CC BY
3
DOI: https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2019-5-2-158-170
MODERN SYSTEMS FOR ASSESSING THE INFORMATIZATION OF COUNTRIES IN THE CONTEXT OF GLOBAL SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Lesya Petkova1, Мichael Ryabokon2, Yuriy Vdovychenko3
Abstract. Information and communication theories became a major driver of the economic development of countries in a global world. Information component plays a key role in the building of competitive potential of countries and the development of international relations. At the national level, the development of innovative technologies enables the countries to take higher ranking positions by the level of progress of information and communication technologies. The assessment is carried out using a number of indicators, calculated with the respective index system and applied for analysis of problem areas in politics, as well as for monitoring of progress in the field of innovative technologies introduction. Although, this methodology does not take into consideration the indicators over time. Therefore, this paper aims to study the dynamics of networked readiness index as a factor of informatization of global economic development. The authors suggested a methodology to determine the level of informatization of global economic development based on cluster analysis of countries according to the indicators, included in NRI, which makes it possible to eliminate this defect. Methodology. The methodology of the paper is based on statistical data, forming the analytical database of the research findings and being studied using cluster analysis. The paper reviews a new indicator, which enables considering the informatization of global economic development in a comprehensive manner: in dynamics by a group of countries. Results. As a result of the author's study, it has been established that, according to the level of informatization of global economic development, the countries can be divided into three groups: the countries with sustainable level of informatization, the ones with moderate development and the countries, which are the most backward by the level of informatization. Moreover, the paper identifies the countries, which had no data for the period under review, or underwent a transition from one informatization level to another one. Practical implications. The presented results make it possible to consider informatization of the global economic development in a comprehensive manner: in dynamics by a group of countries. It enables identification of the countries with a sustainable level of informatization of global economic development. Value/originality. As a result of the study, it has been proved that it is more expedient to study the countries, which underwent a transition from one level of informatization to another one during the period under review. The prospects of further studies in the above-stated area are in the search for factors to enable the transition of countries to a higher level of informatization of global economic development.
Key words: networked readiness index, NRI, ICT, cluster analysis.
JEL Classification: C38, F62, M38, O30, R11
1. Introduction
In the modern world, information and communication technologies (ICT) are increasingly being adopted in diverse spheres of social life, changing these spheres and providing social and human development with new features, senses, and values. Information and communication technologies became the major driver
Corresponding author:
1 Cherkasy State Technological University, Ukraine. E-mail: l_petkova@ukr.net
2 Cherkasy State Technological University, Ukraine. E-mail: aegladchenko@i.ua
3 Cherkasy State Technological University, Ukraine. E-mail: yurockv@gmail.com
of the economic development of any country in the modern global world, and information component plays the key role in the building of competitive potential of countries and development of international relations.
Science, technology, and innovations (STI) play the predominant role in the implementation of the goals of sustainable development. The European Commission
monitors and provides consulting support to the "New Agenda 2030" in the implementation of global policy for sustainable development. The paper determines that STI will become the primary tool for the realization of the agenda for global development as far as it is capable of enhancing the efficiency in economic and ecological components of development, and finding new more comfortable conditions to meet human needs, to extend human rights and opportunities for the future. Successful use of the innovative scientific and technological potential will require a shift of the focus to the problem of sustainable development and reorientation from customary transfer of technology towards the formation of innovative space; strengthening of partnership between the countries, having a different level of development, with attraction of all interesting parties, including private sector and individual initiatives; introduction of "walk the talk" - the highest level of coherence between the policies of the participants in order to eliminate defects, provide internal integration, and create opportunities to take advantage from innovative and technological breakthrough (European Commission, 2015).
Multiple studies demonstrate that there is a link between the development of ICT and economic prosperity. Large-scale deployment of high-speed communication and Internet technologies is a catalyst for ICT development. It produces a multiplier effect on other sectors of the national economy, facilitates the acceleration of technological progress and the growth of GDP. Thus, the development of ICT is one of the strategical steps towards modernization of the economy.
2. Importance of ICT
In a highly competitive economy, information and communication technologies determine the speed of response to the variable market environment. Reengineering in the information sphere facilitates the enhancement of overall economic system performance. Information infrastructure of the country has to provide an opportunity for the realization of intellectual potential in the form of innovations. The parameters, characterizing the innovative process, include access to information resources, the formation of information infrastructure, and training of personnel to work in conditions of the global information society. The experience of foreign countries shows that the formation of information infrastructure and access to information resources is one of the key factors that affect the creation and implementation of innovations in the economy. At the national level, the development of innovative technologies enables a country to take higher ranking positions by the level of information and communication technology development. The assessment is carried out using a number of indicators, calculated with the respective index system and applied
for analysis of problem areas in politics, as well as for monitoring of progress in the field of innovative technologies introduction. A selection of the calculation methods primarily depends on priorities of statistical analysis.
3. Indices of ICT assessment
Diverse indices are used to assess the level of ICT, as follows:
1. ICT Development Index (IDI), which has been published annually since 2009, is a composite index that combines 11 indicators into one benchmark measure. It is used to monitor and compare developments in information and communication technology (ICT) between countries and over time (International Telecommunication Union, 2017).
2. The Web Index, which is designed and produced by the World Wide Web Foundation for measurement of the World Wide Web's contribution to social, economic, and political progress in countries across the world (World Wide Web Foundation, 2014).
3. Networked Readiness Index (NRI) - determines the propensity for countries towards harnessing the power of information and communication technologies (ICT). For the time being, NRI is defined for 139 countries based on 53 features (World Economic Forum, 2016).
