Digital transformation has emerged as a central driver of economic restructuring, reshaping production systems, governance processes, and social interactions across both advanced and emerging economies as digital technologies become embedded in virtually all sectors of economic activity ( David et al., 2025; OECD, 2026). The integration of data-driven technologies, artificial intelligence, and digital infrastructures into industrial systems has accelerated productivity, innovation, and global connectivity, positioning digitalisation as a key enabler of contemporary economic development ( World Bank, 2025; Hu et al., 2025). At the same time, the rapid expansion of the digital economy, characterised by exponential growth in data generation, platform ecosystems, and interconnected devices, has fundamentally altered how value is created, distributed, and captured within industrial economies ( UNCTAD, 2024).

Historically, scholarly and policy debates on digital inequality have been framed through the lens of the digital divide, which emphasises disparities in access to digital technologies and connectivity among individuals, firms, and regions ( Mhlanga 2020; Zhang et al., 2025; McCarthy, 2022). This access-oriented perspective has informed a wide range of policy interventions aimed at expanding internet penetration, improving infrastructure, and enhancing digital skills, under the assumption that greater access would lead to more inclusive participation in digital economies ( Mhlanga 2021; David et al., 2025). Indeed, empirical evidence suggests that increased digital access is positively associated with economic growth and improvements in human development indicators, particularly in emerging economies ( Mhlanga, 2022; David et al., 2025). However, despite these gains, persistent and, in some cases, widening inequalities suggest that access alone is insufficient to ensure equitable outcomes in digital transformation processes ( Oxfam, 2026) .

Recent evidence indicates that the benefits of digital transformation are unevenly distributed, with wealth, influence, and technological capabilities increasingly concentrated among a small number of dominant actors, including large technology firms and advanced economies ( Oxfam, 2026; UNCTAD, 2024). The consolidation of digital platforms and the emergence of data-intensive business models have enabled certain actors to control critical digital infrastructures, data resources, and algorithmic systems that shape economic outcomes ( Baley & Veldkamp, 2025). In this context, inequality is no longer defined solely by whether individuals or organisations can access digital technologies, but increasingly by their capacity to control and leverage data, influence algorithmic decision-making, and capture value within digital ecosystems ( Oxfam, 2026) .

This shift reflects the emergence of what can be conceptualised as a data divide, where disparities arise between those who generate data and those who possess the capabilities to collect, analyse, and monetise it, thereby creating asymmetries in power and economic advantage ( Zhang et al., 2025; McCarthy, 2022). Within industrial contexts, these dynamics are particularly pronounced, as digital technologies such as industrial Internet of Things (IIoT), digital twins, and AI-driven production systems generate vast amounts of operational data that are often controlled by firms and platform providers rather than by workers or smaller enterprises ( Al Zami et al., 2025). Consequently, participation in digital systems does not necessarily translate into meaningful influence or equitable benefit, giving rise to a condition that may be described as participation without power. Against this backdrop, this paper argues that contemporary digital inequality should be reframed as a question of digital power, rather than merely digital access. Digital power refers to the capacity to control data flows, design and govern algorithmic systems, and influence the distribution of economic value within data-driven industrial economies. This perspective shifts the analytical focus from inclusion in terms of connectivity to inclusion in terms of control, agency, and value capture. By advancing this conceptual shift, the paper contributes to ongoing debates on digital transformation by highlighting the structural mechanisms through which power is concentrated, and inequalities are reproduced in the digital age. This paper is particularly relevant to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially SDG 9, which emphasises inclusive and sustainable industrialisation, and SDG 10, which focuses on reducing inequalities. While digital transformation is often positioned as a driver of these goals, this study argues that unequal distribution of digital power may instead reinforce structural disparities, limiting the achievement of inclusive and equitable development outcomes.

