Abstract
Global digital governance has been rising in response to a dual process of globalization and digitalization. Serving the innovation and application of digital technologies, global digital governance requires global cooperation to achieve economic benefits and cope with digital transformation challenges, covering issues, such as the Internet, digital tax, and trans-border data flow. The extant literature fails to answer why these challenges have been getting intense in recent decades and why the global governance responses to them may vary in different ways. This study argues that the transformation from protective immunity of digital platforms to Techlash against big tech triggered the rapid development of global digital governance. Following the paradigm shift argument, the paper further proposes an integrated framework to analyze the characteristics of the new model to explain the heterogeneity across global digital governance issues. The major constituent elements of this framework include the nature of the global commons (comedy or tragedy), global power structure (decentralized or centralized), and the governance regime (technocracy or democracy). This study applies the framework to analyze three cases of global digital governance issues and demonstrates its analytical power.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Cubby Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., 776 F. Supp. 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).
Stratton Oakmont Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., 1995 WL 323,710 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995).
Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997).
References
Aaronson, S. A. (2019). Data is different, and that’s why the world needs a new approach to governing cross-border data flows. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance, 21(5), 441–460. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPRG-03-2019-0021
Acemoglu, D., & Restrepo, P. (2020). The wrong kind of AI? Artificial intelligence and the future of labour demand. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 13(1), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsz022
Alawattage, C., & Elshihry, M. (2017). The managerialism of neoliberal global governance: The case of the OECD. The Politics of Expertise in International Organizations: How International Bureaucracies Produce and Mobilize Knowledge (1st ed., pp. 167–186). Routledge.
Avant, D., Finnemore, M., & Sell, S. (2010). Who Governs the Globe? Cambridge Studies in International Relations. Cambridge University Press.
Balkin, J. M. (2012). Room for maneuver: Julie Cohen’s theory of freedom in the information state. Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies, 6(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrls/jls010
Balkin, J. M. (2014). Old-school/new-school speech regulation. Harvard Law Review, 127(8), 2296–2342. https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5886&context=fss_papers
Barnett, M., Pevehouse, J., & Raustiala, K. (2021). Global Governance in a World of Change. Cambridge University Press.
Becker, M. (2019). When public principals give up control over private agents: The new independence of ICANN in internet governance. Regulation and Governance, 13(4), 561–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12250
Binderkrantz, A., Christiansen, P. M., & Pederson, H. H. (2015). Interest group access to the bureaucracy, parliament, and the media. Governance, 28, 95–112.
Brookings. (2021). Techlash Continues to Batter Technology Sector. From https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2021/04/02/techlash-continues-to-batter-technology-sector/. Accessed 9 May 2022.
Buchanan, J. M., & Yoon, Y. J. (2000). Symmetric tragedies: Commons and anticommons. Journal of Law and Economics, 43(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1086/467445
Chander, A. (2014). How Law Made Silicon Valley. Emory Law Journal, 63(3), 639–694. https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol63/iss3/3
Christensen, R. C., & Hearson, M. (2019). The new politics of global tax governance: Taking stock a decade after the financial crisis. Review of International Political Economy, 26(5), 1068–1088. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2019.1625802
Claessen, E. (2020). Reshaping the internet – the impact of the securitisation of internet infrastructure on approaches to internet governance: The case of Russia and the EU. Journal of Cyber Policy, 5(1), 140–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/23738871.2020.1728356
Clayton, K., Blair, S., Busam, J. A., Forstner, S., Glance, J., Green, G., Kawata, A., Kovvuri, A., Martin, J., Morgan, E., Sandhu, M., Sang, R., Scholz-Bright, R., Welch, A. T., Wolff, A. G., Zhou, A., & Nyhan, B. (2020). Real solutions for fake news? Measuring the effectiveness of general warnings and fact-check tags in reducing belief in false stories on social media. Political Behavior, 42(4), 1073–1095. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09533-0
Cohen, J. E. (2012). Configuring the Networked Self: Law, Code, and the Play of Everyday Practice. Yale University Press.
Corkery, J., Forder, J., Svantesson, D., & Mercuri, E. (2013). Taxes, the internet and the digital economy. Revenue Law Journal, 23(1), 128–143. https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.6742
Cumming, D. J., Johan, S., & Pant, A. (2019). Regulation of the crypto-economy: Managing risks, challenges, and regulatory uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 12(3), 126. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm12030126
Cutolo, D., & Kenney, M. (2021). Platform-dependent entrepreneurs: Power asymmetries, risks, and strategies in the platform economy. Academy of Management Perspectives, 35(4), 584–605. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2019.0103
D’Agostino, M., & Durante, M. (2018). Introduction: The governance of algorithms. Philosophy and Technology, 31(4), 499–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-018-0337-z
Economist. (2018). The techlash against Amazon, Facebook and Google—and what they can do. From https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/01/20/the-techlash-against-amazon-facebook-and-google-and-what-they-can-do. Accessed 9 May 2022.
Edelman. (2021). 2021 Edelman Trust Barometer. From https://www.edelman.com/trust/2021-trust-barometer. Accessed 9 May 2022.
