The Economic Impact of Interoperability1
The Economic Impact of Interoperability
ConneCted GovernmentBy Lorenzo Madrid
Last Updated: JULy 2012 First pUBLication: octoBer 2005
The Economic Impact of Interoperability2
technology and economic Growth ............................3
Governments and Interoperability .............................4
From Legacy e-Government to Connected Government ..............................................7
Interoperability and network value ..........................9
the Impact of Interoperability (Connected Government) on GdP..............................10
Conclusions ...................................................................12
Appendix: Worldwide GdP table and Interoperability Impact ........................................13
Figure 1 – the vertical Silos of e-Government .........4
Figure 2 – traditional Citizen/Government Interaction.....................................................................5
Figure 3 – Proposed Citizen/Government Interaction.....................................................................6
Figure 4 - the Gartner model for e-Government evolution .............................................7
Figure 5 - the Un model for e-Government evolution .............................................7
Figure 6 - Government Solution maturity Curve .....8
Figure 7 - Interoperable transactions/ relative value ...............................................................9
The information contained in this document represents the current view of Microsoft Corporation on the issues discussed as of the date of publication. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, this paper should not be interpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information presented after the date of publication.This white paper is for informational purposes only. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT.Complying with all applicable copyright laws is the responsibility of the user. Without limiting the rights under copyright, no part of this document may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise), or for any purpose, without the express written permission of Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft may have patents, patent applications, trademarks, copyrights, or other intellectual property rights covering subject matter in this document. Except as expressly provided in any written license agreement from Microsoft, the furnishing of this document does not give you any license to these patents, trademarks, copyrights, or other intellectual property.Unless otherwise noted, the example companies, organizations, products, domain names, email addresses, logos, people, places, and events depicted herein are fictitious, and no association with any real company, organization, product, domain name, email address, logo, person, place, or event is intended or should be inferred. © 2012 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.Microsoft, Active Directory, BizTalk, Win32, Windows, Windows Server, and Windows Server System are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries.All other trademarks are property of their respective owners.
table of contents
The Economic Impact of Interoperability3
The WITSA1 Digital Planet study, “The Global Information Economy”, provides an analysis of information technology in the global economy and includes detailed information on the size, growth, and access to information technology in the economies of 75 individual countries.
The WITSA study results are clear: spending on Information and Communications Technology (ICT) is a critical element in the success of the global economy. According to the study, the ICT industry is one of the most significant drivers of the global economy. The study forecasts US$4.1 trillion in ICT spending in 2011, approximately 6.4 percent of the forecasted global Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In addition, the study suggests that national GDP grows when ICT spending increases and that, even in the face of worsening economic conditions, the effect on ICT spending is muted.
There is also evidence regarding the positive influence of ICT spending on productivity gains, which, in turn, spur economic growth. This is described in the article, “The Productivity Miracle is For Real”2, which notes that investments in digital technologies are paying off, as demonstrated by strong productivity gains beginning in 2001.
The influence of ICT deployment on GDP was corroborated by Leonard Waverman3 in the paper, “The Impact of Telecoms on Economic Growth in Developing Countries”, which says that, in a typical developing country, an increase of 10 mobile phones per 100 people boosts the growth of GDP by 0.6 percentage points a year.
All of these studies support the notion of a strong economic impact on GDP from ICT spending. Therefore, it would seem evident that to support economic growth, governments should support ICT spending.
One way governments can directly influence spending is in the deployment of next generation e-government systems, which are a pillar of modern and efficient government. This paper hopes to demonstrate that these interoperable and connected systems can leverage economic growth and have a significant positive impact on GDP.
1 “Digital Planet Study.” World Information Technology and Service Alliance (WITSA). 2006 and 2010 Update. http://www.witsa.org/v2/
2 Bernasek, Anna. “The Productivity Miracle Is For Real.” Fortune, March 18, 2002.
3 Waverman, Leonard, Meloria Meschi, and Melvyn Fuss. “The Impact of Telecoms on Economic Growth in Developing Countries.” 2005.
technology and economic growth
The Economic Impact of Interoperability4
Widespread Internet access has changed the way that governments provide services to their constituents. As citizens become more and more knowledgeable about ICT resources and capabilities, they increasingly exert political pressure on governments to accelerate the deployment of next generation e-government services. These services not only provide a better quality of service, but also improve the overall efficiency and efficacy of the government and make the workings of public service agencies more transparent.
