Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

Accessibility To Technological And Educational Resources Of The Most Developed Countries

Population In Comparison With The Population Of The Least Developed Countries

Adriana Coba*
*Master of Science in International Business Development‘s candidate, University of Neuchâtel, Semester autumn of
2010.

Abstract: This report seeks to determine whether the population of the less developed countries have similar access to
certain basic resources like information and education than the most developed countries, such as: Primary School
Enrollment, Personal Computers and Internet Users.

This report seeks to determine whether the population the same group, but belong to two groups: The less
of the less developed countries1 have similar access to developed countries and more developed countries.
certain basic resources like information and education Then, we will compare the averages of the two groups,
than the most developed countries2, such as: for each variable, using SPSS as a tool, for a confidence
- Primary School Enrollment3 (% net) - data taken interval of 95%.
from year 2001 to 2010
- Personal Computers4 (per 100 person) - data taken Table 2: Characteristics of samples
Erreur
from year 2003 to 2010
Level of development N Moyenne Ecart-type standard
- Internet Users5 (per 100 person) - data taken from moyenne
year 2007 to 2010 School More 26 97.168 2.364997 .463814
enrollment, developed
Because it could be assumed that everyone has access primary (% Least 35 73.057 16.780829 2.836478
net) developed
to them, given the decreases in technology prices. Then,
Personal More 26 46.622 20.570056 4.034120
to develop the issue above, this report will be computers developed
developed sequentially. On the other hand, it is of note, (per 100 Least 35 1.544 2.459655 .415757
that the above described, could be done by graphing the people) developed
data, and verifying at a glance if the averages of each Internet More 26 64.755 15.849847 3.108411
group (less developed vs. more developed) differ in users (per developed
100 people) Least 35 3.555 4.168819 .704659
each variable, which could be done by histograms, or
developed
Box Plot. But, to show whether the difference is
significant, it is important to use statistical tools.
3. Results:
By observing the resulting averages in Table 2, it was
1. Hypothesis formulation
found that:
The hypothesis that we want to prove is that the
PSEMDC: 97.168 % PCUMDC:46.622 %
average of Personal Computers users, Internet users, as
IUMDC: 64.755 % PSELDC: 73.053 %
well as people with access to basic education, is similar
PCULDC: 1.544 % IULDC: 3.555 %
in most developed countries, and least developed, as
follows:
Which, at first glance appears to refute our hypothesis
Table 1: Hypotheses formulation
H0 and give strength to the H1 hypothesis, but, the
Variable H0 H1 statistics comparisons will be shown in the following
(Null Hypotheses) (Alternative table:
hypothesis)
Primary School PSEMDC = PSELDC PSEMDC  PSELDC Table 3 : Results for comparison of the averages for each variable
Enrollment Test de Test-t pour égalité des
Personal Computers PCUMDC = PCULDC PCUMDC  PCULDC Levene sur moyennes
users l'égalité des
Internet Users IUMDC = IULDC IUMDC  IULDC variances
t Sig.
Where:
PSEMDC: Average primary School Enrollment for most developed countries F Sig. ddl (bilatérale)
IUMDC: Average percentage of Internet users for most developed countries School Hypothèse de 39.677 .000 7.259 59 .000
PSELDC: Average primary School Enrollment for Least developed countries
IULDC: Average percentage of Internet users for Least developed countries
enroll- variances
PCUMDC : Average percentage of Computers users for most developed countries ment, égales
PCULDC: Average percentage of Computers users for Least developed countries primary Hypothèse de 8.391 35.808 .000
(% net) variances
inégales
2. Method for verify the hypotheses Personal Hypothèse de 61.625 .000 12.878 59 .000
compu- variances
The statistical tool that can be used to verify the ters (per égales
hypothesis is "Comparison of two averages, 100 Hypothèse de 11.115 25.532 .000
independent samples". Not will be used paired samples, people) variances
because the data that we want to compare not belong to inégales
Internet Hypothèse de 58.541 .000 21.903 59 .000
1 users (per variances
http://www.unohrlls.org/en/ldc/related/62/ (Accessed 15.11.2010)
2 100 égales
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country (Accessed 12.11.2010)
3
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.NENR (Accessed 10.11.2010)
4
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IT.CMP.PCMP.P2 (Accessed 10.11.2010)
5
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IT.NET.USER.P2 (Accessed 10.11.2010)
people) Hypothèse de 19.201 27.582 .000 26%-50%: Lower-middle percentage of Internet users
variances 51%-75%: middle-higher percentage of Internet users
inégales
76%-100%: Major percentage of Internet users
According to Table 3, the Levene test indicates that the
And for the mentioned purpose, we will use a
variances are significantly different (sig <0.05)
“contingency table” in the SPSS tool: despite the
therefore we will take the data that the hypothesis of
“contingency table” is usually used to compare
unequal variances. Then, taking into account that the
qualitative data, in this case it could be useful to give us
bilateral test of comparison of averages gave a bilateral
a better understanding of the phenomenon and to
significance of 0.000 (ie <0.05) it can be said, that the
analyze the relation between the not-developed and the
hypothesis H1 for all variables is true: the accessibility
lack of access to internet.
to technological and educational resources of the more
developed countries population in comparison with the
population of the least developed countries are Table 4: Contingency table for the percentage of internet users
significantly different. That, as already mentioned, can Level of development
also be shown graphically, with the comparison of the Least More Total
each medians (to check, lets revise two of the three developed developed
variables): Internet Users Effectif 35 0 35
between 0-
% du
25% of the 57.4% .0% 57.4%
Figure 1: Comparison of the Median for access conditions to total
population
education and internet between least and the most developed Internet Users Effectif 0 7 7
countries. between 26-
% du
Usuarios 50% of the .0% 11.5% 11.5%
total
de population
internet - Internet Users Effectif 0 13 13
rangos between 51-
% du
75% of the .0% 21.3% 21.3%
total
population
Internet Users Effectif 0 6 6
between 76-
% du
100% of the .0% 9.8% 9.8%
total
population
Effectif 35 26 61
Total % du
57.4% 42.6% 100.0%
total

