Nils Niitra wrote in a commentary published on ERR, "We wanted a leaner state, but instead got a digital parasite": "Estonia's digital state was supposed to be like a well‑fitting suit, but in reality it increasingly resembles a latex costume that squeezes in the wrong places, makes you sweat and constantly needs patching. /.../ Too much money in Estonia is spent giving old bureaucracy a new latex costume, new makeup and a new marketing story."

I do not know what experience fellow countrymen commenting on the digital state have with latex costumes, nor why the digital state should be compared to them, but it is clear that any garment is likely to be uncomfortable when the tailor has little experience.

A tailor who has fulfilled many different orders and received feedback from a wide range of clients is more likely to foresee where something may pinch or tear and adjust their work accordingly from the outset. But if we expect the same craftsman to do everything for the village — repair car tires as well as sew suits — it is no surprise if the result is not what was desired or if the jacket is sometimes even made of rubber.

The same applies to digital state development. Some frustration with current development practices is justified, but there is no need to denounce the digital state as such, which saves people in Estonia billions of working hours each year and, with that, billions of euros. Estonia's digital state is by far the most convenient and opportunity-rich in the world. The problem lies elsewhere. Specifically, the state should not even attempt to be, in addition to a designer and provider of public services, also a software developer. Let every cobbler stick to their last.

The specific information systems and platforms of the digital state are provided far better by Estonia's IT companies with broad international experience. The state, however, must be a highly competent client when commissioning development. Unfortunately, the state tends to commission in a clumsy way and does not create space for innovation. Changing this mode of operation would resolve the majority of reasons why complaints about the digital state occasionally arise. Nils Niitra has usefully drawn attention to the excessively large scale of the state's own so-called IT houses — software development units within various agencies. He is far from the only one to have written about this and I fully agree with him.

The state should not interfere in a well-functioning and efficient IT market. The savings of taxpayer money would be significant. It is more economical and yields higher quality to procure the development of digital state systems through rigorous public tenders from Estonia's top-tier IT sector than to try to duplicate IT companies within the state apparatus.

The prerequisite for these taxpayer savings is smart procurement. Digitalization is a tool for reducing costs and increasing efficiency, but it is effective only when problems are addressed holistically, not on the basis of individual ministries or the state's internal IT units.

The state should never simply commission the writing of software; it should require and also trust that an experienced IT company will find the most reliable and user-friendly solution to the problem posed. And why not also assume responsibility, under a transparent payment model, for ensuring over the years that the system functions and keeps pace with the times. The solution lies in that well-worn mantra: cooperation.

Nils Niitra, myself and many others have been troubled by disruptions in the operation of some digital state systems. These have indeed stemmed from the lack of such a division of labor. A new leap in quality will emerge when we find new forms of cooperation within the state to make use of the experience Estonian companies have gained from implementing large-scale projects around the world for the benefit of Estonian taxpayers.

It is very important to recognize that Estonia's largest software development companies earn the lion's share — over 90 percent in the case of the biggest — of their revenue abroad. It would be more efficient in every respect to continuously apply this experience to the development of Estonia's digital state as well.

At the same time, creating new domestic reference projects in pioneering state e-solutions could serve as a springboard for even greater Estonian IT exports and tax revenue. The state, IT companies and most importantly every resident of Estonia would benefit both as taxpayers and as users of digital public services.

Niitra raised important questions: "In 2026, instead of endlessly adding new IT layers, we should ask which state IT investments in the past five years have actually reduced officials' workload. Which have measurably shortened processing times? Which have allowed the closure of an old system, the elimination of a duplicate requirement or prevented the need to create a new job?"

Although these may have been intended as rhetorical, I will answer them nonetheless. The success stories of Estonia's digital state remain unique worldwide and there are many of them. Who can recall the last time they had to do any of the following by physically visiting an office:

• declare income at a Tax and Customs Board service office;
• visit a doctor to obtain a prescription;
• submit an application for marriage or divorce at a vital statistics office;
• go to a city or municipal government to register a change of residence;
• stand in line to apply for childbirth benefits;
• submit school enrollment documents in person or communicate with a child's school via a paper diary;
• submit separate applications or data in person for any business-related procedures.

The common denominator of successful digital state developments is that the state's initial assignment was sufficiently precise in terms of the desired outcome, while not overly intrusive in the technical solution. Anyone may compare digital systems to a suit, a latex costume or any other garment. In successful cases, however, the tailoring has been top-notch and the result elegant. May there be more such effective cooperation between the state as a smart client and Estonia's digital tailors.

It is clear that the key to our continued success lies in clear priorities, cooperation and a division of responsibility between the private and public sectors. The most important joint effort in the coming years is to map out which critical digital services the state must build itself, which can be procured from the private sector and which are worth delegating to it entirely.

We are the only digital state in the world that has functioned effectively for more than 25 years, with public e-services covering such a broad and comprehensive range of areas of life. This unique strength of Estonia should not be diminished, but preserved together and continuously improved.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!