Global E-Government, 2003 Click Here to Order E-Govt Data

 by Darrell M. West, Center for Public Policy

Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912-1977

Darrell_West@brown.edu

(401) 863-1163

September, 2003

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

A Note on Methodology

Online Information

Services Provided

Services by Top Nations

Privacy and Security

Security by Top Nations

Privacy by Top Nations

Disability Access

Foreign Language Access

Ads, User Fees, and Premium Fees

Restricted Areas

Public Outreach

Top E-Government Countries

Differences by Region of World

Conclusions

Appendix

Table A-1 E-Government Rankings by Country, 2003

Table A-2 E-Government Country Ratings, 2002 and 2003

Table A-3 Individual Country Profiles for Services, Privacy, Security, and Disability Access, 2003

Table A-4 Individual Country Profiles for Foreign Language Translation, and Ads, 2003

Table A-5 Best Practices of Top Government Sites, 2003

 

 

Executive Summary

This report presents the third annual update on global e-government, i.e., the delivery of public sector information and online services through the Internet. Using a detailed analysis of 2,166 government websites in 198 different nations, we measure the information and services that are online, chart the variations that exist across countries, and discuss how e-government sites vary by region of the world. We also see how the 2003 results compare to 2001 and 2002.

Among the more important findings of the research are:

1) 16 percent of government websites offer services that are fully executable online, up from 12 percent in 2002.

2) 89 percent of websites provide access to publications and 73 percent have links to databases.

3) 12 percent (down from 14 percent in 2002) show privacy policies, while 6 percent (down from 9 percent in 2002) have security policies.

4) 14 percent of government websites have some form of disability access, meaning access for persons with disabilities.

5) English has become the most commonly used language of e-government. Seventy-four percent of national government websites have an English version.

6) 51 percent of sites are multilingual, meaning that they offer information in two or more languages.

7) Countries vary enormously in their overall e-government performance based on our analysis. The most highly ranked nations include Singapore, United States, Canada, Australia, Taiwan, Turkey, Great Britain, Malaysia, the Vatican, and Austria.

8) There are major differences in e-government performance based on region of the world. In general, countries in North America score the highest, followed by Asia, Western Europe, Pacific Ocean Islands, Middle East, Eastern Europe, Russia and Central Asia, South America, Central America, and Africa.

A Note on Methodology

In our analysis of websites, we look for material that would aid an average citizen logging onto a governmental site. This includes material enabling a citizen to find information, services, and databases, features that would facilitate e-government access by special populations such as the disabled and non-native language speakers, interactive features that would facilitate outreach to the public, and visible statements that would reassure citizens worried about privacy and security over the Internet. During the course of our study, we look at a wide variety of political and economic systems, from monarchies, federated systems, and presidential democracies to parliamentary systems, dictatorships, and communist countries. In each system analyzed, we employ the same type of criteria in order to be able to compare the results across countries.

The data for our analysis consist of an assessment of 2,166 national government websites for the 198 nations around the world (see Appendix for the full list of countries). We analyze a range of sites within each country to get a full sense of what is available in particular nations. Among the sites analyzed are those of executive offices (such as a president, prime minister, ruler, party leader, or royalty), legislative offices (such as Congress, Parliament, or People's Assemblies), judicial offices (such as major national courts), Cabinet offices, and major agencies serving crucial functions of government, such as health, human services, taxation, education, interior, economic development, administration, natural resources, foreign affairs, foreign investment, transportation, military, tourism, and business regulation. Websites for subnational units, obscure boards and commissions, local government, regional units, and municipal offices are not included in this study. The analysis was undertaken during June, July, and August, 2003 at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. Tabulation for this project was completed by Adam Deitch, Vanessa Wellbery, Joanne Chiu, Erica Dreisbach, Toby Stein, Fredi Chango, Umut Ones, Irina Paley, and Yen-Ling Chang. National government website addresses can be found at www.InsidePolitics.org/world.html.

The regional breakdowns for the websites we studied are 21 percent from Western European countries, followed by 17 percent from Africa, 12 percent from Asia, 11 percent Eastern Europe, 8 percent the Middle East, 8 percent South America, 7 percent Pacific Ocean countries (meaning those off the Asian continent, 6 percent from Central America, 6 percent North America (which included Canada, the United States, and Mexico), and 5 percent Russia and Central Asia (such as the areas of the former Soviet Union).

Regardless of the type of system or cultural background of a country, websites are evaluated for the presence of various features dealing with information availability, service delivery, and public access. Features assessed included the name of the nation, region of the world, and having the following features: online publications, online database, audio clips, video clips, non-native languages or foreign language translation, commercial advertising, premium fees, restricted areas, user payments, disability access, privacy policy, security features, presence of online services, number of different services, digital signatures, credit card payments, email address, comment form, automatic email updates, website personalization, personal digital assistant (PDA) access, and an English version of the website.

For e-government service delivery, we look at the number and type of online services offered. Features are defined as services only if the entire transaction can occur online. If a citizen has to print out a form and then mail it back to the agency to obtain the service, we do not count that as a service that can be fully executed online. Searchable databases count as services only if they involved accessing information that result in a specific government service response.

Where national government websites are not in English, our research team employed foreign language readers who translate and evaluate national government websites. In some cases, we have made use of foreign language translation software available online through http://babelfish.altavista.com. Some of the non-English websites are assessed in part through English translations of portions of the websites.

Online Information

In looking at specific features of government websites, we want to see how much material was available that would inform citizens. Most agencies have made extensive progress at placing information online for public access. Eighty-nine percent of government websites around the world offer publications that a citizen could access (up from 77 percent in 2002), and 73 percent (down from 83 percent last year) provided databases.

Percentage of Websites Offering Publications and Databases

 

2001

2002

2003

Phone Contact Info.

70%

77%

--

Address Info

67

77

--

Links to Other Sites

42

82

--

Publications

71

77

89

Databases

41

83

73

Audio Clips

4

8

8

Video Clips

4

15

8

Most public sector websites do not incorporate audio clips or video clips on their official sites. Despite the fact that these are becoming much more common features of e-commerce and private sector enterprise, only 8 percent of government websites provide audio clips and 8 percent have video clips. A common type of audio clip is a national anthem or a musical selection.

Services Provided

Fully executable, online service delivery benefits both government and its constituents. In the long run, such services have the potential to lower the costs of service delivery and make services more widely accessible to the general public, because they no longer have to visit, write, or call an agency in order to execute a specific service. As more and more services are put online, e-government will revolutionize the relationship between government and citizens.

Of the websites examined around the world, however, 16 percent offer services that are fully executable online, which is up from 12 percent in 2002. Of this group, 9 percent offer one service, 3 percent have two services, and four percent have three or more services. Eighty-four percent have no online services.

Number of Online Services

 

2001

2002

2003

None

92%

88%

84%

One

5

7

9

Two

1

2

3

Three or more

2

3

4

The most frequently found service on government websites are forms for making complaints, ordering publications, applying for jobs, applying for passports, and renewing vehicle licenses.

North America (including the United States, Canada, and Mexico) is the area offering the highest percentage of online services. Forty-five percent (up from 41 percent last year) had fully executable, online services. This was followed by Asia (26 percent), the Middle East (24 percent), the Pacific Ocean islands (17 percent), and Western Europe (17 percent). Only 1 percent in Russia/Central Asia, 5 percent in Africa, and 6 percent of sites in Eastern Europe offer online government services.

Percentage of Government Sites Offering Online Services by Region of World

 

2001

2002

2003

North America

28%

41%

45%

Pacific Ocean Islands

19

14

17

Asia

12

26

26

Middle East

10

15

24

Western Europe

9

10

17

Eastern Europe

--

2

6

Central America

4

4

9

South America

3

7

14

Russia/Central Asia

2

1

1

Africa

2

2

5

One of the features that has slowed the development of online services has been an inability to use credit cards and digital signatures on financial transactions. On commercial sites, it is becoming a more common practice to offer goods and services online for purchase through the use of credit cards. However, of the government websites analyzed, only 2 percent accept credit cards and one-tenth of 1 percent allowed digital signatures for financial transactions (similar to last year). Among the sites having a capacity for digital signatures are the Singapore governmental office of statistics and Denmark's portal site.

Services by Top Nations

Of the 198 nations analyzed, there is wide variance in the number of online services provided by different governments. The country with the largest number of services is Singapore, with an average of 7.8 services across its government agencies. This is followed by the United States (4.8 services), Turkey (3.2 services), Hong Kong (3.1 services, and Taiwan (2.4 services). It is important to keep in mind that our definition of services included only those services that were fully executable online. If a citizen has to print out a form and mail or take it to a government agency to execute the service, we do not count that as an online service.

Number of Online Services

Singapore

7.8

United States

4.8

Turkey

3.2

Hong Kong

3.1

Taiwan

2.4

Bahrain

1.8

Saudi Arabia

1.2

China

1.2

Guinea-Bissau

1.0

Philippines

0.8

Oman

0.7

Switzerland

0.7

Venezuela

0.7

Spain

0.7

Yemen

0.6

Gambia

0.6

Great Britain

0.6

Canada

0.6

Privacy and Security

Public opinion surveys in various countries place concerns over privacy and security at the top of the list of citizen worries about e-government. Having visible statements outlining what the site is doing on privacy and security are valuable assets for reassuring a fearful population and encouraging citizens to make use of e-government services and information. However, few global e-government sites offer policy statements dealing with these topics. Only 12 percent (about the same as the 14 percent in 2002) of examined sites have some form of privacy policy on their site, and 6 percent have a visible security policy. Both of these are areas that government officials need to take much more seriously. Unless ordinary citizens feel safe and secure in their online information and service activities, e-government is not going to grow very rapidly.

 

2001

2002

2003

Privacy

6%

14%

12%

Security

3

9

6

Security by Top Nations

Despite the importance of security in the virtual world, there are wide variations across nations in the percentage of websites showing a security policy. The countries most likely to show a visible security policy are Singapore (90 percent of its sites), Canada (65 percent), and the United States (62 percent). This was followed by Australia (39 percent), New Zealand (30 percent), St. Lucia (25 percent), Great Britain (21 percent), Japan (15 percent), and Taiwan (12 percent). Most other nations do not have sites with a security statement.

Privacy by Top Nations

Similar to the security area, there are widespread variations across the nations in providing privacy policies on their websites. The countries with the highest percentage of websites offering a visible privacy policy are Australia and Dominica (each with 100 percent of its sites). These nations were followed by Canada (97 percent), Singapore (93 percent), China (83 percent), United States (75 percent), St. Lucia (50 percent), New Zealand (47 percent), Great Britain (45 percent), and Taiwan (42 percent). Most other countries do not offer privacy statements online.

Disability Access

This year, we altered our test of disability access by examining the actual accessibility of government websites, not just claims of accessibility. In the past, we looked at whether sites displayed TTY (Text Telephone) or TDD (Telephonic Device for the Deaf) phone numbers which allows hearing-impaired individuals to contact the agency by phone, provided text labels for graphics, or claimed that they were disability-accessible. This approach has the obvious disadvantage of not providing an actual test of accessibility so this year we use the automated online "Bobby" service at http://bobby.watchfire.com to test actual accessibility.

We use the standard of compliance with the Priority Level One standards recommended by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). For this test, we enter the URL of the particular agency being evaluated and use this "Bobby" analysis to determine whether the website complies with the W3C guidelines. Sites are judged to be either in compliance or not in compliance based on the results of this test.

According to this test, 14 percent of government websites are accessible to the disabled. This is lower than comparable numbers for the United States national government (47 percent), U.S. state government (33 percent), and U.S. urban government (20 percent).

Foreign Language Access

Fifty-one percent of national government websites have foreign language features that allow access to non-native speaking individuals. By foreign language feature, we mean any accommodation to the non-native speakers in a particular country, such as text translation into a different language. Many have no language translation on their site other than their native tongue.

 

2001

2002

2003

Foreign Language Translation

45%

43%

51%

Ads, User Fees, and Premium Fees

Many nations are struggling with the issue of how to pay for electronic governance. When defining an advertisement, we eliminate computer software available for free download (such as Adobe Acrobat Reader, Netscape Navigator, and Microsoft Internet Explorer) since they are necessary for viewing or accessing particular products or publications. Links to commercial products or services available for a fee were included as advertisements as were banner, pop-up, and fly-by advertisements.

As shown below, only 2 percent of government websites in 2003 rely on ads (down from 8 percent last year). There also is little reliance on (0.2 percent) or premium fees (0.2 percent).

The countries with the greatest reliance on advertisements include Sri Lanka, Tuvalu, Bhutan, Antigua, and Guinea-Bissau (each with 100 percent of its government websites having ads). This is followed by St. Vincent (50 percent), Belize (50 percent), and Russia (37 percent).

Examples of ads include the Laos Ministry of Tourism (hotel booking services), Maldives Tourism (advertisement for advertisers), Mongolia Foreign Affairs (mongolmedia.com), Pakistan Railway (advertisements for advertisers), Paraguay Tourism (Portugal Investment portugalinbusiness.com pop-up), Russian Federation Agriculture, Information, Economy, Finance, Foreign Affairs, Railway Transport, Tourist Office (Rambler's Top 100, spylog.com, and love boat singles cruise), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Nat'l Broadcasting (newmontrosehotel.com), Tuvalu Portal (allcasinoworld.com and jane's oceana page), Uruguay Portal/President (ITUraguay.com-"It's business. It's Uraguay."), Uruguay Tourism (vacation planning web sites with large banner ads for vende Uraguay), Belize Tourism and Trade (Radisson, KPMG, law offices), Vietnam Finance (accounting firm banner ad), Vietnam News Agency (magazine and newspaper advertising and econet banner ads), Yugoslavia Investment/Export (real estate services, KPMG banner ads), Bhutan Portal (tourist agencies), Taiwan Transport/Communications (tourist agencies and television station), Antigua and Barbuda Portal/Tourism (TNT Vacations, Jolly Roger Pirate Ship banner ads), Germany Environment (banner ad), Guinea-Bissau Portal (Intership Limited shipping company and WorldNews ads), Iran Tourism (travel agencies, private e-greetings site), Kazakhstan Economy (geocities pop-up), Kenya Investment Promotion (search-related ads), Korea Portal (correctkorea.net, learn to speak Korean online, travel agency banner ads), and Kyrgystan Mineral Resources (jewellernet.ru).

For user fees, the nation with the greatest employment is Taiwan, with 8 percent of its sites having user fees. Other nations relying on user fees are Oman (5 percent of its sites), Singapore (3 percent), and Switzerland (3 percent).

The only countries having premium fee areas are Afghanistan (100 percent), Barbados (25 percent), Taiwan (8 percent), and Canada (3 percent).

 

2001

2002

2003

Ads

4%

8%

2%

User Fees

--

1

0.2

Premium Fees

--

0

0.2

Restricted Areas

There has been no increase in countries having restricted areas on their websites that require a username and password for accessibility. This year, 6 percent of government websites across the world have restricted areas, the same as last year.

Examples of countries with website restricted areas include the Congo (100 percent of its sites), Madagascar (50 percent), Cook Islands (50 percent), Taiwan (42 percent), China (33 percent), Kuwait (33 percent), United States (30 percent), Oman (26 percent), Laos, Bahrain, Barbados, Belize, and Iran (each with 25 percent),

Public Outreach

E-government offers the potential to bring citizens closer to their governments. Regardless of the type of political system that a country has, the public benefits from interactive features that facilitate communication between citizens and government. In our examination of national government websites, we look for various features that would help citizens contact government officials and make use of information on websites.

Email is an interactive feature that allows ordinary citizens to pose questions of government officials or request information or services. In our study, we find that 84 percent (up from 75 percent in 2002) of government websites offered email contact material so that a visitor could email a person in a particular department other than the Webmaster.

Percentage of Government Websites Offering Public Outreach

 

2001

2002

2003

Email

73%

75%

84%

Search

38

54

--

Comments

8

33

31

Email Updates

6

10

12

Broadcast

2

2

--

Website Personalization

--

1

1

PDA Access

--

--

2

Thirty percent offer areas to post comments (other than through email), the use of message boards, and chat rooms. Websites using these features allow citizens and department members alike to read and respond to others' comments regarding issues facing the department. Twelve percent (up from 10 percent last year) of government websites allow citizens to register to receive updates regarding specific issues. With this feature, web visitors can input their email addresses, street addresses, or telephone numbers to receive information about a particular subject as new information becomes available. The information can be in the form of a monthly e-newsletter highlighting a prime minister's views or in the form of alerts notifying citizens whenever a particular portion of the website is updated. One percent of sites allow websites to be personalized to the interests of the visitor, and two percent provide personal digital assistant (PDA) access.

Top E-Government Countries

In order to see how the 198 nations ranked overall, we create a 0 to 100 point e-government index and apply it to each nation's websites based on the availability of publications, databases, and number of online services. Four points are awarded to each website for the presence of the following features: publications, databases, audio clips, video clips, foreign language access, not having ads, not having premium fees, not having restricted areas, not having user fees, disability access, having privacy policies, security policies, allowing digital signatures on transactions, an option to pay via credit cards, email contact information, areas to post comments, option for email updates, option for website personalization, and PDA accessibility. These features provide a maximum of 76 points for particular websites.

Each site then qualifies for a bonus of 24 points based on the number of online services executable on that site (1 point for one service, two points for two services, three points for three services, and on up to twenty-four points for twenty-four or more services). The e-government index runs along a scale from zero (having none of these features and no online services) to 100 (having all features plus at least 24 online services). Totals for each website within a country were averaged across all of that nation's websites to produce a zero to 100 overall rating for that nation.

The top country in our ranking is Singapore at 46.3 percent. This means that every website we analyzed for that nation has nearly half of the features important for information availability, citizen access, portal access, and service delivery. Other nations that score well on e-government include United States (45.3 percent), Canada (42.4 percent), Australia (41.5 percent), Taiwan (41.3 percent), Turkey (38.3 percent), Great Britain (37.7 percent), Malaysia (36.7 percent), the Vatican (36.5 percent), and Austria (36.0 percent). The Appendix lists e-government scores for each of the 198 countries, plus comparisons between 2002 and 2003.

Differences by Region of World

There are some differences in e-government by region of the world. In looking at the overall e-government scores by region, North America scores the highest (40.2 percent), followed by Asia (34.3 percent), Western Europe (33.1 percent), Pacific Ocean Islands (32.1 percent), Middle East (32.1 percent), Eastern Europe (32.0 percent), Russia and Central Asia (29.7 percent), South America (29.5 percent), Central America (28.6 percent), and Africa (27.6 percent).

E-Government Ratings by Region

 

2001

2002

2003

North America

51.0%

60.4

40.2

Western Europe

34.1

47.6

33.1

Eastern Europe

--

43.5

32.0

Asia

34.0

48.7

34.3

Middle East

31.1

43.2

32.1

Russia/Central Asia

30.9

37.2

29.7

South America

30.7

42.0

29.5

Pacific Ocean Islands

30.6

39.5

32.1

Central America

27.7

41.4

28.6

Africa

23.5

36.8

27.6

In looking at regional differences by particular feature, North America, Asia, and the Middle East rank most highly on services, while North America, Russia, and South America score highest on access to databases. The areas providing the greatest degree of accessibility through personal digital assistants (PDAs) is the Middle East.

Nor Am

Cent Am

S. Am

WesEur

Eas

Eur

Rus

Mid Eas

Afri

Asia

Pac Oc

Publication

96

87

94

96

92

98

80

79

90

82

Database

87

77

83

78

74

85

56

60

78

72

Audio Clip

18

10

7

6

6

4

10

6

10

7

Video Clip

17

4

8

9

7

4

8

2

18

3

Foreign Lang

26

9

8

64

100

60

78

33

67

25

Ads

1

4

2

0

1

10

2

1

5

1

Prem Fee

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

User Fee

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

Restrict

17

5

5

3

3

2

16

4

13

5

Privacy

57

5

1

7

0

1

7

3

26

33

Security

43

2

0

2

0

0

3

0

14

14

Disability

38

5

6

16

10

4

22

10

9

29

Services

45

9

14

17

7

1

24

5

26

17

Credit Cards

17

0

0

2

0

0

3

0

2

5

Digital Sign

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Email

94

87

91

92

87

80

71

72

82

85

Comment

50

33

29

36

19

12

32

20

43

31

Updates

33

6

14

15

6

5

10

6

14

16

Personal

3

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

PDA Access

0

0

0

0

0

0

16

0

2

2

Conclusions

To summarize, we find that progress has been made over the past year in the extent to which helpful material has been placed online. More countries have put a number of services online. For example, Singapore and the United States are two countries that are especially impressive in the range of e-services provided. The web site with the best access to services (and with the most number of services of all web sites evaluated) was the "eCitizen" site of Singapore (www.ecitizen.gov.sg). The site offers a total of 104 services ranging from inquiring about housing loans to applying for a visa.

