2:00-3:30 Session VI: Can We Measure Internet Openness? If so, what does that allow us to do?

1,083 views

Published on

http://www.gwu.edu/~iiep/assets/KnownKnowns.pdf

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,083
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Not only theoretical interestSome initiatives are little more than declarations, others involve significant spendingIn other countries these investments are undertaken by the public telecoms operator (e.g., Ecuador, Uruguay and Venezuela)X% of social spending
  • Twotypes of initiatives: connectivity and equipmentMany other initiatives at the state or municipal level
  • COLOMBIA
  • EQUADOR
  • 2:00-3:30 Session VI: Can We Measure Internet Openness? If so, what does that allow us to do?

    1. 1. Measuring Internet Impact in Latin America November 15, 2013 George Washington University Carolina Rossini, LLM, MBA, MA, JD Project Director, Latin America Resource Center New America Foundation
    2. 2. Countries with National Broadband Plan (2012) 25 20 15 10 5 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 > Source: ITU/CISCO (2013)
    3. 3. ARGENTINA BRAZIL COLOMBIA Argentina Conectada Plano Nacional de Banda Larga (PNBL) Vive Digital GEOGRAPHICAL TARGET 100% municipalities 76% municipalities 62% municipalities PRICE/QUALITY TARGET 10Mbps 1Mbps at US$ 20 per month 1Mbps $1.8 billion USD $3.25 billion USD $2.25 billion USD $44.2 USD $16.6 USD $48.6 USD 0.4% 0.13% 0.78% 2011-2015 2010-2014 2010-2014 NAME OF INITIATIVE TOTAL INVESTMENT TOTAL PER CAPITA TOTAL AS % GDP DURATION > Source: ITU/CISCO (2013)
    4. 4. Countries with ICT in Education programs 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Primary Secondary
    5. 5. ARGENTINA BRAZIL URUGUAY Conectar Igualdad Programa Banda Larga nas Escolas** Plan Ceibal*** Secondary Primary and secondary Primary and secondary No Yes Yes EQUIPMENT Yes (laptop) No Yes (OLPC) TOTAL ANNUAL INVESTMENT ~700M USD n/a ~50M USD TOTAL AS % EDUCATION EXPENDITURE 10% n/a 5% YEAR STARTED 2010 2010 2008 NAME OF INITIATIVE TARGET CONNECTIVITY * http://www.conectarigualdad.gob.ar/ **http://portal.mec.gov.br/index.php?Itemid=823&id=15808&option=com_content&view=article ***http://www.ceibal.org.uy/
    6. 6. 57 municipalities 63 municipalities 150 municipalities 265 municipalities 283 municipalities Source: http://emec.mec.gov.br/
    7. 7. AUTHOR(S) QIANG AND ROSSOTTO (2009) DATA RESULTS 120 countries, 1980-2006. 10 p.p. increase in broadband yields an additional 1.38 p.p. of GDP growth. KOUTROUMPIS (2009) 22 OECD countries, 2002–2007. CZERNICH ET AL. (2011). 25 OECD countries, 1996-2007. LEHR ET AL. (2006). ZIP codes and states (US), 1998– 2002. CRANDALL, R. ET AL. (2007). A 10% increase in broadband increases GDP growth by an average of 0.25% A 10 p.p. increase in broadband raises annual per-capita growth by 0.9-1.5 p.p. Broadband availability increases employment by 1.5% and businesses by 0.5%. No effect on wages. A 10% increase in the penetration States (USA), 2003rate increases employment by 2%. 2005. No effect on GDP growth.
    8. 8. Source: Estimating broadband demand and its economic impact in latin america raul l. katz (2009)
    9. 9. DIRSI Project Motivation: Recent Public Investments In Broadband Raise Questions About Development Impact  Does the evidence about positive impacts support these public investments?  How are benefits being appropriated? How large are impact externalities? What is the distributional impact?  How cost-effective are these programs? How to improve program design and implementation?
    10. 10. > FIRM ADOPTION OF BROADBAND > > > > HH ADOPTION OF BROADBAND > > > > BETTER MARKET COORDINATION > ICT SKILLS ACQUISITION INFORMATION GAINS Growth effect + BETTER LABOR MATCHING INCREASE SOCIAL CAPITAL > BROADBAND IN SCHOOLS INCREASE IN PRODUCTIVITY > > Employment effect + > > Governance effect
    11. 11. > . Panel of municipalities between 2005-2011 (~ 5,000 obs.) . Sources: HH survey (GEIH), MinTIC, and DNP. . OLS regressions, IV =average slope of terrain. . Proxies for economic activity: tax revenues and # firms. . Basic model: . Key questions: > Does faster broadband adoption yield more economic activity (growth effect)? > Is the effect different for HH vs. corporate adoption? > Does access speed matter (256 vs. 512 vs. 1024kbps)?
    12. 12. > . Broadband has a positive impact on economic activity > A 10% increase in penetration yields 0,4% in tax revenues > A 10% increase in penetration yields 4% in # firms . The magnitude of effects is similar for HH and corporate adoption > HH adoption also has effect on # firms . The magnitude of effects is similar for different speed levels > What really matters is connectivity, not speed
    13. 13. > ECUADOR: DATA, METHOD AND KEY QUESTIONS > . Panel of individuals between 2009-2011 reporting labor income and ICT module: > Treatment group: 8,785 individuals > Control group: 7,664 individuals . Sources: National HH survey and SENATEL. . T-test reveals groups have similar mean in variables of interest at baseline (2009) . Basic model: . Key questions: > Has income raise more in municipalities connected in 2010-2011? > Are there differences between adopters and non adopters? > Are there heterogeneous effects (by age/gender/occupations)?
    14. 14. > ECUADOR: KEY FINDINGS > . Broadband has a positive impact on labor income (regardless of adoption) > Increase in individual labor income of $25,7 USD over 2-year period > 7.5% increase over initial sample average (3.6% per year) . The effect is larger for those adopting broadband > Increase in individual labor income of $51,8 USD over 2-year period > 10,3% increase over initial sample average (5% per year) . The overall effect is larger for men than for women > Yet gender difference disappears among broadband adopters
    15. 15. • Overall the findings confirm that increased broadband adoption by households and firms results in higher levels of economic activity and raises household income (as much as 7.5% over a two-year period in some specifications), although employment effects are found to be inconclusive. • While the findings suggest that local externalities are present, the impact is found to be significantly higher for individuals adopting broadband services. • In addition the income effect of broadband was found to be larger for men than for women. The hypothesis is that this is due to differences in human capital as well as to gender differences in occupations, which in Latin America are still affected by traditional views about gender roles.
    16. 16. CASE STUDY CONNECTED TO LEARN? THE EFFECT OF BROADBAND INTERNET ON SCHOOL QUALITY IN BRAZIL. CAN INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES (ICTS) HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON STUDENT PERFORMANCE? EVIDENCE FROM CHILE. INTERNET ACCESS, TYPE OF ACCESS AND EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES: EVIDENCE FOR THE PERUVIAN CASE. COUNTRY DATA Panel data of students and teachers 20072011. Brazil Number of observations: between 83,000 and 124,000. Two cohorts of primary-level students in public schools (2005-2011). Chile Number of observations: between 110,000 and 133,000. Panel data of students at school level (20072011). Peru Number of observations: 10,000. SOURCES METHODOLOG Y School census and test scores from Ministry of Education. Administrative data for PBLE from ANATEL. Regression models that exploit the phase-in of the program. Test scores (SIMCE) and information about ENLACES program from Ministry of Education. Difference-in-difference with matching. School Census and test scores data from Ministry of Education. Difference-in-difference with matching.
    17. 17. 2013 Freedom On The Net
    18. 18. • This methodology applies a three-pillared approach to capture the level of internet and ICT freedom: – Obstacles to Access—including infrastructural and economic barriers to access, legal and ownership control over internet service providers (ISPs), and independence of regulatory bodies; – Limits on Content—including legal regulations on content, technical filtering and blocking of websites, self-censorship, the vibrancy/diversity of online news media, and the use of ICTs for civic mobilization; – Violations of User Rights—including surveillance, privacy, and repercussions for online activity, such as imprisonment, extralegal harassment, or cyber attacks.
    19. 19. Role of Companies http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.in/2013/11/government-requests-for-user.html
    20. 20. Article 19 and CGI.Br • Dos 173 court decisions o 165 offense to honor o 3 privacy violations o 3 copyright infringement o 2 trademark infringement
    21. 21. Take Down of Content • PRESENT: o 74 of 173 decisions (42,7% ) take down of specific content o 1 case (offense to honour) take down of the URL (= whole site) • FUTURE: In 8 court decisions (4,8%) the court prohibited any publications of same nature
    22. 22. Freedom of Expression in Court Decisions • In 51 of 173 (29,4%) there was some discussion of freedom of expression • All the 51 cases were concerned to offense to honor
    23. 23. • Beyond numbers, methodologies of indexes do provide a good roadmap for issues to be addressed by policy, research, advocacy and training
    24. 24. Thank you carolina.rossini@gmail.com

    ×