Administrative Appeals in Automated Benefit Decisions

Abstract

Background: Policy attention to administrative appeals has increased, yet there is limited empirical clarity on how institutional arrangements influence automated decisions and implementation quality.

Objective: The study evaluated institutional variation in approaches to administrative appeals, with particular attention to accountability, administrative capacity, and automated decisions.

Methods: A comparative analysis was undertaken across 12 jurisdictions or institutional settings. Primary legal and policy documents were integrated with structured organizational evidence and, where relevant, key-informant material. Cases were assessed on authority, coordination, transparency, safeguards, enforcement, and implementation capacity.

Results: The cross-case comparison separated administrative appeals into three broad implementation patterns. Cases with explicit institutional mandates, formal coordination, and accessible review mechanisms scored 15% higher on the composite measure, while fragmented responsibility coincided with slower and less consistent enforcement.

Conclusion: For administrative appeals, the main practical lesson is that formal requirements do not by themselves produce consistent implementation. This means that digital or automated justice procedures should remain transparent, reviewable, and supported by clearly assigned institutional responsibility.

Study design: case-file study.

Publication history: Originally published in print on 15 June 2023, Volume 3, Article 19. Online abstract record added on 16 September 2026. Full-text PDF will be added when the digital galley is ready.