Diseño de políticas de inteligencia artificial, modos de gobernanza y regímenes políticos
Comparar espacios de diseño en América Latina
Resumen
Los gobiernos están diseñando políticas de inteligencia artificial (IA) con la intención de facilitar la transformación digital y dar respuesta a los diversos desafíos éticos y regulatorios que surgen con la penetración de esta tecnología en la sociedad. Este artículo tiene como objetivo analizar la dinámica del diseño de políticas centradas en las estrategias nacionales de IA en América Latina. Para ello, parte de la premisa de que las diferentes dinámicas de los regímenes políticos y modos de gobernanza dan forma a distintos espacios de diseño. En el trabajo se comparan las estrategias nacionales de IA en los casos ilustrativos de la Argentina, Brasil, Chile, Colombia, México y Uruguay a partir de su análisis documental, para identificar las características de los espacios de diseño aplicados en la región. Los hallazgos indican que, efectivamente, el funcionamiento disímil entre los regímenes políticos y los modos de gobernanza en los países latinoamericanos delimitan diferentes resultados para las políticas de IA.
Abstract
Governments are designing policies for artificial intelligence intending to facilitate the digital transformation and respond to the diverse ethical and regulatory challenges that emerge with the penetration of this technology in society. This paper aims to analyze the policy design dynamics focusing national strategies for artificial intelligence in Latin America. This paper starts from the premise that different dynamics of political regimes and governance modes shape different design spaces, which create action situations that assign different dynamics of policy design. The paper compares national strategies for artificial intelligence in Latin America, comprising the illustrative cases of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Uruguay. The research was based on documentary analysis of these national strategies to identify the characteristics and dynamics of the design spaces applied to AI policies in Latin America. The research findings indicate that the dynamics between political regimes and governance modes in Latin American countries delimit different outcomes for AI policy.
Descargas
Citas
Acciai, C. (2021). The politics of research and innovation: understanding unstrument choices in complex governance environments – the case of France and Italy. Research Policy, 50(9), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104254
Alberts, S., Dávila, M. & Valenzuela, A. (2021). Modernizing the state to strengthen democracy: public sector reforms in Chile. En B. G. Peters, C. A. Tercedor y C. Ramos (Eds.), The emerald handbook of public administration in Latin America (pp. 81-114). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83982-676-420201005
Allen, J. R. & Husain, A. (3 de noviembre de 2017). The next space race is artificial intelligence. Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/11/03/the-next-space-race-is-artificial-intelligence-and-america-is-losingto-china/38
Ames, B. (1987). Political survival. Politicians and public policy in Latin America. University of California Press.
Arkin, R. C., Kaelbling, L., Russell, S. J., Sadigh, D., Scharre, P., Selman, B. & Walsh, T. (21 de octubre de 2019). A path towards reasonable autonomous weapons regulation. IEEE Spectrum. https://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/artificial-intelligence/a-path-towards-reasonable-autonomous-weapons-regulation
Arretche, M. (2013). Demos-constraining or demos-enabling federalism? Political institutions and policy change in Brazil. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 5(2), 133-150. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1866802X1300500205
Béland, D. (2019). How ideas and institutions shape the politics of public policy. Cambridge University Press.
Bersch, K. (2019). When democracy deliver. Governance reform in Latin America. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108559638
Brinks, D., Murillo, M. V. & Levitsky, S. (2019). Understanding institutional weakness. Cambridge University Press.
Calvo, E. & Murillo, M. V. (2013). When parties meet voters: assessing political linkages through partisan networks and distributive expectations in Argentina and Chile. Comparative Political Studies, 46(7), 851-882. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0010414012463882
Capano, G. (2017). Policy design spaces in reforming governance in higher education: the dynamics in Italy and the Netherlands. Higher Education, 75, 675-694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0158-5
Coronado, S. (2019). Rights in the time of populism: land and institutional change amid the reemergence of right-wing authoritarianism in Colombia. Land, 8(8), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3390/land8080119
Dai, X. (2020). Enforcing law and norms for good citizens: one view of China’s social credit system project. Development, 63, 38-43. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41301-020-00244-2
De la Torre, C. (2016). Populism and the politics of extraordinary in Latin America. Journal of Political Ideologies, 21(2), 121-139. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569317.2016.1150137
De Nardis, L. (2014). The global war for internet governance. Yale University Press.
Domingos, P. (2015). The master algorithm. How the quest for ultimate machine learning will remake our world. Basic Books.
Donahoe, E. & Metzger, M. M. (2019). Artificial intelligence and human rights. Journal of Democracy, 30(2), 115-126. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2019.0029
Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 11(3), 147-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(82)90016-6
Dryzek, J. S. (2013). The politics of earth. Environmental discourses. Oxford University Press.
Edler, J., Cunningham, P., Gök, A. & Shapira, P. (2016). Handbook of innovation policy impact. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Edquist, C. & Borrás, S. (2013). The choice of innovation policy instruments. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(8), 1513-1522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.03.002
Filgueiras, F. (2021). New pythias of public administration: ambiguity and choice in AY systems as challenges for governance. AI & Society, 36, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01201-4
Filgueiras, F., Koga, N. & Viana, R. (2020). State capacities and policy work in brazilian civil service. Revista de Sociologia e Política, 28(74), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-987319277404
Gidron, N. & Hall, P. A. (2019). Populism as a problem of social integration. Comparative Political Studies, 53(7), 1027-1059. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414019879947
Grindle, M. (2011). Governance reform: the new analytics of next steps. Governance: an International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 24(3), 415-418. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2011.01540.x
Howlett, M. P. (2011). Designing public policies: principles and instruments. Routledge.
Howlett, M. P. (2014). From old to new policy design: design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance. Policy Sciences, 47(3), 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-014-9199-0
Howlett, M. P. (2019). Designing public policies. Principles and instruments. Routledge.
Howlett, M. P. & Mukherjee, I. (2014). Policy design and non-design: towards a spectrum of policyf types. Politics and Governance, 2(2), 57–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.17645/pag.v2i2.149
Howlett, M. P. & Capano, G. (2020). The knows and unknows of policy instruments analysis: policy tools and the current research agenda on policy mixes. Sage Open, 10(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019900568
Howlett, M. P., Mukherjee, I. & Woo, J. J. (2015). From tools to toolkits in policy design studies: the new design orientation towards policy formulation research. Policy & Politics, 43(2), 291-311. https://doi.org/10.1332/147084414X13992869118596
Howlett, M. P. & Rayner, J. (2013). Patching vs. packaging in policy formulation: assessing policy portfolio design. Politics and Governance, 1(2), 170- 182. http://dx.doi.org/10.17645/pag.v1i2.95
Howlett, M. P. (2009). Governance modes, policy regimes, and operational plans: a multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design. Policy Sciences, 42(1), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-009-9079-1
Hunter, W. & Power, T. (2019). Bolsonaro and Brazil’s illiberal backlash. Journal of Democracy, 30(1), 68-82. http://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2019.0005
Karl, T. (1990). Dilemmas of democratization in Latin America. Comparative Politics, 23(1), 1-21.
Keohane, R. & Nye, J. (1998). Power and interdependence in the information age. Foreign Affairs, 77(5), 81-94.
Lacey, N. (2019). Populism and the rule of law. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 15, 79-96. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-042919
Lanzaro, J. (2004). Foundations of pluralist democracy and political structure of the state in Uruguay. Revista Uruguaya de Ciencia Política, 14(1), 103-135. http://socialsciences.scielo.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0797-97892006000100002
Levitsky, S. & Murillo, M. V. (2014). Building institutions in weak foundations: lessons from Latin America. En D. Brinks, M. Leiras & S. Mainwaring (Eds.), Reflections on uneven democracies. The legacy of Guillermo O’Donnell. John Hopkins University Press.
