Political Science Articles

Article / Updated 11-01-2023

The speaker of the United States House of Representatives, commonly referred to as the speaker of the House (or simply, House speaker or the speaker), serves as the presiding officer of the House of Representatives. The speaker fulfills several roles, including representing constituents as a member of Congress, acting as administrative head of the House, and serving as leader of the majority political party in the House. If you’re wondering exactly what the speaker of the House does, see the full description of this political representative’s full responsibilities below. The House speaker is second in the U.S. presidential line of succession after the vice president, but no speaker has ever acted as president. How is the House speaker selected? The U.S. Constitution authorizes the House to choose its speaker, who is selected by roll call vote on the first day of every new Congress. Customarily, each party (Democrat and Republican) nominates a candidate and members normally vote for the candidate of their party. Roll call votes are repeated until a candidate receives an absolute majority of all votes cast. The Constitution does not require the speaker to be a member of Congress, although all speakers have been members. The Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives keeps a full list of speakers of the House from 1789 to the present. What does the speaker of the House do? The speaker of the House exercises duties as a member of Congress, as presiding officer of the House of Representatives, and as leader of the majority political party in the House. These responsibilities include voting on legislation, administrative duties such as maintaining order within the House chamber, and other tasks such as appointing special committees. See a more in-depth description of each of these responsibilities below. Member of Congress Foremost, the speaker represents voters in their congressional district. As a member of Congress, they advocate for constituents’ needs, votes on key legislation, conducts town halls and meetings in-district and otherwise serves voters in their home districts. Presiding officer of the House of Representatives The speaker of the House's duties as presiding officer of the House, include administering the oath of office to members, calling the House to order, preserving order and decorum within the House chamber and galleries, recognizing members to speak on the House floor, and making rulings about House procedures. The speaker usually delegates some of these administrative duties to other members of the majority party, such as acting as speaker pro tempore and leading House legislative sessions. In addition, the speaker appoints members and chairpersons of regular committees, special or select committees, conference committees, and designates a majority of the Committee on Rules. The speaker also determines which legislation is assigned to each committee and which legislation reaches the House floor for a vote. Furthermore, the speaker determines the House legislative agenda, in consultation with party leaders, committee chairpersons, the president, and the Senate. As a member of Congress, the speaker may participate in debate and vote but, by tradition, only does so in exceptional circumstances, such as when their vote would be decisive or on matters of great importance, such as constitutional amendments or war resolutions. The speaker presides over all joint sessions with the Senate because these official gatherings are usually held in the House of Representatives. Leader of the majority party in the House of Representatives By tradition, the speaker is the head of the majority party in the House. This means the speaker is held responsible for passing legislation supported by the majority party. The speaker usually has a less prominent role as party leader when the president belongs to the same party. In contrast, the speaker’s prominence and public role typically increases when they're from a different political party than the president. Famous examples include Speaker Tip O’Neill’s vocal opposition to President Ronald Reagan’s policies, Speaker Newt Gingrich’s bitter fights with President Bill Clinton over domestic spending, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s clashes with President George W. Bush over the Iraq War. Historical facts about the speaker of the House The speakership’s power reached a pinnacle during the term of Joseph Gurney Cannon (1903–1911), who exercised tight control over the legislative process. Cannon instituted the traditions of determining the agenda of the House, appointing the members of all committees, choosing committee chairmen, and determining which committees heard each bill. In 1910, however, a revolt of House members stripped Speaker Cannon of most of his powers, particularly the ability to name committee members. In 1925, Speaker Nicholas Longworth (Ohio) restored most of the position's lost influence by expelling his opponents in the Republican party from the Republican caucus, stripping committee chairmen of seniority and appointing loyal supporters to committees. Perhaps the most influential speaker in history was Sam Rayburn (Texas) who was the longest-serving speaker. Speaker Rayburn shaped many bills by working with House committees and ensured passage of several domestic and foreign assistance programs advocated by President Roosevelt and President Truman. As a sign of their influence, the House of Representatives’ office buildings in Washington D.C. are named for these three Speakers: Cannon, Longworth, and Rayburn. Here are few other historical facts about the Speaker of the House: First speaker of the House: Frederick A.C. Muhlenberg (Pennsylvania), elected presiding officer on April 1, 1789. Total number of speakers: 53 Longest-serving speaker: Samuel Rayburn (Texas), served 17 years, 2 months, and 2 days over three terms as Speaker First woman speaker: Nancy Pelosi (California); she served as speaker from 2007 to 2011 and again from 2019 to 2023 State with the most speakers: Massachusetts Only speaker to serve as President of the Unites States: James K. Polk (Tennessee), elected president after leaving the House Youngest speaker: Robert M. T. Hunter (Virginia), age 30 Oldest speaker: Henry T. Rainey (Illinois), age 72 First sitting speaker to lose re-election to his House seat: William Pennington (New Jersey) Number of speakers to die in office: 5. Michael C. Kerr (Indiana), Henry T. Rainey (Illinois), Joseph W. Byrns (Tennessee), William B. Bankhead (Alabama), Samuel Rayburn (Texas)

Article / Updated 10-10-2023

Since 1948, Israel has controlled most of Palestine. Throughout a decades-long conflict, several critical issues have prevented Israel and the Palestinians from concluding a lasting peace. Here are the basic positions of the two parties. Neither side holds a single position. Moderates and extremists exist on both the Israeli and the Palestinian sides. Right to a Palestinian state Several legal scholars dismiss the Palestinians’ right to self-determination and statehood. These scholars generally argue that Palestine lacks a legitimate sovereign and Israeli claims to the remaining Palestinian territory are the most valid. In addition, some legal experts observe that while there is little doubt Palestine will emerge from the ongoing peace process as a nation, statehood has not been established. This argument suggests that Palestine doesn’t fully satisfy four criteria of statehood outlined in the 1933 Montevideo Convention: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. In contrast, other legal experts argue that the State of Palestine already exists and when judged by the Montevideo Convention criteria is on at least as firm a legal footing as Israel. This view holds that the development of a democratically elected Palestinian government that enjoys the approval of the international community now exercises effective control over a portion of Palestinian territory in which the great majority of the state’s population lives. Furthermore, the International Court of Justice has reaffirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and the prohibition under international law against territorial acquisitions by war. Israel’s right to exist
 From the perspective of many Jews, Israel is a refuge even if they never set foot there. From the Israeli and Jewish vantage point, only a homeland can provide a safe haven from a world full of anti-Semitism. Strength and constant vigilance are necessary to preserve the security of the Israel, surrounded as it is by enemies. For Palestinians, Israel is a rogue state, an interloper that confiscated their land and forced them out. The belief that Israel does not have a legitimate right to exist is still a common among some Palestinians, despite reluctant acceptance of Israel in recent years. The borders of Jerusalem The border of Jerusalem is a particularly delicate issue with each side asserting claims over the city. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam consider Jerusalem an important setting for their religious and historical narratives. Israel asserts that the city should not be divided and should remain unified within Israel’s political control. Palestinians claim at least those city sections that were not part of Israel prior to June 1967. Palestinian refugees’ right to return Palestinian refugees are people who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The number of Palestinians who fled or were expelled from Israel following its creation was estimated at 711,000 in 1949 and as of 2010 the descendants of these original Palestinian refugees number 4.7 million people. Palestinian negotiators insist that refugees have a right to return to the places where they lived before 1948 and 1967, citing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and UN Resolution 194 as evidence. The Israeli government’s position is that Arab states encouraged Palestinians to flee in order to make it easier to rout the Jewish state or that the Palestinians fled to escape the war. The Palestinian’s believe the refugees were expelled and dispossessed by Jewish militias and the Israeli army. Violence by Palestinians and Israeli security concerns Throughout the conflict, Palestinian violence has been a concern for Israelis. Israel, along with the United States and the European Union, refer to the violence against Israeli civilians and military forces by Palestinian militants as terrorism. Suicide bombing is a tactic used by Palestinian organizations like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. During the late 1960s, the PLO became increasingly infamous for its use of international terror, perhaps the most notorious terrorist act being the capture and eventual murder of 11 Israeli athletes during the 1972 Olympic Games. Since 2001, the threat of rocket attacks from the Palestinian Territories into Israel has become a great concern. Significant debate exists within Israel regarding how to deal with these security concerns. Options have included military action (including targeted killings and house demolitions of terrorist operatives), diplomacy, unilateral gestures toward peace, and increased security measures such as checkpoints, roadblocks and security barriers. Since 2007, Israel’s primary means of dealing with security concerns in the West Bank has been to cooperate with the Palestinian Authority’s security forces, which has reduced West Bank violence. Access to water resources Israel receives much of its water from two large underground aquifers that continue under Palestinian lands. In the Oslo II Accord, both sides agreed to maintain “existing quantities of utilization from the resources.” In so doing, the Palestinian Authority established the legality of Israeli water production in the West Bank. Moreover, Israel agreed to provide water to supplement Palestinian production and to allow additional Palestinian drilling in the Eastern Aquifer. Many Palestinians counter that the Oslo II agreement was intended to be a temporary resolution and that it was not intended to remain in effect more than a decade later, noting the agreement’s name is “The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement.” Israeli presence in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza The West Bank and Gaza Strip continue to be considered Occupied Palestinian Territory by the international community, notwithstanding the 1988 Declaration of Palestinian Independence, the 1993 Oslo Accords, and Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza as part of the 2005 Israeli unilateral disengagement plan. The Israeli government uses the term Disputed Territories, and argues that some territories cannot be called occupied as no nation had clear rights to them and there was no operative diplomatic arrangement when Israel acquired them in June 1967. Israel’s position is that most Arab-populated parts of West Bank (without major Jewish settlements), and the entire Gaza Strip will eventually be part of an independent Palestinian State but the precise borders are in question. Some Palestinians claim they are entitled to all of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem. Palestinians claim any reduction of this claim is a severe deprivation of their rights. In negotiations, they claim that any move to reduce the boundaries of this land is a hostile move against their key interests. Israel considers this land to be in dispute, and believes negotiations will define the final borders.

