Cited by 255Public Policy and Administration ResearchE-Government and Public ServicesEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Artificial Discretion as a Tool of Governance: A Framework for Understanding the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Public Administration

Young, Matthew M, Bullock, Justin B, Lecy, Jesse D·2019·Perspectives on Public Management and Governance

Abstract

Public administration research has documented a shift in the locus of discretion away from street-level bureaucrats to “systems-level bureaucracies” as a result of new information communication technologies that automate bureaucratic processes, and thus shape access to resources and decisions around enforcement and punishment. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) are accelerating these trends, potentially altering discretion in public management in exciting and in challenging ways. We introduce the concept of “artificial discretion” as a theoretical framework to help public managers consider the impact of AI as they face decisions about whether and how to implement it. We operationalize discretion as the execution of tasks that require nontrivial decisions. Using Salamon’s tools of governance framework, we compare artificial discretion to human discretion as task specificity and environmental complexity vary. We evaluate artificial discretion with the criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, equity, manageability, and political feasibility. Our analysis suggests three principal ways that artificial discretion can improve administrative discretion at the task level: (1) increasing scalability, (2) decreasing cost, and (3) improving quality. At the same time, artificial discretion raises serious concerns with respect to equity, manageability, and political feasibility.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ppmgov/gvz014

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Young, M. M., Bullock, J. B., & Lecy, J. D.
Affiliations
  • Syracuse University (US)
  • Texas A&M University (US)
  • Arizona State University (US)
Corresponding author
Young, Matthew M
Venue
Perspectives on Public Management and Governance
Published
2019-10-22
ISSN
  • 2398-4910 (ISSN-L)
  • 2398-4929
OpenAlex
W2982172486
Cited by
255
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 50 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 11
FWCI
36.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Perspectives on Public Management and Governance (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
artificial intelligence in public administration, administrative discretion, task specificity, environmental complexity, scalability, cost reduction, equity, political feasibility

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