icts and economic growth in developing countries - unpan022641

8/3/2019 Icts and Economic Growth in Developing Countries - Unpan022641

1/30


2/30

DCD/DAC/POVNET(2004)6/REV1

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction....................................................................................................................................4

ICTs, productivity and economic growth: evidence from the OECD area.................................... 6

ICTs, productivity and economic growth: evidence from the developing world ........................ 10

Differences between OECD and developing economies.............................................................12

The relationship between economic growth, development policy and the digital divide........ 15Policy recommendations.............................................................................................................. 19

Sequencing and evaluation of outcomes......................................................................................24

Conclusions..................................................................................................................................25

Bibliography ................................................................................................................................ 26

Figures

Figure 1. Analytical Framework................................................................................................. 5

Figure 2. The share of investment in ICT in total GDP ............................................................. 7

Figure 3. Value added per sector in 2001 (% of GDP) ............................................................11

Boxes

Box 1. The productivity paradox has it been solved?.................................................................6

Box 2. Network Externatilities ...................................................................................................... 8

Box 3. The Benefits of ICT are not immediate..............................................................................9

Box 4. The Digital Divide........................................................................................................ 16

Box 5. Innovative solutions to extend access to telecommunications......................................... 23


3/30


4/30


4

Introduction

9. Ten years ago most development agencies, analysts and developing-country governments

considered information and communication technologies (ICTs)1

marginal to the achievement of both

national economic growth and the reduction of poverty. Today, ICTs are considered so central to

development that governments have initiated national e-strategies and donor agencies have made them a

mainstream item in national and international programmes. They are now sufficiently important, indeed,

for the Information Society to merit a World Summit similar to those on Sustainable Development or

Social Development.

10. The speed with which scepticism has given way to enthusiasm has stimulated a good deal of

innovative thought, but it also carries substantial risks. Investment in ICTs is expensive, and its impact

largely unresearched and easily exaggerated. Many of the assumptions underpinning current thinking on

ICTs in development are based on intuition rather than analysis and on limited evidence from a narrowrange of pilot projects rather than large-scale impact assessments. The danger is that, without better

understanding of the real impact of ICTs on both national economies and community development, the

pursuit of over-ambitious, unrealistic goals may mean that resources are misapplied and worthwhile

objectives missed. Past disappointments, for example the failure of import substitution industrialisation

strategies to transform economic growth, have not destroyed the yearning for a magic bullet for

development, and the real capabilities (and limitations) of ICTs must be properly understood if they are to

be exploited effectively in both small- and large-scale industrial activity and in their contributions to

national economic expansion.

11. Thinking about the role of ICTs in development has focused primarily on their potential for

reducing poverty, and especially on the impact they may have on mainstream development objectives in,

for example, health, education, providing livelihoods2 and empowerment3. Less attention has been paid to

the impact of ICTs on national economic growth on productivity and the relationship between the

national economies of developing countries and the wider world. That impact is generally assumed to be

beneficial, but it has not been seen as the primary aim of the engagement of the development community

with the ICT sector. The economic debates about the macro impact of ICTs in industrial countries have

largely passed the development community by: hardly any relevant research has been done outside the

OECD area, and almost none at all in Least Developed Countries (LDCs).

12. What might be the impact of ICTs on these large-scale economic issues? And what are the

implications for the differing circumstances of the developing world of recent research on the

1The definition of ICTs varies considerably, causing considerable confusion. In the development literature, for

example, they generally include old technologies such as broadcast radio and voice telephony. Analysts of the new

economy are more likely to mean only new ICTs, based on digital or computer technology. For discussion

purposes, this report uses the more generic, less technology-specific definition put forward by Duncombe and Heeks(1999): electronic means of capturing, processing, storing and disseminating information.

2Livelihoods encompass varied ways of living that meet individual, household, and community need, including social

(i.e. networks), human (i.e. skills), natural and physical as well as financial capital. A good description of livelihoods

analysis is presented by the UK Department for International Development at

http://www.livelihoods.org/info/info_guidanceSheets.html.

3ICTs can help empower people to transform their situations by strengthening their capacities. This is potentially

true both for those who already hold power and for those who do not. Actual empowerment outcomes will depend on

a number of factors, including the existing distribution of social, economic and political power.


5/30


5

relationship between ICTs, productivity and economic growth in OECD countries. First, although

economic growth does not necessarily lead to poverty reduction, reductions in poverty are much more

difficult to achieve without economic growth a point that seems self-evident but has sometimes been

forgotten in redistributive approaches to development. If ICTs do have a positive impact on nationaleconomic growth, then their contribution should be factored into general development policies for poverty

reduction and the redistribution of economic and social welfare. Second, good policy development

depends on an accurate understanding of the nature of the economic impact of ICTs and of the factors

which may constrain or enhance it. National e-strategies developed without such understanding will, at

best, miss their targets and could even prove counter-productive.

13. This report reviews recent OECD research on the impact of ICTs in the OECD countries and asks

whether similar impacts can be expected in the different circumstances of the developing world. It

considers the relationship between these findings, the digital divide4

and the wider aim of development

policy the reduction of poverty and sets out a number of recommendations for developing countries and

international agencies.

14. An initial caveat is necessary: analysis for the developing world in this context has to be based at

present on limited evidence. Even in the OECD countries the links between ICTs, productivity and

economic growth have only recently been established, through sophisticated analysis of complex data. No

similar analysis has been undertaken in developing countries, least of all in LDCs; and no comparable data

are available for most. The best one can do is assess, as a basis for subsequent policy-analysis, how the

differences between developing-country/LDC and OECD economies are likely to affect the impact of

ICTs. Substantive research is urgently required if investment commitments are to be made by the private

sector or development agencies with any real understanding of likely outcomes.

Figure 1. Analytical Framework

from OECD Publication: A New Economy?(2000)

Source:A New Economy?, p. 18. OECD (2000).

4 That is, the disparity in ICT diffusion and use between industrial and developing countries (or, indeed, between rich

and poor, men and women, urban and rural areas within individual countries). See also Box 4.


6/30


7/30


7

16. The most substantial evidence for this positive view derives from a major multi-country study

undertaken by the OECD and published in its 2003 report, ICT and Economic Growth: Evidence fromOECD Countries, Industries and Firms.6

Using data from thirteen countries, and including extensive

analysis of corporate behaviour, this research established clearly that ICTs have acted as drivers of growth

in OECD economies firstly in firms themselves and then nationally and, moreover, that considerable

differences are evident in the scale of their impact in different OECD countries. ICT investment typically

accounted for between 0.3 and 0.8 percentage points of growth in per capita GDP in 19952001, with the

United States and Canada performing substantially better than other OECD members.

Figure 2. The share of investment in ICT in total GDP

17. ICT impact can be found in three main areas:

In some countries, such as Finland and the United States, the technological innovation and highvolumes of demand generated by an ICT production sector played an important role. But it does

not follow that an ICT production sector is necessary to achieve the beneficial impact on the

national economy that the study identified, as strong growth rates in other countries indicated:countries with strong ICT service sectors were also at an advantage over those in which the ICT

sector as a whole was weak.

ICT investment has contributed to capital deepening: it has increased capital input per worker,enabling more efficient production that increases labour productivity.

The pervasive use of ICTs throughout the value chain has contributed to improved performance infirms, enabling them in particular to increase efficiency in combining capital and labour (multi-

factor productivity). Networking enabled by ICTs was also important, both within the firm and

6

A useful summary of the report is to be found in Dryden (2003).


8/30


8

(as the diffusion of ICTs spreads throughout an economy) by enabling new forms of interaction

between firms and other parties such as consumers.

