E-Government
Survey 2022
The Future of
Digital GovernmentADepartment of Economic and Social Affairs

UNITED NATIONS
E-GOVERNMENTSURVEY 2022
The Future of Digital Government

UNITED NATIONSNew York, 2022
https://publicadministration.un.org/en/
publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/i2022 UN E-Government Survey

iiDisclaimers

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
The Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat is a vital interface between
global policies in the economic, social and environmental spheres and national action. The Department
works in three main interlinked areas: (i) it compiles, generates and analyses a wide range of economic,
social and environmental data and information on which States Members of the United Nations draw toreview common problems and to take stock of policy options; (ii) it facilitates the negotiations of Member
States in many intergovernmental bodies on joint course of action to address ongoing or emerging
global challenges; and (iii) it advises interested Governments on the ways and means of translating policy
frameworks developed in United Nations conferences and summits into programmes at the country level
and, through technical assistance, helps build national capacities.

Disclaimers
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply theexpression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning thelegal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of
its frontiers or boundaries. The designations “developed” and “developing” economics are intended forstatistical convenience and do not necessarily imply a judgment about the state reached by a particularcountry or area in the development process. The term “country” as used in the text of this publication also
refers, as appropriate, to territories or areas. The term “dollar” normally refers to the United States dollar($). The views expressed are those of the individual authors and do not imply any expression of opinion on
the part of the United Nations.
Copyright © United Nations, 2022
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in retrieval system or transmitted,
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without priorpermission.
ST/ESA/PAD/SER.E/216
Sales no.: E.22.II.H.2
ISBN: 978-92-1-123213-4
eISBN: 978-92-1-001944-6
Print ISSN: 2411-8257
eISSN: 2411-829X
United Nations E-Government Surveys:
2022 The Future of Digital Government
2020 Digital Government in the Decade of Action for Sustainable Development
2018 Gearing E-Government to support transformation towards sustainable and resilient societies
2016 E-Government for Sustainable Development2014 E-Government for the Future We Want2012 E-Government for the People2010 Leveraging E-Government at a Time of Financial and Economic Crisis
2008 From E-Government to Connected Governance2005 From E-Government to E-Inclusion
2004 Towards Access for Opportunity
2003 World Public Sector Report: E-Government at the Crossroads
2001 Benchmarking E-Government: A Global Perspective
Website: https://publicadministration.un.org/en/
publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/
Layout: Clung Wicha Press Co., Ltd., Thailand
Cover Design: United Nations Department of Global Communications, New York
Photo credit: pixabay.com
Printed at the United Nations, New Yorkiii

2022 UN E-Government Survey

Preface
The release of this 12th edition of the UN
E-Government Survey in 2022 occurs at a critical
moment, with only 8 years left to achieve theSustainable Development Goals (SDGs) - theshared blueprint for every country to jointly build
a better and sustainable future for all. In themeantime, the international community is facing
interlinked and cascading crises with dangerous
implications for peace and security, social stability,
public health, climate, and our fragile ecosystems.
Against this backdrop, the 2022 Survey
highlights the increasing contributions ofdigital transformation and digital governmentin accelerating the realization of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and in making
sure that no one is left behind and offline in the digital age. The Survey demonstrates that digitaltechnologies, among other things, have allowed governments to play a key role in addressing thechallenges surrounding the global health crisis and in ensuring effective delivery of essential public
services during a period of growing isolation, uncertainty and vulnerability.
The 2022 Survey highlights the important role that digital government tools have played the ongoingfight against the COVID-19 pandemic. Over the past two years 90 per cent of Member States haveestablished dedicated portals, or created space in their national portals, to address issues and public
services related to the pandemic. These digital government tools have proven essential. Goingforward, digital government can undoubtedly help us tackle other global crises, including climatechange, and prepare us to work through future shocks and risks.
The survey results in this edition also point to a remarkable improvement in telecommunications
infrastructure and human capacity development and an encouraging improvement in service
provision, with the global E-Government Development Index (EGDI) average having increased overall.
Nonetheless, EGDI values tend to be higher for higher-income countries than for lower-income ones,
and the EGDI average for least developed countries (LDCs), particularly those in Africa, is still far
below the global average, underscoring gaps in e-government development and the persistence ofthe digital divide.
The 12th edition also marks the first study to incorporate an assessment of e-government in themost populous city in each of the 193 United Nations Member States. Despite a general digital
performance gap between city portals and their national counterparts, most cities - especially more
populous cities - have improved their Local Online Service Index scores by virtue of greater accessto critical resources such as a highly skilled workforce, a broad knowledge and skill base, and a
dedicated public budget.

iv

Preface

Looking forward, I wish to call upon e-government leaders from all over the world to redouble
their efforts including by investing more in national digital transformation, and timely adoption of
a comprehensive and innovative digital government framework, so that advances in e-government
are integrated with broader sustainable development initiatives, ultimately serving the wider goal of
supporting the achievement of the SDGs and leaving no one behind, offline.
The 2022 UN E-Government Survey is published at a challenging time, but we find hope andinspiration in progress in digital development. Managed well, digital transformation and digital
government, through inclusive application of digital technology and multistakeholder partnerships,
will continue to be a powerful driver for advancing a sustainable future for all.

LI Junhua
Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs
United Nationsv

2022 UN E-Government Survey

Acknowledgements
The 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey was prepared by the Department of Economic andSocial Affairs of the United Nations (UN DESA), through its Division for Public Institutions and Digital
Government (DPIDG). The report was prepared under the responsibility of Juwang Zhu (Director,
DPIDG), by a team of United Nations staff led by Vincenzo Aquaro. The team members were Yusuf
Ekrem Eren, Arpine Korekyan, Wai Min Kwok, Saae Kwon, Madeleine Losch, Rachael Purcell, andDeniz Susar.
The lead authors for the chapters were: Arpine Korekyan with co-author Vincenzo Aquaro (Chapters
1 and 2); Deniz Susar (Chapter 3); Wai Min Kwok (Chapter 4); and, Vincenzo Aquaro, with co-authorMark Minevich (Chapter 5). The Data Management Team was overseen by Vincenzo Aquaro.
This report was subject to external peer review to ensure quality and objectivity. External peer
reviewers were: Julia Glidden, Rony Medaglia and Gianluca Misuraca (Chapters 1 and 2); Judy
Backhouse (Chapter 3); David Le Blanc and David Souter (Chapter 4); Delfina Soares and Zheng Lei(Chapter 5).
Chapter 3 benefited from the United Nations University, Operating Unit on Policy-Driven Electronic
Governance (UNU-EGOV), specifically by Ms. Delfina Soares, Head, and by Mr. Dimitrios Sarantis,
Postdoctoral fellow.
This report also benefited from insights shared by external experts at an online Expert Group Meeting,on 29-31 March April 2021 – “Expert Group Meeting in Preparation for the UN E-Government Survey
2022”. The expert participants included: Alexandre Barbosa, Cheow Hoe Chan, Anir Chowdhury,
José Clastornik, Jane Coffin, Birku Reta Entele, Sunil Geness, Julia Glidden, Salim Hasham, Ellen
Helsper, Marjin Jansenn, Enzo Le Fevre, Mixia Liu, Francisco Lupiáñez Villanueva, Rony Medaglia,
Samia Melhem, Jessica Musila, Minerva Novero, Aroon P. Manoharan, Theresa Pardo, Fadi Salem,
Davoud Taghawi-Nejad, Jane Treadwell and Lei Zheng. The meeting also involved resource persons:Ayman Alarabiat, Rehema Baguma, Mariana Lameiras, Morten Meyerhoff, Gianluca Misuraca,
Dimitrios Sarantis and Delfina Soares.

Contributions
The Complex Network Analysis for the UN DESA Pilot Study was provided by Professor Roberto
Bellotti with substantive contribution of Dr. Loredana Bellantuono from University of Bari, Italy.
DPIDG interns provided general research support:
Cailan Ashcroft, Nato Balavadze, Yunying Bao, Jieying Cai, Si Chen, Léandra Grizot, Kalin Grose,
Guillaume Hemmert, Xiangyi Huang, Mallorie Le Clech, Edward Lee, Qianqian Li, Xiaofan Liu,
Andrea Lo Sasso, Muyao Lyu, Martina Manzari, Jonas Meuleman, Zeynep Sude Neriman, Victoria
Palacin Silva, Raffaella Savoy, Sinan Tang, Muyu Xie, Yi Xie, Xinyi Yang, Huinan Yu, Eric Zhang andAngelica Zundel.
Data management and statistics support was provided by Enkel Daljani, Diren Kocakusak and Tommi
Salminen.
Support in the production of the maps used in this report was provided by the United Nations
Geospatial Information Section (New York).

vi

Acknowledgements

The chapters of the publication were edited by Terri Lore.
United Nations Volunteers provided research support for work related to the assessment of theOnline Services Index and the Local Online Services Index (a complete list of these contributors isavailable in the annex A of the Survey).

Contributing Member States and organizations:
In preparation for this publication, a series of consultation sessions were held in May 2021 withstakeholders to gather feedback and suggestions on the Survey’s substance and methodology.
These open sessions were held online, across various regions and time zones, and were attended
by representatives of governments and other sectors. A consolidated report on the outcomes fromthese consultations, as well as recordings of each session, are available on the DPIDG website underthe event pages for the Asia Pacific session, the Americas session, and the Europe, Middle East andAfrica session.
Special thanks is extended to the following of the following partners, who will translate this report
into languages other than English: the Telecommunication Regulatory Authority, United ArabEmirates (Arabic), the China National Academy of Governance (Chinese), Al Akhawayn University,
Morocco (French), the Ministry of Development of Information Technologies and Communicationsof the Republic of Uzbekistan (Russian), and the Agency of Electronic Government and Society for
the Information and Knowledge of Uruguay (Spanish).

vii

2022 UN E-Government Survey

Acronyms
3D

three-dimensional

4G

fourth-generation wireless technology for digital cellular networks

5G

fifth generation wireless technology for digital cellular networks

AI

artificial intelligence

AIM

Account + Identity = MobilityAPIapplication programming interface

ASEAN

Association of Southeast Asian Nations

CDTO

chief digital (and) technology officer

CEO

chief executive officer

CIO

chief information officer

COVID-19	Coronavirus Disease 2019CPcontent provision (OSI subindex)

DTT

digital terrestrial television

EGDI

E-Government Development Index

EMUI

Encrypted Mobile User Identity

EPI

e-participation (OSI subindex)

EPI

E-Participation Index

FDI

foreign direct investment

GB

Gigabyte(s)GCC	Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf

viii

GDP

gross domestic product

GDPR

General Data Protection Regulation (European Union)

GII

Gender Inequality Index

GIS

geographic information system

GNI

gross national income

GPII

Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure

GPS

Global Positioning System

HCI

Human Capital Index

HTTPSHypertext Transfer Protocol SecureAcronyms

HV

high-very high (rating class or quartile subgroup)

ICT

information and communications technology

ID

Identification/identity

IDC	

International Data CorporationIF

institutional framework (OSI subindex)

IFC	

International Finance Corporation

IoT

Internet of Things

IP

Internet ProtocolIT

information technology

ITU

International Telecommunication Union

LDC	

least developed country

LEO

low Earth orbit

LGQ	Local Government Questionnaire
LLDC

landlocked developing countryLM

low-middle (rating class or quartile subgroup)

LNOB

leaving no one behind

LOSI	Local Online Services Index
M2M

machine-to-machine

MEL	monitoring, evaluation and learning

MFS

mobile financial services

MH

middle-high (rating class or quartile subgroup)

MSQ

Member States QuestionnaireNGO

non-governmental organization

NLP

natural language processing

OECD

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

OGD

open government data

OSI

Online Services Index

pdf

Portable Document Format

QR

Quick Response (code)ix

2022 UN E-Government SurveyxSDG

Sustainable Development Goal

SIDS

small island developing State(s)SMS

Short Message Service

SP

services provision (OSI subindex)

STI Forum

Multi-Stakeholder Forum on Science, Technology and Innovation for the
SDGs

TEC	

technology (OSI subindex)

TII

Telecommunications Infrastructure Index

UAE

United Arab Emirates

UK

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandUN

United Nations

UN DESA

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs

UNDP

United Nations Development Programme

UN-HABITAT

United Nations Human Settlements Programme

UNCRD

United Nations Centre for Regional Development

UNESCO

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UNICEF ECARO

United Nations Children’s Fund Europe and Central Asia Regional Office

UNU-EGOV

United Nations University Operating Unit on Policy-Driven Electronic
Governance

US or USA

United States of America

VAT

Value Added Tax

VHvery high (rating class or quartile subgroup)

WCAG

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines

WDI

World Development Indicator

WHO

World Health Organization

XML	

Extensible Markup Language

Contents
Prefaceiv

Acknowledgementsvi

Acronyms

viii

About the Survey

xix

Executive Summary

xxiii

1.

Global Trends in E-Government1

1.1

Introduction1

1.2

E-government rankings in 20222

1.3

E-government development at a glance3

1.3.1 Overall EGDI results3

1.3.2	Country EGDI levels and quartile classifications

5

1.3.3 Movement between EGDI groups

7

1.4

The countries leading in e-government development

8

1.5

OSI, TII and HCI performance for each EGDI group

11

1.6

National income and e-government development

13

1.7	Complex network analysis: a different perspective on e-government development

16

1.8

Online Services Index

18

1.8.1	Country groupings by OSI and EGDI levels

19

1.8.2	Country OSI levels by income group24

1.8.3 Services provision subindex: progress in online services delivery

25

1.8.4 Technology subindex

37

1.8.5 Institutional framework subindex

38

1.8.6	Content provision subindex: sharing public information

39

1.8.7 E-participation subindex

40

E-government during COVID-19: ad hoc services

44

1.9

2.

1.10 Summary and conclusion

46

Regional E-Government Development and the Performance of Country Groupings

53

2.1

Introduction

53

2.2

Regional EGDI rankings

53

2.2.1 Regional performance in online services provision57

2.2.2 Online services for people in vulnerable situations

59

2.2.3	COVID-19 measures61

2.2.4 Africa: country grouping analysis

62

2.2.5 The Americas: country grouping analysis

65

2.2.6 Asia: country grouping analysis

68

2.2.7 Europe: country grouping analysis

71

2.2.8 Oceania: country grouping analysis

74

2.3	Countries in special situations
2.3.1	Least developed countries

76
78

xi

2022 UN E-Government Survey

2.3.2	Landlocked developing countries80

2.3.3 Small island developing States

82

Summary and conclusion

85

Local E-Government Development

87

3.1

87

2.4

3.

Introduction

3.2	Current status of local online services

88

3.2.2	Current status of local e-government

88
100

3.3.1 Institutional framework101

3.3.2	Legal framework

101

3.3.3 Strategy and implementation

102

3.3.4 Usage of online services

104

3.3.5 User satisfaction

105

3.3.6 Social media

106

3.3.7	COVID-19 measures

106

3.3.8 Smart city and new technologies

107

Partnerships and application of LOSI methodology in countries

109

3.5	Conclusion

110

Leaving no one behind in the hybrid digital society

113

4.1

Introduction

113

4.1.1	Leaving no one behind is one of the 11 principles of effective governance forsustainable development

113

4.1.2 The new face of inequality is digital

114

4.1.3 The double-edged sword of e-government in leaving no one behind

115

Identifying those being left behind in e-government

117

4.2.1 Those living near or below the poverty line

117

4.2.2 Women and girls

118

4.2.3 Older persons

120

4.2.4 Persons with disabilities

121

4.2.5 Youth122

4.2.6 Migrants and refugees

123

4.2.7 Other vulnerable populations

124

Barriers relating to access, affordability and ability (3As)124

4.3.1 The dynamic shifts and multiplying effects of digital exclusion

124

4.3.2 Access

126

4.3.3 Affordability

130

4.3.4 Ability

133

4.2

4.3

4.4

xii

3.2.1 Methodology

3.3	Local Government Questionnaire

3.4

4.

88

The role data, design and delivery can play in ensuring no one is left behind

136

4.4.1 Data138

4.4.2 Design

141

4.4.3 Delivery

149

4.5

5.

Policy messages

152

4.5.1 Recognizing that the new face of inequality is digital

152

4.5.2 Identifying barriers linked to access, affordability and ability

152

4.5.3 The integrated roles of data, design and delivery in shaping inclusive e-government

153

4.5.4 “Leaving no one behind” as the guiding principle for e-government development

154

4.5.5	Leaving no country behind in e-government

155

4.6	Conclusion

156

The Future of Digital Government: Trends, Insights and Conclusions

165

5.1

Megatrends at the global and regional levels

166

5.2

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on digital government

170

5.3

The importance of engaging the private sector

173

5.4

The future of digital transformation in the public sector

175

5.4.1 Open Government Data

176

5.4.2	Cloud computing technology

177

5.4.3	Cybersecurity, privacy data protection issues

179

5.4.4 Evolving technologies and new approaches in digital government

180

Digital government at the local level

182

5.6	Leaving no one behind in the digital society

183

5.7	Conclusions

184

5.5

Annexes

189

Annex A: Survey Methodology

189

A.1

E-Government Development Index: An Overview

189

A.2

Online Service Index (OSI)

191

A.3

Telecommunication Infrastructure Index (TII)

196

A.4

Human Capital Index (HCI)

197

A.5

E-Participation Index (EPI)

199

A.6

Member State Questionnaire (MSQ)201

A.7	Local Online Service Index (LOSI)

202

A.8	Country Classiﬁcations and Nomenclature in the Survey

207

A.9

207

Portal Assessment Phase for Online Service Index and Local Online Service Index

A.10 Open Government Data Index (Pilot Study)
Annex B:
B.1	Complex Network Analysis (Pilot Study)

210
277
277

xiii

2022 UN E-Government Survey

Boxes
Box 1.1

Rwanda, India and Ecuador

21

Box 2.1

Mauritius, Rwanda, Seychelles and South Africa

64

Box 2.2

Peru, Guyana and Belize67

Box 2.3

United Arab Emirates and Kazakhstan70

Box 2.4

Serbia: focusing on digital skills and services delivery73

Box 2.5

Fiji: expanding the provision of digital services to improve accessibility

75

Box 2.6	Cambodia

78

Box 2.7

Armenia: aligning public administration priorities with SDGs

81

Box 2.8

Grenada84

Box 4.1	Leaving no one behind is one of the 11 principles of effective governance for sustainable
development, endorsed by the United Nations Economic and Social Council
114
Box 4.2

Financial inclusion in Bangladesh: Making Digital Financial Services Work for the Poor118

Box 4.3

Digital identify and social support for refugees in Poland141

Box 4.4

Social protection disbursements in Togo - through AI enabled by mobile data and satellite
imagery145

Box 4.5

United Kingdom: Increasing Accessibility by Implementing Standards

148

Box 5.1	Cloud Technology for Disaster Response in Ukraine178

Box A.1

200

E-Participation Framework

TablesTable 1.1	Leading countries in e-government development, 2022

8

Table 1.2

14

Average EGDI and subindex values, by income group, 2022

Table 1.3	Convergence and divergence of OSI levels relative to EGDI levels, 2022

TII and HCI subcomponent convergence and divergence for the very high OSI group, 2022 20

Table 1.5

TII and HCI subcomponent convergence and divergence for the high OSI group, 2022

22

Table 1.6

TII and HCI subcomponent convergence and divergence for the middle OSI group, 2022

23

Table 1.7

TII and HCI subcomponent convergence and divergence for the low OSI group, 2022

23

Table 1.8

Trends in the provision of online transactional services and breakdown by OSI level, 20202022 (Number of countries and percentage change)

27

Table 1.9

Percentage of the population using the Internet and fixed (wired) broadband, active mobile
broadband, and mobile cellular telephone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants, by region, 2022 36

Table 1.10	Countries ranked highest in the 2022 E-Participation Index

41

Table 2.1	Countries in Africa with the highest EGDI values

63

Table 2.2	Countries in the Americas with the highest EGDI values

66

Table 2.3	Countries in Asia with the highest EGDI values

69

Table 2.4

E-government development in the member countries of the Cooperation Council for the
Arab States of the Gulf (GCC)

70

Table 2.5	Countries in Europe with the highest EGDI values

72

Table 2.6	Countries in Oceania listed in descending order by EGDI value

74

Table 2.7	Least developed countries with the highest EGDI value

79

Table 2.8	Landlocked developing countries with the highest EGDI values

81

Table 2.9

83

Small island developing States with the highest EGDI values

Table 3.1	Cities in the very high LOSI category

xiv

20

Table 1.4

89

Table 3.2	LOSI and OSI levels for 2022: convergence and divergence (number and percentage of cities) 91
Table 3.3	Leading cities assessed according to each LOSI 2022 criterion

93

Table 4.1

Inadequacy of online access to unemployment benefits and social protection programmes 118

Table 4.2

Availability of online information relating to long-term care for older persons

121

Table 4.3

Online options for reporting discrimination and making declarations to the police

124

Table 4.4

Number of countries providing free public Internet access points, 2018, 2020 and 2022

132

Table 4.5	Countries that have specific measures or mechanisms in place to help vulnerable groups
acquire digital skills and achieve digital literacy

134

Table 4.6	Countries with national portals that have content available in more than one official
language, 2020 and 2022

135

Table 4.7	Countries that have e-participation measures or mechanisms in place for women andother vulnerable groups

142

Table 4.8

Number of national portals integrating responsive web design, 2018, 2020 and 2022

147

Table 4.9

Number of countries providing AI-enabled chatbot functionality in their national portals,
2018, 2020 and 2022

148

Number of countries with multichannel payment options for public utilities and otherservices, 2018, 2020 and 2022

150

Table 5.1

Regional distribution of the population in countries with EGDI values above and below
the average global EGDI value, 2022

169

Table A.1

Telecommunication infrastructure index (TII) and changes of its components (2001-2022) 197

Table A.2

Human Capital Index (HCI) and changes of its components (2001-2022)

199

Table A.3

E-Government Development Index

213

Table A.4

Regional and Economic Groupings for E-Government Development Index (EGDI) and
E-Participation (EPI)

221

Table A.5

E-Government Development Index (EGDI) of Least Developed Countries (LDCs)

222

Table A.6

E-Government Development Index (EGDI) of Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs)

224

Table A.7

E-Government Development Index (EGDI) of Small Island Developing States (SIDS)

226

Table A.8

Online Service Index (OSI) and its components

228

Table A.9

Telecommunications Infrastructure Index (TII) and its components

236

Table A.10

Human Capital Index (HCI) and its components

244

Table A.11

E-Participation Index (EPI) and its components

252

Table 4.10

Table A.12	Local Online Service Index (LOSI) and its components

259

Table A.13

267

Open Government Data Index (OGDI)

Table A.14	Country ISO codes

272

Table B.1

279

The list of countries grouped by development clusters according to the pilot study

FiguresFigure ES.1

Global and regional EGDI averages, country groupings by EGDI levels, and online services
provision in selected sectors, 2020 and 2022
xxiv

Figure ES.2	Comparison of city portals and nations portals’ performance
Figure ES.3
Figure ES.4

xxvi

An integrated framework for e-government: strengthening data, design and delivery(enablers) to address barriers relating to access, affordability and ability

xxviiiPopulation living in countries with EGDI values above and below the world average(Thousands)

xxix

Figure 1.1

Geographical distribution of the four EGDI groups, 2022

3

Figure 1.2

Number and proportion of countries within each EGDI grouping, 2020 and 2022

4xv

2022 UN E-Government Survey

Figure 1.3

Average values for the EGDI and its component indices, 2020 and 2022

4

Figure 1.4

Global and regional EGDI averages, 2022

5

Figure 1.5

Movement between EGDI groups from 2020 to 2022

7

Figure 1.6

Member States Questionnaires: key findings for the top EGDI performers* (number ofcountries responding positively to the questions)10

Figure 1.7

OSI, TII and HCI subindex values for each EGDI group, 2022

12

Figure 1.8

OSI, TII and HCI subindex values for each EGDI level, by income group, 2022

13

Figure 1.9

Percentage change in average EGDI and subindex values between 2020 and 2022,
by income group

14

Figure 1.10

Average EGDI values for 2020 and 2022, by income group

15

Figure 1.11

Distribution of countries by cluster based on complex network analysis pilot study findings
and EGDI values, 2022
17

Figure 1.12

Snapshot distribution of OSI and EGDI levels for United Nations Member States, 2022

19

Figure 1.13

OSI averages by income group, 2022

24

Figure 1.14

Numbers of Member States offering specified numbers of online transactional services,
2022

25

Trends in the provision of online transactional services, 2020-2022 (Number of countries
and percentage change)

26

Percentage of countries offering each type of online transactional service, by OSI level,
2022

28

Figure 1.17

Numbers of countries offering selected services that can be completed partially or
fully online, 2022

29

Figure 1.18

Number of countries with e-procurement platforms and digital invoicing capabilities,
by region, 2022

29

Percentage of countries with e-procurement platforms and digital invoicing,by income level, 2022

30

Figure 1.15
Figure 1.16

Figure 1.19

xvi

Figure 1.20

Number of countries that offer services integrating or supported by GIS or other geospatial
technologies, by OSI level and region, 2022
31

Figure 1.21

Numbers of countries offering services for people in vulnerable situations that can becompleted partially or fully online, 2020 and 2022 (Percentage change)

32

Figure 1.22

Number of countries providing newly assessed online services for people living in vulnerable
situations, and number and percentage of countries in which such services can be fullycompleted online, 2022
33

Figure 1.23

Percentage of countries providing newly assessed online services to people in vulnerable
situations, by region, 2022d number and percentage of countries in which such services canbe fully completed online, 2022
33

Figure 1.24

Number of countries using SMS and/or mobile applications for public information updates
and services provision, by sector, 2020 and 2022
34

Figure 1.25

Percentage of countries offering sector-specific mobile services, by region, 2022

Figure 1.26

Share of the population using the Internet (2022) and percentage change in fixed (wired)broadband, active mobile broadband and mobile cellular subscriptions per 100 inhabitants(2020-2022), by region
35

Figure 1.27

The cost of active mobile broadband subscriptions as a percentage of gross national income
per capita, by region, 2022
36

Figure 1.28

Number of Member States with the assessed portal features, 2022

37

Figure 1.29

Number of countries with links to sectoral ministries and policies on their national portals,
2022

38

35

Figure 1.30	Legislative framework for e-government development, 2022

39

Figure 1.31	Content provision on national portals, 2022 (Number of countries)

39

Figure 1.32

41

Distribution of 193 Member States based on EGDI and EPI values, 2022

Figure 1.33

Percentage of countries offering e-participation tools for leaving feedback, reporting public
corruption, and filing a complaint, 2018, 2020 and 2022
42

Figure 1.34

Number of countries with portals that integrate calendar announcements, consultation
mechanisms and social networking tools, 2020 and 2022

43

Percentage of countries with evidence of at least one e-consultation held within the past
12 months, by region, 2020 and 2022

43

Figure 1.35
Figure 1.36

Number of countries that have implemented assessed COVID-19 response measures, 2022 45

Figure 1.37

The implementation of COVID-19 response measures, by region, 2022
(Percentage of countries)

46

Figure 2.1

Regional average EGDI values, 2022

54

Figure 2.2

Regional distribution of EGDI levels and of OSI, HCI and TII subcomponent levels, 2022

54

Figure 2.3

Regional snapshot of countries by EGDI level, 2022

55

Figure 2.4

Number of countries in each EGDI group, by region, 2018, 2020 and 2022

56

Figure 2.5

Percentage of countries in each EGDI group, by region, 2018, 2020 and 2022

56

Figure 2.6

Number of countries offering specified online services, by region, 2022

58

Figure 2.7

Average number of services offered in each region, 2022

58

Figure 2.8

Number of online public services offered in different countries, by region, 2022

59

Figure 2.9

Number of countries offering online services for vulnerable groups, 2018, 2020 and 2022

60

Figure 2.10

Percentage of countries providing online services for vulnerable groups in each region, 2022

60

Figure 2.11

Number of countries offering online information and services in response to the COVID-19
pandemic, by region, 2022
61

Figure 2.12

Percentage of countries offering online information and services in response to the
COVID-19 pandemic, by region, 2022

62

Figure 2.13	Countries in special situations in Africa, 2022

64

Figure 2.14	Countries in special situations in the Americas, 2022

68

Figure 2.15	Countries in special situations in Asia, 2022

71

Figure 2.16	Countries in special situations in Europe, 2022

73

Figure 2.17	Countries in special situations in Oceania, 2022

75

Figure 2.18

Average EGDI values for countries in special situations, 2020 and 2022

76

Figure 2.19

EGDI and subindex values for countries in special situations, 2022

77

Figure 2.20

The distribution of countries in special situations among EGDI levels, 2022

78

Figure 2.21

EDGI and subindex performance for the least developed countries, 2022

80

Figure 2.22

EDGI and subindex performance for landlocked developing countries, 2022

82

Figure 2.23

EDGI and subindex performance for small island developing States, 2022

84

Figure 3.1	Comparison of LOSI levels for 83 cities, 2020 and 2022 (Number of cities per category)90

Figure 3.2	LOSI 2022 levels for the 146 cities assessed

90

Figure 3.3

Average LOSI 2022 values by population size

91

Figure 3.4

Implementation of LOSI indicators in city e-government portals

92

Figure 3.5

Implementation of institutional framework indicators in city portals (percentage of cities)

94

Figure 3.6

Implementation of content provision indicators in city portals: sectoral information(percentage of cities)

95

Implementation of content provision indicators in city portals: addressing everyday needs(percentage of cities)

96

Figure 3.8

Procurement information on city portals (percentage of cities)

96

Figure 3.9

Implementation of services provision indicators in city portals (percentage of cities)

97

Figure 3.7

xvii

2022 UN E-Government Survey

Figure 3.10

Implementation of participation and engagement indicators in city portals(percentage of cities)

99

Figure 3.11

Implementation of technology indicators in city portals (percentage of cities)

100

Figure 3.12	Lacking/absent correlation between 2022 LOSI values and OECD cities’ GDP per capita
Figure 4.1

Positive correlation between the leave no one behind indices, E-Government Development
Index and E-Participation Index
116

Figure 4.2

An integrated framework for e-government: strengthening data, design and delivery(enablers) to address barriers relating to access, affordability and ability

116

Figure 4.3

Inverse relationship between E-Government Development Index and Gender Inequality Index

119

Figure 4.4

Proportion of countries collecting gender-disaggregated user data, by region

119

Figure 4.5

Gender disparities at the top level of leadership in e-government (chief information
officer or the equivalent)120

The intersectionality of barriers: of access, affordability and ability in determining digital
exclusion

126

Proportion of the population with access to electricity, selected country groupings,
2010 and 2019 (Percentage)

127

Figure 4.8

Mobile broadband coverage by type of network, 2021 (Percentage of the population)

128

Figure 4.9

Provision of e-information, e-services, e-consultation mechanisms, and e-decision-making
opportunities for vulnerable groups
130

Figure 4.10

Availability of user feedback mechanisms in e-government portals

130

Figure 4.11

Basket prices for fixed broadband and data-only mobile broadband as a percentage of
GNI per capita, 2020

131

Figure 4.12

Primary official language in which content was assessed for each of the national portals

136

Figure 4.13

Integrated data-design-delivery framework for e-government

137

Figure 4.14

Number of countries with laws or regulations pertaining to digital identity

140

Figure 4.15	Low numbers of countries engaged in the co-design, co-creation and co-production ofe-services in six sectors

143

Figure 4.6
Figure 4.7

Figure 4.16

xviii

103

Progress made in the provision of specific information and/or e-services for vulnerable
groups, by region, 2018-2022

145

Figure 4.17

Regional compliance with W3C standards versus WCAG 2.0 guidelines

147

Figure 4.18

An integrated framework for e-government: strengthening data, design and delivery(enablers) to address barriers relating to access, affordability and ability

154

Figure 5.1

EGDI Global and Regional Average Value

167

Figure 5.2

Geographical distribution of countries with EGDI values above and below the global
average EGDI value

168

Figure A.1

The three components of the E-Government Development Index (EGDI)

190

Figure A.2

The five subindices of Online Services Index

191

Figure A.3

Telecommunication Infrastructure Index (TII) and its components

196

Figure A.4

Human Capital Index (HCI) and its components

198

Figure B.1

Scheme representing the workflow of the complex network analysis, and map
representing grouping of countries into four development clusters278About the Survey

About the Survey
Scope and purpose
The United Nations E-Government Survey has been published biennially by the United Nations
Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) since 2001. The Survey assesses the
e-government development status of all United Nations Member States and has, over this time,
established a body of in-depth data sets and analysis.
The assessment measures the e-government performance of countries relative to one another, as
opposed to being an absolute measurement. It recognizes that each country should decide upon thelevel and extent of its e-government initiatives in keeping with its own national development priorities
and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The Survey serves as a benchmarking anddevelopment tool for countries to learn from each other, identify areas of strength and challenges
in e-government and shape their policies and strategies. It is also aimed at facilitating and informing
discussions of intergovernmental bodies, including the United Nations General Assembly, theEconomic and Social Council and the High-Level Political Forum.
The Survey is intended mainly for policy makers, government officials, academia, civil society,private sector and other practitioners and experts in the areas of sustainable development, public
administration, digital government and Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) for
development.
Starting in 2018, the Survey also assessed the select city portals of the UN Member States by utilising
the same methodology with the introduction of the Local Online Service Index (LOSI). After covering
100 cities in 2020, the current edition analyses the progress of the most populous city in eachcountry.

Structure and methodology
The Survey measures e-government effectiveness in the delivery of public services. It is composedof analytical chapters and of data on e-government development contained in the annexes of the
publication, providing a snapshot of relative measurement of e-government development of all
Member States.
The Survey tracks progress of e-government development via the United Nations E-Government
Development Index (EGDI). The EGDI, which assesses e-government development at the national
level, is a composite index based on the weighted average of three normalized indices. One-third
is derived from the Telecommunications Infrastructure Index (TII) based on data provided by theInternational Telecommunications Union (ITU), one-third from the Human Capital Index (HCI) basedon data mainly provided by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization(UNESCO), and one-third from the Online Service Index (OSI) based on data collected from an
independent online assessment, conducted by UNDESA, which assesses the national online presenceof all 193 United Nations Member States, complemented by a Member State Questionnaire (MSQ).
The survey questionnaire assesses several features related to online service delivery, including wholeof-government approaches, open government data, e-participation, multi-channel service delivery,
mobile services, usage uptake and digital divides, as well as innovative partnerships using ICTs.
Similarly, the Local Online Service Index (LOSI) captures the state of the development of e-government
service provision for similar features at the city level. This data is collected by a group of researchers
under the supervision of UN DESA through a primary research and collection endeavour.

The Survey
xix2022 UN E-Government Survey

The methodological framework has remained consistent across the Survey periods, but it should be
noted that, for each edition of the Survey, the EGDI has been subject to constructive improvementsin the methodology to take into account the lessons learned from previous editions, the inputs
and feedback received from the Member States, the recommendations of external evaluations, theoutcomes of expert group meetings, and the advancement of the latest technological and policy
developments in digital government. These changes are outlined in each edition of the Survey inwhich they are introduced. While the overarching methodological framework has not changed,
these improvements may nonetheless impede full-scale comparisons with the previous editions,though for most indicators this remains possible, and historical comparisons are provided where
relevant. The full changes introduced for the 2022 Survey are elaborated in annex A.
The 2022 Survey’s data is presented both at the end of the publication and online. This includes data
relative to the EGDI by country (in alphabetical order), by region and by countries in special situations,
i.e., small island developing States (SIDS), landlocked developing countries (LLDCs), least developed
countries (LDCs). The publication then presents information about the Online Service Index and its
components and subindices; the Telecommunication Infrastructure Index and its components; and the
Human Capital Index and its components. The data related to LOSI levels are also similarly presented
both in this publication and online. Further comprehensive information about the methodology ofthe 2022 Survey is available in the Annexes.

Preparatory process of the 2022 Survey
The preparatory process of the 2022 Survey included a number of activities. An Expert Group Meeting(EGM) (held online in March 2021) was organized to allow experts in the field of digital government
to exchange views on the Survey methodology. The discussions on the methodology were held in
the context of current developments and trends in e-government services, digital technologies more
broadly, and with an over-arching imperative of working towards achieving the 2030 Agenda and its
SDGs – all vis-à-vis the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic.
For the Online Service Index (OSI) values for 2022, a total of 227 online United Nations Volunteer(UNV) researchers from 130 countries with coverage of 66 languages assessed each country’s
national website in the native language using the Survey’s Online Service Questionnaire. In addition,
all United Nations Member States were requested (through the Member State Questionnaire) to
provide information regarding their website addresses (URL) for different government ministries
and the national portal(s). 129 Member States (comprising 66.84% of UN membership) returned
the completed questionnaires, and the appropriate submitted sites were then utilized during theverification process.

What was changed in the 2022 edition compared to 2020
To improve the methodology and take into account the lessons learned from the previous editions,the inputs and feedback received by Member States and through open consultations, the outcomesof an EGM and the latest technological and policy development, a limited number of changes wereintroduced in the 2022 Survey as summarized below:• The Online Services Index (OSI) has been refined to allow government portals to be assessedon the basis of five criteria—institutional framework (IF), services provision (SP), content
provision (CP), technology (TEC) and e-participation (EPI)—with the OSI as a whole calculated
based on the normalized values for each subindex (see annex A). This new approach, which
was partially utilized in the assessment of LOSI pilots 2018 and 2020, further aligns the
OSI with LOSI formula, introduces the concept of a composite Online Service Index (similar
to the TII and HCI), and supports a more nuanced analysis of government advancementsxxAbout the Survey

in e-government development. The 2022 OSI has been calculated based on 180 questions(up from 148 in 2020).
• The E-Participation Index (EPI) methodology has been improved to better assess engagement,
including assessing: (i) government portals and websites for the integration of participatory
budgeting or similar mechanisms, (ii) the availability of open government data (OGD) in
general and in six key sectors linked closely to SDG implementation (education employment,
environment, health, justice and social protection), (iii) evidence of co-creation or coproduction mechanisms for collaborative services provision, (iv) evidence that people’s
voices are heard in discussions and decision-making processes linked to the formulation andadoption of policies on issues relating to vulnerable populations, and (v) evidence of online
consultations (via e-forums, e-polls, e-questionnaires, or other e-participation tools) that aredesigned to facilitate the engagement of people in vulnerable situations.
• The Member State Questionnaire (MSQ) was expanded to cover digital inclusion matters more
fully, and to address issued related to COVID-19 responses and recovery.
• The assessment of city portals has been expanded from 100 cities in 2020 to 193 in 2022 (i.e.,the most populous city in each of the 193 UN Member States). The corresponding assessment
criteria was reviewed and aligned with the 2022 OSI methodology with the addition of a fifth
criterion – institutional framework (IF). Total number of indicators have increased to 86 incurrent LOSI 2022 edition, compared to 80 indicators assessed in the LOSI 2020 edition.
• The annexes have been extended with information related to pilot study initiatives covered in
the Survey – Complex Network Analysis and the Open Government Data Index.

xxi

2022 UN E-Government Surveyxxii

Executive Summary

Executive Summary
Digital technology is increasingly blurring the lines between the physical, digital and biological spheresand is rapidly changing the way people live, work and communicate. The public sector is a case inpoint; in terms of policies, institutions, strategies and tools, there is no longer a clear distinction or
separation between government and e-government.1
With the evolution of digital government, public administrations and institutions around theglobe have been irreversibly transformed—both structurally and in terms of the dynamic between
Governments and the people they serve. These observations draw from two decades of analyticalresearch and the monitoring of trends within the framework of the United Nations E-Government
Survey.
While nearly every country is engaged in the process of digitalization, not all have achieved thesame level of development, and while institutions at all levels are committed to modernization anddigital transformation, approaches and outcomes vary greatly. Not all countries are able to achieve
the same sustainable development gains through e-government development, and the benefits tocommunities and vulnerable segments of the population have been disproportionate and uneven.
The COVID-19 pandemic has further exposed e-government divides between and within countries
at the regional, national and local levels.
The United Nations E-Government Survey, a biennial publication of the United Nations Departmentof Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA), was conceived and continues to be recognized as avaluable measurement and development tool, serving as both a monitoring mechanism and a guiding
framework for public sector digitalization. The twelfth edition of the Survey offers further evidenceof the ongoing shift from the traditional technocratic e-government approach of the early 2000s
to a digital development agenda that is policy oriented, data-centric and politically driven, and it
further illustrates how e-government has expanded and evolved from siloed approaches in a handfulof high-income countries to whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches in virtually all
countries around the globe. In a very real sense, digitalization is redefining and transforming the way
Governments operate.
The COVID-19 pandemic has constituted a litmus test of sorts for Governments around the world. It
has forced Governments to rethink the role of the State and has compelled them to develop digitalsolutions to ensure the continuity of public services and societal stability—often taking them outside
the scope of existing policies and regulations. It has tested the responsiveness, agility and digital
resilience of Governments, providing opportunities to strengthen multilevel governance acrossregional and local jurisdictions and to extend the provision of information and services to all segmentsof society, including micro, small and medium-sized enterprises and vulnerable populations, to ensurethat no one is left behind in the hybrid digital society. There have been successes and setbacks, andthe pace of progress has varied from one country to another, but overall e-government development
trends remain positive and encouraging.
The first three chapters of the present Survey explore global, regional and local e-government trends,
with development assessments based on the tested and accepted e-government development index(EGDI) methodology. The fourth chapter focuses on leaving no one behind in the hybrid digitalsociety, highlighting the importance of e-participation and open government data. The final chapter
examines key trends and innovations that are expected to drive the future of digital government forsustainable development.

Summaryxxiii

2022 UN E-Government Survey

Digital government has reached a critical point. It is no longer a stand-alone or auxiliary tool, nordoes it represent a panacea for government deficiencies or inefficiencies; it should be seen as anintegral and thoroughly integrated aspect of the physical functioning of public institutions andservices delivery. Digital development is inexorable, and inaction or the wrong action can be costly(in terms of missed economic and social development opportunities) and deepen risks (in particular
those linked to cybersecurity and privacy issues).
With the acceleration of e-government development and the social and economic recovery efforts
being undertaken in the post-COVID period, this is an opportune time to activate the priorities
highlighted by the Secretary-General in the “Roadmap for digital cooperation” and Our Common
Agenda, strengthening inclusion, equity and engagement through the provision of anticipatory/
predictive and people-centred services and through enhanced digital cooperation with the private
sector and diverse stakeholder groups. It is imperative that digital government—including e-services
and e-participation—be set up in a way that strengthens rather than undermines trust in Governments
and public institutions.

Global and regional trends
The global average EGDI value has risen slightly, from 0.5988 in 2020 to in 0.6102 in 2022, largely
because of the progress made in strengthening telecommunications infrastructure. Europe remains
Figure ES.1 Global and regional EGDI averages, country groupings by EGDI levels, and online services
provision in selected sectors, 2020 and 2022

0.0000193 Member States
AfricaAmericas
Asia
EuropeOceania

0.39140.40000.60000.80000.61020.4054

0.63410.64380.63730.64930.81700.5106

Source: 2022 and 2020 United Nations E-Government Surveys.

xxiv

0.20000.59881.00002020 EGDI average v alue2022 EGDI average v alue

0.83050.5081

Executive Summary

the leader in e-government development, with an average EGDI value of 0.8305, followed by Asia
(0.6493), the Americas (0.6438), Oceania (0.5081) and Africa (0.4054). For the first time since2016, the average EDGI value for Oceania has declined, largely owing to the 29 per cent drop in
the average Telecommunications Infrastructure Index (TII) value for the region over the past two
years. The first two chapters of the Survey review the progress achieved in global and regional
e-government development, highlighting areas of improvement and challenges faced by Member
States during the assessment period.
Despite the increasingly widespread reliance on digital technologies for services delivery during
the COVID-19 pandemic, comprehensive digital transformation in the public sector has not yetmaterialized. For most of the world, government priorities in online services provision have centredon health, education and social protection. The most significant increase has been in the number ofcountries offering services that allow users to apply for social protection programmes and benefits
such as maternity care, child subsidies, pensions, and housing and food allowances.
A total of 22 online services have been assessed for the 2022 Survey, and in regional terms, Europe
has the highest average number of services offered online (19), followed by Asia (17), the Americas(16), and Oceania and Africa (12 each).
Populations traditionally identified as vulnerable—people living in poverty, persons with disabilities,
older individuals, immigrants, women, and youth—have benefited from the progress achieved,
though additional efforts are needed to ensure that no one is left behind in e-government and thebroader process of digitalization.
A growing number of countries have strengthened their institutional and legal frameworks for
e-government development. Most countries have a national electronic or digital government
strategy, as well as legislation on cybersecurity, personal data protection, national data policy, open
government data, and e-participation. Individuals and businesses are increasingly able to interact withpublic institutions through online platforms, obtain information on legislation relating to freedom of
information, and access public content and data.
While digital government development trends indicate steady growth and improvement, with notable
progress achieved in a number of areas, there are significant challenges that still require attention.
The pandemic has exacerbated digital divides. There are presently more than 3 billion people living incountries that have EGDI values below the global average, with most of these countries concentrated
in Africa, Asia and Oceania. Only 4 of the 54 countries in Africa have EGDI values above the global
average (0.6102); the others have EGDI values that are sometimes significantly lower. A numberof countries in Africa have improved their telecommunications infrastructure, helping them build
a solid foundation for accelerating the transition to digital government; however, e-government
development efforts are undermined by the fact that the cost of mobile broadband subscriptions
as a percentage of per capita gross national income remains significantly higher in Africa than inother parts of the world. This is but one example of the myriad challenges that make it difficult
for countries to narrow gaps in e-government development and bridge digital divides. Without
the adoption of targeted and systematic measures to assist low-income and lower-middle-income
countries and countries in special situations—including least developed countries (LDCs), landlocked
developing countries (LLDCs) and small island developing States (SIDS)—digital divides are likely topersist and may even widen.

xxv

2022 UN E-Government Survey

Local e-government
Our Common Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals affirm the key role cities play in driving
national and global change and improving people’s lives. Within the present Survey framework, theLocal Online Services Index (LOSI) assesses progress made in local e-government development overa two-year period.
The first pilot study on local e-government was carried out in 2018, and coverage has been expanded
and enriched in successive editions of the Survey. In the 2022 LOSI study, the most populous city ineach of the 193 United Nations Member States has been assessed, and a new criterion (institutionalframework) has been introduced to facilitate alignment with the Survey’s Online Services Index.
Chapter 3 offers a detailed analysis of city portals based on 86 LOSI indicators relating to five criteria
and on the results of the most recent Local Government Questionnaire. Key LOSI findings are as
follows:• The average LOSI value increased from 0.43 in 2020 to 0.51 in 2022.
• In 2022, as in 2020, city portals do not perform as well as their national counterparts(see figure ES.2 below).
• The more populous cities tend to have higher overall LOSI values; this correlation may
derive from the greater access such cities generally have to important resources.
• Among cities with reasonable levels of wealth, there is not necessarily a direct
correspondence between GDP per capita and LOSI values.

Figure ES.2 Comparison of city portals and nations portals’ performance

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70

LOSI 2022

0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50
OSI 2022

xxvi

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Executive Summary

The chapter analysis indicates that a well-formulated local e-government strategy can facilitateand strengthen sustainable local administration, the integration of new technologies, the ability toaddress public sector challenges such as those linked to the pandemic, and the realization of the2030 Agenda.
Resource constraints limited the number of cities that could be included in the formal LOSI
assessment for the Survey. However, there has been strong interest in the LOSI approach among
other stakeholders; UN DESA has answered this need by arranging to run LOSI pilots in multiple
cities in selected countries, and academics have undertaken independent studies using the LOSI
methodology. Governments are encouraged to become part of the LOSI network so that municipal
authorities can work together to strengthen e-government at the level closest to the population they
serve.

Leaving no one behind in the hybrid digital society
While important advances have been made in e-government over the past two decades, inclusive
design has not received sufficient attention. The groups easiest to reach have generally benefited
most from the notable progress in e-government, while many of the poorest and most vulnerable
populations have been left behind.
As Governments continue to transition from traditional to digital modes of public services delivery,
those e-services that are not designed to facilitate inclusion will likely be underutilized by vulnerable
groups, effectively denying them the rights and opportunities enjoyed by more advantaged
populations in the hybrid digital society.
Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, widening socioeconomic inequalities were exacerbated bydigital gaps; the accelerated public sector digitalization that has occurred in response to the recent
global health crisis has simply magnified this trend. There is still insufficient understanding of how
the design and implementation of e-government initiatives affect people of different genders, ages,
capabilities and income levels and what needs to be done to address exclusion and discrimination.
A key factor contributing to the uncertainty is that digital divides are not static; vulnerability is a
dynamic and shifting state, and a list of risk factors is not always sufficient to identify those who needdifferent ways to access and utilize services.
Very few countries show evidence of having engaged in online consultations involving vulnerable
groups, and even fewer countries have evidence showing that user input has been considered orincorporated in policy decisions on issues relating to vulnerable groups.
Designing for inclusion, including e-inclusion, is critical for leaving no one behind. An importantprecondition is recognizing that exclusion exists—largely because perceptions and solutions are
driven by biases rather than by objective, data-driven evidence.
Proactive efforts are needed to acknowledge and identify the gaps, to provide vulnerable
populations with mechanisms for engagement so that the types and origins of discrimination are
better understood, and to then use what has been learned to develop responsive e-government andimprove the lives of those who are hardest to reach.
Figure ES.3 offers a graphic representation of an integrated framework for developing inclusive
e-government. The first step is to identify barriers to digital inclusion relating to access, affordability
and ability. The second step is to develop a targeted implementation strategy for leaving no one
behind that is grounded in data, design and delivery optimization.

xxvii

2022 UN E-Government Survey

Figure ES.3 An integrated framework for e-government: strengthening data, design and delivery (enablers)
to address barriers relating to access, affordability and ability

AccessData

Affordability

Ability

DesignDelivery

Source: Author’s elaboration, based on Internet Society, “Digital accessibility”, Issue Paper: Asia-Pacific Bureau (May 2017) and othersources. For a more detailed version of this graphic, see figure 4.17 in chapter 4 of the present publication.

Chapter 4 of the Survey explores the challenges and opportunities associated with efforts to ensurethat no one is left behind. It is recommended that “leaving no one behind” become the operational
principle guiding policy development and implementation in e-government and the public sector.
At the policy and regulatory level, Governments should adopt “inclusion by design”, “inclusion bydefault” or “inclusion first” strategies to counter the global trend towards the adoption of digitalby-default, digital-first, invisible-government and one-stop-shop strategies; targeted, localized andcontextual approaches are key, as not all excluded groups are confronted with the same barriers
or are affected to the same extent. The global community can contribute to leaving no country
behind in digital government through knowledge exchange, strategic partnerships and collaborative
capacity-building.
One of the key lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic is that the future is hybrid andnot digital; the primary objective is not digital development but rather recognizing human agency
and supporting human development through digitalization. An inclusive, integrated digital/analogue
ecosystem is needed to facilitate and sustain inclusive e-government development so that everyone
benefits and no one is left behind.

The future of digital government
Chapter 5 focuses on digitalization trends, highlighting the challenges that continue to undermine
development efforts and offering observations and forecasts on the future of digital government.
The path to digital inclusion and sustainable development remains fraught with obstacles anduncertainties, especially in Africa and among LDCs and SIDS. For many developing countries andcountries in special situations, comprehensive digitalization represents a massive, complex challenge.

xxviiiExecutive Summary

Pursuing digital transformation without the appropriate institutional support, funds, regulations,policies and strategies can lead to job losses, increased inequality, and data privacy and security
issues.
Using the global average EGDI value as a proxy for measuring the digital divide, the 2022 Survey
indicates that about 45 per cent of the combined population of the United Nations Member States(3.5 billion people) still lag behind. In Africa, 50 out of 54 countries (home to 95 per cent of theregion’s population) have EGDI values below the global average, and the same is true for 11 of the
12 SIDS in Oceania.
Figure ES.4 Population living in countries with EGDI values above and below the world average (Thousands)

100.0%

55.2%

44.8%

100.0%

5.4%

94.6%

100.0%

100.0%

89.3%

7.8%

10.7%

92.2%

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey; United Nations population data.

The private sector has been at the forefront of the digital transformation for a number of years, andthe COVID-19 pandemic has greatly accelerated developments in this area, compelling industries andcompanies to adopt new digital technologies to improve services delivery and increase productivity
in an effort to adapt to the changes forced on them by the urgent health crisis. The accelerationof digitalization in the private sector has raised people’s expectations for more effective public
services delivery. The pandemic has reinforced the need for the public sector to catch up with theprivate sector in terms of attracting talent and updating personnel skills. During the past couple ofyears, Governments have been forced to become more innovative, resourceful, and effective and tocontribute more strategically and proactively to the digital transformation in support of building asustainable and digitally resilient society.

xxix2022 UN E-Government Survey

The 2022 Survey results indicate that a growing number of countries are moving towards seamless,invisible government in which fully automated and personalized services are made accessible to anyone
anytime from anywhere. More Governments are deploying cutting-edge technologies such as cloudcomputing, artificial intelligence and blockchain to assess and address the needs of constituents.
Some have developed new methods for exploiting data-driven policy modelling tools and havecreated pilot initiatives and sandboxes to design, validate and scale up innovative solutions. These
approaches are allowing Governments to strengthen their analytical and anticipatory capabilities andproactively shape future development scenarios. With the increased focus on cognitive government,
agile and adaptive government, and the development of predictive capabilities, Governments are
setting themselves up to better anticipate and respond to the needs of all members of society. These
exciting innovations and the broader digital transformation must aim to be truly inclusive. Advancesin e-government development can widen digital divides if action is not taken to ensure access forall. In digital government, it is critical that innovation be focused on human development, carrying
people forward rather than leaving them behind.

Endnotes
1xxx

In this edition of the Survey, as in the previous edition, “e-government” and “digital government” are usedinterchangeably, as there is still no formal distinction made between the terms among academics, policymakers
and practitioners

Chapter 1

Chapter 1 • Global Trends in E-Government

1. Global Trends in
E-Government
1.1

Introduction

Digital technologies played an indispensable role in holding civilsociety together as the COVID-19 pandemic emerged, supporting theprovision of basic public services and fundamental services in the health,education, and safety and security sectors as in-person access to suchservices grew increasingly limited. The pandemic has amplified theimportance of e-government and digital technologies as essential tools
for communication and collaboration between policy makers, the private
sector and societies across the globe. Digital technologies contribute tonational and local development, facilitate the sharing of knowledge andguidance, and enable the provision of online services and solutions inboth ordinary and extraordinary circumstances, making the transition
towards digital transformation inevitable. E-government has become thecornerstone for building effective, accountable, resilient and inclusive
institutions at all levels, as called for in Sustainable Development Goal
(SDG) 16, and for strengthening the implementation of Goal 17.
This chapter presents a data-driven analysis of key trends in e-government
development in 2022 based on the assessment of the E-Government
Development Index (EGDI). It also describes and analyses global trends inelectronic and mobile services delivery and sheds light on the distributionof online services based on country income levels and on the provision ofservices in specific sectors that are particularly important for sustainable
development.
The chapter begins with a brief presentation of the e-government
rankings of 193 United Nations Member States and their placement
and relative position within four EGDI value groups (very high, high,middle and low). In 2022, for the first time, the Online Services Index
component of the EGDI is broken down into five subcategories. Thisadded specificity allows a more detailed and nuanced assessment of
online services provision and enables Member States to better target
their efforts to improve overall e-government development.
The analysis is further supplemented by the findings of a pilot study UN
DESA conducted in 2021 with a complex network analysis methodology(see annex A) that uses more than 500 development indicators, including
SDG indicators and EGDI data, to establish digital development patterns
and the clustering of countries around similar characteristics.

EGDI methodology: continuous improvement
The EGDI is a composite benchmark of e-government development
consisting of the weighted average of three independent component
indices: the Online Services Index (OSI), the Telecommunications
Infrastructure Index (TII), and the Human Capital Index (HCI). The

Photo credit: pixabay.com

In this chapter:
1.1 Introduction

1

1.2 E-government rankings in 2022 2
1.3 E-government development at
a glance3
1.3.1 Overall EGDI results3

1.3.2	Country EGDI levels andquartile classifications
5
1.3.3 Movement between
EGDI groups

7

1.4 The countries leading in
e-government development8

1.5 OSI, TII and HCI performancefor each EGDI group11
1.6 National income ande-government development 13

1.7 Complex network analysis:a different perspective on
e-government development 16

1.8 Online Services Index

18

1.8.1	Country groupings by
OSI and EGDI levels

19

1.8.2	Country OSI levels by
income group24

1.8.3 Services provisionsubindex: progress inonline services delivery 25
1.8.4 Technology subindex

37

1.8.5 Institutional framework
subindex
38
1.8.6	Content provisionsubindex: sharing public
information
39
1.8.7 E-participation subindex 40
1.9 E-government during
COVID-19: ad hoc services

44

1.10 Summary and conclusion

46

Chapter 1
1Chapter 1

2022 UN E-Government Survey

methodologies used for data collection and for the computation of the EGDI and its subcomponent
values are detailed in annex A of the Survey. The OSI component has been refined to allow
government portals to be assessed on the basis of five subindices—institutional framework (IF),services provision (SP), content provision (CP), technology (TEC) and e-participation (EPI)—with the
OSI as a whole calculated based on the normalized values for each subindex (see annex A). This new
approach further aligns the OSI with the LOSI formula, introduces the concept of a composite Online
Service Index (similar to the TII and HCI), and supports a more nuanced analysis of advancements ine-government development. For the 2022 edition of the Survey, the OSI has been calculated basedon 180 questions (up from 148 in 2020).

1.2

E-government rankings in 2022

The first United Nations E-Government Survey was published in 2001. The 2022 Survey is the eleventh
edition of a biennial publication dedicated to tracking the global development of e-government in
all United Nations Member States. Recent trends in e-government development are presented basedon the assessment of values reflected in the EGDI, a normalized composite index comprising the
OSI, TII and HCI. Each of the latter three indices is a composite measure that can be extracted andanalysed independently. The composite value of each component index is normalized to fall within
the range of 0 to 1, and the overall EGDI is derived from taking the arithmetic average of the threecomponent indices.
This biennial assessment of e-government development as reflected in the EGDI allows Member
States to follow up on the Survey results and initiate improvements after each measurement. For every
edition of the Survey, the EGDI has been subject to constructive improvements in the methodology
to take into account the lessons learned from previous editions, the inputs and feedback received
from the Member States, the recommendations of external evaluations, the outcomes of expert
group meetings, and the advancement of the latest technological and policy developments in digital
government. The changes introduced for the 2022 Survey are elaborated in annex A. While theoverarching methodological framework has not changed, these improvements may nonetheless
impede full-scale comparisons with the previous editions, though for the majority of indicators thisremains possible, and historical comparisons are provided where relevant.
This report reviews the recent progress made by Member States in e-government development.
A country’s relative position in the e-government development rankings may fluctuate over timeowing to global changes and to changes to the rankings of other countries in the same field. Whileindividual country performance still matters, it might be more useful to interpret the values andrankings based on the movement of countries between the four EGDI groups and to evaluate a
Member State’s individual performance based upon its rating class (quartile position) within its EGDI
group.
The sections below present the 2022 Survey findings by EGDI rankings at the global level. Where
relevant, additional insights are provided based on comparisons of data from the 2018 and 2020
Surveys. The analysis focuses on relevant correlations between the EGDI and its components, country
income group classifications, advancements in e-services provision, and trends in electronic and mobile
services delivery in various sectors, as well as the differences in e-government advancement among
vulnerable groups such as older people, women, youth, persons with disabilities and migrants. The
analysis is further enriched by the comparison of EGDI groups and respective clusters of countries
grouped through complex network analysis (see annex B), drawing on over 500 indicators. Where
warranted, the Survey highlights similarities and differences between the EGDI groups and country
clusters, as well as within specific EGDI rating class/quartile subgroups.

2Chapter 1

Chapter 1 • Global Trends in E-Government

1.3

E-government development at a glance

1.3.1

Overall EGDI results

The 2022 Survey reflects further improvement in global trends in e-government development andthe transitioning of many countries from lower to higher EGDI levels. In this edition, 60 countries
have very high EGDI values ranging from 0.75 to 1.00,1 in comparison with 57 countries in 2020—a
5.3 per cent increase for this group. A total of 73 countries have high EGDI values of 0.50 to 0.75,
and 53 countries are part of the middle EGDI group with values between 0.25 and 0.50. Sevencountries (one less than in 2020) have low EGDI values (0.00 to 0.25).
The map in figure 1.1 shows the geographical distribution of the four EGDI groups in 2022.
Figure 1.1

Geographical distribution of the four EGDI groups, 2022

EGDI level
Very highHigh
MiddleLow
No data

UNITED NATIONS Geospatial
The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.
Dotted line represents approximately the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir agreed upon by India and Pakistan. The final status of Jammu and Kashmir has not yet been agreed upon by the Parties.
Final boundary between the Republic of Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan has not yet been determined.
A dispute exists between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).

Map No. 4642.1
Jul 2022

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

Figure 1.2 shows the respective numbers and percentages of countries in different EGDI groups in2020 and 2022 for comparative purposes. The results for 2022 indicate that Member States withhigh EGDI values make up the largest share (38 per cent), followed by those with very high EGDI
values (31 per cent) and middle EGDI values (27 per cent). The share of countries with low EGDI
values remains almost the same as in 2020 (4 per cent), though the actual number fell from eight
to seven.

3

Chapter 1

2022 UN E-Government Survey

Figure 1.2

Number and proportion of countries within each EGDI grouping, 2020 and 2022

2020
Low EGDI; 8; 4%

Low EGDI; 7; 4%

Very high EGDI;
57; 29%2022
Very high EGDI;
60; 31%

Middle EGDI;
53; 27%

Middle EGDI;
59; 31%High EGDI; 73; 38%

High EGDI; 69; 36%
Very high EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very high EGDI

Low EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Low EGDI

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

Between 2020 and 2022, the global average EGDI value rose from 0.5988 to 0.6102 and average
Very high
EGDI
High EGDI
MiddleOSI
EGDIaverage
Low EGDI
HCI and TII values increased by 2 and 5 per cent,respectively,
while theexperienced aslight dip, declining from 0.5620 to 0.5554 (see figure 1.3). It is important to note that this change
in the OSI could be attributed to the updated survey methodology.
Figure 1.3

Average values for the EGDI and its component indices, 2020 and 2022

EGDI

OSI

Sources: 2020 and 2022 United Nations E-Government Surveys.

4

TII

HCI

Chapter 1

Chapter 1 • Global Trends in E-Government

In regional terms, Europe has the highest average EGDI value (0.8305), followed by Asia (0.6493),
the Americas (0.6438), Oceania (0.5081), and Africa (0.4054) (see figure 1.4).
Figure 1.4

Global and regional EGDI averages, 2022

Minimum
1.00000.9717

Maximum

0.9151

EGDI 2022 average

0.95290.90000.94320.83050.73570.80000.70000.97170.64380.61020.64930.60000.62560.50000.50810.40540.40000.30000.20000.24810.2710AmericasAsia

0.32300.10000.00000.0852
193 Member States

0.0852AfricaEuropeOceania

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

1.3.2

Country EGDI levels and quartile classifications

The subsections below focus on the distribution of countries among the very high, high, middle andlow EGDI groups and highlight any changes in levels or classifications since 2020. To gain better
insight into the situation of subgroups of countries with similar levels of performance within theirrespective EGDI groups, each EGDI group is further divided into four equally defined rating classes, orquartiles.2 The rating class breakdowns within the respective EGDI groups, in descending order, areas follows: VH, V3, V2 and V1 for the very high group; HV, H3, H2 and H1 for the high group; MH,
M3, M2 and M1 for the middle group; and LM, L3, L2 and L1 for the low group.

Very high EGDI group
The number of Member States in the very high EGDI group (with values ranging from 0.75 to 1.00)
rose from 57 to 60, representing a 5 per cent increase between 2020 and 2022. These 60 countries
are equally distributed between the VH, V3, V2 and V1 rating classes.
Malta and the United Arab Emirates moved from the V3 to the VH rating class in the very high EGDI
group. Four countries (Georgia, Peru, Serbia and Ukraine) moved from the high to the very high EGDI
group, with Serbia jumping two intervals (HV to V2).

5

Chapter 1

2022 UN E-Government Survey

The 15 countries in the highest (VH) rating class within the very high EGDI group are the leading
countries in terms of the 2022 Survey results, with values ranging between 0.8943 and 0.9717.
Ranked from highest to lowest within the subgroup, these countries include Denmark, Finland,
Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Sweden, Iceland, Australia, Estonia, Netherlands, United States ofAmerica (hereinafter referred to as the United States), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (hereinafter referred to as the United Kingdom), Singapore, United Arab Emirates, Japan andMalta.
At the regional level, 35 of the 60 countries in the very high EGDI group are in Europe, 15 are in Asia,
8 are in the Americas, and 2 are in Oceania.

High EGDI group
The total number of countries in the high EGDI group rose from 69 to 73 between 2020 and 2022.
Eight countries have joined the high EGDI group for the first time; three are in Africa (Côte d’Ivoire,
Rwanda and Zambia), two are in the Americas (Belize and Guyana), and three are in Asia (Lebanon,
Nepal and Tajikistan).
Six of the eight countries in the high EGDI group are in special situations and are classified by
the United Nations as least developed countries (LDCs), landlocked developing countries (LLDCs)
and/or small island developing States (SIDS), signifying the notable progress made in e-government
development in countries with limited resources. The number of countries in special situations in thehigh and very high EGDI groups rose from 35 to 41 (or by 15 per cent) between 2020 and 2022;
one of the latter is a low-income country (Rwanda) and twelve are lower-middle-income countries(Bangladesh, Belize, Bhutan, Plurinational State of Bolivia, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Kyrgyzstan,
Mongolia, Nepal, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Zambia). Groups of countries in special situations arefurther analysed in chapter 2.
At the regional level, 24 of the 73 countries in the high EGDI group are in the Americas, 22 are in
Asia, 16 are in Africa, 8 are in Europe, and 3 are in Oceania. Eighteen of these countries are in the
top HV rating class of the high EGDI subgroup, with 39 per cent of the 18 being countries in special
situations (LLDCs or SIDS).

Middle EGDI group
The number of countries in the middle EGDI group (with values ranging from 0.25 to 0.50) decreased
from 59 in 2020 to 53 in 2022; this decline is positive, given that eight countries moved up to thehigh EGDI group and two countries shifted from the low to the middle EGDI group during this period(see figure 1.5). Only one country moved down from the high to the middle EGDI group.
Africa has the largest share of countries in the middle EGDI group (60 per cent, or a total of 32
countries), followed by Asia (19 per cent, or 10 countries), Oceania (17 per cent, or 9 countries) andthe Americas (4 per cent, or 2 countries).
The overwhelming majority of countries in the middle EGDI group—43 out of 53, or 81 per cent—are countries in special situations (LDCs, LLDCs and/or SIDS). Among these 53 countries, 20 (38per cent) are low-income economies (16 in Africa and 4 in Asia), and another 25 (47 per cent)are lower-middle-income economies (14 in Africa, 6 in Oceania, 4 in Asia and 1 in the Americas).
Seven countries (2 in Oceania, 2 in Africa, 2 in Asia and 1 in the Americas) are upper-middle-income
economies, and one country, Nauru, is a high-income country in Oceania.

Low EGDI group
The number of countries with low EGDI values (below 0.25) dropped from eight in 2020 to sevenin 2022. All of the countries in this group are LDCs and/or LLDCs; six are in Africa (Central African
6

Chapter 1

Chapter 1 • Global Trends in E-Government

Republic, Chad, Eritrea, Niger, Somalia and South Sudan) and were also in the low EGDI groupin 2020, while one is an LDC in the Americas (Haiti). Guinea-Bissau and the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea are the only two countries that moved up from the low to the middle EGDI groupin 2022.
Regional trends and findings for all EGDI groups are explored in greater detail in chapter 2.

1.3.3

Movement between EGDI groups

The 2022 Survey results affirm the continuation of the positive global trend towards higher levels of
e-government development. Figure 1.5 shows the number of countries that have moved from one
EGDI group to another since 2020. Fourteen countries moved to higher EGDI groups (2 from thelow to the middle group, 8 from the middle to the high group, and 4 from the high to the very highgroup), and three countries moved to lower EGDI groups (1 from the very high to the high group, 1
from the high to the middle group, and 1 from the middle to the low group). While these changes
are positive overall, the net number of countries in each EGDI group is comparable to the numbers
in 2020.
As noted earlier, each EGDI group is also divided into four equally defined quartile subgroups or
rating classes. As figure 1.5 illustrates, the upward movement of countries between EGDI groups
usually involves a shift from the top rating class of one EGDI group to the lowest rating class of thenext highest group; with downward movement, countries typically move from the lowest ratingclass of one EGDI group to the highest rating class of the next lower group. This single-interval shift
occurred for 15 of the 17 countries that moved to another EGDI group in 2022; Serbia and Zambia,
however, were able to move up by two rating classes in their advancement to a higher EGDI level.
Figure 1.5

Movement between EGDI groups from 2020 to 2022

Source: 2020 and 2022 United Nations E-Government Surveys.

7

Chapter 1

2022 UN E-Government Survey

1.4

The countries leading in e-government development

In reviewing and analysing the 2022 Survey results, it is important to bear in mind that the EGDI is anormalized relative index, and slight differences in EGDI values between countries do not necessarily
imply that a country with a lower EGDI value has underperformed during the specific two-year Survey
period. Nor does a higher EGDI value signify better performance, especially among countries within
the same subgroup. Hence, analysts and policymakers should be cautioned against misinterpretingslight changes in rankings among countries within the same rating class. Every country should
determine the level and extent of its digital government objectives based on its specific national
development context, capacity, strategy and programmes rather than on an arbitrary assumption of
its future position in the ranking. The EGDI is a benchmarking tool for e-government development
to be used as a proxy performance indicator.
The 15 countries in the highest (VH) rating class of the very high EGDI group are listed in table 1.1,
which also provides the corresponding OSI, TII, HCI and overall EGDI values.
Table 1.1

Leading countries in e-government development, 2022

Country nameRating class

Region

OSI

HCI

TII

EGDI (2022)

EGDI (2020)

Denmark

VH

Europe0.97970.95590.97950.97170.9758Finland

VH

Europe0.98330.96400.9127

0.95330.9452

Republic of Korea

VH

Asia

0.98260.90870.96740.95290.9560

New Zealand

VH

Oceania

0.95790.98230.8896

0.94320.9339SwedenVH

Europe0.90020.96490.95800.94100.9365

Iceland

VH

Europe0.88670.96570.97050.94100.9101

Australia

VH

Oceania

0.93801.00000.88360.9405

0.9432Estonia

VH

Europe1.00000.92310.89490.93930.9473

Netherlands

VH

Europe0.90260.9506

0.96200.93840.9228

United States of America

VH

Americas0.93040.92760.88740.91510.9297

VH

Europe0.88590.93690.9186

0.91380.9358Singapore

VH

Asia

0.96200.90210.87580.91330.9150

United Arab Emirates

VH

Asia

0.90140.87110.93060.90100.8555

Japan

VH

Asia

0.90940.87650.91470.90020.8989Malta

VH

Europe0.88490.87340.92450.89430.8547

United Kingdom of GreatBritain and Northern Ireland

Sources: 2020 and 2022 United Nations E-Government Surveys.

The group of countries in the highest (VH) rating class of the very high EGDI group is almost identicalto the corresponding group in the previous edition of the Survey; there has been a slight net increase(from 14 to 15 countries), with Malta and the United Arab Emirates joining this group and Norway
moving down to the V3 rating class. The top 15 countries are exclusively high-income countries.
Denmark has the highest EGDI value globally for the third consecutive Survey and is one of eight
countries in Europe and one of six countries in the European Union that are part of the highest (VH)
rating class. Malta is the only country in Southern Europe joining this subgroup in 2022, having
improved in all three subindices (OSI, TII and HCI) by an average of 4.6 per cent since 2020. The
most significant increases in subindex values were achieved by Sweden (a 10 per cent increase for
the OSI), the Netherlands (a 4.4 per cent increase for the TII), and the United Arab Emirates (a 19
per cent increase for the HCI).
8

Chapter 1

Chapter 1 • Global Trends in E-Government

Europe accounts for 53 per cent of the VH rating class (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Malta,
Netherlands, Sweden and United Kingdom), Asia accounts for 27 per cent (Japan, Republic of Korea,
Singapore and United Arab Emirates), Oceania accounts for 13 per cent (Australia and New Zealand),and the Americas, with one country (United States), accounts for the remaining 7 per cent.
As in the past three editions of the Survey, Australia and New Zealand lead e-government development
in Oceania, the United States leads in the Americas, and the Republic of Korea is the top EGDI
performer in Asia, followed by Singapore and Japan. None of the countries in Africa are included inthe VH rating class.
The remainder of this subsection reviews key findings on e-government development in the leading
countries based on their responses to the United Nations Member States Questionnaires (MSQs),
EGDI disaggregated data analysis, desk research and literature review. With outreach to 193 United
Nations Member States and a global response rate of nearly 70 per cent, the MSQ remains one of themost robust measures of self-assessed e-government development worldwide. It focuses on strategicareas of digital policies aimed at developing effective, accountable and inclusive public institutions
and collects information on countries’ institutional, legal and strategic frameworks.
All of the leading countries responded to the MSQ (see figure 1.6), with the exception of the UnitedStates, for which additional desk research was undertaken by the Survey data team. The 2022
findings confirm those highlighted in the 2020 Survey, indicating consistency and steady progressin the digital transformation journey and the ability of Governments to do more than just manage
external ICT vendors. These countries have built the capacity to create products and develop
platforms; guided by strategic digital policies, they have established a core infrastructure of shareddigital systems, technologies, processes and organizational models that have provided a strong but
flexible framework for the development and delivery of data-driven user-centric government services.
For these countries, the whole-of-government approach has been strongly institutionalized througha central body such as a department, ministry or agency led by a high-ranking government officer—
such as a national chief information officer (CIO) or chief digital technology officer—that is in chargeof a multi-year digital agenda and reports to the cabinet of the president or the prime minister.
This central body contributes to policy formulation and coordinates policy implementation for theGovernment and has wide-ranging responsibilities relating to digital services for e-government
applications, data science and artificial intelligence, traditional and cloud infrastructure, cybersecurity,
the Internet of things, and much more. The leading Governments engage in policy, regulatory andtechnology experimentation and sandboxing to test, develop and adapt cutting-edge technologies
for use in e-services provision and smart city development.
This group leads the pack in providing specialized portals for e-services, e-participation, open
government data and public procurement.
The MSQ responses indicate that the leading countries have specialized legislation or regulations
pertaining to digital procurement, digital identity and digital signatures; the legal framework also
addresses data sharing, interoperability across public agencies, and access to information such as
government expenditures. All of the countries have pending or active strategic initiatives to promote
the use of emerging technologies in e-government.

9Is there any legislation, law or regulation on digital identity? 14
Is there any legislation, law or regulation on data privacy and/or protection? 14

Chapter 1

Is there any legislation, law or regulation on e-procurement? 13
2022 UN E-Government Survey

Is there any legislation, law or regulation on cybersecurity? 13
Is there any legislation, law or regulation on access to information such as Freedom of Information Act? 13
Institutional
Figure
1.6 framework
Member States Questionnaires: key findings for the top EGDI performers* (number of countries
Is
there
legislation,
regulation officer
on open government
data?
Does theany
country
have a law
chieforinformation
or equivalent
to 11
manage its national e-government strategies and programmes? 14
Institutionalframework
responding
positively(CIO)
to thequestions)

Are
there
multipleand/orCIOs
equivalent
positions
government
agencies,
departments
andprogrammes?
ministries?
8 14
Is therelegislation,
lawnetworked
orinformation
regulation
on or
data
sharing,exchange,or interoperability
government
agencies?
11
Does
theanycountryhavea chief
officer(CIO)
or equivalent
to acrossmanageits national across
e-government
strategies
andAre there multiple
and/or
networked CIOs or equivalent
positions
acrossgovernment
agencies,
departments and ministries? 8
expenditure?
11
0Is there any
1 legislation,
2 law or 3regulation4on digitally
5 publishing
6 government
7=
8
9
10
11
12

13

14

15

Is there any
framework
0Institutional
1 legislation,
2 law or3regulation4 on the use
5 of new 6technologies
7 such as8 artificial intelligence
910(AI), robotics,
11 blockchain,
12
13
14
15
5G and Internet of Things (IoT)? 9
Measures to leave no one behind
Does the country have a chief information officer (CIO) or equivalent to manage its national e-government strategies and programmes? 14
0Does
2 use
3social4 platform(s)?
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
the 1government
any
media
14 6
Measuresto leaveno networked
onebehindAre
there multiple
and/orCIOs or equivalent positions across government agencies, departments and ministries? 8
Doesthea government
usestrategy
any social
Is therenational policy,
ormedia
similarplatform(s)?
measure in 14
ensuring digital inclusion and leaving no one behind? 14
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Is there a national policy, strategy or similar measure in ensuring digital inclusion and leaving no one behind? 14
Does the government publish information on how people's voices, including those among women and the vulnerable populations, are included in policy
Measures to leave no one behinddecision-making? 13
Does the government publish information on how people's voices, including those among women and the vulnerable populations, are included in policyDoesthegovernment
provideany
specificmeasuretobuild
digitalliteracyorskills
for
women
and
other
vulnerable
populations?
13
Strategy
andimplementation
Does the government use any social media platform(s)? 14
decision-making? 13

Doesthea government
provide anystrategy
specificor
measureto buildIs therenational e-government
equivalent?
14 digital literacy or skills for women and other vulnerable populations? 13
Doesthea government
provideanyor
specific
forensuring
women digitaland othervulnerable
populations?
Is
therenational policy,
strategysimilare-services
measure ininclusionand leaving
no one12behind? 14Isthenational
e-government
strategy
guidedbyoralignedwith
thenational
development
strategy?
Does the government provide any specific e-services for women and other vulnerable populations? 1212
Does
the government
government publish
provideinformation
any specificonmeasureto ensuremeaningfulconnectivity
or accesse-government
servicesfor women
and otherin policy
Does thehow people's
voices,includingthose among
womentoandthe vulnerable
populations,
are included
Does the national e-government strategy make specific reference to e-participation, engagement and digital inclusion? 11 vulnerable populations? 12
13
Does the government provide any specific measure to ensure meaningful connectivity or access to e-government services for womendecision-making?
and otherIs
therenationale-government
e-participation
policy,strategyor similarDoesthea national
government
provide any
specificmeasuretobuildinstrument?
digitalor skills
for women
andasothervulnerable
populations?
Doesstrategy
makespecific
reference
to theliteracy
use12
of new
technologies(suchAI, robotics,
blockchain,
5G and13
Internet of Things)?
vulnerable
populations?
12 11
Is there a national e-participation policy, strategy or similar instrument? 12
Does thenational e-government
strategy
specific
to digital-by-default,
digital-by-design,
digital-first11
or similar principles? 11
Doesprovidespecifice-participation
measuresfor
womenand othervulnerable12populations?
Does
the government
government
provide anyany
specificmake
e-services
forreference
women
and
other
vulnerable
populations?
Doesthegovernment
provideany
specifice-participation
measures
for
women
and
other
vulnerable
populations?
11
Does the national e-government strategy make specific reference to national digital identity? 11
or accessto e-government
0Does the 1government
2 provide3 any specific
4 measure
5 to ensure
6 meaningful
7 connectivity
8910
11 services
12 for women
13 and other14
15
Is the national e-government strategy guided by or aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)? 11
vulnerable populations? 12
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
IsDoesthere
a national
e-participationstrategy
policy, strategy
or similar
instrument?
12
thenational e-government
make specificreference
to data-once-onlyor similar principles? 10

COVID-19 response measures
COVID-19
response
measures
IsDoesthere
specificnational
portalorspecifica dedicatedsectionreference
addressing
COVID-19
14or similar
national
e-government
strategy
makespecific
to theafor
national
governanceframework?
Does
thea government
provideany
e-participation
measureswomendata
andpandemic?
other vulnerable
populations?
1110

Is
there
specificnational
portal ora dedicatedsectionaddressing
14 example,
IsDoesthere
aa specificdigitalstrategy
forrecovery
and allocation
publicpandemic?
resources(forfor digitaltransformation,
digital inclusion)?
11
thenationalpost-COVID-19
e-government
strategy
make specificreference
tothe
or COVID-19
is itofaligned
witha sub-nationalor locale-government
development
strategy? 10
0Is there a specific
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 for digital
11 transformation,
12
13
14
post-COVID-19
digitalfor recovery
and allocationof publicinresources
example,digitalinclusion)?
111015Is there any specificbudget allocatedforstrategy
new initiative
or measureof e-government
response (forto theCOVID-19
pandemic
and/or in supporting
recovery?
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Is there any specific budget allocated for new initiative or measure of e-government in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and/or in supporting recovery? 10
response
measures
0COVID-19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
portalsectionaddressing
the
14 10
0Is there a1specific national
2
3 or a dedicated
45
6
7 COVID-19
8 pandemic?
9
11
12
13
14
15

Future of digital government
Is there a specific post-COVID-19 digital strategy for recovery and allocation of public resources (for example, for digital transformation, digital inclusion)? 11
Futuredigital government
Does the ofGovernment
have any measure for policy experimentation and/or regulatory sandboxes in using digital technologies? 10

Is there any specific budget allocated for new initiative or measure of e-government in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and/or in supporting recovery? 10
Does
anyforesightmeasure tools,
for policy
and/orinregulatory
sandboxes
using digitaltechnologies?
10
Does thethe Government
Government haveuse any
suchexperimentationas scenario planning,
visioning thefuture ofindigital
government?
8
Does
the
Governmentuse
any
foresight
tools,
suchas
scenarioplanning,
invisioningthefutureofdigitalgovernment?
8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
0Future 1of digital
2 government
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Legal
Does theframework
Government have any measure for policy experimentation and/or regulatory sandboxes in using digital technologies? 10
Legal
Is thereanylegislation,use
lawanyor regulation
on digitalDoes
theframework
Government
foresight tools,
such signature?
as scenario14planning, in visioning the future of digital government? 8

Is there any legislation, law or regulation on digital signature? 14
Is there any legislation, law or regulation on digital identity? 14
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Is there any legislation, law or regulation on digital identity? 14
Is there any legislation, law or regulation on data privacy and/or protection? 14
Is there any legislation, law or regulation on data privacy and/or protection? 14
Legal
Is there framework
any legislation, law or regulation on e-procurement? 13Is1314
Is there
there any
any legislation,
legislation, law
law oror regulation
regulationon
one-procurement?
digital signature?
Is there any legislation, law or regulation on cybersecurity? 13
Is there any legislation,
1314
legislation, law
law oror regulation
regulationon
oncybersecurity?
digital identity?
Is there any legislation, law or regulation on access to information such as Freedom of Information Act? 13
Is
there
any
legislation,laworregulationonaccesstoinformationsuch as Freedomof Information Act? 13
Is there any legislation, law or regulation on data privacy and/or protection?
14
Is there any legislation, law or regulation on open government data? 11
Is there
there any
government13data? 11Isany legislation,
legislation, law
law oror regulation
regulation on
onopene-procurement?
Is there any legislation, law or regulation on data sharing, exchange, or interoperability across government agencies? 11
Is there
there any
sharing, exchange,
or interoperability across government agencies? 11Isany legislation,
legislation, law
law oror regulation
regulation on
ondatacybersecurity?
13 governmentIsthere anylegislation,laworregulationon
digitally
publishingexpenditure? 11=
Ispublishinggovernment
expenditure?
11
Is there
there any
any legislation,
legislation, law
law ororregulation
regulationon
ondigitally
access to
information
such= as Freedomof Information
Act? 13Is there any legislation, law or regulation on the use of new technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, blockchain,
5G
andInternetof Things(IoT)? 9
Is
there
any
legislation,laworregulation
on
the
use
of
new
technologies
suchas
artificial
intelligence(AI), robotics,
blockchain,
Is there any legislation, law or regulation on open government data? 11
5G and Internet of Things (IoT)? 9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
or
acrossagencies?
1112
0Is there any
1 legislation,
2 law or3regulation4 on data 5sharing, exchange,
6
7 interoperability
8
9 government
10
11
13

14

15

14
14

15
15

14

15

Is there any legislation, law or regulation on digitally publishing government
expenditure? 11=
Is there any legislation, law or regulation on the use of new technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, blockchain,
5G and Internet of Things (IoT)? 9

0Strategy
1 and implementation
2
3
4

Strategy and implementation

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Is there a national e-government strategy or equivalent? 14
Is there a national e-government strategy or equivalent? 14
Is the national e-government strategy guided by or aligned with the national development strategy? 12
Is the national e-government strategy guided by or aligned with the national development strategy? 12
Does the national e-government strategy make specific reference to e-participation, engagement and digital inclusion? 11
Does the national e-government strategy make specific reference to e-participation, engagement and digital inclusion? 11
10Strategy
Does the national
strategy make specific reference to the use of new technologies (such as AI, robotics, blockchain, 5G and Internet of Things)? 11
and e-government
implementation
Does the national e-government strategy make specific reference to the use of new technologies (such as AI, robotics, blockchain, 5G and Internet of Things)? 11
Is
there
a
national
e-government
strategy makeor equivalent?
14
Does the national e-government strategy
specific reference
to digital-by-default, digital-by-design, digital-first or similar principles? 11
Does the national e-government strategy make specific reference to digital-by-default, digital-by-design, digital-first or similar principles? 11
Is the thenational
e-government
strategy
guidedbyspecificor alignedwith thestrategy?
12
Does
national
e-government
strategy
makereference
to national
national development
digital identity?
11

Chapter 1

Chapter 1 • Global Trends in E-Government
Institutional framework
Institutionalframework
Does the country have a chief information officer (CIO) or equivalent to manage its national e-government strategies and programmes? 14
Does
the1.6
countryhavea chief
information
officer(CIO) or equivalentmanageits nationalagencies,
e-government
strategiesandandministries?
programmes?
Figure(continued)
Are there
multipleand/or
networked
CIOs
or equivalent
positionstoacrossgovernment
departments
8 14

Are there multiple and/or networked CIOs or equivalent positions across government agencies, departments and ministries? 8
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Measures to leave no one behind
Measures to leave no one behind
Does the government use any social media platform(s)? 14

14
14

15
15

Does the government use any social media platform(s)? 14
Is there a national policy, strategy or similar measure in ensuring digital inclusion and leaving no one behind? 14
Is there a national policy, strategy or similar measure in ensuring digital inclusion and leaving no one behind? 14
Does the government publish information on how people's voices, including those among women and the vulnerable populations, are included in policy
decision-making?
13
Does the government publish information on how people's voices, including those among women and the vulnerable populations, areincluded in policy
Does the government provide any specific measure to build digital literacy or skills for women and other vulnerable populations? 13decision-making? 13
Does the government provide any specific measure to build digital literacy or skills for women and other vulnerable populations? 13
Does the government provide any specific e-services for women and other vulnerable populations? 12
Does the government provide any specific e-services for women and other vulnerable populations? 12
Does the government provide any specific measure to ensure meaningful connectivity or access to e-government services for women and other
Does the government provide any specific measure to ensure meaningful connectivity or access to e-government servicesvulnerable
for womenpopulations?
and other 12vulnerable populations? 12
Is there a national e-participation policy, strategy or similar instrument? 12
Is there a national e-participation policy, strategy or similar instrument? 12
Does the government provide any specific e-participation measures for women and other vulnerable populations? 11
Does the government provide any specific e-participation measures for women and other vulnerable populations? 11
0
0

1
1

2
2

3
3

4
4

5
5

6
6

7
7

8
8

9
9

COVID-19 response measures
COVID-19
response measures
Is there a specific national portal or a dedicated section addressing the COVID-19 pandemic? 14

10
10

11
11

12
12

13
13

14
14

15
15

Is there a specific national portal or a dedicated section addressing the COVID-19 pandemic? 14
Is there a specific post-COVID-19 digital strategy for recovery and allocation of public resources (for example, for digital transformation, digital inclusion)? 11
Is there a specific post-COVID-19 digital strategy for recovery and allocation of public resources (for example, for digital transformation, digital inclusion)? 11
Is there any specific budget allocated for new initiative or measure of e-government in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and/or in supporting recovery? 10
Is there any specific budget allocated for new initiative or measure of e-government in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and/or in supporting recovery? 10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Future of digital government

FutureofdigitalStates
government
Sources:
2022
MemberDoes
theGovernment
have Questionnaires.
any measure for policy experimentation and/or regulatory sandboxes in using digital technologies? 10
Does
the Government
have
anymeasureforpolicycountries;
experimentation
and/orregulatory
sandboxes
inanalysis.
using digital technologies? 10
* The
MSQs
were submitted
14foresightof the 15tools,
leading
the planning,
UnitedStatesis not includedin thisDoes
the Government
useby
any
such as scenario
in visioning
the futureof digital
government? 8
Does the Government use any foresight tools, such as scenario planning, in visioning the future of digital government? 8

0 MSQ1 responses
2
3 considerable
4
5 variation
678
10
11 of legislation
12
13
The
revealbetweenregions
in9 the enactment
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
on open government data, with European countries reporting the highest rate of adoption of such
Legal framework
legislation,
followed by Asian countries.
Legal
Is there framework
any legislation, law or regulation on digital signature? 14

14
14

15
15

Is there
anySurvey
legislation,
lawindicate
or regulation
onall
digital
The
2022
data
that
15 signature?
countries14in the VH rating class have a national development
Is there any legislation, law or regulation on digital identity? 14
strategythat
incorporates
SDG onobjectives.
These
Is there any
legislation,
law or regulation
digital identity?
14 countries have a national policy or strategy to
Is there any legislation, law or regulation on data privacy and/or protection? 14
ensureinclusionleavingno privacy
one behind.
Governments
are publishing information about
Is theredigital
any legislation,
law orand
regulation
on data
and/or protection?
14
Is there any
legislation,
lawincluded
or regulation
e-procurement? 13
people’svoicesbeing
inon
policymaking,with specific e-participation measures implemented
Is there any legislation, law or regulation on e-procurement? 13
there any legislation,
law or regulation on cybersecurity? 13
forIs vulnerable
groups.
Is there any legislation, law or regulation on cybersecurity? 13
Is there any legislation, law or regulation on access to information such as Freedom of Information Act? 13

Thecountries
in the top
class
empowercitizens
throughinvestment
Is there
any legislation,
law orrating
regulation
oneitheraccess to
informationtheirsuch asFreedomof Information
Act? 13 in strengthening
Is there any legislation, law or regulation on open government data? 11
digital literacy and competency or stimulate the activation of inclusive practices by setting out
Is there any legislation, law or regulation on open government data? 11
Is there anyon
legislation,
regulation on dataand
sharing,exchange,or interoperability
government
agencies? 11 sectors
standards
how law
theorGovernment
partnersfromthe public,acrossprivateand voluntary
Is there any legislation, law or regulation on data sharing, exchange, or interoperability across government agencies? 11
shouldaccessibility
to digital
services.
Is theremaximize
any legislation,
law or regulation
on digitally
publishing government
expenditure? 11=
Is there any legislation, law or regulation on digitally publishing government
expenditure? 11=

Is there any legislation, law or regulation on the use of new technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, blockchain,
1.5
OSI, TII and HCI performance for each EGDI
group
5G andInternetof Things(IoT)? 9
Is there any legislation, law or regulation on the use of new technologies such as artificial intelligence(AI), robotics,
blockchain,
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

of 11
Things (IoT)?
95G and Internet
10
12 9

13

14

15

As0 indicatedin table
1.1 3and figures
1.3 5and 1.7,6 OSI, TII7 and HCI
values12
4
8 subindex
910 for countries
11
12in the 13
1415
very high EGDI group are significantly higher than the corresponding world averages, especially for
those in the top two rating classes (VH and V3). For countries in the top (HV) rating class of the high
EGDI group, OSI, TII and HCI values are still above, albeit closer to, the world averages. For countries
in Strategy
the H3 andrating classes of the high EGDI group, the subindex values start to decline, andandH2
implementation
Strategy
andimplementation
valuesbelow
the worldstrategy
averagesfor countries
in the H1 rating class. For countries in the middle
Is theredrop
a national
e-government
or equivalent?
14
Is therea EGDI
nationalgroups,
e-government
strategysubindicesor equivalent?have
14
and
low
all
three
valuesbelow
the respective
world averages, withIs the national e-government strategy guided by or aligned with the national
development
strategy? 12Isthenational
e-government
strategy
guidedbyoralignedwith
thenational
development
strategy?
12
rare
exceptions;those withstrategy
HCI values
that arewell above
the world
averageandofdigital
0.700
includeDoes
the national e-government
make specificreference
to e-participation,
engagement
inclusion?
11 Cuba
Does the national
e-government
strategy Libya
make specificreferencee-participation,
engagement
andTII
digitalinclusion?
11(0.8384),
Turkmenistan(0.7892),(0.7534)
andtoSamoa(0.7470),
and thevalue
for Myanmar
Does the national e-government strategy make specific reference to the use of new technologies (such as AI, robotics, blockchain, 5G and Internet of Things)? 11(0.6082)ishigherthan
theglobalaverageof
0.5750.
Does the national e-government strategy make specific reference to the use of new technologies (such as AI, robotics, blockchain, 5G and Internet of Things)? 11
Does the national e-government strategy make specific reference to digital-by-default, digital-by-design, digital-first or similar principles? 11
Does the national e-government strategy make specific reference to digital-by-default, digital-by-design, digital-first or similar principles? 11
Does the national e-government strategy make specific reference to national digital identity? 11
Does the national e-government strategy make specific reference to national digital identity? 11
Is the national e-government strategy guided by or aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)? 11

11

Chapter 1

2022 UN E-Government Survey

Figure 1.7

OSI, TII and HCI subindex values for each EGDI group, 2022

Sources: 2020 and 2022 United Nations E-Government Surveys.

