Yves here. The smart city vogue has been under way for a while. Some of this reflects a belief that new must be better. Others seem to result from tech bro pet visions that often unwittingly expose their libertarian, computer/surveillance bent. This article takes an unsparing look at some of these experiments and find there is a lot not to like.
By Pascual Berrone, Head of Strategic Management Department and Chair of Sustainability and Business Strategy, IESE Business School (Universidad de Navarra). Originally published at The Conversation
For residents of European cities – with their snarled traffic, draughty old buildings, creaking public services and grey winters – it’s easy to see the appeal of moving to a brand-new, high-tech metropolis.
Enter Dunia Cyber City, a new special economic zone in Zanzibar aimed at attracting tech workers (real and virtual) and companies with its low taxes. Backed by former Apple executive Florian Fournier and the Zanzibar government, the proposed development is inspired by so-called network states – autonomous, digitally crowdfunded micronations or city states – and is meant to bring together like-minded individuals to focus on technological experimentation and cryptocurrency.
Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, has recently scaled back its own massive and controversial experiment in smart cities. The Line was envisioned as a metropolis for up to 9 million people stretching in a straight, 170-kilometre line across the desert and mountains.
While these projects, and similar past attempts such as South Korea’s Songdo, differ in scale and ambition, one of the elements that links them is the conviction that deploying technology – the more the better – is the key to the cities of the future.
This is not a minor issue, as the world’s cities are its future – 55% of the global population currently lives in a city, a figure expected to grow to 68% by 2050.
Urban centres account for a growing portion of global GDP and are drivers of innovation and creativity. But they are also plagued by quality-of-life problems related to crime, pollution and income inequality, and a lack of social cohesion. Global issues such as climate change and migration – both internal and international – also loom large.
For some policymakers, turning to technology and converting their cities into “smart cities” can solve their problems. But experience and research show that this approach is anything but a universal solution.
What Is a Smart City?
One of the problems surrounding smart cities is that the concept is vague and ill-defined. The list of the world’s cities that consider themselves smart – from San Diego to Tel Aviv, Kochi and Bogota – is a testament to how varied the designation is.
A more unified definition, one built around responsible governance rather than cutting-edge technology, would be useful. Frontier smart city projects like Dunia and The Line have failed on fundamental governance issues such as legitimacy, inclusion, accountability, rights and long-term delivery.
Tech Does Not Equal Liveability
In calculating our yearly Cities in Motion Index (CIMI) of sustainable and liveable cities, we have found that cities with high scores in technology don’t necessarily perform well in other areas, or in the overall ranking.
The CIMI ranks nearly 200 global cities on nine criteria, including technology. For the technology score, we measure factors such as percentage of the population covered by 4G and 5G networks, households with internet access, and the number of mobile phones per 100 inhabitants.
In the 2025 CIMI, it’s interesting to note that none of the top five in technology – Hong Kong, Dubai, Singapore, Abu Dhabi and Seoul – appeared in the top five of the overall ranking. In fact, they were virtually absent from the leading cities in all the other eight dimensions: human capital, social cohesion, economy, governance, environment, mobility and transportation, urban planning and international profile, and even economy.
For the overall ranking, the top five were London, New York, Paris, Tokyo and Berlin. Yes, these are cities with snarled traffic and draughty buildings, but they are also home to diverse global talent, cultural institutions and relative political stability. Another cluster of cities – places such as Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Zurich – not only rank well overall but also show a balanced approach among the different urban dimensions.
Smart Governance, Not Smart Cities
Clearly, technology is not enough to make a city liveable or sustainable. Our research has shown that instead of focusing on smart cities, the focus should be on smart governance. This requires:
Strategic thinking. Holistic, long-term policies which incorporate factors such as sustainability and social cohesion. An objective diagnosis of a city’s real weaknesses is essential before leaping into marketing-friendly smart city projects.
Seeing beyond technology. Technology is a means and not an end. Smart buildings, for example, have little impact if everything around them is decidedly unsmart. Access must be broad, and geared toward problem solving.
Creative local approach. Each city is unique and there are few one-size-fits-all answers. Importing planning solutions from, say, the US may not work in other contexts. Policymakers should not just learn best practices from other cities – they also need to adapt them to their own reality.
Collaboration. It takes a village to make a city. Stakeholder cooperation is key. Public-private partnerships can be particularly effective in getting things done in cities, and can also help to break siloed mentalities that fail to respond to citizens’ needs.
People-centred mindset. Every solution must solve a real problem that residents are facing, offering them value. If not, initiatives may fall flat and create backlash against change.
Innovations to solve the big challenges. Policymakers will need to consider the major challenges the world is facing, from climate change to migration, and plan for how it will impact their city. These global issues have local impact 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 fail to do.
Dunia Cyber City and The Line promise technological utopias, but the world’s most liveable cities weren’t designed on blank canvases by tech visionaries. They evolved through decades of messy, incremental governance that put people first. That’s the blueprint to learn from.
