Original Manuscript

Social Science Computer Review

1-18
ª The Author(s) 2021
Artificial Intelligence in Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Government: Taking Stock and DOI: 10.1177/08944393211034087
journals.sagepub.com/home/ssc
Moving Forward

Rony Medaglia1, J. Ramon Gil-Garcia2,3, and Theresa A. Pardo2

Abstract
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) applications in government is receiving increasing attention from
global research and practice communities. This article, introducing a Special Issue on Artificial
Intelligence in Government published in the Social Science Computer Review, presents an overview of
some of the main policy initiatives across the world in relation to AI in government and discusses the
state of the art of existing research. Based on an analysis of current trends in research and practice,
we highlight four areas to be the focus of future research on AI in government: governance of AI,
trustworthy AI, impact assessment methodologies, and data governance.

Keywords
artificial intelligence, government, public sector

Despite the recent boom of references to artificial intelligence (AI) in the media, in the corporate
sector, and in public discourse, the notion of AI is not new. The term was coined in the 1950s in an
academic context to indicate an emerging research field studying (1) the ability of machines to carry
out tasks by displaying intelligent, humanlike behavior and (2) the ability of machines to behave
as intelligent agents by perceiving the environment and taking actions to achieve some goals
(Russell & Norvig, 2016; Tzafestas, 2016).
The often-highlighted value creation potential of AI applications includes the ability to augment
labor and increase productivity, to more effectively allocate resources, and to foster innovation. AI
instances include techniques such as supervised and unsupervised machine learning (Smola &
Vishwanathan, 2008), artificial neural networks (Priddy & Keller, 2005), case-based reasoning
(Kolodner, 1992), natural language processing (Chowdhury, 2003), multiagent systems (Wool-
dridge, 2009), and machine reasoning (Bottou, 2014). AI applications also include cyber-physical
systems (Radanliev et al., 2020), such as robotics and Internet-of-Things (IoT) applications, image

1
Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark
2
University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY, USA
3
Universidad de las Americas Puebla, San Andrés Cholula, Mexico

Corresponding Author:
Rony Medaglia, Copenhagen Business School, Howitzvej 60, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark.
Email: [email protected]
2 Social Science Computer Review XX(X)

and facial recognition, speech recognition, virtual assistants, and autonomous machines and
vehicles.
AI represents an ideal technology for use in the public-sector context, where environmental
settings are constantly changing and preprogramming cannot account for all possible cases (Dwivedi
et al., 2019; Sun & Medaglia, 2019). AI differs from traditional automation technologies because it
does not make decisions on preprogrammed if-then logic, in which the same input instructions
produce the exact same results. Instead, AI features autonomy in function and learning, an assump-
tion of appropriate and available data, and the incorporation of physical and virtual spaces (Ahn &
Chen, 2020). However, if the assumptions are not met, AI might not be the best option for auto-
mation and decision making.
Opportunities coming from the innovative disruptive power of AI in the public sector are pri-
marily found in three areas: (1) improving the internal efficiency of public administration, (2)
improving public administration decision making, and (3) improving citizen–government interac-
tion, including the provision of better and more inclusive services and the enhancement of citizen
participation in the activities of the public sector (Samoili et al., 2020). As a potentially disruptive
sociotechnical phenomenon, AI is relevant to the full range of government’s roles: as a regulator and
as a catalyst for research and development (governance of AI) and as a user (governance with AI or
AI in government). Such potential could be realized if governments foster an environment char-
acterized by a skilled workforce, an appropriate regulatory framework, resources that can be
promptly mobilized, and incentives to innovate. Risks of AI, on the other hand, include, for example,
widening societal divides, infringing citizens’ privacy rights, and clouding the accountability of
public decision makers. Such risks require thoughtful strategies and regulation in order to be avoided
or mitigated.
As AI-related policy initiatives and research on AI in government accumulate, this article aims to
map key trends in policy and research and identify directions for future research. This article
accompanies a Special Issue on Artificial Intelligence in Government edited by the authors for the
Social Science Computer Review, building on a call for cutting-edge studies on this topic area from
different social science perspectives, including public administration, information systems, sociol-
ogy, information science, and management.
The rest of this article is structured as follows. In AI in Government: Policy and Research section,
we provide an overview of the main policy initiatives concerning AI in government in Europe, the
United States, and China and map the state of the art of research on AI in government drawing on a
review of existing research. In Contributing Perspectives section, we present the six studies included
in the special issue and map them against the state of the art of existing research. Finally, in the
concluding section, we summarize our points and propose a set of key questions for future research
on AI in government.

AI in Government: Policy and Research

Policies Across the World
Governments across the world are providing increasing attention to the potential of AI. This poten-
tial is seen not only in relation to economic growth, since national AI strategies also focus on
common themes such as trust and ethics, security, and enhancing the talent pipeline (Berryhill
et al., 2019). Increasing attention has also started to be devoted to the role of AI in achieving the
sustainable development goals of the United Nations’ Agenda 2030 (Medaglia et al., 2021; Vinuesa
et al., 2020). It is not surprising that different countries and different areas of the world are starting to
develop approaches to AI in government that have diverse features. These features, some argue, are
Medaglia et al. 3

indicators of different value drivers (Viscusi, Rusu, & Florin, 2020) and governance orientations
(Viscusi, Collins, & Florin, 2020).
For instance, Europe has been expressing the will to position itself in the global landscape with AI
strategies that rely more heavily on enterprise and government data. This positioning has been
attributed to its relative lag, within global competition, in competitiveness in the consumer data
space (Groth & Straube, 2021). The European Commission reviewed its “Coordinated Plan on the
Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence Made in Europe” (European Commission, 2021) to
foster cooperation between all European Union Member States, plus Norway and Switzerland. The
plan focuses on four key areas: increasing investment, making more data available, fostering talent,
and ensuring trust and highlights the public sector as a “trailblazer for using AI” (European Com-
mission, 2021, p. 46).
The European Commission devotes a specific section in a recently published white paper on AI to
promote the adoption of AI by the public sector, considering it “essential that public administrations,
hospitals, utility and transport services, financial supervisors, and other areas of public interest
rapidly begin to deploy products and services that rely on AI in their activities” (European Com-
mission, 2020, p. 8). The framework provided by the European Commission provides for a deploy-
ment of AI in the public sector that is aimed at developing human-centric AI. More specifically,
health care, rural administrations, and the support of public procurement of and with AI are con-
sidered priority areas for consideration.
As of April 2021, 19 European countries have dedicated official strategies to AI. Despite the
growing focus of these countries on the potential of AI in the public sector, the reality is that
government is often seen merely as a regulator or as a facilitator of AI, that is mostly just providing
guidance or legal and regulatory frameworks to minimize the potential risks of AI, while enabling
the maximum opportunities from its application. Actual adoption of AI by governments to improve
public services, policymaking, and internal operations do not gain the same amount of interest and
related investment (Misuraca & van Noordt, 2020). A systematic analysis of these national strategy
documents (van Noordt et al., 2020) reveals how the majority of policy initiatives put in place by
European Union countries belong to the category of “sermons” (Bemelmans-Videc et al., 1998), that
is, soft instruments, such as communication campaigns, private–public partnerships, and voluntary
codes of conduct. Less frequent are “carrots” initiatives, that is, the allocation of economic resources
and economic incentives, such as direct cash transfers, tax incentives, competitive research funding
schemes, and so on or regulatory instruments (“sticks”), including binding laws and regulations, the
establishment of intellectual property rights, competition regulation, or ethical regulations.
The European approach to AI is often mentioned in the context of the “global AI race” that also
involves the United States and China (Craglia et al., 2018). Comparisons between these three entities
involve levels of investments, research, training, and education. Successful deployment of AI is seen
as key to efforts to dominate an arena characterized by strong network effects (Makridakis, 2017).
While the United States has by far the highest private-sector investment in AI (McKinsey, 2020),
the take up of AI in the U.S. public sector is less clear cut, partly due to the fact that much less
research and official information is available about the current and planned use of AI in public
administration (Cath et al., 2018; Craglia et al., 2018).
The U.S. Federal Government has been putting forward initiatives to develop trustworthy AI for
government services, aligned with constitutional values. Several federal agencies have already been
using AI for various purposes, including processing grant applications, compliance checking, and
predictive maintenance. A recent mapping of the use of AI technologies showed 142 uses of AI in
relevant federal administrations (Engstrom et al., 2020). A noteworthy challenge facing the federal
government, vis-à-vis the booming of AI in the business sector, is the lack of available talent in the
public workforce. U.S. federal agencies are often forced to find ways to leverage expertise from the
private sector to develop strategies to adopt AI, including new approaches to hire and train existing
4 Social Science Computer Review XX(X)

workers with new skills to innovate with AI technologies (The White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy & Policy, 2020).
As in Europe, subnational levels of government in the United States seem to lag behind the
federal government. A survey conducted among IT executives of 45 state agencies showed that only
1% have adopted AI across their state and that most of the state of AI adoption is merely in a proof-
of-concept phase (Center for Digital Government et al., 2019). From a citizen perspective, U.S.
agencies face a lack of confidence by citizenry in governmental organizations to successfully
manage the development and use of AI technologies. Rush in development and opaque management
are cited by citizens as potential causes of mistrust in government AI (Zhang & Dafoe, 2019).
The deployment of government AI initiatives in the People’s Republic of China is often referred
to as the most relevant counterpart of those in Europe and the United States. The setting up of
AI-powered surveillance systems, in general, and examples like the social credit system, in partic-
ular (Creemers, 2018), are frequently cited as dystopian initiatives curbing citizens’ rights and
endangering global power balances. However, the prevalence of such fears, while not unfounded,
often hinders a proper understanding of the complexity of the reality of government AI initiatives in
China.
The “New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan,” released by the Chinese State
Council in 2017, was intended to be a unifying document for China’s various AI objectives.
However, the document presents as more of a wish list than a central command directive, where
the lower levels of government are expected to play a vital role in the actual transformation of
society through AI (Roberts et al., 2020). While the national strategy focuses on technological
enablement, pilots and experimentation are expected from lower levels of government, often fol-
lowing a principle of “experiment first and regulate later” (Elliott, 2020). Sometimes such initiatives
go far beyond the national AI policy, sparkling relevant domestic controversies. Moreover, the
actual delivery of AI-enabled public services appears to be mostly from large technology companies
that are favored by the central government. Applications used in the Chinese public services are not
necessarily cutting edge, but their strength lies in the integration of various systems and in the ability
to scale up quickly (Elliott, 2020). China’s AI policies prioritize the speeding up of technology
development, data collection, and implementing pilots, while risk management, data privacy, and
accountability appear to be secondary to these imperatives (Elliott, 2020).
Despite popular conception, China has also been working on the adoption of AI ethical prin-
ciples and frameworks (Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of the P.R.C., 2019).
Such principles, while partly overlapping with the ones of Europe and the United States, do put a
stronger emphasis on social responsibility (e.g., “harmony”) rather than individual rights. Notwith-
standing the tensions and contradictions that characterize the Chinese government AI initiatives,
citizens in China indicate relatively high support for government applications of AI (Carrasco
et al., 2019). At the global level, there is emerging evidence that less developed economies and
countries that have higher reported or perceived levels of corruption also tend to be more suppor-
tive of AI in government (Carrasco et al., 2019). This could be an indication of the neutrality that
people expect from AI.

State-of-the-Art of Research
As a new field of policy intervention, the use of AI in government is attracting an increasing amount
of attention from the research community, raising a range of new research questions. In order to map
the body of knowledge on AI in government, we first analyze published literature reviews on AI in
the public sector (A Brief Review of Literature Review Papers section), and then we provide a
review of research papers published in the period 2020–2021.
Medaglia et al. 5

Table 1. Categories of Topics Found in Existing Literature Review Papers.

Ahn & Desouza Reis Reis Sharma Sousa Valle- Wirtz & Wirtz
Chen et al. et al. et al. et al. et al. Cruz et al. Müller et al.
Topic Category (2020) (2020) (2019b) (2019a) (2020) (2019) (2019) (2019) (2019)

AI definition and attributes X X X X

AI techniques and X X X X
technologies
AI uses and applications X X X X X X
AI results, impacts, and X X X X
benefits
AI challenges and X X X X
determinants
AI strategies, best X X
practices, and guidelines
Ethical considerations X X X
about AI

Note. AI ¼ artificial intelligence.

A brief review of literature review papers. In order to have a solid understanding of the state of the art in
terms of research on AI in government, this section summarizes the results of our review of existing
literature review papers that explore AI in government. Using key words such as “artificial
intelligence” and “public sector” or “government,” we looked for reviews in the last 5 years and
found nine, all of them published between 2019 and 2020. For maximum coverage, we used Scopus
and Google Scholar as our main databases and did not limit the search to certain fields or disciplines.
Most studies were published in public administration, information systems, or digital government
conferences and journals. The literature review papers were selected based on the topic but also
looking for a broad focus on AI in government. Therefore, literature reviews focused on specific
subtopics such as AI and smart cities, AI and health care, big data and AI, or AI and cross-sectoral
collaboration were not included. Overall, we found that existing literature reviews on AI in gov-
ernment highlight different aspects, which could be classified in the following categories (see Table
1): (1) definition and attributes; (2) techniques and technologies; (3) uses and applications; (4)
results, impacts, and benefits; (5) challenges and determinants; (6) strategies, best practices, and
guidelines; and (7) ethical considerations. The next few paragraphs summarize the findings of these
review efforts.

