Nomadismo digital como fenómeno estructural en la era
postpandémica global
J. Manage. Hum. Resour. (January - June 2025) 3(1): 37-43
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15501605
ISSN: XXXX-XXXX
REVIEW ARTICLE
Digital nomadism as a structural phenomenon in the global post-
pandemic era
Raquel V. Peña
Instituto Universitario de Tecnología Elías Calixto Pompa,
Venezuela.
Received: 13 August 2024 / Accepted: 20 November 2024 / Published online: 21 January 2025
© The Author(s) 2025
Raquel V. Peña
1
·
Javier A. Pérez
2
Abstract This article examined digital nomadism as a
structural and multidimensional phenomenon that has gained
prominence in the global post-pandemic context. Through
a qualitative, theoretical-documentary review of peer-re-
viewed scientic literature published between 2020 and
2024, the study explored the conceptual foundations, spatial
practices, and political implications of this emerging form
of mobility. Findings revealed that digital nomadism com-
bines remote work, mobile lifestyles, and transnational con-
sumption of territories, producing uneven eects on urban
systems, housing markets, and community relations. The
study identied tensions between the discourse of freedom
and exibility and the precarious conditions experienced by
many nomads, particularly those lacking economic or legal
stability. It also highlighted digital nomads’ role as territorial
agents contributing to gentrication and spatial inequality in
popular destinations. Furthermore, it addressed the limita-
tions of current visa policies, which often favor short-term
economic benets without integrating scal responsibility
or long-term community engagement. The analysis conclud-
ed that digital nomadism disrupts conventional citizenship,
work, and urban governance models, and requires inclusive
policy frameworks and territorially sensitive planning strat-
egies that reconcile global mobility with social equity and
urban sustainability.
Keywords digital nomadism, liquid citizenship, urban gen-
trication, global mobility.
Resumen Este artículo examinó el nomadismo digital
como un fenómeno estructural y multidimensional que ha
ganado relevancia en el contexto global postpandemia. A
través de una revisión cualitativa, teórica y documental de
literatura cientíca revisada por pares, publicada entre 2020
y 2024, se exploraron los fundamentos conceptuales, las
prácticas espaciales y las implicaciones políticas de esta for-
ma emergente de movilidad. El nomadismo digital combina
el trabajo remoto, los estilos de vida móviles y el consumo
transnacional del territorio, generando efectos desiguales en
los sistemas urbanos, los mercados de vivienda y las relacio-
nes comunitarias. Se identicaron tensiones entre el discur-
so de la libertad y la exibilidad, y las condiciones precarias
que enfrentan muchos nómadas, especialmente aquellos
con menor estabilidad económica o legal. Los nómadas di-
gitales son agentes territoriales que contribuyen a la gentri-
cación y a la desigualdad espacial en destinos populares. Las
limitaciones de las políticas de visado actuales priorizan los
benecios económicos a corto plazo sin incorporar criterios
de responsabilidad scal ni de integración comunitaria. El
nomadismo digital tensiona los modelos convencionales de
ciudadanía, trabajo y gobernanza urbana, y requiere marcos
regulatorios inclusivos y una planicación territorial sensi-
ble al contexto, que articule la movilidad global con la equi-
dad social y la sostenibilidad urbana.
Palabras clave nomadismo digital, ciudadanía líquida, gen-
tricación urbana, movilidad global
How to cite
Peña, R. V., & Pérez, J. A. (2025). Digital nomadism as a structural phenomenon in the global post-pandemic era. Journal of Management and Human
Resources, 3(1), 37-43. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15501605
1
Instituto Universitario de Tecnología Elías Calixto Pompa, Venezuela.
2
Universidad Pedagógica Experimental Libertador, Venezuela.
J. Manage. Hum. Resour. (January - June 2025) 3(1): 37-43 38
Introduction
The rapid advance of information and communication
technologies has profoundly transformed lifestyles, produc-
tion logic, and mobility dynamics in contemporary societies.
