Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators GLOBAL... · the global status of ICT indicators...
Transcript of Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators GLOBAL... · the global status of ICT indicators...
PARTNERSHIP ON MEASURING ICT
FOR DEVELOPMENT
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicatorsPartnership on Measuring ICT for Development
PARTNERSHIP ON MEASURING ICT
FOR DEVELOPMENT
Measuring ICT: the Global Status of ICT IndicatorsPartnership on Measuring ICT for Development
Copyright © 2005 United Nations ICT Task Force
All rights reserved. Except for use in a review, the reproduction or utilization of this work or part of itin any form or by electronics, or other means now known or hereafter invented, including xerography,photocopying, recording, and in any information storage, transmission or retrieval system, includingCD-ROM, online or via the Internet, is forbidden without the written permission of the publishers.
The views expressed in this book are those of their individual authors and do not necessarily reflect theviews or positions of the United Nations ICT Task Force, the United Nations itself, any of its organs oragencies, nor of any other organizations or institutions mentioned or discussed in this book, including
the organizations to which the authors are affiliated.
Published byThe United Nations Information and Communication Technologies Task Force
One United Nations PlazaNew York, NY [email protected]
Foreword
Following the World Summit on Information Society
(WSIS) held in Geneva 2003, countries and regions
were called upon to develop tools for measuring and
monitoring progress toward the Information Society,
including basic ICT indicators. To that end, several
key stakeholders involved in the statistical
measurement of the Information Society joined forces
in a global ‘Partnership on Measuring ICT for
Development’, which was launched in June 2004.
The purpose of this report is to synthesize the results
of a stocktaking exercise on ICT indicators undertaken
by the Partnership. On behalf of the partnership, the
UN Regional Commissions and UNCTAD, sent a
questionnaire on the status of ICT indicators to
179 countries. The questionnaire aimed to take stock
of the status of official Information Society statistics
in developing countries. The results are presented by
region, together with two chapters on global issues
concerning household and business ICT indicators
(these chapters also include information on the
availability of ICT indicators in OECD countries).
The report was consolidated by José Cervera as
consultant to the UN ICT Task Force based on the
analysis made by regional commissions, ITU and
UNCTAD, who received inputs from the
Partnership members and several National
Statistical Offices. The coordination of the report
was done by UNCTAD. Jenifer Johnston, on behalf
of the UN ICT Task Force, edited the report.
Formatting and layout was provided by the ITU
while the UN ICT Task Force sponsored the
printing of the publication.
The Partnership thanks the National Statistical Offices
and, other national institutions that responded to the
questionnaire and, provided information on the
availability of ICT indicators and statistical sources
in their respective countries.
Geneva, July 2005.
iii
ContentsCHAPTER 0. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1Section 0.1 The Partnership on “Measuring ICT for Development” ................................................................. 1Section 0.2 The Global Stocktaking Exercise on ICT Indicators ...................................................................... 2Section 0.3 Methodology and Structure of the Report ...................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER 1. ICT HOUSEHOLD INDICATORS ........................................................................................ 9Section 1.1 Demand for household ICT indicators .......................................................................................... 11Section 1.2 Availability of household ICT indicators ...................................................................................... 14Section 1.3 Statistical sources for the collection of household ICT indicators ............................................... 18Section 1.4 Issues for further work on household ICT indicators ................................................................... 21
CHAPTER 2. ICT INDICATORS IN THE BUSINESS SECTOR ............................................................ 23Section 2.1 Demand for ICT Business Indicators ........................................................................................... 25Section 2.2 Availability of ICT Business Indicators ........................................................................................ 28Section 2.3 Statistical sources for the collection of ICT business indicators .................................................. 32Section 2.4 Issues for further work on ICT business indicators ...................................................................... 34
CHAPTER 3. STATUS OF ICT INDICATORS IN AFRICA..................................................................... 35Section 3.1 Notes on the Regional Data Collection ........................................................................................ 36Section 3.2 Institutional Environment for ICT Indicators in Africa ................................................................ 40Section 3.3 ICT Indicators in Households in Africa ........................................................................................ 46Section 3.4 ICT Indicators in Business in Africa ............................................................................................. 52Section 3.5 ICT Indicators in Other Sectors in Africa ..................................................................................... 56
CHAPTER 4. STATUS OF ICT INDICATORS IN CENTRAL ASIA AND CENTRAL ANDEASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES ....................................................................................................... 59Section 4.1 Notes on the Regional Data Collection ........................................................................................ 60Section 4.2 Institutional Environment for ICT indicators in Central Asia and Central and
Eastern European Countries .................................................................................................................... 63Section 4.3 ICT Indicators in Households in Central Asia and Central and Eastern European countries ....... 69Section 4.4 ICT Indicators in Business in Central Asia and Central and Eastern European Countries ........... 75Section 4.5 ICT Indicators in other Sectors in Central Asia and Central and Eastern European Countries .... 79
CHAPTER 5. STATUS OF ICT INDICATORS IN WESTERN ASIA ...................................................... 81Section 5.1 Notes on the Regional Data Collection ........................................................................................ 82Section 5.2 Institutional Environment for ICT Indicators in Western Asia ..................................................... 85Section 5.3 ICT Household Indicators in Western Asia .................................................................................. 90Section 5.4 ICT Indicators in Business in Western Asia .................................................................................. 95Section 5.5 ICT Indicators in Other Sectors in Western Asia1 ........................................................................ 98
CHAPTER 6. STATUS OF ICT INDICATORS IN ASIA-PACIFIC ......................................................... 99Section 6.1 Notes on the Regional Data Collection ...................................................................................... 100Section 6.2 Institutional Environment for ICT Indicators in Asia-Pacific ..................................................... 104Section 6.3 ICT Household Indicators in Asia-Pacific .................................................................................. 110Section 6.4 ICT Business Indicators in Asia-Pacific ..................................................................................... 114Section 6.5 ICT Indicators in other sectors in Asia-Pacific ........................................................................... 118
CHAPTER 7. STATUS OF ICT INDICATORS IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN ...... 121Section 7.1 Notes on the Regional Data Collection ...................................................................................... 122Section 7.2 Institutional Environment for ICT Indicators in the Region ....................................................... 125Section 7.3 ICT Household Indicators in Latin America and the Caribbean ................................................. 133Section 7.4 ICT Business Indicators in Latin America and the Caribbean .................................................... 138Section 7.5 ICT Indicators in other sectors in Latin America and the Caribbean.......................................... 143
CHAPTER 8. CONCLUDING NOTES...................................................................................................... 145Section 8.1 Considerations on the Stocktaking Exercise ............................................................................... 145Section 8.2 Institutional Arrangements for the Collection of ICT Statistics .................................................. 146Section 8.3 Issues for Further Methodological Work on ICT Indicators ....................................................... 148
ANNEX. COUNTRY TABLES ................................................................................................................... 151
LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................ 173
v
1
Chapter 0. Introduction
Chapter 0. Introduction
Section 0.1 The Partnership on “Measuring ICT for Development”
At the World Summit on the Information Society(WSIS) in Geneva in December 2003, world leadersand heads of state highlighted the importance ofbenchmarking and measuring progress toward theinformation society. In the WSIS action plan, countriesand international organisations were called upon toallocate appropriate resources for the provision of ICTstatistics and to develop effective measurementmethodologies including basic ICT indicators and ananalysis of the state of the information society.
In response, the key stakeholders involved in thestatistical measurement of the Information Societyincluding the International Telecommunication Union(ITU), the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation andDevelopment (OECD), Eurostat, the United NationsConference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), theUN ICT Task Force, four UN Regional Commissions(UNECA, UNECLAC, UNESCAP and UNESCWA),the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) and the WorldBank, all joined forces to create a global Partnership for‘Measuring ICT for Development’. The Partnership wasofficially launched during the UNCTAD XI conferenceheld in Brazil in June 2004.
The main objectives of the Partnership are thefollowing:
(i) To agree on a common set of core ICT indicatorsthat are comparable at the international level;
(ii) To assist in building the statistical capacity indeveloping countries, and
(iii) To set up a global database for hosting data oncore ICT indicators.
To achieve these objectives, the respective partnershave combined resources and coordinated activitiesrelated to measurement of the information society. Oneof the first activities undertaken on behalf of thepartnership was a statistical workshop on ‘Monitoringthe Information Society: Data, Measurement &Methods’ held as a side event at WSIS in Geneva.The workshop, organized jointly by UNECE,UNCTAD, OECD, ITU, UIS and Eurostat, led to anagreement that the UN Regional Commissions andother regional organisations would hold regionalmeetings on monitoring Information Society issues,bringing together both users and suppliers of officialstatistics, such as the National Statistical Offices(NSOs).
The role of the NSOs from both developed anddeveloping countries has been of utmost importanceto the Partnership. In developed countries, NSOs haveprovided guidance on methodologies and experiencesin ICT data collection, analysis and dissemination.Whereas, NSOs from developing countries havevoiced their challenges and needs with regards to ICTmeasurement, making the Partnership a practicalforum for exchanging experiences.
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
2
Section 0.2 The Global Stocktaking Exercise on ICT Indicators
In order to assess the status of ICT indicators withineach region, the Partnership undertook a globalexercise to collect information from all countriesregarding the statistical measurement of ICT. Thisproject, referred to as the ‘global stocktaking exercise’,entailed the UN Regional Commissions and UNCTADworking together to disseminate a harmonisedquestionnaire (in Appendix) to each country accordingto a specific geographical division of tasks (outlinedin the corresponding chapters of this report).
The questionnaire was divided into four main sectionsas described in Table 0.1. The questionnaire did notask for concrete statistics on the penetration, use orimpact of ICT in the participant countries, but ratherfocused on the institutional and technical systemsestablished for collecting ICT statistics in general.Secondly the questionnaire requested data on theavailability of a concrete set of ICT indicators. A largenumber of countries responded, which form the basis ofthe present report. These ‘data about data’ or metadatawere stored in databases designed for the task.
The selection of a specific set of metadata to describestatistical results and operations is often discussedduring statistical meetings. As a result, some attemptshave been made to establish a comparable set ofmetadata at the international level (Eurostat, OECD,UNECE). In order to describe the statistical standardsof a particular topic, several institutions use metadataframeworks such as the Special Data DisseminationSystem (SDDS) and the General Data DisseminationSystem (GDDS) or the Data Quality AssessmentFramework (DQAF) which cover the technical andinstitutional aspects of the statistical system.
More specifically, the metadata referred to in theglobal stocktaking exercise provided information onthe following:
• the institutional environment: institutions carryingout statistical operations that provide ICTindicators, the financing framework, the level ofdemand for ICT indicators
• the nature of statistical operations providing theindicators and some of their methodological aspects(data collection method, sample size and responserate, observation unit)
• the current and foreseeable availability of twospecific sets of twenty ICT indicators forhouseholds and business
The questionnaire did not seek detailed informationon key metadata at the indicator level, such as:
• definitions used (for example, the concepts of‘presence’, ‘access’ or ‘use’ of ICT equipment,
• method of calculation (estimates for persons orhouseholds, use of population denominators, etc.)and estimates of indicators’ reliability (accuracy)
• disaggregations available for each indicator andcategories considered (for example, age intervals,firm size, etc.)
• last reference year for available and timely datadissemination (difference between reference anddissemination dates).
3
Chapter 0. Introduction
Table 0.1. Sections in the Metadata Questionnaire
noitceS stnetnoC
noitceSlareneG)A noitinifedTCIscitsitatsTCIroftegduB
scitsitatsTCIfonoitacilbuP
scitsitatSdlohesuoHTCI)B srotacidnidlohesuohTCIgnidivorpsnoitarepolacitsitatSforebmunlatotdnaselbairavTCIforebmun(snoitarepolacitsitatsfonoitasilaicepS
)selbairavsnoitagerggasidatadfoytilibaliavA
noitcellocatadfoepyt,tinunoitavresbo(ecnamrofrepdnaygolodohtemnoitcellocataD)etaresnopser,eziselpmas,epocs/esrevinu,dohtem
snoitarepolacitsitatsforadnelaCsrotacidnidlohesuohTCIrofdnamedfoleveL
srotacidnidlohesuohTCI02fotesetercnocafoytilibaliavAscitsitatsdlohesuohTCIgnitcellocsOSNnahtrehtosnoitutitsnI
ssenisuBniTCI)C srotacidnissenisubTCIgnidivorpsnoitarepolacitsitatSforebmunlatotdnaselbairavTCIforebmun(snoitarepolacitsitatsfonoitasilaicepS
)selbairavsnoitagerggasidatadfoytilibaliavA
noitcellocatadfoepyt,tinunoitavresbo(ecnamrofrepdnaygolodohtemnoitcellocataD)etaresnopser,eziselpmas,epocs/esrevinu,dohtem
snoitarepolacitsitatsforadnelaCsrotacidnissenisubTCIrofdnamedfoleveL
srotacidnissenisubTCI02fotesetercnocafoytilibaliavAscitsitatsssenisubTCIgnitcellocsOSNnahtrehtosnoitutitsnI
scitsitatSTCIrofsaerArehtO)D saerarehtonisrotacidniTCIgnidivorpsnoitarepolacitsitatSforebmunlatotdnaselbairavTCIforebmun(snoitarepolacitsitatsfonoitasilaicepS
)selbairavsnoitagerggasidatadfoytilibaliavA
snoitarepolacitsitatsforadnelaCscitsitatsssenisubTCIgnitcellocsOSNnahtrehtosnoitutitsnI
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
4
Section 0.3 Methodology and Structure of the Report
The final report of the joint UNECE/UNCTAD/UIS/ITU/OECD/Eurostat Statistical Workshop onMonitoring the Information Society, held in December2003, recommended that the five UN RegionalCommissions organise in 2004 a meeting related to issueson the statistical monitoring of information society,within each region. The regional workshops should bringtogether users and producers of official statistics, andshould provide input for the global meetings in 2005.
Regional seminars were therefore organised inWestern Asia (October 2004), Africa (October 2004,January 2005) and Latin America and the Caribbean(November 2004)1. The follow-up global meeting heldin Geneva (7-9 February 2005) took stock of theseregional seminars. Most of the material presentedduring that conference, as well as the regional events,has been used as input to the present report2.Documents for other international meetings (such asthe UN Statistical Commission) were also considered.
The regional stocktaking exercises results werepresented in different formats, with a focus onregionally relevant aspects. This report attempts to
standardise these results and integrate the findings intoa common framework.
The questionnaire results were stored in five MSAccess databases. Three of the five regions shared acommon table and field structure. UNECLAC andUNESCWA used a different structure. The additionof external information to the information collectedin the questionnaires improved the qualitativeknowledge on metadata on ICT indicators.
a. Geographical Coverage
The same regional divisions made for data collectionfrom each country were also used in the chapterreports. For this reason, country results are dividedinto the following five regions according to theorganisation responsible for sending and analysing thecountry questionnaire: Africa (collected by UNECA),Central Asia and Central and Eastern Europeancountries3 (collected by UNCTAD), Western Asia4
(collected by UNESCWA), Asia-Pacific (collected byUNESCAP) and Latin America and the Caribbean(collected by UNECLAC).
1 Although no such meeting could be organised for Asia an the Pacific, inputs from selected countries of Asia and thePacific, which met in Wellington, New Zealand (30 November-2 December 2004), were also taken into account
2 The consultant wishes to thank in particular the help of Roberto Pagan (UNESCAP), Hesham Auda (UNESCWA),Doris Olaya and Martin Hilbert (OSILAC/UNECLAC), Simon Ellis (UNESCO Institute for Statistics), MartinSchaaper (OECD), Esperanza Magpantay (ITU), Christine Zhen-Wei Qiang (World Bank), Susan Teltscher andScarlett Fondeur (UNCTAD). For national reports, help was provided by Virginia Bâlea (INS Romania) and theDeputy Director-General of INSTAT Madagascar.
3 The region also includes Andorra, Liechtenstein and Monaco. UNCTAD collected data from all UNECE membercountries, except those that are members of the OECD or the EU.
4 Data from Egypt, while included in the sub-region of Northern Africa, were collected by UNESCWA (of which it is amember State) and therefore included in the Western Asia region.
5
Chapter 0. Introduction
Associate members of the UN Regional Commissionsand non-sovereign territories were generally notincluded in the stocktaking exercises.
The status of ICT indicators in OECD countries isnot described in detail in this report, with the exceptionof Mexico and Turkey whose information wascollected by UNECLAC and UNCTAD respectively.For other OECD countries, only the availability ofthe set of 40 indicators on household and businesseswere considered in chapters 1 and 2.
b. Analysis of the Response Rate
The questionnaire was sent to a total of 179 countries,of which 86 countries returned the questionnaire.
The coverage of the stocktaking exercise has beenassessed in terms of population and share of GDP forthe respondent countries. This analysis was alsocorrelated with income levels and digital access levels(Table 0.2). International statistical sources forpopulation, GDP, GDP per capita and Digital AccessIndex (DAI) were used to classify the countries intoincome level and digital access groups, and to weightthe response rate. More specifically, the populationdatabases from the United Nations Statistical Division
5 Economies are divided into groups according to the following intervals: low income, USD 765 or less; lower middleincome, USD 766 to USD 3.035; upper middle income, USD 3.036 to USD 9,385; and high income, USD 9,386 andabove. Purchasing power parities are used.
6 The Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macao are however included in the metadata collection.
were used (reference year: 2002), as well as the WorldBank’s classification of per capita income levels5 andthe ITU digital access levels (reference year: 2002).Indeed, considering the percentage of responses as ameasure of coverage of the stocktaking exercise givesthe same weight to small and populous countries, orto small and large economies. In the case of ICT inhouseholds, the coverage was assessed not only withthe percentage of countries answering thequestionnaire, but also in terms of the population thatthose countries represented within the region. Forbusiness ICT indicators, the coverage was weightedaccording to each country’s share of regional GDP.
Africa and Asia-Pacific were not well covered by thesurvey results. A supplementary effort is required toinclude countries such as China6, Nigeria and South-Africa which are missing in the stocktaking exercise.This would improve the accuracy of the results forthese countries respective regions.
Several sub-regions are also poorly represented, such asSmall Pacific Islands, Central Asian countries and Sub-Saharan Africa. Given that their statistical systems arestill in a developmental stage, the overall picture,presented this report, on the availability of ICT indicatorsin developing countries could be too optimistic.
Table 0.2. Coverage of the Stocktaking Exercise
noigeR
fosmretniegarevoC
forebmuNtnednopseR
seirtnuoC
lanoigeRnoitalupoP
PDGlanoigeR
acirfA 25fotuo91 %24 %92
seirtnuocnaeporuEnretsaEdnalartneCdnaaisAlartneC 42fotuo91 %98 %59
aisAnretseW 31fotuo01 %38 %38
cificaP-aisA 44fotuo81 %15 %05
naebbiraCehtdnaaciremAnitaL 63fotuo02 %19 %59
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
6
In terms of income level and digital access level,Table 0.3 summarises the coverage. The pattern issimilar in most regions except for Western Asia. Ingeneral, countries with low income and low digitalaccess level did not have as high response rates to thequestionnaire. The reverse occurred in Western Asiadue to the lack of information from Bahrain and theUnited Arab Emirates (Table 0.3).
Consequentially, further analysis is needed to betterunderstand the demand for and production of ICTindicators in poor countries. The lack of resources forstatistical work may explain these countries inabilityto respond to the metadata questionnaire.
c. Analysis of Demand for Indicators
An item was included in the metadata questionnaireto assess the demand for ICT indicators in thehousehold and business sectors. Since thequestionnaire was addressed to NSOs, the assessmentof demand is limited, in this report, to the producers’viewpoint, and no further information was collectedon the users’ viewpoint.
The existence of national ICT policies would indicatedemand for indicators, however no information onindicators used in the national policies is availableyet. Additional information such as the existence ofinter-institutional working groups (composed byNSOs, authorities for ICT and other line ministries),
Table 0.3. Coverage according to Income Level and Digital Access Level
the presence of ICT authorities in the NationalStatistical Councils (where these are functional), theinclusion of ICT indicators in National StatisticalProgrammes (where these are in place) and thepreparation of joint publications could give furtherinsight into the level of demand for ICT indicatorsand the possible response to it by statisticalinstitutions.
d. Analysis of Availability of Indicators
The availability of each individual indicator (forhouseholds as well as for businesses) is assessedaccording to the responses to the metadataquestionnaire. This includes the currentavailability, as well as the status in one year and inthree years as planned by the respondentinstitutions (which is no guarantee of effectiveimplementation).
In order to compile the availability of each indicatorat the regional level, two measures have beenproduced: the percentage of respondent countries inthe region that reported the availability of the indicator,and a weighted version of the same, using as weightsthe percentage of population (for householdindicators) and share of GDP (for business indicators)for each country in the region. The weighted measurescan be used as proxies for the regional coverage ofthe universe of all households or all productive unitsin the region.
noigeRotgnidroccaegarevoC
leveemocnI leveLsseccAlatigiD
acirfA elddim-rewolfoegarevoCroopsiseirtnuocemocni
seirtnuocIADwolfoegarevoCroopsi
seirtnuocnaeporuEnretsaEdnalartneCdnaaisAlartneC emocniwolfoegarevoCroopsiseirtnuoc
seirtnuocIADwolfoegarevoCroopsi
aisAnretseW emocnihgihfoegarevoCroopsiseirtnuoc
IADreppufoegarevoCroopsiseirtnuoc
cificaP-aisA emocniwolfoegarevoCroopsiseirtnuoc
egralarofelbaliavatonIADegarevoC.seirtnuocforebmunroopsiseirtnuocIADwolfo
naebbiraCehtdnaaciremAnitaL emocniwolfoegarevoCroopsiseirtnuoc
IADwolfoegarevocoNseirtnuoc
7
Chapter 0. Introduction
e. Structure of the Report
The report includes seven main chapters. Chapters 1and 2 relate to global results on ICT indicators inhouseholds and businesses. Chapters 3 to 7 correspondto the regional reports from Africa, Central Asia andCentral and Eastern European, Western Asia, Asia-Pacific and Latin America and the Caribbean. A finalconcluding note provides some lessons learned fromthe exercise, and makes suggestions on furthermethodological work for collecting ICT statistics.
Inside each regional chapter, four main sections arepresented:
1. Notes on the Regional Data Collection
This section describes the coverage of the stocktakingexercise in the region, according to the regional reportsand registries in the databases. The methodology usedfor assessing coverage is described above, weightedby country population and share of GDP to obtain anindex for the availability of ICT indicators inhouseholds and businesses respectively.
2. Institutional Environment for ICT Indicators intheRegion
This section first describes the existing demand forICT indicators at the national and regional levels,based on the assessments reported by the respondentsto the questionnaires.
The results for existing demand should be interpretedwith caution due to their high degree of subjectivity.Not all Statistical Offices in developing countries haveestablished formal mechanisms for consulting withusers, and in many cases, the existing mechanismsestablished by the Law (such as National StatisticalCommissions) include only governmentrepresentatives (and not civil society or the businesscommunity) or, are not functional.
The demand has been analysed according to digitalaccess level, in order to assess whether there isevidence of a correlation between high access anddemand for indicators. Theoretically, the existence ofnational ICT policies should provide the basis for ahigh demand for indicators. It is then logical toconclude that a high digital access level is related tothe existence of an ICT national policy and thereforewith a high demand.
The second section describes the types of institutionsresponsible for statistical operations providing ICTindicators. NSOs, relevant Ministries(Communications, Education, Science andTechnology, etc.), other national authorities(Regulatory bodies, Interministerial Commissions)and private organisations (Universities, Researchinstitutes and professional associations) may besources of data and information.
As well, this section reports on the existence ofresources for the production of ICT indicators, namely,financial resources and inter-institutionalcollaboration. The analysis has been carried out inrelation to demand level, in order to assess the linkagesbetween adequate resources and real needs.
The use of a formal definition for ICT, which may beunderstood as a proxy for the interest in producingstatistical indicators, is also analysed in this section.The lack of precision in the questionnaire about theuse of ‘some sort of ICT definition’ did not allowfurther assessments on the international comparabilityof the concepts.
Finally, a list of surveys indicating the number of ICT-related variables and dates for the last data collectionoperations are given for both the household and onbusiness sectors.
3. ICT in Households
This section goes into further detail on ICT indicatorsfor access and use in households. The different topicsinvestigated relate to methodological characteristicssuch as the sources of information, survey vehiclesused to collect ICT household data; the disseminationof data, the availability of a concrete set of 20indicators and the social classifications that can beused to get disaggregated ICT statistics.
The analysis of disaggregation classificationsavailable, very much related to the purpose and designof the surveys that provide the data on which ICTindicators are built, takes into account the answers tothe questionnaire, but is complemented – wheneverpossible - by information from the methodology usedwhen the surveys correspond to internationalprogrammes (such as the Living StandardsMeasurement Survey).
Detailed tables describing which ICT householdindicators are currently available and planned for the
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
8
next year and for the next three years are given intables A3 to A8bis. The number corresponds to thechapter. Tables A8 and A8bis refer to OECD countries.Tables linking the type of statistical operation to theindicator collected in each country are included aswell (tables B3 to B7).
4. ICT in Business
This section analyses the use of different types ofbusiness surveys and other statistical sources forcompiling ICT indicators in the business sector.
Second, it describes the availability of indicators ineach region, both in terms of number of countriescollecting them and of the share of regional GDP thatthese countries represent. This ratio can be used as aproxy for the importance of the national businesssector in the region.
Also, the section includes an analysis of the possibilityof disaggregating ICT indicators, based on theclassification variables that are used as breakdowns in
the surveys providing the indicators. Since no detailedinformation is provided about sample size, sample designand classifications used (for sector, for size intervals,etc.), it is not possible, at this stage, to evaluate thepossibility of harmonising indicator breakdowns.
Detailed tables describing which business ICTindicators are currently available, planned for the nextyear and planned for the next three years are given intables C3 to C8bis. The number corresponds to thechapter. Tables C8 and C8bis refer to OECD countries.Tables linking the type of statistical operation to theindicator collected in each country are included aswell (tables D3 to D7).
5. ICT indicators in other fields
Finally, selected statistical sources on the access andusage of ICT in other sectors (government, education,health, etc.) and on other topics (production of ICT,analysis of the ICT sector, etc.) are listed. Suchinformation is limited however therefore furtherresearch may be required to fill this gap.
9
Chapter 1. ICT Household Indicators
Chapter 1. ICT Household Indicators
This chapter synthesises the status of ICT householdindicators in the regions covered by the stocktakingexercise with a specific focus on the list of 20 indicatorsproposed in the metadata questionnaire (Table 1.1). Italso includes additional information about the availabilityof ICT indicators in OECD countries.
No formal definition is given for any of the20 indicators proposed. Therefore, it is not possible,
Table 1.1. Indicators on ICT in households included in the questionnaire
at this stage, to provide an analysis of data over timeor, even compare the data on an international scale.
This chapter is structured as follows. The firstsection provides an analysis of the demand for ICThousehold indicators within each region – Africa,Central Asia and Central and European Countries,Western Asia, Asia-Pacific and Latin America andthe Caribbean.
dlohesuohniyticirtcelefoecneserP)1
dlohesuohnioidarfoecneserP)2
dlohesuohnienilenohpeletdexiffoecneserP)3
dlohesuohnienohpelibomfoecneserP)4
dlohesuohniVTfoecneserP)5
dlohesuohniretupmocafoecneserP)6
dlohesuohnisseccatenretnIfoecneserP)7
dlohesuohniesutenretnIrofhtdiwdnab/sseccafosdohteM)8
tenretnIfoesutneuqerftsomehtfonoitacoL)9
esutenretnIfoycneuqerF)01
esuCPfoesopruP)11
esutenretnIfoesopruP)21
desusitenretnIehthcihwrofseitivitca/secivresetercnoC)31
detisivsetistenretnIfosegaugnaL)41
tenretnIehtrevodesahcrupsecivres/stcudorpfosepyT)51
tenretnIehtrevodesahcrupsecivres/sdoogfoeulaV)61
egasuCPotsreirraB)71
egasutenretnIotsreirraB)81
tenretnIehtrevosesahcrupotsreirraB)91
desahcruperasdoogtenretnIehterehwnoitacolcihpargoeG)02
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
10
Second, an analysis of the availability of the proposedindicators is presented, based upon the results of thestocktaking exercise. This section concludes by sortingeach of the 20 indicators according to their availability.
The third section reviews the different methodsused for collecting the indicators — including the
statistical instruments employed for gatheringindividual data from households — and therespective institutions collecting the data.
Finally, areas for further development of ICThousehold indicators are identified, based upon thepreceding analysis.
11
Chapter 1. ICT Household Indicators
Section 1.1 Demand for household ICT indicators
Overall, the demand (as perceived by the NSOs) forhousehold ICT indicators is medium to very high(Table 1.2). The Asian-Pacific demand was assessedas very high.(Graph 1.1).
According to income groups, there is no clearrelationship between level of income and level ofdemand (Graph 1.2).
There is no clear relationship between level of incomeand level of demand (Graph 1.2). However, withineach region the level of demand for indicators iscorrelated with income level. There are exceptionshowever. For example some LDCs in Africa perceivea high demand whereas developed countries such asLiechtenstein have assessed a lower demand.
Graph 1.1. Level of demand for household ICT indicators by region
Similarly, the demand for household ICT indicators isnot correlated to the digital access level (as measuredby the Digital Access Index) (Graph 1.3). On the otherhand, demand for these indicators has increased wherenational ICT policies and regional networks of policy-makers and information producers exist. For example,the African Information Society Initiative (AISI) and theSCAN-ICT initiative (see chapter 3), and the differentsectoral observatories in Latin America (such as RICYT,CAIBI and OSILAC, see chapter 7) have increased demandin their corresponding regions. All respondent countries withwidespread digital access have also reported a very highdemand for household ICT indicators.
Since the general demand for household indicatorswas assessed at the country level, it is not possible,
1 2 3 4 5
Asia Pacific
Africa
AVERAGE
Western Asia
Central Asia and Central and Eastern Europe
Latin America and the Caribbean
1 = No demand .... 5 = Very high demand
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
12
Graph 1.2. Level of demand for household ICT indicators by income level
1 2 3 4 5
Low income
Lower-middle
income
Upper-middle
income
High income
1 = No demand .... 5 = Very high demand
at this stage, to evaluate separately the demand foreach individual indicator.
In general, the perception of a high level of demandaccelerates NSOs implementation of statisticaloperations to collect ICT indicators in the
Graph 1.3. Level of demand for household ICT indicators by digital access level
1 2 3 4 5
High Access
Upper Access
Medium Access
Low Access
AVERAGE
1 = No demand .... 5 = Very high demand
household sector. Still, some have not yet satisfiedthe demand, and the opposite is also true. Forexample, in certain countries, such as Palestine andLebanon where demand is perceived to be low, bothhave a wide availability of ICT householdindicators.
13
Chapter 1. ICT Household Indicators
Table 1.2. Demand for household ICT indicators
Note: 79 countries reported on the level of demand for household ICT indicators.
noigeR
leveLdnameD
hgiHyreV hgiH muideM woL dnameDoN
acirfA nineBaisinuT
nacirfAlartneCcilbupeR
ayneKohtoseL
racsagadaMsuitiruaMoccoroM
ainaznaTaibmaZ
aipoihtEaibmaG
regiNadnawRlageneS
enoeLarreiS
nobaGewbabmiZ
citarcomeDognoCfocilbupeR
aisAlartneClartneCdna
naeporuEdnaseirtnuoC
arrodnAlearsIyekruT
aigroeGairagluB
natshkazaKeniarkU
noitaredeFnaissuR
natszygryKavodloM.peR
ainamoRnajiabrezA
aitaorC
nietsnethceiLainemrA
suraleBdnaainsoB
anivogezreH
aisAnretseW nadroJ .peRbarAnairyStpygE
tiawuKnamO
enitselaPrataQ
aibarAiduaSnonabeL
cificaP-aisA RAS,gnoKgnoHanihC
ailognoMainodelaCweN
eropagniSaknaLirS
dnaliahT
aidobmaCaidnI
anihCRAS,oacaMaisyalaM
utaunaV
aisenodnI aisenorciMeuiN
natsikaP
aciremAnitaLehtdna
naebbiraC
rodavlaSlE elihCocixeM
ogaboTdnadadinirTureP
ehtdnatnecniVtniaSsenidanerG
aleuzeneV
aiviloBaibmoloC
aciRatsoClizarB
sodabraBaciamaJyaugurU
dnasttiKtniaSsiveN
.peRnacinimoDyaugaraP
ezileBrodaucE
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
14
Section 1.2 Availability of household ICT indicators
The availability of indicators on ICT equipment andusage in households differs across regions. Nonetheless,patterns exist that allow for the classification of indicatorsinto ‘clusters’. However, the availability in OECDcountries follows a different pattern.
The results of a cluster analysis1 based upon theproportion of countries (where the denominator is thetotal number of responding countries) that collect eachindicator, as compared to the percentage that thesecountries represent in terms of the total population ofthe responding countries, for each region, favours theclassification of the 20 household indicators into5 clusters.
Cluster 1: Indicators with very high availability
This group of indicators includes basic ICT equipment(electricity and fixed telephone line are prerequisitesfor Internet use – except in the case of mobilenetworks). They are available in about 90% of therespondent countries, covering also about 90% of thetotal population within each region2:
• presence of electricity• presence of fixed telephone line• presence of TV
In OECD countries, these indicators are not collectedthrough ICT surveys, but rather from other statistical
sources such as population and housing censuses andhousehold budget and living conditions surveys.
The international compilation of these indicators isjustified by the high number of countries collectingthem and the relative ease with which they can becollected. They pertain to the household unit.
Cluster 2: Indicators with high availability
This group of indicators pertains to more advancedICT equipment for communication, including radio.They are available in about 75% of respondentcountries, which accounts for approximately 80% ofthe population within each region:
• presence of mobile telephone• presence of a personal computer• presence of radio
The international compilation of these indicators isfacilitated by the high level of countries collectingthem. Mobile telephones are more often associated toindividuals and/or households in many countries. Themeasurement of these variables is not difficult usingthe usual statistical instruments and commonlyaccepted definitions.
Africa lags behind other regions in terms of theavailability of these three indicators.
1 Cluster analysis is a multivariate statistical technique that classifies objects (in this case indicators) based on ameasure of the distance between them (here, based on the availability measures). The availability measures in OECDcountries were not included in the multivariate analysis, given the different patterns observed.
2 The measure of availability is based on weights attributed to the percentage of the population covered within eachcountry. The numerator is the total population of respondent countries collecting the indicator, and the denominator isthe total population of respondent countries. It was calculated for each region.
15
Chapter 1. ICT Household Indicators
Cluster 3: Indicators with medium availability .
This group includes only one indicator that is collectedon average3 by 59% of countries and 48% of the regions.
• presence of Internet access
Less than 60% of the respondent countries collect thisindicator.Africa and Central Asia lag behind other regionscollecting this indicator. As this indicator is not availablein India and, no information about China is provided inthe metadata questionnaire, the coverage weighted bypopulation within each region is lowest in Asia-Pacific.
Cluster 4: Indicators with low availability .
This group includes indicators on the use of PCs, typeof Internet access (method and location) and, use ofthe Internet. They are collected by approximately 20%of countries, covering roughly the same proportionof the population within each region.
• Methods of access/bandwidth for Internet usein household
• Location of the most frequent use of Internet• Frequency of Internet use
• Purpose of PC use• Purpose of Internet use• Concrete services / activities for which the
Internet is used
These indicators require clear definitions. Theirinternational comparability can be difficult to assess sincethis would require an analysis of the various responsecategories for each question. Before a comparison ofthese indicators at the international level can beundertaken,, a technical analysis of definitions andcollection methods should be completed. The Partnershipis currently working on this task and will publish arelevant guide for the WSIS Tunis (November 2005).
Cluster 5: Indicators with very low availability .
This group includes the remaining indicators, which arecollected by 10% or fewer countries and by a similarproportion of the population within each region. Theyinclude B2C e-commerce and barriers to ICT usage.
• Languages of Internet sites visited• Types of products/ services purchased over the
Internet• Value of goods/ services purchased over the
Internet
Table 1.3. Countries that have collected 10 or more ICT indicators (household) 4
3 Simple averages do not take into account the number of countries nor the population within each region.
4 Obviously, countries may have many other ICT-related variables collected through their household surveys or otherstatistical operations, besides the 20 proposed in the metadata questionnaire.
noigeR seirtnuoC
acirfA adnawR,suitiruaMracsagadaM,ayneK
nretsaEdnalartneCdnaaisAlartneCseirtnuoCnaeporuE
yekruT,learsI,airagluB,arrodnA
aisAnretseW enitselaP,nonabeL,nadroJ
naebbiraCehtdnaaciremAnitaL ogaboTdnadadinirT,ocixeM,aciRatsoC,aibmoloC,elihC,ezileB,sodabraB
DCEO
,eceerG,ynamreG,dnalniF,kramneD,cilbupeRhcezC,airtsuA,ailartsuAweN,sdnalrehteN,gruobmexuL,aeroK,napaJ,dnalerI,dnalecI,yragnuH
detinU,modgniKdetinU,dnalreztiwS,niapS,lagutroP,dnaloP,yawroN,dnalaeZsetatS
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
16
• Barriers to PC usage• Barriers to Internet usage• Barriers to purchases over the Internet• Geographic location where the Internet goods
are purchased
Currently, the compilation of these indicators at theinternational level is limited due to their very lowavailability within each country. The feasibility ofcollecting them in the near future has to be assessedwhile bearing in mind that, according to the
questionnaire, many countries plan to collect theseindicators in the next three years. Before completing anassessment of the feasibility of collecting theseindicators, additional issues need to be addressed suchas comparable definitions (such as those pertaining tobarriers), classification of products and services and,other technical issues have to be agreed upon.
The following countries have collected more thanhalf of the 20 indicators proposed in thequestionnaire:
Table 1.4. Proportion of countries collecting household ICT indicators
Note: For OECD countries, the availability of indicators on basic access to ICT refers to their collection from specific ICT surveys, and notfrom other statistical sources.
Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
TIn
tern
et a
cces
sIC
T u
sage
Barri
ers to
usa
ge
srotacidnI acirfA nitaLaciremA
dna-ebbiraC
na
-aisAcificaP
tseWaisA
lartneCdnaaisA
EECseirtnuoc
DCEO
dlohesuohniyticirtcelefoecneserP)1 98 59 49 09 48 4
dlohesuohnioidarfoecneserP)2 48 08 76 08 86 4
dlohesuohnienilenohpeletdexiffoecneserP)3 47 001 38 09 48 12
dlohesuohnienohpelibomfoecneserP)4 35 59 87 07 86 97
dlohesuohniVTfoecneserP)5 47 001 87 08 97 28
dlohesuohniretupmocafoecneserP)6 74 001 38 08 47 98
dlohesuohnisseccatenretnIfoecneserP)7 13 001 16 06 24 98
tenretnIrofhtdiwdnab/sseccafosdohteM)8dlohesuohniesu
12 03 33 01 12 68
tenretnIfoesutneuqerftsomehtfonoitacoL)9 12 04 33 0 61 97
esutenretnIfoycneuqerF)01 62 53 33 02 12 28
esuCPfoesopruP)11 62 52 33 03 62 12
esutenretnIfoesopruP)21 12 52 33 03 23 57
ehthcihwrofseitivitca/secivresetercnoC)31desusitenretnI
01 52 71 02 12 97
detisivsetistenretnIfosegaugnaL)41 5 0 6 0 0 0
revodesahcrupsecivres/stcudorpfosepyT)51tenretnIeht
5 02 71 0 61 17
ehtrevodesahcrupsecivres/sdoogfoeulaV)61tenretnI
0 51 71 0 61 34
egasuCPotsreirraB)71 61 01 6 01 11 0
egasutenretnIotsreirraB)81 01 51 71 01 5 75
tenretnIehtrevosesahcrupotsreirraB)91 0 51 11 0 61 75
tenretnIehterehwnoitacolcihpargoeG)02desahcruperasdoog
0 01 6 0 5 0
17
Chapter 1. ICT Household Indicators
Table 1.5. Coverage (% of population with each region) of collected household ICT indicators
Note: For OECD countries, the availability of indicators on basic access to ICT refers to their collection from specific ICT surveys, and notfrom other statistical sources.
Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
TIn
tern
et a
cces
sIC
T u
sage
Barri
ers t
o us
age
The availability of household ICT indicators is correlatedwith the level of digital access, as measured by the DigitalAccess Index. In Africa, for instance, countries withwidespread access have collected on average as manyas 15 of the 20 indicators, while those with lesser digitalaccess have collected, on average, only 6,6.
Detailed information about the availability of eachindicator within each region using both simple andweighted percentages of respondent countries aregiven in Tables 1.4 and 1.5. Tables A3, A4, A5, A6,A7, A8 and A8bis of the Annex summarise the resultsof the stocktaking exercise by country.
srotacidnI acirfA nitaLaciremA
dna-ebbiraC
na
-aisAcificaP
tseWaisA
lartneCdnaaisA
EECseirtnuoc
DCEO
dlohesuohniyticirtcelefoecneserP)1 97 29 001 68 68 1
dlohesuohnioidarfoecneserP)2 87 18 59 17 49 1
dlohesuohnienilenohpeletdexiffoecneserP)3 18 001 69 68 68 25
dlohesuohnienohpelibomfoecneserP)4 35 99 69 07 87 38
dlohesuohniVTfoecneserP)5 47 001 19 58 19 98
dlohesuohniretupmocafoecneserP)6 54 001 38 58 69 79
dlohesuohnisseccatenretnIfoecneserP)7 82 001 21 07 33 79
tenretnIrofhtdiwdnab/sseccafosdohteM)8dlohesuohniesu
72 62 01 2 72 19
tenretnIfoesutneuqerftsomehtfonoitacoL)9 22 14 41 0 12 08
esutenretnIfoycneuqerF)01 82 53 41 6 22 98
esuCPfoesopruP)11 22 43 6 9 11 93
esutenretnIfoesopruP)21 71 43 6 9 03 28
ehthcihwrofseitivitca/secivresetercnoC)31desusitenretnI
81 43 4 5 32 38
detisivsetistenretnIfosegaugnaL)41 3 0 0 0 0 0
revodesahcrupsecivres/stcudorpfosepyT)51tenretnIeht
3 13 4 0 32 25
ehtrevodesahcrupsecivres/sdoogfoeulaV)61tenretnI
0 22 4 0 32 73
egasuCPotsreirraB)71 9 22 1 2 2 0
egasutenretnIotsreirraB)81 9 22 9 2 0 66
tenretnIehtrevosesahcrupotsreirraB)91 0 22 1 0 12 84
tenretnIehterehwnoitacolcihpargoeG)02desahcruperasdoog
0 22 0 0 2 0
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
18
Section 1.3 Statistical sources for the collection of householdICT indicators
Countries collect ICT household indicators in a varietyof ways. Each approach has certain advantages anddrawbacks.
The various sources of data that have been mentionedin the stocktaking exercise include administrativesources, population and housing censuses, householdsurveys that include some ICT-related questions andfinally, ad hoc ICT household surveys.
It is important to note that data from Householdsurveys and censuses provide information at thehousehold level and also at the household memberlevel. This is the case with population censuses andhousehold surveys, where different modules for theentire household (related to non-individualcharacteristics such as housing materials, presence ofdurables, etc.) and the persons in the household, areincluded in the questionnaire.
Administrative sources
Administrative sources are used to collect indicatorson basic access to ICT (in general with the exceptionof indicators on presence of a computer and of Internetaccess in the household).
These types of sources include client subscriptionlists maintained by service providers and regulatoryauthorities. Electricity suppliers, telephone (fixedand mobile) companies, Internet service providersand cable TV companies keep records of theirsubscribers, which can either represent a household(as is the case of fixed telephone) or an individual(the case of mobile telephone), for billing andmarketing purposes.
The recent increase in the number of regulatoryauthorities operating within the telecommunicationssectors in many countries has provided a very efficientsource of data. This source of information was
previously difficult to obtain given the limited numberof providers for some services (especially in leastdeveloped countries), or even the partial control by theGovernment of the telecommunications sector. NSO andother financial institutions can now obtain statistics morecheaply and efficiently from these regulators.
The main drawback of this source of data is thedifficulty in correlating the presence and usage ofequipment with the socio-economic profile of theindividual subscriber, since this information is notgenerally collected. Therefore, per capita indicatorsderived from administrative data may not permit ananalysis of ICT access across different groups of thepopulation, or take into account the demographiccomposition of the country. Also if the administrativedefinitions are not harmonised. on an internationallevel, it is difficult to compare administrative sourcesof data between countries.
Moreover, the access and use of ICT in public places(such as cybercafés, telephone booths, TV or radio insmall rural villages, etc.) is not covered byadministrative sources.
Population and housing censuses
Population and housing censuses are large-scalestatistical operations that aim to collect detailedinformation from every person in the country. Thesecensuses are carried out by the National StatisticalOffices with a low periodicity due to their high costand logistic complexity (UN recommends to carry outa population and housing census every 10 years). Inthis sense, while census results are very useful forpolicy-making in that they provide in-depthinformation, they are not well suited to monitor (asthe only tool) the rapidly changing InformationSociety. Censuses cover not only persons living inhouseholds, but also in public institutions (studentresidences, prisons, hospitals, etc.).
19
Chapter 1. ICT Household Indicators
Population and housing censuses investigate primarilythe basic demographic characteristics of thepopulation (age, sex, education, composition ofhouseholds, etc.), and the characteristics of the house(materials, equipment, utilities, etc.). A list of topicshas been proposed by the UN Recommendations onPopulation and Housing Censuses, which are adheredto by a large number of countries. Standard definitionsare also provided.
An advantage of population censuses is theircomprehensiveness, which allows for cross-tabulatingthe values of any indicator through any combinationor classification of variables (including geographiclocation and socio-economic characteristics) withoutloosing accuracy.
A census is limited in its ability to investigate in detailthe ICT equipment and usage in households. Onlybasic variables, pertaining to the basic access to ICTare included. Less than 10 ICT-related variables aregenerally included in this type of statistical operation.
Many countries have used population censuses tocollect at least one ICT indicator (except for theCentral Asian and Central and Eastern Europeanregion), including highly populated countries such asIndia, Brazil and Mexico.
Given that the next round of censuses is foreseen in 2010,the use of population and housing censuses to monitorICT will probably be confined to the investigation ofbasic equipment in households (such as presence ofelectricity, presence of radio, presence of fixed telephoneline, presence of mobile telephone, presence of acomputer and presence of Internet access).
Non ICT-specific household surveys
A large number of countries collect some ICTindicators through variables included in thequestionnaires of household surveys that addressprimarily non-ICT issues. The most frequent type ofhousehold survey used as a vehicle for ICT-relatedquestions is the household budget survey.
Household budget surveys (HBS) are designed tomeasure consumption, expenditure and income ofhouseholds. They form the basis for calculating abasket of goods and services used to follow the
evolution of prices and measure inflation through theConsumer Price Index. They are carried out in themajority of countries (with unequal periodicity).
HBS are also the basis for poverty analysis, since theyprovide a measure of poverty lines (for example,defined as a percentage of the median expenditure).They include, in this case. questions to evaluate theendowment of households in durable goods andutilities and therefore, are a valid instrument to collectindicators on basic access to ICT. HBS questionnairescombine modules addressed to the household andmodules addressed to its members and, hence, can beused to investigate personal ownership and use (suchas use of PC or of Internet).
Other types of household surveys that have been usedas a vehicle for ICT-related questions are LabourForce surveys or Living Conditions surveys, whichmay include modules on health, education, personalsecurity and similar topics.
One advantage compared to population and housingcensuses is the cost of household surveys, which ismuch lower due to the fact that only a sample of thepopulation is selected.
At the same time, they allow for more specificquestions. Given that an HBS is addressed to analysethe socio-economic conditions of households, ICTindicators collected via this kind of operation can bebroken down and cross-tabulated by demographic andsocio-economic classification variables (basically, age,gender, education and relation to the economic activity),thus allowing for an analysis of the digital divide.
The existence of international experiences inharmonising and improving household surveys is anincentive for NSOs, with little experience in this field,to use them. MECOVI (Programme for Improving theHousehold Living Conditions Surveys) in LatinAmerica, and the World Bank initiative to establish aworldwide network of household surveys5, areexamples of international initiatives for increasing theuse of household surveys.
The use of household surveys to collect indicatorsother than basic access to ICT is increasing. Indicatorson Internet access and ICT usage have been mostlycollected through this kind of household surveys.
5 See www.internationalsurveynetwork.org/home.
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
20
The quality of statistical data collected throughhousehold surveys depends on several factors, whichinclude:
• the accuracy and the possibility of disaggregationdepending on the sample size and the survey design(stratification);
• the availability of up-to-date sampling frames(listing of primary sampling units, usuallygeographical groupings of households) to select thehouseholds to be interviewed and to estimateproperly the weighting factors to extrapolate theresults;
• the adequacy of training for interviewers, in orderto be able to satisfy the needs of interviewed persons(short time, explanations for the definitions, etc.).
The inclusion of specific ICT modules or questionsin household surveys, designed for other purposes,lengthens the questionnaire, which may entail adecrease in the quality of response. This drawback iscompensated by the low-cost of collecting ICTindicators. The existence, at the national and internationallevels, of a community of users of household surveys isanother advantage for the dissemination of ICT statisticsand the better use of their results.
ICT-specific household surveys
A small number of countries have implementedspecific household surveys to investigate the accessto and use of ICTs. The diverse group of countriesincludes small states such as Andorra, Barbados,Trinidad and Tobago and very large countries such asMexico, fast growing economies such as Chile,Bulgaria, Romania, Thailand, Tunisia, Hong Kong
SAR, Macao SAR, and Singapore and lower-middleand low income countries such as Kazakhstan,Palestine, Kenya and Madagascar.
In most of these countries, demand for household ICTindicators was perceived as high or very high. Noobvious correlation with the level of digital access isobserved.
Indicators collected by specific ICT household surveysinclude many of those included in the categories basicaccess to ICT, ICT usage and barriers to usage.Indeed, in countries where the indicators groupedunder these categories have been collected, it isgenerally through a specific ICT survey.
ICT household surveys are more complex than usualhousehold surveys in several aspects:
• Their aim is to investigate a phenomenon that isstill in its initial phase in many developing countriesand therefore the number of households providinguseful information is small. Disaggregations maybe subject to a large sampling error.
• ICT-related concepts included in the questionnairemay not be familiar to interviewed households andeven to interviewers.
• Several concepts are elusive even for trainedpersons. For instance, the definition of activitiesfor which the Internet is used has been the subjectof many discussions in technical working groups.
Detailed information at the country level about thetype of statistical operation used to collect each oneof the 20 indicators is given in Tables B3, B4, B5, B6and B7 of the Annex.
21
Chapter 1. ICT Household Indicators
Section 1.4 Issues for further work on household ICT indicators
An analysis of the results of the stocktaking exerciseraised several issues for further work on ICTindicators for the household sector that had alreadybeen considered by the Partnership:
• The selection of a core list of indicators has to takeinto account the different level of specificity of ICTindicators and their relevance for the national andinternational users. In general, the more specifican indicator is, the lower number of countries thatcollect it.
• The international comparability would benefit fromthe establishment of clear and harmonised definitionsfor each one of the household ICT indicators. In thatsense, the Partnership is currently working on theestablishment of technical definitions for theindicators.
• Best practices should be identified for theimplementation of ICT specific surveys and moduleson ICT to be included in other household surveys.This may include technical issues such as sampledesign, wording of questions and data treatment.
23
Chapter 2. ICT Indicators in the Business Sector
Chapter 2. ICT Indicators in the Business Sector
This chapter provides a synthesis on the status of ICTbusiness indicators in the regions covered by thestocktaking exercise with a specific focus on the20 indicators proposed in the metadata questionnaire(Table 2.1). Information on the availability of theseindicators in OECD countries is also included. A morein-depth analysis at the regional level is provided inthe following chapters.
Table 2.1. ICT Business Indicators included in the questionnaire
No formal definitions for the 20 proposed businessindicators were provided. Therefore, it is not possible,at this stage, to provide an analysis of the collectionof these indicators over time or, even compare databetween countries.
This chapter comprises four sections. The first onesummarises the level of demand for ICT business
dlohesuohniyticirtcelefoecneserP)1
secivedelibomfoecneserP)2
)potpal,caM,CP(retupmocfoecneserP)3
)potpal,caM,CP(sretupmocforebmuN)4
sseccatenretnIfoecneserP)5
sseccatenretnIrofdesuhtdiwdnab/sseccafosdohteM)6
krowtenlacolfoecneserP)7
etisbewfoecneserP)8
stnemtsevniTCItneceR)9
enituorkrowlamronriehtniCPagnisuseeyolpmeforebmunlatotehtfoerahS)01
enituorkrowlamrongnirudtenretnIehtotdetcennocCPgnisuseeyolpmeforebmunlatotehtfoerahS)11
desusitenretnIehthcihwrofseitivitca/secivresetercnoC)21
sesahcruptenretnIfoeulaV)31
selastenretnIfoeulaV)41
selastenretnIfonoitanitsed/spuorgremotsuC)51
egasuTCIgninrecnocseeyolpmerofesuTCIninoitamrof/gniniarT)61
esuCPotsreirraB)71
esutenretnIotsreirraB)81
ecremmoc-eotsreirraB)91
)cte,ngierof,citsemod(dloserasdoogtenretnIerehwnoitacolcihpargoeG)02
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
24
indicators as perceived by the National Statistical Offices(NSOs) participating in the stocktaking exercise.
The second section presents an overview of theavailability of the 20 proposed ICT businessindicators. Secondly, these indicators are then sortedinto three categories according to the number ofcountries collecting them as well as to the proportionof regional GDP corresponding to countries collectingthe respective indicators.
The third section reviews the different statisticalinstruments used for collecting the data and therespective institutions undertaking the collection. Asfor households, there is a rich variety of potentialsources for statistical information about ICT in thebusiness sector.
Finally, areas for further development of ICT businessindicators are suggested.
25
Chapter 2. ICT Indicators in the Business Sector
Section 2.1 Demand for ICT Business Indicators
The demand (as perceived by the NSOs) for ICTbusiness indicators is medium to very high (Table 2.2).
Since the demand for ICT business indicators wasassessed by country only, it is not possible, at thisstage, to evaluate the demand for each individualindicator separately.
Table 2.2. Demand for ICT Business Indicators
Note: 54 countries reported their level of demand for ICT business indicators.
The level of demand for ICT business indicators inLatin America and the Caribbean and Western Asia isbelow the world average (Graph 2.1). No countries inWestern Asia and only one in Latin America perceivedemand to be very high.
noigeR
leveLdnameD
hgiHyreV hgiH muideM woL dnameDoN
acirfA nineBaisinuT
ohtoseLracsagadaM
occoroMlageneS
adnawRenoeLarreiS
ewbabmiZ
aisAlartneClartneCdna
naeporuEdnaseirtnuoC
eniarkUlearsIyekruT
ainemrAairagluB
natshkazaKarrodnA
natszygryKavodloM.peR
ainamoRaigroeG
nietsnethceiL
aisAnretseW aibarAiduaStpygE
tiawuKnamO
rataQ.peRbarAnairyS
nadroJ
enitselaP
cificaP-aisA RASgnoKgnoHailognoMeropagniS
dnaliahT
aidnIRASoacaM
aisyalaMutaunaV
aisenodnI ainodelaCweN senippilihP
aciremAnitaLehtdna
naebbiraC
rodavlaSlE lizarBelihC
ocixeMogaboTdnadadinirT
aiviloBaibmoloC
aciRatsoC
.peRnacinimoDyaugaraP
yaugurU
ezileBrodaucE
dnasttiKtniaSsiveN
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
26
Graph 2.1. Level of demand for ICT business indicators by region
1 2 3 4 5
Asia Pacific
Africa
Central Asia and Central and Eastern Europe
AVERAGE
Western Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean
1 = No demand .... 5 = Very high demand
Graph 2.2. Demand for ICT Business Indicators by Income Level
1 2 3 4 5
Low income
Lower-middle
income
Upper-middle
income
High income
1 = No demand .... 5 = Very high demand
Within each region, demand for business indicatorsincreases with the respective country’s income level,
however this correlation is not observed at the globallevel (Graph 2.2).
The demand for ICT business indicators is notcorrelated with the digital access level (as measuredby the Digital Access Index). However, it is observed
that countries with widespread digital access report avery high demand for ICT business indicators(Graph 2.3).
27
Chapter 2. ICT Indicators in the Business Sector
Graph 2.3. Demand for ICT Business Indicators by Digital Access Level
1 2 3 4 5
High Access
Upper Access
Medium Access
Low Access
AVERAGE
1 = No demand .... 5 = Very high demand
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
28
Section 2.2 Availability of ICT Business Indicators
The percentage (simple average of regionalpercentages) of respondent countries that collect theseindicators is 31% (presence of a website) and 46%(presence of fixed telephone). They cover economiesaccounting for 53% to 74% of the GDP in each region.1
The indicator
• number of computers
closely related, is less available in Latin America andWestern Asia. An effort to compile the indicator inboth regions could enhance its global availability.
ICT surveys in OECD countries do not collect usuallythe indicators presence of fixed line telephone,presence of mobile devices, number of computers.
The international compilation of these indicators couldreasonably cover half of the total number ofrespondent countries and about three quarters of thenon-OECD economy.
Cluster 2: Indicators with medium-low availability
This group of indicators is collected by 15% to 24%of respondent countries, and accounts for about one-third of each regional economy. It includes indicatorsrelated to advanced access to ICT and the use ofInternet:
• type of Internet connection• presence of local network• value of ICT investments
1 Only respondent countries are considered in calculating the total GDP and the proportion each country represents.
The availability of indicators to investigate access toand usage of ICT in business differs across regions.Although it is less clear than for household indicators,some patterns exist that permit the classification ofICT business indicators into similar ‘clusters’. Twosets of availability measures are used for any one ofthe 20 indicators which are: the proportion of countriescollecting the indicator within each of the five regions,and the percentage of regional GDP that thesecountries represent. The latter is a proxy for theeconomic importance of each national business sectorwithin the regional economy.
The following section presents the results of ananalysis of the proportion of countries (where thedenominator is the total number of respondingcountries) collecting each indicator within theirrespective region, as well as what proportion of GDPeach country accounts for with respect to the totalGDP of responding countries. Together with theaverage (simple mean) of the percentage of countriesand the percentage of GDP covered in each region,the analysis suggests a final grouping into 3 clusters.
Cluster 1: Indicators with medium-high availability
This group of indicators relates to basic ICT accessfor business and includes
• presence of fixed telephone• presence of mobile devices• presence of Internet access• presence of computers• presence of a website
29
Chapter 2. ICT Indicators in the Business Sector
• services Internet is used for• value of Internet sales.
Western Asian countries lag behind in the collectionof this group of indicators: some of they aren’tcollected in any country of the region. The collectionof these indicators in OECD countries reaches veryhigh percentages of respondent countries, except forvalue of ICT investments.
Cluster 3: Indicators with low availability .
The following indicators are collected by less than15% of the countries in each region considered in thestudy:
• share of employees using a computer
• share of employees using the Internet• value of Internet purchases• Customer groups/ destination of Internet sales• Training/formation in ICT use for employees
concerning ICT usage• Barriers to computer use• Barriers to Internet use• Barriers to e-commerce• Geographic location of sales
Except for barriers to computer use and barriers toInternet use, the availability of these indicators inOECD countries is much higher (between 64% and89% of respondent countries).
The following countries have collected more than halfof the 20 indicators proposed in the questionnaire:
Table 2.3. Countries with 10 or more collected ICT business indicators
Countries may collect many other ICT-relatedvariables in their business surveys or other statisticaloperations, in addition to the 20 proposed in themetadata questionnaire. Plans for collecting ICTbusiness indicators in the next three years areimportant in Western Asia and, Latin America and theCaribbean.
As for household indicators, the availability of ICTbusiness indicators is correlated with the level ofdigital access as measured by the Digital Access Index.Countries with high and upper digital access level have
collected a larger number of indicators (in Asia-Pacific, as much as three times) than countries withlow access.
Detailed information about the availability of eachindicator by region using both availability measures(percentage of collecting countries out of totalrespondent countries and corresponding percentageof GDP) are given in Tables 2.4 and 2.5. At the countrylevel, Tables C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8 and C8bis of theAnnex summarise the results of the stocktakingexercise.
noigeR seirtnuoC
acirfA ainaznaT,adnawR,occoroM,suitiruaM
nretsaEdnalartneCdnaaisAlartneCseirtnuoCnaeporuE
noitaredeFnaissuR,ainamoR,natszygryK,airagluB
aisAnretseW -
cificaP-aisA dnaliahT,eropagniS,senippilihP,RASoacaM,RASgnoKgnoH
naebbiraCehtdnaaciremAnitaL ogaboTdnadadinirT,aibmoloC,elihC
DCEO,eceerG,ynamreG,ecnarF,dnalniF,kramneD,cilbupeRhcezC,muigleB,airtsuA
,dnaloP,yawroN,gruobmexuL,aeroK,napaJ,ylatI,dnalerI,dnalecI,yragnuHmodgniKdetinU,dnalreztiwS,niapS,lagutroP
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
30
Table 2.4. Proportion of countries collecting ICT business indicators
srotacidnI acirfA nitaLaciremA
dna-ebbiraC
na
-aisAcificaP
nretseWaisA
lartneCdnaaisA
EECseirtnuoc
DCEO
enohpeletdexiF)1 74 04 65 04 35 4
secivedeliboM)2 62 04 65 01 85 11
sretupmocfoecneserP)3 23 53 93 02 23 98
sretupmocforebmuN)4 23 02 33 01 23 4
sseccatenretnIfoecneserP)5 23 55 65 01 85 98
sseccatenretnIfoepyT)6 62 52 33 0 23 68
krowtenlacoL)7 12 52 22 0 62 28
etisbeW)8 73 05 33 0 62 98
tnemtsevniTCI)9 12 51 82 0 23 12
retupmocagnisuseeyolpmefoerahS)01 61 51 22 0 73 97
tenretnIehtgnisuseeyolpmefoerahS)11 61 01 71 0 62 97
desusitenretnIehthcihwrofsecivreS)21 11 02 82 01 12 98
sesahcrupfoeulaV)31 61 51 6 0 61 16
selasfoeulaV)41 62 52 6 0 61 68
puorgremotsuC)51 11 01 6 0 11 17
gniniartTCI)61 12 02 6 0 5 46
esuretupmocotsreirraB)71 12 01 82 0 11 0
esutenretnIotsreirraB)81 61 5 22 0 61 4
ecremmoc-eotsreirraB)91 11 01 11 0 11 57
selasfonoitacolcihpargoeG)02 5 0 6 0 61 46
Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
TA
dvan
ced
ICT
acc
ess
and
usag
eIn
tern
et a
ctiv
ities
and
e-co
mm
erce
Geo
grap
hic
loca
tion
of s
ales
ICT
trai
ning
Bar
rier
s to
usag
e
31
Chapter 2. ICT Indicators in the Business Sector
Table 2.5. Coverage (% of total regional GDP of responding countries) of collected business ICTindicators
Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
TA
dvan
ced
ICT
acc
ess
and
usag
eIn
tern
et a
ctiv
ities
and
e-co
mm
erce
ICT
train
ing
Geo
grap
hic
loca
tion
of s
ales
Bar
rier
s to
usag
e
srotacidnI acirfA nitaLaciremA
dna-ebbiraC
na
-aisAcificaP
nretseWaisA
lartneCdnaaisA
EECseirtnuoc
DCEO
enohpeletdexiF)1 85 21 06 93 95 2
secivedeliboM)2 34 81 17 22 95 6
sretupmocfoecneserP)3 34 05 66 72 45 26
sretupmocforebmuN)4 34 01 66 22 45 2
sseccatenretnIfoecneserP)5 44 68 38 22 06 26
sseccatenretnIfoepyT)6 04 01 93 0 31 74
krowtenlacoL)7 21 55 42 0 31 75
etisbeW)8 95 58 34 0 94 26
tnemtsevniTCI)9 12 04 53 0 55 74
retupmocagnisuseeyolpmefoerahS)01 13 6 02 0 45 34
tenretnIehtgnisuseeyolpmefoerahS)11 11 6 02 0 94 34
rofdesusitenretnIehtsecivreS)21 7 04 13 5 94 26
sesahcrupfoeulaV)31 15 01 5 0 94 25
selasfoeulaV)41 85 44 11 0 94 89
puorgremotsuC)51 53 5 11 0 7 65
gniniartTCI)61 93 54 5 0 14 53
esuretupmocotsreirraB)71 21 1 03 0 74 0
esutenretnIotsreirraB)81 9 1 13 0 94 51
ecremmoc-eotsreirraB)91 9 1 02 0 34 35
selasfonoitacolcihpargoeG)02 7 0 6 0 94 53
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
32
Section 2.3 Statistical sources for the collection of ICT businessindicators
Countries that collect ICT business indicators haveused different types of statistical sources includingadministrative registers from suppliers and regulatoryauthorities, business registers, economic censuses,sectoral business surveys (manufacturing, trade, etc.)and ICT-specific surveys.
Administrative sources
The suppliers of ICT services such as telephone (fixedlines), mobile telephone and the Internet may providethe regulatory authorities (Ministries ofCommunication and their subsidiary or related bodies)with basic information about the firms subscribing totheir respective services (generally in aggregatefigures). The most important advantage of thisinformation source is its reduced cost. However, theinternational comparability of indicators fromadministrative sources can be impeded by the variousdefinitions employed by the supplier companies. Also,aggregate figures may not be able to be broken downinto separate classifications.
NSOs and Ministries for Communication (and relatedresponsibilities) usually retrieve and compile thisinformation.
Business registers
Business registers are a key element of the statisticalinfrastructure. Their aim is to include all firms andtheir establishments. Their use in the statistical processincludes the compilation of business demography andthey provide a frame for the extraction ofrepresentative random samples for business surveys.
Since business registers are used to identify existingfirms, they usually include variables such as presenceof fixed telephone, presence of mobile devices andpresence of a website.
Business registers include classification variables suchas economic activity sector and size (in terms ofnumber of employees and/or turnover). Economicclassification can be used to identify the ICT sectorand produce some basic statistical results.
The maintenance of business registers is usuallycontinuous and done by the NSO, which uses a varietyof sources (tax registers, social security registers, itsown surveys, sectoral directories, etc.).
The maintenance of firms in the business register isof utmost importance. While registering “births”(newly created companies) is usually easy fromadministrative sources to obtain functioning licenses(fiscal, social security, etc.), the register of “deaths”is not straightforward and requires usually acombination of administrative steps (cease of activitylicenses) and economic-financial indicators (turnoveror number of employees equal to zero or similarconditions). The number of active firms from businessregister may therefore be overestimated and its use asa denominator may underestimate the indicators.
On the other side, business registers may coverinadequately the productive sector in countries witha large degree of informality in the establishment offirms. However, it is highly probable that firms in theinformal sector have a low level of access and use ofICT.
The production of indicators from this type of sourcemay have annual or even more frequent periodicity.
Economic censuses
Economic censuses are carried out with lowperiodicity due to their high cost. Therefore, they arenot well suited for measuring the rapid changes ofreadiness and impact of ICT in businesses. However,
33
Chapter 2. ICT Indicators in the Business Sector
large countries such as Mexico and Egypt (and otherWestern Asian countries) have used economiccensuses to collect some basic ICT access indicators.
No economic censuses collecting ICT variables werecarried out in Central Asia and Central and EasternEurope, which can be explained by the large size ofthe industrial sector in these countries.
The observation unit can be the establishment or localbranch of the firm.
Sectoral business surveys
In many developing countries, NSOs carry out withannual periodicity surveys on the important sectorsof their economy. Usually, the manufacturing and tradesectors are surveyed by selecting representativesamples of firms (drawn from business registers).
Sectoral business surveys are used to investigate theeconomic and financial results and other commontopics. Therefore, the number of ICT-related questions(which are of a horizontal nature) is limited by theresponse burden the interviewed firm is subject to. Anumber of 10 to 20 ICT-related variables have beenincluded in sectoral surveys in many developingcountries participating in the stocktaking exercise. Thedesign of specific ICT modules to be included insectoral surveys is an efficient way of collecting ICTindicators: the advantages include a lower cost thanspecific ICT surveys, their periodicity, which usuallyis set in national statistical plans, the fact that firmsare used to participate in sectoral investigations(improving the quality of response) and the existence,at the national and international level, of a communityof users already familiar with the surveys.
Some countries survey special sectors relevant fortheir economies (such as Chile and the miningindustry). Countries with a large informal sectorcannot investigate it with standard sectoral surveys.Therefore the coverage of collected ICT indicatorsby this tool can be inadequate (even if it can beexpected that the readiness of the informal sector forICT is very low).
The indicators collected through sectoral surveyscover basic access to ICT and less frequently advancedaccess to ICT and usage. Marginally, some countriescollect other, more specific, indicators.
The observation unit is generally the firm and nodisaggregations are usually possible at theestablishment level.
ICT-specific business surveys
A number of developing and transition countries haveimplemented ICT-specific business surveys. Thesecountries have a relatively widespread digital accessin their regions (such as Morocco and Tunisia inAfrica, or Argentina in Latin America) or have aneconomy increasingly based on ICT (Hong KongSAR, Singapore). In general, countries that carriedout specific ICT surveys reported a high or very highdemand for business ICT indicators.
ICT surveys are generally based on representativesamples of the business sector (an interesting counter-example is the use of a comprehensive business censusfor collecting ICT variables in Egypt). Another methodused in several countries (Argentina, Uruguay) is tocombine ICT surveys with Innovation Surveys, whichcover topics related to the introduction of newtechnologies. Innovation surveys are based on theinitial work by OECD, which was developed (incollaboration with Eurostat) standardisation manuals(Manual of Oslo). In Latin America, the regionalnetwork RICYT has prepared a similar manualadapted to the socio-economic environment in theregion (Manual of Bogotá).
Specific indicators on advanced ICT access and usage,Internet activities and e-commerce, barriers to ICTare collected by this type of statistical operation.
The observation unit is generally the firm and nodisaggregations are usually possible at theestablishment level.
In order to monitor the rapid changes of an informationsociety, the periodicity of surveys has to be ensured.One-off ICT surveys may loose very rapidly theirrelevance and should be avoided, due to the high costsin relation to the validity in time of the results.
Detailed information at the country level about thetype of statistical operation used to collect each oneof the 20 indicators is given in Tables D3, D4, D5, D6and D7 of the Annex.
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
34
Section 2.4 Issues for further work on ICT business indicators
The analysis of the results of the stocktaking exerciseraised several areas for further development andresearch on ICT business indicators for the businesssector, which have already been considered by thePartnership:
• The selection of indicators for a core list has totake into account the different levels of specificityof ICT indicators and their relevance at the nationaland international level. The more specific theindicator, the lower number of countries that willcollect it. It seems unnecessary to collect advancedindicators (such as those on value of Internet sales)in countries with low penetration of ICT in thebusiness sector.
• The international comparability would benefit fromthe establishment of clear definitions for each oneof the ICT business indicators. The use of wellestablished definitions such as those given by theOECD and Eurostat may be of help for developingcountries, and the Partnership is preparing a manualfor the production of ICT indicators.
• The indicators on usage of ICT and particularlythose on the share of employees using a PC orInternet, and ICT training are rarely collected,preventing the assessment of the real impact of ICTon firms as measured by their use in the workforce.
• Indicators on ICT-based processes (such ascomputer-assisted design or stock management)which are related to the introduction of newtechnologies through acquisition are not coveredin the list of 20 proposed indicators. Their relevancein developing countries (which are usuallyimporters of technology) should be assessed.
• The development or adaptation of modules on ICTin sectoral surveys to include 10 to 20 ICT-relatedquestions is a promising tool for collecting therequired indicators. Work should be done to assessbest practices in developing countries.
35
Chapter 3. Status of ICT Indicators in Africa
Chapter 3. Status of ICT Indicators in Africa
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
36
Section 3.1 Notes on the Regional Data Collection
a. Geographic coverage of the response to thequestionnaire
The stocktaking exercise on ICT sources andindicators in Africa was conducted in collaborationwith the United Nations Economic Commission forAfrica (UNECA), who sent the metadata questionnaireto 52 countries including all sub-regions in Africa.Egypt was included in the United Nations Social andEconomic Commission for Western Asia(UNESCWA) data collection survey. (See Chapter 5)
The region is characterised by a low level ofdevelopment and consequently, a very lowdistribution of ICT. No countries in the region arecategorized as high income or with widespreaddigital access. Only five countries in the region areclassified as upper-middle income. Widespreaddigital access is available only on the Islands ofMauritius and Seychelles, which account for lessthan .002% of the regional population (see Table3.1 for a classification of countries by income anddigital access level1).
1 Income levels are defined according to the World Bank’s country classification, based on the GDP per capita in PPPs,whereas the digital access level is based on the ITU’s Digital Access Index (DAI) whose methodology is described inhttp://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/dai/index.html.
37
Chapter 3. Status of ICT Indicators in Africa
Table 3.1. Countries Included in the African Stocktaking Exercise
Note: 19 out of 52 countries answered the questionnaire. They are shaded in the table above.
leveLsseccAlatigiD
leveLemocnItoNIADelbaliavA
sseccAhgiH sseccAreppUmuideMsseccA
sseccAwoL
emocnIhgiH
elddiM-reppUemocnI
suitiruaMsellehcyeS
nobaGanawstoB
barAnaybiLayirihamaJ
ituobijD
elddiM-rewoLemocnI
aireglAedreVepaC
occoroMaibimaN
acirfAhtuoSdnalizawS
aisinuT
emocnIwoL airebiLailamoS
alognAnineB
osaFanikruBidnuruB
nooremaCnacirfAlartneC
cilbupeRdahC
soromoCognoC
eriovI'detôCcitarcomeDfocilbupeR
ognoClairotauqE
aeniuGaertirE
aipoihtEaibmaGehT
anahGaeniuG
uassiB-aeniuG
ayneKohtoseL
racsagadaMiwalaM
ilaMainatiruaM
euqibmazoMregiN
airegiNadnawR
dnaemoToaSepicnirPlageneS
enoeLarreiSnaduS
adnagUogoTfo.peR.nU
ainaznaTaibmaZ
ewbabmiZ
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
38
b. Analysis of response rate
The response rate for the ICT metadata questionnaireis low: only nineteen countries, corresponding to 38%of the countries, 42% of the African population and29 % of the African GDP (see Graph 3.1), respondedto the questionnaire.
Three countries’ lack of response can explain the poorcoverage of the exercise in demographic and economicterms: Nigeria, the most populous country, SouthAfrica, the largest economy and second most populouscountry, and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, third largestshare of GDP.
Morocco and Tunisia were the only respondents fromthe group of countries with middle level incomes andmedium digital access. The low response rate fromthis group of countries, with a sizeable portion of the
African population and economic weight (principallySouth Africa), suggests that efforts to gather metadataon ICT indicators need to be increased.
The majority of countries in the region are low incomecountries. Their response rate was slightly above theaverage, in terms of percentage of respondentcountries, population and share of GDP.
The results for countries with upper and mediumdigital access have to be inferred from the answersfrom Mauritius and Gabon, which show a ratherdiverse situation with respect to availability of ICTindicators.
Due to the low response to the metadataquestionnaire in Africa, the summary on the statusof ICT indicators in the region given in this reportis incomplete.
Graph 3.1. Coverage of the Stocktaking Exercise in Terms of Population and GDP share in Africa
% of regional population covered by
the stocktaking exercise
42
58
Respondent
countries
Non-respondent
countries
% of share of regional GDP covered
by the stocktaking exercise
29
71
Respondent
countries
Non-respondent
countries
39
Chapter 3. Status of ICT Indicators in Africa
Table 3.2. Coverage by Income and Digital Access Group
emocnI seirtnuoC% noitalupoP% PDG%
emocnIelddim-reppU %0,04 %3,52 %2,72
emocnIelddim-rewoL %0,52 %8,23 %4,52
emocnIwoL %5,83 %8,34 %3,33
latoT %5,63 %8,14 %9,82
leveLsseccAlatigiD seirtnuoC% noitalupoP% PDG%
sseccAreppU %0,05 %7,39 %1,78
sseccAmuideM %0,03 %8,13 %4,42
sseccAwoL %5,93 %5,44 %5,33
noitamrofnioN %0,0 %0,0 %0,0
latoT %5,63 %8,14 %9,82
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
40
Section 3.2 Institutional Environment for ICT Indicators in Africa
a. Demand for ICT Statistics in Africa
Considerable progress has been made in advocatingregionally for ICT indicators, and several countriesin the region have undertaken statistical operations toinvestigate ICT readiness for households andbusinesses. The launching of ICT regional policies,such as the ICT component of the New Partnershipfor African Development (NEPAD), carried out bythe International Telecommunications Union (ITU),the African Initiative for the Information Society(AISI) and the associated National Information andCommunication Infrastructure (NICI) plans, havefostered demand for ICT indicators in the region.
Table 3.3. Demand for ICT Statistics in Africa
1 The information from the questionnaire has been completed with reports from the SCAN-ICT project.
According to the metadata questionnaire, the levelsof demand for household and business ICT indicatorsin Africa are highly correlated, as they are related tothe income level of countries (Table 3.31). It isinteresting to note that several Least DevelopedCountries (LDCs) assessed however, a high demandfor indicators. This could be interpreted as therecognition that ICT may have a positive impact ondevelopment and secondly, that regional advocacyactivities for ICT indicators have permeated thenational institutions.
However, no obvious correlation can be foundbetween the level of demand for ICT indicators and
Note: The following countries did not assess demand for business indicators: Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo,Ethiopia, Gabon, The Gambia, Kenya, Mauritius, Niger, Tanzania and Zambia.
leveLdnameDleveLdnameD
hgiHyreV hgiH muideM woL dnameDoN
dlohesuoHTCIsrotacidnI
nineBaisinuT
nacirfAlartneCcilbupeR
ayneKohtoseL
racsagadaMsuitiruaMoccoroM
ainaznaTaibmaZ
aipoihtEaibmaGehT
regiNadnawRlageneS
enoeLarreiS
nobaGewbabmiZ
citarcomeDfocilbupeR
ognoC
ssenisuBTCIsrotacidni
nineBaisinuT
ohtoseLracsagadaM
occoroMlageneS
adnawRenoeLarreiS
ewbabmiZ
41
Chapter 3. Status of ICT Indicators in Africa
digital access level: countries with a low digital accesslevel show high or even very high demand (likeBenin), while countries with medium digital accesshave declared low demand (like Gabon on ICThousehold indicators).
The creation of a regional Task Force on ICTindicators, to be composed of representatives ofSenegal, Mauritius, Morocco, Uganda, South Africaand Democratic Republic of Congo, was proposed inthe regional workshop in Gaborone (Botswana,October 2004), optimistically showing an increasedinterest in Africa on the topic.
b. Institutions Collecting ICT Data in Africa
A total number of 28 statistical operations containingICT household variables and 7 containing businessICT variables were identified in the region. Exceptfor Tunisia and Morocco2, where the Ministriesresponsible for Telecommunications carried outsurveys on home PCs, ICT firms and investments, useof ICT in businesses, government and highereducation, all statistical operations were carried outby the National Statistical Offices (NSOs). In Sub-Saharan Africa all ICT-related surveys identified in
the metadata questionnaire were under theresponsibility of NSOs.
Other institutions that provide ICT-related informationin the region are Telecommunication RegulatoryAuthorities (Congo and Tanzania), the NationalInternet Agency (Tunisia) and the Association of ICTProfessionals (Morocco).
This information has to be completed with anassessment of sources from the countries participatingin the SCAN-ICT project (Box 3.1). One of theconclusions of the first phase of the project is thatNSOs have to be involved more deeply in themeasurement of ICT-related issues.
c. Resources
Several countries in the region (8 out of 19, 42%, allof them in Sub-Saharan Africa and 7 of them includedin the list of Least Developed countries) declared notto have any financing3 available for the collection ofICT indicators (Table 3.4). Nonetheless, respondentsin three of those countries (Central African Republic,Lesotho and Senegal) perceived a high demand forICT indicators.
2 The population and Housing Census in Morocco is erroneously assigned in the database to the Department ofTelecommunication, but was carried out by the Directorate for Statistics.
3 The questionnaire of the Democratic Republic of Congo mentions simultaneously that no financing is available andinternational co-operation from France was received.
Box 3.1. The SCAN-ICT Project
Scan-ICT is a multi-donor project initiative of the EconomicCommission for Africa (ECA), the International DevelopmentResearch Centre (IDRC, Canada), the European Union andthe Norwegian Agency for Development Co-Operation(NORAD), which aims to build Africa’s capacity to gatherinformation and data in order to support ICT policies, as wellas the transition of Africa to an information society. The goalis to create a pan-African ICT network, connecting all levelsof ICT related issues, which will be co-ordinated and supportedby an observatory/research institute.
One major component of SCAN-ICT is related to theproduction of monitoring indicators, related to the policiesconsidered in the African Initiative for the Information Society(AISI), in particular infrastructure, strategic plans, capacitydevelopment, sectoral applications, e-governance, informationsociety and information economy. Within the SCAN-ICT
project, the ECA/IDRC Regional workshop (17-18 February2004 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia) brought together ICTpractitioners and statisticians to review the SCAN-ICTmethodology used in the first phase and, the countries’experiences. ICT country reports were prepared for thefollowing participating countries: Ethiopia, Ghana, Morocco,Mozambique, Senegal and Uganda.
The SCAN-ICT project will be extended (Phase II), at thecountries request and after the evaluation of the in-countrycapacity to undertake the study, to Botswana, Gambia,Mauritius, Niger, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania and Tunisia. Theexpected outputs of Phase II include the production ofdisaggregated indicators (especially by gender and disabilitystatus) as well as the preparation of sectoral applications ineducation, health, agriculture, public administration and e-commerce.
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
42
Benin, The Gambia, Mauritius and Rwanda NSOsfinanced the statistical surveys by their runningbudget. In these cases, ICT variables were part of non-specific household surveys.
Operations in Morocco and Tunisia were funded bythe line Ministries, who carried out the work on ICTindicators.
Inter-institutional co-operation was observed inKenya, where the Central Bureau of Statisticscollaborated with the University of Nairobi and theNational Communications Commission (see Box 3.5).
Table 3.4. Resources for ICT Statistics in Africa by Income Level
Note: Information is not available for Gabon.
d. Definition of ICT
Most countries in the region do not apply any formaldefinition of ICT (58%), while only 16% aredeveloping one (Table 3.5). There is nostraightforward correlation between the use of anestablished definition and the following: digital accesslevel, income level, countries demand for ICTstatistics, or participation in the SCAN-ICT project.In this situation, the analysis of the relevance of theinternational definitions (such as the ones given byOECD or Eurostat) for the ICT sector, products anduses may be useful.
sdnuFfonigirO
levelemocnI
emocnIhgiH elddiM-reppUemocnI
elddiM-rewoLemocnI
emocnIwoL
tegduBralugeR suitiruaM nineBaibmaG
racsagadaMadnawR
aibmaZ
noitarepooClanoitaN occoroMaisinuT
aibmaGayneK
lanoitanretnInoitarepooC
occoroM aipoihtEognoCehtfocilbupeRcitarcomeD
anahGeuqibmazoM
lageneSadnagU
gnicnaniFoNelbaliavA
cilbupeRnacirfAlartneCohtoseL
regiNlageneS
enoeLarreiSainaznaTfocilbupeRdetinU
ewbabmiZ
43
Chapter 3. Status of ICT Indicators in Africa
Table 3.5. Existence of Definition for ICT in Africa
tsiLyrtnuoC
noitinifeDfosutatS
noitinifeDoNninoitinifeDnoitaraperP
noitinifeDTCIdeilppA
nineB X
.R.A.C X
ognoCRD X
aipoihtE X
nobaG X
aibmaG X
ayneK X
ohtoseL X
racsagadaM X
suitiruaM X
occoroM X
regiN X
adnawR X
lageneS X
enoeLarreiS X
aisinuT X
ainaznaTfo.R.U X
aibmaZ X
ewbabmiZ X
niseirtnuocllAfo%(noigereht
)sesnopser)%85(11 )%61(3 )%62(5
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
44
e. Dissemination of ICT Statistics
Thirteen [13] countries (Benin, The Gambia, Lesotho,Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritius, Morocco, Niger,Rwanda, Tunisia, Zambia and Zimbabwe) havepublished ICT reports which include statistics. Themajority of these countries have reported a very highand high demand for ICT indicators. Interestingly, theavailability of ICT indicators is very low in certaincountries (such as The Gambia and Lesotho forhouseholds or Zimbabwe for businesses).
Furthermore, Tanzania and Ethiopia are planning topublish ICT reports. The other countries have not yetdecided on how to disseminate of ICT statistics.
With respect to the timeliness of data (Tables 3.6 and3.7), business surveys providing ICT indicators weregenerally carried out in Africa more recently thanhousehold surveys, with the exception of a fewspecific ICT household surveys. Tunisia is the onlycountry, where the demand was assessed as very high,that declares collecting some ICT indicators throughperiodical surveys. The lengthy time lapse betweenpopulation censuses makes them a very poor sourcefor measuring the rapid changes in ICT status.
Table 3.6. Most Recent date of Surveys with an ICT Component (Business and Administration)
yrtnuoC noitarepolacitsitatsfoepyTforebmuNTCIdetcelloc
selbairav
noitcelloctnecertsoM
nineB snoitartsinimdAniTCI 26 2002yluJ
racsagadaM noitaremolggaovirananatnAehtniyevruSTCI 631 4002rebmetpeS
suitiruaM seitivitcAcimonocEfosusneC 8 2002
occoroM rotceslairtsudniehtniTCIfoesU 61 3002,0002
adnawR yevrusssenisuBlaunnA 21 1002,0002,9991
aisinuT sesirpretneTCI 6 )shtnom6(lacidoireP
ewbabmiZ noitcudorPlairtsudnIfosusneC 3,89/7991,79/6991
2002/9991
45
Chapter 3. Status of ICT Indicators in Africa
Table 3.7. Most Recent Date of Surveys with an ICT Component (households)
yrtnuoC noitarepOlacitsitatSfoepyT forebmuNTCIdetcelloC
selbairaV
noitcelloCtneceRtsoM
nineB susneCnoitalupoP 1 2002yraurbeF
yevruSecroFruobaL 21 1002tsuguA
yevruShtlaeHdnacihpargomeD 4 1002rebmetpeS-yluJ
ognoC )ahahsniK(yevruSecroFruobaL 3 4002enuJ
nobaG yevruSlaicoSdnacihpargomeD .a.n 2002
ayneK noitacinummocotsseccAlasrevinU 391 4002
racsagadaM ovitananatnAehtniyevruSTCInoitaremolgga
231 4002rebmetpeS
suitiruaM yevruSdlohesuoHesopruPitluMsuounitnoC 41 2002rebmeceDotyraunaJ
occorroM susneCnoitalupoP 2 4002rebmetpeS
regiN rotceSlamrofnInoyevruS 5 7991enuJ
noitautislaicoSdnacimonocEnoyevruS 5 7991enuJ
adnawR yevrussnoitidnocgniviL .a.n 3002
lageneS susneCnoitalupoP 2 8991,2002rebmeceD
yevrussnoitidnocgniviL 2 2002,1002,5991,4991
yevruStegduBdlohesuoH 4 1002rebmetpeS
ainaznaT yevruStegduBdlohesuoH .a.n 29/1991
aisinuT sretupmoCfokcotSlanoitaN 4 )shtnom6(lacidoireP
sCPemoHnoyevruS 4 launnA
tnemyolpmeTCInoyevruS 3 launnA
aibmaZ yevrussnoitidnocgniviL 5 8991,6991
3991yevruSytiroirP 3 3991,1991
ewbabmiZ yevruStegduBdlohesuoH 7 1002,.ceD-naJ
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
46
Section 3.3 ICT Indicators in Households in Africa
a. Sources of ICT Information from Households
In the region, a combination of sources for ICTindicators is observed, primarily of generic householdsurveys.
Some countries have tried to identify potential statisticalsources even if these are not fully exploited to produceICT indicators (See Box 3.2 on The Gambia). The caseof Mauritius, a country with upper digital access, whichcombines many different sources is interesting (Box 3.3).
The governments task of gathering informationfrom the suppliers is facilitated where the market
for the provision of utilities such as electricity ortelephone, public or semi-public in general islimited (see Box 3.4). This information includesonly coverage of the utilities/services for subscriberhouseholds therefore, international comparabilityis not as easily reached as it could be with the useof harmonised methodologies for surveys.
The following patterns can be observed regarding theuse of different sources for the provision of ICTindicators in African countries (Table B3 of theAnnex). The cross-tabulation with income level isgiven in Table 3.8.
Box 3.2. Assessment of Potential Statistical Sources on ICT in The Gambia
A current low level of availability of statistical information onICT is not a barrier to implementing interesting assessmentexercises on the possibility of using existing surveys for theprovision of ICT indicators. The experience of the CentralStatistics Department (CSD) of The Gambia, presented at theGaborone sub-regional workshop (October 2004) can be seenas a good practice.
The CSD has reviewed the potential use of population andbusiness statistical operations such as the NationalAccounting Survey and the Employment and EarningsSurvey, which may provide ICT indicators for the sectoraccording to the ISIC classification of economic activities.Whereas, the Integrated Household Survey (IHS) that
collects information from 4.800 households may provideindicators on access to basic infrastructure (electricity andtelephone) as well as some aspects of ICT expenditures byincome and geographic location. Other potential sources ofICT indicators reviewed by the CSD are the administrativesystems in place, such as the foreign trade data (recorded withthe widely disseminated ASYCUDA system) andadministrative and accounting data from major companies(GAMTEL).
The preparation by NSOs of an assessment on statistical sourcesthat potentially may provide ICT indicators is a necessaryexercise for the co-ordination and efficient use of the existingresources of the National Statistical System.
47
Chapter 3. Status of ICT Indicators in Africa
Table 3.8. Statistical Operations Providing Indicators on ICT in Households in Africa
Use of Population and Housing Censuses
Benin, The Gambia, Niger, Mauritius, Morocco,Senegal Sierra Leone and Tanzania have used thePopulation and Housing Census to gather informationabout presence of electricity and basic ICT equipment(TV, radio, telephone).
Use of general household surveys
Francophone countries (Benin, Central AfricanRepublic, Gabon, Rwanda, Senegal, Tunisia) tend touse household surveys (living conditions and/orhousehold budget surveys) carried out by NSOs to
investigate the availability of electricity, radio, fixedand mobile telephone (a number of ICT variablesbetween 1 and 14 according to the questionnaire). Allof them show very high response rates (around 95%and more).
There is a general trend towards using householdsurveys instead of information from other sources forthe production of indicators about the availability ofPC and Internet, and their use. Tanzania, Zimbabwe,Mauritius and Rwanda used multi-purpose householdsurveys to this effect. Box 3.3 describes the experienceof Mauritius, a country with upper digital access anda high demand for ICT indicators.
noitarepOfoepyT
leveLemocnI
emocnIhgiHelddiM-reppU
emocnIelddiM-rewoL
emocnIemocnIwoL
gnisuoHdnanoitalupoPsusneC
suitiruaM occoroM
nineBaibmaGehT
regiNlageneS
enoeLarreiSainaznaT
dlohesuoHesoprupitluMsyevruS
suitiruaM aisinuT
cilbupeRnacirfAlartneClageneSadnawRainaznaT
aibmaZewbabmiZ
syevrusTCIcohdA aisinuTayneK
racsagadaM
sreilppuS suitiruaMadnawRainaznaT
ewbabmiZ
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
48
Box 3.3. Use of the Continuous Multi-Purpose Household Survey in Mauritius
The Continuous Multi-Purpose Household Survey (CMPHS)is carried out annually since 1999 by the Central StatisticalOffice in the Islands of Mauritius and Rodrigues. The topicsto be covered by this survey are reviewed every year to takeinto consideration users’ current needs. The CMPHS coversboth urban and rural areas. Each round of the survey covers arepresentative sample of 6,000 private households, spreadevenly over 12 months. Each round consists of several modules:
• A basic module covering the general characteristics ofhouseholds and their members.
• One or more special topic modules dealing with subjectsof current interest for in-depth investigation. Every yeardifferent topics are investigated and questions are usuallyaddressed to members of the household. In 2002 it includeda module on Information Technology (http://statsmauritius.gov.mu/quest/cmphs02.pdf).
• A final module grouping several other topics of generalinterest, but investigated in less detail.
The 2002 module in the CMPHS questionnaire included thefollowing questions:
For the household:
• presence of a computer in the household• reasons for not having a computer and intentions to purchase
one• since when are household members using the computer• access to Internet• expenditure for use of Internet• intentions to get Internet access
For the household members:
• IT skills• location of access to a computer• personal access to Internet• location of access to Internet• since when is the person using Internet• purposes of Internet use at home
Results can be disaggregated by household and demographiccharacteristics, as they are recorded in the first, general moduleof the CMPHS.
Use of information from suppliers and otherorganisations
Anglophone countries (Tanzania, Zimbabwe andMauritius) rely more often on the utility of servicesuppliers’ information (Electricity companies, Radio andTV Broadcasting services). Rwanda (a Francophonecountry) also gathers data from the utility suppliers.
Use of specific ICT household surveys
The implementation of specific ICT surveys inhouseholds is rare in the region. The stocktakingexercise identified only three, in Kenya (see Box 3.5),Madagascar and Tunisia. Both Kenya and Madagascarhave low digital access and are low income countriesthat have indicated a high interest in ICT indicators.
Box 3.4. Telecom Operators as a Source for ICT indicators in Africa
The Regulatory Authorities in African countries, together withthe state-owned and private Telecom operators, may be apotential source of ICT indicators, particularly in the domainof access to basic infrastructure. EriTel in Eritrea, Cellplus &Emtel in Mauritius, Maroc Télécom and Medi Télécom inMorocco, RwandaTel in Rwanda, MOBITEL, CELTEL,VODACOM in Tanzania and many other companies in Africancountries can provide regularly indicators on the number ofsubscribers to their services.
The number of subscribers is a proxy for the estimate ofpopulation with access to electricity, telephone (fixed andmobile) and Internet. The presence of TV and radio, generallynot subject to subscription, is more difficult to gather fromthese sources.
The need for using standard definitions on the type of subscriber(personal, household, firm, public access location) is requiredto assess the actual coverage of the access to ICT.
49
Chapter 3. Status of ICT Indicators in Africa
Box 3.5. The Baseline Survey for the Universal Access Strategic Plan in Kenya
The Communications Commission of Kenya (CCK), aregulatory body, together with the Central Bureau ofStatistics (CBS) and the University of Nairobi, carried outa baseline survey on access and use of ICT in order tosupport evidence-based policies for granting a UniversalAccess to Communications in the country. This specifichousehold ICT survey was designed to be representative ofthe rural population of Kenya and therefore based on the ruralcoverage of the National Sample Survey and Evaluationprogramme (NASSEP IV) master sample developed by CBS.Census Enumeration Areas were stratified according to theavailability of communication services (postal, fixed and
mobile telephone, courier, Internet services and broadcasting)based on service providers’ information. A multi-stage randomsample of 1139 households was selected in 16 of the 72 countrydistricts.
The survey investigates the availability of services both inhouseholds and in public places, the distance to access services,the demand and usage of ICT, the related expenditure andaffordability, and the knowledge and preferences among thepopulation of those services. All the results may bedisaggregated by region, gender, age marital status, educationlevel, economic activity and income level.
b. Availability of ICT Household Indicators
Detailed information at the indicator level for eachcountry is given in Table A3 of the Annex. However,the figures summarising the availability of indicators(% of countries and % of population covered) have tobe evaluated with due consideration given to the lowcoverage of the stocktaking exercise in the region. Adearth of metainformation on ICT indicators persistsin the region (see Section 3.1).
The availability of basic ICT indicators is high forthe following indicators: presence of electricity, radio,fixed telephone and TV (between 74% and 89% of
the countries, representing 74% to 81% of thepopulation of the responding countries). Less coverageis shown for the following basic indicators: presenceof mobile telephone and presence of Internet access.
The indicators on access to Internet and usage of ICTare scarce in the region, and disseminated in less than25% of the countries (covering about 25% of the regionalpopulation). A special effort must be undertaken to collectindicators in this group in the region.
Indicators 14 to 20 from the list are available in lessthan 10% of the countries that responded to thequestionnaire.
Graph 3.2.
Availability of Household ICT Indicators
in African Countries
0
20
40
60
80
100
ELE
CT
RA
DIO
FIX
TL
MB
LT
L
TV
HO
U
PC
HO
U
INT
HO
U
AC
CE
SS
LO
CA
T
FR
EQ
PC
US
E
INT
US
E
INT
SE
R
LA
NG
INT
PR
OD
VA
LU
E
BA
RP
C
BA
RIN
T
BA
RP
UR
GE
OG
%o
fre
sp
on
de
nt
co
un
trie
s
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
50
Graph 3.3.
Availability of Household ICT Indicators
in African Countries (weighted by population)
0
20
40
60
80
100
ELE
CT
RA
DIO
FIX
TL
MB
LT
L
TV
HO
U
PC
HO
U
INT
HO
U
AC
CE
SS
LO
CA
T
FR
EQ
PC
US
E
INT
US
E
INT
SE
R
LA
NG
INT
PR
OD
VA
LU
E
BA
RP
C
BA
RIN
T
BA
RP
UR
GE
OG
%o
fto
talp
op
ula
tio
no
fre
sp
on
den
tco
un
trie
s
There is concordance between the level of demandof household ICT indicators and the availability atthe country level, with the exception of a few cases:the perceived needs are not met in Benin, CentralAfrican Republic, Lesotho, Tanzania, Tunisia andZambia. In Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritius andMorocco, the availability of indicators may satisfythe existing demand.
Table 3.9 shows the correlation between level ofdigital access and availability of indicators. A higherdigital access level entails a richer availability ofindicators (15 out of 20), while less than one-third ofindicators are, on average, calculated for the remainingcountries. Due to the surveys carried out inMadagascar, Kenya and Rwanda, the availability inlow digital access countries is on average higher thanin medium digital access countries.
Table 3.9. Availability of ICT Household Indicators by Digital Access Level (average number ofindicators in each group)
puorGrotacidnI
leveLsseccAlatigiD
hgiHsseccA
reppUsseccA
muideMsseccA
woLsseccA
)srotacidni7(TCIotsseccacisaB - 7/7 7/5 7/8,4
)srotacidni3(sseccatenretnI - 3/2 3/1 3/6,0
)srotacidni6(egasuTCI - 6/4 6/0 6/9,0
)srotacidni3(egasuotsreirraB - 3/2 3/0 3/3,0
)rotacidni1(noitacollacihpargoeG - 1/0 1/0 1/0
srotacidniTCIdlohesuoH:LATOT - 02/51 02/6 02/6,6
51
Chapter 3. Status of ICT Indicators in Africa
c. Disaggregations of Household ICT Indicators
In relation to the breakdown of ICT householdindicators, it is important to recall that the designof the statistical operations, and in particular thesample size, are critical to the possibility ofdisaggregating the indicator values forsubpopulations. In this sense, when household ICTindicators (and this is generally the case forindicators of basic access to ICT) are provided bycensuses (such as those mentioned by Benin, TheGambia, Morocco and Senegal), thedisaggregations are only limited by the statisticalconfidentiality, therefore it is possible to obtain anykind of breakdown by the remaining censusvariables (location, rural/urban habitat, age, genderand education level of the head of household, etc.).When household ICT indicators are produced byhousehold surveys, the choice is limited by the
survey design: the available ICT indicators(between 2 and 12 in the household surveysmentioned in the metadata questionnaire) can bedisaggregated generally as described in Table 3.10.
Age, gender and location are the most commonclassification variables for household ICT indicatorsin African surveys, followed by education andeconomic activity. There is no detailed informationabout the classifications used (age intervals,classification of education levels, etc.) in the metadataquestionnaire. No further analysis of comparabilitycan be carried out at this stage. However, theapplication of internationally standardised householdsurveys in other African countries (such as ‘Enquête1-2-3’ or ‘Living Standards Measurement survey,LSMS’) not mentioned in this assessment may providefurther harmonisation of the classifications used inhousehold indicators.
Table 3.10. Disaggregations for ICT Indicators from General Household Surveys in African Countries
Notes: - Only answers to the metadata questionnaire are considered- (1) Niger mentions ‘Demographic characteristics’- (2) Tunisia mentions ‘any kind’ of disaggregation
tsilyrtnuoC
selbairaVnoitacifissalC
egA redneG noitacudE/emocnI
erutidnepxelevel
noitacoL yticinhtEcimonocE
ytivitcahtlaeHsutats
nineB X X X X X X
ayneK X X X
racsagadaM X X X
suitiruaM X X X X X
regiN )1( )1( )1( X )1( )1( )1(
adnawR X X X X X
lageneS X X X X X X X
aisinuT )2( )2( )2( )2( )2( )2( )2( )2(
ainaznaTfo.R.U X X
aibmaZ X X
ewbabmiZ X X X X X
latoT 9 8 7 6 8 5 7 3
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
52
Section 3.4 ICT Indicators in Business in Africa
a. Sources of information
There are basically three types of sources providingICT indicators on the business sector in Africa:economic censuses, general enterprise surveys andspecific ICT surveys in businesses (Table 3.11)
Use of economic censuses
Economic censuses that survey exhaustively thecomplete business sector are very expensiveoperations. In the region, Mauritius and Zimbabwereported the inclusion of ICT questions in economiccensuses (Zimbabwe only included the presence of afixed telephone, while Mauritius included all theindicators on basic and advanced access to ICT and
Table 3.11. Statistical Operations Providing Indicators on ICT in Business in Africa
usage, and value of e-commerce sales. The small sizeof the Mauritius economy can justify the use of aneconomic census. However, its sustainability for largercountries should be examined.
In the case of economic censuses, the observation unitincludes establishments.
Use of general enterprise surveys
Enterprise surveys based on sampling a representativesubpopulation of firms are possible only whereenterprise directories are kept up to date. Countrieswith a large informal sector risk leaving uncovered alarge part of the economic sector if no othercomplementary surveys are carried out1.
1 For example, the Enquête 1-2-3 developed by DIAL and the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs have been applied tomeasure the informal sector in several West African countries.
noitarepOfoepyT
leveLemocnI
emocnIhgiHelddiM-reppU
emocnIelddiM-rewoL
emocnIemocnIwoL
susneCcimonocE suitiruaM ewbabmiZ
syevruSsesirpretnElareneG adnawR
syevruSTCIcoHdAoccoroM
aisinuTnineB
racsagadaM
sreilppuSlageneSainaznaT
53
Chapter 3. Status of ICT Indicators in Africa
In enterprise surveys, the observation unit is alwaysthe firm, not its establishments or local units.
Use of specific business ICT surveys
Madagascar, Morocco and Tunisia are the only threecountries in the region that implemented specific ICTsurveys in the business sector. The survey inMadagascar covered only the agglomeration of thecapital (160 juridical persons includingadministrations). Morocco and Tunisia, which havean income level and digital access level above theregional average, carried out surveys restricted to theindustrial and ICT sectors, respectively.
The observation units were the firms.
Use of other sources
Suppliers of telephone and Internet services are apossible source of information about their subscribers.They represent a source for ICT indicators in Senegaland Tanzania.
2 It has to be taken into account that countries that declare the availability of any indicators represent only 7% of theGDP of the countries responding to the questionnaire, which is in turn only 29% of the region GDP.
Graph 3.4.
Availability of Business ICT Indicators
in African Countries
0
20
40
60
80
100
FIX
TE
L
MO
BIL
CO
MP
NC
OM
P
INT
EN
ET
TY
PE
INT
LO
CN
ET
WE
BS
ITE
ICT
INV
SH
CO
MP
SH
INT
SE
RV
ICE
S
PU
RC
H
SA
LE
S
CU
ST
OM
TR
AIN
BA
RP
C
BA
RIN
T
BA
RE
CO
M
GE
OG
%o
fre
sp
on
den
tco
un
trie
s
b. Availability of Business ICT Indicators
The availability of business ICT indicators is generallylow in the region2. Country results are indicated in TableC3 of the Annex and represented in Graphs 3.4 and 3.5.
Indicators on basic access to ICT (except for fixedtelephone) are available in less than 30% of the countries.The remaining indicators are available in less than 20%of the countries, except for presence of a website andvalues of Internet sales. Interestingly, results accordingto country GDP are better, since the two largesteconomies amongst the respondent countries (Moroccoand Tunisia) have more indicators. Sub-Saharian Africais however, lagging behind.
According to the country GDP, the availability of theindicators presence of fixed telephone, presence of awebsite, value of Internet purchases and value of Internetsales accounts for more than 50% of the total GDP ofrespondent countries.
The following indicators: share of employees using aPC and using Internet, types of services Internet is usedfor, barriers to computer and Internet use and to e-commerce, and geographic location of sales areextremely scarce in the region.
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
54
Graph 3.5.
Availability of Business ICT Indicators
in African countries (according to GDP)
0
20
40
60
80
100
FIX
TE
L
MO
BIL
CO
MP
NC
OM
P
INT
EN
ET
TY
PE
INT
LO
CN
ET
WE
BS
ITE
ICT
INV
SH
CO
MP
SH
INT
SE
RV
ICE
S
PU
RC
H
SA
LE
S
CU
ST
OM
TR
AIN
BA
RP
C
BA
RIN
T
BA
RE
CO
M
GE
OG
c. Disaggregations of Business ICT Indicators
The observation units can be classified according todifferent variables, as described in Table 3.12. Thequestionnaire does not provide information about classsize (based on number of employees or turnover) usedin Madagascar, Mauritius, Rwanda and Zimbabwe.Interestingly, the only country that declared to classify
observation units is the smallest in size (Mauritius).In the case of Mauritius and Zimbabwe, the use ofeconomic censuses should allow any kind ofdisaggregation of the available ICT indicators.
No information about the classifications used foreconomic activity in Morocco, Tunisia and Zimbabweis available.
55
Chapter 3. Status of ICT Indicators in Africa
Table 3.12. Classification Variables for the Business ICT Indicators in Africa
yrtnuoCnoitavresbO
tinUcimonocE
ytivitcAeziS
)seeyolpme(eziS
)revonruT(noitacoL
lacidiruJmroF
racsagadaM esirpretnE X X
suitiruaM tnemhsilbatsE X X X
occoroM esirpretnE X
adnawR esirpretnE X X
aisinuT esirpretnE X
ewbabmiZroesirpretnEtnemhsilbatsE
X X
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
56
Section 3.5 ICT Indicators in Other Sectors in Africa
The stocktaking exercise identified other sourcesof data about the information society and theinformation economy based on statisticaloperations. Table 3.13 below shows the availableinformation sources classified by domain and typeof statistical operation.
As it can be seen, several sources of ICT indicatorsare related to the use of statistical operations in placeof a more general profile: foreign trade statistics,National Accounts, Education statistics. Coherently,countries that have statistical operations reported (withthe exception of The Gambia) a very high or highdemand of ICT indicators.
Table 3.13. ICT Statistics in Other Sectors in Africa
niamoD seirtnuoC
stcudorpTCIniedartdnadnamed,ylppuS)edartlanretxE(aibmaG
)stcudorpTCIfostropmI(aisinuT
snoitacifilauqdnasnoitapucco,sllikS)yevrussgninraednatnemyolpme(aibmaG
)TCIninoitacudelamroF(aisinuT
sesirpretneTCI )stnuoccAlanoitaNehtnirotcesTCIehtfotnenopmoc(aibmaG
yteicosnoitamrofniehtroferutcurtsarfnI )TCIfoyhpargotraC(occoroM
noitacudeniTCI )noitacudelanoisseforpdnayraitreT,yradnoceS,yramirP(occoroM
tnemnrevogniTCInineB
racsagadaMoccoroM
stnemtsevniTCI aisinuT
57
Chapter 3. Status of ICT Indicators in Africa
Key issues on the Availability of ICT Indicators in Africa
• Metadata collection: An effort has to be made to gathermetadata information from medium digital access levelcountries in Africa. Special effort should be made toinvestigate the status of ICT indicators in Nigeria, SouthAfrica and Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
• Data sources: Based on the survey, NSOs are the mainproviders of ICT indicators in Africa. Only in two Maghrebcountries (Morocco and Tunisia) other institutions provideICT-related statistical information. The use of multi-purposehousehold surveys that include a specific module on ICTor at least several ICT-related questions is extended in theregion and has to be explored for its cost-efficiency. Theexistence of harmonised household surveys in the region(Enquête 1-2-3, LSMS) may be of great help. The experienceof Kenya in specific ICT household surveys or Mauritiusin the preparation of a specific module in a multi-purposehousehold survey may be disseminated. For business ICTindicators, the situation is similar: two countries in Maghrebcarry out specific surveys, while in Sub-Saharan Africa thescarcity of indicators is the rule. Economic censuses cannotmonitor the rapidly changing ICT environment, andenterprise surveys are not fully in place. Suppliers of utilities
(electricity, telephone, Internet) are a useful source but theircoverage (normally they are restricted to subscriber personsor households) and international comparability of theestimates has yet to be established. The coverage of ICT inother sectors is also poor except for the government sectorsin several countries.
• Resources: Least Developed Countries in Africa do nothave financing for the collection of ICT indicators. Severalcountries that reported a high demand for indicators do nothave the resources for producing them and have a lowavailability of indicators. National and internationalcollaboration is rare in the region, except for the multi-country project SCAN-ICT. In some cases, policy makers(Ministries for Communications) have been involved withthe implementation of household surveys on ICT.
• Key gaps in ICT indicators: Indicators on basic access ofhouseholds to ICT are available in about 80% of thecountries, but more specific indicators on presence andaccess to Internet, mobile telephone, usage of ICT are veryscarce in the region and an effort has to be made to increasetheir availability.
59
Chapter 4. Status of ICT indicators in Central Asia and Central and Eastern European Countries
Chapter 4. Status of ICT indicators in Central Asiaand Central and Eastern EuropeanCountries
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
60
Section 4.1 Notes on the Regional Data Collection
a. Geographic Coverage of the Response to theQuestionnaire
The United Nations Conference on Trade andDevelopment (UNCTAD) undertook the metadatacollection on ICT indicators in Central Asian andCentral and Eastern European countries incollaboration with the United Nations EconomicCommission for Europe (UNECE). The regionincludes UNECE member countries which are notmembers of the Organization for EconomicCooperation and Development (OECD) or the EU. Itincludes Central Asian and Caucasus countries, whichare also members of the United Nations Economicand Social Commission for Asia Pacific (UNESCAP).
The region includes a majority of countriesclassified as lower-middle income and with mediumdigital access. Dominated in surface and populationby the Russian Federation, the regional groupingis mainly composed of countries in transition froma centrally planned to a market-based economy. Inthis group, four candidate countries of the EuropeanUnion (Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania and Turkey) areprogressively harmonising their statistical systemsto EU standards and many others benefit from co-operation activities in the field of official statistics.The regional grouping also includes three smallstates with an economy highly based on the
financial sector (Andorra, Liechtenstein andMonaco).
The metadata questionnaire was sent to 24 countries.The list of countries to which the questionnaires weresent is classified by income and digital access level inTable 4.1. In the region, the Digital Access Index(DAI) classification is not available for three of thefour countries with high income levels.
b. Analysis of Response Rate
Nineteen out of twenty-four countries (79%)responded to the questionnaire. The coverage of thestocktaking exercise is very high, both in terms ofregional population (89%) and GDP (95%). The twomost populous countries and largest economies (theRussian Federation and Turkey) responded to thequestionnaire, as well as the third largest economy(Israel) and the third country in population (Ukraine).
In geographic terms, Central Asia had the lowestresponse rate.
However, the group of four low income countries inthe region is poorly covered accounting for 21% ofits population and 23% of its GDP. This is in part dueto the lack of response from Uzbekistan, the mostpopulous country in this group.
61
Chapter 4. Status of ICT indicators in Central Asia and Central and Eastern European Countries
Table 4.1. Country Coverage of the Stocktaking Exercise in Asia-Pacific
Note: 19 out of 24 countries to which the questionnaire was sent, answered. They are shaded in the table above.
Graph 4.1. Coverage of the Stocktaking Exercise in Terms of Population and GDP Share in CentralAsia and Central and Eastern European Countries
% of regional population covered by
the stocktaking exercise
89
11Respondent
countries
Non-respondent
countries
% of regional GDP share covered by
the stocktaking exercise
95
5Respondent
countries
Non-respondent
countries
levelemocnI
leveLsseccAlatigiD
tonIADelbaliava
sseccAhgiH sseccAreppU sseccAmuideM sseccAwoL
emocnIhgiH arrodnAnietsnethceiL
ocanoM
learsI
elddiM-reppUemocnI
aitaorC
elddiM-rewoLemocnI
airagluBnoitaredeFnaissuR
ainablAainemrA
suraleBanivogezreHdnaainsoB
aigroeGnatshkazaK
ainamoRorgenetnoMdnaaibreS
ainodecaMRYFyekruT
natsinemkruTeniarkU
najiabrezA
emocnIwoL natszygryKavodloMfocilbupeR
natsikebzU
natsikijaT
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
62
Table 4.2. Coverage by Income and Digital Access Group (%)
emocnI seirtnuoC noitalupoP PDG
emocnihgiH 0,57 5,99 3,99
emocnielddim-reppU 0,001 0,001 0,001
emocnielddim-rewoL 7,68 8,59 2,69
emocniwoL 0,05 3,12 7,22
latoT 2,97 5,88 4,59
leveLsseccAlatigiD seirtnuoC noitalupoP PDG
sseccahgiH 0,001 0,001 0,001
sseccareppU 0,001 0,001 2,47
sseccamuideM 0,08 4,28 8,98
sseccawoL 0,05 0,65 7,38
noitamrofnioN 7,66 2,57 2,47
latoT 2,97 5,88 4,59
In terms of the digital access level, the coveragedecreases along with the value of the DAI. Therefore,the availability of ICT indicators in the region isprobably overestimated.
Consequently, a special effort should be made to gatherinformation from the Central Asian countries andthereby increase the awareness of ICT metadataindicators.
63
Chapter 4. Status of ICT indicators in Central Asia and Central and Eastern European Countries
Section 4.2 Institutional Environment for ICT indicators in CentralAsia and Central and Eastern European Countries
a. Demand for ICT Statistics in Central Asia andCentral and Eastern European Countries
The demand for ICT indicators in the region ismedium to very high with the exception of fourcountries (Table 4.3). No demand for indicators onhouseholds was declared by Belarus and Bosniaand Herzegovina. The countries with highest accessto ICT reported a very high demand with theexception of Liechtenstein.
The countries with very high demand on ICThousehold indicators have effectively implementedstatistical operations. However, the high demand incountries such as Georgia, Kazakhstan (but it has plansto produce a larger number of indicators), Ukraineand the Russian Federation is not yet satisfied.
No information is available on ICT business indicatorscollected by Israel and Turkey, where a high demandis assessed. In Ukraine, the very high demand isreflected by the implementation of the Survey on stateof informatization 2000-2004.
b. Institutions Collecting ICT data in Central Asia andCentral and Eastern European Countries
NSOs were responsible for collecting the businessindicators identified in the questionnaire.
Andorra is the exception, where the Department ofInformation Society and Strategic Projects completeda survey and a high number of institutions providedsome sort of ICT indicators (including private banksand associations). Otherwise all household surveys
Table 4.3. Demand for ICT Statistics in Central Asia and Central and Eastern European Countries
Note: The following countries did not assess the demand for household ICT indicators: Albania and FYR Macedonia. The following countriesdid not assess the demand for ICT business indicators: Albania, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, FYR Macedoniaand Russian Federation.
dnameDleveL
leveLdnameD
hgiHyreV hgiH muideM woL dnameDoN
TCIdlohesuoHsrotacidnI
arrodnAlearsIyekruT
aigroeGairagluB
natshkazaKeniarkU
noitaredeFnaissuR
natszygryKavodloM.peR
ainamoRnajiabrezA
aitaorC
nietsnethceiLainemrA
suraleBanivogezreHdnaainsoB
TCIssenisuB
srotacidnI
eniarkUlearsIyekruT
ainemrAairagluB
natshkazaKarrodnA
natszygryKavodloM.peR
ainamoRaigroeG
nietsnethceiL
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
64
containing ICT indicators were also under theresponsibility of NSOs.
Ministries responsible for Communication and/orTechnology in Israel, Moldova and the RussianFederation were also mentioned as providers of otherstatistics on the business sector.
