European Journal of Business Science and Technology 2022, 8(2):172-189 | DOI: 10.11118/ejobsat.2022.011
From Quality to Quantity: How Can Digital Sovereignty be Parsed into Measurable Components?
- 1 Mendel University in Brno, Czech Republic
The use of digital technologies for state-relevant institutions, government organisations and administrations has grown steadily in recent decades. Therefore, the question arises whether the mastery of these technologies has an influence on a state’s ability to act and whether state sovereignty is affected. In the European Union, the concept of digital sovereignty of states is being intensively discussed. However, it is unclear what exactly is meant by the term digital sovereignty and how it can be defined. The research gap is the lack of a clear qualitative and quantitative definition of that term, so that the goal of the article is to provide an overview of a qualitative definition. That is the basis for a quantiative model. To achive that goal a hierarchical component model is developed for concretisation. Furthermore, the components are decomposed into sub-components, each of which is then quantified by suitable metric parameters, which are populated from secondary data sources for states and subjected to selected quantitative analyses. To verify and validate whether the component model and the parameters are suitable and robust for measuring digital sovereignty, a comparative index is formed and compared with existing indices.
Keywords: digital sovereignty, state sovereignty, technology
JEL classification: N4, N7, O33, O38
Received: April 10, 2022; Revised: October 7, 2022; Accepted: October 10, 2022; Published: December 31, 2022 Show citation
References
- Abbate, J. 2017. What and Where is the Internet? (Re)defining Internet Histories. Internet Histories, 1 (1-2), 8-14. DOI: 10.1080/24701475.2017.1305836.
Go to original source...
- Barnett, M. A. 2017. Quantifying Sovereignty: A New Way to Examine an Essential Concept [online]. Master's thesis. Harvard Extension School. Available at: https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/33825923. [Accessed 2020, April 12].
- Bauernhansl, T., ten Hompel, M. & Vogel-Heuser, B. (eds.). 2014. Industrie 4.0 in Produktion, Automatisierung und Logistik: Anwendung, Technologien, Migration. Wiesbaden, Springer Vieweg.
Go to original source...
- Becker, S. O., Hornung, E. & Woessmann, L. 2011. Education and Catch-up in the Industrial Revolution. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 3 (3), 92-126. DOI: 10.1257/mac.3.3.92.
Go to original source...
- Bjerre, L., Römer, F. & Zobel, M. 2019. The Sensitivity of Country Ranks to Index Construction and Aggregation Choice: The Case of Immigration Policy. Policy Studies Journal, 47 (3), 647-685. DOI: 10.1111/psj.12304.
Go to original source...
- Bodin, J. 1994. Über den Staat: Nachdruck. Stuttgart: Reclam.
- Bublitz, H. 2014. Macht. In Kammler, C., Parr, R., Schneider, U. J. & Reinhardt-Becker, E. (eds.). Foucault-Handbuch, Chapter 20, 237-277. J. B. Metzler, Stuttgart. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-476-01378-1_38.
Go to original source...
- Cerny, P. G. 2010. The Competition State Today: From Raison d'État to Raison du Monde. Policy Studies, 31 (1), 5-21. DOI: 10.1080/01442870903052801.
Go to original source...
- Dahlman, C. T. 2009. Sovereignty. In Gallaher, C., Dahlman, C. T., Gilmartin, M., Mountz, A. & Shirlow, P. (eds.). Key Concepts in Political Geography, Chapter 2, 28. DOI: 10.4135/9781446279496.
Go to original source...
- DeNardis, L., Cogburn, D. L., Levinson, N. S. & Musiani, F. (eds.). 2020. Researching Internet Governance: Methods, Frameworks, Futures. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
Go to original source...
- DeNardis, L. & Raymond, M. 2013. Thinking Clearly About Multistakeholder Internet Governance. In GigaNet: Global Internet Governance Academic Network, Annual Symposium 2013. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2354377.
Go to original source...
- Fahrmeir, L., Kneib, T. & Lang, S. 2009. Regression: Modelle, Methoden und Anwendungen. 2nd ed. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Go to original source...
- Fahrmeir, L. & Tutz, G. 2001. Multivariate Statistical Modelling Based on Generalized Linear Models. 2nd ed. New York, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Go to original source...
- Greco, S., Ishizaka, A., Tasiou, M. & Torrisi, G. 2019. On the Methodological Framework of Composite Indices: A Review of the Issues of Weighting, Aggregation, and Robustness. Social Indicators Research, 141 (1), 61-94. DOI: 10.1007/s11205-017-1832-9.
Go to original source...
- Hampel, D., Issever Grochová, L., Janová, J., Kabát, L. & Støelec, L. 2016. Sustainable Development in the EU. In Huber, P., Nerudová, D., Rozmahel, P. (eds.). Competitiveness, Social Inclusion and Sustainability in a Diverse European
Go to original source...
- Union: Perspectives from Old and New Member States, Part I, 47-73. Cham, Springer.
- Janová, J., Hampel, D. & Nerudová, D. 2019. Design and Validation of a Tax Sustainability Index. European Journal of Operational Research, 278 (3), 916-926. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2019.05.003.
Go to original source...
- Juhász, R., Squicciarini, M. P. & Voigtländer, N. 2020. Technology Adoption and Productivity Growth: Evidence from Industrialization in France. NBER Working Paper. DOI: 10.3386/w27503.
Go to original source...
- Kagermann, H., Lukas, W.-D. & Wahlster, W. 2011. Industrie 4.0: Mit dem Internet der Dinge auf dem Weg zur 4. industriellen Revolution. VDI Nachrichten, 13, 2.
- Kaloudis, M. 2021. Digital Sovereignty - European Union's Action Plan Needs a Common Understanding to Succeed. History Compass, 19 (12). DOI: 10.1111/hic3.12698.
Go to original source...
- Kaloudis, M. 2022. Sovereignty in the Digital Age - How Can We Measure Digital Sovereignty and Support the EU's Action Plan? New Global Studies, 16 (3), 275-299. DOI: 10.1515/ngs-2021-0015.
Go to original source...
- Kaufmann, D. & Kraay, A. 2020. World Governance Index [online]. Available at: https://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/. [Accessed 2020, December 20].
- Kukkola, J., Ristolainen, M. & Nikkarila, J.-P. (eds.). 2019. GAME PLAYER: Facing the Structural Transformation of Cyberspace. Puolustusvoimien tutkimuslaitos, Julkaisuja 11.
- Lafortune, G. & Ubaldi, B. 2018. OECD 2017 OURdata Index: Methodology and Results. OECD Working Papers on Public Governance No. 30. DOI: 10.1787/2807d3c8-en.
Go to original source...
- Madiega, T. 2020. Digital Sovereignty for Europe [online]. EPRS Ideas Paper. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/651992/EPRS_BRI(2020)651992_EN.pdf. [Accessed 2022, August 23].
- Mayer, M. & Lu, Y.-C. 2022. Digital Autonomy? Measuring the Global Digital Dependence Structure [online]. Policy Commons Report. Available at: https://policycommons.net/artifacts/3184149/digital-autonomy-measuring-the-global-digital-dependence-structure/3982752/fragments/.
Go to original source...
- Miller, T., Kim, A. B. & Roberts, J. M. 2021. 2021 Index of Economic Freedom. Washington, The Heritage Foundation.
- Mohabbat-Kar, R., Thapa, B. E. P., Parycek, P. (eds.). 2018. (Un)Berechenbar? Algorithmen und Automatisierung in Staat und Gesellschaft. Berlin: Kompetenzzentrum Öffentliche IT.
- Mohajan, H. 2019. The First Industrial Revolution: Creation of a New Global Human Era. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 5 (4), 377-387.
- Montgomery, D. C., Peck, E. A. & Vining, G. G. 2012. Introduction to Linear Regression Analysis. 5th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
- OECD. 2020a. Digital STRI [online]. Available at: https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=STRI_DIGITAL. [Accessed 2021, February 4].
- OECD. 2020b. Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators 2020 [online]. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/handbookonconstructingcompositeindicatorsmethodologyanduserguide.htm. [Accessed 2021, July 27].
- OECD. 2020c. How's Life? [online]. Available at: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/publication/9870c393-en.
- OECD. 2020d. Services Trade in the Global Economy [online]. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/trade/topics/services-trade/. [Accessed 2021, January 4].
- OECD. 2021. Government at a Glance 2021 [online]. Available at: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/government-at-a-glance-2021_1c258f55-en.
- Peters, M. A. & Jandriæ, P. 2019. Education and Technological Unemployment in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. In Redding, G., Drew, A. & Crump, S. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Higher Education Systems and University Management, Chapter 24. Oxford University Press.
Go to original source...
- Pohle, J. & Thiel, T. 2020. Digital Sovereignty. Internet Policy Review, 9 (4). DOI: 10.14763/2020.4.1532.
Go to original source...
- Rhode, B. (ed.). 2020. The Digital Great Game. Strategic Comments, 26 (7), iv-vi. DOI: 10.1080/13567888.2020.1846453.
Go to original source...
- Schwab, K. 2016. Die Vierte Industrielle Revolution. München: Pantheon Verlag.
- Tomory, L. 2016. Technology in the British Industrial Revolution. History Compass, 14 (4), 152-167. DOI: 10.1111/hic3.12306.
Go to original source...
- van Eck, N. J. 2021. CWTS Leiden Ranking 2021. Methodology. Leiden University. DOI: 10.5281/ZENODO.4889279.
Go to original source...
- Wagner, T., Herrmann, C. & Thiede, S. 2017. Industry 4.0 Impacts on Lean Production Systems. Procedia CIRP, 63, 125-131. DOI: 10.1016/j.procir.2017.02.041.
Go to original source...
- Zandonella, B. 2007. Pocket Europa: EU-Begriffe und Länderdaten. 2nd ed. Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.
- Zimmer, M. 2008. Moderne, Staat und Internationale Politik. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.