Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 65 references

Strategic Alignment Patterns in National AI Policies

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read National AI strategies cohere differently by governance model, and those differences can be scored and mapped.

desk verdict A policy-coherence audit framework with a plausible design, but the preprint lacks all the visual evidence and the archetype finding is baked into the sampling design. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05400 v2 pith:QDD3QBIO submitted 2025-07-07 cs.CY econ.GNq-fin.EC

Mohammad Hossein Azin , Hessam Zandhessami This is my paper
classification cs.CYecon.GNq-fin.EC
keywords strategicalignmentnationalAIstrategiespolicycoherenceforesightmethodsimplementationinstrumentsvisualmappingnetworkanalysisgovernance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that the real difference between national AI strategies lies not in the goals they announce but in how tightly those goals are connected to foresight methods and implementation instruments. It introduces a visual scoring method—heatmaps and network diagrams built from three 1-to-3 alignment matrices—and applies it to 15–20 national strategies drawn from a major international policy repository. The result is a typology: rights-based strategies show balanced alignment across economic, ethical, and social goals; market-led strategies align economic competitiveness with funding instruments but leave ethical commitments weakly operationalized; state-directed strategies align priority objectives tightly while secondary goals receive less coverage. If the method holds, governments can audit their own strategies for coherence gaps before implementation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a three-way alignment matrix: objectives by foresight methods, objectives by instruments, and foresight methods by instruments, with each cell scored 1 (components merely co-exist), 2 (implicit connection), or 3 (explicit articulation). Scoring looks for lexical proximity, explicit reference, and elaboration of the connection mechanism; the matrices are then read as heatmaps and as networks whose nodes are policy components and whose edge thickness is alignment strength. The concept doing the interpretive work is the 'coherence chain'—a linked objective-foresight-instrument pathway that connects long-term vision to present-day action.

What would settle it

Recode the same national strategies with a published coding manual and a third coder, then check whether the claimed country clusters reappear. If the alignment scores fail to reproduce the rights-based, market-led, and state-directed archetypes, or if coder agreement on the 1–3 intensity ratings drops below the conventional κ > 0.7 threshold, the patterns are an artifact of the scoring procedure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that strategic alignment is a measurable property of policy documents and that it clusters by governance model. Using 12 objective categories, 8 foresight methods, and 10 instrument types, the authors score every pairwise relationship on a 1–3 intensity scale and find that high-coherence strategies—Finland, Canada, the UK, and Germany—connect vision to action through explicit 'coherence chains,' while common vulnerabilities recur elsewhere: ethical AI objectives appear without matching regulatory mechanisms, workforce-development goals lack instruments, and international-collaboration objectives stay aspirational. The discovery is therefore an empirically grounded set of alignment archetypes with distinctive strengths and failure modes.

Load-bearing premise

The entire typology rests on the assumption that two trained coders' 1-to-3 ratings of how explicitly a policy document links objectives, foresight methods, and instruments are valid and comparable across twenty countries, languages, and document formats.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Governments can use the visual audit to spot 'ethics implementation gaps' before finalizing a strategy, since the method makes missing instrument links explicit.
  • The archetypes imply that a high-scoring strategy from one governance tradition cannot simply be transplanted, because coherence patterns track institutional arrangements.
  • The alignment indices provide a baseline for repeated audits, so a country could track whether creating a coordination body or adding a review cycle actually improves coherence over time.
  • The recurring misalignments—ethics, workforce development, and international collaboration—identify the specific points where most national strategies need repair.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Not tested in the paper: whether alignment scores predict real-world outcomes. A follow-up could link a country's matrix score to later AI investment, regulatory enforcement, or adoption trends; that would either validate coherence as a policy metric or show it is merely rhetorical.
  • The method's own logic suggests a dynamic use the paper only gestures at: run the same audit repeatedly to see whether 'ethics implementation gaps' close after institutional reforms such as creating a coordination body.
  • Because the scores come from official documents, document-based alignment may overstate coherence where implementation happens through informal channels; checking matrices against budget allocations or administrative data could shift the archetypes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a visual mapping methodology for assessing strategic alignment in national AI policies, applying it to a sample of 15-20 national AI strategies from the OECD AI Policy Observatory. Alignment is operationalized as the strength of connection (scored 1-3) between strategic objectives, foresight methods, and implementation instruments, and is visualized through matrix heatmaps and network graphs. The paper claims to identify distinct alignment archetypes across governance models, with rights-based systems showing balanced alignment, market-led systems strong economic alignment but weaker ethical integration, and state-directed systems strong alignment for priority objectives. It also identifies Finland, Canada, the UK, and Germany as high-coherence exemplars and reports common vulnerabilities such as the ethics implementation gap. The stated contributions are a reusable visual audit tool, a typology of alignment patterns, and practical guidance for policymakers.

