EXPLAINING THE GLOBAL DIGITAL DIVIDE:

THE IMPACT OF PUBLIC POLICY INITIATIVES ON E-GOVERNMENT

CAPACITY AND REACH WORLDWIDE

Girish J. “Jeff” Gulati & David J. Yates

Bentley University

Anas Tawileh

Cardiff University

Research Questions

Do national policy initiatives to promote information and communication technologies (ICTs) increase a nation’s capacity for e-government?

Do public policy initiatives to advance information and communication technologies increase a nation’s diffusion of ICTs?

Motivation

Improving e-government capacity is a priority for policymakers. Past research has not assessed the impact of national public policy initiatives on e-governance capabilities for a large number of countries.

Bridging the digital divide is also an important concern for policymakers. No previous large-N studies of the digital divide have assessed the impact of public policy initiatives that should expand access to ICTs.

We explore the impact of national policy initiatives on e-government capacity and diffusion of ICTs.

Research Hypothesis 1

National policy initiatives to promote information and communication technologies (ICTs) increase a nation’s capacity for e-government.

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 e-government capacity.

Research Hypothesis 2

National policy initiatives to advance information and communication technologies (ICTs) increase a nation’s diffusion of ICTs.

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 wider diffusion of ICTs.

Dependent Variables and Models Model 1:

Web Measure Index (WMI) — UN 2008 Multivariate regression analysis using four

(4) national policy variables

Model 2: Digital Opportunity Index (DOI) — ITU 2007 Multivariate regression analysis using same

four policy variables

Independent Variables for Both Models

Policy Variables (1) – (4) National regulatory authority (NRA) from ITU ICT Eye

= { 0, 1 for Yes } Competition for providing basic telecommunication services

= { 0, 0.5, 1 for full competition } Competition for providing mobile telecommunication

services = { 0, 0.5, 1 for full competition }

Financial investment additive index with seven (7) components from World Bank

Control Variables Affluence (United Nations’ Human Development Index(HDI)) Democracy (Center for Systemic Peace’s Polity 2 score) Political freedom

additive index with two (2) components from Freedom House

Impact of a National Regulatory Authority

W e b

M e a s u re

In d e xHave an NRA

Have no NRA

Have no NRA: Average WMI = 0.21 Top 3 = Japan, Israel & China

Have an NRA: Average WMI = 0.39 Top 3 = Denmark, Sweden & USA

Impact of Competition (Basic Svcs)

W e b

M e a s u re

In d e xPartial

Competition

Monopoly

Monopoly: Average WMI = 0.21 Top 3 = Israel, Egypt & Bolivia

Partial Competition : Average WMI = 0.26 Top 3 = UAE, Chile & China

Full Competition: Average WMI = 0.48 Top 3 = Denmark, Sweden & USA

Full Competition

Impact of Competition (Mobile Svcs)

W e b

M e a s u re

In d e xPartial

Competition

Monopoly

Monopoly: Average WMI = 0.23 Top 3 = Costa Rica, Kuwait &

Lebanon

Partial Competition : Average WMI = 0.33 Top 3 = Denmark, UAE & Estonia

Full Competition: Average WMI = 0.42 Top 3 = Sweden, USA & NorwayFull

Competition

Impact of Financial Investment

W e b

M e a s ur

e

In d e xFinancial Investment Index

Bottom 1/3 : Average WMI = 0.21 Top 3 = Peru, Guatemala &

Venezuela

Middle 1/3 : Average WMI = 0.35 Top 3 = UAE, Mexico & Spain

Top 1/3 : Average WMI = 0.48 Top 3 = Denmark, Sweden & USA

Policy Variable E-government Capacity

(WMI, Model 1)

National regulatory authority

0.072 **

Competition in basic services

0.095 ***

Competition in mobile services

0.070 **

Financial investment index

0.052 **

Unstandardized coefficients. Significance: *** = 0.01, ** = 0.05

Policy Initiatives and E-Government Capacity

Supports Research Hypothesis 1All policy variables have a positive impact on e-government capacityHas greatest significance

for e-government capacity

Policy Variables and E-Government Capacity

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized

B Std. Error Beta Sig.

(Constant) -0.332 0.068 0.000

Affluence (HDI) 0.717 0.077 0.552 0.000

Democracy (Polity 2) 0.004 0.002 0.149 0.006

Political freedom index 0.002 0.016 0.007 0.921

Policy variables

National regulatory authority (1=present) 0.072 0.031 0.120 0.019

Competition in basic services (1=full) 0.095 0.028 0.184 0.001

Competition in mobile services (1=full) 0.070 0.035 0.101 0.046

Financial investment index 0.052 0.025 0.114 0.036

N = 173; Adjusted R Squared = 0.658; Std. Error of the Estimate = 0.134.

Multivariate Regression Analysis of the Web Measure Index

Impact of a National Regulatory Authority

D ig it al

O p p or

tu ni

ty

In d e xHave an NRA

Have no NRA

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

Impact of Competition (Basic Svcs)

Partial Competition

Monopoly

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

Full Competition

D ig it al

O p p or

tu ni

ty

In d e x

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 & IcelandPartial

Competition

Monopoly

Full Competition

D ig it al

O p p or

tu ni

ty

In d e x

Impact of Financial Investment

Financial Investment Index

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

D ig it al

O p p or

tu ni

ty

In d e x

Policy Variable ICT Diffusion

(DOI, Model 2)

National regulatory authority

-0.022

Competition in basic services

0.031 *

Competition in mobile services

0.033

Financial investment index

0.023

Unstandardized coefficients. Significance: * = 0.1

Policy Initiatives and Diffusion of ICTs

Partially supports Research Hypothesis 2

Competition in basic serviceshas a positive impact on diffusion of ICTsAlmost significant for diffusion

of ICTs

Policy Variables and Diffusion of ICTs

Multivariate Regression Analysis of the Digital Opportunity Index

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized

B Std. Error Beta Sig.

(Constant) -0.208 0.039 0.000

Affluence (HDI) 0.807 0.044 0.744 0.000

Democracy (Polity 2) 0.000 0.001 -0.015 0.688

Political freedom index 0.037 0.009 0.189 0.000

Policy variables

National regulatory authority (1=present) -0.022 0.018 -0.045 0.207

Competition in basic services (1=full) 0.031 0.016 0.073 0.062

Competition in mobile services (1=full) 0.033 0.020 0.057 0.105

Financial investment index 0.023 0.014 0.059 0.114

N = 171; Adjusted R Squared = 0.834; Std. Error of the Estimate = 0.077.

Impact of Policy Initiatives for both Models

Policy Variable E-government Capacity

(WMI, Model 1)

ICT Diffusion(DOI, Model 2)

National regulatory authority

0.072 ** -0.022

Competition in basic services

0.095 *** 0.031 *

Competition in mobile services

0.070 ** 0.033

Financial investment index

0.052 ** 0.023

Unstandardized coefficients. Significance: *** = 0.01, ** = 0.05, * = 0.1

Implications and Conclusions

Nations that (1) have a national regulatory authority and (2,3) have competition to provide telecommunication services and (4) encourage financial investment in ICTs are the most likely to have increased e-government capacity.

Nations that (2,3) have competition to provide telecommunication services (especially basic services) are the most likely to have wider diffusion of ICTs.

Having a national regulatory authority and encouraging financial investment in ICTs do not appear to impact ICT diffusion for a nation’s citizens.

Future Work

Expand and refine policy variables For example, understand and analyze impact of

national regulatory authority policies and regulations

Consider additional outcome variables Alternative e-government or digital divide

metrics

Adoption of emerging e-government services

Diffusion of next-generation information and communication technologies