Mainwaring, S. & Pérez-Liñan, A. (2005). Latin America democratization since 1978: democratic transitions, breakdowns, and erosions. En F. Hagopian & S. Mainwaring (Eds.), The third wave of democratization in Latin America: advances and setbacks. Cambridge University Press.
Mainwaring, S. & Scully, T. (2008). Latin America. Eight lessons for governance. Journal of Democracy, 19(3), 113-127. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.0.0001
Malerba, F. & Orsenigo, L. (1997). Technological regimes and sectoral patterns of innovative activities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 6(1), 83-117. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/6.1.83
March, J. G. & Olsen, J. P. (2009). The logic of appropriateness. En R. E. Goodin (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Science. Oxford University Press.
May, P. J. & Jochim, A. E. (2013). Policy regime perspectives: policies, politics, and governing. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 426-452. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12024
Mergel, I., Edelman, N. & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from Experts Interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002
Mueller, M. L. (2010). Networks and states. The global politics of internet governance. MIT Press.
Newman, J. & Nurfazia, M. W. (2020). Policy design, non-design, and anti-design: the regulation of e-cigarettes in India. Policy Studies, 42. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2019.1708887
Nye, J. S. (2014). The regime complex for managing global cyber activities (paper series no. 1). Global Commission on Internet Governance. https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/gcig_paper_no1.pdf
O’Donnell, G., Schmitter, P. & Whitehead, L. (1986). Transitions from authoritarian rule. Latin America. John Hopkins University Press.
Oszlak, O. (2021). Reforma y modernización del Estado en América Latina. Tendencias y escenarios. CLAD.
Peneder, M. (2010). Technological regimes and the variety of innovation behaviour. Creating integrated taxonomies of firms and sectors (WIFO Working Papers n° 362). Austrian Institute of Economic Research.
Peters, B. G. (2018). Policy problems and policy design. Edward Elgar.
Peters, B. G. & Pierre, J. (2020). A typology of populism: understanding the different forms of populism and their implications. Democratization, 27, 928-946. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2020.1751615
Pierson, P. (2004). Politics in time. History, institutions, and social analysis. Princeton University Press.42
Radaelli, C. M. & Dunlop, C. A. (2013). Learning in the European Union: theoretical lenses and meta-theory. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(6), 923- 940. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2013.781832
Ramos, C., Milanesi, A. & Ibarra, D. G. (2021). Public Administration in Uruguay: Modernization in slow motion. En B. G. Peters, C. A. Tercedor & C. Ramos (eds.), The emerald handbook of public administration in Latin America (pp. 229-258). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83982-676-420201010
Renteria, C. y Arellano-Gault, D. 2021. ¿Cómo interpreta y enfrenta un gobierno populista una crisis de salud? Evidencia de la respuesta populista mexicana a la COVID-19. Revista de Administração Pública, 55(1), 180- 196. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-761220200524
Rip, A. & Kemp, R. (1998). Technological change. En S. Rayner & E. L. Malone (Eds.), Human choice and climate change: Vol. II, Resources and technology (pp. 327-399). Batelle Press.
Roberts, H., Cowls, J., Morley, J., Taddeo, M., Wang, V. & Floridi, L. (2021). The chinese approach to artificial intelligence: an analysis of policy, ethics, and regulation. AI & Society, 36(1), 59-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00992-2
Roberts, K. (2006). Populism, political conflict, and grass-roots organization in Latin America. Comparative Politics, 38(2), 127-148. https://doi.org/10.2307/20433986
Rockman, B. (2019). Bureaucracy between populism and technocracy. Administration & Society, 51(10), 1546-1575. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0095399719874758
Russell, S. J. (2019). Human compatible. Artificial intelligence and the problem of control. Viking.
Schmitter, P. (1992). The consolidation of democracy and the representation of social groups. American Behavioral Scientist, 35(4/5), 422-449.
Schneider, B. R. (2015). The developmental state in Brazil: comparative and historical perspectives. Revista de Economía Política, 35(1), 114-32.
