Artificial Intelligence and Economic Policy: Risk Analysis and Governance Challenges in the Modern State

Giorgi Nikuradze

Artificial Intelligence and Economic Policy: Risk Analysis and Governance Challenges in the Modern State

Giorgi Nikuradze

PhD Student at Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University

Abstract

Research Objective: The objective of this article is to analyse systematically the risks associated with the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in economic policy and to identify the principal governance challenges faced by the modern state under conditions of algorithmic decision-support and digital transformation.

Methodological Approach: The study employs an analytical and comparative approach, drawing on institutional analysis and a critical review of international regulatory and policy frameworks. The research is based on the examination of key documents and conceptual sources, including OECD, IMF, World Bank, NIST AI RMF, the EU AI Act, and contemporary academic literature on AI governance, public administration, and economic policy.

Main Results and Implications: The findings demonstrate that the integration of artificial intelligence into economic policy generates interconnected governance, institutional, and socio-economic risks. These include the diffusion of accountability, reduced transparency and explainability, risks related to data quality and algorithmic bias, labour-market polarization, and the growing danger of technocratic overdependence in public decision-making. The analysis shows that AI can strengthen evidence-based economic policymaking only when embedded within a coherent regulatory and institutional framework. The article argues that the effective and responsible use of artificial intelligence in economic policy requires risk-based regulation, institutionalized human oversight, standardized data governance, independent auditing mechanisms, and stronger public-sector capacities. AI should therefore be understood not as an autonomous decision-maker, but as a supportive policy instrument operating under conditions of accountability, transparency, and democratic control.

Keywords: Artificial intelligence; economic policy; public governance; governance risks; regulatory framework; institutional development.

References

Acemoglu, D., & Johnson, S. (2023). Power and progress: Our thousand-year struggle over technology and prosperity. PublicAffairs.

Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2022). Tasks, automation, and the rise in U.S. wage inequality. Econometrica, 90(5), 1973–2016. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA19815

Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 610–623). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922

Brynjolfsson, E., Li, D., & Raymond, L. R. (2023). Generative AI at work (NBER Working Paper No. 31161). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w31161

European Commission. (2022). Coordinated Plan on Artificial Intelligence 2022 Review. European Commission.

International Monetary Fund. (2024). Gen-AI: Artificial intelligence and the future of work (Staff Discussion Note SDN/2024/001). International Monetary Fund.

Janssen, M., & Kuk, G. (2016). Big data in public administration: Opportunities and challenges. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 371–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.08.007

National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2023). Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) (NIST AI 100-1). U.S. Department of Commerce. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1

OECD. (2022). OECD framework for the classification of AI systems: A risk-based approach to trustworthy AI. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/da45f1d7-en

Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). (2024). Official Journal of the European Union.

Rodrik, D. (2022). An industrial policy for the twenty-first century. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 38(3), 391–409. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grac027

Shengelia, T., & Berishvili, K. (2025). Innovative business in Georgia: Problems and prospects. The New Economist, 20(1), 24–35. (In Georgian).

Todua, N., & Kartsivadze, G. (2025). Students' perceptions of ChatGPT integration in higher education. The New Economist, 20(4), 36-49. (In Georgian).

Karchava, L., Nanuashvili, I., Zoidze, G., & Veshapidze, S. (2025). Georgia’s Strategic Role in Eurasian Transport and Digital Logistics Transformation. The New Economist, 20(2), 40-53.

Karchava, L., Veshapidze, S., & Tsikelashvili, S. (2025). Georgia's Perspective in the Context of Developing Economic Relations between China and the European Union. The New Economist, 20(1), 8-23.

Karchava, L., Chiabrishvili, K., Goroshidze, G., Mgeladze, L., & Veshapidze, S. (2026). Indicators of effective use of the rich experience of academic staff. The New Economist, 20(4), 21-35.

Veshapidze, S., & Karchava, L. (2022). Contradictions of Globalization under the COVID-19 Pandemic. Bull. Georg. Natl. Acad. Sci, 16(4), 152-157.

UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

World Bank. (2022). GovTech maturity index: The state of public sector digital transformation (2022 update). World Bank.

World Economic Forum. (2023). The Global Risks Report 2023. World Economic Forum.

Share on social media:

The New Economist, N1, 2026, Vol. 21, Issue 1.

pdf

Published Date:

04/04/2026

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Article Views: 5