A Documental Theory Based Approach towards Digital Public Infrastructure
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55613/jeet.v36i2.219Abstract
Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) emerged as an ecosystem that intends to permit the delivery of goods and services through digital means. It is the result of an attempt by various stakeholders, both private and public entities, who had used digital technologies with that intention. Several factors that influence DPIs lack a proper definition since DPIs are new systems that are in the phase of development. This conceptual ambiguity regarding various factors reduces the efficiency of DPIs. One among such factors is data whose explanation as information obscures its nature as a social object. The exponential growth of data driven initiatives cannot be explained based on information theories; instead it requires a theory which explains the social nature of data. The documental theory of social ontology explains the nature of data as social object, and its influence on DPIs. The understanding of data as social object can inform the design, development, and implementation of DPI in a way it can better deliver public benefit and social welfare.
References
1. Adriaans, P. (2024). Information. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2024 ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2024/entries/information/
2. Allen, R. T., & McDonald, R. M. (2025). Methodological pluralism and innovation in data-driven organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 70(2), 403–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392251313737
3. Alon-Barkat, S., Busuioc, M., Schwoerer, K., & Weißmüller, K. S. (2025). Algorithmic discrimination in public service provision: Understanding citizens’ attribution of responsibility for human versus algorithmic discriminatory outcomes. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 35(4), 469–488. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaf024
4. Alonso, M. (2023). Stacking up the benefits: Lessons from India’s digital journey (IMF Working Paper). International Monetary Fund. https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/wp/2023/english/wpiea2023078-print-pdf.pdf
5. Baker, R., Hawn, A., & Lee, S. M. (2023). Algorithmic bias: The state of the situation and policy recommendations. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/09e55ac4-en
6. Bravo, F. (2022). Data governance act and re-use of data in the public sector. European Review of Digital Administration & Law, 3(2), 13–33. https://www.erdalreview.eu/free-download/97912218079813.pdf
7. Briet, S. (2006). What is documentation? Scarecrow Press.
8. Broomfield, H. (2022). Toward a common understanding of a data-driven public sector: A conceptual framework. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4293218
9. Buckland, M. K. (2016). The physical, mental and social dimensions of documents. Proceedings of the Document Academy, 3(1). http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/docam/vol3/iss1/4
10. Buckland, M. K. (2018). Document theory. Knowledge Organization, 45(5), 425–436. https://doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2018-5-425
11. Cammas, A., Iacob, N., & Simonelli, F. (2022). How can interoperability stimulate the use of digital public services? An analysis of national interoperability frameworks and e-government in the European Union. Data & Policy, 4. https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2022.11
12. Chioda, L., Gertler, P., Higgins, S., & Medina, P. C. (2024). Fintech lending to borrowers with no credit history (NBER Working Paper No. 33208). National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w33208
13. Clark, J., Marin, G., Ardic Alper, O. P., & Galicia Rabadan, G. A. (2025). Digital public infrastructure and development: A World Bank Group approach (Vol. 1). World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/42935
14. Couldry, N. (2017). The myth of big data. In M. T. Schäfer & K. van Es (Eds.), The datafied society: Studying culture through data (pp. 235–239). Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.25969/mediarep/12467
15. Cunyi, Y., Mingrui, G., & Albitar, K. (2024). Government in the digital age: Exploring the impact of digital transformation on governmental efficiency. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 208, 123722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123722
16. De Soto, H. (2003). The mystery of capital: Why capitalism triumphs in the West and fails everywhere else. Basic Books.
17. Demirgüç-Kunt, A., Klapper, L., Singer, D., & Ansar, S. (2022). The Global Findex Database 2021: Financial inclusion, digital payments, and resilience in the age of COVID-19. World Bank.
18. Desai, V. T., Dolan, J. J., McGowan, K., Vora, P., Barzelay, A. M., Das, P. L., Satola, D., & Srinivasan, S. (2022). Unravelling data’s Gordian knot: Enablers and safeguards for trusted data sharing in the new economy. World Bank Group.
19. Eaves, D., & Rao, K. (2025). Digital public infrastructure: A framework for conceptualisation and measurement.
20. Eaves, D., Mazzucato, M., & Vasconcellos, B. (2024). Digital public infrastructure and public value: What is ‘public’ about DPI? (IIPP Working Paper No. 2024-05). UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose.
21. Epstein, B. (2024). Social ontology. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy (Fall 2024 ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2024/entries/social-ontology/
22. Epstein, B. (2025). Social ontology. Cambridge University Press.
23. Evren, I. S., Vepakomma, P., & Raskar, R. (2022). The privacy–welfare trade-off: Effects of differential privacy on influence and welfare in social choice. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.10115
24. Ferraris, M. (2012). Documentality: Why it is necessary to leave traces (R. Davies, Trans.). Fordham University Press.
25. Ferraris, M. (2014). Manifesto of new realism (S. De Sanctis, Trans.). SUNY Press.
26. Ferraris, M. (2024). Webfare: A manifesto for digital well-being. Transcript Verlag.
27. Ferraris, M. (2025). Comunismo digitale: Una proposta politica. Einaudi.
28. Frohmann, B. P. (2008). The role of facts in Paul Otlet’s modernist project of documentation. In W. B. Rayward (Ed.), European modernism and the information society (pp. 75–88). Ashgate.
29. Gambacorta, L., Huang, Y., Qiu, H., & Wang, J. (2024). How do machine learning and non-traditional data affect credit scoring? Journal of Financial Stability, 73, 101284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2024.101284
30. Gandhi, V., & Kak, R. (2026). India’s DPI experiment and digital finance revolution. In I. G. Hoven, S. Y. In, & T. Puschmann (Eds.), Sustainable digital finance. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-02983-6_27
31. Grenersen, G., Kermi, K., & Nilsen, S. (2016). Landscapes as documents: The relationship between traditional Sámi terminology and the concepts of document and documentation. Journal of Documentation, 72(6), 1181–1196.
32. Hudson, B., Hunter, D., & Peckham, S. (2019). Policy failure and the policy-implementation gap: Can policy support programs help? Policy Design and Practice, 2(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2018.1540378
33. Inter-American Development Bank. (2024). Tech report: Digital twins.
34. International Monetary Fund & World Bank. (2022). Making debt work for development and macroeconomic stability (Policy Papers No. 2022/019). https://doi.org/10.5089/9798400208591.007
35. Khamiliyah, L., Rahayu, A., Dirgantari, P. D., Wibowo, L. A., & Susanto, E. (2025). Digitalization of government organizations: An empirical study of strategic factors of HR resources. Cogent Business & Management, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2025.2457442
36. Kumar, R., & Veer, K. (2021). How artificial intelligence and internet of things can aid in the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines. Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome, 15(3), 1049–1050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsx.2021.04.021
37. Loi, M., Dehaye, P.-O., & Hafen, E. (2023). Towards Rawlsian ‘property-owning democracy’ through personal data platform cooperatives. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 26(6), 769–787. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2020.1782046
38. Lund, N. W. (2004). Documentation in a complementary perspective. In W. B. Rayward (Ed.), Aware and responsible (pp. 93–102). Scarecrow Press.
39. Machljankin, J., Neumann, O., Steiner, R., & Ege, J. (2024). Exploring the role of consulting in local government digital trans-formation. Public Money & Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2024.2414060
40. NITI Aayog. (2023). Data empowerment and protection architecture: A secure consent-based data sharing framework. Government of India. https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2023-03/Data-Empowerment-and-Protection-Architecture-A-Secure-Consent-Based.pdf
41. OECD. (2024). Digital public infrastructure for digital governments (OECD Public Governance Policy Papers No. 68). https://doi.org/10.1787/ff525dc8-en
42. Ozili, P. K. (2025). Digital public infrastructure: Concepts, global efforts, benefits, challenges, and success stories. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5228565
43. Pédauque, R. T. (2003). Document: Form, sign and medium, as reformulated for electronic documents. https://archivesic.ccsd.cnrs.fr/sic_00000594
44. Ruijer, E., Porumbescu, G., Porter, R., & Piotrowski, S. J. (2022). Social equity in the data era: A systematic literature review of data-driven public service provision research. Public Administration Review, 83(4).
45. Silva, M. C., Bianchi, A. G. C., Oliveira, R. A. R., & Ribeiro, S. P. (2022). Designing a multiple-user wearable edge AI system towards human activity recognition. In 2022 XII Brazilian Symposium on Computing Systems Engineering (SBESC) (pp. 1–8). https://doi.org/10.1109/SBESC56799.2022.9964915
46. Tricot, A., Sahut, G., & Lemarié, J. (2016). Le document: Communication et mémoire. De Boeck–ADBS.
47. Tullis, C., Constantine, N., & Cooper, A. (2024). Electronic signatures: Enabling trusted digital transformation. World Bank. https://hdl.handle.net/10986/42186
48. Woo, J. J. (2018). Technology and governance in Singapore’s Smart Nation initiative. Harvard University, Ash Center for Demo-cratic Governance and Innovation.
49. World Bank. (2022). A digital stack for transforming service delivery: ID, payments, and data sharing. World Bank Group.
50. World Bank. (2024). Putting people at the center of digital public infrastructure (DPI): Annual report 2023. World Bank Group.
51. Yang, C., Gu, M., & Albitar, K. (2024). Government in the digital age: Exploring the impact of digital transformation on gov-ernmental efficiency. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 208, 123722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123722
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Pauldin Lawrence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) after publication, while providing bibliographic details that credit JEET (See The Effect of Open Access).
How to Cite
