The politics of spatial data infrastructures: State transformation, urban governance and the instrumentation of electronic territories (original) (raw)

2007, REALCORP conference proceedings

With the proliferating conception and implementation of " spatial data infrastructures " (SDI) around the globe, the interaction of state transformation and technological innovation dynamics has entered a critical stage. Spatial reference provides a common ground on which the vast majority of public and private data can become directly interrelated-across all scales and boundaries. The resulting potentials for creating new services, improving (cost-) efficiency, enhancing rational decision making, as well as increasing transparency and participation have swiftly been embraced (in this order) by almost everyone addressing the topic. Yet, the genuinely political character of SDI's has largely been ignored. But it is here that SDI raises the more fundamental questions for the future of democratic societies. This paper starts from a brief outline of the cognitive and normative framework of SDI. Sustained by a global network of actors, this framework has allowed SDI to gradually evolve from a specialist technical issue to a mainstream policy instrument. Against this backdrop the examples of France and Germany are used to illustrate the particular institutional dynamics that the setup of national, regional and local SDI's has unfolded. It becomes clear that state actors (national, regional) and the private sector dominate the processes, whereas the requirements of local authorities and civil society occupy a marginal space on the agenda. These common traits are finally discussed in the light of ongoing state transformation and changing multi-level governance systems. Apparently, SDI's have become seized as strategic projects, helping to construct new representations of the state and to mobilise resources at the urban level. At the same time, the deeper political and structural implications have been evaded as they would question established authority levels, sectoral divisions and governing practices. Therefore, to escape the logic of depolitisation identified and to prevent SDI from becoming an " information one-way " , it needs to be placed back in its urban context. If the starting point were local challenges and the needs of stakeholders and citizens, it is argued, SDI may actually offer an interesting opportunity for society to reinvent its democratic culture and urban governance systems. 2 BUILDING " INFRASTRUCTURES " : THE DISCURSIVE FRAMING OF SDI Spatial data can be defined as data with a spatial reference, either direct (coordinates) or indirect (address, postal code, etc.). This comprises not only geographic data describing topography, positions of physical objects (e.g. roads, rivers, buildings) and spatial boundaries (e.g. authorities, cadastre), but also the position of data objects such as socioeconomic activities, pollutant concentrations or registration procedures. Today, most data held by public and private agencies has a direct or indirect spatial reference, which makes space a powerful common denominator for interpreting data that describes the dynamics of society in any territory considered. A framework that aims to enhance the discovery, availability, quality and exchange of spatial data according to certain rules is now widely referred to as a spatial data infrastructure (SDI). The concept first emerged in the early 1990's from international discussions among spatial data experts i.e. practitioners and researchers. Regarding the plethora of SDI definitions available today, it is remarkable that these have mostly been derived from an attempt of classification so far, aiming to interpret SDI by identifying common " components " (data, standards, networks, policy, etc.), " dimensions " (organisation, production, technology, etc.), or main stakeholder groups (data supplier, technology supplier, user, etc.). This has in fact contributed to a convergence towards a particular understanding both in research and practice (Nebert 2004; Williamson, Rajabifard, and Feeney 2003). However, such an approach implicitly assumes a given " nature " of SDI that appears to reside within certain technological properties and organisational principles, and which is therefore deemed to become reality-sooner or later. It thus underpins a rather deterministic view that cares mainly for overcoming barriers to implementation instead of better understanding the social and political struggles that occur in practice through and about SDI development. For now, little to no room is left for recognising the meaning of apparent differences in the societal appropriation of spatial data technologies, and therefore the pivotal role