Assessing the Potential for DPI in the United States

Prompt: Could digital public infrastructure offer an appropriate or realistic approach to healthier digital ecosystems? Could this approach work in the United States — why or why not?

There is general agreement that some version of DPI could be a useful element to strengthen the U.S. digital ecosystem. However, experts’ analyses of whether DPI could work in the United States — and what that would look like — vary based on differing interpretations of DPI, the pain points it seeks to address, and available alternatives.

The answer may hinge on unresolved questions about the ultimate objectives of DPI, in terms of which individuals and sectors could benefit. A major point of tension among research participants is whether DPI is meant to facilitate digital government services, be a conduit for both private and public sector activities (G7 vs. G20 visions), or support any digital ingredient of a functioning democracy. This more expansive view of DPI could include systems for reporting factually accurate news and even for participatory decision-making.

Moreover, there are significant concerns over whether DPI will lay the groundwork for a more competitive tech ecosystem, allowing sectors and entities of different sizes to pursue opportunities on more equal footing or, conversely, whether it will have unintended consequences by facilitating new monopolies, distorting the market, or weakening the government’s tax base. Meanwhile, critics question the utility of investing in DPI in the United States given existing solutions and the relatively low proportion of people who lack access to an official identity or to financial services, compared with countries where DPI is gaining traction as a population-wide approach to providing public services and programs.

Still, as digital tools play an increasingly central role in our daily lives, there is value in exploring the potential of DPI in the United States to improve efficiency of services and strengthen inclusivity, as well as to expand economic opportunities.

Key Findings

Experts shared the following insights regarding the potential for DPI in the United States:

• U.S. strength lies in being innovative, inclusive, and future-thinking, with a highly technical skill base. Nevertheless, numerous factors that are particularly pronounced in the United States weigh heavily. These include:
  • Fragmented governance, especially between federal and state authorities.
  • Procurement silos and a compliance mindset.
  • The extent of private tech companies’ capture and concentration of market power.
  • A polarized political climate characterized by growing lack of trust in government-led solutions.
  • A general deregulatory approach to the tech sector.
  • Insufficient national privacy protections.
  • Tension with national security and law enforcement considerations.
  • The patchwork of solutions, legacy systems, and work-arounds that currently fill many of the functional gaps.
• There are widely differing views on what deployment of DPI in the United States could look like. One view espouses DPI that is federally managed across all states, possibly with a national-level council defining the priorities for a national DPI stack. Another perspective sees a fragmented rollout — one project, state, or functionality at a time and/or possibly even through competing companies or standards — as more realistic. For identity verification alone, experts suggest different approaches, such as partnering with banks, building on top of the country’s existing national identity infrastructure (i.e., a driver’s license or Social Security number), or looking at emerging standards for wallets and verifiable credentials.
• One key question is where to begin. Starting with a use case that individuals would willingly adopt to solve a pain point, such as helping Americans access public services or improving an emergency response effort, could help drive user and market demand.
• While the government would likely play a large role in the leadership, investment, governance, and possibly even the building of DPI systems, an outstanding question is to what extent existing or new private sector systems should be part of the answer or could offer alternatives that may be more readily accepted.

Fortunately, to help chart its course toward a healthier ecosystem, the United States can draw on the expanding body of evidence from DPI projects and initiatives around the world. The next article in this collection will touch on learnings from international DPI experiences, including best practices, opportunities, cautionary warnings, and geopolitical implications.

Go to the next article in the research collection: LEARNING FROM INTERNATIONAL DPI EFFORTS

A Curated Collection of Expert Insights

Prompt: Could digital public infrastructure offer an appropriate or realistic approach to healthier digital ecosystems? Could this approach work in the United States–why or why not?

Viewpoints Shaped by Varying Interpretations of DPI

Joseph Lorenzo Hall, Distinguished Technologist of Strong Internet at the Internet Society

I am optimistic that the momentum and energy behind DPI will lead to healthier digital ecosystems. There has been significant progress in the development of this concept, particularly in the UN Universal DPI Safeguards Framework released in September 2024. However, I have concerns about the monolithic nature of DPI. Over time, it seems that once a concept is given a marketing frame—for example, "the cloud" or "Internet of things"—it can be interpreted differently by different people and lose its coherence. This is a real risk with the DPI concept, given how interconnected and interdependent the various components of a DPI-enabled environment are. Systemic thinking requires careful systems-based design, regulation, and implementation.

