Selected Ict Indices in the World

8/4/2019 Selected Ict Indices in the World

1/14

SELECTED ICT INDICES IN THE WORLD

Introduction.

Despite the many documented benefits that the information society and the

ICT sector can deliver, and the many challenges that need to be addressed, it

is only in the past decade that the need to incorporate measurement and

monitoring into determining the development of the ICT sector has seriously

begun. This has resulted in a highly diverse set of measurement frameworks

designed to suit widely different purposes and conditions. In a few of these

measurement frameworks, the Philippine ICT sector is likewise included. This

introduction shall examine the main features of these international

measurement frameworks, which are most relevant for this study and eachs

method of e-measurement.

A. 2010 UN E-Government Development Index

The United Nations Public Administration Network conducts a bi-annual

e-Government survey which includes an index named E-governmentreadiness index (EGRI) in 2008 and expanded and named e-government

development index (EGDI) in 2010. In 2008, the e-readiness index was a

comparative ranking of the countries of the world according to the web

measure index, the telecommunication infrastructure index and the human

capital index. In 2010, the methodological framework for the United Nations e-

government development index remained consistent across survey periods.

At the same time, survey questions were adjusted to reflect evolving

knowledge of best practices in e-government, changes in technology and

other factors, and data collection practices have been periodically refined.

Mathematically, the 2008 EGRI and 2010 EGDI is a weighted average of

three normalized scores on the most important dimensions of e-government,


2/14

namely: scope and quality of online services, telecommunication connectivity,

and human capacity. Each of these sets of indexes is itself a composite

measure that can be extracted and analyzed independently:

EGDI = (0.34 online service index) + (0.33 telecommunication index)

+ (0.33 human capital index)

To arrive at a set of online service index values, each countrys national

website was assessed as well as the websites of the ministries of education,

labor, social services, health and finance. Among other things, the national

sites were tested for a minimal level of Web content accessibility as described

in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines of the World Wide Web

Consortium. Almost all questions in the survey call for a binary response ofyes or no, with yes given one point and no zero. Exceptions include a

small number of questions designed to capture data on the number of forms

and e-services available. These are worth up to ten points each. The value for

a given country is equal to the total number of points scored by that country

less the lowest score for any country divided by the range of values for all

countries in the survey. For example, if country x were to score 233, with the

lowest score of any country equal to 20 and the highest equal to 403, then the

online services value for country x would be:

Online service index (country x) = (233-20) / 403 = 0.5561

The telecommunication infrastructure index is a composite of five indicators:

number of personal computers per 100 persons, number of Internet users per

100 persons, number of telephone lines per 100 persons, number of mobile

cellular subscriptions per 100 persons and number of fixed broadband

subscribers per 100 persons. The International Telecommunication Union

was the primary source of data in each case.

Each of these indicators was normalized by taking its value for a given

country subtracting the lowest value for any country in the survey and dividing


3/14

by the range of values for all countries. For example, if country x were to

have 36.69 Internet users per 100 inhabitants, with the lowest value of any

country equal to 0 and the highest equal to 88.87, then the normalized value

of this indicator for country x would be given by:

Internet penetration index (country x) = (36.69-0) / (88.87-0) = 0.4129

The telecommunication infrastructure index for country x is then the simple

arithmetic mean of each of the five normalized indicators derived in this way:

Telecommunication infrastructure index = Average (personal computer

index + Internet user index + telephone line index + mobile subscription

index + fixed broadband index).

The human capital index is a composite of two indicators: adult literacy rate

and the combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross enrollment ratio. The

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization was the main

source of data in both cases. Gaps were completed to the extent possible

using data from the 2009 UNDP Human Development Report.

The two indicators were normalized by taking their values for a given countrysubtracting the lowest value for any country in the survey and dividing by the

range of values for all countries. For example, if country x were to have an

adult literacy rate of 66.8 per 100 inhabitants, with the lowest value of any

country equal to 28.7 and the highest equal to 99.5, then the normalized

value of this indicator for country x would be given by:

Adult literacy index (country x) = (66.8-28.7) / (99.5-28.7)= 0.5381

The human capital index for country x is then the weighted arithmetic mean

of the two normalized indicators derived in this way with adult literacy

assigned a weight of 0.6667 and gross enrollment 0.3333:

Human capital index = adult literacy index + gross enrollment

index


4/14

In 2010, the Philippines ranked78th out of 192countries with an index of

0.46371, an online service index of 0.1338, a telecommunication

infrastructure index of 0.0368, and a human capital index of 0.2931. It

ranked49th in the online service index2, 118th in the telecommunication

infrastructure index3, and 78th in the human capital index4. The low

ranking in the telecommunication infrastructure index reflects the low

number of broadband subscribers, internet users, fixed telephone lines,

and personal computers per 100 inhabitants, despite the high 75.38

mobile subscribers per 100 inhabitants.

