The term “digital public infrastructure (DPI),” generally used to describe digital solutions that promote social welfare, is fast becoming an indispensable tool to meet policy objectives such as financial inclusion and identity management.

By way of a few examples, India’s digital identity system, Aadhaar, covers over 99 percent of the adult population, the UPI network processed almost 13 trillion transactions in 2022, and the CoWIN platform helped immunize 90 percent of the Indian population with at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. In other parts of the world, Brazil’s instant payment system Pix has been used by 67 percent of its adult population, while the Government Technology Agency of Singapore uses various digital products to improve citizens’ access to financial information and strengthen cybersecurity.

But despite its growing popularity, there is no consensus on what constitutes a DPI—a roadblock to the adoption of DPIs in a globally consistent manner. Now, under India’s G20 presidency, the Digital Economy Working Group (DEWG) has taken up the task of developing a common understanding of DPI and is seeking to adopt a global definition by September this year.

Why define DPI?

Definitions help build trust. For example, a clear definition of “digital public goods (DPGs)” has helped secure institutional funding for projects such as MOSIP and Mojaloop. Similarly, a definition for “space asset” under the UNIDROIT Space Protocol has helped finance the global space industry.

A good definition clarifies objectives. It holds institutions accountable. It provides certainty to businesses looking to participate. It harmonizes legal regimes on issues such as cross-border data flows. And it separates the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders within the ecosystem.

Put simply, a global definition of DPI would establish trust at scale and accelerate its adoption.

Concerns with existing definitions

To define DPI, we do not have to start from scratch. Global institutions such as the World Bank, IMF, Digital Impact Alliance, and Co-Develop have proposed useful definitions.

These definitions share some common language. For example, they articulate the same welfare goal—enabling critical social functions through tools such as digital identity systems, payment networks, and data exchanges. Some also outline key principles, such as interoperability, inclusivity, and accountability.

However, these definitions also diverge on key aspects, including how DPIs should be described (are they platforms, protocols, systems, or simply an approach to digitization?) and how they should be managed (solely by public institutions or with room for private ownership and business models).

To help bridge these differences, a small group of policymakers convened on the sidelines of the 2nd G20 Sherpas meeting in Kumarakom, Kerala, India. Carnegie India, which helped facilitate the workshop, offered the following revised definition of DPIs:

Digital Public Infrastructures (DPIs) are digital solutions/technologies that are interoperable, driven by open standards and specifications, enable access to public and/or private services at scale, and are governed by enabling rules to drive innovation, inclusion, and competition.

What followed was a series of spirited discussions, which provided insights on goals, expectations, and disagreements, starting with the foundational elements of DPI:

• Digital: Participants agreed that governments should promote the use of digital technologies for social development. But the reliance on digital tools also raises concerns about the safety and security of DPIs and the impact on minorities, individual autonomy, and choice.
• Public: The term “public” suggests that DPIs are designed for public benefit. But it does not explain who determines public benefit, what role the private sector should play, and whether DPIs should be publicly funded and managed.
• Infrastructure: The primary concern is whether the use of “infrastructure” instead of “good” would keep the source code for DPIs closed to public scrutiny—digital public goods are open-sourced by definition, as opposed to current definitions of DPI.

The participants dug deep into the specifics. Words such as “interoperability,” “systems,” and “solutions” were discussed in detail. It was immediately clear that the choice of words matters and that it matters differently to different stakeholders. For example, to government stakeholders, the term “interoperable” could mean globally interconnected and compatible technical systems to facilitate international trade. On the other hand, commercial actors might prefer a narrow interpretation, such as interoperability within a closed system managed by a single player or consortium to minimize security risks. Similarly, the term “solution,” when used in procurement contracts, has a history of creating vendor lock-in, whereas the term “system” is considered more flexible.

Therefore, it might help to supplement the definition of DPI with explanations for specific words such as “open” and “interoperable.” Adding practical examples to clarify intent might also be useful.

The way forward: guiding principles for DPI

Despite their differences, all stakeholders seem to agree on the need for a common approach to DPI based on certain inviolable principles.

Like definitions, principles too have helped build consensus on contentious topics. For example, despite varying notions of privacy around the world, we have come to value the principles of informed consent, data minimization, and accountability—principles that have shaped modern privacy and data protection regimes, albeit with differences in local implementation. Similarly, modern environmental laws have been shaped by principles such as “the polluter pays,” which has helped bring about a common approach to sustainable development.

As the DEWG steps up its mission to adopt a definition for DPI before the G20 Leaders' Summit in September, it is likely to face pushback. G20 representatives want the flexibility to pursue their own sovereign objectives, to safeguard the interests of the public and private sectors, and to ensure that a working definition can adapt to new geopolitical realities.

For this reason, the most pragmatic path forward is to agree on a common approach that will help drive consensus. G20 members should agree on a list of guiding principles such as openness, inclusivity, affordability, and empowerment—words that can eventually be combined into a definition for DPI.

A principle-based approach to DPI is likely to garner support. Right now, at least fifty countries are in different stages of adopting DPIs. Arriving at a common approach through principles will help build trust, accelerate the adoption of DPIs, and drive the exchange of global best practices. This in turn can help countries achieve their SDGs and empower citizens sooner rather than later.