International Digital Economy and Society Index 2018 : final report.
Date: 2018-10-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology
Subjects: Internet, benchmarking, comparative analysis, digital literacy, digital technology, information technology, information technology profession, professional qualifications, provision of services, single market

International Digital 
Economy and 
Society Index 
2018    

 SMART 2017/0052 

FINAL REPORT 

A study prepared for the European Commission 

DG Communications Networks, Content & Technology by: 

Digital 
Single 
Market 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This study was carried out for the European Commission by: 

Tech4i2:  Professor Paul Foley, Dr David Sutton, Ian Wiseman, Lawrence Green  
      and Jake Moore 

Internal Identification 

Contract Number: LC - 00714389 

SMART Number: 2017/0052 

DISCLAIMER  

By the European Commission, Directorate-General of Communications Networks, Content and 
Technology. 

The information and views set out in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily 
reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the 
data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf 
may be held responsible for the use that may be made of the information contained therein.  

ISBN 978-92-79-85699-0 

DOI: 10.2759/745483 

© European Union, 2018. All rights reserved. Certain parts are licensed under conditions to the EU.  

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contents 

Abstract .......................................................................................................... 4 

Résumé ........................................................................................................... 5 

Executive Summary ....................................................................................... 6 

Sommaire Exécutif ......................................................................................... 8 

1. 

Introduction ........................................................................................... 10 
1.1.  Background and objectives ........................................................................ 10 
1.2.  Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) ................................................ 10 
1.3.  Comparability of the EU28 DESI and I-DESI .............................................. 11 
1.4.  Study objectives ......................................................................................... 12 

2.  Results ................................................................................................... 13 
Introduction ................................................................................................ 13 
2.1. 
2.2.  The overall index ........................................................................................ 13 
2.3.  The Connectivity dimension ....................................................................... 15 
2.4.  The Human Capital dimension ................................................................... 18 
2.5.  The Citizen Internet Use dimension ........................................................... 21 
2.6.  The Business Technology Integration dimension ....................................... 24 
2.7.  The Digital Public Services dimension ....................................................... 27 
2.8.  Conclusions and observations ................................................................... 28 

3.  The methodology .................................................................................. 30 
3.1. 
Introduction ................................................................................................ 30 
3.2.  Data collection, selection and validation ..................................................... 30 
3.3.  Data normalisation ..................................................................................... 31 
3.4.  Missing values ........................................................................................... 32 
3.5.  Applying weights ........................................................................................ 34 
3.6.  Correlations ............................................................................................... 34 
3.7.  Calculating the final index .......................................................................... 36 

4.  Observations ......................................................................................... 38 
Introduction ................................................................................................ 38 

4.1. 

5.  Annex 1:  The 24 I-DESI indicators ...................................................... 39 
5.1.  Detailed description of dimensions and indicators ...................................... 40 
5.2.  Connectivity ............................................................................................... 40 
5.3.  Human Capital ........................................................................................... 41 
5.4.  Citizen Internet Use ................................................................................... 42 
5.5.  Business Technology Integration ............................................................... 43 
5.6.  Public Services .......................................................................................... 44 

6.  Annex 2  Maximum and minimum values used for normalisation .... 46 

7.  Annex 3  Performance scores for 45 countries .................................. 47 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Abstract 

The  International  Digital  Economy  and  Society  Index  (I-DESI)  mirrors  and  extends 
the EU28 Digital Economy and Society Index by utilising 24 datasets to enable trend 
analysis and comparison of the digital performance of 45 countries.    

Analysis showed that EU28 Member States compare well with 17 non-EU countries 
and  the  very  best  EU28  countries  have  digital  performances  at  the  same  or  higher 
levels than the best global countries.  Indeed Denmark was the leading country in the 
I-DESI  index.    EU28  Member  States  perform  best,  relative  to  the  17  non-EU 
countries,  in  the  Connectivity  dimension  (examining  the  deployment  and  take-up  of 
fixed and mobile broadband) and in the Citizen Use of the Internet dimension.   

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Résumé 

L’indice international  relatif  à  l’économie  et  à  la société  numériques (I-DESI) reflète 
et  étend  l’indice  relatif  à  l’économie  et  à  la  société  numériques  des  28  pays  de 
l’Union Européenne en utilisant 24 ensembles de données permettant l’analyse des 
tendances et la comparaison de la performance numérique de 45 pays.   

Les analyses ont montré que les 28 États membres de l’Union Européenne se 
comparent favorablement aux 17 pays hors UE et que les meilleurs pays de l’UE 
présentent des niveaux de performances numériques égaux ou supérieurs aux 
meilleurs pays dans le monde. En effet, le Danemark est le pays qui arrivait en tête 
de l’indice I-DESI.  Les 28 États membres de l’UE présentent les meilleures 
performances, comparativement aux 17 pays hors UE, pour l’indicateur sur la 
Connectivité (qui examine le déploiement et l’adoption du haut débit fixe et mobile) et 
l’indicateur portant sur l’Utilisation d’Internet par les citoyens. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive Summary 

The  International  Digital  Economy  and  Society  Index  (I-DESI)  measures  the  digital 
economy  performance  of  EU28  Member  States  and  the  EU  as  a  whole  in 
comparison  with  17  other  countries  around  the  world  (Australia,  Brazil,  Canada, 
Chile, China, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, Serbia, 
South Korea, Switzerland, Turkey and the United States).  The I-DESI aims to mirror 
and extend the results of the European Commission's  Digital Economy and Society 
Index  (DESI)  by  finding  indicators  that  measure  similar  variables  for  non-EU 
countries.    The  DESI  is  a  composite  index  that  benchmarks  relevant  indicators  on 
digital  performance  and  tracks  the  evolution  of  the  EU  as  a  whole  and  its  member 
states  in  digital  competitiveness.    I-DESI  combines  24  indicators  and  uses  a 
weighting system to rank each country based on its digital performance with the aim 
to benchmarking the development of the digital economy and society. 

The 2018 I-DESI utilises datasets over a four year time period from 2013 to 2016 to 
provide  trend  analysis.  It  brings  together  a  set  of  relevant  indicators  similar  to  the 
current  EU28  DESI  digital  policy  mix.    Coverage  of  suitable  datasets  in  more 
developed  countries,  which  provide  a  reasonable  peer  group  for  comparison  with 
EU28 Member States, are relatively good. Careful selection of variables has ensured 
that  coverage  beyond  the  non-EU  17  countries  included  in  this  study  is  relatively 
good,  but  not  quite  at  the  robust  level  suitable  for  analysis  in  a  European 
Commission study.   

This study has selected 24 indicators in five different dimensions and brought them 
together  to  provide  a  single  overview.    While  the  numbers  have  little  meaning  in 
themselves,  the  comparative  figures  are  where  the  story  really  lies.  Comparisons 
enable the identification of gaps between the performance and capabilities of the 45 
countries  studied  (28  Member  States  and  17  non-EU  countries).  Importantly  this 
international study enables the comparison of EU28 digital performance with a peer 
group  of  17  countries  from  around  the  globe.    I-DESI  will  help  countries  to  identify 
areas  requiring  investments  and  action  to  reach  the  levels  of  the  best  performing 
global countries. 

Correlations  and  covariance  testing  of  indicators,  sub-dimensions  and  dimensions 
were undertaken to examine how closely the I-DESI matches the DESI data for 2013 
to  2016  against  the  five  key  dimensions  examined  by  the  study.  The  level  of 
correlation was good, a correlation score1 of 0.94 was recorded between I-DESI and 
DESI  scores  and  country  rankings.  Comparisons  between  the  two  studies  can 
therefore be undertaken with a relatively high degree of confidence. 

The  main  methods  stipulated  for  analysis  included  comparison  of  the  average 
performance  of  EU28  Member  States  and  the  performance  of  the  leading  four  and 
bottom four Member States from each group with a specified representative group of 
four  non-EU  countries  (China,  Japan,  South  Korea  and  USA).    Comparisons  were 
undertaken against the five dimensions developed by DESI.  These are: 

1.  Connectivity: The deployment of broadband infrastructure and its 

quality; 

2.  Digital skills: The skills needed to take advantage of the possibilities 

offered by a digital society;   

6 

1 A score of 1 indicates a ‘perfect fit’, a score of zero indicates no correlation. 

 
 
 
                                                
3.  Citizen use of Internet: The variety of activities performed by citizens 

already online; 

4.  Business technology integration: The digitisation of businesses and 

development of the online sales channel; 

5.  Digital public services: The digitisation of public services, focusing on 

eGovernment.  

Analysis showed that EU28 Member States compare well with the 17 non-EU 
countries and the very best EU28 countries are at the same or a higher level than the 
best global countries.  Indeed Denmark was the leading country in the I-DESI index.  
Denmark was also the leading country in the EU28 DESI2.  The leading non-EU 
country, which came second of all 45 countries studied, was South Korea.  In third 
place was Finland, which was the second best performing EU28 Member State in the 
EU28 DESI.  EU28 Member States filled six of the top ten positions for the main I-
DESI index.   

The Connectivity  dimension - examining the deployment and take-up of fixed and 
mobile broadband - is the area where the EU28 average compares well with non-EU 
countries.    The  strongest  areas  in  this  dimension  for  EU28  Member  States  are  the 
broadband coverage and take-up sub-dimension and broadband prices. 

EU28  Member  States  also  generally  performed  better  than  their  17  global 
counterparts in the Citizen  Use  of  the  Internet  dimension.  EU28 Member States 
do  not  significantly  out-perform  their  global  counterparts  in  any  of  the  sub-
dimensions, but they are consistently just ahead of them.   

The  Digital  Single  Market  Strategy  has  several  economic  objectives,  including  job 
creation and economic growth.  The Business Technology Integration dimension 
looked  specifically  at  the  digitisation  of  businesses.    In  2016  the  average  EU28 
Member  State  performance  for  this  dimension  drew  level  with  non-EU  countries  for 
the first time since 2013.   

Public Services is the one dimension where EU28 Member States have consistently 
performed below their 17 non-EU counterparts. 

2 Comparison is with the 2017 I-DESI which, like this study, examined 2016 EU28 Member State data. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                
Sommaire Exécutif 

L'indice international relatif à l'économie et à la société numérique (I-DESI) mesure la 
performance de l'économie numérique des 28 états membres de l'Union Européenne 
et de l'UE dans son ensemble en comparaison avec 17 autres pays dans le monde 
(Australie,  Brésil,  Canada,  Chili,  Chine,  Islande,  Israël,  Japon,  Mexique,  Nouvelle-
Zélande, Norvège, Russie, Serbie, Corée du Sud, Suisse, Turquie et les États-Unis).  
Le I-DESI vise à refléter et à étendre les résultats de l'indice relatif à l'économie et à 
la société numérique de l'Union Européenne (DESI) en trouvant des indicateurs qui 
mesurent  des  variables  similaires  pour 
l'Union 
Européenne.  Le DESI est un indice composite qui évalue les indicateurs pertinents 
relatifs  à  la  performance  numérique  et  suit  l'évolution  de  l'UE  dans  son  ensemble; 
ainsi  que  ses  états  membres;  en  termes  de  compétitivité  numérique.    Le  I-DESI 
combine  24  indicateurs  et  utilise  un  système  de  pondération  pour  classer  chaque 
pays  en  fonction  de  sa  performance  numérique,  dans  le  but  d'évaluer  le 
développement de l'économie et de la société numérique. 

les  pays  non  membres  de 

Le I-DESI 2018 utilise un ensemble de données sur une période de quatre ans, de 
2013 à 2016, pour fournir une analyse des tendances. Il rassemble des indicateurs 
pertinents  semblables  à  la  panoplie  de  mesures  numériques  actuelles  du  DESI  de 
l'UE à 28.  Le champ d'application des ensembles de données appropriées dans des 
pays  plus  développés,  qui  fournit  un  groupe  de  pairs  satisfaisant  aux  fins  de  la 
comparaison  aux  28  états  membres  de  l'UE,  est  relativement  bon.  Une  sélection 
rigoureuse  des  variables  a  permis  de  garantir  un  champ  d'application  relativement 
bon au-delà des 17 pays non membres de l'UE, mais pas à un niveau suffisamment 
fiable  pour  convenir  à  l'analyse  dans  le  cadre  d'une  étude  de  la  Commission 
Européenne.   

Cette  étude  a  sélectionné  24  indicateurs  dans  cinq  dimensions  différentes  et  les  a 
rassemblés pour fournir une seule vue d'ensemble.  Bien que les chiffres soient peu 
significatifs  en  eux-mêmes,  c'est  dans  les  données  comparatives  que  tout  se  joue 
réellement. Les comparaisons permettent d'identifier les fossés entre la performance 
et les capacités des 45 pays étudiés (28 états membres et 17 pays non membres). 
Mais  surtout,  cette  étude  internationale  permet  de  comparer  la  performance 
numérique  des  28  pays  de  l'UE  avec  un  groupe  de  pairs  composé  de  17  pays  du 
monde  entier.    Le  I-DESI  va  aider  les  pays  à  identifier  les  domaines  dans  lesquels 
des  investissements  et  des  efforts  sont  nécessaires  pour  atteindre  les  niveaux  des 
pays les plus performants au monde. 

Des tests de corrélation et de covariance sur les indicateurs, les sous-dimensions et 
les dimensions ont été effectués pour examiner le niveau d'adéquation du I-DESI aux 
données du DESI pour les années 2013 à 2016 par rapport aux cinq dimensions clés 
examinées  par  l'étude.  Le  niveau  de  corrélation  s'est  avéré  bon,  avec  un  taux  de 
corrélation  3  de  0,94  enregistré  entre  les  résultats  du  I-DESI  et  du  DESI  et  les 
classements  des  pays. Les  comparaisons  entre  les  deux  études peuvent  donc  être 
effectuées avec un degré de confiance relativement élevé. 

Les  méthodes  principales  stipulées  pour  l'analyse  comprenaient  la comparaison  de 
la  performance  moyenne  des  28  états  membres  de  l'UE  et  de  la  performance  des 
quatre  premiers  et  des  quatre  derniers  états  membres  de  chaque  groupe  avec  un 
groupe représentatif spécifique de quatre pays non membres de l'UE (Chine, Japon, 

8 

3 Un score de 1 indique une ‘correspondance parfaite’, un score de zéro indique qu’il n’y a aucune 

corrélation. 

 
 
 
                                                
Corée du Sud et États-Unis).  Les comparaisons ont été effectuées par rapport aux 
cinq dimensions élaborées par le DESI.  Celles-ci sont : 

1.  La connectivité : Le déploiement de l'infrastructure haut débit et sa 

qualité; 

2.  Les compétences numériques : Les compétences requises pour tirer 
pleinement profit des possibilités offertes par une société numérique;   

3.  L'utilisation d'Internet par les citoyens : La variété des activités 

entreprises par les citoyens qui sont déjà en ligne; 

4.  L'intégration technologique des entreprises : La numérisation des 

entreprises et le développement des canaux de vente en ligne; 

5.  Les services publics numériques : La numérisation des services 

publics, avec l'accent sur l'administration en ligne (e-Gouvernement).  

Les analyses ont montré que les 28 États membres de l’Union Européenne se 
comparent favorablement aux 17 pays non membres et que les meilleurs pays de 
l’UE présentent des niveaux de performances numériques égaux ou supérieurs aux 
meilleurs pays dans le monde.  En effet, le Danemark est le pays qui arrivait en tête 
de l’indice I-DESI.  Le Danemark est également le pays en tête dans le DESI de 
l'UE à 284.  Le premier pays non membre de l'UE, qui est arrivé deuxième sur la liste 
des 45 pays étudiés, était la Corée du Sud.  En troisième place se situait la Finlande, 
le deuxième pays performant le mieux parmi les 28 états membres de l'UE dans le 
DESI de l'UE à 28.  Les 28 états membres de l'UE remportent six des dix meilleures 
places dans l'indice principal I-DESI.   

La dimension Connectivité - qui examine le déploiement et l’adoption du haut débit 
fixe  et  mobile  -  est  le  domaine  pour  lequel  la  moyenne  de  l'UE  à  28  se  compare 
favorablement avec les pays non membres de l'UE.  Les secteurs les plus importants 
dans  cette  dimension  pour  les  28  états  membres  de  l'UE  sont  la  sous-dimension 
concernant la couverture et l'adoption du haut-débit ainsi que les prix du haut débit. 

Les 28 états membres de l'UE présentent généralement une meilleure performance 
que leurs 17 homologues internationaux pour ce qui est de la dimension Utilisation 
d'Internet  par  les  citoyens.    Les  28  états  membres  de  l'UE  ne  dépassent  pas  de 
manière  significative  la  performance  de  leurs  homologues  internationaux  dans 
aucune des sous-dimensions, mais ils sont systématiquement juste au-devant d'eux.   

La  stratégie  pour  un  marché  unique  numérique  a  plusieurs  objectifs  économiques, 
notamment  la  création  d'emplois  et  la  croissance  économique.      La  dimension 
Intégration  technologique  de  l'entreprise  étudiait  en  particulier  la  numérisation 
des  entreprises.    En  2016  la  performance  moyenne  des  28  états  membres  de  l'UE 
dans cette dimension se situait au même niveau que les pays non membres, pour la 
première fois depuis 2013.   

Les  Services  publics  est  la  seule  dimension  pour  laquelle  la  performance  des  28 
états  membres  de  l'UE  a  été  systématiquement  inférieure  à  leurs  17  homologues 
non membres de l'UE. 

4 La comparaison se fait avec le I-DESI de 2017 qui, comme cette étude, a examiné les données de 

2016 de 28 états membres de l'UE. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                
1. Introduction    

1.1.  Background and objectives 

The Internet and digital technologies are transforming our world.  The European 
Commission has identified that an efficiently functioning Digital Single Market could 
contribute €415 billion per year to our economy and create hundreds of thousands of 
new jobs. 

The Digital Single Market strategy aims to open up digital opportunities for people 
and business and enhance Europe's position as a world leader in the digital 
economy.  Connectivity targets for 2025 have been established to create a Gigabit 
Society5 and policies are being pursued to address barriers and seize opportunities 
to digital adoption and development in EU28 Member States6. 

Evaluation and monitoring play an important part in benchmarking performance and 
monitoring progress towards policy goals.  Results from monitoring provide a mirror 
that can be held up to EU Member States so that they can clearly see themselves 
and other countries (within and beyond the EU28) in the same perspective.   

figures  and  avoids  comment.  This 
Benchmarking  usually  concentrates  on 
benchmarking study contains a lot of detail and data can be analysed in many ways 
to  reveal  and  examine  underlying  differences.    The  objective  of  this  study  is  to 
provide indicators for key areas of improvement and identify Member States that are 
succeeding.    Many  nations  will  have  economic  and  cultural  reasons  for  high or  low 
scores in individual indicators.  However, taking the factors overall, they do show in 
aggregate the performance of EU28 Member States. 

This study has selected quantitative data and brought it together to provide a single 
overview.    While  the  numbers  individually  have  little  meaning  as  quantities  in 
themselves, the comparative figures are where the story really lies. They show gaps 
between  the  performance  and  capabilities  of  Member  States.    Importantly  this 
international study enables the comparison of EU28 digital performance with a group 
of 17 countries from around the globe. 

