UN Global E-government Survey 2003

Acknowledgements

This Survey was a collaboration between the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) and the Civic Resource Group (CRG), private sector consulting firm providing technology solutions in e government. The UNDESA team [Seema Hafeez (author), Neena Koshy and Jerzy Szeremeta] who worked under the guidance of Guido Bertucci, Director of the UNDESA Division for Public Administration and Development Management, developed the underlying conceptual framework of the Survey, devised the survey methodology; and prepared the analysis of the data and its presentation. We would like to thank the Civic Resource Group, Dr. Gregory G. Curtin and Robert B. McConnachie, its two Managing Directors as well as the researchers: Kim J. Andreasson, Veronika Vis-Sommer, Michael Sommer and Christopher J. Walker took on themselves meticulous review of the web sites and development of a database and research web site that were updated and maintained throughout the project. Their contributions provided not only the indispensable data, but also allowed to adjust the surveying methodology and gave richness to the analysis of the results.

i

Contents
I. The Imperative of E-government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 I.1. I.2. I.3. The challenge of e-government for development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 The potential of e-government: a historic opportunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 UN efforts towards bridging the digital divide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

II. Benchmarking E-government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 II.1. The UN Global E-government Survey 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 II.1.1 The conceptual framework, methodology and data measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 A. The state of e-government readiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 B. The extent of e-participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 III. Research Findings and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 A. Major findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Global e-government readiness rankings . . . . . . . . . . C. E-government readiness by country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . North America and Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . South and Eastern Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . South-central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Western Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . South and Central America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caribbean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oceania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

IV. Web Measure Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 IV.1 Stages of service delivery analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 IV.2. Stages of service delivery by country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 V. The Extent of E-participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 VI. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 VII. The Promise of the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Tables, Part II
3.1 Global E-government Readiness Rankings 2003: Top 25 Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.2. Regional Indices, 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.3. E-government Readiness Index, North America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.4. E-government Readiness Index, Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

1

. . . . . . . . . . . Selected Countries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 3. . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected Developed Countries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 3. . . . . . . . .3 4. Telecommunication and Human Capital Indices for South and Central Asia.2 4. . . . Top 25 Countries . . Stages in E-government.5. . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-participation Index. . . . . . 28 E-government Readiness Rankings in South-central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 E-government Readiness Rankings in South and Central America . . . . 38 Telecommunication Indicators in Latin America. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected Countries . . . . . . . . . Selected Countries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Service Delivery by Stage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 On-line Profile of UN Member States . . . . . . . .7 3. . 29 E-government Readiness in Western Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 E-participation Aspects in National Programmes . . . . Networked Presence. . 52 E-participation by Functional Classification . . . .2 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . Selected Countries. Top 20 Countries. . . . . .3 5. . . . Top 20 E-government Ready Countries. Selected Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Selected Common Characteristics of Country Websites. .6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 5.. . . . . . . . . . . . . Top 20 E-government Ready Countries . . 55 E-participation by Income Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Top 22 Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 4. . .12 3.1 E-government Readiness Rankings 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Service Delivery by Stage. . 36 E-government Readiness Rankings in the Caribbean . . . Telecommunication Indicators in Selected Latin American Countries .5 4. . 42 E-government Stages by Income Classification.1 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regional Disparities in Telecommunication and Human Capital. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 E-government Readiness Rankings in Africa. . . . . .4 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 3. . E-government Readiness Index by Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 3. . . . . Enabling Environment for E-government. . .8 4. . .4 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Enabling Environment for E-government. . Selected Developing Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected Countries . . Enabling Environment in Africa. . . . . . . . . Selected Countries . . . . . . . . 27 Enabling Environment Indicators in South and Eastern Asia. . . . . . . Top 25 Countries . . . . . . . . .14 4. . . . . . Europe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 4. . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . . 34 Telecommunication Measures in Africa.8 3. 37 Web Measure Index 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Comparative Picture of Telecommunication Indicators in Eastern Asia. . . . . . . Enabling Environment. . . 24 E-government Readiness Rankings in South and Eastern Asia . . . . . . . 37 E-government Readiness Rankings in Oceania. . . . . . . . . . 21 21 22 25 28 30 30 35 39 41 45 46 48 49 54 2 . . .1 4. . . . . . . . . . . 43 Information and Service Delivery by Stage. . .2 5. . Selected Regions . . Transactional Presence. . . .2 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected Developing Countries . . . .10 3. . . . 44 E-participation Index 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 3. Part II 3. . . . . . . . . Selected European Countries. . . . 55 Graphs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . G2C e-partnerships: inventive indigenous E-government in Sri Lanka. . . . . . . . . Telecommunication Indicators 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Armenia’s on-line forum promotes democratic participation . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . interactive health website . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 4. .: two approaches to e-participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 50 . . . 60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Telecommunication Indicators 2003 . . . . . The U. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Boxes. . . . . .2 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 3. . . . . . .1 4. . . . . 8. 5. . 6. . . . Part II 1. . . . . . . .S. . . . . . . . . . . . Telecommunication Indicators 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 47 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Human Capital Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. . . . . 56 Annex I: Data Tables 1. . . .4 4. . . . . . .1 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 3 . . . . . . . . . . 51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 . . . . . . .K. . . . . . 61 64 70 73 79 85 91 97 . 2. . . . . E-participation Index 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Technology Infrastructure Index 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Open Sweden . . . . . . 49 . .II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . Mongolia: listening to citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Components of E-government Readiness Index Web Measure Index . . .100 E-government Readiness Index 2003 . . . . . . . . . . Australian interactive job listing . . .1 2. . . . . . . .1 E-health for all: UN supports the developing world.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .K. . . . . . . . . . . . . and the U. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 4. E-participation framework . . . . . . . Innovative community-owned rural internet kiosks in Gyandoot. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I . . . . . . . . . . . Annex II: Technical Notes .5 4. . . .1 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 47 . . . . . . . . . . . 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-government nomenclature . . . . . . 16 . . . . India . . . . . . . . . . . . Cambodia: It is all about the focus.6 5. . . . .

E-government readiness strategies and programmes will be able to be effective and “include all” people only if. I.for all. However. Information Technology (IT) applications. which includes knowledge of computer and Internet use. expand and constantly update e-networks. First. investment and finance opportunities of the world into transnational networks. Governments the world over are recognizing the power of global communication tools. and forming cross-boundary virtual communities for collective action. all have functional literacy and education. some countries are finding it difficult to divert scarce resources towards ICT applications. economic and social power structures. The primary challenge of egovernment for development therefore. training for the new modes of business is necessary. at the very minimum. in revolutionizing markets. leading to an expanded global marketplace for goods. all of which require outlays of government expenditure. is how to accomplish this. human capital and e-connectivity . it has also generated a new challenge for many countries where technological capability and human resources are not sufficiently developed. All this needs to be backed up by reform of the legislative and regulatory framework. In many instances. services and ideas. This recognition has come about as a result of two recent interrelated phenomena. and creating monitoring and feedback systems. recent advances in Information and Communication Technology (ICT) have presented new approaches for the integration of these networks and the improvement of the efficiency of businesses and services worldwide. Effective integration of e-service delivery into development strategies requires programming and planning. At the same time.1 The challenge of e-government for development The potential of e-government as a development tool hinges upon three pre-requisites . such as the Internet. business and society. especially innovative e-government programmes are increasingly becoming the cornerstone of government operations. In the process. Effective e-government strategies and programmes require revisiting the traditional systems of transactions among government. with countries seeking new ways to provide more competitive products and services. secure and private. the revolution in information technology has made unprecedented amounts of information available around the globe. 4 . all are connected to a computer. and to make these interactions accessible.a minimum threshold level of technological infrastructure. considerable financial resources are required to establish. Many countries are adapting their public sector systems in accordance with the changing environment. and all have access to the Internet. to complement efforts at digitizing government for interaction with business and the public. innovative applications have highlighted the potential of using ICT to reduce costs and improve the productivity and efficiency of transactions. which impinge on what was traditionally government domain.I. Second. people are learning of the immense opportunities presented by virtual global networks for reforming political. research and development. Led by the private sector. The Imperative of E-Government Governments are increasingly becoming aware of the importance of employing e-government to improve the delivery of public services to the people. Furthermore. It is this disparity between opportunity and feasibility that could lead to a deepening of the “digital divide”. the rapid pace of globalization has interwoven the intra-country trade. providing access to learning and knowledge infrastructure. Whereas the technological revolution has created new opportunities to tackle socioeconomic development. The states are also faced with the complex challenges posed by the proliferation of transnational global e-networks.

9 An U.7 The cost of inaction far outweighs the benefit of adopting a global and holistic approach to sustainable development that takes full account of the potential of e-government.. there appears to be convergence. the potential for e-government in the service of people is vast. government endeavour has made it possible for teachers to access all curricula on line. worldwide.. where already scarce resources are devoted to more traditional models of economic. in Australia teachers can upgrade skills/information at an on-line website provided for this purpose. the gap between the leaders (primarily OECD countries) and laggards (primarily African and some CIS countries) is growing. the social divide and the democratic divide among peoples of the world. as well as information about careers and postgraduate studies. If unchecked. Within the OECD countries that are leading in connectivity. human and technological development. Similarly.g. business and the public at large interact with one another. Governments worldwide are aware of both the challenges and the potential of e-government. the Government of Sweden has established a one-stop shop for all Swedish higher education opportunities. They are also becoming aware that the rapidly developing knowledge societies .13 Furthermore. government is providing upto-date... Analysis of relative measures such as the population-weighted Gini coefficient for inequality reveals high initial levels of inequality approximately twice the average country level of income inequality.5 per cent of the population had on-line access. In general. and 57 out of 191 member states of the UN have populations where one in five can neither read nor write. I. in 2003. the UN Secretary-General’s Report on the Commission On Science And Technology states that “. the U.in absolute terms. which the future promises. the cost of inaction could lead to a shift of power structures outside the traditional parameters of the state. around 20 per cent do not have access to safe water and sanitation12.K. Internet hosts).11 From April 2003.. A meta-data application ensures that the search engine can find up-to-date information on every single course. roughly half of the world’s population of six billion has never made a telephone call14 while.have the potential to generate a greater demand for increased participation and empowerment by people.08/day1. More mature technologies (e..6 In the initial stage of the evolution of e-government there is a fear of the widening of the digital divide within and among countries. compared to more recent technologies (e. With increasing business and people e-networks.. Around 24 per cent of the world’s people live below the poverty line on $1. that energizes planners to bring the use of e-government into national development strategies. only 9. cross-referenced health and social care information through the Internet to all in 5 .”8 It is this potential.. “. while OECD countries and South Eastern Asian “Tigers” are getting ahead.Funds for such purposes are not available in many parts of the world. Latin American and transition economies are keeping up.15 In evaluating the extent of regional disparities.2 The potential of e-government: a historic opportunity Despite challenges. Realizing this potential..10 All that is needed is access to a computer with Internet and the willingness to learn. E-government is transforming the ways in which the government. African and South Asian countries are falling behind. As the UN Secretary-General has stated. To wit..information technologies can give developing countries the chance to leapfrog some of the long and painful stages of development that other countries had to go through. telephone lines) are more evenly distributed.g. quite a few countries have initiated innovative e-government programmes for providing socio-economic services to all...K.even though they constitute a small proportion of today’s population . the impact of the digital divide in today’s globalized world is likely to greatly exacerbate the economic divide.

tribal dominated rural area of Madhya Pradesh. It uses a community radio programme as an interface between the community and the Internet through a pioneering “Radio-browse” model. conditions and treatments.” 17 With the help of UNESCO. Making a serious commitment to e-government in 2000. The UN ICT Task Force.16 I. and thereby make government more accountable.14 Development of an integrated e-government facility is supported by an Internet legal framework. Thus. the Government of Sri Lanka has launched a truly inventive rural-based e-government programme that encapsulates the potential of e-government according to the vision laid out by the UN. even with minimum financial investment. These information kiosks have dial-up connectivity through local exchanges on optical fibre or UHF links.18 Supported by resource personnel. The server hub is a Remote Access Server housed in the computer room in the District Panchayat. In India. the Government of Colombia mandated all federal government agencies to develop a portal that would make public information more readily available to the public. thereby introducing indirect mass access to cyberspace through a daily one-hour interactive radio programme..the country. programme countries and other relevant stakeholders in accordance with relevant United Nations resolutions.. helping to formulate strategies for the development of information and communication technologies and putting those technologies at the service of development and. 94 per cent (190 out of 203) of all Colombian government agencies had a presence on the Web. private industry and financing trusts and foundations. saving the farmers . businesses (and the public at large) can access government procurement information on line. Along with the installation of a low cost rural Intranet covering 20 villages. the UN system is providing assistance to enable member states to avail themselves of the opportunity to “leap frog” in their development cycle. forging a strategic partnership between the United Nations system. technologically innovative and sustainable information kiosks in a poverty-stricken. clinics and public health facilities in the developing world. donors. Today it offers many services. established in 2001. to bring high-quality information within reach and to facilitate communication in the public health 6 . With simple on-line access both patients and doctors can access reference information on a variety of diseases. The World Health Organization has established a Health InterNetwork that creates websites for hospitals.many of whom cannot even read or write . The Kothmale Community Radio Internet Project is one of the most innovative e-government pilot projects. The Colombia integrated services website is an example of a one-stop national portal with links to every government agency website and easy access to government-related information.3 UN efforts towards bridging the digital divide For its part. the “Gyandoot” project is recognized as an example of how innovative e-government programmes can support public services in far-flung areas. information kiosks were established in these villages.15 All government regulations since 1900 are available on line.13 Some developing countries. investment plans and strong relationships with the private sector in ICT-related projects. Sweden has an on-line job vacancies portal comprising six labour market databases that are steadily growing in scope and use.time. have initiated highly innovative e-government programmes that are also cost effective and vastly enhance the delivery of social services. It was launched in 2000 to establish community-owned. the radio programme raises awareness about the Internet in a participatory manner. is “. too. In addition. By May 2001. money and effort in their daily transactions. the broadcasters browse the Internet on-air together with their listeners and discuss and contextualize information in the local language.12 Several countries are engaged in providing on-line databases for employment. on the basis of consultations with all stakeholders and Member States.

Guided by a technology advisory group.1 E-health for all: UN supports the developing world In September 2000 the Secretary-General of the United Nations launched a publicprivate initiative to bridge the digital divide in health. skills or health information need only access an on-line computer. “. software and Internet connectivity to pilot sites. As a key component of the project. Towards that end. especially in far-flung areas where lack of human and physical infrastructure has traditionally been expensive.healthinternetwork. Those seeking more education. the Health InterNetwork brings together international agencies. The portal will also make available information technology health applications such as geographical information systems and epidemiological tools.must become unrestricted and affordable worldwide. social service practitioners and beneficiaries can gain access to state-of-the-art solutions to their problems. Box 1. People could have access to information about charitable organizations. foundations. non-governmental organizations and corporate and local private sector partners are involved in specifying. With government providing the initial lead in the developing countries. using the Internet. NGOs and other philanthropic ventures providing guidance. timely and appropriate . Source: http://www. health information . foundations. They can have the world at their fingertips. so that all communities can benefit from this global public good. long gestation programmes in education.. plus courses and training offered through distance learning. the private sector. difficult to monitor.1. Job seekers in far-flung areas need not be limited to the local markets in their search for employment. to improve skills and knowledge or seek initial guidance on an emergency medical problem.. health or social service delivery.php As the website for the UN/WHO Health InterNetwork states.community.”19 Such programmes can greatly benefit social service infrastructure deficit countries by jumping the timeline of traditional.org/src/millenium. (See Box I. The coming 7 . such endeavours could also mushroom into citizen-to-citizen provision of services. social work.. providing and supporting hardware. and therefore often neglected. Connectivity: for information and communication The Health InterNetwork seeks to establish or upgrade thousands of Internet-connected sites in public and not-for-profit institutions in developing countries. non-governmental organizations and country partners under the principle of ensuring equitable access to health information.) It aims to improve public health by facilitating the flow of health information and ensuring equitable access to health information.. perhaps a shared community one. have their concerns transmitted to the relevant policy makers.. development agencies. and participate in home-grown solutions in a much reduced time frame and at their convenience. Spearheaded by the World Health Organization (WHO). With instantaneous transmission of two-way information.The Health InterNetwork was created with one single purpose: to bridge the digital divide in health.relevant. solutions and financial assistance. the Health InterNetwork portal provides a vast library of the latest and best information on public health.

. it is equally important to highlight the promise of e-government. as evidenced by web presence. the Survey and its results must be placed in the context of the overall pattern and level of development of the country concerned.. a context in which globalization can benefit all. The promise of e-government is that it offers an historic opportunity to make the impossible possible for developing countries.holds the promise of delivering in instances where many other innovative approaches could not in the past. prosperous and just world. Second. education. As a reseracher points out. as well as on participation. e-government . monitorable targets for. The ultimate goal remains development with the opportunity for people’s empowerment. Its focus is on the question. and culture and society. the Survey conceptualizes models and quantitatively assesses the strengths and weaknesses in e-government initiatives of countries worldwide.. this is an issues-based Survey. II. the member states “.. 8 . And it is this opportunity for the “inclusion of all” that is the vision of the United Nations. Benchmarking E-government The conceptual framework adopted by this Survey is the vision of human development provided by the UN Millennium Declaration. are available to all.” 23 Though still in its infancy. main measurements in this Survey are based on e-government readiness.. economic and social structures. which set out a vision for the future based on principles of “.. albeit a powerful one..if applied correctly .”20 By setting specific. “Is e-government. At the same time.. “the new model (of governance) brings information systems (IS) to the heart of reform. It is vital that the assessment of websites done by the Survey does not provide a distorted picture of the progress made .” It confirmed the commitment of the member states “.”21 One commitment they made was to “ensure that the benefits of new technologies. e-government in this Survey is considered to be the means to an end. contributing to the socio-economic uplift of the people?” In attempting to answer this question. among other things. in keeping with the UN Millennium Declaration. However. but does not supplant.. if applied effectively.1 The UN vision of development for all In September 2000. which.together of the global community will further opportunities for knowledge and people’s empowerment.. It supports. business and consumers.. the development efforts of member states. can contribute substantially to promoting human development. to government and governance.by the countries. as a tool. Fourth. the 189 member states of the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Millennium Declaration. a more peaceful. this requires developing the effective use of e-government programmes for governance. the end being development for all.and challenges faced . first of all. it should be noted that e-government is not a universal panacea... Third. prosperity and justice constitute a social context that is best suited for achieving human development. which duly takes into account not only countries’ specific e-government initiatives.. Innovative approaches are needed.3. As such. health and environment..agreed that peace. I. It is considered to be a tool at the disposal of the government. the focus of the Survey is on provision of socio-economic services to the population through the use of e-government as a programmatic tool... poverty reduction. Therefore..”22 The challenge of development today requires revisiting political. but also their infrastructure and human resource endowments. For states.to making the right to development a reality for everyone and to freeing the entire human race from want. especially information and communication technologies. It is only a tool.

sometimes complemented by the results of interviews with government officials. E-government and e-government readiness are. Studying various aspects of ICT-related readiness of countries around the world is currently a growth industry. almost all previous surveys have only provided an assessment of the websites.Finally. A few assess customer services through products and services offered on several websites in a country. E-government and/or e-government readiness surveys range in geographical coverage from those that focus on a handful of developed countries to those covering most countries of the world. among other factors. Each country has to decide upon its level and extent of e-government initiatives in keeping with its indigenous development framework. Using a model for the measurement of digitized services. a function of not only a country’s state of readiness. 9 . the Survey assesses the 191 member states of the UN according to a composite index of e-government readiness based on website assessment. but also its technological and telecommunication infrastructure and the level of its human resource development. A few delve into assessing government provision of state and local level services. focus on the burgeoning on-line business services. however. As before. mostly in the industrialized countries. It assumes that e-government comprises electronic interactions of three types: government-to government (G2G). Almost all allow a qualitative assessment in their numerical scores. At any given point in time. legislative and judiciary organs of the State. while “consumer/citizen” includes any member of the public at large (individuals as well as organizations). the Survey assesses e-government readiness worldwide. The majority. telecommunication infrastructure and human resource endowment. are unlikely to contribute significantly to development if they reach only the privileged few. II. E-government initiatives. and government-to-consumer/citizen (G2C) and its reverse. sophisticated as they might be. Furthermore. it assumes that a “government” encompasses the executive. governmentto-business (G2B) and its reverse. This Survey contributes to the development efforts of the member states by providing a benchmark against which to gauge their comparative state of e-government readiness and e-participation within an overall framework. however. Others focus on more sophisticated issues of privacy and electronic voting. This Survey contributes to the development efforts of countries by providing a benchmark to gauge the comparative state of e-government readiness and e-participation for development in a rapidly globalizing world It should be noted that the Survey does not imply that “higher” rankings are necessarily a “better” outcome or even a desirable one.1 The UN Global E-government Survey 2003 The UN Global E-government Survey 2003 expands and builds upon the UN Report “Bench-Marking E-government: A Global Perspective” published in 2002. e-government readiness and e-participation rankings are mere snapshots of the state of a country’s e-government programme. taking the view that the ultimate objective remains the “inclusion of all” in development.

g. Government-to-Business (G2B) involves business-specific transactions (e. since improvements in G2C and C2G are closely linked to G2G improvements. This includes interactions related to the delivery of public services as well as to participation in the consultation and decision-making process. The Model of E-government State Government Central Government Local Government Private Sector Integrated e-Networks Civil Society Department of Labour Department of Social Welfare Department of Finance Department of Health Department of Education Public 10 . payments with regard to sale and purchase of goods and services) as well as provision on line of business-focussed services. provincial and local levels. Based on this perspective. The two-way information flows between the government and the consumer/citizen are presented below graphically in the Model of E-government adopted by the Survey. as well as exchanges among the national. Although the Survey does not assess G2G services. the Survey adopts a people-centric approach to e-government. This involves both intra. It limits itself to exploring government-to-consumer/citizen (G2C) and consumer/citizen-to-government (C2G) relationships. 2.1 E-government nomenclature Government-to-Government (G2G) involves sharing data and conducting electronic exchanges between governmental actors.and interagency exchanges at the national level.Box. Government-to-Consumer/Citizen (G2C) involves initiatives designed to facilitate people’s interaction with government as consumers of public services and as citizens. in the comparative measurement of G2C and C2G relationships is an implicit assessment of G2G.

Present a snapshot of the state of comparative e-government readiness of the countries of the world. This Survey provides an appraisal of the use of e-government as a tool in the delivery of services to the consumer. Drawing on broader. The Survey names this as e-participation. methodology and data measurement The UN Global E-government Survey 2003 presents a comparative ranking of the countries of the world according to two primary indicators: 1. This Survey presents a snapshot of the state of comparative e-government readiness of the countries of the world. II. the Survey focuses on the issue of how willing and ready governments around the world are to employ the vast opportunities offered by e-government to improve access to . This Survey provides a comparative assessment of the willingness and ability of governments to involve the public in e-participation. Provide a benchmarking tool for monitoring the progress of countries as they move towards higher levels of digital public service delivery in the future. 3.The objectives of the Survey are to: 1. 11 . and.1 The conceptual framework. Provide an appraisal of the use of e-government as a tool in the delivery of services to the public in its capacity as consumer of such services. and 4. this Survey confines itself to an assessment of the e-facilities on line. The Survey names this the e-government readiness. more expanded research. on the part of the government. high quality information (explicit knowledge)24 and effective communication tools that support human development. both in their capacity as consumers of public services and as citizens.basic social services to the people. This Survey provides a benchmarking tool for monitoring the progress of countries as they move towards higher levels of digital public service delivery in the future.1. and 2. to use ICT to provide high quality information (explicit knowledge) and effective communication tools for the specific purpose of empowering people for able participation in consultations and decision-making. The extent of e-participation The concept of e-government in this Survey espouses two aspects: The generic capacity or aptitude of the public sector to use ICT for encapsulating in public services and deploying to the public.and the quality of . The state of e-government readiness. Provide a comparative assessment of the willingness and ability of governments to involve the public in e-participation. The willingness. 2. While not detracting from the importance of other forms of assessment of IT applications.

