Improving public services using artificial intelligence: possibilities, pitfalls, governance
Abstract
Artificial intelligence arising from the use of machine learning is rapidly being developed and deployed by governments to enhance operations, public services, and compliance and security activities. This article reviews how artificial intelligence is being used in public sector for automated decision making, for chatbots to provide information and advice, and for public safety and security. It then outlines four public administration challenges to deploying artificial intelligence in public administration: accuracy, bias and discrimination; legality, due process and administrative justice; responsibility, accountability, transparency and explainability; and power, compliance and control. The article outlines technological and governance innovations that are being developed to address these challenges.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Use of automated, administrative decision-making (AADM) is on the rise in public administration around the world, fuelled by artificial intelligence and other types of advanced technology.
“Use of automated , administrative decisionmaking (henceforth AADM) is on the rise in public administration around the world fuelled by artificial intelligence (AI) and other types of advanced technology (Henman, 2020).”
From Inside algorithmic bureaucracy: Disentangling automated decision-making and good administration (2025) · cites this paper as Henman, 2020
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 58 · Cited by 310
- Authors
- Henman, P.
- Affiliations
- The University of Queensland (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Henman, Paul
- ORCID
- Henman, Paul
- Venue
- Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2020-09-14
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 209-221
- ISSN
- 2327-6673 (ISSN-L)
- 2327-6665
- OpenAlex
- W3086290195
- Cited by
- 310
- References
- 58
- Citations by year
- 2026: 71 · 2025: 71 · 2024: 78 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 16
- FWCI
- 77.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Artificial Intelligence in Law
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence in public administration, automated decision-making, chatbots, public safety and security, algorithmic bias and discrimination, administrative justice, transparency and accountability, explainability, government compliance, power and control
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