1.2.  Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) 

The  Digital  Economy  and  Society  Index  (DESI)  is  a  composite  measure  that 
examines Europe’s digital performance.  The DESI was first calculated in 2014, using 
statistics from 2013.  It is one of the main analytical tools developed by DG CNECT 
to provide evidence-based input for the assessment of digital development in the EU 
as a whole as well as in Member States. 

The DESI aims to help EU countries identify areas requiring priority investments and 
action in order to create a truly Digital Single Market.  

5 'European Parliament Think Tank.  2017.  Towards a European Gigabit society: Connectivity targets 

and 5G.  http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_BRI% 
282017%29603979 

6 Policies include The new European electronic communications code http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ 

RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/593562/EPRS_BRI(2016)593562_EN.pdf, The 5G Action Plan 
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/communication-5g-europe-action-plan-and-
accompanying-staff-working-document, and the promotion and use of internet connectivity  
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/proposed-regulation-promotion-internet-
connectivity-local-communities-and-public-spaces-wifi4eu.  

10 

 
 
                                                
DESI  combines  more  than  30  indicators  and  uses  a  weighting  system  to rank  each 
country  based  on  its  digital  performance.  It  brings  together  a  set  of  relevant 
indicators on Europe’s current digital policy mix7.  The index is divided into five main 
dimensions,  which  are  in  turn  composed  of  sub-dimensions.  The  main  dimensions 
are shown in Figure 1. 

Figure 1 The five dimensions of the Digital Economy and Society Index 

1.3.  Comparability of the EU28 DESI and I-DESI 

The  data  included  in  DESI  was  mostly  collected  by  the  European  Commission 
services  -  DG  Connect  and  Eurostat 8  and  by  ad-hoc  studies  launched  by  the 
Commission services. Over a short period of time Eurostat has been able to catalyse 
the robust collection of digital indicator information in EU28 Member States.  

In  2015  the  need  to  take  a  broader  global  perspective  was  realised.    The  first 
International  Digital  Economy  and  Society  Index  (I-DESI),  published  in  2016, 
provided  a  snapshot  to  compare  statistics  from  15  non-EU  countries  with  the 
performance of EU Member States. 

7 http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-16-385_en.htm 
8 Supported by national statistical offices. 

11 

 
 
 
 
                                                
Organisations  such  as  the  International  Telecommunications  Union  (ITU),  OECD, 
UN, World Bank and World Economic Forum are extending their coverage of digital 
statistics.    Private  sector  organisations,  such  as  Akamai  and  Google,  are  using 
innovative  methods  and  more  extensive  sample  sizes  to  collect  more  robustly 
relevant digital datasets.     

The 2018 I-DESI has been able to utilise datasets over a four year time period from 
2013 to 2016 to provide trend analysis.  But problems have still been encountered in 
trying to find perfect surrogates to replicate all the indicators used in the EU28 DESI.  
Coverage  of  suitable  datasets  in  more  developed  countries,  which  provide  a 
reasonable  peer  group  for  comparison  with  EU28  Member  States,  are  relatively 
good9.  Careful selection of variables has ensured coverage beyond the 17 countries 
included in this study is relatively good, but not quite at the level attainable for all the 
countries included in this study10.   

1.4.  Study objectives 

The 2018 I-DESI has three key objectives: 

1.  General  performance  assessment - to obtain a characterisation of the 
performance of non-EU countries that mirrors DESI by calculating overall 
index  scores  and  scores  for  the  main  index  dimensions  of  a  selected 
group of 17 non-EU countries; 

2.  Comparative analysis - to undertake comparative trend analysis over a 
four  year  time  period  –  2013  to  2016  -  of  the  performance  within  and 
between  a  selected  group  of  17  non-EU  countries  and  28  EU  Member 
States; 

3.  Zooming-in  - to pinpoint areas where EU28 Member State performance 
is competitive in comparison with non-EU countries and to identify areas 
where  performance  needs  to  improve  to  better  match  a  comparison 
group of 17 selected non-EU countries.   

9 The 17 countries compare relatively well with EU28 Member States.  Average GDP per capita of the 

upper quartile of EU28 Member States in 2016 was €44,650 for the non-EU countries it was €52,560.  
Average GDP per capita of the lowest quartile of EU28 Member States in 2016 was €10,320 for the 
non-EU countries it was €7,360.   

10 All countries included in analysis had data for 20 or more of the 24 indicators used in this study.  

12 

 
 
 
 
  
                                                
2. Results   

2.1. 

Introduction 

This  chapter  provides  an  overview  of  the  results  from  I-DESI  analysis.  It  first 
compares  the  aggregate  performance  of  EU28  Member  States  with  17  non-EU 
countries across all I-DESI dimensions.  The remaining sections then present results 
for each of the five dimensions that comprise I-DESI. 

The presentation of data from 45 countries, for four years (2013 to 2016), in a single 
graphic  would  be  very  untidy.    Instead  we  present  the  results  of  aggregated 
information  for  each  dimension  to  provide  comparative  insights.    Comparative 
insights required by the European Commission focused on: 

  The top four performing countries - Performance of the leading four EU28 

Member States; 

  Average  -  This  describes  the  average  performance 11  of  EU28  Member 

States; 

  The  bottom  four  performing  countries  -  Performance  of  the  bottom  four 

EU28 Member States. 

In addition the performance of four non-EU countries were stipulated as a reference 
point  for  comparison  in  all  graphics.    The  four  countries  are  South  Korea,  which 
came  top  of  the  non-EU  I-DESI  group,  Japan  (the  5th  non-EU  I-DESI  country  in 
2016),  USA  (8th)  and  China  (13th).    Raw  data  performance  scores  and  normalised 
scores for all 45 countries (EU28 and non-EU) can be found in Annex 312. 

For ease of reference, throughout this chapter blue lines in all figures refer to EU28 
Member  States.    Red  lines  in  graphics  provide  details  of  four  non-EU  countries 
selected  for  presentation  in  all  graphics.    Darker  colours  refer  to  better  performing 
countries and lighter colours to countries performing less well. 

2.2.  The overall index 

Figure 2 provides an overview of the performance scores across all dimensions for I-
DESI.   The leading country in the 2016 I-DESI was Denmark, with a score of 75.9.  
Denmark was also the leading country in the 2016 EU28 DESI13.  The leading non-
EU country, which came second of all 45 countries studied, was South Korea (75.2).  
In  third  place  (of  45  countries)  was  Finland  (73.8),  which  was  the  second  best 
performing EU28 Member State in the 2016 I-DESI and 2016 DESI.  

Figure 2 shows that the average performance of EU28 Member States in 2016 was 
58.9.    The  top  four  EU28  Member  States  have  consistently  performed  at  a  higher 
level  than  the  four  countries  stipulated  for  comparison  in  Figure  2.    In  2016  South 
Korea overtook the leading four EU Member State average for the first time.  

11 Throughout analysis ‘average’ refers to the arithmetic mean.   
12 Raw data scores are provided for all indicators except those provided by ITU.  ITU data is available by 

subscription only and subject to copyright restrictions, therefore only normalised scores are 
presented.   The normalisation process scaled data sets (often collected in different ways e.g. 
percentages, scores of 0 to 1 and scales of 1 to 7) into a range from 0 to 1.  For ease of comparison 
these scores have been converted into a scale of 0 to 100 in this report. 

13 Comparison is with the 2017 I-DESI which, like this study, examined 2016 EU28 Member State data. 

13 

 
 
                                                
Figure 2  Average scores across all dimensions for I-DESI 2013 to 2016 

As might be expected with increasing adoption and use of digital technologies there 
has been a steady increase in scores between 2013 and 2016. EU28 Member States 
on average increased by 16 per cent across the four years of the study.  The largest 
increase in performance was recorded by Serbia, which increased its score by 75 per 
cent  between  2013  and  2016  and  rose  from  last  place  amongst  the  45  countries 
analysed to 34th place. Figure 3 provides scores for all non-EU countries in 2016. 

Figure 3  Non-EU countries normalised performance scores for I-DESI in 2016 

As noted previously the I-DESI is comprised of five dimensions and 24 indicators.  
The remainder of this chapter provides a short overview of the different dimensions, 
sub-dimensions and indictors.  

14 

 
 
 
 
 
2.3.  The Connectivity dimension 

The connectivity dimension is comprised of seven indicators grouped together in four 
sub-dimensions that examine fixed and mobile broadband deployment and take-up.   

Figure  4  provides  an  overview  of  connectivity  dimension  performance  scores  for 
EU28  Member  States  and  four  of  the  17  non-EU  countries  examined  in  this  study 
between 2013 and 2016.  

In  2016  the  EU28  Member  State  average  performance 14  for  the  connectivity 
dimension was 62.9.  Only six of the non-EU countries (including South Korea, Japan 
and USA) had a higher score in 2016, see Figure 4.   

Figure 4  Average performance scores for the connectivity dimension  

Figure 4 shows that in 2016 the average connectivity dimension score for the leading 
four  EU28  (75.2)  is  behind  South  Korea  (79.8),  but  ahead  of  Japan  and  the  USA.  
The average score for the bottom four EU28 Member States (52.2) is ahead of China 
and five other non-EU countries15. 

14 Normalised and weighted score for the dimension, see chapter 3.  
15 An obvious characteristic of several of the bottom five non-EU countries (Brazil, China, Russia) is 

their large size and relatively low population densities.  This will make fixed and mobile infrastructure 
deployment more difficult and costly. 

15 

 
 
 
 
                                                
During  the  four  year  period  examined  in  this  study  the  average  EU28  connectivity 
score increased by 38 per cent from 45.6 in 2013 to 62.9 in 2016.   

Figure 5  Normalised country scores for the connectivity dimension in 2016 

Obviously  countries  performance  in  the  connectivity  dimension  between  2013  and 
2016,  presented  in  Figure  4,  is  comprised  of  large  and  small  changes  in  the  sub-
dimensions that comprise the connectivity dimension.   

The  remainder  of  this  section  examines  scores and  rates  of  change  within  the  four 
sub-dimensions  that  comprise  the  connectivity  dimension  of  I-DESI.    Section  3.2 
provides  concise  definitions  of  several  key  terms  used  in  by  this  dimension,  for 
example  broadband,  coverage,  connectivity, 
take-up,  subscriptions  and  Next 
Generation Access (NGA).   

a.  Broadband  coverage  and  take-up: EU28 Member States are well ahead of 
their non-EU counterparts in this sub-dimension.  The sub-dimension is comprised of 
two indicators.   

The first broadband sub-dimension indicator examines fixed  broadband  coverage.  
In  2016  EU28  Member  State  average  coverage  was  96.8  per  cent  (of  the 
population).    Five  of  the  17  non-EU  countries  achieved  this  level  of  take-up  (or 
higher)  in  2016.  Nine  EU28  Member  States  claimed  100  per  cent  fixed  broadband 
coverage in 2016; only two non-EU countries had this ubiquitous level of coverage. 

The second indicator in this sub-dimension used ITU data to examine subscriptions 
for fixed broadband.  In 2016 average fixed broadband take-up was 72 per cent in 
EU28 Member States.  Five of the 17 non-EU countries achieved this level of take-up 
(or higher) in 2016.   

b.  4G  coverage  and  mobile  take-up:    In  2016  EU28  Member  States  were 
performing  at  a  similar  level  to  their  non-EU  counterparts  in  this  sub-dimension.  
There  has  been  growing  use  of  mobile  devices  and  increased  4G  coverage 
throughout the world.  

16 

 
 
 
The first indicator for this sub-dimension is mobile broadband take-up. In 2016 the 
average number  of mobiles per  100  of  the  population in EU28  Member  States  was 
85.1.  Ten of the 17 non-EU countries had a higher level of mobile take-up in 2016. 

The second indicator for this sub-dimension examines 4G coverage.  EU28 Member 
States had average 4G coverage of 93.5 per cent of the population in 2016. Nine of 
the 17 non-EU countries had a higher level of coverage. 

c. Fast broadband coverage and take-up:  This sub-dimension is comprised of 
two indicators.   

NGA  coverage  -  EU28  Member  States  (average  30  per  cent  coverage  in  2016) 
perform  at  a  similar  level  to  non-EU  countries  for  this  indicator.  The  top  four  EU28 
Member States had an average level of coverage of 46 per cent in 2016. Four of the 
17 non-EU countries had a higher level of coverage in the same year. 

Fast  broadband  take-up,  the  second  indicator  for  this  sub-dimension,  is  relatively 
low across all 45 countries examined.  In 2016 only three non-EU countries and three 
EU28  Member  States  had  more  than  20  per  cent  fast  broadband  take-up.    The 
average  level  of  take  up  in  EU28  Member  States  is  14.2  per  cent.  Eight  of  the  17 
non-EU countries had a higher level of take-up in 2016. 

d.  Fixed broadband prices: The final sub-dimension concerns the price paid for 
fixed broadband16.   In 2016 the average normalised score for  EU28 Member States 
was 74.3.  Six of the 17 non-EU countries exceeded this normalised score. 

16 This is the only indicator, amongst all those analysed in this study, where a reduction in the item 

measured for an indicator is advantageous, this is indicated with a positive increase in the score in I-
DESI. 

17 

 
 
  
                                                
2.4.  The Human Capital dimension 

The human capital dimension is comprised of four indicators grouped together in two 
the 
sub-dimensions 
opportunities offered by a digital society.   

take  advantage  of 

the  skills  needed 

that  examine 

to 

Figure  6  provides  an  overview  of  the  average  performance  score  for  the  human 
capital dimension.  

Figure 6  Average performance scores for the human capital dimension 

In  2016  the  EU28  Member  State  average  performance 17  for  the  human  capital 
dimension  was  58.0,  see  Figure  7.  Nine  of  the  17  non-EU  countries  had  a  higher 
score in 2016. 

In  2016  the  top  four  EU28  Member  States  (average  score  74.7)  performed  behind 
South  Korea  and  three  other  non-EU  countries,  but  ahead  of  Japan  and  the  USA. 
The average score for the bottom four EU28 Member States (43.7) is ahead of China 
and three other non-EU countries.  

During the four year period examined in this study the average EU28 human capital 
score increased by 11 per cent from 52.3 in 2013 to 58.0 in 2016.   

18 

17 Normalised and weighted score for the dimension, see chapter 3.  

 
 
 
 
 
                                                
Figure 7  Normalised scores for the human capital dimension in 2016 

Human capital  analysis  has  two  sub-dimensions,  each  comprised  of  two  indicators. 
EU28 Member States are generally ahead of their non-EU counterparts for both sub-
dimensions. 

a.  Basic  skills  and  usage:    This  sub-dimension  is  comprised  of  two  indicators.  
The first indicator examines Internet  use.  In 2016 the average level of Internet use 
was 81 per cent of the population in EU28 Member States.  In 2016 in the top four 
EU28  Member  States  on  average  91  per  cent  of  the  population  used  the  internet.  
Three  of the  17  non-EU  countries had the same  or  a  higher  level  of  internet  use  in 
2016. 

In  2016  the  average  level  of  Internet  use  amongst  the  bottom  four  EU28  Member 
States  averaged  71  per  cent.  Three  of  the  non-EU  countries  had  a  lower  level  of 
internet use. 

The  second  indicator  in  this  sub-dimension  uses  ITU  data  to  examine  regular 
Internet  use.    In  2016  the  average  level  of  regular  Internet  use  in  EU28  Member 
States  was  79.2  per  cent.  Nine  of  the  17  non-EU  countries  had  a  higher  level  of 
internet use in 2016. 

Regular Internet use by the top four EU28 Member States in 2016 was 89.6 per cent. 
Five of the non-EU countries had a higher level of regular internet use. 

Regular internet use was higher in the bottom four performing EU28 Member States 
(average 69.5 per cent) than for six non-EU countries. 

b.  Advanced  skills  development:  This  sub-dimension  is  comprised  of  two 
indicators.   

The  first  indicator  uses  World  Economic  Foundation  data  about  employment  in 
knowledge  intensive  industries.    In  2016  42.1  per  cent  of  EU28  Member  State 
employment was in these industries.  Nine of the 17 non-EU countries had a higher 
level of employment in these industries in 2016. 

19 

 
 
 
The average level of employment amongst the top four EU Member States was 45.3 
per  cent. Three  of the  non-EU  countries  had  a higher  level  of  employment  in these 
industries in 2016. 

The  average  level  of  employment  in  knowledge  intensive  industries  amongst  the 
bottom  four  EU28  Member  States  was  39.8  per  cent.  Seven  of  the  17  non-EU 
countries had a lower level of employment in these industries in 2016. 

The  second  indicator  uses  UNESCO  data  to  examine  the  number  of  tertiary 
graduates  in  ICT  as  a  proportion  of  all  graduates.    This  indicator  has  a  slightly 
different  focus  than  the  EU  DESI,  which  examines  all  STEM  (science,  technology, 
engineering and mathematics) subjects.   

EU Member States on average had 22 per cent of graduates in ICT in 2016. Five of 
the 17 non-EU countries had a lower proportion of graduates in 2016. 

The four top performing countries have far higher proportions of ICT graduates than 
the average.  In 2016 the top four EU Member States on average had 40 per cent of 
graduates in ICT.  Four of the non-EU countries had the same or a higher proportion 
of graduates. 

In 2016 the bottom four EU Member States on average had 14 per cent graduates in 
ICT.  None of the 17 non-EU countries had a proportion of graduates this low.  

20 

 
 
2.5.  The Citizen Internet Use dimension 

There  are  five  indicators  that  comprise  the  four  sub-dimensions  that  make  up  the 
citizen Internet use dimension.  The dimension examines the variety of activities and 
devices used by citizens already online. 

Figure  8  provides  an  overview  of  the  average  performance  score  for  the  citizen 
Internet use dimension.   

Figure 8  Average performance scores for the citizen internet use dimension 

In 2016 the EU28 Member State average performance18 for the dimension was 59.7, 
see Figure 8. Seven of 17 non-EU countries, including South Korea, Japan and USA, 
exceeded this figure. 

In 2016 the top four EU28 Member States had an average score of 78.5.  Only one 
non-EU  country  exceeded  this  score.  The  top  four  EU28  were  four  points  or  more 
ahead of South Korea (74.5), Japan (73.9) and the USA (71.0), see Figure 9. 

Figure 9 provides 2016 average normalised data scores for the 17 non-EU countries 
and EU28 Member State. 

18 Normalised and weighted score for the dimension, see chapter 3.  

21 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                
In 2016 the average score for the bottom four EU28 Member States was 44.4.  This 
was just behind China (45.3) but ahead of four other non-EU countries. 

During the four year period examined in this study the average EU28 citizen Internet 
Use score increased by 17 per cent from 51.2 in 2013 to 59.7 in 2016. 

Between  2013  and  2016  performance  of  the  top  four  EU28  Member  States  has 
grown  considerably:    Increasing  from  72.1  in  2013  to  78.5  in  2016  (an  increase  of 
nine  per  cent).    The  bottom  EU28  Member  States  have  also  increased  their 
performance.    In  2013  the  average  for  the  bottom  four  EU28  Member  States  was 
31.6.  By 2016 this had increased by 40 per cent to 44.4. 

Figure 9  Normalised scores for the citizen Internet use dimension in 2016 

The  remainder  of  this  section  examines  scores and  rates  of  change  within  the  four 
sub-dimensions that comprise the citizen Internet use dimension. 

a.  Content:    This  sub-dimension  is  only  comprised  of  one  indicator  –  an  OECD 
statistic showing the proportion of the population reading news online in the last 
three  months.      In  2016  the  average  level  of  news  use  was  63  per  cent  of  the 
population in EU28  Member  States.   Nine  of the 17  non-EU  countries  had  a  higher 
level of news readership in 2016. 

The average level of news reading in the top four EU28 Member States was 79 per 
cent in 2016. Four of the 17 non-EU countries had a higher level of news readership 
in  2016.    In  the  same  year  the  average  level  of  news  reading  amongst  the  bottom 
four EU28 Member States was 51 per cent. Seven of the 17 non-EU countries had a 
lower level of news readership in 2016.    

b.  Social  media:    The  second  indicator  in  this  sub-dimension  uses  World 
Economic  Forum  data  to  examine  social  media  use 19 .    In  2016  the  average 

22 

19 The WEF indicator uses a 1 to 7 scale.  To make analysis easier to understand normalised scores are 

presented.  

 
 
 
                                                
normalised  score  for  EU28  Member  States  was  77.0.  Nine  of  the  17  non-EU 
countries had a higher level of social media use.     

c. Transactions:  The third sub-dimension is comprised of two indicators.  The first 
uses OECD data examining the proportion of the population using Internet banking 
in  the  last  three  months.    51.8  per  cent  of  the  population  in  EU28  Member  States 
made use of Internet banking in 2016.  The average level of Internet banking use in 
the  top  four  EU28  Member  States  was  82.1  per  cent.    Only  one  of  the  17  non-EU 
countries had a higher level of banking. 

The  average  level  of  Internet  banking  use  in  the  bottom  four  EU28  Member  States 
was 24.2 per cent.  Four of the 17 non-EU countries had a lower level of banking. 

The  second  transaction  sub-dimension  indicator  examined  the  proportion  of  the 
population  undertaking  Internet  shopping.    In  EU28  Member  States  in  2016  on 
average  49.6  per  cent  undertook  shopping.    Eight  non-EU  countries  exceeded  this 
level of Internet shopping.  For both groups of countries there was a relatively large 
increase.  In 2013 only 37.1 per cent in the EU28 Member States shopped online.  

d.  Devices:  The final indicator for this dimension examines the  average  number 
of devices used per person.  This indicator has shown a relatively large increase in 
the  four  years  examined  by  the  study.    In  2013  the  number  of  devices  in  EU28 
Member States was 2.3.  Four years later, in 2016, the number had increased to 2.7. 

In 2016 the average number of devices used in the top four EU Member States was 
3.4.  Four of the 17 non-EU countries had the same or a higher level of device use. 

23 

 
 
  
 
2.6.  The Business Technology Integration dimension 

This  dimension  measures  the  digitisation  of  businesses  and  development  of  the 
online sales channel.  The two sub-dimensions are comprised of five indicators. 

Figure 10 provides an overview of average performance scores for the dimension.   

Figure 10  Average scores for the business technology  integration dimension 

In 2016 the EU28 Member State average performance for the dimension  was 51.3.  
Nine of 17 non-EU countries had a higher score in 2016.   

Figure 10 shows that in 2016 the average business technology integration score for 
the leading four EU28 Member States (72.8) was considerably ahead of South Korea 
(63.8),  Japan  (53.0)  and  the  USA  (61.8).    Indeed,  only  two  non-EU  countries  were 
ahead of the top four EU28 Member States, see Figure 11. 

In 2016 the average score for the bottom four EU28 Member States (32.3.) is ahead 
of three non-EU countries, but some way behind China (40.7). 

During  the  four  year  period  examined  in  this  study  the  average  EU28  business 
technology integration score increased by eight per cent from 47.6 in 2013 to 51.3 in 
2016.   

Figure  11  provides  2016  normalised  data  scores  for  the  17  non-EU  countries  and 
EU28 Member State averages. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 11  Normalised country scores for the business technology 
integration  dimension in 2016 

The  remainder  of  this  section  examines  scores  and  rates  of  change  for  the  five 
indicators that comprise the business technology integration dimension. 

a.  Business  digitisation:    This  sub-dimension  is  comprised  of  three  indicators.  
Two are derived from the World Economic Foundation and a business social media 
use  indicator  obtained  from  the  United  Nations.    The  two  World  Economic 
Foundation indicators use a scale from 1 to 7.  To provide an easier understanding 
normalised scores are presented. 

The first World Economic Foundation indicator provides details of businesses’ views 
about  the  availability  of  the  latest  technology.    In  2016  in  EU28  Member  State 
businesses  the  average  normalised  score  was  68.4.    Nine  of  the  17  non-EU 
countries had a higher score. 

The  second  World  Economic  Foundation  indicator  provided  details  about  the 
business  level  technology  absorption.    In  2016  the  average  normalised  score  for 
EU28  Member  State  businesses  was  55.7.  Eight  of  the  non-EU  countries  had  a 
higher score. 

The final indicator in this dimension examined business use of social media.  EU28 
Member  States  consistently  perform  less  well  than  the  non-EU  countries.    The 
average level  of  social media  use  in  EU28  Member  States  was  45  per  cent.    12  of 
the non-EU countries had a higher score in 2016. 

b. eCommerce:  The two indicators that comprise this dimension were provided by 
the World Economic Foundation and the World Bank.  There was a surprising paucity 
of robust eCommerce data.    

World  Economic  Foundation  data  examines  business-to-business  Internet  use.  
The  indicators  use  a  scale from  1  to  7.  Normalised  scores  are  compared.    In  2016 

25 

 
 
 
EU28  Member  States  had  an  average  score  of  58.5.    Eight  of  the  17  non-EU 
countries had a higher score. 

The  final  indicator  for  this  dimensions  examined  the  number  of  secure  Internet 
servers per one million people.  Secure servers are required to support eCommerce.  
The average number of secure servers per million people in EU28 Member States in 
2016 was 1,009.  Table 30 reveals that the non-EU country average is 1,059 and two 
countries have more than 3,000 secure servers per million people (Iceland 3,151 and 
Switzerland 3,063). 

26 

 
 
 
2.7.  The Digital Public Services dimension 

There are three indicators that comprise the digital public services dimension.  This 
dimension measures the digitisation of public services, focusing on eGovernment.   

Figure 12 provides an overview of the average performance score for the dimension.  
Digital  public  services  is  the  only  dimension,  of  five  examined,  where  the  EU28 
Member State average score is consistently behind the non-EU countries. 

In 2016 the EU28 Member State average performance for the digital public services 
dimension was 63.1.  Nine of the 17 non-EU countries, including South Korea, USA 
and Japan) had a higher score in 2016, see Figure 12. 

Figure 12  Average performance scores for the public services  dimension 

Figure 12 shows that in 2016 the average digital public services dimension score for 
the leading four EU28 was 84.7.  Only one non-EU country had a higher score. 

The  average  score for  the  bottom four  EU28  Member  States  was  41.1.   This score 
was behind China and all other non-EU countries, see Figure 13. 

During  the  four  year  period  examined  in  this  study  the  average  EU28  digital  public 
services  dimension  score  increased  by  five  per  cent  from  60.1  in  2013  to  63.1  in 
2016. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure  13  provides  2016  normalised  data  scores  for  the  17  non-EU  countries  and 
EU28 Member State averages. 

Figure 13  Normalised scores for the public services dimension in 2016 

The  first  indicator  for  this  dimension  utilises  the  UN  eGovernment  survey  main 
eGovernment  index  score.    In  2016  the  average  EU28  Member  State  score  was 
75.6.  Nine of the 17 non-EU countries had a higher score. 

The top four countries from both groups were also evenly matched.  In 2016 the top 
four EU28 Member States had a score of 86.2.  Three of the non-EU countries had a 
higher score.  The bottom four EU28 Member States recorded an average score of 
60.9 in 2016.  Only one of the non-EU countries had a lower score. 

The  second  indicator  utilises  the  UN  eGovernment  survey  measure  for  online 
service  completion.  In 2016 the EU28 average normalised score was 75. Twelve 
of the 17 non-EU countries had a higher score. 

The final indicator used an Open Knowledge Foundation Network measure for open 
data.  In 2016 the average score for EU28 Member States was 55.6. Nine of the 17 
non-EU countries had a higher score. 

In 2016 the top four EU28 Member States had an average score of 78.9 (out of 100) 
indicating relatively high levels of access to government data and information.  Only 
one  of  the  non-EU  countries  had  a  higher  score.  The  bottom  four  EU28  Member 
States had an average score of 48.3. Six of the non-EU countries had a lower score. 

2.8.  Conclusions and observations 

Analysis  has  shown  that  EU28  Member  States  compare  well  with  the  17  non-EU 
countries and the very best EU28 countries are at the same or a higher level than the 
best global countries.  Indeed Denmark was the leading country in the I-DESI index.  

28 

 
 
 
Denmark  was  also  the  leading  country  in  the  EU28  DESI20.    The  leading  non-EU 
country,  which came  second of  all  45  countries studied,  was South Korea.    In  third 
place was Finland, which was the second best performing EU28 Member State in the 
2016  DESI.    EU28  Member  States  filled  six  of  the  top  ten  positions  for  the  main  I-
DESI index.   

The  average performance of  EU28  Member  States was above eight  of the  17  non-
EU countries in the main I-DESI index, see Table 5. 

The Connectivity  dimension – examining the deployment and take-up of fixed and 
mobile broadband - is the area where the EU28 average compares well with non-EU 
countries,  see  Table  6.    The  strongest  areas  in  this  dimension  for  EU28  Member 
States  are  the  broadband  coverage  and  take-up  sub-dimension  and  broadband 
prices. 

EU28 Member States also performed better than their  17 global counterparts in the 
Citizen Use of the Internet dimension, see Table 19.  EU28 Member States do not 
significantly  out-perform  their  global  counterparts  in  any  of  the  sub-dimensions,  but 
they are consistently just ahead of them.   

The  Digital  Single  Market  Strategy  has  several  economic  objectives,  including  job 
creation and economic growth.  The Business Technology Integration dimension 
looked  specifically  at  the  digitisation  of  businesses.    In  2016  the  average  EU28 
Member  State  performance  for  this  dimension  drew  level  with  non-EU  countries  for 
the first time since 2013, see Table 25.   

Public Services is the one dimension where EU28 Member States have consistently 
performed below their 17 non-EU counterparts, see Table 31. 

20 Comparison is with the 2017 I-DESI which, like this study, examined 2016 EU28 Member State data. 

29 

 
 
 
                                                
3. The methodology 

3.1. 

Introduction 

This  chapter  describes  the  methodology  used  to  create  the  2018  I-DESI.    I-DESI 
follows  as  closely  as  possible  the  methodology  used  in  creating  the  EU28  DESI.  
Were  feasible  the  indicators  are  as  closely  matched  as  possible  between  the  two 
studies.  Analysis follows exactly the same mathematical procedures.  This includes 
the six stage approach described in the remainder of this chapter:- 

  Data collection, selection and validation; 

  Normalisation; 

  Estimation of missing values; 

  Application of weights; 

  Correlation analysis; 

  Calculation of the final index. 

3.2.  Data collection, selection and validation 

The  starting  point  for  the  2018  I-DESI  was  consideration  of  indicators  used  in 
previous  analysis  and  a  search  for  alternative  or  better  sources.    In  a  quest  to 
develop  four  years  of  trend  data,  to  enable  better  comparison  with  EU28  DESI 
trends,  it  was  also  necessary  to  avoid  ‘one-off’  studies.    Ideally  it  would  also  have 
been  useful  to  avoid  studies  that  only  collected  data  on  a  bi-annual  basis.    But,  as 
Figure  14  shows,  this  was  not  possible  and  three  variables  of  this  type  were 
included21.  

A thorough but pragmatic approach was taken during indicator selection.  26 possible 
new surrogate indicators were proposed.  After consideration of the closeness of the 
match  with  EU28  DESI  indicators,  country  coverage  and  extent  of  missing  values 
seven  were  selected.    Two  were  ultimately  omitted  during  analysis  due  to  poor 
alignment and correlation problems.    

Finally,  the  data  selection  process  was  keen  to  included  additional  countries  in  the 
study.  The previous I-DESI study had 15 countries.  This study has the same 15 and 
Chile and Serbia22 have also been added, making a total coverage of 17 countries in 
total.    Data  were  available  for  many  other  countries,  but  not  quite  with  the  level  of 
coverage to robustly include them in this year’s study. 

As  section  3.6,  examining  correlations,  shows  the  match-up  between  I-DESI  and 
EU28  DESI  indicators  is  generally  good.    Perfection  could  only  be  achieved  if  the 
sample  sizes  and  data  collection  methods  used  by  national  statistical  agencies  in 
EU28 Member States was replicated in other countries.   

An overview of all the indicators used in the study is provided in Annex 1.  It is wise 
to provide clear definitions of key terms used since some international data sources 
appear to confuse connectivity with take-up. 

Broadband  –  Broadband 
telecommunications  systems, 

is 

the 

i.e. 

term  applied 

to  high  speed 
those  capable  of  simultaneously 

30 

21 UNCTAD and UN eGovernment survey data. 
22 Serbia is one of the EU28 candidate countries.  

 
 
 
                                                
supporting  multiple  information  formats  such  as  voice,  high-speed  data 
services  and  video  services  on  demand23.  Broadband  is  comprised  of 
both  the  connection  to  a  network  capable  of  supporting  suitable 
bandwidth  and 
that 
connection.    The  European  Commission  regarded  144  Kbps  as  the 
minimum level to define broadband24. Next Generation Access (NGA)25 is 
commonly thought to provide a download speed of 24 Mbit/s26  

Internet  access  service  delivered  over 

the 

Connectivity  –  A  broadband  connection  can  be  provided  by  fixed  or 
wireless  technologies.  The  term  ‘connectivity’  is  used  to  describe  a 
household, business or location where a broadband network is available 
and  there  is  the  capability  to  connect  to  that  broadband  network.  The 
terms  'coverage'  and  'availability'  can  also  be  used  to  refer  to  locations 
with broadband connectivity. 

Subscription – If a user has a connection available, they can choose (or 
not) to subscribe and use a broadband network. The terms ‘penetration’ 
or  ‘take-up’  refer  to  percentage  of  households  or  locations  that  have 
subscribed  to  and  use  broadband  relative  to  the  total  number  of 
households.  

3.3.  Data normalisation 

The first step of the data normalisation process was to set reference years for each 
data set.  For all indicators, reference years will be lagging one or two years behind 
the  year  in  which  the  I-DESI  study  is  undertaken  -  2018.    Unlike  some  studies  this 
research  explicitly  makes  clear  the  year  in  which  the  original  data  was  collected, 
historic data is not misrepresented as coming from a later time period27.  

All  data  sets  in  the  2018  I-DESI  relate  to  the  period  between  2013  and  2016.    For 
nine of the 26 indicators data was available for 2017.  This level of indicator coverage 
(35  per  cent)  was  considered  to  be  too  low  to  warrant  inclusion  in  the  study.  
However, where relevant, 2017 results used to provide further information. 

Reference years are required to ensure that all data comes from a similar time period 
and  is  thus  more  comparable.    Reference  years  provide  parameters  for  examining 
momentum  scores  using  CAGR28 and  will  provide  time  spans  for  imputing  missing 
values.   

The calculation of maximum and minimum scores indicators is a traditional method 
used for  calculating  normalised  scores.    The  maximum  score  is  usually  calculated 
by  finding  the  highest  score  for  the  whole  time  period  within  all  countries  excluding 

23 EC. 2015. Broadband glossary.  https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/broadband-glossary. 
24 Digital Agenda targets require EU28 Member States to be covered by broadband speeds above 30 
Mbps by 2020, while 50 per cent or more of EU households should subscribe to broadband speeds 
above 100Mbps. 

25 Provided through access networks which consist wholly or in part of optical elements and which are 
capable of delivering broadband access services with enhanced characteristics (such as higher 
throughput) as compared to those provided over already existing copper networks.  The EC does not 
specify a threshold speed for NGA. 

26 Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber_to_the_x  
27 Some previous benchmarking studies have used historic data and presented it in analysis as being 
collected in a more recent year (for example one study misrepresented data from 2011 as being 
collected in 2014).  

28 Compound Annual Growth Rate.  

31 

 
 
                                                
positive  outliers29.  Similarly,  the  minimum  score  is  the  lowest  score  found  for  the 
whole time period within all countries excluding negative outliers30. 

To ensure comparability with the EU28 DESI this study adopted the same minimum 
and maximum values adopted by the 2018 EU28 DESI.  The maximum and minimum 
values can be seen in Annex 2. 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  selection  of  maximum  and  minimum  values  can  have  a 
large impact on scores created in any index.   

The calculation of a normalised or re-scaled country indicator scores for an indicator 
(in  country  X)  is  found  by  first  subtracting  the  minimum  score  (from  the  indicator 
score for  country X)  and then  dividing  by  the  difference  between the  maximum  and 
minimum score. The maximum normalised score is thus equal to 1, and the minimum 
normalised score is equal to 0. 

The  impact  of  changing  maximum  and  minimum  scores  can  be  illustrated  with  a 
simple example.  If an indictor for a country (perhaps 4G coverage) was 70 per cent 
and minimum and maximum scores across the population of countries analysed was 
0 and 80 per cent the country will score 87.5 ( [70 - 0] / [80 - 0]  If the minimum score 
was increase to 40 (and the maximum remained at 80) the score would decrease to 
75.    If  the  minimum  was  40  and  the  maximum  increased  to  100  the  score  would 
decrease further to 50. 

This means that in chapter 2 when analysing scores and percentage rates of change 
(2013  to  2016)  comparisons  within  a  sub-dimension  are  robust.    Therefore 
comparisons  between  EU28  and  non-EU  countries  are  valid  and  assessments  of 
better or worse performing countries (e.g upper and lower quartiles) are acceptable.    

But  comparisons  between  scores  and  rates  of  change  between  one  sub-dimension 
and another will not generally be advisable, unless the indicator or sub-dimensions is 
measuring  items  on  a  similar  scale  (e.g.  0  to  100  per  cent,  where  all  countries  are 
able to achieve the maximum value).    

In all calculations a higher score indicated a better performance.  In I-DESI there is 
one  indicator  where  a  ‘negative  direction’  indicates  better  performance  -  Fixed 
broadband  price  (1d1),  values  for  this  indicator  were  transposed  so  that  better 
performance is reflected by a higher score, see section 2.3. 

3.4.  Missing values  

Careful selection of variables at the start of the project, see section 3.2, meant that 
the number of missing values was relatively small. 