12

Chapter 1

Chapter 1 • Global Trends in E-Government

Understanding the contribution of each of the three subindices to the overall EGDI value helps
countries formulate targeted policies and ensure the optimal allocation of resources for e-government
development. Figure 1.8 highlights countries that have achieved high or very high levels of
e-government development by improving online services provision (expressed as an OSI value) despite
limited resources. Twelve upper-middle-income countries (Albania, Argentina, Brazil, China, Ecuador,
Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Serbia, Thailand and Turkey) have achieved very high OSI levels
by capitalizing on very high levels of human capital development and moderate to very high levels of
infrastructure development (see top horizontal green box and arrows pointing at respective OSI, TII
and HCI values for this group of countries). India, Indonesia, Rwanda and Ukraine have very high OSI
values even though they are low-income or lower-middle-income countries (see vertical green boxes
and arrows on Figure 1.8). India and Rwanda have achieved very high OSI levels (0.7934 and 0.7935,
respectively) despite having a poorly developed telecommunications infrastructure (the respective TII
values for India and Rwanda are 0.3954 and 0.3209).
Figure 1.8

OSI, TII and HCI subindex values for each EGDI level, by income group, 2022

Sources: 2020 and 2022 United Nations E-Government Surveys.

1.6

National income and e-government development

The 2022 e-government assessment shows a generally positive relationship between income levels(as measured by gross domestic product per capita) and EGDI values (see figure 1.8 and table 1.2).
Higher-income countries tend to have higher EGDI values than do lower-income countries. Given thetechnological advancements in higher-income countries, this trend is in line with the findings of all
previous Surveys. As shown in figure 1.9, the most dramatic changes in EGDI and subcomponent
values have occurred in the upper-middle-income group. TII values have risen for all income groups,
with the greatest increase registered by the upper-middle-income group (12.3 per cent), followedby the lower-middle-income group (7.3 per cent), the low-income group (6.4 per cent), and thehigh-income group (1 per cent). For all but the upper-middle-income group, average OSI values
13Chapter 1

2022 UN E-Government Survey

have declined, in part due to changes in the Survey methodology (see annex A for details). The
sharp increase in the average OSI value for the upper-middle-income group suggests that thecountries in this group have prioritized the allocation of resources towards improving online services
provision. High-income countries have already reached a rather high level of services provision,
whereas low-income and lower-middle-income countries lack sufficient resources for investment in
the development of online services. Low-income countries struggle with investing in human capitaldevelopment and are the only group to have registered a decline in the average HCI index value
between 2020 and 2022.
With the higher OSI, TII and HCI values, the upper-middle-income group will likely make rapid
progress in e-government ecosystem development in the coming years, while the decline in OSI or
HCI values for low-income and lower-middle-income countries may signify deepening digital divides.
While all low-income countries have EGDI values below the global average of 0.6102, some havedone exceedingly well in online services provision. Rwanda, for example, has a very high OSI value(0.7935)—well above the OSI average of 0.5554 for 2022.

Table 1.2

Average EGDI and subindex values, by income group, 2022

Country grouping by income

EGDI average

OSI average

TII average

HCI average

Low income

0.29630.30240.21390.3726Lower-middle income

0.50320.45620.44410.6092Upper-middle income*

0.64700.57250.60400.7645High income

0.82410.75420.84200.8762Average for all income groups

0.61020.55540.57510.7001

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.
Note: The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is no longer classified as an upper-middle-income country and at the time of publication had not yet been reclassified.

Figure 1.9

Percentage change in average EGDI and subindex values between 2020 and 2022, by income group

EGDI

15.0%

OSI

TII

HCI

12.3%

10.0%

8.6% 8.5%

7.3%

6.4%

5.3%
3.9%

5.0%
1.2%

1.6%

2.6%
0.7%

1.0%

1.9%

1.8%

0.0%
-2.0%

-5.0%

-1.1%

-1.2%

-2.8%

-5.8%
-10.0%-7.9%
Low income

Lower-middle income Upper-middle income*High income

All income groups

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.
Note: The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is no longer classified as an upper-middle-income country and at the time of publication had not yet been reclassified.

14

Chapter 1

Chapter 1 • Global Trends in E-Government

Figure 1.10 Average EGDI values for 2020 and 2022, by income group

Sources: 2020 and 2022 United Nations E-Government Surveys.
Note: The internationally recognized three-letter country codes can be found here and in Survey annex table 12.

Close to 90 per cent of the 99 Member States that have above-average EGDI values are in the highincome or upper-middle-income group, but the remaining 10 per cent are lower-middle-income
countries (Plurinational State of Bolivia, Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia,
Philippines, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Viet Nam); 10 of these countries (all but thePlurinational State of Bolivia) also have above-average OSI values. Five other countries in the lowermiddle-income group have below-average EGDI values but above-average OSI values: Bangladesh(0.6521), Egypt (0.5730), India (0.7934), Kenya (0.6821) and Pakistan (0.5658). These examples
suggest that while the income level of a country matters, it is not the only factor determining EGDI or
OSI values. As figure 1.10 illustrates, there are also high-income countries that have below-average
EGDI values, such as Palau (0.5018) and Nauru (0.4548), whose underdeveloped infrastructure(typical for SIDS) is reflected in low TII values of 0.3735 and 0.4768, respectively.
Almost all high-income countries (97 per cent) have EGDI values above the global average; the sameis true for 62 per cent of upper-middle-income countries but only 20 per cent of lower-middleincome countries.

15

Chapter 1

2022 UN E-Government Survey

1.7

Complex network analysis: a different perspective on e-government
development

In 2022, UN DESA conducted a pilot study using the science of complex systems to expand theanalysis of factors affecting countries’ e-government development beyond income level and test acomplex network analysis model to address possible inequalities and biases adherent to rankings andfind as yet unidentified similarities and differences between the Member States.
Identifying external biases that affect assessment of the digital development performance of countries
is a complicated task, since classifications based on proxy parameters are subject to discretionality
and are not always able to capture the interrelationships between different countries. With due
consideration given to the complexity of these connections, a model of a digital government
ecosystem was created as a network in which countries represent nodes, with similarities in theirdevelopment indicators determining the strength of the links between the nodes.
The data set used for the analysis, intended to help identify hidden similarities and differences
between the countries, consisted of 305 World Development Indicators (WDIs) relating to health,economy, society and environment and 214 SDG indicators characterizing the general developmentlevel of each Member State.
The analysis resulted in the classification of countries in four clusters. The details of the pilot study andits key findings are presented in annex B. This section highlights some important findings relevant tointerpreting the achievements of Member States in e-government development (as reflected in EGDI
values) based on the assessment of development data covering an extended period and targetedsimilarities and differences between countries.
This advanced approach has a dual advantage over traditional statistical methods: first, thesimilarities between countries are determined by more than 500 indicators, providing a multifaceted
representation of development in the clusters to which these countries are referred; second, the toolof network cluster detection offers a data-driven way to categorize different development ecosystems
in which e-government development (expressed in EGDI values) can be interpreted and assessed.
Based on comparisons of EGDI values within and between clusters, the pilot study identifies “topof-the-class” countries, whose performance surpasses expectations based on their development
status, and “room-for-improvement” countries, which have the potential to reach the EGDI levels of
their cluster peers by intensifying their development efforts. The study classifies as top-of-the-classcountries those whose EGDI values fall above the 75th percentile for their own cluster and above
the 25th percentile for at least one more developed cluster. Using similar criteria, the study classifies
as room-for-improvement countries those whose index values are below the 25th percentile of theirown cluster and below the 75th percentile of at least one less developed cluster.
As reflected in figure 1.11, all but one of the leading countries in the VH rating class in the very
high EGDI group belong to cluster I. The United Arab Emirates, also from the VH rating class, isamong the top-of-the-class countries in cluster II, reflecting a level of performance that surpasses
the expectations associated with the country’s cluster; Argentina, Chile, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia
and Uruguay also perform exceptionally well in terms of e-government development in comparison
with other countries in cluster II. This experimental analysis also highlights a certain level ofoverperformance that is partially obscured in the EGDI groupings of countries such as Uzbekistan,
Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Philippines, Paraguay, Fiji and the Plurinational State of Bolivia (from cluster
III) and Ghana and Kenya (from cluster IV). Many countries in cluster III have achieved levels of
e-government development that are similar to or higher than those of some of the countries inclusters I and II.

16

Figure 1.11 Distribution of countries by cluster based on complex network analysis pilot study findings and
EGDI values, 2022

Source: Complex Network Analysis Pilot Study for the 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey (see annex B for details).
Note: The internationally recognized three-letter country codes can be found here and in Survey annex table 12.

17

Chapter 1

Chapter 1 • Global Trends in E-GovernmentChapter 1

2022 UN E-Government Survey

The cluster groupings are as follows:• Cluster I
o Benchmark: Australia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Netherlands, New Zealand,
Republic of Korea, Singapore, Sweden, United Kingdom, United Stateso Room for improvement: Cuba, Monaco, San Marino• Cluster II
o Top of the class: Argentina, Chile, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Uruguayo Room for improvement: Belize, El Salvador, Lebanon, Nauru, Palau• Cluster III
o Top of the class: Fiji, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Paraguay, Philippines, Plurinational State of
Bolivia, Uzbekistano Room for improvement: Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Federated Statesof Micronesia, Honduras, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Libya, Marshall Islands,
Solomon Islands, Syrian Arab Republic, Tuvalu• Cluster IV
o Top of the class: Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Nigeria, Rwanda,
Senegal, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabweo Trailing: Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Chad, Eritrea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Niger,
Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan
These findings indicate that individual countries are capable of advancing their e-government
development beyond the constraints imposed by their cluster characteristics and that top-of-theclass countries in e-government development are found in each EGDI group. Considering theseresults, it will be interesting to engage in further exploration and investigation of new indicatorsthat may contribute to providing an even more accurate assessment of e-government development.

1.8

Online Services Index

The OSI component of the EGDI is a composite indicator measuring the use of information andcommunications technology (ICT) by Governments for the delivery of public services at the national
level. OSI values are based on the results of a comprehensive survey covering multiple aspects of
the online presence of all 193 Member States. The survey assesses the technical features of national
websites, as well as e-government policies and strategies applied in general and by special sectors
in delivering services.
In the 2022 edition, for the first time, the OSI is calculated based on five weighted subindices.
Specifically, Member States are assessed for services provision (45 per cent), technology (5 per cent),
the institutional framework supporting e-government development (10 per cent), content provision(5 per cent), and e-participation (35 per cent). The overall composite OSI (hereinafter referred to as
the OSI to ensure consistency with previous surveys) is calculated based on the normalized values foreach OSI subindex (see annex A for details on the methodology used).
The results are tabulated and presented as a set of standardized index values on a scale of 0 to
1, with 1 corresponding to the highest-rated online services provision and 0 to the lowest. OSI
values, like EGDI values, are not intended as absolute measurements; rather, they capture the online
performance of countries relative to each other at a particular point in time. Because the OSI is acomposite tool, a high value is an indication of current best practices rather than perfection. Similarly,
a lower value, or a value that has not changed since the Survey’s last edition, does not mean there
has been no progress in e-government development.

18

Chapter 1

Chapter 1 • Global Trends in E-Government

Survey results relating to the OSI and its five subindices are presented below.

1.8.1 Country groupings by OSI and EGDI levels
A country’s level of online services development does not always coincide with its overall EGDI level
because the latter also comprises the TII and HCI subcomponents. It is important to identify cases
in which the OSI level is higher or lower than the overall EGDI level so that targeted policies can be
adopted and sufficient resources allocated for the improvement of online services provision. Table 6
in annex A groups the 193 United Nations Member States according to OSI level and also provides acorresponding EGDI level for each country. Figure 1.12 represents a snapshot distribution of OSI and
EGDI levels, highlighting the positive correlation between progress in online services provision andoverall improvement in e-government development (as reflected in OSI and EGDI values).
As indicated in table 1.3, OSI and EGDI levels coincide for 121 of the 193 Member States (63 percent). However, 72 countries have OSI levels that are higher or lower than their respective EGDI
levels, suggesting that their online services provision is at a more or less advanced stage than thedevelopment of their telecommunications infrastructure and/or human capital (as reflected in TII andHCI values and levels). Annex A provides a snapshot of divergences in OSI levels from respective HCI
and TII levels for all of the Member States.
Figure 1.12 Snapshot distribution of OSI and EGDI levels for United Nations Member States, 2022

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

19

Chapter 1

2022 UN E-Government Survey

Table 1.3

Convergence and divergence of OSI levels relative to EGDI levels, 2022

Member States

Very high EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Low EGDI

Total

193

Number

Per cent

Number

Per cent

Number

Per cent

Number

Per cent

Very high OSI

54

48

88.9

6

11.1

-

-

-

-

High OSI

50

12

24.0

34

68.0

4

8.0

-

-

Middle OSI

70

-

-

32

45.7

35

50.0

3

4.0

Low OSI

19

-

-

1

5.3

14

73.7

4

21.1

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.
Note: The cells shaded in blue indicate convergence between OSI and EGDI levels. The cells shaded in green and red represent divergence(green = EGDI level > OSI level; red = OSI level > EGDI level).

The implications for improvement in e-government overall (expressed in EGDI values) for countries
with divergences may differ from a policymaking perspective, which is addressed in the analysis of
key divergences below.
Countries with OSI levels that are higher than their respective TII and HCI levels are relatively wellsituated in terms of online services provision and are in a good position to progress fairly rapidly
in e-government development if infrastructure and human capital development permit. For thisgroup of countries, online services provision should be coupled with investments in improving thetelecommunications infrastructure and/or strengthening digital literacy.

Very high OSI group
Among the 54 countries with very high OSI values (ranging from 0.75 to 1.00), 48 have similarly highTII and HCI values. The remaining six countries have combinations of TII and HCI levels that diverge
in some way from their respective OSI levels (see table 1.4).
Table 1.4

TII and HCI subcomponent convergence and divergence for the very high OSI group, 2022
Very high OSIHigh TII + Very high HCI
MexicoAlbania

High TII + High HCIIndonesia

Middle TII + Very high HCI
EcuadorMiddle TII + High HCI
India
RwandaSource: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

Albania, Mexico and Indonesia have highly developed infrastructure and human capital and are
well on track to move up to the very high EGDI level. Rwanda, India and Ecuador are at a fairly highlevel in terms of human capital development and online services provision, but these countries areheld back by relatively lower levels of infrastructure development (TII values are 0.3209, 0.3954 and0.5269, respectively).

20Chapter 1

Chapter 1 • Global Trends in E-Government

Box 1.1

Rwanda, India and Ecuador

Three countries with poorly developed telecommunications infrastructure—Rwanda, India andEcuador––have stood out for their efficacy in strengthening the provision of inclusive, user-centric
online services.
In Rwanda, public institutions offer 98 online services. The significant increase in national
investment in online services provision has allowed the country to become a leader among the
LDCs and to compete with the world’s leading countries in e-government development. Aiming
to address challenges and improve user-centricity in services provision, Rwanda is focusing oncollecting real-time information for internal and strategic public planning, to guide decisionmaking processes, and to inform the development of targeted solutions. The country uses realtime specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time-bound (SMART) analytics to track services
delivery performance, including through heat maps and location-referenced quick performance
reviews of public entities such as schools, hospitals and farming areas. The Government isstrengthening inter-agency data sharing to facilitate problem solving and policy alignment andis taking steps to reduce costs, to improve the quality of existing services or develop new ones,
to prevent, detect and mitigate errors, to decrease corruption, and to foster innovation withan eye to anticipating future trends. With financing from the World Bank Group and throughcollaboration with the private sector, Rwanda has launched several digital inclusion initiatives
to help 250,000 households acquire digital devices and to provide 3 million people with theopportunity to improve their digital literacy. As part of its ICT for Governance Cluster Strategy
2020-2024, Rwanda is planning to further expand inclusive digital services and ICT-enabled
empowerment.
The Government of India is implementing the Digital India initiative to build people-centric
services for marginalized groups. The following are among the most recent initiatives:• The Accessible India Campaign and mobile application has become a nationwide flagshipinitiative for achieving universal accessibility—one that enables people with disabilities tohave access to equal opportunities, live independently, and participate fully in all aspects oflife in an inclusive society. The campaign focuses specifically on enhancing the accessibility ofthe built environment, transport system and information and communication ecosystem. The
mobile app is a crowdsourcing platform that allows administrators to obtain comprehensive
information on inaccessible places across the country and to respond to relevant needs.
Through this programme, 1,250 sign language interpreters have been trained, and 588 State
government and 95 central government websites have become accessible for persons withdisabilities.
• The AgriMarket app keeps farmers abreast of crop prices and discourages them from carryingout distress sales. Farmers can obtain crop price information for markets within a 50-kilometre
radius using mobile GPS. To date, more than 80 million farm families have been reachedthrough this app.
• MyGov is a platform created to promote and support public engagement in decision-making
processes. The platform has 24.5 million registered users and offers many e-participation tools
to facilitate the formation of online groups and thematic discussions, polls, surveys, blogs andtalks. During 2021 and 2022, the Government has shared its plan for digital transformation
with 9.5 million participants.

21

Chapter 1

2022 UN E-Government Survey

Box 1.1(continued)
In Ecuador, the political commitment to reducing inequalities through investment in digitaltransformation is articulated in the 2021-2025 Opportunity Plan. Particular attention is given
to bridging existing gaps in Internet access. The country has signed an agreement with theInternational Telecommunication Union (ITU) to move forward with plans to expand the 4G
network and guarantee the connectivity of schools and health-care facilities that have been
excluded until now, including in rural areas.

Sources: Member States Questionnaires; World Bank, “World Bank provides $100 million to accelerate Rwanda’s digital transformation”, press
release, 30 November 2021 (Washington, D.C.), available at https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2021/12/01/world-bank-provides-100million-to-accelerate-rwanda-s-digital-transformation; Digital India website, available at https://www.digitalindia.gov.in/; BNamericas, “Ecuador’s plans
to promote digital transformation and industry 4.0”, 21 October 2021, available at https://www.bnamericas.com/en/interviews/ecuadors-plans-topromote-digital-transformation-and-industry-40.

High OSI group
Among the 50 countries with high OSI values (0.50 to 0.75), 16 have divergent HCI and/or TII levels(see table 1.5).
Table 1.5

TII and HCI subcomponent convergence and divergence for the high OSI group, 2022
High OSI

Very high TII + Very high HCI
Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Costa Rica,

High TII + Very high HCI

Middle TII + Middle HCIGeorgia

Pakistan, Nigeria, Benin

Low TII + High HCI
UgandaCzech Republic, Hungary, Liechtenstein,
Oman, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia
Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

Twelve of the sixteen countries listed in the table—Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Czech
Republic, Georgia, Hungary, Liechtenstein, Oman, Romania, the Russian Federation and Slovakia—
have a very high EGDI level that largely derives from high or very high HCI and TII levels, but more
attention needs to be directed towards improving online services provision. The remaining four
countries (Uganda, Pakistan, Nigeria and Benin) would benefit from investment in both TII and HCI
development.

Middle OSI group
Divergences in EGDI and OSI levels are most pronounced for the group of countries with middle
OSI values (0.25 to 0.50); among these 70 countries, 32 have high EDGI levels, and 3 have low
EGDI levels. Table 1.6 identifies the variations in TII and/or HCI levels that are responsible for thisdivergence.
Well over half of the countries in the middle OSI group have high or very high TII values and highor very high HCI values; relatively advanced human capital and infrastructure development may
constitute a solid foundation for efforts to improve online services provision in these countries.
Underdeveloped or unevenly developed infrastructure constrains e-government development in
Belize, Guyana, Lebanon, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Tajikistan and Zambia. Middle OSI levels havebeen achieved by Niger (0.3904), Somalia (0.2944) and Chad (0.2726), signifying that low levels of
infrastructure and human capital development have not been an impediment to investment in online
services delivery.
22

Chapter 1

Chapter 1 • Global Trends in E-Government

Table 1.6

TII and HCI subcomponent convergence and divergence for the middle OSI group, 2022
Middle OSI

Very high TII +Very high TII +High TII +High TII +Middle TII +Middle TII +Low HCI +Very high HCIHigh HCI

Very high HCIHigh HCI

Very high HCIHigh HCI

Low TII

Monaco,Fiji, Antigua andAlgeria, Bosnia

Tonga,

Belize, Guyana,

Niger, Somalia,

Seychelles,

San Marino

Barbuda,and Herzegovina,

Venezuela

Lebanon,ChadSaint Kitts andIran (Islamic

Botswana,(Bolivarian

Namibia, Nepal,

Nevis

Republic of)Cabo Verde,

Republic of)Nicaragua,

Cambodia,Tajikistan, Zambia

Dominica,
El Salvador,
Gabon, Jamaica,
Maldives,
Morocco,Saint Lucia,
Saint Vincent and
the Grenadines,
Suriname,
Trinidad andTobagoSource: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

Low OSI group
Of the 19 countries with low OSI values (0.00 to 0.25), 14 are in the middle EDGI group and one
is in the high EGDI group. Divergences resulting from TII and/or HCI levels for these countries arepresented in table 1.7.
Table 1.7

TII and HCI subcomponent convergence and divergence for the low OSI group, 2022
Low OSI

Middle TII + Very high HCI

Middle TII + High HCI

Middle TII + Middle HCILow TII + High HCI

Libya, Palau

Honduras, Iraq,

Djibouti, Gambia, Guinea-

Democratic People’s

Sao Tome and Principe

Bissau, Mauritania, Sudan

Republic of Korea,

Low TII + Middle HCIComoros

Democratic Republicof Congo, Equatorial
Guinea, Tuvalu
Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

Online services provision lags behind infrastructure and human capital development in Libya, Palau,
Honduras, Iraq, Sao Tome and Principe, Djibouti, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania and Sudan. At
the same time, due to poor telecommunications infrastructure, the Democratic People’s Republicof Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Tuvalu and Comoros are fallingbehind, despite having high or middle levels of human capital development.

23

Chapter 1

2022 UN E-Government Survey

Movement between OSI groups
A total of 24 countries have moved from a lower to a higher OSI level since 2020; 7 moved from thelow to the middle OSI group, 9 moved from the middle to the high OSI group, and 8 moved fromthe high to the very high OSI group. For 18 countries, however, the OSI level has declined; 8 moved
from the very high to the high OSI group, 5 moved from the high to the middle OSI group, and 5
moved from the middle to the low OSI group. Although more countries have moved upward than
downward, the volatility surrounding this EGDI subindex is concerning.

1.8.2

Country OSI levels by income group

As expected, the countries with higher income levels generally have higher OSI values, and they
are also more homogeneous in terms of their e-government development (see figure 1.13). Most
countries in the high-income bracket (64 per cent) have OSI values higher than the group average of
0.7542 and well above the global OSI average of 0.5554.
Figure 1.13 OSI averages by income group, 2022

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

High-income countries also have a denser distribution of OSI values around the median value,suggesting a more even provision of online services. Upper-middle-income countries have greater
variance in their OSI values; slightly over 51 per cent have average OSI values that are higher than the
global average. The OSI averages for the low-income group (0.3024) and the lower-middle-income
group (0.4562) are below the global OSI average of 0.5554.

24

Chapter 1

Chapter 1 • Global Trends in E-Government

1.8.3

Services provision subindex: progress in online services delivery

The services provision subindex of the OSI assesses a wide range of features, including the availabilityof various online transactional services, how government services are accessed (through one main
portal or multiple dedicated portals), the existence and functionality of e-procurement platforms, theintegration of GIS or geospatial data and technologies in online services provision, and the availabilityof sector-specific services and services for people in vulnerable situations. The data analysis and key
findings are presented below.
Almost three quarters of the Member States (138 countries) use “one-stop-shop” portals for the
online provision of different government services. The number of countries offering at least 1 of the
22 online transactional services assessed increased from 162 in 2020 to 189 in 2022, or by 16.7 percent. The provision of 16 types of services is the global average, but 115 of the Member States (61per cent) offer more (see figure 1.14).
Figure 1.14 Numbers of Member States offering specified numbers of online transactional services, 2022

16

24

24

23

19

15

9

9

6

14

7

7

6

8

4 3 4

4 3 12 2 3 4

Number of online services

22
20
18

2022 Average number of offered services = 16162020 Average number of offered services = 14

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1

5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97 101 105 109 113117 121 125 129 133 137 141 145 149 153 157 161 165 169 173 177 181 185 189 193 197

Number of United Nations Member States
Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

The number of countries providing the online services assessed has risen by an average of 5 per centsince 2020, with increases registered for all but one type of service. The number of countries offering
services that allow users to apply for social protection programmes (such as maternity care, childsubsidies, pensions, housing and food allowances) has seen the most significant increase (17 percent), which may have occurred in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (see figure 1.15 and table
1.8). The only service being offered by fewer countries this year is the registration of motor vehicles,
though there has been only a slight decline (6.1 per cent).
Globally, the most prevalent online transactional service is the registration of a new business; thenumber of countries providing this service has risen from 162 to 177 (or by 9.2 per cent) since2020. Overall, business-related services such as registration, licensing and filing company taxes areamong the five most frequently offered government services. The submission of business tax forms
and payments online, similar to the services offered for income tax and Value Added Tax (VAT)
submissions, is a new indicator added in 2022. The data suggest that tax filing services are offered
more frequently to businesses (153 countries) than to individuals (151 countries for income tax and
142 countries for VAT).

25

Figure 1.15 Trends in the provision of online transactional services, 2020-2022 					(Number of countries and percentage change)

20%

200
5%

3%

6%

11%

2%

3%

1%

7%

5%

9%

13%

2%

17%

3%

2%

2%

-6%

14%

118
115

131

10%

0%

66

60

75

77
82

80

92
90

5%

97
95

112

100

133
131

136
120

139
132

142
130

146
144

149
145

149
146

150

145
136

120

135

151
143

152
147

153

15%

156
149

167

3%

160
156

140

11%

151

177

160

9%

162

180

40

-5%

Submit change of address

Register a motor vehicle

Declare to police

Apply for visa

Pay fines

Apply for environmental permit

Pay for utilities (water)*

Apply for land title registration

Submit Value Added Tax

Apply for building permit

Apply for driver’s license

2020

Apply for social protection programmes

2022

Pay for utilities (electricity/gas)*

Apply for marriage certificate

Apply for personal identity card

Submit income taxes-10%

Apply for death certificate

Apply for birth certificate

Apply for government vacancies online

Apply for business license

0File company business tax online 0

20

Register a business

Chapter 1

2022 UN E-Government Survey

Per cent change

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

The next most commonly offered online services include applying for government vacancies andbusiness licences, requesting birth, death, and marriage certificates, and paying utility bills. Amongthe least offered online services are paying fines (118 countries), applying for a visa (97 countries),making declarations to the police (92 countries), registering motor vehicles (77 countries) andsubmitting a change of address (75 countries).
The global coverage rate—the combined average of the proportion of Member States providing
each type of online transactional service—rose from 66 per cent in 2020 to 71 per cent in 2022.
The corresponding percentages for the different OSI groups vary widely. As shown in table 1.8 andfigure 1.16, among countries with very high OSI values, coverage of the 22 services assessed is nearly
universal (averaging 93 per cent for the 54 countries in this group). Countries with high OSI values
also have strong online services coverage (averaging 83 per cent for the 50 countries in this group).
The proportions are significantly lower for the remaining OSI groups, with coverage averaging 58
per cent for the 70 countries in the middle OSI group and 20 per cent for the 19 countries in the
low OSI group. Around three quarters of the countries in the low OSI group (14 of the 19) are LDCs,
LLDCs and/or SIDS.
It is important to note that progress is being made in online services delivery even in countries with
low OSI levels, where the average number of online services offered rose from 1 in 2018 to 4.5 in
2022. Within the low OSI group, Equatorial Guinea offers the highest number of online services (14),followed by Djibouti, Honduras, Sao Tome and Principe, and Tuvalu (8-10); in 2020, the maximum
number of services offered by any country in the low OSI group was nine. The five services mostcommonly provided by countries in this group are registering a business, applying for a building
permit, and applying for a birth, death or marriage certificate.
26

Pay fines

147

66

14%

-6%

2%

2%

3%

17%

2%

13%

5%

9%

7%

1%

3%

2%

11%

6%

3%

5%

3%

11%

9%

changeSources: 2020 and 2022 United Nations E-Government Surveys.

75

Submit change of address

82

90

92
77

Declare to police

95

115

112

131

120

132

130

136

144

145

146

135

143

97

Register motor vehicle

Apply for visa

118

133
131

Apply for environmental permit

Apply for social protection

programmes

139
136

Apply for land title registration

Pay for utilities (water)*

145
142

Apply for building permit

Submit Value Added Tax

149
146

Pay for utilities (electricity/gas)*

Apply for driver’s license

150
149

Apply for personal identity card

Apply for marriage certificate

152
151

Apply for death certificate

Submit income taxes

-

149

156
153

Apply for birth certificate

File company/business taxes online

151
156

167
160

Apply for business license

Apply for government vacancies

2020
162

2022
177

Register a business

Per cent

44

39

49

36

51

54

51

50

49

53

50

52

51

52

52

54

52

54

53

52

52

54

81%

72%

91%

67%

94%

100%

94%

93%

91%

98%

93%

96%

94%

96%

96%

100%

96%

100%

98%

96%

96%

100%

Per cent

28

26

22

32

42

43

47

39

43

46

42

43

45

42

47

49

44

48

45

49

47

49

Number

56%

52%

44%

64%

84%

86%

94%

78%

86%

92%

84%

86%

90%

84%

94%

98%

88%

96%

90%

98%

94%

98%

Per cent(total 54)
NumberHigh OSI(total 50)

Very high OSI

3

11

19

26

21

33

34

45

41

40

46

48

50

49

45

45

50

47

52

56

64

64

Number

4%

16%

27%

37%

30%

47%

49%

64%

59%

57%

66%

69%

71%

70%

64%

64%

71%

67%

74%

80%

91%

91%

Per cent(total 70)

Middle OSI

0

1

2

3

4

1

1

2

6

3

7

3

3

6

6

3

6

4

6

3

4

10

Number

0%

5%

11%

16%

21%

5%

5%

11%

32%

16%

37%

16%

16%

32%

32%

16%

32%

21%

32%

16%

21%

53%

Per cent(total 19)

Low OSI

75

77

92

97

118

131

133

136

139

142

145

146

149

149

150

151

152

153

156

160

167

177

Number

39%

40%

48%

50%

61%

68%

69%

70%

72%

74%

75%

76%

77%

77%

78%

78%

79%

79%

81%

83%

87%

92%

Per cent(193 countries)

UN Member States

Trends in the provision of online transactional services and breakdown by OSI level, 2020-2022 						(Number of countries and percentage change)

Trends in online transactional services, 2022

Table 1.8

Chapter 1

Chapter 1 • Global Trends in E-Government

27

Chapter 1

2022 UN E-Government Survey

Figure 1.16 Percentage of countries offering each type of online transactional service, by OSI level, 2022

United Nations Member States(193 countries)

Very High OSI(54 countries)

Submit change of address
Register a motor vehicle

High OSI(50 countries)

Middle OSI(70 countries)

Low OSI(19 countries)

Register a business
100%
Apply for business license
90%

Apply for government vacancies online80%
Declare to police

70%

Apply for birth certificate

60%
50%

Apply for visa

File company business tax online

40%
30%
20%

Pay fines

Apply for death certificate

10%0%Apply for social protection programmes

Submit income taxes

Apply for environmental permit

Apply for personal identity card

Pay for utilities (water)*
Apply for land title registration

Apply for marriage certificate
Pay for utilities (electricity/gas)*

Submit Value Added Tax
Apply for driver’s license
Apply for building permit

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.
*In previous Surveys, utilities were assessed together. Since 2020, the E-Government Survey has collected disaggregated data on utility
payments for (a) electricity/gas and (b) water to allow more accurate tracking of services provision in all countries.

The 2022 Survey assessed not only the availability of the listed services, but also the level ofdigitalization—or in other words, whether users could complete transactions digitally. The assessment
focused on applying for government vacancies, business licenses and registration, social protection
programmes, environmental and building permits, land title registration, personal identity cards,
driver’s licenses, and birth, marriage and death certificates.
The findings indicate that the majority of countries use their portals to provide information, andthe process of services delivery is partially digitalized, but one still needs to appear in person tocomplete most transactions (see figure 1.17). There is, however, a clear push towards higher levels ofdigitalization whereby users will no longer have to download or print forms but can complete theirtransactions fully online.
The data collected suggest that countries tend to assign priority to digitalizing the registration andlicensing of businesses and the process of applying for government vacancies; more than half ofthe countries offering such services have them fully digitalized. The number of countries publishinggovernment vacancies online rose from 156 in 2020 to 160 in 2022, and in 85 of those countries
people can apply for government positions directly online. At the regional level, Europe has thehighest proportion of countries recruiting for public positions online (41 of 43 countries), while
Africa has the lowest (36 of 54 countries). It is encouraging to see that of the 131 countries allowing
users to apply for social protection programmes online, 74 (56 per cent) have systems in place thatallow all relevant transactions to be fully completed online.

28

Figure 1.17 Numbers of countries offering selected services that can be completed partially or fully online, 2022

Register a business

177

93

Apply for business license

167

81

Apply for government vacancies online

160

85

Apply for birth certificate

156

62

Apply for death certificate

152

48

Apply for personal identity card

150

18

Apply for marriage certificate

149

51

Apply for driver’s license

146

36

Apply for building permit

145

43

Apply for land title registration

139

33

Apply for environmental permit

133

54

Apply for social protection programmes

131

74

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Online services that require offline completion (are partially online)
Online services that can be completed fully online
Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

Public procurement services
As shown in figure 1.18, 127 countries have dedicated e-procurement portals, and 88 of them
(69 per cent) use digital invoicing. While the number of countries with e-procurement portals has
increased by only 2 since 2020, the number of countries with the ability to issue digital invoices
has increased by 21 (17 per cent) over the past two years. The highest regional concentration of
e-procurement portals is in Europe (39 of 43 countries, or 91 per cent), followed by Asia (36 of 47
countries, or 77 per cent), the Americas (26 of 35 countries, or 74.3 per cent), Oceania (7 of 14
countries, or 50 per cent), and Africa (19 of 54 countries, or 35.2 per cent). In Europe and Asia, mostcountries with e-procurement portals also use digital invoices (the respective proportions are 90 and
72 per cent). In other regions, the use of digital invoicing is less prevalent.
Figure 1.18

Number of countries with e-procurement platforms and digital invoicing capabilities, by region, 2022

200
180
160

127

140
120

7

100

39

88
3

80
60
40
20
0

36

35

26

26

19

14
10

E-procurement platform
AfricaAmericas

Asia

Digital invoicing
EuropeOceania

Total number of Member States

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

29

Chapter 1

Chapter 1 • Global Trends in E-GovernmentChapter 1

2022 UN E-Government Survey

E-procurement portals and digital invoices are far more common in high-income and upper-middleincome countries than in lower-middle-income countries, and these features are much less prevalent
in low-income countries (see figure 1.19). For comparison, 8 out of 10 high-income countries arelikely to have both a dedicated platform and a reliable system for digital invoicing, while the sameis true for only 4 out of 10 lower-middle-income countries and 1 out of 10 low-income countries.
Figure 1.19 Percentage of countries with e-procurement platforms and digital invoicing, by income level,2022

High income
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
Low income0%Upper-middle income

E-procurement platform
Digital invoicing

Lower-middle income
Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

The use of geographic information systems and geospatial technologies inonline services provision
The 2022 Survey assessed the availability of government services that integrate or are supported by
GIS or other geospatial technologies (see figure 1.20). The results indicate that 119 of the Member
States (about 62 per cent) offer such services, though the corresponding proportions vary widely
among the different OSI and regional groups. All 54 of the countries in the very high OSI groupoffer services supported by GIS or other geospatial technologies; the same is true for 34 of the 50
countries in the high OSI group and 30 of the 70 countries in the middle OSI group. Europe is theregion with the highest proportion of countries using geospatial technologies in services provision(91 per cent), followed by the Americas (69 per cent), Asia (60 per cent), Oceania (50 per cent) and
Africa (39 per cent).

30

Number of countries

Figure 1.20 Number of countries that offer services integrating or supported by GIS or other geospatial
technologies, by OSI level and region, 2022

54

0

34

20

40

Number of countries

Very high OSI

21

0

24

20

30

60

80

High OSI

Middle OSI

28

40

60

AfricaAmericas

100

80

140

120

140

7

100
Europe120
Low OSI

39

Asia

1

Oceania

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

Targeted services for people in vulnerable situations
The 2022 Survey has assessed the availability of a wider range of services for vulnerable groups,
covering not only services specifically targeting populations that are traditionally identified asvulnerable (including persons with disabilities, women, older persons, immigrants, youth, and people
living in poverty), but also frequently offered government services that support different vulnerable
groups or multiple underserved populations at the same time. This subsection shares the Survey
findings and, where possible, assesses progress made since the previous Survey.
The number of countries providing information and services that target specific vulnerable
populations increased by 6 per cent between 2020 and 2022, compared with 11 per cent for theprevious two-year period (see figure 1.21). Services aimed at supporting immigrants are provided
by the highest number of countries (163), followed by services for women (162 countries), persons
with disabilities (157 countries), young people (155 countries), and people living in poverty and older
31

Chapter 1

Chapter 1 • Global Trends in E-GovernmentChapter 1

2022 UN E-Government Survey

people (144 countries each). The highest rates of growth in online services provision (as reflectedin the increase in the number of countries providing the service) have been for immigrants (19 percent) and people living in poverty (11 per cent); the number of countries providing services targeting
women and persons with disabilities rose by approximately 6 per cent each, while the numberof countries offering services for older persons and young people declined by 5 and 1 per cent,respectively. Between 23 and 31 per cent of those services are fully digitalized, allowing people tocomplete their transactions online.
Figure 1.21 Numbers of countries offering services for people in vulnerable situations that can be completed
partially or fully online, 2020 and 2022 (Percentage change)

200

10.8%

19.0%

6.6%
-5.3%

180

148

144

162

157

152

137

130

100%

-0.6%

80%

163

160
140

6.1%

156 155

152

144

60%
40%

120

20%

100

0%

80

-20%

60
40

42

38

42

48
37

37

-40%
-60%
-80%

20

-100%

0
People living
in poverty
2020

Immigrants
2022

Persons withdisabilities

Older persons

2022-can be completed online

Women

Youth

Percentage change

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

As noted above, the Survey has traditionally assessed a range of services targeting specific peoplein vulnerable situations. For those living in poverty, for instance, Survey indicators have focusedon people’s ability to apply for government support. For older persons, the Survey has exploredthe provision of information and services relating to retirement, housing facilities, long-term-care
programmes, and options for receiving care and support at home. For young people, the availabilityof information and services linked to employment programmes, scholarships and government
funding has been the focus. In 2022, a number of new areas are being assessed, including services
for people retiring from a job and for those applying for unemployment benefits, child benefits,maternal or newborn benefits, disability compensation, or other benefits due to illness or injury. As
shown in figure 1.22, services linked to job retirement are offered by the highest number of countries(152), followed by services that allow users to apply for disability compensation (134), benefits due
to illness or injury (131), child benefits (126), and maternal or newborn benefits (124). In just overhalf of the Member States (106 countries), individuals can file for unemployment benefits online.
As illustrated in figure 1.23, Europe is the region with the highest proportion of countries providing
online services for people in vulnerable situations (95 per cent), followed by the Americas (72 percent), Asia (69 per cent), Oceania (45 per cent), and Africa (44 per cent).

32

Figure 1.22 Number of countries providing newly assessed online services for people living in vulnerable
situations, and number and percentage of countries in which such services can be fully completed
online, 2022

160

50%

152
45%

140
120

134

131

126

124

40%

36%

36%

35%

106

33%

100

30%

29%

28%

80
60

25%
20%

55

48

45

42

38

37

40

15%
10%

20
0

45%

5%
Apply forservices provided
to people retiringfrom job

Apply fordisability
compensation
benefits

Apply for benefits
due to illness
or injury

Number of countries offering the service

Apply forchild benefits

Apply formaternal or
newborn benefits

Apply or file for
unemployment
benefits0%

Number of countries where services can be completed online

Percentage of countries where services can be complered online
Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

Figure 1.23 Percentage of countries providing newly assessed online services to people in vulnerable
situations, by region, 2022d number and percentage of countries in which such services can be
fully completed online, 2022

Availability of services provided
to people retiring from job
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%

Apply or file for
unemployment benefits

Apply online for disability
compensation benefits

50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Apply online for maternalor newborn benefits

Apply for benefits
due to illness or injury

Apply online for child benefits
AfricaAmericas

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

Asia

EuropeOceania

33

Chapter 1

Chapter 1 • Global Trends in E-GovernmentChapter 1

2022 UN E-Government Survey

Sector-specific online information and services: sharing via mobile technologies
The Survey has been tracking the development of online services relating to health, education,
employment, environment and social protection since 2016; since 2020, the Survey has also been
tracking e-services linked to the justice sector, assessing the ability of users to file or open court
cases online, manage or retrieve information on their cases, or apply online to receive an affidavit ofcriminal history or background clearance.
The Survey assesses whether countries proactively utilize short message service (SMS) and mobile
applications to share sector-specific public information and provide online services. As shown infigure 1.24, the number of countries providing information and services through smartphone
applications, SMS and/or mobile browsers increased for all sectors by an average of 18 per centbetween 2020 and 2022. The health sector saw the most significant increase (30 per cent), largely
owing the widespread adoption of digital solutions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but
growth was also evident for the justice sector (25 per cent), the education sector (22 per cent), andthe social protection sector (20 per cent). The number of countries offering mobile services linked
to specific sectors may be summarized as follows, in descending order of prevalence: health (135),
education (128), employment (114), social protection (108), environment (103), and justice (100).
Figure 1.24 Number of countries using SMS and/or mobile applications for public information updates andservices provision, by sector, 2020 and 2022

200
180

100%
22%

10%

2%

30%

25%

20%

160

80%

140
120

90%

135

128
105

104

114
101

100

103

70%

104

100

108
90

80

80

60%
50%
40%

60

30%

40

20%

20

10%

0

Education

Employment

Environment
2020

2022

HealthPercentage change

Justice

Socialprotection

0%

Sources: 2020 and 2022 United Nations E-Government Surveys.

At the regional level, Europe has the highest proportion of countries offering sector-specific mobile
services (82 per cent), followed by Asia (73 per cent), the Americas (68 per cent), Oceania (32 percent) and Africa (31 per cent) (see figure 1.25).
The continued expansion of mobile services delivery is linked to improved access to fixed (wired)broadband and a global average increase of almost 14 per cent in subscriptions for this service, a
global average increase of 13 per cent in active mobile subscriptions, and a higher percentage ofindividuals using the Internet (see figure 1.26).

34

Chapter 1

Chapter 1 • Global Trends in E-Government

Figure 1.25 Percentage of countries offering sector-specific mobile services, by region, 2022

Education
100%
80%
60%

Social protection

Employment

40%
20%
0%

Justice

Environment

HealthAfrica (54)Asia (47)

Americas (35 )Europe (43)

Oceania (14)Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

Figure 1.26 Share of the population using the Internet (2022) and percentage change in fixed (wired)broadband, active mobile broadband and mobile cellular subscriptions per 100 inhabitants(2020-2022), by region

80%
65.4%

60%
48.3%

40%
29.8%

20%

22.7%

22.3%

13.9%
11.8%
6.7%8.3%

15.6%

13.0%
7.6%7.9%

6.3%

0%2.7% 0.7%

2.1%

10.9%
4.3%

9.5%

-2.8%
-9.6%

-20%

-11.1%-28.5%-40%

Percentage change in
fixed (wired) broadband
subscriptions per 100
inhabitants

AfricaPercentage change in active Percentage change in mobile Percentage of individuals
mobile broadband
cellular telephone subscriptions
using the Internet
subscriptions per 100
per 100 inhabitants
inhabitants

Americas

Asia

EuropeOceania

Global average

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

35

Chapter 1

2022 UN E-Government Survey

There has been an increase in fixed (wired) broadband subscriptions in all regions since 2020; the48 per cent jump in Africa is noteworthy, though the subscription rate in this region remains thelowest by far at 2.7 subscriptions per 100 inhabitants (see table 1.9). Europe has the highest rateof fixed broadband use, at around 34.4 per 100 inhabitants, a slight increase from 32.2 in 2020.
Over the past two years, the proportion of the population using the Internet has also risen in mostregions, increasing by 65 per cent in the Americas, 22 per cent in Africa, 11 per cent in Asia, and 4
per cent in Europe. Oceania has registered a decline of 29 per cent in Internet usage and 11 per centin mobile cellular telephone subscriptions. Europe is the leader in terms of active mobile broadband
subscriptions per 100 inhabitants (98), followed by Asia (80) and the Americas (66).
Table 1.9

Percentage of the population using the Internet and fixed (wired) broadband, active mobile
broadband, and mobile cellular telephone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants, by region, 2022
Fixed (wired) broadband
subscriptions per 100
inhabitants

Active mobile broadband
subscriptions per 100
inhabitants

Mobile cellular telephone
subscriptions per 100
inhabitants

Percentage of individuals
using the Internet

2020

2022

2020

2022

2020

2022

2020

2022

Africa

1.8

2.67

37

42.77

78.7

83.68

27

33.01

Americas

14.2

17.43

73

65.96

104.9

101.92

41

67.81

Asia

10.9

12.19

62

80.50

103.1

105.9357

63.21

Europe

32.2

34.37

91

97.90

113.1

113.8682

85.52

Oceania
Global average

7.2

7.80

40

43.15

81.6

72.53

61

43.59

13.26

15.10

60.6

68.47

96.28

98.32

54

59.14

Source: International Telecommunication Union, Statistics (2020 and 2022), available at https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/
stat/default.aspx.

As indicated in figure 1.27, the cost of mobile broadband subscriptions as a percentage of grossnational income per capita remains significantly higher in Africa than in other parts of the world,
contributing to the digital divide.
Figure 1.27 The cost of active mobile broadband subscriptions as a percentage of gross national income
per capita, by region, 2022

36
Source: International Telecommunication Union, Statistics (2022), available at https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx.

Chapter 1

Chapter 1 • Global Trends in E-Government

1.8.4

Technology subindex

At the time the countries were assessed for the 2022 Survey, all but three (Belize, Eritrea andMauritania) had national portals.3 Most of the government portals (98 per cent) can be found by
search engines, have a “contact us” page, and utilize Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS) to
provide a safe experience for users (see figure 1.28). In 94 per cent of the countries assessed, theportals have a basic search feature on the homepage; only 58 per cent offer “advanced search”
options. Most portals are developed using responsive web design (88 per cent), are updated at least
once a month (82 per cent), have a sitemap (71 per cent), and include a section that provides help or
addresses frequently asked questions (71 per cent); fewer countries (58 per cent) have portals thatoffer tutorials or guidance to ensure that people understand how use the services offered.
In 2022, for the first time, the Survey has assessed whether individuals and businesses are able to use
the national portal to access or modify any data the government has on record that pertains to them.
The findings indicate that 65 per cent of the countries surveyed allow businesses to access their data
online, with 64 per cent giving individuals the same right. Modifying data is possible for business
entities in 58 per cent of the countries and for individuals in 50 per cent of the countries surveyed.
In 112 countries (58 per cent of the Member States), users can save specific service transactions
initiated on the portal and access them later, and in 109 countries (57 per cent), they can also accessa list of previous transactions. Users can customize or personalize the national portal or bookmark
their favourite or most frequently used online services in only 31 countries (16 per cent). In 51
countries (26 per cent), portals have begun to feature AI-enabled chatbot functionality.
Figure 1.28 Number of Member States with the assessed portal features, 2022

There is a "contact us" feature.

189

Portal can be found on search engine.

189
188

Portal utilizes HTTPS.

182

There is a search feature on the portal homepage.
170

Portal is developed using responsive web design.
160

Portal has been updated in the last month.
137

There is a sitemap (or index).

136

There is a help or FAQs section.
Guidance or tutorials are available to help
people understand and use services.
There is an "advanced search" option.

117
112
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

140

160

180

140

160

180

Businesses can access their own data online.

125

Individuals can access their own data online.

123
113

Businesses can modify their own data online.
97

Individuals can modify their own data online.
020Specific service transactions initiated throughthe portal can be saved and accessed later.
Users can access a list of their previous
interactions or transactions in the portal.
Portal offers AI-enabled chatbot functionality.
Users can customize or personalize the portal tomark their favourite or most used online services.

40

60

80

100

120
112
109

51
31
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

37

Chapter 1

2022 UN E-Government Survey

1.8.5

Institutional framework subindex

Many aspects of the institutional framework supporting e-government development have always
been assessed in the Survey, generally as part of the broader analysis, but the 2022 edition features
a new OSI subindex that focuses exclusively on the institutional framework. Some relevant analyticalfindings are presented below.
Almost all of the Member States have national portals that are fully operational. The vast majority
of countries (93 per cent) make the government organizational chart and information on thegovernment structure available on their portals, 90 per cent provide the names and titles of theheads of government agencies, departments and ministries, 77 per cent furnish information on
the national CIO or the equivalent, and 74 per cent share links to subnational or local government
agencies. Such information helps orient users and allows them to engage effectively with government
agencies through online platforms.
An average of 90 per cent of the countries surveyed have national portals that provide links toministerial websites and offer sources of information on sector-specific policies (see figure 1.29).
Figure 1.29 Number of countries with links to sectoral ministries and policies on their national portals, 2022

Link to sectoral or ministerial websites

Information on sector-specific policies

Education

182

Employment

165

Education

182

Employment

174

Environment

176

Environment

179

Health

179

Health179

Justice

174

Justice

168

Social Protection

173

Social Protection

163
0

50

100

150

200

0

50

100

150

200

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

Among the key elements of a conducive e-government ecosystem are a legislative framework that
regulates digital transformation and legal mechanisms that ensure access to public information andcompliance with online privacy protocols. According to 2022 Survey data, 132 countries (68 percent) have legislation guaranteeing freedom of information and access to information, and 127
countries (66 per cent) have privacy statements available on their government portals. As illustrated
in figure 1.30, most countries have a national electronic or digital government strategy (155), a
national data policy or strategy (128), and legislation on cybersecurity (153), personal data protection(145), and open government data (117); 91 countries, or almost half of those surveyed, have laws
relating to e-participation.

38

Chapter 1

Chapter 1 • Global Trends in E-Government

Figure 1.30 Legislative framework for e-government development, 2022

Legislation, policies or regulations on cybersecurity

153

Availability of a national e-government/digital
government strategy or equivalent

150
145

Legislation, policies or regulations on personal data protection
128

Availability of national data strategy or policy
Legislation, policies or regulations on open government data

117
91

Legislation, policies or regulations on e-participation
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

1.8.6

Content provision subindex: sharing public information

The availability of government information and services in multiple languages or through multiple
channels facilitates access and inclusiveness. As shown in figure 1.31, more than 80 per cent of theMember States (158) have portals with content available in more than one official language. Fewerthan half of the countries assessed (91) proactively share web statistics on usage such as the numberof new visits, total page views, or average time spent on site on their national portals.
Figure 1.31 Content provision on national portals, 2022 (Number of countries)

Availability of portal content in more than
one official language of the country.

158

Web statistics on usage, such as new visits,
total page views, and average time on site.

91

Announcements of forthcoming procurement orbidding processes are published on the portal.

171

Information is available about payments for government
services through channels other than online.

143

Information is provided about results of any
government procurement or bidding process online.

139

Information is avalable if online services
are provided in partnership with the private sector.

112

Free access to government online services is provided
through kiosks, community centres, post offices,
libraries, public spaces, or free Wi-Fi.

103
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

39

Chapter 1

2022 UN E-Government Survey

The majority of countries (171) publish announcements of forthcoming procurement or bidding
processes on their national portals, but only 139 countries provide online information about theresults of those processes.
In 143 countries, Governments inform portal users about alternatives to paying for government
services online, but only 103 countries (53 per cent) provide information about and/or free access toonline government services via kiosks, community centres, post offices, libraries, public spaces or free
Wi-Fi. Most countries (112) inform people about partnership arrangements with the private sector
for the online delivery of public services.

1.8.7

E-participation subindex

Public participation is a key dimension of governance, and its importance is highlighted in a
number of SDG indicators and targets, including target 16.7, which calls for ensuring “responsive,
inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels”. The use of information andtelecommunications technology to engage people in public decision-making and services delivery isan essential part of e-government, and since 2001 the Survey has regularly tracked developments ine-participation as reflected in the relevant features of national e-government portals and websites. The
E-Participation Index (EPI) assesses online participation utilizing a three-point scale that distinguishes
between the provision of information (whereby the Government provides information to people),consultation (whereby the Government consults on policy or on services delivery at different stagesof the process and possibly provides feedback), and decision-making (whereby the Government
involves people in decision-making).4
For the 2022 Survey, the methodology for measuring e-participation has been improved to better
assess engagement between the Government and the people in consultation and decisionmaking processes. More specifically, government portals and websites have been assessed for the
integration of participatory budgeting or similar mechanisms; the availability of open government
data (OGD) in general and in six key sectors linked closely to SDG implementation (education
employment, environment, health, justice and social protection); evidence of co-creation or coproduction mechanisms for collaborative services provision; evidence that people’s voices are heard
in discussions and decision-making processes linked to the formulation and adoption of policies on
issues relating to vulnerable populations; and evidence of online consultations (via e-forums, e-polls,
e-questionnaires, or other e-participation tools) that are designed to facilitate the engagement ofpeople in vulnerable situations.
This subsection assesses e-participation as reflected in EPI levels and rankings, highlighting quantitative
findings, changes over time, and differences between countries and regions. The correspondence
between EPI and EGDI levels is also explored.
The eight countries with the highest EPI rankings are listed in table 1.10. Top-ranked Japan has
an EPI value of 1.0, signifying that all e-participation features assessed in the Survey are present in
the country’s portal. Australia is ranked second, Estonia and Singapore are tied for third, and theNetherlands is ranked fifth. Finland, New Zealand and the United Kingdom are all ranked sixth in
the 2022 EPI. Table 1A in annex A shows the EPI levels for all 193 Member States and indicates any
movement that has occurred between EPI groups since 2020.

40

Chapter 1

Chapter 1 • Global Trends in E-Government

Table 1.10

Countries ranked highest in the 2022 E-Participation Index

EPI rank

Countryin 2022

EPI value

EPI rank

Change in EPI rank

in 2022in 2020from 2020 to 2022

1

Japan

1.00004+32Australia

0.98869+7

3

Estonia

0.97731-2

3Singapore

0.97736+35

Netherlands

0.96599+4

6

Finland0.9545

14+8

6

New Zealand

0.95454-2

6

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

0.9545

60

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

Generally, countries with higher EGDI values also have higher EPI values; the 27 countries with very
high EPI values have EGDI values ranging from 0.7524 to 0.9717 (see figure 1.32). It is possible,
however, for countries to have disparate EGDI and EPI values. For instance, Belgium, Slovakia, Bahrain
and Belarus have very high EGDI values (above 0.75), yet their EPI values average 0.4488. Thereis a sizeable group of countries (Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados,
Bhutan, Plurinational State of Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Côte d’Ivoire,
Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Ghana, Guatemala, Jamaica, Lebanon, Maldives, Mauritius,Montenegro, Morocco, Namibia, Nicaragua, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tonga and Zambia) that have high EGDI values (0.50-0.75) but anaverage EPI value of 0.3636. Another 18 countries with high EGDI values (Algeria, Belize, Botswana,
Dominica, Fiji, Gabon, Grenada, Guyana, Islamic Republic of Iran, Monaco, Nepal, Palau, Saint
Kitts and Nevis, San Marino, Seychelles, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, and Bolivarian Republic ofVenezuela) have low EPI levels ranging between 0.0909 and 0.2386, suggesting that government
efforts to actively engage people in collaborative governance is limited.
Figure 1.32 Distribution of 193 Member States based on EGDI and EPI values, 2022

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

41

Chapter 1

2022 UN E-Government Survey

While most countries are committed to improving the provision of online services and user
experiences, government efforts to actively engage the public in e-consultations and other formsof e-participation remain somewhat limited. As shown in figure 1.33, the proportions of countries
offering options for users to provide feedback about the government website, to file a complaint,
or to report corruption by public servants or institutions have steadily increased since 2018, reaching66, 63 and 74 per cent, respectively, in 2022.
Figure 1.33 Percentage of countries offering e-participation tools for leaving feedback, reporting public
corruption, and filing a complaint, 2018, 2020 and 2022

Portal has a “leave feedback” option
to improve the national portal.

2022, 2020, 2018

Portal provides a way for people to reportcorruption by public servants or institutions.
Portal allows a person to file a complaint
about public service delivery.

55%

74%
65%

63% 60%66% 64%47%

53%

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

Social networking tools are offered on government portals in 89 per cent of the Member States,
but significantly lower proportions of countries announce e-participation activities (49 per cent) andintegrate mechanisms for e-consultations (52 per cent); as figure 1.34 illustrates, the numbers ofcountries offering these three options increased for one indicator but declined for the other two.

42

Figure 1.34 Number of countries with portals that integrate calendar announcements, consultation
mechanisms and social networking tools, 2020 and 2022

Percentage change since 2020
200

4.4%

180

-6.5%

6.0%

-0.6%
173

160

172

2.0%

140
120

0.0%

100
80

107
90

94

100

-2.0%

60

-4.0%

40

-6.0%

20
0

4.0%

Portal publishes
calendar/announcements aboute-participation activities

Portal integrates e-tools for
public consultation/deliberation
2020

Portal integrates social media
networking tools

-8.0%

2022

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

At the regional level, Europe has the highest proportion of countries that provided evidence of
having conducted at least one e-consultation in the 12 months preceding the administration of theSurvey (91 per cent), followed by Asia (70 per cent), the Americas (60 per cent), Africa (24 per cent)and Oceania (14 per cent) (see figure 1.35).
Figure 1.35 Percentage of countries with evidence of at least one e-consultation held within the past
12 months, by region, 2020 and 2022

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

43

Chapter 1

Chapter 1 • Global Trends in E-GovernmentChapter 1

2022 UN E-Government Survey

1.9

E-government during COVID-19: ad hoc services

Since the COVID-19 pandemic began unfolding in early 2020, digital technologies have allowed
Governments to play a key role in addressing the challenges surrounding the global health crisis andhave created or reinforced essential connections during a period of growing isolation. Specifically,
digital technologies have been used to facilitate collaborative research, the sharing of knowledge,
and the provision of transparent guidance to a wide range of public and private stakeholders.
Governments have connected with members of the public online by sharing information, providing
services, and developing applications to track the evolution of the pandemic and coordinate thelogistics surrounding remediation-focused activities such as lockdowns and vaccine administration.
E-government has become an essential tool for communication and collaboration between policy
makers and society during the COVID-19 pandemic. Digital technologies have enabled Governments
to make rapid policy decisions based on real-time data and analytics, enhancing the capacities ofnational and local authorities to better coordinate and deploy evidence-based services for those whoneed them the most (see chapter 5 for more detailed information).
Given the impossibility of evaluating all measures taken by Governments to address COVID-19related challenges, the present Survey has assessed the provision of selected online services aimed at
mitigating the effects of the pandemic in key areas of health and education, with a focus on leaving
no one behind. The Survey has captured the efforts of Governments to ensure that systems havebeen put in place to provide information and services relating to a number of priority areas, including
distance learning, telehealth services, and scheduling for vaccinations and medical tests (see figure1.36).
The findings indicate that over the past two years, 90 per cent of the Member States have establisheddedicated portals or created space in their national portals to address the COVID-19 pandemic.
Governments in 141 countries currently offer distance learning platforms or related information. In
99 of the countries surveyed, residents can learn about telehealth services and can often schedulesessions through government portals. In 156 countries Governments provide COVID-19 vaccine
information and scheduling services, and in 102 countries the platform can also be used to obtain
information on or schedule medical tests.

44

Chapter 1

Chapter 1 • Global Trends in E-Government

Figure 1.36 Number of countries that have implemented assessed COVID-19 response measures, 2022

160

160

160

160

140

140

140

140

120

120

120

120

100

100

100

100

80

80

80

80

38

38

60

60

60

60

9

9

40

40

40

40

20

20

20

20

52

52

0

0

0

0

83

58

83

58

Distance learning
Distance
options
learning options

Provides onlineProvides
platformonline
for distanceplatformlearning
for distance learning
Provides information
about
distanceabout
learning
solutions
Providesinformation
distance
learning solutions

160

160

160

160

140

140

140

140

120

120

120

120

100

100

100

100

80

80

80

80

60

60

60

60

40

40

40

40

20

20

20

20

0

0

0

0

97

97

14

14

45

45

Online scheduling
Onlineforscheduling
vaccinations
for vaccinations

Has bothinformationand online
schedulingoptions available
Has both information
andonline schedulingoptions
available
Can schedule vaccinations
Can schedule vaccinations
Providesvaccination information
Provides vaccination
information

Availability of telehealth
Availabilityservicesof telehealth services

Has both information
Has bothandinformation
online schedulingand online
optionsschedulingavailable
options available
Can schedule telehealth
Can schedulesessions
telehealth sessions
Provides information
Providesabout
information
availableabout
telehealthavailable
services
telehealth services

48

48

13

13

41

41

Online scheduling
Onlineforscheduling
medical tests
for medical tests

Has bothinformationand online
schedulingoptions available
Has both information
andonline schedulingoptions
available
Can schedule
Can schedule medical
tests medical tests
Providesinformation
about
availabilityof medical tests
Provides information
about
availabilityof medical
tests

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

More than 90 per cent of the countries in Europe have implemented all four of the measuresassessed, offering the public distance learning support, telehealth services, and online scheduling for
vaccinations and other medical tests (see figure 1.37). Over 70 per cent of the countries in Asia andthe Americas provide such services, and the corresponding proportions for Africa and Oceania are
41 and 40 per cent, respectively.

45

Chapter 1

2022 UN E-Government Survey

Figure 1.37 The implementation of COVID-19 response measures, by region, 2022 (Percentage of countries)

Offers both information andonline scheduling options for
COVID-19 vaccination

Africa, 54%

Offers both informationand online schedulingfor medical tests

Americas, 46%
Oceania, 29%
Africa, 31%

Offers both informationand scheduling fortelehealth services Oceania, 14%

Oceania, 71%

Europe, 98%
Americas, 94%
Asia, 89%

Europe, 91%
Asia, 55%

Europe, 81%

Americas, 57%
Asia, 62%

Africa, 24%

Provides information andonline solutions/platforms
for distance learning

Europe, 91%
Americas, 89%
Asia, 79%

Oceania, 50%
Africa, 50%

0%

40%

20%
AfricaOceania

60%
Asia

Americas

80%

100%

EuropeSource: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

1.10 Summary and conclusion
The slight increase in the average EGDI value for 2022 is largely attributable to the progress made instrengthening telecommunications infrastructure and developing human capital. Countries in Africa
have made significant improvements in their telecommunications infrastructure, building a solid
foundation for accelerating the transition to digital government. Challenges remain, however, as thecost of mobile broadband subscriptions as a percentage of per capita gross national income remains
significantly higher in Africa than in other parts of the world. Digital divides persist and may widen
without the adoption of targeted and systematic measures to assist low-income and lower-middleincome countries and countries in special situations (including LDCs, LLDCs and SIDS). Presently, allseven countries in the low EGDI group are LDCs and/or LLDCs in Africa.
While advancement in e-government development remains strongly correlated with national income,there are some notable exceptions. Of the 99 Member States that have EDGI values above the2022 average, nearly 90 per cent are in the high-income or upper-middle-income group; however,
the remaining 10 per cent (11 countries) are in the lower-middle-income group and often haveunderdeveloped telecommunications infrastructure. The Survey data confirm that income level
matters but is not the sole factor determining the level of e-government development.
The number of countries providing at least 1 of the 22 online services assessed has increased by 16.7
per cent globally, with 61 per cent of the Member States offering more than 16 services. There is aclear trend towards the full digitalization of government services, giving users the ability to complete
virtually all types of transactions entirely online. More than a quarter of the Member States haveintegrated AI-enabled chatbot functionality in their portals.

46

Chapter 1

Chapter 1 • Global Trends in E-Government

Driven by the COVID-19 pandemic, government priorities in online services provision have centredon health, education and social protection. At the regional level, 90 per cent of the countries in
Europe and 70 per cent of the countries in Asia and the Americas are providing a wide range of
online services to address the COVID-19 pandemic, offering information and tools that facilitate
distance learning, telehealth services, and the scheduling of vaccines and medical tests. The sharpest
increase in online services provision has been in the area of social protection; the number of countries
with national portals that allow users to apply for benefits such as maternity care, child subsidies,
pensions, housing, and food allowances has grown by 17 per cent since 2020.
A growing number of countries have strengthened their institutional and legal frameworks for
e-government development. Most countries have a national electronic or digital government strategy,
as well as legislation on cybersecurity (153 countries), personal data protection (145 countries),
national data policy (128 countries), open government data (117 countries), and e-participation(91 countries). Individuals and businesses are increasingly able to interact with public institutions
through online platforms, obtain information on legislation relating to freedom of information, andaccess public content and data (including open government data). More Governments are seeking
and responding to user feedback and are working to tailor services to people’s needs. However,proactive engagement in public e-consultations on important policy issues remains limited; Survey
results show that only about half of the Member States meet this indicator, though regional averages
vary. The region with the highest number of countries engaging in online public consultations is
Europe (90 per cent), followed by Asia (70 per cent) and the Americas (60 per cent). Only 24 per centof countries in Africa and 14 per cent of countries in Oceania conduct e-consultations.
The key takeaways from the chapter are provided below.

General observations• The global EGDI average has increased slightly, largely owing to improvements intelecommunications infrastructure and human capital development.
• Among the four EGDI subgroups, the Member States with high EGDI values make up thelargest share (38 per cent), followed by those with very high EGDI values (31 per cent) andthose with middle EGDI values (27 per cent). The proportion of countries with low EGDI
values remains the same as in 2020 (4 per cent), though the number of countries at this level
dropped from eight to seven. All countries with low EGDI values (below 0.25) are LDCs and/or LLDCs in Africa.
• The movement of countries between EGDI groups over the past two years has mainly been
between the top quartile of one EGDI group and the lowest quartile of the next higher group.
Fourteen countries have moved to a higher EGDI group, and three countries have moved toa lower EGDI group.
• EGDI values tend to be higher for higher-income countries than for lower-income countries.
Nevertheless, many countries have achieved high and very high levels of e-government
development by improving their online services provision (expressed as an OSI value) despite
limited resources. For example, India and Rwanda have very high OSI levels (0.7934 and0.7935, respectively) even though their telecommunications infrastructure is relatively
underdeveloped.
• Almost 90 per cent of the 99 Member States with above-average EDGI values are in the highincome or upper-middle-income group; the remaining 10 per cent (11 countries) are in thelower-middle-income group.
• The most dramatic increase in the average EGDI value (8.6 per cent) and subindex values has
occurred in the upper-middle-income group.

47

Chapter 1

2022 UN E-Government Survey• TII values have risen for all income groups, with the greatest increase registered by the uppermiddle-income group (12.3 per cent), followed by the lower-middle-income group (7.3 percent), the low-income group (6.4 per cent), and the high-income group (1 per cent).
• While national income levels are generally consistent with EGDI and OSI values, there aresome notable exceptions. Palau and Nauru are high-income countries with below-average
EGDI values because their underdeveloped infrastructure (typical of SIDS) translates into
relatively low TII subindex values. Conversely, some low-income countries (such as Rwanda)
have done exceedingly well in online services development.
• High-income countries have already reached a relatively high level of services provision, whereas
low-income and lower-middle-income countries lack sufficient resources for investment in
the development of online services. Low-income countries struggle with investing in humancapital development and are the only group to have registered a decline in the average HCI
index value between 2020 and 2022.
• With their higher OSI, TII and HCI values, upper-middle-income countries will likely make rapid
progress in e-government ecosystem development in the coming years, while the decline in
OSI or HCI values for low-income and lower-middle-income countries may signify deepening
digital divides.

Online services provision• The number of countries providing the online services assessed in the Survey has risen by anaverage of 5 per cent since 2020. The number of countries offering services that allow users
to apply for social protection programmes such as maternity care, child subsidies, pensions,and housing and food allowances has seen the most significant increase (17 per cent), which
may have occurred in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
• The number of countries offering at least 1 of the 22 online transactional services assessed
increased from 162 in 2020 to 189 in 2022, or by 16.7 per cent. The provision of 16 types ofservices is the global average, but 115 of the Member States (61 per cent) offer more.
• Almost three quarters of the Member States (138 countries) use “one-stop-shop” portals forthe online provision of different government services.
• Business-related services such as registration, licensing and filing company taxes are among
the five government services offered most frequently.
• The 2022 Survey includes a new indicator assessing whether national portals are set up forthe submission of business tax forms and payments online, similar to the services offered toindividuals for income tax and Value Added Tax (VAT) submissions. The data suggest that tax
filing services are offered more frequently to businesses (153 countries) than to individuals(151 countries for income tax and 142 countries for VAT).
• The next most commonly offered online services include applying for government vacancies
and business licences, requesting birth, death, and marriage certificates, and paying utility
bills.
• Among the least offered online services are paying fines (118 countries), applying for a visa
(97 countries), making declarations to the police (92 countries), registering motor vehicles (77countries), and submitting a change of address (75 countries).
• Among the countries with very high OSI values, coverage of the 22 services assessed is nearly
universal (averaging 93 per cent for the 54 countries in this group).
• Countries with high OSI values have strong online services coverage as well (averaging 83 percent for the 50 countries in this group).

48

Chapter 1

Chapter 1 • Global Trends in E-Government• The proportions are significantly lower for the remaining OSI groups, with coverage averaging
58 per cent for the 70 countries in the middle OSI group and 20 per cent for the 19 countries
in the low OSI group. Around three quarters of the countries in the low OSI group (14 of the19) are LDCs, LLDCs and/or SIDS.
• Progress is being made in online services delivery even in countries with low OSI levels, where
the average number of online services offered rose from 1 in 2018 to 4.5 in 2022. Within the
low OSI group, Equatorial Guinea offers the highest number of online services (14).
• The Survey findings indicate that the majority of countries use their portals just to provide
information or offer only partially digitalized services, with users still needing to appear atgovernment offices in person to complete most transactions. There is, however, a clear pushtowards higher levels of digitalization whereby users will no longer have to download or print
forms but can complete their transactions fully online.
• Countries tend to assign priority to digitalizing the registration and licensing of businesses andthe process of applying for government vacancies; more than half of the countries offeringsuch services have them fully digitalized.
• Of the 131 countries allowing users to apply for social protection programmes online, 74(56 per cent) have systems in place that allow all relevant transactions to be fully completed
online.
• E-procurement portals and digital invoices are far more common in high-income and uppermiddle-income countries than in lower-middle-income countries, and these features are muchless prevalent in low-income countries. For comparison, 8 out of 10 high-income countries
are likely to have both a dedicated platform and a reliable system for digital invoicing, while
the same is true for only 4 out of 10 lower-income countries.
• The number of countries providing information and services through smartphone applications,
SMS and/or mobile browsers increased for all sectors by an average of 18 per cent between
2020 and 2022. The health sector saw the most significant increase (30 per cent), largely
owing the widespread adoption of digital solutions in response to the COVID-19 pandemic,
but growth was also evident for the justice sector (25 per cent), the education sector (22 percent) and the social protection sector (20 per cent).
• There has been an increase in fixed (wired) broadband subscriptions in all regions since 2020;
the 48 per cent jump in Africa has been accompanied by a 22 per cent increase in Internet
use, offering a solid foundation for accelerating the transition to digital government in that
region.
• The cost of mobile broadband subscriptions as a percentage of gross national income percapita remains significantly higher in Africa than in other parts of the world, contributing to
the digital divide.
• The findings indicate that 65 per cent of the countries surveyed allow businesses to accesstheir data online, with 64 per cent giving individuals the same right. Modifying data is possible
for business entities in 58 per cent of the countries and for individuals in 50 per cent of thecountries surveyed.
• In 112 countries (58 per cent of the Member States), users can save specific service transactions
initiated on the portal and access them later, and in 109 countries (57 per cent), they can also
access a list of previous transactions. Users can customize or personalize the national portal
or bookmark their favourite or most frequently used online services in only 31 countries (16per cent).
• In 51 countries (26 per cent), portals have begun to feature AI-enabled chatbot functionality.

49Chapter 1

2022 UN E-Government Survey

Institutional framework• Almost all of the Member States have national portals that are fully operational. The vast
majority of countries (93 per cent) make the government organizational chart and informationon the government structure available on their portals, 90 per cent provide the names andtitles of the heads of government agencies, departments and ministries, 77 per cent furnish
information on the national CIO or the equivalent, and 74 per cent share links to subnationalor local government agencies. Such information helps orient users and allows them to engage
effectively with government agencies through online platforms.
• An average of 90 per cent of the countries surveyed have national portals that provide links
to ministerial websites and offer sources of information on sector-specific policies.
• According to 2022 Survey data, 132 countries (68 per cent) have legislation guaranteeing
freedom of information and access to information, and 127 countries (66 per cent) haveprivacy statements available on their government portals.
• Most countries have a national electronic or digital government strategy (155), a national
data policy or strategy (128), and legislation on cybersecurity (153), personal data protection(145), and open government data (117); 91 countries, or almost half of those surveyed, havelaws relating to e-participation.

E-Participation• Generally, countries with higher EGDI values also have higher EPI values; the 28 countries withvery high EPI values have EGDI values ranging from 0.7409 to 0.9712.
• It is possible for countries to have disparate EGDI and EPI values. For instance, Belgium,
Slovakia, Bahrain and Belarus have very high EGDI values (above 0.75), yet their EPI values
average 0.4488.
• The majority of countries are committed to improving the provision of online services anduser experiences; presently, between 63 and 73 of the Member States offer options for users
to provide feedback about the government website, file a complaint, or report corruption by
public servants or institutions.
• Government efforts to actively engage the public in e-consultations and other forms ofe-participation remain somewhat limited. Only 48 per cent of the countries surveyed announce
e-participation activities, and just 52 per cent integrate mechanisms for e-consultations.
• At the regional level, Europe has the highest proportion of countries that provided evidence of
having conducted at least one e-consultation in the 12 months preceding the administrationof the Survey (91 per cent), followed by Asia (70 per cent), the Americas (60 per cent), Africa(24 per cent) and Oceania (14 per cent).

COVID-19 measures and responses• Over the past two years, 90 per cent of the Member States have established dedicated portals
or created space in their national portals to address the COVID-19 pandemic. Governments
have worked to ensure that systems are in place to provide information and services relating
to a number of priority areas, including distance learning, telehealth services, and schedulingfor vaccinations and medical tests.
• More than 90 per cent of the countries in Europe have implemented all four of the measuresassessed, offering the public distance learning support, telehealth services, and online
scheduling for vaccinations and other medical tests. Over 70 per cent of the countries in Asiaand the Americas provide such services, and the corresponding proportions for Africa andOceania are 41 and 40 per cent, respectively.

50

Chapter 1

Chapter 1 • Global Trends in E-Government

Overall, the Survey findings indicate that progress is being made in e-government development
globally but at a slower pace than anticipated. The COVID-19 pandemic has heightened theimportance of digital transformation, not least because Governments must be able to deliver public
services despite restrictions on physical interaction and to reach remote, marginalized, vulnerable
and other underserved populations so that no one is left behind. Countries that are already at a moreadvanced stage of e-government development tend to perform better in public services delivery thanthose with resource limitations or underdeveloped telecommunications infrastructure and humancapital development. Without the adoption of targeted, systematic measures to assist low-income
and lower-middle-income countries and countries in special situations (including LDCs, LLDCs and
SIDS), digital divides may continue to widen.

Endnotes
1

2

3

4

The range of EGDI group values for each level are mathematically defined as follows: very high EGDI values
range from 0.75 to 1.00 inclusive, high EGDI group values range from 0.50 to 0.7499 inclusive, middle EGDI
values range from 0.25 to 0.4999 inclusive, and low EGDI values range from 0.0 to 0.2499 inclusive. In allreferences to these ranges in text and graphic elements, the respective values are rounded for clarity and are
expressed as follows: 0.75 to 1.00, 0.50 to 0.75, 0.25 to 0.50, and 0.00 to 0.25.
A quartile is a statistical term describing a division of data into four defined intervals. The quartile measures the
spread of values above and below the mean by dividing the distribution of data into four groups. A quartile
divides data into three points—a lower quartile, median, and upper quartile—to form four groups of the data
set. In the 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey, the lower (or first) quartile in each EGDI group isdenoted as L1, M1, H1 or V1 and is the middle number that falls between the smallest value of the data set
and the median. The second quartile (L2, M2, H2 or V2) is also the median. The upper (or third) quartile,
denoted as L3, M3, H3 or V3, is the central point that lies between the median and the highest number ofthe distribution. LM, MH, HV and VH are the highest data points in each EGDI group.
During the assessment period (June-September 2021), the Government of Belize was in the process of redesigningits national portal; however, many ministerial websites were functional, and the Survey assessed e-government
features based on those available government websites.
The description of the three-point scale is extracted from United Nations, E-Government Survey 2020: Digital
Government in the Decade of Action for Sustainable Development (Sales No. E.20.II.H.1), pp. 117-118.

51

Chapter 1

2022 UN E-Government Survey

52

Chapter 2

Chapter 2 • Regional E-Government Development and the Performance of Country Groupings

2. Regional E-Government
Development and
the Performance ofCountry Groupings
Photo credit: pixabay.com

2.1

Introduction

This chapter offers an overview of e-government development at theregional level, identifying important trends and providing an analysis ofregional performance as measured by the E-Government Development
Index (EGDI).
The sections below present the key findings of the Survey on
E-Government Development from a regional perspective, review andassess the state of online services provision in each region, and highlight
trends in specific country groupings, including least developed countries(LDCs), landlocked developing countries (LLDCs) and small island
developing States (SIDS).

2.2

Regional EGDI rankings

All regions but one (Oceania) have improved their average EGDI values
since 2020 (see figure 2.1). Europe remains the leader in e-government
development, with an average EGDI value of 0.8305. All of the countries
in Europe have EGDI values above the global average of 0.6102; 81 percent have very high EGDI values (above 0.75),1 and the remaining 19 percent have high EGDI values (between 0.50 and 0.75). Similar to the 2020
Survey, 8 of the 15 countries in the highest (VH) rating class of the very
high EGDI group are in Europe.
Asia is in the second position in terms of regional average EGDI value(0.6493), followed by the Americas (0.6438), Oceania (0.5081) and
Africa (0.4054). For the first time since 2016, the average EDGI value
for Oceania declined (from 0.5269 in 2020 to 0.5081 in 2022, or by 3.6
per cent), largely owing to the 29 per cent drop in the average value of
the Telecommunications Infrastructure Index (TII) for the region over the
past two years.

In this chapter:
2.1 Introduction

53

2.2 Regional EGDI rankings

53

2.2.1 Regional performance inonline services provision 57
2.2.2 Online services forpeople in vulnerable
situations

59

2.2.3	COVID-19 measures61

2.2.4 Africa: country grouping
analysis62
2.2.5 The Americas: countrygrouping analysis

65

2.2.6 Asia: country grouping
analysis68
2.2.7 Europe: countrygrouping analysis

71

2.2.8 Oceania: countrygrouping analysis

74

2.3	Countries in special situations 76
2.3.1	Least developed countries 78
2.3.2	Landlocked developing
countries80
2.3.3 Small island developing
States82
2.4 Summary and conclusion

85

Africa has made the most notable progress, with a 3.6 per cent increase
in its average EGDI value, followed by Asia (1.9 per cent), Europe (1.7 percent) and the Americas (1.5 per cent). TII value increases of 12 per cent in
Africa, 6.5 per cent in the Americas and 4.6 per cent in Asia are largely
responsible for the higher EGDI values in those regions. Despite thesignificant progress in Africa, the EGDI average for this region remains
below the global average of 0.6102.
Europe has the lowest variance in country EGDI values (between 0.6256
and 0.9717), suggesting that the region is moving more rapidly than

Chapter 2
53

Chapter 22022 UN E-Government Survey

Figure 2.1

Regional average EGDI values, 2022

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

Figure 2.2

Regional distribution of EGDI levels and of OSI, HCI and TII subcomponent levels, 2022

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.
Note: The internationally recognized three-letter country codes can be found here and in Survey annex table 12.

54

Chapter 2

Chapter 2 • Regional E-Government Development and the Performance of Country Groupings

other regions towards convergence in the level of e-government development (see figure 2.3).
In Oceania, EGDI values vary from 0.3230 to 0.9432, suggesting highly uneven e-government
development. The high variance in Oceania is explained by the fact that while Australia and New
Zealand are top performers, the majority (11 out of 14) of the remaining countries have EGDI values
below the global average EGDI value of 0.6102. A similar high-variance situation prevails in Africa,
where 4 of the 54 countries have EGDI values above the global EGDI average but the remainder
have values that are sometimes significantly lower, highlighting gaps in e-government development
and the persistence of the digital divide. These regional e-government development patterns are
consistent with those in the 2020 Survey.
Asia and the Americas are roughly comparable in their levels of e-government development, with agrowing number of countries trending upward. Among the 14 countries that moved to higher EGDI
levels between 2020 and 2022, five are in Asia (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Georgia,
Lebanon, Nepal and Tajikistan) and three are in the Americas (Belize, Guyana and Peru).
Figures 2.4 and 2.5 show the regional distribution of countries by EGDI level over three consecutive
Survey periods. Europe accounts for the highest proportion of countries in the very high EGDI group(58.3 per cent), followed by Asia (25 per cent), the Americas (13.3 per cent) and Oceania (3.3 percent).
Figure 2.3

Regional snapshot of countries by EGDI level, 2022

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

55

Figure 2.4

Number of countries in each EGDI group, by region, 2018, 2020 and 2022

Americas

Africa

2022

16

2020
8

2022

8

2020

Asia

6

33

7

33

13

24

7

2 1

23

3

5

22

2022

15

2020

15

2018

Europe

32

14

2018

2018

10

22

10

19

8

12

24

2022

33

2

3

9

2020

2

3

9

2018

2

3

9

0

2

8
10

27

2022

1

13

35

2020
2018

Oceania

Chapter 22022 UN E-Government Survey

16

Very High EGDI
High EGDI
Middle EGDI
Low EGDI

10

20

30

40

50

60

Sources: 2018, 2020 and 2022 United Nations E-Government Surveys.
Note: The graduated shading for each region signifies distinct EGDI levels, ranging from low EGDI (the lightest shade) to very high EGDI
(the darkest shade).

Figure 2.5

Percentage of countries in each EGDI group, by region, 2018, 2020 and 2022
Very High EGDI

Very high EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Low EGDI

Middle EGDI

Low EGDI

90%
77%

80%
70%

61% 61%

60%

59%

63%

66%

69%

40%

40%
30%

24% 26%

20%

13%

10%

15%

30%

29%
23%

11%

0%
2018 2020 2022
Africa

56

63%
51%

50%

20%
14%
9%
6%
3%
0% 0%
2018 2020 2022

81%

64% 64% 64%

47%
37%

32% 32%
28%
26%
21%
17%

23%
19%

21% 21% 21%
14% 14% 14%

4%

2%

0%

2018 2020 2022

Americas

Sources: 2018, 2020 and 2022 United Nations E-Government Surveys.

Asia

2018 2020 2022
Europe2018 2020 2022
OceaniaChapter 2

Chapter 2 • Regional E-Government Development and the Performance of Country Groupings

In Europe, 81 per cent of the countries have very high EGDI values, and the remaining 19 per centhave high EGDI values. If the present trend continues, the small number of countries in the lattergroup will likely reach the highest level of e-government within a relatively short period of time.
In the Americas, 69 per cent of countries are in the high EGDI group, and 23 per cent are in thevery high EGDI group. The proportion of countries in each group is increasing, signifying a steady
improvement in e-government development in the region. As a result of this upward trend, theAmericas region has seen the sharpest decline in the proportion of countries in the middle EGDI
group; between 2018 and 2022, the share of countries in this group declined from 29 to 6 per cent.
In Asia, as in the Americas, the highest proportion of countries (47 per cent) are in the high EGDI
group; however, the share of countries in the very high EGDI group is higher in Asia (32 per cent)than in the Americas (23 per cent). Both Asia and the Americas have experienced a significant (14-15
per cent) increase in the proportion of countries in the very high EGDI group since 2018.
In Oceania, 64 per cent of the 14 countries surveyed are in the middle EGDI group, 21 per cent arein the high EGDI group, and 14 per cent are in the very high EGDI group (see figure 2.5). Oceania is
the only region that has seen no change in the distribution of countries by EGDI level over the past
four years, though as mentioned before, the average EGDI level for the region has declined since2020 as a result of the sharp downturn in TII performance.
In Africa, 59 per cent of the countries are in the middle EGDI group, and 30 per cent are in the high
EGDI group. While there are no countries in Africa with very high EGDI values, the declining trend in
the low and middle EGDI groups is encouraging.

2.2.1

Regional performance in online services provision

As explained in the previous chapter, the Online Services Index (OSI) component of the EGDI evaluates
the provision of online services by Governments. The 2022 Survey assessed the availability of 22
types of online transactional services on government portals (see chapter 1, section 1.8). The results
show that the total number of Member States offering at least one online service increased from 162
in 2020 to 177 in 2022, or by 9 per cent.
At the regional level, online services provision varies in both scope and prevalence. Figure 2.6 provides
a visual snapshot of the number of countries in every region offering each of the 22 services assessedin the 2022 Survey.
Relatively speaking, Governments in all regions tend to do rather well in providing business-related
services online. Registering a business and applying for a business licence are the two online services
offered most frequently in every region. Among the least offered online services are submitting achange of address and registering a motor vehicle.
Europe offers the highest average number of services (19), followed by Asia (17), the Americas (16),
Oceania (12) and Africa (12) (see figure 2.7). More than two thirds of the countries in Europe offer at
least 19 services online, half of the countries offer all 22 services, and one third of the countries offer
14-18 services. Applying for a birth certificate and filing company/business taxes online are options
offered in all of the region’s countries. The online services offered least in Europe are applying for avisa (51 per cent) and registering a motor vehicle (60 per cent).
Nearly 80 per cent of the countries in Asia offer more than the world average of 16 online services,and 15 per cent offer all 22 of the services assessed in the Survey. However, around 15 per cent of
the countries in Asia offer only 1-9 online services.
In the Americas, 63 per cent of the countries offer more than 16 services. The United States is the
only country in the region that offers all 22 of the services assessed in 2022. Only 6 per cent of thecountries in the region offer 1-9 services; Haiti offers the lowest number (2), while Cuba offers 7
services online.

57

Chapter 22022 UN E-Government Survey

Figure 2.6

Number of countries offering specified online services, by region, 2022

Register a business

45

32

44

42

14

Apply for business license

40

Apply for government vacancies online
Apply for birth certificate

36
33

29
31

42
38

41
43

12
11

File company/business tax online

34

30

39

43

7

Apply for death certificate

33

31

37

40

11

Submit income taxes

33

29

41

42

6

Apply for personal identity card
Pay for utilities (electricity/gas)*

33
32

27
31

40
41

40

10

Apply for marriage certificate

31

31

35

41

11

Apply for driver’s license

30

28

38

40

10

Apply for building permit

31

31

37

38

8

Submit Value Added Tax

32

Apply for land title registration

27

Pay for utilities (water)*

33
22
27

Pay fines

18
23

29

20

40
Africa

41

36
34

34
26
33

5
9

35

4

39
39
22

8

39

38

36
35

12

37

35

26
24
19
13

42

37

26

Declare to police 121924Register a motor vehicle 10 1228
Submit change of address 4 15
21
0

43

27

Apply for environmental permit
Apply for social protection programmes
Apply for visa

30

39
4

10
7
6

3
1

2

60
80
Americas

100
Asia

120
140
Europe160
180
Oceania200

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.
*In previous Surveys, utilities were assessed together. Since 2020, the E-Government Survey has collected disaggregated data on utility payments for (a) electricity/
gas and (b) water to allow more accurate tracking of services provision in all countries.

Figure 2.7

Average number of services offered in each region, 2022

Africa12

Americas

16

Asia

17

Europe19

Oceania12

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

58

Chapter 2

Chapter 2 • Regional E-Government Development and the Performance of Country Groupings

In Oceania, the average number of services offered online is 12. As figure 2.8 illustrates, however,
43 per cent of the countries in the region offer 5-9 services, a range well below the regional andglobal averages. All countries offering fewer than 12 services are SIDS with middle or low OSI levels.
Registering a business online is the only service offered by all 14 countries in the region.
In Africa, 61 per cent of the countries offer an average of 12 services online. The 2022 Survey
results indicate that, for the first time, five countries in Africa (Nigeria, Rwanda, Angola, Egypt andSouth Africa) are offering 20-21 online public services. This is noteworthy, given that only 63 of theMember States offer 20 or more of the 22 services assessed (25 countries in Europe, 22 in Asia, 9 in
the Americas, 5 in Africa, and 2 in Oceania).
Figure 2.8

Number of online public services offered in different countries, by region, 2022

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.
Note: The colour shades of the bars represent countries belonging to different EGDI groups (from low to very high); the lighter shades are for low and middle
EGDI groups, and the darker shades are for high and very high EGDI groups.

2.2.2

Online services for people in vulnerable situations

In all regions, the number of countries offering online services for individuals in vulnerable
situations—including people living in poverty, persons with disabilities, older people, immigrants,
women and youth—has increased since 2020; Africa has registered the most notable increase (9per cent), though Asia, Europe and Oceania have made solid gains as well, with increases ranging
from 3 to 5 per cent (see figure 2.9). Europe has the largest proportion of countries offering services
for vulnerable populations (96 per cent), followed by Asia (85 per cent), the Americas (83 per cent),
Oceania (68 per cent) and Africa (64 per cent). It should be noted, however, that immigrants andpeople living in poverty appear to be less well served than other vulnerable populations in terms of
e-government services provision.
Figure 2.9 shows the progress made since 2018 in online public services provision for people living
in vulnerable situations, and figure 2.10 offers a graphic representation of the status of each regionin 2022.
59

2020

2022

Figure 2.9

2018

Chapter 22022 UN E-Government Survey

Number of countries offering online services for vulnerable groups, 2018, 2020 and 2022

Youth
Women
Immigrants
Older People
Persons with Disabilities
People leaving in poverty

34

31

36

32

Youth
Women
Immigrants
Older persons
Persons with disabilities
People living in poverty
Youth
Women
Immigrants
Older persons
Persons with disabilities
People living in poverty

39

30

27

20

40
Africa

5
38

9

42

10
7

40

37

24

22

12

40
37

32

12

39
38

38

27

32

10
7

37

31

27

9

42

37

32

36

38
40

37

33

0

39

24

22

5

40
37

30

27

12

38

38
32

32

12

39

37
37

27

27

8

40

38

31

10

43

42

32

36
33

9

42

41

27

31

11
7

42

40

25

30

38

42

30

41

12

42

36

30

35

60
80
Americas

100
Asia

120
Europe140
Oceania160

180

Sources: 2018, 2020 and 2022 United Nations E-Government Surveys.

Figure 2.10 Percentage of countries providing online services for vulnerable groups in each region, 2022

People leaving in poverty
100%
80%
60%

Youth

Persons with Disabilities

40%
20%
0%

Women

Older People

Immigrants
AfricaAmericas

Sources: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

60

Asia

EuropeOceaniaChapter 2

Chapter 2 • Regional E-Government Development and the Performance of Country Groupings

2.2.3

COVID-19 measures

Since 2020, Governments in all regions have taken measures to address the COVID-19 pandemic,
though the nature and extent of these efforts have varied widely. Between 91 and 98 per cent of
the countries in Europe provide online information and platforms for distance learning and online
information and scheduling for telehealth services, COVID-19 vaccines, and medical tests (see figures
2.11 and 2.12). In Africa, the Americas, Asia and Oceania, the majority of national Governments
focus on services relating to distance learning and COVID-19 vaccinations, with fewer countries
offering telehealth services and scheduling for medical tests. The proportion of countries offering all
four types of services is highest in Europe (90 per cent), followed by Asia and the Americas (71 percent each), Oceania (65 per cent) and Africa (40 per cent).

COVID-19
vaccinations

Figure 2.11 Number of countries offering online information and services in response to the COVID-19
pandemic, by region, 2022

17

Has both information and online scheduling options 11

Medicaltests
Telehealthservices

437

Can schedule vaccinations 13 7 3
13

17

Provides vaccination information

Has both information and online scheduling options 4 6

Distance
learning

28

7 26

13

25

Can schedule for medical tests 4 22 5
Provides information about availability of medical tests 9

8

11

9 4

Has both information and online scheduling options 2 7

11

17

11

15

1

Can schedule telehealth session 2 3 4Provides information about available telehealth services 11
Provides online platform fro distance learning

14

Provides informaiton about distance leadning solutions

13

0

24

18
13
20
Africa

14 1

13

14

40
Americas

25

2

5
60
Asia

80
Europe100
Oceania120

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

61

Chapter 22022 UN E-Government Survey

Figure 2.12 Percentage of countries offering online information and services in response to the COVID-19
pandemic, by region, 2022

Provides distance learning
information and solutions
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Provides online information andscheduling for COVID-19 vaccinations

Provides online information andscheduling for telehealth services

Provides online information andscheduling for medical tests
AfricaAmericas

Asia

EuropeOceania

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

2.2.4

Africa: country grouping analysis

Table 2.1 displays the key Survey results for the 16 countries in Africa with the highest EGDI values
in 2022. These countries are in the high EGDI group and, in descending order, are further divided
into HV, H3, H2 and H1 rating classes. Consistent with the previous two Surveys, only four countries(Mauritius, Seychelles, South Africa and Tunisia) are among the top 100 countries in terms of overall
EGDI ranking, with values above the global average of 0.6102.
South Africa has become the regional front-runner in e-government development, with an EGDI valueof 0.7357 and a place in the highest (HV) rating class; Mauritius, also in the HV rating class, is next,
followed by Seychelles and Tunisia (both H3). Mauritius has the highest TII value in Africa (0.7588)
and a very high HCI value (0.7733), suggesting that the country is well positioned to strengthen its
overall e-government development if it can improve its online services provision. Although the EGDI
values for Rwanda, Côte d’Ivoire and Zambia remain below the global average of 0.6102, thesethree countries moved from the middle to the high EGDI group for the first time in 2022. Amongthe 16 countries in the high EGDI group in Africa, 14 are upper-middle-income or lower-middleincome countries; only Seychelles is a high-income country, and Rwanda is the lone low-income
country. Rwanda is the only country in Africa that has a very high OSI value (0.7935), though its levelof human capital development is modest (as reflected in an HCI value of 0.5322), and the country
has a poorly developed telecommunications infrastructure (as reflected in a TII value of 0.3209).
This indicates that Rwanda is directing significant investment towards online services development,
allowing it to compete with the world’s leading countries in this area.

62

Chapter 2

Chapter 2 • Regional E-Government Development and the Performance of Country Groupings

Table 2.1

CountryCountries in Africa with the highest EGDI values
Rating

EGDI

Subregion

OSI

HCI

TII

EGDI

EGDI

class

rank

value

value

value

(2022)(2020)South Africa

HV

65

Southern Africa

0.74870.77330.68500.73570.6891

Mauritius

HV

75

Eastern Africa

0.62820.77330.75880.72010.7196

Seychelles

H3

85

Eastern Africa

0.44240.77580.81980.67930.6920TunisiaH3

88

Northern Africa

0.6031

0.69110.66460.65300.6526

Morocco

H2

101

Northern Africa

0.47210.63500.6676

0.59150.5729

Egypt

H2

103

Northern Africa

0.57300.63750.55790.58950.5527

Ghana

H2

106

Western Africa

0.53610.6176

0.59340.5824

0.5960

Cabo Verde

H2

110

Western Africa

0.49650.65070.55070.56600.5604

Algeria

H2

112

Northern Africa

0.37430.6956

0.61330.56110.5173

Kenya

H2

113

Eastern Africa

0.68210.56410.43050.55890.5326

Gabon

H2

116

Middle Africa

0.35780.67060.62790.55210.5401

Botswana

H1

118Southern Africa

0.27400.69320.68140.54950.5383

Rwanda*H1

119

Eastern Africa

0.79350.53220.32090.54890.4789Côte d’Ivoire*

H1

120

Western Africa

0.54670.57480.5186

0.54670.4457

Namibia

H1

121

Southern Africa

0.4316

0.6516

0.51330.53220.5747

Zambia*H1

131

Eastern Africa

0.44140.67440.39090.50220.4242

Sources: 2020 and 2022 United Nations E-Government Surveys.
Note: Countries in italics are LDCs, LLDCs or SIDS.
* Countries that moved from the middle to the high EGDI group in 2022.

Digitalization trends in Africa are positive overall. Fixed (wired) broadband subscriptions have jumped
48 per cent since 2020, rising from 1.80 to 2.67 per 100 inhabitants. Survey results for 2022 indicatethat 33 per cent of the region’s residents use the Internet, 42.8 per cent are active mobile broadband
subscribers, and 83.7 per cent have mobile cellular telephone subscriptions (see chapter 1 formore details). Nevertheless, the values for these indicators remain below the corresponding global
averages, and the cost of mobile broadband subscriptions as a percentage of gross national income
per capita remains significantly higher in Africa than in other parts of the world, contributing to thedigital divide.
Africa faces persistent challenges linked to inadequate investment in e-government development.
Low-income and lower-middle-income countries make up 85 per cent of the regional total, andtwo thirds of these countries are LDCs, LLDCs and/or SIDS. Africa is home to 39 of the 91 countries
in special situations worldwide. The lowest EGDI and subindex values are found among the LDCs,
including those that are also LLDCs and SIDS (see figure 2.13); the average EGDI value for this group
is 0.3233. Among the LLDCs, Botswana has the highest TII value (0.6814) but the lowest OSI value(0.2740). The SIDS in Africa have an average EGDI value of 0.3872; Mauritius has the highest OSI
value, and Seychelles has the top TII value.
As noted previously, the regional average EGDI value for Africa is 0.4054, which is well below the
global average of 0.6102. Almost two thirds of the countries in Africa (59 per cent) have middle
EGDI values, and close to a third (30 per cent) have high EGDI values. While there are no countries inAfrica in the very high EGDI group, the declining trend in African representation in low and middle
EGDI groups is encouraging.

63

Chapter 22022 UN E-Government Survey

Figure 2.13 Countries in special situations in Africa, 2022

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.
Notes: Countries in special situations include least developed countries (LDCs), landlocked developing countries (LLDCs), and small island developing States (SIDS).
The internationally recognized three-letter country codes can be found here and in Survey annex table 12.

Box 2.1

Mauritius, Rwanda, Seychelles and South Africa
South Africa, Mauritius and Seychelles are respectively ranked first through third in the African
region in e-government development, and Rwanda has seen significant improvement in its
ranking, moving up by more than 10 positions. Though characterized by important differences,these countries have in common rapid progress in e-government development deriving fromlong-term digital government strategies aligned with national policies and the SDGs.
In South Africa, the National Development Plan: Vision for 2030 includes the National
E-Government Strategy and Roadmap, which aims at digitalizing government services andcreating an inclusive digital society in alignment with SDG 16. Around 150 government services
have been consolidated under the national e-government portal to simplify and streamline
the flow of information and ensure easy access for users. By increasing the efficacy and costeffectiveness of the governance structure, the country hopes to be able to promote sustainableeconomic growth and foster inclusive innovation in accordance with SDGs 8 and 9.
In Mauritius, the Digital Government Transformation Strategy contains specific recommendations
for government agencies on how to activate the SDGs. The strategy proposes a list of best
implementation practices for every Goal and encourages cross-sectoral collaboration between
public and private entities to holistically address intersectoral issues. The Ministry of Information
Technology, Communication and Innovation has worked together with the business community
to align the Digital Government Transformation Strategy with the Public Sector BusinessTransformation Strategy. To deal with the organizational challenges of a nationwide process
and guarantee successful implementation, an oversight and reporting mechanism called theHigh Level Digital Government Task Force has been created. This group is chaired by the Prime
Minister, who also supervises ministerial committees on digital transformation.

64

Chapter 2

Chapter 2 • Regional E-Government Development and the Performance of Country GroupingsBox 2.1(continued)

In Seychelles, significant digital transformation has taken place since the beginning of the
COVID-19 pandemic. As highlighted by the Vice President of the Republic of Seychelles, thecountry has used the digitalization momentum created by the pandemic to introduce innovativechanges in the education and public administration systems, taking the country one step closer
to realizing the Goals set out in the 2030 Agenda. Digital transformation in the country has
not reached its full potential, largely due to the slow speed and high cost of Internet services;
however, the Government has been working with telecommunications services to extend Internet
accessibility to more segments of the population.
The success enjoyed by Rwanda in e-government development derives from a long-term visionthat was initiated in 2000 and realized in 2020 with the SMART Rwanda Master Plan. The strategy
and its focus on digital transformation are intended to contribute to the attainment of the SDGs,
in particular Goal 9. Besides significantly increasing access to ICT and striving to provide universal
and affordable access to the Internet, the Government has expanded investment to facilitatesustainable infrastructure development and support domestic technology development. By 2024,
the Government is committed to making its services available online 24 hours a day and making
all citizens and residents digitally literate regardless of their socio-economic or political status.
Sources: 2022 Member States Questionnaires; South Africa, Department of Telecommunications and Postal Services, Notice
886 of 2017, “National e-Government Strategy and Roadmap”, Government Gazette, 10 November 2017, available at https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201711/41241gen886.pdf; Mauritius, Ministry of Technology, Communication andInnovation, Central Informatics Bureau, Digital Government Transformation Strategy, 2018-2022, available at https://cib.govmu.
org/Documents/Reports/Digital%20Government%20Strategy%202018-2022.pdf; Seychelles, “Accelerating digital transformationin challenging times”, message from the Vice President of the Republic of Seychelles on World Telecommunication and Information
Society Day, 17th May 2021, available at https://www.ict.gov.sc/documents/2021/WTISD_2021_VP_message.pdf; Rwanda, Ministryof Information Technology and Communications, ICT Sector Strategic Plan (2018-2024): “Towards digital enabled economy”,
November2017,

availableathttps://risa.rw/fileadmin/user_upload/Others%20documents/ICT%20SECTOR%20STRATEGIC%20

PLAN%202018-2024.pdf.

2.2.5

The Americas: country grouping analysis

The countries with the highest EGDI values in the Americas are listed in table 2.2. Eight of thesecountries are in the very high EGDI group; the United States (the only member of the VH rating class)is ranked highest, followed by Canada, Uruguay, Chile and Argentina (all V2), then Brazil, Costa Rica
and Peru (all V1). In 2022, Peru transitioned from the high to the very high EGDI group for the firsttime.
The other four countries highlighted in table 2.2 (Mexico, Granada, Bahamas and Colombia) arein the highest (HV) rating class of the high EGDI group and are well positioned for accelerated
e-government development, though they may need to modify their policy approaches and strategic
investments to achieve sufficient momentum. Mexico and Colombia already have very high OSI and
TII values, but their low HCI values point to the need for increased investment in human capitaldevelopment. Granada has very high HCI and TII values but a relatively low OSI value, indicatingthat greater attention should be given to strengthening online services provision; a similar situation
prevails in the Bahamas, though this country’s OSI value is higher than that of Granada.

65

Chapter 22022 UN E-Government Survey

Table 2.2

Countries in the Americas with the highest EGDI values
Rating

EGDI

class

rank

United States of America

VH

10

CanadaV2

Uruguay
Chile

OSI

HCI

TII

EGDI

EGDI

value

value

value

(2022)(2020)

Northern America

0.93040.92760.88740.91510.929732

Northern America

0.85040.92600.77700.85110.8420V2

35South America

0.76410.89800.85430.83880.8500V2

36South America

0.82800.88530.79990.83770.8259Argentina

V2

41

South America

0.80890.91730.73320.81980.8279BrazilV1

49

South America

0.89640.79530.6814

0.79100.7677

Costa Rica

V1

56

Central America

0.68120.85930.75720.76590.7576

Peru*

V1

59

South America

0.80990.82070.62670.75240.7083MexicoHV

62

Central America

0.82450.78740.63000.74730.7291Grenada

HV

66

Caribbean

0.55070.89770.73480.72770.5812

Bahamas

HV

66

Caribbean

0.62140.76410.79760.72770.7017

Colombia

HV

70

South America

0.74180.78670.64980.72610.7164

Country

Subregion

Sources: 2020 and 2022 United Nations E-Government Surveys.
* Countries that moved from the high to the very high EGDI group in 2022.

Progress in e-government development remains steady in the Americas region. The proportion ofcountries in the high and very high EGDI groups has increased by 3 per cent since 2020, rising from66 to 69 per cent and from 20 to 23 per cent, respectively. As a consequence of this upward trend,
the share of countries in the middle EGDI group has declined from 14 to 6 per cent over the past
two years.
The vast majority of countries in the Americas region (89 per cent) have remained in the same EGDI
groups since 2020. Peru, Guyana and Belize moved from the middle to the high EGDI group in 2022;
Haiti is the only country that experienced a downturn, shifting from the middle to the low EGDI
group.
Nine out of ten countries in the Americas region are in the high or very high EGDI group—an increaseof about 5 per cent since the 2020 Survey. The average EGDI value in the Americas has also increased
over the past two years, rising from 0.6341 to 0.6438.
Although Grenada has remained in the high EGDI group, it has made the most notable progress in
e-government development in the region, increasing its EGDI value from 0.5812 in 2020 to 0.7277
in 2022; this is largely due to significant improvements in online services provision (reflected in an
increase in the OSI value from 0.3421 to 0.5507) and efforts to strengthen the telecommunications
infrastructure (reflected in a TII value increase from 0.5738 to 0.7770).
Haiti, ranked 187th, is the only country in the Americas with a low EGDI value (0.2481); its very
low OSI value (0.0865) and moderately low TII value (0.2646) reflect the country’s ongoing struggle
to deal with a chronic lack of resources and the damage to its telecommunications infrastructurecaused by natural disasters.
Among the 35 countries in the Americas region, 18 are in special situations, and all but two of thelatter are SIDS. The average EGDI value for SIDS in the Americas is 0.6450—higher than the global
EGDI average and the average EGDI values for SIDS in Africa (0.4555) and Oceania (0.4301). Thiscan be explained in part by the fact that SIDS in the Americas are mostly upper-middle-income andhigh-income countries that have more resources to invest in telecommunications infrastructure andhuman capital development. As figure 2.14 suggests, however, the potential exists in this group ofcountries for improved online services development.
66

Chapter 2

Chapter 2 • Regional E-Government Development and the Performance of Country GroupingsBox 2.2

Peru, Guyana and Belize

The vast majority of countries in the Americas have remained in the same EGDI groups since 2020.
Peru, Guyana and Belize, however, have made notable progress in e-government development,
due in part to their willingness to collaborate with partners at many levels to accelerate theprocess of digital transformation.
In Peru, innovations in e-government have been the product of multiple internal and external
collaborations. At the international level, the country joined the Building the Europe Links
with Latin America (BELLA) project to establish ultra-high-speed cable connectivity and link 11
European and Latin American research and education networks. At the regional level, the country
partnered with Colombia, Mexico and Paraguay to create the Better Than Cash Alliance andfacilitate the transition from cash to digital payment systems to reduce poverty and drive inclusive
growth. At the national level, various public agencies collaborated to launch the National Policy
on Digital Transformation, which included the establishment of a National Digital Talent Platformthat provided training for 60,000 residents nationwide in the areas of governance and digitaltransformation.
In Guyana, the Government has committed to becoming digitally driven by 2030 with the helpof global organizations. At the beginning of 2022, the country organized a series of events withministries, United Nations representatives and digital innovation specialists to reflect on how best
to implement e-government transformation to achieve the SDGs. The country has also partneredwith NRD Companies, a leading enterprise in digitalization projects. As some parts of the country
still lack access to the Internet, the Government has launched the ICT Access and E-Services for
Hinterland, Poor and Remote Communities initiative to tackle the digital gap in Guyana. Besides
expanding Internet connectivity, NRD will contribute to improving the information management
system and to the digitalization of the Division of Social Protection and Health of Guyana toensure the social security of rural communities.
Belize is currently updating its E-Governance Strategy and Action Plan; however, many public
institutions have already benefited from various multilateral cooperation initiatives. Working
together with APEX, the Caribbean Agency for Justice Solutions, the Government is moving
forward with the digitalization of the Court of Appeals. The project has introduced electronic
filing and case management systems to help officers monitor, analyse and report on case trends
and to increase the transparency and accountability of the judicial system. Through collaboration
with the Government of China, the E-Governance and Digitalization Unit has improved the
management of the entire transport sector using information technology. The project has
integrated the Belize Police Department, Customs and Excise Department and Magistrates
Court into the same system as the Department of Transport, facilitating the sharing of data andinvestigations relating to accidents and violations.
Sources: 2022 Member States Questionnaires for Peru, Guyana and Belize; Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development, review of Peru in Latin American Economic Outlook 2020: Digital Transformation for
Building Back Better, section on national strategies and international cooperation for digital transformation, available at https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/4f73e4bf-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/4f73e4bf-en; Peru, Presidencia del Consejo de
Ministros, Laboratorio de Gobierno y TransformaciÔn Digital [Governance and Digital Transformation Laboratory] (2022), available
at https://www.gob.pe/laboratoriodigital; NRD Companies, “Guyana undergoing major digital transformation to provide online
government services to citizens scattered around the country”, press release, 18 January 2022, available at https://www.nrd.no/
en/press-releases/guyana-undergoing-major-digital-transformation-to-provide-online-government-services-to-citizens-scatteredaround-the-country/150; Belize, Press Office, “E-Governance and Digitalization Unit supports Belize motor vehicle registration andlicensing system”, press release, 23 June 2021, available at https://www.pressoffice.gov.bz/e-governance-and-digitalization-unitsupports-belize-motor-vehicle-registration-and-licensing-system/; Belize, “Belize Government moves to digital transformation of
judiciary”, Belize.com, 25 February 2021, available at https://belize.com/news/belize-government-moves-to-digital-transformationof-judiciary/.

67

Chapter 22022 UN E-Government Survey

Figure 2.14 Countries in special situations in the Americas, 2022

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.
Notes: CCountries in special situations include least developed countries (LDCs), landlocked developing countries (LLDCs), and small island developing States(SIDS). The internationally recognized three-letter country codes can be found here and in Survey annex table 12.

2.2.6

Asia: country grouping analysis

The top 22 countries in Asia are in the very high EGDI group (see table 2.3). As reported in chapter 1,
the Republic of Korea, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates and Japan are in the highest (VH) ratingclass and are among the global leaders in e-government development. The United Arab Emirates has
joined the VH rating class of the very high EGDI group for the first time in 2022.
Asia increased its average EGDI value from 0.6373 in 2020 to 0.6493 in 2022, remaining the second
most advanced region in e-government development. The levels of e-government development
among individual countries in the region remain highly diverse, with wide variance in EGDI values
and rankings. The Republic of Korea (3rd), Singapore (12th), the United Arab Emirates (13th) and Japan(14th) are global leaders in e-government development, while Yemen (178th), Afghanistan (184th) andthe Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (180th) are among the countries with the lowest EGDI
rankings—though it should be noted that none of the Asian countries are in the low EGDI group.
More than half of the countries in Asia have improved their EGDI rankings in 2022; five countries(Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Georgia, Lebanon, Nepal and Tajikistan) have moved up to
the next EGDI level.
Asia has the second largest number of countries in special situations after Africa (20 versus 39),though the average EGDI value for these countries is higher in Asia (0.5851) than in Africa (0.3588).
As shown in figure 2.15, the LDCs in Asia, including those that are also LLDCs and SIDS, have lower
EGDI values than do the LLDCs and SIDS—similar to the findings for Africa. The three SIDS in Asiawith high or very high EGDI values are Maldives (0.5885), Bahrain (0.7707) and Singapore (0.9133).

68

Chapter 2

Chapter 2 • Regional E-Government Development and the Performance of Country Groupings

Table 2.3

Countries in Asia with the highest EGDI values
OSI

HCI

TII

EGDI

EGDI

value

value

value

(2022)(2020)

Eastern Asia

0.98260.90870.96740.95290.956012South-Eastern Asia

0.96200.90210.87580.91330.915

13Western Asia

0.90140.87110.93060.90100.8555

14

Eastern Asia

0.90940.87650.91470.90020.8989Rating

EGDI

class

rank

Republic of Korea

VH

3Singapore

VH

United Arab Emirates

VH

Japan

VH

Country

Subregion

IsraelV3

16

Western Asia

0.87450.89940.89150.88850.8361

CyprusV3

27

Western Asia

0.77920.89340.92530.86600.8731

Kazakhstan

V3

28

Central Asia

0.93440.90210.75200.86280.8375

Saudi Arabia

V2

31

Western Asia

0.82200.86620.87350.85390.7991

China

V2

43

Eastern Asia

0.88760.74290.80500.81190.7948TurkeyV1

48

Western Asia

0.86000.8722

0.6626

0.79830.7718

Oman

V1

50

Western Asia

0.74230.80670.8012

0.78340.7749

Malaysia

V1

53

South-Eastern Asia

0.76300.76450.79450.77400.7892BahrainV1

54

Western Asia

0.75230.81540.74440.77070.8213ThailandV1

55

South-Eastern Asia

0.77630.78790.73380.76600.7565

Georgia*V1

60

Western Asia

0.61110.89840.74090.75010.7174

Kuwait**

HV

61

Western Asia

0.69730.77060.77740.7484

0.7913

Armenia

HV

64

Western Asia

0.72210.79450.69250.73640.7136

Brunei Darussalam

HV

68

South-Eastern Asia

0.58710.75670.83720.72700.7389Uzbekistan

HV69

Central Asia

0.74400.77780.65750.72650.6665

Mongolia

HV

74

Eastern Asia

0.62630.83910.69730.72090.6497

Indonesia

HV

77

South-Eastern Asia

0.76440.74380.63970.71600.6612

Qatar

HV

78

Western Asia

0.60940.71500.82030.71490.7173

Sources: 2020 and 2022 United Nations E-Government Surveys.
* Countries that moved from the high to the very high EGDI group in 2022.
** Countries that moved from the very high to the high EGDI group in 2022.

As part of the Asia region, the member countries of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of
the Gulf (GCC) share similarities in their e-government development and are thus grouped together
in table 2.4.
Four of the six GCC countries are in the very high EGDI group; the United Arab Emirates is ranked
highest and is part of the VH rating class, followed by Saudi Arabia (V2) and Bahrain and Oman
(both V1). Kuwait and Qatar are in the highest (HV) rating class of the high EGDI group. All of thesecountries have highly developed telecommunications infrastructure (the average TII for this group
is 0.8246). Most also have relatively high OSI and HCI values, though strengthening investment inonline services provision could help propel Qatar and Kuwait into the very high EGDI group. Qatar
should also consider investing more in human capital development, and Bahrain would likely benefit
from further investment in infrastructure.

69

Chapter 22022 UN E-Government Survey

Box 2.3

United Arab Emirates and Kazakhstan
The United Arab Emirates has joined the very high rating class of the very high EGDI groupfor the first time and is among the global leaders in e-government development. The country
is ranked fourth worldwide in investment in telecommunications services and in the digital
adaptation of its legal framework. The Government defines itself as the world’s first 100 per
cent paperless Government—a feat achieved through the full digitalization of the education,
health, community development, economy and security sectors. Among other initiatives, 525
of the country’s 589 schools have participated in a self-evaluation process that will lead to theireventual conversion to smart schools. Public administration has also undergone digitalizationand simplification processes. At present, the Government provides 500 online services, many ofwhich have been streamlined and made faster and easier for public institutions and users. For
example, the processing time for family registration has been reduced from three days to a few
minutes, and the Government has calculated that the digitalization of business registration has
saved 10 million hours of waiting time for applicants and 45,600 hours for employees.
Kazakhstan has the highest EGDI value among the LLDCs, and the Government is planning to
expand and accelerate the digital transformation process under its Digital Kazakhstan programme.
Over the past several years, there have been significant improvements in the ICT infrastructure.
In 2018, only 100,000 people living in around 55 rural settlements had access to the Internet via
fibre optic cable; by 2020, the Government had extended fibre optic lines to 741 settlements,
and the number of those served had jumped to 800,000. The transport and logistics sectors haveundergone a digitalization process that has led to the introduction of a smart traffic system andthe implementation of a highway assets control programme using digital technologies.
Sources: Member States Questionnaires for the United Arab Emirates and Kazakhstan.

Table 2.4

E-government development in the member countries of the Cooperation Council for the ArabStates of the Gulf (GCC)

Country

Rating

EGDI

class

rank

Subregion

OSI

HCI

TII

EGDI

EGDI

value

value

value

(2022)(2020)

United Arab Emirates

VH

13

Western Asia

0.90140.87110.93060.90100.8555

Saudi Arabia

V2

31

Western Asia

0.82200.86620.87350.85390.7991

Oman

V1

50

Western Asia

0.74230.80670.8012

0.78340.7749BahrainV1

54

Western Asia

0.75230.81540.74440.77070.8213

Kuwait*

HV

61

Western Asia

0.69730.77060.77740.7484

0.7913

Qatar

HV

78

Western Asia

0.60940.71500.82030.71490.7173

Sources: 2020 and 2022 United Nations E-Government Surveys.
* Countries that moved from the very high to the high EGDI group in 2022.

70

Chapter 2

Chapter 2 • Regional E-Government Development and the Performance of Country Groupings

Figure 2.15 Countries in special situations in Asia, 2022

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.
Notes: Countries in special situations include least developed countries (LDCs), landlocked developing countries (LLDCs), and small island developing States (SIDS).
The internationally recognized three-letter country codes can be found here and in Survey annex table 12.

2.2.7

Europe: country grouping analysis

Europe has the highest average EGDI value (0.8602), as well as the highest average HCI and TII
values (0.9030 and 0.8648, respectively). It has topped the global charts since the inception of theE-Government Survey and has the most homogeneous e-government development (see figure 2.2).
Of the 43 European countries surveyed, 35 are in the very high EGDI group (see table 2.5); eight of
the latter (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Iceland and Malta) arein the highest (VH) rating class and are among the global leaders in e-government development. In
2022, Serbia and Ukraine moved from the high to the very high EGDI group for the first time.2
Eight countries in Europe are in the high EGDI group and have an average EGDI value of 0.7005. In
terms of subregional distribution, Albania, Andorra, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North
Macedonia and San Marino are in Southern Europe, Monaco is in Western Europe, and the Republicof Moldova is in Eastern Europe.
As shown in figure 2.16, the two LLDCs in Europe have relatively less developed infrastructure, with
TII values of 0.5760 for the Republic of Moldova and 0.6417 for North Macedonia. All European
countries except Ukraine are in the high-income or upper-middle-income group.

71Chapter 22022 UN E-Government Survey

Table 2.5

Countries in Europe with the highest EGDI values

Country

Rating

EGDI

Subregion

EU

OSI

HCI

TII

EGDI

EGDI

class

rank

value

value

value

(2022)(2020)

Denmark

VH

1

Northern Europe

Yes

0.97970.95590.97950.97170.9758Finland

VH

2

Northern Europe

Yes

0.98330.96400.9127

0.95330.9452

Sweden

VH

5

Northern Europe

Yes

0.90020.96490.95800.94100.9365

Iceland

VH

5

Northern Europe

No0.88670.96570.97050.94100.9101

Estonia

VH

8

Northern Europe

Yes

1.00000.92310.89490.93930.9473

Netherlands

VH

9

Western Europe

Yes

0.90260.9506

0.96200.93840.9228

United Kingdom ofGreat Britain
and Northern Ireland

VH

11

Northern Europe

No0.88590.93690.9186

0.91380.9358

Malta

VH

15

Southern Europe

Yes

0.88490.87340.92450.89430.8547

NorwayV3

17

Northern EuropeNo

0.80070.95280.91020.88790.9064

Spain

V3

18

Southern Europe

Yes

0.85590.90720.88950.88420.8801

FranceV3

19

Western Europe

Yes

0.87680.87840.89440.88320.8718AustriaV3

20

Western Europe

Yes

0.88270.90700.85050.88010.8914

Slovenia

V3

21

Southern Europe

Yes

0.8666

0.94390.82390.87810.8546

GermanyV3

22

Western Europe

Yes

0.79050.94460.89570.87700.8524

Switzerland

V3

23

Western EuropeNo

0.76770.91280.94500.87520.8907

Lithuania

V3

24

Northern Europe

Yes

0.83470.92510.86360.87450.8665

Liechtenstein

V3

25

Western Europe

No0.73290.87261.00000.86850.8359Luxembourg

V3

26

Western Europe

Yes

0.83190.82450.94620.86750.8272

LatviaV3

29

Northern Europe

Yes

0.81350.92840.83780.85990.7798

Ireland

V3

30

Northern Europe

Yes

0.7796

0.96180.82870.85670.8433

GreeceV2

33

Southern Europe

Yes

0.77530.94050.82060.84550.8021PolandV2

34

Eastern Europe

Yes

0.79290.90330.83480.84370.8531

Italy

V2

37

Southern Europe

Yes

0.86590.8606

0.78600.83750.8231

Portugal

V2

38

Southern Europe

Yes

0.79540.86650.82010.82730.8255

Belgium

V2

39

Western Europe

Yes

0.68990.96140.82940.82690.8047

Serbia*V2

40

Southern Europe

No0.85140.83320.78650.82370.7474

Russian Federation

V2

42

Eastern Europe

No0.73680.90650.80530.81620.8244

CroatiaV2

44Southern Europe

Yes

0.81080.85000.77110.81060.7745

Czech Republic

V2

45

Eastern Europe

Yes

0.66930.91140.84560.80880.8135

Ukraine*V1

46

Eastern Europe

No

0.81480.86690.72700.80290.7119Slovakia

V1

47

Eastern Europe

Yes

0.72600.84360.83280.80080.7817

Hungary

V1

51

Eastern Europe

Yes

0.74650.83450.7671

0.78270.7745

Bulgaria

V1

52

Eastern Europe

Yes

0.70920.8221

0.79840.7766

0.7980Romania

V1

57

Eastern Europe

Yes

0.68140.80900.79540.76190.7605Belarus

V1

58

Eastern EuropeNo0.53020.90110.84260.75800.8084

Sources: 2020 and 2022 United Nations E-Government Surveys.
Note: The ranking of Ukraine reflects the results of the assessment undertaken at the time of the Survey.
* Countries that moved from the high to the very high EGDI group in 2022.

72

Chapter 2

Chapter 2 • Regional E-Government Development and the Performance of Country GroupingsBox 2.4

Serbia: focusing on digital skills and services delivery

The improved e-government ranking of Serbia may be attributed in part to the Government’s
renewed commitment to the E-Government Development Programme of the Republic of Serbia
2020-2022 and the Action Plan for its implementation. Although there are still segments of the
population that have never used the Internet or a computer, notable progress is being madewithin the realm of public administration. According to a government survey, only 4 per cent ofpublic sector employees (600 of 15,200) do not have basic computer skills. Most institutions (14of 21) use the e-Government portal to provide information and services, and the Government
is committed to investing in the improvement of digital services delivery. At present, only 35 percent of the 1,700 public services offered are accessible electronically, though almost all public
institutions (19 of 21) have data centres, and the majority (13) have internal information security
policies in place.
Sources: 2022 Member States Questionnaire for Serbia; Serbia, Ministry of Public Administration and Local Self-Government, andothers, “E-Government Development Programme of the Republic of Serbia 2020-2022 and Action Plan for its implementation”,
available at e-Government-Development-Programme-2020-2022-FINAL-2.pdf.

Figure 2.16 Countries in special situations in Europe, 2022

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.
Notes: Countries in special situations include least developed countries (LDCs), landlocked developing countries (LLDCs), and small island developing States (SIDS).
The internationally recognized three-letter country codes can be found here and in Survey annex table 12.

73

Chapter 22022 UN E-Government Survey

2.2.8

Oceania: country grouping analysis

All 14 countries in Oceania are listed in table 2.6 owing to the small size of the region. Australia
and New Zealand—with respective EGDI values of 0.9405 and 0.9432 and global rankings of 4th
and 7th—are in the highest (VH) rating class of the very high EGDI group and are among the world
leaders in e-government development. The countries in the high EGDI group include Fiji (0.6235),
Tonga (0.5155) and Palau (0.5109), and the remaining countries are in the middle EGDI group.
The countries in the region other than Australia and New Zealand have an average EGDI valueof 0.4358—less than half the corresponding values of the regional front-runners and substantiallylower than the global average of 0.6201. These 12 countries are all SIDS, and three of them (Kiribati,
Solomon Islands and Tuvalu) are also LDCs. Vanuatu graduated from LDC status in 2020.
Table 2.6

Countries in Oceania listed in descending order by EGDI value
Rating

EGDI

class

rank

New Zealand

VH

4

Australia

VH

Fiji

H3

Tonga

H1

Palau
Vanuatu
Nauru
Kiribati

OSI

HCI

TII

EGDI

EGDI

value

value

value

(2022)(2020)

Australia and New Zealand

0.95790.98230.8896

0.94320.9339

7

Australia and New Zealand

0.93801.00000.88360.9405

0.9432

97

Melanesia

0.48130.79570.59350.62350.6585

124

Polynesia

0.32960.86750.34960.51550.5616H1

132

Micronesia

0.23730.8946

0.37350.50180.5109MH

135

Melanesia

0.42280.60090.47270.49880.4403

MH

139

Micronesia

0.29520.59250.47680.45480.4150M3148

Micronesia

0.3686

0.67850.25300.4334

0.432

Samoa

M3

152

Polynesia

0.35920.74700.15580.42070.4219TuvaluM3

158

Polynesia

0.22650.64920.26070.37880.4209Marshall Islands

M3

160

Micronesia

0.30040.69030.1236

0.37140.4055Micronesia (Federated States of)

M2

164

Micronesia

0.27030.68450.11020.35500.3779

Solomon Islands

M2

164

Melanesia

0.36760.4925

0.19880.35300.3442

Papua New Guinea

M2

170

Melanesia

0.32630.49960.14300.32300.2827

Country

Subregion

Sources: 2020 and 2022 United Nations E-Government Surveys.

The least developed SIDS have the lowest EGDI values in the region (averaging 0.3884), mainly
because of their poorly developed telecommunications infrastructure (reflected in the low average
TII value of 0.2375). For comparison, all other SIDS in Oceania have an average EGDI value of 0.4516
and an average TII value of 0.3110—though the disparities in telecommunications infrastructuredevelopment are greater for this group than for the least developed SIDS (see figure 2.17). Oceania
struggles to capitalize on its highly developed human capital (reflected in the average HCI value of
0.7268) and achieve meaningful progress in e-government development.

74

Chapter 2

Chapter 2 • Regional E-Government Development and the Performance of Country Groupings

Figure 2.17 Countries in special situations in Oceania, 2022

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.
Notes: Countries in special situations include least developed countries (LDCs), landlocked developing countries (LLDCs), and small island developing States (SIDS).
The internationally recognized three-letter country codes can be found here and in Survey annex table 12.

Box 2.5

Fiji: expanding the provision of digital services to improve accessibility

In Fiji, the Digital Government Transformation Programme (digitalFIJI) is being implemented aspart of the 20-year National Development Plan and focuses primarily on strengthening public
administration, government services, and the telecommunications infrastructure. Aiming toenhance the quality and accessibility of public services, the Government is working to achieve full
digitalization by the end of 2022. The digitalFIJI website currently allows users to register births,
apply for and retrieve birth certificates, and register companies or businesses. Two digital platforms
have been created to facilitate communication and engagement. The Government Directory
provides contact information for every public agency and public official, and the myFeedback
platform provides users with an online space to discuss issues and comment on governance andgovernment services; the latter project is handled by the Feedback Unit, which is responsible forpromptly redirecting messages to the appropriate ministries and agencies for response and timely
resolution.
Sources: 2022 Member States Questionnaire for Fiji; additional information on the services and platforms is available at https://www.
fiji.gov.fj/digitalFIJI and https://carefiji.digitalfiji.gov.fj/about-us/.

75

Chapter 22022 UN E-Government Survey

2.3Countries in special situations

The United Nations has identified three groups of countries in special situations that face specificchallenges in their pursuit of sustainable development: least developed countries (LDCs), landlocked
developing countries (LLDCs), and small island developing States (SIDS).3 In some cases, these
designations overlap.
Around 40 per cent of people living in poverty reside in LDCs, with most situated in countries
experiencing or emerging from conflict. LDCs account for 13 per cent of the world population but
only about 1.3 per cent of global gross domestic product (GDP) and less than 1 per cent of global
trade and foreign direct investment (FDI). Although Internet use is increasing, only a fifth of the
population of LDCs have access.4 LDCs have weak human and institutional capacities, low andunequally distributed incomes, and a scarcity of domestic financial resources. Presently, there are 46
LDCs in various world regions.
LLDCs tend to face constraints in socioeconomic development due to the lack of territorial access tothe sea, remoteness and isolation from world markets, and high transit costs. There are currently 32
LLDCs—16 in Africa, 12 in Asia, 2 in the Americas, and 2 in Europe.
SIDS tend to have a narrow resource base; high costs for energy, infrastructure, transportation,communication and services; little resilience to natural disasters; high volatility in economic growth;
limited opportunities for the private sector and a proportionately large reliance of their economies
on the public sector; and fragile natural environments. There are 38 Member States in this group.
The combined average EGDI value for LDCs, LLDCs and SIDS rose by 3 per cent between 2020 and
2022 (from 0.4605 to 0.4736) but remains well below the world average of 0.6201 (see figure 2.18).
LDCs have the lowest average EGDI value (0.3500) among the three special groups. When LDCs are
excluded from the analysis of LLDCs and SIDS, the average EGDI values for the latter two groups arehigher—0.5814 for SIDS and 0.6379 for LLDCs.
LLDCs comprise the only group among the countries in special situations that has an average EGDI
value above the global average. The LLDCs also have the highest averages for the EGDI subindices(TII, HCI and OSI), followed by SIDS (see figure 2.19).
Figure 2.18 Average EGDI values for countries in special situations, 2020 and 2022

Sources: 2020 and 2022 United Nations E-Government Surveys.
Note: Countries in special situations include least developed countries (LDCs), landlocked developing countries (LLDCs), and small island developing States (SIDS).

76

Chapter 2

Chapter 2 • Regional E-Government Development and the Performance of Country Groupings

As shown in figure 2.19, the variance in subindex values for countries in special situations is
pronounced within each distinct subgroup. While average EGDI values are roughly comparable for
LDCs, including LDCs that are landlocked (LDC/LLDCs) and LDCs among the small island developing
states (LDC/SIDS), the average OSI, TII and HCI values are different for each subgroup. For instance,
landlocked LDCs perform significantly better than the LDCs among small island developing States inproviding online services, while the latter subgroup has higher average values for human capital andinfrastructure development.
Figure 2.19 EGDI and subindex values for countries in special situations, 2022

Sources: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.
Note: Countries in special situations include least developed countries (LDCs), landlocked developing countries (LLDCs), and small island developing States (SIDS).

LDCs are concentrated in the middle EGDI group, though their share in this group has declined
from 79 to 72 per cent over the past two years as their representation in the high EGDI group has
nearly doubled, rising from 6 to 15 per cent (see figure 2.20). Among the LLDCs, 47 per cent havehigh EGDI values (unchanged from 2020) and 38 per cent have middle EGDI values (an increase of
4 percentage points since 2020). The proportion of SIDS in the high EGDI group increased from 50
to 55 per cent between 2020 and 2022, with a corresponding 5-percentage-point decline (from 42
to 37 per cent) in their representation in the middle EGDI group. Only 3 per cent of LLDCs and 5 percent of SIDS have very high EGDI values, and there are no LDCs in this group.

77Chapter 22022 UN E-Government Survey

Figure 2.20 The distribution of countries in special situations among EGDI levels, 2022

100%
90%

3%

13%

15%

80%

37%
37%

70%

38%

60%
50%

72%

40%
55%

30%

47%

20%
10%
0%

13%

5%
SIDS (38 countries)

3%
LLDCs (32 countries)

LDCs (46 countries)
Very-HighHigh

MiddleLow

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.
Note: Countries in special situations include least developed countries (LDCs), landlocked developing countries (LLDCs), and small island
developing States (SIDS).

2.3.1

Least developed countries

Among the 46 LDCs, 33 are in Africa, 9 are in Asia, 3 are in Oceania, and 1 is in Latin America. As
noted previously, about 40 per cent of individuals living in poverty reside in the LDCs, most of which
are experiencing or emerging from conflict. As also noted, LDCs account for 13 per cent of the world
population but only about 1.3 per cent of global GDP and less than 1 per cent of global trade and
FDI, and only a fifth of the people living in LDCs have Internet access.

Box 2.6

Cambodia
Cambodia is actively engaged in laying a strong foundation for digital transformation. In 2019, theGovernment adopted the E-Commerce Law and the Consumer Protection Law to guarantee security
and fair competition in the electronic market. Draft legislation on information technology crimes,
cybersecurity and access to information has also been drawn up to prevent and address cybercrimeand ensure freedom of information. This year, the Government has committed to expanding digitaldevelopment under the Cambodian Digital Government Policy 2022-2035, which aligns with theSDGs and the Digital Economy and Society Policy Framework 2021-2035. The National Council for
Digital Economy and Society, one of the most esteemed institutions in the country, is responsiblefor implementing the latter strategy and has been selected to lead the e-government innovation
process.
Sources: 2022 Member States Questionnaire for Cambodia.

78

Chapter 2

Chapter 2 • Regional E-Government Development and the Performance of Country Groupings

With their transition from the middle to the high EGDI group in 2022, Rwanda, Nepal and Zambia
join Bhutan, Bangladesh and Cambodia (which had made the same shift in 2020) as the leaders in
e-government development among the LDCs. Their EGDI values place all six countries in the H1 or H2
rating class of the high EGDI group. Rwanda has had the sharpest increase in OSI value (from 0.6176
in 2020 to 0.7935 in 2022), making it the top performer in online services provision among the LDCs.
The six LDCs in the high EGDI group have a high average HCI value (0.5715) and a middle average
TII value (0.4596), signifying that these countries have had some success in advancing e-government
development in spite of some limitations in telecommunications infrastructure development. All of
the countries except Bangladesh and Cambodia are also landlocked and therefore face additional
challenges.
Among the LDCs, Guinea, Myanmar, Rwanda and Zambia have made significant strides in improving
their EGDI rankings (each by more than 10 positions), despite being low-income and lower-middleincome economies. Table 2.7 displays the performance of the highest-ranked LDCs.
Figure 2.21 highlights the differences in EGDI and subindex values among the LDCs, including thosethat are also LLDCs and SIDS; the latter two groups are reviewed in the subsections below. It is worth
noting that LDCs in Asia are lower-middle-income countries (with the exception of Yemen) and havea higher average EGDI value (0.4645) than the LDCs in Africa (0.3231).

Table 2.7

Country
Bangladesh

Least developed countries with the highest EGDI value
Rating

EGDI

class

rank

H2

111

Subregion
Southern Asia

OSI

HCI

TII

EGDI

EGDI

value

value

value

(2022)(2020)

0.65210.59000.44690.56300.5189BhutanH2

115

Southern Asia

0.59960.53050.52610.55210.5777

Rwanda*H1

119

Eastern Africa

0.79350.53220.32090.54890.4789Nepal*

H1

125

Southern Asia

0.4592

0.56360.51230.51170.4699Cambodia

H1

127

South-Eastern Asia

0.4181

0.53800.56050.5056

0.5113

Zambia*H1

131

Eastern Africa

0.44140.67440.39090.50220.4242MyanmarMH

134

South-Eastern Asia

0.30730.58290.60820.49940.4316

SenegalMH

143

Western Africa

0.49340.34780.50250.44790.4210UgandaMH

144

Eastern Africa

0.51690.56310.24720.44240.4499LesothoMH

145Southern Africa

0.34560.59500.3836

0.44140.4593

Sources: 2020 and 2022 United Nations E-Government Surveys.
Note: Italicized countries are LLDCs in addition to being LDCs.
* Countries that have moved from the middle to the high EGDI group.

79Chapter 22022 UN E-Government Survey

Figure 2.21 EDGI and subindex performance for the least developed countries, 2022

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.
Notes: Countries in special situations include least developed countries (LDCs), landlocked developing countries (LLDCs), and small island developing States (SIDS).
The internationally recognized three-letter country codes can be found here and in Survey annex table 12.

2.3.2

Landlocked developing countries

Table 2.8 lists the LLDCs that rank highest in terms of e-government development. Within thiscategory, Kazakhstan has the highest EGDI value (0.8628) and remains the only country in thesecond highest (V3) rating class of the very high EGDI group. Next are Armenia, Uzbekistan, theRepublic of Moldova and Mongolia, which are in the highest (HV) rating class of the high EGDI
group and are on the cusp of transitioning to the very high EGDI group. Between 2020 and 2022,
Tajikistan, Rwanda, Nepal and Zambia moved from the middle to the high EGDI group (the latter
three countries are also LDCs, as noted previously). Mongolia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Zambia
are the LLDCs that experienced the most dramatic improvement in EGDI values and ranking during
this period, with each of these countries raising its EGDI rank by more than 17 positions.
There are 17 countries classified as LDC/LLDCs. The average EGDI value is lower for this group thanfor other landlocked developing countries. Among the 13 LDC/LLDCs in Africa, 85 per cent are lowincome countries, and three of the four LDC/LLDCs in Asia are lower-middle-income countries.
Among the remaining 15 LLDCs, 8 are in Asia, 3 are in Africa, 2 are in the Americas, and 2 are inEurope, and their respective average EGDI values are 0.6778, 0.4903, 0.6248 and 0.7125. Morethan half of these countries (53 per cent) are in the upper-middle income group, and the remainder
are lower-middle-income countries.

80Chapter 2

Chapter 2 • Regional E-Government Development and the Performance of Country Groupings

Table 2.8

Landlocked developing countries with the highest EGDI values

Country

Rating

EGDI

Subregion

OSI value

HCI value

TII value

EGDI

EGDI

class

rank

(2022)(2020)

Kazakhstan

V3

28

Central Asia

0.93440.90210.75200.86280.8375

Armenia

HV

64

Western Asia

0.72210.79450.69250.73640.7136

Uzbekistan

HV69

Central Asia

0.74400.77780.65750.72650.6665

Republic of Moldova

HV

72

Eastern Europe

0.73800.86130.57600.72510.6881

Mongolia

HV

74

Eastern Asia

0.62630.83910.69730.72090.6497

North Macedonia

H380Southern Europe

0.70200.75620.64170.70000.7083Kyrgyzstan

H3

81

Central Asia

0.61760.81190.66370.69770.6749Azerbaijan

H3

83

Western Asia

0.61190.7932

0.6761

0.69370.7100Paraguay

H3

94South America

0.60590.69470.59890.63320.6487

Bolivia (Plurinational State of)

H298

South America

0.51930.74830.58180.61650.6129BhutanH2

115

Southern Asia

0.59960.53050.52610.55210.5777

Botswana

H1

118Southern Africa

0.27400.69320.68140.54950.5383

Rwanda*H1

119

Eastern Africa

0.79350.53220.32090.54890.4789Nepal*

H1

125

Southern Asia

0.4592

0.56360.51230.51170.4699

Tajikistan*

H1

129

Central Asia

0.39680.73800.37700.50390.4649Zambia*H1

131

Eastern Africa

0.44140.67440.39090.50220.4242

Sources: 2020 and 2022 United Nations E-Government Surveys.
Note: Italicized countries are LDCs in addition to being LLDCs.
* Countries that have moved from the middle to the high EGDI group.

Box 2.7

Armenia: aligning public administration priorities with SDGs

Armenia has been pursuing its Digitalization Strategy for 2021-2025, whose strength derives
to some extent from its alignment with both the Public Administration Reform strategy and the
SDGs. With support from the World Bank, e-government innovation projects have been launchedthis year, but some of the digital transformation initiatives developed to meet the objectives set
out in the 2030 Agenda have already been undertaken. The E-Health in Armenia project, now
in the implementation phase, provides medical professionals with up-to-date digital records andinformation on patient health, contributing to time and cost optimization in the health-care sector
and allowing Armenia to move closer to achieving SDGs 3 and 10. Digitalization in the agriculture
sector has also begun, with the Government using drone imagery and satellite technology to collectreal-time data and statistics that can guide decision-making in areas relating to SDGs 2 and 8. Oneof the next steps is to develop an e-justice system that will contribute to the achievement of SDG 16.
Sources: 2022 Member States Questionnaire for Armenia; National Electronic Health Operator, “E-health in Armenia” (2022), available
at https://corporate.armed.am/en/about-system/ehealth-in-armenia; Armenia, “National pathway for food systems transformationin support of the 2030 Agenda”, Food Systems Summit 2021 Dialogues, available at https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/
uploads/2021/09/Armenia_National-Pathway_2021_En.pdf; World Bank, “Armenia to improve public sector performance throughdigital solutions, with World Bank support”, press release, 3 March 2022, available at https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/pressrelease/2022/03/03/armenia-to-improve-public-sector-performance-through-digital-solutions-with-world-bank-support.

81

Chapter 22022 UN E-Government Survey

Figure 2.22 EDGI and subindex performance for landlocked developing countries, 2022

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.
Notes: Countries in special situations include least developed countries (LDCs), landlocked developing countries (LLDCs), and small island developing States (SIDS).
The internationally recognized three-letter country codes can be found here and in Survey annex table 12.

2.3.3

Small island developing States

Table 2.9 presents the SIDS with the highest EGDI values in 2022. SIDS are characterized by thehighest variance in EGDI values, which range from 0.2481 in Haiti to 0.9133 in Singapore. The latteris in the highest (VH) rating class of the very high EGDI group and is one of the world leaders in
e-government development. Bahrain remains the only SIDS other than Singapore in the very high
EGDI group, though this country saw its EGDI value decline from 0.8213 in 2020 to 0.7707 in 2022,with a corresponding drop from the V2 to the V1 rating class.
The other 21 countries featured in the table are all in the high EGDI group and have an average
EGDI value of 0.6115—an improvement over the corresponding figures for 2020 (19 countries in
the high EGDI group and an average EGDI value of 0.5716). Only 12 of the 38 SIDS (Antigua andBarbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Dominican Republic, Fiji, Grenada, Mauritius, Saint Kitts andNevis, Seychelles, Singapore, and Trinidad and Tobago) have EGDI values above the global averageof 0.6201.
In 2022, Guyana and Belize transitioned from the middle to the high EGDI group, and Guinea-Bissau
transitioned from the low to the middle EGDI group.

82

Chapter 2

Chapter 2 • Regional E-Government Development and the Performance of Country Groupings

Table 2.9

Small island developing States with the highest EGDI values
Rating

EGDI

class

rank

Singapore

VH

12

Bahrain

V1

54

GrenadaHV

Bahamas

HV

Mauritius

OSI v

HCI

TII

EGDI

EGDI

alue

value

value

(2022)(2020)South-Eastern Asia

0.96200.90210.87580.91330.9150Western Asia

0.75230.81540.74440.77070.821366

Caribbean

0.55070.89770.73480.72770.5812

66

Caribbean

0.62140.76410.79760.72770.7017

HV

75

Eastern Africa

0.62820.77330.75880.72010.7196

Barbados

H3

79

Caribbean

0.53880.86450.73180.71170.7279Seychelles

H3

85

Eastern Africa

0.44240.77580.81980.67930.6920Saint Kitts and Nevis

H3

87

Caribbean

0.33070.87240.82930.67750.6352

Dominican Republic

H3

92

Caribbean

0.61830.75390.55670.64290.6782

Trinidad and Tobago

H3

93

Caribbean

0.48920.74090.6717

0.63390.6785

Fiji

H3

97

Melanesia

0.48130.79570.59350.62350.6585

Antigua and Barbuda

H2

99

Caribbean

0.42310.81280.59810.61130.6055

Jamaica

H2

102

Caribbean

0.49140.71480.56580.5906

0.5392

Maldives

H2

104

Southern Asia

0.48730.69370.58450.58850.5740Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

H2

107

Caribbean

0.45260.74200.5486

0.58110.5605Suriname

H2108South America

0.34180.69210.70890.58090.5154

Dominica

H2

109

Caribbean

0.29540.68100.76040.57890.6013

Cabo Verde

H2

110

Western Africa

0.49650.65070.55070.56600.5604Saint Lucia

H2

114

Caribbean

0.40070.70490.56830.55800.5444

Guyana*H1

123

South America

0.45090.6546

0.46430.52330.4909

Tonga

H1

124

Polynesia

0.32960.86750.34960.51550.5616

Palau

H1

132

Micronesia

0.23730.8946

0.37350.50180.5109Belize*H1

133

Central America

0.44250.67070.38820.50050.4548Country

Subregion

Sources: 2020 and 2022 United Nations E-Government Surveys.
* Countries that have moved from the middle to the high EGDI group.

Figure 2.23 reflects the persistent challenges that continue to undermine the efforts of SIDS to
improve their telecommunications infrastructure, online services provision and human capitaldevelopment. The eight SIDS that are also LDCs (Comoros, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Kiribati, Sao Tomeand Principe, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste and Tuvalu) have a lower average EGDI value (0.3498)
than do the other SIDS (0.5814). They also tend to have low TII and OSI values, as nearly all LDC/SIDS
are low-income or lower-middle-income countries and lack the resources needed to invest in areas
vital for e-government development.
Among the other SIDS, Asia has the highest average EGDI value (0.7339), followed by Africa(0.6551), the Americas (0.6094) and Oceania (0.4516). Most SIDS in Asia and the Americas areupper-middle-income and high-income countries, whereas in Africa and Oceania national income
levels vary widely.
If e-government leaders such as Singapore and Bahrain are excluded from the analysis of e-government
performance among SIDS, the average EGDI value for this group becomes 0.5628 (lower than the
global average), reflecting the capacity constraints experienced by these countries as a consequenceof their small size, remoteness and dispersion.

83

Chapter 22022 UN E-Government Survey

Box 2.8

GrenadaGrenada is on its way to becoming a Smart Small State, defined by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) “as one that leverages the power of data and digital technologies to strengthen
the country’s resilience, enhance sustainability, and improve the well-being of its people by creating
economic opportunity that is led by an agile and efficient Government”. Its collaboration with
UNDP has allowed Grenada to extend the national digital strategy into the National Sustainable
Development Plan 2020-2035, aimed at guiding the country’s efforts to become a Smart Small
State and achieve the SDGs. Over the past two years, Grenada has launched some innovative
initiatives to address climate change. The Blue Bot project uses artificial intelligence to analyse
images captured by underwater reef robots and monitor species and climate change patterns tobetter guide conservation efforts and sustainable fisheries management. On land, data are collected
as part of the Climate Smart Agriculture and Rural Enterprise Programme to monitor real-timechanges in climate, soil conditions and market prices, and the information gathered is used to guidedecision-making across the food supply chain to promote more climate-resilient and sustainableagriculture. As part of the Climate Resilient Infrastructure for Integrated Landscape initiative, theGovernment has launched an app to provide citizens with real-time information via mobile alerts
on how to respond during natural disasters. The next step is a smart government programme todigitalize public administration, provide high-quality online services, and create an innovation hub
platform to meaningfully engage citizens.
Source: United Nations Development Programme, Barbados and the Eastern Caribbean, Grenada Smart Small State: Developing the
Vision (quoted portion from p. 3), available at https://www.undp.org/barbados/publications/grenada-smart-small-state-developingvision.

Figure 2.23 EDGI and subindex performance for small island developing States, 2022

Source: 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.
Notes: Countries in special situations include least developed countries (LDCs), landlocked developing countries (LLDCs), and small island developing States (SIDS).
The internationally recognized three-letter country codes can be found here and in Survey annex table 1284

Chapter 2

Chapter 2 • Regional E-Government Development and the Performance of Country Groupings

2.4

Summary and conclusion

All regions except Oceania have improved their average EGDI values in 2022. Europe remains theleader in e-government development, with an average EGDI value of 0.8305, followed by Asia
(0.6493), the Americas (0.6438), Oceania (0.5081), and Africa (0.4054).
For the first time since 2016, the average EDGI value for Oceania has declined, largely owing to the
29 per cent drop in the average TII value for the region over the past two years. The opposite is truein other regions, where much of the increase in regional EGDI values derives from improvements inthe telecommunications infrastructure; between 2020 and 2022, the average TII value rose by 12 percent in Africa, by 6.5 per cent in the Americas, and by 4.6 per cent in Asia.
Despite the significant progress made in Africa, the EGDI average for this region remains below the
global average of 0.6102. Only 4 of the 54 countries in Africa have EGDI values above the global
EGDI average, but the other countries have EGDI values that are sometimes significantly lower,
highlighting gaps in e-government development and the persistence of the digital divide.
Asia and the Americas are roughly comparable in their levels of e-government development, with agrowing number of countries in these regions moving to higher EGDI levels.
There has been notable progress in online services provision in all regions. Those living in vulnerable
situations—people living in poverty, persons with disabilities, older people, immigrants, women andyouth—have benefited from these improvements, though additional efforts are needed to ensurethat no one is left behind in e-government. In regional terms, Europe has the largest proportion ofcountries offering services to vulnerable populations (96 per cent), followed by Asia (85 per cent),
the Americas (83 per cent), Oceania (68 per cent) and Africa (64 per cent).
The 2022 Survey results indicate that Europe has the highest average number of services offered
online (19), followed by Asia (17), the Americas (16), Oceania (12) and Africa (12). In 2022, for the
first time, there are five countries in Africa offering 20-21 services (Nigeria, Rwanda, Angola, Egypt
and South Africa). In all regions, registering a business and applying for business licence are the twoservices offered most frequently online.
Governments in all regions have been addressing the challenges associated with the COVID-19
pandemic. Almost all countries in Europe have provided information and online solutions/platforms
for distance learning and have offered online information and scheduling options for telehealthservices, COVID-19 vaccinations, and medical tests. In Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Oceania, themajority of national Governments focus on services relating to distance learning and COVID-19
vaccinations, with fewer countries offering telehealth services and scheduling for medical tests.
More than a quarter of the United Nations Member States are classified as countries in special
situations—a designation that includes LDCs, LLDCs and/or SIDS. The average EGDI value for thesecountries has increased by 3 per cent since 2020. Among the three special groups, LDCs have thelowest average EGDI value (0.3500). When LDCs are excluded from the analysis of LLDCs and SIDS,
the average EGDI values for the latter two groups are higher—0.6379 for LLDCs and 0.5814 for
SIDS. LLDCs constitute the only group among the countries in special situations with an average
EGDI value above the global average of 0.6201.
While progress has been made in e-government development globally over the past two years, theregions that have been struggling remain vulnerable to deepening digital divides. As noted in thischapter, a number of countries in Africa and Oceania—in particular those in special situations—are progressing at a pace that is too slow to bridge these divides. Africa has made significant
improvements in telecommunications infrastructure, building a solid foundation for accelerating thetransition to digital government; however, as highlighted in the first chapter, the cost of mobile
85

Chapter 22022 UN E-Government Survey

broadband subscriptions as a percentage of per capita gross national income remains significantly
higher in Africa than in other parts of the world. In Oceania, underdeveloped or unevenly developed
telecommunications infrastructure is undermining the region’s progress in advancing e-government
development. Chapter 4 examines the challenges and opportunities surrounding efforts to leave noone behind in the hybrid digital society, and chapter 5 explores the future of digital government,
shedding light on opportunities and global good practices that have the potential to bridge digital
divides.

Endnotes
1

2
3

4

86

The range of EGDI group values for each level are mathematically defined as follows: very high EGDI values
range from 0.75 to 1.00 inclusive, high EGDI group values range from 0.50 to 0.7499 inclusive, middle EGDI
values range from 0.25 to 0.4999 inclusive, and low EGDI values range from 0.0 to 0.2499 inclusive. In allreferences to these ranges in text and graphic elements, the respective values are rounded for clarity and are
expressed as follows: 0.75 to 1.00, 0.50 to 0.75, 0.25 to 0.50, and 0.00 to 0.25.
It should be noted that the Survey assessment took place in 2021, and the ranking reflects the results at thetime of the assessment.
See the United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked
Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States, available at https://www.un.org/ohrlls/content/whatwe-do.
United Nations, Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing
Countries and Small Island Developing States, “About least developed countries”, available at https://www.un.org/
ohrlls/content/about-least-developed-countries.

Chapter 3

Chapter 3 • Local E-Government Development

3. Local E-Government
Development
3.1

Introduction

Our Common Agenda, a report presented by the Secretary-General to
the General Assembly in 2021, highlights the importance of cities as“crucial and innovative drivers of global change today”.1 Cities play acentral role in public life, and how they perform has a daily and direct
impact on people. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) recognize
the transformative power of urbanization for development and the vitalrole local leaders play in driving global change from the bottom up. Local
governments make policy and are catalysts for change. Most of the SDGs
have targets that are directly or indirectly related to the daily operationsof local and regional governments.
Opportunities to forge a strong connection between the SDGs and local
communities exist primarily at the city or municipal level.2 People interact
more closely with local governments than with national authorities
since the former deliver the vast majority of public services, making
the provision of online services at the local level essential. Facilitatinginteraction and engagement with and within local communities is oneof the main responsibilities of municipal authorities. The availability of
public participation mechanisms is vital because genuine progress is
impossible unless individuals have a way to express their needs, provide
feedback, and influence the direction of local government policies andpractices.
A growing number of people are living in cities. Urban populations areprojected to increase in all regions, reaching 5.1 billion—or 60 per centof the world population—by 2030.3 In the coming decades, the rate ofurbanization is expected to be higher in Africa and Asia than in otherregions.4 With urban expansion, more people will be accessing public
services locally, so it is imperative that strong e-government structures
are in place at this level to accommodate present and future demand.

Photo credit: pixabay.com

In this chapter:
3.1 Introduction

87

3.2	Current status of local online
services
88
3.2.1 Methodology

88

3.2.2	Current status of local
e-government

88

3.3	Local Government
Questionnaire100

3.3.1 Institutional framework 101
3.3.2	Legal framework

101

3.3.3 Strategy andimplementation

102

3.3.4 Usage of online services104
3.3.5 User satisfaction

105

3.3.6 Social media

106

3.3.7	COVID-19 measures

106

3.3.8 Smart city and newtechnologies

107

3.4 Partnerships and applicationof LOSI methodology incountries
109
3.5	Conclusion

110

Urban residents are twice as likely as those living in rural areas to use
the Internet.5 In Africa, the gap is even greater; half of the region’s
urban dwellers are online, compared with just 15 per cent of the rural
population. In the least developed countries (LDCs), urban residents arealmost four times as likely as rural residents to use the Internet (47 versus
13 per cent). The digital divide is also apparent within cities and regions,with wide internal disparities in Internet availability and use.
One of the most effective ways to improve e-government is to regularly
assess and evaluate government portals.6 As more people live incities and access the Internet from urban areas, it follows that local
government portals must be able to accommodate larger numbers ofusers. A well-functioning portal can make a city more liveable and local

Chapter 3
87Chapter 32022 UN E-Government Survey

government more responsive, which can in turn make residents happier. UN DESA first integrated
local e-government assessment in the E-Government Survey in 2018; the pilot study was limited to
40 cities evaluated on the basis of 60 indicators. In the 2020 edition, coverage expanded to 100
cities and 80 indicators. The 2022 edition features 86 indicators and assesses the most populous
city in each of the 193 Member States of the United Nations in order to ensure the most extensive
population coverage possible.
As noted in the UN-Habitat World Cities Report 2020,7 “cities are rapidly deploying technology toaddress a wide range of urban challenges”; terms such as “smart solutions” and “smart cities” areoften used to describe related efforts and objectives. Technology integration provides opportunities
for cities to meet the SDGs, and progress in this area is accelerating; many innovative solutions haveeven been developed and implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic. The current Local Online
Services Index (LOSI) study reveals how various information and communication technologies arebeing used, highlights challenges such as digital exclusion, and summarizes some ongoing trends.
The two previous editions of the LOSI study provided important information and insights on local
e-government development around the world. Although overall trends have been encouraging,
generally indicating steady growth and progress, there remains room for improvement. Problems withtechnology integration and content provision in local government websites need to be addressed, as
do shortcomings in services provision and municipal participation. Overall conclusions point to theneed for local governments to continue to work on strengthening e-government services in order tobetter serve their residents. The sections below highlight the results and major findings of the 2022
LOSI study.

3.2

Current status of local online services

3.2.1

Methodology

The 2022 LOSI comprises 86 indicators relating to five criteria: institutional framework (8), content
provision (25), services provision (18), participation and engagement (17), and technology (18). The
institutional framework dimension focuses on municipal e-government strategy, organizational
structure, legislation governing access to information and privacy, and open data policy. For content
provision, the aim is to identify the extent to which essential public information and resources areavailable online. The third criterion is services provision, focusing on the availability and deliveryof targeted government services, and the fourth criterion is participation and engagement, whichassesses the availability of mechanisms and initiatives for interaction and opportunities for public
participation in local governance structures. The technology dimension focuses on technical featuresof the portals to specify how the site and content are made available for users; relevant indicators
relate to factors such as accessibility, functionality, reliability, ease of navigation, visual appeal, andalignment with technology standards.

3.2.2

Current status of local e-government

The 2022 edition of the LOSI study is the first one to incorporate an assessment of e-government in
the most populous city in each of the 193 Member States. Table 3.1 lists the cities in the very highcategory based on an analysis of 86 indicators (see annex I). Madrid and Berlin are ranked first, withnearly 98 per cent of the features assessed, followed by Tallinn and Copenhagen. Fifth place is sharedby Dubai, Moscow, New York City and Paris, with Singapore and Shanghai ninth and tenth. It should
be noted that even the cities ranked 11th to 20th have more than 85 per cent of the features assessed.
The rankings are provided as a proxy for measuring and tracking local e-government development
and show that many cities are very close to each other in terms of providing services online.
Among the 38 cities in the very high LOSI group, 20 are located in Europe, 10 in Asia, 6 in theAmericas, and 2 in Oceania. None of the most populated cities in African countries are ranked
88Chapter 3

Chapter 3 • Local E-Government Development

among the top 20. Madrid, New York, Tallinn, Moscow and Paris have ranked in the top 10 in the2018, 2020 and 2022 editions, affirming the consistency of the LOSI methodology for the assessed
cities over the years. Among other cities ranked in the top 10 this year, Copenhagen and Singapore
are assessed for the first time in 2022 edition, while Berlin, Shanghai and Dubai were ranked in the
top 20 in the previous edition.
Table 3.1

Cities in the very high LOSI category

City

Country

LOSI score

City

Country

BerlinGermany

0.9767

Reykjavik

IcelandLOSI score0.8372MadridSpain

0.9767

Helsinki

Finland0.8256

Tallinn

Estonia

0.9535

Kiev

Ukraine0.8256

Copenhagen

Denmark

0.9419Riga

Latvia0.8256

Dubai

United Arab Emirates

0.9186

Stockholm

Sweden0.8256

Moscow

Russian Federation

0.9186

ManamaBahrain

0.8140

New York

United States of America

0.9186

AlmatyKazakhstan

0.8023

Paris

France0.9186

Luxembourg City

Luxembourg

0.8023Singapore

Singapore

0.9070Vilnius

Lithuania

0.8023

Shanghai

China

0.8837

Montevideo

Uruguay

0.7907

BogotaColombia

0.8721Seoul

Republic of Korea

0.7674

Buenos Aires

Argentina

0.8721

Tel Aviv

Israel

0.7674Istanbul

Turkiye0.8721

TorontoCanada0.7674

Tokyo

Japan

0.8605

Warsaw

Poland0.7674

Zurich

Switzerland

0.8605

Brussels

Belgium

0.7558

Rome

Italy

0.8488Oslo

Norway0.7558

Sao Paulo

Brazil

0.8488RiyadhSaudi Arabia

0.7558

ViennaAustria

0.8488SydneyAustralia

0.7558

Auckland

New Zealand

0.8372

ZagrebCroatia

0.7558For the 2020 LOSI study, 100 cities were surveyed, and the 86 that had portals at the time wereassessed; 83 of these cities are also included in the 2022 edition. Although comparing overall trends
across different editions is complicated due to the substantial improvements in coverage, somestraightforward comparisons can be made for the cities analysed in the two most recent editions.
Figure 3.1 shows that notable progress has been achieved, with the number of cities in the very
high and high categories increasing from 30 in 2020 to 46 in 2022—an indication of higher rates
of implementation of the LOSI features over the past two years and improvements in government
services provision. Cities in the middle and low categories decreased from 53 to 37, or by nearly 20
percentage points, during this period. Notably, Kiev and Riyadh moved from the middle to the very
high LOSI level, and Minsk moved from the low to the high level, affirming that rapid progress—
indicated here by the two-category leap in two years—is very possible.

89

Chapter 32022 UN E-Government Survey

Figure 3.1

Comparison of LOSI levels for 83 cities, 2020 and 2022 (Number of cities per category)

35

32

30
25

25

23

21

21

20
15

14

16

14

10
5
0

Very highHigh
LOSI 2020

MiddleLOSI 2022

Low

Among the 193 cities targeted for the 2022 LOSI survey, 146 have portals that are accessible andhave been assessed. As in the previous edition, each city has been assigned to one of the four LOSI
categories based on a final value. As shown in figure 3.2, 26 per cent of the cities surveyed meet
more than 75 per cent of the indicators and are in the very high LOSI group, 25 per cent are in thehigh group, 31 per cent are in the middle group, and 18 per cent are in the low group. More robust
comparisons of the digital development of municipal portals across the years will be carried out inthe 2024 and successive LOSI editions.
Table 3.2 reflects the convergence or divergence between city portal development and national
portal development in the respective countries surveyed based on a comparison of LOSI and Online
Figure 3.2

LOSI 2022 levels for the 146 cities assessed

LOSI 2022

Low
18%

Middle31%

Very high90

Very high
26%

High
25%

High

MiddleLowChapter 3

Chapter 3 • Local E-Government Development

Service Index (OSI) values. The analysis does not include a direct comparison between LOSI and OSI
indicators but highlights the discrepancies and concordances between the city websites and theirnational counterparts. Among the 146 city portals assessed in 2022, 81 are ranked at LOSI levels that
correspond to their respective national levels (green-shaded cells), while 60 cities are ranked at LOSI
levels lower than their respective countries’ OSI levels (red-shaded cells). It is worth noting that five city
portals are ranked at a level higher than their countries’ OSI level (blue-shaded cells); Moscow, Bogota
and Brussels are at the very high LOSI level, Monaco is at the high level, and Brazzaville is at the middle
level. In the 2020 edition, only one city (Berlin) was ranked higher than its national counterpart.
Table 3.2

LOSI and OSI levels for 2022: convergence and divergence (number and percentage of cities)
Very high OSI 2022

High OSI 2022

Middle OSI 2022

Low OSI 2022

Very high LOSI 2022

35 (24.0%)

3 (2.1%)

None

None

High LOSI 2022

16 (11.0%)

20 (13.7%)

1 (0.7%)

None

Middle LOSI 2022

2 (1.4%)19 (13.0%)

23 (15.8%)

1 (0.7%)

Low LOSI 2022

None

3 (2.1%)20 (13.7%)

3 (2.1%)

The 146 cities assessed for the 2022 LOSI have a total of approximately 500 million residents. For the2022 LOSI study, extensive population coverage was deemed essential given urbanization trends andthe desire to cover the largest number of people possible. Against this backdrop, the LOSI 2022 results
have been analysed based on the cities’ population size (as determined by population and urban
agglomeration data from the UN DESA Statistics Division8 and Population Division,9 respectively).
Among the 146 cities surveyed for the 2022 LOSI, 11 are megacities of 10 million people or more, 17
are large cities with 5 million to 10 million, 56 are medium-sized cities with populations of 1 million
to 5 million, 31 are cities with 500,000 to 1 million residents, and 31 are urban settlements withfewer than 500,000 people. Figure 3.3 illustrates average LOSI 2022 values by population size. It may
be observed that the groupings of cities with larger populations have a higher average value than dothose with smaller populations. This makes sense, as larger cities have to provide services efficiently
to a larger population and are more likely to have the resources to do so effectively.
Figure 3.3

Average LOSI 2022 values by population size

0.8

Average LOSI 2022 Value

0.7
0.6

0.70080.6436

0.52120.5

0.49510.4167

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Megacities of 10 million or more
Medium-sized cities of 1 million to 5 million
Urban settlements with fewer than 500,000

Large cities of 5 million to 10 million
Cities of 500,000 to 1 million

91

Chapter 32022 UN E-Government Survey

Implementation of LOSI indicators in city portals
As noted previously, institutional framework, content provision, services provision, participation andengagement, and technology are the five criteria featured in the 2022 LOSI. Some new indicators
have been added and others have been reorganized to align with the OSI 2022 methodology. The
newly introduced institutional framework criterion focuses on organizational structure and the legal
and regulatory framework needed for local governments to develop an integrated institutional
ecosystem.
As illustrated in figure 3.4, the highest compliance is observed for the institutional framework
criterion, with the majority of cities meeting indicators such as providing contact information andclear information regarding the organizational structure. Similar to the LOSI 2020 findings, rates
of compliance with content provision and technology indicators are also relatively high by virtueof the efforts made by municipalities to provide wide-ranging content relevant to local priorities
such as health, environment, education and support for vulnerable groups and to extend accessto portal functionality for all. Even for the services provision and participation and engagement
criteria, where compliance is lower than for other criteria, concrete progress has been made since2020. Cities are continuing to work on improving e-government performance and expanding
service coverage, including through multi-channel service delivery. Many have developed targeted
initiatives to strengthen interaction with the public, using social media and other means to increase
e-participation.
Figure 3.4

Implementation of LOSI indicators in city e-government portals

19

Institutional framework

23

24

Content provision

36

68

33

31

58

67

Services provision

37

51

Participation and engagement

Technology 1
0

29

47
20

24

18

31

35

56
40

60

0-25 per cent of indicators met
50-75 per cent of indicators met

42
80

100

120

140

160

25-50 per cent of indicators met
75-100 per cent of indicators met

Highest ranked cities within each indicator category
The cities ranked highest for each indicator criterion are listed in table 3.3. In addition to highlighting
the consistently high performance among the 10 cities with highest overall LOSI values for 2022 (seecolor coding), the table acknowledges the successes achieved by other cities assessed according to
the five criteria.

92Chapter 3

Chapter 3 • Local E-Government Development

Table 3.3

Leading cities assessed according to each LOSI 2022 criterion

Institutional

Content

Services

Participation

framework

provision

provisionand engagement

Technology

City

Rank

City

Rank

City

Rank

City

Rank

City

Rank

Berlin1

Berlin1

Madrid1

Berlin1

Madrid1

Madrid1

Copenhagen

1

Copenhagen

1

Madrid1

Tallinn1

Tallinn

1

Dubai

1

Dubai

1

Paris

1

Tokyo

1

Copenhagen

1

New York

1

Berlin4Istanbul

1

Berlin

4

Dubai

1

Reykjavik

1

Moscow

4

Reykjavik

1

Dubai

4

Moscow

1

Tallinn

6

New York

4

Tallinn

6

Paris

4

New York

1

Moscow

6

Singapore4

Helsinki

6

Shanghai

4

Paris

1

Istanbul

6

Shanghai

4

Kiev

6

Sao Paulo

4

Bogota

1

Tokyo

6

Tallinn

9

Copenhagen

9

Helsinki

4

Buenos Aires

1

Zurich6Santo Domingo

9

Singapore

9

Riga

4

Istanbul

1

Sao Paulo

6

Buenos Aires

11

Bogota9

Stockholm

4

Zurich1

Auckland

6

Vienna11

Buenos Aires

9

Riyadh4

Rome1

Vilnius6

Manama11

Zurich9Monaco4

Sao Paulo

1

Seoul

6

Almaty11

Sao Paulo

9

Moscow

14

Vienna1

Tel Aviv

6

Nairobi

11

Vienna9

New York

14

Auckland1

Toronto

6

Paris

16

Lisbon9Singapore

14

Reykjavik

1

Brussels

6

Bogota16

Moscow

17

Istanbul

14

Helsinki1

Madrid18

Zurich

16

Tokyo

17

Rome

14

Stockholm

1

Paris

18

Rome

17

Lisbon14Montevideo

1

Singapore

18

Auckland

17

Amman

14

Seoul

1

Shanghai18

Luxembourg City

17

Copenhagen

21

Tel Aviv

1

Bogota

18

Seoul

17

Bogota21

Toronto

1

Rome

18

Toronto17

Buenos Aires

21

Oslo

1

Vienna18

Warsaw

17

Auckland21

Sydney1

Helsinki18

London17

Reykjavik

21

Zagreb

1

Kiev

18

Dublin17

Manama21

London1

Luxembourg City

18

Tirana17

Luxembourg City

21

Prague

1

Oslo

18

Panama City

17

Montevideo

21

Sofia

1

Zagreb18

Guayaquil

21

Lima

1

Jakarta18

Dublin21

Johannesburg

1

London18

Johannesburg

21

93Chapter 32022 UN E-Government Survey

Institutional framework
As illustrated in figure 3.5, the most frequently satisfied institutional framework indicators are thosethat are relatively straightforward and easy to implement, such as providing clear information on theorganizational structure of the municipality (85 per cent), providing name and contact information
for the heads of departments (79 per cent), and providing links to other government agencies (77per cent). Most of the municipal portals require authentication (such as a digital ID, login credentials
or a mobile key) to access online services and restricted-access areas, demonstrating an awarenessof cybersecurity.
Other institutional framework indicators are linked to the legal framework; this is an area in which
a significant amount of time is generally needed to achieve real progress, so many cities will likely
achieve higher LOSI values as relevant goals are met. Within this context, specific indicators focus
on whether privacy policy statements and information on citizens’ rights to access government
information (including legislation guaranteeing freedom of information and access to information)
are provided on the city portal; 53 and 50 per cent of the city portals assessed satisfy these respective
indicators. Almost half (47 per cent) of the city portals have published their e-government or digital
government strategy or the equivalent. Budapest, for example, ensures that users have informationon the development and implementation of the one-stop-shop initiative, through which all local
government e-services from almost all of the 3,178 local municipalities in Hungary are incorporated
in the same platform. Finally, 41 per cent of the city portals publish their open government data
policy online.
Figure 3.5

Implementation of institutional framework indicators in city portals (percentage of cities)

84.93%

Organizational structure
Names and contactsof heads of department

79.45%

Links forgovernment agencies

77.40%

Portal authentication

64.38%

Privacy policy

52.74%

Rights to accessgovernment information

50.00%

Municipal
e-government strategy

46.58%

Open data policy

41.10%
0%

94

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Chapter 3

Chapter 3 • Local E-Government Development

Content provision
Figure 3.6 highlights content provision indicators for specific sectors. Typically, the content that is ofgreatest relevance to residents at a particular point in time receives the most attention in city portals.
For instance, the COVID-19 pandemic presently constitutes a public priority, so it is not surprisingthat health-related information is the most dominant feature in many city portals. The second mostprevalent content relates to the environment. It is encouraging that nearly three quarters of the cities
provide environment-related information focused on the potential contribution of cities to achieving
the SDGs. Resident-oriented information linked to social welfare (71 per cent), education (68 percent), employment (51 per cent) and justice (50 per cent) is also frequently found on city portals,
showing that municipal strategies for online content provision are focused on the genuine needs ofcitizens.
Figure 3.6

Implementation of content provision indicators in city portals: sectoral information (percentage
of cities)

Health information

74.66%

Environmental information

73.29%

Social welfare information

70.55%

Education information

68.49%

Employment information

51.37%

Justice information

50.00%
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Figure 3.7 highlights the content provision indicators most closely related to day-to-day activities
or everyday needs. With the higher population density in cities, interest and activity in the areasof employment, education, culture and entertainment are magnified. Cities offer spaces andopportunities for a wide range of social activities, so it is not surprising that sports and cultural
information constitutes the content provided most frequently in the city portals surveyed. Somemunicipal authorities use their portals to promote and facilitate the implementation of public
initiatives. In Iceland, for example, all parents who are legal residents of Reykjavík10 receive a subsidy
of 50,000 Icelandic króna for each child aged 6-18 to cover practice fees for sports and recreational
activities. Cities are characterized by diversity, and it is important for municipal governments toaddress the needs of all members of the population; it is encouraging that 65 per cent of the cities
surveyed provide information and access to services for vulnerable groups. City portals also haveinformation on waste and recycling and on public transportation; the latter is particularly beneficial
for visitors and third-party apps (such as Google Maps) that use transport information to provide
services. As the digital divide is significant in many metropolitan areas, it is important that freeInternet access be provided in public spaces. Among the cities surveyed in this edition, half share
information about public Internet access points on their respective portals.

95

Chapter 32022 UN E-Government Survey

Figure 3.7

Implementation of content provision indicators in city portals: addressing everyday needs(percentage of cities)

83.56%

Sports and culture information
Information for vulnerable groups

65.07%

Waste and recycling information

63.70%
61.64%

Public tranportation information
Road safety information

51.37%

Facilitation of free Internet access50.00%
30.82%

Alerts for weather and natural disasters
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Public procurement—the purchase of goods, services or works by government authorities or public
institutions or enterprises—is an important aspect of local government operations. Public officials
are tasked with making choices that confer the greatest benefit to society and ensuring the optimal
allocation of limited resources. Procurement portals help local governments achieve maximum returnon investment while also ensuring transparency, efficiency and accountability. Almost three quarters(71 per cent) of the city portals assessed share upcoming procurement or bidding processes, but only
53 per cent share the results of these processes (see figure 3.8). In the United Arab Emirates, theDigital Marketplace / Abu Dhabi Government Procurement Gate - Al Maqta’a Portal has been set up
to engage micro, small and medium-sized enterprises in transparent and efficient public procurement
processes.11 All organizations interested in doing business with Abu Dhabi government entities mustcomplete the registration process—a centralized, one-time activity—through the Procurement Gate.
Once potential suppliers are registered, their profiles are visible to buyers from all entities operating
through the portal. In Port Louis, Mauritius, all procurement-related announcements and results are
published and archived to ensure public transparency.
Figure 3.8

Procurement information on city portals (percentage of cities)

Procurement announcements

70.55%

Procurement results

53.42%
0%

96

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Chapter 3

Chapter 3 • Local E-Government Development

Services provision
The LOSI 2022 results indicate that services provision has the lowest level of compliance among thefive criteria (see figure 3.4), echoing the trend observed in the 2020 findings. This suggests thatcity portals have not advanced much since the last survey or that most services are provided on thenational portals, as is the case in Brazil. Although it is not necessary for city portals to replicate what
is already incorporated in national portals, it is still worthwhile provide relevant links to national
portals for the convenience of residents. Depending on the organizational structure and institutionalframework for services provision at the national and subnational levels, local governments might
have more or fewer responsibilities in terms of direct services administration through their own
portals. The LOSI methodology accounted for this variability by specifying the scope of each indicatorin the questionnaire, but the upshot here is that some services provision occurs at the national level,
which is outside the bounds of the LOSI analysis.
Although complete comparability is impossible owing to the reorganization of some indicators in
the most recent LOSI survey, parallels can be drawn between the questions that were analysed inthis category across multiple editions. The proportion of cities providing an online payment system
for municipal service fees and fines has increased from 47 to 58 per cent since 2020. Similar to theprevious edition, 49 per cent of city portals include an online application system for government
vacancies (see figure 3.9). Establishing e-procurement platforms for bidding processes and thesubmission of tenders has been one of the most consistent endeavours of municipal governments,
with the share of city portals meeting this indicator rising from 35 to 48 per cent over the past two
years.
Figure 3.9

Implementation of services provision indicators in city portals (percentage of cities)

Online fee payment

58.22%

Online vacancies

48.63%

E-procurement service

47.95%

Online building permit

45.89%

Online business license

43.84%

Water payment

41.78%

Electricity/gas payment

36.30%

Online police declaration
Online environment-related permit

31.51%
29.45%

Online marriage certificate

28.08%

Online birth certificate

28.08%

Online death certificate

26.03%

Address change notification

25.34%

Online residentship

22.60%

Online land title registration

21.23%

Online driver's license

17.12%

Online vehicle registration

13.70%
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

97

Chapter 32022 UN E-Government Survey

The provision of online building permits is now one of the most frequently met indicators, withcompliance having jumped from 30 to 46 per cent between 2020 and 2022. The proportion of city
portals providing online environment-related permits has also trended upward, rising from 23 to 29
per cent during this period. Those living in 42 per cent of the cities assessed can pay their water bills
online, and 36 per cent of the city portals can be used by residents to pay their electricity and/or gas
bills. The proportion of cities that allow their residents to make declarations to the police online hasgone up from 27 to 32 per cent.
Just over a quarter of the cities surveyed provide online services linked to important life events; 28
per cent enable residents to obtain marriage and birth certificates through their local portals, while
26 per cent can supply death certificates. Around 25 per cent of the city portals allow residents to
update their addresses, and 22 per cent are set up to process residence applications. Although some
limited progress has been achieved since 2020, there are still relatively few local portals that allow
residents to submit a driver’s license application (17 per cent) or register a vehicle (14 per cent).

Participation and engagement
As illustrated in figure 3.10, the most frequently met participation and engagement indicator relates
to social networking. More than 86 per cent of the cities assessed have social media accounts anduse them to interact with local residents and visitors. Cities that completed the most recent Local
Government Questionnaire (LGQ) also affirm the importance of social media networks within therealm of public participation and engagement. In Addis Ababa, for instance, almost all major cityadministrative offices have Facebook and Twitter accounts that are regularly updated by municipal
communication offices. Residents receive real-time information on meetings, consultations, public
engagement opportunities and infrastructure development, along with other public announcements.
There are also e-participation initiatives that are implemented at the national level and adopted
by local governments. In Saudi Arabia, a dedicated portal called Balady offers a wide array ofe-participation functions (e-information, e-consultation and e-decision-making) and tools, and
it is integrated with municipal services so that local feedback on e-services can be obtained andimprovements made. The Malaysian Administrative Modernisation and Management Planning Unit,
as the lead agency for public sector digitalization, provides support for all public sector entities—
including local authorities—to facilitate the development and implementation of e-participation
platforms and mechanisms. In Peru, the national Government provides support to more than 2,400
local government authorities through the cloud-based Plataforma Participa Perú and Facilita Perú;these two platforms offer municipalities a simple way to launch and manage citizen consultations.
In Bangladesh, communication and collaboration are facilitated at the country, municipal and rural
local government levels through e-participation tools available on the national portal. In Japan,
local governments are using open dialogue platforms developed by the national Government andoperated by private companies and some of these platforms use open source software.
Around 80 per cent of the city portals assessed for the most recent LOSI study allow local residents
to file complaints or provide feedback online, and 53 per cent are set up for the reporting ofoccurrences in public spaces. The LOSI and LGQ analyses for 2022 reveal that an increasing numberof local governments allow their residents to report incidents related to services provision throughtheir websites or mobile applications.
Although 71 per cent of the city portals assessed provide information related to the municipal
budget, only 35 per cent allow local residents to participate in the budgeting process. The proportionof city portals sharing information on public meetings of the municipal council increased from 43 to
53 per cent between 2020 and 2022, and the share of those announcing upcoming e-participation
activities rose from 28 to 40 per cent during this period. Almost 38 per cent of the city portals
assessed in the 2022 LOSI study support the online participation of residents in land-use planning98

Figure 3.10 Implementation of participation and engagement indicators in city portals (percentage of cities)

Social networking features

86.30%

Feedback/complaint submission

80.14%

Budget-related information
Information on the public meetingsof the municipal council
Reporting of incidentsin public spaces

71.23%
53.42%
52.74%

Online deliberation processes

48.63%

Open data provision

45.89%

Open data metadata
Announcement of upcoming
e-participation activities
Participatory land use plan

41.10%
37.67%

Quality of email response

37.67%

40.41%

Municipality responsiveness emails

36.99%

Participatory budgeting
Feedback about
consultation processes
Report of any form of discrimination

34.93%
31.51%
29.45%

Real time communication

22.60%
19.18%

E-voting
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

(territorial organization, land management, land conversions and revision processes). E-voting
services still constitute the least successful indicator, with only 19 per cent of city portals meeting
this criterion. LGQ responses within the participation and engagement subgroup highlight different
initiatives designed to collect input from residents for policy deliberations. The Mayor of London has
created a platform for public engagement in policy and programme development; most recently,
residents have been given the opportunity to contribute to the development of COVID-19 recovery
strategies for London.
Among the city portals studied, only 23 per cent offer live chat support functionality for users.
Some cities make non-real-time communication options available, providing contact forms or email
addresses on their portals; 38 per cent of the cities assessed for the 2022 LOSI study reported
responding to email inquiries in a timely manner.
Open data provision is vital not only to allow local governments to strengthen transparency,
accountability and value creation by making government data available to all, but also to enable
residents to participate in decision-making processes. Tallinn is noteworthy in this regard; the city
provides open data sets for residents, researchers and institutions and also involves these stakeholders
in urban development planning processes. At this point, fewer than half (46 per cent) of the city
portals assessed for the LOSI 2022 study provide open data, and 41 per cent provide the relevant
metadata for these publicly available data sets. LGQ responses indicate that many cities working on
establishing open data portals have multiple initiatives focusing on different sectors and topics.

Technology
As illustrated in figure 3.11, the most frequently met technology indicators are browser compatibility(99 per cent), the integration of contact functions in the portal (98 per cent), and the ease withwhich portals can be found by users (96 per cent). The proportion of city portals accessible on mobile
devices has dropped slightly (from 97 to 92 per cent)—possibly because of the broader coverage inthe 2022 edition—but this is still one of the most frequently met indicators. It is reported that 88
99

Chapter 3

Chapter 3 • Local E-Government Development

Chapter 32022 UN E-Government Survey

per cent of the city portals are compliant with markup validation or display standards and 84 percent have an internal search function. Roughly four in five of the city portals are frequently updated
to publicize events or to inform residents about services or e-government functions that have been
added to the portal.
Among the portals assessed, 59 per cent provide a helpdesk call number to support residents whoface difficulties in accessing services or completing tasks online or through other digital channels.
A similar proportion of city portals (57 per cent) have a help feature or frequently asked questions
section. Fewer municipal portals (45 per cent) offer guidance or tutorials for citizens to help themunderstand and use e-government services.
Most city portals still lack advanced search functions, with only 29 per cent satisfying this indicator.
Compliance with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.0) is also relatively uncommon,with only 24 per cent of the city portals meeting the standards.
Figure 3.11 Implementation of technology indicators in city portals (percentage of cities)

Browser compatibility

99.32%

Contact details

97.95%

Ease of portal finding

95.89%

Mobile device accessibility
Alignment with markup validation
or display standards
Internal search mechanism

92.47%
87.67%
84.25%

Evidence of portal content update

80.14%

Alignment with display standards

74.66%

Helpdesk call number

58.90%

Online user support
Alignment with markup
validation standards
Navigability

56.85%
56.85%
55.48%

Personal data accessibility

44.52%

Information on online services use

44.52%

Personal data updating

31.51%

Internal advanced search mechanism

28.77%

Alignment with accessibility standards

23.97%
0%

3.3

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Local Government Questionnaire

The Local Government Questionnaire is a preparatory survey administered to support the LOSI process;the LGQ survey template may be found in the annex to the present publication. The Questionnaire wasmade available online in early 2021 and was also sent to municipalities. Only 42 cities—fewer than athird of those involved in the LOSI study—submitted responses, so the LGQ results do not represent
the full picture for the LOSI-surveyed cities as a group. Any quantitative analysis mentioned in thissection is based on the 42 submissions received. It is the expectation of UN DESA that more cities will
participate in the LGQ over time, providing enriched input for future editions of the E-Government
Report. The most recent LGQ incorporates eight sections: institutional framework, legal framework,
strategy and implementation, usage of online services, user satisfaction, social media, COVID-19
measures, and smart city and new technologies for digital development in municipal governments.

100

Chapter 3

Chapter 3 • Local E-Government Development

3.3.1

Institutional framework

In the institutional framework section of the LGQ, cities were asked to provide links to major portals
at the municipal level, including the official portal and any others that might be used for e-services,
e-participation, open government data and procurement. The responses indicate that a significant
number of the cities surveyed have dedicated portals for different services; about half use multiple
official portals, while the other half prefer a one-stop-shop approach. Each strategy comes with pros
and cons.
The LGQ asked whether the city has a chief information officer (CIO). Notably, 95 per cent of
the respondents indicate that they have a municipal-level CIO who manages local e-government
programmes and strategies. In most cases, the municipal CIO is linked to and works alongside thenational CIO, which is important for local-national coordination. In some cases, municipal CIOs
are linked to more than one ministry; in Indonesia, for example, they work with the Ministry ofAdministrative and Bureaucratic Reform for business processes and e-government services, with
the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology for e-government infrastructure andapplications, with the Ministry of National Development Planning for data and Information, and with
the National Cyber and Crypto Agency for information security. In Bahrain, the CIO for the Capital
Governorate (Manama) works closely with the national CIO in planning and implementing thenational e-government strategy, which is closely aligned with the Government Action Plan (20192022) and the Bahrain Economic Vision 2030. In Quezon, Philippines, the city communicates with
the Department of Information and Communications Technology regarding various programmes.
In the United Arab Emirates, the Dubai Digital Authority (also referred to as Digital Dubai) wasestablished in 2021 to develop strategies governing matters relating to information technology,
data, digital transformation and cyber-security in coordination with the Smart Dubai Department,
the Smart Dubai Government Establishment, the Dubai Data Establishment, the Dubai Electronic
Security Center and the Dubai Statistics Center.

3.3.2

Legal framework

The legal framework section of the LGQ requested information on legislation relating to digital
government and applied at the local level. The survey results indicate that laws affecting local
e-government focus primarily on the following:• Electronic government. Relevant laws may affirm the public’s right to digital services or
establish guidelines for implementation; in the latter case, legal requirements may have tobe taken into account in the design and implementation of new digital services.
• Free access to information. Laws may relate to the disclosure of public information oraccess to information. Some regulations establish procedures for the classification of
public information. There is also legislation governing the re-use of public administration
documents.
• The protection of personal data. Most of the municipalities surveyed make reference toexisting data protection legislation and the adaptation of national laws to local contexts.
Some municipalities have set up dedicated offices or entities that oversee the implementation
and application of national and local policies governing the processing of data for personal,
commercial or official purposes. Seoul has been proactive in this regard, issuing an ordinanceguaranteeing the safe management of personal information and protection of the rights
of identifiable individuals pursuant to the Personal Information Protection Act. The city
established the Personal Information Protection Commission, an administrative agency thatindependently conducts activities aimed at safeguarding personal information. Composedof 15 internal and external experts, the Commission is involved in developing polices andlegislation relating to personal information protection.

101

Chapter 32022 UN E-Government Survey• Public administration information systems. Relevant legislation might relate, for example,
to base registries, access to websites and mobile applications for public sector bodies,
electronic identification and electronic signatures, information security, and electronic
documents. Although municipalities regulate the local digital government platform for all
sectors, the national public administration services infrastructure is generally used, alongwith shared services such as base registries. Digital identity laws define the framework inwhich digital identity can be deployed. Laws on information security are implemented toensure a more coordinated and effective response to data incidents across the Government.
Laws relating to digital government are generally adopted at the national level and applied by public
entities at the local level. However, evidence of some relevant local legislation also exists. In Moscow,for example, an experimental legal regime for artificial intelligence (AI) projects was introduced in
mid-2020. The legislation sets out the goals, objectives and main principles associated with theestablishment of legal frameworks for the development and use of AI, focusing on new technologies
and applications that are often not covered by existing regulations. The main objectives of thisexperiment are to stimulate the integration of AI technologies in the market and explore how theymight be applied, to identify which sectors of the economy and social interaction would benefit mostfrom the implementation of such technologies, and to provide solid regulations for anonymized data.
After the experiment is concluded, decisions will be made on amendments to existing legislation.

3.3.3

Strategy and implementation

The strategy and implementation section of the LGQ naturally focuses on e-government strategy andimplementation but also examines budget allocations and the establishment of partnerships withother cities, civil society and the private sector to achieve digital development goals. Most of the
respondents (34 of 42, or 81 per cent) affirm that they have adopted an e-government strategy or
the equivalent at the municipal level. Notably, 71 per cent of municipal e-government strategies arealigned with national development strategies, SDGs, and national strategies for digital development.
SDG-oriented strategies include improving education, welfare, health care, transportation, mobility,
safety, and the quality of life, as well as monitoring and improving the environmental situation. A
relatively smaller number of municipal e-government strategies make specific reference to mobile
government, a local digital ID, or co-creation mechanisms for residents.
When designed and implemented well and supported by a forward-looking development
strategy, local e-government can simplify people’s lives, provide multiple channels of contact andcommunication, and increase administrative efficiency. In Bogotá, the Smart Territory Plan 2020-2024“seeks to have a direct impact on the lives of all the people … in the city-region, regardless of where
they live or their sociodemographic features. The smart territory takes advantage of technology,
data and innovation to generate capacities and talent, opportunities, empowerment and qualityof life for men and women of Bogotá. This will be achieved with four initiatives: Education for the
4RI, Economy 4.0, Bogotá Open Government and the Digital Transformation Agendas.”12 Similarly,
Prague has a municipal strategy for public ICT development designed to meet the digital service
needs of the capital city until 2025.
Among the 42 LGQ respondents, 34 (81 per cent) have municipal digital development initiatives
that focus on sustainability issues or achieving a green economy, and 38 (90 per cent) are involved inpartnerships with other cities, civil society organizations and the private sector.

Budgetary support for digital transformation
A full 86 per cent (36) of the LGQ respondents have a budget for digital government projects,
with more than half earmarking special funding for e-government transformation; seven cities
have appropriated under 1 per cent of their municipal budget for digital development, eight haveallocated 1 to 3 per cent, and six have allocated 3 to 8 per cent.
102

Chapter 3

Chapter 3 • Local E-Government Development

In 38 municipalities (90 per cent), the city budget is published on the local government portal toprovide residents with access to public fiscal information. In some cases, links to archived budget
documents are available. Generally, city budget documentation includes income projections andinformation on expenditure prioritization and the organization and allocation of resources.

Correspondence between per capita GDP and LOSI values
In the present edition of the E-Government Survey, the assessment of the relationship between percapita gross domestic product (GDP) and LOSI values focuses on cities within countries that are partof the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In the 2020 Survey, theresults seemed to point to a positive correlation between cities’ LOSI levels and real GDP per capita;
however, a review of LOSI 2022 values for OECD cities shows that for those with reasonable levels of
wealth, there is not necessarily a direct correspondence between GDP and LOSI values. Figure 3.12
shows no real relationship between OECD city GDP levels and LOSI values. The lack of a correlation
is illustrated through an insignificant regression (high P-value) with a low R²-value, indicating that ahigher GDP offers relatively little value in explaining high LOSI values. All OECD cities have a relatively
high GDP per capita, and their LOSI values and levels are high or very high (0.5-1.0). However, someOECD cities on the lower end of the GDP spectrum have LOSI values that exceed those recorded for
cities at the upper end of the GDP scale. In the very high LOSI category, for example, are Bogota, withper capita GDP of $21,318 and a 2022 LOSI value of 0.8721, and Riga, with GDP of $39,704 anda LOSI value of 0.8256. Conversely, some cities with a very high GDP, such as Dublin ($94,997) and
Amsterdam ($71,490), are only in the high category, with respective LOSI values of 0.686 and 0.697.

GDP per capita (United States dollars, constant prices, constant purchasing power parity, baseyear 2015)

Figure 3.12 Lacking/absent correlation between 2022 LOSI values and OECD cities’ GDP per capita

110.000

LOSI 2022 Levels
High LOSI
Very high LOSI

Luxembourg

100.000
Dublin90.000

New York

80.000Bratislava

70.000

ZurichAmsterdam

LondonOslo

Warsaw50.000

Sofia Lisbon

AthensCopenhagen

Helsinki
ViennaTokyo

Rome
TorontoSydneyVilnius
Istanbul

Ljubljana

40.000Paris

Stockholm

Brussels
Prague60.000Seoul

MadridTallinn
BerlinAucklandRiga

Zagreb30.000Santiago

20.000

Mexico City

R²-value: 0.0513
P-value: 0.1775

Bogota10.000

Budapest

0
0,00 0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

0,30

0,35

0,40

0,45

0,50

0,55

0,60

0,65

0,70

0,75

0,80

0,85

0,90

0,95

1,00

LOSI 2022

103

Chapter 32022 UN E-Government Survey

Sustainability issues and the pursuit of a green economy
A number of the cities that responded to the LGQ have launched digital initiatives; some of the
primary objectives and specific areas of focus are as follows:• Promoting the use of safer and cleaner energy for sustainable development (low greenhouseemissions and climate-resilient pathways, electronic emissions testing, power management,
optimization of water and energy consumption in municipal buildings, meteorological data
provision, air pollution measurement information, residential energy-saving programme);• Supporting sustainable waste management (smart waste collection);• Improving urban planning (eco-design of public buildings, green and revitalized cities,
new land use modelling, green corridor grid development, and the adoption of Internetof Things (IoT) systems and other emerging technologies for urban farming, smart central
markets for fruits and vegetables, digital twin city modelling, bicycle paths);• Supporting sustainable urban transport (IoT-based traffic management, online traffic control
system for public and special transport, e-ticketing system, interactive map allowing realtime public transport tracking, electrical car and motor vehicle plant, adaptive traffic lightcontrol system);• Managing urban safety, security and crises (safety and security, crime control, crisis
management, city resilience)• Addressing educational needs (digitally enhanced education, facilitating educational
continuity outside the classroom, strengthening the relationship between parents, children
and teachers, supporting distance learning);• Supporting vulnerable groups (digital tools to improve the quality of life and care for theelderly, digital resources to promote gender equality);• Initiating and supporting innovation (implementation of innovation centre, online charity
services);• Promoting public engagement (platform for electronic voting on urban development
issues).

3.3.4

Usage of online services

This section of the LGQ focuses on the proportion of local e-government services offered online andthrough dedicated mobile channels and on the collection and publication on usage statistics. Amongthe cites that responded to the Questionnaire, five reported that they provide 25 to 50 per cent of
their services online, seven cities provide 51 to 80 per cent, and eleven cities provide 81 to 100 per
cent. A total of five cities provide 15 to 50 per cent of their services through mobile channels, twoprovide 51 to 80 per cent, and four provide 81 to 100 per cent. The numbers suggest that there
is room for growth in mobile services delivery; relatively few of the LGQ respondents are currently
providing mobile access to public services, and where such access is available, fewer services areprovided. Most municipalities do not offer comparative statistics on the percentage of services
provided online or through mobile channels versus the share of services provided through traditional
means. It may be assumed that since this information is not included in the LGQ responses, it is notreadily available, so cities may need to compile lists of the services they provide and to identify thevarious channels that can be used to access the sources and keep residents informed.
In Abu Dhabi, the unified TAMM online platform is used for 770 (or 99 per cent) of the 778 digital
government services offered within the emirate. The TAMM initiative is designed to ensure that
services are easily accessible through a single portal and strategically placed service centres; there areeven mobile, drive-through and door-to-door services set up for senior citizens, rural residents, andother vulnerable and underserved populations. The TAMM system is highly efficient; for 519 (93 per

104

Chapter 3

Chapter 3 • Local E-Government Developmentcent) of the government services, transactions can be completed in less than six minutes. In Vienna,around 250 of the 600 services offered by the municipal government can be accessed online throughthe mein.wien portal, which is designed to offer city residents maximum convenience and speed intheir dealings with the authorities. This portal facilitates user interaction; a virtual agent, WienBot, iseven available any time of the day or night to answer frequently asked questions.
Beyond moving more services online, governments endeavor to ensure that online services arepeople-centric, accessible, and user-friendly. The Beijing Municipal Government13 has maderemarkable achievements in this regard: it launched a series of smart and personalized services on its
Online Governmental Service Platform, including the Guided Instruction (comprehensive operational
manual), 24*7 Real-time Guiding Service, and the Customized User Space built on big data and user
portrait, etc. The Guided Instruction provides a clear and concise “operation manual”. To ensurethat enterprises and people can understand policies and online services, specific guidance is contextinteractive in the form of “ask and answer interchangeably”. The Real-time Guiding Service createsa people-centric (“warm and kind”) “online multi-service window”. To ensure that enterprises andpeople can get clear answers and to avoid any confusion, the Platform provides a real-time support
service, supported by an online team of proficient staff. The Unified User Space functions as apersonalized, precise and intelligent “virtual assistant”. To ensure that enterprises and people canfind and access various policies and services, the Platform puts “unified user space” as a central
carrier, deploying big data, block chain and other technologies to analyze user needs.
Around 75 per cent of the LGQ respondents report that they collect usage statistics for e-government
services, with two thirds of this group sharing relevant results with the public and institutional
stakeholders. In Da Nang, a city of 1.1 million residents in Viet Nam, government officials reportthat more than 180,000 digital personal accounts have been set up on the city’s public portal. Zurichaffirms that around a quarter of its population is registered on the Mein Konto (My Account) portal.

3.3.5

User satisfaction

Participating municipalities were asked whether they measure the satisfaction of those using
e-government services and whether relevant survey results are published online and shared withpublic institutions.
Some cities administer satisfaction surveys to gather suggestions, feedback and recommendations
that can help them improve the quality, accessibility and timeliness of their services and inform future
policies and activities. There may be separate sections to allow users to report on specific aspectsof their experience and express their level of satisfaction. Some municipal authorities elaborate thefindings statistically, using web analytics to measure results relating to, for example, visitors, sessions,page views and time spent. Among the 15 cities that conducted surveys on users’ most recent
experience with online services provision, five reported satisfaction rates of 65 to 80 per cent, four
cities reported rates ranging between 81 and 90 per cent, and six cities claimed that 91 to 100 per
cent of the users surveyed were satisfied with their last online public service experience.
Municipalities may publish satisfaction survey results as open data, on social networks, on official
government websites, or through traditional media. Some municipalities do not publish the data
openly, but they may share the survey results with service providers and developers or with interested
government authorities. More than half of the municipalities (55 per cent) confirm that they measureuser satisfaction with the e-services they provide. Fewer municipalities (38 per cent) indicate that user
satisfaction reports are shared publicly on their portals and social media accounts and with public
institutions.
In Bogotá, the district directorate charged with monitoring and improving the quality of public
services conducts user satisfaction surveys at on-site points and on the Bogotá te escucha (Bogotá

105

Chapter 32022 UN E-Government Survey

listens to you) platform, which manages petitions, inquiries and complaints. The city of Asuncion
in Paraguay has a website that allows users to share their experience and level of satisfaction withmultiple aspects of public services provision. The Seoul Metropolitan Government conducts an annual
survey on user satisfaction and releases the results to the public; according to the most recent survey,
23.1 per cent are extremely satisfied, 62.3 per cent are satisfied, 10.3 per cent are dissatisfied, and
2.0 per cent are extremely dissatisfied with online government services provision in the capital city.

3.3.6

Social media

The social media section of the LGQ gathers information on whether and how participating
municipalities use social media channels to interact with residents and engage them in e-government
activities. Among the cities responding to the Questionnaire, 90 per cent actively use social media
platforms for such purposes; this is aligned with LOSI 2022 results indicating that 86 per cent of thecities assessed have a social media presence.
According to the LGQ responses, social media are frequently used to share news and updates relating
to local e-government services—though COVID-19 information has been a dominant feature since
the pandemic started. Municipalities indicate varying levels of local government activity on different
social media networks. Social media accounts are used both to broadcast information and to gather
feedback from users. Some cities request that users log in to access the official social media account,
while others do not. Local governments frequently use social media to inform the public about
meetings and consultations, live-stream press conferences, invite users to public engagements andinfrastructure inaugurations, issue public announcements, and answer queries. Residents also use
social media pages to express opinions, concerns, complaints and appreciation.
Dedicated social media accounts are often created for specific entities or purposes, including local
government departments, projects, initiatives, emergencies or crises. Social media accounts thatallow residents to interact with the mayor’s office or other high-level authorities can streamline
communication and have a meaningful impact. In Bangladesh, Shobar Dhaka (Everyone’s Dhaka) is
a one-stop digital citizen engagement management platform developed by the Office of the Mayorof the Dhaka North City Corporation. City residents can download this application on virtually any
mobile device to communicate directly with the mayor’s office or report irregularities within thelocal government administration, sending messages with images and location information withineight specialized categories. In Muscat, various social media channels are used to raise awareness,share news and information, respond to inquiries and feedback, field suggestions, acknowledge
observations, collect data, and promote e-services transformation. Many local authorities have
responded to the mobility restrictions surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic by activating social
media channels (such as WhatsApp) that have allowed users to submit inquiries about e-services andreceive timely responses.

3.3.7

COVID-19 measures

Experience with the COVID-19 pandemic has underlined how important it is for municipal authorities
to have the infrastructure and tools in place to provide public support during periods of difficulty anddisruption. The present health crisis has exposed the challenges cities face and their vulnerability tocrisis situations. Results for the relevant section of the LGQ indicate that all but two of the city portals(95 per cent) have a page or section dedicated to the pandemic and provide relevant information onmunicipal initiatives for COVID-19 response and recovery. The content includes articles, infographics
or a link to the national portal or to a national health agency page for the pandemic, information about
COVID-19 testing locations and the availability of health facilities, COVID-19 vaccine information,
recent or current statistics (including daily case data and distribution maps), information on policies
adopted and measures undertaken to address the crisis (and relevant public recommendations), andinformation on social assistance for communities affected by the pandemic.
106Chapter 3

Chapter 3 • Local E-Government Development

A total of 35 municipalities (83 per cent) indicate that they have implemented digital strategies andsolutions for COVID-19 response and recovery and have allocated the necessary budgetary resources
to support these initiatives. The following are among the digital solutions adopted and services
provided:• Testing and vaccination appointments;• Telemedicine services for COVID-19, including a 24-hour call centre with qualified doctors
to provide information and assistance;• GPS-based mobile application to monitor the movement of residents (a system for analysing
the movement of residents based on data from mobile operators; facilitating the calculationand monitoring of social isolation indices);• Targeted social and economic support for residents (providing financial assistance as part ofcharitable works and social initiatives implemented collaboratively with organizations andinstitutions; declaring total temporary layoffs; applying for small company grants; approving
partial exemption from employer contributions);• System of e-passes allowing residents to move around the city during the lockdown using
individual vehicles or public transport;• Park walk services (specific time slots assigned for walks in nearby parks; interactive map forparks and public spaces that change colour based on the number of visitors);• Voluntary check-in system in public places (residents provide phone numbers and receive
notifications if any others present in the same place at the same time later test positive for
COVID-19);• QR code system confirming COVID-19 immunity;• AI algorithm that analyses scans of patients’ lungs and uses colour coding to identify areasof concern for medical professionals.

3.3.8

Smart city and new technologies

This section of the LGQ examines strategies and plans for initiatives driven by new technologies suchas AI, IoT, blockchain, smart cities, 5G, virtual reality, augmented reality, robotics and 3D printing.
Most of the LGQ respondents (36 municipalities, or 86 per cent) affirm that they have specificstrategies in place for the adoption of new technologies. Several municipalities report thatdesigns for smart city initiatives are based on emerging technologies and that development
efforts typically involve partnerships with the private sector. Municipalities also coordinate with
non-municipal stakeholders to leverage academic research capacities in the development of AI
or other emerging technology applications. New technologies are integrated in the following
areas:• Transport monitoring and control, largely based on IoT interconnectivity (license plate
recognition; traffic control cameras; traffic light regulation for priority vehicles; air quality
sensors; sound and noise-level sensors; sports park and parking lot monitoring and control;
real-time information on traffic flows);• Urban planning (urban observatory centre; real-time control of street lighting; early warning
system for floods; operational big data relating to demographics, traffic, air quality, natural
phenomena and other key areas collected and analysed via AI and machine learning toprovide municipal managers with data-driven insights for decision making);• Administration (blockchain-based digital identity and digital resident-centric e-services
platform; digital land transport services; cloud services for AI development; open data
initiatives; AI-driven voice recognition);107

Chapter 32022 UN E-Government Survey• Health care (AI-powered web application helping the health ministry combat the spread of
COVID-19);• Economy (blockchain-based platform for raising venture capital);• Infrastructure (partnering with broadband companies for 5G commercial network and fiber
network development; digital twin technology for operational simulations);• Environment and weather (sensors measuring temperature, humidity, dust and pollution;
green smart offices; IoT-driven solar-powered open areas such as beaches and parks; electric
car charging system; IoT-driven collection, distribution and analysis of environmental data);• Safety, security and crime control;• Public services and community engagement (using WhatsApp and chatbot application
programming interfaces to expand options for e-services provision; m-voting using
blockchain; monitoring incident reporting by residents);• Research and innovation (innovation laboratories).
The LGQ section on big data explores the integration of big data analytics in municipal decisionmaking processes. When asked whether they plan to use or are presently using big data analytics toguide decision-making, 33 municipalities (79 per cent) responded positively and provided examples.
The following illustrates how various city governments use big data for specific purposes:• Supporting informed decision-making in areas such as tourism, health, anti-corruption, andimproving the quality of life for residents;• Using data to create predictive models for strengthening security (for example, optimizing
the placement of city cameras to fight crime);• Flood management (tracking water levels);• Vaccination policy prioritization;• Urban planning and projections (utilizing data on population, households, socio-economic
status and other factors to predict and address the needs of city residents);• Personalizing service provision (assessing resident needs through data consolidation,
identifying bottlenecks and operational barriers in providing resident services and improving
resident satisfaction);• Public transportation (identifying optimal bus routes, AI detector placement and video
surveillance for traffic);• Tax policy (using data analysis and AI to determine optimal tax rates for stimulating economic
development).
In Kuala Lumpur, the Smart City Strategic Framework is structured around seven outcomes relating
to the economy, living conditions, the environment, people, government, mobility, and the digital
infrastructure. In Belgrade, the smart city concept encompasses six areas of development: traffic
and mobility, public administration, housing, environment, economy, and social and human capital.
In Rwanda, different smart city solutions are being piloted and implemented as part of the Smart
City Masterplan and are supported by the ICT Sector Strategic Plan. In Monaco, big data analytics
are currently being used to inform the smart city strategy; an urban hyper vision system contributes
to the optimal monitoring and management of all major urban municipal functions, and an urban
digital twin (a virtual 3D digital representation of the Principality) allows the municipality to collectand aggregate urban data that can then be used to make smarter decisions. In concrete terms, thesedata can be used, for example, to carry out simulations and produce forecasts of the impact of urban
works on traffic and to take steps to minimize this impact. Almaty also reports increased reliance on
big data analytics for municipal development; local authorities have used the information obtained
to set up Sergek, a video surveillance system for traffic management and, working together with
the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and Habidatum, have captured and analysed GPS data108

Chapter 3

Chapter 3 • Local E-Government Development

for Almaty to upgrade the cycling infrastructure. It is worth mentioning that all data and analyses
are published and available to the public in Almaty; the information provided can help businesses
identify potential growth opportunities and be used in academia for scientific purposes.

3.4

Partnerships and application of LOSI methodology in countries

Technology and municipal e-government development in global forums
The integration of technology in city development and administration has received priority attention
in many international forums. Particular attention has been given to locally driven needs assessments
and development efforts that reflect an understanding of and direct experience with the dynamics ina particular area. Global forums offer a space in which successful local initiatives can be shared andwhere countries in the early stages of e-government development can gather information and receive
assistance. The biennial World Urban Forum serves as a platform for the sharing of best practices
and innovation; in documentation prepared for the eleventh session of the Forum (to be held in June2022), it is noted that putting people at the centre of local digitalization efforts can stimulate thedevelopment of homegrown innovation systems that generate contextual solutions in urban areas.
For the past three years, each G20 Presidency has promoted the integration of technology at the citylevel. In 2019, the G20 Presidency of Japan launched the Global Smart Cities Alliance to highlightthe importance of open, interoperable, standards-based digital urban platforms. In 2020, Saudi
Arabia further encouraged the advancement and wider adoption of smart cities and communities. In
2021, the Presidency of Italy produced the G20 Report on Practices of Innovative Public Procurement
for Smart Cities and Communities, a shared tool that can be used by government authorities at alllevels to inform the development and implementation of smart city initiatives. To facilitate progress
towards the SDGs, in particular Goal 11, several forums have addressed sustainable urban planningand the pursuit of a more sustainable future, focusing on a number of different areas. The 20212022 International Mayors Forum, hosted by UN DESA and the United Nations Office for Sustainable
Development together with the United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD), aimed
at providing a knowledge-sharing platform to help cities initiate smart transformations towards moresustainable, resilient, safe and inclusive societies, with particular emphasis on addressing pandemicrelated challenges. The second Forum for Mayors, held in April 2022, focused on exchanging urban
development solutions around climate-neutral housing, green cities, and sustainable urban transport.
The C40 World Mayors Summit in 2019 launched the Global Green New Deal, with mayors fromnearly 100 major cities making new commitments to achieve 2030 targets for sustainable, healthy
food systems and clean air. In Our Common Agenda, the Secretary-General states that the United
Nations system will strengthen its collaboration with subnational authorities through the creation of
an Advisory Group on Local and Regional Governments.

Other partnerships
The cities responding to the LGQ highlight other types of partnership arrangements. Some cities
cooperate with sister cities through mechanisms such as twinning agreements or with partner cities
based on contractual or informal arrangements. Some use interactive platforms that allow municipal
authorities to build relationships with residents and bring them in as equal partners in discussions
and decisions relating to local priorities or activities such as environmental and social assessments
for urban planning, smart city concepts, and improving the quality of life. City authorities alsocollaborate with the private sector (including industries) and academia to share knowledge, promote
innovation, and facilitate e-government and smart city development.
A number of cities are actively engaged in networking, forging connections that allow them toexchange ideas, strategies and resources with other cities and development partners. Some promotedialogue between their CIOs and representatives of cities that are leaders in digital governmentand smart city development. Many cities are members of national or international organizations
109

Chapter 32022 UN E-Government Survey

such as Eurocities, the Polis network, European Mozart Ways, the League of Historical Cities, theOrganization of World Heritage Cities, the Council of Global City CIOs, Green Legacy, the ASEAN
Smart Cities Network, Innovative Governance of Large Urban Systems, the Spanish Federation of
Municipalities and Provinces, the Ibero-American Organization for Intermunicipal Cooperation, theC40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, Madrid Futuro, and the Cities Coalition for Digital Rights. Cities
also collaborate with local and international entities (including governmental, non-governmental
and non-profit agencies) in formulating and implementing municipal development initiatives. Suchpartners may offer expertise in a specialized area (such as migration) or share development priorities
with a city or group of cities; some of those mentioned in the LGQ include Deutsche Gesellschaft fürInternationale Zusammenarbeit, British Embassy Jakarta, and OCTA Research.

LOSI network
Owing to resource limitations, UN DESA was able to include only the most populous cities in the
193 Member States to participate in the 2022 LOSI survey and related activities. These cities wereselected to cover as many residents as possible. However, there was strong interest in applying the
LOSI methodology to assess e-government in more cities in individual countries, and UN DESA wasable to sign memorandums of understanding and partner with various institutions to run LOSI pilots
in multiple cities within selected countries. At the time of writing, pilot studies have been carried out
in Brazil, Jordan and the State of Palestine; the findings are available at https://publicadministration.
un.org/egovkb/en-us/About/LOSI-PILOTS.
Independent studies have been undertaken by academics in China and Ecuador using the LOSI
methodology elaborated in previous editions of the United Nations E-Government Survey. It is
expected that a growing number of cities will utilize the LOSI methodology, become part of the
LOSI network, and help other cities that may be experiencing similar challenges in e-government
development. UN DESA welcomes opportunities for collaboration in applying the LOSI methodology
in different countries; interested parties are encouraged to contact the Division for Public Institutions
and Digital Government at dpidg@un.org.

3.5

Conclusion• In 2022, as in 2020, the LOSI findings indicate that city portals do not perform as well as
their national counterparts. Continued monitoring and assessment of local and national
e-government development is essential to close the gaps and to support public sector
digitalization at all levels.
• The average LOSI value increased from 0.43 to 0.51 between 2020 and 2022. While thehalfway point has been surpassed by the surveyed group as a whole in terms of meetingdevelopment indicators, there remains much room for growth.
• The more populous cities tend to have a higher overall LOSI value. This is an important
finding given the increasing rate of urbanization worldwide. The correlation between
population size and LOSI level may be linked to the greater access of the more populous
cities to important resources such as a highly skilled workforce, a broad knowledge and skill
base, and a large public budget.
• Among the five criteria assessed for the 2022 LOSI, the institutional framework subgroupreflects the highest level of compliance, with 47 per cent of the city portals meeting 75 to
100 per cent of the indicators listed. Content provision is ranked second, with 40 per centof the portals assessed satisfying 75 to 100 per cent of the indicators.
• As was the case in 2020, the lowest rate of compliance is in services provision, with only 12
per cent of the city portals implementing 75 to 100 per cent of the indicators.

110Chapter 3

Chapter 3 • Local E-Government Development• Most city portals have a dedicated COVID-19 page or section serving as a hub for pandemicrelated information, contributing to recovery efforts. Many cities have formulated specificstrategies and implemented targeted digital technology solutions for COVID-19 response
and recovery.
• New technologies are integrated in the e-government development strategies and activities
of various cities. Many of the advanced technology applications are being used to support
evidence-based decision-making.
• Local governments must consider the opinions of residents, taking into account the needs
and preferences not only in services provision but also in decision-making processes.
• A properly formulated local e-government strategy can facilitate the consolidation of asustainable local administration model with the SDGs as its fundamental pillars.
• It is essential to support the development of cities worldwide. Pilot initiatives have been
carried out in a limited number of smaller cities, but much broader LOSI coverage would
allow needs to be identified and targeted solutions developed in line with local priorities andbudgets. The more populous cities often have more resources and can develop advanced
portals and smart city applications, but smaller-scale solutions are needed for other
cities. Collaboration between cities of similar size and with similar needs would be very
beneficial. The LOSI network can support these efforts and others aimed at strengthening
e-government at the level closest to the population it serves.

Endnotes
1
2

3
4
5
6

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

United Nations, Our Common Agenda: Report of the Secretary-General (Sales No. E.21.I.8), para. 119, available
at https://www.un.org/en/content/common-agenda-report/assets/pdf/Common_Agenda_Report_English.pdf.
United Cities and Local Governments, “The Sustainable Development Goals: what local governments need toknow”, United Cities and Local Government, available at https://www.uclg.org/sites/default/files/the_sdgs_what_
localgov_need_to_know_0.pdf.
United Nations, World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision (Sales No. E.19.XIII.7), available at https://
population.un.org/wup/Publications/.
Ibid.
International Telecommunication Union, Measuring Digital Development: Facts and Figures 2021 (Geneva, 2021),
available at https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/FactsFigures2021.pdf.
Richard Heeks, “Benchmarking eGovernment: improving the national and international measurement, evaluationand comparison of eGovernment”, iGovernment Working Paper No. 18 (2006), p. 257, available at http://dx.doi.
org/10.2139/ssrn.3540043; Demetrios Sarantis, “Removing barriers in e-government: back office assessment”, inProceedings of the International Conferences on WWW/Internet 2017 and Applied Computing 2017, Pedro
Isaías and Hans Weghorn, eds.
UN-Habitat, World Cities Report 2020: The Value of Sustainable Urbanization (Sales No. E.21.III.Q.1), p. 3,
available at https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2020/10/wcr_2020_report.pdf.
United Nations, 2019 Demographic Yearbook, seventieth issue (Sales No. B.20.XIII.22), available at https://unstats.
un.org/unsd/demographic-social/products/dyb/dybsets/2019.pdf.
United Nations, “The world’s cities in 2018: data booklet” (ST/ESA/ SER.A/417), available at https://www.
un.org/development/desa/pd/content/worlds-cities-2018-data-booklet.
Iceland, City of Reykjavík, Frístundakaortið [Leisure Card], available at https://reykjavik.is/fristundakortid.
Abu Dhabi Government Procurement Gate, available at https://adgpg.gov.ae/.
Bogotá Smart Territory Plan 2020-2024, summary document (V.1.0-August 2021), p. 3.
https://banshi.beijing.gov.cn/

111

Chapter 32022 UN E-Government Survey

112

Chapter 4

Chapter 4 • Leaving no one behind in the hybrid digital society

4. Leaving no one behindin the hybrid digital society
4.1

Introduction

The principle of leaving no one behind has its origins in the Latin phrase
nemo resideo, used in warfare to manifest the dependence of people’s
lives on their ability to function as a single entity—which meant neverabandoning anyone injured or incapacitated on the battlefield. This
military ethic has since influenced other fields of endeavour. It is no
coincidence that the principle of leaving no one behind has emerged as
the central axis of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, cutting
across its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The common vision
shared by all countries and stakeholders is that sustainable development
is for all and that the Goals, indicators and targets will not be consideredfulfilled unless they are met for every person on Earth. Sustainable
development is therefore not possible if vulnerable segments of society
are excluded and left behind.
While the principle of Goals being met only if they are met for everyone iswell established in the rhetoric surrounding the SDGs, the reality remains
far removed from the ideal, and what leaving no one behind means inpractice is still unclear. The world continues to wrestle with translating
the pledge of leaving no one behind into pragmatic policies and actions
on the ground. An important first step is identifying gaps and areas ofneed. In the context of the present report, this means exploring thedisconnect within the digital government ecosystem — the fact thatmost of the gains and advancements in e-government target and benefit
the higher-income, more literate, and other advantaged segments ofsociety, while efforts to meaningfully serve the lower-income and more
vulnerable populations are often limited or futile.

4.1.1 Leaving no one behind is one of the 11 principles ofeffective governance for sustainable development
Leaving no one behind in the evolving hybrid digital society is a challenge
for both developed and developing countries. Although social equity isa considered a priority among public administrators, challenges often
arise in finding a balance between social equity, economy and efficiency.1
For instance, the development objective behind the establishment of apersonal identification system is inclusive in nature, but in cases where
the approach is not well designed or where the legal framework is
weak and fails to take into account factors such as cost and access,discriminatory practices can emerge that will have the greatest impact
on the most vulnerable, including those living in poverty, women, older
people, and persons with disabilities. Box 4.1 illustrates “leaving no
one behind” as one of the 11 principles of effective governance forsustainable development, as endorsed by the United Nations Economic
and Social Council.

Photo credit: pixabay.com

In this chapter:
4.1 Introduction

113

4.1.1	Leaving no one behind is one of the 11
principles of effective governance forsustainable development
113
4.1.2 The new face of inequality is
digital114

4.1.3 The double-edged sword of
e-government in leaving no one
behind115
4.2 Identifying those being left behind in
e-government
117
4.2.1 Those living near or below 		the poverty line
117
4.2.2 Women and girls

118

4.2.3 Older persons

120

4.2.4 Persons with disabilities

121

4.2.5 Youth122

4.2.6 Migrants and refugees

123

4.2.7 Other vulnerable populations

124

4.3 Barriers relating to access, 		affordability and ability (3As)124
4.3.1 The dynamic shifts and multiplying
effects of digital exclusion
124
4.3.2 Access

126

4.3.3 Affordability

130

4.3.4 Ability

133

4.4 The role data, design and delivery can 		play in ensuring no one is left behind 136
4.4.1 Data138

4.4.2 Design

141

4.4.3 Delivery

149

4.5 Policy messages

152

4.5.1 Recognizing that the new face of
inequality is digital
152
4.5.2 Identifying barriers linked to 		
access, affordability and ability 152
4.5.3 The integrated roles of data, designand delivery in shaping inclusive
e-government
153
4.5.4 “Leaving no one behind” as theguiding principle for e-government
development
154
4.5.5	Leaving no country behind in
e-government
4.6	Conclusion

155
156

Chapter 4113

Chapter 42022 UN E-Government Survey

Box 4.1

Leaving no one behind is one of the 11 principles of effective governance for sustainable
development, endorsed by the United Nations Economic and Social Council
The United Nations Economic and Social Council endorsed “leaving no one behind” as oneof the 11 principles of effective governance for sustainable development. Five of the elevenprinciples developed by the Committee of Experts on Public Administration, a subsidiary bodyof the Council, focus on inclusiveness; one explicitly addresses leaving no one behind, and theothers relate to non-discrimination, participation, subsidiarity and intergenerational equity. The
Committee outlines specific expectations attached to the principle of leaving no one behind,maintaining that, “to ensure that all human beings can fulfil their potential in dignity andequality, public policies are to take into account the needs and aspirations of all segments ofsociety, including the poorest and most vulnerable and those subject to discrimination”.2

4.1.2 The new face of inequality is digital
Millions of connected individuals can leapfrog traditional barriers to enjoy the services and benefitsof a digital government and economy, with faster communication, streamlined transactions and amultitude of services at their fingertips. Digital technology is playing an increasingly critical role in theway the world lives, learns, works, and participates in the economy and society — which means thatvulnerable populations without digital access are effectively placed at an even greater disadvantage
and are being left even further behind. To achieve equitable participation in the digital society
and bridge the widening digital divide, Governments must make meaningful digital opportunities
available for all – beyond basic connectivity, in particular the poorest members of society, womenand girls, older people, persons with disabilities, youth, migrants, refugees, and other marginalizedgroups.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the world has witnessed an unprecedented, accelerated digitaltransformation that, while enormously beneficial in many respects, has prompted the emergenceor exacerbation of various forms of digital inequality. The pandemic has provided the opportunity
for countries to demonstrate how e-government can help fight the spread of the virus, sustain daily
life, support business continuity and keep people socially connected,3 but it has also shown thatthose who are excluded from the digital transformation are at increased risk of being permanently
left behind in all countries, whether rich or poor. In many ways, digital access, affordability andability are now collectively the primary determinants of digital divides or “digital poverty”, which canbe viewed as another dimension of multidimensional poverty.4 Those without digital connectivity
have reduced access to the public services and economic opportunities that are increasingly moving
online. The divides between the digitally connected and digitally disconnected continue to widen.
The pandemic has deepened socioeconomic and digital disparities, reinforcing the vicious cycle ofinequality, including intergenerational inequity especially of older people.
During the pandemic, countries more advanced in e-government development have fared better
than countries lagging behind in their digital government development5. As public services andsystems rely increasingly on digital connectivity, those countries and communities lacking thenecessary digital access, tools or skills will find it progressively more difficult to take advantage of thebenefits and opportunities the digital society offers.

114

Chapter 4

Chapter 4 • Leaving no one behind in the hybrid digital society

The new face of inequality is digital – a fundamentally important, additional facet in connection tounderlying existing socio-economic inequalities. The digital divide is now characterized by a higher
degree of complexity; it is no longer just about connectivity but is also a measure of the extent towhich one can benefit from online information and digital services. In the hybrid digital society thatexists today, the lack of access to digital services among those who are living in poverty or vulnerable
situations—referred to in this chapter as the digital poor—may be either intentional (the result of
exclusionary policies and laws) or unintentional (the result of societal power dynamics or one-sizefits-all policies).6 The digital gaps in institutional coverage can also be attributed to a lack of accessto engagement opportunities and consultative processes for vulnerable populations, coupled with alack of awareness about the needs of these groups on the part of Governments.7 Achieving digital
equity for all is more urgent now than ever before.

4.1.3 The double-edged sword of e-government in leaving no one behind
Remarkable progress has been achieved in e-government development over the past two decades,
as reflected in the steadily rising E-Government Development Index (EGDI) values during this period;8
however, certain segments of the population have not been able to take full advantage of theadvances made. Gender, age, income, race, ethnicity, language and geographical locations (rural/
urban) are among the factors that lead to systemic exclusion that can in turn jeopardize the realizationof e-government for all. Those benefiting most from what e-government has to offer are digitallyconnected young urban males in the upper-middle-income bracket, while those benefiting least arevulnerable and marginalized populations.
There are, however, some positive trends in digital and e-government development that are facilitating
efforts to leave no one behind. E-services delivery to vulnerable populations is improving because
the production, collection, storage, analysis and dissemination of data are easier and cheaper, newdigital devices are more affordable and easier to access, and mobile cellular and mobile broadband
coverage and subscription costs have improved. There are many opportunities to enhance social
services support and digital inclusion through e-government; digital social cash transfers are but one
example. The real opportunity for digital government to deliver the SDGs lies in offering affordable
services tailored to the needs of vulnerable segments of the population. According to an assessmentthat measures the extent to which national systems, institutions and practices across countries are set
up and are ready to meet commitments enshrined in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,
in 2020, only 75 countries are ready to meet their commitment to leaving no one behind.9 Figure 4.1
illustrates the clear correlation between higher EGDI and E-Participation Index (EPI) values and better
performance in the LNOB index.
Acknowledging the complexity of leaving no one behind as a multidisciplinary concept with important
policy implications for development and e-governance, the present chapter strives to offer a crosscutting definitional framework that establishes this concept as the undergirding basis for inclusive
e-government. In this chapter, leaving no one behind largely centres around leaving no one offline.
The chapter has thus far explored some of the realities surrounding digital exclusion; the remaining
sections identify which groups are most affected, explore barriers relating to access, affordability
and ability – and the intersectionality of these barriers and propose an integrated framework forleaving no one behind that is grounded in data, design and delivery optimization. (See Figure 4.2)
The chapter concludes with a set of policy messages. Sources for the information presented include
both primary and secondary data. Primary sources include EGDI Online Services Index (OSI) data from193 United Nations Member States, completed Member States Questionnaires (MSQs) from 129
countries (based on a call for submission), and a related review of national e-government portals.10
Secondary sources include both desk research and qualitative/interpretive research.

115

Chapter 42022 UN E-Government Survey

Figure 4.1

Positive correlation between the leave no one behind indices, E-Government Development
Index and E-Participation Index

Note: The ‘leave no one behind’ (LNOB) indices is developed by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI).

Figure 4.2

An integrated framework for e-government: strengthening data, design and delivery (enablers)
to address barriers relating to access, affordability and ability

AccessData

Affordability

Ability

116

DesignDeliveryChapter 4

Chapter 4 • Leaving no one behind in the hybrid digital society

4.2

Identifying those being left behind in e-government

In the context of e-government, a vulnerable or disadvantaged person may be broadly defined as
one who is unable or at risk of being unable to access the online information or e-service(s) he or she
requires, or for whom such access requires a disproportionate level of effort, with this lack of accessplacing that individual at a disadvantage.11 The marginalization of certain segments of society may beintentional or unintentional, and very often, intersectionality adds another layer of complexity. Being
left behind might result from high connectivity costs or the inability to access services or participate
in consultative processes. Vulnerable populations may be overlooked when countries engaged in
e-government development adopt a one-size-fits-all approach (such as a digital-by-default policy) or
fail to consider societal power dynamics. Socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals and groups
are most susceptible to digital exclusion. In some cases, such exclusion may be deliberate in thesense that it results from discrimination, injustice, the denial of services, the absence of legal status(including the lack of a digital identity), or exclusionary policies.
Every individual — regardless of age, race, gender, ethnicity, legal status, place of residence, or
socioeconomic status — is entitled to basic rights and services, including e-government services.
The digital divide reflects and exacerbates longstanding structural inequalities, so while vulnerable
populations may stand to benefit most from digital and learning technologies, they are also themost likely to be digitally excluded. Public institutions can play a key role in identifying those whoare marginalized or disadvantaged and in ensuring that policies, funding and resources are directed
towards addressing any gaps identified.
In this chapter, the “digital poor” are identified as those who are left behind because they possesscertain inherent or perceived characteristics or are in situations that effectively prevent them fromaccessing the digital opportunities enjoyed by others. The subsections below identify specific groups
among the digital poor that have been left behind in e-government, not to mention the ingrainedintersectionality.

4.2.1 Those living near or below the poverty line
Poverty is multidimensional and takes many forms but is almost always associated with a lackof access to basic public services; digital poverty is an added dimension that can leave alreadydisadvantaged groups even further behind. With the integration of digital poverty into the poverty
paradigm, the implications of poverty extend beyond income measurements and the lack of accessto health, education, housing, social security and other services to include the lack of integration in
the digital world. Public administrations need to ensure that social protection, healthcare, education,
employment, water and sanitation services are of adequate quality and are available, accessible andculturally acceptable to all groups in society—and as many of these services move online, extra steps
need to be taken to ensure that those living in poverty are able to access essential e-services.12,13
Both within and between countries, lower income usually correlates with a lower rate of Internet
penetration and e-government implementation.14 Even if economically disadvantaged populations
are able to gain digital access, relatively few countries are offering the services they need online.
Only 48 countries (24.9 per cent) allow people to apply or file for unemployment benefits online,
and only 58 countries (30.1 per cent) provide a digital option for those needing to apply for social
protection programmes such as maternity care, child subsidies, pensions, housing or food allowances(see table 4.1).
Poverty may also be associated with factors or conditions that can lead to discrimination or deepen
disadvantage, such as being a woman with a disability.15 The barriers preventing vulnerable
populations from accessing microcredit or obtaining employment can contribute to the perpetuationof a vicious intergenerational cycle of poverty that is difficult to escape. (See Box 4.2) The individuals
117Chapter 42022 UN E-Government Survey

Table 4.1

Inadequacy of online access to unemployment benefits and social protection programmes

Users can apply or file for unemployment benefits (transactional services) online.
Users can apply online for social protection programmes such as maternity care, child subsidies,
pensions, housing, and food allowances.

Box 4.2

Number of countries

Percentage

48

24.9

58

30.1

Financial inclusion in Bangladesh: Making Digital Financial Services Work for the Poor
Bangladesh has shown tremendous growth in terms of digital financial account access throughthe proliferation of branchless banking, which has taken full-service retail banking to thedoorsteps of rural citizens across the country, and soaring mobile financial services (MFS), whichhave reached a client base of over 100 million. Combining these channels, and in collaboration
with the Ministries of Social Welfare, Finance, and Bangladesh Bank, the a2i Programme of
the Government of Bangladesh, with support from UNDP, the Gates Foundation and theConsultative Group to Assist the Poor, developed the ‘Citizen’s Choice Architecture’ for digital
payments of social safety net programs – such as elderly allowance, allowance for widowed,
deserted, and destitute women, allowance for financially-insolvent disabled people. Guided bythe ‘AIM Principle’ (Account + Identity = Mobility), it allows for the disbursement of allowances ataccessible cash-out points at the union level (the lowest administrative tier comprising 9 villages),or even at the homes of the elderly or persons with disability. Over 12 million citizen-beneficiaries
can now simply walk a short distance to the nearest Digital Centre or agent banking boothand using biometrics under the supervision of the local entrepreneur or, business correspondent
appointed by an agent bank, cash out their allowance from their own full-service bank accountthat is tied to their unique national ID number. The whole technology setup requires only an
active mobile data connection in order to function.

Source: https://a2i.gov.bd/digital-financial-services/; https://www.cgap.org/blog/bangladeshs-covid-19-response-taking-digital-finance-new-levels

and populations affected have little or no voice in policy design, formulation and implementation.
People may remain poor not only because they lack economic means, but also because they havelittle or no opportunity to participate in society and are excluded from decision-making.16

4.2.2 Women and girls
Gender equality is one of the cornerstones of sustainable development, and public institutions havean important role to play in bridging the gender gap so that no one is left behind. In 2020, global
averages for Internet use were 62 per cent for all men and 57 per cent for all women, irrespectiveof age, income or geography;17 the corresponding proportions were 31 and 19 per cent for least
developed countries (LDCs), 38 and 27 per cent for landlocked developing countries (LLDCs), 35
and 24 per cent for Africa, and 68 and 58 per cent for the Arab States. The gender gap is evident
across all sectoral services, with one research study concluding that women are 30 to 50 per cent lesslikely than men to use the Internet to participate in public life.18 Women are also less likely to own
a smartphone, and even where the gender ratio in Internet use is nearly equal, other inequalities
reduce the likelihood of women having higher-quality means to ensure meaningful connectivity.19,20
As seen figure 4.3, there is an inverse relationship between the EGDI and the Gender Inequality
Index21 (GII), indicating that there is more gender inequality in countries with low EGDI values. There
are also relatively few countries offering online services that may be of particular benefit to women.
118Figure 4.3

Inverse relationship between E-Government Development Index and Gender Inequality Index

For example, according to the 2022 Survey results, only 43 countries allow users to apply online forchild benefits, and only 45 countries allow users to apply online for maternal or newborn benefits.
In addition to being less connected, women are underrepresented online and in data. Relatively few
countries collect gender-disaggregated user data; as show in figure 4.4, the proportion of countries
that gather such data is highest in the Americas (47 per cent), followed by Asia (35 per cent), Europe
Figure 4.4100%

Proportion of countries collecting gender-disaggregated user data, by region

2

90%

2

5

6

1

21

4

11

2

EuropeOceania

Response, all countries

80%
70%
60%

7
21

20

50%
40%
30%
8

20%
10%
0%

14
5
AfricaAmericas

Asia
Regions
Yes

No

No response

119

Chapter 4

Chapter 4 • Leaving no one behind in the hybrid digital societyChapter 42022 UN E-Government Survey

and Oceania (29 per cent), and Africa (19 per cent).22 Only 9 per cent of LLDCs, 16 per cent of LDCs,
and 12 per cent of small island developing States (SIDS) collect gender-disaggregated user data.
Additionally, fewer women than men use social media or other online platforms. This has first-order
implications for online representation, access, perspectives and knowledge creation, but there arealso second-order implications in terms of the data sets created, the algorithms developed, andthe machine learning that takes place in the digital transformation of the public sector, such as theunintentional exclusion of certain vulnerable groups in service delivery.
Gender disparities at the top level of e-government leadership are significant. Among the 111
countries with chief information officers (CIOs) or the equivalent,23 female CIOs account for only 11
per cent of the total. In terms of regional distribution, there are four female CIOs in the Americas(Belize, Cuba, Peru and Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela), four in Europe (Denmark, Montenegro,
Portugal and Sweden) and three in Asia (Brunei Darussalam, Myanmar and Qatar); there is only one
female CIO in Africa (Rwanda) and none in Oceania (see figure 4.5).
Figure 4.5

Gender disparities at the top level of leadership in e-government (chief information officer orthe equivalent)

Oceania 0.0%

Europe 3.67%
Asia 2.75%
Male 88.99%

Female 11.01%

Africa 0.92%

Americas 3.67%

4.2.3 Older persons
The hybrid digital society is also an ageing society. Presently, around 10 per cent of the global
population is at least 60 years of age, but this share is set to increase to about 20 per cent by
2050, equalling more than 2 billion people. Worldwide, the 60-79 and 80-plus age groups areexperiencing the most rapid growth, especially in middle-income and high-income countries. While
the global population is growing at around 1 per cent per year, the number of people over 80 yearsof age is increasing at 4 per cent annually, and it is predicted that by 2050, people over the age of
60 will outnumber children aged 14 years and under.24 The growth in the share of older people is
the result of declining fertility and increasing longevity as well as advances in social and economic
development. This demographic transition is taking place against the backdrop of the accelerating
digital transformation. In most countries, the elderly represent the largest group of individuals that
do not use information and communications technology (ICT).
Assistive technology devices and solutions can support greater and safer mobility for older people,
especially persons with disabilities or those living alone. Social media platforms can promote social
interaction and reduce social isolation and loneliness. While there is a cohort of older persons who
are gaining more experience and confidence using online services and choosing to adopt assistive
technology solutions to improve the quality of their daily lives, especially among those in higher120

Chapter 4

Chapter 4 • Leaving no one behind in the hybrid digital society

income groups,25 there are al older adults who are being left behind. The COVID-19 pandemic has
exacerbated the suffering of seniors in vulnerable situations and has demonstrated the fragility of thedigital progress made by this cohort or the lack thereof. The risks and vulnerabilities faced by older
persons are shared across the world; for instance, in many countries older individuals lack access tosocial protections such as universal health care and pensions. According to the 2022 Survey, 109
countries (56.4 per cent) provide online information on how older persons can apply for long-termcare (see table 4.2).
Table 4.2

Availability of online information relating to long-term care for older persons

Online information on how older persons can apply for long-term care (including support
enabling them to receive home-based care or secure a place in retirement housing facilities)

Number of countries

Percentage

109

56.4

The 2022 Fourth Review and Appraisal of the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing (a)emphasizes that ageing technology—which is technology specifically designed to provide services to
the growing number of older people and ensure that they stay connected, active and cared for—canreduce health risks and promote cost-effective access to health care for older people and (b) calls upon
Governments to develop policies and action plans to achieve digital equity for all ages. In formulatingthese policies, it is particularly important to promote digital literacy and narrow the digital-skills gapsof older people through tailored peer-to-peer or intergenerational training programmes. In the fastchanging digital environment, developing, strengthening and maintaining digital literacy requires alife-course approach. While older people are among the least digitally connected population groups,
they are also among the most vulnerable to cyberthreats such as cyberfraud, so it is also critical toestablish adequate safety measures, raise awareness, and teach older users to be cautious online.
There is growing evidence that technological support can bring about significant benefits for older
people while at the same time improving the cost-effectiveness of health and social services.26
Research suggests that the use of innovative technologies may constitute a cost-effective approachto enhancing healthy ageing by enabling ageing-in-place, self-care and self-management, facilitating
cognitive stimulation and social interaction, and improving the efficiency of and access to healthand social services.27 Seamless, easy-to-use e-government solutions, combined with face-to-facecommunication, define the future of digital inclusion for seniors. Building an agile plan directed atboth digital seniors and elderly novices will enhance returns on investment, for instance, throughblended/omnichannel delivery (Refer to later section 4.4.3 on Delivery).

4.2.4 Persons with disabilities
More than 1.3 billion people, or 15 per cent of the world’s population, experience some form of
disability, with a large number living in developing countries. It is important to recognise the diversityof disability as disability extends across a wide spectrum, involving various levels of ability andencompassing physical and mental limitations. Similar to older people, they tend to struggle with the
adoption of digital technologies. Though they make up a relatively smaller share of the population,
they should not be overlooked.
In many countries, essential services for persons with disabilities are poor or unavailable. It must beemphasized that there is nuanced diversity faced by different groups of persons with disabilities.
Individuals with disabilities face exclusion at multiple levels: they must deal with negative attitudes,
stigma and discrimination; they have little or no access to enabling physical and virtual environments,
assistive technologies, and rehabilitation opportunities; and there are generally few societal
mechanisms in place to promote independent living. Data show that, on average, poverty rates are
15 percentage points higher for persons with disabilities than for those without.28
121

Chapter 42022 UN E-Government Survey

In article 9 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, States
Parties are called upon to “promote access for persons with disabilities to new information andcommunications technologies and systems, including the Internet”. The Convention has been inplace for well over a decade, but relatively little headway has been made in creating an environment
in which persons with disabilities are digitally connected, especially in developing countries. Article
9 of the Convention focuses on accessibility, mandating that countries take appropriate measures toensure accessibility within both the physical and the virtual environment. Some Governments have
responded by formulating policies, laws and guidelines to ensure digital accessibility; for example,
New Zealand has focused on making websites more accessible, and Japan and the Republic ofKorea have concentrated on the accessibility of mobile applications. In many countries, complianceis mandatory only for public sector institutions, but in India and the Republic of Korea, private sector
organizations are also expected to ensure that their products and services are accessible to persons
with disabilities.29
In 2019, Secretary-General António Guterres launched the United Nations Disability Inclusion
Strategy, noting that “when we remove policies or biases or obstacles to opportunity for persons
with disabilities, the whole world benefits”.30 There are evolving technology solutions that canbenefit both persons with disabilities and the general community. Speech recognition systems wereoriginally designed for people with limited hand movement, and the scanner was designed as partof a document-reading device coupled with speech synthesis for blind people; both are now massmarket products. Assistive technologies can help those with certain disabilities access e-services more
effectively (see subsection 4.4.2).
At present, e-government is far from being accessible for all persons with disabilities. Many of thosewith disabilities lack access to both physical services and e-services. Access to online services confers
a disproportionate advantage, while the lack of access constitutes a disproportionate disadvantage.
It often takes more effort and/or costs more for persons with disabilities to use e-government services
and engage in e-participation activities. A small number of targeted e-services are currently available
in some countries; according the 2022 Survey, 95 countries (49.2 per cent) allow eligible persons toapply online for disability compensation benefits.
Technical standards for e-services can be developed to meet a particular disability need, but it is justas important to consider the potential disability-related impact at all stages in the development ofgeneral technical standards. Creating accessibility guidelines and consulting with disability experts
are two ways to raise awareness among countries establishing e-services and relevant standards.
In low-income communities with limited infrastructure and no previous experience with targeted
assistance, those with disabilities can become increasingly isolated from the rest of society, but theprovision of inclusive e-services can help close the gap. For persons with disabilities, accessibility andinclusion should be assigned top priority in the actions and policies of public institutions.

4.2.5 YouthGlobally, there are more than 1.8 billion young people between the ages of 15 and 24, and close
to 90 per cent of them live in developing countries. Young people have never been more educatedor more connected, yet they continue to encounter significant obstacles that prevent them fromrealizing their full potential. Around 267 million youth are not in education, employment or training;young women make up two thirds of this group as a result of gendered expectations guiding them
towards unpaid family work and informal employment.
Technology has greatly expanded access to information and opportunities, prompting changes thathave transformed the lives of many young people. The innovative potential of young people and thepower of technology are already proving to be a powerful combination for empowering youth toachieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Young people around the globe are generally eager toadopt new technologies and should face no difficulties in embracing digital government.
122

Chapter 4

Chapter 4 • Leaving no one behind in the hybrid digital society

As elucidated in Our Common Agenda, “[one] priority identified by youth is the availability andsustainability of decent jobs and economic opportunities. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a serious
impact on young workers and those transitioning to employment, particularly young women.
Too many are settling for work in the informal sector or jobs for which they are overqualified andunderpaid, neither meeting their aspirations nor allowing them to unleash their full potential,
and perpetuating underdevelopment and lack of tax revenue in low- and lower-middle-income
countries.”31 The intersection of e-services and youth employment will allow young people to playa part in the achievement of the SDGs. When optimized, digital government can actively contributeto the creation of new jobs, the economic empowerment of vulnerable groups, the promotion of
better health systems, and improved access to inclusive and equitable quality education. According
the 2022 Survey, 128 countries (66.3 per cent) provide links and references to employment for youth
in their national portals.
Digital government can also play a central role in engaging young people in public discourse. Somegovernment administrations have addressed the limited participation of youth in policymaking
through targeted policy and institutional reform; the adoption of relevant legislation and thecreation of a national youth congress are among the mechanisms implemented to facilitate youth
participation in governance. Enhanced responsiveness to the needs of youth in the development anddelivery of public services has stimulated an increase in proposals put forward by young people as
inputs to policymaking.

4.2.6 Migrants and refugees
As noted in the United Nations World Public Sector Report 2018, delivering public services tomigrants and refugees can be challenging.32 There are disparities within and between refugee andmigrant groups in terms of physical access to digital technology, utilization rates, the skills needed
to make best use of the different technologies, and the ability to pay for digital services.33 Large
inflows of migrants and refugees bring unprecedented challenges and place a severe strain on public
institutions.
The public services needed for urban migrants versus those who reside in remote rural areas andothers who live in refugee camps, often for protracted periods of time, are often very distinct, so
different approaches to services provision may be required. Similarly, diverse subgroups of migrants
and refugees will likely need different combinations of services.34 Many countries have created or are
considering the creation of one-stop shops for the provision of unified, interlinked services for migrants
and refugees. In Denmark, newtodenmark.dk is a one-stop immigration portal consolidating all
relevant information and access points to services. While one-stop shops have proved to be a useful
institutional innovation, their effectiveness varies widely depending on the context.35 Outside thedirect provision of government services, refugees and migrants may benefit from global or regional
initiatives with a digital component. The International Organization for Migration has launched
an initiative called Migrants as Messengers, through which returned migrants use technology andin-person communication to share their stories so that prospective migrants can make informed
decisions; recently, returnees have provided valuable information on the risks of COVID-19 and how
to prevent its spread.36
The issue of digital divides and migrant and refugee populations is not fully explored in the existing
research and literature.37 Understanding the critical challenges migrants and refugees experience is
crucial in designing e-government policies and has the potential to increase their inclusion in society
and decrease immigrant-native achievement gaps.38 However, the provision of digital services for
migrants and refugees needs to be balanced with face-to-face interaction and support.

123Chapter 42022 UN E-Government Survey

4.2.7 Other vulnerable populations
The previous paragraphs have illustrated certain groups, but others being left behind in e-government
include minorities, indigenous peoples, and those living in rural or remote areas. Generally, the lack ofonline services for vulnerable groups derives from intentional or unintentional discrimination, culturalbarriers, educational opportunities and institutional gaps caused by the failure to identify emerging
divides and respond with public policies and services that meet the needs of these groups.39
There are also intersectionality and multipliers effect in settings characterized by inequitable power
relations and discrimination that can interfere with the ability of women, those living in poverty,
and other vulnerable groups to access public services.40 There is still insufficient understanding of
how the design and implementation of e-government affects people of different ages, capabilities
and income levels and what needs to be done to address discrimination and ensure equity for all.
A number of studies have shown that the most notable progress has been achieved among thosegroups that are easiest to reach, with many of the poorest and most vulnerable being left behind.
Clearly, proactive efforts are needed to acknowledge and identify the gaps, to provide vulnerable
populations with mechanisms for engagement so that the types and origins of discrimination are
better understood, and to then use what has been learned to develop responsive e-government
and improve the lives of those who are hardest to reach. Only 92 countries allow users to report any
form of discrimination online, while 95 countries allow users to report violations of labour law online(Table 4.3).

Table 4.3

Online options for reporting discrimination and making declarations to the police
Number of countries

Percentage

Users can report any form of discrimination (based on ethnicity, age, gender or other factors) online

92

47.7

Users can report violations of labour law online

95

49.2

4.3

Barriers relating to access, affordability and ability (3As)

Leaving no one behind is key to addressing the expansion of digital services to ensure access forall. The operationalization of this objective is critical but challenging, however, as digital inclusion is
influenced by a multitude of economic, social and governmental factors relating directly and indirectly
to issues around digitalization. People from all segments of society have an equal right to benefit
from the advancement of digital government; however, among the poorest and most vulnerable,
access to public services continues to be impeded by barriers such as financial cost, geographicallocation, cultural and environmental factors, discrimination, language-related issues, and the lack ofinstitutional support for equitable digital inclusion in e-government. Different groups have specificconstraints requiring targeted solutions.

4.3.1 The dynamic shifts and multiplying effects of digital exclusion
Digital divides are not static. The consensus among researchers is that vulnerability is a dynamic andshifting state, so a list of risk factors is not always sufficient to identify those who need different ways
to access and utilize services.41 There is growing evidence that digital access alone is not enough andthat challenges shift over time. Achieving universal digital inclusion requires not only meaningfulaccess to digital services, but also the ability to pay for Internet services and mobile devices, the digitalskills required to navigate new technologies safely and productively, and a knowledge of local andgeneral content so that users can take advantage of support services, engagement opportunities,

124

Chapter 4

Chapter 4 • Leaving no one behind in the hybrid digital society

and other benefits offered. Given the rapidly changing nature of technology, any support provided
needs to be ongoing to ensure that users are able to keep pace with technology developments,
evolving modes of service delivery, and changing content options. Continuous monitoring andassessment of the shifting needs of vulnerable groups is also required to ensure that the services
provided are actually meeting identified needs.
There is a clear link between digital inequalities and socioeconomic stratification, which means thatvulnerable populations are less likely than those in more advantaged positions to have positive online
experiences and connections.42 Beyond that generalization, digital divides are actually driven by the
dynamic and sometimes complex relationship between multiple factors contributing to vulnerability.
The most vulnerable populations tend to experience inequality at many levels; each barrier on its
own may lead to exclusion for a particular segment of different vulnerable groups, but those whoare most disadvantaged often experience multiple deprivations that exacerbate each other.43 For
example, while women often face particular difficulties in accessing public services and interactingwith public institutions, digital divides are especially pronounced when both gender and geography
are factors, meaning that rural women, who tend to have lower-than-average incomes, are among
the least likely to have meaningful experiences with e-government, even when they have Internet
access.44 An older person with disabilities who lives in a remote area may also suffer from intersecting
forms of inequality. The interplay of digital divides is driven not by socioeconomic status alone but
rather by the interplay of multiple intersecting challenges and perspectives within the context of
external economic, social, cultural and political trends. To address these compounded disadvantages,
an integrated policy approach is needed.
In both the academic and policy realms, the conceptualization of digital inequalities has become
more nuanced and complex.45 Many recent publications acknowledge that the digital inequality
debate has shifted from digital divides to gradations of exclusion that reflect levels of skill, motivation,
engagement, and participation in public policy processes. Greater consideration is being given to thelinks between digital equity and socioeconomic inequalities and the need to adopt a user-centric
approach. What this means for different vulnerable groups in developed and developing countries
will vary. Essentially, determinations of digital inclusion or exclusion should consider access (theinfrastructure needed for connectivity), affordability (the ability of users to cover the cost of Internet
services and devices), meaningful use (digital skills, readiness, individual agency, and the availability ofaccessibility features to allow full engagement) and benefit (content related to each user’s individual
situation and requirements). The COVID-19 pandemic has not changed the overarching objectiveof digital inclusion — that all people should have access to and the ability to use digital services,
including e-government services, in a meaningful way.
Some common approaches and indices have emerged to measure and assess digital inclusion. The
Digital Inclusion Index developed by Ronald Berger measures and analyses levels of digital inclusivenessin countries based on values associated with four key levers: accessibility, affordability, ability andattitude.46 The Australian Digital Inclusion Index measures progress across the three dimensions ofaccess, affordability and digital ability, though with different areas of emphasis and definitions.47
Researchers working with Making All Voices Count identified five A’s of digital access—accessibility,
ability, awareness, affordability and availability—“as a series of concentric circles that structurally
exclude particular groups whenever digital technologies are deployed”.48 In the subsections below, aneffort is made to identify digital barriers to leaving no one behind in the realm of digital governmentby exploring the dimensions access, affordability and ability in some depth (see figure 4.6).

125Chapter 42022 UN E-Government Survey

Figure 4.6

The intersectionality of barriers: of access, affordability and ability in determining digital exclusion

Recognizing
digitalexclusion
existsAccess(the lack of)

The first step in leaving no one
behind is to recognize that digital
exclusion exists, and who arethose digitally excluded.

Affordability(the lack of)

Ability(the lack of)

4.3.2 Access
Access is a fundamental requirement for digital inclusion. Access to online information and digital
services has become critical for social integration and progress. In recent years, the COVID-19
pandemic has amplified the importance of access and has
drawn attention to issues surrounding
DIGITAL
access or the lack thereof. In countries that have experienced
pandemic-driven shutdowns, digital
EXCLUSION
services have been identified as essential services, alongside food production and distribution, healthcare provision and other core services;49 this heightened attention has also served to highlight thedigital vulnerability of marginalized groups.
Critical areas of access in the context of e-government include access to electricity, access to theInternet and mobile infrastructure, and access to e-information and e-services.

Access to electricity
Developments in digitalization and digital government have no impact on those who have inadequate
or irregular access to electricity. As noted in one report, “without electricity, the Internet is just a
black hole”.50 One group of researchers found that that access to mobile connectivity, as measured
by mobile phone subscriptions or smartphone ownership in rural areas, increases with access toelectricity, with women affected the most.51 Obviously, access to a stable energy source has a positive
impact on usage, as measured by the increased volume of incoming communications and the ability
to recharge digital devices.
Communities without access to a stable supply of electricity are typically overlooked bytelecommunications operators and Internet service providers because they are seen as too remote or
too poor and lack the energy capacity to maintain connectivity. The situation is improving for some,however, as electrification through decentralized, affordable, renewable and sustainable energy
solutions has gained momentum in recent years. Globally, the number of people without accessto electricity declined from 1.2 billion in 2010 to 759 million in 2019, with three quarters of thoseaffected living in sub-Saharan Africa (see figure 4.7).52 If the current pace is maintained, an estimated126

Figure 4.7

Proportion of the population with access to electricity, selected country groupings, 2010 and2019 (Percentage)

33

Sub-Saharan Africa

46

36

Ocernia*

70
91

Northern Africa and Western Asia
75

Central and Southern Asia

95
96
98
96
98
100
100
100
100

Latin America and the Caribbean
Eastern and South-Eastern Asia
Australia and New Zealand
Europe and Northern America
83

World
0

20

40

*Excluding Australia and New Zealand

60

94

90

80
2010

100
2019

Source: The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2021; available at: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2021/The-SustainableDevelopment-Goals-Report-2021.pdf

660 million people will still be without electricity in 2030, with the vast majority situated in rural
areas of sub-Saharan Africa.53 It should be noted that the COVID-19 pandemic has reversed progressin some areas, especially in developing countries in Africa and Asia. Basic electricity services are
now unaffordable for many people who had previously gained access, largely owing to population
growth and increasing levels of poverty. In Asia, it is estimated that an additional 85 million people
may be forced to scale back to basic electricity access because of their inability to pay.
The dependence of digital government on access to electricity is evident. A study undertaken in
Nigeria found that inadequate power supply has clearly hindered access to digital government
services. In rural areas, especially in the least developed countries, many residents do not apply
for new utility services because connection costs can be relatively high considering the purchasing
power equity. Where access is available, convenient payment mechanisms may not be in place. Data
from the 2022 E-Government Survey indicate that 45 countries (23 per cent of those surveyed)
still do not provide e-payment options for electricity or gas bills (see chapter 1). Efforts to expand
electricity and Internet access should go hand in hand, as close coordination between the energy
and telecommunications sectors is both logical and cost-effective; such collaboration can help ensurethat all individuals — in particular rural populations in low-income countries — are able to reap the
benefits of digitalization.

Access to the Internet and mobile infrastructure
An estimated 2.9 billion people are still offline and are thus being deprived of the opportunity formeaningful engagement in the digital age.54 The least developed countries are the least connected,
with only 19 per cent of the population linked to digital networks. In recent years, much greaterattention has been focused on addressing the urgent need to work towards meaningful universal
connectivity, as called for in the United Nations Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation

127

Chapter 4

Chapter 4 • Leaving no one behind in the hybrid digital societyChapter 42022 UN E-Government Survey

and Our Common Agenda, as well as in the global dialogue on digital connectivity, including thattaking place within multi-stakeholder contexts such as the Internet Governance Forum.55 Internet
connectivity has accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the urgency around identifying
the barriers to digital access has also grown. In reconsidering strategies for closing access gaps,
Governments should consider adopting disruptive approaches to infrastructure development.
Many high-income countries have greatly improved Internet speed, reliability and versatility throughthe introduction of cutting-edge 5G wireless technology and full optical-fibre deployment. These
digital upgrades have contributed directly to higher EGDI values for a number of wealthier countries,
but they have also served to widen digital divides. The coverage gap remains significant in Africa;
though there has been a 21 per cent increase in 4G coverage since 2020, 18 per cent of the region’s
population still lacks access to 3G or 4G mobile broadband networks. In the LDCs and LLDCs, therespective proportions are 17 and 16 per cent (see figure 4.8). Estimates indicate that close to 400
million people live where there is no mobile broadband signal.56
The target for SDG indicator 9.c—to “significantly increase access to ICT and strive to provide
universal and affordable access to Internet in LDCs by 2020”—has not been met.57 However,efforts to improve digital access for this group of countries continue. The various multi-stakeholder
partnership initiatives aimed at establishing reliable, low-cost satellite connectivity for development
and emergency telecommunications on remote islands and in rural areas constitute a positive step
forward. Innovative business models can be used to combine the provision of energy access andbroadband connectivity to vulnerable segments of rural communities.58
Figure 4.8

Mobile broadband coverage by type of network, 2021 (Percentage of the population)

World

4G(88%)

Africa4G(49%)

Arab States

3G(7%)

3G(33%)
4G(70%)

2G(7%)
3G(25%)

Asia & Pacific

4G(96%)

CIS

4G(91%)
4G(99%)

EuropeThe Americas

4G(92%)Developed

4G(99%)Developing

4G(85%)

3G(9%)LDCs

4G(53%)

3G(30%)LLDCs

4G(53%)

3G(31%)
4G(71%)

SIDS
0%

20%

40%

2G(7%)
2G(10%)
3G(19%)

60%

80%

100%

Source: International Telecommunication Union, Measuring Digital Development: Facts and Figures 2021 (Geneva, 2021), available at https://www.itu.int/en/
ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/facts/default.aspx.

128Chapter 4

Chapter 4 • Leaving no one behind in the hybrid digital society

Access to e-information and e-services
Enabling access is not sufficient for e-government inclusion; meaningful engagement among
vulnerable segments of the population is possible only if relevant content and services are madeavailable. In a research study undertaken in Rwanda, official estimates indicate that 1 in 5 (or 20 percent) of the country’s residents are using the Internet, but the numbers for meaningful connectivity
are as low as 1 in 160 (just over 0.6 per cent).59 E-government content is wide-ranging and may
include, for example, general and sectoral information, links to employment opportunities, access tosocial welfare programmes, legal advice and recourse options, support for commerce and trade, amultitude of online public services, and e-participation mechanisms. The scope of the e-government
divide often extends from access to usage to socioeconomic outcomes. Ensuring public access to
information is one of the focal points of SDG target 16.10; specifically, individuals should be able toaccess information without discrimination, and public information should be presented in a way thatis understandable to all. This means that gender bias, cost and language barriers, and other factorsthat may disadvantage certain population groups need to be addressed in the provision of public
sector content. Equitable access to information—in particular information on public policies—must
be ensured for the poorest and most vulnerable groups.
The E-Government Survey tracks the provision of online services designed for vulnerable populations.
It is encouraging that since 2016 there has been a general increase in the number of countries offering
online information and e-services that specifically target vulnerable groups, including women, thoseliving in poverty, persons with disabilities, older persons, and migrants and refugees (see figure 4.8);
the only group for which there has not been an increase is youth. The average number of countries
providing e-information and e-services has increased from 145 to 151 since 2020. However, very few
countries show evidence of having engaged in online consultations involving vulnerable groups, andeven fewer countries have evidence showing that user input has been considered or incorporated inpolicy decisions on issues relating to vulnerable groups. While the information and services gaps havenarrowed in recent years, the gaps in e-consultation and decision-making are still very concerning.
A robust, user-focused e-government ecosystem is essential for ensuring meaningful usage andsatisfaction among all users, including vulnerable groups. In order to identify the specific needs ofdifferent population groups and measure user satisfaction, Governments must collect informationfrom and on users; figure 4.9 shows that there has been slow but steady growth in the number ofcountries that monitor usage and incorporate user feedback mechanisms on their portals (additional
information is provided below). Once needs have been identified, Governments can take proactive
steps to update relevant policies and regulations for the digital age. In the realm of banking andfinance, for example, new or modified policies and regulations are needed to support the integrationof blockchain and fintech options in government portals for e-payments and other financialtransactions in order to ensure financial inclusion. Governments can also play a role in promoting
digital startups by providing funding, supporting the formation of digital clusters, or facilitating thecreation of incubators.
Expanding meaningful usage and enhancing user satisfaction are key to motivating and engaging allusers, in particular vulnerable groups. This can only be achieved through continuous monitoring ofusage and communication with users. As noted above, there has been some progress in this area,
though there is significant room for improvement. A growing number of countries are providing
usage statistics and measuring user satisfaction, but not even half of the countries surveyed have
met these indicators; only 47 per cent provide usage statistics, and even fewer countries (36 per cent)measure user satisfaction. The proportion of countries that have set up mechanisms allowing users
to provide feedback that can be used to improve the accessibility and usability of e-services increased
from 64 per cent in 2020 to 66 per cent in 2022 (see figure 4.10).

129Figure 4.9

Provision of e-information, e-services, e-consultation mechanisms, and e-decision-making
opportunities for vulnerable groups

Migrants/refugees

Older persons

Persons with disabilities

Women

Poor

Youth

180
160
140
120

88

144
156
151

135
151
159

120
130
141

128

Provision of information/e-service 2018
Evidence of e-consultation 2022

42
33

36
27

25
18

0
Service
Provision of information/e-service 2016
Provision of information/e-service 2022

26

29
27

42

47

61

66

64
26
22

20

128

125
137
140

60
40

148
155

80

148
161

100

76

Chapter 42022 UN E-Government Survey

Provision of information/e-service 2020
Evidence of e-decision-making 2022

Figure 4.10 Availability of user feedback mechanisms in e-government portals

Availability to provide feedback to
improve accessibility/useability of e-services
Evidence of user satisfaction evaluation
Availability to provide usage statistics
42%
47%
66% 64%

30%
36%

2020

2022

4.3.3 Affordability
Meaningful access to digital information and services remains too costly for many vulnerable groups,
especially in developing communities and regions. The growing ubiquity and complexity of digital
government make affordability an even bigger concern, as the inability to pay essentially translates
130Chapter 4

Chapter 4 • Leaving no one behind in the hybrid digital society

into digital exclusion when those who are most vulnerable are unable to access ever-evolving
e-government services and are being left further and further behind.
In this subsection, affordability covers three areas relevant to e-government: (a) the affordability ofInternet access, especially broadband (for services requiring high bandwidth); (b) the affordability ofcellular phones and other mobile-enabled devices; and (c) the affordability of e-services (some may
require direct fees or the payment of fees to an intermediary, and users may need to travel a significant
distance to access mobile services or complete e-service transactions). When connectivity remains
beyond the reach of individuals or communities, free public access points set up the Government
may be instrumental in facilitating digital inclusion.

Affordability of Internet access
There is a strong correlation between the affordability of Internet access and EGDI values. Countries
with high GDP per capita have much higher levels of affordability. In developing countries, the cost ofconnecting remains high relative to income. The ITU/UNESCO Broadband Commission for Sustainable
Development urges countries to make broadband prices affordable in developing countries by 2025,with affordability defined as the availability of broadband access at a price equivalent to less than 2
per cent of monthly gross national income (GNI) per capita. In the LDCs, the median price for entrylevel broadband has been declining, but it remains beyond the means of the average consumer inall but 4 of the 43 LDCs for which data could be obtained. Among the 33 LDCs for which data are
available, only one has met the 2 per cent target for fixed broadband pricing (see figure 4.11).
Figure 4.11 Basket prices for fixed broadband and data-only mobile broadband as a percentage of GNI per
capita, 2020

World

Fixed broadband 2.8%
Mobile broadband data-only 1.2%
Broadband Commission affordability target (2%)

AfricaAmericas
Arab States
Asia & Pacific
CIS
EuropeDeveloped

18.6%

4.4%
4.7%
1.0%

2.3%
3.1%
3.0%

1.3%
1.2%
1.0%
1.3%
0.6%

0.6%

Developing

2.0%

4.4%

LDCs
LLDCs

2.6%

SIDS
2%

2.7%
4%

20.1%

6.1%
7.0%
5.2%
6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

22%

24%

Source: International Telecommunication Union, Measuring Digital Development: Facts and Figures 2021 (Geneva, 2021), available at https://www.itu.int/en/
ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/facts/default.aspx.

131Chapter 42022 UN E-Government Survey

Affordability of digital devices
Internet affordability is only one of the factors considered in assessing digital equity and inclusion;
the affordability of digital devices is another. Owning a smartphone or other digital device can betransformative; for example, it can give a vulnerable woman starting a small business in a rural area
access to online information, finance, markets and government support. Device ownership benefits
residents of high-income and middle-income communities as well, but the potential impact on thosein vulnerable situations is far greater, especially if they are the archetype of advanced users.
Globally, only 60 per cent of unique mobile subscribers have access to smartphones. The cost ofsmart devices remains relatively high for the largely low-income populations of many developing
countries and transition economies. Many of the newer, more expensive smartphones have advanced
accessibility features that would be useful for older people and persons with disabilities, but those
who would benefit most from such features — visually impaired individuals living in low-income
rural communities, for example — cannot afford them. Some countries, including India and Nigeria,
are manufacturing digital devices domestically; local production not only makes the devices more
affordable, but also promotes the growth of entrepreneurship and innovation in the local ICT sector.
It is vital to ensure the affordability of devices that can handle the demands of evolving digitaltrends over a relatively long period. Governments can subsidize digital devices such as laptops
and put them into the hands of vulnerable groups where needed; an example would be providing
youth with devices for online education during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the shelf lifeof many devices can be relatively short due to wear and tear and technology obsolescence. In the
mid to long term, these households may not be able to afford replacements for the digital devices
they were given. Strategic long-term planning is essential to look at the costs of both devices andbroadband connectivity to ensure continued meaningful digital access. When assistive technologies
are required, especially for older people and persons with disabilities, the affordability barrier canbe even higher.60 While some Governments have instituted web accessibility policies, these cannot
anticipate every accessibility need due to the known limitations of existing technologies. There may
be other circumstances independent of technology that limit the accessibility of e-services, such as
the financial dependence of certain vulnerable groups and various cultural factors.

Affordability of e-services and the need for public access points
The provision of public access points has been an integral part of national digital strategies over the
past two decades. Its contribution to bridging the digital divide and achieving universal meaningfulaccess has become increasingly important, especially in communities frequently underserved by
the private market. Key to making this happen are policies that prioritize underserved groups andthe provision of free Wi-Fi hotspots or computers in public spaces such as libraries, community
centres, public transport interchanges and post offices. During the pandemic, many public libraries
and private companies have made their Wi-Fi services available 24 hours a day, with some even
improving their services, so that they can be accessed from parking lots outside.61 According to the2022 Survey, the number of countries providing free public access points increased from 91 to 103(or by 13 per cent) between 2020 and 2022, with the relative share growing from 47 to 53 per centduring this period. (See Table 4.4)
Table 4.4

Number of countries providing free public Internet access points, 2018, 2020 and 2022
Number of countries

Countries providing free Internet access through kiosks, community centres,
post offices, libraries, public spaces or free Wi-Fi

132

2018

2020

2022

106
(54.9 per cent)91(47.2 per cent)103(53.4 per cent)Chapter 4

Chapter 4 • Leaving no one behind in the hybrid digital society

Public digital access is easier to scale up when it is linked to other policy objectives such asuniversal education or universal health care. A number of initiatives that reflect such integration orcomplementarity have already been undertaken, including the UNICEF-ITU Giga initiative for schools62
and Every Community Connected programme created for libraries.63 This approach can be extended
to include cooperation with public sector partners engaged in infrastructure development—for
example, working with energy and transport authorities on “dig once” interventions that can result
in cost savings and environmental benefits.64
A number of countries have been lauded for their consistent use of effective strategies for ensuring
affordable public access.65 The National Backbone Infrastructure Project for regional government
offices in Uganda and the Swedish experience with municipal fibre networks are positive outcomesof strategies involving investment in middle-mile infrastructure, such as municipal networks, that can
provide communal access to affordable Internet services.66

4.3.4 Ability
As noted previously, access, affordability and ability are interconnected. Access and affordability
are closely linked to digital literacy, as opportunities to improve digital competency mean little
when individuals are digitally excluded or do not understand how they might benefit from digitalconnectivity. With countries increasingly shifting public services to virtual platforms, it is becoming
imperative that everyone — including those living in poverty, women and girls, older people,
persons with disabilities, youth, migrants, refugees, and other marginalized groups — be digitallycompetent and connected. The COVID-19 pandemic has illustrated the urgency of this mandate;with older people encouraged to stay indoors because of the higher probability of infection for thisdemographic, the only way for them to stay connected and ensure their physical, mental and overallwellness has been through digital platforms.
An expanded definition of literacy is the ability to read, write, speak and listen in a way that allows
one to communicate effectively in traditional and digital environments, as well as the possessionof competence or knowledge in a specified area. Illiteracy constitutes one of the greatest barriers
to digital engagement; as the primary means of communication on digital platforms is the written
language, the inability to read and write seriously limits usage. The three areas of literacy relevant toe-government participation are general (or traditional) literacy, digital literacy and language literacy;
the latter two are explored in some detail in the subsections below.
The Human Capital Index (HCI), an EGDI subindex, captures where countries stand in terms ofgeneral or traditional literacy; assessments are based on UNESCO data relating to combined primary,secondary and tertiary gross enrolment ratios, expected years of schooling, and average years ofschooling (see the methodology section for more information).

