Response paper to ‘A New City O/S’ by Goldsmith & Kleiman

This paper provides a short evaluation on Goldsmith & Kleiman’s (2017) publication, which advocates for an overhaul in the current urban governance system.

In A New City O/S: The Power of Open, Collaborative and Distributed Governance, Goldsmith and Kleiman propose a revolutionary approach to organising local governments. This new model would involve a distributed governance in an interconnected web that features stakeholders and agencies while centring citizens operationally. Goldsmith and Kleiman do acknowledge some shortcomings of this proposal — including the susceptibility to corruption, patronage and waste, as well as how citizen trust may not be easily won back with “a few notable reforms”. While this aspiration is indeed laudable and promises many advantages, it may be limited in its applicability to some cities around the world due to the digital divide and inadequate digital infrastructure.

The digitalization of urban infrastructures may be jeopardised due to limited citizen uptake and buy-in. This may be attributed to an intersectional digital divide. In cities, this divide may manifest across an assemblage of class, educational attainment, and social status. The publication cites hypothetical scenarios of residents being involved in crowd-sourced city plans and providing feedback through text messages or smartphone applications. However, citizens’ paucity of digital knowledge and access may delay technology uptake, and hinder positive network effects that require a substantial technology-literate userbase[1]. This is especially pertinent in the less developed world, which sees a highly fragmented adoption of digital technologies.[2],[3],[4] Personally, even in a developed city-state like Singapore, my own grandparents faced challenges with the digitization of Covid-19 contract tracing efforts. My grandmother did not own a smartphone prior to Singapore’s TraceTogether app being mandated for entry into public spaces, and struggled with learning how to use both the device and the app. While she had her family to teach her, other elderly who live alone will not have access to such resources. The elderly is an example of a less digital literate demographic who may be systematically excluded from the digitization of urban civic life. As a result, the technocratic focus on the new city O/S may lead to the exclusion of entire demographics that lack access to or struggle with these technologies.

This digital divide and systemic exclusion may lead to bias in the data collection process. Self-selection bias manifests when households or individuals opt not to adopt digital devices or services, such as broadband. Some may face financial constraints in purchasing these services[5], which may systematically exclude an entire low-income demographic from participating in the new city O/S. The omission of this demographic’s perspective may skew the type of feedback received from digital platforms, for example, leading to the implementation of stopgap measures — based on this feedback — which may neglect the needs of this demographic. Altogether, the digital marginalisation of certain demographics may lead to Vanolo’s urban imaginary of ‘smart cities without…citizens’[6], in which citizens are excluded, ultimately defeating the purpose of the new city O/S. Eventually, the spatial and digital splintering engendered by these new urban ‘fantasies’ will perpetuate socioeconomic and spatial disparities at unprecedented levels.[7]

Furthermore, even with a large digitally active userbase, the existing structural limitations in these cities will also jeopardise the uptake of the new city O/S.[8] The implementation of crowd-sourcing, among other suggestions presented in the publication, will be severely hindered by frequent network disconnections that may be present in developing cities. For example, Kinshasa, despite high internet uptake, is susceptible to frequent power cuts and network lags deliberately orchestrated by the Congolese government.[9] Citizens facing erratic digital connectivity will undermine the implementation of the new city O/S, which places a large emphasis on participatory citizenry through digital mediums.

The new city O/S, while innovative and engaging, is not a one-size-fits-all concept that can be easily transposed into developing cities. Evidently, it has to account for the intricacies and unique contexts of each urban locale. Nevertheless, all change is replete with risks and rewards. In the pursuit of this new city O/S, especially in cities of the developing world, the multifaceted risks must be addressed and mediated in tandem while acknowledging the space for intervention beyond technocratic fixes. After all, citizen trust is at the forefront of such a reform and must be prioritised throughout.

[1] Tan, S. Y., & Taeihagh, A. (2020) ‘Smart City Governance in Developing Countries: A Systematic Literature Review’ in Sustainability, 12, 899, 1–29.

[2] UNCTAD (2021). Least developed countries suffer digital divide in mobile connectivity. https://unctad.org/topic/least-developed-countries/chart-april-2021

[3] Van Der Merwe, C. (2008). Technology gap between rich and poor nations remains large — study. https://m.engineeringnews.co.za/article/technology-gap-between-rich-and-poor-nations-remains-large-ndash-study-2008-01-09

[4] Potashnik, M. (n/d). The International Gap in Technology The Digital Divide in Education, Education and Technology in the Balance. https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2124/International-Gap-in-Technology.html

[5] Trollip, A. (2021). Understanding the Urban Digital Divide. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/urban-broadband-blog/

[6] Vanolo, A. (2016) ‘Is there anybody out there? The place and role of citizens in tomorrow’s smart cities’ in Futures, 82, 26–36.

[7] Watson, V. (2014) ‘African urban fantasies: dreams or nightmares?’ in Environment and Urbanization, 26, 1, 215–31.

[8] ‘Utoikamanu, F. (2020). Closing the Technology Gap in Least Developed Countries. https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/closing-technology-gap-least-developed-countries

[9] Pype, K. (2019). ‘(Not) in sync — digital time and forms of (dis-)connecting: ethnographic notes from Kinshasa (DR Congo)’ in Media, Culture & Society, 0, 00, 1–16.