THEMATIC AREAS
This thematic area measures steps countries have taken to manage the public procurement of AI systems.
Responsibility can be defined as ‘the state or fact of being answerable, or accountable for something within one's power, control, or management’.
Accountability can be defined as ‘the idea that one is responsible for their actions... and must be able to explain their aims, motivations, and reasons’.
Country and regional scores
Bright spots
Goverment Frameworks - Greece
Government actions - Senegal
Civil Society - Singapore
Relevance
The increasing use of AI systems and tools raises fundamental questions around responsibility and accountability – that is, to whom responsibility may be ascribed when AI systems do not function in an expected, desirable or ethical manner or when their design, development and use imposes harm. Despite the unique ambiguities and challenges that AI technologies present, it is important to create mechanisms for responsibility and accountability in order to mitigate the risk of harm and to uphold the promise and potential of trustworthy AI.
EVIDENCE
Evidence Explorer
Discover and compare all all the evidence collected under this thematic area using our Evidence Explorer tool
SCORES
Country rankings by Responsibility and accountability
*In the table above, data was collected for Chinese Taipei (commonly referred to as Taiwan) and the West Bank, which is under the administration of the Palestinian Authority. No data collection took place in Gaza. We recognize that these are, at the time of writing, disputed jurisdictions.
















