This opinion piece by economists Christopher A. Pissarides and Fadi Farra argues that state services must treat institutional memory as a fundamental component of public infrastructure. The authors note that while governments collect extensive data on citizens and public service users, many lack the ability to clearly define expected policy outcomes or determine which evidence would justify changing their stance. They reference a recent warning from over two hundred economists and AI researchers, including sixteen Nobel laureates, stating that artificial intelligence could trigger an economic transformation larger and faster than the industrial revolution, yet current governments are ill-equipped to manage such a transition. The core argument is that additional measurement efforts without institutional memory will merely result in more irrelevant reports. The authors contend that simply introducing new training programs or measuring their effects is insufficient if the underlying institutional framework for retaining and applying knowledge is missing.
Tsinghua University released two major evaluation reports on Tuesday detailing the evolution of city hotlines from simple complaint channels into central hubs for urban governance. The publications were unveiled at the opening ceremony of the 2026 Beijing Forum on Swift Response to Public Complaints in Beijing. The documents, dated October 26, 2026, argue that these services are now critical for improving public service delivery and strengthening government coordination globally. The two reports are titled the Evaluation Report on China's 12345 Hotline Services and Governance Effectiveness (2026) and the Evaluation Report on Worldwide City Hotline Services and Governance Effectiveness (2026). Tsinghua University led the compilation process, working jointly with the University of Cambridge for the global study and Peking University for the domestic Chinese study. An international team comprising over 100 experts and scholars from 27 universities and research institutions participated in the work. These institutions spanned six countries, including China, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Both evaluations utilized the Hotline 4G Evaluation Indicator System. This framework covers four primary indicators: Process-Based Governance, Collaborative Governance, Digital Governance, and Responsive Governance. Researchers gathered data through interviews with hotline agencies, public surveys, standardized test calls, and big data analysis. The methodology aimed to assess how hotlines connect public needs with government responses and support interdepartmental coordination. The global report assessed 20 cities located across five continents. The list included Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, New York, Paris, Singapore, and Rio de Janeiro. The assessment relied on 9,300 valid public survey responses, extensive data collection, and detailed case studies. Findings indicate that city hotlines follow diverse development paths based on local institutional environments, governance needs, and technological capabilities. The report categorizes the 20 cities into four distinct development types. Beijing, Dubai, New York, Shenzhen, and Seoul demonstrated balanced development across multiple dimensions, fitting the Comprehensive Innovation type. San Francisco, Bangkok, Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Singapore emphasized digital technology, classifying them as Digital and Intelligent-Driven. Buenos Aires, Chengdu, Toronto, Hamburg, Rio de Janeiro, and Rome highlighted multi-stakeholder collaboration. Finally, Amman, Paris, Madrid, and Wuhan placed greater emphasis on responsiveness and public experience. Compared to the first global evaluation conducted in 2024, the report states that the governance performance of city hotlines worldwide has improved significantly. A broader governance ecosystem centered on these hotlines is rapidly forming across the globe. The report focusing on China’s 12345 hotlines examined 100 sample cities. It collected 8,550 valid public survey responses and conducted more than 3,000 valid test calls to 12345 hotlines and related service channels. The study found that institutional foundations for these services are largely established. Service capabilities across different cities have become broadly similar. Consequently, differences in development are now primarily reflected in governance effectiveness rather than basic infrastructure. Key factors determining hotline performance extend beyond a city’s size or general level of economic development. Separate commentary published in the Slovenian newspaper Delo on October 25, 2026, addressed the need for institutional memory in public services. Authors Christopher A. Pissarides and Fadi Farra noted that governments collect vast amounts of data on citizens and users. However, many administrations struggle to define expected policy effects or determine confidence levels in predictions. They argued that additional measurement without institutional memory yields only irrelevant reports. This perspective aligns with the Tsinghua reports' focus on moving beyond mere data collection toward structured governance frameworks. The release of these reports coincides with warnings from economists regarding artificial intelligence. In July, more than 200 economists and AI researchers, including 16 Nobel laureates, warned that AI could trigger an economic transformation larger than the industrial revolution within a shorter timeframe. They stated that governments are currently ill-equipped to manage such a transition. The Tsinghua findings suggest that robust urban governance systems, potentially enhanced by digital tools, are essential for navigating these rapid changes.
Tsinghua University released two evaluation reports assessing the evolution of city hotline services in China and globally, describing them as shifting from basic complaint channels to central hubs for urban governance. Unveiled at the 2026 Beijing Forum on Swift Response to Public Complaints, the reports were co-authored with the University of Cambridge and Peking University by an international team of over 100 experts from 27 institutions across six countries. The study utilized a new 'Hotline 4G Evaluation Indicator System' focusing on process-based, collaborative, digital, and responsive governance, drawing on data from interviews, public surveys, test calls, and big data analysis. The global component evaluated 20 cities across five continents, categorizing them into four development types based on their specific governance strengths and institutional contexts. Cities such as Beijing, New York, and Seoul were identified as demonstrating comprehensive innovation, while others like Singapore and Shanghai emphasized digital technology integration.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the expansion of state administrative reach and the digitization of public service delivery as positive developments in 'urban governance.' It relies exclusively on academic and governmental sources associated with Chinese institutions, omitting critical perspectives on privacy, c
This opinion piece by economists Christopher A. Pissarides and Fadi Farra argues that state services must treat institutional memory as a fundamental component of public infrastructure. The authors note that while governments collect extensive data on citizens and public service users, many lack the ability to clearly define expected policy outcomes or determine which evidence would justify changing their stance. They reference a recent warning from over two hundred economists and AI researchers, including sixteen Nobel laureates, stating that artificial intelligence could trigger an economic transformation larger and faster than the industrial revolution, yet current governments are ill-equipped to manage such a transition. The core argument is that additional measurement efforts without institutional memory will merely result in more irrelevant reports. The authors contend that simply introducing new training programs or measuring their effects is insufficient if the underlying institutional framework for retaining and applying knowledge is missing.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a technical and administrative argument regarding public sector efficiency and data management rather than advocating for a specific partisan ideology or candidate. While it critiques the current capability of governments to handle technological transitions, the tone remains non
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.
Slovenia
