Algorithmic Social Justice and Gender Equality: Child Labour, Welfare Inequalities and Access to Justice in the Era of Intelligent Governance

Authors

  • Asha Juliet -

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1956/jge.v22i3.942

Keywords:

AI Governance, Algorithmic Justice, Child Labour, Gender Equity, Access to Justice, Welfare Systems

Abstract

The increasing implementation of algorithmic governance in public welfare institutions is transforming how states address social inequalities, particularly in the areas of child welfare and the justice system. While artificial intelligence (AI) is often praised for its potential to enhance efficiency, predictive accuracy, and scalability, there is mounting evidence that these systems may reinforce or exacerbate existing gender and socio-economic disparities. This research examines the connection between algorithmic decision-making, gender equity, vulnerability to child labour, and access to justice.

This study utilizes a mixed-method research design that includes secondary datasets, policy analysis, and comparative case studies from both developing and developed welfare systems. Research indicates that algorithmic tools used for welfare targeting, risk assessment, and service allocation often contain historical biases within their training data. These biases disproportionately impact marginalized populations, particularly girls, resulting in higher rates of exclusion errors, increased risk of misclassification, and limited access to protective services.

The study presents an Algorithmic Equity Model that emphasizes transparency, bias auditing, the inclusion of gender-sensitive data, and governance based on child rights. This model aligns with global development priorities and underscores the need for regulatory oversight and ethical deployment of AI in welfare systems. The research contributes to ongoing discussions about equitable digital governance and provides policy recommendations for creating justice-oriented, inclusive algorithmic systems.

References

Barocas, S., & Selbst, A. D. (2016). Big data’s disparate impact. California Law Review, 104(3), 671–732.

Binns, R. (2018). Fairness in machine learning: Lessons from political philosophy. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 81, 1–11.

Criado-Perez, C. (2019). Invisible women: Data bias in a world designed for men. Abrams Press.

Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin’s Press.

International Labour Organization. (2021). Child labour: Global estimates 2020, trends and the road forward. ILO.

Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press.

O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown Publishing Group.

UNICEF. (2020). Policy guidance on AI for children. UNICEF Office of Global Insight and Policy.

Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S., & Kirchner, L. (2016). Machine bias. ProPublica.

United Nations. (2021). The age of digital interdependence. United Nations Publications.

World Bank. (2022). Digital development report. World Bank Publications.

Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism. Public Affairs.

Agarwal, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and public governance: Challenges of inclusion and accountability. Journal of Public Affairs, 21(4), 1–10.

Alston, P. (2019). Report of the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights. United Nations Human Rights Council. https://www.ohchr.org

Benjamin, R. (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim code. Polity Press.

Bovens, M., & Zouridis, S. (2002). From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: How information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 174–184.

Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2017). The business of artificial intelligence. Harvard Business Review Press.

Cath, C. (2018). Governing artificial intelligence: Ethical, legal and technical opportunities and challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 376(2133), 1–13.

Citron, D. K., & Pasquale, F. (2014). The scored society: Due process for automated predictions. Washington Law Review, 89(1), 1–33.

Coeckelbergh, M. (2020). AI ethics. MIT Press.

European Commission. (2020). White paper on artificial intelligence: A European approach to excellence and trust. European Union.

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 recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689–707.

Gillingham, P. (2019). Can predictive algorithms assist decision-making in social work with children and families? Child Abuse Review, 28(2), 114–126.

Keddell, E. (2019). Algorithmic justice in child protection: Statistical fairness, social justice and the implications for practice. Social Sciences, 8(10), 1–16.

Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2), 1–21.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). OECD principles on artificial intelligence. OECD Publishing.

Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.

Selbst, A. D., Boyd, D., Friedler, S. A., Venkatasubramanian, S., & Vertesi, J. (2019). Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems. Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 59–68.

United Nations Development Programme. (2022). Human development report 2021/2022: Uncertain times, unsettled lives. UNDP.

Van Dijck, J. (2020). Governing digital societies: Private platforms, public values. Computer Law & Security Review, 36, 1–9.

Veale, M., & Brass, I. (2019). Administration by algorithm? Public management meets public sector machine learning. Public Money & Management, 39(6), 368–376.

Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Floridi, L. (2017). Why a right to explanation of automated decision-making does not exist in the General Data Protection Regulation. International Data Privacy Law, 7(2), 76–99.

Downloads

Published

23.07.2026

How to Cite

“Algorithmic Social Justice and Gender Equality: Child Labour, Welfare Inequalities and Access to Justice in the Era of Intelligent Governance” (2026) Journal of Global Economy, 22(3), pp. 561–568. doi:10.1956/jge.v22i3.942.

Similar Articles

1-10 of 235

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.