Explore the vast range of titles available.

The Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) was launched on 1 November 2021 in China. This article provides a state-of-the-art review of PIPL through a policy analysis. This paper aims to compare the three main worldwide data privacy paradigms that exist at present: (i) the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the E.U., (ii) the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in the U.S., and (iii) PIPL in China. The research question is twofold: (i) how will PIPL affect the data privacy of Chinese citizens and consequently, (ii) how will PIPL influence the global digital order, particularly paralleling the existing GDPR and CCPA? In the first section, this article introduces the topic of data privacy as a global concern, followed in the second section by an in-depth policy context analysis of PIPL and a literature review on privacy that elucidates in particular the impact of the Social Credit System (SCS). In the third section, a comparative benchmarking is carried out between the GDPR, CCPA, and PIPL. Methodologically, policy documents around PIPL will be analyzed. In the fourth section, the case study of Shenzhen will be examined by undertaking a multi-stakeholder analysis following the Penta Helix framework. The article concludes by responding to the research questions, acknowledging limitations, and presenting future research avenues.

Against the widespread assumption that data are the oil of the 21st century, this article offers an alternative conceptual framework, interpretation, and pathway around data and smart city nexus to subvert surveillance capitalism in light of emerging and further promising practical cases. This article illustrates an open debate in data governance and the data justice field related to current trends and challenges in smart cities, resulting in a new approach advocated for and recently coined by the UN-Habitat programme ‘People-Centred Smart Cities’. Particularly, this feature article sheds light on two intertwined notions that articulate the technopolitical dimension of the ‘People-Centred Smart Cities’ approach: data co-operatives and data sovereignty. Data co-operatives are emerging as a way to share and own data through peer-to-peer (p2p) repositories and data sovereignty is being claimed as a digital right for communities/citizens. Consequently, this feature article aims to open up new research avenues around ‘People-Centred Smart Cities’ approach: First, it elucidates how data co-operatives through data sovereignty could be articulated as long as co-developed with communities connected to the long history and analysis of the various forms of co-operatives (technopolitical dimension). Second, it prospectively anticipates the city–regional dimension encompassing data colonialism and data devolution.

This article explores how decentralized Web3 is reshaping Internet governance by enabling the emergence of new forms of nation-statehood and redefining traditional concepts of state sovereignty. Based on fieldwork conducted in Silicon Valley since August 2022, this article systematically addresses the following research question: How is decentralized Web3 reshaping Internet governance and influencing the rise in new nation-statehood paradigms? It compares three emerging paradigms around Web3: (i) Network States (Srinivasan), envisioning digital entities rooted in crypto-libertarian principles; (ii) Network Sovereignties (De Filippi), emphasizing communal governance aligned with digital commons; and (iii) Algorithmic Nations (Calzada), drawing on Arendtian thought and demonstrating how communities—such as indigenous and stateless groups, as well as e-diasporas—can attain self-determination through data sovereignty. This article contributes a unique conceptual analysis of these paradigms based on fieldwork action research in Silicon Valley, responding to evolving technologies and their potential to reshape Internet governance. This article argues that decentralized Web3 provides a transformative vision for Internet governance but requires careful evaluation to ensure that it promotes inclusivity and equity. It advocates for a hybrid approach that balances global and local dynamics, emphasizing the need for solidarity, digital justice, and an internationalist perspective in shaping future Internet governance protocols.

