Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-54gsr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-27T06:53:52.282Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ageing and technology in the policy discourse on public services digitalisation: a missed opportunity?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 September 2025

Mino Novello Open the ORCID record for Mino Novello [Opens in a new window]  and
Emma Garavaglia
Mino Novello*
Affiliation:
Social Policy Lab, Department of Architecture and Urban Studies, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy
Emma Garavaglia
Affiliation:
Social Policy Lab, Department of Architecture and Urban Studies, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy
*
Corresponding author: Mino Novello; Email: mino.novello@polimi.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study addresses a critical gap in research on public services digitalization, specifically, how technology’s role and its relationship with ageing are framed within policy discourse. While digitalization holds the promise of enhanced accessibility, streamlined bureaucracy and greater transparency, it also has the potential to exacerbate social exclusion in ageing societies. Macro-level factors such as policy frameworks and societal values play a key role in either mitigating or intensifying these risks; they shape the way critical issues are defined and which responses are deemed conceivable. The study aims to critically examine how digitalization and ageing are framed in European and Italian policy documents, and assess the implications of these narratives for older adults. Methodologically, it analyses a corpus of 29 European and Italian policy documents on public service digitalization (2010–2023). Keywords extraction identified ten documents for critical discourse analysis, which revealed a dominant narrative of technological optimism where digitalization is presented as a universal solution, with limited acknowledgment of its potential downsides. At the European level, some documents recognize the rights of older adults, though such recognition remains sparse. Italian policies, in contrast, tend to prioritize technical and economic aspects, with little or no attention to digital exclusion or inequality. This study sheds light on how policy discourse can obscure structural inequalities and calls for more inclusive, reflective approaches to digitalization in ageing societies. It argues that policy discourse should be leveraged not only to promote innovation but also to foster social change and reduce exclusion among older adults.

Keywords

ageingcritical discourse analysisdigital dividedigital public servicessocial exclusion

