These Good Practice Principles were developed by the Working Party of Senior Digital Government Officials Thematic Group on the Data-Driven Public Sector.
This group had been instrumental in ensuring the value of the experiences highlighted and questions answered through The Path to Becoming a Data-Driven Public Sector and the Data-Driven Public Sector Working Paper.
Lucia and I initiated this work under the leadership of Jaron Haas, Simone Schoof and Marieke Schenk from the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (MINBZK) in the Netherlands. We then workshopped elements of it in Paris during the Expert Group Meeting on Open Government Data prior to the pandemic.
The ultimate value of this exercise owes itself to Arturo’s leadership after he took on the responsibility of stewarding the Data-Driven Public Sector thematic group during this challenging period. He is indebted to the support of those countries but especially Natalia Domagala on behalf of the UK and Omar Bitar on behalf of Canada for getting to their final state.
As governments deepen their use of data and AI, ethical guidance becomes critical. These 10 principles from the OECD are designed to help public officials protect the public interest at every stage of the data lifecycle. They go beyond compliance—emphasising public integrity, trust, and responsible innovation.
The principles stress:
Putting people and the public interest at the centre
Being transparent, inclusive and accountable
Managing risks proactively, especially in automated decision-making
Here are the OECD’s 10 Good Practice Principles for Data Ethics in the Public Sector:
Manage data with integrity
Be aware of and observe relevant government-wide arrangements for trustworthy data access, sharing and use
Incorporate data ethical considerations into governmental, organisational and public sector decision-making processes
Monitor and retain control over data inputs, in particular those used to inform the development and training of AI systems, and adopt a risk-based approach to the automation of decisions
Be specific about the purpose of data use, especially in the case of personal data
Define boundaries for data access, sharing and use
Be clear, inclusive and open
Publish open data and source code
Broaden individuals’ and collectives’ control over their data
Be accountable and proactive in managing risks
Public trust in government is shaped not just by what services are delivered, but how they are delivered, and that increasingly means how data is handled. As digital technologies and AI become part of the machinery of public decision-making, it’s not enough to comply with the law. Citizens expect more: transparency, fairness, inclusion, and accountability.
These principles recognise that data is never neutral. The choices made by public officials – what data to collect, how to use it, when to automate – have real consequences for people’s lives. The OECD’s guidance offers a practical compass: helping governments navigate complexity without losing sight of the human stakes involved.
The blurb
The Good Practice Principles for Data Ethics in the Public Sector presented in this paper seek to shed light on the value and practical implications of data ethics in the public sector. They aim to support public officials in the implementation of data ethics in digital government projects, products, and services such that:
i) trust is placed at the core of their design and delivery and
ii) public integrity is upheld through specific actions taken by governments, public organisations and, at a more granular level, public officials.
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.
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.
Produced by the OECD but adapted from https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/deloitte-review/issue-16/cognitive-technologies-businessapplications.html.
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.
This is arguably a seminal piece in the landscape of thinking about ‘digital government’. This Policy Framework provides the analytical foundation to the work that the OECD’s Digital Government and Data Unit performs with it providing the basis for structuring Digital Government Reviews and, perhaps crucially, offering the intellectual foundations for the forthcoming Digital Government Index and the efforts to measure digital government maturity around the world.
This framework is a joint effort with different members of the team contributing different chapters and Barbara providing the overall leadership to splice those efforts together. I’m quite proud to have contributed the chapter on Government as a Platform, which is a subject close to my heart (and one I first wrote about on this blog back in 2012),
The Six Pillars of Digital Government: Foundations for the Future
The OECD’s Digital Government Policy Framework (DGPF) is much more than a set of guidelines; it’s the foundation for how governments across the world can reimagine public service delivery in the digital age.
Why Digital Government Needs Six Dimensions
Governments are facing increasing demands to be agile, transparent, and responsive. The framework’s six dimensions – Digital by Design, Data-Driven Public Sector, Government as a Platform, Open by Default, User-Driven, and Proactiveness – provide the basis for public sectors to achieve these goals. These dimensions don’t stand alone; they are interdependent and essential for creating a government that is fit for the digital era.
Digital by Design: The heart of digital transformation is embedding digital in every aspect of government from the outset. This isn’t about bolting on technology to outdated processes; it’s about creating a strategic and systematic approach to policy-making, using digital as the backbone for every stage of government operations.
Data-Driven Public Sector: Governments must recognise data as a critical asset. This dimension underscores the importance of data governance, ethical use, and openness. Data is more than a by-product; it is a core driver of how policies are formulated, monitored, and evaluated.
Government as a Platform: Government as a platform moves away from siloed services and towards a more ecosystem-based approach. By creating reusable tools, services, and infrastructure, governments can empower service teams to focus on the unique needs of their users, driving both innovation and efficiency.
Open by Default: Open government data, open decision-making processes, and transparency are key to creating trust and accountability. This dimension calls on governments to make openness the default setting, ensuring that public information is accessible and useful.
User-Driven: Services should be designed with the user in mind, not based on the convenience of government structures. This dimension emphasizes the importance of designing services based on real user needs and ensuring that they are accessible, inclusive, and responsive.
Proactiveness: Governments shouldn’t wait for citizens to come to them—they should anticipate needs and provide services proactively. Whether it’s using data to predict service demands or creating channels for continuous user feedback, proactiveness is about making government services as seamless as those in the private sector.
What Comes Next?
These six dimensions are not static. They are the foundation for the ongoing digital transformation that every government must go through. The OECD’s Digital Government Index is the next step, providing a quantitative measure of how well countries are performing across these dimensions. The framework will also continue to evolve, just as we must evolve our approach to digital government.
This paper presents the OECD Digital Government Policy Framework (DGPF), a policy instrument to help governments identifying key determinants for effective design and implementation of strategic approaches to transition towards higher levels of digital maturity of their public sectors. This analytical work builds on the provisions of the OECD Recommendation of the Council on Digital Government Strategies and supports the qualitative and quantitative assessment of the Secretariat across countries and individual projects.
The DGPF provides the ground for peer reviews and frames the design of the methodology and the OECD Survey on Digital Government to measure countries’ digital government maturity across the six dimensions covered in this Framework: digital by design, data-driven public sector, government as a platform, open by default, user-driven and proactiveness. The document is enriched with countries’ practices to illustrate the concepts covered in each of the six dimensions of the DGPF.
I really enjoyed a lot of what was involved in this piece of work. It was great to work with the colleagues in Chile (including Felipe González-Zapatawho started the project on the Chilean side and who had become a team mate on the OECD side before we came to finalise the publication) and to have a brilliant peer team of Ignacia Orellana, a service designer from GDS in the UK (but a Chilean herself), Paulo Value from AMA in Portugal, and Pedro Farias from the Inter-American Development Bank.
The experience in Chile gave a fascinating opportunity to get under the skin of what it looks like to think about blending in-person user experiences with a digital-first mindset. The ambition for ChileAtiende to create a seamless experience of government has such familiar echoes of the aspiration associated with GOV.UK but applying it to the built environment, and imagining what ‘government on the High Street’ could look like, is a completely different kettle of fish.
As well as considering the particular needs of Chile, this piece of work has been so helpful in our thinking about a Framework for Service Design and Delivery. The Framework, as described here, went on to become a staple of Digital Government Reviews.
What’s the TL;DR?
This report considers the intersection of Chile’s digital, telephone and physical service channels, and identifies the importance of ensuring the same service experience for all users, in all contexts, through all channels. To make the physical, offline and digital elements of a service work together in meeting user needs, service design is critical. It provides the basis for service delivery and the resulting experience for the public by:
understanding a user’s journey from their first attempt at solving a problem, through to final resolution (from end to end),
addressing citizen-facing experiences and back-office processes as a single continuum rather than two separate models (from external to internal, and vice versa), and
creating consistency of access and experience across and among all channels (omni-channel).
We establish a three part conceptual framework for thinking about service design and delivery that underpins the analysis of Chile and ChileAtiende:
Part 1. The context for service design and delivery: these include a country’s representative and organisational politics, any historic channel strategies, the legacy of technology and infrastructure and finally, society and geography
Part 2. The philosophy of service design: expressed through six critical ways of working covering political, organisational and external leadership and vision; the understanding of whole problems; the design of the end to end service experience; involving the public; combining policy, delivery and operations to work across organisational boundaries; and taking an agile approach
Part 3. The practical enablers for service design: following from the Digital Government Policy Framework‘s “Government as a Platform” pillar, these enablers include sharing best practices and guidelines; governance, spending and assurance; digital inclusion; common components and tools (such as digital identity, notifications and payments); data governance and its application for public value; and public sector talent and capabilities.
Define a clear cross-government strategy and coherent action plan for the government of Chile to establish and nurture a design culture that places users at its heart, in order to respond to their needs across all channels and throughout the policy and delivery lifecycle.
Enable Chilean public sector organisations to understand the needs of the public in order to be proactive in finding solutions to the problems that cause the most pain and the highest costs.
Ensure a joined-up and simple-to-navigate experience of government with brand clarity for all interactions between government and its stakeholders, whether citizen, business or visitor.
Commit to an inclusive experience of government services that builds on Chile’s expertise in offline service provision to ensure those services are understood:
from when someone first attempts to solve a problem through to its resolution (from end to end)
on a continuum between citizen experience and back-office process (external to internal)
across any and all of the channels involved (omni-channel).
Secure cross-government political and administrative support for a holistic service design and delivery agenda ensuring ‘Government as a Platform’ enablers to scale transformation from the most high profile through to the ‘long tail’ of government services, including:
a clear data strategy
guiding principles and guidelines
the necessary human capital
technical and practical support to common components such as digital identity and payments
Establish clear organisational responsibilities to provide coherent governance and effective leadership between:
the Ministry General Secretariat of the Presidency (Ministerio Secretaría General de la Presidencia, MINSEGPRES) and its Digital Government Division and LabGob (Laboratorio de Gobierno),
the Ministry of Finance (Ministerio de Hacienda) and its Modernisation Secretariat,
the Social Security Institute (Instituto de Previsión Social, IPS) and ChileAtiende, and
the Civil Service.
The Blurb
The e-government era saw efforts to move government services online, automate internal processes and reduce administrative overheads for the public. Often technology led, those efforts sometimes led to the exclusion of some users and created digital-by-default siloes rather than coherent, cross-government, omni-channel services. Now, with the move toward digital government, OECD countries are giving greater priority to how services are designed and delivered, to ensure that digital progress benefits everyone, including those who rely on face-to-face interactions.
This report presents a conceptual model for service design and delivery that challenges governments to develop a design-led culture and ensure access to the enabling tools and resources necessary to deliver services that improve outcomes, efficiency, satisfaction and well-being. This model is used to analyse the situation in Chile and provide recommendations about how the ChileAtiende service delivery network can bring the state closer to citizens through a simpler, more efficient and transparent approach. By considering the intersection of digital, telephone and physical service channels, it recommends digital government approaches that ensure consistently high-quality service experiences for all users, in all contexts, and through all channels.
This paper was a team effort under my leadership with Arturo contributing the chapter on data governance, Lucia working on data for trust and my developing the introduction, conclusion and the material around data for public value.
The bones of the framework are being used in our Digital Government Reviews and it is our hope that you could take the 12 elements of the framework and apply it into any context. Indeed, there are two appendices to the report that, thanks to our colleagues Gavin and Daniel, apply the framework to the context of 1) integrity actors and 2) human resources.
It introduces country-level practices and insights provided by several OECD member countries that contribute to the E-Leaders Thematic Group on Data
It uses those insights to develop a framework setting out the steps that countries need to take in order to build out an effective approach to the data-driven public sector
With ‘Data-driven public sector’ being one of the six elements which we argue form the basis for digital government maturity it is incredibly important for governments to address all the elements that go into achieving maturity in this regard.
To that end the framework consists of three pillars:
Pillar 1: Governance: we cast the vision for ‘governance’ wider than legislation, regulation and responsibility for data which is what people tend to understand this means. We argue that effective governance involves strategy (leadership), tactics (implementation and rules) and delivery (infrastructure and architecture).
Pillar 2: Public value: the point of putting data to work is to meet user needs and deliver societal value. We draw on country practices to show how important data is to looking ahead to future (anticipating and planning), responding to immediate needs (delivery), and then understanding what can be learnt from the past (evaluation and monitoring).
Pillar 3: Public trust: it is far easier to lose trust than it is to build it. That means governments need to be thinking about all the ways in which the use of data could undermine public trust. We explore dimensions of ethics, privacy, consent, transparency and digital security.
In our work we find that governments may hive off different elements of this under different organisations and while they may have good plans and practices in place, often there is not a holistic and strategic overarching sense of how these elements interact. The starting point has to be strong strategic leadership, but that leadership must be mindful that there’s almost nothing that can be achieved with data in the public sector without making public trust the guiding priority.
The blurb
Twenty-first century governments must keep pace with the expectations of their citizens and deliver on the promise of the digital age. Data-driven approaches are particularly effective for meeting those expectations and rethinking the way governments and citizens interact. This report highlights the important role data can play in creating conditions that improve public services, increase the effectiveness of public spending and inform ethical and privacy considerations. It presents a data-driven public sector framework that can help countries or organisations assess the elements needed for using data to make better-informed decisions across public sectors.
