The ICT Development Index 2023

Measuring digital development

December 2023

Disclaimers

The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of ITU or of the secretariat of ITU concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by ITU in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted; the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters.

All reasonable precautions have been taken by ITU to verify the information contained in this publication. However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader.

The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of ITU or its membership.

ISBN

978-92-61-38471-5 (Electronic version)
978-92-61-38481-4 (EPUB version)
978-92-61-38491-3 (Mobi version)

© ITU 2023

Some rights reserved. This work is licensed to the public through a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 3.0 IGO license (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO).

Under the terms of this licence, you may copy, redistribute and adapt the work for non-commercial purposes, provided the work is appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that ITU endorse any specific organization, products or services. The unauthorized use of the ITU names or logos is not permitted. If you adapt the work, then you must license your work under the same or equivalent Creative Commons licence. If you create a translation of this work, you should add the following disclaimer along with the suggested citation: “This translation was not created by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). ITU is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original English edition shall be the binding and authentic edition”. For more information, please visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/

Foreword

In 2009, ITU introduced the first IDI, which became an important tool for policymakers in charge of the digital agenda. After a six-year hiatus, we resume its publication based on new methodology, which has been developed through an inclusive and iterative process.

We have come a long way since the first mobile phone call fifty years ago and the birth of the Internet a decade later. The Internet has become an indispensable part of our daily lives, ushering in new forms of communication, entertainment, expression, and collaboration.

Today, there are more mobile phone subscriptions than people on the planet, and two-thirds of the global population uses the Internet, yet divides across and within countries continue to exacerbate social and economic inequalities.

I am pleased to note that the new ICT Development Index (IDI) presented here puts universal and meaningful connectivity at its heart. Ensuring that everyone has a safe, satisfying, enriching and productive online experience at an affordable cost is an imperative for this decade and one of our strategic goals.

Measurement is critical for achieving universal and meaningful connectivity. Data help us understand where we have been, where we are, and where we need to go. Data enable us to identify priorities, design effective interventions, monitor progress, and hold ourselves accountable. To this end, ITU has been collecting, disseminating, and analysing ICT data for decades.

The results of the IDI 2023 reveal significant progress in embracing and investing in connectivity, with a global average score of 73 out of 100. However, it is crucial to look beyond group averages and recognize that many countries are still struggling. The IDI confirms the very close relationship between overall development and digital development and exposes the deep divides that persist between rich and poor countries.

While the IDI provides a valuable snapshot of connectivity around the world, its development process has exposed the limitations of our current knowledge. There is a pressing need for countries to invest in their statistical capabilities and improve the availability of ICT indicators.

To support countries in measuring connectivity, ITU will continue to provide guidelines, data collection tools, capacity and skills development activities, and technical assistance.

I want to express my deep gratitude to the Member States and to the members and the Chairs of the Expert Group on Household ICT Indicators (EGH) and of the Expert Group on Telecommunication/ICT Indicators (EGTI) for contributing to the development of the new IDI methodology. I am also thankful to the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission for their pro bono statistical audit of the IDI methodology.

The journey towards a fully and meaningfully connected world is far from over, but armed with the right data, tools, and commitment, we can make significant strides in ensuring that everyone can reap the benefits of digital connectivity and contribute to a more inclusive and sustainable future.

Cosmas Luckyson Zavazava
Director, ITU Telecommunication Development Bureau

1 Introducing the ICT Development Index

In 1973 – fifty years ago – on a New York street, the first-ever mobile phone call was placed, from a device that weighed two kilos. Ten years later, the Internet in its current technical configuration was born, though it did not fully enter public consciousness until a user-friendly version, the World Wide Web, emerged in the 1990s.

The advent of mobile telephony and of the Internet have transformed connectivity, and indeed humanity. Today, there are more mobile phone subscriptions than people on the planet. Two-thirds of the world's population use the Internet. The Internet is woven into the entire fabric of our daily lives.

Yet, one-third of the world’s population remain offline, and even among the nominally online population, many are not meaningfully connected. Multiple digital divides persist, across and within countries, between men and women, between youth and older persons, between cities and rural areas, and between those who enjoy an ultra-fast fixed-broadband connection and those who struggle on a shaky connection. Some 400 million people are entirely beyond the reach of a mobile-broadband network.[1]

The catalytic and enabling role of connectivity for sustainable development is recognized in the Sustainable Development Goals. The Internet offers significant economic benefits and has the potential to enhance welfare for individuals throughout their lives. It has given rise to new forms of communication, entertainment, expression, and collaboration. Where traditional services are lacking, it gives access to an enormous amount of knowledge, learning resources, and job opportunities. The benefits of connectivity are considerable for everyone, including marginalized and vulnerable groups, though they are often the least connected.

Depriving vast swaths of humanity of the possibilities offered by connectivity and the Internet is unacceptable and costly, as it hinders economic development and deepens inequalities. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed those digital divides and their impacts. For those privileged enough to be connected, the Internet allowed a measure of continuity. For the others, the pandemic exacerbated the cost of digital exclusion.

The pandemic also made it clear that the quality of connectivity mattered. Many applications of connectivity, such as those involving videos, and vast areas of the digital economy, require fast and reliable connections that many Internet users do not have or cannot afford.

In 2021, as part of the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and the Office of the UN Secretary-General’s Envoy on Technology (OSET) introduced a set of targets for universal and meaningful connectivity, to capture both the universality imperative and the quality imperative for connectivity to deliver on its promises.

Universal and meaningful connectivity (UMC) is the possibility for everyone to enjoy a safe, satisfying, enriching and productive online experience at an affordable cost. The concept of UMC has gained considerable traction and is one of the two goals of the ITU strategic plan.

The role of data in achieving UMC is crucial and yet too often underestimated. Data tell where we were, where we are and where we ought to be. They help us identify priorities, design efficient interventions, monitor progress, and hold us accountable. Data can also be a powerful tool for advocacy. For decades, ITU has been collecting, disseminating, and analysing ICT data, recognizing the importance of data in fulfilling the organization mission of connecting the world.

In 2009, as part of those efforts, ITU introduced the first ICT Development Index (IDI). The benefits of using an index have led to their proliferation over the past two decades, despite some limitations (see Table 1).

Table 1: Benefits, limitations and risks of composite indicators

Benefits: an index...

Risks and limitations: an index...

• serves as an entry point for complex, multi-dimensional issues.

• through successive aggregations, reduces the size of a set of indicators without dropping the underlying information.

• enables benchmarking over time and across units of analysis (e.g., countries, cities, companies), thus allowing for the purpose of monitoring progress, evaluating impact, setting priorities, identifying good practices, enhancing accountability, etc.

• can support advocacy efforts and help communicate with a broader, non-expert audience.

• enables users to compare complex dimensions effectively.

• may fail to capture the idiosyncrasies of each unit.

• may conceal disparities within units.

• may promote unhealthy competition among units instead of fostering collaboration.

• may undermine the quality and integrity of data if data providers’ if focus is on improving performance in the index.

• may lead to misguided policies, if poorly constructed and/or misinterpreted.

• may be a source of bias if constructed only to produce the desired results, serve a specific agenda, or favour one or several units.

• may lead to misguided policies if methodological limitations or time lags are not taken into consideration.

• may hamper meaningful change if interventions are designed only to improve performance in the index.

Over the years, the original IDI became a reference tool for policy-makers in charge of the ICT agenda. However, the IDI was discontinued in 2018, as attempts to update the methodology were unsuccessful. In October 2022, the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference adopted a revised version of Resolution 131. The text provided fresh guidance for developing a new IDI methodology, which was approved by Members States in November 2023 (see Box 1). The present iteration of the IDI thus resumes after a six-year hiatus.

Box 1: A brief history of the IDI since 2009

Created to measure the level of development of the information and communication technology sector (ICT), the ICT Development Index (IDI) is a composite indicator first published in 2009 by ITU. Publication was discontinued after 2017, owing to issues of data availability and quality.

In March 2017 an extraordinary meeting of the Expert Group on ICT Household Indicators (EGH) and Expert Group on Telecommunication/ICT Indicators (EGTI) adopted a revised set of indicators to be included in the IDI. The increase in the number of indicators from 11 to 14 created an additional challenge for many countries in collecting and submitting quality data, which would have required estimating 58 per cent of the data points when computing the 14-indicator IDI. There were further issues with the comparability and quality of the data submitted, and with the methodology used to compute the redefined indicators. Consequently, the new IDI based on 14 indicators was not released.

Attempts were made in 2019 and 2020 to address the issues with the new IDI, but the proposals for an entirely new index did not achieve consensus among the ITU Member States. In October 2022, the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in Bucharest adopted a revised text of Resolution 131. This new text defined, inter alia, the process for developing and adopting a new methodology for the IDI and some features of the IDI itself.

The new IDI methodology was developed by the ITU Secretariat and the two expert groups, EGTI and EGH, in close consultation with Member States. In October 2023 the new IDI methodology was approved by the Member States and therefore adopted. The methodology will be valid for a period of four years (see history of the IDI for more information).

In addition to the general limitations of composite indicators, the development of the new IDI presented some specific challenges:

• Limited data availability imposed constraints on the choice of indicators included in the IDI and forced trade-offs between the depth, completeness, and timeliness of the assessment on the one hand and country coverage on the other (as per Resolution 131, the IDI must “cover a majority of Member States”). For several enablers of UMC, indicators do not exist; for others, they exist, but the supporting data is unusable, either due to inadequate availability, quality or comparability, or because it is only available from non-official sources. ITU is committed to helping countries addresses the challenge of data availability and quality as well as developing new indicators for some of the missing concepts, through EGTI and EGH.

• The consultative and inclusive process for developing the IDI involved many stakeholders, including representatives from national ICT regulation authorities, ministries, statistical offices, business associations, academia, the private sector and civil society. During the first expert consultation in February 2023, over 200 EGTI and EGH members joined the online discussion forum dedicated to the IDI and almost 100 comments on the methodology were received. In September 2023, 347 participants from 105 countries attended the second meeting on the IDI methodology. Some of the methodological choices are the result of compromises between diverse, diverging or even opposing views. For fixed-broadband penetration, the participants decided in favour of scaling the number of fixed broadband subscriptions by households, rather than per capita, which has traditionally been used. However, internationally comparable data on the number of households is not available, and consequently fixed-broadband penetration is not included in the IDI.

For these reasons, the new IDI only provides a partial assessment of a country’s state of connectivity. Hundreds of otherwise valid and valuable ICT indicators, including dozens that are collected by ITU, do not meet the criteria for inclusion. Stakeholders and users of the IDI who are concerned with the connectivity agenda must therefore complement their analysis of the IDI results with additional data, information and evidence. Those additional resources include ITU data tools such as the ITU DataHub, the Dashboard for Universal and Meaningful Connectivity, the ICT Regulatory Tracker, the Digital Regulation Platform, and the Global Cybersecurity Index; publications, including the Measuring Digital Development and the Global Digital Regulatory Outlook series; and guidelines, such as the ITU Manual for Measuring ICT Access and Use by Households and Individuals, the ITU Handbook for the Collection of Administrative Data on Telecommunications/ICT, and the Digital Regulation Handbook.

