Recently I’ve been thinking about “Uneven Innovation: The work of Smart Cities” by Dr. Jennifer Clark. As Chair of the Arlington County Tech Commission, I worked with Arlington County Libraries to host Dr. Clark for an Author Talk about her book, and it was illuminating. When the marketers pitch smart cities, they craft gleaming images of seamless digital integration and perfectly optimized urban systems. However, as technologists, we know the reality never quite matches the marketing hype. In her book, Dr. Clark reveals a more complex and nuanced reality that civic leaders and policymakers need to understand.
The Myth of the Smart City
Smart City systems are sold as whiz-bang solutions to age old problems that are somehow auto-magically immune to the laws of economics. Dr. Clark’s research exposes the critical truth that information technology solutions are subject to the same forces that drive economic inequality in other areas. Without specific consideration of this context, smart city initiatives often reinforce existing socioeconomic disparities rather than alleviating them.
Economic Development?
Dr. Clark details how many smart city solutions are sold as engines of economic development. “Experiments”, “Pilots” and “Innovation Districts” are created to prove how innovative and entrepreneurial the cities are, however the projects are almost always run by large multi-national firms rather than local firms. Instead of generating new, self-sustaining economic activity locally, the value of consumer data is extracted from the community, and the projects never move beyond the initial phase. This raises important questions about public investment and private benefit.
Rethinking Smart City Implementation
Dr. Clark’s work suggests several practical approaches for more equitable smart city development. Rather than an economic development lens, smart city solutions should be evaluated and prioritized the same way as other public infrastructure and services:
- Will the project address community-driven needs?
- How will it develop a local technology workforce ?
- Can we create partnerships between local educational institutions and technology initiatives?
- Can we maintain public ownership of data?
Prioritizing community needs over technological “wow” factor can help ensure that smart city investments generate lasting local benefits rather than just short-term marketing material.
Policy Implications for Local Government
For local policymakers, Dr. Clark’s insights suggest several key action items:
- Develop comprehensive digital equity plans before implementing smart city initiatives
- Create mechanisms for meaningful community participation in technology decisions
- Establish metrics that measure social impact, not just technological deployment
- Design procurement processes that prioritize local economic development
Cities like Barcelona and Amsterdam have already begun implementing some of these approaches, showing promising results in terms of both technological advancement and social equity.
Reality Check
Even if we do everything right, smart cities solutions cannot overcome the economic forces leading to inequality. If done well, at best they can mitigate them. For civic leaders and policymakers, this means approaching smart city initiatives the same way we approach other areas of public policy – make intentional policy choices, prioritize meaningful community engagement, honestly evaluate performance, and continuously adapt as the world evolves.
Read it for yourself: Jennifer Clark’s “Uneven Innovation: The Work of Smart Cities” (Columbia University Press)
Bonus: Dr. Clark includes extensive citations and a bibliography which I will be digging through for years.
Impulse Consulting 