Development Management
Development Management
ISSN 2413-9610 e-ISSN 2663-2365 UDC 004; 005; 35; 336; 65
DOI: 10.57111/devt
Submit an article

Article

Download article

Constraints and solutions for the digital transformation of urban ethnic affairs: A stakeholder perspective

Yuli Chen

Received 12.11.2025, Revised 31.03.2026, Accepted 19.05.2026 Published 29.06.2026

Abstract

The relevance of the study is a result of the growing imperative of the digital transformation of public governance and the challenges posed by such transformation to ethnically diverse urban populations. The purpose of this study was to develop a stakeholder-centred framework for identifying institutional constraints on the digital transformation of ethnic affairs governance in urban China and Canada. The study employed comparative document analysis, stakeholder mapping, and multi-level governance analysis of legal and policy frameworks in China and Canada. The results demonstrate that China and Canada have developed fundamentally different models of ethnic affairs governance, whose limitations are structural rather than individually resolvable. China’s centralised model ensures high operational efficiency and a unified digital infrastructure, yet generates deficits of legitimacy across input, throughput, and output dimensions. These deficits stem from the exclusion of ethnic community organisations from platform co-design, weak interoperability between the National State Commission for Ethnic Affairs and national data systems, and the managerial role of major technology corporations without independent oversight. The adoption of the National Unity and Progress Act has further reinforced the concentration of governance within party-based structures, reducing the availability of culturally sensitive digital services at the municipal level. Canada’s decentralised model, by contrast, demonstrates strong input legitimacy grounded in constitutionally recognised multicultural and Indigenous rights. However, it exhibits persistent coordination failures and outcome legitimacy deficits due to fragmentation across federal, provincial, municipal, and Indigenous governance levels. Evidence from Toronto and Vancouver highlights both variation in participatory mechanisms and enduring accountability gaps between Indigenous self-government institutions and municipal digital service provision. The findings of this research can be applied to other countries with similar governmental models for ethnic affairs and contribute to the existing scholarly literature on the topic of digital transformation and ethnic affairs governance


Keywords:

subsidiarity; interoperability; participatory legitimacy; governance models; Indigenous groups; multicultural

https://doi.org/10.63341/devt/2.2026.82

Retrieved from Volume 25, No. 2, 2026

Pages 82-97

References Suggested citation

References

  1. Alméstar, M., Romero-Muñoz, S., & Mestre, N. (2025). Breaking silos: A systemic portfolio approach and digital tool for collaborative urban decarbonisation. Sustainability, 17(11), article number 5145. doi: 10.3390/su17115145.
  2. Bai, X., & Yang, L. (2025). Digital literacy’s impact on digital village participation in rural left-behind women through serial mediation of political trust and self-efficacy. Scientific Reports, 15, article number 34226. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-16093-3.
  3. Boichak, O., & Kumar, P. (2022). Mapping the national web: Spaces, cultures and borders of diasporic mobilization in the digital age. Global Networks, 22(2), 242-258. doi: 10.1111/glob.12342.
  4. Canadian Multiculturalism Act. (1988, July). Retrieved from https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C-18.7.pdf.
  5. Chen, Y., Richter, J.I., & Patel, P.C. (2020). Decentralized governance of digital platforms. Journal of Management, 47(5), 1305-1337. doi: 10.1177/0149206320916755.
  6. Chengdu Metropolitan Area Development Plan. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/xwdt/ztzl/xxczhjs/ghzc/202203/P020220310612774783269.pdf.
  7. City of Toronto. (2022). Digital infrastructure strategic framework: City of Toronto march 2022. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/9728-DISFAcc2.pdf.
  8. City of Toronto. (n.d.). Data for equity strategy. Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2020/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-158046.pdf.
  9. Corazza, L., Cottafava, D., Torchia, D., & Dhir, A. (2023). Interpreting stakeholder ecosystems through relational stakeholder theory: The case of a highly contested megaproject. Business Strategy and the Environment, 33(3), 2384-2412. doi: 10.1002/bse.3601.
  10. Creemers, R. (2022). China’s emerging data protection framework. Journal of Cybersecurity, 8(1), article number tyac011. doi: 10.1093/cybsec/tyac011.
  11. Digital Governance Council. (2025). Establishing confidence in the digital age: CAN/DGSI 103-0 now a national standard of Canada. Retrieved from https://dgc-cgn.org/establishing-confidence-in-the-digital-age-can-dgsi-103-0-now-a-national-standard-of-canada/.
  12. Ebrahimi, H.P., Schillo, R.S., & Bronson, K. (2021). Systematic stakeholder inclusion in digital agriculture: A framework and application to Canada. Sustainability, 13(12), article number 6879. doi: 10.3390/su13126879.
  13. Ethnic and Religious Affairs Office of Pudong New Area. (2025). Annual report on the implementation of administrative licensing by the Ethnic and Religious Affairs Office of Pudong New Area, Shanghai, in 2024. Retrieved from https://www.pudong.gov.cn/zwgk/qt-mzb/2025/66/338908.html.
  14. Government of Canada. (2024). Annual report on the operation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act 2022-2023. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/corporate/publications/plans-reports/annual-report-canadian-multiculturalism-act-2022-2023.html.
  15. Government of Canada. (2025). Section 27 – multicultural heritage. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art27.html.
  16. Große-Bley, J., & Kostka, G. (2021). Big data dreams and reality in Shenzhen: An investigation of smart city implementation in China. Big Data & Society, 8(2). doi: 10.1177/20539517211045171.
  17. He, C., Chen, G., & Chen, Y. (2024). Empowering rural revitalization in China through digital innovation: Strategies, impact, and future directions. In Proceedings of the 2024 2nd international conference on digital economy and management science (pp. 269-278). Dordrecht: Atlantis Press. doi: 10.2991/978-94-6463-488-4_30.
  18. Heeks, R., Ospina, A.V., Foster, C., Gao, P., Han, X., Jepson, N., Schindler, S., & Zhou, Q. (2024). China’s digital expansion in the Global South: Systematic literature review and future research agenda. The Information Society, 40(2), 69-95. doi: 10.1080/01972243.2024.2315875.
  19. Hu, J., & Zhang, X. (2024). Digital governance in China: Dispute settlement and stability maintenance in the digital age. Journal of Contemporary China, 33(148), 561-577. doi: 10.1080/10670564.2023.2261877.
  20. Huang, L., Yang, X., Qin, Y., Chen, H., & Tan, X. (2023). A study on the path of digital technology to improve the level of municipal social governance in border minority areas – taking Guangxi Zhuang autonomous region as an example. Academic Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences, 6(5), 117-125. doi: 10.25236/ajhss.2023.060519.
  21. Hüther, M., & Vogel, M. (2021). Sovereignty and responsibility in a multilevel system: Subsidiarity as the guiding principle? Business Service, 101(6), 439-445. doi: 10.1007/s10273-021-2940-3.
  22. Indigenous Languages Act. (2019, June). Retrieved from https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/I-7.85.pdf.
  23. Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. (2018). National inuit strategy on research. Retrieved from https://www.itk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/ITK_NISR-Report_French_low_res.pdf.
  24. Jia, H. (2024). Impact of digital infrastructure construction on the migrants’ utilization of basic public health services in China. BMC Health Services Research, 24, article number 761. doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-11221-7.
  25. Law of the People’s Republic of China “On Promoting National Unity and Progress”. (2026, March). Retrieved from https://www.spp.gov.cn/spp/fl/202603/t20260313_723912.shtml.
  26. Law of the People’s Republic of China “On Regional National Autonomy”. (2016, April). Retrieved from https://english.court.gov.cn/2016-04/14/c_761445.htm.
  27. Ma, K., & Zhang, H. (2023). Has the digital economy improved income inequality for ethnic minorities? The case of China. Heliyon, 9(12), article number e22831. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22831.
  28. Mao, Z., & Zhu, Y. (2025). Does e-government integration contribute to the quality and equality of local public services? Empirical evidence from China. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12, article number 242. doi: 10.1057/s41599-025-04539-y.
