Digital technologies and data affect all sectors of the economy and every aspect of life. As such, it becomes more important and challenging to develop, implement and co-ordinate flexible policy frameworks that make the most of the opportunities of digital technologies while mitigating their risks. Using the Going Digital Integrated Policy Framework as a guide, as well as the responses to the OECD Digital Economy Outlook (DEO) 2024 Questionnaire, this chapter examines trends in digital policy priorities across countries. It analyses national digital strategies in the countries for which they exist and the governance approaches in place to design, implement and monitor them. Finally, it explores the broader digital policy landscape across countries.
OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2024 (Volume 2)
Abstract
Despite the many changes brought about by digital technologies, digital policy priorities remain relatively constant
In 2023, digital government, connectivity and skills were identified as the top three digital policy priorities among 38 OECD countries and partner economies. These priorities have been relatively constant since 2016.
National digital strategies are the primary approach to co-ordinating digital policies, and they are frequently revised
Over 90% of the OECD countries and partner economies for which data were available in 2023 reported having a national digital strategy (NDS) in place or being in the process of developing one.
Responsibility for developing and co-ordinating national digital strategies is increasingly at a high governmental level, but approaches to budget allocation vary
The share of OECD countries and partner economies that assign primary responsibility for developing their NDS above ministerial level (such as the Prime Minister’s office, Presidency or Chancellery) has more than tripled from 12% in 2016 to 42% in 2023. Of these countries, 38% also assign co-ordination at above ministerial level.
The share of national digital strategies developed by dedicated digital ministries in OECD countries and partner economies rose from just under a quarter (24%) in 2016 to almost half (47%) in 2023.
There is a roughly even split between countries that allocate a dedicated budget to their NDS and those that do not, with large differences in expenditure as a share of gross domestic product (GDP).
The national digital policy landscape differs across countries, but there are some commonalities
Countries without an overarching NDS tend to have several specific strategies and a range of other policies that constitute their national digital policy landscape.
Among the almost 1 200 policy initiatives collected across OECD countries and partner economies in 2023, about one-third aim to increase effective use of digital technologies, promote social prosperity and boost innovation. Artificial intelligence (AI) and 5G are the most often-cited technologies.
“Data” is a transversal part of the digital policy landscape. While it is reflected in policies in all seven dimensions of the Going Digital Integrated Policy Framework, it is most often present in policies related to promoting innovation and fostering trust.
Economies, governments and societies across the globe are going digital. Although already under way for nearly half a century, the pace of digitalisation has quickened. Ubiquitous computing has become the norm and fast-evolving digital technologies, like generative AI, immersive technologies and quantum computing, are evolving and spreading.
These technologies generate huge volumes of data of all kinds, making data an important, strategic asset. At the same time, the development and deployment of next generation networks are changing how and where people and firms use and access the Internet and the broader digital technology ecosystem.
Digital technologies and data affect all sectors of the economy and every aspect of life. Consequently, it becomes more important and challenging to develop and co-ordinate flexible policy frameworks. In this way, countries can make the most of the opportunities of digital technologies while mitigating their risks.
The challenge is compounded by the global free flow of data across the Internet. As such, multilateral and cross-border co-operation is essential for critical global infrastructures and on key policy issues like privacy and security. Mapping digital policies and their governance approaches across countries provides policy makers with useful input as they adapt to changes in the digital technology ecosystem and the related impacts on the economy and society.
The OECD Going Digital Integrated Policy Framework (the Framework) (OECD, 2020[1]) provides a flexible, whole-of-government approach to developing digital policies (Annex 1.A). Using the Framework as a guide, this chapter maps the digital policy landscape at high level across countries. To that end, it examines trends in digital policy priorities across countries; analyses national digital strategies in the countries for which they exist and the governance approaches in place to design, implement and monitor them; and explores the broader digital policy landscape across countries.
The digital policy data on which this chapter is based is derived from the DEO 2024 Questionnaire which reflects self-reported information on policies from OECD countries and partner economies. The DEO 2024 Questionnaire has three parts: digital policy priorities, national digital strategies (if applicable) and governance arrangements; the major digital policies in countries beyond national digital strategies; and a special section on targeted policy initiatives related to immersive technologies, mental health, and false and misleading content on line.
Part 1 collected data from 42 countries1 on digital policy priorities and 38 countries2 on national digital strategies and governance arrangements. Part 2 gathered data on 1 195 different policy initiatives from 46 countries,3 including their main objectives, budgets and governance arrangements. Part 3 collected information from 384 countries on policy initiatives in the special focus areas.
References to “countries” in this chapter reflect the OECD countries and partner economies that responded to the DEO 20175 , 20206 and 20241,2,3,4 Questionnaires.
Surveying governments’ policy initiatives, as well as categorising and quantifying that information, is a highly valuable activity. Understanding how one country compares to another, for example, can help policy makers design and implement digital policies. In addition, establishing an empirical link between policies and outcomes requires comparable data on what governments do; policy surveys are one of the only ways to collect this information.
However, data from policy questionnaires generally suffer from biases. For example, such data capture the existence of policy initiatives (quantity) rather than their effectiveness (quality). Moreover, policy surveys require input from policy makers who may have different views on what is the right set of policies. Given ambiguities in what constitutes a “digital policy”, surveys do not likely collect every initiative from every country that participated in the survey.
Identifying a government’s digital policy priorities is the first step in mapping its digital policy landscape. Over the years, this type of analysis has helped identify emerging policy issues such as digital inclusion, gender equality and data governance. These issues have since become important policy concerns for many governments. This section explores priorities identified in the DEO 2024 Questionnaire and compares them across countries and over time.
Digital government, connectivity and skills are countries’ top priorities for the next five years
Digital government, connectivity and skills remain the major digital policy priorities in 2023 and have been relatively constantly since data collection began in 2016 (Table 1.1).1,5,6 These priorities are also frequently cited in national digital strategies, a trend also observed in 2019. For the first time in 2023, increasing the digitalisation of businesses entered the top five priorities. Countries also identified the promotion of economic growth and increased international competitiveness as separate but similar themes. Fostering innovation, including by reference to specific technologies such as AI, fell out of the top five most commonly mentioned priorities from its third-place ranking in 2019. Meanwhile, cybersecurity remains in fifth place.
Notes: The rankings are based on self-reported priorities from 38 countries for 2016, 38 countries for 2019 and 42 countries for 2023. Business transformation refers to the uptake of digital technologies by businesses.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on the DEO 2017, 2020 and 2024 Questionnaires.
In addition to the top digital policy priorities for the next five years reported by countries, a country’s policy priorities may also be observed by examining existing policies. Using a text-mining approach, the 40 most frequently occurring bigrams (or clusters of two words) have been extracted from all of the policy initiatives submitted in response to the DEO 2024 Questionnaire (Figure 1.1).3
Top bigrams (clusters of two words) extracted from policy initiative descriptions across all dimensions, 2023
Notes: The data are based on survey responses from 46 countries. Each term was counted a maximum of once per policy initiative submitted.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on the DEO 2024 Questionnaire.
This approach highlights some clear differences between the self-reported top priorities of countries for the next five years and the most frequent terms in the submitted policy descriptions. “Fostering innovation” (including AI) was less frequently mentioned as a top priority by countries in 2023. However, “artificial intelligence” was the second most commonly occurring bigram across the policies submitted. In addition, innovation-related terms such as “research development” and “research innovation” featured prominently. This suggests that policies related to innovation in general, and AI in particular, remain prominent for countries despite occurring less frequently in self-reported top priorities.
In many countries, national digital strategies have emerged as a key part of the digital policy landscape. They play an important role in facilitating policy co-ordination and coherence across many policy areas. This section explores changes in national digital strategies since 2019, provides an update of the OECD national digital strategy comprehensiveness (NDSC) indicator, and discusses current NDS governance approaches and trends.
Countries tend to revise their national digital strategies frequently
National digital strategies are an established tool to address cross-cutting digital policy opportunities and challenges. Today, most OECD countries and many others have an NDS in place. The scope and form of such strategies differ across countries, reflecting domestic contexts and priorities. However, an NDS usually serves to guide and co-ordinate national digital policies, provide key objectives and measurable targets, and includes the policies needed to achieve them.
The aims and content of national digital strategies can vary significantly. Some are more aspirational, while others are specific and action-oriented. Some contain many policy measures, including from co-ordinated strategies. Others include fewer measures but are well co-ordinated with related strategies and policies.
In this chapter, an NDS is understood as the government’s most comprehensive digital strategy at the national level that exclusively or primarily addresses digital policy issues across policy domains affected by or affecting digital transformation (Gierten and Lesher, 2022[2]). As such, an NDS as defined in this chapter contains and/or co-ordinates the major policy measures in a country’s digital policy landscape.
