Despite the progress, the study underscores that DPI rollout is uneven, with clear maturity clusters shaped in part by income levels
A new global assessment led by the Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose (IIPP) at University College London (UCL) finds that while digital public infrastructure (DPI) is expanding worldwide, its development remains inconsistent across regions. The findings are detailed in the 2025 State of Digital Public Infrastructure Report, which examined DPI systems in 210 countries as part of the DPI Map project.
According to the report, there is growing international consensus on what constitutes DPI — including its definition, core functions and key attributes — as more countries deploy digital ID, digital payments and data exchange systems. The study notes that this shared understanding is crucial for establishing a widely accepted framework as DPI continues to scale.
The executive summary highlights that at least 64 countries now operate DPI-like digital ID systems, 97 have DPI-like digital payment systems, and 103 have DPI-like data exchange platforms as of 2025.
Europe leads in the maturity and alignment of DPI systems, supported by comprehensive regional frameworks such as GDPR and eIDAS. Meanwhile, Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean are experiencing rapid growth, with many DPI systems in pilot or early implementation stages. High-alignment examples in these regions include Peru and Tanzania, the report notes.
Despite this progress, the study underscores that DPI rollout is uneven, with clear maturity clusters shaped in part by income levels — higher-income countries tend to have more fully implemented systems. It also finds a strong link between interoperability and real-world adoption, suggesting that technical design and everyday usability must evolve together for DPI to deliver impact.
The report raises concerns about the current limitations in measuring DPI effectiveness. It notes that many evaluation methods rely on proxies, which can offer an incomplete picture of how these systems perform in practice. To address this, the authors argue that countries must focus not only on technological availability but also on how DPI functions in day-to-day transactions, emphasising governance, inclusion and operational interoperability.
The publication also includes country case studies illustrating diverse approaches to DPI development, governance structures and on-the-ground challenges.
In an accompanying Tech Policy commentary, experts call for a shift toward more democratic and inclusive DPI models. They argue that current approaches are often overly technocratic, urging countries to build DPI that strengthens public empowerment rather than centralised state control. Aligning with initiatives such as the UNDP’s DPI Safeguards, they say, could help reinforce this direction.
The authors also explore the intersection of DPI and digital sovereignty, suggesting a move away from rigid interpretations toward more flexible concepts such as “relational sovereignty” and “strategic autonomy.” They emphasise that DPI should be designed to expand public agency, not tighten government authority.
