Discover Artificial Intelligence

Perspective

The Brazilian (Non)perspective on national strategy for artificial

intelligence
Fernando Filgueiras1,2 · Tainá Aguiar Junquilho3

Received: 22 December 2022 / Accepted: 10 February 2023

© The Author(s) 2023  OPEN

Abstract
This article examines the design dynamics and process of the Brazilian National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence (EBIA).
We argue that Brazil has a long history of policies for digital development, covering a range of policies that encourage
research and development and deploy AI-based digital technologies in industry and governments. Specifically for the
AI policy, we analyze how these policies are fragmented into different initiatives without an approach to integrating the
instruments and their mixes. We analyze how and why the Brazilian National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence design
fails to implement and create an integrated perspective of these policies. This perspective for AI policy in Brazil results
in fragmentation and failures to involve actors in the formulation and implementation process. The article concludes
that the Brazilian perspective for artificial intelligence, emerging with EBIA, reproduces a situation of path dependence
without promoting significant policy changes for the development and application of this technology in society.

Keywords AI policy · National strategies · Policy change · Policy instruments · Brazil

1 Introduction

Brazil has advanced its digital agenda since the 1990s. The first effort in this direction was the Information Technology
Acts—Law 8248 [1] and 8387 [2], from 1991. Both acts instrumentalized digital development through tax incentives
for companies that implemented research and development in hardware and automation. In addition, this legislation
instrumentalized the creation of networks between companies and universities for digital development, with a particular
interest in developing hardware and beginning automation processes for industry.
Before that, Brazil already had an extensive digital infrastructure and a long history in data collection, storage, process-
ing, and sharing. In 1964, the Data Processing Service (SERPRO) was created, a public company of the Federal Govern-
ment that collects and processes various data, ranging from census data, economic and commercial transaction data,
social data, and data from different public policy domains and administrative registers. In addition to SERPRO, since
1973, Brazil has had Dataprev, another public company that collects, stores, and processes data from Brazil’s entire social
protection system.
The Brazilian government formulates policies to promote long-term digital development based on this data infrastruc-
ture and tax incentives for developers. In addition, the Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovations, and Communications
provides funding for network research and development, such as, for example, the National Network for Education and

* Fernando Filgueiras, fernandofilgueiras@ufg.br; Tainá Aguiar Junquilho, taina.aguiarj@gmail.com | 1Federal University of Goiás, Goiânia,
GO, Brazil. 2National School of Public Administration, Brasília, DF, Brazil. 3Braziliense Institute for Development, Research and Education
(IDP), Brasília, DF, Brazil.

Discover Artificial Intelligence (2023) 3:7 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-023-00052-w

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Perspective Discover Artificial Intelligence (2023) 3:7 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-023-00052-w

Research (RNP), constituting collaborative networks and access to computational and data infrastructure. These policies
have achieved outcomes for developing hardware and software, with a particular interest in industrial automation pro-
cesses, deployment of digital technologies in governments and markets, and encouraging and accelerating technological
development. In addition to these policies, Brazil accelerated the deployment of the Internet in the 1990s, ranging from
the privatization of public communication companies and governance rules for global network connection.
In the mid-2010s, a disruptive legislation in this regard was the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet—Law 12965 of
2014 [3]—which introduced innovative mechanisms for a multistakeholder governance and which became a regulatory
model, since it allowed a balance between innovation and secure development of this digital world. The construction of
the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet followed a whole mode of participation by society and stakeholders, based on
holding public hearings and public consultations to listen to the population before and after the publication of the act.
Considering this long trajectory of policies for digital development, Brazil has changed different elements of public
policies to package these policies around the idea of digital transformation. Digital transformation is a broad idea that
emerged from the 2010s and that guides the adoption of disruptive digital technologies to change business models in
markets and industries, as well as the provision of public services and public policies in governments [4]. Brazil revised
the Information Technology Acts, removing bureaucratic barriers that facilitate the acceleration of digital transformation,
with a particular interest in research and development on artificial intelligence. The New Information Technology Acts—
Law 13674 of 2018 [5] and Law 13969 of 2019 [6] —expanded the scope of tax incentives, including the development
of artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, the internet of things, blockchain, and other data-based technologies,
going beyond an idea of automation.
In addition to implementing tax incentives driven by the idea of digital transformation, the Brazilian government
began to redesign digital development policy based on benchmarks formulated in the international arena, especially
with the guidelines of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) [7, 8]. The OECD dis-
seminated comprehensive digital transformation policy with the Brazilian government in order to create incentives for
digital development, adoption of artificial intelligence and platformization of governments, guides for data governance,
cooperation with the private sector, and models of technological governance involving stakeholders from the private
sector, academia, and governments.
Another interesting recent policy promoted by the Brazilian government to stimulate the safe development of new
technologies is available in the Legal Framework for Startups. This legal instrument provides regulatory sandboxes as
a support mechanism and reliable testing of new technologies. Regulatory sandboxes for testing artificial intelligence-
based solutions have been applied by the Brazilian Central Bank, especially for fintechs (financial technology, startups
that develops different solutions to the financial sector) and insurance regulation.
On artificial intelligence, there are different effects regarding the one development. Although this technology has
become pervasive in different sectors of the Brazilian economy and society, the country ranks 19th in the AI Vibrancy
Ranking, organized by Stanford University.1 AI policies in Brazil are motivated by increasing economic competitiveness,
outlining strategic actions that expand the presence of AI in different sectors of society. Brazil has advanced policy agen-
das for artificial intelligence going beyond tax incentives. The Brazilian government has created centers of excellence for
AI development, public funds to accelerate research at universities, collaborative networks, development ecosystems,
and change institutional frameworks for data access and sharing, incorporating privacy and data protection concerns [9].
These policy initiatives2 have produced results that gradually make artificial intelligence pervasive in the Brazilian
society. For example, cities like Fortaleza, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Florianópolis, and Salvador3 have gradually deployed
systems based on facial recognition technology with direct applications in security policy. Another example is how the
Brazilian Central Bank has accelerated the development of fintechs, creating regulatory mechanisms that encourage
technologies applied to the financial and insurance market. Another example is how Brazil has encouraged national
e-commerce, with platforms based on artificial intelligence, to produce personalization and optimization of commercial

1
https://​aiind​ex.​stanf​ord.​edu/​vibra​ncy/#:​~:​text=​The%​20Glo​bal%​20AI%​20Vib​rancy%​20Too​l,29%​20cou​ntries%​20acr​oss%​2023%​20ind​icato​rs.
2
In this link one can find a list of centers of excellence created for the development of Artificial Intelligence for the most diverse areas such as
agriculture, health, etc. Available in: https://​www.​gov.​br/​mcti/​pt-​br/​acomp​anhe-o-​mcti/​trans​forma​caodi​gital/​intel​igenc​ia-​artif​i cial-​centr​os.
3
Available in: https://​thein​terce​pt.​com/​2021/​09/​20/​rui-​costa-​esta-​trans​forma​ndo-a-​bahia-​em-​um-​labor​atorio-​de-​vigil​ancia-​com-​recon​
hecim​ento-​facial/ and in https://​www1.​folha.​uol.​com.​br/​cotid​iano/​2022/​11/​metro-​de-​sp-​vai-​comec​ar-a-​usar-​recon​hecim​ento-​facial-​na-​
linha-3.​shtml

