An Evaluation Framework for National AI Regulation

Governments use laws, institutions, funding programs and nonbinding guidance to shape how AI is developed and used. Comparing these national approaches is difficult. A binding rule and a detailed voluntary framework can address the same problem but create different duties. The resources needed to carry them out also differ by jurisdiction. This paper develops an evaluation framework for the documented design and implementation readiness of national AI policy. The comparison covers China, India, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Union is included as a supranational comparator. The framework evaluates a versioned portfolio of official instruments rather than one prominent law or strategy. Its criteria ask whether the portfolio governs serious AI risks and whether responsible institutions can implement its commitments. They examine coverage across the AI lifecycle and the protections available to people affected by AI systems. Public benefit and responsible innovation remain a separate part of the assessment. Each sub-criterion is scored through ordered anchors and tied to the provision that supports the judgment. The protocol also records the source search, missing evidence, included instruments and cutoff date. The result is a traceable comparison of policy content that keeps category differences visible. It evaluates what a portfolio provides on paper. It does not estimate enforcement success or policy outcomes.

Comparing Socially-Equitable Renewable Energy Budget Allocation MDP Policies in Mature and Emerging Economies

Equitable renewable-energy planning is a sequential decision problem, but the decision variables available to a public planner differ sharply between mature and emerging economies. In the former the government largely builds generation, while in the latter it steers private investment through incentives and quotas. We formulate socially-equitable renewable-energy budget allocation as a Markov Decision Process (MDP) and, using a single problem-agnostic solver interface, compare the same policies across the two settings: eight U.S. cities (a mature economy) and West Java, Indonesia (an emerging economy). The results show that across both settings, a receding-horizon value-iteration policy dominates. In the U.S., it reaches 66% renewable penetration while cutting the underserved low-income population by 96% versus a random baseline. In West Java it closes the low-access gap while crowding in the most private capital. More interestingly, a naive market-chasing heuristic, which is mildly sub-optimal in the U.S., could yield catastrophic outcomes in Indonesia, by underserving every low-access region, because chasing attractive markets and serving the underserved goals diverge once the planner acts through private developers.