Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This article investigates how AI systems in U.S. welfare administration oscillate between support and control, coining the term "support-control convergence" to describe this dynamic. Through process tracing of six case studies, it reveals that institutional design and the allocation of costs associated with algorithmic errors significantly influence whether these systems lean towards supportive or controlling functions. The findings underscore that while a shift towards control is common and easily measurable, reverting to a supportive framework is rare and often requires substantial external intervention.
Control-oriented effects of welfare algorithms are easily capitalized on, but reversing to a supportive role is a costly and rare endeavor.
This article examines the institutional conditions under which artificial intelligence systems in U.S. welfare administration come to operate as instruments of support or as instruments of control. Rather than asking what welfare algorithms "really" are (tools of proactive assistance or infrastructures of surveillance) the article starts from the premise that support and control are co-present within the same system, while their relative balance shifts over time. This movement is conceptualized through the notion of support-control convergence and the model of an institutional ratchet. Routine budgetary and political pressures make control-oriented effects easily measurable and politically capitalizable, whereas a return toward support requires external intervention of disproportionate force, such as judicial compulsion, legislative prohibition, or public scandal. Empirically, the article draws on process tracing of six state- and county-level cases: NYSDOL fraud detection, Michigan MiDAS, Illinois Medicaid managed care, LA County homelessness prevention, the Allegheny Family Screening Tool, and Washington Foster Care. The findings show that the system's orientation is shaped by institutional design, with the decisive parameter being the side on which the costs of algorithmic error are placed. Drift toward control is routine, while reversal is exceptional and costly. In the MiDAS case, activation required a single administrative decision, whereas reversal took nine years and a $20 million settlement; even then, the system did not return to a support-oriented configuration.
