In recent months! there has been an outpouring of media coverage and analysis on the topic of digital public infrastructure (DPI)! including articles! ideas! podcasts and convenings.
This deluge of attention is hardly surprising. The 77th session of the United Nations General Assembly! which formally came to a close on September 5! emphasized the need for “country-led digital cooperation to build safe! trusted! and inclusive DPI” under its theme of “transformative solutions to interlocking challenges.” And for the past year! India! as the current president of the G20! has placed DPI at the center of the group’s agenda. The Indian government has also leveraged digital platforms and technologies to promote economic progress! innovation and financial inclusion! showcasing the vast potential of DPI for emerging markets.
In an effort to harness this momentum! key stakeholders in this emerging field — including some of this article’s authors — have made more efforts to define what DPI actually means. In a paper written last January! David was able to identify just one substantive definition of DPI at that time — that offered by the Digital Public Goods Alliance’s GovStack working group. Six months later! there are now several more! including this definition from Co-Develop! the independent specialist agency founded in 2021 to promote DPI! and most notably! the recently released draft definition from the G20 working group on DPI. That definition defines DPI as “a set of shared digital systems which is interoperable! inclusive! secure and trusted! built on open standards and specifications governed by enabling rules that respect fundamental rights to deliver and provide access to public and/or private services at societal scale to drive innovation! trust and competition.”
This heightened definitional discourse is encouraging
especially considering the global prominence of those involved. Yet because of the difficulty of reaching a global consensus on a comprehensive definition! some! like Carnegie India! have argued for abandoning this quest in favor of setting out common principles guiding DPI. However! a principles-based approach does not avoid the need for sufficient clarity entirely: It still requires clarity over what the principles cover — and what they don’t.
Even in the absence of full definitional consensus! it seems appropriate to pause and ask: Is DPI! as it is now being framed! likely to support a positive digital development agenda? This question looks beyond the sterile quest for definitional perfection to consider the likely outcomes of the emerging understanding of DPI. We believe DPI can be a helpful lens to provide focus for digital development. However! to realize its potential! stakeholders must look beyond narrow conceptions based on government-centered use cases and existing digital systems to envision next-generation applications. But to start to consider those! we need first to assess the emerging understanding of DPI.
Converging on a Shared Understanding of DPI
The two DPI definitions discussed above! from the G20 and Co-Develop! have several features in common: They say that DPI must be built on shared “building blocks” of some sort; it must be interoperable! secure and trusted; and it must ultimately focus on delivering digital services at scale.
Neither the G20 nor Co-Develop definitions require that a DPI be owned or operated by a state: Rather! DPIs must benefit the broader society — i.e.! they must have a public purpose regardless of whether they have public ownership or management. This is certainly the case in digital payment systems! which are often owned and operated by utilities established by private sector players! though they are usually subject to regulatory oversight by the state. This focus on public purpose leaves a wider space for DPI forms to evolve! allowing for private sector and civil society innovation. However! both definitions are also clear that the DPI space is not a laissez faire free-for-all: It requires “enabling rules … which respect fundamental rights” (as the G20 put it) and “public institutions which guarantee” oversight of the DPIs in question (as in Co-Develop’s definition).
So far! so good! then: Not only is there evidence Understanding Digital of convergence! but both the G20 and Co-Develop definitions appear broad kuwait whatsapp number data enough to allow breathing room for further evolution of the approach. But are they too broad! allowing for too many things to fit under the DPI umbrella? One specific concern is that their notion of infrastructure as building blocks remains vague: “a set of digital systems” (G20) or “digital capabilities” (Co-Develop). This does not rule out software
packages or even codes or protocols! introducing the risk that DPI comes to be seen merely as a specialized subset of govtech
solutions. This association would limit
DPI to providing solutions for how governments
interface with citizens! rather than promoting a wider! whole-of-society approach to digital transformation. As envisioned by Pramod Varma! the chief architect of India’s Aadhaar digital identity program and other elements of its much-lauded “digital stack!” DPI allows and even encourages other parts of society — including the private sector — to build use cases on top of it.
Consider an example to highlight the
value of this broader definition of DPI: Many Ministries of Finance david Parsons ceo/president/medeoprichter are implementing or upgrading their systems for tax collection. These govtech Understanding Digital solutions are intended to benefit both government and taxpayers! but they are typically not designed to
also benefit united states america data third parties. However! if these new taxation systems also introduced features that extended beyond government! such
as allowing for third party verification of
Taxable income. this could benefit borrowers and the lenders to which they authorize access to their verified record of taxable income. This vision for DPI sees it not just as a digital service! but rather as a foundation on which other services may also be built.