In a world increasingly driven by digital transformation, governments are navigating the complexities of verifying identity in an online environment. Chile is one of the leading countries when it comes to digital government in Latin America but wants to build on that progress by tackling digital identity.
This was the first occasion on which I worked with an external consultant to complete a publication at the OECD. They had already been working on this for a while before I joined so as with the Data-Driven Public Sector working paper, I picked up a piece that was already quite well advanced.
Unfortunately on this occasion that meant I ended up having to do quite a bit of rewriting and rewiring of the content to make sure we were giving the most value to the Government of Chile. I also wrote an additional chapter that in the end wasn’t included here. Edit: It subsequently came to inform work done for the G20 and the OECD Recommendation on the Governance of Digital Identity.
This study tries to detail all the elements that need to be thought about in terms of the roadmap towards implementing effective digital identity in Chile, drawing on the comparative experience of 13 countries.
This paper explores how Chile can implement a fully functional digital identity system that transforms how citizens prove who they are in a digital world. By building on existing national infrastructure, Chile can streamline identity management while ensuring long-term financial and political support.
An Analytical Framework for Digital Identity
This report doesn’t just focus on Chile in isolation, the Chile study draws on the experiences of Austria, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, India, Italy, Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom and Uruguay to establish a robust framework. The framework we’ve developed assesses everything from national identity infrastructure and adoption levers to transparency and monitoring. It allows Chile to not only evaluate its progress but also ensure its model is positioned for future scalability and international interoperability.
Chile’s Foundations: Leveraging the Cédula de Identidad
Chile has a strong foundation in its existing Cédula de Identidad and ClaveÚnica systems. We think these can serve as the backbone for further development, eliminating the need to reinvent the wheel. We hope that this means Chile can move quite quickly, building on its strengths while simplifying access to digital services for both citizens and businesses.
The road(map) ahead
This report is more than just a technical guide—it’s a roadmap for how Chile can establish itself as a global leader in digital identity. The recommendations provide the building blocks to ensure that digital identity isn’t just about access, but about trust, empowerment, and seamless service delivery.
Chile has already made impressive strides, but with the right governance, collaboration, and long-term planning, its digital identity strategy can become a model for the region and beyond. As the study emphasises, digital identity is not just a technical solution – it’s a societal transformation.
Policy recommendations
The Recommendations are designed to ensure Chile’s Digital Identity efforts are sustainable and impactful. Here are the most critical points:
Build Chile’s Digital Identity on the existing infrastructure provided by the Civil Registry Service of Chile (Servicio de Registro Civil e Identificación, SRCeI) and the Cédula de Identidad. As a result Chile does not need to pursue the generation of validated identities with the private sector.
Ensure the focus on Digital Identity within the Government’s Digital Transformation Strategy is sustainable through the provision of long term financial and political commitment.
Identify or create a senior responsible role with responsibility to shape and deliver identity according to the vision established by the Government’s Digital Transformation Strategy.
Consider the design of identity management (both physical and digital) as an end-to-end process throughout a citizen’s life from birth, through life and at death. This should consider the future possibilities of technology in the physical identity card, creating the conditions to iterate the service, and ensure a clear understanding of the needs of users both within and outside government.
Prioritise development of ClaveÚnica to support putting the citizen in control of their data and being able to grant, and revoke, permissions to access and use it.
Reach an understanding of the identity needs for businesses and develop a shared roadmap with the relevant organisations for the future state of Digital Identity in general. This may need to include the convergence of business and citizen Digital Identity and the transition of users to consolidate usage around a single approach.
Identify priority private sector services for the use of ClaveÚnica and establish a working partnership to ensure ClaveÚnica works for the private sector as well as the public sector.
Establish the adequate legal and regulatory framework to manage the use of ClaveÚnica credentials to access private sector services, particularly where that opens the possibility of personal data being reused.
Explore with regional partners how interoperability of identity can facilitate crossborder services and meets the needs of Chilean residents abroad.
Use the expansion of ClaveÚnica as an opportunity to provide citizens with digital literacy and digital skills training through ChileAtiende and other face to face locations whilst people are activating their ClaveÚnica for the first time.
Include Digital Identity as an explicit topic in spend controls, quality assurance processes, design guidelines and training and capacity building. This is to maximise awareness and adoption within government and avoid the development of duplicate solutions.
