Imagining the Future from the Global South: DPI at Clermont Innovation Week 2025

AUTHOR: Balasubramanyam Pattath, Programme Manager, The Socioeconomic Impact of Digital Public Infrastructure

During Clermont Innovation Week 2025, the Global Development Network (GDN) hosted a roundtable titled “Imagining the Future from the Global South: The Promise of Digital Public Infrastructure.” The event brought together experts from organisations including the World Bank, OECD, Agence Française de Développement (AFD), Co-Develop, and FERDI to unpack how Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) is reshaping societies, particularly across the Global South, while also recognising the conceptual and implementation challenges that come with it. Below, we share some of the key highlights from this discussion, hoping to contribute to existing debates.

What is Digital Public Infrastructure?

DPI refers to foundational digital systems—such as digital identity, payment platforms, and data exchange protocols—that act as shared, interoperable building blocks for digital service delivery. Rather than isolated platforms, DPI is meant to be reusable, open-source, and inclusive, forming a backbone for both public and private innovation.

Several examples helped ground this otherwise abstract concept. In India, Aadhaar (digital ID) and the Unified Payments Interface (UPI) have helped extend financial access from 17% of the population in 2008 to more than 80% by 2021. In Turkey, the government’s Integrated Social Registry links digital ID to 28 administrative databases, reducing eligibility documentation from 17 items to just one, and cutting application times from days to minutes.

We discussed the reality that DPI is still an evolving concept, despite its quickly rising visibility. The acronym itself is new, and its definitions vary widely across institutions and geographies. Interoperability, a central feature, remains “vague” in practice and difficult to explain. Panellists acknowledged this ambiguity openly, urging for clearer articulation and more inclusive definitions that reflect local contexts.

Socioeconomic Impact and Inclusivity

The roundtable highlighted DPI’s potential to translate infrastructure investments—like broadband and mobile connectivity—into tangible improvements in social protection, education, healthcare, employment, and agriculture. But the panellists were careful to stress that this potential is not guaranteed. Without inclusive design and targeted outreach, DPI can reproduce or deepen existing inequalities. The discussion should not verge around whether or not DPI deserves to be implemented, but how it might need to be implemented to reach specific development objectives.

For example, Brazil’s PIX payment system was credited with enabling rapid emergency cash transfers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Meanwhile, Tanzania’s Jami Wallet and national ID system are being used to access services such as license renewals and birth registrations. These cases illustrate the flexibility of DPI to serve multiple sectors and the potential reduction of costs it enables.

At the same time, concerns were raised about who gets left out. In rural and low-income settings, digital and financial literacy remain barriers, and not everyone has access to smartphones or internet connectivity. Panellists pointed to kiosk agents—especially in places like Kenya and India—as critical human interfaces that bridge this gap, enabling digital payments and building trust. DPI at the present stage does not imply that the last mile in citizens’ access to the state will not need a human interface to function, underscoring the fragility of DPI systems when adequate support and infrastructure are missing, which needs to be solved.

DPI was described as being ‘inclusive by design,’ but panellists were equally clear that it can be ‘exclusive by default’ if not embedded in broader development policies, including education and language accessibility.

Governance, Trust, and Implementation Challenges

Building and sustaining trust in DPI (and accordingly in the State) emerged as a central theme. DPI systems that handle personal data at scale require robust legal frameworks, transparent governance, and public accountability. But many countries are still catching up on these fronts.

Questions of data sovereignty—especially when systems are built or hosted abroad—were a recurring concern. In Vietnam and Cameroon, for instance, the experience of using DPI for emergency responses raised questions about where data resides and who governs access. Sovereign public data centres are becoming politically popular in some countries, but their economic feasibility is debated, especially when local capacity for data management is still underdeveloped.

Trust is also affected by cybersecurity risks, limited public understanding, and misinformation. Initiatives like Singapore’s Digital Ambassadors Program—offering in-person support and proactive fraud awareness messaging—were cited as effective in building digital confidence. But panellists emphasised that such efforts must be ongoing and widespread.

Moreover, DPI is not just a technical project. It requires coherent policy design, inter-ministerial coordination, and investments in human capital. As one panellist noted, the biggest challenges often lie “beyond the technology”—in regulation, institutions, and societal readiness.

The Role of Public and Private Sectors

The panel explored how governments and private actors can work together in DPI development. While governments often play a regulatory and rights-protecting role, private firms contribute technological expertise and innovation. A collaborative model—where governments set the rules and the private sector builds on top of shared infrastructure—was broadly seen as ideal.

Still, the relationship is far from straightforward. In some cases, private sector tools are performing functions traditionally within the state’s domain, prompting concerns about the social contract and public accountability. For instance, in China, private payment systems have become deeply embedded in everyday life, raising debates about market dominance and public oversight.

DPI, panellists argued, should be understood as a public good: non-excludable and non-rivalrous. But this framing requires careful regulation and long-term planning to avoid market capture or fragmentation. Striking a balance between standardisation and contextual flexibility remains one of the thorniest governance issues.

Conclusion: DPI as a Journey, Not a Destination?

The discussion concluded with a shared understanding: DPI is not a finished product. It is an evolving framework that must integrate legal safeguards, technological design, and human infrastructure. Its success depends not just on adoption but on active stewardship—and humility about the road ahead.

As part of this journey, GDN is leading a pilot programme in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Benin, in collaboration with local researchers, funded by Co-Develop. The aim is to generate grounded, comparative evidence on DPI’s socioeconomic impact and inclusion of underserved communities. This effort is part of a broader push to build a global knowledge base around DPI implementation, one that values experimentation, learning, and local ownership.