18. There is an important distinction to be drawn here between improvements in the performance ofindividual firms and in national macro-economic performance. Evidence from firms shows that

considerable benefits can be gained from ICT investment, particularly by companies equipped to maximise

those gains through adaptation and innovation in their work processes. National gains from ICT investment

derive partly from the aggregation of these micro-economic improvements in productivity, but also from

ICT-based networking between firms, which reduces transaction costs and accelerates innovation. The

importance of networking in unlocking the potential of ICT investment is critical, and has been much

increased by the advent of the Internet (which has also made many services much more tradable than

before). The externalities of communications networks suggest that the impact of ICTs will increase more

swiftly than their apparent rate of deployment may initially suggest. There may also be a threshold effect

at play, through which ICTs begin to have a lasting and sustainable national impact only when they

achieve a certain penetration of the economy as a whole.7

The increased value generated by networking is

one factor which helps to explain why economy-wide ICT diffusion and use are more important than ICTproduction in contributing to national productivity and growth.

Box 2. Network Externatilities

Network externalities are derived from the fact that the value of a telephone line (or similar access point

for interactive communications) increases with each new subscriber by the number of potential connections

between users rather than the number of potential users: a telephone network with two subscribers has one

possible connection, a network with three subscribers three possible connections, a network with four

subscribers six possible connections, and so on.

19. However, it takes considerable time for the scale and spread of ICT investment by individual

firms and the networking between them in conjunction with other organisational and production changes

for them to be translated into macro-economic outcomes. This time-lag is one of the principal reasons for

the difficulty earlier economists found in identifying beneficial ICT impact on productivity and growth

even within ICT-intensive economies like the United States and it is equally relevant in developing

countries today. Understanding this time-lag is potentially very important in the development of national

ICT and development strategies, and more research is needed on its variation between countries and

economies.

7 This threshold effect is suggested by a number of analysts, including Roller and Waverman (1994), Bedi (1999)

and Rodriguez and Wilson (2000).


9/30


9

Box 3. The Benefits of ICT are not immediate

It takes time to adapt to investment in ICT, e.g. by changing organisational set-ups and worker-specific skills. Firms

that adopted network technologies several years ago, notably large firms, have often already been able to make the

technology work, whereas more recent adopters are still adapting their organisation, management or skills. Evidence

for the United Kingdom, for example, shows that among the firms that had already adopted ICT technologies in or

before 1995, over 50% were using electronic networks for procurement by 2000. In contrast, of the firms that onlyadopted ICT in 2000, fewer than 20% made purchases through networks in 2000.

Source: Seizing the Benefits of ICTs in a Digital Economy, Meeting of the OECD at Ministerial Level, Brochure, p. 10, para. TheBenefits of ICT are not immediate (OECD 2003).

20. OECD research shows that the extent of diffusion and use of ICTs, and thus their impact on

business performance, are also influenced by a number of complementary factors in the business

environment. Five of these seem particularly important:

the nature of the business in which individual firms are engaged some sectors, particularlyservices, can make much more extensive use of ICTs to change processes and their relationships

with customers and suppliers (for example, through the use of software, call centres and e-

commerce);

the extent of competition and the nature of the regulatory environment the more competitive andless regulated the business environment, the more likely are firms to take advantage of ICT

innovation, and countries to improve their macro-economic performance;

the relative costs of ICT deployment, including the costs of hardware and other inputs, includinglabour, but also indirect costs related to changes in working practices, licensing, standardisation

and the usage costs of networking facilities such as telecommunications networks;

the amount and quality of human capital available the better skilled the workforce and the betterequipped a firm is to upgrade workforce skills to take advantage of ICTs, the more likely it is to

achieve higher rates of ICT-related innovation and increased productivity;

the ability and willingness of organisations, particularly firms, to restructure and reorganise theirworking methods to take advantage of the new opportunities made available through ICTs the

OECD study confirmed evidence reported elsewhere8

that adaptability and organisational capitalwithin firms play a crucial part in maximising the value of ICT investment.

21. Without these complementary factors, the OECD research indicated, ICT investment is much less

likely to improve business performance, either in individual firms or, through them, nationally. Company

managers should therefore focus on steps to maximise the return they achieve on their ICT investments,

such as skill upgrading and innovation in organisational management. While this is true of all kinds of

investment, it may be particularly important in the case of ICT investment because of the extent to which

ICTs transform the intellectual as well as the physical content of work.

8

For example, Brynjolfsson and Hitt (1998).


10/30


10

22. The policy implication is that, to retain or enhance their countries relative economic

performance, governments and businesses alike should act in ways which facilitate the benefits of ICTs:

liberalising markets and reducing regulatory requirements on businesses, promoting access to business

finance and facilitating market entry and company growth, encouraging entrepreneurship and innovation,stimulating trust in the efficacy and security of electronic transactions and promoting the development of

human capital, chiefly through education and training.

ICTs, productivity and economic growth: evidence from the developing world

23. Lack of research means there is much less evidence for the effects of ICTs on productivity and

economic growth in developing countries. There may also be intrinsic differences between OECD and

developing-country economies, particularly those of LDCs. The experience of developing countries in both

the production and diffusion of ICTs is very different from that of most OECD member countries.

24. First, relatively few developing countries have sizable ICT production sectors. Those which do

are almost all either middle-income countries transition economies in central and eastern Europe orcountries in Asia and Latin America with established industrial/manufacturing sectors or very large

countries, such as India and China, whose size gives them substantial domestic markets and skilled

workforces requiring remuneration at levels well below those in OECD member countries. LDCs, with

very few exceptions, have neither ICT production nor export-oriented ICT service sectors.

25. ICT manufacturing sectors in developing countries also seem likely to have fewer backward and

forward linkages into the national economy than ICT production sectors in the OECD area. Much of the

investment in ICT manufacturing in developing countries derives from foreign sources rather than from

local capital markets, for example, while most of the resulting production leads to improved efficiency in

the countries to which products are exported rather than enriching local manufacturing and services. Much

the same is probably true of the export-oriented service sectors undertaking software development, data

entry or back-office functions which have become established in India and some smaller developingcountries with appropriately skilled workforces.

9

26. Second, many developing-country economies, particularly LDCs, are still dominated by

commodity production and (often subsistence) agriculture, in which ICT investment obviously has much

more limited value. The scale of ICT investment will therefore be much lower as a proportion of national

output than in industrialised countries and the benefits for national growth will be slower to materialise.

9

Cf. Joseph (2002).


11/30


11

Figure 3. Value added per sector in 2001 (% of GDP)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Low

income

Middle

income

High

income

Agriculture

Industry

Manufacturing

Services

Source: World Development Indicators, 2003, The World Bank, p.192.

27. We shall return to these points later.10 What they initially suggest is that there are substantial

inherent differences between OECD and developing economies whose effect on the outcomes of ICT

investment could also be substantial, and that findings from OECD economies should not simply be

extrapolated to developing countries without further research, or at least an assessment of the differences

between the types of economy concerned.

28. A basic difficulty here is the lack of available historic and current data for cross-country

comparisons. Such data are available for a few developing countries, generally because of sectoral

analysis. However, this information has generated very little research, and most of that is concerned with

middle-income countries and/or those with ICT production sectors; almost none has been done on LDCs,which are the primary focus of the interest of the development community in the value of ICTs.

Nevertheless, the research which has been undertaken on middle-income countries and transition

economies can usefully indicate some of the factors likely to influence the outcomes of ICT investment in

low- as well as middle-income contexts.

29. The findings are less encouraging than for the OECD area. Proven linkages between ICT

investment and productivity or economic growth in developing countries are still as elusive as once they

were in the OECD: for developing and even transition countries, Solows paradox still seems to hold true.