Significance. If the empirical claims were supported, the paper would offer a useful visual audit tool for policy coherence and a potentially valuable typology linking governance models to alignment patterns. The conceptual framing is clear, the multi-level coding protocol with inter-coder reliability is a step beyond purely qualitative comparisons, and the combination of matrix and network analysis is methodologically interesting. However, the preprint contains no actual data visualizations (all Figures 1-31 are captions only), no released underlying matrices or coding manual, and no formal test showing that the alleged archetypes emerge from the data rather than from the sampling design. The significance is therefore conditional: the methodology could be valuable, but the paper as submitted does not provide the evidence needed to evaluate the central claims.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3.1, Table 3] The central claim of 'distinct alignment archetypes across governance models' is not tested against the research design. The sample was explicitly stratified by governance model using [26]'s categories (§3.1), and Table 3 defines the alleged archetypes within those same categories (rights-based, market-led, state-directed). No unsupervised clustering, discriminant analysis, or formal test of between-group separation is presented, so the paper does not establish that the alignment patterns differ from what the stratification would produce by construction. The reported Pearson correlations in §4.2.1 do not address this circularity. The authors should either reframe the contribution as descriptive within pre-defined governance categories or add an explicit test that the archetypes are an empirical discovery.
  2. [§3.3-§3.6, Figures 1-31] The empirical evidence for the findings is absent from the manuscript. All 31 figures are presented as captions only, with no actual heatmaps, networks, or bar charts shown; the per-country alignment matrices, the coding manual, and the distributions of the 1-3 alignment scores are not released. This makes it impossible to verify the reported component frequencies, alignment intensities, or the claimed patterns in §§4-5. The authors need to include the actual figures and provide the underlying data or a public repository, along with the coding manual and per-country score matrices, before the results can be assessed.
  3. [§4.2.1] The Pearson correlation analysis is applied to ordinal 1-3 alignment scores and author-constructed indices with a sample size near 20, but the underlying distributions are not reported and no justification is given for treating ordinal scores as interval data. The reported correlations (r = 0.67, p < 0.01; r = 0.59, p < 0.05; r = 0.54, p < 0.05) also appear in the context of multiple significance tests without correction for multiple comparisons. The authors should either use an ordinal association measure (e.g., Spearman's rho or Kendall's tau), report the distributions and scatterplots, or justify the Pearson approach explicitly.
  4. [§6.1] Several theoretical constructs are introduced in the Discussion as if they were empirical findings, but no supporting evidence appears in the Results sections. 'Bridging instruments' (e.g., regulatory sandboxes), 'anticipatory decay,' and 'integration half-lives' are named in §6.1, yet none of these concepts is operationalized or reported in the component or alignment analyses of §§4-5. These should either be moved to the hypotheses/future work or supported with data from the matrices and network analyses.
  5. [Abstract, Table 2, §3.1] There is an internal inconsistency in the sample definition and the governance-model taxonomy. The abstract and §1 say '15-20' national strategies, while Table 2 lists 20 countries; if Table 2 is the final sample, the text should use 20 consistently. More importantly, Table 2 includes a 'Hybrid' governance model for India, South Korea, Brazil, and Italy, but the taxonomy described in §2.3 and used in Table 3 contains only market-led, state-directed, rights-based, and risk-focused categories, and Table 3 omits risk-focused and hybrid categories. The sampling strata, the analysis categories, and the reported archetypes need to be harmonized.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title page] The title contains a spacing error: 'National AI P olicies' should be 'National AI Policies'.
  2. [§5.1, Table 2] Germany is classified as 'Risk-focused' in Table 2 but is described in §5.1 as exemplifying a 'rights-based approach' alongside Finland; please reconcile these classifications.
  3. [Figure 5] The caption for Figure 5 refers to 'composite alignment scores' before the alignment indices are formally defined in §3.4; consider moving the index definitions earlier or revising the caption.
  4. [References, §2.3] Reference [18] is cited as the source of the four-part governance taxonomy (market-oriented, state-directed, risk-focused, rights-based), but the cited article is specifically about China's approach to AI; please verify this citation or cite the original source of the taxonomy.
  5. [Abstract and §7] The paper should state the exact sample size consistently in the abstract and conclusion, rather than using the '15-20' range, once the final sample is fixed in Table 2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the alignment scores are independent codings of external documents, not derived from the governance labels they are later compared with.

