evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Chile's Algorithmic Transparency Recommendations — Turning a National Algorithm Map into Binding Disclosure Rules

Chile · Santiago · See the Chile profile

Chile's transparency regulator (CPLT) and GobLab UAI mapped 92 automated decision systems across 42 public bodies in 2021, and in August 2024 issued binding recommendations requiring disclosure of each algorithm's purpose, logic and data categories under the Transparency Law.

92 systems
Automated or semi-automated decision systems identified in the 2021 baseline mapping (2021)
42 institutions
Public institutions covered by the 2021 baseline mapping (2021)
Chile's Algorithmic Transparency Recommendations — Turning a National Algorithm Map into Binding Disclosure Rules

Details

Maturity
Scaling
Promoter
Consejo para la Transparencia (CPLT), with GobLab UAI (Universidad Adolfo Ibanez)
Period
Baseline mapping 2021; binding recommendations issued 30 August 2024 (Resolucion Exenta No. 372)
Keywords
algorithmic transparency, open government, data protection, freedom of information

Context

Chile's Consejo para la Transparencia (CPLT), the independent authority overseeing the country's Transparency Law, partnered with GobLab, the government-innovation research centre at Universidad Adolfo Ibanez, to study how Chilean public bodies use automated decision-making. Their first systematic mapping, published in 2021, identified 92 automated or semi-automated decision systems in use across 42 public institutions — Chile's first empirical baseline of state algorithm use — and gave rise to the Repositorio de Algoritmos Publicos, a public platform GobLab continues to operate and grow.

Objectives

On 30 August 2024, the CPLT converted this groundwork into government-wide policy: Resolucion Exenta No. 372, published in Chile's Official Gazette, sets out binding recommendations requiring every public body subject to the Transparency Law to proactively disclose, for each automated or semi-automated decision system it uses, its objective, its operational logic in plain terms, and the categories of data it processes.

Activities

The recommendations were developed jointly by CPLT and GobLab UAI, drawing on the 2021–2024 mapping work plus consultation with government agencies, civil society and academia.

Results

Because the binding recommendations only took effect in August 2024, there is not yet a published independent audit of how many agencies are actually complying — unlike, for example, the Netherlands, where the privacy regulator has already measured and published compliance gaps. GobLab's work has drawn international recognition, including a July 2025 UNESCO prize nomination for responsible public-sector AI.

Conclusions

The practice's own strength — regulatory teeth added to an evidence base — is also its main open question: whether disclosure in practice matches the rule on paper.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Low (< €50k) — No specific budget figures disclosed; the work is primarily regulatory and academic research effort rather than large technology procurement.
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — Baseline mapping published 2021; consultation and groundwork 2021–2024; binding Resolucion Exenta No. 372 published in the Official Gazette 30 August 2024; UNESCO prize nomination July 2025.
Staffing & skills
Consejo para la Transparencia (CPLT) — independent transparency regulator, GobLab UAI (Universidad Adolfo Ibanez) — research and mapping partner

Conditions for success

  • An existing empirical baseline (the 2021 algorithm mapping) to build binding rules on
  • Multi-stakeholder consultation with agencies, civil society and academia before finalising the rule
  • Legal backing via an existing national Transparency Law giving the regulator authority to bind public bodies

Common failure modes

  • No published independent audit yet of actual agency compliance with the disclosure requirement
  • Risk that disclosure in practice does not match the rule on paper, as has been found by regulators in other countries (e.g., the Netherlands)

Where it fits

Governance type
independent transparency regulator plus university research partner
Scale
national
Income level
high-income

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful