Data-related legal instruments increasingly determine eligibility for public services, social protection, identification, and finance. When these systems overlook how identities overlap, entire groups could be excluded, leading to :
- Low uptake of programs: For example, requiring proof of home ownership or a utility bill can inadvertently exclude women in rural areas. In many regions, land titles are held exclusively in a man’s name. When this gender barrier is combined with the geographical barrier of a day-long journey to the nearest government office, these women become technically ineligible for the health services intended for them.
- Uneven implementation across regions: Credit scoring guidelines that strictly require formal salary slips often flag young people with disabilities as “unbankable.” Because these individuals frequently work flexible hours in the informal economy and face physical mobility challenges, they are systematically blocked from small business loans that their peers can more easily access.
- Gaps between policy intent and lived outcomes: Digital verification processes that require a smartphone and a permanent residency permit often fail elderly displaced persons. These individuals may struggle with a lack of familiarity with smartphone technology while simultaneously facing the migration status challenge of lacking the specific residency papers required to create an account.
As with any political tool, data governance policies will encounter challenges when people begin interacting with the systems, particularly during the registration, application, or compliance phases.
This is normal, as there will always be room for improvement. However, approaching data governance from a multi-dimensional, intersectional lens can reduce the obstacles and/or negative impacts imposed upon people from the most vulnerable and/or marginalised groups in their daily lives. Approaching data governance with an intersectional lens helps identify where and why this breakdown could happen.