Make funding available to meet the needs of government teams in seeing ClaveÚnica as a reliable and respected service. This should ensure the design of ClaveÚnica’s technical solution is easy to implement and supported by ongoing reference materials, guidance and, where necessary, consultancy. It should also include the necessary support to service teams in producing clear cost-benefit analysis and rationale for identifying return on investment when making business cases for implementation and adoption.
Review the mechanisms by which public agencies agree to exchange data and provide guidance and boilerplate templates to support a more efficient process. This should complement efforts to implement interoperability standards across both legacy and newly developed systems.
Identify Key Performance Indicators relating to the time and cost involved in providing non-Digital Identity enabled services to provide a baseline for measuring, comparing and demonstrating the benefits of implementing Digital Identity. Publish this as Open Government Data and within the performance dashboards detailing the quality of service provision in Chile.
The blurb
In our interactions with the people we know we don’t give any thought to the proof of their identity. When we meet someone for the first time we trust they are who they say they are. Sometimes an introduction is brokered by a mutual, trusted, acquaintance who knows both parties. However, in our transactional dealings with government there is a greater expectation – and need – to be able to prove who we are, where we live and what we can access. The provision of digital identity (DI) is critical to government ambitions for transforming the quality of public services.
This study discusses Chile’s experience of DI alongside a comparison of 13 OECD countries, and aims to support the Government of Chile in developing and enhancing their approach to the development of DI as a piece of core digital government infrastructure and an enabler of seamless service delivery. The study uses a framework that covers the foundations for identity in terms of existing national identity infrastructure, policies and governance, the technical solutions that have been explored, the factors which impact adoption, and the ways in which DI can empower citizens through greater control of their data, transparency and measurement of impact.
It was a wonderful privilege for my first experience of completing a Digital Government Review to take place at the invitation of the government of Panama and under João’s excellent leadership.
Digital Government Reviews give us an opportunity to get under the skin of the digital government practices of a country. We send out a survey to every government agency, we use the material that countries submit for the Digital Government Index, and we spend a week interviewing (with country peers) as many government agencies as possible.
The whole process is quite intense but they offer a fascinating snapshot of what’s happening in a country. It was also great to spend the week on mission with Barbara and João as well as the peers of Frank (from Belgium), Kareen (from Chile) and Cristina (from Spain) to gain their insight and wisdom from their different backgrounds. We were also so well hosted by Irvin and his team at the National Authority for Government Innovation (AIG) in Panama.
In this case the focus for Panama was on governance, capabilities, data and services. I was asked to focus on data and services (chapters 3 and 4 of the review).
We recognised that Panama has long championed the value of digital government and built some good foundations and this sets up a lot of opportunities for future development, if they can build the cross-government momentum to collaborate and work together. We made a series of recommendations that I’ll include below but if you want to really understand the state of digital in Panama you should probably read the whole thing.
OECD publications are always a team effort but this, the second piece to have my name on it, is hugely down to the work of my colleague Charlotte. Unfortunately she’s been away from the team since I joined so my contribution here was to pick up the thread of her research and get the paper to completion.
This Working Paper argues that governments need to go further in putting the collection, processing, sharing and reuse of their data (the Government Data Value Cycle) at the heart of how they think about digital transformation. It’s a guide to how governments can invest in public servants in order to recognise and use data as a core component of the modern state.
Plenty of governments have pockets of good practice but the challenge is to scale those into whole-of-government approaches that are well supported internally as well as finding favour with the public. This is the vision of the ‘data driven public sector’ (DDPS).
I’m really pleased with how this paper came together. It’s the first thing I’ve written at the OECD, and the first ‘academic’ work that’s been published in my name.
This paper exists because the OECD more broadly is interested in this idea of “citizen well-being”. There’s a cross-cutting horizontal project about it with different teams writing up how their work is important to the concept.
And we’re no different. So what impact can digital government have on citizen well-being? Well, my argument in the paper is that there are three characteristics of government that create outcomes that improve well-being. They are responsive, protective and trustworthy:
So much of the current public discourse leaves me with a heavy heart, and Robert Jenrick’s recent interview with The Spectator is another depressing contribution. It might be worth reading… Read more: What if Robert Jenrick hung out with Jesus?
Sometimes the best ideas are under our noses, just waiting to be noticed. And I think GovWifi is one such idea. For years now, civil servants, contractors and visitors have… Read more: Under our noses; in the air around us
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
