Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This article examines how artificial-intelligence-enabled public services may affect administrative performance, government accountability and citizens’ trust in Uzbekistan. It argues that digitisation and faster service delivery do not automatically generate institutional trust. Trust is more plausibly sustained when service quality is accompanied by procedural fairness, lawful data use, intelligible explanations, meaningful human review and effective remedies. The study combines documentary analysis, a comparative review of international governance standards and a conceptual policy framework. It analyses Uzbekistan’s national AI strategy to 2030, the 2026 legal amendments governing AI use, the United Nations E-Government Survey, the World Bank’s GovTech framework, OECD research on trust in public institutions, and UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. The article develops a three-part analytical model linking digital service quality, public-sector accountability and citizen trust. As no original survey or administrative microdata have been collected for this paper, its propositions are presented as hypotheses rather than established causal findings. The final section proposes a risk-based governance framework for Uzbekistan, including an AI-system register, impact assessments, human oversight, accessible appeals, independent audits and public reporting of measurable outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
O'g'li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: