IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/socinc/v14y2026a10879.html

The Digitalisation of Dutch Civic Integration: How Digital Technologies Shape Inequality and Bureaucratic Discretion

Author

Listed:
  • Iris Poelen

    (Department of Geography, Planning & Environment, Radboud University, The Netherlands)

  • Ricky van Oers

    (Centre for Migration Law, Radboud University, The Netherlands / Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Norway)

Abstract

Migration management is becoming increasingly digitalised, with digital borders producing inequalities by fixing framings that determine who is allowed entry and residence. Civic integration functions as another bordering practice regulating the entry and naturalisation of “migrants.” In the Netherlands, the Integration Act 2021 enshrines a partially digitalised civic integration programme, with digital monitoring across government actors, digital language classes and exams, and online communication between “integrators” and “case managers.” Nevertheless, how digitalisation shapes the interactions, decisions, and outcomes of civic integration remains unresearched. This qualitative study, based on desk research and in‐depth interviews with municipal officers and language teachers, examines the implications of digital technologies in this programme. Our findings reveal a dual impact. For “integrators” with sufficient digital literacy, these technologies offer enhanced language learning and greater self‐reliance in a taxing trajectory. However, digital technologies exacerbate existing inequalities and create new forms of digital exclusion for those with limited digital skills, as they impact their performance on their intake test, and therefore their opportunities throughout and after the civic integration trajectory. For street‐level bureaucrats, the discretion to potentially mediate these policy effects is not simply curtailed or enabled, but transformed into a “web‐level bureaucracy.” While digital technologies streamline workflows and quick assessments of a future “integrator,” they also impose administrative burdens, introduce bias, and limit bureaucratic discretion. Ultimately, digital civic integration both deepens and narrows existing inequalities and tasks street‐level bureaucrats with the responsibility to address pervasive digital divides.

Suggested Citation

  • Iris Poelen & Ricky van Oers, 2026. "The Digitalisation of Dutch Civic Integration: How Digital Technologies Shape Inequality and Bureaucratic Discretion," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 14.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:socinc:v14:y:2026:a:10879
    DOI: 10.17645/si.10879
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/socialinclusion/article/view/10879
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/si.10879?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lars Tummers & Victor Bekkers, 2014. "Policy Implementation, Street-level Bureaucracy, and the Importance of Discretion," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(4), pages 527-547, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Grimm, Sven & Reiners, Wulf & Braun, Mara & Donath, Laura & Hörbelt, Sophia & Lampert, Sophie & Wich, Marcel, 2024. "Digital transformation for a sustainable future: Insights from Brazil's civil service," IDOS Discussion Papers 17/2024, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    2. Mohammed Salah Hassan & Raja Noriza Raja Ariffin & Norma Mansor & Hussam Al Halbusi, 2021. "An Examination of Street-Level Bureaucrats’ Discretion and the Moderating Role of Supervisory Support: Evidence from the Field," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-14, June.
    3. Bleda, Mercedes & Krupnik, Seweryn, 2024. "Risks of policy failure in direct R&D support," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    4. Mohamed Mousa & Ahmad Arslan, 2025. "Navigating between Grand Challenges and Unusual Work Setbacks: How Do Public Managers Use Strategic Human Resources Management?," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 867-883, September.
    5. Brattström, Erik & Hellström, Tomas, 2019. "Street-level priority-setting: The role of discretion in implementation of research, development, and innovation priorities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 240-247.
    6. Changkun Cai & Qiyao Shen & Na Tang, 2022. "Do visiting monks give better sermons? “Street‐level bureaucrats from higher‐up” in targeted poverty alleviation in China," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 42(1), pages 55-71, February.
    7. Maayan Davidovitz & Nissim Cohen, 2022. "Alone in the campaign: Distrust in regulators and the coping of front‐line workers," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 1005-1021, October.
    8. Na Tang & Muyu He, 2023. "The times make a hero: Street‐level policy entrepreneurship in major crisis responses in China," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(4), pages 490-508, July.
    9. Alizée Delpierre & Didier Demazière & Hajar El Fatihi, 2024. "The stealth legitimization of a controversial policy tool: Statistical profiling in French Public Employment Service," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), pages 499-512, April.
    10. Christina Steinbacher, 2025. "The voice of implementation: Exploring the link between street‐level integration and sectoral policy outcomes," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 540-557, April.
    11. Mette Sønderskov & Rolf Rønning, 2021. "Public Service Logic: An Appropriate Recipe for Improving Serviceness in the Public Sector?," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-15, June.
    12. Suzanne Rutz & Dinah Mathew & Paul Robben & Antoinette de Bont, 2017. "Enhancing responsiveness and consistency: Comparing the collective use of discretion and discretionary room at inspectorates in England and the Netherlands," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 81-94, March.
    13. Santap Sanhari Mishra & Zenebe Hagos, 2026. "Urban Land Lease Policy Implementation in Ethiopia: Do Transformational Leadership and Public Participation Matter?," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 125-143, March.
    14. Peltomaa, Juha & Hildén, Mikael & Huttunen, Suvi, 2016. "Translating institutional change - forest journals as diverse policy actors," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 172-180.
    15. Jesper Dahl Kelstrup, 2024. "Understanding the role of practical knowledge in evidence-based welfare reform—a three-stage model," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-8, December.
    16. Gibson, Katherine & Samuels, Gina & Pryce, Julia, 2018. "Authors of accountability: Paperwork and social work in contemporary child welfare practice," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 43-52.
    17. Sergio Toro-Maureira & Alejandro Olivares & Rocio Saez-Vergara & Sebastian Valenzuela & Macarena Valenzuela & Teresa Correa, 2025. "The Missing Link: Identifying Digital Intermediaries in E-Government," Papers 2501.10846, arXiv.org.
    18. Khalid Mehmood & Yaser Iftikhar & Aamir Suhail & Adil Zia, 2024. "How high-involvement work practices, public service motivation, and employees’ commitment influence employees' proactive work behavior: evidence from China," Asian Business & Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 23(1), pages 55-81, February.
    19. Miller, Fiona A. & Lehoux, Pascale, 2020. "The innovation impacts of public procurement offices: The case of healthcare procurement," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    20. Shibaab Rahman & Prue Burns & Julie Wolfram Cox & Quamrul Alam, 2024. "Exercising bureaucratic discretion through selective bridging: A response to institutional complexity in Bangladesh," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 44(2), pages 61-74, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:socinc:v14:y:2026:a:10879. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.