From a policy perspective, knowing the comprehensiveness of an NDS provides useful insights. The data suggest that governments frequently revise national digital strategies. Identifying how well a strategy covers the dimensions of the Framework, then, can provide a useful guide when considering policies for a new strategy. When combined with performance measures, such as the dashboards on the OECD Going Digital Toolkit (OECD, 2024[3]), policy makers can link performance in the seven Framework dimensions to the comprehensiveness of their strategies.
Since 2021, 22 OECD countries and partner economies have developed a new or updated NDS that meets this definition. This shows national digital strategies have become close to ubiquitous as a method of co-ordinating digital policy. Nonetheless, the aims of an NDS and how it interacts with the wider policy landscape vary significantly among countries.
Only slightly less than 1 in 5 (19%) of the 27 national digital strategies evaluated in 2021 remain in place today. This suggests that national digital strategies are frequently updated to reflect technological developments and changing policy priorities. Indeed, while major government strategies tend to operate over a time horizon of three to five years, national digital strategies appear to be in a near constant state of evolution. This allows them to remain well adapted to the rapidly developing policy environment.
Using the methodology established by the OECD to assess NDS comprehensiveness (Gierten and Lesher, 2022[2]), the authors evaluated new national digital strategies.7 Updated NDSC scores for 27 countries,8 broken down by the seven dimensions of the Framework, are presented in Figure 1.2. For each dimension, the darker shades of blue indicate more comprehensiveness and the lighter shades indicate less comprehensiveness of the country’s NDS. The NDSC provides insights into how well a country’s NDS co-ordinates the policies needed to make digital transformation work for growth and well-being. It does not assess the quality or breadth of a country’s entire digital policy landscape.
The results show that Access continues to be the most comprehensively covered dimension, in addition to being the one in which full coverage is most frequently achieved. This reflects the maturity of connectivity policies, often included in Broadband strategies. Many countries have had such strategies since the beginning of the information and communication technology revolution. Consequently, these strategies have been updated as networks have evolved from the early Internet and 2G mobile services through fibre-to-the-cabinet and 3G and 4G mobile services to the fibre-to-the-home and 5G being implemented today.
The Innovation, Society and Use dimensions follow as the next most comprehensively covered dimensions. While this pattern is similar to the 2021 NDSC, the difference in coverage between Access, Use and the other dimensions has narrowed. This may partly reflect the success of prior digitalisation initiatives in increasing access to and use of digital technologies and thus shifting the policy focus towards other areas. Comprehensiveness in the Trust dimension was roughly evenly situated between the most covered dimensions and the laggards.
Jobs and Market openness continue to be the least comprehensive dimensions in the national digital strategies considered. However, among those countries that have revised their NDS since 2021, Market openness (alongside Trust) is the dimension in which most improved their score. These are also the two dimensions with the greatest variance in the level of comprehensiveness, which suggests policies in these areas are still emerging. This implies, in turn, that the scope for mutually beneficial knowledge sharing and collaboration is the greatest in these dimensions. Such collaboration could expand as solutions to labour market issues – and shared responses to taxation, trade and competition – are developed.
NDSC per dimension of the Framework, 2023
Notes: NDS = National digital strategy, NDSC = National digital strategy comprehensiveness. The responses for Austria, Greece, Italy, Norway and Portugal have not changed since 2021 as their NDSs remain the same. The response from New Zealand was compiled based on policies developed under a previous administration. As of June 2024, Norway’s NDS is being revised.
Source: OECD (2024[5]), OECD Going Digital Toolkit, based on the OECD National Digital Strategy Database, https://oe.cd/ndsc.
Exploring the NDSC at a domain level shows countries’ top three overall priorities for the next five years (see above) tend to be clearly reflected in their NDSC scores (Table 1.2). Of the 27 national digital strategies analysed, the digital government domain was included in at least one of the relevant Framework dimensions in all strategies. Meanwhile, 26 strategies included the skills domain in at least one relevant Framework dimension, and 23 included connectivity (or communications infrastructures and services). Security, which was among the top five overall priorities for the next five years, was covered in at least one relevant Framework dimension in all the 27 strategies analysed.
Domain-level NDSC score, 27 countries, 2023
Notes: NDSC = National digital strategy comprehensiveness. This table shows the domain-level NDSC scores for 27 countries (see Figure 1.2 for the country list). The count can range from 0 to 27. It reflects how many of the national digital strategies for which scores are available include each of the Framework’s policy domains.
