14366 the political economy of nudgeweb.asc.upenn.edu/usr/ogandy/penudge.pdfheuristic strategy...

The Political Economy of Nudge 1

OscarH.Gandy,Jr.SelenaNemorinUniversityofPennsylvaniaLondonSchoolofEconomicsoscar.gandy@[email protected]

Neuroeconomics,BehavioralEconomicsandThePoliticalEconomyofNudge

The Political Economy Section SubmissionNo.14366

Paper presented at the IAMCR 2017 Conference in Cartagena, Columbia, July, 16-20, 2017.


ABSTRACT Neuroeconomics, Behavioral Economics and the Political Economy of Nudge Transformations in the strategies and techniques of governmentality have been implemented

around the globe through different versions of behavioral interventions being characterized as

“nudges.” Although the variety of areas in which the structuration of this so-called “libertarian

paternalism” will occur is considerable, this paper will focus on the implementation of these

practices within geopolitical areas being referred to as “smart cities.”

Informed by earlier assessments of technologically based theories of communication and social

change by Preston, this paper will briefly examine the relationships between technological

advances in neuroscience associated with increasingly sophisticated brain scanning technology.

It will then examine the impact of these and related technological developments on

neuroeconomics and behavioral economics as foundational contributions to the governance of

smart cities.

Because of the resonance between these developments and transformations in several areas of

governmentality explored by Foucault in the 1970s, and by an increasing number of theorists of

late, this paper sets out a program of research and policy analysis organized through the political

economy of communications framework laid out by Mosco. Through an emphasis on the

contributions to behavioral economics made by Thaler and Sunstein, smart city governance will

be identified and assessed in terms of the processes of Commodification, Spatialization and

Structuration as defined by Mosco. Part of what is being commodified in support of nudging

policies implemented through public/private partnerships are the networked devices that capture

cognitive, affective and behavioral information which are being used to alter strategies and

targets of contemporary and emergent forms of correct training.

This paper also identifies the dominant firms operating in this rapidly evolving sector, including

network providers such as Oracle, and those providing resources for advanced computing and

analytics like Microsoft and IBM. For example, in our analysis of spatialization, these initiatives

will be characterized in part by the frameworks being developed for implementation within


targeted areas and populations through which nudges, varying in intensity and levels of

constraint will be delivered, evaluated and altered.

In this emergent governance arena, multiple forms of transaction-generated, and remotely sensed

information about persons, devices and the relations between them will be subject to analysis by

a variety of interested actors. Information derived from these analyses will play a critical role in

the design, management and evaluation of nudges, some of which will be used to exploit, rather

than to overcome common limitations in consumer decision-making.

The implications of this process for groups within society, especially those already

disadvantaged by poverty, segregation and disregard, will be described, and illustrated with

examples from around the globe. The paper will conclude with an articulation of public policy

concerns, including those related to privacy and surveillance that will call for an organized

response at the political level.


Introduction

Transformationsinthestrategiesandtechniquesofgovernmentalityhavebeenimplemented

aroundtheglobethroughdifferentversionsofbehavioralinterventionsbeingcharacterizedas

“nudges.”Thedesignofthesechoicearchitectures,whichworkprimarilythroughtheframing

ofthedefaultoptionsthatindividualsdon’tactuallychooseoraccept,becausetheyare

imposed,shouldbeunderstoodascommunicationsstrategies.Whilelibertarianpaternalismis

saidtorequirethatindividualsshouldnotfacemeaningfulcostsinoptingout,orchoosingan

alternativeatoddswithchosendefault(Oliver,2013;Sunstein,2015b;Yeung,2012),one

shouldexpectthattheframingofsuchanoptionwillbedesignedtoexploitacommonbiasor

heuristicstrategyrelatedtolossaversion,orincreasingly,toexploitacognitivebiasforwhich

membersofaspecificsocialcategoryareespeciallyvulnerable.

Becauseoftheresonancebetweenthesedevelopmentsandtransformationsinseveralareasof

governmentalityexploredbyFoucaultinthe1970s,andbyanincreasingnumberoftheoristsof

late,thispapersetsoutaprogramofresearchandpolicyanalysisorganizedthroughthe

politicaleconomyofcommunicationsframeworkasconceivedbyVincentMosco(2009).Sucha

frameworkprovidesuswithausefulentrypointtoexplorethecommunicativeaspectsofthe

nudgeagenda.Mosco’sapproachtocommunicationfocusesonthreerelatedprocesses:

commodification,spatializationandstructuration.

Thispaperwillfocusontheimplementationofthesepracticeswithingeopoliticalareasbeing

referredtoas“smartcities.”Informedbyearlierassessmentsoftechnologicallybasedtheories

ofcommunicationandsocialchangebyPreston(2001),thispaperwillbrieflyexaminethe

relationshipsbetweentechnologicaladvancesinneuroscienceassociatedwithincreasingly

sophisticatedbrainscanningtechnology.Itwillthenreflectontheimpactoftheseandrelated

technologicaldevelopmentsonneuroeconomicsandbehavioraleconomicsasfoundational

contributionstothegovernanceofsmartcities.Thepaperalsoidentifiesthedominantfirms

operatinginthisrapidlyevolvingsector,includingnetworkproviderssuchasOracle,andthose

providingresourcesforadvancedcomputingandanalyticslikeMicrosoftandIBM.Forexample,


inouranalysisofspatialization,theseinitiativeswillbecharacterizedinpartbytheframeworks

beingdevelopedforimplementationwithintargetedareasandpopulationsthroughwhich

nudges,varyinginintensityandlevelsofconstraintwillbedelivered,evaluatedandaltered.

Theimplicationsofthisprocessforgroupswithinsociety,especiallythosealready

disadvantagedbypoverty,segregationanddisregard,willbedescribed,andillustratedwith

examplesfromaroundtheglobe.Thepaperwillconcludewithanarticulationofpublicpolicy

concerns,includingthoserelatedtoprivacyandsurveillancethatwillcallforanorganized

responseatthepoliticallevel.

Commodification,spatializationandstructuration Computerizationofnetworkedcommunicationsandinformationprocessingplaysinthe

increasinglycomplexsystemsthroughwhichgoodsandservicesaretransformedinto

commoditiesforsale.Mosco’sframingofthisprocess(2009,pp.130-133)emphasizesa

connectionbetweencapitalistexploitationoflabor,andthetransformationofthings

valuedfortheiruses,intothingsvaluedfortheircontributiontotherealizationofprofits,or

surplusvaluewithinmarkets.Apoliticaleconomyofcommunicationisunderstandably

concernedwithmediacontentasaprimarycommodityform,butearlyinitsdevelopmentasa

pointoftheoreticalinterest,theaudiencesorconsumersofthatcontent(Bermejo,2007;

Napoli,2003)becamethefocusofdebateregardingtheextenttowhichsomeofthose

audiencememberswerebeingexploitedaslabor(McGuigan&Mazerolle,2014;Mosco,2009,

pp.136-143).

Althoughhedoesnotplacemuchemphasisontheprocessesthroughwhichinformationabout

audiencesistransformedintostrategicintelligenceinsupportofmarketingandsocialcontrol,

hischaracterizationofratingsandothermeasuresofaudiencebehaviorasan“immanent

process”ofsurveillancethroughwhich“onecommoditygivesrisedirectlytoanother

one”identifiesakeyconcern(Mosco,2009,pp.141-143).Thenatureofthisprocessof

transformingtransaction-generatedinformation(TGI)gatheredthroughamultiplicityofdata-


gatheringsystemsanddevicesintotechnologiesofcontrol(Gandy,2011)willbeacentralfocus

ofourexaminationofthesurveillanceprocessestakingshapewithinsmartcities.

TheimportanceofTGIanditsrelationshiptosurveillanceandcontrolisreflectedinthedefinitionofspatializationasaprocessthroughwhichtheconstraintsofspaceandtimeare

overcome.Changesinthenatureofglobalizationareattributabletothefactthat“themeansof

communication,includingnewtechnologies…havemadeitcost-effectiveandeasierforfirms…

tooperateefficientlyacrossseveralborders”(Mosco,2009,p.161).Theabilitytoexercise

managerialcontrolfromafar,inpartthroughanexpandedroleforshareddatastorageand

analysisaccessiblethrough“thecloud”(deBruin&Floridi,2017),addstotheflexibilityof

managementstructures,andcollaborativearrangements.

Ofcourse,theexpansionofmultinationalcorporationsdoingbusinessinabroadrangeof

industrialsectors,includingtheproducersofmassmediacontent,hasalsomeantthat

telecommunications,marketing,anddataprocessingfirmshaveemergedintothisglobal

marketspace.InhiscommentsaboutWal-Mart,Mosco(2009,pp.174-175)describeshowthis

powerfulmerchandisercoordinatesitsglobalnetworkofsuppliersanddistributors,butalso

notesitsleadershipin“itsabilitytoextractvaluefrompracticallyeverybitofinformationthe

companycollectsoncustomers,workers,suppliers,distributors,andsoon…”

TheadditionofsocialmediagiantslikeFacebookintotheglobalinformationnetwork

hasintroducedyetanotherdisturbanceintothesocial,culturalandpoliticalenvironmentthat

wearejustbeginningtounderstand(Fuchs,2015).Manyofthesecorporationshavebecome

activeinthedevelopmentofpromotionofsmartcitiesastheyenterintopublic/private

partnerships(P3s)withgovernments.Neoliberalstrategiesforgovernanceinthisnewindustrial

age,knownas“liberalization,privatization,andinternationalization,”havebecomesomeof

“themoresignificantexamplesofthestate’sconstitutiverole”inthisprocess(Mosco,2009,p.

178).


Lastly,theconceptofstructurationplaysanimportantroleinextendingourunderstandingof

therelationshipsbetweenthestructuresandinstitutionsthatbothenableandconstrainthe

kindsofactionswetake,andactivitiesthatweengagein,toincorporatethedifferences

betweenusinthewaysweact,individuallyandcollectivelytoshapethosestructuralfeatures

(Mosco,2009).Giddens’emphasisontheroleof“knowledgeableactors”inpursuitof

theirinterests,astheyunderstandthem,requiresustoconsideraspectsofthoseeffortsthat

mightnotbeconsideredwithinmainstreameconomictheory.

Inunderstandingagentsandtheiragency,weneedtounderstandtheroles,resourcesand

routinesthatexplainthedifferencesinpowerandinfluencethatexistbetweengroupswithin

societyatparticularpointsintime.Mosco(2009)exploressomeofthedifferencesbetween

groups,definedcategorically,andexperiencedsubjectively,suchasthoseidentifiedbyrace,

classandgender,andwemightaddtoday,nationalorigin.Centraltothisprocessof

structurationarethedirectandindirectsocialinteractions,includingthoseexperienced

throughcommunicationandmediaconsumption,thatplayaroleintheformationand

reproductionofsocialidentitiesorgroupconsciousness(Gandy,1993,pp.25-35;Gandy,1998).

Moscoaddssocialmovements,andhegemonytothelistofkeyconsiderationsthatplaya

centralroleinthestructurationofpowerfulinstitutionsofgovernanceasexploredwithinthe

politicaleconomyofcommunication.Socialmovements,includingthosethathavebeenapart

ofthecontinuingstrugglesofmarginalizedanddisadvantagedgroupstogainaccesstothe

rightsandresourcesthatdefinegroupprivilegeformoreadvantagedmembersofsocietyare

motivatedbyasetofcommoninterests.Strategiccommunicationcampaignsdesignedto

mobilizesupportoroppositiontopublicpolicies,orinstitutionalactivitieshavetobe

understoodinthecontextoftheeconomic,socialandpoliticalresourcesthatthesesocial

movementscanbringtobear(Manheim,2011).Thesuccessofthesegroupsisdeterminedbya

varietyoffactors,includingtheextenttowhichdifferentinterestgroupsareabletoform

collaborativealliances,despitethedifferencesintheirprimaryinterests.


Anadditionalfactorthatmayeitherenableorconstraintheirabilitytoeffectthe

mobilizationofpublicopinioninsupportoftheirpolicygoalsisrelatedtowhatMosco(2009,

pp.206-209)identifiesashegemony.GivingcredittotheinsightsderivedfromAntonio

Gramsci,Moscocallsourattentiontotheroleplayedbyviewsoftheworldthathavecometo

beacceptedas“commonsense.”Thedebateisoftenaboutnormalizedunderstandingsthatare

theproductofinteractionsthroughoutsociety,ratherthansimplyanideologicalframethat

powerfulactorsseektoimposeonthepopulation.AsMosconotes(2009,p.207)“Global

neoliberalism,thevisionoftheworldasonelargemarketmanagedbyglobalbusinesswith

supportfromnationalgovernmentsandinternationalorganizationsconstitutesapowerful

hegemony.”Itisthishegemonythatweareforcedtoconfrontasweseektodevelopa

responsetotheproblemsweseeinthedevelopmentofsmartcitiesaroundtheglobe.

TheSmartCity

AsRobertHollands(2008,p.303)implieswithhissymbolicrequest“willtherealsmartcity

pleasestandup?”,wehavealottolearnaboutthenatureofthoseplacesthatarereferredto

assmartcitiesbytheirleaders,ifnotbyothers.Hewondersinhiscriticalassessmentwhether

so-calledsmartcities“canbeunderstoodasahigh-techvariationofthe‘entrepreneurialcity’.”

ForHollands,animportantquestioniswhethertheuseofthelabelinvitescertainpositive

assumptions,atthesametimethatitmight“playdownsomeoftheunderlyingurbanissues

andproblemsinherentinthelabellingprocessitself”(Hollands,2008,p.304).

