Category: What’s Happening
Abstract
Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) is increasingly recognised as a foundation for digital government, economic participation and the delivery of public services. Rather than treating each digital service as an independent technology project, DPI emphasises shared, interoperable systems that can support multiple organisations and applications. This article examines why DPI matters, how its principal components can contribute to public value, and why its benefits depend on governance, institutional capacity and sustained operational ownership. Drawing on publications from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and recent academic research, it considers interoperability, service delivery, inclusion, innovation and environmental information management. Eywa Systems’ documented work in Pacific, Asia and Africa provides practical illustrations of related implementation challenges, including multi-agency digitalisation, national information repositories, geospatial integration, field data collection and institutional handover. These projects demonstrate relevant delivery capabilities, but are not presented as proof that DPI produces particular social or economic outcomes. The article argues that shared infrastructure can reduce duplication and create opportunities for innovation, provided that systems are accessible, secure, maintainable and governed in the public interest. It concludes that DPI should be evaluated through the services and institutional capabilities it enables, rather than through technology deployment alone.
Keywords: Digital Public Infrastructure; digital government; interoperability; data governance; public services; digital inclusion; cybersecurity; institutional capacity
1. Introduction
Governments increasingly rely on digital systems to administer public services, manage revenue, maintain national registries and coordinate programmes. Yet the existence of multiple digital systems does not necessarily produce a coherent digital government. Agencies may operate separate databases, applications and reporting processes that meet individual needs but remain difficult to connect. Information must then be entered repeatedly, exchanged manually or reconciled across incompatible systems.
Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) offers a different approach. It focuses on shared digital foundations that multiple organisations can use to deliver services and exchange information. The World Bank defines DPI as foundational digital building blocks designed for public benefit, while the OECD emphasises secure, interoperable systems that support inclusive access to public and private services (Clark et al., 2025; OECD, 2024). These foundations can include digital identity, payment systems, data exchange mechanisms and core government registries.
The distinction is significant. A government can digitise a form without changing how information moves between institutions. A shared infrastructure approach asks whether the underlying capabilities can serve multiple processes, whether organisations can exchange information appropriately and whether the systems can remain useful beyond their initial implementation.
DPI has attracted growing attention because it may help governments improve service delivery, reduce unnecessary duplication and create opportunities for private-sector innovation. However, these outcomes are not automatic. Shared systems can also concentrate operational risks, expose sensitive information or exclude people who cannot access digital services. A recent systematic review by Lusi et al. (2025) further suggests that the research field remains conceptually fragmented, with limited empirical and longitudinal evidence about DPI’s effects.
This article examines why DPI matters and what determines its practical value. It also draws on Eywa Systems’ documented experience delivering government, environmental and data-management platforms in Pacific, Asia and Africa. These assignments illustrate implementation issues relevant to shared digital infrastructure, although they should not be treated as direct evaluations of a national DPI model.
2. Conceptual and Theoretical Background
2.1 What constitutes Digital Public Infrastructure?
DPI is best understood as a reusable foundation rather than a single application or technology product. Its purpose is to provide essential digital capabilities that different services can access under appropriate technical and governance arrangements.
The OECD (2024) identifies digital identity, payments, data sharing, digital post and core government data registries as examples of DPI components. The World Bank’s framework similarly emphasises reusable systems, modularity, openness, user-centred design, privacy and strong governance (Clark et al., 2025).
Three characteristics are particularly important.
First, interoperability. Systems need compatible technical interfaces, data structures and operating rules to exchange information reliably. Interoperability is therefore broader than connecting two applications through an API. Organisations must also agree on what information means, who may access it and how it should be used.
Second, reusability. A shared capability can support several services rather than being developed independently for each programme. Digital identity, for example, may support multiple public services, while a common registry can provide authoritative records for several administrative processes.
Third, governance. Shared infrastructure requires clear responsibilities for access, security, funding, maintenance and accountability. Without these arrangements, technical integration can create dependencies without ensuring that the resulting system serves the public interest.
DPI should also be distinguished from digital public goods. Digital public goods can include open-source software, open data and open standards that others may reuse. Such resources can contribute to DPI, but the infrastructure itself also depends on operational systems, institutional arrangements and safeguards (United Nations Development Programme [UNDP], 2024).
2.2 DPI as socio-technical infrastructure
A purely technical understanding of DPI overlooks the conditions that determine whether infrastructure works in practice.
Lusi et al. (2025) reviewed 1,153 scholarly and grey-literature sources published between 1998 and April 2025. Their systematic and bibliometric analysis identified fragmented understandings of public-sector digital infrastructure and a tendency to emphasise technological solutions while giving insufficient attention to legal and institutional arrangements, digital readiness and regional interoperability. The authors consequently argue for a more explicitly socio-technical understanding of DPI.
