Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
International Area Studies Review
[ Article ]
International Area Studies Review - Vol. 28, No. 2, pp.204-222
ISSN: 2233-8659 (Print)
Print publication date 30 Jun 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.69473/iasr.2025.28.2.204

Digital-Algorithmi Urban Governmentality: ‘Borders Through Cities’ and ‘Cities Through Borders’

Weejun Park*
Research Center for Small Businesses Ecosystem, Inha University, Republic of Korea

Correspondence to: *Email: weejun.park@inha.ac.kr

Abstract

This paper argues that the significant transformations, occurring in contemporary (Korean) cities can be understood through the lens of governmentality. In particular, digital-algorithmic technologies, when combined with governmentality, have transformed the role of the apparatuses of security and discipline. These changes are exemplified by two phenomena emerging in contemporary urban areas—mechanisms that detect and control individual abnormal factors while maintaining overall circulation—which have become core operational principles of cities these days. First, contemporary cities have become both key areas and apparatuses of internalized borders that extend national borders into domestic territories. As such, cities function as sites that sustain the flow of ‘necessary’ migrants while ‘screening out’ those deemed ‘unnecessary,’ relying on their physical and administrative infrastructures (what I refer to as borders through cities). Second, in many cities across Korea and the broader society, this border logic has been adopted as a mode of urban governing. Rather than simply restricting the movement of people and things, cities are evolving into sites of governance that encourage flows while controlling individual irregularity (what I refer to as cities through borders).

Keywords:

(Digital-algorithmic) Governmentality, Urban areas, Internalized borders, Borders through cities, Cities through borders

AI Acknowledgment

Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies were not used in any way to prepare, write, or complete essential authoring tasks in this manuscript.

Conflicting Interests

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) Grant funded by the Korean Government [Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT)] under Grant RS-2022-NR070854.

References

  • Abduljabbar, R., Dia, H., Liyanage, S., & Bagloee, S.A. (2019). Applications of artificial intelligence in transport: An overview. Sustainability, 11(1), 189. [https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010189]
  • AI Times. (2024). ETRI develops AI for crime prediction using real-time CCTV and statistics … Commercialization expected by late next year. https://www.aitimes.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=161811
  • Amoore, L. (2006). Biometric borders: Governing mobilities in the war on terror. Political Geography, 25(3), 336-351. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2006.02.001]
  • Amoore, L. (2024). The deep border. Political Geography, 109. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2021.102547]
  • Aradau, C. (2016). Political grammars of mobility, security and subjectivity. Mobilities, 11(4), 564–574. [https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2016.1211824]
  • Aradau, C., & Blanke, T. (2010). Governing circulation: A critique of the biopolitics of security. In M. Larrinaga & M. Doucet (Eds.), Security and global governmentality: Globalization, power and the state (pp. 44–58). Palgrave.
  • Ash, J., Kitchin, R., & Leszczynski, A. (2018). Digital turn, digital geographies? Progress in Human Geography, 42(1), 25–43. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132516664800]
  • Balibar, E. (1998). The borders of Europe. In P. Cheah & B. Robbins (Eds.), Cosmopolitics: Thinking and feeling beyond the nation (pp. 216–233). University of Minnesota Press.
  • Barns, S., Cosgrove, E., & Acuto, M. (2017). Digital infrastructures and urban governance. Urban Policy and Research, 35(1), 20–31. [https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2016.1235032]
  • Bharadiya, J. P. (2023). Machine learning in cybersecurity: Techniques and challenges. European Journal of Technology, 7(2), 1–14. [https://doi.org/10.47672/ejt.1486]
  • Bennet, C. J. (2017). Voter databases, micro-targeting, and data protection law can political parties campaign in Europe as they do in North America? International Data Privacy Law, 6(4), 261–275. [https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipwo21]
  • Bialasiewicz, L. (2012). Off-shoring and out-sourcing the borders of Europe: Libya and EU border work in the Mediterranean. Geopolitics, 17(4), 843–866. [https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2012.660579]
  • Burrell, J. (2016). How the machine ‘thinks’: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data & Society, 3(1). [https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715622512]
  • Burrell, K., & Schweyher, M. (2021). Borders and bureaucracies of EU mobile citizenship: Polish migrants and the personal identification number in Sweden. Political Geography, 87. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2021.102394]
  • Cabot, H. (2012). The governance of things: Documenting limbo in the Greek asylum procedure. PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review, 35(1), 11–29. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1555-2934.2012.01177.x]
  • Caponio, T. (2021). Governing migration through multi-level governance? City networks in Europe and the United States. Journal of Common Market Studies, 59(6), 1590–1606. [https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13214]
  • Caponio, T., & Jones-Correa, M. (2018). Theorising migration policy in multilevel states: The multilevel governance perspective. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(12), 1995–2010. [https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1341705]
  • Casas-Cortes, M., Cobarrubias, S., & Pickles, J. (2016). ‘Good neighbours make good fences’: Seahorse operations, border externalization and extra-territoriality. European Urban and Regional Studies, 23(3), 231–251. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776414541136]
  • Choi, S., Yoo, M. Y., & Kim, Y. G. (2021). Current state of open data and challenges to establish big data in a migration field: A focus on the data of the Ministry of Justice and the data of employment and education. MRTC Policy Brief Service No. 2021-01. Migration Research & Training Centre. (in Korean)
  • Chosun Ilbo. (2024). Is ‘Murder prediction’ possible? ‘Minority Report’ becomes reality. https://www.chosun.com/economy/tech_it/2024/05/30/X3YVFD6S3NHGNISY6I7QAZNTIA/
  • Coleman, M., & Stuesse, A. (2016) The disappearing state and the quasi-event of immigration control. Antipode, 48(3), 524–543. [https://doi.org/10.1111/anti/12209]
  • Coletta, C., & Kitchin, R. (2017). Algorhythmic governance: Regulating the ‘heartbeat’ of a city using the Internet of Things. Big Data & Society, 4(2), 1–16. [https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717742418]
  • Dammann, F., Eichenmuller, C., & Glasze, G. (2022). Geographies of “digital governmentality”: Platform-based governing through adaptive environments. Digital Geography and Society, 3. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diggeo.2022.100034]
  • Dijstelbloem, H., Broeders, D. (2015). Border surveillance, mobility management and the shaping of non-publics in Europe. European Journal of Social Theory, 18(1), 21-38. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431014534353]
  • DongA Science. (2024). Predicting crime with CCTV … Will ‘Minority Report’ become reality? https://m.dongascience.com/news.php?idx=66556
  • Fabini, G. (2017). Managing illegality at the internal border: Governing through ‘differential inclusion’ in Italy. European Journal of Criminology, 14(1), 46–62. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370816640138]
  • Fields, D., Bissell, D., & Macrorie, R. (2020). Platform methods: Studying platform urbanism outside the black box. Urban Geography, 41(3), 462–468. [https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2020.1730642]
  • Flamant, A. (2020). The local turn in integration policies: Why French cities differ. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 43(11), 1981–2000. [https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2020.1738522]
  • Foucault, M. (2007). Security, territory, population: Lectures at the College de France, 1977-1978. Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics, lectures at the College de France, 1978-1979. Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Gabrys, J. (2014). Programming environments: Environmentality and citizen sensing in the smart city. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 32(1), 30–58. [https://doi.org/10.1068/d16812]
  • Geiger, M., & Pecoud, A. (2010). The politics of international migration management. Palgrave Macmillan. [https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230294882_1]
  • Gordon, R., Anderson, B., Crang, M., et al. (2014). Controlling networks: Modes of governing infrastructural assemblages [Working paper]. Durham: Durham University.
  • Gorman, C. S. (2017). Redefining refugees: Interpretive control and the bordering work of legal categorization in U.S. asylum law. Political Geography, 58, 36–45. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2016.12.006]
  • Graham, S. D. (2005) Software-sorted geographies. Progress in Human Geography, 29(5), 562–580. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132513517365]
  • Katzenbach, C., & Ulbricht, L. (2019). Algorithmic governance. Internet Policy Review, 8(4). [https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.4.1424]
  • KBS. (2024). ‘Crime-Predicting’ AI CCTV System Developed. https://news.kbs.co.kr/news/pc/view/view.do?ncd=8016115, . (in Korean)
  • Kitchin, R. (2014). Big data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts. Big Data & Society, 1(1). [https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951714528481]
  • Kitchin, R. (2020). Civil liberties or public health, or civil liberties public health? Using surveillance technologies to tackle the spread of COVID-19. Space and Polity, 24(3), 362–381. [https://doi.org/10.1080/13562576.2020.1770587]
  • Lacroix, T., & Spencer, S. (2022). City networks and the multi-level governance of migration. Global Networks, 22, 349–362. [https://doi.org/10.1111/glob.12381]
  • Lebuhn, H. (2013). Local border practices and urban citizenship in Europe: Exploring urban borderlands. City, 17(1), 37–51. [https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2012.734072]
  • Leese, M., Noori, S., & Scheel, S. (2022). Data matters: The politics and practices of digital border and migration management. Geopolitics, 27(1), 5-25. [https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2021.1940538]
  • Lessig, L. (1999). Code: And other laws of cyberspace. Read How You Want.
  • Leszczynski, A. (2016). Speculative futures: Cities, data, and governance beyond smart urbanism. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 48(9), 1691–1708. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X16651445]
  • Leszczynski, A., & Elwood, S. (2022). Glitch epistemologies for computational cities. Dialogues in Human Geography, 12(3), 361–378. [https://doi.org/10.1177/20438206221075714]
  • Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. Russell and Sage Foundation. [https://doi.org/10.12681/sp.15989]
  • Luque-Ayala, A., & Marvin, S. (2016). The maintenance of urban circulation: An operational logic of infrastructural control. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 34(2), 191–208. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775815611422]
  • Lyon, D. (2014). Surveillance, Snowden, and big data: Capacities, consequences, critique. Big Data & Society, 1(2). [https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951714541861]
  • Mandalapu, V., Elluri, L., Vyas, P., & Roy, N. (2023). Crime prediction using machine learning and deep learning: A systematic review and future directions. IEEE Access, 111, 60153–60170. [https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3286344]
  • McClendon, L., & Meghanathan, N. (2015). Using machine learning algorithms to analyze crime data. Machine Learning and Applications: An International Journal (MLAIJ), 2(1). [https://doi.org/10.5121/mlaij.2015.2101]
  • Meeus, B., Arnaut, K., & van Heur, B. (2019). Arrival infrastructures. Palgrave Macmillan. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91167-0]
  • Mezzadra, S., & Neilson, B. (2012). Between inclusion and exclusion: On the topology of global space and borders. Theory, Culture & Society, 29(4-5), 58–75. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276412443569]
  • Muller-Birn, C., Dobusch, L., & Herbsleb, J. (2013). Work-to-rule: The emergence of algorithmic governance in Wikipedia. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Communities and Technologies (pp. 80–89). [https://doi.org/10.1145/2482991.2482999]
  • New York Times. (2012). Mission Control, Built for Cities. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/business/ibm-takes-smarter-cities-concept-to-rio-de-janeiro.html, .
  • Neyland, D., & Mollers, N. (2019). Algorithmic IF … THEN rules and the conditions and consequences of power. In D. Beer (Ed.), The social power of algorithms (pp. 45–62). Routledge. [https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351200677-4]
  • Noiriel, G. (1996). The French melting pot: Immigration, citizenship, and national identity. University of Minnesota Press.
  • Otter, C. (2007). Making liberal objects: British techno-social relations 1800-1900. Cultural Studies, 21(4-5), 570–590. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380701278962]
  • Panizzon, M., & van Riemsdijk, M. (2019). Introduction to special issue: ‘Migration governance in an era of large movements: A multilevel approach’. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45(8), 1225–1241. [https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2018.1441600]
  • Park, W. (2020). The biopolitics of COVID-19: Understanding South Korea’s approach to COVID-19 as a ‘politico-epidemiological’ model through the exercise of apparatuses of security and discipline. Space and Environment, 30(4), 85–123. (in Korean) [https://doi.org/10.19097/kaser.2020.30.4.85]
  • Park, W. (2023). Borders beyond national borders: Where are they and what are they made of? Journal of the Korean Geographical Society, 58(6), 563–584. (in Korean) [https://doi.org/10.22776/kgs.2023.58.6.563]
  • Park, W. (2024). State governance and less-skilled migrant workers in South Korea. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Kentucky.
  • Ploger, J. (2008). Foucault’s dispositif and the city. Planning Theory, 7(1), 51–70. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095207085665]
  • van Riemsdijk, M., Marchand, M.H., & Heins, V.M. (2021). New actors and contested architectures in global migration governance: Continuity and change. Third World Quarterly, 42(1), 1–15. [https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2020.1857235]
  • Roche, S. (2014). Geographic information science I: Why does a smart city need to be spatially enabled? Progress in Human Geography, 38(5), 703–711. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132513517365]
  • Roche, S. (2016). Geographic information science II: Less space, more places in smart cities. Progress in Human Geography, 40(4), 565–573. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132515586296]
  • Ruha, B., (2019). Race after technology. Polity Press.
  • Scott, J. (1998). Seeing like a state. Yale University Press.
  • Seliger, B. (1999). The role of the regions in the European integration process – Towards a ‘Europe of the Regions’? International Area Studies Review, 2(1), 3–18. [https://doi.org/10.1177/223386599900200101]
  • Seoul Metropolis Government. (2023). https://news.seoul.go.kr/gov/archives/554710
  • Shah, N., Bhagat, N., & Shah, M. (2021). Crime forecasting: A machine learning and computer vision approach to crime prediction and prevention. Visual Computing for Industry, Biomedicine, and Art, 4(1), 9. [https://doi.org/10.1186/s42492-021-00075-z]
  • Shelton, T., Zook, M., & Wiig, A. (2015). The ‘actually existing smart city’. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(1), 13–25. [https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsu026]
  • Talamo, C., Atta, N., Martani, C., & Paganin, G. (2016). The integration of physical and digital urban infrastructures: The role of “Big data”. TECHNE – Journal of Technology for Architecture and Environment, 11, 217–225. [https://doi.org/10.13128/TECHNE-18424]
  • Tervonen, M., & Enache, A. (2017). Coping with everyday bordering: Roma migrants and gatekeepers in Helsinki. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 40(7), 1114–1131. [https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2017.1267378]
  • Tervonen, M., Pellander, S., & Yuval-Davis, N. (2018). Everyday bordering in the Nordic countries. Nordic Journal of Migration Research, 8(3), 139–142. [https://doi.org/10.2478/njmr-2018-0019]
  • Tornberg, P. & Uitermark, J. (2020). Complex control and the governmentality of digital platforms. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 2(6). [https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc..2020.00006]
  • University of Chicago, Department of Medicine. (2022). https://medicine.uchicago.edu/algorithm-predicts-crime-a-week-in-advance-but-reveals-bias-in-police-response/
  • Varsanyi, M. W., Lewis, P. G., Provine, D. M., & Decker, S. (2012). A multilayered jurisdictional patchwork: Immigration federalism in the United States. Law & Policy, 34(2), 138–158. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9930.2011.00356x]
  • Vetters, L. (2019). Administrative guidelines as a source of immigration law? Ethnographic perspective on law at work and in the making. Journal of Legal Anthropology, 3(2), 70–90. [https://doi.org/10.3167/jla.2019.030205]
  • Wessendorf, S. (2022). ‘The library is like a mother’: Arrival infrastructures and migrant newcomers in East London. Migration Studies, 10(2), 172–189. [https://doi.org/10.1093/migration/mnab051]
  • Wheeler, A. P., & Steenbeek, W. (2021). Mapping the risk terrain for crime using machine learning. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 37, 445–480. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-020-09457-7]
  • Yuval-Davis, N., Wemyss, G., & Cassidy, K. (2018). Everyday bordering, belonging and the reorientation of British immigration legislation. Sociology, 52(2), 228–244. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038517702599]
  • Zantalis, F., Koulouras, G., Karabetsos, S., & Kandris, D. (2019). A review of machine learning and IoT in smart transportation. Future Internet, 11(4), 94. [https://doi.org/10.3390/fi11040094]