IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecr/col093/31929.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Evaluation of e-readiness indices for Latin America and the Caribbean

Author

Listed:
  • Minges, Michael

Abstract

The report aims to contribute to a better understanding of the different indices of e-Readiness and their application in the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean. Different institutions have used indices of e-Readiness" in search to quantify a country's preparedness for the Information Society. These indices are composed of different indicators that are based on various statistics. The weight of each component of the index, as well as the chosen statistics, differs among indices. In the majority of cases, studies of e-Readiness conclude with a "ranking", listing countries more or less advanced on their way towards the Information Society (or aspects of it). Many of these indices were created during years 2001-2003 with an annual frequency, which means that in some cases it is already possible to have three or four consecutive years of these rankings, showing comparable time series. After reviewing the main e-Readiness Indices in chapter two, the third chapter of this report identifies if a general theoretical framework exists that supports the different indices and explains the implications in relation to the index. In the fourth chapter, a comparative analysis on methodology, practical limitations and measurement implications is carried out. The fifth chapter constitutes a comparative analysis at regional and subregional level (South Cone, Andean Community, Central America, the Caribbean). It also presents an analysis of each of the 33 Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) member countries, analyzing the differences in the positions that a country has in different indices, including characteristics and shortcomings of the indices. Finally, the sixth chapter presents some recommendations about the theoretical efforts that should be done in this area, including a critical reflection about the composition of e-Readiness indices. The study covers 18 countries in Latin America (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela); as well as 15 countries of the Caribbean (Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominican, Granada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Dominican Republic, Saint Kitts and Nevis, San Vicente and the Grenadines, Santa Lucia, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago). These are the countries that elaborated and approved the Regional Plan of Action for the Information Society in Latin America and the Caribbean, eLAC2007. This study has been carried out to support action item 26 of eLAC2007, especially goal 26.2, which calls for: "Elaborate comparative studies on the economic and social impact of ICTs, particularly in reference to previously agreed national and international development goals…"."

Suggested Citation

  • Minges, Michael, 2005. "Evaluation of e-readiness indices for Latin America and the Caribbean," Sede de la CEPAL en Santiago (Estudios e Investigaciones) 31929, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    • Handle: RePEc:ecr:col093:31929
    Note: Includes bibliography
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/31929
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Archibugi, Daniele & Coco, Alberto, 2004. "A New Indicator of Technological Capabilities for Developed and Developing Countries (ArCo)," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 629-654, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Abeliansky, Ana L. & Hilbert, Martin, 2017. "Digital technology and international trade: Is it the quantity of subscriptions or the quality of data speed that matters?," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 35-48.
    2. Claudio Aravena & Marc Badia-Miró & André A. Hofman & José Jofré González & Christian Hurtado, 2010. "Growth, Productivity and Information and Communications Technologies in Latin America, 1950–2005," Chapters, in: Mario Cimoli & André A. Hofman & Nanno Mulder (ed.), Innovation and Economic Development, chapter 5, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Lawton, Opal, 2010. "Monitoring Caribbean information societies," Documentos de Proyectos 3742, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    4. Hilbert, Martin, 2016. "The bad news is that the digital access divide is here to stay: Domestically installed bandwidths among 172 countries for 1986–2014," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 567-581.
    5. Hilbert, Martin, 2015. "How ubiquitous is ubiquitous communication? Assessing bandwidth distributions among 172 countries from 1986 to 2013," 2015 Regional ITS Conference, Los Angeles 2015 146310, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Inmaculada Martínez-Zarzoso & Laura Márquez-Ramos, 2005. "Does Technology Foster Trade? Empirical Evidence for Developed and Developing Countries," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 33(1), pages 55-69, March.
    2. Gogodze, Joseph, 2013. "Composite indicator for regional innovative systems of the countries with developing and transitional economy," MPRA Paper 43911, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Kim, Jinhee & Lee, Keun, 2022. "Local–global interface as a key factor in the catching up of regional innovation systems: Fast versus slow catching up among Taipei, Shenzhen, and Penang in Asia," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    4. Soumyananda Dinda, 2018. "Production technology and carbon emission: long-run relation with short-run dynamics," Journal of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(1), pages 106-121, January.
    5. Valeria Costantini & Francesco Crespi, 2015. "European enlargement policy, technological capabilities and sectoral export dynamics," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 25-69, February.
    6. Intan Hamdan-Livramento, 2009. "How compliant are developing countries with their TRIPS obligations?," CEMI Working Papers cemi-workingpaper-2009-00, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Collège du Management de la Technologie, Management of Technology and Entrepreneurship Institute, Chaire en Economie et Management de l'Innovation.
    7. Santos, Eleonora & Khan, Shahed, 2019. "FDI Policies and Catching-Up," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 0(7(61)), pages 1821-1853.
    8. Peter Vinkler, 2008. "Correlation between the structure of scientific research, scientometric indicators and GDP in EU and non-EU countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 74(2), pages 237-254, February.
    9. Delera, Michele & Pietrobelli, Carlo & Calza, Elisa & Lavopa, Alejandro, 2022. "Does value chain participation facilitate the adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies in developing countries?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    10. Filippetti, Andrea & Payrache, Antonio, 2010. "Productivity growth and catch up in Europe: A new perspective on total factor productivity differences," MPRA Paper 27212, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Antoine Mandel & Solmaria Halleck Vega & Dan-Xia Wang, 2020. "The contribution of technological diffusion to climate change mitigation: a network-based approach," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 160(4), pages 609-620, June.
    12. Castellacci, Fulvio & Natera, Jose Miguel, 2013. "The dynamics of national innovation systems: A panel cointegration analysis of the coevolution between innovative capability and absorptive capacity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 579-594.
    13. Ijaz Ur Rehman & Muhammad Shahbaz & Phouphet Kyophilavong, 2016. "Do Technological Development and Financial Development Promote Economic Growth: Fresh Evidence from Romania," International Journal of Economics and Empirical Research (IJEER), The Economics and Social Development Organization (TESDO), vol. 4(2), pages 60-76, February.
    14. Dechezleprêtre, Antoine & Glachant, Matthieu & Ménière, Yann, 2008. "The Clean Development Mechanism and the international diffusion of technologies: An empirical study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 1273-1283, April.
    15. Valeria Costantini & Chiara Martini, 2010. "A Modified Environmental Kuznets Curve for sustainable development assessment using panel data," International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(1/2), pages 84-122.
    16. Halleck-Vega, Solmaria & Mandel, Antoine & Millock, Katrin, 2018. "Accelerating diffusion of climate-friendly technologies: A network perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 235-245.
    17. Liu, Jing & Bailey, DeeVon, 2013. "Examining Economies of Scale for Farmer Cooperatives in China’s Shanxi Province," Journal of Rural Cooperation, Hebrew University, Center for Agricultural Economic Research, vol. 41(2), pages 1-30.
    18. Chan-Yuan Wong & Hon-Ngen Fung, 2017. "Science-technology-industry correlative indicators for policy targeting on emerging technologies: exploring the core competencies and promising industries of aspirant economies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 841-867, May.
    19. Riccardo Crescenzi & Luisa Gagliardi & Marco Percoco, 2013. "Social Capital and the Innovative Performance of Italian Provinces," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 45(4), pages 908-929, April.
    20. Carsten Gandenberger & Miriam Bodenheimer & Joachim Schleich & Robert Orzanna & Lioba Macht, 2016. "Factors driving international technology transfer: empirical insights from a CDM project survey," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(8), pages 1065-1084, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ecr:col093:31929. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Biblioteca CEPAL (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eclaccl.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.