33. A snapshot of bilateral digital development strategies
Among the OECD’s members and its Development Assistance Committee (DAC), digital development strategies are evolving towards wider collaboration to shape a fair and inclusive digital transformation. This chapter provides a snapshot of strategic priorities for a sub-set of DAC members that have dedicated digitalisation strategies. Drawing on the case studies in this report, it also explores the implications of digitalisation for members’ governance and civil society strategies, and concludes with considerations for effective and sustainable digital co-operation.
The authors would like to acknowledge contributions to this chapter by Catherine Anderson and Marilyn Bachmann.
Digitalisation is an explicit strategic priority for 12 Development Assistance Committee members that have dedicated strategies. A further six members refer to the importance of digitalisation in their overarching development co-operation policies.
International development co-operation on digitalisation would benefit from applying best practices, notably via aligning with country priorities, stronger co-ordination, building the evidence base and learning from it.
At the 2020 ministerial meeting of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC), members highlighted the importance of harnessing technology and digitalisation1 based on proven standards, building on established methods in development co-operation, including human rights-based approaches, addressing inequalities, leaving no one behind, and supporting education and skills. Leaders stressed the importance of identifying opportunities and risks stemming from digital-led growth, data-driven technologies and digital public goods for development (OECD, 2020[1]).
The UN Secretary-General Guterres’ Roadmap on Digital Cooperation provided a new orientation towards more holistic strategies for all stakeholders – including development co-operation actors – focused on the enablers of digital transformation and collaboration, with a call to build a more effective architecture for global digital co-operation (UN, 2020[2]). The Roadmap’s eight objectives include: (1) achieving global connectivity by 2030; (2) promoting digital public goods to create a more equitable world; (3) ensuring digital inclusion for all, including the most vulnerable; (4) strengthening digital capacity building; (5) ensuring the protection of human rights in the digital era; (6) supporting global cooperation on artificial intelligence; (7) promoting trust and security in the digital environment; and (8) building a more effective architecture for digital global co-operation. Achieving these broad objectives everywhere will be challenging, not least for development co-operation actors seeking to accompany low- and middle-income countries on their digital transformation journeys.
While fewer than half of DAC members have explicit digital-for-development strategies, countries investing in digitalisation appear to be shifting towards more holistic approaches.2 There is also a push for more joined-up support as shown by the European Union’s (EU) new Digital for Development Hub (D4D) (Box 33.1) and alliances such as the Digital Impact Alliance (DIAL, n.d.[3]) which aims to accelerate national digital transformation; build global cooperation; and connect, support and scale proven solutions in line with the Principles for Digital Development (n.d.[4]).3
The Digital for Development (D4D) Hub was launched in December 2020 by European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen together with high-level representatives of its founding European Union (EU) Member states. It is a multi-stakeholder platform for joint interventions to co-ordinate support for digital transformation in EU partner countries and leverage the expertise, resources and strengths of the private sector, civil society organisations, financial institutions and other stakeholders. The D4D Hub operationalises the Team Europe approach (EU, 2021[5]) in digital-for-development, building on the experience of Team Europe’s global response to the COVID-19 pandemic and about a decade of joint programming in EU development policy (European Commission, 2021[6]).
The D4D Hub is an instrument for external policy aligned to the EU Communication “Digital Compass: The European Way for the Digital Decade” (European Commission, 2018[7]). Through the D4D Hub, EU members aim to build partnerships and scale up digital investment while promoting a human-centric model focused on addressing digital divides and risks that can accompany accelerated digital transformation, such as exclusion, injustice and inequality (D4D Hub, 2020[8]). This approach draws from the experience of the EU Digital Single Market and is grounded in EU standards and values emphasising human rights and data protection, net neutrality, privacy by design, and ethical use of technology. D4D Hub initiatives include:
Direct emergency response and building resilience: The D4D Hub contributed to the design and implementation of a package of digital projects, part of the Team Europe Global Response to COVID-19. For instance, through the Smart Development Hackathon project, D4D Hub members and more than 50 partners produced more than 1 000 digital solutions to tackle COVID-19 challenges related to health, economy and society. Projects include the CallvsCorona hotline, which provides prevention information in local languages to more than 200 000 people in Madagascar, and the Digital Enquirer Kit, which helps journalists and others in several African countries identify and navigate misinformation (European Commission, 2020[9]).
Multi-stakeholder workshops for sharing good practices and identifying challenges and opportunities: European and Senegalese stakeholders shared experiences and good practices in the areas of digital training and skills development, digital trust and cybersecurity, e-governance, and digital services in the agricultural sector. In May 2021, more than 100 representatives of government agencies and authorities in Senegal and EU members, and from the private sector participated in discussions that helped identify possible joint, co-funded interventions in line with Senegal’s 2016-25 digital strategy (Ministère des Postes et des Télécommunications de Sénégal, 2016[10]). Similar workshops were held in Kenya and Niger, and many more are in the pipeline for the coming year.
In addition to the Global D4D Hub, which is in charge of Team Europe co-ordination, the hub relies on regional branches to foster strategic partnerships between European and local stakeholders in partner countries. These take an “among equals” approach to development. While the initial focus of the D4D hub work was on Africa, other regions of the world are now gaining attention. The D4D Hub branch for Latin America and the Caribbean is being launched in December 2021 at a high-level event under the Slovenian Presidency of the Council of the EU (D4D Hub, 2021[11]). It is likely that connectivity projects will catalyse more interest and resources in line with the EU’s ambitious Global Gateway connectivity strategy (European Commission, 2021[12]) and the needs expressed by partner countries. While the D4D Hub achieved a great deal in less than a year, some challenges remain. Among these are members’ divergent programming cycles and budgeting rules, which can complicate the design and implementation of joint projects and alignment of timelines and procedures.
Note: The EU and its member states act as Team Europe by enhancing co-ordination efforts and resources to magnify the impact of joint interventions. The Hub is open to all EU members. Belgium, Estonia, France, Germany and Luxembourg were the founding members and to date, 11 members joined by signing a letter of intent to co-operate under the D4D Hub towards a single European digital development strategy. Countries joining the Hub since its founding include Finland, Lithuania, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden.
Development actors have been increasing their investments in digital-related activities (see Chapter 40). However, as this snapshot shows, digitalisation is not an explicit priority for most DAC members. Just 12, which are also among the largest financers of digital-related development co-operation, have explicit strategies. The latest strategies4 (since 2019) recognise the interlinkages between foundational enablers of digital transformations (such as universal and affordable access to the Internet, digital public infrastructure, policy and regulatory environment, and digital skills) and the use of digital technologies for service delivery and across sectors (Table 33.1).
Three aspects of digital transformation are covered in the strategies with a high degree of consistency across countries: (1) expanding Internet access and affordability and enhancing digital services; (2) supporting enabling environments to harness digitalisation as a whole-of-government-and-society process; (3) mainstreaming digitalisation – or digital-by-default – across all sectoral investments an evidence-based way. Issues of privacy and security, transparency and open standards are recurring concerns across strategies.
Some countries refer to increasing equity and inclusion by providing access to services previously out of reach to marginalised groups such as girls and women and people with disabilities (see Chapters 35, 37 and 38). In two of its digital development priorities, Denmark emphasises the need to focus on and promote women, girls and youth in the digital transformation (Danida, 2019[13]). The Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency focuses on information and communication technologies in the areas of democratic governance and social development (Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, 2018[14]). The Netherlands puts local ownership and co-design at the centre of its engagement with civil society and strives to ensure that digital technology serves the public good.
There is strong awareness that access to public infrastructure such as electricity and digital communications is a prerequisite for digital transformation. AFD’s strategy emphasises the importance of la décarbonisation du numérique, where investing in the twin transitions (digital and energy) is an explicit priority. There appears to be less emphasis in strategies and digital-related finance (see Chapter 40) on the use of advanced technologies (e.g. artificial intelligence and blockchain), despite the growing importance of these tools in the digital economy and government. Belgium stands out for its focus on specific digital technologies for greater economic and financial inclusion, and on big and open data (FPS Foreign Affairs, 2016[15]).