Information

Type
Article
Information
Ageing & Society , First View , pp. 1 - 22
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alexopoulou, S, Åström, J and Karlsson, M (2022) The grey digital divide and welfare state regimes: A comparative study of European countries. Information Technology and People 35, 273–291. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-11-2020-0803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Askheim, OP, Christensen, K, Fluge, S and Guldvik, I (2017) User participation in the Norwegian welfare context: An analysis of policy discourses. Journal of Social Policy 46, 583–601. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047279416000817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bacchi, CL (1999) Women, Policy, and Politics: The Construction of Policy Problems. London: Sage.10.4135/9781446217887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbabella, F, Melchiorre, MG, Quattrini, S, Papa, R and Lamura, G (2017) How Can eHealth Improve Care for People with Multimorbidity in Europe? European Observatory Policy Briefs. Copenhagen: European Observatory on Health Systems and PoliciesGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, BB (1990) Class, Codes and Control: Volume 4 The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Caliandro, A, Garavaglia, E, Sturiale, V and Di Leva, A (2021) Older people and smartphone practices in everyday life: An inquire on digital sociality of Italian older users. Communication Review 24, 47–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2021.1904771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlo, S and Sourbati, M (2020) Age and technology in digital inclusion policy: A study of Italy and the UK. Journal for Communication Studies 13, 107–127.Google Scholar
Chini, I (2008) ICT policy as a governance domain: The case of Greece and the European Commission. In Avgerou, C, Smith, ML and van den Besselaar, P Social Dimensions of Information and Communication Technology Policy. Boston, MA: Springer, pp. 45–62.10.1007/978-0-387-84822-8_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collington, R (2022) Disrupting the welfare state? Digitalisation and the retrenchment of public sector capacity. New Political Economy 27, 312–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2021.1952559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council of the European Union (2020) Human Rights, Participation and Well-Being of Older Persons in the Era of Digitalisation – Council Conclusions (9 October). Available at https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-11717-2020-REV-2/en/pdf (accessed 24 August 2025).Google Scholar
Department for Digital Transformation (2020) Strategia Nazionale per le Competenze Digitali. Available at https://assets.innovazione.gov.it/1610029655-dtd-1277-a-all1.pdf (accessed 24 August 2025).Google Scholar
Draulans, V and Lamura, G (2021) Introduction: Framing exclusion from services. In Walsh, K, Scharf, T, Van Regenmortel, S and Wanka, A (eds.), Social Exclusion in Later Life: Interdisciplinary and Policy Perspectives. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 135–140.10.1007/978-3-030-51406-8_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunleavy, P, Margetts, H, Bastow, S and Tinkler, J (2006) Digital Era Governance: IT Corporations, the State, and e-Government. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199296194.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebbers, WE, Jansen, MGM and van Deursen, AJAM (2016) Impact of the digital divide on e-government: Expanding from channel choice to channel usage. Government Information Quarterly 33, 685–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.08.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebbers, WE, Pieterson, WJ and Noordman, HN (2008) Electronic government: Rethinking channel management strategies. Government Information Quarterly 25, 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2006.11.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eruchalu, CN, Pichardo, MS, Bharadwaj, M, Rodriguez, CB, Rodriguez, JA, Bergmark, RW, Bates, DW and Ortega, G (2021) The expanding digital divide: Digital health access inequities during the Covid-19 pandemic in New York City. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 98,183–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-020-00508-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Commission (2010) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – A Digital Agenda for Europe. Available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52010DC0245 (accessed 24 August 2025).Google Scholar
European Parliament and Council (2022) Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Digital Decade Policy Programme 2030. Available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32022D2481 (accessed 24 August 2025).Google Scholar
Fairclough, N (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, C, Heuberger, M and Heine, M (2021) The impact of digitalization in the public sector: A systematic literature review/Die Auswirkungen von Digitalisierung im öffentlichen Sektor: Ein systematischer Literaturüberblick. DMS – der Moderne Staat – Zeitschrift F Für Public Policy, Recht Und Management 14, 3–23. https://doi.org/10.3224/dms.v14i1.13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleming, A, Mason, C and Paxton, G (2018) Discourses of technology, ageing and participation. Palgrave Communications 4,1–9. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0107-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fountain, JE (2014) On the effects of e-government on political institutions. In Kleinman DL and Moore K (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Science, Technology, and Society. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 471–487.Google Scholar
Gherardi, S (2000) Practice-based theorizing on learning and knowing in organizations. Organization 7, 211–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/135050840072001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimsley, M and Meehan, A (2007) e-Government information systems: Evaluation-led design for public value and client trust. European Journal of Information Systems 16, 134–148. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haug, N, Dan, S and Mergel, I (2024) Digitally-induced change in the public sector: A systematic review and research agenda. Public Management Review 26, 1963–1987. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2234917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, C and Rosamond, B (2002) Globalization, European integration and the discursive construction of economic imperatives. Journal of European Public Policy, 9(2), 147–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760110120192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helbig, N, Ramón Gil-García, J and Ferro, E (2009) Understanding the complexity of electronic government: Implications from the digital divide literature. Government Information Quarterly 26, 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2008.05.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgs, P and Gilleard, C (2022) Techno-fixes for an ageing society. Aging and Mental Health 26, 1303–1305. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2021.2008308CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hirvonen, H, Tammelin, M, Hänninen, R and Wouters, EJM (eds.) (2021) Digital Transformations in Care for Older People: Critical Perspectives. Abingdon: Routledge.10.4324/9781003155317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Italian Government (2021). Piano Nazionale di Ripresa e Resilienza. Available at www.governo.it/sites/governo.it/files/PNRR.pdf (accessed 24 August 2025).Google Scholar
