Automated, administrative decision‐making and good governance

Synergies, trade‐offs, and limits

Bibliographic Data

ID6364310
AuthorsUlrik Roehl (0000-0003-1242-0902, Department of Digitalization Copenhagen Business School Frederiksberg Denmark, corresponding author), Morten Balle Hansen (0000-0003-1144-2747, Department of Political Science and Public Management University of Southern Denmark Odense Denmark)
Year2024
Volume84
Issue6
Pages1184-1199
Publication date2024-03-26
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePublic Administration Review (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0033-3352 • E-ISSN: 1540-6210
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/puar.13799
OpenAlexW4393229134
LanguageEN
Citations received12
References cited52

Automated, administrative decision‐making (AADM) is a key component in digital government reforms. It represents an aspiration for a better and more efficient administration but also presents challenges to values of public administration. We systematically review the emerging literature on use of AADM from the perspective of good governance. Recognizing the inherent tensions of values of public administration, the broad review identifies key synergies, trade‐offs, and limits of AADM and good governance associated with nine values: Accountability, efficiency, equality, fairness, resilience, responsiveness, right‐to‐privacy, rule‐of‐law, and transparency. While synergies represent “low‐hanging fruits”, trade‐offs and limits are “hard cases” representing challenges to good governance. Taking the specific decision‐making context into account, practitioners and scholars should attempt to nurture the “fruits” and lessen the tensions of the “hard‐cases” thereby increasing the desirable societal outcomes of use of AADM

Business · Corporate governance · Economics · Public economics · E-Government and Public Services · Finance · Public Policy and Administration Research · Regulation and Compliance Studies

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access