Missing  values  largely  concerned  15  periods  of  one  year  where  data  was  not 
collected, see the brown blocks in Figure 1431.  For example the figure shows the bi-
annual  availability  of  data  in  2014  and  2016  for  UN  online  service  completion  and 
eGovernment indicators 5a3 and 5a1 respectively). 

29 If there is an extreme outlier in the data set, a maximum value is set as the next highest data point 
value, and the outlier is given the maximum possible score.  Positive outliers will be identified as 
country scores which are higher than the mean across all countries plus twice the standard deviation.   

30 Minimum outliers are treated in a similar way as those for maximum values, see the preceding 

footnote. Negative outliers will be identified as country scores which are lower than the mean across 
all countries minus twice the standard deviation.   

32 

31 The graphic shows abbreviated names for indicators on the horizontal axis and representation for 
countries between 2013 and 2016 for indicators. The map is generated using the latest Amelia 
version  

 
 
                                                
The  remainder  of  the  389  missing  data  points  were  relatively  randomly  distributed 
throughout  otherwise  complete  data  sets32.    These  are  represented  by  thin  brown 
lines in Figure 14. 

Figure 14  Distribution of missing values 

Given  a  reliance  on  secondary  data  to  build  the  2018  I-DESI  it  was  necessary  to 
make  estimations  to  compensate  for  missing  and  incomplete  data.  We  followed  a 
‘tried and tested’ logic, and a systematic process for estimating missing data points.  
A two-step process was adopted33:  

1.  ￼The  first  step  identified  missing  data  points  that  do  not  require 

mathematical estimations but could be found by research; 

2.  If  the  missing  value  of  an  indicator  could  not  be  determined  through 
literature  review,  we  used  Harvard  economist  Gary  King’s  estimation 
software program Amelia II34.  This estimated missing data by performing 
multiple  imputations,  as  a  general-purpose  approach  to  missing  values. 
The  multiple  imputations  method  has  been  shown  to  reduce  bias  and 
increase efficiency.  

It  should  be  noted  that  unlike  previous  research  this  study  did  not  resort  to 
utilising  data from  previous  years (without  adjustment) to fill  missing  data gaps.  
Neither  is  the  historic  data  mis-represented  as  coming  from  later  years  in 

32 In total there were 4,320 data points. 
33 In chronological order. 
34 King G et al.  2011.  Amelia II: A Program for Missing Data - Journal of Statistical Software.  45, 7.  

Amelia II is a complete R package for multiple imputation of missing data. 
https://www.jstatsoft.org/article/view/v045i07/v45i07.pdf 

33 

 
 
 
                                                
calculations.  The data collected and presented in this study is for the period from 
2013 to 2016.   

3.5.  Applying weights 

The  EU28  DESI  has  adopted  a  weighting  system  for  dimensions  and  sub-
dimensions.    The  same  weighting  system,  subject  to  small  changes  is  used  in  this 
study.    This  study  includes  a  sub-dimension  for  ubiquitous  device  use  (3d1).  
Suitable  information  was  not  available  for  non-EU  countries  about  ultrafast 
broadband or eHealth.  These dimensions were therefore omitted from I-DESI. 

Table 1  2018 DESI data methodology weights 

The weighting system reflects the relevance of indicators see Table 1.   Figures on 
the  left  provide  the  weights  for  the  dimensions;  those  to  the  right  provide  the 
weighting for each sub-dimension.  

3.6.  Correlations 

The  study  undertook  correlations  and  covariance 
indicators,  sub 
dimensions  and  dimensions  to  minimise  covariance  in  any  new  or  replacement 
indicators that might be included in the proposed study. 

testing  of 

Table  2  show  the  correlation  values  between  dimensions  and  the  overall  index  for 
EU28 DESI and I-DESI scores between 2014 and 2016.  Correlation measures how 
close two variables are to having a linear relationship with each other35.  A score of 1 

34 

35 Aitken A. 1957. Statistical Mathematics 8th Edition. Oliver & Boyd. 

 
 
 
                                                
indicates  a  perfect  linear  relationship  between  variables.    Scores  above  0.7  are 
generally regarded as displaying a strong relationship. 

Table 2 shows a very high level of correlation for the overall DESI and I-DESI index 
scores.    All  values  are  above  0.92 36 ,  indicating  a  very  high  level  of  correlation 
between the 24 indicators used in this I-DESI study and the 33 indicators used in the 
DESI in 2014 to 2016.   

As  might  be  expected  the  level  of  correlation  decreases  as  one  examines  smaller 
numbers  of  indicators.    Correlations  are  highest  for  Connectivity  (dimension  1; 
average correlation 2013 to 2016 is 0.86).  The I-DESI study found seven variables 
that  provided  very  close  surrogate  indicators  with  the  variables  used  in  the  same 
dimension in the EU28 DESI.   

Values  for  dimensions  two  (Human  Capital;  average  0.84)  and  three  (citizen  use; 
average 0.84) are good.  It was also possible to find every good surrogate indicators 
for those used in the EU28 DESI from alternative sources.  

Dimension  four  (business  technology  integration;  average  0.66)  was  particularly 
problematical in the 2016 I-DESI.  Few international studies examine the adoption of 
particular  technologies  in  that  same  way  that  DESI  has  collected  information  about 
technologies  such  as  electronic  information  sharing,  RFID,  social  media,  eInvoices 
and cloud computing.  It was possible to find a surrogate for social media37, but the 
remaining variables selected had a more generic focus on technologies38.  As a result 
the  degree  of  correlation  of  this  dimension  of  the  I-DESI  only  has  an  average 
correlation between 2013 and 2016 of 0.66 with the EU28 DESI dimension score.   

Dimension 
five  (digital  public  services;  average  correlation  0.69)  was  also 
problematical  when  trying  to  find  surrogates.    The  EU28  DESI  has  six  indicators39 
and  makes  good  use  of  EU  eGovernment  benchmark  reports.    Due  to a  paucity  of 
surrogates  the  I-DESI  only  has  three  indicators.    The  UN  eGovernment  survey 
provides two of the variables but they have a more general focus than those used in 
the EU28 DESI40.  The one variable it was possible to replicate was ‘open data’ from 
the Open Knowledge Foundation.   

Table 2  Correlations between score of EU28 Member Sates  
for I-DESI and EU28 DESI 2014 TO 2016 

Cyprus 

Cyprus 

2016  2015  2014  2013  Avg. 

Overall Index   0.93  0.93  0.95  0.93  0.94 

1 Connectivity   (7 I-DESI indicators) 

0.84 

0.82 

0.92 

0.85 

0.86 

2 Human capital   (4) 

0.81 

0.86 

0.87 

0.81 

0.84 

36 The 2014 correlation achieved in this study is a considerable improvement on the figure for the same 

year estimated in the 2016 I-DESI study (2014 - 0.91). 

37 The OECD statistics correlated well with EU28 DESI sub-dimension – 0.763. 
38 Fore example 4a1 examined technology availability and 4a2 firm level technology absorption. 
39 Including eHealth, introduced for the first time in 2018. 
40 For example EU28 DESI has indicators for government users, pre-filled forms and digital services for 

businesses.  These are not replicated in the UN study.   

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                
3 Citizen internet use   (5) 

0.84 

0.85 

0.87 

0.80 

0.84 

4 Business technology integration (5) 

0.59 

0.71 

0.70 

0.64 

0.66 

5 Public services (3) 

0.76 

0.68 

0.59 

0.75 

0.69 

Table  3  shows  the  correlation  between  rankings  for  the  dimensions  and the  overall 
index  for  DESI  and  I-DESI  scores  between  2013  and  2016.    Correlation  measures 
are broadly similar to Table 2 across all dimensions and for the overall DESI and I-
DESI indexes.   

Table 3  Correlations between rankings of EU28 Member Sates  
for I-DESI and EU28 DESI 2014 TO 2016 

Cyprus 

Cyprus 

2016  2015  2014  2013  Avg. 

Overall Index   0.92 

0.93 

0.97 

0.93 

0.94 

1 Connectivity   (7 I-DESI indicators) 

0.85 

0.81 

0.90 

0.84 

0.85 

2 Human capital   (4) 

0.82 

0.86 

0.88 

0.82 

0.84 

3 Citizen internet use   (5) 

0.76 

0.82 

0.82 

0.76 

0.79 

4 Business technology integration (5) 

0.56 

0.71 

0.68 

0.60 

0.64 

5 Public services (3) 

0.78 

0.67 

0.64 

0.76 

0.71 

The two tables show a relatively high degree of correlation between the EU28 DESI 
and  I-DESI  scores  and  dimension.    This  means  that  relationships  between  the  two 
indexes  should  be  relatively  robust.    Comparison  between  the  performances  of  the 
45 countries analysed in this study are therefore valid. 

3.7.  Calculating the final index 

The final stage of analysis was the calculation of the I-DESI index.   

The methodology for aggregating indicators into sub-dimensions, sub-dimensions 
into  dimensions,  and  dimensions  into  the  overall  index  followed  a  relatively  simple 
bottom-up approach.  The approach applied weighted arithmetic averages following 
the structure of the index. The 2018 DESI methodology provides an example of how 
the top-level DESI score can be calculated for country X using the formula:  

I-DESI Country X   = 

Connectivity Country X  x 0.25   +   Human Capital Country X  x 0.25   +   Use of 
Internet Country X  x 0.15   +   Integration of Digital Technology Country X  x 0.2   
+   Digital Public Services Country X  x 0.15  

Where  Connectivity  Country  X  is  the  score  obtained  by  country  X  in  the  Connectivity 
dimension, and so on for the remaining dimensions in the formula.  

As  noted  previously  data  sources  and  normalised  values  for  the  above calculations 
are provided in Annex 1 and Annex 2 respectively. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  study  also  examined  change  by  calculating  the  percentage  for  countries  for 
indicators, sub-dimensions and dimensions for the four year period between 2013 to 
2016  where  data  was  available.  This  percentage  figure  allows  a  description  of  the 
rate  at  which  an  indicator,  sub-dimension  or  dimension  score  is  changing  for  a 
particular country over the four years investigated by the study.  

37 

 
 
 
 
4.  Observations  

Introduction 

4.1. 
The  introductory  section  noted,  that  like  any  benchmarking  study,  the  4,320  data 
points  derived  for  24  indicators  have  little  meaning  in  themselves.    Indeed,  it  is 
generally  accepted  that  the  role  of  a  benchmarking  exercise  is  to  collect  relevant 
evidence and present it without comment about recommendations or possible policy 
changes.  In this respect this study will be no different.   

As  noted  earlier  the  comparison  of  figures  is  where  the  story  really  lies  and  where 
readers  will  get  greatest  benefits  from  this  study.    Our  analysis  has,  of  necessity, 
been thorough but cursory.  The 4,320 data points are provided to enable anyone to 
further  analyse  the  data.    As  noted  earlier  many  of  the  data  sets  also  provide 
information about other countries beyond the 28 EU Member States and 17 non-EU 
countries examined in this study.   

Many  nations  will  have  economic  and  cultural  reasons  for  high  or  low  scores  in 
taken  when  making 
individual 
recommendations on the basis of simple comparisons between countries. 

indicators.  Care  should 

therefore  always  be 

With this caveat in mind the primary observation our team would make arising from 
this  study  and  other  benchmarking  exercises  we  have  observed  is  to  undertake 
correlation  to  determine  which  indicators  are  most  significant  or  explain  the  most 
variance.  This type of analysis can help to identify important topics or policy areas.  
Multivariate  analysis,  with  additional 
indicators  (such  as  GDP,  GDP/capita, 
population  size  and  density,  topography,  educational  attainment  levels,  industrial 
structure) usually beyond the scope of the indicators considered in studies, can help 
to  explain  reasons  for  differences  between  countries.    It  can  also  help  to  provide 
evidence to change the compositions of indexes. Technology is changing the world, 
the  various  technology  and  innovation  indexes  used  in  this  study,  usually  need  to 
change more frequently to better understand and monitor these changes.    

38 

 
 
 
 
 
5.  Annex 1:  The 24 I-DESI indicators  

Table 4  The five dimensions and 24 indicators comprising the 2018 I-DESI 

Indicator 

Code 

Source 

    1. Connectivity 

Fixed Broadband Coverage 

Fixed Broadband Take-up 

Mobile Broadband Take-up 

4G Coverage 

NGA Coverage 

Subscriptions to Fast Broadband 

Fixed Broadband Price 

    2. Human Capital 

Internet Users 

Regular Internet Users 

Employed in knowledge-intensive activities 

Tertiary Graduates in ICT 

    3. Citizen Internet Use 

News 

Social Networks 

Banking 

Internet shoppers as a % of population 

Average number of devices used  

    4. Business Technology Integration 

Availability of latest technologies 

Firm-level technology absorption 

Social Media 

Business to Business Internet use 

Secure Internet Servers 

    5. Public Services  

E-Government Development Index 

Online Service Completion 

Open Data 

1a1 

1a2 

1b1 

1b2 

1c1 

1c2 

1d1 

2a1 

2a2 

2b1 

2b2 

3a1 

3b1 

3c1 

3c2 

3d1 

4a1 

4a2 

4a3 

4b1 

4b2 

5a1 

5a2 

5a3 

EC Broadband Coverage Report 2016 

International Telecommunications Union World 
Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database 2016 

International Telecommunications Union World 
Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database 2016 

International Telecommunications Union World 
Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database 2016 

Akamai State of the Internet Quarterly Reports 

Akamai State of the Internet Quarterly Reports 

International Telecommunications Union World 
Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database 2016, World 
Bank Database 

The Connected Consumer Survey 2017 

International Telecommunications Union World 
Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database 2016 

World Economic Forum Networked Readiness Index 2016 

UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) 

OECD. Stat Information & Communications Technology, ICT 
Access and Usage by Households and Individuals 

World Economic Forum Networked Readiness Index 2016 

OECD. Stat Information & Communications Technology, ICT 
Access and Usage by Households and Individuals 

UNCTAD E-Commerce Index 2017 

The Connected Consumer Survey 2017 

World Economic Forum Networked Readiness Index 2016 

World Economic Forum Networked Readiness Index 2016 

OECD. Stat Information & Communications Technology, ICT 
Access and Usage by Businesses 

World Economic Forum Networked Readiness Index 2016 

World Bank Data 2016 

UN E-Government Survey  

UN E-Government Survey  

Open Knowledge International Global Open Data Index 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.1.  Detailed description of dimensions and indicators 

This section of Annex 1 provides a fulsome description of the 24 indicators used in 
the study.  Annex 3 provides the scores for the 24 indicators, for 45 countries, each 
year from 2013 to 2016.  In total 4,320 data points are provided. 

5.2.  Connectivity 

5.2.1.  Fixed Broadband Coverage (1a1) 

Description: Overall fixed broadband coverage. Includes all the main fixed-line 
broadband access technologies, but excludes satellite. A combination of DSL 
(including VDSL), cable modem (including DOCSIS 3.0), FTTP and WiMAX. 

Unit: Percentage of the population 

Main source: European Commission Broadband Coverage Report 2016, plus desk 
research 

5.2.2.  Fixed Broadband Take-up (1a2) 

Description: Fixed-broadband subscriptions refers to fixed subscriptions to high-
speed access to the public Internet (a TCP/IP connection); at downstream speeds 
equal to; or greater than; 256 kbit/s. This includes cable modem; DSL; fibre-to-the-
home/building; other fixed (wired)-broadband subscriptions; satellite broadband and 
terrestrial fixed wireless broadband. It includes both residential subscriptions and 
subscriptions for organizations. 

Unit: Percentage of subscriptions per household 

Main source: International Telecommunications Union World 
Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database 2016 

5.2.3.  Mobile Broadband Take-up (1b1) 

Description: Active mobile-broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants. 

Unit: Subscriptions per 100 inhabitants 

Main source: International Telecommunications Union World 
Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database 2016 

5.2.4.  4G Coverage (1b2) 

Description: Percentage of the population covered by at least an LTE/WiMAX 
mobile network refers to the percentage of inhabitants that live within range of 
LTE/LTE-Advanced; mobile WiMAX/WirelessMAN or other more advanced mobile-
cellular networks; irrespective of whether or not they are subscribers.  

Unit: Percentage of the population 

Main source: International Telecommunications Union World 
Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database 2016 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
5.2.5.  NGA Coverage (1c1) 

Description: Unique IPv4 addresses globally connecting to Akamai at average 
connection speeds of 15 Mbps.  

Unit: Percentage of connections above 15 Mbps 

Main source: Akamai State of the Internet Quarterly Reports 

5.2.6.  Subscriptions to Fast Broadband (1c2) 

Description: Average Connection Speeds of unique IPv4 addresses connecting to 
Akamai. 

Unit: Average Mbps 

Main source: Akamai State of the Internet Quarterly Reports  

5.2.7.  Fixed Broadband Price (1d1) 

Description: Yearly subscription charge (US$) for fixed broadband Internet service 
as a percentage of GNI per capita. Fixed (wired) broadband is considered to be any 
dedicated connection to the Internet at; downstream speeds equal to; or greater 
than; 256 kbit/s.  

Unit: Percentage of GNI per capita 

Main source: International Telecommunications Union World 
Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database 2016 

5.3.  Human Capital 

5.3.1.  Internet Users (2a1) 

Description:  Personal Internet usage (accessing via computer, tablet or 
smartphone). 

Unit: Percentage of individuals using the Internet 

Main source: The Connected Consumer Survey 2017 

5.3.2.  Regular Internet Users (2a2) 

Description: The number of regular internet users as a proportion of the total 
population of the country (individuals 5 years and older).  

Unit: Percentage of population 

Main source: International Telecommunications Union World 
Telecommunication/ICT Indicators database 2016 

5.3.3.  Employed in knowledge-intensive activities (2b1) 

Description: Percentage of the workforce employed in knowledge-intensive jobs, 
which corresponds to the International Labour Organization (ILO) aggregate category 
"Managers, professionals, and technicians". Data is gathered from international 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
agencies such as the International Telecommunication Union, UNESCO, other UN 
agencies and the World Bank.  

Unit: Percentage of the workforce 

Main source: World Economic Forum Networked Readiness Index 2016 

5.3.4.  Tertiary Graduates in ICT (2b2) 

Description: Percentage of graduates from tertiary education graduating from 
Information and communication technologies programmes as a share of graduates 
from ISCED 6 programmes in tertiary education. 

Unit: Percentage of graduates 

Main source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) 

5.4.  Citizen Internet Use 

5.4.1.  News (3a1) 

Description: Individuals aged 16-74 using the Internet for reading/downloading 
online newspapers/news magazines in the last 3 months. 

Unit: Percentage of individuals 

Main source: OECD. Stat Information & Communications Technology, ICT Access 
and Usage by Households and Individuals 

5.4.2.  Social Networks (3b1) 

Description: In your country, how widely used are virtual social networks (e.g., 
Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn)? Indicators come from the World Economic Forum’s 
Executive Opinion Survey, which was completed by over 14,000 business executives 
in more than 140 countries.  

Unit: Score of 1-7, 1 = not used at all; 7 = widely used 

Main source: World Economic Forum Networked Readiness Index 2016 

5.4.3.  Banking (3c1) 

Description: Individuals aged 16-74 using the Internet for Internet Banking in the 
last 3 months. 

