Amplifying the Utility of National IDs

National identification systems come in many flavors. Roughly 60% of nations have some form of national ID card, but the requirements, coverage, captured data, and advantages of possessing a card vary greatly. Some developing countries (e.g., Malaysia, Estonia) are models of multi-purpose systems that allow efficient access to a broad range of services, while helping the state manage civic and social programs. Other efforts to create a national ID system have faltered due to corruption, inefficiency, poor leadership, political in-fighting, or suspicion that the system will be used as a means of state control or oppression. Kentaro Toyama may have been thinking of national ID systems when he explained the "Law of Amplification." He states: "Technology doesn't cause a fixed benefit wherever it's used; rather, it amplifies underlying human forces. ... Democratic governments use digital tools to improve transparency, but repressive regimes censor content and track voices of protest online."

When designed and managed well, national ID cards facilitate a number of critical functions - travel, banking, healthcare, driving, and voting, to name a few. With biometric features built in, the potential for fraud is greatly reduced, and issues such as illiteracy and mobility are mitigated. Further, a national identification system increases the potential of digital and mobile services. However, there are myriad challenges to implementing a comprehensive, efficient system. Integration with state, health, education, and financial systems is complex, and requires active collaboration among a diverse set of federal and provincial organizations. The process of developing and rolling out a comprehensive system is expensive, time-consuming, and resource-intensive. After launch, the collection, storage, and use of data require a lot of training and skilled management. And public buy-in is not guaranteed.

The development community can play a vital role in helping governments design and implement (or improve) a national ID system with the broadest positive impact. Development organizations can sponsor research, provide guidance, coordinate development efforts between stakeholders, deliver training, and measure effectiveness. Organizations can leverage long histories and influential contacts in specific verticals (e.g., healthcare, financial services) to ensure that ID systems are well integrated with their areas of focus. They can also advocate for strong privacy and security measures. For many in the development community, the benefits of a viable national ID (particularly with biometric features) are readily apparent. A reliable ID system is essential for the expansion of other ICT4D, allowing organizations to verify the identity of aid recipients, deliver and track healthcare, expand financial services to the poor, reduce elections fraud, and increase state revenues through taxation. With focus and tenacity, development organizations can ensure that national ID systems amplify the good in the countries they serve.

Prime Minister Calls for Corporations to Support Development

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown called this week for the support of multinational corporations to help achieve the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015. Reports claim he is attempting to enlist the support of over 20 private corporations to use their expertise and resources for capacity building, infrastructure development and capital investments in developing countries. Calling the situation a “development emergency,” Brown believes that the lack of enterprise in some of the least-developed countries is inhibiting growth and the achievement of the MDGs. Private-sector companies already tapped for support include Vodafone and Google. In the coming years, Britain’s development minister will be focusing on initiatives in financial services, mobile phones and agriculture.

Brown raises a critical development issue - the need for enterprise investment to ensure sustainable economic growth in the world’s poorest regions. However, he failed to mention that ICT companies are focusing increasing attention and resources on fast-growing markets in the developing world. Companies like AMD, Intel, Microsoft, Cisco, Nokia and Ericsson have made significant business investments in developing countries. The reason for Brown’s omission may be that the public sector struggles to connect these investments with economic and social growth. Most large corporations, especially in the technology sector, have corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs but the size of philanthropic investments is inherently capped by market forces. These programs often pale in comparison to the business investments made by these companies in developing countries.

Private-sector companies can help the development community and the public sector appreciate the full social and economic impact of their activities in developing countries. The private sector has a direct and positive impact on the developing world through the expansion of local business ecosystems, the commercialization of new products and services designed specifically for these markets, and business models that increase the affordability of productivity tools. Because these efforts are profitable, they are more sustainable than philanthropic activities. Certainly, there is a place for philanthropy and CSR in addressing the challenges in the developing world. But a sustainable approach to addressing global poverty increases the longevity and size of resources committed to such investments. And corporations that identify credible methods for measuring and promoting the social and economic impact of their business efforts to the development community will experience greater business value through increased brand equity, visibility and an enhanced ability to influence local policies.

Also in the news:

• Handset majors may exit entry-level market
• M-payment not taking off in China
• Linux may take over low-end PC market