The academic sector was involved only in the RussianFederation (Academy of Sciences and State University– High School of Economy).
c. Resources
Most countries in the region (including those of lowincome level) finance the collection of ICT indicatorsthrough their regular NSOs (Table 4.4). The two EUcandidate countries (Bulgaria – see Box 4.1 - andRomania) combined their regular budgets with
international funds from the European Commission(Eurostat’s projects for harmonising the statisticalsystem). The national Romanian Ministry ofCommunication and Information provided fundingfrom their regularly supported statistical activities,demostrating policy-maker’s demand for these typesof indicators.
Interestingly, Liechtenstein, a high-income country,reports a low demand for ICT indicators and nofinancing for the relevant statistical operations.Four other countries of lower-middle income donot have any specific financial source for ICTstatistics.
The Ukrainian questionnaire made reference tointernational co-operation, specifically, collaborationwith UNDP in the project ‘Innovation springboard:ICT for Ukrainian welfare’.
Table 4.4. Resources for ICT Statistics in Central Asia and CEE Countries by Income Level
Note: Multiple options are allowed. Information is not available for Croatia.
sdnuFfonigirO
leveLemocnI
emocnIhgiHelddiM-reppU
emocnIelddiM-rewoL
emocnIemocnIwoL
tegduBralugeR arrodnAlearsI
suraleBairagluBaigroeG
natshkazaKainamoR
naissuRnoitaredeF
eniarkUyekruT
avodloMnatszygryK
noitarepooClanoitaN ainamoR
noitarepooClanoitanretnI ainamoRairagluBeniarkU
elbaliavAgnicnaniFoN nietsnethceiL ainablAainemrA
najiabrezAanivogezreH&ainsoB
65
Chapter 4. Status of ICT indicators in Central Asia and Central and Eastern European Countries
Box 4.1. PHARE activities in the field of ICT statistics in the EU candidate countries
The European Union-funded PHARE programme supports thestatistical systems of the candidate countries through nationaland multi-country programmes. During the process ofintegration into EU, Bulgarian NSOs have benefited fromPHARE support for the implementation of ICT surveys inaccordance with the Eurostat recommendations.
The National Statistical Institute of Bulgaria, in co-operationwith the European Union, conducted a Survey on Informationand Communication Technologies Usage in Households 2004according to Eurostat requirements (European CommunityDirectives and Regulation No 808/2004 of the EuropeanParliament).
The observation units considered in the survey are householdsand their members aged between 16 and 74 years. The universedid not include collective households and one-memberhouseholds, comprising persons less than 16 years old andabove 74 years old. The sample covered 4.614 households in
total (10.150 persons) from different regions in Bulgaria. Astratified two-stage sampling strategy was applied, with primarysample units used as the statistical districts and households,the secondary sample units. Questionnaire forms forhouseholds and individuals were used separately. Geographicalstrata are defined by the administrative divisions of the country.
The questionnaires for households and persons include 27 mainquestions in total, combined into four modules:
• Households (Module A) - access to information andcommunication technologies ;
• Persons (Modules B, C and D): Usage of Information andcommunication technologies; usage of Internet; Internettrade.
The available disaggregations of data include age, sex, highestlevel of educational degree and different types of person’semployment, as well as habitat (rural urban).
d. Definition of ICT
There is a high proportion of countries in the regionwith a formal definition of ICT (53%) and up to 71%of countries may have one in the near future, sinceAzerbaijan, Georgia and Kazakhstan are developingone (Table 4.5). The efforts toward harmonisationhave been facilitated by the existence of regionalorganisations with competence in statistics (OECD,Eurostat, CIS-Stat). These organizations have had an
impact in the use of formal definitions: some countriesin the region apply the Eurostat definition (Bulgaria)while others (Israel) use the OECD definition of theICT sector.
Out of the five countries without a definition, thefollowing two reported low or no demand for ICT inhousehold statistics, and did not identify financingsources for undertaking the necessary operations:Armenia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
66
Table 4.5. Existence of an ICT Definition in Central Asia and Central and Eastern European Countries
Note: Only answers to the metadata questionnaire are considered (missing information for Croatia).
e. Dissemination of ICT Statistics
A large number of publications on ICT indicators areavailable in the region, both on households’ andbusinesses’ access and usage (Tables 4.6 and 4.7), anddata with the reference periods 2004, 2003 and 2002,exist in almost all countries in the region. Countriesthat use multi-purpose household surveys orspecialised surveys (income and expenditure, labourforce) publish results annually (Armenia, Azerbaijan,Israel, Ukraine). Several countries disseminateshorter-term household budget data (Belarus, Georgia,Russian Federation).
In the domain of business access and ICT usage,Armenia and Belarus disseminate monthlyinformation about the ICT sector.
Romania and Ukraine are the only two countries inthe region where specific business surveys on ICTare carried out annually. Israel, where a genericmanufacturing survey is used to collect ICT indicators,also reports annual periodicity.
Based on the results of the questionnaire 8 out of 18countries have a publication with ICT indicators. Fivemore are planning to publish ICT indicators. The
tsiLyrtnuoC
noitinifeDfosutatS
noitinifeDoNninoitinifeDnoitaraperP
noitinifeDTCIdeilppA
ainablA X
arrodnA X
ainemrA X
najiabrezA X
suraleB X
anivogezreH&ainsoB X
airagluB X
aigroeG X
learsI X
natshkazaK X
natszygryK X
nietsnethceiL X
avodloM X
ainamoR X
noitaredeFnaissuR X
yekruT X
eniarkU X
)%(noigerehtniseirtnuocllA )%92(5 )%81(3 )%35(9
67
Chapter 4. Status of ICT indicators in Central Asia and Central and Eastern European Countries
following five do not have any publication plans:Albania, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Liechtenstein
Table 4.6. Most Recent Date of ICT Collection (households)
Note: (1) The surveys have been described as closely as possible given the little amount of information in the questionnaires.Bold rows correspond to ICT-specific surveys.
yrtnuoC )1(noitarepOlacitsitatSfoepyTforebmuNTCIdetcelloC
selbairaVnoitcelloCtneceRtsoM
ainablA yevrussnoitidnocgniviL 53 2002gnirpS
arrodnA yteicoSnoitamrofnIehtfoscitsitatS 6 )launnA(4002retsemests1
ainemrA yevrusecroFruobaL )launnA(3002rebmetpeS
yevrusdlohesuoH .a.n 1002,2002,3002
najiabrezA yevruSdlohesuoH 7 launnA
suraleB yevruStegduBdlohesuoH 6 )ylretrauQ(4002
airagluB dnasdlohesuohniTInoyevruSslaudividni
12 3002enuJ
aitaorC yevruStegduBdlohesuoH 01 3002
aigroeG yevrusdlohesuoH 6 )lairtsemeS(4002yraunaJ
learsI yevruStegduBdlohesuoH 001~ )launnA(2002
natshkazaK "tenretnifosresufoyevruS"020-NmroF 01
ainamoR sdlohesuohybstcudorpTCIfoegasU .a.n 4002
.deFnaissuR yevruStegduBdlohesuoH 01 )lairtsemeS(4002yraunaJ
yekruT foeludom(yevrusegasuTCIdlohesuoH)yevruSecroFruobaLdlohesuoH
.a.n 4002enuJ
eniarkU yevrussnoitidnocgniviL 3 )launnA(3002rebotcO
and Armenia. Three of these countries, withoutpublications, reported a low demand for ICT indicators.
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
68
Table 4.7. Most Recent Date of ICT Collection (Business)
Note: (1) The surveys have been described as closely as possible given the little amount of information in the questionnaires.Bold rows correspond to ICT-specific surveys.
yrtnuoC )1(noitarepOlacitsitatSfoepyT forebmuNdetcelloC
TCIselbairaV
noitcelloCtneceRtsoM
ainemrA "secivresnoitacinummoceletmorfsemocnI"troperlacitsitatsylhtnoM 6 )ylhtnoM(4002enuJ
suraleB "secivreSnoitacinummoCmorfseuneveR"tropeRlacitsitatSylhtnoM 6 )ylhtnoM(4002enuJ
airagluB sesirpretneniecremmoc-ednaegasuTCI 63 4002tsuguA
learsI yevruSgnirutcafunaM 4 )launnA(1002
natshkazaK fonoitcudorpdnaTCIfoesufoyevruS"mrofnI-3mroF")secivresdnaskrow(stcudorpdetaler
64
natszygryK gnitropeRlacitsitatSetatS 64 4002enuJ
avodloM retupmochtiwgnippiuqednanoitazitamrofnifoleveLseuqinhcet
35 3002
ainamoR sesirpretneybstcudorpTCIfoegasU 15 4002,3002,2002
naissuR.deF
dnaTIfoesuehtnonoitamrofni"yevruSlacitsitatSlaredeF"secivresdnasdoogdetalerfonoitcudorp
051 3002
eniarkU noitazitamrofnifosutatsnoyevruslacitsitatslanoitaN 42 )launnA(2002yraurbeF
69
Chapter 4. Status of ICT indicators in Central Asia and Central and Eastern European Countries
Section 4.3 ICT Indicators in Households in Central Asia andCentral and Eastern European countries
a. Sources of Information:
The relatively stronger capacity of the statisticalsystems in this group of countries (mostly centrallyplanned economies that emphasized data collection)
Table 4.6. Statistical Operations Providing Indicators on ICT in Households in Central Asia and CEE
-with respect to other regions considered in the study-is reflected by the fact that most indicators areproduced by household surveys, either adapting multi-purpose surveys, or ad hoc thematic surveys on ICT(Table 4.6).
Note: Andorra does not have estimates for the DAI.
noitarepOfoepyT
leveLsseccAlatigiD
sseccAhgiH sseccAreppU sseccAmuideM sseccAwoL
susneCgnisuoHdnanoitalupoP
syevruSdlohesuoHesoprupitluM learsI aitaorCnoitaredeFnaissuR
ainablAainemrA
suraleBanivogezreH&ainsoB
aigroeGnatszygryK
avodloMfocilbupeRyekruTeniarkU
najiabrezA
syevruSdlohesuoHTCIcohdA airagluB ainamoRnatshkazaK
noitarepOfoepyT
leveLemocnI
emocnIhgiHelddiM-reppU
emocnIelddiM-rewoL
emocnIemocnIwoL
susneCgnisuoHdnanoitalupoP
syevruSdlohesuoHesoprupitluM learsI aitaorC ainablAainemrA
najiabrezAsuraleB
anivogezreH&ainsoBaigroeG
noitaredeFnaissuRyekruTeniarkU
natszygryKavodloMfocilbupeR
syevruSdlohesuoHTCIcohdA arrodnA airagluBnatshkazaK
ainamoR
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
70
Use of Population and housing Censuses
No countries in the region reported the production ofICT indicators from Censuses.
Use of general household surveys
In the region, the majority of countries – independentlyof the income level and Digital Access Index - producehousehold ICT indicators by adding specific modulesor ICT-related questions to multi-purpose householdsurveys. The existence of a strong statistical historyin most of these countries ensures an easierimplementation of this type of data collection with aperiodicity higher than population censuses.
ICT modules have been included in different types ofhousehold surveys used in the region: householdbudget surveys (to record incomes by types andexpenditures by products), labour force surveys(instruments that record the situation with respect tolabour, type of employment, education level, andrelated topics) and living condition surveys, whichconsist of separate modules that may cover the topicslisted before and others such as health, security, etc.
The periodicity of household surveys in the majorityof countries in the region makes this particularinstrument very useful for measuring the rapid changesof the Information Society. It has to be noted, however,
that quality characteristics of the indicators producedfrom household surveys depend on the design of thesurvey (stratification, sampling method) and theavailability of up-to-date sampling frames (listings ofhouseholds by statistical districts). Also, the inclusionof a module on ICT may preclude the inclusion ofother topics of interest in order to maintain thequestionnaire length.
Use of specific ICT household surveys
Four countries in the region have implemented specifichousehold surveys on ICT (Andorra, Bulgaria,Kazakhstan and Romania), according to the metadataquestionnaire (see also Box 4.1).
The use of classification variables both for individualsand households permits a breakdown of ICT indicatorsacross the socio-economic and demographic groupsthereby allowing an investigation of the ‘digital gap’.
b. Availability of ICT Indicators
The availability of indicators about basic access toICT is high ranging between 68% and 84% of therespondent countries, representing 78% to 96% of thetotal population1 in the region. The presence ofInternet indicator is an exception as it is available inonly 42% of respondent countries covering 33% ofthe population (see Graphs 4.2 and 4.3):
Box 4.2. Design and Result of ICT Household Survey in Turkey (Information Technologies Diffusionand Usage Survey)
The Information Technologies Diffusion and Usage Survey -(ITDUS) 2000 was designed to gather data on ownership andusage characteristics of ICT users in Turkey. The Scientificand Technological Council of Turkey conducted the researchin collaboration with academicians from Faculties ofCommunications.
The survey, whose sample was designed by the State Instituteof Statistics, is representative of the urban population living inhouseholds (about 65 percent of all households). This mayoverestimate the availability in the national territory, since therural population has traditionally more serious limitations interms of diffusion and usage of ICT. The high cost ofimplementing the survey in rural areas was a major factor fornot including them. ITDUS-2000 was based on a sample sizeof 6.000 households. The sample covered 65 provinces and
168 sub-provinces and was selected with a two-stage multi-stratified random block sampling.
The survey contained questions designed to measurecharacteristics of usage and ownership of ICT goods and services:
• Availability of telephone, mobile telephone, personalcomputer, Internet, TV/digital TV/ cable TV, other ICTs(fax, DVD)
• Expenditures (according to latest invoices/payments)• Satisfaction/quality• Usage: knowledge, location, purpose, frequency, barriers
to use, services)
The profile variables used to disaggregate indicators includeincome, education, age, region, marital status and gender.
1 The figures refer to the countries that responded to the questionnaire. The absence of the indicator presence of electricityin the household in Ukraine should be reviewed, given that this is the third largest country (in terms of population).
71
Chapter 4. Status of ICT indicators in Central Asia and Central and Eastern European Countries
Graph 4.2.
Availability of Household ICT indicators
in Central Asian and CEE countries
0
20
40
60
80
100
ELE
CT
RA
DIO
FIX
TL
MB
LT
L
TV
HO
U
PC
HO
U
INT
HO
U
AC
CE
SS
LO
CA
T
FR
EQ
PC
US
E
INT
US
E
INT
SE
R
LA
NG
INT
PR
OD
VA
LU
E
BA
RP
C
BA
RIN
T
BA
RP
UR
GE
OG
%o
fre
sp
on
den
tco
un
trie
s
Graph 4.3.
%o
fto
talp
op
ula
tio
no
fre
sp
on
den
tco
un
trie
s
Availability of Household ICT Indicators
in Central Asian and CEE Countries
(weighted by population)
0
20
40
60
80
100
ELE
CT
RA
DIO
FIX
TL
MB
LT
L
TV
HO
U
PC
HO
U
INT
HO
U
AC
CE
SS
LO
CA
T
FR
EQ
PC
US
E
INT
US
E
INT
SE
R
LA
NG
INT
PR
OD
VA
LU
E
BA
RP
C
BA
RIN
T
BA
RP
UR
GE
OG
The indicators on usage of Internet are available inabout 20% of respondent countries, also coveringabout 20% of the total population. The indicator withthe greatest availability is purpose of Internet use.
The remaining indicators are available in less than20% of the cases. The presence of languages of the
visited Internet sites and barriers to Internet usage isparticularly low.
Azerbaijan, Liechtenstein, Macedonia (FYR) andUkraine have a particularly low level of availabilityof ICT household indicators. Georgia, Kazakhstan andthe Russian Federation reported a high demand for
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
72
ICT household indicators even though they are notyet available. There are plans for improving theavailability of ICT household indicators in Armenia,Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Kazakhstan andRomania. Unfortunately, no financing has beenidentified for two of those countries.
It is interesting to recall that the availability ofhousehold ICT indicators is strongly correlated withthe level of digital access, as shown in Table 4.9 andGraph 4.4. Countries with upper digital access2 havea higher proportion of the 20 indicators included inthe questionnaire: 10,4 out of 20 on average for upperdigital access countries, 6,4 for medium digital access.The availability decreases with the more specificindicators on new technologies (basic access >Internet access > ICT usage > Barriers to usage) forall the digital access levels.
Table A4 in the Annex gives detailed informationabout the availability of ICT household indicators atthe country level.
2 Israel and Azerbaijan were omitted from the graphical analysis, as they were the only countries with high and lowdigital access level respectively
Graph 4.4. Availability of ICT Household Indicators by Group and Digital Access Level
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Basic access to
ICT (7
indicators)
Internet access
(3 indicators)
ICT usage (6
indicators)
Barriers to
usage (3
indicators)
Geographical
location (1
indicator)
Group of indicators
Upper Medium
%o
fin
dic
ato
rsc
oll
ec
ted
c. Disaggregations of Household ICT Indicators
Household surveys providing ICT indicators areprevalent in the region. Indeed, the internationalsurvey Living Standards Measurement Survey(LSMS) has been applied in several countries(Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia &Herzegovina, Bulgaria… ). This survey records(with some country differences) the presence inhouseholds of durables and utilities such aselectricity, TV, radio and telephone (fixed andmobile), computers, together with someexpenditure in ICT (such as the telephone bill). Alldisaggregations available in LSMS apply to ICTindicators provided by this survey.
The same conclusion is valid for ICT modulesincluded in household surveys (household budget orlabour force), since they record the basic demographiccharacteristics of individuals and households. Thesesurveys allow disaggregating the indicators by basicpersonal characteristics (age, gender, education) and
73
Chapter 4. Status of ICT indicators in Central Asia and Central and Eastern European Countries
Table 4.9. Availability of ICT Household Indicators by Digital Access Level (number of indicators ineach group)
profession/ economic activity (see Box 4.3 on thegender perspective for ICT indicators in the region).
Box 4.3. Gender Perspective in ICT Surveys in the ECE region
The interest of investigating the ‘gender divide’ within the‘digital divide’ requires disaggregating the ICT indicators bysex, as well as employing gender-sensitive methodology andanalysis (“Statistics on Women and Men and ICT: the ECERegion”, document prepared by the Statistical Division ofUNECE for the Geneva Workshop, December 2003).
Through a questionnaire to NSOs in the ECE region,UNECE assessed that in 19 countries there was someavailability of ICT indicators disaggregated by sex, mainlyin EU countries and North America, in about 30% ofaccession and candidate countries, but scarcely in theBalkan and CIS countries. According to the report, Ukrainecarried out the People’s Security Survey in 2001 (in
collaboration with ILO and UNDP) where two ICT-relatedquestions (on basic access to computers) were introduced.
The primary source for these indicators are householdsurveys that record personal characteristics and ICTquestions related to access, use and knowledge of ICT.
UNECE Statistical Division acknowledges that specializeddata collections on ICT are difficult to implement incountries with limited statistical resources. And secondly,more efforts should be made to develop short ad hocmodules to be included in ongoing surveys, in order toensure that ICT data with respect to social conditions andfactors are collected.
Only Israel mentions that ethnicity can be used as aclassification variable (Table 4.10).
puorGrotacidnI
leveLsseccAlatigiD
sseccAhgiHreppUsseccA
muideMsseccA
sseccAwoL
)srotacidni7(TCIotsseccacisaB 7/6 7/3,6 7/5 7/3
)srotacidni3(sseccatenretnI 3/0 3/3,1 3/5,0 3/0
)srotacidni6(egasuTCI 6/5 6/6,1 6/8,0 6/0
)srotacidni3(egasuotsreirraB 3/0 3/7,0 3/1,0 3/0
)rotacidni1(noitacollacihpargoeG 1/0 1/3,0 1/0 1/0
srotacidniTCIdlohesuoH:LATOT 02/11 02/4,01 02/4,6 02/3
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
74
Table 4.10. Disaggregations for ICT Indicators from General Household Surveys in Central Asia andCentral and Eastern European Countries
Notes: • Only answers to the metadata questionnaire are considered• † Specific surveys on ICT in households exist• (1) Croatia mentions ‘socio-economic status’• (2) Kyrgyzstan mentions ‘anthropometric data’• (3) means that the country has carried out an LSMS survey and that the ICT indicators provided may be disaggregated by the variables included in that survey
tsiLyrtnuoC
selbairaVnoitacifissalC
egA redneG noitacudE/emocnI
erutidnepxelevel
noitacoL yticinhtEcimonocE
ytivitcahtlaeHsutats
ainablA X X X X X X X
arrodnA X X X
ainemrA X X X X X
najiabrezA )3( )3( )3( )3( )3( )3( )3(
suraleB X X X X X X
&ainsoBanivogezreH
)3( )3( )3( )3( )3( )3( )3(
airagluB )3( )3( )3( )3( )3( )3(
aitaorC )1( X
aigroeG X X X X X X
learsI X X X X X X X
natshkazaK X X X
natszygryK X X X X X X )2(
nietsnethceiL
avodloM X X X X X X
ainamoR X X
naissuRnoitaredeF
X X X X X
natsikijaT )3( )3( )3( )3( )3( )3( )3(
yekruT X X X X X
eniarkU X X X X X
latoT 61 41 71 51 21 1 51 6
†
†
†
†
†
75
Chapter 4. Status of ICT indicators in Central Asia and Central and Eastern European Countries
Section 4.4 ICT Indicators in Business in Central Asia andCentral and Eastern European Countries
a. Sources of Information
The majority of countries that collected at least oneof the 20 indicators specified in the questionnairecompleted specific ICT surveys (Table 4.11). SinceNSOs were responsible for data collection in all thecases, it can be assumed that they relied upon readilyavailable statistical infrastructure such as enterprisedirectories, sampling strategies already tested or,questionnaire designs and other technical skills.
Use of economic censuses
No economic censuses have been used in the regionfor investigating ICT in businesses. This is reasonabledue to the large industrial sector in the region, thatwould make this kind of source very expensive andunspecific.
Use of generic business surveys
In the region, there is a tradition of using surveys forthe manufacturing sector that investigate industryinputs and outputs. These kinds of surveys can alsobe used to collect ICT indicators. This is the case withIsrael, whose Manufacturing Survey collects 4 ICT-related variables out of 25 in the survey, andKyrgyzstan, where a larger number of ICT variables(46) are recorded in the State Statistical Reporting.
Surveys to the ICT sector
Armenia and Belarus have carried out surveys on theICT sector, specifically on revenues in thecommunications sector. While the development of ICTin this sector is important, it does not reflect the
extension of the Information Society across thebusiness sector.
Use of specific ICT surveys
Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Romania, theRussian Federation, and Ukraine completed specificsurveys for collecting ICT indicators in the businesssector.
Table D4 of the Annex gives a crosstabulation of thestatistical operations used and indicators collected forcountries in the region.
b. Availability of ICT Indicators
The availability of indicators is medium and coversthe economies representing 50%-60% of the regionalGDP1. For indicators on basic access to ICT, thecoverage in terms of the economic size is 60%. Theindicators presence and number of computers areavailable in only 32% of responding countries,however they account for up to 54% of the total GDP.
Indicators on advanced ICT access and usage are lessavailable (between 26% and 37% of the respondentcountries, representing between 13% and 55% of theeconomy). The availability of the two indicators typeof Internet access and presence of a local network islower, due to the fact that the Russian Federation doesnot collect them.
The availability of indicators about Internet activitiesand e-commerce is lower, accounting for between 11%and 21% of the respondent countries but almost 50%of the regional GDP, with the exception of the indicator
1 The lack of information about indicator availability in Turkey and Israel should be reviewed since they represent ahigh proportion of the regional GDP.
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
76
Table 4.11. Statistical Operations Providing Indicators on ICT in Business in Central Asia andCEE Countries
noitarepOfoepyT
leveLemocnI
emocnIhgiHelddiM-reppU
emocnIelddiM-rewoL
emocnIemocnIwoL
susneCcimonocE
syevruSsesirpretnElareneG learsI natszygryK
syevruSTCIcohdA )1(ainemrA)1(suraleB
airagluBnatshkazaK
noitaredeFnaissuRainamoR
eniarkU
focilbupeRavodloM
noitarepOfoepyTleveLsseccAlatigiD
sseccAhgiH sseccAreppU sseccAmuideM sseccAwoL
susneCcimonocE
syevruSsesirpretnElareneG learsI natszygryK
syevruSTCIcohdA airagluBnoitaredeFnaissuR
ainemrAsuraleB
avodloMfocilbupeRnatshkazaK
ainamoReniarkU
(1) Armenia and Belarus mention statistical operations referring to the ICT sector as an economic activity
customer groups - available only in Bulgaria andRomania - which covers 7% of the total GDP of
respondent countries and where Eurostat typequestionnaires were used.
77
Chapter 4. Status of ICT indicators in Central Asia and Central and Eastern European Countries
Graph 4.5.
Availability of ICT Business Indicators
in Central Asian & CEE Countries
0
20
40
60
80
100
FIX
TE
L
MO
BIL
CO
MP
NC
OM
P
INT
EN
ET
TY
PE
INT
LO
CN
ET
WE
BS
ITE
ICT
INV
SH
CO
MP
SH
INT
SE
RV
ICE
S
PU
RC
H
SA
LE
S
CU
ST
OM
TR
AIN
BA
RP
C
BA
RIN
T
BA
RE
CO
M
GE
OG
%o
fre
sp
on
den
tco
un
trie
s
Graph 4.6.
Availability of ICT Business Indicators
in Central Asian & CEE Countries
(weighted by GDP)
0
20
40
60
80
100
FIX
TE
L
MO
BIL
CO
MP
NC
OM
P
INT
EN
ET
TY
PE
INT
LO
CN
ET
WE
BS
ITE
ICT
INV
SH
CO
MP
SH
INT
SE
RV
ICE
S
PU
RC
H
SA
LE
S
CU
ST
OM
TR
AIN
BA
RP
C
BA
RIN
T
BA
RE
CO
M
GE
OG
%o
fto
talG
DP
of
resp
on
den
tco
un
trie
s
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
78
The indicator ICT training is only available in theRussian Federation.
Indicators about barriers to ICT and geographiclocation of sales have been collected only in Bulgaria,Romania and the Russian Federation (which accountfor almost half of the regional economy).
Andorra and Kazakhstan, two countries very differentin size and economic profile, have prospects toincrease the availability of indicators on Internetactivities and e-commerce for the next three years.
It has to be mentioned that the metadata about WesternBalkan countries’ (such as Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Croatia, Macedonia FYR and Serbia and Montenegro)indicators is very scarce and of little use for thestocktaking exercise.
c. Disaggregations of ICT Business Indicators
There is little metadada information about theclassification of variables used in the surveyscollecting ICT indicators in the region (Table 4.12).The size of firm is the most common classificationvariable for disaggregating indicators. Economicactivity, key to defining the ICT sector, is available inBulgaria, Moldova and Romania according to thequestionnaire. No countries mention the juridical formof the firm as a relevant classification field.
Table 4.12. Classification Variables for the Business ICT Indicators in Central Asia and Central andEastern Europe
yrtnuoC tinUnoitavresbOcimonocE
ytivitcAeziS
)seeyolpme(eziS
)revonruT(noitacoL
lacidiruJmrof
airagluB esirpretne X X
avodloM snosreplacidiruj X X X
learsI stnemhsilbatsE X X
natszygryK snoitutitsniesirpretne X X
eniarkU riehtdnasnosreplacidirujserutcurtsbus
X
ainamoR sesirpretne X X
79
Chapter 4. Status of ICT indicators in Central Asia and Central and Eastern European Countries
Section 4.5 ICT Indicators in other Sectors in Central Asia andCentral and Eastern European Countries
Additional potential sources of information on ICTindicators in the region, identified in thestocktaking exercise, and have been analysed in thischapter (See Table 4.13). Basically, these additionalsources consist of statistical operations completedby NSOs in Armenia, Bulgaria, Israel, Moldova,Romania and the Russian Federation, and by the
Department responsible for Information Society inAndorra.
The most investigated topics are education and foreigntrade. Given the generally high level of education inthe region, it may be useful for countries to examinethe impact of ICT on education.
Table 4.13. ICT Statistics in Other Sectors in Central Asia and Central and Eastern European Countries
niamoD seirtnuoC
stcudorpTCIniedartdnadnamed,ylppuS arrodnAainemrA
)stcudorpTCIfoedartngieroF(avodloMlearsI
rotcesTCI arrodnA)secivresretupmoc(ainemrA
noitacudeniTCI arrodnAainemrAairagluBainamoR
noitaredeFnaissuR
tnemnrevogniTCI airagluBainamoR
stnemtsevniTCI )tnemtsevningieroF(ainemrA
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
80
Key issues on the availability of ICT indicators in Central Asia and Central and Eastern Europeancountries
• Metadata collection: The non-response to the questionnaireis concentrated in Central Asian countries (Tajikistan,Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan), which are classified as lower-middle or lower income and, with medium or low digitalaccess. Results on ICT indicators availability are probablyoverestimated in the region. Very little information is availableabout ICT indicators in the Western Balkan countries.
• Data sources: Population and housing censuses and,economic censuses are not a source of ICT indicators in theregion. A majority of countries used multi-purposehousehold surveys and added specific ICT-related questionsor modules. Specific surveys on ICT have been completedin the household sector in a few countries from the region,while this was the most used instrument to collect indicatorson the business sector. Other statistical surveys of the NSOsprovide information on ICT in other fields, basically theeducation sector and foreign trade in ICT products.
• Resources: Four countries in the region did not identifyfinancing sources for ICT statistics, while others havebenefited from specific international co-operation for the
strengthening of their statistical system on ICT. Countriesreporting very high demand for household ICT indicatorshave satisfied their needs. This is not true for many countrieswith a high demand such as Georgia, Kazakhstan, theRussian Federation and Ukraine. The latter two countriesshould be a regional priority due to the size of theirpopulation. Two countries, Bulgaria and Romania,candidates to EU membership, benefited from the PHAREProgramme.
• Key gaps in ICT indicators: Indicators on basic access toICT by households are available in most countries, exceptpresence of Internet that only covers 1/3 of the regionalpopulation. Indicators on access to and usage of Internetare available only in 20% of the countries (covering 20%of the population). Other indicators are marginallycalculated. For the business sector, indicators on basicaccess cover about 60% of the regional economy. Indicatorson advanced ICT access and usage are available in one-third of countries. In particular, the lack of the indicator -presence of Internet access in the firm - in the RussianFederation reduces the global availability in the region.Other indicators are marginally available.
81
Chapter 5. Status of ICT Indicators in Western Asia
Chapter 5. Status of ICT Indicators inWestern Asia
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
82
Section 5.1 Notes on the Regional Data Collection
a. Geographic Coverage of the Response to theQuestionnaire
The stocktaking exercise on ICT sources andindicators in Western Asia was coordinated by theEconomic and Social Commission for Western Asia(ESCWA), who translated the metadata questionnaireinto Arabic and sent it to the thirteen member countries(see Table 5.1 for a classification of countries byincome and digital access level1). Egypt, a member ofboth ESCWA and the Economic Commission forAfrica (ECA), was included in this exercise,accounting for the largest population in the region.
The region includes middle-income countries, exceptfor Yemen (low income) and four rich oil-producingGulf States.
A high response rate was obtained, despite the factthat several factors could have hampered the exerciseas indicated below by ESCWA:
• There was no prior consultation with the NationalStatistical Offices (NSOs) to solicit their input onthe design of the questionnaire, or to alert them asto how they would be involved in the exercise;
1 Income levels are defined according to the World Bank classification of countries, based on the GDP per capita inPPPs, while digital access level is based on the ITU’s Digital Access Index (DAI) whose methodology is detailed inhttp://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/dai/index.html.
• It was assumed that the questionnaire, together withthe explanatory note, was sufficient;
• It was unclear to some of the NSOs at the beginningas to which of their units should have undertakenthe assignment as many of the NSOs in the ESCWAregion had established technology departments withspecific responsibilities.
• The data was collected during the summer.
b. Analysis of Response Rate
Ten countries, corresponding to 77% of the countries,and 83% both of the regional population and theregional GDP (see Graph 5.1), answered thequestionnaire. The coverage of the stocktakingexercise in terms of number of countries, proportionof population and of regional GDP is shown inTable 5.2 according to income and digital access level.
All medium and low digital access countries wereincluded in the questionnaire. It is important to notethat high income countries in the region, with upperdigital access levels, were poorly covered by theexercise (only 42% of the population and 44% of theGDP of that group). No information was collectedfrom Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates.
83
Chapter 5. Status of ICT Indicators in Western Asia
Table 5.1. Country Coverage of the Stocktaking Exercise in Western Asia
Note: 10 out of 13 countries to which the questionnaire was sent, answered. They are shaded in the table above.
Graph 5.1. Coverage of the Stocktaking Exercise in Terms of Population and GDP Share in Western Asia
% of regional population covered by
the stocktaking exercise
83
17Respondent
countries
Non-respondent
countries
% of regional GDP covered by the
stocktaking exercise
83
17Respondent
countries
Non-respondent
countries
leveLemocnI
leveLsseccAlatigiD
tonIADelbaliava
sseccAhgiH sseccAreppU sseccAmuideM sseccAwoL
emocnIhgiH niarhaBtiawuK
rataQbarAdetinU
setarimE
emocnIelddiM-reppU nonabeLnamO
aibarAiduaS
emocnIelddiM-rewoL qarI tpygEnadroJ
enitselaP
barAnairyScilbupeR
emocnIwoL nemeY
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
84
Table 5.2. Coverage by Income and Digital Access Group (%)
emocnI seirtnuoC noitalupoP PDG
emocnIhgiH 0,05 2,24 4,44
emocnielddim-reppU 0,001 0,001 0,001
emocnielddim-rewoL 0,08 9,87 4,78
emocniwoL 0,001 0,001 0,001
latoT 9,67 2,38 1,38
leveLsseccAlatigiD seirtnuoC noitalupoP PDG
sseccareppU 0,05 2,24 4,44
sseccamuideM 0,001 0,001 0,001
sseccawoL 0,001 0,001 0,001
noitamrofnioN 0,0 0,0 0,0
latoT 9,67 2,38 1,38
85
Chapter 5. Status of ICT Indicators in Western Asia
Section 5.2 Institutional Environment for ICT Indicators in Western Asia
a. Demand for ICT Statistics in Western Asia
According to the results of the metadata questionnaireas shown in Table 5.3, the demand for ICT householdindicators is generally higher than for the ICT businessindicators in every country in the region (an exceptionis Saudi Arabia, where the interest for indicators forhouseholds is low while for business it is high).
The countries with very high and high demand for ICTindicators have taken measures to address their needs:several indicators on ICT usage are available in Jordan,while Kuwait, Qatar and the Syrian Arab Republic areplanning to collect more indicators in the near future.
Both Palestine, which shows a medium level ofdemand for ICT household indicators, and Lebanon,where demand is low, have the current largestavailability of ICT usage indicators.
No obvious relationship between digital access leveland level of demand for indicators can be deduced.
It has to be mentioned that the the stocktaking exercisehad a positive effect on the demand for ICT indicators.
b. Institutions Collecting ICT Data in Western Asia
From an institutional viewpoint, ESCWA membercountries’ interest in ICT statistics is reflected in thecreation of a Regional Technical Working Group onICT indicators following the 6th Session of the ESCWAStatistical Committee (October 2004). This wasendorsed during the ESCWA 23rd Ministerial Session(May 2005). The Committee stipulated thatgovernment statistical offices in ESCWA membercountries be the principal source for the collection,processing and dissemination of the indicators.
Thirty-three statistical operations have been listed inthe stocktaking exercise, each collecting at least oneICT indicator. All countries mention their NationalStatistical Offices as the main institutionresponsible for ICT indicators. In Oman and Qatar,the Ministry of National Economy and the Planning
Table 5.3. Demand for ICT Statistics in Western Asia
leveLdnameDleveLdnameD
hgiHyreV hgiH muideM woL dnameDoN
dlohesuoHTCIsrotacidnI
nadroJ .peRbarAnairyStpygE
tiawuKnamO
enitselaPrataQnemeY
aibarAiduaSnonabeL
ssenisuBTCIsrotacidnI
aibarAiduaStpygE
tiawuKnamO
rataQ.peRbarAnairyS
nadroJ
enitselaP
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
86
1 According to the database prepared by ESCWA and containing the responses to the metadata questionnaire.
Table 5.4. Resources for ICT Statistics in Western Asia by Income Level
Note: Multiple options are allowed. No information is available for Saudi Arabia.
sdnuFfonigirO
leveLemocnI
emocnIhgiHelddiM-reppU
emocnIelddiM-rewoL
emocnIemocnIwoL
tegduBralugeR rataQ namO tpygEnadroJ
cilbupeRbarAnairyS
nemeY
noitarepooclanoitaN enitselaP
lanoitanretnInoitarepooc
enitselaPcilbupeRbarAnairyS
elbaliavagnicnanifoN tiawuK nonabeL
Council respectively play the role of the statisticaloffice1.
c. Resources
There is little information about financial resourcesfor ICT indicators in Western Asian countries(Table 5.4), and only from lower-middle incomecountries. Egypt, Jordan, Oman, Qatar and Yemenfinance the operations with their regular budgets,while the Syrian Arab Republic combines regularfunds and international cooperation, and Palestinedraws from national and international sources. Nofinancing is available in Kuwait and Lebanon.
d. Definition of ICT
A high proportion (two thirds) of Western Asiancountr ies responding to the quest ionnairealready have a formal definition of ICT. Lebanonis the only country with no definition (accordingto the metadata questionnaire) with a lowdemand for ICT household statistics. (Table 5.5).
It is interesting to mention that Kuwait isdeveloping a formal definition of ICT, butLebanon, where the availability of indicators onInternet usage is relatively higher, does not havesuch a definition.
87
Chapter 5. Status of ICT Indicators in Western Asia
Table 5.5. Existence of an ICT Definition in Western Asia
e. Dissemination of ICT Statistics
There is no information on publications fordisseminating ICT indicators from the metadataquestionnaire.
The reference period to statistical operations forcollecting ICT indicators is listed in Tables 5.6 and5.7 which show the last implementation dates.
Population and housing censuses incorporating ICTindicators are recent except in the case of the mostpopulous country, Egypt (1996), a fact that possiblyinvalidates the relevance of ICT variables collected
during that period for current uses. Interestingly,eight ESCWA countries will carry out generalpopulation censuses in the next 5 years: Egypt(2006), Palestine (2006), and six Gulf countries(2010).
Household surveys incorporating ICT indicators inJordan, Lebanon, Palestine and the Syrian ArabRepublic are recent (2003 and later).
In the case of business sources, Oman, Palestineand Qatar have carried out recent censuses orsurveys (2003-2004). The Industrial Query, anannual publication from the Syrian Arab Republic,
tsiLyrtnuoC
noitinifeDfosutatS
noitinifeDoNninoitinifeDnoitaraperP
noitinifeDTCIdeilppA
tpygE X
nadroJ X
tiawuK X
nonabeL X
namO X
enitselaP X
rataQ X
.peRbarAnairyS X
nemeY X
)%(noigerehtniseirtnuoctnednopserllA )%11(1 )%22(2 )%76(6
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
88
Table 5.6. Most Recent Date of ICT Data Collection (households)
yrtnuoC noitarepOlacitsitatSfoepyTforebmuNTCIdetcelloC
selbairaVnoitcelloCtneceRtsoM
tpygE susneCgnisuoHdnanoitalupoP 5 6891,6991
snoitacinummoceleTnonitelluBscitsitatS .a.n )launnA(3002-9991
yevruserutidnepxednaemocnI 6 5991,0002
nadroJ susnecylimaflareveS 01 7991,3002
yevruserutidnepxednaemocnI 5 6891,2991,7991,2002
rofsdlohesuohdnanoitalupoprofsusneclareneG4002
7 4002
nonabeL yevruShtlaeHylimaFesenabeL 6 4002
nonabeLnisutatSnerdlihC 5 0002
sutatSgniviLylimaF 98 4002
snoitutitsnIdnastnemhsilbatsE 4 4002
namO susneCgnisuoHdnanoitalupoP 4 3002rebmeceD
enitselaP susnecylimaflareveS 8 4002
snaemswenfosusneC 03 0002enuJ
tenretnIehtdnasretupmoclanosrepfosusneC 08 4002yluJ
rataQ susneCgnisuoHdnanoitalupoP 1 6891,7991,4002
aibarAiduaS susneCgnisuoHdnanoitalupoP 6 2991,4002
yevruscihpargomeD 1 0002rebotcO
barAnairyScilbupeR
yevruSecroFruobaL .a.n )launnA(3002-9991
htlaeHylimaF .a.n 0002
yevruserutidnepxednaemocnI .a.n 6991,3002
Note: Bold rows correspond to ICT-specific surveys.
has not registered ICT variables yet, but projectsusing ICT variables in the future, which mayincrease dramatically the timeliness and relevanceof figures in this country.
The economic census in Egypt shows a time lag whichis again too large to provide relevant figures for currentuses. However, the survey on PC statistics, collectingfour indicators, was carried out five years ago.
89
Chapter 5. Status of ICT Indicators in Western Asia
Table 5.7. Most Recent Date for ICT Collection (business)
Note: Bold rows correspond to ICT-specific surveys.
yrtnuoC snoitarepOlacitsitatSfoepyTforebmuNTCIdetcelloC
selbairaVnoitcelloctnecertsoM
tpygE susneCstnemhsilbatsE 6 6891-6991
sretupmoCcinortcelEscitsitatS
4 0002
namO susneC 3 3002rebmeceD
enitselaP susneclacimonocefoseireS 2 )launnA(4002-1002
sdrocerevitartsinimdA 8 )launnA(4002-0002
rataQ susneCstnemhsilbatsE 2 6891,7991,4002
cilbupeRbarAnairyS yreuQlairtsudnI .a.n )launnA(3002-9991
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
90
Section 5.3 ICT Household Indicators in Western Asia
a. Sources of Information
Three different sources of statistical information aboutICT in households were reported in the metadata
Table 5.8. Statistical Operations Providing Indicators on ICT in Households in Western Asia
noitarepOfoepyT
leveLemocnI
emocnIhgiHelddiM-reppU
emocnIelddiM-rewoL
emocnIemocnIwoL
susneCgnisuoHdnanoitalupoP rataQ namOaibarAiduaS
nadroJenitselaP
syevruSdlohesuoHesoprupitluM nonabeL tpygEnadroJ
cilbupeRbarAnairyS
syevruSdlohesuoHTCIcohdA enitselaP
questionnaire: population and housing censuses,household surveys with a limited number of ICTrelated questions and finally, in the case of Palestine,a specific survey on ICT in households (Table 5.8).
Note: Multiple options are allowed.
noitarepOfoepyTleveLsseccAlatigiD
sseccAhgiH sseccAreppU sseccAmuideM sseccAwoL
susneCgnisuoHdnanoitalupoP rataQ nadroJnamO
enitselaPaibarAiduaS
syevrusdlohesuoHesoprupitluM tpygEnadroJ
nonabeL
cilbupeRbarAnairyS
syevruSdlohesuoHTCIcohdA enitselaP
Note: Multiple options are allowed.
91
Chapter 5. Status of ICT Indicators in Western Asia
Use of Population and Housing Censuses
Egypt, Jordan, Oman, Palestine, Qatar and SaudiArabia have collected at least one ICT indicatorthrough the population and housing census. In allcases, the collected indicators are in the group of basicaccess to ICT in households. Oman and Saudi Arabiaonly collect the presence of electricity indicator. Egyptand Palestine collect the same indicators throughhousehold surveys with a higher frequency.
The high cost of population and housing censusesrenders them an inadequate source of data on therapidly changing ICT environment. However, theyprovide very detailed information for the variablescollected.
This type of source has been used in countriesindependently of their income levels.
Use of general household surveys
Household surveys based on a representative sampleof the population have been used to collect some ICT-related data, principally on basic access to ICT (Egypt,Jordan, Lebanon and Syrian Arab Republic). Thesurvey in Lebanon also included ICT usage variablessuch as purpose of computer and frequency of Internetuse, and concrete services / activities for which theInternet is used. The Multi-Purpose HouseholdSurvey in Jordan included a question on use ofInternet, and the Household Budget Survey includedquestions on the expenditure in telephone and Internet,as well as on equipment of different ICT goods.
Some of the other purposes for which surveys are usedinclude: household budget surveys, living conditionssurveys and demographic and health surveys.
The number of ICT indicators collected via this typeof statistical tool is between four and seven.
Use of Specific ICT Household Surveys
Palestine is the only country in the region that hasimplemented specific ICT surveys . Up to 80 ICT-related variables were included. The householdsincluded in the survey were used to carry out a new,more specific ICT survey (see Box 5.1). The firstsurvey covered the indicators on basic access to ICT,ICT usage and barriers to usage.
b. Availability of ICT Indicators
Table A5 in the Annex shows that indicators on basicaccess to ICT by households are available in themajority of countries in Western Asia. Kuwait andYemen have plans for collecting them next year. SaudiArabia – where demand for ICT in householdsindicators was reported as low - is the country in theregion that reported the lowest availability of thoseindicators.
Taking into account the population of the countriescovered by the available indicators, the picture is evenmore unclear. Except for basic access to ICTindicators, the remaining indicators cover less than10% of the regional population (see Graphs 5.2and 5.3)
A limited number of indicators on access to Internetand barriers to its use are available in Jordan, Lebanonand Palestine. Countries with plans for collecting themin the near future include: Egypt, Kuwait and Qatar (twoof the upper digital access countries) and the Syrian ArabRepublic, a low digital access country, but responsiveto the high demand for household indicators.
Box 5.1. Assessment of Direct Internet Project-2005 by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics
The implementation of a specific ICT household survey inPalestine in 2004 has led to another, more specific one in 2005,dealing with access to Internet, speed of data download, costof connection hours, degree of benefit, problems faced andsuggestions for development.
The sampling frame for the Direct Internet Connection Survey2005 was designed based on the main findings of the earlierComputer, Internet and Mobile Phone Survey carried out bythe Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics in July–
August 2004, whose sample size comprised 7,557 households,4,992 in the West Bank and 2,565 in the Gaza Strip. Allhouseholds that reported in the 2004 survey to have a computerand telephone line were selected for the new survey.
For this new survey, the sample size is 739 households,444 households in the West Bank and 295 households in theGaza Strip. The target population is defined as all householdswith a computer and telephone lines. All household membersaged 10 and above were included .
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
92
Graph 5.2
Availability of ICT Household Indicators
in Western Asian Countries
0
20
40
60
80
100
ELE
CT
RA
DIO
FIX
TL
MB
LT
L
TV
HO
U
PC
HO
U
INT
HO
U
AC
CE
SS
LO
CA
T
FR
EQ
PC
US
E
INT
US
E
INT
SE
R
LA
NG
INT
PR
OD
VA
LU
E
BA
RP
C
BA
RIN
T
BA
RP
UR
GE
OG%
of
resp
on
den
tco
un
trie
s
Graph 5.3.
%o
fto
talp
op
ula
tio
no
fre
sp
on
den
tco
un
trie
s
Availability of ICT Household Indicators
in Western Asian Countries (weighted by population)
-
20
40
60
80
100
ELE
CT
RA
DIO
FIX
TL
MB
LT
L
TV
HO
U
PC
HO
U
INT
HO
U
AC
CE
SS
LO
CA
T
FR
EQ
PC
US
E
INT
US
E
INT
SE
R
LA
NG
INT
PR
OD
VA
LU
E
BA
RP
C
BA
RIN
T
BA
RP
UR
GE
OG
At present, no countries in the region have informationo the location of access to Internet, languages of visitedsites, or any of the indicators related to online purchases.
In terms of planning prospects, Kuwait, Qatar andSyrian Arab Republic will increase the availability ofindicators on Internet access, ICT usage, barriers tousage and geographic location of purchase. Kuwait
and Yemen will also increase the availability of basicaccess to ICT indicators.
Table 5.9 shows the availability of indicators by digitalaccess level. It is interesting to note that upper accesscountries have a lower availability of ICT indicatorsin comparison to medium access countries. This resultis contrary to what was noted in other regions.
93
Chapter 5. Status of ICT Indicators in Western Asia
Table 5.9. Availability of ICT Household Indicators by Digital Access Level (average number ofindicators in each group)
puorGrotacidnI
leveLsseccAlatigiD
hgiHsseccA
reppUsseccA
muideMsseccA
woLsseccA
)srotacidni7(TCIotsseccacisaB - 7/5 7/5.6 7/3
)srotacidni3(sseccatenretnI - 3/0 3/5.0 3/0
)srotacidni6(egasuTCI - 6/5.0 6/7.1 6/0
)srotacidni3(egasuotsreirraB - 3/0 3/3.0 3/0
)rotacidni1(noitacollacihpargoeG - 1/0 1/0 1/0
srotacidniTCIdlohesuoH:LATOT - 02/5.5 02/9 02/3
c. Disaggregations of Household ICT Indicators
The possibilities for disaggregating ICT indicators inthe region depend on the nature of the statisticalinstrument used. In the case of a census, whichprovides a reduced number of ICT indicators (mostlyon infrastructure), the choice of classifications is larger(as many as variables in the census questionnaire).However in the case of general household surveys, itdepends on the design of the sample.
Table 5.10 recalls the classifications available ingeneral-purpose household surveys in the region,
according to the metadata questionnaire. Basicpersonal characteristics (age, gender and education)and location define the classifications available, yetno information about specific classification categoriesis recorded.
No mention of ethnicity and economic activity asclassification variables was made in thequestionnaires returned by these countries.
The observation unit is generally the household,while the individual is considered only in a fewcases.
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
94
Table 5.10. Disaggregations for ICT Indicators from General Household Surveys in Western AsianCountries
tsilyrtnuoC
selbairaVnoitacifissalC
egA redneG noitacudE/emocnI
erutidnepxelevel
noitacoL yticinhtEcimonocE
ytivitcahtlaeHsutats
tpygE X
nadroJ )1( )1( )1( X
nonabeL X X X
enitselaP X X X )2( X
aibarAiduaS X
latoT 3 3 3 1 3 1
Notes: - Only answers to the metadata questionnaire are considered- (1) Jordan mentions ‘Personal specifications’- (2) Palestine mentions ‘Social status’
95
Chapter 5. Status of ICT Indicators in Western Asia
Section 5.4 ICT Indicators in Business in Western Asia
Statistical sources on ICT access and usage in businessare very scarce in Western Asia. According to theinformation provided in the stocktaking exercise, thenext three years will witness an increase of statisticaloperations in the region, particularly in Egypt,Palestine, Qatar and the Syrian Arab Republic. TableD5 in the Annex lists the statistical operations coveringthe ICT indicators within each country.
a. Sources of Information
The region has experience in using economic censusesfor covering exhaustively the productive sector. Thus,ICT indicators have been collected from these type ofstatistical operations in Oman, Qatar and Egypt(Table 5.11). Interestingly, a specific census recordingICT-related variables has been implemented in Egypt1.
1 The information available in the database provided by ESCWA is not complete: the number of ICT-related variablesin the statistical operations called ‘Establishments Census’ in Egypt is 6, and in ‘Electronic Computer Statistics’ is 4.The response of CAPMAS indicates that the 5 indicators are from these two collections, without specifying thecollection for each indicator.
Table 5.11. Statistical Operations Providing Indicators on ICT in Business in Western Asia
noitarepOfoepyT
leveLemocnI
emocnIhgiHelddiM-reppU
emocnIelddiM-rewoL
emocnIemocnIwoL
susneCcimonocE rataQ namO tpygE
syevruSsesirpretnElareneG
syevruSTCIcohdA tpygE
rehtO
noitarepOfoepyTleveLsseccAlatigiD
sseccAhgiH sseccAreppU sseccAmuideM sseccAwoL
susneCcimonocE rataQ tpygEnamO
syevruSsesirpretnElareneG
syevruSTCIcohdA tpygE
rehtO
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
96
The planning projections for the next three yearsinclude adding a larger number of ICT-variables tothe exhaustive survey in Egypt, and another census-like operation in Qatar.
Kuwait, Palestine and the Syrian Arab Republic planto collect business surveys based on statistical samples(not exhaustive and with a large number of ICTindicators) in the next three years.
a. Availability of ICT Indicators
In accordance with the scarcity of statisticalsources, the availability of ICT indicators for thebusiness sector is rather limited (Graphs 5.4and 5.5). Detailed information on the current andfuture availability of indicators is included in TableC5 of the Annex.
Graph 5.4
Availability of ICT Business Indicators
in Western Asian Countries
0
20
40
60
80
100
FIX
TE
L
MO
BIL
CO
MP
NC
OM
P
INT
EN
ET
TY
PE
INT
LO
CN
ET
WE
BS
ITE
ICT
INV
SH
CO
MP
SH
INT
SE
RV
ICE
S
PU
RC
H
SA
LE
S
CU
ST
OM
TR
AIN
BA
RP
C
BA
RIN
T
BA
RE
CO
M
GE
OG
%o
fre
sp
on
den
tco
un
trie
s
Graph 5.5.
%o
fto
talG
DP
inre
sp
on
den
tco
un
trie
s
Availability of ICT Business Indicators
in Western Asian Countries
(weighted by GDP)
0
20
40
60
80
100
FIX
TE
L
MO
BIL
CO
MP
NC
OM
P
INT
EN
ET
TY
PE
INT
LO
CN
ET
WE
BS
ITE
ICT
INV
SH
CO
MP
SH
INT
SE
RV
ICE
S
PU
RC
H
SA
LE
S
CU
ST
OM
TR
AIN
BA
RP
C
BA
RIN
T
BA
RE
CO
M
GE
OG
97
Chapter 5. Status of ICT Indicators in Western Asia
Only indicators on basic access to ICT and concreteservices for which the Internet is used are available.The indicator on the number of firms with a fixedtelephone line is available in 40% of respondentcountries (covering 39% of the GDP of countries inthe stocktaking exercise).
The remaining indicators are available in less than20% of countries. Indicators on mobile telephonedevices, presence of computers, number of computersand presence of Internet access are available in anumber of countries accounting for slightly more than20% of the GDP (Egypt alone stands for about 20%of the regional GDP).
The indicator on concrete services for which theInternet is used in business is only available in Oman.
No indicators are currently available on advanced ICTaccess and usage, ICT training, Barriers to ICT use andgeographic location where Internet goods are sold.
Given the scarcity of ICT business indicators, it isnot possible to corelate the availability to the level ofdemand nor with the level of digital access.
The stated plans for statistical production in the nextthree years are optimistic and will lead to a degree ofavailability of the 20 indicators listed in thequestionnaire of 40% on average.
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
98
Section 5.5 ICT Indicators in Other Sectors in Western Asia1
Amongst the respondents, eight countries did notprovide any information, with Oman indicating thatcollection of other ICT statistics does not exist, whilePalestine and Egypt provided information as follows:
• The Central Bureau of Statistics in Palestine, collectsICT statistics on education, in collaboration with theMinistry of Education and Higher Education. Themost recent date of the education collection is 2004;
• The Central Agency for Public Mobilization andStatistics (CAPMAS) in Egypt, collects ICTstatistics on infrastructure for the InformationSociety, ICT content products, and ICT contentindustries within the “National Plan for Informationand Communications,” in collaboration with theMinistry of Communications and InformationTechnology.
1 This section is entirely based on the document ‘Partnership Activities of ESCWA’ prepared for the WSIS ThematicMeeting on Measuring the Information Society (Geneva, February 2005).
Key issues on the availability of ICT indicators in Western Asia
• Metadata collection: The lack of information aboutBahrain and the United Arab Emirates may bias(underestimate) the results on data availability. Iraq isthe biggest country (in population terms) withoutresults. Additional efforts should be made to analyseICT information in these three countries.
• Data sources: The number of statistical operationsproviding ICT indicators is small. Population censusesand household surveys have been used to gather dataon basic access to ICT by households, Only Palestinehas carried out a specific survey on ICT in households.The information sources about the equipment and usageof ICT in the business sector are even scarcer and inmost cases they consist of the collection of a smallnumber of ICT-related variables in economic censuses,that is, exhaustive surveys of the business sector.However, plans for the next three years are optimistic
and will increase the availability of ICT indicators,collecting a large number in about 40% of the countries.
• Resources: There is little information about resources,besides the fact that NSOs will be primarily involvedin the collection of ICT indicators. Regular NSOs’budgets will be combined in some cases withcollaborative resources from other nationalorganisations.
• Key gaps in ICT indicators: Indicators on basic accessto ICT in households are available in a large proportionof countries. Presence of Internet access in thehousehold covers about 70% of the regional population.However, other indicators are very scarce, particularlyin countries with low digital access. In the businesssector data is diffuse with little information with theexception of the presence of fixed telephone.
99
Chapter 6. Status of ICT Indicators in Asia-Pacific
Chapter 6. Status of ICT Indicators inAsia-Pacific
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
100
Section 6.1 Notes on the Regional Data Collection
a. Geographic Coverage of the Response to theQuestionnaire
The metadata collection on ICT indicators in the Asia-Pacific region was completed by the Economic Socialand Economic Commission for Asia Pacific (ESCAP).The questionnaire was sent to all ESCAP membercountries except for those also members of theOrganisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD) members1.
Furthermore, ESCAP and the United NationsConference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)agreed on a division of work whereby UNCTADundertook the task of sending the metadata survey tonine ESCAP Central Asian members (Armenia,Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, theRussian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, andUzbekistan) which are also members of the UnitedNations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE).
In conclusion, ESCAP sent the metadata surveyquestionnaire to 44 countries or areas in the Asian-
1 Turkey was finally included in the UNCTAD survey of Central Asian and Eastern European countries.
Pacific region. Table 6.1 shows the list of countriesclassified by income and digital access level.
In the region, the DAI classification is not availablefor as many as 17 countries, mainly Small Island Statesin the Pacific.
b. Analysis of Response Rate
Eighteen out of 44 countries (41%) responded. Thelack of response from populous countries such asChina and Bangladesh reduced the overall responserate when weighted according to the coverage of thepopulation and share of GDP within the region. Inparticular, the group of middle-income countries thatresponded account for only 26% of the populationand 30% of the GDP. All of the sub-regions withinthis vast region were represented in the analysis.
However, with the exclusion of China, the stocktakingexercise represents 83% of the total population and89% of the total GDP, which signifies a highrepresentation (Graphs 6.1 and 6.1bis).
101
Chapter 6. Status of ICT Indicators in Asia-Pacific
Table 6.1. Country Coverage of the Stocktaking Exercise in Asia-Pacific
leveLemocnIleveLsseccAlatigiD
elbaliavatonIAD sseccAhgiH sseccAreppU sseccAmuideM sseccAwoL
levelemocnI.a.n
uruaN
emocnIhgiH aisenyloPhcnerFmauG
ainodelaCweN
laicepSgnoKgnoHevitartsinimdA
anihCfonoigeReropagniS
malassuraDienurBlaicepSoacaM
evitartsinimdAanihCfonoigeR
elddiM-reppUemocnI
aomaSnaciremAsdnalsIkooC
euiNanairaMnrehtroN
sdnalsIualaP
aisyalaM
elddiM-rewoLemocnI
sdnalsIllahsraMaisenorciM
agnoTulavuT
anihCijiF
aisenodnIcimalsI(narI)focilbupeR
sevidlaMsenippilihP
aomaSaknaLirS
dnaliahT
utaunaV
emocnIwoL natsinahgfAaeroKfoRPD
itabiriKetseL-romiT
aidnImaNteiVailognoM
hsedalgnaBnatuhB
aidobmaCs'elpoePoaL
citarcomeDcilbupeRramnayM
lapeNnatsikaP
aeniuGweNaupaPsdnalsInomoloS
Note: 18 out of 44 countries to which the questionnaire was sent, answered. They are shaded in the table above.
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
102
Graph 6.1. Coverage of the Stocktaking Exercise in Terms of Population and GDP Share in Asia-Pacific
Graph 6.1bis. Coverage of the Stocktaking Exercise in Terms of Population and GDP Share inAsia-Pacific Excluding China
% of regional population covered
by the stocktaking exercise
5149
Respondent
countries
Non-respondent
countries
% of regional GDP covered by the
stocktaking exercise
5050
Respondent
countries
Non-respondent
countries
% of regional population (except
China) covered by the stocktaking
exercise
83
17Respondent
countries
Non-respondent
countries
% of regional GDP (except China)
covered by the stocktaking
exercise
89
11Respondent
countries
Non-respondent
countries
The quality of the coverage, both in terms ofpopulation and share of GDP, increases with the levelof digital access. Therefore, the results on theavailability of ICT indicators in the region may give arather optimistic picture (overestimation). Hong Kong(SAR China) and Singapore were included, while lowdigital access countries in the region were indeed
poorly covered, with information on ICT metadatareceived only from Cambodia and Pakistan.
Considering China’s weight in demographic andeconomic terms, this country merits further study on thestatus of ICT indicators. However the status of ICTindicators in China was not examined in this report.
103
Chapter 6. Status of ICT Indicators in Asia-Pacific
Table 6.2. Coverage by Income and Digital Access Group (%)
emocnI seirtnuoC noitalupoP PDG
emocnIhgiH 1,75 1,49 1,79
emocnielddim-reppU 3,33 3,99 8,99
)anihCtpecxe(emocnielddim-rewoL 1,75 6,52 5,92
emocniwoL 5,16 7,99 6,99
latoT 0,52 3,87 5,77
leveLsseccAlatigiD seirtnuoC noitalupoP PDG
sseccahgiH 0,001 0,001 0,001
sseccareppU 7,66 6,89 0,69
sseccamuideM 7,66 4,25 4,44
)anihCtpecxe(sseccamuideM 7,27 9,49 5,69
sseccawoL 0,03 6,24 5,73
noitamrofnioN 6,71 8,0 1,51
latoT 9,04 1,15 3,05
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
104
Section 6.2 Institutional Environment for ICT Indicators inAsia-Pacific
a. Demand for ICT Statistics in Asia-Pacific
According to the results from the metadata collection,there is a strong interest in ICT indicators for bothhouseholds and the business sector in the region. It ishowever interesting to note that the Philippines, whereseveral institutions answered the questionnaire,responded that there was “no demand” for ICT businessindicators. Similarly, Pakistan, a low income countrywith low digital access and highly populated (Table 6.2)reported no demand for ICT statistics on households.However supplementary information would indicate thatit is unlikely that this self-assessment for both of thosetwo countries was fully correct.
The demand for indicators was highest in the Asia-Pacificregion of all the regions considered in the study.
Table 6.3. Demand for ICT Statistics in Asia-Pacific
Note: The following countries did not assess the demand for ICT household indicators: Iran, Maldives, and Philippines. The following countriesdid not assess the demand for ICT business indicators: Cambodia, Iran, Maldives, Micronesia, Niue, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
b. Institutions Collecting ICT Data in Asia-Pacific
Although the metadata questionnaire was sent to theNational Statistical Offices (NSOs) in the region, theseorganisations either reported on or transmitted it toother institutions that produce ICT indicators.Philippines is the exception, where 6 questionnaireswere received from different agencies, and attests tothe decentralisation of the ICT statistical system inthat country (see Box 6.1).
The different institutions collecting ICT data in theregion are given in Table 6.4 below. In most countriesthe NSO is the institution responsible for datacollection. However, line ministries have played a rolein the collection of ICT indicators in the Philippines.
leveLdnameDleveLdnameD
hgiHyreV hgiH muideM woL dnameDoN
dlohesuoHTCIsrotacidnI
RASgnoKgnoHailognoM
ainodelaCweNeropagniSaknaLirS
dnaliahT
aidobmaCaidnI
RASoacaMaisyalaM
utaunaV
aisenodnI aisenorciMeuiN
natsikaP
ssenisuBTCIsrotacidnI
RASgnoKgnoHailognoMeropagniS
dnaliahT
aidnIRASoacaM
aisyalaMutaunaV
aisenodnI ainodelaCweN senippilihP
105
Chapter 6. Status of ICT Indicators in Asia-Pacific
Box 6.1. Elements of an institutional framework for ICT statistics in the Philippines
The Philippino statistical system is highly decentralised andrequires a strong co-ordination mechanism. The demand forICT statistics has been taken into account by the co-ordinationbody, the National Statistical Co-ordination Board (NSCB),who has issued Board Resolutions calling for the adoption ofstatistical standards, mostly in the field of classifications. Thus,
three resolutions have been passed for the whole StatisticalSystem on the use of the Philippine Standard IndustrialClassification to define the ICT sector, on the inclusion ofelectronic exports into the statistical system and on the updatingof the 1992 Philippine Standard Occupational Classificationto encompass the new occupations related to new technologies.
Table 6.4 Institutions Collecting ICT Indicators in the Region
c. Resources
According to the results of the metadata questionnaire,most countries in the region finance the collection ofICT indicators from their regular NSOs budgetsExceptions are Cambodia, New Caledonia (whichreported low demand for these indicators), Maldives,Philippines, Sri Lanka where no specific financing is
available, and Mongolia where the Ministry forInfrastructure collaborates (table 6.5). Three countries(Cambodia, New Caledonia and Sri Lanka) declaresimultaneously that no financing is available whilethe demand for ICT indicators is very high.
No countries identified international co-operationactivities for financing the collection of ICT indicators.
noitutitsnIfoepyT slaudividnI/sdlohesuoH ssenisuB rehtO
eciffOlacitsitatSlanoitaN RASgnoKgnoH,aidobmaCaisenodnI,aidnI
RASoacaM,narIaisenorciM,aisyalaM
ainodelaCweN,ailognoMeropagniS,euiN
dnaliahT,aknaLirSutaunaV
RASgnoKgnoHaisenodnI,aidnI
sevidlaM,aisyalaMailognoM
ainodelaCweNdnaliahT,eropagniS
utaunaV
RASgnoKgnoHaidnI
RASoacaMailognoMeropagniS
dnaliahT
:rofytirohtuaroyrtsiniM
snoitacinummoceletdnatsoP- aidobmaCsenippilihP
noitamrofnI- senippilihP
noitacudE- senippilihP
ygolonhcetdnaecneicS- dnaliahT senippilihP
tropsnarT- senippilihP senippilihP
tnempolevedcimonocE- senippilihP senippilihP senippilihP
lanoitanretnifoseciffoyrtnuoCseicnega
senippilihP
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
106
Table 6.5. Resources for ICT Statistics in Asia-Pacific by Income Level
Note: Multiple options are allowed. No information is available for Iran.
1 The Department of Transportation and Communications, the National Computer Center (NCC), the Commission onInformation & Communications Technology (CICT), the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA),the National Telecommunications Commission, the Philippine Economic Zone Authority and the Board ofInvestments.
d. Definition of ICT
Half of the respondent countries in the region reportedthat a formal definition of ICT was in place. However,it should be noted that even in countries with a veryhigh demand for ICT indicators, the respondentagencies did not mention a definition (Hong KongSAR China and Thailand).
The Philippines was the only country with severalresponding institutions1. Each with different answersdepending on the institution surveyed, which showseither a lack of co-ordination or the need to refer todifferent definitions for different operational purposes.
e. Dissemination of ICT Statistics
A very large number of surveys have beenimplemented and disseminated in 2002, 2003 and
even 2004 covering almost all the countries.Specific surveys are very recent, both onhouseholds and on business (including the ICTsector).
Several countries, such as Indonesia and Mongolia,periodically conduct household or business surveyscollecting some ICT indicators. Macao SAR, HongKong SAR, Singapore and Thailand are thecountries with highest availability of ICT-specificstatistical operations and an annual periodicity.
Eighteen countries in the region have publicationson ICT indicators. Only Pakistan, Maldives andNew Caledonia do not have plans to prepare suchpublications. These countries have medium to lowdigital access and a perceived low demand for ICTindicators.
sdnuFfonigirO
leveLemocnI
emocnIhgiHelddiM-reppU
emocnIelddiM-rewoL
emocnIemocnIwoL
tegduBralugeR RASgnoKgnoHRASoacaM
eropagniS
aisyalaM aisenodnIsenippilihP
dnaliahTutaunaV
aidnIailognoM
noitarepooclanoitaN ailognoM
lanoitanretnInoitarepooc
elbaliavagnicnanifoN ainodelaCweN sevidlaMaknaLirS
aidobmaCsenippilihP
107
Chapter 6. Status of ICT Indicators in Asia-Pacific
Table 6.6. Existence of a definition for ICT in Asia-Pacific Countries
Notes: - Only answers to the metadata questionnaire are considered- (1) The National Telecommunications Commission of Philippines does not have a formal definition of ICT, while the other agencies inthe country responding to the questionnaire gave a positive answer.
tsiLyrtnuoC
noitinifeDfosutatS
noitinifeDoNninoitinifeDnoitaraperP
noitinifeDTCIdeilppA
aidobmaC X
anihCfoRASgnoKgnoH X
aidnI X
aisenodnI X
)focilbupeRcimalsI(narI X
anihCfoRASoacaM X
aisyalaM X
sevidlaM X
)setatSdetaredeF(aisenorciM X
ailognoM X
ainodelaCweN X
euiN X
natsikaP X
senippilihP )1( X
eropagniS X
aknaLirS X
dnaliahT X
utaunaV X
niseirtnuoctnednopserllA)%(noigereht
)%93(7 )%11(2 )%05(9
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
108
Table 6.7. Most Recent Date for ICT Collection (households)
Notes: (1) The surveys have been described as closely as possible given the little amount of information in the questionnairesBold rows correspond to ICT-specific surveys.
yrtnuoC )1(noitarepOlacitsitatSfoepyTforebmuNTCIdetcelloC
selbairaV
tneceRtsoMnoitcelloC
aidobmaC noitacilbupcitehtnyS 01 1002,3002
yevrussnoitidnocgniviL 6 3002
anihCfoRASgnoKgnoH yevrusTCIdlohesuoH 09xorppa )launnA(4002
aidnI susneCgnisuoHdnanoitalupoP a.n 1002hcraM
aisenodnI yevrussnoitidnocgniviL 5 )sraey3yreve(4002
anihCfoRASoacaM susneCgnisuoHdnanoitalupoP 3 1002tsuguA
aisyalaM susneCgnisuoHdnanoitalupoP 7 0002yluJ
aisenorciM yevruSerutidnepxEdnaemocnIdlohesuoH 8 8991
ailognoM yevruSerutidnepxEdnaemocnIdlohesuoH 7 )launnA(3022
susneCgnisuoHdnanoitalupoP 2 0002,yraunaJ
yevrussnoitidnocgniviL 6 3002/2002
)latipaCehtni(yevrussnoitidnocgniviL 5 4002
ainodelaCweN susneCgnisuoHdnanoitalupoP 1 13-80-4002
euiN susneCgnisuoHdnanoitalupoP 1 1002tpeS
eropagniS yevruStegduBdlohesuoH 41 3002/2002
yevrusTCIdlohesuoH a.n )launnA(3002
aknaLirS yevrussnoitidnocgniviL 53 4002:enuJ-naJ
dnaliahT yevrusTCIdlohesuoH 13/31 4002/3002
utaunaV noitacilbupcitehtnyS 1 )ylretrauQ(4002
109
Chapter 6. Status of ICT Indicators in Asia-Pacific
Table 6.8. Most Recent Date of ICT Collection (business)
Notes: (1) The surveys have been described as closely as possible given the little amount of information in the questionnairesBold rows correspond to ICT-specific surveys.
yrtnuoC )1(noitarepOlacitsitatSfoepyTforebmuNTCIdetcelloC
selbairaV
noitcelloCtneceRtsoM
foRASgnoKgnoHanihC
ehtninoitartenePdnaegasUTInoyevruSrotcesssenisub
55 )launnA(4002guA-nuJ
aidnI yevruSesirpretnE a.n 2002enuJot1002yluJ
aidnI )rotcesTCI(yevrusPANS 04.ac launnA
aidnI stropxeerawtfoSnoyevruS 05.ac 4002enuJoT.naJ
anihCfoRASoacaM scitsitatSnoitacinummoCdnatropsnarT 4002/nuJ
anihCfoRASoacaM niygolonhceTnoitamrofnIfoegasUrotceSssenisuB
81 3002,2002,1002
aisyalaM snoitacinummoceletdnaretupmocfosusneCstnemhsilbatsesecivres
3 3002,1002,0002
ailognoM susneCesirpretnE 3 8991,rebotcO
ainodelaCweN yrtsigeRssenisuB 1 suounitnoC
senippilihP smriFTIderetsigeR )ylhtnoM(4002yluJ
eropagniS niegasUmmocofnInoyevruSlaunnAsessenisuB
a.n )launna(3002
dnaliahT yevruSTCI 381 4002
dnaliahT yevruSyrtsudnIgnirutcafunaM 01 3002
dnaliahT yevruSsecivreSdnaedarTssenisuB 21 2002
utaunaV srotacidnilacitsitatSylretrauQ 1 )ylretrauQ(3002
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
110
Section 6.3 ICT Household Indicators in Asia-Pacific
a. Sources of Information for ICT in Households
A variety of sources on ICT equipment and usage inhouseholds exists in the region, including the use ofpopulation and housing censuses, use of existing householdsurveys and design and implementation of ICT-specificsurveys (Table 6.9 and Box 6.2 on Thailand).
Table 6.9. Statistical Operations Providing ICT household indicators in Asia-Pacific
Note: Multiple options are allowed. Niue does no have estimates for Income.
Note: Multiple options are allowed. Niue and New Caledonia do no have estimates for DAI.
Use of population and housing censuses
Five countries in the region, with upper and mediumdigital access level and all ranges of income level,used this statistical instrument to collect some ICTvariables (1 to 7) on households. This includes India,a heavily populated country.
noitarepOfoepyT
leveLemocnI
emocnIhgiHelddiM-reppU
emocnIelddiM-rewoL
emocnIemocnIwoL
susneCgnisuoHdnanoitalupoP RASoacaMainodelaCweN
aisyalaM aidnIailognoM
syevruSdlohesuoHesoprupitluM eropagniS aisenodnIaknaLirS
aidobmaCaidnI
ailognoM
syevruSdlohesuoHTCIcohdA RASgnoKgnoHeropagniS
dnaliahT
noitarepOfoepyTleveLsseccAlatigiD
sseccAhgiH sseccAreppU sseccAmuideM sseccAwoL
susneCgnisuoHdnanoitalupoP RASoacaMaisyalaM
aidnIailognoM
syevrusdlohesuoHesoprupitluM eropagniS aidnIaisenodnIailognoM
aknaLirS
syevruSdlohesuoHTCIcohdA aidobmaC RASgnoKgnoHeropagniS
dnaliahT
111
Chapter 6. Status of ICT Indicators in Asia-Pacific
Population censuses are used to collect indicatorsonly on basic access to ICT in these countries.They do not cover other topics more specific tothe Internet.
Use of household surveys
Household budget surveys or living conditionssurveys have been used in several Asian-Pacificcountries for collecting ICT indicators (6 to 15,except for Sri Lanka where 35 variables werecollected). The decision to include a number of ICTquestions and/or indicators on basic access toInternet was taken primarily by lower-middle andlow income countries. Only Singapore and SriLanka used surveys for collecting more advancedindicators, and may therefore almost be consideredICT-specific surveys.
Use of specific ICT household surveys
Only Thailand and Hong Kong SAR have ICT specifichousehold surveys according to the results reportedin the stocktaking exercise. Thailand initially usedexisting household surveys but the high demand forindicators for ICT policy making led to theimplementation of more specific surveys (Box 6.2).
These surveys collect a larger number of ICTindicators including Internet usage and barriers tousage.
b. Availability of ICT Indicators
Detailed information about the availability of ICThousehold indicators by country is shown in Table A6of the Annex and represented in Graphs 6.2 and 6.3.
Box 6.2. Diversity of sources on ICT in Thailand
The importance given to ICT indicators in Thailand has had animpact on the national statistical organisation: the NSO wasestablished under the Ministry for Information andCommunication Technology (MICT) in 2002, opting afterwardsfor full-scale ICT surveys in households and businesses.
Different types of sources for ICT indicators exist in Thailandwhich will be systematised in the Unified ICT IndicatorsProject. Namely, this would include private and administrativesources, adaptation of existing surveys and implementation ofspecific surveys.
Private organisations such as the Association of Thai ComputerIndustry (ATCI), the Association of Thai Software Industry(ATSI) and the Information Networking Association (INA)produce and disseminate market data on the ICT sector. Thisinformation, while interesting for market analysis, is less usedby governmental agencies.
Administrative data are collected and maintained bygovernmental agencies. While their dissemination is not fullydeveloped, agencies provided them when requested. Anexample is the foreign trade data from the Customs Department.
Existing surveys (such as the labour force survey) and censuseswere adapted to include a set of ICT-related questions preparedin collaboration with the National Electronics and ComputerTechnology Center (NECTEC).
Finally, after a new institutional arrangement that brought theNSO under the authority of the MICT, specific surveys onICT endowment and usage in households and businesses werelaunched in early 2004.
Source: “ICT indicators initiatives in Thailand: Progress andLessons learned”, presented in the WSIS meeting of Geneva(February, 2005).
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
112
Graph 6.2.
Availability of ICT Household Indicators
in Asia-Pacific Countries
0
20
40
60
80
100E
LE
CT
RA
DIO
FIX
TL
MB
LT
L
TV
HO
U
PC
HO
U
INT
HO
U
AC
CE
SS
LO
CA
T
FR
EQ
PC
US
E
INT
US
E
INT
SE
R
LA
NG
INT
PR
OD
VA
LU
E
BA
RP
C
BA
RIN
T
BA
RP
UR
GE
OG
%o
fre
sp
on
den
tco
un
trie
s
Graph 6.3.
Availability of ICT Household Indicators
in Asia-Pacific countries (weighted by population)
0
20
40
60
80
100
ELE
CT
RA
DIO
FIX
TL
MB
LT
L
TV
HO
U
PC
HO
U
INT
HO
U
AC
CE
SS
LO
CA
T
FR
EQ
PC
US
E
INT
US
E
INT
SE
R
LA
NG
INT
PR
OD
VA
LU
E
BA
RP
C
BA
RIN
T
BA
RP
UR
GE
OG
%o
fto
talp
op
ula
tio
no
fre
sp
on
den
tco
un
trie
s
The availability of indicators on basic access to ICTis very high in the region (60% to 90% of therespondent countries), particularly when weightedaccording to population.
However, indicators on Internet access are onlyavailable in countries that account for less than 20%
of the population. The indicator on languages ofwebsites visited is rarely collected.
The following household indicators are collected inless than 20% of the respondent countries:
13) Concrete service activities for which the Internet is use
113
Chapter 6. Status of ICT Indicators in Asia-Pacific
14) Languages of Internet sites visited15) Types of products/services purchased over the
Internet16) Value of goods/ services purchased over the
Internet17) Barriers to PC usage18) Barriers to Internet usage19) Barriers to purchases over the Internet20) Geographic location where the Internet goods are
purchased
Countries with high and very high demand for ICThousehold indicators have not fully satisfied thatdemand, as can be seen for Cambodia, India, MacaoSAR, Malaysia, Mongolia, New Caledonia andVanuatu.
Hong Kong SAR, Singapore, Sri Lanka and Thailandare the countries in the region with the largest number
of ICT indicators collected in the household sector.
c. Disaggregations of ICT Household Indicators
There is little information about the classificationsused in surveys for disaggregating ICT indicators.According to the metadata questionnaire, these aregiven in Table 6.10, and basically the onlydisaggregations possible are related to age, sex,education and income.
Countries that collected several indicators throughpopulation censuses may break them down into alarger set of classification variables, since no sample-size limitations exist.
Unfortunately, there is no information about theclassification variables used in the ICT householdsurvey in Thailand.
Table 6.10. Disaggregations for ICT indicators from General Household Surveys in Asia-PacificCountries
Notes: - Only answers to the metadata questionnaire are considered- † Specific surveys on ICT in households exist- (1) means that the country has carried out an LSMS survey and that the ICT indicators provided may be disaggregated according tothe variables investigated in that survey
tsiLyrtnuoC
selbairaVnoitacifissalC
egA redneG noitacudE/emocnI
erutidnepxelevel
noitacoL yticinhtEcimonocE
ytivitcahtlaeHsutats
aidobmaC X
RASgnoKgnoHanihCfo
X X X X X
aidnI X X X X X
aisenodnI X X X
foRASoacaManihC
X
aisenorciM)setatSdetaredeF(
X X X X X X
ailognoM )1( )1( )1( )1( )1( )1( )1(
eropagniS X
aknaLirS X X X
dnaliahT
latoT 5 5 6 7 3 1 3 2
†
†
†
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
114
Section 6.4 ICT Business Indicators in Asia-Pacific
a. Sources of Information
Detailed information on the different statisticaloperations providing ICT indicators in the businesssector for the countries considered is included in TableD6. In some cases, it is difficult to classify, based onthe information available, whether some operationscontain a high proportion of ICT-related variables.There is neither information about the indicatorscollected by Malaysia through the Census of computerand telecommunications services establishments, thatcould be considered as a specific ICT survey, nor aboutthe types of surveys used in Maldives and Pakistan,countries which effectively collect a small number ofICT indicators. The information from Philippines,obtained from 6 different agencies, is difficult toclassify as one type of source.
As have the other regions, Asia-Pacific has used avariety of sources, including economic censuses,general and specific enterprise surveys, the businessregister and other sources such as information fromthe utilities and service providers.
Use of economic censuses
Malaysia and Mongolia have used economic censuses,that is, exhaustive surveys of the business sector, tocollect a limited number of ICT indicators (3 in bothcases). Economic censuses are very expensiveoperations undertaken by the Statistical Offices. Thesetypes of surveys, usually, cannot be undertaken bycountries with a reduced budget for statistical units.In both countries, the resources for ICT indicators wereobtained from the regular budget. The sustainabilityof this kind of source has to be examined further, asthe small number of ICT-related indicators collected
precludes the suitability of using economic censusesfor investigating ICT. The demand for indicators inthese two countries is high and very high respectively.
Use of the business registry
In the region, the business registry has only been usedin New Caledonia to collect the presence of fixedtelephone indicator. Other registries specific to somesectors may also be a source of information on theICT sector (Philippines has such a registry).
Use of general business surveys
India, Indonesia, Singapore and Thailand implementedgeneral business surveys which included ICT–relatedquestions. In Thailand, the surveys collected up to 12of the 20 ICT business indicators listed in thequestionnaire, while the Indian survey collected onlyindicators on basic access to ICT and the Indonesianone on presence of Internet access and others onadvanced ICT access and usage.
Use of specific ICT business surveys
Hong Kong SAR, Macao SAR, Singapore andThailand have implemented specific ICT surveys inthe business sector. Three of them are high incomecountries. The demand was high or very high for allof them. Specific surveys permitted the collection ofa larger number of indicators (between 12 and 14 outof the 20 in the questionnaire list).
Use of other sources
A quarterly business survey in Vanuatu records theindicators on presence of fixed and mobile telephone.
115
Chapter 6. Status of ICT Indicators in Asia-Pacific
Table 6.11. Statistical Operations Providing ICT Business Indicators in Asia- Pacific
Note: Multiple options are allowed
Note: Multiple options are allowed. New Caledonia does not have estimates for DAI level.
b. Availability of ICT Indicators
Indicators on basic access to ICT were the most widelyavailable covering 33% to 56% of the countries butbetween 60% and 80% of the total GDP of theresponding countries. The availability of the indicatoron presence of Internet access is the highest amongstthe 20 indicators (see Graphs 6.4 and 6.5).
By contrast, the remaining indicators accounts for 40%of the GDP and one-third of the countries. Particularlylow is the proportion of countries collecting the indicatorson the value of purchases and sales, geographic locationof sales, customer groups, and training in ICT.
Several countries that reported very high or highdemand for ICT business indicators, such as Mongoliaand Vanuatu show a very limited availability of these.
When analysing the availability of ICT businessindicators in relation to the level of digital access, thefollowing pattern was found: higher digital accesslevel corresponds to higher availability(12,3 indicators on average for high and upper, 6,9 formedium, 4,1 for low digital access out of the 20 in thequestionnaire list). Barriers to ICT usage are morefrequently examined than ICT training and thegeographical location of sales (Graph 6.6. andTable 6.12).
noitarepOfoepyT
leveLemocnI
emocnIhgiHelddiM-reppU
emocnIelddiM-rewoL
emocnIemocnIwoL
susneCcimonocE aisyalaM ailognoM
syevrussesirpretnElareneG eropagniS aisenodnIdnaliahT
aidnI
syevrusTCIcohdA RASgnoKgnoHRASoacaM
eropagniS
dnaliahT
rehtO ainodelaCweN utaunaV
noitarepOfoepyTleveLsseccAlatigiD
sseccAhgiH sseccAreppU sseccAmuideM sseccAwoL
susneCcimonocE aisyalaM ailognoM
syevrussesirpretnElareneG eropagniS aidnIaisenodnI
dnaliahT
syevrusTCIcohdA RASgnoKgnoHeropagniS
RASoacaM dnaliahT
rehtO utaunaV
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
116
Graph 6.4.
%o
fto
talre
sp
on
den
tco
un
trie
s
Availability of ICT Business Indicators
in Asian & Pacific Countries
0
20
40
60
80
100
FIX
TE
L
MO
BIL
CO
MP
NC
OM
P
INT
EN
ET
TY
PE
INT
LO
CN
ET
WE
BS
ITE
ICT
INV
SH
CO
MP
SH
INT
SE
RV
ICE
S
PU
RC
H
SA
LE
S
CU
ST
OM
TR
AIN
BA
RP
C
BA
RIN
T
BA
RE
CO
M
GE
OG
Graph 6.5.
Availability of ICT Business Indicators
in Asian & Pacific Countries
(weighted by GDP)
0
20
40
60
80
100
FIX
TE
L
MO
BIL
CO
MP
NC
OM
P
INT
EN
ET
TY
PE
INT
LO
CN
ET
WE
BS
ITE
ICT
INV
SH
CO
MP
SH
INT
SE
RV
ICE
S
PU
RC
H
SA
LE
S
CU
ST
OM
TR
AIN
BA
RP
C
BA
RIN
T
BA
RE
CO
M
GE
OG
%o
fto
talG
DP
of
resp
on
den
t
co
un
trie
s
117
Chapter 6. Status of ICT Indicators in Asia-Pacific
Graph 6.6. Availability of ICT business indicators by group and digital access level%
of
ind
ica
tors
co
lle
cte
d
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Basic access
to ICT (5
indicators)
Advanced ICT
access and
usage (6
indicators)
Internet
activities and
e-commerce (4
indicators)
ICT training (1
indicator)
Barriers to
usage (3
indicators)
Geographical
location (1
indicator)
High & Upper Medium Low
Table 6.12. Availability of ICT Business Indicators by Digital Access Level (number of indicators ineach group)
puorGrotacidnI
leveLsseccAlatigiD
reppU&hgiHsseccA
muideMsseccA
woLsseccA
)srotacidni5(TCIotsseccacisaB 5/7.4 5/5.3 5/5.2
)srotacidni6(egasudnasseccaTCIdecnavdA 6/7.4 6/1.2 6/5.0
)srotacidni4(ecremmoc-ednaseitivitcatenretnI 4/3.1 4/5.0 4/0
)rotacidni1(gniniartTCI 1/0 1/0 1/1.0
)srotacidni3(egasuotsreirraB 3/3.1 3/8.0 3/1
)rotacidni1(noitacollacihpargoeG 1/3.0 1/0 1/0
srotacidniTCIssenisuB:LATOT 02/3.21 02/9.6 02/1.4
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
118
Section 6.5 ICT Indicators in other sectors in Asia-Pacific
Other potential sources of information on ICTidentified in the stocktaking exercise have beenanalysed in this chapter (Table 6.13). They consist ofstatistical operations undertaken by the countries withhighest demand and availability of ICT indicators
(Hong Kong, SAR, Macao SAR, Singapore andThailand) and Philippines.
The most surveyed topic is the ICT productionsector.
Table 6.13
niamoD seirtnuoC
stcudorpTCIniedartdnadnamed,ylppuS RASgnoKgnoHRASoacaM
TInisecruosernamuH RASgnoKgnoHeropagniS
rotcesTCI dnaliahT,eropagniS,RASgnoKgnoH
noitacudeniTCI senippilihP
tnemnrevogniTCI senippilihP
stnemtsevniTCI senippilihP
secivresdnasdoogTCIfosecirP RASoacaM
119
Chapter 6. Status of ICT Indicators in Asia-Pacific
Key issues on the availability of ICT indicators in Asia-Pacific
• Metadata collection: the lack of information on ICTindicators’ metadata from China reduces the coverageof the stocktaking exercise in terms of regionalpopulation and share of GDP. A specific investigationis required for this country. The response from SmallDeveloping Pacific Islands was also limited and shouldbe further analysed.
• Data sources: Population censuses have been used inthe region to collect indicators on basic access to ICT.More specific indicators are collected by including alimited number of ICT-related questions in householdsurveys (household budget surveys or living conditionssurveys). Specific ICT household surveys, providingindicators on Internet usage and barriers to ICT arerare. In the business sector, the most common statisticalinstruments are generic business surveys that include aspecific module. Ad hoc ICT surveys do exist in severalcountries in the region.
• Resources: Most countries in the region finance thecollection of ICT indicators from the regular NSO budgets.No specific financing has been mentioned by Cambodia,New Caledonia Maldives, Philippines, Sri Lanka. Nointernational co-operation for financing the collection ofICT indicators was identified.
• Key gaps in ICT indicators: Basic access to ICT byhouseholds is measured in the majority of countries. Internetaccess by households is measured in about 60% of countriesbut accounts for less than 20% of the population (if Chinais included). More specific household ICT indicators arecollected in less than 20% of the countries, accounting fora marginal proportion of the regional population. Theavailability of basic access to ICT indicators in the businesssector is rather high. However, less than one-third ofcountries collect any other business indicators. Less than10% of countries have collected indicators on the value ofInternet purchases and sales.
121
Chapter 7. Status of ICT Indicators in Latin America and the Caribbean
Chapter 7. Status of ICT Indicators inLatin America and the Caribbean
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
122
Section 7.1 Notes on the Regional Data Collection
a. Geographic Coverage of the Response to theQuestionnaire
The UN Economic Commission for Latin Americaand the Caribbean (ECLAC) sent the ICT metadataquestionnaire to the National Statistical Offices ofLatin America and the Caribbean through itsObservatory for the Information Society OSILAC,which is supported by the Institute for Connectivityin the Americas (ICA-IDRC) and the @LISprogramme of the European Commission. Membersof ECLAC that are also members of the Organisationfor Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD) and/or the European Union were not includedin the data collection (with the exception of Mexico).
Geographically, the region includes various sub-regions,among them Central America, the Caribbean and South
America. The two most populous countries are Braziland Mexico. Most are middle income countries. Only asmall group of countries in the Caribbean Islands belongto the group of high income countries (Aruba, Bahamas,Bermuda, and Cayman Islands).
The classification of countries covered, by income anddigital access level, is given in Table 7.1. The DigitalAccess Index was not calculated for countries withthe highest GDP per capita countries (with theexception of Bahamas).
b. Analysis of Response Rate
While slightly more than half of the countriesanswered the questionnaire, the response rate was veryhigh, both in terms of population (91%) and, share ofGDP (95%), as shown in Graph 7.1.
123
Chapter 7. Status of ICT Indicators in Latin America and the Caribbean
Table 7.1. Country Coverage of the Stocktaking Exercise in Latin America and the Caribbean
Note: 20 out of 36 countries to which the questionnaire was sent, answered. They are shaded in the table above.
leveLemocnIleveLsseccAlatigiD
elbaliavatonIAD sseccAhgiH sseccAreppU sseccAmuideM sseccAwoL
emocnIhgiH aburAadumreB
sdnalsInamyaC
samahaB
elddiM-reppUemocnI
dnaaugitnAadubraBanitnegrAsodabraB
elihCaciRatsoC
acinimoDadanerG
ocixeMdnasttiKtniaS
siveNaicuLtniaS
dnadadinirTogaboTyaugurU
amanaPdnatnecniVtniaS
senidanerGehtaleuzeneV
elddiM-rewoLemocnI
aciamaJlizarB
ezileBaiviloB
aibmoloCabuC
cilbupeRnacinimoDrodaucE
rodavlaSlEalametauG
anayuGyaugaraP
urePemaniruS
sarudnoH
emocnIwoL itiaHaugaraciN
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
124
Graph 7.1. Coverage of the Stocktaking Exercise in Terms of Population and GDP Share in the LatinAmerica and the Caribbean
% of regional population covered by
the stocktaking exercise
91
9Respondent
countries
Non-respondent
countries
% of regional GDP covered by the
stocktaking exercise
95
5Respondent
countries
Non-respondent
countries
Table 7.2. Coverage by Income and Digital Access Group (%)
Upper-middle and lower middle countries wereadequately covered by the response. Low incomecountries in the region (Haiti and Nicaragua) wereincluded but did not respond to the questionnaire (see
Table 7.2). These two countries, and Honduras, areclassified as low digital access. Therefore theavailability of ICT indicators within the region maybe overestated.
emocnI seirtnuoC noitalupoP PDG
emocnielddim-reppU 7,66 2,89 7,89
emocnielddim-rewoL 7,66 3,09 0,29
emocnIwoL 0,0 0,0 0,0
latoT 6,55 8,09 7,49
leveLsseccAlatigiD seirtnuoC noitalupoP PDG
sseccareppU 7,66 8,99 5,99
sseccamuideM 7,66 3,38 1,38
sseccawoL 0,0 0,0 0,0
latoT 6,55 8,09 7,49
125
Chapter 7. Status of ICT Indicators in Latin America and the Caribbean
Section 7.2 Institutional Environment for ICT Indicators in theRegion
a. Demand for ICT Statistics in Latin America andthe Caribbean
Statistical offices in Latin America and the Caribbeanreported a medium-high demand for ICT indicators(Table 7.3). In general, countries reported a similardemand for household and business indicators. OnlyEl Salvador mentioned a very high demand, whereasBelize and Ecuador declared that there was no demandfor ICT indicators. Demand for ICT householdindicators in Saint Kitts and Nevis is perceived to bevery low.
Table 7.3. Demand for ICT Statistics in Latin America and the Caribbean
Note: Argentina did not assess the level of demand for household ICT indicators. The following countries did not assess the level of demandfor business ICT indicators: Argentina, Barbados, Jamaica, Peru , Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Venezuela.
As for other regions, no evident relationship existsbetween digital access level and demand for ICTindicators, whereas there is a correlation betweendigital access level and income.
The demand for ICT indicators in the region has beenfostered by the existence of regional networks andobservatories such as RICYT (Ibero-AmericanNetwork for Indicators on Science and Technology),CAIBI (Conference of Ibero-American Authorities forInformatics) and OSILAC (Latin American andCaribbean Observatory of the Information Society)(see Box 7.1).
leveLdnameDleveLdnameD
hgiHyreV hgiH muideM woL dnameDoN
dlohesuoHTCIsrotacidni
rodavlaSlE elihCocixeM
dnadadinirTogaboT
urePdnatnecniVtniaS
senidanerGehtaleuzeneV
aiviloBaibmoloC
aciRatsoClizarB
sodabraBaciamaJyaugurU
dnasttiKtniaSsiveN
.peRnacinimoDyaugaraP
ezileBrodaucE
ssenisuBTCIsrotacidni
rodavlaSlE lizarBelihC
ocixeMdnadadinirT
ogaboT
aiviloBaibmoloC
aciRatsoC
.peRnacinimoDyaugaraP
yaugurU
ezileBrodaucE
dnasttiKtniaSsiveN
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
126
Box 7.1. Regional Networks on IS measurement in Latin America and the Caribbean
The region has witnessed an increase in demand for andproduction of indicators on the Information Society.
In 1995, the Ibero-American Network for Indicators on Scienceand Technology (RICYT) was established, linking academicorganisations, National Statistical Offices and Ministriesresponsible for Technology, Communications, Science andrelated fields (including institutions in Spain and Portugal).The production of harmonised indicators on STI was fostered,including the preparation of regional Manuals on statisticalmethods (such as the Bogotá Manual). Progressively, RICYTextended the topics it dealt with to other Information societyindicators. Currently, a project has been launched to preparethe “Lisbon Manual – guide for the production of IS statisticalindicators”.
In parallel, the initiative called CAIBI gathered Latin Americanauthorities on ICT, establishing its own lists of indicators tomonitor the readiness and development of ICT in the region.
The Observatory for the Information Society in Latin Americaand the Caribbean (OSILAC), was created under the
programme of international statistical work for Latin Americaand the Caribbean (July 2003-June 2005) of the StatisticalConference of the Americas (SCA-ECLAC) and is a jointproject between ECLAC, ICA-IDRC and @LIS of theEuropean Commission. Its mission includes the promotion ofdialogue amongst all stakeholders and the facilitation of acontinually updated inventory of current statistical work relatedto Information Society measurement in the region; the workon the standardization of information and communicationtechnology (ICT) definitions; the exchange, centralization andharmonization of information and data in order to benchmarkinternational and regional policy agendas of InformationSociety development and finally, the provision of technicalassistance and training to strengthen the capabilities of nationalstatistical systems in the field of statistics and measurement ofInformation Society. OSILAC conveys the views of LatinAmerica and the Caribbean in national, regional andinternational events on Information Society measurement,including WSIS and related events.
OSILAC played an important role in the preparation of themetadata questionnaire that was used for the stocktaking exercise.
b. Institutions Collecting ICT Data in Latin Americaand the Caribbean
In the majority of countries, the National StatisticalOffice is the main provider of ICT indicators(Table 7.4). In a large number of countries, othergovernmental institutions produce some officialindicators. Basically, the national authorities fortelecommunications provide statistics only on accessto ICT in households and businesses. Ministries orauthorities for Science and Technology (S&T) alsoplay a role, in conjunction with their involvement inthe RICYT network (see Box 7.1).
c. Resources
The majority of NSOs that answered the questionnairereported using their regular budgetary sources for theproduction of ICT indicators (table 7.5). Argentina,Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico and Uruguay obtainedfunding from other national organisations. Forexample, the national authority for Science andTechnology in Argentina and Uruguay provided fundsfor the production of ICT statitistics. Otherorganisations include the Colombian programme -‘Connectivity Agenda’, and the Costa Rican publicorganisation providing ICT services (ICE and itssubsidiary RACSA). Mexico received funding fromits’ Central Bank and the Ministry for SocialDevelopment.
127
Chapter 7. Status of ICT Indicators in Latin America and the Caribbean
Table 7.4. Institutions Playing a Role in the Production of ICT Statistics
tsiLyrtnuoCsyevruSfoepyT
susneC/syevruSdlohesuoH syevruSssenisuB rehtO
anitnegrA OSN
sodabraB T&SroflicnuoClanoitaN,OSN T&SroflicnuoClanoitaN,OSN
ezileB sreilppuS,OSN OSN
aiviloB cimonocErofyrtsiniM,OSNrofseitirohtuA,tnempoleveD
,snoitacinummoceleTdnayticirtcelEPDNU
yticirtcelErofseitirohtuA,OSNsnoitacinummoceleTdna
lizarB ,snoitacinummoCrofyrtsiniM,OSNruobaLfoyrtsiniM
rofyrtsiniM,OSNfoyrtsiniM,snoitacinummoCcimonocErofyrtsiniM,ruobaL
tnempoleveD
)stcudorpTCI(OSN
elihC ,tnempoleveDrofyrtsiniM,OSNsnoitasinagroetavirp
rofytirohtuA,OSNfoyrtsiniM,snoitacinummoceleTgniknaBrofytirohtuA,tropsnarT
snoitutitsnIlaicnaniFdna
aibmoloC OSN OSN )noitacudeniTCI(OSN
aciRatsoC ytirohtuA,T&SrofytirohtuA,OSNsnoitacinummoceleTdnayticirtcelErof
OSN
cilbupeRnacinimoD OSN
rodaucE OSN
rodavlaSlE OSN OSN
aciamaJ OSN
ocixeM OSN OSN niTCI(OSNniTCI,tnemnrevog
nohcraeser,noitacude)TCI
yaugaraP OSN OSN
ureP yrtsiniM,noitacudEfoyrtsiniM,OSNehtfoycnediserP,tropsnarTfo
tnemnrevoG
siveNdnasttiKtniaS gninnalProfyrtsiniM
ehtdnatnecniVtniaSsenidanerG
rofytirohtuA,OSNreilppusetavirp,noitacinummoceleT
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
128
Table 7.5. Resources for ICT Statistics in Latin America by Income Level
Note: Multiple options are allowed. Information is not available for Ecuador.
Two countries do not have financing: Brazil, with ahigh demand for ICT indicators, and Belize, whereno demand was reported.
d. Definition of ICT
More than half of the countries do not have a formaldefinition for ICT. Six out of twenty countries appliedsome kind of ICT definition and three are developinga definition (Table 7.6).
However, the metadata questionnaire does not provideinformation on specific definitions for ICT products,services, economic sectors, or processes andtransactions used in the countries (see Box 7.2) forassessing the comparability of indicators at theregional level. OSILAC, undertook an initial effort tostudy the differences and similarities among ICTquestions included in household and business surveysin the LAC region1.
1 “Towards an Information Society measurement instrument for Latin America and the Caribbean: getting started withcensus, household and business surveys” (available at: http://www.cepal.org/socinfo/osilac/destacados/).
sdnuFfonigirOleveLemocnI
emocnIhgiH emocnIelddiM-reppU emocnIelddiM-rewoL emocnIwoL
tegdubralugeR sodabraBelihC
ocixeMsiveNdnasttiKtniaS
ehtdnaetneciVnaSsenidanerG
ogaboTydadinirTyaugurU
aleuzeneV
aiviloBrodavlaSlE
aciamaJyaugaraP
urePcilbupeRnacinimoD
noitarepooclanoitaN anitnegrAaciRatsoC
ocixéMyaugurU
aibmoloC
lanoitanretnInoitarepooc
)s(rehtO
elbaliavagnicnanifoN ezileBlizarB
129
Chapter 7. Status of ICT Indicators in Latin America and the Caribbean
Table 7.6. Existence of an ICT Definition in Latin America and the Caribbean
tsiLyrtnuoC
noitinifeDfosutatS
noitinifeDoNninoitinifeDnoitaraperP
noitinifeDTCIdeilppA
anitnegrA X
sodabraB X
ezileB X
aiviloB X
lizarB X
elihC X
aibmoloC X
aciRatsoC X
cilbupeRnacinimoD X
rodaucE X
rodavlaSlE X
aciamaJ X
ocixeM X
yaugaraP X
ureP X
siveNdnasttiKtniaS X
senidanerGehtdnatnecniVtniaS X
ogaboTdnadadinirT X
yaugurU X
aleuzeneV X
)%(noigerehtniseirtnuocllA )%55(02/11 )%51(02/3 )%03(02/6
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
130
Box 7.2. ICT Definitions in Colombia and Mexico
According to OSILAC’s report on the workshop onInformation Society Measurement for Latin America andthe Caribbean, the following definitions for ICT are usedin Colombia and Mexico:
“The information and communication technologies canbe defined as the set of instruments, tools, andcommunication means like phones, computers, electronicmail and the Internet that allow the communication betweenpersons and organizations” (Colombia)
“The information and communication technologies canbe conceived as the result of a technological convergence
between telecommunications, computer sciences,microelectronic, certain administration ideas and themanagement of information that has evolved in almost halfa century. Hardware, software, services andtelecommunications are considered as its components”(Mexico)
Neither of these definitions is directly applicable todefining ICT indicators: ICT-related economic activities,products, services and processes should be definedaccording to a statistical methodology, that, is definitionsof terms and statistical classifications which establish andlimit the scope of concepts.
e. Dissemination of ICT Statistics
Ten out of the 20 countries that responded to thequestionnaire have published ICT statistical reports orgeneral reports including ICT statistics (Argentina,Barbados, Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic, ElSalvador, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago).These countries’ NSOs reported a medium to very highdemand for ICT indicators. Chile and St. Vincent & theGrenadines have plans for publications in the near future.
With respect to the timeliness of ICT householdindicators (Table 7.7), a large number of householdsurveys, conducted during 2001-2004 collect someindicators. The regional programme for improving thequality of household surveys MECOVI (an initiativeof ECLAC, the Inter-American Development Bankand the World Bank) has fostered the production ofthis kind of statistical information.
Many countries collected a limited number of ICTindicators in their population and housing censuses,completed in 2000-2001 (Census Round 2001).
Only two ICT household surveys were reported in thestocktaking exercise by Mexico and Trinidad andTobago1. The former has a high periodicity.
In relation to the business sector (Table 7.8), severalcountries have undertaken, in the last few yearssince 2001, a number of sectoral surveys (industry,services, trade) which have provided ICT statistics.No Central American countries, except for Mexico,reported the implementation of business surveyscollecting ICT indicators.
In 2004, Chile completed a survey of telephonecompanies, collecting a large number of ICT-relatedvariables.
1 The questionnaires from Barbados and Chile mention ICT-specific surveys carried out by the National Council forScience and Technology and the Authority for Telecommunications respectively. However, no further information ontheir design was given.
131
Chapter 7. Status of ICT Indicators in Latin America and the Caribbean
Table 7.7. Most Recent Date of ICT collection (households)
Notes: (1) surveys have been described as closely as possible given the little amount of information in the questionnaire.Bold rows correspond to ICT-specific surveys.
yrtnuoC )1(noitarepOlacitsitatSfoepyTforebmuNTCIdetcelloC
selbairaV
tneceRtsoMnoitcelloC
anitnegrA susneCgnisuoHdnanoitalupoP 5 1002
sodabraB susneCgnisuoHdnanoitalupoP 1 0002yaM
ezileB yevrusdlohesuoH .a.n )launnA(4002-1002
aiviloB yevrustegdubdlohesuoH 3 )launnA(4002-2002
lizarB yevruscihpargomeD 7 3002
yevrusdlohesuoH 5 0002
yevrustegdubdlohesuoH 44 3002/2002
elihC susneCgnisuoHdnanoitalupoP 8 2002
yevrussnoitidnocgniviL 4 .a.n
aibmoloC yevrusdlohesuoH 71 1002
yevrussnoitidnocgniviL 8 3002
aciRatsoC yevrusdlohesuoH 4-3 3002-0002
cilbupeRnacinimoD susneCgnisuoHdnanoitalupoP 5 2002
rodavlaSlE yevrusdlohesuoH ,a.n 4002
aciamaJ susneCgnisuoHdnanoitalupoP 4 1002
yevrussnoitidnocgniviL 2 )launnA(3002-9991
ocixeM susneCgnisuoHdnanoitalupoP 1 4002
yevrustegduBdlohesuoH 6 )launnaiB(2002-4991
sdlohesuohniTCInoyevruS 73 ,1002,2002,40022991,8991
yaugaraP susneCgnisuoHdnanoitalupoP 8 2002
yevrusdlohesuoH 8 3002
ureP yevrusdlohesuoH .a.n )launnA(4002-0002
siveNdnasttiKtniaS susneCgnisuoHdnanoitalupoP 7 1002yaM
ehtdnatnecniVtniaSsenidanerG
susneCgnisuoHdnanoitalupoP 8 1002enuJ
ogaboTdnadadinirT yevrusecremmoc-E 73 3002enuJ
yaugurU yevrusdlohesuoH 4 )launnA(4002-0002
aleuzeneV yevrusdlohesuoH 7 )launnA(3002-1002
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
132
Table 7.8. Most Recent Date of ICT Collection (business)
Notes: (1) Surveys have been described as precisely as possible given the little amount of information in the questionnaire.Bold rows correspond to ICT-specific surveys.
yrtnuoC )1(noitarepOlacitsitatSfoepyTforebmuNTCIdetcelloC
selbairaV
tneceRtsoMnoitcelloC
anitnegrA )TCInoeludomcificepshtiw(yevrusnoitavonnI 211 2002
sodabraB yevrusssenidaer-E .a.n a.n
lizarB yevruslairtsudnI 8 1002,3002
elihC yevruslairtsudnI 71 4002
yevrusEMS )3002(3)3002ecnis(02
4002
tnaruatserdnaletohehtnoyevruSdnayevrusecivreSrotces
)1002(9)3002ecnis(92
3002,4002
yevrusedarT )1002(9)3002ecnis(92
3002,4002
sdoognoitpmusnocfoselaSnoyevruS 71 3002,4002
stekramrepusfoselasfoyevruS 71 3002
rotcesdoof-organosyevruS 71 4002
gninimdnaygrullatemnoyevruS 71 4002
krowtenenohpeletdexiflacolnoyevruS 705 4002
krowtenenohpeletecnatsidgnolnoyevruS 585 4002
seinapmocenohpeletelibomnoyevruS 121 4002
aibmoloC yevruslairtsudnI 01 1002
yevrusedarT 01 1002
yevrusecivreS 01 1002
stnemhsilbatse-orcimnoyevruS 01 1002
ocixeM susneccimonocE 4 4002
yaugaraP yevruslairtsudnI 3 3002/2002,4002
ogaboTdnadadinirT yevrusecremmoc-E 34 3002
yaugurU yevrusnoitavonnI 3 2002,3002
133
Chapter 7. Status of ICT Indicators in Latin America and the Caribbean
Section 7.3 ICT Household Indicators in Latin America andthe Caribbean
a. Sources of Information
A variety of sources for collecting ICT householdindicators (Table 7.9) were used in the region.Population and housing censuses are used in severalcountries to collect basic access to ICT indicators,while other countries include a larger number of ICTquestions in household sample surveys. Both methodsare used in parallel in countries such as Brazil, Chile,Jamaica, Mexico and Uruguay.
Population and housing censuses
Countries that used population and housing censusesfor the collection of ICT indicators are diverse: highlypopulous countries such as Brazil and Mexico as wellas small Caribbean islands. In all cases, populationand housing censuses included only questions relatedto basic access to ICT, such as presence of Internetaccess in Argentina, Barbados, Chile, DominicanRepublic, Jamaica, Paraguay, St. Kitts and Nevis andSt. Vincent and the Grenadines and Venezuela.
Household surveys
Andean countries (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru,Venezuela) used only household surveys to collect ICTindicators. Except for Chile and Colombia, the ICT-related questions included in the householdquestionnaires only allow producing indicators onbasic access to ICT. In Chile and Colombia theyincluded questions on ICT usage.
Specific ICT household surveys
Specific ICT surveys were identified in Barbados,Chile, Mexico and Trinidad and Tobago. Thesesurveys include most indicator groups, particularlyICT usage and barriers to ICT usage.
As regards the income level, ad hoc ICT surveys wereundertaken by countries pertaining to the upper-middleincome level. Whereas lower-middle income countriesused household surveys as vehicles for posing ICT-related questions.
The results for digital access levels are correlated withincome levels, that is specific ICT household surveyswere mainly implemented in upper access countries.
Detailed information on the type of statisticaloperation used in each country for the collection ofthe 20 indicators listed in the questionnaire is providedin Table B7 of the Annex.
b. Availability of ICT Indicators
The availability of ICT indicators for the householdsector is higher in this region compared to other partsof the developing world (Graphs 7.2 and 7.3). Indeed,indicators on basic access to ICT are available in morethan 80% of the countries, accounting for more than80% of the total regional population. Some of theindicators, such as presence of fixed telephone, TV,PC and presence of Internet access at home areavailable in 100% of the countries surveyed.
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
134
Table 7.9. Statistical Operations Providing ICTHousehold Indicators in Latin America andthe Caribbean
noitarepOfoepyT
leveLemocnI
emocnIhgiHelddiM-reppU
emocnIelddiM-rewoL
emocnIemocnIwoL
susneCgnisuoHdnanoitalupoP anitnegrAsodabraB
elihCocixeM
siveNdnasttiKtniaSehtdnatnecniV.tS
senidanerG
aiviloBlizarB
cilbupeRnacinimoDaciamaJ
syevruSdlohesuoHesoprupitluM elihCaciRatsoC
ocixéMyaugurU
aleuzeneV
aiviloBaibmoloC
rodaucErodavlaSlE
aciamaJyaugaraP
ureP
syevrusdlohesuohTCIcohdA sodabraBocixeM
ogaboTdnadadinirT
noitarepOfoepyTleveLsseccAlatigiD
sseccAhgiH sseccAreppU sseccAmuideM sseccAwoL
susneCgnisuoHdnanoitalupoP anitnegrAsodabraB
lizarBelihC
aciamaJocixeM
siveNdnasttiKtniaS
aiviloBcilbupeRnacinimoDehtdnatnecniVtniaS
senidanerG
syevrusdlohesuoHesoprupitluM elihCaciRatsoC
ocixéMyaugurU
aiviloBaibmoloC
rodaucErodavlaSlE
yaugaraPureP
aleuzeneV
syevruSdlohesuoHTCIcohdA sodabraBocixeM
ogaboTdnadadinirT
135
Chapter 7. Status of ICT Indicators in Latin America and the Caribbean
Graph 7.2.
Availability of ICT Household Indicators
in Latin American and the Caribbean Countries
0
20
40
60
80
100
ELE
CT
RA
DIO
FIX
TL
MB
LT
L
TV
HO
U
PC
HO
U
INT
HO
U
AC
CE
SS
LO
CA
T
FR
EQ
PC
US
E
INT
US
E
INT
SE
R
LA
NG
INT
PR
OD
VA
LU
E
BA
RP
C
BA
RIN
T
BA
RP
UR
GE
OG
%o
fre
sp
on
den
tco
un
trie
s
Graph 7.3.
%o
fto
talp
op
ula
tio
no
fre
sp
on
den
tco
un
trie
s
Availability of ICT Household Indicators
in Latin American and the Caribbean Countries
(weighted by population)
0
20
40
60
80
100
ELE
CT
RA
DIO
FIX
TL
MB
LT
L
TV
HO
U
PC
HO
U
INT
HO
U
AC
CE
SS
LO
CA
T
FR
EQ
PC
US
E
INT
US
E
INT
SE
R
LA
NG
INT
PR
OD
VA
LU
E
BA
RP
C
BA
RIN
T
BA
RP
UR
GE
OG
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
136
Indicators on Internet access and ICT usage areavailable in approximately 20% of the countries.Those on barriers to ICT usage are compiled inless than 20% of the countries, but these accountfor only 20% of the regional population.
Detailed information at the country-level includingthe prospects for availability in the next year andin three years is presented in Table A7 of the Annex.
The possibility of increasing the availability ofindicators is a concern for Bolivia, Brazil, Chileand the Dominican Republic. In terms of populationcovered, Brazil’s production during the next threeyears of ICT household indicators, with more than170 million inhabitants, will have an importantimpact in the region.
With respect to the digital access level, countrieswith upper levels collected on average 10.6indicators out of the 20 specified in thequestionnaire, while medium access countriescollected only 7.7. The difference is due to the lackof indicators collected by the latter, with theexception of basic access to ICT indicators.
Table 7.10. Availability of ICT Household Indicators by Digital Access Level (regional average numberof indicators in each group)
c. Disaggregations of ICT Household Indicators
As for the other regions, the possibilities for breakingdown or disaggregating ICT household indicators inLatin America and the Caribbean depend on the designof the statistical instruments used for data collection(Table 7.11). Population and housing censuses, whichcollect a limited number of ICT indicators (1 to 8), permitmore breakdowns of the indicator values, related to theother variables collected. Disaggregation of exhaustivecensuses is limited by the need for data confidentiality.
Household surveys such as budget surveys (such asthose in Bolivia and Mexico) allow disaggregationby the principal demographic variables (age, genderin 16 of 20 countries), and some socio-economicclassifications (by education, income level andprofession in 16, 10 and 8 countries respectively).
