"The Computer Says No!" -- A Case Study on Automated Decision-Making in Public Authorities
Open accessAbstract
In e-government automated decision-making increases, forming part of a trend towards "smart" and self-regulating systems. This necessitates the introduction of new relationships and practices, challenging the division of responsibilities in public administration. Using a case study approach, this paper elaborates on implications of automated decision-making for professional officers in a Swedish public organization. We conclude that automation should be framed in relation to the rules of law and ethics of justice. Furthermore, the roles and competences of professionals are changing, with automated systems beginning to resemble co-bureaucrats. Professionals can either make an alliance with the automated system or the client. This choice of strategy is related to the issues of legitimacy and professional competences. We also identify practices as being either a form of caring ethics or a formal legal ethic norm. Such practices should be further addressed to influence practices promoting legitimate systems citizens can trust.
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?
Automated decision-making has the potential to improve fairness by reducing discretion of public service operators, but AI systems can remove public servants from duty of accountability, exacerbating citizens' impotence in front of 'the computer says no' responses.
“While, on the one hand, automated decision-making has the potential to improve fairness by reducing the discretion of public service operators (Busch & Henriksen, 2018), on the other hand AI systems can remove public servants from the duty of accountability, exacerbating the phenomenon where citizens are faced with impotence in front of 'the computer says no' responses (Wihlborg,”
From Artificial Intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy (2021) · cites this paper as Wihlborg, Larsson, & Hedström, 2016
Automated public services become a hidden bureaucrat.
“automated public services become”
From Data governance: Organizing data for trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (2020) · cites this paper as Wihlborg, Larsson, & Hedström, 2016
In BDAS, public officers become merely mediators rather than decision-makers.
“public officers become merely mediators rather than decision-makers”
From Data governance: Organizing data for trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (2020) · cites this paper as Wihlborg, Larsson, & Hedström, 2016
In BDAS, the decision-making authority is hidden from the user directly affected by the outcomes.
“the decision-making authority is hidden from the user directly affected by the outcomes, public officers become merely mediators rather than decision-makers, and automated public services become”
From Data governance: Organizing data for trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (2020) · cites this paper as Wihlborg, Larsson, & Hedström, 2016
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Ismagilova, E., Aarts, G., Coombs, C., Crick, T., Duan, Y., Dwivedi, R., Edwards, J., Eirug, A., et al. (2021) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.002 · Cited by 4,611 · see citing works
“…of public service operators (Busch & Henriksen, 2018), on the other hand AI systems can remove public servants from the duty of accountability, exacerbating the phenomenon where citizens are faced with impotence in front of “ the computer says no ” responses (Wihlborg, Larsson, & Hedström, 2016).”
BackgroundData governance: Organizing data for trustworthy Artificial Intelligence
Janssen, M., Brous, P., Estevez, E., Barbosa, L. S., & Janowski, T. (2020) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2020.101493 · Cited by 811 · see citing works
Close encounters of the digital kind: A research agenda for the digitalization of public services
Lindgren, I., Madsen, C. Ø., Hofmann, S., & Melin, U. (2019) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2019.03.002 · Cited by 517 · see citing works
Digital 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
Ranerup, A., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2022) · Social Science Computer Review · doi:10.1177/0894439320980434 · Cited by 139 · see citing works
The Rule of Law and Automation of Government Decision‐Making
Zalnieriute, M., Moses, L. B., & Williams, G. (2019) · The Modern Law Review · doi:10.1111/1468-2230.12412 · Cited by 140 · see citing works
Value positions viewed through the lens of automated decision-making: The case of social services
Ranerup, A., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2019) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2019.05.004 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
Street-Level Algorithms and AI in Bureaucratic Decision-Making
Ammitzbøll Flügge, A., Hildebrandt, T., & Møller, N. H. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3449114 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Milella, F., & Cabitza, F. (2026) · Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction · doi:10.3390/make8020036 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Reconciling Administrative Efficiency with Procedural Safeguards in the ADM System
Sharaf Addin, E. (2025) · Bratislava Law Review · doi:10.46282/blr.2025.9.2.1116
“Automation should be designed with consideration for laws, rules, and principles of justice and ethics (Wihlborg et al., 2016).”
L'acte administratif algorithmique
Stepanov, A. (2026) · doi:10.70675/adc05be3za62ez4b4fz81e7zabf744e60dbf
- Authors
- Wihlborg, E., Larsson, H., & Hedstrom, K.
- Affiliations
- Linköping University (SE)
- Örebro University (SE)
- Venue
- 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2016-01
- Pages
- 2903-2912
- ISSN
- 1530-1605 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2293262879
- Cited by
- 106
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 49.08
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- urn.kb.se
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (publishedVersion)
- KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- 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 › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
- Keywords
- automated decision-making, e-government, public administration, legitimacy, professional competence, ethics of justice, legal ethics, care ethics, public trust in government, division of responsibilities
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