4. The Knowledge Economy Index (KEI) is an aggregate index that represents the overall level of development of a country or region in the Knowledge Economy (World Bank, 2007).
5. E-Government Development Index (EGDI) presents the state of E-Government Development of the United Nations Member States. The EGDI is a composite measure of three important dimensions of e-government, namely: provision of online services, telecommunication connectivity, and human capacity (United Nations, 2018).
Among the above-stated indexes, IDI considers just 11 indicators, The Web Index is limited by the impact of the Internet, KEI is focused on the knowledge economy, EGDI is calculated once per two years. Therefore, further study is focused on the Networked Readiness Index.
4. Networked Readiness Index
Networked Readiness Index (NRI) is a composite indicator, characterizing the level of information and communication technologies progress in countries throughout the world. It has been developed in 2001. It has been issued by the World Economic Forum and international business school INSEAD since 2002 within the framework of the annual series of reports on the development of information society in countries throughout the world - The Global
Figure 1. A number of countries, taken into consideration while calculating the Networked Readiness Index in 2001-2016
Source: World Economic Forum, 2002-2016
Information Technology Report. In 2013, Samuel Curtis Johnson Graduate School of Management joined the project. At present, the research is considered one of the most critical indicators of the country's potential and development opportunities. It is assumed that the index should be used by countries to analyse the most critical issues in their policy, as well as to monitor their progress in the area of introducing innovative technologies (WorldEconomicForum, 2002-2013). For the years of the report publication, a number of countries have been continuously changing (Figure 1). The approaches to assessment of NRI have been changing as well.
NRI is a globally accepted measure in determining the influence of ICT on an economy as a whole. Using a scale from one to seven, NRI is a composite indicator, made up of four main categories (subindexes), 10 subcategories (pillars), and 53 individual indicators distributed across the different pillars (Table 1). The four subindexes are (1) environment, (2) readiness, (3) usage, and (4) impact. NRI is included in the annual Global Information Technology Report, being published by INSEAD and the World Economic Forum (WEF) since 2001 (Tugas, 2016).
NRI helped policymakers and relevant stakeholders to track their economies' strengths and weaknesses, as well as their progress over time. However, the equal-weight framework of the NRI methodology has been an issue of controversy. As a possible remedy to the issue, Milenkivic and al. presented the multilevel I-distance methodology. The I-distance approach can synthesize many indicators into one single numerical value that represents rank. With this approach, the entities can not only be ranked, but the differences between them are better explored (Milenkovic, Brajovic, Milenkovic, Vukmirovic, & Jeremic, 2016). However, this
methodology does not take into account the change of the indicators over time. This paper is aimed to study the dynamics of the networked readiness index as a factor of informatization of the world economic development. The authors suggested a methodology to determine the level of informatization of the global economic development based on cluster analysis of countries according to the indicators, included in NRI, which makes it possible to eliminate this defect.
5. Cluster analysis of NRI factors
The paper suggests grouping the countries in clusters by the criterion of similarity of NRI factors, as follows: A.01, A.02, B.03, B.04, B.05, C.06, C.07, C.08, D.09, D.10.
As far as all indicators are assessed on the scale from one to seven, in order to ensure comparability, the data for each indicator from Table 2.10 has been standardized using the following formula (Letser, 2018):
(1)
where xi - the value of the indicator; x - mean value of the indicator; n - the number of indicators; s - standard deviation:
^ =
Z -=i (xi -x)
n -1
(2)
The missing data is defined as zero. Thus, the countries, where no data is submitted, are grouped in a separate cluster. The number of clusters was calculated using the method of k-means. Calculated results are shown in Figure 2.
As you can see in Figure 2, it is expedient to divide the countries into 4 clusters. Table 2 shows the results of cluster analysis across the indicators A.01, A.02, B.03, B.04, B.05, C.06, C.07, C.08, D.09, D.10.
. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies Vol. 5, No. 2, 2019---
Table 1
The indicators, included in the Networked Readiness Index
Series code Series Indicators in series
A Environment subindex
A.01 1st pillar: Political and regulatory environment Effectiveness of law-making bodies, laws relating to ICTs, judicial independence, efficiency of legal system in settling disputes, efficiency of legal system in challenging regs, intellectual property protection, software piracy rate, no. procedures to enforce a contract, no. days to enforce a contract