In this context, digital nomadism has emerged as an emblem-
atic gure of the post-industrial economy, characterized by
the decentralization of labor, the exibility of work environ-
ments, and the redenition of the boundaries between work,
leisure, and residence. This phenomenon, anticipated by
Makimoto and Manners (1997), has evolved from a futuris-
tic vision to a concrete practice adopted by millions of peo-
ple around the world, who use digital technologies to work
online while moving across dierent national and interna-
tional geographies (Chevtaeva & Denizci-Guillet, 2021).
The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed this trend, normaliz-
ing remote work and highlighting the possibilities of a work
life untethered to a xed location. The global imposition of
teleworking during lockdowns accelerated the adoption of
exible work models and, in parallel, enabled the emergence
of mobile individuals who reorganized their lives based on
new priorities: quality of life, access to nature or mild cli-
mates, enriching cultural experiences, and lower costs of liv-
ing (Hermann & Paris, 2020). This context encouraged nu-
merous countries, especially those with tourism-dependent
economies, to design public policies to attract these mobile
workers by implementing special visas for digital nomads
that allow them to legally reside and work for extended peri-
ods (Bednorz, 2024; Zhou et al., 2024).
In analytical terms, digital nomadism constitutes a form of
hybrid mobility that combines long-term tourism, skilled mi-
gration, self-employment, and teleworking. This type of mo-
bility diers from other migration and tourism forms due to
its intermittent, nonlinear, and self-regulated nature, as well
as its high degree of sociodemographic selectivity, as those
who practice it typically have higher education, advanced
digital skills, cosmopolitan cultural capital, and moderate to
high economic resources (Kozak et al., 2024). However, the
literature still presents signicant gaps regarding the precise
denition of the digital nomad prole, its structural impact
on host destinations, and the public policies that regulate or
incentivize this way of life.
Likewise, this phenomenon raises substantive questions
about social justice, scal equity, and territorial citizenship.
As Webb (2024) points out, by temporarily residing in dif-
ferent countries without establishing lasting legal or tax ties,
digital nomads strain traditional redistribution schemes, so-
cial security, and civic belonging, giving rise to what some
authors call “liquid citizenship”. This disruptive mobility
also impacts housing markets, especially in tourist cities, by
increasing the demand for medium-term rentals and contrib-
uting to transnational gentrication processes, negatively af-
fecting the most vulnerable local communities. Therefore, it
is urgent to examine digital nomadism’s spatial, urban, and
sociopolitical implications from a critical, multidimensional,
and intersectional perspective.
On the other hand, the scientic literature on digital no-
madism has grown signicantly in the last ve years. How-
ever, it remains fragmented and dispersed across various
disciplines: tourism, geography, organizational manage-
ment, sociology of work, public policy, urban studies, and
technology. Some research has focused on the work-leisure
practices of nomads, others on institutional attraction strat-
egies (Zhou et al., 2024; Bednorz, 2024), and still others on
the identity imaginaries constructed by these mobile actors
(Chevtaeva & Denizci-Guillet, 2021). However, few stud-
ies integrate these dimensions into a common theoretical
framework that allows us to understand the phenomenon as a
structural whole. At the same time, there is an overvaluation
of individual experience and a limited critical analysis of the
systemic eects generated by this globalized mobility.
Against this backdrop, this article aims to critically and
comprehensively analyze digital nomadism as an emerging
form of transnational mobility. It explores its conceptual evo-
lution, socio-spatial practices, impact on host destinations,
and the public policies implemented to regulate or encourage
it. Through an analytical review of scientic literature pub-
lished between 2020 and 2025, the paper seeks to establish
an interpretive framework that articulates the technological,
urban, economic, tourism, and political dimensions of digi-
tal nomadism, thus contributing to a better understanding of
its implications for territorial planning, mobility governance,
and the design of sustainable and inclusive tourism destina-
tions.
