Artificial Discretion as a Tool of Governance: A Framework for Understanding the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Public Administration
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
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?
In the visa application scenario, decisional discretion is relatively low and street-level bureaucrats are more likely to semi-automatically follow algorithmic output.
“In the visa application scenario decisional discretion is relatively low and street-level bureaucrats are more likely to semi-automatically follow algorithmic output.”
From Explaining Why the Computer Says No: Algorithmic Transparency Affects the Perceived Trustworthiness of Automated Decision‐Making (2023) · cites this paper as Young, Bullock and Lecy 2019
In a case of low task complexity, the algorithm is more dominant and pushes out human discretion.
“In a case of low task complexity, the algorithm is more dominant and pushes out human discretion (Young, Bullock and Lecy 2019).”
From Explaining Why the Computer Says No: Algorithmic Transparency Affects the Perceived Trustworthiness of Automated Decision‐Making (2023) · cites this paper as Young, Bullock and Lecy 2019
The second scenario entailed a street-level bureaucrat who used an algorithm to predict welfare fraud, which reflects the predictive algorithm that is typical of more recent (and contentious) AI applications in government.
“the second scenario entailed a street-level bureaucrat who used an algorithm to predict welfare fraud, which reflects the predictive algorithm that is typical of more recent (and contentious) AI applications in government.”
From Explaining Why the Computer Says No: Algorithmic Transparency Affects the Perceived Trustworthiness of Automated Decision‐Making (2023) · cites this paper as Young, Bullock and Lecy 2019
AI algorithms change street-level bureaucracy: not just low discretionary decisions are automated but also medium to high discretionary decisions are being affected by automation.
“This also reflects that relatively new ways in which AI algorithms change street-level bureaucracy: not just low discretionary decisions are automated but also medium to high discretionary decisions are being affected by automation (e.g. Young, Bullock and Lecy 2019).”
From Explaining Why the Computer Says No: Algorithmic Transparency Affects the Perceived Trustworthiness of Automated Decision‐Making (2023) · cites this paper as Young, Bullock and Lecy 2019
Algorithms have started interfering in the discretion of more complex bureaucratic decisions by prompting decision recommendations to bureaucrats, especially in complex tasks risk assessment.
“studies suggest that algorithms have started interfering in the discretion of more complex bureaucratic decisions by prompting decision recommendations to bureaucrats, especially in complex tasks risk assessment (Bullock 2019; Young, Bullock and Lecy 2019; Zouridis, Van Eck and Bovens 2020).”
From Explaining Why the Computer Says No: Algorithmic Transparency Affects the Perceived Trustworthiness of Automated Decision‐Making (2023) · cites this paper as Young, Bullock and Lecy 2019
Several scholars have pointed out that automation is affecting managerial decision-making, organizational accountability and power constellations, and discretion of street-level bureaucrats.
“Several scholars have pointed out that automation is affecting managerial decision-making (Meijer, Lorenz and Wessels 2021), organizational accountability and power constellations (Zouridis, Van Eck and Bovens 2020) and discretion of street-level bureaucrats (Young, Bullock and Lecy 2019).”
From Explaining Why the Computer Says No: Algorithmic Transparency Affects the Perceived Trustworthiness of Automated Decision‐Making (2023) · cites this paper as Young, Bullock and Lecy 2019
Depending on the value or notion prioritized, the algorithm will reach different results and impose costs and benefits on different individuals or societal groups.
“depending on the value or notion prioritized, the algorithm will reach different results and impose costs and benefits on different individuals or societal groups”
From Accountable Artificial Intelligence: Holding Algorithms to Account (2021) · cites this paper as Young, Bullock, and Lecy 2019
Adoption of ADM has shifted discretion within public administrations from street-level to higher-level officials responsible for system design.
“However, the adaption of ADM has shifted discretion within the public administrations from the street- level to higher- level officials responsible for system design (Young et al. 2019).”
From Algorithmic Governance: Experimental Evidence on Citizens' and Public Administrators' Legitimacy Perceptions of Automated Decision‐Making (2026) · cites this paper as Young et al. 2019
Theories previously often tested on street-level bureaucrats also apply to system-level bureaucrats.
“Secondly, the theories previously often tested on street- level bureaucrats, also apply to system- level bureaucrats, which is important to acknowledge as discretion shifts from the street- level to system- level officials with the increasing use of AI governing tools (Young et al. 2019).”
From Algorithmic Governance: Experimental Evidence on Citizens' and Public Administrators' Legitimacy Perceptions of Automated Decision‐Making (2026) · cites this paper as Young et al. 2019
Young et al. introduced artificial discretion as a framework for public managers to assess AI's impact and its differences from human discretion in task specificity and environmental complexity.
“Young et al. [128] introduced artificial discretion as a theoretical framework to help public managers assess the impact of AI and how it differs from human discretion with respect to task specificity and environmental complexity.”
From A Framework of High-Stakes Algorithmic Decision-Making for the Public Sector Developed through a Case Study of Child-Welfare (2021) · cites this paper as [128]
Public Administration scholars recognize that information communication technologies affect human discretion and bureaucracy, with recent attention to AI.
“Public Administration scholars have also started to recognize the impact of information communication technologies (ICTs) on the nature of human discretion and bureaucracy with some recent attention paid to artificial intelligence [21,23,80,96,128].”
From A Framework of High-Stakes Algorithmic Decision-Making for the Public Sector Developed through a Case Study of Child-Welfare (2021) · cites this paper as [128]
Higher discretionary tasks that may directly impact an individual or community are typically characterised by fuzzy success criteria and multiple interdependent systems that are difficult to model.
“Higher discretionary tasks that may directly impact an individual or community are typically characterised by fuzzy success criteria and multiple interdependent systems that are difficult to model”
From AI adoption and diffusion in public administration: A systematic literature review and future research agenda (2023) · cites this paper as Young et al., 2019
The accompanying negative aspect is distancing public servants from citizens and inhibiting a rich knowledge generation avenue.
“The accompanying negative aspect is distancing public servants from citizens and inhibiting a rich knowledge generation avenue”
From AI adoption and diffusion in public administration: A systematic literature review and future research agenda (2023) · cites this paper as Young et al., 2019
Project management practices are required to manage inertia towards sharing of data between government departments, status quo bias, and resistance from unions.
“Project management practices are also required to manage inertia towards sharing of data between government departments, status quo bias, and resistance from unions”
From AI adoption and diffusion in public administration: A systematic literature review and future research agenda (2023) · cites this paper as Young et al., 2019
AI architectures such as neural networks are challenging to reverse engineer to determine factors and weights that produced model outputs.
“AI architectures such as neural networks are challenging to reverse engineer to determine factors and weights that produced model outputs”
From AI adoption and diffusion in public administration: A systematic literature review and future research agenda (2023) · cites this paper as Young et al., 2019
However, this accuracy comes at the cost of propagating human biases and discrimination inherent in the data used for machine training.
“However, this accuracy comes at the cost of propagating human biases and discrimination inherent in the data used for machine training”
From AI adoption and diffusion in public administration: A systematic literature review and future research agenda (2023) · cites this paper as Young et al., 2019
Discretion shifts from street-level to system-level officials with the increasing use of AI governing tools.
“as discretion shifts from the street- level to system- level officials with the increasing use of AI governing tools (Young et al. 2019).”
From Algorithmic Governance: Experimental Evidence on Citizens' and Public Administrators' Legitimacy Perceptions of Automated Decision‐Making (2026) · cites this paper as Young et al. 2019
The ICT system mimics the high discretion task of the front-line caseworker concerning the assessment of unemployed chances to re-enter the labour market.
“This ICT system mimics the high discretion task of the front-line caseworker concerning the assessment of the unemployed chances to (re-)enter the labour market (Young et al., 2019).”
From Creating a workforce of fatigued cynics? A randomized controlled trial of implementing an algorithmic decision-making support tool (2024) · cites this paper as Young et al., 2019
Deciding how to strike the balance among value trade-offs is necessarily a political and not a purely technical act.
“Deciding how to strike the balance among these is necessarily a political and not a purely technical act: depending on the value or notion prioritized, the algorithm will reach different results and impose costs and benefits on different individuals or societal groups (see also Bovens and Zouridis 2002; Young, Bullock, and Lecy 2019).”
From Accountable Artificial Intelligence: Holding Algorithms to Account (2021) · cites this paper as Young, Bullock, and Lecy 2019
The suitability of different AI tools varies across different policy areas and tasks, and the trade-offs involved need to be well understood and anticipated to guide the appropriate diffusion of AI in government.
“The suitability of different AI tools varies across different policy areas and tasks, and the trade‐offs involved need to be well understood and anticipated in order to guide the appropriate diffusion of AI in government (see Young, Bullock, and Lecy 2019 for such a framework as to the utility of “artificial discretion”).”
From Accountable Artificial Intelligence: Holding Algorithms to Account (2021) · cites this paper as Young, Bullock, and Lecy 2019
Cites
I.—COMPUTING MACHINERY AND INTELLIGENCE
TURING, A. M. (1950) · Mind · doi:10.1093/mind/lix.236.433 · Cited by 10,290 · cited 1× · see citing works
“A more technically precise definition narrows AI applications to digital computers that either (1) possess and exhibit human-like intelligence or (2) are capable of rationally solving problems to achieve a goal (Poole, Mackworth, and Goebel 1998; Turing 1950).”
BackgroundThe future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation?
Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.019 · Cited by 8,727 · see citing works
The mythos of model interpretability
Lipton, Z. C. (2018) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3233231 · Cited by 5,427 · see citing works
Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err.
Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2015) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/xge0000033 · Cited by 3,232 · see citing works
Bounded rationality and organizational learning
Simon, H. A. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.125 · Cited by 3,028 · see citing works
New Public Management Is Dead--Long Live Digital-Era Governance
Dunleavy, P. (2005) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/mui057 · Cited by 2,638 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Theories of public administration and management have heavily weighted efficiency and effectiveness since the field was founded; they remain a driving force in more recent and emergent frameworks as well (Dunleavy et al. 2006; Frey and Osborne 2017; Gil-García, Dawes, and Pardo 2018).”
BackgroundAwad, E., Dsouza, S., Kim, R., Schulz, J., Henrich, J., Shariff, A., Bonnefon, J.-F., & Rahwan, I. (2018) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0637-6 · Cited by 1,859 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Research on “algorithm avoidance” suggests people tend to prefer human judgment 6 over an algorithm’s, even after receiving unambiguous evidence of the latter’s superior performance (Awad et al. 2018; Bonnefon, Shariff, and Rahwan 2016; Dietvorst, Simmons, and Massey 2015; Frick 2015).”
BackgroundPotential Biases in Machine Learning Algorithms Using Electronic Health Record Data
Gianfrancesco, M. A., Tamang, S., Yazdany, J., & Schmajuk, G. (2018) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3763 · Cited by 1,395 · see citing works
Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2018) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2016.2643 · Cited by 1,230 · see citing works
The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism
Dressel, J., & Farid, H. (2018) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.aao5580 · Cited by 1,071 · see citing works
Bovens, M., & Zouridis, S. (2002) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/0033-3352.00168 · Cited by 964 · see citing works
The Malicious Use of Artificial Intelligence: Forecasting, Prevention, and Mitigation
Brundage, M., Avin, S., Clark, J., Toner, H., Eckersley, P., Garfinkel, B., Dafoe, A., Scharre, P., Zeitzoff, T., Filar, B., et al. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1802.07228 · Cited by 849 · see citing works
Veale, M., Van Kleek, M., & Binns, R. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3173574.3174014 · Cited by 490 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…measures to reduce or eliminate the impact of sensitive characteristics such as race and ethnicity in its decision making, bias can be introduced through artifacts of past human biases embedded in the data required to “train” the system (Bellamy et al. 2018; Veale, Van Kleek, and Binns 2018).”
BackgroundThe challenges and limits of big data algorithms in technocratic governance
Janssen, M., & Kuk, G. (2016) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2016.08.011 · Cited by 363 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…information technologies on government practices, but neither names artificial intelligence as its empirical focus nor considers the unique theoretical implications of these systems for administrative discretion and decision making (Anthopoulos and Reddick 2016; Janssen and Kuk 2016; Meijer 2018).”
BackgroundArtificial Intelligence, Discretion, and Bureaucracy
Bullock, J. B. (2019) · The American Review of Public Administration · doi:10.1177/0275074019856123 · Cited by 346 · see citing works
Self-citationDigital discretion: A systematic literature review of ICT and street-level discretion
Busch, P. A., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2018) · Information Polity · doi:10.3233/ip-170050 · Cited by 267 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Accountable Artificial Intelligence: Holding Algorithms to Account
Busuioc, M. (2021) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.13293 · Cited by 652 · see citing works
“…oversight and accountability (Bullock 2019; Diakopoulos 2014; European Parliament Study 2019; Pasquale 2015; Yeung 2018; Yeung and Lodge 2019; Young, Bullock, and Lecy 2019) and the need to identify and diagnose where the potential for accountability deficits associated with these systems…”
BackgroundInfluentialMadan, R., & Ashok, M. (2023) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2022.101774 · Cited by 468 · see citing works
“In addition, there is expected to be resistance from unions to the perceived threat to the workforce and displacement of jobs (Young, Bullock, & Lecy, 2019).”
InfluentialAlon-Barkat, S., & Busuioc, M. (2023) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/muac007 · Cited by 469 · see citing works
Exploring artificial intelligence adoption in public organizations: a comparative case study
Neumann, O., Guirguis, K., & Steiner, R. (2024) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2022.2048685 · Cited by 451 · see citing works
“…et al. 2019; Bullock 2019; Criado and Ramon Gil-Garcia 2019; Kankanhalli, Charalabidis, and Mellouli 2019; Meijer and Wessels 2019; Peeters and Schuilenburg 2018; Pencheva, Esteve, and Jankin Mikhaylov 2020; Wirtz and Müller 2019; Young, Bullock, and Lecy 2019; Newman, Mintrom, and O’Neill 2022).”
BackgroundGrimmelikhuijsen, S. (2023) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.13483 · Cited by 259 · see citing works
Wang, C., Teo, T. S. H., & Janssen, M. (2021) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102401 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
Assessing public value failure in government adoption of <scp>artificial intelligence</scp>
Schiff, D. S., Schiff, K. J., & Pierson, P. (2022) · Public Administration · doi:10.1111/padm.12742 · Cited by 155 · see citing works
Organizing public sector AI adoption: Navigating between separation and integration
Selten, F., & Klievink, B. (2024) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2023.101885 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
Artificial intelligence, bureaucratic form, and discretion in public service
Bullock, J., Young, M. M., & Wang, Y.-F. (2020) · Information Polity · doi:10.3233/ip-200223 · Cited by 139 · see citing works
Self-citationRanerup, A., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2022) · Social Science Computer Review · doi:10.1177/0894439320980434 · Cited by 139 · see citing works
Saxena, D., Badillo-Urquiola, K., Wisniewski, P. J., & Guha, S. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3476089 · Cited by 134 · see citing works
“Public Administration scholars have also started to recognize the impact of information communication technologies (ICTs) on the nature of human discretion and bureaucracy with some recent attention paid to artificial intelligence [21, 23, 80, 96, 128].”
BackgroundIn AI we trust? Citizen perceptions of AI in government decision making
Ingrams, A., Kaufmann, W., & Jacobs, D. (2022) · Policy & Internet · doi:10.1002/poi3.276 · Cited by 133 · see citing works
Opportunities, challenges, and benefits of AI innovation in government services: a review
Alhosani, K., & Alhashmi, S. M. (2024) · Discover Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s44163-024-00111-w · Cited by 132 · see citing works
“Concepts like “digital discretion” [17], “automated discretion” [74], and “artificial discretion” (Young, Bullock, & Lecy, [71]) offer alternative perspectives on the discretion exercised by bureaucratic actors within the administration.”
Platform Government in the Era of Smart Technology
Kim, S., Andersen, K. N., & Lee, J. (2022) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.13422 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Peeters, R. (2020) · Information Polity · doi:10.3233/ip-200253 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Artificial intelligence and administrative evil
Young, M. M., Himmelreich, J., Bullock, J. B., & Kim, K.-C. (2021) · Perspectives on Public Management and Governance · doi:10.1093/ppmgov/gvab006 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Self-citationAlgorithmic transparency and bureaucratic discretion: The case of SALER early warning system
Criado, J. I., Valero, J., & Villodre, J. (2020) · Information Polity · doi:10.3233/ip-200260 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Giest, S., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2020) · Information Polity · doi:10.3233/ip-200010 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
The strategy of develop Artificial Intelligence in singapore, united states, and united kingdom
Zahra, A. A., & Nurmandi, A. (2021) · IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · doi:10.1088/1755-1315/717/1/012012 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Hillo, J., Vento, I., & Erkkilä, T. (2026) · Public Administration · doi:10.1111/padm.70028 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Tao, L., Wan, J., & Wen, B. (2025) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2024.2411632 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
AI and the transformation of accountability and discretion in urban governance
Goldsmith, S., & Yang, J. (2026) · Urban Governance · doi:10.1016/j.ugj.2026.02.005 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
“For the latter, because interpreting algorithmic outcomes remains technically difficult, scholars have”
Fang, X., Zhou, H., & Chen, S. (2025) · Public Administration · doi:10.1111/padm.70015 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Döring, M., Mikkelsen, K. S., Madsen, J. K., & Haug, K. B. (2024) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2024.101911 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Liu, R., & Han, Y. (2026) · Public Administration · doi:10.1111/padm.70043 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
L'acte administratif algorithmique
Stepanov, A. (2026) · doi:10.70675/adc05be3za62ez4b4fz81e7zabf744e60dbf
- 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
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- 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