Article / Updated 08-10-2023

So much of the news around Brexit, and particularly the impact of Brexit on business, has been, well, not exactly cheerful. (Some would say downright doom and gloom, while others might say hysterical.) And although there are obviously issues to be aware of and prepare for, but plenty of businesses are finding positive opportunities in the face of Brexit. This article looks at just a few of the potential opportunities that businesses in the United Kingdom (UK) could exploit as a result of Brexit. Some of these are short-term opportunities, while others may take longer to pay off. And some will be more applicable to your company than others. These are not one-size-fits-all solutions here. It’s up to you to pick and choose the ideas that may deliver the most value for your business. Pick one or two ideas that you think best apply to your business, taking into account the size of your company, your capabilities, where your business is in its life cycle, and the wider industry in which you operate. Having cherry-picked the most applicable opportunities, you can then investigate them further. Brexit will open up new markets beyond the EU If you’re already exporting goods outside the UK, or you’re eager to explore overseas markets, Brexit could deliver a welcome boost. Or, more specifically, the devalued pound resulting from Brexit uncertainty could help to boost your export sales. A weaker pound tends to help companies that export goods overseas, because it makes UK products cheaper than those produced in countries with stronger currencies. For a reverse illustration of this, consider imports of cheap Chinese steel. Even though the product is coming all the way from China, it may still be cheaper than British steel, because it costs a Chinese steel producer less to manufacturer than it costs a British company. The UK’s ability to negotiate trade deals with other countries is far from crystal clear at the moment. So, to fully understand the impact on your exports, stay tuned to future trade negotiations. Brexit will increase domestic demand for products and services What’s the flip side of cheaper UK exports being more attractive to overseas buyers? Imports from outside the UK become more expensive for UK businesses and consumers. Of course, if you’re importing parts or products from abroad, this will cause you some headaches in terms of profitability, in which case, you may be looking to trade more with UK partners. But, on the positive side, rising import prices can bring big benefits. When foreign products become more expensive (perhaps because of currency fluctuations or trade tariffs), consumers tend to look closer to home for goods and services. In other words, your business may be more competitive than foreign companies. Brexit will lead to reduced regulation On the whole, the UK is likely to remain fairly closely aligned with European Union (EU) rules. Yet, in some areas, it’s possible that post-Brexit changes to regulations and standards may offer UK businesses greater freedom and flexibility than EU rules. Reduced regulation may make your business processes easier and quicker, and potentially reduce your costs — all of which could make your business more competitive. Help solve your customers’ Brexit-related problems If you’ve struggled to comprehend the implications of Brexit for your business, it’s fair to assume that some or all of your customers (and potential customers) may find themselves in the same boat. Consider whether there’s a market opportunity to offer tailored Brexit services to your customers. Ask yourself, “What are our customers struggling with in relation to Brexit, and how can we help them to solve those problems?” Now, this doesn’t mean you should set up a new business as an all-singing-all-dancing Brexit consultancy service (although, for those who have the skills and knowledge, such a business would probably prove quite valuable in the short term). Instead, this means Tailoring your products and services in line with your customers’ Brexit “pain points.” These pain points could be around access to labor, VAT, cash flow, stockpiling goods, seeking investment, or whatever. Tweaking your marketing messages to emphasize how your business is ready to help clients overcome Brexit hurdles. For example, if you’re an accountant primarily dealing with small and midsize firms, your clients may need extra support to understand potential VAT changes — in which case, you’re there to guide them through changes and help them implement new processes. Or, if you run a legal firm dealing with employment law, you’re well placed to help local businesses that employ workers from outside the UK stay on the right side of the law. If you’re a business coach or adviser, your clients may be looking to explore new growth strategies for their company or revise their business strategy in light of Brexit developments. This strategy is a relatively short-term one, but you may find it pays long-term dividends. By positioning your business as more prepared and more thoughtful than your competitors, you have the opportunity to gain market share and raise your company’s profile. Brexit could be your chance to build a personal reputation as a leader in your industry In addition to raising the profile of your business, Brexit may also present a tantalizing career opportunity for you. Where possible, collaborate with others outside your own organization to discuss Brexit implications, stay in the loop on the industry’s response, and strengthen your personal network. Here are just a few ways you could potentially increase your personal profile within your industry in light of Brexit: Engage on a broader scale outside your business by joining Brexit committees set up by your trade association or other organizations in your field. If the government asks for participation and consultation in your area of expertise, consider getting involved. Publish online articles and white papers setting out how your company is dealing with Brexit implications and staying ahead of the field. If you work in a large organization, you could volunteer to represent the company on industry committees and working groups, or present updates to the company’s leadership team on how your department is managing Brexit implications. Brexit may create opportunities for business process automation Rising automation is a huge topic in business, thanks largely to massive leaps in technology, robotics, artificial intelligence and so on. If your company hasn’t already looked at the potential to automate processes and roles, now is a good time to start. Looking at automation opportunities is a bit like renewing your car insurance. We all know we shouldn’t just stick with the status quo and accept the renewal price from our current insurer; we know that if we spent half a day calling around dozens of insurers, we could get a better deal elsewhere. Yet, when renewal time comes around, how many of us take the easy route and stick with the status quo? Come on, you’re among friends, be honest. Think of exploring automation as being forced to renew your car insurance the “proper” way. Sticking with the status quo isn’t an option, not unless you’ve really done your homework and you’re sure there isn’t a better alternative out there. Automation may be particularly relevant if your business is reliant on labor from overseas to fulfill critical business functions. If attracting British workers isn’t a realistic option (some industries do struggle to recruit locally and have to look farther afield), then automating certain processes may be an unavoidable long-term strategy for your business. You may think automation only applies in manufacturing or agricultural contexts, but think again. A wide range of business processes are increasingly being automated, across all sorts of business functions, including HR, sales, marketing, and finance. For example, in sales, software can now automate lead prioritization, scheduling appointments, and logging follow-up tasks. Automation doesn’t necessarily mean taking jobs away from human workers and giving them to machines. In a lot of cases, automation simply improves what human employees do by helping to streamline processes. And when your human employees are freed up from more menial, repetitive tasks (such as scheduling appointments), they have more time to focus on tasks that directly benefit the business. Therefore, use Brexit as an excuse to review your processes across the business and see where you have an opportunity to automate and improve processes. If you’re a big believer in work–life balance and the passive income mind-set, you should be constantly reviewing processes in your businesses to see what can be done quicker, cheaper, and easier with software or well-designed systems. Brexit could lead to investment from overseas investors There’s a definite sense that overseas investors have been holding back from investing in UK real estate development projects in light of Brexit uncertainty. In other words, there’s potentially a massive backlog of external investment just waiting to pile into the UK property market after the dust settles, especially because the pound is weak and investments represent better value and yield. There are indications of a wider downturn in foreign investment. Figures from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) show that foreign investment fell 90 percent in 2017, after a bumper 2016. That’s obviously concerning in the short term, but the long-term picture is more positive, with many believing that foreign investment will flood back into the country after Brexit. Why would overseas investors want to invest in UK businesses and projects? Quite simply, because the weak pound means their money goes further in the UK. They get more bang for their buck (or euros, or whatever) and the UK fundamentally remains an excellent investment location. So, when the short-term uncertainty is over, external investment will likely pick up the pace. Investment promotion agencies may be able to help your business attract foreign investors. (InvestUK is one example of such an agency.) You can also get help and advice from the Department for International Trade. Brexit could be the opportunity you need to pick up business from companies that have left the UK In the event that a direct competitor pulls out of the UK, consider whether there’s a chance to suck up some of their business. This could, for example, involve buying their client lists (where possible), advertising to their primary audience, or even acquiring the UK arm of an EU company. Take the UK fishing industry as a big-picture example. If EU countries lose the right to fish in British waters after Brexit, this could give UK fleets a much fairer share of fishing rights. (In 2018, EU fleets were landing eight times as much fish in UK waters as British fleets were landing in EU waters.) Whether you’re a fisherman or a financial adviser, if your competitors leave a gap to be filled, make sure your business is the one that fills it. Be ready to expand your market share and attract new customers. Brexit may cause homegrown support for British businesses Many in the UK see Brexit as an opportunity to become more self-sufficient, to prioritize homegrown solutions over imported products and services. (In the case of the agricultural sector, the word homegrown is highly relevant because imported food potentially becomes more expensive.) This isn’t just about Brexit, though. For all sorts of reasons, including climate change, more and more people are thinking “local” rather than “global.” Local producers, local suppliers, local services — all offer an opportunity for customers, clients, and consumers to feel more connected to the companies they deal with. People in the UK want to support UK businesses. If you’re a local alternative to faceless, global entities, don’t be afraid to say so!

