A large proportion of the existing digital infrastructure could be described as “incidentally public”.[113] Although these interventions are available to the public, they exploit user data and are not designed so that the user can participate in their governance.[114] Contrastingly, digital public infrastructure (DPI) should be designed to enable digital inclusion by providing systems to support identification, payments and data exchange for basic functions that are intended for public and societal-scale use (e.g. governance, collaboration, and commerce). In LDCs, LLDCs and SIDS there may be insufficient DPI or the existing infrastructure may not be robust, secure and/or safe. This leaves citizens unprotected and vulnerable to breaches of privacy.
People have faced concerns about the potential ill-intentioned use of databases held by organizations that no longer have the ability to safeguard the information. No one should have to feel this way, highlighting why it is crucial to get things right from the start and anticipate how things could go wrong. Bad DPI can have dramatic consequences, which is why building “good” DPI should not be merely an afterthought when developing infrastructure.
More digital systems that have been designed for societal use are necessary to help expand DPI. These systems should be built with their respective societies in mind, taking into account their citizens’ needs, Internet access, and digital tools, not only today but in the future. Particular attention should be paid to guaranteeing that the infrastructure is safe and secure for all people to use. DPI is often described as technologies that tend to be “horizontals”, solving problems impacting the state (taxation, government aid), the market (start-ups, enterprises), and consumers, and are the rails that other interventions “run on top of”. Their implementation typically enables many other interventions and business models to flourish. DPI interventions can improve the lives of citizens around the world by enabling digital inclusion, and some governments have been able to harness these digital tools to address urgent challenges facing society.
The economics and governance of the DPI should be informed by its users, the public. Responsible PPPs or collaborations can facilitate the development of DPI, where governments enact suitable policies and provide incentives and viable use cases for it, and the private sector supports its expansion and service offerings. Greater investments – potentially from investors, funders, donors, and national budgets – can accelerate the implementation of the infrastructure. Building meaningful PPPs is instrumental in developing good DPI, and businesses, large and small, will benefit from this.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Togo used digital payments and data to facilitate emergency cash transfers to people who were most vulnerable. The programme was operationalized in 10 days and has distributed over USD 10 million in relief funds, paying more women than men and supporting informal workers. [115]
In India, the digital payments ecosystem grew after Aadhaar and UPI were established and attracted many new companies – domestic and international – who were able to build and deliver new services and gain sizable market shares. By bringing over 330 million people into the formal financial sector, India’s digital infrastructure has driven innovation in both the public and private sectors. [116]
There are several barriers to building and scaling digital technology. Developing digital services and applications is expensive. It requires people with the technical expertise to build it, and even then, the development can still be challenging. Existing proprietary technology can be leveraged through leasing or buying licensing, but customization can be limited and/or incur additional costs. Furthermore, the process to create new technology can be time-intensive. In LDCs, LLDCs and SIDS, all these challenges are more pronounced. In addition, the uptake of digital services and applications can be low in these countries as the intended purposes and content are rarely made relevant to local culture and experiences. Although these issues can be perceived as merely inconvenient, addressing them can generate powerful ways of unlocking improvements in people’s lives and better emergency responses.
Digital public goods (DPGs) are defined by the UN Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation as “open-source software, open data, open artificial intelligence models, open standards and open content that adhere to privacy and other applicable international and domestic laws, standards and best practices and do no harm”. From providing remotely accessible learning resources and paying out social benefits, to distributing vaccines and providing vaccination certificates, we have seen first-hand how DPGs can enable governments to swiftly respond to immediate health and social protection needs.
Ensuring meaningful connectivity for all, requires a perspective that recognizes the need for digital technology to be a DPG – a collective global resource. When digital resources are made freely available, they promote innovation and scale as anyone around the world can leverage and contribute to them. As DPGs continue to be shared and recycled, they only become more valuable to society; however, they need to be customized to the specific needs of a country, especially in LDCs, LLDCs and SIDS. Collaboration and coordination of the public, private and social sectors are fundamental to the discovery, development, and use of, and investment in, DPGs. By incorporating them in national development strategies and plans, governments can further strengthen their impact. Alignment to the standards of the Digital Public Goods Alliance (DPGA), which include the following, is important for sustainability and scalability:
Created to tackle the gaps in the collection, access and use of local health data that were experienced in post-apartheid South Africa, the District Health Information Software 2 (DHIS2) is now the largest health-management information platform globally. It is used by 73 low- and middle-income countries, covering 30% of the global population. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Sri Lanka developed new modules on DHIS2 to support real-time disease surveillance and the vaccine roll-out. These modules were refined and shared with over 41 countries. [117]
The Digital Impact Alliance, Estonia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, GIZ and ITU established GovStack, a partnership committed to empowering governments to take ownership of their digital futures by building more effective and cost-efficient digital government services. To initiate their digital transformation, GovStack collaborates with countries are enabled to adopt, deploy, and scale e-government. The partnership supports research and development to determine the design specifications, including which building blocks (enterprise-ready, reusable software components). GovStack also helps create a model digital government services platform and leverages the model to demonstrate use cases across services and sectors. The resulting platform is then made available as digital public goods for the global community, particularly for procurement and implementation low-resource contexts. [118]
Another approach to expanding the reach of the digital ecosystem is to embed it in cities, integrate it into daily life and empower people to leverage the technology at their disposal. Cities, villages, islands and rural communities can be transformed into “smart” hubs that are innovative and technologically modern by harnessing ICT to improve competitiveness, residents’ quality of life, and the efficiency of urban operations and services. For example, digital tools can be utilized to improve housing, healthcare, energy efficiency and waste management. The integration of digital innovations – like the IoT, AI, digital twins, smart grids and robotics – is pivotal for smart hubs and can drive the need for additional applications and services. It is important that these hubs operate sustainably too, and a catalyst for this is renewable energy providing stable electricity. Other aspects of sustainability to consider include energy efficiency and e-waste.
