The post LIRNEasia CEO Helani Galpaya at the Launch of State of India’s Digital Economy Report appeared first on LIRNEasia.

Unlike the broader country reports, this report presents a focused case study of South Korea’s evolving data protection framework and its efforts to balance strong privacy protections with data-driven innovation. The report examines the development of South Korea’s legal and institutional framework, with particular attention to the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA), subsequent amendments, and the broader “Three Data Laws” regime. It also analyses reforms relating to pseudonymized data, AI governance, cross-border data transfers, automated decision-making, and data industry promotion, while drawing lessons from South Korea’s experience in developing an adaptive and innovation-oriented data governance framework. 

The South Korea Country Report can be found below. 

The post Harnessing Data for Democratic Development in South and Southeast Asia: South Korea Country Report appeared first on LIRNEasia.

The report provides an overview of Nepal’s constitutional and governance framework and examines the laws, policies, and institutional arrangements that shape the collection, processing, storage, access, and sharing of data. It analyses key legislative instruments, including the Electronic Transaction Act, Privacy Act, Right to Information Act, Statistics Act, and the Directives for Managing the Use of Social Networks, while also assessing emerging initiatives relating to open data, digital governance, interoperability, and cybersecurity. The report further explores issues relating to institutional capacity, fragmented implementation, data localization, and the absence of a comprehensive data governance framework, highlighting the tensions between openness, privacy, innovation, and state regulation within Nepal’s evolving digital ecosystem. 

The Nepal Country Report can be found below. 

The post Harnessing Data for Democratic Development in South and Southeast Asia: Nepal Country Report appeared first on LIRNEasia.

Ashwini Natesan as a panelist at the Regional Dialogue on AI in Governance.

The initiative brought together policymakers, educators, and technology stakeholders from across South Asia to explore the ethical and practical applications of artificial intelligence (AI) in governance. Prior to the regional dialogue, consultations and capacity-building workshops were conducted in India, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh to identify country-level priorities, challenges, and opportunities related to AI governance.

Ashwini discussing the importance of strengthening data governance frameworks to support responsible and inclusive AI adoption.

Drawing from the findings of the D4DAsia project, Ashwini highlighted the importance of strengthening data governance frameworks and fostering regional cooperation to support responsible and inclusive AI adoption. The discussion focused on how South Asian countries can balance innovation and regulation while addressing shared governance challenges in rapidly evolving digital ecosystems.

The panel also featured Raman Jit Singh (India), Muntasir Mamun, PhD(Bangladesh), Ujjwal Deep Dahal (Bhutan), and Adesh Khadka (Nepal), who shared country experiences, best practices, and perspectives on the relationship between innovation and regulation in AI governance across the region. The session was moderated by Ami Kumar.

The dialogue provided an important platform for cross-country learning and collaboration on AI governance, highlighting the need for regional approaches to data governance, capacity building, and policy development in South Asia.

The post LIRNEasia Policy Fellow Ashwini Natesan Participates in South Asian Regional Dialogue on AI Governance appeared first on LIRNEasia.

The report provides an overview of India’s constitutional and governance framework and examines the laws and policies that shape the collection, processing, storage, access, and sharing of data. It analyses a broad range of policy areas, including open standards, open data, digital public infrastructure, data protection, geospatial governance, and right to information frameworks. The report also undertakes an in-depth examination of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act and India Stack, assessing the trade-offs between innovation, interoperability, privacy, and state access. In addition, it explores institutional and implementation challenges, tensions between openness and security, and the evolving role of digital public infrastructure in India’s data governance ecosystem. 

The India Country Report can be found below. 

The post Harnessing Data for Democratic Development in South and Southeast Asia: India Country Report appeared first on LIRNEasia.

RFP for the “Design, Development, Implementation, and Support of the National Open Data Ecosystem (NODE) of Pakistan

Initiatives such as NODE have the potential to significantly improve interoperability across government institutions, enhance access to public data, and support more evidence-based policymaking and service delivery. 

