Digital Participation Infrastructure

Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) is often viewed as a powerful tool for supporting healthier digital environments by providing essential services and frameworks that are open, inclusive, and adaptable. Proponents of DPI projects currently underway around the world tout its potential to address existing deficiencies in the digital landscape, promote innovation, maximize efficiencies and develop solutions that better reflect the public interest.

Our team at the Digital Impact and Governance Initiative is publishing a research collection, Infrastructure for the Digital Age, featuring perspectives from leading scholars and practitioners in public interest technology, computer science, law, ethics, and economic development. Experts shared a wide breadth of ideas on digital public infrastructure and what may or may not be achievable in the next 10 years.

Participants were asked to respond to a series of seven questions about the potential for DPI. Two participants, Audrey Tang and Beth Simone Noveck, collaborated on a unique take on DPI, turning even the name Digital Public Infrastructure into an approach for Digital Participation Infrastructure.

Tang and Noveck’s answers to our DPI survey follow in their entirety.

Could Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) offer an appropriate or realistic approach to healthier digital ecosystems?

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.

We've seen firsthand the potential of DPI to create healthier digital ecosystems. In 2023, Audrey spearheaded the Alignment Assemblies in Taiwan, using the open-source platform Pol.is to gather public views on AI. This initiative demonstrated how DPI can facilitate informed policy-making on complex technological issues. Similarly, in 2024, Beth and her team in New Jersey became pioneers in the United States, using the All Our Ideas platform to co-create the state’s AI policy with the public—the first state to do so.

These examples illustrate how DPI can lead to more responsive decision-making, increased civic engagement, and better-informed policies – all crucial elements of a healthy digital ecosystem and a stronger democracy.

However, implementing DPI is not without challenges. It requires digital literacy, robust cybersecurity measures, and a commitment from institutions to genuinely incorporate public input.

Despite these challenges, with the proliferation of free, open-source tools, it has never been easier to discuss and decide together. To realize the full potential of DPI in creating healthier digital ecosystems, we need to make these platforms and the knowledge to use them readily available, ensuring they are efficient and effective for both institutions and residents alike.

What lessons from DPI implementation and initiatives from international partners can be applied in the United States?

The United States can learn valuable lessons from international partners’ experiences with Digital Participation Infrastructure. As pioneers in this field, we've observed successful strategies that can be adapted for the U.S. context. Here are two key lessons:

One, institutionalize DPI as Standard Operating Procedure.

Taiwan has long been a leader in the use of new technology to co-design the making of law and policy with the public. As the country’s first Digital Minister, Audrey pioneered the use of the Join.gov.tw platform that involved millions of residents in proposing and commenting on hundreds of pieces of legislation and budgets. The key to success wasn't just having a platform, but making DPI an integral part of governance.

Similarly, cities like Reykjavik, Iceland, Helsinki, Finland and San Pedro Garza de Garcia, Mexico have institutionalized DPI. San Pedro has legislated the use of DPI to co-create solutions to urban challenges with the public into law.

In Reykjavik, for instance, over 20% of the population actively participates in proposing urban improvements through the Better Reykjavik project, with city leadership committed to considering the top five public-rated ideas.

To advance the adoption of DPI in the US and elsewhere, we need to:

• Make open source DPI tools easily accessible to all government agencies;
• Train public servants in deploying these tools effectively;
• Measure the effectiveness of DPI;
• Establish processes to ensure genuine consideration and implementation of public input.

Two, use the right tool for the right task.

DPI isn't a one-size-fits-all solution. In addition to using DPI on a sustained basis, the second lesson from earlier DPI experiments is to use the “right horse for the right course.” Different platforms serve different purposes, and often, we need to combine a tool for problem definition with a different one for solution identification or implementation to arrive at a workable solution.

For example, Taiwan’s Alignment Assemblies used a combination of platforms: The Stanford Online Deliberation Platform for real-time discussions, Talk to the City for summarization, and Pol.is for collecting and visualizing participant views.

Similarly, when Beth led the White House Open Government Initiative under President Obama, we combined IdeaScale, Debategraph, and MixedInk to develop the White House's Open Government policy. More recently, in a project to develop strategies for fighting election subversion with Democracy Fund Voice, we stitched together online deliberation via Zoom with the use of Otter.ai for summarization, ChatGPT for translation and the AI agent toolkit PolicySynth for research.