13
Vol:.(1234567890)
Discover Artificial Intelligence (2023) 3:7 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-023-00052-w Perspective

relationships. Governments have adopted machine learning algorithms to optimize decision-making and task accom-
plishment, which change the entire governmental process of policy formulation and implementation through govern-
ment platformization [10]. The Judiciary has been using systems based on machine learning algorithms to recommend
decisions and optimize judicial procedures [11]. In Brazilian society, artificial intelligence is gradually pervasive in gov-
ernments, the economy, industry, and markets, changing various aspects of society.
However, artificial intelligence policy in Brazil tend to reproduce a more corporatist governance style, in which some
organizations benefit from participating in the governance of technology development.4 This corporatist governance,
that is, the set of processes, policies, laws, procedures, regulations and institutions that regulate the way an organization
is run, reproduces a long trajectory of modernization and industrialization of Brazilian society since the 1930s. In the case
of policies related to the technology domain, they reproduce a long pathway of modernization policies with the busi-
ness organizations based on a corporatist model [12, 13]. This corporatist dynamic tends to reinforce situations of path
dependence and increase barriers to the entry of new actors in this artificial intelligence development market [14]. This
path dependence produces increasing returns and situations that hinder new actors in the digital development scene.
Additionally, policies for artificial intelligence present incoherent and inconsistent elements, producing sparse results
for digital transformation [9]. Although Brazilian government implements different initiatives and policies to promote
digital development, these policies need to be more coherent and consistent concerning concrete outcomes that favor
the framing of artificial intelligence for the Brazilian social reality.
Considering this institutional context and the policy trajectory for digital development, in 2018, the Brazilian govern-
ment opened a public consultation on the achievement of a Brazilian National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence (EBIA).
This Brazilian strategy aims to produce a more robust institutional framework that integrates different policy initiatives
coherently and consistently with digital development objectives. Moreover, the Brazilian strategy is associated with
developing an institutional framework that establishes the fundamental lines of AI regulation, defining ethical frame-
works, and proposing guiding principles for technological development.
Throughout the article, we seek to demonstrate how the EBIA fails because it proposes fragmented policies that are
characterized by being ineffective, but popular (while the unpopular ones encounter resistance); that eventually serve
to put out fires, but not to avoid crises and provide development and because it does not present an important factor
in this type of document, that is, the evaluation of previous public policies [15].
In other words, the EBIA intends to produce policy change based on integrating different initiatives and the definition
of institutional frameworks. However, although the objective of this Brazilian strategy recognizes a long trajectory of
digital development and that policies in this area are fragmented, the result of the strategy fails to produce engagement
among the stakeholders, identify the problems and propose solutions. The EBIA reproduce situations that maintain the
status quo ante. That is, the Brazilian strategy fails to produce changes, representing a missed opportunity to design
policies that are more coherent and consistent with the needs of digital transformation.
This article aims to analyze why the Brazilian strategy for artificial intelligence fails to produce policy integration and
for the development of artificial intelligence. In the first section of the article, we deal with the concept of strategy that
we adopted, considering that national strategies comprise policy design dynamics. In the second section, we examine
the context, actors, and governance styles from which the EBIA emerges. In the third section, the article deconstructs
the components of the EBIA. Finally, in the fourth section, the article explains why EBIA fails to build strategic action for
AI development. The article concludes by highlighting lessons learned and challenges involved in national strategies for
artificial intelligence. This article contributes to the analysis of national strategies for artificial intelligence, composing
a topic of interest in AI policy. It also contributes to the definition of national strategies, the dilemmas involved in these
strategies, and the challenges related to the design dynamics concerning AI policy.

4
Brazilian corporatism is inspired by the Italian model and is based on the regulation of professions and business associations. These busi-
ness associations expand representation and governance opportunities, creating a “concertation regime” based on a hierarchical relation-
ship between the state bureaucracy and industry associations. On this matter, see Schneider [12].

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Perspective Discover Artificial Intelligence (2023) 3:7 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-023-00052-w

2 Background—policy design and national strategies for AI

National strategies compose policy documents that establish principles and guide policymakers to design policies
based on values, visions, and short, medium, and long-term objectives. National strategies thus create a perspective
for policy problems and represent an institutional building process focused on engaging policymakers and actors
around proposed solutions. In this sense, a national strategy deals with an institutional design that establishes poli-
cies to solve a problem. In other words, national strategies are problem-solve perspectives.
Institutional theory is useful for analyzing strategies, considering the types of institutions. According to Elinor
Ostrom [16], institutions comprise norms, rules, and shared strategies that coordinate and guide the actors’ behav-
iors in action situations. Institutions comprise statements that can be deconstructed grammatically. Norms com-
prise principles for action, implying deontic operators that establish rules for behavior. Rules, according to Ostrom,
express norm-based collective choices. Finally, the shared strategies, the object of interest in this article, comprise
shared ideas guided by norms and rules for coordinating collective action without necessarily implying sanctions.
That is, strategies are shared ideas that guide collective action, engaging actors to carry out and instrumentalize a
collective enterprise [16].
Public policies are institutional regimes that organize the rules of the game for society to produce public goods
and solve collective action dilemmas [17, 18]. This definition by Ostrom points to some central issues. First, strategies
are shared among actors. Strategies imply collective action, according to the engagement of actors in designing solu-
tions. Second, institutional regimes govern policy situations, defining demands, places, and people. Individuals and
groups deliberately craft these institutional regimes to make the actors’ interactions more predictable and reduce
uncertainties and risks [19]. Third, the construction of solutions to collective problems demands design dynamics
oriented towards crafting solutions, mobilizing resources, defining objectives, and relating instruments to change
the behavior of the policy’s target population.
National strategies are, therefore, policy documents that aim to coordinate collective action to achieve specific
policy objectives. Strategies represent an intention [20], being designed to instrumentalize means to achieve a goal.
As a collective action enterprise, national strategies represent an intention to engage policymakers and diverse actors
to carry out a collective objective. Following this concept, national strategies represent an intention and guide the
policy design to solve policy problems through collective action. National strategies, therefore, link actors to shared
objectives, defining instruments to achieve the purpose and deliver effective outcomes to promote social change.
National strategies for artificial intelligence thus identify the factors causing the problems, enumerate the public
objectives to be achieved, the instruments through which these objectives will be achieved, monitoring mechanisms,
governance perspectives and stakeholder involvement [21, 22]. National strategies are problem-solving and enumer-
ate public challenges in a given context and time to coordinate and guide collective action. National strategies are
designed to realize this intention and therefore incorporate policy design dynamics.
Policy design reflects a dynamic combination of goals and instruments that develop over time [23]. The interests
and concerns of policy design researchers and those who work in neo-institutionalism theory sometimes converge
because both are committed to explaining policy changes, outcomes, and implications [24]. Policy design, therefore,
implies strategic action in which policymakers struggle to build coherent designs between problems and proposed
solutions, that the instruments are consistent for the policy to achieve its objectives, and that the instrumentation
is congruent with the intended objectives [25].
Public policies are designed from a mix of objectives and instruments used during the design dynamics [23], guiding
all efforts so that the policy is effective and socially and politically accepted. Policy design is not a rationalist activity in
which designers connect instruments and objectives to produce outcomes. Policy design is a dynamic activity in which
designers constantly choose and calibrate instruments responding satisfactorily to dynamics that arise in design spaces
[25, 26]. Policy design is a political activity [27] and responds to action situations related to the conditions of the political
regime and the governance modes and styles from which policy is steered. That is, policy design occurs in situations of
limited rationality, building policy situations that are satisfactory for the actors and not necessarily the most rational.
The multiple actors involved in policy design dynamics select and choose the instruments necessary to achieve the
formulated goals. The actors choose the instruments in the context of governance modes that guide decision-making
and implementation. Policy design is not a technocratic activity but essentially a political one [27, 28].
Scholarship on national strategies for artificial intelligence points to different analytical perspectives. National
strategies for artificial intelligence analyze policy initiatives grouped into different policy areas. For example, Van Roy