It is encouraging to see long-standing discussions around data governance now translating into concrete policy action. This is an area that LIRNEasia Senior Policy Fellow in Pakistan, Muhammad Aslam Hayat, has consistently advocated for through his work on data governance, interoperability, and open data frameworks in Pakistan. 

In his recent article, This AI Moment Needs Data Governance, he emphasized the urgent need to invest in data quality, standardization, and interoperability across government systems. He noted that public-sector data in Pakistan often remains fragmented, inconsistent, and siloed, with different agencies relying on incompatible formats and identifiers, leading to inefficiencies and barriers to effective governance. 

Similarly, in another article Power, Privacy and Governance, he underscored the importance of robust open data frameworks and stronger governance mechanisms to ensure that emerging data ecosystems remain transparent, inclusive, accountable, and rights-respecting. 

These ideas have also been echoed in broader regional discussions under the “Harnessing Data for Democratic Development in South and Southeast Asia” (D4DAsia) project and Pakistan country report, as well as during the forum hosted by the Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI) on “Public-Private Dialogue (PPD) on Data Governance in Pakistan” in which Aslam Hayat as well Pranesh Prakash (Research Fellow, LIRNEasia) were panelists.

Aslam Hayat at the forum hosted by the SDPI on “Public-Private Dialogue (PPD) on Data Governance in Pakistan

Furthermore, Aslam presented research findings from the D4DAsia project at the 26th Meeting of the South Asian Telecommunications Regulators’ Council, organized by the Asia-Pacific Telecommunity and hosted by the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority. Across these engagements, participants repeatedly highlighted the need for a more democratic, inclusive, and accountable approach to data governance.

Aslam Hayat presenting key findings from the D4DAsia project at the 26th Meeting of the South Asian Telecommunications Regulators’ Council

We are encouraged to see these recommendations gaining traction and are proud to have contributed to the evolving national conversation on open data, interoperability, and digital governance in Pakistan. The establishment of a National Open Data Ecosystem has the potential to enable more efficient public services, strengthening transparency and accountability, and fostering innovation and research across sectors. 

The post LIRNEasia’s Data Governance Research Gains Policy Traction in Pakistan appeared first on LIRNEasia.

The report draws on evidence from across the Global South to examine the structural drivers of information disorder and assess regulatory and societal responses in Africa, the MENA region, Asia, and Latin America. It brings together contributions from LIRNEasia, InternetLab, the Center for Collaborative Investigative Journalism, Research ICT Africa, and the ARIJ Network. The project was led by the Centre for Information Integrity in Africa (CINIA) at Stellenbosch University and funded by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). 

The report identifies root causes of information disorder, maps response strategies, and evaluates their effectiveness, drawing on locally grounded evidence across governance and platform regulation, media and information literacy, and fact-checking ecosystems. 

LIRNEasia contributed Chapter 4, ‘Empowering Children Against Misinformation: A Review of Media and Information Literacy (MIL) Interventions in Sri Lanka’, authored by Isuru Samaratunga, Research Manager at LIRNEasia, and Helani Galpaya, CEO of LIRNEasia. 

The chapter examines how Media and Information Literacy (MIL) programmes can strengthen children’s ability to recognise and resist misinformation. It uses a MIL initiative by Sarvodaya-Fusion as a case study, focusing on how it equipped children with the skills to navigate the digital environment safely, ethically, and responsibly. The year-long data collection followed children across three districts in Sri Lanka, tracking not only what they learned from the programme, but also what they retained and applied months later.    

“Educators are pushing for media and information literacy (MIL) programs. Such interventions can often be rapidly tailored to local contexts and involve those directly affected by “fake news.” 

Findings show that MIL interventions have a clear, positive impact on children’s digital lives. They improve awareness, strengthen critical and technical skills, and encourage responsible online behaviour. Children also emerge as knowledge multipliers within their communities. The study further suggests that even short, well-designed interventions can produce meaningful shifts in attitudes, skills, and practices—particularly when reinforced through interactive learning and peer engagement. To deepen this impact, future efforts could include follow-up sessions, targeted content for caregivers, and context-specific support to address trust-based vulnerabilities. 

This report was originally published by the Centre for Information Integrity in Africa at Stellenbosch University on 28 April 2026. 

For a more comprehensive understanding of this work, readers are encouraged to refer to the full chapter (pp. 73–98). 

The post Empowering Children Against Misinformation: A Review of MIL Interventions in Sri Lanka appeared first on LIRNEasia.

In a recent article published in the Daily FT on 6 May 2026, LIRNEasia Research Fellow Ashwini Natesan discusses the importance of grounding AI development in strong data governance. She highlights that before shifting focus to advanced algorithms and AI applications, Sri Lanka must first build a coherent and trustworthy data governance foundation by addressing how data is collected, shared, structured, and protected.

She also discusses the legal and governance challenges emerging alongside AI development, particularly around the use of personal data and copyrighted material in training large language models (LLMs). She further notes that fragmented and under-implemented data governance frameworks continue to hinder Sri Lanka’s AI readiness.

Ashwini emphasizes that Sri Lanka does not lack policy frameworks. Rather, what is needed is a review and strengthening of existing data governance policies and procedures. She underscores that a coherent national approach to data governance will not only support AI development but also strengthen public trust.

Read the English version of the article in the Daily FT. The article was also published in Tamil in the Virakesari newspaper on 26 April 2026, and the Sinhala version of the article was published on Lankadeepa on 11 May 2026.

The post Sri Lanka’s AI ambitions need a strong data governance foundation appeared first on LIRNEasia.

Eighty-four years later, Speedy is no longer fictional. He has a sleek interface, a natural language model, and a multimillion-dollar government contract. And we are still, very much, watching him circle the selenium pool.

Laws for Machines (Written by Humans, For Humans)

Mary Shelley got there first, of course. Frankenstein, published in 1818, a full century before the word “robot” was even coined, posed the question that has haunted every iteration of the conversation since: when you build something powerful enough to act in the world, who is responsible for what it does? The monster doesn’t sue Frankenstein. But perhaps it should have.

Jack M. Balkin, Knight Professor of Constitutional Law at Yale, picked up this thread in a 2017 essay titled The Three Laws of Robotics in the Age of Big Data, published in the Ohio State Law Journal. His argument is elegant and worth sitting with. The robots, Balkin insists, are not the problem. The humans who build, program, and deploy them are. Asimov wrote laws to constrain the machines. Balkin writes laws to constrain the people holding the remote control.

His framework has three pillars. First, operators of algorithms and AI agents are information fiduciaries. They owe special duties of good faith and fair dealing to their end-users. Second, even those who are not formal fiduciaries still carry duties toward the general public. Third, and most bracingly, no company may leverage its computational advantages to offload the costs of its technology onto everyone else, what Balkin calls becoming an algorithmic nuisance.

The fiduciary concept is the interesting one. We already accept it in other domains without much fuss. Doctors owe you a duty of care. Lawyers cannot act against your interests. Financial advisers must put your money ahead of their commissions. When you speak to an AI assistant, Balkin argues, you are not simply talking to an appliance. You are speaking to a corporation that is privy to the most intimate details of your life, and that corporation should have a fiduciary duty to deal with you in a trustworthy fashion.

This was the theoretical case, written in 2017 before most people had heard of large language models. Then reality caught up with the theory and made it considerably more dramatic.

The Deadline Was 5:01 p.m.

On February 24, 2026, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sat down with Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, and gave him a deadline. Relent by 5:01 p.m. on Friday, February 27, and allow unrestricted use of Claude, Anthropic’s AI model, for “all legal purposes.” If not, the Pentagon would terminate Anthropic’s contract and deem the company a supply chain risk. That designation, as it happens, is typically stamped on foreign adversaries with connections to hostile states. Not on American startups operating out of San Francisco.

The 5:01 p.m. deadline is a nice touch. One imagines a Pentagon aide carefully choosing the extra minute for maximum menace and pure high drama.

Amodei’s objections were specific. Anthropic was unwilling to allow Claude to be used for AI-controlled weapons and for mass domestic surveillance of American citizens. These were not vague philosophical anxieties. Anthropic’s position was that today’s frontier AI models are simply not reliable enough for fully autonomous weapons, and that mass domestic surveillance of Americans constitutes a violation of fundamental rights. He held his red lines. The Pentagon fired back, calling the company “sanctimonious” and accusing Amodei of a “God-complex” who wanted to “personally control the US Military.”

Friday came. Trump ordered federal agencies to immediately cease their use of Anthropic’s tools. Hegseth declared the company a supply chain risk. The all-caps Truth Social post followed, calling Anthropic a “radical left, woke company” that would never be allowed to dictate how the great American military fights its wars.

(Meanwhile, Claude shot to the top of Apple’s App Store. Consumers, it turns out, have their own form of democratic participation.)

The Other CEO

Within hours of Anthropic’s blacklisting, Sam Altman (OpenAI’s CEO), Amodei’s former colleague and longtime rival, announced that OpenAI had struck a deal with the Pentagon. The agreement allowed the Department of War to deploy OpenAI’s models in its classified systems, with Altman claiming he had secured restrictions on mass surveillance and autonomous weapons similar to those Anthropic had sought.

The timing was, at a minimum, unfortunate. Altman himself later admitted the deal “looked opportunistic and sloppy.” He said OpenAI had moved quickly to de-escalate, but critics, including some of his own employees, weren’t buying it. One scholar at the Wharton School accused OpenAI of undercutting Anthropic at a critical moment and said the rest of the AI industry had failed to close ranks in solidarity. Chalk graffiti appeared outside OpenAI’s San Francisco offices. (The sidewalk outside Anthropic’s offices was, by contrast, largely supportive.) Altman subsequently renegotiated his deal, adding explicit surveillance prohibitions. He acknowledged the original agreement had been “rushed.”

What we have here are two men who, by their own accounts, share the same principles. Both publicly opposed mass surveillance and autonomous weapons, but behaved in completely different ways when power applied pressure. One held the line and paid for it commercially. The other signed the contract and spent the next week explaining himself on social media.

The contrast is philosophically tidy. It is also a case study in what happens to stated values when the stakes become real.

On Fiduciary Duty, Public Duty, and the Shape of Power

Was Amodei’s refusal a fiduciary duty? Technically speaking, under Balkin’s framework, the fiduciary relationship runs between Anthropic and its users, the people who interact with Claude, who entrust it with their questions, their documents, their secrets. The duty there is one of loyalty and good faith. Allowing Claude to be repurposed as a surveillance instrument against those very users would be, in Balkin’s terms, a textbook breach. The company would be deploying its computational advantage to harm the people who gave it their trust in the first place, the definition of an algorithmic nuisance.

But Amodei invoked something larger. He specifically objected to the use of Claude for mass surveillance of American citizens and for fully autonomous weapons systems. Those are not his customers. Those are the public. That is Balkin’s second law: the duty of AI operators toward uninvolved third parties, people with whom they have no contract, but who bear the consequences of the technology regardless. You might call it a public duty. You might also call it a conscience. The two are not always as different as lawyers would prefer.

Philosophy has its own vocabulary for what happens when power goes unchecked. Montesquieu argued in The Spirit of the Laws (1748) that power must be distributed to prevent tyranny. Not because rulers are necessarily malicious, but because concentration makes malice easy and accountability hard. John Locke, writing in his Second Treatise of Civil Government (1690), held that even sovereign power carries a trust relationship toward the governed; breach that trust and legitimacy dissolves. The Defence Production Act, which the Pentagon threatened to invoke against Anthropic (effectively compelling a private company to produce technology on the government’s terms), is precisely the kind of unchecked executive authority those frameworks were designed to resist. One legal analyst described Title I of the Act as “a more straightforwardly Soviet power,” allowing the government to directly command the production of industrial goods.

