Algorithmic Bureaucracy

In recent years, local government has been undergoing changes which are strongly influenced by the growing digitization of governmental operations. In this paper, we expand on the concepts of Digital Era Governance and its successor, Essentially Digital Government, by introducing the concept of Algorithmic Bureaucracy, which looks at the impacts of artificial intelligence on the socio-technical nature of public administration. We report on a mixed-method study, which focused on how the growth of data science is changing the ways that local government works in the United Kingdom. Under Algorithmic Bureaucracy, the direct and indirect effects of public administrative changes on the level of social problem solving may become positive in two cases: 1) where through artificial intelligence and isocratic administration the explainability of algorithmic processes increases individual and staff competence, and 2) where algorithms take on some of the role of processing institutional and policy complexity much more effectively than humans.

[1]  E. Guba,et al.  Naturalistic inquiry: Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1985, 416 pp., $25.00 (Cloth) , 1985 .

[2]  Patrick Dunleavy,et al.  Design principles for essentially digital governance , 2015 .

[3]  R. Bushnell.  The Limits to Complexity : Are Bureaucracies Becoming Unmanageable ? by Duane Elgin and , 2003 .

[4]  D. Bates,et al.  A qualitative study of health information technology in the Canadian public health system , 2013, BMC Public Health.

[5]  Abhik Chaudhuri.  Smart City Governance , 2018, Internet of Things, for Things, and by Things.

[6]  Patrick Dunleavy,et al.  New public management is dead. Long live digital-era governance , 2005 .

[7]  Sandra Wachter,et al.  A Right to Reasonable Inferences: Re-Thinking Data Protection Law in the Age of Big Data and AI , 2018 .

[8]  Tung-Mou Yang,et al.  Information-sharing in public organizations: A literature review of interpersonal, intra-organizational and inter-organizational success factors , 2011, Gov. Inf. Q..

[9]  C. Hood,et al.  Gaming in Targetworld: The Targets Approach to Managing British Public Services , 2006 .

[10]  Urs Gasser,et al.  Breaking Down Digital Barriers: How and When ICT Interoperability Drives Innovation , 2007 .

[11]  John Danaher,et al.  The Threat of Algocracy: Reality, Resistance and Accommodation , 2016, Philosophy & Technology.

[12]  Patrick Dunleavy,et al.  The second wave of digital-era governance: a quasi-paradigm for government on the Web , 2013, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[13]  Emily Putnam-Hornstein,et al.  Risk assessment and decision making in child protective services: Predictive risk modeling in context , 2017 .

[14]  Mariarosaria Taddeo,et al.  The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate , 2016, Big Data Soc..

[15]  Patrick Dunleavy,et al.  Digital Era Governance , 2006 .

[16]  Christopher G. Reddick,et al.  Assessing Local Government Revenue Forecasting Techniques , 2004 .

[17]  Marion Oswald,et al.  Algorithmic risk assessment policing models: lessons from the Durham HART model and ‘Experimental’ proportionality , 2017 .

[18]  R. Berk,et al.  Forecasting Domestic Violence: A Machine Learning Approach to Help Inform Arraignment Decisions , 2016 .

[19]  Marijn Janssen,et al.  The challenges and limits of big data algorithms in technocratic governance , 2016, Gov. Inf. Q..

[20]  C. Seale.  Quality Issues in Qualitative Inquiry , 2002 .

[21]  Florian Henning,et al.  A theoretical framework on the determinants of organisational adoption of interoperability standards in Government Information Networks , 2016, Government Information Quarterly.

[22]  Rik Peeters,et al.  The digital cage: Administrative exclusion through information architecture - The case of the Dutch civil registry's master data management system , 2018, Gov. Inf. Q..

[23]  Rebecca Eynon,et al.  Barriers to Networked Governments: Evidence from Europe 1 , 2007 .

[24]  Petter Gottschalk,et al.  Maturity levels for interoperability in digital government , 2009, Gov. Inf. Q..

[25]  G. Poggi.  Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology , 1969 .

[26]  José Ramón Gil-García,et al.  Government inter-organizational information sharing initiatives: Understanding the main determinants of success , 2016, Gov. Inf. Q..

[27]  Antonio Cordella,et al.  E-government and organizational change: Reappraising the role of ICT and bureaucracy in public service delivery , 2015, Gov. Inf. Q..

[28]  D. Kehl,et al.  Algorithms in the Criminal Justice System: Assessing the Use of Risk Assessments in Sentencing , 2017 .

[29]  Jing Zhang,et al.  Conceptualizing smartness in government: An integrative and multi-dimensional view , 2016, Gov. Inf. Q..