A.02 2nd pillar: Business and innovation environment Availability of the latest technologies, venture capital availability, total tax rate, no. days to start a business, no. procedures to start a business, intensity oflocal competition, tertiary education gross enrolment rate, quality of management schools, government procurement of advanced tech
B Readiness subindex
B.03 3rd pillar: Infrastructure Electricity production, mobile network coverage, int'l Internet bandwidth, secure Internet servers
B.04 4th pillar: Affordability Prepaid mobile cellular tariffs, fixed broadband Internet tariffs, Internet & telephony competition
B.05 5th pillar: Skills Quality of educational system, quality of math & science education, secondary education gross enrolment rate, adult literacy rate
C Usage subindex
C.06 6th pillar: Individual usage Mobile phone subscriptions, individuals using Internet, households with personal computer, households with Internet access, fixed broadband Internet, mobile broadband, use of virtual social networks
C.07 7th pillar: Business usage Firm-level technology absorption, capacity for innovation, PCT patents, ICT use for business-to-business transactions, business-to-consumer Internet use, extent of staff training
C.08 8th pillar: Government usage Importance of ICTs to gov't vision, government Online Service Index, Government success in ICT promotion
D Impact subindex
D.09 9th pillar: Economic impacts Impact of ICTs on business models, ICT PCT patents, impact of ICTs on new organizational models, knowledge-intensive jobs
D.10 10th pillar: Social impacts Impact of ICTs on access to basic services, Internet access in scho ols, ICT use & government efficiency, E-Participation Index
Source: World Economic Forum, 2016
0
123456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Number of clusters
Optimal number of clusters--2012 --- 2013 .....2014 .........2015 --- 2016
Figure 2. Calculation of the number of clusters for every year
Source: calculated by the authors according to the data of (World Economic Forum, 2016)
Baltic Journal of Economic Studies Table 2
Results of cluster analysis for 2012-2016
Country 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
AGO 3 4 3 3 4
ALB 2 2 2 2 3
ARE 2 1 1 1 1
ARG 2 2 3 3 3
ARM 2 2 2 2 2
AUS 1 1 1 1 1
AUT 1 1 1 1 1
AZE 2 2 2 2 2
BDI 3 3 3 3 3
BEL 1 1 1 1 1
BEN 3 3 3 4 3
BFA 3 3 3 3 4
BGD 3 3 3 3 3
BGR 2 2 2 2 2
BHR 2 2 2 2 2
BIH 2 2 2 4 3
BLZ 3 4 4 4 4
BOL 3 3 3 3 3
BRA 2 2 2 2 2
BRB 2 2 2 2 4
BRN 2 3 2 4 4
BTN 4 4 2 2 3
BWA 3 3 3 3 3
CAN 1 1 1 1 1
CHE 1 1 1 1 1
CHL 2 2 2 2 2
CHN 2 2 2 2 2
CIV 3 3 3 3 3
CMR 3 3 3 3 3
COL 2 2 2 2 2
CPV 2 2 2 2 3
CRI 2 2 2 2 2
CYP 2 2 2 2 2
CZE 2 2 2 2 2
DEU 1 1 1 1 1
DNK 1 1 1 1 1
DOM 3 3 2 2 3
DZA 3 3 3 2 3
ECU 3 2 2 4 3
EGY 2 3 2 2 3
ESP 2 2 2 2 2
EST 2 1 1 1 1
ETH 3 3 3 3 3
FIN 1 1 1 1 1
FRA 1 1 1 1 1
GAB 4 3 3 3 3
GBR 1 1 1 1 1
GEO 2 2 2 2 2
GHA 3 3 2 3 3
GIN 4 3 3 3 3
GMB 3 3 3 3 3
GRC 2 2 2 2 2
GTM 3 3 3 3 3
GUY 2 3 2 2 3
Country 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
HKG 1 1 1 1 1
HND 3 3 3 2 3
HRV 2 2 2 2 2
HTI 3 3 3 3 3
HUN 2 2 2 2 2
IDN 2 2 2 2 3
IND 2 2 2 2 3
IRL 1 1 1 1 1
IRN 3 3 3 2 3
ISL 1 1 1 1 1
ISR 1 1 1 1 1
ITA 2 2 2 2 2
JAM 2 2 2 2 3
JOR 2 2 2 2 2
JPN 1 1 1 1 1
KAZ 2 2 2 2 2
KEN 3 3 2 2 3
KGZ 3 3 3 2 3
KHM 3 3 3 3 3
KOR 1 1 1 1 1
KWT 2 2 2 2 2
LAO 4 4 3 2 3
LBN 2 2 3 2 2
LBR 4 3 3 4 3
LBY 4 3 3 2 4
LKA 2 2 2 2 2
LSO 3 3 3 3 3
LTU 2 2 2 2 2
LUX 1 1 1 1 1
LVA 2 2 2 2 2
MAR 3 3 2 2 3
MDA 2 2 2 2 2
MDG 3 3 3 3 3
MEX 2 2 2 2 3
MKD 2 2 2 2 2
MLI 3 3 3 3 3
MLT 2 1 1 2 2
MMR 4 4 3 3 3
MNE 2 2 2 2 2
MNG 2 2 2 2 2
MOZ 3 3 3 3 3
MRT 3 3 3 3 3
MUS 2 2 2 2 2
MWI 3 3 3 3 3
MYS 2 2 2 2 2
NAM 3 3 3 3 3
NGA 3 3 3 3 3
NIC 3 3 3 3 3
NLD 1 1 1 1 1
NOR 1 1 1 1 1
NPL 3 3 3 3 3
NZL 1 1 1 1 1
OMN 2 2 2 2 2
PAK 3 3 3 3 3
Vol. 5, No. 2, 2019-
_(End of Table 2)
Country 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
PAN 2 2 2 2 2
PER 3 3 2 2 3
PHL 2 2 2 2 3
POL 2 2 2 2 2
PRI 2 3 2 2 4
PRT 2 2 2 2 2
PRY 3 3 3 2 3
QAT 2 1 1 1 1
ROU 2 2 2 2 2
RUS 2 2 2 2 2
RWA 3 3 3 3 3
SAU 2 2 2 2 2
SEN 3 3 3 3 3
SGP 1 1 1 1 1
SLE 4 3 3 4 4
SLV 3 3 2 2 3
SRB 2 2 2 2 2
SUR 3 3 3 2 4
SVK 2 2 2 2 2
SVN 2 2 2 2 2
SWE 1 1 1 1 1
SWZ 3 3 3 3 3
SYC 4 3 2 2 2
SYR 3 4 4 4 4
TCD 3 3 3 3 3
THA 2 2 2 2 2
TJK 3 3 4 3 3
TLS 3 3 3 3 4
TTO 2 2 2 2 2
TUN 2 4 2 2 3
TUR 2 2 2 2 2
TWN 1 1 1 1 1
TZA 3 3 3 3 3
UGA 3 3 3 3 3
UKR 2 2 2 2 2
URY 2 2 2 2 2
USA 1 1 1 1 1
VEN 3 3 3 2 3
VNM 2 2 2 2 3
YEM 3 3 3 3 4
ZAF 3 3 3 2 2
ZMB 3 3 3 3 3
ZWE 3 3 3 3 3
Source: calculated by the authors according to the data of (World Economic Forum, 2016)
Thus, according to the results of cluster analysis, for the period of 2012-2016 we can single out 4 clusters among 151 countries on the NRI factors: 1) countries with sustainable development; 2) countries with moderate development of informatization; 3) countries, which are the most backward by the level of informatization; 4) countries with no data for the period under review. Table 3 shows the distribution of countries by clusters.
Table 3
Distribution of countries by clusters
for the period of2012-2016
Year Cluster No data
1 2 3
2012 24 65 53 9
2013 28 57 59 7
2014 28 68 52 3
2015 27 76 40 8
2016 27 48 64 12
Source: calculated by the authors according to the data of (World Economic Forum, 2016)
Accordingly, Figure 3 shows the structure of informatization of the world economic development for the period of 2012-2016.
The analysis of countries' distribution by clusters for the period from 2012 to 2016 makes it possible to identify the following trends.
The first cluster includes the countries with sustainable development (24 countries): Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Finland, France, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong SAR, Ireland, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Rep. Korea, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand, Singapore, Sweden, Taiwan (China), and the United States.
The second cluster - the countries with moderate development of informatization (45 countries): Armenia, Azerbaij an, Bulgaria, Bahrain, Brazil, Barbados, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Georgia, Greece, Croatia, Hungary, Italy, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Spain, Sri Lanka, Lithuania, Latvia, Moldova, Macedonia FYR, Montenegro, Mongolia, Mauritius, Malaysia, Oman, Panama, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Ukraine, and Uruguay.
The third cluster is represented by the countries, which are the most backward by the level of informatization (43 countries): Angola, Burundi, Benin, Burkina Faso, Bangladesh, Belize, Bolivia, Botswana, Cote d'Ivoire, Cameroon, Chad, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, The Gambia, Guatemala, Haiti, Cambodia, Liberia, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mali, Myanmar, Mozambique, Mauritania, Malawi, Namibia, Nigeria, Nicaragua, Nepal, Pakistan, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tanzania, Uganda, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
Besides the countries, which have been steadily related to a certain cluster for the period of 2012-2016, there are 39 countries, which had no data for the period under review, or underwent transition from one level of informatization to another one, i.e., moved from one cluster to another one (Table 4).
As you can see in Table 4, after 2012 the United Arab Emirates, Estonia, and Qatar moved to the first
Figure 3. Structure of informatization of the world economic development for the period of2012-2016
Source: calculated by the authors according to the data of (World Economic Forum, 2016)
Table 4
Clustering of the countries, which have an unstable level of informatization
Country Year Average
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Albania 2 2 2 2 3 2.2
Algeria 3 3 3 2 3 2.8
.Argentina 2 2 3 3 3 2.6
Bhutan - - 2 2 3 2.3
Bosnia and Herzegovina 2 2 2 - 3 2.3
Brunei Darussalam 2 3 2 - - 2.3
Cape Verde 2 2 2 2 3 2.2
Dominican Republic 3 3 2 2 3 2.6
Ecuador 3 2 2 - 3 2.5
Egypt: 2 3 2 2 3 2.4
El Salvador 3 3 2 2 3 2.6
Estonia 2 1 1 1 1 1.2
Ghana 3 3 2 3 3 2.8
Guyana 2 3 2 2 3 2.4
Honduras 3 3 3 2 3 2.8
India 2 2 2 2 3 2.2
Indonesia 2 2 2 2 3 2.2
Islamic Rep. Iran 3 3 3 2 3 2.8
Jamaica 2 2 2 2 3 2,2
Kenya 3 3 2 2 3 2.6
Kyrgyz Republic 3 3 3 2 3 2.8
Lao PDR - - 3 2 3 2.7
Lebanon 2 2 3 2 2 2.2
Libya - 3 3 2 - 2.7
Malta 2 1 1 2 2 1.6
Mexico 2 2 2 2 3 2.2
Morocco 3 3 2 2 3 2.6
Paraguay 3 3 3 2 3 2.8
Peru 3 3 2 2 3 2.6
Philippines 2 2 2 2 3 2.2
Puerto Rico 2 3 2 2 - 2.3
Qatar 2 1 1 1 1 1.2
Seychelles - 3 2 2 2 2.3
, , „ T _________Baltic Journal of Economic Studies
!. 5, No. 2, 2019---
_(End of Table 4)
Country Year Average
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
South Africa 3 3 3 2 2 2.6
Suriname 3 3 3 2 - 2.8
Tunisia 2 - 2 2 3 2.3
United Arab Emirates 2 1 1 1 1 1.2
Venezuela 3 3 3 2 3 2.8
Vietnam 2 2 2 2 3 2.2
Source: calculated by the authors according to the data of (World Economic Forum, 2016)
cluster. Malta also underwent such transition, but in 2015 this country returned to the second cluster. In 2014, Lebanon moved to the third cluster, but the next year this country returned to the second cluster. Ghana, on the contrary, in 2014 moved to the second cluster, but the next year this country returned to the third cluster. Four countries, namely, Dominican Republic, Kenya, Morocco, Peru and El Salvador, moved to the second cluster in 2014, where in 2015 six more countries joined them, as follows: Algeria, Honduras, Islamic Rep. Iran, Kyrgyz Republic, Paraguay, and Venezuela. However, in 2016, all ten countries returned to the third cluster. In 2016 eight countries moved to the third cluster, as follows: Albania, Cape Verde, Indonesia, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Philippines, and Vietnam, which were in the second cluster for the period of 2012-2015. Three countries, which in 2012 started from the second
cluster, stayed in the third cluster at the end of the period under review: Argentina, Egypt, and Guyana. Only South Africa managed to move from the third cluster to the second one (in 2015) and not to return back. The following countries moved from one cluster to another one but, according to the latest available data, these countries are related to the third cluster: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bhutan, Ecuador, Lao PDR, and Tunisia.