A recent study of transition economies, for example, finds that the contribution of new technologies to

growth [] has been minimal, particularly when viewed from a macroeconomic perspective,11

while an

analysis of a substantial group of both industrial and developing countries found a marked difference

between the former, experiencing strong links between ICTs and economic growth, and the latter, whereno noteworthy impact was identified.

12

30. There is almost no body of research on a single country which can corroborate or challenge these

findings, although researchers have suggested a number of factors that might explain them. Some are

methodological to do with weaknesses in the data available from developing countries, the age of the

data (which makes it more difficult to assess the impact of very recent changes in investment patterns) and

10Cf. See section Differences between OECD and developing economies p. 12.

11 Piatkowski (2002).

12

Pohjola (2000).


12/30


12

the unsuitability of existing national economic indicators for measuring efficiency gains resulting from

new technologies with substantial network effects. These methodological problems may well be important,

and further theoretical and econometric work to improve the quality of the analytical tools would be useful,

alongside more detailed research on individual countries and cross-country studies. The research that isavailable does indicate that there are substantial social and economic factors which will influence (or are

likely to influence) the impact of ICT investment in developing countries in different ways from the

industrial countries which are members of the OECD.

Differences between OECD and developing economies

31. Obviously, real-world economies cannot simplistically be divided between the industrial

countries in the OECD and a broadly homogeneous group of developing countries outside it. There is a

continuum in types and degrees of development between OECD and non-OECD countries, with

considerable overlap between them. Some countries which were considered developing thirty years ago

are now highly industrialised, such as Korea and Singapore. Transition economies in Eastern Europe and

the Former Soviet Union and middle-income economies in Latin America and parts of Asia shareeconomic characteristics with both OECD and less developed regions. For example, their domestic

markets include both substantial populations with significant disposable income and large numbers of

people without. Their response to new economic impulses such as the opportunities represented by ICTs,

however, may well be closer to those of OECD members than to LDCs, particularly LDCs with a high

degree of donor dependence. There are also substantial differences between the economic behaviour of

large low-income economies (such as India and China) - which have major industrial capacity and mass

markets in spite of low percapita GDP - and that of smaller, less well-resourced, low-income countries

(such as many of those in Africa).

32. The best way to identify possible reasons for different relationships between ICTs, productivity

and growth in economies with different degrees of development is to juxtapose the characteristics of

industrial/OECD countries with those of LDCs, whose economies diverge from the OECD type mostmarkedly.

General economic factors

33. Obviously, ICT investment forms a much smaller proportion of investment in LDCs than in

OECD countries, for a number of reasons.

OECD economies have large and established service and manufacturing sectors, while LDCeconomies are dominated by raw material production and domestic or subsistence agriculture. The

service sector makes intensive use of ICTs, as does much modern manufacturing in high-income

economies, but ICTs add much less value and form a much lower proportion of investment in

extraction industries and (particularly small-scale) agriculture. The volume of ICT investment istherefore likely to be much higher in OECD economies than in LDC economies particularly

those LDC economies such as Mozambique and other overwhelmingly rural countries in sub-

Saharan Africa where subsistence (unmonetised) production forms a sizable proportion of total

output.

Some OECD economies have substantial ICT production sectors and most have substantial ICTservice sectors, which invest directly in ICT products. Very few low-income countries have ICT

production sectors of any size, and only those few which can offer both low labour costs and

relatively high educational (including international language) skills - for example India or Jamaica,

but very few LDCs - can develop significant ICT service sectors (such as software development,

call centres and back-office outsourcing). Even where they are established, such service sectors are


13/30


13

export-oriented, depend on imported equipment and have few backward and forward linkages into

domestic economies. Their networking impact will therefore be much weaker than that of

equivalent sectors in industrial countries.

OECD economies have large mass markets for products and services, including both ICT hardware(PCs) and usage (telecommunications), which reduce the unit costs of both ICT products and

services and facilitate ICT diffusion and use. With the exception of a few very large countries,

LDCs lack mass markets for consumer goods and services, including ICTs (although public-access

telephony can be regarded as a mass-market service), resulting in higher costs and less efficient use

by inexperienced workers and consumers.

Labour costs are much lower in LDC economies than in the OECD, and most LDCs have a surplusof low-skilled labour available to undertake jobs which have been automated in OECD countries.

The savings firms make by substituting capital for labour in high-wage economies may not arise in

comparable firms and sectors in LDCs, regardless of any gains in individual employee

productivity. In particular, the costs of adapting the workforce to new technology may outweighthe returns likely to result from higher productivity.

ICT-specific factors

34. The duration of the time-lag between ICT investment by firms and any resulting improvement in

national economic performance is affected by the extent of ICT diffusion within society and the

development of networking between businesses and other organisations:

OECD economies have established high-quality communications infrastructures which aregeographically universal within their own territories and interconnected with other countries in

ways that facilitate high-speed communications and transactions. In many cases these include

broadband networks enabling near-universal high-speed Internet access. Most LDCs have poor-quality fixed communications infrastructures with limited geographical availability within their

own territories and expensive, poor-quality external connectivity constrained by shortages of

international bandwidth, thus reducing the value added by ICT investment and detering the

development of domestic ICT sectors.

ICT investment costs are generally much higher in LDCs where almost all ICT equipment must beimported (often subject to high rates of taxation and non-tariff barriers), and where

telecommunications usage charges are generally much higher than in OECD countries (especially

for international and Internet connectivity). Regulatory factors such as licence fees often also add

to the cost of ICT investment. The net result is that every dollar of ICT investment in an LDC buys

significantly less ICT equipment and usage than in the OECD area and is therefore likely to have

a significantly lower rate of return.

A mass market for ICT equipment in OECD countries also helps to minimise costs of ICTinvestment and enable firms to benefit substantially from the continually falling prices which

characterise the sector. The historic evidence shows a close correlation between teledensity13

and

per capita GDP (or, in effect, disposable income). OECD countries have mass markets in which

almost all citizens are accustomed to interacting (networking) for personal and business

transactions through ICTs (the telephone and, increasingly, the Internet). A high proportion of

LDC citizens have little experience even of telephony. Adoption rates for new ICTs are likely to be

much faster in societies in which citizens are used to older ICTs, in terms of both ownership and

13

That is, the number of telephone lines per hundred citizens or households.


14/30


14

usage, with effects on the pace with which the price of new ICT products and services falls and the

pace with which new networking opportunities become established. The rapid growth of Internet

in the United States, for example, took place within a population that had enjoyed residential

telephone service far longer than those in Western Europe

Complementary factors

35. The OECD report identifies a number of complementary factors within the business environment

which influence the ability of firms and national economies to achieve productivity improvements and

growth through ICT investment, among them:

the extent of competition and nature of the regulatory environment

the amount and quality of human capital available

the capacity of firms and other organisations to adapt their working processes to take advantage ofnew technologies.

36. The business environment in each of these areas is more conducive to ICT investment, diffusion

and use in the OECD than in LDCs:

OECD countries generally have legal and regulatory business frameworks which facilitate orreward entrepreneurship and innovation and encourage inward investment. Licensing and

standardisation requirements are generally more straightforward than in LDCs, although there may

be more restrictions on labour conditions and employment. Telecommunications markets have

generally been liberalised and made subject to competition-oriented regulation, with beneficial

effects on the quality, availability and price of services. There are few if any restrictions on the role

of external capital. LDC markets are often less open, as well as less attractive, to internationaltrade and investment and have slower and sometimes more burdensome regulatory requirements,

especially in areas such as business registration and licensing. Although telecommunications

restructuring and liberalisation are now being widely implemented in LDCs, there are still

extensive areas of monopoly and regulatory bottlenecks which affect the availability and price of

telecommunications services for example, restrictions on the ability of firms to use independent

VSAT (Very Small Aperture Terminal)14

services for international data links.