13
Vol:.(1234567890)
Discover Artificial Intelligence (2023) 3:7 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-023-00052-w Perspective

[29] analyzes European strategy in five major groups such as human capital, from the lab to the market, network-
ing, regulation, and infrastructure. There are also analyzes as Radu [30] that aim at a global analysis of these policy
documents. It is also possible to analyze, in these national strategies, the sociotechnical imaginaries as presented
in the discourse of four national AI strategies [31], group strategies together with AI ethics guidelines produced by
the private sector [32], focus on the comparison between two countries like China and India [33] or concentrate on
an in-depth analysis of the national AI strategy of a single country [34–36]. Van Berkel et al. [37] analyze 25 national
AI strategies of countries from a quantitative approach. In all these approaches, the analysis of policy documents
aimed to identify the components and elements that define objectives, instruments, ideas, and processes of collec-
tive action.
National strategies reflect the proposition of policy change so that policies can be formulated and implemented to
solve public problems. Strategies involve not only the definition of problems and objectives but also the design of public
policies through integrated strategic actions aimed at proposing solutions.
In this article we make an in-depth analysis of the Brazilian National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence (EBIA), consider-
ing the strategic actions and how they list objectives and instruments. We will analyze the policy design dynamics and
how the strategy operates to engage stakeholders in the collective enterprise of digital development through artificial
intelligence in Brazil.

3 Context, actors and governance styles to design EBIA

The first task for analyzing the EBIA is to understand the actors who intentionally shaped the goals and perspective for
artificial intelligence in Brazil. Considering that strategies must produce shared objectives and perspectives, the broad
involvement of stakeholders is fundamental. Furthermore, artificial intelligence is a general-purpose technology that can
be implemented in different policy domains and sectors of public administration. Thus, creating horizontal coordination
mechanisms between the actors is essential [18].
In the context in which the strategy is produced, the design of the EBIA found a design space marked by vague ideas
about artificial intelligence and a populist political context. Add to this political context a bureaucratic management
of the Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovations, and Communications marked by a governance style characterized
by institutional weakness and aversion to interaction with society. The political dimension and the availability of the
bureaucracy to interact with society shape governance styles and how policies will be steered [38].
The first point we must highlight concerns the context. The functioning of a populist political regime led by right-wing
President Jair Bolsonaro, associated with a bureaucracy that is resistant to interacting with society, creates a context of
institutional weakness and an incapacity to design public policies. A similar event occurs with other policies, such as,
for example, the nuclear energy policy [38]. In the case of policies for digital development, this context of institutional
weakness emerges from a governance style based on a populist political regime associated with a bureaucracy that is
refractory to any interaction with society, reproducing technocratic patterns not supported by stakeholder involvement.
In this context, the Brazilian National Strategy for AI (EBIA) was published in 2021, but its design process took place
during the years 2019 to 2020. The Brazilian Government was based on three ways of understanding the issues that
involve the theme of AI technology, both in its ethical aspect, as well as its technical aspect. These three ways to design
the EBIA are the consultancy provided by UNESCO, the production of benchmarks on international experiences, and the
public consultation initiated by the Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovations, and Communications.
From 2019 to 2020, therefore, a specialized consultancy hired by the Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovations
and Communications was carried out on the subject of AI through the international technical cooperation project with
UNESCO. It should be noted, however, that the result of these three stages prior to the official publication of the policy
document was not brought or shared publicly.
UNESCO played a crucial role in helping the Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovations, and Communications to
formulate the first set of problems and thus produce a benchmark of international initiatives to solve these problems.
The perspective adopted is that the strategy can be designed based on the dissemination of international experiences
without involving stakeholders in the construction of strategic actions. The first element is possible to be identified.
EBIA’s design dynamics were guided by a technocratic perspective, with little stakeholder involvement in identifying
problems and solutions. The initial corollary is that the Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovations, and Communica-
tions considered design-oriented dynamics as a process of creating collective action from technical work conducted in
association with UNESCO, not as political work aimed at creating actors’ engagement.

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Perspective Discover Artificial Intelligence (2023) 3:7 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-023-00052-w

The methodology for building the EBIA was based on hiring a consultancy from UNESCO, producing an international
benchmark, and then collecting suggestions and perspectives from different stakeholders. It is important to note that
public consultations in Brazil are carried out on a digital participation platform—Participa.br—which facilitates online
participation and society’s influence on policies [39]. Although public consultation was implemented, the suggestions
and notes made by the industry or civil society organizations were not systematized. They were not incorporated or used
as critical mechanisms in the EBIA document.
The actors in the design dynamic of the EBIA, therefore, were the Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovations, and
Communications, associated with UNESCO consultancy. In identifying the causes of the problems and the construc-
tion of the objectives, actors of the industry, the market, other governmental agencies, the academy, and civil society
organizations were excluded from the process. The definition of objectives and strategic actions was formulated tech-
nocratically, without any form of interaction with society. Moreover, the political context disfavored the construction of
a robust policy for digital development. The emergence of the EBIA occurred in a populist government, which distrusts
coalitions, produces democratic regression, and encourages the policy dismantling [40].
The EBIA was published in 2021 after a long consultation process, representing a formal strategy on how Brazil will
formulate policies and actions for digital development with artificial intelligence, but lacking a background of stakeholder
participation and engagement. The EBIA was produced as a technical mechanism for state strategic actions, but with
huge collective action problems. Without thinking of effective mechanisms to produce a collective enterprise, the EBIA
fails, being an ungrounded perspective on AI policy and development. Despite the long process of public consultation
and contracting of a collaborating institution, the result of these documents was not presented to society, which makes
it difficult to understand what was or was not incorporated into the final policy document.
This topic will seek to present the EBIA, to situate the reader to understand why it fails as a strategic document for the
development of public policies. Despite having previously consulted international organizations, whoever reads the text
notes that the formulation of the EBIA completely ignored a fundamental aspect of any strategy, namely, the proposi-
tion of an agenda [41]. The EBIA is designed disregarding what the international actors heard consider as relevant for
decision makers at the most diverse levels of administration, as well as what society and the multiple actors involved in
the development of AI have pointed out.

