken on May 5. The U.K. is not alone in the speed of its elections: the 2008 Canadian federal election began on September 14 and ended on October 7. That same year, elections in Italy lasted a slightly longer seven weeks, while in 2010 in the Netherlands the process took ten weeks.

There are reasons that the United States probably can’t have elections quite as compact as those in parliamentary democracies. But do they really need to last 40 times as long as in Britain, or even 10 times as long as in the Netherlands? And do our elections need to be so exorbitantly expensive? The $49 million cost of the 2010 U.K. parliamentary election was 120 times less than the almost $6 billion cost of the 2012 U.S. presidential election, or about 1/23rd as much per capita.

There is much that the U.S. system can learn from other democracies that would enable it to significantly streamline, simplify, and shorten our interminable electoral process for both the president and Congress, as well as state and local offices. Following are five ideas from around the world. Not all could be easily or directly imported into the U.S. system, but at a minimum they offer food for thought; in some cases they offer the start of blueprints for action.

Download the policy brief.

End the Endless Election Season

Writing for the Daily Beast, PPI Senior Fellow Raymond A. Smith lays out policies to improve our presidential elections.

President Obama’s second inauguration last week capped a long electoral cycle that began almost two years ago, in early 2011. The stupendous length and cost of America’s presidential elections is a wonder to the world – and not in a good way.

In scarcely 24 months, the whole spectacle will start anew. Then it’s two years of straw polls, fundraising reports, and breathless horserace coverage of non-events. This will be followed by a gauntlet of caucuses and primaries whose arcane rules are understood only by a small priesthood of campaign consultants. And it in the end will yield a general election campaign smothered in attack ads paid for by shadowy “independent” groups accountable to no one.

Does democracy really have to be this way? No, and for proof we need only look to our closest democratic allies, whose national elections are notably brief, efficient and orderly. How do they manage this? Four sets of policies and practices stand out.

Read the complete piece at the Daily Beast.

Make the Cabinet More Effective

Writing for the New York Times, PPI Senior Fellow Raymond A. Smith argues for strengthening the role of the president’s cabinet.

EVERY four years the cabinet briefly becomes the focus of national attention in December and January — only to fade from view again after Inauguration Day. True, individual cabinet secretaries will be in the news from time to time, but the cabinet as an institution will be all but forgotten. Yet the United States could benefit greatly by strengthening its scope and role.

Although the cabinet is not established in the Constitution, presidents since George Washington have convened a collective body of the heads of the executive departments. Washington used these meetings to tap into the wisdom of Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton. Abraham Lincoln assembled a strong “team of rivals” in his cabinet to gird the nation at its time of greatest peril. Franklin D. Roosevelt convened his cabinet the day after the Pearl Harbor attacks, while John F. Kennedy relied on a subset of his cabinet during the Cuban missile crisis.

Over the past half-century, however, the expansion of the White House staff has centralized deliberation and decision making increasingly within the confines of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW. This reliance on professional staffers, political advisers and media spinmeisters within a constrictive White House “security bubble” deprives presidents not only of the deep substantive policy expertise of top civil servants but also of the political judgment of cabinet members who are often successful politicians.

Read the complete piece at the New York Times.

The Google Way: How Washington Can Regulate Without Killing Growth

In the Atlantic, Michael Mandel explains how the Federal Trade Commission’s looming antitrust settlement with the search giant shows that regulators can do their job without stifling innovation:

The Federal Trade Commission seems ready to announce a settlement with Google today, bringing to a close a 20-month antitrust investigation. The settlement reportedly would avoid antitrust charges against the search giant, while requiring Google to agreeing to change some of the practices that other companies have complained about.

On its own, the settlement is good news for consumers, workers, and the whole U.S. economy. Objectionable conduct would be moderated without dampening the incentive for Google to innovate and provide new services. It’s also true that it never made much sense to attack one of America’s prime innovative companies at a time when competitiveness, growth, and job creation are at the top of the economic agenda.

More importantly, the FTC’s approach to the Google investigation shows that regulatory agencies can be thoughtful about adopting pro-innovation, pro-growth policies without abandoning their core missions. A critical question facing the U.S. economy–and indeed, the European economy as well–is whether the existing regulatory structure is flexible enough to deal with the fast changing world of technology. If regulators apply old rules too strictly, they run the risk of squashing the very innovation needed to drive growth, job creation, and competitiveness.

Read the complete piece at the Atlantic.

Challenge to Stop the Never-ending Campaign

PPI Senior Fellow Jim Arkedis calls for members of Congress to take six-month timeout from raising money in Politico.

The 2012 election is over, but don’t tell Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.). No sooner were the votes counted that they were back on the campaign money chase within a week, raising cash for the November 2014 contest.

Even though the culture of unlimited political money was cemented by the Citizens United decision, it’s time we ask our elected representatives a crucial question: Will members of Congress ever stop campaigning?