AI definition and attributes. Research efforts are far from producing a universally accepted defini-
tion of AI, partly due to the fact that any definition of the term has to include the very elusive notion
of intelligence. The paradox of the so-called “AI effect” (McCorduck, 2004) is a case in point: As
soon as technological breakthroughs realize some of the capabilities forecasted for AI—such as
recognizing human speech or reading written script—many observers discount these capabilities as
not “real” intelligence. As a result, the target of AI is constantly moving, since “intelligence is
whatever machines haven’t done yet,” a claim referred to as “Tesler’s theorem” (Hofstadter, 1999).
From the nine literature review papers found, four of them specifically highlight definitions of AI
and its main attributes. For example, Wirtz et al. (2019) present a table with six different definitions
of AI. Based on those definitions, they propose what they call an integrative definition, which is “AI
refers to the capability of a computer system to show humanlike intelligent behavior characterized
by certain core competencies, including perception, understanding, action, and learning” (Wirtz
et al., 2019, p. 599). In contrast, Reis et al. (2019b) mostly adopt one definition of AI and devote
several paragraphs to clarifying differences and similarities among several related terms, many of
which are actually techniques that could be thought of as part of AI. Finally, Valle-Cruz et al. (2019)
6 Social Science Computer Review XX(X)

focus on the concepts related to AI in the public sector, including knowledge, learning, and intel-
ligence. Overall, the literature review papers acknowledge that there is no single definition of AI in
government, but there are a few attributes or characteristics that are present in many of the defini-
tions. Russell and Norvig (2016) capture the essence of these definitions with their view that AI
could be conceptualized as “systems with the ability to think and learn.”
AI techniques and technologies. Four of the nine literature review papers discuss different AI
techniques and technologies as found in the literature. For example, Sousa et al. (2019) provide a
list of AI techniques, including CBR, cognitive mapping, fuzzy logic, ML, ANNs, genetic algo-
rithms, MAS, and NLP. However, they do not directly elaborate on any of them and the focus of
their review article is on applications. Similarly, Reis et al. (2019b) also present a list of AI
techniques and briefly describe each of them. The techniques included in their review paper are
neural networks, deep learning, and ML. They also mention some important applications of these
techniques such as computer vision, NLP, and speech recognition (Reis et al., 2019b). In contrast, as
part of the technology infrastructure layer of the AI frameworks they reviewed, Wirtz and Müller
(2019) identify many AI techniques, including ML, intelligent control, knowledge representation,
pattern classification, data lake analytics, cognitive services, and neural networks. They argue that it
is very important to consider the actual function needed in order to select a technique or combination
of techniques that could help to sense, comprehend, or act (Wirtz & Müller, 2019).
AI uses and applications. From the nine papers identified, six include topics related to the different
uses and applications of AI in government. For example, Ahn and Chen (2020) identify nine
different uses of AI in government settings. These include smart allocation of public service
resources, digital assistance with chatbots, pattern identification and predictive analytics models,
automation and “Regu-Tech,” smarter public utilities, smart energy, the IoT and robotics sensors,
autonomous driving, and sensor-based detection and prevention. Similarly, Wirtz and colleagues
(2019) also highlight specific AI applications and how they could be used in the public sector. These
include AI-based knowledge management software, AI process automation systems, virtual agents,
predictive analytics and data visualization, identity analytics, cognitive robotics and autonomous
systems, recommendation systems, intelligent digital assistants, speech analytics, and cognitive
security analytics and threat intelligence. They also provide a list of public-sector use cases. In
contrast, Sousa et al. (2019) propose a very different approach in which they refer to use as the main
function of government, including general public service, public order and safety, defense, eco-
nomic affairs, environmental protection, housing and community amenities, health, recreation,
culture and religion, education, and social protection. In their review, excluding general public
service, the functions of government in which there are more papers about AI are (1) economic
affairs, (2) environmental protection, and (3) public order and safety. Finally, Reis and colleagues
(2019a) provide a long list of areas in which AI may potentially change government but highlight
that the impact to-date has been mainly on the delivery of government services, sometimes through
partnerships with private companies.
AI results, impacts, and benefits. Four of the nine literature review papers highlight the results from
AI as either general results or potential impacts or as benefits from its use in government settings.
For example, Ahn and Chen (2020) present what they called AI-augmented bureaucracy and men-
tion that the main outcomes are (1) accurate/detailed understandings of citizens’ needs and solutions,
customizable service, enhanced simulation and planning capability via augmented reality, and
predictive governance, which together could be conceptualized as smart government. In contrast,
Reis and colleagues (2019b) identify impacts that could be positive or negative, such as job trans-
formation, changes in government decision making, and citizen quality of life (including health and
safety). Taking a more comprehensive view, Valle-Cruz and colleagues (2019) provide both
Medaglia et al. 7

potential benefits, but also some negative consequences. Some of the benefits mentioned are accu-
racy, efficiency, accountability, trust, cost saving, productivity gains, reduced fraud, better service
provision, and improved policy analysis. In contrast, some of the potential negative implications are
exclusion of certain actors, increased analysis complexity, new legislative requirements, dehuma-
nization of daily activities, displacement of people by machines in their jobs, and a high dependence
on intelligent technologies. Similarly, Wirtz and Müller (2019) also identify both prospective
benefits and risks associated with the use of AI in the public sector. Among the benefits are
improved information processing, accelerated processing of cases, improved case assignment, work-
force substitution, and cutting red tape; some of the risks identified are technology obedience and
loss of control, AI dominion, AI paternalism, and violation of privacy.

AI challenges and determinants. Four of the nine literature review papers discuss challenges of AI in
government, and in some cases, they talk more generally about determinants. For example, Wirtz
et al. (2019) propose a framework with 14 challenges to AI use in government settings. They include
a few challenges that have been identified by previous research, such as data quality, privacy, and
workforce substitution, but they also propose a way to group them in four categories related to
technology implementation, society, ethics, and law and regulations. Focusing on the policy cycle,
Valle-Cruz and colleagues (2019) have a very different view and propose specific challenges related
to each of the stages of the policy cycle. Some of the challenges they mention are the digital divide,
the cumbersome nature of the democratic process, goal displacement, and data obsolescence and
homogeneity. In contrast, Desouza et al. (2020) categorize the challenges in design, development,
and deployment issues related to cognitive computing systems. Some examples of the challenges
they identify are data availability, current asset identification, disclosure of information, inadvertent
bias in data and algorithms, lack of trained staff, and availability of tools to audit for bias. Taking a
different approach to the topic of challenges, Ahn and Chen (2020) propose a series of questions that
reflect some of the challenges related to the use of AI in government. Their main questions are: (1)
How far are we going to allow AI to make decisions? (2) What would be the process of reconcilia-
tion when there is a conflict between AI augmented decisions and human-based decisions? (3) How
will AI determine the “good” (or desirable) and the “bad” (undesirable) and, more importantly, for
whose sake? (4) job displacement, (5) AI transparency and accountability, and (6) availability of
relevant data.

AI strategies, best practices, and guidelines. From the nine literature review papers identified, only
two include strategies, best practices, or guidelines to implement and use AI in government. For
example, Desouza et al. (2020) present strategies to overcome challenges in the design, develop-
ment, and deployment of cognitive computing systems. They also divide these strategies according
to the public or private sectors. Some examples of strategies in the public sector are: assessing data
availability, accessibility, and analyzability; focusing on the risk dimension, engaging outside
experts, leveraging inherent government transparency, having an agile acquisition strategy, auditing
algorithms to ensure accuracy, and taking advantage of tools. In contrast, Wirtz and Müller (2019)
propose the following general guidelines: codifying ethical AI standards and regulations and mon-
itoring their enforcement, setting an AI agenda defining targets, field of application, and a road map
for employment, establishing limits and boundaries for AI usage and avoiding autonomous decision
making, enhancing computer knowledge and AI-specific skills within the organization, providing
insights to data acquisition and processing and creating verifiable AI algorithms, detecting options to
automate administrative routine processes by means of AI, and enlarging the working capabilities of
staff by AI usage.
Ethical considerations about AI. Three of the nine literature review papers specifically discuss
ethical considerations to be considered when using AI in government settings. For example, Sousa
8 Social Science Computer Review XX(X)

et al. (2019) argue that “the policies and ethical implications of AI permeate all layers of the
application” (Sousa et al., 2019, p. 6), including AI techniques, AI solutions to support public
services, and the actual functions of government. They briefly reference several articles that support
the importance of actively avoiding biases and discrimination and creating AI solutions for the good
of society. As part of their general recommendations, Wirtz and Müller (2019) mention the impor-
tance of ethical AI standards and regulations. They propose the development of “a public AI code of
ethics and to check and monitor its implementation by a public AI ethics committee” (Wirtz &
Müller, 2019, p. 1087).
It is important to highlight that, while each of the nine papers touches on a few of the topics
identified, they do so in significantly different ways, making it challenging to perform a more
systematic comparison. However, they are still a good indication of what has been studied to date
about AI in government and what opportunities exist for future research. AI has been studied from
very different perspectives and, in general, there is no consensus on the most important aspects to
consider. However, it is clear that all eight topic categories identified have been the focus of papers
about AI in government within the last few years. It is also important to emphasize that there is still a
dominant focus on the specific technologies and techniques, although more research is now high-
lighting organizational challenges and ethical issues. Only two review papers provide specific
guidance or strategies, which could be an indication of the complexity in generating this type of
guidance from a general point of view. Finally, we also want to emphasize that there are many
potential applications of AI in the public sector, but the specific context of the program or agency
must be considered in order to avoid some of the negative unintended consequences, such as biases
and exclusion, and also to generate the expected benefits. Each use of AI in the public sector must be
considered in context and in terms of both potential positive and negative consequences.

An evolving focus. As a complement to the analysis of the selected set of literature reviews provided
above, here we draw on a set of recent empirical and conceptual papers to present some additional
insight into the evolving literature on AI in the public sector. The goal was to identify a small
number of nonliterature review papers published in 2020–2021. As above, these papers were
selected using key words such as “artificial intelligence” and “public sector” or “government,” and
we used Scopus and Google Scholar as our main databases and did not limit the search to certain
fields or disciplines. The selected papers highlight what might be considered a logical progression
from the generally descriptive consideration of the nature, potential, and challenges of AI to papers
that systematically and empirically consider specific questions and challenges. For example, few
publications in both the gray literature and the academic literature go beyond consideration of the
public value potential to specific empirical evidence of value creation nor do they call, in general,
attention to specific positive and negative consequences of use in specific contexts. The papers
highlighted below collectively foreshadow movement beyond consideration of AI as a technology
that is newly relevant to public administrations, to work that rigorously, and in some cases empiri-
cally, examines questions about AI use in the public sector, about specific uses of AI in public
programs and services and begins to fill gaps in our available frameworks and models to assess,
govern, and guide uses.
Bullock et al. (2020) and Wirtz et al. (2020) highlight gaps in knowledge about the relationship
between AI, discretion, and bureaucratic form in public organizations. Despite the great potential of
AI, Wirtz et al. (2020) note that “many challenges and risks are associated with implementing AI in
public administration, constituting a darker side of AI” (Wirtz et al., 2020, p. 818). Drawing on
insights from predictive policing and anti-fraud and improper payments reduction efforts, Bullock
et al. (2020) seek to begin to close this gap by answering specific questions about how use of AI is
both changing and changed by the bureaucratic form of public organizations and what is the con-
sequence of use on discretion. Wirtz et al. (2020) look to regulation theory and former AI regulation
Medaglia et al. 9

approaches as models and put forward an integrated AI governance framework to guide the devel-
opment and use of relevant regulations.
Van Noordt and Misuraca (2020a) and Makasi et al. (2021) draw attention to the lack of specific
frameworks to assess the public value potential of AI as a consequence of specific uses in the public
sector. Van Noordt and Misuraca (2020a) present what they identify as a first discussion on con-
ceptual frameworks designed to support rigorous assessments of the effects of AI in government.
Makasi et al. (2021) also call attention to this gap and the consequent lack of empirical evidence of
value creation through the use of AI in public service management and delivery. Van Noordt and
Misuraca (2020a) put forward a framework that takes into consideration the previous challenges of
implementing information and communication technologies in government and is designed “to
validate and truly assess the impact of Artificial Intelligence in government” (van Noordt & Mis-
uraca, 2020a, p. 9).
Janssen, Brous, et al. (2020) put forward a new framework designed to reduce the risk associated
with the use of big data algorithmic systems and increase accountability. Through its use, govern-
ments can “promote stewardship of data, processes and algorithms, the controlled opening of data
and algorithms to enable external scrutiny, trusted information sharing within and between organi-
zations, risk-based governance, system-level controls, and data control through shared ownership
and self-sovereign identities” (Janssen, Brous, et al., 2020, p. 1).
Providing a specific case example of the argument presented by Janssen, Brous, et al. (2020) that
without data governance to ensure quality and compliance with regulated uses, entrusting conse-
quential decisions to AI introduces risk, Vogl (2020) draws attention to the need for research on data
governance within specific contexts, such as the use of predictive analytics for the initial screening
of cases in child protection services. Such consideration, he argues, calls first for attention to
fundamental and well-known system and data problems. Vogl (2020) draws attention to the long-
standing and intransigent problem of redundant records in human services systems and the potential
consequences of the use of such data in this context. In the context of child protection, using data
with redundant records exacerbates the complexity of decision making about program eligibility and
service delivery decision making. Without attention to fundamental data and system problems,
“valuable information about past abusive or neglectful behavior could be left out of analyses or
predictions, or it could associate information about abusive or neglectful behavior with the wrong
individual” (Vogl, 2020, p. 229). Vogl’s (2020) research challenges long-standing assumptions that
problems with data can be fixed through the use of advanced technologies and techniques.
Liu et al. (2020) and Valle-Cruz et al. (2020) both offer systematic examinations of AI in specific
use contexts, focusing, respectively, on AI and crowdsourcing and AI in public-sector budgeting.
Both draw attention to the lack of understanding about the public value creation potential of AI in
each of these specific use contexts. Liu et al. (2020) focus on the use of AI in crowdsourcing,
drawing attention to the limits in our understanding of the connections between these “two types of
intelligence and adoption conditions to properly utilize them for the public sector” (Liu et al., 2020,
p. 224). Valle-Cruz et al. (2020) call for explorations of AI techniques in public budgeting but urge
caution that the value creation might not be found where expected. In fact, they posit, the value
might be in “supporting creative ways to analyze and understand the data used for specific govern-
ment programs and policies” (Valle-Cruz et al., 2020, p. 241) rather than in automated decision
making. They call for continuing consideration of AI in the use context of public budgeting high-
lighting the cost of some uses.
These selected papers illustrate a progression from the generally descriptive work characteristic
of the early adoption phase of a new technology to work that examines more specific questions about
value assessment, determinants of success and use in context, and among others. They illustrate the
point that researchers are beginning to systematically examine AI in specific use contexts. Two of
the selected papers address specific questions about the relationships between AI and discretion and
10 Social Science Computer Review XX(X)

the utility of regulation theory to efforts to adapt past models of AI regulation for use with future
AI technologies. Two speak to the lack of specific frameworks to assess the public value potential of
AI. Two speak to the specific role of data. The first addressing the general consequence of a lack of
systematic governance of data; the second, addressing the consequences of a lack of data govern-
ance, or more specifically, the lack of attention to long-standing and intractable data problems, such
as the specific context of child protection. Two final papers highlight the transition to work that
examines the practical realities and potential of specific uses of AI in public programs and services,
in particular, crowdsourcing and public-sector budgeting.
Taken together, these papers contribute to the development of questions about the extent to which
previous work on the implementation of emerging technologies in the public sector is relevant with
respect to AI, which requires particular adaptations, and in which cases we must start anew.

Contributing Perspectives
The papers in this special issue provide a mixture of cautious optimism and critical reflection about
the potential of AI in the public sector. Some articles explore specific cases in depth, while others
engage in big questions, such as the role of trust and discretion. The accepted articles include several
of the topics identified in A Brief Review of Literature Review Papers section, particularly AI
techniques and technologies and AI challenges and determinants (see Table 1). They explore these
topics either conceptually or in the context of specific national realities. In fact, this special issue
includes articles that examine AI in government settings in a variety of countries, including
Belgium, China, Estonia, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, providing evidence
that considerations of AI in the public sector by both researchers and practitioners has become a
global phenomenon. Some of the specific topics include the accuracy of different AI algorithms,
interorganizational collaboration and AI adoption, trustworthiness in AI, factors that affect AI
adoption and performance, the importance of human and technological agency, and adoption of
AI in public administrations in the European Union. In terms of methods, the articles included in this
special issue represent a diversity in research design and methods, including quasi-experiments,
interviews, case studies, literature reviews, statistical analysis, desk research, and documents anal-
ysis. Table 2 provides an overview of the articles published in this special issue.
In the article entitled “Will Algorithms Blind People? The Effect of Explainable AI and Decision-
Makers’ Experience on AI-supported Decision-Making in Government,” Janssen, Hartog, et al.
(2020) draw attention to the increasing use of computational AI algorithms to support decision
making by governments. They note that regardless of this trend, AI often remains opaque to decision
makers and lacks clear explanation for how decisions were made. Janssen and colleagues used an
experimental approach to compare decision making in three situations: humans making decisions (1)
without any support of algorithms, (2) supported by business rules, and (3) supported by ML. Their
experiment shows that algorithms help decision makers to make more correct decisions. However,
they found that even experienced persons were not able to identify all mistakes. Their findings imply
that algorithms should be adopted with care and that selecting the appropriate algorithms for
supporting decisions and training of decision makers are key factors in increasing accountability
and transparency. This article shows that understanding the limitations of AI in government is as
important as highlighting its potential benefits.
Campion et al. (2020), in their article entitled “Overcoming the Challenges of Collaboratively
Adopting Artificial Intelligence in the Public Sector,” use a case study to examine the challenges that
interorganizational collaborations face in adopting AI tools and implementing organizational rou-
tines to address them. The case study, involving a large research university in England and two
different county councils in a multiyear collaborative project around AI, shows that the most
important challenges facing such collaborations are a resistance to sharing data due to privacy and
 Table 2. Summary of the Special Issue Articles: Issues, Countries, Topics, and Methods.

Specific Issues/Questions Country AI Topic Discussed Method Authors

How accurate are different types of AI algorithms? The Netherlands AI techniques and technologies Quasi-experiment Marijn Janssen, Martijn Hartog,
To what extent decision makers in government AI uses and applications Ricardo Matheus, Aaron Yi Ding,
can identify incorrect suggestions made by AI AI challenges and and George Kuk
algorithms? determinants
What challenges do interorganizational United Kingdom AI techniques and technologies Case study Averill Campion, Mila Gasco-
collaborations face in adopting AI? AI challenges and Semistructured Hernandez, Slava Jankin Mikhaylov,
What organizational routines do managers use determinants interviews and Marc Esteve
to overcome those challenges? AI strategies, best practices,
and guidelines
To what extent traditional decision support tools N/A AI definition and attributes Literature review Teresa M. Harrison and Luis Felipe
and AI-based efforts are different and how those AI results, impacts, and Conceptual analysis Luna-Reyes
differences affect their values and benefits
trustworthiness? AI challenges and
determinants
AI strategies, best practices,
and guidelines
What are the key factors that influence local China AI techniques and technologies Quantitative analysis Youkui Wang, Nan Zhang, and
governments to adopt chatbots? AI challenges and Regression analysis Xuejiao Zhao
What are the key factors that affect chatbot determinants
performance post adoption?
How does human and technological agency Sweden AI uses and applications Qualitative interpretive Agneta Ranerup and Helle Zinner
influence digital discretion and shape aspirational AI results, impacts, and case study Henriksen
values in social services? benefits Interviews
Analysis of
documents
Which antecedents of public-sector innovation Estonia AI definition and attributes Exploratory multiple Colin van Noordt and Gianluca
enable the adoption of AI in public Belgium AI challenges and case study Misuraca
administrations in the European Union? The Netherlands determinants Desk research
Interviews
Note. AI ¼ artificial intelligence.

11
12 Social Science Computer Review XX(X)

security concerns, insufficient understanding of the required and available data, a lack of alignment
between project interests and expectations around data sharing, and a lack of engagement across
organizational hierarchy. This article shows that implementing AI in the public sector faces impor-
tant challenges, particularly related to interorganizational collaboration. Findings are consistent with
previous research in proposing that the most important challenges are organizational or managerial
in nature rather than technical.
The article entitled “Cultivating Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence in Digital Government” by
Harrison and Luna-Reyes (2020) draws attention to a “growing consensus” about the potential of
analytical and cognitive tools of AI to transform government in positive ways, but also notes that “AI
challenges traditional government decision-making processes and threatens the democratic values
within which they are framed” (Harrison & Luna-Reyes, 2020, p. 1). These conditions call for
conservative approaches to AI that focus on cultivating and sustaining public trust. The authors use
the extended Brunswik lens model as a framework to illustrate the distinctions between policy
analysis and decision making as traditionally understood and practiced and how they are evolving
in the current AI context. Through their recommendations for practices, processes, and governance
structures to provide for trust in AI and for research that support them, the authors seek to provide a
balanced view on the potential of AI in government, acknowledging its transformative potential, but
also highlighting important challenges that may affect not only decision-making processes but also
our democratic values. The results have important practical implications related to how to design
processes and structures in government to build trustworthy AI applications.
Wang et al. (2020), in their article entitled “Understanding the Determinants in the Different
Government AI Adoption Stages: Evidence of Local Government Chatbots in China,” investigate
factors that influence local governments to adopt AI-powered chatbots and factors that influence the
performance of chatbots postadoption. Drawing on a quantitative study of Chinese local authorities,
the authors find that vertical administrative pressure, horizontal competition pressure, and environ-
ment readiness play different roles in different adoption stages. Although pressure can encourage
local governments to implement chatbots, these governments’ readiness determined how well the
chatbots perform after their initial adoption. Similar to more traditional technologies, decisions to
adopt AI are affected by many factors and the benefits those applications will generate depend on
their performance. This article contributes to a more nuanced understanding of some of the deter-
minants of success by showing that the factors that affect adoption decisions are not the same as the
factors that have an impact on performance.
In the article entitled “Digital Discretion: Unpacking Human and Technological Agency in
Automated Decision Making in Sweden’s Social Services,” Ranerup and Henriksen (2020) present
a case study of automated decision making driven by robotic process automation in social services in
Sweden. The authors find that digitalization in social services has a positive effect on civil servants’
discretionary practices mainly in terms of their ethical, democratic, and professional values. The
long-term effects and the influence on fair and uniform decision making also merit future research.
In addition, this article finds that a human–technology hybrid actor redefines social assistance
practices. Simplifications are needed to unpack the automated decision-making process because
of the technological and theoretical complexities. The effect of AI on discretion in the public sector
has been characterized by cautious optimism, while some authors strongly believe that the overall
effect will be negative. This article shows that, at least in the short term, AI technologies can have a
positive impact on civil servants’ discretionary practices. It contributes to a more detailed under-
standing of the potential consequences of AI in the public sector.
In their article entitled “Exploratory Insights on Artificial Intelligence for Government in
Europe,” van Noordt and Misuraca (2020b) present findings from three cases of AI adoption in
public-sector organizations. Their study finds strong similarities between the antecedents identified
in previous academic literature and the factors contributing to the use of AI in government. The
Medaglia et al. 13

adoption of AI in government, they note, does not solely rely on having high-quality data but is
facilitated by numerous environmental, organizational, and other factors that are strictly intertwined
among each other. To address the specific nature of AI in government and the complexity of its
adoption in the public sector, van Noordt and Misuraca propose a framework to provide a compre-
hensive overview of the key factors contributing to successful adoption of AI systems. Their
framework goes beyond what they consider a narrow focus on data, processing power, and algorithm
development often highlighted in the mainstream AI literature and policy discourse. This article
highlights the intertwined nature of challenges related to data, organizational, and environmental
aspects. It also proposes a framework to think about AI adoption success.

Conclusion
Research on AI in government is transitioning toward what promises to be a very important stage.
After an initial stage characterized by a focus on mapping the risks and benefits of AI, with relatively
little in terms of theorizing and unboxing processes and mechanisms, we are now witnessing a move
toward systematic analysis of the benefits and challenges of design, management, adoption, and
implementation of AI in government. The contributions included in this special issue well capture
this transition and open up a series of avenues for future research that will become more essential as
AI assumes an increasingly central role in government, including administrative processes, but also
citizen service provision, and agency decision making.
Given the state of the art of both policies and research on AI in government, we highlight a
number of areas worthy of increased focus. We are not aiming to be comprehensive with our list, but
rather to prompt the research community to pay attention to research worthy issues that are gaining
in relevance, and at the same time have not been adequately singled out in existing research agendas.

– Governance of AI: As a new series of technologies and techniques, AI needs to be under-

stood, and where appropriate, harnessed by government agencies. Making decisions about
when to use AI and for which purposes will become an imperative for governments around
the world. Many questions about the individual roles or committees needed to make deci-
sions about the use of AI in the public sector, considering the needs of the agency, but also
the potential positive and negative consequences on people, and institutions must be
answered. Future studies should focus on understanding governance of AI and how to
improve it to generate public value. Future research will also need to focus on devising
novel governance models to face diverse challenges, by identifying best practices, and
updating existing governance models (e.g., adaptive governance) to the unique character-
istics of AI. Examples of research questions include: What governance models (e.g., for AI
talent recruitment and AI technology procurement) can be devised to meet ethical chal-
lenges and at the same time ensure the effectiveness of AI solutions?
– Trustworthy AI: The emergence of AI in a public-sector context raises key questions about
trust in the technology and in the decision makers who use the results to make or inform
decisions. Future research will need to investigate not only impacts of AI on levels of trust
but also to understand mechanisms that build the trustworthiness of AI. New research must
address the characteristics of trustworthy AI, namely, transparency, explainability, and
reliability, and build new understanding of the necessary policy, management, and tech-
nology innovations required to build trustworthy AI and ideally, as a consequence, con-
tribute to public trust. Research must address technical aspects (e.g., auditability of
algorithms) and the sociotechnical dimension of AI in government (e.g., algorithms inter-
pretability, transparency toward recipients of AI-powered services, translation of ethical
principles to governance frameworks). Examples of research questions include: What are
14 Social Science Computer Review XX(X)

sustainable mechanisms of trust-building in the adoption of AI in government? Which

mechanisms are most effective in creating transparency and reliability of AI applications
for specific government audiences and clients?
– Impact assessment methodologies: While identifying metrics for assessing the impact of
digital government initiatives is a well-established focus for digital government research, the
use of AI has the potential to render existing approaches inadequate. This is due to the fact AI
in government not only carries a wide range of potential unintended consequences, but also
because its key characteristics, pervasiveness, and self-learning capabilities, might make
assessments based on linear models of change ineffective. As AI algorithms carry both high
potential and high risks and thus need to be overseen by a public value perspective, future
research needs to reflect on how to assess its impacts from a value standpoint. Examples of
research questions include: How do we identify positive and negative impact assessment
metrics that can capture the deeper impacts of AI in government from a public value point of
view? How can we obtain a balanced view of positive and negative impacts of AI from a
public value perspective? What are the main differences between AI and previous technol-
ogies and how they affect the design and implementation of assessment methodologies?
– Data governance: AI solutions are first and foremost data solutions. The implications are
that any AI application is, by definition, only as good as the data that drive it. In order to
refine algorithms and improve the accuracy and reliability of output, systems with learning
capabilities need large amounts of high-quality data. Ensuring high-quality data requires
sophisticated and effective data management. Barriers to effective data management
include a lack of investment in the development and use of formalized data governance,
organizational and individual resistance to data sharing, and a lack of appreciation for the
implications of bad data. One particular challenge for data governance is the development
of policies and procedures for systematically identifying and eliminating bias in data.
Examples of research questions in this area will have to include: How does our understand-
ing and practice of data governance need to change when the use of the data is for automated
decision making? How do existing data governance models need to be adapted to the use of
AI in government agencies with certain characteristics, such as limited infrastructure and
lack of staff with the necessary skills? How can ethical principles about bias be translated
into decision frameworks to guide data governance?

Research and policy initiatives focused on AI in government are developing rapidly and acquir-
ing increasing relevance across the world. Given the dynamic nature of this complex phenomenon, it
is necessary to take stock of the existing body of knowledge and monitor the evolving literature to
ensure that we move forward in a way that will maximize the benefits and mitigate the risks of AI in
a government setting.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References
Ahn, M. J., & Chen, Y.-C. (2020). Artificial intelligence in government: Potentials, challenges, and the future.
In S.-J. Eom & J. Lee (Eds.), Dg.o ‘20: The 21st annual international conference on digital government
research (pp. 243–252). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3396956.3398260
Medaglia et al. 15

Bemelmans-Videc, M.-L., Rist, R. C., & Vedung, E. O. (1998). Carrots, sticks, and sermons: Policy instru-
ments and their evaluation. Transaction Publishers.
Berryhill, J., Heang, K. K., Clogher, R., & McBride, K. (2019). Hello, World: Artificial intelligence and its use
in the public sector (OECD Working Papers on Public Governance). OECD. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/
governance/hello-world_726fd39d-en
Bottou, L. (2014). From machine learning to machine reasoning. Machine Learning, 94(2), 133–149.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-013-5335-x
Bullock, J., Young, M. M., & Wang, Y.-F. (2020). Artificial intelligence, bureaucratic form, and discretion in
public service. Information Polity, 25(4), 491–506. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-200223
Campion, A., Gasco-Hernandez, M., Jankin Mikhaylov, S., & Esteve, M. (2020). Overcoming the challenges
of collaboratively adopting artificial intelligence in the public sector. Social Science Computer Review.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439320979953
Carrasco, M., Mills, S., Whybrew, A., & Jura, A. (2019). The citizen’s perspective on the use of artificial
intelligence in government. Boston Consulting Group. https://image-src.bcg.com/Images/BCG-The-Citi
zens-Perspective-on-the-Use-of-Artifical-Intelligence-Mar-2019_tcm27-215068.pdf
Cath, C., Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., Taddeo, M., Floridi, L., Wachter, S., Taddeo, M., Mittelstadt, B., & Cath,
C. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the “good society”: The US, EU, and UK approach. Science and
Engineering Ethics, 24(2), 505–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9901-7
Center for Digital Government, IBM, & NASCIO. (2019). Delivering on digital government: Achieving the
promise of artificial intelligence. https://iapp.org/media/pdf/digital_government_artificial_intelligence.pdf
Chowdhury, G. G. (2003). Natural language processing. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,
37(1), 51–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.1440370103
Craglia, M., Annoni, A., Benczur, P., Bertolid, P., Delipetrev, B., De Prato, G., Feijoo, C., Fernandez Macias, E.,
Gomez Gutierrez, E., Iglesias Portela, M., Junklewitz, H., Lopez Cobo, M., Martens, B., Figueiredo Do
Nascimento, S., Nativi, S., Polvora, A., Sanchez Martin, J. I., Tolan, S., Tuomi, I., & Vesnic Alujevic, L.
(2018). Artificial intelligence: A European perspective. Publications Office of the European Union. https://
ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/artificial-intelligence-european-perspective
Creemers, R. (2018). China’s social credit system: An evolving practice of control. SSRN Electronic Journal,
222(2015), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3175792
Desouza, K. C., Dawson, G. S., & Chenok, D. (2020). Designing, developing, and deploying artificial intel-
ligence systems: Lessons from and for the public sector. Business Horizons, 63(2), 205–213. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.bushor.2019.11.004
Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Ismagilova, E., Aarts, G., Coombs, C., Crick, T., Duan, Y., Dwivedi, R., Edwards,
J., Eirug, A., Galanos, V., Vigneswara Ilavarasan, P., Janssen, M., Jones, P., Kumar Kar, A., Kizgin, H.,
Kronemann, B., Lal, B., & Lucini, B., . . . Williams, M. D. (2019). Artificial Intelligence (AI): Multidisci-
plinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy.
International Journal of Information Management, 101994.
Elliott, H. (2020). Introducing the AI Powered State. China’s approach to public sector innovation. Nesta.
https://www.nesta.org.uk/report/introducing-ai-powered-state/
Engstrom, D. F., Ho, D. E., Sharkey, C. M., & Cuéllar, M.-F. (2020). Government by algorithm: Artificial
intelligence in federal administrative agencies (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3551505). Social Science
Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3551505
European Commission. (2020). White paper on artificial intelligence—A European approach to excellence and
trust. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/commission-white-paper-artificial-intelligence-feb2020_en.
pdf
European Commission. (2021). Coordinated plan on artificial intelligence 2021 review. https://digital-strategy.
ec.europa.eu/en/library/coordinated-plan-artificial-intelligence-2021-review
16 Social Science Computer Review XX(X)

Groth, O., & Straube, T. (2021). Analysis of current global AI developments with a focus on Europe. Konrad-
Adenauer-Stiftung. https://www.kas.de/en/single-title/-/content/analysis-of-current-global-ai-develop
ments-with-a-focus-on-europe
Harrison, T. M., & Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2020). Cultivating trustworthy artificial intelligence in digital govern-
ment. Social Science Computer Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439320980122
Hofstadter, D. R. (1999). Gödel, Escher, Bach: An eternal golden braid (20th Anniversary ed.). Basic Books.
Janssen, M., Brous, P., Estevez, E., Barbosa, L. S., & Janowski, T. (2020). Data governance: Organizing data
for trustworthy artificial intelligence. Government Information Quarterly, 37(3), 101493. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.giq.2020.101493
Janssen, M., Hartog, M., Matheus, R., Yi Ding, A., & Kuk, G. (2020). Will algorithms blind people? The effect
of explainable AI and decision-makers’ experience on AI-supported decision-making in government. Social
Science Computer Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439320980118
Kolodner, J. L. (1992). An introduction to case-based reasoning. Artificial Intelligence Review, 6(1), 3–34.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00155578
Liu, H. K., Tang, M., & Chen, K.-H. (2020). Public decision making: Connecting artificial intelligence and
crowds. In S.-J. Eom & J. Lee (Eds.), Dg.o ‘20: The 21st annual international conference on digital
government research (pp. 214–222). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/33
96956.3396965
Makasi, T., Tate, M., Desouza, K. C., & Nili, A. (2021). Value–based guiding principles for managing cognitive
computing systems in the public sector. Public Performance & Management Review. https://doi.org/10.
1080/15309576.2021.1879883
Makridakis, S. (2017). The forthcoming artificial intelligence (AI) revolution: Its impact on society and firms.
Futures, 90(Supplement C), 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2017.03.006
McCorduck, P. (2004). Machines who think. A personal inquiry into the history and prospects of artificial
intelligence. Taylor & Francis.
McKinsey. (2020). Global survey: The state of AI in 2020. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/
mckinsey-analytics/our-insights/global-survey-the-state-of-ai-in-2020
Medaglia, R., Misuraca, G., & Aquaro, V. (2021). Digital government and the United Nations’ sustainable
development goals: Towards an analytical framework [Proceedings]. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual
International Conference on Digital Government Research (dg.o 2021), New York, USA.
Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of the P.R.C. (2019). Xı̄n yı̄dài réngōng zhı̀néng zhı̀lı̌ yuánzé
(Governance principles for a new generation of artificial intelligence: Develop responsible artificial intel-
ligence). http://www.most.gov.cn/kjbgz/201906/t20190617_147107.htm
Misuraca, G., & van Noordt, C. (2020). AI watch—Artificial Intelligence in public services. Publications Office
of the European Union. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-
reports/ai-watch-artificial-intelligence-public-services
Priddy, K. L., & Keller, P. E. (2005). Artificial neural networks: An introduction. SPIE Press.
Radanliev, P., De Roure, D., Van Kleek, M., Santos, O., & Ani, U. (2020). Artificial intelligence in cyber
physical systems. AI & Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-01049-0
Ranerup, A., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2020). Digital discretion: Unpacking human and technological agency in
automated decision making in Sweden’s social services. Social Science Computer Review. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0894439320980434
Reis, J., Santo, P. M. F. do E., & Melão, N. F. R. (2019a). Artificial intelligence in government services: A
systematic literature review. In Á. Rocha, H. Adeli, L. Reis, & S. Costanzo (Eds.), New knowledge in
information systems and technologies (Vol. 930). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-030-16181-1_23
Reis, J., Santo, P. M. F. do E., & Melão, N. F. R. (2019b). Impacts of artificial intelligence on public
administration: A systematic literature review [Conference]. 2019 14th Iberian Conference on Information
Systems and Technologies (CISTI) (pp. 1–7). https://doi.org/10.23919/CISTI.2019.8760893
Medaglia et al. 17

