Telecommunications Policy· 2026Q1
A quantitative framework for assessing digital sovereignty
- 2citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
A new quantitative framework measures digital sovereignty across 123 countries, revealing distinct paths to digital leadership based on technology, government, and user capabilities.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Developed a quantitative framework to measure digital sovereignty across technology, government, and user dimensions.
- Analyzed 123 countries, revealing varied approaches to digital sovereignty and global value chain disparities.
- US and China demonstrate strong technological leadership, especially in emerging technologies.
- EU shows higher institutional capacity (74.93) but lower indigenous technological capabilities (42.22) compared to the US (71.18).
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Digital sovereignty is a political buzzword. However, there are diverging views on how to define and measure it. Throughout this study we propose the creation of a quantitative framework to measure digital sovereignty capabilities on a country's performance in three key areas: technology, government, and users. Through our analysis covering 123 countries, we have shown the different paths towards achieving sovereignty that are imprinted into how the countries contribute to the digital economy and reflect the asymmetries existing in the global value chains. The US and China both show a strong technological leadership, especially regarding emerging technologies, while the EU maintains a balance between innovation and regulations that the new strategies and MFF must address in order to become a relevant global player. • Digital sovereignty relies on balancing technology with the capacity of governments and users to control and utilize it. • The US and China have a higher technological sovereignty while the EU has prioritized a regulatory and user empowerment approach. • The EU exhibits has higher institutional capacity (74.93) yet lacks corresponding indigenous technological capabilities (42.22 vs. 71.18 in US)
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Telecommunications Policy, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Political Science and International Relations
Political Science and International RelationsSocial Sciences