Several strategies stress the importance of multi-stakeholder partnerships for greater impact and an inclusive digital economy, with most countries in Table 33.1 adhering to the Principles for Digital Development (n.d.[4]). At the regional level, eleven EU members signed a Letter of Intent to co-operate under the D4D Hub (2020[16]).
Several other DAC countries flag the importance of digitalisation in their development co-operation policy.5 For example, Finland’s strategy focuses on gender, education and climate issues with digitalisation and connectivity at its core (Finnish Government, 2021[17]; Saldinger, 2021[18]). Other OECD members such as Estonia encourage a user-centred approach, based on its own experience with e-government, and share expertise with countries in South Eastern Europe, Central Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa (Estonia, 2021[19]) (see Chapter 12).
Digitalisation can undermine governance in contexts where it was already weak. Development co-operation strategies on governance and civil society can play a complementary role to digital development strategies in shaping an inclusive digital future. For development co-operation to shape digital transformation, strategies and activities on governance and civil society will need to anticipate unintended consequences – and potential harms – of digital transformation for societies and human rights. Development partners are thus exploring the impacts of digital transformation on civil society, civic spaces, democratic governance, development progress and stability in fragile states.
The international governance community, including members of the DAC’s Governance Network, is grappling with how to support digitalisation and digital transformation and the governance of these issues in development. Initial research in Promoting the Digital Transformation of African Portuguese-Speaking Countries and Timor-Leste (2018[33]), suggests that ODA is likely best oriented towards consolidating analogue capabilities, enabling access to digital solutions through education and ICT literacy, and supporting safe and consensual digitalisation of public records (Box 33.2).
Country contexts shape digital transformation. Digitalisation can lower the costs and improve the quality of public services by enabling citizen feedback to service providers (Haldrup, 2018[34]), but it cannot resolve pre-existing institutional weaknesses. Further, introducing digital technology into fractured political contexts can heighten risks to stability. For example, digitalisation in the form of citizen IDs, digital public services, and data use and management can as readily bring about development as it can fragment and divide society and stymie or even destabilise governments. The extent to which the proliferation of e-service platforms translates into broader, deeper or more inclusive participation and public accountability is also unclear (Dener et al., 2021[35]).
Considerations for digitalisation in governance strategies
The relationship between institutional and digital capabilities is not linear. Digital transitions are often disordered, uneven and subject to reversals in developing countries – notably fragile states and least developed countries (Pathways for Prosperity Commission, 2019[36]; World Bank, 2016[37]). An OECD study of digital transformation in Portuguese-speaking African countries and Timor-Leste found that, while ODA supports data centres that host, store and manage information from across government, poor interoperability between the digital systems and limited use of data to create more equitable development outcomes lowered its impact (OECD, 2018[33]).
Complementary investments in digital and analogue systems can reinforce governance and the social contract. In fragile or transition contexts, neither digital technology nor analogue systems alone are equipped to enable development. Taken together, however, they can support safe and consensual digitalisation of public records, and enhance government capacity to deliver public services, innovate and set national priorities. They can also strengthen citizen trust in government and enable participation by marginalised constituencies. For example, in supporting West African countries’ response to Ebola, humanitarian and development actors used messaging applications to inform hundreds of thousands of subscribers about case numbers, locations, and public health response rates, reinforcing citizen trust in the government’s management of the outbreak.
Data must be protected from misuse. ODA is widely deployed to provide digital solutions to administrative management challenges, including salary and wage payments, human resources management and social services delivery. In some contexts, such data can become the subject of misuse. Development actors could consistently work to safeguard and protect individual freedom, for example by taking greater responsibility for protecting individual rights and freedoms in data collation and management, ensuring free, prior and informed consent, and building data privacy into biometric and digital identification.
Policy coherence for development can shape a fair digital transformation. Autocratic governments and militant factions are actively soliciting or co-opting licenses and software by commercial firms (many of which are domiciled in OECD countries) to use in oppressing citizens (Shahbaz and Funk, 2021[38]). Development agencies and actors can raise awareness of these risks in domestic mechanisms for policy coherence for development and in fora setting global rules on surveillance technologies and digital disinformation.
