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

. . .5 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Enabling Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 E-government Readiness Rankings in South and Eastern Asia . . . . . .9 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Top 25 Countries . . . . . . . . . . 29 E-government Readiness in Western Asia . . . .3 3. . . . Regional Disparities in Telecommunication and Human Capital. . . Service Delivery by Stage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 3. . . . .3 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 On-line Profile of UN Member States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . 42 E-government Stages by Income Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Europe. . . . 52 E-participation by Functional Classification .10 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 E-government Readiness Rankings 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .4 4. . . . . . .4 Enabling Environment for E-government. . . . . . . . . 27 Enabling Environment Indicators in South and Eastern Asia.1 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected European Countries. . . . . . .3. .4 4. . . . . .. . 37 Web Measure Index 2003. 53 E-participation Aspects in National Programmes . . . . . . . . . 36 E-government Readiness Rankings in the Caribbean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Telecommunication Indicators in Selected Latin American Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 3. . . . . . . . . Selected Countries . . . . . . Top 20 E-government Ready Countries. . . . . . . . . .14 4. . . . . . . .6 5. E-government Readiness Index by Region . 55 E-participation by Income Category . . . . Top 20 Countries. . . . .5 4. . . . . .3 4. . . . . . . . . . A Comparative Picture of Telecommunication Indicators in Eastern Asia. . . . . . . . . . . . Top 20 E-government Ready Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 E-government Readiness Rankings in South and Central America . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 4. . . . . . Selected Developing Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Top 22 Countries . . . . . . . . . . .7 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Top 25 Countries . . . . . . . . . . . .2 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 3. . . .7 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 3. . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected Developing Countries . . . .3 4. Telecommunication and Human Capital Indices for South and Central Asia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 21 22 25 28 30 30 35 39 41 45 46 48 49 54 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.1 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Networked Presence. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected Countries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 E-participation Index 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Telecommunication Indicators in Latin America.5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected Developed Countries. . . . . . . E-participation Index. . . . . . Enabling Environment for E-government. . . . .13 3. .1 5. . . . . . . . . 34 Telecommunication Measures in Africa. . . . . . . . . . . . 37 E-government Readiness Rankings in Oceania. . . Selected Countries.11 3. .6 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Graphs. . . . . . . . . . . . Service Delivery by Stage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 E-government Readiness Rankings in Africa. . . . .2 4. . . . . 43 Information and Service Delivery by Stage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Transactional Presence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Enabling Environment in Africa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected Countries.2 3. Selected Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Part II 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected Countries . . Stages in E-government.2 4. . . . . . . . . . 41 Selected Common Characteristics of Country Websites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 E-government Readiness Rankings in South-central Asia . Selected Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 4. . . . . . .6 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 4. . . . . . 106 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Boxes. . . . U. . . .1 4. 7 . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. . . . . .4 4.. The U. . . . . . . . . . 31 . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 . . . . . . . . . .1 2. . . . . . .2 4. . . . . . 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cambodia: It is all about the focus. . . 6. . . . . . . . interactive health website . . . . . . . . . E-participation Index 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mongolia: listening to citizens . . . .1 3.6 5. . . . . . . . . .5 4. Human Capital Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 64 70 73 79 85 91 97 . . . . .3 4. . . E-participation framework . . . . . . . . Innovative community-owned rural internet kiosks in Gyandoot. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Telecommunication Indicators 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .K. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G2C e-partnerships: inventive indigenous E-government in Sri Lanka. Open Sweden . .1 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . Components of E-government Readiness Index Web Measure Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Telecommunication Indicators 2003 . . . . India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Annex I: Data Tables 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 E-health for all: UN supports the developing world. . . . . 8. . . . . . . . .S.K. . . . . . . . . .: two approaches to e-participation . . . . . . . . and the U. . . Telecommunication Indicators 2003 . . . . 51 . . . . . . . .II . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-government nomenclature . . . Armenia’s on-line forum promotes democratic participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Part II 1. . Technology Infrastructure Index 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 . . 16 . . . Annex II: Technical Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . Australian interactive job listing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 . . . . . . .100 E-government Readiness Index 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 5.2 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

have the potential to generate a greater demand for increased participation and empowerment by people. Internet hosts).. around 20 per cent do not have access to safe water and sanitation12.in absolute terms. where already scarce resources are devoted to more traditional models of economic. in 2003. that energizes planners to bring the use of e-government into national development strategies. telephone lines) are more evenly distributed. government endeavour has made it possible for teachers to access all curricula on line.”8 It is this potential.08/day1.10 All that is needed is access to a computer with Internet and the willingness to learn. Governments worldwide are aware of both the challenges and the potential of e-government.even though they constitute a small proportion of today’s population . A meta-data application ensures that the search engine can find up-to-date information on every single course.5 per cent of the population had on-line access.. as well as information about careers and postgraduate studies. roughly half of the world’s population of six billion has never made a telephone call14 while.K.K.Funds for such purposes are not available in many parts of the world.g. With increasing business and people e-networks. worldwide..2 The potential of e-government: a historic opportunity Despite challenges. there appears to be convergence. In general. the social divide and the democratic divide among peoples of the world. while OECD countries and South Eastern Asian “Tigers” are getting ahead. Latin American and transition economies are keeping up.9 An U... human and technological development.. Similarly.. government is providing upto-date. African and South Asian countries are falling behind. the U. E-government is transforming the ways in which the government.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. the impact of the digital divide in today’s globalized world is likely to greatly exacerbate the economic divide. the Government of Sweden has established a one-stop shop for all Swedish higher education opportunities... compared to more recent technologies (e. They are also becoming aware that the rapidly developing knowledge societies . To wit. I.. If unchecked. only 9. the UN Secretary-General’s Report on the Commission On Science And Technology states that “..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. the cost of inaction could lead to a shift of power structures outside the traditional parameters of the state.. “. Around 24 per cent of the world’s people live below the poverty line on $1.13 Furthermore. and 57 out of 191 member states of the UN have populations where one in five can neither read nor write. Within the OECD countries that are leading in connectivity.15 In evaluating the extent of regional disparities. As the UN Secretary-General has stated.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. in Australia teachers can upgrade skills/information at an on-line website provided for this purpose. Realizing this potential. 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. quite a few countries have initiated innovative e-government programmes for providing socio-economic services to all. the gap between the leaders (primarily OECD countries) and laggards (primarily African and some CIS countries) is growing. which the future promises.g. cross-referenced health and social care information through the Internet to all in 5 . More mature technologies (e. business and the public at large interact with one another. the potential for e-government in the service of people is vast.11 From April 2003.

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

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

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

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

This includes interactions related to the delivery of public services as well as to participation in the consultation and decision-making process.1 E-government nomenclature Government-to-Government (G2G) involves sharing data and conducting electronic exchanges between governmental actors. 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 . as well as exchanges among the national. Although the Survey does not assess G2G services. This involves both intra.and interagency exchanges at the national level. It limits itself to exploring government-to-consumer/citizen (G2C) and consumer/citizen-to-government (C2G) relationships. 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. the Survey adopts a people-centric approach to e-government. Government-to-Business (G2B) involves business-specific transactions (e. 2.Box. since improvements in G2C and C2G are closely linked to G2G improvements. Based on this perspective. in the comparative measurement of G2C and C2G relationships is an implicit assessment of G2G. provincial and local levels. Government-to-Consumer/Citizen (G2C) involves initiatives designed to facilitate people’s interaction with government as consumers of public services and as citizens.g. payments with regard to sale and purchase of goods and services) as well as provision on line of business-focussed services.

Present a snapshot of the state of comparative e-government readiness of the countries of the world. 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. 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 confines itself to an assessment of the e-facilities on line.basic social services to the people. II. The state of e-government readiness.and the quality of . The willingness. This Survey presents a snapshot of the state of comparative e-government readiness of the countries of the world. more expanded research. and 2. 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. Provide a comparative assessment of the willingness and ability of governments to involve the public in e-participation.1. The Survey names this the e-government readiness. on the part of the government. and. and 4. 11 . Drawing on broader. 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 provides an appraisal of the use of e-government as a tool in the delivery of services to the consumer. The Survey names this as e-participation. both in their capacity as consumers of public services and as citizens.1 The conceptual framework. While not detracting from the importance of other forms of assessment of IT applications. 2.The objectives of the Survey are to: 1. 3. 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. 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. high quality information (explicit knowledge)24 and effective communication tools that support human development. 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.

interact. It is based upon a theoretical Web Presence Measurement Model. 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. 12 . ascending in nature. 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. e-participation assesses the same from a qualitative perspective. (See chart. Transactional Presence and Networked Presence. Web Measure Index The Web Measure Index is a quantitative index. transact and network. They are: Emerging Presence. given in the schema below. i.It should be noted that while the E-government Readiness Index assesses the quantity of information and services provided. Enhanced Presence. and building upon the previous level of sophistication of a government’s on-line presence. the Telecommunication Infrastructure Index and the Human Capital Index. the model defines stages of e-government readiness according to a scale of progressively sophisticated services. which is a quantitative five-stage model. 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. A. with a special focus on consultation and decision making. Interactive Presence. For the governments that have established an on-line presence. are theoretically ascending in the level of maturity or sophistication of e-government presence on-line.) The five stages.

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

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

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

iii.2 E-participation framework E-information: The government websites offer information on policies and programmes. and the right of the public to have access to information.. 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 c) Using ICT to support decision making by facilitating people’s participation within the framework of G2C and C2G interactions. e-mail lists... The government encourages citizens to participate in discussions. 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. 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 “. As such. social and cultural regimes across countries. In devising the conceptual framework for e-participation. Box.2.” This can be achieved via: a) Using ICT to increase the supply of information useful in the process of consultation and for decision making. budgets. (See Technical Notes for details. and other briefs of key public interest. allowing genuine participation by all citizens in all (our) countries.resolve to work collectively for more inclusive political processes... E-consultation: The government website explains e-consultation mechanisms and tools. The extent of e-participation i. economic. including web forums. it confines itself to citizen- 16 . 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. the Survey does not make any value judgement on democracy in its traditional nuanced meaning.. laws and regulations. deliberative process of decision-making. inclusive. b) Using ICT to enhance consultation. NGOs and business organizations. This is a composite of the adult literacy rate and the combined primary. irrespective of any differences in political. with two thirds of the weight given to adult literacy and one third to the gross enrolment ratio. e-participation is defined here to be a “participatory. newsgroups and chat rooms. secondary and tertiary gross enrolment ratio. this Survey limits itself to exploring only government willingness to promote such groups through the use of the ICT.) B.”25 Within this framework. Human Capital Index The data for the Human Capital Index 2003 relies on the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) “education index”. Tools for dissemination of information exist for timely access and use of public information. The concept employed here holds a deliberative thought process to be superior..

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

More and more countries are employing a one-stop-shop portal for integrated delivery of information and services. 4.e. by 2003. Eighty-eight per cent of the countries surveyed have websites with information in one or more of the six UN languages.351). Arabic. In Africa. specialty portals and one-stop service sites. At present e-government websites are mushrooming around the globe in a haphazard manner.558) lead among the world regions. 28 9. Governments have made rapid progress worldwide in embracing ICT technologies for e-government in the past year. the Caribbean (0.III. 18 . State and sectoral websites reflect wide variations among .jump from the stage of emerging or enhanced presence with limited information to the transactional stage or networked stage in a short time.442) have the highest aggregate state of e-government readiness followed by South and Eastern Asia (0.and do . Research Findings and Analysis A. French. 27 2.292) and finally. 3. There are no evolutionary development stages in e-government. but steady. There appears to be a gradual. About 88 per cent of South and Central American and Caribbean countries provide websites in either Spanish. There is no one model of e-government development. Eighteen countries were not on line. 5. Africa (0. South-central Asia (0. In the rest of the world. One hundred and twenty-five out of 173 countries provide websites in the English language in addition to their native language. Countries can . In 2001. However the ability of the various governments to develop and present them in an integrated. South and Central America (0. Western Asia (0. 81 per cent of countries provide website information in either English or French. while in Western Asia the majority of state websites are in Arabic. unified fashion is uneven.and between . the UN E-government Survey listed 143 member states as using the Internet in some capacity. Oceania (0. English appears to have become the language for e-government presence on line. Major findings Global e-government expansion and design 1. Spanish. English or both. 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. English.401).410). i. a clear e-government policy/statement and a specific e-government portal. 91 per cent or 173 out of 191 member states had a website presence.437). 6.867) and Europe (0. Twenty-four of the top 25 countries and 39 of the top 50 countries have either or both.241). Chinese and Russian. trend toward national portal/gateway sites. This Survey confirms that North America (0. 7. E-government readiness rankings 8.countries in the provision of on-line information and basic public services.

806) and Norway (0. 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 .746) leads. 17. 16. 11. some developing countries have taken a great leap forward. ICT-facilitated information and services reach only the privileged few in the developing countries. 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. 18.402. 14. in several instances. Their examples provide model illustrations of the promise of e-government.10. Despite difficulties. 22.K.778). The determinants of differences in e-government services range from political and economic models to inequities in financial. 23. E-participation and the promise of “inclusion of all” 13.S. human and technical capital. 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. Despite popular belief. 19. the U. only a handful of countries worldwide are utilizing close to the full potential of e-government. everything that the Survey has revealed confirms that the imperative for effective e-government remains a multi-pronged approach to its development. At present. Among the developing countries Singapore (0.927) is the world leader followed by Sweden (0. Australia (0.populations that are neither literate nor connected to a computer.814). Estonia (0. (0. 12. 21. 15.744). Many developed countries are not fully utilizing the possibility of “including all”.671).831). 20. Since the websites are inter alia a reflection of the country’s willingness to share information and knowledge with the people. There is a real possibility of the digital divide widening between e-haves and e-havenots in the developed and in the developing world. (0. based on 19 . The world average e-government readiness is 0. followed by the Republic of Korea (0.820). Many industrialized nations are not as advanced as popularly perceived in providing people-centred transactional and networked services.697) and Chile (0. Denmark (0. Most developing countries are at the initial three stages of e-government development with little or no transactional or networked services.840). political ideologies appear to determine what is to be public knowledge. Finally. The U. There is no standard formula for effective e-government. Canada (0.

718 0. the United Kingdom (0.702 0. e-government can push the frontiers of development around the globe. If effectively utilized.671) are among the top 25 e-government ready countries. 13.927.697 0.746 0.820 0. 18. three to South and Eastern Asia.ICT and human and telecommunications infrastructure development. indicating a fast “catch up”. 10.814 0. B. 11. 19. Most of the high-income developed economies rank the highest and considerably higher than the global average of 0. 16 out of 25 countries belong to Europe.927 ready countries. 2.690 0.806 0. Global e-government readiness rankings Table 3. 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.746). 24.778 0.820). 5.697) and Table 3.840 0. Australia (0. the Republic of Korea (0. No country from Readiness Index South-central Asia or Africa made it into the list of the top 25 e-government 1. Singapore (0. 21. 25. two to Oceania and one Country E-government each to Western Asia and South and Central America.1 and Graph 3. Region wise. 14.831 0.744). 20.685 0. The United States is the current global leader with the highest index of 0. 4.697 0. two to Top 25 Countries North America.402. a few middle-income developing countries are in the group.761 0.814) and Canada (0. Among the developing countries. 22. Denmark (0.737 0.762 0.764 0.670 0. Though the industrialized countries make up the majority. 16.671 0. 3.806). With a global average of 0.663 0. 15.1 Chile (0. 12. United States 0. 23.402.84).693 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 0.1 present the global e-government readiness rankings for the top 25 countries among the UN member states.746 0. 9.676 0.656 20 . 17.831). Estonia (0. 6. 8. 7. followed by Sweden (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

Table 3. a dictionary and a news subscription.94 0.291 0. There is also a telephone hotline.371) are in the early stages of development with mostly limited provision of information and services. E-government programmes in Albania (0.oresunddirekt. such as Italy (0.gov.309) and Serbia & Montenegro (0.284 0.441 0. and the Parliament even though no material is available in English.88 0.asp) providing user-centric information for the public and for enterprises at both sides of Oresund.428 0.694 0.424 0. the straight separating Denmark and the southern tip of Sweden. especially the countries with economies in transition.94 0. In parallel to the portal “front office”.636).083 0.860 0. Many countries of Eastern Europe.32 24 .92 0. the public authorities on both sides have been organized into a “back office” network.568 0.com/dk/engelsk. Swedish Innovative Portals present excellent examples of the potential of e-government.31 Another innovative portal is a joint Danish-Swedish initiative (http://www.97 0.80 0.5 Enabling Environment for E-government. 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 0.059 0.se/) brings together all legal text produced by the Swedish state agencies. Portugal (0.507 0.88 0. One innovative portal (http://www. including those of Southern Europe.840) ranks the highest in Europe and higher than even the average for Northern European countries (0.372 0. Bosnia & Herzegovina (0.111 0.460 0. Table 3.513 0.616 0.114 0. It provides information on the Swedish side in Danish.5 and Graph 3.409 0.685). the Government Cabinet.131 Infrastructure Human Capital Index Index 0.4 below present the enabling environment for a selected group of these countries and demonstrate intra-European disparities in this regard.134 0. and information on the Danish side in Swedish.below other European countries.311).lagrummet.94 0.717).737 Sweden (0. remain constrained by the lack of both finance and infrastructure as they attempt to reform their economies.328 0.499 0.490 0.646) and Malta (0.049 0.

92 Uk ra ine 0. Most notable are its consultation features.uk. Enabling Environment for E-government. global leaders have been quick to seek the regulatory and administrative reform necessary for the integration of e-networking into G2G and G2C interactions. well-thought-out e-strategy. This is only the beginning of a gigantic wealth of resources that offer everything from a one-stopshop for goods and services.541 0.223 0.gov. In an attempt towards improving cost effectiveness and efficiency.122 0.312 0.147 ria d ia 0.349 0.92 0. Though not a focus in this Survey. financial means are an important determinant of successful e-government initiatives.537 0.92 0. Further. easy-to-use manner. Re Ro Slo va kia us y 0.814) is decidedly among the innovative leaders in the provision of one-stop e-government initiatives.116 0. An index of ongoing consultations.294 25 . Selected Countries Web measure index Infrastructure index Human Cap Index 0.248 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. the “Your Life” and “Do it Online” sections provide the user with quick access to anything one could need in a people-centric.ogc. as this Survey states earlier. Moreover. 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. direct access to consultation documents. http://wwww. including e-procurement.89 0. found in the top-level “Citizen Space” section of the national site.349 0.307 0. and directly related policy discussion forums make this citizen participation section a model to emulate. Most developed countries have had the necessary financial means to invest in developing and expanding egovernment service delivery. effectiveness and empowerment.38 0. where the search for cost effectiveness had led the way to achieving greater efficiency and service provision.88 0.91 0.94 0. The governments followed in an attempt to reform the way the state interacts with society. website assessments revealed that innovative egovernment programmes in developed countries followed e-initiatives in their private sectors.419 0. Europe. A major contributing factor in successful e-government programmes in most of the North American and European countries is a comprehensive.149 0.9 0.386 0.12 0.9 0.07 0.185 0.4.Graph 3.93 0.

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

264 between the government and the public.087 portal. In Estonia. clearly Singapore (0. is the E-Citizen portal Readiness Index where government services are literally “A Click Away. the Republic of Korea (0. Though Philippines 0.744 Though still a way off from an integrated portal.kr) on the Mongolia 0.korea. In the Lao People’s Democratic Republic 0.744) and Japan (0. from subway information and financial Brunei Darussalam 0. The challenge for Estonia is to further improve digital services by expanding its on-line transactions. E-government programmes in both Singapore and the Republic of Korea provide a lot of information and services. providing an effective starting point for Rankings in South and the user to find just about anything related to the government.6 Singapore (http://www.343 other. plans to make all forms and applications submittable on line have been held up while the government works out security.go.357 government information portal on one hand and the government service portal (www.446 gateway portal also includes an open bulletin board system for general Indonesia 0. Most notable on the homepage. and at about the same level as many European countries in their state of e-government readiness. The former is focused mainly on providing government information Myanmar 0. There is Eastern Asia everything from an on-line Government Mall to an on-line donations E-government portal. minwon.gov.kr. The Table 3.459 reports to real-time news and on-line language courses in Korean. a basic but effective approach to disseminating China 0.go. electronic signature and other necessary legal and technical requirements.korea. South and Eastern Asia As the table below shows.693 national gateway site is a new and evolving e-government site. including businesses.746).574 there are numerous links and various services. often provided by a top-rated commercial provider. the Republic of Korea Japan 0. 27 .kr.437 and services are still being worked out.746 emphasis on services is complemented by quality news and information.korea.go. The integration and linkages among the various sites. however. The Republic of Korea’s sites provide a fairly comprehensive range of information.the foundation for building more sophisticated services and transactions. The Thailand 0.will be linked together and integrated into a single government Timor-Leste 0.” The heavy Singapore 0. only a few can be initiated Malaysia 0. 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.280 and the latter on providing government services.the information portal and the service portal . The country takes a two-way approach to implementation: the Viet Nam 0. on-line transactions Cambodia 0.192 future.422 feedback and commentary.e. information Average 0. Republic of Korea 0.524 on line at present.sg/) national government site is one of the E-government Readiness best-organized sites in existence. i.693) are the regional leaders. open.416 information. the two government portals .

Whereas Japan (0.8 0.84 meeting the threshold for a formal on-line consultation system.087 0.org.675 0. the on-line participation features at the Cambodian site represent a big step in that direction.004 0.266 0. A comparative picture of telecommunication indicators in East Asia. the Philippines government has initiated efforts to improve the efficiency of government services to the public.2 1.250 0.tag. an 0.045 Human Cap Index 0.747 0. Despite the fact that at present.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. Despite limitations.kh).gov.626) and the Republic of Korea (0.8 1. the reach of e-initiatives is limited to a small proportion of the population. Selected Countries Web measure Brunei Darussalam Cambodia China Indonesia Japan Malaysia Mongolia Myanmar Philippines Republic of Korea Thailand 0.7 dia pa Ko Ch Ja ga on an of Ind Sin My 28 Re p.86 0.8 where the government’s resource focus appears to be on 0. Although not 0.004) and Myanmar (0.7. As can be seen. Cambodia (0.75 ties for citizens to interact with the government. and an 0.ph) project in an attempt to summarize how.3 re re a ina n 0.95 interactive question and answer section.7 Enabling Environment Indicators in South and Eastern Asia.127 0.292 0.480 0.85 engaging citizen input.003) are only at a fraction of their level.140 0.1 0. 0.003 0.8 1.040 0.Table 3. The Transparent Accountable Governance (TAG) (http://www.66 0.8 PCs/1000 Online pop/1000 464 508.117 0.91 open topic discussion forum titled “Opinions”. selected countries 625 555.332 0.626 0.045).524 0. the Philippines (0.3 493 382. One 0.064). the Cambodian national site includes a small survey section. deficient infrastructure is a very serious constraint on the potential of e-government programmes to reach all.064 0.5 3.116 0. including policy documents and decision guidance.3 11 19 35.432 Telecom Index 0. Indonesia (0.607 0. why and Graph 3. especially for a deve-loping country.93 such example is Cambodia (http://www. some countries have taken the leap in initiating innovative e-government programmes.cambodia.675) have a high level of telecommunication infrastructure. Focusing on providing opportuni0.380 0.5 .5.5 372 19. Ca m bo La o po es m US ia ar s 597.

The cost of telephones and the Internet are high relative to the per capita GDP of many of the South Asian countries. case studies and discussions to engage the public in a discussion on corruption. Additionally. Computers and cell phones remain luxury items. With 20 per cent of the global population living in the Indian sub-continent alone.8 confine the benefit of e-government to the E-government very few. TAG takes a pro-active role in encouraging public debate on the issue of corruption and ways to counter it. despite financial and other limitations.247 0.33 The research findings illustrate that.385 0. the potential of e-government to development could be enormous.327 0. Major power outages are experienced. South-central Asia The countries in South-central Asia score low in their state of e-government readiness. not available to all.6 and 3. especially in the rural areas in India and Pakistan.118 0.410).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.387) and Sri Lanka (0. However. though its e-government readiness index is about at the level of the global mean.373 0. The approach relies on public opinion survey research. The same is the case in Pakistan. E-government Readiness Index Maldives Kazakhstan Sri Lanka India Turkmenistan Iran (Islamic Republic of) Kyrgyzstan Nepal Pakistan Bangladesh Bhutan Afghanistan Average 0.to what degree corruption exists in Philippine society. the relatively lower level of human development impedes access to all. Despite much progress in ICT. telecommunication infrastructure is severely lacking in South Asia. the serious limitations on literacy and education Table 3. not only for the region but for the world as a whole. Irregular or non-existent electricity supplies are a common feature and a major barrier to the use of ICTs. Graphs 3. the lack of infrastructure and education has limited the enabling environment in India and the reach of e-government to include all.165 0.410 0. Kazakhstan (0. investigative reports. More than in other parts of the world. the political will to empower citizens is an important contributor towards an effort at e-government for all.292 29 . Maldives (0.335 0.157 0.385) follow but their e-government readiness remains much below the world average. The TAG website also presents the initiatives of both government and the private-sector in addressing corruption. is also the regional leader.330 0.387 0.268 0. which scores the highest in human capital. especially outside the major towns.

750 0.410 Telecom Index Human Cap Index E Readiness Index 0. selected region Web measure 0.4 0.government reach and expansion.521 0.355 0.84 0.01 0.7 Enabling environment.035 0. the low level of purchasing power of the vast majority of the populations.57 0.42 0.437 0.91 0.04 0.Graph 3.92 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.197 Tu r km za en yz iL ist a ta Ira es ve ta n l 0.87 Telecom Index Human Cap Index 0.00 0.036 Africa South and Eastern Asia Furthermore.04 0.9 .03 0.09 0.00 0.6 Telecommunication and human capital indices for South and Central Asia 0.268 0. 30 0.06 0.268 0.02 0.42 0.04 0.75 0.748 0.241 Western Asia 0.292 0.48 0. Notwithstanding.204 0.137 0.246 0.07 0.195 South-central Asia 0. some Asian developing countries are reaching out to their populations through highly innovative e-government initiatives in a remarkable effort to “include all”.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.

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

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

functioning of schools or village committees etc.351 0.355 0.535). child marriage.264) and Yemen (0. Lebanon (0. these countries are at a higher state of e-government readiness than many in the Africa or South-central Asia regions.000 times.188 0. Table 3. On the other hand.377 0. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) (0. they may send the application from a kiosk and within 10 days. information regarding government programmes. the first month of operation. the kiosk network was accessed 1.410 A supportive enabling environment is reflected in the highest e-government readiness index of Israel (0.200 times for a variety of services. Bahrain (0.474). the 31 Gyandoot kiosks were used nearly 55.510 0. a forum that enables school children to ask questions (“Ask an Expert”). Village auction site: This facility makes auction facilities available to farmers and villagers for land.429). employee establishment matters.to collect the certificate.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. notification about the readiness of the certificate is sent via e-mail to the relevant kiosk. e-mail (free for information on child labour. Only one trip is needed .424) and Qatar (0.429 0.535 0. STD PCO.510).worldbank.411 0. illegal possession of land belonging to Scheduled Tribes etc.188) currently indicate a deficient level of e-government readiness. scholarship sanction/disbursement.411) have put tremendous effort into developing their e-government programmes in recent years.474 0. Source: The World Bank.663 0. a large part of which is due to their lower level of human/capital and technology infrastructure. having e-government readiness indices above the global mean of 0.663) in Western Asia.000 in July. http://www1. agricultural machinery. 33 . Jordan (0. However.) Some kiosks also have added photocopy machines. including for drinking water.364 0. Arab and non-Arab countries in the region follow. Other services offered at the kiosks include on-line matrimonial advertisements.424 0. In January 2000. equipment and other durable commodities.9 presents the e-government readiness of the countries of Western Asia.Now. On-line Public Grievance Redress: A complaint can be filed and a reply received within seven days.338 0. During the first 11 months.264 0.org/publicsector/egov/gyandootcs. That number reached nearly 9. Supported by financial investment and efforts at regulatory and administrative reforms.htm Western Asia Table 3. Turkey (0. quality of seed/fertilizer.370 0. Syria (0.402. Cyprus (0.506 0.506). and horoscope services.

135 0. E-government Readiness Rankings in Africa bus times.515 ly notable. promises to encompass a wider range of people-centred services and transactions in health. as opposed to most other such guest Botswana 0.The Israeli e-government initiative provides all the basic government information and services combined with links. 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 . It Table 3. Second. First. services and links on its official e-government site.049 0.244 0.231 ing and.060 0.340 0.270 0.229 books.10 features virtually everything from exchange rates. Africa’s state of e-government readiness is around half that of the world average. The Government of Jordan is in the process of planning for a full-scale electronic government over the next five years. even prayer times .471 Benin 0.265 0. Even though low on the e-government readiness ranking in this Survey. launched the e-Dirham system and site.238 South Africa 0.128 0.347 Madagascar 0.206 0. 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. Mauritius 0.296 0.173 0.253 0.241 Sudan Senegal Angola Burundi Djibouti Comoros Mozambique Gambia Mauritania Mali Burkina Faso Guinea Ethiopia Sierra Leone Niger Somalia Average 0.192 0. there is a link to an excellent e-tender site.322 0.om. states that someone will actually respond to comments made . education and other areas.gov.420 Malawi 0. the Seychelles 0. In 2001.one message at a time.132 0.tenderboard. which leads the e-government effort among the Arab States.233 home site guest book provides interesting readAlgeria 0. Lesotho 0.276 0.346 Nigeria 0. and as it develops. to e-Tender and e-Payment one-stop-shop portals. Oman provides an impressive amount of useful information.126 0.140 0.283 0.370 Togo 0.246 Africa With an average index of 0. live TV.265 0.and this is Readiness Index just on the front page.225 Namibia Tunisia Cape Verde Zimbabwe Kenya Uganda Swaziland Gabon Zambia Sao Tome and Principe Cameroon Morocco Congo United Republic of Tanzania Rwanda Ghana 0.181 0.299 0.329 0.201 0.235 http://www.161 0. albeit for different reasons.176 0. weekE-government ly news releases. the Government of the UAE. links to important sites. Two features are especialEgypt 0.295 0.272 0. 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.172 0.34 On-line banking has already taken off in a few countries like Lebanon and the UAE.179 0. but the e-Dirham programme is broadly available to the public.304 0.246. for example. The orientation of the UAE site leans toward commerce and business.

6 0.4 12 0.5 35.8 Mauritius 14.8 present the telecommunication indicators in selected African countries.1 268 109.91 1.26 10. Most of the existing telecom infrastructure does not reach the bulk of the population .33 Mobile subs / 1000 pers 265.29 0.3 68.4 15.9 24.3 204.3 261.6 20.3 6.65 5.15 0.7 29.2 6.27 10.9 South Africa 265.7 270.7 7.0 Online population % 7.13 Note: a) data is for 2000.8 289.4 2.6 0.0 South Africa Mauritius Seychelles Zimbabwe Gabon a) 14.7 30.24 0.33 a) Burkina Faso Uganda Sudan Malawi 0.9 2.7 109.9 8. selected countries 7.13 11.9 6.3 30 PCs / Per 100 pers Internet Users / 1000 pers Telephone lines per 1000 pers Online pop % Cameroon 0.62 2.03 0.8 Enabling environment in Africa.2 214 5.16 538.0 1.16 1.88 1.1 2. b) data is for 2001.6 11.24 2.2 0.7 Zimbabwe 0.28 0.6 7 0.7 9.1 538. over 70 per cent of the lines are still located in the largest cities. in general the lack of telecommunication infrastructure in Africa is a serious constraint to the rapid adoption of e-government for all.2 TV sets / 1000 pers 127 268 214 30 326 34 118 12 27 273 3.3 8.1 24.7 34 0. including Côte d’Ivoire. 7 270.97 19.19 Cameroon Ghana a) a) 0. Ghana and Uganda.51 2.20 148.2 107.5 6.35 Table 3.15 0.2 0.2 1.3 0.93 1.2 3 Telephone lines per 1000 pers TV sets / 1000 pers Burkina Faso Sudan 273 Malawi 35 . where only about 10 per cent of the population lives.7 30.3 35.2 20.11 Telecommunication Measures in Africa.8 148. Though the use of the Internet has spread in the last few years.9 0.6 4.6 4.58 2.9 5.50 per cent of the available lines are concentrated in the capital cities.92 0. Selected Countries Country PCs / Per 100 pers 7.Table 3.39 0.24 0.15 5.83 a) b) Internet Users / 1000 pers 68.58 Telephone lines 1000 pers 107. In over 15 countries in Africa.9 0.11 and Graph 3.9 42.1 11.6 7. Graph 3.13 289.7 Seychelles 261.9 2.8 42.24 0.

443 0.507 0. services and overall approach of the national portal. the majority of such users are concentrated in a handful of countries.Table 3. among other limiting factors is an irregular supply of electricity. ministry and one-stop sites. Mexico (http://www. updating and improving the design and coverage of the information and services they provide to the public in the last one or two years. the level of economic development and the associated trade and tax regimes lag behind those in more developed regions of the world. 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. the provision of information and services to the public via an e-network reaches only the privileged few. Lack of financial investment in e-government programmes and website services. especially in the rural areas .a basic prerequisite for e-government to succeed. Much of the promise of e-government rests on the ability of people to interact and transact with the government.671 0.364 0. Nigeria and Mauritius. 1 in 130 had a PC (5. Chile’s (http://www.593 0. In addition. Moreover. Chile. Argentina (0.442 South and Central America South and Central America enjoys a higher level of per capita income.280 0. Despite the current focus. such as South Africa. The national portal and the ministry sites all fit together in a well-integrated system of on-line information and services.cl) strength lies in strong integration among all of its national.409 0.324 0. with the ministry sites supporting the information. Excellent one-stop-shops exist for. 1 in 13 had a TV (62m). secure financial and regulatory environment. These countries have made tremendous progress in expanding. and payment of fees. 1 in 160 used the Internet (5m). Combined.593). and 1 in 400 had pay-TV (2m). 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. 1 in 40 had a fixed line (20m).422 0. human development and the basic infrastructure required for e-government development than some other developing regions of the world. among other things. Uruguay (0.443). bids and solicitations. A standout feature is a prominently placed section for citizens to initiate formal complaints against public servants and/or the government . Mexico and Argentina are success stories in e-government programmes worldwide. necessitating an effective.411 0. In addition to basic information.378 0.that offer just about everything to the prospective user. Peru (0.577 0. Mexico (0. limited telecommunication infrastructure and low human development in Africa limit the reach of such programmes to the vast majority of African countries’ populations.463 0. people’s engagement and participation. as well as other transactions. many of which remain mostly cash economies.507). among others. it is estimated that only: 1 in 4 had a radio (205 million [m]).gobiernodechile.12 In most countries.671).gob.329 0.36 As in many other developing countries. This is reflected in a higher than world average for many of its countries such as Chile (0.432 0. Of the approximately 816 million people in Africa in 2001.527).427 0. Such an environment is not yet fully available in African countries. Brazil (0.national site.422 0. ministry sites.one of the 36 .577). 1 in 35 had a mobile phone (24m).463) and Colombia (0.413 0.mx) provides a wide-ranging network of wellintegrated sites . and specialty one-stops . contracts. including taxes. 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.9m).527 0.

438 0. Behind its high ranking in the Survey is the provision of information and services on all of its public service ministry sites.429 0. Not only does it provide plenty of informational resources.718 0. Argentina has made substantial progress in its e-government initiatives in the last year.348 0.284 0.14 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. Nicaragua (0.391 0. Caribbean Clearly Saint Lucia (0.ar. http//www. 37 .364). Guatemala (0.413 0. but it also engages the public directly through on-line forms. Seven Caribbean countries have a higher than world average.280) will need to take some more time and effort to develop their e-government potentials fully.329).326 0.178) have egovernment readiness rankings that are twice the world average and are among the global leaders in e-government. have a lower than world mean: Cuba.831 0. followed by Dominican Republic (0. However.438) and Jamaica (0. Vincent and the Grenadines.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. Australia (0.426 0.293 0.009 0.831) and New Zealand (0.142 0.299 0.324) and Honduras (0.038 0. Antigua and Barbuda.432 0.401 Table 3.best examples of how e-government can facilitate transparency and accountability in government. Four countries though.250 0.educ.351 Oceania Australia is the regional leader among the group comprising Oceania.438) with its endowments is the leader in the Caribbean. Other South and Central American countries are also making great strides in promoting E-government usage.372 0. chat rooms and discussion. Table 3. Venezuela (0. Grenada and St.425 0.427 0.526 0.438 0.378). proved to be especially noteworthy. at present Ecuador (0.432). the education ministry.364 0. For example.

and among. However.581 0.countries in the provision of on-line information and basic public services. which is updated every 20 minutes. Table 4. with the U. Top 25 Countries In the developing world.683 0. The determinants of differences in e-government services range from politiTable 4.808 forward. nical capital. there is a real possibility of the digital divide Web measure widening between e-haves and e-have-nots. which was 22 in the overall E-government Readiness Index jumps to position two when ranked by the Web Measure Index.1 cal and economic models to inequities in terms of financial.812 Despite difficulties. the Philippines. Estonia.552 0. Australia is also home to perhaps the world’s greatest job database.616 0.607 0.570 0.703 0.838 network reach only the privileged few in the developing countries.683 0. Mexico.633 0. If effectively uti7 Philippines 0.568 0. In conclusion.government have tended to lose out in the set of world comparative rankings.668 0.gov. The state of e-government and egovernment readiness in a country is a function of the combined level of economic.616 0. Chile.642 0. the rankings are considerably changed.S. the Telecommunication Index and the Human Capital Index.555 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.and between . Index nations in telecommunication and human capital development pose serious 1 United States 1.777 ernment. Web Measure Assessments Several countries worldwide have made tremendous progress in adopting egovernment to provide information. which was 30 in the E-government Readiness Index surpasses 26 other countries and jumps to number four in the Web Measure Index. Similarly. e-government can push the frontiers of development around the globe.Australia http://www. Inequities between.1 provides the top 25 countries when ranked by the Web Measure Index alone. Singapore. Chile.351 IV. there is no one model of e-government development. State and sectoral websites reflect wide variations among .576 0. The site provides personalization features such as keyword press release subscriptions and access to the comprehensive Commonwealth Government On-Line Directory. it should always be kept in mind that the E-government Readiness Index is a composite of the Web Measure Index. And the site features a 60-second web comment form on how to improve it. technological development and human resource development. Average 38 .fed. many countries that have recently invested in e.000 constraints on the use of e-government for knowledge and the empowerment of people.gov. as reflected in the e-government readiness rankings presented above.603 0.764 human and telecommunications infrastructure development.au. information and services to the public via an e2 Chile 0.747 lized.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. At present e-government websites are mushrooming around the globe in a haphazard manner. knowledge and services to the public through their official government websites. 3 Australia 0. At present. http://jobsearch.624 0. Mexico. human and techWeb Measure Index 2003.694 0. Australia. The web measure rankings points to the interesting fact that in the last couple of years. These examples provide model illustrations of the promise of e-gov5 United Kingdom 0. 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. To highlight innovative efforts by these countries in e-government development. as the comparator. As can be seen from the table. For example. some developing countries have taken a great leap 4 Mexico 0. With limited human and technological infrastructure support.

for 2000.0 428. Graph 4.84 0. e-connectivity in Mexico 68. On-line population data is the percentage of the population. Estonia equals Canada in interactive services while the Philippines scores higher on interactive services than Germany. Consequently.92 0.3 Argentina Chile Brazil 218.6 countries.7 74.5 these countries ranges from 3. and the U.4 200. As can be seen.8 200. Chile outranks all but the U.3 103.Argentina.3 despite a very high Human Capital Index.7 45. The Philippines and Mexico score higher than all countries except the U.1 give the telecomuse lines population subscribers munication indicators for these Argentina 82 112.3 254.3 201. Republic of Korea. Mexico and Argentina.3 Brazil 74. TVs 293 242 283 343 Educ Index 0. transactional or networked stages.4 177. Even though several developing countries have made vast progress towards e-government.6 per cent in Mexico to 20 per cent Data for PCs. Table 4.9 0.6 242 283 Mexico 293 343 PC Internet Telephone Online Mobile use lines population subscribers TVs 0.84 0.2 Chile.022 218. Selected Countries tion in these countries.3 112.8 68.415 230.S.0 146.6 200. In several instances.4 223.8 33.5 201. Denmark. Chile 119.774 146. Malta and Turkey have made much faster and more effective progress in their e-government programmes than some of the developed countries.8 10. all other data is per 1000 persons.8 82. Chile and the Philippines outscore the U. in Chile.S.K. Sweden and the U. Brazil.4 20.83 on-line population data is for 2001. some of these countries scored higher on interactive.8 230.1 Telecommunication indicators in selected South Central American countries 428. sophisticated and mature.2 119.2 6. in providing networked services to the public. The information and services provided by them are as.92 0.3 177.K. For example. On their Ministry of Education sites.2 PC Internet Tel On-line Mobile and Graph 4.7 3. Internet usage. egovernment services do not Telecommunication Indicators reach the majority of the populain Latin America. or more. telephone lines and mobile subscribers is for 2002.8 82. and for TVs. the state of e-government readiness rests on the level of the telecommunication infrastructure and human capital in a country. on its social welfare and labour sites. in providing two-way transactions to the public.2 254.8 45.S.92 Educ Index 39 . notwithstanding the commendable strides in developing e-government networks in Table 4.92 0.7 82 68. in providing networked services to the public.241 223.

