The Pitfall of Super Apps- How Over Centralization Undermines Local Government's Autonomy

Karina Oktriastra- March 2025

The rapid adoption of super apps in government operations has been promoted as a breakthrough in public service digitalization. These one-command applications promise seamless service, standardization, and efficiency across different regions. However, behind this progress lies a worrying issue: the erosion of local government autonomy and the imposition of centralized standards that often do not align with the strengths and challenges of different regions.

Overuse of Technology - The Double Edge Sword

Technology should be a tool to enhance governance, not dictate policies without considering local needs. The current trend of developing one-size-fits-all super apps limits local governments’ ability to tailor solutions based on their unique socio-economic conditions. Instead of enabling local governments to build on their own strengths, these apps enforce uniformity, often overlooking disparities in infrastructure, human resources, and economic priorities across regions.

Super apps are often assumed to be a universal solution for all issues, but this approach is flawed. Local governments operate in vastly different contexts—what works in the capital city may not be applicable in smaller cities, rural areas, or regions with different socio-economic dynamics. Imposing a standardized system restricts innovation, hinders context-based problem-solving, and forces local governments to conform to a framework that is more suitable for metropolitan areas than their actual needs.

According to Janssen & Estevez (2013) in their study on e-Government, excessive standardization in digital governance can reduce policy effectiveness at the local level by limiting governments’ ability to customize technology to their own needs.

Dependence on Centralized Control: A Threat to Autonomy

In an era where digital governance is expanding, super apps are instead increasing local governments’ dependence on national policies. This dependency creates several challenges:

1. Loss of Decision-Making Power: Local governments are forced to align their policies with centrally designed applications, reducing their ability to independently create policies that address local issues.
2. Lack of Flexibility and Customization: These apps are often rigid, compelling regions to adjust their service models to predetermined features, even if they are irrelevant to local needs.
3. Resource Drain: Implementing centralized applications, maintaining compatibility, and meeting national standards consume resources that could otherwise be used for more pressing local needs.

The result? Instead of crafting policies based on regional potential, local governments struggle to adapt to national mandates that often fail to consider their capacities and realities. Research by Heeks (2008) in the Journal of Information Technology for Development shows that the success of digital governance initiatives depends on how well technology adapts to local socio-political structures rather than simply implementing a top-down technology framework.

Forgetting the Strength of Local Autonomy

Before the rise of super apps, many regions thrived through decentralized decision-making, allowing them to develop solutions tailored to their unique socio-political and economic landscapes. Autonomy gave local governments the freedom to innovate and build regional cooperation among local stakeholders—a far more sustainable approach than merely following national standards.

The core strength of local governance lies in community-based problem-solving, where local knowledge, cultural nuances, and regional expertise play a crucial role. In contrast, super apps prioritize individual efficiency over collective progress, pushing a hyper-standardization model that disregards the power of community engagement and collaborative governance.

Reclaiming Digital Sovereignty for Local Governments

To address this issue, we must rethink how digital governance is implemented:

1. Adopt a Hybrid Approach: Instead of enforcing a top-down digital policy, governments should develop modular and flexible digital solutions that local governments can adapt to their needs.
2. Promote Interoperability, Not Uniformity: Rather than forcing a single application across all regions, we should build interoperable systems that allow local applications to communicate with national platforms without sacrificing their specific functionalities.
3. Empower Local Digital Innovation: Encourage local governments to develop needs-based digital solutions, supported by central funding and expertise but without unnecessary restrictions.
4. Strengthen Local Collaboration: Prioritize intergovernmental cooperation, ensuring that best practices are shared and adapted based on regional strengths rather than imposed through a centralized system.

Conclusion

Super apps are not inherently bad—but when they become tools for enforcing uniformity instead of empowering local innovation, they undermine the essence of local autonomy. If we want to adopt digital governance, we must do so in a way that enhances local governments’ strengths rather than merely making them conform to a system designed for the capital.

The future of governance should not be about making local governments fit into a centralized digital mold—but about leveraging technology to empower them based on their unique strengths.

As Sen (1999) asserts in Development as Freedom, technology must fulfill its true purpose: assisting marginalized communities, strengthening societies, and ensuring governance is built on inclusivity rather than centralized control. Only then can technology truly serve as a tool for effective and inclusive policymaking.

* Sen, Amartya. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press.