Edwards, L., & Veale, M. (2018). Enslaving the algorithm: From a “right to an explanation” to a “right to better decisions”? IEEE Security and Privacy, 16(3), 46–54. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2018.2701152
Emanuele, M. (2021). Towards the Digital Stability Board for a digital Bretton Woods. From https://www.thescienceofwheremagazine.it/2021/02/01/towards-the-digital-stability-board-for-a-digital-bretton-woods/. Accessed 9 May 2022.
Fair Tax Mark. (2019). The Silicon Six and Their $100 Billion Global Tax Gap. From https://fairtaxmark.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Silicon-Six-Report-5-12-19.pdf. Accessed 9 May 2022.
Fedorov, A. K., Kiktenko, E. O., & Lvovsky, A. I. (2018). Quantum computers put blockchain security at risk.
Flyverbom, M., Deibert, R., & Matten, D. (2019). The governance of digital technology, big data, and the internet: New roles and responsibilities for business. Business and Society, 58(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650317727540
Gehring, T., & Oberthür, S. (2009). The causal mechanisms of interaction between international institutions. European Journal of International Relations, 15(1), 125–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066108100055
Gehring, T., & Faude, B. (2013). The dynamics of regime complexes: Microfoundations and systemic effects. Global Governance, 19(1), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-01901010
Goldfeder, S., Kalodner, H., Reisman, D., & Narayanan, A. (2018). When the cookie meets the blockchain: Privacy risks of web payments via cryptocurrencies. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, 2018(4), 179–199. https://doi.org/10.1515/popets-2018-0038
Halabi, Y. (2004). The expansion of global governance into the third world: Altruism, realism, or constructivism? International Studies Review, 6(1), 21–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1079-1760.2004.00371.x
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243
Huq, A. Z. (2019). Racial equity in algorithmic criminal justice. Duke Law Journal, 68, 1043–1134. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol68/iss6/1
Jia, K., & Zhang, N. (2022). Categorization and eccentricity of AI risks: A comparative study of the global AI guidelines. Electronic Markets, 32(1), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-021-00480-5
Kennedy, D. (2009). The Mystery of Global Governance. In J. Dunoff & J. Trachtman (Eds.), Ruling the World?: Constitutionalism, International Law, and Global Governance. Cambridge University Press.
Kim, J. H. (2017). A survey of IoT security: Risks, requirements, trends, and key technologies. Journal of Industrial Integration and Management, 2(2), 1750008. https://doi.org/10.1142/s2424862217500087
Kong, L. (2010). Data protection and transborder data flow in the European and global context. European Journal of International Law, 21(2), 441–456. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chq025
Lake, D. A. (2010). Rightful rules: Authority, order, and the foundations of global governance. International Studies Quarterly, 54(3), 587–613. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2010.00601.x
Liu, D., Wang, W., & Li, H. (2013). Evolutionary mechanism and information supervision of public opinions in internet emergency. Procedia Computer Science, 17, 973–980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.05.124
Mann, R. J., & Belzley, S. R. (2005). The promise of internet intermediary liability. William & Mary Law Review, 47, 239–307. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol47/iss1/5
Medhora, R. P., & Letwin, O. (2022). Managing Rivalry in the Digital Era through Peaceful Competition. From https://www.cigionline.org/articles/managing-rivalry-in-the-digital-era-through-peaceful-competition/. Accessed 9 May 2022.
Molina, M. D., Sundar, S. S., Le, T., & Lee, D. (2021). “Fake news” is not simply false information: A concept explication and taxonomy of online content. American Behavioral Scientist, 65(2), 180–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219878224
Newman, A. (2015). European data privacy regulation on a global stage: export or experimentalism?. Extending Experimentalist Governance? In Jonathan Zeitlin (Ed.), Extending Experimentalist Governance? The European Union and Transnational Regulation. Oxford University Press.
Noorman, M., & Johnson, D. G. (2014). Negotiating autonomy and responsibility in military robots. Ethics and Information Technology, 16(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-013-9335-0
Nye, J. S. (2014). The regime complex for managing global cyber activities. Global Commission on Internet Governance Paper Series. From http://www.cigionline.org/publications/regime-complex-managing-global-cyber-activities. Accessed 9 May 2022.
O’Sullivan, S., Nevejans, N., Allen, C., Blyth, A., Leonard, S., Pagallo, U., Holzinger, K., Holzinger, A., Sajid, M. I., & Ashrafian, H. (2019). Legal, regulatory, and ethical frameworks for development of standards in artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomous robotic surgery. The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery, 15(1), e1968. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1968
Oxford Langeages. (2018). Word of the Year 2018: Shortlist. From https://languages.oup.com/word-of-the-year/2018-shortlist/. Accessed 9 May 2022.
Ozili, P. K. (2020). Contesting digital finance for the poor. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance, 22(2), 135–151. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPRG-12-2019-0104
Pegram, T., & Acuto, M. (2015). Introduction: Global governance in the interregnum. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 43(2), 584–597. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829814562017
Peng, W. (2016). Multinational tax base erosion problem of the digital economy. Modern Economy, 7(3), 345–352. https://doi.org/10.4236/me.2016.73038
Peters, A., & Peter, S. (2012). International Organizations: Between Technocracy and Democracy. In B. Fassbender & A. Peters (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law. Oxford University Press.
Pew Research Center. (2020). Many Experts Say Digital Disruption Will Hurt Democracy. From https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/02/21/many-tech-experts-say-digital-disruption-will-hurt-democracy/. Accessed 9 May 2022.
Raustiala, K., & Victor, D. G. (2004). The regime complex for plant genetic resources. International Organization, 58(2), 277–309. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818304582036
Robert D. Atkinson, Doug Brake, Daniel Castro, Colin Cunliff, Joe Kennedy, Michael McLaughlin, Alan McQuinn, & Joshua New (2019). A Policymaker’s Guide to the “Techlash”—What It Is and Why It’s a Threat to Growth and Progress. From https://itif.org/publications/2019/10/28/policymakers-guide-techlash
Rodrik, D. (2020). Putting global governance in its place. The World Bank Research Observer, 35(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkz008
Rose, C. (1986). The comedy of the commons: Custom, commerce, and inherently public property. The University of Chicago Law Review, 53(3), 711–781. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/1090
Schauer, F. (1978). Fear, risk and the first amendment: Unraveling the chilling effect. Faculty Publications, 879. From https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/879. Accessed 9 May 2022.
Scholte, J. A. (2011). Towards greater legitimacy in global governance. Review of International Political Economy, 18(1), 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2011.545215
Schor, J. B., & Attwood-Charles, W. (2017). The “sharing” economy: Labor, inequality, and social connection on for-profit platforms. Sociology Compass, 11(8), e12493. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12493
Stuurman, K., & Lachaud, E. (2022). Regulating AI. A label to complete the proposed act on artificial intelligence. Computer Law & Security Review, 44, 105657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2022.105657
Sweeney, L. (2013). Discrimination in online ad delivery: Google ads, black names and white names, racial discrimination, and click advertising. Queue, 11(3), 10–29. https://doi.org/10.1145/2460276.2460278
Tassey, G., Gallaher, M. P., & Rowe, B. R. (2009). Complex standards and innovation in the digital economy: The internet protocol. International Journal of Technology Management, 48(4), 448–472. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2009.026689
Voronkova, V., Punchenko, O., & Azhazha, M. (2020). Globalization and global governance in the fourth industrial revolution (industry 4.0). Humanities Studies, 4(81), 182–200. https://doi.org/10.26661/hst-2020-4-81-11
Whitford, A. B., & Anderson, D. (2020). Governance landscapes for emerging technologies: The case of cryptocurrencies. Regulation & Governance, 15(4), 1053–1070. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12366
Wirtz, B. W., & Müller, W. M. (2019). An integrated artificial intelligence framework for public management. Public Management Review, 21(7), 1076–1100. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1549268
Wu, Q., & Li, Z. (2019). Labor control and task autonomy under the sharing economy: A mixed-method study of drivers’ work. The Journal of Chinese Sociology, 6(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40711-019-0098-9
Xi, W., & Ling, L. (2016). Research on IoT privacy security risks. 2016 International Conference on Industrial Informatics-Computing Technology, Intelligent Technology, Industrial Information Integration (ICIICII), 259–262. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIICII.2016.0069
Xue, L. & Yu, H.Z. (2017). Towards a public management paradigm for global governance: An analysis based on an issue-actor-mechanism framework. Social Sciences in China, 38(1), 26–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/02529203.2017.1268362
Young, O. R. (2010). Institutional dynamics: Emergent patterns in international environmental governance. MIT Press.
Zetzsche, D. A., Birdthistle, W. A., Arner, D. W., & Buckley, R. P. (2020). Digital finance platforms: toward a new regulatory paradigm. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law, 23(1), 1–68. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3532975
Zhou, B. Y. (2021). A study of the risk prevention and protection establishment of the intellectual property rights of the cross-border e-commerce, based on the law-and-economics analytic model. 2021 2nd International Conference on E-Commerce and Internet Technology (ECIT), 10–15. https://doi.org/10.1109/ECIT52743.2021.00010
Zihua, G., Voigt, C., & Werksman, J. (2019). Facilitating implementation and promoting compliance with the Paris Agreement under Article 15: Conceptual challenges and pragmatic choices. Climate Law, 9(1-2), 65–100.
Zittrain, J. L. (2006). The generative Internet. Harvard Law Review, 119(7), 1975–2040. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jonathan-Zittrain/publication/228183659_The_Generative_Internet/links/00b4952af527142f1d000000/The-Generative-Internet.pdf
Zīle, K., & Strazdiņa, R. (2018). Blockchain use cases and their feasibility. Applied Computer Systems, 23(1), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.2478/acss-2018-0002
Funding
This work was supported by the [Key Projects of Philosophy and Social Sciences Research, Ministry of Education (CN)] under Grant [21JZD036].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Jia, K., Chen, S. Global digital governance: paradigm shift and an analytical framework. GPPG 2, 283–305 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43508-022-00047-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43508-022-00047-w