Ninoslava Savić and Zoran Radojičić
model, then a comprehensive work directed on covering this complex issue. A lot of important aspects of digital divide in e‐Government were not included in the model implementation. For this kind of research, more benchmarking indicators, which are not available at this moment in Serbia, are required. However, the model has the characteristic of flexibility for adding new measuring concepts with the same methodology, as it was explained. If the broader set of main concepts is implemented in the model, the more detailed and precise picture of the level and the causes of digital polarization at the observed entities is obtained. This process is always restricted by the availability of data needed for the research, i. e. by the real possibilities to reach the necessary data by carrying out an extensive measuring. Developing countries are, in that sense, in a more difficult position than developed countries, which regularly conduct different kind of statistical researches.
References
Barzilai‐Nahon, K.( 2006).‘ Gaps and bits: Conceptualizing measurements for digital divide / s’, The Information Society, No. 22( 5), pp 269 – 278.
Chin‐Chang, H. and Shu‐Fen. T.( 2006).‘ From digital divide to digital inequality: the global perspective’, International Journal of Internet and Enterprise Management, Vol. 4, No. 3 / 2006, pp 215‐227.
Cuervo, M. R. V. and Menendez, A. J. L.( 2006).‘ A multivariate framework for the analysis of the digital divide: Evidence for the European Union‐15’, Information & Management, No. 43, pp 756 – 766. eGovernment Economics Project( eGEP),( 2006a) Measurement Framework Final Version, [ online ], Brussels: European Commission, http:// www. umic. pt / images / stories / publicacoes200709 / D. 2.4 _ Measurement _ Framework _ final _ version. pdf. eGovernment Economics Project( eGEP),( 2006b) Compendium to the Measurement Framework, [ online ], Brussels: European Commission, http:// www. umic. pt / images / stories / publicacoes200709 / Measurement _ Framework _ Compendium. pdf European Commission( 2000) eEurope Action Plan ‐ An Information Society for all, Brussels. European Commission( 2001) e‐Inclusion ‐ The Information Society ' s potential for social inclusion in Europe, Commission Staff Working Document SEC( 2001) 1428, with the support of the High Level Group‘ Employment and Social Dimension of the Information Society’( ESDIS).
European Commission( 2002) e‐Europe 2005: An Information Society for All, Action Plan to be Presented in view of the Seville European Council ref. COM( 2002) 263 final.
European Commission( 2006) i2010 eGovernment Action Plan ‐ Accelerating eGovernment in Europe for the Benefit of All COM( 2006) 173 final, [ online ], Brussels: European Commission, http:// europa. eu / legislation _ summaries / information _ society / l24226j _ en. htm
European Commission( 2010) A Digital Agenda for Europe, COM / 2010 / 0245 f / 2, [ online ], Brussels: European Commission, http:// ec. europa. eu / information _ society / digital‐agenda / index _ en. htm
Eurostat( 2007) Methodological Manual for Statistics on the Information Society, Survey year 2007v2.0, Luxembourg, Available: http:// europa. eu. int / estatref / info / sdds / en / isoc / isoc _ metmanual _ 2007. pdf [ 21 Nov 21, 2012 ].
Eurostat( 2010) Information Society Statistics home page, [ Online ], Available: http:// epp. eurostat. ec. europa. eu / portal / page / portal / information _ society / data / database [ 21 Nov 2012 ].
Heeks, R.( 2006)‘ Understanding and measuring eGovernment: International benchmarking studies’, UNDESA workshop: E‐participation and E‐Government: Understanding the Present and Creating the Future, [ online ], Budapest, Hungary, http:// unpan1. un. org / intradoc / groups / public / documents / un / unpan023686. pdf.
Holland, C., Bongers, F., Vandeberg, R. Keller, W. and Te Velde, R.( 2002) Measuring and evaluating e‐Government, OECD,
Paris. OECD.( 2001) Understanding the Digital Divide. OECD Publications, Paris. Savić, N. and Radojičić, Z.( 2011)‘ Digital divide in the population of Serbia’, Issues in Informing Science and Information
Technology: Navigating Informational Challenges, Vol. 8, pp. 245‐258, ISSN 1547‐ 9684. Selhofer, H. and Hüsing, T.( 2002). IST 2002: The Digital Divide Index – A Measure of Social Inequalities in the Adoption of
ICT. Copenhagen.
Stiakakis, E., Kariotellis, P. and Vlachopoulou, M.( 2009)‘ From the Digital Divide to Digital Inequality: A Secondary Research in the European Union’ In A. B. Sideridis and C. Z. Patrikakis( Eds.), Next Generation Society ‐ Technological and Legal Issues( pp. 43‐55), Springer.
Undheim, T. A. and Codagnone, C.( 2008)‘ Benchmarking eGovernment: tools, theory, and practice’, European Journal of ePractice, [ online ], http:// www. epractice. eu / en / document / 287913
Vukmirović, D., Pavlović, K. and Šutić, V.( 2009) Usage of information and communication technologies in the Republic of Serbia, Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade.
Vukmirović, D., Pavlović, K. and Šutić, V.( 2010) Usage of information and communication technologies in the Republic of Serbia, Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade.
Vukmirović, D., Pavlović, K. and Šutić, V.( 2011) Usage of information and communication technologies in the Republic of Serbia, Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade.
Vukmirović, D., Pavlović, K. and Šutić, V.( 2012) Usage of information and communication technologies in the Republic of Serbia, Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade.
441