This article investigates the intricate dynamics of data monopolies, referred to as “data-opolies”, and their implications for democratic erosion. Data-opolies, typically embodied by large technology corporations, accumulate extensive datasets, affording them significant influence. The sustainability of such data practices is critically examined within the context of decentralized Web3 technologies amidst Artificial Intelligence (AI) disruption. Additionally, the article explores emancipatory datafication strategies to counterbalance the dominance of data-opolies. It presents an in-depth analysis of two emergent phenomena within the decentralized Web3 emerging landscape: People-Centered Smart Cities and Datafied Network States. The article investigates a paradigm shift in data governance and advocates for joint efforts to establish equitable data ecosystems, with an emphasis on prioritizing data sovereignty and achieving digital self-governance. It elucidates the remarkable roles of (i) blockchain, (ii) decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs), and (iii) data cooperatives in empowering citizens to have control over their personal data. In conclusion, the article introduces a forward-looking examination of Web3 decentralized technologies, outlining a timely path toward a more transparent, inclusive, and emancipatory data-driven democracy. This approach challenges the prevailing dominance of data-opolies and offers a framework for regenerating datafied democracies through decentralized and emerging Web3 technologies.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly framed as a driver of economic transformation, yet its capacity to alleviate poverty in the Global South remains contested. This article introduces the notion of AI Economics—the political economy of value creation, extraction, and redistribution in AI systems—to interrogate h ow innovation agendas intersect with structural inequalities. This article examines how Social Innovation (SI) systems, when coupled with decentralized Web3 technologies such as blockchain, Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs), and data cooperatives, may challenge data monopolies, redistribute economic gains, and support inclusive development. Drawing on Action Research (AR) conducted during the AI4SI International Summer School in Donostia-San Sebastián, this article compares two contrasting ecosystems: (i) the Established AI4SI Ecosystem, marked by centralized governance and uneven benefits, and (ii) the Decentralized Web3 Emerging Ecosystem, which promotes community-driven innovation, data sovereignty, and alternative economic models. Findings underscore AI’s dual economic role: while it can expand digital justice, service provision, and empowerment, it also risks reinforcing dependency and inequality where infrastructures and governance remain weak. This article concludes that embedding AI Economics in context-sensitive, decentralized social innovation systems—aligned with ethical governance and the SDGs—is essential for realizing AI’s promise of poverty alleviation in the Global South.

This article investigates how Web3 decentralization unfolds in practice and asks two guiding questions: (i) How democratic are decentralized governance systems in practice? (ii) Under what institutional conditions can technological decentralization translate into social inclusion? Based on multi-year ethnographic fieldwork (2022–2025) across Silicon Valley, Washington, D.C., Europe, and the Global South, this study draws on participant observation, semi-structured interviews, and comparative analysis of seven ecosystems—Ethereum, MakerDAO, Uniswap, Mastodon, Celo, Grassroots Economics, and GoodDollar. The findings show that participation asymmetries are structural: token-based governance is dominated by a small group of technically skilled or capital-rich actors, while voter turnout often remains below ten percent. Intermediaries such as foundations, developers, NGOs, and cooperatives are indispensable for coordination, contradicting the idea of hierarchy-free decentralization. In contrast, projects that institutionalize clear membership, monitoring, and accountability—particularly in cooperative and federated settings—display stronger democratic resilience. Comparative evidence also reveals oligarchic consolidation in Global North ecosystems and infrastructural exclusion in the Global South. These results substantiate what Richard R. Nelson termed “the Moon and the Ghetto” paradox: extraordinary technical innovation without corresponding social progress. Interpreted through innovation systems theory, the study concludes that advancing decentralized technologies requires parallel investment in mission-oriented institutions that ensure participation, equity, and accountability in digital infrastructures.

Against the backdrop of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between the Welsh and Basque Governments in 2018, this article introduces a multiscalar and transdisciplinary social sciences action research framework that emerged from a workshop held in May 2023. The workshop engaged stakeholders from both sides and is part of the broader ongoing project. This project seeks to address the main research question, 'How do small nations cooperate?' through the exploration of transregional cooperation and mutual learning between Wales and the Basque Country. The structure of the article is as follows: First, it commences with an introduction defining 'small nations', presenting the main research question, articulating two related aims, outlining three primary methodological goals and providing a broad context for these two small nations within the framework of their MoU. Second, following a brief description of each small nation, the article concurrently develops the action research methodological framework while analysing findings stemming from workshop discussions between stakeholders of Wales and the Basque Country. They addressed three intertwined territorial scale challenges: Macro, examined through devolution and fiscal federalism perspectives; Meso, explored through social innovations in urban spaces in Cardiff (SPARK) and Bilbao (ASFabrik); and Micro, investigated through grassroots innovations. Finally, the article concludes with an action research and policy agenda. It suggests one operational research question per territorial scale as the conclusion of this article, offering a response to the main research question. The conclusion acknowledges limitations and outlines future research and policy pathways for this ongoing project.

