Where Digital Sovereignty Lives: The Micro-Foundations Problem in the Measurement of a Multi-Level Construct
This article argues that current state-level measurements of digital sovereignty suffer from a micro-foundations problem where compensatory aggregation masks critical organizational dependencies, proposing a shift to compilation-faithful, level-consistent metrics that account for critical minima to accurately reflect a country's true digital autonomy.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
In the modern world, nations are increasingly judged by how much control they hold over their own digital lives. This concept, known as digital sovereignty, is the ability of a country to make its own choices about technology, data, and infrastructure without being forced into a corner by outside powers. Governments and international bodies create rankings to measure this power, combining scores for things like local industry, laws, and internet speed into a single number for each nation. These numbers are used to decide where to invest money and how to write new laws. However, there is a hidden gap in how these rankings are built. While the final score belongs to a country, the actual work of building digital independence happens in the offices of individual companies and government agencies. A nation might have excellent laws on paper, but if the hospitals, banks, and schools within it are locked into contracts with foreign tech giants, the country's real independence is far weaker than the ranking suggests.
A new study by Martin Kaloudis at AKAD University investigates this disconnect, arguing that current methods of measuring digital sovereignty are fundamentally flawed because they ignore the space between national laws and local decisions. The research suggests that treating a country's digital health as a simple average of its parts is misleading. Instead, the author proposes that digital sovereignty works more like a chain, where the strength of the entire system depends on its weakest link. If a single critical piece of infrastructure relies on a foreign provider with no way to leave, the whole system is vulnerable, regardless of how strong the other ninety-nine parts are. By analyzing data from the European Union and running computer simulations, the study shows that changing how we combine these scores can completely rewrite the global leaderboard, moving a region from a top-tier position to the middle of the pack.
The core of the problem lies in how we count. Current rankings often take a country's various strengths and weaknesses and add them up to find an average. This approach assumes that a strength in one area, such as having a strong local tech industry, can make up for a weakness in another, such as a critical government database being stuck with a single foreign vendor. The study argues that this logic is dangerous for digital sovereignty. In the world of technology, dependencies often behave like a compilation of parts where the whole is limited by the most critical failure point. Imagine a team of twenty-five people working on a project; if twenty-four are brilliant but the one person holding the only key to the building is missing, the entire team is locked out. The average skill of the group does not matter; the single missing key determines the outcome. Similarly, a nation might look strong on average, but if one essential system cannot be moved or controlled, the country's overall sovereignty is compromised.
To prove how much this method of counting matters, the author looked at the European Union. The EU is a collection of twenty-seven different countries, each with its own digital score. When researchers calculated the EU's overall standing by averaging the scores of all member states, the union ranked twenty-second in the world. However, when they applied a different rule that looked only at the weakest member state, the ranking dropped to fiftieth. The difference was not due to a change in policy or technology, but simply because the calculation method changed. The weakest member, Bulgaria, had a score so low that it dragged the entire group down when the "weakest link" rule was applied, whereas the average calculation allowed the high scores of countries like Ireland to hide that weakness. This exercise demonstrates that a single number can tell two very different stories depending on the math used to create it.
The study went further to test whether this was just a quirk of the European data or a general problem. The author created a computer simulation involving ten thousand imaginary groups, each made up of twenty-five components. These groups were given random scores to mimic real-world data. When the groups were ranked by their average score, they looked very different from when they were ranked by their lowest score. The two lists barely matched. In fact, nearly one in five of the groups that looked like top performers based on their average score actually contained a critical weakness that would have placed them at the bottom if the "weakest link" rule had been used. This suggests that many nations currently appearing strong in global rankings may be hiding serious vulnerabilities that standard averages are designed to conceal.
Beyond the math, the paper highlights a deeper issue with how we talk about sovereignty. The term is often used to describe both the power of a nation-state and the choices made by a single software engineer in a server room. The study argues that these are not the same thing. A country has the power to make laws and control borders, while an organization has the power to sign contracts and manage keys. When we mix these levels together without clear rules, we risk making false assumptions. For example, just because a country has a high digital sovereignty score does not mean that a specific company within that country is safe from foreign control. The laws might be perfect, but the company might have made a bad decision that the national score does not capture. The author calls for a new approach that respects these different levels, insisting that we must measure the actual decisions made by organizations, not just the laws written by governments.
The implications of these findings are significant for how we evaluate technology policy. If a government passes a new law to improve digital independence, the current way of measuring success might show a positive result simply because the country's overall economy is growing, not because the law actually changed how companies behave. The study suggests that to truly know if a policy works, we need to look at the middle ground: the specific contracts, the architecture of the systems, and the choices made by the people who build and run the technology. Without looking at this "missing middle," policymakers are flying blind, believing they are building a fortress when they may only be painting the walls.
Ultimately, the paper concludes that digital sovereignty does not live in a national ranking or a single server room. It exists in the complex space between the two, in the way national rules shape the daily decisions of organizations. To measure it correctly, we need to stop relying on simple averages that hide critical weaknesses. Instead, we must develop methods that recognize that a single point of failure can undermine an entire system. This means being honest about what our data can and cannot tell us, and understanding that a country's digital future depends not on its best parts, but on how well it manages its most vulnerable ones.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.