|
|
|
|
| LEADER |
02422nma a2200481 u 4500 |
| 001 |
EB002246015 |
| 003 |
EBX01000000000000001382853 |
| 005 |
00000000000000.0 |
| 007 |
cr||||||||||||||||||||| |
| 008 |
241203 ||| eng |
| 100 |
1 |
|
|a Verhagen, Annelore
|
| 245 |
0 |
0 |
|a Using AI to manage minimum income benefits and unemployment assistance
|h Elektronische Ressource
|b Opportunities, risks and possible policy directions
|c Annelore, Verhagen
|
| 260 |
|
|
|a Paris
|b OECD Publishing
|c 2024
|
| 300 |
|
|
|a 53 p.
|c 21 x 28cm
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Sweden
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Employment
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Australia
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Netherlands
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Canada
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Social Issues/Migration/Health
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Costa Rica
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Governance
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Colombia
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Czechia
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Estonia
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Austria
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Belgium
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Finland
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a United Kingdom
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a New Zealand
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Denmark
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Germany
|
| 653 |
|
|
|a Brazil
|
| 041 |
0 |
7 |
|a eng
|2 ISO 639-2
|
| 989 |
|
|
|b OECD
|a OECD Books and Papers
|
| 490 |
0 |
|
|a OECD Artificial Intelligence Papers
|
| 028 |
5 |
0 |
|a 10.1787/718c93a1-en
|
| 856 |
4 |
0 |
|a oecd-ilibrary.org
|u https://doi.org/10.1787/718c93a1-en
|x Verlag
|3 Volltext
|
| 082 |
0 |
|
|a 304
|
| 082 |
0 |
|
|a 320
|
| 082 |
0 |
|
|a 330
|
| 082 |
0 |
|
|a 610
|
| 520 |
|
|
|a While means-tested benefits such as minimum income benefits (MIB) and unemployment assistance (UA) are an essential safety net for low-income people and the unemployed, incomplete take-up is the rule rather than the exception. Building on desk research, open-ended surveys and semi-structured interviews, this paper investigates the opportunities and risks of using artificial intelligence (AI) for managing these means-tested benefits. This ranges from providing information to individuals, through determining eligibility based on pre-determined statutory criteria and identifying undue payments, to notifying individuals about their eligibility status. One of the key opportunities of using AI for these purposes is that this may improve the timeliness and take-up of MIB and UA. However, it may also lead to systematically biased eligibility assessments or increase inequalities, amongst others. Finally, the paper explores potential policy directions to help countries seize AI's opportunities while addressing its risks, when using it for MIB or UA management
|