IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v42y2024i5p725-741.html

Legitimacy and space in the use of technologies for environmental and social governance: The cases of human trafficking and COVID-19 contact tracing

Author

Listed:
  • Tony Porter
  • Hina Rani

Abstract

This article develops the concept of legitimacy to analyze the capacity of technologies such as phone apps to mobilize collective commitments to shared environmental and social outcomes by constituting new governance spaces. This concept of governance spaces highlights the variable configurations of technologies and their interactions with humans, and helps avoid the tendency to see technologies as passive relays that transmit power originating elsewhere, or, in contrast, to overstate the almost magical autonomous capacities of technology. The concept of legitimacy is valuable for evaluating the degree to which technologies are effective and deserving of support. The article draws on Mark Suchman’s distinction between pragmatic, moral and cognitive legitimacy, which correspond in turn to interests, ethical values, and facts. In contrast to more conventional state-centered conceptions of legitimacy, these aspects of legitimacy can be applied to governance spaces constituted by technologies. The article then examines and compares the cases of technologies for countering human trafficking and COVID-19 digital contact tracing apps. In both cases all three aspects of legitimacy are present, important, and interconnected. An examination of a recent report issued by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Tech Against Trafficking coalition on 305 anti-trafficking tools shows the role of ethics and facts in their legitimacy, but also the degree to which the tools are skewed towards interests other than those at risk of being trafficked. Acceptance and evaluations of digital contract tracing apps are similarly shaped by the interactions between interests, ethical values, and facts, including evidence about their effectiveness. The legitimacy of COVID-19 digital contact tracing apps involves a wider presence of a public interest in health while the risks associated with power inequalities are greater with anti-trafficking technologies, highlighting the importance of variability in the legitimacy of governance spaces constituted by technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Tony Porter & Hina Rani, 2024. "Legitimacy and space in the use of technologies for environmental and social governance: The cases of human trafficking and COVID-19 contact tracing," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 42(5), pages 725-741, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:42:y:2024:i:5:p:725-741
    DOI: 10.1177/23996544231184053
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23996544231184053
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/23996544231184053?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. Karen Yeung, 2018. "Algorithmic regulation: A critical interrogation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(4), pages 505-523, December.
    2. Daria Gritsenko & Matthew Wood, 2022. "Algorithmic governance: A modes of governance approach," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 45-62, January.
    3. Farrell, Amy & Fahy, Stephanie, 2009. "The problem of human trafficking in the U.S.: Public frames and policy responses," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 617-626, November.
    4. Julia Black, 2008. "Constructing and contesting legitimacy and accountability in polycentric regulatory regimes," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 137-164, June.
    5. Emma L. Davis & Tim C. D. Lucas & Anna Borlase & Timothy M. Pollington & Sam Abbott & Diepreye Ayabina & Thomas Crellen & Joel Hellewell & Li Pi & Graham F. Medley & T. Déirdre Hollingsworth & Petra K, 2021. "Contact tracing is an imperfect tool for controlling COVID-19 transmission and relies on population adherence," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-8, December.
    6. Jessica Morley & Josh Cowls & Mariarosaria Taddeo & Luciano Floridi, 2020. "Ethical guidelines for COVID-19 tracing apps," Nature, Nature, vol. 582(7810), pages 29-31, June.
    7. Lena Ulbricht & Karen Yeung, 2022. "Algorithmic regulation: A maturing concept for investigating regulation of and through algorithms," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 3-22, January.
    8. Ahmed Elmokashfi & Joakim Sundnes & Amund Kvalbein & Valeriya Naumova & Sven-Arne Reinemo & Per Magne Florvaag & Håkon Kvale Stensland & Olav Lysne, 2021. "Nationwide rollout reveals efficacy of epidemic control through digital contact tracing," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-8, December.
    9. Fleur Johns & Caroline Compton, 2022. "Data jurisdictions and rival regimes of algorithmic regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 63-84, January.
    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. Florian Eyert & Florian Irgmaier & Lena Ulbricht, 2022. "Extending the framework of algorithmic regulation. The Uber case," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 23-44, January.
    2. Lena Ulbricht & Karen Yeung, 2022. "Algorithmic regulation: A maturing concept for investigating regulation of and through algorithms," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 3-22, January.
    3. Ulbricht, Lena & Yeung, Karen, 2022. "Algorithmic regulation: A maturing concept for investigating regulation of and through algorithms," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 16(1), pages 3-22.
    4. Teichmann, Fabian & Boticiu, Sonia & Sergi, Bruno S., 2023. "RegTech – Potential benefits and challenges for businesses," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    5. Andreas Öjehag‐Pettersson & Vanja Carlsson & Malin Rönnblom, 2024. "Political studies of automated governing: A bird's eye (re)view," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), pages 1049-1064, October.
    6. Bryce Clayton Newell, 2023. "Surveillance as information practice," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(4), pages 444-460, April.
    7. Tetteh Asare, Emmanuel & Burton, Bruce & Dunne, Theresa, 2024. "Hegemonic influence and selectivity in financial accountability discharge: Evidence from Ghana’s oil and gas sector," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    8. David P. Horton & Gary Lynch‐Wood, 2024. "A resource‐based perspective on the regulatory welfare state: Social security in the United Kingdom," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 953-969, July.
    9. Ayako Hirata, 2021. "How networks among frontline offices influence regulatory enforcement: Diffusion and justification of interpretation of risk," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1388-1405, October.
    10. Daniel Fitzpatrick & Rebecca Monson, 2022. "Property rights and climate migration: Adaptive governance in the South Pacific," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(2), pages 519-535, April.
    11. Josefina Erikson & Oscar L. Larsson, 2022. "Beyond client criminalization: Analyzing collaborative governance arrangements for combatting prostitution and trafficking in Sweden," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 818-835, July.
    12. Eleni Kosta, 2022. "Algorithmic state surveillance: Challenging the notion of agency in human rights," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 212-224, January.
    13. Alessia Damonte & Giulia Bazzan, 2024. "Rules as data," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 657-673, July.
    14. Dolata, Ulrich & Schrape, Jan-Felix, 2022. "Platform architectures: The structuration of platform companies on the Internet," Research Contributions to Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies, SOI Discussion Papers 2022-01, University of Stuttgart, Institute for Social Sciences, Department of Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies.
    15. Cyril Benoît, 2021. "Politicians, regulators, and regulatory governance: The neglected sides of the story," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(S1), pages 8-22, November.
    16. Viktoriia Shubina & Sylvia Holcer & Michael Gould & Elena Simona Lohan, 2020. "Survey of Decentralized Solutions with Mobile Devices for User Location Tracking, Proximity Detection, and Contact Tracing in the COVID-19 Era," Data, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-40, September.
    17. Yang, Xiaoyin & Zhang, Xinmin & Zang, Hong & Chu, Hongcong & Feng, Chao, 2025. "From shadows to spotlight: How big data bureaus unveil corporate R&D gaming?," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 86(PG).
    18. Joe McGrath & Ciaran Walker, 2023. "Regulating ethics in financial services: Engaging industry to achieve regulatory objectives," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 791-809, July.
    19. Sheila Killian & Philip O'Regan & Ruth Lynch & Martin Laheen & Dionysios Karavidas, 2022. "Regulating havens: The role of hard and soft governance of tax experts in conditions of secrecy and low regulation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 722-737, July.
    20. Chang Zhang & Lexuan Wang, 2025. "Virtual Worlds, Real Politics: A Cross‐National Comparative Study of Metaverse Policy Approaches," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 13.

    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:sae:envirc:v:42:y:2024:i:5:p:725-741. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.