Digital Colonialism: Navigating New Forms of Servitude in Industry 4.0

Although the world has undergone four waves of industrial revolution, one phenomenon remains intact: the exploitation of weaker nations at the hands of stronger ones. Industry 4.0 is essentially characterized by data and the deployment of emerging technologies to process and commercialize the data. The land-grab of colonial powers in the context of Industry 1.0 has uncanny resonance with the data-grab of Big Tech companies in the contemporary epoch of Industry 4.0.1 The growing interdependence of nations across digital domain has spawned digital colonialism which is essentially ‘the use of digital technology for political, economic and social domination of another nation or territory.’2 It is crucial to analytically and empirically come to terms with digital forms of inequality that are being perpetuated by powerful entities and states through the instrumentalization of data and emerging technologies. Digital colonialism has heralded global digital divide which is deemed as ‘uneven deployment, adoption and use of digital technologies’ across countries.3 Traditionally, dependency theory has served as a relatively enriched theoretical arsenal to examine the exploitative core-periphery dynamics that are an inevitable outcome of structural dependencies being imposed by core countries upon peripheries. Dependency theory is increasingly relevant in the digital era as well wherein core states exercise absolute dominance over the digital economy through the dint of advanced technology and Big Tech companies.4 Given that data is being deemed as the fifth factor of production along with land, labour, capital and entrepreneurship, monopolistic control over data transfer as well as over technologies required for data processing could enable hegemonic states to establish a heavily stratified global digital hierarchy.

Territoriality of power has given way to digitality of power in the contemporary era wherein digital means are being leveraged to deepen the global disparities between core and peripheries. The uneven distribution of data and advanced technologies has pushed developing countries into the lower ranks of the global digital hierarchy. For instance, the Science and Technology Head of the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) candidly stated in the recent session of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) that ‘There is a risk that the data economy will be permanently dominated by a few stakeholders from a handful of technologically advanced economies.’5 It could be safe to infer that allusion to ‘few stakeholders’ is indicative of the mighty Big Tech companies which exercise preponderant influence across the world. Shoshana Zuboff finds Big Tech corporations as the engines of digital colonialism, relentlessly extracting the data from Global South to transfer it to their own data centres in Global North for capital accumulation.6 In this regard, the imperial expansion of Facebook over the African continent is a pertinent case in point. Under the guise of free connectivity through its initiatives like Free Basics and Discover, Facebook discreetly went on to monopolise the digital market of the continent over the years.7 Thus, it took control of local data flows and effectively edged local start-ups out of the market, rolling back Africa’s growth in the global digital hierarchy to a considerable extent. The global data flows are significantly skewed in favour of the West, reflecting the endurance of colonialism from the territoriality of power to the digitality of power. Evidently, only the US has approximately 5380 data centres while the rest of the countries have these figures in mere hundreds each.8 Additionally, the recent Technology and Innovation Report by UNCTAD acknowledges Global North’s absolute dominance over $1.5 trillion worth of global market share of emerging technologies such as AI, robotics, cloud computing and blockchain.9 However, the intricacies of global digital disparities call for a nuanced undertaking of academic endeavours and policy measures to challenge the foundations of digital colonialism.

It is imperative to emphasize and revitalise the agency of Global South across academic and policy domains in order to break the shackles of digital servitude, paving the way for inclusivity and fairness in Industry 4.0. The students and young scholars may follow the lead of Shoshana Zuboff, Atle M. Kjosen and Yanis Varoufakis to offer analytical and empirical insights in this regard. Zuboff’s ‘behavioural surplus,’10 Kjosen’s ‘instrumentalization of power’11 and Varoufakis’s ‘technofeudalism12 are apt analytical frameworks to comprehend as well as dissect the phenomenon of digital colonialism. Scholars on the margins would be well-advised to establish collaborative endeavors for research in both Global South and Global North, along with establishing linkages with social movements working vibrantly for the cause of digital equity. Apart from that, developing countries may prioritize technological sovereignty as a policy paradigm for the purpose of indigenization and strategic control over advanced technologies. In this regard, there are certain empirical case studies that might serve as a beacon for policy initiatives to bring about digital transformation in developing countries and thereby bridge the global digital divide. For instance, Brazil is leading the race for data localization that could be replicated in other developing countries.13 Its effective actualization would require seamless internet connectivity, uninterrupted power supply and high-tech data processing systems for commercial purposes. Additionally, Global South should gradually reduce its reliance on centralized operating systems, such as Windows and iOS, that are not only an economic concern but also a national security issue, as evidenced by the recent Global IT Outage. Nevertheless, the gains in Industry 4.0 would rarely be possible without filling up the enduring gaps in previous industrial epochs. Hence, developing countries should undertake developments parallelly in the agricultural, industrial and digital domains to secure a dignified stature in Industry 4.0.

The global digital divide threatens to deepen new modes of stratification that could be more perilous than earlier forms of servitude and inequality. The instrumentalization of advanced technology and data is a formidable power at the hands of the powerful that could heavily influence the global political economy. Hence, the call for decolonizing the digital arena is not only an academic exercise but also a policy necessity that should be heeded in letter and spirit. No matter how deep-rooted and intricate the structural dependencies in Industry 4.0, the collective agency of Global South could have a significant impact vis-à-vis the radical transformation of the global digital order. In this regard, the context-specific analytical and theoretical frameworks could offer greater empirical insights while the indigenous policy initiatives could rejuvenate institutions. In essence, materialization of technological sovereignty in developing countries may be a panacea for the prevailing modalities of subjugation, paving the way for indigenization and autonomous control over emerging technologies. In the same vein, data is not an up-for-grab resource to be taken by technologically advanced countries, rather it is a critical factor of production that should first serve the production processes of home countries. Thus, data localization initiatives may lead to the establishment of indigenous data centers and homegrown ecosystems for high-tech R&D. To conclude, an inclusive and just global digital order is within the realm of possibility. All it requires is a comprehensive grasp of varying dimensions of digital colonialism and a well-crafted set of indigenous policies for digital transformation of developing countries.