In addition to the institutional and media interest generated
by digital nomadism, this phenomenon has sparked a com-
plex academic debate on the transformation of work in the
post-Fordist era. In this new scenario, employment is no lon-
ger tied to an oce, a city, or even a country, and becomes
a decentralized practice, managed through digital platforms
and collaborative tools that allow tasks to be performed from
anywhere with an internet connection. This spatial autono-
my introduces a radically dierent way of life from that of
traditional workers, with a logic of symbolic consumption
of destinations that overlaps with work activity, generating
a hybrid experience of production and recreation. However,
this apparent freedom is hindered by signicant challenges
related to precariousness, lack of social protection, and mo-
J. Manage. Hum. Resour. (January - June 2025) 3(1): 37-4339
bile living conditions that, in some cases, reproduce subtle
forms of job insecurity.
From the perspective of organizations and labor markets,
the rise of digital nomadism also represents a structural in-
ection. Companies have begun to adapt their talent man-
agement and human resources models to incorporate more
exible, oshore, and results-oriented hiring schemes. This
transformation has allowed them to reduce operating costs
(physical spaces, services, insurance) and diversify the
workforce through the international outsourcing of highly
qualied professionals (Kozak et al., 2024). At the same
time, cities and territories themselves have begun to com-
pete with each other as destinations for this new prole of
mobile workers, developing digital infrastructure, cowork-
ing environments, and government programs that promote
a “country brand” associated with well-being, connectivity,
and quality of life (Zhou et al., 2024).
However, this free, uid, and highly technological mobil-
ity is neither homogeneous nor universal. Access to digital
nomadism continues to be conditioned by multiple structural
factors such as national origin, cultural capital, social class,
language, and digital capabilities. Not everyone can partic-
ipate equitably in this form of mobility, which perpetuates
global inequalities in access to employment and territorial
opportunities (Webb, 2024). Furthermore, the economic
benets derived from the presence of digital nomads in
certain regions are not always distributed equitably among
local communities. As Sciuva (2025) and Bednorz (2024)
warn, the growth of medium-term rentals, the transformation
of traditional neighborhoods into tourist enclaves, and the
erosion of community-based forms of urban life are conse-
quences that must be critically evaluated to avoid a neoliber-
al instrumentalization of this phenomenon.
Therefore, digital nomadism challenges not only the dis-
ciplines of tourism and labor but also critical geography, ur-
ban planning, migration law, political economy, and cultural
studies. Understanding it requires going beyond its techno-
philic and aspirational surface to recognize the conicts it
generates regarding rootedness, citizenship, spatial justice,
and sustainability. Along these lines, authors propose a re-
search agenda aimed at mapping the geographies of digital
nomadism, understanding its eects on the housing market,
consumption circuits, forms of belonging, and urban space
production modes. This paper seeks to contribute to this
agenda by proposing a critical, comparative, and multidis-
ciplinary perspective that will advance the theorization of
this phenomenon and the design of inclusive and territorially
sensitive public policies.
Theoretical framework
Digital nomadism is a paradigmatic manifestation of the
structural changes in mobility, work, and urban planning re-
gimes in the 21st century. It lies at the intersection of trans-
formations driven by digitalization, the globalization of the
labor market, the dissolution of geographical boundaries for
specic social segments, and the growing commodication
of the tourist experience. Addressing it requires a compre-
hensive theoretical framework that articulates contributions
from disciplines, such as critical geography, labor studies,
mobility theory, and tourism, to understand the dierential
eects of this new conguration of exible, nomadic, and
digitalized life.
The gure of the digital nomad represents a break with
the traditional form of stable, situated, and linear wage em-
ployment. The emergence of mobile technologies, digital
collaboration platforms, and transnational payment systems
has enabled forms of autonomous, independent, and translo-
cal work that transcend the boundaries of Fordist space-time.
Digital nomads operate under self-managed schedules and
integrate leisure time as an inseparable part of their work
routine, thus creating a more uid and performative “work-
life balance”.
