Digital Compacts: Global ideals, regional realities

This paper discusses and compares the UN’s Global Digital Compact (GDC) and the African Digital Compact (ADC). It examines whether the GDC’s ambitions are realistically achievable, and how infrastructure and technologies can be effectively managed to enhance the production and use of data.

Following an extensive literature review, the paper quotes freely from a range of sources to build its arguments. It looks at the relationship between data and digital governance, and the extent to which technology can enable digital transformation in developing countries. It looks at how (and if) Big Tech fits into a multi-stakeholder consensus on digital and data governance. Finally, it asks if a single global authority – the UN – can solve problems rooted in political and economic inequity.

The paper advocates for the establishment of a set of universal data principles to complement digital governance. It finds that some solutions to digital transformation are not universal, which poses a challenge to the aim of the GDC to close digital divides. A challenge lies also in how to resolve the differences between those seeking data sovereignty and those who advocate for cross-border data flows.

The research conducted for this paper confirms DI’s existing belief that digital transformation should be led from the bottom-up, at subnational, national and regional levels.

A comprehensive reading list accompanies the paper – to read further on this area, see the Bibliography.

Download the full discussion paper .

This is the fourth in a series of papers Development Initiatives (DI) has produced about data governance. To explore more of our work in this area, see:

• Is the SDG monitoring framework broken?
• Data disharmony: How can donors better act on their commitments?
• The data side of leaving no one behind

In 2021, the UN Secretary-General released a report called ‘ Our Common Agenda ’. It proposed a Global Digital Compact that outlines the shared principles for an open, free and secure digital future for all.

In September 2024, world leaders will gather in New York for the Summit of the Future. ^[1] The Summit is expected to adopt a Pact for the Future ^[2] that places UN-led multilateral solutions, ^[3] including on global digital cooperation, into a Global Digital Compact (GDC) built around the transformational potential of technology. ^[4]

In July 2024, a week after the second revision of the GDC draft was released, the African Union (AU) Executive Council adopted its own African Digital Compact (ADC). ^[5] It is aligned to yet distinctly different from the GDC.

The GDC lays out five objectives.

1. Close all digital divides and accelerate progress across the Sustainable Development Goals.
2. Expand inclusion in and benefits from the digital economy for all.
3. Foster an inclusive, open, safe and secure digital space that respects, protects, and promotes human rights.
4. Advance equitable and interoperable data governance.
5. Enhance international governance of artificial intelligence (AI) for the benefit of humanity.

On the surface there would appear little to disagree with in the well-intended aspirations of these objectives. But the GDC calls for commitments and actions. It is reasonable therefore to question whether its ambitions are realistically achievable.

There is universal agreement that both data and technology need better regulation. Data governance is about the use and abuse of data. Digital governance is about the deployment of infrastructure and technologies to enhance the production and use of data. This paper focuses on how these two critical issues can most effectively be managed.

We pose four questions:

1. What is the relationship between digital and data governance?
2. Can technology alone enable digital transformation in developing countries? What are the prerequisites for digital transformation in developing countries beyond technology?
3. Are digital technology companies and social media platforms (Big Tech) ready to abide by a global multistakeholder consensus such as the GDC?
4. Can a single global authority solve problems rooted in political and economic inequity?

There is a fifth question that requires further discussion. It is not clear how the GDC will overcome the financing challenges that the SDGs face. The role of regional bodies in its implementation is also not well articulated. Are there, therefore, adequate implementation and financing modalities/arrangements for the GDC?

We find that:

• There are parallel strands of work taking place within the UN on digital and data governance that the GDC seeks to merge. Strong arguments exist for first establishing a universal set of data principles that complement digital governance.
• There is a wide gap in the appropriate solutions and different approaches to achieve digital transformation between high- and low-income countries. Leapfrogging technologies, as proposed by proponents of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR), are not universally applicable, particularly when the infrastructures, capacity and usable data are not available.
• There are unresolvable differences between those who advocate for the free flow of data across borders, and an increasing number of governments seeking data sovereignty.
• In its enthusiasm to involve the private sector, the GDC assumes a levelled playing field and overlooks the real intentions of Big Tech to control markets and exploit data.

It is therefore our view that:

• The GDC should in the first instance limit itself to developing a sustainable set of universal guiding principles and standards of digital governance. Ideally, these should be preceded by agreement on the principles of data governance.
• Digital transformation and regulation are best delivered through regional and national initiatives.

This paper makes few claims to uniqueness. It is based largely on a literature review of over 500 documents, ^[6] the vast majority of which have been published within the last five years.

At the outset of this research the authors were already of the view, based on our previous work, ^[7] that, when it comes to digital transformation and data for development, bottom-up processes (subnational to national to regional and then global) invariably work better than top-down global initiatives. In our view, these assumptions have been backed up in the literature by a diverse range of institutions and individuals. We have, wherever possible, used the voices of others better qualified than ourselves to substantiate our arguments. We acknowledge and have quoted, among others, the opinions of Abeba Birhane, Alison Gillwald and Research ICT Africa, Anu Bradford, Shoshana Zuboff, Steve MacFeely, Tim Unwin. Their selective use and context in which we have placed them is our responsibility.

► Read more from DI about data use

► Share your thoughts with us on Twitter or LinkedIn

► Sign up to our newsletter