B. 2008 Brookings Institute E-Government Rankings

Brown University (2006, 2007) and then the Brookings Institute (2008) in

the United States conducts an annual Survey of national government

websites offered by 198 governments around the world. The 2008 Brookings

Index evaluated the state of digital government trhough the examination of 18

different features. Four points are awarded to each website for the presence

of the following features: publications, databases, audio clips, video clips,foreign language access, not having ads, not having premium fees, not

having user fees, disability access, having privacy policies, security policies,

allowing digital signatures on transactions, an option to pay via credit cards,

email contact information, areas to post comments, option for email updates,

option for website personalization and PDA accessibility. These features

provide a maximum of 72 points for particular websites. Each site then

1

Thailand was 76th

, Brunei 68th

, Malaysia 32nd

, and Singapore 11th

for countries in SEA ranked ahead ofthe Philippines. Vietnam (90th), Indonesia (109th), Cambodia (140th), Myanmar (141st), laos (151st) and

Timor (162nd) round out the other ASEAN members. This is with regards to the overall index.2 Singapore was 10th, Malaysia was 16th (for countries ranking above the Philippines), Thailand was 67th,

Vietnam 79th, Brunei 88th, Indonesia 102nd, Cambodia 135th, Timor 138th, Myanmar 154th, and Laos 156th3 Singapore was 14th (the only SEA country ranked above the Philippines), Malaysia 52nd, Brunei 65th,

Vietnam 79th, Thailand 94th, Indonesia 116th (for countries ranking above the Philippines), Laos 162nd,

Cambodia 166th, Timor 188th, Myanmar 190th.4 Singapore was 48th, Thailand 55th, Brunei 56th (countries ranked ahead of the Philippines), Malaysia 96th,

Indonesia 97th, Vienam 114th, Myanmar 127th, Cambodia 135th, Laos 140th, Timor 159th.


5/14

qualifies for up to 28 points based on the number of online services

executable on that site (one point for one service, two points for two services,

three points for three services and on up to 28 points for 28 or more services).

The overall e-government index runs along a scale from zero (having none of

these features and no online services) to 100 (having all features plus at least

28 online services). Totals for each website within a country were averaged

across all of that nation's websites to produce a zero to 100 overall rating for

that nation.

The top ranking country is South Korea at 64.7 percent. Therefore,

every analyzed website for that nation has nearly two-thirds of the

features important for information availability, citizen access, portal

access and service delivery. Other high-scoring nations include:

Taiwan, the United States, Singapore (4th), Canada, Australia, Germany,

Ireland, Dominica, Brazil and Malaysia (11th). The Philippines ranks 89

with a score of 31.3, the same level as Mongolia and only slightly higher

than Myanmar (91st ). The other SEA countries scoring higher was

Brunei (17th), Cambodia (70th). Thailand (138th), Laos (151st), Timor (156th),

and Indonesia (175

th

)

C. International Telecommunication Union ICT Opportunity Index

The International Telecommunication Unit ICT Opportunity Index (ICT-OI)

was first published in November 2005. The ICT Development Index (IDI) is a

composite index made up of 11 indicators covering ICT access, use and

skills. It has been constructed to measure the level and evolution over time of

ICT developments taking into consideration the situations of both developed

and developing countries. The ICT Opportunity index is calculated as in the

following illustration:


6/14

Figure 1 The ICT Opportunity Index

Normalization of the data is done before any aggregation can be made to

ensure that the dataset uses the same unit of measurement. The indicators

selected for the construction of the IDI are transformed to the same unit of

measurement since some of them are expressed as a percentage of the

population or households, where the maximum value is 100, while other

indicators (although also expressed as a percentage) can have values

exceeding 100, such as mobile cellular subscriptions or international Internet

Bandwidth.

For the IDI, the distance to a reference measure was used as the

normalization method. The reference measure is the ideal value that could be

reached for each variable (similar to a goalpost). In all of the indicators

chosen, this is 100, except for four indicators:


7/14

International Internet bandwidth per Internet user, which in 2008 ranged

from 10 (bits/s/user) to more than 1 million. To diminish the effect of the large

number of outliers at the high end of the value scale, the data were first

transformed to a logarithmic (log) scale. The ideal value was then computed

by adding two standard deviations to the mean of the rescaled values,

resulting in a log value of 5.

Mobile cellular subscriptions, which in 2008 range from 0.74 to 209 per 100

inhabitants. The ideal value was computed using the same methodology used

for the bandwidth data, by adding two standard deviations to the mean. The

resulting reference value was 170 subscriptions per 100 inhabitants.

Fixed telephone lines per 100 inhabitants range between 0.06 and 64 in

2008. The same methodology was used to compute the reference value,

resulting in a rounded value of 60 per 100 inhabitants.

