The Digital Opportunity Index as a tool for policy analysis Michael Minges Telecommunications Management Group, Inc.
DOI Analytical Capabilities • Benchmarking • Extension • Policy matrix
Benchmarking possibilities Global Peer Regional Economic Country Dynamic Static
More detail
National Socio-economic
Global DOI Benchmark, 2005 Low
Medium
Upper
High
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0 Opportunity
Infrastructure
Utilization
World Average
Colombia & the DOI Colombia, DOI 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05
1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0
Korea Chile Argentina Mexico Uruguay Brazil Costa Rica Venezuela Peru Panama Colombia El Salv. Ecuador Guatemala Bolivia Paraguay Honduras Nicaragua
DOI, 2004
Source: CRT, DANE & estimates (Colombia), ITU (other countries).
Hong Kong Static Analysis, 2005 Mobile pop. coverage (%) 100
Mobile broadband ratio Broadband Internet ratio
Internet, % income 50
Mobile, % income
0
Internet users per 100
Homes with PC (%) Mobile Internet per 100
Source: OFTA, Census & Statistics Dept.
Homes with fixed line (%)
Mobile per 100* Homes with Internet (%)
(* 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 Adjusted DOI for available indicators
Note: Actual DOI (2004) = 0.43
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.pd • Methodology for Gender-related DOI: UNDP, “The gender-related development index”
Gender-related DOI, 2005 Male
Female
Czech Rep.
Opportunity
0.99
0.98
0.99
Infrastructure
0.37
0.35
0.35
Utilization
0.31
0.27
0.29
Adjusted DOI
0.56
0.53
0.54
Actual = 0.53
Opportunity
[0.48 * 0.99]-1
[0.52 * 0.98]-1
0.99
Infrastructure
[0.48 * 0.37]-1
[0.52 * 0.35]-1
0.35
Equally distributed index: [[Male population share * (Male index score)]-1 + [Female population share *(Female index score)]-1]-1
Utilization
[0.48 * 0.31]-1
[0.52 * 0.27]-1
0.29
Gender-related DOI (GDOI)
0.54
Note Average of available indicators in each category
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
Modular Core indicators on access and use of ICTs by households and individuals
Non e-indices (e.g., UNDP Human Development Index)
DOI Infrastructure & access core indicators
Core indicators on access and use of ICTs by businesses
Future core indicators (e.g., education, government, health, etc.)
Extending DOI Impact of including TV households on DOI rank
Sweden Korea(Rep.) S.Africa
-3
USA Turkey
Turkey
Thailand
Hong Kong
UK
Switzerland
Brazil
-2
-1
0
1
2
Impact of including UNDP HDI Education Index on DOI rank
Egypt
3
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
DOI & regulation Regulatory Scorecard Results, 2003
Change in DOI rank, 2002-2004
200 12
250
300
350
400
10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6
R2 = 0.6394 Source: Jones Day / ECTA, 2004 Regulatory Telecommunications Scorecard, http://www.jonesday.com/pubs/pubs_detail.aspx?pubID=S1187
Extending DOI DOI + Knowledge (e.g., UNDP Education sub index) + Regulatory (e.g., ECTA Regulatory Scorecard) + E-Business (e.g., EU e-business readiness composite indicator) E-Government (e.g., UN e-government index)
DOI
e-business
Education
Regulation
Denmark Ireland (+4) Italy (+1)
Sweden (-1) UK (+1)
Spain (-1) Belgium
Neth. Germany (-4)
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 Opp. Infra.
Util.
DOI
Low
16
129
164
76
Medium
34
41
16
98
High
130
10
0
6
Utilization Infrastructure Opportunity
• Categorizing country situation • Generally moves from opportunity-> infrastructure ->utilization • Every country can improve somewhere • More detailed matrixes to analyze policy impacts
Digital opportunity: Mobile policy matrix Low coverage, good affordability
High coverage & affordability Note: Each dot represents a country.
Affordability
100
50
0 0
Low coverage & affordability
50
High coverage, low affordability
Coverage
100
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 minges@d-two.info