37 For the 173 countries with a web presence. Kiribati. Iraq. Tajikistan. Chad. specialty portals. Eritrea. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. but steady trend toward national portal/gateway sites. Dominica. they could . Liberia. 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. Whereas countries at the initial stages of an emerging presence or enhanced presence could be said to be at stage I or II. However the ability of the various governments to develop and present them in an integrated. Democratic Republic of the Congo. 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. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. unified fashion is uneven. and one-stop service sites. Equatorial Guinea. Côte d’Ivoire. Haiti. 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. the Survey finds that there are no evolutionary development stages in e-government. Tuvalu and Uzbekistan. 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.quickly proceed to a level where they incorporate features of stage IV (transactional presence) or even stage V (networked presence). contrary to popular belief. not many countries are at present utilizing the full potential of e-government to provide information and services to the people. Suriname.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. No on-line presence Central African Republic.and do . There appears to be a gradual. IV. 40 . Eighteen UN member states do not have an on-line presence.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. Guinea-Bissau.

http://www.. only of UN Member States one third provided on-line public services. maintained an integrated single entry portal. the e-government programme will enhance the national site to create a single point of access portal “to deliver online services to the people.3 whereas 173 countries had a web presence only 45. The section begins with the important words. so. and not even 20 per cent provided on-line transactions. or a quarOn-line Profile ter of them. 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. “In line with government’s efforts to facilitate the free flow of information and transparency in governance. (http://www. gh/index. Ghana. UN member states Moreover.php) for example. too..gov. 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. Most of the top 50 countries ranked by the Web Measure Index provide an e-government policy/statement or an e-government portal.”38 191 173 45 63 33 Graph 4.ghana.gov. 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 .gh/governing/egovernance/index. easily accessible and well-explained “E-governance” section on its national site. evidencing their commitment to e-government.ghana. exemplifies how a developing country can provide its people with a clear.php.2 Stages in e government. With public service provision Developing and providing a clear. do a few lower ranking countries.” and explains the substance and goals of the Ghana Dot Gov project.The overall profile of UN member states indicates that Table 4. Basically.

(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. they collectively provide an average Databases (e. so does Table 4. On the other hand. etc.In the last couple of years most countries have added substantial information to their government websites. (See table 4. Whereas the upper and lower middle-income countries score relatively well in the first three stages. with Gross No of Percent of National Income (GNI) per capita of more than countries countries US$ 9.) and beyond. 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). of Country Websites The high-income countries.income countries offer only about four per cent and one per cent of the transactional services. Of the total. Upper and lower middle. the number of countries providing substantive service information is far less.g. Though most in this group are at stage III 155 90 (laws. As the Survey found.. 42 .4 the maturity and sophistication of the services Selected Common Characteristics offered on the web. As income per capita decreases. 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. 79 per cent provided databases of documents or statistics on the public sector.206.5). policy documents. their average scores drop considerably when it comes to the transactional services they offer. respectively. dropping considerably to only 63 out of 173 or a little more than one third of the total number of countries on line. like the high-income countries. 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. There is a correlation among countries’ income categories and the sophistication of government websites.

However.0 3.7 26. they make a conscious choice to put out some and not other information.7 8. An interesting example was found in The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.8 IV.0 263. and finally. that might only be a question of time. its political ideology and commitment.5 0.6 1. They also appear to choose not to provide some information and services on their national portal. As expected.0 26. one still has to bid in the old-fashioned way since there is no e-procurement capability . 7. level of development.0 1. calculated using the World Bank Atlas method. and could easily serve as a model for others to follow.6 20. 2. and certainly for other developing countries looking to emulate successful e-government implementation. $745 or less.4 0.2 52.6 Total 111.206 or more. the Macedonian Ministry of Finance http://www. financial and other resources.government. human and technological infrastructure. 43 . It offers good design and a wealth of information and services.0 84. 39. and high income. which is reflected in their aggregate percentage utilization of three per cent in stage V (networked presence). lower middle income.9 II 52. The national home page for Macedonia. $9. On average.5 43. However at this point they are just there for informational purposes. construction and operation of the site serves as a model practice for other ministries within Macedonia. but elsewhere instead. economic and social systems. the determinants are the “willingness” of the country.7 III.$9.5 1. The site includes almost everything one has come to expect from a good national government site: a poll. $2. though some have made an effort to provide some form of participatory service to the public.5 10. There is also an attempt to put tenders on line.5 Note: Income group: economies are divided according to 2001 GNI per capita.3 V.at least not yet.976 . the low-income countries score almost nothing on utilization of the full potential of transactional services.org/data/countryclass/countryclass. Considering how far the Macedonian Ministry of Finance has come.975.Table 4.8 44.7 87.0 4.mk on an individual basis rivalled many of its counterparts in the top 25.8 32.finance.1 24. The groups are: low income. See http://www. resulting in a low overall score for the country. $746 .1 4. did not open up on numerous attempts during the survey period.1 27.worldbank.gov.0 58.gov. upper middle income.1 71. http://www. forms. current information and even a discussion forum. 4.4 10. Income group categorization from The World Bank.205. the regulatory and administrative framework. The stages are not strictly additive because countries do not follow a linear path to a model of e.0 5.5 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. They prioritize in providing some services and not others. More-over. In the meantime.1 41. however.html The low-income countries are primarily in the first three stages.0 21.$2.mk.9 3. audio-visual streaming.

6 presents a stages of delivery analysis for selected countries. 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. Information and Service Delivery by Stage. 46 20 32 17 39 32 17 15 17 15 0 29 12 12 0 V.2 Stages of services delivery by country Table 4. 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.Table 4. 100 64 82 73 71 75 48 65 63 71 40 57 51 59 38 IV.6. .

S. and Chile. presented in an earlier section.3 and 4. Transactional presence Emerging presence which ranked No. and Finland at 71 per cent. not one received even half the available points: the U. Denmark (73 per cent). This included the ability to make payments on line for various services. scored 19. scores on the Transactional Presence measure appeared to be the weakest. advanced from providing basic information to selected developed countries substantial relevant information in an interactive mode. the U. whether or not any transactions/on-line payments could be made from ministry/department sites. 14.5 United States Chile Australia Mexico United Kingdom present these differences graphically for selected developed and developing countries.Most countries score high on stages I to III. Mexico. Sweden. Even among the highest scoring countries. the number of different types of transactions that were accessible from the national site. 16. Among the developed countries. Interestingly. the U. and both the U. Graph 4. and the existence of e-procurement systems/sites/sections at the national site. the average score for the top 20 was only 9. Graphs 4.K. Among the 20 top rated countries. 15.K.2 on the E-Government Networked presence Enhanced presence Readiness Index.S.5. The “weakest link” for the majority of the top 20 countries was in Stage IV (transactional presence). Australia and Canada each scored 13.. 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 . per cent of utilization provides 100 per cent of the interactive services Interactive presence listed in this Survey. Canada (75 per cent). provides only about 64 per cent of the interactive services. lagging behind Australia (82 per cent). Out of a possible score of 41 for the national site and the five ministry sites.3 implying their e-government programmes have Service delivery by stage. the Philippines.

58 55 68 64 52 48 66 63 78 100 100 Belgium Malaysia 88 16.28 100 Austria 14. has made commendable progress in developing and expanding social services and related benefits made available to the public through e-government. apply for a driver’s license or passport etc. (See Box 4.8 39 54 55 4.28 26. selected developing countries Emerging presence Enhanced presence Interactive presence Transactional presence Networked presence Bulgaria 0 52 23.K.4 Service delivery by stage. such as being able to download tax forms.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.91 2.61 2.26 48 18.98 4.K.61 38 18. The U.9 36 25.4 4.65 36 20. Most countries have begun with services requiring a standardized response. cross-referenced patient health and medical information by integrating systems within health and social care. The priority of others is to make available health and education information and services to all.6 11.65 63 64 70 100 Lithuania 74 100 0 83 100 Japan 0 India Portugal 100 0 33 27. is among the top five in provision of on-line interactive services.4 54 16. government is working toward an interactive health website that will provide up-to-date.93 39 6. The U.K. the U.Graph 4.) 46 . Moreover. 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.1.

The UK interactive health site can be found at http://www. and to be available through a variety of dissemination channels. and wider access to information through a range of NHS public access technologies (the Internet. In fact. The National Knowledge Service is a partnership of organizations that provide knowledge in the health and social care sectors. 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. However.nhs. and libraries. greater access to information for everyone involved in the healthcare process.nhs. but it is also a very current site. academics and students.asp The knowledge gathered has been organized not only to be easily accessible to those searching for answers. researchers. in urgent cases. quizzes and the most advanced employment search system around. such as e-mail. the search-engine is extremely powerful with all sorts of advanced search techniques.Box 4. The Australian site (http://jobsearch. wage information. patients and the general public. (See Box 4. Australia might be the best place to be because new jobs are added every 20 minutes.2. if one is in a hurry to find a job. digital television. It includes career advice. but also for incorporation into the electronic patient record. government started to support the delivery of high quality information to patients. cross-referenced information by fully integrating the development of knowledge systems within health and social care. 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.K. This community includes clinicians and other professionals. 47 . Australia arguably has the best of them all.uk/disclaimer. Source: http://www.2 Australian interactive job listing Though it is fairly common for a country to provide some sort of job listing system.) Box 4.1 U. and call centres). call centres. from information technology to government.K. The most impressive thing is the range of jobs available. the level of sophistication and interactivity obviously differs from site to site and some sites are better than others.nks. interactive health website During 2003 the U. The objectives of the NKS include: assuring the quality of patient information on a variety of diseases. to prompt and remind the decision maker.au) offers anything and everything a job seeker requires.000 jobs to search from one can find employment in every sector. With more than 30.gov. which will provide upto-date. health professionals and the public through the National Knowledge Service for Health & Social Care (NKS) initiative. labour-related documents. digital television.nhsdirect. conditions and treatments. In fact.

Singapore (35 per cent). Chile (60 per cent) and the Philippines (40 per cent) score the next highest and higher than all other developed countries.S. Finland (15 per cent) Republic of Korea (12 per cent) and New Zealand (12 per cent). Australia 4. 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. especially for the larger. Poland and many other countries offer no transactional services. Canada (35 per cent). United Kingdom 6. and Norway. the U. Argentina 16. The Survey tries to capture this characteristic in stage V (networked presence). Ireland 17. Sweden. Norway 6 7 This weakness in the transactional presence is somewhat surprising. Whereas the U. the transactional presence appeared to be the weakest section overall for just about every country. However. Italy 18. which is the global leader. Denmark 10.5 Transactional Presence. respectively. Netherlands. Canada 7. Philippines 8.S.However. Sweden (23 per cent) scores lower on stage V (networked presence) than all of the above. At the same time. Graph 4.readiness ranking. Israel 15. 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. Australia (37 per cent). Germany (37 per cent). utilizing only about 20 per cent and 17 per cent. United States 2. It acknowledges that in several instances political ideologies may determine what is to be public knowledge. The same is the case with Germany (17 per cent). Top 20 E-government Ready Countries Country scores 1. Germany 11. are low on the transactional side. which ranks seventh. For example. In developing countries it is low or non-existent. Estonia 1 8 0 12 8 5 6 7 7 8 12 13 15 13 13 14 16 19 14. Switzerland 13. even many developed countries are not fully utilizing the potential of using e-government for transactional services. more industrialized countries in the top 20.. currently utilizes about 46 per cent of the possible transactional services on line. Republic of Korea 19. of the potential as surveyed here. One of the primary focuses of successful e-government initiatives should be the country’s willingness to share information and knowledge with the public. E-networking. Chile 3. As in the case of stage III (interactive services). and Mexico (35 per cent) follow. Finland 20. however. Sweden 12. Again. Mexico 5. 48 . Singapore 9. Japan. remains patchy and uneven in developed countries with its full potential under utilized. which is second in the overall global e.

Ireland 17.) Some governments spend their e-government/web resources attempting to develop all-around sites. Chile 3.many visitors are coming to Cambodia for sightseeing. Mexico 5. Finland 20. Norway 8 11 7 49 . Australia 4. United States 2. when it comes to networked presence. Denmark 10. especially for a developing country.) Graph 4. Philippines 8. Switzerland 13. Italy 9 11 7 10 15 18.cambodia. Although not meeting the threshold for a formal on-line consultation system including policy documents and decision guidance. the resource focus appears to be in engaging citizen input.3 Cambodia: It is all about the focus http://www. Of even greater interest is the fact that the most read submission to the Opinions Forum advises fellow citizens that currently “. including a number in the top 50.” 9. Let’s smile at them to give a good impression.gov. Sweden 12.. Republic of Korea 19. Top 20 E-government Ready Countries Country scores 1. United Kingdom 6. (See Annex tables. Singapore 15 13 16 10 13 13 15 17 16 15 26 32 Box 4. others apparently choose to spend their limited time and resources in accordance with their political and socio-economic priorities. an open topic discussion forum titled “Opinions” and an interactive question and answer section. Argentina 16.kh With a focus on providing opportunities for citizens to interact with the government. Israel 15. Canada 7.A few innovative examples of countries that are actively promoting their transactional and networked stages are given in the boxes below.. While Cambodia did not have high scores across the board for its overall web presence.4. In the case of Cambodia. the on-line participation at the Cambodian site is a big step in that direction.6.3 . the Cambodian national site includes a small survey section. Germany 11. Estonia 14.6 Networked Presence. it outscores many countries. (See Boxes 4.

