3.1 Statistical Results

Results of the BRI Statistical Analysis 2012 (cf. Attachment: Statistical Results), indicates a world trend of mean (0.4846) /median (0.4801) clustering. More specifically, average country scores tracked the transitivity within the duration model at 0.4846 for equilibrium case, 0.5805 for prosperity case, and 0.2903 for adversity case. Per the conventional intuition, on predicted measures of governance represented by Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) membership, European states of UK (3rd), Denmark (5th), Sweden (6th), Norway (7th) and Finland (9th) dominated equal half places on the top 10 rankings, while leading Asian states of South Korea (1st) and Singapore (4th) featured most prominently among North American states of USA (2nd) and Canada (10th) and Oceania represented by Australia (8th). Leading BRI performers also exhibited resilience under all test scenarios except states of northern Europe which tended to vacillate under the adversity case. Based on estimated status of National Identity Management Strategy development and implementation [59], all countries in the final stage and full developed stages of country implementation obtained above average scores.

By region, African States of South Africa and Egypt scored highest while other representative states of Algeria and Nigeria where e-government initiatives focus on e-alignment (Adaba, 2003) also obtained steady BRI country scores. Similarly, newly industrialised Asian states of South Korea and Singapore achieved the most outstanding results compared to regional peers which is generally attributed to characteristic government led transformation model and empirical validation of positive correlations of country maturity and the prevalence of regional pathways to further development [60]. Other high scoring Asian states include Japan and Israel, both exhibiting peak performance under the adversity case which infers residual strength of social institutions - a phenomenon depictive of up to 65% of all Asian states surveyed in the BRI. Across the Americas, the United States and Canada followed by Mexico and Chile obtained the highest regional results, with the Latin American countries exhibiting the strongest outcome under stress testing. In fact, all countries of South America obtained high scores for measures of residual autonomy in spite of reported complications with the use of e-indices in Latin America [61]. Outcomes for countries of the European Union are also relatively persistent with northern Europe outperforming those of southern and western Europe. Explanatory factors for european states scoring in top 3 quintiles concord with the overt Maturity of European States [62], particularly the achievement of nearly 100% e-government in Austria, as well as the EU’s successful implementation of the i2010 Benchmarking Framework developed to systematically track progress across thematic ICT domains of: development in broadband, advanced services, security, impact on ICT growth, Investment in ICT research, adoption of ICT by businesses; inclusion in digital literacy, and public services [63].

Overall, the unspecified pattern in the statistical analysis occur parallel to conflicting messages related to overall technological deployment. Whereas countries with a national measurement framework for e-government tend to perform better than those without a national measurement framework [64] and while processes of societal modernisation are considered to the determining factor of different futures [65] it remains the case that the obstacle of digital divide is still an overarching and cross-cutting issue regardless of country’s state of e-government development. The OECD (2009) reports that both mature and less-mature e-government countries still experience digital divide challenges.

Therefore, the structural equation model format of the BRI indicates that unobserved and latent factors are preponderant and embedded in the components of the index itself. A case by case country study will be able to attribute the transformation indexes as auxiliary drivers of intrinsic country absorptive capacity and adaptiveness.

cf. Biopolitics References

---

[59] OECD, 2011; [60] Ojo et al, 2007; [61] Minges, 2005; [62] OECD, 2009; [63] EU, 2006; [64] OECD, 2009; [65] Janssen et al, 2007

---