Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Smart city technologies are widely promoted as a route to efficiency, sustainability, and a better quality of life. Across global contexts, however, they increasingly expose governance failures that weaken democratic accountability and social equity. This paper examines digital governance failure in smart cities, defined as the intersection of algorithmic opacity, accountability vacuums, and socio-spatial inequities in technology deployment. Drawing on a systematic integrative review of 76 peer-reviewed and foundational works published between 2008 and 2026, the study synthesises evidence from urban studies, public administration, and critical data studies. The analysis shows that opaque algorithmic systems erode legitimacy, public-private partnerships dilute accountability, and digital infrastructures reproduce existing inequalities, with harms concentrated in communities that were already underserved. The article reframes smart city research from techno-optimism towards a governance-critical perspective that treats failure as an analytical category, and proposes an agenda built on anticipatory governance, algorithmic auditing, and equity-by-design. By deliberately including African and other Global South cities, it offers a framework for understanding and reducing the risk of digital governance breakdown in cities worldwide.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sevhake et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: