In recent years, public institutions have turned to data-driven firms for solutions to the many complex operational challenges they face. This study explores the growing ties between public institutions and data-driven firms by focusing on the case of the Tel Aviv Municipality and a (data-driven) startup accelerator it established in the city. Based on semi-structured interviews with the Municipality staff and with representatives of the data-driven firms in the accelerator, I present a grounded framework that outlines the characteristics of the resulting collaboration and describes the mechanisms that facilitate and contain the dynamic thereof. The framework contributes to existing research on tech companies’ involvement in public organizations by suggesting two analytical dimensions, which I term orientation and action. On both, I note various tensions, which are bound to be endemic to collaborations between a public institution and a data firm, and which account for two main motivations behind the Municipality’s actions vis-a-vis its partner data-driven firms, driven by both market imperatives and its overarching aim to benefit the public.
AshuriT (2024) Shadowy knowledge infrastructures. Information, Communication & Society27(3): 583–599.
2.
AzharI (2020) Security, privacy and risks within smart cities: literature review and development of a smart city interaction framework. International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts8: 55–59.
DattaA (2018) The digital turn in postcolonial urbanism: smart citizenship in the making of India's 100 smart cities. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers43(3): 405–419.
10.
DeeNGillDLiveseyF, et al (2015) Incubation for growth: a review of the impact of business incubation on new ventures with high growth potential. National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. Available at: https://si-per.eu/siper-wAssets/repository/2011-10.pdf
11.
DoniaJShawJA (2021) Co-design and ethical artificial intelligence for health: an agenda for critical research and practice. Big Data & Society8(2): 20539517211065248.
12.
FisherE (2022) Do algorithms have a right to the city? Waze and algorithmic spatiality. Cultural Studies36(1): 74–95.
13.
FisherERosenhekZ (2022) Engendering assemblages: the constitution of digital health data as an epistemic consumption object. Journal of Cultural Economy15(5): 599–616.
14.
FloridaR (2004) The Rise of the Creative Class. New York: Basic Books.
15.
HarveyD (2003) The New Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16.
IsabelleDA (2013) Key factors affecting a technology entrepreneur’s choice of incubator or accelerator. Technology Innovation Management Review3(2): 16–22.
17.
KaluarachchiY (2022) Implementing data-driven smart city applications for future cities. Smart Cities5(2): 455–474.
18.
KitchinR (2014) The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism. GeoJournal79(1): 1–14.
19.
KitchinR (2015) Making sense of smart cities: addressing present shortcomings. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society8(1): 131–136.
20.
KshetriN (2014) Global Entrepreneurship: Environment and Implications for Policy. New York: Routledge.
21.
MadalenoMNathanMOvermanH, et al (2022) Incubators, accelerators and urban economic development. Urban Studies59(2): 281–300.
22.
MarvinSLuque-AyalaA (2017) Urban operating systems: diagramming the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research41(1): 84–103.
23.
MorozovE (2013) To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism. New York: Public Affairs.
SadowskiJ (2020) Too Smart: How Digital Capitalism Is Extracting Data, Controlling Our Lives, and Taking Over the World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28.
SadowskiJ (2021) Who owns the future city? Phases of technological urbanism and shifts in sovereignty. Urban Studies58(8): 1732–1744.
29.
SadowskiJBendorR (2019) Selling smartness: corporate narratives and the smart city as a sociotechnical imaginary. Science, Technology, & Human Values44(3): 540–563.
30.
SchaffersHKomninosNPallotM, et al (2019 [2011]) Smart cities and the future internet: towards cooperation frameworks for open innovation. In: DomingueJ (ed.) Future Internet Assembly. Berlin: Springer, pp. 431–446.
31.
SharonT (2018) When digital health meets digital capitalism, how many common goods are at stake?Big Data & Society5(2): 2053951718819032.
32.
SharonTGellertR (2023) Regulating Big Tech expansionism? Sphere transgressions and the limits of Europe’s digital regulatory strategy. Information, Communication & Society. Epub ahead of print 16 August. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2023.2246526.
33.
StübingerJSchneiderL (2020) Understanding smart city – a data-driven literature review. Sustainability12(20): 8460.
34.
ThompsonMNowakVSouthernA, et al (2020) Re-grounding the city with Polanyi: from urban entrepreneurialism to entrepreneurial municipalism. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space52(6): 1171–1194.
35.
Van Der GraafS (2018) In Waze we trust: algorithmic governance of the public sphere. Media and Communication6(4): 153–162.
36.
Van DijckJPoellTNieborgD (2019) Platformisation. Internet Policy Review8(4): 1–13.
37.
VanoloA (2014) Smartmentality: the smart city as disciplinary strategy. Urban Studies51(5): 883–898.
