Qualitative analysis reveals uneven preparedness for algorithmic accountability in administration, indicating challenges in regulatory clarity and governance maturity.
This article examines institutional readiness for algorithmic accountability within Indonesia’s Electronic-Based Government System (SPBE). As automated and data-driven systems increasingly influence administrative decision-making in licensing, social assistance targeting, civil service management, and regulatory supervision, accountability frameworks must evolve beyond conventional bureaucratic models. Using qualitative institutional analysis, the study reviews national regulations, SPBE governance policies, supervisory mandates, audit mechanisms, and recent scholarship on algorithmic governance. Analytical triangulation across legal documents, institutional reports, and peer-reviewed literature is applied to assess readiness through five dimensions: regulatory clarity, oversight infrastructure, operational transparency, audit capacity, and human-in-the-loop safeguards. The findings indicate emerging but uneven preparedness, characterized by regulatory fragmentation, limited specialization in algorithmic auditing, and governance asymmetry across decentralized administrative tiers. The study argues that governance maturity, rather than technological sophistication alone, determines the legitimacy and sustainability of digital government reform in algorithmically mediated environments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kaplale et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: