Discussion
Dr. Granholm observed that an interesting question was how to formulate overall government targets for intervention in promoting the digital opportunity. He noted that the normal way to formulate targets was to close the digital divide, but that this was a difficult policy aim, because the closing completely of the digital divide was not possible. He pointed out the target of Singapore was to be in the top five of IT-based countries, but asked how it could be determined if any country was in the top five. He suggested that it could also be useful to discuss the societal effects of IT. He asked if anyone had any on opinions on how to formulate overall targets.
Ms. Belleflamme reinforced the importance of the need to analyze impact, both qualitatively and quantitatively, and commented positively on the process of benchmarking. She suggested that targets alone were not enough, but rather, results should be assessed.
Ms. Hu suggested that, in the formulation of targets, countries should have an open mind and be able to accept each countries' strengths and weaknesses as a means to identify how to move forward. She suggested the creation of a "buddy" system, or the formation of clusters of countries able to help each other.
Mr. Ishikawa noted that some countries have very specific targets, citing Ireland, Finland, China and Singapore as examples of governments that are particularly active in promoting and setting targets.
Dr. Choi stated that in order to create an index of member countries in order to set firmer targets, more concrete data was necessary. She reaffirmed the value of benchmarks, adding that if all countries had benchmarks, plans and goals could be drawn up.
Mr. Hughes endorsed the comments by Dr. Choi, noting that the setting of targets was notoriously difficult in the IT sector, due to continuous change. He noted that rather than targets, the closing of the information gap should be a key goal, as a means of keeping pace with international developments and maintaining competitiveness.
Mr. Lindroos stated that he was happy to hear the question of indicators being raised in the meeting. He noted that investment was also important and that penetration levels pertaining to IT do not provide much useful information for research and the creation of concrete policies. He added that in sparsely populated countries, such as Finland, there is little incentive for SMEs to invest in the network society, which is hampering the efficiency and productivity of the government sector. He proposed that each country should look very carefully at its indicators. He noted that the OECD was moving forward on this issue and their report would provide an indication of what international indicators should look like.
Professor Coelho suggested that it would be good to identify what government and market roles were. He speculated that the answer could differ according to the political and economic situation in the country concerned. He asked if many government targets presented at the seminar could be replaced by encouraging the market to define and make their own targets.
Ms. Hu noted that, in the summer of 2000, a mission from the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan visited Singapore to study how IT is impacting on the lives of Singaporeans. She urged participants to visit Singapore to see e-services in action.
Mrs. Birkett noted how interesting the presentations of the morning session had been and how impressed she had been with the information presented. With regard to government and private sectors, she noted that it was the government's duty to set out an overall framework, but concurred with Professor Coelho that a framework that facilitates private sector participation would be important.
Mrs. Birkett noted that according to the presentations, in Korea and Malaysia, the concept of community access is being developed, but that this was not something that was considered in the context of government responsibility in the e-Europe Initiative. She recognized that in other parts of the world the concept of community access is proving to be extremely effective in getting IT to as many people as possible at the lowest possible cost. She asked a question about Malaysia concerning the funding for, and sustainability of, the rural access centers that had been covered in Mr. Rahman's presentation.
Mr. Rahman responded that the rural access community centers were a government initiative, because were it not for government initiatives, such areas would not receive attention from the private sector. He explained that rural Internet centers were established at post offices and in the future it was expected that these rural centers would become independent enterprises. He added that the e-ASEAN Initiative, finalized in Singapore last year, was also a good example of efforts to bridge the digital divide that involve both the public and private sectors. However, he pointed out that the digital divide in ASEAN countries was huge, even within the ASEAN grouping alone, with some countries having insufficient infrastructure, and efforts must be bolstered in order to ensure that all countries are able to benefit from the e-ASEAN Initiative.
Concerning targeting, Dr. Panthawi stressed the need for a data pool, using common indices. She explained that in Thailand a project is underway, lead by NECTEC to ensure that there is no duplication in the data collection.
Dr. Loc explained that in Vietnam, IT is targeted to be used in all branches of government and in all social activities, but that current access and use of IT was very low. He added that current IT specialists number around 20,000, but a plan exists to increase this figure to in excess of 50,000 over the next few years. Concerning the Internet, Mr. Loc pointed out that only 0.1% of the population have access to the Internet, but that the government is aiming to reduce the connection charges to the Internet during the course of 2001. He added that Vietnam has learned from the experience of Ireland in the liberalization of telecommunications.
Dr. Loc explained that in the utilization and penetration of IT, Vietnam had set a goal of becoming an average country in the region by 2010, but that benchmarks were necessary in order to establish what average levels actually are. He urged the need to provide further benchmark data.
Mr. Kim referred back to Mrs. Birkett's point on the need to draw in the private sector, with which he stated his agreement, but noted that the public access efforts could not be sustained on a publicly funded basis indefinitely. He noted that consumers would be able to tackle issues relating to IT by themselves when public awareness reached a certain level. He suggested that after a certain period of time, when public awareness had been sufficiently raised, it could be possible phase out public access efforts to IT, except for to the underserved and low-income segments of society.
Ms. Hu expressed her doubts that a country should only focus on the underserved and the needy in IT promotion. She suggested that in order for a country to progress, it was important to focus on human resource development. She urged that governments should continue to work with the private sector in strategic partnerships, noting that the systems and tools as provided by the private sector were crucial in developing the information society.
Mr. Hughes noted that in Ireland there was a need to internationalize Internet start-ups very quickly, more so than in traditional sectors, and the Irish government had fully supported internationalization measures, in order that start-ups are able to expand their businesses.
Dr. Verde of Italy briefed ASEM Seminar participants on the proceedings of the Third Global Forum on Fostering Democracy and Development through e-Government, which was held in Naples from 15-17 March 2001, distributing a summary that detailed the several recommendations the Forum had compiled during its three-day meeting in Italy.
Back to Index