Article / Updated 07-12-2023

You’ve decided that a smart city initiative is right for your community. You now have a bold and ambitious vision. It’s time to get started so that you can actually realize this vision. You must initiate a process of translation to move from your smart city vision to a set of actions. For this, you need a plan. Do not let the enthusiasm for progress and results curtail the essential and sometimes tedious upfront work of strategic planning for you smart city. This popular adage is a favorite of mine: Failing to plan is planning to fail. You always increase the chances of success in an effort if you have a plan. (Having a Plan B is a good idea, too.) Most people have some sort of plan in place when they embark on a major work project. But is it a viable and flexible plan? Is it a plan that can actually absorb the pummeling a long-term effort will experience and still succeed in its goals? There’s a big difference between having a plan and having a great plan. What you need in order to get started is a process to define the strategy of how your smart city vision will be realized. You need a systematic process of envisioning and executing the steps to a desired future. Urban planning and development are typically deliberate and detailed activities. A smart city initiative is fundamentally an urban plan and therefore requires much of the same rigor. You’ll make complex decisions that include trade-offs and compromises, and you’ll do all this with many other stakeholders. The art and science of strategic planning is a repetitive, inclusive, often exhaustive exercise, which is a characteristic of much of the work in the public sector. You really do produce better results when you include as many people (those who can add value) as possible in almost any process. People want to be involved, and they want to have a voice in decision-making. After all, decisions that are made that affect the nature of a city have the potential to impact a lot of people. Everyone is better served when input is derived from the broadest set of participants. A strategic plan is a living document. That is, it is never locked down. It must be open to revisiting and to making course corrections as circumstances dictate. The plan must also be an artifact that’s referenced often, and progress must be measured against it. The worst strategic plan is the one that’s developed and agreed on and then never consulted. It’s the one that sits on the shelf, gathering dust. It’s pointless, and even soul-destroying. A strategic plan must be shared widely. It becomes a communication tool that helps stakeholders know what’s happening and when events will take place. The plan must be posted for easy access and made available in both electronic and physical forms. Your smart city initiative should have a dedicated website, or at least a dedicated section of your city’s website. A large number of people — ranging from community members to city staff and from other cities to the vendor community and more — will be interested in what’s coming their way. It’s worth spending the time to create a well-developed strategic plan. From better outcomes to clear directions for all who are involved and impacted, the benefits are numerous. But let’s be sober about this point: Creating a well-developed strategic plan is difficult, and the plan can be contentious. Be ready for the work ahead. Sure, it’s hard, but it’s well worth it. Perhaps this deserves a new adage: Preparing a well-developed plan is planning to succeed. Developing a strategic plan for your smart city Though business books might use different terminology, critiquing several of them reveals a consistent set of logical steps to move from an idea or need to a result. Whether it’s creating an art piece, developing a project, or planning a strategy, the following four steps typically spell out what needs to happen (Let’s call them the four D’s): Define. Design. Develop. Deploy. Some form of measurement should be baked in, too, to hold everyone accountable. Look below to see how this process can be applied to the development of a smart city. Keep in mind that the work of urban planning and development is never done, so by extension, it’s a little misleading to think in terms of completing a smart city. It’s a topic of considerable debate. (Another, similar debate involves determining which city in the world is “the smartest.” It’s not a fair question — each city is smart to the degree that it reflects the needs, culture, and aspirations of its citizens.) Returning to the idea of the process of creating a smart city (assuming the assertion that, by definition, this process can never be completed), it should be clear by now that this may be an iterative process. Thought of another way, smart city efforts may have phases, and they may be redefined as time passes. This topic gets a lot of attention because it directly relates to how you might think of scoping the smart city strategy exercise. Specifically, what are you including in the scope of the process to define, design, develop, and deploy? The answer is that you and your teams must decide what to include. Having a vision that may take a decade or more to accomplish is reasonable, but, realistically speaking, it’s likely a series of shorter actionable and consecutive strategic plans rather than a single big plan. Therefore, you should focus on the activities that are doable, relative to the larger vision, with the understanding that you’re dealing with a shorter time horizon. Take another look at the image above. Strategic planning involves Steps 1–4. The first step is to create your smart city vision. The next step is to define your goals —the desired results of the vision broken into specific, measurable areas. Moving from vision to goals, which is an exercise that is fun and critical, requires what is called the envisioning process. Envisioning a smart city At its core, envisioning is an interactive process for engaging stakeholders in imagining a desired future and identifying the activities in support of realizing it. It can be thought of as a more rigorous brainstorming process. Envisioning takes many forms: It’s performed at the beginning of an initiative but can also be used at various other times during the course of an initiative if it’s deemed valuable. Done well, envisioning can bring with it many of the following advantages. It Gets everyone on the same page Identifies creative ideas Builds cohesiveness in a group Enables all voices to be heard Supports achieving consensus Reduces the risk of pursuing ideas that may not be practical To help guide you through the envisioning process that forms the basis of your strategic plan and goals, follow these steps : Define the scope of your smart city vision. Using the smart city vision that has been already determined, identify and debate (using the tools of your choice) the major city areas within the scope. Though it’s tempting to use only existing challenges to lead the process, turn those challenges into what you want the city to become. For example, instead of saying “Fix transportation congestion,” perhaps consider saying “Implement innovative and efficient transportation options that provide more options and shorter trips.” The details of how you go about achieving these in-scope items come next. Create a short list of goals.Step 1 will likely result in a large number of scope areas. Be sure to validate them carefully against the agreed-on smart city vision. A scope item not aligned with that vision might need to be tabled, or it might mean that the vision needs expanding. Next, group together common scoping areas and consider new language to cover the range of these areas in a single goal statement. For example, many ideas might be related to transportation, but they should roll up to a master goal. Later, you will create objectives for these goals that will define specifics. Here’s an example of a transportation goal: “Create a transportation environment that is friendly to the environment, is efficient, and reduces parking needs by 60 percent.” There’s no hard-and-fast rule on how many goals you should have, but you should be guided by what’s possible. If you have 50 goals for your small city, well, you’re probably kidding yourselves. Each goal generates many objectives, which in turn generate even more projects. Be realistic about what’s achievable at least from the perspectives of capacity and budgeting. Consider a time frame.By definition, executing on a vision takes a long time. You’re certainly looking at several years, but not so long that it becomes impractical. Agreeing on a general time frame around the defined goals in Step 2 creates an important boundary and helps to sharpen everyone’s focus. Though recognizing that a smart city strategy is never finished, you must articulate a time frame for this round of visionary goals. Identify your city's strengths.This step requires some careful and honest introspection. Articulate your city’s qualities that lend themselves to the work ahead. Recognizing these strengths helps you focus everyone’s efforts, understand potential risks, optimize for strengths, and assist in prioritizing objectives. Create a first draft of Steps 1–4.Combine Steps 1–4 into a cohesive narrative. This isn’t an essay. It should begin with the agreed-on vision. Additional support for the vision can be considered — notes on how the vision was derived, including some background and motivation, for example. This is followed by each of the goals, listed in sequence. Under each goal, provide additional supporting details and desired outcomes, and specify how they align with the vision. Include a statement on how city strengths support each goal, give approximate timelines, and provide a proposal on how the goal may be measured. Don’t make the strategic plan document a massive tome. If it is, you’ve done something wrong. Make it succinct enough that most stakeholders are comfortable reviewing it and can recall many of its highlights. Circulate the draft to your smart city stakeholders.The next few steps are what is called rinse-and-repeat. The draft strategic plan for the future of your smart city must be circulated among a broad and diverse community. Create a mechanism to make it easy to elicit feedback and track changes. Review, redraft, and recirculate.The first round of feedback will likely elicit a high volume of comments. In subsequent circulations, you should expect reduced volume. Finalize and socialize.With several iterations completed, it’s time to lock down the document. It’s clear at this point which topics have resonated with your stakeholders. Try to engage the right talent to create the final strategy document. Make this document easy to consume — one that everyone is proud to reference and share. Make the document version-controlled because you’ll create many versions. Be comfortable having the document undergo regular reviews and updates. If changes are requested, follow a similar rinse-and-repeat process. You’ve reached the end of a major milestone in the strategic planning process. Now share it widely and often. With so many channels available for both analog and digital sharing, use them all. For the core online presence — possibly, a standalone website, or separate section of your city’s main website — consider a way for people to provide comments and information on how to reach members of the team. Converting your smart city vision to action Now that you’ve completed a high-level strategy document and it’s been endorsed by all the right stakeholders, you’re ready to move on to how the strategy will be put into action. The document so far includes your city’s vision for what it wants to become, and it lists the major goals that manifest the vision. Each goal is a specific area that articulates a desired future result within some defined period. A goal typically doesn’t provide the level of detail necessary to follow a set of steps. What you need are supporting objectives for each goal. These objectives then tie directly to projects, which is how the work gets done. (The image below should help you visualize the relationship between a vision, goals, and objectives.) What is an objective? It’s a specific action that supports a result in a defined time frame. It’s short-term with a clear definition and is a necessary building block in a strategic plan. Let’s use the example of transportation to explain how you take a goal and create objectives. In the example smart city, Goal 1 is to implement innovative and efficient transportation options. The smart city steering committee or the operations team may designate a group of people who will work on determining the supporting objectives for this goal. In a smaller city, assigning a new group may be impractical, so perhaps the operations team is appropriate to do this work. At minimum, people with the proper expertise should be part of the team. In this area, you definitely want experts in the transportation and planning areas, with input from public safety team members also potentially quite valuable. The team who is assigned should be fully aware of the purpose of the goal, the way it supports the vision, the desired timeline, and the manner it is being proposed to be measured. This content lies in the approved strategy document as it stands. Conducting interviews with relevant stakeholders is a good approach as well — it might mean reaching out to people who haven’t yet been engaged in the process. Stakeholders are both internal and external to the organization. Once the team is comfortable with scope, it’s time to think about objectives. You can follow any number of models, including brainstorming and design thinking. For more on the latter, check out Design Thinking For Dummies, by Christian Müller-Roterberg. The team must always be conscious of available capacity and funding and the timeline. Deviating from this guidance may result in objectives that, when reviewed, are quickly discarded and considered a poor use of everyone’s time. To return to the transportation goal,” here's what the objectives associated with that goal might look like: Goal: Implement innovative and efficient transportation options. Supporting objective 1.1: Support migration to electric vehicles by providing electric charging stations at 60 percent of city-provided parking spaces by 2025. Supporting objective 1.2: Upgrade all traffic signals to enable dynamic signaling based on real-time data by 2024. Examples here are deliberately lightweight for the purposes of simplicity and clarity. Your actual goals and objectives may be more detailed. Let your teams determine what’s appropriate for your agency and for the purpose of increasing understanding. It’s a good idea to include clear details on any mentioned technologies and unfamiliar terms. You want all stakeholders to understand what is being proposed. After all the goals have their associated objectives identified, you enter into a cycle of rinse-and-repeat, when the document is sent out for review and comment and then updated and reviewed again. This process repeats until general agreement is reached. The steering committee then needs to sign off on the approved objectives. Finally, the completed strategic plan should be brought to your elected officials, or the equivalent, for sign-off. Want to ensure your smart city is on the right path? Avoid these ten problems.

