Digital policy expert X-rays differences in G7, G20 approaches to DPI

The visions shared by the G7 and G20 on the development of digital public infrastructure (DPI) differ at three major levels, even if the ultimate goal is to make life more liveable for citizens of the world.

This is according to digital policy commentator and non-resident fellow at the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center, Anand Raghuraman.

While the G20 has been a participant in the global DPI development discourse for some time, the G7 just recently made its position know on the subject through a declaration adopted in March by industry, tech and digital ministers of member states at the close of a meeting in Italy.

In a commentary in which he x-rays the approaches by the two inter-governmental organisations to the design, development and deployment of DPI, Raghuraman notes that their visions misalign at the level of scope and purpose, motivation for developing DPI, and on design principles.

On scope, the writer observes that while the G20’s appears to be wider – looking at DPI as an enabler of service delivery by governments and the private sector, the G7 appears to looks at a “narrow focus”, which kinds of limit DPI to the delivery of digital government services.

With regards to the second aspect, the G7 does not think engendering market competition is the job of DPI builders, whereas the G20, for its part, underlines the role of DPI in driving market competition, according to the writer.

The third thing discussed by Raghuraman is the vision of the two organizations about whether DPI should be designed as open-source or as proprietary technology. The G7 ministers in their March declaration do not make specific mention of open-source standards, he says, unlike the G20 which has made its position clear about developing DPI based on open standards.

These differences notwithstanding, the analyst holds that the G7 still has room to assert itself in the discourse especially as it plans to release a compendium on digital government services with the help of the OECD.

It’s important to note that it the G7 ministers’ March declaration, members said they were in full support of “ongoing international discussions on different approaches to digital identity and other digital government services, including digital public infrastructure (DPI), and the value of sharing examples.”

This openness on “different approaches”, observers say, implies that despite the initial differences in vision on some aspects compared with that of the G20, the G7 is ready to take a more flexible approach as it further embraces global reflections on DPI standards.

Local initiatives should drive DPI: India G20 Sherpa

In a related DPI item, the Indian government emissary at the G20 (Sherpa), Amitabh Kant, has highlighted the importance of local initiatives aimed at developing DPI. He believes DPI must not necessarily be led by big tech companies.

Speaking recently at an event, Kant spoke about India’s DPI efforts and its willingness to share its DPI model with the rest of the world, Organiser reports.

Like in the past, he highlighted India’s DPI strides and the growing interest in the system, adding that it shows the country’s approach is successful.

A recent report said India’s DPI will make the country a trillion-dollar digital economy by 2030.

Article Topics

digital government  |  digital ID  |  digital public infrastructure  |  G20  |  G7  |  India