Source: Authors’ calculations.
The domains of competition, and tax and benefits, are among the least covered. This suggests two possible explanations. First, it could mean that policy measures in these areas would benefit from greater focus from policy makers. Second, it could mean that measures from these two domains relevant to digital transformation could be better linked with national digital strategies.
Only one-third of countries had qualifying policy measures for the social protection domain in the Jobs dimension. However, almost 85% of countries had a qualifying policy measure for the social policies domain in the Society dimension. This suggests that despite a clear effort to tackle digital divides in everyday life, greater policy focus on social policies aimed at helping workers transition from one job to the next could be useful. This would be especially true if such policies were co-ordinated within national digital strategies.
National digital strategies are increasingly developed and co-ordinated by the highest levels of government
Any approach to national digital policy making requires effective governance. Key objectives of such governance include avoiding policy inconsistencies, leveraging synergies and enhancing effectiveness. These are achieved most notably through co-ordinating all entities and actors involved in national digital policy making and its implementation. Allocating sufficient budget, monitoring progress, and evaluating strategies and/or policies are equally important.
In recent years, there has been a trend for more senior levels of government (Prime Minister’s office, Presidency or Chancellery) or dedicated digital ministries to develop and co-ordinate national digital strategies (Figure 1.3).2,5,6 Data suggest a significant increase (from 12% in 2016 to 42% in 2023) in the proportion of governments that assign the primary responsibility for developing their NDS above the ministerial level (such as the Prime Minister, Presidency or Chancellery). Of these countries, 38% also assign co-ordination at above ministerial level. There has been a similar increase in the proportion of national digital strategies developed by dedicated digital ministries: the percentage rose from just under a quarter (24%) to almost half (47%) during the same period.
Responsibility for lead strategy development of NDS across countries, 2016-23
Note: NDS = National digital strategy. Data for survey responses are based on the following: 38 countries (2016); 38 countries (2019); and 38 countries (2024).
Source: Authors’ calculations based on the DEO 2017, 2019 and 2024 Questionnaires.
This coincides with a significant fall in the share of respondents whose NDS is primarily developed by a ministry or body not dedicated to digital affairs (Table 1.3). In 2016, non-dedicated organisations developed 44% of national digital strategies, whereas they developed only 8% in the latest survey. Likewise, multiple ministries or bodies developed just under one-fifth (18%) of strategies in 2016; in 2023, only the Netherlands chose this approach.
The allocation of responsibility for co-ordination of national digital strategies has followed a similar, if less marked, trend. For two-thirds of countries, a dedicated digital ministry or body co-ordinates the NDS. This represents a more than doubling of the share of countries that use this arrangement since data collection began in 2016. The number of countries allocating co-ordination to a ministry or body not dedicated to digital affairs has decline notably, falling from 39% of countries to less than one in ten (8%). More than one in five (21%) countries co-ordinate their NDS at above ministerial level, with this category becoming the second most popular for the first time in 2023.
The move towards leading and co-ordinating national digital strategies at increasingly senior and specialised levels of government, alongside the growth in ministries with a dedicated digital function, points to their growing importance in the overall policy landscape. While multiple public and private stakeholders contribute to and help implement national digital strategies, specialist knowledge and senior oversight seem to be becoming more important as national digital strategies evolve over time.
Note: NDS = National digital strategy.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on the DEO 2024 Questionnaire.
While governance arrangements for national digital strategies seem to follow similar trends across countries, data indicate that budget arrangements for national digital strategies are more mixed. There is a relatively even split between countries that have not allocated a budget to their NDS (47%) and those allocating either a dedicated (45%) or repurposed budget (8%).
With respect to the type of budget allocated to national digital strategies, approaches are diverse. Slightly more respondents allocated a multi-year budget than an annual one (11 to 9, respectively). Estonia, Korea and Thailand indicated their NDS budget contained both annual and multi-year elements. In addition, countries are almost evenly split between those that allocated a centralised budget to their NDS (48%) and those that chose a decentralised one (52%) in 2023.
As shown in Figure 1.4, the size of the budget allocated to national digital strategies also varies greatly among countries. Budget size ranges from USD 1.2 million (Portugal) to more than USD 20 billion (Spain) when EU recovery funding is included. When calculated as a share of GDP, Estonia has the largest NDS budget at 3.3% of GDP. Meanwhile, half of respondents whose NDS has a budget allocated 0.1% of GDP or less to their NDS.