Article / Updated 07-12-2023

Beginning the journey to create a smart city is a bold and courageous first step. The risks and costs are high, and positive outcomes aren’t guaranteed. Most cities that haven’t yet committed to a strategy may be able to detect an element of inevitability that the day will soon come. Evolving needs and community expectations will demand it. The promise of new technology in solving urban issues and delivering better results is simply too compelling — and in some cases too urgent — to ignore. But you do need to recognize pragmatic hesitancy. Those risks and costs are concerning. Reputations are at stake. The work is difficult and complex. However, the day will eventually come when a vision and a plan for a smart city (or whatever other term is used) are demanded and when work will need to begin. Cities won’t be able to sit this one out. Action will be required. When the decision is made to move forward with a smart city strategy, it’s time to evaluate the risks and come up with steps to lessen the danger. That means an ongoing risk management strategy must be part of the work as well. Consider establishing a risk register — a tool for documenting risks and the actions taken to address each risk. Fortunately, many case studies are available for review from cities of all sizes all over the world. Learn from them. Here, you discover ten smart city pitfalls to avoid. If you avoid these pitfalls, you will certainly reduce risk throughout your smart city program. But this is only one short list: Do your homework and identify issues that may be specific to particular initiatives — for example, around energy, transportation, health, or drone usage. It’s smart to be smart about smart city risks. Making your smart city project a tech program and putting IT in charge With the focus of smart city work revolving around the use of technology, it seems intuitive to consider it a technology program. Following that logic, it would seem to make sense for many cities to assign the work to their information technology (IT) team. Both assumptions seem reasonable but may be mistakes. Certainly, smart city technology is a core requirement; however, this program is about people. Keep in mind that technology adoption is an enabler, not the outcome. You must always return to fundamentals. Smart cities are about improving the quality of life for communities. Use this core belief to drive the work, and remind stakeholders frequently. The risk of making a smart city strategy a technology program and assigning it to the IT team is high, for the reasons described in this list: Placing the focus on technology can alienate many stakeholders. They may feel that they cannot contribute because they have insufficient knowledge or prerequisite skills. The fact is, smart city programs have greater success when all parts of an agency and the community have high levels of engagement. Your IT leader and team, despite their brilliance, may not be qualified to take ownership of this multidisciplinary program. It’s a leap to assume that knowledge of technology equates to competence in running projects that span across city domains. Sure, your IT leader may be a superstar who has the capability and knowledge to lead a smart city strategy. In that case, embrace this approach. In most cases though, it’s unlikely. Placing the emphasis on technology may result in a program that receives less priority and attention than it deserves. The smart city program has the potential to be seen as simply another set of technology projects. The reality is that smart city work needs leadership at the highest level of the organization and that the focus at all times must remain on benefits to people. Despite any caveats you might be given, your IT leader and team must be essential and valued program partners. There’s little doubt that their contributions will be critical to the success of the smart city program. Garnering insufficient support and engagement from stakeholders for your smart city On any given day, a government agency is managing numerous projects. Big cities may even have hundreds of projects running, which is what consumes a good deal of city staff capacity. For this reason, the processes for identifying projects, getting them budgeted, and then executing them is fairly routine. More often than not, a project is managed and delivered by a single department. Sometimes, more than one department is involved, but an all-departments program remains quite rare. You should consider the smart city program an all-department effort. As a result of continuing routine practices, departments may be inclined to move forward with smart city projects with insufficient engagement. Sure, they’ll embrace their normal network of involved participants, but they may not extend across other city departments and deep into the community. It’s not deliberate — it’s just that everyone defaults to their own routine. After a smart city program is approved — the emphasis must be on stakeholder engagement. Spend some time determining who should be considered a stakeholder. Be liberal in your inclusion of people you may not typically consider. The work to create a smarter and more sustainable city is a long-term effort. Engaging stakeholders and advocating for success early is a valuable approach. After stakeholders are identified, you must work with them to include them in discussions related to defining the vision, agreeing on goals and objectives, identifying projects and vendors, and more. Engagement at this level builds trust among participants. It may create a heavier administrative burden, and it can slow the process, but the dividend makes it worthwhile. Certainly, a lack of support and engagement always guarantees bigger and more frustrating challenges. To be inclusive, use a variety of platforms that include everything from traditional in-person meetings to online collaboration tools. Limiting efforts to your smart city boundaries Suppose that the mayor proposes that your city work on becoming a smart city. It sounds like you need to build a vision and a strategy for your community. That’s reasonable. But wait — might there be an opportunity to engage participants outside the city limits? All too often, the natural inclination is to focus solely on a single city. It makes sense on many levels. However, is it possible to be completely successful if the broader world isn’t considered? The term broader world may refer to adjoining cities or to the local region. It may also mean engaging with federal organizations. Cities don’t exist in a vacuum. They are entirely dependent on their interdependence with other communities and external organizations. Here are some examples: Public transportation: A public transportation system that serves a region can’t be considered only in the context of a single city or a few cities. If your smart city work impacts public transport, you need to engage with regional transport providers. Public safety: Your city might invest heavily in new technology to combat crime, but if you limit that work to your city’s borders and fail to engage surrounding communities, you might be restricting the effectiveness of your efforts. Environment: One of the most obvious suggestions for engaging participants beyond your own city is any effort related to the environment and climate change. Most people acknowledge that humans won’t solve air, water, and climate issues, for example, by doing work in a silo. These areas don’t respect borders. The best outcomes will be achieved when collaboration exists at the regional and national levels, where appropriate. Finally, smart city leaders can explore regional efforts if it means sharing cost. It’s highly possible that the work you’re doing would be of interest to cities nearby. Go ahead and have that conversation with them. A smart city effort executed by several cities will reduce costs and may even be more successful due to regional collaboration. Even if it’s more difficult, the effort may well be worth it. You won’t know unless you explore it. Paying insufficient attention to inclusiveness issues Most everyone enjoys using new technologies. But there’s always a risk that deploying a new smart city technology and process may have a positive impact on one part of the community while overlooking, or even limiting, others. That is unacceptable. Cities belong to everyone. Cities must serve everyone. Private organizations may have the right to choose their customers, but cities do not and should not. For example, even when a city digitizes a simple analog process, such as putting a form online, it must retain alternatives for those who lack the technological savvy or access to the necessary technology. It’s a unique city characteristic and responsibility. Because smart city efforts can range in their impact on a community, careful consideration must be given to inclusiveness. Urban innovation has the real potential to create and increase social inequity. Specifically, in the design of a new service, teams must assess whether everyone who may be impacted by the change continues to be served with equal access, respect, and attention. Ensuring analog options for online services may be relatively straightforward, but many smart city projects involve both the digital and physical worlds. For example, services that use audio and visual cues must be accessible by those who have limitations in those sensory areas. Inclusive smart cities require broad community engagement and collaboration — and a commitment to human-centered urban design. To date, the lack of a focus on inclusiveness in smart city programs has been an area of notable criticism. It’s time to make inclusiveness a priority and a mandatory part of the work. Improving the quality of life in cities must not be an experience for only a subset of a community — it’s a goal that must benefit everyone. Moving forward with a smart city without adequate governance For many people, the term governance may not be familiar, but the purpose is typically well understood. Simply defined, governance involves the structures put in place by organizations and teams to achieve measurable results toward achieving their goals. These goals can include the strategy of an entire organization, a project, or a program. The structures of governance can include these tasks: Identifying leadership and staffing positions Defining reporting relationships to be put in place Determining how decisions on funding are made Choosing how issues are escalated Selecting which processes are adopted To launch a smart city program without agreement on a rigorous governance structure (also called a framework) is a recipe for possible failure. The skills in putting together a governance framework may not be present in many cities. This is why you’re encouraged to seek assistance from an external party. Good governance can produce good results. It’s worth the time and expense needed to produce an agreeable approach. You’ll know whether your city has good governance in place if qualities such as clear accountability, process documentation and transparency, specific role definitions, reporting structures, goals, objectives, program and project alignment with strategy, and metrics are all defined and agreed on. Consider these