Comparative evidence of how two Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states translate artificial intelligence (AI) ambitions into post-New Public Management (post-NPM) outcomes are scarce because most studies focus on Western democracies. To fill this gap, we examine constitutional, collective choice, and operational rules that shape AI uptake in two contrasting GCC members, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Kuwait, and whether they foster citizen centricity, collaborative governance, and public value creation. Anchored in Ostrom's Institutional Analysis and Development framework, the study integrates a most similar/ most different systems design with multiple sources: 62 public documents issued between 2018 and 2025, embedded UAE cases (Smart Dubai and MBZUAI), and 39 interviews with officials conducted from Aug 2024 to May 2025. Dual coding and process tracing connect rule configurations to AI performance. Our cross-case analysis identifies four mutually reinforcing mechanisms behind divergent trajectories. In the UAE, concentrated authority, credible sanctions, pro-innovation narratives, and flexible reinvestment rules transform pilots into hundreds of operating services and significant recycled savings. Kuwait's dispersed veto points, exhortative sanctions, cautious discourse, and lapsed AI budgets, by contrast, confine initiatives to pilot mode de - spite equivalent fiscal resources. These findings refine institutional theory by showing that vertical rule coherence, not wealth, determines AI's public value yield, and temper post-NPM optimism by revealing that efficiency metrics advance societal goals only when backed by enforceable safeguards. To curb ethics washing and test the transferability of these mechanisms beyond the GCC, future research should track rule diffusion over time, experiment with blended legitimacy-efficiency scorecards, and investigate how narrative framing shapes citizen consent for data sharing.

The rapid expansion of artificial intelligence (AI) in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) raises a central question: are investments in compute infrastructure matched by an equally robust build-out of skills, incentives, and governance? Grounded in socio-technical systems (STS) theory, this mixed-methods study audits workforce preparedness across Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Oman. We combine term frequency--inverse document frequency (TF--IDF) analysis of six national AI strategies (NASs), an inventory of 47 publicly disclosed AI initiatives (January 2017--April 2025), paired case studies, the Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence (MBZUAI) and the Saudi Data & Artificial Intelligence Authority (SDAIA) Academy, and a scenario matrix linking oil-revenue slack (technical capacity) to regulatory coherence (social alignment). Across the corpus, 34/47 initiatives (0.72; 95% Wilson CI 0.58--0.83) exhibit joint social--technical design; country-level indices span 0.57--0.90 (small n; intervals overlap). Scenario results suggest that, under our modeled conditions, regulatory convergence plausibly binds outcomes more than fiscal capacity: fragmented rules can offset high oil revenues, while harmonized standards help preserve progress under austerity. We also identify an emerging two-track talent system, research elites versus rapidly trained practitioners, that risks labor-market bifurcation without bridging mechanisms. By extending STS inquiry to oil-rich, state-led economies, the study refines theory and sets a research agenda focused on longitudinal coupling metrics, ethnographies of coordination, and outcome-based performance indicators.

As Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), becomes increasingly embedded in education systems worldwide, ensuring their ethical, legal, and contextually appropriate deployment has become a critical policy concern. This paper offers a comparative analysis of AI-related regulatory and ethical frameworks across key global regions, including the European Union, United Kingdom, United States, China, and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. It maps how core trustworthiness principles, such as transparency, fairness, accountability, data privacy, and human oversight are embedded in regional legislation and AI governance structures. Special emphasis is placed on the evolving landscape in the GCC, where countries are rapidly advancing national AI strategies and education-sector innovation. To support this development, the paper introduces a Compliance-Centered AI Governance Framework tailored to the GCC context. This includes a tiered typology and institutional checklist designed to help regulators, educators, and developers align AI adoption with both international norms and local values. By synthesizing global best practices with region-specific challenges, the paper contributes practical guidance for building legally sound, ethically grounded, and culturally sensitive AI systems in education. These insights are intended to inform future regulatory harmonization and promote responsible AI integration across diverse educational environments.

The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) was declared as a global pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) after it was first discovered in Wuhan, China [1]. Over one year, the virus has infected more than 68 million people worldwide [2]. The virus can be fatal for elderly people or ones with chronic diseases [3]. Different countries across the globe have imposed several social practices and strategies to reduce the spread of the infection and to ensure the well-being of the residents. These practices and strategies include but are not limited to social distancing, restricted and authorized travels, remote work and education, reduced working staff in organizations, and frequent COVID-19 tests. These measures have been proved potential in reducing the disease spread and death in the previous pandemics [3], [4]. Several studies have focused on machine learning time series models to forecast the number of COVID-19 infections in different countries [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14]. This is to aid the government in designing and regulating efficient virus spread-mitigating strategies and to enable healthcare organizations for effective planning of health personnel and facilities resources. Based on the forecasted infections, the government can either make the confinement laws stricter or can ease them.