Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Global Digital Divide - at the HICSS 2010
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Global Digital Divide - at the HICSS 2010

1,838
views

Published on

Published in: Technology, News & Politics

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,838
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Financial investment -- additive index with seven (7) components from World Bank: 1) Telecommunications revenue (as a percentage of GDP); 2) Telecommunications investment (as a percentage of revenue); 3) Research & development spending (as a percentage of GDP); 4) ICT expenditures (as a percentage of GDP); 5) Computer, communications and other services (as a percentage of service exports); 6) High-technology exports (as a percentage of manufacturing exports); and 7) Natural log of international Internet bandwidth (bits per second per person).Political freedom -- additive index with two (2) components from Freedom House: 1) Press freedom index; and 2) Civil liberties index.
  • Transcript

    • 1. Explaining the Global Digital Divide: The Impact of Public Policy Initiatives on DIGITAL OPPORUNITY and ict development
      David J. Yates & Girish J. “Jeff” Gulati
      Bentley University
      Anas Tawileh
      Cardiff University
    • 2. Motivation
      Bridging the digital divide is an important concern for policymakers.
      No previous large-N studies of the digital divide have assessed the impact of public policy initiatives that should enable and expand access to information and communication technologies (ICTs).
      We explore the impact of national policy initiatives on digital opportunity and ICT access and use.
    • 3. Research Questions
      Do national policy initiatives to promote information and communication technologies (ICTs) increase a nation’s digital opportunity?
      Do public policy initiatives to advance information and communication technologies increase a nation’s ICT access and use?
    • 4. Research Hypothesis 1
      • National policy initiatives to promote information and communication technologies (ICTs) increase a nation’s digital opportunity.
      • 5. Nations that (1) have a national telecommunications regulatory authority and (2) have competition to provide basic telecommunication services and (3) have competition to provide mobile services and (4) encourage financial investment in ICTs are the most likely to have increased digital opportunity.
    • Research Hypothesis 2
      National policy initiatives to advance information and communication technologies (ICTs) improve a nation’s ICT access and use.
      • Nations that (1) have a national telecommunications regulatory authority and (2) have competition to provide basic telecommunication services and (3) have competition to provide mobile services and (4) encourage financial investment in ICTs are the most likely to have more inclusive ICT access and use.
    • Dependent Variables and Models
      • Model 1:
      • 6. Digital Opportunity Index (DOI) — ITU 2007
      • 7. Multiple regression analysis using four (4) national policy variables
      • 8. Model 2:
      • 9. ICT Development Index ICT Access and Use indicators (IDI ICT Access & Use) — ITU 2009
      • 10. Multiple regression analysis using same four policy variables
    • Independent Variables for Both Models
      • Policy Variables (1) – (4)
      • 11. National regulatory authority (NRA) from ITU ICT Eye = { 0, 1 for Yes }
      • 12. Competition for providing basic telecommunication services = { 0, 0.5, 1 for full competition }
      • 13. Competition for providing mobile telecommunication services = { 0, 0.5, 1 for full competition }
      • 14. Financial investment additive index with seven (7) components from World Bank
      • 15. Control Variables
      • 16. Affluence, Education
      • 17. Urbanization
      • 18. Democracy, Political freedom
    • Impact of a National Regulatory Authority
      Have no NRA:
      Average DOI = 0.36
      Top 3 = Japan, Taiwan & Israel
      Have an NRA:
      Average DOI = 0.41
      Top 3 = S. Korea, Denmark & Iceland
      Digital Opportunity Index
      Have an NRA
      Have no NRA
    • 19. Impact of Competition (Basic Svcs)
      Monopoly:
      Average DOI = 0.29
      Top 3 = Israel, Antigua & Jamaica