OECD countries have extensive human capital available to use ICTs, including highly skilledworkforces benefiting from universal education which generally includes basic ICT skills and

widespread specialist training in the ICT sector. ICT investment in such countries is often

accompanied by an upgrading in average workforce skills skill-based technological change.

Most LDCs have very limited pools of skilled personnel available for ICT work, while their

education sectors are under-resourced and ill-equipped to provide even basic ICT training on a

selective basis. Lower-skilled personnel often lack the language skills required for effective use of

ICTs, especially the Internet, while highly skilled personnel are able to seek more lucrative

employment in an international market. Even routine maintenance of ICT equipment is constrained

by shortages of expertise, adding to costs and downtime, reducing reliability and the value ICTs

can add to productive processes.

14Very Small Aperture Terminals are a type of ground station used to contact communications satellites for data,

voice and video signals (excluding broadcast television). A VSAT has an antenna dish that is smaller than 3 meters,

as compared to around 10 meters for other types of satellite dishes.


15/30


15

OECD firms benefit from the widespread availability of investment finance, from the confidenceof investors in their business expertise and the low-risk business environment, and from extensive

experience in restructuring business operations to take advantage of new technological and

management techniques. Managing change, which is crucial to firms ability to maximise returnson ICTs, is part and parcel of business culture in the OECD, especially in larger and multinational

firms. Companies in LDCs have much less experience of restructuring and much less access to

high-quality business advice and venture capital. Although there is considerable dynamism in

small and medium-sized enterprises in the ICT sector in many LDCs, it is often under-financed

and under-resourced in comparison with similar enterprises in the OECD.

37. These fundamental differences make ICT investment in developing countries more expensive,

more difficult to implement or less cost-effective, limiting both its impact on productivity and the ability of

ICT-investing firms to gain competitive advantage. The cumulative effect of factors such as these is likely

to be substantial, especially in slowing the aggregate increase in productivity achieved by firms across the

economy as a whole and it helps explain the difficulties researchers have in identifying improvements in

national economic outcomes from ICT investment.

38. Many of these factors are also present, at least to some degree, in transition and middle-income

economies and would likewise help to explain the difficulty in identifying improvements in their macro-

economic performance although in both low- and middle-income economies, these factors tend to inhibit,

not to prevent, ICT investment. They do not suggest that ICT investment will not happen or that benefits in

productivity and economic growth will not arise, but that ICT investment will be slower and that the

benefits will be slower to materialise. They also point to ways in which businesses, governments and

international agencies can act to increase the pace of ICT investment (where this would be appropriate) and

the rate at which benefits in national growth are likely to result.

39. There is no reason to suppose that, with time, the advantages which accrue to firms in OECD

countries will not also accrue to LDC firms that similarly invest in both ICTs and the organisationalchanges required to maximise their value.

15Policy initiatives that facilitate improvements in the business

environment to encourage effective ICT investment are likely, therefore, to be no less valuable for

individual firms in LDCs than for their peers in OECD countries and for the sectors in which such firms

are congregated. Of course, it will take longer for the impact of productivity improvements to feed through

into national outcomes, but that does not alter the fundamental relationship between improvements in

micro- and macro-economic performance, nor reduce the importance of positive changes to the business

environment.16

The relationship between economic growth, development policy and the digital divide

40. The interest of development agencies in ICTs is not so much the impact which ICTs may have on

business or national economic performance but their potential to address the Millennium DevelopmentGoals

17within their overall focus on poverty reduction. ICT applications clearly have potential to enhance

the delivery of mainstream development goals (in health, education and so on), regardless of the effect of

the ICT sector on national economic performance. Although the achievement of these development goals is

15Increased ICT investment, though, may initially tend to give advantage to multinational companies at the expense

of domestic firms, since they are more likely to invest in ICTs at an early stage and can make more substantial

efficiency gains through intra-company networking than their developing-country competitors.

16 This point is expanded in the section on Policy recommendations, p. 19.

17 The UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of September 2000 are available online at

www.un.org/millenniumgoals.


16/30


16

likely to be easier in a context of economic growth, the relationship between the two is dualistic: economic

growth is also more likely to be achieved in societies that are healthier and better-educated, where

individuals and communities have the skills and capacity to fulfil their potential and to develop new

business opportunities. ICTs can thus play a part in improving both national economic performance andmainstream social development, a dual potential which should be better understood by policy-makers in

both ICT and development fora.

Box 4. The Digital Divide

A major pre-occupation in the literature on ICTs and development has been the question of the digital

divide. It is often illustrated by data on access to particular ICTs. The digital divide is defined as the

disparity in ICT diffusion and use between industrial and developing countries (or, indeed, between rich

and poor, men and women, urban and rural areas within individual countries). For example, data published

in 2002 showed that although the average OECD country has roughly 11 times the per capita income of a

South Asian country, it has 40 times as many computers, 146 times as many mobile phones, and 1,036times as many Internet hosts.18

In many ways, this digital divide merely parallels similar disparities in access to and use of other

development goods health, education and so on which are more readily available to rich than poor, or

in industrial countries than in developing countries. A digital divide is to be expected: the key questions for

policy-makers are the extent to which it matters (in terms of equity and any secondary effects in other

sectors) and to which it is likely to grow or diminish over time, and the identification of ways in which it

might be bridged.

Source : OECD

41. Opinion on the effectiveness of ICTs in poverty reduction and in delivering mainstream

development goals remains divided, not least because here as with its impact on economic growth there

is a shortage of impact-assessment research to complement the findings of case studies and pilot projects.

Yet there is a growing consensus that ICTs can make a valuable contribution to the delivery of mainstream

development-sector goals, provided that they are used appropriately and in circumstances where their

potential value has been carefully assessed. There is growing consensus, too, on the impact of the ICT

sector in and of itself on poor communities for example, that telephony access is of intrinsic value to

citizens of low-income communities as well as within the parameters of specific development projects.

Very little research has been done on this latter issue, though what there is suggests that low-income

communities use some ICTs, when they become available, much more extensively and dynamically than

had been anticipated by policy-makers and suppliers particularly where they do not require significantnew skills or resources (radio, voice telephony) and where they bypass or substitute for less effective

alternatives (transport, postal services).19

42. A central part of discussions on the digital divide concerns the role of ICTs in facilitating the

availability of information. Modern production is increasingly knowledge-intensive. Knowledge and

18 World Bank (2002): Information and Communication Technologies: A World Bank Group Strategy, p. 5, citing

Pyramid Research. The ratio for mobile phones, at least, may now be lower.

19 Cf., for example, research conducted for the Knowledge and Research programme of UK Department for

International Development on the use of telephony in low-income communities in Botswana, Ghana and Uganda

[McKemey, Scott, Souter et al. (2003)].


17/30


17

access to information are ever-more important assets for individuals, communities, businesses and

countries in competitive markets. They also facilitate basic social empowerment and opportunity for

individuals and communities. The costs of gathering, processing and distributing information are higher in

developing countries,

20

and ICTs have the potential to extend the availability of information sodramatically that some talk of an Information Revolution equivalent to the Industrial Revolution of

two hundred years ago. The extent to which this Information Revolution reaches into individual

economies, it is argued, profoundly affects their ability to grow economically and to address social

challenges to improve their national social and economic indicators both absolutely and relative to other

countries.