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

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

) 14 (tie) Switzerland 0. United Kingdom (+4).828 This includes access to current and archived government documents 3 (tie) Chile 0. and the 8 Australia 0. in its Web Measure Index. and how Table 5. supersedes the U. measures the generic on-line availability of information and services. constrained as they are. qualitative assessment is a useful tool in assessing the quality and relevancy of information and services provided through e-government initiatives. the most revealing is the pace of decrease in the relative 15 Denmark 0.638 e-participation. This means 52 . its value some further 20 countries down the ranking table. information/guidance on e-participation and a range of other features. In the absence of impact assessment analysis. among others factors. political willingness.466 However. leads with the U. are leading the way in the innovative provision of services.466 countries. fourth.759 Table 5.000 ly objective or quantitative results. The Extent of E-participation Qualitative analysis by definition is subjective. V. indicating a higher quality and relevancy of its information and services on the state-sponsored website. a handful of developing countries. which ranked fourth in 10 (tie) Ireland 0. relevance. the Philippines and Estonia higher than 10 (tie) Argentina 0. and providing details on the degree 2 United States 0. The rankings reflect the web measure 9 Mexico 0. financial investment in e-government could well mean diverting funds from other priority areas. The qualitative assessment is helpful in illustrating differences in on-line strategies and approaches. web-forums and formal on-line consultation systems. E-government programmes are still at early stages.S. Denmark (-6).K. illuminating nuances in seeming1 United Kingdom 1.” E-participation Index 2003. Germany (0). 7 (tie) Netherlands 0.1 (below) present the E-participation Index 5 New Zealand 0.K. which is not the focus of this year’s Survey. respectively. Estonia.448 country index. However Mexico. +1 and +9.483 worthy: United States (-1).586 many developed countries. the E-participation Index assesses the qualiTop 20 Countries ty.In conclusion. Ireland (+7). slid down to the ninth position because of qualitative differences.586 the quantitative web measure assessment.672 behind. For the developing countries. and it drops to 25 per cent of Note: Finland and Portugal also have indices of 0.621 Philippines in sixth position. surpassing most of the global leaders in the sophistication of their state-sponsored digitised services to include all.638 More interestingly.S. usefulness and willingness of government websites for providing on-line information and participatory tools and services to Country E-participation Index people.534 Changes in rankings of the industrialized countries are equally note12 Republic of Korea 0. Sweden (0). Canada 13 (tie) Italy 0. Finland (+3) and Norway (0). Australia (-5). (See Annex I for all 13 (tie) Singapore 0.466 (+3).448. 4 Estonia 0.828 and databases. several developing countries are at advanced stages of provision of networked services. (Gains/losses in the cases of 10 (tie) Sweden 0. financial investment and a change in the administrative and regulatory framework in the country to support the enabling environment for e-government. when ranked by 7 (tie) France 0. The U. They are evolving and maturing and their vast potentials still remained untapped. It is notable that the U.966 to which government services and information are provided on line. 3 (tie) Canada 0. Chile comes in third. the e-participation scoring assesses “how relevant and useful these features were.1 well were they deployed by the government. The index drops from 100 per cent to 50 per cent of its value over the span of 15 top countries. the Philippines and Estonia are -1.1 and Graph 5. Switzerland (-2).) 11 Germany 0.586 Chile. As the analysis shows.603 indices. following close 6 Philippines 0. Successful programmes require. On the other hand. As stated in Chapter II.690 for the top 20 countries. which ranked Chile. Italy (+3). Whereas the Survey.

4 e-decision making 8. on an aggregate level. are currently providing on-line opportunities for citizen participation that are seriously lacking in relevancy and usefulness. 53 . As analysed in previous chapters.2 presents the average score of the top 20 countries. These three are the qualitative equivalent of the quantitative web measure survey.55 40 41. The E-participation Index is segmented into three functional classifications: e-information.3 24 34. Table 5.consultation.6 total 37. 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.3 e-consultation 16.45 20 62. The top 20 countries. that of the United Kingdom. and a much lower 41 per cent in terms of consultation with users.2 E-participation by Functional Classification Top 20 countries Average score Max score Per cent of utilization e-information 12.2 E-participation by Functional Classification Table 5. e.4 The table indicates that with the U. and are at only about a third of the potential of what they could offer.K.3 84 44. Table 5.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. and e-decision making. as the comparator. the lead country in this ranking. or less. 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.

60 0.59 0.48 0.47 0.Graph 5.59 0.64 0.83 0.47 0.54 0. people-centred services.59 0.62 0.64 0. even among the developed countries.67 0.47 0.69 0.45 0.76 0.97 As analysed earlier in other sections of this Survey.45 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. 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 .83 0.45 1 0.1 E-Participation Index.

3 ence of some specific on-line E-participation Aspects in National Programmes characteristics common to e-government programmes. It indicates No. Only 13 out of 173 countries. 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. 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. had a clear policy statement on their website encouraging people to participate in this process. lower and low-income countries provide very few citizen-centric participatory services. 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). There appears to be a gap between rhetoric and reality. Collectively. 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.4 E-participation by Income Category No.Table 5. some countries still are doing a better job than others are. The relevancy and usefulness of their efforts was low as well. or eight per cent of the total. The upper middle-income group is doing a worse job with 57 per cent having their edeliberative participatory services below average quality. Table 5.1 Income Class High Income (n = 38) Upper Middle Income (n = 35) Lower Middle Income (n = 52) Low Income (n = 66) Total Countries 55 . The box below gives one successful approach for each of two countries that are global leaders in e-government and e-participation.3 analyses the presTable 5. especially in the area of engaging the citizen in public decision making. As the analysis in the previous sections has indicated. of Countries Above Mean 25 15 12 8 60 No.206) only 66 per cent were providing above average qualitative and useful services for e-participation. among the high-income countries (with GNI more than $9. Box 5. 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. with 88 per cent of the countries providing below average quality deliberative and participatory information and services to the people. Participatory initiatives also appear to have a correlation with income per capita.

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

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

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

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 .

446 0.507 0.462 0.636 0.746 0.422 0.593 0.702 0.697 0.840 0.764 0.422 0.416 61 .744 0.831 0.602 0.459 0.483 0.510 0.425 0.676 0.506 0.515 0.432 0.670 0.690 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 0.427 0.576 0.471 0.557 0.424 0.548 0.438 0.531 0.761 0.506 0.718 0.516 0.432 0.656 0.474 0.577 0.778 0.528 0.524 0.814 0.463 0.535 0.762 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 0.671 0.927 0.631 0.685 0.663 0.693 0.806 0.527 0.746 0.574 0.426 0.429 0.427 0.820 0.429 0.438 0.697 0.422 0.526 0.443 0.443 0.420 0.542 0.646 0.

357 0.348 0.284 0.327 0.276 0.385 0.264 0.370 0.296 0.413 0.206 0.411 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 .299 0.346 0.270 0.235 0.372 0.229 0.283 0.397 0.299 0.355 0.188 0.225 0.338 0.322 0.364 0.387 0.280 0.241 0.347 0.295 0.411 0.265 0.268 0.178 0.244 0.373 0.364 0.231 0.201 0.362 0.265 0.238 0.370 0.253 0.329 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 0.335 0.413 0.391 0.250 0.330 0.326 0.264 0.351 0.176 0.192 0.304 0.309 0.371 0.378 0.247 0.181 0.324 0.410 0.192 0.189 0.340 0.409 0.377 0.233 0.280 0.329 0.343 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 0.293 0.179 0.280 0.364 0.272 0.

156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 Andorra Mozambique Gambia Bangladesh Mauritania Bhutan Vanuatu Mali Burkina Faso 0.087 0.174 0.173 0.126 0.118 0.009 63 .172 0.140 0.049 0.165 0.038 0.132 0.060 0.128 0.142 0.135 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 Guinea Ethiopia Sierra Leone Afghanistan Timor-Leste Niger Somalia Marshall Islands Palau 0.161 0.157 0.

027 0.529 0.90 0.576 0.91 0.93 0.808 0.126 0.57 0.675 0.88 0.99 0.613 0.514 0.787 0.675 0.691 0.682 0.447 0.99 0.99 0.94 0.174 0.490 0.99 0.98 0.88 0.607 0.98 0.675 0.632 0.207 0.642 0.838 0.99 0.747 0.603 0.498 0.522 0.94 0.91 0.95 0.764 0.694 0.248 0.624 0.633 0.94 0.703 0.84 0.616 0.132 0.774 0.616 0.552 0.93 0.507 0.77 0.92 0.514 Human Cap Index 3 1/3 0.846 0.541 0.668 0.064 0.000 0.507 Telecom Index 2 1/3 0.460 0.683 0.524 0.683 0.275 0.524 0.555 0.581 0.192 0.626 0.97 0.777 0.499 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 1.96 0.539 0.812 0.90 0.710 0.94 0.218 0.98 0.568 0.539 0.537 0.666 0.570 0.83 0.691 0.99 64 .87 0.801 0.99 0.97 0.98 0.187 0.95 0.

79 0.408 0.409 0.419 0.380 0.012 0.293 0.117 0.445 0.111 0.294 0.055 0.362 0.089 0.83 0.196 0.96 0.93 0.036 0.80 0.92 0.291 0.292 0.97 0.85 0.378 0.349 0.341 0.78 0.033 0.116 0.69 0.384 0.149 0.65 65 .380 0.328 0.74 0.476 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 0.044 0.026 0.244 0.332 0.380 0.90 0.336 0.082 0.118 0.94 0.444 0.419 0.336 0.87 0.372 0.91 0.513 0.92 0.74 0.297 0.591 0.79 0.432 0.319 0.88 0.90 0.42 0.045 0.006 0.406 0.323 0.408 0.448 0.347 0.88 0.312 0.809 0.441 0.83 0.660 0.80 0.074 0.80 0.480 0.288 0.86 0.89 0.349 0.92 0.301 0.127 0.84 0.308 0.424 0.77 0.176 0.358 0.307 0.80 0.62 0.074 0.96 0.48 0.386 0.40 0.332 0.419 0.095 0.428 0.85 0.116 0.067 0.

67 0.93 0.76 0.011 0.223 0.089 0.157 0.021 0.061 0.193 0.089 0.23 0.253 0.83 0.036 0.175 0.236 0.266 0.166 0.031 0.048 0.185 0.062 0.007 0.027 0.214 0.920 0.223 0.183 0.68 66 .50 0.201 0.38 0.148 0.241 0.119 0.86 0.056 0.88 0.81 0.262 0.223 0.005 0.269 0.262 0.051 0.005 0.309 0.000 0.188 0.000 0.069 0.206 0.36 0.153 0.119 0.022 0.183 0.179 0.170 0.90 0.321 0.007 0.92 0.205 0.72 0.214 0.86 0.279 0.84 0.71 0.87 0.236 0.279 0.75 0 0.83 0.067 0.60 0.37 0.250 0.253 0.266 0.153 0.198 0.90 0.000 0.201 0.84 0.210 0.262 0.214 0.55 0.132 0.640 0.284 0.91 0.134 0.72 0.000 0.170 0.84 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 0.051 0.188 0.88 0.157 0.86 0.694 0.188 0.319 0.266 0.

009 0.074 0.049 0.127 0.083 0.140 0.39 0.034 0.79 0.092 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 0.87 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 Samoa Cyprus Gambia Honduras Madagascar Bangladesh Myanmar Nigeria Ghana Albania Afghanistan Swaziland Sudan Marshall Islands Kyrgyzstan 67 .88 0.100 0.040 0.89 0.105 0.92 0.002 0.62 0.083 0.092 0.144 0.000 0.127 0.004 0.041 0.086 0.148 0.007 0.58 0.003 0.80 0.40 0.127 0.58 0.021 0.65 0.135 0.75 0.50 0.019 0.140 0.083 0.77 0.148 0.147 0.000 0.206 0.75 0.114 0.75 0.040 0.131 0.012 0.117 0.422 0.737 0.003 0.308 0.70 0.92 0.248 0.140 0.61 0.74 0.013 0.66 0.114 0.079 0.148 0.087 0.140 0.37 0.118 0.226 0.59 0.074 0.131 0.079 0.040 0.440 0.040 0.070 0.114 0.91 1.122 0.144 0.023 0.004 0.037 0.75 0.037 0.88 0.111 0.083 0.090 0.131 0.860 0.122 0.144 0.059 0.83 0.080 0.004 0.429 0.268 0.85 0.68 0.

59 0.070 0.011 0.031 0.810 0.023 0.136 0.011 0.004 0.000 0.65 0.000 0.16 0.000 0.042 0.042 0.000 0.39 0.81 0.49 0.077 0.044 0.048 0. Korea Democratic Republic of the Congo Dominica 0.002 0.62 0.096 0.52 0.51 0.900 0.052 0.002 0.50 0.031 0.044 0.035 0.44 0.79 0.75 0.048 0.009 0.005 0.044 0.75 0.013 0.81 0.044 0.007 0.019 0.021 0.052 0.044 0.48 0.115 0.017 0.013 0.035 0.035 0.034 0.190 0.000 0.003 0.054 0.035 0.R.007 0.33 0.86 68 .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 0.057 0.39 0.40 0.070 0.244 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.035 0.038 0.005 0.35 0.37 0.026 0.P.002 0.000 0.027 0.015 0.039 0.85 • COUNTRIES WITH NO WEB PRESENCE 174 175 176 177 178 179 Central African Republic Chad Côte d’Ivoire D.044 0.001 0.35 0.89 0.92 0.039 0.061 0.048 0.120 0.76 0.42 0.000 0.190 0.005 0.060 0.017 0.013 0.71 0.37 0.