Despite many successful experiences with DPI globally, the primary method by which most governments still make decisions is through representatives working behind closed doors, selected through infrequent elections. Just as we recognize the inequities of determining a child's future based on a single test, we must acknowledge the shortcomings of a democracy centered around infrequent elections.

DPI can foster more frequent and meaningful civic participation, reduce partisanship, create multiple accountability mechanisms, and harness the distributed wisdom of our communities, leading to more responsive and effective governance.

What can be done to encourage and incentivize cross-sector collaboration in developing DPI solutions that work for the public interest?

To encourage and incentivize cross-sector collaboration in developing DPI solutions that serve the public interest, we need to create an environment that fosters innovation, transparency, and shared responsibility. As Nobel Laureate Herbert Simon aptly put it, “Everyone designs who devises courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones.” Digital Participation Infrastructure embodies this idea by enabling us to collectively design our futures.

We believe the key lies in striking a balance between harnessing private sector innovation and maintaining public accountability.

Here are some strategies we propose:

• We strongly advocate for the use of open source tools governed and managed through public processes. This approach ensures transparency and allows for community adaptation.
• Fund civic tech challenges with prizes for innovative DPI solutions that meet specific public needs in order to incentivize private sector participation.
• Collaboratively create standards for DPI that ensure interoperability, accessibility, and security.
• Establish DPI Innovation Hubs where public officials, private sector innovators, and community members can co-create and test DPI solutions.
• Organize regular DPI Summits to share best practices, showcase successful collaborations, and address emerging challenges, focusing both on technology but also on the processes for how to use the platforms to strengthen deliberation and decision making.
• Incorporate DPI-related criteria in government funding processes, encouraging private sector companies to develop public interest-oriented solutions.
• Create DPI Impact Funds that invest in promising cross-sector collaborations, with returns tied to measurable improvements in civic engagement and governance outcomes.
• Develop training programs for public professionals and private sector professionals on the principles and best practices of DPI. Include DPI-related coursework in relevant university programs to cultivate a workforce skilled in cross-sector collaboration for civic tech.

Just as we invest in building physical infrastructure, we need to continuously invest in DPI that are transparent, accountable, and adaptable to community needs.

In which areas do we need to see U.S. leadership and collaboration, whether at home or overseas (as part of multilateral initiatives or other) to foster safe and effective DPI implementation?

As the oldest sustained democracy, the United States continues to serve as an important voice on the future of democracy globally. But when it comes to the integration of Digital Participation Infrastructure, the US is falling further and further behind countries like Taiwan, Finland and Iceland.

In Brazil, for example, the country’s Senate has four, well-institutionalized forms of online participation in the lawmaking process. Residents can propose and sign onto draft legislation. They can comment on those laws proposed by legislators. They can write questions for witnesses appearing before congressional committees. There is even a process by which students as young as twelve can also learn to propose new policies. Over 100 million people each year participate.

The United States has been a key architect of the Summit on Democracy, held annually since 2021. While the Summit has largely focused on fighting authoritarianism, it should include global discussions on advancing Digital Participation Infrastructure. We need to go beyond asking what we don’t want and, instead ask: What are the innovative democratic processes that we should invest in building?

What is one major barrier to DPI adoption in the United States and how could it be addressed?

One major barrier to DPI adoption in the United States is the entrenched nature of traditional democratic processes and the resultant institutional inertia. We are accustomed to long-established but limited methods of citizen engagement, including periodic elections, town hall meetings, and written public comments. However, in our experience, the primary obstacle to the more frequent use of DPI is not resistance to change per se, but rather a lack of understanding of 1) why, when designed well, more frequent opportunities for public participation leads to better decision making, and 2) how to deploy these practices efficiently.

To address this knowledge gap, we have instituted government-wide training programs. In Taiwan, we implemented the Participation Officers Network. In the United States during the Obama Administration, we established Open Government Officers in every agency. Both initiatives aimed to ensure that every agency had senior officials trained in and committed to promoting greater adoption of participatory practices.

With advances in AI and exciting new platforms available, we believe it is overdue to reinvigorate and expand such training efforts. Both elected officials and civil servants should receive comprehensive education on the benefits and implementation of DPI. Such programs should not only cover the technical aspects but also emphasize how DPI can enhance their ability to serve constituents and make more informed decisions. This training would leverage examples from countries like Taiwan, Iceland, and Brazil to illustrate the successful implementation of DPI on a large scale.

With training in DPI, we can begin to overcome institutional inertia and demonstrate that DPI is not a replacement for traditional democratic processes, but an enhancement that makes our democracy more robust, inclusive, and responsive in the digital age. As we've seen in our work from Taiwan to Washington to New Jersey, when government institutions embrace DPI, it opens new avenues for meaningful civic participation and more effective governance.

What domestic policies could the U.S. government pursue to facilitate a cohesive approach to DPI?

To facilitate a cohesive approach to Digital Participation Infrastructure, the U.S. government should draw inspiration from successful past initiatives like data.gov and the open data initiative at the General Services Administration. We propose establishing and funding a dedicated Digital Participation Office that would serve as a central hub for coordinating DPI efforts across all levels of government.

This federal DPI initiative would:

1. Develop and Maintain a DPI Platform Repository: Host (and procure where needed) a centralized repository of open-source engagement platforms, making it easier for agencies at all levels to adopt and implement DPI tools.
2. Provide Comprehensive Training Programs: Deliver training to government officials on how to effectively engage residents in various forms of policymaking and service design using digital tools.
3. Establish a Grants Program: Allocate funding, along with access to platforms and training, to state and local governments to implement DPI. This would encourage widespread adoption and innovation at all levels of governance.
4. Articulate Standards and Best Practices: Develop and promote standards for digital civic engagement tools, ensuring consistency, interoperability, and adherence to principles of accessibility, security, and privacy.
5. Fund Research and Evaluation: Support ongoing research and evaluation of DPI initiatives to assess their impact on the effectiveness of policy making and service delivery, continuously improving the approach based on evidence. U.S. science agencies such as the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology should increase investment in DPI platforms, their deployment and evaluation.

As it did with open data a decade ago, the U.S. government can now create a robust ecosystem for DPI, fostering more widespread and effective digital civic engagement across the nation. This cohesive approach would not only enhance democratic participation but also improve the responsiveness and efficiency of government at all levels.

What can be done to effectively manage risks and potential harms associated with DPI layers in the United States?

The early days of the digital revolution sparked widespread optimism about a new era of global self-expression, creativity, and collaboration. Today, however, our collective attitude seems to have soured. While online communities and cooperative efforts continue to thrive - as evidenced by the enduring success of Wikipedia, the vibrant open-source software movement, the tight-knit communities in massively multiplayer online games, the viral spread of exciting YouTube videos, or the social activism on a variety of platforms - our focus has shifted dramatically away from questions of community building toward a fear of social division, deep fakes and disinformation.

Too many of our headlines have shifted from celebrating the connective power of the Internet to lambasting online life as a cause of offline disintegration, despite the existence of both benefits and drawbacks to technology.

DPI offers a pathway to pivot from polarization to participation, transforming discord into dialogue. By deploying Digital Participation Infrastructure, we can dramatically deepen our democracy, complementing free, frequent and fair elections with accessible, affordable avenues for daily deliberation and decision-making.

Through thoughtful implementation of Digital Participation Infrastructure, not just digital public infrastructure, we can evolve our digital ecosystem from a 'battlefield of beliefs' to a 'workshop of wisdom.'

Audrey Tang is a senior research fellow at the Collective Intelligence Project and served as Taiwan’s first Minister of Digital Affairs from August 2022 to May 2024.

Beth Simone Noveck is a professor at Northeastern University, where she directs the Burnes Center for Social Change and its partner project, The GovLab. Beth blogs at RebootDemocracy.AI and moderates the Rebooting Democracy in Age of AI Lecture Series, which brings together changemakers from a variety of fields to explore how AI can offer fresh solutions to the challenges facing modern democratic governance. Sign-up for an upcoming talk.