Playing the game: explaining how Luxembourg has responded to the Networked Readiness Index
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/DPRG-02-2017-0008 |
| Published date | 12 June 2017 |
| Pages | 269-286 |
| Date | 12 June 2017 |
| Author | Nico Binsfeld,Jason Whalley,Lee Pugalis |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Information management & governance,Information policy |
Playing the game: explaining how
Luxembourg has responded to the
Networked Readiness Index
Nico Binsfeld, Jason Whalley and Lee Pugalis
Nico Binsfeld is Dba
student at the Newcastle
Business School,
Northumbria University,
Newcastle, UK and
Lecturer at Institut
Supérieur de l’Economie
Luxembourg, Luxemburg.
Jason Whalley is Reader
at the Newcastle
Business School,
Northumbria University,
Newcastle, UK and
Telecom Ecole de
Management, Evry, Île-
de-France, France.
Lee Pugalis is based at
the Insitutute for Public
Policy and Governance,
University of Technology
Sydney, Sydney, New
South Wales Australia
and Faculty of Business
and Law, Leeds Beckett
University Leeds, UK.
Abstract
Purpose –Over the past decade or so, successive Luxembourgish governments have sought to
develop the country’s information and communication technologies (ICT) sector. In this paper, the
authors will aim to examine how Luxembourg’s relative position in the “Networked Readiness Index”
(NRI), a key international benchmarking exercise published by the World Economic Forum, has evolved
over time as these ambitions have been achieved. The paper also explores what policy initiatives could
be implemented to further improve Luxembourg’s ranking in the NRI.
Design/methodology/approach –A longitudinal case study-based approach, drawing on secondary
data and the annual publication of the NRI between 2003 and 2016, was adopted.
Findings –Luxembourg’s position in the NRI has improved from 27th in 2003, so that it now ranks
among the top ten countries in the world. In particular, Luxembourg has substantially improved its
position with regards to “infrastructure” and “international connectivity”. However, there are also areas,
mainly linked to education, the provision of human resources and policies that allow for and stimulate
entrepreneurship where further improvements appear possible.
Social implications –The paper highlights the need for an overall, holistic, ICT development strategy.
Such a strategy would cover not only cover infrastructural and technical aspects but also educational,
social, regulatory and economic issues as well.
Originality/value –The paper charts the evolution over time of Luxembourg’s position in an important
international ICT index and identifies its current strengths and weaknesses in terms of the different
elements that constitute the NRI. This paper represents the first attempt to investigate the position of a
small country, which are often overlooked in the literature, in terms of its changing position and the
policies developed and enacted by a national government.
Keywords Government policy, Case studies, Luxembourg, ICT sector, Networked Readiness Index
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Academics and practitioners alike have given considerable attention to the measurement
of “information” for policy, development and investment decisions. Many national and
international organisations, such as the International Telecommunication Union (2015),
Mateus (2015),OECD (2015) or the Partnership on Measuring information and
communication technologies (ICT) for Development[1], produce rankings and assessments
about the development of national ICT capabilities and infrastructure. These ranking
indices can perform powerful policy-shaping roles, as the media fanfare and debates
stimulated often provoke policy responses from governments. Moreover, politicians and
policy makers often refer to such assessments to justify their decisions (De Fooz, 2014;
Henry, 2014;Sorlut, 2014) or promote the comparative advantages of their country in
relation to their international competitors (European Commission, 2015a,2015b;Katz et al.,
2014;Lechman, 2009).
Received 19 February 2017
Revised 8 April 2017
Accepted 11 April 2017
DOI 10.1108/DPRG-02-2017-0008 VOL. 19 NO. 4 2017, pp. 269-286, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 2398-5038 DIGITAL POLICY, REGULATION AND GOVERNANCE PAGE 269
For the measurement of the “information society”, many proxies or indicators have been
developed using aggregate statistics and the application of largely quantitative methods to
gain insights into, amongst other things, e-Readiness, e-Leadership or the “digital divide”.
Taylor (2006) provides an introduction into the history of ICT indices starting in the early
1960s and the ongoing search for different information age indicators, which were
subsequently called information technology indicators, including telecommunications, the
internet, broadcasting and computing technology. Taylor notices that most of these
indicators use statistical analytics to correlate multiple factors to identify relationships
between information stocks, information flows and technology as well as other economic
and social factors. Many indicators combine national and international empirical data
sources. This raises the question of how to group these factors, how to define their relative
weightings[2] and how to build combinations of these. Taylor (2006, p. 15) concluded that
“the identification of approaches likely to yield meaningful data for developing an
exploratory and predictive understanding of the interactions of key information proxies with
other selected factors in the human environment” constitutes a “grand challenge” and
subsequently argued for an organised collective effort and the development of a “coherent
academic field of study” and in a first step to “establish mechanisms by which the relevant
documents and datasets could be more easily accessed and become readily available, the
various approaches systematically mapped, those interested could meet and exchange
ideas and develop cooperative ventures, and stakeholders could discuss their needs and
appraisal of the instruments and findings” (Menou and Taylor, 2006;Taylor and Zhang,
2007).
In this paper, we provide an overview of some of these indicators or indices and discuss
their inherent limitations before looking in-depth at one of the most popular of such
indicators, the Networked Readiness Index (NRI) that is published annually by the World
Economic Forum (Baller et al., 2016;Bilbao-Osorio et al., 2014; World Economic Forum,
2015). We do this in the specific context of Luxembourg, one of the smallest countries in the
world because Luxembourg has been trying over several years to improve its position
within the NRI. Luxembourg’s officials closely monitor the NRI and set the ambitious goal of
positioning the country in the “top 10” of this index (Cencetti, 2014). Luxembourg is often
overlooked in research despite its open and service-based economy, its central location in
Europe, its influence in the EU as one of the founding members and its leading position in
many international league tables in areas such as gross domestic product (GDP)/capita or
quality of life (STATEC, 2016). Furthermore, Luxembourg could be compared to an
economic or metropolitan region of larger countries, and, thus, looking at Luxembourg
might help to provide insights into other small and open economies with similar features
such as, for example, Singapore. We also provide a contribution to a better understanding
of the ICT sector in Luxembourg to fill this gap in existing research. Finally, we provide an
illustration of what governments might be able to achieve when coordinating their policy
and financial efforts to improve their countries’ positions in international rankings.
Government efforts and significant funds channelled to ICT developments (Binsfeld, 2013;
Binsfeld et al., 2014;SMC, 2010) have indeed allowed Luxembourg to reach, in 2015, a
position among the top ten countries in the world in terms of the NRI (Gouvernement du
Luxembourg, 2015b;Dutta et al., 2015;Zoenen, 2015) as well as in the International
Telecommunication Union’s ICT Development Index (Henry, 2013;International
Telecommunication Union, 2015;Iochem, 2014). The main objective of this paper is to
identify Luxembourg’s major strengths and weaknesses according to the NRI to draw
lessons about the relevance of this index for understanding the ICT ecosystem and to
identify areas in which additional policy initiatives could help further strengthen
Luxembourg’s position within this index.
The remainder of the document is structured as follows. The next section provides an
overview and discussion of the literature regarding different ICT-related measurements and
PAGE 270 DIGITAL POLICY, REGULATION AND GOVERNANCE VOL. 19 NO. 4 2017
To continue reading
Request your trial