Raluca A. Stana, PhDI recently had the pleasure of attending and presenting at the “Digital ✕ Policy” session during the Social and Digital Innovation Conference 2025 (S&D 2025) in Copenhagen. This unique cross-sector event brings together researchers, businesses, and policymakers to ask: What does digitalization mean for our societies—and how can we shape it for the common good? Held twice a year (Copenhagen in May, Tokyo in October), the conference aims to foster long-term Denmark–Japan collaborations in digital innovation.
Session Highlights: “Digital ✕ Policy”
Moderated by Mika (Conference Organizer), who set the tone by inviting us to reflect on how digitalization can be a tool to serve, empower, and uplift communities—not just increase efficiency.
Karen E. Iversen – Chief Advisor, Ministry of Finance (Denmark)
Karen, with over 20 years of experience in public digitalization, opened with a compelling point: the same digital processes can produce vastly different effects across national contexts. This emphasized the need for culturally and demographically informed policy design.
Raymond Yamamoto – Aarhus University
Raymond’s talk was particularly striking. He reminded us that digitalization has largely been driven by technocrats and businesses, often without sufficient regard for societal consequences. His key message:
“Digitalization is not the goal in itself. We don’t do it just because we can.”
He outlined three challenges Japan faces compared to Denmark:
- Demographics
- Japan’s average age is 50 vs. Denmark’s 40.
- A service-oriented culture means elderly citizens expect human interaction—not digital-only services.
- Innovation tends to come from younger populations, yet needs must meet the realities of aging societies.
- Political Structure
- Japan has 47 prefectures and ~1700 local governments.
- This creates over 1,000 fragmented digital systems, making interoperability and scaling very difficult.
- Trust
- “We cannot measure trust,” Raymond said.
- In Japan, public trust in government use of data is low, which hampers digital adoption.
His conclusion?
“I don’t have the solution—but lowering ambitions is not one of them.”
Ina Bækgaard – PhD Fellow, Aarhus University
Ina’s research focuses on citizen-oriented digitalization and digital inclusion. She highlighted Denmark’s timeline:
- Internet introduction around 1980
- NemID launched by 2010—a national digital ID used to access public services (e.g., healthcare, banking, taxes).
- While efficient, this model assumes a digitally competent population.
However, 25% of Danish citizens struggle with digital access, making them a discriminated minority in a system designed around digital self-service.
Ina proposed three necessary interventions:
- Design user-friendly digital solutions
- Provide direct support for digitally challenged citizens
- Support helpers—those who assist others in navigating digital systems
Key takeaways from her research:
- Cross-disciplinary collaboration is essential
- Inclusion is an investment, not a cost
- We must resist the “efficiency-first” mindset
“We do not know the full costs of digital exclusion—there are no economic incentives to measure them.”
Co-Creation in Hino City, Japan
The session concluded with a compelling case from Hino City, presented by:
- Hiroyuki Kurimoto – CEO, Liquitous
- Satoshi Suzuki – Hino City
- Mizuki Ishiguro – Hino City
They introduced a citizen participation platform that facilitates co-creation between citizens and the local government. The platform allows residents to propose ideas, engage in public dialogues, and influence policy decisions.
This initiative exemplifies how bottom-up, citizen-centered digitalization can complement top-down infrastructure—especially in local governance contexts where diversity of needs is high.
Final Reflections
What I appreciated most about this session was the deep, critical reflection on digitalization—not as a neutral process—but as a political and social endeavor. From Denmark’s push for efficiency to Japan’s challenge of trust and fragmentation, the insights shared made it clear:
Digital policy must be human-centered, inclusive, and context-sensitive.
