Digital Sovereignty, Data Infrastructures, and Structural Inequality: Artificial Intelligence and Global Governance.

References

[1] Ahmed, N., & Wahed, M. (2020). The de-democratization of AI: Deep learning and the compute divide. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.15581.

[2] Arun, C. (2019). AI and the global south: Designing for other worlds. In Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (pp. 291–297). ACM.

[3] Athreye, S., & Kapur, S. (2009). Introduction: The internationalization of Chinese and Indian firms—Trends, motivations and strategy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(2), 209–221.

[4] Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., et al. (2021). On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258.

[5] Bratton, B. H. (2016). The stack: On software and sovereignty. MIT Press.

[6] Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford University Press.

[7] Cath, C. (2018). Governing artificial intelligence: Ethical, legal and technical opportunities and challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 376(2133), 20180080.

[8] Coe, N. M., & Yeung, H. W.-C. (2015). Global production networks: Theorizing economic development in an interconnected world. Oxford University Press.

[9] Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism. Stanford University Press.

[10] Crawford, K. (2021). Atlas of AI: Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. Yale University Press.

[11] Creemers, R. (2018). China’s social credit system: An evolving practice of control. SSRN Electronic Journal.

[12] Edwards, P. N. (2003). Infrastructure and modernity: Force, time, and social organization in the history of sociotechnical systems. In T. J. Misa, P. Brey, & A. Feenberg (Eds.), Modernity and technology (pp. 185–225). MIT Press.

[13] European Commission. (2020). Shaping Europe’s digital future. Publications Office of the European Union.

[14] Farrell, H., & Newman, A. L. (2019). Weaponized interdependence: How global economic networks shape state coercion. International Security, 44(1), 42–79.

[15] Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., et al. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society. Minds and Machines, 28, 689–707.

[16] Government of India. (2018). National strategy for artificial intelligence. NITI Aayog.

[17] Government of Karnataka. (2020). Karnataka digital economy mission policy framework. Government of Karnataka.

[18] Government of Tamil Nadu. (2021). Tamil Nadu data centre policy 2021. Government of Tamil Nadu.

[19] Graham, M., & Dutton, W. H. (Eds.). (2019). Society and the Internet: How networks of information and communication are changing our lives (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

[20] Jessop, B. (2016). The state: Past, present, future. Polity Press.

[21] Strange, S. (1996). The retreat of the state: The diffusion of power in the world economy. Cambridge University Press.

[22] UNCTAD. (2021). Digital economy report 2021: Cross-border data flows and development. United Nations.

[23] UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. UNESCO.

[24] Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.

@article{1714831,
      author = {Dr. E. Priyanka},
      title = {Digital Sovereignty, Data Infrastructures, and Structural Inequality: Artificial Intelligence and Global Governance.},
      journal = {Iconic Research And Engineering Journals},
      year = {2026},
      volume = {9},
      number = {9},
      pages = {845-856},
      issn = {2456-8880},
      url = {https://www.irejournals.com/formatedpaper/1714831.pdf},
      abstract = {Digital autonomy has become one of the main policy answers, which offers independence, regulation, and the progress of development. However, its distributive implications are not properly theorised. This article constructs a conceptual framework that connects digital sovereignty to infrastructural political economy and global stratification basing the theoretical ideas on South India as a theoretically generative location. Its revisions the concept of sovereignty based on international political economy, science and technology studies and critical data scholarship as infrastructural bargaining power embedded in the world systems of production. Data localisation, digital public infrastructure, and regional artificial intelligence innovation ecosystems are sovereignty claims that are implemented in South India. These policies improve the local capacity and policy alignment, but are structurally entrenched in concentrated cloud markets, semiconductor supply chains, and asymmetry in the foundation model building. Digital sovereignty is thus emergent, multi-dimensional and partial instead of absolute. The article redefines artificial intelligence governance as a multi-scalar struggle of material capacity and rule-making power by locating the regional infrastructural development in transnational technological hierarchies. It posits that in the absence of redistribution of compute resources and collaborative standard-setting processes, sovereignty discourses will distort structural inequalities in the world AI order.},
      month = {March},
      doi = {https://doi.org/10.64388/IREV9I9-1714831}
  }