 Hi there, I'm Sunit from the Institute for Global Change. This question is mainly for the last speaker. It was really interesting to see all the sort of data analysis that you did and the fact that the sort of texting initiative didn't actually push government to deliver. I sort of had a parallel experience of that in my previous role and I spent years perfecting what I thought was a really beautiful data-collecting system and it was shared. And it became apparent, like with you, that either the data was not the binding constraint or it was one of several binding constraints and it made me think a lot more about the complex ecosystem of what motivates people to do really well. And so for me, like I know if I did exercise every day and ate a really good diet and slept eight hours a night I'd be great but I don't do it. And so I wondered if you had any reflections on what are the motivating factors that would make government particularly like lower level public servants do their jobs if the data or public shaming is not sufficient. This is a huge question. I think first of all I want to separate between two types of actors that we had in government. One is the district officials and one is the service providers. And so the hope was that the pressure on service providers and when I say service providers these are the frontline service providers, the teachers and the nurses in the clinics and the school, that the pressure will come not necessarily from citizens but will come from government. And so this comes from, there's been a lot of studies recently where government has been cut off completely and the idea was to organize communities to monitor directly service providers and this usually fails because of as I said disparities in power and collective action problems. And so the idea was to bring the government back in. I think in order to get the district government to be more active, I think more could be done. One thing that we failed to do is create common knowledge and I think this is something that is very important. My common knowledge is the way the platform ultimately worked because of the limitations of not being in a G4 world but in a G2 world is that it was person to government. I send the message and only I know what I sent and only the government is communicating with me. If you look at the platforms like 311, Philly and others in more developed countries, you see that information is aggregated in a very conspicuous way on the website where other people can see what came in, what has been addressed, how much has been addressed and I think that creating a common knowledge where not only I but other people also know what are messages that came in, what has been addressed or not is really important to get government to feel some pressure to act upon the information that they get. I think I was going to ask a very similar question so maybe it's more of a comment. The GAP program is something which I worked for the European Commission and I think it's the EU either has or is going to be supporting GAP program but I had a question about this difference and transition between transparency and accountability and the fact that as you were saying with this one-to-one connection rather than aggregating it and publicizing those results so that for example the different layers of local government within that region were not named and shamed there was an indication of how they were operating and to what level of efficiency and equally for the actual facilities, the clinics, the schools and so on that they could see how well, how many reports there were about that particular facility and what had happened about them and I know that two things about Uganda which may be relevant is that one they haven't had local council elections for just like 20 years, there's very little accountability there and secondly nepotism and corruption in those kind of facilities and services is very, very high so without that kind of accountability you're not going to get much response no matter what kind of transparency but I think it's a fascinating initiative and I think it's something we definitely would follow up on. I just want to say one thing about that very quickly and just to correct that at the district level so there's district councillors each district is divided to sub-counties and each sub-county sends a male and a female representative and for these types of councillors there's been a periodic elections every five years there was in 2016, 2011 and so the place where we didn't have elections in Uganda is only at the village level, the LC1 for 20 years but at the level of the district and the sub-county elections were regular every five years. Hi Kirsten from Ewing Global Pulse I just wanted to make a comment that we should maybe look also beyond the internet and say well we can do summaries through radio for example so that people know okay this has been reported and this has been worked on yes or no so that people get a feedback like that and secondly I think there were a lot of talks over the last two days already about providing information to the governments and nothing is being done so maybe we should engage also more with the power relations around governance and not just say okay information is the problem information is part of the problem but then we should also think on how we can strengthen the compact between citizens and the government and on taxes etc. around that. Cool, one more question for the room and then we'll answer several at once. Hi, Michaela Maira-Sende from democracy reporting international the question to Tiago on your research it's very interesting research because generally I think at the moment the assumption is traditional media play a better role on the social media than anybody else and them being undercut is a problem for democracy because there's no gatekeeping and no fact checking etc. You didn't say very much how you measured media journalism so what kind of sources did you look to compare to what political parties and candidates said that would be one question and another is maybe to moderate the findings a bit or maybe you could comment on that you know you could say all the journalists they raise scandal instead of talking about programs but in terms of accountability of course scandal sometimes is a good thing there may be a scandal with a politician it's about his or her honesty so it's something we want journalists to do so that's not programmatic reporting but still very important for accountability so if you could talk about this and maybe a small question to a colleague from Sierra Leone you concluded by saying complex problems are not that geared towards being solved by technology if you could just add two or three sentences on that takeaway I would like to understand that takeaway better yeah, thanks so basically, I'm sorry it's like I presented it like kind of the bright side and good news but of course this I was looking only in institutional communication so I didn't look how people interact and communicate with each other in these platforms and how polarized it is how informative it is but the alternative would be much much worse it would mean that parties don't care at all and that would mean that no matter which channel elections will never be so informative to the citizens so in that sense it's still good to cities and to find out that still parties do care and they do try to inform the electorate and how I compared it was I looked at the press so it's a more conservative approach if I look at television the difference would be much higher because as you know the press is still more informative and still the salience of conflict and the horse race strategy is much lower there even though some studies show that it's becoming similar to television so the difference are no longer so drastic but still it's a conservative approach so in the sense like it gives more value to these differences and of course the scandal like you have this watchdog role of journalists and they perceive that's informing the people and this is important to know that and my point was not really that it was a small note I'll see how the difference our media can somehow distort a campaign by overemphasizing scandal of course it's important to know this but in every single newspaper I have three or four articles about scandals so politicians might have somehow kind of a negative impact on the attitudes of these citizens towards politics because basically what they read is only about scandal and how bad their politicians are and in that sense if they follow the campaigns on social media then it's not as bad of course I'm looking at institutional communication again and I don't know what their friends are talking about what is like people discussing probably and if you look at user data of course the scandal type of story will be much more salient but still it's good to see that in my opinion that politicians are not as negative and are not so interested in discussing attacking the opponents based on this kind of story so I guess, thank you Sorry so to reframe your question is a few more words around the last comment I made that's to do not include technology when the problem is still too complex so I think the basic premise is that technology tends to undermine our problem-solving skills so and the assumption is that when you first encounter the problem it is complex and you need to first begin to understand it the place to start from is not to introduce technology it's not for you to throw a solution at a problem that you have just encountered so you first need to start understanding that problem before you can then figure out where exactly and how specifically can technology help you the other, the flip side to it was also that when you have complex solutions it may also not be a good point in time to bring in technology and by that I mean that I think in the process of problem-solving we get to point in time where we have multiple ways in which technology can help us and you need to slow down a bit and streamline on that that's kind of what I meant by when the solution is too complex right, thank you Perfect timing Thanks to all our speakers there's now a short break before the next event Thank you