Public-sector sustainability and climate reporting increasingly address environmental exposure, governance, and financial effects, yet existing frameworks do not adequately disclose preparedness for low-probability, high-impact systemic risks whose probabilities, timing, thresholds, and transmission channels remain deeply uncertain. This article develops a Public-Sector Resilience Reporting Standard (PSRRS) as a pre-standard architecture for government preparedness disclosure. The design has three bounded objectives: diagnose cross-framework disclosure gaps, translate these gaps into a theoretically grounded capability-to-disclosure architecture, and demonstrate its analytical use through an illustrative Florida application and two hazard-neutral stress tests. The documentary corpus includes international sustainability and public-sector reporting standards, ISO and UNDRR resilience and continuity instruments, three Florida resilience documents, and peer-reviewed literature on resilience governance, decision-making under deep uncertainty, critical infrastructure interdependency, catastrophic uncertainty, climate-risk disclosure, public finance, climate-risk pricing, local-government credit risk, investor attention, and ransomware service disruption. A structured interpretive coding protocol classifies each framework as explicit, partial, or not explicit across nine disclosure dimensions; a codebook appendix identifies the assessment criteria, the a priori and inductively refined dimensions, and the validation boundaries. Florida is not treated as a basis for statistical or jurisdictional generalization. Instead, it illustrates how a comparatively developed resilience architecture may disclose statutory continuity, critical-asset data, project ranking, and output metrics while leaving systemic dependencies, adaptive triggers, long-horizon fiscal exposure, residual service risk, distributional effects, and assurance mechanisms insufficiently visible in the reviewed reporting corpus. AMOC and case-grounded cyber-fiscal stress tests show how the PSRRS shifts reporting from hazard inventories and funded projects toward auditable evidence of institutional capacity, adaptive readiness, and public-value protection. The article specifies mandatory, recommended, and optional clauses, evidence requirements, indicator examples, a disclosure index, a sample report structure, and a three-tier pilot conformity model. The contribution is conceptual and operational, but not yet a validated formal standard; cross-jurisdictional piloting, inter-rater coding, cost testing, assurance testing, and stakeholder consultation are identified as the next stage of standardization.

This paper extends the post-factual polity framework into AI infrastructure and public administration systems theory. It asks how proprietary analytical platforms alter the state’s capacity to produce, audit, and contest the categories through which risk, threat, eligibility, fraud, and deviance become actionable. Using a structured documentary case analysis of Palantir Technologies across United States agencies and allied jurisdictions, the study applies three diagnostic markers—categorical opacity, contestation displacement, and substitutive dependency—to examine the migration of sovereign classification into vendor-controlled infrastructure. The research gap was identified through an integrative review of public administration, AI governance, algorithmic accountability, systems theory, surveillance studies, and Palantir scholarship. The analysis distinguishes AI epistemic capture from ordinary IT vendor lock-in: the former concerns not merely technical dependence or high exit costs but the loss of public capacity to define and contest consequential administrative categories. The paper argues that administrative law, procurement reform, and algorithmic impact assessment remain necessary but insufficient when agencies lack substitutive capacity. It specifies untangling as a systems-level task involving capacity reconstruction, categorical repatriation, contractual restructuring, and procurement reorientation. Hybrid intelligence is advanced as a post-untangling architecture that embeds machine processing within contestable, accountable, and legally governed human judgment. The contribution is diagnostic, methodological, and design-oriented for AI systems governance.

The sustainable development paradigm, as institutionalized through the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), has reached a state of structural exhaustion. Only 17% of SDG targets were on track at the 2024 midpoint, with over one‐third stalled or regressing. This conceptual paper argues that sustainable development is dead as a governance paradigm, killed by four convergent forces: political delegitimation processes by populist‐authoritarian movements, capture of UN sustainability mechanisms by financialized market instruments, conceptual stretching beyond analytical coherence, and coordination failure across global, national, and local governance scales. Drawing on the Quadruple Bottom Line (QBL) framework, the post‐factual polity thesis, and adjacent literatures on resilience‐based governance, paradox theory, and sustainability transitions, the paper proposes adaptive transformation governance (ATG) as a successor framework that embeds governance accountability as a structural design principle.

The rapid integration of artificial intelligence into private and public-sector decision-making has outpaced the development of standards governing the interaction between human judgment and machine intelligence. Existing frameworks—the EU AI Act Regulation, the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, and ISO/IEC 42001—regulate AI systems as discrete technical artifacts but do not standardize the hybrid intelligence configurations in which human cognition and algorithmic outputs jointly produce governance decisions. This paper proposes a three-layer standards framework comprising technical interoperability standards governing how AI outputs are communicated to human decision-makers, procedural standards governing human-AI task allocation and escalation protocols, and accountability standards governing responsibility attribution in distributed decision configurations. The framework is grounded in the Quadruple Bottom Line (QBL), which adds governance as a fourth sustainability dimension. To move beyond a purely conceptual contribution, the paper provides operationalization tools—including a role allocation matrix, confidence calibration thresholds, an accountability mapping template, and a domain classification schema—and proposes a three-tier conformity assessment methodology for evaluating framework implementation. By establishing the hybrid human–AI decision configuration as the unit of standardization, the paper introduces a governance architecture that enables operational, auditable, and comparable hybrid intelligence systems.

Artificial intelligence systems increasingly shape not only what information citizens access but the interpretive frameworks through which they perceive public affairs, posing a governance challenge that public administration scholarship has yet to theorise. Through conceptual and normative analysis, the paper develops the construct of perceptual infrastructure – the cognitive and informational substrate of democratic deliberation – drawing on information theory, public administration and regulatory-governance scholarship, and tests it against the EU regulatory architecture. The analysis shows that the algorithmic construction of perceptual frameworks constitutes a distinct governance domain that the EU AI Act and the Digital Services Act do not reach, owing primarily to a regulatory omission rather than an implementation deficit: existing provisions take systems, use cases and identifiable harms as their object, not the cumulative, longitudinal construction of perception. An accountability framework is proposed – incorporating aggregate transparency, perceptual sovereignty as a citizen right, proportional responsibility and meta-perceptual literacy – with concrete implications for administrative accountability, regulatory capacity and democratic resilience.

This research examines the integration of Ibn Khaldûn’s administrative principles within contemporary governance, challenging Western-centric narratives in public administration. Utilizing qualitative analysis of governmental reports, historical texts, and policy documents from twenty countries, the study highlights the traces and adaptations of Khaldûnian thought in governance structures. Key findings reveal the diverse interpretations and applications of foundational concepts derived from Khaldûn’s work, such as social cohesion (‘asabiyyah) and the balance between justice and economic prosperity, within varying political and administrative frameworks. The research underscores how these historical principles continue to resonate in addressing modern governance challenges, including decentralization, stakeholder participation, and the ethical integration of religious and cultural values. By bridging historical insights with contemporary practices, the study contributes to diversifying public administration theories, advocating for culturally resonant governance approaches. The comparative exploration enriches the academic discourse on inclusive and effective governance, offering policymakers practical frameworks for integrating historical insight into modern administrative systems.

Abstract Organizations are perpetually challenged to adapt and evolve in the increasingly complex and unpredictable public service landscape. Using two international case studies from Australia and New Zealand, this research examines the critical role of adaptive leadership in fostering resilience within public service entities, focusing on the integral role of ethics in disaster response. The research is grounded in the theory of adaptive leadership, which posits that contemporary organizational challenges require leadership to encourage adaptation and learning. The study explores how adaptive leadership, intertwined with ethical practices, contributes to creating resilient public service organizations capable of withstanding and evolving through crises, constant changes, and adversities. Through a detailed examination of the case studies affecting the general public and ethical considerations, the research unravels the intricacies of public administrators’ ethical dilemmas, concluding with reflections on the implications for public service ethics, integrity, and public trust. The study not only elucidates the symbiotic relationship between adaptive leadership and ethics in fostering organizational resilience but also charts a course for future policy formulation and leadership training programs, underscoring the indispensable role of ethical governance in navigating crises. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY This study investigates how leaders in government organizations best handle tricky situations like natural disasters. Adaptive leadership, which is flexible and encourages learning, is essential, especially when quick and innovative responses are necessary. For instance, after the disasters of bushfires in Australia or earthquakes in New Zealand, leaders who used this style were more successful in preparing for, managing, and recovering. This was partly due to their ethical approach, which focuses on fairness, transparency, and working for the common good. Ethical leadership is crucial because it builds trust within the community, which is especially important during crises. Leaders who communicate effectively, listen to the community, and engage with people’s concerns make better decisions for everyone involved. This article emphasizes that leaders who adapt and maintain strong values are vital for public service organizations to overcome challenges and serve the public effectively. Training future leaders in adaptive and ethical leadership is recommended to ensure organizations respond to challenges effectively and with the public’s interest at heart. This approach will prepare organizations to survive and thrive in adversity, building a resilient and trustworthy public service.

