Algorithmic Profiling of Job Seekers in Austria: How Austerity Politics Are Made Effective

Abstract

As of 2020, the Public Employment Service Austria (AMS) makes use of algorithmic profiling of job seekers to increase the efficiency of its counseling process and the effectiveness of active labor market programs. Based on a statistical model of job seekers' prospects on the labor market, the system—that has become known as the AMS algorithm—is designed to classify clients of the AMS into three categories: those with high chances to find a job within half a year, those with mediocre prospects on the job market, and those clients with a bad outlook of employment in the next 2 years. Depending on the category a particular job seeker is classified under, they will be offered differing support in (re)entering the labor market. Based in science and technology studies, critical data studies and research on fairness, accountability and transparency of algorithmic systems, this paper examines the inherent politics of the AMS algorithm. An in-depth analysis of relevant technical documentation and policy documents investigates crucial conceptual, technical, and social implications of the system. The analysis shows how the design of the algorithm is influenced by technical affordances, but also by social values, norms, and goals. A discussion of the tensions, challenges and possible biases that the system entails calls into question the objectivity and neutrality of data claims and of high hopes pinned on evidence-based decision-making. In this way, the paper sheds light on the coproduction of (semi)automated managerial practices in employment agencies and the framing of unemployment under austerity politics.

A Framework of High-Stakes Algorithmic Decision-Making for the Public Sector Developed through a Case Study of Child-Welfare

“…The public education system also uses algorithms to assign students to public school zones [103,104] and determine student performance [126]. Job placement centers profile job seekers and make job placement decisions using algorithms as well [3,62]. Algorithms are also used to establish eligibility criteria for receiving benefits and offer these benefits to families in need [42].…”

RobBERT: a Dutch RoBERTa-based Language Model

“…Unfairness is particularly problematic if it leads to unequal predictive performance. This problem has been demonstrated for decision support systems, including recidivism prediction (Angwin et al, 2016) and public employment services (Allhutter et al, 2020). Such predictions can be downstream tasks of language understanding; for example when job resumés are processed (Van Hautte et al, 2020).…”

Tackling Algorithmic Transparency in Communal Energy Accounting through Participatory Design

“…Given the growing number of big data applications in governance and automated decision making in bureaucracies (e.g. [2]), holding these systems to account for their outputs and subsequent impacts on human lives require more than just transparency, as Kemper et al point out: "[...]without a critical audience, algorithms cannot be held accountable." [18, p. 1].…”

“…Based on the interview results, the main functions of the EnerCoach tool can be categorized as follows: (1) Allowing communities to collect data about community-owned buildings, building zones, meters, energy mixes and continuous energy consumption, (2) visualizing the collected data in the form of reports and dashboards and (3) providing energy consultants and auditors of the EnergyCities / EEA programs access to the cities performance related to energy expenditure and sustainability in order to complete the certification process mandated by the EEA and similar programs. These three functions necessitate the coordination of a large and diverse group of users and stakeholders: energy and sustainability experts, city officials and administrators and local facility / building managers all utilize the tool in a different way, and have different requirements towards the transparency and explainability of the system.…”