Fixed broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants. This is a fairly recent

indicator and values range from zero to over 41 per 100 inhabitants.

In line with main (fixed) telephone lines, the ideal value was defined at 60 per

100 inhabitants.

After normalizing the data, the individual series were all rescaled to identicalranges, from 1-10. This was necessary in order to compare the values of the

indicators and the sub-indices then the index is calculated using figure 1. An

example of the methodology is as follows:


8/14

Figure 2 Sample of how to calculate the IDI

The Philippines was ranked 90th in the world in 2008 with an IDI of 2.87

and 15th in the countries surveyed in Asia and the Pacific. It was ranked

below such countries as Singapore (14), Malaysia (56), Thailand (76),


9/14

Vietnam (86), but above Indonesia (107), Laos (118), and Myanmar (119).

D. Economist Intelligence Unit Digital Economy Rankings 2010

Since 2000, the Economist Intelligence Unit has assessed the worlds largest

economies on their ability to absorb information and communications

technology (ICT) and use it for economic and social benefit. Previously titled

the e-readiness rankings, in 2010 the study was renamed as the digital

economy rankings, to reflect the increasing influence of ICT in economic

(and social) progress. Seventy countries were covered in 2010.

The digital economy rankings assess the quality of a countrys ICT

infrastructure and the ability of its consumers, businesses and governments

to use ICT to their benefit. When a country uses ICT to conduct more of its

activities, the economy can become more transparent and efficient. Over 100

separate criteria, both qualitative and quantitative, were evaluated for each

country and scored on their relative presence in a countrys economic,

political or social landscape. The categories, and the individual criteria within

them, are weighted according to assumptions of their relative importance infostering a countrys information economy. All but one of these are scored by

the Economist Intelligence Units regional analysts and editors, and are

organized into six primary categories. The 39 indicators and 82 sub-indicators

are, in turn, weighted according to their assumed importance as influencing

factors. Major data sources include the Economist Intelligence Unit, Pyramid

Research, the World Bank, the United Nations and the World Intellectual

Property Organisation, among others. The relative weights of the six primary

categories are as follows:


10/14

Table 1 Primary Weights of the Categories in the EIU index

Category Weight

Connectivity and technology

infrastructure20%

Business environment 15%

Social and cultural environment 15%

Legal environment 10%

Government policy and vision 15%

Consumer and business adoption 25%

The main categories are as follows

1. Connectivity and technology infrastructure

Connectivity measures the extent to which individuals and businesses can

access the Internet and mobile networks, and do so affordably with an

assurance of quality, reliability, and security. Penetration of each markets

mobile-phone subscriptions, overall Internet users and broadband Internet

accounts are ranked as a percentage of the total population.

Category criteria and weights: Broadband penetration (15%); broadbandquality (10%); broadband affordability (10%); mobile-phone penetration

(15%); mobile quality (10%); Internet user penetration (15%); international

Internet bandwidth (10%); Internet security (15%).

Business environment

In evaluating the general business climate, the Economist Intelligence Unit

screened 74 sub-indicators to provide a comprehensive and forward view of

each countrys attractiveness as a trading economy and as a destination for

business investment from 2009 to 2013. The criteria cover such factors as the

strength of the economy, political stability, taxation, competition policy, the

labor market, and openness to trade and investment. The aggregate scores

of the individual sub-indicators are grouped into nine higher-level indicators,

shown below. Updated quarterly as part of the Economist Intelligence Units


11/14

Country Forecast Service, these rankings have long offered investors an

invaluable comparative index for over 60 major economies.

Category criteria and weights: Overall political environment; macroeconomic

environment; market opportunities; policy towards private enterprise; foreign

investment policy; foreign trade and exchange regimes; tax regime; financing;

the labour market. (All nine criteria are weighted equally.)

Social and cultural environment

Education is a precondition to being able to utilize Internet services, but this

category also considers a populations web-literacyits experience using the

Internet and its receptivity to itand the technical skills of the workforce.

These technical skills are evaluated by both evidence of the familiarity of a

countrys population with information technology (IT) applications and the

extent to which its schools and governments provide the education

infrastructure to engender them. Also included is an assessment of

entrepreneurship, while our scoring of innovation levels in each market

(measured by the number of patents and trademarks registered, as well as

the level of spending on R&D) evaluates how well the society fosters creative

business activity that can lead to the creation of intellectual property, new

products and industries.Category criteria and weights: Educational level (measured by school life

expectancy, gross enrolment in education and enrolment in tertiary

education); Internet literacy; degree of entrepreneurship; technical skills of

workforce; degree of innovation (measured by the generation of patents and

trademarks, as well as R&D spending). (All five criteria are weighted equally.)

