The Digital Opportunity Index as a tool for policy analysis
-
Upload
michael-minges -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
description
Transcript of The Digital Opportunity Index as a tool for policy analysis
The Digital Opportunity Index as a tool for policy analysis
Michael MingesTelecommunications Management Group, Inc.
DOI Analytical Capabilities• Benchmarking• Extension• Policy matrix
Benchmarking possibilities
Global
Peer
Country
Regional
Economic
Dynamic
Static
National
Socio-economic
More detail
Global DOI Benchmark, 2005
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Opportunity Infrastructure Utilization World Average
Low Medium Upper High
Colombia & the DOI
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0
Kor
eaC
hile
Arg
entin
aM
exic
oU
rugu
ayB
razi
lC
osta
Ric
aV
enez
uela
Per
uP
anam
aC
olom
bia
El S
alv.
Ecu
ador
Gua
tem
ala
Bol
ivia
Par
agua
yH
ondu
ras
Nic
arag
ua 0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Colombia, DOIDOI, 2004
Source: CRT, DANE & estimates (Colombia), ITU (other countries).
Hong Kong Static Analysis, 2005
0
50
100Mobile pop. coverage (%)
Internet, % income
Mobile, % income
Homes with fixed line (%)
Mobile per 100*
Homes with Internet (%)Mobile Internet per 100
Homes with PC (%)
Internet users per 100
Broadband Internet ratio
Mobile broadband ratio
Source: OFTA, Census & Statistics Dept.
(* 123)
National DOI• Instead of peer comparison, DOI of
administrative units within a country• Brazil example
– Household ICT data from national statistical agency: Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicílios, 2004
– Mobile subscribers by administrative unit but for 2005
– 6 of 11 DOI indicators and no utilization indicators
– Weighting issues
Brazil: National DOI
Note: Actual DOI (2004) = 0.43
Adjusted DOI for available indicators
Socio-economic comparison• Critical to understand details of digital
divide• Who has and does not have access to ICT• Group by income, ethnicity, gender,
location, age, etc.• Disaggregated survey data required• Some adjustments needed
Gender disaggregated DOI• Czech Statistical Office, Results of ICT Usage
Survey in Czech Households and among Individuals 2005, http://www.czso.cz/eng/edicniplan.nsf/p/9603-05
• Users by gender, age, education level, employment status, location
• Out of 11 DOI indicators, 8 gender disaggregated available
• Estimated earned income (PPP US$) from UNDP, for male & female http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/pdf/hdr05_table_25.pdf
• Methodology for Gender-related DOI:UNDP, “The gender-related development index”
Gender-related DOI, 2005Male Femal
eCzech Rep.
Note
Opportunity 0.99 0.98 0.99 Average of available indicators in each categoryInfrastructure 0.37 0.35 0.35
Utilization 0.31 0.27 0.29Adjusted DOI 0.56 0.53 0.54 Actual = 0.53Opportunity [0.48 *
0.99]-1[0.52 *0.98]-1
0.99 Equally distributed index: [[Male population share * (Male index score)]-1 + [Female population share *(Female index score)]-1]-1
Infrastructure [0.48 *0.37]-1
[0.52 *0.35]-1
0.35
Utilization [0.48 *0.31]-1
[0.52 *0.27]-1
0.29
Gender-related DOI (GDOI) 0.54 Contrast with actual & adjusted
Extending DOI• DOI is an objective measurement of
individual & household access to ICT• Useful to examine relationship between
DOI and other factors• Policy impacts of a country’s situation
DOI Infrastructure & access
core indicators
Non e-indices(e.g., UNDP
Human Development
Index)
Future core indicators (e.g., education, government, health, etc.)
Core indicators on access and use of ICTs by households and individuals
Core indicators on access and use of ICTs by
businesses
Modular
Extending DOI
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Brazil
UK
Thailand
Turkey
USA
Egypt Impact of includingUNDP HDI Education
Index on DOI rank
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Switzerland
Hong Kong
Turkey
S.Africa
Korea(Rep.)
Sweden Impact of including
TV households
onDOI rank
DOI & regulation
R2 = 0.6394-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12200 250 300 350 400
Source: Jones Day / ECTA, 2004 Regulatory Telecommunications Scorecard, http://www.jonesday.com/pubs/pubs_detail.aspx?pubID=S1187
Cha
nge
in D
OI r
ank,
200
2-20
04
Regulatory Scorecard Results, 2003
Extending DOI
Denmark
Sweden (-1)
UK (+1)
Neth.
Germany (-4)Belgium
Spain (-1)
Italy (+1)
Ireland (+4)
DOI e-business
Education RegulationKnowledge
(e.g., UNDP Education sub index)
Regulatory(e.g., ECTA Regulatory Scorecard)
E-Business(e.g., EU e-business readiness
composite indicator)
DOI
+
+
+
E-Government(e.g., UN e-government index)
Difference between DOI and average of 4 category ranks
Policy evaluation• Micro examination of DOI indices and
indicators to design or evaluate policies
Policy matrix• Categorizing country
situation• Generally moves from
opportunity->infrastructure->utilization
• Every country can improve somewhere
• More detailed matrixes to analyze policy impacts
Opp.
Infra.
Util. DOI
Low 16 129 164 76Medium
34 41 16 98
High 130 10 0 6
Opportunity
Infrastructure
Utilization
Digital opportunity: Mobile policy matrix
0
50
100
0 50 100Coverage
Affor
dabi
lity
High coverage, low affordability
High coverage & affordability
Low coverage & affordability
Low coverage, good affordability
Note: E
ach dot represents a country.
Conclusions & recommendations• DOI has rich possibilities for policy analysis• Limited by availability of either
disaggregated DOI data or complementary extension data
• Policy makers and researchers need to lobby government to promote availability of disaggregated data by service providers and national statistical agencies
• Future DOI policy analysis workshop standardizing and extending the analysis presented here
Thank you