The Digital Way Forward: Realizing DPI’s Potential

Indian Express Editorial Analysis

India’s Leadership in Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI)

Global Leadership: India leads in DPI development with initiatives like Aadhaar and UPI setting benchmarks.
International Expansion: Programs like World Bank’s ID4D, G2Px, and India’s MOSIP are helping other nations develop DPI.
Financial Inclusion: Bank account ownership in India surged from 25% in 2008 to over 80% recently, with 56% of accounts owned by women.

Importance of Impact Assessments

Measure Success: Assessments help refine DPI design and ensure goals are met.
Preventing Inequality: Without monitoring, DPIs risk worsening socio-economic inequalities.
Need for Data: Macro-level data, like Aadhaar enrollment or UPI transactions, is insufficient to gauge deeper socio-economic impacts.

Challenges in Impact Assessment

Lack of Intersectional Data: Data on gender, income, and education is scarce, limiting in-depth analysis.
Privacy Concerns: Balancing data privacy with the need for granular, anonymized data to evaluate who benefits from DPI.

Overcoming Challenges

Design: Incorporate assessment mechanisms in DPI design, similar to how privacy and security are prioritized.
Data: Facilitate data sharing through trusted, secure mechanisms while ensuring privacy.
Dialogue: Foster collaboration between government, private sector, civil society, and third-party assessors to enhance accountability.

Conclusion

Institutionalizing impact assessments will enable timely corrective action and unlock DPI’s full potential to transform economies and lives. Though India’s journey is promising, much remains to be done.

Government’s Stance

Lack of Data: In Rajya Sabha, the Minister of State for Health claimed no conclusive data links air pollution to diseases or deaths in India.
Government Actions: Despite denying data, the government cited multiple initiatives to combat air pollution.

Air Pollution’s Impact on Health

Complex Disease Causation: Air pollution’s role in diseases like cardiac conditions and cancer is debated due to multiple risk factors (e.g., tobacco, diet).
Tobacco Comparison: The government accepts tobacco’s disease burden but hesitates with air pollution, though both have similar harmful chemical components.

Epidemiological Considerations

Measurement Challenges: Personal-level exposure (tobacco) is easier to measure than population-level exposure (air pollution).
Strength of Association: Air pollution affects a larger population, though its impact is harder to quantify compared to tobacco.
Exposure Range: Tobacco exposure has no safe limit, while some air pollution levels are deemed acceptable.

Scientific Support for Air Pollution’s Harm

Dose-response relationship: Higher pollution levels increase disease risks.
Biological plausibility: Harmful cellular mechanisms from pollutants are well-documented.
Consistency: Studies globally show similar findings on pollution’s impact.
Temporal relationship: Pollution exposure precedes disease onset.

Government’s Role in Data Collection

Proactive Responsibility: Government must provide accurate public health data, enabling policy decisions and academic scrutiny.
Ongoing Analysis: Continuous data collection ensures better intervention strategies.

Way Forward

Acknowledge the Problem: The government must recognize air pollution’s health burden for targeted interventions.
All-Society Response: Addressing air pollution requires collaboration from all sectors of society.
Regular Estimates: Periodic disease burden estimates are vital to adjust strategies effectively.