The Economic Impact of Interoperabilitydownload.microsoft.com/download/d/0/1/d01533ed-5be... · 3 the economic Impact of Interoperability The WITSA1 Digital Planet study, “The Global

The Economic Impact of Interoperability1

The Economic Impact of Interoperability

ConneCted GovernmentBy Lorenzo Madrid

Last Updated: JULy 2012 First pUBLication: octoBer 2005


technology and economic Growth ............................3

Governments and Interoperability .............................4

From Legacy e-Government to Connected Government ..............................................7

Interoperability and network value ..........................9

the Impact of Interoperability (Connected Government) on GdP..............................10

Conclusions ...................................................................12

Appendix: Worldwide GdP table and Interoperability Impact ........................................13

Figure 1 – the vertical Silos of e-Government .........4

Figure 2 – traditional Citizen/Government Interaction.....................................................................5

Figure 3 – Proposed Citizen/Government Interaction.....................................................................6

Figure 4 - the Gartner model for e-Government evolution .............................................7

Figure 5 - the Un model for e-Government evolution .............................................7

Figure 6 - Government Solution maturity Curve .....8

Figure 7 - Interoperable transactions/ relative value ...............................................................9

The information contained in this document represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation on the issues discussed as of the date of publication. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, this paper should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information presented after the date of publication.This white paper is for informational purposes only. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT.Complying with all applicable copyright laws is the responsibility of the user. Without limiting the rights under copyright, no part of this document may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise), or for any purpose, without the express written permission of Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft may have patents, patent applications, trademarks, copyrights, or other intellectual property rights covering subject matter in this document. Except as expressly provided in any written license agreement from Microsoft, the furnishing of this document does not give you any license to these patents, trademarks, copyrights, or other intellectual property.Unless otherwise noted, the example companies, organizations, products, domain names, email addresses, logos, people, places, and events depicted herein are fictitious, and no association with any real company, organization, product, domain name, email address, logo, person, place, or event is intended or should be inferred. © 2012 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.Microsoft, Active Directory, BizTalk, Win32, Windows, Windows Server, and Windows Server System are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries.All other trademarks are property of their respective owners.

table of contents


The WITSA1 Digital Planet study, “The Global Information Economy”, provides an analysis of information technology in the global economy and includes detailed information on the size, growth, and access to information technology in the economies of 75 individual countries.

The WITSA study results are clear: spending on Information and Communications Technology (ICT) is a critical element in the success of the global economy. According to the study, the ICT industry is one of the most significant drivers of the global economy. The study forecasts US$4.1 trillion in ICT spending in 2011, approximately 6.4 percent of the forecasted global Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In addition, the study suggests that national GDP grows when ICT spending increases and that, even in the face of worsening economic conditions, the effect on ICT spending is muted.

There is also evidence regarding the positive influence of ICT spending on productivity gains, which, in turn, spur economic growth. This is described in the article, “The Productivity Miracle is For Real”2, which notes that investments in digital technologies are paying off, as demonstrated by strong productivity gains beginning in 2001.

The influence of ICT deployment on GDP was corroborated by Leonard Waverman3 in the paper, “The Impact of Telecoms on Economic Growth in Developing Countries”, which says that, in a typical developing country, an increase of 10 mobile phones per 100 people boosts the growth of GDP by 0.6 percentage points a year.

All of these studies support the notion of a strong economic impact on GDP from ICT spending. Therefore, it would seem evident that to support economic growth, governments should support ICT spending.

One way governments can directly influence spending is in the deployment of next generation e-government systems, which are a pillar of modern and efficient government. This paper hopes to demonstrate that these interoperable and connected systems can leverage economic growth and have a significant positive impact on GDP.

