CC BY
60
ТЕМА НОМЕРА
М.В. Вилисов,
Д.Д. Пастармаджиева
ЦИФРОВАЯ ПОЛИТИКА: СРАВНЕНИЕ МЕЖДУ ЕС, ЕАЭС И ИХ ГОСУДАРСТВАМИ -ЧЛЕНАМИ
Аннотация
Экспоненциальное развитие информационно-коммуникационных технологий (ИКТ) в последние десятилетия поставило цифровые преобразования и созданную ими цифровую экономику в центр внимания многих национальных и международных организаций и институтов. Согласно текущим докладам ООН по цифровой экономике, США и Китай доминируют в этом секторе во всех измерениях, практически не оставляя места другим конкурентам на глобальном уровне. Это создает огромные проблемы для других государств, а также для интеграционных проектов, таких как Европейский союз (ЕС) и Евразийский экономический союз (ЕАЭС). В статье описывается современное состояние и современное развитие цифровой политики на национальном и союзном уровнях в Европейском Союзе и Евразийском экономическом союзе. Сравнительный анализ политико-правовой базы и эмпирических данных дает возможность выявить сходные вызовы и ответы как на национальном, так и на наднациональном уровнях при решении проблем цифровых преобразований и построения цифровой экономики. ЕС, как более продвинутый с точки зрения институтов и формирования общей политики, демонстрирует более системный подход, в то время как ЕАЭС только начал формирование общей цифровой повестки дня. Огромные Межстрановые диспропорции, которые
M. Vilisov, D. Pastarmadzhieva
DIGITAL POLICIES: COMPARISONS BETWEEN EU, EEU AND THEIR MEMDER-STATES
Abstract
The exponential development of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) several last decades had placed the digital transformations and digital economy, created by them, in a focus of many national and international organisations and institutions. According to current UN reports on a digital economy, the USA and China are dominating in this sector in all the measurements, leaving almost no place for the other competitors on a global level. This creates huge challenges for the other states, as well as for integration projects, such as the European Union (EU) and the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU).
The article describes the current state and recent development of digital policies on national and union levels in European Union and Eurasian Economic Union. Comparative analysis of the political and legal frameworks and empirical data provides the opportunities to figure similar challenges and responses on both national and supranational levels in dealing with digital transformations and building digital economy. The EU, as more advanced in terms of institutions and common policy formation demonstrates a more systemic approach, while the EEU has just started the formation of a common digital agenda. Huge inter-countries disparities, that are relatively higher in the EEU in comparison with the EU also male their contribution. The national digital policy and its results, especially in Russia, are
относительно выше в ЕАЭС по сравнению с ЕС, также увеличивают их вклад. Национальная цифровая политика и ее результаты, особенно в России, имеют решающее значение для дальнейшей общей цифровой политики и ее реализации в ЕАЭС.
crucial for the further common digital policy and its implementation in the EEU.
Ключевые слова:
ИКТ, цифровизация, цифровая трансформация, 14.0, цифровая экономика, ЕАЭС, ЕС, цифровая политика.
Key words:
ICT, digitalization, digital transformation, I4.0, digital economy, EEU, EU, digital policy.
Several decades ago the information and communication technologies (ICT) were a kind of supportive tool to the daily life and work of people, business, organizations and the state. Nowadays almost every area of life is tightly connected to the utilization of various types of ICTs. ICT consists of three elements hardware, software and connection in a network [26]. The adoption of ICTs led to digital transformation of social life, business, economy and even the functioning of states and their relations. The digitalization of the society have become a significant prerequisite for the sustainable development of the digital economy and to the establishment of Industry 4.0. That placed it into the public policy agenda and caused the necessity to develop digital policy as a response to the challenges and opportunities of the digitalization and digital economy.
Thus, the aim of the current study is to identify the state of some essential prerequisites for the digital development of countries of two main economic regions - the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) and the European Union (EU) and to investigate their digital policies on the national and union levels. The object of the study are the countries of the EEU, namely Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia, and selected countries from the EU. These are Bulgaria, Denmark, which has the highest rank of the EU countries in 2018 as regards the United Nations Indices on the digitalization of societies, and Romania, which has the lowest rank among the EU member states. The focus of the research is a selection of indices, namely E-Government Development Index (2018), Online Services Index (2018), Telecommunication Infrastructure Index (2018) and its components, The ICT adoption pillar of the Global Competitiveness Index 4.0 (2018), The Global Cybersecurity Index (2018) and The Network Readiness Index (2019).
Comparative approach and SWOT analysis are used in order to identify the main strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats across countries and to make summaries for the examined regions. The strategies of the countries and of the EU, regarding the examined topic are also examined.
Digital transformation, digital economy and Industry 4.0
The digital transformation is inevitably related to the use of ICT. The latter is part of various strategies and reports of EU, UN, UNESCO, OECD, etc. During the 90's the notion of information technology (IT) was replaced by the new one, namely ICT. In 1999 Webster commented this transformation as something expected. According to him the "IT 'revolution' was set to be pervasive, continuous, even ordinary" [5 9]. It means that this transformation will go further and further and nowadays we can see how right he was. The last two decades we observed enormous change in the development of ICT and new notions, related to the digitalization occur.
A significant transformation in the ICT is related to the experience of the individuals with the ICT, namely the "user experience" such as the one offered by search engines, social media, games, etc. [39].
Thus, the development of ICT have led to the digital transformation. The latter is a notion which lacks some kind of legal definition but the number of studies, which exploit it grows exponentially [57]. Furthermore, it has been used in numerous cases in order to explain the change of an area or areas, which change is cause by the new digital technologies. In fact, almost all of the processes of the development of ICT, which transformed various areas of life are referred to as digital transformation.
The topics, which scholars usually examine in relation to the digital transformation are some elements of the digital transformation, its drivers, obstacles for their implementation by entrepreneurs, their impact on the companies' competitiveness and efficiency, etc. [57; 58].
Digital transformations draw the attention of so many scholars, because nowadays it is an integral part of every area of life and it is hand to hand with the globalization [57]. In some cases, the digital transformation happens spontaneously as people, companies or state implement a new tool as it is on the market. However, sometimes the digital transformation happens consciously. Many companies are committed to make such transformation and make efforts towards it in order to achieve competitive ad-
vantages. But the implementation of innovative technologies may have some risks and the citizens, entrepreneurs and the state should be aware of them and take measures in advance [22]. These risks are to high extent related to the cybersecurity and this makes the latter the focus of numerous studies and national strategies.
The notion of digital transformation is not only limited to the academic area. It is institutionalized in various strategies and documents of international organizations and bodies. EU identifies the digital transformation as a factor for the growth of European Industry. According to the European Commission it is a "fusion of advanced technologies and the integration of phys i-cal and digital systems, the predominance of innovative business models and new processes, and the creation of smart products and services". There are four main areas for policymaking as regards the digital transformation, namely big data and digital platforms, digital skills, cities and regions, ICT standardisation. Alongside, the Commission initiated activities in support of the digital transformation, which include Digital Transformation Monitor, The Watify awareness campaign, The smart use of ICT for SMEs, Strategic Policy Forum on Digital Entrepreneurship (2014-2016) and Member States Board on Digital Entrepreneurship [30].
OECD also launched an initiative, named "Measuring the Digital Tran s-formation. A Roadmap for the Future". It provides various indicators on ar e-as, related to the digital transformation and alongside, examines the existing policies and to assess the progress of the countries. It aims at supporting the states to improve their policies [43].
Alongside with the concept of digital transformation, another similar notion appeared, namely the digital economy. The latter became popular at the end of the 20th century and is associated to the digital transformation and to the using Internet tin particular [40]. To some extent, it is a result of the digital transformation. First of all, the Internet created a new kind of communication between the business and its customers, and between the companies as well [25]. The transformations are related not only to the implementation of new technologies, but also to some changes in the structures and processes. The digital economy can be defined as "an economy based on the digitization of information and the respective information and communication infrastructure" [62]. In the context of entrepreneurship the latter may consist of various elements of the hardware, software and the network [39].
And as the digitization of information is mentioned it is important to distinguish between digitization and digitalization. The first refers to the transformation of "physical information into digital formats" and the second is about "the use of digital technologies to change an orga nization's business model, including creating new or improved ways of delivering services, and improving the quality of what is delivered" [55].
In a 2019 report on the digital economy United Nations point out that the digital economy is led generally by the United States and China. The empirical data show that they "account for 75 per cent of all patents related to blockchain technologies, 50 per cent of global spending on IoT, and more than 75 per cent of the world market for public cloud computing". Furthe r-more, they identify the potential impact of three digital economy components (digital sector, digital economy, digitalized economy) on the different actors. As concerns the governments the digital sector may attract more investments and lead to higher tax collection from the economic activity. However, the digital economy may have contradictory effect. On one hand, it may increase economic activity and formalization of enterprises and thus, increase the collected taxed. But on the other the digitalization of products may cause loss of customs revenue. The digitalized economy has the potential to increase the efficiency of services by introducing e-government and the automatization of customs is a prerequisite for increased revenue. As concern the taxes it also may lead to contradictory effects. The digitalized economy creates an environment, which is favorable for achievement of sustainable development goals [54].
The implementation of information technology into the economy and its transformation into the digital one was part of the third industrial revolution [46]. The start of the fourth industrial revolution or Industry 4.0 is mainly associated with the Germany's High-Tech Strategy 2020, launched in 2011 [51, 46, 48]. In 2015 the European Parliament discusses the topic in special paper and identifies the benefits of Industry 4.0. The paper points out the Union "supports industrial change t hrough its industrial policy and through research and infrastructure funding". Some national initiatives are also me n-tioned, such as "Industrie 4.0 in Germany, the Factory of the Future in France and Italy, and Catapult centres in the UK" [33].
In fact, the increasing global competition sets numerous challenges before the business and economies. Thus, they need to seek for new ways to
increase their competitiveness, including individual customer requirements [27]. According to Rojko the current technology of production requires significant transformation, and this is exactly what Industry 4.0 offers. The latter integrates business and manufacturing processes, alongside with the suppliers and customers [49] and it can be defined as "an amalgamation of a d-vanced technologies where the internet is extensively used to support certain technologies such as embedded systems" [51].
Two main technical aspects of Industry 4.0 are the concepts of Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) and industrial Internet of Things (IoT) [49; 46; 48]. Cyber-Physical Systems are physical machines with ICT components and the specific is that they "can make their own decisions based on machine lear n-ing algorithms and real-time data capture, analytics results, and recorded successful past behaviours" [49]. The Internet of Things is related to the o p-tion to digitalize various aspects and elements of people's everyday life and work. These might be creation of a smart infrastructure, personalized health care, efficiency of logistics and supply chains and of course the privacy and security [48].
Very rapidly the national governments of many country identified the crucial role that Industry 4.0 may have on the development of their manufacturing industry [51]. After Germany, France also adopted a concept 'Industrie du futur', which is the basis of its future development. In North America the company General Electric was the one, which brought the concept of Industry 4.0 company in 2012. China also introduces similar initiative in 2015, namely 'Made in China 2025' [49].
Obviously, Industry 4.0 has a significant potential for the development of national economy. However, this need a specific national measures in the process of digitalization and provision of the needed infrastructure.
Legal framework and current development
Eurasian Economic Union
Digital transformations in Russia and EEU
"Putin fell ill with the digital economy" - this quote of the vice prime minister Igor Shuvalov had become the headline in "Vedomosti" [13] on June, 2 in 2017 and the slogan of a new stage in Russian digital policy. This stage had started in December 2016, when after annual address to the parliament, the President had approved the list of instructions for the Govern-
ment, that prescribed the elaboration of the state program "Digital economy" in order to "provide the development of the digital economy in Russia and its integration into the space of digital economy of the Eurasian Economic Union" [9]. The program was adopted on July, 28 in 2 017 and later was transformed into the national project "Digital Economy of the Russian Federation", which passport was approved in February 2019 [8].
Thus, contemporary Russian digital policy initially intended to be closely linked with the corresponding policy of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) and had become one of the major state priorities being included into the national projects.
The first edition of the program in 2017 defined digital data as the core feature of the digital economy, underlying, that it "had become the key fa c-tor of production in all spheres of socio-economic activity and the necessary condition for the improvement of the country's competitiveness and national sovereignty". The links between data and digital economy were further drawn in the Osaka declaration on digital economy, that was collectively approved on June 29 in 2019 by the leaders of G20 (with Russian participation) [44].
This is very important for the definition of the digital policy. Data is becoming the major resource of the digital economy on a global level [29], thus digital policy on the global, regional and national levels cannot be observed separately. A special report, recently published by the Economist uses three metaphors for the identification of three models of a "data economy":
1. "oil" metaphor describes the model, where data is a private resource and a fuel of a new economy, as it is in the USA; those, who extract and refine data, as US tech giants, can have the benefits; this approach excludes data owners and data producers, namely the other businesses and the individuals from any substantial relations,
2. "sunlight" metaphor describes the model, where data is a public good and should be free and under the state control, as in China; data is produced by everyone and can be used only for common good, without any restrictions except those, imposed by the state, and the state will have the monopoly in this sphere,
3. "infrastructure" metaphor describes the model, where data is a shared club resource, where the interests of the data producers and data refiners meet for mutual benefits, like in EU.
The experts Both "oil" and "sunlight" approaches are imaginable in Russia due to her oil dependence and traditions of a strong state respectively, but how it comes in practice? And what kind of policies are implemented in the EEU member-states and on the EEU level?
Russian digital policy after the 2014
The 2014 with its tension with the West and economic troubles, caused by western sanctions as well as by the huge drop of oil prices has become a great challenge for Russian government. Although Russia managed to find new economic equilibrium on a short-term run, the long and even medium-term prospects remained unclear. A huge disparity in economic potential with the West and poor structure of Russian economy with a high dependence on a resource export had been recognized as economic problems and political challenges far before the Ukrainian crisis [17], but after that they have become vital. Russian government started to seek some "overtake strategy" instead of previously implemented "catch-up development strategy". The digital economy seemed to be the most attractive alternative in this sense: as Russian prime-minister Dmitry Medvedev told in July 2017 - "digital transformation of all the spheres of life (economy, entrepreneurial activity, public administration and social sphere) is a matter of global competitiveness and national security"[11].
The prime-minister had serious backgrounds for such estimations. The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) in 2016 warned, that despite all achievements (the sixth largest country in the world and the biggest in Europe by the number of Internet users, skyrocketing online consumption, share of digital economy of 2,1% of GDP), the country's digital development was evolutional and Russia was still 5-8 years behind the leaders [52, p. 5]. Such type of development could cause the stagnation and lead to the growing gap with leaders from existing 5-8 years up to 15-20 years just within the period of 5 years (the worst, "Venezuelan" scenario) [52, p. 6, p. 41 -42]. The main explanation was proposed as lack of investments for further development. Other (better) options, described by BCG were "Middle Eastern" and "Asian" scenarios that promised digital economy's share and gap with leaders up to 3 and 5,6% of GDP, 8-10- and 5-7-years gap respectively [52, p. 43]. Given the circumstances (western sanctions and overall economic stagnation) the situation was correctly identified as the matter of national security.
The first edition of the state program "Digital Economy" (June 2017) had identified the following main directions of digital transformations: normative regulation, personnel and education, the formation of research competencies and technical background, information infrastructure and information security [12].
In September 2018 World Bank (WB) in its policy implications for the Russian Federation concluded "that the country's ambitious vision for growth through breakthrough innovation, its investments into national broadband infrastructure, relative strengths in science and technology, a developed legislative and policy framework, and the global competitiveness of its cybersecurity industry position Russia to become a global digital leader" [60, p. XXIII]. However, the WB experts, having noted existing remarkable achievements, proposed to focus on strengthening both non-digital and digital foundations of the economy and digital transformation ecosystem, development of highly trained work-force and cultural transformations [60, p. XXVI]. The matter of national security still required the attention of the state.
National Project "Digital Economy": ambitions and reality
The response was prompt. In February 2019 t he "Digital Economy" program was transformed into the national program, consisted of 5 projects: "Normative regulation of the digital environment", "Information infrastru c-ture", "Personnel for the digital economy", "Information security", "Digital technologies" and "Digital public administration" [8]. The state declared a m-bitious goals [6]:
1. To increase domestic spending for the digital economy development from 2,2% of GDP in 2019 to 5,1% in 2024.
2. Creating a sustainable and secure information and telecommunication infrastructure of high-speed transmission, processing and storage of large documents available to all organizations and households.
3. Predominant usage of the domestic software by the state and municipal entities.
The connotations with the BCG recommendations in these goals could be easily observed - the state was trying to respond the challenge of "Ven e-zuelan" scenario by implementing the "Asian" one. But the goals and indic ators were not so similar with the mentioned scenario, proposed by BCG. Instead targeting the share of digital economy in GDP, the program focused on
the share of the spending in digital sector with almost the same indicators. The explanation is on the surface - the main driver of changes in "Middle Eastern" as well as in "Asian" scenario are massive investments: in infrastructure, digitalization of services, especially in public sector and disruptive technologies in such sectors like Big Data, Artificial Intelligence, Internet of Things and others. Formally, all of this was included into the program, even with the share of private (non-budget) investments up to 33%, but in fact the state stays as the main investor and driver for change. Unexpectedly, the problems had come even from that side - despite the program was in the focus of the highest political attention, the level of its implementation by the end of 2019 was only 27,3% in terms of planned spending, that caused the severe criticism from the President [14].
Thus, the main challenges for the development remained the same and lied far beyond digital sector - in traditional economy and its weaknesses (poor structure and institutions, low competitiveness in production and technologies, business climate etc.) and even in the public administration. All in all, even the most ambitious strategy could only provide the "catch up" d e-velopment.
The effect of the digitalization is based on transformations, brought by disruptive technologies, that totally modify almost all business circle, as it happened, for example, in media with new emerging business models and players like Netflix. The scale of the transformation depends on the depth of integration of the disruptive technologies into the production, trade, management and other business processes. The success of Uber taxi clearly shows how it works: new principle of direct communication between the customer and the driver was supported by several services in marketing, management, navigation and payment, provided by disruptive technologies. When all these means of new "digital" production had met in one place and were supported by corresponding public policy, they provided the success of Yandex, who had beat Uber in its own sector in Russia as well as smashed the previously existed system of taxi services.
Russia does not possess major technologies but have several strong digital backgrounds and relatively high level of education in IT sector, that creates some chances. The attempt to use its advantages in different spheres of high technologies is program «Sphere», which is aime d to cover with in-
ternet access all the Russian territory through satellite connection and is run by «Roskosmos» [2].
Fight for a "digital sovereignty"
As it often happens in Russia, the understanding of crucial meaning of data had come from national security sector. Strong protection of any data or information was vital during the Cold War and remained in the traditions of Russian national security policy, although digital transformations were rapidly changing the environment and approaches of public policy. However, the state did not prohibit development in such spheres as mobile telecommunications, internet and navigation systems. This led to impressive results: almost without support from the state Russia had found itself among the leaders in mobile telecoms. High domestic demand and huge domestic market accompanied with relatively low investments, necessary for infrastructure development were supporting mobile operators in Russia and their later expansion to former postsoviet countries in 2000s and 2010s. All in all, the state was always keeping control over the security issues in this sector: from licensing the access to mobile frequency to cooperation for criminal investigation issues.
Rapid development of e-commerce and digital finance technologies created totally new environment, where data, including personal information about Russian citizens, had become much more accessible and diverse, that increased its value, first of all for security reasons. However, its value hadn't been recognized until the threats had appeared - just after the West had imposed the sanctions, Russian parliament had adopted the law, requiring that personal data of Russian citizens, used in information and communication networks was stored in the territory of the Russian Federation [19].
The next step in the nationalization of data had been done in 2016, when the "Law of Yarovaya" [18] was adopted. It required internet comp a-nies and services to store information and data, related to internet communications and share it with the police and special services for the purposes of criminal investigation. The law caused huge debates and criticism in Russia and abroad, although it was similar to its foreign analogues [16].
Thus "digital sovereignty" (the set of autonomous national platforms and institutions, providing the work of certain segment of digital economy) [1] had become one of the trends of Russian counter-sanctions policy alongside with the "nationalization of elites" (natsionalizatsiya elit) and " import substitution" (importozamescheniye). It also had found its place in the "Dig i-
tal economy" program, that imposed such goals, as "availability of data pr o-cessing centers" in Russian regions, "share of the Russian Federation in the provision of data storage and processing services" and series of goals for the creation of a new data for economy, including both national level and level of the EEU [6].
Information and communication infrastructure in the EEU
Digital economy in Russia was initially designed to be part of a broader digital space of the EEU, that was developing in parallel with Russian digital strategies last years. The "Digital Agenda" of the EEU was adopted in D e-cember 2016 [15] and looked merely as the declaration of intent. The Vision of its implementation, published on a website of Eurasian Commission and marked as "Draft" describes the main goals as following [20]:
1. Accelerated transition of economies to a new technological structure;
2. High-quality and sustainable economic growth;
3. Creating an enabling environment for innovation;
4. Formation of new industries and markets.
The Vision marks three stages of the digital development within the EEU:
1. Digital transformation modeling (2017-2019);
2. Building institutions of the digital economy and digital assets (20192022);
3. Implementation of the EEU ecosystem projects and barrier-free environment (2022-2025).
Although the Vision points that the common agenda should be in line with the digital agendas of the member-states (see Table 1), the EEU has already some institutions, responsible for digital development: Minister in charge of Internal Markets, Information Support, Information and Communication Technologies [35] and IT Department [37]. The EEU also has the Integrated Information System of the EEU [3].
Table 1. National programs in digital sphere
Counrty National programs in digital sphere
Armenia Digital Transformation Agenda of Armenia until 2030
Belarus Decree №8 «On the digital economy development»
Kazakhstan State program «Digital Kazakhstan» (2017-2020)
Kyrgyzstan Digital Transformation Program "Taza Koom"
Russia
State program "Digital Economy of the Russian Federation"
Thus, the Digital Agenda of the EEU and its Vision form just a broad scope for further policy formation rather than common policy itself. This approach has its own explanations.
First of all, information and communication infrastructure in the member-states has different levels of development, that creates different national agendas.
Secondly, the countries have different possibilities in mobilizing domestic and attraction foreign investments. The state budget of Belarus is prescribed to provide only 22,6% of the corresponding state program's expend i-tures, 56% have to be provided by national companies [10]. Kyrgyzstan mainly relies on external resources, but ready to support foreign and international loans by a special state fund «Taza Koom». World Bank is cu rrently investing in the country the project Digital CASA, aimed to improve digital infrastructure in rural areas and ready to increase investments from current $20 million up to $50 million [21].
Thirdly, high level of dependency on foreign technologies and capital. Kyrgyzstan's digital development is totally based on foreign technologies and equipment. Kazakhstan provides only 61,1% of a domestic IT-services by national companies, and only 2,6% of IT equipment. 10 leading IT companies in Armenia are the branches of foreign companies [4]. On the contrary, Belarus is keeping a high level of sovereignty in digital sphere and is among the leading countries in terms of amount of IT-services export per capita [5].
Such differences require very smart and flexible approach for integration and development in digital sphere. The EEU starts with the digital transformations of certain fields of economy, administrative and integration processes, labor and resource markets and cybersecurity, without imposing ambitious goals on the union level [7].
European Union
EU Recent Priorities
The improvement of technologies is not enough in the process of digi-talization of societies. The policy of the state has the potential to support or undermine the development of the society, business, economy and the state as a whole.
One of the main priorities of the European Commission is the development of Europe in accordance with the digital age [32]. The Union sets three main goals [35]:
1) Technology that work for people - to make technologies beneficial to people's daily life;
2) A fair and competitive economy - to create more fair and competitive economy through digital technologies;
3) An open, democratic and sustainable society - to make a safe online environment, where the data is protected and to achieve "sustainable, cl i-mate-neutral and resources-efficient economy".
The measures, which the EU intend to take in order to achieve the first goal, namely the technology that works for people, are number of new strategies and regulations. They are related to the artificial intelligence, cutting-edge joint digital capacities such as super and quantum computing, communication and blockchain. Furthermore, the introduction of 5G and 6G is planned, alongside with "5G corridors for connected and automated mobil i-ty". Another focus is the Cybersecurity as more resources are planned for this segment by establishing a Joint Cybersecurity Unit. Furthermore, the digital literacy and digital skills, especially as concerns the youth, are also regarded as priorities. An initiative to improve labor conditions of platform workers is also planned. A significant step towards is the intention for improvement of public sector data flows [35].
The EU steps towards fair and competitive economy include data strategies, competition rules to be in-line with the digital age, rules for the so called platforms gate-keepers to allow new players. Furthermore, EU plans on introducing a special regulatory package, with priority on clean, circular, digital and globally competitive EU industry. Another measure in this purpose is the creation of environment for safe digital finances. Alongside, new policies, regarding the needs for improved taxation, will be introduced, in order to cover the new digital realities. The consumer agenda and its protection is a special measure in the context of the current aim [35].
The third group of measures, which target the development of open, democratic and sustainable society include deepening the internal market and digital services. More protection for the citizens in the digital environment will be ensured, alongside with the development of media. To protect the democracy the EU provides measures to support media pluralism and
ensure prevention for the European election from threats. Improving the environment, the circular economy and creation of environmental-friendly data centers are among the priorities as regards the current aim. Another important priority is the development of an "electronic health records based on a common European exchange format" [35].
The EU framework seems to be enough for the digital development of the Union but as the empirical data indicate the different countries are at different stages of development.
The introduction of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) act was a significant step towards making EU more adequate to the new technological realities and the protection of the data of its citizens. The introduction of the act is related to the digital economy and the role of monetization of personal data [24]. Furthermore, it "sets the global standard for access to data" and put the user, who generate the data to select the way the data will be used. Although the GDPR faces many critics some recent data from ITU show that effects are rather positive as it tackles "monopolistic structures and lock-ins and promoting consumer trust in digital markets" [34].
Alongside, the regulation on the free flow of non-personal data aims the protection of the competition, regarding the resources, provided by the digital economy and the data flows. Its main purpose is to remove "obstacles to the free movement of non-personal data across Member States and IT systems in Europe" [31].
Another step toward the engagement of the EU into the digital issues is the creation of ENISA and the adoption of the Cybersecurity Act [47] in particular. This indicates that the EU recognizes the most current challenges and takes steps towards measures to ensure the security of the companies and of the overall data. Cybersecurity Certification is a priority, on which specific steps are taken. In December 2019 are issued Recommendations for European standardisation in relation to the Cybersecurity Act.
Furthermore, at the end of 2019 the chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel stated that the EU should cl aim "digital sovereignty. This means that the EU has to develop its own data management platform in order to reduce its dependence on cloud-based services, based in the USA and managed by Amazon, Microsoft and Google [23].
The digitalization of Denmark
Denmark is the country, which in 2018 performs best of EU member states in the area of digitalization according to the United Nations. In 2018 the Danish Government introduced a new Strategy for Denmark's Digital Growth [50]. It consists of 38 strategic initiatives, classified in six categories, namely:
1) Digital hub for a stronger growth environment;
2) Digital enhancement of SMEs;
3) Digital skills for all;
4) Data as driver of growth;
5) Agile regulation of trade and industry;
6) Strenghtened cybersecurity
Furthermore, Denmark has a Strategy for ICT management in central government, Cyber and Information Security Strategy for the period of 20182021 and National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence. It should be noted that all this strategy are available in English on the website of the Danish Agency for Digitization [28].
Bulgarian digital strategy
In 2019 Bulgaria adopted a National Program "Digital Bulgaria 2025". The program sets 15 goals categorized in 6 priorities as follows:
1. Establishment of appropriate conditions for the development and accessibility of digital networks and services;
- the new regulatory framework for electronic communications - a key prerequisite for ensuring the sustainable development of the electronic communications sector;
- harmonized use of radio spectrum;
- overcoming regional disparities by stimulating investment in ICT infrastructures and technologies;
2. Developing a dynamic and innovative digital economy and increasing its growth potential;
- supporting ICT research and innovation;
- digitalization of Bulgarian industrial sectors and related services and development of a data-based economy;
3. Enhancement of digital competence and skills;
- modernizing school and tertiary education in the area of information and communication technologies;
- improving the qualitative characteristics of the workforce in the context of information and communication technologies;
- increase of highly qualified ICT specialists;
- ensuring the rights of children in the digital environment;
4. Ensuring effective and high-quality public e-services for business citizens and government;
- accelerated development of eGovernment;
- creating the conditions for equal access to all social groups, including people with disabilities, to digital public services;
5. Promoting a secure cyber ecosystem: addressing the challenges of cybersecurity;
- ensure a high degree of interoperability, network and information security;
- building resilience to cyber-attacks and strengthening cybersecurity capabilities;
6. Internet governance;
- governing Bulgarian top-level domains (.bg and ,6r ) in the interest of the society and becoming a preferred place for registration of names by Bulgarian citizens and organizations;
- safer Internet for children;
- Bulgarian priorities are in accordance with the aims of the European Union;
- Romanian approach to digitalization.
The Romanian National Strategy on Digital Agenda is a rather detailed document, which similarly to the Bulgarian one encompasses the main priorities of the EU. It consists of four main fields of action and their components are as follows [42]:
1. Field of action 1 - eGovernment, Interoperability, Cyber Security, Cloud Computing, Open Data, Big Data and Social Media. The aim of this field is to enhance the functioning of the public sector of Romania and to decrease its costs;
2. Field of action 2 - ICT in Education, Health, Culture and eInclusion. This field is target at optimization of ICT investments in order to reach a positive effect in the society;
3. Field of action 3 - eCommerce, Research & Development and Innovation in ICT. It aims at promoting regional advantages and support the economic growth;
4. Field of action 4 - Broadband and Digital Services Infrastructure. The current field aims at supporting the previous three and lead to more social inclusion.
At first glance it looks like that the strategies of EU member states create a favorable environment for the digitalization of their societies in accordance with the EU priorities. However, the empirical data show some disparities.
About the Indices
The Division for Public Institutions and Digital Government of the United Nation provides data [53] for various indices, regarding the digitalization of societies. The Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the UN issues the UN E-Government Survey. The volume used in the current research is the one of 2018 [56]. The survey examines the capacity and the effectiveness of the performance of the countries as regards the implementation of ICTs in the delivery of public services. The survey provides information of E-Government Development Index (EGDI), which consists of three other indices [56]:
1. Telecommunications Infrastructure Index (TII) based on data provided by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU);
2. Online Service Index (OSI) based on data collected from an independent survey questionnaire, conducted by UNDESA;
3. Human Capital Index (HCI) based on data provided by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
In the current study we provide data about the overall value of the EGDI and the ranks of the countries, the Telecommunications Infrastructure Index (TII) and the Online Service Index (OSI). The participating countries in 2018 survey are 193. The value of the EGDI and its components may vary from 0 to 1. The 0 indicates the worst performance and 1 is for the best performing countries.
Furthermore, as we are convinced of the significance of the preparation of the infrastructure for the overall digitalization of the countries, we provide data about the indices, of which TII is composed. These are [56]:
1. Estimated Internet users per 100 inhabitants;
2. Number of main fixed telephone lines per 100 inhabitants;
3. Number of mobile subscribers per 100 inhabitants;
4. Number of wireless broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants;
5. Number of fixed broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants.
Furthermore, we used data from the Global Competitiveness Index 4.0
(2018) [61], issued by the World Economic Forum. One of its pillars (pillar 3) is the ICT adoption pillar. It consists of the following sub-indicators:
1. Mobile-cellular telephone subscriptions;
2. Mobile-broadband subscriptions;
3. Fixed-broadband internet subscriptions;
4. Fiber internet subscriptions;
5. Internet users.
The indicator's value may be between 1 and 100 as the best performing countries are 100 and the worst 1. In 2018 the index covers 140 economies [60].
Another significant area of the current research is the cybersecurity. It is assessed, based on the data from the Global Cybersecurity Index (2018) [38]. The index consists of 25 indicators, relevant to the five pillars of the Global Cybersecurity Agenda (GCA), namely:
1. Legal: Measures based on the existence of legal institutions and frameworks dealing with cybersecurity and cybercrime;
2. Technical: Measures based on the existence of technical institutions and framework dealing with cybersecurity;
3. Organizational: Measures based on the existence of policy coordination institutions and strategies for cybersecurity development at the national level;
4. Capacity building: Measures based on the existence of research and development, education and training programmes, certified professionals and public sector agencies fostering capacity building;
5. Cooperation: Measures based on the existence of partnerships, cooperative frameworks and information sharing networks.
The number of the studied countries is 194. The index may vary from 0 to 1 as 0 is for the worst performing countries and 1 is for the best performing.
The last index, included in the study is the Network Readiness Index. Initially the World Economic Forum measured it. However, its 2019 edition was made by Portulans Institute and World Information Technology and Ser-
vices Alliance [45]. The index consists of four main groups of indicators, namely Technology, People, Governance and Impact. In 2019 it examines the performance of 121 economies. The high the value of the index is, the better performing is the country.
The data, provided by UN gives ground to identify some tendencies across the studied countries. The best performing countries among the studied is the Denmark. It is the country with the highest result among the EU member states. As concerns the online services index it has the highest possible result, namely 1. Russia is the other country, which also performs rather well. It is second after Denmark as concerns E-Government Development Index (EGDI) and Online Services Index (OSI). As regards the Telecommunication Infrastructure Index (TII) Belarus is on second place after Denmark.
The worst performing country is Kyrgyzstan on the EGDI, TII and OSI. Bulgaria holds average positions in the three of the studied Indices.
Fig. 1. United Nations Indices, regarding the digitalization, 2018
The results are more diverse as concern the elements of the TII. Belarus is the country with the highest share of fixed telephone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants (47.63). This share is significantly higher than the next on the list, namely Denmark with result 27.26. The poorest performance is again for Kyrgyzstan (6.42).
The situation is rather different as regards the mobile phone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants. Russian federation has the highest rate, namely 150.15. The interesting here is that Kyrgyzstan is among the first three countries with 127.84 mobile subscriptions per 100 inhabitants.
Fig. 2 Elements of the Telecommunication Infrastructure, 2018
ë Ö s 8 eu S3 _s to 5 Bulgaria — ■ C "S Russian Federation -T3 cj — " J3 ° S ° Belams -6.42 20.74 20.78 : 22.42 47.63
1 S 1 o i Belarus 11 5 78
1J.UJO/
u e.'- ¡_
—• U U u «
•a
o
S
V
.—. 1J
u « e
£?' = » r
"S « "3
Ç) -O " U
H =
T3 —, S a)
ügloi
o-2 .1 •¿-"B C . .3 ■J 5 2 5 S
.a ^
Ph
rs "T3 g «
s .2 o a
§ ^ d.2
"T3 'C . V 5 u S a
■S § Ä S-'S
"5 = -a
Bulgaria
Russian Federation
Romania
125.83
127.84
159 IS
34.50
59.50
Belarus
Denmark
59.83
71.11
73.09
96.97
3.04
Russian Federation 19.12 22.49
Bulgaria 23.80
=32353
Denmark Belarus Romania Denmark
42.54
44.86
67.53
73.70
80,19
87.39
o o
o o o r*
o o o
o o
o o
o o o o
o o o
o o d
o o d
Such circumstances have explanations - the mobile telecom initially had become the effective substitution of the previously underdeveloped tele-
com system (stationary telephones). Later smartphone with mobile internet had become the cheaper alternative to the PC internet communication.
Interesting is the fact that almost 100% of the people in Denmark use Internet (96.97%). It is follow by Russian Federation (73.09%). Bulgaria and Romania has almost identical results, respectively 59.83% and 59.50%, which is far from the share of the people, using internet in among the first three countries. However, the worst performing country again is Kyrgyzstan with only 34.50% of the people using internet.
As low as 4.04 subscriptions per 100 inhabitants in Kyrgyzstan use fixed (wired) broadband. This share in Denmark is 42.54 and this is the highest result in this index. Denmark is followed by Belarus (32.36) and Bulgaria (23.80). The Russian Federation is on 5th place, even after Romania, with only 19.12 subscriptions per 100 inhabitants using fixed (wired) broadband.
The subscriptions per 100 inhabitants for active mobile broadband are most in Denmark (123.57). Bulgaria takes the second place with 87.39 subscriptions, followed by Romania (80.19). Russia is on 4th place with 73.70 subscriptions. The lowest number is in Kyrgyzstan (44.86) (Fig. 2).
Fig. 3 The ICT adoption pillar of the Global Competitiveness Index 4.0, 2018
90
82.3
67.1 69.6 72.1
52.8
Kyrgyzstan (73) Romania (36) Bulgaria (30) Russian Denmark (8)
Federation (25)
Denmark has the highest value of the index on the ICT adoption (82.3). As expected, Russia is on second place with a high rank and value of the index (72.1). On this indicator Bulgaria is on third place among the studied countries and on 30th among all of the examined by the Global Competi-
tiveness Index. Kyrgyzstan demonstrates the lowest result among the studied countries (52.8) (Fig. 3).
Cybersecurity is one of the priorities of the examined national strategies. As regards the Global Cybersecurity Index Denmark and Russia have very close values, respectively 0.852 and 0.836. They are followed by Bulgaria (0.721), which is take 46th place in the index. The poorest performance is demonstrated by Kyrgyzstan (0.254), which is on 111th place (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4 Global Cybersecurity Index, 2018
As concerns the network readiness index the result of Denmark is significantly higher than the other examined countries. Its value is 81.08 and Denmark ranks 6th. Interesting is that the country is followed by Romania, which doesn't show very good results on other indicators. Romania is on 47th place and its scores are 55.47. It is followed by Russia with the value of the index 54.98. Bulgaria comes after the Russian Federation (54.77) and on the last place again is Kyrgyzstan (39.72) (Fig. 5).
Fig. 5 Network Readiness Index, 2019
Between "oil" and "sunlight"
EEU is relatively young union and is much less homogeneous in comparison with EU, first of all in terms of common institution and policy. The latter comes merely "bottom up" from countries and their age ndas, which are very different due to their levels of development. Countries' disparities in EEU between the extremes (Russia and Kyrgyzstan) are higher than among EU member states, as well as the disparities in economic potential in general with Russia as the core and leading economy. This makes the EEU policy highly dependable on Russian one, in terms of strategy and outcome.
Russia after 2014 had no choice than to implement the «Asian» scena rio of intensive digital development in order to keep the distance with global leaders (the USA and China). This ambitious strategy should be supported with the massive investments, which in Russian case can come mainly from the state sector. Poor economic structure and sanctions will be pushing Russia towards the «Venezuelan» scenario.
With the state as the main investor and main actor, it looks natural for Russia to choose the «sunlight» paradigm (free use of data for the develo p-ment of digital economy under the strict state regulation or even monopoly) in terms of data regulation and development. This strategy is in line with the first steps towards the «digital sovereignty». But due to traditional rent -seeking approach and short-term business orientation it can be easily bet by «oil» paradigm (preserving the rights of market leaders to extract benefits
from their leading or even monopolistic position), which will not led to any ambitious results in Russian case.
Does Russia have real choice in this situation? The attempt to keep «digital sovereignty» turned to be more or less successful and provided in terms of keeping control over national data. It seems natural to continue using the «sunlight» approach in order to reduce monopolies' (both intern a-tional, foreign and domestic) influence in order to give way for smaller companies with fresh ideas and stronger will for success.
It also seems natural to spread the «digital sovereignty» approach to all the EEU countries in order to expand the potential common digital market to the whole EEU territory. If the «sunlight» approach will be applicable on the EEU level, it would be a great chance for the Union, however the existing disparities may not let it happen and the new strategy will be needed. This could be the «infrastructure» approach, that will provide the cooperation between the countries with high level of digital sovereignty (not only the EEU member, but other countries of the Eurasian region, such as Uzbekistan or Mongolia, or even the EU members) on the exchange and mutually beneficial basis.
The EU with its organization and institutions has more instruments and potential to ensure a high level of common development across its member states as regards their digital economies. However, the current state of development of the countries show that there is a significant variety in the level of digitalization of the societies. The European Union sets regulatory framework, which ensures two directions of the digital development. On one hand, it is the protection of personal data, which is strictly regulated under the GDPR. Furthermore, the Cybersecurity Act, aiming at introducing three levels of standardization will contribute to the further protection of the data and will provide the users with safer cyber environment. To some extent these regulations may cause challenges for the companies, but they also prevent the monopolists to use their dominance and cause damage to the SMEs in particular. Thus, on other hand, the EU develops instruments, which target is to ensure the fair competition as regards the role of the data in the digital economy. This is the role of the regulation on the free flow of non-personal data. Of course, the full implementation of this regulation should be in line with the cybersecurity priorities and on the establishment of technical provisions, including the ICT infrastructure.
However, the creation of the latter is related to the development of the member states in the area of digitalization. Here the results vary significantly. The development of the digitalization of the EU member states seems to be very uneven. On one hand, it is the development of Denmark, which has working strategies on the key aspects of the digitalization. The fact that these strategies are functioning is demonstrated by the results of the country on key indicators. In 2018 it ranks first in the UN EGDI index and this makes it first among the EU member states as well. Among the studied countries, both of EU and EEU, Denmark has the best results almost on every indicator with the exception of fixed and mobile telephone subscriptions. Among the studied EU countries Bulgaria is with relatively average assessment on its digitalization and ranks 47 among all the studied countries in the UN EGDI index. Alongside, Bulgaria performs rather well as concerns the active mobile broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants and it is just after Denmark among the countries, examined in the current research. Romania ranks 67th in the UN EGDI index and it is the EU's worst performing member states, al though it also adopted a detailed strategy on the digitalization of the country. The only indicator on which its performance is relatively good and better than Bulgaria and the Russian Federation is the network readiness.
The EU results show that the adoption of strategies, even if they are synchronized with the EU regulations, isn't enough to boost the digitalization of the countries. Further effort and resources are needed on national level in order to achieve more efficiency in the are of digitalization, data protection and in the protection of competition under digital economy and Industry 4.0. It looks like that EU tries to implement policies, which regard the data both as oil and sunlight, but the countries should make their own contribution in order to achieve the goals, set by the Union.
References
1. Avcinova G.I. Politika cifrovizacii v sovremennoj Rossii: osobennosti formirovanija i perspektivy razvitija. PolitBook. 2019. №4.
2. Vilisov M.V., Kravchenko L.I., Perlov D.B., Sadov K.S. Atlas Infrastrukturnyh proektov stran EAJeS. Associacija nezavisimyh jekspertov «Centr izuchenija krizisnogo obshhestva», 2019. URL: https://centero.ru/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Atlas-2.pdf (access 07.03.2020).
3. Integrirovannaja informacionnaja sistema Evrazijskogo jekonomicheskogo sojuza (integrirovannaja sistema). URL: http://system.eaeunion.org (access 07.03.2020).
4. Informacionno-analiticheskij otchet. Analiz mirovogo opyta razvitija promyshlennosti i podhodov k cifrovoj transformacii promyshlennosti gosudarstv-chlenov Evrazijskogo jekonomicheskogo sojuza. EJeK, 2017.
5. Mihajlova-Stanjuta I.A., Demidovich I.A. Sostojanie i strategija razvitija sektora informacionno-kommunikacionnyh tehnologij v Respublike Belarus'. Jekonomicheskij vestnik universiteta. Sbornik nauchnyh trudov uchenyh i aspirantov. 2018. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/sostoyanie-i-strategiya-razvitiya-sektora-informatsionno-kommunikatsionnyh-tehnologiy-v-respublike-belarus (access 07.03.2020).
6. Nacional'nyj Proekt Cifrovaja Jekonomika. URL: http://static.government.ru/media/files/3b1AsVA1v3VziZip5VzAY8RTcLEbdC ct.pdf (access 07.03.2020).
7. Osnovnye napravlenija realizacii cifrovoj povestki EAJeS do 2025 goda, EJeK.
8. Pasport nacional'noj programmy «Cifrovaja jekonomika Rossijskoj Federacii», 2018, utverzhden na zasedanii prezidiuma Soveta pri Prezidente Rossijskoj Federacii po strategicheskomu razvitiju i nacional'nym proektam (protokol ot 24 dekabrja 2018 g. No. 16). URL: http://government.ru/info/35568/ (access 07.03.2020)
9. Perechen' poruchenij po realizacii Poslanija Prezidenta Federal'nomu Sobraniju. URL: http://www.kremlin.ru/acts/assignments/orders/53425 (access 07.03.2020).
10. Postanovlenie soveta ministrov respubliki Belarus' ot 23 marta 2016 g. №235. Ob utverzhdenii Gosudarstvennoj programmy razvitija cifrovoj jekonomiki i informacionnogo obshhestva na 2016-2020 gody.
11. Pravitel'stvo Rossijskoj Federacii. Novosti. Soveshhanie s vice-prem'erami 31.07.2017. URL: http://government.ru/news/28652/#rp1632-r (access 07.03.2020).
12. Programma "Cifrovaja jekonomika Rossijskoj Federacii", 2017, utverzhdena rasporjazheniem Pravitel'stva Rossijskoj Federacii ot 28 ijulja 2017 r. №1632-p. URL: http://government.ru/docs/28653/ (access 07.03.2020).
13. Putin zabolel cifrovoj jekonomikoj. URL: https://www.vedomosti.ru/economics/news/2017/06/02/692773-putin-zabolel (access 07.03.2020).
14. Putin raskritikoval realizaciju nacproektov v 2019 godu. URL: https://www.rbc.ru/economics/25/12/2019/5e035efb9a794779da6b5cc7 (access 07.03.2020).
15. Reshenie Vysshego soveta "O formirovanii cifrovoj povestki EAJeS", 2016. URL: http://www.eurasiancommission.org/ru/act/dmi/workgroup/Pages/PemeHMe -Bbicwero-coBeTa-OT-26-,geKa6pfl-2016-r.aspx (access 07.03.2020).
16. Tigranjan E.A. «Antiterroristicheskij paket» Jarovoj reakcii rossijskih i zarubezhnyh izdanij. Nauchnye vedomosti BelGU. Serija: Gumanitarnye nauki. 2018. Vol. 37. No 1.
17. Ukaz Prezidenta Rossijskoj Federacii ot 12 maja 2009 g. # 537 "O Strategii nacional'noj bezopasnosti Rossijskoj Federacii do 2020 goda". URL: https://www.garant.ru/products/ipo/prime/doc/95521/ (access 07.03.2020).
18. Federal'nyj zakon ot 06.07.2016 N 374-FZ "O vnesenii izmenenij v Federal'nyj zakon "O protivodejstvii terrorizmu" i otdel'nye zakonodatel'nye akty Rossijskoj Federacii v chasti ustanovlenija dopolnitel'nyh mer protivodejstvija terrorizmu i obespechenija obshhestvennoj bezopasnosti". Sobranie zakonodatel'stva RF. URL: http://www.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc&base=LAW&n=2010 78&fld = 134&dst = 100132&rnd = 214990.3492213126493249� 2225437 (access 07.03.2020).
19. Federal'nyj zakon ot 21 ijulja 2014 g. N 242-FZ "O vnesenii izmenenij v otdel'nye zakonodatel'nye akty Rossijskoj Federacii v chasti utochnenija porjadka obrabotki personal'nyh dannyh v informacionno-telekommunikacionnyh setjah". Sobranie zakonodatel'stva RF, 2014, N 19, ct. 2302. URL: http://base.garant.ru/70700506/ (access 07.03.2020).
20. Cifrovaja povestka EAJeS. URL: http://www.eurasiancommission.org/ru/act/dmi/SiteAssets/ Цм$роваfl%20п OBecTKa%20CTpaTerMMecKoe%20BMfleHMe.pdf (access 07.03.2020).
21. Jelkeeva K. "Taza koom" - ambicioznyj proekt Kyrgyzstana// URL: https://rus.azattyk.org/a/28519936.html (access 07.03.2020).
