Is Digital Government Strengthening or Weakening Society?
Exploratory Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59490/dgo.2025.1059Keywords:
digital technology, digital government, social development, policy-relevanceAbstract
Governments are facing technical, organizational, political, financial, etc. limitations on their capacity to tackle major policy problems like pandemics, climate change, migration, etc. that endanger societal well-being, security, and development. Overcoming such limitations requires a collective response, where different members of the society – individuals and institutions – are working with government and each other to address the problem. The aim of this paper is to examine the digital transformation of government and whether the outcome – digital government – makes society stronger or weaker, thus facilitating or undermining such collective response. To this end, we examine six qualities of social development – inclusion, equality, justice, collectivism, order and democracy – which presence or absence make societies stronger or weaker, and collect the evidence from scientific literature of digital government impacting such qualities, leading to inclusive vs. exclusive societies, equal vs unequal societies, just vs. unjust societies, etc. The result of this research is a landscape of different approaches, experiences, and designs, through which digital government contributes to the presence or absence of these qualities. This result has both research and policy implications.
Downloads
References
AAbhishek, B. (2022). India Digital Ecosystem of Agriculture and Agristack: An initial assessment (ICT Indian Working Paper No. 68). Center for Sustainable Development, Earth Institute, Columbia University. [link]
Acharya, S., & Swadimath, U. C. (2024). Digital financial inclusion and economic empowerment of farmers in India. In Utilizing technology for sustainable resource management solutions. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-2346-5.ch019
Alexander, J. C. (2012). The civil sphere. Oxford University Press.
Amiantova, I. S., Ivanova, E. A., & Glebov, V. A. (2021). Information technologies as growth factor in political stability. In I. V. Kovalev, A. A. Voroshilova, & A. S. Budagov (Eds.), Economic and social trends for sustainability of modern society (ICEST-II 2021) (Vol. 116, pp. 1744–1751). European Publisher. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2021.09.02.19
Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32.
Bağcı, İ. (2018). Understanding of sovereignty in the establishment of social order and freedom of the individual according to Thomas Hobbes. International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences, 9(31), 440–463.
Bekkers, V. J. J. M., & Zouridis, S. (1999). Electronic service delivery in public administration: Some trends and issues. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 65(2), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852399652004
Benoist, E., Anrig, B., & Jaquet-Chiffelle, D. O. (2007). Internet-voting: Opportunity or threat for democracy? In A. Alkassar & M. Volkamer (Eds.), E-voting and identity. Vote-ID 2007 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4896, pp. 41–56). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77493-8_3
Bell, K., & Reed, M. (2022). The tree of participation: A new model for inclusive decision making. Community Development Journal, 57(4), 595–614. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsab01
Bonina, C., Koskinen, K., Eaton, B., & Gawer, A. (2021). Digital platforms for development: Foundations and research agenda. Information Systems Journal, 31(6), 869–902. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12326
Borge, R., Brugué, Q., & Duenas-Cid, D. (2022). Technology and democracy: The who and how in decision-making. The cases of Estonia and Catalonia. El Profesional de la Información, 31(3). https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2022.may.11
Borge, R., Balcells, J., & Padró-Solanet, A. (2023). Democratic disruption or continuity? Analysis of the Decidim platform in Catalan municipalities. American Behavioral Scientist, 67(7), 926–939.
Bricout, J., Baker, P., Moon, N., & Sharma, B. (2021). Exploring the smart future of participation: Community, inclusivity, and people with disabilities. International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR), 10(2), 94-108.
Bulman, D. J., & Jaros, K. A. (2021). Localism in retreat? Central-provincial relations in the Xi Jinping era. Journal of Contemporary China, 30(131), 697–716. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2021.1889228
Cappelletti, M. (1993). Alternative dispute resolution processes within the framework of the world wide access to justice movement. Modern Law Review, 56(3), 282-296.
Citron, D. K. (2007). Technological due process. Washington University Law Review, 85, 1249-1313.
Clark, B. Y., Brudney, J. L., & Jang, G. (2013). Coproduction of government services and the new information technology: Investigating the distributional biases. Public Administration Review, 73(5), 687–701. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12092
Czosseck, C., Ottis, R., & Talihärm, A. M. (2013). Estonia after the 2007 cyber attacks: Legal, strategic and organisational changes in cyber security. In Case studies in information warfare and security: For researchers, teachers and students (pp. 72–82). IGI Global.