000 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.015 0.88 1.004 0.000 0.003 0.930 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.91 69 .000 0.000 0.50 0.118 0.46 0.046 0.000 0.90 0.77 0.030 0.000 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 0.000 0.000 Telecom Index 2 1/3 0.026 0.043 0.053 Human Cap Index 3 1/3 0.38 0.84 0.

000 0.000 0.039 0.683 0.017 0.148 0.624 0.537 0.332 0.004 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 0.642 0.R.253 0.424 0.328 0.157 0.131 0.048 0.035 0.406 0.000 0.210 0.105 0.000 0.603 0.083 0.312 70 .114 0.017 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 0.293 0.838 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.000 0.035 0.349 0.000 0.122 0.083 0.266 0.P.476 0.000 0.332 0.131 0.507 0.127 0.131 0.122 0.694 0.100 0.031 0.764 0.223 0.378 0.175 0.170 0.301 0.092 0. Korea D.384 0.214 0.214 0.266 0.570 0.013 0.323 0.R.031 0.445 0.035 0.083 0.166 0.000 0.812 0.000 0.223 0.140 0.576 0.

408 0.188 0.541 0.432 0.214 0.253 0.380 0.319 0.703 0.013 0.048 0.507 0.205 0.616 0.336 0.000 0.183 0.148 0.070 0.140 0.539 0.000 0.127 0.419 0.135 0.284 0.380 0.568 0.341 0.044 0.000 0.308 0.262 0.633 0.524 0.297 0.048 71 .083 0.616 0.236 0.144 0.118 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 0.148 0.262 0.074 0.524 0.157 0.747 0.522 0.044 0.269 0.074 0.114 0.288 0.170 0.808 0.140 0.419 0.148 0.013 0.153 0.201 0.408 0.266 0.035 0.223 0.052 0.480 0.057 0.026 0.000 0.144 0.581 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 0.092 0.044 0.448 0.336 0.552 0.441 0.607 0.

000 0.127 0.044 0.000 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 0.052 0.144 0.236 0.061 0.279 0.000 0.262 0.668 0.000 0.044 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 0.140 1.179 187 188 189 190 191 170 171 172 173 174 Timor-Leste Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia 72 .079 0.114 0.777 0.279 0.555 0.539 0.044 0.419 0.201 0.000 0.428 0.183 0.349 0.070 0.358 0.079 0.683 0.

747 82.002 0.7 Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Central African Rep.4 3.176 2.149 0.957 3.475 21.001 0.519 15.8 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) 73.754 24.012 0.143 0.003 0.168 0.003 0.875 2.9 1.184 0.522 201.134 0.030 0.1 34.823 67.123 0.061 0.000 0.6 138.123 0.8 0 38.005 0.532 55.3 1.679 0.004 0.4 93.441 0.000 0.409 112.627 1.096 0.024 0.415 Internet Index 0.942 90.004 0.000 0.3 73 .006 0.009 0.002 0.051 0.5 22.793 0.040 0.703 0.919 483.004 0.203 409.005 0.974 247.060 0.339 74.001 0.049 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 0.001 0.148 0.584 328.466 1.000 0.030 0.112 0.446 0.541 0.5 3.318 0.011 0.157 Internet per 1000 pers 0.092 0.002 0.000 0.861 36.135 0.000 0.046 0. Chad Chile a) 1.105 0.4 0 0 160.003 0.6 119.6 1.036 0.182 0.022 18.674 0.744 2.796 0.412 427.629 86.1 0 2 a) b) Andorra Angola b) Antigua & Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria a) a) 0 82 9.000 0.000 2.000 0.108 0.003 0.098 0.7 74.9 487 79.8 335.407 0.331 0 8 7.641 0.211 0.978 89.2 515.002 0.628 0.390 29.908 81.5 0 1.7 14.2 0 241.026 0.019 0.005 0.364 36.241 102.878 14.

321 93.7 347.009 0.004 0.457 0.897 423.3 1.2 130 12.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 49.729 1.101 0.P.023 0.679 300.075 0.065 0.299 0.2 77.453 38.241 0.268 0.006 0.041 0.321 17.641 0.463 14.007 0.1 a) Dominica Dominican Rep.113 1.028 0.882 10.195 9.171 0.5 48 441.295 46.029 0.005 0.246 13.5 3.714 0.181 6.860 160.5 21.003 0.025 0.042 0.017 0.199 0.005 0.759 0.009 45.026 0.043 0.458 3.001 0.025 0.256 21.064 0.016 0.000 146.003 0.458 162.154 0.9 7.2 2.063 0.101 0.002 0.003 0.261 413.012 46.R.022 0. Congo Denmark Djibouti b) b) 0 576.004 0.9 170.5 210.000 0.035 0.011 0.016 Czech Republic D.9 3.742 26.930 313.9 12.006 0.007 0.2 156.1 15.494 0.680 0.206 0.8 74 .018 0.1 El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Fiji a) b) Finland France Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece a) a) a) a) a) a) 11.3 5.284 0.2 a) Grenada Guatemala Guinea a) Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti b) 0 26.8 15.521 61.7 0 a) 0.260 109.5 146.572 0.766 0.224 0.000 0.180 0.697 0.000 0.832 19.114 465.379 508.5 31.000 0.015 0.324 0.001 0.892 9.017 0.9 19.009 0.032 0.076 0.784 4.516 0.4 8. Ecuador Egypt a) 17.936 181.107 0.277 0.076 0.264 0. Korea D.020 0.7 31.000 0.020 0.2 7.3 81.035 0.363 5.8 4.838 0.979 3.009 0.6 246.6 434.R.581 0.484 2.193 0.000 0.

156 9.006 0.088 0.145 0.8 11 69.6 1.3 126.1 35.6 10.245 0.495 0.123 15.000 0.) Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kuwait a) b) a) a) a) a) a) a) b) 12. Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya a) 3.259 2.3 229.594 0.7 3.4 451.488 3.3 108.711 133.405 301.000 270.551 16.015 0.026 0.324 0.219 0.104 117.320 15.6 12.092 0.639 15.6 53 10.256 0.000 67.3 68.000 0.014 0.004 0.224 87.157 0.049 0.005 0.315 0.000 3.038 0.774 42.026 0.587 273.496 0.8 50 382.R.193 0.000 29.914 19.026 0.143 0.D.700 45.483 2.047 0.004 0.5 0 70.000 0.739 0.584 585.449 0.003 0.5 32.923 301.014 0.763 2.004 0.000 0.797 157.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.066 0.074 0.016 0.000 0.7 80.503 0.604 607.130 2.471 449.3 2.063 0.5 0 0 0.005 0.728 148.681 0.885 252.090 0.9 194.075 0.916 367.007 0.913 29.143 0.605 0.6 a) b) a) Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta a) b) a) a) b) 517.049 0.3 171.963 0.226 0.7 0 390.978 23.2 108.7 245.031 0.000 0.106 0.112 0.093 0.514 0.002 0.027 0.166 0.004 0.259 1.004 0.416 0.557 0.446 0.109 53.017 0.000 0.262 45.002 0.043 0.7 Marshall Islands Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Micronesia a) b) 0 75 .071 Kyrgyzstan Lao P.R.070 0.5 119.008 0.8 0 5.4 5.077 38.302 0.000 0.014 0.997 0.833 2.006 0.8 1.

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

8 331.001 0.005 0.476 0.2 56.2 Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Central African Rep.4 7.098 0.1 5.136 0.6 119.001 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.1 125.9 40.003 0.9 434.6 299.6 5.474 0.008 0.7 0.002 0.2 258.242 0.042 0.286 0.8 a) Tel lines per Index 0.4 68.407 0.005 0.325 0.011 0.8 538.1 480.9 0.6 374.6 263.6 468.3 218.9 2.6 1.016 0.9 2.008 0.1 9.002 0.690 0.1 121.8 11.585 0.000 0.2 103.073 0.6 68.8 139.059 0.066 0.4 200.7 362.004 0.109 0.013 0.152 0.001 0.005 0.6 84.523 0.7 75.1 481.519 0.4 496.031 0.440 0.4 3.8 457.003 0.9 2.132 0.003 0.539 0.238 0.5 0.306 0.7 75.148 0.2 213.6 4.007 0.001 0.250 Antigua & Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria a) 9 524.010 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) 99.130 0.2 28.522 0.1 29.006 0.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 3.014 0.622 0.4 5.092 0.9 2 0.6 635.1 21.4 67.143 0. a) Chad Chile 79 .098 0.286 1000 persons 0 54.654 0.007 0.751 0.8 2.5 159.4 0.174 0.8 223.3 6.2 9.4 405.031 0.281 0.5 3.080 0.4 Index 0.058 0.4 1.5 6.6 61 438.508 0.005 0.108 0.4 230.

028 0.9 179.006 0.195 0.4 8.755 0.7 10.8 91.354 0.7 195.1 1.4 7 28 a) Dominica Dominican Rep.4 12.000 0.122 0. Korea D.3 344.4 13.410 0.2 316.010 0.004 0.018 0.003 0.2 110.3 262.375 0.013 0.6 377.663 0.040 0.017 0.5 6.8 15.022 0.6 103.112 0.1 4.143 0.018 0.099 0.006 0.055 0.030 0.3 24.020 0.594 0.012 0.5 262.051 0.5 58.618 0.006 166.010 0.706 0.7 3.003 0.112 0.7 0.000 0.6 21 0.493 0.R.000 0.1 0.2 17.9 51.2 131.5 112.046 0.002 0.272 0.1 610.421 0.015 0.120 0.017 Czech Republic D.003 0.070 0.376 0.009 0.2 80 .783 0.5 64.6 5.8 110.000 0.035 0.6 529.5 20.8 28.P.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) 35.4 11.3 547.7 250.9 29.2 347 0.496 0.4 9.195 0.025 0.280 0.083 0.120 0. Ecuador Egypt a) 21.381 0.4 18 9 350.628 0.5 439.003 0.004 0.3 110.8 El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Fiji a) b) Finland France Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece a) a) b) a) a) a) 12.2 103.9 a) Grenada Guatemala Guinea a) Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti b) 3 136.011 0.181 0.000 0.4 325.2 2.344 0.4 695.5 2.5 26.9 2 131.040 0.1 0 a) 0.023 0.1 100.015 0.188 0.3 568.1 4.4 387. Congo Denmark Djibouti b) b) 0 547.021 0.143 0.4 32.4 650.5 6.007 0.032 0.575 0.158 0.5 15.R.3 15 1.

245 0.5 0.3 6.057 0.8 83.094 Kyrgyzstan Lao P.8 7 197.009 0.9 39.6 249.392 0.1 1.217 0.R.004 0.2 204.010 0.3 0 337.R.083 0.5 29 484.009 0.009 0.3 33.005 0.7 77.2 2.3 0 0.131 0.112 0.1 207.7 585.999 0.7 130.294 0.3 42.2 333.9 3.017 0.9 270.5 467.6 120.9 94.003 0.7 2.9 6 16.118 0.1 12.187 0.053 0.028 0.000 0.D.002 0.002 0.528 0.5 779.043 0.327 0.5 10.119 0.7 11.003 0.7 19.3 251.482 0.327 0.120 0.013 0.001 0.004 0.139 0.135 0.293 0.477 0.8 15.8 36 199.5 1.6 2.046 0.7 2 109.721 0.9 102.636 0.532 0.360 0.017 0.1 3.7 86.031 0.4 0 82.847 0.2 663.356 0.222 0.568 0.507 0.003 0.7 37.2 301.023 0.004 0.1 10.170 0.4 118.215 0.3 583 270.005 0.8 523.4 76.016 0.000 0.008 0.6 2.002 0.216 0. Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya a) 2.052 0.039 0.7 4.1 198.000 0.021 48 361.8 2.8 Marshall Islands Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Micronesia a) b) 15 81 .048 0.7 0.3 372 39.5 11.011 0.526 0.226 0.2 486.3 146.8 127.7 698 6.003 0.3 a) b) a) Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta a) b) a) a) b) 228.) Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kuwait a) b) a) a) a) a) a) a) b) 6.012 0.159 0.2 171.633 0.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.084 0.

006 0.8 57 763 36.320 0.062 0.200 0.006 0.8 22.005 0.664 0.3 77.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 14.035 0.8 124.013 0.4 San Marino S.015 0.1 419 289.9 11.4 488.097 0.7 97.005 0.792 0.035 0.3 a) 542.157 0.004 0.051 0.8 0 0 25 9.674 0.000 0.5 464 3.5 0 a) b) St.8 89.000 0.001 0.000 0.039 0.159 0.8 544 44.6 165.139 0.2 24.3 160 14.6 107.1 64.3 144.8 0 129.1 32 1. Kitts and Nevis St.4 44.002 0.003 0.7 51.6 4.3 16.263 0.6 146 183.000 0.344 0.154 0.2 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) 2.8 242.8 729.776 0.084 0.2 2.006 0.7 343.074 0.7 500 317 226.9 1.007 0.070 0.027 0.7 24.063 0.3 24.041 0.1 621.246 0.455 0.021 0.492 0.9 5.487 0.7 0 2.024 0.8 38 5.1 0.7 47.056 0.064 0.543 0. Tomé & Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal a) 82 .035 0.000 0.828 0.8 a) 0.012 0.001 0.023 0.025 Mongolia Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Norway Oman a) a) a) a) 0.531 0.178 0.000 0.036 0.1 6.8 0.8 12.2 1.003 0.5 41.039 0.5 0 Pakistan Palau Panama a) 16 27.000 0.018 0.1 448.2 8.013 921 51.237 0. Lucia b) St.778 0.141 0.314 0.002 0.659 0.045 0.000 0. Vincent & the Grenadines Samoa b) b) a) b) 30.7 295.000 0.043 0.4 3.174 0.5 460.

161 0.040 0.3 184.2 3.5 699 468.4 367.107 Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria a) a) b) 17 0 70.4 658.000 0.7 Index 0.4 4.441 0.072 0.005 0.8 122.782 0.6 260.796 0.101 0.2 732.3 6.1 4.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 0 112.5 0 10.286 0.123 0.117 0.2 80.6 463.000 0.283 0.1 a) a) b) United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United Rep.3 b) Tel lines per Index 0.003 0.8 34 720.037 0.000 0.638 0.6 a) The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 0 0 9.047 0.4 0 2.2 12.9 15.6 33.012 0.018 1.253 0. Of Tanzania United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu a) b) 5.024 0.1 40.715 0.000 0.8 493 129.3 1.112 0.001 0.283 0.8 406.191 0.012 0.6 66.000 0.6 175.5 0.058 0.003 0.000 0.705 0.9 3 107.8 83 .4 311.9 553.855 0.1 341.1 a) Trinidad & Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Tuvalu b) 0.195 0.3 Tajikistan Thailand a) b) 19.8 587.005 0.371 0.4 3.5 b) 0.2 65 2.264 0.503 0.053 0.6 20.005 0.000 0.7 459.8 46.005 0.5 33.002 0.230 0.271 0.4 Uganda Ukraine a) 15.8 37.016 0.445 0.499 0.2 8.014 0.2 212.7 103 36.5 14.3 281.071 0.1 249.6 0.147 0.028 1000 persons 232.133 0.036 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 Timor-Leste Togo Tonga 9.022 0.305 0.9 113.6 261.670 0.526 0.008 0.8 103.023 263.000 0.051 0.304 0.9 279.014 0.791 0.1 597.087 0.5 98.009 0.5 136.022 0.002 0.185 0.

9 2.074 0.5 22. On line Web address: http://www.122 0.7 Index 0.024 0.4 8.html Telephone data from International Telecommunication Union.unesco.027 Sources: Percentage of Pop.org/uis/TEMPLATE/html/CultAndCom/TableIV_14_Africa.8 Index 0.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/at_glance/main01.com/surveys/how_many_online/africa.5 8. b) TV sets per 1000 persons data is for 1999 c) Data for Rwanda for 1994 from http://portal.013 Tel lines per 1000 persons 112.007 0. Web address: http://www.9 0.Country Alphabetically 187 188 189 190 191 Venezuela Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe a) Persons o nline per 1000 pers 53.nua.html 84 .077 0.5 4.009 0.004 0.3 24.001 0.pdf Note: Note: a) All data is for the 2001 unless otherwise noted.3 68.itu.

5 106.097 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 0.006 0.3 322.576 0.513 0.391 0.395 0.039 0.8 390.175 0.9 786.3 207.385 0.6 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) 400.298 0.009 0.034 0.296 0.035 0.5 19.843 0.008 0.278 0.029 0.601 0.5 16.009 0.3 200.6 301.319 0.141 0.127 0.238 0.728 0.007 0.003 0.103 0.277 0 198.3 428.2 6.423 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 0.5 9.9 177.335 0.007 0.279 0.014 0.9 4.7 377.198 0.090 0.046 0.8 Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Central African Rep.195 0.004 0.1 198 46.105 0.7 828.776 0.817 0.3 583.392 0.331 0.004 0.3 85 . Chad Chile a) 2.009 0.6 Antigua & Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria a) a) 11.3 8.000 0.818 0.6 91.017 0.6 35.136 0.016 0.2 97.205 0.618 0.008 0.503 0.4 0 104.4 4.189 0.196 0.126 0.001 0.7 241.372 0.000 0.7 639.6 191.479 0.209 0.631 0.012 0.051 0.016 0.8 9.019 0.563 0.

2 0. Congo Denmark Djibouti b) b) 2.9 106.055 0.000 0.230 0.069 0.050 0.3 470.136 0.3 0 650.7 9.159 0.R.009 0.9 833.707 0.542 0.070 0.126 0.000 0.023 0.581 0.098 0.335 0.007 0.2 0 67.464 0.9 a) Dominica Dominican Rep.9 86 .2 102.249 0.6 67.066 0.000 0.080 0.000 0.828 0.675 0.5 41.126 0.8 597 848.003 0.8 0 a) 0.106 0.1 716.062 0.265 0. Ecuador Egypt a) 146.017 293 282 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 0.3 a) Grenada Guatemala Guinea a) Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti b) 0 99.P.000 0.101 0.055 0.111 0.838 0.001 0.216 0.286 0.9 119.030 0.119 0.001 0.6 71.642 0.145 0.5 120.718 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) 160.041 0.335 0.002 0.638 0.5 62.558 0.061 0.3 16.791 0.2 137.067 0.7 107.322 0.589 0.070 0.3 0.000 0.202 0.373 0.135 0.015 0.105 0.6 55.430 0.176 0.922 0.R.4 127.007 0.670 0.3 838.3 22.8 845 647 El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Fiji a) b) Finland France Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece a) a) b) a) a) a) 204.003 0.096 0.264 0.006 Czech Republic D. Korea D.000 0.118 0.822 0.834 0.3 97 7.

4 10 393.902 0.2 41.003 0.2 348.8 227 42.043 0.000 0.5 0 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) 1013.891 0.165 0.009 0.006 0.5 926.056 0.613 0.029 0.R.1 167.000 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 0.004 0.381 0.) Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kuwait a) b) a) a) a) a) a) a) b) 48.D.389 0.036 0.8 150.042 0.685 0.000 0.110 0.6 289.4 902.275 0.222 0.029 0.012 0.018 0.032 0.000 0.6 646.186 0.306 0.011 0.241 0.2 32.5 0 87 .048 0.344 0.285 0.456 0.829 0.000 0.009 0.638 0.157 0.5 8.148 0.914 0.010 0.383 0.023 Kyrgyzstan Lao P.555 0.2 4.1 36.016 0.482 0.224 0.5 244.000 0.010 0.027 0.9 10.4 9.690 0.041 0.054 0.465 1.3 0 755.095 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.745 0.R.4 699.8 12.499 0.192 0.170 0.008 0.942 0.110 0.3 621.383 0.1 254.627 0. Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya a) 9 0 471.2 55.090 0.5 5.577 0.009 0.089 0.8 385.3 954.1 107 Marshall Islands 108 Mauritania 109 Mauritius 110 Mexico 111 Micronesia a) b) a) 9 91.323 0.000 0.026 0.096 0.565 0.251 0.

3 80 0 0.643 0.3 56.000 0.671 0.809 0.150 0.1 a) 0.001 0.2 13.6 0 127 Pakistan 128 Palau 129 Panama a) 164 2 288.5 146 San Marino 147 S.008 0.284 0.019 0.6 819.2 171.030 0.2 209.165 0.6 843.416 0.000 0.008 0.9 a) 722.8 0 0 113.006 0.5 30.339 0. Kitts and Nevis 143 St.013 0.302 0.832 0.457 0.080 0.042 0.713 0.7 0.011 0.263 0.079 0.6 0.078 0.190 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 0.610 0.222 0. Lucia b) 144 St.002 0.000 0.008 0.119 0.7 120.018 0.3 86 177.4 618.431 0.435 0.1 256 368 230 56 875 229 264 40 0.085 0.249 0.1 17.4 437.000 0.3 123.7 362.064 1.000 0.358 0.074 0.105 0.293 0.2 679.006 0.7 5.4 44.765 0.079 0.175 0.421 0.866 0.044 0.000 0.990 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) 11 106.000 0.000 0.000 0.615 0.064 0.122 0.262 0.169 0.112 0.162 0.000 0.169 0. Vincent & the Grenadines 145 Samoa b) b) a) b) 65.720 0.206 0.4 0 a) b) 142 St.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) 8.000 0. Tomé & Principe 148 Saudi Arabia 149 Senegal a) 88 .597 0.Country Mobile subscribers per 1000 persons Index TV sets per 1000 persons Index 112 Monaco b) a) 0 81.000 0.481 0.043 0.

002 0.4 1.755 0.012 0.777 0.077 0.002 0.322 0.040 0.013 0.749 0. Of Tanzania 183 United States 184 Uruguay 185 Uzbekistan 186 Vanuatu a) b) 7.7 a) a) b) 180 United Arab Emirates 181 United Kingdom 182 United Rep.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) 2.044 0.224 0.421 0.834 0.145 0.8 49.7 488.465 0.5 12 2.000 0.245 0.127 0.824 0.389 0.334 0.606 0.312 0.031 0.275 0.000 0.373 0.060 0.7 0 15.5 791.482 0.007 0.014 173 Trinidad & Tobago 174 Tunisia 175 Turkey 176 Turkmenistan 177 Tuvalu b) a) 1.9 12.4 a) 169 The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 170 Timor-Leste 171 Togo 172 Tonga b) 109.274 0.343 0.2 0 25.033 0.002 282 0 32 61 340 198 449 196 9 27 456 292 661 20 854 530 276 12 0.656 0.1 154.006 0.9 278.5 0.9 197.257 277 214 13 304 407 368 16 14 127 591 111 273 241 119 574 548 67 326 274 0.Country Mobile subscribers per 1000 persons Index TV sets per 1000 persons Index 150 Serbia and Montenegro 151 Seychelles a) b) a) b) 256.7 89 .873 0.262 0.9 178 Uganda 179 Ukraine a) 44.7 61 885 787.2 0.532 0.010 0.2 758.626 0.037 0.1 167 Tajikistan 168 Thailand a) b) 260.521 0.812 0.6 538.2 5.108 0.2 0 265.153 0.1 40.8 33.195 0.025 0.7 5.317 0.023 0.000 0.018 0.976 0.049 0.8 844.1 347.513 0.005 0.8 822.015 0.4 543.002 0.6 835.781 0.136 0.315 0.000 0.253 0.347 0.016 0.675 0.016 0.070 0.536 0.226 0.

5 23.3 0. Web address: http://www.008 0.252 0.211 0.1 13 30.323 0.org/uis/TEMPLATE/html/CultAndCom/TableIV_14_Africa.153 0.unesco.030 185 185 283 134 30 0.pdf Mobile phones data from International Telecommunication Union.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/at_glance/cellular01.023 0.034 Sources: Telephone data from International Telecommunication Union.4 8. b) TV sets per 1000 persons data is for 1999 c) Data for Rwanda for 1994 from http://portal.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.itu.pdf Note: a) All data is for the 2001 unless otherwise noted.itu.013 0.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/at_glance/main01.html 90 . Web address: http://www.211 0.

002 0.591 0.244 0.347 0.613 0.005 0. a) Chad 91 .012 0.513 0.675 0.640 0.440 0.444 0.206 0.309 0.499 0.049 0.846 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 0.250 0.691 0.002 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.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 0.153 0.675 0.193 0.675 0.498 0.002 Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Central African Rep.409 0.055 0.070 0.710 0.632 0.147 0.691 0.691 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) 0.005 0.514 0.015 0.787 0.675 0.007 0.036 0.591 0.460 0.447 0.529 0.207 0.086 0.666 0.386 0.372 Bosnia & Herzogovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi a) a) a) a) a) 0.626 0.514 0.004 0.801 0.490 0.067 0.682 0.004 0.660 0.809 0.514 0.080 0.059 0.012 0.429 0.

089 0.207 Dominican Rep.R.308 0.004 92 .067 0.691 0. Kitts and Nevis Poland a) a) b) a) b) b) 0.147 a) b) Finland France Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece a) a) b) a) a) a) 0.176 0.529 Lithuania Bulgaria Barbados a) b) El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Fiji a) b) 0.R.275 0.001 0.190 0.190 a) Antigua & Barbuda Uruguay Seychelles Kuwait a) Dominica 0.244 a) b) Czech Republic D. Congo Denmark Djibouti b) b) a) 0.060 0.118 0.632 0.153 0.007 0.077 0.498 0.226 0.011 0.019 0.196 Trinidad & Tobago Costa Rica Mauritius Bahamas Turkey Dominica Grenada Lebanon Argentina Russia St.192 0.021 0.190 0.082 0. Vincent & the Grenadines Serbia and Montenegro b) 0.372 0.248 0.051 0.009 a) Grenada Romania Belarus Guatemala Guinea a) St.003 0. Lucia Brazil Belize b) a) b) b) b) b) 0.174 0.275 0. Korea D.190 0.115 0.319 0.074 0.248 0.241 0.136 0.044 0.188 0.007 0.187 0.206 0.291 0.206 0.309 0.019 0.292 0.116 0.386 0.198 0.013 0.294 a) Hungary Slovakia Malaysia Croatia Chile Brunei Darussalam St.149 0.021 0.P.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 0.244 0.250 0.218 0.787 0.185 0.134 Guinea-Bissau 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) 0.193 0. Ecuador Egypt a) 0.198 0.347 0.291 0.321 0.307 0.429 0.

