PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 2, 2026SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología4 citationsOpen Access

Smart City 2.0 governance policy model: institutional configurations and the politics of urban inclusion in India, Singapore, and Indonesia

DLDaud M. LiandoNGNasir Ahmad GanaieNYNina Yuslaini

Key Points

  • The research aims to compare and analyze the governance structures and citizen engagement mechanisms in Smart City 2.0 initiatives across India, Singapore, and Indonesia.
  • Utilized a multidimensional comparative framework to assess urban governance.
  • Analyzed policy documents and implementation data from three different countries.
  • Synthesized theoretical frameworks to evaluate Smart City effectiveness across contexts.
  • India achieved a 94% completion rate in 8,067 projects across 100 cities with scalable, adaptable frameworks.
  • Singapore met 110% of its digital literacy targets with enhanced inter-agency coordination and cybersecurity measures.
  • Indonesia's collaborative governance relies on the JAKI super-app, which integrates over 150 government applications.

Abstract

Introduction The exponential global urbanisation has demanded advanced governance frameworks capable of attaining complex socio-technological challenges through digitally enabled urban transformation. While first-generation smart city initiatives dealt primarily with technological implementation issues, Smart City 2.0 paradigms, in their more contemporary form, require a prerequisite and deep understanding of governance effectiveness, citizen engagement mechanisms, and cross-contextual implementation strategies. This work fills an essential gap in the state of knowledge on comparative Smart City governance by presenting a study on the nature of Smart City 2.0 implementation in India, Singapore, and Indonesia as Case Studies. Methods Employing a multidimensional comparative framework, this research aims to provide a structured and systematic analysis of governance structures, technology integration strategies, sustainability approaches, and citizen participation mechanisms across three urban development contexts. The methodology combines significant analysis of policy documents, data on implementation, and synthesis of theoretical frameworks to appraise the effectiveness of Smart City 2.0 across different political, economic, and social settings. The analytical framework examines four basic dimensions: models of governance and leadership; strategies for integrating technology; motivations around sustainability and a green environment; and ways citizens are engaged. Results Key findings include a fundamental need for contextual adaptation rather than universal standardisation in Smart City 2.0. India’s driven approach to scalability uses standardised frameworks with local adaptability, achieving a 94% completion rate across 8,067 projects in 100 cities. Singapore’s AI-backed Smart Nation 2.0 has demonstrated total inter-agency coordination, met 110% of the target dates for digital literacy rates, and provided strong infrastructure, ensuring cybersecurity. Collaborative governance model - Indonesia’s dependence on hegemonic digital infrastructure is evident in collaborative initiatives such as the JAKI super-app (6.4 million downloads) in Jakarta, which has been ‘glued’ together (grafted) with over 150 government applications. Discussion This comparative analysis restructures the paradigms of smart cities from a tech-centred emphasis towards a more realistic view of the fundamental contributing factors that are driving the success of Smart City 2.0, demonstrating that it is innovations in governance, capacity building of institutions and citizen-centred service delivery that are playing the central role in the effectiveness of Smart City 2.0. The results provide an evidence-based foundation for policy formulation to navigate the complexities of urban digital transformation and to support place-based governance strategies that integrate technological capacities within local governance structures, participatory mechanisms, and environmental sustainability objectives.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Liando et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69a528b3f1e85e5c73bf03cfhttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2026.1730870
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Smart and sustainable cities? Pipedreams, practicalities and possibilities2019 · 132 citations
  2. 2Federated learning for smart cities: A comprehensive survey2022 · 293 citations
  3. 3Critical interventions into the corporate smart city2014 · 918 citations
  4. 4Understanding process, power, and meaning in adaptive governance: a critical institutional reading2018 · 201 citations
  5. 5Sustainable development strategies for Smart Cities: Review and development framework2024 · 54 citations