43. In terms of national economies, where cross-country economic comparisons are required and

especially where the relationship between rich and poor countries (broadly equivalent to OECD countries

and LDCs) is concerned the question of the digital divide is much more to do with national economic

performance than with mainstream development objectives and poverty reduction. Opinion can broadly be

divided into two camps:

Digital optimists have argued that ICTs offer developing countries, LDCs included, anopportunity to leapfrog stages of technological development and compete in

ICT/knowledge areas with industrial countries on more equal terms than they have done in

the past.

Digital pessimists believe, by contrast, that digital divides are likely to grow over time asICTs become increasingly pervasive in industrial countries while most developing countries,

particularly LDCs, lack the critical mass in terms of expertise and local markets to follow

suit.

44. Two characteristics of ICTs seem particularly important here. The first is the importance of

network externalities.21 If, as a result of network externalities, the value of ICTs grows more quickly themore widespread they are diffused within society, the digital divide is likely to increase, at least until

societies with less widespread diffusion of ICTs reach any threshold beyond which more rapid growth is

likely to occur.

45. The second is the pace of change in ICT development itself, which far exceeds the rate of change

in earlier technologies. Driven by the factors underpinning Moores Law,22

advances in information

technology follow one another at enormous speed, and technologies and infrastructures that seemed

advanced five years ago are already giving way to improved alternatives. Disappointingly for optimists,

developing countries that seek to leapfrog earlier stages of technological development are likely to find

that their new technological base is rapidly eclipsed by further technological advances in industrial

countries. By the time most developing countries have rolled out second generation mobile telephone

networks, for example, OECD countries will have deployed third generation networks offering muchgreater functionality. The benchmark for technological advance is constantly moving. While developing

countries can, in certain circumstances, leap over intermediate technological stages historically required in

industrial countries (moving, for example, from no telephony to mobile telephony in rural areas without

20Cf. Bedi (1999).

21Cf.See Box 2.

22In 1965, Gordon Moore observed an exponential growth in the number of transistors per integrated circuit and

predicted that this trend would continue [see Moore (1965)]. His observation has developed into a general observation

of the continued rate of very rapid growth in ICT capacity.


18/30


18

previously installing extensive fixed networks), that does not match the capacity and performance of

OECD countries whose own use of ICTs is also making giant strides.

46. The general thesis set out here that ICTs will act more effectively as drivers of economicgrowth in more ICT-intensive economies clearly suggests that the gap in the national dividend reaped

from ICT investment by OECD countries and LDCs will continue to widen, and for some considerable

time. Better-resourced developing countries transition economies, middle-income countries and those

with advantages of scale are more likely to secure national economic benefits from ICTs more swiftly

than LDCs. But they, too, are likely to experience a widening gap in ICT-related national growth, in the

short term at least. Complementary factors, such as the availability of human capital and the enabling

environment for business performance, will have a considerable impact on the ability of individual firms

and (thereby, in time) national economies to increase the pace of ICT-related gains, but the time-lag

involved will also be substantial, and few if any countries will be able to adjust their business environment

quickly enough to keep pace with the most ICT-intensive countries in the OECD area.

47. The consultancy Analysys, in work for the World Bank and its Information for DevelopmentProgram, known as infoDev,

23has developed a persuasive typology of national economies grouped

according to their economic and structural readiness to take advantage of ICTs,dividing developing

countries into four categories:

Group B those, generally with higher levels of development, [] liberalised networkingregulations and an open approach to trade, which are most likely to grow quickly in a network

economy

Group C1 those in which the outcome between growth and a widening development gap islikely to depend on the quality of policy reform and practice

Group C2 those requiring extensive policy reform in order to benefit on any scale

Group C3 the poorer developing countries where the net impact of new networking isexpected to be small relative to the existing sources of poverty and instability, which are

unlikely to secure significant gains and likely to experience a widening digital divide for many

years to come.

48. In summary, Analysys suggests in principle that:

Part of the developing world will be projected into a turbulent period of rapid progress,

but most will be left behind, locked into vicious circles of poverty and instability as the

gap between rich and poor nations widens again.24

49. This is the pessimistic view of the digital future at its starkest. I would offer three counter-

arguments in mitigation.

50. First, as the Analysys typology makes clear, not all developing countries suffer the same

disadvantages as LDCs. A number have successfully established ICT production sectors and some middle-

income countries have experienced very high degrees of diffusion of new ICTs (such as mobile telephones)

23 Analysys (2000): The Network Revolution and the Developing World.

24 The purpose of Analysys report is to assist the World Bank and its partners to identify approaches that will enable

developing countries to escape these vicious circles.


19/30


19

within the general population. These countries, at least, are likely to be able to keep pace with many OECD

countries and to catch up with them in the medium term.

51. Second, a growing digital divide between OECD countries and LDCs does not mean that theLDCs are failing to take advantage of digital opportunities, merely that the industrialised economies have

advantages which enable them to take more rapid advantage of them. There is an important distinction to

be drawn here between the absolute and relative positions of developing countries. Absolute gains in ICT

diffusion and use, ICT-related growth and poverty reduction can be made by developing countries while

the relative gap between them and richer nations continues to widen. Increasing diffusion and use will, in

time, enable countries to benefit from the ICT-related economic gains now identified within OECD

countries; and most LDCs as the growth in mobile telephony, for example, over the past five years

demonstrates are now seeing substantial increases in ICT diffusion and use. Much deeper problems will

be faced by those few countries which are experiencing no growth in ICT diffusion and use though those

few countries are often already confronted by much deeper problems such as civil conflict.

52. Third, the Analysis discussion confirms the findings of the OECD report and other evidence thatthe prospects of ICT-related economic growth are enhanced by policy interventions that support

improvements in critical complementary factors for business performance. In other words, governments

can act to advance absolute gains from ICT investment in such a way that their countries will be better

positioned to take advantage of economic opportunities that depend on ICT capability and so also advance

their relative national position vis--vis other developing countries in the short term and the whole world

community in the fullness of time. The following section of this report addresses these issues with a series

of policy recommendations to developing-country governments and development agencies.

Policy recommendations

53. Government policy priorities should be to reduce the factors which inhibit effective use of ICTs

(and any gains from them), to take steps to enable maximisation of the benefits that can be derived fromICTs, and to integrate ICT policy more effectively into overall national socio-economic development

strategies.

54. The policy prescriptions indicated for developing countries do not differ markedly from those

advocated within the OECD, since the objective of both is to maximise the pace with which firms and

other organisations can improve their productivity and so contribute to national economic growth. There is

no reason to suggest that the complementary factors identified as crucial to this approach within the OECD

will not be equally important for developing countries, and they therefore form the basis for the policy

recommendations which follow. Yet there are differences to their application in developing-country

environments which have to be addressed by their governments and by international agencies.

The policy-making environment

55. Recent research amongst developing-country ICT decision-makers has indicated important

structural weaknesses in ICT policy-making in most developing countries, particularly LDCs:25

lack of awareness of the potential of ICTs in all decision-making strata of government,particularly the topmost layers

25 See MacLean, D., Deane, J., Souter, D., and Lilley, S. (2002),Louder Voices: Strengthening Developing Country

Participation in International ICT Decision-Making .


20/30


20

lack of integration of ICT policy-making with other areas of government, in particular withMinistries of Finance and ministries responsible for development priorities

lack of engagement of the expertise of the private sector and civil society

inadequate knowledge management systems

lack of expertise in both the technical and policy dimensions of ICT decision-making.

