Authors : Kinkete Mfumabi Hervé; John Ezibe Mbenga

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 3 - March

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/5n8ab9nw

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26mar1903

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Artificial intelligence (AI) governance scholarship has largely emphasized regulatory design, ethical safeguards, and algorithmic accountability while presuming consolidated demographic infrastructures. This article argues that algorithmic sovereignty is structurally conditional upon informational coherence and institutional consolidation. It introduces informational fragility as a structural constraint defined as the systemic incapacity of a state to generate unified, reliable, and interoperable demographic intelligence. Using a Design Science Research approach, the study develops the Sovereign Algorithmic Population Governance (GPAS) framework as an institutional architecture composed of three interdependent pillars: Structural Integrity, Institutionalized Algorithmic Capacity, and Governed Interoperability. These pillars articulate the structural preconditions under which algorithmic sovereignty can emerge as a legitimate property of public authority. The framework is operationalized through the Algorithmic Sovereignty Index (ISA), a theory-driven composite indicator derived from the GPAS architecture. An exploratory cross-national calibration demonstrates operational translatability and reveals systematic differentiation between consolidated and information-fragile governance contexts. A prototype-based institutional simulation illustrates architectural plausibility under defined governance constraints. The findings reposition AI governance as an institutional feasibility problem and conceptualize informational consolidation as a foundational dimension of algorithmic-era state capacity.

Keywords : AI Governance; Algorithmic Sovereignty; Informational Fragility; Digital Government; State Capacity; Data Governance; Interoperability Governance; Institutional Design; Digital Sovereignty; Design Science Research.

References :

1. Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2014). ICT, public values and transformative government: A framework and programme for research. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 119–128.
2. Celeste, E. (2021). Digital constitutionalism: A new systematic theorisation. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 35(1), 76–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2020.1812109
3. Cordella, A., & Paletti, A. (2019). ICTs and value creation in the public sector: Manufacturing logic versus service logic. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 304–312.
4. Criado, J. I., Guevara-Gómez, A., & Villodre, J. (2021). Digital government and platform dependency. Government Information Quarterly, 38(4), 101623.
5. Dunleavy, P., & Margetts, H. (2013). The second wave of digital-era governance. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 371(1987), 20120382.
6. Fukuyama, F. (2013). What is governance? Governance, 26(3), 347–368.
7. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75–105.
8. Janssen, M., & Kuk, G. (2016). The challenges and limits of big data algorithms in public governance. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 371–377.
9. Meijer, A. (2018). Datification, data infrastructures, and the transformation of public administration. Public Administration Review, 78(3), 366–376.
10. Migdal, J. S. (2001). State in society: Studying how states and societies transform and constitute one another. Cambridge University Press.
11. OECD. (2023). Digital government review. OECD Publishing.
12. Rotberg, R. I. (2004). When states fail: Causes and consequences. Princeton University Press.
13. Sun, T. Q., & Medaglia, R. (2023). Mapping the challenges of artificial intelligence in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 40(1), 101775.
14. Valle-Cruz, D., Criado, J. I., & Sandoval-Almazan, R. (2024). Artificial intelligence in government: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Government Information Quarterly, 41(1), 101926.
15. Veale, M., & Brass, I. (2019). Administration by algorithm? Public management meets public sector machine learning. Public Money & Management, 39(5), 1–9.
16. Wirtz, B. W., Weyerer, J. C., & Geyer, C. (2023). Artificial intelligence and the public sector: Applications and challenges. Public Management Review, 25(1), 1–24.
17. World Bank. (2023). GovTech maturity index. World Bank.
18. Zuiderwijk, A., Chen, Y. C., & Salem, F. (2021). Implications of the use of artificial intelligence in public governance. Government Information Quarterly, 38(3), 101577.