Insights

Analysis from the data on The Map below is based on a sample of data collected across Africa, South and South East Asia, the Caribbean and Latin America (as on 11/06/2024). This analysis will be updated periodically.

Download and re-use the graphics here (citation guidelines below).

The insights below are constrained by unavailable or inaccessible data (which varies across the variables studied) since this study relies on public datasets. Each insight was also derived from variable sample sizes, based on the quality of the data and the relevance of the sample to the insight.

Identity systems

Of the 132 identity systems studied across 132 countries, few were backed by technological functionalities of digital ID (like digital authentication), and still fewer upheld strong data governance norms.

19% of all countries examined (132) showed evidence of proactively managing data transparently and securely. Only half of those with national data protection legislation also had ID Acts or Policies with specific provisions for digital identity. These countries formed a third of those that claimed to have a digital identity.

Most identity systems (94% of those studied) support digital authentication.

Payment systems

Of the 156 payment systems studied across 132 countries, 7 were regional payment systems (6 in Africa and 1 in Asia). 9 countries in Africa had no domestic digital payment systems (IPS) but were instead part of in-development regional IPSs.

Payment systems that facilitated instant or real-time transactions represented only a proportion (48%) of those studied. Even fewer of the real-time or instant payment systems were operated by a public entity.

Most payment systems (94% of those studied) were supported by national policies that favoured PSP interoperability in its vision or strategy.

Most payment systems reportedly had a public operation model (i.e. operated by the central bank)- 58%. This was followed by operators being private bank associations (24%), commercial banks/ private payment service providers (PSPs) (15%) or other models (3%).

Data Exchange systems

134 data exchange systems were studied across 132 countries, recording substantial differences in the models, participants and governance structures across regions.

More than half of the data exchange systems studied are not active yet, indicating this to be a less mature component of country DPI ecosystems.

Semantic interoperability is not similarly disclosed as a feature of deployments across all regions. In Asia, 53% of deployments establish semantic interoperability as a policy lever of data exchange. This is higher for Latin America (74%), but lower for Africa (30%) and the Caribbean (12%).

The technical architecture of many data exchange systems is not published. Latin America and Asia lead with more systems disclosing their technical architecture. The Caribbean (in blue, with 37 transparent architectures), along with Africa (with 38) lack sophisticated reporting on the data exchange systems in the country.

Almost half of the DES analysed do not explicitly disclose their architectural base. Unknowns (excluded from this sample) can range from simple DES for sharing a document to really complex systems that may leverage interoperability in their regions by disclosing their technical architecture.

Download here.

Citation guidelines

Eaves, D., Rao, K., Pagliarini, G., & Vera, K. (2024). DPI Map (Version 1.0). https://dpimap.org