After small states led the way in regulating digital asset services, digital identity is becoming an important cornerstone for furthering cohesion policy goals of the European Union (EU). The importance of this initiative is reflected in the formation of the eIDAS Expert Group, tasked with specifying the European Digital Identity Wallet at the intersection of EU regulation and technology. In the group, all EU member states, both large and small, are directly involved without delegating their involvement. Together with the sparse coverage of small jurisdictions in the World Bank’s Identity for Development (ID4D) dataset, the representation of places like Malta or the Marshall Islands is not equal to large states. For example, there is almost no research on digital identity in the Marshall Islands. Yet, the jurisdiction has a strong need for digital identity to identify ultimate beneficial owners of domiciled decentralised autonomous organisations (DAOs) under its DAO Act. Moreover, twenty recognised small jurisdictions are not covered by the ID4D dataset. Reviewing the evidence from smaller jurisdictions' perspective questions the EU eIDAS Expert Group's equal representation principle, as smaller states such as Malta and Latvia have limited capacity to dedicate public servants to technological policymaking in supranational entities. Therefore, this research investigates the procurement of digital infrastructure(s) in small jurisdictions by asking: What characterises the technological decision-making processes for digital identity systems in small jurisdictions? A mixed-method approach combines document analysis with multivariate data analysis for developing a maturity index that serves as a tool for policy makers.
This research aims to systematically analyse small jurisdictions’ procurement processes for obtaining digital identity solutions. Best practices from celebrated examples like Estonia and Singapore may be intriguing, but they can distract from the fact that the developmental trajectories of small jurisdictions can significantly differ.
Although digital identity and the ramifications of technical specifications has led to some debate and analysis, there is a dearth of debate on the understanding of all these efforts of digital debate in terms of social technology (Leibetseder, 2011). Specialised working groups in the EU and Singapore have been focused on the technological advantages of digital identity systems to the respective governments, but failed to assess the intended and unintended effects the implementation of such systems has on the societies, where such are rolled out. Hence, the technology-centric evaluation and debate on digital identity neglects the relevance of digital identity systems for social interactions generally. Given the extensive differences between centralised and decentralised digital identity systems in terms of usage, complexity, and development stage, a broad discussion of digital identity does not suffice.
Implementing and operating innovative digital infrastructure, like digital identity systems, challenges small jurisdictions’ limitations of available funding and specialised experts. Public procurement processes for innovative technologies lack research to understand digital infrastructure on a small scale. For this reason, a systematic analysis of tender processes and innovation spending for decentralised digital infrastructure in small jurisdictions is proposed. As a result, it contrasts the pooled procurement of digital infrastructure against the backdrop of public tender processes for digital identity systems.
This is PhD research without a business model.
Global, with focus on small jurisdictions in the Caribbean and the Pacific