World-class broadband
| Published date | 08 May 2017 |
| Date | 08 May 2017 |
| Pages | 189-209 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/DPRG-12-2016-0055 |
| Author | Ewan Sutherland |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Information management & governance,Information policy |
World-class broadband
Ewan Sutherland
Ewan Sutherland is
Visiting Adjunct Professor
at LINK Centre, University
of the Witwatersrand,
Johannesburg-
Braamfontein, South
Africa.
Abstract
Purpose –This paper aims to examine the aspiration to world-class broadband in a number of
countries.
Design/methodology/approach –This study includes a review of the various approaches taken by
countries, consultants and intergovernmental organisations.
Findings –The term “world class” is used relatively vaguely, without any significant link to long-term
improvements in national performance, rather to an aspiration to being close to the leaders.
Research limitations/implications –The use of benchmarking in lobbying needs further study, as
does the quality of lobbying.
Practical implications –Governments need to make explicit their policy aims in addition to any
world-class headline and need to aim for design improvement in their governance systems.
Originality/value –This is the first review of benchmarking of broadband at the national level.
Keywords Governance, Economic performance, Broadband networks, Benchmark, Competiveness
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Many countries have adopted national broadband plans (OECD, 2011;Roetter, 2013), with
targets to match or to beat their economic rivals and neighbours, some aim to be world
class, raising questions about the helpfulness of such a term and how benchmarking might
improve performance. Intentions to increase broadband availability and adoption are tied
to the desire to improve national competitiveness and productivity, generate economic
growth and create jobs by supporting foreign direct investment (FDI) and domestic
entrepreneurs; to capture network externalities; and to reduce geographic and social
inequalities. Broadband can also contribute to national image building, for example,
Singapore proclaims that there are “Many smart cities. One smart state”, and Rwanda uses
drones and mobile broadband to create a modernist façade for its autocracy (Newbury,
2011;Booth and Golooba-Mutebi, 2012). The different approaches reflect, in part, varieties
of capitalism (Hall, 2015), with governments preferring particular approaches to and
interventions concerning broadband, innovation, national competitiveness and public
investment in infrastructure.
The term world class seems to have originated in athletics to describe individuals
competing at the highest level, notably the Olympic Games (Doherty, 1957;Cumming,
1970).[1] It was borrowed to identify the changes required by manufacturers competing in
global markets, in particular, those in the USA and the UK trying to regain ground lost to
rivals in Japan (Schonberger, 1986;Womack et al., 1990;Oliver et al., 1994).
Benchmarking was used to identify world-class factories that might provide lessons about
essential business and engineering changes. There has been a similar interest in ranking
universities, to improve their performance, though disputed because of the challenges of
reducing complex institutions to single data points and objections to the, often robust,
managerialism seen as essential to drive the adoption of new practices (Altbach, 2012;
Shin, 2013;Shanghai Ranking Consultancy, 2016).[2] Business schools, more accepting of
This work was partly inspired
by the Scottish Government
policy objective and by a
submission to the Scottish
Parliament. A presentation on
this topic was made to the
Newcastle Business School,
for which opportunity the
author would like to thank
Jason Whalley.
DOI 10.1108/DPRG-12-2016-0055 VOL. 19 NO. 3 2017, pp. 189-209, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 2398-5038 DIGITAL POLICY, REGULATION AND GOVERNANCE PAGE 189
this approach than other academic disciplines, use rankings both in marketing and in
identifying potential improvements (Baden-Fuller et al., 2000;Wedlin, 2006). The approach
has even been applied by the Chartered Association of Business Schools to academic
journals, though its ranked list has been cruelly dismissed as fetishism, in which the place
of publication is more important than its content (Willmott, 2011;Cluley, 2014).
Ranking broadband performance serves similar purposes, highlighting best practices and
identifying lessons that might be learned, using simple indices such as adoption levels and
download speeds. Rather than managerial changes, improvements are sought for
institutions, legislation, policies and regulations and practices that might be transferred
from another country and adapted, though national differences and path dependencies
limit or may even preclude the achievement of some of the potential benefits. Statistics from
the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have been used as
one such competitive ranking (Table V and Figure 1), with poor performances being used
to put pressure on governments to change their policies. For example, Italy has sought to
improve its comparatively low level of broadband adoption (Cambini et al., 2016;Renzi,
2016;Reuters, 2016). However, the use of the OECD data as a league table resulted in
detailed critiques of the methodology and its interpretation (Beard et al., 2010), with the
Phoenix Center arguing that the USA (Ford, 2013a):
has a relatively high rate of intermodal competition;
leads the world in 4G/long-term evolution (LTE) mobile broadband adoption;
has very low entry-level broadband prices;
has relatively high average broadband speeds;
passes 82 per cent of homes with networks capable of 100 Mbps or better;
has the fastest deployment rate of fibre; and
is not a particularly profitable market for broadband providers.
Thus the, relatively stable position of the USA at 15th amongst OECD nations (Table V and
Figure 1) was held to be misleading and, even, meaningless (Hahn and Singer, 2013;Ford,
2013b).
Figure 1 Fixed broadband lines per 100 inhabitants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Switzerland
Denmark
Netherlands
France
Norway
Korea
United Kingdom
Iceland
Germany
Belgium
Canada
Sweden
Luxembourg
New Zealand
United States
Finland
Greece
Japan
Portugal
Czech Republic
Estonia
Austria
Spain
Australia
Ireland
Slovenia
Hungary
Israel
Italy
Slovak Republic
Poland
Chile
Turkey
Mexico
OECD
Colombia
Latvia
Other
Fixed wireless
Satellite
Fibre
Cable
DSL
Source: OECD (2015)
PAGE 190 DIGITAL POLICY, REGULATION AND GOVERNANCE VOL. 19 NO. 3 2017
To continue reading
Request your trial