1 / 14

The role of inter-regional benchmarking in the policy-making process Brussels, 20 June 2006 Karsten Gareis, empirica, Bo

The role of inter-regional benchmarking in the policy-making process Brussels, 20 June 2006 Karsten Gareis, empirica, Bonn. Background. BISER (2002-2004) Development and piloting of a set of survey-derived indicators to be used for benchmarking regions in the Information Society

ashton
Download Presentation

The role of inter-regional benchmarking in the policy-making process Brussels, 20 June 2006 Karsten Gareis, empirica, Bo

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The role of inter-regional benchmarking in the policy-making process Brussels, 20 June 2006 Karsten Gareis, empirica, Bonn

  2. Background • BISER (2002-2004) • Development and piloting of a set of survey-derived indicators to be used for benchmarking regions in the Information Society • Top down approach: Indicators are developed based on conceptual framework, then discussed with regions • BISER Benchmarking Report and interactive data analysis tool available at www.biser-eu.com

  3. National level Regional level Impact Intensity measurability using “hard” measures easy difficult Readiness explanatorypower low high Status quo Level of activity t

  4. Selected challenges • Identifying the “right” indicators • Obtaining the data • Choosing the appropriate geographical reference unit • Contextualise Information Society data • Looking beyond indicators on “hard” factors

  5. Geographical reference units • EU standard (NUTS) is based on geographical units which were defined for political reasons • Very different from functional regions (but functional regions are not available at EU level) • Risk of wrong conclusions as a result of aggregation • NUTS3 better than NUTS2?

  6. An example 100 10 5 10 5 10 5 200 20 10 20 10 20 10 20 10 20 10 20 10 20 20 10 20 10 20 10 20 10 20 10 400 10 20 10 10 20 10 400 10 20 10 20 40 20 40 20 40 300 10 20 10 20 10 20 150 Number of cars (x1000) Number of households (x1000) Number of cars per household 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.74 1.04 1.6 Aggregation 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 a. NUTS3 b. NUTS2

  7. Contextualisation • The diffusion of ICT is partly determined by income (GDP/capita) and other independent variables • Comparing data at company level, the huge differences in sectoral structures need to be taken into account • Contextualisation (normalisation) necessary!

  8. Highlighting weak points Example: RB Darmstadt Computer users 17 Internet access 25 Internet users 21 Average weekly Internet use 28 Internet user base: expected growth -20 E-mail users 47 Average share of intra- regional e-mails -31 Costs as barrier for Internet take-up 32 Internet want- nots -37 Mobile phone users 11 E-commerce 47 E-banking 24 Internet chatters -16 Peope tele-cooperating at the workplace 48 multi-locational workers 107 home-based teleworkers 148 Lifelong learning for work 37 E-learning for work 2 Computer skills Index 24 Have had computer training 9 E-health users 25 Users of online timetables 37 eGovernment users -48 eGovernment want-nots 26 Persons with strong regional identity -28 © BISER 2003 Users of Internet for regional information 6 - 100 - 80 - 60 - 40 - 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

  9. An example Indicator: Internet users -- last four weeks (2003) © SIBIS 2003 USA 10-30% 30-40% 40-50% 50-60% >60%

  10. An example Internet access and income (GDP/head) 80 NL 70 SE DK r= .891* 60 FI UK IE DE 50 AT BE IT Internet access at home in % of population 40 15+ (2002/2003) SI ES FR 30 EE PT 20 PL EL CZ BG 10 LT HU SK RO LV Lux excluded 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 GDP/head in PPP 2002 (EU15 = 100)

  11. Beyond “hard” indicators • Differences in R&D and infrastructure investments alone cannot explain the persistence of the territorial digital divide • Rather than levelling regional disparities, ICTs seem to have exacerbated existing inequalities • Disparities seem to be related to the effectiveness with which ICTs are used to transform traditional ways of doing things • The ability to use ICTs in a transformative way appears to be influenced by cultural factors • Need for more insight into Regional Innovation Cultures

  12. Ongoing work • TRANSFORM (2006-2008) • Focus on indicatores on “soft” issues which underpin regions’ ability for transformative use of ICTs • Key issues: Regional innovation cultures, social capital (bonding / bridging / linking), networking capital, impact of ICT usage, empowerment, participation • Revised top down approach: Indicators are developed based on conceptual framework, then tested during case study fieldwork in 16 regions across Europe • Specific Support Action (“Scientific Support for Policy”)in FP6 • Consortium: empirica, CURDS, eris@, IRISI, CARPAT

  13. Thank you! More information at: www.biser-eu.com www.transform-eu.org (soon) or contact: E-mail contact: transform@empirica.com empirica Gesellschaft für Kommunikations- und Technologieforschung mbH Oxfordstr. 2 D-53111 Bonn Tel.: (+49) 2 28 - 9 85 30-0 Fax: (+49) 2 28 - 9 85 30 -12

More Related