Web Measure Index The Web Measure Index is a quantitative index. Enhanced Presence. which is a quantitative five-stage model. They are: Emerging Presence. i. Transactional Presence and Networked Presence. the Telecommunication Infrastructure Index and the Human Capital Index. 12 . e-participation assesses the same from a qualitative perspective. and building upon the previous level of sophistication of a government’s on-line presence. which has been revised and enhanced from last year’s version to measure the generic aptitude of governments to employ e-government as a tool to inform.It should be noted that while the E-government Readiness Index assesses the quantity of information and services provided. interact.) The five stages. with a special focus on consultation and decision making. The state of e-government readiness E-government Readiness Index 2003 The E-Government Readiness Index is a composite index comprising the Web Measure Index. As countries progress in both coverage and sophistication of their state-provided e-service and e-product availability they are ranked higher in the Model according to a numerical classification corresponding to five stages. ascending in nature. For the governments that have established an on-line presence. Interactive Presence. are theoretically ascending in the level of maturity or sophistication of e-government presence on-line. It is based upon a theoretical Web Presence Measurement Model. (See chart. the model defines stages of e-government readiness according to a scale of progressively sophisticated services. transact and network. given in the schema below. A.

There are some facilities for on-line bidding for public contracts via secure links. introduces a value judgment based on the researcher’s perspective. such as paying fines for motor vehicle violations. and on-line consultation facilities. audio and video capability for relevant public information. laws and regulation. The user can search for a document and there is a help feature and a site map provided Stage III: Interactive Presence Government’s provision of on-line services enters the interactive mode. Stage I: Emerging Presence Stage II: Enhanced Presence Stage III: Interactive Presence Stage IV: Transactional Presence Stage V: Networked Presence Stage V: Networked Presence A G2C framework based on an integrated network of public agencies for the provision of information. security link. bank or debit card.Web Presence Measurement Model Stage I: Emerging Presence Web presence through an official website. discussion forums. a national portal or an official home page. which however perfect. The government officials can be contacted via e-mail. Stage II: Enhanced Presence On line services are enhanced to include databases and sources of current and archived information. knowledge and services. services/products. The purely quantitative nature of the Web Measure Index assures minimizing the bias inherent in combining qualitative assessments with quantitative measures. basic and static. 13 . by design. newsletters and downloadable databases. such as policies. regional/local government. Government solicits feedback through on-line polling mechanism. links to government ministries. A calendar of upcoming government events exists with a government invitation to participate. The site is updated with greater regularity. The emphasis is on feedback to the government. facilities for on-line downloading. reports. Countries are scored on the basis of whether they provide specific products and services. Stage IV: Transactional Presence Users are able to conduct on-line transactions. as well as quality measurements. The model. the Survey eliminates any discretionary rating. does not attempt to measure the quality of those products or services provided by the government. and delivery of. thus setting it apart from other models/surveys that combine access to. A web comment form is provided. fax. all in one indicator. electronic signature facility. information is limited. As such. taxes and fees for postal services through their credit. non-executive branch of the government. telephone and post.

a national portal or an official home page. Interactive Presence. license renewals and other similar C2G interactions by allowing him/her to submit these on line 24 hours a day. such as policies. telephone and post. Some archived information such as the head of state’s message or a document such as the constitution may be available on line.e. The 2003 Web Measure Index builds upon the previous year’s assessment in several ways. The users are able to pay for relevant public services or expenses (e. the government provides sources of current and archived information. though some form of input from the public is admitted through provision of e-mail and other contact information to answer simple questions. i. laws and regulations.Emerging Presence. Audio and video capability is provided for relevant public information. where e-government readiness for provision of on-line public services enters the interactive mode with services to enhance convenience of the users. labour and finance may exist. fees for postal services) through their credit. applications for license renewal etc. bank or debit cards.g. The government is willing and able to involve the society in a twoway dialogue. newsletters and downloadable databases. At this stage. 14 . as well as links to regional/local government and branches other than the executive one of the federal government. the government actively solicits the views of people acting in their capacities as consumers of public services and as citizens. from G2C. Through employing the use of web comment forms. These may include downloadable forms for tax payment. A total of 191 countries were assessed. taxes. But most information remains static. the coverage has been expanded to include all UN member states. Networked Presence. and innovative online consultation mechanisms. birth certificates/passports. reports. This. A government web presence is established through an official website. Enhanced Presence. representing information that is limited and basic. The user can search for a document and a help feature and site map are provided. The government officials can be contacted via e-mail. The government at this stage has not employed e-government to fully inculcate citizen participation. stage in the schema. the fourth stage in the evolution of e-government initiatives. They are based on a questionnaire that required the researchers to assign a binary value to the indicator based on the presence/absence of specific electronic facilities/services available. Though offering some enhanced capabilities. fax. This is the highest mode of e-government initiatives in the schema characterized by an integration of G2G. the interaction is still primarily unidirectional. Backed by simple user-friendly instructions. G2B (and its reverse) and G2C (and its reverse) interactions. fines for motor vehicle violations. On the public participation side. social welfare. the Web Measure assessments are purely quantitative in nature. The site is updated with greater regularity to keep the information current and up to date. This is the first stage of e-government readiness. e-government efforts are still limited to providing one-way information to the public. that need to be printed but may be mailed back to an agency . these obviate the necessity for the physical presence of the users or utilization of other than electronic means for paying taxes or applying for ID cards. and relatively more sophisticated. budgets. E-procurement facilities are available with providers of goods and services able to bid on line for public contacts via secure links. health.a task that traditionally could only be carried out by making a trip to the agency concerned. Second. Implicit in this stage of the model is the integration of consultation and collective decision making. This is the third. Though more sophisticated. Links to ministries/departments of education. allows users to complete entire tasks electronically at any time. seven days a week. a greater menu of relevant government documents may be available such as strategies and policy briefs on specific issues. First. Transactional Presence.

Social Welfare. additional government sites were assessed. Education. Telephone Lines/1. These are: PCs/1. Data for the UN member states was taken primarily from the UN International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and the UN Statistics Division and supplemented by the World Bank.000 persons. Countries with decentralized structures of national and provincial government and governance in the dispensation of public services. to provide a consistent platform for comparative analysis across the countries studied. numerical scores were adjusted accordingly so as not to penalize them. Finally. these additional five sites were chosen to reflect the people-centred approach of the Survey. a wide difference emerged among countries in the level of economic and social services offered on the government websites.) 15 . the additional sectoral sites chosen for assessment were the Ministries/Departments of Health. The research team assessed the websites on the quantity and the maturity (or level of sophistication) of services dispensed electronically. the primary site was the National Portal or the official homepage of the government. Therefore some of the websites assessed in the Survey may have been augmented during the period that elapsed between the time when the research was undertaken and the official launch date of the Survey in November 2003. the same number of functionally same/similar sites were assessed in each country. such as education and health. On-line population/1. weighted average index of six primary indices. In all. 288 services and facilities for 191 countries were assessed across the above mentioned sectors.000 persons. to ensure consistency across countries. This removed the arbitrariness of choosing which site to assess from among the multiple government sites available. Telecommunications Infrastructure Index The Telecommunication Infrastructure Index 2003 builds upon and expands the 2002 Infrastructure Index.000 persons. In such instances. Mobile phones/1. the Survey limited itself to a pre-chosen set of five government ministries or departments. Since the Survey’s primary objective is to measure e-government effectiveness in the delivery of basic economic and social services. does not detract from the comprehensiveness of the Survey and is unlikely to impact on the comparative e-government readiness ranking of countries presented here.000 persons. ii.Third. This. While acknowledging that many governments dispense economic and social services via state/local websites. each ministerial site was assessed using the same set of questions. Not surprisingly. A caveat is in order about the web measurement in the Survey. Fourth. These were representative of what services the public requires most from the government. Labour and Finance. since the use of integrated portals or websites is gaining in importance in the e-government strategies of states worldwide. based on basic infrastructural indicators that define a country’s ICT infrastructure capacity. (See Technical Notes in Annex II for details on the construction of the indices. To accurately differentiate the level of sophistication of each functional site. Since many governments do not have one-stop portals. The data across countries was standardized by constructing six separate indices for the indicators. had little or nothing on line on the central government’s ministerial/departmental site. The sites were carefully checked and revisited several times. however. and TVs/1. It is a composite. The assessment of online services was carried out during April-May 2003.000 persons. However it should be kept in mind that websites worldwide are rapidly being updated with the addition of new features.000 persons. which may differ in sophistication within a country. the Survey confined itself in 2003 to central government website assessments only. Since the numerical index is dependent upon the sites chosen. Internet users/1.

As such. The government encourages citizens to participate in discussions. including web forums. newsgroups and chat rooms... inclusive. The concept employed here holds a deliberative thought process to be superior. This is a composite of the adult literacy rate and the combined primary.”25 Within this framework. It offers a choice of public policy topics on line for discussion with real time and archived access to audios and videos of public meetings.iii. and other briefs of key public interest. budgets. this Survey limits itself to exploring only government willingness to promote such groups through the use of the ICT. the Survey does not make any value judgement on democracy in its traditional nuanced meaning. allowing genuine participation by all citizens in all (our) countries. (See Technical Notes for details. with two thirds of the weight given to adult literacy and one third to the gross enrolment ratio. secondary and tertiary gross enrolment ratio.. it confines itself to citizen- 16 . irrespective of any differences in political. e-mail lists. E-consultation: The government website explains e-consultation mechanisms and tools. In devising the conceptual framework for e-participation. The extent of e-participation i. Whereas e-participation endeavours around the world are not limited to state sponsored e-groups but encompass a plethora of interactions that involve citizens. and the right of the public to have access to information. social and cultural regimes across countries. laws and regulations.” This can be achieved via: a) Using ICT to increase the supply of information useful in the process of consultation and for decision making. Human Capital Index The data for the Human Capital Index 2003 relies on the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) “education index”. NGOs and business organizations. deliberative process of decision-making. e-participation is defined here to be a “participatory. economic. b) Using ICT to enhance consultation. Box.2. Tools for dissemination of information exist for timely access and use of public information. and c) Using ICT to support decision making by facilitating people’s participation within the framework of G2C and C2G interactions..2 E-participation framework E-information: The government websites offer information on policies and programmes..) B... The E-participation conceptual framework Included in the vision of the UN General Assembly Millennium Declaration is the reaffirmation by the member states that they “.resolve to work collectively for more inclusive political processes. E-decision making: The government indicates that it will take citizen input into account in decision making and provides actual feedback on the outcome of specific issues.

relevancy of the information and services provided. The comparative ranking of countries is purely for illustrative purposes. an effort was made to look for government attempts to use ICT to engage citizens. ii. health. ii. the Survey makes no claim to conducting any impact assessment of the egovernment readiness and e-participation endeavours of member states. quality and relevancy above rests primarily on website assessments. are an important determinant of the level and extent of all e-government programmes. usefulness to the citizen as a user. This Survey acknowledges that any measurement of a “utility” indicator will impart a bias in scores based on the researcher’s perspective. though an extremely important indicator of the effectiveness of e-government programmes. economic and social sectors: general. willingness (if any) of the government to provide relevant information and services. iii. necessarily. the measurement of willingness. participatory decision making in public policy matters. and iv. Finally. the Survey also acknowledges that e-government programmes worldwide reflect political economy models and levels of development. the resulting scores should be interpreted with caution. human and technological infrastructure. requires a qualitative assessment. As stated earlier. some countries may choose to put out information while others may not. the measurement of the “willingness” to provide information and services. quality of the services/products it offers on the websites for this purpose. and finally. Consequently these parameters have an impact on the comparative e-participation scores and the ranking of the countries. financial constraints. for effective e-government readiness. For instance. First. finance and employment. on the other hand. A scale of 0-4 was used in the assessment process. education. the Survey found it difficult to construct a questionnaire with a full range of the features of political e-participation. as described in Chapter III. the results assume the existence of e-participation at a rather rudimentary level.26 The index was constructed by standardizing the scores. on the side of politics. but more in the consultative rather than in the direct decision-making process. Whereas every caution was taken to limit this bias. Part I of this Report. social welfare. the regulatory and administrative framework. level of development. For example. Therefore. Data and methodology for the e-participation index An assessment of a total of 21 public informative and participatory services and facilities was undertaken for 191 countries in e-information. as this Survey has stated earlier. the Web Measure Index includes a quantitative assessment of e-participation. Third. A few words of caution in interpreting the e-participation data are necessary.to-government (C2G) and government-to-citizen (G2C) interaction only. is a qualitative measure employing proxy indicators for the: i. Thus. as it exists. E-participation. 17 . Second. The determinant of the willingness of countries in terms of what they put out on their websites are political ideology and commitment. Fifth. economic and social systems. and encourage the public to be active in promoting deliberative. Fourth. e-consultation and e-decision making across six general. This would have resulted in a score of zero or very close to zero for the overwhelming majority of countries. especially on developing countries. financial and other resources. the questionnaire and consequently the results were tuned to the reality.

and between . South-central Asia (0. 7.351). Research Findings and Analysis A. There appears to be a gradual. At present e-government websites are mushrooming around the globe in a haphazard manner. but steady. E-government readiness rankings 8. 3.241).countries in the provision of on-line information and basic public services. State and sectoral websites reflect wide variations among . Western Asia (0. the Caribbean (0. 81 per cent of countries provide website information in either English or French. Major findings Global e-government expansion and design 1. Africa (0. Oceania (0.867) and Europe (0.292) and finally. while in Western Asia the majority of state websites are in Arabic. Arabic.442) have the highest aggregate state of e-government readiness followed by South and Eastern Asia (0. English or both. by 2003. In Africa. This Survey confirms that North America (0. 28 9. 6.401). French. In the rest of the world.558) lead among the world regions. 27 2. Countries can . unified fashion is uneven. 5.and do .jump from the stage of emerging or enhanced presence with limited information to the transactional stage or networked stage in a short time. More and more countries are employing a one-stop-shop portal for integrated delivery of information and services. In 2001. However the ability of the various governments to develop and present them in an integrated.410).e. Governments have made rapid progress worldwide in embracing ICT technologies for e-government in the past year. English appears to have become the language for e-government presence on line. Twenty-four of the top 25 countries and 39 of the top 50 countries have either or both. There are no evolutionary development stages in e-government. Spanish. specialty portals and one-stop service sites. There is no one model of e-government development. Eighteen countries were not on line. About 88 per cent of South and Central American and Caribbean countries provide websites in either Spanish. 18 . English. the UN E-government Survey listed 143 member states as using the Internet in some capacity. South and Central America (0. i.III. Chinese and Russian. One hundred and twenty-five out of 173 countries provide websites in the English language in addition to their native language. a clear e-government policy/statement and a specific e-government portal. 4. There is a strong correlation between the existence of a formal e-government policy/statement and/or e-government portal and the overall quality and ranking of a nation’s sites on the various web measure indices.437). 91 per cent or 173 out of 191 member states had a website presence. trend toward national portal/gateway sites. Eighty-eight per cent of the countries surveyed have websites with information in one or more of the six UN languages.

(0. 15.927) is the world leader followed by Sweden (0. 20.831).814).746) leads. (0.10. 19. Australia (0. Many developed countries are not fully utilizing the possibility of “including all”. Finally. E-participation and the promise of “inclusion of all” 13. ICT-facilitated information and services reach only the privileged few in the developing countries. everything that the Survey has revealed confirms that the imperative for effective e-government remains a multi-pronged approach to its development. 18. There is no standard formula for effective e-government. Denmark (0.778).402. Many industrialized nations are not as advanced as popularly perceived in providing people-centred transactional and networked services. the U.S. only a handful of countries worldwide are utilizing close to the full potential of e-government. followed by the Republic of Korea (0.671). 17.697) and Chile (0. Estonia (0. Since the websites are inter alia a reflection of the country’s willingness to share information and knowledge with the people. Most developing countries are at the initial three stages of e-government development with little or no transactional or networked services.806) and Norway (0. Their examples provide model illustrations of the promise of e-government. The world average e-government readiness is 0.820). 12. Despite popular belief. There is a real possibility of the digital divide widening between e-haves and e-havenots in the developed and in the developing world. 21. 11. Despite difficulties. some developing countries have taken a great leap forward.K. based on 19 . The research affirms that the state of e-government readiness in a country is a function of the combined levels of its economic and technological development and human resource development. 16. Among the developing countries Singapore (0. political ideologies appear to determine what is to be public knowledge.populations that are neither literate nor connected to a computer. At present. 14.744). A few low-income developing countries lead the way in adopting indigenous approaches to use of an e-government on-line presence to provide information and services to populations in far-flung areas . The determinants of differences in e-government services range from political and economic models to inequities in financial. Canada (0. 23. in several instances.840). Inequities inside and among countries in telecommunication and human capital development pose serious constraints on the use of e-government for knowledge creation and the empowerment of people. 22. human and technical capital. The U.

B. 11. 12. 18. Global e-government readiness rankings Table 3.840 0. e-government can push the frontiers of development around the globe.746).656 20 .1 present the global e-government readiness rankings for the top 25 countries among the UN member states. Among the developing countries. If effectively utilized. a few middle-income developing countries are in the group. 5. 8.831 0. 15.814) and Canada (0.806 0.718 0. two to Oceania and one Country E-government each to Western Asia and South and Central America.670 0.663 0. two to Top 25 Countries North America. Denmark (0. Sweden Australia Denmark United Kingdom Canada Norway Switzerland Germany Finland Netherlands Singapore Republic of Korea New Zealand Iceland Estonia Ireland Japan France Italy Austria Chile Belgium Israel Luxembourg 0.671) are among the top 25 e-government ready countries.671 0. followed by Sweden (0. the United Kingdom (0.402.820).927 ready countries.697 0.744).764 0. 20.690 0. No country from Readiness Index South-central Asia or Africa made it into the list of the top 25 e-government 1. three to South and Eastern Asia.ICT and human and telecommunications infrastructure development.746 0.778 0. 17.831).927.402.814 0. 4. With a global average of 0.697 0. these top 25 countries are far ahead of the rest of Global E-government the world with rankings that range 60 to 200 per cent higher than the globReadiness Rankings 2003: al average. Region wise.806). Though the industrialized countries make up the majority. 3. 16 out of 25 countries belong to Europe.693 0. 16.84). United States 0. 21. 23. Australia (0.697) and Table 3. Estonia (0. 24.676 0.685 0. 22.761 0.1 and Graph 3. 14. 10. Most of the high-income developed economies rank the highest and considerably higher than the global average of 0. 7.762 0. 19.820 0. the Republic of Korea (0. 2. The United States is the current global leader with the highest index of 0. 6. 25.702 0. indicating a fast “catch up”.746 0.1 Chile (0.737 0. 13. 9. Singapore (0.

Graph 3.1.

Graph 3.2.

E-government Readiness Rankings 2003, top 25 countries
United States Sweden Australia Denmark United Kingdom Canada Norway Switzerland Germany Finland Singapore Netherlands Republic of Korea New Zealand Iceland Ireland Estonia Japan France Italy Austria Chile Belgium Israel Luxembourg 0.84 0.83 0.82 0.81 0.80 0.77 0.76 0.76
0.558

E-government Readiness Index by region
0.867

0.92

0.442 0.437 0.410 0.401 0.351 0.292 0.246

ro pe nt Sou ra th lA a m nd er ica So Ea ut ste h a rn nd As ia We ste rn As ia Ca rib be an

nia

ica

nt ra As l ia ce

er

ea

Am

Eu

Oc

0.74 0.74 0.74 0.71 0.70 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.65

N

Graph 3.2 above presents the e-government readiness of the various regions of the world. As can be seen, North America and Europe lead, followed by South and Central America, South and Eastern Asia; Western Asia, the Caribbean and Oceania. South-central Asia and Africa have the lowest average e-government readiness. The results reflect the picture of the top 25 countries. Underpinning this aggregate snapshot in time is the level of economic, social and political development of these countries. Low e-government readiness in South-central Asia and Africa is a reflection of the lowest telecommunication index across the board; a relatively low human capital index; and the second lowest web measure index among all regions of the world. The regional averages in the table do not only point out the low levels of infrastructure and human capital resources in several regions of the world; they also highlight the fact that the indicators for North America and Europe for these are around 5-10 times higher in the case of the human resource base and around 4-20 times higher in the case of infrastructure development. For example, if the U.S. is taken as the comparator, even though 40 per cent29 of its population is still not on line, the telecommunication readiness of Africa and South-central Asia is 1/20th that of the U.S. South-central Asia, which has about one third of the world population, has about 20 per cent of the average human

Ce

So

ut

h-

Af

ric

0.76

a

21

capital capacity of the U.S. These disparities are presented in a tabular and graphic form below.
Table 3.2

Regional Indices, 2003i
Web Measure North America Europe South and Central America South and Eastern Asia Western Asia Caribbean Oceania South-central Asia Africa 0.882 0.418 0.379 0.355 0.241 0.192 0.217 0.195 0.137 Telecommunication Index 0.738 0.422 0.123 0.197 0.204 0.168 0.138 0.035 0.036 Human Index Cap. 0.980 0.783 0.823 0.750 0.748 0.845 0.697 0.268 0.521 E-Government Readiness Index 0.867 0.558 0.442 0.437 0.410 0.401 0.351 0.292 0.246

Graph 3.3.

Regional disparities in telecommunication and human capital
.0.98 0.845 0.823 0.748 0.783 0.882 0.738 Web measure Telecom Index Human Cap Index

0.75

0.521

0.355

0.195 0.035 0.268

0.241 0.204

0.379

0.418 0.422

0.123

e

be an

S Ea out ste h a rn nd As ia So ut hce nt ra As l ia We ste rn As ia

nt Sou ra th lA a m nd er ica

Eu ro p

er ica

ric a

Af

Am

rib

Ca

i In regional presentations, the Report will follow "Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings" of the UNDESA Statistics Division (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/,49regin.htm)

22

Ce

N.

Oc

ea n

ia

0.217 0.138

0.197

0.137 0.036

0.192 0.168

0.697

C. E-government readiness by country
North America and Europe Tables 3.3 and 3.4 present the country indices. Among the world regions, Europe is only second to North America and has emerged as an innovator in e-government initiatives and programmes. Of the total 42 countries grouped under Europe, around 75 per cent had e-government readiness indices above the global mean.
Table 3.3

E-government Readiness Index, North America
Web Measure Canada United States Average 0.764 1.000 0.882 Telecommunication Index 0.675 0.801 0.738 Human Index Cap. 0.980 0.980 0.980 E-Gov. Readiness Index 0.806 0.927 0.867

Table 3.4

E-government Readiness Index, Europe
Among others, the U.S. (0.927), Sweden (0.84), Denmark (0.82), the U.K. (0.814) and Canada (0.806) have a long history of e-government initiatives. The US has been a leader in digital services the longest. Between 1993 and 2001 the U.S. government launched over 1,300 independent initiatives, which were eventually synthesized into a national e-government strategy.30 The success of the global leaders is due to several factors. E-government programmes in leading regions have sought to increase efficient service delivery to the public as well as to include greater participation in public policy on line. This enabling environment is well able to sustain expansion of sophisticated e-government programmes in the future. Successful e-government programmes also reflect a country’s willingness to share information and knowledge with its people. The long history of political development, democracy and the independence of the private sector and various organizations in these countries dictates that governments be open and participatory to “include all”. However, despite the success stories, there are wide variations in the state of e-government readiness. In general, countries such as Switzerland (0.764), Germany (0.762), Netherlands (0.746), and Austria (0.676) are more e-government ready then those in Eastern and Southern Europe. Whereas Poland (0.576) and Bulgaria (0.548) are leaders in Eastern Europe they remain considerably
Country Sweden Denmark United Kingdom Norway Switzerland Germany Finland Netherlands Iceland Estonia Ireland France Italy Austria Belgium Luxembourg Portugal Malta Slovenia Spain Poland Lithuania E-government Readiness Index 0.840 0.820 0.814 0.778 0.764 0.762 0.761 0.746 0.702 0.697 0.697 0.690 0.685 0.676 0.670 0.656 0.646 0.636 0.631 0.602 0.576 0.557 Bulgaria Czech Republic Greece Croatia Slovakia Hungary Latvia Romania Ukraine Russian Federation Belarus Serbia and Montenegro Republic of Moldova 0.548 0.542 0.540 0.531 0.528 0.516 0.506 0.483 0.462 0.443 0.397 0.371 0.363

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 0.362 Albania Bosnia and Herzegovina San Marino Monaco Liechtenstein Andorra Average 0.311 0.309 0.280 0.189 0.178 0.174 0.558

23

059 0.568 0.94 0.685). Selected European Countries Web measure Index Italy Portugal Malta Slovenia Spain Greece Croatia Serbia and Montenegro The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Albania Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.284 0.441 0.409 0.840) ranks the highest in Europe and higher than even the average for Northern European countries (0.oresunddirekt.616 0.5 and Graph 3.737 Sweden (0. remain constrained by the lack of both finance and infrastructure as they attempt to reform their economies.372 0.88 0. It provides information on the Swedish side in Danish.291 0.083 0. There is also a telephone hotline.499 0. E-government programmes in Albania (0.asp) providing user-centric information for the public and for enterprises at both sides of Oresund.131 Infrastructure Human Capital Index Index 0.88 0.5 Enabling Environment for E-government.424 0.32 24 . Bosnia & Herzegovina (0.460 0.328 0. Table 3. Portugal (0. In parallel to the portal “front office”.80 0. especially the countries with economies in transition. such as Italy (0. and information on the Danish side in Swedish.94 0.com/dk/engelsk. the Government Cabinet.4 below present the enabling environment for a selected group of these countries and demonstrate intra-European disparities in this regard.97 0.636).134 0.31 Another innovative portal is a joint Danish-Swedish initiative (http://www. the straight separating Denmark and the southern tip of Sweden. One innovative portal (http://www.309) and Serbia & Montenegro (0.371) are in the early stages of development with mostly limited provision of information and services.94 0.428 0.111 0.646) and Malta (0.gov.049 0.694 0.490 0.114 0. and the Parliament even though no material is available in English.se/) brings together all legal text produced by the Swedish state agencies. Many countries of Eastern Europe.lagrummet.507 0.311).92 0. including those of Southern Europe.860 0.717). the public authorities on both sides have been organized into a “back office” network. a dictionary and a news subscription.513 0. Table 3. Swedish Innovative Portals present excellent examples of the potential of e-government.below other European countries.

In an attempt towards improving cost effectiveness and efficiency. direct access to consultation documents.294 25 . the “Your Life” and “Do it Online” sections provide the user with quick access to anything one could need in a people-centric.92 Uk ra ine 0. global leaders have been quick to seek the regulatory and administrative reform necessary for the integration of e-networking into G2G and G2C interactions.541 0.ogc.92 0.248 0. An index of ongoing consultations.38 0. The governments followed in an attempt to reform the way the state interacts with society.89 0.207 Re Czec pu h bli c pu b Mo lic o ldo f va Fe Rus de sia ra n tio n ar lan lga lar an ng Be Bu Po m Hu The United Kingdom (0. where the search for cost effectiveness had led the way to achieving greater efficiency and service provision.uk. Europe. found in the top-level “Citizen Space” section of the national site. Over time this has evolved into a focus on employing a one-stop-shop portal for the integrated delivery of information and services for convenience.537 0. Though not a focus in this Survey.07 0.312 0.349 0.814) is decidedly among the innovative leaders in the provision of one-stop e-government initiatives. website assessments revealed that innovative egovernment programmes in developed countries followed e-initiatives in their private sectors. Re Ro Slo va kia us y 0. effectiveness and empowerment.386 0. This is only the beginning of a gigantic wealth of resources that offer everything from a one-stopshop for goods and services. Most notable are its consultation features.116 0. well-thought-out e-strategy. Selected Countries Web measure index Infrastructure index Human Cap Index 0.9 0.Graph 3.92 0. Further. including e-procurement.94 0.147 ria d ia 0. financial means are an important determinant of successful e-government initiatives.91 0.93 0.349 0.223 0. as this Survey states earlier.185 0.9 0. http://wwww.4. A major contributing factor in successful e-government programmes in most of the North American and European countries is a comprehensive.88 0. Moreover. and directly related policy discussion forums make this citizen participation section a model to emulate.gov.122 0.12 0.307 0.419 0. Enabling Environment for E-government. Most developed countries have had the necessary financial means to invest in developing and expanding egovernment service delivery. easy-to-use manner.149 0.

ee/et/) national site and system of portals and one-stops.gc. and useful links to a range of national. a state function in the U. one can customize not only news releases but also the home page itself. In addition to a special focus on news and basic information. “government without borders”.S.FirstGov.e. French and English. Federal Employees.lsp?k=sv) scores fifth among the countries of the northern European region. regional and local government information).everything from web forums to on-line forms. By registering.ca) is clear evidence that nations. It links all departments and agencies. based on extensive user input.fi/vn/liston/base.gov”. which provides citizens with the opportunity to comment on proposed federal regulations. containing some 180 million pages. (See also the “In their own words” section of Chapter II. “seniors. nevertheless guides the user directly to the correct state agency. as well as one-stops for employment. such as the e-government site. has been recently redesigned. Non-Canadians and Canadian Business. i. The most notable feature of the government of Norway’s websites is an integrated government services portal (http://www. inviting user testing and comments. Though the site offers an e-dialogue service where one can chat live with a representative. the connections between the national site and the services site are weak. the Finnish e-government site provides a host of services offered on line .canada. Finland (http://www.ie). The Canadian national portal (http://www. (http://www. and a wireless access (WAP) site. Businesses and Non-profits. and BASIS (Business Access to Services Information and Support).riik. (http://www. There is a strong emphasis initially on providing all the basic information and features for the people..firstgov. is so detailed it even provides seniors with their own portal. Notable among its many features is the new “Consulting Canadian” feature.) Recently redesigned.valtioneuvosto.org) the United States national government portal. the Citizens Homepage link to “Renew Your Driver’s License”. regional and local information and services. with new information and features added on what seems a daily basis. regional and local government information and services through a single gateway.gov” portal for commenting on federal regulations.S. all-of-government access to national. The site now channels users into primary sections for Citizens. Added to this are a host of other on-line information services and seamless connections to other websites in both of Canada’s national languages. the site is now streamlined and simplified in both its graphic design and navigation. FirstGov network. illustrate the potential of strategic e-government planning. For example. site as lacking in citizen participation have been quelled with the launch of the new “regulations. a two-year collaborative project currently testing the viability of a central all-of-government site (with integrated national. This was initiated during the Survey period as a pilot project. the On-line Access to Services.reach. and even communities can and must work to find the look. Some of the more innovative ventures include a comprehensive and featurerich e-Tenders one-stop. governments.norge. and on laying 26 . The Ireland e-government initiative provides an example of the political commitment and the quality of on-line programmes. Previous criticisms of the U. FirstGov is also pioneering what is likely to become an e-government trend. Estonia’s (http://www. including an e-government portal and a citizen participation site. Part I. and then formally launched as an integral part of the site. “Oasis”.no one size fits all. government benefits and even teacher recruitment. It revolves around three basic information gateways: Canadians. state.S. Easy-to-find and easy-to-use information and tools are the hallmarks of the Irish sites. The comprehensive U. Several useful one-stops are available. Political leadership and commitment are important factors in employing e-government as a tool for development. and Government to Government. feel and approach to e-government that will work best for their specific situation .no). Information and Support.

The country takes a two-way approach to implementation: the Viet Nam 0.gov.746 emphasis on services is complemented by quality news and information. electronic signature and other necessary legal and technical requirements.korea. i.416 information. The Republic of Korea’s sites provide a fairly comprehensive range of information. clearly Singapore (0. In Estonia.693 national gateway site is a new and evolving e-government site.kr. Though Philippines 0.357 government information portal on one hand and the government service portal (www.e.343 other.422 feedback and commentary. often provided by a top-rated commercial provider.744) and Japan (0. the two government portals .sg/) national government site is one of the E-government Readiness best-organized sites in existence.459 reports to real-time news and on-line language courses in Korean. 27 . Republic of Korea 0. open.524 on line at present. however.” The heavy Singapore 0.192 future. The former is focused mainly on providing government information Myanmar 0.693) are the regional leaders.will be linked together and integrated into a single government Timor-Leste 0.go.6 Singapore (http://www.087 portal. providing an effective starting point for Rankings in South and the user to find just about anything related to the government. The integration and linkages among the various sites. minwon. The Thailand 0. The Table 3.437 and services are still being worked out.744 Though still a way off from an integrated portal.go.kr) on the Mongolia 0.kr. the Republic of Korea Japan 0. information Average 0.the information portal and the service portal .go.264 between the government and the public. from subway information and financial Brunei Darussalam 0.korea. South and Eastern Asia As the table below shows.746). only a few can be initiated Malaysia 0. There is Eastern Asia everything from an on-line Government Mall to an on-line donations E-government portal. on-line transactions Cambodia 0.574 there are numerous links and various services.446 gateway portal also includes an open bulletin board system for general Indonesia 0. plans to make all forms and applications submittable on line have been held up while the government works out security. including businesses. Many governments have begun to employ innovative e-strategies along the lines of those in the developed countries to provide information and services to the public. a basic but effective approach to disseminating China 0. is the E-Citizen portal Readiness Index where government services are literally “A Click Away. and at about the same level as many European countries in their state of e-government readiness. E-government programmes in both Singapore and the Republic of Korea provide a lot of information and services.the foundation for building more sophisticated services and transactions. the Republic of Korea (0. Most notable on the homepage. The challenge for Estonia is to further improve digital services by expanding its on-line transactions. In the Lao People’s Democratic Republic 0.korea.280 and the latter on providing government services.

kh).480 0. One 0.045). As can be seen.org. The Transparent Accountable Governance (TAG) (http://www.93 such example is Cambodia (http://www.003) are only at a fraction of their level. the Cambodian national site includes a small survey section.045 Human Cap Index 0. 0.292 0.250 0.747 0. Indonesia (0. especially for a deve-loping country.626) and the Republic of Korea (0.7 dia pa Ko Ch Ja ga on an of Ind Sin My 28 Re p.95 interactive question and answer section.5 372 19. an 0.91 open topic discussion forum titled “Opinions”. Despite limitations.84 meeting the threshold for a formal on-line consultation system.040 0. Although not 0. the Philippines government has initiated efforts to improve the efficiency of government services to the public.79 A graphic representation of the on-line population and availability of PCs/persons in selected South and Eastern Asian countries is presented in Table 3. the reach of e-initiatives is limited to a small proportion of the population.087 0.8 where the government’s resource focus appears to be on 0.7. Despite the fact that at present.004 0.004) and Myanmar (0.8 1.5 3.064).1 0.266 0. why and Graph 3. deficient infrastructure is a very serious constraint on the potential of e-government programmes to reach all.85 engaging citizen input.607 0. and an 0.75 ties for citizens to interact with the government.675 0.5.127 0.5 .2 1. including policy documents and decision guidance. the on-line participation features at the Cambodian site represent a big step in that direction.7 Enabling Environment Indicators in South and Eastern Asia.116 0.140 0.ph) project in an attempt to summarize how. A comparative picture of telecommunication indicators in East Asia.8 1.432 Telecom Index 0. Ca m bo La o po es m US ia ar s 597.86 0.380 0.8 0.524 0.626 0. Cambodia (0. Selected Countries Web measure Brunei Darussalam Cambodia China Indonesia Japan Malaysia Mongolia Myanmar Philippines Republic of Korea Thailand 0.Table 3.66 0.cambodia.tag.3 11 19 35.332 0. some countries have taken the leap in initiating innovative e-government programmes.8 PCs/1000 Online pop/1000 464 508. the Philippines (0.117 0. Whereas Japan (0.675) have a high level of telecommunication infrastructure.3 493 382.003 0. selected countries 625 555. Focusing on providing opportuni0.gov.3 re re a ina n 0.064 0.

247 0. telecommunication infrastructure is severely lacking in South Asia.165 0. investigative reports. case studies and discussions to engage the public in a discussion on corruption.373 0. The TAG website also presents the initiatives of both government and the private-sector in addressing corruption. Maldives (0. The cost of telephones and the Internet are high relative to the per capita GDP of many of the South Asian countries. TAG takes a pro-active role in encouraging public debate on the issue of corruption and ways to counter it.335 0. the political will to empower citizens is an important contributor towards an effort at e-government for all.385) follow but their e-government readiness remains much below the world average. Major power outages are experienced. More than in other parts of the world. despite financial and other limitations.157 0. the potential of e-government to development could be enormous. not available to all. Additionally.410).387) and Sri Lanka (0. The same is the case in Pakistan.to what degree corruption exists in Philippine society. South-central Asia The countries in South-central Asia score low in their state of e-government readiness. not only for the region but for the world as a whole. However. Kazakhstan (0. the relatively lower level of human development impedes access to all. Graphs 3.410 0.292 29 . the serious limitations on literacy and education Table 3. E-government Readiness Index Maldives Kazakhstan Sri Lanka India Turkmenistan Iran (Islamic Republic of) Kyrgyzstan Nepal Pakistan Bangladesh Bhutan Afghanistan Average 0.385 0.6 and 3.327 0.33 The research findings illustrate that. especially outside the major towns. Irregular or non-existent electricity supplies are a common feature and a major barrier to the use of ICTs. which scores the highest in human capital. is also the regional leader. the lack of infrastructure and education has limited the enabling environment in India and the reach of e-government to include all.8 confine the benefit of e-government to the E-government very few.387 0. Despite much progress in ICT. especially in the rural areas in India and Pakistan. Computers and cell phones remain luxury items.118 0.268 0. though its e-government readiness index is about at the level of the global mean. The approach relies on public opinion survey research.330 0.7 illustrate the defiReadiness Rankings ciencies in infrastructure and human resources in South-central Asia within the countries of South-central Asia and in comparison with other regions of the world. With 20 per cent of the global population living in the Indian sub-continent alone.

04 0.09 0.195 South-central Asia 0.91 0. 30 0.57 0.268 0.02 0.42 0.6 Telecommunication and human capital indices for South and Central Asia 0. the low level of purchasing power of the vast majority of the populations.48 0. some Asian developing countries are reaching out to their populations through highly innovative e-government initiatives in a remarkable effort to “include all”.92 0.437 0.04 0.Graph 3.268 0.036 Africa South and Eastern Asia Furthermore.84 0.355 0.04 0.4 0.246 0.87 Telecom Index Human Cap Index 0.01 0. Notwithstanding.521 0.42 0. the lack of development of an adequate regulatory framework and an inadequate integration of operations among various government agencies and departments imposes a serious constraint on e.07 0.410 Telecom Index Human Cap Index E Readiness Index 0.035 0.03 n an pa ka h n ia n n n s Ind sta sta nis ut lad Ne kis ldi an Bh ga kh Ma ng Pa rg Sr Af Ba Ka Ky Graph 3.9 .748 0. selected region Web measure 0.75 0.750 0.204 0.7 Enabling environment.government reach and expansion.292 0.197 Tu r km za en yz iL ist a ta Ira es ve ta n l 0.137 0.03 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.241 Western Asia 0.

with its server. browse the Internet on-air together with their listeners. This information is explained and contextualized with the help of studio guests. Nearly 20 individual websites were prepared by community members and hosted on the station’s server. a local doctor may explain data on a health website. Source: The World Bank. For example. which broadcasts a daily “Radio Browsing the Internet” programme.htm In some developing countries e-government initiatives are model illustrations of the promise of e-government. The access points turn the community radio station into a local Internet service provider. The radio station. 31 . The model is based on the following interdependent components: Facilities such as computers. the station provides skills training to help community members develop their own websites and encourages them to produce content for the Internet. The Kothmale Community Radio Internet project is an access model that reduces these barriers and empowers marginalized communities in rural areas. http://www1. E-Government: Sri Lanka case study. was the first pilot experiment in Sri Lanka to develop a suitable access model to address most of the concerns above. who are available at the radio station to help community members surf the Internet. the radio programme raises awareness about the Internet in a participatory manner. it requires special efforts to create appropriate access models for those who can neither afford Internet access nor have the language capacity to understand the content.1 G2C e-partnerships: inventive indigenous e-government in Sri Lanka Though e-government programmes have the potential to offer a new set of tools for rural development.Box 3. implemented by UNESCO. The Kothmale project uses community radio as an interface between the community and the Internet through a pioneering “Radiobrowse” model. In addition. provides Internet access at two nearby public libraries.worldbank. and discuss and contextualize information in the local language. The listeners request the broadcasters to surf the Web on their behalf and the programme transmits information in response to their requests. The radio station also develops its own information database from requests received from listeners. Countries such as Sri Lanka and India lead the way in adopting indigenous approaches to providing information and services to populations in farflung areas . The community radio station. The broadcasters. supported by resource personnel.populations that are neither literate nor connected to a computer. The Kothmale Community Radio Internet Project.org/publicsector/egov/srilanka. thereby introducing indirect mass access to cyberspace through a daily one-hour interactive radio programme. dedicated Internet connectivity and trained volunteers. Thus.

32 . The following services are now offered at the kiosks: Agricultural Produce Auction Centres Rates: Prevailing rates of prominent crops at the local and other recognized auction centres around the country are available on-line. limited typing (software is menu driven) and numeric data entry skills. population 1. over 600 villages and a population of around half a million (nearly 50 per cent of the entire district). Information kiosks have dial-up connectivity through local exchanges on optical fibre or UHF links. meetings were held with villagers to gather their input.7 million. User fees are charged at the kiosks for the services provided. A villager had to go out in search of the patwari (village functionary who maintains all land records). who often was difficult to get hold of as his duties include extensive travel. India Characteristics of the area: Dhar district in central India. To file complaints or submit applications. as a result of which farmers were unable to get the best prices for their agricultural produce. Copies of land records also were difficult to obtain. Kiosks have been established in the village Panchayat buildings. tribal dominated rural area of Madhya Pradesh. The entire network of 31 kiosks covers 311 Panchayats (village committees). resulting in a loss of wages/earnings. 60 per cent below the poverty line. people had to go to district headquarters (which could be 100 miles away). technologically innovative and sustainable information kiosks in a poverty-stricken.2 Innovative community-owned rural Internet kiosks in Gyandoot. The Project: The Gyandoot project was launched on 1 January 2000 with the installation of a low cost rural Intranet covering 20 village information kiosks in five Blocks of the district. A local person with 10 years of schooling (matriculate) can be selected as an operator. running these information kiosks along commercial lines. approximately two million farmers require these extracts at every cropping season to obtain loans from banks for purchasing seeds and fertilizers. The server hub is a Remote Access Server housed in the computer room in the District Panchayat. Copies of Land Records: Documents relating to land records including khasra (record of rights) are provided on the spot. He/she needs only maintenance. On-line Registration of Applications: Villagers had to make several visits to the local revenue court to file applications for obtaining income/caste/domicile certificates.Box 3. Among the concerns highlighted by villagers was the absence of information about the prevailing agricultural produce auction centre rates. Issues: During the design phase of the project. Objective: to establish community-owned. Local rural youth act as entrepreneurs.

Only one trip is needed . During the first 11 months. child marriage.351 0.355 0.429). functioning of schools or village committees etc.411 0. Jordan (0.) Some kiosks also have added photocopy machines. Arab and non-Arab countries in the region follow. On the other hand. the kiosk network was accessed 1.510 0.424) and Qatar (0.506 0.535 0. a large part of which is due to their lower level of human/capital and technology infrastructure.370 0.Now.474). Cyprus (0. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) (0. these countries are at a higher state of e-government readiness than many in the Africa or South-central Asia regions. Syria (0. equipment and other durable commodities.9 E-government Readiness in Western Asia E-government Readiness Index Israel United Arab Emirates Bahrain Turkey Cyprus Jordan Lebanon Qatar Armenia Kuwait Azerbaijan Oman Georgia Saudi Arabia Syrian Arab Republic Yemen Average 0. agricultural machinery. employee establishment matters. notification about the readiness of the certificate is sent via e-mail to the relevant kiosk. and horoscope services.377 0.188) currently indicate a deficient level of e-government readiness. the 31 Gyandoot kiosks were used nearly 55.worldbank.410 A supportive enabling environment is reflected in the highest e-government readiness index of Israel (0.429 0.9 presents the e-government readiness of the countries of Western Asia.188 0. information regarding government programmes.338 0. That number reached nearly 9. scholarship sanction/disbursement. Village auction site: This facility makes auction facilities available to farmers and villagers for land.200 times for a variety of services. quality of seed/fertilizer. Other services offered at the kiosks include on-line matrimonial advertisements. Turkey (0.htm Western Asia Table 3. Lebanon (0.000 in July.402.535). Supported by financial investment and efforts at regulatory and administrative reforms. having e-government readiness indices above the global mean of 0. However. 33 .to collect the certificate.506).364 0.474 0. e-mail (free for information on child labour.510).411) have put tremendous effort into developing their e-government programmes in recent years.663) in Western Asia. On-line Public Grievance Redress: A complaint can be filed and a reply received within seven days. http://www1. including for drinking water.264) and Yemen (0. Table 3. In January 2000. Source: The World Bank. Bahrain (0.663 0.org/publicsector/egov/gyandootcs.000 times. the first month of operation.264 0. a forum that enables school children to ask questions (“Ask an Expert”). they may send the application from a kiosk and within 10 days. illegal possession of land belonging to Scheduled Tribes etc.424 0. STD PCO.

370 Togo 0.233 home site guest book provides interesting readAlgeria 0. the Seychelles 0. but the e-Dirham programme is broadly available to the public. launched the e-Dirham system and site.265 0.270 0.299 0.420 Malawi 0.34 On-line banking has already taken off in a few countries like Lebanon and the UAE. The Government of Saudi Arabia has digitized its ministries and is planning to provide information and services to the public over the next five years.126 0.253 0. states that someone will actually respond to comments made .246 Africa With an average index of 0. weekE-government ly news releases.244 0.140 0. even prayer times .322 0. there is a link to an excellent e-tender site.304 0.241 Sudan Senegal Angola Burundi Djibouti Comoros Mozambique Gambia Mauritania Mali Burkina Faso Guinea Ethiopia Sierra Leone Niger Somalia Average 0.347 Madagascar 0.128 0.049 0. the Government of the UAE.235 http://www. albeit for different reasons. Oman provides an impressive amount of useful information.161 0. live TV. to e-Tender and e-Payment one-stop-shop portals. promises to encompass a wider range of people-centred services and transactions in health.276 0. as opposed to most other such guest Botswana 0.10 features virtually everything from exchange rates.295 0.246. E-government Readiness Rankings in Africa bus times.172 0.173 0. Mauritius 0. Two features are especialEgypt 0. Even though low on the e-government readiness ranking in this Survey.181 0.and this is Readiness Index just on the front page. services and links on its official e-government site.296 0.132 0.tenderboard.229 books. Lesotho 0.283 0. and as it develops.238 South Africa 0.346 Nigeria 0. education and other areas.176 0.340 0.192 0.329 0. The disparities between Africa and the rest of the world are much wider in telecommunication infrastructure than in the more traditional measures of development: 34 . for example.471 Benin 0.515 ly notable.179 0.060 0. which leads the e-government effort among the Arab States. First. The orientation of the UAE site leans toward commerce and business.201 0. Africa’s state of e-government readiness is around half that of the world average.gov. links to important sites.one message at a time.231 ing and.265 0.225 Namibia Tunisia Cape Verde Zimbabwe Kenya Uganda Swaziland Gabon Zambia Sao Tome and Principe Cameroon Morocco Congo United Republic of Tanzania Rwanda Ghana 0. Second.272 0.135 0. The Government of Jordan is in the process of planning for a full-scale electronic government over the next five years.om. In 2001. It became the first in the Arab World to focus on providing e-services through an excellent integrated e-payment system setting a new standard in the realm of on-line transactions.The Israeli e-government initiative provides all the basic government information and services combined with links.206 0. It Table 3.

6 0.35 Table 3.15 0.2 1.9 42.39 0.8 289. 7 270. including Côte d’Ivoire.6 7 0.16 1.62 2.9 6.1 2.9 24.6 4.1 11.8 Enabling environment in Africa.2 107.8 148. Selected Countries Country PCs / Per 100 pers 7.03 0.27 10.7 9.7 Seychelles 261.3 35.13 Note: a) data is for 2000.29 0.7 29. selected countries 7. b) data is for 2001.88 1. over 70 per cent of the lines are still located in the largest cities.13 11.9 0.7 30.15 5.58 Telephone lines 1000 pers 107.24 0.2 0.16 538.2 0. Though the use of the Internet has spread in the last few years.2 3 Telephone lines per 1000 pers TV sets / 1000 pers Burkina Faso Sudan 273 Malawi 35 .83 a) b) Internet Users / 1000 pers 68.3 30 PCs / Per 100 pers Internet Users / 1000 pers Telephone lines per 1000 pers Online pop % Cameroon 0.33 a) Burkina Faso Uganda Sudan Malawi 0.2 20.9 2.4 15.6 0.24 0.6 20.7 Zimbabwe 0.7 30.4 12 0.9 2.50 per cent of the available lines are concentrated in the capital cities.7 7.2 6.7 34 0.28 0.7 270.0 South Africa Mauritius Seychelles Zimbabwe Gabon a) 14.1 24.65 5.3 0.3 8.5 6.91 1.9 South Africa 265.6 11.2 TV sets / 1000 pers 127 268 214 30 326 34 118 12 27 273 3.6 4.13 289.2 214 5.3 261.20 148.0 Online population % 7.97 19.24 2.9 8.24 0. Most of the existing telecom infrastructure does not reach the bulk of the population .9 5.8 42.26 10.Table 3.58 2. Ghana and Uganda. Graph 3.5 35.3 68.11 Telecommunication Measures in Africa. where only about 10 per cent of the population lives.51 2.92 0.7 109.93 1.3 204.9 0.8 Mauritius 14.1 538.0 1.4 2.33 Mobile subs / 1000 pers 265.15 0. In over 15 countries in Africa.6 7. in general the lack of telecommunication infrastructure in Africa is a serious constraint to the rapid adoption of e-government for all.11 and Graph 3.19 Cameroon Ghana a) a) 0.1 268 109.3 6.8 present the telecommunication indicators in selected African countries.