089 0.080 0.809 0.074 Kyrgyzstan Lao P.007 0.062 0.660 0.307 0.012 0.126 0.037 0.116 0.127 0.089 0.060 0.026 0.292 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.061 0.016 0.041 0.007 0.062 0.) Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan a) a) a) a) a) b) b) Sorted in descending order 0.115 0.070 0.D.090 0.514 0.111 0.077 0.132 0.086 0.082 0.089 0.005 0.R.059 Marshall Islands Bosnia & Herzogovina 93 .117 0.117 0.064 a) 0.119 a) South Africa Republic of Moldovia Guyana b) Saudi Arabia Colombia Suriname Thailand 0.027 0.132 0.499 0.118 a) b) 0.011 0.043 0.) Ecuador Jordan Tunisia Cape Verde El Salvador Azerbaijan Gabon a) a) 0.321 0.319 0.074 0.095 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.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.021 0.226 0.005 0.118 0.626 0.127 0.040 Dominican Rep.069 0. Botswana a) Philippines Kazakhstan Morocco Egypt a) 0.069 0.045 0.120 0.067 0.090 0.188 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. Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya a) 0.067 0.119 0.116 a) b) Venezuela China Ukraine Georgia The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia a) a) 0.R.447 0.119 0.460 0.089 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 Oman Mexico Jamaica a) a) 0.R.

031 0.013 0.044 0. Tomé & Principe Uzbekistan Cuba Tonga b) a) 0.040 0.132 0.132 0. Vincent & the Grenadines 0.043 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) 0.040 0.003 0.026 0.033 0.040 0.120 0.040 0.064 0.038 0.037 0.074 0.248 0.048 0.308 0.054 0.023 Portugal Qatar Republic of Korea Republic of Moldovia Romania Russia Rwanda a) a) c) b) 0.196 0.027 0.039 0.149 0.023 0.055 a) b) S.003 0.040 0.040 0.026 0.710 0.176 a) b) St.053 0.490 0.004 0.051 0.440 0.056 0.005 0.031 0.095 0.675 0.027 0.026 0.027 0.136 94 .006 0.061 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) 0.046 0.042 a) a) 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 0.613 0.056 0.035 0.027 0. Lucia b) St.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) 0.034 0.248 0.034 0.051 0. Kitts and Nevis St.049 0.774 0.033 0.036 0.035 Pakistan Palau Panama a) 0.111 0.037 0.036 0.041 0.000 Zimbabwe Turkmenistan Honduras Marshall Islands Mongolia Sudan Micronesia Yemen Syria a) a) a) b) a) a) 0.042 0.

011 0.011 0.013 0.016 0.005 0.022 0.007 Burkina Faso Cambodia a) 0.000 0.089 0.R.042 0.116 0.640 0.007 0. Korea (north) Guinea United Rep.117 169 a) 0.011 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) 0.021 0.409 0.009 0.022 0.206 0.004 0.005 0.R.005 a) 0.012 0.005 0.007 0. a) b) Tajikistan Thailand a) b) The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Madagascar 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) 0.015 0.040 0.119 0.666 0.046 0.034 0.051 0.118 0.134 0.021 0.009 0.007 0.007 a) Cameroon Lesotho Congo D.038 0.006 0.012 San Marino S.004 0.294 0.241 0.037 0.846 0.019 0.019 0.126 0.R.012 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.P.015 0.682 0.036 0.111 0.444 0.013 0.004 United Arab Emirates 95 .054 0. Tomé & Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles a) b) a) 0.002 0.005 0.005 0.D.015 0. Of Tanzania Uganda Angola Eritrea Comoros Lao P.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 0.007 0.192 a) Sierra Leone Mali Trinidad & Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Tuvalu b) Burundi Malawi 0.021 0.007 0.005 0.004 Uganda Ukraine a) Bangladesh Mozambique Guinea-Bissau a) a) 0.

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.com/surveys/how_many_online/africa.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/at_glance/Internet01. Of Tanzania* United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu a) a) b) 0.675 0.048 0.html 96 .042 Central African Somalia Afghanistan Chad D.unesco.un.002 0.pdf Mobile phones data from International Telecommunication Union.itu.023 0.801 0.pdf Internet and Estimated PCs data from International Telecommunication Union. except those marked b) for which data is for 1999 from UN Statistics Division http://unstats. Web address: http://www.244 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 Liberia Rwanda Ethiopia Myanmar a) a) 0.003 c) 0.itu.001 0.023 0.org/unsd/cdb/cdb_simple_data_extract.a) 0.009 0.R.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/at_glance/cellular01.002 0.002 0.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/at_glance/main01.039 0.org/uis/TEMPLATE/html/CultAndCom/TableIV_14_Africa. Web address: http://www. b) TV sets per 1000 persons data is for 1999 c) Data for Rwanda for 1994 from http://portal. Congo Venezuela Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe a) 0. On line Web address: http://www.053 0.000 Timor-Leste Palau Sources: Percentage of Pop.003 0.003 0.003 Rep.002 a) United Rep.asp Note: a) All data is for the 2001 unless otherwise noted. Web address: http://www.pdf TV sets/1000 persons from World Bank World Development Report 2002.nua.117 0.itu.html Telephone data from International Telecommunication Union.000 0.

000 0.98 0.89 0.75 0.96 0.80 0.80 97 .87 0.44 0.89 0.R.P.83 0.92 0.99 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 0.49 0.98 0.86 0.77 0.69 0. Korea Congo.39 0.88 0.62 0.90 0.86 0. Rep.90 0.99 0.23 0.85 0.88 0.37 0.35 0.91 0.88 0.39 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.000 0.268 0.75 0.86 0.95 0.38 0.90 0.65 0.39 0.74 0.90 0.36 0.88 0.85 0.81 0.40 0.92 0.99 0.80 0.86 0.92 0.75 0.76 0.40 0.62 0.737 0.97 0.46 0.97 0.51 0.88 0.92 0.80 0.50 0.62 0.85 0.38 0. Dem.42 0.66 0.

37 0.93 0.88 0.67 0.84 1.50 0.85 0.92 0. Islamic Rep.71 0.78 0.94 0.79 0.42 0.37 0.91 0. Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Micronesia 0.48 0.86 0.72 0.81 0.99 0.75 0.50 0.65 0.37 0.000 0.000 0.94 0.65 0.79 0.58 0.16 0.96 0.55 0.90 0.79 0.91 0.99 0.83 0.83 0.900 0.93 0.75 0.75 0.58 0.87 0.57 0.94 0. of Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Dem.95 0.000 0.810 0.91 0.70 0.74 0.000 0.40 0.79 0.75 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.93 0.98 0. Rep.80 0.83 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) 0.930 0.88 0.96 0.000 0.000 0.694 98 .84 0 0.59 0.52 0.87 0.77 0.93 0.90 0.89 0.76 0.

org/reports/global/2002/en/indicator/excel/hdr_2002_table_1.030 0.000 94 96 84 Timor-Leste Source: UNDP HDR 2002.84 0.94 0.88 0.94 0.60 0.77 0.096 0.68 0.92 0. 99 .68 0.33 0.74 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.98 0.50 0.91 0.90 0.71 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.xls Note: a) Data are from national sources.61 0.99 0.84 0.83 0.92 1.920 0. Of Tanzania United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe 0. http://hdr.59 0.undp.77 0.91 0.35 0.97 0.84 a) 0.83 0.48 0.87 0.860 0.92 0.72 0.99 0.84 0.88 0.

483 0. e decision making III.397 0.534 0.397 0.586 0.448 0.690 0.Table 9 E-Participation Index 2003 E-Participation e I.586 0.397 0. Index information consultation E-Participation 100 .000 0. Total Pts. 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 1.397 0.586 0.638 0.431 0.466 0.603 0.379 0.345 e II.672 0.379 0.466 0.966 0.448 0.828 0.638 0.759 0.621 0.828 0.362 0.466 0.448 0.397 0.

155 0.328 0.207 0.155 0.310 0.293 0.155 0.172 0. Total Pts.293 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 .138 0.155 0. Rank Country e II.293 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 0.138 0.190 0.259 0.138 0.293 0.155 0.224 0.E-Participation e I.241 0.207 0.259 0.172 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.241 0.310 0.172 0.207 0.345 0.138 0.259 0.259 0.

086 0.052 0.103 0.103 0. Rank Country e II.086 0.086 0.052 0.069 0.086 0.069 0.069 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.086 0.086 0.052 0.086 0.052 0.052 0.069 0.086 0. Total Pts.069 0.086 0.069 0.069 0. e decision making III.121 0.103 0.086 0.086 0.121 0.052 0.052 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 0.052 102 .E-Participation e I.

034 0.034 0.034 0.017 0.034 0.017 0.034 0. Total Pts.034 0.017 103 .017 0.034 0.034 0.017 0.034 0.034 0.034 0.034 0. e decision making III.017 0.017 0.017 0.034 0.017 0.017 0.034 0.E-Participation e I.017 0.034 0.034 0.017 0.034 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 0.017 0.034 0.034 0.017 0. Rank Country e II.034 0.034 0.

000 0.017 0.000 0.000 0. Total Pts.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 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 0.000 0. Rank Country e II.000 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.017 0.E-Participation e I.017 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 0.000 0. e decision making III.000 0.017 0.017 0.017 0. information consultation E-Participation Index 137 138 36 36 Marshall Islands Micronesia (Federated States of) 1 0 0 1 0.017 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 .000 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 0.000 0.017 0.

000 0.000 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 0.000 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 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. 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 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0. e decision making III.000 0.E-Participation e I.000 0.000 0. Rank Country e II.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.

ANNEX II: Technical Notes 106 .

as a percentage of the population of school age for that level. 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. a maximum and minimum value is selected for each of the six indicators.7 .4 875 Minimum value 0 0 0 0 0 0 For example. 107 . Internet users. 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. use other forms of ICT such as radio and TV to improve knowledge and service delivery to people. 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. These are: PCs/1000 persons. for purposes of e-government measurement. secondary and tertiary level. and unless otherwise stated is for 2002. as defined here.029 Whereas governments can. 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. and TVs/1000 persons.6 921 699 1013. regardless of age. Data for UN member states was taken primarily from the UN International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and UN Statistics Division.029 PC index = (21.Minimum value) / (Maximum value . Internet users/1000 persons. the Survey deemed the prevalence of PCs. On-line population.0) / (760 . Combined primary. the PC index is 0.A. Telephone lines/1000 persons. both read and write a short simple statement on their everyday life. The data was standardized by constructing indices for each of the indicators as follows: Based on the scores of the countries. which has 21. Mobile phones/1000 persons. secondary and tertiary gross enrolment ratio is the total number of students enrolled at the primary. for the Philippines.0) = 0.7 PCs per 1000 persons.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. supplemented by the World Bank. The country’s relative performance is measured by a value between 0 and 1 based on the following: Indicator value = (Actual value . with understanding. Consequently. and do.

however. http://www. with an adult literacy rate of 96. 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.For country X.presidencia.suggests a national government site. operates its National Gateway Site out of its Ministry of Finance and Industry.ae .gov.but also an important step toward providing government information and services to people in a usable and easy-to-find manner. 4. attempting to use any of the available commercial or university government website resources proved to be not only frustrating but also highly unreliable.” the National Government of the Republic of Ecuador. and even the URL http://www. and in many instances. The criteria included the following: 1. clear statement at the chosen website is sufficient to start . this basic piece of information was missing and deciding which site was the official national site. the Ecuadoran national site. For example. URLs provided for government sites were actually for commercial sites or other non-governmental sites.ec/. 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 . 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. If none of the above. none provided any validation information. it is linked from other ministry sites as the national government gateway.in a sense.963. the starting point for national users. was more problematic than expected. Thus. 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 . the education index would be: Adult literacy index = 0.a simple.812. for example.812) = 0.963) + 1/3 (0.913 B. Education index = 2/3 (Adult literacy index) + 1/3 (Gross enrolment index) = 2/3 (0. Further. 2. None of those checked were up-to-date.gov. or even if there were an official national site. The site is clearly labelled the national government gateway. Gross enrolment index =0. 3. One would think that regardless of where a nation is in its e-government development. is the Presidential site but the homepage link and title banner used throughout the site clearly state “Gobierno Nacional de la Republic del Ecuador. Not only is this easy to do .uae. much as members of the public would do in their initial forays onto the Web for government information. 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. For users.3 per cent and a combined gross enrolment ratio of 81. In many instances. 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. the researchers first looked for a clearly identified official national government site. ministry or other government body that is clearly identified as the national government site? The United Arab Emirates.2 per cent in 2002. this makes it extremely easy to find and decide where they should start. is there a viable Presidential or Prime Minister’s site. Is there a site operated by another agency.

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

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

teachnet.shtml See www.com/2010-1069-964507.nhs.org/research/povmonitor/pdfs/how%20did%20the%20world’s%20poorest%20fare%20in%20the%2090s.ams. pages 208-212. “How Did the World’s Poor Fare in the 1990s?”.au See http://www.se/ 9 10 11 12 13 111 . 2002.nu/english/index.nua.studera. Keynote Speech of Yoshio Utsumi. Naples. 7 “Bridging the Digital Divide through Digital Governance”.gov.uk/ http://platsbanken.nks.edu. http://www. The World Bank. Naples.int/osg/sg/speeches/2001/09naples. to the Third Global Forum: Fostering Democracy & Development through E-government readiness. Report of the Secretary-General. http://news.worldbank.itu. Martin. 27 February 2003. 2 3 4 “Bridging the Digital Divide through Digital Governance”.html 8 “Kofi Annan’s IT challenge to Silicon Valley”. http://www. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2002.pdf UN Millennium Development Indicators.Notes 1 Chen. 2001. E/CN. Illiteracy rates data from UNESCO. 4:00 AM PT.com. 5 November.int/osg/sg/speeches/2001/09naples. http://www.ie/surveys/how_many_online/index.html?tag=lh http://www.curriculum. to the Third Global Forum: Fostering Democracy & Development through E-government readiness. International Telecommunication Union. http://www.html 5 6 NUA Internet statistics. Secretary-General.uk See www. Keynote Speech of Yoshio Utsumi. 2001. Shaohua and Ravallion.html Synthesis Report on the CSTD Panels on Technology Development and Capacity-Building in a Digital Society. Secretary-General.16/2003/2. International Telecommunication Union.itu. Kofi Annan.

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful