Follow Us on Google
As governments across the world accelerate the adoption of artificial intelligence, an expert in public administration and AI governance has called for the establishment of a dedicated field of expertise to equip public servants with the knowledge required to manage the technology responsibly.
In a lengthy analysis, he argued that the growing use of AI in government operations has exposed a gap between technological advancement and the capacity of public institutions to oversee its application, warning that conventional training programmes may not be sufficient to address the challenge.
He said AI governance should become a recognised specialty within public administration, with dedicated academic programmes, professional standards and research frameworks that governments and public servants can apply across different institutions.
According to him, the challenge is not simply a lack of technical knowledge but the absence of a structured professional discipline that prepares administrators to assess AI-related risks, establish appropriate oversight mechanisms and ensure accountability in public service delivery.
Citing a global survey of public servants across 170 countries, the expert noted that 43 per cent of leaders in countries with the highest levels of AI readiness had no AI adoption strategy, while only about a quarter of those implementing AI systems reported familiarity with ethical AI frameworks.
He said the findings highlighted the extent of the challenge, even among countries considered advanced in their preparedness for AI adoption.
He also pointed to research examining postgraduate public management curricula across different continents, which found that the integration of AI into public administration training remained uneven and inadequate in many institutions.
According to him, the situation suggests that while AI is increasingly becoming part of government operations, the education and professional development systems responsible for preparing public servants have yet to respond adequately.
The expert acknowledged that some universities had begun introducing specialised master’s programmes combining public administration with AI governance, describing such initiatives as important steps towards developing the expertise required.
However, he maintained that individual academic programmes would not, on their own, establish the professional foundation needed to guide AI adoption across government institutions.
He explained that a recognised field of expertise would provide shared frameworks, an expanding body of research and professional standards that define the competencies expected of public servants responsible for AI governance.
Without such a structure, he said, government agencies risk developing separate approaches to AI risk assessment, oversight and staff training, often duplicating work already undertaken by other institutions.
Other News
He warned that this fragmented approach could lead to the inefficient use of public resources, particularly when governments independently develop solutions to similar governance challenges without access to transferable knowledge and established professional standards.
The expert also stressed the need to design AI governance frameworks for smaller public institutions that lack the financial resources, legal departments and technical personnel available to larger government agencies.
He said a field that primarily serves well-funded national institutions would fail to address the needs of many public servants responsible for implementing government policies and delivering essential services.
He argued that administrators working with limited personnel and technical support should have access to practical frameworks that enable them to assess AI systems, manage risks and maintain accountability.
Beyond institutional efficiency, the expert identified public trust and service delivery as major reasons governments should take AI governance seriously.
He noted that decisions involving access to public benefits, the availability of government services and citizens’ ability to challenge administrative decisions could increasingly be influenced by AI systems.
Without adequate expertise and oversight, he warned, the use of AI could undermine public confidence in government institutions and produce inconsistent outcomes for citizens.
He compared the challenge to earlier developments in public administration that led to the establishment of specialised knowledge in public budgeting, programme evaluation and public sector ethics.
According to him, AI governance represents another defining moment for the profession, requiring a deliberate effort to build transferable expertise rather than allowing individual agencies to develop their own approaches in isolation.
He maintained that developing AI governance as a recognised field would help public institutions prepare for the technology’s growing role while ensuring that efficiency and innovation do not come at the expense of accountability and responsible administration.
He added that the central question was no longer whether public administration would need specialised AI governance expertise, but how quickly the profession could develop it to minimise avoidable harm to public trust and government service delivery.
