This paper explores the intricate dynamics of digital welfare within the context of late-capitalist welfare states, focusing on the advanced digitalisation initiatives of Denmark. It offers a critical analysis of the concept of ‘digital welfare’ – defined as the integration of digital technologies into the frameworks of social protection. Central to the research is how the Danish welfare state, recognised for its e-government leadership, engages with and incorporates critiques to sustain its approach to digital transformation. Utilising Boltanski's theories on the absorption of capitalist critique and Mathiesen's ‘silently silencing’ concept, the study examines the state's proficiency in assimilating criticism. The findings reveal the persistent flexibility of late-capitalist governance systems, especially in how digital welfare policies are leveraged to reconnect citizens with state mechanisms while simultaneously mitigating dissent. The research highlights the necessity for ongoing investigation into the implications of digitalisation for welfare institutions and societal structures at large.
AlexopoulouS.ÅströmJ.KarlssonM. (2022). The grey digital divide and welfare state regimes: A comparative study of European countries. Information Technology & People, 35(8), 273–291. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-11-2020-0803
2.
AlstonP. (2019). Report of the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights. General Assembly of the United Nations (UN), 74th session.
3.
AndersenJ. G. (2019). The welfare state as a victim of neoliberal economic failure (pp. 192–209). Oxford University Press.
4.
AndersenN. A.LarsenF. (2024). Activation policy: Bruised and battered but still standing. Policy and Society, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae013
5.
AndreassenR.KaunA.NikunenK. (2021). Fostering the data welfare state: A Nordic perspective on datafication. Nordicom Review, 42(2), 207–223. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2021-0051
6.
BalslevJ. (2018). Kritik af den digitale fornuft: i uddannelse. Hogrefe Psykologisk Forlag.
7.
BasiasN.PollalisY. (2018). Quantitative and qualitative research in business & technology: Justifying a suitable research methodology. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, 7(1), 91–105.
8.
BernhardI.WihlborgE. (2022). Bringing all clients into the system – Professional digital discretion to enhance inclusion when services are automated. Information Polity, 27(3), 373–389. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-200268
9.
BielefeldS.HarbJ.HenneK. (2021). Financialization and welfare surveillance: Regulating the poor in technological times. Surveillance & Society, 19(3), 299–316. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v19i3.14244
10.
BoltanskiL. (2011). On critique: A sociology of emancipation. Polity Press.
11.
BoltanskiL.ChiapelloE. (2005). The new spirit of capitalism. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 18, 161–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10767-006-9006-9
12.
BreviniB.PasqualeF. (2020). Revisiting the Black Box Society by rethinking the political economy of big data. Big Data & Society, 7(2), 2053951720935146. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720935146
13.
BuhrD. (2017). What about welfare 4.0? In CESifo Forum (Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 15–24). ifo Institut-Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung an der Universität München.
14.
BusemeyerM. R.KemmerlingA.Van KersbergenK.MarxP., (Eds.). (2022). Digitalization and the welfare state. Oxford University Press.
15.
CampbellJ. L.PedersenO. K., (Eds.). (2001). The rise of neoliberalism and institutional analysis. Princeton University Press.
16.
CarrollT. (2022). Neoliberalism, globalization, and late capitalism. In CarrollT. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of economic imperialism (pp. 135). Oxford University Press.
17.
Coles-KempL.AshendenD.MorrisJ.YuilleJ. (2020). Digital welfare: Designing for more nuanced forms of access. Policy Design and Practice3(2), 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2020.1760414
18.
CollS. (2014). Power, knowledge, and the subjects of privacy: Understanding privacy as the ally of surveillance. Information, Communication & Society, 17(10), 1250–1263. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.918636
19.
CollingtonR. (2022). Disrupting the welfare state? Digitalisation and the retrenchment of public sector capacity. New Political Economy, 27(2), 312–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2021.1952559
20.
CouldryN.MejiasU. A. (2019). Data colonialism: Rethinking big data’s relation to the contemporary subject. Television & New Media, 20(4), 336–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476418796632
21.
DavisG. F.SinhaA. (2021). Varieties of uberization: How technology and institutions change the organization(s) of late capitalism. Organization Theory, 2(1), 2631787721995198. https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787721995198
22.
DencikL. (2022). The datafied welfare state: A perspective from the UK. In HeppA.JarkeJ.KrampL. (Eds.), New perspectives in critical data studies: The ambivalences of data power (pp. 145–165). Springer International Publishing.
DenningS. (2022). Reinventing capitalism in the digital age. Cambridge University Press.
25.
DöringM. (2021). How-to bureaucracy: A concept of citizens’ administrative literacy. Administration & Society, 53(8), 1155–1177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399721995460
26.
DunleavyP.MargettsH. (2023). Data science, artificial intelligence and the third wave of digital era governance. Public Policy and Administration, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/095207672311987
27.
EichhorstW.RinneU. (2017). Digital challenges for the welfare state (No. 134). IZA Policy Paper.
28.
EjersboN.GreveC. (2016). Digital era governance reform and accountability: The case of Denmark. In ChristensenT.LægreidP. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook to accountability and welfare state reforms in Europe (pp. 281–293). Routledge.
29.
Esping-AndersenG. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton University Press.
30.
EubanksV. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin’s Press.
FrennertS. (2021). Hitting a moving target: Digital transformation and welfare technology in Swedish municipal eldercare. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 16(1), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2019.1642393
33.
FuchsC. (2014). Digital labour and Karl Marx. Routledge.
34.
FuchsC. (2019). Karl Marx in the age of big data capitalism. In ChandlerD.FuchsC. (Eds.), Digital objects, digital subjects: Interdisciplinary perspectives on capitalism, labour and politics in the age of big data (pp. 53–71). University of Westminster Press.
GibbsG. R. (2007). Thematic coding and categorizing. In Analysing qualitative data (pp. 38–55). Sage Publication. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208574
37.
GogginG.SoldatićK. (2022). Automated decision-making, digital inclusion and intersectional disabilities. New Media & Society, 24(2), 384–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211063173
38.
GreveB.KvistJ. (2021). Nordic welfare state changes especially in the light of migration and the financial crisis. In GreveB.KvistJ. (Eds.), Handbook on austerity, populism and the welfare state (pp. 143–154). Edward Elgar Publishing.
39.
HassanR. (2020). The condition of digitality: A post-modern Marxism for the practice of digital life. University of Westminster Press.
40.
HelsperE. J.ReisdorfB. C. (2017). The emergence of a ‘digital underclass’ in Great Britain and Sweden: Changing reasons for digital exclusion. New Media & Society, 19(8), 1253–1270. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816634676
41.
HenmanP. (2010). Governing electronically: E-government and the reconfiguration of public administration, policy and power. Palgrave Macmillan.
42.
HjelholtM.JensenT. B. (2015). Resonating statements: Discursive acts in IT projects. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 27(2), 1. https://aisel.aisnet.org/sjis/vol27/iss2/1
43.
HjelholtM.PapazuI. (2021). ‘De har fået NemID, men det er ikke nemt for mig’ – Digital rum (me) lighed i den danske velfærdsstat. Social Kritik: Tidsskrift for social analyse & debat, 2021(163), 11–30. https://pure.itu.dk/ws/files/86131451/FINAL_De_har_f_et_NemID.pdf
44.
HjelholtM.SchouJ. (2017). Digital lifestyles between solidarity, discipline and neoliberalism: On the historical transformations of the Danish IT political field from 1994 to 2016. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique, 15(1), 370–389. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v15i1.844
45.
HowarthD. (2005). Applying discourse theory: The method of articulation. In Discourse theory in European politics: Identity, policy and governance (pp. 316–349). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
46.
HubermanJ. (2021). Amazon Go, surveillance capitalism, and the ideology of convenience. Economic Anthropology, 8(2), 337–349. https://doi.org/10.1002/sea2.12211
47.
JamesonF. (2016). Postmodernism, or the cultural logic of late capitalism. In DochertyT. (Ed.), Postmodernism - A reader (pp. 62–92). Routledge.
48.
JohanssonS. (2004). Dansk IT-politisk historie. In HoffJ. (Ed.), Danmark som informationssamfund: Muligheder og barrierer for politik og demokrati (pp. 140–171). Aarhus Universitetsforlag.
49.
KamaliM.JönssonJ. H. (2018). Introduction: Neoliberalism and social work in the Nordic welfare states. In KamaliM.JönssonJ. H. (Eds.), Neoliberalism, Nordic welfare states and social work (pp. 1–22). Routledge.
50.
KaunA.LimingaA. (2023). Welfare service centers: Maintenance, repair, and care at the analog interfaces of the digital welfare state. New Media & Society, 14614448231220362. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231220362
51.
KersingM.van ZoonenL.PuttersK.OldenhofL. (2022). The changing roles of frontline bureaucrats in the digital welfare state: The case of a data dashboard in Rotterdam’s work and income department. Data & Policy, 4, e24. https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2022.16
52.
KhomaN.VdovychynI. (2020). Deconstruction of the welfare state: The impact of globalization and technological factors. Revija za Socijalnu Politiku, 27(3), 269–285. https://doi.org/10.3935/rsp.v27i3.1696
MandelE. (1975). The industrial cycle in late capitalism. New Left Review, (90), 3–25.
55.
MannM. (2020). Technological politics of automated welfare surveillance: Social (and data) justice through critical qualitative inquiry. Global Perspectives, 1(1), 12991. https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2020.12991
56.
MarthinsenE. (2019). Neoliberal regimes of welfare in Scandinavia. In GrayM.MidgleyJ.WebbS. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of critical social work (pp. 302–311). Routledge.
57.
MathiesenT. (1980). Law, society, and political action: Towards a strategy under late capitalism. Academic Press Inc.
58.
MathiesenT. (2005). Silently silenced: Essays on the creation of acquiescence in modern society. Waterside Press.
59.
MauS. (2021). ‘The mute compulsion of economic relations’: Towards a Marxist theory of the abstract and impersonal power of capital. Historical Materialism, 29(3), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1163/1569206X-29031234
60.
