Technological solutionism
This article was written by Irénée Régnauld and Yaël Benayoun for Le Mouton Numérique in 2021.
Definition: technological solutionism refers to a thought process according to which all of society’s problems (security, health, transport, education, etc.) can be solved by making technological solutions available to individuals. |
Context: the failure of governments to tackle social issues
The term technological solutionism was popularised by American researcher Evgeny Morozov in his book To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism (FYP, 2014).
Morozov's book was published at a key moment in the history of digital technology and the Internet. Digital equipment and usage were becoming increasingly widespread. An ever-increasing share of the world’s population was equipped with a smartphone, and ‘everyday’ connected objects were being used in a wide variety of sectors. These new uses first came to light against a backdrop of deep economic and social crises (2007-2012), the repercussions of which are still being felt today. The public policies rolled out by governments appear to be woefully inadequate in responding to this social dilemma, particularly in the United States, where the government does not tend to intervene. As a result, tech companies in California’s Silicon Valley are positioning themselves in new markets with social ambitions, offering turnkey digital solutions that are often inexpensive and easy to implement, to solve a number of social issues that are not adequately addressed by the State.
In the health sector, mobile applications and ‘smart forks’ monitor the number of calories consumed by an individual, with the aim of combating obesity. As far as the environment is concerned, the ‘connected dustbin’ allows you to sort your rubbish more effectively and then brag about it on social media. In the field of security, algorithmic systems process vast quantities of data to anticipate where and when criminal activity is likely to occur.
The political consequences of this are that social issues are reduced to mere technical concerns.
The fact that private sector companies are taking on tasks that are usually the responsibility of the public service needs to be addressed. This is profoundly changing the nature and purpose of the services and support available in addressing social issues.
Firstly, there has been an ‘engineering’ of social issues. So-called solutionist technologies are based on reducing a complex, multifactorial social issue (security, justice, education, health, etc.) to a quantifiable problem that can be modelled. In the field of food and health, for example, the ‘smart fork’ tells us what to eat, but does not help us to understand why our food has become so fatty, or why we don’t walk enough and sleep too little. In other words, the aim is to address an individual problem (in this case, a poor diet) as effectively as possible, but there is no question of understanding the root causes to then take in-depth action (lobbying from the food industry, advertising, infrastructure that is not adapted to walking, etc.). Decontextualised in this way, the proposed solutions run the risk of being out of touch and totally inappropriate for the problems encountered by social workers and the people concerned.
Secondly, so-called solutionist technologies are very often accompanied by an excessive attempt to hold individuals accountable for the social - and increasingly environmental - problems they encounter, which at the same time amounts to taking responsibility away from governments and sometimes even legitimising their lack of involvement. In 2011, the residents of La Courneuve (Île-de-France region of France) were invited by their local councillors to reduce their energy consumption by all means possible. However, a political decision had created tension in the region with regards the supply of energy: elected representatives had allowed a large number of data centres (centres hosting digital data) to be set up in the region, with highly energy-intensive infrastructure and which seek energy saturation in order to remain competitive (see work by Clément Marquet).
Thirdly, this privatisation of addressing social and environmental issues is highly dependent on the solvency of the services offered and the target audiences. In other words, the technologies developed must be based on viable business models. However, against a backdrop of major budget cuts, this means charging beneficiaries for the service they receive - and therefore excluding the most vulnerable individuals - or finding alternative funding, which can give rise to new political and social problems (for example, commodification of the data collected by the service).
What's more, this privatisation means that the range of services on offer is fragmented, which makes any attempt at assessing them difficult.
Latest news: persistent use of solutionism in defining and implementing emergency public policies
We are now starting to get some feedback from the first experiments of technological solutionism. One of the best-known experiments is PredPol, the software used by the American police force to generate crime predictions. Ten years after it was first introduced, when it was still not possible to determine its accuracy, the software was confirmed as holding racial bias. Trained on the basis of data on people arrested by the American police, the software reproduced the racist behaviour of police officers. The software was discontinued in April 2020.