If we analyze the evolution of data-processing systems in government, it is common to find that the first priority is often to develop solutions addressing government workflows, agency by agency, and usually in response to internal problems. Political decisions for deployment priorities are based on a projected return on investment and on the desire to improve highly visible public services such as security, health, or justice.
These government solutions are often developed on a vertical and stand-alone basis, each one addressing the problem of the individual agency. The result is that the tax agency has its own system, the police agency has its own system, and the justice sector has a distinct system. Although this vertical approach is ideal for solving government agencies’ process issues, its primary flaw is that it doesn’t take into consideration the needs of citizens. Citizens do not just have vertical needs; they mostly have horizontal needs. For example, a citizen who needs a passport will probably need to interact with many agencies, such as police (“I am not a wanted criminal”), justice (“I don’t have any pending court orders”), tax (“I do not owe taxes”), and banking (“I need to pay a fee for my passport”).
poLi
ce
JUst
ice
tax
edU
cati
on
Hea
LtH
The Vertical Silos of Legacy E-GovernmentFigUre 1
needs oF citizens
governments and interoperability
The Economic Impact of Interoperability5
As a result, citizens in need of government services have to go through a painful process of visiting different government agencies in order to obtain their desired service. Many times government agencies request that citizens provide documents that are issued by another agency. It is not unusual for a citizen to stand in line waiting for a document to be printed by one system and then go to another agency that will type in the document data into a different system. The result is overall inefficiency. The citizen wastes time commuting and waiting in line and the government duplicates data entry and data management using multiple systems.
Additional problems arise because citizens are not usually experts on government processes and often don’t know which documents are necessary to comply with government regulations. Citizens must navigate from agency to agency and learn different processes in order to obtain their desired service.
The root of this issue is discussed by Theresa Pardo and Brian Burke in the paper, “Government Worth Having: A Briefing on Interoperability for Government Leaders.”4 They state that, “Individual government agencies need interoperable systems to deliver coordinated programs and services.”
Figure two depicts a common situation where a citizen navigates multiple agencies to obtain a desired government service.
4 Pardo, Theresa and Brian Burke. “Government Worth Having: A Briefing on Interoperability for Government Leaders.” CTG, February 2008.
Traditional Citizen/ Government Interaction FigUre 2
request
government
response
agency a agency B agency c agency d agency e
The Economic Impact of Interoperability6
The result of these inefficient processes is a significant loss of time by citizens and public servants, with a direct impact on overall productivity.
In an ideal world, governments should provide integrated services, where a citizen could place their request into one government agency, through one access channel, in person or online. Integrated and connected government systems would automatically process the request using the appropriate workflow across multiple agencies, thus avoiding the loss of time and the resulting impact on productivity.
Figure three depicts the ideal model for citizen interaction using the services of an integrated and connected government.
The way to achieve this efficient level of service is through interoperability. On the following pages, we will show why achieving interoperability has an important positive impact on GDP.
Proposed Citizen/ Government Interaction FigUre 3
request
access channel
agency intergration
gateway & backend systems working together
response
agency a
agency B
agency d
agency c
agency e
WeB eMaiL digitaL tV
Fax pHone/MoBiLe
sociaL Media
oVer tHe coUnter
The Economic Impact of Interoperability7
From LeGACy e-Government to ConneCted Government
The deployment and availability of e-government services follows a clear pattern. Both the United Nations (UN) and Gartner propose a five-step maturity model to understand and rank how countries deploy these services. The UN used this model in the “United Nations E-Government Survey.”5 Figure four depicts the Gartner model and figure five depicts the UN model.
Connected
transactional
Interactive
enhanced
emerging
FigUre 5Un ModeL For e-goVernMent eVoLUtion
Within these models, the Presence/emerging phase is the simplest one. It is usually deployed in governments through the development of simple websites containing basic information for citizens and businesses. The deployment of this phase is done independently by each agency with no common goals.