Overthelastdecade,urbandevelopmentshavebeenreimaginedassmartspacesthatcan

integratearangeofnetworkedsystems,sensors,andanalyticalresourcestomanageand

governacity’sfunctions.Thesecitieshavebeenenvisionedasspacesthatholdthe

computationalpowertomonitor,gainknowledgeon,andadapttoboththephysical

architecturesthatcomprisethesespacesaswellasthepeoplewhoinhabitthem(Batty,

Axhausen,Giannotti,Pozdnoukhov,etal.,2012).Thevastamountsofdataextractedfrom

smartcitydevicesissaidtoaidwiththemanagementofitstransport,environmental,social,

andeconomicssystems.Assuch,asmartcityisnotonlywiredtosmartsensorsanddevices,it


alsocomprisesalargernetworkofactorsandinstitutions,includingsmartgovernments,

businesses,schools,hospitals,homes,andcitizens.

AusefuldefinitionofsmartcitiesiselaboratedbyGiffingeretal.(2007)whoexplainthatwhile

thereisnocommonagreementonanall-encompassingdefinitionofthespace,itispossibleto

identifysharedcharacteristics:

Smarteconomy:ComprisingindustriesintheICTsectorintosmartcityprocesses.This

kindofeconomyisconnectedtoinnovation,entrepreneurialism,labourmarket

flexibility,economicimageandtrademarks,globalization,andabilitytotransform.

Smartpeople:Thisaspectisrelatedtoeducationalattainment,tendencytowardslife-

longlearning,open-mindedness,cosmopolitanism,andparticipationinpubliclife.

Smartgovernance:Theuseofnewchannelsofcommunicationforcitizenstobeinvolved

inparticipatorydecision-makingprocesses;forexample,“e-democracy”or“e-

governance”.Suchprocesseshingeontransparentandaccountiblesystemsof

politics/governance,aswellasaccessibilityofpublicservices.

Smartmobility:TheavailabilityofICTinfrastructure,localandinternationalaccessibility,

sustainable,safe,andinnovativetransportsystems.

Smartenvironment:lackofpollution,environmentalprotection,andsustainable

managementofnaturalresources.

Smartliving:themaximizationofwell-beingandqualityoflife,socialcohesion,

accessibilitytoculturalandeducationalservices,qualityofhousing,touristattractions,

personalsafety.(p.12)

Althoughthedefinitionisindeedhelpfulformakingsenseofsmartcitystructures,asVanolo

(2013)reasons,whiletheseparationintosixdimensionsislikelyinformedby“conventional

wisdom”,itcouldalsopotentiallynaturalizeanddepoliticizepoliticalchoicesasevidencedby

theideaofaflexibilelabormarket,whichisnotassumedasanoptionbutratherasanexplicit

aimofasmartcityeconomy.Furthermore,“smartness”isgraduallybecomingadiscourseof


socialcontrolthatnormalizesgovernmentandcoporateincursionsintoanindividual’sprivate

life.

Amongthepositiveattributesthatmightbeassociatedwithsmartcityasadesignationisthe

useofnetworkedinfrastructuresforeconomicandpoliticalefficiency,aswellassocial,cultural,

andurbandevelopment(Hollands,2008,p.307).Ithasbeensuggestedthatasmartcityisa

utopianvisionofasustainableurbanenvironmentthatproduceswealthandwell-being

throughinnovativeuseofnewtechnologiestoconfrontvariousoperationalproblems

(Greenfield,2013).Forexample,Huawei,aleadingproponentofSmartCityinitiatives,focuses

onthemanybenefitsofsmartcities,whereadvancedwirelessnetworkscanmakeubiquitous

connectivityandcollaborationpossible.Initsevaluationofthe“tenleadingsmartcitiesinthe

UK,”Huawei(2016,pp.5-6)identifiescriteriaforevaluatingtheseprojectsintermsofstrategy

andexecution,usingthemtoidentifycitiesasLeaders,Contenders,ChallengersorFollowers.

Commontotheseprojectsisan“underlyingemphasisonbusiness-ledurbandevelopment,”

andanassociatedunderstandingthatthisexpandedroleofcorporationsandtechnologywill

leadtosignificantchangesinthe“roleandfunctionofurbangovernance”(Hollands,2008,pp.

307-308).

ThechallengesthatHolllandsandothersseeonthehorizonarethedifficultiesassociatedwith

theneedtobalancecommunityneedswiththoseofbusinessandlocalgovernment,especially

whentheleadersoflocalgovernmentsaredrivenbyaneconomicimperativeto“attract

capital,particularlyknowledgeandinformationalcapitaltotheircity”(Hollands,2008,p.311).

Thisunderstandabledesiretoderivethebenefitsofinvestmentsandexpendituresbywell-

resourcedfirmsleadscitymanagerstoenterintodeals,includingheavilysubsidizedP3sthat

caneasilybackfire,orevaporatebecause“informationtechnologycapitalmayflowelsewhere

dependinguponwhatadvantagesareavailabletoaidfurthercapitalaccumulation”(Hollands,

2008,p.314).


Thecriticismsofsmartcityinitiativeshavebeenextensive,andmanyofthemhavebeen

identifiedasconvergingintoasetofchallenges(Kitchin,Lauriault&McArdle,2015).Thefirst

challengestheunderlyingbeliefthatalltheproblematicaspectsofurbancommunitiescanbe

managedwithtechnologicalresources,guidedbyaninstrumentalrationality.Althoughsome

havearguedthatitisindeedpossibleforasmartcitytothinkwithitscollectivesocial/political

brainratherthanthroughits‘technologicaltools’,whichforegroundscollectiveactioninthe

processofbuildingthesmartcityandpotentialforgoodgovernance(Lam,2005).

Thesecondconcernbeingexaminedistheextenttowhichthesedevelopmentsor

transformationsarebeingshapedbycorporateinterests,ledbyacohortofgloballeadersof

theinformationsector.Observershavepointedoutthatgoverningthesespaceswithcoded

devicesandinfrastructuresthatrelyondynamicdatamightresultintechnocraticand/or

corporatizationofgovernance,aswellasdifficultissuesofsurveillance(Kitchin,2014).The

thirdconcern,andonewhichresonateswithourprimaryframework,isthemannerinwhich

surveillance,profilinganddiscriminationenabledbythecommodificationoftransaction-

generatedinformation(TGI),seemslikelyto“leadtohighlycontrollingandunequalsocietiesin

whichrightstoprivacy,confidentiality,freedomofexpressionandlifechancesarerestricted”

(Kitchin,Lauriault&McArdle,2015,p.20).

Thefourthconcernisdirectlyrelatedtothethirdtotheextentthatpoliciesregardingthe

collectionanduseofTGIarebeingframedinsuchawayastohidethepoliticalandideological

realitiesofthisprocessbehindascreenofscientisminactivepursuitofefficiencyand

effectivenessforthebenefitofall.Whileourprimaryfocusisonthenatureoftransformations

takingplacewithinsmartcities,itisalsoimportanttoplacethosechangesinthecontextof

structurationalprocessesunfoldingacrossagreaterspatio-temporallandscape.

Techno-economicandsocio-technicalparadigms

PaschalPreston(2001)providesanextendedintroductiontoavarietyofassessmentsand

predictionsofthesocioeconomicimpactsoftherapidlydevelopingandwidelydistributed


technologicalsystemsreferredtoasinformationandcommunicationtechnologies(ICT).He

describesanumberofthetheoreticalframeworksthathadbeendevelopedtoshapeour

understandingofthetransformativerolethatICTswereexpectedtoplayintheemergenceofa

newsocialorder.Anumberoftheseframeworksattempttocharacterizethehistorical

momentswithinwhichfundamentalchangesintechnology,socialrelations,andpolitical

ideology,wereaccompaniedbyalteredsystemsoflegal,regulatoryandinstitutional

governancedesignedtoimposeorderonthechaosthatoftenaccompaniedsuchchange.

Becausecommunicationisnotitselfanewtechnology,mostreferencestoICTsasa

transformativetechnologyaremadewithregardtothenetworkedcommunicationsenabledby

digitalcomputers.Thecomputerisespeciallyimportantbecauseofitsroleininformation

processing,inadditiontoitssupportiverolesinthecapture,storage,andtransmissionof

informationinanexpandingarrayofforms.Thefunctionsinitiallyassociatedwithdigital

computershavebeenimplementedinanotherrapidlyexpandingsetofdevicesthatmaybe

specializedandlimitedinfunctionality,suchastherangeofenvironmentalsensorsmeasuring

temperature,rainfall,ormonitoringtheentrance,exit,orpresenceofpersons,tothose

multifunctionaldevices,suchasmobiletelephones,someofwhichmatchthe

capabilitiesofdesktopcomputers.

AmongthechangesinthenatureofICTsthatmanyconsidertobemosttransformativeisthe

reductioninthesizeandweightofthesedevices.Miniaturizationofcomplexsystemsnotonly

makesthemportable,indeed,wearable,butitisfullyexpectedthatsomeformofICTwillbe

incorporatedintoeveryproduct,ifnotineveryitem,theninthepackagesthatstorethem.This

ubiquityofnetworkeddeviceshasledtoitscharacterizationasthe“internetofthings”(IoT)

(Gubbi,Buyya,Marusic&Palaniswami,2013).Withregardstothenetworkeddevicesoperating

within“smartcities,”thenatureofthefunctionsbeingperformedbycomputershasbeen

expandedsofarbeyondwhatwasoncereferredtoasinformationprocessing,thatdistinctions

arenowmadeintermsofthedegreeofintelligencethesedevicescandisplay,andputintouse

insupportofautonomousdecision-making.Alongwithotherquestionsrelatedtogovernance


inthisnewmomentofchange,arethoseweintendtoexplorewithregardtothedevelopment

ofnewformsofcollaboration,suchasthoseextendingbeyondthepublic/privatepartnerships

thatthemanagementofcomplexsystemswithinsmartcitieswillrequire.Asimportantasthese

socio-technicaltransformationsmaybeinshapingtheenvironmentinwhichwemakeourlives,

wewouldliketosuggestthatasetoftransformationstakingplaceinthesocialandbehavioral

sciencesareequallyimportantinhelpingustounderstandthesechanges,andtoguideour

participationinshapingacollectivepoliticalresponse.

Whilemuchofthefocusamongcommunicationscholarsisonthenewmediaandsocial

communicationnetworks,theplaceoftheseintelligentsystemswithintheeconomy,including

itsimpactonthelaborforceandrisinginequalityiscentralinouranalysis(NationalAcademies,

2017;Schiller,2014).Assuch,itisimportantthatourexaminationoftheforcesinvolvedinthe

reshapingofcommunicationsnotbelimitedtoeitherthetechnological,orthestrictly

economicaspectsofthechangestakingplace.Wewishtosuggestthatthekindsof

transformationsthathavetakenplaceinandaroundthemainstreameconomicvantagepoint

withinthepublicpolicyinfrastructure(Gandy,2009,pp.145-162)havesuchimportant

implicationsforthenatureofgovernmentality(Foucault,1991;Kear,2012;Pykett,2013)thatit

wouldbeagraveerrortominimizethem.Theconceptofgovernmentality,inthiscapacity,

referstotheintegrationofdata-driveninferencesintogovernmentalpractices.Power,then,

becomestheproductofdatatacticsusedtonormalizesocialbehavior.AsVanolo(2014)

reasons,governmentalityisimplicatedinthewaysubjectsmakesenseofthemselves,

constructingtheiridentities“throughprocessesofgovernmentwhichcontrol,inciteor

suppressactionsbydrawingalinebetweenwhatis‘acceptable’andwhatis‘unacceptable’”(p.

885).

Althoughchallengestothedominanceofneoclassicaleconomicshavebeendeliveredfroma

numberofimportantandinfluentialpositionswithinthescholarlyacademy,wehavechosento

focusourattentionontworelatedperspectives,inadditiontothatpresentedbycritical

politicaleconomy.Bothneuroeconomicsandbehavioraleconomicsshareacommoninterestin


thecognitive,affective,andbehavioralresponsesofhumanstoinformationaboutthemyriad

choicesthatconfrontthemthroughouttheirlives.Thefactthattheyshareanattachmentto

empirical,andoftenexperimentalresearchtotesttheoriesaboutthewaydecisionsaremade,

mayexplainthecommonalitywithintheirassaultsonthefundamentalassumptionsaboutthe

rationalprocessesthateconomistshavelongheldtobetrue(Wright&Ginsberg,2012,pp.

1036-1052).

Politicaleconomistshaveconsistentlychallengednumerouscoreassumptionsaboutthe

choicesmadebycitizensandconsumers,includinglimitsontheirrationality,butthesecritiques

havefocusedmoreonthelimitationsplacedonaccesstotheinformationthatrational

decision-makingrequiresthanonthecognitivelimitationsofthechoosers.Criticismfrom

politicaleconomyalsoemphasizesthestrategiceffortsbypromotersofcommercialaswellas

politicalgoodsandservices,toestablishoraltertastesandpreferences(VanTuinen,2011),

ratherthantoassumethatpreferenceswereeither“given,”orgeneratedbyforcesexternalto

marketsystems(Baker,2002,pp.87-95;Bowles,1998).Theseandotherchallengesthathave

emergedinoppositiontodominantconstructionsofanidealizedconsumerwillbeexploredin

somedetail.

NeuroeconomicsandDualProcessTheories

Intheviewofsome,questionsbeingraisedaboutthenatureofindividualhumanchoicecan

onlybeansweredsatisfactorilythroughacombinationofinsightsfromempiricallybased

studiesinneurobiology,psychology,andeconomicsunderthelabelofneuroeconomics

(Glimcher,2009).AdefinitivestatementofthepromiseofthisfieldwasprovidedbyColin

Camerer(2007,p.C28):“Theneuroeconomictheoryoftheindividualreplacesthe(perennially

useful)fictionofautility-maximizingindividualwhichhasasinglegoal,withamoredetailed

accountofhowcomponentsoftheindividual—brainregions,cognitivecontrol,andneural

circuits—interactandcommunicatetodetermineindividualbehavior.”Thepursuitofthisnew

approachhasbeendriven,inpart,bytherealizationthatonlyaquitelimitednumberof


neoclassicaleconomictheoriesaboutconsumerpreferencesandchoiceareactuallysupported

bytheempiricalevidence.

Earlyeffortstocontributetothedevelopmentoftheseinsightswerefocusedon

understandingthedistinctions,ataneurologicallevel,betweenthevaluationofobjects,and

choicesmadebetweenthem.Thenatureoftheevaluativeprocess,anditsinfluenceonthe

extenttowhichpreferencesbasedonthesevalues,couldbeseentobetransitive,as

mainstreameconomictheorysuggeststheymustbe(Hausman,1992,pp.13-27)wasacentral

focusofearlystudiesinneuroeconomics(Glimcher,2009).Insightsintothenatureofchoosing,

havebeenabitmorechallenging,asthenumberofbiomechanicalsystemsinvolvedinactually

affectingachoice,suchasselectinganapple,ratherthananorange,arefargreaterthanthose

involvedinproducingorrecallinganevaluativeassessmentofeach.Distinctivealternativesto

theoriesofaunitarybrain,onemakingdecisionsinstages,andthosepopularwith

psychologists,whichincludethenotionoftwoseeminglyindependentdecision-making

systems,onethoughttobeautomatic,reactive,emotionalorlimbic,andtheother,amore

rationalandreflectivesystems,continuetobeexplored(Camerer,Loewenstein&Prelec,2005;

Schüll,N.D.&Saloom,2011).

Importanttheoreticalissuesthatrelatetopresentversusfuturecostandrewardsthatmay

beevaluatedandrepresentedmathematicallyintermsoftime-discountedratesandvaluesare

centraltopreferencesforoneortheotherofthesemodels(Harrison,2008).Howtheseissues

areresolvedisvitallyimportantforthejustificationsthatcanbeofferedinsupportofparticular

policiesdesignedtoalterthebehaviorofindividualsinwaysthatbenefitthemandsocietyat

thesametime(Schüll,N.D.&Saloom,2011).Modelsdescribinghowanindividualmakesa

decisioncanbeelaboratedintermsofmeasurableneuralactivities:thoseinvolvedingathering

informationabouttheenvironment,thoseinvolvedinassigningvaluestothevarietiesof

actionsthatmightbetaken,andthoserelatedtoactuallymakingaselection(Bissonnette,

2016).


Theeffortsbeingmadetounderstandthenatureofdecision-making,wellenoughtopredict

cognitive,affectiveandbehavioralresponses,seemtoleadquitenaturallytowardeffortsto

influencethoseresponses(Rose,2016).Aswewilldiscussinthecontextofourreviewof

behavioraleconomics,theapproachtothedesignofgovernment-ledinterventions,ornudges,

underwhatmanyseeasaneoliberalprojectoperatingunderanill-fittingideologicalgarment

called“libertarianpaternalism”(McMahon,2015),appearstofavorthedualprocessmodel

(Michalek,Meran,Schwarze&Yildiz,2016).

BehavioralEconomics

Whilesomeneuroeconomistsseemcontenttopursuegreaterunderstandingonhowthebrain

functionsasanaidtodecisionmaking,othersseemedespeciallymotivatedtodemonstratethe

limitationswithinneoliberaleconomictheorieswithregardtocoreassumptionsaboutrational

decision-making,aswellastodemonstratetheneedforalternativeexplanationsforthekinds

ofchoicesbeingmade(Bissonnette,2016).Importantconceptualframeworks,manyofwhich

emphasizedthequitelimitedcapabilitiesofmostpeopletoactuallyperformallthe

assessmentsofchoices,includingestimatesoftheprobabilitiesofdifferentstatesofthe

environmentstheymightencounter,justifiedamodificationofthemeaningofrationalityto

incorporateitsboundariesorconstraints(Simon,1955).Aslightlydifferentpurposeand

strategicapproachgeneratedanimpressivearrayofexperimentaltestsoftheoriesthatmight

helptoexplainthequitecommondeparturesfrom,orexceptionsto,therulesthatwere

supposedtogovernchoicesmadebyrationaleconomicagents(Tversky&Kahneman,1990).

Cognitivelimitations

Amongthemanyconstraintsonhumandecision-makingillustratedbyKahneman,Tversky,and

ahostofbehavioralscientists,thoserelatedtothelimitedabilityofadultstoallocatetheir

attentiontomorethanacomparativelysmallnumberofrelevantfeaturesintheirenvironment

(Kahneman,2003),recallfactsandexperiences(Drobac&Goodenough,2015),organize

comparisonsandevaluationsinaconsistentmanner(Bar-Gill&Warren,2008),andassign


probabilitiesandappropriateweightstoavarietyofthreatsandopportunities(Sunstein,2012)

adduptosubstantialbarriers(Simon,1955)tobeovercomebyunaidedrationalthought.

Amongthemostimportantoftheselimitations,becauseoftheirimplicationsforthe

kindsofstrategiesthatwouldbedevelopedbybehavioraleconomistsandotherstoprotect

consumersagainstthemselves,andagainstthestrategiceffortsofthosewhowouldleadthem

astray,istheirsusceptibilitytotheinfluenceofthemannerinwhichtheirchoiceswereframed

(Tversky&Kahneman,1990).TheexperimentalapproachusedbyTverskyandKahneman

generallyinvolvedtheconstructionoftwomessagesinwhichtheprobabilitiesandthevalues

associatedwithaparticularchoicewerepreciselythesame,buttheframingofeachmessage

wasdesignedtoemphasizeaparticularcharacter,concern,orientation,orbeliefthatwould

dominatethesubsequentchoice,suchasaloss,versusagain,adiscount,versusasurchargeor

atax,orahostofrepresentationsinvitingdifferingperceptionsofrisk(Tversky&Kahneman,

1990,pp.63-80).

HeuristicsandotherBadHabits

Behavioraleconomistsprovidednumerousexamplesofthekindsofcognitivebiasesthatledto

avarietyofirrationaldecisions,commonlyexperiencedthroughoutthepopulation.One

suchbiaswasrelatedto“timediscounting,”andwhathasbeenidentifiedasa“presentbias”

(Camerer,2007,pp.C32).Thisbiashasbeenidentifiedasanespeciallytroublesometendency

withregardtomakingeconomicdecisions,includingthoserelatedtosavings,investments,and

consumercredit,suchastheinterestratesassociatedwith“pay-dayloans”(Bar-Gilland

Warren,2008,pp.144-145).Otherbiasesincludeatendencytoperceiveeventsor

circumstancesthatareeasilyrememberedasbeingmorelikelytooccur,thanthosethatdon’t

readilycometomind(InstituteofMedicine,2013,pp.204-206).This“availability”bias

influencesourestimationofrisk.

Asomewhatdifferentbiasisthatwhichwereadilyunderstand,butoftenfailtorecognizeit


whenitdistortsourassessmentsofchoices.Thisisthe“confirmationbias,”whichleadsusto

adjustnewinformationinwaysthatmakeiteasiertoaccommodatewithinouralreadyexisting

setofbeliefs.Acloselyrelatedbiasisthetendencytobeover-confidentaboutthekindsof

decisionswehavemade,orareabouttomake,basedonsomefamiliardecisionalstrategy.

Indeed,becauseofthecognitivelimitationsthatmostofussharetosomeextent,weare

thoughttodevelopdecision-makingstrategies,orheuristicsthatsupportmorerapid,less

cognitivelyburdensomeprocedures.Unfortunately,theseheuristicsfrequentlyleadto

shortsightedness,orill-consideredchoices,suchasthosethatarelikelytobemadeinthe

contextofuncertainty,asiscommonduringcrisesoremergencies(Brudermann,Rauter&

Yamagata,2013),orwherecircumstances,includingthestrategicframingofchoicesthatleads

onetobelievethatanimmediatedecisionisrequired.

Decisionscientistshaveconcludedthatpeoplearegenerallypoor“intuitivestatisticians.”

Thatis,we“haveadifficulttimethinkingabouttheworldinprobabilisticterms.Insteadthere

tendstobeastrongtendencytoreduceordisregarduncertainty,leadingtoinsufficientuseof

priorinformationandatendencytobeoverconfident”(Kleindorfer,Kunreuther&Schoemaker,

1993,p.100).Whilebehavioralscientiststendtoexplainmostofourproblemswithstatistical

reasoningintermsofcognitivelimits,someobservershaveconsistentlyarguedthatthe

problemswefacewithregardtopredictionsandassessmentsofriskareactuallytheresultof

educationaldeficits—statisticalilliteracythatcanbeovercomethroughinstruction(Gigerenzer,

Gaissmaier,Kurz-Mileke,Schwartz,etal.,2008;Grüne-Yanoff&Hertwig,2016),ratherthan

beingreinforcedthroughitsexploitationwithnudges.

SocialInfluence

Aswehavesuggested,neoclassicaleconomicshastendedtorejectthenotionthatthetastes

andpreferencesgoverningchoiceswithinmarketsareinfluencedbypowerfulactors

withinthemarketplace,claimingthatwhateverinfluencestheremaybe,theyareexogenous,

andthereforenotworthyofattentionfromeconomists(Bowles,1998).Indirectopposition,


Bowlesofferssubstantialevidenceandargumentinsupportofhiscontentionthateconomic

institutionsareapowerfulandtheoreticallysignificantendogenousinfluenceoneconomically

relevantpreferences.Theseinstitutionsplayanimportantroleinframingthekindsofdecisions

wemakewithinmarkets,andtheyalsoinfluencethedevelopmentandreproductionof

behavioralnorms,orvaluedculturaltraitssuchas“reputationsfortrustworthiness,generosity,

andvengefulness”(Bowles,1998,p.92),eachofwhichservesbeneficialpurposeswithin

markets.

WhatBowles(1998,p.103)observes,however,isthefactthatwehaveonlylimited

understandingabouthowother,non-institutionalizedsourcesofinfluencesuchas“parents,

otherfamilymembers,friends,teachers,andothers”affectthelearningofnorms,valuesand

culturaltraits.Asaresult,wewere,andstillarelargelyignorantabouttheroleofsocial

learningonthedevelopmentofthose“behavioralmarketfailures”thatbehavioraleconomicsis

beingorganizedtoaddress(Bubb&Pildes,2014,p.1603;Hawkins,2016;Sunstein,2014).

Theinfluenceofappliedbehavioraleconomicshasbeenwidespread.Whilenotactually

approachingthelevelsofinfluenceenjoyedbythemainstreamneoliberalversionsof

economics,thedevelopmentofBehavioralLaw&Economics(BL&E)asahighlevelparticipant

inpolicyrelevantdebateshasbeensubstantial(Bubb&Pildes,2014;McMahon,2015;Wright

&Ginsberg,2012).Whilethefutureisobviouslynotyethere,thesignsarequiteclearintheir

suggestionthattheinfluenceofbehavioraleconomicsislikelytobegreatestwithregardtoits

captureofpublicattentionandgovernmentalwillingnesstorelyonitstheory,researchand

leadershipinthedesignandimplementationofpolicyorientednudgesinawidevarietyof

areas.

TheNudge

Theuseof“nudge”asatermofartindiscussionsofpublicpolicyformation,implementionand

evaluationowesitscurrentpositiontothewidelyreadandoftencriticizedbookbyThalerand


Sunstein(2008)aboutwhatmightbedonetocorrectthesystematicerrorsthatpeoplemakein

theireffortstorealizetheidealized,butrarelyobtainedgoalsofutilitymaximizationthat

economistshaveclaimedweshare.Threedegreesofnudgehavebeenidentified,varyingin

termsofeffectiveness,andeachresultingindistinctissuesofrepresentationandethics.

Firstdegreenudgingisdesignedtorespecttheindividual’sdecision-makingautonomy,simply

involvingthedisseminationofinformationtoindividualsandgroups.Seconddegreenudging

seekstobiasdecision-makingtowardsadesirableend.Thisattempthasagreaterimpacton

autonomy,seekingtodirectanindividual’sautomaticresponsestowardsaparticularaction.

However,uponreflection,thetargetofthenudgeisabletounderstandthatanudgehasbeen

“administered”aswellasbeingabletoascertainitseffect.Thethirddegreenudgehasamore

seriousimpactonautonomyinthatitaimsataformofbehavioralmanipulationthattheother

degreesdonot.Here,thetoolsusedhavethecapacitytobypassifnotblockanindividual’s

abilitytoreflectonandassessthenatureofthenudge.Inthisinstance,theindividualbeing

influencedistargetedatanemotionallevelratherthaninareflectivecapacity(Baldwin,2014).

Muchofthecontinuing,andoftenrancorousdebateaboutnudgingasamoreefficient,

effective,andethicallyjustifiablealternativetomorecoercivegovernmentalstrategiesis

focusedontheextenttowhichitscharacterizationaslibertarianpaternalismisactuallyan

oxymoron(Sunstein,2015a).Despitetheseandothercritiques(Amir&Lobel,2008;Kosters&

VanderHeijden,2015;Oliver,2013;Yeung,2012),severalgovernmentshavefollowedthe

leadershipofThalerintheUK,andSunsteinintheUS,andhavenotonlybeguntoexperiment

withavarietyofbehavioralinterventionsdesignedtoshapeabroadrangeofbehaviors,but

theyhaveestablishedspecializedadministrativeunitswiththeresponsibilityforpromotingthe

useofthesetechniques(Selinger&Whyte,2011).

Althoughtheformalevaluationsofnudges,andnudgeprograms,havebeenlimited,andrarely

comparative,therehasbeenverylittleattentionpaidtothepossibilitythatthedesignersof

nudges,orthe“choicearchitectures,”throughwhichtheyareoftendelivered,mightalsosuffer


fromcognitivelimitationsorbiases(Berggren,2012;Grüne-Yanoff&Hertwig,2016,pp.166-

167).Aswewillexploreinmoredetailintheremainderofthispaper,manyoftheinterventions

beingdesignedandimplementedarefocusedprimarilyonexploitingthelimitationsandbiases

inhumandecision-makingtochangebehaviorinspecifictargetareas,ratherthanseekingto

improvedecision-makingskillsmoregenerally.

Inwaysquitesimilartosomeoftheapplicationsofthenudgeasacorrectivefor“behavioral

marketfailures,”smartcitycollaborativesarealsoviewedasanalternativepathtothegood

life,suchasseenintheapproachtosmartgrowth.“Ratherthanlettingthemarketdictatethe

waycitiesgrowandsprawl,smartgrowthisamovementthatimplieswecanachievegreater

efficienciesthroughcoordinatingtheforcesthatleadtolaissezfairegrowth…”(Batty,

Axhausen,Giannotti,Pozdnoukhov,etal.,2012,p.486).Onthisview,manychallengesfacedby

smartcitiescannotberesolvedthroughtraditionalinstitutionsandtheirclassicalprocessesof

governing(Rodrıguez,2015),henceinnovativeformsofdata-drivengovernancemustbeputin

place.Thesenewmodesofgovernancehavebeenidentifiedas‘‘smartgovernance’’under

whichthegovernmentmanagesandenactspoliciesthatareintendedtoimprovequalityoflife

throughefficientICTuseandactiveparticipationofarangeofstakeholders,withafocuson

industryinvolvement.

ThePoliticalEconomyofNudge

Thechallengeofdefiningapoliticaleconomyofnudgeisinfluencedby,butnotfully

determinedby,therolethatnotionsofirrationalityhaveplayedinmobilizingwidespread

supportforthesocialinterventionsbeingdesignedbybehavioraleconomists.Politicaleconomy

differsfromneoclassicaleconomicsinlargepartdueitsdeterminationtounderstandthe

natureandextenttowhichpowerplaysaroleinthestructureandperformanceofmarkets

(Black,2013),andinthosesystems,institutionsandtechnologiesthatfacilitatetheexerciseof

thatpower.Thebureaucraticstate,anditsadministrativeagenciesthatshareresponsibilityfor

improvingthestatusandperformanceoftheeconomy,inallofitssectors,aswellasthosewith


sharedresponsibilitiesforthemaintenance,andwherepossible,theimprovementofthe

health,welfare,andsafetyofitsresidents,hastakenaleadingroleintheutilizationofnudges

insmartcitiesandbeyond.Wewillplaceourattempttoextendthenatureoftheengagement

bypoliticaleconomistsandothercriticalanalystswiththeemergenceofnudgewithinacritical

frameworkinformedbyFoucauldianstudiesofgovernmentality.

NeoliberalismandGovernmentality

AlthoughFoucault(1991)tookduenoteofthegreatnumberandvarietyofformsofgoverning,

hedevotedspecialattentiontothosemodesofgovernancethatwerespecificwithregardto

thestate,includingitsroleinmanagementoftheeconomy:“Togovernastatewilltherefore

meantoapplyeconomy,tosetupaneconomyattheleveloftheentirestate,whichmeans

exercisingtowardsitsinhabitants,andthewealthandbehaviourofeachandall,aformof

surveillanceandcontrolasattentiveasthatoftheheadofafamilyoverhishouseholdandhis

goods”(Foucault,1991,p.92).

WhileFoucaultdidnotreferspecificallytonudgesinthiscontext,hisusageof

governanceintermsof“disposingthings,”impliedthatthestatewouldbe“employing

tactics,ratherthanlaws,andevenusinglawsthemselvesastactics—toarrangethingsinsucha

waythat,throughacertainnumberofmeans,suchandsuchendsmaybeachieved“(1991,p.

95).Inhisdiscussionofthefocusofstateaction,themeaningofthefamily,anditsrelationship

totheeconomy,asrepresentedthroughpopulationstatistics,becomesthegoalofgovernance.

Ashesuggests(Foucault,1991,p.100),“itisthepopulationitselfonwhichthegovernmentwill

acteitherdirectlythroughlarge-scalecampaigns,orindirectlythroughtechniquesthatwill

makepossible,withoutthefullawarenessofthepeople”therealizationofthe“interestofthe

population,”whichmarksthe“birthofanewart,oratanyrateofarangeofabsolutelynew

tacticsandtechniques.”


AsSellarandThompson(2016)argue,whatisimportantaboutthestatisticalconstructionof

populationsasthe“ultimateendofgovernment”istheontologicalstatusoftheindividualsas

objectsor“things”thatcanbereducedtocalculations.Governmentalityinthissense,makes

useoftechnologiesofstatisticsandcalculation.Ofprimacy,then,arethewaysinwhich

calculationscancreatecategorizations,subjectivities,andabeliefinobjectivity.

Forsome,thesenewtacticsandtechniqueshavemuchincommonwiththecommercial

marketingofgoodsandservices,exceptthatwhenenvisionedinthecontextofgovernment

initiatives,increasinglyorganizedthroughavarietyofpublic/privatepartnerships,orlucrative

contracts,theytendtobereferredtoas“socialmarketing”wherethe“productisusuallysome

kindofbehaviouralchange”(Pykett,Jones,Welsh&Whitehead,2014,p.97).Animportant

aspectofthetechnologiesbeingappliedinsupportof“managementatadistance”through

codeistheextentthattheyreinforcethedistinctionsthathavebeendrawnbetweenthe

disciplinaryandsecurityorientedapproachestomanagement.Acentralpartofthisdistinction

isthefactthatadisciplinaryprocessbeginswithanalreadyexisting,or“predefinedoptimal

model,”whileanorientationtowardsecurity,merelyestablishes“thelimitsoftheacceptable,”

whilethe“parametersofreality”continuetochange,alongwith“theshiftingcontextand

conditionsofregulation”(Klauser,Paasche&Söderström,2014,p.874).

Thefactthataprecisegoalisnotestablishedinadvance,butseemslikelytobediscovered,or

derivedfromthemostrecentanalysisofdata,meansthatthechallengebecomesoneof

determining,forexample,“howcanelectricityconsumptiononthehouseholdand

industriallevel,withitsinternalcomplexities,regularities,effects,andproblemsbetakeninto

accountwithin,andinteractionwith,thewidercontextofgridstability,increaseduseof

renewalenergy,andcustomerneedsandpreferences”(Klauser,Paasche&Söderström,2014,

p.877).Thiskindofflexibilitywithinthecontextofthesupplyofenergyisseenasabeneficial

outcomeofthisorientationtowardsecurity,ratherthandiscipline,butthiscasestudyhas

largelyexcludedconsiderationofthealreadyexistingeffortsinothercitiesthataredesignedto


nudgehouseholdconsumerstomakemoreintelligentdecisionsaboutenergyusage(Allcott&

Kessler,2015).

Adistinctmodeofgovernmentalityemergeswhenoneconsidersthehegemonicassumptions

underpinningsmartcityimplementation.Heretheurbanlandscapeanditscitizenryare

understoodasproblematic;therebybecomingthestatisticaltargetsforinterventions.Thecity

asbothastructuralandsocialbodybecomestheobjectofdata-drivenanalysisand

management.Informationaldatabasesarecreatedwhichincludegeo-spatialanalyticsand

variousbehaviouralpatterns,allrelatingtospecificsmartcityprocesses.Thesedataarethen

usedtoinformtheconstructionofalgorithmsassocialandpoliticalsolutions(Vanolo,2014).

Notallobserversofthechangingnatureoftherelationshipsbetweenthestateandits

populationsarewillingtoaccepttheprimaryassumptionthatneoliberalismhasattainedthe

statusofasuccessfulhegemonicproject.Barnett(2005,p.8)suggeststhatsuchatheoretical

constructionmakesitdifficulttounderstandhowsuchatransformationwouldactuallycometo

be.Inpartthisisbecausestories“about‘neoliberalism’paylittleattentiontothepro-active

roleofsocio-culturalprocessesinprovokingchangesinmodesofgovernance,policy,and

regulation.”Heidentifiesanumberofthesefactorsthatseemlikelytoplayarole,suchas

“changingconsumerexpectations,”a“declineofdeference,”andtheassociated“refusalsof

thesubordinated,”whichemergeas“contestedinequalities.”Whatheseesaspopulist

tendenciesthatclearlyarenotanexpressionofahegemonicprojectthatinstead,“areeffects

ofmuchlongerrhythmsofsocio-culturalchangethatemanatesfromthebottom-up”(Barnett,

2005,p.8).

StructurationandSurveillance

Thewidespreadimplementationofbehavioralnudgesinabroadrangeofgovernmental

programsshouldbeseenaspartofthestructurationprocessdevelopedwithinaneoliberal

responsetoaseriesofeconomicchallenges,withtheGreatRecessionbeingthelatest.Oneof


theconcernsthathaveemergedasvitallyimportantinourassessmentofthenudgeasa

governmentalpolicytoolwithinsmartcitiesistheimplicationsthatthisandrelatedapproaches

tothemanagementofpopulationsfromafarhavefortheusesofdirectandindirect

surveillanceofpeople,placesandthings.ICT,inallitsmanyforms,isexpectedtoplayacentral

roleherethroughitsextensionofsurveillancethroughmultidimensionalanalysisofmassive

TGI,environmentalandpersonalsensing,andwhatwehavecometorefertoasthebigdata

thatenablethemanagementbycodefromafar.Operationally,these“codesconstituteoften

invisibleprocessesofclassificationandprioritization,whichmayaffectthelife-chancesof

individualsorsocialgroupsinwaysthatareoftenunseenbythepublicandthateasilyevade

conventionaldemocraticscrutiny“(Klauser&Albrechtslund,2014,p.274).

Inoneexample,theBehavioralInsightsTeamintheUK,issaidtohaveintroducedapolicythat

wouldrequireapplicantsforunemploymentbenefitstocompleteanonline“assessmentof

personalityorcharacter”tohelpaddresstheproblemof“worklessness”thathadbecomea

seriousconstraintwithinthenation’s“austerity”program(CrombyandWillis,2013,p.242).

Makingadeterminationofeligibilityonthebasisofapsychometrictestraisesanumberof

concerns,beginningwiththoserelatedtoaccuracy,precisionandreliabilityacrosspopulations.

Usingtheresultsofthetesttomakerecommendationstoapplicantstochangetheirbehavior

raisesconcernsmoredirectlylinkedtotheuseofbehavioralnudgestoinfluencethechoices

beingmadebythoseseekingorrelyingonpublicbenefitprograms,especiallythoserelatedto

one’spersonalresponsibilityforworkingontheself,inlightoftestresults(CrombyandWillis,

2013,p.251).

DespiteGiddens’associationofpersonalagencywith“knowledgeability”(Giddens,1986),itis

becomingquiteclearthatresidentsofthesecitieswillknowlessandlessaboutthekindsof

datathatarebeinggathered(Gandy,1993,pp.28-29),oraboutthekindsofprofiles,

predictions,prescriptionsandproscriptionsthatarebeinggeneratedinsupportoftheir

guidancethroughnudges,budges,orarchitecturalconstraints.Weareremindedthatsmartcity

projectsorprogramssuchasIBM’sSmarterCitiesvariant“arepresentedbyIBMastheobject


ofawiderangeoftechnologicallymediatedpracticesofcontrolandmanagement-at-a-distance

basedoncarefullyorchestratedassemblagesofcomputerizedsystemsthatactasconduitsfor

multiplecross-cuttingformsofdatagathering,datatransferanddataanalysis”(Klauser&

Albrechtslund,2014,p.277).

Althoughtheinternetofthings(IoT)isincreasinglycitedamongthetechnologicalcomponents

thathavetobeintegratedwithintheinfrastructuralnetworksbeingdevelopedwithinsmart

cities,itisonlymorerecentlythatattentionhasbeendrawntothefactthatthesesystemsand

theirdatawillcometoresideprimarilywithintheresourceknownasthe“cloud”(deBruin&

Floridi,2017;Mosco,2014).Thetechnologicalchallengesthathavetobeovercomeinproviding

supporttoanunimagineddiversityofsensor-basedapplicationsthroughthedevelopmentof

sophisticatedsoftware(middleware)thatprovidesahighdegreeofinteroperability,arequite

significant(Petrolo,Loscri&Mitton,2015).

Morechallengingaretheconcernsbeingraisedaboutthecollectionanduseofinformation

abouttheusersofcloudbasedservices—apopulationthatisboundtoincreaseasthedirect

costofacquiring,maintaining,andupdatingthehardwareandsoftwarethatmodern

computationandcommunicationsrequire,isreducedthroughthesharingoftheseresourceon

anas-needed,orcontractualbasis(deBruin&Floridi,2017,p.27).Theinclusionofgenuinely

informedconsentasapartofthecontractsthatareagreedtoinordertotakeadvantageof

theseresourcesisrare,atbest,andgenerallyinconceivableinthecontextofthekindsofdata

miningthatareenabledbytightlyintegratedsystemsoperatedbyacomparativelysmall

numberofproviders.

Oftennoted,butrarelyaddressed,aretheconflictsofinterestsbetweentheresidents,andthe

variousstakeholderswithinacitythatwillplacedemandsupontheserviceproviders,andthose

whowilldesign,produce,deliverandoperatethecomplexlayersofthetechnology.Amongthe

mostproblematicconflictsarethoserelatedtotheprivacy,surveillance,monetizationand

securitypoliciesrelatedtothecollection,sharinganduseofTGI.Theproblemsofdesign


relatedtomeetingthesediverseinterestsanddemandsareexpectedtobeespecially

burdensomebecausetherewillnotbe,atleastnotintheshortterm,anythingapproachinga

standardmodel,orsystemarchitecture,especiallybecausethecitiesinwhichtheyhavetobe

builtdiffersodramaticallyfromeachother.