      Partial Competition :
      Average DOI = 0.34
      Top 3 = Barbados, Bahamas & UAE
      Full Competition:
      Average DOI = 0.48
      Top 3 = S. Korea, Japan & Denmark
      Digital Opportunity Index
      Monopoly
      Partial Competition
      Full Competition
    • 20. Impact of Competition (Mobile Svcs)
      Monopoly:
      Average DOI = 0.33
      Top 3 = Bahamas, Brunei & Dominica
      Partial Competition :
      Average DOI = 0.38
      Top 3 = Denmark, Austria & Belgium
      Full Competition:
      Average DOI = 0.43
      Top 3 = S. Korea, Japan & Iceland
      Digital Opportunity Index
      Monopoly
      Partial Competition
      Full Competition
    • 21. Impact of Financial Investment
      Bottom 1/3 :
      Average DOI = 0.26
      Top 3 = Taiwan, Bahamas & St. Kitts
      Middle 1/3 :
      Average DOI = 0.39
      Top 3 = Spain, Slovenia & Portugal
      Top 1/3 :
      Average DOI = 0.53
      Top 3 = S. Korea, Japan & Denmark
      Digital Opportunity Index
      Financial Investment Index
    • 22. Policy Initiatives and Digital Opportunity
      Partially supports Research Hypothesis 1
      Competition and financial investment have a positive impact on digital opportunity
      Has greatest significance for
      digital opportunity
      Unstandardized coefficients. Significance: *** = 0.01, ** = 0.05, * = 0.1
    • 23. Impact of a National Regulatory Authority
      Have no NRA:
      Average ICT A & U = 1.98
      Top 3 = Japan, Taiwan & Israel
      Have an NRA:
      Average ICT A & U = 2.75
      Top 3 = Luxembourg, Sweden & Netherlands
      IDI ICT Access & Use
      Have an NRA
      Have no NRA
    • 24. Impact of Competition (Basic Svcs)
      Monopoly:
      Average ICT A & U = 1.44
      Top 3 = Israel, Kuwait & Uruguay
      Partial Competition :
      Average ICT A & U = 1.71
      Top 3 = UAE, Brunei & Qatar
      Full Competition:
      Average ICT A & U = 3.50
      Top 3 = Luxembourg, Sweden & Netherlands
      IDI ICT Access & Use
      Monopoly
      Partial Competition
      Full Competition
    • 25. Impact of Competition (Mobile Svcs)
      Monopoly:
      Average ICT A & U = 1.65
      Top 3 = Brunei, Kuwait & Costa Rica
      Partial Competition :
      Average ICT A & U = 2.34
      Top 3 = Denmark, Austria & Belgium
      Full Competition:
      Average ICT A & U = 2.94
      Top 3 = Luxembourg, Sweden & Netherlands
      IDI ICT Access & Use
      Monopoly
      Partial Competition
      Full Competition
    • 26. Impact of Financial Investment
      Bottom 1/3 :
      Average ICT A & U = 1.26
      Top 3 = Taiwan, Kuwait & Venezuela
      Middle 1/3 :
      Average ICT A & U = 2.30
      Top 3 = Spain, Slovenia & UAE
      Top 1/3 :
      Average ICT A & U = 4.16
      Top 3 = Luxembourg, Sweden & Netherlands
      IDI ICT Access & Use
      Financial Investment Index
    • 27. Policy Initiatives and IDI ICT Access and Use
      Partially Supports Research Hypothesis 2
      Competition in basic services and financial investment have a positive impact on ICT access and use
      Has greatest significance for
      ICT access and use
      Unstandardized coefficients. Significance: *** = 0.01, * = 0.1
    • 28. Impact of Policy Initiatives for both Models
      Unstandardized coefficients. Significance: *** = 0.01, ** = 0.05, * = 0.1
    • 29. Implications and Conclusions
      Nations that (2,3) have competition to provide telecommunication services and (4) encourage financial investment in ICTs are the most likely to have increased digital opportunity.
      Nations that (2) have competition to provide telecommunication services (i.e., basic services) and (4) encourage financial investment in ICTs are the most likely to have more inclusive ICT access and use.
      Having a national regulatory authority does not appear to impact digital opportunity and diffusion of ICTs for a nation’s citizens.
    • 30. Future Work
      Expand and refine policy variables
      For example, understand and analyze impact of national regulatory authority policies and regulations
      Improve model for telecommunications competition
      Consider additional outcome variables
      Alternative digital divide metrics
      Diffusion of emerging information and communication technologies
      Adoption of e-government