The concept of the digital divide has long provided the dominant analytical lens for understanding inequality in the context of technological change, with early scholarship focusing primarily on disparities in access to information and communication technologies (ICTs) across individuals, regions, and nations ( van Dijk, 2020; Ragnedda, 2020). This first-level divide emphasised material access, such as internet connectivity, devices, and infrastructure, as the principal barrier to participation in the digital economy, thereby shaping policy responses centred on expanding broadband coverage and reducing affordability constraints ( OECD, 2023; World Bank, 2025). As digital technologies diffused more widely, however, research began to highlight a second-level divide, which captured inequalities in digital skills, literacy, and the capacity to use technologies effectively, suggesting that access alone does not guarantee meaningful engagement or benefits ( Hargittai et al., 2019; van Deursen & Helsper, 2018).

More recent scholarship has advanced the notion of a third-level digital divide, which shifts attention from access and skills to the outcomes and benefits derived from digital participation, demonstrating that even among connected and digitally literate users, significant disparities persist in terms of economic returns, social capital, and opportunities ( Scheerder et al., 2017; Ragnedda, 2020). These evolving perspectives reflect an important progression in the literature, yet they remain limited in their ability to fully capture the structural transformations associated with data-driven and AI-enabled economies, where power is increasingly embedded in the control of digital infrastructures, data ecosystems, and algorithmic systems ( Couldry & Mejias, 2019; Zuboff, 2023). In such contexts, inequality is no longer simply a matter of differential participation, but of asymmetrical control over the mechanisms that shape participation itself. This transformation is particularly evident in the rise of the data economy, where data has become a critical factor of production, comparable to capital and labour, and where its collection, aggregation, and analysis underpin competitive advantage and value creation ( UNCTAD, 2024; OECD, 2024). Large technology firms and platform-based organisations have developed the capacity to extract, process, and monetise vast quantities of data, thereby consolidating their position within digital ecosystems and creating new forms of market concentration and dependency ( Kenney & Zysman, 2020; Srnicek, 2017). These dynamics have given rise to what has been described as data asymmetry, wherein individuals, workers, and smaller firms generate data but lack the capacity to access, interpret, or leverage it effectively, resulting in an imbalance between data producers and data controllers ( Couldry & Mejias, 2019; UNCTAD, 2024).

In this context, the limitations of the digital divide framework become increasingly apparent, as it does not sufficiently account for the ways in which power is exercised through data ownership, algorithmic governance, and platform control. Consequently, there is a growing need to reconceptualise digital inequality through the lens of digital power, defined here as the capacity of actors to control data flows, design and govern algorithmic systems, and influence the distribution of value within digital economies. This perspective aligns with emerging critiques that highlight how digital systems are not neutral infrastructures but are shaped by institutional arrangements, corporate strategies, and governance structures that determine who benefits and who is marginalised ( Kellogg et al., 2020; Pasquale, 2015). Importantly, the shift from digital divide to digital power also reflects a transition from viewing inequality as a problem of exclusion to understanding it as a problem of structural dominance and dependency. In data-driven industrial economies, actors may be formally included within digital systems through participation in platforms, supply chains, or digital production networks yet remain subordinated due to their limited capacity to influence decision-making processes or capture value ( Kenney & Zysman, 2020; UNCTAD, 2024). This condition underscores the emergence of a new form of inequality, where inclusion does not equate to empowerment, and where participation occurs within asymmetrical power relations that reproduce and, in some cases, intensify existing socio-economic disparities ( Couldry & Mejias, 2019; Ragnedda & Ruiu 2020). Accordingly, reframing digital inequality as a matter of digital power provides a more comprehensive analytical framework for understanding the contemporary dynamics of technological transformation, particularly in industrial contexts where data-intensive systems and algorithmic decision-making are increasingly central. This perspective not only captures the evolving nature of inequality in the digital age but also foregrounds the importance of governance, regulation, and institutional design in shaping more equitable digital futures.

The transition toward data-driven industrial systems has fundamentally reconfigured the locus of economic and organisational power, shifting it from traditional factors of production toward the control of data, digital infrastructures, and algorithmic processes ( UNCTAD, 2024; OECD, 2024). In this context, digital power is not a singular construct but a multidimensional phenomenon that operates across interconnected domains, including data ownership, algorithmic governance, platform control, and value capture, each of which contributes to shaping asymmetries in influence and economic outcomes within industrial ecosystems ( Kellogg et al., 2020; Kenney & Zysman, 2020). Understanding these dimensions is critical for explaining how inequalities are reproduced and intensified in contemporary digital economies, particularly as industrial production becomes increasingly reliant on real-time data flows, artificial intelligence, and digitally mediated coordination mechanisms ( World Bank, 2025; UNIDO, 2023).

The rapid diffusion of industrial data systems, including the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT), cyber-physical systems, digital twins, and AI-enabled production platforms, has transformed the organisation of production by embedding data flows and real-time analytics into the core of industrial processes ( UNIDO, 2023; World Bank, 2025). These systems enable continuous monitoring, predictive maintenance, and operational optimisation, thereby enhancing efficiency, reducing costs, and improving productivity across manufacturing and supply chain environments ( OECD, 2024; UNCTAD, 2024). As a result, participation in industrial ecosystems increasingly requires integration into digitally mediated systems, where data generation and exchange are central to value creation ( Kenney & Zysman, 2020; Srnicek, 2017). However, while industrial data systems expand opportunities for participation, they simultaneously reproduce and intensify asymmetries in control and influence, leading to uneven outcomes among actors within these ecosystems ( Couldry & Mejias, 2019; UNCTAD, 2024). Workers, suppliers, and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are often deeply embedded in data-generating processes through their engagement with digital production technologies, yet they typically lack access to the full datasets, analytical tools, and decision-making authority required to shape outcomes or capture value ( OECD, 2024; World Bank, 2025). This creates a structural condition in which participation in digital systems does not equate to empowerment, but rather reinforces existing hierarchies of control ( Zuboff, 2023; Kellogg et al., 2020).

Within manufacturing environments, for example, IIoT devices and sensor networks generate vast quantities of operational data related to machine performance, worker productivity, and process efficiency, yet this data is generally owned and managed by firms or platform providers rather than by the individuals or entities that contribute to its creation ( UNIDO, 2023; UNCTAD, 2024). Similarly, digital supply chains rely on integrated platforms that coordinate logistics, inventory management, and production scheduling across multiple actors, but the governance of these systems is typically centralised, allowing lead firms or platform operators to dictate the terms of participation and control access to critical information ( Kenney & Zysman, 2020; OECD, 2024). These arrangements reinforce dependency relationships, as smaller firms must align with platform standards and protocols to remain competitive while having limited capacity to influence the system’s structure or rules ( Srnicek, 2017; UNCTAD, 2024). The implications of these dynamics are particularly significant for labour, as workers increasingly operate within digitally monitored and algorithmically managed environments, where performance is tracked, evaluated, and optimised through data-driven systems ( Kellogg et al., 2020; Pasquale, 2015). While such systems can enhance efficiency and safety, they also raise concerns about autonomy, surveillance, and the redistribution of decision-making authority, as control shifts from workers to managerial and algorithmic systems ( Zuboff, 2023; Couldry & Mejias, 2019). In this context, workers become both contributors to and subjects of data systems, generating valuable information while remaining largely excluded from its governance and benefits ( OECD, 2024; World Bank, 2025).

At a broader level, these patterns extend to global industrial structures, where firms in the Global South are increasingly integrated into digital value chains but often occupy subordinate positions characterised by limited technological capabilities, restricted access to data, and dependence on foreign platforms and infrastructures ( UNCTAD, 2024; World Bank, 2025). Although digital transformation can facilitate market access and integration into global production networks, it can also reinforce existing inequalities by concentrating high-value activities such as data analytics, platform governance, and innovation within advanced economies and large multinational corporations ( UNIDO, 2023; OECD, 2024). Consequently, digital participation at the global level often reflects asymmetric integration, in which inclusion in digital systems does not translate into proportional economic gains or strategic control.

Taken together, these dynamics highlight a critical paradox at the heart of digital transformation in industrial economies: while digital technologies expand participation by connecting actors to data-driven systems, they simultaneously concentrate control over those systems among a relatively small number of powerful actors. This condition can be conceptualised as “participation without power,” in which individuals and organisations are integrated into digital ecosystems but lack the capacity to influence their operations, governance, or outcomes. Recognising this paradox is essential for advancing a more nuanced understanding of digital inequality, as it underscores the need to move beyond access-based frameworks toward analyses that foreground the distribution of power within industrial data systems.