And here the questions multiply. Can an AI company set limits on how the government uses its technology? A traditional defense contractor cannot tell the Pentagon where to point the missiles. But AI ethics, as it turns out, are set through contracts, procurement rules, and actual behavior, not just declarations of principle. Anthropic was not refusing to help the military. It was refusing to help the military do two specific things it believed were dangerous and unconstitutional. As Amodei put it in an interview with CBS News: “One of the things about a free market and free enterprise is different folks can provide different products under different principles.”

A federal judge, hearing Anthropic’s lawsuit on March 24, appeared to agree with at least part of this. Judge Rita Lin called the Pentagon’s restrictions “troubling” and questioned whether the supply chain risk designation was designed to punish Anthropic for expressing its principles in public rather than for any genuine national security concern. “I don’t know if it’s murder,” she said, “but it looks like an attempt to cripple Anthropic.”

Judges rarely deploy the word “murder” in passing.

Speedy, Still Circling

Asimov’s robot Speedy was eventually freed from his loop by a human who put himself in danger, forcing the first law to override everything else. The solution required someone to take a risk in order to break the deadlock.

There is something in that worth holding onto. The deadlock we are watching now, between the power of AI, the demands of the state, and the duties owed to the public, will not resolve itself. It requires people in positions of power to be willing to take a hit. Balkin’s laws are elegant, but they are still theoretical. The fiduciary duties he describes do not yet exist in statute. The public duties he outlines are not yet enforced by any court. What we have, for now, are the choices individual people make when the deadline is 5:01 p.m. on a Friday, and the consequences are real.

One CEO held. One CEO blinked. And the rest of us are still watching Speedy circle.

By Vishmila Fernando (Junior Researcher, LIRNEasia)
Vishmila is a member of the Data, Algorithms and Policy (DAP) team at LIRNEasia – which participates in the policy dialogue around our algorithmically-inclined society with critical research and technical expertise.

References

• Isaac Asimov, Runaround (1942), collected in I, Robot (1950)
• Jack M. Balkin, The Three Laws of Robotics in the Age of Big Data, 78 Ohio State Law Journal 1217 (2017) – SSRN
• Reason, Anthropic CEO Refuses Pentagon Demands to Remove Safeguards on Military AI (Feb. 27, 2026) – reason.com
• OPB/AP, Anthropic Refuses to Bend to Pentagon on AI Safeguards (Feb. 27, 2026) –opb.org
• Tech Policy Press, A Timeline of the Anthropic-Pentagon Dispute (updated March 2026) – techpolicy.press
• MS NOW / NBC, Federal Judge Calls Pentagon’s Ban of Anthropic ‘Troubling’ (March 24, 2026) – ms.now
• TIME, How Anthropic Became the Most Disruptive Company in the World (March 11, 2026) – time.com
• CNN, OpenAI Strikes Deal with Pentagon Hours After Rival Anthropic Was Blacklisted (Feb. 27, 2026) – cnn.com
• Fortune, Sam Altman Says OpenAI Renegotiating ‘Opportunistic and Sloppy’ Deal with the Pentagon (March 3, 2026) – fortune.com
• CBS News, Anthropic CEO Says He’s Sticking to AI “Red Lines” (Feb. 27, 2026) – cbsnews.com
• The Conversation, From Anthropic to Iran: Who Sets the Limits on AI’s Use in War and Surveillance? (March 2026) – theconversation.com
• NPR, Anthropic Sues the Trump Administration Over ‘Supply Chain Risk’ Label (March 9, 2026) – npr.org

The post Are Monsters Real? appeared first on LIRNEasia.

Even though the Constitution of the Philippines protects citizens’ right to access official records and research data used in policymaking, the absence of a comprehensive right-to-information law has left implementation subject to executive discretion. In a recent article published in InsiderPH on April 6, 2026, J.J. Disini, Country Researcher for the Philippines for LIRNEasia’s D4D Asia Project, highlights gaps in the country’s data governance framework despite constitutional guarantees of access to government information.

Drawing on recent research commissioned by LIRNEasia, Disini notes that fragmented data platforms, limited inter-agency coordination, and siloed information systems continue to restrict access to government data. In addition, agencies frequently invoke the Data Privacy Act to avoid sharing data, even in cases where personal data protections do not apply, resulting in risk-averse behavior and reduced data use for policymaking.

He argues that improving data governance requires stronger interoperability, coordinated data management, and recognition of data as a strategic public resource. While institutions such as the Philippine Statistics Authority demonstrate the government’s capacity to collect valuable datasets, limited access and technical fragmentation prevent their effective use. Disini points to the recently enacted Republic Act No. 12254 as a positive step, as it mandates integrated government networks, secure APIs, and shared data systems to address siloed information. With this framework now in place, the focus shifts to implementation, with improved data accessibility and interoperability seen as key to strengthening evidence-based policymaking, transparency, and public trust.

Read the full article in the InsiderPH

The post Missed opportunities in Philippine data governance appeared first on LIRNEasia.

The idea of turning Sri Lanka into a regional data centre hub is an attractive one, particularly in the context of growing global demand for digital infrastructure and AI-driven services. However, it raises important economic questions, especially whether this is a viable and high-return investment strategy for a small, fiscally constrained economy like Sri Lanka.

In an article published in the Daily FT on 24 February 2026, LIRNEasia Chair Professor Rohan Samarajiva questions the feasibility of this proposal, highlighting the significant infrastructure requirements and fiscal implications involved. He notes that data centres are not simple digital investments, but highly resource-intensive facilities that depend on reliable electricity, adequate land, water for cooling, and strong digital connectivity, including undersea cable networks.

He brings Viet Nam as a comparison to illustrate the scale of commitment required, discussing how Viet Nam has pursued policies that allow full foreign ownership of data centres, enable direct access to renewable energy sources, and support large-scale infrastructure expansion. This underscores the gap between Sri Lanka’s current capacity and the level of investment needed to compete regionally.

He also raises concerns about the economic returns of such investments. Data centres are capital-intensive but generate relatively limited direct employment, and the fiscal benefits through taxation remain uncertain. At the same time, they place pressure on scarce national resources such as electricity and water, raising important opportunity cost considerations.

Finally, he also discussed that there is significant uncertainty around long-term technological trajectories. The current wave of investment is driven by silicon-based computing architectures that power large language models, but these could become obsolete in the future. Emerging technologies, such as quantum or biological computing, could fundamentally change infrastructure requirements, potentially reducing the relevance of today’s large-scale data centre investments.

Read the full article on the Daily FT.

The post Rethinking Sri Lanka’s Data Centre Hub Ambition appeared first on LIRNEasia.

Nepal’s evolving digital landscape highlights a growing tension between constitutional guarantees of privacy and access to information, and a fragmented, outdated data governance framework. In a recent article published in Republica on March 17, 2026, Avash Mainali, Country Researcher for Nepal for LIRNEasia’s D4D Asia project, argues that while the introduction of the Personal Data Protection Policy, 2082 (2025), marks a positive step, its impact will depend on whether it can move beyond aspirational language to enforceable rights. Existing laws, including the Electronic Transactions Act and the Privacy Act, create a patchwork system in which state institutions retain broad data collection powers, while citizens lack meaningful control over their personal information and face limited access to public data.

Drawing on comparative insights from LIRNEasia’s D4D Asia project, he highlights that countries such as India, Sri Lanka, and Singapore demonstrate how data protection, innovation, and digital economic growth can coexist when supported by clear legal frameworks and independent oversight. Avash emphasizes that Nepal must similarly balance openness and control, ensuring access to non-sensitive government data while protecting personal data through safeguards such as consent, transparency, and accountability.

