slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
The role of inter-regional benchmarking in the policy-making process Brussels, 20 June 2006 Karsten Gareis, empirica, Bo PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
The role of inter-regional benchmarking in the policy-making process Brussels, 20 June 2006 Karsten Gareis, empirica, Bo

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 14

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


  • 134 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

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


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

The role of inter-regional benchmarking in the policy-making process

Brussels, 20 June 2006

Karsten Gareis, empirica, Bonn

background
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
status quo

National level

Regional level

Impact

Intensity

measurability using “hard” measures

easy

difficult

Readiness

explanatorypower

low

high

Status quo

Level of

activity

t

selected challenges
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
geographical reference units
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?
an example
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

contextualisation
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!
highlighting weak points
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

an example1
An example

Indicator: Internet users -- last four weeks (2003)

© SIBIS 2003

USA

10-30%

30-40%

40-50%

50-60%

>60%

an example2
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)

beyond hard indicators
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
ongoing work
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
thank you
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