Congress has a major task ahead of it in the coming session. Members must compromise to strike a delicate balance on spending cuts and revenue increases that begins to control the country’s debt, while consolidating fragile economic momentum and continuing to make necessary investments in the education, infrastructure, and energy sectors among others. Isn’t there something wrong when elected officials are already asking for reelection funds before attempting to achieve results the voters are clearly demanding?

Efforts to reform money in politics have gained traction of late. Many ideas are in the mold of McCain-Feingold bill of 2002: legislative or constitutional fixes that restrict the amount of donations or increase transparency.

In theory, these initiatives are sound. In practice, they’re less viable. In the current climate, it’s doubtful that Congress would vote to handcuff its fundraising prowess, and constitutional amendments are complex endeavors facing long odds. And as McCain-Feingold has proven, megadonors will always find legal loopholes, like super PACs.

Read the entire piece at Politico.

The 4 Issues Dragging Down the Economic Recovery

PPI Chief Economic Strategist Michael Mandel was featured in the National Journal on regulatory reform:

Mitchell suggests creating a commission, modeled on the process that Congress has used to determine which military bases to realign or close, to weed out and eliminate federal spending that benefits certain businesses at the expense of others. Economist Michael Mandel of the Progressive Policy Institute suggests a similar body to reduce the government’s impact on business growth by identifying federal regulations to repeal or modify.

Read the entire National Journal article here.

Trickle-Down Bribery, or, The Butch Cassidy Congress

Lindsay Lewis writes in the Daily Beast that the real corruption in Congress is facilitated by congressional staff whose main goal is to keep their boss and donors happy:

The House of Representatives in the 112th Congress has earned its single digit approval rating with aplomb. Gridlock, brinksmanship, mistrust, and meaningless partisan votes make today’s Congress the most dysfunctional I’ve seen in twenty years working on and around Capitol Hill.

Today, it pays to be an ardent partisan. Both parties now have super PACs—outside political organizations established by the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United decision—that accept millions in unlimited donations to support candidates. Democrats have House Majority PAC and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) has established the Young Guns Action Fund for Republicans. Members may not be able to coordinate their activities with a super PAC, but they sure can raise money for them.

Though a July poll found two-thirds of Americans uncomfortable with unrestricted money in politics, the Supreme Court ruled that this influx of cash will not jeopardize our democratic process. Donors “might have influence or access to elected officials,” reads the Citizen’s United decision, but it “does not mean that those officials are corrupt.”

That interpretation may be technically correct, but it’s clear a majority of Supreme Court Justices have no idea how politics really works. I do. I’ve seen first hand how corruption infiltrates Congress. While Members’ votes are not necessarily for sale, America’s legislative process most certainly is. And the super PAC era is making the situation exponentially worse.

Congressional corruption is facilitated by Hill staff. Members of Congress are in the customer service business. Members must track down lost Social Security checks, listen to complaints in the district, and take feedback on proposed legislation.

Read the entire piece.

Conference Report – The Rise of the Data-Driven Economy: Implications for Growth and Policy

On October 10-12, 2012, the Progressive Policy Institute joined forces with John Cabot University in Rome to highlight the transformative potential of rise of data-driven economic innovation and growth. Hosted by John Cabot in collaboration with the Guarini Institute, the European Privacy Association and the Center for European Policy Studies, the transatlantic dialogue brought together representatives of leading U.S. technology companies and European Union officials, as well as analysts and experts from think tanks, non-profit organizations and academia.

Entitled The Rise of the Data-Driven Economy: Implications for Growth and Policy, the discussion centered on the increasing contribution of data-driven activity to economic growth in the United States and Europe; the European Union’s controversial data protection regulation; the responsibility of companies to build trust by being “ethical stewards” of their customers’ data; and, political threats to an open and free Internet.

Conference Speakers: Rita Balogh, Senior Associate, APCO; Michael Mandel, Chief Economic Strategist, Progressive Policy Institute; Jacques Bughin, Director, McKinsey Global Institute; Anthony House, Manager of Public Policy, Google; Roberto Masiero, President, THINK! The Innovation Knowledge Foundation; Pietro Paganini, Managing Director, European Privacy Association; Pat Walshe, Director of Privacy, GSM Association; Luca Bolognini, President, Italian Institute for Privacy; Ed Black, President & CEO, CCIA; Daniele Pica, Professor, John Cabot University; Megan Richards, Director, DG Connect; Chris Kelly, Kelly Investments; Michael Kende, Co-Head of the Regulation Sector, Analysys Mason; Dimitrios Droutsas, Member of European Parliament; Carolyn Nguyen, Director of Technology Policy, Microsoft; Dr. Thierry Vissol, Special Adviser, DG COMM Media & Communication; Paul W. Taylor, Governing Magazine; Laura Fennell, General Counsel, Intuit; Giuseppe Conte, Professor of Law, University of Florence; Maurice Fitzgerald, VP Strategy–Autonomy, Hewlett-Packard

Download the conference report.