and more as the pillars of governance success. Working with no clear vision of the smart city program Let’s be honest: Running a small handful of technology-related city projects does not a smart city make. That’s just a handful of technology projects. The work to create a smarter community will likely be a multiyear effort with clear, bold, and ambitious goals. A meaningful shift must take place in terms of how services are delivered and operations are conducted. Quality of life should be measurably improved and experienced. This kind of game-changing work requires a vision — preferably, one articulated by way of a vision statement that includes a short description of what the organization wants to become. The vision, which is a signpost of where the enterprise is headed, guides all stakeholders in their decision-making and their actions. A smart city vision should be aligned with the city’s broader strategy and approved by the community. In fact, determining a vision for your smart city work is an important way to engage constituents. Don’t stop at the vision, either: It’s the starting point that gets converted to goals, objectives, and then projects. Deep engagement with city staff and community members helps to ensure that the right priorities are identified and there’s agreement on the work to be done. Bring lots of data to these decision-making activities. A great vision is a great start to your smart city work. Without this vision, you have no signpost. Later, you may find that this lack is a guarantee of facing program challenges further down the road. Make the creation of a smart city vision one of the first things your team does. Downplaying the essential roles that security and privacy play in a smart city A trade-off will continue to exist between the benefits that technology and data bring to the world and the attendant risks that come with them. As people acquire and deploy more digitally based solutions in their homes, businesses, and cities — and even on themselves — everyone clearly recognizes the many advantages that each new innovation brings. Emerging technologies are rapidly changing the world in surprising ways. What isn’t clear is the extent of any risks that each one may present. Part of the challenge is that the nature of the risks continues to evolve. Cybersecurity is a particularly dynamic space: The bad guys are generally outpacing anyone’s ability to fully protect software and hardware security vulnerabilities. Leaps in cybersecurity are being made, but a long road lies ahead if we humans are ever to have the upper hand in completely protecting our systems. One of the core by-products of city government services is the collection, management, and storage of data. It’s the one asset that every government has in abundance. Just consider all the services that need system and data support. The amount of data collected in forms alone is humungous for most agencies. Now cities are deploying an array of different sensors that capture details such as video, air and water quality, traffic information, and much more. All these devices collect and produce data. Though protecting city data has always been important, the volume, velocity, and variety of it now has significantly elevated the risks to it. As remarkable as it may sound, the responsibility and degree to which protections are put in place in many cities around the world is at each city’s discretion. That said, many efforts are taking place, ranging from new industry standards to new regulations and laws that are being applied. For example, the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a law that’s being enforced across member nations to protect the personal data of EU citizens. In California, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) is a similar law, albeit less restrictive, that attempts to protect the personal information of Californians. Not making cybersecurity and privacy a priority in all city operations today is a mistake. The financial costs, loss of organizational credibility, damage to brand, severe disruption of services, potential downstream crimes, and pain to individuals it may cause make the stakes simply too high. Your smart city strategy will increase these cybersecurity and privacy risks. As one public sector cybersecurity professional once advised, “We shouldn’t be creating smart cities — we should be creating safe and secure smart cities.” Sharing smart city successes and failures too narrowly Government workers often take the brunt of stereotyping that characterizes them as lazy and unproductive. A few of those might exist, but isn’t that true in every industry? The truth is often quite different. Often, these people are some of the most passionate, selfless, and hard-working people you’ll ever meet. Some of the work can be thankless, but still, so many do the necessary, routine work of ensuring that their government services can function. What also strikes many involved is the volume of important work that gets done that nobody notices and is never publicized. Few cities have marketing departments, in the private sector sense. Sure, they have communications teams who do vital work — such work may even include creating campaigns to attract businesses and tourists — but the everyday achievements of most cities are lightly reported on municipal websites and, at best, in local newspapers. In other words, cities can do a much better job of telling their stories. Given the broad interest in smart cities, this work has received more attention than many of the programs that cities work on. The scale and transformational potential of the work is attractive for journalists and analysts, and so a decent amount of new content is being produced on this topic. So much of it, though, is being led by third parties, not by the city itself. Managing the narrative may be limited to infrequent press releases. Cities need to tell their smart city stories. They need to do this as not only a marketing tool but also a way to keep their communities apprised and engaged. They also need to do it to help other cities. Of course, they’d love to share only the good stories and best practices, but enormous value lies in sharing the failures as well. Of course, no city leader wants to expose the bad things that happen, so this strategy won’t be wholeheartedly embraced. However, the value in sharing those failures not only demonstrates transparency and honesty but can also be helpful in communicating the complexity and difficulty of the work for the benefit of other communities. Embrace and share your smart city strategy strengths and weaknesses. More communities will reap the rewards of this approach and, as a result, many more may prosper. Wouldn’t that be a good thing? Sticking stubbornly to the old ways of doing things Most people love predictability. They enjoy their routines. It’s a lovely experience to visit a favorite restaurant after a long absence and find that the dish you love is still on the menu and tastes exactly how you remember it. But predictability and routine in a work context — particularly, as humans traverse the fourth industrial revolution — may not be that desirable. This isn’t a reference to the comfort of a paycheck or the reliable trust of a colleague. Mostly, this refers to the need for organizations to change — often quickly — to respond to a world in transition. The biggest risk to organizations today is the lack of relevancy. If you’re doing the same thing while everything around you (including your customers) is changing, you’re not demonstrating your relevancy and you’re likely on a trajectory toward failure. Continuous modifications of products and services, and even operations, is becoming a characteristic of the times. The ability to evolve and reinvent at a moment’s notice appears to be emerging as a competitive advantage. In city government, change often happens slowly, and for plenty of good reasons, such as not having the budget to change or not wanting to upset a community by introducing a new process or having little appetite for even a modest amount of risk. Each of these is a legitimate concern and must be respected. But can the slow pace of city government innovation and a conservative mindset be sustained and acceptable when the world is rapidly changing? With city complexity and community expectations increasing, and with a growing number of intractable issues emerging, business-as-usual for a city appears to be under pressure. Because a smart city strategy is often a response to these challenges, this means that the capacity to embrace change must also expand. Sticking to the old ways of doing things while simultaneously pursuing a smart city program would appear to be incompatible. Leaders who are more flexible, ready to change, and prepared to take more risks may drive more success in their efforts than those who cling to the predictability of the ways things have always been done. Thinking too short-term when developing your smart city goals Depending on the political system of a city agency, projects may be tied to the term of leadership. In the United States, terms typically last four years, so many initiatives are targeted to kick off and be completed in that period. Though getting the right things done well is the purpose of leadership, it’s reasonable to also say that there may be additional motivations too. For example, if the initiative is a success in a single term, an official may take credit for the change and also increase their chance of being reelected or appointed to another term. Sometimes the reason for the timing is that the budget exists and the need is now greatest. There are a whole lot of reasons why, and when, work is done in a city. Many are specific to the particular city. It’s fair to say that many smart city projects can be completed in a reasonably short period (at least in a city context). For example, it’s possible to create and deploy apps that can be quite useful to a community well within a four-year time period. That said, the complexity and reach of an entire smart city program will likely stretch over much longer periods. A smart city strategy typically has bold and ambitious goals. It requires a lot of individual projects, many of which are interdependent and require new, complex software, hardware, and process requirements. You can easily fall into the short-term trap, where the team is looking just a few years into the future. Like everyone, they’re impatient to realize successful outcomes. A more pragmatic approach to the smart city work is to see it on the short-, medium-, and long-term horizons. As Steven Covey, educator and author of The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, has famously said, “Begin with the end in mind.” A smart city strategy requires a long-term mindset, but with a focus on delivering value along the way. Too much short-term thinking may result in these errors: Incorrectly setting expectations for the organization and community Underspecifying the overall smart city architecture Poorly communicating the long-term budgeting requirements Sprinting at the start when everyone should be preparing for a marathon A smart city strategy is a long-term effort. Plan for it. Want to see some examples? Check out these smart cities.

