The legitimacy gap of algorithmic decision-making in the public sector: Why it arises and how to address it

Algorithmic decision-making (ADM) systems are increasingly adopted by the state to support various administrative functions and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of public services, such as in unemployment services or policing. While these systems create challenges of opaqueness, unfairness, and value trade-offs, the present paper argues that a more fundamental challenge lies in the way these systems alter the epistemic bases of decision-making. It contributes to the literature by highlighting why procedural standards of legitimacy in operative decision-making no longer suffice for certain applications and by discussing how the resulting legitimacy gap can be addressed through stakeholder involvement. By adapting research on participatory technology assessments to the particularities of ADM system design, it is possible to identify the core challenges of such a stakeholder process and the necessary steps to deal with them.

Automated summary

The increasing adoption of Algorithmic Decision-Making (ADM) systems by the state to enhance administrative functions and public services effectiveness has brought challenges of opaqueness, unfairness, and value trade-offs. This paper argues that the fundamental challenge lies in how these systems alter the epistemic bases of decision-making, and proposes addressing the resulting legitimacy gap through stakeholder involvement by adapting research on participatory technology assessments to ADM system design.