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

aVe

nezu

ela

Per

uPa

nam

aC

olom

bia

El S

alv.

Ecua

dor

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, 2005

Male Female Czech Rep.

Note

Opportunity

Infrastructure

Utilization

Adjusted DOI

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

Utilization [0.48 *0.31]-1

[0.52 *0.27]-1

0.29

Gender-related DOI (GDOI) 0.54 Contrast with actual & adjusted

Equally distributed index: [[Male population share * (Male index score)]-1 + [Female population share *(Female index score)]-1]-1

0.99 0.98 0.99

0.37 0.35 0.35

0.56 0.53 0.54 Actual = 0.53

0.31 0.27 0.29

Average of available indicators in each category

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 76

Medium 34 41 16 98

High 130 10 0 6

Opportunity

Infrastructure

Utilization

Digital opportunity: Mobile policy matrix

0

50

100

0 50 100

Coverage

Aff

orda

bili

ty

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

minges@d-two.info