Data and rights in the digital welfare state: the case of Denmark

ABSTRACT

This paper examines how the logic of surveillance capitalism manifests itself within the public sector with a specific interest in how the government’s use of data about its citizens may reconfigure rights and power. In Denmark, for example, the public administration relies heavily on the processing of vast quantities of data about the individual and increasingly uses predictive analytics to identify specific areas of intervention, such as fraud or vulnerability, as part of its decision-making processes. Methodologically, the paper uses Denmark as an example of the digital welfare state, including two public sector cases of automated decision support, namely Gladsaxe municipality and the central processing of welfare benefits (Udbetaling Danmark). It further investigates Danish digitalisation strategies, particularly the governments AI strategy from 2019. The case is examined with a view to understand how technology (and automated decision support in particular) is deployed by state actors, which interests it serves, and how it may benefit or disadvantage the individual. Theoretically, the paper leans towards theories of surveillance capitalism, governance in the digital era, and data politics and rights. The paper argues that unless a more critical and human-centric approach to ‘smart governance’ is taken, the digital welfare state will advance a digital technocracy that treats its citizens as data points suited for calculation and prediction rather than as individuals with agency and rights.

KEYWORDS:

• Data politics
• digitalisation
• digital welfare state
• human rights

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 By ‘digital welfare state’ I refer to a state in which public authorities deploy technologies to perform a broad range of public services such as social protection and assistance systems, public education, and heath care, as described for example in Alston (2019).

2 Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-to-the-un-general-assembly-24-september-2019.

3 For the EU vision, see, for instance, the European Digital Strategy available at:

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/content/european-digital-strategy.

4 See https://gladsaxe.dk/.

5 See https://www.atp.dk/en/our-tasks/processing-welfare-benefits.

6 For a brief introduction to DSA and DMA see https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age_en.

7 See, for example, the Danish govtech programme, available at: https://challenges.dk/en/challenge/govtech-program-denmark and the EU govtech summit 2020, available at: https://www.govtechsummit.eu/.

8 As pointed to by the World Development Report 2016 (The World Bank, 2016), only states with relatively strong and capacitated institutions achieve more efficiency through e-government. States with weak institutions will carry this weakness on into their e-government routines.

9 AI has many competing definitions, but usually refers to a ‘constellation’ of processes and technologies enabling computers to complement or replace specific tasks otherwise performed by humans, such as making decisions and solving problems (Kaye, 2018, para. 3).

10 See Beniger (2009) for an historical account of the developments leading to many of the issues that are currently discussed as data politics.

11 See also the explanation of a human rights-based approach by the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions, available at: http://ennhri.org/about-nhris/human-rights-based-approach/. Moreover, several civil society and academic initiatives have worked to ‘translate’ human rights to a digital context (AUTHOR removed).

12 The ruling is available at: https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:865.

13 The Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) ranks Denmark as the highest performing country in Europe. The EU digital scoreboard presents Denmark as a world leader in digital progress, see https://ec.europa.eu/ digital-single-market/en/scoreboard/denmark.

14 Statistics Denmark (2019); 27% of the population has a high level of trust, whereas 49% of the population has a moderate level of trust. The figures are available at: https://www.dst.dk/da/Statistik/Publikationer/VisPub?cid=29449.

15 The Danish association of municipalities (KL) has in January 2018 mapped the use of technology for welfare development in Danish municipalities. Available at: https://www.kl.dk/media/15339/kommunernes-teknologispring.pdf.

16 Innovationsfonden, https://innovationsfonden.dk/da/nyheder-presse-og-job/ambitios-dansk-satsning-pa-kunstig-intelligens-kan-gore-vores-samfund-rigere.

17 https://digst.dk/nyheder/nyhedsarkiv/2019/oktober/kommuner-og-regioner-skal-afproeve-kunstig-intelligens-for-at-loefte-kvaliteten-i-den-offentlige-service/.

18 The strategy is available at: https://en.digst.dk/policy-and-strategy/denmark-s-national-strategy-for-artificial-intelligence/.

19 See UDK’s annual report at: Bog_UDK Ã¥rsrapport 2018.indb (atp.dk).

20 https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2016/1507.

21 See the principles developed by the EU’s high-level expert group on AI, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/high-level-expert-group-artificial-intelligence.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Rikke Frank Jørgensen

Rikke Frank Jørgensen is a Senior Researcher at the Danish Institute for Human Rights, focusing on the interface between technology and human rights.