Source: OECD secretariat to the DAC Governance Network.
Civil society strategies can also mitigate some digital risks. Civil society can help countries improve digital governance, human rights and inclusiveness to overcome the risks of digitalisation. This includes strengthening digital laws to comply with international human rights law, building the capacity of officials and civil society in digital rights, reviewing risks for civic spaces, and engaging with digitally-operating civil society actors such as social movements (OECD, 2020[39]). According to the Netherlands, civil society has a role in ensuring that digital technology serves the public good, as a watchdog and as a partner in the design and implementation of emerging technology (Chapter 35). Engaging in multi-stakeholder dialogues on development, regulation and responsible use of digital technology remains pivotal. The US focuses on digital initiatives to deploy using a system-oriented approach to expand digital-related programming while recognising the increasing digital threats to the civic space (USAID, 2020[40]).
International development agencies support civil society organisations (CSOs) in building digital capacities and countering power asymmetries. For instance, Denmark supports CSOs’ digital resilience programmes (Danida, 2021[41]) and USAID supports training for at-risk journalists and activists, facilitates campaigns to sensitise individuals to the threats they face as Internet users, and finances civil-society-led policy and advocacy projects that promote Internet Freedom (USAID, 2021[42]; USAID, 2021[43]). The Netherlands, EU, Sweden and UK collaborate in supporting CSOs, such as via the Association for Progressive Communications, an international network promoting digital inclusion, human rights online, and Internet governance as a global public good. Such initiatives draw attention to digital support and other development-assistance programmes against activities that harm civil society, civic space and freedoms (CHRGJ, ISER & Unwanted Witness, 2021[44]). Belgium’s Ministry of Foreign Relations and Development Cooperation organised a Claiming Back Civic Space conference in 2019 at which civic space in the digital era was addressed.
At the same time, civil society organisations such as Privacy International suggest that digital development co-operation investments and projects must anticipate, assess and manage the potential harms and unintended consequences of digitalisation (Privacy International, 2020[45]). Privacy International emphasises the risk of “extensive support for surveillance in countries” or “security units equipped and trained to use controversial surveillance tools” that enhance digital authoritarianism.
With the adoption of the DAC Recommendation on Enabling Civil Society in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance in July 2021, DAC members recognise that more must be done to enable civil society actors to maximise their contributions to the 2030 Agenda, to leave no one behind, and to protect and strengthen democracy and civic space, including in this age of digitalisation. For instance, DAC members’ civil society teams have yet to explore partnerships with non-profit civic tech companies, especially those who can ensure that business practices adhere to human rights principles with strengthened safeguards for civil society and civic freedoms/spaces online. Through closer co-operation with non-traditional technology companies, development actors can also promote the development of “civic technologies” – including through open-source software – whose transparency fosters the protection of rights and values. For example, Votem (n.d.[46]) is a mobile voting system that supports both voter registration and voting by using end-to-end blockchain-based encryption. Companies like Kialo (n.d.[47]) support online debate-style communication through a deliberative discourse platform designed to present hundreds of supporting and opposing arguments in a dynamic argument tree.
Going forward, civil society needs to engage digital policy-making initiatives at international and national levels to contribute perspectives for the regulatory sphere and responsible use of digital technology. Denmark’s Tech for Democracy initiative brings together representatives from governments, multilateral organisations, tech industry and civil society.
Translating digital transformation commitments and strategies into sustainable digital ecosystems and tangible change is a work-in-progress for all international development actors. Just as partners’ demand for digital co-operation increases (see Chapters 6 and 7), ODA budgets are under pressure to respond to other development challenges accentuated by the COVID-19 crisis, inequalities, conflict and climate change (Ahmad and Carey, 2021[48]; OECD, n.d.[49]). Digital-for-development strategies that focus on inclusiveness, upholding democratic freedoms and using digital solutions to accelerate progress face the same challenges to being effective as other areas of development co-operation (GPEDC, 2020[50]; OECD, 2019[51]). As set out in the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, success relies on being evidence-based and context-specific, taking a system-wide focus and aligning with country priorities and focusing on results (OECD, 2011[52]).6 International development co-operation on digitalisation can also become more accountable for applying effectiveness best practices (Miyamoto, 2020[53]; Castella et al., 2021[20]; Waugaman, 2016[54]).