This perspective has practical consequences. A technically sound platform may still fail to improve public services if staff cannot use it, the responsible agency lacks operational funding or information-sharing agreements remain unresolved. Conversely, effective institutional coordination cannot compensate indefinitely for unreliable technology or poor data quality.
DPI therefore depends on the interaction between technology, institutional responsibilities, legal frameworks, operational skills and the people who use the resulting services. The quality of those relationships matters as much as the architecture itself.
3. Literature and Evidence Review
3.1 Interoperability and more coherent public services
Interoperability is one of the principal reasons DPI matters. When public institutions use compatible systems and agreed data standards, they can exchange information without requiring every agency to rebuild the same capabilities. This can reduce administrative duplication and support more coherent services.
The OECD (2024) identifies interoperability as a defining feature of DPI and highlights the governance arrangements needed to make shared systems effective. The World Bank (Clark et al., 2025) similarly presents reusable digital building blocks as a way for public and private service providers to develop services without recreating foundational functions.
The potential efficiency gains should nevertheless be distinguished from demonstrated outcomes. Shared infrastructure may reduce duplication, but the actual result depends on existing systems, implementation costs, data quality and whether institutions adopt the new arrangements. Connecting poorly maintained databases does not automatically produce reliable information.
The relevant question is therefore not simply whether systems can exchange data, but whether the exchange supports a legitimate and useful administrative purpose.
3.2 Inclusion, innovation and economic participation
DPI can create opportunities for people and businesses by making essential digital capabilities available across services. Digital identity may support authentication, interoperable payments may simplify transactions, and shared data-exchange mechanisms may reduce the administrative effort required to access services.
India provides an important example. Alonso et al. (2023), in an IMF Working Paper examining India’s digital journey, describe how digital identification, payments and data exchange have been used to support financial inclusion, government revenue collection, public expenditure efficiency and private-sector innovation. The authors identify the shared-building-block approach as an important lesson for other countries.
These findings should be interpreted carefully. The working paper examines a particular national context, and its conclusions do not establish that the same outcomes will follow from implementing similar systems elsewhere. India’s experience reflects a wider institutional and economic environment, including regulatory decisions, market participation and other digital investments.
Inclusion also depends on whether people can actually use the infrastructure. Limited connectivity, inaccessible interfaces, insufficient digital skills and the absence of suitable identification can prevent people from benefiting from online services. A system may be available in principle but remain inaccessible to particular groups in practice.
The UNDP’s Universal DPI Safeguards Framework explicitly identifies unequal access, discrimination, privacy vulnerabilities and weak institutions among the risks that DPI implementation must address (UNDP, 2024). Inclusion must therefore be treated as a design and governance requirement, not simply a possible benefit of digitisation.
3.3 Evidence maturity and unresolved questions
The policy case for DPI is developing faster than the empirical evidence on its long-term effects. Lusi et al. (2025) found that much of the literature remains exploratory or practice-oriented, with limited empirical and longitudinal research.
This gap matters because adoption, transaction volumes and the number of connected systems are measures of implementation, not necessarily of public value. They do not by themselves demonstrate that services have become more equitable, administrative costs have fallen or institutional decisions have improved.
A stronger evidence base would examine outcomes over time, compare alternative implementation approaches and distinguish the effects of DPI from those of wider reforms. It would also investigate whether benefits are distributed equitably and whether the costs of operation and maintenance remain sustainable.
The available evidence supports DPI as a promising approach to digital infrastructure. It does not justify treating DPI as a universal solution independent of context.
4. Analysis and Discussion
4.1 The shift from individual projects to reusable capabilities
The central contribution of DPI is a change in how digital investment is framed. Instead of asking which application a particular agency needs, institutions can consider which underlying capabilities could serve several agencies or programmes.
This does not mean that every public service should be built on one central platform. A more useful approach is to distinguish between common foundations and specialised applications. Shared identity, data standards or integration mechanisms may be appropriate across services, while individual agencies retain systems designed for their specific operational responsibilities.
The architecture must also reflect institutional realities. Responsibilities for maintaining records, approving access and correcting errors need to remain clear. Shared infrastructure should make cooperation possible without obscuring accountability.
4.2 What environmental and government systems reveal about implementation
Since 2024, Eywa Systems has been supporting the EU-FCCB Digital Transformation Programme in Papua New Guinea (PNG), implemented in partnership with Expertise France and funded by the European Union. The programme has already delivered several significant digitalisation projects across six government agencies, strengthening institutional capabilities, modernising public services and laying the foundations for a more connected digital government ecosystem.
