How was the data in the Map and the dataset collected and reported?
The DPI Map relies on secondary sources of data that are considered credible for the research questions. Most often, this information is found on relevant government websites, press releases or locally reported news. It may also be reported by intermediaries such as development banks, research organisations or other international organisations that are subject matter experts. For example, the mapping of ID systems relied heavily on reporting from the World Bank’s ID4D program, and on BIS datasets for payment systems.
Further, the data points are determined based on the Measuring DPI framework, which leads us to the attributes and indicators of DPI through inductive research methods. Based on a matching exercise of the indicators with available data, data proxies were identified for each indicator. These data proxies become the data points that the Map uses to study deployments of DPI globally. You can download the framework and study data proxies on this page.
I see some inaccurate or incomplete data on DPI. What can I do about this?
Report it to us! You can use the 1-minute form by clicking here or book a call to have our team correct the data here.
Can I use the Map to identify if a country’s identity / payment / data exchange system is a DPI?
Short answer – yes, as long as you are certain about the features that make a certain deployment of identity / payment / data exchange, a DPI. For us, this involves at least some degree of public-interest operation, and for it to be interoperable with other systems, and for it to be an active and in-use system. These ‘conditions’ can be studied differently across identity, payment and data exchange systems, which you can explore further here.
We must caveat this with a longer yet crucial detail. Each of the conditions specified above exist on spectrums and are not a binary. For example, interoperability in payment systems are studied along a spectrum ranging from interoperability within the same domain (e.g. all mobile wallets allowing transactions with each other) to cross-domain interoperability (e.g. mobile wallets transacting with bank accounts). Arriving at a benchmark of these conditions is challenging because what is a minimum condition for one context is an aspiration for another. So, the conditions specified above emerged as universal minimum conditions, helping determine some form of DPI to exist in a country, but not necessarily identifying “good” DPI.
To study these conditions as indicators of measuring the state of DPI, explore the conceptualisation and measurement framework here.
How can I cite the DPI Map?
We have distinctive citations of the Mapping project.
For the methodology framework: Eaves, D. & Rao, K. (2024). Digital public infrastructure: a framework for conceptualisation and measurement. Unpublished manuscript.
For the Map or its data: DPI Map (2024). dpimap.org
For the insights from the map: Eaves, D., Rao, K., Pagliarini, G., & Vera, K. (2024). ‘Global State of DPI’, DPI Map. https://dpimap.org
Which countries does the Map include and how did you arrive at this classification?
Our sample includes 210 countries which comprises all countries in the UN Statistics Division database, and excludes overseas territories as well as non-self-governing territories. These categories have been established based on UN practices (see here, here).
Still got questions? Reach out to us here.