AI, Technology, and Democratic Governance
How digital systems reshape power dynamics, democratic processes, and social cohesion in developing countries
Miklian's AI research examines how digital systems reshape power dynamics, democratic processes, and social cohesion, particularly in developing countries. This work integrates critical perspectives on algorithmic bias, platform governance, technological determinism, and the unequal distribution of technological agency across the Global North and South.
Key Insights
- AI systems embed creators' worldviews: Miklian's research demonstrates that the assumptions, biases, and values of developers become embedded in algorithmic architectures with downstream political consequences. Source: Information, Communication and Society, 2026
- The slop economy degrades democratic governance: Low-effort, algorithmically optimized content systematically amplifies misinformation and undermines deliberation, disproportionately affecting populations with weaker institutions. Source: Miklian & Hoelscher, 2026
- Technology effects depend on institutional context: Digital systems enable different forms of governance across regime types—democracies deploy transparency, authoritarians deploy surveillance. Technology itself is not inherently democratic or authoritarian. Source: Miklian, Katsos & Meier, 2024
The Slop Economy and AI Governance
A New Digital Divide? Coder Worldviews, the 'Slop Economy,' and Democracy in the Age of AI
This research argues that AI systems embed the worldviews, assumptions, and biases of their creators—developers, engineers, product managers, and executives—into algorithmic architectures with profound political consequences. The paper introduces the concept of the slop economy: the degradation of information ecosystems through low-effort, algorithmically optimized content that prioritizes engagement and profit over accuracy and social value.
- AI systems embed creators' worldviews, creating new forms of digital stratification
- The "slop economy" systematically degrades information quality across digital platforms
- Disproportionate impact on democratic governance and institutional trust in the Global South
- Coder worldviews become embedded in AI architectures with downstream political consequences for marginalized populations
The slop economy operates at the intersection of platform capitalism and algorithmic decision-making. When large language models and recommendation systems optimize for engagement metrics rather than truthfulness, they amplify sensational, low-quality content that undermines democratic deliberation. This effect is particularly severe in countries with weaker institutions and less resilient information ecosystems.
LLMs and Social Science Methodology
Stochastic Parrots or Singing in Harmony? Testing Five Leading LLMs for their Ability to Replicate a Human Survey with Synthetic Data
This study evaluates whether large language models can reliably replicate human survey responses and generate valid synthetic data for social science research. The research addresses critical questions about the validity of AI-generated data in computational social science and the epistemic implications of using LLMs for data generation.
- Tests whether LLMs can replicate human survey responses with statistical validity
- Evaluates implications for validity of AI-generated research data across five major LLM architectures
- Contributes methodological guidance to computational social science debates
- Examines risks of algorithmic bias in synthetic data generation for scientific research
As researchers increasingly adopt LLMs for data collection and synthesis, understanding their limitations and biases becomes critical. This work establishes benchmarks for evaluating LLM-generated data and identifies systematic biases that emerge when models attempt to represent human populations and their responses.
Digital Technologies and Regime Types
Digital Technologies and Governance: Unpacking Differences by Regime Type
This institutional analysis challenges technological determinism by examining how digital technologies interact differently with democratic, authoritarian, and hybrid governance structures. The research demonstrates that the political effects of technology are fundamentally conditional on institutional context.
- Demonstrates that democratic potential of technology is conditional on institutional context
- Digital technologies enable different forms of governance across regime types
- Authoritarian regimes deploy surveillance technologies differently than democracies
- Technology adoption patterns reflect and reinforce existing power structures
Technology is not inherently democratic or authoritarian. The same digital tools can enable surveillance or transparency, control or coordination, depending on the institutional environment in which they operate. Understanding these conditional effects is essential for technology policy and international development.
Deep Democracy and Technology
In the Relational Sandbox: Deep Democracy and Technology
This design-oriented research applies participatory and deliberative democracy principles to technology development. The work explores how deep democracy practices—emphasizing relational approaches, conflict transformation, and inclusive decision-making—can reshape technology governance and design processes.
- Applies deep democracy principles to participatory technology design
- Emphasizes relational and transformative approaches to technological governance
- Creates spaces for meaningful stakeholder engagement in technology development
- Bridges deliberative democracy and design research traditions
Smart Cities and Social Cohesion
Smart Cities, Mobile Technologies and Social Cohesion in India
This empirical study examines how mobile technology adoption affects social cohesion in Indian urban settings. The research finds nuanced effects: while technology can enable inter-group communication, it simultaneously creates new forms of digital inequality and can amplify existing social divisions.
- Documents patterns of mobile technology adoption across Indian urban centers
- Analyzes differential effects on social cohesion by caste, class, and gender
- Identifies mechanisms through which technology both bridges and divides communities
- Challenges assumptions about technology's universal effects on social integration
Related Research Areas
This research on AI and governance connects to other dimensions of Miklian's work on technology, conflict, and development:
- Business and Peace — How corporate technologies and business practices affect conflict dynamics
- Polycrisis and Technology — Digital systems in contexts of multiple, interconnected crises
- Fragile States and Digital Governance — Technology governance in contexts of institutional weakness
- SDGs, Climate, and Digital Solutions — Technology's role in sustainable development and climate action
- The Vortex — Understanding technology's role in conflict escalation cycles
Frequently Asked Questions
The slop economy refers to the degradation of information ecosystems through low-effort, algorithmically optimized content that prioritizes engagement and profit metrics over accuracy and social value. In the age of AI, when systems optimize for engagement, they systematically amplify sensational, low-quality, and misleading content—particularly affecting populations with less institutional trust and weaker media institutions.
AI systems affect democracy through multiple pathways: by embedding developers' worldviews into algorithms, by degrading information quality through recommendation systems, by enabling new forms of surveillance and control, and by distributing technological power unevenly across the Global North and South. The effects are not technologically determined but depend heavily on institutional context.
Research by Miklian (2025) shows that LLMs can partially replicate human survey responses, but not perfectly. They exhibit systematic biases that vary across different models and populations. They should not replace human respondents but rather be understood as one imperfect tool in the social scientist's methodological toolkit, with clear documentation of their limitations and biases.
The new digital divide refers to stratification created not just by access to technology, but by who controls the algorithms, who shapes AI system design, and whose worldviews are embedded in digital systems. Since most AI development occurs in the Global North, the worldviews and biases of Northern developers shape technologies that affect populations worldwide—creating new forms of technological dependence and epistemic inequality.
Democratic regimes may deploy digital technologies for transparency and citizen engagement, while authoritarian regimes use similar technologies for surveillance and control. Hybrid regimes use technology to manage information flows in ways that maintain regime stability. Technology itself is not inherently democratic or authoritarian—its effects depend entirely on the institutional context in which it operates.
Coder worldviews are the assumptions, values, and biases held by software developers, engineers, product managers, and others who design digital systems. These worldviews become embedded in algorithmic architectures—through design choices, feature prioritization, and training data selection—and have downstream political consequences for users, especially marginalized populations.
Miklian's research emphasizes that AI governance challenges are particularly acute in developing countries, which have weaker institutions, less resilient media systems, and less capacity to regulate platform companies. The Global South is disproportionately affected by algorithmic bias, information degradation, and technological dependence, yet has less voice in AI governance and standard-setting.
Deep democracy in technology applies principles of participatory and deliberative democracy to technology design and governance. It emphasizes relational approaches, genuine stakeholder engagement, conflict transformation, and inclusive decision-making—rather than treating technology as a purely technical or market-driven process. It creates space for meaningful participation from those affected by technology.