Karakaya Polat, R and Pratchett, L (2014) Citizenship in the age of the Internet: A comparative analysis of Britain and Turkey. Citizenship Studies 18, 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2013.780765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krzyżanowski, M (2010) The Discursive Construction of European Identities: A Multi-level Approach to Discourse and Identity in the Transforming European Union. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Krzyżanowski, M (2016) Recontextualisation of neoliberalism and the increasingly conceptual nature of discourse: Challenges for critical discourse studies. Discourse and Society 27, 308–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926516630901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layne, K and Lee, J (2001) Developing fully functional e-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly 18, 122–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0740-624X(01)00066-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindgren, I, Madsen, CO, Hofmann, S and Melin, U (2019) Close encounters of the digital kind: A research agenda for the digitalization of public services. Government Information Quarterly 36, 427–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.03.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipp, B and Peine, A (2024) Ageing as a driver of progressive politics? What the European silver economy teaches us about the co-constitution of ageing and innovation. Ageing & Society 44, 1481–1493. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X22000903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupton, D (2013) The digitally engaged patient: Self-monitoring and self-care in the digital health era. Soc Theory Health, 11(3), 256–270. https://doi.org/10.1057/sth.2013.10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marenco, M and Seidl, T (2021) The discursive construction of digitalization: A comparative analysis of national discourses on the digital future of work. European Political Science Review 13, 391–409. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175577392100014XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margetts, H (2008) Public management change and e-government: The emergence of digital-era governance. In Chadwick A and Howard PN (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 114–128.Google Scholar
Marshall, BL and Katz, S (2016) How Old am I?. Digital Culture & Society, 2(1), 145–152. https://doi.org/10.14361/dcs-2016-0110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millward, P (2003) The ‘grey digital divide’: Perception, exclusion and barriers of access to the Internet for older people. First Monday 8(7). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v8i7.1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mossberger, K, Tolbert, CJ and Stansbury, M (2003) Virtual Inequality: Beyond the Digital Divide, Georgetown University Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
Neven, L (2011) Representations of the Old and Ageing in the Design of the New and Emerging: Assessing the Design of Ambient Intelligence Technologies for Older People. PhD thesis, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Neven, L and Peine, A (2017) From triple win to triple sin: How a problematic future discourse is shaping the way people age with technology. Societies 7, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc7030026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, PA and Persson, JS (2017) Useful business cases: Value creation in IS projects. European Journal of Information Systems 26, 66–83. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41303-016-0026-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, T and Viscovi, D (2023) Digitalised welfare: Access, usage, and outcomes among older adults. Media and Communication 11, 18–28. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v11i3.6694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peine, A, Marshall, BL, Martin, W and Neven, L (2021) Socio-gerontechnology: Key themes, future agendas. In Peine, A, Marshall, BL, Martin, W and Neven, L (eds.), Socio-gerontechnology: Interdisciplinary Critical Studies of Ageing and Technology. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 1–23.10.4324/9780429278266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peine, A and Neven, L (2019) From intervention to co-constitution: New directions in theorizing about aging and technology. Gerontologist 59, 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gny050CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sætra, HS and Selinger, E (2024) Technological remedies for social problems: Defining and demarcating techno-fixes and techno-solutionism. Science and Engineering Ethics 30, . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-024-00524-xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sala, E, Gaia, A and Cerati, G (2022) The gray digital divide in social networking site use in Europe: Results from a quantitative study. Social Science Computer Review 40, 328–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439320909507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schou, J and Pors, AS (2019) Digital by default? A qualitative study of exclusion in digitalised welfare. Social Policy and Administration 53, 464–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, K, Prybutok, G and Prybutok, V (2022) The use of digital technology for social wellbeing reduces social isolation in older adults: A systematic review. SSM (Social Science & Medicine) – Population Health 17,1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.101020Google ScholarPubMed
Sourbati, M (2009) ‘It could be useful, but not for me at the moment’: Older people, internet access and e-public service provision. New Media and Society 11, 1083–1100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809340786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valokivi, H, Carlo, S, Kvist, E and Outila, M (2023) Digital ageing in Europe: A comparative analysis of Italian, Finnish and Swedish national policies on eHealth. Ageing & Society 43, 835–856. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X21000945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Deursen, AJAM and Helsper, JE (2015) The third-level digital divide: who benefits most from being online?. In Robinson, L, Cotten, S R, Schulz, J, Hale, T M and Williams, A (Eds.), Communication and Information Technologies Annual (Studies in Media and Communications), Vol. 10, Emerald Group, Bingley, pp. 29-52.10.1108/S2050-206020150000010002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, J (2020) The Digital Divide. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
van Dijk, TA (1993) Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society 4, 249–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dyk, S (2014) The appraisal of difference: Critical gerontology and the active-ageing paradigm. Journal of Aging Studies 31, 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2014.08.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Toorn, G, Henman, P and Soldatić, K (2024) Introduction to the digital welfare state: Contestations, considerations and entanglements. Journal of Sociology 60, 507–522. https://doi.org/10.1177/14407833241260890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitfield, G and Hamblin, K (in press) ‘Thanks to technology’: Discourse, care and technology in England. Ageing & Society, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X2400059XGoogle Scholar
Wodak, R (2015) Critical discourse analysis, discourse-historical approach. In Tracy, K, Sandel, T and Ilie, C (eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar