Multilateral and government-backed cooperation agencies are among the most powerful actors shaping the future of digital governance. Institutions such as the European Union, the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme, the Asian Development Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the German GIZ now fund an expanding portfolio of initiatives on AI for public services, digital inclusion, data governance, platform regulation, and institutional modernisation across the Global South. It is calculated, according to official figures from Digital Strategy Europe and the World Bank, that between $9 to 11 billion USD are poured into digital governance, IA and digital transformation strategies. Their narrative is difficult to contest when reimagining multilateral funding for digital governance and policy.

These institutions speak of inclusion, democracy, local ownership, institutional strengthening, and measurable impact. They frame digital policy as a lever to reduce inequality, modernise states, and protect rights amid rapid technological change. Because of their financial scale and normative authority, they go beyond funding projects and define what counts as legitimate digital policy.

And yet, behind this ambition sits a contradiction that practitioners rarely articulate publicly. While inclusion is central to the discourse of multilateral digital funding, exclusion is deeply embedded in its operational design.

Compliance Is Legitimate, But It Has Become a Gatekeeping Ideology When Reimagining Multilateral Funding for Digital Policy

There is a necessary starting point that must be acknowledged plainly: multilateral institutions manage taxpayer money. High levels of scrutiny, auditability, and accountability are not bureaucratic excesses; they are democratic obligations. In politically sensitive domains such as AI and digital governance, weak safeguards would be irresponsible.

It’s not an issue that compliance exists when reimagining multilateral funding for digital governance. The problem is compliance has evolved from a safeguard into a governing ideology.

Nowhere is this more evident than in European Union–funded digital and policy programmes. Across instruments such as Horizon Europe, Digital Europe, NDICI–Global Europe, and external cooperation calls governed by the Practical Guide to Contract Procedures (PRAG), participation is conditioned on an intricate web of requirements that systematically filter who can even enter the room.

Read the full article about AI and digital governance by Gastón Wright at Alliance Magazine.