The following excerpt from the report From Principle to Practice: Implementing the Principles for Digital Development (Waugaman, 2016[54]) sets out the challenges:
“While the potential is clear, the success of thousands of projects that have sprung up using technology to close access gaps is less so. Pilots have failed to move into scalable and sustainable programmes. Solutions too often reinvent the wheel rather than build on robust platforms, infrastructure, and shared services. Applications and services designed thousands of miles from their use environment failed to meet user needs. The creation of duplicative tools and systems has made data difficult to access and use for decision-making. […] we must do better, both to fulfil our own mandates and, critically, to deliver to the best of our ability for the people we serve.”
Transferrable insights and lessons also emerge from experience with digital health, which appears to have made progress in identifying effectiveness challenges and good practices with broad-based support. For example the Principles of Donor Alignment for Digital Health (Digital Investment Principles, 2018[55]), WHO Recommendations on Digital Health Systems (2019[56]), WHO Global Strategy on Digital Health (2019[57]), and similar documents issued by UNICEF (2018[58]), PAHO (n.d.[59]) and the Asian Development Bank (2018[60]) underpin the progress of the ongoing digital health debate.
A comparative analysis of development co-operation case studies and other contributions by providers to this report uncovers strategic and operational commonalities in line with the international agenda for development effectiveness. These are:
Leadership buy-in, institutional capacity and guidance are critical for designing and delivering holistic digital strategies. The Norway and UK cases highlight the importance of raising awareness among leadership and policy teams and overseas networks about the role of digital technologies in enabling economic and social development. They show that building their organisations’ in-house advisory capability dedicated to digital development is crucial. The ambition should be to grow a network of digital development champions, advisers and policy/programme managers that help the development ministry or agency to better mainstream digital approaches.
Digital development strategies should manage for the risk of reinforcing exclusion. Sectoral projects using digital components exclude people who do not have access to mobile phones or cannot afford to pay for mobile data (Castella et al., 2021[20]). Moreover, during Internet shutdowns, digital programmes stall, which should be factored into programme and project design (ibid). South Korea stresses the importance of being familiar with countries’ regulatory environment before deploying digital projects (see Chapter 36).
Commit to system-wide interoperability. Digital projects tend to fail to translate into scalable and sustainable programmes especially when they duplicate themselves instead of building on robust platforms, infrastructure and shared services (Waugaman, 2016[54]). Fragmented and incompatible digital systems lead to inefficiencies, disruptions, and significant costs to society. The international development community needs to move away from investing in siloed systems and work to overcome barriers by finding alignment between partner country priorities and international development funding (see Chapter 34). Transparency issues include difficulty accessing basic information about existing partner-country digital systems and capacity to manage the high transaction costs of co-ordination (USAID, 2020[40]).
Peer-to-peer knowledge sharing is in demand, and it works. Working with digital transformation requires dedication to capacity building to enable sustainable technology-driven change (see Chapter 12). Colombia and the UK report that identifying, building and leveraging strategic policy and knowledge partnerships is key for supporting digital transformation. Leveraging its knowledge and experience in international co-operation, JICA partners with Japanese technology companies, offering proven digital solutions to partners (Sawaji, 2021[22]).
Join up for diagnostics and use existing tools better. Several bilateral providers, multilateral organisations and other bodies conduct digital diagnostics, finance, and use knowledge platforms and indices. Sharing evidence and support for multilateral diagnostics can mitigate the risk of proliferation and duplication.
Step up co-ordination and prioritise local ownership. An evaluation of Belgium’s digital-for-development strategy flagged the risk that the oversupply of digital projects fragments activities. The demand projects put on target audiences can decrease both the visibility and effectiveness of programmes and projects (Castella et al., 2021[20]). The Netherlands’ case study highlights the value of local ownership and co-design with users to meet their needs. Waugaman (2016[54]) identified the need for in-country technical working groups to ensure coherent policies and actions across development sectors that leverage standards and have flexible programme designs. The same report found that the absence of dedicated policies or staff expertise on digital and data privacy and cybersecurity was a barrier to inter-donor collaboration.
Long-term funding. Structural challenges include the short nature of funding cycles relative to the entrenched nature of the challenges that development funding seeks to address (Waugaman, 2016[54]). According to AFD, development co-operation should create funding models that build and strengthen the digital commons so that access to information and tools are sustainable over the long term.
References
[60] ADB (2018), Guidance for Investing in Digital Health, https://dx.doi.org/10.22617/WPS179150-2 (accessed on 8 December 2021).
[25] AFD (2021), Digital transition - Strategy 2021-2025, https://www.afd.fr/en/ressources/digital-transition-2021-2025-strategy.
[48] Ahmad, Y. and E. Carey (2021), Development co-operation during the COVID-19 pandemic: An analysis of 2020 figures and 2021 trends to watch, OECD Publishing, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/2dcf1367-en/1/3/1/1/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/2dcf1367-en&_csp_=177392f5df53d89c9678d0628e39a2c2&itemIGO=oecd&itemContentType=book.
[26] BMZ (2019), Digital technologies for development, Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, https://toolkit-digitalisierung.de/app/uploads/2021/07/BMZ-Strategy-Digital-Technologies-for-Development-1.pdf.
[23] CAO (2016), The 5th Science and Technology Basic Plan, http://wwwa.cao.go.jp/notice/20191101notice.html (accessed on 8 December 2016).
[20] Castella, C. et al. (2021), ‘Digital for Development’ (D4D), Etude complémentaire quels sont les développements liés au contexte de la Covid-19 ?, https://diplomatie.belgium.be/sites/default/files/ey_etude_d4d_covid19_rapport_final_complet_20210927.pdf.
[44] CHRGJ, ISER & Unwanted Witness (2021), Chased Away and Left to Die, Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, New York, https://chrgj.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CHRGJ-Report-Chased-Away-and-Left-to-Die.pdf.
[11] D4D Hub (2021), Launch of D4D Hub Latin America and the Caribbean, https://d4dhub.eu/lac-event (accessed on 9 December 2021).
[8] D4D Hub (2020), EU D4D Hub website, https://d4dhub.eu/.
[41] Danida (2021), The Tech for Democracy initiative, https://um.dk/en/foreign-policy/tech-for-democracy-2021/.
[13] Danida (2019), TechVelopment: Approaches and Digitalisation. Tech and Digitalisation in Danish Development Cooperation in 2019, https://um.dk/en/~/media/um/danish-site/documents/danida/techvelopment%20-%20approach%20and%20narrative.pdf.
[35] Dener, C. et al. (2021), GovTech Maturity Index, Washington, DC: World Bank, https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1765-6.
[27] DFID (2018), Digital Strategy 2018-2020: Doing Development in a Digital World, Deparrtment for International Development (UKAID), https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/701443/DFID-Digital-Strategy-23-01-18a.pdf.
[3] DIAL (n.d.), Our Vision and Mission. Accelerate national digital transformation to reach everyone, everywhere, https://digitalimpactalliance.org/home/who-we-are/vision-mission/ (accessed on 9 December 2021).
[55] Digital Investment Principles (2018), The Principles of Donor Alignment for Digital Health, https://digitalinvestmentprinciples.org/ (accessed on 1 December 2021).
[28] Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2019), Digital Agenda for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation (BHOS), https://www.government.nl/documents/policy-notes/2019/07/31/digital-agenda-for-foreign-trade-and-development-cooperation-bhos.
[19] Estonia (2021), Overview of Estonian development cooperation, https://vm.ee/en/overview-estonian-development-cooperation.
[5] EU (2021), Team Europe, https://op.europa.eu/s/vbxy (accessed on 10 December 2021).
[12] European Commission (2021), Global Gateway: up to €300 billion for the European Union’s strategy to boost sustainable links around the world, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_6433 (accessed on 9 December 2021).
[6] European Commission (2021), Joint programming of development cooperation, https://ec.europa.eu/info/aid-development-cooperation-fundamental-rights/human-rights-non-eu-countries/ensuring-aid-effectiveness/joint-programming-development-cooperation_en (accessed on 8 December 2021).
[9] European Commission (2020), “#SmartDevelopmentHack announces nine winning solutions”, International Partnerships, https://ec.europa.eu/international-partnerships/news/smartdevelopmenthack-announces-nine-winning-solutions_en (accessed on 10 December 2021).
[16] European Commission (2020), Team Europe: Digital4Development Hub launched to help shape a fair digital future across the globe, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_2321 (accessed on 4 November 2021).
[7] European Commission (2018), 2030 Digital Compass: the European way for the Digital Decade, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:12e835e2-81af-11eb-9ac9-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF (accessed on 4 December 2021).
[29] European Commission (2017), Digital4Development: mainstreaming digital technologies and services into EU, https://futurium.ec.europa.eu/en/Digital4Development/library/digital4development-mainstreaming-digital-technologies-and-services-eu-development-policy.
[17] Finnish Government (2021), Report on Development Policy Extending Across Parliamentary Terms, https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/handle/10024/163218.
[15] FPS Foreign Affairs (2016), Strategic Policy Note: ‘Digital for Development’ (D4D) for the Belgian development cooperation, https://diplomatie.belgium.be/sites/default/files/downloads/strategy_policy_note_d4d.pdf.
[50] GPEDC (2020), Enhancing Effectiveness to Accelerate Sustainable Development. Accelerate Sustainable Development, https://www.effectivecooperation.org/system/files/2020-06/Global-Compendium-of-Good-Practices-Document.pdf.
[34] Haldrup, S. (2018), Digitising public service delivery: opportunities and limitations, https://www.opml.co.uk/blog/digitising-public-service-delivery-opportunities-and-limitations (accessed on 10 November 2021).
[47] Kialo (n.d.), Kialo Website, https://www.kialo.com (accessed on 3 December 2021).
[30] KOICA (2021), KOICA Digital ODA Business Promotion Strategy, https://www.koica.go.kr/koica_kr/7889/subview.do.
[24] METI (2018), Guidelines for Promotion of Digital Transformations Formulated, https://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/2018/1212_003.html (accessed on 8 December 2021).
[10] Ministère des Postes et des Télécommunications de Sénégal (2016), Stratégie Sénégal Numérique 2016-2025, https://www.sec.gouv.sn/sites/default/files/Strat%C3%A9gie%20S%C3%A9n%C3%A9gal%20Num%C3%A9rique%202016-2025.pdf.
[53] Miyamoto, K. (2020), Overview of digital transformation and how development co-operation contributes so far, OECD, Paris.
[21] Murigande, C. (2019), A Transition to Innovation will Transform Africa, https://www.jica.go.jp/english/publications/j-world/c8h0vm0000f4ng2q-att/1907_08.pdf (accessed on 4 December 2021).
[31] Norwegian MFA (2019), Digital transformation and development policy, https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/meldst11_summary/id2699502/?ch=1.
[39] OECD (2020), “Digital transformation and the futures of civic space to 2030”, OECD Development Policy Papers, No. 29, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/79b34d37-en.
[1] OECD (2020), Summary Record of the 52nd DAC High Level Meeting - 1082nd DAC Meeting held on 9 and 10 November 2020, https://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DCD/DAC/M(2020)10/FINAL&docLanguage=En.
[51] OECD (2019), Development Co-operation Report 2019: A Fairer, Greener, Safer Tomorrow, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9a58c83f-en.
[33] OECD (2018), Promoting the Digital Transformation of African Portuguese-Speaking Countries and Timor-Leste, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264307131-en.
[52] OECD (2011), Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation: Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, Busan, Republic of Korea, 29 November - 1 December 2011, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/54de7baa-en.
[49] OECD (n.d.), Development Co-operation Report, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/20747721.
[59] PAHO (n.d.), 8 Principles for Digital Transformation of Public Health, https://www.paho.org/en/ish/8-principles (accessed on 9 December 2021).
