Digital Governance, Pt. II: Smart Cities

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.

By Troy Chavez
October 27, 2025

Michael Scott from The Office got up during Pam and Jim’s wedding to tell a joke.

“Hey, what is the deal with the Smart Car? How smart is that?”

Why was it called a “Smart Car”? Who knows, but why do intellectuals call cities riddled with technology “smart”? What is a “Smart City”? Can they talk? If not, “That’s not smart.”

Jokes aside, let’s start with what makes a city “smart.” How do we effectively connect technology with city life?

Defining ‘Smart City’ (and Why It’s a Fuzzy Term)

In the research paper Institutionalising smart city research and innovation: from fuzzy definitions to real-life experiments by Ralf-Martin Soe et al., we get a few differentiations. “Conceptually,” their research finds, smart cities can be described as “constellations of instruments across many scales that are connected through multiple networks which provide continuous data regarding the movements of people and materials in terms of the flow of decisions about the physical and social form of the city.”

The key framing here is interconnectedness and crafting systems citizens and officials can use practically and functionally in daily life, albeit many “may argue that the concept encapsulates a huge variety of issues to consider extending towards being fuzzy and fluid.”

Conclusively, smartness derives from governance, not how shiny the jewel or bauble is.

Social Engineering

Technology and society are sandwiched together. It helps us find the best route to work, write notes on the fly without pen and pad, and control devices of all kinds through mobile apps. Cities incorporate the same technology.

In the city I live, they have an app to pay for parking, albeit it came with a higher parking fee and slight uproar from people around town. Everyday citizens are prickly customers, which is why decisions like parking and mobile apps seem benign yet potentially loaded with roadblocks and acrimony.

History of Smart Cities

The emergence of smart cities was due to their growing complexities and ballooning populations. In 1790, less than 4 million people resided in the United States. By 1880 that number reached 50 million. This influx of people in American cities stressed census takers whereby it took them seven years to complete tabulations.

A former clerk, Herman Hollerith, created a tabulation machine that cut the process down to two years instead of seven. He would start a company called Computing Tabulating Record Company, which by 1924 became International Business Machines, or IBM.

IBM’s technology would eventually be utilized in Los Angeles. During the 1960s and 1970s, researchers in the burgeoning field of cybernetics surmised plans to tackle poverty and housing with similar tools and planning used in defense methodologies.

For example, the Community Analysis Bureau in Los Angeles used computer databases, cluster analysis, and infrared aerial photography to gather data to produce reports on neighborhood demographics and housing quality and help direct resources to tackle poverty. The internet would expand technological capabilities and drive new developments in the 1990s and onward.

Although this history illuminates our growing technological world, it does not explain the governing challenges posed by them and the advantages ignored due to complexity.

Governing Smart Cities (A Tale of Two Countries)

In Toronto, Canada, an Alphabet parent company subsidiary, Sidewalk Labs, engaged in a partnership to develop Quayside, an ambitious twelve-acre waterfront project. It vowed to implement data-driven urban planning designs with autonomous shuttles, wooden high-rises embedded with environmental sensors, and a network of digital infrastructure to optimize everything from energy consumption to trash collection.

The project almost immediately faced public backlash about privacy concerns. An original advisor and Canadian privacy expert, Ann Cavoukian, who resigned in protest over unaddressed stipulations, said, “In a smart city, technologies are gathering information 24-7. There’s no opportunity for people to consent or revoke consent, so we must protect their personal data for them.”

The program shuttered in 2020, citing the pandemic as their reason, but even the OECD (2023) and UN-Habitat (2023) referenced the project as a warning sign for similar projects void of a trusted governing framework. Smart city plans face stalwart public opposition otherwise.

Alternatively, Barcelona’s “data commons” approach shows us the inverse: define data rights and participation first, then deploy tech.

Establishing Foundations with S.M.A.R.T. Plans

Negotiations between private companies for mobile applications and general services have occurred in government for years. However, leadership must be mentally equipped to tackle these negotiations in the modern era. New technology contracts and equipment must have purpose and provide holistic benefits to the community. Moreover, privacy, while being an issue public administrators are well acquainted with, is now being coupled with new Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning systems, posing dual-sided challenges.

The key to effectiveness is tying the technology to sustainable “SMART” goals and initiatives. Let’s start by tweaking a common acronym for public administration.

Specific: Goals should clearly define the public need being addressed and the intended administrative outcome.
Measurable: Progress must be tracked through transparent performance indicators tied to service delivery and accountability.
Achievable: Objectives should be realistic within the agency’s legal authority, capacity, and available resources.
Relevant: Each initiative must align with broader public policy priorities and advance the community’s welfare.
Time-Bound: Programs require defined timelines for implementation, evaluation, and public reporting to ensure continuity and oversight.

Can the technology solve a practical problem, withstand public scrutiny, and serve the public interest over time?

Public administrators must adapt to these challenges with practical applications. Start with the framing. Legislative innovation is not always available to bureaucrats. Therefore, create a trusted framework accessible and practical, understand the technology one is seeking to implement, and institute with caution but don’t remain stagnant.

---

Author: Troy Chavez, M.P.A. is a PhD candidate at Liberty University with a masters in public administration and works in government doing community relations. He can be reached at [email protected].

(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...