Tests du Khi-deux
Signification
asymptotique
Valeur ddl (bilatérale)
Khi-deux de 61.000 3 .000
Pearson

It is noted that the value of χ2 provides a bilateral


significance (ie, on both sides of the variance curve) of
0,000 and (again, for a confidence interval of 95%)
because 0.000 < 0.05, then it can be conclude that if we
formule a hypothesis H0 which states that the level of
internet connectivity is proportional (or is associated
with) with the development of a country, we can say
that this H0 is true. That affirmation can be supported
by some theories: "There is no digital divide - it is an
economic divide pure and simple: to improve access
and connectivity we have to improve the economy"6.
But it is also a "vicious circle" since, without access to
sources of information and the tools provided by the
Internet, is difficult form well-trained individuals who
can move forward and improve the conditions of the
Data Source: WorldBank (http://data.worldbank.org/)
Elaborated: Coba
country: "You cannot improve the well-being of
citizens with just telephony,"7
Then, to have wider panoramas of the real differences
and understand better the big difference between the Finally, it is a good idea to conclude this report, noting
least and the most developed countries in terms of the globe, in terms of Internet connectivity.
connectivity, we typify the variable, by dividing it in
6
ranges, as is: According to Cliff Missen Director of Iowa-based eGranary Library
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0805/S00271.htm (Accesed 18.11.2010)
7
According to Tunisia Telecom President, Ahmed Mahjoub at UN Global
0%-25%: Minimum percentage of Internet users Forum: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0805/S00271.htm (Accesed
18.11.2010)
Figure 2: Internet Users by Country, per 100 people8.

Source: www.chartsbin.com

References
- Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H., Principles and
Procedures of Statistics, New York: McGraw-Hill,
1960, pp. 187, 287.
- Sachs, Jeffrey (2005). The End of Poverty:
Economic Possibilities for Our Time. USA: New
York: Penguin Press. OCLC 57243168.
- Torres López, Juan (1995). Economía Política.
Madrid: Editorial Civitas.
- “Analisis de datos cualitativos”:
http://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/economicas/eva/p
df/tab_conting.pdf (Accessed 18.11.2010)
- “Analisis SPSS: Procedimiento Tablas de
Contingencia”: http://e-
stadistica.bio.ucm.es/web_spss/proc_contingencia.
html (Accessed 18.11.2010)
- “Comparar medias”:
http://www.ucm.es/info/dosis/Preventiva/doctorado
/TEMA10.pdf (Accessed 15.11.2010)
- “Developed Country”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country
(Accessed 12.11.2010)
- Internet world map_ http://chartsbin.com/view/sop
(Accesed 15.11.2010)
- “School enrollment, primary (% net)” :
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.NEN
R (Accessed 10.11.2010)
- “Indicadores internacionales sobre desarrollo
humano”: http://hdr.undp.org/es/datos/mapa/
(Accessed 16.11.2010)
- “Least Developed Countries Need Low-Cost PCs”:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0805/S00271.h
tm (Accessed 18.11.2010)
- “Personal computers (per 100 people)”
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IT.CMP.PCMP
.P2 (Accessed 10.11.2010)
- “Personal computers (per 100 people)”:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IT.NET.USER.
P2 (Accessed 10.11.2010)
- “UN-OHRLLS-Least Developed countries”:
http://www.unohrlls.org/en/ldc/related/62/
(Accessed 15.11.2010)

8
http://chartsbin.com/view/sop (Accesed 15.11.2010)

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen