1. Governments are increasingly relying on complex datasets and analysis to determine how best to provide public services.
2. Social equity is a foundational pillar of public administration, but there is still uncertainty around the relationship between data-driven public services and social equity.
3. This systematic literature review aims to provide a structured and systematic understanding of the relationship between data-driven public services and social equity by examining published research from 190-2010.
The article “Social Equity in the Data Age: A Systematic Literature Review of Data-Driven Public Service Research” by Raye provides an overview of the relationship between data-driven public services and social equity. The article is well written and provides a comprehensive overview of the topic, drawing on evidence from published research from 190-2010.
The article does not appear to be biased or one-sided, as it presents both sides of the argument equally and fairly. It also acknowledges potential risks associated with data-driven public services, such as exacerbating existing inequalities or further pushing people into poverty. Furthermore, it provides evidence for its claims in the form of examples such as predictive policing, smart city projects, and social protection plans.
However, there are some points that could have been explored more thoroughly in order to make the article more comprehensive. For example, while it mentions potential risks associated with data-driven public services, it does not go into detail about what these risks are or how they can be mitigated. Additionally, while it draws on evidence from published research from 190-2010, this time period may not be sufficient to capture all relevant information on this topic given its rapid evolution over recent years due to technological advances.
In conclusion, this article provides a comprehensive overview of the relationship between data-driven public services and social equity without appearing biased or one-sided. However, there are some points that could have been explored more thoroughly in order to make the article more comprehensive.