Metaverse becomes a tool of power as governments push dual social and industrial agendas

The study shows that governments are reframing the metaverse as a foundational pillar of digital transformation, capable of reshaping everything from public services to industrial production. The authors highlight a sharp rise in national-level strategies that treat virtual worlds as long-term national infrastructure, particularly as the global metaverse market is projected to climb from tens of billions of euros today to trillions within the next decade.

Governments around the world are moving quickly to claim strategic positions within the emerging metaverse ecosystem, according to a new international review that warns public-sector ambitions are expanding faster than the frameworks needed to ensure inclusion, accountability, and user autonomy. While political leaders are treating virtual worlds as a frontier of economic growth and state capability, the research shows that citizens and end-users remain mostly absent from the strategic plans shaping the next generation of digital environments.

The study, presented in the peer-reviewed study “Governments, Users, and Virtual Worlds: Institutional Strategies in the Age of Big Data and IA” and published in Social Sciences, analyses seven national and regional metaverse strategy documents across Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, revealing a policy landscape defined by a dual push: harnessing immersive technologies for public services and using virtual worlds as industrial engines for competitiveness, innovation, and sovereignty.

Metaverse as a national infrastructure for social and economic transformation

The study shows that governments are reframing the metaverse as a foundational pillar of digital transformation, capable of reshaping everything from public services to industrial production. The authors highlight a sharp rise in national-level strategies that treat virtual worlds as long-term national infrastructure, particularly as the global metaverse market is projected to climb from tens of billions of euros today to trillions within the next decade.

Countries such as South Korea, Finland, China, Japan, Israel, and members of the European Union appear at the forefront of policy development. Public authorities are positioning virtual worlds as strategic assets for education, healthcare, digital diplomacy, tourism, urban planning, and civic engagement. The study points to initiatives such as immersive city services, virtual municipal offices, digital training environments, and the integration of extended reality into public administration. These examples show that governments now see virtual worlds not merely as consumer entertainment spaces but as extensions of state capacity.

The review identifies a two-track approach adopted by most countries. On one side, governments promote a social metaverse designed to enhance public service delivery, improve access to state resources, support social inclusion, and strengthen democratic participation. On the other side, they promote an industrial metaverse focused on economic growth, technological innovation, logistical optimization, and global digital competitiveness.

This dual categorization reflects both the opportunity and tension within current metaverse strategies. While some governments prioritize welfare-oriented objectives, others foreground industrial leadership, export potential, and sovereignty over digital infrastructures. The study argues that both dimensions increasingly overlap, producing hybrid strategies where economic priorities coexist with public-sector ambitions.

Sustainability, sovereignty, competitiveness, and stakeholder relationships drive national strategies

Across all strategic plans reviewed, the authors identify four dominant motivations guiding government investment in virtual worlds.

The first is sustainability, not only environmental but also economic and social. Governments view immersive technologies as tools to improve resource management, deliver public services more efficiently, and simulate complex policy scenarios. Digital twins and real-time data environments are being deployed to support decisions on transportation, urban design, public assets, and even cultural or health programs. These same technologies underpin industrial energy efficiency and climate-aligned production systems.

The second motivation is digital sovereignty, driven by geopolitical concerns over data control, platform dependency, and technological dominance by global corporations. Several countries see decentralised, Web 3.0 and Web 4.0 architectures as mechanisms to reduce reliance on foreign platforms and ensure that national values, legal standards, and security needs shape their virtual ecosystems. This emphasis on sovereignty is especially strong in China, Japan, and Dubai, where the metaverse is framed as a strategic economic domain tied to national strength.

The third motivation is competitive advantage. Governments aim to elevate their positions in the global digital economy by cultivating domestic metaverse industries, attracting talent, supporting start-ups, and preparing export-oriented technological hubs. The study notes that some governments envision the metaverse as a platform for industrial restructuring, enabling new business models, process optimisation, immersive commerce, and data-driven innovation across entire value chains.

The fourth motivation is relationship-building with citizens and consumers. The metaverse is being promoted as a participatory space for younger demographics and a platform for personalized public services. Governments also see it as an avenue to foster user relationships, strengthen national identity, and maintain relevance among digitally native populations. On the industry side, the metaverse enables brand engagement, consumer research, and interactive value co-creation.

Despite these stated intentions, the study finds that most national strategies pay little attention to users as active contributors or co-creators in virtual environments. While strategies highlight civic inclusion, digital rights, and accessibility, the authors conclude that institutional priorities overshadow discussions about meaningful user roles.

A global shift toward transactional and connected metaverse models 

The study identifies two major operational models guiding government metaverse strategies: transactional and connected approaches.

Transactional approaches focus on enabling citizens or consumers to conduct activities directly inside virtual worlds. Governments envision immersive platforms where administrative procedures, public inquiries, and service navigation can occur through 3D interfaces or extended reality systems. On the industrial side, this approach aligns with virtual marketplaces, immersive product experiences, and blockchain-enabled transactions.

Connected approaches emphasize networked infrastructures, digital twins, and advanced data systems. These models integrate real-world and virtual information to support planning, coordination, logistics, and predictive management. Governments see connected metaverse environments as critical tools for urban operations, public safety, emergency response, and inter-agency cooperation. Industries use the same logic to monitor supply chains, optimise production, and enable collaborative decision-making.

The two models often overlap, reflecting both public-sector needs and market logics. This convergence suggests that the metaverse is evolving into a multi-layered governance space where public and private sectors share infrastructure, data flows, and platform architectures.

However, the study also identifies several gaps and risks:

1. Limited role of users in strategic frameworks: Despite references to inclusion and participation, the reviewed documents rarely describe citizens or consumers as co-creators of value. The metaverse is predominantly shaped by institutions and industry, not by participatory design or democratic governance mechanisms.

2. Significant privacy, ethical, and surveillance concerns: The metaverse depends on intensive data flows that include behavioural, biometric, and emotional data. This creates risks related to manipulation, discriminatory algorithms, coercive content, deceptive identities, and loss of autonomy. The study stresses that regulatory, legal, and ethical frameworks have not kept pace with technological integration.

3. Technological dependence and uneven national capabilities: Countries with advanced digital infrastructures are better positioned to develop robust metaverse ecosystems, while others risk widening digital inequality.

4. Misalignment between institutional ambitions and user needs: Governments emphasize infrastructure, industrial leadership, and sovereignty, yet overlook critical areas such as democratic participation, co-creation, and user control over data and identities.

Governments, as the authors stress, must shift from institution-dominant strategies toward user-centred models that empower citizens to participate in shaping virtual governance systems. Without this shift, the metaverse may centralise power rather than distribute it.