Through resilience theory, this paper explores the integration and alignment of the United Nations sustainable development goals (SDGs) within Kosovo's National Development Strategy (NDS). It highlights how adaptability and strategic planning underpin sustainable development in emerging national contexts like Kosovo, offering a qualitative analysis to identify gaps and suggest improvements for SDG integration. Utilizing a qualitative analysis, this study identifies gaps and provides recommendations for better SDG integration within Kosovo's national development agenda. Data analysis involves the thematic coding of qualitative data and synthesis of case study findings by examining existing documents, strategies, and plans as manifestations of Kosovo's commitment to fostering resilience and achieving a sustainable future. Key insights include recommendations for enhancing governance, environmental protection mechanisms, and social inclusivity to achieve resilient and sustainable economic growth. The study contributes to the discourse on resilience theory in national sustainable development strategies amidst political uncertainty.

In The Post-Factual Polity: Ethical, Governance, Administrative, and Policy Crises in the Disinformation Era, Haris Alibašic presents a compelling and timely examination of the intricate challenges facing our society in the age of disinformation and misinformation. This groundbreaking book delves into the critical intersection of ethics, governance, and the pervasive influence of post-factual politics, offering a nuanced understanding of the issues that shape public policy and administration in the digital era.Haris Alibašic, with his extensive experience and scholarly insight, guides readers through the complexities of ethical governance amidst the rise of disinformation. His insightful analysis, covering topics from the history of factual politics to the role of AI in public discourse, is essential for academics, policymakers, and anyone invested in the future of ethical governance. This book is a beacon for those seeking to navigate and counteract the challenges of misinformation, aiming to foster a more informed, ethical, and resilient society.The Post-Factual Polity is more than a book; it is an urgent call to action, a roadmap for navigating the tumultuous landscape of modern governance, and a testament to the power of truth in an era of uncertainty. As an authoritative source in the field, it is poised to become a vital reference for those dedicated to upholding the principles of democracy and integrity in public policy and administration.

Public budgeting and finance is a discipline that encompasses communities of research and practice. Too often, however, these communities fail to engage each other, instead choosing to operate independently. The result is that the research being conducted fails to address the questions of the day and our governments’ challenges. In this article, we come together as a community of academics and practitioners to establish an agenda for where future research should be conducted. This agenda aims to align the research being undertaken within the academic community with the needs of those working in the community of practice. After establishing ten areas where research is needed, we followed a ranked-choice voting process to establish a prioritization for them. Based on the outcome of this process, the two primary areas where research is currently needed most are the fiscal health of our governments and the implementation of social equity budgeting.  

For decades, academic freedom and shared governance have stood as cornerstones of higher education in the United States, but these principles face unprecedented challenges. Recent developments point to a disturbing decline in these critical values, stirring debates on the future viability of the higher education system. This study delves into the problematic trajectory of modern higher education, spotlighting the rise of corporate practices within academic institutions, the swelling ranks of university administration, and the disproportionate weight given to student evaluations in assessing faculty. These factors have converged to push academia into an unstable transition, a liminal phase fueled by external and internal forces. This study examines the evolving landscape of academic freedom within the corporatized university model. Utilizing the concept of liminality, it explores the transitional challenges faced by academia in balancing traditional scholarly values with emerging market-driven paradigms, arguing that the corporatization of universities represents a liminal phase, wherein the identity and purpose of academic institutions are in flux, significantly impacting the notion of academic freedom. The shift toward a consumer-oriented ethos endangers the foundational principles of higher education, risking substituting educational substance with the mere transaction of educational services. The study concludes by issuing a call to action for all stakeholders in higher education to acknowledge and confront these detrimental trends, thereby safeguarding the principles of academic freedom, shared governance, and the educational system's overall integrity and dynamism.