AbstractAlgorithms based on Artificial Intelligence technologies are slowly transforming street‐level bureaucracies, yet a lack of algorithmic transparency may jeopardize citizen trust. Based on procedural fairness theory, this article hypothesizes that two core elements of algorithmic transparency (accessibility and explainability) are crucial to strengthening the perceived trustworthiness of street‐level decision‐making. This is tested in one experimental scenario with low discretion (a denied visa application) and one scenario with high discretion (a suspicion of welfare fraud). The results show that: (1) explainability has a more pronounced effect on trust than the accessibility of the algorithm; (2) the effect of algorithmic transparency not only pertains to trust in the algorithm itself but also—partially—to trust in the human decision‐maker; (3) the effects of algorithmic transparency are not robust across decision context. These findings imply that transparency‐as‐accessibility is insufficient to foster citizen trust. Algorithmic explainability must be addressed to maintain and foster trustworthiness algorithmic decision‐making.
Experimentation has formed the basis for modern scientific discovery. Francis Bacon (1561– 1626), "the father of empiricism," was one of the first to propose a method of science based on experimentation that results in new theories that can again be tested by experimentation. At first, experiments seemed to be suitable only for the natural sciences. The method was later adopted by the "softer" sciences such as psychology and economics. Until recently, political scientists thought that classic experiments were not suitable for political science because of the complex and dynamic character of the field. In the first chapter of this edited volume by James N. Druckman, Donald P. Green, James H. Kuklinski, and Arthur Lupia, Lawrence Lowell (1910) is cited: "We are limited by the impossibility of experiment. Politics is an observational, not an experimental science . . ." (p. 3). However, the growing interest in causation and the empirically guided theory development have caused a growth in the number of experiments in political science. Scholars are encouraged by the ways in which experiments facilitate causation and use transparent procedures. Experimental political science has gained momentum, and this handbook comes at the right time to capture this moment and usher experimental political science forward.
Résumé La baisse de confiance des citoyens dans l'État est un facteur important à l'origine des réformes s'inspirant du NMP. L'amélioration des connaissances de la population en lui offrant des connaissances factuelles sur l'activité de l'État est considérée comme un bon moyen de renforcer la confiance des citoyens dans l'État. Cette promesse se vérifie-t-elle ou le fait de savoir comment travaille l'État n'est-il pas si important ? Nous allons analyser deux hypothèses contradictoires. La première proposition postule qu'il existe un lien entre connaissance et confiance, tandis que la seconde s'inspire des recherches socio-psychologiques qui soutiennent que les signaux subconscients et affectifs sont plus importants. Afin d'étudier cette question, nous allons présenter les résultats d'une expérience (N=658) visant à examiner l'influence de la transparence des résultats sur la confiance des citoyens dans une organisation gouvernementale bien précise. Quatre groupes ont ainsi été invités à consulter différents sites Web présentant un degré de transparence et des résultats variables. Les résultats révèlent que le lien entre transparence et confiance dans une organisation gouvernementale est déterminé par un mélange de connaissances et de sentiments. De plus, l'influence globale de la transparence est limitée. Les idées préexistantes et fondamentales au sujet de ce que fait l'État et de son caractère bienveillant sont nettement plus déterminantes qu'une simple expérience avec une organisation gouvernementale. Notre conclusion est que le fait de connaître les résultats de l'activité de l'État n'explique qu'une partie du lien entre transparence et confiance, et que des points de vue plus réalistes au sujet de l'influence de la transparence doivent être étudiés. Remarques à l'intention des praticiens Beaucoup considèrent la transparence, d'une manière générale, comme le garant de la confiance dans l'État. Notre étude révèle que l'influence de la transparence sur la confiance des citoyens dans l'État est souvent exagérée, la plupart des gens ayant des croyances préexistantes, fondamentales, au sujet de l'État, sur lesquelles la transparence n'a qu'une influence limitée. La transparence peut néanmoins contribuer à maintenir les niveaux de confiance existants, grâce à un mélange de connaissances à propos de l'État et de sentiments à son égard au sein de la population. Si la transparence est nécessaire, les professionnels de la gestion et de l'administration publiques doivent développer des attentes réalistes à propos de ce que cette transparence peut réellement faire pour la confiance dans l'État.
