IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v15y2021i4p1092-1110.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Adaptive governance for the Internet of Things: Coping with emerging security risks

Author

Listed:
  • Irina Brass
  • Jesse H. Sowell

Abstract

The Internet of Things (IoT) is a disruptive innovation known for its socio‐economic potential, but also for generating unprecedented vulnerabilities and threats. As a dynamic sociotechnical system, the IoT comprises well‐known cybersecurity risks and endemic uncertainties that arise as IoT adoption increases and the system evolves. We highlight the impact of these challenges by analyzing how insecure IoT devices pose threats to both consumer protection and the Internet's infrastructure. While recent regulatory responses are starting to target IoT security risks, crucial deficiencies – especially related to the feedback necessary to keep pace with emerging risks and uncertainties – must be addressed. We propose a model of adaptive regulatory governance that integrates the benefits of centralized risk regulatory frameworks with the operational knowledge and mitigation mechanisms developed by epistemic communities that manage day‐to‐day Internet security. Rather than focusing on the choice of regulatory instruments, this model builds on the “planned adaptive regulation” literature to highlight the need to systematically plan for a knowledge‐sharing interface in regulatory governance design for disruptive technologies, facilitating the feedback necessary to address evolving IoT security risks.

Suggested Citation

  • Irina Brass & Jesse H. Sowell, 2021. "Adaptive governance for the Internet of Things: Coping with emerging security risks," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1092-1110, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:15:y:2021:i:4:p:1092-1110
    DOI: 10.1111/rego.12343
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12343
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rego.12343?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. Haas, Peter M., 1992. "Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 1-35, January.
    2. Carsten Maple, 2017. "Security and privacy in the internet of things," Journal of Cyber Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(2), pages 155-184, May.
    3. Black, Julia & Baldwin, Robert, 2010. "Really responsive risk-based regulation," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 27632, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ho Seoung Na & Junseok Hwang & Hongbum Kim, 2023. "Which Attributes Should be Considered in Regulating the Internet of Things? Evidence From Conjoint Analysis," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, November.
    2. Araz Taeihagh & M Ramesh & Michael Howlett, 2021. "Assessing the regulatory challenges of emerging disruptive technologies," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1009-1019, October.

    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. Claude Paraponaris, 2017. "Plateformes numériques, conception ouverte et emploi," Post-Print halshs-01614430, HAL.
    2. Eichengreen, Barry & Ghironi, Fabio, 1997. "European Monetary Unification and International Monetary Cooperation," Center for International and Development Economics Research, Working Paper Series qt10d518tg, Center for International and Development Economics Research, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    3. Jeanie Bukowski, 2017. "A “new water culture†on the Iberian Peninsula? Evaluating epistemic community impact on water resources management policy," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(2), pages 239-264, March.
    4. Mateos-Garcia, Juan & Steinmueller, W. Edward, 2008. "The institutions of open source software: Examining the Debian community," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 333-344, December.
    5. Catherine Long, 2017. "Delegated Service Authority: Institutional Evolution of PEPFAR Health-Based Program Implementing Units in Tanzania," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 8(3), pages 303-312, September.
    6. Sandberg, Kristin Ingstad & Andresen, Steinar & Bjune, Gunnar, 2010. "A new approach to global health institutions? A case study of new vaccine introduction and the formation of the GAVI Alliance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(7), pages 1349-1356, October.
    7. Sosay, Gül & Zenginobuz, Unal, 2005. "Independent regulatory agencies in emerging economies," MPRA Paper 380, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Muriel Figuié & Tristan Fournier, 2010. "Risques sanitaires globaux et politiques nationales : la gestion de la grippe aviaire au Vietnam," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 91(3), pages 327-343.
    9. Lütz, Susanne, 1998. "Wenn Banken sich vergessen ...: Risikoregulierung im internationalen Mehr-Ebenen-System," MPIfG Discussion Paper 98/5, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    10. Acosta, Matias & Szlamka, Zsofia & Mostajo-Radji, Mohammed A., 2020. "Transnational youth networks: an evolving form of public diplomacy to accelerate the Sustainable Development Goals," SocArXiv 8247s, Center for Open Science.
    11. Yannis Papadopoulos, 2018. "How does knowledge circulate in a regulatory network? Observing a European Platform of Regulatory Authorities meeting," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(4), pages 431-450, December.
    12. Thor Olav Iversen, 2023. "Boundary experts: Science and politics in measuring the Sustainable Development Goals," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 14(4), pages 600-610, September.
    13. Minye Yang & Liang Zhu & Qi Zhong & Ramy El-Ganainy & Pai-Yen Chen, 2023. "Spectral sensitivity near exceptional points as a resource for hardware encryption," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-10, December.
    14. Ole Danielsen & Kutsal Yesilkagit, 2014. "The Effects of European Regulatory Networks on the Bureaucratic Autonomy of National Regulatory Authorities," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 353-371, September.
    15. Julia Black & Robert Baldwin, 2012. "When risk‐based regulation aims low: Approaches and challenges," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 2-22, March.
    16. Gough, Ian & Abu Sharkh, Miriam, 2010. "Financing welfare regimes: a literature review and cluster analysis," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 41208, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Amy A. Quark & Rachel Lienesch, 2017. "Scientific boundary work and food regime transitions: the double movement and the science of food safety regulation," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(3), pages 645-661, September.
    18. Raul Lejano, 2006. "The Design of Environmental Regimes: Social Construction, Contextuality, and Improvisation," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 187-207, June.
    19. Chiapello, Eve, 2017. "Critical accounting research and neoliberalism," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 47-64.
    20. Olivier E. Malay, 2021. "How to Articulate Beyond GDP and Businesses’ Social and Environmental Indicators?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 155(1), pages 1-25, May.

    More about this item

    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:wly:reggov:v:15:y:2021:i:4:p:1092-1110. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1748-5991 .

    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.