4 EBIA’s vision, components, and objectives

In this section, we deconstruct the vision, objectives and strategic actions listed in the EBIA. The first element that we
deconstruct in the Brazilian strategy is the vision it embodies to resolve the identified problems. A vision creates the
initial elements of a national strategy, constituting what kind of approach will be taken to policy problems. The Brazilian
National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence (EBIA) sets out the following vision:
This Strategy assumes the role of guiding the actions of the Brazilian State in favor of the development of actions, in
its various aspects, that stimulate research, innovation and development of solutions in artificial intelligence, as well as
its conscious, ethical use and in favor of a better future [42].
This view of strategy starts from two implicit problems. First, the EBIA needs to integrate policies for the development
of AI, building an integrative perspective of different policies already implemented. This objective of integrating into a
single set of strategic actions aims to generate coherence between different initiatives already existing in Brazil. Among
the initiatives, Brazil implements public funds to finance research and development, tax incentives given by the New
Information Technology Acts, creating centers of excellence, training and transitioning work and labor, and digital gov-
ernment initiatives. Integrating these different policies comprises the first primary objective of the Brazilian perspective.
The second major objective is the need to create an ethical and regulatory framework that ensures the development
of artificial intelligence. The problems identified in the EBIA reproduce a common framework of AI policy concerning
economic growth and societal challenges [43].
The EBIA has six primary objectives arising from the identification of the problem as the poor results of national eco-
nomic productivity. The EBIA addresses this problem but does not ask how to constitute objectives coherent with the
problems mentioned. These two significant problems converge in the enumeration of six primary general objectives
covered by this vision, as bellow:

• Contribute to the elaboration of ethical principles for the use of responsible AI.
• Promote sustained investment in AI research and development.

13
Vol:.(1234567890)
Discover Artificial Intelligence (2023) 3:7 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-023-00052-w Perspective

Fig. 1  Design process of EBIA.

Source: elaborated by the
authors

• Remove barriers to AI innovation.

• Promote capacity building and train professionals for the AI ecosystem.
• Stimulate innovation and development of Brazilian AI in an international environment.
• Promote an environment of cooperation between public and private sectors, industry, and research centers for the
AI development.

By defining these objectives, the policy document enunciates an extensive set of strategic actions to be implemented
or coordinated by the federal government. The document created and published was stablished, then, with the propo-
sition of nine thematic axes: three transversal and six vertical axes. At each axis shape strategic actions to Brazilian
government steer the policy. These axes emerge from the international benchmark provided by UNESCO but without
clearly listing and contextualizing the problems to be solved. The way the strategy was built, the engagement of the
stakeholders is poor, consolidating a situation of non-design [21]. The context in which the EBIA policy document was
constructed reproduces a situation of a populist government with a technocratic style to steer the policy, in a context of
political turbulence. The document does not define responsibilities and partnerships, nor mechanisms for monitoring
and evaluation.
The transversal axes are characterized by crossing all the vertical axes and, therefore, concern the ethical content that
permeates the vertical axes, as in Fig. 1, below:
Once the problems are identified and components defined, the EBIA lists a series of strategic actions to be imple-
mented by the Brazilian federal government, particularly by the Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovations, and Com-
munications. These strategic actions are related to the set of objectives identified above, as shown in Table 1 below:
The first horizontal axis is legislation, regulation and ethical use. The first axis demonstrates the concern and under-
standing on the part of the Brazilian government with the various international and national institutions that concern
the subject of AI and data protection. The first axis in some way seek to limit and prevent some risks inherent in the AI
development, such as biases, hyper surveillance and opacity. Here it is worth mentioning Brazilian laws such as the Gen-
eral Data Protection Law, the Positive Registration Law and the Decree No. 8.771/2016, which establishes the Open Data
Policy of the Federal Executive Branch. In this axis, it is proposed to carry out research actions and normative formats that
reconcile state incentives for the AI development in the most varied areas and, at the same time, deeply understand its
probable risks and assess negative impacts. The idea is to try to converge existing laws in Brazil created to control and
stimulus with a view to open data and new technologies and concerns with the effectiveness of human rights. In this first
axis, the EBIA lists a series of legislative dilemmas without listing how stakeholders will be involved in the legislative pro-
cess. Next, it needs to define the policy advisory mechanisms and the agencies responsible for achieving these objectives.
The second horizontal axis is AI governance. In this axis, fifteen objectives are listed that seek to create networks
between governments and the private sector, enumerate data governance objectives, disseminate good practices for
managing the design and validation of systems based on artificial intelligence.
Here, the actions intend, therefore, to establish mechanisms, formats and methods of observance of the principles for
the development of an ethical AI. However, this axis does not define responsibilities and does not involve essential actors
such as the National Authority for Data Protection or agencies responsible for digital development in the government.

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Perspective Discover Artificial Intelligence (2023) 3:7 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-023-00052-w