Legal environment

E-business development depends on both a countrys overall legal framework

and specific laws governing Internet use. This category reflects those legal

frameworks that have a direct impact on the use of digital technology to

inform, communicate and transact business. These include legislative

approaches to such issues as cybercrime, data privacy and spam, but just as

importantly countries need to create a legal atmosphere that works to


12/14

minimize abuses and non-competitive behaviour, including provisions

covering consumer protection and legal jurisdiction. E-ready countries are

those that allow businesses and individuals to move nimbly and freely, where

there is little bureaucracy to interfere with the registration of a new business

or restrict access to information. The commitment of the country to

implementing digital identity cards is also considered as a means of

determining how a countrys population can access digital commerce and

digital government services.

Category criteria and weights: Effectiveness of traditional legal framework

(30%); laws covering the Internet (25%); level of censorship (10%); ease of

registering a new business (25%); electronic ID (10%).

Government policy and vision

E-ready governments supply their constituentscitizens and organizations

with a clear roadmap for the adoption of technology, and they lead by

example in their use of technology to create efficiencies. The Economist

Intelligence Unit assessed the activities of governments in this area, and their

ability to lead their countries towards a digital future. This category also

analyzed, in each country, the availability of digital channels to individuals and

businesses for accessing public services, and to citizens for obtaininggovernment information about civic issues and engaging in consultation with

government officials on matters involving the political process.

Category criteria and weights: Government spend on ICT as a proportion of

GDP (5%); digital development strategy (25%); e-government strategy (20%);

online procurement (5%); availability of online public services for citizens

(15%) and businesses (15%); e-participation (15%, based on the UN e-

participation index).

Consumer and business adoption

If connectivity, societal adoption, and legal and policy environments are

necessary enabling platforms for a digital economy, then the actual utilization

of digital channels by people and companies is a measure of successful

implementation. The Economist Intelligence Unit looked at the amount that


13/14

businesses and consumers spend on accessing ICT services, the extent and

range of Internet features used by individuals, their online purchasing activity,

and the extent to which individuals and businesses use the online public

services that have been made available.

Category criteria and weights: Consumer spending on ICT per head (15%);

level of e-business development (10%); use of Internet by consumers (25%,

assessing both the range of Internet features used by individuals and their

online purchasing activity); use of online public services by citizens (25%) and

businesses (25%).

The Philippines is ranked 54 out of 70 countries surveyed with a 2010

score of 4.47, which is lower than the 2009 score of 4.58 (at the same

rank of 54). It was behind Thailand, Singapore, and Malaysia, but ahead

of Vietnam and Indonesia.

E. Waseda University E-government Development Ranking (2011)

For seven consecutive years, Waseda University in Japan (2011) has ranked the

development of e-Government (in 50 countries in 2011). This Survey includeschecking websites and ICT deployment in governments, as well as the

relationship between governments and their stakeholders. Data comes from

various sources, including ITU, OECD, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation

(APEC), country official data, etc., from interviews and local research, as well as

from international conferences and workshops. A comprehensive set of

indicators and parameters are used, which not only focus on the provision of

services to the citizen, but also on the effective degree of commitment to the

implementation of successful e-Government strategies. There are seven main

indicators measured, namely, network preparedness, required interface-

functioning applications, management optimization, national portal, CIO in

government, e-Government promotion and e-participation. This is further broken

down into 32 sub-indicators as follows;


14/14

Table 2 Indicators and sub-indicators used in Waseda University Ranking

1.Network Preparedness 1-1 Internet Users

1-2 Broadband Subscribers

1-3 Mobile Cellular Subscribers

1-4 PC Users

2. Management Optimization 2-1 Optimization Awareness

2-2 Integrated Enterprise Architecture

2-3 Administrative and BudgetarySystems

3. Required Interface-FunctioningApplications

3-1 Cyber Laws

Applications 3-2 e-Tender systems

3-3 e-Tax system

3-4 e-Payment system

3-5 e-Voting system

3-6 Social Security Service

3-7 Civil Registration3-8 Consular Services

3-9 Labor Related Service

3-10 e-Health system

4. National Portal 4-1 Navigation

4-2 Interactivity

4-3 Interface

4-4 Technical

5. Government CIO 5-1 GCIO Presence

5-2 GCIO Mandate

5-3 CIO Organizations

5-4 CIO Development Programs

6. e-Government Promotion 6-1 Legal Mechanism6-2 Enabling Mechanism

6-3 Support Mechanism

6-4 Assessment Mechanism

7 e-Participation 7-1 e-Information and Mechanisms

7-2 Consultation

7-3 Decision-Making

The Waseda Index ranks the Philippines at 25th out of 50 countries

included, surprising just above Hongkong (at 26th) and almost at par with

Malaysia and Thailand (24th and 23rdrespectively).

Documents

Selected Ict Indices in the World