在算法官僚主义内部:解开自动化决策和良好管理的纠缠

IF 2.9 4区 管理学 Q1 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Ulrik Roehl, J. Crompvoets
{"title":"在算法官僚主义内部:解开自动化决策和良好管理的纠缠","authors":"Ulrik Roehl, J. Crompvoets","doi":"10.1177/09520767231197801","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Public administrative bodies around the world are increasingly applying automated, administrative decision-making as underlying technologies such as machine learning mature. Such decision-making is a central element of emerging forms of algorithmic bureaucracies. With its direct exercise of public authority over individual citizens and firms, automated, administrative decision-making makes it particularly important to consider relations to values of good administration. Based on a multiple case-study, the article focuses on how empirical use of automated decision-making influences and transforms issues of good administration in four policy areas in Denmark: Business and social policy; labour market policy; agricultural policy; and tax policy. Supplementing emerging literature, the article exemplifies how public authorities struggle to apply automated decision-making in ways that support rather than undermine good administration. We identify six empirical relations of usage of automated, administrative decision-making and good administration: (I) Giving accurate and comprehensible reasons; (II) Informing addressees’ expectations; (III) Combining material and algorithmic expertise; (IV) Achieving effective oversight; (V) Continuously ensuring quality; and (VI) Managing high complexity. Additionally, we pinpoint related key capabilities for administrative bodies in order to support good administration.","PeriodicalId":47076,"journal":{"name":"Public Policy and Administration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Inside algorithmic bureaucracy: Disentangling automated decision-making and good administration\",\"authors\":\"Ulrik Roehl, J. Crompvoets\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09520767231197801\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Public administrative bodies around the world are increasingly applying automated, administrative decision-making as underlying technologies such as machine learning mature. Such decision-making is a central element of emerging forms of algorithmic bureaucracies. With its direct exercise of public authority over individual citizens and firms, automated, administrative decision-making makes it particularly important to consider relations to values of good administration. Based on a multiple case-study, the article focuses on how empirical use of automated decision-making influences and transforms issues of good administration in four policy areas in Denmark: Business and social policy; labour market policy; agricultural policy; and tax policy. Supplementing emerging literature, the article exemplifies how public authorities struggle to apply automated decision-making in ways that support rather than undermine good administration. We identify six empirical relations of usage of automated, administrative decision-making and good administration: (I) Giving accurate and comprehensible reasons; (II) Informing addressees’ expectations; (III) Combining material and algorithmic expertise; (IV) Achieving effective oversight; (V) Continuously ensuring quality; and (VI) Managing high complexity. Additionally, we pinpoint related key capabilities for administrative bodies in order to support good administration.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47076,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Policy and Administration\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Policy and Administration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767231197801\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Policy and Administration","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767231197801","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

随着机器学习等底层技术的成熟,世界各地的公共行政机构越来越多地应用自动化的行政决策。这种决策是新兴形式的算法官僚机构的核心要素。由于其对公民个人和公司直接行使公共权力,自动化的行政决策使得考虑与良好管理价值观的关系变得尤为重要。基于多个案例研究,文章重点讨论了自动化决策的实证使用如何影响和改变丹麦四个政策领域的良好管理问题:商业和社会政策;劳动力市场政策;农业政策;以及税收政策。这篇文章补充了新兴的文献,举例说明了公共当局如何努力以支持而不是破坏良好管理的方式应用自动化决策。我们确定了使用自动化、行政决策和良好管理的六种经验关系:(I)给出准确和可理解的理由;(II) 告知收件人的期望;(III) 结合材料和算法专业知识;(IV) 实现有效监督;(V) 持续保证质量;以及(六)管理高度复杂性。此外,我们还指出了行政机构的相关关键能力,以支持良好的行政管理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Inside algorithmic bureaucracy: Disentangling automated decision-making and good administration
Public administrative bodies around the world are increasingly applying automated, administrative decision-making as underlying technologies such as machine learning mature. Such decision-making is a central element of emerging forms of algorithmic bureaucracies. With its direct exercise of public authority over individual citizens and firms, automated, administrative decision-making makes it particularly important to consider relations to values of good administration. Based on a multiple case-study, the article focuses on how empirical use of automated decision-making influences and transforms issues of good administration in four policy areas in Denmark: Business and social policy; labour market policy; agricultural policy; and tax policy. Supplementing emerging literature, the article exemplifies how public authorities struggle to apply automated decision-making in ways that support rather than undermine good administration. We identify six empirical relations of usage of automated, administrative decision-making and good administration: (I) Giving accurate and comprehensible reasons; (II) Informing addressees’ expectations; (III) Combining material and algorithmic expertise; (IV) Achieving effective oversight; (V) Continuously ensuring quality; and (VI) Managing high complexity. Additionally, we pinpoint related key capabilities for administrative bodies in order to support good administration.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Public Policy and Administration
Public Policy and Administration PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
6.50%
发文量
18
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Public Policy and Administration is the journal of the UK Joint University Council (JUC) Public Administration Committee (PAC). The journal aims to publish original peer-reviewed material within the broad field of public policy and administration. This includes recent developments in research, scholarship and practice within public policy, public administration, government, public management, administrative theory, administrative history, and administrative politics. The journal seeks to foster a pluralistic approach to the study of public policy and administration. International in readership, Public Policy and Administration welcomes submissions for anywhere in the world, from both academic and practitioner communities.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信