Administrative sovereignty in the age of algorithmic governance: challenges and prospects for policy autonomy of the BRICS states
- Authors: Moundekar B.R.1, Sharma G.S.1
-
Affiliations:
- MIT Art, Design & Technology University
- Issue: Vol 12, No 4 (2025): RUSSIAN TRANSFORMATION: POLITICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS
- Pages: 502-508
- Section: INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
- URL: https://ogarev-online.ru/2312-8313/article/view/365372
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-8313-2025-12-4-502-508
- EDN: https://elibrary.ru/LMPWZM
- ID: 365372
Cite item
Full Text
Abstract
Governments worldwide are increasingly turning to artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithmic systems to improve service delivery, manage resources, and respond to citizens’ needs. These tools promise efficiency, precision, and cost savings, making them highly attractive for policymakers. However, for particularly emerging digital powers like India and Russia - the rapid spread of algorithmic governance raises a critical dilemma: can these countries harness innovation without eroding their own administrative and policy autonomy? This study explores algorithmic governance as the integration of AI into decision-making in public administration. While such systems have the potential to modernize governance, they also pose risks to administrative sovereignty, especially when states depend heavily on foreign technologies. In developing contexts, structural weaknesses such as fragile institutions, limited domestic innovation, and reliance on global technology firms intensify this vulnerability. Drawing on theories of technological determinism, bureaucratic autonomy, and digital colonialism, the study examines India and Russia as case studies. The findings reveal opportunities for efficiency and transparency but also highlight risks of exclusion, bias, and dependency. The study argues that the tension between modernization and autonomy demands a framework for algorithmic sovereignty, which emphasizes ethical AI use, domestic technological development, and institutional safeguards to ensure that technology serves governance rather than governs it.
About the authors
Bhargav R. Moundekar
MIT Art, Design & Technology University
Author for correspondence.
Email: himanshu0701rm@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0009-0005-8728-0483
Associate Professor, MIT School of Indian Civil Services
Rajbaug Educational Campus, Loni Kalbhor, Pune, 412201, IndiaGauri S. Sharma
MIT Art, Design & Technology University
Email: gaurisharma.ml.m@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0009-0007-9917-2986
Student, MIT School of Indian Civil Services
Rajbaug Educational Campus, Loni Kalbhor, Pune, 412201, IndiaReferences
- Sætra HS. A shallow defence of a technocracy of artificial intelligence: examining the political harms of algorithmic governance in the domain of government. Technology in Society. 2020;62:101283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101283 EDN: TLFEKU
- Wirtz BW, Weyerer JC, Geyer C. artificial intelligence and the public sector - applications and challenges. International Journal of Public Administration. 2019;42(7):596-615. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2018.1498103
- Morozov E. To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism. New York: Public Affairs; 2013.
- Couldry N, Mejias UA. Data colonialism: rethinking big data’s relation to the contemporary subject. Television New Media. 2019;20(4):336-349. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476418796632
- Bigo D, Isin E, Ruppert E. Data Politics: Worlds, Subjects, Rights. London: Routledge; 2019.
- Narayanan A, Vallor S. Why software engineering courses should include ethics coverage. Communications of the ACM. 2014;57(3):23-25. https://doi.org/10.1145/2566966
- Danaher J. The threat of algocracy: reality, resistance and accommodation. Philosophy & Technology. 2016;29(3):245-268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-015-0211-1 EDN: SSAYVR
Supplementary files


