Eve is here. The smart city trend has been going on for some time. It reflects the belief that something new must be better. Others seem to arise from pet visions of fellow techies, often unconsciously exposing their liberal, computer/surveillance tendencies. In this article, we have generously reviewed some of these experiments and found a lot to dislike about them.
By Pascual Bellone, Head of Strategic Management and Head of Sustainability and Business Strategy, IESE Business School (University of Navarra). Originally published on The Conversation
For those living in European cities, the lure of moving to a brand new, high-tech metropolis is easy to understand, with its traffic jams, drafty old buildings, creaky public services, and gray winters.
Step into Dunia Cyber City, Zanzibar’s new special economic zone. It aims to attract technology workers (real and virtual) and businesses with its low tax rates. The proposed development, backed by former Apple executive Florian Fournier and the Zanzibar government, is inspired by so-called network nations (autonomous, digitally crowdfunded micronations and city-states) and aims to bring together like-minded individuals to focus on technology experimentation and cryptocurrencies.
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia recently scaled back its own large-scale and controversial experiment in smart cities. The line was envisioned as a 170-kilometer straight metropolis across desert and mountains, home to up to 9 million people.
line concept. neom
These projects, and similar past efforts such as Songdo in South Korea, vary in scale and ambition, but one of the factors that unites them is the belief that technology adoption (the more the better) is the key to the cities of the future.
This is no small problem because the world’s cities are its future. Currently, 55% of the world’s population lives in cities, and this number is expected to increase to 68% by 2050.
Urban centers account for a growing share of global GDP and are powerhouses of innovation and creativity. However, they also suffer from quality of life issues related to crime, pollution, income inequality, and lack of social cohesion. Global issues such as climate change and immigration are also looming as major issues both domestically and internationally.
Some policymakers can solve the problem by turning to technology and turning cities into “smart cities.” However, experience and research have shown that this approach is not a universal solution.
What is a smart city?
One of the problems surrounding smart cities is that the concept is vague and unclear. From San Diego to Tel Aviv to Cochin to Bogota, the list of cities around the world that consider themselves smart is proof of how diverse their monikers can be.
A more unified definition built around responsible governance rather than cutting-edge technology would be helpful. Frontier smart city projects such as Dunia and The Line have failed on fundamental governance issues such as legitimacy, inclusiveness, accountability, rights, and long-term viability.
Technology does not equal ease of living
When calculating the annual Cities in Motion Index (CIMI) for sustainable and livable cities, we found that cities that score well in technology don’t necessarily do well in other areas or overall rankings.
CIMI ranks around 200 cities around the world on nine criteria, including technology. For the technology score, we measure factors such as the percentage of the population covered by 4G and 5G networks, households with internet access, and the number of mobile phones per 100 residents.
It is interesting to note that in CIMI 2025, none of the top five technology sectors in Hong Kong, Dubai, Singapore, Abu Dhabi, and Seoul are in the top five of the overall ranking. In fact, they were virtually non-existent in major cities in all eight other dimensions: human capital, social cohesion, economy, governance, environment, mobility and transport, urban planning and international visibility, and even economy.
In the overall ranking, London, New York, Paris, Tokyo, and Berlin were in the top five. Yes, these cities are congested and have many drafty buildings, but they are also home to a diverse world-class talent, cultural institutions, and relative political stability. Another group of cities, such as Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Zurich, not only rank well overall, but also demonstrate a balanced approach between different city aspects.
Smart governance, not smart cities
Clearly, technology alone is not enough to make cities livable and sustainable. Our research shows that instead of focusing on smart cities, we need to focus on smart governance. This requires:
strategic thinking. Holistic, long-term policies that incorporate elements such as sustainability and social cohesion. Before diving into a marketing-friendly smart city project, it is essential to objectively diagnose a city’s real weaknesses. Look beyond technology. Technology is a means, not an end. For example, a smart building will have little impact if everything around it is clearly not smart. Access must be broad and problem-solving. Creative local approach. Each city is unique, and there are few one-size-fits-all answers. Importing a planning solution from the US, for example, may not work in other situations. Policymakers not only need to learn best practices from other cities, but also adapt them to their own realities. collaboration. You need a village to build a city. Cooperation from all involved parties is key. Public-private partnerships are particularly effective at getting things moving in cities, and they can also help break down silos that fail to meet the needs of residents. Human-centered thinking. All solutions must solve real problems facing residents and provide value to them. Otherwise, efforts may fail and there may be a backlash against change. Innovation to solve big challenges. Policymakers need to consider the biggest challenges facing the world, from climate change to immigration, and plan how they will affect their cities. These global issues have local impacts to varying degrees.
The advantage of smart governance is that it fosters sustainable economic, social, and environmental development in a way that other governance approaches cannot.
Dunia Cyber City and The Line promise a technological utopia, but the world’s most livable cities were not designed on a blank canvas by technological visionaries. They evolved through decades of messy, gradual governance that put people first. That is the blueprint to learn from.