Dahl, R. A. (1998). On democracy. Yale University Press.
Dahrendorf, R. (1968). Essays in the theory of society. Routledge.
Diamond, L. (2008). The spirit of democracy: The struggle to build free societies throughout the world. Macmillan.
Donoghue, J. (2017). The rise of digital justice: Courtroom technology, public participation and access to justice. The Modern Law Review, 80(6), 995–1025.
Dragu, T. & Lupu, Y. (2021). Digital Authoritarianism and the Future of Human Rights. International Organization. 75(4), 991-1017. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818320000624
Dragu, T., & Przeworski, A. (2019). Preventive repression: Two types of moral hazard. American Political Science Review, 113(1), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000552
Drummond, C., McGrath, H., & O'Toole, T. (2023). Beyond the platform: Social media as a multifaceted resource in value creation for entrepreneurial firms in a collaborative network. Journal of Business Research, 158, Article 113669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113669
Dubet, F. (1994). La sociologie de l’expérience. Seuil.
Duenas-Cid, D., Krivonosova, I., Serrano, R., Freire, M., & Krimmer, R. (2020). Tripped at the finishing line: The Åland Islands Internet Voting Project. In R. Krimmer et al. (Eds.), Electronic Voting: 5th International Joint Conference, E-Vote-ID 2020, Bregenz, Austria, October 6–9, 2020, Proceedings (pp. 36–49). Springer.
Duenas-Cid, D., & Calzati, S. (2023). Dis/Trust and data-driven technologies. Internet Policy Review, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.14763/2023.4.1727
Duenas-Cid, D., Estevez, E., & Janowski, T. (2023). Conceptualizing digital government for social solidarity. In D. Duenas-Cid et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (pp. 669–670). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3598469.3598552
Duenas-Cid, D. (2024). Trust and distrust in electoral technologies: What can we learn from the failure of electronic voting in the Netherlands (2006/07). In H. Ch. Liao et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (pp. 669–677). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3657054.3657262
Duenas-Cid, D., & Loeber, L. (2025). Election and voting technologies. In H. A. Garnett & T. James (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Electoral Integrity (In press). Oxford University Press.
Durkheim, É. (1893). De la division du travail. FB Editions.
Durkheim, É. (2018). The division of labor in society. In Social stratification (pp. 217–222). Routledge.
Eom, S., & Lee, J. (2022). Digital government transformation in turbulent times: Responses, challenges, and future direction. Government Information Quarterly, 39(2), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101690
Estevez, E., Pardo, T., & Scholl, H. (2021). Smart cities and smart governance. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61033-3
Estevez, E., Janowski, T., & Roseth, B. (2024). When does automation in government thrive or flounder? Inter-American Development Bank. [link]
Evron, G. (2008). Battling botnets and online mobs: Estonia’s defense efforts during the internet war. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 9(1), 121–126.
Fierro, P., Aroca, P., & Navia, P. (2022). Political disaffection in the digital age: The use of social media and the gap in internal and external efficacy. Social Science Computer Review, 41(5), 1857-1876.
Ford, B. (2021). Technologizing democracy or democratizing technology? A layered-architecture perspective on potentials and challenges. In L. Bernholz et al. (Eds.), Digital technology and democratic theory (pp. 274–321). University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/9780226748603-011
Fountain, J. (2022). The moon, the ghetto and artificial intelligence: Reducing systemic racism in computational algorithms. Government Information Quarterly, 39(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101645
Frederickson, H. G. (2015). Social equity and public administration: Origins, developments, and applications. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315700748
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.
Friedkin, N. E. (2004). Social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 30(1), 409–425.
Gaß, O., Ortbach, K., Kretzer, M., Maedche, A., & Niehaves, B. (2015). Conceptualizing individualization in information systems – A literature review. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03703
Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford University Press.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., Gasco-Hernandez, M., & Pardo, T. A. (2023). Making sense of open government: A conceptual framework and ideas for future research. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 6(2–3), 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvad005
Graham, S. (1998). Spaces of surveillant simulation: New technologies, digital representations, and material geographies. Environment and Planning: Society and Space, 16(4), 483–504. https://doi.org/10.1068/d160
Gupta-Carlson, H. (2016). Re-imagining the nation: Storytelling and social media in the Obama campaigns. PS: Political Science & Politics, 49(1), 71–75.
Hammerschmid, G., Palaric, E., Rackwitz, M., & Wegrich, K. (2023). A shift in paradigm? Collaborative public administration in the context of national digitalization strategies. Governance, 37(2), 411–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12778
Harrison, T. M., Guerrero, S., Burke, G. B., Cook, M., Cresswell, A., Helbig, N., ... & Pardo, T. (2011). Open government and e-government: Democratic challenges from a public value perspective. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference (pp. 245–253).
Hechter, M., & Horne, C. (2003). Theories of social order: A reader. Stanford University Press.
Hilhorst, C., Behrens, C., Brouwer, E., & Sneller, L. (2022). Efficiency gains in public service delivery through information technology in municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, 39(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101724
Hinds, J., Williams, E., & Joinson, A. (2020). “It wouldn't happen to me”: Privacy concerns and perspectives following the Cambridge Analytica scandal. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102498
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values (Vol. 5). Sage.
Hu, J., & Zhang, X. (2024). Digital governance in China: Dispute settlement and stability maintenance in the digital age. Journal of Contemporary China, 33(148), 561–577. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2023.2261877
Hulstijn, J., Dong, H., & Markovich, R. (2024). Epistemic injustice and government information systems: Lessons from two cases. In M. Janssen et al. (Eds.), Electronic Government. EGOV 2024 (Vol. 14841, pp. 419-437. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-70274-7_26
Interaction Institute for Social Change (IISC). (2016). Illustrating equality vs equity. [link]
ITU. (2018). Measuring the information society report 2018 (Vol. 1). [link]
Janowski, T., Estevez, E., & Baguma, R. (2018). Platform governance for sustainable development: Reshaping citizen-administration relationships in the digital age. Government Information Quarterly, 35(4), S1–S16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.09.002
James, T. S., & Garnett, H. A. (2023). The determinants of electoral registration quality: A cross-national analysis. Representation, 60(2), 279–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344893.2023.2207194
Janssen, M., & Wimmer, M. A. (2015). Introduction to policy-making in the digital age. In Policy practice and digital science: Integrating complex systems, social simulation and public administration in policy research (pp. 1–14). Springer.
Karmaker, C. L., Al Aziz, R., Palit, T., & Bari, A. M. (2023). Analyzing supply chain risk factors in the small and medium enterprises under fuzzy environment: Implications towards sustainability for emerging economies. Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship, 2(1), Article 100032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stae.2022.100032
Kattel, R., Drechsler, W., & Karo, E. (2022). How to make an entrepreneurial state: Why innovation needs bureaucracy. Yale University Press.
Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61(2), 121–140.
Khatri, R. B., Assefa, Y., & Durham, J. (2023). Multidomain and multilevel strategies to improve equity in maternal and newborn health services in Nepal: Perspectives of health managers and policymakers. International Journal for Equity in Health, 22(1), 105. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-023-01905-7
Kim, Y., & Lee, J. (2024). Digitally vulnerable populations’ use of e-government services: Inclusivity and access. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 46(4), 422–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/23276665.2024.2321569
Kirlin, J. (1996). What government must do well: Creating value for society. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(1), 161–185. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024298
Kulyk, O., & Neumann, S. (2020). Human factors in coercion resistant internet voting – A review of existing solutions and open challenges. In R. Krimmer et al. (Eds.), Fifth International Joint Conference on Electronic Voting (E-Vote-ID 2020). TalTech Press.
Kurawa, S. S. (2012). Social order in sociology: Its reality and elusiveness. Sociology Mind, 2(1), 34–40. https://dx.doi.org/10.4236/sm.2012.21004
Laclau, E. (2018). On populist reason. Verso.
Larsson, K. K. (2021). Digitization or equality: When government automation covers some, but not all citizens. Government Information Quarterly, 38(1), 101547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101547
Lee, C. S. (2019). Datafication, dataveillance, and the social credit system as China’s new normal. Online Information Review, 43(6), 952–970. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-08-2018-0231
Linders, D. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 446–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.003
Lippert-Rasmussen, K. (2023). Using (un)fair algorithms in an unjust world. Res Publica, 29(2), 283–302.
Loignon, C., Dupéré, S., Leblanc, C., et al. (2021). Equity and inclusivity in research: Co-creation of a digital platform with representatives of marginalized populations to enhance the involvement in research of people with limited literacy skills. Research Involvement and Engagement, 7, 70. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-021-00313-x
Lukman, S., & Hakim, A. (2024). Agile governance, digital transformation, and citizen satisfaction moderated by political stability in Indonesia’s socio-political landscape. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 11(1), 210–228.
Lundberg, E. (2019). Automated decision-making vs indirect discrimination: Solution or aggravation? [Master’s thesis, Umeå University]. [link]
MacLean, D., & Titah, R. (2021). A systematic literature review of empirical research on the impacts of e-government: A public value perspective. Public Administration Review, 82(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13413
Mäkinen, M. (2006). Digital empowerment as a process for enhancing citizens’ participation. E-Learning and Digital Media, 3(3), 381–395. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2006.3.3.381
Maksimova, M., Solvak, M., & Krimmer, R. (2021). Data-driven personalized e-government services: Literature review and case study. In N. Edelmann et al. (Eds.), Electronic participation (ePart 2021), Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 12849, pp. 151-165). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82824-0_12
Marmot, M., & Wilkinson, R. (Eds.). (2005). Social determinants of health. Oxford University Press.
Marshall, J. (2010). Social disorder as a social good. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2(1), 21–46. https://doi.org/10.5130/ccs.v2i1.1337
Martuccelli, D. (2009). Qu’est-ce qu’une sociologie de l’individu moderne? Pour quoi, pour qui, comment? Sociologies et société des individus, 41(1), 15–33.
Matheus, R., Janssen, M., & Janowski, T. (2021). Design principles for creating digital transparency in government. Government Information Quarterly, 38(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101550
McNeal, R., Hale, K., & Dotterweich, L. (2008). Citizen–government interaction and the Internet: Expectations and accomplishments in contact, quality, and trust. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 5(2), 213–229.
Musiani, F. (2014). Avant-garde digital movement or “digital sublime” rhetoric? The Movimento 5 Stelle and the 2013 Italian parliamentary elections. In B. Pătruţ & M. Pătruţ (Eds.), Social media in politics: Case studies on the political power of social media (pp. 127–140). Springer.
Nikiforova, A., Flores, M. A. A., & Lytras, M. D. (2023). The role of open data in transforming the society to Society 5.0: A resource or a tool for SDG-compliant smart living? In M. D. Lytras et al. (Eds.), Smart cities and digital transformation (pp. 219–252). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80455-994-920231011
OECD. (2024). OECD agenda for transformative science, technology and innovation policies (OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers No. 164). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/ba2aaf7b-en
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.
Paré, G., Trudel, M.-C., Jaana, M., & Kitsiou, S. (2015). Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management, 52(2), 183–199.
Pieterson, W., Ebbers, W., & van Dijk, J. (2007). Personalization in the public sector: An inventory of organizational and user obstacles towards personalization of electronic services. Government Information Quarterly, 24(1), 148–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2005.12.001
Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). Belknap Press.
Pripoaie, R., Schin, G. C., & Matic, A. E. (2024). Post-pandemic exploratory analysis of the Romanian public administration digitalization level in comparison to the most digitally developed states of the European Union. Sustainability, 16(11), Article 4652. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114652
Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78.
Rao, U., & Nair, V. (2019). Aadhaar: Governing with biometrics. South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 42(3), 469–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/00856401.2019.1595343
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.
Reisach, U. (2021). The responsibility of social media in times of societal and political manipulation. European Journal of Operational Research, 291(3), 906–917.
Rodríguez-Pérez, A., & Puiggalí, J. (2020). Con el voto (telemático) no es suficiente: Herramientas digitales para el funcionamiento remoto de parlamentos y asambleas. In J. Reniu & J. Meseguer (Eds.), ¿Política confinada? Nuevas tecnologías y toma de decisiones en un contexto de pandemia (pp. 195–216). Aranzadi Thomson Reuters.