As documented in Eywa Systems’ October 2026 company profile, key achievements include the development and deployment of seven government websites, the National REDD+ Safeguards Information System, alongside ongoing development of the National Carbon Registry (NCR) and the CEPA Digital Environmental Permit System. Both the NCR and Environmental Permit System have made substantial progress and remain under active development.
Phase 1 of the programme has been successfully completed, with several digital platforms operational and more than 190 training participations recorded through capacity-building activities. The programme is expected to continue until 2028-2029, providing opportunities to further strengthen existing systems, expand digital services and enhance interoperability across participating government agencies.
Beyond the EU-FCCB programme, Eywa Systems’ broader portfolio demonstrates relevant expertise in national registries, environmental information systems, geospatial platforms, structured data repositories and multi-agency digital transformation. Collectively, these experiences demonstrate the company’s capacity to design and implement integrated digital solutions that support government modernisation, institutional collaboration and data-driven decision-making.
While these initiatives are not formally classified as national Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) deployments, they demonstrate practical capabilities and technical foundations relevant to the development of interoperable, scalable and sustainable digital public infrastructure ecosystems.
This case illustrates the coordination and operational requirements of multi-agency digitalisation. It also demonstrates why delivery cannot be assessed solely by counting applications: systems must be integrated into agency workflows, supported by trained personnel and maintained after implementation. The company profile reports that the systems operate under agency ICT teams, but does not provide an independent evaluation establishing their wider social or economic effects.
A second example comes from Cambodia, where Eywa Systems, in collaboration with Takin Consulting, successfully designed, developed and handed over a comprehensive Safeguards Information System (SIS) for UNDP Cambodia and the Ministry of Environment. The system supports the systematic collection, management and reporting of environmental and social safeguards information, strengthening transparency, institutional capacity and compliance with national and international REDD+ safeguards reporting requirements.
The relevance to DPI lies in the challenge of organising information across related domains. Shared data structures and geospatial capabilities can help institutions work with information that would otherwise remain dispersed. However, indicator integration within an environmental platform is not, by itself, evidence of interoperability across government as a whole.
These examples reinforce a narrower but useful conclusion: reusable technical components, coherent data models, security controls and institutional handover are important implementation considerations for digital infrastructure. They do not establish that any particular architecture will produce the same outcomes in another country or sector.
4.3 Why governance and operational ownership matter
Infrastructure creates lasting value only if institutions can operate it reliably. This requires documented processes, access controls, maintenance arrangements, staff training and a clear allocation of responsibility for decisions and failures.
The UNDP safeguards framework treats DPI risks as extending beyond technical security to include inclusion, accountability, weak institutions and unsustainable implementation (UNDP, 2024). This is consistent with the practical demands of government platforms: an application can function correctly while the wider service remains unreliable because responsibilities, procedures or resources are inadequate.
Eywa Systems’ documented delivery approach includes requirements validation, testing, user training, documentation and transfer to client ICT teams. Its company profile states that its platforms are designed around maintainability and client ownership, with source code and documentation transferred according to contract terms.
This is relevant as a delivery principle, rather than proof that all the broader challenges of DPI have been resolved. The effectiveness of a handover depends on whether the receiving institution has the skills, budget, authority and time required to maintain the system. Those conditions must be assessed for each engagement.
5. Challenges, Limitations and Counterarguments
5.1 Privacy, security and systemic risk
Shared infrastructure can increase the consequences of a security failure. A vulnerability in a widely used identity, payment or data-exchange service may affect several dependent services. Centralised data arrangements can also create opportunities for inappropriate access or surveillance if permissions and oversight are weak.
The response is not to avoid interoperability, but to design it around defined purposes, appropriate access controls, auditability, data protection and clear accountability. The UNDP safeguards framework provides a rights-based approach to addressing these risks throughout the DPI lifecycle (UNDP, 2024).
5.2 Exclusion and institutional capacity
Digital services can create new barriers when people lack reliable connectivity, suitable devices, accessible interfaces or the credentials required to use them. Governments should therefore consider assisted access and alternative service channels where appropriate, rather than assuming that online availability guarantees inclusion.
Institutional capacity is equally important. Shared infrastructure requires sustainable financing, skilled personnel and clear operational responsibilities. These needs can be especially significant where agencies have limited technical resources or where systems must operate under difficult connectivity conditions.
5.3 Vendor dependency and the limits of standardisation
Open standards and modular architectures can make systems easier to integrate and maintain, but they do not automatically prevent vendor lock-in. Proprietary extensions, inadequate documentation or dependence on a single supplier can still restrict future choices.
At the same time, standardisation should not become an end in itself. Institutions may have legitimate reasons to retain specialised systems where their operational, security or legal requirements differ. The objective should be interoperability where it serves a clear purpose, not uniformity regardless of context.
5.4 The evidence problem
The evidence supporting DPI’s potential is stronger than the evidence establishing universal causal effects. India’s experience provides a valuable case, but findings cannot be transferred mechanically to other jurisdictions. The systematic review by Lusi et al. (2025) also identifies a shortage of longitudinal empirical research.
Evaluations should consequently examine service quality, accessibility, reliability, operating costs, user outcomes and institutional sustainability. They should distinguish between outputs delivered, services used and outcomes demonstrated.
6. Implications for Governments and Digital Delivery Partners
For governments, DPI calls for investment decisions that consider the whole operating environment rather than procurement costs alone. Architecture, data governance, security, user needs and long-term maintenance should be addressed before systems become difficult to change.
For development partners, shared infrastructure offers an opportunity to coordinate investments across programmes. However, common foundations require agreement on standards, responsibilities and safeguards. Without that coordination, individually successful projects may still produce a fragmented ecosystem.
For technology providers, the implication is that delivery extends beyond software development. Requirements engineering, systems integration, documentation, training and institutional handover are necessary to make technical capabilities usable over time.
Environmental and climate programmes provide a particularly relevant application. Their information needs may span carbon registries, forest monitoring, safeguards, geospatial data, project pipelines and financial reporting. Eywa Systems’ documented work in these areas demonstrates experience with several of these components, including national environmental platforms in Papua New Guinea and Cambodia and a climate-finance project repository for the Pacific Community. The latter had completed user acceptance testing in August 2026, with handover scheduled for November 2026 according to the company’s October 2026 profile.
These capabilities are relevant to the broader DPI discussion, but they should not be conflated with evidence of a fully integrated national infrastructure. A practical next step for programmes with similar needs would be to assess where common standards and interfaces could support legitimate data exchange, while retaining appropriate controls over sensitive or institution-specific information.
7. Conclusion
Digital Public Infrastructure matters because it offers a way to build digital capabilities that can serve multiple institutions and services rather than reproducing foundational functions in isolated projects. Its potential value lies in interoperability, reuse and the ability to support more coherent service delivery.
Research and policy frameworks from the OECD, World Bank, IMF and UNDP provide a strong rationale for this approach. Yet the evidence also establishes important limits: outcomes depend on institutional context, accessibility, security, governance and the capacity to sustain systems after implementation. The academic literature has not yet demonstrated universal causal effects across different countries and sectors.
Eywa Systems’ documented experience in multi-agency digitalisation, environmental information management and institutional handover illustrates some of the practical work required to make digital systems operational. These examples provide implementation insight, not proof of DPI’s wider developmental impact.
The central conclusion is that DPI should be assessed by what its foundations enable institutions and people to do, and by whether those capabilities remain secure, accessible and sustainable. The measure of success is not the number of platforms deployed. It is whether the resulting infrastructure supports reliable services, responsible information use and stronger institutional capacity over time.
References
- Alonso, C., Bhojwani, T., Hanedar, E., Prihardini, D., Una, G., & Zhabska, K. (2023). Stacking up the benefits: Lessons from India’s digital journey (IMF Working Paper No. 2023/078). International Monetary Fund. https://doi.org/10.5089/9798400240416.001
- Clark, J., Marin, G., Ardic Alper, O. P., & Galicia Rabadan, G. A. (2025). Digital public infrastructure and development: A World Bank Group approach (Digital Transformation White Paper, Volume 1). World Bank Group. https://ppp.worldbank.org/library/digital-public-infrastructure-and-development-world-bank-group-approach
- Lusi, J., Lorenz, B., & Pappel, I. (2025). Innovation or reinvention? A systematic and bibliometric review of public sector digital infrastructure. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 11(3), Article 100593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2025.100593
- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2024). Digital public infrastructure for digital governments (OECD Public Governance Policy Papers No. 68). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/ff525dc8-en
- United Nations Development Programme. (2024, September 24). UN releases Universal DPI Safeguards Framework to promote safe and inclusive digital public infrastructure. https://www.undp.org/press-releases/un-releases-universal-dpi-safeguards-framework-promote-safe-and-inclusive-digital-public-infrastructure
- World Bank Group. (2025). Digital public infrastructure and development: A World Bank Group approach. World Bank Group. https://ppp.worldbank.org/library/digital-public-infrastructure-and-development-world-bank-group-approach