Paper short abstract:

‘Digital transformation’ is increasingly applied in the domain of government and requires critical investigation. We unpack the various dimensions of the ‘digital first’ logic underlying the digital transformation of government services to reveal the consequences for citizens and their development.

Paper long abstract:

Originating in the private sector, digital transformation has since been heralded by governments as an inevitable and desirable path for citizens to thrive in the digital age. However, digital transformation efforts are increasingly leading to government services being delivered as digital-only or ‘digital by default’, which is problematic because it risks excluding some members of society. When the ‘digital first’ logic underlying government digital transformation initiatives is applied to citizens’ interactions with government, it goes beyond a technological solution to constitute a national sociotechnical imaginary. Jasanoff (2015, p. 4) defines sociotechnical imaginaries as “institutionally stabilized and publicly performed visions of desirable futures” grounded in scientific and technological advances. By framing digital transformation as a sociotechnical imaginary, this study critically analyses the dominant discourse of digital transformation in the New Zealand public sector to unpack the flawed ‘digital first’ logic that has serious consequences for citizens. We develop a consequential framework that highlights three intertwined dimensions of the ‘digital first’ logic: (1) how casting digital as the technological solution to government services creates a deficit model of citizen attributes and behaviour in relation to digital technology; (2) the technological determinism inherent in attributing societal progress to digital transformations; and (3) the prioritising and positioning of individuals as consumers of services instead of citizens. We argue that the consequences of these intertwined dimensions curtail choices for the individual and, consequently, negatively affect human development, understood as enjoying the freedom to live their lives (Sen, 1999).