Romanov, B., & Kabanov, Y. (2020). The oxymoron of the Internet voting in illiberal and hybrid political contexts. In R. Krimmer et al. (Eds.), Electronic voting. E-Vote-ID 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 12455). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60347-2_12
Ruijer, E., Porumbescu, G., Porter, R., & Piotrowski, S. (2023). Social equity in the data era: A systematic literature review of data-driven public service research. Public Administration Review, 83(2), 316–332.
Ruppert, E., Isin, E., & Bigo, D. (2017). Data politics. Big Data & Society, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717717749
Sanchez, T. W., & Brenman, M. (2013). Public participation, social equity, and technology in urban governance. In Citizen e-participation in urban governance: Crowdsourcing and collaborative creativity (pp. 35–48). IGI Global.
Sandoval-Almazán, R., Luna-Reyes, L., Luna-Reyes, D., Gil-Garcia, J. R., Puron-Cid, G., & Picazo-Vela, S. (2017). Fostering citizen engagement. In R. Sandoval-Almazán et al. (Eds.), Building digital government strategies: Principles and practices (pp. 95–106). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60348-3_8
Scacco, J., & Coe, K. (2021). The ubiquitous presidency: Presidential communication and digital democracy in tumultuous times. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197520635.001.0001
Schiefer, D., & Van der Noll, J. (2017). The essentials of social cohesion: A literature review. Social Indicators Research, 132, 579–603.
Schlæger, J. (2013). E-government in China: Technology, power and local government reform. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203760550
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.
Shenker, J., & Álvarez, M. (2014). Mitigating coercion, maximizing confidence in postal elections. USENIX Journal of Election Technology and Systems, 2(3), 57–73.
Simmel, G. (1903/1950). The metropolis and mental life. In K. Wolff (Ed.), The sociology of Georg Simmel (pp. 409–424). Free Press.
Swedish National Audit Office (SNO). (2020). Audit reports 2020: Automated decision-making in public administration. [link]
Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR). (2025). Bringing equality to implementation: Incorporating community experience to improve outcomes. [link]
Stein, C. (2025). The devil is in the details? Investigating 3D visualization types for e-participation in urban planning. In T. X. Bui (Ed.), Proceedings of the 58th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. (pp. 2071-2080). ScholarSpace.
Taylor, L. (2017). What is data justice? The case for connecting digital rights and freedoms globally. Big Data & Society, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717736335
Tönnies, F. (2012). Community and civil society. Oxford University Press.
Toots, M. (2019). Why e-participation systems fail: The case of Estonia's Osale.ee. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), 546–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.02.002
Torcal, M. (2003). Political disaffection and democratization history in new democracies. University of Notre Dame Press.
Udoh, E. S. (2020). Is the data fair?: An assessment of the data quality of algorithmic policing systems. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV '20). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3428502.3428503
Ullah, A., Kui, Z., Ullah, S., Pinglu, C., & Khan, S. (2021). Sustainable utilization of financial and institutional resources in reducing income inequality and poverty. Sustainability, 13(3), 1038. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031038
United Nations. (1995). Report of the World Summit for Social Development, Copenhagen, 6–12 March 1995. [link]
UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). (2016). Principles of effective governance for sustainable development. [link]
UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). (2024). UN e-Government Survey – Accelerating Digital Transformation for Sustainable Development. [link]
Unt, T., Solvak, M., & Vassil, K. (2017). Does internet voting make elections less social? Group voting patterns in Estonian e-voting log files (2013–2015). PLOS ONE, 12(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177864
van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. Sage Publications.
Weber, M. (2019). Economy and society: A new translation. Harvard University Press.
Welby, B. (2019). The impact of digital government on citizen well-being (OECD Working Papers on Public Governance). OECD. https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/24bac82f-en
Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982). Broken windows. In Critical issues in policing: Contemporary readings. Waveland Press.
Xu, C. K., & Tang, T. (2020). Closing the gap or widening the divide: The impacts of technology-enabled coproduction on equity in public service delivery. Public Administration Review, 80(6), 962–975. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13222
Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvcm4g4q
Young, J. (1999). The exclusive society: Social exclusion, crime and difference in late modernity. Sage.
Zach, C., & Hayley, L. (2023). Inequality: Global trends. [link]
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Conference Proceedings Volume
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 David Duenas Cid, Elsa Estévez, Tomasz Janowski, Grażyna Musiatowicz-Podbiał
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
