We use a few cookies

Essential cookies keep the library working. With your permission, we'd also like to use analytics to see what's useful and improve the experience. Read our Privacy Policy or Cookie Policy.

Skip to main content
Home/e-Resources/Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning/AI Governance and Strategic Priorities: Mapping National AI Policies in the OECD
PeriodicalsArtificial Intelligence & Machine Learning

AI Governance and Strategic Priorities: Mapping National AI Policies in the OECD

Checking your access to this record.

Abstract & Overview

As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to reshape economies, public institutions, and social systems, the need for coherent and accountable governance frameworks has become increasingly urgent. This study examines the strategic orientations and governance mechanisms embedded in national AI policies across OECD member countries, using a dataset comprising 1,884 policy initiatives recorded in the OECD AI Policy Observatory. Through descriptive and comparative analysis, the study maps the thematic focus, ethical commitments, funding structures, and oversight practices of AI governance at the national level. The results indicate a strong concentration of policy activity among technologically advanced countries, with Luxembourg (132), Germany (120), and France (108) leading in the number of initiatives. Thematically, 924 policies focus on national AI strategies, followed by digital economy (286) and science and innovation (232). In terms of operational focus, the most common policy areas include skills development (434), AI in public services (421), and research funding (409). Ethical principles are referenced inconsistently: transparency (481 mentions), human-centered values (431), and accountability (404) are the most cited, yet 7.4% of policies contain no ethical reference at all. Notably, only 23.7% of policies involve private sector funding, and a mere 9.3% report formal evaluation mechanisms, highlighting critical gaps in implementation, collaboration, and accountability. These findings reveal both progress and limitations in OECD-level AI governance. While policy frameworks are expanding in scope and ambition, the uneven operationalization of ethics, limited stakeholder engagement, and absence of robust evaluation processes suggest that current governance architectures remain incomplete. This study offers a foundation for further research and policymaking toward more inclusive, transparent, and adaptive AI governance models.

Cite this record

Priyo Agung Prastyo (2025). AI Governance and Strategic Priorities: Mapping National AI Policies in the OECD. Artificial Intelligence in Learning, 1(4), 301–301. https://doi.org/10.63913/ail.v1i4.33

Copy in another style

Prastyo, P. A. (2025). AI Governance and Strategic Priorities: Mapping National AI Policies in the OECD. Artificial Intelligence in Learning, 1(4), 301–301. https://doi.org/10.63913/ail.v1i4.33
Author names are used as deposited, so check their order before you submit.

Metadata is harvested from open-access indexes and can be incomplete. Check a citation against the published version before relying on it — see our open access & attribution policy.