Looking through a policy window with tinted glasses: Setting the agenda for U.S. AI policy
Open accessAbstract
The policy agenda is currently being established for artificial intelligence (AI), a domain marked by complex and sweeping implications for economic transformation tempered by concerns about social and ethical risks. This article reviews the United States national AI policy strategy through extensive qualitative and quantitative content analysis of 63 strategic AI policy documents curated by the federal government between 2016 and 2020. Drawing on a prominent theory of agenda setting, the Multiple Streams Framework, and in light of competing paradigms of technology policy, this article reviews how the U.S. government understands the key policy problems, solutions, and issue frames associated with AI. Findings indicate minimal attention to focusing events or problem indicators emphasizing social and ethical concerns, as opposed to economic and geopolitical ones. Further, broad statements noting ethical dimensions of AI often fail to translate into specific policy solutions, which may be explained by a lack of technical feasibility or value acceptability of ethics‐related policy solutions, along with institutional constraints for agencies in specific policy sectors. Finally, despite widespread calls for increased public participation, proposed solutions remain expert dominated. Overall, while the emerging U.S. AI policy agenda reflects a striking level of attention to ethics—a promising development for policy stakeholders invested in AI ethics and more socially oriented approaches to technology governance—this success is only partial and is ultimately layered into a traditional strategic approach to innovation policy.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Integrating public preferences into AI governance complements expert-driven approaches and helps align AI system design and its governance with societal expectations.
“this study argues that integrating public preferences into AI governance complements expert-driven approaches (Schiff 2023;Wilson 2022) and helps align AI system design and its governance with societal expectations (Jakesch et al. 2022;Araujo et al. 2020;König et al. 2023).”
From Accountability in Government Use of <scp>AI</scp> : Citizen Concerns and Preferences (2025) · cites this paper as Schiff 2023
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 86 · Cited by 55
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- Atkinson, R. D., & Mayo, M. J. (2010). Refueling the U.S. innovation economy: Fresh approaches to science, tech- nology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 1722822). Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1722822
- Bhaskar, R. (1979). The possibility of naturalism: A philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences (1st ed.). Harvester Press.
- Birkland, T. A., & Warnement, M. K. (2016). Refining the idea of focusing events in the multiple-streams frame- work. In R. Zohlnhöfer & F. W. Rüb (Eds.), Decision-making under ambiguity and time constraints: Assessing the multiple-streams framework (pp. 91-108). ECPR Press.
- CIFAR. (2020). Building an AI world: Report on national and regional AI strategies (2nd ed., p. 48). CIFAR. https:// cifar.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/building-an-ai-world-second-edition.pdf
- Erkkilä, T. (2023). Global indicators and AI policy: Metrics, policy scripts and narratives. Review of Policy Research.
- John W. Kingdon, agendas, alternatives, and public policies. In M. Lodge, E. C. Page, & S. J. Balla (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of classics in public policy and administration (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199646135.013. · DOI
- Herweg, N. (2016). Clarifying the concept of policy-communities in the multiple-streams framework. In R. Zohl- nhöfer & F. W. Rüb (Eds.), Decision-making under ambiguity and time constraints: Assessing the multiple- streams framework (pp. 125-145). ECPR Press.
- Kim, J. (2023). Containing artificial intelligence: Traveling AI-essentialism and IT imaginaries in South Korea and France. Review of Policy Research.
- Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (1st ed.). Little, Brown.
- Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis. SAGE.
- Roberts, N. C., & King, P. J. (1991). Policy entrepreneurs: Their activity structure and function in the policy process. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 1(2), 147-175.
- n28 · DOI
- Ulnicane, I., Knight, W., Leach, T., Stahl, B. C., & Wanjiku, W.-G. (2022). Governance of artificial intelligence: Emerging international trends and policy frames. In M. Tinnirello (Ed.), The global politics of artificial intel- ligence (pp. 29-55). Chapman and Hall/CRC.
- Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE.
- Authors
- Schiff, D. S.
- Affiliations
- Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
- Corresponding author
- Schiff, Daniel S.
- ORCID
- Schiff, Daniel S.
- Venue
- Review of Policy Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2023-01-31
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 729-756
- ISSN
- 1541-132X (ISSN-L)
- 1541-1338
- OpenAlex
- W4319829636
- Cited by
- 55
- References
- 86
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 7
- FWCI
- 13.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Review of Policy Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policy Transfer and Learning
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Keywords
- AI policy, agenda setting, multiple streams framework, AI ethics, technology governance, innovation policy, citizen participation, geopolitical competition
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