Table 1  Strategic actions by EBIA

Component Strategic actions

Legislation, regulation, and ethical use of AI Stimulate the production of ethical AI by funding research projects that aim to apply ethical
solutions, particularly in the fields of equity/non-discrimination (fairness), responsibility/
accountability and transparency, known as the FAT array
Encourage partnerships with corporations that are researching commercial solutions of these
ethical AI technologies
Establish as a technical requirement in bids that bidders offer solutions compatible with pro-
moting ethical AI
Establish, in a multisectoral manner, spaces for discussion and definition of principles ethics to
be observed in the research, development and use of AI
Map legal and regulatory barriers to AI development in Brazil and identify aspects of Brazil-
ian legislation that may require updating, in order to promote greater legal security for the
digital ecosystem
Stimulate actions of transparency and responsible disclosure regarding the use of systems of
AI, and to promote the observance, by such systems, of human rights, values democracy and
diversity
Develop techniques to identify and address the risk of algorithmic bias
Develop data quality control policy for training systems AI
Create parameters about human intervention in AI contexts where the result of an automated
decision implies a high risk of harm to the individual
Encourage exploration and development of appropriate review mechanisms in different con-
texts of AI use by private organizations and by public bodies
Create and implement best practices or codes of conduct regarding the collection, deploy-
ment and use of data, encouraging organizations to improve their traceability, safeguarding
legal rights
Promote innovative approaches to regulatory oversight (e.g., sandboxes and regulatory hubs)
AI governance Structuring governance ecosystems for using AI in the public and private sectors
Encourage data sharing, observing the LGPD
Promote the development of voluntary and consensus standards to manage the risks associ-
ated with AI applications
Encourage organizations to create data review boards or ethics committees regarding AI
Create an Artificial Intelligence observatory in Brazil that can connect to other international
observatories
Encourage the use of representative datasets to train and test models
Facilitate access to open government data
Improve the quality of available data to facilitate the detection and correction of algorithmic
biases
Stimulate the dissemination of open-source codes capable of verifying discriminatory trends
in datasets and machine learning models
Develop guidelines for the preparation of Data Protection Impact Reports (RIPD)
Share the benefits of AI development to the greatest extent possible and promote equal
development opportunities for different regions and industries
Develop educational and awareness campaigns
Stimulate social dialogue with multisectoral participation
Leverage and encourage accountability practices related to AI in organizations
Define general and specific indicators by sector (e.g., agricultural, financial, health)
International aspects Assist the integration of the Brazilian State in international organizations and forums that
promote the ethical use of AI
Promote the exchange of specialists who develop research in AI, in the various scientific fields,
natural sciences, engineering, humanities and health
Foster the export of AI systems developed by Brazilian companies, including startups
Develop cooperation platforms for Artificial Intelligence exchanges

13
Vol:.(1234567890)
Discover Artificial Intelligence
Table 1  (continued)
Component
Qualification to a digital future
Labor and capacity building
Research, development, innovation, and
entrepreneurship
Application in productive sector
(2023) 3:7 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-023-00052-w Perspective
Strategic actions
Evaluate the possibility of updating the BNCC to more clearly incorporate elements related to
computational thinking and computer programming
Develop a digital literacy program in all areas of education and at all levels of education
Expand the offer of undergraduate and graduate courses related to Artificial Intelligence.
Stimulate the development of interpersonal and emotional skills, such as creativity and criti-
cal thinking (soft skills)
Evaluate ways of incorporating AI technologies in school environments that consider the
peculiar condition of children and adolescents as people in development and their rights to
protect personal data
Institute technological training programs for teachers and educators
Add courses on notions of data sciences, notions of linear algebra, notions of calculus, and
notions of probability and statistics to the list of complementary activities of high school
programs
Promote interaction programs between the private sector and educational institutions that
allow the exchange of practical knowledge on the development and use of Artificial Intel-
ligence technologies
Create mechanisms to increase Brazilians’ interest in STEM subjects (mathematics, science,
technology, and engineering) at school age, focusing on gender and race inclusion programs
in these areas
Define priority areas for investments in AI in line with other policies related to the digital
environment
Encourage companies and public bodies to implement a continuous training program focused
on new technologies for their workforce
Create awareness campaigns about the importance of preparing for the ethical development
and use of AI
Stimulate the retention of talent specialized in ICT in Brazil. Encourage a diverse composition
of AI development teams regarding gender, race, sexual orientation, and other sociocultural
aspects
Reinforce policies aimed at continuing education and lifelong learning, promoting more
significant interaction between the private sector and teaching institutions (universities,
research institutes, and professional and technical training)
Define priority areas for investments in AI in line with other policies related to the digital
environment
Expand the possibilities for research, development, innovation, and application of AI, through
the provision of specific resources for this topic and the coordination between existing initia-
tives
Establish connections and partnerships between the public sector, the private sector, and
scientific institutions and universities in favor of advancing the development and use of AI in
Brazil
Promote a public policy environment that supports an agile transition from the R&D phase to
the AI systems’ development and operation phase
Foster an environment for AI research and development that is free of bias. Improve interoper-
ability and use of common standards
Promote incentive mechanisms that stimulate the development of AI systems that adopt ethi-
cal principles and values
Define or identify a public–private governance structure to promote the advancement of
smart IT industries, along the lines of the Brazilian Chamber of Industry 4.0
Foster the emergence of new Brazilian startups through public–private partnerships
Create collaboration networks between technology-based startups and small and medium-
sized companies (SMEs)
Incorporate, in initiatives such as the Brasil Mais Program, mechanisms to encourage the use of
AI by small and medium-sized companies, in order to improve management processes and
promote their digital transformation
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Perspective Discover Artificial Intelligence (2023) 3:7 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-023-00052-w

Table 1  (continued)
Component Strategic actions

Application in public sector In line with the provisions of the Digital Government Strategy, implement Artificial Intelligence
resources in at least 12 federal public services by 2022
Incorporate AI and data analysis in public policy formulation processes
Implement AI data experimentation spaces and develop AI-focused RD&I partnerships with
higher education institutions, the private sector, and the third sector
Update and re-evaluate work processes and practices in preparation for possible changes in
the environments where AI systems are introduced
Consider, in tenders and administrative contracts aimed at the acquisition of Artificial Intel-
ligence products and services, criteria aimed not only at technical efficiency, but also related
to the incorporation of ethical principles related to transparency, equity and non-discrimina-
tion
Establish mechanisms for speedy investigation of denouncements and complaints about
violations of rights in decisions made by AI systems
Promoting the exchange of open data between Public Administration entities and between
them and the private sector, always with respect for the right to protection of personal data
and trade secrecy
Perform impact analysis on AI use cases that directly affect the citizen or public servant
Establish ethical values for the use of AI in the Federal Public Administration
Encourage public bodies to promote awareness of the use of AI in their technical staff
Public security Establish supervisory mechanisms to monitor the use of AI for public security activities
Encourage bodies that may use AI for monitoring to submit a data protection impact report
prior to implementation
Provide effective mechanisms for monitored individuals to react to the surveillance operation
Present reports with statistics and results of the implemented service
Draft law on data protection applied to public security
Implement a privacy and data protection regulatory sandbox focused on public safety for AI
systems

Source: Brazilian National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence [42]

It also does not involve stakeholders from the private sector or civil society organizations, reducing the scope of gov-
ernance. The AI governance tends to assume polycentric designs punctuated by concrete problems [47]. However, as a
result, the EBIA misses an opportunity to build stakeholder engagement in building AI governance.
The EBIA lists four strategic actions regarding insertion of Brazil in the international AI market on the horizontal
axis. These strategic actions deal with the construction of policies oriented towards the international market and the
competitiveness of the Brazilian industry. However, in this axis, the EBIA is silent regarding the instruments that will be
used to achieve the proposed objectives to compose a consistent framework of instruments related to digital develop-
ment. Furthermore, it does not address issues such as digital sovereignty and the international data flow. These three
horizontal axes create six vertical axes, which define actions aimed at specific sectors of society. These horizontal axes
are intersected with the vertical axes, which define strategic actions aimed at industry, markets and governments, as
shown in the figure below (Fig. 2).
The focus of the first vertical axis is the education and qualification promotion of Brazilian citizens for AI production.
An important concept should also be highlighted here: digital literacy, “ability to use computers”, which according to
the document should be encouraged from childhood. However, the EBIA does not instrumentalize actions to promote
digital literacy, nor does it state how labor training and higher education training actions will be achieved. Furthermore,
EBIA does not declare the involvement of essential actors in this field, such as the Ministry of Education and the Ministry
of Labor, creating objectives without involving the responsible actors.
The major concern of this axis on “labor and capacity building” is training and promoting diversity for the formation of
skills capable of making Brazilian citizens able to contribute to the development of this technology in Brazil. The fourth
horizontal axes define strategic actions for the application of AI in the private sector, to increase industry productivity,