Akash Kapur, Senior Fellow at New America and The GovLab, and Visiting Research Scholar at Princeton University

My answer is a resounding yes: done right (with appropriate guardrails), DPI can offer a more trusted and secure digital ecosystem that safeguards the public interest while also enabling and even unleashing private sector innovation. One way to think about this is that DPI is building in the “missing layers” of the Internet–identity, payments, other key infrastructure that was overlooked or thought unnecessary (or overkill) for the first-gen Internet. As a result, this functionality has been effectively claimed by the private sector. I see DPI as an effort to reclaim this functionality and redefine its elements as public goods.

Yolanda Martínez, Practice Manager for Digital Development in Latin America and the Caribbean at The World Bank

DPI has demonstrated its contribution to strengthening digital ecosystems by promoting transparency, efficiency, inclusivity, and innovation. Efficiency comes into play by focusing ICT investments on developing reusable software components–also known as–Building Blocks (BBs), to enable digital services across different government entities. This approach enables federal agencies, state and local digital teams to better design and deliver digital government services that are based on user needs, user journeys, and life events without having to reinvent the wheel–in terms of systems development–every time they digitize a government service.

Diana Zamora, Director of Global Public Policy at Mastercard

To discuss whether DPI could work in the U.S. (or any other country), it is worth looking at some definitions which have been commonly agreed by countries. The G7 vision is closer to a GovTech concept—whereas the G20 vision is more market orchestration through a government administered population-scale platform.

Ethan Zuckerman, Professor and Director of the Digital Public Infrastructure Initiative at UMass Amherst

DPI is an enormously broad concept; there's a danger in using the term too narrowly. Digital public infrastructures shouldn't refer just to projects that exist within the government's purview–the idea is that we should broadly consider the digital and information environment necessary for a functioning democracy and think of the essential ingredients as part of digital public infrastructure. For me, DPI includes systems for reporting factually accurate news, whether or not they have government sponsorship or are handled entirely by the private sector–they are digital infrastructures that support informed participation in a democracy, and like other infrastructures, you can build products and services atop them.

With that broad definition, it's obvious that DPI is possible. Whether it's likely is another thing altogether. The internet began as DPI, as a research network supported by DARPA and later as a research network supported by the National Science Foundation before government support was phased out and the private sector took over management responsibilities. That cycle from government sponsorship to private sector embrace could happen again in a variety of fields...but for me, the key to the idea is that there are certain infrastructures that are important enough that governments should build and maintain them even if there's no clear market for the services.

Audrey Tang, Senior Research Fellow at the Collective Intelligence Project and Beth Simone Noveck, Professor and Director of The Burnes Center for Social Change, and The GovLab at Northeastern University

Just as roads and airports provide physical connections, and digital public infrastructure like public Wi-Fi enhances our economic well-being, Digital Participation Infrastructure (DPI) is crucial for creating thriving, inclusive, and democratic communities. DPI refers to the platforms and processes that enable communities to engage in sustained dialogue, resolve differences, and collectively participate in decision-making that affects our lives. DPI allows us to design our digital infrastructure with the collective wisdom, experience, and expertise of the people who use it, ensuring that it reflects community needs and values.

Both Public and Private Sectors Have Roles to Play in Achieving Inclusivity

Daniel Castro, Director at the Center for Data Innovation

The starting point for the conversation should be consensus on the need for healthier (i.e., more secure, more robust, more efficient) digital ecosystems, whether they involve digital infrastructure or other digital systems. In some cases, DPI will be the best path forward. In other cases, DPI may not be. Instead, either existing or new private-sector systems might offer a better alternative, such as to facilitate digital payments or provide the operating system for key technologies. However, even when the private sector provides digital systems critical to the U.S. economy and society, there should be similar expectations of the need for healthy digital ecosystems. Importantly, this expectation should carry with it a responsibility from the government to not just regulate these private sector systems but also invest in their success. One problem is that there are always externalities for private sector IT systems. While companies have an interest in making these secure (e.g. to protect their reputation, provide a good service, etc.), they will likely underinvest in security because they will not capture all the benefits. The government can and should help close this gap by taking an ownership-neutral approach to securing critical digital infrastructure.