This type of work organization responds to a new neolib-
eral ethos where the individual is simultaneously their em-
ployer, personal brand, and manager of their performance
(Chevtaeva & Denizci-Guillet, 2021). However, this exi-
bility also entails vulnerabilities: a lack of social security,
variable income, and legal barriers in certain countries. In
this sense, Cook (2023) and Orel (2019) highlight that, de-
spite the imaginary of freedom, many digital nomads operate
in precariousness and symbolic competition, exacerbated by
the logic of platforms.
From a critical mobility theory perspective (Sheller &
Urry, 2006), digital nomadism can be analyzed as a form of
aspirational-but unequal—mobility that requires viable eco-
nomic, technological, and cultural capital. Digital nomads
migrate not out of necessity, but out of choice; they move
not for lack of opportunities, but to maximize well-being,
freedom, and experiences.
The “travel platformization” process implies that nomads
choose their destinations not only based on the landscape or
the climate, but also on the digital infrastructure, quality of
life, access to coworking spaces, and like-minded commu-
nities. This generates “spaces of productive transit”, where
territory is consumed as an instrumental resource for self-ef-
cacy. However, this mobility impacts rental markets, caus-
J. Manage. Hum. Resour. (January - June 2025) 3(1): 37-43 40
es displacement of residents, and accelerates processes of
transnational gentrication (Bednorz, 2024). Such transfor-
mations must be understood within the framework of spatial
justice and the right to the city.
From a tourism perspective, digital nomadism has re-
shaped traditional tourist, visitor, and traveler concepts.
Kozak et al. (2024) argue that these actors cannot be classi-
ed as conventional tourists or permanent residents but as a
third, intermediate category that combines work, consump-
tion, and recreation. This group demands specic tourism
products: medium-stay accommodation, high-speed connec-
tivity, legal exibility, and immersive experiences, forcing
destinations to rethink their positioning strategies.
Zhou et al. (2024) introduce the notion of “smart desti-
nations”, which integrate digital infrastructure, participato-
ry governance, and inclusive policies to attract and sustain
digital nomads. These territories compete globally through
special visas, tax incentives, and development models that
promote innovation, the creative economy, and mobile entre-
preneurship. However, this process is not without tensions:
prolonged touristication and dependence on oating capital
can destabilize host cities’ social and ecological sustainabil-
ity.
Digital nomadism challenges the classic categories of
migration law, taxation, and social citizenship. The gure
of the mobile and unanchored worker strains the territori-
al principles that structure tax and welfare regimes. Webb
(2024) problematizes this situation through the concept of
“institutional disengagement,” where nomads enjoy territo-
rial benets (infrastructure, services, security) without being
formally integrated into the host country’s tax system. This
raises multilevel governance and tax equity challenges that
many states have yet to address.
Furthermore, Bednorz (2024) shows that digital nomad
visas—already implemented in more than 60 countries—do
not follow a standard model but instead express a variety
of strategic approaches and priorities. Some seek to attract
skilled human capital, while others stimulate tourism con-
sumption or boost depressed rural areas. However, few
policies consider mechanisms for citizen integration, local
participation, or redistributive contributions. This “liquid
citizenship”, based on consumption rather than rootedness,
raises new questions about global justice, belonging, and re-
sponsibility.
Methodology
This research employs a qualitative, theoretical, and docu-
mentary methodology to critically analyze the phenomenon
of digital nomadism through a cross-disciplinary review
of peer-reviewed literature from 2020 to 2025. The study
adopts a constructivist and critical lens, emphasizing the so-
cio-political contexts that shape digital nomadism and avoid-
ing neutral or reductionist views. Through narrative synthe-
sis, thematic classication, qualitative coding, and critical
interpretation, the research explores how digital nomadism
intersects with labor models, urban transformation, remote
work policies, and global mobility regimes. A diverse corpus
of 15 scientic articles was selected using strict inclusion
criteria and validated through a three-stage process, incorpo-
rating comparative regional analyses and theoretical triangu-
lation across disciplines such as critical geography, tourism,
public policy, and digital economy. The study highlights the
conceptual tensions and inequalities underlying nomadic
practices, proposing emerging analytical categories such as
“privileged vs. subsistence nomads” and “instrumental vs.
experiential mobility”. Ultimately, the methodology reects
an ethical and reexive commitment to spatial justice, criti-
cally engaging with dominant narratives and advocating for
inclusive and context-sensitive policy frameworks.
