Infrastructure Investment under Digital Sovereignty Strategies across European Policy Arenas
Keywords:
Digital Sovereignty, Infrastructure Investment, Survey Experiment, European Policy, Multidisciplinary ResearchAbstract
This paper examines public and elite preferences regarding digital infrastructure investments in the European Union, focusing on the conceptual and practical tensions inherent in digital sovereignty strategies. Using a high-powered conjoint survey experiment administered to both European policy professionals and representative citizen panels, we evaluate how different attributes of digital infrastructure projects, such as ownership, data localization, technology openness, and cost, influence support for public funding. Our findings indicate a strong preference across both cohorts for infrastructure that guarantees European ownership and strict data localization within European jurisdictions, even when such choices incur significantly higher fiscal costs and lower technological performance. However, policy elites demonstrate a more pronounced pragmatism regarding open-source requirements, whereas citizens display a generalized skepticism toward private-sector partnerships. We discuss these results in light of ongoing European policy initiatives, such as Gaia-X and sovereign cloud mandates, highlighting the complex trade-offs between strategic autonomy and technological competitiveness. The study contributes to the literature on technological nationalism, public procurement, and the political economy of digital transitions.References
1. O’Connell, E.; O’Brien, W.; Bhattacharya, M.; Moore, D.; Penica, M. Digital Twins: Enabling Interoperability in Smart Manufacturing Networks. Telecom 2023, 4, 265–278.
2. Bourdin, S. Analyse spatiale de l’efficacité des Fonds structurels européens sur la croissance régionale. Rev. D’économie Régionale Urbaine 2018, 2, 243–270.
3. Ren, F. Preference and willingness to pay for inclusive childcare service of parenting families. Popul. Econ. 2023, 1, 57–70.
4. Coppola, G.; Destefanis, S.; Marinuzzi, G.; Tortorella, W. European Union and nationally based cohesion policies in the Italian regions. Reg. Stud. 2018, 54, 83–94.
5. Molotch, H. The city as a growth machine: Toward a political economy of place. Am. J. Sociol. 1976, 82, 309–332.
6. Butkus, M.; Cibulskienė, D.; Mačiulytė-Šniukienė, A.; Matuzevičiūtė, K. Non-Linear and Lagging Convergence Effects of the Eu’s Regional Support at Nuts 3 Level. J. Urban Reg. Anal. 2020, 12, 35–51.
7. Bargheer, M., Varachkina, H., Dreyer, M., & Müller, L. (2024). The diamond discovery hub and its suggested diamond OA criteria for journals. Septentrio Conference Series, (1), 1.
8. Li, Q.; Wen, Z.; Wu, Z.; Hu, S.; Wang, N.; Li, Y.; Liu, X.; He, B. A Survey on Federated Learning Systems: Vision, Hype and Reality for Data Privacy and Protection. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 2023, 35, 3347–3366.
9. Ellaway, R.H.; Coral, J.; Topps, D.; Topps, M. Exploring digital professionalism. Med. Teach. 2015, 37, 844–849.
10. Ramirez de la Cruz, E. Local political institutions and smart growth. Urban Aff. Rev. 2009, 45, 218–246.
11. Yin, S. Exploring alternative care options for children in China: Recent developments and challenges. J. Public Child Welf. 2024, 19, 634–658.
12. Boin, A., ’t Hart, P., Stern, E., & Sundelius, B. (2017). The politics of crisis management: Public leadership under pressure (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
13. Peking University Yinghua Company; Peking University Legal Information Center. PKULAW Legal Database; Peking University: Beijing, China, 2023; Available online: https://www.pkulaw.com/ (accessed on 9 May 2024).
14. Okubo, Y. Bibliometric Indicators and Analysis of Research Systems: Methods and Examples; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 1997.
15. Yang, Y. Strengthen publicity for early childhood care and education (ECCE) services to foster a child-friendly society. Beijing Obs. 2024, 32.
16. Katz-Sidlow, R.J.; Lindenbaum, Y.; Sidlow, R. Residents’ attitudes toward a smartphone policy for inpatient attending rounds. J. Hosp. Med. 2013, 8, 541–542.
17. Rodríguez-Pose, A. Institutions and the fortunes of territories. Reg. Sci. Policy Pract. 2020, 12, 371–386.
18. Butkus, M.; Mačiulytė-Šniukienė, A.; Matuzevičiūtė, K.; Cibulskienė, D. What is the return on investing European Regional Development and Cohesion Funds? Difference-in-differences Estimator Approach. Ekon. Cas. 2019, 67, 647–676.
19. Foglia, F. Is smart specialisation monopolising the research on the EU cohesion policy? Evidence from a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics 2023, 128, 1001–1021.
20. Li, X.; Huang, K.; Yang, W.; Wang, S.; Zhang, Z. On the Convergence of FedAvg on Non-IID Data. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1907.02189.
21. Ederveen, S.; Gorter, J.; Mooij, R.; Nahuis, R. Funds and Games: The Economics of European Cohesion Policy; CPB Netherlands’ Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2003.
22. Veneri, P.; Diaz Ramirez, M.; Kleine-Rueschkamp, L. Does European Cohesion Policy affect Regional Business Dynamics? Investig. Reg. J. Reg. Res. 2023, 57, 5–31.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), unless otherwise stated.
