The Pretence of Planning Digital Public Goods
About this article
Abstract
The United Nations and its Digital Public Goods Alliance (DPGA) have constructed an ambitious framework for certifying, funding, and promoting open-source software in developing countries. Utvik et al. (2025) reconstruct the rapid development of COVID-19 surveillance tools on DHIS2, an open-source platform the DPGA certifies as a digital public good. Theirs is the most detailed account of the episode on record, and I rely on it throughout. They explain the innovation as resulting from a "generative fit," an alignment of architecture, governance, and community. I read the same evidence differently. Dispersed local knowledge, in Hayek's sense, and the voluntary coordination Ostrom found in self-governing commons, accomplished what generative fit is credited with. Local professionals identified the need, built the tools, and shared them through voluntary channels. The international standard followed a week or two later. A fit says nothing about how it came about. It permits treating alignment as an input a central body can engineer. Certification, pooled funding, and coordinated deployment all presume the same thing. What this episode shows is a spontaneous order. It therefore does not support the UN's framework for managing how such an order arises.
| Author |
|
|---|---|
| Keywords | digital public goods, spontaneous order, polycentric governance, knowledge problem, Hayek |
| Volume Number | 23 |
| Issue Number | 2 |
| Pages | 362–377 |
| File URL | The Pretence of Planning Digital Public Goods |
| File Format | |
| Access | |
| Publication year | 2026 |
Flag this article
Start the discussion.
Be the first to share your thoughts below.
Log in to Journaltalk to discuss this article!
Jt Article Discussions
Most recent article-specific discussions at Journaltalk.