1 “Digital Planet Study.” World Information Technology and Service Alliance (WITSA). 2006 and 2010 Update. http://www.witsa.org/v2/

2 Bernasek, Anna. “The Productivity Miracle Is For Real.” Fortune, March 18, 2002.

3 Waverman, Leonard, Meloria Meschi, and Melvyn Fuss. “The Impact of Telecoms on Economic Growth in Developing Countries.” 2005.

technology and economic growth


Widespread Internet access has changed the way that governments provide services to their constituents. As citizens become more and more knowledgeable about ICT resources and capabilities, they increasingly exert political pressure on governments to accelerate the deployment of next generation e-government services. These services not only provide a better quality of service, but also improve the overall efficiency and efficacy of the government and make the workings of public service agencies more transparent.

If we analyze the evolution of data-processing systems in government, it is common to find that the first priority is often to develop solutions addressing government workflows, agency by agency, and usually in response to internal problems. Political decisions for deployment priorities are based on a projected return on investment and on the desire to improve highly visible public services such as security, health, or justice.

These government solutions are often developed on a vertical and stand-alone basis, each one addressing the problem of the individual agency. The result is that the tax agency has its own system, the police agency has its own system, and the justice sector has a distinct system. Although this vertical approach is ideal for solving government agencies’ process issues, its primary flaw is that it doesn’t take into consideration the needs of citizens. Citizens do not just have vertical needs; they mostly have horizontal needs. For example, a citizen who needs a passport will probably need to interact with many agencies, such as police (“I am not a wanted criminal”), justice (“I don’t have any pending court orders”), tax (“I do not owe taxes”), and banking (“I need to pay a fee for my passport”).

poLi

ce

JUst

ice

tax

edU

cati

on

Hea

LtH

The Vertical Silos of Legacy E-GovernmentFigUre 1

needs oF citizens

governments and interoperability


As a result, citizens in need of government services have to go through a painful process of visiting different government agencies in order to obtain their desired service. Many times government agencies request that citizens provide documents that are issued by another agency. It is not unusual for a citizen to stand in line waiting for a document to be printed by one system and then go to another agency that will type in the document data into a different system. The result is overall inefficiency. The citizen wastes time commuting and waiting in line and the government duplicates data entry and data management using multiple systems.

Additional problems arise because citizens are not usually experts on government processes and often don’t know which documents are necessary to comply with government regulations. Citizens must navigate from agency to agency and learn different processes in order to obtain their desired service.

The root of this issue is discussed by Theresa Pardo and Brian Burke in the paper, “Government Worth Having: A Briefing on Interoperability for Government Leaders.”4 They state that, “Individual government agencies need interoperable systems to deliver coordinated programs and services.”

Figure two depicts a common situation where a citizen navigates multiple agencies to obtain a desired government service.

4 Pardo, Theresa and Brian Burke. “Government Worth Having: A Briefing on Interoperability for Government Leaders.” CTG, February 2008.

Traditional Citizen/ Government Interaction FigUre 2

request

government

response

agency a agency B agency c agency d agency e


The result of these inefficient processes is a significant loss of time by citizens and public servants, with a direct impact on overall productivity.

In an ideal world, governments should provide integrated services, where a citizen could place their request into one government agency, through one access channel, in person or online. Integrated and connected government systems would automatically process the request using the appropriate workflow across multiple agencies, thus avoiding the loss of time and the resulting impact on productivity.

Figure three depicts the ideal model for citizen interaction using the services of an integrated and connected government.

The way to achieve this efficient level of service is through interoperability. On the following pages, we will show why achieving interoperability has an important positive impact on GDP.

Proposed Citizen/ Government Interaction FigUre 3

request

access channel

agency intergration

gateway & backend systems working together

response

agency a

agency B

agency d

agency c

agency e

WeB eMaiL digitaL tV

Fax pHone/MoBiLe

sociaL Media

oVer tHe coUnter


From LeGACy e-Government to ConneCted Government

The deployment and availability of e-government services follows a clear pattern. Both the United Nations (UN) and Gartner propose a five-step maturity model to understand and rank how countries deploy these services. The UN used this model in the “United Nations E-Government Survey.”5 Figure four depicts the Gartner model and figure five depicts the UN model.