Results and discussion
A critical analysis of the reviewed studies identied a
series of key patterns, tensions, and ndings surrounding
digital nomadism, structured around four thematic axes: (1)
characteristics and practices of the digital nomad lifestyle;
(2) urban and territorial eects on host destinations; (3) pub-
lic policies for attraction, regulation, and incentives; and (4)
emerging debates on citizenship, taxation, and social justice.
This structure addresses the study’s specic objectives and
allows for reection on the theoretical and practical impli-
cations of the phenomenon in the global post-pandemic con-
text.
One of the most consistent ndings in the literature ana-
lyzed is the consolidation of an aspirational narrative around
digital nomadism, associated with values of freedom, mo-
bility, work exibility, and professional self-realization. Var-
ious studies (Chevtaeva & Denizci-Guillet, 2021) describe
digital nomads as professionals with high symbolic capital
who reorganize their lives around experiences of well-be-
ing, connectivity, and cultural consumption, operating from
spaces such as coworking spaces, cafés, temporary housing,
or natural environments.
However, this idealized representation is not without con-
tradictions. Some authors (Orel, 2019; Cook, 2023) warn
that geographical autonomy does not necessarily imply -
nancial stability or social protection. Many nomads face pre-
J. Manage. Hum. Resour. (January - June 2025) 3(1): 37-4341
carious working conditions, long hours, and a constant need
for self-exploitation to sustain their lifestyle. Thus, exibili-
ty becomes ambivalent: an advantage for some and a source
of vulnerability for others. This ambiguity highlights the
need to qualify the triumphalist discourse and consider the
community’s degrees of exclusion and privilege.
The growing inux of digital nomads to mid-sized cities,
tropical destinations, and tourist enclaves has generated sig-
nicant territorial eects. Recent research (Bednorz, 2024)
shows how the rise of mid-term rentals, promoted by plat-
forms such as Airbnb and NomadList, has contributed to
transnational gentrication processes, displacing local popu-
lations, increasing housing costs, and transforming commu-
nity dynamics.
In cities like Lisbon, Mexico City, Bali, and Medellín,
digital nomads are perceived as agents of urban transforma-
tion, but also of symbolic exclusion. While they contribute
cultural capital, consumption, and global visibility, they also
exert pressure on public services, urban mobility, and models
of coexistence (Kozak et al., 2024). These ndings suggest
that digital nomadism cannot be understood solely as a form
of remote work, but as a territorial actor that impacts urban
structures and reproduces spatial asymmetries.
Another key focus of the discussion is the analysis of pub-
lic policies adopted to attract and regulate digital nomads.
Bednorz (2024) study systematizes more than 40 special
visa models for remote workers, implemented between 2020
and 2023 by countries such as Estonia, Barbados, Croatia,
Georgia, and Brazil. These policies have diverse objectives:
from reactivating post-COVID economies to positioning the
country as an innovative destination or diversifying the tour-
ism oering.
However, critical literature points out that many of these
policies favor an instrumental logic, focused on consumption
and limited stays, without integrating nomads into commu-
nity networks or demanding scal or social compensation
(Zhou et al., 2024). Capital mobility is prioritized over ter-
ritorial sustainability. Some authors propose the need to re-
frame these visas as transnational integration mechanisms,
including local participation frameworks, proportional tax
contributions, and urban sustainability criteria.
The fourth axis analyzed refers to digital nomadism’s legal
and regulatory dilemmas. From a critical perspective, Webb
(2024) argues that this form of mobility challenges the tradi-
tional pillars of the nation-state, in which citizenship, social
rights, and taxation are anchored to territorial residence. By
operating from multiple jurisdictions without establishing
formal ties, digital nomads generate a regulatory vacuum
that exempts them from tax responsibilities and disconnects
mobility from civic duty.
This “liquid citizenship”, founded on access rather than
roots, strains social security systems, residency rights, and
redistribution policies. The literature agrees that the current
legal framework cannot regulate this concept. International
agreements on transnational taxation, proportional contribu-
tion mechanisms, and hybrid governance models that rec-
ognize mobility as a right and a responsibility are needed
(Bednorz, 2024).
The interpretative analysis of the documentary corpus al-
lowed us to identify four major thematic themes that summa-
rize the most relevant tensions surrounding digital nomad-
ism in the global post-pandemic context. These themes are
articulated with the categories constructed in the theoretical
framework and oer a cross-sectional reading of the con-
tributions of recent scientic literature. Together, they re-
veal that digital nomadism is not a homogeneous or neutral
phenomenon, but rather a form of mobility structured by in-
equalities, selective policies, and territorial disputes.
Most reviewed studies agree that digital nomadism is pre-
sented discursively as a desirable, exible, and self-fullling
practice. Chevtaeva and Denizci-Guillet (2021) and Kozak
et al. (2024) highlight that digital nomads are often portrayed
as autonomous, cosmopolitan, technologically competent,
and economically sustainable individuals, whose mobility is
driven by a desire to maximize their well-being and work-
life balance. This gure responds to an aspirational narrative
anchored in neoliberal values of personal entrepreneurship,
self-ecacy, and borderless mobility.
However, more critical studies (Orel, 2019; Cook, 2023)
reveal that behind this idealized image lie conditions of la-
bor informality, lack of social protection, long hours, and
dependence on platform economies that make work precar-
ious. This creates an ambivalence: while for some, digital
nomadism represents an option for empowerment, for others
it reproduces new forms of exclusion and self-exploitation,
especially for those lacking nancial capital or access to sta-
ble networks. This internal diversity within the collective
demonstrates that not all digital nomads are the same or have
access to the same types of freedoms. Ultimately, it is a phe-
nomenon crisscrossed by axes of class, origin, citizenship,
and gender that must be made visible in academic analysis.
The second axis analyzes the urban and territorial impacts
of digital nomadism. While some governments and econom-
ic actors promote it as a driving force for local economies,
research such as that by Bednorz (2024) shows that its pres-
ence generates adverse side eects, especially in tourist cities
J. Manage. Hum. Resour. (January - June 2025) 3(1): 37-43 42
or those undergoing accelerated land commodication. The
intensive use of platforms like Airbnb, high housing turn-
over, and the demand for globalized services have driven up
rental prices, driven out longtime residents, and transformed
neighborhood structures into transient enclaves serving mo-
bile capital.
This process has been conceptualized as “nomadic gentri-
cation” or “digital gentrication”, a phenomenon that re-
shapes urban space based on the needs and lifestyles of mo-
bile individuals with high consumption capacity. Cities such
as Lisbon, Medellín, Tbilisi, and Chiang Mai have become
hotspots of global nomadism, without necessarily having lo-
cal regulatory or mitigation policies. As Kozak et al. (2024)
warn, this form of mobility should not be understood solely
from a labor perspective, but as a spatial actor that generates
disputes over the right to the city, deepens urban inequalities,
and transforms the identity of territories.
The third axis is related to the institutional framework
that allows—and often encourages—the growth of digital
nomadism. According to the comparative study by Bednorz
(2024), more than 40 countries have implemented special vi-
sas for digital nomads since 2020, with diverse objectives:
reactivating post-COVID tourism, attracting qualied talent,
or positioning the country as a technological hub. However,
these measures often operate under short- or medium-term
consumption logics, without clear structures for taxation, lo-
cal participation, or citizen co-responsibility. In other words,
mobility opens up without building social or economic inte-
gration mechanisms.
Finally, the fourth axis addresses one of the most complex
points: digital nomadism’s regulatory and scal challenges.
Webb (2024) argues that we are facing a structural transfor-
mation of the concept of citizenship, in which rights of ac-
cess to territories and services are no longer accompanied
by duties of belonging, taxation, or civic participation. This
“liquid citizenship” represents a functional disconnect be-
tween mobility and social responsibility. In practice, digital
nomads consume infrastructure, participate in urban life, and
impact local dynamics, but without being subject to the tax
frameworks of the nation-state.
This disconnect raises questions about this type of pres-
ence’s legitimacy and tax equity in contexts of asymmetric
globalization. Bednorz (2024) point out that a legal vacuum
allows unregulated mobility, creating privileged mobility ac-
cessible only to specic proles. The discussion focuses on
creating hybrid regulatory frameworks based on multilateral
agreements, proportional tax systems, and territorial com-
pensation funds that guarantee fairer, more regulated, and
sustainable global mobility.
The ndings and academic discussion arm that digital
nomadism is a structural phenomenon that strains traditional
work, residence, tourism, and citizenship categories. While
it oers opportunities to rethink local development, employ-
ment, and urban planning, it also poses new challenges that
must be addressed through context-sensitive public policies,
innovative regulatory frameworks, and an ethic of rooted-
ness that recognizes the right to mobility, but also the obliga-
tion to contribute to the spaces one inhabits.
Conclusions
This study reveals that digital nomadism is not merely an
extension of remote work or a eeting trend, but a complex
and multidimensional phenomenon that reshapes traditional
notions of work, mobility, urban planning, and citizenship.
Drawing on academic literature from 2020 to 2024, the re-
search shows that digital nomadism functions as an indivi-
dual lifestyle and a structural force that signicantly aects
host destinations, urban governance, and the formation of
mobile labor identities. A key nding is the aspirational na-
rrative built around the digital nomad, promoting autonomy,
entrepreneurship, and self-ecacy. This discourse, rooted in
neoliberal ideals, contrasts sharply with the precarious rea-
lities many nomads face, particularly those lacking social or
legal capital. The study calls for a more critical and contex-
tual understanding beyond idealized portrayals. Additiona-
lly, digital nomads are reshaping urban environments, con-
tributing to digital gentrication and the touristication of
cities. These changes demand active policy responses, parti-
cipatory urban planning, and strategies to mitigate negative
impacts. From a regulatory standpoint, current frameworks
often favor elite mobility, facilitating entry and consumption
without ensuring social integration or equitable redistribu-
tion. The study stresses the need for international tax coope-
ration and legal frameworks that balance freedom of move-
ment with scal and civic responsibilities. Ultimately, digital
nomadism challenges conventional models of citizenship by
detaching physical presence from political and scal duties.
This evolving form of “liquid citizenship” urges a rethinking
of global governance regarding spatial justice, equity, and
sustainability.
References
Bednorz, A. (2024). Digital nomad visas and the governan-
ce of global mobility. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
32(1), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2023.2
J. Manage. Hum. Resour. (January - June 2025) 3(1): 37-4343
265629
Bozzi, A. (2024). Digital nomadism from the perspective
of places and mobilities: A literature review. Euro-
pean Transport Research Review, 16, 50. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s12544-024-00663-z
Chevtaeva, L., & Denizci-Guillet, B. (2021). Lifestyle of
digital nomads: Work–leisure balance, mobility, and
place attachment. Tourism Management Perspectives,
38, 100828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2021.100828
Choudhury, P., Foroughi, C., & Larson, B. Z. (2021).
Work-from-anywhere: The productivity eects of geo-
graphic exibility. Strategic Management Journal,
42(4), 655–683. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3251
Cook, C. (2023). Work and precarity in the age of di-
gital nomadism: Beyond the myth of freedom.
New Media & Society, 25(4), 721–739. https://doi.
org/10.1177/14614448221124506
Global Citizen Solutions. (2025). Global digital nomad
report. https://www.globalcitizensolutions.com/inte-
lligence-unit/reports/global-digital-nomad-report/glo-
bal-digital-nomad-full-report/
Hannonen, O. (2020). In search of a digital nomad: Dening
the phenomenon. Information Technology & Tourism,
22(3), 335–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40558-020-
00177-z
Hermann, I., & Paris, C. M. (2020). Digital nomadism: The
nexus of remote working and travel mobility. Informa-
tion Technology & Tourism, 22, 329–334. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40558-020-00188-w
Kozak, M., Cetin, G., & Alrawadieh, Z. (2024). Repositio-
ning work and leisure: Digital nomads versus tourists.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 26(3),
e2732. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2732
Lacárcel, B., Huete, R., & Zerva, K. (2025). Digital nomads
and urban dynamics: Challenges for sustainable cities.
Tourism Geographies, 27(1), 52–75. https://doi.org/10.
1080/14616688.2024.2300557
Mancinelli, F. (2020). Digital nomads: Freedom, responsi-
bility and the neoliberal order. Information Technology
& Tourism, 22(3), 417–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40558-020-00188-w
Orel, M. (2019). Coworking environments and digital no-
madism: Balancing work and leisure in multi-locational
settings. Review of Managerial Science, 13(3), 499–
510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-018-0299-4
Qosim, N., Rukmana, A. Y., & Usup, U. (2025). The impact
of digital nomad economy on local businesses: Study of
MSME market changes in popular destinations in In-
donesia. The Eastasouth Journal of Social Science and
Humanities, 2(2), 113–130. https://doi.org/10.58812/
esssh.v2i02.474
Rainoldi, M., Ladkin, A., & Buhalis, D. (2025). Digital no-
mads’ work–leisure practices: A sociomaterial perspec-
tive. Annals of Tourism Research, 111, 103904. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2025.103904
Rainoldi, M., Ladkin, A., & Buhalis, D. (2025). Rethinking
the work–life balance of digital nomads in the post-pan-
demic context. Annals of Tourism Research, 96, 103582.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2024.103582
Sciuva, E. (2025). Geographies of digital nomadism: A re-
search agenda. Geography Compass, 19(1), e70016.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.70016
Webb, A. K. (2024). Digital nomadism and the challenge to
social citizenship. Global Policy, 15(3), 301–313. ht-
tps://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.13377
Zhou, Y., Günay, M., & Toksöz, G. (2024). Attracting dig-
ital nomads: Smart tourism policies and destination
branding in the global South. Journal of Destination
Marketing & Management, 32, 100839. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2024.100839
Conicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conicts of interest.
Author contributions
Conceptualization: Peña, R. V., & Pérez, J. A. Data cu-
ration: Peña, R. V., & Pérez, J. A. Formal analysis: Peña,
R. V., & Pérez, J. A. Research: Peña, R. V., & Pérez, J. A.
Methodology: Peña, R. V., & Pérez, J. A. Supervision:
Peña, R. V., & Pérez, J. A. Validation: Peña, R. V., & Pérez,
J. A. Visualization: Peña, R. V., & Pérez, J. A. Writing the
original draft: Peña, R. V., & Pérez, J. A. Writing, review
and editing: Peña, R. V., & Pérez, J. A.
Data availability statement
Not applicable.
Statement on the use of AI
The authors acknowledge the use of generative AI and
AI-assisted technologies to improve the readability and cla-
rity of the article.
Disclaimer/Editor’s note
The statements, opinions, and data contained in all publi-
cations are solely those of the individual authors and contri-
butors and not of Journal of Management and Human Ro-
sources.
Journal of Management and Human Rosources and/or the
editors disclaim any responsibility for any injury to people
or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions,
or products mentioned in the content.