Article / Updated 05-24-2023

The LGBTQ+ community has had an unfortunate history of persecution in Western society. For many decades, homosexuals were tolerated, as long as they didn't overtly show that they were gay. And, others who identify within this acronym today were, for the most part, "invisible" to mainstream society. The 1960s witnessed an increased drive to publicly assert sexual identity, and events at the end of the decade helped forge a full-fledged movement in the U.S. and other countries. Coming out As a result of the women's movement and the increasing overt nature of sexuality in society, as well as the high visibility of the civil rights and antiwar movements, gay men and women began to feel more comfortable about asserting who they were and demanding the right to be treated equally to other citizens. The 1960s began a time when women felt more comfortable exploring and enjoying their sexuality, which then fostered a freer atmosphere for others to explore individual sexuality as well. And when gay people saw this change happening, they began to believe that they, too, could advocate for their own rights. They were tired of being "in the closet," pretending to be heterosexual in order to keep their jobs, families, and friends. Americans began publicly discussing homosexuality after the 1948 publication of Alfred Kinsey's book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, which said that approximately 10 percent of males have a homosexual experience in their lives. The most visible sign of gay activism during the 1950s and early 1960s was an increased willingness for gay men and women to come out of the closet and identify themselves as homosexuals, even to a straight society. They began to congregate in gay communities in large cities and in gay bars, which were long considered a hotbed of immorality. Gay people became less willing to be considered social outcasts, and by the late 1960s, the community began to demand equal treatment with heterosexuals. At that time, the main focus was on ending discrimination, repealing "sodomy" and other repressive laws, and changing the public view that homosexuality is a sin. In more recent years, the scope of LGBTQ+ activism expanded to include freedom from hate crimes, equal employment and housing opportunities, the right to serve openly in the military, and most recently, gay marriage. Rioting at the Stonewall bar Before 1965, raids on gay bars were fairly routine. However, that year a politically involved gay activist — Dick Leitsch of the Mattachine society, a gay rights organization dedicated to improving homosexuals' lives and working for equality — challenged the New York State Liquor Authority (SLA), which had a policy of taking away the liquor license of any bar serving three or more homosexuals at one time. In 1966, after alerting the media, Leitsch held a "sip-in," intending to have a drink with two other gay men at a bar. When the bartender turned them away, they complained to the city's human rights commission. Embarrassed by press coverage of the event and its aftermath, the chairman of the SLA denied that the department prohibited selling liquor to homosexuals. The following year, the courts determined that the SLA couldn't revoke a liquor license without evidence of violations (which didn't include serving gay people). However, on June 27, 1969, police thought they had a good reason to raid the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in Greenwich Village in New York City. The police asserted that the bar didn't have a valid liquor license, had ties with organized crime, offered scantily clad boys as entertainers, and brought an unruly element to Sheridan Square. So that night, after 1 a.m., police raided the bar. Although many patrons escaped arrest, the cops nailed anyone without an ID or anyone who was cross-dressed. The patrons were incensed, and the riot was on. Competing accounts of the chaotic event make it difficult to determine whether the riot was started by a drag queen clubbed by a policeman or a lesbian crowded into a squad car, but whatever the cause, the anger was contagious, and the crowd moved to overtake the police. The police tried to retreat into the bar, but when they grabbed and beat an innocent bystander, the violence escalated. Some rioters set the bar on fire, and others ripped parking meters from the sidewalk to use as weapons. Soon, not only were the patrons of the Stonewall lashing out — the entire neighborhood got involved in the melee. Even a tactical force sent in to quell the riot was unable to control the angry mob, who protested throughout the night. The crowd returned for the next few nights. Although the violence lessened as the nights wore on, the protesters, chanting "gay power!" were no less outraged at the way police had treated gay people for years. After the Stonewall riots were over, the gay community decided to turn their anger to positive change. By the end of July, the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) was formed in New York. The Stonewall Riots mobilized the gay community — homosexuals, who were no longer content to hide at the margins of American society, started newspapers, formed community organizations, and became politically active. By 1970, the GLF had chapters across the country. In June, it held a march to commemorate the Stonewall riots. Between 5,000 and 10,000 men and women marched from Greenwich Village to Central Park, which inaugurated the tradition of the gay pride celebration. Today, in many American cities, gay pride parades are normally held on the last weekend in June to honor the Stonewall riots and celebrate LGBTQ+ identities and pride. Much progress has been made for the rights of LGBTQ+ people since the 1960s. But, unfortunately, hate crimes, discrimination — including harmful legislation — continue to be realities for many in this population, even all these decades later.

