Digital Public Infrastructure and Sustainable Transformation: A Socio-Quantitative Assessment of India’s Governance Architecture
Keywords:
Real-Time Tracking Systems (RTTS), Supply chain management, Coimbatore, Operational efficiency, Logistics visibility, SME manufacturing, Cost optimization, Data-driven decision making, Industrial productivity, South Indian industryAbstract
Purpose: The research offers a combined quantitative and socio-material evaluation of Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) growth of India in the period of 2014-2024. Instead of focusing on the specific case studies of the biometric identity, interoperable payments, and welfare delivery mechanisms, this paper reviews how the convergence of these three as a sociotechnical imaginary promotes sustainable change. Procedure: This study is based on a historical-analytical method with documentary analysis and the secondary statistical interpretation that is based only on secondary data. The National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI), the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the World Bank Global Findex and other Government of India portals were used as sources of data. Findings: Quantitative analysis will show an average annual growth rate in digital payment volumes greater than 150 percent and an increase in the numbers of people with accounts to 77 percent. Nevertheless, the data reveal a gap in the utilization of data, as active utilization of digital payments is only 35. Algorithms of biometric de-duplication are proved by cumulative fiscal savings of about 3.4 trillion Indian rupees in the form of Direct Benefit Transfers. Conclusion: The given paper makes a contribution to the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS) because it shows that DPI is a multifaceted socio-material system. Although the interoperable architecture is a scalable and public good, long-term sustainability in inclusion entails meeting the interpretive flexibility, material frictions, and algorithmic exclusions that remain at the periphery of the network.
Downloads
References
[1.] Aker, J. C., & Mbiti, I. M. (2010). Mobile phones and economic development in Africa. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(3), 207-232. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.24.3.207
[2.] Bhide, A. (2008). The venturesome economy: How innovation sustains prosperity in a more connected world. Princeton University Press.
[3.] Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. (1987). The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. MIT Press.
[4.] Callon, M. (1998). The laws of the markets. Blackwell Publishers.
[5.] Demirgüç-Kunt, A., Klapper, L., Singer, D., & Ansar, S. (2022, June 29). The Global Findex Database 2021: Financial inclusion, digital payments, and resilience in the age of COVID-19. World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/globalfindex
[6.] D'Ignazio, C., & Klein, L. F. (2020). Data feminism. MIT Press.
[7.] Dogra, H. K. (2025). Offline realities in an online era: Barriers to virtual learning in rural Indian colleges. International Education and Research Journal, 11(8), 15-28. https://www.google.com/search?q=https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17019517
[8.] Gal, S. (2003). Institutional centers of calculation: Inscription, normalization, and global networks. Language and Communication, 23(3), 333-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(03)00007-8
[9.] Government of India. (2024, March 31). DBT Bharat Portal: Direct Benefit Transfer. https://dbtbharat.gov.in/
[10.] Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26(4), 399-408. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390102600401
[11.] Introna, L. D. (2016). Algorithms, performativity and governability. Theory, Culture & Society, 33(1), 17-43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276415623057
[12.] Jack, W., & Suri, T. (2014). Risk sharing and transactions costs: Evidence from Kenya's mobile money revolution. American Economic Review, 104(1), 183-223. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.1.183
[13.] Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. Routledge.
[14.] Jasanoff, S., & Kim, S. H. (2015). Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power. University of Chicago Press.
[15.] Jawale, D. S. (2024). Marking the margins: A sociological study of algorithmic digital exclusion in rural Maharashtra's AI economy. Journal of Rural and Community Development, 19(2), 112-128. https://www.google.com/search?q=https://doi.org/10.25336/jrcd.v19i2.145
[16.] King, R. G., & Levine, R. (1993). Finance and growth: Schumpeter might be right. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 717-737. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118406
[17.] Kitchin, R. (2017). Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 14-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154087
[18.] Klapper, L., El-Zoghbi, M., & Hess, J. (2016). Achieving the SDGs through financial inclusion. World Bank Research Observer, 31(1), 1-18. https://www.google.com/search?q=https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-7634
[19.] Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Harvard University Press.
[20.] Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Open University Press.
[21.] Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.
[22.] Lessig, L. (1999). Code: And other laws of cyberspace. Basic Books.
[23.] Mani, M., & Vasudevan, V. (2021). Boundary work in institutional centers: Mapping technological imaginaries in India's education policy. Higher Education, 81(5), 999-1018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00624-9
[24.] Muralidharan, K., Niehaus, P., & Sukhtankar, S. (2016). Building state capacity: Evidence from biometric smartcards in India. American Economic Review, 106(10), 2895-2929. https://www.google.com/search?q=https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20141409
[25.] National Institution for Transforming India (NITI Aayog). (2018). National Strategy for Financial Inclusion 2018-2023. Government of India.
[26.] National Payments Corporation of India. (2024, March 31). UPI product statistics. [suspicious link removed]
[27.] Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A sociomaterial perspective on innovation in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404-428. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.4.404.14600
[28.] Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433-474. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520802211644
[29.] Reserve Bank of India. (2022, May 27). Annual report 2021-22. https://rbi.org.in/Scripts/AnnualReportPublications.aspx?Id=1345
[30.] Sen, A. K. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.
[31.] Supreme Court of India. (2018, September 26). Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors.
[32.] Suri, T., & Jack, W. (2016). The long-run poverty and gender impacts of mobile money. Science, 354(6317), 1288-1292. https://www.google.com/search?q=https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah5309
[33.] Tencent. (2019). The digital future: Emerging technologies and institutional change. Tencent Research Institute.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Articles published in the Academic Research Journal of Science and Technology (ARJST will be Open-Access articles distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0). This allows for immediate free access to the work and permits any user to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose.
This open-access article is distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).
