voprstatВопросы статистикиVoprosy Statistiki2313-63832658-5499The Federal State Budgetary Institution "Scientific Research Institute for Socio-Economic Statistics of the Federal State Statistics Service" (Statistics Research Institute of Rosstat)10.34023/2313-6383-2023-30-1-58-69voprstat-1538Research ArticleМЕЖДУНАРОДНАЯ СТАТИСТИКА И МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЕ СОПОСТАВЛЕНИЯINTERNATIONAL STATISTICS AND INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONSПостроение странового рейтинга цифровизации экономики на основе метода главных компонентBuilding a Country Rating of Digitalization of the Economy Based on the Principal Component Analysishttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-4921-7780ОвчаровА. О.OvcharovA. O.

Овчаров Антон Олегович – д-р экон. наук, профессор кафедры бухгалтерского учета, главный научный сотрудник Центра макро- и микроэкономики, Институт экономики и предпринимательства

603022, г. Нижний Новгород, пр-т Гагарина, д. 23

Anton O. Ovcharov – Dr. Sci. (Econ.). Professor, Department of Accounting, Principal Researcher, Macro and Microeconomics Research Center, Institute of Economics and Entrepreneurship

23, Gagarin Ave., Nizhny Novgorod, 603022

anton19742006@yandex.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-2356-4533ТереховА. М.TerekhovA. M.

Терехов Андрей Михайлович – канд. экон. наук, доцент кафедры гуманитарных и социально-экономических дисциплин

603022, г. Нижний Новгород, пр-т Гагарина, д. 17А

Andrey M. Terekhov – Cand. Sci. (Econ.), Associate Professor, Department of Humanities and Socio-Economic Disciplines

17А, Gagarin Ave., Nizhny Novgorod, 603022

terehoff.t@yandex.ruНациональный исследовательский Нижегородский государственный университет имени Н.И. Лобачевского (ННГУ им. Н.И. Лобачевского)РоссияNational Research Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod (Lobachevsky University)Russian FederationРоссийский государственный университет правосудия (Приволжский филиал)РоссияRussian State University of Justice (Volga Branch)Russian Federation2023110220233015869Copyright © Овчаров А.О., Терехов А.М., 20232023Овчаров А.О., Терехов А.М.Ovcharov A.O., Terekhov A.M.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://voprstat.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/1538

Аргументируется актуальность международных сопоставлений уровня цифровизации стран на основе рейтинговых оценок, обусловленная отсутствием единообразия в методах и результатах использования информационно-коммуникационных технологий. Информационная база исследования – данные Росстата и Евростата о ряде переменных цифровизации за период 2016–2020 гг. Методологическая основа анализа – метод главных компонент и кластерный анализ по методу k-средних. Обоснована необходимость использования различных статистических инструментов, позволяющих оценивать масштабы цифрового неравенства в разрезе стран и регионов.

Обобщены научно-методологические подходы к изучению проблемы цифрового неравенства. Выделены три уровня цифровых разрывов и отражающие их статистические индикаторы. Определена роль индексов как обобщающих показателей при оценивании уровня цифровизации экономики и общества. Построен рейтинг европейских стран (в порядке убывания рассчитанного индекса цифровизации). Предложена группировка стран, различающихся по уровню цифрового развития, даны оценки цифровых разрывов.

Результаты статистического анализа показали, что лидерами рейтинга являются Финляндия, Дания и Норвегия; аутсайдерами – Греция, Болгария и Румыния. Все эти страны занимают стабильное положение в рейтинге. Сформированы три кластера стран по уровню (высокий, средний, низкий) цифровизации экономики. Выявлено, что цифровые разрывы между европейскими странами колеблются в диапазоне 42–44 %. Определено место России в рейтинге из 20 стран в период с 2016 по 2020 г.

The relevance of international comparisons of the level of digitalization of countries based on rating assessments is argued, due to the lack of uniformity in the methods and results of using information and communication technologies. The information base of the study is data from Rosstat and Eurostat on a number of digitalization variables for the period 2016–2020. The methodological basis of the analysis is the principal component method and k-means cluster analysis. The importance of using various statistical tools to assess the scale of digital inequality in the context of countries and regions is argued.

Scientific and methodological approaches to studying the problem of digital inequality were generalized. Three levels of digital gaps and statistical indicators reflecting them were allocated. The role of indices as generalizing indicators in assessing the level of digitalization of the economy and society was determined. A rating of European countries was built (in descending order of the calculated digitalization index). A grouping of countries that differ in the level of digital development is proposed, estimates of digital gaps are given.

The results of the statistical analysis showed that the leaders of the rating are Finland, Denmark, and Norway; outsiders are Greece, Bulgaria, Romania. All these countries occupy a stable position in the ranking. Three clusters of countries were formed in terms of the level (high, medium, low) of digitalization of the economy. It is shown that the digital gaps between European countries fluctuate in the range of 42–44%. Russia's place in the ranking of 20 countries in the period from 2016 to 2020 was determined.

цифровизация экономикиинформационно-коммуникационные технологиистатистика инновацийметод главных компоненткластеризациярейтинг цифровизации экономикиdigitalization of the economyinformation and communication technologiesinnovation statisticsprincipal component analysisclusteringrating of digitalization of the economyReferencesIansiti M., Lakhani K.R. Digital Ubiquity: How Connections, Sensors, and Data Are Revolutionizing Business // Harvard Business Review. 2014. No. 92(11). P. 90–99.Iansiti M., Lakhani K.R. Digital Ubiquity: How Connections, Sensors, and Data Are Revolutionizing Business. Harvard Business Review. 2014;92(11):90–99.Pigni F., Piccoli G., Watson R. Digital Data Streams: Creating Value from Real-Time Flow of Big Data // California Management Review. 2016. Vol. 58. Iss. 3. P. 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.3.5.Pigni F., Piccoli G., Watson R. Digital Data Streams: Creating Value from Real-Time Flow of Big Data. California Management Review. 2016;58(3):5–25. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.3.5.Greenstein S., Lerner J., Stern S. Digitization, Innovation, and Copyright: What Is the Agenda? // Strategic Organization. 2013. Vol. 11. Iss. 1. P. 110–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127012460940.Greenstein S., Lerner J., Stern S. Digitization, Innovation, and Copyright: What Is the Agenda? Strategic Organization. 2013;11(1):110–121. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127012460940.Hidalgo A. et al. The Digital Divide in Light of Sustainable Development: An Approach Through Advanced Machine Learning Techniques // Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2020. Vol. 150. Article 119754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119754.Hidalgo A. et al. The Digital Divide in Light of Sustainable Development: An Approach Through Advanced Machine Learning Techniques. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2020; 150:Article 119754. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119754.Jamil S. From Digital Divide to Digital Inclusion: Challenges for Wide-Ranging Digitalization in Pakistan // Telecommunications Policy. 2021. Vol. 45. Iss. 8. Article 102206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2021.102206.Jamil S. From Digital Divide to Digital Inclusion: Challenges for Wide-Ranging Digitalization in Pakistan. Telecommunications Policy. 2021;45(8):Article 102206. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2021.102206.Brynjolfsson E., Collis A. How Should We Measure the Digital Economy? // Harvard Business Review. 2019. No. 97(6). P. 140–146.Brynjolfsson E., Collis A. How Should We Measure the Digital Economy? Harvard Business Review. 2019;97(6):140–146.Ragnedda M., Muschert G. (eds). The Digital Divide: The Internet and Social Inequality in International Perspective (1st ed.). London: Routledge, 2013. 324 p. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203069769.Ragnedda M., Muschert G. (eds) The Digital Divide: The Internet and Social Inequality in International Perspective (1 st ed.). London: Routledge, 2013; 324 p. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203069769.Hoffman D.L., Novak T.P., Schlosser A. The Evolution of the Digital Divide: How Gaps in Internet Access May Impact Electronic Commerce // Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2000. Vol. 5. Iss. 3. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2000.tb00341.x.Hoffman D.L., Novak T.P., Schlosser A. The Evolution of the Digital Divide: How Gaps in Internet Access May Impact Electronic Commerce. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2000;5(3). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2000.tb00341.x.Riggins F.J., Dewan S. The Digital Divide: Current and Future Research Directions // Journal of the Association for Information Systems. 2005. Vol. 6. Iss. 12. P. 298–337. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00074.Riggins F.J., Dewan S. The Digital Divide: Current and Future Research Directions. Journal of the Association for Information Systems. 2005;6(12):298–337. Available from: https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00074.Chen W., Wellman B. The Global Digital Divide – Within and Between Countries // IT&Society. 2004. Vol. 1. Iss. 7. P. 39–45.Chen W., Wellman B. The Global Digital Divide – Within and Between Countries. IT&Society. 2004;1(7): 39–45.Гладкова А.А., Гарифуллин В.З., Рагнедда М. Модель трех уровней цифрового неравенства: современные возможности и ограничения (на примере исследования Республики Татарстан) // Вестник Московского университета. Серия 10. Журналистика. 2019. № 4. С. 41–72. https://doi.org/10.30547/vestnik.journ.4.2019.4172.Gladkova A.A., Garifullin V.Z., Ragnedda M. Model of Three Levels of the Digital Divide: Current Advantages and Limitations (Exemplified by the Republic of Tatarstan). Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriya 10. Zhurnalistika. 2019;(4):41–72. (In Russ.) Available from: https://doi.org/10.30547/vestnik.journ.4.2019.4172.Lucendo-Monedero A.L., Ruiz-Rodríguez F., González-Relaño R. Measuring the Digital Divide at Regional Level. A Spatial Analysis of the Inequalities in Digital Development of Households and Individuals in Europe // Telematics and Informatics. 2019. Vol. 41. P. 197–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.05.002.Lucendo-Monedero A.L., Ruiz-Rodríguez F., González-Relaño R. Measuring the Digital Divide at Regional Level. A Spatial Analysis of the Inequalities in Digital Development of Households and Individuals in Europe. Telematics and Informatics. 2019;(41):197–217. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.05.002.Cruz-Jesus F., Oliveira T., Bacao F. Digital Divide Across the European Union // Information & Management. 2012. Vol. 49. Iss. 6. P. 278–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2012.09.003.Cruz-Jesus F., Oliveira T., Bacao F. Digital Divide Across the European Union. Information & Management. 2012;49(6):278–291. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2012.09.003.van Deursen A., van Dijk J. Internet Skills and the Digital Divide // New Media & Society. 2011. Vol. 13. Iss. 6. P. 893–911. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810386774.van Deursen A., van Dijk J. Internet Skills and the Digital Divide. New Media & Society. 2011;13(6):893–911. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810386774.Selwyn N. Reconsidering Political and Popular Understandings of the Digital Divide // New Media & Society. 2004. Vol. 6. Iss. 3. P. 341–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804042519.Selwyn N. Reconsidering Political and Popular Understandings of the Digital Divide. New Media & Society. 2004;6(3):341–362. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804042519.van Dijk J.A. The Deepening Divide: Inequality in the Information Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publ. Inc., 2005. 224 р. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452229812.van Dijk J.A. The Deepening Divide: Inequality in the Information Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publ. Inc.; 2005. 224 р. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452229812.Wei K.K. et al. Conceptualizing and Testing a Social Cognitive Model of the Digital Divide // Information Systems Research. 2011. Vol. 22. Iss. 1. P. 170–187. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1090.0273.Wei K.K. et al. Conceptualizing and Testing a Social Cognitive Model of the Digital Divide. Information Systems Research. 2011;22(1):170–187. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1090.0273.van Deursen A.J.A.M., Helsper, E.J. The Third-Level Digital Divide: Who Benefits Most from Being Online? // Communication and Information Technologies Annual (Studies in Media and Communications, Vol. 10.). Bingley: Emerald Group Publ. Limited, 2015. P. 29–52. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2050-206020150000010002.van Deursen A.J.A.M., Helsper, E.J. The Third-Level Digital Divide: Who Benefits Most from Being Online? In: Communication and Information Technologies Annual (Studies in Media and Communications, Vol. 10.). Bingley: Emerald Group Publ. Limited; 2015. P. 29–52. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1108/S2050-206020150000010002.Ragnedda M. The Third Digital Divide: A Weberian Approach to Digital Inequalities. London: Routledge, 2017. 136 р. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315606002.Ragnedda M. The Third Digital Divide: A Weberian Approach to Digital Inequalities. London: Routledge; 2017. 136 р. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315606002.Ragnedda M., Kreitem H. The Three Levels of Digital Divide in East EU Countries // World of Media. Journal of Russian Media and Journalism Studies. 2018. Iss. 4. P. 5–26. https://doi.org/10.30547/worldofmedia.4.2018.1.Ragnedda M., Kreitem H. The Three Levels of Digital Divide in East EU Countries. World of Media. Journal of Russian Media and Journalism Studies. 2018;(4):5–26. Available from: https://doi.org/10.30547/worldofmedia.4.2018.1.Billon M., Ezcurra R., Lera-López F. Spatial Effects in Website Adoption by Firms in European Regions // Growth and Change. 2009. Vol. 40. Iss. 1. P. 54–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2257.2008.00461.x.Billon M., Ezcurra R., Lera-López F. Spatial Effects in Website Adoption by Firms in European Regions. Growth and Change. 2009;40(1):54–84. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2257.2008.00461.x.Szeles M.R. New Insights from a Multilevel Approach to the Regional Digital Divide in the European Union // Telecommunications Policy. 2018. Vol. 42. Iss. 6. P. 452–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2018.03.007.Szeles M.R. New Insights from a Multilevel Approach to the Regional Digital Divide in the European Union. Telecommunications Policy. 2018:42(6):452–463. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2018.03.007.OECD, EU, EC-JRC. Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide. Paris: OECD Publ., 2008. 158 р. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264043466-EN.OECD, EU, EC-JRC. Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide. Paris: OECD Publ.; 2008. 158 р. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264043466-EN.Perez-Castro M.A., Mohamed-Maslouhi M., Montero-Alonso M.Á. The Digital Divide and Its Impact on the Development of Mediterranean Countries // Technology in Society. 2021. Vol. 64. Article 101452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101452.Perez-Castro M.A., Mohamed-Maslouhi M., Montero-Alonso M.Á. The Digital Divide and Its Impact on the Development of Mediterranean Countries. Technology in Society. 2021;64:Article 101452. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101452.Corrocher N., Ordanini A. Measuring the Digital Divide: A Framework for the Analysis of Cross-Country Differences // Journal of Information Technology. 2002. Vol. 17. Iss. 1. P. 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/02683960210132061.Corrocher N., Ordanini A. Measuring the Digital Divide: A Framework for the Analysis of Cross-Country Differences. Journal of Information Technology. 2002;17(1): 9–19. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/02683960210132061.Архипова М.Ю., Сиротин В.П., Сухарева Н.А. Разработка композитного индикатора для измерения величины и динамики цифрового неравенства в России // Вопросы статистики. 2018. Т. 25. № 4. С. 75–87.Arkhipova M.Yu., Sirotin V.P., Sukhareva N.A. Development of a Composite Indicator for Measuring the Value and Dynamics of Digital Inequality in Russia. Voprosy Statistiki. 2018;25(4):75–87. (In Russ.)Lutz S.U. The European Digital Single Market Strategy: Local Indicators of Spatial Association 2011–2016 // Telecommunications Policy. 2019. Vol. 43. Iss. 5. P. 393–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2018.10.003.Lutz S.U. The European Digital Single Market Strategy: Local Indicators of Spatial Association 2011–2016. Telecommunications Policy. 2019;43(5):393–410. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2018.10.003.Сафиуллин А.Р., Моисеева О.А. Цифровое неравенство: Россия и страны мира в условиях четвертой промышленной революции // Научно-технические ведомости Санкт-Петербургского государственного политехнического университета. Экономические науки. 2019. Т. 12. № 6. С. 26–37. https://doi.org/10.18721/JE.12602.Safiullin A.R., Moiseeva O.A. Digital Inequality: Russia and Other Countries in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University Journal. Economics. 2019;12(6):26–37. Available from: https://doi.org/10.18721/JE.12602.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.