56. These problems are not universal. Some middle-income countries (such as Malaysia) have put

ICT policy at the heart of national decision-making; some LDCs (such as Tanzania) have paid substantial

attention to raising awareness and engaging diverse stakeholder groups in the policy process for ICTs. But

the evidence is that most developing countries are currently poorly equipped to make effective policy

decisions on ICT issues and priorities or to integrate these in holistic national development strategies.

Weak policy-making processes are compounded by a lack of research on the real impact of ICTs in

different development sectors. National ICT strategies are often designed by those who are stronglycommitted to the role of ICTs, with insufficient participation by mainstream sectoral development planners

and insufficient integration into national development strategies such as those set out in Poverty Reduction

Strategy Papers (PRSPs). It is easy in these circumstances for policy-makers to exaggerate the potential if

ICTs and to direct investment into unproductive areas Incorporating ICTs in mainstream policy thinking in

developing countries requires:

research and analysis of the real potential impact of ICTs on both national economies andmainstream development objectives

increased awareness and understanding of the findings of this analysis throughout the economyand in all departments of government

a willingness to focus limited available resources on those issues which will have most impact onmaximising the returns from ICT investment.

57. Policy-makers should recognise two points in particular. First, most developing countries lack the

resources to place ICT-led growth, especially export-led growth, at the heart of their national development

strategies. Experience shows that only very few have significant competitive advantages in ICT production

or services, and there is likely to be a substantial first-mover advantage for those countries which have

already taken this route. National strategies which seek to replicate the experience of Bangalore the city

at the heart of Indias software-development and ICT-based outsourcing sector are likely to fail; those

that focus on using ICTs to increase the productivity of established sectors in which a country has

competitive advantage, or on developing ICT production capacity close to such ICT-using sectors - such as

the development of locally tailored software, locally outsourced systems integration and Internet services -

are more likely to succeed.26

.

58. Second, the importance of ICT diffusion in unlocking its benefits for both social and economic

development means that the most effective strategies for ICT development may not be those which are

directly focused on ICTs themselves but those which address the complementary factors facilitating

investment and diffusion. Like the steam engine, railways and electricity before them, ICTs are

transformational technologies whose impact cuts across the traditional boundaries between economic

26

Cf. Kraemer and Dedrick (2002)


21/30


21

sectors.27

Their most fundamental added values lie in networking and bringing access to information

resources that were previously unavailable but these resources can be used effectively only by those with

the skills and infrastructure to take advantage of them.

59. Although the challenges in addressing these complementary factors vary from country to country

and are not susceptible to detailed prescription without attention to differing national circumstances,

experience in OECD countries does suggest that three broad areas of government intervention are

particularly productive in enhancing societies capacity to take advantage of ICTs their e-readiness.

These are the promotion of infrastructure development and access, liberalisation and deregulation, and the

development of human capital. Although they are by no means the only complementary factors susceptible

to government action, the evidence suggests that by intervening in these three areas, and in particular

addressing developing countries weaknesses where they are concerned,28

governments can make a

considerable improvement in the environment for ICT investment and ICT-related growth in their

economies.

Infrastructure and access

60. Access to infrastructure and services using infrastructure networks is essential if ICT investment

is to facilitate either community development or access to markets (both domestic and international).

Unlike OECD countries, most developing countries have very poor information and communications

infrastructures. In particular, the fixed telecommunications network is often geographically limited,

requiring substantial investment and poorly connected with international communications networks,

especially the Internet. As electronic commerce and networking become ever more prevalent in

international business, deficient communications networks will increasingly deter foreign investment and

reduce global market opportunities. Investment in upgrading national communications infrastructures to

sustain national business competitiveness is therefore urgent.

61. Communications infrastructures, though, are not concerned only with international business.Deficient communications networks have played a major part in limiting access to ICTs for large parts of

the population in many developing countries, especially in rural areas. Wireless telecommunications

networks are now extending access to telephony (public and private) in such areas, but their coverage

remains limited and their capacity to deliver Internet access is weak. In addition to geographical coverage,

widespread access also requires services to be affordable, to be delivered in formats (for example,

languages) that are comprehensible, and to offer content that is relevant. The development of mass access

to communications services through public as well as private access-points is essential if a society is to

maximise the value of information and knowledge available to it, and to secure the social and economic

benefits it can derive from networks. Most developing-country governments have now identified access to

such services as a clear development objective. It seems increasingly likely that the provision of

widespread basic access, which facilitates innovation and entrepreneurship in previously unserved

communities, is more effective in delivering development outcomes quickly than project-driven telecentreinitiatives.

29

27 These analogies are cited in OECD (2001a), The New Economy: Beyond the Hype. It is perhaps also worth noting

that the steam engine, railways and electricity have not yet achieved a comprehensive global presence. While ICT

adoption is progressing more quickly than these earlier technological advances, it will be a long time before it is

universal.

28 See section on Policy recommendations, p. 19.

29 The term telecentre is somewhat imprecise. In English, it tends to mean a public or community facility that offersconsiderably more than just telephony Internet, at least, and sometimes computer training and, in the case of

multipurpose community telecentres, e-services such as telemedicine. In French, the terms includes more basic


22/30


22

62. Governments can thus serve national-development goals by facilitating investment in

infrastructure and by stimulating the extension of networks into hitherto unserved areas. But wherever

possible, investment in infrastructure should be funded by the private sector, so as to avoid the diversion of

scarce public or development-agency resources. Governments, instead, should seek to make investment ininfrastructure and services attractive in order to maximise affordable coverage within their national

territories. They should also consider innovative solutions to the extension of access into marginal or

potentially unprofitable areas such as the liberalisation of small-scale private resale or the use of reverse

auction universal access mechanisms like those pioneered in Latin America.30

Liberalisation and deregulation

63. Historically, most ICT sectors have been heavily regulated particularly broadcasting and

telecommunications. The last twenty years, however, have seen extensive liberalisation and deregulation of

communications markets in industrial countries and, increasingly, also in the developing world. Most

telecommunications markets in developing countries have now been at least partially liberalised and

opened up to private-sector investment, including that from foreign companies. The impact of liberalisationand privatisation in telecommunications is generally agreed to have been beneficial, stimulating new

investment, extended access, diversity of services and lower prices. Certainly, telecoms markets which

have been liberalised offer both private and business consumers cheaper and better connectivity, enabling

them to make more effective use of ICT investments.

telephone shops which only offer voice telephony access. Many donor-sponsored telecentres have proved difficult to

sustain beyond their funding period, while commercial cybercafes have often proved more sustainable.

30 In reverse auction processes, the government or telecoms regulator first identifies the maximum level of subsidy

which it is prepared to offer in a particular area, then invites tenders to provide service for a lesser subsidy than thisand awards a licence to the cheapest technically qualified bid. The process was pioneered in Chile: see Wellenius

(2001).


23/30


23

Box 5. Innovative solutions to extend access to telecommunications

Liberalising small-scale private resale is one way to help expand access to telecommunications,

especially in urban areas. Countries, such as Nigeria, that have liberalised the resale of

telecommunications by individuals without a license, have experienced an explosion of urban retail outlets

offering telecommunication services, without spending public resources. Furthermore, liberalizing

resale has created employment and income-earning opportunities.In reverse auction processes, the government or telecoms regulator first identifies the maximum level of

subsidy which it is prepared to offer in a particular area, then invites tenders to provide service for a lesser

subsidy than this and awards a licence to the cheapest technically qualified bid. The process was pioneered

in Chile: see Wellenius (2001).31.

64. Governments which have not yet liberalised their communications markets could therefore bring

considerable benefits to their ICT-investing sectors by doing so and, increasingly, the important issue in

communications policy is not liberalisation itself but what kind of regulatory regime should oversee the

competitive markets resulting from it. The ICT sector continuously generates new technologies, products

and services, many of which offer alternatives to those which are already regulated or licensed. A

regulatory ethos which favours openness will encourage innovation in service provision, which is likely to

lower costs and add further value to ICT investment.