Unit: Percentage of population 

Main source: OECD. Stat Information & Communications Technology, ICT Access 
and Usage by Households and Individuals 

5.4.4.  Internet Shoppers (3c2) 

Description: The number of Internet shoppers as a share of the population. A 
combination of Eurostat, Pew, and national datasets are used to collect the data. 

42 

Unit: Percentage of population 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Main source: UNCTAD E-Commerce Index 2017/6 

5.4.5.  Average number of devices used (3d1) 

Description: The average numbers of devices an individual uses to access the 
Internet. Data was weighted according to local Census data. A Nationally 
representative total population (online & offline) aged 16+ in each country were 
surveyed. 

Unit: Devices 

Main source: The Connected Consumer Survey 2017 

5.5.  Business Technology Integration 

5.5.1.  Availability of latest technologies (4a1) 

Description: In your country, to what extent are the latest technologies available? 
The indicator came from the World Economic Forum’s Executive Opinion Survey, 
which was completed by over 14,000 business executives in more than 140 
countries.   

Unit: Score of 1-7, 1 = not available at all; 7 = widely available 

Main source: World Economic Forum Networked Readiness Index 2016 

5.5.2.  Firm-level technology absorption (4a2) 

Description: In your country, to what extent do businesses adopt new technology? 
The indicator came from the World Economic Forum’s Executive Opinion Survey, 
which was completed by over 14,000 business executives in more than 140 
countries. 

Unit: Score of 1-7, 1 = not at all; 7 = adopt extensively 

Main source: World Economic Forum Networked Readiness Index 2016 

5.5.3.  Social Media (4a3) 

Description: Businesses using social media as a percentage of all businesses (10 
persons employed or more). 

Unit: Percentage of Businesses 

Main source: OECD. Stat Information & Communications Technology, ICT Access 
and Usage by Businesses 

5.5.4.  Business-to-Business Internet Use (4b1) 

Description: In your country, to what extent do businesses use ICTs for transactions 
with other businesses? The indicator came from the World Economic Forum’s 
Executive Opinion Survey, which was completed by over 14,000 business executives 
in more than 140 countries. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Unit: Score of 1-7, 1 = not at all; 7 = to a great extent 

Main source: World Economic Forum Networked Readiness Index 2016 

5.5.5.  Secure Internet Servers (4b2) 

Description: Secure Internet servers (per 1 million people). Secure servers are 
servers using encryption technology in Internet transactions. 

Unit: Per 1 Million People 

Main source: World Bank Data 

5.6.  Public Services 

5.6.1.  E-government Development Index (5a1) 

Description: The E-Government Development Index (EGDI) is a weighted average 
of normalised scores on the three most important dimensions of e-government, 
namely: scope and quality of online services (Online Service Index, OSI), status of 
the development of telecommunication infrastructure (Telecommunication 
Infrastructure Index, TII) and inherent human capital (Human Capital Index, HCI). 

Unit: Score of 0-1 

Main source: UN E-Government Survey 

5.6.2.  Online Service Completion (5a2) 

Description: To arrive at a set of Online Service Index (OSI) values for 2016, a total 
of 111 researchers, including UN experts and online United Nations Volunteers 
(UNVs) from over 60 countries with coverage of 66 languages assessed each 
country’s national website in the native language, including the national portal, e-
services portal and e-participation portal, as well as the websites of the related 
ministries of education, labour, social services, health, finance and environment as 
applicable. 

Unit: Score of 0-1 

Main source: UN E-Government Survey 

5.6.3.  Open Data (5a3) 

Description: Data openness is evaluated based upon context, data, use and impact. 
The Global Open Data Index is intentionally narrowly focused on the data aspect, 
hence, limiting its inquiry only to the datasets publication by national governments.  
The measure assess the openness of data related to budget, spending, 
procurement, election results, company registers, land ownership, maps and 
boundaries, national statistics, legislation and laws, water and air quality. 

Unit: Score of 0-100 

Main source: Open Knowledge International Global Open Data Index 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
45 

 
 
 
6. Annex 2  Maximum and minimum values used for 

normalisation 

Indicator 

Code 

Minimum 

Maximum 

    1. Connectivity 

Fixed Broadband Coverage 

Fixed Broadband Take-up 

Mobile Broadband Take-up 

4G Coverage 

NGA Coverage 

Subscriptions to Fast Broadband 

Fixed Broadband Price 

    2. Human Capital 

Internet Users 

Regular Internet Users 

Employed in knowledge-intensive activities 

*Tertiary Graduates in ICT 

    3. Citizen Internet Use 

News 

*Average number of devices used  

aSocial Networks 

Banking 

*Internet shoppers as a % of population 

4. Business Technology Integration 

aAvailability of latest technologies 

aFirm-level technology absorption 

Social Media 

aBusiness to Business Internet use 

*Secure Internet Servers 

    5. Public Services  

*E-Government Development Index 

Online Service Completion 

Open Data 

1a1 

1a2 

1b1 

1b2 

1c1 

1c2 

1d1 

2a1 

2a2 

2b1 

2b2 

3a1 

3b1 

3b2 

3c1 

3c2 

4a1 

4a2 

4a3 

4b1 

4b2 

5a1 

5a2 

5a3 

50 

30 

20 

0 

0 

0 

0 

40 

40 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

0 

3 

3 

0 

3 

0 

0 

40 

0 

100 

100 

160 

100 

80 

30 

1 

100 

100 

70 

60 

100 

5 

7 

100 

100 

7 

7 

1 

7 

3500 

100 

100 

1 

* Indicates the inclusion of surrogate I-DESI indicators that do not perfectly align with EU28 DESI 
measures.  Minimum and Maximum values have therefore been calculated from raw data. 

a  Indicates variables that had a range from 3 to 7. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7. Annex 3 

 Performance scores for 45 countries 

Chapter two compared aggregate performances of the 17 non-EU countries with EU28 Member 
States investigated in this study.   

This annex provides details of the raw data scores of all 45 countries analysed between 2013 
and 2016 (inclusive).  The final column for each country provides the percentage change 
between 2013 and 2016 values (due to rounding these may not always correspond with values 
provided in the Annex). 

The normalisation process in this study scaled data sets (often collected in different ways e.g. 
percentages, scores of 0 to 1 and scale of 1 to 7) into a range from 0 to 1.  For ease of 
comparison these scores are usually converted into a scale of 0 to 100 in the main report. 

Table 5 Normalised scores for the main I-DESI index 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

0.50 

0.64 

0.34 

0.58 

0.39 

0.31 

0.67 

0.53 

0.52 

0.33 

0.67 

0.64 

0.35 

0.28 

0.60 

0.65 

0.32 

0.59 

0.53 

0.65 

0.34 

0.62 

0.43 

0.35 

0.74 

0.58 

0.60 

0.33 

0.71 

0.63 

0.44 

0.31 

0.62 

0.64 

0.33 

0.64 

0.56 

0.65 

0.38 

0.64 

0.46 

0.39 

0.76 

0.59 

0.62 

0.38 

0.75 

0.70 

0.43 

0.40 

0.65 

0.66 

0.38 

0.65 

0.59 

0.68 

0.40 

0.67 

0.45 

0.45 

0.73 

0.56 

0.68 

0.43 

0.73 

0.66 

0.48 

0.50 

0.75 

0.71 

0.42 

0.67 

EU28 avg. 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

0.51 

0.54 

0.53 

0.35 

0.43 

0.44 

0.46 

0.68 

0.62 

0.65 

0.52 

0.55 

0.40 

0.42 

0.54 

0.36 

0.46 

0.46 

0.62 

0.58 

0.68 

0.39 

0.44 

0.34 

0.43 

0.53 

0.46 

0.66 

0.65 

0.53 

0.57 

0.57 

0.38 

0.42 

0.42 

0.53 

0.68 

0.61 

0.66 

0.57 

0.57 

0.41 

0.45 

0.59 

0.42 

0.50 

0.53 

0.67 

0.56 

0.71 

0.42 

0.46 

0.36 

0.46 

0.49 

0.52 

0.68 

0.68 

0.56 

0.59 

0.58 

0.39 

0.52 

0.47 

0.56 

0.71 

0.66 

0.72 

0.56 

0.61 

0.42 

0.49 

0.64 

0.42 

0.54 

0.52 

0.67 

0.62 

0.72 

0.44 

0.48 

0.42 

0.50 

0.53 

0.54 

0.70 

0.69 

0.59 

  Non-EU avg. 

  Australia 

  Brazil 

  Canada 

  Chile 

  China 

Iceland 

Israel 

Japan 

  Mexico 

  Norway 

  New Zealand 

  Russia 

  Serbia 

  South Korea 

  Switzerland 

  Turkey 

  USA 

0.62 

0.63 

0.48 

0.50 

0.48 

0.54 

0.76 

0.66 

0.74 

0.62 

0.64 

0.48 

0.56 

0.63 

0.51 

0.51 

0.56 

0.70 

0.58 

0.74 

0.49 

0.49 

0.44 

0.53 

0.53 

0.63 

0.72 

0.73 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 6 Normalised scores for the Connectivity Dimension 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

0.45 

0.49 

0.31 

0.52 

0.31 

0.23 

0.48 

0.47 

0.66 

0.28 

0.51 

0.43 

0.36 

0.26 

0.68 

0.61 

0.36 

0.62 

0.50 

0.54 

0.34 

0.54 

0.39 

0.35 

0.69 

0.44 

0.71 

0.31 

0.62 

0.48 

0.46 

0.27 

0.75 

0.66 

0.30 

0.64 

0.56 

0.54 

0.40 

0.59 

0.43 

0.42 

0.72 

0.50 

0.75 

0.39 

0.74 

0.58 

0.49 

0.43 

0.76 

0.70 

0.34 

0.69 

0.58 

0.57 

0.40 

0.60 

0.48 

0.46 

0.72 

0.54 

0.73 

0.45 

0.76 

0.55 

0.39 

0.52 

0.80 

0.79 

0.43 

0.71 

EU28 avg. 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

0.46 

0.44 

0.48 

0.33 

0.37 

0.44 

0.40 

0.56 

0.55 

0.54 

0.51 

0.48 

0.36 

0.33 

0.45 

0.39 

0.36 

0.37 

0.52 

0.53 

0.60 

0.44 

0.45 

0.44 

0.37 

0.48 

0.44 

0.56 

0.57 

0.53 

0.54 

0.59 

0.49 

0.43 

0.44 

0.60 

0.64 

0.55 

0.61 

0.51 

0.55 

0.45 

0.47 

0.56 

0.46 

0.48 

0.55 

0.67 

0.54 

0.68 

0.46 

0.47 

0.49 

0.45 

0.51 

0.49 

0.65 

0.63 

0.60 

0.59 

0.65 

0.45 

0.60 

0.56 

0.66 

0.70 

0.67 

0.67 

0.55 

0.63 

0.51 

0.56 

0.59 

0.50 

0.59 

0.53 

0.71 

0.66 

0.73 

0.52 

0.56 

0.53 

0.53 

0.58 

0.58 

0.70 

0.69 

0.63 

  Non-EU avg. 

  Australia 

  Brazil 

  Canada 

  Chile 

  China 

Iceland 

Israel 

Japan 

  Mexico 

  Norway 

  New Zealand 

  Russia 

  Serbia 

  South Korea 

  Switzerland 

  Turkey 

  USA 

0.63 

0.68 

0.61 

0.54 

0.54 

0.67 

0.77 

0.62 

0.72 

0.59 

0.64 

0.50 

0.60 

0.63 

0.51 

0.65 

0.61 

0.65 

0.64 

0.75 

0.53 

0.60 

0.61 

0.57 

0.60 

0.64 

0.75 

0.74 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 7 Raw data scores for connectivity indicator 1a1 

Fixed broadband coverage (percentage of the population) 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

EU28 avg. 

89.5 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

NA 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

96.3 

99.3 

99.9 

95.1 

96.6 

96.4 

99.3 

96.8 

  Non-EU avg. 

99.0 

  Australia 

99.9 

100.0 

  Brazil 

95.2 

96.9 

95.0 

97.0 

  Canada 

  Chile 

100.0  100.0 

100.0 

  China 

98.5 

99.1 

86.0 

97.0 

99.7 

97.9 

99.3 

94.4 

96.3 

99.1 

91.9 

95.4 

98.5 

100.0 

Iceland 

99.0 

86.8 

97.0 

99.0 

91.0 

97.0 

Israel 

Japan 

  Mexico 

99.8 

100.0 

  Norway 

98.3 

99.3 

95.2 

96.3 

99.3 

92.5 

95.7 

99.0 

99.0 

95.0 

96.0 

99.0 

93.0 

96.0 

  New Zealand 

  Russia 

  Serbia 

  South Korea 

  Switzerland 

  Turkey 

  USA 

89.7 

91.0 

NA 

98.0 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

100.0  100.0 

100.0 

100.0  100.0 

100.0 

100.0  100.0 

100.0 

85.4 

99.8 

89.4 

86.6 

95.4 

95.1 

99.0 

86.2 

86.0 

99.8 

100.0 

88.8 

86.3 

95.5 

95.1 

99.0 

89.0 

88.0 

98.0 

96.0 

99.0 

100.0  100.0 

100.0 

100.0  100.0 

93.0 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

91.0 

98.0 

74.0 

96.0 

95.2 

NA 

96.5 

NA 

95.5 

99.8 

NA 

94.7 

82.0 

NA 

96.0 

NA 

NA 

90.8 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

98.1 

99.0 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

94.7 

95.0 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

56.0 

NA 

99.0 

99.8 

100.0 

NA 

76.0 

96.0 

97.0 

100.0 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 8  Normalised* average scores for connectivity indicator 1a2 

Fixed Broadband Take-up (Percentage of the population) 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

0.51 

0.54 

0.09 

0.73 

0.28 

0.27 

0.84 

0.85 

0.69 

0.24 

0.82 

0.69 

0.22 

0.14 

0.44 

0.79 

0.32 

0.70 

0.52 

0.61 

0.14 

0.69 

0.33 

0.30 

0.85 

0.67 

0.72 

0.25 

0.85 

0.75 

0.26 

0.16 

0.60 

0.68 

0.30 

0.71 

0.54 

0.65 

0.17 

0.70 

0.39 

0.58 

0.89 

0.43 

0.75 

0.33 

0.88 

0.78 

0.31 

0.23 

0.46 

0.65 

0.35 

0.63 

0.54 

0.57 

0.20 

0.80 

0.44 

0.41 

0.87 

0.53 

0.50 

0.39 

0.68 

0.57 

0.34 

0.29 

0.68 

0.84 

0.42 

0.59 

EU28 avg. 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

0.52 

0.41 

0.68 

0.32 

0.44 

0.47 

0.51 

0.73 

0.55 

0.41 

0.66 

0.73 

0.35 

0.49 

0.42 

0.29 

0.46 

0.40 

0.56 

0.69 

0.92 

0.44 

0.33 

0.36 

0.47 

0.60 

0.47 

0.54 

0.76 

0.55 

0.48 

0.73 

0.34 

0.45 

0.54 

0.66 

0.70 

0.55 

0.45 

0.62 

0.76 

0.47 

0.52 

0.45 

0.30 

0.47 

0.41 

0.87 

0.70 

0.93 

0.42 

0.33 

0.35 

0.57 

0.59 

0.50 

0.53 

0.75 

0.58 

0.51 

0.68 

0.36 

0.58 

0.56 

0.66 

0.67 

0.67 

0.41 

0.58 

0.77 

0.51 

0.55 

0.51 

0.32 

0.50 

0.43 

0.92 

0.72 

0.91 

0.39 

0.45 

0.43 

0.59 

0.64 

0.55 

0.54 

0.79 

0.60 

  Non-EU avg. 

  Australia 

  Brazil 

  Canada 

  Chile 

  China 

Iceland 

Israel 

Japan 

  Mexico 

  Norway 

  New Zealand 

  Russia 

  Serbia 

  South Korea 

  Switzerland 

  Turkey 

  USA 

0.54 

0.72 

0.38 

0.57 

0.60 

0.58 

0.76 

0.67 

0.44 

0.61 

0.79 

0.52 

0.60 

0.56 

0.36 

0.45 

0.47 

0.94 

0.71 

0.93 

0.41 

0.55 

0.47 

0.60 

0.67 

0.59 

0.59 

0.81 

*Data can only be accessed through subscription with the ITU.  Raw data is subject 

to copyright restrictions. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 9  Normalised* average scores for connectivity indicator 1b1 

Mobile Broadband Take-up (Subscriptions per 100 inhabitants) 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

0.33 

0.65 

0.22 

0.21 

0.11 

0.01 

0.39 

0.23 

0.69 

0.06 

0.48 

0.44 

0.29 

0.24 

0.61 

0.32 

0.09 

0.56 

0.40 

0.67 

0.42 

0.24 

0.21 

0.16 

0.47 

0.23 

0.74 

0.15 

0.49 

0.52 

0.33 

0.33 

0.63 

0.48 

0.16 

0.59 

0.48 

0.76 

0.49 

0.30 

0.26 

0.25 

0.52 

0.46 

0.77 

0.22 

0.57 

0.67 

0.37 

0.34 

0.64 

0.59 

0.22 

0.68 

0.51 

0.79 

0.50 

0.33 

0.35 

0.33 

0.60 

0.52 

0.80 

0.28 

0.58 

0.58 

0.39 

0.34 

0.65 

0.60 

0.33 

0.71 

EU28 avg. 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

0.30 

0.32 

0.23 

0.27 

0.32 

0.16 

0.23 

0.59 

0.53 

0.74 

0.26 

0.18 

0.11 

0.05 

0.34 

0.30 

0.30 

0.20 

0.43 

0.26 

0.32 

0.25 

0.12 

0.13 

0.21 

0.16 

0.33 

0.64 

0.48 

0.36 

0.34 

0.27 

0.33 

0.35 

0.26 

0.33 

0.64 

0.69 

0.85 

0.33 

0.31 

0.15 

0.10 

0.44 

0.36 

0.29 

0.28 

0.48 

0.26 

0.35 

0.25 

0.18 

0.21 

0.28 

0.19 

0.41 

0.69 

0.49 

0.41 

0.36 

0.30 

0.44 

0.38 

0.40 

0.37 

0.70 

0.66 

0.89 

0.39 

0.36 

0.18 

0.14 

0.54 

0.44 

0.34 

0.34 

0.48 

0.30 

0.44 

0.27 

0.23 

0.31 

0.34 

0.23 

0.45 

0.73 

0.48 

0.47 

  Non-EU avg. 

  Australia 

  Brazil 

  Canada 

  Chile 

  China 

Iceland 

Israel 

Japan 

  Mexico 

  Norway 

  New Zealand 

  Russia 

  Serbia 

  South Korea 

  Switzerland 

  Turkey 

  USA 

0.49 

0.33 

0.49 

0.43 

0.55 

0.40 

0.74 

0.75 

0.95 

0.44 

0.43 

0.22 

0.17 

0.56 

0.48 

0.41 

0.41 

0.50 

0.37 

0.48 

0.28 

0.29 

0.38 

0.42 

0.30 

0.48 

0.75 

0.51 

*Data can only be accessed through subscription with the ITU.  Raw data is subject 

to copyright restrictions. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 10 Normalised* average scores for connectivity indicator 1b2 

4G Coverage (Percentage of the population) 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

0.56 

0.85 

0.30 

0.81 

0.35 

0.10 

0.68 

NA 

0.99 

0.18 

0.69 

NA 

0.36 

NA 

NA 

0.85 

NA 

0.97 

0.66 

0.95 

0.40 

0.93 

0.64 

0.71 

0.89 

0.60 

0.99 

0.30 

0.85 

0.50 

0.50 

0.00 

0.99 

0.98 

0.00 

0.99 

0.77 

0.94 

0.57 

0.97 

0.76 

0.85 

0.93 

0.60 

0.99 

0.58 

0.99 

0.88 

0.50 

0.57 

0.99 

0.98 

0.00 

1.00 

0.87 

0.98 

0.57 

NA 

0.79 

0.97 

0.96 

0.70 

0.99 

0.84 

0.99 

0.90 

0.59 

0.78 

0.99 

0.99 

0.83 

1.00 

EU28 avg. 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

0.55 

0.58 

0.52 

0.00 

0.23 

NA 

Czech Rep. 

0.00 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

NA 

0.97 

0.79 

0.63 

0.67 

0.55 

0.38 

0.40 

0.49 

0.39 

0.49 

0.90 

0.30 

0.80 

0.67 

0.93 

0.59 

0.24 

0.63 

0.51 

0.99 

0.70 

0.77 

0.85 

0.88 

0.35 

0.45 

0.00 

0.92 

1.00 

1.00 

0.95 

0.74 

0.92 

0.55 

0.78 

0.87 

0.90 

0.75 

0.80 

0.93 

0.62 

0.99 

0.80 

0.95 

0.68 

0.52 

0.90 

0.75 

0.99 

0.80 

0.91 

0.98 

1.00 

0.57 

0.98 

0.60 

0.99 

1.00 

1.00 

1.00 

0.80 

0.96 

0.83 

0.97 

0.90 

0.93 

0.90 

0.91 

0.96 

1.00 

0.99 

1.00 

0.94 

0.66 

0.75 

0.96 

0.91 

1.00 

0.98 

0.93 

  Non-EU avg. 

0.98 

1.00 

0.87 

0.97 

0.73 

1.00 

1.00 

0.99 

1.00 

0.90 

  Australia 

  Brazil 

  Canada 

  Chile 

  China 

Iceland 

Israel 

Japan 

  Mexico 

  Norway 

NA 

  New Zealand 

  Russia 

  Serbia 

  South Korea 

  Switzerland 

  Turkey 

  USA 

0.93 

0.98 

0.90 

0.96 

0.99 

0.98 

NA 

1.00 

0.99 

NA 

0.99 

0.75 

0.87 

0.97 

0.91 

1.00 

0.99 

*Data can only be accessed through subscription with the ITU.  Raw data is subject 

to copyright restrictions. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 11 Raw data scores for connectivity indicator 1c1 

NGA Coverage (Percentage of connections above 15Mbps) 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

0.22 

0.08 

0.01 

0.27 

0.03 

0.00 

NA 

0.16 

0.40 

0.02 

0.45 

0.11 

0.21 

NA 

0.63 

0.38 

0.03 

0.32 

0.29 

0.16 

0.05 

0.34 

0.13 

0.02 

NA 

0.30 

0.51 

0.05 

0.54 

0.25 

0.21 

NA 

0.64 

0.54 

0.07 

0.42 

EU28 avg. 

0.11  

0.16 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.13 

0.19 

NA 

NA 

NA 

0.21 

0.21 

NA 

0.21 

0.06 

0.09 

NA 

0.11 

0.16 

0.02 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.30 

0.11 

0.10 

0.23 

0.10 

NA 

0.10 

0.31 

0.22 

0.25 

0.19 

0.32 

NA 

NA 

NA 

0.30 

0.38 

NA 

0.34 

0.11 

0.23 

NA 

0.25 

0.25 

0.05 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA 

0.39 

0.19 

0.26 

0.28 

0.20 

NA 

0.24 

0.42 

0.32 

0.30 

  Non-EU avg. 

0.11  

0.16 

  Australia 

  Brazil 

  Canada 

  Chile 

  China 

Iceland 

Israel 

Japan 

  Mexico 

  Norway 

  New Zealand 

  Russia 

  Serbia 

  South Korea 

  Switzerland 

  Turkey 

  USA 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.07 

0.01 

0.16 

0.01 

0.02 

NA 

0.15 

0.34 

0.01 

0.22 

0.05 

0.11 

NA 

0.61 

0.30 

0.04 

0.18 

0.25 

0.40 

0.39 

0.07 

0.06 

0.36 

0.49 

0.20 

0.44 

0.16 

0.30 

0.05 

0.32 

0.38 

0.10 

0.41 

0.32 

0.18 

0.26 

0.46 

0.25 

0.28 

0.44 

0.23 

0.25 

0.36 

0.49 

0.39 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 12 Raw Data scores for connectivity indicator 1c2 

Subscriptions to Fast Broadband (Average Mbps) 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

EU28 avg. 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

10.3 

9.8 

10.8 

NA 

NA 

NA 

12.3 

11.9 

NA 

13.0 

12.3 

14.2 

NA  

NA  

NA  

15.9 

16.1 

NA  

12.1 

16.6 

8.5 

9.0 

9.8 

NA 

NA 

NA  

11.4 

9.5 

NA 

9.1 

6.6 

7.7 

4.9 

6.9 

7.1 

8.8 

NA 

8.7 

10.4 

12.7 

5.2 

NA 

NA 

6.5 

NA 

5.6 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

7.6 

5.8 

2.7 

9.0 

3.4 

3.4 

7.4 

NA 

12.8 

4.0 

8.7 

5.3 

7.4 

NA 

21.9 

12.0 

4.3 

9.7 

7.4 

3.0 

11.7 

8.2 

4.1 

14.0 

10.1 

6.4 

10.7 

13.1 

14.9 

5.0 

3.4 

NA 

10.6 

15.2 

4.5 

6.1 

4.1 

NA 

11.6 

17.4 

5.9 

11.4 

18.8 

7.3 

9.0 

NA 

22.2 

14.5 

5.8 

9.3 

11.6 

NA 

26.7 

16.7 

6.3 

8.6 

6.3 

NA 

14.4 

19.6 

7.2 

23.6 

12.9 

11.6 

NA 

26.1 

21.2 

7.6 

10.0 

11.1 

14.2 

17.2 

14.2 

  Non-EU avg. 

13.9 

15.9 

15.6 

8.2 

7.1 

17.3 

20.7 

11.4 

20.6 

10.0 

14.6 

  Australia 

  Brazil 

  Canada 

  Chile 

  China 

Iceland 

Israel 

Japan 

  Mexico 

  Norway 

  New Zealand 

7.5 

  Russia 

14.3 

15.3 

  Serbia 

  South Korea 

8.7 

  Switzerland 

  Turkey 

  USA 

17.2 

14.6 

11.1 

12.9 

17.6 

12.4 

12.6 

16.1 

13.0 

14.0 

15.4 

22.8 

16.3 

8.9 

12.9 

NA  

12.6 

12.8 

7.4 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

17.0 

11.0 

12.1 

13.2 

12.5 

NA 

12.1 

19.1 

13.9 

Netherlands 

12.4 

14.2 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

7.5 

6.0 

7.2 

6.6 

NA 

6.6 

10.5 

9.4 

8.8 

8.0 

11.6 

8.2 

NA 

8.2 

14.6 

10.9 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 13  Normalised* average scores for connectivity indicator 1d1 

Fixed Broadband Price (Percentage of GNI per capita) 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

0.62 

0.52 

0.65 

0.58 

0.29 

0.37 

0.70 

0.57 

0.78 

0.68 

0.70 

0.29 

0.90 

0.45 

0.67 

0.76 

0.79 

0.88 

0.63 

0.42 

0.68 

0.61 

0.50 

0.42 

0.70 

0.61 

0.80 

0.39 

0.69 

0.40 

0.87 

0.47 

0.66 

0.76 

0.82 

0.88 

0.68 

0.67 

0.77 

0.55 

0.55 

0.47 

0.76 

0.63 

0.83 

0.49 

0.75 

0.50 

0.89 

0.58 

0.66 

0.78 

0.85 

0.89 

0.65 

0.51 

0.54 

0.49 

0.52 

0.59 

0.72 

0.65 

0.81 

0.58 

0.75 

0.37 

0.89 

0.60 

0.62 

0.75 

0.86 

0.74 

EU28 avg. 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

0.70 

0.79 

0.70 

0.72 

0.67 

0.71 

0.71 

0.61 

0.68 

0.71 

0.72 

0.66 

0.64 

0.52 

0.81 

0.70 

0.65 

0.82 

0.76 

0.75 

0.71 

0.79 

0.59 

0.82 

0.62 

0.66 

0.61 

0.67 

0.84 

0.70 

0.79 

0.70 

0.74 

0.58 

0.71 

0.78 

0.63 

0.69 

0.66 

0.73 

0.61 

0.65 

0.60 

0.78 

0.68 

0.76 

0.78 

0.77 

0.61 

0.65 

0.80 

0.60 

0.83 

0.72 

0.67 

0.62 

0.63 

0.84 

0.75 

0.81 

0.73 

0.77 

0.74 

0.77 

0.82 

0.70 

0.75 

0.72 

0.78 

0.68 

0.71 

0.66 

0.63 

0.70 

0.80 

0.82 

0.81 

0.70 

0.71 

0.84 

0.66 

0.87 

0.77 

0.73 

0.69 

0.64 

0.85 

0.74 

  Non-EU avg. 

  Australia 

  Brazil 

  Canada 

  Chile 

  China 

Iceland 

Israel 

Japan 

  Mexico 

  Norway 

  New Zealand 

  Russia 

  Serbia 

  South Korea 

  Switzerland 

  Turkey 

  USA 

0.82 

0.74 

0.79 

0.74 

0.77 

0.83 

0.72 

0.76 

0.71 

0.78 

0.69 

0.71 

0.68 

0.61 

0.54 

NA  

NA  

0.74 

0.75 

0.69 

0.85 

0.66 

0.88 

0.78 

0.59 

0.71 

0.66 

0.92 

*Data can only be accessed through subscription with the ITU.  Raw data is subject 

to copyright restrictions. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 14  Normalised scores for the Human Capital Dimension 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

0.47 

0.69 

0.20 

0.65 

0.26 

0.31 

0.75 

0.54 

0.47 

0.21 

0.70 

0.80 

0.38 

0.26 

0.50 

0.63 

0.12 

0.52 

0.52 

0.69 

0.24 

0.66 

0.36 

0.37 

0.79 

0.68 

0.58 

0.23 

0.72 

0.75 

0.52 

0.34 

0.51 

0.65 

0.23 

0.53 

0.55 

0.72 

0.32 

0.65 

0.43 

0.49 

0.76 

0.61 

0.64 

0.28 

0.70 

0.83 

0.46 

0.39 

0.58 

0.62 

0.42 

0.53 

0.60 

0.81 

0.39 

0.67 

0.43 

0.41 

0.80 

0.57 

0.70 

0.42 

0.69 

0.79 

0.64 

0.44 

0.76 

0.65 

0.53 

0.56 

EU28 avg. 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

0.52 

0.61 

0.54 

0.34 

0.46 

0.42 

0.55 

0.72 

0.60 

0.64 

0.52 

0.58 

0.38 

0.45 

0.64 

0.34 

0.52 

0.49 

0.67 

0.64 

0.68 

0.50 

0.33 

0.23 

0.53 

0.54 

0.44 

0.66 

0.65 

0.53 

0.55 

0.57 

0.36 

0.45 

0.44 

0.55 

0.74 

0.61 

0.63 

0.53 

0.55 

0.40 

0.46 

0.70 

0.35 

0.52 

0.50 

0.67 

0.66 

0.69 

0.50 

0.37 

0.25 

0.53 

0.52 

0.48 

0.70 

0.66 

0.55 

0.57 

0.53 

0.35 

0.50 

0.45 

0.53 

0.77 

0.63 

0.71 

0.56 

0.62 

0.37 

0.46 

0.74 

0.37 

0.56 

0.47 

0.68 

0.66 

0.76 

0.50 

0.35 

0.37 

0.54 

0.51 

0.50 

0.64 

0.64 

0.58 

  Non-EU avg. 

  Australia 

  Brazil 

  Canada 

  Chile 

  China 

Iceland 

Israel 

Japan 

  Mexico 

  Norway 

  New Zealand 

  Russia 

  Serbia 

  South Korea 

  Switzerland 

  Turkey 

  USA 

0.59 

0.60 

0.47 

0.45 

0.45 

0.58 

0.80 

0.66 

0.73 

0.62 

0.62 

0.48 

0.62 

0.77 

0.50 

0.47 

0.53 

0.67 

0.48 

0.69 

0.53 

0.43 

0.43 

0.65 

0.44 

0.62 

0.69 

0.65 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 15 Raw data scores for human capital indicator 2a1 

Internet Users (Percentage of individuals using the internet) 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

0.81 

0.90 

0.64 

0.85 

0.73 

0.77 

NA 

0.86 

0.83 

0.70 

0.93 

0.89 

0.73 

0.69 

0.91 

0.88 

0.75 

0.81 

EU28 avg. 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

0.77 

0.80 

0.78 

0.66 

0.70 

NA 

0.80 

0.89 

0.77 

0.85 

0.73 

0.81 

0.60 

0.71 

0.89 

0.70 

0.73 

0.71 

NA 

NA 

0.92 

0.77 

0.63 

0.62 

0.86 

0.83 

0.74 

0.89 

0.82 

0.79 

0.81 

0.82 

0.69 

0.74 

NA 

0.82 

0.92 

0.77 

0.86 

0.75 

0.82 

0.64 

0.71 

0.86 

0.75 

0.76 

0.74 

NA 

 NA 

0.95 

0.74 

0.68 

0.64 

0.84 

0.78 

0.77 

0.90 

0.82 

0.79 

0.83 

0.78 

0.69 

0.73 

NA 

0.80 

0.90 

0.76 

0.88 

0.80 

0.83 

0.66 

0.73 

0.87 

0.77 

0.75 

0.72 

NA 

NA 

0.94 

0.74 

0.65 

0.65 

0.84 

0.76 

0.78 

0.93 

0.81 

0.81 

  Non-EU avg. 

0.83 

0.82 

0.71 

0.72 

  Australia 

  Brazil 

  Canada 

  Chile 

0.74 

0.89 

0.49 

0.82 

NA 

0.77 

0.88 

0.48 

0.84 

NA 

0.78 

0.88 

0.56 

NA 

NA 

NA 

  China 

0.61 

0.70 

0.73 

Iceland 

Israel 

Japan 

  Mexico 

  Norway 

  New Zealand 

  Russia 

  Serbia 

  South Korea 

  Switzerland 

  Turkey 

  USA 

NA 

0.86 

0.83 

0.61 

0.96 

0.90 

NA 

0.52 

0.79 

0.85 

0.45 

0.82 

NA 

0.84 

0.86 

0.67 

0.94 

0.89 

NA 

0.58 

0.79 

0.88 

0.56 

0.79 

NA 

0.84 

0.85 

0.63 

0.94 

0.89 

NA 

0.59 

0.83 

0.85 

0.66 

0.81 

0.81 

0.92 

0.81 

0.90 

0.83 

0.82 

0.72 

0.82 

0.88 

0.77 

0.76 

0.77 

NA 

NA 

0.93 

0.78 

0.71 

0.66 

0.84 

0.75 

0.81 

0.94 

0.83 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 16  Normalised* average scores for human capital indicator 2a2 

Regular Internet Users (Percentage of population) 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

0.52 

0.72 

0.18 

0.76 

0.30 

0.10 

0.94 

0.50 

0.80 

0.06 

0.92 

0.71 

0.47 

0.22 

0.75 

0.77 

0.10 

0.52 

0.56 

0.73 

0.24 

0.79 

0.35 

0.13 

0.97 

0.58 

0.82 

0.07 

0.94 

0.76 

0.51 

0.37 

0.79 

0.79 

0.18 

0.55 

0.61 

0.74 

0.31 

0.81 

0.40 

0.17 

0.97 

0.62 

0.85 

0.29 

0.95 

0.80 

0.56 

0.42 

0.83 

0.79 

0.23 

0.58 

0.64 

0.80 

0.33 

0.83 

0.43 

0.22 

0.97 

0.66 

0.87 

0.33 

0.95 

0.81 

0.61 

0.45 

0.88 

0.82 

0.31 

0.60 

EU28 avg. 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

0.59 

0.68 

0.70 

0.22 

0.45 

0.42 

0.57 

0.91 

0.67 

0.86 

0.70 

0.74 

0.33 

0.54 

0.64 

0.31 

0.59 

0.47 

0.90 

0.48 

0.90 

0.38 

0.37 

0.16 

0.63 

0.54 

0.53 

0.91 

0.83 

0.61 

0.68 

0.75 

0.26 

0.48 

0.49 

0.57 

0.93 

0.74 

0.78 

0.73 

0.77 

0.39 

0.59 

0.66 

0.26 

0.60 

0.54 

0.91 

0.55 

0.86 

0.44 

0.41 

0.23 

0.67 

0.53 

0.60 

0.88 

0.86 

0.63 

0.73 

0.75 

0.28 

0.50 

0.53 

0.59 

0.94 

0.81 

0.77 

0.74 

0.79 

0.45 

0.55 

0.67 

0.30 

0.65 

0.52 

0.96 

0.60 

0.86 

0.47 

0.48 

0.26 

0.63 

0.55 

0.64 

0.84 

0.87 

0.67 

  Non-EU avg. 

  Australia 

  Brazil 

  Canada 

  Chile 

  China 

Iceland 

Israel 

Japan 

  Mexico 

  Norway 

  New Zealand 

  Russia 

  Serbia 

  South Korea 

  Switzerland 

  Turkey 

  USA 

0.74 

0.78 

0.33 

0.54 

0.60 

0.61 

0.95 

0.79 

0.80 

0.76 

0.83 

0.48 

0.65 

0.70 

0.36 

0.66 

0.57 

0.96 

0.62 

0.84 

0.56 

0.51 

0.33 

0.67 

0.59 

0.68 

0.86 

0.91 

*Data can only be accessed through subscription with the ITU.  Raw data is subject 

to copyright restrictions. 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 17 Raw Data scores for human capital indicator 2b1 

Employed in knowledge-intensive activities (Percentage of workforce) 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

34.8 

43.8 

21.0 

44.2 

24.3 

NA 

49.3 

46.5 

24.3 

19.1 

46.8 

NA 

43.6 

28.1 

21.4 

51.0 

19.2 

38.0 

34.8 

39.6  

38.8  

44.9 

21.6 

43.7 

24.8 

NA 

48.2 

47.7 

24.4 

19.5 

50.7 

NA 

44.2 

29.1 

21.6 

52.1 

19.7 

NA 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

EU28 avg. 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

39.5 

39.8 

44.4 

31.0 

35.1 

35.1 

37.8 

45.5 

41.8 

44.7 

44.3 

42.9 

32.3 

35.6 

40.5 

35.1 

39.2 

42.8 

59.1 

40.6 

46.4 

35.9 

32.5 

21.2 

31.8 

42.2 

33.2 

48.5 

47.7 

39.9 

40.4 

46.2 

31.9 

35.7 

35.8 

37.9 

45.3 

42.7 

45.2 

44.0 

43.5 

30.6 

35.3 

40.3 

35.6 

39.6 

42.6 

62.3 

39.3 

46.4 

36.8 

34.8 

21.5 

31.9 

41.7 

33.1 

49.4 

47.4 

40.8  

42.0  

  Non-EU avg. 