Treib, O., Bähr, H. & Falkner, G. (2007). Modes of governance: towards a conceptual clarification. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/135017606061071406
Urbinati, N. (2019). Political theory of populism. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 111-127. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050317-070753
Vial, G. (2019). Understanding digital transformation: a review and a research agenda. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2), 118-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2019.01.003
Whittingham, M. V. (2021). Colombia: public administration in the midst of uncertainty. En B. G. Peters, C. A. Tercedor & C. Ramos (Eds.), The Emerald Handbook of Public Administration in Latin America (pp. 115- 145). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83982-676-420201006
Wigell, M. (2017). Political effects of welfare pluralism: comparative evidence from Argentina and Chile. World Development, 95, 27-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.02.020
Zurbriggen, C. (2014). Governance a Latin America perspective. Policy & Society, 33(4), 345-360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2014.10.004
Documentos
Agencia de Gobierno Electrónico y Sociedad de la Información y del Conocimiento (2019). Plan de Gobierno Digital Uruguay 2020. https://www.gub.uy/agencia-gobierno-electronico-sociedad-informacion-conocimiento/politicas-y-gestion/plan-de-gobierno-digital-uruguay-2020
Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología, Conocimiento e Innovación de Chile (2021). Política Nacional de Inteligencia Artificial. https://www.minciencia.gob.cl/legacy-files/borrador_politica_nacional_de_ia.pdf
Centro Latinoamericano de Administración para el Desarrollo (8 de octubre de 2020). Carta iberoamericana para innovación en la gestión pública. Aprobada por la xix Conferencia Iberoamericana de Ministras y Ministros de la Administración Pública y Reforma del Estado. https://clad.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Carta-Iberoamericana-de-Innovacion-10-2020.pdf
Coalición IA2030Mx (2020). Agenda Nacional Mexicana de Inteligencia Artificial. https://36dc704c-0d61-4da0-87fa-917581cbce16.filesusr.com/ugd/7be025_6f45f669e2fa4910b32671a001074987.pdf
Colombia (2019). Política Nacional para la Transformación Digital e Inteligencia Artificial. Consejo Nacional de Política Económica y Social, República de Colombia. https://colaboracion.dnp.gov.co/CDT/Conpes/Econ%C3%B3micos/3975.pdf
Gómez Mont, C., May Del Pozo, C., Martínez Pinto, C. & Martín del Campo Alcocer, M. V. (2020). Artificial intelligence for social good in Latin America and the Caribbean: the regional landscape and 12 country snapshots. IADB, C MINDS. https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/Artificial-Intelligence-for-Social-Good-in-Latin-America-and-the-Caribbean-The-Regional-Landscape-and-12-Country-Snapshots.pdf
Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação de Brasil (2021). Estratégia Brasileira de Inteligência Artificial. https://www.gov.br/mcti/pt-br/acompanhe-o-mcti/transformacaodigital/arquivosinteligenciaartificial/ia_portaria_mcti_4-617_2021.pdf
Oxford Insights (2020). Government AI readiness index. Oxford University, IDRC/CRDI. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58b2e92c1e5b6c828058484e/t/5f7747f29ca3c20ecb598f7c/1601653137399/AI+Readiness+Report.pdf
Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos (2019a). Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence. OECD Publishing. https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0449
Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos (2019b). AI in society. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/publications/artificial-intelligence-in-society-eedfee77-en.htm
Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos (2019c). Digital government index. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/gov/digital-government-index-4de9f5bb-en.htm#:~:text=The%20Digital%20Government%20Index%202019,across%20OECD%20Member%20and%20key
Presidencia de la Nación Argentina (2019). Plan Nacional para Inteligencia Artificial. https://ia-latam.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Plan-Nacional-de-Inteligencia-Artificial.pdf
La Revista Estado Abierto y su contenido se brindan bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-No Comercial 2.5 Argentina.Es posible copiar, comunicar y distribuir públicamente su contenido siempre que se cite a los autores individuales y el nombre de esta publicación, así como la institución editorial. El contenido de la Revista Estado Abierto no puede utilizarse con fines comerciales.
