Sep 2026· Frontiers in Political Science· 0 citations· 18 references
TL;DR
This Perspective introduces the democratic authorization gap, defined as a break or attenuation in the demonstrable chain connecting legally and democratically grounded public authority to actions selected, sequenced, or executed by an AI agent.
Abstract
Some governments have begun to procure and test artificial intelligence systems that can pursue goals through connected actions. However, publicly documented evidence of mature agentic AI in public administration remains limited, with most initiatives remaining at procurement, pilot, or early deployment stages. This Perspective introduces the democratic authorization gap, defined as a break or attenuation in the demonstrable chain connecting legally and democratically grounded public authority to actions selected, sequenced, or executed by an AI agent. Drawing on democratic delegation, accountability, administrative law, and recent agentic-AI scholarship, the article distinguishes this prospective, authority-based problem from responsibility gaps and technical authorization. It identifies four mechanisms through which the gap may develop: mandate translation, recursive delegation, action diffusion, and contestability lag. Five governance conditions are proposed for the pilot stage: bounded authorization, permission inheritance, action-level traceability, named institutional responsibility, and operational interruption with reversible redress. The argument is anticipatory rather than empirical. Following the Collingridge dilemma, limited evidence before large-scale deployment provides a reason to establish governance conditions while institutional choices remain open.
Artificial intelligence governance often treats permission as though it completes the problem of authority. Yet a system may be technically capable of acting, connected to operational resources, and supported by an earlier approval while the proposed action is no longer institutionally legitimate when execution occurs....
A growing literature on “agentic AI” — autonomous software agents that plan and execute multi-step actions on a principal’s behalf — has revived the thesis that such systems open a responsibility gap: because the deploying principal neither intends, foresees, nor controls the specific actions an autonomous agent select...
The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed digital twins (DTs) from passive simulation models into systems that can support perception, reasoning, planning, and coordination, as well as action, in some settings. However, the integration of agentic AI with DTs creates governance challenges invol...
Ali A. Alnoman, A. Khwaja, A. Anpalagan et al.· Future Internet· 0 citations
The proliferation of agentic artificial intelligence (AI) systems autonomous, goal-directed agents capable of acting with minimal human oversight, has exposed fundamental inadequacies in existing civil liability frameworks. Traditional tort, product liability, and custodian regimes struggle to accommodate systems whose...
Emma Lunardi· 2026 IEEE 34th International...· 0 citations
The paper contributes a decision-level theory of enterprise AI governance and provides managers with an auditable method for allocating rights, responsibilities, evidence, and lifecycle controls.
Fang Sun· ICCK Transactions on Systems...· 0 citations
A feasibility-first framework for admissible-state reasoning within Deterministic Systems Intelligence (DSI) is developed, which distinguishes continuity with earlier DSI release-governance work from a further theoretical question: whether an institution is justified in exercising consequential authority through a prop...
A. Adefolalu· AI and Ethics· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.