NDS budget (million USD) as a share of GDP, 2023
Notes: NDS = National digital strategy. The data are based on survey responses from 18 countries and may incorporate different elements; caution is advised when making direct country comparisons. USD exchange rates were collected from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), except for Mexico for which data were provided in USD. GDP data are based on the 2022 OECD SNA series, except for Jordan, Peru and Thailand, for which IMF data are used, and Mexico, for which data were provided as a share of GDP.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on the DEO 2024 Questionnaire.
This indicates that budgetary decisions related to national digital strategies depend highly on context. The wide variance in approaches and amounts likely indicates differences in how national budgets are organised and how NDS budgets are calculated. Some countries choose to allocate sufficient budget to their NDS to cover all of the measures it contains and co-ordinates. Others establish a smaller centralised budget with decentralised budgets allocated to each individual measure.
Effective monitoring and evaluation are essential to ensuring that national digital strategies achieve their stated goals and ambitions. All respondents to the DEO 2024 Questionnaire indicated their NDS is monitored, except for Canada, which individually monitors and evaluates the initiatives in its digital charter rather than the charter as a whole (Figure 1.5).1 Only two other countries do not evaluate their NDS (Luxembourg and the Netherlands). This is in line with findings in 2019 (OECD, 2020[4]) and 2021 (Gierten and Lesher, 2022[2]).
In addition, almost nine in ten (89%) countries use quantitative targets to monitor their NDS, increasing from two-thirds in 2021. This suggests the level of monitoring is increasing with successive iterations of national digital strategies. Just over three-quarters of countries (78%) also assess the potential impact of their NDS on overarching objectives, such as increasing economic growth.
Monitoring and evaluation of national digital strategies, 2023
Notes: NDS = National digital strategy. The data are based on survey responses from 38 countries. The United Kingdom did not answer question B. Estonia and Romania did not answer question D.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on the DEO 2024 Questionnaire.
The third and final step in mapping the digital policy landscape requires considering all types of policy initiatives in place in a given country. This step is particularly relevant for countries without an NDS, which tend to have several more focused strategies and a range of other policies that constitute their national digital policy landscape. Most countries with an NDS also have policies that pre-date, are more recent or may otherwise be outside the scope of their current NDS. This section analyses the broader digital policy landscape across countries through the lens of the Framework.
An overview of the digital policy initiatives provided by 46 countries3 is included in Figure 1.6. The digital policy landscape appears to be skewed towards policies aiming to increase effective use, promote social prosperity and unleash innovation. Together, they represent around 30% of all initiatives across countries. This supports the hypothesis that while “fostering innovation” is no longer one of respondents’ top five priorities for the next five years, countries are still paying significant policy attention to it.
Distribution of digital policy initiatives across policy dimensions, 2023
Notes: Data are based on survey responses from 46 countries. The data are presented as the share of the total number of policies in each dimension. Some initiatives are considered under multiple policy dimensions based on their scope and so the individual bars do not add up to 100%.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on the DEO 2024 Questionnaire.
The Use and Society dimensions are both comprehensively covered by national digital strategies (see Figure 1.2) and by a relatively high number of other major digital policies. In contrast, while Access is also among the most comprehensively covered dimensions in national digital strategies, it has relatively fewer major digital policies (Figure 1.6). This is a reflection of Access policies often being large, multi-year transformation projects with big budgets rather than clusters of smaller initiatives.
In contrast, Market openness tends to be the dimension least comprehensively covered both in national digital strategies and by individual policy initiatives. This is the case although Market openness covers domains strongly affected by digital technologies, such as taxation, competition, trade and financial markets. In some of these domains, policies may still be emerging.
While cross-country trends yield valuable insights, it is also important to look at countries in detail. Figure 1.7 maps the digital policies for the 45 countries that provided data on a critical mass of initiatives (i.e. countries that provided at least one initiative in at least three of the Framework’s seven dimensions).
Distribution of digital policy initiatives, by Framework dimension, 2023
Notes: Some policy initiatives are considered under multiple policy dimensions based on their scope. Therefore, adding up the numbers of initiatives by Framework dimension does not necessarily equal the total number of policy initiatives collected per country.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on the DEO 2024 Questionnaire.
As these charts show, there is significant cross-country variation in both the number of policies reported and the extent to which they cover all aspects of the Framework. Some countries, such as Greece and the Netherlands, concentrated many initiatives in a few dimensions. In contrast, Japan and Poland report fewer policy initiatives but cover the Framework more comprehensively. This analysis only considers the quantity of measures submitted for each dimension of the Framework. Therefore, it should not be considered as an assessment of the quality of each country’s digital policy landscape.
“Data” policies are a transversal part of the policy landscape
Data are the fuel that powers the engine of digital transformation. In the Framework, data and data governance are identified as transversal policy issues given their prevalence across all policy dimensions. Figure 1.83 shows the occurrences of the word “data” in policy descriptions in the policy initiatives collected in 2023. The data have been normalised to reflect the number of initiatives included in each Framework dimension.
Even for those dimensions with the fewest mentions of “data” such as Access and Jobs, “data” occurs approximately once in every five policies. Innovation and Trust are the dimensions in which “data” is most frequently cited, with more than one mention per initiative in each. While there is some variance between dimensions, “data” is much more transversal than a more specific term. “AI/artificial intelligence”, for example, occurred four times for every five policies in the Innovation dimension. However, it occurred just once for every 25 policies in the Access dimension and not at all in Market openness.
Semantic search results of the word “data” in policy initiative descriptions, normalised by the total number of policy initiatives in each dimension, 2023
Note: Data are based on survey responses from 46 countries.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on the DEO 2024 Questionnaire.
AI is the dominant emerging technology in policy initiatives
Digital transformation policies tend to be technology-agnostic, focusing on broad objectives such as the digitisation of businesses or improving skills. Some technologies, however, have spurred governments to develop a technology-specific policy response. This is particularly true of new and emerging technologies for which the societal impacts may not be fully quantified or understood.
For this study, data on digital policy initiatives were parsed through a custom dictionary to determine which of the most prominent emerging technologies appeared most frequently. The results show that AI is mentioned more than twice as often as 5G, the next closest technology (Figure 1.9).3 5G was also mentioned more than all other technologies combined (except AI). While some listed technologies such as 6G have entered policy discussions relatively recently, others have been around for several years. Many countries have developed dedicated AI strategies, but most of the other technologies included in the dictionary are often contained within more generic innovation strategies.
Emerging technologies and related terms cited in policy initiatives, 2023
Notes: Data are based on survey responses from 46 countries. The figure shows occurrences of selected terms from the custom dictionary. “Artificial intelligence” also includes occurrences of “AI”. “Internet of Things” also includes occurrences of “IoT”. “Immersive technologies” also includes occurrences of “metaverse” and “virtual reality”.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on the DEO 2024 Questionnaire.
Advances in the digital technology ecosystem will shape the future of digital policy making. Generative AI, immersive technologies and next generation networks have recently arrived, while other technological developments are on the horizon. Policy makers need to understand these technologies to determine whether and how policy frameworks need to adapt in response. The establishment of dedicated digital ministries, a trend likely to continue, can help in this respect. As the proliferation of digital policy initiatives continues, dedicated digital ministries can also provide the direction and needed support as countries work even harder to ensure their digital policies achieve their objectives.
Other major trends have widespread impacts on policy domains from a digital perspective and will, in turn, affect digital policy making. The COVID-19 pandemic, for example, was a one-time, extreme shock with impacts on telework (labour markets), e-commerce (trade) and telemedicine (health). In contrast, the green transition is a slower, ongoing shift, where costs and benefits are harder to quantify but which are nonetheless critical to address. For example, the green transition raises climate-related issues related to impacts from digital activities such as cryptocurrencies (finance) and data centres (connectivity infrastructures). These, in turn, will have implications for digital policy. Moreover, geopolitics – including the Russian war of aggression in Ukraine – will affect digital policy making. This is seen by the increasing focus on the spread of false and misleading content on line and the use of satellites for connectivity in crisis situations.
Thinking through the impacts of these major trends and others that will surely come requires flexibility and agility on the part of all actors in the digital policy landscape. As digital technologies become more powerful and their use more widespread, the stakes are higher than ever for governments. They must ensure a policy framework is flexible and co-ordinated enough to make the most of the opportunities of digital technologies while mitigating their risks. A robust evidence base is needed to make informed policy decisions. Given measurement is a medium- to long-term endeavour across a wide range of areas, it is critical to identify and prioritise activities and partnerships.