Connected

transactional

Interactive

enhanced

emerging

FigUre 5Un ModeL For e-goVernMent eVoLUtion

Within these models, the Presence/emerging phase is the simplest one. It is usually deployed in governments through the development of simple websites containing basic information for citizens and businesses. The deployment of this phase is done independently by each agency with no common goals.

The next phase, Interaction/enhanced, is the natural evolution of these websites. Citizens can not only find information, but can also communicate with authorities, exchanging information and filling out request forms. These requests are integrated into mainline applications to be manually or electronically processed.

The third phase, transaction/Interactive, begins to provide more relevant services and interaction. Users can make their requests online and the system will take care of everything. In this phase interoperability first becomes important, although

it is not necessarily where implementation begins. Many government agencies develop and deploy their own solutions independently. However, many of these solutions will need to interoperate with existing systems and even legacy systems necessitating a common interoperability gateway as described in the next phase.

The transformation/transactional phase integrates various applications among different agencies. Interoperability becomes more relevant; transactions among citizens and governments become simpler and there is an overall increase in productivity and data and service quality.

The last stage, revolution/Connected, allows a great variety of transactions to be integrated. New services can be offered at a lower cost and the benefits provided by these integrated services increase the overall value of the next generation e-government system.

PreSenCe• Information provided on the website

InterACtIon• Search for information• CRM• Requests• Exchanges of information

trAnSACtIon• E-Procurement• Reservation and purchase services• Complex procedures

trAnSFormAtIon• Intregation with all current processes• Multi-department profiling• Inter-department transactions• Service intregation• Instant messages and notifications

revoLUtIon • Creation of a new process to support web services• Variety of type of access• Great customization• Complete CRM• Variety of transactions

VaLU

e

coMpLexity

inte

r-op

E-Government Services EvolutionFigUre 4gartner ModeL For e-goVernMent eVoLUtion

5 “United Nations E-Government Survey 2012.” http://www2.unpan.org/egovkb/global_reports/12report.htm


In figure six, we clearly see the domain of workplace modernization, which intends to make government more efficient; the domain of service delivery and engagement, which intends to provide better services to citizens; and the domain of insight and accountability, which intends to make government processes more transparent and civil servants more accountable for their actions.

pUB

Lic

sect

or

spe

nd

/ca

pita

Government Solution Maturity CurveFigUre 6

goVernMent driVen

nascent eMerging deVeLoping MatUring innoVatiVe

citizen/BUsiness driVen

goVernMent WorkpLace Modernization

Administrative Focus

no Customer Charter Basic Services

Citizen/BusinessAware

Citizen/BusinessEngaged

Government Driven, Citizen/BusinessCentric Citizen/Business

Driven & Centric

goVernMent serVice deLiVery & engageMent

goVernMent insigHt & accoUntaBiLity

The phases described above have evolved into today’s more comprehensive set of definitions and domains which better reflect the needs of government transformation. Current thinking about these maturity models led us to the following government solution maturity curve.


InteroPerABILIty And netWork vALUe

Integration of a next generation e-government network has an economic behavior quite similar to a valued network structure in which the global value of the integrated network can be correlated to the number of possible interconnections in the network.

According to Verna Alee in “The Future of Knowledge, Increasing Prosperity Through Value Networks,”6 “…the value and capability of a network expands with the numbers of connections…When a certain level of connectivity is reached in a complex system, the capabilities that are being unleashed may be far greater than the sum of the parts”.

This can be mathematically represented as the value of an interoperable system can be measured as a function of the number of connected transactions.

As we increase the number of combinations, we increase the efficiency of the system and its value.

In figure seven, the illustration for n=2 shows how significant the increase is on the network value as we increase the number of transactions that interconnect or interoperate. Mathematically speaking, this is a factorial progression.

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12interoperaBLe transactions

reL

ati

Ve

VaLU

e

FigUre 7 interoperaBLe transactions/reLatiVe VaLUe

Value=∑ ( )mi=1 λi t!

1(t-n)! n!

Where:t is the total number of

transactions to interoperate

m is the number of sub-systems

n is the number of transactions that need to be combined to complete a process

λ is the correlation factor

6 Allee, Verna. “The Future of Knowledge, Increasing Prosperity Through Value Networks.” Elsevier Science, 2003, 78


the ImPACt oF InteroPerABILIty (“ConneCted Government”) on the GdP

The network effect explains why deploying interoperable systems to enable a connected government produces a significant impact. As we increase the number of connections in a network, we increase overall network value, much higher than the sum of the parts. Once a government decides to adopt interoperability as a key ICT strategy, this mathematical phenomenon will, over time, result in a significant increase in productivity.

To better understand the impact, we can measure the burden on GDP when a citizen needs to wait in line for a government service.

The following table identifies the amount of contribution of one working hour on GDP.

Based on this data, we can surmise that if one hour is wasted in line waiting for a government service, that one hour is lost from GDP contribution.

The following table shows a sensitivity analysis of GDP when we vary the number of activities a citizen has to carry out annually (paying taxes, filling out forms, obtaining permits, and others) due to laws or government requirements, as well as the number of minutes needed to fully execute each of the required activities. The time to execute these activities cannot be considered productive time toward an increase in GDP.

Country 2010 GdP Population GdP / GdP / (USd) Capita Working hour

World 60,449,498,549,137 6,817,263,829 8,867 4.434

Argentina 368,736,062,144 40,412,376 9,124 4.562

Belgium 469,374,172,185 10,879,159 43,144 21.572

Brazil 2,087,889,553,822 194,946,470 10,710 5.355

Canada 1,577,040,082,218 34,108,752 46,236 23.118

China 5,926,612,009,750 1,338,299,512 4,428 2.214

France 2,560,002,000,000 64,876,618 39,460 19.730

Germany 3,280,529,801,325 81,702,329 40,152 20.076

India 1,727,111,096,363 1,170,938,000 1,475 0.737

Italy 2,051,412,153,370 60,483,521 33,917 16.958

Japan 5,458,836,663,871 127,450,459 42,831 21.416

Mexico 1,034,804,491,265 113,423,047 9,123 4.562

Netherlands 779,356,291,391 16,612,213 46,915 23.457

Russia 1,479,819,314,058 141,750,000 10,440 5.220

South Korea 1,014,483,158,314 48,875,000 20,757 10.378

Spain 1,407,405,298,013 46,081,574 30,542 15.271

Sweden 458,973,278,964 9,379,116 48,936 24.468

Switzerland 527,919,933,356 7,825,243 67,46 33.732

Turkey 734,364,471,760 72,752,325 10,094 5.047

United Kingdom 2,248,831,038,714 62,218,761 36,144 18.072

United States 14,586,736,313,339 309,050,816 47,199 23.599

soUrces:gdp: Http://data.WorLdBank.org/ indicator/ny.gdp.Mktp.cd/coUntries?order=WBapi_data_VaLUe_2010%20WBapi_data_VaLUe%20WBapi_data_VaLUe-Last&sort=desc&dispLay=deFaULt

popULation:Http://data.WorLdBank.org/ indicator/sp.pop.totL

assUMption:2000 Working HoUrs/year


To complete this analysis, we can apply these percentage ranges to the GDP in select countries.

The table above shows five impact scenarios and their burden on GDP caused by the lack of interoperable systems.

Country 2010 GdP 0.30% 0.70% 1.20% 3.00% 5.00% (USd millions)