Digital literacy
Empowering the digitally excluded to use digital services is vital for sustained engagement ine-government and broader digital inclusion. Countries with high HCI values have clear mandates forprioritizing education, but the same may not be true for digital literacy. While a growing number ofcountries at all socioeconomic levels are extending or expanding support for digital skill development,much more needs to be done. As shown in table 4.5, at least three quarters of the countries in all
regions except Oceania have specific mechanisms or measures in place to help vulnerable groups
build digital literacy and skills. Similar trends are observed for special country groupings; 68 per centof LDCs and 89 per cent of LLDCs have digital literacy support mechanisms in place for underserved
populations, but the same is true for only 41 per cent of SIDS.

133

Chapter 42022 UN E-Government Survey

Table 4.5

Countries that have specific measures or mechanisms in place to help vulnerable groups acquire
digital skills and achieve digital literacy

By region

By special group

Total

Yes

No

Not applicable or no response

Yes

No

Africa

27

22

5

0

81%

19%

Americas

17

13

3

1

76%

18%

Asia

40

34

4

2

85%

10%

Europe

38

33

4

1

87%

11%

Oceania

7

3

4

0

43%

57%

LDCs

25

17

8

0

68%

32%

LLDCs

19

17

1

1

89%

5%

SIDS

17

7

9

1

41%

53%

Total

129

105

20

4

81%

16%

As the digital world can be intimidating for newcomers, there is a need for effective programmes that
actively support the building of digital literacy, skills and confidence across the primary, secondary andtertiary levels, with policy priority given to vulnerable groups. Governments must ensure that digital
literacy policies and programmes keep pace with advancements in technology, are flexible enoughto meet the diverse needs of different vulnerable groups, and are empathetic to the challenges facedby certain groups of learners, including women and girls, older people and persons with disabilities.
Very often, the first step in achieving digital literacy is building digital awareness. Some segmentsof the population may not even know that e-government services are available, so campaigns
that promote awareness and ICT usage can help drive digital inclusion efforts. Such campaigns
should focus not only on exploring e-government but also on building trust, strengthening digitalconfidence, and broadening ICT knowledge and experience more generally. Content might focus on
the following:• Appreciating the convenience and benefits of e-government services and Internet banking;• Registering and managing personal data and information needed to access e-government
services;• Exploring digital offerings such as search engines, social media, and ICT tools for online
collaboration;• Understanding and applying basic cybersecurity principles, with emphasis given torecognizing cybercriminal activities, disinformation, misinformation and fake news.
To some extent, digital exclusion is perpetuated by a vicious cycle rooted in ignorance: many of
those who are digitally excluded do not see the need for digital devices or access, those who do not
see the need for them do not have them, and those who do not have them are digitally excluded.
This dynamic has been identified through research, where due to digital illiteracy and financial
constraints, low-income households would not prioritize buying a digital device or paying for an
Internet connection, and should they have the means to do so, they would choose mobile-firstor mobile-only connectivity. Insufficient knowledge and skills are in themselves an impediment tomeaningful digital connectivity.
Digital illiteracy remains a significant barrier for vulnerable groups, putting them at risk of being left
further behind. While the benefits of building digital literacy among vulnerable groups are evident,
it is difficult to move forward without objective statistical data. Much of the data gathered thus far
may be seen as subjective, involving self-reporting or informal assessments of ICT skills.67 Amongthe 40 per cent of countries for which digital literacy data are available, fewer than 40 per centof individuals are reported to have carried out one of the activities that reflect basic skills, such as
sending an e-mail with an attachment within the previous three months.68
134Chapter 4

Chapter 4 • Leaving no one behind in the hybrid digital society

Language literacy
Language is a key component of human interaction. Governments endeavouring to move beyond
rhetoric and reach those left furthest behind must also acknowledge the importance of leaving no
language behind. In e-government, genuine engagement is possible only if users can communicate
in their own language.
The low volume of local-language content constitutes a barrier to e-government participation andbroader digital inclusion. There are around 7,000 languages in the world, yet only 7 per cent of them
are reflected in published online material.69 Facebook, for example, is seen as the most multilingual
online social media platform, yet it supports only 111 languages.70 A UNESCO survey found that 98
per cent of the Internet’s web pages are published in just 12 languages, and more than half of them
are in English.71 This trend is mirrored in e-government portals.
For the 2022 E-Government Survey, the assessment of each national portal was carried out by anative speaker of the official language of the country or, where that was not possible, by a speaker of
one of the languages available on the site. Over 70 different languages were assessed among the 193
Member States. While it is encouraging to note that portal content in the vast majority of countries
is available in more than one of the country’s official languages (see table 4.6), linguistic diversity
remains relatively limited in e-government portals both within and between countries. Among thecountries surveyed, 156 offer portal content in only one language (the official national language),leaving only 37 countries that provide content in two or three official national languages. Figure
4.12 shows the primary official language used for portal content and assessment; English is usedby the greatest number of countries (51), followed by French (23), Spanish (20), Arabic (18), andPortuguese (8), with many other countries using less common languages for their portal content.
Not having portal content available in multiple languages makes it harder for those who speak oneof the excluded languages and leaves many indigenous cultures without a voice online.72 Those whoare proficient in English, commonly perceived to be “the language of the web”, have an edge whenit comes to developing digital abilities and enjoying the benefits of e-services.
The lack of language diversity in e-government portals leads to the underutilization of e-services
and miscommunication between government authorities and constituents—which can serve
to undermine progress towards the SDGs. Some policymakers and researchers may argue that alingua franca, or common language for communication, is needed for digital government, but
this would still leave many of those with a different mother tongue unable to take full advantage
e-government information and services. Where proficiency in the portal language is low or nonexistent, e-government engagement is far less likely to occur.73 If Governments continue to offer
content in one or a very limited number of languages, many will be left behind.
Language barriers and the isolation they cause are real and deeply ingrained. Greater considerationneeds to be given to meeting the needs of different linguistic groups, creating support networks(including intermediaries), and introducing more linguistic coloration in general. On 21 Februaryof every year, the United Nations celebrates International Mother Language Day as a reminderof the power of language in preserving the uniqueness of human societies and promoting their
Table 4.6

Countries with national portals that have content available in more than one official language,
2020 and 2022
Number of countries

Countries with national portal content available in more than one official language of that country[Note: the count includes countries with one official language]

2020

2022

166
(86.0 per cent)158(81.8 per cent)135Chapter 42022 UN E-Government Survey

Figure 4.12 Primary official language in which content was assessed for each of the national portals

English51

French23
Portuguese
8
Arabic18

Spanish20

Source: United Nations 2022 E-Government Survey.

distinct values.74 The theme of International Mother Language Day in 2022—“Using technology
for multilingual learning: challenges and opportunities”—aims to promote the use of technology
in advancing multilingual education.75 One of the founding principles of the European Union ismultilingualism, as the member countries are collectively home to 24 official languages and over 60
regional or minority languages.76 In Africa, one noteworthy initiative is the Science and Language
Mobility Scheme Africa, which “seeks to build language skills and cultural capabilities of researchers… [to address] one of the barriers to intra-Africa scientific collaboration”.77 Artificial intelligence(AI) applications such as natural language processing can play a vital role in promoting multilingual
communication as they offer immediate and relatively high-quality translations of content at low
cost.
At the United Nations Internet Governance Forum, multilingualism is a recurring theme, with relevant
issues addressed from different perspectives. Among the conclusions reached by the Forum are thattranslation in portals is inadequate, especially when dealing with interactions involving “minor”
languages; that while technology is essential for dealing with multilingualism on the Internet, it does
not constitute a solution; and that establishing institutional multilingualism requires broad actions
from different stakeholders, including Governments and civil society.78

4.4

The role data, design and delivery can play in ensuring no one is left
behindEven with the accelerated adoption of digital technologies and the expansion of e-government during
the pandemic, the benefits of digitalization remain unequally distributed, and the gaps between leadersand laggards has grown wider. Digital technologies have been used by Governments to integrate andstreamline internal processes and improve services delivery. Vulnerable groups face barriers relating
to access, affordability and ability, but they can also be deterred by the rapid advancements in
136

Chapter 4

Chapter 4 • Leaving no one behind in the hybrid digital society

technology and the complexity and associated risks of digital tools. An understanding of why certain
groups or individuals are effectively excluded can inform the approaches taken by Governments toachieve digital inclusion.
In order to address evolving needs within the new hybrid digital society and ensure that no one isleft behind, Governments may need to rethink, revise or even revolutionize the way they provide
services and interact with the public, with particular attention given to vulnerable populations, andthrough an integrated offline-online approach. It is important to shift the focus from abstract visions
to functional solutions that answer objectively assessed needs. This section offers an integrated
framework for e-government engagement grounded in three essential elements (see figure 4.13):• Data informed by the specific needs of vulnerable groups;• Design that places people at the centre of e-government policy processes and services
provision;• Delivery approaches that focus on inclusion and the use of innovative approaches (such as
blended/omnichannel delivery, pilot initiatives, experimentation and sandboxing) to reachthose left furthest behind.
Figure 4.13 Integrated data-design-delivery framework for e-government

Integrated
framework inleaving no
one behind
The integrated framework of
data, design and delivery (3D’s) inleaving no one behind seeks tohave a transformational impact,making the best and optimal useof available resources in a timely
manner.

Data

DesignLNOB

DeliveryStrategies centred around data, design and delivery are not new, but they have not been used widely
by Governments in an integrated framework. These “3D’s” are intersecting tools that can have atransformational impact. Taken together, they can improve e-government for all but are likely to havethe greatest effect on vulnerable populations, given the challenges disadvantaged groups face withregard to meaningful digital access and connectivity, the affordability of mobile devices and Internet
connectivity, and the ability to engage in and benefit from e-government.

137

Chapter 42022 UN E-Government Survey

4.4.1 Data
Reliable data are essential for policy development and decision-making at all levels but are especiallycritical for ensuring that no one is left behind. It is evident that many countries across the EGDI
spectrum do not have sufficient data to assess the e-government status of vulnerable groups or to
identify critical gaps. The collection, analysis and application of relevant data are imperative for the
public sector, as appropriate decisions cannot be made or actions taken if the needs of constituentsare poorly understood. Three priority areas relating to data—disaggregated data, open government
data and digital identity—are examined below.
Identifying variables and securing data that pertain to leaving no one behind can present two major
types of challenges. The first challenge relates to the analytical and operational constraints surrounding
data collection, analysis, monitoring and evaluation. Governments do not always have the financial
resources or the administrative, technical or human capacities to undertake household or othertypes of surveys, and they may also face difficulties in identifying and reaching different vulnerable
groups.79 The second challenge is more fundamental in that it relates to the conceptualizationof leaving no one behind and the identification of relevant measurement parameters. In a report
released by the Open Data Institute, several SDG targets are used to measure leaving no one behind.
Another approach used by some countries is based on the Multidimensional Poverty Index, which
can be adapted to national or local contexts and conditions to better evaluate leaving no one behind.
Surveys of human and social inclusion/exclusion and those that assess social capital and trust can also
complement the measurement and operationalization of leaving no one behind. To a certain extent,
the E-Government Survey assesses the availability of e-government services that address the needsof the most vulnerable segments of the population.

Disaggregated data
Very often, reliable disaggregated data on segments of the population that do not benefit frome-government or those who have experienced discrimination and exclusion are scarce or nonexistent.80 Most affected — and therefore most in need of data coverage — are those living inpoverty, women, and others who have experienced marginalization.
Disaggregated data and analytics are at the heart of digital services operationalization, especially forvulnerable groups, and are essential for assessing e-government progress in leaving no one behind.81
Without data, vulnerable populations are invisible in the digital society. Uncounted individuals andgroups can be further marginalized by their exclusion from statistics and administrative data. Caution
should be exercised when dealing with data disaggregation as it relates to disadvantaged groups;
while counting or tracking can reflect existing inequalities, it can also exacerbate them.82 The smart
use of data and foresight will be key to understanding the challenges and needs of vulnerable
populations and planning how services can be developed to accommodate their needs. Big data,real-time data and geospatial data constitute important sources of information and support inassessing and addressing the situations of the poorest and most vulnerable.
High-quality, timely, accessible and reliable disaggregated data are essential – but often missing, for
the implementation and evaluation of e-government policies and initiatives aimed at ensuring no one
is left behind, as such data highlight the challenges and needs of different population groups andguide Governments in the development of targeted solutions.83 Gathering and processing data anddesigning and executing appropriate evidence-based policies will support the creation of responsive
e-services. This approach can help reduce inequalities because it is focused on meeting self-identified
needs; targeted e-services could, for example, serve youth by linking young people to decent workand employment opportunities or promote gender equality by facilitating women’s access to theservices they need most.

138

Chapter 4

Chapter 4 • Leaving no one behind in the hybrid digital society

At this point, many countries have underdelivered on their pledge to help disadvantaged countries
strengthen their data infrastructure; SDG target 17.18 gave countries until 2020 to demonstratethat serious efforts were being made to “enhance capacity-building support to developing countries,
including for least developed countries and small island developing States, to increase significantly
the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data disaggregated by income, gender, age,
race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability, geographic location and other characteristics relevant innational contexts”.84
There is a lack of longitudinal data on many e-government subdomains, including social components
such as in e-health and e-education. Even without hard data, it is generally agreed that progress in
e-government development has benefited those groups that are easiest to reach, while many of thepoorest and most vulnerable have been left behind. While various studies have highlighted cases inwhich incentives were provided to specific disadvantaged groups, which then benefited most, these
constitute the exception rather than the rule.85 From a policy perspective, the lack of disaggregateddata is problematic because there is little to no objective evidence to guide the design of targeted
e-government interventions that could address the challenges faced by the vulnerable segmentsof society.86 Where disaggregated data are available, evidence is likely to suggest that the mostdisadvantaged groups benefit less from e-government development than the rest of the population,
contributing to widening inequalities. It is also concerning, based on the sparse data available, thatduring periods of uncertainty such as the COVID-19 pandemic, those living in poverty and othervulnerable groups tend to be at greater risk of social and economic exclusion.

Open government data
There are innumerable benefits associated with open government data (OGD)87. For instance, OGD
can stimulate innovation through people-centric analytics and applications, leading to the provisionof services tailored to the needs of vulnerable groups.88 Providing open data through an online portal,
if implemented effectively, can enhance transparency and reduce the time and resources associatedwith public requests for data, allowing academics, businesses and civil society organizations that
contribute to digital inclusion efforts to gain new insights into complex policy issues surrounding
the principle of leaving no one behind. OGD provides important opportunities, and its impact onvulnerable groups and leaving no one behind should be further examined. However, it is essential
for Governments to develop rigorous protocols for protecting the privacy of vulnerable groups andsafeguarding the confidentiality of the information as appropriate.
With the availability of open government data, especially data relating to vulnerable groups,
institutions can be held accountable. On the other hand, data may well be skewed against vulnerable
groups because they are less likely to be included. Tracking government spending for vulnerable
groups in sectors that provide essential services would provide important metadata on the number
and demographic composition of those in danger of being left behind in development efforts.89
Such data—disaggregated as needed—should be made available in an open data format to enhanceaccountability and transparency. The E-Government Survey tracks the availability of open data (inboth non-machine-readable formats such as PDF and machine-readable formats such as XML) on
expenditure in key sectors, including education, health, justice, social protection, environment
and employment. Among the 193 countries surveyed, only 65 provide OGD on social protection
in machine-readable formats, and 63 provide OGD on social protection in non-machine-readable
formats.

139

Chapter 42022 UN E-Government Survey

Digital identity
To utilize data to serve disadvantaged segments of the population and deliver effective e-services
for all, it is first necessary to identify the individuals that make up each demographic. There are an
estimated 1.5 billion people in the world who do not have official documentation to prove theiridentity,90 and an estimated 2.5 billion are excluded from access to banking and financial services
such as savings accounts and monetary loans.91 The aim of SDG target 16.9 is to provide legal
identity for all, including free birth registration, by 2030. Standardized identification systems offer
opportunities to meet this target and are essential for ensuring the inclusive distribution and efficientadministration of digital health, finance, education and other e-services.
Countries are increasingly turning to digital identity systems as a foundational platform for otherdigital tools and services that help vulnerable groups. Civil registration and the establishment of alegal identity are preconditions for empowering vulnerable groups through data and ensuring thatthey benefit from the range of digital services available. MSQ findings for 2022 indicate that Europe
has the highest proportion of countries with laws or regulations on digital identity (93 per cent),
followed by Asia (81 per cent), Africa (55 per cent), the Americas (50 per cent) and Oceania (18 percent) (see figure 4.14).
Digital identity is not only a prerequisite for the inclusive distribution and efficient administration ofe-services but is also the key to accessing information and the benefits of development People whohave an officially recognized identity are more aware of and are better able to exercise their legal
rights, have increased access to services, can make more informed choices, and are more likely to beengaged in e-government, including decision-making.92

Figure 4.14 Number of countries with laws or regulations pertaining to digital identity

18

Africa11

RegionAmericas

0

10

1

34

Asia

6

38

EuropeOceania
0%

2
10%

20%

30%

2

2

9

Source: 2022 Member States Questionnaires.

140

15

40%
50%
60%
Responses, all countries
Yes
No
No response

1

0
70%

80%

90%

100%

Chapter 4

Chapter 4 • Leaving no one behind in the hybrid digital society

Box 4.3

Digital identify and social support for refugees in Poland

Since the outbreak of the war in Ukraine in February 2022, the Polish authorities have taken
immediate action so that Ukrainian war refugees could apply for a Polish national ID Number
which allows them to fully benefit from the assistance offered by the Polish central and local
government units, such as gaining access to the national healthcare system and educational
system under the same conditions as the Polish citizens. The process of assigning the PESEL
identification number in a non-discriminatory way (i.e., it is assigned in the same way to Ukrainian
citizens and to the Polish). The ID number, known as PESEL, was made available to Ukrainian
refugees as soon as just three weeks after the war in Ukraine has broken out. Any refugee canregister at any commune office by submitting a filled-in application form and a photograph.
Ukrainian citizens who are over 18 years old can also create a Profil Zaufany (Trusted Profile), toallow them to use public administration services online as some services are available exclusively
on the Internet. Within first weeks there were over 270k new Trusted Profiles registered.

4.4.2 Design
While important advances have been made in e-government over the past two decades, inclusive
design has not received sufficient attention. Governments will continue to transition from traditional
to digital modes of public services delivery, and those e-services that are not designed to facilitate
inclusion will likely be underutilized by vulnerable groups, effectively denying them the rights andopportunities enjoyed by more advantaged populations in the hybrid digital society. E-government
portals and services should be developed in a way that allows them to be used by as many people aspossible, including the poorest members of the population, women and girls, older people, persons
with disabilities, youth, migrants, refugees, and other marginalized groups.
Designing for inclusion, including e-inclusion, is critical for leaving no one behind, but it can also bea driving force for creativity in e-government. An important first step is recognizing that exclusion
exists—largely because perceptions and solutions are driven by (often unconscious or unintentional)
biases rather than by objective, data-driven evidence.93 Once identified and acknowledged, exclusion
should be seen as an opportunity to explore new ideas and inclusive designs, to learn from humandiversity, and to put people at the centre from the beginning of the e-government development
process. The principle of “solve for one, extend to many” could also be applied; as an example,
designing for persons with disabilities could actually end up benefiting the general population.

E-participation and e-engagement
As a precondition, inclusive design requires input from the public, in particular those being left
behind. This approach is aligned with SDG target 16.7, which calls for ensuring responsive, inclusive,
participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. As the target implies, actions taken toassess or achieve inclusion should extend beyond the collection of public feedback. Using sex, age,disability status and population groups as key indicators to assess relative rates of participation innational and local institutions such as legislatures, public service and the judiciary and comparing
them to national distributions (as set out in SDG indicator 16.7.1) can help public institutions identify
gaps in representation and inclusion. Over the past two decades, a growing number of Governments
have recognized the importance of e-participation, especially for underserved populations. In mostregions and special country groupings more than half of the countries provide e-participation support
for vulnerable groups; the two exceptions are Oceania (29 per cent) and SIDS (24 per cent) (see table
4.7).
141

Chapter 42022 UN E-Government Survey

Table 4.7

Countries that have e-participation measures or mechanisms in place for women and othervulnerable groups

By region

By special group

Total

Yes

No

Not applicable or no response

Yes

No

Africa

27

17

10

0

63%

37%

Americas

17

10

6

1

59%

35%

Asia

40

28

10

2

70%

25%

Europe

38

22

15

1

58%

39%

Oceania

7

2

5

0

29%

71%

LDCs

25

14

11

0

56%

44%

LLDCs

19

14

4

1

74%

21%

SIDS

17

4

12

1

24%

71%

Total

129

79

46

4

61%

36%

Governments are not seen to be inclusive unless active steps are being taken to include marginalized
sectors in the planning and delivery of public services.94 Public authorities and institutions should
proactively reach out to the poorest and most vulnerable to engage them in shaping e-government
policies and designing e-services that respond to their needs. This requires a mix of tools andapproaches, with the choice of policy instruments partly determined by “whether or not the process
is transparent, and stakeholders are involved”.95 The openness of policymakers to promoting
e-participation and seeking collective solutions is essential.96 With the limited resources available,
especially among countries at the low and middle EGDI levels, policy approaches must be innovative.
Such approaches will succeed only if they are designed and implemented in a bottom-up integrated
fashion, with the relevant communities and concerned government entities aligning their objectives
and cooperating with one another to respond to the needs of vulnerable groups.
The availability of e-participation platforms does not always translate into broader or deeper
participation.97 In many countries, the utilization of e-participation mechanisms remains low. As
shown earlier in figure 4.8, very few countries can show evidence of having had recent online
consultations involving vulnerable groups, and even fewer countries have evidence indicating thatpublic input is considered or incorporated in policy decisions on issues relating to vulnerable groups.
There are more countries that have held consultations with persons with disabilities and youth (42countries each) than there are those that have engaged with refugees/migrants (26 countries) or
the poorest segments of the population (25 countries) (see table 4.8). Vulnerable groups should beengaged not only to be heard but also to be agents of change for building community resiliencethrough e-participation. The value of public services is increased when people and non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs) can provide objective feedback on the realities surrounding services provision,as this helps to identify obstacles, call attention to gaps, and encourage pragmatic responses.
E-participation should complement rather than replace traditional forms of public participation inefforts aimed at ensuring no one is left behind; face-to-face meetings, paper-based communications,
telephone calls, physical bulletin boards, and other hands-on modalities are still important.
Strengthening the inclusiveness of vulnerable groups requires the provision of physical public space
for the engagement of vulnerable groups, particularly at the local level. Public spaces are integral
to successful community development. Public institutions can also combine digital and face-to-faceapproaches to facilitate complex discussions involving large numbers of people and incorporating
a diverse range of views and interests. A number of Member States have successfully createddigital spaces that have brought together offline and online participants to identify and explore key
sectoral issues (such as those surrounding the current pandemic) through electronic deliberation anddialogue and to then communicate their concerns and findings back to the Government. Further
142

Chapter 4

Chapter 4 • Leaving no one behind in the hybrid digital society

action is required to develop similar digital or hybrid modalities and supportive polices that promote
engagement aimed at addressing the concerns of vulnerable groups.

Co-design and co-production of e-services
Bridging the digital divide is a massive undertaking, but it is achievable through the co-design,
co-creation and co-production of e-services with other stakeholders, including the private sector
and the community at large. Drawing from successful cases of collaboration, this could be initiatedproactively by the Government to uncover new potential that could propel the inclusive designof e-services to greater heights in the future. Vulnerable groups themselves should be included indesigning the projects and solutions that serve their communities. As shown in figure 4.15, this has
yet to become a dominant trend; of the 193 countries surveyed, only 42 have made some headway
in co-creating education e-services (the highest number among the six sectors assessed), and only
22 countries have engaged in the collaborative development of justice-related e-services (the lowest
number).
Figure 4.15 Low numbers of countries engaged in the co-design, co-creation and co-production of e-services
in six sectors

Evidece of co-creation/co-production of e-service 2022

JUSTICE
22

EDUCATION
45 42
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

40

HEALTH25

29

ENVIRONMENTSOCIAL PROTECTION
25EMPLOYMENTOne of the reasons disadvantaged groups continue to be underserved in today’s hybrid digital societyis the distance between policymakers and the people they serve. Understanding and working closelywith vulnerable groups and conducting ongoing research, experimentation and assessment are all
essential for getting public polices and public services right in the digital age. Using behaviouralscience and in-depth user research to connect vulnerable populations with essential e-services canhelp these groups improve their quality of life and stay healthy and safe.
It is vital that vulnerable groups be involved in the development of e-services, as they offer a personal,
experiential perspective on the challenges they face. Persons with disabilities, for instance, haveunique insights about their disabilities and situations and should be consulted and actively involved
143

Chapter 42022 UN E-Government Survey

in the formulation and implementation of relevant policies, laws and services so that Governments
can better understand their needs and how e-government can address them. In Pakistan, a multistakeholder working group on ICT accessibility98 — comprising persons with disabilities, organizations
working on disability issues, government organizations, and businesses and developers—successfully
introduced a component relating to persons with disabilities in the draft IT policy of Pakistan.99
In India, where some of the world’s largest gender gaps prevail, the Sanchar Shakti programme
is focused on the inclusion of women in project design.100,101 The co-design, co-creation and coproduction of public services through inclusive engagement can reduce the potential for incorrect
assumptions to become a stumbling block to successful implementation of a project and thereby
improve outcomes.102
Transforming the development and delivery of public services for the most vulnerable requires the
input of a wide range of non-traditional actors — including community activists, philosophers,
anthropologists, economists and sociologists — on the complex context of leaving no one
behind.103 There continues to be a disproportionate emphasis on building technocratic capacities in
e-government agencies, and while programmers and data analysts are important, they do not havethe skills, experience or expertise needed to design or administer e-services for vulnerable groups.
A more effective, inclusive approach involves working with non-State actors on the design andprovision of assistance and services for those left furthest behind. Governments need to make suremechanisms are in place to ensure that there are adequate standards for public services and sharedaccountability among State and non-State actors for the delivery of high-quality services for all, withspecial attention given to the poorest and most vulnerable.

Targeted services for vulnerable groups
There is a global trend towards the adoption of digital-by-default, digital-first, invisible-governmentand one-stop-shop strategies, but such approaches contribute to the risk of leaving more people
behind in the hybrid digital society. Not all excluded groups are confronted with the same barriers or
are affected to the same extent, so targeted, localized and contextual approaches may be needed.
While some integrated policies should be universal in nature, benefiting all people, others may need
to be more targeted, focusing on strategies such as affirmative action and solutions tailored to specificneeds. For the latter, differentiated criteria such as specific sets of vulnerabilities or geographicalvariables can be used to determine the target recipients of intended services.104 For example, specifice-services may be needed for young women, older persons with disabilities, or those dwelling in rural
areas. Social protection policies aimed at promoting social integration and addressing discrimination
should be designed for targeted groups to achieve specific outcomes and real change. These policies
should be based on evidence drawn from disaggregated data on various marginalized segments ofsociety, and robust implementation mechanisms should be established to ensure effective services
delivery. Social protection measures such as digital cash transfer systems can be designed to reducepoverty and protect against a range of risks, vulnerabilities and life-cycle contingencies such as
unemployment, old age, childhood, maternity or sickness. Figure 4.16 illustrates the steady increase
in recent years in the number of countries providing specific information and/or e-services for all
vulnerable groups except youth.
Increasingly, quality improvements in public services delivery are linked to service personalization andthe use of predictive analytics to identify target populations.105 Complex analytics and AI allow public
institutions to better understand and address the needs of different segments of the population,
including vulnerable groups. Governments utilizing these tools can acquire the information theyneed to develop tailored solutions such as personalized education for disabled persons or can use
predictive analysis to develop precision health-care solutions for older people.

144

YouthWomen Migrants andrefugees

Older Persons withpersons disabilities

Poor

Figure 4.16 Progress made in the provision of specific information and/or e-services for vulnerable groups,
by region, 2018-2022

2018
2020

50.0% /27
40.7% /22

62.9% /22

55.3% /26

68.6% /24

2022

51.9% /28

77.1% /27

2018

50.0% /27

77.1% /27

2020

50.0% /27

2022
2018
2020
2022

59.3% /32

2020

50.0% /27

2022

48.1% /26

201861.1% /33

2020

61.1% /33

2022
2018
2020
2022

59.3% /32
66.7% /36

77.1% /27
71.4% /25
80.0% /28

35.7% /5

85.1% /40

97.7% /42

50.0% /7

55.8% /24

78.6% /11
86.0% /37

89.4% /42
72.3% /34

91.4% /32

67.4% /29

Asia

Europe78.6% /11

64.3% /9
90.7% /39

78.7% /37
76.6% /36

Americas85.7% /12

88.4% /38

80.9% /38

85.7% /30

85.7% /30

64.3% /9

100.0% /43
50.0% /7
93.0% /40

57.4% /27

88.6% /31

64.3% /9

97.7% /42

80.9% /38

88.6% /31

71.4% /10

71.4% /10

87.2% /41
58.1% /25

71.4% /10

100.0% /43

78.7% /37
61.7% /29

AfricaBox 4.4

97.7% /42
69.8% /30

88.6% /31

57.1% /8

71.4% /10

89.4% /42
61.7% /29

65.7% /23

72.2% /39

59.3% /32

67.4% /29

83.0% /39

91.4% /32

57.4% /31
48.1% /26

93.0% /40

66.0% /31

71.4% /25

50.0% /7

93.0% /40

91.4% /32

48.1% /26

71.4% /10

80.9% /38

85.7% /30

63.0% /34

201862.8% /27

78.7% /37

95.3% /41

85.7% /12

85.7% /12

Oceania

Social protection disbursements in Togo - through AI enabled by mobile data and satellite imagery

To alleviate poverty and hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic in Togo, AI enabled by mobile
data and satellite imagery was used to ensure the quick and efficient distribution of $22 million(in three monthly mobile phone payments of $20 for men and $22 for women) to 600,000
residents in urban areas.106 This programme was made possible through a multi-stakeholder
partnership between the Government of Togo, a philanthropic organization, and academia.

Recognizing and harnessing the transformative potential of AI in the public sector, while can havea significant impact in terms of delivering public value and ensuring inclusion. Just under half ofthe 138 countries responding to the 2022 MSQ indicate that they have a national AI strategy.107
The breadth, depth and scope of the respective national AI strategies (including the role of AI inpromoting inclusion) vary according to the objectives, expected outcomes and foreseeable impacts
identified within each national context.

145

Chapter 4

Chapter 4 • Leaving no one behind in the hybrid digital societyChapter 42022 UN E-Government Survey

The trade-off between universality and targeting in policy development is often dictated by theavailability of resources and the level of sustained effort required. When targeted services areintegrated into a universal access strategy aimed at ensuring the provision of e-services for all,institutional coordination will be required at the policy design and implementation stages.

Web standards and assistive technologies
Given estimates that only 2 per cent of the 1.9 billion websites available globally are fully accessible
to persons with disabilities, it is not surprising that most e-government portals are not fully accessible
according to recommended standards.108,109 The sizeable accessibility gap closes the most vulnerable
off from many of the benefits and opportunities e-government offers.
Web accessibility entails designing for people on the periphery, including those who may havephysical or sensory disabilities (such as impaired vision, hearing or motor skills), specific emotional
challenges (such as anxiety) or different cognitive capacities.110 Accessible websites may also benefit
disadvantaged groups such as older persons or those with mobile-only or slow network connections.
According to usability.gov, accessible sites use multisensory and multi-interactivity approaches thatallow users to absorb digital content through multiple senses such as both sound and sight.111 In
Bangladesh, the Disability Innovation Lab was established through the Prime Minister’s Office as aService Innovation Fund project to support the creation, testing and commercialization of disabilityinclusive products and e-services.112 Accessible sites go beyond typical point-and-click services,integrating keyboard-based control and voice-based navigation tools.
The Internet technical community has recognized the importance of web accessibility since the firstwebsites were developed in 1991, but this perspective has not been fully evident in e-government
portal development. National portals that lack accessibility features will remain inaccessible for asignificant share of the population. Inclusive design approaches that address accessibility imbalances
have been enabled by technological advances over the past few decades, though it is generally
acknowledged that creating accessible formats for some e-government services or types of disability
may be technologically infeasible or impractical.
The United Nations E-Government Survey assesses the compliance of national portals withinternationally recognized accessibility guidelines and relevant validity standards. Accessibility
guidelines developed by W3C relate to web content, authoring tools and user agents. Version 2 of
the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.0) stipulates that website content and interface
components must be perceivable, operable, understandable and robust.113 It is important that thedesign of e-government websites be optimized to ensure broad readability and usability—whichmeans that certain criteria must be followed when developing and incorporating accessibility features
for people with disabilities so that they are able to operate the interface and take full advantage ofthe evolving content. As seen in figure 4.17, 160 national portals (83 per cent of the 193 countries
surveyed) are compliant with W3C markup validity standards, but only 75 countries (39 per cent) arein compliance with WCAG 2.0 guidelines. Even in Europe—the top EGDI performer—only 18 out of
43 countries are WCAG 2.0 compliant.

146

Chapter 4

Chapter 4 • Leaving no one behind in the hybrid digital society

Figure 4.17 Regional compliance with W3C standards versus WCAG 2.0 guidelines

AfricaAmericas
Asia
EuropeOceania
193 Member States
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

W3C Compliance

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

WCAG 2.0 Compliance

Responsive web design
E-government services are accessed through a variety of devices. The number of people browsing
the Internet using mobile tools such as smartphones and other handheld devices now exceeds thenumber accessing the Internet from desktop computers. With approximately 60 per cent of organic
search engine visits occurring on mobile devices, it is becoming increasingly important to make suree-government portals are set up to provide a good user experience regardless of the type of device
used. One particular challenge in designing mobile-specific apps relates to the existence of different
mobile operating systems (such as Android, iOS and EMUI). This incompatibility among operating
systems, coupled with the limited availability and affordability of Internet services and mobile devices,can limit the use of e-government services among vulnerable groups.
The best way to address this need is to build a responsive national portal—one that utilizes a flexible
web design layout that adjusts based on screen size, ensuring that all images, content and functions
look the same, regardless of the type of device used. Adherence to such web standards usuallyenhances a government portal’s cross-browser compatibility, responsiveness to the performanceparameters specific to each type of device, and the possibility for seamless integration and interaction
across different platforms. (See Box 4.5) As seen in table 4.8, the number of countries that haveintegrated responsive web design in at least one of their national portals increased from 146 in 2020
to 170 in 2022.
Table 4.8

Number of national portals integrating responsive web design, 2018, 2020 and 2022
Number of countries

Number of countries integrating responsive web design in national portals

2018

2020

2022

144
(74.6 per cent)146(75.6 per cent)170(88.1 per cent)147

Chapter 42022 UN E-Government Survey

Box 4.5

United Kingdom: Increasing Accessibility by Implementing Standards
The United Kingdom’s Digital Inclusion Strategy sets out how government and partners fromthe public, private and voluntary sectors could collaborate to help as many people as possible
become capable of using and benefiting from the Internet. The accessibility standards that the
government has adopted mean that public sector organizations are legally obliged to ensure
their digital offerings (on mobiles, websites and applications) meet agreed accessibility standards.
The Service Manual is a set of guidelines and standards to help service teams develop, build
and maintain digital services that will meet the Service Standard and be allowed to live on GOV.
UK. The Digital Inclusion Evaluation Toolkit is a collection of resources designed to help any
organization assess the impact of a digital inclusion project. The toolkit aims to enable teams toprovide evidence on how successful a project has been at implementing change and show how
a project could be improved or iterated to increase its impact.

Assistive technologies
The use of assistive technologies in e-government services provision serves persons with disabilities aswell as individuals who are “temporarily able-bodied” (those with no disabilities at present); at one
time or another, virtually all users are likely to benefit from accommodations such as larger font sizes
and text-to-speech or speech-to-text facilities.114 Frontier technologies and the power of innovation
offer tremendous opportunities for removing barriers for persons with disabilities and enhancing
user experiences for those without disabilities. For instance, voice assistance with natural language
recognition is a powerful enabler for assistive technology, but it can be used to empower all users—
including but not limited to those with visual, hearing or motor disabilities—to engage productively
in e-government and take advantage of the services offered. While the number of countries offering
AI-enabled chatbox functionality in their e-government portals has increased significantly over the
past several years, the total is still relatively low, accounting for just over a third of the 193 countries
surveyed (see table 4.9).
Table 4.9

Number of countries providing AI-enabled chatbot functionality in their national portals, 2018,2020 and 2022
Number of countries

Number of countries offering AI-enabled chatbot functionality in theirnational portals

2018

2020

2022

28
(14.5 per cent)58(30.1 per cent)69(35.8 per cent)

Governments can also take advantage of other technologies and tools (including open software)
designed to make the digital experience more accessible to persons with disabilities.115 For example,
a new search engine called accessFind can help persons with disabilities find websites that areaccessible to them;116 social media companies are experimenting with AI to help the visually impaired
use their platforms;117 and device manufacturers are expanding their screen-reading software andmobile apps.118 Cloud computing has massive potential for the delivery of affordable and accessible
services to older persons and persons with disabilities. Interoperability between assistive technologies
and mainstream platforms has been a challenge but is one that may be overcome through cloudbased initiatives such as the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure (GPII), which is supported by aconsortium of academics, major tech companies, NGOs and individuals.119 By offering users who
148

Chapter 4

Chapter 4 • Leaving no one behind in the hybrid digital society

face accessibility barriers due to disability, illiteracy, digital illiteracy or ageing the ability “to invoke
and use the access features they need anywhere, anytime, on any device”,120 initiatives such as
GPII have the potential to significantly reduce the costs of assistive technologies for persons withdisabilities across the world, especially in developing countries. There are also opportunities to tap
into commercial technologies that are already familiar to users, such as Apple VoiceOver or Android
TalkBack, when designing accessibility features in e-government portals.
There are some risks and potential disadvantages associated with assistive technologies; one researchstudy showed, for example, that natural language processing models can perpetuate biases against
persons with disabilities. There is a lot more work to be done to ensure that these technologies canbe integrated seamlessly, ethically and inclusively in e-government services provision to enhance
the lives of persons with disabilities. The burden of advocating for and facilitating accessibility has
typically fallen on disabled persons themselves, and the default solution has often been to create
special apps for persons with disabilities rather than making mainstream platforms accessible.

4.4.3 Delivery
In developing and delivering e-services for vulnerable groups, public authorities should be guided by
the need for effectiveness, inclusiveness and accountability and by the core principle of leaving no one
behind. Integrated efforts are required to ensure equitable access to digital services and information foreveryone without bias or discrimination.121 This subsection focuses on three approaches for improving
services delivery: blended/omnichannel delivery (offline-online integration); local e-government andcommunity network support for leaving no one behind; and pilots, experimentation and sandboxes.

Blended/omnichannel delivery
As emphasized throughout this chapter, vulnerable groups are left behind when they do not have thefinancial resources, access or ability to take advantage of e-government services. At the extreme endof the spectrum, a complete lack of digital access may require the use of “analogue” measures toreach those who are offline. For example, in the arid regions of northern Chad, where residents arecompletely cut off from Internet and digital and mobile phone services, the International Organization
for Migration has engaged traditional town criers and troubadours to spread information about
COVID-19.122
One recent trend involves offering blended or omnichannel e-services delivery, where integrated
online and offline options are coordinated to provide a seamless experience for all users, including
vulnerable groups. In blended e-government services delivery, the customer journey consists ofa combination of online and offline touchpoints, where service agents are present digitally withshared data and synchronized services and customers can connect digitally, at home or throughmobile delivery, or physically at strategically placed government services centres. The E-Government
Survey indicates that there has been a gradual increase in recent years in the number of countries
providing both online and offline channels through which residents can pay for public utilities andother e-services (see table 4.10).

149

Chapter 42022 UN E-Government Survey

Table 4.10

Number of countries with multichannel payment options for public utilities and other services,
2018, 2020 and 2022
Number of countries

Number of countries offering the option to pay for public utilities and othere-services via online and offline channels

2018

2020

2022

131
(67.9 per cent)133(68.9 per cent)143(74.1 per cent)Local and community networks and intermediaries
Across different parts of the world, people living in rural areas are less likely to use e-services thanthose residing in urban areas.123 Many low-income countries are still underdeveloped and have large
rural populations. Although digital coverage reaches many rural areas, geography and population
density can make it economically unviable for telecommunications companies to set up the necessary
infrastructure for all rural areas. Without coverage or network connectivity of sufficient quality, rural
residents are likely to be excluded.
Empirical evidence indicates that local authorities are typically the best placed to understand andrespond to the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable. They are also more likely to take a holistic
approach to development (unlike national sectoral ministries) and are easier to hold accountable.
However, expanded responsibilities require a corresponding expansion in resources, capacities andlevels of authority; as this can take time, a carefully staggered approach is needed for the devolutionof digital government responsibilities to local authorities. Fiscal reform and financial instruments may
also be needed, as some authorities are in a position to mobilize resources, while others are not.
Issues can arise if local e-participation strategies are not carefully designed; one problem that may
emerge is the dominance of vested interest groups and traditional elites.124 This dynamic can makethe voices of the vulnerable even harder to hear. To achieve balance, it is essential to exercise greatcare in the design and monitoring of such strategies, but it is also important to build the capacities
of local authorities and civil society organizations and support social mobilization. From the outset,
digital government agencies at both the local and national levels need to be fully representative of
all the different segments of the population they serve. This is critical if the voices of the poorest andmost vulnerable are to be truly heard.
The provision of targeted services at the individual and community levels is gaining traction, as is thetargeting of socially disadvantaged groups through multiple channels. Research indicates that themost inclusive e-government practices are observed at the local or regional level. This reinforces thenotion that efforts aimed at leaving no one behind are more effective if they are tied to a contextspecific approach in which the geographical, physical, socioeconomic and cultural environments for
specific target populations are taken into account.
To reach the poorest and most vulnerable populations, national and local government authorities
may need to build partnerships with private sector entities and civil society organizations andengage with vulnerable groups through intermediaries or representatives that work more closelywith these communities.125 Non-governmental actors can play a complementary role, serving as
government surrogates or proxies by delivering basic public services to disadvantaged communities
where Governments are too weak, too far away or otherwise unable to provide such services.126 Civil
society organizations can also act as an invaluable conduit for communication, providing accurate
information on the circumstances and needs of vulnerable populations.127

150

Chapter 4

Chapter 4 • Leaving no one behind in the hybrid digital society

Governments will sometimes fund programmes and establish eligibility criteria but rely on NGOsor commercial entities for implementation. There is a need for robust legal, regulatory and fiscal
frameworks that allow agility in certain kind of projects to support cooperative efforts aimed at leaving
no one behind. Partnerships with NGOs and businesses require public institutions to be appropriately
equipped and willing to work with non-State actors. Steps must be taken to ensure that all partners
are actively engaged in policy implementation and decision-making and in identifying common or
win-win goals. Efforts should be made to align incentives and build trust by, for example, initiating
participatory dialogues or forming alliances with social movements and parliamentary committees orpolitical parties. It is important to set up accountability mechanisms to produce meaningful results
for the most vulnerable groups and the general public.

Pilots, experimentation and sandboxes
Sandboxes and experimentation are two relatively new approaches that have proven to be effective
in creating a conducive, contained environment where Governments can partner with private sector
and other relevant stakeholders to test technologies in a controlled space with a small sample group
before launching them at scale — which allows them to dramatically reduce costs and limit the
chances of failure and negative impacts.128 Through sandboxing, experimentation, and collaboration
with academia, think tanks, the private sector and civil society, Governments can better engage insystems thinking, examining the linkages and interactions that could best leverage the potential of
digital government for leaving no one behind.
Experimentation and sandboxing can effectively capture the knowledge and perspectives ofbeneficiaries, produce a better understanding of the complex and less visible realities of excluded
persons, and contribute to transformative change with fewer resources and reduced risks, butthere are other solutions that promise faster gains. The minimal viable product approach is a
development technique in which minimal resources are used to create a basic, rough, low-techor low-fidelity prototype that is then tested in trials with selected groups of users. The potential
for supporting vulnerable groups using this type of approach is largely untapped. In practice, thiswould involve running a small pilot test of how something might work, assessing the outcome,and making adjustments and improvements before broadening usage for the targeted group. This
would require extensive research, analysis and follow-up, including deep inquiry to identify gaps andchallenges, mapping user journeys through data collection and analysis, rapid prototyping throughexperimentation and minimum viable product testing, and final product development and delivery.
It would be important to approach delivery holistically by contextualizing the nuances of the local
community—including gender, cultural, religious and power dynamics—which would be possible
only through more effective e-participation and e-engagement. Investing in sandboxes and minimal
viable product approaches represents a solid strategic decision for policymakers, but it is importantfor institutions allow failures in pilots and experimentation, as the process of trial and error offers
valuable learning opportunities.
Advances in AI and other technologies have made it possible to replicate complex, human-likecomputational abilities and interactivity, which may ultimately lead to a phasing out of traditionalmodes of public services delivery; while this shift is positive in many ways, it may also result in somevulnerable groups being left further behind. In digital government development, it is important toadopt data, design and delivery approaches that address the challenges and needs of all people,
especially those who have historically been left behind (often as a result of deeply embedded
intergenerational inequalities).

151

Chapter 42022 UN E-Government Survey

4.5 Policy messages
Global efforts to achieve sustainable development are being undermined by growing uncertainties
and challenges deriving from economic volatility, stagnant growth, rising unemployment (especiallyamong youth), increasing inequalities, chronic poverty and famine, ageing, migrant and refugeeconcerns, the effects of climate change, and unexpected crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic.129
The overlapping and sheer relentlessness of these challenges can be overwhelming, and vulnerable
groups are always disproportionately affected. Digital solutions can play a key role in moving society
forward, but stopgap measures are not enough; it is vital that Governments adopt a comprehensive,deliberate and integrated approach to leaving no one behind in the hybrid digital society.
While all countries have expressed support for the 2030 Agenda and have pledged to leave no one
behind, key questions remain about how to establish priorities and identify areas of urgent needand how to make pragmatic decisions and take action in contexts in which information is limited.
While digital government has enjoyed political popularity, as it has given Governments a chance todeliver on promises of a better future, it has failed to live up to its full potential, as many people arestill being left behind. There is a need for creative and inclusive approaches to e-government, withparticular attention given to adopting forward-looking policies and regulations, developing innovative
financing solutions, establishing strong and flexible infrastructure and content platforms, forming
strategic partnerships, and establishing effective business models and accountability mechanisms inorder to ensure that no one is left behind in the digital society.

4.5.1 Recognizing that the new face of inequality is digital
The new face of inequality is digital, and e-government can serve as an equalizer—but only if it isaccessible to all members of society. The urgent need for digital inclusion is perhaps best illustrated by
the circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic. During this period, digital government has
increasingly replaced physical interactions and transactions between public institutions and people,
so excluded communities have lacked support and access to crucial updates on the COVID-19
situation, leaving them more vulnerable to misinformation and the disease itself.
Those who are digitally included have easy access to government services and save time whenusing them. For government institutions, delivering services digitally is cheaper and more efficient.
Inclusion in e-government means that all individuals are able to utilize digital platforms that optimize,automate and accelerate the provision of traditional public services. Digital inclusion is no longer a
privilege; it is a necessity.
Support should be provided for vulnerable groups that are excluded from mainstream social
protection programmes—and for the development of solutions that facilitate digital inclusion forthese groups. Viet Nam offers incentives such as tax savings, concessional loans, and other support
for the research, manufacture and production of products and services that enable persons withdisabilities to access digital services. The country also does not impose import taxes on assistive
devices for persons with disabilities.130

4.5.2 Identifying barriers linked to access, affordability and ability
The digital barriers faced by vulnerable groups are often complex and difficult to comprehend, inpart due to the sparsity of relevant data. It is generally agreed, however, that e-government exclusion
does not derive solely from the lack of Internet access.

152

Chapter 4

Chapter 4 • Leaving no one behind in the hybrid digital society

A broader approach to assessing and addressing barriers to e-government focuses on access,affordability and ability. These indicators can be used not only to identify the extent of vulnerability
and digital inclusion, but also to inform proactive preventive efforts and the development oftargeted solutions. The availability of detailed data on digital access, affordability and ability can help
developers address specific e-government design and implementation gaps and thereby increase
overall utilization rates and user satisfaction. This is not a comprehensive strategy in and of itself, as
Governments need to consider a multitude of other factors, including social norms, personal security,and privacy issues, in formulating policies for universal e-government access.

4.5.3 The integrated roles of data, design and delivery in shaping inclusive
e-government
Leaving no one behind in e-government cannot be achieved by any one sector, institution or setof actions. Even when there are deliberate efforts to serve vulnerable groups, the lack of data andresearch, thoughtful design and inclusive delivery will result in the development of miscontextualized
solutions and unscalable services. Leaving no one behind also requires complex coordination acrossministries, departments and subsidiary entities, as digital initiatives are typically multifaceted; thoserelating to land development and social protection, for example, require multiple well-coordinatedlayers of input. Digital government should address than exacerbate existing structural inequalities.
The integrated e-government framework proposed in this chapter focuses on improving data, designand delivery (enablers) to address barriers relating to access, affordability and ability in order toensure that no one is left behind (see figure 4.18). The data-design-delivery framework is dynamic,
integrating the evolving tools and technologies of the digital age, and promotes thoughtful,evidence-based e-government development at all stages to ensure that public services are accessible,
affordable and user-friendly for everyone in society.
While data, design and delivery each play an important role in shaping policy responses and digital
government, these elements are meant to be addressed synergistically and not in isolation fromone another. Governments using a combined approach can establish a solid path to inclusiveness,leveraging this integration to support collaboration across public institutions and sectors. This
shared, intentional focus on three key priorities can help bring government agencies closer together,promoting greater alignment through, for example, the sharing of data, agreed design standards,
and a common, integrated delivery platform. With a joint strategy for strengthening data, designand delivery, Governments can avoid silo approaches to e-government and will be better able tointegrate and coordinate efforts among different sectoral agencies for the delivery e-government
services to all segments of the population. This integrated approach must also be forward-looking sothat actions taken now are designed to produce long-term benefits and prevent future digital gaps;
examples might include investing in digital infrastructure in rural locations, building capacity in digital
literacy, and providing vulnerable groups with the twenty-first century digital skills they will need forthe jobs of the future.

153

Chapter 42022 UN E-Government Survey

Figure 4.18 An integrated framework for e-government: strengthening data, design and delivery (enablers)
to address barriers relating to access, affordability and ability

4.5.4 “Leaving no one behind” as the guiding principle for e-government
development
Activating the integrated framework requires a well-developed policy framework supported by strong
political leadership and the requisite resources. The policy component legitimizes and formalizes thedata-design-delivery approach but is also meant to ensure that a strong institutional framework
exists to provide ongoing support. The policy framework must reflect explicit recognition of theinterlinkages between economic, social, environmental and cultural challenges and should support
an institutional set-up that eschews the silo approach to policy and action and instead supports
policy alignment and collaboration.131 A strong, clear vision is required as a first step to support thebroad strategy shift towards leaving no one behind in e-government. With that vision, Governments
should focus on strengthening institutional capacity, ensuring greater transparency, and facilitating
broad sectoral involvement in transitioning to full digital inclusion.
It is recommended that “leaving no one behind” become the operational principle guiding policy
development and implementation in e-government and the public sector. At the policy and regulatorylevel, Governments should adopt “inclusion by design”, “inclusion by default” or “inclusion first”
strategies to counter the current default emphasis on “digital first” or “digital by default” strategies
in e-government. As highlighted earlier, it is important for institutions to acknowledge diversity
and recognize that exclusion exists as a prerequisite for activating the principle of leaving no one
behind. While technology can be a catalyst for inclusive digital development, it is the combinationof effective policy and institutional support that drive the digital transformation towards universal
access for all. Policymakers can synchronize policy measures where linkages between various groups
exist.132 Inclusive e-government policies may focus on one or multiple barriers (access, affordability154

Chapter 4

Chapter 4 • Leaving no one behind in the hybrid digital society

and/or ability) that may shift over time and require appropriate adjustments in the areas of data,
design and delivery. An integrated approach is necessary because there is a great deal of overlap andinterdependence among the variables linked to barriers, enablers, e-government development, andleaving no one behind; for example, building digital ability is irrelevant if the required infrastructure is
not available for a certain locality or community, and immigrant integration policies and programmes
will likely need to be aligned with programmes and policies that address the public service needs ofthe general population.
A whole-of-government approach that integrates multilevel, multisectoral and multidisciplinary
strategies and partnerships is needed for the implementation of inclusive digital government.
Top-down and bottom-up approaches should be combined to better understand and address
the e-government needs of the most vulnerable. Top-down legislative approaches impose direct
obligations on those producing e-government products and services to ensure accessibility, andbottom-up policy approaches include non-discrimination guidelines that explicitly cover theaccessibility of e-services. Steps should be taken to ensure that measures and policies adopted in one
area do not undermine objectives in another area. For instance, e-government policies for micro,
small and medium-sized enterprises need to be screened to ensure that they do not have a negative
impact on the poorest and most vulnerable segments of society. This must be accompanied by amonitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) framework.
Governments need to take the lead in driving the strategic shift towards leaving no one behind andin managing the change in mindset that will need to occur if this new approach is to gain traction.
Some countries have set up a national agency to oversee the transformation process. For example,
Malaysia has established a digital inclusion council;133 over time, as digital inclusion grows, this council
may shift its focus to loftier goals such as national digital readiness, similar to the Smart Nation
initiative in Singapore.134 Some countries have implemented targeted policy and institutional reforms
and measures to address the limited participation of youth in policymaking; the Republic of Korea,
for example, has created a national youth congress and has adopted legislation aimed at giving
youth a voice in the public discourse.135 Enhanced youth engagement opens the door to increased
involvement in policy discussions and input, which can in turn strengthen the responsiveness ofGovernments to the needs of youth in the development and delivery of public services.136
Finally, there is a need to mobilize resources, build capacities, create sustainable financing frameworks,
and leverage national research and innovation agendas to achieve universal digital inclusion so thatno one is left behind. The task of ensuring that adequate financial, political and human resources
are available to meet these overarching goals can be shared by local and national governments, andregional or global support may be available as well. Activating “digital inclusion by design” and“leaving no one behind” strategies requires that policy choices be made sooner rather than later toremove the barriers vulnerable groups face in terms of digital access, affordability and ability using
the integrated framework for optimizing data, design and delivery. Without these policy goals andinterventions, leaving no one behind will enjoy limited or uneven success—or remain in the realmof rhetoric.

4.5.5 Leaving no country behind in e-government
The challenges associated with advancing e-government are normally more acute and persistent for
countries in special situations, including LDCs, LLDCs, SIDS and countries in post-conflict situations.
Low productive capacity and structural insufficiencies such as the lack of digital infrastructure andlimited access to technologies continue to challenge public institutions in such areas. These countries
are often disproportionally impacted by global crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, and theincreasing effects of climate change also place burdens on public institutions. The geographicalconstraints of LLDCs result in greater dependence on bordering countries for trade and infrastructuredevelopment. For SIDS, intracountry and inter-community isolation hinders the flow of information
155

Chapter 42022 UN E-Government Survey

and public services, which also poses challenges for public institutions. Countries in post-conflict andpost-disaster situations face enormous challenges at multiple levels that can undermine progress
towards the SDGs and put them at risk of being left behind. Most countries emerging from conflict
do not have sufficient capacity to rebuild public administration through digital transformation. The
critical lack of resources and “brain drain” (human capital flight) are compounded by the absence of
public trust in government.
Most of this chapter has focused on the digital exclusion of vulnerable population groups, but
as the foregoing illustrates, being left behind is a risk that may be faced at the whole-country
level as well. This is significant, as while Governments with sufficient resources can pursue digital
inclusion strategies by shifting priorities and changing mindsets, vulnerable countries lack the basic
foundations for pursuing digital development, even if the will is there. Just as no one should beleft behind, so should no country be left behind; therefore, special attention must be given to the
profound challenges faced by public institutions in countries in special situations. There is a needfor more international support, including through South-South and triangular cooperation. Whilecountries in special situations face some unique challenges, there are many common challenges andstrategic objectives they share with the rest of the world. Many opportunities lie ahead for enhancing
partnerships and capacity-building and for strengthening international and regional cooperation
aimed at leveraging advancements in digital government to achieve the development objectives
embodied by the SDGs.
Bilateral and multilateral collaboration can facilitate knowledge sharing, policy alignment, and thetransfer and replication of best practices. Collaboration at the global and regional levels has led
to important advances in e-government development and coordination and has strengthened thecontribution of digital government to sustainable development. Collaboration takes many forms andcan be initiated at multiple levels. Some collaborative efforts and partnerships have been facilitatedby the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs and other agencies throughmechanisms such as the Internet Governance Forum, the Multi-stakeholder Forum on Science,
Technology and Innovation for the SDGs (STI Forum), and the World Summit on the Information
Society (with special attention given to the implementation of action lines, including ICT applications
relating to e-government, e-health, e-learning and other key areas).137 Other collaborative structures
have been created by individual countries; Singapore, for example, initiated the Digital Government
Exchange, which brings together CIOs and digital government leaders from around the world.138
The expansion of existing partnerships and the launching of new partnerships with internationalorganizations, regional development banks, and individual developed countries are needed tomobilize financial and human resources for more strategic ICT and e-government development toensure that no country is left behind.139

4.6

Conclusion

In the hybrid digital society, digital development and inclusion are important, but they are partof the broader framework for sustainable development and not end goals in and of themselves.
While technology can be a transformative factor in serving the most vulnerable groups, addressing
the deeper, interlinked problems of the digital age will require solutions that extend far beyond
digital technologies. It will take time to achieve the cultural shifts and digital mindset needed totake optimal advantage of e-government and other digital offerings. For many reasons, the digitalcomponent of e-government should be complemented by analogue approaches such as hotlines,
call centres, in-person service centres, and even house visits so that no one is excluded.
One of the key lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic is that the future is hybrid and not
digital; in other words, the primary objective is not digital development but rather supporting humandevelopment through digitalization. Without this distinction, there is a risk of dehumanizing society
through technology, as exemplified by the replication of more human-like public services through156

Chapter 4

Chapter 4 • Leaving no one behind in the hybrid digital society

rapid advances in AI. It is important for Governments to keep sight of the fact that advances intechnology and e-government must ultimately serve the wider goal of supporting sustainable humandevelopment—and leaving no one behind. Digital government services will never fully replace
human interaction; in inclusive e-government, technologies should not constitute the only channel ofcommunication—even if all barriers relating to access, affordability and ability have been eliminated.
Policy decisions that affect humanity should continue to be made by humans, with e-government
accountability given careful consideration.
There are policy dilemmas that may arise in the process of e-government development that reflect
genuine concerns about how far countries should go to achieve universal digital inclusion and thedefining goal of leaving no one behind. To what extent should countries pursue e-government for
all, and how does this tie in with ensuring equitable social progress among the bottom 1 per centof the population? Given that facilitating e-participation and digital inclusion are time-intensive andresource-intensive processes, how can Governments measure returns on investment and try to strikea sustainable balance in efforts to improve the overall efficacy of public services delivery and SDG
implementation and strengthen the engagement of vulnerable segments of the population? There
are no easy answers to the complex questions and issues that will arise as Governments commit to
the pursuit of universal digital inclusion. Careful deliberation will be required, and solutions will need
to be tailored to specific local needs, contexts and circumstances, but what is most important is to
not lose sight of the overarching goal of leaving no one behind in the hybrid digital society.

Endnotes
1

2

3

4

5

6
7

8
9
10
11

United Nations, Economic and Social Council, conference room paper on eradicating poverty and promoting
prosperity while leaving no one behind: implications for public administration, prepared for the sixteenth sessionof the United Nations Committee of Experts on Public Administration, held in New York from 24 to 28 April
2017.
United Nations Economic and Social Council, contribution by the United Nations Committee of Experts on
Public Administration to the thematic review of progress on the SDGs at the 2016 High-level Political Forumon Sustainable Development.
United Nations, “UN/DESA Policy Brief #61—COVID-19: embracing digital government during the pandemic
and beyond”, 14 April 2020, available at https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/publication/un-desa-policybrief-61-covid-19-embracing-digital-government-during-the-pandemic-and-beyond/.
Long Yang and others, “Mobile Internet use and multidimensional poverty: evidence from a household survey
in rural China” Social Indicators Research, vol. 158 (2021), pp. 1,065-1,086, available at https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11205-021-02736-1.
United Nations, United Nations E-Government Survey 2020: Digital Government in the Decade of Action for
Sustainable Development (Sales No. E.20.II.H.1), available at https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/
Reports/UN-E-Government-Survey-2020.
Kevin Watkins, “Leaving no one behind: an agenda for equity”, Lancet, vol. 384, No. 9961 (20 December 2014),
pp. 2,248-2,255, available at https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62421-6.
United Nations, Economic and Social Council, conference room paper on eradicating poverty and promoting
prosperity while leaving no one behind: implications for public administration, prepared for the sixteenth sessionof the United Nations Committee of Experts on Public Administration, held in New York from 24 to 28 April
2017.
See chapters 1 and 2 of the present publication.
Soumya Chattopadhyay and Heiner Salomon, “’Leave no one behind’ indices 2020”, ODI working papers, 26
April 2021, available at https://odi.org.en/publications/leave-no-one-behind-indices-2020/.
See the methodology section on MSQs and OSQs.
United Nations Economic and Social Council, “Background note on challenges for institutions in ensuring thatno one is left behind: draft contribution by the Committee of Experts on Public Administration to the 2016
thematic review of the High-Level Forum on Sustainable Development”, prepared for the fifteenth session of
the United Nations Committee on Public Administration, held in New York from 18 to 22 April 2016.

157

Chapter 42022 UN E-Government Survey
12
13

14
15

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

28

29

30
31
32

33

34
35

158

United Nations, “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” (A/RES/70/1), available
at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld.
Kate Donald and Nicholas Lusiani, From Disparity to Dignity: Tackling Economic Inequality through the Sustainable
Development Goals, Policy Brief (New York, Center for Economic and Social Rights, 2016), available at https://www.cesr.org/disparity-dignity-inequality-and-sdgs/.
Pew Research Center, “Smartphone Ownership and Internet Usage Continues to Climb in Emerging Economies”,
February 2016.
United Nations, Economic and Social Council, conference room paper on eradicating poverty and promoting
prosperity while leaving no one behind: implications for public administration, prepared for the sixteenth sessionof the United Nations Committee of Experts on Public Administration, held in New York from 24 to 28 April
2017.
Michiel S. de Vries, “How can public policies solve social problems?”, in Understanding Public Administration(London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2016)
International Telecommunication Union, Measuring Digital Development: Facts and Figures 2021 (Geneva, 2021),
available at https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/facts/default.aspx.
Sabhanaz Rashid Diya, “The future of digital is human”, The Daily Star, 16 January 2020, available at https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/perspective/news/the-future-digital-human-1854616.
Isabelle Carboni and others, Connected Women: The Mobile Gender Gap Report 2021 (London, GSM Association,2021), available at https://www.gsma.com/r/gender-gap/.
World Wide Web Foundation, ”Women’s rights online: closing the digital gender gap for a more equal world”,
12 October 2020, available at https://webfoundation.org/research/womens-rights-online-2020/.
United Nations Development Programme, “Gender Inequality Index (GII)”, Human Development Reports (2020),
available at https://hdr.undp.org/en/content/gender-inequality-index-gii.
See the 2022 Member States Questionnaire results.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2022 Member States Questionnaire.
Andrew Sixsmith, Alex Mihailidis and Dorina Simeonov, “Aging and technology: taking the research into thereal world”, Public Policy and Aging Report, vol. 27, No. 2 (2017), pp. 74-78.
ConvenienceStore News, “Digital seniors & rural urbanites are among the top 10 global customer trends for2022”, section 3 on the Business Outlook for Digital Seniors, 20 January 2022.
Andrew Sixsmith and Gloria Gutman, eds., Technologies for Active Aging (New York, Springer, 2013).
United Nations, World Public Sector Report 2018—Working Together: Integration, Institutions and the Sustainable
Development Goals (Sales No. E.18.II.H.1), chapter 6 on integrated approaches to health and well-being, available
at https://publicadministration.un.org/publications/content/featured_titles/world_public_sector_rep_2018.html; see also
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281335476_Technology_and_the_Challenge_of_Aging.
United Nations, Disability and Development Report: Realizing the Sustainable Development Goals by, for and with
Persons with Disabilities (Sales No. 19.IV.4), available at https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/2019/04/undisability-and-development-report-realizing-the-sdgs-by-for-and-with-persons-with-disabilities/.
Centre for Internet and Society and Global Initiative for Inclusive Information and Communication Technologies,
Web Accessibility Policy Making: An International Perspective (2012), available for download at http://cis-india.org/
accessibility/web-accessibility-policy-making-an-international-perspective.
United Nations Disability Inclusion Strategy.
United Nations, Our Common Agenda: Report of the Secretary-General (Sales No. E.21.I.8), para. 50, available athttps://www.un.org/en/content/common-agenda-report/#download.
United Nations, World Public Sector Report 2018—Working Together: Integration, Institutions and the Sustainable
Development Goals (Sales No. E.18.II.H.1), available at https://publicadministration.un.org/publications/content/
featured_titles/world_public_sector_rep_2018.html.
Khorshed Alam and Sophia Imran, “The digital divide and social inclusions among refugee migrants: a case inregional Australia”, Information Technology and People, vol. 28, No. 2 (2015); see https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/273003145_The_Digital_Divide_and_Social_Inclusion_among_Refugee_Migrants_A_Case_in_Regional_
Australia.
Ibid.
United Nations, “Report of the Expert Group Meeting on Integrated Approaches to International Migrations: thePerspective of Public Institutions and Public Administration” (2017); meeting organized by the United Nations
Division for Public Institutions and Digital Government.

Chapter 4

Chapter 4 • Leaving no one behind in the hybrid digital society
36

37
38
39

40

41
42
43

44

45
46

47
48
49

50

51

52

53
54
55

International Organization for Migration, “IOM steps up risk communication and community engagement inresponse to COVID-19 in West and Central Africa”, news update (Dakar, 21 April 2020), available at https://www.iom.int/news/iom-steps-risk-communication-and-community-engagement-response-covid-19-west-and-centralafrica.
Simon Collin, Thierry Karsenti and Olivier Calonne,“Migrants’ use of technologies: an overview of research objects
in the field”, Journal of Technologies and Human Usability, vol. 10, Nos. 3-4, pp. 15-29.
Margarida Rodrigues, “Can digital technologies help reduce the immigrant-native educational achievement gap?”,
JRC Working Papers (Seville, Joint Research Centre, 2018).
United Nations, United Nations E-Government Survey 2018: Gearing E-Government to Support Transformation
towards Sustainable and Resilient Societies (Sales No. E.18.II.H.2), available at https://publicadministration.un.org/
en/research/un-e-government-surveys.
United Nations, Economic and Social Council, conference room paper on eradicating poverty and promoting
prosperity while leaving no one behind: implications for public administration, prepared for the sixteenth sessionof the United Nations Committee of Experts on Public Administration, held in New York from 24 to 28 April
2017.
Lizzie Iron and Christie Silk, Access for All: The Importance of Inclusive Services (London, Myddleton House, Citizens
Advice Bureau Services, 2011).
Ellen J. Helsper, The Digital Disconnect: The Social Causes and Consequences of Digital Inequalities (London, Sage
Publications Ltd., 2021).
Niki Rodousakis and Antonio Mendes dos Santos, “The development of inclusive e-government in Austria andPortugal: a comparison of two success stories, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, vol. 21,
No. 4, pp. 283-316, available at https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610802591892.
Chalaby, “Rural women are a quarter of the global population—but ignored by policy”, apolitical website post,
analysis / gender and equality (1 March 2018), available at https://apolitical.co/solution-articles/en/rural-womenquarter-global-population-ignored-policy.
Ellen J. Helsper, The Digital Disconnect: The Social Causes and Consequences of Digital Inequalities (London, Sage
Publications Ltd., 2021).
John Low, Damien DuJacquier and Sulina Kaur, Focus—Bridging the Digital Divide: Improving Digital Inclusion
in Southeast Asia (Munich, Roland Berger GMBH, 2021), available at https://www.rolandberger.com/en/Insights/
Publications/Bridging-the-digital-divide.html.
Julian Thomas and others, Australian Digital Inclusion Index: 2021 (Melbourne, RMIT, Swinburne University ofTechnology and Telstra, 2021).
Tony Roberts, “Digital technologies exclude”, Making All Voices Count blog post, 2 May 2017, available athttps://www.makingallvoicescount.org/blog/digital-technologies-exclude/.
United States, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Guidance on the Essential Critical Infrastructure
Workforce (relating to the COVID-19 response), available at https://www.cisa.gov/publication/guidance-essentialcritical-infrastructure-workforce.
Nilmini Rubin, “Without energy, the Internet is just a black hole: creating energy solutions for information andcommunications technology”, Alliance for Affordable Internet blog post, 2 May 2017, available at http://a4ai.
org/without-energy-the-internet-is-just-a-black-hole-creating-energy-solutions-for-information-and-communicationstechnology/; and Anna Lerner, Roku Fukui and Doyle Gallegos, “Electricity and the Internet: two markets, one
big opportunity”, World Bank Blogs post, 25 may 2017, available at https://blogs.worldbank.org/digital-development/
electricity-and-internet-two-markets-one-big-opportunity.
Georges V. Houngbonon, Erwan Le Quentrec and Stefania Rubrichi, “Access to electricity and digital inclusion:
evidence from mobile call detail records”, Humanities and Social Science Communications, vol. 8, article No. 170(2021), available at https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00848-0.
United Nations, Sustainable Development Goals Report 2021 (Sales No. E.21.I.3), p. 45, available at chromeextension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2021/The-Sustainable-DevelopmentGoals-Report-2021.pdf.
International Energy Agency and others, The Energy Progress Report, Tracking SDG 7, available at http://
trackingSDG7.esmap.org/.
International Telecommunication Union, Measuring Digital Development: Facts and Figures 2021 (Geneva, 2021),
available at https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/facts/default.aspx
United Nations, Internet Governance Forum, “Policy Network on Meaningful Access (PNMA)”, available athttps://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/policy-network-on-meaningful-access-pnma.

159

Chapter 42022 UN E-Government Survey
56

57

58

59

60

61
62
63

64
65
66
67
68

69

70

71
72
73
74

75
76
77
78

160

Anne Delaporte and Kalvin Bahia, The State of Mobile Internet Connectivity 2021 (London, GSM Association,2021), available at https://www.gsma.com/r/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/The-State-of-Mobile-Internet-ConnectivityReport-2021.pdf.
United Nations, Sustainable Development Goals Report 2021 (Sales No. E.21.I.3), p. 45, available at chromeextension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2021/The-Sustainable-DevelopmentGoals-Report-2021.pdf.
Anna Read and Lily Gong, “States Considering Range of Options to Bring Broadband to Rural America”, Pew
Research Center, 29 March 2022, available at: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2022/03/29/
states-considering-range-of-options-to-bring-broadband-to-rural-america
World Wide Web Foundation, “Meaningful connectivity: a new measure for Internet access”, news and blogs (28February 2022), available at https://webfoundation.org/2022/02/meaningful-connectivity-a-new-measure-for-internetaccess/.
Internet Society, “Internet accessibility: Internet use by persons with disabilities: moving forward”, Growing theInternet (1 November 2012), available at https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2012/internet-accessibilityinternet-use-by-persons-with-disabilities-moving-forward/.
Legal Monitor Worldwide, “Pandemic highlights importance of broadband access” (24 April 2020), available athttps://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A621780936/ITOF?u=ull_ttda&sid=ITOF&xid=78eb3f7d.
Giga website, available at https://gigaconnect.org/.
International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, “Every Community Connected: a call to action,a pledge to engage” (16 October 2020), available at https://www.ifla.org/news/every-community-connected-a-callto-action-a-pledge-to-engage/.
Teddy Woodhouse, Sustainable, Universal Access to the Internet: Environmental Implications and Policy Choices, Lisa
van Wyk, ed. (Alliance for Affordable Internet, 2021), available at https://a4ai.org/research/sustainable-access-report/.
Alliance for Affordable Internet, A4AI Affordability Report 2018, available at https://a4ai.org/affordability-report/
report/2018//.
Masha Zager, “Municipal fiber in Sweden”, Broadband Communities magazine (November/December 2019), available
at https://www.bbcmag.com/community-broadband/municipal-fiber-in-sweden.
UNESCO, 2021.
International Telecommunication Union, Measuring Digital Development: Facts and Figures 2021 (Geneva, 2021),
available at https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/facts/default.aspx; see also https://www.itu.int/itu-d/reports/
statistics/facts-figures-2021/.
Stephen R. Anderson, “How many languages are there in the world?” Brochure Series (Washington, D.C.,
Linguistic Society of America, 2010), available at https://www.linguisticsociety.org/content/how-many-languagesare-there-world.
Maggie Fick and Paresh Dave, “Facebook’s flood of languages leave it struggling to monitor content”, Reuters, 23
April 2019, available at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-languages-insight/facebooks-flood-of-languagesleave-it-struggling-to-monitor-content-idUSKCN1RZ0DW.
Marcel Diki-Kidiri, Securing a Place for Language in Cyberspace (CI.2007/WS/1) (Paris, United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2008), available at https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000149786_eng.
Miguel Trancozo Trevino, “The many languages missing from the Internet” BBC, 15 April 2020, available athttps://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200414-the-many-lanuages-still-missing-from-the-internet.
“The true meaning of leaving no one behind”, The Lancet Global Health, editorial, vol. 7, No. 5 (1 May 2019),
p. e533, available at DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30176-7.
United Nations, “Using technology for multilingual learning: challenges and opportunities”, International Mother
Language Day, 21 February 2022, observances/announcements, available at https://www.un.org/en/observances/mother-language-day.
United Nations, “Using technology for multilingual learning: challenges and opportunities”, International Mother
Language Day 2022, 21 February 2022, UN Web TV clip, available at https://media.un.org/en/asset/k1t/k1t0k5i4sm.
Iman Ghosh, 2021. All World Languages in One Visualization https://www.visualcapitalist.com/a-world-of-languages/
African Academy of Sciences, “Mobility schemes: Science and Language Mobility Scheme Africa”, available athttps://www.aasciences.africa/aesa/programmes/mobility-schemes-science-and-language-mobility-scheme-africa.
United Nations, Internet Government Forum, “IGF 2020 WS #271 multilingualism online: old challenges andnew perspectives”, session summary (2020), available at https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2020ws-271-multilingualism-online-old-challenges-and-new-perspectives#undefined.

Chapter 4

Chapter 4 • Leaving no one behind in the hybrid digital society
79

80

81
82
83
84

85

86
87
88

89

90

91
92

93
94

95
96

97

98

99

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Indicators and a Monitoring Framework for the
Sustainable Development Goals: Launching a Data Revolution (Leadership Council Sustainable Development Solutions
Network, 12 June 2015), p. 97, available for download at https://sdgs.un.org/publications/indicators-and-monitoringframework-sustainable-development-goals-17958.
UNESCO, Leibniz Institute for Media Research and Hans-Bredow-Institut, “Assessing Internet developmentin Germany: using UNESCO’s Internet Universality ROAM-X Indicators; executive summary”, programme andmeeting document (CI-2021/WS/3) (2021).
United Nations, “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” (A/RES/70/1 para48), available at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld.
Alex Cobham, “Uncounted: power, inequalities and the post-2015 data revolution”, guest editorial, Development,
vol. 57, No. 3 (December 2014), pp. 320-337.
United Nations, “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” (A/RES/70/1 para.48),
available at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld.
United Nations, High-level Group for Partnership, Coordination and Capacity-Building for Statistics for the2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Cape Town Global Action Plan for Sustainable Development Data,
launched 15 January 2017, p. 2, available at https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/hlg/Cape_Town_Global_Action_Plan_for_
Sustainable_Development_Data.pdf.
Alison Holder, Maricar Garde and Jessica Espey, A Fair Chance at Life: Why Equity Matters for Child Mortality(London, International Save the Children Alliance, 2010), available at http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/sites/
default/files/docs/A_Fair_Chance_at_Life_1.pdf.
Asian Development Bank, Practical Guidebook on Data Disaggregation for the Sustainable Development Goals (May2021), available at http://dx.doi.org/10.22617/TIM210117-2.
Note: See definition of OGD in UN E-Government Survey 2020
United Nations, United Nations E-Government Survey 2020: Digital Government in the Decade of Action for
Sustainable Development (Sales No. E.20.II.H.1), chap. 6: “Towards data-centric e-government”, available at https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/Reports/UN-E-Government-Survey-2020.
United Nations, Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth, “Statistical Commission adds last piece forfull implementation of SDGs” (2017), available at http://www.un.org/youthenvoy/2017/03/statistical-commissionadds-last-piece-full-implementation-sdgs/.
Vyjayanti T. Desai, “Making the invisible billion more visible: the power of digital identification”, World Bank
Blogs, 22 February 2016, available at http://blogs.worldbank.org/ic4d/making-invisible-billion-more-visible-powerdigital-identification.
World Bank, “Financial Inclusion - Financial inclusion is a key enabler to reducing poverty and boosting prosperity”,
available at https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/financialinclusion/overview
United Nations, Report on the World Social Situation 2016—Leaving No One Behind: The Imperative of Inclusive
Development (Sales No. E.16.IV.1), available at https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/report-of-the-worldsocial-situation-2016.html#:~:text=The%202016%20Report%20on%20the,%2C%20ethnic%20minorities%2C%20
indigenous%20peoples%2C.
Kat Holmes, Mismatch: How Inclusion Shapes Design (Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press, 2020).
Commonwealth Local Government Forum, “Need to promote inclusivity in local government says CLGF SG”, 13
October 2016, available at http://www.clgf.org.uk/whats-new/news/need-to-promote-inclusivity-in-local-governmentsays-clgf-sg/.
Michiel S. de Vries, “How can public policies solve social problems?”, chapter 8 in Understanding Public
Administration (Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), p. 197.
United Nations, United Nations E-Government Survey 2018: Gearing E-Government to Support Transformation towards
Sustainable and Resilient Societies (Sales No. E.18.II.H.2), executive summary, available at https://publicadministration.
un.org/en/research/un-e-government-surveys. Executive Summary.
United Nations, United Nations E-Government Survey 2020: Digital Government in the Decade of Action for
Sustainable Development (Sales No. E.20.II.H.1), chap. 5: “E-participation”, available at https://publicadministration.
un.org/egovkb/en-us/Reports/UN-E-Government-Survey-2020.
Naveed Haq, Promoting digital accessibility: for persons with disabilities, with persons with disabilities”, InternetSociety blog post, 13 February 2017, available at https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2017/02/promoting-digitalaccessibility-for-persons-with-disabilities-with-persons-with-disabilities/.
Adopted in 2018 as key component 7 of the Digital Pakistan Policy, available at http://moib.gov.pk/Downloads/
Policy/DIGITAL_PAKISTAN_POLICY(22-05-2018).pdf.

161

Chapter 42022 UN E-Government Survey
100 Alliance for Affordable Internet, “Building inclusive Universal Service and Access Fund (USAF) projects”, available

at https://a4ai.org/studies/building-inclusive-universal-service-and-access-fund-usaf-projects/.

101 Isabelle Carboni and others, Connected Women: The Mobile Gender Gap Report 2021 (London, GSM Association,2021), available at https://www.gsma.com/r/gender-gap/.

102 Amelia Bleeker, Using Universal Service Funds to Access Technology for Persons with Disabilities in the Caribbean,Studies and Perspectives Series, No. 79 (LC/CAR/TS.2019/2) (Santiago, Economic Commission for Latin America
and the Caribbean, 2019), available at https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/44913/1/S1900752_en.pdf.

103 United Nations, Internet Governance Forum, “UN Secretary-General remarks to the IGF 2019”.

104 Christian Kuran, et al., “Vulnerability and vulnerable groups from an intersectionality perspective”, International

Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol 50, 2020.

105 Capgemini Consulting, “Unleashing the potential of artificial intelligence in the public sector” (2017).

106 Malaka Gharib, “The pandemic pushed this farmer Into deep poverty. Then something amazing happened”,

available at https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/02/15/966848542/the-pandemic-pushed-this-farmerinto-deep-poverty-then-something-amazing-happene.

107 See the 2022 Member States Questionnaires.

108 Pia Singh, “Internet is far from being accessible for all people with disabilities, accessiBe says”, CNBC, 29 July2021.

109 Internet Live Stats, Internet users in the world and total number of websites, accessed in 2022, available athttps://www.internetlivestats.com/.

110 Yale University, “Types of disabilities”, Usability & Web Accessibility page, available at https://usability.yale.edu/

web-accessibility/articles/types-disabilities.

111 Usability.gov is a public resource established by the United States General Services Administration’s Technology

Transformation Service to share user experience best practices and guidelines with the aim of making digital content
more usable and useful for all; see the “about us” and “accessibility basics” sections of the website, available athttps://www.usability.gov/.

112 Bangladesh, Access to Information (A2i) Program, “Innovation Lab is changing the scenario” (accessed in 2022),

available at https://a2i.gov.bd/innovation-lab/#1509873205931-2079cb0c-4eac.

113 W3C, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, W3C Recommendation, available at https://www.

w3.org/TR/WCAG20/.

114 Kat Holmes, Mismatch: How Inclusion Shapes Design (Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press, 2020).

115 Andrew Perrin and Sara Atske, “Americans with disabilities less likely than those without to own some digital

devices” (Pew Research Center, 10 September 2021), available at https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/10/
americans-with-disabilities-less-likely-than-those-without-to-own-some-digital-devices.

116 Ernest Hamilton, “AccessiBe’s search engine accessFind is launched to help those with disabilities find accessible

websites”, Tech Times, 14 June 2021, available at https://www.techtimes.com/articles/261437/20210614/accessibessearch-engine-accessfind-is-launched-to-help-those-with-disabilities-find-accessible-websites.htm.

117 Meta, “Using AI to improve photo descriptions for people who are blind and visually impaired” (19 January2021), available at https://about.fb.com/news/2021/01/using-ai-to-improve-photo-descriptions-for-blind-and-visuallyimpaired-people/.

118 C. Low, “Accessibility in tech improved in 2020, but more must be done. How did the industry’s biggest

companies perform?” Engadget website, 23 December 2020, available at https://www.engadget.com/accessibilityin-tech-2020-150002855.html.

119 Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure, website available at https://gpii.net/.

120 Scott Hollier, “The growing importance of accessible social media”, in Disability and Social Media: Global Perspectives,Katie Ellis and Mike Kent, eds. (London and New York, Routledge, 2017), p. 84.

121 United Nations, Committee of Experts on Public Administration, “Contribution to the 2016 thematic review of

the High-level Political Forum (HLPF)”, 15 April 2016, fifteenth session of the United Nations Committee ofExperts on Public Administration, New York, 18-22 April 2016.

122 International Organization for Migration, “Town criers, troubadors raise COVID-19 awareness in rural Chad”,

news-global, 24 April 2020, available at https://www.iom.int/news/town-criers-troubadors-raise-covid-19-awarenessrural-chad.

162

Chapter 4

Chapter 4 • Leaving no one behind in the hybrid digital society
123 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, “Figure 3.7. The gap in high-speed Internet accessbetween urban and rural areas is large in many OECD countries”, in How’s Life? 2020: Measuring Well-being,available at https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/9870c393-en/1/3/3/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/9870c393en&_csp_=fab41822851fa020ad60bb57bb82180a&itemIGO=oecd&itemContentType=book#figure-d1e6473; Alliance
for Affordable Internet, Rural Broadband Policy Framework, available at https://a4ai.org/rural-broadband-policyframework/; and Helani Galpaya, Ayesha Zainudeen and Tharaka Amarasinghe, “AfterAccess Asia Report 3.0”,
LIRNEasia, 22 May 2019, available at https://lirneasia.net/2019/05/afteraccess-asia-report3/.

124 United Nations, Economic and Social Council, conference room paper on eradicating poverty and promoting

prosperity while leaving no one behind: implications for public administration, prepared for the sixteenth sessionof the United Nations Committee of Experts on Public Administration, held in New York from 24 to 28 April
2017.

125 United Nations, Economic and Social Council, “Background note on challenges for institutions in ensuring thatno one is left behind: draft contribution by the Committee of Experts on Public Administration to the 2016
thematic review of the High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development”, fifteenth session of the United
Nations Committee of Experts on Public Administration, New York, 18-22 April 2016.

126 United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs and Economic and Social Commission for Western

Asia, “Formal/informal institutions for citizen engagement for implementing the post-2015 development agenda:
report of the Expert Group Meeting”, Paris, 20-21 October 2014 (ST/ESA/PAD/SER.E/202), pp. 14-15.

127 Felix Dodds, “Multi-stakeholder partnerships: making them work for the post-2015 development agenda” (2015),

available at https://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/newfunct/pdf15/2015partnerships_background_note.pdf.

128 United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, “Policy Brief No. 123: Sandboxing and experimenting

digital technologies for sustainable development” (3 December 2021).

129 Adam Corlett, Examining an Elephant: Globalization and the Lower Middle Class of the Rich World (London,

Resolution Foundation, September 2016), available at http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2016/09/
Examining-an-elephant.pdf.

130 Internet Society, “Issue Paper: Asia-Pacific Bureau Digital Accessibility” (May 2017).

131 ODI, “‘Leave no one behind’ – five years into Agenda 2030 Guidelines for turning the concept into action”, 21January 2021, available at: https://odi.org/en/publications/leave-no-one-behind-five-years-into-agenda-2030-guidelinesfor-turning-the-concept-into-action/.

132 Niki Rodousakis and Antonio Mendes dos Santos, “The development of inclusive e-government in Austria andPortugal: a comparison of two success stories, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, vol. 21,
No. 4, pp. 283-316, available at https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610802591892.

133 Digital Watch, “Malaysia launches digital inclusion council” (17 October 2019), available at https://dig.watch/

updates/malaysia-launches-digital-inclusion-council.

134 Smart Nation Singapore, “Digital Society”, available at https://www.smartnation.gov.sg/about-smart-nation/digital-society; the first of the bullet points highlighting the pillars of the programme calls for “making technology moreaccessible to every Singaporean”.

135 United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Youth Participation Committees, Republic of Korea,

United Nations Public Service Awards, 1st place winner, 2010.

136 United Nations Economic and Social Council, “Background note on challenges for institutions in ensuring thatno one is left behind: draft contribution by the Committee of Experts on Public Administration to the 2016
thematic review of the High-Level Forum on Sustainable Development”, prepared for the fifteenth session of
the United Nations Committee on Public Administration, held in New York from 18 to 22 April 2016.

137 United Nations, WSIS Action Lines and Facilitators, World Summit on the Information Society, WSIS+10

United Nations General Assembly High-Level Meeting, available at https://publicadministration.un.org/wsis10/
WSIS-Action-Lines-and-Facilitators.

138 Singapore, Government Technology Agency, “Digital Government Exchange (DGX) reports” (24 January 2022),

available at https://www.tech.gov.sg/media/corporate-publications/digital-government-exchange-reports.

139 United Nations, “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” (A/RES/70/1) paras.

17.9 and 17.16, available at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld.

163

Chapter 42022 UN E-Government Survey

164

Chapter 5

Chapter 5 • The Future of Digital Government: Trends, Insights and Conclusions

5. The Future of Digital
Government: Trends,
Insights and Conclusions
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is an agenda forpeople, planet, prosperity, peace and partnership. It promotes novel
approaches to achieving sustainable development in all countries,
embracing innovative solutions that can propel humanity forward.
The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) formulated by theUnited Nations as part of the Agenda articulate the most urgent global
challenges within a coherent framework and serve as the blueprint forbuilding a better world.
Information and communications technology (ICT) has played a key rolein promoting innovation in governance, supporting the development of
e-government and serving the broader goals of sustainable developmentin multiple sectors. Progress in e-government has a direct impact on therealization of Goals 16 and 17 but also contributes to the achievementof many other SDGs and related targets. It is envisioned that the roleof e-government will continue to grow in terms of providing public
services, responding to crises and emergencies such as pandemics,
and strengthening digital cooperation and collaboration at the global
and regional levels as outlined in the Secretary-General’s report on
digital cooperation.1 In Our Common Agenda, the Secretary-Generalemphasizes that the fourth industrial revolution has changed the world
and that digitalization—and, by extension, digital government—fosters
collaboration, connection and sustainable development and “is a global
public good that should benefit everyone, everywhere”.2
Since 2001, the United Nations Department of Economic and Social
Affairs (UN DESA) has been monitoring the progress of e-government
development in Member States through the United Nations E-Government
Survey. Over the past decade, this report has become an invaluable asset
for countries, providing longitudinal insights on digital public services
and serving as benchmark for measuring and evaluating e-government
development. The United Nations E-Government Survey tracks progressand offers rigorous, data-driven country and regional analyses byassessing findings reflected in the E-Government Development Index(EGDI), a composite index based on the weighted average of threenormalized subindices—the Telecommunications Infrastructure Index(TII), the Human Capital Index (HCI), and the Online Services Index (OSI).
Based on index values, Member States are ranked and assigned to one
of four main groups (very high, high, middle or low), each of which isfurther divided into four distinct rating classes or quartile subgroups formore granular analysis. The present Survey provides an assessment ofprogress in e-government development at the global, regional, national
and local levels and offers observations relating to key digital principles
essential for the achievement of the SDGs.

Photo credit: pixabay.com

In this chapter:
5.1 Megatrends at the global andregional levels
166
5.2 The impact of the COVID-19
pandemic on digital
government
170
5.3 The importance of engaging
the private sector
173
5.4 The future of digitaltransformation in
the public sector

175

5.4.1 Open Government
Data

176

5.4.2	Cloud computing
technology

177

5.4.3	Cybersecurity, privacy
data protection issues 179
5.4.4 Evolving technologies
and new approaches indigital government
180
5.5 Digital government at the
local level

182

5.6	Leaving no one behind in thedigital society
183
5.7	Conclusions

184

Chapter 5165

Chapter 52022 UN E-Government Survey

The present edition of the E-Government Survey illustrates how e-government has evolved from asiloed, technocratic approach to governance in a handful of high-income countries to a whole-ofgovernment and whole-of-society approach undertaken in a broad range of countries; guided byits provisional title focusing on the future of digital government for sustainable development, thisedition also offers observations on expected future trends. E-government is now an essential featureof governance, playing a central role in the way Governments operate at virtually all levels.
The digital revolution has unleashed almost unfathomable opportunities for sustainable
development. More than any previous technological transformation, the digital age is characterized
by interdependence, requiring international cooperation between Governments, industries, scientificand technological communities, and civil society in a wide range of sectors and areas, including tradeand finance, communications, e-government and cyber security.
According to a recent estimate, global Internet Protocol (IP) traffic, a proxy for data flows, increased
from about 100 gigabytes (GB) per day in 1992 to more than 45,000 GB per second in 2017; in
2021, global IP traffic has exceeded all Internet traffic up to 2016, and in 2022, it is projected toreach 150,700 GB per second as more people come online and the Internet of Things (IoT) continues
to expand. The global digital economy is expected to reach $25 trillion within 5-6 years and is alreadygrowing at a faster rate than global gross domestic product (GDP).3
This final chapter summarizes the key findings detailed in the previous chapters and offers forecasts
on the future of digital government. It examines the rise of the digital economy and the shift froman operational e-government approach to a more strategic, policy-oriented and politically driven
agenda guiding e-government development. The chapter explores how artificial intelligence (AI) andother frontier technologies are driving the evolution of anticipatory, predictive and responsive digital
services and highlights other trends in e-government development at the global, regional, national
and local levels (analysed in depth in chapters 1-3). The importance of leaving no one behind—by
ensuring that government services and opportunities to contribute to governance are made available
to all segments of the population both online and offline in the hybrid digital society (covered inchapter 4)—is addressed at the end of this chapter.

