Caribbean countries enjoy reviewing their performance in global digital assessments, but it could be argued that the indices produced often unfairly position Small Island Developing States and other developing economies. In this article, we discuss why global digital indices fail the Caribbean region and whether a more balanced assessment can be achieved.
The inclusion of Caribbean countries in global and regional digital assessments is a double-edged sword. Although these assessments—such as the Global Competitiveness Report (by the World Economic Forum), the AI Preparedness Index (by the International Monetary Fund), the ICT Development Index by the International Telecommunications Union), the E-Government Development Index (by the United Nations), the Digital Development Observatory (by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean), and the Broadband Development Index (by the InterAmerican Development Bank)—provide valuable benchmarks, they often fail to capture the unique structural vulnerabilities and realities of the region.
Caribbean countries are predominantly categorised as Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and developing economies. However, many of these popular digital assessment exercises examine all participating countries against a common set of indicators and scoring rules. This results in persistent disparities between Caribbean nations and more developed regions, creating a narrative that can potentially misrepresent or disadvantage the region’s development efforts.
In this article, we identify some of the challenges experienced when Caribbean countries are included in global and regional digital assessments, and ways in which the disparities of these digital assessments can be mitigated.
Key challenges in digital assessments for the Caribbean
Caribbean countries face several specific structural and data-related challenges that complicate their performance in and comparison through international digital assessments. Four are outlined below.
First, global digital assessments often use indicators tailored for large, diversified economies that implicitly reward economies of scale and extensive resource mobilisation, which are inherently difficult for Caribbean countries and other SIDS to achieve. Moreover, these assessments use a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, where the same indicators are being applied to SIDS and developing countries, and where the best-in-class performance is based on what can be achieved in larger and more developed economies.
Second, we cannot avoid the attractiveness of the neat results that can emerge from global assessment exercises. They tend to use a scoring system that facilitates comparisons across dozens or scores of countries. However, such an approach means that the nuances or uniqueness of individual countries are overlooked and boiled down to a figure, which, depending on the visibility of the report and its authors, can be considered an authoritative resource upon which local and international stakeholders and partners rely.
Third, many Caribbean countries do not have the resources, including the governance frameworks, research institutions, and technical skills to collect, process, and analyse robust data aligned to the specific metrics required by comprehensive indices.Countries could thus be assessed as lacking the necessary data quality to substantiate their performance, which would be reflected in poorer scores
Fourth, a major hurdle across the Caribbean region is the scarcity of official, high-quality, and recent national ICT-related statistics covering areas such as digital technology use, e-commerce, and digital skills. In many instances, national statistics offices are under-resourced and are already challenged to collect basic demographic, economic and social datasets that should be regularly updated. Even datasets, such as fixed-line, mobile/cellular and mobile data penetration rates that the International Telecommunications Union has been collecting for decades from Caribbean countries, are not being regularly updated. As a result, some assessment teams may use estimates, but ultimately, when the data is patchy or delayed, it could result in less accurate and often lower scores.
Can fairer assessments be achieved?
Caribbean countries possess some endemic challenges. Small market size, the high infrastructure cost and vulnerability to a broad range of shocks cannot be easily overcome and are likely to be continually reflected in how the region performs in global assessments. To mitigate these challenges, it could be argued that a complementary SIDS- or developing country-focused weighting system or a dedicated sub-index should be developed. Such a framework would benchmark Caribbean countries against peer groups with similar structural vulnerabilities rather than solely against G20 or OECD economies, thus providing a more relevant measure of progress and deficiencies.
Additionally, and from a Caribbean perspective, it may also be prudent to reexamine the purpose that participating in global assessments serves, and consequently, whether or not, or the extent to which, the results help to inform decisions being made on the ground. Although participating in a global exercise offers a country some visibility in the area being examined, if the country does not perform well, and the identified deficiencies cannot be readily addressed or improved due to entrenched challenges, the value and the insights from the assessment to the country would be limited.
In short, the one-size-fits-all approach creates a false perspective or narrative of digital development, where achieving a high score depends less on effective, context-specific digital transformation and more on the sheer scale and wealth of the country. By implementing tailored national strategies and advocating for a more contextually sensitive approach from global institutions, Caribbean countries and other developing regions can ensure that digital assessments accurately reflect their progress and better position them to catalyse the necessary investments to bridge the digital divide.
Image credit: rawpixel.com (Freepik)
