This analysis examines the relationship between digitalization and income inequality globally, suggesting tailored strategies for improvement.
Digitalization is widely heralded as a catalyst for growth, yet its role in achieving the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 10 (Reduced Inequalities) remains deeply contested. Moving beyond linear assumptions of “digital dividends,” this study adopts a complex socio-technical systems perspective to unravel the configurational pathways linking digitalization to national income inequality. We analyze a high-quality balanced panel of 56 major economies from 2012 to 2022. Employing Panel Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (Panel fsQCA) and Necessary Condition Analysis (NCA), this study proposes an evidence-based typology of digitalization-inequality pathways. We reveal that the impact of digital transformation is asymmetric and contingent on geo-economic contexts. NCA identifies Digital Infrastructure, Innovation, and Governance as necessary “bottlenecks” for social equity. Sufficiency analysis uncovers three distinct sustainable development modes: an “Open Innovation Mode” in affluent small economies, driven by global integration and technological frontiers; a “Governance-Regulated Industry Mode” in major economies, where strong state capacity regulates digital industrial scale; and an “Open Niche Mode” for transition economies, leveraging openness to bypass domestic structural deficits. Conversely, we identify a critical “Hollow Governance Trap” in the Global South, where digital governance efforts fail to reduce inequality in the absence of real industrial and infrastructural foundations. These findings challenge one-size-fits-all policies, suggesting that bridging the global digital divide requires context-specific strategies—ranging from synergistic integration to asymmetric breakthroughs—that align digital investments with institutional capacity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: