How the "smart city" model matches equity issues. A comparative study of Stcokholm and Torino.

I 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
“Cities have never thrived as they did in the last 20 years. China, for example, is going to 
build a number of cities higher than the whole humanity ever did. Last years, for the first time 
in history, more than half the world population, 3.3 billiards people, was living in cities. 
According to the forecast within 2030 the number will grow up to 5 billiards people” (Carlo 
Ratti 2010)
1
.  
“Starting from 2011 the majority of world population live in the city. By 2050 cities will host 
the same population number that it was counted all over the world in 2002” (United Nations, 
World Urbanization Prospects: The 2011 Revision). 
These data make us face immediately the urgency of the topic we will be talking about: the 
city
2
 and urban society. 
Nowadays, at the beginning of the 21st century, systems of cities have become a dominant 
factor in the world’s social, economic, cultural and political matrix. Rapid growth of 
population and its concentration in cities around the world are affecting the long-term outlook 
for humanity: cities are increasingly subject to dramatic crises. Unemployment, 
environmental degradation, lack of urban services, deterioration of existing infrastructure and 
lack of access to land, finance and adequate shelter are among the main areas of concern. 
As the UN –Habitat Report claimed in 2005, globalization is changing  the spatial structure of 
cities since cities shift their attention to external locations and activities, intensifying the 
process of metropolitanization and increasing poverty
3
 especially in particular neighborhood. 
Cities in the western world reflect the socio-spatial outcomes of polarization, depending upon 
a wide range of factors related to the economic structure and the welfare state regime. 
                                                             
1
 He is an engineer and architect from Torino, who founded and directs the SENSEable City Lab 
(http://senseable.mit.edu) of Massachussets Institute of Technology. Together with other scholars  
(mathematicians, engineers, architects, computer scientists, sociologists) he works each day on the connection 
between new technologies and urban spaces, by studying how to improve several aspects of daily life.  
2
 When we talk about cities we are describing a complex phenomenon made up of several dimensions, 
economical, political, symbolical-cultural and physical-environmental one. Using Harvey’s words (1973: 
22):“the city is manifestly a complicated thing”. 
3
 By 2005 about a billion people lived in impoverished slums and this could reach 2 billion by 2020, according to 
UN-Habitat Report 2005; sprawl inevitably bring economic deprivation.
II 
 
“In the current debate about cities much attention is given to global cities as dominating 
centers of the planet-wide interlinked economy” (Musterd, Ostendorf 1998 : 238); what we 
should question, then, is whether politics (especially at the local level) can retain and support 
the advantages and mitigate the disadvantages for people living in these global urban centers 
where employment structures have profoundly changed and stable welfare state regimes have 
become strained.  
Together with the interest in social inequality we focused our interest on urban living and new 
strategies to improve it. 
The economic crisis is leading to a re-thinking of the urban planning and new reflections on 
urban development strategies are referred to as “smart city” projects and policies. The term 
got very popular in the world and especially in Europe as the graphic below shows: 
Web Search Interest: smart city.  
Source: Google trends (www.google.com/trends).  
The interest in searching the word “smart city” on web raised of almost 30 percentage points 
from 2005 up today.  
The Aim of the study is basically to provide an articulated definition of what a smart city is 
supposed to be and show how social inequalities interact within the smart city model, 
articulating disparate social problems. The “smart city” term is what we could define an 
“umbrella term” that captures multiple development goals and ideas and help us in identifying
III 
 
how problems are represented and understood within urban planning and policy, more 
specifically how urban policies
4
 address inequalities. 
“Errors can only be estimated and combated if we have an understanding of the sources from 
which they arise” (Harvey 1973: 49). For this reason we will get through the potentials and 
limitations of smart policies as a tool to promote urban social justice in access to housing, 
education, political participation, health services, mobility and environment, while improving 
the local economy at the same time.   
Equity and affordability are fundamental dimensions of smart city policies, in order to avoid 
the spread of growing social inequalities in European countries. Even in Sweden, which has 
long been regarded as the model of the welfare state, what is most evident now is a growing 
polarization between households at a residential area level. 
Our attention will be dedicated to two different, and still similar, cities: Stockholm and 
Torino. 
The choice was partly influenced by personal living experience in these cities
5
, which help us 
in analyzing them (direct experience on the field, though not according to methodological 
standards, can help you in knowing directly what books and authors are talking about and 
give the right value to their words). Nevertheless the two emerging European cities share 
many aspects in the technology, touristic field as well as in the geographical and 
demographical extension.  
This report does not pretend to be a truly comparative venture. There are formidable barriers 
for such a fully comparative project, if only from the perspective of data acquisition. We 
mostly referred to the Eurostat database, though standardized and comparable data for each 
analyzed dimension where not easy to be found. 
The question we try to answer is, briefly, whether we can find really equitable ways of 
developing cities. The purpose of this paper is to give an idea of what it means living in a city, 
a city that is more and more replacing nation-states in the leading role of economic 
                                                             
4
 “There is a growing recognition that the characteristics of cities, and the manner in which policy action affects 
these are critical determinants of economic performance” (Begg, 1999 : 804). 
5
 Torino is my home-city while Stockholm is the city where I had the chance to live and study for a semester in 
autumn 2011.
IV 
 
globalization and its contradictions, with specific concern to the “urbanization of poverty” and 
the greater social inequality (Carillo 2006: 279). 
In the first chapter we will introduce the topic by providing a rapid picture of the social and 
historical background within the context of post-fordism, globalization and the knowledge 
economy. Then we will briefly refer to smart city dimensions and discuss them.  
The second chapter is aimed at analyzing what we mean when we talk about social inequality 
and different way to measure it, according literature.  
Later we will talk about the smart city model and its 6 definition, with specific attention to the 
definition provided by scholars, research groups and European institutions. Then we will be 
selecting variables and indicators for each dimension and the two towns of Stockholm and 
Torino will be taken as studying subjects. 
The final part will be a reflection about how rendering each dimension “smarter” than it is, in 
both the cites, can actually affect (and how) social inequalities.  
The study is intended to be an exploratory one and it is only a first attempt to approach this 
wide subject matter. Further studies are needed to get deeper in studying the impact of city 
planning on social inequality; however we hoped our study was useful to give the right input 
to further studies to develop the issue.
1.  
 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND: FROM URBAN STUDIES  
GROWTH TO THE NEW IDEA OF “SMART CITY”. 
 
1.1    From modernity to post-modernity: cities and their socio-economical context. 
Cities are the focus of much of our life and most of our problems. Several classical 
sociological studies concerned the link between society and space, that is, in other 
words, the mechanisms internal to the urban communities (economical, political and 
cultural ones). 
First attempts to study the urban reality date back to the beginning of the XX century. 
Marx Weber (1920-1921) wrote a single volume dedicated to the subject (“Die Stadt” in 
the original German version) and provided a first definition of “city” as an inhabited 
center where people are used to work in manufacturing and commerce, instead of 
agriculture. According to the author the urban reality was highly dependent on the 
western modern capitalism which shaped and gave birth to first towns as economical 
settlements and later on as political communities (“communes”). Still the main feature 
of the city is to have a local economic center (the market) together with a political and 
administrative one; the most relevant factor in defining a place a city was the citizenship 
and its rights since the urban center, unlike the countryside, had an associative and 
corporative character.  
These reflections have become a relevant reference in the sociological academic world, 
especially in the field of urban governance. Another author whose aim was to study the 
modern society, but from a different interactional perspective, was George Simmel. 
When Simmel (1903) first published “The metropolis and mental life” his aim was to 
give an image of what modernity is; studying the city meant studying the modern 
society, as the place was supposed to have a great influence on shaping social relations. 
The metropolis is indeed the place where all modern trends come to life: the diffidence 
and anonymity in relationships, a greater individuality and autonomy from the 
community but at the same time a growing dependence from over-individual
1.    THEORETICAL BACKGROUND  
2 
 
structures
1
. The great amount of people and stimuli available made the relationships 
change into superficial ones, where was much easier to develop feelings of diffidence 
and hostility. 
 Simmels’ work, which went that far to compare urban relationships to relationships 
among foreigners, inspired some researchers and influenced the birth of the so called 
“Chicago School”, emerging during the 1920s and the 1930s and specializing in 
research in the urban environment through ethnographic fieldwork. The major theorist 
was Robert Park whose focus was on ethnical segregation and social exclusion and, 
adopting a social Darwinist perspective, elaborated the human ecology approach in 
order to give a scientific explanation to the existence and the changing of marginal 
social groups (Hannerz, 1992).   
Urban inequalities are historically rooted: Marx well describes the relationship between 
inequality and urban formation. According to the author towns and cities were the 
outbreaks for the birth of modern social classes and economic inequalities. 
During the postwar period  David Harvey and Manuel Castells gave birth to the so 
called “New Urban Sociology” which was intended to study urban structures  as they 
were shaped by new global economy forces rather than the local political context.  
The end of the 1970s decade was  marked by the crisis of the Fordist model and the 
coming of the Post Fordism age marked by new informational technologies, more 
flexible markets, the rise of the finance and intangible goods. 
In this new informational age where financial capitals, information, communication 
flow from a place to another one and connect simultaneously all the globe Castells 
(2000) refers to a change “from spaces of place to spaces of flows”.  
In other words cities have become single nodes  of great importance in a multinodal 
network in the global economy where they compete. Urban realities acquired growing 
importance as economical centers and political ones; many political functions and 
powers increasingly shifted from the national level to the local authorities. “The basic 
unit of comparative analysis has shifted decisively to the local or urban level” (Sellers 
2005: 433) as national governments had to submit to the new global economy logic and 
redistribute part of their political power at a sub-national level . 
                                                             
1
 Weber (1893) assigned this higher grade of dependence to the new modern form of organic solidarity 
(which replaced the previous mechanical one) based on the division and specialization of labor.
1.    THEORETICAL BACKGROUND  
3 
 
This is why today the microcosm of the city is gaining an increasing importance as 
social, political and economical actor. Giersig (2008) talks about a “revival of European 
cities” with an increased level of economic and political autonomy in the global 
network where local dimensions intersect with global ones. 
Whenever we talk about cities and their transformations we have to consider two main 
variables. The global economical dimension with its continuous fluctuations cannot be 
the only explanation to urban policies; we also have not to forget  the national political 
context where cities are embedded in. For this reason urban studies are multilevel and 
pay great attention to the context sensitivity and any compared analysis cannot avoid 
analyzing the role of structural and institutional factors (such as normative aspects, 
cultural values and historical background). As Thorns (2002: 93) stresses  “the 
positioning of nation-states within the global system influences the cities within those 
nations, leading to the rise or fall of their significance globally”, but equally “the 
performance of the cities in a country will have a considerable bearing on its overall 
economic success, so that the efficiency and well-being of the urban system are of 
national concern” (Begg 1999). 
 
The shift to post-modernity and the knowledge economy (as the new global context). 
Economic, political and social relationship have moved to a global and transnational 
level. The most significant transformation has affected the production and the labor 
market which has changed from an industrial economy into a new informational and 
service- based one. Furthermore the hierarchical Fordist system and its standardized 
production for a mass consumption economy have been replaced by the new Toyota 
model for a new substitution-oriented market, based on just-in-time and small scale 
production where first comes the purchase order and then follows the demand-driven 
production. A more flexible production also requires more flexible workers according to 
working hours, pay contracts, forms of employment and multiple skills (Thorns D., 
2002).
1.    THEORETICAL BACKGROUND  
4 
 
In the welfare area the main shift is from a social responsibility to an increasing  
freedom of choice
2
 and individual responsibility which allows the “deserving” to be 
assisted and the “underserving” to be excluded From state benefits. “ The new forms of 
economic activity have created winners and losers” (Ibidem: 73); the rise of the new 
middle classes and the underclass “often divided from the majority by their ethnicity 
and gender” (Ibidem). This issue is well analyzed by Eleonore Kofman (in Fincher R., 
Jacobs J. 1998, 12) who underlines how increasingly precarious activities and informal 
jobs are filled by women and immigrants; “gender and immigration are seen as forming 
part of the rising European underclass”. The result is that the postmodern city has 
become more polarized than before, creating new urban ghettos. P.S. The new global 
culture has, however, created the illusion that social classes, though more fluid and 
complex, don’t exist anymore since we all share the access to the same sources and 
consumption levels (information, entertainments) (Thorns, 2002). 
Cities have exactly become the main outposts for this ‘new urban economy’ (Amin, 
Massey, Thrift 2000). Globalization, information and communication technologies 
(ICTs), network- businesses and intangible goods (financial, consultancy, brokerage 
services) symbolize this new knowledge economy which has heavily affected urban 
spaces, too. Urbanization of the suburbs, rise of regional centers and gentrification of 
the inner city are the most visible effects.  
An interesting critic to the new Knowledge economy myth is provided by Amin, 
Massey and Thrift (2000), by analyzing the British metropolitan reality. What they 
argue is that the labor market is still demanding for secretarial and clerical workers, 
personal service providers, sale staff and unskilled workers. What make up the everyday 
urban economy are, beyond finance and ICTs sector, people operating in the public 
sector, construction operators, drivers operators, hotel and restaurant staff, catering and 
cleaning services. Cities are a mixture of different kinds of knowledge “not just the 
cognitive- technical knowledge which seems to be at the center of so much of the new 
economy”. The demand for unskilled-manual jobs is still high; in any city there 
necessarily is a relevant amount of low- paid jobs which actually are considered not 
relevant for the new informational economy, being  instead an integral part of it 
                                                             
2
 A pregnant definition is the one provided by Ulrich Beck (1986) who talks about a new “risk society” 
(risikogesellschaft) where “when modernization reaches a certain level, agents tend to become more 
individualized, that is, decreasingly constrained by structures” (Ibidem :2). “Individuals must then, free of 
these structures, reflexively construct their own biographies” (Ibidem :3).
1.    THEORETICAL BACKGROUND  
5 
 
(Sassens 2005: 178). So the new economy produces its own proletariat for its various 
service needs. The consequent conclusion is that, apart from concentrating the economic 
investments in few congested places, “in planning the city we need to acknowledge the 
existence, skills and requirements of all urban residents” (Amin, Massey and Thrift 
2000: 25) seeking not to push them into the economic periphery . 
 
1.2    What is a ‘smart city’? The concept and  its dimensions. 
Main studies and researches have recently focused on the urban context. The reason is 
simple: today cities account for 75% of the EU’s population, 80% of energy use and 
85% of Europe’s GDP (Eurocities Flash, february 2011, n.103). The “smart city” idea is 
a quite new and complex concept. It was first introduced in America around the turn of 
the century and then it spread in many Western countries. The definition provided by 
the European Union (the last European Smart City Conference took place in Italy in 
Bologna, 11/11/2011) consists of 6 different dimensions: people, governance, mobility, 
economy, environment, living. 
Each dimension can be defined by several factors and related indicators.  
1. Having a ‘smart economy’ has to deal with high occupational rates, the prevalence 
of high skilled workers and a flexible, innovative and dynamic market (thanks to the 
presence of financial centers, international agreements and multinational companies, 
investment in research and number of top Universities). A great importance is given to 
the presence of industries in the fields of information and communication technologies 
(ICT) and the creativity in different economic sectors. 
2. ‘Smart  people’ are often defined in terms of their educational grade and human 
capital. Anyway education (level of education,  ICT knowledge, life- long learning 
projects, linguistic skills) integration (kind and strength of age/sex/ethnic/religious 
differences in working places and urban settlement) and participation (in volunteering 
activities as well as civic and political ones) are all key words in defining the ‘smart 
citizen’, a fundamental resource for the future of the city itself. 
3. The ‘smart governance’ mainly uses the new communication tools to increase 
communication between citizens and local authorities, to extend the political debate, to
1.    THEORETICAL BACKGROUND  
6 
 
increase the participation. It is also known as ‘e-governance’ or ‘e-democracy’. It is 
itself an aspect of a smart administration (net-working, efficiency, short times). 
4. ‘Living smart’ means having full access to different services provided by the 
Welfare system and it includes the number of schools in the urban areas, housing 
conditions, the number and availability of cultural entertainments as well as access to 
health-care facilities (health conditions are also a relevant measure to determine the 
quality of life). It is the good quality of life a smart city should provide to its 
inhabitants, avoiding any barriers and forms of social exclusion and promoting 
accessibility for all.   
5. Mobility is ‘smart’ when it is efficient, sustainable and safe. It includes improvement 
in the urban traffic (spread of public transport system, car and bikes usage, CENTRI 
PEDONALI) and in the general inhabitants´ mobility (especially for people with 
disabilities).  
6. ‘Smart environment’ includes all the eco-friendly solutions aimed at reducing 
water/air/acoustic pollution, number of green areas, sustainable development and 
resource (energy, water) managing in single citizens´ and factories´ behavior. 
Main subjects involved in making a city ‘smart’ are, then, its inhabitants, settled 
companies, and administration, according to this multi-level definition. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SMART 
CITY 
SMART 
PEOPLE 
SMART 
GOVERNANCE 
SMART 
LIVING 
SMART 
MOBILITY 
SMART 
ECONOMY 
INHABITANTS 
COMPANIES AND 
BUSINESSES 
LOCAL 
ADMINISTRATION 
SMART 
ENVIRONMENT
1.    THEORETICAL BACKGROUND  
7 
 
A critical analysis. 
The use of the term ‘smart’ in addressing multiple goals also makes it a messy term and 
a contradictory one. 
How smart city alternatives really affect people? We can’t avoid analyzing the power 
relations that structure the smart model discourse. Is this discourse really neutral and 
apolitical or is it a new way of doing business? This is the question asked by Robert G. 
Hollands (2008), whose article we chose as our main reference in writing this 
paragraph.  
The vision offered in his papers argues for a clear definition of what a ‘smart city’ is, 
against ideological labels and their hidden contradictions. 
Different cities have been labeled as ‘smart’ in recent years, but the problem rise when 
we look at   the variety of ways and the manner in which the term ‘smart’ is employed 
in urban literature. A city can be wired, informational, knowledge, digital, intelligent, 
innovative, creative, cultural, environmental sustainable, provided with e-governance, 
developing social learning approaches etc.  
What is important is to problematize aspects of this so-called ‘new’ urban form because 
behind definitional problems there are normative and ideological ones. The labels 
abovementioned are often adopted for self-promotional purposes and imply a positive 
stance towards urban development, while hiding the negative effects it is having on 
cities (like growing social polarization).  
First of all we should focus on ICTs as the core of the smart city idea, to improve 
economical, political, cultural and social life. To be wired cities
3
 is a fundamental 
requirement in order to be competitive in the new global economy; location is no longer 
the key to economic success and it has been replaced by technology. 
Most western cities have been increasingly shaped by big  businesses that want to locate 
and expand within its “vibrant economy” (Hollands 2008: 308). This new settlements 
are usually justified in terms of ‘cooperation’ with local governments and communities 
but supporter of ‘smart city’ label usually avoid talking about ‘potentially conflicting 
                                                             
3
 The author cities “well known examples of cities and regions developing through this route” such as 
Singapore, Silicon Valley, San Francisco and Bangalore (Asia’s own Silicon Valley).
1.    THEORETICAL BACKGROUND  
8 
 
interests’ that this relationships can bring together (Ibidem, ivi)
4
. Furthermore 
developing commercial relations between local governments, citizens and private 
businesses can easily increase the risk of a ‘market-led smart agenda’ whose first goal is 
to provide a strong pro-business environment. What is not considered, however, is that 
mobile capital can often move from a town to another according to where it receives a 
better deal so that local investment in ICTs, human capital and social learning holds no 
guarantees for a long-term urban development.  
The idea of smart communities where business government and residents use new 
technology to improve life and work in their region looks to semplicistic.  
 The question that immediately rises is “how to effectively balance the needs of the 
community, with both those of local government and the need of business”? (Ibidem: 
309). The social and human dimension (social leaning, tolerance, social capital, 
education) of the city is usually emphasized, more than the technological factor. When 
we talk about ‘creative city’; this is one of the rare examples where the focus is on how 
alternative cultures can fuel urban growth rather than relying completely on new 
technology and corporate businesses. To conclude a smart city has to be an inclusive 
city  which implies social cohesion and sense of belonging, feelings that can find some 
ways to express themselves through technologies but they don’t rely on it. To be a 
technological city is not enough; cities are not just broadband networks and being 
connected is no guarantee of smartness
5
.  
Another weak point we can find it in the smart ideology which is merging business 
competitiveness with social well-being; stated goals are at the same time to enhance 
local competitiveness and to improve the quality of life of citizens. Cities’ first 
imperative is to attract capital , to serve global mobile ICTs businesses more than 
ordinary citizens
6
. Graham (2002) well explains how the diffusion of such kind of 
businesses contributes to the polarization of urban regions, both economically and 
                                                             
4
 More investment in urban infrastructure, technology sectors, telecommunication means at the same time 
less resources left for the public welfare, thereby creating social polarization (Hollands 2008). 
5
 The author is clearly against the utopia that ICT itself can automatically transform and improve a city. 
Information Technology is not a universal panacea for urban communities; its effects depend on how we 
use it, for social and political different purposes.  It has to be utilized socially, empowering and educating 
people (especially socially marginalized people). 
6
 The supporter of neoliberaism, however, justify the business-led economy as the only one able to 
provide those investiments necessary to enable a city to develop and prcolaim itself ‘smart’ (Pandini 
2012).