No further comparison between countries householdsurveys can be completed at this stage. However, theimplementation of regional programmes for householdsurveys (such as MECOVI) and the sub-regionalharmonisation exercises (in the Mercosur and Andeancountries) may lead to further harmonisation of theclassifications used in household indicators.
puorgrotacidnI
leveLsseccAlatigiD
hgiHsseccA
reppUsseccA
muideMsseccA
woLsseccA
)srotacidni7(TCIotsseccacisaB - 7/5.6 7/8.6 -
)srotacidni3(sseccatenretnI - 3/5.1 3/5.0 -
)srotacidni6(egasuTCI - 6/9.1 6/4.0 -
)srotacidni3(egasuotsreirraB - 3/5.0 30 -
)rotacidni1(noitacollacihpargoeG - 1/2.0 1/0 -
)srotacidni02(sdlohesuohniTCI - 02/6.01 02/7.7 -
137
Chapter 7. Status of ICT Indicators in Latin America and the Caribbean
Table 7.11. Disaggregation of ICT indicators from General Household Surveys in Latin Americanand Caribbean Countries
Notes: - Only answers to the metadata questionnaire are considered. Venezuela does not specify the classification variables but attached amethodological document.- (1) These countries collect some ICT variables through a population census. It is therefore supposed that the basic demographicvariables age, gender and education and location are valid to produce disaggregated values for the ICT indicators collected.- (2) The Household Survey of Costa Rica records ‘Demographic and economic characteristics’- (3) The household budget survey of Mexico records both income and 6 ICT indicators.
tsiLyrtnuoC
selbairaVnoitacifissalC
egA redneG noitacudE/emocnI
erutidnepxelevel
noitacoL yticinhtEcimonocE
ytivitcahtlaeHsutats
anitnegrA )1( )1( )1( )1(
sodabraB )1( )1( )1( )1(
ezileB X X X X X X X
aiviloB X
lizarB X X X X X X X
elihC )1( )1( )1( X
aibmoloC X X X X
aciRatsoC )2( )2( )2( X
nacinimoDcilbupeR
)1( )1( )1( )1(
rodaucE
rodavlaSlE X X X X X
aciamaJ )1( )1( )1( X )1(
ocixeM X X X )3( )1( )1( )1(
yaugaraP )1( X X X )1( )1( X X
ureP X X X X X X X
dnasttiKtniaSsiveN
)1( )1( )1( X
dnatnecniVtniaSsenidanerGeht
)1( )1( )1( )1(
dnadadinirTogaboT
X X X X X X
yaugurU X X
latoT 61 61 61 01 51 5 8 2
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
138
Section 7.4 ICT Business Indicators in Latin America andthe Caribbean
a. Sources of Information
South-American countries usually collect ICTindicators in business surveys. Surveys collecting alarger number of ICT indicators were carried out intwo Caribbean states and Argentina. Economiccensuses are less well suited for monitoring the rapidlyevolving Information Society. Some countries havecombined the three types of statistical operations, inaddition to administrative registries and data fromservice suppliers (see Box 7.3).
Detailed information on the statistical instruments usedto collect each indicator at the country level is providedin Table C7 of the Annex and summarised in table 7.10.
Use of economic censuses
In the region, only Mexico collected ICT indicatorsthrough a comprehensive economic census in 2004.Indicators collected include presence of computers and
Box 7.3. Assessment of statistical sources on ICT in business in Argentina
At the WSIS Thematic Meeting (Geneva, February 2005), theNational Institute of Statistics and Censuses of Argentina(INDEC) presented a revision of the potential use of a varietyof business statistical surveys for the provision of ICT statistics.
Argentina implements an economic census every ten years,the last one conducted in 2004/2005. It included questions onpurchases, sales (including import and export) and productionof ICT equipment. Similar indicators may be produced throughbusiness surveys such as the Annual Industry Survey. TheInternal registries of foreign trade, produced by the Directoratefor Customs and, collects data on foreign trade in ICT productsalso analysed by INDEC.
Qualitative data on ICT was collected in the Annual survey ofInternational Services in 2003.
The survey on Innovation and Technological Behaviourof Argentinean Enterprises covering the reference period1998-2001 included questions related to presence of awebsite and its use, sales and purchases in e-commerce,access to mobile phones, e-mail and Internet accounts bythe employees, and on usage of ICT-related businessprocesses such as robots, computer assisted design,materials resource planning or computer-assisted qualitycontrol.
A large amount of ICT-related information is also producedin Argentina by INDEC based on reports from serviceproviders, including basic telephony, mobile services,radio messages, cable TV and Internet. The periodicity ofthis kind of information is higher (even monthly).
Internet access, presence of a local network andwebsite, and ICT training.
Use of sectoral business surveys
Chile, Colombia, El Salvador and Paraguay have usedtraditional sectoral business surveys to collect alimited number of ICT indicators. Different sectorsare included depending on the economic importanceof the sector in the country: mining, manufacturing,trade, services, tourism, agro-food, etc. The numberof ICT-related variables was between 10 and 20.
Use of specific ICT business surveys
Argentina completed surveys on Innovation andTechnological Behaviour of Enterprises that includeda large number of ICT-related variables. This kind ofsurvey, based on the OECD initial works on measuringinnovation (Oslo Manual) is a useful source forinvestigating the adoption and use of new
139
Chapter 7. Status of ICT Indicators in Latin America and the Caribbean
Table 7.10. Statistical Operations Providing ICT Business Indicators in Latin America and theCaribbean Countries
technologies. It is more specific than surveys in themanufacturing sector on inputs and outputs inindustries, and the questionnaire is usually addressedto the person responsible for ICT. In relation to thelist of business ICT indicators in the questionnaire,the Argentinean survey collected only six indicatorson basic access to ICT, advanced access to ICT andusage and Internet activities and e-commerce, whilethe Uruguayan one collected only presence ofcomputers, Internet access and Investment in ICT.
Barbados and, Trinidad and Tobago also implementedspecific ICT business surveys. The survey in Trinidadand Tobago included the majority of ICT businessindicators in the questionnaire.
Use of business registries
NSOs use to maintain a register of all the legally constitutedenterprises in the country, as infrastructure for selecting
samples, carrying out statistical operations and investigatingthe business demography (creation and closing of firms).Business registries include contact details and may be asource for indicators such as presence of fixed and mobiletelephone, and presence of a web site. Bolivia collects thisindicator from the business registry.
Use of information from suppliers
NSOs from countries such as Bolivia and Costa Ricacompile indicators on basic access to ICT fromadministrative records of the supplier companies.Usually, the licence by national authorities for theprovision of services includes the obligation to submitperiodic information on their subscribers.
a. Availability of ICT Indicators
The pattern of availability of ICT business indicatorsis very different when weighted by their economic
noitarepOfoepyT
leveLemocnI
emocnIhgiHelddiM-reppU
emocnIelddiM-rewoL
emocnIemocnIwoL
susneCcimonocE ocixeM
syevrussesirpretnElareneG elihCyaugurU
lizarBaibmoloC
rodavlaSlEyaugaraP
syevrusTCIcohdA anitnegrAsodabraB
ogaboT&dadinirT
noitarepOfoepyTleveLsseccAlatigiD
sseccAhgiH sseccAreppU sseccAmuideM sseccAwoL
susneCcimonocE ocixeM
syevrussesirpretnElareneG lizarBelihC
yaugurU
aibmoloCrodavlaSlE
yaugaraP
syevrusTCIcohdA anitnegrAsodabraB
ogaboT&dadinirT
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
140
importance (measured by proportion of regional GDP)of the countries collecting them (Graphs 7.4 and 7.5).Detailed information on the availability at the countrylevel is given in table C7 of the Annex.
The presence of fixed and mobile telephone in firmsare available in 40% of the countries. Not being
available in Mexico, Brazil and Argentina, theindicators’ coverage in terms of regional GDP1, is lessthan 20% of the econom. A similar effect occurs withthe indicator - number of computers. The indicatorpresence of computers, closely related to the former,is available in 20% of the countries representing 50%of the share of regional GDP.
1 Taking into account for the regional total the countries that answered the questionnaire.
Graph 7.4.
Availability of ICT Business Indicators
in Latin American and the Caribbean Countries
0
20
40
60
80
100
FIX
TE
L
MO
BIL
CO
MP
NC
OM
P
INT
EN
ET
TY
PE
INT
LO
CN
ET
WE
BS
ITE
ICT
INV
SH
CO
MP
SH
INT
SE
RV
ICE
S
PU
RC
H
SA
LE
S
CU
ST
OM
TR
AIN
BA
RP
C
BA
RIN
T
BA
RE
CO
M
GE
OG
%o
fre
sp
on
den
tco
un
trie
s
Graph 7.5.
%o
fto
talG
DP
of
resp
on
den
tco
un
trie
s
Availability of ICT Business Indicators
in Latin American and the Caribbean Countries
(weighted by GDP)
0
20
40
60
80
100
FIX
TE
L
MO
BIL
CO
MP
NC
OM
P
INT
EN
ET
TY
PE
INT
LO
CN
ET
WE
BS
ITE
ICT
INV
SH
CO
MP
SH
INT
SE
RV
ICE
S
PU
RC
H
SA
LE
S
CU
ST
OM
TR
AIN
BA
RP
C
BA
RIN
T
BA
RE
CO
M
GE
OG
141
Chapter 7. Status of ICT Indicators in Latin America and the Caribbean
The indicators available in the largest proportion ofcountries are presence of Internet and of a website,accounting for more than 80% of the economy.
The remaining indicators are available in less than 25%of the countries. However, five of them account for 40%or more of the regional economy: presence of localnetwork, investment in ICT, services for which theInternet is used, value of Internet sales and ICT training.
Data on the barriers to ICT use and geographiclocation on sales are marginally (in economic terms)collected (only Barbados, Jamaica and Trinidad andTobago declared the availability of these).
The correlation between the level of demand and theavailability of ICT business indicators is not clear.Amongst the countries that reported a high or veryhigh demand, only Chile and Trinidad and Tobagocollect a large number of indicators; El Salvador hasonly one and Brazil and Mexico, the largest countriesin terms of population and share of GDP, are planningto collect them in the near future.
In relation to the Digital Access Index (DAI),countries with higher levels have, on average, a
larger number of indicators (Table 7.11) in allgroups of indicators. The difference is bigger inrelation to indicators on advanced ICT access andusage. No countries with medium access collectedindicators on barriers to usage or on geographiclocation of sales.
d. Disaggregation of ICT Business Indicators
In order to further examine the readiness for andimpact of ICT on the business sector, indicators haveto be broken down into classification variables. Suchdisaggregations however, depend on the design ofbusiness surveys.
Mexico’s economic census, highly exhaustive, allowsas many disaggregations as valid combinations of thevariables collected. The only limitation is imposedby the need to maintain confidentiality of statisticalresults.
For the remaining countries, a breakdown byeconomic sector and size (in terms of the number ofemployees) is the most common. This is relevant sincemost countries in the region use harmonised industrialclassifications (such as ISIC).
Table 7.11. Availability of ICT Business Indicators by Digital Access Level
puorGrotacidnIleveLsseccAlatigiD
sseccAreppU sseccAwoL
)srotacidni5(TCIotsseccacisaB 5/6.2 5/5.2
)srotacidni6(egasudnasseccaTCIdecnavdA 6/4.2 6/1
)srotacidni4(ecremmoc-ednaseitivitcatenretnI 4/2.1 4/5.0
)rotacidni1(gniniartTCI 1/3.0 1/2.0
)srotacidni3(egasuotsreirraB 3/6.0 3/0
)rotacidni1(noitacollacihpargoeG 1/0 1/0
srotacidniTCIssenisuB:LATOT 02/1.7 02/2.4
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
142
Table 7.12. Classification Variables for the ICT Business Indicators in Latin America and the Caribbean
Notes: - Only answers to the questionnaire are taken into account.- (1) Mexico carried out a census collecting basic variables that can allow disaggregations by their values.
yrtnuoC tinUnoitavresbOcimonocE
ytivitcAeziS
)seeyolpme(eziS
)revonruT(noitacoL
lacidiruJmrof
anitnegrA mriF X X X X
lizarB mriF X X X
elihC mriF X X X
aibmoloC tnemhsilbatse/mriF X
rodavlaSlE tnemhsilbatsE X
ocixeM tnemhsilbatsE X )1( )1( )1( )1(
yaugaraP mriF X X X
ogaboTdnadadinirT mriF X X X
yaugurU mriF X X
latoT 8 7 5 4 1
143
Chapter 7. Status of ICT Indicators in Latin America and the Caribbean
Section 7.5 ICT Indicators in other sectors in Latin America andthe Caribbean
Other potential sources of information about ICT inthe region analysed in this chapter have been identifiedin the stocktaking exercise (Table 7.12). The mostresearched topics are ICT in education andgovernment.
Based on the information provided, Brazil collectedup to four variables on ICT products. Colombia andMexico carried out studies on the equipment and usageof ICT in the government (11 and 52 ICT variablesrespectively) and education sector (15 and 21 ICT
variables respectively). The Mexican surveys haveannual periodicity.
Chile surveyed the companies supplying telephoneservices (local, long distance and mobile) therebycollecting a large number of ICT-related variables.
Mexico also collected data on research anddevelopment in the ICT sector (30 ICT variables),including fields of research, type of institutionsperforming the research and R&D expenditure.
Table 4.13
niamoD seirtnuoC
stcudorpTCIniedartdnadnamed,ylppuS lizarB
sesirpretneTCI )sredivorpenohpelet(elihC
noitacudeniTCI ocixeM,aibmoloC
tnemnrevogniTCI ocixeM,aibmoloC
stnemtsevniTCI )TCInihcraeser(ocixeM
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
144
Key issues on the availability of ICT indicators in the region
• Metadata collection: The stocktaking exercise has resultedin a very high response rate when weighted by populationor GDP. However, additional efforts should be made togather metadata information from low income countries inthe region (Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua).
• Data sources: In Latin America and the Caribbean, NSOsare the main providers of ICT indicators. A large number ofcountries also obtain ICT indicators from national authoritiesfor Telecommunications and Science and Technology. Basicaccess to ICT is measured in population and housing censuses(including in the two larger countries - Brazil and Mexico).Questions on ICT usage are generally investigated throughhousehold surveys. Business ICT indicators are collectedgenerally through sectoral business surveys, that include alimited (10 to 20) ICT-related questions.
• Resources: The large majority of countries finance theproduction of ICT indicators with the regular budget of theirNSOs. Brazil and Belize reported no financing, whileArgentina, Costa Rica, Colombia, Uruguay and Mexicoreceived funding form national organisations.
• Key gaps in ICT indicators: Indicators on Internet access,barriers to ICT usage and other more specific are available inless than 40% of the countries. In the business sector, presenceof fixed and mobile telephone do not cover Mexico, Brazil andArgentina. Five indicators (presence of local network,investment in ICT, services for which the Internet is used, salesand ICT training cover up to 40% of the regional economy.The remaining indicators are available in less than 25% of thecountries.
145
Chapter 8. Concluding Notes
Chapter 8. Concluding Notes
Section 8.1 Considerations on the Stocktaking Exercise
The stocktaking exercise on the status of ICTindicators undertaken by the Partnership forMeasuring ICT for Development has providedvaluable information on the institutional organisation,the sources and availability of ICT indicators at theglobal level.
The efforts of National Statistical Offices (NSOs) ina large number of countries to respond to the metadataquestionnaire sent by the UN Regional Commissions,the United Nations Conference for Trade andDevelopment (UNCTAD) and the Organisation forEconomic Cooperation and Development (OECD),has permitted the consolidation of this information atthe regional and global levels.
However, the lack of metadata on some countries thatdid not participate in the stocktaking exercise maybias the results obtained on the availability of ICTindicators. In particular, countries like Nigeria, LibyanArab Jamahiriya, Iraq, South Africa, Uzbekistan and
especially China deserve a particular study given thesize of their population and/or importance in thecorresponding regional economies. Sub-regions withlow income and low digital access such as CentralAsia, Central America and the developing PacificIslands were also inadequately covered.
In some cases, the non-response may be due to thelack of human and technical resources in the NationalStatistical Offices available for completing thequestionnaire.
The collection of metadata achieved through thestocktaking exercise can therefore be considered as afirst step in the preparation of a global ICT indicatorsdatabase, which is one of the main objectives of thePartnership. It provides important information on thecurrent status of data collection, which serves as a startingpoint for further work on the harmonization of ICTstatistics internationally as well as for the identificationof capacity building needs in developing countries.
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
146
Section 8.2 Institutional Arrangements for the Collection ofICT Statistics
National Statistical Offices and Ministries responsiblefor Telecommunications share the responsibility ofproducing ICT indicators. In some countries, lineministries such as Education or Health provide ICTstatistics on their respective fields of competence.
There is little information collected in thequestionnaire about mechanisms for co-ordinating theproduction of ICT statistics within countries. Therewas evidence of a link between the demand for ICTindicators and resources available.
Key issues on the co-ordination of statistical systemsare:
Financing the production of ICT indicators
NSOs regular budget usually provide the resourcesfor the production of ICT indicators. In a few cases,countries reported the collaboration of other nationalinstitutions (basically Ministries forTelecommunications) and international entities (suchas the multi-country project SCAN-ICT in Africa).
NSOs in developing countries usually face severeconstraints on the amount and predictability ofresources, according to recent studies1. Multi-annualfinancing plans are scarce and therefore thesustainability of statistical operations is rarelyguaranteed. For a rapidly changing environment suchas ICT, it is necessary to develop measuring systemsthat track the evolution over time. One-off surveys(which are not repeated periodically) financed andcarried out with technical assistance from internationalorganisations can even damage the national statistical
systems of developing countries: higher salaries (evenfor short-term assignments) attract highly qualifiedstaff that leave NSOs, and little know-how istransferred to these institutions, limiting the possibilityof capacity building. Sustained co-operationprogrammes inserted in broader strategies, such as thePHARE assistance to candidate countries to theEuropean Union, can ensure a higher degree ofeffectiveness.
In countries where other national institutions financed(partially or totally) the production of ICT statisticsby NSOs, three major advantages can be easilyidentified.
• First, collaboration strengthens recognition of therole of the NSO as the main institution providingstatistics. The financing institution recognises theexpertise of official statisticians and know-how ofthe NSO.
• Second, the statistical operations may benefit fromthe existing infrastructure such as household listingsin enumeration areas (used for household surveys),business directories (used for business surveys),local branches for data collection, trainedinterviewers, computing capacity and disseminationchannels. Institutions other than the NSO may havesimilar capacities, but they are usually devoted toadministrative tasks, not the production of statistics.Quality of output may therefore be improved.
• Third, statistics produced by the NSO have anofficial status, are recognised by the government andused in the definition of public policies. Surveys
1 For example, the Marrakech Action Plan for Statistics (MAPS), developed under the aegis of the World Bank andother multilateral financing institutions.
147
Chapter 8. Concluding Notes
2 Such as the National Strategies for Development of Statistics (NSDS) promoted by the consortium PARIS21. Theseare however focused on the development of systems to measure the achievements towards the MillenniumDevelopment Goals and other Poverty Reduction strategies.
carried out by other institutions may not be consideredofficial status and therefore cannot be used for thedefinition of policies. This is usually the case withindicators on Internet use in many countries, producedby private operators and research institutes.
Programming the production of ICT indicators
The production of ICT indicators is supported by avariety of statistical sources.
These include, first, operations not specificallydesigned for measuring ICT and usually carried outby NSOs such as population censuses (for theindicators on basic access to ICT by households),household surveys (such as household budget surveysand living conditions surveys), economic censuses andsectoral business surveys.
Second, administrative operations by ICT serviceproviders and regulatory authorities may become asource of ICT indicators, with limitations in terms ofpossible breakdowns and coverage, but with a lowercost for data collection.
Finally, a few countries have implemented ICTspecific surveys for households and businesses.
In order to provide the users with a regular supply ofICT indicators, the following programming issues arecrucial:
• Investigating users’ demand for ICT indicators.Many countries have established working groupssuch as Statistical Councils where users andproducers can meet in order to review theprogrammes and methods of official statistics.Unfortunately, in many developing countries thesehave a limited, formal role and do not allow forproper identification of the information needs andmatching the existing resources with the demand.In the case of ICT indicators, these cross-cuttingcharacteristics make it even more necessary toinvestigate the demand from different social,economic and governmental actors, national andinternational, in order to agree on a production plan.
The agreement on a core list of ICT indicators, amajor objective of the Partnership, is a key elementof the analysis of users’ demand.
• Implementing a multi-annual, comprehensiveprogramme for ICT statistics. Producers and usersof ICT indicators should first agree on a core list ofrequired indicators and secondly analyse thedifferent possibilities for compilation using theexisting statistical tools mentioned above in orderto find cost-effective solutions for the medium-term.The production of ICT indicators should be insertedin the existing national programmes for officialstatistics. The international initiatives fordeveloping the national statistical systems2 couldbe studied in order to accommodate the field ofICT.
• Distributing tasks to the relevant actors. Thecollaboration of different institutions such as NSOs,line Ministries, regulatory authorities and privateproviders in the exchange of information (raw data)and the compilation of aggregated statistics mayincrease the cost-effectiveness of producing ICTindicators. Establishing formally the distributionof tasks in the framework of a national programmeis the only possibility for avoiding duplication ofwork, and the dissemination of redundant statistics(that may even be contradictory if the methods arenot the same), as well as for benefiting from thecomparative advantages of the different institutions’know-how.
There is a need for identifying the institutional factorshampering the collection of ICT indicators in countrieswith limited availability of ICT statistics. The lack of anevidence-based ICT policy in a country, or of a criticalmass of users (private and public) requesting the datamay explain their reduced availability. Or it may be theresult of a lack of human and technical resources in theStatistical System. Projects and programmes of capacitybuilding in the field of statistics and in particular on ICTindicators have been designed in some regions and couldbenefit from the diagnosis of the critical points in themeasurement of Information Society, particularly in thepoorest countries.
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
148
Section 8.3 Issues for Further Methodological Work onICT Indicators
In order to build the necessary capacity in the nationalstatistical systems, the Partnership may promote theimprovement of the co-ordination of the statisticalactivity on ICT, including the allocation of resourcesand the medium-term programming of the statisticaloperations, as mentioned in the previous section.
The Partnership may also mobilise existing expertiseand know-how to produce methodological guidelinesfor the production of ICT indicators. The informationcollected through the metadata questionnaire providesimpetus for further methodological work on ICTindicators:
• Comparability issues: How comparable is theinformation already collected from differentcountries on ICT access and usage in householdand business? The use of different definitions,populations covered, sampling methods, estimationprocedures, breakdown variables and othermethodological elements makes the comparison ofstatistical measurement tools difficult. A frameworkfor describing each national statistical system interms of methods and institutional environmentcould be prepared, following the directions of otherexercises (such as DQAF1 or GDDS) towardsincreasing the transparency and harmonisation ofICT statistics. The work carried out by thePartnership on establishing a manual withdefinitions is greatly oriented toward ensuringcomparability at the international level. This is akey step prior to the compilation of internationaldatabases on ICT.
• Relevance: How relevant are the collected ICTindicators for the design of policies, in particular,for development strategies? The link to national ICTpolicies and to international initiatives such as theMillennium Development Goals (MDG) shouldguide the production of specific ICT indicators withthe relevant breakdowns to investigate the impacton different subpopulations or business sectors. Inthe particular field of MDG, current reportingpractices include the number of telephone lines andcellular phones, the number of PC in use and ofInternet users per 100 population, but progress inICT statistics may allow the identification of otherspecific ICT indicators closely related to the othertargets. The United Nations ICT Task ForceWorking Party on ICT indicators and MDGs (oneof the members of the Partnership) examinesprecisely this issue and is preparing a report withconcrete suggestions on time for the WSIS in Tunis.
• Availability of specific indicators: Many countrieslag behind with regards to the availability ofindicators other than those related to basic accessto ICT by households and businesses. In general,the more specific an indicator is on advanced useof ICT, the lower its availability, both in thehousehold and business sector. Therefore, asystemic approach for producing ICT indicators,covering the different topics and using differentstatistical instruments could be developed andpromoted. The preparation by the Partnership ofICT-specific modules to be included in householdor business surveys already established, and the
1 The Data Quality Assessment Framework (DQAF) was initially proposed by the IMF for its application to NationalAccounts, Price Indices, Government Finance statistics, and other topics(http://dsbb.imf.org/Applications/web/dqrs/dqrsdqaf/) The World Bank and UNESCO have applied it for monetary poverty (http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPAME/Resources/Training-Materials/ dataquality_assessment.pdf) and education statistics(http://www.uis.unesco.org/TEMPLATE/pdf/ SCB/DQAF%20for%20education%20statistics.pdf).
149
Chapter 8. Concluding Notes
identification of best practices in the use ofadministrative data could help the NSOs inincreasing the availability of ICT indicators.
The necessity of monitoring the readiness for ICT useand its impact on living standards and economicperformance requires the establishment of soundstatistical systems for the production of ICT indicators.
Focusing on a shorter, ‘core’ list is a key issue forincreasing the relevance, comparability andavailability of ICT indicators. This has been one of
2 For more information on the meeting, as well as the agreed upon core list, see http://measuring-ict.unctad.org.
the key objectives of the Partnership and much workhas been devoted to it during the past year. As a result,a first list of core ICT indicators was agreed upon atthe WSIS Thematic Meeting on “Measuring theInformation Society”, held in Geneva inFebruary 2005.2
The initiative of the Partnership for Measuring ICTfor the collection of information about the availabilityof ICT indicators and the institutional environmentfor their production is an important step in theachievement of the Partnership’s goals.
151
Annex. Country Tables
Annex. Country Tables
Series A: Availability of household ICT indicators
Series B: Statistical sources for household ICT indicators
Series C: Availability of business ICT indicators
Series D: Statistical sources for business ICT indicators
Note: Tables are numbered according to the chapters of the publication, that is 3 = Africa, 4 = Central Asia and Central and EasternEuropean Countries, 5 = Western Asia, 6 = Asia-Pacific, 7 = Latin America and the Caribbean, 8= OECD (countries covered byEurostat), 8bis= OECD (Countries not covered by Eurostat).
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
152
Table A3. Availability of household ICT indicators in Africa
Countries Indicator Benin Ethiopia Gabon Gambia Kenya Lesotho Madagascar Mauritius Morocco Niger
1) Presence of electricity 2) Presence of radio 3) Presence of fixed telephone line 4) Presence of mobile phone * 5) Presence of TV 6) Presence of a computer *** ***
Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
T
7) Presence of internet access * *** 8) Methods of access/ bandwidth for Internet access * ***
9) Location of the most frequent use of Internet *
Inte
rnet
ac
cess
10) Frequency of Internet use * 11) Purposes of PC use * *** *** 12) Purposes of Internet use * *** *** 13) Concrete services / activities the Internet is used for * *** ***
14) Languages of visited Internet sites * *** 15) Types of products/ services purchased over the Internet
* *** ICT
usa
ge
16) Value of purchased goods/ services over the Internet
* ***
17) Barriers to PC usage * *** * *** 18) Barriers to Internet usage * *** * ***
Bar
rier
to
usag
e
19) Barriers to purchase over the Internet * *** 20) Geographic location where the
Internet goods are purchased * ***
Note: : available. *: NSO plans to collect it in 1 year; ***: NSO plans to collect it in 3 years .Shaded are the countries with high and very high demand for ICT indicators.
Table A3 (continuation)
Countries
Indicator Central African
Rep.
DemocraticRep. of Congo
Rwanda Senegal Sierra Leone
Tanzania Tunisia Zambia Zimbabwe
1) Presence of electricity * 2) Presence of radio * 3) Presence of fixed telephone line * 4) Presence of mobile phone * * * 5) Presence of TV * * 6) Presence of a computer * *
Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
T
7) Presence of internet access *** *** *** * * 8) Methods of access/ bandwidth for Internet access *** *** *** * *
9) Location of the most frequent use of Internet *** *** *** *
Inte
rnet
ac
cess
10) Frequency of Internet use *** *** *** * * 11) Purposes of PC use *** *** *** * 12) Purposes of Internet use *** *** *** * 13) Concrete services / activities the Internet is used for
*** *** *** *
14) Languages of visited Internet sites *** *** *** 15) Types of products/ services purchased over the Internet
*** *** *** * ICT
usa
ge
16) Value of purchased goods/ services over the Internet
*** *** *** *
17) Barriers to PC usage *** *** *** * 18) Barriers to Internet usage *** *** *** *
Bar
rier
s to
usa
ge
19) Barriers to purchase over the Internet *** *** *** * 20) Geographic location where the
Internet goods are purchased *** *** *** *
Note: : available; *: NSO plans to collect it in 1 year; ***: NSO plans to collect it in 3 years. No information is available for Congo. Shaded are the countries with high and very high demand for ICT indicators.
153
Annex. Country Tables
Table A3 (continuation)
Countries
Indicator Central African
Rep.
DemocraticRep. of Congo
Rwanda Senegal Sierra Leone
Tanzania Tunisia Zambia Zimbabwe
1) Presence of electricity * 2) Presence of radio * 3) Presence of fixed telephone line * 4) Presence of mobile phone * * * 5) Presence of TV * * 6) Presence of a computer * *
Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
T
7) Presence of internet access *** *** *** * * 8) Methods of access/ bandwidth for Internet access *** *** *** * *
9) Location of the most frequent use of Internet *** *** *** *
Inte
rnet
ac
cess
10) Frequency of Internet use *** *** *** * * 11) Purposes of PC use *** *** *** * 12) Purposes of Internet use *** *** *** * 13) Concrete services / activities the Internet is used for
*** *** *** *
14) Languages of visited Internet sites *** *** *** 15) Types of products/ services purchased over the Internet
*** *** *** * ICT
usa
ge
16) Value of purchased goods/ services over the Internet
*** *** *** *
17) Barriers to PC usage *** *** *** * 18) Barriers to Internet usage *** *** *** *
Bar
rier
s to
usa
ge
19) Barriers to purchase over the Internet *** *** *** * 20) Geographic location where the
Internet goods are purchased *** *** *** *
Note: : available; *: NSO plans to collect it in 1 year; ***: NSO plans to collect it in 3 years. No information is available for Congo. Shaded are the countries with high and very high demand for ICT indicators.
Table A4. Availability of household ICT indicators in Central Asia and Central and Eastern European Countries
Countries Indicator
Albania Andorra Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Bosnia &
Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Georgia Israel
1) Presence of electricity 2) Presence of radio 3) Presence of fixed telephone line 4) Presence of mobile phone 5) Presence of TV 6) Presence of a computer
Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
T
7) Presence of internet access 8) Methods of access/ bandwidth for Internet access
9) Location of the most frequent use of Internet
Inte
rnet
ac
cess
10) Frequency of Internet use
11) Purposes of PC use 12) Purposes of Internet use ? *** *** 13) Concrete services / activities the Internet is used for
? *** ***
14) Languages of visited Internet sites
15) Types of products/ services purchased over the Internet
ICT
usa
ge
16) Value of purchased goods/ services over the Internet
17) Barriers to PC usage
18) Barriers to Internet usage ? *** ***
Bar
rier
s to
usa
ge
19) Barriers to purchase over the Internet ? *** *** 20) Geographic location where the
Internet goods are purchased
Note: : available; ?: NSO plans to collect it in the next years; ***: NSO plans to collect it in 3 years. Shaded are the countries with high and very high demand for ICT indicators.
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
154
Table A4 (continuation)
Countries Indicator
Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan LiechtensteinMacedonia
FYR Moldova RomaniaRussian
Federation Turkey Ukraine
1) Presence of electricity 2) Presence of radio 3) Presence of fixed telephone line 4) Presence of mobile phone 5) Presence of TV 6) Presence of a computer
Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
T
7) Presence of internet access 8) Methods of access/ bandwidth for Internet access
9) Location of the most frequent use of Internet
Inte
rnet
ac
cess
10) Frequency of Internet use 11) Purposes of PC use 12) Purposes of Internet use ? 13) Concrete services / activities the Internet is used for
? ***
14) Languages of visited Internet sites 15) Types of products/ services purchased over the Internet
ICT
usa
ge
16) Value of purchased goods/ services over the Internet
17) Barriers to PC usage 18) Barriers to Internet usage ? ***
Bar
rier
s to
usa
ge
19) Barriers to purchase over the Internet ? *** 20) Geographic location where the
Internet goods are purchased
Note: : available; ?: NSO plans to collect it in the next years; ***: NSO plans to collect it in 3 years. Information about Liechtenstein is not available because the questionnaire was almost empty. Shaded are the countries with high and very high demand for ICT indicators.
Table A5. Availability of household ICT indicators in Western Asia
Countries
Indicator Egypt Jordan Kuwait Lebanon Oman Palestine Qatar Saudi
Arabia
Syrian Arab
Republic Yemen
1) Presence of electricity * 2) Presence of radio * 3) Presence of fixed telephone line * 4) Presence of mobile phone * *** * 5) Presence of TV * * 6) Presence of a computer * *
Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
T
7) Presence of internet access * * * 8) Methods of access/ bandwidth for Internet access
* * *** *
9) Location of the most frequent use of Internet
* * *** *
Inte
rnet
ac
cess
10) Frequency of Internet use * *** *
11) Purposes of PC use * *** * 12) Purposes of Internet use *** * 13) Concrete services / activities the Internet is used for
* *** *
14) Languages of visited Internet sites * *** * 15) Types of products/ services purchased over the Internet
* * ICT
usa
ge
16) Value of purchased goods/ services over the Internet
* *
17) Barriers to PC usage * *** *
18) Barriers to Internet usage * *** *
Bar
rier
s to
usa
ge
19) Barriers to purchase over the Internet * * 20) Geographic location where the
Internet goods are purchased * *
Note: : available; *: NSO plans to collect it in 1 year; ***: NSO plans to collect it in 3 years. Shaded are the countries with high and very high demand for ICT indicators.
155
Annex. Country Tables
Table A6. Availability of household ICT indicators in Asia and Pacific
Countries
Indicator Cambodia Hong Kong
SAR India Indonesia
Iran (Islamic Rep. of)
Macao SAR
Malaysia Maldives Micronesia
1) Presence of electricity 2) Presence of radio 3) Presence of fixed telephone line 4) Presence of mobile phone * 5) Presence of TV 6) Presence of a computer
Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
T
7) Presence of internet access *** 8) Methods of access/ bandwidth for Internet access
***
9) Location of the most frequent use of Internet
*** *
Inte
rnet
ac
cess
10) Frequency of Internet use *** 11) Purposes of PC use *** 12) Purposes of Internet use *** 13) Concrete services / activities the Internet is used for
***
14) Languages of visited Internet sites 15) Types of products/ services purchased over the Internet
*** ICT
usa
ge
16) Value of purchased goods/ services over the Internet
***
17) Barriers to PC usage *** 18) Barriers to Internet usage ***
Bar
rier
s to
usa
ge
19) Barriers to purchase over the Internet *** 20) Geographic location where the
Internet goods are purchased ***
Note: : available; *: NSO plans to collect it in 1 year; ***: NSO plans to collect it in 3 years. Shaded are the countries with high and very high demand for ICT indicators.
Table A6 (continuation)
Countries Indicator
Mongolia New
Caledonia Niue Pakistan Philippines Singapore Sri Lanka Thailand Vanuatu
1) Presence of electricity 2) Presence of radio 3) Presence of fixed telephone line * 4) Presence of mobile phone * 5) Presence of TV 6) Presence of a computer
Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
T
7) Presence of internet access 8) Methods of access/ bandwidth for Internet access
***
9) Location of the most frequent use of Internet
***
Inte
rnet
ac
cess
10) Frequency of Internet use *** *** 11) Purposes of PC use *** *** 12) Purposes of Internet use *** *** 13) Concrete services / activities the Internet is used for
*** ***
14) Languages of visited Internet sites *** 15) Types of products/ services purchased over the Internet
*** ICT
usa
ge
16) Value of purchased goods/ services over the Internet
***
17) Barriers to PC usage *** 18) Barriers to Internet usage ***
Bar
rier
s to
usa
ge
19) Barriers to purchase over the Internet *** 20) Geographic location where the
Internet goods are purchased ***
Note: : available; *: NSO plans to collect it in 1 year; ***: NSO plans to collect it in 3 years. Shaded are the countries with high and very high demand for ICT indicators.
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
156
Table A7. Availability of household ICT indicators in Latin America and the Caribbean
Countries Indicator
Argentina Barbados Belize Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Costa RicaDominican Republic
Ecuador
1) Presence of electricity 2) Presence of radio 3) Presence of fixed telephone line 4) Presence of mobile phone 5) Presence of TV 6) Presence of a computer
Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
T
7) Presence of internet access 8) Methods of access/ bandwidth for Internet access *** *** ***
9) Location of the most frequent use of Internet *** *** ***
Inte
rnet
ac
cess
10) Frequency of Internet use *** *** *** 11) Purposes of PC use *** *** *** 12) Purposes of Internet use *** *** *** 13) Concrete services / activities the Internet is used for
*** *** ***
14) Languages of visited Internet sites *** *** *** *** 15) Types of products/ services purchased over the Internet
*** *** *** *** ICT
usa
ge
16) Value of purchased goods/ services over the Internet
*** *** *** ***
17) Barriers to PC usage *** *** *** *** 18) Barriers to Internet usage *** *** *** ***
Bar
rier
s to
usa
ge
19) Barriers to purchase over the Internet *** *** *** *** 20) Geographic location where the
Internet goods are purchased *** *** *** ***
Note: : available; *: NSO plans to collect it in 1 year; ***: NSO plans to collect it in 3 years. Shaded are the countries with high and very high demand for ICT indicators
Table A7 (continuation)
Countries
Indicator El Salvador Jamaica Mexico Paraguay Peru
Saint Kitts & Nevis
St Vincent & the
Grenadines
Trinidad & Tobago
Uruguay Venezuela
1) Presence of electricity 2) Presence of radio 3) Presence of fixed telephone line 4) Presence of mobile phone 5) Presence of TV 6) Presence of a computer
Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
T
7) Presence of internet access 8) Methods of access/ bandwidth for Internet access
9) Location of the most frequent use of Internet
Inte
rnet
ac
cess
10) Frequency of Internet use 11) Purposes of PC use 12) Purposes of Internet use 13) Concrete services / activities the Internet is used for
14) Languages of visited Internet sites 15) Types of products/ services purchased over the Internet
ICT
usa
ge
16) Value of purchased goods/ services over the Internet
17) Barriers to PC usage 18) Barriers to Internet usage
Bar
rier
to
usag
e
19) Barriers to purchase over the Internet 20) Geographic location where the
Internet goods are purchased *
Note: : available; *: NSO plans to collect it in 1 year. Shaded are the countries with high and very high demand for ICT indicators
157
Annex. Country Tables
Table A8. Availability of household ICT indicators in OECD countries (countries covered by Eurostat)
Countries Indicator
Austria Belgium Czech.
Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland
1) Presence of electricity 2) Presence of radio 3) Presence of fixed telephone line 4) Presence of mobile phone * * 5) Presence of TV * * 6) Presence of a computer *
Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
T
7) Presence of internet access * 8) Methods of access/ bandwidth for Internet access
* *
9) Location of the most frequent use of Internet
* *
Inte
rnet
10) Frequency of Internet use * * 11) Purposes of PC use * 12) Purposes of Internet use * * 13) Concrete services / activities the Internet is used for
* *
14) Languages of visited Internet sites
15) Types of products/ services purchased over the Internet
* ?
ICT
usa
ge
16) Value of purchased goods/ services over the Internet
17) Barriers to PC usage 18) Barriers to Internet usage * * ? * *
Bar
rier
s to
us
age
19) Barriers to purchase over the Internet
* * * ? *
20) Geographic location where the Internet goods are purchased
Note: : available; *: NSO plans to collect it (no reference to date).
Table A8. (cont.)
Countries Indicator
Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Slovakia Spain Sweden United
Kingdom 1) Presence of electricity 2) Presence of radio 3) Presence of fixed telephone line 4) Presence of mobile phone * * * 5) Presence of TV * * 6) Presence of a computer * *
Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
T
7) Presence of internet access * * 8) Methods of access/ bandwidth for Internet access
* * 9) Location of the most frequent use of Internet
*
Inte
rnet
10) Frequency of Internet use * 11) Purposes of PC use 12) Purposes of Internet use * * 13) Concrete services / activities the Internet is used for
* * 14) Languages of visited Internet sites
15) Types of products/ services purchased over the Internet
? *
ICT
usa
ge
16) Value of purchased goods/ services over the Internet
? ?
17) Barriers to PC usage 18) Barriers to Internet usage * ? ? *
Bar
rier
s to
us
age
19) Barriers to purchase over the Internet
* * ? * 20) Geographic location where the
Internet goods are purchased
Note: : available; *: NSO plans to collect it (no reference to date).
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
158
Table A8bis. Availability of household ICT indicators in OECD countries (countries not covered by Eurostat)
Countries Indicator Australia Canada Japan Korea New Zealand Switzerland United States
1) Presence of electricity 2) Presence of radio 3) Presence of fixed telephone line 4) Presence of mobile phone 5) Presence of TV 6) Presence of a computer
Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
T
7) Presence of internet access 8) Methods of access/ bandwidth for Internet access
9) Location of the most frequent use of Internet
* *
Inte
rnet
10) Frequency of Internet use * * 11) Purposes of PC use * 12) Purposes of Internet use * * 13) Concrete services / activities the Internet is used for
* * 14) Languages of visited Internet sites
*
15) Types of products/ services purchased over the Internet
* *
ICT
usa
ge
16) Value of purchased goods/ services over the Internet
* *
17) Barriers to PC usage 18) Barriers to Internet usage * *
Bar
rier
s to
us
age
19) Barriers to purchase over the Internet
*
20) Geographic location where the Internet goods are purchased
*
Note: : available; *: NSO plans to collect it (no reference to date). Note: Mexico and Turkey are included in the tables corresponding to Latin America and Caribbean, and Central Asia and Central and Eastern Europe, respectively
Table B3. Household ICT indicators and sources in Africa
Sources and countries Indicator Population and Housing
Censuses Household surveys Suppliers Specific ICT surveys
1) Presence of electricity in households Benin Mauritius Niger Sierra Leone
Benin Gabon Senegal Tunisia
Rwanda Tanzania Zimbabwe
Kenya
2) Presence of radio in household Niger Tanzania
Gabon Senegal Tunisia Sierra Leone
Mauritius Rwanda Zimbabwe
Kenya
3) Presence of fixed telephone line in household Niger
Gabon Senegal Tanzania Tunisia
Mauritius Rwanda Zimbabwe
Kenya
4) Presence of mobile phone in household Niger Senegal Tunisia
Mauritius Rwanda Tanzania
Kenya
5) Presence of TV in household
Senegal Gabon Mauritius Tanzania Tunisia
Rwanda Zimbabwe
Kenya
6) Presence of a computer in household
Senegal Mauritius Rwanda Tanzania Tunisia
Kenya Madagascar
Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
T
7) Presence of internet access in household
Mauritius Rwanda
Kenya Madagascar
159
Annex. Country Tables
Table B3 (cont.).
Sources and countries Indicator Population and Housing
Censuses Household surveys Suppliers Specific ICT surveys
8) Methods of access/ bandwidth for Internet access in household
Rwanda Kenya Madagascar
9) Location of the most frequent use of Internet
Mauritius Rwanda
Kenya Madagascar In
tern
et
acce
ss
10) Frequency of Internet use Madagascar 11) Purposes of PC use
Mauritius Rwanda
Niger Kenya Madagascar
12) Purposes of Internet use
Mauritius Rwanda
Madagascar
13) Concrete services / activities the Internet is used for
Rwanda Kenya Madagascar
14) Languages of visited Internet sites Rwanda 15) Types of products/ services purchased over the Internet
Rwanda
ICT
usa
ge
16) Value of purchased goods/ services over the Internet
17) Barriers to PC usage
Mauritius Niger Madagascar
18) Barriers to Internet usage
Mauritius Niger Madagascar
Bar
rier
s to
IC
T u
sage
19) Barriers to purchase over the Internet 20) Geographic location where the Internet goods
are purchased
Table B4. Household ICT indicators and sources in Central Asia and Central and Eastern European countries
Sources and countries Indicator Population and
Housing Censuses Household surveys Suppliers Specific ICT surveys
1) Presence of electricity in households Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, Israel, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russian Fed., Turkey
Andorra Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Romania
2) Presence of radio in household Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russian Fed., Ukraine
Andorra, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Romania
3) Presence of fixed telephone line in household Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, Israel, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russian Fed., Turkey
Andorra, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Romania
4) Presence of mobile phone in household Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Croatia, Georgia, Israel, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russian Fed., Turkey, Ukraine
Andorra, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan
5) Presence of TV in household Albania, Armenia, Belarus, Croatia, Georgia, Israel, Kyrgyzstan, Russian Fed., Turkey, Ukraine
Andorra, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Romania
6) Presence of a computer in household Albania, Armenia, Belarus, Croatia, Georgia, Israel, Kyrgyzstan, Russian Fed., Turkey, Ukraine
Andorra, Bulgaria, Romania
Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
T
7) Presence of internet access in household Albania, Croatia, Israel, Turkey
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
160
Table B4. (continued)
Sources and countries Indicator Population and Housing
Censuses Household surveys Suppliers Specific ICT surveys
8) Methods of access/ bandwidth for Internet access in household
Turkey Andorra, Bulgaria, Romania
9) Location of the most frequent use of Internet Turkey Andorra, Bulgaria, Romania
Inte
rnet
ac
cess
10) Frequency of Internet use Turkey Andorra, Bulgaria, Romania
11) Purposes of PC use Israel Andorra, Bulgaria, Romania
12) Purposes of Internet use Israel, Turkey Andorra, Bulgaria, Romania
13) Concrete services / activities the Internet is used for
Israel, Turkey Andorra, Bulgaria, Romania
14) Languages of visited Internet sites 15) Types of products/ services purchased over the Internet
Israel, Turkey Bulgaria, Romania
ICT
usa
ge
16) Value of purchased goods/ services over the Internet
Israel, Turkey Bulgaria, Romania
17) Barriers to PC usage
Andorra, Bulgaria, Romania
18) Barriers to Internet usage
Andorra
Bar
rier
s to
IC
T u
sage
19) Barriers to purchase over the Internet Turkey Andorra, Bulgaria, Romania
20) Geographic location where the Internet goods are purchased
Bulgaria, Romania
Table B5. Household ICT indicators and sources in Western Asia
Sources and countries Indicator Population and
Housing Censuses Household surveys Suppliers Specific ICT surveys
1) Presence of electricity in households Egypt Jordan Oman Palestine Qatar Saudi Arabia
Egypt Lebanon Syrian Arab Republic
Palestine
2) Presence of radio in household Egypt Jordan Palestine Qatar
Egypt Lebanon Syrian Arab Republic
Palestine
3) Presence of fixed telephone line in household Egypt Jordan Palestine Qatar
Egypt Lebanon Syrian Arab Republic
Palestine
4) Presence of mobile phone in household Egypt Jordan Palestine Qatar
Egypt Lebanon Syrian Arab Republic
Palestine
5) Presence of TV in household Egypt Jordan Palestine Qatar
Egypt Lebanon Syrian Arab Republic
Palestine
6) Presence of a computer in household Egypt Jordan Palestine Qatar
Egypt Lebanon Syrian Arab Republic
Palestine
Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
T
7) Presence of internet access in household Egypt Jordan Qatar
Egypt Palestine
161
Annex. Country Tables
Table B5. (continued)
Sources and countries Indicator Population and Housing
Censuses Household surveys Suppliers Specific ICT surveys
8) Methods of access/ bandwidth for Internet access in household
9) Location of the most frequent use of Internet
Inte
rnet
ac
cess
10) Frequency of Internet use Palestine 11) Purposes of PC use Lebanon Palestine 12) Purposes of Internet use Lebanon Palestine 13) Concrete services / activities the Internet is used for
Lebanon Palestine
14) Languages of visited Internet sites 15) Types of products/ services purchased over the Internet
ICT
usa
ge
16) Value of purchased goods/ services over the Internet
17) Barriers to PC usage
Palestine
18) Barriers to Internet usage
Palestine
Bar
rier
s to
IC
T u
sage
19) Barriers to purchase over the Internet 20) Geographic location where the Internet goods
are purchased
Table B6. Household ICT indicators and sources in Asia-Pacific
Sources and countries Indicator Population and
Housing Censuses Household surveys (1) Suppliers Specific ICT surveys
1) Presence of electricity in households Macao SAR Malaysia Mongolia New Caledonia Niue, Sri Lanka
India Indonesia Macao SAR Mongolia
Micronesia Singapore
Thailand
2) Presence of radio in household Mongolia Niue Malaysia
India, Indonesia Micronesia, Mongolia Sri Lanka
Micronesia Sri Lanka
Thailand
3) Presence of fixed telephone line in household Macao SAR Mongolia Niue Malaysia
India Indonesia Macao SAR Singapore (1)
Micronesia Sri Lanka
Thailand
4) Presence of mobile phone in household Macao SAR Mongolia Niue Malaysia
India Indonesia Macao SAR Singapore
Thailand
5) Presence of TV in household Macao SAR Mongolia Niue Malaysia
India Indonesia Macao SAR Micronesia Mongolia Singapore Sri Lanka
Thailand
6) Presence of a computer in household Macao SAR Mongolia Niue Malaysia New Caledonia
Macao SAR Singapore Sri Lanka
Hong Kong SAR Thailand
Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
T
7) Presence of internet access in household Macao SAR Malaysia New Caledonia
Micronesia Niue
Hong Kong SAR Thailand
(1) the Household Expenditure Survey – Availability of Consumer Durables in Households of Singapore contains 14 ICT-relatec variables out of 50. It can also be considered as a specific ICT survey .
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
162
Table B6 (cont.)
Sources and countries Indicator Population and Housing
Censuses Household surveys (1) Suppliers Specific ICT surveys
8) Methods of access/ bandwidth for Internet access in household
Singapore Sri Lanka
Micronesia Niue
Hong Kong SAR Thailand
9) Location of the most frequent use of Internet Singapore Sri Lanka
Micronesia Hong Kong SAR Thailand
Inte
rnet
ac
cess
10) Frequency of Internet use Singapore Sri Lanka
Micronesia Hong Kong SAR Thailand
11) Purposes of PC use Singapore Sri Lanka
Micronesia Hong Kong SAR Thailand
12) Purposes of Internet use Singapore Sri Lanka
Micronesia Niue
Hong Kong SAR Thailand
13) Concrete services / activities the Internet is used for
Singapore Niue
14) Languages of visited Internet sites 15) Types of products/ services purchased over the Internet
Singapore Hong Kong SAR Thailand
ICT
usa
ge
16) Value of purchased goods/ services over the Internet
Singapore Hong Kong SAR Thailand
17) Barriers to PC usage
Hong Kong SAR
18) Barriers to Internet usage
Singapore Hong Kong SAR
Bar
rier
s to
IC
T u
sage
19) Barriers to purchase over the Internet Singapore Hong Kong SAR
20) Geographic location where the Internet goods are purchased
Singapore
(1) the Household Expenditure Survey – Availability of Consumer Durables in Households of Singapore contains 14 ICT-relatec variables out of 50. It canalso be considered as a specific ICT survey.
Table B7. Household ICT indicators and sources in Latin America and the Caribbean
Sources and countries Indicator
Population and Housing Census Multipurpose Household
surveys Ad hoc ICT household
surveys Other
1) Presence of electricity
Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile Dominican Rep. Jamaica, Mexico Saint Kitts & Nevis St Vincent & the Grenadines Uruguay
Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Jamaica, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru ,Venezuela
Trinidad & Tobago Bolivia
2) Presence of radio
Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Dominican Rep. Mexico, Saint Kitts & Nevis, St Vincent & the Grenadines
Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Jamaica, Mexico, Peru, Venezuela
Trinidad & Tobago
3) Presence of fixed telephone line
Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Dominican Rep., Jamaica, Mexico, Saint Kitts & Nevis, St Vincent & the Grenadines, Uruguay
Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Jamaica, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela
Mexico, Trinidad & Tobago
4) Presence of mobile phone
Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Dominican Rep., Jamaica, Saint Kitts & Nevis, St Vincent & the Grenadines
Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Jamaica, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Venezuela
Trinidad & Tobago
5) Presence of TV
Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Dominican Rep., Mexico, Saint Kitts & Nevis, St Vincent & the Grenadines, Uruguay
Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Jamaica, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela
Mexico, Trinidad & Tobago
6) Presence of a computer
Argentina, Barbados, Brazil, Chile, Dominican Rep., Jamaica, Mexico, Saint Kitts & Nevis, St Vincent & the Grenadines, Uruguay
Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Jamaica, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela
Mexico, Trinidad & Tobago
Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
T
7) Presence of internet access
Argentina, Barbados, Chile, Dominican Rep. , Saint Kitts & Nevis, St Vincent & the Grenadines
Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Jamaica, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela
Mexico, Trinidad & Tobago
163
Annex. Country Tables
Table B7. (cont.)
Sources and countries Indicator
Population and Housing Census Multipurpose Household
surveys Ad hoc ICT household
surveys Other
8) Methods of access/ bandwidth for Internet access
Costa Rica Barbados, Mexico, Trinidad & Tobago
Chile
9) Location of the most frequent use of Internet
Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Peru Barbados, Mexico, Trinidad & Tobago
Inte
rnet
ac
cess
10) Frequency of Internet use Colombia, Costa Rica Barbados, Chile, Mexico, Trinidad & Tobago
11) Purposes of PC use Chile, Colombia Barbados, Mexico, Trinidad & Tobago
12) Purposes of Internet use Chile, Colombia Barbados, Mexico, Trinidad & Tobago
13) Concrete services / activities the Internet is used for
Chile, Colombia Barbados, Mexico, Trinidad & Tobago
14) Languages of visited Internet sites
15) Types of products/ services purchased over the Internet
Colombia Barbados, Mexico, Trinidad & Tobago
ICT
usa
ge
16) Value of purchased goods/ services over the Internet
Barbados, Mexico, Trinidad & Tobago
17) Barriers to PC usage Barbados, Mexico
18) Barriers to Internet usage Barbados, Mexico, Trinidad & Tobago
Bar
rier
to
usag
e
19) Barriers to purchase over the Internet
Barbados, Mexico, Trinidad & Tobago
20) Geographic location where the Internet goods are purchased
Barbados, Mexico
Note: Belize collects indicators but does not provide information on the type of survey used.
Table C3. Availability of business ICT indicators in Africa
Benin Madagascar Mauritius Morocco
Democratic Rep. of Congo
Rwanda Senegal Sierra Leone
Tanzania Tunisia Zimbabwe
1) Fixed telephone * 2) Mobile devices *** * 3) Presence of computers * 4) Number of computers *
Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
T
5) Presence of Internet access *
6) Type of Internet access * 7) Local network *** * 8) Website * 9) ICT investment *** * 10) Share of employees
using a computer * ***
Adv
ance
d IC
T a
cces
s an
d us
age
11) Share of employees using the Internet *** * ***
12) Services the Internet is used for *** *** *
13) Value of purchases * 14) Value of sales *** * In
tern
et
activ
ities
an
d e-
com
mer
ce
15) Customer group *** * ICT
training 16) ICT training
*
17) Barriers to computer use
*** *
18) Barriers to Internet use *** *** *
Bar
rier
s to
IC
T
use
19) Barriers to e-commerce *** *
Location 20) Geographic location of sales *** *
Note: : available; *: NSO plans to collect it in 1 year; ***: NSO plans to collect it in 3 years. Shaded are the countries with high and very high demand for ICT indicators. For the following countries any indicator is available and the NSO does not plan to collect any of them: Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Kenya, Lesotho, Niger, Central African Rep., and Zambia.
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
164
Table C4. Availability of business ICT indicators in Central Asia and CEE countries
Countries Indicators Albania Andorra Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Bulgaria Kazakhstan Kyrgystan Moldova Romania
1) Fixed telephone 2) Mobile devices 3) Presence of computers 4) Number of computers
Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
T
5) Presence of Internet access 6) Type of Internet access 7) Local network 8) Website 9) ICT investment 10) Share of employees using a
computer
Adv
ance
d IC
T a
cces
s an
d us
age
11) Share of employees using the Internet
12) Services the Internet is used for *** ***
13) Value of purchases *** *** 14) Value of sales *** *** In
tern
et
activ
ities
an
d e-
com
mer
ce
15) Customer group *** *** ICT training 16) ICT training
17) Barriers to computer use 18) Barriers to Internet use
Bar
rier
s to
IC
T u
se
19) Barriers to e-commerce Location 20) Geographic location of sales Note: : available; ***: NSO plans to collect it in 3 years. Shaded are the countries with high and very high demand for ICT indicators. The following countries do not have any indicator available and the NSO do not plan to collect any of them or did not respond to this part of the questionnaire: Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, Israel, Liechtenstein, Macedonia FYR and Turkey.
Table C4 (continuation)
Countries Indicators Russian
Federation Ukraine
1) Fixed telephone 2) Mobile devices 3) Presence of computers 4) Number of computers
Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
T
5) Presence of Internet access 6) Type of Internet access 7) Local network 8) Website
9) ICT investment 10) Share of employees using a
computer
Adv
ance
d IC
T
acce
ss a
nd u
sage
11) Share of employees using the Internet
12) Services the Internet is used for 13) Value of purchases
14) Value of sales Inte
rnet
ac
tiviti
es
and
e-co
mm
erce
15) Customer group ICT
training 16) ICT training
17) Barriers to computer use
18) Barriers to Internet use
Bar
rier
s to
IC
T
use
19) Barriers to e-commerce Location 20) Geographic location of sales Note: : available
165
Annex. Country Tables
Table C5. Availability of business ICT indicators in Western Asia
Countries
Indicators Egypt Kuwait Oman Palestine Qatar
Syrian Arab
Republic 1) Fixed telephone *** * 2) Mobile devices * *** * 3) Presence of computers * *** * 4) Number of computers * *** *
Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
T
5) Presence of Internet access * *** *
6) Type of Internet access * *** * 7) Local network * * *** * 8) Website * * *** * 9) ICT investment * *** *** * 10) Share of employees using
a computer * * *** *** *
Adv
ance
d IC
T a
cces
s an
d us
age
11) Share of employees using the Internet * * *** *
12) Services the Internet is used for * * *** *
13) Value of purchases * *** *** * 14) Value of sales * *** *** * In
tern
et
activ
ities
an
d e-
com
mer
ce
15) Customer group * *** *** * ICT
training 16) ICT training * * *** *** *
17) Barriers to computer use * * *** *** * 18) Barriers to Internet use * * *** *** *
Bar
rier
s to
IC
T u
se
19) Barriers to e-commerce * * *** * Location 20) Geographic location of
sales * *** *** * Note: : available; *: NSO plans to collect it in 1 year; ***: NSO plans to collect it in 3 years. Shaded are the countries with high and very high demand for ICT indicators. The following countries do not have any indicator available and the NSO do not plan to collect any of them or did not respond to this part of the questionnaire : Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.
Table C6. Availability of business ICT indicators in Asia & Pacific
Countries Indicators Hong
Kong SARIndia Indonesia Macao SAR Maldives Mongolia
New Caledonia
Pakistan Philippines Singapore
1) Fixed telephone 2) Mobile devices * 3) Presence of computers * 4) Number of computers *
Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
T
5) Presence of Internet access *
6) Type of Internet access 7) Local network 8) Website 9) ICT investment 10) Share of employees using
a computer
Adv
ance
d IC
T a
cces
s an
d us
age
11) Share of employees using the Internet
12) Services the Internet is used for
13) Value of purchases 14) Value of sales In
tern
et
activ
ities
an
d e-
com
mer
ce
15) Customer group ICT
training 16) ICT training
17) Barriers to computer use 18) Barriers to Internet use
Bar
rier
s to
IC
T u
se
19) Barriers to e-commerce Location 20) Geographic location of
sales
Note: : available; *: NSO plans to collect it in 1 year; ***: NSO plans to collect it in 3 years. Shaded are the countries with high and very high demand for ICT indicators. The following countries do not have any indicator available and the NSO do not plan to collect any of them or did not respond to this part of the questionnaire: Cambodia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Malaysia, Micronesia (Federal State of), Niue and Sri Lanka. NO PLANS?
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
166
Table C6 (continuation)
Countries Indicators Thailand Vanuatu
1) Fixed telephone 2) Mobile devices 3) Presence of computers *** 4) Number of computers ***
Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
T
5) Presence of Internet access *** 6) Type of Internet access *** 7) Local network *** 8) Website ***
9) ICT investment *** 10) Share of employees using a
computer ***
Adv
ance
d IC
T a
cces
s an
d us
age
11) Share of employees using the Internet ***
12) Services the Internet is used for *** 13) Value of purchases ***
14) Value of sales *** Inte
rnet
ac
tiviti
es
and
e-co
mm
erce
15) Customer group *** ICT
training 16) ICT training ***
17) Barriers to computer use ***
18) Barriers to Internet use ***
Bar
rier
s to
IC
T
use
19) Barriers to e-commerce *** Location 20) Geographic location of sales *** Note: : available. Shaded are the countries with high and very high demand for ICT indicators
Table C7. Availability of business ICT indicators in Latin America and the Caribbean
Countries Indicators
Argentina Barbados Belize Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Costa RicaDominican Republic
El Salvador
1) Fixed telephone * *** 2) Mobile devices * *** 3) Presence of computers * *** 4) Number of computers * *** ***
Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
T
5) Presence of Internet access ***
6) Type of Internet access * *** 7) Local network * *** 8) Website *** 9) ICT investment *** * *** 10) Share of employees using
a computer *** * ***
Adv
ance
d IC
T a
cces
s an
d us
age
11) Share of employees using the Internet *** * ***
12) Services the Internet is used for *** ***
13) Value of purchases *** * *** 14) Value of sales *** *** In
tern
et
activ
ities
an
d e-
com
mer
ce
15) Customer group *** * *** ICT
training 16) ICT training *** * ***
17) Barriers to computer use *** * *** *** 18) Barriers to Internet use *** * *** ***
Bar
rier
s to
IC
T u
se
19) Barriers to e-commerce * *** *** Location 20) Geographic location of
sales * *** ***
Note: : available; *: NSO plans to collect it in 1 year; ***: NSO plans to collect it in 3 years. Shaded are the countries with high and very high demand for ICT indicators The following countries do not have any indicator available and the NSO do not plan to collect any of them or did not respond to this part of the questionnaire: Ecuador, Jamaica, Peru, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Venezuela.
167
Annex. Country Tables
Table C7. (continuation)
Countries Indicators
Mexico Paraguay Trinidad &
Tobago Uruguay
1) Fixed telephone *** 2) Mobile devices *** 3) Presence of computers 4) Number of computers ***
Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
T
5) Presence of Internet access
6) Type of Internet access *** 7) Local network * 8) Website 9) ICT investment 10) Share of employees using
a computer *** *
Adv
ance
d IC
T a
cces
s an
d us
age
11) Share of employees using the Internet *** *
12) Services the Internet is used for *** *
13) Value of purchases *** 14) Value of sales *** In
tern
et
activ
ities
an
d e-
com
mer
ce
15) Customer group ICT
training 16) ICT training
17) Barriers to computer use *** 18) Barriers to Internet use ***
Bar
rier
s to
IC
T u
se
19) Barriers to e-commerce *** Location 20) Geographic location of
sales
Note: : available; *: NSO plans to collect it in 1 year; ***: NSO plans to collect it in 3 years. Shaded are the countries with high and very high demand for ICT indicators
Table C8. Availability of business ICT indicators in OECD countries (countries covered by Eurostat)
Countries Indicator
Austria Belgium Czech.
Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland
1) Fixed telephone 2) Mobile devices 3) Presence of computers 4) Number of computers
Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
T
5) Presence of Internet access
6) Type of Internet access 7) Local network 8) Website 9) ICT investment 10) Share of employees using a computer
Adv
ance
d IC
T a
cces
s an
d us
age
11) Share of employees using the Internet
12) Services the Internet is used for
13) Value of purchases * * * 14) Value of sales * In
tern
et
activ
ities
and
e-
com
mer
ce
15) Customer group * * ICT
training 16) ICT training * *
17) Barriers to computer use
18) Barriers to Internet use
Bar
rier
s to
IC
T
use
19) Barriers to e-commerce Location 20) Geographic location of
sales * * *
Note: : available; *: NSO plans to collect it (no reference to date). Indicator 12 is replaced by three indicators: whether the business uses the Internet for purchasing/procurement, whether the business uses the Internet for selling products and other Internet activities undertaken by businesses.
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
168
Table C8. (cont.)
Countries Indicator
Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Slovakia Spain Sweden United
Kingdom 21) Fixed telephone 22) Mobile devices 23) Presence of computers * 24) Number of computers
Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
T
25) Presence of Internet access
*
26) Type of Internet access * 27) Local network * 28) Website * 29) ICT investment 30) Share of employees using a computer
*
Adv
ance
d IC
T a
cces
s an
d us
age
31) Share of employees using the Internet
* 32) Services the Internet is used for
*
33) Value of purchases * * ? * 34) Value of sales * ? In
tern
et
activ
ities
and
e-
com
mer
ce
35) Customer group * ? ICT
training 36) ICT training ? *
37) Barriers to computer use 38) Barriers to Internet use
Bar
rier
s to
IC
T
use
39) Barriers to e-commerce ? Location 40) Geographic location of
sales * ?
Note: : available; *: NSO plans to collect it (no reference to date).
Table C8bis. Availability of business ICT indicators in OECD countries (countries not covered by Eurostat)
Countries Indicator Australia Canada Japan Korea New Zealand Switzerland United States
41) Fixed telephone 42) Mobile devices * 43) Presence of computers * 44) Number of computers *
Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
T
45) Presence of Internet access
*
46) Type of Internet access * * 47) Local network 48) Website * 49) ICT investment 50) Share of employees using a computer
*
Adv
ance
d IC
T a
cces
s an
d us
age
51) Share of employees using the Internet
*
52) Services the Internet is used for
*
53) Value of purchases * 54) Value of sales * In
tern
et
activ
ities
and
e-
com
mer
ce
55) Customer group * ICT
training 56) ICT training
57) Barriers to computer use 58) Barriers to Internet use *
Bar
rier
s to
IC
T
use
59) Barriers to e-commerce * Location 60) Geographic location of
sales
* Note: Mexico and Turkey are included in the tables corresponding to Latin America and Caribbean, and Central Asia and Central and Eastern Europe, respectively.
169
Annex. Country Tables
Table D3. Business ICT indicators and sources in Africa Sources and countries
Indicator Economic censuses
General enterprise surveys
Ad hoc business ICT surveys
Other
1) Fixed telephone Mauritius Zimbabwe
Rwanda Madagascar
Senegal Morocco Tanzania
2) Mobile devices Rwanda Madagascar Senegal Morocco Tanzania
3) Presence of computers Mauritius Rwanda
Madagascar
Morocco
4) Number of computers Mauritius Rwanda Madagascar
Morocco Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
T
5) Presence of Internet access Mauritius Rwanda Senegal 6) Type of Internet access Mauritius Rwanda Morocco, Tanzania 7) Local network Mauritius Rwanda Morocco, Tanzania
8) Website Mauritius Rwanda Madagascar Tunisia
Morocco, Tanzania
9) ICT investment Mauritius Rwanda Tunisia Morocco
10) Share of employees using a computer Mauritius Morocco
Adv
ance
d IC
T a
cces
s an
d us
age
11) Share of employees using the Internet Mauritius
12) Services the Internet is used for Morocco
Tanzania
13) Value of purchases Morocco Tunisia
14) Value of sales Mauritius Madagascar Morocco Tunisia
Tanzania
Inte
rnet
act
iviti
es
and
e-co
mm
erce
15) Customer group Tanzania ICT training 16) ICT training Mauritius Tanzania
17) Barriers to computer use Rwanda Madagascar Tanzania
18) Barriers to Internet use Rwanda Tanzania
Bar
rier
s to
IC
T u
se
19) Barriers to e-commerce Rwanda Tanzania
Location 20) Geographic location of sales Note: The following countries collect business ICT indicators (see tables C3) but did not provide information on type of survey used: Democratic Republic of Congo, Senegal. The source for Tanzania is TACRA.
Table D4. Business ICT indicators and sources in Central Asia and Central and Eastern Europe
Sources and countries Indicator Economic
censuses General enterprise
surveys Ad hoc business ICT surveys Other
1) Fixed telephone Kyrgystan Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Republic of Moldova, Romania Russian Federation, Ukraine
2) Mobile devices Kyrgystan Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Republic of Moldova, Romania Russian Federation, Ukraine
3) Presence of computers Kyrgystan Bulgaria, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Ukraine
4) Number of computers Kyrgystan Bulgaria, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Ukraine
Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
T
5) Presence of Internet access Kyrgystan Armenia, Belarus, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Republic of Moldova Romania, Russian Federation, Ukraine
6) Type of Internet access Kyrgystan Bulgaria, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Ukraine
7) Local network Kyrgystan Bulgaria, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Ukraine
8) Website Kyrgystan Bulgaria, Romania, Russian Federation
9) ICT investment Kyrgystan Kazakhstan, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Ukraine
10) Share of employees using a computer Kyrgystan Bulgaria, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Ukraine A
dvan
ced
ICT
ac
cess
and
usa
ge
11) Share of employees using the Internet Kyrgystan Bulgaria, Romania, Russian Federation 12) Services the Internet is used for Kyrgystan Bulgaria, Romania, Russian Federation 13) Value of purchases Bulgaria, Romania, Russian Federation 14) Value of sales Bulgaria, Romania, Russian Federation
Inte
rnet
ac
tiviti
es a
nd
e-co
mm
e
15) Customer group Bulgaria, Romania ICT training 16) ICT training
Russian Federation
17) Barriers to computer use Romania, Russian Federation 18) Barriers to Internet use Bulgaria, Romania, Russian Federation
Bar
rie
rs to
IC
T
use
19) Barriers to e-commerce Bulgaria, Russian Federation Location 20) Geographic location of sales
Bulgaria, Romania Russian Federation
Note: The following countries collect business ICT indicators (see tables C4) but did not provide information on type of survey used: Albania, Andorra and Azerbaijan. Israel informed on type of survey used but not on type of indicators collected.
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
170
Table D5. Business ICT indicators and sources in Western Asia
Sources and countries Indicator
Economic censuses General enterprise
surveys Ad hoc business ICT
surveys Other
1) Fixed telephone
Egypt Oman Qatar
Egypt
2) Mobile devices Egypt Egypt
3) Presence of computers Egypt Oman
Egypt
4) Number of computers Egypt Egypt Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
T
5) Presence of Internet access Egypt Egypt 6) Type of Internet access Egypt 7) Local network 8) Website 9) ICT investment 10) Share of employees using a computer A
dvan
ced
ICT
acc
ess
and
usag
e
11) Share of employees using the Internet 12) Services the Internet is used for 13) Value of purchases
14) Value of sales
Inte
rnet
ac
tiviti
es
and
e-co
mm
erce
15) Customer group
ICT training 16) ICT training
17) Barriers to computer use
18) Barriers to Internet use
Bar
rier
s to
IC
T
use
19) Barriers to e-commerce Location 20) Geographic location of sales
Note: Kuwait collects business ICT indicators but did not provide information on type of survey used.
Table D6. Business ICT indicators and sources in Asia and Pacific
Sources and countries Indicator
Economic censuses General enterprise
surveys Ad hoc business ICT
surveys Other
1) Fixed telephone Mongolia
India
Macao SAR Singapore Thailand
New Caledonia Philippines Vanuatu
2) Mobile devices
Mongolia India
Hong Kong SAR Macao SAR Singapore Thailand
Philippines Vanuatu
3) Presence of computers
India
Hong Kong SAR Macao SAR Singapore Thailand
New Caledonia Philippines
4) Number of computers
India
Hong Kong SAR Macao SAR Singapore Thailand
Philippines Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
T
5) Presence of Internet access
Mongolia India Indonesia
Hong Kong SAR Macao SAR Singapore Thailand
New Caledonia Philippines
6) Type of Internet access Indonesia
Hong Kong SAR Macao SAR Singapore
Philippines
7) Local network Indonesia Macao SAR
Singapore Philippines
8) Website
Indonesia
Hong Kong SAR Macao SAR Thailand
Philippines
9) ICT investment Indonesia
Hong Kong SAR Macao SAR Singapore
Philippines
10) Share of employees using a computer
Macao SAR Thailand Singapore
Philippines
Adv
ance
d IC
T a
cces
s an
d us
age
11) Share of employees using the Internet
Thailand Singapore
Philippines
171
Annex. Country Tables
Table D6. (cont.)
Sources and countries Indicator
Economic censuses General enterprise
surveys Ad hoc business ICT
surveys Other
12) Services the Internet is used for
Hong Kong SAR Macao SAR Singapore Thailand
Philippines
13) Value of purchases Philippines 14) Value of sales Hong Kong SAR
Inte
rnet
ac
tiviti
es a
nd
e-co
mm
erce
15) Customer group Hong Kong SAR ICT training 16) ICT training Philippines
17) Barriers to computer use
Hong Kong SAR Macao SAR Thailand
Philippines
18) Barriers to Internet use
Hong Kong SAR Singapore Thailand
Philippines
Bar
rier
s to
IC
T u
se
19) Barriers to e-commerce
Hong Kong SAR Thailand
Location 20) Geographic location of sales Singapore
Note: The following countries collect business ICT indicators but did not provide information on type of survey used: Maldives and Pakistan. Malaysia informed on type of survey used but not on type of indicators collected.
Table D7. Business ICT indicators and sources in Latin America and the Caribbean
Sources and countries Indicator
Economic censuses General enterprise
surveys Ad hoc business ICT surveys Other
1) Fixed telephone Chile, Colombia El Salvador, Paraguay
Trinidad & Tobago
2) Mobile devices Chile, Colombia Paraguay, Uruguay Argentina
3) Presence of computers Mexico Chile, Colombia Barbados, Trinidad & Tobago
4) Number of computers Chile Colombia Trinidad & Tobago
Bas
ic a
cces
s to
IC
T
5) Presence of Internet access Mexico Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Paraguay, Uruguay
Argentina, Barbados Trinidad & Tobago
6) Type of Internet access Chile, Colombia Barbados, Trinidad & Tobago 7) Local network Mexico Chile, Colombia Argentina. Trinidad & Tobago
8) Website Mexico Bolivia, Chile, Colombia Uruguay
Argentina, Barbados Trinidad & Tobago
9) ICT investment Mexico Trinidad & Tobago 10) Share of employees using a computer Colombia Trinidad & Tobago A
dvan
ced
ICT
ac
cess
and
us
age
11) Share of employees using the Internet Colombia Trinidad & Tobago 12) Services the Internet is used for Bolivia, Colombia Argentina ,Trinidad & Tobago 13) Value of purchases Chile, Colombia Trinidad & Tobago 14) Value of sales Bolivia, Chile, Colombia Argentina, Trinidad & Tobago
Inte
rnet
ac
tiviti
es
and
e-co
mm
erce
15) Customer group
Chile Trinidad & Tobago
ICT training 16) ICT training Mexico Colombia Barbados, Trinidad & Tobago
17) Barriers to computer use
Trinidad & Tobago
18) Barriers to Internet use
Trinidad & Tobago
Bar
rier
s to
IC
T u
se
19) Barriers to e-commerce Barbados, Trinidad & Tobago Location 20) Geographic location of sales
Note: The following countries collect business ICT indicators (see tables C7) but did not provide information on type of survey used: Belize, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic and Jamaica.
173
List of acronyms
List of acronyms
ABSA Advisory Board on Statistics in AfricaAISI African Information Society InitiativeCAIBI Conference of Ibero-american Authorities on InformaticsCIS Commonwealth of Independent StatesDAI Digital Access IndexDQAF Data Quality Assessment FrameworkEU European UnionGDDS General Data Dissemination SystemGDP Gross Domestic ProductICT Information and Communications TechnologyIDRC International Development Research CentreITU International Telecommunication UnionLDCs Least Developed CountriesLSMS Living Standards Measurement SurveyMDGs Millennium Development GoalsMECOVI Programme for Enhancing the Living Conditions SurveysNEPAD New Economic Partnership for African DevelopmentNICI National Information and Communication InfrastructureNORAD Norwegian Agency for Development CooperationNSOs National Statistical OfficesOECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentOSILAC Observatory for the Information Society in Latin America and the CaribbeanPIACs Public Internet Access CentresRICYT Ibero-American Network for Indicators on Science and TechnologySDDS Special Data Dissemination SystemSTI Science, Technology and InnovationUNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and DevelopmentUNECA United Nations Economic Commission for AfricaUNECE United Nations Economic Commission for EuropeUNECLAC United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the CaribbeanUNESCAP United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the PacificUNESCO United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural OrganizationUNESCWA United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western AsiaWSIS World Summit on the Information Society
Other country-specific acronyms are explained in the main text.
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators
174
SHORT NAMES FOR ICT INDICATORS USED IN GRAPHS
ICT Household Indicators Short name1) Presence of electricity in household ELECT2) Presence of radio in household RADIO3) Presence of fixed telephone line in household FIXTL4) Presence of mobile phone in household MBLTL5) Presence of TV in household TVHOU6) Presence of a computer in household PCHOU7) Presence of Internet access in household INTHOU8) Method of access/bandwidth for Internet access in household ACCESS9) Location of the most frequent use of Internet LOCAT10) Frequency of Internet use FREQ11) Purpose of PC use PCUSE12) Purpose of Internet use INTUSE13) Concrete services/activities for which the Internet is used INTSER14) Language of Internet sites visited LANG15) Types of products/services purchased over the Internet INTPROD16) Value of goods/ services purchased over the Internet VALUE17) Barriers to PC usage BARPC18) Barriers to Internet usage BARINT19) Barriers to purchases over the Internet BARPUR20) Geographic location where the Internet goods are purchased GEOG
ICT Business Indicators Short name1) Presence of fixed telephone FIXTEL2) Presence of mobile devices MOBIL3) Presence of computers COMP4) Number of computers NCOMP5) Presence of Internet access INTENET6) Method of access/bandwidth for Internet use TYPEINT7) Presence of local network LOCNET8) Presence of Website WEBSITE9) Recent ICT investments ICTINV10) Share of employees using a computer SHCOMP11) Share of employees using the Internet SHINT12) Services for which the Internet is used SERVICES13) Value of Internet purchases PURCH14) Value of Internet sales SALES15) Customer group/destination of Internet sales CUSTOM16) ICT training TRAIN17) Barriers to PC usage BARPC18) Barriers to Internet usage BARINT19) Barriers to e-commerce BARECOM20) Geographic location where Internet goods are sold GEOG
Following the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) in Geneva, countries and
regions were called upon to develop tools to provide statistical information on the
Information Society, with basic indicators and analysis of its dimensions. To that end,
several key stakeholders involved in the statistical measurement of the Information
Society joined forces in a global ‘Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development’, which
was launched in June 2004.
The purpose of this report, “Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicators”, is to
synthesize the results of the Partnerships’ stocktaking exercise on the status of ICT
indicators, carried out in collaboration with the United Nations Regional Commissions,
UNCTAD and the OECD.
The status of official Information Society statistics in developing countries is presented
in this report by region, together with two chapters on global issues concerning
household and business ICT indicators.
Measuring ICT: the global status of ICT indicatorsPartnership on Measuring ICT for Development
ISBN: 92-1-104558-4Sales No. E.05.II.A.20
42742—October 2005—1,500