Declining citizen trust in government is an important driver for NPM-style reforms. Increasing people's knowledge by providing factual knowledge about government performance outcomes is seen as an important way of increasing citizen trust in government. Does this promise hold or is knowledge about performance outcomes not that important? Two rivalling hypotheses are being investigated. One proposition postulates a link between knowledge and trust, whereas the alternative hypothesis borrows from social-psychological research arguing that subconscious and affective cues are more important. In order to investigate this question, this article presents the results of an experiment ( N = 658) investigating the effect of performance outcome transparency on citizen trust in a specific government organization. Four groups visited different websites with varying degrees of transparency and performance outcome. The results demonstrate that the link between transparency and trust in a government organization is determined by a mix of knowledge and feelings. Further, the overall effect of transparency is limited. Pre-existing and fundamental ideas about what government does and whether it is benign or not are far more determining than a single experience with a government organization. This article concludes that knowledge about performance outcomes is only part of the link between transparency and trust, and that more realistic views about transparency's effects should be developed.Points for practitionersTransparency is generally hailed by many as the key to trust in government. This study shows that the magnitude of transparency on citizens' trust in government is often exaggerated as most people have pre-existing, fundamental beliefs about government which are only marginally influenced by transparency. However, transparency can contribute to maintaining existing trust levels through a mix of people's cognition and feeling about government. Transparency is necessary, yet professionals in public management and administration should develop realistic expectations about what transparency can really achieve for trust in government.
AbstractOnline minutes of local councils offer the opportunity to look behind the scenes of local government decision‐making. Will this transparency, as promised, lead to higher levels of trust? This issue was investigated by conducting an experiment comparing participants who did not access the available information, people who were only allowed restricted information about the minutes, and those who were shown the full minutes of the local council. Results indicated that people exposed to more information were significantly more negative regarding perceived competence of the council compared to those who did not access the available information. Additionally, participants who received only restricted information about the minutes thought the council was less honest compared to those who did not read them. The relationship between transparency and trust is influenced partly by the perceived credibility of the message on the website. Also, knowledge about the decision‐making process appears to shift judgment criteria. People well informed about the process are inclined to base their judgment of perceived competence on this knowledge and less on message credibility. A theoretical explanation for the negative effect of transparency of public decision‐making is sought in the expectations of the public versus the reality. A lower perceived competence by those who had access to full information might be explained by a gap between public expectations of rational decision‐making and the reality of the chaos involved in public decision‐making exposed through transparency.
The editorial sets the stage for the special issue on algorithmic transparency in government. The papers in the issue bring together transparency challenges experienced across different levels of government, including macro-, meso-, and micro-levels. This highlights that transparency issues transcend different levels of government – from European regulation to individual public bureaucrats. With a special focus on these links, the editorial sketches a future research agenda for transparency-related challenges. Highlighting these linkages is a first step towards seeing the bigger picture of why transparency mechanisms are put in place in some scenarios and not in others. Finally, this introduction present an agenda for future research, which opens the door to comparative analyses for future research and new insights for policymakers.
Algorithmic decision-making in government has emerged rapidly in recent years, leading to a surge in attention for this topic by scholars from various fields, including public administration. Recent studies provide crucial yet fragmented insights on how the use of algorithms to support or fully automate decisions is transforming government. This article ties together these insights by applying the theoretical lenses of government legitimacy and institutional design. We identify how algorithmic decision-making challenges three types of legitimacy—input, throughput, and output—and identify institutional arrangements that can mitigate these threats. We argue that there is no silver bullet to maintain legitimacy of algorithmic government and that a multiplicity of different institutional mechanisms is required, ranging from legal structures and civic participation to closer monitoring of algorithmic systems. We conclude with a framework to guide future research to better understand the implications of institutional design for the legitimacy of algorithmic government.
