This article discusses the perspectives of European Union (EU) / European Economic Area Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) on their role in protecting democratic rights and freedoms in digitalised societies. Data Protection Authorities, which are independent regulators, are responsible for implementing the EU's General Data Protection Regulation in their respective countries. The views of DPAs are important given their special role in monitoring newly emerging digital technologies and how their use may impact on the functioning of democracies. The article highlights three key themes which emerged in interviews with 18 DPAs in answer to the question about what they consider to be the greatest challenges to democratic freedoms. These are: (1) threats to elections due to the manipulation of voters; (2) discriminatory effects of automated decision-making; and (3) broader chilling effects on democratic norms due to ubiquitous surveillance. The article then analyses the solutions named by DPAs to mitigate these challenges to identify their governing, or political, rationalities. The paper finds that the solutions available to DPAs to manage democratic harms tend to emphasise individual over collective responsibility and are connected to broader currents of neoliberal governance. The paper highlights the ways in which some DPAs act as important critical voices within their respective jurisdictions to draw political attention to potentially anti-democratic effects of certain practices, such as profiling, or to the model of digitalisation as it is currently constructed.

Taking as its starting premise that we have a politics of space because space is political at the level of ontology, this article investigates how the governing of regional development is guided by a set of prominent political rationalities that revolve around the notions of competition and competitiveness. To this end, I mobilise the Foucauldian framework of governmentality to provide empirical illustrations drawn from a 5-year long research project concerning globalisation in Swedish sub-national regions. These illustrations show how regions are governed through rationalities that stress adaptability, attraction, environment and sustainability as well as leadership in order to prevail in their inevitable competition for vital resources. I argue that as these chains of rationale are put into motion in the contemporary politics of space, they not only promote specific and particular ways of developing regions, but also displace certain practices and objects from the realm of the political to the realm of a natural order. I therefore conclude that current expressions of the politics of space have strong tendencies to deny its own political foundations. Instead, competition and competitiveness are inscribed as naturally occurring features in social relations, thereby elevating their importance in the creation of new sub-national spaces.

In this chapter we present a broad overview of research on what we call the politics of automated systems of governing (ASG). We define such systems as the enlisting of algorithms, artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML) and various utilizations of so called ‘big data’ with the purpose to control, direct, steer or guide something or someone. Drawing on selective parts of a larger systematic review of 1667 peer-reviewed scholarly works dealing with politics in relation to big data, AI and algorithms, we illustrate two things. First, by taking stock of this literature we show its context as we reconstruct seven major themes from a wide range of topics through which scholars investigate ASG. Second, we theorize how the notion of politics can be said to operate along three dimensions as researchers mobilize the concept in relation to ASG across the seven themes, namely politics as ontology, epistemology and ideology.

The public sector and public administrations are important foundations in democratic states and an autonomous public sector that protects public principles is needed for a political system to be democratically legitimate. Here, efficiency, impartiality, equality, and transparency are central guiding principles and values. The introduction of automated decision-making (ADM) in the public sector affects traditional public principles and values in several ways. For example, transparency is a central challenge as the decisions are implemented by algorithms instead of humans and thus become more difficult to explain for the individual citizen. Also, equality has been put forward both as something that is gained through ADM, and as something that is at risk when ADM is implemented. This chapter provides an overview of the challenges that the implementation of ADM brings to the public sector, including transformations of public sector decisions, the discretion of civil servants, and democratic principles and values.

Over the past few decades, Sweden has established itself as a "world leader" in gender equality. Alongside this development, Swedish politicians have also initiated ambitious plans that aim to establish the country as "world class" in terms of digitalization. International research shows that women and racialized groups are in a minority in the design processes, that AI facial recognition systems are built with white male faces as the norm, and that digital tools replicate racial injustices. In this paper, we are interested in if, and if so how, gender equality is articulated and thus filled with meaning in national policies on AI and digitalization. The overall aim is to discuss the potential of gender (equality) mainstreaming to challenge systems of privilege in the implementation of AI systems in the public sector. The paper analyses how gender equality is filled with meaning in national policy documents on AI and gender equality. The main findings show that gender equality is turned into a question of lack of knowledge and information, which in turn blocks out an understanding of gender equality as something that is related to gendered power relations.

In this paper, we develop an approach for analyzing the increasingly important strand of research that deals with automated systems of governing. Such systems, which figure prominently in public policy and regulation, are designed to utilize the rapid advancement in computer technology, like artificial intelligence, with the purpose of governing something or someone. Drawing on a large sample of articles we present a comprehensive analysis of scholarly works where these systems are studied as political, rather than neutral, instruments of governing. We find that the current state of the art articulates the politics of automated systems of governing in three ways. Namely, as part of ontological, epistemological and ideological questions. We conclude that future research should investigate the complex forms of marketization nested in these systems, that it should move from theoretical examples to detailed empirical studies and that political science should get more involved with the issue.

Sustainability and sustainable development are political and essentially contested social phenomena. Despite this ambiguity, they continue to hold a central position as apolitical concepts in much of social science and policy making. In Europe, public procurement is increasingly used as a tool to reach sustainability, a fact that actualizes an inherent tension between politically charged objectives on the one hand, and technological processes and market logics on the other. Therefore, in this article, we investigate this tension by studying policies relating to sustainable public procurement of the built environment in the EU. We argue that governing any policy domain entails the construction and representation of particular policy problems. Hence, we focus on how the 'problems' of sustainable public procurement are represented in EU policy guidance and best practice documents. Our analysis shows that these central policy documents are dominated by a problem representation where unsustainability is constructed as technical design flaws and market failure. This has the primary effect that it renders sustainable development as, primarily, a technical issue, and beyond politics. Therefore, we conclude that current policy reproduces 'weak' forms of sustainable development, where the practice is depoliticized and premised upon continued growth and innovation.