65. ICT investment and innovation can also be constrained by regulatory factors outside the

telecommunications sector which increase the monetary or opportunity costs of ICT investment. Heavycustoms duties on ICT hardware, for example, can put otherwise attractive ICT investments beyond the

reach of smaller businesses and reduce the likely rate of return. Complex or bureaucratic licensing and

standardisation requirements also constrain investment. Governments which lack modern legislation on

intellectual property rights or e-commerce may be tempted to restrict and control markets rather than allow

them to develop freely. In these areas, too, more openness is likely to stimulate entrepreneurship, lower

prices and encourage dynamic ICT-led businesses to contribute to economic growth.

Development of human capital

66. The most important long-term constraint on ICT investment and ICT-led growth in developing

countries is likely to be the shortage of human capital. Most developing countries suffer from a shortfall of

ICT-related skills, which acts as a substantial constraint throughout the economy: too little understandingof ICTs in government; too little awareness of ICT opportunities amongst entrepreneurs; too little relevant

content and too few relevant applications; too few trainers able to pass on ICT skills to employees; too

little computer literacy; too few trained computer programmers and maintenance personnel. ICT-skilled

personnel in low-income countries can also usually earn much higher wages in other countries and so

many leave.

67. The shortage of ICT-related skills is but one outcome of a general low standard of basic

education. Poor general literacy and numeracy reduce the number of people who can make effective use of

31 International Telecommunications Union (ITU), 2004, Trends in Telecommunication reform 2003 - Promoting

universal access to ICT: practical tools for regulators, Geneva, Switzerland.


24/30


24

ICTs, not simply in the workforce but also as consumers. Lack of international language skills combines

with shortage of disposable income and access difficulties to limit exposure of most citizens to the Internet

and computers. These shortcomings are underpinned by an underfunded and understaffed educational

sector, in which teachers lack training in ICT-related skills and schools lack basic resources such as booksand pencils, let alone computers. It will take much investment and a considerable length of time before

developing countries can compete with the skill resources available to firms in industrial countries.

Upgrading educational attainment is not, of course, a requirement only for ICTs but a fundamental

requirement for most development objectives, and governments should ensure that ICT capability is

incorporated in their educational strategies.

68. As in the OECD area, the behaviour of individual firms will be crucial to the achievement of

national economic benefits from ICTs. Governments can create enabling frameworks, but firms also have

to be equipped with the managerial skills and financial resources to take advantage of them. ICT

investments are not inevitably successful: they should be carefully targeted on aspects of business where

they will be most productive, and associated with changes in company structure and work organisation that

will maximise their value. Governments can also facilitate this area of ICT readiness by encouraginginward investors to share their experience of ICT-related workplace organisation and by providing models

for ICT preparedness through their own implementation of ICTs in government.

Sequencing and evaluation of outcomes

69. These four issues better policy-making, investment in infrastructure and access, liberalisation

and deregulation, and investment in human capital are all fundamental to unlocking the value of ICT

investment for economic growth. Improvements in each will complement the others and generate synergies

in stimulating ICT investment and enhancing returns on that investment by firms and other organisations

(including government institutions). Governments that wish to maximise their value should address these

synergies in a holistic approach to reforming the enabling environment for ICT investment.

70. The impact of these changes will only be felt over time, which has some implications for the

order in which changes might be introduced although different national circumstances are likely to be the

primary determinants.

Changes in policy-making processes are an important first objective, because decisions on ICT-related issues are more likely to be effective if they are well-informed and coordinated across

government, especially with initiatives to meet mainstream development goals.

Liberalisation and deregulation are necessary to attract inward investment and to encourageentrepreneurship and innovation in ICTs by domestic businesses. The overall response will depend

on the extent to which markets are attractive and to which confidence develops in the new

regulatory regime, but a rapid response can be expected in areas which have been constrained byregulations that are newly removed as for example, in the broadcast radio, VSAT and Internet

sectors.


25/30


25

Investment in infrastructure and access will take longer to have an impact, because of the timetaken to deploy new networks, but the speed with which wireless networks have been taken up in

low-income communities in Africa is encouraging. ICT-aware businesses will be quick to take up

opportunities for better international connectivity and networking.

The slowest rate of change in these four complementary factors will occur in human capital,because the shortage of relevant skills can be addressed only through substantial increases in

educational resources, not least the training of teachers and ICT specialists. Once the other three

factors are in place, the speed with which issues of human capital are addressed is likely to be the

most important factor determining the pace of ICT diffusion and the achievement of long-term

benefits from ICT investment.

71. Finally, continued monitoring of national circumstances and outcomes is vital. Good policy-

formation requires a clear understanding of the circumstances addressed. Little research has been done to

date on the relationship between ICTs and economic growth in developing countries, and there are similar

deficiencies in analysis of the aggregate relationship between ICTs and mainstream development goals.Governments and international agencies could do much of value by focusing research resources on

understanding in more detail how ICTs are interacting in practice with development objectives and so

improving the targeting of national and international strategies and programmes.

Conclusions

72. The digital divide in the dividend from ICT investment between industrial and developing

countries is likely to continue to grow in the short to medium term. Some developing countries

particularly transition economies, middle-income countries and larger countries which can sustain

significant ICT production sectors are likely to attain higher rates of benefit from ICT investment within

a reasonable time, giving them the opportunity to begin to close the gap between them and industrial

countries in due course. Others, particularly the LDCs, are likely to see improvements in productivityreflected in national output only in the medium to long term.

73. ICT investment can nonetheless contribute to growth in such countries. It is clear from OECD

countries that complementary factors such as human capital and deregulation play a crucial role in

accelerating the benefits of ICT investment both for firms and for countries themselves, and there is no

reason to suggest that the same will not be true in developing economies. Governments that facilitate

improvements in such complementary factors will better equip their firms and citizens to secure benefits

from ICT investment, advance the rate of adoption of ICTs and ICT-based networking, and potentially

improve their countries competitive position vis--vis their peers. Such approaches should be fully

integrated into broader national economic and social development policies.

74. These policy recommendations are broadly consistent with the approaches adopted by leadinginternational development agencies, including the World Bank and, in its 2003 E-Commerce and

Development Report, by UNCTAD. They also touch directly on the capacity of ICT sectors to deliver the

mainstream development goals that are the primary concern of social and economic development

initiatives. By addressing these complementary factors, governments can create an enabling environment

through which ICT investment, diffusion and use become more pervasive because of the value perceived in

them by businesses, citizens and consumers, rather than being driven by suppliers and/or

government/development programmes. This approach is more likely to result in the sustainable and

productive ICT investment that will contribute to economic growth, social development and, in the long

term, to diminishing the digital and other development divides.


26/30


26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adeya, Catherine Nyaki (2002), ICTs and Poverty: A Literature Review, Acacia Project, International

Development Research Centre [IDRC], Canada:Ottawa.

Analysys Ltd (2000), The Network Revolution and the Developing World, for the Information for

Development Program (infoDev), World Bank, United States:Washington, D.C.

Archibugi, Daniele, and Coco, Alberto (2004), A New Indicator of Technological Capabilities for

Developed and Developing Countries (ArCo) World Development, Vol.32, No.4, pp.629-654.

Asia-Pacific Economic Community(APEC) (2002), The New Economy in APEC: Innovations, Digital

Divide and Policy, APEC Secretariat, Singapore.

Avgerou, C. (1998), How can IT enable growth in developing countries?Information Technology for

Development, Vol.8, No.1, pp.15-28.

