Search results

This paper aims to take the lead from the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 9 and 10 – foster “resilient infrastructures and inclusive innovation” and “reduce disparities of opportunities, income and power” – as key for digital sustainability. Moving beyond existing research, here this paper conceptualise “digital sustainability” as a framework for analysing the sustainability of digital services.

Combining different works, this paper identifies five dimensions: social, economic, institutional, environmental and technical. The framework is then tested on Estonia’s e-residency program, of which, in this way, this paper explores the potential digital sustainability. By allowing anyone to run location-independent businesses as if virtually in Estonia, the e-residency program aligns to what SDGs 9 and 10 prescribe in terms of socio-economic inclusiveness and inclusive innovation. As such, the program is particularly valuable for citizens from developing countries in that it gives them access to European markets. Hence, to explore e-residency’s digital sustainability, this paper focuses on the experiences of African e-residents.

In-depth interviews highlight a series of criticalities involving one or more dimensions of the framework. This is because of the program having a global outreach by default but not accommodating contextual diversity by design.

Suggestions for improving the program are provided, alongside the recommendation to also include the cultural dimension into the conceptualisation of digital sustainability.

This chapter develops a conceptual taxonomy of five emerging digital citizenship regimes: (1) the globalised and generalisable regime called pandemic citizenship that clarifies how post-COVID-19 datafication processes have amplified the emergence of four intertwined, non-mutually exclusive and non-generalisable new technopoliticalised and city-regionalised digital citizenship regimes in certain European nation-states’ urban areas; (2) algorithmic citizenship, which is driven by blockchain and has allowed the implementation of an e-Residency programme in Tallinn; (3) liquid citizenship, driven by dataism – the deterministic ideology of big data – and contested through claims for digital rights in Barcelona and Amsterdam; (4) metropolitan citizenship, as revindicated in reaction to Brexit and reshuffled through data co-operatives in Cardiff; and (5) stateless citizenship, driven by devolution and reinvigorated through data sovereignty in Barcelona, Glasgow and Bilbao. This chapter challenges the existing interpretation of how these emerging digital citizenship regimes together are ubiquitously rescaling the associated spaces/practices of European nation-states.

Insofar as the digital layer cannot be detached from the current democratic challenges of the 21st century including neoliberalism, scales, civic engagement and action research-driven co-production methodologies; this chapter advances trends, aftermaths and emancipatory strategies for the post-pandemic technopolitical democracies. Consequently, it suggests a democratic toolbox encompassing four intertwined trends, aftermaths and emancipations including (1) the context characterised by the algorithmic nations, (2) challenges stemming from data sovereignty, (3) mobilisation seen from the digital rights perspective and (4) grassroots innovation embodied through data co-operatives. This chapter elucidates that in the absence of coordinated and interdependent strategies to claim digital rights and data sovereignty by algorithmic nations, on the one hand, Big Tech data-opolies, and on the other hand, the GDPR led by the European Commission might bound (negatively) and expand (positively), respectively, algorithmic nations' capacity to mitigate the negative side effects of the algorithmic disruption in Western democracies.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an extensive examination and analysis of the current literature on the use of blockchain technology in courts. The paper aims to explore the potential benefits of implementing blockchain technology in courts, such as increasing transparency and accountability, improving the efficiency of court procedures and enhancing the security of court records. Additionally, the paper intends to identify the challenges and limitations of using blockchain technology in courts and propose potential solutions to overcome these obstacles. The ultimate goal is to provide a comprehensive understanding of the potential applications and implications of blockchain technology in the context of the court system.

The research design of this study is qualitative, involving a thorough examination and analysis of existing literature on the use of blockchain technology in courts. The data collection procedure involves gathering information from various sources, such as academic publications, official reports and other relevant records. Data analysis is conducted using a thematic analysis approach, which identifies and categorizes recurring themes that emerge from the data. This approach ensures that the results are credible, dependable and accurate representations of the experiences of the participants. By using these methodologies, the study is able to draw meaningful conclusions and insights into the use of blockchain technology in courts.

The major findings of this paper suggest that the implementation of blockchain technology in courts has the potential to bring significant benefits such as increased transparency, efficiency and security. The use of blockchain technology in courts can enable the creation of tamper-proof records that are immutable, secure and transparent, which can help prevent fraud, reduce costs and enhance trust in the judicial system. However, adopting this technology also poses challenges and limitations, such as interoperability, governance and scalability. Overall, the paper concludes that while there are challenges to be addressed, the benefits of blockchain technology in courts are significant and should be explored further.

The study has several limitations that need to be taken into account. Firstly, the availability of data on blockchain implementation in the court system is limited, making it challenging to provide a comprehensive analysis of the topic. Thus, the study’s findings may not be generalizable to other contexts. Secondly, the study takes a technology-centric approach and does not consider blockchain technology’s social and legal implications in court operations. Thirdly, the case studies presented in this paper are limited to a few countries. Moreover, the implementation of blockchain technology in the court system is still in its early stages and lacks standardization, technical expertise and regulatory frameworks. Lastly, uncertainty around the legal framework may hinder its widespread adoption and use.

The practical implications of this study suggest that the use of blockchain technology in courts has the potential to improve efficiency, security, transparency and accountability in the court system. It can reduce the risk of data tampering, expedite case resolution and lower the cost of legal proceedings. Therefore, this study provides a framework for courts to consider blockchain technology’s potential benefits and explore its future adoption.

The social implications of this study are significant, as the adoption of blockchain technology in the court system can have a profound impact on society. Firstly, by increasing transparency and accountability, blockchain technology can promote public trust in the court system and improve access to justice, particularly for disadvantaged communities (Liu et al., 2020). Secondly, blockchain technology can reduce the reliance on intermediaries, such as lawyers, and streamline the case management process, making legal services more accessible and affordable for the general public (Khurana, 2020). Finally, the use of blockchain technology can create a more secure and efficient court system, enhancing the overall effectiveness of the judicial system and promoting public confidence.

This study provides an original contribution to the literature by exploring the use of blockchain technology in courts from a qualitative research design perspective. While there are a growing number of studies on the potential applications of blockchain technology in various fields, this study provides a comprehensive examination of the current literature on the use of blockchain in courts, identifying the benefits and limitations of its implementation. The study’s focus on the strengths and limitations of blockchain technology and its implications in court adds to the originality of this research.

Although blockchain is often discussed, its actual diffusion seems to be varying for different industries. The purpose of this paper is to explore the blockchain technology diffusion in different industries through a combination of academic literature and social media (Twitter).

The insights derived from the academic literature and social media have been used to classify industries into five stages of the innovation-decision process, namely, knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation and confirmation (Rogers, 1995).

Blockchain is found to be diffused in almost all industries, but the level of diffusion varies. The analysis highlights that manufacturing industry is at the knowledge stage. Further public administration is at persuasion stage. Subsequently, transportation, communications, electric, gas and sanitary services and trading industry had reached to the decision stage. Then, services industries have reached to implementation stage while finance, insurance and real estate industries are the innovators of blockchain technologies and have reached the confirmation stage of innovation-decision process.

Actual implementations of blockchain technology are still in its infancy stage for most of the industries. The findings suggest that specific industries are developing specific blockchain applications.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge this is the first study which is using social media data for investigating the diffusion of blockchain in industries. The results show that the combination of Twitter and academic literature analysis gives better insights into diffusion than a single data source.