World 60,449,499 181,348 423,146 725,394 1,813,485 3,022,475

Australia 368,736 1,106 2,581 4,425 11,062 18,437

Belgium 469,374 1,408 3,286 5,632 14,081 23,469

Brazil 2,087,890 6,264 14,615 25,055 62,637 104,394

Canada 1,577,040 4,731 11,039 18,924 47,311 78,852

China 5,926,612 17,780 41,486 71,119 177,798 296,331

France 2,560,002 7,680 17,920 30,720 76,800 128,000

Germany 3,280,530 9,842 22,964 39,366 98,416 164,026

India 1,727,111 5,181 12,090 20,725 51,813 86,356

Italy 2,051,412 6,154 14,360 24,617 61,542 102,571

Japan 5,458,837 16,377 38,212 65,506 163,765 272,942

Mexico 1,034,804 3,104 7,244 12,418 31,044 51,740

Netherlands 779,356 2,338 5,455 9,352 23,381 38,968

Russia 1,479,819 4,439 10,359 17,758 44,395 73,991

South Korea 1,014,483 3,043 7,101 12,174 30,434 50,724

Spain 1,407,405 4,222 9,852 16,889 42,222 70,370

Sweden 458,973 1,377 3,213 5,508 13,769 22,949

Switzerland 527,920 1,584 3,695 6,335 15,838 26,396

Turkey 734,364 2,203 5,141 8,812 22,031 36,718

United Kingdom 2,248,831 6,746 15,742 26,986 67,465 112,442

United States 14,586,736 43,760 102,107 175,041 437,602 729,337

a taBLe WitH additionaL coUntries is incLUded at tHe end oF tHis docUMent

normALIzed ImPACt on GdP

minutes 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60to execute

5 0.04% 0.06% 0.08% 0.10% 0.13% 0.15% 0.17% 0.19% 0.21% 0.23% 0.25%

10 0.08% 0.13% 0.17% 0.21% 0.25% 0.29% 0.33% 0.38% 0.42% 0.46% 0.50%

15 0.13% 0.19% 0.25% 0.31% 0.38% 0.44% 0.50% 0.56% 0.63% 0.69% 0.75%

20 0.17% 0.25% 0.33% 0.42% 0.50% 0.58% 0.67% 0.75% 0.83% 0.92% 1.00%

25 0.21% 0.31% 0.42% 0.52% 0.63% 0.73% 0.83% 0.94% 1.04% 1.15% 1.25%

30 0.25% 0.38% 0.50% 0.63% 0.75% 0.88% 1.00% 1.13% 1.25% 1.38% 1.50%

35 0.29% 0.44% 0.58% 0.73% 0.88% 1.02% 1.17% 1.31% 1.46% 1.60% 1.75%

40 0.33% 0.50% 0.67% 0.83% 1.00% 1.17% 1.33% 1.50% 1.67% 1.83% 2.00%

45 0.38% 0.56% 0.75% 0.94% 1.13% 1.31% 1.50% 1.69% 1.88% 2.06% 2.25%

50 0.42% 0.63% 0.83% 1.04% 1.25% 1.46% 1.67% 1.88% 2.08% 2.29% 2.50%

55 0.46% 0.69% 0.92% 1.15% 1.38% 1.60% 1.83% 2.06% 2.29% 2.52% 2.75%

60 0.50% 0.75% 1.00% 1.25% 1.50% 1.75% 2.00% 2.25% 2.50% 2.75% 3.00%

number of activities per year


There is no question that e-government systems lead to more efficient governments. However, legacy e-government initiatives primarily work on diminishing the time to process each transaction (the vertical vision), whereas interoperability solutions primarily work on diminishing the number of processes or activities (the horizontal vision) by combining many of them in the same activity or transactional effort. Consequently, deploying next generation e-government systems and, at the same time, making them interoperable, has a greater positive impact on GDP. These interoperable e-government systems can be developed using technologies such as cloud services and Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)7.In addition to the impact on GDP, there are other benefits from interoperable e-government systems. These include better data quality, more relevant information, and increased agility to expedite bureaucratic processes, as well as an improvement in citizens’ perceptions of their governments. In the article “Measuring the Returns from Investments on E-Government”8 we address the issue of valuing non-tangible returns such as transparency, quality, efficiency, and equal opportunity to compete for government business. This is a growing area for consideration with the recent advances in social media use by governments, which allows government leaders to receive rapid feedback about government activities, projects, and plans, as well as making available to the public data elements and information for necessary transparency and accountability.

In summary, the primary conclusions of this paper are:

• Spending on ICT positively impacts economic growth.

• Next generation e-government initiatives provide a substantial value for the public sector, returning benefits to citizens and governments.

• Using the right architectural model to deploy interoperable e-government services results in a direct, positive impact on GDP.

To learn more, visit www.microsoft.com/ongovernment.

7 Fishenden, Jerry, Oliver Bell, and Alan Grose. “Government Interoperability – Enabling the Delivery of E-Services.” A Microsoft white paper.

8 Madrid, Lorenzo. “Measuring the Returns from Investments on E-Government.” A Microsoft white paper.

conclusions

13 The Economic Impact of Interoperability

appendix

Worldwide GDP Table & Interoperability Impact


2010 GdP Country (USd millions) ImPACt on GdP

US mILLIon 0.30% 0.70% 1.20% 3.00% 5.00%

World 60,449,499 181,348 423,146 725,394 1,813,485 3,022,475

Afghanistan 17,243 52 121 207 517 862

Albania 11,786 35 83 141 354 589

Algeria 159,426 478 1,116 1,913 4,783 7,971

Angola 84,391 253 591 1,013 2,532 4,220

Antigua and Barbuda 1,211 4 8 15 36 61

Argentina 368,736 1,106 2,581 4,425 11,062 18,437

Armenia 9,371 28 66 112 281 469

Austria 379,069 1,137 2,653 4,549 11,372 18,953

Azerbaijan 51,774 155 362 621 1,553 2,589

Bahamas, The 7,538 23 53 90 226 377

Bangladesh 100,357 301 702 1,204 3,011 5,018

Barbados 4,110 12 29 49 123 205

Belarus 54,713 164 383 657 1,641 2,736

Belgium 469,374 1,408 3,286 5,632 14,081 23,469

Belize 1,401 4 10 17 42 70

Benin 6,633 20 46 80 199 332

Bhutan 1,516 5 11 18 45 76

Bolivia 19,650 59 138 236 589 982

Bosnia & Herzegovina 16,578 50 116 199 497 829

Botswana 14,857 45 104 178 446 743

Brazil 2,087,890 6,264 14,615 25,055 62,637 104,394

Bulgaria 47,714 143 334 573 1,431 2,386

Burkina Faso 8,820 26 62 106 265 441

Burundi 1,611 5 11 19 48 81

Cambodia 11,242 34 79 135 337 562

Cameroon 22,394 67 157 269 672 1,120

Canada 1,577,040 4,731 11,039 18,924 47,311 78,852

Cape Verde 1,648 5 12 20 49 82

Central African Republic 2,013 6 14 24 60 101

Chad 7,588 23 53 91 228 379

Chile 212,741 638 1,489 2,553 6,382 10,637

China 5,926,612 17,780 41,486 71,119 177,798 296,331

Colombia 288,189 865 2,017 3,458 8,646 14,409

Comoros 541 2 4 6 16 27

Congo, Dem. Rep. 13,145 39 92 158 394 657

Worldwide GDP Table & Interoperability Impact - 2010



US mILLIon 0.30% 0.70% 1.20% 3.00% 5.00%

Congo, Rep. 11,898 36 83 143 357 595

Costa Rica 35,831 107 251 430 1,075 1,792

Cote d’Ivoire 22,780 68 159 273 683 1,139

Croatia 60,852 183 426 730 1,826 3,043

Cyprus 23,132 69 162 278 694 1,157

Czech Republic 192,032 576 1,344 2,304 5,761 9,602

Denmark 309,866 930 2,169 3,718 9,296 15,493

Dominica 466 1 3 6 14 23

Dominican Republic 51,766 155 362 621 1,553 2,588

Ecuador 57,978 174 406 696 1,739 2,899

Egypt, Arab Rep. 218,894 657 1,532 2,627 6,567 10,945

El Salvador 21,215 64 149 255 636 1,061

Equatorial Guinea 14,007 42 98 168 420 700

Eritrea 2,117 6 15 25 64 106