A calculation of the mean value by clusters for every country (Table 4) makes it possible to determine the average level of the country's informatization for the given period, as well as to provide visual results (Figure 4).
As you can see in Figure 4, the countries' distribution by the level of informatization makes it possible visually to assess the world economic development. Table 5 shows a change in the countries' rating for the whole period of NRI calculation.
-J;
№ maiTfiapM fiing : G™Nam=, MSFT, MïÈftisot. Novlnlb, Nartcq, Wfcipeiia
Cluster
1 3
Figure 4. Clustering of the countries by the level of informatization of the world economic development in 2012-2016
Source: calculated by the authors according to the data of (World Economic Forum, 2016)
Table 5
Change of the countries' rating according to NRI for the period of2001-2016
Country 1 2 3 04 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 14 5 6 V
o 2 o 2 o 2 o 2 o 2 o 2 o 2 o 2 o 2 o 2 o 2 o 2 o 2 o 2 o 2 o 2 3 0
Singapore 8 8 3 2 1 2 3 5 4 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
Finland 3 3 1 3 3 5 4 6 6 6 3 3 1 1 2 2 1
Sweden 4 4 4 4 6 8 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1
Norway 5 5 17 8 13 13 10 10 8 10 9 7 5 5 5 4 1
United States 1 1 2 1 5 1 7 4 3 5 5 8 9 7 7 5 1
Netherlands 6 6 11 13 16 12 6 7 9 9 11 6 4 4 4 6 1
Switzerland 16 16 13 7 9 9 5 3 5 4 4 5 6 6 6 7 1
United Kingdom 10 10 7 15 12 10 9 12 15 13 15 10 7 9 8 8 1
Luxembourg 27 14 17 26 25 24 21 17 14 21 16 11 9 9 1
Japan 21 21 20 12 8 16 14 19 17 21 19 18 21 16 10 10 1
Denmark 7 7 8 5 4 3 1 1 1 3 7 4 8 13 15 11 1
Hong Kong SAR 13 13 18 18 7 11 12 11 12 8 12 13 14 8 14 12 1
Rep. Korea 20 20 14 20 24 14 19 9 11 15 10 12 11 10 12 13 1
Canada 12 12 6 6 10 6 11 13 10 7 8 9 12 17 11 14 1
Germany 17 17 10 11 14 17 16 16 20 14 13 16 13 12 13 15 1
Iceland 2 2 5 10 2 4 8 8 7 12 16 15 17 19 19 16 1
New Zealand 11 11 23 23 21 21 22 22 22 19 18 14 20 20 17 17 1
Australia 14 14 15 9 11 15 15 14 14 16 17 17 18 18 16 18 1
Taiwan, China 15 15 9 17 15 7 13 17 13 11 6 11 10 14 18 19 1
Austria 9 9 16 21 19 18 17 15 16 20 21 19 19 22 20 20 1
Israel 22 22 12 16 18 19 18 18 25 28 22 20 15 15 21 21 1
Belgium 18 18 22 24 26 25 24 25 24 22 23 22 24 27 24 23 1
France 24 24 19 19 20 22 23 21 19 18 20 23 26 25 26 24 1
Ireland 19 19 21 22 22 20 21 23 23 24 29 25 27 26 25 25 1
Estonia 23 23 24 25 25 23 20 20 18 25 26 24 22 21 22 22 1,2
United Arab Emirates 23 28 29 29 27 23 24 30 25 24 23 26 1,2
Qatar 39 36 32 29 30 25 28 23 23 27 27 1,2
Malta 27 28 30 27 27 26 26 27 26 28 28 29 34 1,6
Bahrain 33 49 50 45 37 29 30 27 29 29 30 28 2
Lithuania 42 42 46 42 43 44 39 33 35 41 42 31 32 31 31 29 2
Portugal 27 27 31 31 30 27 28 28 30 33 32 33 33 33 28 30 2
Malaysia 36 36 32 26 27 24 26 26 28 27 28 29 30 30 32 31 2
Latvia 39 39 38 35 56 51 42 44 48 52 52 41 41 39 33 32 2
Saudi Arabia 48 40 38 33 34 31 32 35 33 2
Spain 26 26 25 29 29 31 32 31 34 34 37 38 38 34 34 35 2
Czech Republic 28 28 28 33 40 32 34 36 32 36 40 42 42 42 43 36 2
Slovenia 29 29 33 30 32 35 30 30 31 31 34 37 37 36 37 37 2
Chile 34 34 35 32 35 29 31 34 39 40 39 39 34 35 38 38 2
Kazakhstan 60 73 71 73 68 67 55 43 38 40 39 2
Cyprus 37 33 43 41 33 32 31 32 35 37 36 40 2
Russian Federation 61 61 69 63 62 72 70 72 74 80 77 56 54 50 41 41 2
Poland 35 35 39 47 72 53 58 62 69 65 62 49 49 54 50 42 2
Uruguay 37 37 55 54 64 65 60 65 65 57 45 44 52 56 46 43 2
Costa Rica 45 45 49 49 61 69 56 60 56 49 46 58 53 53 49 44 2
Italy 25 25 26 28 45 42 38 42 45 48 51 48 50 58 55 45 2
Macedonia, FYR 75 85 82 81 83 79 73 72 66 67 57 47 46 2
Slovak Republic 33 33 40 41 48 41 41 43 43 55 69 64 61 59 59 47 2
Turkey 41 41 50 56 52 48 52 55 61 69 71 52 45 51 48 48 2
Mauritius 51 51 56 43 47 45 51 54 51 53 47 53 55 48 45 49 2
Hungary 30 30 30 36 38 38 33 37 41 46 49 43 44 47 53 50 2
Montenegro 79 80 74 71 42 44 46 48 52 56 51 2
Oman 53 50 50 41 40 40 40 42 52 2
Azerbaijan 73 71 67 60 64 70 61 56 49 57 53 2
(Continuation of Table 5)
