| Abstract: |
Formal identification is a prerequisite for development in the modern world.
The inability to authenticate oneself when interacting with the state—or with
private entities such as banks—inhibits access to basic rights and services,
including education, formal employment, financial services, voting, social
transfers, and more. Unfortunately, underdocumentation is pervasive in the
developing world. Civil registration systems are often absent or cover only a
fraction of the population. In contrast, people in rich countries are almost
all well identified from birth. This “identity gap” is increasingly recognized
as not only a symptom of underdevelopment but as a factor that makes
development more difficult and less inclusive. Many programs now aim to
provide individuals in poor countries with more robust official identity,
often in the context of the delivery of particular services. Many of these
programs use digital biometric identification technology that distinguish
physical or behavioral features, such as fingerprints or iris scans, to help
“leapfrog” traditional paper-based identity systems. The technology cannot do
everything, but recent advances enable it to be used far more accurately than
previously, to provide identification (who are you?) and authentication (are
you who you claim to be?). Technology costs are falling rapidly, and it is now
possible to ensure unique identity in populations of at least several hundred
million with little error. This paper surveys 160 cases where biometric
identification has been used for economic, political, and social purposes in
developing countries. About half of these cases have been supported by donors.
Recognizing the need for more rigorous assessments and more open data on
performance, the paper draws some conclusions about identification and
development and the use of biometric technology. Some cases suggest large
returns to its use, with potential gains in inclusion, efficiency, and
governance. In others, costly technology has been ineffective or, combined
with the formalization of identity, has increased the risk of exclusion. One
primary conclusion is that identification should be considered as a component
of development policy, rather than being seen as just a cost on a
program-by-program basis. Within such a strategic framework, countries and
donors can work to close the identification gap, and in the process improve
both inclusion and the efficiency of many programs |