Roberts, H., Cowls, J., Morley, J., Taddeo, M., Wang, V., & Floridi, L. (2020). The Chinese approach to artificial
intelligence: An analysis of policy, ethics, and regulation. AI & Society, 4(1), 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00146-020-00992-2
Russell, S., & Norvig, P. (2016). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach, global edition. Pearson Higher Ed.
Samoili, S., Lopez, C. M., Gomez Gutierrez, E., De Prato, G., Martinez-Plumed, F., & Delipetrev, B. (2020).
Defining Artificial Intelligence. Towards an operational definition and taxonomy of artificial intelligence
(JRC118163) [EUR—Scientific and Technical Research Reports]. Publications Office of the European
Union. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/111111111/59452
Sharma, G. D., Yadav, A., & Chopra, R. (2020). Artificial intelligence and effective governance: A review,
critique and research agenda. Sustainable Futures, 2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2019.100004
Smola, A., & Vishwanathan, S. V. N. (2008). Introduction to machine learning. Cambridge University.
Sousa, W. G. de, Melo, E. R. P. de, Bermejo, P. H. D. S., Farias, R. A. S., & Gomes, A. O. (2019). How and
where is artificial intelligence in the public sector going? A literature review and research agenda.
Government Information Quarterly, 101392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.07.004
Sun, T. Q., & Medaglia, R. (2019). Mapping the challenges of Artificial Intelligence in the public sector:
Evidence from public healthcare. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 368–383.
Tzafestas, S. G. (2016). Roboethics. A navigating overview. Springer.
Valle-Cruz, D., Alejandro Ruvalcaba-Gomez, E., Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Ignacio Criado, J. (2019). A review
of artificial intelligence in government and its potential from a public policy perspective [Proceedings].
Proceedings of the 20th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (pp. 91–99).
https://doi.org/10.1145/3325112.3325242
Valle-Cruz, D., Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Fernandez-Cortez, V. (2020). Towards smarter public budgeting? Under-
standing the potential of artificial intelligence techniques to support decision making in government. In S.-J.
Eom & J. Lee (Eds.), Dg.o ‘20: The 21st annual international conference on digital government research
(pp. 232–242). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3396956.3396995
van Noordt, C., Medaglia, R., & Misuraca, G. (2020). Stimulating the uptake of AI in public administrations:
Overview and comparison of AI strategies of European member states. In S. Virkar, M. Janssen, I. Lindgren,
U. Melin, F. Mureddu, P. Parycek, E. Tambouris, G. Schwabe, & H. J. Scholl (Eds.), EGOV-CeDEM-
ePart 2020. Proceedings of Ongoing Research, Practitioners, Workshops, Posters, and Projects of the
International Conference EGOV-CeDEM-ePart 2020 (pp. 269–277). CEUR Creative Commons License
Attribution 4.0.
van Noordt, C., & Misuraca, G. (2020a). Evaluating the impact of artificial intelligence technologies in public
services: Towards an assessment framework. In Y. Charalabidis, M. A. Cunha, & D. Sarantis (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance
(pp. 8–16). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3428502.3428504
van Noordt, C., & Misuraca, G. (2020b). Exploratory insights on artificial intelligence for government in
Europe. Social Science Computer Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439320980449
Vinuesa, R., Azizpour, H., Leite, I., Balaam, M., Dignum, V., Domisch, S., Felländer, A., Langhans, S. D.,
Tegmark, M., & Fuso Nerini, F. (2020). The role of artificial intelligence in achieving the Sustainable
Development Goals. Nature Communications, 11(1), 233. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-14108-y
Viscusi, G., Collins, A., & Florin, M.-V. (2020). Governments’ strategic stance toward artificial intelligence:
An interpretive display on Europe. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on theory and
practice of electronic governance (pp. 44–53). https://doi.org/10.1145/3428502.3428508
Viscusi, G., Rusu, A., & Florin, M.-V. (2020). Public strategies for artificial intelligence: Which value drivers?
Computer, 53(10), 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2020.2995517
Vogl, T. M. (2020). Artificial intelligence and organizational memory in government: The experience of record
duplication in the child welfare sector in Canada. In S.-J. Eom & J. Lee (Eds.), Dg.o ‘20: The 21st Annual
International Conference on Digital Government Research (pp. 223–231). Association for Computing
Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3396956.3396971
18 Social Science Computer Review XX(X)

Wang, Y., Zhang, N., & Zhao, X. (2020). Understanding the determinants in the different government AI
adoption stages: Evidence of local government chatbots in China. Social Science Computer Review. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0894439320980132
The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, & Policy, T. (2020). American Artificial Intelli-
gence initiative: Year one annual report. https://iapp.org/media/pdf/resource_center/US_AI_Initiative_
year_one_annual_report_white_house.pdf
Wirtz, B. W., & Müller, W. M. (2019). An integrated artificial intelligence framework for public management.
Public Management Review, 21(7), 1076–1100. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1549268
Wirtz, B. W., Weyerer, J. C., & Geyer, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence and the public sector—Applications
and challenges. International Journal of Public Administration, 42(7), 596–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01900692.2018.1498103
Wirtz, B. W., Weyerer, J. C., & Sturm, B. J. (2020). The dark sides of artificial intelligence: An integrated AI
governance framework for public administration. International Journal of Public Administration, 43(9),
818–829. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2020.1749851
Wooldridge, M. (2009). An introduction to multiagent systems. John Wiley & Sons.
Zhang, B., & Dafoe, A. (2019). Artificial intelligence: American attitudes and trends. Center for the Govern-
ance of AI. University of Oxford. https://www.ssrn.com/abstract¼3312874

Author Biographies
Rony Medaglia is a Professor at the Department of Digitalization, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark, and
a Research Fellow at the Lab for Digital and Mobile Governance at Fudan University, Shanghai. Rony’s
research focuses on digitalization in the public sector, from the perspectives of public policy, digital service
provision, and citizen engagement. He is the President of the Special Interest Group on e-Government of the
Association for Information Systems (AIS) and an Associate Editor of Government Information Quarterly.
Rony has worked as an expert in the AI WATCH initiative of the European Commission to monitor the
development, uptake and impact of Artificial Intelligence for Europe.

J. Ramon Gil-Garcia is an Associate Professor of Public Administration and Policy and the Director of the
Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany, State University of New York (SUNY). In 2009,
Dr. Gil-Garcia was considered the most prolific author in the field of digital government research worldwide.
More recently, he was named “One of the World’s 100 Most Influential People in Digital Government” in 2018
and 2019 by Apolitical in London. Currently, he is also a professor of the Business School at Universidad de las
Américas Puebla in Mexico and a member of the Mexican Academy of Sciences.

Theresa A. Pardo, Ph.D. serves as Associate Vice President for Research and Special Assistant to the
President, University at Albany, State University of New York. She also serves as Senior Fellow at the Center
for Technology in Government (CTG UAlbany), a Full Research Professor in Public Administration and Policy,
Rockefeller College and an Affiliate Faculty in Information Science, College of Emergency Response, Home-
land Security and Cybersecurity. Dr. Pardo is a Fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration, a
past president of the Digital Government Society and a founding member of the Smart Cities, Smart Govern-
ment Research and Practice Consortium.