full rationale

I find no circular step that meets the evidentiary bar. The component taxonomies (objectives, foresight methods, instruments) are drawn from external literature and applied to external policy documents; the alignment-intensity scores come from dual-coder judgments with reported kappa values (Section 3.6). The governance-model labels are imported from [18] and [26] and used as stratification criteria, so the reported 'archetypes' are group comparisons rather than fitted predictions. Nothing in the paper defines alignment intensity in terms of the governance labels, and no equation or construction makes the alignment scores equal to the sampling categories. The absence of the actual heatmaps and per-country matrices, and the unreleased coding manual, weaken verifiability but do not make the derivation circular. The manuscript's own limitation statements (Section 3.6) concern document-based analysis, cross-sectional design, and context sensitivity, not a reduction of findings to inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central claims rest on author-constructed scoring categories and governance labels with no released codebook, raw scores, or figure images. The sample is small (15-20) and the statistical correlations treat ordinal codes as metric. The taxonomies are adapted from prior literature but applied without cross-language or cross-cultural validation, and the invented conceptual entities are not independently evidenced.

free parameters (3)
  • Alignment intensity thresholds (1, 2, 3)
    Chosen by the authors in Section 3.3 to define weak, moderate, and strong alignment; no external validation or benchmark anchors these cutoffs.
  • Governance model classification (market-led, state-directed, rights-based, risk-focused)
    Adopted from [18] and used both for sampling stratification and for interpreting the resulting archetypes; the categories are not independently measured.
  • Component taxonomies (12 objectives, 8 foresight methods, 10 instruments)
    Derived through a mix of deduction and induction in Section 3.3; the final categories are author choices that directly shape all alignment scores and therefore all reported patterns.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Official policy documents, as curated by the OECD AI Policy Observatory, are an adequate proxy for actual strategic alignment and implementation.
    Section 3.2 builds the corpus from official documents, and Section 3.6 acknowledges the rhetoric-practice gap but still bases the central claims on documents rather than implementation data.
  • domain assumption A 1-3 ordinal alignment score assigned by two coders can support Pearson correlations and parametric significance tests.
    Section 4.2.1 reports Pearson r values and p-values computed on these ordinal scores with no evidence that equal intervals hold.
  • ad hoc to paper Taxonomies developed mainly in Western policy contexts are applicable across all sampled countries and languages.
    Section 3.3 adapts taxonomies from [26], [36], [30], and [1] to diverse national contexts, but cross-language and cross-cultural equivalence is asserted rather than demonstrated.
invented entities (3)
  • Bridging instruments (e.g., regulatory sandboxes)
    purpose: Introduced in Section 6.1 as a category of instruments that connect policy domains and as a theoretical contribution.
    The paper mentions the concept but provides no operational definition, measurement, or falsifiable evidence for which instruments qualify.
  • Alignment signatures and coherence chains
    purpose: Used to describe the patterns claimed to characterize different governance models in the findings.
    These are new labels for patterns already attributed to governance models in the cited literature; they have no falsifiable handle beyond the authors' own coding.
  • Anticipatory decay and integration half-lives
    purpose: Proposed in Section 6.1 as theoretical concepts describing how foresight influence weakens over time.
    Mentioned as contributions but not measured, operationalized, or supported with data anywhere in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strategic Alignment Patterns in National AI Policies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QDD3QBIO

@misc{pith2026250705400,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strategic Alignment Patterns in National AI Policies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QDD3QBIO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05400}
}
read the original abstract

This paper introduces a novel visual mapping methodology for assessing strategic alignment in national artificial intelligence policies. The proliferation of AI strategies across countries has created an urgent need for analytical frameworks that can evaluate policy coherence between strategic objectives, foresight methods, and implementation instruments. Drawing on data from the OECD AI Policy Observatory, we analyze 15-20 national AI strategies using a combination of matrix-based visualization and network analysis to identify patterns of alignment and misalignment. Our findings reveal distinct alignment archetypes across governance models, with notable variations in how countries integrate foresight methodologies with implementation planning. High-coherence strategies demonstrate strong interconnections between economic competitiveness objectives and robust innovation funding instruments, while common vulnerabilities include misalignment between ethical AI objectives and corresponding regulatory frameworks. The proposed visual mapping approach offers both methodological contributions to policy analysis and practical insights for enhancing strategic coherence in AI governance. This research addresses significant gaps in policy evaluation methodology and provides actionable guidance for policymakers seeking to strengthen alignment in technological governance frameworks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05400 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Component distribution visualization showing the relative frequency of different strategic objectives, foresight [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Objective-instrument heatmap displaying the alignment intensity between strategic objectives (rows) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Objective-foresight heatmap illustrating the alignment intensity between strategic objectives (rows) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (28 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Foresight-instrument heatmap showing the relationship between anticipatory methods (rows) and imple [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Country comparison heatmap presenting overall alignment scores across the sample nations. Each cell [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: AI policy global network visualization showing the interconnections between strategic objectives across all [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: AI policy objective country heatmap displaying the distribution and emphasis of strategic objectives across all [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: AI policy objective intensity visualization representing the depth of elaboration for each strategic objective [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: AI policy objective regional heatmap comparing objective emphasis across major world regions. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: AI policy objective temporal trends showing the evolution of strategic priorities across three waves of AI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Foresight analysis governance model integration comparison illustrating how different governance approaches [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Foresight analysis governance model sophistication comparing methodological complexity across governance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Foresight analysis foresight prevalence visualization showing the percentage of national strategies employing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Foresight analysis method network visualization representing relationships between different anticipatory [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: This visualization presents the relative emphasis on different instrument types across the sample, revealing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Implementation factor analysis country heatmap comparing instrument emphasis across sampled countries. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Implementation factor analysis instrumental intensity visualization representing the depth of elaboration for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Implementation factor analysis instrument network visualization representing relationships between different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Implementation factor analysis instrument prevalence visualization showing the percentage of national [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Alignment analysis networks global visualization showing the comprehensive relationship structure between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Alignment analysis visualization global objective-foresight heatmap illustrating the alignment intensity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Alignment analysis visualization global objective-instrument heatmap showing the alignment intensity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Alignment analysis alignment coverage bar comparing the percentage of potential alignment relationships [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Alignment analysis alignment score bar comparing the mean intensity of alignment relationships across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_24.png]
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Alignment analysis comparative heatmap presenting a comprehensive comparison of alignment patterns [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_25.png]
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: Alignment analysis strongest alignment identifying the most consistently well-aligned component pairs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_26.png]
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: High coherence analysis factors common strategic objective visualization showing the alignment scores for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_27.png]
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: High coherence analysis factors common foresight method visualization comparing the integration of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_28.png]
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: High coherence analysis factors common implementation instrument visualization showing the deployment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_29.png]
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: High coherence patterns objective-foresight patterns visualization illustrating characteristic connections [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_30.png]
Figure 31
Figure 31. Figure 31: High coherence patterns objective-instrument patterns visualization showing how high-coherence strategies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_31.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [5]

    TACNET: Temporal Audio Source Counting Network

    A. Ahmadnejad, A. M. Darviishani, M. M. Asadi, S. Saffariyeh, P. Yousef, and E. Fatemizadeh, “Tacnet: Temporal audio source counting network,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.02369, 2023. 37 Strategic Alignment Patterns in National AI Policies A PREPRINT

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  2. [8]

    Optical Physics-Based Generative Models

    A. Ahmadnejad and S. Koohi, “Optical physics-based generative models,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.04357, 2025

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  3. [26]

    Stix, C. (2021). Actionable principles for artificial intelligence policy: Three pathways. Science and Engineering Ethics, 27(1), 1-17

    work page 2021

  4. [1]

    Borrás, S., & Edquist, C. (2011). The choice of innovation policy instruments. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(8), 1513-1522

    work page 2011

  5. [2]

    Capano, G., & Howlett, M. (2018). Causal logics and mechanisms in policy design: How and why adopting a mechanistic perspective can improve policy design. Public Policy and Administration, 36(2), 141-162

    work page 2018

  6. [3]

    M., & Michel, C

    Cejudo, G. M., & Michel, C. L. (2017). Addressing fragmented government action: Coordination, coherence, and integration. Policy Sciences, 50(4), 745-767

    work page 2017

  7. [4]

    J., & Platts, K

    Eppler, M. J., & Platts, K. W. (2011). Visual strategizing: The systematic use of visualization in the strategic- planning process. Long Range Planning, 42(1), 42-74

    work page 2011

  8. [6]

    Dy- namic control of spontaneous emission using magnetized InSb higher-order-mode antennas,

    S. Aghili, R. Alaee, A. Ahmadnejad, E. Mobini, M. Mohammadpour, C. Rockstuhl, and K. Dolgaleva, “Dy- namic control of spontaneous emission using magnetized InSb higher-order-mode antennas,” Journal of Physics: Photonics, vol. 6, no. 3, p. 035011, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 65 references
  1. [7]

    Training large-scale optical neural networks with two-pass forward propagation,

    A. Ahmadnejad and S. Koohi, “Training large-scale optical neural networks with two-pass forward propagation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.08337, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [9]

    D., & Browning, T

    Eppinger, S. D., & Browning, T. R. (2012). Design structure matrix methods and applications. MIT Press

    2012

  3. [10]

    Flanagan, K., Uyarra, E., & Laranja, M. (2011). Reconceptualising the ’policy mix’ for innovation. Research Policy, 40(5), 702-713

    2011

  4. [11]

    Howlett, M., Mukherjee, I., & Woo, J. J. (2019). Thirty years of instrument research: What have we learned and where are we going? In H. Enderlein, S. Wälti, & M. Zürn (Eds.), Handbook on Policy Design. Edward Elgar Publishing

    2019

  5. [12]

    Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389-399

    2019

  6. [13]

    S., & Howlett, M

    Kern, F., Rogge, K. S., & Howlett, M. (2019). Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: New approaches and insights through bridging innovation and policy studies. Research Policy, 48(10), 103832

    2019

  7. [14]

    Lascoumes, P., & Le Galès, P. (2007). Introduction: Understanding public policy through its instruments—From the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation. Governance, 20(1), 1-21

    2007

  8. [15]

    Leifeld, P. (2018). Polarization in the social sciences: Assortative mixing in social science collaboration networks is resilient to interventions. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 507, 510-523

    2018

  9. [16]

    Marchau, V . A. W. J., Walker, W. E., Bloemen, P. J. T. M., & Popper, S. W. (2019).Decision making under deep uncertainty: From theory to practice. Springer

    2019

  10. [17]

    Popper, R. (2018). Foresight methodology. In L. Gokhberg, D. Meissner, & A. Sokolov (Eds.), Handbook of Technology Foresight(pp. 13-33). Edward Elgar Publishing

    2018

  11. [18]

    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

    2021

  12. [19]

    S., & Reichardt, K

    Rogge, K. S., & Reichardt, K. (2016). Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis. Research Policy, 45(8), 1620-1635

    2016

  13. [20]

    Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation.Research Policy, 42(9), 1568-1580

    2013

  14. [21]

    Vecchiato, R. (2019). Scenario planning, cognition, and strategic investment decisions in a complex world. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 138, 72-81

    2019

  15. [22]

    M., & Rohracher, H

    Weber, K. M., & Rohracher, H. (2018). Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transforma- tive change: Combining insights from innovation systems and multi-level perspective in a comprehensive ’failures’ framework. Research Policy, 41(6), 1037-1047

    2018

  16. [23]

    Wesley, J. J. (2010). Qualitative document analysis in political science.From Words to Numbers: Approaches to Text Analysis in Political Science Workshop, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

    2010

  17. [24]

    Lodge, M., & Wegrich, K. (2019). Administrative capacities. In E. Ongaro & S. Van Thiel (Eds.),The Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe (pp. 237-250). Palgrave Macmillan

    2019

  18. [25]

    OECD. (2021). State of implementation of the OECD AI principles: Insights from national AI policies. OECD Publishing

    2021

  19. [27]

    M., Gudowsky, N., & Aichholzer, G

    Weber, K. M., Gudowsky, N., & Aichholzer, G. (2019). Foresight and technology assessment for the Austrian parliament—Finding new ways of debating the future of industry 4.0. Futures, 109, 240-251

    2019

  20. [28]

    W., Hooker, S., Leung, J., Trask, A., Bluemke, E., Lebensbold, J., Fischer, C., Kovas, Y .,

    Brundage, M., Avin, S., Wang, J., Belfield, H., Krueger, G., Hadfield, G., Khlaaf, H., Yang, J., Toner, H., Fong, R., Maharaj, T., Koh, P. W., Hooker, S., Leung, J., Trask, A., Bluemke, E., Lebensbold, J., Fischer, C., Kovas, Y ., ... & Anderljung, M. (2020). Toward trustworth...

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Keast, R., Mandell, M., & Agranoff, R. (2014). Network theory in the public sector: Building new theoretical frameworks. Routledge. 38 Strategic Alignment Patterns in National AI Policies A PREPRINT

    2014

  22. [30]

    D., & Andersen, P

    Andersen, A. D., & Andersen, P. D. (2017). Foresighting for inclusive development.Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 119, 227-236

    2017

  23. [31]

    Cath, C., Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the ’good society’: The US, EU, and UK approach. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24(2), 505-528

    2018

  24. [32]

    Dutton, T. (2018). An overview of national AI strategies. Medium. https://medium.com/politics-ai/an-overview-of- national-ai-strategies-2a70ec6edfd

    2018

  25. [33]

    Havas, A., Schartinger, D., & Weber, M. (2016). The impact of foresight on innovation policy-making: Recent experiences and future perspectives. Research Evaluation, 25(4), 367-376

    2016

  26. [34]

    Howlett, M. (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

    2009

  27. [35]

    Miles, I. (2010). The development of technology foresight: A review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(9), 1448-1456

    2010

  28. [36]

    C., & Wanjiku, W

    Ulnicane, I., Knight, W., Leach, T., Stahl, B. C., & Wanjiku, W. G. (2021). Framing governance for a contested emerging technology: Insights from AI policy. Policy and Society, 40(2), 158-177

    2021

  29. [37]

    Van Roy, V ., Rossetti, F., Perset, K., & Galindo-Romero, L. (2020). AI Watch: National strategies on artificial intelligence: A European perspective. Publications Office of the European Union

    2020

  30. [38]

    D., Guillaume, J

    Blondel, V . D., Guillaume, J. L., Lambiotte, R., & Lefebvre, E. (2008). Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2008(10), P10008

    2008

  31. [39]

    Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40

    2009

  32. [40]

    Chidlow, A., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Welch, C. (2014). Translation in cross-language international business research: Beyond equivalence. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(5), 562-582

    2014

  33. [41]

    A., & Riddle, M

    Hanneman, R. A., & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods . University of California, Riverside

    2005

  34. [42]

    Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (2013). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems. Oxford University Press

    2013

  35. [43]

    Lodge, M., & Wegrich, K. (2016). The rationality paradox of Nudge: Rational tools of government in a world of bounded rationality. Law & Policy, 38(3), 250-267

    2016

  36. [44]

    Magro, E., & Wilson, J. R. (2015). Complex innovation policy systems: Towards an evaluation mix.Research Policy, 44(4), 925-937

    2015

  37. [45]

    Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. SSOAR

    2014

  38. [46]

    McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276-282

    2012

  39. [47]

    O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1-13

    2020

  40. [48]

    Seawright, J., & Gerring, J. (2008). Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), 294-308

    2008

  41. [49]

    Agrawal, A., Gans, J., & Goldfarb, A. (2019). The economics of artificial intelligence: An agenda. University of Chicago Press

    2019

  42. [50]

    Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. W. W. Norton & Company

    2014

  43. [51]

    Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V ., Luetge, C., Madelin, R., Pagallo, U., Rossi, F., Schafer, B., Valcke, P., & Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommen...

    2018

  44. [52]

    W., & Schot, J

    Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2019). The dynamics of transitions: A socio-technical perspective. In J. Grin, J. Rotmans, & J. Schot (Eds.), Transitions to sustainable development: New directions in the study of long term transformative change (pp. 11-104). Routledge

    2019

  45. [53]

    Hood, C. (1986). The tools of government. Chatham House Publishers

    1986

  46. [54]

    Junginger, S. (2016). Transformation design: A policymaking perspective. In Design for Policy (pp. 53-68). Routledge. 39 Strategic Alignment Patterns in National AI Policies A PREPRINT

    2016

  47. [55]

    Kuhlmann, S., & Rip, A. (2019). Next-generation innovation policy and grand challenges. Science and Public Policy, 45(4), 448-454

    2019

  48. [56]

    Martin, B. R. (2010). The origins of the concept of ’foresight’ in science and technology: An insider’s perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(9), 1438-1447

    2010

  49. [57]

    Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (2018). An evolutionary theory of economic change. In G. Dosi & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), Modern Evolutionary Economics: An Overview (pp. 7-44). Cambridge University Press

    2018

  50. [58]

    OECD. (2024). OECD AI Policy Observatory. Retrieved from https://oecd.ai/en/data

    2024

  51. [59]

    Oxford Insights. (2020). Government AI Readiness Index 2020. Oxford Insights

    2020

  52. [60]

    Quitzow, R. (2017). Dynamics of a policy-driven market: The co-evolution of technological innovation systems for solar photovoltaics in China and Germany. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 17, 126-148

    2017

  53. [61]

    Rhisiart, M., Störmer, E., & Daheim, C. (2015). From foresight to impact? The 2030 Future of Work scenarios. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 102, 27-44

    2015

  54. [62]

    Rohrbeck, R., & Kum, M. E. (2018). Corporate foresight and its impact on firm performance: A longitudinal analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 129, 105-116

    2018

  55. [63]

    Schot, J., & Steinmueller, W. E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, 47(9), 1554-1567

    2018

  56. [64]

    Stanford University. (2021). Artificial Intelligence Index Report 2021 . Stanford University Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence

    2021

  57. [65]

    Clarke, R. (2019). Regulatory alternatives for AI. Computer Law & Security Review, 35(4), 398-409. 40

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.