This article critically examines how Web3 decentralization policy trends impact global digital governance, questioning whether they genuinely distribute power or merely shift influence to a new, tech-savvy elite. Based on fieldwork in Silicon Valley since August 2022 and engagement with scholars and practitioners up to December 2025, the article provides a conceptual analysis with emerging empirical insights around the nascent global Web3 movement. While Web3 advocates challenge centralized data monopolies and traditional state structures, this analysis critiques the assumption that Web3 democratizes power, highlighting both its potential for inclusion and risks of exclusion, insofar as it may reinforce hierarchies rooted in technical expertise and digital access. While acknowledging the broader landscape of Web3 governance (including hybrid and federated models) and scoping the Global North and Global South contexts considering global adoption cases, the article particularly focuses on three post-Westphalian paradigms: (i) Network States, (ii) Network Sovereignties, and (iii) Algorithmic Nations. While Network States advocate for crypto-libertarian governance, Network Sovereignties and Algorithmic Nations emphasize cooperative governance aimed at empowering minority communities, such as indigenous groups, stateless nations, and e-diasporas, through decentralized, data-driven systems. By engaging with both the limitations and some promises, prospects, and pitfalls of Web3, this article questions whether Web3 can create a more inclusive global order or if influence is increasingly concentrated among a new elite. This article contributes to debates on sovereignty, governance, and citizenship by advocating hybrid policy frameworks that balance global and local dynamics, emphasizing solidarity, digital justice, and international cooperation for equitable Web3 governance.

This paper explores the substantial effect that the critical understanding and techno-political consideration of data are having in some smart city strategies. Particularly, the paper presents some results of a comparative study of four cases of smart city transitions: Glasgow, Bristol, Barcelona, and Bilbao. Likewise, considering how relevant the city-regional path-dependency is in each territorial context, the paper will elucidate the notion of smart devolution as a key governance component that is enabling some cities to formulate their own smart city-regional governance policies and implement them by considering the role of the smart citizens as decision makers rather than mere data providers. The paper concludes by identifying an implicit smart city-regional governance strategy for each case based on the techno-politics of data and smart devolution.

Wide tensions regarding the organization of nation-state power have been triggered over the last years in the UK and Spain. By contrast, in the UK, (i) the plebiscite on Scottish Independence has been characterized since 2014 so far by a regular hegemony of the SNP in Scotland, and (ii) more recently, distinct resilient responses to tackle COVID-19 have dramatically shifted perceptions about the potential constitutional arrangements in Wales partially opposing a state-centric vision of the UK. By contrast, the role played by the constitutionally illegal but socially constitutive referendum in Catalonia on 1 October 2017, remarkably provoked the re-emergence of the Spanish far-right narrative through the surge of the new political party called Vox. In both cases, the urban in Glasgow, Cardiff, and Barcelona has been shaping various oppositions to state-centric agendas, and such oppositions have shaped elections in the UK and Spain. This article sheds light on the distinct, emerging, and emancipatory urban citizenship regimes in Catalonia, Scotland, and Wales, particularly illustrating the roles that Barcelona, Glasgow, and Cardiff, respectively, are playing in articulating a counter-reaction by rescaling a state-centric vision. This article employs past elections’ evidence to illustrate such regimes amid postpandemic times in datafied states.