David Eaves, Professor and Deputy Director in Digital Government at the UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose

Yes on both accounts. In a world shaped by the climate crisis many, many Americans will be displaced at least once in their life by a forest fire, flood or other climate event. At a minimum, digital public infrastructure will be essential for them to quickly claim benefits and re-establish themselves as they attempt to recover. This means digital infrastructure that is interoperable and inclusive, something that is best met in the American context by creating a system where many public and private players can compete to serve citizens without being able to claim a monopoly.

Indeed, given America’s preference for private sector driven services, it is all the more important that there is a public interest in shaping both the digital IDs and payments markets to prevent the emergence of monopoly actors that can extract significant rents as well as prevent new innovations from emerging. Americans deserve a low cost and frictionless way to verify their identity or move funds from one entity to another.

Equally importantly, Americans deserve ways to, at a minimum, seamlessly permit their data to move between key government agencies and across healthcare providers and insurers so they can quickly qualify for and receive public benefits.

Given the key roles both private and public sectors will play in DPI in the United States, the key barriers are not technical–they are ones of incentives, leadership and authority. Overcoming vested interests to create systems that serve the public interest.

U.S.-Specific Limitations Likely to Influence How Implementation Plays Out

Akash Kapur, Senior Fellow at New America and The GovLab, and Visiting Research Scholar at Princeton University

While a DPI approach could in theory work in the U.S., there are some limitations that could hold it back. These include relatively high adoption of existing, private-sector systems, notably in payments (developing world countries have sometimes benefited from a lack of “legacy” systems); fragmented governance, especially between states and the federal government, preventing the emergency of a unified regulatory and technical approach; lack of trust in government-led solutions, both more generally, and certainly when it comes to imposing a national digital identity.

My sense is that DPI–or some approximation of it–can only be built out in the U.S. in a relatively fragmented, piecemeal manner: state by state, functionality by functionality, and probably through a number of competing companies and standards (not always interoperable). The disadvantages of this approach are clear, but it’s worth keeping the advantages in mind, too: perhaps less potential for centralized control and surveillance, etc.

Laura Bingham, Professor and Executive Director at the Institute for Law, Innovation & Technology at Temple University

DPI alone is not a solution to existing deficits in public trust in the digital ecosystem in the United States, but it could be a piece of the puzzle. Passing key federal legislation is an unavoidable step, notably a comprehensive federal privacy law and legislation regulating data brokers that covers the sale of personally identifiable information (including mosaic data) to public agencies including law enforcement and intelligence agencies. A significant amount of public education and consultation should accompany this effort.

National security and law enforcement surveillance reform is another adjacent area that requires legislative attention alongside any executive or agency-level policy initiatives to leverage DPI toward realizing a healthier digital ecosystem in the United States. Adopting a comprehensive legislatively-driven digital strategy to ground the introduction of DPIs will have knock-on effects for the United States in its foreign diplomacy where cybersecurity, AI and digital transformation are equally unavoidable issues. There, the United States is limited in its ability to advocate for adequate safeguards because of its own deregulatory approach to technology innovation over the past six administrations.

What might work in the United States, setting the legal framework aside? Emerging standards for wallets and verifiable credentials that do not have to “phone home”–putting the government or a private server inside a digital transaction–are promising alternatives to centralized systems that can be engineered to store and search massive amounts of user data. Similar to other responses, keeping systems optional, zero knowledge, and minimalist in all other respects would best serve the needs of the United States population, especially non-citizens (including undocumented residents), members of racial or gender minority communities and other social structures that place them at heightened risk from government and corporate surveillance.