The next phase, Interaction/enhanced, is the natural evolution of these websites. Citizens can not only find information, but can also communicate with authorities, exchanging information and filling out request forms. These requests are integrated into mainline applications to be manually or electronically processed.
The third phase, transaction/Interactive, begins to provide more relevant services and interaction. Users can make their requests online and the system will take care of everything. In this phase interoperability first becomes important, although
it is not necessarily where implementation begins. Many government agencies develop and deploy their own solutions independently. However, many of these solutions will need to interoperate with existing systems and even legacy systems necessitating a common interoperability gateway as described in the next phase.
The transformation/transactional phase integrates various applications among different agencies. Interoperability becomes more relevant; transactions among citizens and governments become simpler and there is an overall increase in productivity and data and service quality.
The last stage, revolution/Connected, allows a great variety of transactions to be integrated. New services can be offered at a lower cost and the benefits provided by these integrated services increase the overall value of the next generation e-government system.
PreSenCe• Information provided on the website
InterACtIon• Search for information• CRM• Requests• Exchanges of information
trAnSACtIon• E-Procurement• Reservation and purchase services• Complex procedures
trAnSFormAtIon• Intregation with all current processes• Multi-department profiling• Inter-department transactions• Service intregation• Instant messages and notifications
revoLUtIon • Creation of a new process to support web services• Variety of type of access• Great customization• Complete CRM• Variety of transactions
VaLU
e
coMpLexity
inte
r-op
E-Government Services EvolutionFigUre 4gartner ModeL For e-goVernMent eVoLUtion
5 “United Nations E-Government Survey 2012.” http://www2.unpan.org/egovkb/global_reports/12report.htm
The Economic Impact of Interoperability8
In figure six, we clearly see the domain of workplace modernization, which intends to make government more efficient; the domain of service delivery and engagement, which intends to provide better services to citizens; and the domain of insight and accountability, which intends to make government processes more transparent and civil servants more accountable for their actions.
pUB
Lic
sect
or
spe
nd
/ca
pita
Government Solution Maturity CurveFigUre 6
goVernMent driVen
nascent eMerging deVeLoping MatUring innoVatiVe
citizen/BUsiness driVen
goVernMent WorkpLace Modernization
Administrative Focus
no Customer Charter Basic Services
Citizen/BusinessAware
Citizen/BusinessEngaged
Government Driven, Citizen/BusinessCentric Citizen/Business
Driven & Centric
goVernMent serVice deLiVery & engageMent
goVernMent insigHt & accoUntaBiLity
The phases described above have evolved into today’s more comprehensive set of definitions and domains which better reflect the needs of government transformation. Current thinking about these maturity models led us to the following government solution maturity curve.
The Economic Impact of Interoperability9
InteroPerABILIty And netWork vALUe
Integration of a next generation e-government network has an economic behavior quite similar to a valued network structure in which the global value of the integrated network can be correlated to the number of possible interconnections in the network.
According to Verna Alee in “The Future of Knowledge, Increasing Prosperity Through Value Networks,”6 “…the value and capability of a network expands with the numbers of connections…When a certain level of connectivity is reached in a complex system, the capabilities that are being unleashed may be far greater than the sum of the parts”.
This can be mathematically represented as the value of an interoperable system can be measured as a function of the number of connected transactions.
As we increase the number of combinations, we increase the efficiency of the system and its value.
In figure seven, the illustration for n=2 shows how significant the increase is on the network value as we increase the number of transactions that interconnect or interoperate. Mathematically speaking, this is a factorial progression.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12interoperaBLe transactions
reL
ati
Ve
VaLU
e
FigUre 7 interoperaBLe transactions/reLatiVe VaLUe
Value=∑ ( )mi=1 λi t!
1(t-n)! n!
Where:t is the total number of
transactions to interoperate
m is the number of sub-systems
n is the number of transactions that need to be combined to complete a process
λ is the correlation factor
6 Allee, Verna. “The Future of Knowledge, Increasing Prosperity Through Value Networks.” Elsevier Science, 2003, 78
The Economic Impact of Interoperability10
the ImPACt oF InteroPerABILIty (“ConneCted Government”) on the GdP
The network effect explains why deploying interoperable systems to enable a connected government produces a significant impact. As we increase the number of connections in a network, we increase overall network value, much higher than the sum of the parts. Once a government decides to adopt interoperability as a key ICT strategy, this mathematical phenomenon will, over time, result in a significant increase in productivity.
To better understand the impact, we can measure the burden on GDP when a citizen needs to wait in line for a government service.
The following table identifies the amount of contribution of one working hour on GDP.
Based on this data, we can surmise that if one hour is wasted in line waiting for a government service, that one hour is lost from GDP contribution.
The following table shows a sensitivity analysis of GDP when we vary the number of activities a citizen has to carry out annually (paying taxes, filling out forms, obtaining permits, and others) due to laws or government requirements, as well as the number of minutes needed to fully execute each of the required activities. The time to execute these activities cannot be considered productive time toward an increase in GDP.
Country 2010 GdP Population GdP / GdP / (USd) Capita Working hour
World 60,449,498,549,137 6,817,263,829 8,867 4.434
Argentina 368,736,062,144 40,412,376 9,124 4.562
Belgium 469,374,172,185 10,879,159 43,144 21.572
Brazil 2,087,889,553,822 194,946,470 10,710 5.355
Canada 1,577,040,082,218 34,108,752 46,236 23.118
China 5,926,612,009,750 1,338,299,512 4,428 2.214
France 2,560,002,000,000 64,876,618 39,460 19.730
Germany 3,280,529,801,325 81,702,329 40,152 20.076
India 1,727,111,096,363 1,170,938,000 1,475 0.737
Italy 2,051,412,153,370 60,483,521 33,917 16.958
Japan 5,458,836,663,871 127,450,459 42,831 21.416
Mexico 1,034,804,491,265 113,423,047 9,123 4.562
Netherlands 779,356,291,391 16,612,213 46,915 23.457
Russia 1,479,819,314,058 141,750,000 10,440 5.220
South Korea 1,014,483,158,314 48,875,000 20,757 10.378
Spain 1,407,405,298,013 46,081,574 30,542 15.271
Sweden 458,973,278,964 9,379,116 48,936 24.468
Switzerland 527,919,933,356 7,825,243 67,46 33.732
Turkey 734,364,471,760 72,752,325 10,094 5.047
United Kingdom 2,248,831,038,714 62,218,761 36,144 18.072
United States 14,586,736,313,339 309,050,816 47,199 23.599
soUrces:gdp: Http://data.WorLdBank.org/ indicator/ny.gdp.Mktp.cd/coUntries?order=WBapi_data_VaLUe_2010%20WBapi_data_VaLUe%20WBapi_data_VaLUe-Last&sort=desc&dispLay=deFaULt
popULation:Http://data.WorLdBank.org/ indicator/sp.pop.totL
assUMption:2000 Working HoUrs/year
The Economic Impact of Interoperability11
To complete this analysis, we can apply these percentage ranges to the GDP in select countries.
The table above shows five impact scenarios and their burden on GDP caused by the lack of interoperable systems.
