Existing scholarship identifies political legitimacy
Research gap analysis derived from 3 social_science papers in our local library.
The gap
Existing scholarship identifies political legitimacy as a critical property of good global AI governance but does not examine how middle powers—which often lack representation in elite governance forums—perceive or can contribute to the dem
Evidence profile
Sourced from the synthesized of the source papers, classified as general, drawn from work published between 2022 and 2026, spanning 3 journals. Those papers have been cited 145 times in total.
Research trend
Established — well-defined area with open sub-problems.
Supporting evidence — 3 representative gaps
- Artificial intelligence governance and social policy divergence: a comparative political economy perspective on global AI regulation (2026) · International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy · cited 1× · doi
The literature documents systematic divergence in AI governance models across regions (rights-based, market-driven, state-centric, hybrid, developmental) but lacks empirical research on how middle powers can leverage their distinct governance approaches to build coalitions or coordinate positions in global AI governance forums, or how their policy models might inform more inclusive multilateral frameworks.
generalsynthesizedevidence 5/5Keywords: literature documents systematic divergence governance models across regions - Artificial Intelligence and the Political Legitimacy of Global Governance (2022) · Political Studies · cited 52× · doi
Existing scholarship identifies political legitimacy as a critical property of good global AI governance but does not examine how middle powers—which often lack representation in elite governance forums—perceive or can contribute to the democratic legitimacy of emerging AI governance institutions, or how their participation might address legitimacy deficits in current regime complexes.
generalsynthesizedevidence 5/5Keywords: existing scholarship identifies political legitimacy critical property good - Global AI governance: barriers and pathways forward (2024) · International Affairs · cited 92× · doi
While the literature identifies that AI governance requires coordination between multiple institutions and governance models, there is no concrete analysis of institutional mechanisms or negotiation strategies through which middle powers can effectively participate in or influence the coordination of the fragmented regime complex, particularly when facing pressure from geopolitical competition between major powers.
generalsynthesizedevidence 5/5Keywords: literature identifies governance requires coordination between multiple institutions
Questions about this gap
Explore this gap further
Run this gap as a query across open scholarly engines for the latest related literature.
Working on this gap? Review it with us.
Science AI Journal reviews manuscripts in one pass with 8 specialised AI agents calibrated on 69,000+ real peer reviews.
Tools for your next paper
Related gaps in Social Science
- The study identifies a gap in the literatureThe study identifies a gap in the literature on metropolitan development in developing countries. The study highlights the need for spatiall…
- Serious analyses of the underlying dynamics of blackSerious analyses of the underlying dynamics of black electoral involvement at the local level in situations where a black incumbent is runni…
- The study faces the challenge of addressingThe study faces the challenge of addressing the contradictions and differences in results in the literature on residential and community att…
- The rapid pace of AI development may outstripThe rapid pace of AI development may outstrip the shelf-life of specific policy recommendations. The lack of transparency in proprietary AI …