Conference Agenda

The introduction of digital surveillance technologies – e.g., predictive data analytics and artificial intelligence systems based on big (personal) data – are reshaping state organization and radically changing the state-citizen relationship. Many of these promising digital technologies have the collection, storage, sharing, and analyses of personal data at the heart of their functions. This warrants a reexamination of some core elements of the state using the lens of surveillance, because most of the conceptions of administrative development and organization in the last fifty years have not considered surveillance dynamics and implications extensively (see e.g., Osborne, 2006; Christensen and Lægreid, 2007; Torfing et al. 2020).

The argument made in this paper is accordingly that the digital surveillance features inherent in the transformation of the administrative state constitute a much more substantial part than previously reckoned in mainstream public administration and management scholarship. While there are many valuable perspectives for understanding public sector digitalization more generally (Dunleavy and Margetts, 2023; Kempeneer and Heylen, 2023), the surveillance approach in particular is underdeveloped (Lips, 2019; Yates and Whitford, 2023).

Therefore, the present paper introduces the perspective of Digital Surveillance Governance (DSG) and discusses the core elements that comprise DSG: 1) control, 2) transparency, 3) data cooperation, and 4) surveillance capture. More specifically, the paper explores how the state’s control over its citizens, and how citizens’ control over the state are changing, as well as how transparency and data cooperation enable new forms of surveillance. It also introduces the concept of surveillance capture to understand the process through which citizens are subject to worse public services and products if they opt out of giving up their personal information for some perceived benefit. They are essentially “trapped” in a monitoring system of different governmental organizations and private corporations.

By contrasting DSG with existing governance notions and illustrating its prevalence with several real-life case study examples, it is argued that DSG advances our comprehension of contemporary digital changes (relating to e.g., AI, data analytics, and big data) within and around the state. In addition to connecting surveillance to mainstream public administration and management ideas, a deeper insight into these core elements that we identify may also help us explain why the public bureaucracy is still going strong despite decades of criticism (Olsen, 2006; Ohemeng and Christensen, 2022; Sørensen and Torfing, 2024). Moreover, it is argued that research on digital government may benefit from applying a DSG perspective to better understand many of the digital changes we now observe in the digital public administration.

In autumn 2023, the UK Government unexpectedly announced, that as part of the new Data Protection and Digital Innovation Bill, the Office of the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner [BSCC] would be abolished. Here, the line of argument was that the regulation and oversight of digital technologies and data was overly complex, with multiple agencies regulating the same technologies, and that simplifying the regulatory landscape would foster innovation and clarify public accountability. This paper maps, through a ‘gap analysis’, incorporating new empirical evidence from critical stakeholders, how emergent gaps in statutory and non-statutory functions would arise from the abolition of the BSCC. It is argued that these gaps in functionality would have fundamental implications for the governance of sensitive intrusive technologies relating to biometrics and surveillance, and in doing so could lead to a loss of public confidence in how these technologies are used by the state. Beyond mapping this loss of functionality, the paper charts the Bill’s passage through Parliament and how the gap analysis was utilised to inform and influence Parliamentary processes. This included the creation of a Parliamentary Brief, injecting questions into debates and inserting amendments into the Bill text, as well as generating media coverage on the pertinent issues. In summer 2024, when the UK Prime Minister called a General Election, the Bill ‘fell’, and its replacement, the Data (Use and Access) Bill, did not include the controversial clauses that abolished the BSCC. Consequently, the Office of the BSCC was ‘saved’ and important oversight and scrutiny mechanisms retained. Capturing this journey in this way highlights the importance of oversight mechanisms for modern intrusive digital technologies and the role academics can play in influencing parliamentary outcomes and governance structures. In this respect, the process of creating and disseminating new knowledge can be seen to have intellectual and practical significance.

Digital identity infrastructures are becoming foundational to modern public services, yet their implementation across sectors and borders presents persistent governance challenges. This paper applies a collective action perspective to examine the barriers hindering coordinated development of the European Digital Identity Wallet (EUDI Wallet) under the revised eIDAS 2.0 regulation. Based on 133 stakeholder submissions and 14 expert interviews from EU and German consultation processes, we identify five interrelated categories of collective action problems (CAPs): incentive misalignment, structural complexity, power and participation asymmetries, temporal and path dependencies, and trust and legitimacy deficits. These challenges are systemic and mutually reinforcing, rooted in conflicting interests, institutional fragmentation, and uneven capacities among actors. To address them, we propose Regulated Governance—a hybrid model combining binding legal mandates, enforceable technical standards, and inclusive, collaborative procedures. Unlike purely hierarchical or market-based approaches, Regulated Governance enables effective coordination in complex, multi-actor ecosystems. The eIDAS 2.0 case shows how collective action can be institutionalized through regulation, standardization, and structured public-private cooperation. This paper contributes to digital governance research by extending collective action theory to digital infrastructure contexts and offering a roadmap for governing digital identity as a collective good in Europe and beyond.

Although closely related to smart city initiatives, the concept of smart culture is often at the margins of public policy professionals and academic discussions. Smart mobility, smart living, and smart people are at the forefront of the list of smart city components. However, culture is integral to a smart city, shaping its uniqueness and dimensions of innovation and social inclusion.

Based on an instrumental case study, analysis of secondary sources, and directed content analysis, this paper examines the manifestations of smart culture in Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania. The aim of this article is to develop an understanding of smart culture as an important yet under-researched dimension of a smart city, and to empirically demonstrate how cultural events in Vilnius’ public spaces embody the key principles of smart culture. Two related questions have been raised: 1) how can smart culture be conceptualized as an independent dimension of a smart city, and 2) how does smart culture manifest itself in the public spaces of Vilnius?

The theoretical section provides an innovative definition of smart culture in a smart city, based on which four categories of analysis are identified: accessibility, the integration of technology into the cultural experience, engagement of the population, and promotion of community building. The results section concerns the case of the Vilnius City cultural festival, Culture Night, which, based on the categories mentioned above, serves as an illustration of smart culture implementation in practice.

The research revealed that Culture Night festival events not only reduce social and geographical barriers to culture, but also create spaces for active participation of the population, fostering community and the application of technological solutions in cultural activities. In this way, Culture Night becomes a vivid example of smart culture, highlighting the importance of this dimension in smart city policies.

This study contributes to the importance of the smart city dimension—smart culture—and the development of a more diverse understanding in the academic literature. It highlights that culture should not be perceived as a complementary dimension of the smart city, but as one of the key drivers of a progressive, creative, and innovative smart city environment. Further research could provide more diverse examples of successful manifestations of smart culture, thereby expanding awareness of this dimension of the smart city and the number of its possible components.