ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AS A PUBLIC MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY: INSTITUTIONAL DETERMINANTS OF ADMINISTRATIVE PERFORMANCE IN DIGITAL GOVERNANCE

doi:10.26565/2524-2547-2026-73-01

Maka Benashvili Sulkhan-Saba Orbeliani University, 3, Kalistrate Qutateladze Str., Tbilisi, 0186, Georgia https://orcid.org/0009-0005-5821-2019
Tamar Tsertsvadze Caucasus University, 1, Paata Saakadze Str., Tbilisi, 0102, Georgia https://orcid.org/0009-0008-6329-4989

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26565/2524-2547-2026-73-01

Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Public Administration, Government Effectiveness, Digital Governance, Institutional Capacity

Abstract

This study examines whether the adoption of national artificial intelligence (AI) strategies improves administrative performance in The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. AI is conceptualized not simply as a technological innovation but as a public management capability embedded in institutional governance systems. The research applies a sequential explanatory mixed-method design combining quantitative panel data analysis with qualitative institutional investigation.

The quantitative analysis covers 38 OECD countries for the period 2016–2023. Administrative performance is measured using the Government Effectiveness indicator from the Worldwide Governance Indicators database. AI adoption is operationalized through a policy-based coding procedure that identifies the official year of national AI strategy adoption and constructs a time-varying binary variable. A fixed effects panel regression model is estimated to control for time-invariant country characteristics. GDP per capita (log-transformed), regulatory quality, and digital infrastructure are included as control variables.

The findings demonstrate a positive and statistically significant association between AI strategy adoption and Government Effectiveness. However, the magnitude of the effect is modest compared to structural determinants such as regulatory quality and economic development. Digital infrastructure also shows a significant positive relationship with administrative performance. Robustness checks suggest that the benefits of AI institutionalization materialize gradually rather than immediately.

Qualitative evidence from Finland, Estonia, Germany, and Italy indicates that AI strategies enhance governance performance when supported by coherent regulation, inter-agency coordination, and digital maturity. The study concludes that AI contributes to administrative effectiveness as part of a broader institutional ecosystem rather than as a standalone technological reform.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Maka Benashvili, Sulkhan-Saba Orbeliani University, 3, Kalistrate Qutateladze Str., Tbilisi, 0186, Georgia

PhD (International Relations), Assistant Professor

Tamar Tsertsvadze, Caucasus University, 1, Paata Saakadze Str., Tbilisi, 0102, Georgia

PhD (Management), Assistant Professor

References

Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. New York, NY: Crown Publishers.

Andersen, K. N., Zinner Henriksen, H., Medaglia, R., Danziger, J. N., Sannarnes, M. K., & Enemærke, M. (2010). Fads and Facts of E-Government: A Review of Impacts of E-Government. International Journal of Public Administration, 33(11), 564-579. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2010.517724

Bekkers, V., & Homburg, V. (Eds.). (2007). The information ecology of e-government: E-government as institutional and technological innovation in public administration. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.

Borins, S. (2001). Encouraging innovation in the public sector. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2(3), 310–319. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930110400128

Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00665.x

Cordella, A., & Tempini, N. (2015). E-government and organizational change. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 279-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.03.005

Criado, J. I., Sandoval-Almazán, R., & Gil-García, J. R. (2025). Artificial intelligence and public administration: Understanding actors, governance, and policy from micro, meso, and macro perspectives. Public Policy and Administration, 40(2), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767241272921

Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). Digital era governance: IT corporations, the state, and e-government. Oxford University Press.

Engstrom, D. F., Ho, D. E., Sharkey, C. M., & Cuéllar, M.-F. (2020). Government by algorithm: Artificial intelligence in federal administrative agencies. NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper, (20-54). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3551505

Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., et al. (2018). AI4People - An ethical framework for a good AI society. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689-707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5

Fukuyama, F. (2013). What is governance? Governance, 26(3), 347-368. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12035

Janssen, M., & Kuk, G. (2016). The challenges and limits of big data algorithms in technocratic governance. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 371–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.08.011

Janssen, M., Brous, P., Estevez, E., Barbosa, L. S., & Janowski, T. (2020). Data governance: Organizing data for trustworthy artificial intelligence. Government Information Quarterly, 37(3), 101493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101493

Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2010). The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, (5430). World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-5430

Klievink, B., Romijn, B.-J., Cunningham, S., & de Bruijn, H. (2016). Big data in the public sector. Information Systems Frontiers, 24(3), 735-752. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-016-9686-2

La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1999). The quality of government. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 15(1), 222–279. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/15.1.222

Lindgren, I., & van Veenstra, A. F. (2018). Digital government transformation: A case illustrating public e-service development as part of public sector transformation. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Governance in the Data Age (dg.o 2018) (pp. 1-10). New York, NY: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3209281.3209302

Margetts, H., & Dorobantu, C. (2019). Rethink government with AI. Nature, 568(7751), 163-165. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01099-5

Meijer, A., & Bolívar, M. P. R. (2015). Governing the smart city: a review of the literature on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(2), 392-408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314564308

Meijer, A., & Wessels, M. (2019). Predictive policing: Review of benefits and drawbacks. International Journal of Public Administration, 42(12), 1031-1039. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2019.1575664

Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002

Mikalef, P., Krogstie, J., Pappas, I. O., & Pavlou, P. A. (2020). Exploring the Relationship between Big Data Analytics Capability and Competitive Performance: The Mediating Roles of Dynamic and Operational Capabilities. Information & Management, 57(2), 103169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.05.004

North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press.

Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society. Harvard University Press.

Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2017). Public management reform: A comparative analysis - Into the age of austerity (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Rodrik, D., Subramanian, A., & Trebbi, F. (2004). Institutions Rule: The Primacy of Institutions Over Geography and Integration in Economic Development. Journal of Economic Growth, 9(2), 131-165. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOEG.0000031425.72248.85

Scholta, H., Mertens, W., Kowalkiewicz, M., & Becker, J. (2019). From one-stop shop to no-stop shop: An e-government stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 38(2), 101587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.11.010

Sun, T. Q., & Medaglia, R. (2019). Mapping the challenges of AI in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 368-383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.09.008

Valle-Cruz, D., Criado, J. I., Sandoval-Almazán, R., Ruvalcaba-Gomez, E. A. (2020). Assessing the public policy-cycle framework in the age of artificial intelligence: From agenda-setting to policy evaluation. Government Information Quarterly, 37(4), 101509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101509

Veale, M., & Brass, I. (2019). Administration by Algorithm? Public Management Meets Public Sector Machine Learning. In K. Yeung & M. Lodge (Eds.), Algorithmic Regulation (pp. 121–149). Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198838494.003.0006

Walker, R. M. (2006). Innovation type and diffusion: An empirical analysis of local government. Public Administration, 84(2), 311-335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2006.00004.x

Wirtz, B. W., Weyerer, J. C., & Geyer, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence and the public sector-Applications and challenges. International Journal of Public Administration, 42(7), 596-615. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2018.1498103