This panel discussion explores the necessity and complexity of researching the impact of Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI). It emphasizes that demonstrating DPI’s value requires rigorous evidence generation across a spectrum of research approaches, from descriptive policy analysis to academic studies. The practical value lies in understanding how different organizations measure DPI impact, ensuring inclusivity, informing policy, and fostering collaboration for effective DPI implementation.
Synthesized Summary
The panel convenes experts from various organizations involved in DPI research (Co-Develop, Oxford, J-PAL, GDN, World Bank/ID4D, ISER, Dalberg) to discuss the importance and methodologies for measuring DPI’s impact. A central theme is the “Solow paradox” applied to DPI: its effects are visible, but measuring the actual productivity or development impact is challenging and requires deliberate effort (“showing the work”) [00:01, 00:48].
A spectrum of research approaches is presented as necessary and complementary, ranging from descriptive, policy-focused work often done by CSOs and implementation support groups (ISER, Dalberg) to rigorous, causal academic research like RCTs (Oxford, J-PAL), with organizations like GDN and the World Bank working across this range [01:09, 02:09]. The panelists agree that research must be demand-driven, aligned with country needs, and provide timely insights to inform policy and implementation [01:34, 15:06]. Collaboration is stressed as vital, involving local and international researchers, governments, CSOs, and implementers [02:53, 35:46].
Key research areas include measuring causal impacts on development outcomes, rigorously tracking inclusion and exclusion (especially for marginalized groups), and evaluating specific DPI use cases like social protection, financial services, and refugee integration [05:00, 05:59, 38:30]. Methodologies discussed include RCTs, quasi-experimental designs, process evaluations, qualitative methods capturing lived experiences (like photo essays), and longitudinal tracking [09:39, 17:17, 33:58, 41:41]. Global datasets like ID4D, Findex, and ASPIRE provide valuable benchmarks, while country-level Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) frameworks track specific indicators [22:56, 25:34]. Initiatives like Oxford’s Fayda.Lab in Ethiopia, J-PAL’s DigiFI Africa, GDN’s DPI Pilot, and Dalberg/Co-Develop’s inclusion measurement toolkit exemplify these diverse research efforts.
Key Learnings & Recommendations
- Demonstrate DPI Impact: Measuring the true impact of DPI is essential but complex. Technology adoption
Key Points
- Measuring the impact of technology like DPI is crucial but complex; impact isn't automatic and requires demonstrating value ('showing the work'). [00:01, 00:33, 00:48]
- A spectrum of research exists, from descriptive policy analysis to rigorous academic studies (e.g., RCTs), all valuable and complementary depending on the need. [01:09-02:08]
- Research must be demand-driven, aligning with country-specific priorities and rollout plans to provide timely, policy-relevant insights. [01:34, 08:09, 15:06]
- Effective DPI research requires multi-stakeholder collaboration involving researchers (local and international), governments, implementers, and civil society organizations (CSOs). [02:53, 06:55, 12:37, 16:00, 35:46]
- Key research focuses include measuring causal impacts on development outcomes, tracking inclusion/exclusion (especially for marginalized groups), and evaluating specific use cases (e.g., social protection, finance). [05:00, 05:59, 38:30]
- Methodologies range from quasi-experimental designs and RCTs to process evaluations, qualitative studies (photo essays), and longitudinal tracking using mixed methods. [02:35, 09:39, 11:51, 17:17, 27:13, 33:58, 41:41]
- Global datasets (ID4D, Findex, ASPIRE) and country-level monitoring provide crucial data, but understanding lived experiences beyond the numbers is essential. [22:56, 31:00]