22. Andriole S.J., Cox T., Khin K.M. The Innovator's Imperative Rapid Technology Adoption for Digital Transformation, 2018. (Boca Raton, FL, USA: Taylor & Francis Group).
23. Angela Merkel urges EU to seize control of data from US tech titans, 2019. URL: https://www.ft.com/content/956ccaa6-0537-11ea-9afa-d9e2401fa7ca (accessed 07.03.2020).
24. Böhmecke-Schwafert M., Niebel C. The General Data Protection's (GDPR) Impact on Data-Driven Business Models: The Case of The Right to Data Portability And Facebook. ITU Journal: ICT Discoveries, 2018, Special Issue 2.
25. Brynjolfsson E., Kahin B. Understanding the digital economy: data, tools, and research, 2000. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
26. Celebic G., Rendulic D. Basic Concepts of Information and Communication Technology, 2011. Zagreb, Croatia: Open Society for Idea Exchange (ODRAZI).
27. Crnjac M., Veza I., Banduka N. From Concept to the Introduction of Industry 4.0. International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management (IJIEM), 2017, Vol. 8 No 1.
28. Danish Agency for Digitization. URL: https://en.digst.dk/ (accessed 07.03.2020).
29. Economist. Are data more like oil or sunlight?, 2020. URL: https://www.economist.com/special-report/2020/02/20/are-data-more-like-oil-or-sunlight (access 07.03.2020).
30. European Commission, Digital Transformation. URL: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/policy/digital-transformation_en (access 07.03.2020).
31. European Commission. Free flow of non-personal data. URL: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/free-flow-non-personal-data (access 07.03.2020).
32. European Commission. Strategy. URL: https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy_en (access 07.03.2020).
33. European Parliament. Industry 4.0 Digitalisation for productivity and growth (Briefing), 2015. European Parliamentary Research Service.
URL: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2015/568337/ EPRS_BRI(2015)568337_EN.pdf (access 07.03.2020).
34. European Parliament. Is data the new oil? Competition issues in the digital economy (Briefing), 2020. European Parliamentary Research Service. URL: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/646117/EPRS _BRI(2020)646117_EN.pdf (access 07.03.2020).
35. European Union. Shaping Europe's Digital Future, 2020. URL: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/communication-shaping-europes-digital-future-feb2020_en_4.pdf (access 07.03.2020).
36. Eurasian Economic Commission. IT Department. URL: http://www.eurasiancommission.org/en/act/dmi/inftech/Pages/default.aspx (access 07.03.2020).
37. Eurasian Economic Commission. URL: http://www.eurasiancommission.org/en/act/dmi/Pages/default.aspx (accessed 07.03.2020).
38. International Telecommunication Union. Global Cybersecurity Index 2018. URL: https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-d/opb/str/D-STR-GCI.01-2018-PDF-E.pdf (access 07.03.2020).
39. Leodolter W. Digital Transformation Shaping the Subconscious Minds of Organizations. Innovative Organizations and Hybrid Intelligences. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2017.
40. Mayorova L.V. The Concept of "Digital Economy": Development in the Regions. Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research. 2019. Vol. 47.
41. National Program "Digital Bulgaria 2025" and Road map for its implementation are adopted by CM Decision №730/05-12-2019. URL: https://www.mtitc.government.bg/en/category/85/national-program-digital-bulgaria-2025-and-road-map-its-implementation-are-adopted-cm-decision-no73005-12-2019 (access 07.03.2020).
42. National Strategy on Digital Agenda for Romania. 2014. URL: https://www.trusted.ro/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Digital-Agenda-Strategy-for-Romania-8-september-2014.pdf (accessed 07.03.2020).
43. OECD. Measuring the Digital Transformation: A Roadmap for the Future. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2019.
44. Osaka declaration on digital economy. 2019. URL: http://en.kremlin.ru/supplement/5427 (access 07.03.2020).
45. Portulans Institute. Network Readiness Index 2019. Washington D.C., USA: Portulans Institute, 2019.
46. Qin J., Liu Y., Grosvenor R. A Categorical Framework of Manufacturing for Industry 4.0 and Beyond. Procedia CIRP. 2016. Vol. 52.
47. Regulation (EU) 2019/881 Of the European Parliament and of the Council. 2019. URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019R0881&from = EN (access 07.03.2020).
48. Roblek V., Mesko M., Krapez A. A Complex View of Industry 4.0. SAGE Open. 2016. April-June.
49. Rojko A. Industry 4.0 Concept: Background and Overview. iJIM.
2017. Vol. 11. No. 5.
50. Strategy for Denmark's Digital Growth, 2018. URL: https://eng.em.dk/media/10566/digital-growth-strategy-report_uk_web-2.pdf (access 07.03.2020).
51. Tay S.I., Lee T.C., Hamid N.A.A., Ahmad, A.N.A. An Overview of Industry 4.0: Definition, Components, and Government Initiatives. Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems. 2018. Vol. 10. 14-Special Issue.
52. The Boston Consulting Group. Russia Online? Catch Up Impossible To Fall Behind. 2016. URL: https://image-src.bcg.com/Images/Russia-Online-ENG_tcm26-152058.pdf (access 07.03.2020).
53. UN E-Government Surveys. URL: https://publicadministration.un.org/en/Research/UN-e-Government-Surveys (access 07.03.2020).
54. Digital Economy Report 2019. Value Creation and Capture: Implications for Developing Countries / United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. 2019. URL: https://unctad.org/en/pages/PublicationWebflyer.aspx?publicationid=2466 (access 07.03.2020).
55. United Nations. UNDP Digital Strategy, 2019. URL: https://digitalstrategy.undp.org/assets/UNDP-digital-strategy-2019.pdf (access 07.03.2020).
56. United Nations. United Nations E-Government Survey 2018. Gearing E-Government to Support Transformation Towards Sustainable and Resilient Societies. New York: UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs,
2018.
57. Verina N., Titko J. Digital Transformation: Conceptual Framework. Contemporary Issues In Business, Management And Economics Engineering: International Scientific Conference, (Vilnius, Lithuania, 9-10 May
2019). URL: http://cibmee.vgtu.lt/index.php/verslas/2019/paper/viewFile/ 191/197 (access 07.03.2020).
58. Shumilov A. Digital politics the language of modern politics. PolitBook. 2019. №4.
59. Webster F. Information and Communications Technologies: Lud-dism Revisited. In John Downey and Jim McGuigan Technocities. London, UK: Sage Publications. 1999.
60. World Bank Group. Competing in the Digital Age: Russia Digital Economy, 2018. URL: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/ 860291539115402187/pdf/Competing-in-the-Digital-Age-Policy-Implications-for-the-Russian-Federation-Russia-Digital-Economy-Report.pdf (access 07.03.2020).
61. World Economic Forum. The Global Competitiveness Report 2018. URL: https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-competitveness-report-2018 (access 07.03.2020).
62. Zimmermann H.-D. Understanding the Digital Economy: Challenges for new Business Models. AMCIS 2000 Proceedings. 2000.