Country 2010 GdP 0.30% 0.70% 1.20% 3.00% 5.00% (USd millions)
World 60,449,499 181,348 423,146 725,394 1,813,485 3,022,475
Australia 368,736 1,106 2,581 4,425 11,062 18,437
Belgium 469,374 1,408 3,286 5,632 14,081 23,469
Brazil 2,087,890 6,264 14,615 25,055 62,637 104,394
Canada 1,577,040 4,731 11,039 18,924 47,311 78,852
China 5,926,612 17,780 41,486 71,119 177,798 296,331
France 2,560,002 7,680 17,920 30,720 76,800 128,000
Germany 3,280,530 9,842 22,964 39,366 98,416 164,026
India 1,727,111 5,181 12,090 20,725 51,813 86,356
Italy 2,051,412 6,154 14,360 24,617 61,542 102,571
Japan 5,458,837 16,377 38,212 65,506 163,765 272,942
Mexico 1,034,804 3,104 7,244 12,418 31,044 51,740
Netherlands 779,356 2,338 5,455 9,352 23,381 38,968
Russia 1,479,819 4,439 10,359 17,758 44,395 73,991
South Korea 1,014,483 3,043 7,101 12,174 30,434 50,724
Spain 1,407,405 4,222 9,852 16,889 42,222 70,370
Sweden 458,973 1,377 3,213 5,508 13,769 22,949
Switzerland 527,920 1,584 3,695 6,335 15,838 26,396
Turkey 734,364 2,203 5,141 8,812 22,031 36,718
United Kingdom 2,248,831 6,746 15,742 26,986 67,465 112,442
United States 14,586,736 43,760 102,107 175,041 437,602 729,337
a taBLe WitH additionaL coUntries is incLUded at tHe end oF tHis docUMent
normALIzed ImPACt on GdP
minutes 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60to execute
5 0.04% 0.06% 0.08% 0.10% 0.13% 0.15% 0.17% 0.19% 0.21% 0.23% 0.25%
10 0.08% 0.13% 0.17% 0.21% 0.25% 0.29% 0.33% 0.38% 0.42% 0.46% 0.50%
15 0.13% 0.19% 0.25% 0.31% 0.38% 0.44% 0.50% 0.56% 0.63% 0.69% 0.75%
20 0.17% 0.25% 0.33% 0.42% 0.50% 0.58% 0.67% 0.75% 0.83% 0.92% 1.00%
25 0.21% 0.31% 0.42% 0.52% 0.63% 0.73% 0.83% 0.94% 1.04% 1.15% 1.25%
30 0.25% 0.38% 0.50% 0.63% 0.75% 0.88% 1.00% 1.13% 1.25% 1.38% 1.50%
35 0.29% 0.44% 0.58% 0.73% 0.88% 1.02% 1.17% 1.31% 1.46% 1.60% 1.75%
40 0.33% 0.50% 0.67% 0.83% 1.00% 1.17% 1.33% 1.50% 1.67% 1.83% 2.00%
45 0.38% 0.56% 0.75% 0.94% 1.13% 1.31% 1.50% 1.69% 1.88% 2.06% 2.25%
50 0.42% 0.63% 0.83% 1.04% 1.25% 1.46% 1.67% 1.88% 2.08% 2.29% 2.50%
55 0.46% 0.69% 0.92% 1.15% 1.38% 1.60% 1.83% 2.06% 2.29% 2.52% 2.75%
60 0.50% 0.75% 1.00% 1.25% 1.50% 1.75% 2.00% 2.25% 2.50% 2.75% 3.00%
number of activities per year
The Economic Impact of Interoperability12
There is no question that e-government systems lead to more efficient governments. However, legacy e-government initiatives primarily work on diminishing the time to process each transaction (the vertical vision), whereas interoperability solutions primarily work on diminishing the number of processes or activities (the horizontal vision) by combining many of them in the same activity or transactional effort. Consequently, deploying next generation e-government systems and, at the same time, making them interoperable, has a greater positive impact on GDP. These interoperable e-government systems can be developed using technologies such as cloud services and Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)7.In addition to the impact on GDP, there are other benefits from interoperable e-government systems. These include better data quality, more relevant information, and increased agility to expedite bureaucratic processes, as well as an improvement in citizens’ perceptions of their governments. In the article “Measuring the Returns from Investments on E-Government”8 we address the issue of valuing non-tangible returns such as transparency, quality, efficiency, and equal opportunity to compete for government business. This is a growing area for consideration with the recent advances in social media use by governments, which allows government leaders to receive rapid feedback about government activities, projects, and plans, as well as making available to the public data elements and information for necessary transparency and accountability.
In summary, the primary conclusions of this paper are:
• Spending on ICT positively impacts economic growth.
• Next generation e-government initiatives provide a substantial value for the public sector, returning benefits to citizens and governments.
• Using the right architectural model to deploy interoperable e-government services results in a direct, positive impact on GDP.
To learn more, visit www.microsoft.com/ongovernment.
7 Fishenden, Jerry, Oliver Bell, and Alan Grose. “Government Interoperability – Enabling the Delivery of E-Services.” A Microsoft white paper.
8 Madrid, Lorenzo. “Measuring the Returns from Investments on E-Government.” A Microsoft white paper.
conclusions
13 The Economic Impact of Interoperability
appendix
Worldwide GDP Table & Interoperability Impact
The Economic Impact of Interoperability14
2010 GdP Country (USd millions) ImPACt on GdP
US mILLIon 0.30% 0.70% 1.20% 3.00% 5.00%
World 60,449,499 181,348 423,146 725,394 1,813,485 3,022,475
Afghanistan 17,243 52 121 207 517 862
Albania 11,786 35 83 141 354 589
Algeria 159,426 478 1,116 1,913 4,783 7,971
Angola 84,391 253 591 1,013 2,532 4,220
Antigua and Barbuda 1,211 4 8 15 36 61
Argentina 368,736 1,106 2,581 4,425 11,062 18,437
Armenia 9,371 28 66 112 281 469
Austria 379,069 1,137 2,653 4,549 11,372 18,953
Azerbaijan 51,774 155 362 621 1,553 2,589
Bahamas, The 7,538 23 53 90 226 377
Bangladesh 100,357 301 702 1,204 3,011 5,018
Barbados 4,110 12 29 49 123 205
Belarus 54,713 164 383 657 1,641 2,736
Belgium 469,374 1,408 3,286 5,632 14,081 23,469
Belize 1,401 4 10 17 42 70
Benin 6,633 20 46 80 199 332
Bhutan 1,516 5 11 18 45 76
Bolivia 19,650 59 138 236 589 982
Bosnia & Herzegovina 16,578 50 116 199 497 829
Botswana 14,857 45 104 178 446 743
Brazil 2,087,890 6,264 14,615 25,055 62,637 104,394
Bulgaria 47,714 143 334 573 1,431 2,386
Burkina Faso 8,820 26 62 106 265 441
Burundi 1,611 5 11 19 48 81
Cambodia 11,242 34 79 135 337 562
Cameroon 22,394 67 157 269 672 1,120
Canada 1,577,040 4,731 11,039 18,924 47,311 78,852
Cape Verde 1,648 5 12 20 49 82
Central African Republic 2,013 6 14 24 60 101
Chad 7,588 23 53 91 228 379
Chile 212,741 638 1,489 2,553 6,382 10,637
China 5,926,612 17,780 41,486 71,119 177,798 296,331
Colombia 288,189 865 2,017 3,458 8,646 14,409
Comoros 541 2 4 6 16 27
Congo, Dem. Rep. 13,145 39 92 158 394 657
Worldwide GDP Table & Interoperability Impact - 2010
The Economic Impact of Interoperability15
2010 GdP Country (USd millions) ImPACt on GdP
US mILLIon 0.30% 0.70% 1.20% 3.00% 5.00%
Congo, Rep. 11,898 36 83 143 357 595
Costa Rica 35,831 107 251 430 1,075 1,792
Cote d’Ivoire 22,780 68 159 273 683 1,139
Croatia 60,852 183 426 730 1,826 3,043
Cyprus 23,132 69 162 278 694 1,157
Czech Republic 192,032 576 1,344 2,304 5,761 9,602
Denmark 309,866 930 2,169 3,718 9,296 15,493
Dominica 466 1 3 6 14 23
Dominican Republic 51,766 155 362 621 1,553 2,588
Ecuador 57,978 174 406 696 1,739 2,899
Egypt, Arab Rep. 218,894 657 1,532 2,627 6,567 10,945
El Salvador 21,215 64 149 255 636 1,061
Equatorial Guinea 14,007 42 98 168 420 700
Eritrea 2,117 6 15 25 64 106
Estonia 19,217 58 135 231 576 961
Ethiopia 29,717 89 208 357 892 1,486
Fiji 3,189 10 22 38 96 159