5.1

Megatrends at the global and regional levels

The growing reliance on digital technologies to meet everyday needs and to address special challenges(such as mitigating the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic) has increased the urgency surrounding
the digital transformation across the world, contributing to improved EGDI values for most United
Nations Member States. While the upward trend is encouraging, overall e-government development
has not gained significant momentum over the past two years, with the global average EGDI value
rising only slightly from 0.5988 in 2020 to 0.6102 in 2022 (see figure 5.1).
As noted in chapter 1, the numbers of countries in the very high and high EGDI groups have risen,while the totals for the middle and low EGDI groups have declined. Between 2020 and 2022, thenumber of countries in the very high and high EGDI groups increased from 57 to 60 and from 69 to
73, respectively, while the middle and low EGDI groups saw respective declines from 59 to 53 andfrom 8 to 7. More than two thirds of the world’s countries are now in the high or very high EGDI
group, reflecting sustained e-government development.

166

Chapter 5

Chapter 5 • The Future of Digital Government: Trends, Insights and Conclusions

Figure 5.1

EGDI Global and Regional Average Value

EGDI

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6

0.54910.5
0.4

0.48820.47120.61020.59880.49220.41780.4256

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
2006

2008

2010
Europe

2012
Asia

2014
Americas

2016
Oceania2018

2020
Africa

2022

2024

World

Source: 2008 - 2022 Untied Nations E-Government Surveys

A growing number of countries have strengthened their institutional and legal frameworks for
e-government development. Most countries have a national digital government strategy, as well as
legislation on cybersecurity, personal data protection, national data policy, open government data,and e-participation. Individuals and businesses are increasingly able to interact with public institutions
through online platforms, obtain information on legislation relating to freedom of information, andaccess public content and data.
The higher overall value for global e-government development in 2022 is largely attributable toprogress made in strengthening telecommunications infrastructure, though online services provision
has also improved. Over the past two years, most countries have concentrated on dealing with the
COVID-19 pandemic, prioritizing online services provision centred around health, education, social
protection, and in some cases justice. The most notable expansion in online services provision has
been in the area of social protection; the number of countries with national portals that allow users
to apply for benefits such as maternity care, child subsidies, pensions, housing, and food allowances
has grown by 17 per cent since 2020. As noted in chapter 1, the number of countries providing atleast 1 of the 22 online services assessed in the 2022 Survey has increased by 16.7 per cent globally,
and 61 per cent of the Member States offer more than 16 services.
There is a clear trend towards the full digitalization of government services, which would give users
the ability to complete virtually all types of transactions entirely online. At present, however, many
countries use their portals to provide information and offer only partially digitalized services, withcitizens needing to appear at government offices in person to complete most transactions.
Despite investments in technology and the development gains achieved in many countries, the digital
divide persists. Ongoing challenges continue to undermine the development efforts of countries in
special situations, in particular least developed countries (LDCs). In Africa, for example, the cost ofmobile broadband subscriptions as a percentage of per capita gross national income remains very
high in relative terms.
167

Chapter 52022 UN E-Government Survey

Using the global average EGDI value as a proxy for measuring the digital divide, the 2022 Survey
indicates that about 45 per cent of the combined population of the United Nations Member States(3.5 billion people) still lag behind; the map in figure 5.2 illustrates which areas of the world are mostvulnerable within this context.
Figure 5.2

Geographical distribution of countries with EGDI values above and below the global average
EGDI value

Global average EGDI (0.6102)
Higher than average
Lower than average
No data

UNITED NATIONS Geospatial
The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.
Dotted line represents approximately the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir agreed upon by India and Pakistan. The final status of Jammu and Kashmir has not yet been agreed upon by the parties.
Final boundary between the Republic of Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan has not yet been determined.
A dispute exists between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).

Map No. 4642.25
Jul 2022

As illustrated in chapters 1 and 2, digital development is accelerating in both developed anddeveloping countries. The world’s continents are more connected, and almost all Governments areproducing innovative web-based applications and dynamic new business models to transform thedelivery of education, health and other public services. However, the path to digital inclusion andsustainable development remains fraught with obstacles and uncertainties, especially in Africa andamong LDCs and small island developing States (SIDS). As pointed out by United Nations Deputy
Secretary-General Amina Mohammed, the digital divide will become “the new face of inequality”
unless decisive action is taken by the international community.4
Progress in bridging the digital divide through e-government development varies from one region
to another. In Africa, 95 per cent of the population lags behind; only 4 of the region’s 54 countries(South Africa, Mauritius, Seychelles and Tunisia) have EGDI values above the world average, andthe very high EGDI group includes none of the countries in Africa. Nevertheless, there are positive(if fragmented) signs of digital progress in the region, reflected in the movement of Côte d’Ivoire,
Zambia and Rwanda from the middle to the high EGDI group and the significant improvement in
EGDI values for Guinea, Madagascar, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Algeria and Benin
between 2020 and 2022.

168

As shown in Figure 5.1, all of the world regions have improved their average EGDI values overthe past two years, with the exception of Oceania, which registered a decline for the first timesince 2016, largely owing to challenges linked to telecommunications infrastructure development.
In Oceania, 11 of the 12 SIDS have EGDI values lower than the world average, leaving 92 per centof the population on the wrong side of the digital divide. However, the region also includes top
performers New Zealand and Australia, Fiji has an EGDI value higher than the world average, andNauru and Vanuatu have seen significant improvement in their EGDI values.

Chapter 5

Chapter 5 • The Future of Digital Government: Trends, Insights and Conclusions

While Asia has distinguished itself as the region with the highest proportion (51 per cent) of countries
with improved EGDI values, it nonetheless mirrors the global megatrend; 19 of the region’s 47
countries have EGDI values below the world average, and almost 45 per cent of the population lags
behind in terms of EGDI development indicators. Among these 19 countries, however, some positive
development patterns have emerged; Jordan and Bangladesh have seen a notable increase in their
EGDI values, and Lebanon, Nepal and Tajikistan have moved to a higher EGDI group—illustrating theability of Asian developing countries to strengthen their digital capacity and benefit from evolving
digitalization opportunities to achieve the SDGs.
Levels of e-government development are higher overall in the Americas, where 21 of the 35 countries
surveyed have EGDI values above the global average and just under 11 per cent of the population
lags behind. Among countries with EGDI values below the world average, development trends havebeen mixed; Grenada, Suriname, Jamaica, and Saint Kitts and Nevis have improved their high EGDI
values, and Guyana and Belize have moved from the middle to the high EGDI group, while Dominica,
El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Venezuela have seen a decline in their EGDI values, and Haiti
has moved down to the lowest EGDI group.
Table 5.1 shows the geographical distribution of the population in countries with EGDI values aboveand below the world average for 2022.
In the preamble to resolution 73/218, the General Assembly emphasizes that “there is a pressing needto address the major impediments that developing countries face in accessing new technologies”,
highlighting the fact that “important and growing digital divides remain between and withindeveloped and developing countries in terms of the availability, affordability and use of informationand communications technologies and access to broadband”.
Table 5.1

Regional distribution of the population in countries with EGDI values above and below theaverage global EGDI value, 2022

Geographical distribution of the population

Population (in thousands)

Percentage

All 193 Member States

7,750,030

100.0%Countries with EGDI values below the global average

3,434,715

44.3%

United Nations Member States

AfricaAll 54 countries in Africa

1,338,827

Countries with EGDI values below the global average

1,266,329

94.6%

AmericasAll 35 countries in the Americas
Countries with EGDI values below the global average

1,018,121
108,966

10.7%

Asia
All 47 countries in Asia

4,603,990

Countries with EGDI values below the global average

2,060,61244.8%

EuropeAll 43 countries in Europe

747,294

Countries with EGDI values below the global average

0.0%

Oceania
All 12 countries in Oceania (excluding Australia and New Zealand)

11,476Countries with EGDI values below the global average

10,58092.2%

169Chapter 52022 UN E-Government Survey

For many developing countries and countries in special situations, productive participation in thedigital economy represents a massive, complex challenge. Pursuing digital economic integration
without the appropriate institutional support, regulations, policies and strategies can lead to job
losses, increased inequality, and data privacy and security issues. ICT has the potential to provide new
solutions to development challenges and to integrate developing and least developed countries into
the global economy, but international guidance and support are needed to help mitigate the risks
for these countries. The global community can best support the digital transformation of countries
in need through multilateral and multistakeholder approaches using United Nations and other global
and regional platforms, forging effective partnerships with national and regional regulatory anddevelopment organizations and the private sector and improving local technical capabilities at boththe institutional and individual levels.
Now is the time to act. The digital divide existed long before COVID-19 but has been exacerbatedby the pandemic, which has created new obstacles to national and local digital transformation.
The ongoing humanitarian, economic and health crisis has had the greatest impact on the mostvulnerable in society, especially children and youth, women and girls, older people, and persons
with disabilities. In addressing development and pandemic-driven challenges, Governments mustprioritize vulnerable populations and ensure that their health, rights and dignity are safeguarded.
Recovery offers the chance for true transformation. Using the SDGs as a guide for post-COVID
recovery can help ensure that no one is left behind and no one is left offline. Efforts should focus on
strengthening infrastructure and collaboration of all kinds (between cities, at the regional level, andwith international organizations) to ensure that e-services are available and accessible for all.

5.2

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on digital government

The emergence of COVID-19 revealed just how unprepared most Governments were to deal with anextended global crisis, but over the past two years the pandemic has driven efforts to achieve a real
digital government transformation in support of building a sustainable and digitally resilient society.
COVID-19 has given Governments the chance to demonstrate that they can play a central role inaddressing society-wide challenges. As noted in the previous edition of the Survey, “the COVID-19
pandemic has forced Governments and societies to turn towards digital technologies to respond tothe crisis in the short term, resolve socioeconomic repercussions in the midterm, and reinvent existing
policies and tools in the long term”.
New technologies have played a crucial role in government efforts to coordinate the pandemic
response and elicit public cooperation during the crisis, keeping societies functional during rolling
lockdowns and underpinning solutions across sectors and borders. Now, the global community isshifting its attention to the far-reaching implications and impact of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout,which will finally enable countries to transition from crisis response to recovery and rebuilding.
During the pandemic, many countries have adopted policies and implemented initiatives aimed
at increasing connectivity, with an emphasis on bringing more people (especially underserved
populations) online. One recent example is the new Digital Terrestrial Television infrastructure in
Kenya, which is intended to serve millions of low-income households. Countries are becoming
increasingly interested and involved in exploring how digital technologies can be used to support
development and advance the SDGs.6
The number of Internet users rose from 4.1 billion in 2019 to 5.2 billion in 2022.7 Statistics from theInternational Telecommunication Union (ITU) indicate that the number of Internet users rose by 782
million (17 per cent) during this period.8

170Chapter 5

Chapter 5 • The Future of Digital Government: Trends, Insights and Conclusions

More than ever before, Governments are inviting input from a wide range of stakeholders throughcollaborative partnerships and even public crowdsourcing to bring in ideas on effective approaches todealing with the COVID-19 crisis. Digital advancements and e-government development have been
particularly noteworthy—and in some respects transformative—for the health-care and education
sectors.
Governments have made digital technologies a key component of their COVID-19 response
strategies to improve coordination and communication between different agencies and to provide
residents with easy access to information about the public health situation. The goal has been to
streamline inter-agency communication and support the open exchange of information between the
Government and the people in order to address challenges driven by the pandemic.
Digital technologies are also being used to improve vaccine delivery. The World Health Organization(WHO) has created a digital platform that allows the monitoring of vaccines from production to
distribution, helping to ensure that there is better coordination between the different agencies
involved in the process and that vaccines are tracked, delivered and administered in a timely andorganized manner.9
Procurement processes—traditionally rigid and time-consuming—have been improved in many
countries to allow Governments to respond more expeditiously to the urgent demands surrounding
the pandemic. Public authorities have often been able to secure masks and testing kits and construct
COVID-19 treatment facilities with unprecedented speed and efficiency. India, for example, hasdeveloped an e-procurement system for all purchases related to COVID-19, reducing the average bid
time from two weeks to three days. The United States Navy has “accelerated” its supply acquisition
time by an average of 32 per cent and has strengthened overall efficiency in procurement—even
with a 95 per cent remote workforce.10
Digital technologies have constituted a key component of the COVID-19 response efforts ofinternational agencies. For example, during the initial months of the pandemic, the Europe andCentral Asia Regional Office of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF ECARO) collaborated
with its parent organization and EPAM Systems to develop HealthBuddy Covid-19, a chatbot app
trusted as a credible source of COVID-19 information and advice. About a year later, ECARO worked
with WHO/Europe on the development of HealthBuddy+ to provide verified factual information on
COVID-19 and to actively engage communities in reporting rumours and preventing the spread of
misinformation.11
Virtual communication has become the norm, challenging many of the conventional approaches
to working, interacting with different stakeholders, and providing services in the public sector. New
operating standards have emerged that allow greater adaptability and collaboration. Governments
are accelerating the digital transformation by migrating to cloud-based services such as Microsoft
Office 365 and Amazon Web Services for better productivity, security and collaboration.12
Online video platforms are convenient and facilitate increased interaction in multiple contexts.
Community engagement in e-government has become more inclusive, as all those interested can
now participate via electronic forums. Working together on virtual collaboration platforms enables
government agencies and community members to communicate in real time and to share ideas andinformation that can enhance the quality of life or stimulate economic progress.
Some of the most dramatic shifts towards increased digitalization have occurred in education andthe world of work. The boundaries of the ICT infrastructure have been pushed by remote work anddistance education. In business and professional contexts there has been a shift towards increased
flexibility; in many cases around the world, employees no longer have to live where they work,
Zoom and Microsoft Teams have taken the place of conventional office meetings, and line-of-sight

171

Chapter 52022 UN E-Government Survey

supervision is no longer a given. Online education has been available for many years but traditionallyconstituted a niche option or add-on; with the pandemic-driven restrictions on movement andcontact, remote schooling became the norm in many settings for an extended period, compelling
Governments to expand digital capacities and institute new educational policies aimed at addressing
evolving needs. As has happened in the workplace, many of the pandemic-related remote learning
adjustments in the education sector have been normalized and integrated within a more flexible
vision of what is considered standard practice. For example, the Department of Education for thestate of New South Wales has launched a digital strategy for schools that allows students in Australia
to learn through personalized and flexible programmes and enhances collaboration between teachersand parents.13
The restrictions surrounding COVID-19 have forced Governments to look at services delivery
in a different light. Conventional wisdom has long dictated that personalization requires humancontact, but this assumption has been challenged by emerging digital options. Digital platforms andapplications tend to have a relatively simple, intuitive and user-friendly interface, offering greater
accessibility and more personalized services provision. Site administrators often invite feedback inorder to improve the user experience. Only a few government services require in-person delivery; themajority can be provided fully online. During the pandemic, the Government of the United Kingdom
has scaled the concept of digital justice, holding many court proceedings online. The United States
Supreme Court is conducting hearings through teleconferencing platforms. The Government of
Spain has deployed an AI-powered health-sector chatbot called Hispabot-Covid 19 to answer over
200 questions on a variety of topics, including symptoms and emergency contact information.14
Digital identity has become more widely accepted by governments and in many cases physicalpresence is no longer required for services, with online methods established for identity verification
and authentication. In Chile, for example, a digital ID system allows users to enrol themselves as
beneficiaries in social programmes and check their support status online.15
The pandemic has accelerated the use of analytics and AI in e-government and business, and the2020 Global Trends report and various surveys indicate that this trend is likely to continue through2022.16 According to a PwC research study carried out in 2021, 52 per cent of companies in the
United States expedited their AI adoption plans as a result of the COVID-19 crisis, and 86 per centbelieved that AI would become a mainstream technology where they worked as early as last year.17
According to a survey carried out by the Harris Poll as part of a 2021 research study conducted by
Appen, 55 per cent of businesses said they had accelerated the implementation of their AI strategy
in 2020 as a result of the pandemic, and 67 per cent expected to expand their use of AI in 2021.18
The COVID-19 crisis has provided an impetus for digital expansion and development, which has
created the need for improved digital capacities and capabilities within the Government and amongusers. Many countries have allocated increased resources to training programmes that promote
digital literacy, the acquisition of coding skills, and digital media expertise. Internal coordination, open
access to government data, and interoperability have been key priorities in government digitalization
strategies. The Digital Nations group (comprising 10 digitally advanced nations) established a nonbinding charter in late 2021 that incorporates open data and transparency provisions and delineates
key principles for responsible and effective e-government.19 Similarly, the Open Data Charter
represents “a collaboration between over 150 Governments and organizations working to open up
data”.20 E-government interoperability is especially critical; many Governments have developed awhole-of-government digital architecture that has improved coordination and ensured continuity ofoperations across the public sector. Efforts are also being made to expand Internet accessibility andthe acquisition of digital skills for the general population.21 Strengthening the digital government
framework and empowering citizens with the tools they need to make well-informed decisions
effectively increase the capacity of Governments to function effectively in the digital era and prepare
for future crises.
172

Chapter 5

Chapter 5 • The Future of Digital Government: Trends, Insights and Conclusions

To improve their readiness for health emergencies, Governments are updating and upgrading datasystems to manage information-sharing between health-care providers, government agencies andthe public. Digitalization increases the speed of data transmission while also minimizing errors; italso enables better coordination and integration among health-care providers to improve treatment
efficacy. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in India has set up the National eHealth Authority(and its official website, the National Health Portal) using public and private investment resources.
Among other things, the Authority is responsible for developing and implementing health-related IT
systems in India and has launched the e-RaktKosh initiative “to connect, digitize and streamline theworkflow of blood banks across the nation”.22 Similar initiatives have sprung up around the world
during the pandemic, signalling the importance of global digital government transformation for thehealth and welfare of society.
Prior the pandemic, government regulations and policies tended to be inflexible and were often subject
to lengthy bureaucratic processes leading up to their adoption; by the time they were published,
they were often obsolete. The urgency surrounding the COVID-19 crisis has forced Governments tomove more swiftly. This has presented challenges at multiple levels; structural adjustments have beenrequired to streamline and speed up operations, and decision-making has become more complex, as
there are no precedents to guide Governments in dealing with a global pandemic. Governments stilllag behind commercial enterprises in leveraging digitalization for development. However, notable
progress has been made on a number of fronts; as noted previously, procurement processes forgovernment agencies were once rigid and time-consuming, but new approaches have been adopted
to ensure greater efficiency and faster response times in providing critical supplies and facilities.
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the world’s economies and societies andhas largely been responsible for accelerating the digital transformation process and for changing
the role of digitalization and the way it is perceived at the international, regional, national and local
levels. In a recent poll conducted in the United Kingdom, 60 per cent of those surveyed claim thatthey are more confident using digital public services now than before the pandemic began, and75 per cent say they would feel comfortable accessing these services via their smartphones. This
increase in confidence is directly correlated with the expansion of digital transformation efforts by
Governments.23
Governments that in the past may have responded with typical bureaucratic sluggishness andintransigence have demonstrated how quickly they can adapt and change course to address
immediate needs by leveraging the frontiers of technology and human inventiveness and by working
collaboratively with multiple stakeholders, including the private sector.

5.3

The importance of engaging the private sector

The private sector has been at the forefront of the digital transformation for a number of years, andthe COVID-19 pandemic has greatly accelerated developments in this area. Respondents to a survey
conducted by McKinsey & Company in mid-2020 indicated that the time needed to execute specificchanges within their companies for core internal operations (such as back-office, production, andR&D processes) and for interactions in their supply chains, had declined sharply; for many of thechanges, “companies acted 20 to 25 times faster than expected. In the case of remote working,respondents actually say their companies moved 40 times more quickly than they thought possible
before the pandemic.”24
Satya Nadella, Chief Executive Officer of Microsoft, remarked in April 2020 that the world wasseeing “several years’ worth of digital transformation in a few months as societies around the world
scrambled to adapt to the changes forced upon them by the COVID pandemic”.25 As Governments
imposed lockdowns and other social distancing measures, digital solutions allowed the health andeducation sectors to continue to operate. Many companies were able to rapidly provide employees
173

Chapter 52022 UN E-Government Survey

with digital tools to enable remote work, and retailers introduced or expanded digital sales platforms
to maintain relationships with customers.
Private companies have quickly adopted new digital technologies and innovative processes toimprove efficiency and productivity. The private sector has raised the bar on the customer experience,and the public sector is expected to keep up. As noted in the previous section, Governments havemade notable progress in a number of areas, but digital transformation is lagging overall due tobureaucratic red tape and a lack of resources.
Government decision makers worldwide are well aware of the importance and impact of digitalization
but acknowledge the many challenges that must be overcome to achieve comprehensive digitaltransformation. About 76 per cent of the 1,200 government officials from over 70 countries surveyed
for a recent Deloitte study believe that “digital technologies are disrupting the public sector”, and96 per cent characterize “the impact on their domain as significant”. However, nearly 70 per centof the respondents believe that the public sector lags behind the private sector in terms of digital
capabilities.26 About 37 per cent respondents indicate that they are satisfied with their organizations’current reaction to digital trends and have confidence in their readiness to move forward with largescale digitalization. The study identifies several key challenges facing government institutions as they
pursue digital transformation, including budget issues, the ageing population, and the preference ofmany millennials for private sector employment.
Budget issues constitute a challenge for all countries; developing countries must decide how toaddress a multitude of development priorities with limited resources, and developed countries arelocked into spending billions of dollars to maintain massive but largely obsolete “legacy systems”.
The United States Government, for example, still spends 70 per cent of its $100 billion IT budget
to support legacy systems, some of which date back to the 1970s.27 Removing these outdated
systems and replacing them with less expensive and more efficient new technologies will facilitate
digital transformation, help Governments adapt to evolving societal demands linked to increased
digitalization, and support the development of efficient, fully integrated systems that streamline
government processes—including the management of national crises and emergencies. Full-scale
public sector digitalization will take time; unlike private companies, public agencies are reluctant
to take risks in implementing innovative processes that are not fully tested or for which successful
outcomes are not assured. This slows the pace at which government agencies adopt new technologies
and practices that can improve the customer experience.
The pandemic has further reinforced the need for the public sector to catch up with the private sector
in terms of attracting talent and updating personnel skills. Over the past decade, the tedious public
sector hiring process and government shutdowns, furloughs and pay freezes have made millennials
lose interest in government jobs; much of this talent pool is being absorbed by enterprising private
sector companies.28 Upskilling the workforce is essential for digital government transformation but
is likely to prove challenging. In sectors such as health care and social services, greater emphasis isplaced on subject matter expertise than on proficiency in the use of digital technologies. Employees
in these sectors often lack technical skills but are reluctant to spend additional working hours intraining. Attracting the kind of talent needed for the next generation of digitalization requires
an ecosystem-centric approach in which the public sector plays an entrepreneurial role in society,“paying attention to concrete institutions and organizations in government that are able to create
long-run growth strategies” and working in partnership with the private sector to spur growthand innovation. Policy makers need to promote a culture of entrepreneurship by creating a more
symbiotic public-private innovation ecosystem and acting as lead risk taker and market shaperto ensure more opportunities for private sector engagement on innovation (including SMEs andstartups, for example). Governments should promote and strengthen this ecosystem by investing
more in research and development and by bringing expertise together and create willingness toinvest in high-growth and high-risk areas.29
174

Chapter 5

Chapter 5 • The Future of Digital Government: Trends, Insights and Conclusions

5.4

The future of digital transformation in the public sector

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed many of the shortcomings of government systems andpractices. Existing public sector institutions are not designed for rapid adaptation to sudden changes
or unexpected crises in society. They function largely on the basis of pre-pandemic industrial-era
assumptions about how government should operate and are therefore not equipped for rapid
response or information dissemination in emergency situations.
Digital transformation changes the status quo, requiring Governments to adopt innovativetechnologies that help them become more responsive, accountable, agile and efficient. The only way
Governments can survive in the digital era is to embrace change and create a culture of innovationin which people and organizations experiment, learn and develop. There must be a commitment tostaying the course and a willingness to resist outside forces or pressures that seek to undermine digitaltransformation. Governments must break down the silos that divide IT systems in order to improve
collaboration between departments and achieve optimal digital integration and development. The
culture of the public sector needs to change, with priority given to increased flexibility and productivity
for government employees and improved user-centred approaches and outcomes.
Digital transformation in the public sector is not just about improving process efficiencies ingovernment organizations; it also plays a key role in strengthening public services provision andopportunities for community engagement. Giving residents a voice and the chance to contribute toand collaborate in governance creates a greater sense of public trust, and meeting evolving customer
service needs remains is a top priority. One of the big differences between the private sector and the
public sector is that the latter cannot choose its customers. A commercial enterprise can identify a
specific target market and segment its addressable customer base, deciding how it wants to brand,market and price a commodity in order to appeal to those most likely to use a product or service.
Using such strategies, a private company really can chose its customers. This is not possible forGovernments, as the public sector must serve everyone.
Creating and maintaining a dynamic system that serves everyone is a huge challenge. Although private
enterprises have been more proactive in pursuing digitalization, government organizations stand toreap the most significant benefits from comprehensive digital integration, given the massive scale andscope of operations and the need for speed and efficiency in the provision of services essential to thewell-being and survival of humanity. The pandemic forced Governments to speed up digitalization
processes to keep up with evolving demands and protect citizens whose lives were at risk. The rapid
onset and spread of COVID-19 forced acceleration in many areas of government digitalization, as
public agencies needed a way to procure and coordinate the distribution of essential resources
such as vaccines, medicines and food supplies as quickly and efficiently as possible. Designing andimplementing digital systems can be a complex process; while the technology component is critical,
attention must also be given to factors such as culture and mentality, development capacities andcapabilities, data access and connectivity, data privacy and security, and the ability to work iteratively
and prototype rapidly. Collaboration with a variety of stakeholders is also essential.
Digitalization facilitates public participation in governance. Governments must find new ways of
empowering members of society and engaging them in development discussions and decisions.
Making open government data available increases transparency and accountability and creating
accessible software applications and participation platforms encourages community involvement.
Governments need to make the general public part of the solution—not just during a crisis but on an
ongoing basis. Denmark, for example recently launched an e-participation initiative, where citizens
can make suggestions for new legislation in the form of e-petitions. The initiative, which translates
directly into “citizen suggestion” is administered by the Danish parliament.30

175

Chapter 52022 UN E-Government Survey

In Our Common Agenda, the Secretary-General calls for a fundamental shift in the way government isperceived and operates and the role of the general public and other stakeholders within this context.
The overarching implication is that public agencies must become more human-centred, actively
considering those they serve as equal co-creators of public value. This will require the Government tomove away from the traditional top-down bureaucratic structure towards a more decentralized flatmodel in which data represent a central asset that can be shared and used to improve the efficiency
and effectiveness of government operations.
A digital society is largely data driven. Public institutions are working to achieve data optimization
by developing novel approaches to data collection, collation, analysis and dissemination. Across theglobe, trends surrounding dynamic data and data fluidity are changing how data are being used andshared by Governments and their partners in academia, civil society and the private sector. Datacentricity requires Governments to make data accessible, usable, and actionable across all levels ofgovernment. Data from multiple sources must be made available in one place and must be properly
secured and protected.

5.4.1 Open Government Data
Making government data, information and digital resources readily available to the public is crucial
not only for improving administrative operations and public services delivery but also for engaging
with communities and building trust. Governments are working to strengthen trust by publishing data
sets in open formats free for public use; access to open government data helps prevent information
manipulation and contributes to public sector efforts to increase transparency, combat corruption,and strengthen public sector accountability. There is also growing interest in open-source softwareand how it can be used for development.
The open government data movement will continue to gain momentum as access to information
becomes a key driver of development. Open application programming interfaces (APIs) will facilitateeven more efficient access to public sector information through citizen-friendly applications. The
world is currently seeing an increase in development around APIs and the rise of open data as awhole. Integration between online public services and mobile applications will become increasingly
common, and open APIs have been emerging particularly with the increased digitalization of
back-office processes, making it more efficient for government agencies to provide access to core
information or transactional systems via a user-friendly interface.
Many forward-thinking Governments have successfully been implementing digital services using
a variety of new approaches and technologies, while others still face major obstacles to digitaldevelopment. Some of the most advanced solutions to be adopted by Governments for their digitaltransformation, along with some of the attendant challenges, are explored in the subsections below,
as the information provided may contribute to a better understanding of the problems Governments
face, how to overcome them, and ways in which the public sector may be re-invented for the digital
era.

176

Chapter 5

Chapter 5 • The Future of Digital Government: Trends, Insights and Conclusions

5.4.2 Cloud computing technology
Among the different solutions adopted by countries engaged in digital transformation, cloudtechnology is playing a major role, allowing government agencies to simplify and optimize themanagement of IT resources and facilitating the adoption of new digital technologies. The public
sector has turned to cloud services to strengthen agility, scalability and cost-efficiency in an era marked
by exponential growth in the volume of data processed. Cloud technology provides computational
infrastructures that can be quickly and automatically scaled up to meet load peaks and can handle
the data and systems of different agencies simultaneously and securely—which is difficult to achieveusing traditional data centres. New tools are emerging that allow Governments to improve thequality, efficiency and effectiveness of public services and support the creation of new development
opportunities for services provision.
Governments around the world are turning to cloud computing technology also to facilitate disaster
response and humanitarian efforts. Before disaster strikes, governments and organizations areleveraging cloud computing capabilities in their disaster preparedness efforts – from creating online
maps and backing up and securing valuable data, to setting up networks of cloud-connected sensors
that can provide a community with critical early warning before a landslide or earthquake.
Governments make use of a variety of cloud configurations, including the public cloud, the private
cloud, the hybrid cloud, and the multi-vendor cloud.
A public cloud is characterized by the utilization of shared infrastructure; it may also be referred toas a commercial cloud, as the infrastructure is owned by a third-party service provider that has fullcontrol of its systems and makes them available to paying customers (including different Governments
around the world), which then share processing capacity, applications and storage. This solution has
three main advantages. The first is almost unlimited computing capacity, made possible throughhyperscaling capabilities, as well as high ease of use, configurability and interoperability. The second
is ecosystem development. Governments use the public cloud not only for the infrastructure, but also
for the possibilities it offers for comprehensive e-government ecosystem development. Governments
can use the building blocks provided by the commercial cloud to develop services that are virtuallyunlimited in terms of number, reach and complexity. The third advantage is resiliency. The public
cloud is characterized by stability and flexibility, offering computing capacities that can be scaled
according to changing needs. It also helps governments to rebuild and ensure continuity of citizen
services and essential governmental functions following a crisis, conflict or disaster (See Box 5.1). A
final advantage is cost-effectiveness; individual Governments would never be able to replicate thebroad offerings of the public cloud within their respective private clouds.
A private cloud offers cloud computing services to select users via a secure private internal network;in the present context, it is maintained by a government for the exclusive use of government agencies
and personnel. Individual government bodies use the cloud as they would an external cloud, but it iscompletely controlled by the Government. The private cloud may be on-site (based on infrastructures
entirely within the domain of the Government, which assumes full of control of and responsibility
for managing the maintenance and security of data centres that host data and services), or it may be
managed at third-party data centres, where the Government is provided with dedicated resources.

177

Chapter 52022 UN E-Government Survey

Box 5.1

Cloud Technology for Disaster Response in Ukraine
Communications networks are critical for operational planning, managing resources, accessing
information, and contacting citizens that may still be in danger. However, following a disaster,
communities are often left with little or no internet connectivity, which can significantly impact
the speed and efficiency of identifying those who need help most and developing a response planquickly. Re-establishing network connectivity enables government agencies and relief groups toquickly collect and analyze data, to inform how best to deploy, direct, and distribute resources—
food, water, and shelter—most efficiently, safely, and equitably to people who need them. Cloudcomputing and small satellites in low Earth Orbit (LEO) technologies - providing Internet access are helping Ukraine government to rebuild and ensure continuity of citizen services and essential
governmental functions following the disaster.
Shortly after Russia launched a military offensive in Ukraine, the Ukrainian government has
successfully sustained its civil service provision by acting quickly to disburse its digital infrastructure
into the public cloud, where it has been hosted in data centers across Europe. Their goal was
to avoid the accidental or intended destruction and access by a foreign power. As such, theUkrainian government was able to retain access and control over functions that are critical tonation building, such as the land registry. Using rugged compute and storage devices, government
agencies began the process of uploading data to the cloud – data that had previously been stored
in servers physically located within the country. Normally, it would take months to transfer large
workloads, but with these devices, without the need for internet, transfers occurred in days.
Many non-governmental institutions – such as universities, banks, television broadcasters, criticalinfrastructure – have also turned to cloud service providers to “migrate” their data to the cloud
as a means to enable business and service continuity.
Cloud computing is also being used to help Ukraine’s people from facilitating remote learning
opportunities for students to monitoring air quality—specifically radiation levels—around nuclear
power plants close to conflict zones in Ukraine, cutting-edge cloud technology is being used tohelp in a number of ways.
Sources: Disaster Response - Amazon Web Services https://www.groundstation.space/the-story-of-starlink-for-ukraine/

One of the advantages of the private cloud is that Governments can exert greater control overthe characteristics of the infrastructure and services, especially with regard to security. A major
disadvantage, however, is that the infrastructure may not offer the scalability needed to handle
unforeseen peaks in demand.
A growing number of Governments are exploring a hybrid model, integrating the public cloudand private cloud in a single ecosystem made up of interconnected environments in which various
resources are made available from either or both cloud infrastructures depending on government
needs. This model allows Governments to take advantage of the large-scale resources available on
the public cloud while also maintaining full ownership and control of the most sensitive data andservices. In a hybrid environment, the use and distribution of computational resources from theprivate and public clouds are typically semi-automated and transparent to the user.

178

Chapter 5

Chapter 5 • The Future of Digital Government: Trends, Insights and Conclusions

The term “multi-cloud” (or multi-vendor cloud) refers to the simultaneous use of multiple public
and/or private cloud computing and storage services in a single architecture for the implementationof various user services and applications. This approach typically optimizes cloud infrastructure
capabilities, is cost-effective, and reduces reliance on any single cloud provider. While a set of distinct
computational resources belonging to different clouds can potentially be integrated at the applicationlevel, the fact that different public or private cloud environments are not fully interconnected
presents a distinct disadvantage. Nonetheless, multi-vendor solutions allow Governments to be lessdependent on individual services providers and give them the flexibility to adapt to different types ofarrangements depending on the nature of the government data.
Cloud solutions have been successfully implemented in many of the most advanced countries in
the world, including the Republic of Korea, the United States, the United Kingdom and Singapore.
However, there are still some concerns about security and data protection.
One of the major concerns about cloud technology is that Governments are effectively ceding
control over data management to third parties, which requires a high level of faith and trust thatcloud services providers can comply with data rules and regulations and provide the level of security
required. Blind faith is not an option. Before adopting any cloud solutions, Governments need todetermine what can and cannot be done via the cloud and whether new policy and regulatory
frameworks are needed to optimize operations and security. They need to develop a national strategy
that identifies which cloud solution best supports data-driven government operations—one that
ensures strategic autonomy and resilience, addresses security concerns, and allows Governments toretain full control over data and services.
Government sectors such as defence, energy and justice have a lower tolerance for risk and error. They
are reluctant to experiment with technology due to security concerns and their special vulnerability
to the challenges and disruptions that accompany institutional change. Even a small operational
error or data breach can inflict damage that has have a long-term negative impact. Governments
transitioning to cloud services need to address these concerns—especially those relating to data
security—through advance planning. It is essential that centrally managed, regularly updated security
measures and systems be adopted across the board.

5.4.3 Cybersecurity, privacy data protection issues
There has been a worrisome spike in cybercrimes and cyberattacks in recent years. Malicious activities
in cyberspace are undermining digital trust in Governments and between States. Critical national
infrastructure—characterized by growing digital interconnectedness in areas such as finance, power
supply, education and health-care provision—is increasingly being targeted. These cyberattacks takevarious forms, causing data breaches and disruptions that affect business equipment, processes andoperations. While global estimates of the damage caused by malicious cyberactivities vary, the fallout
often amounts to billions of dollars in infrastructure repair costs, lost productivity, and personal
financial losses. According to the ITU Global Cybersecurity Index 2020, risks linked to privacy issues
are growing with the increased use of new connected devices and the constraints surrounding how
private data are used by Governments.
Cybercrime is a growing concern to countries at all levels of developments. While 156 countries (80per cent) have enacted cybercrime legislation, the pattern varies by region: Europe has the highest
adoption rate (91 per cent) and Africa the lowest (72 per cent). The evolving cybercrime landscapeand resulting skills gaps are a significant challenge for law enforcement agencies and prosecutors,
especially for cross-border enforcement.31

179

Chapter 52022 UN E-Government Survey

Not all Governments have the knowledge or capabilities to tap into the vast opportunities or mitigate
the inherent risks associated with the digital age. The evolution of digitalization is outpacing theability of Governments to develop relevant regulatory and policymaking frameworks. Countries in
special situations such as LDCs, landlocked developing countries (LLDCs) and SIDS face particularchallenges in this regard, making them especially vulnerable to cybercrimes and cyberattacks.
Media reports suggest that data security breaches are occurring even at the highest levels and often
have serious repercussions, with national and international cyberattacks threatening the privacy
and financial safety and security of society as a whole. In many instances, public sector entities
and members of the private sector (in particular individuals and micro, small and medium-sizedenterprises) are simply unable to match the technical sophistication of cybercriminals and fall prey toransomware (designed to extort money by blocking access to files or computer systems), malware(designed to gain unauthorized access to files or cause damage to a computer), or phishing (sending
fraudulent emails that resemble emails from reputable sources with the intention of stealing sensitivedata).
As more and more social and economic activities have place online, the importance of privacy
and data protection is increasingly recognized. Of equal concern is the collection, use and sharingof personal information to third parties without notice or consent of consumers. 137 out of 194
countries had put in place legislation to secure the protection of data and privacy. In the European
Union, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requires companies to get explicit consent
from individuals before collecting or using their data.32 Africa and Asia show different level ofadoption with 61 and 57 per cent of countries having adopted such legislations. The share in theleast developed countries in only 48 per cent.33
Currently, there is a lack of uniformity in data protection laws and regulations around the world,which can create conflicts when data are shared across jurisdictions.34 However, efforts are being
made to address this issue in some regions.

5.4.4 Evolving technologies and new approaches in digital government
Governments are working to address the practicalities surrounding digital technology development
and integration (such as cloud computing capabilities and security issues), but it is equally important
to direct attention towards innovative technology solutions that improve system functionality andthe user experience. Governments should adopt data-driven, experimental and AI-assisted datagathering systems and dynamic simulation models that allow them to explore how best to engage
users, respond to their needs, and assess the impact of digital services. They should develop new
methods for exploiting data-driven policy modelling tools, using systems thinking and foresight aswell as pilot initiatives and sandboxes to design and validate the underlying conceptual frameworks
behind these new solutions. Cloud computing represents an innovation in itself, as it provides
the space for almost limitless digital development, but there are some evolving technologies andapproaches that should be further explored by Governments working to bring the public sector into
the twenty-first century; three promising options, explored below, include cognitive government,
agile and adaptive government, and seamless government.

Cognitive government
Cognitive government leverages hindsight, real-time data, and foresight to drive policymaking anddecision-making. According to the World Bank, the best Governments are constantly learning,
evolving, and making decisions—just as people do. When the government perceives itself as a“cognitive system”, it can take steps to learn more quickly. Cognitive systems make faster decisions
by learning from past experiences and using real-time data to make more reliable projections about
the future. This augmented learning and decision-making capability can create immense public

180Chapter 5

Chapter 5 • The Future of Digital Government: Trends, Insights and Conclusions

value. Governments can design programmes with an intelligence architecture in mind. The hindsightof past performance, coupled with real-time data in the present, can lead to optimal decisions for the
future to manage the associated operational risks. By identifying and managing the potential risks
associated with the use of digital tools and technologies, Governments can realize the transformative
potential of digitalization to improve the sustainability of government operations.

Agile and adaptive government
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for greater speed and agility in governance—and many Governments around the world have shown that they are up for the challenge, having
been compelled by the health crisis to make timely decisions and act swiftly. Agile government ischaracterized by flexibility and adaptability in a number of areas, including policymaking, regulation,
procurement and the workforce.
According to a World Economic Forum report, Governments characterized by greater agility andadaptability are able to be more responsive. The report emphasizes the need for fast, flexible, missioncentric government. Governments are beginning to look for ways to develop user-centred services
that allow them to identify and respond to the needs of consumers more quickly and efficiently.
The call for agile government comes as many public agencies are struggling to keep up with theever-evolving demands of their constituencies. A number of Governments are responding to thisemerging dynamic by transitioning from rigid bureaucratic structures and hierarchies to a more
decentralized flat model that allows greater operational fluidity and flexibility, as well as increased
opportunities to interact with the general public and identify and respond to their changing needs.
The ability of public agencies to rapidly assess and address the needs of constituents is becoming
increasingly important in an era of constant innovation.

Seamless government
A growing number of government agencies are developing personalized, proactive public services,aiming to provide constituents with a “frictionless” customer experience. Governments have adopted
several strategies to achieve seamless services delivery, including committing to fully digitalized
services, designing proactive services clustered around life events, and building infrastructure to
support seamless services delivery. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
has observed that the most innovative cities and countries have made seamless government a
priority, aiming to minimize points of contention and friction in government interactions with thegeneral public.35 A genuine commitment to creating seamless government requires a shift from thetraditional inside-out approach to an outside-in strategy that focuses on user-driven governance andservices development; Governments need to engage with the public, invite feedback, and allow user
realities—rather than traditional bureaucratic conventions—to guide services provision.
As part of the trend towards increased responsiveness to user needs, Governments are starting
to explore how concepts such as life events, life journeys or moments of life can shape services
provision. Serious thought is being given to how Governments can bundle some of the essential
services and transactions associated with key life-cycle events, personalizing them to a certain extent
so that when someone needs them, they are readily available and easy to access.
Seamless government reflects efficiency improvements at multiple levels and can take many forms.
Improvements may be practical; an example would be designing automated services around key
moments of life for individuals and companies so that bureaucratic processes linked to childbirth,school enrolment, marriage, retirement and business registration are streamlined and simple.
Improvements may also be systemic, contributing to increased integration, connectivity andautomation. Governments can shift from siloed government-to-government, government-to-181

Chapter 52022 UN E-Government Survey

consumer and government-to-business approaches to a more holistic whole-of society approach
characterized by cross-government collaboration between different institutions at all levels. In thisapproach, referred to as matrixed government, a common, multilayer infrastructure facilitates
productive integration and coordination and proactively engages all stakeholders in the achievementof specific tasks. Invisible government is achieved when services are fully automated, with codified
data-oriented processes and AI-driven applications used to complete specific bureaucratic tasks andtransactions—often with no human input or interaction.
Predictive analytics and AI can play a key role in seamless governance, as they allow Governments
to target likely problems before they erupt into crises. Recent advancements in natural language
processing, machine learning, and speech and image recognition have made it possible forGovernments to predict and anticipate rather than react to problems. From spotting fraud tocombating the opioid epidemic, an ounce of prevention really is worth a pound of cure—especially ingovernment. The idea that Governments should focus more on predicting possible future scenarios toprevent problems and strengthen crisis readiness and response is behind the concept of anticipatory
government, in which public institutions are able to take action today to actively shape tomorrow.
Predictive analytics is now being applied in a wide range of areas, including defence, security, healthcare and human services.

5.5

Digital government at the local level

The role of local government in achieving sustainable development is critical. The SDGs recognize
the transformative power of urbanization for development and the strategic role local policymakers
play as catalysts of change. Most of the SDGs have targets that are directly or indirectly related
to life at the local level. As local institutions have greater direct interaction with residents and are
more likely to engage in bottom-up governance, they are best placed to adapt development goals
to local realities and ensure community investment in development processes and outcomes. They
are directly responsible for realizing Goal 11—making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe,
resilient and sustainable.
Analysing local public services provision offers the opportunity to conduct a deeper and morecomprehensive assessment of e-government development at the granular level. The relationshipbetween public administrators and constituents is strongest at the local level, which is important
given the growing trend towards personalized, seamless government. It is critical that regional andlocal-level data be collected and exploited, as this can facilitate the optimal allocation of targetedresources and increase public value.
The assessment of local e-government development was first integrated in the United Nations
E-Government Survey in 2018; the Local Online Services Index (LOSI) has since become an
indispensable analytical tool. The 2022 LOSI is the first to assess e-government services provisionin the most populous city in each of the 193 Member States. The LOSI results for the 2022 Survey
are based on an analysis of 86 indicators relating to five criteria: institutional framework (a newcriterion), content provision, services provision, participation and engagement, and technology.
Coverage differences notwithstanding, the average LOSI value increased from 0.43 in 2020 to 0.51
in 2022.
The most recent LOSI results indicate that city portals remain less developed than their nationalcounterparts. However, there are some strong performers at the municipal level; the more populous
cities tend to have higher LOSI values overall, perhaps owing to the larger budgetary resources
available and the exigencies of serving sizeable populations. A breakdown of the 2022 LOSI results
reveals that the institutional framework subindex has the highest average value, followed by thecontent provision subindex; the lowest compliance rate is in services provision, as was the case in
2020.
182

Chapter 5

Chapter 5 • The Future of Digital Government: Trends, Insights and Conclusions

UN DESA undertook a series of activities in partnership with the United Nations University Operating
Unit on Policy-Driven Electronic Governance (UNU-EGOV) to further strengthen and enrich theassessment of local e-government in all Member States. The activities included LOSI disaggregateddata analysis, a review of completed Local Government Questionnaires (LGQs), and additional desk
research complemented by literature review.
An updated LGQ was launched in 2021 to gather additional qualitative information on e-government
development efforts at the municipal level. The revised LGQ focuses on strategic areas of digital policy
aimed at developing effective, accountable and inclusive local public institutions and governance. It
also requests information on institutional, legal and strategy frameworks at the municipal level. The
qualitative information provided by respondents indicates that many cities have formulated specificstrategies and adopted new technologies for COVID-19 management, sustainable development,
and evidence-based decision-making.
Various cities not included in the formal LOSI process have asked for support in assessing local
e-government development, and pilot LOSI initiatives have been launched in a limited numberof settings. The high level of interest suggests that there is a strong need to support cities;
collaboration between various municipal authorities and organizations through the LOSI network
would be extremely valuable. A well-formulated local e-government strategy can contribute to thedevelopment and consolidation of a sustainable local administration model and the achievement of
the SDGs, in particular Goals 11 and 16.
Smart cities represent one of the most innovative manifestations of digital transformation at the
local level. According to the International Data Corporation’s 2021 Worldwide Smart Cities Spending
Guide, use cases for IoT and machine-to-machine (M2M) technologies are growing rapidly as more
stakeholders begin to explore the potential of connected objects and distributed data storage.36 In
government administration, use cases are linked to smart cities, intelligent transportation, precision
agriculture, health care, and other key areas and sectors. Virtual Singapore, a government initiative,
is a smart city project that incorporates IoT and M2M technologies to manage urban infrastructure
and resources. The project collects data from thousands of sensors installed throughout the city,which helps to improve efficiency and reduce costs.
Smart technologies such as IoT and virtual reality are starting to transform urban centres into hubs
offering efficient governance and services that can improve lives. The COVID-19 crisis has accelerated
smart city development plans in many countries. Governments have had to speed up and scale up
digitalization, as the pandemic has forced them to support a significant increase in demand forexisting services and to provide new services—largely through digital channels.

5.6

Leaving no one behind in the digital societyWith equity and inclusion emerging as core values in public administration, Governments are focusing
more intently on the underlying causes of systemic imbalances and rethinking the fundamentals
of how policies are developed, implemented and assessed. The new face of inequality is digital,and e-government can be the social equalizer. Efforts aimed at leaving no one behind should be
driven by empathy, with Governments engaging in multilevel, multisectoral and multidisciplinary
approaches and partnerships to better understand the needs of the most vulnerable. Initiatives indifferent parts of the world have focused on inclusive and equity-centred design, equitable access topublic goods, data sovereignty and equity, and citizen empowerment for the co-creation of public
value. Two approaches gaining prominence in the current context are equity innovation (innovationthat promotes equity, often with multistakeholder input) and inclusive innovation (the developmentof services for and by those who have been excluded from the development mainstream); both
approaches focus on working collaboratively to devise and implement equitable, innovative solutions
that meet the needs of all members of society, in particular those who are disadvantaged and183

Chapter 52022 UN E-Government Survey

vulnerable. While these approaches are not new, they are finding new applications and greater
relevance in the digital age as public agencies seek to ensure that all members of society have equal
access to services and opportunities for participation in governance.
The first step in developing solutions is to acknowledge that exclusion exists and to identify barriers
to equity and inclusion in three critical areas: access (to electricity, Internet and mobile infrastructure,
e-information and e-services); affordability (the ability to cover the cost of Internet access and digital
devices and the availability of free public access points for e-government); and ability (traditional
literacy, digital literacy and language literacy).
The second step is to prioritize and optimize data, design and delivery in e-government services
development and provision. Governments need to establish an integrated framework that facilitates
the exploration and adoption of evidence-driven best practices in these three keys areas. The premise“solve for one, extend to many” guides the concept of inclusive development and design, whereby
individual needs are identified, and services are designed to accommodate ability limitations but
are useful and beneficial for everyone. Governments should explore and exploit methodologies
and practices that optimize outcomes for all, with particular attention given to data (disaggregateddata, open government data and digital identity), design (co-creation and co-production and theintegration of assistive technologies), and delivery (experimentation/sandboxing and blended, omnichannel services delivery). Governments should have targeted policies and dedicated budgets andresources to support the development and implementation of anticipatory, personalized services forthe most vulnerable members of society, including persons with disabilities and other disadvantaged
populations.
Governments should adopt “inclusion by design” or “inclusion by default” strategies, policies
and regulations as an extension of the current “digital first” or “digital by default” approaches
in e-government. It is important to recognize exclusion and embrace diversity as a prerequisite foractivating the overarching principle of leaving no one behind.
SDG 17 calls for revitalizing the global partnership for sustainable development; the global
community can engage in collaborative knowledge exchange and capacity-building to help ensurethat no country is left behind in digital government.

5.7

Conclusions

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres has referred to the Internet as a global public
good, acknowledging that the Internet and digital technologies have virtually unlimited capacity tosupport sustainable development and the advancement of society.
Within this context, government data constitute a national public good that can be used to create
public value. The growing technological capacity to process ever-larger and more complex data
sets in real time has made it possible for Governments to gain key insights that allow them tomake e-services more efficient, inclusive, responsive and accountable—and the foresight needed todevelop anticipatory and predictive services. The potential and opportunities surrounding data arealmost unlimited, and Governments should work together with all stakeholders to ensure that data
are gathered, managed and utilized in ways that improve government operations and benefit all
members of society.
While data have enormous potential for contributing to development, there are some risks andchallenges associated with data and data-driven technologies that should not be underestimated.
Governments need to be prepared to deal with issues that may arise in connection with unreliable
data, existing data gaps, data security, personal privacy and ethics, and data fraud and crime. In theabsence of common principles, policies and regulations governing data privacy, ethics and protection,

184

Chapter 5

Chapter 5 • The Future of Digital Government: Trends, Insights and Conclusions

people increasingly worry about data breaches and the misuse or unjustified use of personal data.
There are legitimate concerns about the risks associated with the handling and processing of data,
particularly in the light of the current fragmented regulatory landscape. Technology is not free fromrisk and addressing privacy concerns and cybersecurity must be a priority in digital government
development and administration.
E-government development is not the digitalization of existing bureaucracies. Examples from digitallyadvanced societies show that the most innovative countries and cities actively seek to eliminate
points of friction between Governments and the people they serve. Making bureaucratic and sectoralboundaries permeable to strengthen integration and coordination and bringing together different
societal stakeholders to collaborate on the design and implementation of innovative approaches togovernance can transform the public sector—and digitalization serves to facilitate rather than define
this process.
Over the past several years, the adoption of frontier technologies in the government sector has
intensified, signalling an irreversible shift towards digital transformation. Digitalization is allowing
Governments to redefine how they interact and collaborate with their constituents so that they are
better able to identify and respond to the genuine needs of society.
Digitalization is improving the predictive capacities of Governments as well. Advancements intechnology, complex systems analysis, AI and big data have allowed Governments to strengthen
their anticipatory capabilities, helping them identify potential challenges and opportunities andshape future development scenarios. With anticipatory government, problems are addressed as (andin some cases before) they emerge. Ultimately, digitalization will allow Governments traditionallycharacterized by intrusive bureaucracy to become virtually invisible as they move towards theprovision of fully automated personalized services accessible to anyone anytime from anywhere.
While the 2022 Survey results show that steady progress is being made in e-government development,
they also indicate that many benefits around digital transformation have yet to be realized, especiallyin LDCs, SIDS, LLDCs and economies in transition. A significant proportion of countries have EGDI
values that are well below the world average, with poor and uneven Internet access an important
contributing factor, especially in the LDCs. Meeting the goal of leaving no one behind requires
making sure that no one is left offline; in line with the SDGs, steps must be taken to ensure that all
members of society—including those who are most vulnerable—have safe and affordable access to
the Internet and digitally enabled services by 2030.
E-government development can play a key role in bridging digital divides. The 2022 assessment showsthat digital divides persist and may widen without the adoption of targeted, systematic measures toassist low-income and lower-middle-income countries and countries in special situations (including
LDCs, LLDCs and SIDS, which comprise more than a quarter of the United Nations Member States).
Typically, higher-income countries tend to have higher levels of e-government development; however,there are many developing countries that have achieved high or very high levels of e-government
development by improving their online services provision, despite having limited resources. Thissuggests that targeted investments and policies supporting e-government development can beeffective in bridging digital divides in those countries.
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development remains the government blueprint for building ahealthier and more resilient future as society moves forward in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Secretary-General António Guterres has called for a “new social contract”, highlighting the need for
Governments to prioritize investment in digital literacy and infrastructure to prepare society for an
inclusive, sustainable digital future. The Secretary-General has emphasized that digital technology
must be an enabler and equalizer—a “force for good”.37

185

Chapter 52022 UN E-Government Survey

There has been a steady upward trend in the implementation of digital government for public
services delivery, but it is not clear whether all United Nations Member States have given sufficientattention to institutionalizing digital transformation and establishing the infrastructure needed forseamless government. Government effectiveness, accountability and trustworthiness derive not only
from strong public leadership, but also from a solid institutional framework built upon and guided
by ethical principles, the rule of law, innovative policies, engagement with stakeholders, operational
optimization, and the ability to address evolving security and privacy risks. Governments worldwide
need to have a long-term national digital transformation plan supported by such a framework toensure that Governments can meet the needs of all members of society—and leave no one behind.

Endnotes
1

2
3

4
5

6
7

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

15

16
17
18

186

United Nations, General Assembly, “Road map for digital cooperation: implementation of the recommendations of
the High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation”, report of the Secretary-General (A/74/81), 29 May 2020, available
at https://www.un.org/en/content/digital-cooperation-roadmap/.
United Nations, Our Common Agenda: Report of the Secretary-General (Sales No. E.21.I.8), para. 92, available athttps://www.un.org/en/content/common-agenda-report/assets/pdf/Common_Agenda_Report_English.pdf.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Digital Economy Report 2019—Value Creation and Capture:
Implications for Developing Countries (Sales No. E.19.II.D.17), p. xv, available at https://unctad.org/webflyer/digitaleconomy-report-2019.
United Nations, “Don’t let the digital divide become ‘the new face of inequality’: UN deputy chief”, UN News,
27 April 21, available at https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/04/1090712.
United Nations, E-Government Survey 2020: Digital Government in the Decade of Action for Sustainable
Development (Sales No. E.20.II.H. 1), addendum, p. 225, available at https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/
en-us/Reports/UN-E-Government-Survey-2020.
International Telecommunication Union, “Individuals using the Internet” (figure), Statistics page, available at https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx.
Maureen Breslin, “UN estimates more than 1 in 3 worldwide have never used Internet”, The Hill, 1 December
2021, available at https://thehill.com/policy/international/583845-un-estimates-more-than-1-in-3-worldwide-havenever-used-internet.
Internet World Stats, ‘World Internet Usage and Population Statistics 2022 Year-Q1 Estimates’ (Table), Statistics
page, available at World Internet Users Statistics and 2022 World Population Stats (internetworldstats.com)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Vaccine Tracking System (VTrckS)”, available at https://www.cdc.
gov/vaccines/programs/vtrcks/index.html.
Priyanka Malik, “Getting digital government transformation right in a post Covid world”, Whatfix website, 11February 2021, available at https://whatfix.com/blog/digital-government-transformation-post-covid/.
HealthBuddy+ website, available at https://healthbuddy.plus.
Jared Spataro, “2 years of digital transformation in 2 months”, Microsoft 365, 30 April 2020, available at https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/blog/2020/04/30/2-years-digital-transformation-2-months/.
Australia, NSW [New South Wales] Government, Education website, available at https://education.nsw.gov.au.
Spain, La Moncloa, “Government sets up Hispabot-Covid19, a channel for enquiries about COVID-19
through WhatsApp”, news article, 8 April 2020, available at https://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/lang/en/gobierno/news/
Paginas/2020/20200408covid-assistance.aspx.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, “3. DI in Chile”, Digital government in Chile—digital
identity (OECDiLibrary, 2019), available at https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/0e312f24-en/index.html?itemId=/
content/component/0e312f24-en.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and others, Embracing Innovation in Government: Global
Trends 2020, available for download as five separate reports at https://trends.oecd-opsi.org.
PwC, “AI predictions 2021”, available at https://www.pwc.com/us/en/tech-effect/ai-analytics/ai-predictions.html.
Appen, The 2021 State of AI and Machine Learning Report, available at https://appen.com/whitepapers/the-state-ofai-and-machine-learning-report/.

Chapter 5

Chapter 5 • The Future of Digital Government: Trends, Insights and Conclusions
19
20
21

22
23

24

25

26
27

28

29
30
31
32
33
34

35

36
37

Canada, “The Digital Nations”, available at https://www.canada.ca/en/government/system/digital-government/digitalnations.html.
Open Data Charter, “Who we are”, available at https://opendatacharter.net/who-we-are/.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, “Initial insights from the Going Digital Policy Framework
Questionnaire: Going Digital Steering Group Meeting—20 November 2017” (DSTI/CDEP/GD(2017)9), available
at https://one.oecd.org/document/DSTI/CDEP/GD(2017)9/en/pdf.
India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, e-RaktKosh website, available at https://www.eraktkosh.in/
BLDAHIMS/bloodbank/transactions/bbpublicindex.html.
PUBLIC, “Public confidence in accessing public services skyrockets during pandemic”, press release, 13 October
2021, available at https://www.public.io/press-post/public-confidence-in-accessing-public-services-online-skyrocketsduring-pandemic.
Laura LeBerge and others, “How COVID-19 has pushed companies over the technology tipping point—andtransformed business forever” (McKinsey & Company, 5 October 2020), available at https://www.mckinsey.
com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/how-covid-19-has-pushed-companies-over-thetechnology-tipping-point-and-transformed-business-forever.
Lauri Haav, “The digital transformation of government during COVID-19”, Forbes, 12 April 2022, available
at https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2022/04/12/the-digital-transformation-of-government-duringcovid-19/?sh=38399f9a2dbe.
Deloitte, “Digital government transformation”, available at https://www2.deloitte.com/bd/en/pages/public-sector/
articles/digital-government-transformation.html.
United States Government Accountability Office, “Information technology: agencies need to develop and implement
modernization plans for critical legacy systems” (GAO-21-524T, 27 April 2021), available at https://www.gao.gov/
products/gao-21-524t.
Lisa Rein, “Millennials exit the federal workforce as government jobs lose their allure”, The Washington Post,
15 December 2014, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/millennials-exit-the-federal-workforce-asgovernment-jobs-lose-their-allure/2014/12/15/ea3d4418-7fd4-11e4-9f38-95a187e4c1f7_story.html.
Marianna Mazzuccato, “The Entrepreneurial State”, PublicAffair US, 2015 pag.211.
https://www.borgerforslag.dk/
Cybercrime Legislation Worldwide | UNCTAD
European Union, “What is GDPR, the EU’s new data protection law?”, General Data Protection Regulation
website, available at https://gdpr.eu.
Data Protection and Privacy Legislation Worldwide | UNCTAD
United Nations Regional Information Centre, “ITU releases fourth edition of the Global Cybersecurity Index”,
30 June 2021, available at https://unric.org/en/itu-releases-fourth-edition-of-the-global-cybersecurity-index/; see alsoInternational Telecommunication Union, Global Cybersecurity Index 2020: Measuring Commitment to Cybersecurity(Geneva, 2021), available at https://www.itu.int/epublications/publication/D-STR-GCI.01-2021-HTM-E.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and others, Embracing Innovation in Government:
Global Trends 2020, Seamless Government, September 2020, available at https://trends.oecd-opsi.org/wp-content/
uploads/2020/11/OECD-Seamless-Government.pdf.
IDC Spending Guide- International Data Corporation, Worldwide Smart Cities Spending Guide 2021 (Needham,
Massachusetts, 2021)
United Nations, “Secretary-General’s Nelson Mandela lecture: ‘Tackling the inequality pandemic: a new social contract
for a new era’ [as delivered]”, 18 July 2020, available at https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2020-07-18/
secretary-generals-nelson-mandela-lecture-%E2%80%9Ctackling-the-inequality-pandemic-new-social-contract-fornew-era%E2%80%9D-delivered.

187

Chapter 52022 UN E-Government Survey

188

Annexes

ANNEXES

Annexes
Annex A: Survey Methodology
We invite you to use the interactive UNeGovKB to view, sort, and print
information from the UN E-Government Survey or download copies of
the UN E-Government Surveys since 2001 to the latest 2022 Survey.
Interactive e-Government Knowledgebase (UNeGovKB) can be reached
by using the link and QR code below:

Photo credit: pixabay.com

https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb
https://bit.ly/EGOVKB

A.1

E-Government Development Index: An Overview

Mathematically, the E-Government Development Index (EGDI) is theweighted average of normalized scores on the three most importantdimensions of e government, namely: (i) the scope and quality of
online services quantified as the Online Service Index (OSI); (ii) the
status of the development of telecommunication infrastructure or the
Telecommunication Infrastructure Index (TII); and (iii) the inherent humancapital or the Human Capital Index (HCI). Each of these indices is acomposite measure that can be extracted and analysed independently.

In this Annexes:
Annex A: Survey Methodology

189

A.1

E-Government Development
Index: An Overview
189

A.2

Online Service Index (OSI) 191

A.3

Telecommunication
Infrastructure Index (TII)

196

A.4

Human Capital Index (HCI) 197

A.5

E-Participation Index (EPI) 199

A.6

Member State Questionnaire
(MSQ)
201

A.7	Local Online Service Index(LOSI)
202
A.8	Country Classiﬁcations andNomenclature in
the Survey
207
A.9

Portal Assessment Phase forOnline Service Index and
Local Online Service Index 207

A.10 Open Government Data
Index (Pilot Study)

210

Annex B:

277

B.1	Complex Network Analysis:
Pilot Study
277

Prior to the normalization of the three component indicators, theZ-score standardization procedure is implemented for each component
indicator to ensure that the overall EGDI is equally decided by the threecomponent indices, that is, each component index presents comparable
variance subsequent to the Z-score standardization. In the absence of
the Z-score standardization treatment, the EGDI would mainly dependon the component index with the greatest dispersion. After the Z-scorestandardization, the arithmetic average sum becomes a good statisticalindicator, where “equal weights” truly means “equal importance.”

Annexes
189

Annexes

standardization. In the absence of the Z-score standardization treatment, the EGDI
would mainly depend on the component index with the greatest dispersion. After theZ-score standardization, the arithmetic average sum becomes a good statisticalindicator,
where “equal weights” truly means “equal importance.”
2022 UN E-Government
Surveystandard
Z-scorecalculationof eachcomponent indicator:
For standardFor
Z-scorecalculationof eachcomponent
indicator:

Where:𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋 =𝑥𝑥 − µσ

x is a raw score to be standardized;
μ isWhere:
the mean of the population;
σ is the standardx deviationof the topopulation.
is a raw scorebe standardized;

μ is the mean of the population;

The composite value of each component index is then normalized to fall between the range of 0 to
σ is the standard deviation of the population.
1 and the overall EGDI is derived by taking the arithmetic average of the three component indices.

composite
componentis thennormalized
to fall between theWithin 0 to The
1 rangeof EGDI value
values oftheeachcountries
are then index
groupedinto fourlevels mathematicallydefined as follows:
veryvaluesrangeEGDI
from is0.75
to 1.00byinclusive,
higharithmetic
EGDI groupaveragevalues of therange of0 highto 1 EGDI
and theoverallderivedtaking therange from three
0.50 tocomponent
0.7499 inclusive,
middle EGDI values range from 0.25 to 0.4999 inclusive, andindexes.
low EGDI values range from 0.0 to 0.2499 inclusive. In all references to these ranges in text andgraphic elements,
the respective
are rounded tofor provide
clarity andaare
expressedranking
as follows:
to
The EGDI
is used values
as a benchmark
numerical
of 0.75
e-government
1.00, 0.50 to
0.75,
0.25
to
0.50,
and
0.00
to
0.25.
development of all United Nations Member States. While the methodologicalframework
has remained
consistentacrossthe editions
the United Nations
To gain better
insight intofor
theEGDIsituationof subgroupsof countries
with similarlevels ofofperformance
Survey,each
eacheditionthe Survey
has fourbeenequally
adjusted
to reflect
within their E0Government
respective EGDI groups,
EGDI
group isoffurther
divided into
defined1
emerging
trendsofe-government
strategies,
evolving
knowledgeofbestpracticesinintervals, or quartiles . The rating class breakdowns within the respective EGDI groups, in descendingorder, are as follows: VH, V3, V2 and V1 for the very high group; HV, H3, H2 and H1 for the highgroup; MH, M3, M2 and M1 for the middle group; and LM, L3, L2 and L1 for the low group.
2 | Page
The EGDI is used as a benchmark to determine a numerical ranking of e-government developmentof United Nations Member States. While the methodological framework for EGDI has remained
consistent across the editions of the United Nations E-Government Survey, each edition of the Survey
has been adjusted to reflect emerging trends of e-government strategies, evolving knowledge ofbest practices in e-government, changes in technology and other factors. In addition, data collection
practices have been periodically refined.
The imputation of missing data is an important step in the construction of a good quality composite
indicator. The problem has been studied since 2001; in the EGDI methodology the cold deck
imputation or use of older values for the missing data has always been the first choice of action.
Nevertheless, there are cases where no data is available at all. In these cases, a combination of
Figure A.1

The three components of the E-Government Development Index (EGDI)

OSI - Online Service Index
HCI - Human Capital Index
TII - Telecommunication
Infrastructure Index
OSI
1/3

TII
1/3

EGDI

HCI
1/3

190

Annexes

ANNEXESthe unconditional mean imputation and the hot deck imputation was used. This combination isbased on the “donor imputation” methodology, which replaces missing values in a record with thecorresponding values from a complete and valid record.

A.2

Online Service Index (OSI)The Online Service Index (OSI) is DESA/DPIDG’s proprietary quantitative tool designed to provide
evidence-based data on online e-government service provision across the 193 Member States. The
2022 edition of the OSI features 180 questions calling for binary response, a pattern established inprevious editions of the Survey, wherein each assessed country is awarded points for each targetedfeature or service available through its official online service channels. The assessed country receives
a score of 1 for each service or feature that is readily available and accessible through an official
online e-government service channel. If the targeted feature is not present or accessible at the timeof the assessment, a score of 0 is awarded.
For the 2022 edition of the Survey, DESA/DPIDG has also introduced a new graded assessment scale
to better reflect the observed variability in the provision of transactional services across physical anddigital channels. For a subset of questions pertaining to users’ ability to complete transactions with
their respective government, points are awarded on a scale of 0-3. The assessed country is assigned
a score of 0 assigned if the targeted service is not available through an official online service channel.
A score of 1 is assigned if relevant information or an application form is available but other aspectsof the transaction must be carried out through channels other than online. A score of 2 is assigned
if the full service or application procedure is available online. Finally, if users are, in addition to theabove, able to manage the full transaction entirely through an online channel, including potential
payment and the receipt of documents, a score of 3 is assigned.
The most comprehensive update to the E-Government Survey assessment in 2022 comes in the form of arefined formula for generating the Online Service Index. The new approach introduces a standardizationand normalization regimen to further align the OSI with Local Online Service Index (LOSI) by categorizing
the assessment questions into 5 discrete thematic areas forming 5 subindices: institutional framework (IF),services provision (SP), content provision (CP), technology (TEC) and e-participation (EPI)—with the OSI asa whole calculated based on the normalized values for each subindex.
Each of the 5 subindices of OSI are assigned a weight based on the relative proportion of questions
belonging to the associated category in the OSI assessment questionnaire, as presented below:
Figure A.2

The five subindices of Online Services Index

Institutional Framework, 10%
IF,10%

Service Provision, 45%Content Provision, 5%
Technology, 5%

EPI,35%E-participation, 35%

SP,45%
TEC,5%
CP,5%191

Annexes

2022 UN E-Government Survey

The scores for questions belonging to each of these 5 categories are tallied and standardized foreach assessed country by generating Z-scores for each category according to the formula below:
Z Score IF(i) = (IF(i) - MEAN(IF)) / ST.DEV(IF)Z Score SP(i) = (SP(i) - MEAN(SP)) / ST.DEV(SP)Z Score CP(i) = (CP(i) - MEAN(CP)) / ST.DEV(CP)Z Score TEC(i) = (TEC(i) - MEAN(TEC)) / ST.DEV(TEC)
Z Score EPI(i) = (EPI(i) - MEAN(EPI)) / ST.DEV(EPI)
The resulting values are a series of standardized subindices of online service provision along its
primary thematic dimensions.
The overall total score for a given assessed country then becomes the sum of normalized andweighted scores of each of the five subindices:
OSI country(i) total score = (CPZ-score*CPweight)) + (EPIZ-score*EPIweight) + (IFZ-score*IFweight)+ (SPZ-score*SPweight) + (TECZ-score*TECweight)+ (CPZ-score*CPweight)

In the final step of the process, the weighted actual scores for each country are normalized, yielding
each assessed country an OSI value between 0 and 1 according to the following formula:
Online Service Index (Country ”X”)=

Actual total score – Lowest total score(Range of total scores for all countries)

Where:
the online index value for a given country is equal to the actual total score less the lowest total score
divided by the range of total score values for all countries.
The renewed approach offers the benefit of increased granularity and the ability to assess, analyseand compare each of the 5 subindices independently of each other. Simultaneously, the combined
weighting and standardization procedure provides DESA/DPIDG with a greater degree of control
over the OSI assessment by allowing for questions and subindices to be added, removed andmodified without compromising the continuity of the assessment. The application of a weighting
procedure ensures that any changes to the subindices are proportionally reflected in the final OSIscore. Combined with the established normalization procedure, this approach ensures that OSI
values remain comparable and internally consistent across subsequent editions of the Survey.
The implementation of a new approach to the OSI calculation is the result of extensive research andcollaboration with leading academic experts in statistics and complex network analysis. At each stageof the implementation process, changes to the OSI formula were reviewed, analysed and discussed
among DPIDG staff and external experts. The validity of the statistical procedures and the sequencein which they were applied to the raw OSI data were validated both in theory and, following theconclusion of the data collection phase of the E-Government Survey 2022 assessment, in practicealongside the conventional OSI approach to rule out methodological errors and inconsistencies
between the respective procedures. The comprehensive comparative review of the approaches foundthat the implementation of the new OSI procedure poses no risk to the internal continuity of theassessment and that the new approach further validates many of the major trends identified inprevious editions of the E-Government Survey.
After attending the introductory sessions, each participant was assigned with two pilot tasks
designed to simulate the data collection phase of the E-Government Survey assessment. The pilottasks consisted of one mock OSI and one mock LOSI assessment of the e-government portals. Each192

Annexes

ANNEXESvolunteer researcher was assigned with the same set of pilot assignments to facilitate quick andefficient quality control and ensure the consistency of the training across the cohort of volunteers. To
qualify to take part in the data collection phase of the E-Government Survey 2022 assessment, eachparticipant had to complete and submit the two mock assessments for review.
In the data collection phase of the E-Government Survey 2022 assessment, each qualified participant
received a series of personalized research assignments tailored to their specific research capabilities.
Each assignment consisted of the OSI and LOSI assessment for one of the 193 United Nations Member
States and its most populous city. For each assigned Member State and city, the participants carriedout independent research into the online e-government service provision. The online e-government
service provision of each UN Member State was assessed independently by two researchers. Eachresearcher had to be proficient in one or more of the official languages of the assessed Member State
to be selected to assess its online presence. The researchers were instructed to rely exclusively on
government-affiliated sources in their research and not to share any of their findings or research withthird parties, including those affiliated with the government of the assessed Member State. The aimof the research assignments was to assess and verify the existence of an extensive set of features andonline services relevant to e-government development. Researchers were advised to assume the roleof the targeted user of an online service portal and to base their responses on whether they deemedthat the assessed features were readily accessible to an average user of the portal. This was done toensure that the separate dimensions of service provision, referring to the availability of a given set offeatures, and service delivery, referring to the actions taken by the service provider to make services
usable and accessible to the targeted users, were assessed.
Following the conclusion of the data collection phase, all submitted research assignment passed
through a rigorous review process. At the review stage, each submission was reviewed by anexperienced UN DESA-appointed reviewer. The reviewers carried out independent research to verify
the submitted responses. As needed, the reviewers also commissioned further research from thevolunteer researchers to resolve potential issues and mismatches in the submitted responses. Oncean initial review had been carried out, the assignments were forwarded to a Senior reviewer forcross-checking, before the final Data Quality Assurance (QA) review and approval (see Section A.9 ofthis Annex). This established review approach continues to ensure that each assignment is carried out
by trained researchers with the required language skills and familiarity with the social and politicalcircumstances of the assessed Member State and reviewed by a UN DESA expert in e-government
development and online service provision.

List of Features Assessed
Multiple linkages to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) have been included in both the OSI
and the Member State Questionnaire (MSQ). The MSQ is further discussed in more detail in Section
A.6 of this Annex. As has been done in analytical chapters of past editions of the Survey, selected
themes or proxy themes related to e-government and sustainable development have been also
analysed, for example, open government data, e-participation, mobile-government and whole-ofgovernment approach. Reviews of the OSI were undertaken in 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2022 toinclude questions related to key services across the SDGs domains, including health, education,social protection, environment, gender equality, and decent work and employment, as well as
through the SDG principles highlighted in Goal SDG 16, including effectiveness, inclusion, openness,trustworthiness, and accountability. To be consistent with these principles, and taking into accountfeedback from various external evaluations, the 2020 OSI introduced questions related to justicesystems’ online services.

193

Annexes

2022 UN E-Government Survey

Below is a list of areas assessed in the 2022 edition of the United Nations E-Government Survey.
It should be noted that this list is dynamic and is updated for each edition of the Survey.

TECHNOLOGY
Government portal(s) can be found on the first results page of any search engine typically used in thatcountry | Search features |Sitemap/Index |Help feature/FAQs section |Contact us feature | National portal(s)utilize HTTPS |Responsive web design |Evidence of being updated in the past month| Advanced search
options | Mark favorite/most used online services |Access to list of previous interactions/transactions |Availability of Tutorials or guidance to understand and use online services/Help link | Accessibility by
citizens to own data |Possibility for citizens to modify own data | Accessibility by businesses to own data
|Possibility for Businesses to modify own data |Save part of the transaction and access later |Availability of
AI-chat-bot functionality |Compliant with W3C standards (CSS stye sheet/markup validity) | Compliant
with WCAG2.0

INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKExistence of national government portal (s) |Information available on the organizational structure and/or
chart of the government I Names/titles of heads of government agencies/departments/ministries available
on the national portal(s) | Links to any sub-national/local government institutions/agencies | Privacy
statement(s) available |Digital ID to access online services |National e-Government/Digital Government
strategy or equivalent available |Information on citizens’ rights to access government information| Legislation/law/policy/regulation on personal data protection |Legislation/law/policy/regulation on
cybersecurity |Information/contact about a national CIO or equivalent | Legislation/law/policy/regulationon e-participation |Legislation/law/policy/regulation on Open Government Data |Link to the sectoral or
ministerial website on HEALTH /EDUCATION/ EMPLOYMENT AND-OR LABOR/ SOCIAL PROTECTION/
ENVIROMENT/ JUSTICE|Information on policies related to HEALTH /EDUCATION/ EMPLOYMENT AND-OR
LABOR/ SOCIAL PROTECTION/ ENVIROMENT/ JUSTICE |Availability of National Data strategy or Policy.

CONTENT PROVISION
National portal(s) available in more than ONE official language |Information available about payments forgovernment services through channels other than online |Announcements of forthcoming procurement/
bidding processes |Information about results of procurement/bidding processes online |Information
about service provision in partnership with the private sector| Evidence of free access to services throughkiosks, community centers, post offices, libraries, public spaces, or free Wi-Fi |Web statistics on usage ofthe online features/services |Information on available scholarships or other forms of government funding
for EDUCATION |Links and references for EMPLOYMENT for youth | Information on how older persons
can apply for long term care.

194Annexes

ANNEXES

E-PARTICIPATION
E-participation portal(s) |Availability of social networking feature(s) |Live chat support functionality | leave
feedback option to improve useability and/or accessibility of e-services |Report corruption by public servants
or institutions |Calendar or announcements about any upcoming public engagement or e-participation
activities | Online tools to obtain raw (non-deliberative) inputs for policy deliberation | Evidence of any
outcome of e-consultations resulted in new policy decisions/regulations/services |Open government data
portal | In Open Data Portal availability of data dictionary or metadata repository | Guidance or toolkit on
using Open Government datasets |Possibility to propose/request new open datasets be made available
online |Information about the organization of competitions/ hackathons/ events around the use of open
government data |Open Government dataset(s) on national government expenditures (budget) |Availabilityof GIS or other geospatial data |Evidence of user satisfaction of online or mobile services | Information
on government expenditures (budget) on HEALTH/ EDUCATION/ EMPLOYMENT/ SOCIAL PROTECTION/
ENVIRONMENT/ JUSTICE | Information about upcoming consultations intended to involve people in thepast 12 months (HEALTH/ EDUCATION/ EMPLOYMENT/ SOCIAL PROTECTION/ ENVIRONMENT/ JUSTICE)|Information about having held online consultations via forums, polls, questionnaires etc. intended to
involve people in the past 12 months (HEALTH/ EDUCATION/ EMPLOYMENT/ SOCIAL PROTECTION/
ENVIRONMENT/ JUSTICE) |Evidence that people’s voices were included in the actual decision-making
in the past 12 months (HEALTH/ EDUCATION/ EMPLOYMENT/ SOCIAL PROTECTION/ ENVIRONMENT/JUSTICE)| Open Government dataset(s) on HEALTH/ EDUCATION/ EMPLOYMENT/ SOCIAL PROTECTION/
ENVIRONMENT/ JUSTICE |Report online a violation of labor laws | Availability of feature for participatory
budgeting or similar mechanism I Evidence of open data license for open government datasets |Open
Government dataset(s) on budget/expenditure in EDUCATION/ EMPLOYMENT/ ENVIRONMENT/ HEALTH/JUSTICE /SOCIAL PROTECTION? |Evidence of real time open government dataset(s) |Evidence of any cocreation and/or co-production of e-service (HEALTH/ EDUCATION/ EMPLOYMENT/ SOCIAL PROTECTION/
ENVIRONMENT/ JUSTICE) |Evidence of e-petition or similar mechanism |Evidence that people’s voices
were included in the policy decision-making on issues related to vulnerable group in the past 12 months(for immigrants, older people, persons living below poverty line, persons with disabilities, women, youth).

SERVICES PROVISION
Evidence of One-Stop-Shop portal(s) | E-procurement platform for bidding processes/submission oftenders | Service provision on Income taxes |Online provision for: Value Added Tax (VAT), Goods &Services Tax (GST) or equivalent | Apply online for: Visa to enter or transit | Registration or renewal for a:
Vehicle (car, truck, motorcycle, and others) |Online declaration to the police | Notify of moving/changing
an address online | Registration for a new company or business entity |Apply/request Birth certificates |Death certificates |Marriage certificates |Personal Identity Cards | Driver’s license |Land title registration|Environment-related permits |Building permits| Business licenses| Apply for Government vacancy
positions | Pay online for government fees or fines | Water utility |Energy(electricity/gas) utility |Digital
invoices | provision of GIS or other geospatial related online services | Business tax filing | Mobile service
provision available through i) smartphone apps; ii) SMS services; or iii) mobile browser (for HEALTH,EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT, SOCIAL PROTECTION, ENVIROMENT. JUSTICE) | Students can apply forgovernment scholarships and fellowships programme | Users can apply for: Social protection programs |Services available to the following vulnerable groups: poor (below poverty line) /persons with disabilities/older persons / immigrants, migrant workers, refugees, and internally displaced persons / women /youth|Eligibility and/or procedure on applying for citizenship or residency |Apply for: Receiving an affidavitof criminal record/background clearance | Access to justice: retrieve information / file (open) online; / manage of court cases |Services provided to people retiring from job | Apply for benefits due toillness and injury | Apply for child benefits | Apply for disability compensation benefits |Apply online formaternal or newborn benefits |Apply or file for unemployment benefits.

195

Annexes

2022 UN E-Government Survey

A.3

Telecommunication Infrastructure Index (TII)The Telecommunication Infrastructure Index is an arithmetic average composite of four indicators: (i)estimated internet users per 100 inhabitants; (ii) number of mobile subscribers per 100 inhabitants;(iii) number of wireless broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants; and (iv) number of fixed
broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants. The International Telecommunication Union is theprimary source of data in each case. (See Figure A.3) Data for each component was extracted fromthe ITU source on 10 February 2022.
The definitions of the four components of TII2 are:(i) “Internet users (per cent %)” refers to the proportion of individuals who used theInternet from any location in the last three months .
(ii) “Mobile-cellular subscriptions per 100 inhabitants” is the number of subscriptions tomobile service in the last three months. A mobile/cellular telephone refers to a portable
telephone subscribed to a public mobile telephone service using cellular technology,
which provides access to the PSTN. This includes analogue and digital cellular systems
and technologies such as IMT-2000 (3G) and IMT-Advanced. Users of both post-paid
subscriptions and prepaid accounts are included.
(iii) “Active mobile-broadband subscriptions” refers to the sum of data and voice mobilebroadband subscriptions and data-only mobile-broadband subscriptions to the public
Internet. It covers subscriptions being used to access the Internet at broadband speeds,
not subscriptions with potential access, even though the latter may have broadbandenabled handsets. Subscriptions must include a recurring subscription fee to access theInternet or pass a usage requirement – users must have accessed the Internet in theprevious three months. It includes subscriptions to mobile-broadband networks thatprovide download speeds of at least 256 kbit/s (e.g. WCDMA, HSPA, CDMA2000 1x
EV-DO, WiMAX IEEE 802.16e and LTE), and excludes subscriptions that only have accessto GPRS, EDGE and CDMA 1xRTT.4(iv) “Fixed broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants” refers to fixed subscriptions
to high-speed access to the public Internet or a TCP/IP connection, at downstream
speeds equal to, or greater than, 256 kbit/s. This includes cable modem, DSL, fiberto-home/building, other fixed/ wired-broadband subscriptions, satellite broadband andterrestrial fixed wireless broadband. This total is measured irrespective of the method of
Figure A.3

Telecommunication Infrastructure Index (TII) and its components

Mobile-cellular subscriptions
per 100 inhabitants
Internet users (% of population)

1/4

1/4

Fixed broadband subscriptions
per 100 inhabitants
Active mobile-broadband
subscriptions per 100 inhabitants

TII
1/4

196

1/4

Annexes

ANNEXES

payment. It excludes subscriptions that have access to data communications, including
the Internet via mobile-cellular networks. It should include fixed WiMAX and any otherfixed wireless technologies. It includes both residential subscriptions and subscriptions
for organizations.
Conceptually, the TII has remained largely unchanged since 2002. Please refer to Table A.1 below
showing the components that have been used to calculate TII throughout the editions of the Surveys.
The improvement of data quality and coverage has led to the reduction of data gaps that appearedin prior Surveys. However, in cases where gaps still occur, an effort is made to obtain data firstfrom the Word Bank data base, and then, if these efforts prove unsuccessful, the most recent ITU
data is used. Due to insufficient data at ITU’s end, it has been not possible to include other internet
indicators into TII. Another measure introduced in 2020 is that a cut-off limit of 120 has been applied
to TII components described above.
Table A.1

Telecommunication infrastructure index (TII) and changes of its components (2001-2022)
TII

TII

TII

TII

TII

TII

(2001,2003,2004,2005)(2008,2010)(2012)(2014,2016)(2018)(2020, 2022)

Internet users

Internet users

Internet users

Internet users

Internet users

Internet users

Online population

Fixed-broadband

Fixed-broadband

Fixed-broadband

Fixed-broadband

Fixed-broadband

subscriptions

subscriptions

subscriptions

subscriptions

subscriptions

Personal computer

Fixed Internet

Wireless

Active mobile-

Active mobile-(PC) users

subscriptions

broadbandbroadbandbroadband

subscriptions

subscriptions

subscriptions

Personal computer (PC) users

Mobile-cellular subscriptions
Fixed-telephone subscriptions
Television sets

Mobile-cellular

Mobile-cellular

Mobile-cellular

Mobile-cellular

Mobile-cellularsubscriptions

subscriptions

subscriptions

subscriptions

subscriptions

Fixed-telephone

Fixed-telephone

Fixed-telephone

Fixed-telephone

subscriptions

subscriptions

subscriptions

subscriptions

-

-

-

-

-

Each of these indicators was standardized through the Z-score procedure to derive the Z score foreach component indicator. The telecommunication infrastructure composite value for country “x” isthe simple arithmetic mean of the four standardized indicators derived as follows:
Telecommunication infrastructure composite value=
Average (Internet user Z-score+ Mobile/Cellular telephone subscription Z-score+ Active mobile broadband subscription Z-score+ Fixed broadband Z-score)
Finally, the TII composite value is normalized by taking its value for a given country, subtracting thelowest composite value in the Survey and dividing by the range of composite values for all countries.
TII(Country “x”) =A.4

Composite Value(Country “”x\”” )–Lowest Composite Value
Highest Composite Value – Lowest Composite Value

Human Capital Index (HCI)The Human Capital Index (HCI) consists of four components: (i) adult literacy rate; (ii) the combined
primary, secondary and tertiary gross enrolment ratio; (iii) expected years of schooling; and (iv) average
years of schooling. (See Figure A.3) Data for HCI components was extracted from the UNESCO-UIS
source on 28 October 2021.

197

Annexes

2022 UN E-Government Survey

Figure A.4

Human Capital Index (HCI) and its components

Expected years of schooling
Mean years of schooling

2/9

2/9

Gross enrolment ration (%)
Adult literacy (%)

HCI
2/9

1/3

The four indicators of HCI are defined as follows:
1. “Adult literacy” is measured as the percentage of people aged 15 years and above
who can, with understanding, both read and write a short simple statement on theireveryday life.
2. “Gross enrolment ratio” is the total number of students enrolled at the primary,secondary and tertiary level, regardless of age, as a percentage of the school-age
population.
3. Expected years of schooling is the total number of years of schooling that a child of acertain age can expect to receive in the future, assuming that the probability of his or
her being in school at any specific age is equal to the current enrolment ratio age.
4. Mean years of schooling (MYS) provides the average number of years of education
completed by a country’s adult population (25 years and older), excluding the years
spent repeating grades.
The first two components, (i.e., the adult literacy rate and the combined primary, secondary andtertiary gross enrolment ratio) have been used in all for the past Surveys editions since 2002.
Recognizing that education is the fundamental pillar in supporting human capital, the 2014 Survey
introduced two new components to the human capital index (HCI), namely (i) expected years ofschooling; and (ii) mean years of schooling. The preliminary statistical study commissioned by
DESA/DPIDG validated the use of the new HCI, accentuating that the two new components has
strengthened the HCI without introducing any error5. Also a cut-off limit of 100 has been applied to
Gross enrolment ratio component. Digital literacy indicators could not be used for this survey due tonot having enough data on digital literacy.

198

Annexes

ANNEXES

Table A.2

Human Capital Index (HCI) and changes of its components (2001-2022)

Components of HCI in past Surveys

Components of HCI since 2014 Survey(2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2012)
Adult literacy

Adult literacy

Gross enrollment ratio

Gross enrollment ratio-

Expected years of schooling-

Mean years of schooling

The HCI is a weighted average composite of the four indicators. In the same manner the TII iscomputed, each of the four component indicators is first standardized through the Z-score procedure
to derive the Z-score value for each component indicator. The human capital composite value forcountry “x” is the weighted arithmetic mean with one-third weight assigned to adult literacy rate
and two-ninth weight assigned to the gross enrolment ratio, estimated years of schooling and mean
years of schooling derived this way:
Human capital composite value =1× Adult literacy rate Z-score +3

2× Gross enrolment ratio Z-score +92× Estimated years of schooling Z-score +92
× Mean years of schooling Z-score
9

The human capital composite value is then normalized by taking its composite value for a given
country, subtracting the lowest composite value in the Survey and dividing by the range of composite
values for all countries.
Human Capital Index (Country “x”)=

A.5

Composite Value (Country “x”) – Lowest Composite Value
Highest Composite Value – Lowest Composite Value

E-Participation Index (EPI)The E-Participation Index (EPI) is derived as a supplementary index to the United Nations E-Government
Survey.
Understanding e-participation starts with the process it upholds. it begins, as a sine qua non with
the informative level, during which the government provides its constituents with basic information
leading to the second, a two-way form, where people are invited to give their inputs to governments
and finally, ’the partnership option’ during which citizens become the protagonist by leading thepolicy-making process. The latter framework closely relates to the type of three-tiered structure
within the UN E-participation framework. Since its inception in the 2003 edition of the Survey, the
EPI is, therefore, a multifaceted framework, composed of three core components, i.e., e-information,
e-consultation and e-decision-making. (See Box A.1)

199

Annexes

2022 UN E-Government Survey

Box A.1

E-Participation Framework• E-information: Enabling participation by providing citizens with public information and accessto information without or upon demand• E-consultation: Engaging citizens in contributions to and deliberation on public policies andservices• E-decision-making: Empowering citizens through co-design of policy options and co-productionof service components and delivery modalities.