The consolidation of digital power within data-driven industrial economies carries profound implications for the nature, depth, and persistence of inequality, reshaping not only how disparities emerge but also how they are reproduced across economic and social systems ( UNCTAD, 2024; World Bank, 2025). While digital transformation has the potential to enhance productivity, expand market access, and stimulate innovation, its benefits are unevenly distributed, reflecting underlying asymmetries in access to data, technological capabilities, and institutional resources ( OECD, 2024; Couldry & Mejias, 2019). As a result, digitalisation operates as a dual force simultaneously enabling inclusion and reinforcing structural inequalities depending on how power is configured within digital ecosystems ( Ragnedda, 2020; UNCTAD, 2024).

The concentration of digital power within data-driven industrial economies necessitates a fundamental reorientation of policy and governance frameworks, as existing approaches, largely centred on expanding access and infrastructure, are insufficient to address the structural dynamics of inequality embedded in contemporary digital systems ( OECD, 2024; UNCTAD, 2024). While investments in connectivity, digital literacy, and technological adoption remain important, they do not adequately confront the deeper issues of control, ownership, and value distribution that underpin digital power asymmetries ( World Bank, 2025; Ragnedda, 2020). Consequently, there is a growing recognition that inclusive digital transformation requires not only broader participation but also more equitable governance of data, algorithms, and digital infrastructures ( Couldry & Mejias, 2019; UNCTAD, 2024).

The concentration of digital power has significant implications for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly in the context of increasingly data-driven industrial systems ( UNCTAD, 2024; World Bank, 2025). In relation to SDG 9, unequal control over industrial data infrastructures and digital technologies constrains inclusive innovation, limiting the capacity of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and developing economies to participate meaningfully in digital industrialisation processes ( OECD, 2024; UNIDO, 2023). Evidence suggests that firms and countries with advanced digital capabilities are better positioned to leverage data-driven systems for productivity gains, thereby reinforcing technological and industrial disparities across regions ( UNCTAD, 2024; World Bank, 2025).

Similarly, the realisation of SDG 10 is increasingly challenged by asymmetries in data ownership, algorithmic governance, and value capture, which contribute to widening income and opportunity inequalities both within and between countries ( Oxfam, 2026; Nick Couldry & Ulises Mejias, 2019). The dominance of large technology firms and platform-based ecosystems concentrates economic value among actors that control digital infrastructures, while those who generate data, such as workers, consumers, and SMEs, often receive limited returns ( Shoshana Zuboff, 2023; Martin Kenney & John Zysman, 2020). These dynamics highlight that achieving the SDGs requires a shift from access-oriented digital policies toward governance frameworks that address the distribution of digital power, including reforms in data ownership, algorithmic accountability, and platform regulation ( OECD, 2024; UNCTAD, 2024). Without such interventions, digital transformation risks reinforcing structural inequalities rather than contributing to inclusive and sustainable development outcomes ( World Bank, 2025; UNIDO, 2023).

This paper has argued that understanding digital transformation through the lens of access alone is no longer sufficient to explain the evolving nature of inequality in data-driven industrial economies. While expanded connectivity has enabled broader participation, it has not ensured equitable outcomes, as power is increasingly concentrated in the control of data, digital infrastructures, and algorithmic systems. The concept of digital power, therefore, provides a more comprehensive framework for analysing how value is created, governed, and distributed within contemporary economic systems. The findings of this study have direct implications for achieving SDG 9 and SDG 10, as unequal control over digital resources constrains inclusive industrialisation and reinforces disparities in economic participation and outcomes. Participation in digital ecosystems often occurs without corresponding influence, resulting in “participation without power” that perpetuates structural inequalities across firms, labour markets, and global value chains. Achieving more inclusive and sustainable digital futures, therefore, requires a shift toward governance frameworks that prioritise agency, accountability, and equitable distribution of value. Ultimately, progress toward the SDGs will depend not only on expanding digital access but also on ensuring that digital power is more evenly distributed across actors, institutions, and regions.