Article / Updated 05-03-2023

Brexit spawned lots of questions surrounding the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past couple of years, you’ll have read and heard a lot about the impact of the GDPR, which came into force on May 25, 2018. But with GDPR being a European Union regulation, do UK businesses still have to comply with GDPR rules after Brexit? The short answer is yes, businesses in the UK still have to comply with GDPR rules even after Brexit. But, in some cases, the specifics of how your company handles data may change slightly after Brexit. Recognizing that GDPR is enshrined in UK law and Brexit won’t change that In a nutshell, GDPR is designed to give every EU citizen greater control over his or her personal data, including name, date of birth, and email address. It ensures that companies can’t store and use the personal data of EU citizens without their explicit consent, and promotes the fair, transparent use of personal data. The fact that UK citizens will no longer be EU citizens after Brexit doesn’t matter. Implementation of GDPR in the UK is covered by the UK Parliament’s Data Protection Act 2018. So, GDPR is already written into UK law, and the government has committed to maintaining GDPR compliance in the UK. This ensures that UK citizens will continue to get all the same protections as their EU neighbors, when it comes to the fair use of their data. This means all the protocols you’ve put in place to lawfully handle the data of your customers (whether they’re in Europe or the UK) will still apply, and you should absolutely maintain compliance with GDPR. But why continue with something that originated as EU law when so much of the rhetoric surrounding Brexit was about “taking back control”? The cynical answer is that businesses and public bodies in the UK have already spent millions ensuring their data practices were fully compliant with GDPR. If the government backtracked on GDPR now, it would mean all that expenditure was pointless. After all the time, effort, and money spent, it would be crazy to “undo” GDPR in the UK. The less cynical answer is that GDPR is a good thing, for organizations and for individuals. Sure, it brings additional burdens in terms of compliance, but there’s no doubt it provides important protections for citizens’ private data. As technology advances and the world becomes increasingly driven by data, these protections will only become more valuable. It’s also important to remember that any close relationship between the UK and the EU going forward is likely to be dependent upon both parties having similar regulatory systems. Therefore, GDPR is just one area where British businesses will effectively be operating in line with European businesses. Transferring data between the UK and the EU after Brexit Broadly speaking, how UK businesses handle personal data will stay the same. But there’s a big uncertainty around what happens to businesses that transfer data between the UK and the remaining EU27 countries after Brexit (for example, if a company has offices in the UK and Europe, or if a UK business uses a cloud service provider based in the EU). Under GDPR, data cannot be transferred between the EU and third countries (non-EU countries) unless those countries have been deemed to have “adequate” data protections in place. In the less likely event of a no-deal Brexit, the UK will immediately be considered a third country, which means that the European Commission will need to assess that the UK has adequate levels of protection in order for the smooth transfer of data to continue. (In theory, the Data Protection Act ensures that the UK does provide an adequate level of protection, but as with so much of Brexit, it’s a case of wait and see whether this plays out in reality.) And if the UK does exit with a withdrawal agreement in place, then, for the duration of any transition period, data transfers can continue as normal.

Article / Updated 04-20-2023

The debt ceiling, legally known as the debt limit, is the total amount of money that the U.S. government is authorized to borrow to pay existing obligations, such as Social Security and Medicare benefits, military salaries, interest on the national debt, tax refunds, and disbursements for other programs. The debt limit applies to federal debt held by the public, namely, securities held by investors outside the federal government, and to federal debt held by the government’s own accounts. The debt limit does not create new spending commitments but allows the government to finance existing obligations already established by Congress. The debt limit is codified at Title 31 subsection 3101 of the U.S. Code and the current statutory debt limit is $14.694 trillion. The debt limit is administered by the Department of Treasury, who publishes a graph of debt subject to the limit. History of the U.S. debt limit Congress has the sole power to borrow money on the credit of the United States as authorized by Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Until 1917, Congress authorized each debt issuance separately. In order to help finance the United States’ involvement in World War I, Congress passed the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917, which also established a limit on the total amount of bonds that could be issued. Congress broadened the limit to apply to all federal debt in 1939 and 1941 through the Public Debt Acts. Congress authorized the Department of the Treasury to issue such debt necessary to fund government operations (as authorized by the federal budget) as long as the total debt remained below a stated ceiling. According to the Treasury Department, since 1960, Congress has acted 78 times (including 20 times since 2001) to raise, extend, or revise the definition of the debt limit – 49 times under Republican presidents and 29 times under Democratic presidents. In the history of the debt limit, the U.S. has experienced a technical default. In 1979, Congress completed negotiations to raise the debt limit at the last minute. Subsequently, Treasury failed to redeem $120 million of Treasury bills on time due to unprecedentedly high interest from small investors, Congress’ delay in raising the debt limit and faulty word-processing equipment. The Treasury Department described this failure as a technological glitch and the investors were eventually paid in full. In addition, the only time the debt limit has been numerically exceeded occurred December 16, 2009 when Treasury posted a national debt calculation of $12.135 trillion while the limit was $12.104 trillion dollars. Treasury utilized extraordinary accounting tools to meet federal obligations until Congress raised the limit to $12.4 trillion on December 24, 2009. Consequences of failing to increase debt limit If the debt limit is not raised, the United States will not have enough money to pay all of its obligations and will default. Most economists and financial experts observe that a failure to increase the debt limit and subsequent U.S. government default would have significant negative economic consequences. The U.S. government would default on its legal obligations for the first time in American history. Default could precipitate another financial crisis and threaten the jobs and savings of all Americans. If the federal government interrupts payments, people like Social Security recipients or government contractors, will have less money to spend, causing the economy to slow down Investors could demand a higher interest rate, causing the economy to slow down more and, perversely, worsening the deficit problem by increasing required interest payments on the debt Interest rates could go up for credit cards and mortgages because the interest rates paid by corporations and consumers in the U.S. are tied to the rate the nation pays. The special role of the dollar and Treasury securities in global markets would be damaged Default would create fundamental doubts about U.S. creditworthiness.

