The governance approach underpinning the Bill is interesting in two respects.įirst, the Bill includes a ban on certain uses of AI in the public sector. In addition to providing a useful critique of the treatment of AI harms as risk and of the implications in terms of the regulatory baggage that (different types of) risk regulation implies, Kaminski provides an overview of a very interesting legislative proposal: Washington State’s Bill SB 5116.īill SB 5116 is a proposal for new legislation ‘ establishing guidelines for government procurement and use of automated decision systems in order to protect consumers, improve transparency, and create more market predictability'.
In the context of this reflection, I found a very useful recent paper: M E Kaminski, ‘ Regulating the Risks of AI’ (2023) 103 Boston University Law Review forthcoming. I am currently trying to understand the governance implications of this emerging gatekeeping role to assess whether procurement is best placed to carry it out. This implies that the procurement function should be able to verify that the intended AI (and its use/foreseeable misuse) will not cause harms-or, where harms are unavoidable, come up with a system to weigh, and if appropriate/possible manage, that risk. Procurement is progressively put in the position of regulating what types of artificial intelligence (AI) are deployed by the public sector (ie taking a gatekeeping function see here and here). Gatekeeping and experimentation in digital public governance (OUP, forthcoming).
LAST HORIZON CRACK FULL
The full details of this draft chapter are as follows: A Sanchez-Graells, ‘The technological promise of digital governance: procurement as a case study of “policy irresistibility”’ to be included in A Sanchez-Graells, Digital Technologies and Public Procurement. The Chapter largely focuses on the EU policy framework, but the insights derived from this analysis are easily exportable.Īnother draft chapter (num 7) will follow soon with more detailed analysis of the feasibility boundary for the adoption of digital technologies for procurement governance purposes.
This can in turn result in excessive experimentation with digital technologies for procurement governance in the name of transformation. The allure of the potential benefits of deploying digital technologies generates ‘policy irresistibility’ that can capture decision-making by policymakers overly exposed to the promise of technological fixes to recalcitrant governance challenges. Digital technologies promise to bring solutions to such informational burden and thus augment decisionmakers’ ability to deal with that complexity and with related uncertainty. Delivering on procurement’s goals of integrity, efficiency and transparency requires facing challenges derived from the information intensity and complexity of procurement governance. The Chapter stresses how aspirations of digital transformation can drive policy agendas and make them vulnerable to technological hype, despite technological immaturity and in the face of evidence of the difficulty of rolling out such transformation programmes-eg regarding the still ongoing wave of transition to e-procurement. This Chapter takes a governance perspective to reflect on the process of horizon scanning and experimentation with digital technologies. The main ideas in the chapter are as follows:
LAST HORIZON CRACK FREE
As always, please feel free to reach out: this first draft chapter (num 6), I explore the technological promise of digital governance and use public procurement as a case study of ‘policy irresistibility’. I would warmly welcome feedback that can help me polish the final version. In the process of writing up, I will be sharing some draft chapters and other thought pieces. I have just started a 12-month Mid-Career Fellowship funded by the British Academy with the purpose of writing up the monograph Digital Technologies and Public Procurement.
0 kommentar(er)