MelchioriC. E.SanchesB.CruzM. C. C.DinizE. H.CunhaM. A. (2023). Digital welfare and vulnerable citizens: A literature review. ECIS 2023 Research-in-Progress Papers, 58.
61.
MerkelW. (2018). Is capitalism compatible with democracy? In RamloseS.BuschT. (Eds.), Democracy and crisis: Challenges in turbulent times (pp. 253–271). Springer.
62.
MilakovichM. E. (2014). Digital governance and collaborative strategies for improving service quality. Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing (Vol. 1). SciTePress.
63.
MjøsetL. (2011). Nordic political economy after financial deregulation: Banking crises, economic experts, and the role of neoliberalism. In MjøsetL.SvallforsS. (Eds.), The Nordic varieties of capitalism (pp. 365–420). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
64.
MotzfeldtH. M.Næsborg-AndersenA. (2018). Digitalisation and the (unintended) illegal outsourcing of legislative and administrative power in Denmark. Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on Digital Government ECDG.
65.
NavarroV. (2022). The crisis of the international capitalist order and its implications on the welfare state. In FrenchR. D.FriskenV. (Eds.), Issues in the political economy of health care (pp. 107–140). Routledge.
66.
NymanK. (2021). Desk research: Reduktion af digitale kompetencekløfter og digital eksklusion i de nordiske lande: Digitaliseringsindsatser for voksne i Norden med sigte på ‘reaching the hard to reach’. Nordisk Netværk for Voksnes Læring. NVL.
67.
OffeC. (1983). Competitive party democracy and the Keynesian welfare state: Factors of stability and disorganization. Policy Sciences, 15(3), 225–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00136826
PedersenA. W.KuhnleS. (2017). The Nordic welfare state model. In The Nordic models in political science. Challenged, but still viable? (pp. 249–272). Fagbokforlaget.
70.
PedersenJ. S. (2019). The digital welfare state: Dataism vs. relationshipism. In PedersenJ. S.WilkinsonA. (Eds.), Big data - Promise, application and pitfalls (pp. 301–324). Edward Elgar Publishing.
71.
SchouJ.HjelholtM. (2018). Digitalization and public sector transformations. Palgrave Macmillan.
72.
SchouJ.HjelholtM. (2019). Digitalizing the welfare state: Citizenship discourses in Danish digitalization strategies from 2002 to 2015. Critical Policy Studies, 13(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2017.1333441
73.
SchwennesenN. (2019). Surveillance entanglements: Digital data flows and ageing bodies in motion in the Danish welfare state. Anthropology & Aging, 40(2), 10–22. https://doi.org/10.5195/aa.2019.224
74.
ScupolaA. (2018). Digital transformation of public administration services in Denmark: A process tracing case study. Nordic and Baltic Journal of Information and Communications Technologies, 2018(1), 261–284. https://doi.org/10.13052/nbjict1902-097X.2018.014
Sorgenfri KjærJ. (2023). Ombudsmanden: Digitaliseringen har ført til omsiggribende banale problemer for borgerne. Politiken, April 2023.
77.
Sorgenfri KjærJ.IbK. (2022). Vi ser nu elementer, der går tilbage til tiden før velfærdsstaten, hvor familien var ansvarlig for at klare sig selv og tage sig af hinanden, Politiken July 2022.
78.
StaabP. (2017). The consumption dilemma of digital capitalism. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 23(3), 281–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/1024258917702830
79.
The Danish Government, Danish Regions, & Local Government Denmark. (2011). The digital path to future welfare: eGovernment strategy 2011–2015. https://digst.dk/strategier/
80.
The Danish Government, Danish Regions, & Local Government Denmark. (2022). Digitalisation that supports society. eGovernment Strategy 2022–2025. https://digst.dk/strategier/
81.
TherbornG. (2016). What does the ruling class do when it rules? State apparatuses and state power under feudalism, capitalism and socialism. Verso Books.
82.
Van KersbergenK.VisB. (2022). Digitalization as a policy response to social acceleration: Comparing democratic problem solving in Denmark and The Netherlands. Government Information Quarterly, 39(3), 101707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101707
83.
van ZoonenL. (2020). Data governance and citizen participation in the digital welfare state. Policy and Internet, 2(10), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2020.10
84.
VaroufakisY.BrooksA.vanden HeuvelK.BrooksD. (2020). Is capitalism broken?Simon and Schuster.
85.
VoßJ. P.FreemanR. (Eds.). (2016). Knowing governance: The epistemic construction of political order. Palgrave Macmillan.
86.
WacquantL. (2012). Three steps to a historical anthropology of actually existing neoliberalism. Social Anthropology/Anthropologie Sociale, 20(1), 66–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8676.2011.00189.x
87.
ZakharovaI.JarkeJ.KaunA. (2024). Tensions in digital welfare states: Three perspectives on care and control. Journal of Sociology, 14407833241238312. https://doi.org/10.1177/14407833241238312
88.
ZeebergR. H. (2020). Digitaliseringsstyrelsen: Kompetencer begrænser potentialet i statslig digitalisering, Altinget Debat.
89.
ZuboffS. (2023). The age of surveillance capitalism. In Social theory re-wired (pp. 203–213). Routledge.
