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?

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

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

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