The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is urging governments worldwide to significantly accelerate the development of a shared digital infrastructure. What at first glance sounds like greater efficiency could have far-reaching consequences for the daily lives of billions of people.
The focus is on a demand that has received little attention in the public debate so far: authorities should be required to use common digital systems instead of developing their own solutions.
What does that mean in concrete terms?
The OECD refers to a so-called Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) – a basic digital infrastructure on which almost all government services could be built in the future.
These include, among others:
- digital identities,
- central registers,
- Data exchange between authorities,
- digital government portals,
- digital notification systems,
- digital payment systems.
The idea behind it: Every citizen should be able to communicate with authorities via the same digital infrastructure. Information would then no longer need to be entered multiple times, but could be automatically exchanged between different agencies.
More efficiency – but also more centralization
From the OECD’s perspective, this model promises faster administrative processes, lower costs and easier access to government services.
But critics see this as precisely the greatest danger.
The more government services are run via a shared digital infrastructure, the more centralized the entire system becomes. Where previously individual authorities managed their own data, in the future more and more information could be linked via a few central platforms.
Digital identity as a key
The role of digital identity is particularly sensitive.
In the future, it could become the master key for almost all official procedures – from tax matters to social benefits, health services, or digital signatures.
The more comprehensive these systems become, the greater their importance for the everyday life of every citizen.
What happens in cases of abuse?
The OECD does emphasize that data protection and security standards must be taken into account.
Nevertheless, a fundamental question remains: What happens if such a central infrastructure is hacked, abused, or politically misused?
An error or abuse would then no longer only affect a single authority, but potentially numerous government services simultaneously.
What starts as a voluntary activity quickly becomes taken for granted.
Another point stands out.
The OECD explicitly states that authorities should be required to use shared infrastructure.
Critics see this as a gradual transition from voluntary digital services to systems that could become virtually indispensable.
Because if almost all government services are handled via the same digital infrastructure, there is considerable pressure on citizens to also use these systems.
A debate that has long since begun
Digital identities, central registries, and networked government agencies are considered key digitalization projects worldwide. Proponents see them as a way to create a modern state that operates more efficiently and reduces bureaucracy.
Critics, however, warn of an increasing centralization of government data and the danger that a technical infrastructure could gradually become a comprehensive instrument of control.
One thing is certain: the OECD no longer views digital public infrastructure as a vision of the future, but as a new international standard. The crucial political question is therefore no longer whether such systems should be built – but rather what limits should be placed on them before they become the foundation of the digital state.