Estonia 19,217 58 135 231 576 961

Ethiopia 29,717 89 208 357 892 1,486

Fiji 3,189 10 22 38 96 159

Finland 238,746 716 1,671 2,865 7,162 11,937

France 2,560,002 7,680 17,920 30,720 76,800 128,000

Gabon 13,011 39 91 156 390 651

Gambia, The 807 2 6 10 24 40

Georgia 11,667 35 82 140 350 583

Germany 3,280,530 9,842 22,964 39,366 98,416 164,026

Ghana 31,306 94 219 376 939 1,565

Greece 301,083 903 2,108 3,613 9,032 15,054

Grenada 773 2 5 9 23 39

Guatemala 41,186 124 288 494 1,236 2,059

Guinea 4,511 14 32 54 135 226

Guinea-Bissau 879 3 6 11 26 44

Guyana 2,226 7 16 27 67 111

Haiti 6,710 20 47 81 201 335

Honduras 15,400 46 108 185 462 770

Hong Kong SAR, China 224,458 673 1,571 2,693 6,734 11,223

Hungary 128,632 386 900 1,544 3,859 6,432

Iceland 12,574 38 88 151 377 629

India 1,727,111 5,181 12,090 20,725 51,813 86,356

Indonesia 706,558 2,120 4,946 8,479 21,197 35,328




US mILLIon 0.30% 0.70% 1.20% 3.00% 5.00%

Iraq 82,150 246 575 986 2,465 4,108

Ireland 211,390 634 1,480 2,537 6,342 10,569

Israel 217,333 652 1,521 2,608 6,520 10,867

Italy 2,051,412 6,154 14,360 24,617 61,542 102,571

Jamaica 14,252 43 100 171 428 713

Japan 5,458,837 16,377 38,212 65,506 163,765 272,942

Jordan 27,574 83 193 331 827 1,379

Kazakhstan 149,059 447 1,043 1,789 4,472 7,453

Kenya 31,409 94 220 377 942 1,570

Kiribati 151 0 1 2 5 8

Korea, Rep. 1,014,483 3,043 7,101 12,174 30,434 50,724

Kosovo 5,552 17 39 67 167 278

Kyrgyz Republic 4,616 14 32 55 138 231

Lao PDR 7,296 22 51 88 219 365

Latvia 24,010 72 168 288 720 1,200

Lebanon 39,006 117 273 468 1,170 1,950

Lesotho 2,132 6 15 26 64 107

Liberia 986 3 7 12 30 49

Lithuania 36,306 109 254 436 1,089 1,815

Luxembourg 53,334 160 373 640 1,600 2,667

Macao SAR, China 27,960 84 196 336 839 1,398

Macedonia, FYR 9,189 28 64 110 276 459

Madagascar 8,721 26 61 105 262 436

Malawi 5,106 15 36 61 153 255

Malaysia 237,797 713 1,665 2,854 7,134 11,890

Maldives 1,908 6 13 23 57 95

Mali 9,251 28 65 111 278 463

Malta 8,256 25 58 99 248 413

Marshall Islands 163 0 1 2 5 8

Mauritania 3,636 11 25 44 109 182

Mauritius 9,729 29 68 117 292 486

Mexico 1,034,804 3,104 7,244 12,418 31,044 51,740

Micronesia, Fed. Sts. 297 1 2 4 9 15

Moldova 5,809 17 41 70 174 290

Mongolia 6,200 19 43 74 186 310

Montenegro 4,111 12 29 49 123 206

Morocco 90,805 272 636 1,090 2,724 4,540




US mILLIon 0.30% 0.70% 1.20% 3.00% 5.00%

Mozambique 9,586 29 67 115 288 479

Namibia 12,170 37 85 146 365 609

Netherlands 779,356 2,338 5,455 9,352 23,381 38,968

Nicaragua 6,551 20 46 79 197 328

Niger 5,549 17 39 67 166 277

Nigeria 193,669 581 1,356 2,324 5,810 9,683

Norway 412,990 1,239 2,891 4,956 12,390 20,649

Pakistan 176,870 531 1,238 2,122 5,306 8,843

Palau 171 1 1 2 5 9