Finland 238,746 716 1,671 2,865 7,162 11,937
France 2,560,002 7,680 17,920 30,720 76,800 128,000
Gabon 13,011 39 91 156 390 651
Gambia, The 807 2 6 10 24 40
Georgia 11,667 35 82 140 350 583
Germany 3,280,530 9,842 22,964 39,366 98,416 164,026
Ghana 31,306 94 219 376 939 1,565
Greece 301,083 903 2,108 3,613 9,032 15,054
Grenada 773 2 5 9 23 39
Guatemala 41,186 124 288 494 1,236 2,059
Guinea 4,511 14 32 54 135 226
Guinea-Bissau 879 3 6 11 26 44
Guyana 2,226 7 16 27 67 111
Haiti 6,710 20 47 81 201 335
Honduras 15,400 46 108 185 462 770
Hong Kong SAR, China 224,458 673 1,571 2,693 6,734 11,223
Hungary 128,632 386 900 1,544 3,859 6,432
Iceland 12,574 38 88 151 377 629
India 1,727,111 5,181 12,090 20,725 51,813 86,356
Indonesia 706,558 2,120 4,946 8,479 21,197 35,328
Worldwide GDP Table & Interoperability Impact - 2010
The Economic Impact of Interoperability16
2010 GdP Country (USd millions) ImPACt on GdP
US mILLIon 0.30% 0.70% 1.20% 3.00% 5.00%
Iraq 82,150 246 575 986 2,465 4,108
Ireland 211,390 634 1,480 2,537 6,342 10,569
Israel 217,333 652 1,521 2,608 6,520 10,867
Italy 2,051,412 6,154 14,360 24,617 61,542 102,571
Jamaica 14,252 43 100 171 428 713
Japan 5,458,837 16,377 38,212 65,506 163,765 272,942
Jordan 27,574 83 193 331 827 1,379
Kazakhstan 149,059 447 1,043 1,789 4,472 7,453
Kenya 31,409 94 220 377 942 1,570
Kiribati 151 0 1 2 5 8
Korea, Rep. 1,014,483 3,043 7,101 12,174 30,434 50,724
Kosovo 5,552 17 39 67 167 278
Kyrgyz Republic 4,616 14 32 55 138 231
Lao PDR 7,296 22 51 88 219 365
Latvia 24,010 72 168 288 720 1,200
Lebanon 39,006 117 273 468 1,170 1,950
Lesotho 2,132 6 15 26 64 107
Liberia 986 3 7 12 30 49
Lithuania 36,306 109 254 436 1,089 1,815
Luxembourg 53,334 160 373 640 1,600 2,667
Macao SAR, China 27,960 84 196 336 839 1,398
Macedonia, FYR 9,189 28 64 110 276 459
Madagascar 8,721 26 61 105 262 436
Malawi 5,106 15 36 61 153 255
Malaysia 237,797 713 1,665 2,854 7,134 11,890
Maldives 1,908 6 13 23 57 95
Mali 9,251 28 65 111 278 463
Malta 8,256 25 58 99 248 413
Marshall Islands 163 0 1 2 5 8
Mauritania 3,636 11 25 44 109 182
Mauritius 9,729 29 68 117 292 486
Mexico 1,034,804 3,104 7,244 12,418 31,044 51,740
Micronesia, Fed. Sts. 297 1 2 4 9 15
Moldova 5,809 17 41 70 174 290
Mongolia 6,200 19 43 74 186 310
Montenegro 4,111 12 29 49 123 206
Morocco 90,805 272 636 1,090 2,724 4,540
Worldwide GDP Table & Interoperability Impact - 2010
The Economic Impact of Interoperability17
2010 GdP Country (USd millions) ImPACt on GdP
US mILLIon 0.30% 0.70% 1.20% 3.00% 5.00%
Mozambique 9,586 29 67 115 288 479
Namibia 12,170 37 85 146 365 609
Netherlands 779,356 2,338 5,455 9,352 23,381 38,968
Nicaragua 6,551 20 46 79 197 328
Niger 5,549 17 39 67 166 277
Nigeria 193,669 581 1,356 2,324 5,810 9,683
Norway 412,990 1,239 2,891 4,956 12,390 20,649
Pakistan 176,870 531 1,238 2,122 5,306 8,843
Palau 171 1 1 2 5 9
Panama 26,689 80 187 320 801 1,334
Palau 171 1 1 2 5 9
Panama 26,689 80 187 320 801 1,334
Papua New Guinea 9,480 28 66 114 284 474
Paraguay 18,333 55 128 220 550 917
Peru 157,053 471 1,099 1,885 4,712 7,853
Philippines 199,589 599 1,397 2,395 5,988 9,979
Poland 469,440 1,408 3,286 5,633 14,083 23,472
Portugal 228,872 687 1,602 2,746 6,866 11,444
Romania 161,624 485 1,131 1,939 4,849 8,081
Russian Federation 1,479,819 4,439 10,359 17,758 44,395 73,991
Rwanda 5,628 17 39 68 169 281
Samoa 574 2 4 7 17 29
Sao Tome and Principe 197 1 1 2 6 10
Saudi Arabia 434,666 1,304 3,043 5,216 13,040 21,733
Senegal 12,954 39 91 155 389 648
Serbia 38,423 115 269 461 1,153 1,921
Seychelles 937 3 7 11 28 47
Sierra Leone 1,905 6 13 23 57 95
Singapore 208,765 626 1,461 2,505 6,263 10,438
Slovak Republic 87,268 262 611 1,047 2,618 4,363
Slovenia 46,908 141 328 563 1,407 2,345
Solomon Islands 679 2 5 8 20 34
South Africa 363,704 1,091 2,546 4,364 10,911 18,185
Spain 1,407,405 4,222 9,852 16,889 42,222 70,370
Sri Lanka 49,552 149 347 595 1,487 2,478
St. Kitts and Nevis 652 2 5 8 20 33
St. Lucia 1,198 4 8 14 36 60
Worldwide GDP Table & Interoperability Impact - 2010
The Economic Impact of Interoperability18
2010 GdP Country (USd millions) ImPACt on GdP
US mILLIon 0.30% 0.70% 1.20% 3.00% 5.00%
St. Vincent and the Grenadines 705 2 5 8 21 35
Sudan 62,046 186 434 745 1,861 3,102
Swaziland 3,645 11 26 44 109 182
Sweden 458,973 1,377 3,213 5,508 13,769 22,949
Switzerland 527,920 1,584 3,695 6,335 15,838 26,396
Syrian Arab Republic 59,147 177 414 710 1,774 2,957
Swaziland 3,645 11 26 44 109 182
Sweden 458,973 1,377 3,213 5,508 13,769 22,949
Switzerland 527,920 1,584 3,695 6,335 15,838 26,396
Syrian Arab Republic 59,147 177 414 710 1,774 2,957
Tajikistan 5,640 17 39 68 169 282
Tanzania 23,057 69 161 277 692 1,153
Thailand 318,522 956 2,230 3,822 9,556 15,926
Timor-Leste 701 2 5 8 21 35
Togo 3,153 9 22 38 95 158
Tonga 348 1 2 4 10 17
Trinidad and Tobago 20,604 62 144 247 618 1,030
Tunisia 44,291 133 310 531 1,329 2,215
Turkey 734,364 2,203 5,141 8,812 22,031 36,718
Turkmenistan 20,001 60 140 240 600 1,000
Tuvalu 31 0 0 0 1 2
Uganda 17,011 51 119 204 510 851
Ukraine 137,929 414 966 1,655 4,138 6,896
United Arab Emirates 297,648 893 2,084 3,572 8,929 14,882
United Kingdom 2,248,831 6,746 15,742 26,986 67,465 112,442
United States 14,586,736 43,760 102,107 175,041 437,602 729,337
Uruguay 40,265 121 282 483 1,208 2,013
Uzbekistan 38,982 117 273 468 1,169 1,949
Vanuatu 699 2 5 8 21 35
Venezuela, RB 391,847 1,176 2,743 4,702 11,755 19,592
Vietnam 106,427 319 745 1,277 3,193 5,321
Zambia 16,193 49 113 194 486 810
Zimbabwe 7,474 22 52 90 224 374
Worldwide GDP Table & Interoperability Impact - 2010