The rest of this section introduces the main aspects of the methodology of the ICT. For more detailed information about the development of the IDI methodology and its various iterations, including in terms of indicator selection, see “Methodology of the ICT Development Index: Version 3.1”.

Conceptual framework

The first step in constructing a composite indicator consists in identifying a conceptual framework that will define the objective of the index and guide the selection of indicators. Given its relevance and centrality to the ITU mission (see above), the concept of universal and meaningful connectivity was put at the heart of the conceptual framework that would guide the development of the new IDI. The objective of the IDI is thus to assess the extent to which a country’s connectivity is universal and meaningful. Figure 1 depicts the analytical framework that guided the development of the IDI.

Figure 1: Universal and meaningful connectivity framework

Achieving universal connectivity implies that people, households, communities, and businesses, are connected. Universal connectivity for the people means anyone can connect regardless of their urban or rural location, gender, level of education, etc. Universal connectivity for households, communities and businesses means that the places where people live, work, learn and interact are connected.

Meaningful connectivity depends on several factors, called “connectivity enablers”: infrastructure, affordability, device, skills, and safety and security. Each of these enablers play an important role in making connectivity meaningful:

• Meaningful connectivity requires high-quality infrastructure that is not only in place and functioning but allows for a fast and reliable connection. The framework adopts a technology-neutral approach. Satellite connectivity and fixed and mobile terrestrial networks all can contribute to connecting people to the Internet.

• Affordable devices and ICT services are essential for enabling people to go online. Affordability is a relative concept that depends on people’s social and economic conditions.

• Access to an Internet-enabled device is required to go online. This can be a mobile phone or a desktop computer; a basic-model phone is cheaper, while a computer allows for a richer experience. For mobile phones, it is important to distinguish between use and ownership: merely having access to a device that one does not actually own imposes constraints, including when and for how long one can be online.

• An important barrier keeping people from going online or fully benefiting when they are online is a lack of skills. Meaningful use of the Internet requires that people are digitally literate.

• A safe and secure Internet is important for people to have the trust to go online.

The analytical framework defines the scope, but also sets the boundaries of the exercise. The following aspects of connectivity are outside the scope of the framework:

• Levers. Enablers of connectivity representing areas where policymakers and other stakeholders can intervene using tools such as investment, policies, and regulation. They are not included in the framework as it is deliberately agnostic about the means to improve on the various factors: there is no single pathway and no one-size-fits-all policy mix that can be prescribed to all countries.

• Catalysts. Broader factors and trends, such as economic development and technological innovation, that contribute to improving the quality enablers.

• Content and services. These are treated as a lever: the more content and services are available, accessible, and relevant, the more likely people are to connect. Content and services are an enabler of connectivity, but they do not directly influence the quality of connectivity, which is what the frameworks aims to assess.

• Applications. The framework is deliberately agnostic about what people do with connectivity. The exercise is about measuring the use and quality of connectivity, rather than assessing what people do online.

• Impacts. By extension, the societal, environmental, and economic impacts of connectivity and its applications are well beyond the scope of the exercise.

The fact that these aspects are beyond the scope of the IDI does not mean that they are not important. They are and need to be studied in conjunction with the IDI for a fuller picture.

Composition and computation of the IDI

For the structure of the index, the conceptual framework naturally suggests two main components – or pillars – that take into account the two dimensions of connectivity: that it should be meaningful and universal. The selection of indicators to populate each component was based on six criteria:

1. Measuring one aspect of universal and meaningful connectivity and having policy relevance.

2. Easy to interpret, with a clear impact on universal and meaningful connectivity.

3. Relying primarily on official data provided by Member States, based on internationally recognized and transparent methodologies.

4. Collected coherently by countries according to the harmonized methodology developed by ITU expert groups EGTI/EGH or by another international organization.

5. Having a sufficiently high variation to distinguish country performance and signal progress over time.

6. Availability of recent data for as many of the 196 considered economies as possible, to ensure the broadest coverage possible and reduce reliance on estimates.

The universal connectivity pillar would ideally include indicators on individuals, households, communities, and businesses, covering the main places where people can connect, namely at home, in schools and community centres, and at work. However, the IDI uses only indicators on households and individuals, owing to limited data availability.

The meaningful connectivity pillar would ideally contain indicators that capture the five enablers of connectivity: infrastructure, affordability, device, skills, and safety and security. However, limited data availability and the constraint of using primarily official data, allow to assess three of the five enablers: infrastructure, affordability and device. And even for these three enablers, assessment is only partial. Figure 2 shows the composition and structure of the IDI.

Figure 2: Structure of the ICT Development Index

Note: The indicators Percentage of the population covered by at least a 3G mobile network and Percentage of the population covered by at least a 4G/LTE mobile network have been combined into one indicator. See Annex 3 for indicator definitions.

Data sources and reference period

The reference period for computing the IDI released in year y is always y-2. The present, 2023 edition therefore covers the reference year 2021. Where an official data point is not available for 2021 but is available for 2020, the 2020 value has been used. For inclusion in IDI 2023, official data for 2020 or 2021 have to be available for at least five of the 10 indicators.

A value is estimated or imputed only if no official value is available for 2021 or 2020. The instructions of Resolution 131 are to rely primarily on official data, and to use other sources or estimates only as a last resort. Detailed documentation on estimation and imputation methods is available on the IDI 2023 webpage. A country can reject values estimated by ITU, in which case it is excluded from the IDI since computing the IDI score requires a full dataset. Finally, Resolution 131 stipulates that a country can opt out of any edition of the IDI.

Based on these criteria, 169 economies are included in the IDI 2023. The IDI 2023 data set consists of 1 690 data points (169 economies and 10 indicators), out of which 325 rely on estimates (19 per cent).

Outlier treatment and normalization

The indicator values include missing data points and outliers. To ensure that IDI scores can be computed based on a statistically robust dataset, outliers need to be treated. It was possible to deal with most of the outliers simply by setting thresholds and goalposts. The right-most column of Table 2 reports additional treatment for residual outliers, if any was required. Specifically for the two traffic indicators, a logarithmic transformation was applied which corrects for the very skewed distribution.[2]

Table 2: Goalposts, thresholds, and outlier treatment

Indicator

Threshold

Goalpost

Additional
treatment

Universal connectivity indicators

Individuals using the Internet (%)

0%

95%

Not needed

Households with Internet access at home (%)

0%

95%

Not needed

Mobile-broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants

0

95th percentile

Not needed

Meaningful connectivity indicators

Population covered by at least a 3G mobile network (%)

0%

100%

Not needed for the two coverage indicators combined

Population covered by at least a 4G/LTE mobile network (%)

0%

100%

Mobile broadband Internet traffic per subscription (GB)

0

95th percentile, projected

Log transformation applied

Fixed broadband Internet traffic per subscription (GB)

0

95th percentile, projected

Log transformation applied

Mobile data and voice high-consumption basket price (% GNI p.c.)*

95th percentile

1%

Not needed

Fixed-broadband Internet basket price (as % GNI p.c.)*

95th percentile

1%

Not needed

Individuals owning a mobile phone (%)

0%

95%

Not needed

* The direction of the affordability indicators is reversed, hence a score of 100 is assigned for values below the goalpost and a score of zero for values above the threshold. See Table 4 for the actual value of the goalposts defined based on percentiles of the distribution. Gross national income per capita (GNI p.c.). Gigabyte (GB).

The indicators are measured on different scales and expressed in different units. Normalization is applied to bring all indicators on a common scale. The most common and intuitive method has been applied. This is the min-max approach, which rescales indicators onto an identical range of 0 to 100 by subtracting the threshold value for the given indicator across all economies from each value and dividing by the difference between goalpost and threshold values of the indicator. Table 2 above reports the values of the goalposts and thresholds. Formally, we have:

where scorei,c is the normalized score of country c’s value for indicator i,

valuei,c is the value of the data point from country c on indicator i,

thresholdi is the minimum value for indicator i, and

goalposti is the target value for indicator i.

For any value at or below the threshold value, scorei,c is 0; for any value at or above the goalpost, scorei,c is 100. In the case of the two affordability indicators, where lower values indicate stronger performance, the directionality is reversed:

Aggregation and weighting

Aggregation consists in combining the different components of the IDI, starting with the individual indicators, to produce the overall IDI score. In the case of the IDI, aggregation is done in two steps: 1) aggregation of individual indicator scores into pillar scores; and 2) aggregation of the pillar scores into the overall IDI score (Figure 3).

In the absence of clear conceptual and statistical justifications, the neutral approach, consisting of applying equal weights at each level of aggregation, has been preferred.

The universal connectivity pillar consists of three indicators. The pillar score is the mean of the normalized scores for these three indicators.

The meaningful connectivity pillar comprises seven indicators, two of which – percentage of the population covered by at least a 3G mobile network and percentage of the population covered by at least a 4G/LTE mobile network – are combined into a single mobile broadband coverage indicator by taking a weighted average, 0.4 for the 3G score and 0.6 for the 4G/LTE score. The overall score under the meaningful connectivity pillar is then computed as the mean of six scores: the combined mobile broadband coverage score and the scores for the five remaining indicators for that pillar.

In a second step of aggregation, the IDI scores are computed as the arithmetic mean of the meaningful and universal connectivity scores. Box 2 shows how to compute the IDI score for a country.

Figure 3: Weighting and aggregation

* Six indicators, including mobile network coverage, which is composed of two sub-indicators (see Figure 2).

Box 2: Example of IDI score calculation

This table shows how to calculate the IDI score, assuming fictive, but plausible values for the 10 indicators.

Indicator

Value

Threshold

Goalpost

Formula

Score

Ref.

More information:

Annex 2

Table 2

Table 2

Outlier treatment and normalization' section

0-100

Universal connectivity pillar

Individuals using the Internet (%)

87.4

0

95

min-max

92.0

u_1

Households with Internet access at home (%)

89.3

0

95

min-max

94.0

u_2

Mobile-broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants

105.7

0

150

min-max

70.5

u_3

Pillar score

(u_1 + u_2 + u_3)/3

85.5

u

Meaningful connectivity pillar

Population covered by at least a 3G mobile network (%)

99.2

m_1_a

Population covered by at least a 4G/LTE mobile network (%)

98.5

m_1_b

Coverage

0

100

0.4 x m_1_a + 0.6 x m_1_b

98.8

m_1

Mobile broadband Internet traffic per subscription (GB)

123.3

0

500

log transformation and min-max: ln(m_2 + 1) -ln(1)) / (ln(m_2 + 1) - ln(1)) x 100

77.6

m_2

Fixed broadband Internet traffic per subscription (GB)

2908.6

0

10000

log transformation and min-max: ln(m_3 + 1) -ln(1)) / (ln(m_3 + 1) - ln(1)) x 100

86.6

m_3

Mobile data and voice high-consumption basket price (% GNI p.c.)

1.0

21.33

1

min-max (reversed)

100

m_4

Fixed-broadband Internet basket price (as % GNI p.c.)

1.4

33.30

1

min-max (reversed)

98.8

m_5

Individuals owning a mobile phone (%)

93.8

0

95

min-max

98.8

m_6

Pillar score

(m_1 + m_2 + m_3 + m_4 + m_5 + m_6)/6

93.4

m

IDI score

(u + m)/2

89.5

Statistical audit

In August 2023, at the request of ITU, the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Union conducted a pro bono preliminary statistical audit of the IDI. The audit looked at the IDI methodology then under development (Version 3), using the data available at the time, with two objectives: to check the characteristics of the data and any potential limitations due to missing data and outliers; and to examine the statistical impact that aggregating indicators into the two pillars and into the overall IDI would have. JRC concluded that the IDI was statistically sound and robust. That conclusion was borne out when JRC conducted another audit using the final IDI methodology (Version 3.1) and data in November 2023. The full JRC audit report is available on the IDI 2023 webpage.

2 ICT Development Index 2023: Results

The 2023 edition of the ICT Development Index includes 169 economies. Table 3 reports the scores for the overall ICT Development Index 2023, the universal connectivity pillar, and the meaningful connectivity pillar. For each economy, the averages of the corresponding ITU region and income group are reported as benchmarks. Box 3 provides guidance on interpreting and using the IDI results. Annex 1 gives a comprehensive report of country values and scores for all the indicators of the IDI. Additional data and notes are available for download on the IDI 2023 webpage.

In accordance with Resolution 131, only scores are reported. Economies are not ranked. This approach focuses on what matters: how close are individual countries and groups to universal and meaningful connectivity, and how much progress have they achieved? It allows meaningful comparison with relevant benchmarks related to income groups and regions. It reflects the fact that connectivity is neither a competition among countries nor a zero-sum game: progress is not achieved at the expense of other countries; all countries can achieve UMC. A ranking-based approach would automatically designate one country as number one, with unhelpful and misleading implications. For instance, even if all countries in a given group were scored at 95 out of 100 or higher, there would still be a country ranked first and another ranked last, despite the minimal gap between them in terms of achieving UMC.

Box 3: Interpreting and using the IDI results

The results of the IDI should be interpreted and used with caution. They must always be complemented and corroborated by additional information and evidence for the following reasons:

A partial picture. Important dimensions of UMC are missing from the IDI (see above). Consequently, a robust performance in the IDI does not necessarily mean that UMC has been achieved, because performance could be lacking in dimensions of UMC that are not included in the IDI.

Time lag. Because of the lag in the submission, processing and validation of official national data, the assessment in IDI 2023 is based on country data for the year 2021, or, where that was unavailable, for 2020; in some cases, and as a last resort, it reflects estimates for 2021. It should be borne in mind furthermore that 2020 and 2021 were anomalous years due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

No unique recipe. The performance of a peer may not be attainable in the short term. Each country has its own characteristics, faces its own challenges, and must follow its own development path. Although the IDI can help suggest successful practices, these are not necessarily replicable or scalable.

No time comparison. One of the main benefits of an index is tracking progress over time. The present report being the first edition of the new IDI, such a time series is currently not possible. Importantly, the results of the IDI 2023 cannot be compared with previous editions of the IDI (2017 and earlier) because the methodologies are completely different.

Drill down. The analysis of the IDI should obviously not be limited to the overall IDI score. The IDI score is the result of two levels of aggregation (aggregation of indicators into pillars, then pillars into the overall IDI) and can therefore conceal disparities among pillars and individual indicators.

Disparities within countries. Country-level values measure the ‘average’ situation of a country. They conceal the – sometimes vast – disparities across regions and demographic groups. A good (or bad) result in an indicator, pillar or the overall IDI does not mean that the situation is good (or bad) everywhere and for everyone in the country. To design effective interventions, policy-makers must look beyond national averages and use data disaggregated by location and demographic groups.

Estimations and imputations. Even with the reduced set of indicators in the IDI, 19 per cent of the values are estimated or imputed, and every indicator contains at least one estimated or imputed value. While every effort is made to make them as accurate as possible, estimates and imputed values are not perfect substitutes for real values.

Revised data. Following a first submission, countries sometimes submit corrected data one or even two years later. Resolution 131 prevents ITU from revising the results of the index after publication.

Table 3: IDI 2023 scores

Notes: Univ. score = universal connectivity pillar score; M. score = meaningful connectivity pillar score. Regions: AFR = Africa; AMS = Americas; ARB = Arab States; ASP = Asia-Pacific; CIS = Commonwealth of Independent States; EUR = Europe. Income groups: LI = low-income; LMI = lower-middle-income; UMI = upper-middle-income; HI = high-income.

The average IDI score for the world is 72.8 out of 100.[3] The 100 mark corresponds to a situation where a country or group has reached the goalpost value on every indicator of the IDI. A score of zero corresponds to the hypothetical situation where there is no connectivity at all: nobody uses the Internet; nobody is covered by a mobile-broadband network; there are no mobile-broadband subscriptions; no data traffic is generated, etc.

The lowest score in IDI 2023 is 20.0, the highest 98.2 out of 100. Figure 4 shows the distribution of countries along the 0-100 scale for the overall IDI and its two pillars. Thirty-three countries have an IDI score between 90 and 100. Another 47 countries have a score between 80 and 90. At the other end of the scale, 30 countries score below 50, and a further 9 lie between 50 and 60. These results suggest that the world has made significant progress towards UMC, with half of the countries almost at or past the 80-point mark (median of 78.7). Still, half of countries are spread across a 60-point range, with a few scoring in the low 20s. Additionally, as mentioned above, the IDI does not capture all the aspects of the UMC framework, such as fixed broadband penetration, Internet speed, ICT skills, or safety.

Figure 4: Distribution of IDI 2023 scores and pillar scores

Note: The horizontal axis shows the pillar and IDI scores, the height of the bars indicates the frequency. The red dotted lines indicate the average scores.

The IDI results can be used to show the strong correlation between digital development and overall development. Figure 5 shows a logarithmic plot of the IDI 2023 results against gross national income per capita (GNI p.c.), a proxy for development. The relationship is not strictly linear: at low levels of income, small income differences are typically associated with very large IDI score differences.

The average IDI score of low-income countries is 31.5, while for lower-middle-income countries it is 62.0, a 30-point difference (see Figure 6 and Table 3 for income classification). There is only a 14-point difference between the average scores of lower-middle-income countries and upper-middle-income countries (76.4). Between the latter group and high-income countries, the difference is also 14 points. Above a GNI p.c. of 20 000 USD at purchasing power parity (PPP$), the curve starts to flatten out: higher income is associated with decreasing improvements in IDI score. Beyond 40 000 PPP$, the relationship no longer holds – a higher income level is not necessarily associated with a better IDI performance. The close relationship between connectivity and income level does not allow to establish causality. In fact, as Figure 1 illustrates, the relationship works both ways: connectivity drives economic development and more development leads to more connectivity, thus creating a virtuous cycle.

There is a strong, positive correlation between IDI performance and income levels, approximated with GNI per capita (see Figure 5). Income scales exponentially, but IDI performance follows a linear progression: as income increases, a given increase in income is associated with ever smaller increases in IDI score. Several factors likely contribute to this result. Part of it is driven by the selection and transformation of indicators. The IDI components were selected based on relevance and availability for countries across the development ladder to cover the most countries possible. At the same time, some aspects of UMC are not covered in the IDI (e.g., high-speed fixed broadband, 5G network coverage, ICT skills) that may better distinguish the performance of high-income economies. In addition, a logarithmic transformation is applied to fixed and mobile Internet traffic per subscription, the only two indicators that appear to scale exponentially, to better align with the scale of the other indicators. Finally, the observed relationship between IDI performance and income levels also suggests that richer countries have more mature digital ecosystems where there is simply less room for growth.

Figure 5: IDI performance and income

Source: World Bank for GNI.

Figure 6: Distribution of IDI scores by income group

Note: The horizontal axis shows the IDI scores, with each black tick representing an individual country score. The vertical axis indicates the distribution density. The red lines mark the group average values.

There are speculations that it would be easier to connect smaller areas or more densely-populated areas. Figure 7 shows that this is not the case. The correlation between the IDI 2023 scores on the one hand and population, population density and land area on the other is zero (with population) or almost zero (with the other two indicators).

Figure 7: IDI performance and selected indicators

Note: For readability, China (population 1.4 billion, IDI score 84.4) is not shown on the first panel.

Sources: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Bank estimates for land area and population density.

Results by region

A benchmarking tool like the IDI allows for meaningful comparisons among peers and against relevant group averages. Figure 8 shows the distribution of IDI scores by region and by selected group of interest: least developed countries (LDCs), landlocked developing countries (LLDCs) and small island developing States (SIDS).[4] For each group (and region), the red line corresponds to the group average IDI score. Wave crests indicate denser concentrations of countries. The more numerous, flatter and longer the waves are, the more heterogeneity there is within a group.

Indeed, when it comes to connectivity, geography is a very poor predictor of IDI performance. Among the 10 economies with an IDI score above 95, four are from the Arab States, three are from Europe, two are from Asia-Pacific, and one is from the Americas. Among the six regions, Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) group achieve the best group performance (red line furthest right) and are also the most homogeneous regions (tall, narrow wave). Asia-Pacific (74.6), the Americas (74.8) and the Arab States (74.5) achieve almost the same average score. But this result conceals extreme disparities among the Arab States, for example: this grouping includes countries with the highest (98.2) and second-lowest IDI score (21.4) among the 169 economies studied. Likewise, in the Asia-Pacific grouping there is a 69-point gap between the best (98.4) and worst-performing (28.9) country. Africa’s average IDI score (47.4) is the lowest among the regions. Twenty-five of the 33 African economies included in the IDI score below the 50-point mark. Eight of the ten economies scoring below 30 are from Africa. But even in this region, there is still a 60-point difference between the region’s best (81.7) and worst-performing (20.0) country.

IDI scores are widely distributed within the LDC group, ranging from the global minimum of 20.0 to 76.5, just above the global average. LLDCs appear to form two distinct groups as indicated by the twin waves, with a lower-performing group of 12 countries having scores that range between 20 and 49.5 with an average of 34.6, and a second group of 14 countries with scores between 64.6 and 88.9 and an average of 77.7. SIDS are also a very heterogeneous group of countries, with some of the lowest (33.1) and highest (97.1) IDI scores.

Figure 8: IDI scores by region

Note: The horizontal axis shows the IDI scores, with each black tick marks indicating a country scores. The height of the blue waves indicates the distribution density. The red vertical lines mark the group average values.

Results by pillar

The IDI is made up of two main components mirroring the two UMC dimensions. On the universal connectivity pillar, the scores range from 7.0 to 100 with an average of 67.7, 10 points below the average score of the meaningful connectivity pillar (77.9), where country scores range from 30.2 to 99.3 (Figure 4). Indeed, 82 per cent of the countries perform better on the meaningful connectivity pillar. Differences in performance between the two pillars is much smaller in high-income countries (4 points) than in low-income countries (17 points), where the usage gap is much larger (Figure 9).