Totheextentthattheorientationtowardthedevelopmentofpoliciesrelatedtolimitingthe

public’sexposuretoprivacyrisks,andthehostofdisparateimpactsthatflowfromsuch

exposuresareexaminedatall,itisimportanttoconsiderwhetherself-relianceorregulatory

constraintswillbetheprimarypolicyresponse.Asmanyseeit(Hull,2015),“privacyself-

management”isbestunderstoodasanotherexampleofasuccessfulprojectin“ethicalsubject

formation,”thatsomemightseeashegemonic.Inhisview,“thecurrentrelianceonprivacy

self-management,epitomizedbynoticeandconsentregimes,notonlycompletelyfailsto

protectprivacy,butthatitdoessoinawaythatencouragesadherencetoseveralcore

neoliberaltechniquesofpower…”(Hull,2015,p.90).

Providingindividualswithmoreinformationabouttheusestowhichinformationmight

beusedbytheprimarygathererofthatinformationdoesnotaddmuchatalltothecapacityof

individualstomakeaninformedchoiceaboutwhethertoprovidetheinformationinthefirst

place.Theyfaceanear-zerochanceofbeingabletopredictevenarepresentativesampleof

theusestowhichitmightbeputbythemyriadofotherusersthatwillgainaccesstoit.More

troublesome,inthecontextofbigdataanalysis,individualswillhaveevenlessunderstanding

oftheimplicationsfortheirwell-beingthatwillbederivedfromtheirinformationbeing

combinedinanalyseswithinformationcapturedabouthundreds,perhapsmillionsofothersin

similarpositionsofvulnerability.

Althoughthechoicesthatindividualsareeffectivelycompelledtomakeareseenas“a

choicebetweenmakingoneselfincreasinglytransparenttocorporateandgovernmental

entities,orbeingdeniedaccesstosomethingofimportance.”Eachtimewemakewhatwe

cometoacceptasanautonomouschoice,“wefurthernaturalizetheseregimes,theendpoint


ofwhichliesinamodeofgovernmentalitywhoseobjectiveisnotthatwedesireaparticular

thingornot,butthatweonlyhavethesortsofdesiresthatcanbemonetized”(Hull,2015,p.

96).ThisistheessenceofwhatZuboff(2015)referstoas“surveillancecapitalism.”

Commodification,CollaborationandtheSpatialDimension

Amajorsourceofconcernregardingthedevelopmentofsmartcitiesisthefactthatthedriving

forcebehindthisglobalmovementisthepursuitofnewmarketsbytrans-national

corporations.Itisquiteclearthatmanyof“theworld’slargestdigitaltechnologyandconsulting

companiesoperatesmartcityinitiatives,includingIBM,Cisco,Intel,Microsoft,Huawei,SAPand

Arup,andhavebecomeactiveplayersincitymanagement,”eitherbyhelpingtobuildthese

citiesfromscratch,orthroughpartnershipscreatedtotransformexistingcities(Kitchin,

Lauriault&McArdle,2015,p.19).Atthesametime,thereareinitiatives,suchasthose

supportedbytheEuropeanCommission,thathaveexhibitedanopenness,ifnotapreference

forthedevelopmentof“userdrivenopeninnovationsmartcityecosystemswhichinclude:

citizens,governments,enterprisesandresearchers”(Clohessy,Acton,&Morgan,2014,p.839).

However,asVanolo(2014)reasons,eventhoughmostEuropeansmartcityfundingschemes

explicitlyaddresstheideaof“communities”andparticipatorypracticessuchase-governance

ande-citizenship,“smartcityaestheticsseemtosupportapoliticalunconsciousnessthat

relegatessocialimportancetotheinvisibleperipheryofatechnologicaldiscourse”(p.892),a

discoursethatreducesthecomplexitiesofurbanspacesintostatisticalmarkersthatmustbe

constantlywatchedandcontrolledbygovernmentsandcorporations.

ICTfirmslikeIBMhaveplayedakeyroleinthetrajectoriesalongwhichsmartcitieshave

developed.Thescopeoftheirinterventionprogramshasbeenextensive,rangingfrompublic

administration,througheducationandworkforcedevelopment,totransportationandurban

planning(Wiig,2015,p.7).Whilethesmartcityinitiativehelpedtomarkapointofstrategic

correctionforIBMandotherICTfirmsseekingmarketsfornewtechnologyandservicesatthe

sametimetheywerehopingtorealizethebenefitsofneoliberalstrategiesofgovernmentthat


encouragedderegulation,privatization,andcollaborativearrangementsthatwouldsupport

morerapidandefficientcapitalaccumulation(Kitchin,2014,p.3;Rossi,2016).

Governmentagencieshavealsoinitiatedsmartcityinitiativeswithinparticularservicesectors,

suchashealthcare,publicsafetyandtransportation.TheUSDepartmentofTransportation

(USDOT)initiateditsown“SmartCityChallenge”in2015askingmid-sizedcitiestodevelop

proposalsforthedevelopmentofa“smarttransportationsystemthatwouldusedata,

applications,andtechnologytohelppeopleandgoodsmovefaster,cheaper,andmore

efficiently”(U.S.DepartmentofTransportation,2017,p.2).78citiessubmittedapplicationsfor

developmentgrants,andwhatisespeciallynotableabouttheseproposalsisthefactthat“53

citiesproposedimplementingDedicatedShortRangeCommunication(DSRC)toconnect

vehiclestoinfrastructureandeachother”(p.5).Outofthesevencitiesidentifiedasfinalists,

Columbus,Ohiowasselectedasthewinnerforitscomprehensive,highlyintegratedplan,which

includedanintegrateddataexchangethatwasexpectedto“deliverenhancedhumanservices”

thatincludedsystemsdesignedtoimproveaccesstoneededhealthservicesinordertorealize

thegoalofreducing“infantmortalityby40percentandtocutthehealthdisparitygapinhalf

by2020”(U.S.DepartmentofTransportation,2017,p.20).

Concernsaboutstructurationbecomesalientinthecontextofdebatesabouttheprocesses

throughwhichdecisionsaremadeaboutthehowauthority,accountability,andtransparency

aretobeallocatedandevaluatedwithinsmartcityenvironments.Associatedconcernsabout

spatializationalsoarisewithregardtotemporaldimensionsofactivityinthat“past,present

andfutureareconnectedinawaywherethecontinuousdocumentationandreconstructionof

everydaylifeisthebasisforrelevantpredictionsandrecommendationsforthefuture”(Klauser

&Albrechtslund,2014,p.279).Zuboff‘s(2015)musingsaboutdataextractionandanalysisalso

addresssomeofthealterationsofstructurethatsheseesemergingasthedominant

characteristicsofsurveillancecapitalism.Inparticular,shenotesthere-directionofcapitalist

attentiontodatafromassessmentsofthepast,toanemphasisonthemeansthroughwhich

“knowledgeaboutreal-timebehaviorthatcreatesopportunitiestointerveneinandmodify


behaviorforprofit”toberealizedatsomepointinthefuturewiththeassistanceofpredictive

analytics(Zuboff,2015,p.84).

Debatesaboutthesocioeconomicconsequencesthatflowfromeffortstoinitiateplace-based

policiescombineconcernsaboutstructurationwiththosefocusedonshiftsinthenatureof

spatialization.Forexample,criticalengagementswiththeimpactofhousingpolicies,suchas

thoseintendedtoassistthepoorbyprovidingthemwithtargetedsubsidies,oftenconclude

that“location-basedprogramsintendedtohelppoorcommunitieswillhavelimitedeffecton

thewell-beingoflocalresidents,simplyamountingtoatransferofwealthtolandownersin

targetedareas”(Kline&Moretti,2014,p.633).Aseconomistsoftennote,inan“idealworld,

efficiencywouldbeachievedbydirectlyremovingexistingdistortions.Butthisisnotalways

feasible,politically,institutionally,ortechnologically”(Kline&Moretti,2014,p.657),andwhile

“thesecondbest,”istheoreticallypreferabletothestatusquo,neitheritsidentification,norits

realizationisanymoreeasilyachieved.

Spatializationisalsoinvokedasapointofconcernwithregardtotheutilizationoflocational

informationderivedfromthegeocodingofsignalsemanatingfromdevicesandsensorswithin

andexternaltothecity(Barreneche,2012).Spatio-temporalinformationbecomesrelevantto

structurationwhenbeinginaparticularplace,ataparticularpointintimeseemslikelytoputa

particularkindofpersoninapositionofconflictwiththeiractual,orinferredpreferencesfor

security(Thatcher,2013).Forexample,aMicrosoftpatentforaroutingtechnologywouldmake

recommendationsonthebasisofpastbehaviorsofthedriver,alongwithsocio-demographic

informationaboutareasshemightpassthroughonherwaytoaparticulardestination.Inthe

viewofMicrosoft,theserecommendationsfromtheroutingagentaresimplybehavioral

nudgesthatworkby“limitingourchoices,butinwaysthatenhanceandautomateourlives”

(Thatcher,2013,p.73).However,thereisanassumptionbeingmadeherethatthesocio-spatial

dimensionsofasmartcitycanbemeasuredandunderstoodas"technicalproblems",thatare

potentiallyreducibletotechnicalquestionsrespondedtobyobjectiveanddepoliticized

technicalsolutions.AsKitchin(2014)observes,theseperspectivesdonotconsidercontextand


variousotherstructuralaspectsofmobility;thereisanapparentfailuretoconsiderthatsocial

andterritorialactionsmayalsoreproduceinequalitiesandalterpowerrelationsexperiencedas

externalitiesthatneitherthedrivernorMicrosoftacceptresponsibilityfor.

ChoosingTargetsofInfluence

Theuseofbehavioralnudgesbyaseeminglyunconstrainedvarietyofcollaboratorsand

contractorsprovidingservicestosmartcitystrategicinitiativesislikelytoinvolvethedesign,

productionanddeliveryofpreciselytargetedandframedmessagesalongwithspatially

calibratedarchitecturalarrangements(Allcott&Kessler,2015;Grier&Kumanyika,2010;Oliver,

2013;Pierce,Siddiki,Jones,&Schumacher,etal.,2014).Totheextentthatthereductionof

inequality,atitssources,andatitsvariouspointsofimpactonthequalityoflifethatresidents

ofurbancommunitiescanhopetoenjoy,notonlyremainsontheagendasofpolicy

entrepreneursandactivists,buthasbecomeasignificantfocusofgovernmentpolicy(Obama,

2017),wewouldexpectthatnudgeswouldbefocusedonmembersofthemostdisadvantaged

communities.

SchneiderandIngram(1993)haveledacontinuallyexpandingcohortofsocialpolicyplanners

toconsiderthesepolicytargetsintermsofthepowertheyhave,aswellashowtheyare

discursivelyconstructed.Intheiranalyticalframework,fourgroupsofpolicytargetsarearrayed

ina2x2tablewiththeiroutermostendsbeinganchoredbythosewhoaremostadvantaged

andpositivelyconstructed,andthosedeviantswhohavelimitedpower,who“arenegatively

constructedandareexpectedtoreceivelimitedtonobenefitsandadisproportionateshareof

burdens”(Pierce,Siddiki,Jones&Schumacher,etal.,2014,p.5).Inthiscapacity,algorithms

takesubjectsandthephysicalenvironmenttheyliveinas"objectsofobservation,classification

andevaluation"(Rouvroy,2011).Althoughthisprocessmightallowformoregranulardetailin

analysisandefficientmanagementofthesmartcity,theprocessassumesacertainkindof

subjectandparticularmodeofbehavioralstructuring.Rouvroy(2011)claimsthatthese

processescanalsorestructurewhatisviewedasrelevant,andvisible,andtherebyconsidered

ofpoliticalimportance.


Policytargetsarenotdefinedentirelybythecharacteristicsofindividualsorgroups,butalsoon

thecategoriesofbehaviorordomainsinwhichthechoicesmadebyindividualsmighthave

consequencesforthemselvesaswellasforthewell-beingofthegeneralpublic.Thus,aswe

havenoted,thedesign,production,deliveryandevaluationofnudgeshavereflectedthe

influenceofspecificconcernsabouttheconsequencesthatflowfromdecisionsthataffect

health,education,theenvironment,industrialproductivity,andpublicsafety,amongothers.

Someofthesetargetsaredefinedspatially,aswithregardtotheneighborhoodsinwhich

peoplelive(EconomicInnovationGroup,2016),orinwhichtheconsequencesoftheiractivities

aremorewidelyfelt,aswiththenegativeenvironmentalimpactsofpollution(Ramo,2013).

Thepolicytargetswithinthesebroadclassesofconcernsthathavebecomeassociatedwith

“behavioralmarketfailures,”arereadilydistinguishedasafunctionofwhethertheyare

focuseduponsegmentsofpopulationsdefinedasbeingatrisk,oraspopulationsegments

definedasbeingriskstoothers.Riskassessmentsarenotonlyfocusedonclassesofpersons,

theymayalsobemadewithregardtosystemsandinstitutionsthatareatrisk,orimposerisks

onothers.Justasthereareindividualcriminals,therearealsocriminalorganizations,suchas

cartelsandsyndicates.

However,aswehavealreadynoted,inordertobetrulysuccessfulincounteractingtheforces

increasingcumulativedisadvantage(Gandy,2009),morenudgingandbudgingefforts(Oliver,

2013)willhavetobedirectedtowardthemorepowerfulactorswithinpublic,private,and

collaborativenetworkswhoseorientationstowardmembersofthesepopulationsegments

tendtowardexploitation,ratherthanenhancementsoftheirwell-being(Bubb&Pildes,2014;

Christl&Spikermann,2016,pp.118-130).Indeed,asLeggett(2014,pp.14-15)suggests,there

maybeaneedforstateactorstogobeyondthenudgeinordertoshovesomecommercial

actorsinordertoprotect“citizensagainstproliferatingattemptstoshapetheirbehaviorsand

subjectivity.”


Animportantquestion,notoftenexploredinassessmentsoftheuseofthenudgeasaformof

socialmarketingbythestate,istheextenttowhichthemembersofthepublicactuallyhavean

opportunitytoengageinmeaningfulpublicdeliberationaboutwhether,andinwhatformthese

behavioralinterventionsoughttobeinitiatedinthefirstplace(Pykett,Jones,Welsh&

Whitehead,2014,p.98).Ofparticularinterestistheextenttowhichmembersofthepublicare

involvedintheidentificationofpolicytargets(Pierce,Siddiki,Jones,&Schumaker,etal.,2014;

Schneider&Ingram,1993).Somewhatironically,thefactthattheseinitiativesareinitiated

withinaframeworkthatclaimsprivilegeinpublicengagementandresponsibility,“byreframing

behaviouralinsightsintermsofindividualchoicesasopposedtopolitical,ethicalandstructural

concerns,socialmarketinghastheunintendedconsequenceofradicallydiminishingthescope

ofpoliticalactionandpotentiallyenfeeblingpublicpolicy”(Pykett,Jones,Welsh&Whitehead,

2014,p.109).

Oneofthemostsalientjustificationsforthequiterapidadoptionofthenudgeandother

behavioraleconomicstrategiesisthesuggestionthattheyarecosteffective,atatimewhen

governmentsarefacingseriousbudgetaryconstraints.Benefit/CostAnalysis(BCA)haslong

comeundercriticismforthedifficultiesinvolvedinassigningdollarvaluestothecostsand

benefitsthoughttobeassociatedwithsomegovernmentprogram,includingregulations

(Cochrane,2014;InstituteofMedicine,2013,pp.79-102).Theseanalysesareroutinely

identifiedasarequirementintheevaluationofsocialprogramsintheUS,includingthose

makinguseofsomeformofbehavioralnudge.Insomecases,aBCAwillbeaprojection,anda

decisionaboutwhich,ifanyproposedprojectwillbeallowedtoproceed,isbasedonthe

estimatedratioofbenefitstocosts.AlthoughBCAsrarelyincludeassessmentsofthe

distributionsacrosspopulationsegments(Banzhaf,2012),thisconcernisoftenraisedbycritics.

Butevenhere,debatesaboutthechoiceofanactual,orproxymeasureoftheinputsand

outputsassociatedwithaparticularinterventionhaveacharacteristicformandtoneacross

projecttypes.Policyanalystsemphasizetheextenttowhichuncertainty,includingthatrelated

toexpectationsaboutthefuture,includingthoserelatedtothechangeablepoliticalclimate,


affectthereliabilityoftheseassessments.Itisnotedthatalthough“socialconsiderationssuch

asenvironmentaljusticeandthepoliticalclimateaffectEPA’sdecisionsandthereisuncertainty

inthosefactorsandhowtheyinfluencedecisions,thereisseldomanydiscussionconcerning

justhowthesefactorsandtheiruncertaintyaffectadecision”(InstituteofMedicine,2013,p.

100).Cochrane(2014,p.65)suggeststhatan“explicitlypoliticalandpublicchoicephilosophy”

ispreciselywhatisneeded,especiallywithregardtoeconomicregulatorydecisions.But,itis

alsonotedthatconsumersarelikelytobeirrational,oratleastill-informedandsubjectto

strategicmanipulation,withregardtothechoicestheymakeaspartofthepoliticalprocess

(Smith&Zywicki,2015,p.230).

EthicalConcerns

Inadditiontoconcernsaboutefficiencyandeffectiveness,thereareawholehostofconcerns

abouttheethicsofnudging.Animportantonewhichisnotoftenaddressed,isthefactthat

nudgestrategiesprimarilytakeadvantage,orexploitcognitivebiasesorinappropriate

heuristics,whichreinforcesthem,ratherthanreplacing,ordisplacingthemthroughthe

developmentofcognitiveskillsthatgeneralize.Thisdifferenceisattheheartofthedistinction

betweennudgingandboosting,aspromotedbyGerdGigerenzerandhiscolleagues

(Gigerenzer,Gaissmaier,Kurz-Mileke,Schwartz,etal.,2008).Whilethenudgestrategycan

readilybeseenasre-biasing,orreinforcingbadhabits,theeducationalapproachisarguablyde-

biasing(Grüne-Yanoff&Hertwig,2016,p.163).

Bigdataanalyticsofthesortthatweseeexpandingwithinthecontextofsmartcity

environmentsareincreasinglybeingidentifiedasthreatstoprivacyanddecisionalautonomy.

Becauseofthenatureofthecomputationallyintenseprocessthatisbecomingautomated,or

performedautonomouslybyintelligentmachines,theutilityofdominantpolicyframeworks

thatidentifyself-defense,orprivacyself-management,asthepreferredresponsestowhatever

risksthattransactionsposewithinadigitalenvironment,hasallbutevaporated(Baruh&

Popescu,2015;Hull,2015;Richards&King,2014).


PaternalismvsCoercion AmongthemanypointsofcontentionraisedinresponsetothedeterminationbyThalerand

Sunsteintorefertotheirprogramofnudgesisthattheirformof“libertarian”paternalismis

differentfromtheeffortsofmarketersandotherpersuaderstochangepeople’smindsthrough

argumentationanddebate.Instead,nudgesaresupposedtoworkbecausethey“triggeran

unconsciousaction,”ofthesortweassociatewiththoseautomatic,reflexiveSystem1

responsesthatoccurquicklyandconsistentlywithothersmadehabitually(Oliver,2013,p.

688).Itisalsoarguedthatthepaternalistnudgesneedtobeseenasmerelya“firststageof

sequencedregulationwhere,inevitably,morecoercivemeasuresarerequiredinlaterstages”

(Amir&Lobel,2008,p.2100).

Sunstein(2012)respondsinconsiderabledetailtothechargesthatpaternalism,whetherhard

orsoft,stillbearstheweightofconcernsaboutthreatstoindividualautonomy.Hisresponseto

thiscriticalchallengeisbasedonanassociationbetweenautonomyandwelfare,inwhich

welfare,associatedwithenjoyment,happinessorpleasure,canbereadintermsoftheextent

towhichpeopleenjoymakingtheirownchoices(p.1882).Whathereferstoasthe“thick

version”ofautonomyisthatwhichvaluesitasanendinitself,oratleastavery“weighty

matter,tobeoverriddenonlyforthemostcompellingreasons”(p.1883).Thisisaserious

challenge.Sunstein(2012)suggeststhatif“peoplehavetobetreatedasendsratherthanas

meremeans,andifthisprinciplerequiresgovernmentnottoinfluenceprivatechoices,thereis

notalotofroomforfurtherdiscussion”(p.1885).Hisargumentshere,andinothervigorous

defensesofnudges,includingtheestablishmentofdefaultsbygovernments,especiallythose

establishedinthebestinterestsofchoosers,needtobeconsideredinthecontextofahostof

otherthreatstoautonomy,andwhatreallymattersiswhetherpeoplearemadebetteroffin

waysthattheywouldrecognizeassuch(Sunstein,2015a;Sunstein,2015b).

PerhapsitisasSunsteinsuggests,thatautonomyshouldalwaysbeconsideredin

relationshiptothekindsofoutcomesthataffectindividualwelfarewhichseemmostlikelyto

accompanyavarietyofnudges,ordefaultsthatactually“runcontrarytoanyparticular


individual’spreferredchoice,butthatindividualfailstooptoutofthedefault.”Whatmattersis

whetherthebenefitsaresubstantial,andifthedamagetoone’sdignityandself-respectis

minimal;ifthatisthecase,thenwemightagreethat“thenudgeisarguablyjustified”(Yeung,

2012).Whatbecomesimportantthenistheconsiderationofthesewelfareoutcomesinterms

oftheirdistributionacrossthepopulationbeinggoverned.

DistributionalImpacts

Criticalgeographersinviteustoconsiderspatialityasacriticalpolicyconcern,forexamplein

caseswherediscriminationbyneighborhoodtakesplace,suchasinthecaseofautomobile

insurance,whereonedoesnotneedtohaveananalystwhoisaracist,becausethealgorithm

itselfmayberacist(Sandvig,Hamilton,Karahalios&Langbort,2016).Spatialconsiderations

alsoarisewithregardtothedeterminationsmadebychoicearchitectsaboutwhichpopulation

segmentsaremorelikely,thantheaveragechooser,tomakeaninappropriatechoiceabout

mattersofhealth,education,orwelfare.Theprocessbywhichdecisionsaremadeaboutwho

thetargetsofnudgeinterventionsshouldbeseemslikelytofacemoral,ethicalandtechnical

challengesindecidingwhethertheproblemsarerelatedtoundesirablegoals,orirrational

tendenciesindecidinghowtorealizethem(Grüne-Yanoff,T.&Hertwig,R.,2016,pp.170-172).

Thisproblemisonlymademoreconcerningwhenweconsiderthatdecisionsaboutthe

allocationofresourcesforbehavioralinterventionsrequireadvanceknowledgeaboutthe

distributionsofproblematicgoalsordecisionstrategies,inthecontextoftheneedtoalso

considerwhetherthepolicygoalisindividual,orcollectivebenefitorwelfaremaximization.The

impactofnudgeprograms,especiallythoseimplementedinthecontextofneoliberalinterests

intheimprovementofthoseseenaslesssociallyandbehaviorallyresponsible,isquitelikelyto

bemoreintense,extensive,coerciveandleastlikelytoberespectfulofthedignitydueto

individualsonthebasisoftheirhumanity.


Theconditionsofabjectionthatarecommontomembersofthepoorandmarginalized

populationsoftheworld“areincreasinglyviewedasproblemstobemanagedwith

surveillance”(Monohan,2017,p.191)ofthesortthatseemlikelytobenormalizedwithinthe

contextofnudgeswithinsmartcities.AsMonohan(2017,pp.193-195)seesit,aformof

“marginalizingsurveillance”isanappropriatelabelfor“theproductionofconditionsand

subjectivitiesofmarginalitythroughtheapplicationofsurveillancesystems.”Forthosefor

whomnudgingisnotsufficientasatoolof“invisibilization,”thenwecanexpectthatthe“state

thenturnstocriminalizationandincarceration,astechniquesofsecuringtheneoliberalsocial

order,”forthosewho“persistinassertingtheirvisibility.”

Withintheneoliberalprojectinwhichnudgesarejustapart,Monahansuggeststhatthe

“culturalnarrativessurroundingeverydayabjectiontendtomarkmarginalizedsubjectsas

responsiblefortheirownplights,orsometimesevenasmanipulativeordangerousthreatsto

societyasawhole”(2017,p.196).And,inwhatwemightseeasthemostdamaging

consequenceofthismarginalizingsurveillancethatisfindingitsplacewithinsurveillance

capitalismasitevolves,isthefactthatit“possessesaculturaldimensionthatthrusts

marginalizedanddehumanizedsubjectivitiesupontheabject,markingthemascomplicit

victims,societaloutcasts,invasivespecies,orswarms”(Monahan,2017,p.202).

TheNeedforaPolicyResponse Wehaveexploredconsiderableterraininourmovementtowarddefiningapoliticaleconomyof

thenudgeasitrelatestothedevelopmentofsmartcitiesaroundtheglobe.Weemphasized

thecentralroleplayedbyassessmentsofthecognitivecapacityofindividualsintheirrolesas

citizens,consumers,andresidentsofsmartcities.Whiletheprimaryfocusofneuro-and

behavioraleconomistshasbeenonthelimitationsintheabilityofindividualstomakerational

choicesintheirownbestinterest,wehavecalledattentiontotheconcernsexpressedby

politicaleconomistsabouttheneedtoalsoconsiderthestrategicattemptsbymarketers,

governmentalbureaucratsandother“choicearchitects,”toexploitcognitivebiasesand

heuristicstrategiesinordertonudgethosechoosersinparticulardirections.


Wehaveattemptedtoplacetheseconcernsaboutmanipulativecommunicationstrategiesin

thecontextofrapidlydevelopingsocio-technicalsystemsthathavethecapacitytocapture

transaction-generatedinformationacrosstimeandspace,andtransformitintostrategic

intelligenceaboutwhen,whereandhowtoapplyitwithmaximalefficiencyandeffectiveness.

Wehavenotedsomeofthedistributionaleffectsoftheseeffortsthatraiseconcernsaboutthe

reproductionandexpansionofalreadyunacceptablelevelsofsocial,economicandpolitical

inequality.

Becausewebelievethatsomeofthemostadvancedapplicationsofthesesocio-technical

systemsarebeingintroducedwithinsmartcities,wherenewformsofgovernanceinvolving

collaborations,orpublic/privatepartnerships(P3s)involvinggloballydominantfirmsthreaten

individualandcollectiveagencyandself-determination,wewouldliketoconcludethispaperby

exploringsomeofthepossibilitiesthatremainfordemocraticpublicparticipationinthe

formationofgovernancestrategiesandtacticsthataffectthequalityoflife.

Attheheartofourconcernsabouttransformationsingovernmentalityistheextenttowhich

thescienceandtechnologyofnudgingisbeingappliedinthecontextofP3smakingdecisions

aboutthekindsofpeoplethatsmartcitiesneedtocultivateinordertorealizethebenefitsof

higherscores,orcumulativeratingsof“smartness”thatarebelievedtoattractabroadvariety

ofcapitalinvestments.Thefactthatagreatmajorityofnudgesexploitcognitivebiases,rather

thanactuallyattemptingtoexpandthecapabilityandthecommitmentofindividualsandtheir

socialcontactstoinvestinlearning(Gigerenzer,Gaissmaier,Kurz-Mileke,Schwartz,etal.,2008;

Grüne-Yanoff&Hertwig,2016),leadsustosuggestthatweneedtoshiftthefocusofattention

ofthenudgebrigadeawayfromreinforcingbadhabitstowardmodifyingthebehaviorofthe

choicearchitectstowardtheenhancementofdecisionalcompetence.Thiswouldmeanthatthe

socalled“defaults”establishedbypublicandprivatechoicearchitectsshouldbethosewhich

aredemonstrablythemostrational,whilestillallowingthechooserstoopt-out(Pridgen,2013

p.431).Whileregulatorypoliciesoftendorequireincreaseddisclosureaboutthepolicies,


practicesandvaluesofthecommoditiesbeingofferedbycommercialprovidersofgoodsand

services,itwouldalsomakesensetonudge,orevenshovethosevendorstowardmakingsuch

disclosuresbothengagingandintelligibletotheaveragereader(Alemanno&Spina,2014,p.

437).

Aswehavenotedwithregardtotheevaluativestrategiesthatarecommonlyappliedto

regulatorypolicies,suchasenvironmentalimpactassessmentsorbenefit-costanalyses,these

assessmentsarerarelyfocusedonthedistributionalaspectsofeconomicallyorientedpolicy

outcomes.Althoughgreaterawarenessoftheimpactofinequalityatasocietallevelhasbeen

achievedaroundmuchoftheglobe(McGuire,2014),thereislittleevidencethatthe

developmentandevaluationofbehavioralnudgeswithinthecontextofsmartcityinitiatives

hasidentifiedthereductionofinequalityasoneofthekeyindexmeasuresofsmartness.

Indeed,asShelton,ZookandWiig(2014,p.21)seeit,“ratherthansolvingproblemsof

inequality,thesmartcityislikelyonlytoreproducetheminnewways.”

Wehavealsonotedimportantchangestakingplacewithregardtothecharacteristicsofthe

contextswithinwhichsmartcitypoliciesareestablished,includingthoseinvolvingbehavioral

modification.Thesechangesrepresentacriticalchallengetothenatureandextentofpublic

participationinthedeterminationofthosepolicies.Whilerequirementsforsomedegreeof

publicparticipationingovernmentpolicydeliberationshavebecomecommonplacewithinthe

UnitedStates,thereachofthoserequirementsseemsunlikelytohavemuchinfluenceoverthe

decisionsmadebycorporateactorsandimplementedthroughP3s.Theseeconomically

dominanttransnationalentitiesarelikelytobethekeyplayersinthestrategicgamesthatwill

determinewhobearstherisksandwhogathersthebenefitsfromawholehostofinformational

transactions,includingthoseinvolvingthemassesofdataderivedfromtheoperationof

sensors,meters,andsurveyresponses.Governmentactorsmightbeabletonegotiatesome

degreeofinfluenceoverthecontinuallyvaryingtermsoftradebeingalteredbyalgorithmic

systems;however,mostmembersofurbanpublicswillhavelittlechanceofevenstayingupto


dateandunderstandingthosechanges,andtheconsequencesthatflowfromthem(Danaher,

2016).

Policyagendasarenowbeingformedatthelocal,regional,nationalandgloballevelin

responsetoconcernsrisinginresponsetosocio-technicaldevelopments,includingthose

relatedtodevelopmentsintheallocationofdecision-makingauthoritytoautonomous

intelligentsystems.Thefactthatthesesystemswillplayanincreasinglyinfluentialrolein

managingthepublicandprivatedebatesabouttheconsequencesoftheiruse(Woolley&

Howard,2016)raisesthestakesforensuringmeaningfulpublicengagementinshaping

emergentformsofgovernmentality.

Weneedtogetbusy;nudge,nudge…

References

Alemanno,B.M.&Spina,A.(2014).Nudginglegally:Onthechecksandbalancesofbehavioral regulation.I-CON,12(2):429-456.RetrievedMay18,2017from https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mou033.Allcott,H.&Kessler,J.B.(2015,October).TheWelfareeffectsofnudges:Acasestudyof energy usesocialcomparisons.Workingpaper21671.Cambridge,MA:NationalBureauof EconomicResearch.RetrievedApril6,2017from http://www.nber.org/papers/w21671.Amir,O.&Lobel,O.(2008).Stumble,predict,nudge:Howbehavioraleconomicsinformslaw andpolicy.ColumbiaLawReview,108(8):2098-2137.RetrievedApril4,2017from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40041817.Baker,C.E.(2002).Media,MarketsandDemocracy.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversity Press.Baldwin,R.(2014).Fromregulationtobehaviourchange:givingnudgethethirddegree.The ModernLawReview,77(6),831-857.


Banzhaf,S.(2012).Regulatoryimpactanalysesofenvironmentaljusticeeffects.JournalofLand UseandEnvironmentalLaw,27(1):1-30.Retrieved,April6,2017from http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/landuse/vol27_1/banzhaf.pdf.Bar-Gill,O.&Warren,E.(2008).Makingcreditsafer.UniversityofPennsylvaniaLawReview, 157(1):1-101.RetrievedApril3,2017fromhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40041411.Barnett,C.(2005).Theconsolidationsof“neoliberalism.”Geoforum,36(1):7-12.Retrieved April6,2017fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.08.Baruh,L.&Popescu,M.(2015).Bigdataanalyticsandthelimitsofprivacyself-management. newmedia&society,(November):1-18.RetrievedApril7,2017from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mihaela_Popescu2/publication/283459625_Big_d ata_analytics_and_the_limits_of_privacy_self- management/links/57dfe34708ae5272afd09ac8.pdf>Batty,M.,Axhausen,K.W.,Giannotti,F.,Pozdnoukov,A.,Bazzani,A.,Wachowicz,M., Ouzounis,G.,&Portugali,Y.(2012).Smartcitiesofthefuture.TheEuropeanPhysical JournalSpecialTopics,214(1):481-518.RetrievedApril12,2017from http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1388243/.Berggren,N.(2012).Timeforbehavioralpoliticaleconomy?Ananalysisofarticlesin behavioraleconomics.TheReviewofAustrianEconomics,25(3):199-221.Retrieved April4,2017from<https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11138-011-0159-z>.Bermejo,F.(2007).TheInternetAudience:Constitution&Measurement.NY:PeterLang.Black,J.(2013).Reconceivingfinancialmarkets—fromtheeconomictothesocial.Journalof CorporateLawStudies,13(2):401-442.RetrievedApril6,2007from <http://dx.doi.org/10.5235/14735970.13.2.401>.Bissonnette,J.F.(2016).Fromthemoraltotheneural:Brainscans,decision-making,andthe problematizationofeconomic(ir)rationality.JournalofCulturalEconomy,9(4):364- 381.RetrievedApril2,2017from http://nca.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17530350.2016.1181097.Bowles,S.(1998).Endogenouspreferences:Theculturalconsequencesofmarketsandother economicinstitutions.JournalofEconomicLiterature,36(1):75-111.RetrievedApril1, 2017from<hettp://www.jstor.org/stable/2564952>.Brudermann,T.,Rauter,R.&Yamagata,Y.(2013).Behavioralaspectsofurbanresilience. InnovationandSupplyChainManagement,7(3):83-91.RetrievedApril3,2017from <https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/iscm/7/3/7_83/_article>.


Bubb,R.&Pildes,R.H.(2014).Howbehavioraleconomicstrimsitssailsandwhy.Harvard LawReview,127(4):1593-1678.RetrievedApril3,2017from http://cdn.harvardlawreview.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/04/vol127_bubb_pildes.pdfCamerer,C.F.(2007).Neuroeconomics:Usingneurosciencetomakeeconomicpredictions.The EconomicJournal,117(March):C26-C42.RetrievedApril3,2017from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2007.02033.x/full. -------,Loewenstein,G.&Prelec,D.(2005).Neuroeconomics:Howneurosciencecaninform economics.JournalofEconomicLiterature,XLIII(March):9-64.RetrievedApril3,2017 fromhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4129306.Christl,W.,&Spikermann,S.(2016).NetworksofControl.AReportonCorporateSurveillance, DigitalTracking,BigData&Privacy.Vienna:Facultas.RetrievedApril14,2017from <http://crackedlabs.org/en/networksofcontrol>.Clohessy,T.,Acton,T.,&Morgan,L.(2014).Smartcityasaservice(SCaaS)-Afuture roadmapfore-governmentsmartcitycloudcomputinginitiatives.Proceedingsofthe 2014IEEE/ACMACM7thInternationalConferenceonUtilityandCloudComputing. RetrievedApril12,2017fromhttp://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2760073.Cochrane,J.H.(2014).Challengesforcost-benefitanalysisoffinancialregulation.TheJournal ofLegalStudies,43(S2):S63-S105.RetrievedApril6,2017from http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/678351.Cromby,J.&Willis,M.E.H.(2013).Nudgingintosubjectification:Governmentalityand psychometrics.CriticalSocialPolicy,34(2):241-259.RetrievedApril8,2017from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0261018313500868.Danaher,J.(2016).Thethreatofalgocracy:Reality,resistanceandaccommodation.Philosophy &Technology,29(3):245-268.RetrievedMay20,2017from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13347-015-0211-1.deBruin,B.&Floridi,L.(2017).Theethicsofcloudcomputing.ScienceandEngineeringEthics, 23(1):21-39.RetrievedMay27,2017from < https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-016-9759-0>.Drobac,J.A.&Goodenough,O.R.(2015).Exposingthemythofconsent.IndianaHealthLaw Review,12(2):471-531.RetrievedApril3,from https://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/ihlr/pdf/vol12p472.pdfEconomicInnovationGroup.(2016).The2016DistressedCommunitiesIndex.AnAnalysisof CommunityWell-BeingAcrosstheUnitedStates.RetrievedApril15,2017from


http://eig.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2016-Distressed-Communities-Index- Report.pdf.Foucault,M.(1991).Governmentality.InG.Burchell,C.Gordon&P.Miller(Eds.),The FoucaultEffect:StudiesinGovernmentality,pp.87-104.TheUniversityofChicagoPress.Fuchs,C.(2015).CultureandEconomyintheAgeofSocialMedia.NY:Routledge.Gandy,O.H.,Jr.(1993).ThePanopticSort.APoliticalEconomyofPersonalInformation. Boulder,CO:WestviewPress.-------(1998).CommunicationandRace:AStructuralPerspective.London:Arnold.-------(2009.ComingtoTermsWithChance.EngagingRationalDiscriminationandCumulative Disadvantage.Burlington,VT:Ashgate.-------(2011).Consumerprotectionincyberspace.tripleC:Communication,Capitalism& Critique,9(2):175-189.RetrievedApril5,2017from <http://www.triplec.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/267>.Giddens,A.(1986).TheConstitutionofSociety.Cambridge,UK:PolityPress.Giffinger,R.,Fertner,C.,Kramar,H.,Kalasek,R.etal.(2007)Smartcities:rankingofEuropean medium-sizedcities.RetrievedApril28,2017fromwww.smart-cities.eu/ download/smart_cities_final_report.pdf.Gigerenzer,G.,Gaissmaier,W.,Kurz-Milcke,E.,Schwartz,L.M.,&Woloshin,S.(2008). Helpingdoctorsandpatientsmakesenseofhealthstatistics.PsychologicalScienceinthe PublicInterest,8(2):53-96.RetrievedApril8,2017from http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:2100705/component/escidoc:21007 04/ GG_Helping_2008.pdf.Glimcher,P.W.(2009).Choice:Towardsastandardback-pocketmodel.InP.W.Glimcher,E. Fehr,C.Camerer,&R.A.Poldrack(Eds.),Neuroeconomics,:DecisionMakingandthe Brain,1st,Edition,pp.501-519,London:Elsevier.RetrievedApril2,2017from http://www.decisionsrus.com/documents/choice_towards-a-standard-back-pocketmodel.pdf.Grier,S.A.&Kumanyika,S.(2010).Targetmarketingandpublichealth.AnnualReviewofPublic

Health,31:349-369.RetrievedApril14,2017from http://annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.012809.103607.


Grüne-Yanoff,T.&Hertwig,R.(2016).Nudgeversusboost:Howcoherentarepolicyand theory?Minds&Machines,26(1):149-183.RetrievedApril7,2017from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11023-015-9367-9.Gubbi,J.,Buyya,R.,Marusic,S.&Palaniswami,M.(2013).InternetofThings(IoT):Avision, architecturalelements,andfuturedirections.FutureGenerationComputerSystems,29: 1645-1660.RetrievedMarch30,2017from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167739X13000241.Harrison,G.W.(2008).Neuroeconomics:Acriticalreconsideration.EconomicsandPhilosophy, 24(3):303-344.RetrievedApril2,2017from https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266267108002009.Hausman,D.M.(1992).TheInexactandSeparateScienceofEconomics.NewYork:Cambridge UniversityPress.Hawkins,J.(2016).Usingadvertisementstodiagnosebehavioralmarketfailureinthepayday lendingmarket.WakeForestLawReview,51():57-102.RetrievedApril3,2017from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2638481.Hollands,R.G.(2008).Willtherealsmartcitypleasestandup?Intelligent,progressiveor entrepreneurial.City,12(3):303-320,Retrieved April11,2017fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13604810802479126.Huawei,&NavigantConsulting(2016).UKSmartCitiesIndex.AssessmentofStrategyand ExecutionoftheUK’sLeadingSmartCities.RetrievedApril18,2017fromhttp://www- file.huawei.com/- /media/CORPORATE/PDF/News/Huawei_Smart_Cities_Report_FINAL.pdf.Hull,G.(2015).Successfulfailure:whatFoucaultcanteachusaboutprivacyself-management inaworldofFacebookandbigdata.EthicsandInformationTechnology,17(2):89-101. RetrievedApril6,2017fromhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-015- 9363-z>.InstituteofMedicine.(2013).EnvironmentalDecisionsintheFaceofUncertainty.Washington, DC:TheNationalAcademiesPress.Kahneman,D.(2003).Mapsofboundedrationality:PsychologyforBehavioralEconomics.The AmericanEconomicReview,93(5):1449-1475.RetrievedApril3,2017from https://www.jstor.org/stable/3132137.Kear,M.(2013).GoverningHomoSubprimicus:Beyondfinancialcitizenship,exclusion,and rights.Antipode.RetrievedMarch31,2017from <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2012.01045.x/full>.


Kitchin,R.(2014).Thereal-timecity?Bigdataandsmarturbanism.GeoJournal,79(1):1-14. RetrievedApril11,2017fromhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/S10708-013- 9516-8.-------,Lauriault,T.P.,&McArdle,G.(2015).Smartcitiesandthepoliticsofurbandata.InS. Marvin,A.Luque-Ayala&C.McFarlane(Eds.),SmartUrbanism:UtopianVisionofFalse Dawn?,pp.17-34.Routledge.RetrievedApril12,2017from http://eprints.maynoothuniversity.ie/7323/1/smart.Klauser,F.R.&Albrechtslund,A.(2014).Fromself-trackingtosmarturbaninfrastructures: TowardsaninterdisciplinaryresearchagendaonBigData.Surveillance&Society,12(2): 273-286.Retrieved,May27,2017from < https://queens.scholarsportal.info/ojs/index.php/surveillance-and- society/article/viewFile/infrastructures/infrastructure>.Klauser,F.,Paasche,T.&Söderström,O.(2014).MichaelFoucaultandthesmartcity:Power dynamicsinherentincontemporarygoverningthroughcode.EnvironmentandPlanning D:SocietyandSpace,32(5):869-885.RetrievedApril6,2017from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1068/d13041p.Kline,P.&Moretti,E.(2014).People,places,andpublicpolicy:Somesimplewelfare economicsoflocaleconomicdevelopmentprograms.AnnualReviewofEconomics,6: 629-662.RetrievedApril13,2017from http://annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-economics-080213-041024.Kleindorfer,P.R.,Kunreuther,H.C.,&Schoemaker,P.J.H.(1993).DecisionSciences.An IntegrativePerspective.NY:CambridgeUniversityPress.Kosters,M.&VanderHeijden,J.(2015).Frommechanismtovirtue:EvaluatingNudgetheory. Evaluation,21(3):276-291.RetrievedApril2,2017from <http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1356389015590218>.Lam,W.(2005).Barrierstoe-governmentintegration.TheJournalofEnterpriseInformation Management,18:511–530.Leggett,W.(2014).Thepoliticsofbehaviorchange:Nudge,neoliberalismandthestate.Policy &Politics,42(1):3-19.RetrievedApril10,2017from http://dx.doi.org/10.1332/030557312X655576. Manheim,J.B.(2011).StrategyinInformationandInfluenceCampaigns.HowPolicy Advocates,SocialMovements,InsurgentGroups,Corporations,GovernmentsandOthers GetWhatTheyWant.NY:Routledge.


McGuigan,L.&Manzerolle,V.,eds.(2014).TheAudienceCommodityinaDigitalAge: RevisitingaCriticalTheoryofCommercialMedia.NY:PeterLang.McGuire,J.(2014).HowincreasingincomeinequalityisdampeningU.S.economicgrowth,and possiblewaystochangethetide.RatingsDirect.RetrievedMay20,2017from http://www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/Documents/forum/Forum_2014/Income_Inequality.pdf.McMahon,J.(2015).Behavioraleconomicsasneoliberalism:Producingandgoverninghomo economicus.ContemporaryPoliticalTheory,14(2):137-158.RetrievedApril2,2017 from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/cpt.2014.14.Michalek,G.,Meran,G.,Schwarze,R.&Yildiz,R.(2016).Nudgingasanew“soft”policytool— Anassessmentofthedefinitionalscopeofnudges,practicalimplementation possibilitiesandtheireffectiveness.EconomicsDiscussionPapers,No2016-18,Kiel InstitutefortheWorldEconomy.RetrievedApril2,2017from http://www.economicsejournal.org/economics/discussionpapers/2016-18.Monohan,T.(2017).Regulatingbelonging:surveillance,inequality,andtheculturalproduction ofabjection.JournalofCulturalEconomy,10(2):191-206.RetrievedMay26,2017from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17530350.2016.1273843?journalCode=r jce20.Mosco,V.(2009).ThePoliticalEconomyofCommunication,2ndEdition.LosAngeles,Sage.---------(2014).TotheCloud:BigDatainaTurbulentWorld.Boulder,CO:Paradigm Publishers.Napoli,P.M.(2003).AudienceEconomics.MediaInstitutionsandtheAudienceMarketplace. NY:ColumbiaUniversityPress.NationalAcademiesofSciences,Engineering&Medicine.(2017).InformationTechnologyand theU.S.Workforce:WhereAreWeandWhereDoWeGofromHere?Washington,DC: TheNationalAcademiesPress.doi:10.17226/24649.RetrievedMarch29,2017from http://www.nap.edu/24649.Obama,B.(2017,January)EconomicReportofthePresident,togetherwithTheAnnualReport oftheCouncilofEconomicAdvisors.Washington,DC:TheWhiteHouse.Retrieved April15,2017from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/eop/cea/economic-report-of-the- President/2017.Oliver,A.(2013).Fromnudgingtobudging:Usingbehavioraleconomicstoinformpublicsector policy.JournalofSocialPolicy,42(4):685-700.RetrievedApril4,2017from https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279413000299.


Petrolo,R.,Loscri,V.,&Mitton,N.(2015).TowardsasmartcitybasedonCloudofThings,a surveyonthesmartcityvisionandparadigms.TransactionsonEmerging TelecommunicationsTechnologies,pp.1-11.RetrievedApril12,2017from https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01116370.Pierce,J.J.,Siddiki,S.,Jones,M.D.,Schumacher,K.,Pattison,A.,&Peterson,H.(2014).Social constructionandpolicydesign:Areviewofpastapplications.ThePolicyStudies Journal,42(1):1-29.RetrievedApril7,2017from <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/psj.12040/full>.Preston,P.(2001).ReshapingCommunications.Technology,InformationandSocialChange. London:SAGEPublications.Pridgen,D.(2013).Seachangesinconsumerfinancialprotection:Strongeragencyandstronger

laws.WyomingLawReview,13(2):405-437.Retrieved5/18/17from< http://repository.uwyo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=wlr>.

Pykett,J.(2013).Neurocapitalismandthenewneuros:Usingneuroeconomics,behavioral

economicsandpicoeconomicsforpublicpolicy.JournalofEconomicGeography,13(5):845-869.RetrievedMarch31,2017from<https://academic.oup.com/joeg/article-abstract/13/5/845/918547/Neurocapitalism-and-the-new-neuros-using>.

-------,Jones,R.,Welsh,M.,&Whitehead,M.(2014).Theartofchoosingandthepoliticsofsocial

marketing.PolicyStudies,35(2):97-114.RetrievedApril6,2017fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2013.875141.

Ramo,A.(2013).Environmentaljusticeasanessentialtoolinenvironmentalreviewstatutes—A newlookatfederalpoliciesandcivilrightsprotectionsandCalifornia’srecentinitiatives. HastingsW.-N.W.Env.Law&Policy,19(1):41-80.RetrievedApril15,2017from http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1569&context=pubs.Richards,N.M.&King,J.H.(2014).Bigdataethics.WakeForestLawReview,49:393-432. RetrievedApril7,2014from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2384174.Rodriguez,B.M.P.(2015).Smartcities:Bigcities,complexgovernance?InM.P.RodriguezBolivar (Ed.)TransformingCityGovernmentsforSuccessfulSmartCities,pp.1-8.Switzerland: Springer.Rose,N.(2016).Readingthehumanbrain:Howthemindbecamelegible.Surveillanceand Embodiment,22(2):140-177.RetrievedApril3,2017from <http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1357034X15623363>.


Rossi,U.(2016).Thevariegatedeconomicsandthepotentialpoliticsofthesmartcity.Territory, Politics,Governance,4(3):337-353.RetrievedApril13,2017 from<http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2015.1036913>.Rouvroy,A.(2011).Governmentalityinanageofautonomiccomputing:technology,virtuality

andUtopia.InM.Hildebrandt&A.Rouvroy(eds.),ThePhilosophyofLawMeetsthePhilosophyofTechnology:AutonomicComputingandTransformationsofHumanAgency.Routledge

Sandvig,C.,Hamilton,K.,Karahalios,K.&Langbort,C.(2016).Whenthealgorithmitselfisa racist:Diagnosingethicalharminthebasiccomponentsofsoftware.International JournalofCommunication,104972-4990.RetrievedApril6,2017from http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/6182.Schiller,D.(2014).DigitalDepression.InformationTechnologyandEconomicCrisis.Urbana: UniversityofIllinoisPress.Schneider,A.&Ingram,H.(1993).Socialconstructionoftargetpopulations:Implicationsfor politicsandpolicy.TheAmericanPoliticalScienceReview,87(2):334-347.Retrieved April7,2017fromhttps://doi.org/10.2307/2939044.Schüll,N.D.&Saloom,C.(2011).Theshortsightedbrain:Neuroeconomicsandthegovernance ofchoiceintime.SocialStudiesofScience,41(4):515-538.RetrievedApril2,2017from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0306312710397689.Selinger,E.&Whyte,K.(2011).Istherearightwaytonudge?Thepracticeandethicsofchoice architecture.SociologyCompass,5(10):923-935.RetrievedApril4,2017from <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00413.x/full>.Sellar,S.&Thompson,G.(2016).Thebecoming-statistic:Informationontologiesand computerizedadaptivetestingineducation.CulturalStudies↔CriticalMethodologies, 16(5):491-501.RetrievedMay27,2017from < http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1532708616655770>.Shelton,T.,Zook,M.&Wiig,A.(2015).The“actuallyexistingsmartcity.”CambridgeJournal ofRegions,EconomyandSociety,8(1):13-25.RetrievedApril11,2017from <https://academic.oup.com/cjres/article/8/1/13/304403/The-actually-existing-smartcity>.Simon,H.A.(1955).Abehavioralmodelofrationalchoice.QuarterlyJournalofEconomics, 89:99-118.https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852.RetrievedApril2,2017from <http://www.math.mcgill.ca/vetta/CS764.dir/bounded.pdf>.


Smith,A.C.&Zywicki,T.(2015).Behavior,paternalism,andpolicy:Evaluatingconsumer financialprotection.NewYorkUniversityJournalofLaw&Liberty,9:201-247 RetrievedApril7,2017fromhttp://lawandlibertyblog.com/s/SmithZywicki9.pdf.Sunstein,C.(2012).TheStorrsLectures:BehavioralEconomicsandpaternalism.YaleLaw Journal,122(7):1826-1899.RetrievedApril3,2017from <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2182619>.-------(2014).Nudgesvs.shoves.HarvardLawReviewForum,127:210-217RetrievedApril3, 2017from<http://www.harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Sunstein- Final1.pdf>.-------(2015a).Nudges,agency,navigability,andabstraction:Areplytocritics.DraftforReview ofPhilosophyandPsychology,SpecialIssueonNudges.RetrievedApril4,2017from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2577018.-----(2015b).TheethicsofNudging.YaleJournalonRegulation,32(2):413-450.RetrievedApril5, 2017from<http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjreg/vol32/iss2/6>.Thaler,R.H.&Sunstein,C.R.(2008).Nudge:ImprovingDecisionsAboutHealth,Welfareand Happiness.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress.Thatcher,J.(2013).AvoidingtheGhettothroughhopeandfear:ananalysisofimmanent technologyusingidealtypes.GeoJournal,78(6):967-980.RetrievedApril12,2017from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10708-013-9491-0.Tversky,A.&Kahneman,D.(1990).Rationalchoiceandtheframingofdecisions.InK.S.Cook& M.Levi(Eds.),TheLimitsofRationality,pp.60-89,Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.U.S.DepartmentofTransportation.(2017).SmartCityChallenge:LessonsforBuildingCities oftheFuture.Washington,D.C.RetrievedApril14,2017from https://www.transportation.gov/smartcityhttps://www.transportation.gov/policy- initiatives/smartcity/smart-city-challenge-lessons-building-cities-future.VanTuinen,H.K.(2011).Theignoredmanipulationofthemarket:Commercialadvertisingand consumerismrequireeconomictheoriesandpolicies.ReviewofPoliticalEconomy, 23(2):213-231.RetrievedApril1,2017from <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09538259.2011.561558>.Vanolo,A.(2014).Smartmentality:Thesmartcityasdisciplinarystrategy.UrbanStudies,51(5): 883-898.RetrievedApril10,2017from <http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0042098013494427>.


Wiig,A.(2015).IBM’ssmartcityastecho-utopianpolicymobility.City.19(2-3):258-273. RetrievedApril11,2017from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13604813.2015.1016275.Woolley,S.C.&Howard,P.N.(2016).Communication,computationalpropaganda,and autonomousagents.InternationalJournalofCommunication,10:4882-4890,Retrieved May20,2017from< http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/6298/1809>.Wright,J.D.&Ginsburg,D.H.(2012).Behaviorallawandeconomics:Itsorigins,fatalflaws, andimplicationsforliberty.NorthwesternUniversityLawReview,106(3):1033-1088. RetrievedApril3,2017from <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2147940>.Yeung,K.(2012).Nudgeasfudge.ModernLawReview,75(1):122-148.RetrievedApril4,2017 fromhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2012.00893.x/full.Zuboff,S.(2015).Bigother:Surveillancecapitalismandtheprospectsofaninformation civilization.JournalofInformationTechnology,30(1):75-89.RetrievedApril14,2017 fromhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/jit.2015.5.