Baliamoune, Mina N. (2002), The New Economy and Developing Countries: Assessing the Role of ICT

Diffusion, United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research,

Finland:Helsinki [Note: A revised version of this paper was published inInformation Technology for

Development, Vol.10, No.3 (2003), pp.151-169]

Bayoumi, Tamim, and Haacker, Markus (2002), Its Not What You Make, It's How You Use It:

Measuring the Welfare Benefits of the IT Revolution Across Countries, CEPR Discussion Papers

3555, Centre for Economic Policy Research, United Kingdom:London.

Bedi, Arjun S. (1999), The Role of Information and Communication Technologies in Economic

Development: A Partial Survey, Zentrum fur Entwicklungsforschung, Germany:Bonn

Braz, Jose (2001), Technology, Investment and Development: Some Reflections from Portugal in

Technology and Poverty Reduction in Asia and the Pacific, Asia Development Bank,

Philippines:Manila pp.201-214.

Brynjolfsson, Eric, and Hitt, Lorin M. (1998), Beyond the Productivity Paradox: Computers Are theCatalyst for Bigger Changes Communications of the ACM, Vol.41, No.8, pp.49-55.

Daly, John (March, 2003),ICT, Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction [online]Development Gateway

http://topics.developmentgateway.org/ict/sdm/previewDocument.do~activeDocumentId=495495.

Dedrick, Jason; Gurbaxani, Vijay, and Kraemer, Kenneth L. (2003),Information Technology and

Economic Performance: A Critical Review of the Empirical Evidence, Center for Research on

Information Technology and Organizations, University of California, Irvine.


27/30


27

Digital Opportunity Initiative (2001), Creating a Development Dynamic: Final Report of the Digital

Opportunity Initiative [online] Accenture, Markle Foundation, United Nations Development

Programme

http://www.opt-init.org/framework/pages/contents.html>

Digital Opportunity Task Force (DOT Force) (2001),Digital Opportunities for All: Meeting the

Challenge, Digital Opportunity Task Force.

Dryden, John (2003),ICT, the Economy and Society Challenges of Measurement and Analysis,

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, France:Paris

Duncombe, Richard, and Heeks, Richard (1999),Information, ICTs and Small Enterprise: Findings from

Botswana, Institute for Development Policy Management, University of Manchester, United

Kingdom:Manchester

Eggleston, Karen; Jensen, Robert; and Zeckhauser, Richard (2002) Information and CommunicationTechnologies, Markets, and Economic Development in World Economic Forum, Geoffrey

Kirkman, Peter K. Cornelius, and Jeffrey D. Sachs (editors) The Global Information Technology

Report 2001-02: Readiness for the Networked World, Oxford University Press, United

Kingdom:Oxford, pp.62-74.

Grace, Jeremy; Kenny, Charles; and Qiang, Christine (2004), Information and Communication

Technologies and Broad-Based Development: A Partial Review of the Evidence, World Bank,

United States:Washington, D.C.

Hamelink, Cees (1999),ICTs and Social Development: The Global Policy Context, United Nations

Research Institute for Social Development, Switzerland:Geneva.

Hardy, A. (1980), The Role of the Telephone in Economic Development Telecommunications Policy,

Vol.4, No.4, pp.278-286

Hewitt de Alcntara, Cynthia (2001), The Development Divide in a Digital Age: an Issues Paper, United

Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Switzerland:Geneva.

International Labour Organisation (2001), World Employment Report 2001: Life at Work in the

Information Economy, Switzerland:Geneva.

International Monetary Fund (2001), World Economic Outlook: The Information Technology Revolution,

United States:Washington, D.C.

International Telecommunication Union (2002), World Telecommunication Development Report 2002:

Reinventing Telecoms, Switzerland:Geneva.

International Telecommunication Union/Independent Commission for Worldwide Telecommunications

Development (The Maitland Commission) (1984), The Missing Link: Report of the Independent

Commission, Switzerland:Geneva.

Japan Bank for International Cooperation (2002),Macroeconomic Impact of IT Adoption and Diffusion,

Japan:Tokyo.


28/30


28

Joseph, K. J. (2002), Growth of ICT and ICT for Development: Realities of the Myths of the Indian

Experience United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research,

Finland:Helsinki.

Kenny, Charles (2002), Information and Communication Technologies for Direct Poverty Alleviation:

Costs and BenefitsDevelopment Policy Review, Vol.20, No.2, pp.141-157.

Kraemer, K., & Dedrick, J. (2001), The Productivity Paradox: Is it Resolved? Is There a New One? What

Does it All Mean for Managers?, Center for Research on Information Technology and

Organizations, University of California, Irvine.

Kraemer, Kenneth and Dedrick, Jason (2002), Information Technology in Southeast Asia: Engine of

Growth or Digital Divide? in Chia Siow Yue and James Jerome Lim (editors),Information

Technology in Asia: New Development Paradigms, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore.

Kraemer, Kenneth, and Dedrick, Jason (2001),Information Technology and Productivity: Results andPolicy Implications of Cross-Country Studies, Center for Research on Information Technology and

Organizations, University of California, Irvine.

Kraemer, Kenneth; Dedrick, Jason, and Shih, Eric (2001),Determinants of IT Investment at the Country

Level, Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations, University of California,

Irvine.

Lal, Kaushalesh (2001), The Determinants of the Adoption of Information Technology: A Case Study of

the Indian Garments Industry, in Pohjola, Matti (editor),Information Technology, Productivity and

Economic Growth: International Evidence and Implications for Economic Development, WIDER

Studies in Development Economics, Oxford University Press, United Kingdom:Oxford.

LINK Centre, University of the Witwatersrand (2002),Information and Communication Technologies for

Sustainable Development, prepared for Development Bank of Southern Africa, South

Africa:Witwatersrand.

MacLean, D., Deane, J., Souter, D., and Lilley, S. (2002),Louder Voices: Strengthening Developing

Country Participation in International ICT Decision-Making, Commonwealth Telecommunications

Organisation and Panos, London, for UK Department for International Development.

McKemey, K., Scott, N., Souter, D., et al. (2003),Innovative Demand Models for Telecommunications

Services: Final Technical Reportfor the Knowledge and Research programme, UK Department for

International Development, United Kingdom:London.

Moore, Gordon E. (1965), Cramming more components onto integrated circuitsElectronics, Vol.38,

No.8.

OMalley, Desmond (2001), Technology and Growth: Irelands Recent Experience, in Technology and

Poverty Reduction in Asia and the Pacific, Asia Development Bank, Philippines:Manila, pp.153-

160.

OECD (2001a), The New Economy: Beyond the Hype, France:Paris.

OECD (2001b), Understanding the Digital Divide, France:Paris.

OECD (2001c), Using Knowledge for Development: The Brazilian Experience, France:Paris.


29/30


29

OECD (2002a), Measuring the Information Economy, France:Paris.

OECD (2002b), OECD Information Technology Outlook: ICTs and the Information Economy,

France:Paris.

OECD (2003a), ICT and Economic Growth: Evidence from OECD Countries, Industries and Firms,

France:Paris.

OECD (2003b), Integrating Information and Communication Technologies in Development Programmes,

France:Paris.

OECD (2003c), OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard, France:Paris.

OECD (2003d), Seizing the Benefits of ICT in a Digital Economy (Ministerial Statement), France:Paris.

OECD (2003e), The Sources of Economic Growth in OECD Countries, France:Paris.

Piatkowski, Marcin (2002), The New Economy and Economic Growth in Transition Economies: The

Releva

icts and economic growth in developing countries - unpan022641

Documents