The Autonomy Externality: A Welfare-Economic Model of Agentic Artificial Intelligence, Correlated Failure, and Optimal Assurance Policy

Main Article Content

Kwan Hong TAN

Abstract

Agentic artificial intelligence is shifting automation from prediction and recommendation toward autonomous execution. This transition creates an economic externality that is not captured by conventional firm-level investment models. A firm receives much of the productivity benefit from delegating decisions to an artificial intelligence agent, while part of the expected loss from correlated errors, shared model dependencies, common data suppliers, and synchronized actions can be transmitted to customers, counterparties, markets, and public institutions. This paper develops a welfare-economic model of the autonomy externality. Firms jointly choose an autonomy level and an assurance effort that reduces residual operational risk. Systemic loss is represented by a quadratic network term whose strength depends on cross-firm failure correlation. The model yields closed-form private and socially optimal choices, establishes that correlated failure raises privately excessive autonomy and depresses assurance intensity, and derives an assurance-adjusted residual-risk levy that decentralizes the social optimum. A stylized numerical calibration shows that the welfare wedge is small when failures are nearly idiosyncratic but expands sharply as common dependence rises. At a cross-firm correlation of 0.80, the socially optimal autonomy level falls from 0.973 to 0.813, assurance rises from 0.404 to 0.688, and residual risk declines by approximately 59.5 percent. Monte Carlo robustness analysis across 193,446 admissible parameter draws confirms the direction of all principal results. Policy comparisons indicate that autonomy caps and assurance floors are inferior to instruments that price residual risk and reduce common dependencies. The paper contributes a tractable economic foundation for governing agentic artificial intelligence through risk-sensitive levies, assurance credits, provider diversification, interoperability, incident reporting, and sector-specific systemic-risk supervision.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
TAN, K. H. (2026). The Autonomy Externality: A Welfare-Economic Model of Agentic Artificial Intelligence, Correlated Failure, and Optimal Assurance Policy. International Journal of Economics (IJEC), 5(2), 458–474. https://doi.org/10.55299/ijec.v5i2.2022
Section
Articles

References

Acemoglu, D. (2024). The simple macroeconomics of AI. NBER Working Paper No. 32487. https://doi.org/10.3386/w32487

Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2018). Artificial intelligence, automation, and work. NBER Working Paper No. 24196. https://doi.org/10.3386/w24196

Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2020). Robots and jobs: Evidence from US labor markets. Journal of Political Economy, 128(6), 2188-2244. https://doi.org/10.1086/705716

Acharya, V. V., Pedersen, L. H., Philippon, T., & Richardson, M. (2017). Measuring systemic risk. Review of Financial Studies, 30(1), 2-47. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhw088

Adrian, T., & Brunnermeier, M. K. (2016). CoVaR. American Economic Review, 106(7), 1705-1741. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20120555

Aldasoro, I., Gambacorta, L., Korinek, A., Shreeti, V., & Stein, M. (2024). Intelligent financial system: How AI is transforming finance. BIS Working Papers No. 1194. Bank for International Settlements.

Autor, D. H. (2015). Why are there still so many jobs? The history and future of workplace automation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(3), 3-30. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.29.3.3

Bank of England. (2025). Financial stability in focus: Artificial intelligence in the financial system. Bank of England.

Baumol, W. J., & Oates, W. E. (1988). The theory of environmental policy (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D., & Welch, I. (1992). A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades. Journal of Political Economy, 100(5), 992-1026. https://doi.org/10.1086/261849

Brynjolfsson, E., Rock, D., & Syverson, C. (2021). The productivity J-curve: How intangibles complement general purpose technologies. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 13(1), 333-372. https://doi.org/10.1257/mac.20180386

Calvano, E., Calzolari, G., Denicolo, V., & Pastorello, S. (2020). Artificial intelligence, algorithmic pricing, and collusion. American Economic Review, 110(10), 3267-3297. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20190623

Cazzaniga, M., Jaumotte, F., Li, L., Melina, G., Panton, A. J., Pizzinelli, C., Rockall, E. J., & Tavares, M. M. (2024). Gen-AI: Artificial intelligence and the future of work. IMF Staff Discussion Note 2024/001. https://doi.org/10.5089/9798400262548.006

European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence. Official Journal of the European Union.

Financial Stability Board. (2024). The financial stability implications of artificial intelligence. Financial Stability Board.

Financial Stability Board. (2025). Monitoring adoption of artificial intelligence and related vulnerabilities in the financial sector. Financial Stability Board.

Graetz, G., & Michaels, G. (2018). Robots at work. Review of Economics and Statistics, 100(5), 753-768. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00754

Kirilenko, A., Kyle, A. S., Samadi, M., & Tuzun, T. (2017). The flash crash: High-frequency trading in an electronic market. Journal of Finance, 72(3), 967-998. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12498

National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2023). Artificial intelligence risk management framework (AI RMF 1.0). NIST AI 100-1. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1

Pigou, A. C. (1920). The economics of welfare. Macmillan.

Sandmo, A. (1975). Optimal taxation in the presence of externalities. Swedish Journal of Economics, 77(1), 86-98. https://doi.org/10.2307/3439329

Tan, K. H. (2025a). The digital productivity paradox: Intangible capital, institutional capacity, and the delayed gains from artificial intelligence. ResearchGate working paper.

Tan, K. H. (2025b). Artificial intelligence as stakeholder: Rethinking corporate responsibility in algorithmically mediated organizations. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17756903

Tan, K. H. (2026a). The AI productivity-governance frontier: A theoretical model for enterprise value creation under agentic automation. International Journal of Science and Research Archive, 20(1), 52-60. https://doi.org/10.30574/ijsra.2026.20.1.1434

Tan, K. H. (2026b). Navigating the supervisory economy: AI stakeholder recognition and the transformation of organizational accountability. International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, 7(6), 7670-7675. https://doi.org/10.55248/gengpi.07.0626.18a10

Tan, K. H. (2026c). Governance-aware agentic AI for enterprise engineering systems: A design-science reference architecture and quantitative risk-control model. ResearchGate preprint. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.18948.69768

Tan, K. H. (2026d). The governance half-life of agentic artificial intelligence controls: A dynamic assurance framework for control decay, residual risk, and revalidation. ResearchGate working paper.

Wagner, W. (2010). Diversification at financial institutions and systemic crises. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 19(3), 373-386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfi.2009.07.002