GovTech is on the cusp of a fundamental reimagining. Digital public infrastructure (DPI) – foundational building blocks for governments, civil society and private sector actors – in key areas such as identity, payments and data exchanges can have a transformative impact on development trajectories. This is a force multiplier for state capacity. And by allowing civil society and private actors to become co-creators who can integrate with and build upon these systems, it recasts the relationship between state and citizen.

This digitalisation is vastly different from the digitisation that previous generations of GovTech enabled. It doesn’t merely translate analog processes to digital; it makes possible entirely new forms of governance that foreground accountability and accessibility. But for this transformation to succeed, the institutions shepherding it must be fit-for-purpose, encompassing the wide range of actors, needs and purposes in DPI ecosystems.

Given the relative lack of global experience with such large scale digital interventions in governance, more hard data is needed on every aspect – from end user needs to outcomes. A number of institutional approaches to DPI governance are in action around the world, including traditional top-down models driven by government stakeholders, market-based solutions with governments setting parameters, and standards-based coalitions. Regardless of the model, institutional arrangements that balance tradeoffs between decision-making effectiveness and consensus-driven progress will be needed. Aligning incentives will be crucial for achieving this and mitigating fallout from having winners and losers among diverse stakeholders as a consequence of various strategic decisions; appropriate financing mechanisms will have a significant role to play here. 

These issues are exacerbated significantly when the institutional arrangements stretch across national boundaries. Inviting convergence organically based on the potential gains diverse stakeholders perceive may be more effective than mandating it via a top-down approach where the priorities of different governments are likely to clash. As a corollary, the importance of using digital public goods (DPG) as the building blocks of DPI would be essential for any collaborative, cooperative institutional approach to DPI ecosystems. 

DPI does not merely enable digital analogues of traditional state-led governance systems; it has the potential to reimagine what governance entails in many respects. This reimagination  surfaces a commensurate need to deconstruct institutions of governance. Three areas seemed particularly promising here:

  • Fluid, contextual institutional arrangements that can be configured based on a number of variables – stakeholders, stage of DPI development, long-term sustainability, the strength of associated communities of practice, etc.
  • As a corollary, extensive thinking on government’s role is needed in both domestic and international contexts. Currently, when it comes to multistakeholder environments, government prefers either total, top-down control or a passive, hands-off approach. Neither is viable for DPI.
  • Entirely new institutions for DPI may be needed that are not embedded within either government or private capital. These institutions would need an enabling framework of new laws and governance processes.

A few approaches to consider are outlined below:

  • Governance tailored to DPI maturity: Based on whether the DPI is experimental and at a nascent stage or considered standard infrastructure and is highly mature,  governance capacity and needs will differ at each stage of this evolution. Governance models should be tailored appropriately with less complex institutional mechanisms and arrangements at earlier stages. Funding models (private/government/philanthropic) can also be sequenced depending on the stage, specific requirements and risk levels – risk capital to begin with, patient capital in later stages for growth and sustainability.
  • Function-based governance: When deploying DPI within a country, there are multiple functions – development, maintenance, controlling access, etc. Government is essential at the development stage. However, if it can put effective guardrails in place and other stakeholders can govern the other functions – for instance, private sector for maintenance, community organisation for controlling access. This can set up a healthy polycentric governance model.
  • Multi-country governance framework for transnational DPI: Both vertical and horizontal regional coordination bodies can be effective here. For horizontal bodies, agencies managing customs and financial flows. For vertical bodies, sectoral agencies such as Africa CDC which have direct influence on governments. However, governments must not be the only actors in the governing framework; civil society entities and private sector actors must be involved as well. 
  • Tiered control: Nodal/coordination bodies can have tiered control based on track record: full decision-making authority, usage rights but no authority, usage rights but no input.
  • Consensus model for DPI/DPG governance: DPIs/DPGs are governed at two levels: strategic and operational. While operational consensus in technical terms is difficult across jurisdictions and potentially dangerous, multi-stakeholder/multi-jurisdiction consensus decision-making when it comes to strategic direction is possible. This will mean slow development, but that may be an asset when developing long-term, sustainable infrastructure.