  29. Margariti, V., Stamati, T., Anagnostopoulos, D., Nikolaidou, M., & Papastilianou, A. (2022). A holistic model for assessing organizational interoperability in public administration. Government Information Quarterly, 39(3), article number 101712. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2022.101712.
  30. Mendis, K., Thayaparan, M., Kaluarachchi, Y., & Ingirige, B. (2024). Effective stakeholder management for inclusive post-flood management: Sri Lanka as a case study. Water, 16(10), article number 1429. doi: 10.3390/w16101429.
  31. Nair, A.J., Manohar, S., & Mittal, A. (2024). Reconfiguration and transformation for resilience: Building service organizations towards sustainability. Journal of Services Marketing, 38(4), 404-425. doi: 10.1108/JSM-04-2023-0144.
  32. National Development and Reform Commission. (2022). 14th five-year plan for the development of the digital economy. Retrieved from https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/fggz/fzzlgh/gjjzxgh/202203/t20220325_1320207.html.
  33. New government service platform sector enables inter-provincial service. (2021). Retrieved from https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202101/06/WS5ff50d44a31024ad0baa0b85.html.
  34. Nirmani, I.A.P. (2025). Barriers to digital participation in developing countries: Identifying technological, social, and cultural obstacles to community involvement. GSC Advanced Research and Reviews, 23(2), 61-71. doi: 10.30574/gscarr.2025.23.2.0130.
  35. Not, E., Leonardi, C., López-De-Ipiña, D., Palacios, D., Sánchez-Corcuera, R., Kazhamiakin, R., & Gerosa, M. (2024). Designing a digital environment to support the co-production of public services: Balancing multiple requirements and governance concepts. Digital Government: Research and Practice, 5(3), article number 24. doi: 10.1145/3664612.
  36. Pasko, O., Marenych, T., Diachenko, O., Levytska, I., & Balla, I. (2021). Stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: The case study of Ukrainian public agricultural companies. Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, 7(1), 58-80. doi: 10.51599/are.2021.07.01.04.
  37. Pelyukh, O., Lavnyy, V., Paletto, A., & Troxler, D. (2021). Stakeholder analysis in sustainable forest management: An application in the Yavoriv region (Ukraine). Forest Policy and Economics, 131, article number 102561. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102561.
  38. Qin, T., Wang, L., Zhou, Y., Guo, L., Jiang, G., & Zhang, L. (2022). Digital technology-and-services-driven sustainable transformation of agriculture: Cases of China and the EU. Agriculture, 12(2), article number 297. doi: 10.3390/agriculture12020297.
  39. Qingdao Agricultural University. (2022). Chengdu: 14th five-year plan for urban and rural community development and governance. Retrieved from https://xczx.qau.edu.cn/content/zhengcefagui/f5bfd0480bfc433d991e3bab601f4733.
  40. Schmidt, V.A. (2013). Democracy and legitimacy in the European Union revisited: Input, output and “throughput”. Political Studies, 61(1), 2-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00962.x.
  41. Shanghai Municipal People’s Government Cooperation and Exchange Office. (2025). Organisational responsibilities. Retrieved from https://hzjl.sh.gov.cn/n1273/20091210/0041-108688.html.
  42. Singgir, N.Y., Ferriswara, D., Pramudiana, I.D., & Kamariyah, S. (2025). Policy implementation in Indonesia: A systematic review of recent trends and practices in public administration and governance. Public Administration and Communication Studies, 2(3), 120-148. doi: 10.62383/kajian.v2i3.574.
  43. Singh, V., & Chobotaru, J. (2022). Digital divide: Barriers to accessing online government services in Canada. Administrative Sciences, 12(3), article number 112. doi: 10.3390/admsci12030112.
  44. State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China. (2021). Human rights action plan of China (2021-2025). Retrieved form https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/business/workinggroupbusiness/2022-11-28/Human-Rights-Action-Plan-of-China-2021-2025.pdf.
  45. Stratu-Strelet, D., Gil-Gómez, H., Oltra-Badenes, R., & Oltra-Gutierrez, J.V. (2021). Critical factors in the institutionalization of e-participation in e-government in Europe: Technology or leadership? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 164, article number 120489. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120489.
  46. The State Council of the People’s Republic of China. (2022). China to build integrated govt big data system. Retrieved from https://english.www.gov.cn/policies/latestreleases/202210/28/content_WS635b9af9c6d0a757729e1e00.html.
  47. The State Council’s guiding opinions on accelerating the development of “Internet Plus Government Services”. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.scio.gov.cn/xwfb/gwyxwbgsxwfbh/wqfbh_2284/2019n_5801/2019n04y02r/wjxgzc_6080/202207/t20220715_212944.html.
  48. Thunø, M., & Wang, Y. (2024). China’s smart diaspora governance: Extraterritorial social control through digital platforms. Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, 54(1), 48-72. doi: 10.1177/18681026241232998.
  49. Toronto Municipal Code: Chapter 195, Procurement. (2025, July). Retrieved from https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/1184_195.pdf.
  50. Vancouver City Council Decision. (2024). City of Vancouver: UNDRIP action plan 2024-2028. Retrieved from https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/undrip-action-plan-2024-2028.pdf.
  51. Xiao, J., Brenneis, C., & Fassbender, K. (2022). Stakeholder perspectives towards implementing the national framework on palliative care in Canada. Health Policy, 126(6), 576-583. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2022.01.011.
  52. Yu, J. (2022). Digital education for ethnic minorities in China. Science Insights, 41(2), 585-591. doi: 10.15354/si.22.re070.
  53. Zinchuk, T.O., Tarasovych, L.V., Yaremova, M.I., Usiuk, T.V., & Kovalchuk, O.D. (2021). Participation and bridging: Involving etrepreneurs in the management of the EU rural economy. Studies of Applied Economics, 39(5), 1-12. doi: 10.25115/eea.v39i5.4900.

Suggested citation

Chen, Y. (2026). Constraints and solutions for the digital transformation of urban ethnic affairs: A stakeholder perspective. Development Management, 25(2), 82-97. https://doi.org/10.63341/devt/2.2026.82