This paper came about as a collaboration between us in the OECD’s Digital Government and Data Unit, and our sibling team, the Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI). It gave me a nice opportunity to work with Jamie Berryhill from OPSI whose previous work had included a focus on AI as well as Blockchains Unchained.
This was a paper for which we commissioned an external consultant: Juho Lindman, an academic at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden. Filling out the team was my colleague Mariane from the Digital Government and Data Unit.
While Juho held the pen on the paper, it was a collaborative exercise in framing the argument and grappling with the ideas. I worked with Mariane on the 4th chapter and the discussion about digital maturity. For me it’s vital that in any conversation about blockchain we talk far less about its potential as a solution, and far more about whether public sector teams are equipped to ask the right questions and choose the right tools.
Because let’s be clear – in most cases, blockchain (or distributed ledger technology) is not the answer. This paper doesn’t just say “don’t believe the hype”, it explores why the hype emerged, how governments can see through it, and what to do instead.
This isn’t a framework in the same sense as some of our other OECD outputs so it doesn’t frequently feature in our in-country analysis. However it has been a helpful reference point for others with at least 40 citations (as of June 2025). And we hope it is helping to shift the conversation from “look at all these blockchain pilots!” to a more sober “perhaps blockchain isn’t the panacea we thought.”
We were invited to speak on a number of panels off the back of this work, and while the blockchain conversation continues to evolve, this paper remains a valuable counterbalance — especially in a public sector still vulnerable to buzzwords.
What’s the TL;DR?
Governments around the world have explored blockchain technologies, often with great fanfare. But beyond a few small pilots, meaningful public sector impact has been minimal.
This paper asks why — and offers four angles to understand what’s really going on:
- Is blockchain viable, valuable, or vital for government?
- What myths have inflated expectations?
- What distinguishes projects that succeed (or don’t)?
- And are teams equipped to make wise choices?
It’s not anti-blockchain. But it is sceptical. And where many saw disruption, this paper encouraged reflection.
Themes in the paper
Blockchain: Viable, Valuable, or Vital?
The paper proposes a simple but effective lens: that blockchain might be viable (technically possible), but that doesn’t make it valuable (worth doing), or vital (essential). Public sector adoption often leaps to the latter categories without pausing to assess whether a blockchain is even needed. Our contention is that it is only those situations where all three criteria are met that blockchain should be part of the discussion.
10 myths about blockchain in the public sector
The second chapter of the paper is dedicated to some myth-busting. Juho systematically engaged with the following ten myths
| Myth | Response |
|---|---|
| (Public) blockchains are disrupting the public sector all around the world | Blockchain-related public services that have actual users are very rare |
| It is impossible to build successful blockchain applications for the public sector | There is no obvious reason the public sector could not develop, implement, and use blockchain solutions |
| There is one obvious way to apply blockchain technology in the public sector | Blockchain could bring benefits to a number of areas |
| If you build it, users will come | Users need to be presented with the benefits of blockchain-enabled services |
| If it is blockchain, it needs to be big and disruptive | Small, pragmatic, and evolutive blockchain implementations are just as valuable |
| Nobody knows how blockchains are implemented | Technology and corresponding skills have developed in both the public and private sectors in recent years, and there is greater access to external skills (e.g., through partnerships or procurement) |
| Blockchain is a generic technological solution, like AI | Uses for blockchain technology are much more limited in their scope |
| We are not tech people and should not care about detailed design decisions like blockchain | Decoupling design from the implementation does not seem warranted |
| Results of blockchain projects contribute to blockchain knowledge | Experimentation is important, but those lessons and takeaways should be shared |
| Users care that services are based on blockchain | All other things being equal (e.g., equitable decisions, privacy of personal information, etc.), service end users do not generally care which technological infrastructure provides them with a service |
Success and non-success in government blockchain projects
The paper investigates a number of different examples of public sector blockchain projects, looking to determine whether any of them have achieved any levels of ‘success’. We were interested in projects:
- that have already launched (“gone live”) and obtained users
- where the user base is not limited to test users
- where users are demonstrating continued use of the service
We further considered success in terms of projects themselves, or in the benefits it brought to organisations.
In the case of projects we felt that these ideas would contribute to the success of a project:
- addressing a clear, specific business goal
- using appropriate technology
- identifying and managing relevant stakeholders
- engage end users with the service’s design
- addressing problems encountered during implementation and pursuing unforeseen opportunities
While on the other side of the coin, we felt that these were non-success factors that would prevent good blockchain based outcomes:
- disruptive projects are generally more complex and difficult to implement at scale
- deploying projects with limited scalability may be impossible or not worth the effort (notwithstanding the learning opportunities they provide)
- the lack of clarity regarding the legal or regulative side hinders service deployment
Teams, maturity, and organisational readiness
The blockchain question is almost never about the chain itself but whether or not the organisation has the capability to weigh options calmly, test ideas quickly, and adopt the right tool for the job. Mature teams:
- understand the problem before the technology;
- use the viable / valuable / vital test to filter hype;
- work in-the-open, iterating with real users; and
- draw on a common, government-wide platform of standards, data and guidance.
When those ingredients are missing, the conversation shouldn’t be “Should we do a blockchain project?” but “Why are we vulnerable to shiny-object syndrome in the first place?”
In other words, this paper doesn’t banish blockchain, it simply raises the bar. Only when a team shows real digital maturity, and only when all three V’s line up, does a blockchain solution make sense.
The blurb
Blockchain remains a hot topic for digital transformation and innovation. In the private sector, blockchain has demonstrated disruptive potential through proven use cases. However, despite strong interest and greater awareness, blockchain has had minimal impact on the public sector, where few projects have moved beyond small pilots. At the same time, there is a growing scepticism and cynicism about public sector blockchain. This paper seeks to understand why this is, by analysing the latest research in the area and identifying and analysing government experiences with successful and unsuccessful projects. It provides early findings on beliefs, characteristics, and practices related to government blockchain projects and the organisations that seek to implement them, with a focus on factors contributing to success or non-success. Although blockchain has yet to affect government in the ways that early hype predicted, government decision makers will nonetheless need to understand and monitor this emerging technology.