Global collaboration and advocacy across sectors can help introduce the necessary policies, standards and buy-in to transition to smart sustainable hubs. Transitioning successfully will rely on strategies, targets, KPIs, data collection, monitoring and reporting across five major dimensions: ICT usage, infrastructure, social inclusion and equitable access, quality of life and environmental sustainability.[119] Even though no city is a smart hub yet, continued advancements in ICT increase their possibility. It is estimated that smart hubs will represent 4 per cent of total revenue opportunities by 2025.[120]
The International Development Association (IDA, part of the World Bank) has committed USD 100 million to developing smart villages for rural growth and digital inclusion in Niger. Its first priorities are increasing access to mobile phones and broadband services as well as introducing digital financial services to people in underserved areas. [121]
It is fundamental that local communities and key stakeholders in LDCs, LLDCs and SIDS contribute to and are engaged in the development of new applications and services. This helps ensure that innovation meets an existing need and will be relevant to the local context. More people should be equipped with the capabilities to co-create in these regions. Co-creating with locals and key stakeholders can also inform and inspire more ideas.
This theme is explored in depth under section Relevant/local content and services
Although data has proven to be invaluable in the digital ecosystem, its fragmented landscape presents a number of risks. As data can be a powerful asset, sovereignty (authority, power and control) is a main concern. The different ways in which countries view data – such as a geopolitical asset or individual property – influences sovereignty over data at a national level. As a result, sovereignty can become unclear when data flows across borders. Within countries, data collected by the private sector but within public spaces can also raise issues on sovereignty. Powerful digital platforms can have large enough data in their ecosystems that their sovereignty can be similar to that of countries. Furthermore, individuals have data rights that must be respected. There are different types of data that may need to be safeguarded differently. This complex sovereignty landscape can create misalignment, confusion and gaps in governance. There are also conflicting interests between various stakeholders in the digital ecosystems including countries, individuals, the private sector, and civil society. Thus, when there are concerns about more than one aspect of data governance (e.g. innovation vs data protection, national security vs individual privacy) it can be difficult to apply existing policies and make trade-offs. All of this increases the potential impacts of cybersecurity threats such as privacy breaches, cyberattacks and fraud.
A more global, holistic and balanced approach to data governance is imperative for empowering citizens, achieving equitable access to the benefits of digital technology, and minimizing the associated concerns and risks. It may be fairer and more impactful for a multilateral, multistakeholder and multidisciplinary coalition to develop a global data governance framework. Enabling the development and execution of this framework would depend on openness, aligned definitions, adequate measurement, terms of access to data and its treatment as a DPG, and the adoption of universal rights and principles as well as international standards. People from underrepresented groups should be included throughout the process. The global framework needs to complement and be integrated with national policies while providing countries with enough regulatory leeway to allow them to benefit from the data-driven digital economy irrespective of their readiness and maturity. In LDCs, LLDCs and SIDS, additional support can be leveraged to raise awareness about data, detail national strategies, enact relevant regulatory frameworks, and encourage effective engagement in international processes.
Commit to a pledge on our Pledging Platform here. See guidelines on how to make your pledge in Pledging for Universal Meaningful Connectivity and examples of potential P2C pledges here
Footnotes
[113] Initiative for Digital Public Infrastructure. (2022) What is Digital Public Infrastructure?
[1114] Initiative for Digital Public Infrastructure. (2022) What is Digital Public Infrastructure?
[115] WEF. (2021). How to bring digital inclusion to the people who need it most.
[116] WEF. (2021). How to bring digital inclusion to the people who need it most.
[117] WEF. (2021). How to bring digital inclusion to the people who need it most.
[118] GovStack. (2022). Accelerating the digital transformation of government services.
[119] ITU. (2018). ITU’s approach to smart sustainable cities.
[120] GSMA. (2019). The GSMA Guide to the Internet of Things.
[121] World Bank. (2021). Niger: Smart Villages for rural growth and digital inclusion.