Individual indicators are important to understand this result (Figure 11). In the meaningful connectivity pillar, mobile network coverage, which combines 3G and 4G/LTE coverage (with 4G/LTE given more weight), achieves the highest score among all indicators for the world (average of 86.7), most regions, and most countries, reflecting the fact that 95 per cent of the world’s population has the possibility of connecting to the Internet via a mobile-broadband network.

Global performance on mobile phone ownership, another indicator of the meaningful connectivity pillar, is the second highest among all indicators (world average of 84.2). However, data availability prevents distinguishing feature phones from Internet-enabled phones (smartphones).

The fact that this pillar does not include some enablers of meaningful connectivity, such as 5G coverage, Internet speed, ICT skills, and safety, also explains the high scores for this pillar.

Furthermore, the universal connectivity pillar is made up of usage indicators. The fact that most countries achieve lower scores for this pillar reflects the well-documented usage gap, which corresponds to the difference between the share of people having the possibility of connecting to the Internet and the share of people using the Internet. Where connectivity exists, and even where it is affordable, many people still do not use the Internet due to other barriers, such as lack of skills, awareness, need, or appropriate device.[5]

Figure 9: Universal and meaningful connectivity pillar scores, by region and income group

Results by indicator

There is a strong, positive correlation between the overall IDI and the individual indicators composing it. The relationship is the strongest with the percentage of Internet users (R^2 of 0.99), making this indicator the best single predictor of overall IDI performance (Figure 10). The weakest correlation is with fixed broadband traffic per subscription. Although the IDI provides a good summary of the 10 underlying indicators, looking at these in detail can provide additional insights.

Figure 10: Internet use and IDI performance

Every indicator is strongly and positively correlated with income level (Figure 11), which by construction implies the overall IDI scores correlate with income level. While the order of the four income groups is the same across the 10 indicators (that is, high-, upper-middle-, lower-middle, low-income countries), the distance between the groups’ average normalized scores varies significantly. When considering the share of individuals using the Internet, the average score of high-income economies (94.3) is over four times that of low-income economies (22.9). The ratio drops to 1.3 when considering fixed broadband traffic per subscription.

Based on the average scores, all of the income groups have opportunities to improve their performance in at least some of the indicators in order to improve their IDI scores. Overall, mobile network coverage (the weighted average for 3G and 4G/LTE) and mobile phone ownership globally show the strongest performance across the indicators covered in the IDI. Low-income economies should focus on improving Internet accessibility for individuals and households, along with mobile-broadband penetration and affordability. Middle-income and high-income economies show relatively weaker performance in terms of mobile-broadband penetration and mobile-broadband traffic per subscription. Internet use, affordability, and mobile phone ownership are absolute strengths of high-income economies.

Figure 11: Average normalized indicator scores by income group

Note: Indicator names are abbreviated for readability. See Annex 3 for indicator definitions.

Table 4 provide descriptive statistics for the IDI 2023 raw dataset provided in Annex 1, as well as the actual threshold and goalpost values used to compute the indicator scores.[6] The minimum and maximum values (first column) reveal the very large ranges of values for each indicator.

Table 4: Descriptive statistics by component indicator

Indicators

World

Low-
income

Lower-
middle-
income

Upper-
middle-
income

High-
income

Thres-
hold

Goal- post

min

average

max

average

average

average

average

Individuals using the Internet (%)

10.0

70.5

100.0

21.7

56.5

76.1

90.5

0

95

Households with Internet access at home (%)

3.3

70.8

100.0

23.5

59.0

73.2

91.5

0

95

Mobile-broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants

0.7

85.1

285.1

29.0

70.8

80.1

116.9

0

150

Population covered by at least a 3G mobile network (%)

25.8

92.5

100.0

72.2

89.0

94.8

99.2

0

95*

Population covered by at least a 4G/LTE mobile network (%)

0.0

82.9

100.0

41.7

73.5

88.2

97.8

0

95*

Mobile broadband Internet traffic per subscription (GB)

0.2

89.9

681.2

18.0

48.4

92.2

142.4

0

500

Fixed broadband Internet traffic per subscription (GB)

0.0

2'234.1

10'484.5

1'088.3

1'107.0

2'288.7

3'431.9

0

10'000

Mobile data and voice high-consumption basket price
(% GNI p.c.)

0.1

6.0

56.9

22.2

8.0

4.6

1.0

21.3

1

Fixed-broadband Internet basket price (% GNI p.c.)

0.3

13.5

666.7

86.0

12.8

4.5

1.6

33.3

1

Individuals owning a mobile phone (%)

18.9

80.7

100.0

45.8

72.3

83.8

94.6

0

95

*The goalpost for the two mobile network coverage indicators is applied on the weighted average.

Country values for several indicators are unevenly distributed.[7] It is therefore important for countries to consider the distance between a score and the goalpost when assessing priorities and resource allocation. Figure 12 provides an overview of the average distance to the goalpost for each of the income groups by indicator. The distance is calculated as the ratio of the normalized score to the span between threshold and goalpost. This way of measuring shows that mobile network coverage and mobile phone ownership are the indicators where performance tends to be best. The worst performance in terms of distance from the goalposts is seen on the two traffic indicators.

Figure 12: Average distance to the goalposts by component indicator

Note: Average distance is expressed in terms of percentage points, computed as the average (non-normalized or raw) value by income group for an indicator divided by the value of the goalpost set for the given indicator. For instance, the average for Individuals using the Internet (%) in low-income economies is 21.7 per cent and the goalpost is 95 per cent (Table 4). Dividing the former by the latter yields a distance score of 23 per cent. The ratio is reciprocated in the case of the two affordability indicators where lower raw values correspond to higher scores. Indicator names are abbreviated for readability. See Annex 3 for indicator definitions. HH refers to Households; BB refers to broadband.

Analysing the average performance of each income group reveals a deep affordability gap between high-income countries, which have reached the goalpost, and middle- and low-income countries, which are bunched at less than a quarter of the distance between threshold and goalpost. The differences in the distance to the goalposts are also striking on the three universality indicators.

3 Conclusions

After a six-year hiatus, the IDI 2023 responds to a demand from the ITU membership for a tool that can help them assess the level of digital development at the national level. The new methodology is the result of an inclusive and iterative process guided by Resolution 131, which involved EGTI and EGH members and Member States. Limited availability and quality of data constrained the selection of indicators included in the index, while the nature of the process imposed making compromises.

Considering the policy relevance of universal and meaningful connectivity, the concept was put at the heart of the new framework for the methodology. The IDI therefore aims to measure the extent to which connectivity is universal and meaningful. The index comprises 10 indicators organized in two pillars, capturing the two dimensions of UMC. The IDI therefore lends itself to use as an advocacy tool that will contribute to making UMC a policy priority at the country level.

The IDI provides a high-level, partial view of the state of meaningful connectivity. It does not capture all the specificities and circumstances of individual countries. The IDI results must therefore be interpreted with caution; they must be contextualized and complemented with additional data and qualitative information.

The results of the IDI show that most countries are embracing and investing in connectivity. The global average score is 72.8 out of 100, an indication that significant progress has already been made; but one must look beyond averages and realize that many countries remain at a very early stage of digital development: the lowest IDI 2023 score is 20.0.

Connectivity remains tightly linked to development, and the results on every single dimension of the IDI reveal deep divides between the rich and the poor countries. In contrast, the IDI results also suggest that neither population size nor country size affect performance in the IDI. Similarly, there is no regional determinism: within regions, IDI scores vary enormously. Finally, it should be noted that the 2023 edition is a snapshot. Subsequent editions will make possible time series analysis, which will provide additional insights.

The IDI provides a synthetic measure of what we know about the state of connectivity around the world. But the development of the IDI process exposed once more how little we know. Countries must invest in their statistical capabilities and improve the availability of ICT indicators. ITU data questionnaires – not the IDI indicators – continue to be the reference as to what countries ought to collect in terms of ICT data. Without more and better data, any future iteration of the IDI methodology is bound to suffer from the same limitations as the 2023 version. The index will continue to exclude critical connectivity enablers such as ICT skills, security, and Internet speed. And it will not be possible to increase the country coverage either: 27 Member States were left out of the IDI 2023 owing to a lack of data, even with the reduced set of indicators used.

If the pool of candidate indicators can be increased, the next iteration of the methodology can be used to draw a more complete and more accurate picture of connectivity around the world. ITU will continue to assist countries in measuring connectivity through its guidelines, data collection tools, capacity-building activities, and technical assistance.

Annex 1: Indicator values and scores

This annex reports the values and scores for all indicators and economies included in the IDI. The reference year is 2021 unless indicated by (‡). Estimates are indicated with (†). Imputed values for traffic and provisional estimates are not published. These values were only used for calculating the pillar and IDI scores and are not meant for making comparisons at the individual indicator level. The IDI dataset, enriched with data sources and notes, is available for download on the IDI 2023 webpage. Annex 2 provides average values and scores for the world, regions, income groups, the LDCs, LLDCs and SIDS. See Annex 3 for indicator definitions.

Indicator values

Normalized Progress Scores (0-100)

Economy

Indivi-
duals using the Internet (%)

House-
holds with Internet access at home (%)

Mobile-broad-
band subscrip-
tions per 100 inhabi-
tants

Popu-
lation covered by at least a 3G mobile network (%)

Popu-
lation covered by at least a 4G/LTE mobile network (%)

Mobile broad-
band Internet traffic per subscrip-
tion (GB)

Fixed broad-
band Internet traffic per subscrip-
tion (GB)

Mobile data and voice high-
consum-
ption
basket price (% GNI p. c.)

Fixed-broad-
band Internet basket price (% GNI p. c.)

Indivi-
duals owning a mobile phone (%)

Indivi-
duals using the Internet (%)

House-
holds with Internet access at home (%)

Mobile broad-
band
subscrip-
tions per 100 inhabi-
tants

3G and 4G/LTE network cove-
rage

Mobile broad-
band Internet traffic per subscrip-
tion (GB)

Fixed broad-
band Internet traffic per subscrip-
tion (GB)

Mobile data and voice high-
consum
ption basket price (% GNI p.c.)

Fixed-broad-
band Internet basket price (% GNI p. c.)

Indivi-
duals owning a mobile phone (%)

Afghanistan

n.a.

n.a.

19.0‡

57.0‡

26.0‡

24.9‡

135.5‡

21.5

15.2

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

12.7

38.4

52.4

53.4

0.0

56.0

n.a.

Albania

79.3

88.3

72.0

99.2

98.9

75.7

1702.0

3.5

1.5

89.3†

83.5

92.9

48.0

99.0

69.8

80.8

87.9

98.4

94.0

Algeria

66.2†

78.3†

97.1

98.2

79.9

58.7

1518.8

2.9

4.7

83.3†

69.7

82.4

64.8

87.2

65.8

79.5

90.5

88.6

87.7

Andorra

93.9†

99.1†

86.7

99.5

93.0

23.1

2813.9

0.6

0.9

96.0†

98.8

100.0

57.8

95.6

51.2

86.2

100.0

100.0

100.0

Angola

37.8†

37.9†

21.2

87.2

33.0

12.2

722.9

5.9

16.1

42.7†

39.8

39.9

14.2

54.7

41.5

71.5

75.7

53.3

44.9

Antigua and Barbuda

87.1†

84.4†

51.8‡

99.0‡

99.0‡

n.a.

n.a.

3.1

5.0

94.3†

91.7

88.8

34.5

99.0

n.a.

n.a.

89.5

87.6

99.3

Argentina

87.2

90.4

72.9

98.5

97.7

38.2

n.a.

4.0

4.8

88.1

91.7

95.2

48.6

98.0

59.0

n.a.

85.2

88.2

92.7

Armenia

78.6

90.1

90.6

100.0

100.0

83.1

4586.2

1.1

3.5

85.5†

82.7

94.8

60.4

100.0

71.3

91.5

99.8

92.2

90.0

Australia

95.0†

97.3†

122.2

99.5

99.5

121.3

3750.3

0.5

1.3

97.3†

100.0

100.0

81.4

99.5

77.3

89.4

100.0

99.2

100.0

Austria

92.5

95.0

105.3

98.0

98.0

349.0

2024.3

0.2

0.8

96.9†

97.4

100.0

70.2

98.0

94.2

82.7

100.0

100.0

100.0

Azerbaijan

86.0

86.5

68.8

99.5

94.0

27.5

316.2

2.3

1.7

84.0

90.5

91.1

45.9

96.2

53.9

62.5

93.7

97.9

88.4

Bahamas

93.8†

87.2†

97.3

98.0

95.0

n.a.

n.a.

1.4

1.7

95.6†

98.7

91.8

64.9

96.2

n.a.

n.a.

98.1

98.0

100.0

Bahrain

100.0

100.0

135.2

100.0

100.0

294.5

4773.3

1.4

2.4

100.0

100.0

100.0

90.1

100.0

91.5

92.0

98.2

95.6

100.0

Bangladesh

38.9

38.1

54.7

98.2

98.2

62.9

1031.7

2.0

2.0

61.8

41.0

40.1

36.5

98.2

66.9

75.3

95.3

97.0

65.1

Barbados

74.9†

82.4†

67.4

100.0

99.0

38.1

n.a.

3.9

4.1

83.5†

78.8

86.7

44.9

99.4

59.0

n.a.

85.7

90.5

87.8

Belarus

86.9

87.2

94.5

99.9

97.4

118.6

1462.3

1.9

0.8

97.1

91.5

91.8

63.0

98.4

77.0

79.1

95.5

100.0

100.0

Belgium

92.8

92.3

93.2

100.0

100.0

52.3

2825.6

0.7

0.8

90.0

97.7

97.2

62.1

100.0

64.0

86.3

100.0

100.0

94.8

Benin

30.7†

43.0†

33.4

80.0

46.0

32.0

24.2

14.7

26.1

51.8†

32.4

45.2

22.2

59.6

56.2

35.0

32.7

22.3

54.5

Bhutan

85.6

94.3

86.2

95.0

80.0

0.2‡

n.a.

2.2

2.8

87.2

90.1

99.3

57.5

86.0

3.1

n.a.

94.3

94.3

91.7

Bolivia (Plurinational State of)

66.0

56.9

86.7

87.8

74.5‡

n.a.

n.a.

7.9

8.9

73.2‡

69.4

59.9

57.8

79.8

n.a.

n.a.

66.1

75.5

77.1

Bosnia and Herzegovina

75.7

75.5

56.1

97.0

93.0

46.9

3308.6‡

2.5

2.3

88.2†

79.7

79.5

37.4

94.6

62.2

88.0

92.4

96.0

92.9

Botswana

75.2†

78.1†

93.9

98.0

88.0

19.3

26.8

3.5

7.4

90.5†

79.2

82.2

62.6

92.0

48.5

36.1

87.8

80.2

95.3

Brazil

80.7

81.5

95.9

90.2

88.3

37.5

1550.7

1.1

3.5

88.8

84.9

85.8

63.9

89.0

58.7

79.8

99.8

92.3

93.5

Brunei Darussalam

95.6†

91.0†

136.8

96.6

96.6

610.0

508.5

0.6

1.1

96.3†

100.0

95.8

91.2

96.6

100.0

67.7

100.0

99.8

100.0

Bulgaria

75.3

83.5

110.4

100.0

99.9

63.4

3151.0

1.5

1.7

90.7†

79.2

87.9

73.6

99.9

67.0

87.5

97.5

97.8

95.5

Burkina Faso

18.1†

12.2†

60.9

53.2

36.6

1.3

n.a.

19.3

32.7

56.6†

19.1

12.9

40.6

43.2

13.5

n.a.

10.2

1.9

59.6

Burundi

10.2†

17.9‡

8.2

50.6

32.2

37.4

1396.2

56.9

n.a.

26.9†

10.7

18.9

5.5

39.5

58.7

78.6

0.0

n.a.

28.4

Cabo Verde

71.4†

76.3†

76.3

93.8

80.0

47.6

1490.1

21.9

3.1

79.5†

75.1

80.3

50.9

85.5

62.5

79.3

0.0

93.5

83.7

Cambodia

55.6†

55.7†

105.7

92.1

92.1

159.4

n.a.

11.7

12.1

77.4†

58.5

58.6

70.5

92.1

81.7

n.a.

47.3

65.7

81.5

Cameroon

42.5†

46.7†

38.2

25.8

13.5

3.4

222.0

21.2

21.0

60.0†

44.8

49.1

25.4

18.4

23.7

58.7

0.8

38.0

63.2

Canada

92.3‡

94.2‡

80.9

99.7

99.4

48.9

4005.8

1.9

1.2

94.1†

97.2

99.2

53.9

99.5

62.9

90.1

95.5

99.4

99.0

Chad

11.0†

4.2†

7.3

59.0

22.0

26.1

n.a.

41.3

n.a.

38.1†

11.6

4.5

4.9

36.8

53.0

n.a.

0.0

n.a.

40.1

Chile

88.8†

91.9†

110.8

95.0

88.0

177.7

5228.3

0.7

2.5

93.2†

93.5

96.7

73.9

90.8

83.4

93.0

100.0

95.3

98.1

China

73.1

80.9†

101.6

99.9

99.9

153.3

2874.8

1.1

0.5

81.5†

76.9

85.2

67.8

99.9

81.1

86.5

99.5

100.0

85.8

Colombia

73.0

60.5

71.4

100.0

99.5

52.8

182.9

1.9

4.4

76.3

76.9

63.7

47.6

99.7

64.1

56.6

95.8

89.4

80.3

Comoros

n.a.

n.a.

42.0

87.0

85.0

28.7

17.1

14.3

29.6

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

28.0

85.8

54.6

31.4

34.5

11.4

n.a.

Congo (Rep. of the)

32.7†

n.a.

15.8

87.0

85.0

0.2

0.0

15.6

30.9

53.2†

34.5

n.a.

10.5

85.8

3.6

0.2

28.2

7.5

56.0

Costa Rica

82.7

81.3

95.2

94.0

93.0

54.8

2956.3

1.7

1.8

90.8†

87.1

85.6

63.4

93.4

64.7

86.8

96.6

97.6

95.6

Côte d’Ivoire

38.8†

58.2†

79.3

96.4

64.5

24.6

1173.0

6.9

15.7

63.2†

40.8

61.3

52.9

77.3

52.1

76.7

70.9

54.5

66.5

Croatia

81.3

86.3

109.6

100.0

99.5

197.2

2641.6

0.7

0.6

72.6‡

85.5

90.9

73.0

99.7

85.1

85.5

100.0

100.0

76.4

Cuba

71.1

33.3‡

33.1

73.0

49.2

45.8

491.6

8.4‡

6.8‡

63.0‡

74.9

35.1

22.1

58.7

61.9

67.3

63.6

82.1

66.3

Cyprus

90.8

93.4

80.2

99.9

99.9

68.4

2977.3

1.1

1.0

98.3†

95.5

98.3

53.5

99.9

68.2

86.8

99.7

100.0

100.0

Czech Republic

82.7

83.0

101.9

99.8

99.8

50.2

3094.0

1.2

1.2

98.8†

87.0

87.4

67.9

99.8

63.3

87.3

99.2

99.5

100.0

Dem. Rep. of the Congo

26.2†

25.9†

24.1

55.0

40.0

11.2

n.a.

32.7

n.a.

48.6†

27.5

27.3

16.1

46.0

40.2

n.a.

0.0

n.a.

51.2

Denmark

98.9

96.1

141.8

100.0

100.0

176.8

4132.5

0.5

0.8

96.3†

100.0

100.0

94.5

100.0

83.3

90.4

100.0

100.0

100.0

Djibouti

64.0†

65.9†

35.9

90.0

90.0

63.0

1016.3

10.1

8.6

74.3†

67.4

69.4

24.0

90.0

66.9

75.2

55.0

76.5

78.2

Dominica

82.4†

77.1†

67.8

100.0

100.0

18.5‡

n.a.

5.3

6.3

87.9†

86.7

81.2

45.2

100.0

47.7

n.a.

78.9

83.7

92.5

Dominican Rep.

85.2

46.1

66.7

99.5

97.6

218.6

6091.5

4.4

3.2

74.4

89.7

48.5

44.5

98.4

86.7

94.6

83.4

93.3

78.4

Ecuador

70.7‡

53.2‡

56.7

94.8

92.9

47.6

2053.2

3.2

5.1

62.9‡

74.4

56.0

37.8

93.7

62.5

82.8

89.2

87.4

66.2

Egypt

71.9‡

73.0‡

61.6

99.5

98.0

32.1

1335.4

1.9

3.0

99.4‡

75.7

76.9

41.1

98.6

56.3

78.1

95.7

93.9

100.0

El Salvador

54.6‡

27.6‡

77.0

92.0

76.0

n.a.

n.a.

6.3

9.9

77.1†

57.5

29.1

51.4

82.4

n.a.

n.a.

73.9

72.6

81.1

Equatorial Guinea

60.6†

45.1†

0.7

65.0

0.0

208.3

1.5

n.a.

20.6

63.3†

63.7

47.4

0.5

26.0

86.0

9.8

n.a.

39.3

66.7

Estonia

91.0

91.8

180.1

100.0

99.0

222.8

n.a.

0.5

1.0

98.2†

95.8

96.6

100.0

99.4

87.0

n.a.

100.0

100.0

100.0

Eswatini

56.2†

61.6†

114.5

99.1

80.4

51.5

n.a.

5.6

14.1

87.4†

59.2

64.8

76.3

87.9

63.7

n.a.

77.2

59.4

92.0

Ethiopia

16.7

16.7†

21.7

85.0

10.0

n.a.

n.a.

7.3

20.5

42.1†

17.6

17.6

14.5

40.0

n.a.

n.a.

68.9

39.6

44.3

Fiji

81.9†

76.3†

76.4‡

96.0‡

80.0‡

n.a.

n.a.

10.4

4.7

85.0†

86.2

80.3

50.9

86.4

n.a.

n.a.

53.6

88.5

89.4

Finland

92.8

91.7

157.2

99.9

99.9

398.9

1013.9

0.7

1.0

98.2†

97.7

96.5

100.0

99.9

96.4

75.2

100.0

100.0

100.0

France

86.1

87.2

105.2

99.0

99.0

127.7

n.a.

