Evaluating the role of state power on variations in Southeast Asian digital identification systems

• In Event: 50462 - Section on Science, Knowledge, and Technology Roundtables
  In Refereed Roundtable (60 minute): Table 10: SKAT and the State

Abstract

In this paper, I propose a comparative historical study of the digital identification systems (DIS) operating in Southeast Asian countries (Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand). By DIS, I refer to mobile applications created by national governments that function as electronic identification documents for its users. Such applications also aggregate public services that are digitally accessible. This proposed research asks, can variations in country DIS be explained by how their respective state derives its social power? The study begins from two empirical observations: Firstly, that there are observable differences country DIS, in terms of their service offerings and, relatedly, the types of individual identification data being collected and shared across the broader digital government infrastructure. I hypothesize that these variations are analytically meaningful when one considers how the material features of a technology are reflective of internal logics of the political order (Winner 1980). Secondly, despite the technical differences that vary by country, DIS share the common characteristic of being produced through public-private, and sometimes, regional partnerships. The configuration of partnerships may in turn, be analyzed to understand the reciprocal mechanisms connecting the state’s infrastructural power and despotic power (Mann 1986) necessary for the production and population-wide implementation of its DIS.

To make the case for this prospective dissertation research, I provide preliminary descriptive analyses of case countries’ DIS as evidence of the interpretive flexibility (Pinch and Bijker 1984) that states exercise amidst the global pressure for digital governance systems. Then, I detail my proposed methods for a comparative study of the historical development of these countries’ DIS from 1988-2023, before underlining the value of using cases from Southeast Asia, specifically, in extending the analysis of social power from inter-country to intra-region comparisons. Lastly, I present this work as a potential bridge between the sociology of technology and the broader field of STS, namely by operationalizing a social scientific analysis of sociotechnical imaginaries (Jasanoff 2015).

Author

• Clarice Handoko, University of Wisconsin-Madison