13
Vol:.(1234567890)
Discover Artificial Intelligence (2023) 3:7 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-023-00052-w Perspective

Fig. 2  Horizontal and vertical Vercal axis

axes of EBIA. Source: Brazilian
Strategy for Artificial Intel-
ligence [42]

Research, development, innovaon, and entrepreneurship

Applicaon in producve sectors

Qualificaon to a digital future
Transversal axis

Labor and capacity building

Applicaon in public sector

3. Legislaon, regulaon and ethical use

Public security
2. AI governance

1. Internaonal aspects

and in the public sector, reinforcing various elements of the Brazilian Digital Government Strategy. Finally, the last
horizontal axis involves the creation of strategic actions aimed at the application of AI in the area of public security. In
the three cases, the EBIA does not define instruments for coordinating and agreeing on actions with the Ministries of
Industry and Commerce, the Ministry of Economy, and the Ministry of Justice. Although the Ministry of Science, Tech-
nology, Innovations, and Communications intends to support digital development in strategic sectors of government
policies, actions are steered in a technocratic style without involving stakeholders and creating mechanisms to interact
with society for policy steering.
EBIA never states which policy instruments or mix of instruments will be used. That is, it does not instrumentalize the
objectives listed above and does not formulate policy portfolios to face the problems identified. The identification of
the problems is limited to the location of Brazil in different international rankings of competitiveness and innovation,
associating the problem with a question of competitiveness and not of policy change. In addition, many strategic actions
relate to other policy domains such as education, health, work, and public security. The EBIA did not involve the organiza-
tions responsible for these policy domains in its design dynamics and did not even create instruments that ensure policy
coordination and authority. The technocratic style of conducting the EBIA design reflects a politically inoperative vision.
Without establishing coordination instruments, strategic actions sound like objectives thrown to the wind.
EBIA’s vision has difficulties formulating the problem and connecting solutions contextualized in the Brazilian reality.
Moreover, the EBIA disregards the entire portfolio of existing policies in Brazil, wanting an integrative and innovative
approach to artificial intelligence but needs more means to implement the objectives, nor does it bring an agenda such
as the Chinese strategy that brings a 2030 Agenda. The outcome is to produce a fictional policy document that does not
engage and guide the actors but reproduces a situation of policy fragmentation and reproduction of a status quo that
favors the actors participating in technology governance.

5 Why EBIA fails?

As can be seen, the EBIA’s axes bring important but vague strategic actions. There is a lack of precision and concrete
forecast of public policies with an agenda to be fulfilled by the Brazilian State. The EBIA is fruitful in enunciating broad
objectives in different topics of strategic action for AI policy. However, it does not instrumentalize these actions in order
to create stakeholder engagement, policy advisory, the instrumentation of objectives, the transversal combination of
instruments, the definition of monitoring mechanisms and policy evaluation, and policy integration mechanisms.
The main problem of the EBIA is the instrumentation of policies. Instrumentation involves choosing tools and modes
of operation to produce policy change. According to Lascoumes and Le Galès [44], every instrument constitutes a con-
densed form of knowledge about social control and ways of exercising it; instruments at work are not neutral devices:
they produce specific effects independently of the objective pursued. Instrumentation is essential in policy design
dynamics since it expresses the political choices and power dynamics embodied in the instruments [27]. The way the
EBIA was built makes instrumentation fail because it does not involve stakeholders in polycentric institutional designs

Vol.:(0123456789) 13
Perspective Discover Artificial Intelligence (2023) 3:7 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-023-00052-w

and does not define governance mechanisms that allow the engagement of actors in a large collective enterprise. As a
result, the EBIA was perceived as a mere managerial requirement and not as a political enterprise that could promote
collective action for AI-based digital development.
The EBIA fails because it still needs to resolve the collective action problems. First, it was perceived by policy communi-
ties as a managerial instrument rather than a political choice. Second, it did not involve stakeholders in the policy design
process. Research and development communities, civil society organizations, actors from public and private sectors,
and actors from the Legislative and Judiciary branches were not invited to be involved in the process. Third, the public
consultation that resulted from the reviewed document contained suggestions for improvement and approaches were
not even systematized and presented to society, resulting in a piece that lists vague objectives without instrumental-
izing the policy action. Complex policymaking faces substantial risks of failure when horizontal or vertical dimensions
of policy-making are not well integrated [45].
Another problem is that the EBIA discards previously existing policies and needs to integrate them as an objective
of coherence and consistency of the AI policy. As we said earlier, Brazil has robust funding mechanisms and incentives
for research and development in AI at universities and the private sector, funds centers of excellence in AI, encourages
access to government data through an open data policy, has a strategy of digital government, designed polycentric
and multistakeholder mechanisms for internet governance. However, the Brazilian government has yet to respond to
the challenge of integrating these policies in ways that accelerate and drive AI-enabled digital development. AI policy
integration is key to accelerating digital development. Policy integration comprises the construction of portfolios of
instruments that are coherent and consistent with the policy’s objectives so that the needs of markets, industry, and
governments can be met and encourage actors in collective actions [45].
The lack of integration of previously existing policies leads the actors to a position of non-cooperation, making the EBIA
not a shared strategy capable of creating engagement and solving collective action problems but an ineffective policy
document. Instead, the private sector, research and development communities, civil society actors, and the government
seek individual solutions, reinforcing their political positions or reproducing the partial benefits of a corporatist position.
For example, the private sector benefits from tax incentives without offering any counterpart in digital development.
Likewise, research and development communities are committed to producing solutions that need a sense of priorities
or actions that can reposition the Brazilian economy in global competition.
In the general context, the Brazilian Strategy for Artificial Intelligence results from a political context in that it is chal-
lenging to build stakeholder engagement, reproducing a technocratic governance style associated with a populist
government. In this context, a design space is created [26] that does not engage actors to cooperate and package and
integrate previously existing policies, produce improvements, and policy change. The EBIA reflects a situation of non-
design, in which ideologies contaminate design dynamics without actors being able to participate in this process. In
non-design situations, as reflected by the EBIA, it does not produce an idea that can guide policymakers but ineffective
actions that no mean to the actors.

