Procedural Fairness as Stepping Stone for Successful Implementation of Algorithmic Decision-Making in Public Administration: Review and Outlook

Sven Hoeppner, Martin Samek
{"title":"Procedural Fairness as Stepping Stone for Successful Implementation of Algorithmic Decision-Making in Public Administration: Review and Outlook","authors":"Sven Hoeppner, Martin Samek","doi":"10.14712/23366478.2024.24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Algorithmic decision-making (ADM) is becoming more and more prevalent in everyday life. Due to their promise of producing faster, better, and less biased decisions, automated and data-driven processes also receive increasing attention in many different administrative settings. However, as a result of human mistakes ADM also poses the threat of producing unfair outcomes. Looming algorithmic discrimination can undermine the legitimacy of administrative decision-making. While lawyers and lawmakers face the age-old question of regulation, many decision-makers tasked with designing ADM for and implementing ADM in public administration wrestle with harnessing its advantages and limiting its disadvantages. “Algorithmic fairness” has evolved as key concept in developing algorithmic systems to counter detrimental outcomes. We provide a review of the vast literature on algorithmic fairness and show how key dimensions alter people’s perception of whether an algorithm is fair. In doing so, we provide entry point into this literature for anybody who is required to think about algorithmic fairness, particularly in an public administration context. We also pinpoint critical concerns about algorithmic fairness that public officials and researchers should note.","PeriodicalId":158742,"journal":{"name":"AUC IURIDICA","volume":"25 22","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AUC IURIDICA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14712/23366478.2024.24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Algorithmic decision-making (ADM) is becoming more and more prevalent in everyday life. Due to their promise of producing faster, better, and less biased decisions, automated and data-driven processes also receive increasing attention in many different administrative settings. However, as a result of human mistakes ADM also poses the threat of producing unfair outcomes. Looming algorithmic discrimination can undermine the legitimacy of administrative decision-making. While lawyers and lawmakers face the age-old question of regulation, many decision-makers tasked with designing ADM for and implementing ADM in public administration wrestle with harnessing its advantages and limiting its disadvantages. “Algorithmic fairness” has evolved as key concept in developing algorithmic systems to counter detrimental outcomes. We provide a review of the vast literature on algorithmic fairness and show how key dimensions alter people’s perception of whether an algorithm is fair. In doing so, we provide entry point into this literature for anybody who is required to think about algorithmic fairness, particularly in an public administration context. We also pinpoint critical concerns about algorithmic fairness that public officials and researchers should note.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
程序公平是成功实施公共行政算法决策的垫脚石:回顾与展望
算法决策(ADM)在日常生活中越来越普遍。由于有望做出更快、更好、更少偏见的决策,自动化和数据驱动流程在许多不同的行政环境中也受到越来越多的关注。然而,由于人为错误的存在,ADM 也带来了产生不公平结果的威胁。迫在眉睫的算法歧视会破坏行政决策的合法性。当律师和立法者面临监管这一老生常谈的问题时,许多在公共行政中负责设计和实施 ADM 的决策者则在如何利用其优势和限制其劣势上煞费苦心。"算法公平 "已发展成为开发算法系统以应对不利结果的关键概念。我们回顾了有关算法公平性的大量文献,并展示了关键维度如何改变人们对算法是否公平的看法。这样,我们就为任何需要思考算法公平性(尤其是在公共管理背景下)的人提供了进入这些文献的切入点。我们还指出了公职人员和研究人员应该注意的算法公平性的关键问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
National Report on Automation in Decision-Making in Public Administration in Slovakia Tracing the Evolutionary Path of Experimental Law: from Comparative Law to Regulatory Sandboxes National Report on Automation in Decision-Making in Civil Procedure in the Czech Republic Artificial Public Administration – Myth or Reality? The Advent of Space Administrative Law in Europe
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1