In evaluating international website performance, however, there were a number of problems. The difficult that most impeded efficient browsing was the slow loading speed of many sites. Slow servers made it very difficult and time-consuming to effectively ascertain information about a country and almost impossible to execute online transactions.

In addition, sites that do not have privacy policies should post them; those that do should make them more visible. Whereas the expectation is that a link to a privacy policy is included on the bottom of every page of a web site, this was often not the case. On some sites, use of a site's search option was required to find the privacy policy. Many sites have legal statements like disclaimers or copyrights that define the webmaster or government's legal liabilities. They rarely include pertinent details regarding the rights of the user.

Many web sites have links to "services" and "e-services" that are not actually either. These links typically lead a user to details about a manual service offered by the department or ministry or to a form in PDF-format that one can download and then mail in. While a step toward online government, the fact that these documents are not fully executable online limits their utility.

Some sites boasted that they were approved by the "Bobby" disability access test, but were not accessible in reality. Others had special links to disability-friendly versions of the site that also did not pass the Bobby test. Overall, few international websites were accessible for the disabled. While disability access is an e-government priority in some countries, it is obviously not considered when most countries design and edit their web sites.

The most emphatic recommendation in regard to many sites is regular updates. Many web sites were blatantly outdated, both in appearance and content. Though updated aesthetics are not necessarily imperative, old information is not very useful. Some sites included a "Last Updated On" date that rendered the site unaltered for more than three or four years. The inclusion of the date on which a site was last updated is a valuable means by which a site can maintain citizen interest, unless, of course, this option proves a web site ancient.

Some web sites offered the ability to e-mail some or all members of a department or ministry directly from the site, without the need for the user to have his or her own e-mail address. By clicking on the name or address of an employee, the citizen is directed to an online comment form. Such an option increases the accessibility of the site and does not limit the response options to those with e-mail addresses.

Many international web sites include "Kid's Pages"-parts of the site with games, interactive quizzes, and animated characters aimed at attracting and educating children. Though a few of these sections proved unhelpful, many have interesting and informative content.

Appendix

Note: The following table shows e-government rank orderings for the 198 countries, from most highly ranked to least highly ranked.

Table A-1 E-Government Rankings by Country, 2003

Singapore

46.3

United States

45.3

Canada

42.4

Australia

41.5

Taiwan

41.3

Turkey

38.3

Great Britain

37.7

Malaysia

36.7

Vatican

36.5

Austria

36.0

Switzerland

35.9

China

35.9

New Zealand

35.5

Finland

35.5

Philippines

35.5

Denmark

35.5

Maldives

35.2

St. Lucia

35.0

Hong Kong

34.5

Germany

34.4

Netherlands

34.3

Iceland

34.3

Japan

34.2

Tajikistan

34.0

Belgium

34.0

Colombia

33.9

Czech Republic

33.8

France

33.8

Bahrain

33.8

Mexico

33.7

Portugal

33.6

Israel

33.3

Cyprus (Republic)

33.3

Norway

33.2

Italy

33.2

Croatia

33.2

Slovakia

32.8

Romania

32.8

Brunei

32.8

East Timor

32.6

Nepal

32.5

Thailand

32.4

Yugoslavia

32.3

Tunisia

32.2

Poland

32.2

Azerbaijan

32.0

Bahamas

32.0

Palau

32.0

Qatar

32.0

Sao Tome and Principe

32.0

Slovenia

32.0

Somalia

32.0

Somaliland

32.0

Syria

32.0

Togo

32.0

Belize

32.0

Uzbekistan

32.0

Chile

32.0

Congo (Dem. Rep.)

32.0

Cote d'Ivoire

32.0

North Korea

32.0

Sweden

31.8

South Africa

31.8

Saudi Arabia

31.8

Djibouti

31.7

Ukraine

31.6

Bulgaria

31.4

Spain

31.3

Peru

31.3

Cambodia

31.0

Latvia

30.9

Estonia

30.9

Greece

30.9

Armenia

30.9

Georgia

30.8

Jordan

30.8

Lebanon

30.7

Bangladesh

30.7

Kuwait

30.7

Lithuania

30.5

Micronesia

30.5

Vietnam

30.5

Fiji

30.4

Ethiopia

30.3

Bosnia and Herzegovina

30.1

India

30.1

Belarus

30.0

Sudan

30.0

Botswana

30.0

Haiti

30.0

South Korea

30.0

Hungary

29.9

Oman

29.8

Trinidad and Tobago

29.5

Ireland

29.4

Argentina

29.4

Gambia

29.4

Brazil

29.4

Andorra

29.3

Russia

29.3

Nicaragua

29.2

Pakistan

29.1

Nigeria

29.0

Barbados

29.0

Guinea-Bissau

29.0

Yemen

28.9

Morocco

28.9

Jamaica

28.9

Luxembourg

28.7

Venezuela

28.7

Dominican Republic

28.7

Mongolia

28.6

Uruguay

28.5

Kazakhstan

28.4

Albania

28.3

Ecuador

28.3

Honduras

28.2

El Salvador

28.1

Afghanistan

28.0

Macedonia

28.0

Mali

28.0

Mauritania

28.0

Moldova

28.0

Myanmar

28.0

Niue

28.0

Panama

28.0

St. Kitts

28.0

St. Vincent

28.0

Samoa

28.0

Senegal

28.0

Seychelles

28.0

Turkmenistan

28.0

Tuvalu

28.0

Bolivia

28.0

Burundi

28.0

Algeria

28.0

Comoros

28.0

Cyprus (Turkish Republic)

28.0

Egypt

28.0

Antigua and Barbuda

28.0

Guatemala

28.0

Iran

28.0

Uganda

27.7

Malta

27.6

Burkina Faso

27.4

Arab Emirates

27.4

Kiribati

27.0

Kyrgyzstan

26.9

Dominica

26.7

Paraguay

26.7

Liechtenstein

26.5

Mauritius

26.5

Cape Verde

26.4

Ghana

26.3

Cuba

26.2

Namibia

26.2

Zambia

26.1

Niger

26.0

Guyana

26.0

Kenya

25.7

Mozambique

25.5

Rwanda

25.3

Cameroon

25.1

Swaziland

25.0

Grenada

25.0

Monaco

24.5

San Marino

24.2

Libya

24.0

Madagascar

24.0

Sierra Leone

24.0

Sri Lanka

24.0

Tonga

24.0

Zimbabwe

24.0

Benin

24.0

Bhutan

24.0

Central Africa

24.0

Chad

24.0

Congo (Republic)

24.0

Cook Islands

24.0

Costa Rica

24.0

Angola

24.0

Equatorial Guinea

24.0

Eritrea

24.0

Indonesia

24.0

Iraq

24.0

Tanzania

23.3

Malawi

22.7

Guinea

22.7

Papua New Guinea

22.4

Lesotho

21.7

Liberia

20.0

Marshall Islands

20.0

Suriname

20.0

Vanuatu

20.0

Solomon Islands

19.2

Laos

19.0

Nauru

16.0

Gabon

16.0

 

Table A-2 E-Government Country Ratings, 2002 and 2003

Country

2002

2003

Afghanistan

32.0%

28.0%

Albania

34.0

28.3

Algeria

35.2

28.0

Andorra

39.0

29.3

Angola

44.0

24.0

Antigua

36.0

28.0

Arab Emirates

38.0

27.4

Argentina

41.8

29.4

Armenia

43.3

30.9

Australia

58.3

41.5

Austria

47.4

36.0

Azerbaijan

41.3

32.0

Bahamas

40.0

32.0

Bahrain

52.0

33.8

Bangladesh

29.3

30.7

Barbados

38.0

29.0

Belarus

33.2

30.0

Belgium

45.3

34.0

Belize

48.0

32.0

Benin

26.0

24.0

Bhutan

28.0

24.0

Bolivia

32.0

28.0

Bosnia

42.7

30.1

Botswana

48.0

30.0

Brazil

41.8

29.4

Brunei

35.5

32.8

Bulgaria

41.1

31.4

Burkina Faso

38.4

27.4

Burundi

24.0

28.0

Cambodia

40.8

31.0

Cameroon

34.9

25.1

Canada

61.1

42.4

Cape Verde

42.0

26.4

Central Africa

32.0

24.0

Chad

36.0

24.0

Chile

60.0

32.0

China

56.3

35.9

Colombia

48.0

33.9

Comoros

34.0

28.0

Congo (Rep)

24.0

24.0

Congo Dem Rep

28.0

32.0

Cook Islands

38.7

24.0

Costa Rica

40.7

24.0

Croatia

43.4

33.2

Cuba

48.0

26.2

Cyprus (Turkish Rep)

40.0

28.0

Cyprus-Republic

38.0

33.3

Czech Republic

44.6

33.8

Denmark

47.0

35.5

Djibouti

40.0

31.7

Dominican Republic

40.0

28.7

Dominica

16.0

26.7

East Timor

24.0

32.6

Ecuador

47.0

28.3

Egypt

41.0

28.0

El Salvador

47.0

28.1

Equatorial Guinea

32.0

24.0

Eritrea

36.0

24.0

Estonia

48.0

30.9

Ethiopia

40.0

30.3

Fiji

52.0

30.4

Finland

48.8

35.5

France

50.9

33.8

Gabon

32.0

16.0

Gambia

32.0

29.4

Georgia

38.7

30.8

Germany

52.6

34.4

Ghana

32.0

26.3

Great Britain

54.8

37.7

Greece

41.5

30.9

Grenada

44.0

25.0

Guatemala

38.7

28.0

Guinea

37.3

22.7

Guinea-Bissau

20.0

29.0

Guyana

42.7

26.0

Haiti

44.0

30.0

Honduras

36.0

28.2

Hong Kong

51.3

34.5

Hungary

42.3

29.9

Iceland

49.8

34.3

India

45.1

30.1

Indonesia

40.8

24.0

Iran

44.0

28.0

Iraq

33.6

24.0

Ireland

48.0

29.4

Israel

50.9

33.3

Italy

48.3

33.2

Ivory Coast

28.0

32.0

Jamaica

40.0

28.9

Japan

52.0

34.2

Jordan

46.3

30.8

Kazakhstan

36.0

28.4

Kenya

44.0

25.7

Kiribati

36.0

27.0

Kuwait

32.0

30.7

Kyrgyzstan

45.3

26.9

Laos

40.0

19.0

Latvia

46.9

30.9

Lebanon

45.0

30.7

Lesotho

36.0

21.7

Liberia

40.0

20.0

Libya

32.0

24.0

Liechtenstein

48.0

26.5

Lithuania

48.4

30.5

Luxembourg

44.6

28.7

Macedonia

45.1

28.0

Madagascar

36.0

24.0

Malawi

45.3

22.7

Malaysia

51.5

36.7

Maldives

48.0

35.2

Mali

34.0

28.0

Malta

47.2

27.6

Marshall Islands

48.0

20.0

Mauritania

37.3

28.0

Mauritius

40.6

26.5

Mexico

52.0

33.7

Micronesia

40.0

30.5

Moldova

40.0

28.0

Monaco

32.0

24.5

Mongolia

37.1

28.6

Morocco

40.9

28.9

Mozambique

44.0

25.5

Myanmar

34.9

28.0

Namibia

28.0

26.2

Nauru

24.0

16.0

Nepal

44.0

32.5

Netherlands

44.0

34.3

New Zealand

42.3

35.5

Nicaragua

32.0

29.2

Niger

32.0

26.0

Nigeria

32.0

29.0

Niue

30.0

28.0

North Korea

36.0

32.0

Norway

47.7

33.2

Oman

36.0

29.8

Pakistan

37.3

29.1

Palau

36.0

32.0

Panama

39.5

28.0

Papua New Guinea

25.3

22.4

Paraguay

40.0

26.7

Peru

36.0

31.3

Philippines

42.4

35.5

Poland

45.1

32.2

Portugal

36.4

33.6

Qatar

52.0

32.0

Romania

42.0

32.8

Russia

36.8

29.3

Rwanda

36.0

25.3

Samoa

36.0

28.0

San Marino

36.0

24.2

Sao Tome

36.0

32.0

Saudi Arabia

38.0

31.8

Senegal

47.0

28.0

Seychelles

39.0

28.0

Sierra Leone

32.0

24.0

Singapore

53.5

46.3

Slovakia

40.5

32.8

Slovenia

41.7

32.0

Solomon Islands

30.4

19.2

Somalia

32.0

32.0

Somaliland

36.0

32.0

South Africa

42.0

31.8

South Korea

64.0

30.0

Spain

44.9

31.3

Sri Lanka

38.7

24.0

St. Kitts

36.0

28.0

St. Lucia

47.3

35.0

St. Vincent

36.0

28.0

Sudan

44.0

30.0

Suriname

32.0

20.0

Swaziland

46.2

25.0

Sweden

49.1

31.8

Switzerland

55.4

35.9

Syria

40.0

32.0

Taiwan

72.5

41.3

Tajikistan

40.0

34.0

Tanzania

33.8

23.3

Thailand

44.0

32.4

Togo

52.0

32.0

Tonga

40.0

24.0

Trinidad

46.4

29.5

Tunisia

44.0

32.2

Turkey

46.0

38.3

Turkmenistan

28.0

28.0

Tuvalu

40.0

28.0

Uganda

47.2

27.7

Ukraine

32.0

31.6

United States

60.1

45.3

Uruguay

32.0

28.5

Uzbekistan

27.3

32.0

Vanuatu

52.0

20.0

Vatican

52.0

36.5

Venezuela

48.0

28.7

Vietnam

38.0

30.5

Yemen

50.0

28.9

Yugoslavia

40.0

32.3

Zambia

52.0

26.1

Zimbabwe

36.0

24.0

 

Note: The following table shows the percentage of websites in each country that have each feature, such as online services, publications, databases, privacy policies, security policies, and disability accessibility.

Table A-3 Individual Country Profiles for Selected Features, 2003

 

Online Services

Publications

Data bases

Privacy Policy

Security Policy

W3C Disability

Accessibility

Afghanistan

0%

100%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Albania

0

92

58

0

0

0

Algeria

0

62

41

3

0

32

Andorra

10

100

80

0

0

0

Angola

0

100

75

0

0

0

Antigua

0

100

100

0

0

0

Arab Emirates

20

80

60

0

0

0

Argentina

18

94

82

6

0

18

Armenia

11

100

78

11

0

0

Australia

16

100

94

100

39

71

Austria

0

100

100

0

0

0

Azerbaijan

0

100

100

0

0

0

Bahamas

0

100

0

0

0

0

Bahrain

25

75

75

0

0

0

Bangladesh

0

67

100

0

0

17

Barbados

0

100

50

0

0

0

Belarus

0

100

83

0

0

0

Belgium

8

100

92

15

0

0

Belize

0

100

75

0

0

0

Benin

0

100

0

0

0

0

Bhutan

0

100

0

0

0

0

Bolivia

0

100

100

0

0

0

Bosnia

22

78

56

0

0

0

Botswana

0

100

50

0

0

0

Brazil

15

100

95

0

0

0

Brunei

0

60

60

0

0

0

Bulgaria

0

100

57

0

0

0

Burkina Faso

20

80

100

0

0

20

Burundi

0

100

100

0

0

0

Cambodia

0

88

75

0

0

13

Cameroon

0

73

55

0

0

9

Canada

45

97

87

97

65

61

Cape Verde

14

86

57

0

0

0

Central Africa

0

0

0

0

0

0

Chad

0

100

100

0

0

100

Chile

0

100

93

7

0

7

China-Mainland

67

100

100

83

8

0

China -Taiwan

100

100

100

42

12

0

Colombia

30

100

100

0

0

10

Comoros

0

100

100

0

0

0

Congo-Dem Rep

0

100

100

0

0

0

Congo-Rep

0

100

100

0

0

0

Cook Islands

0

100

50

0

0

0

Costa Rica

0

100

0

0

0

0

Cote d'Ivoire

0

100

100

0

0

0

Croatia

17

100

67

0

0

33

Cuba

0

44

67

0

0

22

Cyprus-Rep

7

100

93

0

0

7

Cyprus-Turk

0

100

100

0

0

0

Czech Rep

6

100

89

0

0

56

Denmark

13

93

67

7

0

27

Djibouti

10

100

80

0

0

10

Dominica

0

100

0

100

0

0

Dominican Rep

0

100

100

0

0

0

East Timor

0

79

71

0

0

0

Ecuador

7

100

87

0

0

7

Egypt

0

100

100

0

0

0

El Salvador

11

89

89

0

0

0

Eq Guinea

0

0

0

0

0

100

Eritrea

0

0

0

0

0

100

Estonia

0

100

64

0

0

0

Ethiopia

0

86

71

0

0

0

Fiji

17

92

92

0

0

8

Finland

7

100

100

0

0

13

France

16

100

94

0

0

6

Gabon

0

0

0

0

0

0

Gambia

20

60

80

0

0

0

Georgia

0

90

60

0

0

30

Germany

37

100

73

0

0

20

Ghana

0

93

71

0

0

0

Great Britain

24

100

93

45

21

48

Greece

0

100

64

9

9

0

Grenada

0

75

50

0

0

0

Guatemala

0

100

70

0

0

0

Guinea

0

67

67

0

0

0

Guinea-Bissau

100

100

100

0

0

0

Guyana

0

50

50

0

0

50

Haiti

0

50

50

0

0

100

Honduras

17

100

67

0

0

17

Hong Kong

15

10

90

30

0

40

Hungary

5

75

60

0

0

15

Iceland

5

100

80

0

0

30

India

5

95

85

0

0

0

Indonesia

0

100

0

0

0

0

Iran

0

75

0

0

0

0

Iraq

0

100

0

0

0

0

Ireland

16

100

16

26

0

26

Israel

6

88

50

25

0

13

Italy

0

95

90

0

0

20

Jamaica

15

85

60

5

0

0

Japan

0

100

100

15

15

25

Jordan

20

75

65

5

5

0

Kazakhstan

0

100

100

0

0

0

Kenya

6

47

41

0

0

6

Kiribati

33

33

0

0

0

67

Korea, North

0

100

0

0

0

0

Korea, South

0

93

29

7

0

0

Kuwait

8

83

25

0

0

58

Kyrgyzstan

0

100

100

0

0

0

Laos

0

0

25

25

0

0

Latvia

0

55

36

0

0

18

Lebanon

0

67

56

0

0

22

Lesotho

0

100

0

0

0

43

Liberia

0

0

0

0

0

0

Libya

0

100

0

0

0

0

Liechtenstein

50

50

50

0

0

0

Lithuania

8

85

69

0

0

15

Luxembourg

10

85

80

10

0

10

Macedonia

0

100

0

0

0

0

Madagascar

0

50

0

0

0

0

Malawi

0

50

50

0

0

33

Malaysia

0

100

67

17

0

33

Maldives

0

80

40

0

0

40

Mali

0

100

100

0

0

0

Malta

20

80

60

40

0

0

Marshall Islands

0

100

0

0

0

0

Mauritania

0

100

67

0

0

0

Mauritius

0

92

46

0

0

8

Mexico

15

100

95

0

0

5

Micronesia

50

100

100

0

0

50

Moldova

0

100

0

0

0

0

Monaco

50

0

0

0

0

50

Mongolia

0

71

86

0

0

0

Morocco

5

86

91

0

0

0

Mozambique

0

88

13

0

0

0

Myanmar

0

67

67

0

0

33

Namibia

0

85

77

8

0

0

Nauru

0

0

0

0

0

0

Nepal

0

88

63

0

0

13

Netherlands

17

90

70

13

0

30

New Zealand

23

100

100

47

30

57

Nicaragua

9

91

91

0

0

0

Niger

0

0

50

0

0

0

Nigeria

0

88

75

13

0

0

Niue

0

100

100

0

0

100

Norway

0

97

73

0

0

3

Oman

21

84

26

5

0

58

Pakistan

13

83

78

4

4

4

Palau

0

100

100

0

0

0

Panama

13

80

87

0

0

3

Papua New Guinea

8

58

42

0

0

0

Paraguay

4

74

61

0

0

4

Peru

13

100

93

0

0

3

Philippines

30

97

87

13

0

0

Poland

3

97

77

3

0

3

Portugal

13

100

83

3

0

20

Qatar

0

67

33

0

0

67

Romania

4

92

85

0

0

4

Russia

0

100

95

5

0

0

Rwanda

0

75

50

0

0

8

Sao Tome

0

100

100

0

0

0

St. Kitts/Nevis

0

100

33

0

0

33

St. Lucia

0

100

100

50

25

25

St. Vincent

0

100

0

0

0

0

Samoa

0

100

60

0

0

0

San Marino

20

80

0

0

0

0

Saudi Arabia

24

76

58

6

0

27

Senegal

0

100

92

0

0

0

Seychelles

0

43

43

0

0

0

Sierra Leone

0

100

0

0

0

0

Singapore

67

97

77

93

90

13

Slovakia

10

100

86

0

0

14

Slovenia

10

90

71

0

0

3

Solomon Islands

0

16

5

0

0

0

Somalia

0

100

0

0

0

100

Somaliland

0

100

100

0

0

0

South Africa

17

100

97

7

0

7

Spain

33

100

93

3

0

10

Sri Lanka

0

0

100

0

0

0

Sudan

0

100

50

0

0

25

Suriname

0

0

0

0

0

0

Swaziland

0

50

0

0

0

0

Sweden

10

100

80

0

0

0

Switzerland

40

10

90

3

0

17

Syria

0

100

100

0

0

0

Tajikistan

0

100

50

0

0

50

Tanzania

0

45

9

0

0

0

Thailand

0

100

78

0

0

0

Togo

0

100

100

0

0

0

Tonga

0

0

0

0

0

0

Trinidad

16

89

74

16

11

0

Tunisia

20

100

60

0

0

0

Turkey

73

97

97

13

13

0

Turkmenistan

0

100

0

0

0

0

Tuvalu

0

100

0

0

0

0

Uganda

11

89

44

0

0

0

Ukraine

5

100

89

0

0

0

United States

67

100

95

75

62

47

Uruguay

20

93

87

0

0

7

Uzbekistan

0

100

100

0

0

0

Vanuatu

0

100

0

0

0

0

Vatican

50

100

100

0

0

0

Venezuela

28

92

76

0

0

4

Vietnam

0

100

100

0

0

13

Yemen

7

43

36

0

0

36

Yugoslavia

6

100

88

0

0

0

Zambia

13

100

63

0

0

0

Zimbabwe

0

50

50

0

0

0

Note: The following table shows the percentage of websites in each country that have each feature, such as foreign language translation, advertisements, premium fees, restricted areas, user fees, and search engines.

Table A-4 Individual Country Profiles for Selected Features, 2003

 

For Lang

Ads

Prem Fee

Restrict Area

User Fee

Comments

Afghanistan

100%

0%

100%

0%

0%

0%

Albania

100

0

0

0

0

0

Algeria

70

0

0

11

0

24

Andorra

40

0

0

0

0

10

Angola

0

0

0

0

0

0

Antigua

0

100

0

0

0

100

Arab Emirates

100

0

0

20

0

20

Argentina

6

0

0

0

0

6

Armenia

100

11

0

11

0

22

Australia

13

3

0

6

0

29

Austria

0

0

0

0

0

100

Azerbaijan

100

0

0

0

0

0

Bahamas

0

0

0

0

0

100

Bahrain

100

0

0

25

0

25

Bangladesh

100

0

0

0

0

17

Barbados

25

25

25

25

0

75

Belarus

67

0

0

0

0

0

Belgium

54

0

0

8

0

62

Belize

25

50

0

25

0

75

Benin

0

0

0

0

0

0

Bhutan

100

100

0

0

0

0

Bolivia

0

0

0

0

0

0

Bosnia

100

11

0

0

0

11

Botswana

0

0

0

0

0

50

Brazil

10

0

0

10

0

40

Brunei

100

0

0

0

0

100

Bulgaria

100

0

0

0

0

14

Burkina Faso

20

0

0

20

0

20

Burundi

0

0

0

0

0

0

Cambodia

100

13

0

0

0

13

Cameroon

0

0

0

0

0

18

Canada

3

0

3

6

0

39

Cape Verde

0

0

0

0

0

14

Central Africa

0

0

0

0

0

100

Chad

0

0

0

0

0

0

Chile

7

0

0

7

0

40

China-Mainland

46

0

0

33

0

33

China -Taiwan

100

4

8

42

8

54

Colombia

0

0

0

0

0

70

Comoros

0

0

0

0

0

0

Congo-Dem Rep

100

0

0

0

0

0

Congo-Rep

0

0

0

100

0

0

Cook Islands

0

0

0

50

0

0

Costa Rica

0

0

0

0

0

0

Cote d'Ivoire

0

0

0

0

0

0

Croatia

100

0

0

0

0

0

Cuba

67

0

0

0

0

0

Cyprus-Rep

100

0

0

0

0

29

Cyprus-Turk

100

0

0

0

0

0

Czech Rep

100

0

0

6

0

6

Denmark

100

0

0

0

0

20

Djibouti

0

0

0

0

0

40

Dominica

0

0

0

0

0

100

Dominican Rep

17

0

0

17

0

17

East Timor

93

0

0

0

0

86

Ecuador

0

0

0

7

0

20

Egypt

100

0

0

0

0

0

El Salvador

0

0

0

11

0

22

Eq Guinea

100

0

0

0

0

0

Eritrea

100

0

0

0

0

0

Estonia

100

0

0

0

0

9

Ethiopia

100

0

0

0

0

14

Fiji

8

0

0

8

0

33

Finland

100

0

0

0

0

53

France

56

0

0

0

0

22

Gabon

0

0

0

0

0

0

Gambia

0

0

0

0

0

40

Georgia

100

0

0

0

0

0

Germany

50

3

0

3

0

57

Ghana

0

0

0

0

0

14

Great Britain

21

0

0

0

0

55

Greece

100

0

0

0

0

9

Grenada

0

0

0

0

0

0

Guatemala

0

0

0

10

0

30

Guinea

0

0

0

0

0

0

Guinea-Bissau

100

100

0

0

0

0

Guyana

0

0

0

0

0

0

Haiti

0

0

0

0

0

0

Honduras

0

0

0

0

0

17

Hong Kong

0

0

0

5

0

20

Hungary

100

0

0

5

0

20

Iceland

100

0

0

0

0

40

India

0

0

0

0

0

50

Indonesia

0

0

0

0

0

0

Iran

100

25

0

25

0

50

Iraq

100

0

0

0

0

0

Ireland

5

0

0

0

0

53

Israel

81

6

0

13

0

31

Italy

50

0

0

5

0

25

Jamaica

0

0

0

5

0

55

Japan

100

0

0

0

0

15

Jordan

100

0

0

15

0

30

Kazakhstan

89

22

0

11

0

0

Kenya

100

6

0

6

0

12

Kiribati

0

0

0

0

0

33

Korea, North

100

0

0

0

0

0

Korea, South

100

21

0

0

0

43

Kuwait

83

0

0

33

0

58

Kyrgyzstan

43

14

0

0

0

0

Laos

50

25

0

25

0

25

Latvia

100

0

0

0

0

36

Lebanon

100

0

0

11

0

78

Lesotho

0

0

0

0

0

0

Liberia

0

0

0

0

0

0

Libya

100

0

0

0

0

0

Liechtenstein

100

0

0

0

0

0

Lithuania

100

0

0

0

0

8

Luxembourg

5

0

0

5

0

20

Macedonia

100

0

0

0

0

0

Madagascar

100

0

0

50

0

0

Malawi

0

0

0

0

0

0

Malaysia

100

17

0

17

0

83

Maldives

100

20

0

20

0

80

Mali

0

0

0

0

0

0

Malta

0

0

0

20

0

20

Marshall Islands

0

0

0

0

0

0

Mauritania

33

0

0

0

0

0

Mauritius

23

0

0

0

0

0

Mexico

45

0

0

10

0

60

Micronesia

0

0

0

0

0

50

Moldova

100

0

0

0

0

0

Monaco

100

0

0

0

0

0

Mongolia

100

14

0

0

0

0

Morocco

27

0

0

9

0

23

Mozambique

50

0

0

0

0

0

Myanmar

100

0

0

0

0

0

Namibia

0

0

0

0

0

0

Nauru

0

0

0

0

0

0

Nepal

100

0

0

0

0

42

Netherlands

100

0

0

0

0

43

New Zealand

0

0

0

10

0

37

Nicaragua

9

0

0

4

0

30

Niger

100

0

0

0

0

0

Nigeria

0

0

0

0

0

38

Niue

0

0

0

0

0

100

Norway

100

0

0

0

0

52

Oman

89

0

0

26

5

32

Pakistan

9

4

0

9

0

52

Palau

100

0

0

0

0

0

Panama

3

0

0

3

0

30

Papua New Guinea

0

0

0

0

0

0

Paraguay

4

4

0

0

0

26

Peru

20

0

0

0

0

33

Philippines

100

0

0

0

0

60

Poland

100

0

0

0

0

17

Portugal

47

3

0

3

0

53

Qatar

83

0

0

0

0

17

Romania

100

0

0

0

0

31

Russia

63

37

0

0

0

0

Rwanda

0

0

0

8

0

25

Sao Tome

0

0

0

0

0

0

St. Kitts/Nevis

0

0

0

0

0

33

St. Lucia

0

0

0

0

0

50

St. Vincent

0

50

0

0

0

100

Samoa

0

0

0

0

0

20

San Marino

0

0

0

0

0

20

Saudi Arabia

88

3

0

18

0

33

Senegal

8

0

0

8

0

8

Seychelles

100

0

0

0

0

29

Sierra Leone

0

0

0

0

0

0

Singapore

0

0

0

17

3

67

Slovakia

100

0

0

0

0

5

Slovenia

100

0

0

10

0

23

Solomon Islands

0

0

0

0

0

0

Somalia

100

0

0

0

0

100

Somaliland

100

0

0

0

0

0

South Africa

0

0

0

7

0

50

Spain

27

0

0

13

0

20

Sri Lanka

100

100

0

0

0

0

Sudan

100

0

0

0

0

0

Suriname

0

0

0

0

0

0

Swaziland

100

0

0

0

0

0

Sweden

100

0

0

0

0

7

Switzerland

93

0

0

0

3

47

Syria

100

0

0

0

0

0

Tajikistan

100

0

0

0

0

50

Tanzania

100

0

0

0

0

0

Thailand

100

0

0

11

0

22

Togo

0

0

0

0

0

100

Tonga

100

0

0

0

0

62

Trinidad

0

0

0

0

0

42

Tunisia

80

0

0

0

0

60

Turkey

10

0

0

13

0

27

Turkmenistan

100

0

0

0

0

0

Tuvalu

0

100

0

0

0

100

Uganda

0

0

0

11

0

78

Ukraine

68

5

0

11

0

37

United States

40

2

0

30

0

52

Uruguay

7

13

0

7

0

7

Uzbekistan

100

0

0

0

0

0

Vanuatu

0

0

0

0

0

0

Vatican

100

0

0

0

0

0

Venezuela

4

4

0

12

0

24

Vietnam

100

25

0

13

0

25

Yemen

86

0

0

0

0

14

Yugoslavia

100

6

0

0

0

6

Zambia

0

13

0

0

0

13

Zimbabwe

0

0

0

0

0

0

 

Table A-5 Best Practices of Top Government Sites

1) Singapore (http://www.ecitizen.gov.sg/)

Singapore's wide array of sites is highlighted by an e-service portal. Virtually all Singaporean web sites have links to this clearinghouse of citizen services and information. The "eCitizen" site boasts over one hundred services (the most of all web sites evaluated in this study). Other sites contain a large amount of press releases, speech texts, and databases. The relative prevalence of privacy statements, audio and video clips, and PDA access also distances Singapore's web sites from those of other nations. Two other notable web sites are that of the Housing and Development Board and the Singapore Police Force (SPF), offering 38 and 17 e-services, respectively.

2) United States (http://www.firstgov.gov/)

The United States offers the most organized portal web site of any country. Information and services are easy to find and logically placed. It is also the quintessential portal because it effectively agglomerates publications, databases, and services from all governmental web sites and provides accessible links to them. Whereas most portal web sites provide an eclectic sampling of documents and links to the home pages of government departments and ministries, the United States portal is defined by navigable links to well-defined information and services. Except for many of the judicial web sites, privacy policies are both detailed and easy to find. Two especially notable departmental web sites are that of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Postal Service (USPS), offering 64 and 20 online services, respectively.

3) Canada (http://www.gc.ca/)

The Canadian web portal is another example of a site defined by functionality and ease of use. Perusal of reports, guides, and other publications is simplified by search and organization options; one can browse by title, subject, or order of release. The Canadian portal also offers updates and customization options. Regarding all of Canada's web sites, all but one contain a visible privacy statement and more than half comply with disability access standards.

4) Australia (http://www.fed.gov.au/KSP/)

Like the portals of the United States and Canada, that of Australia proves to be well-organized and designed. The ability for the user to categorize him/herself as a student, business, or other governmental organization mimics similar options at the two aforementioned portals and provides a neat way to narrow the site. Unlike those sites, however, the Australian portal excels aesthetically in its successful incorporation of color without diminishing its disability access compliance. In fact, an overwhelming majority of Australian web sites comply with current online disability standards. Remarkable, too, is the fact that one hundred percent of Australian web sites accessed in this study contain visible privacy statements. An impressive percentage of sites also offer the option to receive e-mail updates on events and publications.

5) Taiwan (http://www.mof.gov.tw/)

Taiwan offers an excellent array of web sites. Among the data collected on Taiwan's e-government capabilities, most impressive is that one hundred percent of the sites evaluated offer services that are fully executable online. One especially distinguished site is that of the Ministry of Finance, which offers several e-services as well as a wide assortment of publications and databases. Though no single site offers more than a few e-services, the universal ability to complete a variety of transactions online continues to set Taiwan apart from other countries. Additionally, all sites evaluated contain both publications and databases, rendering each site especially useful to the average citizen.