Digital transformation affects almost all aspects of the economy and society, and designing effective digital policies requires a whole-of-government effort. While the effects of digital technologies and data differ depending on national context and culture, it is a global challenge to navigate the digital transition effectively and ensure it both protects and enhances well-being and growth. For this reason, the OECD developed the Framework (OECD, 2020[1]), which aims to help countries build a more inclusive and prosperous digital future with effective, impactful and evidence-based digital policies.
The Framework consists of seven interrelated policy dimensions (Access, Use, Innovation, Jobs, Society, Trust and Market openness), each of which contain several policy domains (Figure 1.A.1). Growth and well-being are at its heart, and several transversal domains (investment, digital government, skills, small and medium-sized enterprises, tax and benefits, regional development, privacy and security) cut across multiple dimensions. Some domains, such as data and data governance, as well as gender, are relevant for all of the Framework’s dimensions.
Source: Gierten and Lesher (2022[2]).
Recognising the evolving nature of technology, the Framework has remained relatively flexible to accommodate changes in the digital technology landscape. It further provides guidance on the governance of digital policies to ensure coherence and co-ordination of policies across all domains and sectors that shape digital transformation, and how to involve all relevant stakeholders in the development and implementation of digital policies.
National digital strategies and related strategies and policies used to construct the NDSC, 2024
Notes: The policies assessed from New Zealand were developed under a previous administration. As of June 2024, Norway’s NDS is being revised.
References
[2] Gierten, D. and M. Lesher (2022), “Assessing national digital strategies and their governance”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 324, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/baffceca-en.
[3] OECD (2024), Going Digital Toolkit, https://goingdigital.oecd.org (accessed on 27 February 2024).
[5] OECD (2024), “National digital strategy comprehensiveness”, OECD Going Digital Toolkit, based on the OECD National Digital Strategy Database, https://oe.cd/ndsc (accessed on 18 November 2024).
[1] OECD (2020), “Going Digital integrated policy framework”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 292, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/dc930adc-en.
[4] OECD (2020), OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2020, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bb167041-en.
← 1. OECD countries that responded to Part I of the questionnaire on digital policy priorities comprise: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Türkiye and the United Kingdom. Partner economies that responded comprise: Bulgaria, Brazil, Croatia, Jordan, Peru, Romania, Singapore and Thailand.
← 2. OECD countries that responded to Part I of the questionnaire on national digital strategies and their governance comprise: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Türkiye and the United Kingdom. Partner economies that responded comprise: Bulgaria, Brazil, Croatia, Jordan, Peru, Romania, Singapore and Thailand.
← 3. OECD countries that responded to Part II of the questionnaire on the digital policy landscape comprise: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Türkiye, the United Kingdom and the United States. Partner economies that responded comprise: Argentina, Bulgaria, Brazil, Croatia, Jordan, Peru, Romania, Singapore and Thailand.
← 4. OECD countries that responded to Part III of the questionnaire comprise: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, Türkiye and the United Kingdom. Partner economies that responded comprise: Bulgaria, Croatia, Jordan, Peru, Romania, Singapore and Thailand.
← 5. OECD countries that responded to the DEO 2017 Questionnaire comprise: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Türkiye, the United Kingdom and the United States. Partner economies that responded comprise: Brazil, the People’s Republic of China, Costa Rica, Lithuania, the Russian Federation and Singapore.
← 6. OECD countries that responded to the DEO 2020 on national digital strategies and policies comprise: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Türkiye, the United Kingdom and the United States. Partner economies that responded comprise: Brazil, Costa Rica, the Russian Federation, Singapore and Thailand.
← 7. An NDS is considered to be fully comprehensive if either the NDS itself or a co-ordinated strategy or policy contains at least one policy measure in each of the Framework’s 38 policy domains. To qualify as a co-ordinated policy or strategy, the respective document must be either initiated, discussed or referenced in a section of the NDS that addresses issues in the policy domain(s) for which the measure(s) from a co-ordinated document may be considered. Each dimension of the Framework is given an individual comprehensiveness score, which is calculated as the proportion of domains within the dimension containing at least one qualifying policy measure. Each policy measure can only be considered once within the assessment process. A full list of the documents considered for the assessment can be found in Annex 1.B.
← 8. Figure 2 includes the 22 countries with an NDS meeting the definition stated above, in addition to five countries whose previously assessed NDS remains valid.