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.
AddinkH (2019) Good Governance: Concept and Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2.
AndersenRF (2018) Trust in Scandinavia: findings from moving borders between Denmark and Germany. Scandinavian Political Studies41(1): 22–48.
3.
AppelSMCoglianeseC (2020) Algorithmic governance and administrative law. In: BarfieldW (ed), The Cambridge Handbook of the Law of Algorithms (Cambridge Law Handbooks). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 162–181.
4.
BaileyDEBarleySR (2020) Beyond design and use: how scholars should study intelligent technologies. Information and Organization30(2): 100286.
5.
BarleySR (1996) Technicians in the workplace: ethnographic evidence for bringing work into organizational studies. Administrative Science Quarterly41(3): 404–441.
BovensM (2010) Two concepts of accountability: accountability as a virtue and as a mechanism. West European Politics33(5): 946–967.
8.
BovensMZouridisS (2002) From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: how information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control. Public Administration Review62(2): 174–184.
BuffatA (2015) Street-level bureaucracy and E-government. Public Management Review17(1): 149–161.
11.
CaneP (2011) Administrative Law. 5th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 370–393.
12.
ChenailRJ (2010) Getting specific about qualitative research generalizability. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research5(1): 1–11.
13.
ChristinA (2017) Algorithms in practice: comparing web journalism and criminal justice. Big Data & Society4(2): 205395171771885.
14.
CobbeJ (2019) Administrative law and the machines of government: judicial review of automated public-sector decision-making. Legal Studies39(4): 636–655.
15.
CummingsML (2006) Automation and accountability in decision support system interface design. Journal of Technology Studies32(1): 23–31.
16.
CzarniawskaB (2017) Fieldwork techniques for our times: shadowing. In: CiesielskaMJemielniakD (eds), Qualitative Methodologies in Organization Studies II. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 53–74.
Danish National Audit Office (2013) Report on the Public Property Assessment (Summary). Copenhagen.
19.
DengHKarunasenaKXuW (2018) Evaluating the performance of e-government in developing countries: a public value perspective. Internet Research28(1): 169–190.
20.
EubanksV (2018) Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
21.
European Commission (2021) eGovernment Benchmark 2021 - Insight Report. Brussels.
FryerT (2020) A Short Guide to Ontology and Epistemology: Why Everyone Should Be a Critical Realist. Available at: https://www.tfryer.com/ontology-guide.
24.
GoodsellCT (1981) The public encounter and its study. In: GoodsellCT (ed), The Public Encounter: Where State and Citizen Meet. 1st edition. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 3–20.
25.
HasenfeldYRaffertyJAZaldMN (1987) The welfare state, citizenship, and bureaucratic encounters. Annual Review of Sociology13(1): 387–415.
26.
HenmanP (2020) Improving public services using artificial intelligence: possibilities, pitfalls, governance. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration42(4): 209–221.
27.
HoodC (1991) A public management for all seasons?Public Administration69(1): 3–19.
28.
JanssonGErlingssonGÓ (2014) More E-government, less street-level bureaucracy?Journal of Information Technology & Politics11(3): 291–308.
29.
JørgensenTBBozemanB (2007) Public Values: An Inventory. Administration & Society39(3): 354–381.
30.
JornaFWagenaarP (2007) The ‘iron cage’ strengthened? Discretion and digital discipline. Public Administration85(1): 189–214.
31.
LipsM (2020) Digital Government: Managing Public Sector Reform in the Digital Era. 1st edition. New York City: Routledge.
32.
LiuCGrahamR (2021) Making sense of algorithms. Big Data & Society8: 1–13.
33.
MargettsH (1995) The automated state. Public Policy and Administration10(2): 88–103.
34.
MargettsH (2021) The digital tools of government. Policy & Internet13: 163–166.
35.
MashawJL (2007) Reasoned administration: the European Union, the United States, and the project of democratic governance. George Washington Law Review76(1): 101–125.
36.
MilesMBHubermanAM (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37.
MisuracaG (2020) Rethinking democracy in the “pandemic society” A Journey in Search of the Governance with, of and by AI. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Forum on Digital and Democracy, Venice, Italy, 10–11 December 2020.
38.
MittelstadtBDAlloPTaddeoM, et al. (2016) The ethics of algorithms: mapping the debate. Big Data & Society3(2): 205395171667967.
39.
MooreM (1995) Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
40.
MotzfeldtHMNæsborg-AndersenA (2018) Developing administrative law into handling the challenges of digital government in Denmark. Electronic Journal of eGovernment16(2): 136–146.
41.
PattonMQ (2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
42.
PeetersR (2020) The agency of algorithms: understanding human-algorithm interaction in administrative decision-making. Information Polity25(4): 507–522.
43.
PeetersRWidlakA (2018) The digital cage: administrative exclusion through information architecture – the case of the Dutch civil registry’s master data management system. Government Information Quarterly35(2): 175–183.
44.
PieningEP (2013) Dynamic capabilities in public organizations. Public Management Review15(2): 209–245.
45.
PollittC (2011) Mainstreaming technological change in the study of public management. Public Policy and Administration26(4): 377–397.
46.
PonceJ (2005) Good administration and administrative procedures. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies12(2): 551–588.
47.
RemacMLangbroekPM (2011) Ombudsman’ assessments of public administration conduct. NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy4(2): 87–115.
48.
RoehlUBU (2022) Understanding automated decision-making in the public sector: a classification of automated, administrative decision-making. In: Juell-SkielseGLindgrenIÅkessonM (eds), Service Automation in the Public Sector. Cham: Springer, pp. 35–63.
49.
SchartumDW (2020) From legal sources to programming code. In: BarfieldW (ed), The Cambridge Handbook of the Law of Algorithms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 301–336.
50.
SchiffDSSchiffKJPiersonP (2022) Assessing public value failure in government adoption of artificial intelligence. Public Administration100(3): 653–673.
51.
SmithMLNoormanMEMartinAK (2010) Automating the public sector and organizing accountabilities. Communications of the Association for Information Systems26: 1–16.
52.
ThompsonJDTudenA (1959) Strategies, structures, and processes of organizational decision. In: ThompsonJDHammondPBHawkesRW, et al. (eds), Comparative Studies in Administration. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 195–216.
53.
United Nations (2020) New York: E-Government Survey 2020.
54.
VoglTMSeidelinCGaneshB, et al. (2020) Smart technology and the emergence of algorithmic bureaucracy: artificial intelligence in UK local authorities. Public Administration Review80(6): 946–961.
55.
WidlakAvan EckMPeetersR (2021) Towards principles of good digital administration: fairness, accountability and proportionality in automated decision-making. In: SchuilenburgMPeetersR (eds), The Algorithmic Society. New York City: Routledge, pp. 67–83.
56.
YinRK (2009) Case Study Research. 4th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
57.
YoungMMBullockJBLecyJD (2019) Artificial discretion as a tool of governance. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance2(4): 301–313.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