[36] Pathways for Prosperity Commission (2019), The Digital Roadmap: How developing countries can get ahead. Final report of the Pathways for Prosperity Commission, https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2019-11/The_Digital_Roadmap.pdf.
[4] Principles for Digital Development (n.d.), About, https://digitalprinciples.org/about/ (accessed on 8 December 2021).
[45] Privacy International (2020), Surveillance Disclosures Show Urgent Need for Reforms to EU Aid Programmes, https://privacyinternational.org/long-read/4291/surveillance-disclosures-show-urgent-need-reforms-eu-aid-programmes (accessed on 1 December 2021).
[18] Saldinger, A. (2021), Q&A: Finland’s new focus on digitalization in development, https://www.devex.com/news/q-a-finland-s-new-focus-on-digitalization-in-development-100327.
[22] Sawaji, O. (2021), Digital Transformation for Development: Japan’s Contribution, https://www.japanjournal.jp/diplomacy/international-cooperation/pt20201124142044.html (accessed on 8 December 2021).
[38] Shahbaz, A. and A. Funk (2021), Freedom on the Net 2021: The Global Drive to Control Big Tech, Freedom House, https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2021/global-drive-control-big-tech#Regulation (accessed on 10 November 2021).
[14] Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs (2018), Strategy for Sweden’s global development cooperation in sustainable economic development 2018-2022, https://www.government.se/4940d6/contentassets/2636cd52742a4a29827b936e118a5331/strategy-for-swedens-global-development-cooperation-in-sustainable-economic-development-2018-2022.pdf.
[2] UN (2020), High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation, https://www.un.org/en/sg-digital-cooperation-panel (accessed on 28 November 2021).
[58] UNICEF (2018), UNICEF’s Approach to Digital Health, https://www.unicef.org/innovation/media/506/file/UNICEF's%20Approach%20to%20Digital%20Health%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8B.pdf (accessed on 8 December 2021).
[43] USAID (2021), Accounting for risks: A need for safeguarding in digital ecosystems, https://www.usaid.gov/usaid-digital-strategy/02-accounting-for-risks (accessed on 8 December 2021).
[42] USAID (2021), Supporting Vibrant Civil Society & Independent Media, https://www.usaid.gov/democracy/supporting-vibrant-civil-society-independent-media.
[40] USAID (2020), A Vision for Action in Digital Health, https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USAID-A-Digital-Health-Vision-for-Action-v10.28_FINAL_508.pdf.
[32] USAID (2020), Digital Strategy 2020-2024, https://www.usaid.gov/usaid-digital-strategy.
[46] Votem (n.d.), Votem Website, https://votem.com/ (accessed on 3 December 2021).
[54] Waugaman, A. (2016), From Principle to Pratice: Implementing the Principles for Digital Development. Perspectives and Recommendations from the Practitioner Community, https://digitalprinciples.org/wp-content/uploads/From_Principle_to_Practice_v5.pdf.
[57] WHO (2019), WHO Global Strategy on Health, https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/documents/gs4dhdaa2a9f352b0445bafbc79ca799dce4d.pdf.
[56] WHO (2019), WHO Guideline: Recommendations on digital interventions for health system strengthening, https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/311941/9789241550505-eng.pdf?ua=1.
[37] World Bank (2016), World Development Report 2016: Digital Dividends, https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2016 (accessed on 10 November 2021).
Notes
← 1. See Reader's guide for definitions.
← 2. For more details on how development co-operation strategies are evolving see the case studies in Chapters 34-39 in this report.
← 3. The Principles for Digital Development were endorsed by 288 development actors since 2012 and offer a framework that can be applied to development programming to maximise efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of investments in digital solutions. See: https://digitalprinciples.org/.
← 4. JICA is included in this count because it is currently updating its digital development strategy.
← 5. Six DAC members – Australia, Canada, Finland, Luxembourg, Slovenia, and Switzerland – refer to digitalisation in their overall policy.
← 6. For an overview of the Busan Principles for Development Effectiveness and the how the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation maximise the effectiveness of all forms of development co-operation to the benefit of people, planet, prosperity and peace, see: https://www.effectivecooperation.org/.