1

The role of inter-regional The role of inter-regional benchmarking in the benchmarking in the policy-making processpolicy-making process

Brussels, 20 June 2006Brussels, 20 June 2006

Karsten Gareis, empirica, BonnKarsten Gareis, empirica, Bonn

2

Background

• BISER (2002-2004)– Development and piloting of a set of survey-derived

indicators to be used for benchmarking regions in the Information Society

– Top down approach: Indicators are developed based on conceptual framework, then discussed with regions

– BISER Benchmarking Report and interactive data analysis tool available at www.biser-eu.com

3

Status quo

Impact

Intensity

Readiness

Level ofactivity

t

National level

Regional level

measurability using “hard” measures

easy difficult

explanatory power

low high

4

Selected challenges

• Identifying the “right” indicators• Obtaining the data• Choosing the appropriate geographical reference unit• Contextualise Information Society data• Looking beyond indicators on “hard” factors

5

Geographical reference units

• EU standard (NUTS) is based on geographical units which were defined for political reasons

• Very different from functional regions (but functional regions are not available at EU level)

• Risk of wrong conclusions as a result of aggregation• NUTS3 better than NUTS2?

6

An example

100 10 5 10 5 10 5

20 10 20 10 20 10 20

10 20 10 400 10 20 10

20 40 20 40 20 40 300

200 20 10 20 10 20 10

20 10 20 10 20 10 20

10 20 10 400 10 20 10

10 20 10 20 10 20 150

Number of cars (x1000) Number of households (x1000)

Number of cars per household

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

1.040.74 1.6

a. NUTS3 b. NUTS2

Aggregation

7

Contextualisation

• The diffusion of ICT is partly determined by income (GDP/capita) and other independent variables

• Comparing data at company level, the huge differences in sectoral structures need to be taken into account

• Contextualisation (normalisation) necessary!

8

Highlighting weak points

6-28

26-48

3725

924

237

148107

48

-1624

4711

-3732

-3147

-2028

2125

17

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Users of Internet for regional informationPersons with strong regional identity

eGovernment want-notseGovernment users

Users of online timetablesE-health users

Have had computer trainingComputer skills Index

E-learning for workLifelong learning for workhome-based teleworkersmulti-locational workers

Peope tele-cooperating at the workplaceInternet chatters

E-commerceMobile phone users

Internetwant-notsCosts as barrier for Internet take-up

Average share of intra- regional e-mailsE-mail users

Internet user base: expected growthAverage weekly Internet use

Internet usersInternet access

Computer users

E-banking

© BISER 2003

Example: RB Darmstadt

9

An example

Indicator: Internet users -- last four weeks (2003)

© SIBIS 2003

10-30%

30-40%

40-50%

50-60%

>60%

USA

10

An example

Internet access and income (GDP/head)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

GDP/head in PPP 2002 (EU15 = 100)

Inte

rne

t a

cc

es

s a

t h

om

e i

n %

of

po

pu

lati

on

1

5+

(2

00

2/2

00

3)

r= .891*

Lux excluded

EE

LT

SI

PLBG

RO LV SK HU

CZ EL

PT

ES FR

IE

IT BE

AT

NL

DK

FI

SE

UK

DE

11

12

Beyond “hard” indicators

• Differences in R&D and infrastructure investments alone cannot explain the persistence of the territorial digital divide

• Rather than levelling regional disparities, ICTs seem to have exacerbated existing inequalities

• Disparities seem to be related to the effectiveness with which ICTs are used to transform traditional ways of doing things

• The ability to use ICTs in a transformative way appears to be influenced by cultural factors

• Need for more insight into Regional Innovation Cultures

13

Ongoing work

• TRANSFORM (2006-2008)– Focus on indicatores on “soft” issues which underpin

regions’ ability for transformative use of ICTs

– Key issues: Regional innovation cultures, social capital (bonding / bridging / linking), networking capital, impact of ICT usage, empowerment, participation

– Revised top down approach: Indicators are developed based on conceptual framework, then tested during case study fieldwork in 16 regions across Europe

– Specific Support Action (“Scientific Support for Policy”)in FP6

– Consortium: empirica, CURDS, eris@, IRISI, CARPAT

14

More information at: www.biser-eu.com

www.transform-eu.org (soon)

E-mail contact:

transform@empirica.com empirica Gesellschaft für Kommunikations- und Technologieforschung mbHOxfordstr. 2D-53111 BonnTel.: (+49) 2 28 - 9 85 30-0Fax: (+49) 2 28 - 9 85 30 -12

or contact:

Thank you!