mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Algorithmic Fairness and Structural Injustice: Insights from Feminist Political Philosophy

arXiv 2206.00945 ↗First posted 2 Jun 2022cs.CY cs.HCcited by 15

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Data-driven predictive algorithms are widely used to automate and guide high-stake decision making such as bail and parole recommendation, medical resource distribution, and mortgage allocation. Nevertheless, harmful outcomes biased against vulnerable groups have been reported. The growing research field known as 'algorithmic fairness' aims to mitigate these harmful biases. Its primary methodology consists in proposing mathematical metrics to address the social harms resulting from an algorithm's biased outputs. The metrics are typically motivated by -- or substantively rooted in -- ideals of distributive justice, as formulated by political and legal philosophers. The perspectives of feminist political philosophers on social justice, by contrast, have been largely neglected. Some feminist philosophers have criticized the paradigm of distributive justice and have proposed corrective amendments to surmount its limitations. The present paper brings some key insights of feminist political philosophy to algorithmic fairness. The paper has three goals. First, I show that algorithmic fairness does not accommodate structural injustices in its current scope. Second, I defend the relevance of structural injustices -- as pioneered in the contemporary philosophical literature by Iris Marion Young -- to algorithmic fairness. Third, I take some steps in developing the paradigm of 'responsible algorithmic fairness' to correct for errors in the current scope and implementation of algorithmic fairness.

Key facts. Cited by 15 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 2 Jun 2022.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 3; 2024: 4; 2025: 5; 2026: 2.

15 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2022In conversation with Artificial Intelligence: aligning language models with human valuescited by 62
  2. 2024Epistemic Injustice in Generative AIcited by 16
  3. 2024Beyond Model Interpretability: Socio-Structural Explanations in Machine Learningcited by 6
  4. 2023Fairness and Sequential Decision Making: Limits, Lessons, and Opportunitiescited by 5
  5. 2024The Case for Globalizing Fairness: A Mixed Methods Study on Colonialism, AI, and Health in Africacited by 5
  6. 2023Insights From Insurance for Fair Machine Learningcited by 2
  7. 2025An AI-Powered Research Assistant in the Lab: A Practical Guide for Text Analysis Through Iterative Collaboration with LLMscited by 1
  8. 2025What Is the Point of Equality in Machine Learning Fairness? Beyond Equality of Opportunitycited by 1
  9. 2023Globalizing Fairness Attributes in Machine Learning: A Case Study on Health in Africacited by 0
  10. 2024Why Algorithms Remain Unjust: Power Structures Surrounding Algorithmic Activitycited by 0
  11. 2025Investigating the Capabilities and Limitations of Machine Learning for Identifying Bias in English Language Data with Information and Heritage Professionalscited by 0
  12. 2025Laypeople's Attitudes Towards Fair, Affirmative, and Discriminatory Decision-Making Algorithmscited by 0
3 more
  1. 2025Position: Beyond Sensitive Attributes, ML Fairness Should Quantify Structural Injustice via Social Determinantscited by 0
  2. 2026The Illusion of Opting in AI-Mediated Consequential Decisionscited by 0
  3. 2026Fairness Theatre: Evaluating Post-Hoc Fairness Interventions in Vendor-Controlled Early Warning Systemscited by 0