Article / Updated 12-23-2022

Political science is the study of power. The discipline is enamored with the concept of power, namely how A gets B to do what A wants. Therefore, political science studies who holds power and how it’s being used. Political power is the ability to get others to do what you want. It can take force or peaceful means, such as persuasion, to achieve this. Political power is exercised over people in many ways. In the U.S., for example, the federal government exercises political power over its population by forcing its citizens to pay taxes. Who would volunteer to pay taxes once a year unless the federal government had the power to force someone to pay up! Most importantly, this use of power of the U.S. government is considered rightful by its population. Therefore, the federal government possesses the legitimate use of power over its population. Exercise of political power In the U.S. and other federal societies, such as Germany, states, or regions also exercise political power over their population. In the U.S., the states set speed limits on their roads, and in Germany, states have the power to set tax rates. Finally, specific people, such as teachers, can also exercise political power. Whenever teachers assign homework, they’re exercising political power over students. Students consider teachers to have authority and their use of power legitimate and therefore will do something, such as homework, they wouldn’t normally do for fun. Authority refers to a general agreement that a person has the right to make certain decisions and that these decisions should be complied with. Different thoughts on political power Both ancient and modern political scientists were concerned with how power is used in societies. The famous Greek philosophers Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle believed that political power should be held by the best educated in society and should be used for the good of society. Niccolo Machiavelli disagreed in his seminal work The Prince. He argues that power is needed to maintain the security of the state both at home and internationally. His work focuses on how to acquire power and then use it for the good of the state. Fellow political philosopher Thomas Hobbes not only agrees but also claims that political power shouldn’t be used for ethical governance but to prevent conflict both domestically and internationally. The more modern theorists such as John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau argue differently. They believe that the people should exercise political power in a nation-state and need to be able to hold their leader accountable. For Locke, whose work became the foundation for the American political system, a contract exists between leaders and citizens on how to exercise political power. If leaders violate the contract, the people can remove them from their positions. More recent thinkers such as John Rawls have added the components of social justice and economic equality to their theories. Views on who holds the political power One of the ongoing questions in political science is how can the researcher determine who holds power in a society. Over time, six different explanations were developed. Bureaucratic theory Bureaucratic theory assumes that bureaucracies in countries hold power and make the most important decisions for society. It’s therefore not politicians nor other leaders but top-level bureaucrats who run a country. They work for the good of the country, not to amass wealth, and their policies are based on what’s best for a country. When studying France or Japan, two countries with powerful bureaucracies, bureaucratic theory can be used to study political power. Pluralism Pluralism, as developed by James Madison in Federalist Paper Number 10, believes interest groups will be created as societies become more economically and socially complex. People will join together to push for their own interests and for government benefits. These interests can be economic, professional, ideological, environmental, or even religious. All these diverse groups will now compete for public benefits, ensuring that public policy will benefit not only a few people but a majority in the country. Political power is therefore held by interest groups, representing the people. As soon as one group of citizens feel disadvantaged, they’ll begin to organize and compete for benefits. Suddenly, many interest groups are competing for political benefits and hopefully balancing each other out overall. Pluralism assumes that everybody will get a little bit from policymakers, but nobody will get everything he asks for. This balance makes every interest group accept lawmakers’ policy decisions without complaining or, more importantly, without taking action against policymakers. Corporatism Corporatism also deals with interest groups. However, there are not tens of thousands as in the U.S. but a lot less. There may be only three. These groups are large and powerful and directly deal with the government when it comes to policy making. Therefore, a few but very powerful interest groups hold power in a society . The political scientist needs to study these to find out who holds power in a society. Examples of corporatist countries include Germany, Austria, and most of Scandinavia. Elite theory Elite theory, as created by the great Italian social scientists Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca, states that every society has an elite that holds political power. That elite differs from society to society. In some societies, it’s blood based, meaning you have to be born into it. A monarch with a ruling aristocracy comes to mind. In other places, wealth puts you into the elite. The more money you have, the more influential you’ll be. This is often the case in capitalist countries like the U.S. or Great Britain. Another determinant of power is religion; Iran is governed by a religious elite. Membership in organizations such as an elite political party, for example, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, or the military can put someone in the elite. A military dictatorship such as found in Chile from 1973 until 1990 under General Pinochet is an example. In a nutshell, elite theory states that in every society an elite holds political power. Marxism A Marxist believes that whoever holds economic power also hold political power. In other words, control of the economy equals control of government. In a capitalist society, the economy is controlled by the upper and middle classes, and therefore they control government. In a feudal society, the king and his aristocracy control the economy and therefore government. Sources of political power Two models explain where political power comes from. First is the percolation-up model. It assumes that power rests with the citizens of a country. The citizens in turn elect leaders and give them political power to run the country on their behalf. If the citizens are satisfied with their leaders, they can reelect them. On the other hand, if they’re dissatisfied, they can replace them. An example is a representative democracy. The second model assumes the exact opposite. It’s called a drip-down model. Here, ultimate power doesn’t rest with the citizens but with the leadership of a country. For example, in authoritarian and totalitarian systems, the leader has ultimate power and makes policy for the country. The citizens have no input and can’t hold the leadership accountable. Historically, this type of power model was the most widespread of the two. Examples include the monarchies of the past, totalitarian systems such as the Soviet Union, and more modern dictatorships such as Belarus or Iran.

Article / Updated 11-14-2022

Brexit is the term used to refer to the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union (EU) and is a shortened version of British Exit. On June 23, 2016, the UK decided to officially sever ties with the EU. This monumental decision came as the result of a referendum—or public vote of nearly all citizens of voting age—in which more than 30 million people voted. Brexit background The European Union is a group of 28 European countries that are tied by an economic and political alliance. This political understanding led the way for the use of the euro (the currency used in 19 EU countries) and permits citizens in the EU to travel and settle across borders without a passport. The EU even employs its own parliament and makes decisions regarding things like trade, transportation, and environmental policy. The BBC reports that the final vote supported the UK’s leave from the EU 52% to 48%. England and Wales were strongly in favor of leaving the EU, while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted for remaining with the political alliance. The EU allows the countries within it to function largely as a single entity. It was initially put in place to allow for the free movement of people, goods, and money under what it termed a “single market.” The argument for Brexit According to the BBC, the push to leave the EU was advocated mostly by the UK Independence Party and was not supported by the Prime Minister, David Cameron. Members of the UK Independence Party argued that Britain’s participation in the EU was a restrictive element for the country. As one of the EU’s primary initiatives is free movement within the region the party’s main arguments centered around regaining border control and reclaiming business rights. In addition, supporters of Brexit cited the high EU membership fees as a negative aspect of participation in the EU. It was argued that if the UK separates itself from the EU, these fees can be used to benefit the UK. The argument against Brexit The Conservative Party and the Prime Minister were strongly in favor of remaining with the EU. As a result of the decision to discontinue its participation in the EU, the Prime Minister has made a public statement that he will be relinquishing his position. He believes that the country needs a leader with the same goals as the majority of the country. He has promised a new PM will be in place by early September. The argument against Brexit pertains mostly to the business benefits. The argument is that the UK receives business benefits by being able to participate in the single market system established by the EU. In response to the criticism against the open borders, proponents believe that the influx of immigrants helps develop an eager workforce and fuels public service projects. Leaders in favor of staying also worry about the political backlash that could possibly result from other countries who favored staying with the EU. In addition, proponents of remaining with the EU believe that being part of a wider community of nations provides economic and cultural strength, as well as an additional element of security. What does Brexit mean for the future? While the decision marked a huge statement for the UK, the referendum vote is not legally binding. There are still many hurdles that must be dealt with before Brexit can become a reality. The UK is still subject to the laws of the EU until Britain’s exit becomes legal. In order for the UK to make its break official, the country needs to invoke Article 50. It is unclear exactly what this process will entail or how long it will take as Britain is the first country to take its leave of the EU. Once Article 50 has been formally invoked, the UK has two years to negotiate its departure with the other member states. But according to the BBC, “Extricating the UK from the EU will be extremely complex, and the process could drag on longer than that.” Amidst the aftermath of this shocking referendum vote, there is great uncertainty as political leaders decide what this means for the UK.