Power and relations in theories of digital economies and development Current approaches and directions forward Christopher Foster, University of Sheffield, UK Background – Constantly struggle with theory, find it difficult to pin down and read Ended up writing a few papers on innovation theory, models of global production networks and TCE models Once it is decoded, even in narrow ways it can be useful for practice Presentation of a slow moving piece of work in progress – It is a reflection on the literature in this area that I have seen and thinking about digital economy and new theoretical models

Technology determinism Existing theories Enriching existing theories The value of theory Technology determinism Existing theories Enriching existing theories Emergent theories Different background, different experiences of using theory. So I will try to go through at a range of different levels

“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back” (Keynes 1936)

The power of (good!) theory Researcher clearly outlines underlying assumptions Provides new ideas and directions for research and understanding Tends to support generalizability of research Supports systematic policy and practice (Needs to be included in all social science research bids in the UK!) - For those of

Problematic in over-ascribing power to technology to shape society Technological determinism Technology Society Problematic in over-ascribing power to technology to shape society Technology Society Social construction of technology Soft determinism/Weak constructionism All work which examines technology and change always has the shadow of technology determinism over them Even thought it is well-known, quite a lot of the work in areas like digital platforms, digital work and digital policy pushes quite strong technological determinist agendas. All the agency emerges from the technology change and not much else. It may be valuable to think expicitly about SCOT or soft determinist accounts to provide broader perspectives.

What would a SCOT or soft determinist account look like? Technological determinism Technology Society Technology drives changes in society. Often seen as problematic in over-ascribing power to technology to shape society What would a SCOT or soft determinist account look like? Social construction of technology Technology Society Soft determinism/Weak constructionism Technology Society

Example: Digital work platforms Tech determinism: Digital platform models are driving new types of exploitation of workers in the global south SCOT: Digital platform models are shaped by investors – Following on from QE in US/EU, investors are looking for new areas to invest in (Srnicek 2016) Soft determinism: Geography of work platforms is shaped by historic value chains. But there are dynamics relating to the form and type of work platform (Lehdonvita et al. 2014) Provide some new angles to explore Thinking about the context where technology is not the only driver. Important in development contexts where technology often leads to unexpected outcomes

The digital economy and development Thinking about technological determinism is a useful first step to think about theory and digital economy. But, we might want to extend theory to explore specific aspects of the digital economy. I particularly wanted to highlight in this presentation important aspects of digital economy that are overlooked which related to the global nature of the digital economy. This diagram is supposed to illustrate this

The digital economy and development Local and global Relational Power Challenges Exploring local scenarios in specific places but often a challenge to bring in the range of actors operating at regional and global levels that are part of those scenarios. Thinking about individuals (entrepreneurs, workers, organisations) as linked into a wider set of actors Perhaps most importantly explore the balances of power between these different actors This is out shopping list of what we want theory to do for us. Help us to bring in local but also global actors , to consider a range of relations and with a clear conceptualisation of power

Existing theory Institutional Network-based Materialist What existing theory has been used in the literature? Argue there is quite a large range of specific models used, but this might be broken down into three main directions that I have called. As you can see I used a Venn diagram to highlight that often the models have overlaps So in the next slides I’m going to briefly go through those directions….

Existing theory: Institutional Political economy (when focus is on governing institutions) Institutional theory New institutional economics (when focus is on institutional quality) Innovation systems (when focus is on innovation institutions) Power and relations are orientated by institutions (Formally: within structures, organisations and rules Informally: embedded within norms, culture) e.g. China’s digital economy that looks at key institutions in shaping activity e.g. Mismatch between norms embedded in technologies and culture in specific locations – potential failure of tech

Existing theory: Networked Network science Transaction costs models, Actor-network theory (when focus is on the network aspects) Global value chain, global production network (typical use) Exploring the networks and linkages supports an understanding of behaviour. (between actors, indirect power, the nature of the network) e.g. The shape of supply networks for digital economies and how this shapes the types of work done, products produced e.g. How digital firms are able to indirectly influence practices in low income countries even when they are acing through intermediaries

Existing theory: Materialist Actor-network theory (with focus on concept translation) Models of technology affordances and appropriation Ideas emerging from critical data studies Power and relations shaped by discourses, forms, procedures associated with objects and artefacts. (for our interest related to digital technology) Materialist direction is more subtle, but I think still embedded in a number of accounts. e.g Research on the way online workers activities are shaped by platform functioning, and the way they try to overcome those limits e.g. The ways that algorithms shape activities in the global south and the ways it might be overcome Useful direction – might be extended with more overt use of theory

Existing theory: Reflections Power and relations are under-theorised. Empiricism and focussing on local Challenges of bring in complex power and linkages “….madmen who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back” Transaction cost models –digital as altering economic transactions Those are the three directions which are common, but I would say that overall the picture is perhaps less optimistic Returning back to the Keynes quote, I also want to highlight the powerful grip of transaction cost models. So prevalent in any work that links to development (World Bank 2016)

Existing theory: Enriching Overlap between different approaches Example, disintermediation and digital platforms in agriculture Extending transaction costs models. Including consideration of institutions factors improved understanding of power One angle of improving work, is through enriching existing theories to explore riches. So thinking about those overlaps in the Venn diagram Particularly useful in the network approach to provide a richer analysis of power within relations This is an example of a recent paper where we did this Attempts to create open online auction platforms in agriculture. Intermediaries use institutions (export boards, norms) to resist. Large firms fragmented and begin building own platforms Small agri-producers sidelined (Foster, Graham & Waema forthcoming)

Extending theory Many unique aspects of the digital economy are not well theorised Labour and labouring Work: Knowledge-based, immaterial & affective Workers: Self employment, ad-hoc Forms of exploitation Value Economies of scale to Economies of variety Networks at core of value Processes Cycles of production, embed consumers Productive nature of consumption (data) Services, automation, algorithms Networks Complex spillover effects of networks Commoditization of new activities – Free labour, playbouring So enriching theory is one direction, but the question is does it go far enough. A legitimate argument could be made that in fact quite a lot of existing directions quite poorly conceptualise much of the digital economy Indeed, many of the new sources of inequality we are seeing in terms of new forms of labour, new forms of employment, changing nature of knowledge work, algothims are difficult to conceptualise I won’t go into detail of this slide, but we might highlight changes in the way that work/labour are occurring, value in being created, in processes of production, and the role of networks as key aspect we would want to examine

Development implications How do these properties vary across geographies? How do they relate into the ways that inequality (digital or otherwise) is felt across space? What new theories might help us explore the dynamics? It gets more complex in the global south: Digital economy and the material economies are more closely entwined (e.g. Many of the new trends will be felt in different ways (e.g. digital labour may be more empowering) In terms of development implications of new theory we might ask.

Example of the iPhone Adapted from (Qiu et al 2012) There’s not many examples of bringing in new theory for DE and development. A good example through is an attempt by Qiu et al in their 2012 paper to conceptualise labour within iPhone production using a model they call circuits of labour. It highlights the fact that the device has both a material and immaterial network of production It explores new categories of workers created by digital economies called “grey collar” workers who might previously be seen as skilled workers and free labour It looks to highlight the potential interaction between technical objects, institutions (in terms of rules) shape activities As you will see potential digital economy actors in the global south might be in a number of points their actions are connected closely to global actor and mediated by rules and objects they highlight specific digital economy related aspects (such as new grey collar workers emerging) Potentially a bit complex, but give you an idea of the way forward? Maybe others have things to input here?

Discussion points What models do you use in your research on the digital economy? What do you think existing theory misses? What are future directions that might be usefully developed?