On another note, it has been shown that car-sharing initiatives such as Blablacar are counter-productive from an environmental point of view. While the goal of car-sharing is to help decarbonise road traffic by encouraging people to share their vehicles, it turns out that these initiatives have actually encouraged more car journeys because of the low cost of the journeys. This is what we call the rebound effect.
While technological solutionism is now well-documented and relatively familiar to public services, the recent health crisis has shown that solutionist technologies are still preferred for managing situations of uncertainty, emergency and crisis. Around the world, the first period of lockdown sparked widespread deployment of surveillance technologies: facial recognition cameras, thermal cameras, drones, tracking software, etc. Solutions that do not address the root causes of the spread of the epidemic (austerity policies, reduced hospital capacity, shortage of personal protective equipment, etc.), but instead contribute to infantilising and blaming people. In the same way, the EdTech solutions deployed to ensure educational continuity were unaware of what schools and universities were doing on a social level (socialisation and learning about standards, risk prevention and protection of pupils, food safety, health education, etc.), and failed to prevent or provide support for the distressing situations in which many pupils, students, teachers and administrative staff found themselves.
Bibliography: reference book
Evgeny Morozov, To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism, FYP, 2014.
[ Translation : NSS EPALE France ]
The Limits of Technological Solutionism and the Need for Systemi
Your article provides an insightful critique of technological solutionism, highlighting how tech-driven fixes often oversimplify complex social problems. While I agree with many of the concerns raised, I believe there is room for a more nuanced discussion about the role of technology in public policy and how we can strike a balance between innovation and systemic change.
1. Technology as a Tool, Not a Replacement for Policy
The core problem with solutionism, as you rightly pointed out, is that it frames societal issues as purely technical challenges, ignoring the structural, economic, and political dimensions. However, the failure is not in technology itself, but in the way it is applied and the assumptions that drive its implementation.
For instance, EdTech solutions during the pandemic were not inherently bad; they provided millions of students with access to learning opportunities. The real issue was that governments treated these tools as substitutes rather than as complementary measures. The same can be said for predictive policing software—if used alongside criminal justice reforms, better oversight, and accountability measures, its potential biases could be mitigated.
The key, therefore, is not to reject technological solutions outright but to integrate them into broader, well-designed policies that address root causes rather than just symptoms.
2. Technological Solutionism vs. Pragmatic Digitalization
Another important distinction is between technological solutionism (which assumes tech can replace social systems) and pragmatic digitalization, where technology enhances and supports existing structures without erasing their human and institutional roles.
Take smart cities as an example. A city that installs sensors to optimize traffic flow is not inherently engaging in solutionism—it's using data to improve public infrastructure. However, if those same cities prioritize smart traffic lights over investments in public transport and urban planning, then it becomes a classic case of tech-centric overreach.
A well-balanced approach would:
3. The False Binary: Public vs. Private Solutions
Your article critiques the privatization of social services through technology, arguing that governments are outsourcing their responsibilities to tech companies. While this is often true, it’s important to recognize that governments themselves are not always equipped to develop technological solutions internally.
Instead of rejecting private-sector involvement altogether, a collaborative model could be more effective. For instance, public-private partnerships that maintain government oversight and ethical standards could prevent issues like:
Rather than leaving tech in the hands of either unregulated corporations or underfunded bureaucracies, we need hybrid models where innovation and public accountability coexist.
4. Moving Forward: Towards a More Holistic Approach
The recent failures of technological solutionism, such as PredPol’s racial bias or BlaBlaCar’s unintended environmental impact, prove that tech-driven solutions must be critically examined and refined. However, dismissing technology outright is not the answer. Instead, we should focus on how digital tools can be integrated into broader policy frameworks that prioritize:
Inclusion – ensuring that marginalized communities are not excluded from digital solutions.
Ethical design – preventing algorithmic bias and corporate exploitation.
Public interest – maintaining government involvement in technology-driven services.
Ultimately, the real challenge is not whether technology can help solve social problems, but how we design and regulate it to serve the common good.