Panama 26,689 80 187 320 801 1,334

Palau 171 1 1 2 5 9

Panama 26,689 80 187 320 801 1,334

Papua New Guinea 9,480 28 66 114 284 474

Paraguay 18,333 55 128 220 550 917

Peru 157,053 471 1,099 1,885 4,712 7,853

Philippines 199,589 599 1,397 2,395 5,988 9,979

Poland 469,440 1,408 3,286 5,633 14,083 23,472

Portugal 228,872 687 1,602 2,746 6,866 11,444

Romania 161,624 485 1,131 1,939 4,849 8,081

Russian Federation 1,479,819 4,439 10,359 17,758 44,395 73,991

Rwanda 5,628 17 39 68 169 281

Samoa 574 2 4 7 17 29

Sao Tome and Principe 197 1 1 2 6 10

Saudi Arabia 434,666 1,304 3,043 5,216 13,040 21,733

Senegal 12,954 39 91 155 389 648

Serbia 38,423 115 269 461 1,153 1,921

Seychelles 937 3 7 11 28 47

Sierra Leone 1,905 6 13 23 57 95

Singapore 208,765 626 1,461 2,505 6,263 10,438

Slovak Republic 87,268 262 611 1,047 2,618 4,363

Slovenia 46,908 141 328 563 1,407 2,345

Solomon Islands 679 2 5 8 20 34

South Africa 363,704 1,091 2,546 4,364 10,911 18,185

Spain 1,407,405 4,222 9,852 16,889 42,222 70,370

Sri Lanka 49,552 149 347 595 1,487 2,478

St. Kitts and Nevis 652 2 5 8 20 33

St. Lucia 1,198 4 8 14 36 60




US mILLIon 0.30% 0.70% 1.20% 3.00% 5.00%

St. Vincent and the Grenadines 705 2 5 8 21 35

Sudan 62,046 186 434 745 1,861 3,102

Swaziland 3,645 11 26 44 109 182

Sweden 458,973 1,377 3,213 5,508 13,769 22,949

Switzerland 527,920 1,584 3,695 6,335 15,838 26,396

Syrian Arab Republic 59,147 177 414 710 1,774 2,957

Swaziland 3,645 11 26 44 109 182

Sweden 458,973 1,377 3,213 5,508 13,769 22,949

Switzerland 527,920 1,584 3,695 6,335 15,838 26,396

Syrian Arab Republic 59,147 177 414 710 1,774 2,957

Tajikistan 5,640 17 39 68 169 282

Tanzania 23,057 69 161 277 692 1,153

Thailand 318,522 956 2,230 3,822 9,556 15,926

Timor-Leste 701 2 5 8 21 35

Togo 3,153 9 22 38 95 158

Tonga 348 1 2 4 10 17

Trinidad and Tobago 20,604 62 144 247 618 1,030

Tunisia 44,291 133 310 531 1,329 2,215

Turkey 734,364 2,203 5,141 8,812 22,031 36,718

Turkmenistan 20,001 60 140 240 600 1,000

Tuvalu 31 0 0 0 1 2

Uganda 17,011 51 119 204 510 851

Ukraine 137,929 414 966 1,655 4,138 6,896

United Arab Emirates 297,648 893 2,084 3,572 8,929 14,882

United Kingdom 2,248,831 6,746 15,742 26,986 67,465 112,442

United States 14,586,736 43,760 102,107 175,041 437,602 729,337

Uruguay 40,265 121 282 483 1,208 2,013

Uzbekistan 38,982 117 273 468 1,169 1,949

Vanuatu 699 2 5 8 21 35

Venezuela, RB 391,847 1,176 2,743 4,702 11,755 19,592

Vietnam 106,427 319 745 1,277 3,193 5,321

Zambia 16,193 49 113 194 486 810

Zimbabwe 7,474 22 52 90 224 374


Documents

The Economic Impact of Interoperabilitydownload.microsoft.com/download/d/0/1/d01533ed-5be... · 3 the economic Impact of Interoperability The WITSA1 Digital Planet study, “The Global