A country’s EPI reflects the e-participation mechanisms that are deployed by the government ascompared to all other countries. The purpose of this measure is not to prescribe any specific practice,
but rather to offer insight into how different countries are using online tools in promoting interaction
between the government and its people, as well as among the people, for the benefit of all. As
the EPI is a qualitative assessment based on the availability and relevance of participatory services
available on government websites, the comparative ranking of countries is for illustrative purposes
and only serves as an indicator of the broad trends in promoting citizen engagement. As with the
EGDI, the EPI is not intended as an absolute measurement of e-participation, but rather, as an
attempt to capture the e-participation performance of counties relative to one another at a point intime.
In the 2022 Survey, the e-participation questions were further reviewed and expanded to reflectcurrent trends and modalities on how governments engage their people in public policy-making,implementation and evaluation. New questions were added to address the complexity alongwith the different types of interactions that can take place in e-participation services, through its
three dimensions further categorised into six sub-dimensions as: e-notification and e-enabling(under e-information), e-discourse and e-dialogue (under e-consultation), and e-collaboration ande-empowerment (under e-decision-making). While EPI provides a useful qualitative analytical tool
when comparing the data and ranking of countries for one specific year, caution must be taken incomparing e-participation rankings with past editions of the Survey.
Mathematically, the EPI is normalized by taking the total score value for a given country, subtracting
the lowest total score for any country in the Survey and dividing by the range of total score values
for all countries.
E-Participation Index (Country “x”) =Total Score (Country “x”) – Lowest Total Score
Highest Total Score – Lowest Total Score

The e-participation ranking of countries is determined by the value of EPI through the “standard
competition ranking”. In standard competition ranking, countries with the same EPI receive the sameranking number and a gap is left in the ranking numbers. This ranking strategy is adopted in viewthat if two or more countries tie for a position in the ranking, the positions of all those ranked below
them are unaffected. For example, if country A ranks ahead of B and C, both of which share thesame EPI value and scores ahead of D, then A is ranked first (1st), B and C are ranked second (2nd) and
D is ranked fourth (4th). In 2012, the “modified competition ranking” was used and for comparison
reasons, all ranks were adjusted in 2014 and 2016 using the standard competition ranking.

200

Annexes

ANNEXES

There are, however, limitations in above-mentioned e-participation measures. For instance, the UN
EPI focuses more on the “supply” rather than the “demand” side of e-participation. In addition, on
the one hand, such extrinsic measures are subject to the reality of governments paying lip service or“window dressing” to engage people but not in delivering the expected outcome or development
impact. On the other hand, the accelerated development of new communication technologies may
mask both the potential and risk of artificial intelligence (AI) and other automation tools driven
by big data and sentimental analytics, for instance, in providing anticipatory or more responsive
e-participation mechanisms.
Notwithstanding the usefulness and limitations of above measures, e-participation is highly
contextual — measuring e-participation does not need to be static and based on established terms
as e-participation is not a “once and done” project or process – it will evolve over time in tandemwith people’s needs and emerging policies and technologies. For instance, a country’s e-participation
approach can also be assessed through other means such as through self-assessments and perception
surveys of target recipients.

A.6

Member State Questionnaire (MSQ)

As has been done for each edition of the Survey, United Nations Member States were requested,through the Member State Questionnaire (MSQ) to provide information on the website addresses(URLs) of their respective national portal(s) as well as those of the different government ministries.
Information on efforts in support of e-government development, open government data,e-participation and the designated authority in charge of e-government policies was also requested.
129 Member States – 66.84 per cent of United Nations membership - returned a completed MSQ.
The appropriate submitted sites were then utilized during the assessment process. Information
provided in the MSQs was also used in the case studies included in the Survey.

The Questionnaire
Member State Questionnaire (MSQ) 2022 can be accessed via scanning the QR code below:
https://bit.ly/MSQ_2022

Responding Member States
Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan,
Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia andHerzegovina, Brazil, Brunei, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada,
Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of theCongo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Eswatini, Ethiopia,
Fiji, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran,
Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Latvia,
201

Annexes

2022 UN E-Government Survey

Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Monaco,
Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Myanmar, Namibia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, North
Macedonia, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar,
Republic of Korea, Russia, Rwanda, Sao Tome & Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles,
Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan,
Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Thailand, Tonga, Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United ArabEmirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam,
ZambiaA.7

Local Online Service Index (LOSI)For 20 years, the United Nations E-Government Survey has tracked the development of e-government
worldwide. Over its eleven editions, the assessment has expanded in both scope and coverage, now
observing e-government service provision across all 193 United Nations Member States.
Launched in 2018, the Local Online Service Index (LOSI) represents the latest major addition to theE-Government Survey methodology. The UN DESA-developed LOSI assessment captures the stateof the development of e-government service provision at the city level across the United Nations
Member States.
The Survey’s ongoing expansion presents methodological demands which must be met to ensure
the consistency, validity and robustness of the assessment across consecutive editions of theE-Government Survey. The 2022 edition of the LOSI assessment is the first to assess e-government
service provision in the most populous city in each of the 193 Member States. Faced with requests
from countries that did not have cities represented in LOSI 2018 and LOSI 2020, the decision wasmade to include the most populous city in each country.
The Local Online Service Index (LOSI) is a score derived on the basis of an online assessment covering
86 indicators. Each question calls for a binary response. Each of the 86 indicators is ascribed a “value1” if it is found in a city/municipality website, “value 0” if it is absent or not found by researchers.
There were some cases where the city portal did not provide certain services since they were provided
on the national portal. In such cases, the city portals scored a point only if they provided a link to thenational portal. The total number of points scored by each city (a.k.a. “raw score”) is divided by the
maximum score of 86 to derive the LOSI value for a given city in the range of 0 to 1.
The range of LOSI group values for each level are mathematically defined as follows: very highLOSI values range from 0.75 to 1.00 inclusive, high LOSI group values range from 0.50 to 0.7499
inclusive, middle LOSI values range from 0.25 to 0.4999 inclusive, and low LOSI values range from
0.0 to 0.2499 inclusive. In all references to these ranges in text and graphic elements, the respective
values are rounded for clarity and are expressed as follows: 0.75 to 1.00, 0.50 to 0.75, 0.25 to 0.50,
and 0.00 to 0.25.
Cities that fall into the same LOSI group are considered to have similar e-government development inlocal level. This might help policy makers from cities to understand better what is considered a good
performance and/or what targets can be achieved in short, middle and long-term.
The LOSI ranking of cities is determined by the value of LOSI through the “standard competition
ranking”. In standard competition ranking, cities with the same LOSI value receive the same ranking
number and a gap is left in the ranking numbers. This ranking strategy is adopted in view that if
two or more cities tie for a position in the ranking, the positions of all those ranked below them areunaffected. For example, if city A ranks ahead of B and C, both of which share the same LOSI value
and scores ahead of D, then A is ranked first (1st), B and C are ranked second (2nd) and D is ranked
fourth (4th).

202

Annexes

ANNEXES

Changes introduced to 2022 LOSI methodology
There have been a few changes introduced to the methodology used in 2022 in efforts to continuously
improve the study overall and to better align the LOSI features with those of OSI (Online Service
Index) component of the EGDI (E-Government Development Index). Thus, it might be difficult tomake direct comparison between the current edition i.e. LOSI 2022 and previous edition i.e. LOSI
2020. There are three main changes implemented with this edition of Survey regarding the LOSI
study.
(i) First LOSI pilot study started in 2018 with the assessment of online portals of selected
40 cities, which was scaled to 100 cities in 2020 edition to provide broader coverage of
local e-government worldwide. In this current edition of LOSI 2022, the most populous
cities from each of the 193 Member States have been included in the study, increasing
the number of cities assessed from 100 to 193.
(ii) Secondly, a number of new indicators have been added to the LOSI Questionnaire inorder to better align the features assessed in local level with those assessed in national
level. Total number of indicators have increased to 86 in current LOSI 2022 edition,compared to 80 indicators assessed in the LOSI 2020 edition.
(iii) “Institutional framework” has been introduced as a new criterion in 2022, being added
as fifth criterion to the existing four criteria(technology, content provision, services
provision and participation) of LOSI 2020. The new five-criteria structure of LOSI 2022
is closely aligned with five sub-components of OSI (Online Service Index).

Note on the selection of most populous city
One of the key challenges introduced by the launch and subsequent expansion of the LOSI
assessment has been the task of identifying one city in each UN Member State to be included in
the 2022 edition of the assessment. Following a methodology consistent with previous editions of
the LOSI assessment, UN DESA have chosen to include the most populous city, town, settlement ormunicipality in each of the 193 Member States. Using population as an inclusionary criterion aims
to ensure that the selected cities and their assessed e-government services reach the largest possible
number of people across the Member States.
The task of identifying the most populous city in each Member State is made challenging by theexistence of various, often conflicting approaches to determining the population of an urban
settlement. Popular sources varyingly report data and population figures for settlements ranging
from cities proper to larger urban agglomerations and sprawling metropolitan areas, depending on
their preferred demographic approach.
In the absence of a definitive consensus on what constitutes an urban population, UN DESA has
developed its own approach to identifying the most populous city in each Member State for the
purposes of the Survey, relying on data provided by the UN DESA Population and Statistics Divisions.
To this end, population data for the E-Government Survey are derived from the most recently
published edition of the United Nations Demographic Yearbook and The World’s Cities Data Booklet.
During the preparations for the biannual data collection activities for the E-Government Survey, UN
DESA refers to these sources to identify the most populous city in each Member State for inclusionin the upcoming edition of the Survey.
To ensure that the population figures thus acquired accurately reflect the number of targeted
e-government service users in each municipality, UN DESA considers the reported population
within the “city proper” as opposed to the populations of “urban” or “metropolitan areas”, which203

Annexes

2022 UN E-Government Survey

may include people not targeted by the e-government services offered by the central municipal
government or authority.
Factors such as capital city status or relative political or economic influence are also not consideredwhen selecting the cities to be included in the LOSI assessment to ensure methodological consistency
and replicability of the research. Population within the city proper, as compiled and reported by UN
DESA, is thus the only criterion used to determine a city’s inclusion in the LOSI assessment.
The lack of a clear geographic and demographic distinction between a state and its most populous
urban center presents a conceptual challenge to the assessment. In the case of city states like Monaco
and Singapore, among others, any person residing in the city state will conceivably have the same
access to both national and local-level e-government services as any other person in the same city
state. In accordance with a user-centric perspective on service provision, the LOSI assessment thus
acknowledges both national and local services in states where no clear distinction between the twoservice categories exists.
The figures thus acquired are only used to identify the most populous city in each Member Statefor inclusion in the Survey. Population figures are not among the indicators observed in the LOSI
assessment and thus have no direct bearing on a city’s performance in the assessment.
UN DESA will continue to update and revisit its list of most populous cities for each edition of theE-Government Survey to ensure that the assessment accurately reflects the number of users serviced
by local e-government services worldwide.

Assessment Instrument
The Local Online Service Index (LOSI) is a multi-criteria index that captures e-government development
at the local level, by assessing information and services provided by local governments throughofficial websites.
The 2022 LOSI comprises 86 indicators relating to 5 criteria: institutional framework (8), content
provision (25), services provision (18), participation and engagement (17), and technical technology(18).
(i) Institutional framework indicators covered the strategy in the city, organizational structure
including contact details of municipality departments and links to agencies, presence of
portal authentication, and information on legislation on access to information, data
privacy, open data and security.
(ii) The focus of the “Content Provision” criterion is on the availability of basic information
for the residents, not only related to the municipality, but also to other core areas
for societies at large (namely Open Data, smart cities initiatives and use of emerging
technologies). It assesses the quality, availability, relevance, and concise presentationof specific information provided on the website. This criterion includes the assessmentof issues such as access to contact information about the organizational structure of
the municipal government, access to public documents, access to sectorial information(namely on health, education, social security, economy). The presence of website privacy
policies is also included, since it has the potential to improve public perception, trust in
government, and to enable greater engagement with government.
(iii) The criterion of “Services Provision” assesses a set of fundamental services madeavailable by cities through their websites. The emphasis is on the delivery of fundamental
electronic services including the analysis of aspects such as online application and deliveryof certificates and licenses, employment search/offer, electronic payments, the ability ofusers to apply or register for municipal events or services online, forms and reports’204Annexes

ANNEXESsubmission and registration for services, participation in tenders, and e-Procurement.
Issues related to electronic authentication are likewise addressed in this criterion. An
additional aspect is assessed in this criterion, which is related with how municipalities
respond to email requests for information.
(iv) The fourth criterion is dedicated to “Participation and Engagement”. The main goal is toassess the existence of relevant online participation mechanisms and initiatives, namely
forums, complaint forms and online surveys. Other features considered in this criterion
include the availability of social media and the possibility to send comments/suggestions/complaints to the local government, as well as more sophisticated participatory
initiatives, such as participatory budget, engagement in online deliberations regarding
public policies and services, and empowerment through co-designing of policy options
and coproduction of service components and delivery modalities.
(v) The “Technology” criterion focuses on technical features of the websites with the aimof verifying how the website is made available for users. It encompasses aspects suchas ease of navigation, accessibility (when considering different browsers, devices, andlanguages available), visual attractiveness, functionality, and reliability.
The lists below show the set of indicators considered for each criterion.

Institutional Framework
Municipal portal | Municipal e-government strategy | Organization structure | Names and contacts ofheads of department | Rights to access government information | Privacy policy | Open data policy |Links for government agencies | Portal authentication.

Content
Foreign language support | Municipality information | Alerts for weather and natural disasters |Procurement announcements | Procurement results |Information about provided services | Services inpartnership with civil society | Facilitation of free internet access | Health information | Environmental
information | Education information | Social welfare information | Sports and culture information |Information for vulnerable groups | Justice information | Labor information | Evidence of smart cities
initiatives | Evidence of emerging technologies use | Statistical data and studies | Public transportation
information | Evidence of mobile phone apps | Waste and recycling information | Road safety
information | MGP usage statistics | COVID-19 information.

Services
Police online declaration | Online driver’s license | Online building permit | Online environmentrelated permit | Online business license | Online residentship | Online birth certificate | Online deathcertificate | Online marriage certificate | Address change notification | Online land title registration |Online vehicle registration | e-Procurement service | Online vacancies | Business tax payment | Online
fees payment | Water payment | Electricity/gas payment.

Participation
Municipality responsiveness emails | Quality of email response | Budget-related information| Open data provision | Open data metadata | Report of any form of discrimination | Real timecommunication | Feedback/complaint submission | Online deliberation processes | Social networking
features | Reporting of incidents in public spaces | Participatory budgeting | Participatory land use
plan | Announcement of upcoming e-participation activities | Feedback about consultation processes| e-Voting | Information on the public meetings of the municipal council.

205

Annexes

2022 UN E-Government Survey

Technical
Contact details | Browser compatibility | Ease of portal finding | Mobile device accessibility |Navigability | Internal search mechanism | Internal advanced search mechanism | Alignment withmarkup validation standards | Alignment with display standards | Alignment with accessibility
standards | Online user support | Information on online services use | Evidence of portal content
update | Personal data accessibility | Personal data updating | Business data accessibility | Businessdata updating | Helpdesk call number.

Local Government Questionnaire (LGQ)
In addition to Local Online Service Index (LOSI) 2022, the Local Government Questionnaire (LGQ) wasused to gather information to support United Nations E-Government Survey 2022 findings. Of the
146 most populous cities assessed in LOSI 2022, 42 filled the LGQ, corresponding to 28.8% per centwhile in 2020 only 3 cities filled out the LGQ.
The LGQ used can be seen below:
https://bit.ly/LGQ_2022

Responding Cities to LGQ
Addis Ababa (Ethiopia), Almaty (Kazakhstan), Amsterdam (Netherlands), Asuncion (Paraguay), Bandar
Seri Begawan (Brunei Darussalam), Belgrade (Serbia) , Bogota (Colombia), Budapest (Hungary),
Dhaka (Bangladesh), Dubai (United Arab Emirates), Jakarta (Indonesia), Kampala (Uganda), Kigali(Rwanda), Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia), Kyiv (Ukraine), Havana (Cuba), Lisbon (Portugal), London (United
Kingdom), Madrid (Spain), Manama (Kingdom of Bahrain), Monaco (Monaco), Montevideo (Uruguay),
Moscow (Russia), Muscat (Oman), Podgorica (Montenegro), Port Louis (Mauritius), Prague (Czech
Republic), Quezon (Philippines), Seoul (South Korea), Singapore (Singapore), Stockholm (Sweden),Tallin (Estonia), Tbilisi (Georgia), Tehran (Iran), Tokyo (Japan), Tunis (Tunisia), Ulaanbaatar (Mongolia),
Vienna (Austria), Vientiane (Laos), Yangon (Myanmar), Yerevan (Armenia), Zurich (Switzerland).

206

Annexes

ANNEXES

A.8

Country Classiﬁcations and Nomenclature in the Survey

Regional groupings are taken from the classification of the United Nations Statistics Division. For
details, see https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/.
The lists of Least Developed Countries (LDCs), Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs) andSmall Island Developing States (SIDS) were obtained from the United Nations Office of the High
Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small
Island Developing States (UN-OHRLLS).
1. For the list of Least Developed Countries (LDCs):
https://www.un.org/ohrlls/content/profiles-ldcs
2. For the list of Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs):
https://www.un.org/ohrlls/content/list-lldcs
3. For the list of Small Island Developing States (SIDS):
https://www.un.org/ohrlls/content/list-sids
Economies are divided according to 2020 GNI per capita, calculated using the World Bank Atlas
method.
For the most recent year of 2020 GNI per capita, Atlas method data, please see
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD (Date accessed: 5 May 2022)
Where data and statistics are reported by income groups, the Survey classifies countries according
to the World Bank income classification of high, upper-middle, lower-middle and low-income
groups. Venezuela has been temporarily unclassified in July 2021 pending release of revised national
accounts statistics. Regardless, Venezuela has been considered as “Upper Middle Income” country
when calculating the average data for economic groups, based on UN E-government Survey 2020
classification.
For details, see https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519. (Date accessed:
5 May 2022)

A.9

Portal Assessment Phase for Online Service Index and Local Online
Service Index

To arrive at a set of Online Service Index and Local Online Service Index values for 2022, a total of
227 online United Nations Volunteer (UNV) researchers from 130 countries covering 66 languages,
assessed each country’s national website along with its most populous city website in the native
language, including the national portal, e-services portal and e-participation portal, as well as thewebsites of the related ministries of education, labor, social services, health, finance and environment,
as applicable. The UNVs included qualified graduate students and volunteers from universities in thefield of public administration, and were guided by the UN staff members who prepare the Survey
To ensure consistency of assessments, all the researchers were provided with a rigorous trainingby e-government and online service delivery experts with years of experience in conducting theassessments and were guided by Data Team Coordinators who provided support and guidance
throughout the assessment period. Researchers were instructed and trained to assume the mindset of an average citizen user in assessing sites. Thus, responses were generally based on whether
the relevant features could be found and accessed easily, not whether they in fact exist but are
hidden somewhere in the site(s). The key point is that the average user needs to find information

207

Annexes

2022 UN E-Government Survey

and features quickly and intuitively for a site to be “usable” with content readily discoverable by theintended beneficiaries.
The data collection and Survey research ran from July 2021 until the beginning of November 2021.
Each country/city pair was assessed by at least two researchers who conducted the assessment in
the country’s national language. After the initial assessment, the evaluations by the two researchers
on each country/city pair were compared and questions regarding discrepancies were reviewed
together and resolved by the researchers. The third phase, from October 2021 to November 2021,
was the final review by the Data Team Reviewers who analysed all the answers and, where needed,
carried out further review and verification processes using multiple methods and sources. The scores
were then sent for approval to a Senior Reviewer. Through this multilevel approach, all surveyed
national and local websites were thoroughly assessed by at least three people, one of whom has
years of experience in assessing public sector online services, and reviewed by one of the Data Team
Coordinators.
Once the evaluation phase was completed, the team produced the first draft of the OSI and LOSI
rankings. Data was extracted from the platform and the raw OSI and LOSI scores were created.
Rankings were compared with previous OSI and LOSI rankings, and discrepancies were thoroughly
reviewed.

Challenges in reviewing the online presence of a country
Selecting the appropriate site/URL at the national level
One of the essential decisions for researchers when undertaking the country assessment is identifying
the specific site(s) to review as the national government site for each country. Regardless of thesophistication of e-government in a specific country, the priority for users is to identify which of themany potentially available government sites would be deemed as the “official” national government
site—the gateway or starting point for national users. A simple, clear statement at the chosen website
is sufficient to start an important step towards providing government information and services tothe public in an integrated, usable and easy-to-find manner. Many national sites state that it is the“official” Government site, or “Gateway to Government,” or other similar statement.
As has been done for each edition of the Survey, the MSQ asked Member States to provide
information on the website addresses (URL) of their national portal(s) and the different government
ministries. This information was then utilized during the assessment process.
It is usually the case that not all countries provide the appropriate URLs. Thus, some discretionis exerted in deciding whether to use only the websites provided by the Member State. What isnoteworthy in this Survey is that the researchers not only reviewed the national portals but also
undertook exhaustive research on e-participation and open government data, where applicable.
One dilemma that researchers encountered was that several countries provided more than one
legitimate national access point. While some have simply not yet consolidated their government
entry points into a single site or portal that could be clearly distinguished, others have taken thisapproach intentionally - that is, offering different access points to different audiences. Consideringthat the use of integrated portals or multi-portals is emerging as a trend in e-government strategies
worldwide, researchers would select the integrated website as a national portal or another portal if
it was deemed to be the official homepage of the government. However, more than one site could
be scored if the sites were clearly part of a tightly integrated “network” of national sites. It should
be noted that during the assessment of the national portals, having more than one national entry isneither a disadvantage nor a benefit.

208Annexes

About theANNEXES
SurveySome countries offer certain public services at the sub-national or local level rather than the federal
level. No country is penalized for offering a service at the sub-national level as opposed to the federal
level. In fact, when the issue arises, researchers tend to be inclusive in assessing the matter if theinformation and/or service can be found at the national portal.
A more difficult problem arises when not only a specific service is located at the local level but whenthe entire ministerial functions are altogether missing at the national level. If researchers are unable
to locate a ministry as per the above described method, then the next step is to find out whether thecountry in question actually has such a ministry at the national level or whether the functions might
be locally administered.
Integrated Portal and Multi-Portal Approaches
Some countries have adopted a different approach to their online e-government portal, by utilizing
multiple websites for different topics. Instead of centralizing all the e-information, e-services,
e-participation, open data and other online features into one portal, they are made available inseparate websites for a more audience-targeted approach. Researchers made sure to examine all
possible websites when making the assessment, through links or search engines, to ensure coverageof all government websites where relative information can be found.
Even if the norm recommended is a one-stop-shop type of service delivery or an integrated portal
approach, countries that opted for a decentralized approach were not penalized in their score, andthe assessment was conducted as if an integrated approach was utilized.
Accessing in national official languages
The research team was fully equipped to handle the six official languages of the United Nations,
namely Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish. However, as in previous assessment
cycles, the team went beyond this mandate and reviewed each website in the official language ofthe country, or where that was not possible, in one of the languages available on the site. Translators
aided as necessary so that possible errors based on language are reduced to a minimum.
Towards a more people-centric approach
In line with the global trend towards a more people-centric approach and the demand for greater
efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the public sector, the MSQ has been designed to reflect thisparadigm of e-government. User uptake has been included as a special subject in the Survey,
encouraging governments to take account not only of the supply side of e-services but also of whatis demanded/needed by the target users. Accordingly, the research team was instructed to enforce
this approach consistently throughout the entire assessment. Where features could not be foundeasily, quickly and intuitively, then a site scores poorly.
Data Quality Assurance (QA)
To ensure data quality, UN DESA has put assessment procedures under close monitoring, including
by developing a web-based application platform for data collection and storage, preparing themethodological and training guidelines for researchers, and instituting a training programme forboth group training or individual hands-on support for researchers in resolving thorny issues.
Among other tasks, team members were asked to justify the selection of URLs and to indicate
whether the URLs had been reviewed in past Surveys. Regular discussions were held to discuss
concerns and ensure consistency of evaluation methods.

209

Annexes

2022 UN E-Government Survey

UN DESA applied the assessment scores to generate an ordering of online service presence of all
United Nations Member States and compared them with the historical results in previous Surveys
so as to detect possible shortcomings in the process. The new scores are then compared to scoresfrom the previous Surveys by removing the new questions and only considering the ones that remainunchanged. The team was assisted in the research by United Nations interns and volunteers withlanguage skills not otherwise covered by the core group.

Below is a list of the criteria adopted for data QA:
Three levels of assessment/supervision (volunteers, First Report Officer, Second Report Officer)
First check of consistency of data with data patterns by group ranking (VH, H, M, L OSI)
Tuning of OSI questions to stabilize the dataset and to be consistent with EGDI data model
Second check of consistency of data with data patterns by group ranking (VH, H, M, L OSI)First calculation of OSI
Two levels of assessment/supervision of the outliners - Compensation with MSQ (if doable)
Second calculation of OSI
Data analysis of target countries (outliners or cases with significant drop/improvement)
Random check of OSI subset of questions / URL - Compensation with MSQ (if doable)
Third calculation of OSI
Second check of consistency of data with data patterns by group ranking (VH, H, M, L OSI)
Check for consistency with other international benchmark reports and 3rd party Sources (MSQ)
Recalculation of OSI (Final)
Data analysis of target countries (those jumping from on group to another)
Final calculation of EGDI

A.10 Open Government Data Index (Pilot Study)
The Open Government Data Index (OGDI) is derived from one of the three subindices of theUN E-Government Development Index (EGDI), the Online Service Index (OSI). Therefore, it is a
supplementary index of the EGDI. The OGDI was first introduced as a pilot index in a 2019 research
paper6 and in the 2020 E-Government Survey. The 2022 methodology is in essence a continuation of
the 2020 Pilot. In 2022, the OGDI is derived from 26 questions – up from twelve questions in 2020
– out of UN DESA’s assessment of national e-government portals for the construction of the OSI.
Most questions used in calculating the OGDI are binary of nature, representing either the absence(0) or the presence (1) of a certain feature. However, questions related to the availability of certain
types of open data are non-binary, entailing that a score of 0 indicates the absence of the featurein question, while a score of 1 and 2 differ in the extent of the detail of the presence of the feature(e.g. a score of 1 indicates the data being available in any format, while a score of 2 would imply thedata is available in an open standard like XML). For computation purposes, these were adjusted to
0.5 and 1 respectively. Following the same computation for OSI, composite scores of OGDI for each
Member State were normalized to obtain a range of 0 to 1 using a normalisation formula.
The framework of the OGDI is based on three key Pillars upon which the OGDI is constructed: Policy,
Platform and Impact. In order to construct the index, assessed areas (questions) were aggregatedacross three key Pillars in its current framework using the weighted sum method [35] and considering
two criteria: (i) the relative weight of the completed pilot in 2020, based on 2018 data; and (ii) the
relative number of assessed areas and questions – including newly introduced ones, for each pilar.

210

Annexes

ANNEXESThe adjusted weights of each pillar are Policy (30%), Platform (50%) and Impact (20%). As such,
the OGDI is calculated based on the weighted average of normalized scores for each Member State.
For the purpose of the assessment, countries were then grouped into OGDI Levels based on theirrespective composite OGDI scores. In 2022, OGDI levels were redefined to be in line with EGDI
Levels, implying groups being cut off each quarter (i.e., 0-0.25-0.50-0.75-1). This is a change fromthe 2020 Pilot, where levels were cut off at 0-0.4-0.8-1

Online Services Index (OSI) and Local Online Services Index (LOSI)
researchers
The 2022 edition engaged a number of United Nations Volunteers, United Nations staff and interns
in the assessments for the Online Services Index (OSI) and the Local Online Services Index (LOSI):
Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong, Abdulla Abdulrahman, Abdullah Farah, Adnan Krndzija, Adulai Bary, Agnesa
Karapetyan, Ahmed Abkar Mhmed Abkar, Ahmed Medien, Aigul Azamat, Aisha Jeelaan, Alari
Rammo, Alejandra Jazmin Bartosik, Alejandro Vasquez, Aleksandr Zarnadze, Aleksandra StarČeviĆ,Alena Labanava, Alex Jiya, Ana Caballero Díaz, Ana Herrera, Ana Patricia Saravia Quiroz, Anamarija
Doslic, Anchal Manchanda, Andrea Recinos, Angela Lopez, Angelos Kokkinias, Anta Badji, Ardak
Orakbayeva, Atchade Assouhan Jonas, Aurelie Ngo Mambongo, Ayite Ayivi, Ayshan Mustafazade,Bakhit Amine Adoum, Batkhishig Oyundelger, Binyameen Waheedh, Bogdana Storozuk, Bourema
Diarra, Broddi Sigurdarson, Camila González López, Carla Cristina Bailón Rosas, Carol Kollen, Cassimo
Gulamo, Cecilia Parrela Rocha, Celina Ramlal, Cesar Perez, Charya Samarakoon, Claudia Torres,Daniela Stratulativ, Danish Mahmood, Danisha Moodie, Davit Avagyan, Dawa Dema, Denise Viktoria
Hebesberger, Dereje Tarekegn Wuddie, Diana Hysenaj, Dorel Balliu, Doukessa Lerias, Eeva Nyman,
Elena Sauca, Eltone Mabodo, Emanuel Martinov, Erica Jane Padilla, Evgeny Bachevsky, Fausia Abdoel,Francis Mwaura, Francis Wargirai, Frezgi Haile Goitom, Gabriella Zsótér, Georgina Jiménez Zehnder,
Geovany Saravia Quiroz, Giorgia Concetti, Goma Bhattarai, Gonzalo Picatoste, Hannah Atkins,
Haruka Takagi, Hermann Ouedraogo, Hillary Ajifo, Hope Zimba, Hulya Yurekli, Ilya Espino, Isabel Puig,
Isabelle Plante, Iulian Spirescu, Jamil Afandiyev, Jane Finn, Jasmon Wan Ting Hoh, Jawwad Zaki, Jean
Marie Altéma, Jeffrey Cherubin, Jiaxin Ni, Jieni Wu, Joanna Nakabiito, João Martins, Joël Boucher-deMuyser, Joly Ghanawi, Jordan John, Jose Hernandez-O’Connell, Josephine Zingani, Juliane Tröger,Juyeon Kim, Kam Yuen Cheng, Karely Gutiérrez Pintor, Karim Attoumani Mohamed, Karla Freyre,
Karla Maria Fabon, Kasahun Shifera, Katherine Jazmin Pana Ovares, Kathy Comport, Katja Frelih,
Katrin Bauer, Kehinde Richard Fashua, Komala Vandana Sawmy, Lalaina Andriamahenintsoa, Lela
Kankadze, Lenka Volkova, Liga Skafida, Lisa Mison, Livia Bartha, Lucas Foganholo, Lucie Gayelle
Assonfack Kana, Lulu Mabrucky, M. Gabriela Rivera Monterrosa, Mahamane Moutari Abdou Baoua,
Mahmoud Alzoubi, Manar Al-Janabi, Manuela Marolla, Marcus Hartman, Maria Jose Borja Acurio,
Maria Soliman, Matias Calderon Velarde, Mavlonova Maftunakhon, Maymun Ali, Mbia Eloundou
Boris, Md. Mamotaj Ali, Melika Kavianpour, Merve Cigerci, Michail Doulis, Mihailo Mujovic, Milan
Stevanovic, Milena Caye, Miora Rakotonirina, Mivegozel Geldiyeva, Mohammad Bilal Wali, Mokaya
Zec, Morten Meyerhoff, Muhammad Saidur Rahman, Muhammad Ubadah Tanveer, Mukanuna Tuzza
Alain, Muna El-Mufti, Mutombo Erick Kalombo, Nada Ahmed Anwar, Nanako Fujimoto, Naomi
Prinsloo, Nataly Sanabria Pemberty, Ngoc Lan Huong Vo, Nini Gvilia, Nourredine Jina-Pettersen,
Nusratov Zabiyullokhon, Nutifafa Geh, Osckin Wenceslas Gankoue Nke, Pablo Pastor Vidal, Pearlbiga
Karki, Petra Bayerová, Pierre-Alain Richardot, Qays Raed Abualrub, Raffaella Margaryan, Raphaëlle
Petit, Raúl Quiñonez, Raymond Selorm Mamattah, Riin Koppel, Rithy Ly, Roberta Helena Moreira dos
Santos, Rowena Bethel, Ruben Sansom, S.M.M.P.B.Samarakoon, Sabrina Mezzaroma, Sahar Moawia
Osman Mohamed, Sandra Just, Santeri Talka, Sara Khelil, Sara Toni Samaha, Sarnai Enkhbaatar,
Sashan Morris Anderson, Sekarmastuti Aureldina Putri, Selena Ramic, Senani Mamba, Shadrack
Venson, Sharon Farrell, Shrddha Rajesh, Shruti Parmar, Siemen Van Londersele, Sigita Kalnina, Sina
Nasirzadeh Masouleh, Siti Mastura Daud, Sitorakhon Oripova, Sitthichok Mike Mongkhonsaen,

211

Annexes

2022 UN E-Government Survey

Sofia Ghaout, Sofija Rakcejeva, Su Thinzar Maung, Tanapa Konuntakiet, Tashi Gyeltshen, Tasneem
NourElDeen Ali Qurrah, Tatiane Caroline Rocha Lemos, Théophile Ntakirutimana, Thet Myat Noe,
Thidaphone Temelath, Tien Viet Phan, Uladzislau Shpileuski, Vesselina Georgieva-Benisty, Vesta.
Šagoikaite, Viktor Ahlgren, Wagner Silva de Araujo, Weldebrhan Werede, Xinyi Wang, Yayo Ake
Paul Michel, Yunhan Xu, Zaklina Grgic, Zoi Arvanitidou, and Zoran Jordanoski.

Endnotes
1

1
3

4
5
6

212

A quartile is a statistical term describing a division of data into four defined intervals. The quartile measures the
spread of values above and below the mean by dividing the distribution of data into four groups. A quartile
divides data into three points—a lower quartile, median, and upper quartile—to form four groups of the data
set. In the 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey, the lower (or first) quartile in each EGDI group isdenoted as L1, M1, H1 or V1 and is the middle number that falls between the smallest value of the data set
and the median. The second quartile (L2, M2, H2 or V2) is also the median. The upper (or third) quartile,
denoted as L3, M3, H3 or V3, is the central point that lies between the median and the highest number ofthe distribution. LM, MH, HV and VH are the highest data points in each EGDI group
ITU (2014) Manual for Measuring ICT Access and Use by Households and Individuals. Available at: http://
www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-d/opb/ind/D-IND-ITCMEAS-2014-PDF-E.pdf
Note: The Internet is a worldwide public computer network. It provides access to a number of communication
services including the World Wide Web and carries e-mail, news, entertainment and data files, irrespective ofthe device used (not assumed to be only via a computer − it may also be by mobile telephone, tablet, PDA,
games machine, digital TV etc.). Access can be via a fixed or mobile network. (Ibid) https://www.itu.int/en/
ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/publications/manual/ITUManualHouseholds2020_E.pdf
ITU (2017). Measuring the Information Society Report 2017. Volume 2. ICT country profiles. p. 249. Available
at: https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/publications/misr2017/MISR2017_Volume2.pdf
2014 E Government Survey
Zheng, L., Kwok, W.M., Aquaro, V., Qi, X., & Lyu, W. (2020). Evaluating global open government data.
Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, 381–291.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3428502.3428553

EuropeAfricaEuropeAfricaAmericas
Americas
Asia
Oceania
EuropeAsia
Americas
Asia
Asia
Americas
EuropeEuropeAmericas
AfricaAsia
Americas
EuropeAfricaAmericas

Albania

Algeria

AndorraAngolaAntigua and Barbuda

Argentina

Armenia

Australia

Austria

Azerbaijan

BahamasBahrain

Bangladesh

Barbados

BelarusBelgium

BelizeBenin

BhutanBolivia (Plurinational State of)Bosnia and Herzegovina

Botswana

BrazilRegionAsia

Country

Sub-region

South America

Southern Africa

Southern Europe

South America

Southern Asia

Western Africa

Central America

Western Europe

Eastern Europe

Caribbean

Southern Asia

Western Asia

Caribbean

Western Asia

Western Europe

Australia and New ZealandWestern Asia

South America

Caribbean

Middle Africa

Southern Europe

Northern Africa

Southern Europe

Southern Asia

E-Government Development Index

Afghanistan

Table A.3

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

EGDI Group

V1

H1

H3

H2

H2

M3

H1

V2

V1

H3

H2

V1

HV

H3

V3

VH

HV

V2

H2

M3

HV

H2

HV

M1

Rating
Class

49

118

96

98

115

149

133

39

58

79

111

54

66

83

20

7

64

41

99

157

76

112

63

184

Rank

0.791

0.54950.6256

0.61650.55210.42640.50050.82690.758

0.71170.563

0.77070.72770.69370.88010.94050.73640.81980.61130.37890.71770.56110.7413

0.271

EGDI
2022

0.89640.274

0.48980.51930.5996

0.52450.44250.68990.5302

0.53880.65210.75230.62140.61190.88270.938

0.72210.80890.42310.4716

0.51330.37430.8182

0.277

OSI
2022

0.68140.6814

0.63820.58180.52610.3156

0.38820.82940.8426

0.73180.44690.74440.7976

0.67610.85050.88360.69250.73320.59810.20040.8812

0.61330.60370.1867

TII
2022

0.79530.69320.74890.74830.53050.43910.67070.96140.90110.86450.59

0.81540.7641

0.79320.907

10.79450.91730.81280.46480.75850.69560.80220.3493

HCI
2022

UMC

UMC

UMC

LMC

LMC

LMC

LMC

HIC

UMC

HIC

LMC

HIC

HIC

UMC

HIC

HIC

UMC

UMC

HIC

LMC

HIC

LMC

UMC

LIC

“Level of
Income”

Annexes

ANNEXES

213

214
Asia
EuropeAfricaAfricaAfricaAsia
AfricaAmericas
AfricaAfricaAmericas
Asia
Americas
AfricaAfricaAmericas
AfricaEuropeAmericas
Asia
EuropeAsia
AfricaEuropeBurkina Faso

BurundiCabo VerdeCambodia

Cameroon

CanadaCentral African Republic

Chad

Chile

China

Colombia

Comoros

Congo

Costa Rica

Côte d’Ivoire

Croatia

Cuba

CyprusCzech Republic

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Denmark

RegionBulgaria

Country(continued)

Brunei Darussalam

Table A.3

Northern Europe

Middle Africa

Eastern Asia

Eastern Europe

Western Asia

Caribbean

Southern Europe

Western Africa

Central America

Middle Africa

Eastern Africa

South America

Eastern Asia

South America

Middle Africa

Middle Africa

Northern America

Middle Africa

South-Eastern Asia

Western Africa

Eastern Africa

Western Africa

Eastern Europe

South-Eastern Asia

Sub-region

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Low EGDI

Low EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

EGDI Group

VH

M1

M1

V2

V3

MH

V2

H1

V1

M2

M1

HV

V2

V2

L3

L2

V2

MH

H1

H2

M2

M2

V1

HV

Rating
Class

1

175

180

45

27

136

44

120

56

161

182

70

43

36

189

191

32

141

127

110

171

166

52

68

Rank

0.97170.30570.28590.80880.866

0.49450.8106

0.54670.76590.36750.27780.72610.81190.83770.189

0.14070.85110.44980.50560.566

0.32040.3476

0.7766

0.727

EGDI
2022

0.97970.23410.15790.66930.77920.27890.81080.54670.68120.31770.03260.74180.88760.828

0.2726

0.09620.8504

0.3916

0.41810.49650.33760.373

0.70920.5871

OSI
2022

0.97950.14770.05080.84560.92530.36630.77110.51860.7572

0.217

0.33

0.64980.805

0.79990.11910.0833

0.777

0.365

0.56050.55070.14

0.3931

0.79840.8372TII
2022

0.95590.53550.649

0.91140.89340.83840.85

0.57480.85930.56770.471

0.78670.74290.88530.17530.24250.926

0.59280.538

0.6507

0.4837

0.27680.82210.7567

HCI
2022

HIC

LIC

LIC

HIC

HIC

UMC

HIC

LMC

UMC

LMC

LMC

UMC

UMC

HIC

LIC

LIC

HIC

LMC

LMC

LMC

LIC

LIC

UMC

HIC

“Level of
Income”

Annexes
2022 UN E-Government Survey

Africa
Americas
Americas
Americas
AfricaAmericas
AfricaAfricaEuropeAfricaAfricaOceania
EuropeEuropeAfricaAfricaAsia
EuropeAfricaEuropeAmericas
Americas
AfricaAfricaAmericas
Americas
Americas
EuropeDjibouti

Dominica

Dominican Republic

EcuadorEgypt

El Salvador

Equatorial Guinea

Eritrea

Estonia

Eswatini

Ethiopia

Fiji

FinlandFranceGabon

Gambia (Republic of The)

Georgia

Germany

Ghana

GreeceGrenadaGuatemalaGuineaGuinea-Bissau

GuyanaHaiti

Honduras

Hungary

Eastern Europe

Central America

Caribbean

South America

Western Africa

Western Africa

Central America

Caribbean

Southern Europe

Western Africa

Western Europe

Western Asia

Western Africa

Middle Africa

Western Europe

Northern Europe

Melanesia

Eastern Africa

Southern Africa

Northern Europe

Eastern Africa

Middle Africa

Central America

Northern Africa

South America

Caribbean

Caribbean

Eastern Africa

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Low EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

Low EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

V1

M3

LM

H1

M1

M2

H1

HV

V2

H2

V3

V1

M1

H2

V3

VH

H3

M1

MH

VH

L3

M1

H1

H2

H3

H3

H2

M1

51

155

187

123

186

162

126

66

33

106

22

60

174

116

19

2

97

179

141

8

190

183

117

103

84

92

109

181

0.78270.394

0.2481

0.52330.256

0.36080.51110.72770.84550.58240.877

0.75010.30880.55210.8832

0.95330.62350.28650.44980.93930.17090.2746

0.55190.58950.68890.64290.57890.28330.74650.24170.08650.45090.06240.44210.54090.55070.77530.53610.79050.61110.14550.35780.87680.9833

0.4813

0.373

0.324

1

0

0.1845

0.467

0.573

0.76510.61830.29540.22080.76710.35010.2646

0.46430.3472

0.34480.43280.73480.8206

0.59340.89570.74090.45080.62790.89440.91270.59350.15010.355

0.89490.08370.13630.56180.55790.52690.55670.76040.276

0.83450.59010.393

0.6546

0.35850.29550.5596

0.89770.94050.6176

0.9446

0.89840.33010.67060.87840.964

0.7957

0.33640.67030.9231

0.429

0.50310.62680.63750.77480.75390.681

0.3529

HIC

LMC

LMC

UMC

LIC

LIC

UMC

UMC

HIC

LMC

HIC

UMC

LIC

UMC

HIC

HIC

UMC

LIC

LMC

HIC

LIC

UMC

LMC

LMC

UMC

UMC

UMC

LMC

Annexes

ANNEXES215

216
Europe
Asia
Asia
Asia
Asia
EuropeAsia
EuropeAmericas
Asia
Asia
Asia
AfricaOceania
Asia
Asia
Asia
EuropeAsia
AfricaAfricaAfricaEuropeEuropeIndonesia

Iran (Islamic Republic of)

Iraq

IrelandIsraelItaly

JamaicaJapan

JordanKazakhstan

Kenya

Kiribati

KuwaitKyrgyzstan

Lao People’s Democratic Republic

LatviaLebanonLesothoLiberia

Libya

Liechtenstein

Lithuania

RegionIndia

Country(continued)

Iceland

Table A.3

Northern Europe

Western Europe

Northern Africa

Western Africa

Southern Africa

Western Asia

Northern Europe

South-Eastern Asia

Central Asia

Western Asia

Micronesia

Eastern Africa

Central Asia

Western Asia

Eastern Asia

Caribbean

Southern Europe

Western Asia

Northern Europe

Western Asia

Southern Asia

South-Eastern Asia

Southern Asia

Northern Europe

Sub-region

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

EGDI Group

V3

V3

M2

M1

MH

H1

V3

M3

H3

HV

M3

H2

V3

H2

VH

H2

V2

V3

V3

MH

H3

HV

H2

VH

Rating
Class

24

25

169

177

145

122

29

159

81

61

148

113

28

100

14

102

37

16

30

146

91

77

105

5

Rank

0.87450.86850.33750.29050.44140.52730.85990.37640.69770.74840.4334

0.55890.86280.60810.90020.59060.83750.88850.85670.43830.64330.716

0.5883

0.941

EGDI
2022

0.83470.73290.099

0.34170.34560.42570.81350.30050.6176

0.69730.36860.68210.93440.65940.9094

0.49140.86590.87450.77960.206

0.41960.7644

0.79340.8867OSI
2022

0.863610.16010.11150.38360.49070.83780.282

0.66370.77740.253

0.43050.752

0.46810.91470.56580.786

0.89150.82870.52010.73

0.63970.39540.9705TII
2022

0.92510.87260.75340.41840.595

0.6656

0.92840.54680.81190.7706

0.67850.56410.90210.69670.87650.71480.8606

0.89940.96180.58880.78040.74380.57610.9657

HCI
2022

HIC

HIC

UMC

LIC

LMC

UMC

HIC

LMC

LMC

HIC

LMC

LMC

UMC

UMC

HIC

UMC

HIC

HIC

HIC

UMC

LMC

LMC

LMC

HIC

“Level of
Income”

Annexes
2022 UN E-Government Survey

EuropeAfricaAfricaAsia
Asia
AfricaEuropeOceania
AfricaAfricaAmericas
Oceania
EuropeAsia
EuropeAfricaAfricaAsia
AfricaOceania
Asia
EuropeOceania
Americas
AfricaAfricaEuropeEuropeLuxembourg

Madagascar

MalawiMalaysia

Maldives

Mali

Malta

Marshall Islands

Mauritania

Mauritius

MexicoMicronesia (Federated States of)

MonacoMongolia

Montenegro

MoroccoMozambique

MyanmarNamibia

Nauru

Nepal

Netherlands

New Zealand

Nicaragua

Niger

Nigeria

North Macedonia

NorwayNorthern Europe

Southern Europe

Western Africa

Western Africa

Central America

Australia and New ZealandWestern Europe

Southern Asia

Micronesia

Southern Africa

South-Eastern Asia

Eastern Africa

Northern Africa

Southern Europe

Eastern Asia

Western Europe

Micronesia

Central America

Eastern Africa

Western Africa

Micronesia

Southern Europe

Western Africa

Southern Asia

South-Eastern Asia

Eastern Africa

Eastern Africa

Western Europe

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Low EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

V3

H3

MH

LM

H1

VH

VH

H1

MH

H1

MH

M2

H2

HV

HV

HV

M2

HV

HV

M2

M3

VH

M2

H2

V1

M2

M2

V3

17

80

140

188

130

4

9

125

139

121

134

173

101

71

74

73

164

62

75

172

160

15

168

104

53

167

163

26

0.88790.7

0.45250.2406

0.5032

0.94320.93840.51170.45480.53220.49940.313

0.59150.726

0.72090.72280.355

0.74730.72010.31570.37140.89430.3414

0.58850.774

0.34350.35650.86750.8007

0.702

0.525

0.39040.48090.95790.90260.45920.29520.43160.30730.35630.47210.55280.62630.45880.27030.82450.6282

0.09520.30040.88490.3652

0.48730.763

0.36070.35150.83190.91020.64170.38860.14

0.42870.88960.962

0.51230.47680.51330.60820.15370.6676

0.78680.69730.87940.11020.63

0.75880.46480.12360.92450.43980.58450.79450.18150.182

0.94620.95280.75620.44390.19150.6

0.98230.9506

0.56360.59250.6516

0.5829

0.429

0.635

0.83830.83910.83020.68450.78740.77330.38730.69030.87340.21930.69370.76450.48840.536

0.8245

HIC

UMC

LMC

LIC

LMC

HIC

HIC

LMC

HIC

UMC

LMC

LIC

LMC

UMC

LMC

HIC

LMC

UMC

UMC

LMC

UMC

HIC

LIC

UMC

UMC

LIC

LIC

HIC

Annexes

ANNEXES

217

218
Asia
Asia
Oceania
Americas
Oceania
Americas
Americas
Asia
EuropeEuropeAsia
Asia
EuropeEuropeEuropeAfricaAmericas
Americas
Americas
Oceania
EuropeAfricaAsia
AfricaPalau

PanamaPapua New Guinea

Paraguay

Peru

Philippines

PolandPortugal

Qatar

Republic of Korea

Republic of Moldova

Romania

Russian Federation

RwandaSaint Kitts and Nevis

Saint Lucia

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Samoa

San Marino

Sao Tome and Principe

Saudi Arabia

SenegalRegionPakistanCountry(continued)

Oman

Table A.3

Western Africa

Western Asia

Middle Africa

Southern Europe

Polynesia

Caribbean

Caribbean

Caribbean

Eastern Africa

Eastern Europe

Eastern Europe

Eastern Europe

Eastern Asia

Western Asia

Southern Europe

Eastern Europe

South-Eastern Asia

South America

South America

Melanesia

Central America

Micronesia

Southern Asia

Western Asia

Sub-region

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

EGDI Group

MH

V2

M3

H3

M3

H2

H2

H3

H1

V2

V1

HV

VH

HV

V2

V2

H3

V1

H3

M2

H3

H1

M3

V1

Rating
Class

143

31

154

90

152

107

114

87

119

42

57

72

3

78

38

34

89

59

94

170

82

132

150

50

Rank

0.44790.85390.41380.64540.42070.58110.558

0.67750.54890.81620.76190.7251

0.95290.71490.82730.84370.65230.7524

0.63320.323

0.69560.50180.42380.7834EGDI
2022

0.49340.822

0.24350.37880.35920.45260.40070.33070.79350.73680.68140.738

0.98260.60940.79540.79290.63030.80990.60590.32630.6741

0.23730.56580.7423OSI
2022

0.50250.87350.32180.811

0.15580.5486

0.56830.82930.32090.80530.79540.576

0.96740.82030.82010.83480.56380.62670.59890.143

0.66030.37350.31220.8012TII
2022

0.34780.86620.67590.7466

0.747

0.742

0.70490.87240.53220.90650.809

0.86130.90870.715

0.86650.90330.76290.82070.69470.49960.75250.8946

0.39330.8067

HCI
2022

LMC

HIC

LMC

HIC

LMC

UMC

UMC

HIC

LIC

UMC

UMC

UMC

HIC

HIC

HIC

HIC

LMC

UMC

UMC

LMC

UMC

HIC

LMC

HIC

“Level of
Income”

Annexes
2022 UN E-Government Survey

EuropeAfricaAfricaAsia
EuropeEuropeOceania
AfricaAfricaAfricaEuropeAsia
AfricaAmericas
EuropeEurope
Asia
Asia
Asia
Asia
AfricaOceania
Americas
AfricaAsia
Asia
Oceania
AfricaSerbiaSeychelles

Sierra Leone

Singapore

Slovakia

Slovenia

Solomon Islands

SomaliaSouth Africa

South Sudan

Spain

Sri Lanka

Sudan

Suriname

SwedenSwitzerland

Syrian Arab Republic

Tajikistan

Thailand

Timor-Leste

Togo

Tonga

Trinidad and Tobago

Tunisia

TürkiyeTurkmenistan

TuvaluUgandaEastern Africa

Polynesia

Central Asia

Western Asia

Northern Africa

Caribbean

Polynesia

Western Africa

South-Eastern Asia

South-Eastern Asia

Central Asia

Western Asia

Western Europe

Northern Europe

South America

Northern Africa

Southern Asia

Southern Europe

Eastern Africa

Southern Africa

Eastern Africa

Melanesia

Southern Europe

Eastern Europe

South-Eastern Asia

Western Africa

Eastern Africa

Southern Europe

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Low EGDI

High EGDI

Low EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

MH

M3

MH

V1

H3

H3

H1

M3

M3

V1

H1

M3

V3

VH

H2

M1

H3

V3

L1

HV

L2

M2

V3

V1

VH

M1

H3

V2

144

158

137

48

88

93

124

151

147

55

129

156

23

5

108

176

95

18

193

65

192

164

21

47

12

185

85

40

0.44240.37880.48080.79830.653

0.63390.51550.42310.43720.766

0.50390.38720.87520.941

0.58090.29720.62850.88420.08520.7357

0.134

0.353

0.87810.80080.91330.26330.67930.82370.51690.2265

0.298

0.86

0.6031

0.48920.3296

0.43380.39310.77630.39680.30530.76770.9002

0.34180.21180.56440.85590.05180.74870.29440.3676

0.8666

0.726

0.962

0.28010.44240.85140.24720.26070.3551

0.6626

0.6646

0.67170.34960.28480.364

0.73380.377

0.3581

0.945

0.958

0.70890.31990.54830.889500.685

0.1074

0.19880.82390.83280.87580.26390.81980.78650.56310.64920.78920.87220.69110.74090.86750.55080.5546

0.78790.738

0.49830.91280.96490.69210.35990.77260.90720.20380.773300.4925

0.94390.84360.90210.24590.77580.8332

LIC

UMC

UMC

UMC

LMC

HIC

UMC

LIC

LMC

UMC

LMC

LIC

HIC

HIC

UMC

LIC

LMC

HIC

LIC

UMC

LIC

LMC

HIC

HIC

HIC

LIC

HIC

UMC

Annexes

ANNEXES219

220
EuropeAsia
EuropeAfricaAmericas
Americas
Asia
Oceania
Americas
Asia
Asia
AfricaAfricaUnited Kingdom of Great Britain andNorthern Ireland

United Republic of Tanzania

United States of America

Uruguay

Uzbekistan

Vanuatu

Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam

Yemen

ZambiaZimbabwe

RegionUnited Arab Emirates

Country(continued)

UkraineTable A.3

Eastern Africa

Eastern Africa

Western Asia

South-Eastern Asia

South America

Melanesia

Central Asia

South America

Northern America

Eastern Africa

Northern Europe

Western Asia

Eastern Europe

Sub-region

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

EGDI Group

MH

H1

M1

H3

H1

MH

HV

V2

VH

M3

VH

VH

V1

Rating
Class

138

131

178

86

128

135

69

35

10

153

11

13

46

Rank

0.47170.50220.28990.67870.50530.49880.72650.83880.91510.41690.91380.901

0.8029EGDI
2022

0.38450.44140.33930.64840.3056

0.42280.744

0.76410.93040.47

0.88590.90140.8148OSI
2022

0.38430.39090.16710.69730.39230.47270.65750.85430.88740.27090.91860.9306

0.727

TII
2022

0.64630.67440.36330.69030.81810.60090.77780.898

0.92760.51

0.93690.87110.8669

HCI
2022

LMC

LMC

LIC

LMC

Unclassified

LMC

LMC

HIC

HIC

LMC

HIC

HIC

LMC

“Level of
Income”

Annexes
2022 UN E-Government Survey

High EGDI
Very High EGDI
High EGDI
High EGDI
High EGDI
Middle EGDI
Middle EGDI

Asia

EuropeOceaniaWorld

Small Island Developing States

Land Locked Developing Countries

Least Developed Countries

Very High EGDI
High EGDI
High EGDI
Middle EGDI

High income

Upper middle income

Lower middle income

Low income

EGDI GroupHigh EGDI

Americas

Levels of Income

Middle EGDI

Africa

EGDI Group

0.29630.50320.64440.8241EGDI

0.34980.48470.53270.61020.50810.83050.64930.64380.4054

EGDI

Infrastructure Index

Index

0.30240.45620.5676

0.21390.44410.6001

0.842

Telecommunications

Online Service
0.75420.28480.41210.49380.57510.37750.83920.6166

0.61390.33080.46420.4026

0.55540.42010.76990.61370.55850.3548

Infrastructure Index

Index
0.367

Telecommunications

Online Service

0.37260.60920.76550.8762

Human Capital Index

0.43370.57780.70160.70010.72680.88250.71750.759

0.4945

Human Capital Index

Regional and Economic Groupings for E-Government Development Index (EGDI) and E-Participation (EPI)

Region/Grouping

Table A.4

0.22980.3232

0.46230.6424

E-Participation Index

0.24830.36220.27660.445

0.3474

0.66310.50240.42530.2595

E-Participation Index

Annexes

ANNEXES

221

222
AfricaAsia
AfricaAsia
AfricaAfricaAsia
AfricaAfricaAfricaAfricaAfricaAfricaAfricaAfricaAfricaAfricaAmericas
Oceania
Asia
AfricaAfricaAfricaAfricaAngola*Bangladesh*Benin

Bhutan*Burkina Faso

BurundiCambodia*

Central African Republic

Chad

Comoros*

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Djibouti*

Eritrea

Ethiopia

Gambia (Republic of The)

GuineaGuinea-Bissau

Haiti

Kiribati*

Lao People’s Democratic Republic*

LesothoLiberia

Madagascar

MalawiRegionAsia

Country

Eastern Africa

Eastern Africa

Western Africa

Southern Africa

South-Eastern Asia

Micronesia

Caribbean

Western Africa

Western Africa

Western Africa

Eastern Africa

Eastern Africa

Eastern Africa

Middle Africa

Eastern Africa

Middle Africa

Middle Africa

South-Eastern Asia

Eastern Africa

Western Africa

Southern Asia

Western Africa

Southern Asia

Middle Africa

Southern Asia

Sub-Region

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Low EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Low EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Low EGDI

Low EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

EGDI Group

M2

M2

M1

MH

M3

M3

LM

M1

M2

M1

M1

L3

M1

M1

M1

L3

L2

H1

M2

M2

H2

M3

H2

M3

M1

Class

Rating

167

163

177

145

159

148

187

186

162

174

179

190

181

175

182

189

191

127

171

166

115

149

111

157

184

Rank

E-Government Development Index (EGDI) of Least Developed Countries (LDCs)

Afghanistan

Table A.5

0.34350.35650.29050.44140.37640.43340.2481

0.256

0.36080.30880.28650.17090.28330.30570.27780.189

0.14070.50560.32040.3476

0.55210.42640.563

0.3789

0.271

EGDI

0.36070.35150.34170.34560.30050.36860.08650.06240.44210.14550.373

00.22080.23410.0326

0.2726

0.09620.41810.33760.373

0.5996

0.52450.65210.4716

0.277

Index

Online Service

0.18150.182

0.11150.3836

0.282

0.253

0.2646

0.3472

0.34480.45080.15010.08370.276

0.14770.33

0.11910.08330.56050.14

0.3931

0.52610.3156

0.44690.20040.1867

Infrastructure Index

Telecommunications

0.48840.536

0.41840.595

0.54680.67850.393

0.35850.29550.33010.33640.429

0.35290.53550.471

0.17530.24250.538

0.4837

0.27680.53050.43910.59

0.46480.3493

Index

Human Capital

Annexes
2022 UN E-Government Survey

Africa
AfricaAsia
Asia
AfricaAfricaAfricaAfricaAfricaOceania
AfricaAfricaAfricaAsia
AfricaOceania
AfricaAfricaAsia
Africa

Mauritania

Mozambique

Myanmar*

Nepal*

Niger

Rwanda

Sao Tome and Principe*

Senegal*Sierra Leone

Solomon Islands*

SomaliaSouth Sudan

Sudan

Timor-Leste*

Togo

Tuvalu*UgandaUnited Republic of Tanzania

Yemen

Zambia*(*) Graduating countries

AfricaMali

Eastern Africa

Western Asia

Eastern Africa

Eastern Africa

Polynesia

Western Africa

South-Eastern Asia

Northern Africa

Eastern Africa

Eastern Africa

Melanesia

Western Africa

Western Africa

Middle Africa

Eastern Africa

Western Africa

Southern Asia

South-Eastern Asia

Eastern Africa

Western Africa

Western Africa

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Low EGDI

Low EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Low EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

H1

M1

M3

MH

M3

M3

M3

M1

L1

L2

M2

M1

MH

M3

H1

LM

H1

MH

M2

M2

M2

131

178

153

144

158

151

147

176

193

192

164

185

143

154

119

188

125

134

173

172

168

0.50220.28990.41690.44240.37880.42310.43720.29720.0852

0.134

0.353

0.26330.44790.41380.54890.2406

0.51170.49940.313

0.31570.34140.44140.33930.47

0.51690.22650.43380.39310.21180.05180.29440.36760.28010.49340.24350.79350.39040.45920.30730.35630.09520.36520.39090.16710.27090.24720.26070.28480.364

0.319900.1074

0.19880.26390.50250.32180.32090.14

0.51230.60820.15370.46480.43980.67440.36330.51

0.56310.64920.55080.5546

0.35990.203800.49250.24590.34780.67590.53220.19150.5636

0.58290.429

0.38730.2193

ANNEXES

Annexes(*) Graduating countries

223

224
Asia
AfricaAfricaAfricaAsia
Asia
AfricaEuropeAmericas
EuropeMalawiMali

Mongolia

Nepal

Niger

North Macedonia

Paraguay

Republic of Moldova

AfricaChadLesothoAfricaCentral African Republic

Lao People’s Democratic Republic

AfricaBurundiAsia

AfricaBurkina Faso

Asia

AfricaBotswana

Kyrgyzstan

Americas

Bolivia (Plurinational State of)Kazakhstan

Asia

BhutanAfricaAsia

Azerbaijan

AfricaAsia

Eswatini

Asia

Afghanistan

Armenia

Ethiopia

RegionEastern Europe

South America

Southern Europe

Western Africa

Southern Asia

Eastern Asia

Western Africa

Eastern Africa

Southern Africa

South-Eastern Asia

Central Asia

Central Asia

Eastern Africa

Southern Africa

Middle Africa

Middle Africa

Eastern Africa

Western Africa

Southern Africa

South America

Southern Asia

Western Asia

Western Asia

Southern Asia

Sub-Region

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Low EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Low EGDI

Low EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

HV

H3

H3

LM

H1

HV

M2

M2

MH

M3

H3

V3

M1

MH

L3

L2

M2

M2

H1

H2

H2

H3

HV

M1

Class

Middle EGDI

Rating

EGDI
Group

72

94

80

188

125

74

168

167

145

159

81

28

179

141

189

191

171

166

118

98

115

83

64

184

Rank

0.7251

0.63320.7

0.2406

0.51170.72090.34140.34350.44140.37640.69770.86280.28650.44980.189

0.14070.32040.3476

0.54950.61650.5521

0.69370.7364

0.271

EGDI

E-Government Development Index (EGDI) of Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs)

Country

Table A.6

0.738

0.60590.702

0.39040.45920.62630.36520.36070.34560.30050.6176

0.9344

0.373

0.324

0.2726

0.09620.3376

0.373

0.274

0.51930.5996

0.61190.7221

0.277

Index

Online Service

0.576

0.59890.64170.14

0.51230.69730.43980.18150.38360.282

0.66370.752

0.1501

0.355

0.11910.08330.14

0.39310.6814

0.58180.52610.6761

0.69250.1867

Infrastructure Index

Telecommunications

0.86130.69470.75620.19150.56360.83910.21930.48840.595

0.54680.81190.90210.33640.67030.17530.24250.4837

0.27680.69320.74830.53050.7932

0.79450.3493

Index

Human Capital

Annexes
2022 UN E-Government Survey

Africa
AfricaAsia
Asia
AfricaAsia
AfricaAfricaRwandaSouth Sudan

Tajikistan

Turkmenistan

UgandaUzbekistan

ZambiaZimbabwe

Eastern Africa

Eastern Africa

Eastern Africa

Central Asia

Eastern Africa

Central Asia

Central Asia

Eastern Africa

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Low EGDI

MH

H1

HV

MH

MH

H1

L1

H1

119

138

131

69

144

137

129

193

0.54890.47170.50220.72650.44240.48080.50390.0852

0.79350.38450.44140.744

0.51690.298

0.39680.05180.38430.39090.65750.24720.35510.377

00.32090.64630.67440.77780.56310.78920.738

0.20380.5322Annexes

ANNEXES225

226
RegionAmericas
Americas
Asia
Americas
Americas
AfricaAfricaAmericas
Americas
Americas
Oceania
Americas
AfricaAmericas
Americas
Americas
Oceania
Asia
Oceania
AfricaOceania
Oceania
Oceania
Oceania

Antigua and Barbuda

BahamasBahrainBarbados

BelizeCabo Verde

Comoros

Cuba

Dominica

Dominican Republic

Fiji

GrenadaGuinea-Bissau

GuyanaHaiti

Jamaica

Kiribati

Maldives

Marshall Islands

Mauritius

Micronesia (Federated States of)

Nauru

Palau

Papua New Guinea

Melanesia

Micronesia

Micronesia

Micronesia

Eastern Africa

Micronesia

Southern Asia

Micronesia

Caribbean

Caribbean

South America

Western Africa

Caribbean

Melanesia

Caribbean

Caribbean

Caribbean

Eastern Africa

Western Africa

Central America

Caribbean

Western Asia

Caribbean

Caribbean

Sub-Region

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Low EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

M2

H1

MH

M2

HV

M3

H2

M3

H2

LM

H1

M1

HV

H3

H3

H2

MH

M1

H2

H1

H3

V1

HV

H2

Class

High EGDI

Rating

EGDI
Group

170

132

139

164

75

160

104

148

102

187

123

186

66

97

92

109

136

182

110

133

79

54

66

99

Rank

E-Government Development Index (EGDI) of Small Island Developing States (SIDS)Country

Table A.7

0.323

0.50180.45480.355

0.72010.3714

0.58850.43340.5906

0.2481

0.52330.256

0.72770.62350.64290.57890.49450.27780.566

0.50050.71170.77070.72770.6113

EGDI

Online0.32630.23730.29520.27030.62820.30040.48730.3686

0.49140.08650.45090.06240.5507

0.48130.61830.29540.27890.0326

0.49650.44250.53880.75230.62140.4231Service Index

0.143

0.37350.47680.11020.75880.1236

0.58450.253

0.56580.2646

0.46430.34720.73480.59350.55670.76040.36630.33

0.55070.38820.73180.74440.7976

0.5981

Infrastructure Index

Telecommunications

Human

0.4996

0.89460.59250.68450.77330.69030.69370.67850.71480.393

0.6546

0.35850.89770.79570.75390.681

0.83840.471

0.65070.67070.86450.81540.76410.8128

Capital Index

Annexes
2022 UN E-Government Survey

Oceania
Americas
Oceania
Oceania

Trinidad and Tobago

TuvaluVanuatu

Oceania

Solomon Islands

Tonga

South America

Asia

Singapore
Americas

AfricaSeychelles

Asia

Africa

Sao Tome and Principe

Suriname

Oceania

Samoa

Timor-Leste

Melanesia

AmericasSaint Vincent and the Grenadines

Melanesia

Polynesia

Caribbean

Polynesia

South-Eastern Asia

South-Eastern Asia

Eastern Africa

Middle Africa

Polynesia

Caribbean

Caribbean

AmericasSaint Lucia

Caribbean

AmericasSaint Kitts and Nevis

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

MH

M3

H3

H1

M3

H2

M2

VH

H3

M3

M3

H2

H2

H3

87

135

158

93

124

147

108

165

12

85

154

152

107

114

0.49880.37880.63390.51550.43720.58090.353

0.91330.67930.41380.42070.58110.558

0.67750.42280.22650.48920.3296

0.3931

0.34180.36760.962

0.44240.24350.35920.45260.40070.33070.47270.26070.67170.34960.364

0.70890.19880.87580.81980.32180.15580.5486

0.56830.82930.60090.64920.74090.86750.55460.6921

0.49250.90210.77580.6759

0.747

0.742

0.70490.8724

Annexes

ANNEXES

227

228
0.88270.53880.5302High OSIHigh OSI

Bangladesh

Barbados

0.6214

Very High OSIHigh OSIHigh OSI

BrazilBrunei Darussalam

Bulgaria

Middle OSI
Middle OSI

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Botswana

0.5996

High OSIHigh OSI

BhutanBolivia (Plurinational State of)

0.5245

Middle OSIHigh OSI

BelizeBenin

0.70920.58710.89640.274

0.48980.51930.44250.6899High OSIHigh OSI

BelarusBelgium

0.65210.7523High OSI
Very High OSI

Bahamas0.61190.4231BahrainVery High OSIHigh OSI

0.938

Austria

0.7221High OSI
Very High OSI

Armenia

Australia

Azerbaijan

0.8089Middle OSI
Very High OSI

Antigua and Barbuda

Argentina

0.51330.4716

High OSI
Middle OSIAndorra0.37430.8182

0.277

OSI 2022

AngolaVery High OSI
Middle OSI

Albania

Algeria

Middle OSIOSI GroupIF

1

0.80771

0.53850.80770.88461

0.92310.76920.96150.80770.80770.961510.73080.84621

10.80771

0.7692

0.69230.73080.61540.96150.7692

Online Service Index (OSI) and its components

Afghanistan

Country

Table A.8
CP

0.7

0.7

1

0.5

0.5

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.4

0.7

0.8

0.6

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.6

0.9

0.9

1

0.9

0.6

0.8

0.7

0.6

1

0.5

SP

0.57330.58670.81330.28

0.38670.52

0.53330.48

0.58670.77330.50670.54670.62670.89330.70670.70670.89330.85330.73330.81330.32

0.58670.53330.38670.77330.1867EPI

0.73860.47730.89770.17050.53410.3182

0.46590.34090.20450.45450.43180.39770.52270.44320.39770.38640.77270.9886

0.57950.64770.42050.17050.375

0.22730.76140.1932TEC

0.76470.58820.88240.23530.29410.64710.76470.82350.11760.70590.41180.6471

0.58820.64710.82350.64710.88240.82350.88241

0.35290.6471

0.52940.52940.76470.3529

EGDI Group

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

0.7766

0.727

0.791

0.54950.6256

0.61650.55210.42640.50050.82690.758

0.71170.563

0.77070.72770.69370.88010.94050.73640.81980.61130.37890.71770.56110.74130.271

EGDI 2022

Annexes
2022 UN E-Government Survey

0.8280.8876

Middle OSI
Very High OSI

Chad

Chile

0.85040.31770.6812

Low LOSI
Middle OSIComoros

Congo

0.27890.7792

Very High OSI
Middle OSI

Croatia

Cuba

Very High OSIHigh OSI

EcuadorEgypt

0.2954

Middle OSIHigh OSI

Very High OSI
Low LOSI

DenmarkDjibouti

Dominica

Low LOSI

Democratic Republic of the
Congo

Dominican Republic

0.2208Low LOSI

Democratic People’s Republicof Korea

0.573

0.76510.61830.97970.23410.15790.6693

Very High OSIHigh OSI

CyprusCzech Republic

0.81080.5467

High OSIHigh OSI

Costa Rica

Côte d’Ivoire

0.03260.7418

Very High OSIHigh OSI

China

Colombia

0.2726

0.0962

Very High OSI
Low LOSI

0.41810.3916

Middle OSI
Middle OSI

Cambodia

Cameroon

Canada0.3376
0.4965

Middle OSI
Middle OSI

BurundiCabo VerdeCentral African Republic

0.373

Middle OSI

Burkina Faso

0.76921

1

0.5

0.57691

0.46150.30770.9231

1

0.76920.96151

0.9231

0.69230.19231

10.96150.69230.3846

0.96150.73080.8462

0.69230.65380.8846

0.8

0.9

1

0.6

0.3

1

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.4

0.9

0.7

0.8

0.6

0.2

0.9

0.9

0.9

0.4

0.2

0.8

1

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.65330.69330.56

0.36

0.226710.10670.16

0.6

0.69330.24

0.78670.50670.68

0.2

0.01330.64

0.84

0.8533

0.12

0

0.8

0.30670.33330.61330.22670.32

0.35230.70450.45450.09090.1136

0.88640.25

0.05680.60230.75

0.13640.73860.375

0.55680.23860.01140.71590.8636

0.69320.31820.13640.82950.28410.28410.25

0.34090.22730.58820.82350.76470.47060.17650.9412

0.58820.29410.88240.88240.41180.76470.70590.64710.76470.17650.76470.82350.82350.29410.17650.88240.47060.64710.47060.35290.4118High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Low EGDI

Low EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

0.58950.68890.64290.57890.28330.97170.30570.28590.80880.866

0.49450.8106

0.54670.76590.36750.27780.72610.81190.83770.189

0.14070.85110.44980.50560.566

0.32040.3476

Annexes

ANNEXES

229

230
1

0.55070.54090.4421High OSIHigh OSI

GrenadaGuatemalaVery High OSI
Very High OSI
Very High OSI

Iceland

India

Indonesia

Low LOSIHigh OSI

Honduras

Hungary

Middle OSI
Low LOSI

GuyanaHaiti

Middle OSI

0.53610.7753High OSI
Very High OSI

Ghana

GreeceLow LOSI

0.61110.7905High OSI
Very High OSI

Georgia

Germany

Guinea0.35780.1455

Middle OSI
Low LOSI

Gabon

Gambia (Republic of The)

Guinea-Bissau

0.8768

Very High OSI
Very High OSI

FinlandFrance0.373

0.7644

0.79340.88670.74650.24170.08650.45090.06240.9833

0.4813

Middle OSI
Middle OSI

Ethiopia

0.324

Fiji

Very High OSI
Middle OSI

Estonia

Eswatini

00.1845

Low LOSI
Low LOSI

Equatorial Guinea

0.467

OSI 2022

Eritrea

OSI Group
Middle OSI(continued)

El Salvador

Country

Table A.8
IF

1

1

1

1

0.53850.42310.80770.15380.76920.76920.65380.84620.9231

1

0.92310.34620.76920.96151

0.7692

0.69230.80771

00.46150.8462

CP

1

1

1

1

0.5

0

0.8

0.1

0.3

0.7

0.8

0.9

0.8

0.6

0.7

0.1

0.3

1

0.9

0.5

0.5

0.6

1

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.69330.8267

0.88

0.8

0.24

0.04

0.49330.02670.45330.62670.74670.84

0.45330.76

0.5467

0.06670.37330.9467

0.97330.56

0.4

0.2667

0.973300.1333

0.48

SP

EPI

0.71590.59090.79550.51140.10230.10230.21590.07950.28410.32950.20450.61360.45450.72730.53410.23860.20450.71590.95450.2386

0.19320.14770.97730.02270.15910.3523TEC

0.64710.88240.82350.76470.411800.47060.35290.76470.47060.64710.76470.52940.88240.70590.05880.41180.70590.88240.70590.52940.6471

0.94120.17650.35290.2941

EGDI GroupHigh EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Low EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

Low EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

0.716

0.58830.941

0.78270.394

0.2481

0.52330.256

0.36080.51110.72770.84550.58240.877

0.75010.30880.55210.8832

0.95330.62350.28650.44980.93930.17090.2746

0.5519

EGDI 2022

Annexes
2022 UN E-Government Survey

0.9094
0.65940.93440.68210.3686
0.6973

Middle OSI
Very High OSIHigh OSI
Very High OSIHigh OSI
Middle OSI

JamaicaJapan

JordanKazakhstan

Kenya

Kiribati

0.87450.30050.8135

Middle OSI

Lao People’s Democratic
Republic

0.36520.8849Middle OSI
Very High OSI

Mali

Malta

0.763
0.4873

Very High OSI
Middle OSI

Malaysia

0.36070.35150.83190.3456

Maldives

Middle OSI
Middle OSI

Madagascar

Malawi0.8347

Very High OSI
Very High OSI

Lithuania

0.099
0.7329Low LOSIHigh OSI

Libya

Liechtenstein

Luxembourg

0.3417

Middle OSI
Middle OSI

LesothoLiberia

0.4257

Very High OSI
Middle OSI

LatviaLebanon0.6176

High OSIHigh OSI

KuwaitKyrgyzstan

0.49140.8659Very High OSI
Very High OSIIsraelItaly

0.7796

0.206

Low LOSI
Very High OSI

Iraq

0.4196

Middle OSI

Ireland

Iran (Islamic Republic of)

0.96150.69230.61541

0.61540.65381

10.96150.4231

0.53850.65380.76920.96150.69230.9231

1

0.69230.80770.96150.88461

0.76921

10.9231

0.53850.6923

0.9

0.5

0.6

1

0.6

0.6

1

1

0.9

0.1

0.3

0.5

0.5

0.9

0.5

0.6

0.8

0.6

0.6

1

0.8

1

0.8

1

0.8

0.8

0.5

0.5

0.9333

0.32

0.56

0.68

0.24

0.28

0.7867

0.94670.77330.08

0.33330.25330.3333

0.8

0.2

0.6

0.68

0.32

0.7067

0.97330.66670.74670.53330.88

0.94670.8

0.09330.52

0.76140.27270.30680.68180.375

0.28410.75

0.54550.54550.03410.29550.30680.39770.7386

0.26140.5

0.54550.29550.57950.80680.54551

0.28410.72730.71590.68180.21590.18180.76470.52940.6471

0.94120.52940.52940.8824

0.94120.70590.23530.41180.58820.52940.70590.41180.70590.82350.35290.7647

0.94120.52941

0.52940.88240.76470.64710.23530.4706

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

0.89430.3414

0.58850.774

0.34350.35650.86750.87450.86850.33750.29050.44140.52730.85990.37640.69770.74840.4334

0.55890.86280.60810.90020.59060.83750.88850.85670.43830.6433Annexes

ANNEXES

231

232
0.47210.45920.9026

Middle OSI
Middle OSI

Nauru

Nepal

0.30730.525

High OSI
Low LOSIHigh OSI

Pakistan

Palau

PanamaVery High OSIHigh OSI

NorwayOman

High OSIHigh OSI

Nigeria

North Macedonia

0.3904

Middle OSI
Middle OSI

Nicaragua

Niger

0.6741

0.23730.56580.74230.80070.702

0.48090.9579Very High OSI
Very High OSINetherlands

New Zealand

0.29520.4316

Middle OSI
Middle OSIMyanmar0.35630.2703

Namibia

Middle OSIHigh OSIHigh OSI

Mongolia

Montenegro
Middle OSI

0.62630.5528Middle OSI

MonacoMorocco0.4588Middle OSI

Mozambique

0.8245

Very High OSI

MexicoMicronesia(Federated States of)

0.09520.6282

Low LOSIHigh OSI

Mauritania

0.3004

OSI 2022

Mauritius

OSI Group
Middle OSI(continued)

Marshall Islands

Country

Table A.8
IF

0.96150.46150.9231

1

0.96150.96150.92310.88460.73081

10.96150.50.73080.69230.69230.84620.9231

0.96150.88460.69231

10.57690.6154

CP

0.8

0.4

1

1

0.9

0.9

0.5

0.6

0.8

0.9

1

0.7

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.7

0.3

0.9

0.8

0.3

0.3

SP

0.66670.17330.56

0.66670.8

0.57330.57330.33330.53330.94670.77330.45330.25330.46670.1867

0.36

0.52

0.52

0.56

0.5333

0.2

0.8

0.64

0.02670.2533EPI

0.51140.22730.36360.6591

0.6932

0.69320.30680.25

0.25

0.95450.96590.23860.25

0.25

0.30680.19320.27270.46590.60230.13640.21590.72730.42050.02270.2614TEC

0.82350.35290.58820.82350.76470.82350.58820.47060.64710.64710.88240.52940.41180.58820.35290.64710.4706

0.41180.35290.70590.35290.88240.70590.11760.3529

EGDI GroupHigh EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Low EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

0.69560.50180.42380.78340.88790.7

0.45250.2406

0.5032

0.94320.93840.51170.45480.53220.49940.313

0.59150.726

0.72090.72280.355

0.74730.72010.31570.3714

EGDI 2022

Annexes
2022 UN E-Government Survey

0.6094
0.98260.738
0.68140.73680.79350.33070.40070.35920.3788

Very High OSIHigh OSI
Very High OSIHigh OSIHigh OSIHigh OSI
Very High OSI
Middle OSI
Middle OSI
Middle OSI
Middle OSI

Portugal

Qatar

Republic of Korea

Republic of Moldova

Romania

Russian Federation

RwandaSaint Kitts and Nevis

Saint Lucia

Saint Vincent and
the Grenadines

Samoa

0.63030.49340.8514

Very High OSI
Middle OSI

Saudi Arabia

SenegalMiddle OSI
Middle OSI

Solomon Islands

Somalia

0.726High OSI
Very High OSI

Slovakia

Slovenia

0.962

Middle OSI
Very High OSI

Sierra Leone

Singapore

0.29440.3676

0.86660.28010.4424

Very High OSI
Middle OSI

SerbiaSeychelles

0.822

0.2435

Middle OSI
Low LOSI

San Marino

Sao Tome and Principe

0.4526

0.79540.7929High OSI
Very High OSI

Philippines

0.80990.60590.3263

PolandHigh OSI
Very High OSIParaguay

Peru

Middle OSIPapua New Guinea

0.69230.61541

0.961510.80770.69231

0.8846

0.96150.73080.80770.69230.92310.73080.73081

1

10.96151

10.96151

0.9231

10.8846

0.7692

0.5

0.5

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.5

0.5

1

0.6

1

0.4

0.3

0.6

0.3

0.5

0.5

1

0.7

1

0.7

0.9

0.7

0.9

0.9

0.7

0.7

0.9

0.4

0.1733

0.4

0.88

0.84

0.92

0.1733

0.52

0.8

0.52

0.81330.26670.41330.28

0.37330.28

0.29330.81330.72

0.57330.6933

0.97330.65330.74670.8

0.64

0.78670.53330.33330.25

0.21590.75

0.46590.97730.20450.22730.80680.34090.69320.04550.17050.27270.38640.40910.20450.63640.60230.625

0.68180.94320.375

0.72730.64770.4886

0.76140.51140.17050.58820.4706

0.94120.64710.88240.35290.58820.76470.23530.94120.23530.58820.6471

0.58820.52940.47060.70590.94120.70590.7647

0.94120.64710.88240.82350.58820.70590.76470.2941Low EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

0.134

0.353

0.87810.80080.91330.26330.67930.82370.44790.85390.41380.64540.42070.58110.558

0.67750.54890.81620.76190.7251

0.95290.71490.82730.84370.65230.7524

0.6332

0.323

Annexes

ANNEXES233

234
OSI Group

0.76770.6031

Very High OSI
Very High OSI
Middle OSI
Very High OSI

United Republic of Tanzania

United States of America

Britain and Northern Irelandof

United Arab Emirates

UnitedKingdomHigh OSI
Very High OSI

UgandaUkraineMiddle OSI
Low LOSI

Turkmenistan

TuvaluHigh OSI
Very High OSI

Tunisia

0.3296
0.4892

Middle OSI
Middle OSI

Tonga

Trinidad and Tobago

Türkiye0.4338Middle OSI
Middle OSITimor-Leste

Togo

0.39680.93040.47

0.88590.90140.81480.51690.2265

0.298

0.86

0.39310.7763

Middle OSI
Very High OSITajikistan

0.30530.3418ThailandVery High OSI
Middle OSI

Switzerland

Syrian Arab Republic0.9002

Middle OSI
Very High OSISuriname

Sweden0.56440.2118High OSI
Low LOSI

Sri Lanka

0.85590.05180.7487

OSI 2022

Sudan

Low LOSI
Very High OSISouth Sudan

Spain

High OSI

Great(continued)

South Africa

Country

Table A.8

11

0.96151

1

10.8846

0.46150.69231

0.9231

0.96150.53850.8462

0.69230.96150.65380.7692

1

0.96150.7692

0.69230.8462

1

0.1154

IF

CP

1

0.6

1

1

1

0.8

0.4

0.4

0.9

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.7

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.9

0.9

1

0.3

0.6

0.6

1

0.1

0.9

SP

0.88

0.44

0.76

0.90670.88

0.48

0.18670.34670.82670.54670.52

0.26670.30670.2

0.69330.4

0.29330.70670.96

0.36

0.14670.61330.84

0.10670.7467EPI

0.9091

0.27270.95450.78410.60230.40910.17050.10230.78410.54550.2386

0.26140.38640.47730.78410.25

0.06820.70450.72730.20450.04550.35230.75

00.5909TEC

0.88240.70590.7647

0.94120.76470.35290.41180.2941

0.9412

0.58820.52940.4706

0.58820.41180.70590.58820.41180.7647

0.94120.23530.52940.76470.88240.11760.8235

EGDI Group

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Low EGDI

High EGDI

0.91510.41690.91380.901

0.80290.44240.37880.48080.79830.653

0.63390.51550.42310.43720.766

0.50390.38720.87520.941

0.58090.29720.62850.88420.08520.7357

EGDI 2022

Annexes
2022 UN E-Government Survey

Middle OSI

Zimbabwe0.38450.44140.3393

Middle OSI
Middle OSI

Yemen

0.64840.3056

0.42280.744

0.7641High OSI

ZambiaViet Namof

Middle OSIHigh OSI
Middle OSI

Uzbekistan

Vanuatu

Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic

Very High OSIUruguay

0.76920.80770.73080.92310.57690.76920.9231

1

0.3

0.5

0.6

0.9

0.5

0.8

0.9

0.9

0.4

0.36

0.34670.61330.36

0.37330.73330.77330.22730.375

0.19320.53410.125

0.34090.61360.59090.52940.64710.17650.64710.35290.23530.88240.8824

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

0.47170.50220.28990.67870.50530.49880.72650.8388Annexes

ANNEXES235

236
Low TIIHigh TII
High TII
Very High TII
Low TIIHigh TII
High TII
High TII
Very High TII
Very High TII
High TII
Very High TII
High TII
Medium TII
High TII
Very High TII
Very High TII
Medium TII
Medium TII
High TII
High TII
High TII
High TII

Albania

Algeria

AndorraAngolaAntigua and Barbuda

Argentina

Armenia

Australia

Austria

Azerbaijan

BahamasBahrain

Bangladesh

Barbados

BelarusBelgium

BelizeBenin

BhutanBolivia (Plurinational State of)Bosnia and Herzegovina

Botswana

TII Group

0.6814

0.63820.58180.52610.3156

0.38820.82940.8426

0.73180.44690.74440.7976

0.67610.85050.88360.69250.73320.59810.20040.8812

0.61330.60370.1867

TII 2022120

106.98101.13

96.57

91.9

66.39

99.48

120

102.65107.04102.77118.5

102.02

119107.66117.74

120

120

44.56

120

103.8991

58.26

100 inhabitants

subscriptions per

telephone

Mobile cellular

64

73.21

59.94

53.5

25.8

50.8

91.53

85.09

81.76

24.8

99.67

87

84.6

87.53

89.6

76.51

85.5

73

36

91.57

62.9

72.24

18.4

the Internet

Individuals using

Percentage of

Telecommunications Infrastructure Index (TII) and its components

Afghanistan

Country

Table A.9

11.04

23.48

7.98

0.41

0.25

9.05

40.85

34.45

44.54

6.1

8.75

21.11

19.68

28.93

35.68

14.52

21.18

8.17

0.7

47.89

8.64

17.68

0.07

100 inhabitants

subscriptions per

broadband

Fixed (wired)

95.26

49.49

84.13

89.29

27.22

44.51

89.2

91.58

40.02

59.09

109.38100.96

69.57

107.02

120

79.22

68.65

49.02

20.19

69.89

90.63

69.45

19.07

100 inhabitants

subscriptions per

broadband

Active mobile-

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

EGDI Group0.54950.6256

0.61650.55210.42640.50050.82690.758

0.71170.563

0.77070.72770.69370.88010.94050.73640.81980.61130.37890.71770.56110.74130.271

EGDI 2022

Annexes
2022 UN E-Government Survey

High TII
Very High TII
Very High TII
Medium TII
Low TIIHigh TII
High TII
Medium TII
Very High TII
Low TII
Low TII
Very High TII
Very High TII
High TII
Medium TII
Low TII
Very High TII
High TII
Very High TII
Medium TII
Very High TII
Very High TII
Low TII
Low TII
Very High TII
Medium TII
Very High TII
High TII
High TII

BrazilBrunei Darussalam

Bulgaria

Burkina Faso

BurundiCabo VerdeCambodia

Cameroon

CanadaCentral African Republic

Chad

Chile

China

Colombia

Comoros

Congo

Costa Rica

Côte d’Ivoire

Croatia

Cuba

CyprusCzech Republic

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

Democratic Republic of the Congo

DenmarkDjibouti

Dominica

Dominican Republic

Ecuador

0.52690.55670.76040.276

0.97950.14770.05080.84560.92530.36630.77110.51860.7572

0.217

0.33

0.64980.805

0.79990.11910.0833

0.777

0.365

0.56050.55070.14

0.3931

0.79840.83720.6814

87.77

82.87

105.58

43.93

120

45.55

23.27

120

120

58.82

106.59

120

120

88.62

89.88

120

119.39

120

52.89

37.91

85.74

84.2

120

97.98

55.77

105.81114.35

120

96.84

64.6

76.9

69.62

59

96.55

13.6

0

81.34

90.8

74

78.32

36.29

80.53

8.65

8.48

69.79

70.4

88.3

10.4

10.4

96.97

37.8

32.9

64.5

9.4

22

70.16

95

81.34

17.1

13.44

9.51

22.23

2.54

44.72

0.03

0

35.91

37.4

2.05

25.11

0.99

19.49

0.02

0.12

15.26

33.6

19.69

0

0.01

41.93

2.72

1.4

4.47

0.04

0.07

30.44

16.25

55.8

70.87

120

24.41

120

23.31

23.27

94.4

118.2230.71

105.67

74.5

91.12

5.42

59.95

61.82

94.83

101.8

3.3

5.9

72.18

40.77

98.81

75.5

10.96

52.16

106.37120

89.73

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Low EGDI

Low EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

0.68890.64290.57890.28330.97170.30570.28590.80880.866

0.49450.8106

0.54670.76590.36750.27780.72610.81190.83770.189

0.14070.85110.44980.50560.566

0.32040.3476

0.7766

0.727

0.791

Annexes

ANNEXES237

238
High TII
Low TII
Low TII
Very High TII
Medium TII
Low TIIHigh TII
Very High TII
Very High TII
High TII
Medium TII
High TII
Very High TII
High TII
Very High TII
High TII
Medium TII
Medium TII
Medium TII
Medium TII
Medium TII
Medium TII

El Salvador

Equatorial Guinea

Eritrea

Estonia

Eswatini

Ethiopia

Fiji

FinlandFranceGabon

Gambia (Republic of The)

Georgia

Germany

Ghana

GreeceGrenadaGuatemalaGuineaGuinea-Bissau

GuyanaHaiti

Honduras

TII Group

High TII(continued)

Egypt

Country

Table A.9

0.35010.2646

0.46430.3472

0.34480.43280.73480.8206

0.59340.89570.74090.45080.62790.89440.91270.59350.15010.355

0.89490.08370.13630.56180.5579TII 2022

70.28

64.19

108.8397.25

105.04113.82108.42

109.5

120

120

120

110.81120

111.46

120

110.6

38.71

107.14

120

50.78

45.97

120

93.18

100 inhabitants

subscriptions per

telephone

Mobile cellular

42.05

34.5

37.33

22.9

26

49.97

56.9

78.12

58

89.81

72.53

36.5

62

84.8

92.17

68.9

24

30.3

89.06

1.31

26.24

54.6

71.91

the Internet

Individuals using

Percentage of

4.01

0.27

12.08

0.12

0.01

3.42

28.44

40.84

0.25

43.22

24.37

0.21

2

46.92

33.32

2.57

0.18

1.03

31.33

0.14

0.07

9.03

9.14

100 inhabitants

subscriptions per

broadband

Fixed (wired)

43.73

28.34

34.58

39.71

24.14

16.54

104.87

88.57

85.32

90.69

81.6

54.91

93.07

99.26

120

78.44

20.01

18.27

120

0

0.57

52.77

64.76

100 inhabitants

subscriptions per

broadband

Active mobile-

Middle EGDI

Low EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

Low EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

EGDI Group

0.394

0.2481

0.52330.256

0.36080.51110.72770.84550.58240.877

0.75010.30880.55210.8832

0.95330.62350.28650.44980.93930.17090.2746

0.55190.5895

EGDI 2022

Annexes
2022 UN E-Government Survey

Very High TII
Very High TII
Medium TII
High TII
High TII
High TII
Very High TII
Very High TII
Very High TII
High TII
Very High TII
Medium TII
Very High TII
Medium TII
Medium TII
Very High TII
High TII
Medium TII
Very High TII
Medium TII
Medium TII
Low TII
Low TII
Very High TII
Very High TII
Very High TII
Low TII
Low TII
Very High TII

Hungary

Iceland

India

Indonesia

Iran (Islamic Republic of)

Iraq

IrelandIsraelItaly

JamaicaJapan

JordanKazakhstan

Kenya

Kiribati

KuwaitKyrgyzstan

Lao People’s Democratic Republic

LatviaLebanonLesothoLiberia

Libya

Liechtenstein

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Madagascar

MalawiMalaysia

0.79450.18150.182

0.94620.863610.16010.11150.38360.49070.83780.282

0.66370.77740.253

0.43050.752

0.46810.91470.56580.786

0.89150.82870.52010.73

0.63970.39540.97050.7671

120

52.3

57.31

120

120

120

42.52

32.68

72.94

62.83

108.76

56.35

120

120

45.76

114.2

120

68.49

120

97.03

120

120

106

93.17

120

120

83.6

120

106.96

89.56

9.9

15

98.82

83.06

99.55

17.76

25.6

43

84.1

88.9

33.8

51

99.11

38

29.5

85.94

66.1

90.22

68.21

70.48

90.13

92

60

84.11

53.73

43

99

84.77

33.8

10.38

0.06

0.12

37.57

29.27

47.34

4.83

0.26

0.24

6.33

26.01

1.76

4.43

1.73

0.15

1.25

13.96

6.18

34.79

13.02

29.98

30.06

30.71

15.55

11.39

4.29

1.66

41.56

119.99

35.66

22.3

117.8

117.2

120

16.62

6.76

64.67

63.71

120

45.01

119.33

120

43.52

46.76

94.9

68.49

120

58.83

93.17

120

103.82

45.89

92.52

104.19

52.54

120

73.77

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

0.774

0.34350.35650.86750.87450.86850.33750.29050.44140.52730.85990.37640.69770.74840.4334

0.55890.86280.60810.90020.59060.83750.88850.85670.43830.64330.716

0.58830.941

0.7827

Annexes

ANNEXES239

240
Medium TII
Very High TII
Low TII
Medium TII
Very High TII
High TII
Low TII
Very High TII
High TII
Very High TII
High TII
Low TIIHigh TII
High TII
Medium TII
High TII
Very High TII
Very High TII
Medium TII
Low TII
Medium TII
High TII

Mali

Malta

Marshall Islands

Mauritania

Mauritius

MexicoMicronesia (Federated States of)

MonacoMongolia

Montenegro

MoroccoMozambique

MyanmarNamibia

Nauru

Nepal

Netherlands

New Zealand

Nicaragua

Niger

Nigeria

North Macedonia

TII Group

High TII(continued)

Maldives

Country

Table A.9

0.64170.38860.14

0.42870.88960.962

0.51230.47680.51330.60820.15370.6676

0.78680.69730.87940.11020.63

0.75880.46480.12360.92450.43980.5845

TII 2022

89.38

99.07

58.82

90.22

120

120

120

92.39

114.06

120

49.47

120

120

120

90.43

19.13

95.32

120

106.08

27.03

120

120

120

100 inhabitants

subscriptions per

telephone

Mobile cellular

81.41

35.5

10.22

45.2

91.5

91.33

37.7

62.39

41

35.1

16.5

84.12

77.61

62.5

97.05

35.3

71.97

64.88

40.8

38.7

86.86

27.4

62.93

the Internet

Individuals using

Percentage of

22.83

0.03

0.05

4.38

36.6

43.92

4.36

9.5

2.8

1.27

0.22

5.7

29.32

9.37

53.2

5.22

17.01

25.41

0.4

1.69

48.33

1.2

11.78

100 inhabitants

subscriptions per

broadband

Fixed (wired)

66.21

41.69

5.69

50.68

101.43

120

61.4

36.95

69.49

120

16.75

75.16

85.91

109.2

89.44

0

78.63

97.94

62.29

0

96.5

46.28

46.62

100 inhabitants

subscriptions per

broadband

Active mobile-

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Low EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

EGDI Group

0.7

0.45250.2406

0.5032

0.94320.93840.51170.45480.53220.49940.313

0.59150.726

0.72090.72280.355

0.74730.72010.31570.37140.89430.3414

0.5885

EGDI 2022

Annexes
2022 UN E-Government Survey

Very High TII
Very High TII
Medium TII
Medium TII
High TII
Low TIIHigh TII
High TII
High TII
Very High TII
Very High TII
Very High TII
Very High TII
High TII
Very High TII
Very High TII
Medium TII
Very High TII
High TII
High TII
Low TII
Very High TII
Medium TII
Very High TII
High TII
Very High TII
Very High TII
Medium TII
Very High TII

NorwayOman

Pakistan

Palau

PanamaPapua New Guinea

Paraguay

Peru

Philippines

PolandPortugal

Qatar

Republic of Korea

Republic of Moldova

Romania

Russian Federation

RwandaSaint Kitts and Nevis

Saint Lucia

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Samoa

San Marino

Sao Tome and Principe

Saudi Arabia

SenegalSerbiaSeychelles

Sierra Leone

Singapore

0.87580.26390.81980.78650.50250.87350.32180.811

0.15580.5486

0.56830.82930.32090.80530.79540.576

0.96740.82030.82010.83480.56380.62670.59890.143

0.66030.37350.31220.80120.9102

120

86.3

120

120

113.95120

79.49

114.94

34.78

87.49

110.55

120

81.95

120

117.44

84.79

120

120

116.26

120

120

120

110.27

53.85

120

120

79.51

120

107.46

92

18

79

78.37

42.6

97.86

33

60.18

33.61

56

53.3

80.71

26.5

84.99

78.46

76.12

96.51

99.65

78.26

83.18

49.8

65.25

73.96

11.21

64.25

26.97

25

95.23

97

25.81

0

35.55

25.18

0.92

22.66

1.15

32.42

0.85

22.29

17.97

56.39

0.14

23.23

29.55

17.82

43.55

10.28

40.81

22.11

7.24

9.23

7.88

0.23

13.03

6.93

1.14

10.85

44.04

120

19.88

85.45

94.79

66.7

118.86

35.76

120

14.11

56.77

49.01

37.59

42.84

100.22

92.01

58.78

116.9

120

78.95

120

64.34

70.8

62.2

12.29

79.63

0

41.33

114.85103.71

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

0.91330.26330.67930.82370.44790.85390.41380.64540.42070.58110.558

0.67750.54890.81620.76190.7251

0.95290.71490.82730.84370.65230.7524

0.63320.323

0.69560.50180.42380.78340.8879Annexes

ANNEXES

241

242
TII Group

Very High TII
Very High TII
Low TII
Low TIIHigh TII
Low TII
Very High TII
High TII
Medium TII
High TII
Very High TII
Very High TII
Medium TII
Medium TII
High TII
Medium TII
Medium TII
Medium TII
High TII
High TII
High TII
Medium TII
Medium TII

Slovakia

Slovenia

Solomon Islands

SomaliaSouth Africa

South Sudan

Spain

Sri Lanka

Sudan

Suriname

SwedenSwitzerland

Syrian Arab Republic

Tajikistan

Thailand

Timor-Leste

Togo

Tonga

Trinidad and Tobago

Tunisia

TürkiyeTurkmenistan

Tuvalu(continued)

Country

Table A.9

0.26070.3551

0.6626

0.6646

0.67170.34960.28480.364

0.73380.377

0.3581

0.945

0.958

0.70890.31990.54830.889500.685

0.1074

0.19880.82390.8328

TII 2022

76.32

120

97.38

120

120

58.66

78.71

104.51

120

120

95.2

120

120

120

80.26

120

119.02

12.01

120

55.65

69.01

120

120

100 inhabitants

subscriptions per

telephone

Mobile cellular

35.2

21.25

77.67

71.9

70.6

41.25

24

29.1

77.84

21.96

35.78

94.2

94.54

70.06

28.4

35

93.21

6.5

70

2

11.92

86.6

89.92

the Internet

Individuals using

Percentage of

3.96

0.17

19.84

11.29

26.92

4.73

0.64

0.01

16.44

0.06

8.85

46.54

41.38

15.73

0.07

8.32

34.62

0

2.2

0.75

0.15

31.34

31.17

100 inhabitants

subscriptions per

broadband

Fixed (wired)

0

14.61

77.82

76.05

43.47

58.66

31.31

30.4

90.34

24.86

10.12

101.48

120

89.75

42.34

73.27

105.3

4.91

110.65

2.8

18.63

87.81

88.35

100 inhabitants

subscriptions per

broadband

Active mobile-

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Low EGDI

High EGDI

Low EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

EGDI Group

0.37880.48080.79830.653

0.63390.51550.42310.43720.766

0.50390.38720.87520.941

0.58090.29720.62850.88420.08520.7357

0.134

0.353

0.87810.8008

EGDI 2022

Annexes
2022 UN E-Government Survey

Very High TII

United Arab Emirates

Medium TII
Very High TII
Very High TII
High TII
Medium TII
Medium TII
High TII
Low TII
Medium TII
Medium TII

United Republic of Tanzania

United States of America

Uruguay

Uzbekistan

Vanuatu

Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam

Yemen

ZambiaZimbabwe

Northern Ireland

Very High TII

High TII

UkraineUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and

Low TII

Uganda0.38430.39090.16710.69730.39230.47270.65750.85430.88740.27090.91860.93060.727

0.247288.76

103.92

50.89

120

58.18

80.17

99.75

120

106.1985.75

116.38

120

120

60.53

19.9

29.3

19.8

26.72

70.3

61.6

25.72

71.1

86.1

90.9

22

94.82

100

75.04

0.13

1.37

0.45

1.31

17.16

9.01

0.91

14.4

30.62

36.61

1.9

40.26

32.81

18.62

58.5

55.59

5.53

80.23

43.83

120

93.71

105.32120

14.31

107.68

120

85.3

43.98

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

High EGDI

Middle EGDI

High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Very High EGDI

Middle EGDI

0.47170.50220.28990.67870.50530.49880.72650.83880.91510.41690.91380.901

0.80290.4424

Annexes

ANNEXES243

244
Middle HCIVery High HCIHigh HCI
Very High HCI
Middle HCIVery High HCIVery High HCIVery High HCIVery High HCIVery High HCIVery High HCIVery High HCIVery High HCIHigh HCI
Very High HCIVery High HCIVery High HCIHigh HCI
Middle HCIHigh HCIHigh HCIHigh HCIHigh HCI

Albania

Algeria

AndorraAngolaAntigua and Barbuda

Argentina

Armenia

Australia

Austria

Azerbaijan

BahamasBahrain

Bangladesh

Barbados

BelarusBelgium

BelizeBenin

BhutanBolivia (Plurinational State of)Bosnia and Herzegovina

Botswana

HCI Group

0.69320.74890.74830.53050.43910.67070.96140.90110.86450.59

0.81540.7641

0.79320.907

10.79450.91730.81280.46480.75850.69560.80220.3493

HCI 2022
Index

86.82

96.99

92.46

66.56

42.36

76.9

99

99.87

99.6

74.91

90.98

95.8

99.8

99

99

99.79

99

98.95

66.03

100

81.41

98.14

37.27

Value

2013

2013

2015

2017

2018

2000

2014

2019

2014

2020

2010

2014

2019

2014

2014

2020

2018

2015

2014

2016

2018

2018

2021

Year

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCO

SourceAdult Literacy (%)

Human Capital Index (HCI) and its components

Afghanistan

Country

Table A.10

73.83

71

79.25

71.11

76.82

75.12

100

98.38

95.69

72.46

91.19

74

79.8

97.43

100

78.48

100

87.76

61.3

69

80.87

83

64.43

Value

Index

2008

2014

2007

2018

2016

2020

2019

2018

2011

2020

2019

2014

2020

2019

2019

2020

2019

2012

2011

2014

2011

2020

2018

Year

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCO

SourceGross Enrollment Ratio

12.42

13.8

14.2

13.1

12.61

12.99

19.6

15.4

15.29

12.44

16.3

12.9

13.5

16.01

21.58

13.12

17.87

14.86

9.56

13.3

14.33

14.45

10.2

Value

Index

2008

2019

2019

2018

2016

2020

2019

2018

2011

2020

2019

2019

2020

2019

2019

2020

2019

2012

2011

2019

2011

2020

2018

Year

UNESCO

UNDP*

UNDP*

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNDP*

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNDP*

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCO

SourceExpected Year of Schooling

9.6

9.8

9

4.1

3.8

9.9

12.1

12.3

10.6

6.2

9.5

11.4

10.6

12.5

12.7

11.3

10.9

9.3

5.2

10.5

8

10.1

3.9

Value

Index

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

Year

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

SourceMean Year of Schooling

Annexes
2022 UN E-Government Survey

Very High HCI
Middle HCIHigh HCI
Very High HCIHigh HCI
Very High HCIVery High HCIVery High HCIVery High HCIColombia

Comoros

Congo

Costa Rica

Côte d’Ivoire

Croatia

Cuba

CyprusCzech Republic0.91140.89340.83840.85

0.57480.85930.56770.471

0.78670.74290.88530.75390.681

0.3529Very High HCIHigh HCI

China

Dominican Republic

Very High HCI

Chile

0.17530.2425High HCI

Low HCI

Chad

Middle HCI

Low HCI

Central African Republic

0.926

Dominica

Very High HCICanada0.538
0.5928

DjiboutiHigh HCI

Cameroon

0.9559High HCI

Cambodia

0.6507

Very High HCIHigh HCI

Cabo Verde

0.4837

0.2768Denmark

Middle HCI

Burundi0.649

Middle HCIBurkina Faso

0.82210.75670.5355

Very High HCI

Bulgaria

Democratic Republic of the Congo High HCIVery High HCIBrunei Darussalam

0.7953

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea High HCIVery High HCI

Brazil

93.78

88

70.3

99

77.04

100

99

98.68

99.75

99.13

89.89

97.86

80.3

58.82

95.64

96.84

96.4

22.31

37.4

99

77.07

80.53

86.79

68.38

39.35

98.35

97.21

93.23

2016

2014

2014

2014

2016

2008

2014

2011

2012

2011

2019

2018

2018

2018

2020

2018

2017

2016

2018

2014

2018

2015

2015

2017

2018

2011

2018

2018

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCO

84.11

73

38.32

100

61.9

70.75

93.82

96.59

84.33

87.91

61.42

100

64.46

65.29

89.3

85.32

99.93

46.66

42.18

97.2

71.64

62.75

75.32

68.55

54.11

85.52

76.39

92.72

2017

2014

2011

2019

2013

2015

2017

2019

2020

2019

2019

2019

2012

2014

2019

2020

2019

2015

2012

2019

2016

2008

2018

2018

2020

2019

2020

2019

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCO

14.22

13

6.46

18.71

9.61

10.8

16.8

15.65

14.44

15.11

10.48

16.55

10.73

11.24

14.52

12.43

16.73

7.35

6.85

16.4

12.1

10.55

12.7

10.78

9.14

13.9

13.95

15.6

UNESCO

UNDP*
2017

UNESCO

2011

UNESCOUNESCO

UNDP*

UNDP*

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCO

2019

2019

2013

2019

2019

2019

2020

2019

2019

2019

2012

2014

2019

2010

2019

2015

2012

2019

2016

2008

2018

2018

2020

2019

2020

2019

8.1

8.1

4.1

12.6

6.8

5.47

12.7

12.2

11.8

11.4

5.3

8.7

6.5

5.1

8.5

8.1

10.6

2.5

4.3

13.4

6.3

5

6.3

3.3

1.6

11.4

9.1

8

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2017

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

estimation

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

Annexes

ANNEXES245

246
High HCIHigh HCI
Middle HCIVery High HCIHigh HCI
Middle HCIVery High HCIVery High HCIVery High HCIHigh HCI
Middle HCIVery High HCIVery High HCIHigh HCI
Very High HCIVery High HCIHigh HCI
Middle HCI
Middle HCIHigh HCI
Middle HCIHigh HCIEl Salvador

Equatorial Guinea

Eritrea

Estonia

Eswatini

Ethiopia

Fiji

FinlandFranceGabon

Gambia (Republic of The)

Georgia

Germany

Ghana

GreeceGrenadaGuatemalaGuineaGuinea-Bissau

GuyanaHaiti

Honduras

HCI Group
High HCI(continued)

Egypt

Country

Table A.10

0.59010.393

0.6546

0.35850.29550.5596

0.89770.94050.6176

0.9446

0.89840.33010.67060.87840.964

0.7957

0.33640.67030.9231

0.429

0.50310.62680.6375

HCI 2022

88.51

61.69

85.64

45.58

39.62

80.81

98.6

97.94

79.04

99

99.56

50.78

84.67

99

99

99.08

51.77

88.42

99.89

76.57

94.37

89.14

71.17

Value

Index

2019

2016

2014

2014

2018

2018

2014

2018

2018

2014

2019

2015

2018

2014

2014

2017

2017

2018

2011

2018

2010

2019

2017

Year

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCO

SourceAdult Literacy (%)

62.61

39.4

73.01

62.98

54.49

61.26

100

100

72.47

96.24

92.71

50.65

74.93

93.86

100

77.9

54.53

76.22

99.01

49.14

44.55

66.25

81.68

Value

2019

2014

2012

2006

2014

2019

2018

2019

2020

2019

2020

2010

2001

2019

2019

2004

2012

2013

2019

2015

2000

2018

2018

Year

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCO

SourceGross Enrollment Ratio
Index

10.3

9.7

11.43

9.19

9.01

10.56

18.63

20.03

12.05

17.01

15.57

7.96

12.19

15.81

19.05

13.92

8.41

12.79

15.93

8.03

7.08

11.59

13.61

Value

Index

2019

2019

2012

2006

2014

2019

2018

2019

2020

2019

2020

2010

2001

2019

2019

2004

2012

2013

2019

2015

2000

2018

2018

Year

UNESCOUNDP*

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCO

SourceExpected Year of Schooling

6.6

5.6

8.5

3.6

2.8

6.6

9

10.6

7.3

14.2

13.1

3.9

8.7

11.5

12.8

10.9

2.9

6.9

13.1

3.9

5.9

6.9

7.4

Value

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

Year

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

SourceMean Year of Schooling
Index

Annexes
2022 UN E-Government Survey

Very High HCIVery High HCIHigh HCIHigh HCI
Very High HCIHigh HCI
Very High HCIVery High HCIVery High HCIHigh HCI
Very High HCIHigh HCI
Very High HCIHigh HCIHigh HCI
Very High HCIVery High HCIHigh HCI
Very High HCIHigh HCIHigh HCI
Middle HCIVery High HCIVery High HCIVery High HCIVery High HCIHigh HCI
Middle HCI

Hungary

Iceland

India

Indonesia

Iran (Islamic Republic of)

Iraq

IrelandIsraelItaly

JamaicaJapan

JordanKazakhstan

Kenya

Kiribati

KuwaitKyrgyzstan

Lao People’s Democratic Republic

LatviaLebanonLesothoLiberia

Libya

Liechtenstein

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Madagascar

Malawi0.48840.536

0.82450.92510.87260.75340.41840.595

0.6656

0.92840.54680.81190.7706

0.67850.56410.90210.69670.87650.71480.8606

0.89940.96180.58880.78040.74380.57610.96570.8345

62.14

76.68

99

99.82

99

86.1

48.3

76.64

95.07

99.89

84.66

99.59

96.46

93

81.53

99.78

98.23

99

88.1

99.16

97.76

99.2

85.6

85.54

96

74.37

99

99.1

2015

2018

2014

2011

2014

2004

2017

2014

2018

2018

2015

2018

2020

2014

2018

2018

2018

2014

2014

2018

2011

2015

2017

2016

2020

2018

2014

2014

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUN E-GOV Survey

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUN E-GOV Survey

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNDP (HDI)

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCO

70.63

63.43

78.03

97.95

89.73

90.88

65.41

71.78

63.43

100

60.64

85.47

88.11

71.85

63.34

99.09

63.59

88.88

79.03

91.15

93.61

100

63.14

89.88

80.16

69.67

100

89.26

2011

2018

2019

2019

2019

2003

2000

2017

2015

2019

2020

2020

2015

2008

2009

2020

2020

2018

2005

2019

2019

2019

2004

2017

2018

2020

2019

2019

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCO

10.91

10.17

14.4

16.29

15.18

15.45

10.79

12.13

11.3

16.2

10.14

13.2

14.69

11.82

10.27

15.77

10.65

15.19

12.42

16.23

16.05

18.95

10.16

14.81

13.61

11.87

19.16

13.19

2011

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCO

2019

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNDP*

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCO

2018

2019

2019

2003

2000

2017

2019

2019

2020

2020

2015

2008

2009

2020

2020

2018

2005

2019

2019

2019

2004

2017

2018

2020

2019

2019

4.7

6.1

12.3

13.1

12.5

7.6

4.8

6.5

8.7

13

5.3

11.1

7.3

8

6.6

11.9

10.5

12.9

9.7

10.4

13

12.7

7.3

10.3

8.2

6.5

12.8

12

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

Annexes

ANNEXES247

248
Low HCI
Very High HCIHigh HCI
Middle HCIVery High HCIVery High HCIHigh HCI
Very High HCIVery High HCIVery High HCIHigh HCI
Middle HCIHigh HCIHigh HCIHigh HCIHigh HCI
Very High HCIVery High HCIHigh HCI
Low HCI
Middle HCIVery High HCI

Mali

Malta

Marshall Islands

Mauritania

Mauritius

MexicoMicronesia (Federated States of)

MonacoMongolia

Montenegro

MoroccoMozambique

MyanmarNamibia

Nauru

Nepal

Netherlands

New Zealand

Nicaragua

Niger

Nigeria

North Macedonia

HCI Group
High HCI(continued)

Maldives

Country

Table A.10

0.75620.44390.19150.6

0.98230.9506

0.56360.59250.6516

0.5829

0.429

0.635

0.83830.83910.83020.68450.78740.77330.38730.69030.87340.21930.6937

HCI 2022
Index

98.36

62.02

35.05

82.61

99

99

67.91

92

91.53

89.07

60.66

73.75

98.85

99.18

99

94

95.25

91.33

53.5

98.27

94.5

30.76

97.73

Value

2020

2018

2018

2015

2014

2014

2018

2014

2018

2019

2017

2018

2018

2020

2014

2014

2020

2018

2017

2011

2018

2020

2016

Year

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUN E-GOV Survey

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUN E-GOV Survey

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCO

SourceAdult Literacy (%)

73.15

56.06

41.71

69.69

100

100

75.69

59.59

71.31

65.98

63.25

84.11

83.3

90.62

99

75.28

86.71

82.43

55.2

61.26

94.09

50.3

71.74

Value

Index

2018

2011

2017

2002

2019

2018

2019

2008

2006

2018

2017

2020

2020

2019

2014

2004

2019

2017

2019

2019

2019

2017

2019

Year

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNDP

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCO

SourceGross Enrollment Ratio

13.51

8.68

6.41

10.86

20.28

18.56

13.15

9.57

11.54

10.67

9.97

14.15

15.08

14.98

11.8

11.5

14.86

15.06

9.38

10.24

16.84

7.46

12.64

Value

Index

2018

2011

2017

2002

2019

2018

2019

2008

2006

2018

2017

2020

2020

2019

2015

2019

2019

2017

2019

2019

2019

2017

2019

Year

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNDP (HDI)

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCO

SourceExpected Year of Schooling

9.8

6.7

2.1

6.9

12.8

12.4

5

7.12

7

5

3.5

5.6

11.6

10.3

11.27

7.8

8.8

9.5

4.7

10.9

11.3

2.4

7

Value

Index

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2017

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2017

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

Year

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

estimation

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

estimation

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

SourceMean Year of Schooling

Annexes
2022 UN E-Government Survey

Very High HCIVery High HCI
Middle HCIVery High HCIVery High HCI
Middle HCIHigh HCI
Very High HCIVery High HCIVery High HCIVery High HCIHigh HCI
Very High HCIVery High HCIVery High HCIVery High HCIHigh HCI
Very High HCIHigh HCIHigh HCIHigh HCIHigh HCIHigh HCI
Very High HCI
Middle HCIVery High HCIVery High HCI
Low HCI

NorwayOman

Pakistan

Palau

PanamaPapua New Guinea

Paraguay

Peru

Philippines

PolandPortugal

Qatar

Republic of Korea

Republic of Moldova

Romania

Russian Federation

RwandaSaint Kitts and Nevis

Saint Lucia

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Samoa

San Marino

Sao Tome and Principe

Saudi Arabia

SenegalSerbiaSeychelles

Sierra Leone

0.24590.77580.8332

0.34780.86620.67590.7466

0.747

0.742

0.70490.87240.53220.90650.809

0.86130.90870.715

0.86650.90330.76290.82070.69470.49960.75250.8946

0.39330.80670.9528

43.21

95.87

99.48

51.9

97.59

92.82

99.92

99.1

88.1

94.8

97.8

73.22

99.73

98.84

99.36

97.97

93.46

96.14

98.74

96.28

94.5

94.54

61.6

95.74

96.59

58

95.65

99

2018

2018

2019

2017

2020

2018

2018

2018

2014

2014

2014

2018

2018

2018

2014

2008

2017

2018

2008

2019

2020

2020

2010

2019

2015

2019

2018

2014

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCO

41.15

80.12

86.33

53.85

96.81

76.9

68.94

71.33

83.56

70.47

100

70.54

99.1

80.18

93.45

98.4

70.56

100

96.39

82.35

93.84

70.77

78.93

76.43

93.42

52.12

89.57

100

2001

2020

2020

2020

2020

2015

2020

2000

2015

2020

2015

2019

2019

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2019

2017

2017

2010

2012

2016

2013

2019

2020

2019

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCO

6.35

13.94

14.4

8.96

16.14

12.38

12.27

12

14.32

12.87

17.45

11.23

15.77

14.23

14.43

16.52

12.64

16.87

16.03

13.15

14.99

12.19

10.2

12.91

16.59

8.66

14.57

18.19

2001

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCO2020

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNDP*

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCO

2020

2020

2020

2015

2020

2000

2015

2020

2015

2019

2019

2019

2020

2019

2020

2019

2019

2017

2017

2010

2019

2016

2013

2019

2020

2019

3.7

10

11.2

3.2

10.2

6.4

10.75

10.8

8.8

8.5

8.7

4.4

12.2

11.1

11.7

12.2

9.7

9.3

12.5

9.4

9.7

8.5

4.7

10.2

12.5

5.2

9.7

12.9

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2018

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNESCO

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

Annexes

ANNEXES

249

250
HCI Group
Very High HCIVery High HCI
Middle HCI
Low HCI
Very High HCI
Low HCI
Very High HCIVery High HCI
Middle HCIHigh HCI
Very High HCIVery High HCI
Middle HCIHigh HCI
Very High HCIHigh HCIHigh HCI
Very High HCIHigh HCIHigh HCI
Very High HCIVery High HCIHigh HCI

Slovakia

Slovenia

Solomon Islands

SomaliaSouth Africa

South Sudan

Spain

Sri Lanka

Sudan

Suriname

SwedenSwitzerland

Syrian Arab Republic

Tajikistan

Thailand

Timor-Leste

Togo

Tonga

Trinidad and Tobago

Tunisia

TürkiyeTurkmenistan

Tuvalu(continued)

Country

Table A.10

0.64920.78920.87220.69110.74090.86750.55080.5546

0.78790.738

0.49830.91280.96490.69210.35990.77260.90720.20380.773300.4925

0.94390.8436

HCI 2022
Index

98

99.7

96.74

79.04

98.7

99.41

66.54

68.07

93.77

99.8

80.84

99

99

94.38

60.7

92.25

98.59

34.52

95.02

24

76.6

99.7

99.6

Value

2014

2014

2019

2014

2010

2018

2019

2018

2018

2014

2004

2014

2014

2018

2018

2019

2020

2018

2019

2014

2009

2014

2015

Year

UN E-Gov Survey

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUN E-Gov Survey

UNESCOUNESCOUNDP (HDI)

SourceAdult Literacy (%)

65.37

81.66

100

82.74

67.3

89.85

75.88

77.01

90.87

70.93

55.11

92.09

100

70.03

49.69

79.92

100

38

80.91

17

55.39

99.77

81.15

Value

Index

2001

2020

2019

2016

2004

2020

2017

2010

2016

2013

2013

2019

2019

2002

2015

2018

2019

2014

2019

2014

2007

2019

2019

Year

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNDP

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCO

SourceGross Enrollment Ratio

10.87

13.21

18.34

15.13

12.27

16.05

12.72

12.45

15.42

11.39

9.16

16.5

19.42

11.37

7.61

14.11

17.92

5.3

13.64

2.4

9.23

17.65

14.51

Value

Index

2001

2020

2019

2016

2004

2020

2017

2010

2016

2013

2013

2019

2019

2002

2015

2018

2019

2019

2019

2013

2007

2019

2019

Year

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNDP*

UNESCOUNDP (HDI)

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCO

SourceExpected Year of Schooling

6.93

10.3

8.1

7.2

11

11.2

4.9

4.8

7.9

10.7

5.1

13.4

12.5

9.3

3.8

10.6

10.3

4.8

10.2

0.97

5.7

12.7

12.7

Value

Index

2017

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2017

2019

2019

2019

Year

estimation

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

estimation

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

SourceMean Year of Schooling

Annexes
2022 UN E-Government Survey

Very High HCIVery High HCIVery High HCI

UkraineUnited Arab Emirates

United Kingdom of Great Britain

Very High HCIVery High HCIVery High HCIHigh HCI
Very High HCIHigh HCI
Middle HCIHigh HCIHigh HCI

United States of America

Uruguay

Uzbekistan

Vanuatu

Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam

Yemen

ZambiaZimbabwe0.64630.67440.36330.69030.81810.60090.77780.898

0.92760.51

0.93690.87110.86690.5631

88.69

86.75

54.1

95.75

97.13

87.51

100

98.77

99

77.89

99

97.56

99.97

76.53

2014

2018

2004

2019

2016

2018

2019

2019

2014

2015

2014

2019

2012

2018

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCO

66.25

85

55.52

66

89.57

63.5

72.99

100

98.37

57.59

97.37

90.53

93.95

68.94

2013

2011

2014

2009

2004

2019

2019

2019

2020

2019

2020

2014

2004

UNESCOUNDP

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCO

11.36

11.5

9.1

12.7

14.32

10.6

12.48

18.71

16.28

9.22

17.31

15.72

14.86

10.87

2013

2019

2011

2019

2009

2004

2019

2019

2019

2020

2019

2020

2014

2004

UNESCOUNDP*

UNESCOUNDP*

UNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCOUNESCO

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

8.5 2019

7.2

3.2

8.3

10.3

7.1

11.8

8.9

13.4

6.1

13.2

12.1

11.4

6.2

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP

UNDP: Human Development Report 2020. The next frontier: Human development and the Anthropocene. Table 4., SDG 4.4, “Mean Years of Schooling”. Available: http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2020_statistical_
annex_all.xlsx“UNESCO: “”School life expectancy, primary to tertiary, both sexes (years)””. Other policy relevant indicators: School life expectancy by level of education. Available: http://data.uis.unesco.org/index.aspx?queryid=3802#Data
marked with an asterisk (*) are retrieved from the UNDP Human Development Report 2020. The next frontier: Human development and the Anthropocene (print version). Available: http://hdr.undp.org/en/2020-report”

UNESCO: “Gross enrolment ratio, primary to tertiary, both sexes (%)”. Other policy relevant indicators : Gross enrolment ratio by level of education. Available: http://data.uis.unesco.org/index.aspx?queryid=3812#

UNESCO: “Adult literacy rate, population 15+ years, both sexes (%)”. Sustainable Development Goals: 4.6.2 Youth/adult literacy rate. Available: http://data.uis.unesco.org/index.aspx?queryid=3784#

DATA SOURCE:

High HCI

United Republic of Tanzania

and Northern IrelandHigh HCI

UgandaAnnexes

ANNEXES251

252
0.77270.39770.4318High EPI
Middle EPI

Bangladesh

Barbados

0.39770.34090.4659Low EPI
Middle EPI

BelizeBenin

High EPI

Bulgaria

0.8977

Very High EPI
Middle EPI

BrazilBrunei Darussalam

0.1705High EPI
Low EPI

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Botswana

0.73860.47730.53410.3182

Middle EPI
Middle EPI

BhutanBolivia (Plurinational State of)0.20450.4545

Middle EPI
Middle EPI

BelarusBelgium

0.52270.4432

Middle EPI
Middle EPI

Bahamas0.38640.4205BahrainVery High EPI
Middle EPI

Austria

0.57950.9886

High EPI
Very High EPI

Armenia

Australia

Azerbaijan

0.6477

Middle EPIHigh EPI

Antigua and Barbuda

Argentina

0.375
0.1705

Middle EPI
Low EPI

Andorra0.22730.76140.1932

EPI 2022

AngolaVery High EPI
Low EPI

Albania

Algeria

Low EPI

EPI Group

E-Participation Index (EPI) and its components

Afghanistan

Country

Table A.11

29

81

11

168

72

115

83

110

157

86

90

95

75

89

95

98

21

2

64

51

91

168

101

148

22

163

Rank

0.85450.7091

0.9636

0.27270.70910.45450.58180.41820.30910.6182

0.63640.50910.67270.6

0.58180.54550.9091

0.98180.69090.81820.65450.2

0.50910.29090.7091

0.2727E-information

0.85710.21431

00.57140.21430.35710.21430.07140.14290.14290.35710.57140.35710.07140.28570.5714

1

0.5

0.5

0.07140.21430.21430.28570.85710.1429E-consultation

0.3

0

0.6

0

0

0

0.2

0.2

0

0.2

0.05

0.1

0.05

0.05

0.1

0

0.5

0.95

0.3

0.25

0

0.05

0.1

0

0.8

0

E-decisionmaking

Annexes
2022 UN E-Government Survey

0.6932
0.8636

Middle EPIHigh EPI

Chad

Chile

0.82950.11360.0909Very High EPI
Low EPI

DenmarkDjibouti

0.35230.3523High EPI
Middle EPI
Middle EPI
Low EPI

EcuadorEgypt

El Salvador

Equatorial Guinea

0.15910.70450.4545

Low EPI
Middle EPI

Dominica

Dominican Republic

0.88640.25

0.0568Low EPI
Middle EPI

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

0.60230.75

0.13640.73860.375

0.0114

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Very High EPIHigh EPI

CyprusCzech RepublicHigh EPI
Low EPI

Croatia

Cuba

0.5568High EPI
Middle EPI

Costa Rica

Côte d’Ivoire

0.2386

Low EPI
Low EPI

Comoros

Congo

0.7159Very High EPIHigh EPI

China

Colombia

0.31820.1364

Very High EPI

0.28410.2841

Middle EPI
Middle EPI

Cambodia

Cameroon
Low EPI

0.25

Canada0.3409Middle EPI
Middle EPI

BurundiCabo VerdeCentral African Republic

0.2273

Low EPI

Burkina Faso

173

107

107

41

86

183

179

12

135

186

57

25

175

29

101

66

143

192

37

13

43

115

175

14

123

123

135

110

148

0.23640.47270.45450.70910.67270.12730.18180.96360.4

0.09090.85450.92730.16360.83640.52730.78180.38180.01820.85450.85450.89090.45450.21820.96360.4

0.43640.34550.41820.32730.07140.28570.35710.71430.21430.071400.9286000.28570.71430.21430.64290.14290.3571000.42860.85710.5714000.78570.142900.21430.07140.0714

0

0.05

0.05

0.65

0

0

0

0.6

0

0

0.1

0.25

0

0.5

0.1

0.05

0

0

0.5

0.85

0.2

0.15

0

0.45

0.05

0.05

0

0.3

0.05

Annexes

ANNEXES

253

254
0.71590.61360.21590.1023

Low EPI
Low EPI

Guinea-Bissau

Guyana0.3295

Low EPI
Low EPI

Iran (Islamic Republic of)

Iraq

0.5909High EPIHigh EPI

India

Indonesia

0.7955High EPI
Very High EPI

Hungary

Iceland0.21590.18180.71590.51140.1023

Low EPI
Low EPI

Haiti

Honduras

0.07950.2841

Middle EPI
Middle EPI

Guatemala0.20450.7273

GuineaHigh EPI
Low EPI

GreeceGrenada0.4545High EPI
Middle EPI

GermanyGhana

0.23860.5341Low EPI
High EPI

Gambia (Republic of The)

0.20450.1477

Georgia

High EPI
Low EPI

France0.2386
0.9545

Low EPI
Very High EPI

FijiFinlandGabon

0.1932Low EPI
Low EPI

Eswatini

Ethiopia0.02270.9773

Low EPI

EPI 2022

Very High EPI

EPI Group

Eritrea(continued)

Estonia

Country

Table A.11

153

167

37

61

17

76

180

180

153

184

123

114

157

55

86

32

72

143

157

37

6

143

163

174

3

190

Rank

0.29090.23640.76360.81820.83640.61820.10910.1636

0.32730.12730.45450.45450.30910.83640.6

0.81820.7091

0.38180.27270.89090.96360.3091

0.27270.2

10.0364E-information

0.21430.21430.57140.35710.64290.21430.142900000.21430.07140.5

0.28570.4286

0.4286000.57140.92860.21430.07140.14290.92860E-consultation

0

0

0.65

0.1

0.75

0.4

0.05

0

0.05

0

0

0.05

0

0.05

0.15

0.65

0.1

0

0.15

0.3

0.9

0.05

0.05

0

0.9

0

E-decisionmaking

Annexes
2022 UN E-Government Survey

0.7273

0.57950.29550.54550.5
0.26140.7386

Very High EPIHigh EPI
Middle EPIHigh EPIHigh EPI
Middle EPI

Kazakhstan

Kenya

Kiribati

KuwaitKyrgyzstan

Lao People’s Democratic Republic

1

0.29550.03410.54550.5455

Middle EPI
Middle EPI
Low EPI
High EPI

LesothoLiberia

Libya

Liechtenstein

0.2727

Middle EPI
Low EPI
Middle EPI

Marshall Islands

Mauritania

Mauritius

Middle EPI
Very High EPI

Mali

0.68180.3068High EPI
Middle EPI

Malaysia

Maldives

Malta

0.375

Middle EPI
Middle EPI

Madagascar

Malawi0.42050.02270.26140.76140.28410.75

High EPI
Very High EPI

Lithuania

Luxembourg

0.30680.3977

High EPI
Middle EPI

LatviaLebanon0.80680.5455

Very High EPIHigh EPIJapan

Jordan0.2841High EPI
Middle EPI

Italy

Jamaica

0.68180.7159High EPIHigh EPI

IrelandIsrael

47

91

190

132

22

128

117

47

101

123

25

67

67

189

121

117

95

29

132

79

67

121

64

15

67

1

123

32

37

0.85450.56360.01820.4

0.89090.4

0.45450.81820.58180.36360.87270.69090.69090.03640.45450.47270.56360.87270.4

0.61820.69090.41820.76360.92730.7636

0.98180.29090.94550.74550.42860.214300.07140.64290.14290.14290.357100.21430.4286

0.57140.21430.07140.07140.07140.14290.714300.64290.4286

0.07140.28570.9286

0.42861

0.14290.64290.5714

0.15

0.05

0

0.45

0

0

0.5

0.05

0.1

0.6

0.1

0.35

0

0

0

0.1

0.35

0.05

0.05

0.2

0.1

0.25

0.35

0

1

0.35

0.15

0.7

0.35

Annexes

ANNEXES

255

256
0.19320.25
0.25

Very High EPI
Middle EPI

New Zealand

Nicaragua

0.2386

0.69320.65910.36360.2273High EPIHigh EPIHigh EPI
Middle EPI

North Macedonia

NorwayOman

Pakistan

0.51140.7614

Low EPI
High EPI
Very High EPI
Middle EPI

Papua New Guinea

Paraguay

Peru

Philippines

0.48860.17050.5114

Low EPI
High EPI

Palau

Panama0.69320.3068Middle EPI
Middle EPI

Niger

Nigeria

0.95450.9659Low EPI
Very High EPI

0.25

0.25

0.3068

Nepal

Middle EPI
Middle EPI

NamibiaNauru

0.46590.2727

Netherlands

Low EPI
Middle EPI

Mozambique

Myanmar

Middle EPI
Middle EPI

Montenegro

Morocco0.60230.1364

Low EPI
High EPI

MonacoMongolia

0.72730.2159High EPI

EPI 2022

Low EPI

EPI Group

Mexico(continued)

Micronesia (Federated States of)Country

Table A.11

80

22

76

168

76

148

106

50

43

43

117

135

135

6

5

143

135

135

117

163

128

83

57

175

153

32

Rank

0.70910.94550.58180.25450.70910.32730.50910.69090.90910.8

0.43640.38180.4

0.96361

0.34550.4

0.30910.45450.3091

0.38180.63640.83640.2

0.34550.8364E-information

0.21430.78570.57140.07140.28570.14290.14290.5

0.5

0.57140.21430.071400.9286

0.9286

0.071400.28570.142900.14290.35710.35710.071400.6429E-consultation

0.05

0.2

0.25

0

0.1

0

0.1

0.65

0.2

0.45

0

0

0

0.9

0.85

0.05

0

0.05

0

0

0.05

0.05

0.1

0

0

0.45

E-decisionmaking

Annexes
2022 UN E-Government Survey

Low EPI
Very High EPI
Middle EPI
Low EPI

South Sudan

Spain

Sri Lanka

Sudan

Middle EPIHigh EPI

SomaliaSouth Africa

Very High EPI
Low EPI

Slovenia

Solomon Islands

Very High EPI
Middle EPI

Singapore

Slovakia

0.2273

Low EPI
Low EPI

Seychelles

Sierra Leone

0.8068Middle EPI
Very High EPI

SenegalSerbia0.04550.04550.35230.75

00.59090.25

0.21590.75

0.46590.97730.20450.34090.6932Low EPI
High EPI

Sao Tome and Principe

Saudi Arabia

0.17050.2727

Middle EPI
Low EPI

0.40910.3864

Middle EPI
Middle EPISaint Lucia

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Samoa

0.63640.2045High EPI
Low EPI

RwandaSaint Kitts and Nevis

San Marino

0.625
0.6023High EPIHigh EPI

Romania

Russian Federation

0.94320.6818

Very High EPIHigh EPI

0.375

0.7273

Republic of Korea

High EPI
Middle EPI

Portugal

Qatar

0.6477

Republic of Moldova

High EPI

Poland

187

107

25

193

61

135

153

25

83

3

157

148

15

110

43

187

168

128

98

93

157

53

57

54

47

9

101

32

51

0.07270.43640.945500.67270.27270.32730.89090.54551

0.30910.30910.87270.52730.92730.03640.25450.4

0.6182

0.61820.30910.74550.76360.8

0.81820.9636

0.52730.94550.672700.5

0.714300.35710.21430

10.21430.9286

0.07140.14290.785700.5

0.14290.07140.142900.0714

0

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.642910.28570.64290.5714

0

0

0.2

0

0.5

0.2

0.05

0.15

0.4

0.9

0

0.05

0.6

0.05

0.15

0

0

0

0

0.05

0.05

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.8

0

0.15

0.6

Annexes

ANNEXES

257

258
0.5455

Low EPI

Zimbabwe0.1932Low EPI
Middle EPI

Yemen

Zambia0.5341Low EPI
High EPI

Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam

0.61360.2273

0.375

0.125

0.3409High EPI
Middle EPI

Uzbekistan

0.59090.9091

0.27270.95450.4091

VanuatuVery High EPI

Middle EPI

United Republic of Tanzania
High EPI

Very High EPI

United States of America

0.7841

Very High EPI

United Arab Emirates

United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland

Uruguay

0.6023

Middle EPIHigh EPI

UgandaUkraine0.10230.1705

Low EPI
Low EPI

Turkmenistan

0.78410.4773

TuvaluHigh EPI
Very High EPI

Tunisia

0.26140.2386

Middle EPI
Low EPI

Tonga

Trinidad and Tobago

Türkiye0.3864

Middle EPI
Middle EPI

Timor-Leste

Togo

0.25
0.7841

Middle EPI
Very High EPI

Tajikistan

Thailand

0.06820.7045High EPI
Low EPI

Switzerland

Syrian Arab Republic

0.20450.7273

Low EPI

EPI 2022

High EPIEPI Group

Suriname(continued)

SwedenCountry

Table A.11

148

101

163

72

178

110

55

61

10

128

6

18

57

93

168

180

18

67

143

132

98

81

18

135

185

41

32

157

Rank

0.30910.58180.27270.65450.2

0.41820.76360.81820.92730.4

0.90910.90910.78180.61820.27270.16360.8

0.6

0.34550.4

0.45450.67270.83640.38180.05450.9091

0.9636

0.3273E-information

0.071400.14290.571400.28570.5

0.3571

10.14291

0.5

0.42860.1429000.85710.07140.14290.07140.28570.21430.857100.21430.28570.71430E-consultation

0.1

0.05

0

0.15

0

0.15

0.25

0.1

0.75

0

1

0.6

0.2

0

0

0

0.65

0.7

0

0

0.25

0.1

0.55

0.05

0

0.4

0.05

0

E-decisionmaking

Annexes
2022 UN E-Government Survey

Americas

BahrainKazakhstan

ManamaAlmatyEuropeLatviaSwedenRiga

Stockholm

EuropeFinlandUkraineHelsinki

Kyiv

Oceania

Asia

Asia

EuropeEuropeEuropeNew Zealand

Iceland

AucklandEuropeAmericas

EuropeEuropeAsia

Asia

Americas

Asia

Reykjavik

BrazilAustria

Sao Paulo

ViennaSwitzerland

Italy

ZurichRoma

TürkiyeJapan

Istanbul

Tokyo

Colombia

Argentina

BogotaBuenos Aires

Asia

Singapore

China

Singapore

Shanghai

Americas
EuropeUnited States of America

FranceNew York

ParisEuropeAsia

United Arab Emirates

Russian Federation

Dubai

Moscow

EuropeEuropeEstonia

Denmark

Tallinn

Copenhagen

EuropeEuropeGermany

Spain

RegionBerlinCountry

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSILOSI Group

Local Online Service Index (LOSI) and its components

MadridCity

Table A.12

26

25

21

21

21

21

19

19

16

16

16

14

14

11

11

11

10

9

5

5

5

5

4

3

1

1

Rank

0.80230.814

0.82560.82560.82560.82560.83720.83720.84880.84880.84880.86050.86050.87210.87210.87210.88370.907

0.9186

0.9186

0.9186

0.9186

0.94190.95350.9767

0.9767LOSI 2022

0.88890.88891.00000.88890.88891.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00000.88891.00001.00001.00000.88890.88891.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000IF

0.84000.88000.88000.88000.92000.92001.00000.96000.92000.96000.92000.96000.96000.96000.88000.92000.92000.92000.92001.00000.96001.00001.00000.96000.92001.0000CP

0.83330.83330.61110.72220.61110.38890.38890.61110.83330.50000.66670.77780.61110.55560.83330.77780.94440.94440.77780.94440.94441.00001.00000.88891.00000.9444SP

0.70590.64710.76470.70590.9412

0.94121.00000.82350.88240.88240.82350.88240.82351.00000.88240.88240.70590.88241.00000.76470.82350.64710.8824

0.94121.00001.0000EPI

0.76470.82350.9412

0.94120.7647

0.94120.82350.82350.6471

0.94120.88240.70591.00000.88240.82350.82350.94120.8824

0.94120.88240.8824

0.94120.82351.00001.00000.9412

TEC

Very High OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSIHigh OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSIHigh OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSI

OSI Group

0.93440.75230.90020.81350.81480.98330.88670.95790.88270.89640.86590.76770.90940.86

0.80890.74180.88760.962

0.87680.93040.73680.9014

0.979710.85590.7905

OSI 2022

Annexes

ANNEXES

259

260
Asia

Americas

Slovakia

Peru

MonacoBratislava

Lima

MonacoMexicoBulgaria

Ireland

Sofia

DublinDominican Republic

EuropeEuropeEcuadorCzech Republic

Guayaquil

PragueMexico City

EuropeNetherlands

Amsterdam

Santo Domingo

EuropeLondonEuropeAmericas

EuropeAmericas

Americas

EuropeAsia

Indonesia

United Kingdom of GreatBritain and Northern Ireland

EuropeEuropeOceania

EuropeJakarta

Croatia

Portugal

Zagreb

LisbonSaudi Arabia

Australia

RiyadhSydneyEuropeBelgium

NorwayBrussels

Oslo

Americas
EuropeCanadaPolandToronto

Asia
Asia

Republic of Korea

IsraelSeoul

Tel Aviv

Warsaw

EuropeAmericas

Lithuania

UruguayVilniusMontevideo

RegionEuropeCountry

Luxembourg(continued)

Luxembourg City

City

Table A.12
LOSI GroupHigh LOSIHigh LOSIHigh LOSIHigh LOSIHigh LOSIHigh LOSIHigh LOSIHigh LOSIHigh LOSIHigh LOSIHigh LOSIHigh LOSIHigh LOSI

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSI

Very High LOSI

50

50

49

47

47

46

42

42

42

42

40

40

39

34

34

34

34

34

30

30

30

30

29

26

26

Rank

0.65120.6512

0.66280.67440.67440.686

0.69770.69770.69770.69770.72090.72090.73260.75580.75580.75580.75580.75580.76740.76740.76740.76740.79070.80230.8023LOSI 2022IF

0.77781.00000.77780.88890.88890.77781.00001.00000.66670.88891.00000.77780.88891.00001.00000.88891.00000.77780.88891.00001.00001.00001.00000.77780.6667CP0.80000.80000.76000.64000.84000.80000.80000.88000.72000.88000.92000.92000.76000.92000.88000.84000.92000.96000.88000.96000.96000.96000.80000.96000.9200SP

0.44440.22220.55560.88890.44440.22220.44440.38890.72220.66670.16670.44440.33330.44440.55560.50000.5556

0.5556

0.66670.44440.44440.38890.72220.6667

0.6667EPI

0.2941

0.58820.6471

0.52940.70590.82350.70590.6471

0.52940.52940.82350.70590.88240.70590.76470.6471

0.58820.70590.82350.82350.76470.82350.70590.76470.8235TEC

0.94120.76470.58820.52940.52940.82350.64710.64710.82350.52940.76470.70590.88240.76470.6471

0.94120.76470.70590.58820.64710.70590.70590.82350.76470.8235OSI Group

Middle OSI

Very High OSIHigh OSIHigh OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSIHigh OSIHigh OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSIHigh OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSI

0.45880.80990.726

0.61830.82450.77960.70920.66930.76510.90260.88590.76440.79540.8108

0.938

0.822

0.80070.68990.79290.85040.87450.98260.76410.83470.8319OSI 2022

Annexes
2022 UN E-Government Survey

Europe

Asia
Asia
Asia
EuropeAsia
Asia

Costa Rica

CyprusPhilippines

BhutanAlbania

Mongolia

San JoseNicosia

QuezonThimphu Thromde

TiranaUlaanbaatar

Africa

Asia

India

MumbaiAfricaUgandaParaguay

KampalaAsuncion

Asia

AndorraSyrian Arab RepublicAndorra La Vella

Damascus

EuropeAsia

Americas

EuropeAmericas

Romania

Chile

Bucharest

Asia

Asia

Santiago

Oman

Kyrgyzstan

MuscatBishkek

EuropeMalaysia

BelarusKuala Lumpur

Minsk

Americas

JordanPanamaAmman

Panama City

Americas

EuropeKenya

GreeceNairobi

EuropeAfricaAsia

AthensSouth Africa

Hungary

Johannesburg

Budapest

Slovenia

Thailand

Ljubljana

Bangkok

Asia

EuropeSerbiaViet Nam

Belgrade

Ho Chi Minh City

Asia
Asia

Georgia

Armenia

Tbilisi

YerevanHigh LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSIHigh LOSIHigh LOSIHigh LOSIHigh LOSIHigh LOSIHigh LOSIHigh LOSIHigh LOSIHigh LOSIHigh LOSIHigh LOSIHigh LOSIHigh LOSIHigh LOSIHigh LOSIHigh LOSIHigh LOSIHigh LOSIHigh LOSIHigh LOSIHigh LOSIHigh LOSIHigh LOSI

50

80

79

76

76

76

73

73

73

71

71

70

69

68

63

63

63

63

63

61

61

60

59

57

57

54

54

54

53

0.6512

0.46510.47670.48840.48840.4884

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.52330.52330.53490.54650.55810.56980.56980.56980.56980.56980.5814

0.58140.593

0.60470.61630.61630.62790.62790.62790.63950.6667

0.66670.55560.77780.5556

0.55560.4444

0.66670.77780.66670.44440.88890.55560.77780.66670.77780.77780.77780.88890.88890.77780.66670.88891.00000.88890.77780.88890.55560.88890.76000.52000.60000.68000.44000.56000.76000.60000.56000.64000.76000.56000.68000.52000.84000.68000.60000.68000.52000.60000.72000.48000.52000.80000.80000.84000.84000.72000.76000.61110.27780.22220.16670.44440.00000.27780.22220.27780.33330.22220.33330.16670.22220.38890.0556

0.27780.33330.33330.27780.50000.83330.38890.27780.27780.16670.27780.5556

0.66670.52940.23530.41180.29410.41180.70590.41180.52940.41180.29410.4706

0.41180.82350.52940.29410.82350.52940.35290.52940.64710.29410.41180.64710.2941

0.52940.76470.52940.76470.29410.64710.70590.5882

0.58820.64710.64710.4706

0.5294

0.58820.70590.58820.64710.47060.8824

0.5882

0.58820.76470.76470.76470.64710.64710.64710.76470.82350.6471

0.58820.64710.47060.6471High OSI

Very High OSIHigh OSIHigh OSI

Middle OSIHigh OSI

Very High OSIHigh OSIHigh OSIHigh OSIHigh OSI

Very High OSIHigh OSIHigh OSIHigh OSI

Very High OSIHigh OSIHigh OSI

Very High OSIHigh OSI

Very High OSIHigh OSIHigh OSIHigh OSI

Very High OSI

Very High OSIHigh OSI

Very High OSIHigh OSI

0.6111

0.79340.60590.51690.30530.51330.828

0.68140.61760.74230.53020.763

0.67410.65940.62630.81820.59960.63030.77920.68120.77530.68210.74650.74870.77630.86660.64840.85140.7221

Annexes

ANNEXES261

262
AfricaAfricaKuwaitKuwait City

Asia

AfricaAfricaSierra Leone

Ethiopia

Americas

Guatemala

Guatemala City

Freetown

Americas

CaracasAddis Ababa

Americas

Cuba

Venezuela, Bolivarian
Republic ofHavanaAsia

United Republic of Tanzania Africa

Bangladesh

Dar Es Salaam

Americas

EuropeDhaka

Liberia

BelizeEuropeAfricaNorth Macedonia

Benin

SkopjeCotonou

Monrovia

Asia
Asia

Sri Lanka

Nepal

Colombo

Kathmandu

Belmopan

AfricaMontenegro

Côte d’Ivoire

Podgorica

AbidjanAsia
AfricaUzbekistan

Egypt

Americas

EuropeEuropeAsia

Tashkent

Bolivia

Santa Cruz(de la Sierra)

RegionAfricaCairo

Republic of Moldova

Liechtenstein

Chisinau (Kishinev)

Vaduz

MoroccoAfghanistan

Casablanca

Country

Kabul

Tunisia(continued)

Tunis

City

Table A.12
LOSI Group

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

103

103

100

100

100

96

96

96

96

94

94

90

90

90

90

88

88

87

86

84

84

82

82

80

Rank

0.32560.32560.36050.36050.36050.37210.37210.37210.37210.38370.38370.39530.39530.39530.3953

0.407

0.407

0.41860.43020.44190.44190.45350.45350.4651LOSI 2022

IF

0.44440.77780.6667

0.66670.5556

0.5556

0.5556

0.5556

0.22220.5556

0.5556

0.5556

0.55560.44440.5556

0.6667

0.66670.77780.77780.55560.44440.5556

0.66670.5556CP0.24000.24000.44000.48000.40000.44000.36000.36000.36000.36000.28000.32000.60000.64000.60000.56000.52000.36000.52000.60000.72000.52000.56000.6400SP

0.11110.27780.22220.16670.44440.33330.27780.27780.33330.5556

0.27780.27780.11110.22220.05560.11110.0556

0.16670.0556

0.16670.11110.11110.16670.0556EPI

0.23530.17650.11760.17650.05880.17650.29410.29410.35290.11760.35290.35290.23530.00000.23530.35290.23530.47060.47060.35290.4706

0.52940.2941

0.5294TEC

0.70590.41180.4706

0.41180.41180.41180.47060.4706

0.52940.41180.5882

0.58820.4706

0.58820.52940.41180.6471

0.52940.4706

0.52940.35290.58820.6471

0.5294

OSI Group

High OSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSIHigh OSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSIHigh OSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSIHigh OSIHigh OSI

Middle OSIHigh OSIHigh OSIHigh OSIHigh OSIHigh OSIHigh OSIHigh OSIHigh OSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSIHigh OSI

0.69730.373

0.28010.54090.3056

0.27890.65210.47

0.44250.34170.52450.702

0.45920.56440.54670.5528

0.573

0.744

0.51930.7329

0.738

0.277

0.47210.6031

OSI 2022

Annexes
2022 UN E-Government Survey

Asia

Asia

TurkmenistanAzerbaijan

Papua New Guinea

Brunei Darussalam

Haiti

Maldives

Ashkhabad

Baku

Port Moresby

Bandar Seri
Begawan

Port-Au-Prince

Male

Namibia

Algeria

Windhoek

Algiers

Madagascar

Zimbabwe

Antananarivo

HarareMyanmar

Cameroon

YangonYaoundeOceania

Somalia

Solomon Islands

Mogadishu

HoniaraAmericas

Asia

Americas

Asia

Oceania

Asia

Asia

AfricaAfricaAfricaAfricaAfricaAfricaAfricaJamaica

ZambiaKingston

Oceania

Americas

Asia

LusakaNicaragua

FijiManagua

Suva

Tajikistan

Asia

Lao People’s Democratic
Republic

Vientiane

Pakistan

Africa

MauritiusPort LouisDushanbe

AfricaBrazzaville

Karachi

Americas

El Salvador

Democratic Republic of
the Congo

San Salvador

EuropeAfricaRwandaBosnia and Herzegovina

Kigali

Asia

Iran (Islamic Republic of)Sarajevo

TehranLow LOSI

Low LOSI

Low LOSI

Low LOSI

Low LOSI

Low LOSI

Low LOSI

Low LOSI

Low LOSI

Low LOSI

Low LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

Middle LOSI

131

129

129

125

125

125

125

122

122

122

121

119

119

116

116

116

112

112

112

112

109

109

109

108

106

106

103

0.19770.20930.20930.22090.22090.22090.22090.23260.23260.2326

0.24420.25580.25580.26740.26740.26740.27910.27910.27910.27910.29070.29070.29070.3023

0.314

0.314

0.3256

0.22220.11110.5556

0.22220.44440.22220.33330.44440.22220.22220.22220.11110.33330.33330.22220.44440.33330.22220.44440.55560.33330.55560.4444

0.66670.55560.44440.55560.12000.12000.04000.36000.28000.24000.44000.24000.32000.24000.40000.36000.36000.36000.40000.20000.36000.28000.36000.32000.32000.28000.24000.24000.44000.32000.36000.00000.27780.00000.05560.00000.11110.00000.00000.00000.22220.11110.22220.0556

0.0556

0.05560.00000.11110.16670.05560.00000.11110.16670.0556

0.05560.00000.11110.16670.17650.11760.23530.1176

0.05880.05880.00000.23530.17650.05880.05880.17650.17650.17650.1176

0.29410.17650.11760.23530.1176

0.2941

0.05880.17650.23530.29410.23530.1176

0.52940.41180.4706

0.29410.41180.4706

0.29410.35290.41180.41180.35290.29410.35290.41180.4706

0.52940.41180.58820.35290.52940.41180.52940.6471

0.52940.35290.52940.5294

Middle OSI

Low LOSIHigh OSI

Middle OSIHigh OSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSIHigh OSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSIHigh OSI

Low LOSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSI

Very High OSI

Middle OSI

0.48730.08650.5871

0.32630.61190.298

0.37430.43160.38450.35150.39160.30730.3676

0.29440.4414

0.49140.48130.48090.56580.39680.30050.6282

0.23410.467

0.48980.79350.4196

Annexes

ANNEXES263

264
AfricaAfricaSaint Lucia

Castries

AfricaGuinea-Bissau

Barbados

BissauBridgetown

Asia

Saint Kitts and Nevis

LebanonBasseterre

BeirutAfricaAmericas

Americas

Americas

AfricaCentral African Republic

GambiaBanguiAfricaAfricaBanjulEritrea

Mali

Lesotho

Samoa

MaseruApia

AsmaraOceania

VanuatuPort Vila

BamakoAfrica

Kinshasa
Oceania

Asia

Cambodia

Democratic Republicof the Congo

AfricaAfricaPhnom Penh

Gabon

Malawi

Asia
Americas

Iraq

GuyanaBaghdadGeorgetown

Libreville

AfricaAmericas

Cabo Verde

Honduras

Praia

Tegucigalpa

Lilongwe

AfricaEswatini

GuineaMbabaneConakry

AfricaSenegal

Ghana

Dakar

AfricaRegionAfricaCountry

Burundi(continued)

Kumasi

Bujumbura

City

Table A.12
LOSI Group

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Low LOSI

Low LOSI

Low LOSI

Low LOSI

Low LOSI

Low LOSI

Low LOSI

Low LOSI

Low LOSI

Low LOSI

Low LOSI

Low LOSI

Low LOSI

Low LOSI

Low LOSI

Rank

147

147

147

147

147

147

147

147

147

147

146

144

144

139

139

139

139

139

136

136

136

132

132

132

132

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.093

0.11630.11630.16280.16280.16280.16280.16280.17440.17440.1744

0.186

0.186

0.186

0.186

LOSI 2022IF

0.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.11110.22220.22220.22220.11110.44440.44440.11110.33330.44440.44440.22220.11110.44440.3333CP

0.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.04000.08000.00000.12000.20000.16000.16000.16000.08000.00000.16000.16000.32000.28000.2000SP

0.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.05560.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.0556

0.27780.00000.00000.00000.00000.0000EPI

0.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.1176

0.05880.11760.00000.05880.1176

0.05880.05880.05880.23530.1176

0.05880.1176TEC

0.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.35290.29410.35290.47060.35290.35290.29410.41180.4706

0.29410.35290.35290.29410.23530.3529OSI Group

Middle OSIHigh OSI

Low LOSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSI

Low LOSI

Low LOSI

Middle OSI

Low LOSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSI

Low LOSI

Low LOSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSIHigh OSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSI

0.40070.53880.06240.42570.33070.1455

0.09620.365200.35920.3456

0.42280.31770.41810.36070.35780.45090.206

0.24170.49650.4421

0.324

0.53610.49340.3376

OSI 2022

Annexes
2022 UN E-Government Survey

Africa

Americas

Palau

Kingstown

Koror

AfricaTrinidad and Tobago

Democratic

Port-Of-Spain

Pyongyang

Republic of Korea

Suriname

Paramaribo
People’s

Oceania

Palikir

Asia

Americas

Americas

AfricaBurkina Faso

Micronesia(Federated States of)

Oceania

AfricaAfricaAfricaAmericas

AfricaAfricaAfricaOuagadougou

Mauritania

Tonga

Nouakchott

Nuku’Alofa

Chad

Niger

N’Djamena

NiameyComoros

BahamasMoroni

NassauEquatorial Guinea

Mozambique

MalaboMaputoOceania

AngolaMarshall Islands

LuandaMajuroAfricaAfricaNigeria

Togo

Lagos

Lome

Oceania

AfricaSudan

Saint Vincent and
the Grenadines

AfricaKhartoum

BotswanaSouth Sudan

Gaborone

Juba

Oceania

Asia

Qatar

TuvaluDoha

Funafuti

Asia
AfricaTimor-Leste

Djibouti

DiliDjibouti

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

147

147

147

147

147

147

147

147

147

147

147

147

147

147

147

147

147

147

147

147

147

147

147

147

147

147

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.0000

Middle OSI

Low LOSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSI

Low LOSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSIHigh OSI

Low LOSI

Middle OSI

Low LOSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSIHigh OSI

Low LOSI

Middle OSI

Low LOSI

Low LOSI

Middle OSI

Low LOSIHigh OSI

Low LOSI

0.39310.15790.4892

0.34180.27030.373

0.3296

0.09520.39040.2726

0.62140.0326

0.35630.18450.30040.4716

0.43380.525

0.23730.45260.21180.05180.274

0.22650.60940.2208Annexes

ANNEXES265

266
Africa

Nauru

Yaren

Africa

Libya

Seychelles

Tripoli

Victoria

EuropeMalta

St. Paul’s Bay/San
Pawl il-Banar

Americas

Oceania

AfricaAmericas

GrenadaAntigua and Barbuda

St. George’s

Oceania

St. John

Sao Tome and Principe

Kiribati

Sao Tome

South Tarawa

EuropeAsia

San Marino

Yemen

San Marino

RegionAmericasSana’ACountry

Dominica(continued)

RoseauCity

Table A.12
LOSI Group

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Not Assessed

Rank

147

147

147

147

147

147

147

147

147

147

147

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

LOSI 2022IF

0.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.0000CP

0.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.0000SP

0.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.0000EPI

0.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.0000TEC

0.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.00000.0000OSI Group

Middle OSI

Middle OSI

Low LOSI

Very High OSI

Middle OSIHigh OSI

Middle OSI

Low LOSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSI

Middle OSI

0.29520.44240.099

0.88490.42310.55070.36860.24350.33930.37880.2954

OSI 2022

Annexes
2022 UN E-Government Survey

Annexes

ANNEXES

Table A.13

Open Government Data Index (OGDI)

Country

OGDI Group

OGDI 2022

Afghanistan

Low OGDI

0.2085

Albania

High OGDI

0.6873

Algeria

Low OGDI

0.1972AndorraMiddle OGDI

0.4338AngolaLow OGDI

0.1296

Antigua and Barbuda

Very High OGDI

0.7859Argentina

Very High OGDI

0.8930Armenia

Middle OGDI

0.4479Australia

Very High OGDI

1.0000Austria

Very High OGDI

0.9437

Azerbaijan

High OGDI

0.5859BahamasMiddle OGDI

0.3831BahrainVery High OGDI

0.7887

BangladeshHigh OGDI

0.7296

Barbados

Middle OGDI

0.2563BelarusHigh OGDI

0.5408Belgium

High OGDI

0.7296

BelizeMiddle OGDI

0.4169Benin

High OGDI

0.6169BhutanHigh OGDI

0.6225

Bolivia (Plurinational State of)High OGDI

0.5437

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Middle OGDI

0.4817

Botswana

Middle OGDI

0.2648BrazilVery High OGDI

0.9493

Brunei Darussalam

High OGDI

0.7127

Bulgaria

Very High OGDI

0.9155Burkina Faso

High OGDI

0.5465BurundiMiddle OGDI

0.3915

Cabo Verde

Middle OGDI

0.3803

Cambodia

Middle OGDI

0.4282

Cameroon

Middle OGDI

0.2620

CanadaVery High OGDI

0.9718Central African Republic

Low OGDI

0.0986

Chad

Middle OGDI

0.4423

Chile

Very High OGDI

0.7915

China

Very High OGDI

0.8873

Colombia

Very High OGDI

0.9014

Comoros

Low OGDI

0.0000Congo

Middle OGDI

0.3352

Costa Rica

Very High OGDI

0.9437

Côte d’Ivoire

Very High OGDI

0.7606

Croatia

Very High OGDI

0.9014Cuba

Low OGDI

0.1296

CyprusVery High OGDI

0.9718267

Annexes

2022 UN E-Government Survey

Table A.13

(continued)

Country

268

OGDI Group

OGDI 2022

Czech Republic

Very High OGDI

0.9718

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

Low OGDI

0.1718

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Low OGDI

0.2113

Denmark

Very High OGDI

0.9859Djibouti

Low OGDI

0.0704

Dominica

Low OGDI

0.0282

Dominican Republic

Very High OGDI

0.7634

EcuadorVery High OGDI

0.8451

Egypt

Middle OGDI

0.3127

El Salvador

Middle OGDI

0.4282Equatorial Guinea

Low OGDI

0.2141

Eritrea

Low OGDI

0.0141

Estonia

Very High OGDI

1.0000Eswatini

Low OGDI

0.1944

Ethiopia

Middle OGDI

0.4958Fiji

Low OGDI

0.2423FinlandVery High OGDI

0.8704

FranceVery High OGDI

0.9859Gabon

Low OGDI

0.2141Gambia (Republic of The)

Low OGDI

0.2254

Georgia

Very High OGDI

0.7718Germany

Very High OGDI

0.9437

Ghana

Very High OGDI

0.8310

GreeceVery High OGDI

0.8056GrenadaLow OGDI

0.1127

GuatemalaHigh OGDI

0.5211

GuineaMiddle OGDI

0.4056

Guinea-Bissau

Low OGDI

0.0141

GuyanaMiddle OGDI

0.4901Haiti

Low OGDI

0.0930

Honduras

Low OGDI

0.0845

HungaryHigh OGDI

0.6197

IcelandHigh OGDI

0.7127

India

Very High OGDI

0.9859Indonesia

Very High OGDI

0.9014

Iran (Islamic Republic of)

Low OGDI

0.2479Iraq

Low OGDI

0.1268

IrelandVery High OGDI

0.9014IsraelVery High OGDI

0.8873

Italy

Very High OGDI

0.9859

Jamaica

Middle OGDI

0.3211Japan

Very High OGDI

0.9859JordanVery High OGDI

0.7915

Kazakhstan

Very High OGDI

0.8563

Annexes

ANNEXES

Table A.13

(continued)

Country

OGDI Group

OGDI 2022

Kenya

High OGDI

0.7268

Kiribati

Middle OGDI

0.4282

KuwaitHigh OGDI

0.6282

Kyrgyzstan

High OGDI

0.5944

Lao People’s Democratic Republic

Middle OGDI

0.3127

LatviaVery High OGDI

0.9718

LebanonHigh OGDI

0.5352

LesothoMiddle OGDI

0.3972

Liberia

Middle OGDI

0.3183

Libya

Low OGDI

0.1155

LiechtensteinHigh OGDI

0.6901

Lithuania

Very High OGDI

0.7887Luxembourg

Very High OGDI

0.9859Madagascar

High OGDI

0.5099Malawi

Middle OGDI

0.4535

Malaysia

Very High OGDI

0.8592

Maldives

Middle OGDI

0.2761

Mali

Middle OGDI

0.2620

Malta

Very High OGDI

0.7915

Marshall Islands

Middle OGDI

0.2761

Mauritania

Low OGDI

0.1155MauritiusHigh OGDI

0.7296

MexicoVery High OGDI

0.9296Micronesia (Federated States of)Middle OGDI

0.2620

MonacoMiddle OGDI

0.2507

Mongolia

Very High OGDI

0.7690Montenegro

High OGDI

0.6366

MoroccoMiddle OGDI

0.4366

Mozambique

Middle OGDI

0.4958Myanmar

Middle OGDI

0.2901

Namibia

Low OGDI

0.1775

Nauru

Middle OGDI

0.3915

Nepal

Middle OGDI

0.4451

Netherlands

Very High OGDI

1.0000

New Zealand

Very High OGDI

1.0000

Nicaragua

Middle OGDI

0.3211

Niger

Middle OGDI

0.4000

Nigeria

High OGDI

0.5662

North Macedonia

Very High OGDI

0.8732

NorwayVery High OGDI

0.8563

Oman

High OGDI

0.7014

PakistanHigh OGDI

0.7099Palau

Low OGDI

0.1831

PanamaVery High OGDI

0.9014269

Annexes

2022 UN E-Government Survey

Table A.13

(continued)

Country

270

OGDI Group

OGDI 2022

Papua New Guinea

Middle OGDI

0.3296

Paraguay

High OGDI

0.6085Peru

Very High OGDI

1.0000Philippines

High OGDI

0.7296

PolandVery High OGDI

0.7606

Portugal

Very High OGDI

1.0000

Qatar

High OGDI

0.7437

Republic of Korea

Very High OGDI

0.9718

Republic of Moldova

Very High OGDI

0.8282

Romania

Very High OGDI

0.8732

Russian Federation

Very High OGDI

0.8873

RwandaHigh OGDI

0.7070Saint Kitts and Nevis

Low OGDI

0.2141Saint Lucia

High OGDI

0.7127Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

High OGDI

0.6366

Samoa

Middle OGDI

0.3127

San Marino

Middle OGDI

0.2507

Sao Tome and Principe

Low OGDI

0.1521

Saudi Arabia

Very High OGDI

1.0000

SenegalHigh OGDI

0.5268SerbiaVery High OGDI

0.9437

Seychelles

Middle OGDI

0.3296

Sierra Leone

Middle OGDI

0.3718Singapore

Very High OGDI

1.0000Slovakia

Very High OGDI

0.7521

Slovenia

Very High OGDI

0.9296

Solomon Islands

Low OGDI

0.1690Somalia

Middle OGDI

0.2507

South Africa

Very High OGDI

0.7662South Sudan

Low OGDI

0.0000Spain

Very High OGDI

1.0000

Sri Lanka

Middle OGDI

0.4648Sudan

Low OGDI

0.0282Suriname

Middle OGDI

0.2563SwedenVery High OGDI

1.0000

Switzerland

Very High OGDI

1.0000

Syrian Arab Republic

Low OGDI

0.0648

Tajikistan

Middle OGDI

0.3634ThailandVery High OGDI

0.9296

Timor-Leste

High OGDI

0.5380Togo

Middle OGDI

0.3718Tonga

Middle OGDI

0.3493

Trinidad and Tobago

High OGDI

0.5465

Tunisia

Very High OGDI

0.7606

Annexes

ANNEXES

Table A.13

(continued)

Country

OGDI Group

OGDI 2022

Türkiye

Very High OGDI

0.9296

Turkmenistan

Low OGDI

0.2282

TuvaluLow OGDI

0.2423

UgandaVery High OGDI

0.7634

UkraineVery High OGDI

0.9211

United Arab Emirates

Very High OGDI

0.9718

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Very High OGDI

0.9437

United Republic of Tanzania

High OGDI

0.5521

United States of America

Very High OGDI

0.9437

Uruguay

Very High OGDI

0.9859Uzbekistan

Very High OGDI

0.8085

Vanuatu

Middle OGDI

0.3915Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of

Middle OGDI

0.3380Viet NamHigh OGDI

0.6423Yemen

Low OGDI

0.2423

ZambiaHigh OGDI

0.5493

Zimbabwe

Middle OGDI

0.3211271

Annexes

2022 UN E-Government Survey

Table A.14

Country ISO codes

Country

272

ISO Code

Afghanistan

AFG

Albania

ALB

Algeria

DZA

AndorraAND

AngolaAGO

Antigua and Barbuda

ATG

Argentina

ARG

Armenia

ARM

Australia

AUS

Austria

AUT

Azerbaijan

AZE

BahamasBHS

Bahrain

BHR

Bangladesh

BGD

Barbados

BRB

Belarus

BLR

Belgium

BEL

Belize

BLZ

Benin

BEN

Bhutan

BTN

Bolivia (Plurinational State of)

BOL

Bosnia and Herzegovina

BIH

Botswana

BWA

Brazil

BRA

Brunei Darussalam

BRN

Bulgaria

BGR

Burkina Faso

BFA

BurundiBDI

Cabo Verde

CPV

Cambodia

KHM

Cameroon

CMR

CanadaCAN

Central African Republic

CAF

Chad

TCD

Chile

CHL

China

CHN

Colombia

COL

Comoros

COM

Congo

COG

Costa Rica

CRI

Côte d’Ivoire

CIV

Croatia

HRV

Cuba

CUB

CyprusCYPAnnexes

ANNEXES

Table A.14

(continued)

Country

ISO Code

Czech Republic

CZE

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

PRK

Democratic Republic of the Congo

COD

Denmark

DNK

Djibouti

DJI

Dominica

DMA

Dominican Republic

DOM

Ecuador

ECU

Egypt

EGY

El Salvador

SLV

Equatorial Guinea

GNQ

Eritrea

ERI

Estonia

EST

Eswatini

SWZ

Ethiopia

ETH

Fiji

FJI

Finland

FIN

France

FRA

Gabon

GAB

Gambia (Republic of The)

GMB

Georgia

GEO

Germany

DEU

Ghana

GHA

GreeceGRC

GrenadaGRD

Guatemala

GTM

GuineaGIN

Guinea-Bissau

GNB

Guyana

GUY

Haiti

HTI

Honduras

HND

Hungary

HUN

Iceland

ISL

India

IND

Indonesia

IDN

Iran (Islamic Republic of)

IRN

Iraq

IRQ

Ireland

IRL

Israel

ISR

Italy

ITA

Jamaica

JAM

Japan

JPN

JordanJOR

Kazakhstan

KAZ

273

Annexes

2022 UN E-Government Survey

Table A.14

274(continued)

Country

ISO Code

Kenya

KEN

Kiribati

KIR

Kuwait

KWT

Kyrgyzstan

KGZ

Lao People’s Democratic Republic

LAO

LatviaLVA

LebanonLBN

Lesotho

LSO

Liberia

LBR

Libya

LBY

Liechtenstein

LIE

Lithuania

LTU

Luxembourg

LUX

Madagascar

MDG

Malawi

MWI

Malaysia

MYS

Maldives

MDV

Mali

MLI

Malta

MLT

Marshall Islands

MHL

Mauritania

MRT

MauritiusMUS

MexicoMEXMicronesia (Federated States of)

FSM

MonacoMCOMongolia

MNG

Montenegro

MNE

MoroccoMAR

Mozambique

MOZ

Myanmar

MMR

Namibia

NAM

Nauru

NRU

Nepal

NPL

Netherlands

NLD

New Zealand

NZL

Nicaragua

NIC

Niger

NER

Nigeria

NGA

North Macedonia

MKD

Norway

NOR

Oman

OMN

Pakistan

PAK

Palau

PLW

PanamaPAN

Annexes

ANNEXES

Table A.14

(continued)

Country

ISO Code

Papua New Guinea

PNG

Paraguay

PRY

Peru

PER

Philippines

PHL

PolandPOL

Portugal

PRT

Qatar

QAT

Republic of Korea

KOR

Republic of Moldova

MDA

Romania

ROU

Russian Federation

RUS

RwandaRWA

Saint Kitts and Nevis

KNA

Saint Lucia

LCA

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

VCT

Samoa

WSM

San Marino

SMR

Sao Tome and Principe

STP

Saudi Arabia

SAU

SenegalSEN

SerbiaSRB

Seychelles

SYC

Sierra Leone

SLE

Singapore

SGP

Slovakia

SVK

Slovenia

SVN

Solomon Islands

SLB

Somalia

SOM

South Africa

ZAF

South Sudan

SSD

Spain

ESP

Sri Lanka

LKA

Sudan

SDN

Suriname

SUR

SwedenSWE

Switzerland

CHE

Syrian Arab Republic

SYR

Tajikistan

TJK

Thailand

THA

Timor-Leste

TLS

Togo

TGO

Tonga

TON

Trinidad and Tobago

TTO

Tunisia

TUN

275

Annexes

2022 UN E-Government Survey

Table A.14

(continued)

Country

276

ISO Code

Türkiye

TUR

Turkmenistan

TKM

TuvaluTUVUgandaUGA

Ukraine

UKR

United Arab Emirates

ARE

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

GBR

United Republic of Tanzania

TZA

United States of America

USA

Uruguay

URY

Uzbekistan

UZB

Vanuatu

VUT

Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of

VEN

Viet Nam

VNM

Yemen

YEM

ZambiaZMB

Zimbabwe

ZWE

Annexes

ANNEXES

Annex B
B.1

Complex Network Analysis (Pilot Study)

In 2022, UN DESA hired a consultant to conduct a pilot study using the science of complex systems
to expand the analysis of factors affecting countries’ e-government development beyond income
level and test a complex network analysis model to address possible inequalities and biases adherent
to rankings and find as yet unidentified similarities and differences between the Member States. The
following section provides details on the methodology of the complex networks model used for the
UN DESA pilot study conducted by Roberto Bellotti, Professor in Applied Physics and Director of the
Physics Department of the University of Bari, Italy. More detailed information on the study and its
findings is available on UNDESA Egovknowledge base.
The data set used for the analysis consisted of 305 World Development Indicators (WDIs) relating tohealth, economy, society and environment and 214 Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) indicators
characterizing the general development level of each Member State. The SDG indicators haveacquired a decisive role in the characterization of the 193 UN Member States as they represent thegeneral conditions for development in a multifaceted way, providing additional and complementary
information to the WDIs, especially in strategic areas relevant to the E-Government Development
Index (EGDI): access to electricity, mobile networks coverage, and the number of fixed internet
broadband subscriptions, to name a few. The selection of indicators followed the criteria of data
availability, consistency, and non-redundancy. The reference year for this data was 2020, with any
missing values filled with data from 2019 and 2018 to represent a snapshot of the current situation.
As presented in the methodological workflow (figure B.1) the UN Member States represent thenodes of the complex network, and the connections between each pair of countries are determinedby their mutual similarity, measured by the correlation between their performance on SDG indicators
and WDIs.
These indicators were used to compute the Pearson correlation between the lists of values pertaining
each pair of countries, which provide the basis to construct a complex network with 193 nodes, each
representing a UN Member State. The nodes are linked by edges, weighted by the aforementioned
pairwise correlations. Thus, weight values, ranging between -1 and 1, quantify the similarity between
connected countries. For example, Portugal has a strong correlation (0.93) with Spain, while Somalia
has a negative correlation (-0.46) with the United States.
The UN Member States have been then classified in development clusters using an automatedalgorithm providing a stable and reliable partition of the UN Member States into 4 non-overlappinggroups (table B.1). The results of such grouping are remarkably consistent with the findings derived
from literature review of studies for the past three years that used solely WDI data. The overall
stability of cluster detection procedure used in the UN DESA pilot study corroborates the reliability
and consistency of the findings on countries’ development levels.

277

Annexes

2022 UN E-Government Survey

Figure B.1

Scheme representing the workflow of the complex network analysis, and map representing
grouping of countries into four development clusters

Step 1

Step 2

Step 4

Step 3The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.
Dotted line represents approximately the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir agreed upon by India and Pakistan. The final status of Jammu and Kashmir has not yet been agreed upon by the Parties.
Final boundary between the Republic of Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan has not yet been determined.

Source: Complex Network Analysis Pilot Study for the 2022 United Nations E-Government Survey.

Grouping the countries into four development clusters using complex network analysis enables areinterpretation of the levels of e-government development of the UN Member States and their EGDI
ranking considering their starting conditions, as well as their mutual similarities and differences. By
comparing the countries EGDI values both within the same cluster, and between different clusters it
is possible to identify top-of the-class countries, whose performance goes beyond the expectations
based on their development status, and room-for-improvement countries, that have the potential toreach their cluster peers in the EGDI ranking by increasing their efforts. For top-of-the-class countries
their EGDI values are above the 75th percentile of the cluster they belong to, and, at the same time,they are above the 25th percentile of at least one development cluster above. By the same token, forroom-for-improvement countries the EGDI values are below the 25th percentile of the cluster they
belong to and, at the same time, are below the 75th percentile of at least one developed cluster
below.
The study also identified the benchmark countries, regarded as the best cases compared to the restof the world, and trailing countries, which would need specific support to improve their conditionin areas relevant for EDGI ranking. Benchmark countries are characterized by EGDI values above the75th percentile of the distribution within cluster I, while trailing countries have EGDI values falling
below the 25th percentile of the distribution within cluster IV.

References
[1]
[2]
[3]

278

UN data – A world of information (2021). https://data.un.org/ (2021). Accessed: 2021-11-24.
World Development Indicators – The World Bank Group. http://datatopics.worldbank.org/world-developmentindicators/ (2021). Accessed: 2021-11-10.
L. Bellantuono, A. Monaco, S. Tangaro, N. Amoroso, V. Aquaro, R. Bellotti, An equity-oriented rethink ofglobal rankings with complex networks mapping development. Sci. Rep. 10, 18046 (2020) An equity-oriented
rethink of global rankings with complex networks mapping development | Scientific Reports (nature.com)

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Cluster ID

Country
Albania
Algeria
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
Azerbaijan
BahamasBahrainBarbados
BelizeBosnia and Herzegovina
Brunei Darussalam
Cabo Verde
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Dominica
Dominican Republic
EcuadorEgypt
El Salvador
Georgia
GrenadaGuyanaIran (Islamic Republic of)
Jamaica
JordanKazakhstan
KuwaitLebanon
Malaysia
Maldives
Mauritius
MexicoMongolia
Montenegro
Morocco
Nauru
North Macedonia
Oman
Palau
PanamaPeru
Qatar
Republic of Moldova
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Saudi Arabia
Seychelles
South Africa
Sri Lanka
SurinameThailandTrinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
TürkiyeUkraineUnited Arab Emirates
Uruguay
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam

Country
Bangladesh
BhutanBolivia (Plurinational State of)
Botswana
Cambodia
Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Djibouti
Eswatini
Fiji
Gabon
GuatemalaHonduras
India
Indonesia
Iraq
Kiribati
Kyrgyzstan
Lao People's Democratic Republic
Libya
Marshall Islands
Micronesia (Federated States of)
MyanmarNamibia
Nepal
Nicaragua
Pakistan
Paraguay
Philippines
Samoa
Sao Tome and Principe
Solomon Islands
Syrian Arab Republic
Tajikistan
Timor-Leste
Tonga
Turkmenistan
TuvaluUzbekistan
Vanuatu

III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III

Cluster ID

Note: The internationally recognized three-letter country codes can be found here and in Survey annex table 12.

II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II

Cluster ID

Note: The internationally recognized three-letter country codes can be found here and in Survey annex table 12.

Sources:2020 and2020
2022 United
NationsUnited
E-Government
Surveys.
Sources:and 2022
Nations
E-Government Surveys.

AndorraAustralia
Austria
BelarusBelgiumBrazilBulgaria
CanadaChina
Croatia
Cuba
CyprusCzech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
FinlandFranceGermany
GreeceHungary
Iceland
IrelandIsraelItaly
Japan
LatviaLiechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
MonacoNetherlands
New Zealand
NorwayPolandPortugal
Republic of Korea
Romania
Russian Federation
San Marino
SerbiaSingapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
SwedenSwitzerland
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
United States

Country

Table
B.1 Thelist
bydevelopment
developmentclusters
clusters
accordingto pilotthe pilot
Table B.1
The
listofofcountries
countries groupedgrouped byaccordingto thestudystudy.
Country

Legends:
Benchmark countries
Top of the class countries
Room for improvement countries
Trailing countries

Afghanistan
AngolaBenin
Burkina Faso
BurundiCameroon
Central African Republic
Chad
Comoros
Congo
Cote d'Ivoire
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gambia (Republic of The)
Ghana
GuineaGuinea-Bissau
Haiti
Kenya
LesothoLiberia
Madagascar
MalawiMali
Mauritania
Mozambique
Niger
Nigeria
Papua New Guinea
RwandaSenegalSierra Leone
SomaliaSouth Sudan
Sudan
Togo
UgandaUnited Republic of Tanzania
Yemen
ZambiaZimbabwe

IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV

Cluster ID

Annexes

ANNEXES

279

Annexes

2022 UN E-Government Survey

The United Nations E-Government Survey 2022 is the 12th edition of
the United Nations’ assessment of the digital government landscapeacross all 193 Member States. The E-Government Survey is informedby over two decades of longitudinal research, with a ranking ofcountries based on the United Nations E-Government Development
Index (EGDI), a combination of primary data (collected and owned by
the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs) andsecondary data from other UN agencies.
This edition of the Survey includes data analysis in global and regional
contexts, a study of local e-government development based on
the United Nations Local Online Service Index (LOSI), considerationof inclusion in the hybrid digital society, and a concluding chapter thatoutlines the trends and developments related to the future of digital
government. As with all editions, it features extensive annexes on
its data, methodology and related pilot study initiatives.

ISBN 978-92-1-12321-34

280