0.7

1.3

95.5

90.6

91.8

70.2

99.0

78.1

n.a.

100.0

99.1

100.0

Gabon

73.1†

76.0†

96.3

98.0

98.0

16.9‡

n.a.

4.0

8.0

83.6†

77.0

80.0

64.2

98.0

46.4

n.a.

85.2

78.3

88.0

Georgia

76.4

86.1

99.8

100.0

99.7

84.0

3368.1

1.9

2.8

91.3

80.5

90.6

66.5

99.8

71.5

88.2

95.6

94.3

96.1

Germany

91.4

91.9

94.4

99.8

99.8

69.3

2711.5

0.3

1.0

77.3†

96.2

96.7

62.9

99.8

68.4

85.8

100.0

99.9

81.4

Ghana

68.6

52.2†

71.5

95.8

67.7

43.0

2029.7

4.7

12.7

69.8

72.2

55.0

47.6

78.9

60.9

82.7

81.8

63.7

73.5

Greece

78.5

85.1

94.5

99.7

98.8

61.9

1723.4

1.6

2.7

91.1†

82.6

89.5

63.0

99.2

66.6

80.9

97.1

94.6

95.9

Grenada

71.1†

79.7†

76.6

98.5

98.5

9.0‡

n.a.

5.6

6.1

79.7†

74.9

83.9

51.1

98.5

37.0

n.a.

77.2

84.2

83.9

Guatemala

50.8

30.0

17.0

95.0

88.0

n.a.

n.a.

6.9

7.2

63.5

53.5

31.6

11.4

90.8

n.a.

n.a.

70.8

80.8

66.9

Guinea-Bissau

28.5†

18.9†

52.9

43.0

23.0

14.7

14.7‡

8.5

71.1

54.8†

30.0

19.9

35.3

31.0

44.3

29.9

63.4

0.0

57.7

Honduras

52.0†

39.4†

47.6

82.1

78.5

123.4

1328.7

10.5

15.3

72.0†

54.7

41.4

31.7

79.9

77.6

78.1

53.1

55.8

75.8

Hong Kong, China

93.1

94.4

160.3

99.0

99.0

99.1

3853.0

0.3

0.5

97.3

98.0

99.4

100.0

99.0

74.1

89.6

100.0

100.0

100.0

Hungary

88.6

90.8

82.2

99.2

99.2

101.3

2101.6

1.3

1.4

94.9†

93.3

95.6

54.8

99.2

74.5

83.1

98.7

98.7

99.9

Iceland

99.7

98.4

119.5

100.0

100.0

232.8

4793.0

0.4

1.5

98.4†

100.0

100.0

79.6

100.0

87.7

92.0

100.0

98.6

100.0

Indonesia

62.1

82.1

114.8

96.2

96.2

92.2

5925.3

2.5

7.6

65.9

65.4

86.4

76.5

96.2

72.9

94.3

92.6

79.7

69.3

Iran (Islamic Republic of)

78.6

79.5

104.5

85.0

81.0

111.8

480.6

1.7‡

0.9‡

72.4

82.7

83.7

69.6

82.6

76.0

67.1

96.8

100.0

76.2

Iraq

65.0†

79.8†

47.5

96.9

95.9

9.7

1694.2

5.0

n.a.

75.3†

68.4

84.0

31.7

96.3

38.1

80.7

80.4

n.a.

79.2

Ireland

92.0‡

92.0‡

108.7

95.0

90.0

68.6

1038.4

0.4

1.3

96.5†

96.8

96.8

72.4

92.0

68.2

75.4

100.0

99.1

100.0

Israel

90.3

83.0

123.6

99.0

97.0

118.2

n.a.

0.2

0.8

98.4†

95.0

87.3

82.4

97.8

76.9

n.a.

100.0

100.0

100.0

Italy

81.7

81.5

96.8

100.0

100.0

142.6

2451.5

0.6

1.3

95.4†

86.0

85.8

64.5

100.0

79.9

84.7

100.0

99.1

100.0

Jamaica

82.4

75.4

61.5

99.0

98.0

40.3

5489.7

5.2

7.9

97.2†

86.7

79.3

41.0

98.4

59.8

93.5

79.4

78.6

100.0

Japan

82.9

88.2

223.6

99.9

93.2

72.1

2391.3

1.5

1.1

93.0

87.3

92.8

100.0

95.9

69.0

84.5

97.4

99.7

97.9

Jordan

86.0

90.1

65.3

99.8

99.0

49.0

898.8

4.2

11.0

89.9†

90.5

94.8

43.5

99.3

62.9

73.9

84.5

69.0

94.7

Kazakhstan

90.9

94.5

93.8

96.0

83.5

199.3

1885.7

1.4

0.8

92.6

95.7

99.4

62.5

88.5

85.3

81.9

98.3

100.0

97.5

Kenya

38.2†

44.9†

53.5

95.0

94.0

28.6

1498.2

6.7

18.1

53.8†

40.3

47.2

35.7

94.4

54.5

79.4

71.8

47.0

56.6

Kiribati

54.0†

60.2†

41.1

73.5

54.0

28.9

n.a.

14.5

n.a.

65.6†

56.9

63.4

27.4

61.8

54.7

n.a.

33.7

n.a.

69.1

Korea (Rep. of)

97.6

99.9

117.2

99.9

99.9

146.1

3889.0

0.9

1.1

97.6

100.0

100.0

78.1

99.9

80.3

89.7

100.0

99.7

100.0

Kuwait

99.7

99.4

136.6

100.0

100.0

657.8

8205.6

0.8

1.6

99.2

100.0

100.0

91.1

100.0

100.0

97.9

100.0

98.1

100.0

Kyrgyzstan

72.0‡

87.8‡

124.0†

91.0†

85.0†

n.a.

n.a.

2.8

3.6

92.6‡

75.8

92.4

82.7

87.4

n.a.

n.a.

91.3

91.9

97.5

Lao P.D.R.

62.0

72.0

56.4

85.0

52.0

42.0

532.6

9.0

7.5

79.2†

65.3

75.8

37.6

65.2

60.5

68.2

60.6

80.0

83.4

Latvia

91.2

91.1

117.9

99.0

95.0

461.8

4409.9

1.0

1.5

96.6†

96.0

95.9

78.6

96.6

98.7

91.1

100.0

98.4

100.0

Lebanon

87.9†

75.8†

76.8‡

99.6‡

99.2‡

11.7‡

2372.3‡

11.1

1.9

89.1†

92.5

79.8

51.2

99.4

40.9

84.4

50.2

97.3

93.7

Lesotho

43.7†

n.a.

64.2

95.0

85.0

4.5

275.9

17.6

7.4

n.a.

46.0

n.a.

42.8

89.0

27.5

61.1

18.3

80.3

n.a.

Libya

84.3†

n.a.

120.9

72.0

40.0

n.a.

n.a.

6.2

4.5

85.4†

88.8

n.a.

80.6

52.8

n.a.

n.a.

74.2

89.2

89.9

Liechtenstein

95.6†

93.5†

123.5

99.0

98.3

26.4

3756.6

0.1

0.3

96.6†

100.0

98.5

82.3

98.6

53.2

89.4

100.0

100.0

100.0

Lithuania

86.9

86.6

122.5

100.0

100.0

263.4

n.a.

0.4

0.9

95.7‡

91.5

91.1

81.6

100.0

89.7

n.a.

100.0

100.0

100.0

Luxembourg

98.7

99.2

115.0

99.0

99.0

79.5

n.a.

0.2

0.8

98.3†

100.0

100.0

76.7

99.0

70.6

n.a.

100.0

100.0

100.0

Macao, China

88.5

89.9

185.7

99.8

99.7

42.4

n.a.

0.2

0.5

94.2†

93.1

94.7

100.0

99.7

60.6

n.a.

100.0

100.0

99.2

Madagascar

18.1†

13.1†

17.8

67.1

27.1

19.9

3407.7

19.8

164.2

37.5†

19.1

13.8

11.9

43.1

48.9

88.3

7.6

0.0

39.5

Malawi

26.9†

14.5†

39.3

84.4

68.6

9.8

124.9

16.4

63.3

46.0†

28.3

15.3

26.2

74.9

38.3

52.5

24.1

0.0

48.4

Malaysia

96.8

94.9

125.1

95.4

95.4

251.6

3371.6

1.3

2.3

97.4

100.0

99.9

83.4

95.4

89.0

88.2

98.7

95.9

100.0

Maldives

85.2†

83.1†

46.4

100.0

100.0

66.2

2195.6

3.0

4.2

94.8†

89.7

87.5

30.9

100.0

67.7

83.5

90.3

90.2

99.8

Mali

30.5†

39.6†

40.0

68.0

47.0

n.a.

n.a.

17.6

25.0

63.5†

32.1

41.7

26.7

55.4

n.a.

n.a.

18.1

25.9

66.9

Malta

87.5

90.5

78.7

100.0

100.0

119.7

n.a.

0.5

1.1

96.0†

92.1

95.3

52.5

100.0

77.1

n.a.

100.0

99.8

100.0

Mauritania

43.8†

n.a.

70.8

43.7

34.7

17.4

1657.2

9.0

19.1

60.9†

46.1

n.a.

47.2

38.3

46.9

80.5

60.8

44.0

64.1

Mauritius

71.6

73.8

108.7

99.0

99.0

50.2

2061.4

1.6

1.6

84.5

75.4

77.6

72.5

99.0

63.3

82.9

97.2

98.1

88.9

Mexico

75.6

66.4

86.4

95.7

95.0

57.7

n.a.

1.4

2.4

78.3†

79.6

69.9

57.6

95.2

65.5

n.a.

98.1

95.6

82.5

Moldova

60.5†

66.8

87.8

99.9

99.0

75.0

n.a.

1.5

2.1

88.4†

63.7

70.3

58.6

99.4

69.7

n.a.

97.6

96.7

93.0

Mongolia

81.6

80.0

116.2

100.0

99.0

97.1

1644.9

3.3

1.9

91.3

85.9

84.2

77.4

99.4

73.8

80.4

88.9

97.3

96.1

Montenegro

82.2

80.8

89.5

98.0

97.8

131.2

1872.8

2.8

2.0

93.0†

86.5

85.0

59.7

97.9

78.6

81.8

91.2

96.8

97.9

Morocco

88.1

86.2

82.6

99.3

99.1

115.2

2537.4

2.3

4.2

96.2

92.8

90.7

55.1

99.2

76.5

85.1

93.4

90.0

100.0

Mozambique

20.0†

14.3†

19.3

85.0

50.0

14.1‡

n.a.

19.9

35.8

42.3†

21.0

15.1

12.9

64.0

43.7

n.a.

7.0

0.0

44.5

Myanmar

n.a.

n.a.

109.6

94.3

94.3

0.6

87.6

3.3

12.4

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

73.0

94.3

7.1

48.7

88.9

64.8

n.a.

Namibia

61.1†

63.0†

76.0

89.0

79.0

9.8

n.a.

2.6

8.8

78.6†

64.3

66.3

50.6

83.0

38.3

n.a.

92.2

75.9

82.7

Netherlands (Kingdom of the)

92.1

96.0

138.7

99.0

99.0

51.8

n.a.

0.5

1.4

87.4

96.9

100.0

92.5

99.0

63.8

n.a.

100.0

98.7

92.0

New Zealand

95.7†

96.3†

93.3

98.3

97.5

52.6

3458.6

0.5

1.3

95.8†

100.0

100.0

62.2

97.8

64.1

88.5

100.0

99.1

100.0

Nicaragua

54.8†

41.5†

62.8

72.1

68.7

n.a.

n.a.

6.6

20.8

68.0†

57.7

43.7

41.8

70.1

n.a.

n.a.

72.4

38.9

71.6

Nigeria

32.3†

34.6†

36.6

84.6

61.9

4.3

42.7

3.9

21.5

75.4†

34.0

36.4

24.4

71.0

26.8

41.0

85.6

36.6

79.3

North Macedonia

81.4‡

79.9‡

67.4

99.9

99.6

63.8

2255.4

3.1

3.5

89.1†

85.7

84.1

44.9

99.7

67.1

83.8

89.5

92.2

93.8

Norway

99.0

99.0

98.8

99.9

99.9

116.9

n.a.

0.5

1.2

96.0

100.0

100.0

65.9

99.9

76.7

n.a.

100.0

99.4

100.0

Oman

95.2‡

94.4‡

112.6

100.0

97.8

49.7

3037.7

1.8

3.5

97.1‡

100.0

99.4

75.1

98.7

63.2

87.1

96.1

92.3

100.0

Pakistan

18.9‡

32.8‡

46.5

78.1

75.4

74.7

1766.2

4.4

15.7

45.5‡

19.9

34.5

31.0

76.5

69.6

81.2

83.4

54.5

47.9

Palestine

81.8

87.6†

20.1

59.0

0.0

96.1

5028.8

6.3

7.8

77.8†

86.1

92.2

13.4

23.6

73.6

92.5

73.7

78.9

81.9

Panama

73.1†

80.5†

96.4

95.0

84.0

n.a.

n.a.

2.1

5.7

88.5†

76.9

84.7

64.2

88.4

n.a.

n.a.

94.6

85.4

93.2

Paraguay

77.0

45.4

69.7

95.2

93.5

34.7‡

4321.0‡

3.0

5.2

85.5†

81.1

47.8

46.5

94.2

57.5

90.9

90.4

87.1

90.0

Peru

71.1

48.7

80.3

86.7

81.3

125.0

n.a.

1.7

3.6

83.2

74.9

51.2

53.6

83.4

77.8

n.a.

96.4

91.8

87.5

Philippines

63.4†

38.0†

62.3

96.0

80.0‡

99.6

n.a.

3.3

11.6

79.5†

66.7

40.0

41.6

86.4

74.2

n.a.

88.8

67.3

83.6

Poland

85.4

92.4

205.8

100.0

100.0

70.0

5147.1

0.5

1.2

95.5†

89.9

97.3

100.0

100.0

68.6

92.8

100.0

99.3

100.0

Portugal

82.3

87.3

88.6

99.9

99.8

65.5

2823.3

0.8

1.6

96.9†

86.6

91.9

59.0

99.8

67.5

86.3

100.0

98.3

100.0

Qatar

99.7‡

95.0‡

144.0

100.0

99.8

140.2

10484.5

0.4

2.2

99.6‡

100.0

100.0

96.0

99.9

79.6

100.0

100.0

96.3

100.0

Romania

83.6

88.7

95.9

100.0

98.6

80.5

2119.3

0.6

0.7

97.8

88.0

93.4

63.9

99.2

70.8

83.2

100.0

100.0

100.0

Russian Federation

88.2

84.0

108.2

96.2

89.8

188.5

2250.0

0.8

0.7

98.1

92.9

88.4

72.2

92.3

84.4

83.8

100.0

100.0

100.0

Rwanda

23.8‡

18.7†

47.0

98.6

98.1

16.1

4639.0

11.1

45.7

41.2‡

25.1

19.7

31.4

98.3

45.7

91.7

50.3

0.0

43.4

Saint Kitts and Nevis

69.1†

84.6†

101.7

100.0

100.0

n.a.

n.a.

2.6

3.3

85.3†

72.8

89.0

67.8

100.0

n.a.

n.a.

92.2

92.9

89.8

Saint Lucia

75.1†

82.2†

51.8

100.0

96.0

22.7‡

n.a.

4.7

5.1

77.2†

79.1

86.6

34.5

97.6

50.9

n.a.

81.7

87.4

81.3

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

78.7†

76.1†

93.3

100.0

90.0

19.4‡

n.a.

6.8

7.3

90.8†

82.9

80.1

62.2

94.0

48.5

n.a.

71.3

80.5

95.6

Samoa

76.3†

75.5†

12.8

91.0

49.0

n.a.

n.a.

5.9

12.3

80.5†

80.3

79.5

8.5

65.8

n.a.

n.a.

76.1

65.1

84.7

Sao Tome and Principe

56.1†

60.8†

39.8

94.0

0.0‡

15.7

2901.0

8.6

17.3

69.4†

59.1

64.0

26.6

37.6

45.3

86.6

62.5

49.7

73.1

Saudi Arabia

100.0

99.8

119.5

100.0

100.0

335.5

6346.5

1.4

3.6

100.0

100.0

100.0

79.7

100.0

93.6

95.1

98.3

92.0

100.0

Senegal

55.0†

60.4†

94.1

99.4

83.1

n.a.

n.a.

5.7

18.5

76.5†

57.9

63.6

62.7

89.6

n.a.

n.a.

76.7

45.8

80.5

Serbia

81.2

81.5

104.8

99.5

98.6

85.4

1822.4

2.6

2.7

95.5

85.4

85.8

69.8

99.0

71.7

81.5

92.2

94.9

100.0

Seychelles

80.7†

79.0†

88.7

99.0

98.5

76.0

583.9

4.5

1.3

91.1†

85.0

83.2

59.2

98.7

69.9

69.2

83.0

99.2

95.9

Singapore

96.9

99.3

147.5

100.0

100.0

87.9

n.a.

0.3

0.8

98.5

100.0

100.0

98.3

100.0

72.2

n.a.

100.0

100.0

100.0

Slovakia

88.9

90.3

88.7

99.0

99.0

81.4

1859.5

1.5

0.8

97.7

93.6

95.1

59.2

99.0

71.0

81.7

97.7

100.0

100.0

Slovenia

89.0

93.0

90.8

99.9

99.9

124.7

n.a.

0.9

2.0

98.1

93.7

97.9

60.5

99.9

77.8

n.a.

100.0

96.9

100.0

Somalia

19.9†

11.9‡

2.6

70.0

30.0

n.a.

n.a.

19.4

38.7

18.9†

20.9

12.5

1.7

46.0

n.a.

n.a.

9.7

0.0

19.9

South Africa

74.2†

77.5

115.7

99.9

97.9

28.1

3131.2

5.4

4.8

81.2†

78.1

81.5

77.1

98.7

54.2

87.4

78.4

88.2

85.5

Spain

93.9

95.9

107.3

99.8

99.6

85.4

3236.8

0.8

1.9

99.2

98.8

100.0

71.5

99.7

71.7

87.8

100.0

97.2

100.0

Sri Lanka

44.5

61.7

87.0

96.0

96.0

77.9

401.7

1.1

0.9

65.0†

46.8

65.0

58.0

96.0

70.3

65.1

99.4

100.0

68.5

Suriname

72.0†

79.8†

128.1

92.0

87.0

681.2

3.8‡

12.1

4.9

86.8†

75.8

84.1

85.4

89.0

100.0

17.1

45.2

88.0

91.4

Sweden

94.7

90.7

126.6

100.0

100.0

177.3

n.a.

0.5

1.1

87.6†

99.7

95.5

84.4

100.0

83.4

n.a.

100.0

99.8

92.3

Switzerland

95.6

96.2

101.1

100.0

100.0

166.6

1990.7

0.8

1.0

97.8

100.0

100.0

67.4

100.0

82.4

82.5

100.0

100.0

100.0

Syrian Arab Republic

n.a.

n.a.

17.4

97.0

42.0

1.3

2466.2‡

11.1

1.5

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

11.6

64.0

13.5

84.8

50.5

98.5

n.a.

Tanzania

29.7†

31.1†

18.3

85.0

13.0

42.4

6.8

9.6

22.0

72.3†

31.3

32.8

12.2

41.8

60.7

22.2

57.9

34.9

76.1

Thailand

85.3

88.7

111.9

98.8

98.1

254.6

3362.7

3.0

3.5

86.7

89.8

93.4

74.6

98.4

89.2

88.2

90.3

92.2

91.2

Timor-Leste

35.5†

n.a.

30.3

96.5

45.0

n.a.

n.a.

20.7

32.1

65.1†

37.4

n.a.

20.2

65.6

n.a.

n.a.

3.3

3.6

68.6

Togo

32.5†

45.1†

34.3

97.0

83.0

16.8

2049.5

27.5

56.8

53.0†

34.2

47.4

22.8

88.6

46.3

82.8

0.0

0.0

55.8

Tonga

57.5

33.8

60.7

99.0

96.0

2.0

343.4

3.1

3.5

62.4

60.5

35.6

40.5

97.2

17.6

63.4

89.8

92.1

65.7

Trinidad and Tobago

79.0

80.6

40.3

100.0

75.0

161.6

3434.6

2.6

3.2

83.9

83.2

84.8

26.9

85.0

81.9

88.4

92.1

93.2

88.3

Tunisia

71.9†

55.5†

81.3

99.0

95.0

64.2

2358.2

1.8

3.1

86.4†

75.7

58.4

54.2

96.6

67.2

84.3

96.2

93.6

90.9

Türkiye

81.4

92.0

82.6

98.8

96.8

117.1

2216.6

0.7

1.5

93.3

85.7

96.8

55.1

97.6

76.8

83.6

100.0

98.6

98.3

Uganda

10.0

n.a.

52.2

85.0

31.0

13.1

545.5

25.7

50.5

65.0

10.5

n.a.

34.8

52.6

42.5

68.4

0.0

0.0

68.4

Ukraine

79.2

82.7

80.1

91.6

91.6

n.a.

n.a.

1.7

1.8

90.7

83.4

87.0

53.4

91.6

n.a.

n.a.

96.5

97.6

95.5

United Arab Emirates

100.0

99.9

241.2

100.0

99.8

52.7

5183.2

0.9

0.6

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

99.9

64.1

92.9

100.0

100.0

100.0

United Kingdom

94.8‡

95.2‡

113.3

99.9

99.9

89.7

4529.0

0.6

1.3

94.8†

99.8

100.0

75.5

99.9

72.5

91.4

100.0

99.1

99.8

United States

96.8†

92.5†

165.8

99.9

99.9

101.5

n.a.

0.7

1.0

95.9†

100.0

97.4

100.0

99.9

74.5

n.a.

100.0

100.0

100.0

Uruguay

87.6†

83.2†

109.1

92.7

92.3

99.1

2556.9

1.4

2.5

90.7†

92.3

87.6

72.7

92.5

74.1

85.2

98.0

95.2

95.5

Uzbekistan

76.6

95.0

105.5

95.0

75.0

36.1

390.7

1.1

2.1

72.4

80.6

100.0

70.3

83.0

58.1

64.8

99.3

96.5

76.2

Vanuatu

68.6†

68.6†

285.1

70.0

70.0

8.1

968.6

8.3

33.5

78.1†

72.2

72.2

100.0

70.0

35.6

74.7

64.0

0.0

82.2

Venezuela

n.a.

n.a.

48.2

82.0

65.0

33.1

1441.6

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

32.1

71.8

56.8

79.0

n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

Viet Nam

74.2

81.0

87.8

99.8

99.7

81.8

3590.6

2.9

3.5

77.5

78.1

85.3

58.6

99.7

71.0

88.9

90.5

92.2

81.6

Zambia

27.0†

42.3†

53.2

95.5

91.2

n.a.

263.4

9.6

16.0

54.9†

28.4

44.6

35.5

92.9

n.a.

60.6

57.7

53.6

57.7

Zimbabwe

29.3‡

50.1‡

58.3

84.3

39.1

10.3

1039.6

35.4

18.3

47.0‡

30.8

52.7

38.9

57.2

39.0

75.4

0.0

46.6

49.5

Notes: †) ITU estimate; ‡) lagged value from 2020; n.a. = data not available, estimate used for calculating aggregate score not published.

Annex 2: Indicator values and scores by groups

Indicator values

Normalized Progress Scores (0-100)

Group

Indivi-
duals using the Internet (%)

House-
holds with Internet access at home (%)

Active mobile-broad-
band subscrip-
tions per 100 inhabi-
tants

Popu-
lation covered by at least a 3G mobile network (%)

Popu-
lation covered by at least a 4G/LTE mobile network (%)

Mobile broad-
band Internet traffic per subscrip-
tion (GB)

Fixed broad-
band Internet traffic per subscrip-
tion (GB)

Mobile data and voice high-
consu
mption basket price (as % GNI p.c.)

Fixed-broad-
band Internet basket price (as % GNI p.c.)

Indivi-
duals who own a mobile phone (%)

Indivi-
duals using the Internet (%)

House-
holds with Internet access at home (%)

Active mobile-broad-
band subscrip-
tions per 100 inhabi-
tants

3G and 4G/LTE network cove-
rage

Mobile broad-
band Internet traffic per subscrip-
tion (GB)

Fixed broad-
band Internet traffic per subscrip-
tion (GB)

Mobile data and voice high-
consum
ption basket price (as % GNI p.c.)

Fixed-broad-
band Internet basket price (as % GNI p.c.)

Indivi-
duals who own a mobile phone (%)

Africa

40.5

42.2

52.0

82.7

57.4

28.7

1’017.5

15.9

45.9

61.5

42.7

44.4

34.7

67.5

47.7

62.3

43.6

39.3

64.7

Americas

75.9

68.6

77.1

94.0

88.7

89.8

2’388.4

4.2

5.7

82.5

79.9

72.2

51.1

90.8

65.9

78.2

84.2

85.3

86.7

Arab States

75.1

76.9

85.6

90.5

79.3

109.3

3’076.9

5.6

7.8

82.8

77.7

79.9

54.0

83.8

64.1

80.7

77.1

79.9

85.5

Asia-Pacific

70.4

72.3

99.5

93.3

85.7

98.8

2’121.2

4.6

7.4

79.6

73.8

75.7

61.0

88.7

63.7

76.5

82.0

80.2

83.3

CIS

82.7

89.3

97.9

96.8

89.2

103.4

1’749.7

1.6

1.9

88.9

87.1

94.0

65.3

92.3

71.2

77.4

96.8

96.9

92.8

Europe

87.4

89.3

105.7

99.2

98.5

123.3

2’908.6

1.0

1.4

93.8

91.5

93.5

69.0

98.8

74.0

85.8

98.4

98.6

97.4

High-income

90.5

91.5

116.9

99.2

97.8

142.4

3’431.9

1.0

1.6

94.6

94.3

95.4

74.3

98.4

74.9

86.1

98.5

98.0

97.9

Upper-middle-income

76.1

73.2

80.1

94.8

88.2

92.2

2’288.7

4.6

4.5

83.8

80.1

77.1

53.4

90.8

65.3

77.0

85.2

89.1

88.0

Lower-middle-income

56.5

59.0

70.8

89.0

73.5

48.4

1’107.0

8.0

12.8

72.3

59.5

62.1

45.3

79.7

55.1

68.6

67.0

63.4

76.0

Low-income

21.7

23.5

29.0

72.2

41.7

18.0

1’088.3

22.2

86.0

45.8

22.9

24.7

19.3

53.9

43.6

65.5

19.4

14.0

48.2

LDCs

35.2

37.6

43.9

79.7

53.2

27.8

824.9

16.0

51.8

56.9

37.0

39.6

29.2

63.8

47.4

62.0

38.0

31.3

59.9

LLDCs

50.3

53.1

66.7

86.8

68.9

40.8

1’293.3

12.6

41.6

68.7

53.0

55.9

44.4

76.0

52.5

70.2

57.0

59.4

72.3

SIDS

72.1

70.6

77.9

92.9

80.9

82.0

2’246.5

6.9

11.3

81.2

75.6

73.9

48.7

85.7

59.6

72.6

71.0

72.4

85.0

World

70.5

70.8

85.1

92.5

82.9

89.9

2’234.1

6.0

13.5

80.7

73.8

74.2

54.9

86.7

63.7

76.7

78.5

77.8

84.2

Annex 3: Indicator definitions

Indicator

Definition

Individuals using the Internet (%)

Proportion of individuals who used the Internet from any location in the last three months.

The Internet is a worldwide public computer network. It provides access to a number of communication services including the World Wide Web and carries e-mail, news, entertainment and data files, irrespective of the device used (not assumed to be only via a computer – it may also be by mobile telephone, tablet, PDA, games machine, digital TV etc.). Access can be via a fixed or mobile network.

Households with Internet access at home (%)

Proportion of households with Internet access at home. Internet access at home means that the Internet is generally available for use by all members of the household at any time, regardless of whether it is actually used. The connection and devices may or may not be owned by the household but should be considered household assets. If one member of the household has a mobile phone with connection to the Internet and makes it available for all members, then it should be considered that the household has access to the Internet. An Internet connection in the household should be working at the time of the survey.

Active mobile-
broadband subscriptions per 100 inha-
bitants

Active mobile-broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants. Active mobile-broadband subscriptions refers to the sum of standard mobile-broadband and dedicated mobile-broadband subscriptions to the public Internet. It covers actual subscribers, not potential subscribers, even though the latter may have broadband enabled-handsets. Subscriptions must include a recurring subscription fee or if in the prepayment modality, pass a usage requirement – users must have accessed the Internet in the last three months.

Population covered by at least a 3G mobile network (%)

Percentage of the population covered by at least a 3G mobile network refers to the percentage of inhabitants that are within range of at least a 3G mobile-cellular signal, irrespective of whether or not they are subscribers. This is calculated by dividing the number of inhabitants that are covered by at least a 3G mobile-cellular signal by the total population and multiplying by 100.

Population covered by at least a 4G/LTE mobile network (%)

Percentage of the population covered by at least a 4G/LTE mobile network refers to the percentage of inhabitants that live within range of LTE/LTE-Advanced, mobile WiMAX/WirelessMAN or other more advanced mobile-cellular networks, irrespective of whether or not they are subscribers. This is calculated by dividing the number of inhabitants that are covered by the previously mentioned mobile-cellular technologies by the total population and multiplying by 100. It excludes people covered only by HSPA, UMTS, EV-DO and previous 3G technologies, and also excludes fixed WiMAX coverage.

Mobile broadband Internet traffic per subscription (GB)

Mobile broadband Internet traffic per mobile-broadband subscription (GB). Mobile-broadband Internet traffic (within the country) refers to broadband traffic volumes originated within the country from 3G networks or other more advanced mobile-networks, including 3G upgrades, evolutions or equivalent standards in terms of data transmission speeds. Traffic should be collected and aggregated at the country level for all 3G or more advanced mobile networks within the country. Download and upload traffic should be added up and reported together. Traffic should be measured at the end-user access point. Wholesale and walled-garden traffic should be excluded. The indicator is calculated by dividing mobile-broadband Internet traffic (within the country) by active mobile-broadband subscriptions.

Fixed broadband Internet traffic per subscription (GB)

Fixed broadband Internet traffic per fixed broadband subscription (GB). Fixed (wired)- broadband Internet traffic refers to traffic generated by fixed-broadband subscribers measured at the end-user access point. It should be measured by adding up download and upload traffic. This should exclude wholesale traffic, walled garden, IPTV and cable TV traffic. The indicator is calculated by dividing fixed-broadband Internet traffic by total fixed broadband subscriptions.

Mobile data and voice high-
consumption basket price
(% GNI p.c.)

Mobile-broadband data and voice high-consumption basket price as a percentage of GNI per capita (p.c.). The basket refers to the cheapest mobile broadband plan (and add-on) providing at least 2 GB of monthly data using at least 3G technology, 140 minutes of voice and 70 SMSs. Detailed ICT price basket data collection rules are available here.

Fixed-broadband Internet basket price
(% GNI p.c.)

Entry-level fixed-broadband basket price as percentage of GNI per capita. The basket is composed of the cheapest plan providing at least 5GB of monthly high-speed data (256Kbit/s or higher) from the operator with the largest market share in each economy. Detailed ICT price basket data collection rules are available here.

Individuals
owning a mobile phone (%)

Proportion of individuals who own a mobile phone. An individual owns a mobile cellular phone if he/she has a mobile cellular phone device with at least one active SIM card for personal use. It includes mobile cellular phones supplied by employers that can be used for personal reasons (to make personal calls, access the Internet, etc.) and those who have a mobile phone for personal use that is not registered under his/her name. It excludes individuals who have only active SIM card(s) and not a mobile phone device.

[1] All figures cited in this section are sourced or derived from ITU’s Facts and Figures 2023.

[2] Applying the natural logarithm using the formula ln(x+1), where adding a value of 1 ensures valid results even for 0 without influencing the scores.

[3] Unless mentioned otherwise, all group aggregate scores are simple, unweighted means of the IDI score of the countries composing the group.

[4] The composition of the LDCs, LLDCs, and SIDS categories is available at https://www.un.org/ohrlls/.

[5] For more on the usage gap, see the Facts and Figures series and the Global Connectivity Report 2022.

[6] The goalpost for the indicator Mobile-broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants was defined based on the 95th percentile of the distribution of values observed, rounded to the nearest 10. The goalpost for the two traffic indicators was defined considering both the figures obtained for 2021 and the double-digit growth trends projected for subsequent years, rounded for easier interpretation.

[7] During the development process of the IDI, this skewness was identified and treated to ensure more robust composite indicator scores.