Thinking Critically About Policy Tools and Desired Results is Essential for Positive Outcomes

Diana Zamora, Director of Global Public Policy at Mastercard

DPI is a new model for digital transformation that holds a great potential for inclusion and digital acceleration. However, it is of the essence to have two things in mind. First, what is the problem that the DPI deployment will solve? Which other solutions have failed in attaining such a goal? And second, any DPI deployment should be designed with a user-centric approach that will protect individual rights, competition, innovation, and trust among all the system participants.

In developing countries, the main motivation for building the payments layer in DPI has been a significant population without an account, and hence unable to participate in digital payments. However, this is not the case of the United States, where Federal Reserve data shows that 6% of adults are unbanked, falling from 8% in 2014–but still above most developed countries. (Note: Unbanked rates in the United States have historically been higher for low-income families, as well as for Black and Hispanic adults. For instance, 17% of families with incomes below $25,000 do not have an account, nor do 13% of Black adults.)

Further, for unbanked individuals in the United States, there are other vehicles for non-cash transactions: using a prepaid card, nonbank money orders or nonbank check cashing. Prepaid cards can help to drive financial inclusion and empowerment by giving millions of unbanked and underbanked (more than 33 million households) American consumers a secure electronic payments account that can be loaded via any source of funds–payroll wages, independent contract payments, federal, and state government benefits.

Moreover, multiple studies in the U.S. show that an individuals’ decision to be unbanked is related to banking fees and minimum balance requirements. Digital banks offering no-minimum balance and/or overdraft fees may be a reasonable approach for reaching the remaining 6% of the unbanked population. In addition, FedNow was launched by the U.S. Federal Reserve in July of 2023 to allow merchants the choice to use real-time transactions at the point of sale with fees ranging from one cent to 4.5 cents per transaction, increasing the number of payment options available for customers beyond traditional card rails.

Given this, implementing a DPI approach within the U.S. will likely not yield increased financial inclusion or digital transaction uptake. Any DPI solution must be context-specific–and no country will have the same desired policy results.

Alek Tarkowski, Co-Founder and Director of Strategy at the Open Future Foundation

The strength of the DPI concept is related to the fact that it addresses two digital policy goals: dealing with concentrations of market power and having the potential to address a broad range of socio-economic development challenges (usually conceptualized through the SDGs framework). Focus on DPIs also shifts the policy debate to the issue of infrastructures, creating meaningful analogies with earlier public infrastructures, and focusing policy goals not just on technological innovation but on the maintenance of infrastructures and systems.

Secondly, DPIs should not just be conceptualized as public backbone that can level the playing field for commercial actors (as sometimes is the case). But rather as infrastructures deployed with the aim of securing public interest, and driven by public values. A good example of this approach is the European Declaration on Digital Rights and Principles, that defines them in the context of deploying infrastructures, and with the aim of creating a European Digital Public Space.

Carl Gahnberg, Director of Policy Development and Research at the Internet Society

It depends how the concept of DPI gets defined in the U.S./global context. As a basis, DPI is simply an observation that certain technologies operate as infrastructure for other digital applications. Yet, when actively promoting DPI as a concept, it is in effect a way to try to steer a technology towards that end. And so far this "steering" can be understood as 1) technological choices in the form of open standard and open source, but also 2) public policies to accompany the infrastructure. And, as with all tech-policy, those public policies are key for whether or not you will see a healthier U.S. ecosystem. So a priori it's not clear either way. And there is no reason why this could not work in the US.

Lacey Strahm, Policy Lead at OpenMined

DPI is the foundation of a healthier digital ecosystem that is not controlled by or stewarded under the incentives of one centralized power but rather available to be built on top of and interoperated with in such a way that serves a diversity of use cases and people. The main peril of many digital ecosystems is that they fall under the control of one centralized authority. This authority then operates under its parochial view of the world, and its infrastructure only supports goods that further or align with said view. The United States can certainly adopt DPI as a realistic approach to building a healthier digital ecosystem in that, although it has some of the most formidable centralized digital ecosystems, it is also home to a vibrant community of builders looking to learn from, engage with, develop, and share new goods with their communities.

Go to the next article in the research collection: Learning from International DPI Efforts

Return to the main collections page