In this guest post, former USF International Fellow Dr Nimas Maninggar (Research Center for Population of National Research and Innovation Agency, BRIN) describes the results of her research “Selective Inclusion: how smart city programs include some marginalised communities while excluding others”, for which she spent eight months working at IHS Erasmus University Rotterdam under the mentorship of Dr Jan Fransen.
With more and more cities jumping on the smart city bandwagon, inclusion in smart city programs has become of crucial importance, also in Indonesia. However, in practice, smart city programs tend to be ineffective in achieving inclusion. Their inherent focus on efficiency conflicts with more democratic approaches. As smart cities only include citizens when it is efficient, inclusion always ends up being selective. While smart city research increasingly focuses on how to improve inclusive smart city implementation, the factors that cause selective inclusion are still underexplored. This has been an interesting part of my research.
During my eight-month fellowship at the Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies (IHS), Erasmus University in 2025, I explored the data I gathered from 2023 to 2024. These encompassed smart city policy and implementation strategy, community engagement, and institutional creation. My critical reflections were shaped through numerous discussions with scholars in urban governance and smart cities, both internally at IHS and externally, including Martin De Jong, the author of the 2021 book “The Inclusive City: The Theory and Practice of Creating Shared Urban Prosperity.” This process led me to see that inclusion extends beyond mere community participation, technological access, or tech-savvy communities, but rather about its interconnectedness in the formation of social institutions and government strategies.
The Indonesian national government officially launched the 100 Smart City Program in 2017. Through the implementation process, I discovered factors deliberately designed by the national government, including the establishment of criteria for selecting regions or local governments to participate in the Smart City project. This process encourages local governments to meet government expectations instead of addressing the needs of their residents. They exhibit great pride when selected for the national Smart Project, as demonstrated by their regular updates of achievements on their regional webpages. This condition indicates that smart city labels reflect political legitimacy and a status symbol. Achieving “smart” status is a form of success in making a region and its people more modern and technologically advanced. Yet, the reality on the ground often tells a different story.
I also examined the local and community levels, focusing on two cases of smart kampung. I found that the selection of participating communities was influenced by social factors such as their history of collaboration or conflict with the government. However, the dynamics of exclusion and inclusion in the smart city program can produce a contradictory impact. Kayutangan Kampung, for instance, was selected to participate in the smart city program partly because of its strategic heritage tourism potential, which is highlighted in the city’s smart city masterplan. The inclusion generated visibility and investment; yet, not all locals were pleased with the development. Some felt disturbed by the surge of visitors and the pressure it created on everyday life. Meanwhile, the Logo kampung, where residents earn a livelihood through digital design and market their creations on online platforms like Canva, faced exclusion due to a history of conflict and having agendas that are not aligned with the government. However, this exclusion encouraged them to strengthen networks with design communities in other areas, leading to new forms of local innovation outside the formal smart city framework.
These cases demonstrated a broader pattern of selective inclusion in Indonesian smart city programs. The decision about who gets included is shaped not only by deliberate government strategies but also by existing social relations, creating a clear power asymmetry. Inclusion in government programs does not always equate to positive community experiences; conversely, exclusion does not necessarily negate a community’s capacity to innovate independently. In this contradiction, this process remains dominated by government interests. Within this contradiction, the process remains dominated by government interests. Contestation may lead to the co-option of community groups with government policies. Consequently, rather than empowering communities, this mechanism tends to shape marginalised communities to align with the city’s agenda and secure the legitimacy of government policies.
In this context, I felt that the practice of selective inclusion, on the one hand, reproduced power imbalances and demonstrated that inclusivity in smart city policies still operates within the logic of government control and efficiency. On the other hand, this same logic of efficiency also contributes to accelerating city development by ensuring the program runs smoothly. In specific settings, selective inclusion may serve as an effective approach for sustaining focus and attaining quantifiable outcomes. However, beneath the emphasis on “efficiency” lies an implicit form of “exclusion” that limits opportunities for some communities or areas to participate in the smart city program. Actors who are included tend to be those perceived as capable, aligned with program objectives, and able to contribute to achieving performance targets, while others are implicitly ignored. Governments may encounter a dilemma between the ideals of inclusivity and the urgent needs of bureaucratic politics that necessitate rapid outcomes. I began to understand that selective inclusion is not merely a social and moral issue but also involves managerial and political dimensions.
This research journey and its findings have led me to see that the development of a smart city involves not only the broad accessibility of technology but also how strategies are implemented within the context of complex institutional social dynamics. Selective inclusion is often driven by limited institutional capacities, which in turn force difficult choices about who benefits and who is left behind. From this process, I learned to better understand the logic behind policies that appear exclusive. Community engagement, in many cases, becomes superficial, functioning more as a symbolic gesture to create the appearance of ‘inclusive’ programs. In such situations, intermediary actors are often required to bridge the gap between government institutions and communities. Moreover, regular, open-ended dialogue can foster a more equitable environment in which marginalised groups have greater opportunities to express their concerns and participate meaningfully.