6 Conclusions and discussion—when AI policy fails

The case of failure of the EBIA in Brazil provides a lesson on national strategies for artificial intelligence. National strate-
gies comprise policy designs to solve social problems, containing vision, objectives, instruments, and strategic actions.
These components comprise politically oriented policy documents to produce stakeholder engagement, assignment
of responsibilities, and integration of existing policies to make effectiveness. National strategies for artificial intelligence
are politically shaped and should mirror governance styles capable of solving collective action problems and generating
motivation for digital development. Policy failures should produce learning, which was this article’s primary objective.
Brazil has followed, since the 1988 Constitution, the tradition of encouraging social participation in the debate on the
legislative construction of public policies aimed to regulating new technologies. This was the case with the first regula-
tions of the 1990s, the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet and, more recently, the Artificial Intelligence Regulation
Bill. The EBIA, however, contrary to any strategy that creates public policies in such a complex matter, did not listen to
the main sectors involved and the public consultations carried out were not even publicized or incorporated.
In summary, the EBIA fails when it proposes to be a strategy without being strategic. That is, it is a document that could
receive any name other than strategy, which even creates a certain expectation in developmental sectors and citizens
that is soon frustrated when reading the policy document. Considering that the scenario is that the Artificial Intelligence

13
Vol:.(1234567890)
Discover Artificial Intelligence (2023) 3:7 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-023-00052-w Perspective

Regulation Bill will soon be voted on in Brazilian Congress, the risk that the lack of balance between innovation and
protection is high. There is, therefore, a complete mismatch between instruments and objectives, which prevents the
strategies from moving forward.
Brazil is a case of non-perspective on AI development. The EBIA fails to design the policy to integrate previous policies,
choose the instruments and combine them, define mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating the policy, and establish
forms of cooperation and coordination between research and development communities, the private sector, and public
sector actors. Furthermore, the dynamic design of the EBIA fails to disregard legal instruments under discussion in the
National Congress, such as the AI Regulation Bill. Non-design situations comprise ideological factors based on intuitive
decisions that ignore learning and knowledge [46]. The EBIA is a situation of non-design as it recognizes ideological
frameworks understood in the form of a benchmark, such as the need for an ethical framework and the idea of digital
transformation. However, it does not make these ideas instrumentalize concrete action situations because it needs to
solve the problems of collective action inserted in constructing a national strategy.

Author contributions FF is an associate professor at the School of Social Science, Federal University of Goiás (UFG). Professor of PHD Profes-
sional Program in Public Policy, National School of Public Administration (ENAP). Affiliate faculty at Ostrom Workshop on Political Theory
and Policy Analysis, Indiana University. Researcher at the National Institute of Science and Technology (INCT)–Digital Democracy, Federal
University of Bahia (UFBA). He served as a director for Research and Graduate Studies of the National School of Public Administration (ENAP),
Brazil. Filgueiras has a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University Research Institute of Rio de Janeiro (Iuperj). Among his works, Governance
for the Digital World—Neither More State Nor More Market (Palgrave, 2021), with Virgilio Almeida. TAJ is a professor of Law and technology at
Braziliense Institute for Development, Research and Education (IDP), PhD in Law with emphasis on Artificial Intelligence (University of Brasília).
Lawyer and Researcher. She was a FINATEC scholarship holder in the Machine Learning Research & Development Project on judicial data on
the general repercussions of the Federal Supreme Court—STF (Victor Project). She have master in Law from the Federal University of Espírito
Santo (UFES). Postgraduation degree in ’Public Treasury in Judgment’ from the Faculty of Law of Vitória (FDV). Graduated in Law from FDV
(2012) with additional training from Universidad Castilla-La Mancha—Spain. Both author read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico—Bolsa de Produtividade em Pesquisa. Grant number:
303273/2020-8.

Data availability Not applicable.

Code availability Not applicable.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable.

Consent for publication Not applicable.

Competing interests The author declares that this article has no conflict of interest or competing interest.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://c​ reati​ vecom
​ mons.o
​ rg/l​ icens​ es/b
​ y/4.0
​ /.

References
1. Brasil. Lei 8248 de 23 de outubro de 1991. Brasil: Presidência da República. https://​w ww.​plana​lto.​gov.​br/​ccivil_​03/​leis/​l8248.​htm
1991.
2. Brasil. Lei 8387 de 30 de dezembro de 1991. Brasil: Presidência da República. https://​www.​plana​lto.​gov.​br/​ccivil_​03/​leis/​L8387.​htm#:​
~:​text=.....-​,Art.​,qualq​uer%​20pon​to%​20do%​20Ter​rit%​C3%​B3rio%​20Nac​ional 1991.
3. Brasil. Lei 12965 de 23 de abril de 2014. Brasil: Presidência da República. https://​www.​plana​lto.​gov.​br/​ccivil_​03/_​ato20​11-​2014/​2014/​
lei/​l12965.​htm 2014.
4. Vial G. Understanding digital transformation: a review and a research agenda. J Strat Inf Syst. 2019;28(2):118–44. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​jsis.​2019.​01.​003.

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Perspective Discover Artificial Intelligence (2023) 3:7 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-023-00052-w

