Automated Decision-Making and the Transformation of Bureaucratic Discretion:A Cross-Sector Systematic Review of Empirical Evidence A Cross-Sector Systematic Review of Empirical Evidence
Main Article Content
Abstract
Automated decision-making (ADM) is becoming a significant feature of contempo- rary public administration, with major implications for how bureaucratic decisions are made and discretion exercised. Existing scholarship has mostly examined ADM within single sectors, leaving a limited cross-sector understanding of how discretion shifts across policy domains. This article addresses this gap by analyzing how empir- ical studies describe changes in bureaucratic discretion after ADM implementation across sectors. Using a systematic literature review of 21 empirical studies published between 2020 and 2025, this study discovers and examines five sectors: social wel- fare and public health, labor market governance, administrative systems, policing, and judicial decision-making. The findings show that ADM does not transform dis- cretion uniformly but reconfigures it according to the sectoral decision structures. Three analytical dimensions were identified: level of automation, level of shift, and type of shift. Highly standardized sectors, such as labor market governance, show stronger automation and a greater curtailment of discretion. The social welfare, ad- ministrative, and judicial sectors retain stronger human involvement because of their contextual complexity, accountability, and reviewability. Policing shows the strongest continuity of discretion owing to situational judgment and professional autonomy. Overall, this study contributes to ADM scholarship by offering a cross-sector perspec- tive on bureaucratic discretion and suggesting that public organizations tailor ADM design and implementation to sector-specific decision logics to preserve accountabili-ty and meaningful human judgment.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Article Details
How to Cite
NAYLA PUTRI, Adissa; SYAHRINA, Alvi.
Automated Decision-Making and the Transformation of Bureaucratic Discretion:A Cross-Sector Systematic Review of Empirical Evidence.
Policy & Governance Review, [S.l.], v. 10, n. 2, p. 188-204, july 2026.
ISSN 2580-4820.
Available at: <https://jurnal.iapa.or.id/pgr/article/view/1391>. Date accessed: 16 july 2026.
doi: https://doi.org/10.30589/pgr.v10i2.1391.
Issue
Section
Articles
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
Adelmant V., Raso J. (2025). Data Entry and Decision Chains: Distributed Responsibility and Bureaucratic Disempowerment in the UK’s Universal Credit Programme. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 45(2). https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/ gqaf006
Afzal, M., & Panagiotopoulos, P. (2024). Data in Policing: An Integrative Review. International Journal of Public Administration, 48(7), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2024.23605 86
Agostino, D., Arnaboldi, M., & Lema, M. D. (2020). New development: COVID-19 as an accelerator of digital transformation in public-service delivery. Public Money & Management, 41(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2020.17 64206
Al-Kasasbeh, H. H., Albalawee N., Al-Khawaja H. A., & Qtaishat, A. K. (2025). Legal Challenges of Using AI and Big Data in Public Administration: Administrative Liability, Data Protection, and Public Service Efficiency. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 20(6), 2639–2650. https://doi.org/10.18280/ ijsdp.200631
Baas, J., Schotten, M., Plume, A., Côté, G., & Karimi, R. (2020). Scopus is a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 377–386. https://doi.org/https:// doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00019
Bodó, B., & Janssen, H. (2022). Maintaining trust in a technologized public sector. Policy and Society, 41(3), 414–429. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/ puac019
Boos, A. K. (2024). Conceptualizing Automated Decision-Making in Organizational Contexts. Philosophy & Technology, 37(3). https://doi. org/10.1007/s13347-024-00773-5
Bovens, M., & Zouridis, S. (2002). From Street-Level to System-Level Bureaucracies: How Information and Communication Technology is Transforming Administrative Discretion and Constitutional Control. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 174–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033- 3352.00168
Buffat, A. (2013). Street-Level Bureaucracy and E-Government: Public Management Review, 17(1), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/147190 37.2013.771699
Busch, P. A., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2018). Digital discretion: A systematic literature review of ICT and street-level discretion Abstract: Information Polity, 23(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.3233/ip- 170050
Busroh, F. F., Khairo, F., Niravita, A., & Nunna, B. P. (2025). Digital Transformation with the Impact of AI in Government Decision Making. Journal of Law and Legal Reform, 6(4), 1839–1874. https://doi.org/10.15294/jllr.v6i4.30339
Carlsson, V. (2023). Legal certainty in automated decision-making for welfare services. Public Policy and Administration, 40(2). https://doi. org/10.1177/09520767231202334
Carney, T. (2023). The Automated Welfare State. Cambridge University Press EBooks, 95–115. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009334297.009
Faber, B. (2021). Platforms as distinctive realms and the role of policy discretion: a cross-platform assessment of citizen engagement with Dutch municipalities through Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram. Local Government Studies, 48(5), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/03 003930.2021.2007081
Goossens, J., Keymolen, E., & Stanojević, A. (n.d.). Public Governance and Emerging Technologies: Values, Trust, and Regulatory Compliance.
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2022). Explaining why the computer says no: Algorithmic transparency affects the perceived trustworthiness of automated decision-making. Public Administration Review, 83(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13483
Johansson, J., Thomsen, M., & Åkesson, M. (2022). Public value creation and robotic process automation: normative, descriptive, and prescriptive issues in municipal administration. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.1108/tg-11- 2021-0193
Kaun, A. (2021). Suing the algorithm: The mundanization of automated decision-making in public services through litigation. Information, Communication & Society, 25(14), 1–17. https:// doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2021.1924827
Kaun, A. (2025). Temporalities of welfare automation: On timing, belatedness, and perpetual emergence. Time & Society, 34(3). https://doi. org/10.1177/0961463x251313572
Kaun, A., & Liminga, A. (2023). Welfare service centers: Maintenance, repair, and care at the analog interfaces of the digital welfare state. New Media & Society, 27(5). https://doi. org/10.1177/14614448231220362
Kaun, A., & Männiste, M. (2025). Public sector chatbots: AI frictions and data infrastructures at the interface of the digital welfare state. New Media & Society, 27(4), 1962–1985. https://doi. org/10.1177/14614448251314394
Kolkman, D., Bex, F., Narayan, N., & van der Put, M. (2024). Justitia ex machina: The impact of an AI system on legal decision-making and discretionary authority. Big Data & Society, 11(2). https://doi. org/10.1177/20539517241255101
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-Level Bureaucracy/ : the Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service. The Russell Sage Foundation.
Long, Y., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2023). Understanding the Extent of Automation and Process Transparency Appropriate for Public Services. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 19(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.4018/ ijegr.322550
Mahroof K., Weerakkody V., Hussain Z., Sivarajah, U. (2025). Navigating power dynamics in the public sector through AI-driven algorithmic decision- making. Government Information Quarterly, 42(3), 102053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. giq.2025.102053
Marienfeldt, J. (2024). Does digital government hollow out the essence of street-level bureaucracy? A systematic literature review of how digital tools’ foster curtailment, enablement, and continuation of street level decision making. Social Policy & Administration. https://doi.org/10.1111/ spol.12991
Marienfeldt, J. (2025). Serving a greater purpose: Public servants’ views on meaningful digitalization and automation in street-level bureaucracies. Public Management Review, 1–27. https://doi.or g/10.1080/14719037.2025.2577384
Moser-Plautz, B., & Schmidthuber, L. (2023). Digital government transformation as an organizational response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Government Information Quarterly, 40(3), 101815. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101815
Nagtegaal, R. (2021). The impact of using algorithms for managerial decisions on public employees’ procedural justice. Government Information Quarterly, 38(1), 101536. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101536
Nascimento, P. V. M., de Siqueira, P. B. B., Chrispim, N., Chaves, R. M., Barbosa, C. E., & de Souza, J. M. (2025). The future of AI in government services and global risks: Insights from design fictions. European Journal of Futures Research, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40309-025- 00253-9
Nordesjö, K., Ulmestig, R., & Scaramuzzino, G. (2023). Saving time for activation or relationships Legitimation and performance of automated decision-making for time efficiency in two street-level bureaucracies serving poor and unemployed clients. Nordic Social Work Research, 14(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/2 156857x.2023.2218385
Palukka, H., Koski, A., Parviainen, J., & Eilola, L. (2025). Experiencing Social Exclusion and Distrust: Mental Health Rehabilitees Struggling with Digital Administrative Burdens. Social Inclusion, 13. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.9950
Petroons, J., Brotcorne, P., Wagener, M., Hermans, K., & Van Lancker, W. (2025). Algorithmic Decision Making and Harmonization in Multi Level Governance Welfare Practices: Empirical Evidence from Belgium. Social Inclusion, 13. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.10289
Ranerup, A., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2020). Digital Discretion: Unpacking Human and Technological Agency in Automated Decision Making in Sweden’s Social Services. Social Science Computer Review, 40(2), 089443932098043. https://doi. org/10.1177/0894439320980434
Ranerup, A., & Svensson, L. (2022). Value positions in the implementation of automated decision- making in social assistance. Nordic Social Work Research, 14(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/2 156857x.2022.2062040
Richardson, R. (2022). Defining and Demystifying Automated Decision-Making Systems. Maryland Law Review, 81(3), 785. https://digitalcommons. law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol81/iss3/2
Rinta-Kahila, T., Someh, I., Gillespie, N., Indulska, M., & Gregor, S. (2023). Managing unintended consequences of algorithmic decision-making: The case of Robodebt. Journal of Information Technology Teaching Cases, 0(0), 204388692311655. https://doi. org/10.1177/20438869231165538
Rizk, A., & Lindgren, I. (2025). Automated decision- making in public administration: Changing the decision-making space between public officials and citizens. Government Information Quarterly, 42(3), 102061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. giq.2025.102061
Roehl, U. B. U. (2023). Automated decision- making and good administration: Views from inside government machinery. Government Information Quarterly, 40(4), 101864. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101864
Saxena D., Badillo-Urquiola K., Wisniewski P. J., & Guha, S. (2021). A Framework of High-Stakes Algorithmic Decision-Making for the Public Sector Developed through a Case Study of Child Welfare. Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW2), 1–41. https:// doi.org/10.1145/3476089
Snow, T. (2021). From satisficing to artificing: The evolution of administrative decision-making in the age of algorithms. Data & Policy, 3. https:// doi.org/10.1017/dap.2020.25
Stone, D. (2012). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making (3rd ed.). W.W. Norton & Co.
Sztandar-Sztanderska, K., & Mazur, J. (2025). Politics and algorithmic articulation of law: Tracing the discrepancies and backstage decision-making in the development of the profiling algorithm in Polish labor market policies. International Journal of Law in Context, 21(4), 749–768. https://doi. org/10.1017/s1744552325100141
Tarkkala, H., Koulu, R., Snell, K., & Soininvaara, H. (2025). “Complete the Test First” Prescreening Tests at the Margins of Digital Public Administration. Social Inclusion, 13. https://doi. org/10.17645/si.9971
VESOLOVSKA, M., KARKOVSKA, V., & DUMA, O. (2025). Artificial intelligence in public administration: How civil servants’ emotional intelligence influences effective implementation. ADMINISTRATIE SI MANAGEMENT PUBLIC, (45), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.24818/amp/2025. 45-02
Volckmar Eeg, M. G., & Andresen, S. (2025). Detective Work and Invisible Assessments: Unpacking Discretionary Processes in Welfare Decision Making. Social Policy & Administration. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.70036
Weerheijm, B., Giest, S., & Klievink, B. (2025). Complexity, understandability, and compatibility: A comparative study of AI advisory systems for National Security. Government Information Quarterly, 42(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2025. 102088
Wessels, J. S. K., & Zongozzi, J. N. (2024). Case study research in public administration: Analytical framework and systematic review. Edward Elgar Publishing EBooks, 272–293. https://doi. org/10.4337/9781803920320.00026
Wieringa, M. (2023). “Hey SyRI, tell me about algorithmic accountability”: Lessons from a landmark case. Data & Policy, 5, e2. https://doi. org/10.1017/dap.2022.39
Yurrita, M., Verma, H., Balayn, A., Alfrink, K., Gadiraju, U., & Bozzon, A. (2025). Identifying Algorithmic Decision-Making Subjects’ Needs for Meaningful Contestability. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 9(7), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3757415
Zejnilović, L., Lavado, S., de Troya, Í. M. de R., Sim, S., & Bell, A. (2020). Algorithmic Long- Term Unemployment Risk Assessment in Use: Counselors’ Perceptions and Use Practices. Global Perspectives, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1525/ gp.2020. 12908
Zolkin, V., Chochia, A., & Hoffmann, T. (2023). Automated Decision-Making in EU Member States’ Public Administration: The Compliance of Automated Decisions of the Estonian Unemployment Insurance Fund with Estonian Administrative Procedure Law. European Studies, 10(2), 178–202. https://doi.org/10.2478/ eustu-2023-0017
Zuiderwijk, A., Chen, Y.-C., & Salem, F. (2021). Implications of the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Public Governance: A Systematic Literature Review and a Research Agenda. Government Information Quarterly, 38(3), 101577. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101577
Afzal, M., & Panagiotopoulos, P. (2024). Data in Policing: An Integrative Review. International Journal of Public Administration, 48(7), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2024.23605 86
Agostino, D., Arnaboldi, M., & Lema, M. D. (2020). New development: COVID-19 as an accelerator of digital transformation in public-service delivery. Public Money & Management, 41(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2020.17 64206
Al-Kasasbeh, H. H., Albalawee N., Al-Khawaja H. A., & Qtaishat, A. K. (2025). Legal Challenges of Using AI and Big Data in Public Administration: Administrative Liability, Data Protection, and Public Service Efficiency. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, 20(6), 2639–2650. https://doi.org/10.18280/ ijsdp.200631
Baas, J., Schotten, M., Plume, A., Côté, G., & Karimi, R. (2020). Scopus is a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(1), 377–386. https://doi.org/https:// doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00019
Bodó, B., & Janssen, H. (2022). Maintaining trust in a technologized public sector. Policy and Society, 41(3), 414–429. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/ puac019
Boos, A. K. (2024). Conceptualizing Automated Decision-Making in Organizational Contexts. Philosophy & Technology, 37(3). https://doi. org/10.1007/s13347-024-00773-5
Bovens, M., & Zouridis, S. (2002). From Street-Level to System-Level Bureaucracies: How Information and Communication Technology is Transforming Administrative Discretion and Constitutional Control. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 174–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033- 3352.00168
Buffat, A. (2013). Street-Level Bureaucracy and E-Government: Public Management Review, 17(1), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/147190 37.2013.771699
Busch, P. A., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2018). Digital discretion: A systematic literature review of ICT and street-level discretion Abstract: Information Polity, 23(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.3233/ip- 170050
Busroh, F. F., Khairo, F., Niravita, A., & Nunna, B. P. (2025). Digital Transformation with the Impact of AI in Government Decision Making. Journal of Law and Legal Reform, 6(4), 1839–1874. https://doi.org/10.15294/jllr.v6i4.30339
Carlsson, V. (2023). Legal certainty in automated decision-making for welfare services. Public Policy and Administration, 40(2). https://doi. org/10.1177/09520767231202334
Carney, T. (2023). The Automated Welfare State. Cambridge University Press EBooks, 95–115. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009334297.009
Faber, B. (2021). Platforms as distinctive realms and the role of policy discretion: a cross-platform assessment of citizen engagement with Dutch municipalities through Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram. Local Government Studies, 48(5), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/03 003930.2021.2007081
Goossens, J., Keymolen, E., & Stanojević, A. (n.d.). Public Governance and Emerging Technologies: Values, Trust, and Regulatory Compliance.
Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2022). Explaining why the computer says no: Algorithmic transparency affects the perceived trustworthiness of automated decision-making. Public Administration Review, 83(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13483
Johansson, J., Thomsen, M., & Åkesson, M. (2022). Public value creation and robotic process automation: normative, descriptive, and prescriptive issues in municipal administration. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.1108/tg-11- 2021-0193
Kaun, A. (2021). Suing the algorithm: The mundanization of automated decision-making in public services through litigation. Information, Communication & Society, 25(14), 1–17. https:// doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2021.1924827
Kaun, A. (2025). Temporalities of welfare automation: On timing, belatedness, and perpetual emergence. Time & Society, 34(3). https://doi. org/10.1177/0961463x251313572
Kaun, A., & Liminga, A. (2023). Welfare service centers: Maintenance, repair, and care at the analog interfaces of the digital welfare state. New Media & Society, 27(5). https://doi. org/10.1177/14614448231220362
Kaun, A., & Männiste, M. (2025). Public sector chatbots: AI frictions and data infrastructures at the interface of the digital welfare state. New Media & Society, 27(4), 1962–1985. https://doi. org/10.1177/14614448251314394
Kolkman, D., Bex, F., Narayan, N., & van der Put, M. (2024). Justitia ex machina: The impact of an AI system on legal decision-making and discretionary authority. Big Data & Society, 11(2). https://doi. org/10.1177/20539517241255101
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-Level Bureaucracy/ : the Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service. The Russell Sage Foundation.
Long, Y., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2023). Understanding the Extent of Automation and Process Transparency Appropriate for Public Services. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 19(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.4018/ ijegr.322550
Mahroof K., Weerakkody V., Hussain Z., Sivarajah, U. (2025). Navigating power dynamics in the public sector through AI-driven algorithmic decision- making. Government Information Quarterly, 42(3), 102053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. giq.2025.102053
Marienfeldt, J. (2024). Does digital government hollow out the essence of street-level bureaucracy? A systematic literature review of how digital tools’ foster curtailment, enablement, and continuation of street level decision making. Social Policy & Administration. https://doi.org/10.1111/ spol.12991
Marienfeldt, J. (2025). Serving a greater purpose: Public servants’ views on meaningful digitalization and automation in street-level bureaucracies. Public Management Review, 1–27. https://doi.or g/10.1080/14719037.2025.2577384
Moser-Plautz, B., & Schmidthuber, L. (2023). Digital government transformation as an organizational response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Government Information Quarterly, 40(3), 101815. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101815
Nagtegaal, R. (2021). The impact of using algorithms for managerial decisions on public employees’ procedural justice. Government Information Quarterly, 38(1), 101536. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101536
Nascimento, P. V. M., de Siqueira, P. B. B., Chrispim, N., Chaves, R. M., Barbosa, C. E., & de Souza, J. M. (2025). The future of AI in government services and global risks: Insights from design fictions. European Journal of Futures Research, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40309-025- 00253-9
Nordesjö, K., Ulmestig, R., & Scaramuzzino, G. (2023). Saving time for activation or relationships Legitimation and performance of automated decision-making for time efficiency in two street-level bureaucracies serving poor and unemployed clients. Nordic Social Work Research, 14(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/2 156857x.2023.2218385
Palukka, H., Koski, A., Parviainen, J., & Eilola, L. (2025). Experiencing Social Exclusion and Distrust: Mental Health Rehabilitees Struggling with Digital Administrative Burdens. Social Inclusion, 13. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.9950
Petroons, J., Brotcorne, P., Wagener, M., Hermans, K., & Van Lancker, W. (2025). Algorithmic Decision Making and Harmonization in Multi Level Governance Welfare Practices: Empirical Evidence from Belgium. Social Inclusion, 13. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.10289
Ranerup, A., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2020). Digital Discretion: Unpacking Human and Technological Agency in Automated Decision Making in Sweden’s Social Services. Social Science Computer Review, 40(2), 089443932098043. https://doi. org/10.1177/0894439320980434
Ranerup, A., & Svensson, L. (2022). Value positions in the implementation of automated decision- making in social assistance. Nordic Social Work Research, 14(4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/2 156857x.2022.2062040
Richardson, R. (2022). Defining and Demystifying Automated Decision-Making Systems. Maryland Law Review, 81(3), 785. https://digitalcommons. law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol81/iss3/2
Rinta-Kahila, T., Someh, I., Gillespie, N., Indulska, M., & Gregor, S. (2023). Managing unintended consequences of algorithmic decision-making: The case of Robodebt. Journal of Information Technology Teaching Cases, 0(0), 204388692311655. https://doi. org/10.1177/20438869231165538
Rizk, A., & Lindgren, I. (2025). Automated decision- making in public administration: Changing the decision-making space between public officials and citizens. Government Information Quarterly, 42(3), 102061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. giq.2025.102061
Roehl, U. B. U. (2023). Automated decision- making and good administration: Views from inside government machinery. Government Information Quarterly, 40(4), 101864. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101864
Saxena D., Badillo-Urquiola K., Wisniewski P. J., & Guha, S. (2021). A Framework of High-Stakes Algorithmic Decision-Making for the Public Sector Developed through a Case Study of Child Welfare. Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW2), 1–41. https:// doi.org/10.1145/3476089
Snow, T. (2021). From satisficing to artificing: The evolution of administrative decision-making in the age of algorithms. Data & Policy, 3. https:// doi.org/10.1017/dap.2020.25
Stone, D. (2012). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making (3rd ed.). W.W. Norton & Co.
Sztandar-Sztanderska, K., & Mazur, J. (2025). Politics and algorithmic articulation of law: Tracing the discrepancies and backstage decision-making in the development of the profiling algorithm in Polish labor market policies. International Journal of Law in Context, 21(4), 749–768. https://doi. org/10.1017/s1744552325100141
Tarkkala, H., Koulu, R., Snell, K., & Soininvaara, H. (2025). “Complete the Test First” Prescreening Tests at the Margins of Digital Public Administration. Social Inclusion, 13. https://doi. org/10.17645/si.9971
VESOLOVSKA, M., KARKOVSKA, V., & DUMA, O. (2025). Artificial intelligence in public administration: How civil servants’ emotional intelligence influences effective implementation. ADMINISTRATIE SI MANAGEMENT PUBLIC, (45), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.24818/amp/2025. 45-02
Volckmar Eeg, M. G., & Andresen, S. (2025). Detective Work and Invisible Assessments: Unpacking Discretionary Processes in Welfare Decision Making. Social Policy & Administration. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.70036
Weerheijm, B., Giest, S., & Klievink, B. (2025). Complexity, understandability, and compatibility: A comparative study of AI advisory systems for National Security. Government Information Quarterly, 42(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2025. 102088
Wessels, J. S. K., & Zongozzi, J. N. (2024). Case study research in public administration: Analytical framework and systematic review. Edward Elgar Publishing EBooks, 272–293. https://doi. org/10.4337/9781803920320.00026
Wieringa, M. (2023). “Hey SyRI, tell me about algorithmic accountability”: Lessons from a landmark case. Data & Policy, 5, e2. https://doi. org/10.1017/dap.2022.39
Yurrita, M., Verma, H., Balayn, A., Alfrink, K., Gadiraju, U., & Bozzon, A. (2025). Identifying Algorithmic Decision-Making Subjects’ Needs for Meaningful Contestability. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 9(7), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3757415
Zejnilović, L., Lavado, S., de Troya, Í. M. de R., Sim, S., & Bell, A. (2020). Algorithmic Long- Term Unemployment Risk Assessment in Use: Counselors’ Perceptions and Use Practices. Global Perspectives, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1525/ gp.2020. 12908
Zolkin, V., Chochia, A., & Hoffmann, T. (2023). Automated Decision-Making in EU Member States’ Public Administration: The Compliance of Automated Decisions of the Estonian Unemployment Insurance Fund with Estonian Administrative Procedure Law. European Studies, 10(2), 178–202. https://doi.org/10.2478/ eustu-2023-0017
Zuiderwijk, A., Chen, Y.-C., & Salem, F. (2021). Implications of the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Public Governance: A Systematic Literature Review and a Research Agenda. Government Information Quarterly, 38(3), 101577. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101577