CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 229E-Government and Public ServicesSocial Policy and Reform StudiesSocial Sciences and Policies

Digital by default? A qualitative study of exclusion in digitalised welfare

Open access
Schou, Jannick, Pors, Anja Svejgaard·2019·Social Policy & Administration
DOI 10.1111/spol.12470
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Digitalisation reforms have become increasingly pervasive across European welfare agencies and public sector institutions. As welfare provision becomes premised on the use of digital technologies, often in the form of “self‐service” solutions, new demands are imposed on citizens, including already disadvantaged groups. Although existing research has showcased how digitalisation often reproduces existing lines of stratification, little to no work has been conducted on such processes in the context of welfare provision and public administration. Through a study of citizen service centres in Denmark, based on ethnographic observations and qualitative interviews, this article analyses the new exclusionary mechanisms that emerge at the frontline of the digital agenda. The article argues that digitalised welfare agencies simultaneously sustain existing lines of social stratification and enhance these by producing new forms of digital exclusion. Taken together, the article contributes with new knowledge on the impact of digitalisation policies and their exclusionary consequences for disadvantaged citizens.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/spol.12470

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The power asymmetry between citizens and the state is widened.

    “the power asymmetry between citizens and the state is widened (Ranerup & Henriksen, 2019; Schou & Pors, 2019).”

    From Does digital government hollow out the essence of street‐level bureaucracy? A systematic literature review of how digital tools' foster curtailment, enablement and continuation of street‐level decision‐making (2024) · cites this paper as Schou & Pors, 2019

    The Discussion and Concluding Remarks (section 5; page unavailable) says mandatory digitalisation creates new barriers for already marginalised citizens, makes access to welfare rights conditional on navigating state systems, and can put benefits at risk. This supports a widening disadvantage for those citizens in their dealings with the state, but the paper describes exclusion and stratification rather than a widened power asymmetry between citizens generally and the state. (LLM, conf=0.79)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • These barriers are part of a wider digital shift whereby many aspects of life are increasingly presented as "digital first," thereby excluding those unable to access them in this way.

    “These barriers are part of a wider digital shift whereby many aspects of life—insurance, banking, local government, education, travel, and holidays, and many more—are increasingly presented to the citizen, client or customer as “digital first,” thereby excluding (partially or wholly) those unable to access them in this way (75).”

    From Planning and Evaluating Remote Consultation Services: A New Conceptual Framework Incorporating Complexity and Practical Ethics (2021) · cites this paper as [75]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Margetts, H. (2009). Public Management Change and E-Government: The Emergence of Digital-Era Governance. In A. Chadwick & P. Howard (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics (pp. 114-128). London: Routledge.
  2. Power, M. (1999). The Audit Explosion: Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Schou, J., & Pors, A. S.
Affiliations
  • IT University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
Corresponding author
Schou, Jannick
ORCID
Venue
Social Policy & Administration
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-11-22
Volume
53
Issue
3
Pages
464-477
ISSN
  • 0144-5596 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9515
DOI
10.1111/spol.12470
OpenAlex
W2901881280
Cited by
229
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 52 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 4
FWCI
33.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Social Policy and Administration (publishedVersion)
  • IT University Of Copenhagen (IT University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Velux Fonden (12823)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Social Policy and Reform Studies
  • Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Social Sciences and Policies
Keywords
digitalization, digital exclusion, welfare agencies, social stratification, self-service, public administration, digitalization policy, welfare provision

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review