5. Brasil. Lei 13674 de 11 de junho de 2018. Brasil: Presidência da República. http://​w ww.​plana​lto.​gov.​br/​ccivil_​03/_​ato20​15-​2018/​
2018/​lei/​L13674.​htm 2018.
6. Brasil. Lei 13969 de 26 de dezembro de 2019. Brasil: Presidência da República. https://​w ww.​plana​lto.​gov.​br/​ccivil_​03/_​ato20​19-​
2022/​2019/​lei/​l13969.​htm#:​~:​text=​L1396​9&​text=​Disp%​C3%​B5e%​20sob​re%​20a%​20pol%​C3%​ADtica%​20ind​ustri​al,30%​20de%​20dez​
embro%​20de%​201991 2019.
7. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Digital government review of Brazil. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2018.
8. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. The innovation system of the public service in Brazil. Paris: OECD Pub-
lishing; 2019.
9. Filgueiras F. Running for artificial intelligence policy in G20 countries—policy instruments and mixes matters? Revista Brasileira de
Inovação. 2022;21:1–36. https://​doi.​org/​10.​20396/​rbi.​v21i00.​86674​72.
10. Filgueiras F, Fernandes F, Palotti P. Digital transformation and public service delivery in Brazil. Latin American Policy. 2019;10(2):195–
219. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​lamp.​12169.
11. Junquilho TA. Inteligência artificial no direito: limites éticos [Artificial intelligence in law: Ethical boundaries]. Salvador: JusPodivm.
2022.
12. Schneider BR. The developmental state in Brazil: comparative and historical perspectives. Revista de Economia Política. 2015;35(1):114–
32. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1590/​0101-​31572​015v3​5n01a​07.
13. Schmitter P. The consolidation of democracy and the representation of social groups. Am Behav Sci. 1992;35(4/5):422–49.
14. Filgueiras F. Artificial intelligence policy regimes: comparing politics and policy to national strategies for artificial intelligence. Global
Perspectives. 2022;3(1):32362. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1525/​gp.​2022.​32362.
15. Wu X, Ramesh M, Howlett MP, Fritzen S. The public policy primer: Managing the policy process. New York: Routledge; 2017.
16. Ostrom E. Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2005.
17. Heikkila T, Andersson K. Policy design and the added-value of the institutional analysis development framework. Policy Polit.
2018;46(2):309–24. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1332/​03055​7318X​15230​06013​1727.
18. Ostrom E. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1990.
19. Polski M, Ostrom E. An institutional framework for policy analysis and design. In: Cole DH, McGinnis MD, editors. Elinor Ostrom and
Bloomington School of political economy. Lanham: Lexington Books; 1999. p. 13–48.
20. Mintzberg H. The rise and fall of strategic planning: Reconceiving roles for planning, plans, planners. New York: The Free Press; 1994.
21. Filgueiras F. Designing AI policy: comparing design spaces in Latin America. Latin American Policy. 2023;14(1):1–10. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1111/​lamp.​12282.
22. Papyshev G, Yarime M. The State’s role in governing artificial intelligence: development, control, and promotion through national
strategies. Policy design and practice, early view. 2023. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​25741​292.​2022.​21622​52.
23. Howlett M. Procedural policy tools and the temporal dimensions of policy design. Int Rev Public Policy. 2019;1(1):27–45.
24. Van Geet MT, Lenferink S, Leendertse W. Policy design dynamics: fitting goals and instruments in transport infrastructure planning
in the Netherlands. Policy Design and Practice. 2019;2(4):324–58. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​25741​292.​2019.​16782​32.
25. Capano G, Howlett M. The knowns and unknowns of policy instrument analysis: Policy tools and the current research agenda on
policy mixes. SAGE Open. 2020;10(1):1–13. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​21582​44019​900568.
26. Capano G. Policy design spaces in reforming governance in higher education: the dynamics in Italy and the Netherlands. High Educ.
2017;75:675–94. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10734-​017-​0158-5.
27. Peters BG. Policy problems and policy design. Chatelham: Edward Elgar; 2018.
28. Lewis JM, McGann M, Blomkamp E. When design meets power: design thinking, public sector innovation and the politics of policy-
making. Policy Polit. 2020;48(1):111–30. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1332/​03055​7319x​15579​23042​0081.
29. Van Roy V, Rossetti F, Perset K, Galindo-Romero L. AI Watch—national strategies on artificial intelligence: a European perspective,
2021 edition. EUR 30745 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 2021.
30. Radu R. Steering the governance of artificial intelligence: National strategies in perspective. Policy and Society. 2021;40(2):178–93.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​14494​035.​2021.​19297​28.
31. Bareis J, Katzenbach C. Talking AI into being: the narratives and imaginaries of national AI strategies and their performative politics.
Sci Technol Human Values. 2021;47(5):855–81. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​01622​43921​10300​07.
32. Schiff D, Biddle J, Borenstein J, Laas K. What’s next for AI ethics, policy, and governance? A global overview. Proceedings of the AAAI/
ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 2020. 153–158. Doi: https://​doi.​org/​10.​1145/​33756​27.​33758​04.
33. Kumar A. 2021. National AI policy/strategy of India and China: A comparative analysis. https://​r is.​org.​in/​sites/​defau​lt/​files/​Publi​
cation%​20File/​DP%​20265%​20Amit%​20Kum​ar.​pdf 2021.
34. Chatterjee S. AI strategy of India: policy framework, adoption challenges and actions for government. Transform Gov People Proc
Policy. 2020;14(5):757–75. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​TG-​05-​2019-​0031.
35. Roberts H, Cowls J, Morley J, Taddeo M, Wang V, Floridi L. The Chinese approach to artificial intelligence: an analysis of policy, ethics,
and regulation. AI & Soc. 2021;36(1):59–77. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00146-​020-​00992-2.
36. Saracco R. Perspectives on AI adoption in Italy, the role of Italian AI strategy. Discover Artific Intell. 2022;2(9):1–11. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1007/​s44163-​022-​00025-5.
37. van Berkel N, Papachristos E, Giachanou A, Hosio S, Skov MB.. A systematic assessment of national artificial intelligence policies:
perspectives from the Nordics and beyond. Proceedings of the 11th nordic conference on human-computer interaction: shaping
experiences, shaping society, 2020. 1–12. Doi: https://​doi.​org/​10.​1145/​34192​49.​34201​06.
38. Filgueiras F, Palotti PLM, Testa GG. Complexing governance styles: connecting politics and policy in governance theory. SAGE Open.
2023;13(2):1–27. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​21582​44023​11585​21.
39. Maciel C, Cappelli C, Slaviero C, Garcia ACB. Technologies for popular participation: a research agenda. Proceedings of the 17th
international digital government research conference on digital government research, 2016. 202–211. Doi: https://​doi.​org/​10.​1145/​
29121​60.​29121​91.

13
Vol:.(1234567890)
Discover Artificial Intelligence (2023) 3:7 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-023-00052-w Perspective

40. Milhorance C. Policy dismantling and democratic regression in Brazil under Bolsonaro: Coalition politics, ideas, and underlying
discourses. Rev Policy Res. 2022;39(6):752–70. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​ropr.​12502.
41. Capella ACN. Formulação de políticas públicas [Policy formulation]. Brasília: Enap. 2018.
42. Brasil 2021. Estratégia Brasileira de Inteligência Artificial [Brazilian Strategy on Artificial Intelligence]. Brasil: Ministério de Ciência,
Tecnologia, Inovações e Comunicações. https://​w ww.​gov.​br/​mcti/​pt-​br/​acomp​anhe-o-​mcti/​trans​forma​caodi​gital/​arqui​vosin​telig​
encia​artif​icial/​ebia-​diagr​amacao_​4-​979_​2021.​pdf 2021.
43. Ulnicane I. Emerging technologies for economic competitiveness or societal challenges? Framing purpose in artificial intelligence
policy. Global Public Policy Gov. 2022;2:326–45. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s43508-​022-​00049-8.
44. Lascoumes P, Le Gales P. Introduction—Understanding public policy through its instruments: from the nature of instruments to the
sociology of public policy instrumentation. Governance. 2007;20(1):1–21. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1468-​0491.​2007.​00342.x.
45. Howlett M, Vince J, Del Rio P. Policy integration and multi-level governance: dealing with vertical dimension and policy mix design.
Politics Gov. 2017;5(2):68–78. https://​doi.​org/​10.​17645/​pag.​v5i2.​928.
46. Howlett M, Mukherjee I. Policy design and non-design: towards a spectrum of policy formulation types. Politics Gov. 2014;2(2):57–71.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​17645/​pag.​v2i2.​149.
47. Shackelford S, Dockery R. Governing AI. Cornell J Law Public Policy. 2020;30:279–334.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

13
Vol.:(0123456789)