Moreover.national site. Argentina (0.413 0. In addition to basic information. In addition. Mexico (http://www. 1 in 40 had a fixed line (20m).507 0. among others.463 0.Table 3.364 0.409 0. the majority of such users are concentrated in a handful of countries. E-government Readiness Rankings in South and Central America E-government Readiness Index Chile Mexico Argentina Brazil Uruguay Peru Colombia Panama Costa Rica Belize Guyana Paraguay Bolivia El Salvador Ecuador Venezuela Guatemala Nicaragua Honduras Average 0. among other things. these sites show that Chile has developed professional government sites that are providing more information and services than most users could ever desire. the national site offers services such as an excellent e-payment and electronic signature description and numerous transactions. 1 in 35 had a mobile phone (24m).527). especially in the rural areas . Much of the promise of e-government rests on the ability of people to interact and transact with the government.527 0. Despite the current focus. and specialty one-stops . Such an environment is not yet fully available in African countries.443).gobiernodechile.463) and Colombia (0. contracts. with the ministry sites supporting the information.12 In most countries.mx) provides a wide-ranging network of wellintegrated sites . Mexico (0. 1 in 13 had a TV (62m).gob.432 0.9m). Mexico and Argentina are success stories in e-government programmes worldwide. rates of growth among Internet users have slowed in recent years since most of the public and private users who can afford a computer and telephone have already obtained connections. services and overall approach of the national portal.36 As in many other developing countries. it is estimated that only: 1 in 4 had a radio (205 million [m]). This is reflected in a higher than world average for many of its countries such as Chile (0. among other limiting factors is an irregular supply of electricity.577). the provision of information and services to the public via an e-network reaches only the privileged few.cl) strength lies in strong integration among all of its national.577 0. A standout feature is a prominently placed section for citizens to initiate formal complaints against public servants and/or the government .593 0. many of which remain mostly cash economies.593).280 0. people’s engagement and participation. human development and the basic infrastructure required for e-government development than some other developing regions of the world.442 South and Central America South and Central America enjoys a higher level of per capita income. the level of economic development and the associated trade and tax regimes lag behind those in more developed regions of the world. including taxes. updating and improving the design and coverage of the information and services they provide to the public in the last one or two years. and payment of fees. Nigeria and Mauritius.427 0. limited telecommunication infrastructure and low human development in Africa limit the reach of such programmes to the vast majority of African countries’ populations. Brazil (0.378 0.329 0. ministry sites.a basic prerequisite for e-government to succeed.443 0.671 0. Lack of financial investment in e-government programmes and website services.411 0.671). Uruguay (0. ministry and one-stop sites. and 1 in 400 had pay-TV (2m). secure financial and regulatory environment. 1 in 160 used the Internet (5m). 1 in 130 had a PC (5.that offer just about everything to the prospective user. bids and solicitations. Of the approximately 816 million people in Africa in 2001. Chile’s (http://www. such as South Africa. Chile.422 0. necessitating an effective.422 0. Excellent one-stop-shops exist for.one of the 36 .507).324 0. These countries have made tremendous progress in expanding. Peru (0. Combined. as well as other transactions. The national portal and the ministry sites all fit together in a well-integrated system of on-line information and services.

364).526 0. the education ministry.educ.178) have egovernment readiness rankings that are twice the world average and are among the global leaders in e-government. http//www. Caribbean Clearly Saint Lucia (0.284 0.438) and Jamaica (0.378). but it also engages the public directly through on-line forms.438) with its endowments is the leader in the Caribbean. at present Ecuador (0. Guatemala (0.429 0.718 0.413 0. For example.324) and Honduras (0.250 0. have a lower than world mean: Cuba. Behind its high ranking in the Survey is the provision of information and services on all of its public service ministry sites.best examples of how e-government can facilitate transparency and accountability in government.009 0. Nicaragua (0.426 0.438 0.ar.438 0.391 0.831 0.432).14 Barbados Cuba Antigua and Barbuda Grenada Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Average E-government Readiness Rankings in Oceania E-government Readiness Rankings Australia New Zealand Micronesia Fiji Tonga Samoa Nauru Solomon Islands Papua New Guinea Vanuatu Marshall Islands Palau Average (Federated States of) 0.364 0.280) will need to take some more time and effort to develop their e-government potentials fully. Australia (0. Argentina has made substantial progress in its e-government initiatives in the last year.427 0.038 0.372 0. Antigua and Barbuda.432 0. Not only does it provide plenty of informational resources. Vincent and the Grenadines. Other South and Central American countries are also making great strides in promoting E-government usage. 37 . Venezuela (0. proved to be especially noteworthy.293 0.351 Oceania Australia is the regional leader among the group comprising Oceania.142 0.329).13 E-government Readiness Rankings in the Caribbean E-government Readiness Index Saint Lucia Dominican Republic Jamaica Bahamas Trinidad and Tobago Saint Kitts and Nevis 0.425 0.401 Table 3.348 0. Seven Caribbean countries have a higher than world average. Table 3. followed by Dominican Republic (0. Grenada and St.299 0. Four countries though. However.831) and New Zealand (0.326 0. chat rooms and discussion.

as the comparator. And the site features a 60-second web comment form on how to improve it. as reflected in the e-government readiness rankings presented above. there is a real possibility of the digital divide Web measure widening between e-haves and e-have-nots. Top 25 Countries In the developing world. http://jobsearch.552 0. Table 4.351 IV.683 0. it should always be kept in mind that the E-government Readiness Index is a composite of the Web Measure Index. Average 38 . At present e-government websites are mushrooming around the globe in a haphazard manner. At present.government have tended to lose out in the set of world comparative rankings.616 0.S. human and techWeb Measure Index 2003.fed. many countries that have recently invested in e. 3 Australia 0. some developing countries have taken a great leap 4 Mexico 0. In conclusion.countries in the provision of on-line information and basic public services. Estonia. For example. Mexico. Index nations in telecommunication and human capital development pose serious 1 United States 1.000 constraints on the use of e-government for knowledge and the empowerment of people.581 0.603 0. These examples provide model illustrations of the promise of e-gov5 United Kingdom 0.764 human and telecommunications infrastructure development. the rankings are considerably changed.838 network reach only the privileged few in the developing countries. As can be seen from the table. Mexico. If effectively uti7 Philippines 0. e-government can push the frontiers of development around the globe.1 cal and economic models to inequities in terms of financial.624 0. the Telecommunication Index and the Human Capital Index. the Philippines.703 0. which was 22 in the overall E-government Readiness Index jumps to position two when ranked by the Web Measure Index.683 0. Chile.694 0.576 0.gov. The web measure rankings points to the interesting fact that in the last couple of years. there is no one model of e-government development.Australia http://www.747 lized. However. Similarly.au has an extensive and extremely user-friendly federal portal that uses the tab menu system to provide its users with quick access to a wealth of information. The state of e-government and egovernment readiness in a country is a function of the combined level of economic.and between .616 0. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Singapore Denmark Sweden Germany Switzerland Estonia Israel Argentina Italy Ireland Republic of Korea Finland Norway Brazil France Malta Turkey New Zealand 0. knowledge and services to the public through their official government websites.1 provides the top 25 countries when ranked by the Web Measure Index alone. which was 30 in the E-government Readiness Index surpasses 26 other countries and jumps to number four in the Web Measure Index. and among.808 forward.607 0.777 ernment. The site provides personalization features such as keyword press release subscriptions and access to the comprehensive Commonwealth Government On-Line Directory. The imperative for effective e-government as a tool for development remains a multi-pronged approach to e-government based on ICT and 6 Canada 0. Australia. nical capital.668 0. which is updated every 20 minutes. technological development and human resource development.642 0. information and services to the public via an e2 Chile 0.570 0.568 0. with the U. Web Measure Assessments Several countries worldwide have made tremendous progress in adopting egovernment to provide information.812 Despite difficulties. Chile.gov. Singapore. Australia is also home to perhaps the world’s greatest job database.au. The determinants of differences in e-government services range from politiTable 4. With limited human and technological infrastructure support. To highlight innovative efforts by these countries in e-government development.633 0.555 0. State and sectoral websites reflect wide variations among . Inequities between.

in providing two-way transactions to the public.8 10. in Chile. Chile outranks all but the U.0 428. the state of e-government readiness rests on the level of the telecommunication infrastructure and human capital in a country.S. sophisticated and mature. Even though several developing countries have made vast progress towards e-government.Argentina.2 119.9 0. Chile and the Philippines outscore the U. The Philippines and Mexico score higher than all countries except the U.7 3. Sweden and the U. The information and services provided by them are as. For example. notwithstanding the commendable strides in developing e-government networks in Table 4.K.6 200. Republic of Korea.4 20.8 82.2 PC Internet Tel On-line Mobile and Graph 4. egovernment services do not Telecommunication Indicators reach the majority of the populain Latin America. Denmark.4 200.S. Chile 119. As can be seen.1 Telecommunication indicators in selected South Central American countries 428.84 0. in providing networked services to the public. telephone lines and mobile subscribers is for 2002.6 242 283 Mexico 293 343 PC Internet Telephone Online Mobile use lines population subscribers TVs 0.8 45. all other data is per 1000 persons.8 230.3 Brazil 74.3 254.4 223.8 82.6 countries. On-line population data is the percentage of the population. Table 4. In several instances. e-connectivity in Mexico 68.2 Chile.92 0.3 201. Graph 4.2 254. Malta and Turkey have made much faster and more effective progress in their e-government programmes than some of the developed countries.3 103. transactional or networked stages. On their Ministry of Education sites.S. in providing networked services to the public. TVs 293 242 283 343 Educ Index 0.84 0.241 223. Consequently.7 74.4 177.0 146.92 0. Internet usage. or more.8 200.7 45.8 68. Estonia equals Canada in interactive services while the Philippines scores higher on interactive services than Germany.1 give the telecomuse lines population subscribers munication indicators for these Argentina 82 112.2 6.022 218.K.774 146. Selected Countries tion in these countries.3 112.3 despite a very high Human Capital Index.92 Educ Index 39 . Mexico and Argentina.7 82 68. on its social welfare and labour sites.3 177. and the U. for 2000.3 Argentina Chile Brazil 218.8 33.415 230.5 201.5 these countries ranges from 3. Brazil. some of these countries scored higher on interactive.92 0. and for TVs.6 per cent in Mexico to 20 per cent Data for PCs.83 on-line population data is for 2001.

Democratic Republic of the Congo. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. specialty portals. Suriname. Liberia.quickly proceed to a level where they incorporate features of stage IV (transactional presence) or even stage V (networked presence). Haiti. The Survey found numerous specialty sites and one-stops that were either not well integrated into a main government site or not linked at all. and one-stop service sites. unified fashion is uneven. Kiribati. but steady trend toward national portal/gateway sites. There appears to be a gradual. Eighteen UN member states do not have an on-line presence. Iraq. Chad. 40 . However the ability of the various governments to develop and present them in an integrated. Dominica. 37 For the 173 countries with a web presence. Tuvalu and Uzbekistan. they could . contrary to popular belief.and do . Stages of service delivery Stage I: Emerging Presence Stage II: Enhanced Presence Stage III: Interactive Presence Stage IV: Transactional Presence Stage V: Networked Presence A somewhat surprising finding of this Survey is that. the Survey finds that there are no evolutionary development stages in e-government. No on-line presence Central African Republic. IV. Tajikistan. not many countries are at present utilizing the full potential of e-government to provide information and services to the people. Whereas the majority of countries could be considered well within stage II (enhanced presence) the stages of e-government were not additive beyond a certain threshold.1 Stages of service delivery analysis One positive finding in this year’s UN Global E-government Survey is that the vast majority of countries have developed some level of on-line presence. Eritrea. Whereas countries at the initial stages of an emerging presence or enhanced presence could be said to be at stage I or II. Côte d’Ivoire. Guinea-Bissau. Twenty-four of the top 25 countries and 39 of the top 50 countries have either or both a clear e-government policy/statement and a specific e-government portal. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Equatorial Guinea.There is a strong correlation between the existence of a formal e-government policy/statement and/or e-government portal and the overall quality and ranking of a nation’s sites on the various web measure indices.

ghana.php. UN member states Moreover. do a few lower ranking countries. the e-government programme will enhance the national site to create a single point of access portal “to deliver online services to the people. maintained an integrated single entry portal.3 whereas 173 countries had a web presence only 45.. The section begins with the important words. forward looking e-governWith on-line transactions provision ment strategy will be a key element in successfully expanding on-line government services and providing information to people. only a quarter of the countries on line clearly With a government website presence provide an e-government policy/statement or separate e-govWith a single entry portal ernment portal at their sites explaining how and why new technology is being used for government purposes.. Ghana. or a quarOn-line Profile ter of them.”38 191 173 45 63 33 Graph 4. selected developing countries 75 100 Emerging presence 75 50 88 88 100 39 47 Enhanced presence 5 31 25 16 13 50 32 27 Interactive presence 17 6 17 8 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 United Arab Emirates China Maldives Kazakhstan Mongolia Armenia 14 16 7 9 7 Transactional presence Networked presence Cambodia 41 . easily accessible and well-explained “E-governance” section on its national site.gov. (http://www.2 Stages in e government.gh/governing/egovernance/index. evidencing their commitment to e-government.ghana.The overall profile of UN member states indicates that Table 4. Basically. and not even 20 per cent provided on-line transactions. http://www.gov. With public service provision Developing and providing a clear.” and explains the substance and goals of the Ghana Dot Gov project. exemplifies how a developing country can provide its people with a clear. so. only of UN Member States one third provided on-line public services.php) for example. “In line with government’s efforts to facilitate the free flow of information and transparency in governance. gh/index. too. Most of the top 50 countries ranked by the Web Measure Index provide an e-government policy/statement or an e-government portal.

respectively. (See table 4.In the last couple of years most countries have added substantial information to their government websites. their average scores drop considerably when it comes to the transactional services they offer. currently a high 90 per cent of the countries have now started to provide texts of laws and policy or other documents for the information of the people. they collectively provide an average Databases (e. Upper and lower middle. 79 per cent provided databases of documents or statistics on the public sector. like the high-income countries. of Country Websites The high-income countries. Though most in this group are at stage III 155 90 (laws. Whereas the upper and lower middle-income countries score relatively well in the first three stages. policy documents. 42 . etc. the number of countries providing substantive service information is far less. As income per capita decreases. dropping considerably to only 63 out of 173 or a little more than one third of the total number of countries on line.206. There is a correlation among countries’ income categories and the sophistication of government websites. web access 137 79 of approximately one half of the interactive servto/downloadable statistics) ices needed by the public and a meagre 18 per Public services 63 36 cent of the potential networked services.g. with Gross No of Percent of National Income (GNI) per capita of more than countries countries US$ 9..income countries offer only about four per cent and one per cent of the transactional services. As the Survey found. provide 88 per cent of the information One-stop-shops/ and services in stage I (emerging presence) and 45 26 ”single-windows” 61 per cent of those in stage II (enhanced presSources of archived information ence). (true services and/or There is wide dispersion among countries in substantive service information) other income categories too in their provision of information and services. so does Table 4. On the other hand.) and beyond.4 the maturity and sophistication of the services Selected Common Characteristics offered on the web. Of the total.5).

7 8. which is reflected in their aggregate percentage utilization of three per cent in stage V (networked presence). audio-visual streaming.0 1. and could easily serve as a model for others to follow. calculated using the World Bank Atlas method. and high income.gov.1 71. http://www.0 58. human and technological infrastructure. lower middle income.6 1.8 IV.government.975. its political ideology and commitment.8 44. Considering how far the Macedonian Ministry of Finance has come.1 27. 2. the Macedonian Ministry of Finance http://www.0 26. though some have made an effort to provide some form of participatory service to the public.mk on an individual basis rivalled many of its counterparts in the top 25. one still has to bid in the old-fashioned way since there is no e-procurement capability . current information and even a discussion forum. However. 4. As expected.0 5.org/data/countryclass/countryclass.9 3.$2. economic and social systems. $2. $745 or less.7 26. They prioritize in providing some services and not others. however.0 263.4 10. There is also an attempt to put tenders on line. An interesting example was found in The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.4 0.5 E-government Stages by Income Classification Average country Points High Income (n = 38) Upper Middle Income (n = 35) Lower Middle Income (n = 52) Low Income (n = 66) Max Points Average Points I 7.205. forms.1 24. On average. The site includes almost everything one has come to expect from a good national government site: a poll.mk. construction and operation of the site serves as a model practice for other ministries within Macedonia. did not open up on numerous attempts during the survey period.2 52.Table 4. The national home page for Macedonia. See http://www. but elsewhere instead.5 43.at least not yet. and finally.8 32. level of development.7 III. 7.206 or more.0 4.6 20.976 .html The low-income countries are primarily in the first three stages.9 II 52.7 87. 43 . 39. the regulatory and administrative framework. $746 . resulting in a low overall score for the country. The stages are not strictly additive because countries do not follow a linear path to a model of e.0 21.5 1.5 0. upper middle income.6 Total 111.3 V.finance. and certainly for other developing countries looking to emulate successful e-government implementation.$9. The groups are: low income.1 41.0 3. They also appear to choose not to provide some information and services on their national portal.worldbank.gov. they make a conscious choice to put out some and not other information. Income group categorization from The World Bank. More-over. financial and other resources.5 10.1 4. $9. that might only be a question of time. However at this point they are just there for informational purposes. In the meantime. the low-income countries score almost nothing on utilization of the full potential of transactional services.0 84. It offers good design and a wealth of information and services. the determinants are the “willingness” of the country.5 Note: Income group: economies are divided according to 2001 GNI per capita.

2 Stages of services delivery by country Table 4. 74 23 37 30 30 35 19 30 37 26 33 35 16 16 5 Total 1-V 87 60 71 60 68 67 51 58 60 52 47 61 53 48 29 IV.Table 4. . Information and Service Delivery by Stage.6 presents a stages of delivery analysis for selected countries. 46 20 32 17 39 32 17 15 17 15 0 29 12 12 0 V. Selected Countries: Percentage of Category Utilization Country I Top 15 countries by egovernment readiness rankings United States Sweden Australia Denmark United Kingdom Canada Norway Switzerland Germany Finland Netherlands Singapore Republic of Korea New Zealand Iceland Other selected countries Chile Mexico Philippines Estonia Malta Poland South Africa Netherlands Bulgaria Japan India Malaysia Mauritius Spain Croatia United Arab Emirates China Maldives Kazakhstan Mongolia Armenia Cambodia 44 100 100 100 100 88 88 100 100 100 100 100 88 88 100 100 75 100 75 50 88 88 100 89 90 80 78 75 64 70 78 70 83 63 52 54 71 48 39 47 31 25 16 5 13 81 83 73 75 51 55 57 40 52 38 64 48 55 33 50 50 32 27 17 6 17 8 32 34 37 2 22 0 0 0 0 0 2 27 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 35 40 16 14 35 16 33 23 19 5 16 5 0 12 12 0 9 7 14 16 7 73 70 65 56 49 47 47 47 47 46 45 42 39 37 37 37 29 23 16 12 12 11 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 88 100 100 100 100 100 88 75 II 99 89 92 80 93 87 80 83 84 61 78 90 87 67 43 III. 100 64 82 73 71 75 48 65 63 71 40 57 51 59 38 IV.6.

the average score for the top 20 was only 9. and the existence of e-procurement systems/sites/sections at the national site.3 and 4. Graphs 4. Among the 20 top rated countries.5. provides only about 64 per cent of the interactive services. scored 19.Most countries score high on stages I to III.K. Interestingly. 16. the number of different types of transactions that were accessible from the national site. Australia and Canada each scored 13. This included the ability to make payments on line for various services. Even among the highest scoring countries. whether or not any transactions/on-line payments could be made from ministry/department sites. Out of a possible score of 41 for the national site and the five ministry sites.S. Transactional presence Emerging presence which ranked No. the U. and both the U. per cent of utilization provides 100 per cent of the interactive services Interactive presence listed in this Survey. and Chile.5 United States Chile Australia Mexico United Kingdom present these differences graphically for selected developed and developing countries. Mexico. The “weakest link” for the majority of the top 20 countries was in Stage IV (transactional presence).3 implying their e-government programmes have Service delivery by stage. Canada (75 per cent).2 on the E-Government Networked presence Enhanced presence Readiness Index. lagging behind Australia (82 per cent). presented in an earlier section. Among the developed countries. Sweden. 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 92 89 90 74 81 82 83 93 46 60 37 35 71 39 32 32 34 30 45 . Denmark (73 per cent). 14. the U. 15.. not one received even half the available points: the U.K. scores on the Transactional Presence measure appeared to be the weakest. the Philippines. advanced from providing basic information to selected developed countries substantial relevant information in an interactive mode. Graph 4.S. and Finland at 71 per cent.

(See Box 4. Moreover.26 48 18.K. the U. The priority of others is to make available health and education information and services to all. cross-referenced patient health and medical information by integrating systems within health and social care.61 2.4 4.4 Service delivery by stage. The U.) 46 .K.65 36 20.58 55 68 64 52 48 66 63 78 100 100 Belgium Malaysia 88 16.9 36 25.4 54 16.93 39 6. selected developing countries Emerging presence Enhanced presence Interactive presence Transactional presence Networked presence Bulgaria 0 52 23.8 39 54 55 4.28 100 Austria 14.K.65 63 64 70 100 Lithuania 74 100 0 83 100 Japan 0 India Portugal 100 0 33 27.6 11. has made commendable progress in developing and expanding social services and related benefits made available to the public through e-government. is among the top five in provision of on-line interactive services. The U.98 4. The initiative is focused on ensuring that sources of medical knowledge are available to local clinics for decision making in support of local knowledge networks and providers.Graph 4. government is working toward an interactive health website that will provide up-to-date. such as being able to download tax forms. Most countries have begun with services requiring a standardized response.91 2.63 0 88 Mauritius Dominican Republic 0 Slovenia 88 75 0 100 Indonesia The provision of interactive services on line (Stage III) varies by category as well.1.61 38 18. apply for a driver’s license or passport etc.28 26.

The most impressive thing is the range of jobs available. However. in urgent cases. (See Box 4. interactive health website During 2003 the U.) Box 4. researchers. It includes career advice. conditions and treatments. and wider access to information through a range of NHS public access technologies (the Internet. health professionals and the public through the National Knowledge Service for Health & Social Care (NKS) initiative. call centres. The objectives of the NKS include: assuring the quality of patient information on a variety of diseases.nhsdirect. Australia arguably has the best of them all.uk/disclaimer. digital television.000 jobs to search from one can find employment in every sector. The UK interactive health site can be found at http://www. if one is in a hurry to find a job. but also for incorporation into the electronic patient record. the level of sophistication and interactivity obviously differs from site to site and some sites are better than others.asp The knowledge gathered has been organized not only to be easily accessible to those searching for answers. cross-referenced information by fully integrating the development of knowledge systems within health and social care. but it is also a very current site.nks.gov. wage information.Box 4. from information technology to government. digital television. such as e-mail. Not only is the information and structure excellent.uk/ An innovative and useful interactive feature is provided by Australia as part of its egovernment initiative. With more than 30. Australia might be the best place to be because new jobs are added every 20 minutes. and libraries. to prompt and remind the decision maker.2. In fact. the search-engine is extremely powerful with all sorts of advanced search techniques.nhs. The Australian site (http://jobsearch. greater access to information for everyone involved in the healthcare process. In fact. which will provide upto-date.2 Australian interactive job listing Though it is fairly common for a country to provide some sort of job listing system. The cornerstones of the National Knowledge Service are: the infrastructure that will support the delivery of knowledge to all users within the health and social care community through the Internet. labour-related documents. quizzes and the most advanced employment search system around. and call centres). The National Knowledge Service is a partnership of organizations that provide knowledge in the health and social care sectors.K.1 U. Source: http://www. 47 .au) offers anything and everything a job seeker requires. academics and students. This community includes clinicians and other professionals. government started to support the delivery of high quality information to patients.K. patients and the general public. and to be available through a variety of dissemination channels.nhs.

E-networking. Argentina 16.S. As in the case of stage III (interactive services). Poland and many other countries offer no transactional services. Italy 18. Israel 15. especially for the larger. which is second in the overall global e. The same is the case with Germany (17 per cent). and Norway. of the potential as surveyed here. even many developed countries are not fully utilizing the potential of using e-government for transactional services. which ranks seventh. Switzerland 13. It acknowledges that in several instances political ideologies may determine what is to be public knowledge. Top 20 E-government Ready Countries Country scores 1. Germany (37 per cent). the transactional presence appeared to be the weakest section overall for just about every country. Singapore 9. Philippines 8. remains patchy and uneven in developed countries with its full potential under utilized.readiness ranking. Australia (37 per cent). Whereas the U..However. Republic of Korea 19. 48 .S. United Kingdom 6. Graph 4. utilizing only about 20 per cent and 17 per cent. Japan. respectively. and Mexico (35 per cent) follow. currently utilizes about 46 per cent of the possible transactional services on line. Canada (35 per cent). One of the primary focuses of successful e-government initiatives should be the country’s willingness to share information and knowledge with the public. Chile 3. are low on the transactional side. Denmark 10. In developing countries it is low or non-existent. For example. Sweden (23 per cent) scores lower on stage V (networked presence) than all of the above. Australia 4.5 Transactional Presence. Again. Sweden 12. However. is far ahead of all countries in providing a networked and integrated G2C service system it still can manage only about 75 per cent of the possible networked services as measured by this Survey. Canada 7. one would expect most democracies with developed economies and participatory forms of development to score high on the interactive (stage IV) and networked (stage V) indices. which is the global leader. Singapore (35 per cent). Netherlands. At the same time. Sweden. Finland 20. more industrialized countries in the top 20. Mexico 5. the U. Norway 6 7 This weakness in the transactional presence is somewhat surprising. Estonia 1 8 0 12 8 5 6 7 7 8 12 13 15 13 13 14 16 19 14. however. Finland (15 per cent) Republic of Korea (12 per cent) and New Zealand (12 per cent). Germany 11. Chile (60 per cent) and the Philippines (40 per cent) score the next highest and higher than all other developed countries. Ireland 17. United States 2. The Survey tries to capture this characteristic in stage V (networked presence).

Estonia 14. Mexico 5. (See Annex tables. the Cambodian national site includes a small survey section.cambodia. Germany 11. others apparently choose to spend their limited time and resources in accordance with their political and socio-economic priorities. Switzerland 13. Denmark 10. United States 2.6 Networked Presence.4. Australia 4. Although not meeting the threshold for a formal on-line consultation system including policy documents and decision guidance. Let’s smile at them to give a good impression. Sweden 12. the on-line participation at the Cambodian site is a big step in that direction. Israel 15. In the case of Cambodia.kh With a focus on providing opportunities for citizens to interact with the government.A few innovative examples of countries that are actively promoting their transactional and networked stages are given in the boxes below. (See Boxes 4. Philippines 8. Singapore 15 13 16 10 13 13 15 17 16 15 26 32 Box 4. the resource focus appears to be in engaging citizen input. an open topic discussion forum titled “Opinions” and an interactive question and answer section. Republic of Korea 19.6. especially for a developing country. Italy 9 11 7 10 15 18.” 9. Chile 3. including a number in the top 50. Norway 8 11 7 49 .) Some governments spend their e-government/web resources attempting to develop all-around sites. Of even greater interest is the fact that the most read submission to the Opinions Forum advises fellow citizens that currently “. Top 20 E-government Ready Countries Country scores 1. Argentina 16.) Graph 4.many visitors are coming to Cambodia for sightseeing. Ireland 17.3 Cambodia: It is all about the focus http://www..gov.. While Cambodia did not have high scores across the board for its overall web presence. United Kingdom 6. Canada 7. it outscores many countries.3 . when it comes to networked presence. Finland 20.

a model not only for developing countries but also for every country.” Is he? One section indeed informs the user that despite his busy schedule the Prime Minister regularly visits the site. and further. The site includes a clear statement of government policies within the major fields. Additionally. photo galleries and newsletters.4 Armenia’s on-line forum promotes democratic participationhttp://www. environmental protection. The Mongolian government is clearly making every attempt to listen.org/dpa/frontpagearchive/2002/january/8jan02/index. a host of draft legislation on virtually any issue.mn “To our successful dialogue. helps increase public participation in governance. 50 . Forum. As the site indicates. evaluated and refined. that comments posted are sent to him every two weeks. gender and development and volunteering. These include bulletin boards.html Armenia’s National Academy of Sciences has launched “Forum”.” the Prime Minister of Mongolia ends the opening statement at his site.Box 4. The slogan of the site says it all. Mongolia has created a model on-line consultation facility . “The Prime Minister is Listening. as should every government considering e-government implementation. politics. It hosts on-line community discussions on human rights. Forum uses a variety of tools to keep participants informed and encourage interaction. and a policy forum for discussion about existing or proposed policies of the government and their implementation.5 Mongolia: listening to citizens http://open-government. How is it that a developing country such as Mongolia can create such a sophisticated and useful web portal? It implemented. human development. the site prominently includes a legislative forum designed for citizen comment on the specific laws posted on the site. create new opportunities to broaden public awareness about democratic issues and establish new opportunities for interaction. Members of the community discussion on politics organized sessions with representatives of political parties on major issues and posted summaries on line. the parliament’s agenda.undp. Box 4. which is in Armenian. but the entire site and system devised by Mongolia is excellent for engaging citizen participation. post results of discussions in newsletters and publish documents on line. These on-line discussions are continuing. and a sign-up list for the Open Government electronic newsletter. Not only is the government listening. And a success it is in every sort of way. mailboxes. a new web site to harness information and communications technology to promote democracy. Groups and individuals can join discussions in established communities or create new ones to discuss issues of common interest and concern with colleagues and friends.

The site is proof positive that you don’t have to be big. seeing its broader potential. Transactions and e-payments for the public may not be at the top of a given country’s list of priorities. First. Box 4. Second.nu/html/www. They also generally require fairly sophisticated levels of technology that for many countries may be costly and difficult to implement and operate. The programme is targeted towards civil servants throughout the entire public sector. which is intended to help ensure that the basic principles of democracy. as countries continue to develop their e-government offerings.oppnasverige. Open Sweden is a joint effort involving representatives from the national. 51 . or a fully industrialized country to effectively implement e-government for the benefit of citizens. Some governments are simply not ready to make these changes. Several reasons may account for countries’ lack of the full utilization of stage IV and stage V. county council and municipal levels.the government initially launched the site in response to a demand from investors and businesses for input on new legislation.se/page1/42. legal and regulatory changes to allow for electronic payments by credit card.oppnasverige. Fifth. some may be making choices based on policy priorities. in some cases the national sites may simply be doing an ineffective job of presenting.html The Swedish government’s initiative. and integrating on-line transactions/e-payment programmes that actually exist at the national level. The government states that it learned from this initial project and. and encourage involvement and debate. effectively implementing e-transactions often requires substantial changes in government business processes. debit card or some other e-payment system. is part of the government’s programme “A Government in the Service of Democracy”. implementation for on-line transactions/payments may be initially focused at the local level rather than at the national level. depending on how services are delivered within a given country.gov. The Open Sweden initiative is intended to provide increased access to public information to people by increasing openness within the public sector.6 Open Sweden http://www. Finally. or rich. promoting. These systems are in the process of being revised in some countries but lag behind in others. Fourth. and among the 150 Swedish public administrative bodies. or are still in the process of assessing what business process changes may need to be made in order to optimize on-line transactional and payment systems. e-transactions/e-payments require a high degree of security. for many countries. recently re-launched the site as a full government portal aimed at servicing the general citizenry in addition to the business sector. Third. cultivate public knowledge and awareness. “Open Sweden”. completing transactions on line with e-payments requires substantial policy. the rule of law and efficiency are clearly in force in the national government.

483 worthy: United States (-1).448 country index.466 countries. the e-participation scoring assesses “how relevant and useful these features were. following close 6 Philippines 0. measures the generic on-line availability of information and services. leads with the U. Chile comes in third.586 Chile.534 Changes in rankings of the industrialized countries are equally note12 Republic of Korea 0.759 Table 5.1 (below) present the E-participation Index 5 New Zealand 0.000 ly objective or quantitative results.466 (+3). its value some further 20 countries down the ranking table. V. The qualitative assessment is helpful in illustrating differences in on-line strategies and approaches. a handful of developing countries. Sweden (0). information/guidance on e-participation and a range of other features. The Extent of E-participation Qualitative analysis by definition is subjective. which ranked fourth in 10 (tie) Ireland 0.S. Switzerland (-2).621 Philippines in sixth position.638 More interestingly.) 14 (tie) Switzerland 0. usefulness and willingness of government websites for providing on-line information and participatory tools and services to Country E-participation Index people. They are evolving and maturing and their vast potentials still remained untapped. Italy (+3). As the analysis shows.586 many developed countries. On the other hand.690 for the top 20 countries. (Gains/losses in the cases of 10 (tie) Sweden 0. Successful programmes require. the most revealing is the pace of decrease in the relative 15 Denmark 0. United Kingdom (+4).828 This includes access to current and archived government documents 3 (tie) Chile 0. and how Table 5. relevance. (See Annex I for all 13 (tie) Singapore 0. This means 52 . Germany (0). The U.966 to which government services and information are provided on line. Ireland (+7). financial investment and a change in the administrative and regulatory framework in the country to support the enabling environment for e-government. political willingness. and providing details on the degree 2 United States 0.448. Whereas the Survey. Estonia. surpassing most of the global leaders in the sophistication of their state-sponsored digitised services to include all. financial investment in e-government could well mean diverting funds from other priority areas.K. illuminating nuances in seeming1 United Kingdom 1. which ranked Chile. are leading the way in the innovative provision of services. qualitative assessment is a useful tool in assessing the quality and relevancy of information and services provided through e-government initiatives. 7 (tie) Netherlands 0.672 behind.638 e-participation.828 and databases. The index drops from 100 per cent to 50 per cent of its value over the span of 15 top countries. It is notable that the U. Denmark (-6). the Philippines and Estonia are -1. supersedes the U. However Mexico. constrained as they are. fourth. when ranked by 7 (tie) France 0. Finland (+3) and Norway (0).603 indices. and the 8 Australia 0. indicating a higher quality and relevancy of its information and services on the state-sponsored website. 3 (tie) Canada 0. 4 Estonia 0. in its Web Measure Index.466 However.1 and Graph 5. E-government programmes are still at early stages. slid down to the ninth position because of qualitative differences. As stated in Chapter II. +1 and +9. several developing countries are at advanced stages of provision of networked services. The rankings reflect the web measure 9 Mexico 0. and it drops to 25 per cent of Note: Finland and Portugal also have indices of 0.S. Australia (-5). For the developing countries. web-forums and formal on-line consultation systems. respectively. Canada 13 (tie) Italy 0. the Philippines and Estonia higher than 10 (tie) Argentina 0.K.In conclusion.) 11 Germany 0.586 the quantitative web measure assessment. In the absence of impact assessment analysis. the E-participation Index assesses the qualiTop 20 Countries ty.1 well were they deployed by the government. which is not the focus of this year’s Survey.” E-participation Index 2003. among others factors.

55 40 41. and a much lower 41 per cent in terms of consultation with users. The top 20 countries.2 E-participation by Functional Classification Table 5.45 20 62. on average. the countries are not doing a particularly good job of involving the public in participatory and deliberative thought processes that would feed into the government’s decision making.6 total 37. As analysed in previous chapters. on an aggregate level. the lead country in this ranking. the top 20 countries are utilizing about 62 per cent of the potential in terms of relevancy and usefulness of their government websites for providing information. and are at only about a third of the potential of what they could offer.K. These three are the qualitative equivalent of the quantitative web measure survey. are currently providing on-line opportunities for citizen participation that are seriously lacking in relevancy and usefulness.3 24 34. that of the United Kingdom. e.4 e-decision making 8. The E-participation Index is segmented into three functional classifications: e-information.3 84 44.2 E-participation by Functional Classification Top 20 countries Average score Max score Per cent of utilization e-information 12. or less. as the comparator.consultation.that roughly 75 per cent of the countries in the world demonstrate willingness to use ICT for e-participation at the level that is a quarter. Table 5.3 e-consultation 16. Table 5.2 presents the average score of the top 20 countries. 53 . and e-decision making.4 The table indicates that with the U.

45 1 0.67 0.47 0. people-centred services.59 0.45 0.83 0.60 0.83 0.69 0. Top 22 Countries United Kingdom United States Chile Canada Estonia New Zealand Philippines Netherlands France Australia Mexico Sweden Ireland Argentina Germany Republic of Korea Italy Singapore Switzerland Denmark Finland Portugal 0.Graph 5.76 0.62 0.47 0.47 0. even among the developed countries.59 0. which allow for participatory deliberative input into decision making and/or empower the citizen on knowledge about basic services are few and far between.54 0.64 0.45 0.59 0.48 0.97 As analysed earlier in other sections of this Survey.64 0.1 E-Participation Index. 54 .

206) only 66 per cent were providing above average qualitative and useful services for e-participation. Table 5. Collectively. of Percent that whereas more than half of all countries of countries 173 countries made a web comIs there a web comment form? 99 57 ment form available (a relatively easy and popular tool in use). of Countries Below Mean 13 20 40 58 131 Above Mean By Income Class 66% 43% 23% 12% 31% Below Mean By Income Class 34% 57% 77% 88% 69% Notwithstanding. especially in the area of engaging the citizen in public decision making. among the high-income countries (with GNI more than $9. The box below gives one successful approach for each of two countries that are global leaders in e-government and e-participation. had a clear policy statement on their website encouraging people to participate in this process.3 analyses the presTable 5. some countries still are doing a better job than others are.1 Income Class High Income (n = 38) Upper Middle Income (n = 35) Lower Middle Income (n = 52) Low Income (n = 66) Total Countries 55 . The relevancy and usefulness of their efforts was low as well. Only 13 out of 173 countries.4 E-participation by Income Category No. lower and low-income countries provide very few citizen-centric participatory services. As the analysis in the previous sections has indicated. There appears to be a gap between rhetoric and reality. It indicates No. or eight per cent of the total. with 88 per cent of the countries providing below average quality deliberative and participatory information and services to the people. Is a response timeframe indicated for submitted forms/e-mails? 12 7 only a quarter were soliciting views through an on-line poll or Is there a calendar/directory of upcoming government events? 96 55 allowing people to have the freedom of an open-ended discusIs there an on-line poll/survey? 43 25 sion forum. The upper middle-income group is doing a worse job with 57 per cent having their edeliberative participatory services below average quality. a very small proportion of countries (14 per cent) Does the on-line consultation allow feedback on policies and activities? 15 9 offered on-line consultation facilities and an even smaller (9 per Is there a direct/clear statement cent) allowed any user feedback or policy encouraging citizen participation? 13 8 to the government on official policies and activities put out on the government websites. Participatory initiatives also appear to have a correlation with income per capita.Table 5.3 ence of some specific on-line E-participation Aspects in National Programmes characteristics common to e-government programmes. of Countries Above Mean 25 15 12 8 60 No. Is there a formal on-line consultation facility? 24 14 Contrary to the current popuIs there an open-ended discussion forum? 45 26 lar perception. Box 5.

as well as clearly defined information and guidance on how citizens can participate and influence government policy.: Two approaches to e-participation When it comes to e-participation and on-line consultation mechanisms.S. the U.S. The U. and the U. They both stand out as leaders when it comes not only to providing basic e-government tools and services but also to involving their citizens in the democratic process.gov site is a separate portal linked to. the regulations. or in the Laws and Legislation directory.. The U. Users may soon be surprised to see how easily they can participate in policy debates and decision making. other than their placement on a page or within a directory.K. It is a minimum of two links removed from the national government home page. services and information. they employ very different approaches to engaging their citizens. accessible only from the Contact Government section. The U.K. and the U. To be fair. Participating users will never again miss the opportunity to influence what is important .K. site gets right to business.1 The U. neither of which intuitively guides the user to “participate”.S. FirstGov.S. Taken as a whole. the U.K. promotes its system.K. approach to on-line participation is very encouraging and welcoming.K. the superb regulations.it is.’s overall e-government strategy. formal on-line consultations.” It functions as a one-stop centre for citizen participation and contains much of want an engaged citizen could wish for: discussion forums. and others. takes a very different approach both to its overall on-line presence and its e-participation features . has an on-line regulations comment portal (the equivalent to consultation in the U. petition possibilities. contact lists.K. but it is not promoted in the way that the U. site. Citizens have to really want to comment on line . two countries. form and outreach for e-participation. This integration is really a defining element of the U. Most strikingly.K. The U. efficiently providing users with an extraordinary variety of on-line tools. Citizen participation and a wide range of e-participation features are highlighted and promoted immediately on the home page of the government portal through a top-level navigation section appropriately entitled “Citizen Space”. The section is seamlessly integrated into the government portal . the U.to find the feature on their initial visit to FirstGov. system) that functionally is second to none. “Citizen Space” offers an e-mail keyword subscription service whereby users can choose to be notified of upcoming consultations on topics they specify.S.S.K. approach represents the perfect blend of function.’s on-line presence.K. The site has little room or place for promoting various programmes and features. 56 . However.an approach that may be described as more businesslike than that of the U. and the FirstGov web managers are continually refining and enhancing the U. and what places the country alone at the top of the e-participation index. Instead.and know the formal “comment” parlance . is governed. The U.’s “Citizen Space” opens up with the invitation to “Help shape government policy by taking part in consultations and find out how U. even though both countries score well on all levels of the e-participation survey. are clearly ahead of the field.S. in a sense.K.gov site is relatively new. but not well integrated with.Box 5. an essential element of the U. with policy papers and documents.at least to them.

Comparing the two. both governments are clearly leading the way when it comes to e-participation. therefore. 57 .K. Without expressing any preference for one approach over the other. takes a more relaxed. laissez faire approach. spends much effort on engaging the citizen while the U.S. which overall probably provides more services per se. however. it is interesting to note that the U. Even with the difference in approach. one can note a clear difference in philosophy..

At present. It also recommends that immediate steps be taken in global government. when wisely applied. The Promise of the Future The United Nations looks upon the opportunity presented by the potential of e-government for socio-economic development as an historic opportunity. There is no one model for e-government development. VII. egovernment can push the frontiers of development around the globe. outside of a handful of industrialized countries. economic and social priorities and its financial. Despite the current focus on e-government. The primary factor impeding the reach of e-government to “include all” is the lack of infrastructure and human capital in the developing countries. human and technical capital. Opportunity to reduce costs and increase services to the society. technological and human resource development. e-government websites are mushrooming around the globe in a haphazard manner.and intra-state socio-economic disparities. If effectively utilized. The imperative for effective e-government remains a multi-pronged approach based on ICT as well as human and telecommunications infrastructure development.. Conclusions The data and analysis in this Survey affirm that e-government development is a function of the combined level of economic. each country needs to devise its own e-government strategy and programme.VI. information and services tend to reach only the privileged few. Few countries worldwide are utilizing the full potential of e-government as a tool.. based on its political. Important factors in successful e-government initiatives range from political and economic models to inequities of financial. But the greatest promise of e-government is the historic opportunity for the developing countries to “leap frog” the traditionally longer development stages and catch up in providing a higher standard of living for their populations. political ideologies appear to determine what is to be public knowledge. This Survey concludes that the possibility of the digital divide widening between the e-haves and the e-have-nots is very real. Since there is no standard formula for effective e-government. Opportunity to include all in public service delivery. private sector and civil society partnerships to provide the resources needed to reduce the global 58 . Since the websites reflect countries’ willingness to share information and knowledge with the people. The UN Survey finds that there is an urgent need to divert intellectual and financial capital to improving the e-infrastructure and human capital base in the developing countries and recommends that this be done. The Digital Task Force (DOT) created by the G8 Heads of State at their KyushuOkinawa Summit in July 2000 “. reduce poverty and further the goals of development worldwide. Opportunity for the public sector to reform to achieve greater efficiency and efficacy.concluded that. Citizen participation also remains patchy and uneven in all countries. ICT offers enormous opportunities to narrow social and economic inequalities and support sustainable local wealth creation. Proper use of information technology offers an immense potential to bridge inter. with its full potential under utilized. and thus help to achieve the broader development goals that the international community has set. in several instances. And opportunity to empower the citizens for participatory democracy.”39 E-government is about opportunity. State and sectoral websites reflect wide variations among countries in the provision of on-line information and basic public services. human and technological endowments.

59 .disparities in e-infrastructure so that national e-government initiatives can support an environment which is conducive to fulfilling the promise of “including all” in development. The UN Survey urges the member states to undertake this “world-making” effort.

ANNEX I: Data Tables .

697 0.927 0.663 0.840 0.429 0.516 0.676 0.422 0.671 0.429 0.425 0.443 0.764 0.636 0.422 0.510 0.548 0.814 0.528 0.762 0.540 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 United Arab Emirates Croatia Slovakia Brazil Micronesia (Federated States of) Malaysia Hungary South Africa Bahrain Uruguay Latvia Turkey Romania Cyprus Mauritius Peru Ukraine Brunei Darussalam Thailand Colombia Russian Federation Saint Lucia Dominican Republic Jamaica Panama Jordan Bahamas Trinidad and Tobago Costa Rica Saint Kitts and Nevis Fiji Lebanon Indonesia Belize Guyana Seychelles China 0.806 0.506 0.744 0.459 0.463 0.574 0.656 0.Table 1 E-government Readiness Index 2003 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 United States of America Sweden Australia Denmark United Kingdom Canada Norway Switzerland Germany Finland Netherlands Singapore Republic of Korea New Zealand Iceland Estonia Ireland Japan France Italy Austria Chile Belgium Israel Luxembourg Portugal Malta Slovenia Spain Mexico Argentina Poland Philippines Lithuania Bulgaria Czech Republic Greece 0.690 0.778 0.576 0.506 0.474 0.631 0.746 0.420 0.718 0.542 0.424 0.670 0.531 0.438 0.416 61 .427 0.761 0.746 0.432 0.577 0.462 0.524 0.427 0.422 0.535 0.602 0.507 0.697 0.685 0.483 0.446 0.471 0.820 0.526 0.593 0.702 0.443 0.646 0.693 0.527 0.426 0.438 0.831 0.515 0.432 0.557 0.

364 0.264 0.233 0.409 0.357 0.201 0.231 0.343 0.410 0.397 0.276 0.238 0.178 0.247 0.225 0.348 0.411 0.309 0.181 0.411 0.391 0.362 0.206 0.324 0.330 0.329 0.265 0.338 0.280 0.235 0.283 0.387 0.322 0.253 0.295 0.364 0.192 0.299 0.355 0.329 0.364 0.377 0.265 0.179 0.241 0.280 0.75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 Paraguay Barbados Qatar Bolivia Maldives El Salvador Belarus Tonga Kazakhstan Sri Lanka Ecuador Armenia India Cuba Serbia and Montenegro Kuwait Algeria Antigua and Barbuda Venezuela Azerbaijan Republic of Moldova The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 0.372 0.385 0.264 0.299 0.304 0.280 0.296 0.351 0.370 0.176 0.371 0.192 0.244 0.370 0.293 0.250 0.272 0.311 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 Viet Nam Oman Georgia Grenada Botswana Lesotho Mongolia Namibia Saudi Arabia Turkmenistan Iran (Islamic Republic of) Tunisia Guatemala Kyrgyzstan Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Nicaragua Cape Verde Albania 62 .373 0.327 0.326 0.268 0.347 0.335 0.189 0.413 0.284 0.188 0.270 0.340 0.413 0.346 0.378 0.363 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 Bosnia and Herzegovina Zimbabwe Samoa Kenya Uganda Swaziland Nauru Solomon Islands Gabon Honduras San Marino Myanmar Zambia Sao Tome and Principe Cameroon Nepal Morocco Congo Syrian Arab Republic Cambodia United Republic of Tanzania Papua New Guinea Pakistan Rwanda Ghana Egypt Benin Malawi Togo Madagascar Nigeria Sudan Senegal Angola Lao People’s Democratic Republic Monaco Yemen Burundi Djibouti Liechtenstein Comoros 0.229 0.

087 0.173 0.128 0.132 0.049 0.161 0.142 0.009 63 .038 0.172 0.060 0.156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 Andorra Mozambique Gambia Bangladesh Mauritania Bhutan Vanuatu Mali Burkina Faso 0.135 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 Guinea Ethiopia Sierra Leone Afghanistan Timor-Leste Niger Somalia Marshall Islands Palau 0.140 0.126 0.165 0.174 0.157 0.118 0.

691 0.126 0.694 0.91 0.507 0.514 Human Cap Index 3 1/3 0.94 0.846 0.616 0.537 0.84 0.568 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.77 0.524 0.607 0.581 0.682 0.616 0.98 0.99 0.812 0.92 0.499 0.626 0.94 0.187 0.460 0.027 0.552 0.98 0.064 0.801 0.98 0.675 0.94 0.691 0.93 0.99 0.774 0.514 0.633 0.99 0.94 0.95 0.87 0.666 0.777 0.529 0.747 0.207 0.524 0.522 0.507 Telecom Index 2 1/3 0.93 0.624 0.218 0.632 0.000 0.132 0.57 0.95 0.Table 2 Components of E-government Readiness Index Web Measure Column Weight 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 United States of America Chile Australia Mexico United Kingdom Canada Philippines Singapore Denmark Sweden Germany Switzerland Estonia Israel Argentina Italy Ireland Republic of Korea Finland Norway Brazil France Malta Turkey New Zealand Poland South Africa Netherlands Bulgaria Lithuania Japan India Portugal Belgium 1 1/3 1.91 0.90 0.668 0.642 0.555 0.498 0.764 0.675 0.98 0.99 64 .683 0.576 0.570 0.192 0.808 0.703 0.275 0.675 0.174 0.539 0.96 0.613 0.838 0.88 0.541 0.539 0.90 0.787 0.490 0.683 0.447 0.99 0.603 0.97 0.248 0.710 0.88 0.83 0.

301 0.293 0.42 0.067 0.323 0.80 0.92 0.082 0.96 0.319 0.78 0.358 0.307 0.294 0.127 0.149 0.428 0.92 0.432 0.480 0.441 0.118 0.86 0.308 0.79 0.026 0.448 0.297 0.80 0.074 0.85 0.012 0.111 0.408 0.660 0.384 0.380 0.Web Measure Column Weight 1 1/3 Telecom Index 2 1/3 Human Cap Index 3 1/3 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 Malaysia Austria Mauritius Dominican Republic Slovenia Indonesia Spain Croatia United Arab Emirates Romania Jordan Peru Luxembourg El Salvador Algeria Thailand Slovakia Jamaica Bolivia Colombia Uruguay Ukraine Czech Republic Panama Paraguay Iceland China Bahrain Greece Guatemala Nepal Hungary Saint Lucia Fiji Pakistan Benin Nicaragua 0.444 0.362 0.380 0.96 0.116 0.91 0.196 0.176 0.424 0.62 0.347 0.88 0.88 0.77 0.328 0.79 0.74 0.244 0.336 0.089 0.378 0.332 0.033 0.94 0.93 0.48 0.513 0.045 0.336 0.80 0.419 0.095 0.380 0.85 0.386 0.117 0.83 0.97 0.90 0.419 0.69 0.291 0.288 0.044 0.349 0.116 0.74 0.84 0.92 0.809 0.591 0.90 0.83 0.312 0.445 0.40 0.372 0.292 0.87 0.419 0.409 0.332 0.074 0.006 0.055 0.406 0.341 0.349 0.408 0.80 0.65 65 .89 0.476 0.036 0.

183 0.262 0.036 0.166 0.000 0.67 0.089 0.262 0.119 0.005 0.061 0.069 0.157 0.71 0.134 0.214 0.309 0.170 0.236 0.201 0.206 0.83 0.148 0.253 0.72 0.089 0.37 0.86 0.223 0.92 0.188 0.36 0.72 0.84 0.84 0.119 0.266 0.198 0.266 0.056 0.23 0.051 0.262 0.319 0.153 0.048 0.38 0.90 0.87 0.051 0.183 0.011 0.067 0.223 0.205 0.321 0.210 0.50 0.279 0.76 0.250 0.55 0.241 0.157 0.022 0.000 0.75 0 0.188 0.236 0.284 0.253 0.266 0.193 0.175 0.694 0.170 0.201 0.185 0.Web Measure Column Weight 1 1/3 Telecom Index 2 1/3 Human Cap Index 3 1/3 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Serbia and Montenegro Uganda Sri Lanka Lesotho Latvia Guyana Brunei Darussalam Timor-Leste Oman Maldives Lebanon Belize Trinidad and Tobago Morocco Russian Federation Costa Rica Botswana Liechtenstein Bahamas Andorra Angola Senegal Tonga San Marino Seychelles Kazakhstan Viet Nam Saudi Arabia Tunisia Ecuador Papua New Guinea Burkina Faso Cuba Kenya Burundi Namibia Solomon Islands 0.90 0.88 0.223 0.027 0.279 0.005 0.640 0.179 0.88 0.91 0.920 0.000 0.86 0.000 0.007 0.214 0.60 0.86 0.031 0.68 66 .007 0.153 0.81 0.83 0.062 0.269 0.93 0.188 0.84 0.021 0.214 0.132 0.

040 0.004 0.226 0.77 0.122 0.013 0.090 0.092 0.148 0.041 0.88 0.117 0.206 0.131 0.422 0.122 0.87 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 Samoa Cyprus Gambia Honduras Madagascar Bangladesh Myanmar Nigeria Ghana Albania Afghanistan Swaziland Sudan Marshall Islands Kyrgyzstan 67 .148 0.39 0.308 0.429 0.268 0.040 0.66 0.040 0.080 0.059 0.440 0.140 0.118 0.40 0.009 0.037 0.074 0.114 0.70 0.140 0.83 0.127 0.148 0.079 0.91 1.012 0.021 0.049 0.61 0.127 0.000 0.003 0.68 0.019 0.100 0.860 0.92 0.75 0.092 0.59 0.037 0.083 0.040 0.087 0.737 0.114 0.127 0.58 0.74 0.62 0.002 0.004 0.135 0.003 0.086 0.007 0.144 0.079 0.88 0.131 0.144 0.070 0.75 0.75 0.92 0.85 0.75 0.80 0.89 0.023 0.074 0.083 0.147 0.004 0.111 0.034 0.65 0.131 0.105 0.50 0.083 0.083 0.140 0.58 0.37 0.114 0.79 0.140 0.144 0.Web Measure Column Weight 1 1/3 Telecom Index 2 1/3 Human Cap Index 3 1/3 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 Rwanda Iran (Islamic Republic of) Cameroon Venezuela Mozambique Kuwait United Republic of Tanzania Saint Kitts and Nevis Mongolia Armenia Qatar Cape Verde Bosnia and Herzegovina Azerbaijan Zambia Monaco Cambodia Belarus Barbados Micronesia (Federated States of) The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 0.248 0.000 0.

000 0.89 0.011 0.027 0.16 0.077 0.39 0.048 0.017 0.044 0.007 0.900 0.42 0.007 0.37 0.000 0.004 0.042 0.044 0.011 0.000 0.71 0.81 0.035 0.000 0.33 0.015 0. Korea Democratic Republic of the Congo Dominica 0.048 0.115 0.000 0.017 0.120 0.009 0.75 0.038 0.52 0.054 0.40 0.019 0.P.35 0.052 0.013 0.85 • COUNTRIES WITH NO WEB PRESENCE 174 175 176 177 178 179 Central African Republic Chad Côte d’Ivoire D.65 0.49 0.50 0.000 0.003 0.044 0.76 0.86 68 .44 0.35 0.190 0.005 0.057 0.013 0.59 0.070 0.035 0.244 0.136 0.005 0.035 0.000 0.061 0.000 0.37 0.75 0.035 0.039 0.026 0.62 0.048 0.002 0.023 0.039 0.005 0.005 0.002 0.042 0.48 0.51 0.021 0.000 0.070 0.035 0.031 0.031 0.060 0.Web Measure Column Weight 1 1/3 Telecom Index 2 1/3 Human Cap Index 3 1/3 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 Togo Republic of Moldova Zimbabwe Mauritania Vanuatu Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Somalia Lao People’s Democratic Republic Georgia Yemen Turkmenistan Syrian Arab Republic Sierra Leone Mali Malawi Antigua and Barbuda Nauru Egypt Congo Bhutan Ethiopia Comoros Palau Guinea Djibouti Sao Tome and Principe Niger Gabon Grenada 0.39 0.810 0.044 0.052 0.001 0.81 0.79 0.013 0.R.92 0.002 0.190 0.044 0.096 0.034 0.044 0.

Web Measure Column Weight 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Guinea-Bissau Haiti Iraq Kiribati Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Suriname Tajikistan Tuvalu Uzbekistan 1 1/3 0.003 0.91 69 .000 0.000 0.015 0.000 0.84 0.930 0.000 0.50 0.000 0.007 0.46 0.000 0.053 Human Cap Index 3 1/3 0.043 0.013 0.000 0.77 0.90 0.38 0.000 0.046 0.000 0.88 1.000 0.004 0.026 0.000 Telecom Index 2 1/3 0.016 0.030 0.118 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.

332 0.031 0.328 0.122 0.092 0.035 0.131 0.406 0.000 0.424 0.312 70 .507 0.576 0.083 0.603 0.384 0.323 0.000 0.175 0.445 0.683 0.157 0.476 0.694 0.166 0.017 0.140 0.362 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 Comoros Congo Costa Rica Côte d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic D.301 0.624 0.035 0.Table 3 Web Measure Index Alphabetical 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Afghanistan Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Chile China Colombia 0.048 0.214 0.083 0.000 0.812 0.000 0.349 0.148 0.114 0.004 0.266 0.105 0.083 0.253 0.039 0.000 0.332 0.210 0.293 0.000 0.035 0.838 0.131 0.031 0.223 0.100 0.764 0.131 0.017 0.642 0.000 0.R.570 0.223 0.000 0.P.170 0.122 0.537 0. Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Fiji Finland France Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Grenada Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Honduras Hungary 0.000 0.214 0.R.000 0.127 0. Korea D.266 0.378 0.013 0.

336 0.114 0.026 0.507 0.070 0.419 0.747 0.616 0.419 0.607 0.201 0.380 0.083 0.633 0.297 0.808 0.432 0.157 0.703 0.341 0.144 0.616 0.057 0.214 0.223 0.308 0.044 0.541 0.118 0.074 0.153 0.044 0.581 0.048 71 .013 0.087 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar Republic of Korea Republic of Moldova Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia 0.035 0.000 0.188 0.408 0.480 0.052 0.262 0.319 0.524 0.522 0.013 0.044 0.148 0.568 0.000 0.253 0.135 0.284 0.288 0.448 0.441 0.524 0.140 0.539 0.148 0.336 0.148 0.127 0.266 0.000 0.048 0.236 0.000 0.144 0.380 0.183 0.262 0.269 0.140 0.170 0.092 0.074 0.188 0.76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 Iceland India Indonesia Iran (Islamic Republic of) Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Micronesia (Federated States of) Monaco Mongolia Morocco Mozambique Myanmar 0.552 0.205 0.408 0.

683 0.079 0.144 0.000 0.140 1.044 0.158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 South Africa Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Tajikistan Thailand The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 0.236 0.179 187 188 189 190 191 170 171 172 173 174 Timor-Leste Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia 72 .044 0.380 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 Turkey Turkmenistan Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United Republic of Tanzania United States of America Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe 0.000 0.070 0.668 0.114 0.555 0.539 0.061 0.044 0.358 0.349 0.279 0.279 0.777 0.183 0.000 0.428 0.127 0.000 0.000 0.201 0.262 0.079 0.052 0.419 0.

011 0.8 335.796 0.036 0.744 2.184 0.878 14.024 0.7 Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Central African Rep.407 0.135 0.000 0.9 487 79.002 0.001 0.908 81.098 0.157 Internet per 1000 pers 0.2 515.000 0.703 0.000 0.Table 4 Telecommunication indicators 2003 — I Country PCs per 1000 pers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Afghanistan Albania Algeria a) a) b) PC Index 0 0.754 24.005 0.364 36.875 2.060 0.5 0 1.4 93.004 0.5 22.004 0.134 0.148 0.000 0.176 2.040 0.3 73 .022 18.168 0.475 21.096 0.000 0.679 0.001 0.6 119.978 89.005 0.627 1.339 74.000 0.532 55.105 0.092 0.005 0.003 0.4 3.049 0.004 0.8 Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin b) a) b) a) b) b) Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia & Herzogovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi a) a) a) a) a) b) a) 73.046 0.000 2.1 34.318 0.006 0.747 82.974 247.793 0.7 14.000 0.628 0.108 0.123 0.942 90.012 0.2 0 241.143 0.522 201.466 1.003 0.182 0.030 0.051 0.584 328.026 0.030 0.861 36.331 0 8 7.519 15.823 67.211 0.241 102.019 0.203 409.6 138.8 0 38.441 0.1 0 2 a) b) Andorra Angola b) Antigua & Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria a) a) 0 82 9.390 29.446 0.674 0.009 0.629 86.002 0.4 0 0 160.3 1.149 0.001 0.412 427.5 3.002 0.123 0.000 0. Chad Chile a) 1.003 0.061 0.641 0.415 Internet Index 0.957 3.409 112.7 74.6 1.919 483.112 0.003 0.002 0.541 0.9 1.

006 0.1 15.892 9.009 0.025 0.6 246.041 0.043 0.5 3.005 0.581 0.936 181.2 130 12.784 4.8 74 .035 0.035 0.032 0.023 0.766 0.516 0.028 0.Country PCs per 1000 pers PC Index Internet per 1000 pers Internet Index 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 China Colombia Comoros Congo Costa Rica Côte d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus b) a) 19 49.003 0.679 300.714 0.379 508.5 210.012 46.9 12.000 0.8 15.005 0.011 0.224 0.979 3.453 38.241 0.015 0.007 0.3 81.759 0.180 0.171 0.001 0.004 0.6 434.026 0.P.004 0.521 61.641 0.107 0.181 6. Ecuador Egypt a) 17.114 465.2 7.007 0.9 7.7 347.324 0.458 162.7 0 a) 0.5 31.268 0.463 14.154 0.5 146.742 26.075 0.5 21.001 0.076 0.832 19.016 Czech Republic D.R.199 0.246 13.000 0.018 0.860 160.020 0.284 0.2 156.063 0.3 1.264 0.680 0.7 31.2 2.572 0.8 4.484 2.000 0.025 0.2 77.009 0.042 0.2 a) Grenada Guatemala Guinea a) Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti b) 0 26.002 0.458 3.457 0.256 21.206 0.838 0.101 0.009 0.003 0.260 109.009 45.277 0.321 93.295 46.1 El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Fiji a) b) Finland France Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece a) a) a) a) a) a) 11.261 413.9 19.R.9 170.729 1.020 0.003 0.000 0.101 0.897 423.363 5.882 10.113 1.000 0.022 0.1 a) Dominica Dominican Rep.029 0.006 0. Congo Denmark Djibouti b) b) 0 576.930 313.697 0.3 5.000 146.494 0.000 0.4 8.9 3.299 0.076 0.5 48 441.017 0.193 0.321 17.016 0.065 0.195 9.064 0. Korea D.017 0.

605 0.7 0 390.584 585.6 12.797 157.017 0.997 0.015 0.3 229.093 0.446 0.3 171.D.043 0.109 53.916 367.224 87.092 0.027 0.156 9.071 Kyrgyzstan Lao P.514 0.8 1.066 0.5 119.923 301.8 11 69.1 35.000 3.774 42.002 0.488 3.259 2.000 0.8 50 382.763 2.Country PCs per 1000 pers PC Index Internet per 1000 pers Internet Index 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran (I.6 1.000 0.503 0.077 38.193 0.4 5.557 0.074 0.049 0.063 0.5 0 70.245 0.587 273.006 0.7 3.551 16.070 0.130 2.047 0.4 451.6 10.8 0 5.003 0.496 0.000 0.007 0.143 0.049 0.R.000 0.226 0.014 0.112 0. Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya a) 3.R.416 0.031 0.256 0.000 67.000 0.449 0.978 23.302 0.004 0.088 0.000 29.) Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kuwait a) b) a) a) a) a) a) a) b) 12.913 29.9 194.000 0.004 0.004 0.006 0.016 0.026 0.157 0.324 0.914 19.3 2.026 0.7 80.219 0.002 0.3 68.6 a) b) a) Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta a) b) a) a) b) 517.320 15.106 0.5 32.495 0.594 0.700 45.000 270.166 0.145 0.7 245.026 0.008 0.5 0 0 0.038 0.833 2.483 2.090 0.014 0.604 607.315 0.3 108.471 449.405 301.7 Marshall Islands Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Micronesia a) b) 0 75 .123 15.075 0.2 108.000 0.262 45.143 0.728 148.6 53 10.681 0.004 0.885 252.739 0.000 0.104 117.963 0.259 1.004 0.014 0.005 0.711 133.005 0.3 126.639 15.

Country

PCs per 1000 pers

PC Index

Internet per 1000 pers

Internet Index

112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149

Monaco

b) a)

0 14.6 13.7
a)

0.000 0.019 0.018 0.005 0.001 0.072 0.000 0.005 0.564 0.517 0.037 0.001 0.009 0.668 0.043 0.005 0.000 0.050 0.075 0.019 0.063 0.029 0.112 0.154 0.237 0.731 0.021 0.047 0.117 0.000 0.252 0.192 0.149 0.008 1.000 0.000 0.083 0.027

466.000 16.660 16.867 1.699 0.207 24.633 0.000 2.639 530.411 484.375 16.760 1.069 1.666 504.829 45.749 3.449 0.000 41.394 9.444 17.295 76.649 25.569 98.372 355.462 82.787 551.891 140.000 80.609 40.932 2.516 106.383 82.000 47.826 22.222 531.000 60.000 69.384 10.712

0.767 0.027 0.028 0.003 0.000 0.041 0.000 0.004 0.873 0.797 0.028 0.002 0.003 0.831 0.075 0.006 0.000 0.068 0.016 0.028 0.126 0.042 0.162 0.585 0.136 0.908 0.230 0.133 0.067 0.004 0.175 0.135 0.079 0.037 0.874 0.099 0.114 0.018

Mongolia Morocco

Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Norway Oman
a) a) a) a)

4 1.1 54.7 0 3.5

a)

428.4 392.6 27.9 0.5 6.8 508 32.4 4.1 0

Pakistan Palau Panama
a)

37.9 56.7 14.2 47.9 21.7 85.4 117.4 180.3 555.8 16 35.7 88.7

Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru
a)

Philippines Poland
b) a)

Portugal Qatar

Republic of Korea Republic of Moldovia Romania Russia Rwanda
a) c ) b) a)

0 191.5 146
a) b)

St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia
b)

St. Vincent & the Grenadines Samoa
b) b) a) b)

113 6.2 760 0 62.7 20.4

San Marino

S. Tomé & Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal
a)

76

Country

PCs per 1000 pers

PC Index

Internet per 1000 pers

Internet Index

150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169

Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles
a) b) a)

b)

27.1 146.5 2.1 508.3 180.4 300.6

0.036 0.193 0.003 0.669 0.237 0.396 0.053 0.000 0.096 0.221 0.017 0.012 0.060 0.000 0.738 0.708 0.021 0.000 0.037

59.701 109.890 1.419 539.664 160.438 400.802 4.951 0.000 68.201 193.103 10.556 2.582 33.000 19.380 573.074 326.179 3.612 0.549 77.561

0.098 0.181 0.002 0.888 0.264 0.660 0.008 0.000 0.112 0.318 0.017 0.004 0.054 0.032 0.943 0.537 0.006 0.001 0.128

Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia

Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria
a) a) b)

b)

40.5 0 72.6 168.2 13.2 9.2 45.5 0 561.2 538.3 16.3 0

Tajikistan Thailand
a) b)

27.8
a)

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 0 0 32
b)

0.000 0.000 0.042 0.019 0.105 0.035 0.054 0.006 0.000 0.004 0.024 0.178 0.482 0.005 0.822 0.145 0.004 0.001

34.247 0.000 42.689 29.293 106.032 51.503 72.839 1.655 0.000 2.518 11.929 367.380 406.174 2.977 537.506 119.012 10.874 27.363

0.056 0.000 0.070 0.048 0.174 0.085 0.120 0.003 0.000 0.004 0.020 0.605 0.668 0.005 0.885 0.196 0.018 0.045

170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186

Timor-Leste Togo Tonga

14.2 79.5 26.3 40.7
a)

Trinidad & Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Tuvalu
b)

4.6 0 2.9

Uganda Ukraine
a)

18.3 135.5 366.2 3.6 625 110.1
a) a) b)

United Arab Emirates United Kingdom

United Rep. Of Tanzania United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu
a) b)

2.9 0.9

77

Country

PCs per 1000 pers

PC Index

Internet per 1000 pers

Internet Index

187 188 189 190 191

Venezuela Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe
a)

52.8 9.8 2 7.5 51.6

0.069 0.013 0.003 0.010 0.068

50.373 18.462 0.901 4.901 42.975

0.083 0.030 0.001 0.008 0.071

Sources: Internet and Estimated PCs data from International Telecommunication Union, Web address: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/at_glance/Internet01.pdf

Note: a) All data is for the 2001 unless otherwise noted. b) TV sets per 1000 persons data is for 1999 c) Data for Rwanda for 1994 from http://portal.unesco.org/uis/TEMPLATE/html/CultAndCom/TableIV_14_Africa.html

78

059 0.008 0.1 21.016 0.622 0.004 0.005 0.5 0.3 6.2 213.7 0.1 29.539 0.8 457.8 223.8 331.7 75.6 263.5 159.2 56.4 67.6 635.1 9.4 405.281 0.4 200.013 0.9 2.407 0.6 5.001 0.508 0.6 1.3 218.5 6.058 0.148 0.6 4.9 40.6 374.7 362.003 0.1 125.476 0.8 11.6 468.6 84.136 0.7 75.108 0.9 2.031 0.8 2.005 0.2 103.5 3.4 68.098 0.4 0.2 258.6 68.6 61 438.4 7.Table 5 Telecommunication indicators 2003 — II Country Alphabetically 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Afghanistan Albania Algeria Andorra Angola b) a) b) a) a) b) Persons on line per 1000 pers 0 3.286 0.9 434.006 0.000 0.2 28.8 a) Tel lines per Index 0.152 0.003 0.066 0.242 0.000 0.003 0.007 0.325 0.238 0.286 1000 persons 0 54.751 0.010 0.014 0.690 0.4 a) b) Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin b) a) b) a) b) b) Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia & Herzogovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi a) a) a) a) a) 99.2 Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Central African Rep.143 0.109 0.1 121.9 2.4 1.005 0.522 0.000 0.098 0.007 0.1 480.250 Antigua & Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria a) 9 524.174 0.001 0.4 496.9 2 0.4 5.080 0.073 0.1 481.2 9.042 0.132 0.8 538.654 0.130 0.1 5.008 0.003 0.031 0.519 0.474 0.092 0.005 0.6 119.4 230.9 0.523 0.8 139.440 0.4 Index 0. a) Chad Chile 79 .001 0.002 0.011 0.4 3.306 0.6 299.585 0.001 0.002 0.

9 179.4 32.4 387.5 2.496 0.7 250.2 347 0.010 0.1 100.012 0.381 0.5 6.006 0.2 17.055 0.040 0.018 0.628 0.2 131.783 0.6 103.9 a) Grenada Guatemala Guinea a) Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti b) 3 136.188 0.000 0.015 0.5 112.009 0.3 344.421 0.9 2 131.143 0.663 0.120 0.030 0.3 547.4 18 9 350.020 0.010 0.R.5 262.003 0.007 0.375 0.018 0.4 9.1 1.023 0.040 0.1 610.025 0. Korea D.Country Alphabetically Persons on line per 1000 pers Index Tel lines per 1000 persons Index 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 China Colombia Comoros Congo Costa Rica Côte d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus b) a) 35.3 15 1.1 0 a) 0.022 0.6 5.9 29.280 0.3 568.000 0.6 21 0.000 0.8 28.344 0.003 0.051 0.6 377.376 0.4 695.4 325.5 6.083 0.5 15.4 650.021 0.032 0.006 166.015 0.004 0.1 0.112 0.2 316.017 0.4 8.575 0.5 20.3 24.011 0.158 0.3 110.195 0. Congo Denmark Djibouti b) b) 0 547.122 0.2 103.3 262.143 0.017 Czech Republic D.8 El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Fiji a) b) Finland France Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece a) a) b) a) a) a) 12.003 0.9 51.4 7 28 a) Dominica Dominican Rep.755 0.120 0.272 0.594 0.000 0.099 0.195 0.006 0.P.070 0.2 80 .112 0.4 12.004 0.8 91.6 529.028 0.035 0.8 110.4 11.410 0.181 0.046 0.7 0.2 110.354 0.618 0.5 64.8 15.5 439.002 0.013 0.5 26.000 0. Ecuador Egypt a) 21.4 13.7 10.003 0.1 4.493 0.706 0.5 58.7 3.1 4.2 2.R.7 195.

7 698 6.226 0.8 83.7 77.526 0.294 0.139 0.1 12.327 0.4 118.000 0.7 2.005 0.8 127.356 0.5 11.012 0.039 0.4 76.5 1.245 0.009 0.004 0.217 0.016 0.048 0.3 372 39.528 0.633 0.003 0.008 0.7 2 109.013 0.7 130.000 0.023 0.7 19.083 0.120 0.021 48 361.003 0.1 1.2 333.8 7 197.5 467.293 0.9 270.R.094 Kyrgyzstan Lao P.3 33.721 0. Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya a) 2.8 Marshall Islands Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Micronesia a) b) 15 81 .8 2.2 663.053 0.1 10.222 0.999 0.507 0.046 0.017 0.2 301.327 0.001 0.6 2.3 146.3 583 270.7 11.392 0.043 0.057 0.009 0.5 779.031 0.017 0.135 0.005 0.118 0.2 171.9 6 16.2 2.4 0 82.003 0.636 0.1 198.Country Alphabetically Persons on line per 1000 pers Index Tel lines per 1000 persons Index 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran (I.119 0.9 102.3 251.3 0 0.3 0 337.215 0.3 42.568 0.8 523.011 0.052 0.5 0.9 39.) Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kuwait a) b) a) a) a) a) a) a) b) 6.2 204.7 37.9 94.9 3.084 0.D.004 0.170 0.6 2.216 0.3 6.7 585.7 86.002 0.360 0.003 0.847 0.002 0.009 0.1 3.002 0.477 0.8 36 199.131 0.1 207.010 0.R.482 0.112 0.532 0.2 486.6 249.6 120.5 29 484.028 0.8 15.004 0.3 a) b) a) Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta a) b) a) a) b) 228.000 0.187 0.7 4.5 10.7 0.159 0.

003 0.4 44.7 0 2.246 0.3 160 14.3 77.7 47.3 24.1 64.8 0 129.8 22.200 0.792 0. Kitts and Nevis St.2 Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru a) Philippines Poland b) a) Portugal Qatar Republic of Korea Republic of Moldovia Romania Russia Rwanda a) c ) b) a) 2.023 0.001 0.3 144.Country Alphabetically Persons on line per 1000 pers Index Tel lines per 1000 persons Index 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 Monaco b) a) 0 14.043 0.8 a) 0.2 2.074 0.6 165.320 0.070 0.000 0.000 0.543 0.000 0.051 0.2 8.263 0. Vincent & the Grenadines Samoa b) b) a) b) 30.1 0.025 Mongolia Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Norway Oman a) a) a) a) 0.492 0. Tomé & Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal a) 82 .039 0.8 38 5.154 0.2 24.013 0.035 0.000 0.8 124.1 6.314 0.021 0.139 0.005 0.000 0.659 0.2 1.3 a) 542.039 0.006 0.157 0.6 146 183.4 488.012 0.1 32 1.041 0.1 419 289.237 0.531 0.5 460.7 24.002 0.000 0.776 0.001 0.097 0.6 4.6 107.8 729.674 0.9 5.064 0.7 343.013 921 51.5 464 3.8 89.664 0.084 0.7 500 317 226.018 0.4 3.000 0.7 295.062 0.5 0 Pakistan Palau Panama a) 16 27.159 0.036 0.045 0.000 0.174 0.178 0.8 12.006 0.344 0.5 0 a) b) St.828 0.455 0.004 0.1 621.035 0.7 97.5 41.3 16.487 0.7 51.000 0.4 San Marino S.141 0.007 0.8 242.024 0.035 0.1 448.005 0.006 0.8 57 763 36.002 0.778 0.003 0.9 1.8 0 0 25 9.063 0.9 11.056 0. Lucia b) St.027 0.8 0.8 544 44.015 0.

005 0.6 66.4 367.036 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 Timor-Leste Togo Tonga 9.5 699 468.9 553.123 0.5 0.185 0.5 0 10.791 0.503 0.028 1000 persons 232.6 463.1 40.796 0.2 65 2.014 0.8 37.071 0.087 0.8 122.000 0.638 0.286 0.8 103.008 0.371 0.855 0.6 0.037 0.3 b) Tel lines per Index 0.016 0.000 0.012 0.7 Index 0.715 0.5 33.005 0.117 0.023 263.072 0.001 0.5 136.526 0.018 1.058 0.9 279.264 0.283 0.1 249.3 184.009 0.024 0.2 80.4 658.4 0 2.445 0.3 Tajikistan Thailand a) b) 19.230 0.5 98.8 46.1 341.1 a) Trinidad & Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Tuvalu b) 0.6 260.670 0.3 281.6 175.000 0.000 0.1 4.4 3.9 3 107.2 8.101 0.5 b) 0.161 0.047 0.022 0.8 34 720.9 15.195 0.133 0.003 0.2 732.000 0.112 0. Of Tanzania United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu a) b) 5.6 20.6 261.2 12.8 587.1 a) a) b) United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United Rep.005 0.3 1.8 406.005 0.2 212.253 0.4 4.3 6.271 0.305 0.040 0.4 311.002 0.7 459.003 0.2 3.1 597.000 0.499 0.012 0.283 0.Country Alphabetically 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles a) b) a) b) Persons on line per 1000 pers 0 112.304 0.191 0.002 0.147 0.7 103 36.441 0.051 0.000 0.6 33.000 0.782 0.5 14.4 Uganda Ukraine a) 15.6 a) The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 0 0 9.8 493 129.9 113.107 Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria a) a) b) 17 0 70.053 0.705 0.022 0.8 83 .014 0.

Web address: http://www.004 0.7 Index 0.074 0. b) TV sets per 1000 persons data is for 1999 c) Data for Rwanda for 1994 from http://portal.001 0.027 Sources: Percentage of Pop.com/surveys/how_many_online/africa.024 0.122 0.Country Alphabetically 187 188 189 190 191 Venezuela Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe a) Persons o nline per 1000 pers 53.013 Tel lines per 1000 persons 112.8 Index 0.4 8.009 0.3 68.9 0.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/at_glance/main01.077 0.5 8.5 22.nua.org/uis/TEMPLATE/html/CultAndCom/TableIV_14_Africa.007 0.html 84 .pdf Note: Note: a) All data is for the 2001 unless otherwise noted.itu.unesco. On line Web address: http://www.9 2.3 24.5 4.html Telephone data from International Telecommunication Union.

277 0 198.2 97.017 0.029 0.392 0.298 0.3 207.776 0.7 377.004 0.008 0.016 0.3 428.006 0.051 0.000 0.9 4.3 322.5 106.5 9.319 0.001 0.196 0.009 0.7 639.097 0.372 0.728 0.046 0.4 0 104.034 0.8 390.1 198 46.395 0.205 0.012 0.090 0.3 200.6 a) b) Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin b) a) b) a) b) b) Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia & Herzogovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi a) a) a) a) a) 400.198 0.843 0.4 4.126 0.105 0.175 0.039 0.3 8.618 0.008 0.009 0.016 0.296 0.141 0.2 6.563 0.004 0.601 0.9 177.007 0.014 0.818 0.6 191.423 per 1000 persons 14 123 110 440 15 493 293 244 738 526 259 243 419 7 290 342 541 183 45 6 119 111 25 343 637 449 12 30 8 34 715 0 6 1 242 Index 0.278 0.385 0.6 Antigua & Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria a) a) 11.5 16.8 9.6 35.3 583.7 241.9 786.035 0.331 0.817 0.6 301.103 0.7 828.631 0.279 0.209 0.335 0.479 0.8 Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Central African Rep. Chad Chile a) 2.503 0.5 19.000 0.513 0.127 0.391 0.576 0.189 0.195 0.136 0.6 91.3 85 .238 0.007 0.Table 6 Telecommunication indicators 2003 — III Country Mobile subscribers per 1000 persons 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Afghanistan Albania Algeria Andorra Angola b) a) b) a) a) b) TV sets Index 0 0.019 0.009 0.003 0.

3 97 7.922 0.007 0.8 597 848.009 0.581 0.6 71.003 0.642 0. Korea D.176 0.000 0.000 0.3 a) Grenada Guatemala Guinea a) Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti b) 0 99.373 0.3 0 650.2 102.159 0.015 0.3 16.9 106.098 0.067 0.030 0.096 0.126 0.9 a) Dominica Dominican Rep.R.202 0.3 838.101 0.834 0.062 0.464 0.R.335 0.286 0.718 0.3 22.007 0.828 0.7 9.230 0.P.8 845 647 El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Fiji a) b) Finland France Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece a) a) b) a) a) a) 204.1 716.001 0.265 0.055 0.2 137.822 0.9 86 .264 0.119 0.136 0.111 0.3 0.003 0.070 0.2 0.006 Czech Republic D.6 55.589 0.5 120.000 0.023 0.061 0.145 0.041 0.216 0.558 0.000 0. Congo Denmark Djibouti b) b) 2.000 0.3 470.000 0.066 0.9 833.5 41.126 0.791 0.106 0.5 62.050 0.707 0.105 0.055 0.249 0.7 107.542 0. Ecuador Egypt a) 146.9 119.638 0.670 0.430 0.8 0 a) 0.675 0.069 0.118 0.002 0.322 0.335 0.4 127.000 0.Country Mobile subscribers per 1000 persons Index TV sets per 1000 persons Index 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 China Colombia Comoros Congo Costa Rica Côte d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba* Cyprus b) a) 160.135 0.2 0 67.017 293 282 0 13 231 60 293 250 154 508 54 2 807 48 232 97 218 189 201 0 26 591 6 110 692 628 326 3 474 586 118 488 376 61 44 0 70 5 0.080 0.001 0.6 67.838 0.070 0.

2 4.4 699.4 9.006 0.914 0.1 107 Marshall Islands 108 Mauritania 109 Mauritius 110 Mexico 111 Micronesia a) b) a) 9 91.1 167.389 0.018 0.R.8 227 42.026 0.577 0.032 0.690 0.110 0.942 0.685 0.192 0.241 0.148 0.344 0.Country Mobile subscribers per 1000 persons Index TV sets per 1000 persons Index 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran (I.048 0.3 954.D.8 150.056 0.383 0.2 55.012 0.5 0 0.3 621.6 289.110 0.2 41.9 10.8 12.638 0.016 0.095 0.000 0.5 926.096 0.) Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kuwait a) b) a) a) a) a) a) a) b) 48.251 0.555 0.381 0.465 1.029 0.004 0.306 0.011 0.891 0.000 0.1 254.036 0.627 0.029 0.000 0.5 8.285 0.222 0.R.009 0.023 Kyrgyzstan Lao P.275 0.000 0.000 96 437 505 78 149 163 83 399 335 494 194 725 84 241 25 23 486 49 10 789 335 16 25 137 0 422 599 24 3 168 38 14 549 0 96 268 283 20 0.5 244.165 0.000 0.170 0.5 0 87 . Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya a) 9 0 471.902 0.224 0.2 348.745 0.054 0.009 0.8 385.499 0.456 0.323 0.008 0.613 0.009 0.3 0 755.157 0.041 0.000 0.2 32.4 10 393.565 0.829 0.042 0.482 0.089 0.6 646.010 0.010 0.003 0.027 0.043 0.383 0.6 a) b) a) Liechtenstein Lithuania 100 Luxembourg 101 Madagascar 102 Malawi 103 Malaysia 104 Maldives 105 Mali 106 Malta a) b) a) b) 1013.4 902.090 0.5 5.186 0.1 36.

008 0.169 0.1 256 368 230 56 875 229 264 40 0.435 0.044 0.671 0.615 0.421 0.080 0.7 120.3 86 177.249 0.018 0.000 0.079 0.263 0.175 0.1 17.832 0.042 0.000 0.6 0 127 Pakistan 128 Palau 129 Panama a) 164 2 288.4 44.6 0.7 5.046 113 Mongolia 114 Morocco 115 Mozambique 116 Myanmar 117 Namibia 118 Nauru 119 Nepal 120 Netherlands 121 New Zealand 122 Nicaragua 123 Niger 124 Nigeria 125 Norway 126 Oman a) a) a) a) 8.079 0.358 0.9 a) 722.765 0.078 0.000 0.2 171.7 0.019 0. Vincent & the Grenadines 145 Samoa b) b) a) b) 65.008 0.5 30.6 819.119 0.206 0.3 123.3 56.6 843.011 0.000 0.000 0.713 0.1 a) 0.4 437.866 0.006 0.000 0.001 0.064 0.013 0.339 0.002 0.000 0.302 0.416 0.720 0. Tomé & Principe 148 Saudi Arabia 149 Senegal a) 88 .064 1.7 362.162 0.5 130 Papua New Guinea 131 Paraguay 132 Peru a) 133 Philippines 134 Poland b) a) 135 Portugal 136 Qatar 137 Republic of Korea 138 Republic of Moldova 139 Romania 140 Russia 141 Rwanda a) c) b) a) 11 106. Kitts and Nevis 143 St.610 0.643 0.4 618.122 0.809 0.000 0.293 0.990 0. Lucia b) 144 St.000 0.169 0.5 146 San Marino 147 S.043 0.030 0.2 13.000 0.006 0.2 679.457 0.8 0 0 113.3 80 0 0.222 0.2 209.112 0.105 0.4 0 a) b) 142 St.008 0.Country Mobile subscribers per 1000 persons Index TV sets per 1000 persons Index 112 Monaco b) a) 0 81.262 0.150 0.481 0.165 0.597 0.284 0.074 0.190 0.431 0.000 0.056 758 65 166 5 7 38 0 7 538 522 69 37 68 669 563 131 0 194 17 218 148 144 400 630 866 364 297 381 421 0.000 0.085 0.

226 0.049 0.834 0.373 0.536 0.9 178 Uganda 179 Ukraine a) 44.033 0.824 0.1 167 Tajikistan 168 Thailand a) b) 260.1 154.482 0.002 0.153 0.7 5.007 0.421 0.Country Mobile subscribers per 1000 persons Index TV sets per 1000 persons Index 150 Serbia and Montenegro 151 Seychelles a) b) a) b) 256.4 1.031 0.014 173 Trinidad & Tobago 174 Tunisia 175 Turkey 176 Turkmenistan 177 Tuvalu b) a) 1.5 791.606 0.108 0.257 277 214 13 304 407 368 16 14 127 591 111 273 241 119 574 548 67 326 274 0.7 a) a) b) 180 United Arab Emirates 181 United Kingdom 182 United Rep.675 0.025 0.136 0.976 0.315 0.1 40.6 835.015 0.749 0.274 0.013 0.8 844.002 0.000 0.7 488.873 0.044 0.070 0.2 0.755 0.465 0.127 0.262 0.532 0.1 347.040 0.7 0 15.7 89 .2 0 25.389 0.016 0.781 0.245 0.322 0.253 0.8 33.513 0.626 0.313 152 Sierra Leone 153 Singapore 154 Slovakia 155 Slovenia 156 Solomon Islands 157 Somalia 158 South Africa 159 Spain 160 Sri Lanka 161 Sudan 162 Suriname 163 Swaziland 164 Sweden 165 Switzerland 166 Syria a) a) b) b) 2.275 0.8 49.656 0.2 5.005 0.000 0.9 197.777 0.347 0.317 0.224 0.000 0.812 0.000 0.4 a) 169 The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 170 Timor-Leste 171 Togo 172 Tonga b) 109.521 0.006 0.5 0.002 282 0 32 61 340 198 449 196 9 27 456 292 661 20 854 530 276 12 0.6 538.343 0.037 0. Of Tanzania 183 United States 184 Uruguay 185 Uzbekistan 186 Vanuatu a) b) 7.4 543.023 0.016 0.077 0.002 0.9 12.8 822.195 0.2 758.145 0.010 0.7 61 885 787.2 0 265.9 278.312 0.012 0.060 0.5 12 2.334 0.018 0.

008 0.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/at_glance/main01.unesco.pdf Mobile phones data from International Telecommunication Union.1 13 30.html 90 .034 Sources: Telephone data from International Telecommunication Union.023 0.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/at_glance/cellular01.252 0.5 23.pdf Note: a) All data is for the 2001 unless otherwise noted.itu.itu.323 0. Web address: http://www.013 0.153 0.4 8.211 0.3 0.211 0. b) TV sets per 1000 persons data is for 1999 c) Data for Rwanda for 1994 from http://portal.org/uis/TEMPLATE/html/CultAndCom/TableIV_14_Africa. Web address: http://www.Country Mobile subscribers per 1000 persons Index TV sets per 1000 persons Index 187 Venezuela 188 Viet Nam 189 Yemen 190 Zambia 191 Zimbabwe a) 255.030 185 185 283 134 30 0.

514 0.691 0.004 0.409 0.372 Bosnia & Herzogovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi a) a) a) a) a) 0.015 0.675 0.710 0.591 0.514 0.675 0.002 Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Central African Rep.447 0.244 0.846 0.250 0.206 0.660 0.591 0.513 0.012 0.440 0.059 0.086 0.005 0.613 0.080 0.004 0.529 0.049 0.Table 7 Technology Infrastructure Index 2003 Country Technological Infrastructure Index 2003 Alphabetical order 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Afghanistan Albania Algeria Andorra Angola b) a) b) a) a) b) Country Technological Infrastructure Index 2003 Sorted in descending order 0.498 0.675 0.005 0.774 a) United States Denmark Norway Netherlands Australia Finland Switzerland Republic of Korea Canada United Kingdom Singapore Luxembourg San Marino Germany Japan a) b) a) b) a) b) Antigua & Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria a) a) 0.070 0.626 0.007 0.174 a) b) Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin b) a) b) a) b) b) New Zealand Austria France Ireland Belgium Slovenia Italy Estonia Portugal Malta Israel United Arab Emirates Monaco Cyprus Spain Czech Republic Greece a) a) b) b) b) a) a) Bhutan Bolivia 0.682 0.187 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Sweden Iceland a) b) 0.691 0.499 0.640 0.055 0.460 0.309 0.490 0.386 0.632 0.787 0.067 0.444 0.809 0.002 0. a) Chad 91 .147 0.691 0.514 0.207 0.801 0.012 0.002 0.675 0.193 0.036 0.666 0.153 0.429 0.347 0.

206 0.308 0.207 Dominican Rep.Country Technological Infrastructure Index 2003 Country Technological Infrastructure Index 2003 Alphabetical order 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 Chile China Colombia Comoros Congo Costa Rica Côte d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus b) a) Sorted in descending order 0.294 a) Hungary Slovakia Malaysia Croatia Chile Brunei Darussalam St.019 0. Lucia Brazil Belize b) a) b) b) b) b) 0. Korea D.004 92 .192 0.241 0.190 0.187 0.013 0.082 0.309 0.198 0.007 0.787 0.206 0.250 0.190 a) Antigua & Barbuda Uruguay Seychelles Kuwait a) Dominica 0.248 0.291 0.067 0.021 0.019 0.021 0.226 0.009 a) Grenada Romania Belarus Guatemala Guinea a) St.190 0. Vincent & the Grenadines Serbia and Montenegro b) 0.691 0.P. Congo Denmark Djibouti b) b) a) 0.275 0.198 0.291 0.386 0.244 a) b) Czech Republic D.147 a) b) Finland France Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece a) a) b) a) a) a) 0.372 0.632 0.003 0.118 0.R.529 Lithuania Bulgaria Barbados a) b) El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Fiji a) b) 0. Ecuador Egypt a) 0.089 0.011 0.116 0.429 0.321 0.011 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 Bahrain Latvia Liechtenstein Andorra Qatar b) a) b) 0.149 0.153 0.R.060 0.077 0.244 0. Kitts and Nevis Poland a) a) b) a) b) b) 0.248 0.176 0.218 0.319 0.275 0.347 0.007 0.136 0.001 0.307 0.115 0.190 0.193 0.174 0.188 0.498 0.196 Trinidad & Tobago Costa Rica Mauritius Bahamas Turkey Dominica Grenada Lebanon Argentina Russia St.044 0.074 0.051 0.292 0.134 Guinea-Bissau 0.185 0.

188 0.077 0.120 0.067 0.062 0.D.070 0.111 0.119 0.074 0.117 0.R.069 0.626 0.043 0.) Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan a) a) a) a) a) b) b) Sorted in descending order 0.037 0.003 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 Peru Panama Iran (I.809 0.021 0.460 0.116 0.321 0.095 0.086 0.007 0.307 0.R.118 0.660 0.218 a) b) a) Paraguay Fiji a) b) a) b) a) Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta a) b) a) a) b) Armenia Maldives 0.060 0.062 0.061 0.005 0.089 0.319 0.089 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 Oman Mexico Jamaica a) a) 0.005 0.127 0.116 a) b) Venezuela China Ukraine Georgia The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia a) a) 0.011 0.045 0.080 0.119 0.090 0.111 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kuwait a) b) a) 0.292 0.082 0.447 0.132 0.016 0.) Ecuador Jordan Tunisia Cape Verde El Salvador Azerbaijan Gabon a) a) 0.514 0.027 0.118 a) b) 0.115 0.074 Kyrgyzstan Lao P.089 0.012 0.090 0.067 0.026 0. Botswana a) Philippines Kazakhstan Morocco Egypt a) 0.126 0.041 0.064 a) 0.069 0.007 0.226 0.499 0.Country Technological Infrastructure Index 2003 Country Technological Infrastructure Index 2003 Alphabetical order 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 Guyana Haiti Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran (I.119 a) South Africa Republic of Moldovia Guyana b) Saudi Arabia Colombia Suriname Thailand 0.132 0. Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya a) 0.117 0.R.040 Dominican Rep.089 0.059 Marshall Islands Bosnia & Herzogovina 93 .127 0.

149 0.013 0.026 0.035 Pakistan Palau Panama a) 0.006 0.049 0.033 0.Country Technological Infrastructure Index 2003 Country Technological Infrastructure Index 2003 Alphabetical order 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Micronesia Monaco b) a) a) b) Sorted in descending order 0.051 0.027 0.034 0.248 0.440 0.185 Kyrgyzstan Swaziland Sri Lanka Algeria Nauru Samoa Togo Nicaragua Papua New Guinea India Mauritania Senegal Kiribati Pakistan Zambia Vanuatu a) b) a) b) b) a) Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland b) a) 0.042 a) a) 0. Tomé & Principe Uzbekistan Cuba Tonga b) a) 0.023 Portugal Qatar Republic of Korea Republic of Moldovia Romania Russia Rwanda a) a) c) b) 0.036 0.044 0.043 0.675 0.045 Mongolia Morocco Albania Viet Nam Tajikistan Indonesia Guatemala Libya a) a) Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Norway Oman a) a) a) a) 0.003 0.176 a) b) St.136 94 .111 0.132 0.042 0.051 0.196 0.005 0.040 0.040 0. Kitts and Nevis St.038 0.027 0.031 0.074 0.055 a) b) S.023 0.000 Zimbabwe Turkmenistan Honduras Marshall Islands Mongolia Sudan Micronesia Yemen Syria a) a) a) b) a) a) 0.003 0.039 0.040 0.031 0.037 0.710 0.095 0.033 0.026 0.056 0.046 0.034 0.040 0.132 0.026 0.053 0.037 0.064 0.054 0.040 0.120 0. Lucia b) St.061 a) 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 Namibia Bolivia a) 0.490 0.308 0.040 0.004 0.027 0.048 0.035 0.056 0. Vincent & the Grenadines 0.248 0.041 0.036 0.613 0.027 0.774 0.

004 0.005 0.009 0.013 0.444 0.000 0.016 0. Tomé & Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles a) b) a) 0.011 0.037 0.004 United Arab Emirates 95 .118 0.040 0.007 a) Cameroon Lesotho Congo D.005 0.004 0.051 0.666 0.005 0.022 0.007 0.036 0.021 0.241 0.038 0.042 0.513 Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Equatorial Guinea Nigeria Haiti Benin a) a) Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria a) a) b) b) 0.006 0.027 b) a) 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 Solomon Islands Côte d’Ivoire Gambia Kenya Djibouti Ghana Iraq Bhutan Tuvalu b) b) b) a) a) b) 0.034 0.005 a) 0.002 0.005 0.012 0.126 0.007 0.116 0.R.015 0.R. Of Tanzania Uganda Angola Eritrea Comoros Lao P.119 0.Country Technological Infrastructure Index 2003 Country Technological Infrastructure Index 2003 Alphabetical order 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 Samoa b) b) a) b) Sorted in descending order 0.294 0.846 0.021 0.005 0. a) b) Tajikistan Thailand a) b) The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Madagascar 0.054 0.022 0.011 0.089 0.134 0.046 0.012 San Marino S.013 0.409 0.007 0.019 0.682 0.206 0.005 0.007 Burkina Faso Cambodia a) 0.117 169 a) 0.021 0.004 Uganda Ukraine a) Bangladesh Mozambique Guinea-Bissau a) a) 0.034 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 Nepal Niger a) a) a) a) 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 Timor-Leste Togo Tonga b) 0.009 0.D.192 a) Sierra Leone Mali Trinidad & Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Tuvalu b) Burundi Malawi 0.R.007 0.015 0.111 0.015 0.P.011 0. Korea (north) Guinea United Rep.007 0.019 0.012 0.640 0.