  Australia 

  Brazil 

  Canada 

  Chile 

  China 

Iceland 

Israel 

Japan 

  Mexico 

  Norway 

  New Zealand 

  Russia 

  Serbia 

  South Korea 

  Switzerland 

  Turkey 

  USA 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 18 Raw data scores for human capital indicator 2b2 

Tertiary Graduates in ICT (Percentage of graduates) 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

EU28 avg. 

0.19  

0.18  

0.20 

0.22  

  Non-EU avg. 

0.18  

0.25  

0.25 

0.32  

  Australia 

  Brazil 

  Canada 

  Chile 

  China 

Iceland 

Israel 

Japan 

  Mexico 

  Norway 

  New Zealand 

  Russia 

  Serbia 

  South Korea 

  Switzerland 

  Turkey 

  USA 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.35 

0.18 

0.29 

0.20 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.06 

0.18 

0.59 

0.07 

NA 

0.15 

0.16 

0.24 

0.22 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.14 

0.11 

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.19 

0.33 

0.26 

0.45 

0.11 

0.16 

NA 

0.11 

0.57 

0.10 

0.19 

0.15 

0.05 

0.41 

0.31 

0.27 

0.05 

0.21 

0.15 

0.17 

0.15 

0.13 

0.22 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 19 Normalised scores for Citizen Internet Use Dimension 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

  Non-EU avg. 

  Australia 

  Brazil 

  Canada 

  Chile 

  China 

Iceland 

Israel 

Japan 

  Mexico 

  Norway 

  New Zealand 

  Russia 

  Serbia 

  South Korea 

  Switzerland 

  Turkey 

  USA 

0.50 

0.74 

0.27 

0.56 

0.26 

0.25 

0.78 

0.53 

0.40 

0.35 

0.80 

0.62 

0.42 

0.18 

0.62 

0.76 

0.29 

0.63 

0.51 

0.70 

0.32 

0.58 

0.34 

0.29 

0.84 

0.57 

0.44 

0.33 

0.84 

0.54 

0.37 

0.38 

0.59 

0.64 

0.33 

0.61 

0.53 

0.69 

0.32 

0.61 

0.33 

0.23 

0.86 

0.63 

0.48 

0.27 

0.84 

0.65 

0.46 

0.38 

0.63 

0.67 

0.34 

0.66 

0.57 

0.58 

0.34 

0.66 

0.33 

0.45 

0.76 

0.59 

0.74 

0.30 

0.85 

0.58 

0.49 

0.50 

0.74 

0.78 

0.36 

0.71 

EU28 avg. 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

0.51 

0.50 

0.59 

0.29 

0.41 

0.40 

0.54 

0.68 

0.65 

0.75 

0.50 

0.54 

0.35 

0.43 

0.46 

0.38 

0.52 

0.52 

0.68 

0.56 

0.71 

0.36 

0.40 

0.26 

0.46 

0.52 

0.49 

0.74 

0.67 

0.55 

0.57 

0.59 

0.39 

0.47 

0.40 

0.61 

0.74 

0.67 

0.71 

0.49 

0.58 

0.41 

0.49 

0.52 

0.39 

0.56 

0.57 

0.73 

0.60 

0.72 

0.44 

0.44 

0.38 

0.52 

0.50 

0.54 

0.78 

0.67 

0.56 

0.55 

0.58 

0.38 

0.50 

0.45 

0.60 

0.71 

0.74 

0.76 

0.52 

0.59 

0.44 

0.50 

0.55 

0.39 

0.61 

0.58 

0.72 

0.55 

0.71 

0.44 

0.47 

0.42 

0.50 

0.49 

0.56 

0.75 

0.71 

0.60 

0.60 

0.62 

0.42 

0.49 

0.54 

0.58 

0.79 

0.70 

0.78 

0.59 

0.66 

0.46 

0.55 

0.56 

0.42 

0.58 

0.58 

0.79 

0.57 

0.76 

0.51 

0.47 

0.48 

0.59 

0.53 

0.58 

0.78 

0.72 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 20 Raw data scores for citizen Internet use indicator 3a1 

View news online (Percentage of individuals) 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

  Non-EU avg. 

0.50 

0.50 

0.55 

0.59 

  Australia 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.23 

0.31 

0.31 

0.31 

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.15 

0.19 

0.19 

  Brazil 

  Canada 

  Chile 

  China 

Iceland 

Israel 

Japan 

  Mexico 

  Norway 

  New Zealand 

  Russia 

  Serbia 

  South Korea 

  Switzerland 

  Turkey 

  USA 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.28 

0.92 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.46 

0.26 

0.90 

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.81 

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.83 

0.93 

NA  

0.38 

0.14 

0.87 

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.78 

NA  

0.33 

NA  

NA  

0.44 

0.15 

0.89 

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.73 

0.68 

0.36 

NA  

0.36 

0.41 

NA  

NA  

EU28 avg. 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

0.51 

0.41 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.63 

0.70 

0.73 

0.79 

0.41 

0.57 

0.46 

0.60 

0.33 

0.40 

0.64 

0.62 

0.77 

NA  

0.56 

0.27 

0.45 

NA  

0.43 

0.57 

0.50 

0.80 

0.58 

0.57 

0.54 

0.53 

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.69 

0.71 

0.76 

0.78 

0.39 

0.61 

0.54 

0.65 

0.37 

0.37 

0.65 

0.68 

0.81 

NA  

0.57 

0.47 

0.48 

NA  

0.52 

0.58 

0.59 

0.82 

0.59 

0.59 

0.57 

0.52 

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.70 

0.66 

0.80 

0.82 

0.42 

0.63 

0.57 

0.62 

0.38 

0.37 

0.69 

0.67 

0.82 

NA  

0.55 

0.47 

0.53 

NA  

0.51 

0.56 

0.62 

0.76 

0.65 

0.63 

0.56 

0.56 

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.67 

0.70 

0.78 

0.80 

0.48 

0.64 

0.59 

0.70 

0.41 

0.41 

0.67 

0.69 

0.87 

NA  

0.70 

0.58 

0.55 

NA  

0.59 

0.60 

0.63 

0.81 

0.64 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 21 Raw data scores for citizen Internet use indicator 3b1 

Social Networks use (Score of 1-7) 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

5.95 

6.39 

6.03 

6.34 

6.14 

4.73 

6.67 

6.08 

5.72 

5.44 

6.58 

6.25 

5.40 

5.02 

5.87 

6.19 

5.84 

6.39 

6.06 

6.40 

6.00 

6.40 

6.14 

4.68 

6.79 

6.18 

5.89 

5.32 

6.68 

6.35 

5.63 

5.80 

5.97 

6.22 

6.01 

6.54 

5.96 

6.03 

5.85 

6.23 

5.92 

4.72 

6.68 

6.35 

5.88 

5.36 

6.57 

6.18 

5.63 

5.62 

5.90 

6.05 

5.80 

6.57 

5.98  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

EU28 avg. 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

5.98 

6.23 

6.13 

5.56 

5.62 

5.99 

5.98 

5.93 

6.41 

6.43 

5.87 

5.87 

5.40 

5.57 

6.12 

5.79 

5.87 

6.23 

6.11 

6.43 

6.57 

5.06 

5.90 

5.48 

5.86 

5.81 

5.92 

6.54 

6.63 

6.08 

6.24 

6.23 

5.97 

5.91 

6.07 

5.97 

6.12 

6.50 

6.36 

5.78 

5.89 

5.46 

5.75 

6.25 

6.04 

6.13 

6.44 

6.13 

6.41 

6.60 

5.34 

6.00 

5.62 

5.91 

6.03 

5.89 

6.48 

6.64 

5.94 

5.82 

6.13 

5.69 

5.42 

5.92 

5.90 

6.17 

6.28 

6.36 

5.87 

5.77 

5.31 

5.37 

6.23 

5.97 

6.09 

6.37 

6.23 

6.08 

6.57 

5.20 

5.87 

5.62 

5.71 

5.81 

5.59 

6.47 

6.53 

6.08  

  Non-EU avg. 

  Australia 

  Brazil 

  Canada 

  Chile 

  China 

Iceland 

Israel 

Japan 

  Mexico 

  Norway 

  New Zealand 

  Russia 

  Serbia 

  South Korea 

  Switzerland 

  Turkey 

  USA 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 22 Raw data scores for citizen Internet use indicator 3c1 

Banking online use (Percentage of population) 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

43.7 

65.5 

15.0 

NA 

42.0 

53.0 

NA 

16.6 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

21.6 

21.7 

14.0 

NA 

91.4 

NA 

11.0 

81.0 

89.2 

NA 

NA 

NA 

46.4 

54.3 

13.7 

NA 

NA 

NA 

40.6 

11.0 

7.0 

NA 

NA 

42.6 

NA 

7.6 

90.4 

91.2 

NA 

NA 

NA 

48.5 

NA 

15.0 

52.3 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

18.1 

NA 

EU28 avg. 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

47.3 

48.6 

57.8 

NA  

NA  

NA  

41.5 

82.5 

72.2 

84.4 

57.6 

47.1 

10.7 

26.9 

45.6 

21.7 

54.9 

46.4 

62.9 

NA 

82.0 

32.0 

22.6 

NA 

38.7 

32.3 

32.9 

81.8 

54.0 

48.9 

48.0 

61.2 

NA  

NA  

NA  

46.1 

84.3 

76.6 

85.6 

57.6 

48.8 

13.1 

30.5 

48.1 

26.1 

56.8 

53.6 

66.5 

NA 

83.4 

32.6 

25.3 

NA 

40.6 

32.3 

37.4 

81.7 

56.9 

48.9 

51.0 

62.3 

NA 

NA 

NA 

48.4 

84.9 

80.7 

85.7 

58.3 

51.0 

13.9 

33.8 

51.5 

28.1 

64.3 

50.2 

65.1 

NA 

84.5 

31.2 

28.2 

NA 

37.3 

33.7 

39.4 

79.6 

58.4 

51.8 

  Non-EU avg. 

44.8 

  Australia 

  Brazil 

  Canada 

  Chile 

  China 

Iceland 

Israel 

Japan 

  Mexico 

  Norway 

  New Zealand 

  Russia 

  Serbia 

  South Korea 

  Switzerland 

  Turkey 

  USA 

NA 

13.8 

NA 

9.4 

NA 

86.7 

29.2 

9.2 

90.0 

86.8 

64.0 

NA 

NA 

41.4 

NA 

10.7 

39.0 

53.3 

64.5 

NA 

NA 

NA 

51.4 

87.9 

78.6 

86.4 

59.4 

53.0 

19.2 

35.3 

52.3 

29.0 

62.1 

54.2 

70.9 

NA 

84.7 

39.1 

28.9 

NA 

45.4 

35.2 

43.2 

83.2 

64.2 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 23 Raw data scores for citizen Internet use indicator 3c2 

Internet Shoppers (Percentage of population) 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

0.41 

0.42 

0.44 

NA 

NA 

NA 

0.19 

0.09 

0.23 

0.36 

0.63 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

0.26 

0.27 

0.67 

0.30 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

0.47 

0.02 

0.76 

NA 

0.24 

0.20 

0.43 

0.56 

0.17 

0.69 

NA 

EU28 avg. 

0.37  

0.44 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.53 

0.54 

0.15 

0.28 

0.26 

NA 

0.78 

0.48 

0.49 

0.43 

0.60 

0.25 

0.32 

0.50 

0.20 

0.33 

0.26 

0.73 

0.46 

0.72 

0.33 

0.25 

0.09 

0.46 

0.36 

0.37 

0.70 

0.74 

0.47 

0.41 

0.46 

NA 

NA 

NA 

0.50 

0.70 

0.72 

0.64 

0.49 

0.56 

0.36 

0.40 

0.57 

0.20 

0.40 

0.31 

0.68 

NA 

0.73 

0.35 

0.29 

NA 

0.41 

0.34 

0.46 

0.65 

0.82 

0.50 

  Non-EU avg. 

  Australia 

  Brazil 

  Canada 

  Chile 

  China 

Iceland 

Israel 

Japan 

  Mexico 

  Norway 

  New Zealand 

  Russia 

  Serbia 

  South Korea 

  Switzerland 

  Turkey 

  USA 

0.57 

0.57 

0.17 

0.33 

0.29 

0.47 

0.81 

0.56 

0.68 

0.65 

0.74 

0.31 

0.38 

0.58 

0.28 

0.45 

0.33 

0.78 

0.48 

0.73 

0.41 

0.30 

0.12 

0.54 

0.40 

0.44 

0.74 

0.77 

NA 

0.24 

NA 

NA 

0.40 

0.65 

0.06 

0.77 

NA 

NA 

NA 

0.46 

NA 

0.12 

0.67 

NA 

NA 

0.34 

NA 

0.31 

NA 

NA 

0.77 

NA 

0.25 

NA 

NA 

NA 

0.17 

NA 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 24 Raw data scores for citizen Internet use indicator 3d1 

Average number of devices used (Devices) 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2.3 

2.5 

2.2 

1.7 

2.0 

2.4 

2.6 

2.5 

1.9 

2.2 

2.6 

2.7 

2.7 

2.2 

2.5 

2.7 

2.8 

2.7 

2.3 

2.6 

  Non-EU avg. 

  Australia 

  Brazil 

  Canada 

  Chile 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

  China 

2.5 

2.8 

2.1 

2.5 

2.3 

2.2 

1.7 

1.8 

2.7 

2.0 

1.9 

1.9 

2.4 

3.2 

2.1 

2.7 

2.2 

2.4 

1.9 

1.6 

3.1 

2.0 

2.0 

2.1 

2.5 

3.1 

2.5 

3.0 

2.5 

2.6 

2.1 

2.0 

3.2 

2.0 

2.3 

2.4 

2.5 

3.6 

2.5 

3.1 

2.8 

2.8 

2.1 

2.5 

3.2 

2.3 

2.3 

2.4 

Iceland 

Israel 

Japan 

  Mexico 

  Norway 

  New Zealand 

  Russia 

  Serbia 

  South Korea 

  Switzerland 

  Turkey 

  USA 

2.2 

3.3 

1.1 

2.9 

NA  

1.4 

NA  

2.8 

1.8 

1.3 

3.3 

2.8 

2.3 

3.1 

1.1 

3.0 

NA  

1.9 

NA  

2.7 

2.3 

1.4 

3.4 

2.7 

2.5 

3.1 

1.5 

NA  

NA  

1.9 

NA  

2.9 

2.4 

1.8 

3.5 

3.0 

NA  

NA  

NA  

1.1 

2.8 

2.8 

0.8 

2.9 

1.6 

2.3 

2.8 

1.0 

3.1 

1.9 

2.5 

3.1 

1.6 

3.2 

2.7 

3.3 

1.8 

3.2 

2.1 

2.1 

NA  

3.0 

3.0 

2.1 

3.5 

3.2 

2.1 

1.8 

2.8 

3.4 

2.0 

3.5 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

3.1 

2.2 

1.7 

1.6 

2.6 

2.4 

2.5 

2.9 

3.0 

3.6 

2.2 

2.1 

1.7 

2.4 

2.1 

2.9 

3.2 

3.1 

3.6 

2.6 

2.3 

1.9 

2.6 

2.2 

3.0 

3.4 

3.3 

3.5 

2.7 

2.3 

2.1 

3.0 

2.4 

3.0 

3.4 

3.4 

EU28 avg. 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 25 Normalised scores for Business Technology 
 Integration Dimension 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

0.50 

0.58 

0.39 

0.55 

0.47 

0.29 

0.75 

0.55 

0.54 

0.34 

0.67 

0.59 

0.18 

0.20 

0.63 

0.68 

0.42 

0.61 

0.51 

0.58 

0.35 

0.59 

0.47 

0.31 

0.78 

0.55 

0.56 

0.32 

0.69 

0.61 

0.28 

0.25 

0.59 

0.73 

0.41 

0.64 

0.51 

0.59 

0.35 

0.57 

0.43 

0.31 

0.78 

0.59 

0.57 

0.34 

0.71 

0.60 

0.27 

0.23 

0.60 

0.73 

0.39 

0.69 

0.51 

0.57 

0.28 

0.65 

0.41 

0.41 

0.76 

0.45 

0.53 

0.34 

0.66 

0.56 

0.30 

0.44 

0.64 

0.80 

0.28 

0.62 

EU28 avg. 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

0.48 

0.58 

0.54 

0.29 

0.37 

0.47 

0.41 

0.62 

0.51 

0.65 

0.47 

0.57 

0.32 

0.38 

0.54 

0.29 

0.36 

0.49 

0.64 

0.60 

0.68 

0.26 

0.50 

0.26 

0.37 

0.45 

0.45 

0.67 

0.61 

0.49 

0.58 

0.56 

0.33 

0.37 

0.47 

0.44 

0.62 

0.53 

0.67 

0.50 

0.57 

0.33 

0.40 

0.56 

0.30 

0.40 

0.50 

0.68 

0.56 

0.71 

0.27 

0.52 

0.28 

0.41 

0.45 

0.42 

0.65 

0.63 

0.50 

0.60 

0.57 

0.31 

0.34 

0.42 

0.45 

0.64 

0.54 

0.67 

0.50 

0.61 

0.33 

0.37 

0.58 

0.33 

0.44 

0.49 

0.69 

0.56 

0.72 

0.29 

0.50 

0.30 

0.43 

0.46 

0.42 

0.67 

0.65 

0.51 

  Non-EU avg. 

  Australia 

  Brazil 

  Canada 

  Chile 

  China 

Iceland 

Israel 

Japan 

  Mexico 

  Norway 

  New Zealand 

  Russia 

  Serbia 

  South Korea 

  Switzerland 

  Turkey 

  USA 

0.59 

0.61 

0.36 

0.46 

0.39 

0.39 

0.71 

0.53 

0.67 

0.53 

0.59 

0.45 

0.51 

0.51 

0.47 

0.32 

0.46 

0.77 

0.57 

0.75 

0.33 

0.39 

0.27 

0.40 

0.43 

0.55 

0.65 

0.68 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 26 Raw data scores for business technology 
 integration indicator 4a1 

Availability of latest technologies (Score of 1-7) 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

5.66 

6.06 

5.05 

6.12 

5.80 

4.36 

6.40 

6.19 

6.28 

5.11 

6.48 

6.08 

3.97 

4.07 

5.93 

6.44 

5.42 

6.43 

5.63 

5.98 

4.71 

6.20 

5.72 

4.35 

6.43 

6.28 

6.22 

4.91 

6.49 

6.06 

4.22 

4.24 

5.74 

6.40 

5.31 

6.51 

5.57 

 5.57 

5.91 

4.47 

6.24 

5.59 

4.30 

6.42 

6.36 

6.16 

4.95 

6.51 

5.89 

4.22 

4.04 

5.64 

6.42 

5.00 

6.54 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

EU28 avg. 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

5.67 

6.05 

6.32 

4.45 

5.15 

5.52 

5.21 

5.90 

5.76 

6.55 

6.14 

6.29 

5.02 

5.18 

5.90 

5.01 

5.34 

5.68 

6.34 

6.07 

6.35 

4.43 

6.24 

4.30 

4.98 

5.64 

5.81 

6.53 

6.44 

5.66 

6.03 

6.27 

4.44 

5.06 

5.41 

5.21 

5.81 

5.83 

6.61 

6.09 

6.19 

5.03 

5.34 

6.03 

4.96 

5.66 

5.72 

6.23 

5.71 

6.29 

4.45 

6.27 

4.63 

5.22 

5.49 

5.60 

6.35 

6.45 

5.67 

6.09 

6.19 

4.64 

4.97 

5.17 

5.63 

5.97 

5.77 

6.60 

6.05 

6.22 

4.99 

5.15 

6.11 

5.10 

5.77 

5.76 

6.20 

5.35 

6.30 

4.64 

6.10 

4.65 

5.47 

5.47 

5.52 

6.48 

6.48 

5.74  

  Non-EU avg. 

  Australia 

  Brazil 

  Canada 

  Chile 

  China 

Iceland 

Israel 

Japan 

  Mexico 

  Norway 

  New Zealand 

  Russia 

  Serbia 

  South Korea 

  Switzerland 

  Turkey 

  USA 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 27 Raw data scores for business technology 
 integration indicator 4a2 

Firm-level technology absorption (Score of 1-7) 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

5.39 

5.82 

5.00 

5.45 

5.10 

4.69 

6.19 

6.07 

6.06 

4.76 

6.01 

5.74 

3.94 

3.72 

5.71 

6.12 

5.34 

5.99 

5.37 

5.61 

4.77 

5.43 

5.20 

4.66 

6.17 

6.05 

6.08 

4.60 

6.05 

5.80 

4.25 

3.83 

5.45 

6.05 

5.23 

6.07 

5.37 

5.61 

4.77 

5.43 

5.20 

4.66 

6.17 

6.05 

6.08 

4.60 

6.05 

5.80 

4.25 

3.83 

5.45 

6.05 

5.23 

6.07 

5.24  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

EU28 avg. 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

5.18 

5.76 

5.59 

4.16 

4.65 

5.24 

4.95 

5.72 

5.38 

6.03 

5.46 

5.77 

4.48 

4.69 

5.62 

4.19 

4.70 

5.21 

5.90 

5.48 

5.68 

4.15 

5.54 

4.27 

4.69 

4.82 

5.04 

6.23 

5.65 

5.18 

5.68 

5.64 

4.39 

4.55 

5.14 

4.95 

5.71 

5.39 

5.84 

5.45 

5.74 

4.53 

4.69 

5.56 

4.15 

4.99 

5.36 

5.98 

5.20 

5.63 

4.20 

5.62 

4.44 

4.81 

4.94 

4.90 

5.96 

5.72 

5.18 

5.68 

5.64 

4.39 

4.55 

5.14 

4.95 

5.71 

5.39 

5.84 

5.45 

5.74 

4.53 

4.69 

5.56 

4.15 

4.99 

5.36 

5.98 

5.20 

5.63 

4.20 

5.62 

4.44 

4.81 

4.94 

4.90 

5.96 

5.72 

5.23 

  Non-EU avg. 

  Australia 

  Brazil 

  Canada 

  Chile 

  China 

Iceland 

Israel 

Japan 

  Mexico 

  Norway 

  New Zealand 

  Russia 

  Serbia 

  South Korea 

  Switzerland 

  Turkey 

  USA 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 28 Raw data scores for business technology 
 integration indicator 4a3 

Social Media use (Percentage of businesses) 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

0.37 

0.43 

0.39 

0.44 

NA  

NA  

0.42 

0.51 

0.43 

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.60 

0.63 

NA  

0.16 

NA  

0.46 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.18 

0.30 

0.53 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.44 

0.54 

0.50 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.23 

NA  

0.50 

0.58 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.60 

0.68 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.38 

0.39 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.38 

NA  

EU28 avg. 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

0.33 

0.39 

0.35 

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.16 

0.40 

0.27 

0.37 

0.19 

0.33 

0.34 

0.26 

0.48 

0.25 

0.15 

0.38 

0.30 

NA  

0.50 

0.19 

0.36 

NA  

0.26 

0.37 

0.32 

0.45 

0.42 

0.39 

0.41 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.34 

0.49 

0.28 

0.46 

NA  

0.33 

0.38 

0.26 

0.60 

0.32 

0.19 

0.36 

0.36 

NA  

0.58 

0.22 

0.39 

NA  

0.29 

0.39 

0.37 

0.48 

0.44 

0.40 

0.42 

0.45 

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.25 

0.56 

0.33 

0.50 

0.30 

0.38 

0.37 

0.29 

0.64 

0.37 

0.28 

0.42 

0.39 

NA  

0.63 

0.22 

0.38 

NA  

0.34 

0.42 

0.40 

0.53 

0.54 

0.45 

  Non-EU avg. 

  Australia 

  Brazil 

  Canada 

  Chile 

  China 

Iceland 

Israel 

Japan 

  Mexico 

  Norway 

  New Zealand 

  Russia 

  Serbia 

  South Korea 

  Switzerland 

  Turkey 

  USA 

0.50 

0.53 

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.34 

0.64 

0.39 

0.60 

0.36 

0.47 

0.44 

0.34 

0.66 

0.39 

0.26 

0.45 

0.49 

NA  

0.65 

0.25 

0.44 

NA  

0.34 

0.46 

0.44 

0.58 

0.59 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 29 Raw data scores for business technology 
 integration indicator 4b1 

Business-to-Business Internet Use (Score of 1-7) 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

5.40 

5.58 

5.11 

5.52 

5.47 

4.87 

5.68 

5.32 

6.00 

4.90 

6.00 

5.73 

4.59 

4.32 

5.84 

6.15 

5.07 

5.64 

5.38 

5.52 

4.62 

5.58 

5.34 

4.90 

5.79 

5.50 

6.07 

4.69 

5.95 

5.65 

4.82 

4.50 

5.61 

6.02 

5.28 

5.63 

5.37 

5.50 

4.58 

5.63 

5.23 

4.88 

5.88 

5.74 

6.06 

4.81 

5.94 

5.63 

4.82 

4.46 

5.32 

6.01 

5.03 

5.71 

5.19 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

EU28 avg. 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

5.46 

5.95 

5.62 

4.77 

5.18 

4.81 

5.65 

5.69 

6.05 

6.17 

5.46 

5.72 

4.42 

5.30 

5.49 

4.32 

5.20 

6.08 

5.88 

5.90 

5.93 

4.44 

5.56 

4.69 

5.49 

5.47 

5.56 

6.11 

6.06 

5.40 

5.71 

5.58 

5.06 

5.07 

4.84 

5.56 

5.55 

6.14 

6.06 

5.17 

5.52 

4.29 

5.50 

5.34 

4.27 

5.28 

6.36 

5.85 

5.49 

5.95 

4.33 

5.57 

4.62 

5.56 

5.32 

5.15 

5.85 

6.08 

5.32 

5.75 

5.70 

4.94 

4.72 

4.80 

5.47 

5.65 

5.97 

5.94 

5.33 

5.69 

4.32 

5.07 

5.44 

4.53 

5.37 

5.83 

5.75 

5.21 

5.63 

4.49 

5.47 

4.53 

5.47 

5.17 

5.00 

5.82 

6.04 

5.34  

  Non-EU avg. 

  Australia 

  Brazil 

  Canada 

  Chile 

  China 

Iceland 

Israel 

Japan 

  Mexico 

  Norway 

  New Zealand 

  Russia 

  Serbia 

  South Korea 

  Switzerland 

  Turkey 

  USA 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 30 Raw data scores for business technology 
 integration indicator 4b2 

Secure Internet Servers (Per 1 million people) 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

EU28 avg. 

767 

883 

990 

1009 

  Non-EU avg. 

874 

1003 

1079 

1059 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 

1079 

1267 

1497 

1520 

  Australia 

1251 

1348 

1457 

1431 

738 

146 

193 

620 

564 

855 

177 

219 

607 

691 

978 

182 

266 

680 

867 

1018 

  Brazil 

57 

69 

78 

79 

173 

324 

761 

  Canada 

1035 

1210 

1309 

1254 

  Chile 

  China 

94 

4 

129 

147 

152 

7 

10 

21 

1346 

Iceland 

2916 

3216 

3407 

3151 

Denmark 

2103 

2079 

1973 

1671 

753 

927 

1143 

1110 

1547 

1792 

1782 

1791 

  Mexico 

Israel 

Japan 

270 

736 

26 

254 

911 

34 

289 

970 

40 

293 

1071 

41 

486 

682 

812 

849 

  Norway 

1727 

1942 

2033 

2075 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

1071 

1418 

1757 

1648 

  New Zealand 

1108 

1211 

1299 

1187 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

137 

250 

718 

202 

272 

257 

148 

301 

774 

251 

360 

207 

192 

366 

850 

289 

457 

244 

235 

404 

866 

333 

434 

278 

  Russia 

  Serbia 

51 

35 

84 

44 

126 

215 

64 

63 

  South Korea 

1987 

2164 

2301 

2201 

  Switzerland 

2211 

2821 

3102 

3063 

  Turkey 

  USA 

50 

57 

67 

80 

1306 

1550 

1653 

1623 

Luxembourg 

2190 

2644 

2914 

2639 

Malta 

1469 

1692 

1864 

1904 

Netherlands 

2382 

2633 

2828 

2904 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

313 

218 

69 

263 

548 

269 

430 

263 

125 

321 

648 

316 

547 

316 

229 

393 

807 

362 

763 

381 

159 

361 

769 

419 

Sweden 

1438 

1601 

1755 

1780 

UK 

1193 

1289 

1383 

1409 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 31 Normalised scores for Public Services Dimension 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

  Non-EU avg. 

  Australia 

  Brazil 

  Canada 

  Chile 

  China 

Iceland 

Israel 

Japan 

  Mexico 

  Norway 

  New Zealand 

  Russia 

  Serbia 

  South Korea 

  Switzerland 

  Turkey 

  USA 

0.62 

0.77 

0.60 

0.59 

0.78 

0.53 

0.65 

0.60 

0.50 

0.61 

0.75 

0.78 

0.45 

0.58 

0.57 

0.63 

0.46 

0.59 

0.62 

0.84 

0.49 

0.76 

0.67 

0.42 

0.60 

0.69 

0.67 

0.51 

0.71 

0.77 

0.56 

0.33 

0.67 

0.49 

0.45 

0.83 

0.65 

0.77 

0.59 

0.79 

0.71 

0.41 

0.70 

0.68 

0.60 

0.67 

0.78 

0.86 

0.49 

0.58 

0.70 

0.60 

0.44 

0.75 

0.67 

0.89 

0.62 

0.82 

0.61 

0.59 

0.54 

0.65 

0.75 

0.67 

0.73 

0.82 

0.57 

0.61 

0.83 

0.48 

0.43 

0.79 

EU28 avg. 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

0.60 

0.59 

0.54 

0.57 

0.57 

0.46 

0.42 

0.86 

0.88 

0.78 

0.62 

0.62 

0.63 

0.59 

0.58 

0.44 

0.59 

0.44 

0.61 

0.52 

0.78 

0.35 

0.58 

0.54 

0.43 

0.70 

0.55 

0.77 

0.80 

0.57 

0.65 

0.54 

0.34 

0.38 

0.31 

0.44 

0.69 

0.75 

0.73 

0.89 

0.64 

0.48 

0.47 

0.57 

0.63 

0.58 

0.55 

0.63 

0.39 

0.80 

0.44 

0.52 

0.42 

0.37 

0.41 

0.76 

0.66 

0.89 

0.60 

0.65 

0.55 

0.48 

0.65 

0.40 

0.57 

0.69 

0.78 

0.81 

0.67 

0.63 

0.47 

0.59 

0.72 

0.53 

0.53 

0.55 

0.51 

0.63 

0.68 

0.43 

0.53 

0.50 

0.44 

0.61 

0.71 

0.79 

0.80 

0.63 

0.72 

0.61 

0.45 

0.56 

0.49 

0.43 

0.71 

0.85 

0.83 

0.82 

0.69 

0.48 

0.46 

0.66 

0.68 

0.56 

0.63 

0.64 

0.66 

0.76 

0.57 

0.55 

0.39 

0.38 

0.67 

0.82 

0.73 

0.90 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 32 Raw Data scores for public services indicator 5a1 

E-government Development Index (Score of 0-1) 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

EU28 avg. 

0.75  

0.73 

0.74  

0.76 

  Non-EU avg. 

0.76  

0.74 

0.78  

0.76 

  Australia 

  Brazil 

  Canada 

  Chile 

  China 

Iceland 

Israel 

Japan 

  Mexico 

  Norway 

  New Zealand 

  Russia 

  Serbia 

  South Korea 

  Switzerland 

  Turkey 

  USA 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.91 

0.60 

0.84 

0.71 

0.55 

0.80 

0.82 

0.89 

0.57 

0.84 

0.86 

0.73 

0.55 

0.80 

0.73 

0.54 

0.87 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.91 

0.64 

0.83 

0.69 

0.61 

0.77 

0.78 

0.84 

0.62 

0.81 

0.87 

0.72 

0.71 

0.89 

0.75 

0.59 

0.84 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.79 

0.76 

0.54 

0.63 

0.60 

0.61 

0.82 

0.82 

0.84 

0.89 

0.79 

0.71 

0.66 

0.78 

0.76 

0.72 

0.73 

0.76 

0.65 

0.89 

0.65 

0.69 

0.56 

0.61 

0.65 

0.84 

0.82 

0.87 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.82 

0.79 

0.64 

0.72 

0.60 

0.65 

0.85 

0.83 

0.88 

0.85 

0.82 

0.69 

0.67 

0.77 

0.78 

0.68 

0.77 

0.77 

0.74 

0.87 

0.72 

0.71 

0.56 

0.59 

0.78 

0.81 

0.87 

0.92 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 33 Raw data scores for public services indicator 5a2 

Online Service Completion (Score of 0-1) 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

0.81 

0.98 

0.73 

0.96 

0.78 

0.77 

0.62 

0.86 

0.88 

0.85 

0.80 

0.94 

0.73 

0.82 

0.94 

0.60 

0.60 

0.93 

EU28 avg. 

0.71  

0.65 

0.73  

0.75 

  Non-EU avg. 

0.73  

0.72 

0.80 

  Australia 

  Brazil 

  Canada 

  Chile 

  China 

Iceland 

Israel 

Japan 

  Mexico 

  Norway 

  New Zealand 

  Russia 

  Serbia 

  South Korea 

  Switzerland 

  Turkey 

  USA 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.93 

0.60 

0.91 

0.82 

0.61 

0.61 

0.87 

0.71 

0.66 

0.76 

0.84 

0.71 

0.41 

0.81 

0.50 

0.56 

0.94 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.75 

0.68 

0.44 

0.46 

0.47 

0.43 

0.66 

0.77 

0.77 

0.99 

0.67 

0.61 

0.56 

0.68 

0.75 

0.70 

0.76 

0.62 

0.40 

0.93 

0.54 

0.64 

0.44 

0.49 

0.43 

0.94 

0.70 

0.90 

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.91 

0.71 

0.57 

0.75 

0.54 

0.48 

0.78 

0.89 

0.94 

0.94 

0.84 

0.58 

0.63 

0.72 

0.87 

0.61 

0.83 

0.72 

0.80 

0.93 

0.70 

0.75 

0.46 

0.44 

0.85 

0.91 

0.88 

0.99 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 34 Raw data scores for public services indicator 5a3 

Open Data (Score of 0 to 1) 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

0.55 

0.66 

0.48 

0.59 

NA  

0.42 

0.55 

0.48 

0.43 

0.47 

0.76 

0.66 

0.43 

0.44 

0.43 

0.59 

NA  

0.87 

0.57 

0.72 

0.54 

0.59 

0.61 

0.37 

0.64 

0.46 

0.61 

0.53 

0.71 

0.72 

0.43 

0.42 

0.53 

0.58 

0.53 

0.70 

0.52 

0.67 

0.61 

0.55 

0.47 

0.18 

0.48 

0.38 

0.46 

0.58 

0.63 

NA  

0.30 

NA  

0.50 

0.47 

0.37 

0.64 

0.57 

0.79 

0.68 

0.69 

0.52 

NA  

NA  

0.41 

0.61 

0.65 

0.69 

0.68 

0.43 

0.41 

NA  

0.36 

0.37 

0.65 

EU28 avg. 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

0.53 

0.51 

0.27 

0.52 

0.45 

0.03 

0.45 

0.87 

NA  

0.72 

0.59 

0.61 

0.40 

0.42 

0.40 

0.52 

NA  

0.32 

NA  

0.52 

0.74 

0.42 

0.56 

0.58 

0.39 

0.73 

0.46 

0.67 

0.94 

0.56 

0.59 

0.39 

0.41 

0.41 

0.21 

0.66 

0.83 

NA  

0.73 

0.80 

0.69 

0.38 

0.48 

0.48 

0.55 

0.51 

0.32 

0.53 

0.50 

0.43 

0.56 

NA  

NA  

0.52 

0.70 

NA  

0.67 

0.63 

0.49 

0.39 

NA  

0.46 

0.55 

0.46 

NA  

NA  

0.41 

0.52 

0.64 

0.42 

0.47 

0.64 

0.35 

0.54 

0.52 

0.66 

0.97 

NA  

0.64 

NA  

0.34 

0.58 

0.35 

NA  

0.55 

0.48 

0.76 

0.56 

  Non-EU avg. 

0.49 

0.52 

0.45 

0.39 

  Australia 

  Brazil 

  Canada 

  Chile 

NA  

  China 

0.50 

0.65 

NA  

0.69 

0.70 

0.51 

0.46 

Iceland 

Israel 

Japan 

  Mexico 

  Norway 

  New Zealand 

  Russia 

NA  

  Serbia 

  South Korea 

  Switzerland 

  Turkey 

  USA 

0.67 

0.47 

0.64 

NA  

NA  

NA  

0.54 

0.49 

0.37 

0.51 

0.47 

0.49 

NA  

0.53 

0.79 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European Commission 

2018 International Digital Economy and Society Index  - SMART 2017/0052 

Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union 

2018 - 78 pages  

ISBN 978-92-79-85699-0 

DOI: 10.2759/745483 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
K
K
-
0
1
-
1
8
-
4
7
6
-

E
N
N

-

78 

DOI: 10.2759/745483         ISBN 978-92-79-85699-0