Yesterday, the National Data Group was officially unveiled. This marks a milestone in the market-oriented reform of data elements in China, signifying the creation of a national-level platform to coordinate public data resources and promote the circulation of data elements nationwide. Given the immense potential of the digital economy, market expectations are high. However, the higher the expectations, the more critical it is to calmly examine the strategic goals it bears, its market-oriented pathways, and the hidden pitfalls ahead.
From a macro perspective, the primary goal of establishing the National Data Group is to resolve the long-standing fragmentation of public data resources. Over the past years, various departments and regions have accumulated massive amounts of public data, much of which remains dormant within institutions at all levels, leaving the data value unrealized. Data elements are regarded as the core means of production in the digital era; however, the rules for the opening, rights confirmation, and circulation of public data are not unified, making cross-regional and cross-departmental mobilization difficult. The establishment of the National Data Group takes on the tasks of operating national-level data infrastructure and compliantly developing and utilizing public data. It aims to transform scattered public data resources into circulating, industry-empowering element assets above the security baseline, serving the real economy and the digital transformation of industries. Simultaneously, it shoulders the mission of national security, strictly observing the red lines regarding data export and sensitive data leakage. In exploring the marketization of data elements, it must establish a replicable security control system to prevent various risks arising from the disorderly flow of data.
As a national-level platform, the operation of the National Data Group cannot follow the traditional administrative management model; it must adhere to market-oriented operational logic. Its core focus is not simply to collect and hoard data, but to build a trusted data circulation foundation and establish standardized mechanisms for data asset registration, evaluation, desensitization, and trading. The Group should act as a provider of platforms and rules, rather than monopolizing all data businesses. It can export data service capabilities to sectors such as the industrial sector, finance, transportation, and agriculture, and jointly develop scenario-based applications with local governments and industry players.
The opportunities are clear. There is robust demand for the upgrading of the domestic digital industry. The digitalization of manufacturing, smart cities, and government services all require high-quality public data support. Once the unified platform is established, it will reduce the high costs for enterprises to interface with multiple departments to obtain data, lower the threshold for small and medium-sized enterprises to use public data, and foster a range of new data application formats. The credibility of a national-level platform can also dispel market entities' concerns regarding data sources and compliance, thereby invigorating the entire data element market.
However, the difficulties and challenges warrant far more vigilance than the opportunities. First and foremost, it is crucial to avoid repeating the pitfalls of the broadcasting network's 'National One Network' integration. In the past, the broadcasting network relied on administrative power to drive the integration of provincial networks. The interest demands of local entities were inconsistent, making the degree of control difficult to balance. Over-regulation would dampen local enthusiasm, while a lack of oversight would reduce the integration to a mere formality, leaving assets, operations, and personnel unable to achieve deep integration over the long term. The situation faced by the National Data Group will be even more complex. Local data groups have been successively established across the country, and many local companies have already developed their own business systems, teams, and revenue models. The relationship between the national platform and local data enterprises is not a simple superior-subordinate affiliation. Defining rights and responsibilities and designing a benefit distribution mechanism will be the first major test. Relying solely on administrative orders to forcibly consolidate local data is highly likely to trigger local resistance, reducing data integration to a merger on paper only.
The second challenge is to dismantle the deeply entrenched information silos. Years of departmental fragmentation have left data under the jurisdiction of various competent authorities, many of which harbor inherent concerns about data opening. Opening data entails liability risks; if desensitization is inadequate, it could lead to information leakage. Many departments prefer to avoid unnecessary trouble and are reluctant to proactively open their data. Dismantling these silos cannot be achieved merely through a single document from the Group. It requires the simultaneous implementation of supporting systems, clear division of responsibilities, and security audit mechanisms. Otherwise, the national-level platform will only acquire a small amount of low-value data, making it difficult to form genuine data assets.
The most difficult aspect to balance is the relationship between market interests and national security. Data elements possess asset attributes and inherently carry the impulse for commercial monetization. Capital will pursue high-value data and continuously explore commercial scenarios. However, public data differs from ordinary commodities. If revenue scale is pursued unilaterally, issues such as over-exploitation, non-compliant desensitization, and the disorderly provision of data externally are likely to arise. Conversely, if security is overemphasized and business approvals are tightened at every level, market operations will be paralyzed, rendering the data element reform meaningless. The National Data Group must strictly observe its boundaries: for public data development, security is the prerequisite, and commercialization can only proceed within the security framework. Security thresholds must not be relaxed for the sake of revenue.
There is no ready-made template to follow for the data element reform. The establishment of the National Data Group is merely a starting point, not the finish line. Integrating resources, rationalizing central-local relations, and balancing security with the market—every step tests both top-level design and execution capabilities. It must forge a new path that leverages the coordination advantages of a national-level platform while preserving local innovation vitality, ensuring that public data genuinely serves the real economy rather than becoming a vehicle for a new round of resource gaming. Only by rationalizing the interest mechanism and holding firm to the security bottom line can the value of data elements be steadily unlocked.
Editor-in-Charge/Layout: Sun Tian
Proofreader: Mei Yaxin
Supervisor: Liu Qicheng