003 c) 0.039 0.675 0.unesco.002 0. Web address: http://www.023 0.R.002 0. Web address: http://www. Congo Venezuela Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe a) 0.itu. Web address: http://www.pdf TV sets/1000 persons from World Bank World Development Report 2002.002 0.org/unsd/cdb/cdb_simple_data_extract.001 0.html Telephone data from International Telecommunication Union. Of Tanzania* United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu a) a) b) 0.a) 0.801 0.itu.html 96 .org/uis/TEMPLATE/html/CultAndCom/TableIV_14_Africa.pdf Internet and Estimated PCs data from International Telecommunication Union.009 0. b) TV sets per 1000 persons data is for 1999 c) Data for Rwanda for 1994 from http://portal.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/at_glance/main01.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/at_glance/Internet01.003 Rep.pdf Mobile phones data from International Telecommunication Union.003 0.244 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 Liberia Rwanda Ethiopia Myanmar a) a) 0.002 a) United Rep.003 0.042 Central African Somalia Afghanistan Chad D.nua.itu.048 0. except those marked b) for which data is for 1999 from UN Statistics Division http://unstats.un.000 0.com/surveys/how_many_online/africa.053 0.000 Timor-Leste Palau Sources: Percentage of Pop.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/at_glance/cellular01. On line Web address: http://www.023 0.asp Note: a) All data is for the 2001 unless otherwise noted.Country Technological Infrastructure Index 2003 Country Technological Infrastructure Index 2003 Alphabetical order 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 United Kingdom a) b) Sorted in descending order 0.117 0.

86 0.39 0.42 0.99 0.86 0.89 0.91 0.40 0.737 0.37 0. Dem.000 0.97 0.88 0.96 0.90 0.40 0.75 0.92 0.66 0. Korea Congo.23 0.95 0.99 0.38 0.85 0.39 0.97 0.35 0.62 0.76 0.P.51 0.86 0.92 0.90 0.88 0. of the Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Fiji Finland France Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Grenada Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana 0.75 0.99 0.88 0.85 0. Rep.89 0.75 0.80 0.Table 8 Human Capital Index Human Cap Index 1 Afghanistan Albania 2 1 3 2 4 3 5 4 6 5 7 6 8 7 9 8 10 9 11 10 12 11 13 12 14 13 15 14 16 15 17 16 18 17 Algeria Andorra Angola Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia & Herzogovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Chile China a) Human Cap Index 19 18 20 19 21 20 22 21 23 22 24 23 25 24 26 25 27 26 28 27 29 28 30 29 31 30 32 31 33 32 34 33 35 34 36 35 Colombia Comoros Congo Costa Rica Côte d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic D.77 0.92 0.81 0.90 0.39 0.83 0.44 0.36 0.74 0.62 0.46 0.98 0.85 0.80 0.R.86 0.268 0.80 0.88 0.69 0.80 97 .92 0.87 0.000 0.62 0.49 0.88 0.65 0.50 0.90 0.38 0.98 0.

55 0.65 0.59 0.96 0.37 0.87 0.92 0.77 0.000 0. Rep.75 0.95 0.48 0.94 0.85 0.000 0.37 0.000 0.422 55 57 56 58 57 59 58 60 59 61 60 62 61 63 62 64 63 65 64 66 65 67 66 68 67 69 68 70 69 71 70 72 71 73 72 74 73 75 74 Monaco Mongolia Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar Republic of Korea Republic of Moldova Romania Russia Rwanda Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia & Montenegro a) a) a) 0.50 0.87 0.93 0.16 0.98 0.694 98 .84 0 0.52 0. of Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Dem.75 0.37 0.900 0.79 0.810 0.70 0.000 0. Islamic Rep.89 0.90 0.000 0.94 0.93 0.58 0.91 0.83 0.000 0.90 0.94 0.75 0.40 0.65 0.72 0.81 0.67 0. Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Micronesia 0.74 0.71 0.57 0.79 0.99 0.93 0.84 1.96 0.79 0.75 0.93 0.99 0.80 0.79 0.91 0.91 0.83 0.88 0.76 0.50 0.88 0.83 0.58 0.930 0.78 0.86 0.42 0.Human Cap Index Human Cap Index 37 36 38 37 39 38 40 39 41 40 42 41 43 42 44 43 45 44 46 45 47 46 48 47 49 48 50 49 51 50 52 51 53 52 54 53 55 54 56 Haiti Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran.

91 0.87 0.81 a) Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Tuvalu South Africa Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Tajikistan Thailand The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United Rep.xls Note: a) Data are from national sources.860 0.98 0.77 0.84 0.94 0. http://hdr.48 0.84 0.920 0.84 a) 0.68 0.77 0.74 0.97 0.33 0.org/reports/global/2002/en/indicator/excel/hdr_2002_table_1.83 0.90 0.59 0.84 0.undp.35 0.030 0.68 0.92 0.88 0.096 0.83 0.Human Cap Index 76 75 77 76 78 77 79 78 80 79 81 80 82 81 83 82 84 83 85 Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia a) Human Cap Index 86 85 87 86 88 87 89 88 90 89 91 90 92 91 93 92 94 93 95 Togo Tonga a) 0.71 0.72 0.99 0.92 0.60 0. 99 .91 0.92 1.99 0.94 0.88 0.61 0.000 94 96 84 Timor-Leste Source: UNDP HDR 2002. Of Tanzania United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe 0.50 0.

448 0.397 0.397 0.690 0.362 0.379 0.828 0.431 0.966 0.603 0. e decision making III.397 0.466 0.397 0.397 0.621 0.000 0.534 0.345 e II.638 0.759 0. Total Pts. Index information consultation E-Participation 100 .448 0. Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 1 2 3 3 4 5 6 7 7 8 9 10 10 10 11 12 13 13 13 14 14 14 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 15 17 18 Country United Kingdom United States Canada Chile Estonia New Zealand Philippines France Netherlands Australia Mexico Argentina Ireland Sweden Germany Republic of Korea Italy Singapore Switzerland Denmark Finland Portugal Japan Bolivia Dominican Republic Israel Poland Ukraine Brazil Mongolia Panama Malta 17 16 12 14 13 14 13 13 13 13 10 10 14 13 13 10 10 11 11 9 9 11 10 7 7 8 9 9 11 7 8 11 26 25 26 21 19 17 19 19 20 16 17 15 13 15 13 13 10 10 7 10 9 12 10 12 13 8 11 9 9 10 8 5 15 15 10 13 12 9 7 5 4 7 8 9 7 6 5 5 7 6 9 7 8 3 5 4 3 7 3 5 2 5 5 4 58 56 48 48 44 40 39 37 37 36 35 34 34 34 31 28 27 27 27 26 26 26 25 23 23 23 23 23 22 22 21 20 1.586 0.379 0.483 0.466 0.638 0.828 0.586 0.672 0.586 0.Table 9 E-Participation Index 2003 E-Participation e I.448 0.466 0.

Total Pts.259 0.259 0.207 0.190 2 5 6 5 8 5 3 6 4 5 5 3 6 3 6 6 3 2 3 0 1 2 1 4 1 2 4 1 2 0 3 2 2 2 1 3 4 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 2 11 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 0. e decision making III.172 0. Rank Country e II.293 0.155 0.155 0.310 0.345 0.293 0.241 0.190 0.138 0.E-Participation e I.293 0.293 0.155 0.138 0. information consultation E-Participation Index 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 18 19 20 20 21 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 23 23 24 25 25 25 26 26 Norway El Salvador Nicaragua Slovenia Belgium Hungary Luxembourg Sri Lanka India Indonesia Oman South Africa Croatia Czech Republic Paraguay Nigeria Trinidad and Tobago Turkey Madagascar The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 8 6 6 8 6 5 7 5 6 6 3 5 4 4 8 4 5 4 6 6 9 7 6 6 8 8 9 4 7 6 6 9 7 3 6 4 4 4 6 4 5 4 5 4 2 3 5 2 6 4 1 3 2 2 3 4 1 20 19 18 18 17 17 17 17 15 15 15 15 14 14 13 12 12 12 11 0.259 0.138 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 27 27 27 28 28 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 29 Jordan Slovakia United Arab Emirates Colombia Jamaica Pakistan Spain Venezuela Austria Bulgaria Cambodia Morocco Nepal Peru 101 .310 0.155 0.138 0.138 0.172 0.224 0.155 0.207 0.328 0.138 0.207 0.172 0.259 0.241 0.

086 0.086 0. information consultation E-Participation Index 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 30 30 31 31 31 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 Malaysia Sudan Kazakhstan Lithuania Thailand Comoros Costa Rica Greece Guatemala Iceland Latvia Lebanon Mauritius Mozambique Saint Lucia Senegal Timor-Leste Angola Cape Verde China Ecuador Liechtenstein Seychelles Uruguay Algeria Armenia Bahamas Bahrain Cameroon Cuba Fiji Guyana Romania Russian Federation Zimbabwe 6 2 1 3 3 2 4 2 4 4 3 2 5 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 2 1 2 2 2 1 3 1 0 5 4 1 1 3 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0.086 0.E-Participation e I.052 0.086 0.052 0.052 0. Total Pts.069 0.069 0.069 0.052 0.103 0.086 0.052 0.086 0.052 0.052 102 .086 0.069 0.052 0.069 0.103 0.052 0.052 0.103 0.121 0. Rank Country e II. e decision making III.086 0.086 0.069 0.121 0.069 0.086 0.052 0.086 0.086 0.

034 0.017 0. information consultation E-Participation Index 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 Afghanistan Andorra Barbados Belarus Benin Bosnia and Herzegovina Ethiopia Ghana Honduras Iran (Islamic Republic of) Kyrgyzstan Lesotho Maldives Mauritania Republic of Moldova Saint Kitts and Nevis Saudi Arabia Serbia and Montenegro Uganda Vanuatu Yemen Albania Azerbaijan Bangladesh Belize Bhutan Botswana Brunei Darussalam Cyprus Egypt Gambia Georgia Kuwait Malawi Mali 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.017 0.017 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.034 0.017 0.017 0.E-Participation e I.017 0. e decision making III.017 0.034 0.017 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0. Rank Country e II.017 0.034 0.017 103 . Total Pts.

000 0. e decision making III.017 0.017 0.000 0.017 0.017 0.000 0.000 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 Djibouti Dominica Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Gabon Grenada Guinea Guinea-Bissau Haiti 104 .017 0. Total Pts.017 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.017 0. Rank Country e II.000 0.000 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 Monaco Namibia Nauru Rwanda Samoa San Marino Togo Tunisia Turkmenistan United Republic of Tanzania Viet Nam Zambia Antigua and Barbuda Burkina Faso Burundi Central African Republic Chad Congo Côte d’Ivoire Democratic People’s Republic of Korea 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.017 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 159 37 Democratic Republic of the Congo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.E-Participation e I.017 0. information consultation E-Participation Index 137 138 36 36 Marshall Islands Micronesia (Federated States of) 1 0 0 1 0.000 0.

000 0. Rank Country e II. information consultation E-Participation Index 169 170 171 172 37 37 37 37 Iraq Kenya Kiribati Lao People’s Democratic Republic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 Sao Tome and Principe Sierra Leone Solomon Islands Somalia Suriname Swaziland Syrian Arab Republic Tajikistan Tonga Tuvalu Uzbekistan 105 .000 0.000 0.E-Participation e I.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Myanmar Niger Palau Papua New Guinea Qatar Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. Total Pts.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0. e decision making III.000 0.

ANNEX II: Technical Notes 106 .

supplemented by the World Bank. the PC index is 0.029 Whereas governments can. Data for UN member states was taken primarily from the UN International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and UN Statistics Division. regardless of age. secondary and tertiary gross enrolment ratio is the total number of students enrolled at the primary. which has 21. Internet users. Telephone lines/1000 persons. Consequently. These are: PCs/1000 persons.Minimum value) / (Maximum value . with understanding. and unless otherwise stated is for 2002.A. On-line population. Internet users/1000 persons. as defined here. Infrastructure Index = 1/5 (PC index) + 1/5 (Internet user index) + 1/5 (Telephone line index) + 1/5 (On-line population index) + 1/10 (Mobile user index) + 1/10 (TV index) b) Human Capital Index Adult literacy is the percentage of people aged 15 years and above who can.7 . for the Philippines. Combined primary.0) = 0. the Survey deemed the prevalence of PCs.4 875 Minimum value 0 0 0 0 0 0 For example. The data was standardized by constructing indices for each of the indicators as follows: Based on the scores of the countries. The country’s relative performance is measured by a value between 0 and 1 based on the following: Indicator value = (Actual value .029 PC index = (21. telephone lines and on-line population to be of far greater significance than mobile phones and TVs at this point in e-government service delivery worldwide. the Telecommunications Infrastructure Index was constructed as a composite measure which assigns a 20 per cent weight to the first three variables and 5 per cent to the remaining two.0) / (760 .Minimum value) Constructing the Benchmark Indices Indicator (per 1000 persons) PCs Internet users Telephone lines On-line population Mobile subscribers TVs Maximum value 760 607. Mobile phones/1000 persons. Technical Notes on the Survey Methodology and Assessment a) Telecommunication Infrastructure Index The Telecommunication Infrastructure Index 2003 is a composite weighted average of six primary indicators. 107 . a maximum and minimum value is selected for each of the six indicators.7 PCs per 1000 persons. for purposes of e-government measurement.6 921 699 1013. secondary and tertiary level. use other forms of ICT such as radio and TV to improve knowledge and service delivery to people. as a percentage of the population of school age for that level. and TVs/1000 persons. both read and write a short simple statement on their everyday life. and do.

the Ecuadoran national site.2 per cent in 2002.” the National Government of the Republic of Ecuador. a priority would be to provide users a clear indication as to which of the potentially many government sites available was the “official” national government site .963) + 1/3 (0. even if it is not clearly identified as the national government site (and as long as it is not simply a press or publicity site)? In other words.For country X. Education index = 2/3 (Adult literacy index) + 1/3 (Gross enrolment index) = 2/3 (0. 3. was more problematic than expected. with an adult literacy rate of 96.913 B.gov.812. clear statement at the chosen website is sufficient to start . If none of the above.gov. the starting point for national users. none provided any validation information.ec/. The site is clearly labelled the national government gateway. Gross enrolment index =0. None of those checked were up-to-date.963.presidencia. ministry or other government body that is clearly identified as the national government site? The United Arab Emirates. Is there a site operated by another agency. Is there a Presidential or Prime Minister’s site (whichever office heads the government of the country in question) that CLEARLY states that it is the national government site? A number of countries have integrated their government information and services into the Presidential/Prime Minister’s site and clearly indicated that it is the national government site. For users. In many instances. Further. this makes it extremely easy to find and decide where they should start.in a sense.suggests a national government site. and in many instances. Thus. this basic piece of information was missing and deciding which site was the official national site. One would think that regardless of where a nation is in its e-government development. Is there a distinct national government site or portal? A growing number of countries have developed true national sites and/or portals that are clearly identified as the official national government site.ae .uae. is there a viable Presidential or Prime Minister’s site. the education index would be: Adult literacy index = 0. much as members of the public would do in their initial forays onto the Web for government information. 4.a simple. however. 2. Not only is this easy to do . operates its National Gateway Site out of its Ministry of Finance and Industry. the researchers first looked for a clearly identified official national government site. http://www. For example. is the Presidential site but the homepage link and title banner used throughout the site clearly state “Gobierno Nacional de la Republic del Ecuador. The criteria included the following: 1. it is linked from other ministry sites as the national government gateway.3 per cent and a combined gross enrolment ratio of 81. URLs provided for government sites were actually for commercial sites or other non-governmental sites. attempting to use any of the available commercial or university government website resources proved to be not only frustrating but also highly unreliable. for example. A Note on Web Measure Survey Methodology One of the most basic decisions for the researchers when undertaking this survey was what site to review as the national government site for each of the countries.812) = 0.but also an important step toward providing government information and services to people in a usable and easy-to-find manner. and even the URL http://www. does it include information about the national government and its services even if there is no clear statement or indication that it is indeed the official national government site? 108 . or even if there were an official national site.

no. Looked for another official government site.S. researchers: 1. parliament or other national legislative body.” and the introduction on the homepage from the Prime Minister begins. in the case of two “competing” sites. For example..If no site could be found that clearly met any of the above criteria.mg/) These types of clear indications on national sites made the choice relatively easy for researchers. the continuity of the site and how it guided its user. the researchers were able to identify a reliable national government site.S.sweden. A good example of creating and identifying a single government access point is the U. In the final result.dep. Purely private sites were not included. such as a Tourism Board or Embassy site. the researchers then attempted to identify an alternate site to score for the remainder of the survey. the latter site represents a two-year collaborative project among national. Generally.” (http://www. In general. the http://www.” while the second site.gov.se in English) which simply and clearly says “The Swedish Government” was considered the prime national site. a statement in French and English welcoming the user to “. a number of countries have not yet clearly consolidated their government entry point into a single service that can be clearly distinguished. the few tourism or other sites that were scored 109 .” This kind of clear presence is not limited to large. http://www. For countries without a clear national site.gov site. researchers attempted to identify some site that could be legitimately scored for other national government information.the Official Website of the Malagasy Government. or other such statement. Thus. industrialized nations.se/ site (http://www.sweden. it is aimed more at external visitors. and so the former site was reviewed to better insure consistency.regeringen. such as a Ministry of Information site. In attempting to identify an appropriate alternative site. Most countries have engaged in the procedure of actually noting on their national site that it is their “Official” Government site. Sweden’s http://www..Emerging Presence. However. which has two “national” sites.” In this case.gov. which claims to be the official “gateway to information. 4. 3. regional and local governments and organizations. http://odin.se says it is “the official gateway to Sweden” but it is hardly targeted toward the national user. Reviewed a Presidential or Prime Minister’s site that had not reached the threshold for a true national government site. the country received no points for Section I . then the country received no points for the Emerging Presence section of the survey.norge. When they could not. One such case is Norway. The first is Odin. government’s official web portal. one could be distinguished as “more official” than the other after close examination based on who in government provided the services listed. the Madagascar national site includes on virtually every page. 2. “Welcome to the Website of the Government of the Republic of Madagascar.madagascar. what the site was used for. Looked for another government sponsored site at the national level. but only if it was verified to be promoting the national government and was providing some sort of national or contact information. However. establishes itself as “a single gateway to the public sector. http://FirstGov. which clearly indicates that it is the “U. especially if it included national government services and information. Looked for a national assembly. or Gateway to Government.no.

Having identified through the quantitative review specific tools and information. as per the researchers’ criteria. Providing such an index to complement the raw data. web-forums and formal on-line consultation systems. access to and archives for government documents and databases. and the overall quality of e-government services and information provided.who often had spent many hours reviewing a country’s collective sites . The E-participation Index is segmented into three sections: E-information. and providing detail on the degree to which government services and information are provided on line.” The variations among countries were enormous.not only of what a country provides in terms of e-government. therefore. Finally. the original reviewers . E-Participation Index: A Note on Methodology Qualitative analysis by definition is subjective. Focusing primarily on the national site while also considering the ministry sites. and a range of other features. For these reasons. E-participation scoring assesses “how relevant and useful these features were. we have included an “E-participation” Index to complement the quantitative data collected and analysed. but how well it promotes e-government services. “clusters” of sites that received the same or very close scores were reviewed and compared to each other so that any variations and/or similarities in scoring could be reasonably explained. and ultimately to build a foundation for analysing in detail how governments interact with the people and encourage their input on line. is an important and valuable means of evaluating both the efforts of governments and the actual quality of the information and services provided. but a good one nevertheless .or under-scoring. and various sensitivity indexes were created from the quantitative data to help identify clear over. 110 . E-consultation. In the absence of impact assessment analysis. What emerged from this careful process serves as an indicator .completed the E-participation section of the survey for each country they reviewed (with the help of native language speakers). It is useful in illustrating differences in on-line strategies and approaches. The e-participation scores were then normalized. and E-decision making. which requires both time and effort. C. and how well were they deployed by the government. a qualitative assessment can be a useful tool in assessing the “quality” of information and services provided through an e-government initiative. Sites were compared to other. illuminating nuances in seemingly objective or quantitative results. such as explicit information/guidance on e-participation.were deemed to provide some sort of national government information. These three are the qualitative equivalent of the quantitative web measure survey. The reviewers were then asked to go back and refine their scoring of the E-participation section after they had completed all of their sites.admittedly an initial indicator. similar sites.

edu.ie/surveys/how_many_online/index. http://www.pdf UN Millennium Development Indicators. http://www.com/2010-1069-964507. 2001.html?tag=lh http://www. E/CN. 5 November.shtml See www.itu.au See http://www.int/osg/sg/speeches/2001/09naples.nu/english/index.ams. to the Third Global Forum: Fostering Democracy & Development through E-government readiness. http://www. Martin. Kofi Annan.html 8 “Kofi Annan’s IT challenge to Silicon Valley”. Illiteracy rates data from UNESCO. Keynote Speech of Yoshio Utsumi.uk/ http://platsbanken. 4:00 AM PT.Notes 1 Chen. 7 “Bridging the Digital Divide through Digital Governance”. 27 February 2003. International Telecommunication Union.nks.itu. pages 208-212. Keynote Speech of Yoshio Utsumi. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2002.uk See www. to the Third Global Forum: Fostering Democracy & Development through E-government readiness. http://www.se/ 9 10 11 12 13 111 .int/osg/sg/speeches/2001/09naples.org/research/povmonitor/pdfs/how%20did%20the%20world’s%20poorest%20fare%20in%20the%2090s.nua. http://news.gov.html Synthesis Report on the CSTD Panels on Technology Development and Capacity-Building in a Digital Society. Naples.nhs. Shaohua and Ravallion. Secretary-General. International Telecommunication Union. “How Did the World’s Poor Fare in the 1990s?”. 2 3 4 “Bridging the Digital Divide through Digital Governance”.com. Report of the Secretary-General. Secretary-General.curriculum.html 5 6 NUA Internet statistics.teachnet. 2001. The World Bank. 2002.16/2003/2. Naples.worldbank.studera.

cddc.man.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.un. See Para III.healthinternetwork. P 3. July 2002 http://www3. 11 May 2001. http://www.uk/idpm/idpm_dp.gh/governing/egovernance/index. 1 = sometimes.org/about/principal. Canada.htm 33 34 35 36 37 Iraq had an on-line presence before April 2003.asp The World Bank. http://www.org/africa/afstat. Keynote address to the International Congress on Government Online 2002.org/ publicsector/egov/srilanka. 32 Ibid.org/millennium/declaration/ ares552e.14 The World Bank. Regional groupings are taken from the UN Statistical Division classification. See http://unstats. http://www1. 21 Jerzy Szeremeta.unicttaskforce. Building and Sustaining Democratic and Accountable Governance Structures” using ICT. September 2000 http://www. 2002. http://www.htm Source: The African Internet . Foreword.un.sn. 2 = frequently.htm 23 Heeks. 112 .gov. 2001.org/publicsector/egov/colombiaportal_cs. Ibid.org/src/millenium.un.worldbank. UNDP.ie/surveys/how_many_online/index. 38 39 See http://www. 2003 when the Survey assessment was undertaken. UN DPADM.htm.edu/digitalgov/gov-cases.ac. p.rtf.apc.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.nua. July 2002. 11. Colombia Government Portal. 35. pp. Mimeo 22 United Nations Millennium Declaration. “Understanding E-Governance for Development” E-Government Working Paper Series No. 25 26 27 See also Introduction.htm Nua Internet. Richard. http://www3.ghana.htm 15 16 17 18 Ibid. However its website was not on-line during the period of web measurement for this Survey.sn. United Nations and ASPA.apc.org/africa/afstat. “Digital Governance.php United Nations Millennium Declaration.org/projects/portals/ files/Sweden.vt.A Status Report.html “Benchmarking E-government: A Global Perspective”. “E-government Readiness: Colombia Case Studies”. 8 -11 Source: The African Internet . 28 29 30 31 “Sweden Official Policy On Citizen-Centric E Series” http://governments-online. September 2000. http://www. “Benchmarking E-government Readiness: A Global Perspective”.php “Digital Opportunities for All: Meeting the Challenge.htm#ig 24 For a more detailed discussion of information (explicit knowledge) and knowledge (tacit knowledge) see Chapter II of Part I of the Report.A Status Report. April 2001.11.htm 19 20 http://www. “E-government Readiness: Sri Lanka Case Study” http://www1. it had an on-line presence that was discontinued after early April.worldbank.html “E-Government: Considerations For Arab States”. http://www. and 4 = always Iraq is included in the 18 countries. Zero=never. Report of the Digital Opportunity Task Force (DOT Force) including a proposal for a Genoa Plan of Action”. from April to May 2003. 3 = mostly.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful