The politics and spaces of public-private partnerships in humanitarian tech innovations

IF 2.4 2区 社会学 Q3 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Environment and Planning C-Politics and Space Pub Date : 2023-10-19 DOI:10.1177/23996544231206822
Clara Egger
{"title":"The politics and spaces of public-private partnerships in humanitarian tech innovations","authors":"Clara Egger","doi":"10.1177/23996544231206822","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The past decade has seen a growing engagement of tech companies in conflict settings to develop multifaceted technological innovations, including digital biometric identification to register refugees, commercial drones to deliver cargo, and big data-fuelled algorithms to predict the spread of crises. Humanitarian technology has been largely acclaimed as a way of making aid more effective and of triggering a paradigm shift in humanitarian governance by putting crisis-affected communities in what is claimed to be the driving seat of aid programmes. Critics are however wary about the negative impacts these innovations have on humanitarian practices and crisis-affected population. This paper contributes to this debate by assessing whether technological innovations fundamentally alter the politics and spaces of humanitarian governance. To do so, it analyses the way public private partnerships (PPPs) mediate between the interests of the various stakeholders of tech experiments and distribute power among them. Drawing upon the exploratory analysis of 22 tech projects in crisis settings, a typology of PPPs is formalised based on the way they distribute power and resources among their stakeholders. The results show that only one type of PPPs - community-based digital humanitarianism – has the potential of increasing the ownership of crisis-affected communities over aid programmes and localising projects in so-called Global South societies. The two other types – technologising the humanitarian business and externalising the lab to crisis settings – appear as a continuation of neo-colonial practices with a digital touch.","PeriodicalId":48108,"journal":{"name":"Environment and Planning C-Politics and Space","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environment and Planning C-Politics and Space","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23996544231206822","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The past decade has seen a growing engagement of tech companies in conflict settings to develop multifaceted technological innovations, including digital biometric identification to register refugees, commercial drones to deliver cargo, and big data-fuelled algorithms to predict the spread of crises. Humanitarian technology has been largely acclaimed as a way of making aid more effective and of triggering a paradigm shift in humanitarian governance by putting crisis-affected communities in what is claimed to be the driving seat of aid programmes. Critics are however wary about the negative impacts these innovations have on humanitarian practices and crisis-affected population. This paper contributes to this debate by assessing whether technological innovations fundamentally alter the politics and spaces of humanitarian governance. To do so, it analyses the way public private partnerships (PPPs) mediate between the interests of the various stakeholders of tech experiments and distribute power among them. Drawing upon the exploratory analysis of 22 tech projects in crisis settings, a typology of PPPs is formalised based on the way they distribute power and resources among their stakeholders. The results show that only one type of PPPs - community-based digital humanitarianism – has the potential of increasing the ownership of crisis-affected communities over aid programmes and localising projects in so-called Global South societies. The two other types – technologising the humanitarian business and externalising the lab to crisis settings – appear as a continuation of neo-colonial practices with a digital touch.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
人道主义技术创新中公私伙伴关系的政治和空间
过去10年,科技公司越来越多地参与到冲突环境中,开发多方面的技术创新,包括用于难民登记的数字生物识别技术、用于运送货物的商用无人机,以及用于预测危机蔓延的大数据驱动算法。人道主义技术在很大程度上被认为是一种使援助更有效的方式,并通过将受危机影响的社区置于所谓的援助计划的主导地位,引发人道主义治理模式的转变。然而,批评人士对这些创新对人道主义实践和受危机影响的人口产生的负面影响持谨慎态度。本文通过评估技术创新是否从根本上改变了人道主义治理的政治和空间,为这场辩论做出了贡献。为此,本文分析了公私伙伴关系(ppp)在技术实验的各种利益相关者之间的利益调解方式,以及在他们之间分配权力的方式。基于对危机环境下22个技术项目的探索性分析,ppp的类型是基于它们在利益相关者之间分配权力和资源的方式而正式确定的。结果表明,只有一种公私伙伴关系——基于社区的数字人道主义——有可能增加受危机影响的社区对援助项目的所有权,并使所谓的全球南方社会的项目本地化。另外两种类型——人道主义业务的技术化和危机环境实验室的外部化——似乎是新殖民主义实践的延续,带有数字色彩。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
7.40%
发文量
78
期刊最新文献
The struggle against post-truth politics has always been about white supremacy: Lessons from the informational praxis of SNCC Corrigendum to “Beyond displacement: The role of real-estate valuations in shaping urban displaceability” Exploring commoning in the anthropocene. Introducing the concept of the election commons as a response to socio-ecological crisis. The case of Skouries, Greece Communities of exposure, community as exposure: Thinking collective life in the police abolitionist movement Constructing a governmental vision of happiness: Insights from Greece
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1