IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

A Conceptual Model and Methodology for Evaluating E-Infrastructure Deployment and Its Application to OECD and MENA Countries

  • Baseem Al-Athwari

    ()

    (Technology Management, Economcis, and Policy Program; College of Engineering; Seoul National University)

  • Jorn Altmann

    ()

    (Technology Management, Economcis, and Policy Program; College of Engineering; Seoul National University)

  • Almas Heshmati

    ()

    (Department of Economics, Sogang University)

As information and communication technologies have spread throughout the world, countries have realized the importance of investing more and more in building ICT-relevant infrastructure. However, for fostering further information and communication technology (ICT) development, countries are in need of an analysis tool for measuring their advancement in ICT-relevant infrastructure. Motivated by a variety of attempts to generate measures of ICT development, this study aims to develop an index that quantifies the level of ICT-relevant (e-infrastructure) deployment. In particular, this study introduces two e-infrastructure indices that are composed of six components, namely electricity, telecommunication, Internet, processing power, broadcasting, and human capital. Each component is generated from one or more indicators. This composition provides the possibility of tracking each of them separately and to identify strengths and weaknesses of each country with respect to the ICT-relevant area of the component. It will also help pointing out the source of failure in developing the ICT-related infrastructure and to develop policies for enhancing ICT-related infrastructure accordingly. For the index computation, the study uses a parametric and a non-parametric computation method rather than the traditional approaches which are frequently used in literature. In addition to this, this study also aims at analyzing the indices ranking differences among OECD countries and Middle East & North Africa (MENA) countries, using data for the time period between 2000 and 2007. The ranking of the countries shows that MENA and OECD countries differ significantly in their e-infrastructure development. However, a small group of MENA countries are ranked higher than a few OECD countries. Those countries belong to the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: ftp://147.46.237.98/DP-102.pdf
File Function: First version, 2013
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Seoul National University; Technology Management, Economics, and Policy Program (TEMEP) in its series TEMEP Discussion Papers with number 2013102.

as
in new window

Length: 20 pages
Date of creation: Apr 2013
Date of revision: Apr 2013
Publication status: Published in Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Management of Technology (IAMOT 2013).
Handle: RePEc:snv:dp2009:2013102
Contact details of provider: Postal: 599 Gwanak-Ro, Gwanak-Gu, Seoul 151-744
Phone: +82-2-880-8386
Fax: +82-2-873-7229
Web page: http://temep.snu.ac.kr/
Email:


More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Kang, Sang Mok, 2002. "A sensitivity analysis of the Korean composite environmental index," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2-3), pages 159-174, December.
  2. Almas Heshmati & Arno Tausch & Chemen S. J. Bajalan, 2008. "Measurement and Analysis of Child Well-Being in Middle and High Income Countries," European Journal of Comparative Economics, Cattaneo University (LIUC), vol. 5(2), pages 187-249, December.
  3. Farhad Noorbakhsh, 1998. "The human development index: some technical issues and alternative indices," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(5), pages 589-605.
  4. Almas Heshmati & JongEun Oh, 2006. "Alternative Composite Lisbon Development Strategy Indices: A Comparison of EU, USA, Japan and Korea," European Journal of Comparative Economics, Cattaneo University (LIUC), vol. 3(2), pages 131-170, December.
  5. Andersen, Torben M. & Herbertsson, Tryggvi Thor, 2003. "Measuring Globalization," IZA Discussion Papers 817, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  6. Daniele Archibugi & Alberto Coco, 2004. "A New Indicator of Technological Capabilities for Developed and Developing Countries (ArCo)," SPRU Working Paper Series 111, SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex.
  7. Meghnad Desai & Sakiko Fukuda-Parr & Claes Johansson & Fransisco Sagasti, 2002. "Measuring the Technology Achievement of Nations and the Capacity to Participate in the Network Age," Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 95-122.
  8. Heshmati Almas, 2006. "Measurement of a Multidimensional Index of Globalization," Global Economy Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-30, May.
  9. M. Desai, S. Fukuda-Parr, C. Johansson, and F. Sagasti, 2002. "Measuring Technology Achievement of Nations and the Capacity to Participate in the Network Age," Human Development Occasional Papers (1992-2007) HDOCPA-2002-22, Human Development Report Office (HDRO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:snv:dp2009:2013102. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jorn Altmann)

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

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

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

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.