The AI-aging-enterprise: a political economy of aging and artificial intelligence
Clinical Snapshot
PICO Framework
| P — Population | Older adults and aging populations in the context of AI implementation |
| I — Intervention | Political economy framework analysis of AI in aging |
| C — Comparator | Traditional interventionist approaches to AI in gerontology |
| O — Outcomes | Conceptual framework for understanding power dynamics, social structures, and materialities in AI-aging relationships |
Bottom Line
This theoretical analysis proposes a valuable framework for understanding the complex power dynamics between artificial intelligence, older adults, and aging services. Moving beyond individual-focused AI interventions, the authors argue for examining broader social, political, and material conditions that shape AI implementation in aging contexts. The framework addresses three key areas: AI solutions, ethics, and policies through a critical gerontology lens. While lacking empirical validation, this conceptual contribution provides healthcare professionals and policymakers with important analytical tools for evaluating AI initiatives in aged care. The framework is particularly relevant for Australian healthcare settings, where AI adoption in aged care is accelerating following recent policy reforms. Clinicians should consider how AI implementations may inadvertently concentrate power among technology companies while potentially marginalising older adults' agency and preferences.
Key Findings
Effect Size: Not applicable - theoretical analysis
Primary Outcome: Development of political economy of aging and AI framework
Nnt Or Sensitivity: Framework sensitivity to power dynamics and material conditions in AI-aging relationships
Clinical Application
High feasibility as analytical framework, though requires training in critical gerontology concepts Highly relevant to Australian aged care sector, particularly given recent Royal Commission findings and increasing AI adoption in healthcare settings Healthcare providers, policymakers, and researchers working with older adults and AI technologies
Abstract
The current discourse on artificial intelligence (AI) in gerontology remains mostly on an interventionist level and focused on solving problems faced by individuals, leaving the wider social conditions that shape the relationship between aging and AI out of view. The considerable accumulation of power, particularly for technology development companies, in the development and implementation of AI, however, calls for a deeper and more complex analysis of the relationships between AI, older adults and the "aging enterprise." Building on the classical political economy of aging, and expanding it with concepts from material gerontology, we propose a "political economy of aging and AI" as a conceptual tool to analyze the relationships between (older) individuals, social and political structures, and (technological) materialities. We exemplify how such a political economy perspective enables a more complex consideration of the current discourse on (a) AI solutions, (b) AI ethics, and (c) AI policies. We close by summarizing our understanding of a political economy of aging and AI that centers materialities as the critical-gerontological focus of analysis and by outlining calls for action toward strengthening the power of older adults in the emerging AI-aging-enterprise.
References
- 1.Gallistl, V., Berridge, C., Banday, M. U. L., Stypinska, J., Ho, A., Brewer, R. N., Grigorovich, A., Peine, A., & Wanka, A. (2025). The AI-aging-enterprise: a political economy of aging and artificial intelligence. Gerontologist. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2018.00006
Related Research
The Tohoku journal of experimental medicine
At-Home Deaths and Regional Factors in Japan
7 July 2026
Brain research
BDNF relates to prefrontal cortex activity in the context of physical exercise
15 June 2026
Physics in medicine and biology
Scan-wise generalized PET denoising with contrastive adversarial learning
9 June 2026
This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service