Country 2 3 04 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 14 5 6 r et
O (N o 2 o 2 o 2 o 2 o 2 o 2 o 2 o 2 o 2 o 2 o 2 o 2 o 2 o 2 o 2 3 lC
Croatia 48 48 58 57 46 49 49 51 54 45 51 46 54 54 2
Panama 48 48 61 58 69 66 65 64 66 58 60 57 46 43 51 55 2
Armenia 86 96 106 114 101 109 94 82 65 58 56 2
Mongolia 92 90 87 93 94 85 63 59 61 61 57 2
Georgia 91 96 93 91 88 93 98 88 65 60 60 58 2
China 64 64 43 51 41 50 59 57 46 37 36 51 58 62 62 59 2
Jordan 49 49 51 46 44 47 57 47 44 44 50 47 47 44 52 60 2
Kuwait 46 54 52 57 76 75 62 62 72 72 61 2
Thailand 43 43 41 38 36 34 37 40 47 47 59 77 74 67 67 62 2
Sri Lanka 62 62 54 66 71 83 86 79 72 72 66 71 69 76 65 63 2
Ukraine 66 66 70 78 82 76 75 70 62 82 90 75 73 81 71 64 2
Romania 65 65 72 61 53 58 55 61 58 59 65 67 75 75 63 66 2
Trinidad and Tobago 46 46 58 52 59 74 68 82 81 79 63 60 72 71 70 67 2
Colombia 57 57 59 60 66 62 64 69 64 60 58 73 66 63 64 68 2
Bulgaria 53 53 68 67 73 64 72 68 68 71 68 70 71 73 73 69 2
Greece 31 31 42 34 42 43 48 56 55 56 64 59 64 74 66 70 2
Moldova 94 92 96 99 97 78 77 77 68 71 2
Brazil 38 38 29 39 46 52 53 59 59 61 56 65 60 69 84 72 2
Serbia 77 79 80 74 84 84 93 85 87 80 77 75 2
Barbados 40 38 36 35 38 35 39 55 39 2
Indonesia 59 59 64 73 51 68 62 76 83 67 53 80 76 64 79 73 2,2
Mexico 44 44 47 44 60 55 49 58 67 78 78 76 63 79 69 76 2,2
Philippines 58 58 62 69 67 70 69 81 85 85 86 86 86 78 76 77 2,2
Vietnam 74 74 71 68 68 75 82 73 70 54 55 83 84 84 85 79 2,2
Jamaica 56 56 60 53 49 54 45 46 53 66 73 74 85 86 82 83 2,2
.Albania 106 107 108 105 95 87 68 83 95 92 84 2,2
Cape Verde 84 81 81 89 87 85 2,2
Lebanon 95 95 94 97 99 88 2,2
India 54 54 37 45 39 40 44 50 54 43 48 69 68 83 89 91 2,2
Seychelles 79 66 74 74 2,3
Tunisia 34 40 31 36 35 35 38 39 35 50 87 81 81 2,3
Bhutan 94 88 87 2,3
Bosnia and Herzegovina 89 97 89 95 106 110 110 84 78 68 97 2,3
Puerto Rico 39 42 45 43 36 36 41 44 2,3
Brunei Darussalam 63 63 57 54 57 45 2,3
Egypt: 60 60 65 65 57 63 77 63 76 70 74 79 80 91 94 96 2,4
Guyana 111 98 102 100 100 100 90 100 88 93 100 2,4
Ecuador 71 71 75 89 95 107 97 107 116 114 108 96 91 82 82 2,5
South Africa 40 40 36 37 34 37 47 51 52 62 61 72 70 70 75 65 2,6
Morocco 52 64 54 77 76 74 86 88 83 91 89 99 78 78 2,6
Kenya 84 75 91 95 92 97 90 81 93 92 92 86 86 2,6
Argentina 32 32 45 50 76 71 63 77 87 91 96 92 99 100 91 89 2,6
Peru 52 52 67 70 90 85 78 84 89 92 89 106 103 90 90 90 2,6
El Salvador 55 55 63 62 70 59 61 66 78 81 92 103 93 98 80 93 2,6
Dominican Republic 47 47 57 57 78 89 66 75 75 74 79 87 90 93 95 98 2,6
Lao PDR 109 97 104 2,7
Libya 105 101 103 126 132 138 131 2,7
Islamic Rep. Iran 101 104 101 104 96 92 2,8
Honduras 72 72 81 98 97 100 94 90 95 106 103 99 109 116 100 94 2,8
Kyrgyz Republic 103 105 114 115 123 116 115 118 118 98 95 2,8
Ghana 74 65 61 103 98 99 97 95 96 101 102 2,8
Paraguay 63 63 76 91 98 113 114 120 122 127 127 111 104 102 105 105 2,8
Venezuela 50 50 66 72 84 81 83 86 96 112 119 107 108 106 103 108 2,8
Baltic Journal of Economic Studies tt. . „ „ -J--Vol. 5, No. 2, 2019
(End of Table 5)
Country (N 3 04 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 14 5 6 r et
O O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 3
(N (N (N 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 lC
Algeria 87 80 87 80 88 108 113 117 118 131 129 120 117 2,8
Suriname 110 117 117 126 121 117 113 113 2,8
Rwanda 82 88 85 83 80 3
Namibia 53 59 55 78 85 93 92 89 82 105 111 105 102 99 3
Botswana 44 55 50 56 67 78 77 86 91 89 96 103 104 101 3
Guatemala 68 68 73 86 88 98 79 80 82 83 94 98 102 101 107 103 3
Côte d'Ivoire 111 104 113 122 120 122 115 106 3
Senegal 81 85 80 75 80 100 107 114 106 107 3
Cambodia 104 106 115 126 117 111 108 106 108 110 109 3
Pakistan 76 63 67 84 89 98 87 88 102 105 111 112 110 3
Bolivia 67 67 78 90 99 109 104 111 128 131 135 127 119 120 111 111 3
Bangladesh 73 73 77 93 100 110 118 124 130 118 115 113 114 119 109 112 3
The Gambia 82 74 88 101 91 77 76 101 98 107 108 113 3
Tajikistan 93 98 104 109 112 114 112 117 114 3
Lesotho 116 122 118 107 121 133 138 133 124 115 3
Zambia 85 81 112 112 102 97 102 109 115 110 114 116 3
Nepal 108 119 127 124 131 128 126 123 118 118 3
Nigeria 75 75 74 79 86 90 88 94 90 99 104 112 113 112 119 119 3
Ethiopia 101 102 115 119 123 129 122 123 130 128 130 130 120 3
Uganda 80 77 79 100 109 120 115 107 110 110 115 116 121 3
Zimbabwe 70 70 80 95 94 105 117 125 132 132 132 124 116 117 121 122 3
Mozambique 97 96 101 115 121 124 116 106 120 133 137 129 123 3
Cameroon 83 99 113 118 123 128 125 125 124 131 126 124 3
Gabon 121 128 122 125 3
Tanzania 71 83 84 91 100 119 120 118 123 127 125 123 126 3
Mali 96 92 95 101 99 107 96 120 126 122 127 127 127 3
Benin 108 109 113 121 111 114 117 123 135 128 3
Swaziland 134 136 136 126 125 129 3
Liberia 97 121 130 3
Nicaragua 69 69 79 94 103 112 103 116 125 125 128 131 125 124 128 131 3
Malawi 88 93 111 110 119 105 116 129 132 133 132 3
Myanmar 146 139 133 3
Guinea 140 145 142 134 3
Madagascar 92 87 102 102 104 112 121 129 134 137 139 135 135 3
Mauritania 87 97 109 102 130 139 135 142 138 136 3
Haiti 82 100 142 141 143 137 137 3
Burundi 121 126 131 129 137 137 144 147 141 138 3
Chad 102 104 114 122 127 134 133 138 138 142 148 143 139 3
Burkina Faso 99 103 113 108 122 135 130 136 132 3
Timor-Leste 133 130 136 132 134 141 134 3
Yemen 141 139 140 136 3
Angola 99 101 120 133 140 144 140 3
Sierra Leone 143 134 3
Belize 119 3
Syria 110 94 105 124 129 3
Source: calculated by the authors according to the data of (World Economic Forum, 2002-2016) (World Economic Forum, 2002) (World Economic Forum, 2003) (World Economic Forum, 2004) (World Economic Forum, 2005) (World Economic Forum, 2006) (World Economic Forum, 2007) (World Economic Forum, 2008) (World Economic Forum, 2009) (World Economic Forum, 2010) (World Economic Forum, 2011) (World Economic Forum, 2012) (World Economic Forum, 2013) (World Economic Forum, 2014) (World Economic Forum, 2015) (World Economic Forum, 2016)
As you can see in Table 5, the average level of the country's informatization to a certain extent corresponds to the dynamics of rating according to NRI.
Thus, clustering of countries according to the indicators, being the basis of NRI, enables us to take dynamics into consideration and single out similar groups of countries.
6. Conclusions
Therefore, based on the analysis of publicly available data, it has been established that the countries can be divided into three groups by the level of informatization of the world economic development. The first level - the countries with sustainable development. For the period of 2012-2016, 24 countries were steadily related to this cluster, plus the United Arab Emirates, Estonia, and Qatar, which joined them in 2013. These are the first 27 countries of NRI rating. The second level - the countries with moderate informatization development. For the period of 2012-2016, it steadily included 45 countries. Besides, still in 2014 Malta moved to the first level but it's already in 2015 that this country returned to the second level. There also were 17 countries, which left the group during the period of 2012-2016 and thereafter returned to it or moved to the third level. Now 63 countries are related to the second level of informatization. The third level - the countries, which are the most backward by the level of informatization. It is 43 countries, which are steadily related to the third level, and 18 countries, which were
References:
related to the second level in the period of 2012-2016. Totally we have reviewed 151 countries.
Before 2012, the countries' rating by NRI covers the period from 2001 to 2011. However, due to the advancement of the methodology for calculation of the Networked Readiness Index over the above-stated period and larger dispersion of countries' coverage than for the last years, it is not expedient to determine the level of informatization of the world economic development in such a way.
The results presented enable us to approach informatization of the world economic development comprehensively: in dynamics by groups of countries. It allows singling out the countries with the sustainable level of informatization of the world economic development. Although, it is more expedient to study the countries, which moved from one level to another one during the period under review. Perspectives of further studies in the above-stated direction consist in search of the factors, which enable the countries' transition to the higher level of informatization of the world economic development.
European Commission (2015). The Role of Science, Technology and Innovation Policies to Foster the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Report of the Expert Group "Follow-up to Rio+20, notably the SDGs". Retrieved October 31, 2018, from European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/horizon2020/ document.cfm?doc_id=12065
International Telecommunication Union (2017). ICT facts and figures 2017. Retrieved from International Telecommunication Union: https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ ICTFactsFigures2017.pdf
International Telecommunication Union (2017). The ICT Development Index (IDI): conceptual framework and methodology. Retrieved from International Telecommunication Union: https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/ Pages/publications/mis2017/methodology.aspx
Letser, Y. O. (2018). Formuvannia kompleksnoi ekonomiko-orhanizatsiinoi modeli pidpryiemstv z rozrobky informatsiinykh tekhnolohii. Master's thesis. Rivne, Ukraine: NUVHP.
Milenkovic, M. J., Brajovic, B., Milenkovic, D., Vukmirovic, D. & Jeremic, V. (2016). Beyond the equal-weight framework of the Networked Readiness Index: a multilevel I-distance methodology. Information Development, 32(4), 1120-1136.
Tamilselvan, N., Sivakumar, N. & Sevukan, R. (2012). Information and communications technologies (ICT). International Journal of Library and Information Science (IJLIS), 1(1), 15-28.
Tugas, F. C. (2016, May). Clues from networked readiness index: business imperatives and challenges. DLSUBusiness notes and briefings, 4(4), 1-6.
United Nations (2018). E-Government Development Index (EGDI). Retrieved from UN E-Government
Knowledgebase: https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/About/Overview/-E-Government
World Bank (2007). Knowledge Economy Index (KEI) 2007 Rankings. Retrieved from The World Bank:
https://siteresources.worldbank.org/KFDLP/Resources/461197-1170257103854/KEI.pdf
World Economic Forum (2002). The Global Information Technology Report 2001-2002. Readinessfor the Networked
World. Retrieved October 30, 2018, from United Nations: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/
documents/un/report.pdf
World Economic Forum (2003). The Global Information Technology Report 2002-2003. Readinessfor the Networked World. Retrieved October 31, 2018, from Caribbean Elections: http://www.caribbeanelections.com/eDocs/ development_reports/gitr_2002_2003.pdf
World Economic Forum (2004). The Global Information Technology Report 2003-2004. Towards an Equitable Information Society. Retrieved October 30, 2018, from The World Bank: http://documents.worldbank.org/ curated/en/825291468175149560/pdf/343090GITR2003.pdf
World Economic Forum (2005). The Networked Readiness Index Rankings 2005. Retrieved October 31, 2018, from The Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20120213081759/
World Economic Forum (2006). The Global Information Technology Report 2005-2006. Leveraging ICT Advancements for Development. Retrieved October 31, 2018, from UNCTAD: https://unctad.org/sections/wcmu/ docs/c3em29p005_en.pdf
World Economic Forum (2007). The Networked Readiness Index 2006-2007 rankings. The Global Information Technology Report 2006-2007. Retrieved October 31, 2018, from The Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/ web/20070406180105/
World Economic Forum. (2008). The Networked Readiness Index 2007-2008 rankings. The Global Information Technology Report 2007-2008. Fostering Innovation through Networked Readiness. Retrieved October 30, 2018, from The Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20080411023235/
World Economic Forum. (2009). The Global Information Technology Report 2008-2009. Mobility in a Networked World. Retrieved October 30, 2018, from The Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20111027101928/ World Economic Forum. (2010). The Global Information Technology Report 2009-2010. ICT for Sustainability. Retrieved October 30, 2018, from The Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20110409061000/ World Economic Forum. (2011). The Global Information Technology Report 2010-2011. Transformations 2.0. Retrieved October 30, 2018, from World Economic Forum: http://reports.weforum.org/wp-content/pdf/gitr-2011/wef-gitr-2010-2011.pdf
World Economic Forum. (2012). The Global Information Technology Report 2012. Living in a Hyperconnected World. Retrieved October 30, 2018, from World Economic Forum: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/Global_IT_ Report_2012.pdf
World Economic Forum. (2013). The Global Information Technology Report 2013. Growth and Jobs in a Hyperconnected World. Retrieved October 30, 2018, from World Economic Forum: http://www3.weforum.org/ docs/WEF_GITR_Report_2013.pdf
World Economic Forum. (2014). The Global Information Technology Report 2014. Rewards and Risks of Big Data. Retrieved October 30, 2018, from World Economic Forum: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_ GlobalInformationTechnology_Report_2014.pdf
World Economic Forum. (2015). The Global Information Technology Report 2015. ICTs for Inclusive Growth. Retrieved October 30, 2018, from World Economic Forum: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GITR2015.pdf
World Economic Forum. (2016). The Global Information Technology Report 2016. Innovating in the Digital Economy. Retrieved October 30, 2018, from World Economic Forum: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GITR2016/WEF_ GITR_Full_Report.pdf
World Economic Forum. (2016). The Networked Readiness Index Historical Dataset 2012-2016. Retrieved August 13, 2018, from World Economic Forum: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GITR2016/WEF_NRI_2012-2016_ Historical_Dataset.xlsx
World Wide Web Foundation. (2014). About the Web Index. Retrieved October 30, 2018, from The Web Index: http://thewebindex.org/about/#about_the_web_index
