Abstract
The increasing adoption of algorithmic decision-making systems in social welfare administration raises fundamental questions about fairness, transparency, and accountability. This article examines the ethical implications of automated systems used for welfare eligibility determination, fraud detection, and benefit allocation in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Drawing on critical algorithm studies and public administration ethics, we analyse how these systems affect welfare recipients and administrative practice.
Key Findings
The analysis reveals that algorithmic systems in welfare administration can reproduce and amplify existing social inequalities, particularly along lines of race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Opacity in algorithmic design and decision-making processes undermines procedural justice principles, while the delegation of discretionary authority to automated systems raises fundamental questions about democratic accountability. The research also identifies cases where algorithmic tools have been used to implement austerity policies by tightening eligibility criteria and increasing fraud detection rates.
Methodology
The study combines analysis of algorithmic system documentation and audit reports with interviews with 30 welfare administrators and 40 welfare recipients in both countries. Legal and policy analysis examines the regulatory frameworks governing algorithmic welfare systems.
Implications
The findings argue for the development of ethical guidelines and regulatory frameworks specifically addressing the use of algorithms in social welfare, with emphasis on transparency, human oversight, and the right to explanation for affected individuals.
