I currently work on several interrelated projects on the governance of digital technologies drawing from a wide range of theoretical and methodological approaches, including, network analysis, statistical analysis, content analysis, historical narratives, and interviews.
To what extent can states reduce their dependence on central economic hubs and, in doing so, de-weaponize global economic networks? In contrast to earlier work on asymmetrical interdependence, the concept of weaponized interdependence highlights how states controlling key hubs in global networks wield structural power because rivals lack viable exit options. In this paper, we argue that the resilience of network structures and the persistence of weaponized interdependence depend on two factors: substitution costs and the strength of network effects. Based on these factors, we develop a 2x2 framework that identifies when the centrality of economic hubs is more or less likely to be challenged. We apply this framework to four cases: (1) the semiconductor supply chain, (2) the SWIFT financial messaging system, (3) European oil imports, and (4) personal protective equipment. Our findings clarify how and when states may reduce their exposure to coercion by reshaping global economic networks.
Digital sovereignty has long been a stated objective of the European Union, in particular with regards to cloud computing. Yet despite longstanding efforts, the EUs dependencies on a handful of so-called hyperscalers is as entrenched as ever. This article examines the paradox of the EUs digital sovereignty agenda: in seeking to reduce its dependence on American technology giants, the EU finds itself compelled to work through the very firms whose dominance it aims to curtail. Observing how American hyperscalers have successfully shaped the EUs cloud sovereignty agenda, we develop an analytical framework to explain how this occurred. Arguing that the functional centrality of cloud infrastructures across multiple interdependent technologies afford hyperscalers significant private infrastructural power, we highlight show how hyperscalers have transformed their infrastructural centrality into political influence through three mechanisms: instrumental, communicative, and network-forming infrastructural power. We further examine how interoperability is emerging as the EU's principal strategic response, shifting the battleground toward international standard-setting bodies and minilateral coalition-building. In line with the Special Issue, we argue the EU is moving towards a more pragmatic form of cooperation in global digital governance by aiming to create a coalition of like-minded countries.
A wide range of state and non-state actors have sought to enact digital sovereignty projects. Each of these projects entails distinct and sometimes competing visions and material arrangements –imaginaries – of who exercises authority and where. How are meanings and practices of digital sovereignty (re-)shaped by big tech companies? Linking together the sources and territorial scopes of authority this article develops an analytical framework that distinguishes four broad categories of digital sovereignty imaginaries: (1) Westphalian digital sovereignty; (2) cosmopolitan digital sovereignty; (3) techno-territorial digital sovereignty; and (4) techno-anarchic digital sovereignty. This typology helps analytically map the growing diversity of digital sovereignty imaginaries, including projects enacted by the European Union, its Member States, as well as indigenous communities and crypto enthusiasts. We then investigate two digital sovereignty projects promoted by big tech companies- corporate “sovereignty-as-a-service” cloud offering and Worldcoin- to show how the digital sovereignty imaginary promoted in each breaks down as the visions they promote clash with existing material arrangements. Our analysis unpacks underlying incongruencies within imaginaries of big tech firms, showing how their visions clash with actual practices and positions in wider digital infrastructures.
How has political economy as a field of study engaged with artificial intelligence (AI)? What are potential avenues for research in the future? This article provides a scoping review of over 100 articles published in leading political economy journals between 1975 and 2025. It finds assessments of AI in political economy to have emerged in uneven, fragmented and at times quite narrow ways over recent decades. Ahistorical analysis, insufficient socio-material analysis and a reluctance to return and reconsider fundamental categories are highlighted a trio of interrelated challenges for future work on the political economy of AI to confront.
In addition to the imposition of various forms of tariffs, US trade policy has been marked by a profound shift in the enforcement of trade agreements. The US government has increasingly rejected the idea of delegating the resolution of trade disputes to international bodies. This article shows how the nine Agreements on Reciprocal Trade concluded by the Trump administration between October 2025 and March 2026 promote a new unilateral approach to dispute settlement. Drawing on the concept of ‘weaponized interdependence’, we argue that, by preserving the ability to impose additional tariffs and relying on domestic legislation to unilaterally sanction noncompliance, these agreements consolidate the authority of the US government over trade dispute settlement mechanisms and reinforce the structural power of the United States in international trade relations. Rather than stabilizing economic relations, the enforcement mechanisms promoted in these agreements become part of the US trade weapons arsenal.
How do public and private rules affect the adjudication of online speech globally? In addition to creating their regulatory frameworks, platform companies increasingly adjudicate which content should remain online. Dissatisfied users can lodge complaints with them instead of bringing up cases in courts to protect their right to speech. The creation of Meta’s Oversight Board in 2019 is one of the latest and most prominent examples of this trend. Informally dubbed Meta’s supreme court, it is tasked with defining how to protect users’ expression on its platform. Using a novel dataset, we conduct a network analysis of references made to public and private norms in all of Meta’s Oversight Board decisions adopted between 2020 and 2024. We find evidence that international human rights law became central to its decision-making process. In an attempt to legitimize itself, we highlight how the Board uses international public law rather than transnational soft laws to interpret and apply Meta’s community standards. At the same time, not all international human rights law sources are equal in this process. Multilateral human rights treaties are more likely to be cited than any other source.