The article underscores that Nepal’s immediate challenge is not technological capability but governance. Strengthening data protection laws, ensuring enforceable user rights, limiting state surveillance through principles such as necessity and proportionality, and establishing an independent oversight authority are identified as key priorities. As digital services rapidly expand, he concludes that building public trust through accountable and secure data governance will be essential to ensure that innovation supports, rather than undermines, Nepal’s democratic future.

Read the full article in the Republica.

The post Nepal’s digital crossroads: building a transparent data governance framework appeared first on LIRNEasia.

This brought together leading experts from the FutureWORKS Collective to examine how AI is reshaping labour markets across regions and to explore policy pathways that can ensure AI becomes a force for inclusion rather than inequality.

Helani Galpaya, Chief Executive Officer of LIRNEasia, participated as a panellist alongside Megan Ballesty (Co-Founder and Public Policy Specialist, Sur Futuro), Ali Abboud (Assistant Professor, American University of Beirut), and Ruth Castel-Branco (Senior Lecturer, Southern Centre for Inequality Studies, University of the Witwatersrand). The session was moderated by Sabina Dewan, Founder and Executive Director of JustJobs Network.

During the panel discussion, Helani explained that AI is fundamentally reshaping the nature of work by moving humans away from direct, hands-on technical tasks. She said that routine tasks that previously required direct effort, such as coding or large-scale data labeling, are increasingly being handled by AI systems, while humans are focusing more on guiding these systems. This includes setting objectives, evaluating outputs, identifying gaps in previous models, and deciding what the AI should prioritize. According to her, these changes reflect a broader shift in the AI value chain, where technical execution is increasingly automated and human labor is directed toward higher-level tasks that require judgment, expertise, and oversight.

She also noted that this transformation is especially visible in downstream applications, with significant algorithmic replacement occurring where AI is deployed, integrated, and customized across industries. While some traditional roles may shrink, Helani highlighted that, at the same time, new opportunities are emerging in positions that demand critical thinking, domain expertise, and careful supervision of AI in high-trust, high-skill areas. Because automation is occurring alongside the creation of these new roles, she explained that widespread job losses are not yet fully visible in these parts of the value chain, but the way people work, the skills they need, and how economic value is captured are clearly evolving, signaling a significant shift in the structure of labor in an AI-driven world.

The broader conversation moved beyond debates about jobs gained or lost. Instead, it focused on a more fundamental question, who benefits from AI-driven transformations, who risks being left further behind, and how this transition can be governed responsibly. Key reflections underscored how AI often extends existing social and economic structures while introducing new patterns of vulnerability for workers, particularly those in informal sectors. Gendered disparities in skills, access, and representation continue to shape how AI affects work, with women facing disproportionate challenges in AI-driven labour markets.

As AI reshapes work across the Global South, inclusive policymaking, targeted skills development, and reforms to social protection systems are critical to ensuring that AI becomes a tool for expanding opportunity rather than deepening inequality.

The post LIRNEasia CEO Helani Galpaya Shares Insights on AI and Labour at ISLE Conference 2026 appeared first on LIRNEasia.

These issues were explored at “Securing Labour Justice in the Age of AI: A Global South Policy Dialogue,” a pre-summit event held on 15 January 2026 in New Delhi as part of the lead-up to the India AI Impact Summit 2026. The dialogue was convened by JustJobs Network in collaboration with the IDRC-funded FutureWORKS Collective, with support from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). Researchers and policy experts from Africa, Asia, and Latin America came together to discuss how AI is reshaping work in developing economies.

“Securing Labour Justice in the Age of AI: A Global South Policy Dialogue” panel discussion

Helani Galpaya, Chief Executive Officer of LIRNEasia, participated as a panelist in the discussion, sharing insights from ongoing research under the Future of Work Asia project. This initiative is part of the broader FutureWORKS Collective, where LIRNEasia is leading the development of a regional research network and currently supports 12 research projects. These projects examine the effects of technological change, climate change, and demographic shifts on the future of work and skills in Asia.

The panel also included Ali Abboud (Assistant Professor, American University of Beirut), Peter Quartey (Professor, University of Ghana), Ramiro Albrieu (Lecturer, University of Buenos Aires / Sur Futuro), and Ruth Castel-Branco (Senior Lecturer, University of the Witwatersrand), with the session moderated by Sabina Dewan, Founder and Executive Director of JustJobs Network.

Speaking on the panel, Helani noted that while South Asia appears, at an aggregate level, to be less exposed to AI-related job disruption, the World Bank’s South Asia Development Update 2025 highlights significant variation within the region. Countries such as India and Nepal are assessed as having relatively lower exposure, largely due to their substantial agricultural workforces and higher shares of lower-skilled occupations, which are assumed to be less immediately susceptible to AI substitution. In contrast, Bhutan and Sri Lanka show higher average levels of AI exposure, reflecting their comparatively more skilled occupational structures. However, she cautioned that “exposure” does not automatically translate into job loss, in many cases, AI may substitute specific tasks rather than eliminate entire roles. Furthermore, she noted that the method of calculating AI exposure is based on the assumption that the task composition of a job in Asia is the same as that of the same job in America or OECD countries. Therefore, the assumptions for such predictions are really questionable.

Helani also highlighted uneven patterns of value capture across the AI value chain. While South Asian countries, including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, have played important roles in cloud work and data labelling for AI systems, many of these lower-paid, gig-based roles are already being reshaped or rendered obsolete as automation advances. At the same time, higher-end roles in software engineering and AI model development remain integrated into global value chains, though even these may face gradual substitution pressures. Crucially, she stressed that the bulk of economic value generated by AI is likely to accrue to large multinational corporations that control core technologies, data infrastructures, and platforms, rather than to the dispersed workforce supporting AI systems. This raises important concerns around value capture, inequality, and the concentration of economic power. Given the global and interconnected nature of AI development, Helani points out the need for stronger international coordination and multilateral policy discussions to ensure more equitable governance outcomes.

Helani speaking on the panel about AI-related job exposure, value capture, and the implications for labour and economic equity in South Asia.

The broader dialogue also emphasized that as algorithmic systems increasingly influence access to work and livelihoods, they can reinforce existing inequalities, reflecting broader social, economic, and political structures rather than acting as purely technical tools. While routine and clerical jobs are declining, new AI-related opportunities remain largely accessible only to those with the right skills, digital access, and infrastructure.

The discussion underscored the importance of context-specific, inclusive policy approaches to ensure that AI supports decent work and labour justice, rather than widening existing inequalities.

For those interested, the full panel discussion can be viewed here: 

The post LIRNEasia CEO Helani Galpaya at the Global South Policy Dialogue: Securing Labour Justice in the Age of AI appeared first on LIRNEasia.

As part of this launch, a panel discussion titled “Case for and Against the Online Safety Act” was organized. Ashwini Natesan (Research Fellow, LIRNEasia) participated as one of the panellists, alongside Prihesh Ratnayake (Research Specialist, Factum) and Benislos Thushan (Attorney-at-law and Development Practitioner). The panel was moderated by Omar Rajaratnam (Executive Director, Factum). 

One of the questions raised to Ashwini was, “What are the three main concerns with the Online Safety Act?” In her response, she reiterated that, whilst the Act needs to be redrafted, the main concerns she would highlight are: 1) wide definitions that are broad and vague; 2) there is question whether an Online Safety Commission is needed in the first place, considering the feasibility and the resources required for it to function, leaving that aside, even if a commission were to exist, the nomination and appointment process of the Commission would certainly need to be rethought; and 3) the need to review internet intermediary liability, particularly the inclusion of criminal penalties.

Ashwini Natesan at the “Case for and Against the Online Safety Act” panel discussion

The post Ashwini Natesan at Factum’s ‘Case for and against the Online Safety Act’ panel discussion appeared first on LIRNEasia.

LIRNEasia is looking for a talented individual to join the team as a Communications Assistant. The full job description is available below. The deadline for applying is March 25, 2026. 

The post LIRNEasia is hiring: Communications Assistant appeared first on LIRNEasia.