PDF version https://wiki.gpii.net/images/f/f0/Eem_method.pdf
3 Method Data for this report has been sampled in different steps and with different aims. The overview of the policies in place at the EU-level, are based on a series of reports from the EU- commission as well as reports produced at the country level and related to social security insurance policies. Information related to different policies and principles for digital markets is based on a report produced by to the European commission on 2014.
Answers to questions such as the chicken egg, multi-homing and issues that affect the development of the market are based on a series of interviews with researchers at the EU- level and on peer-review publications published during 2013 and 2105. The analysis of the Business models and issues of relevance for the infrastructure is based on data sampled in previous stages and presented in the complementary report submitted by Vimarlund in 2014. In addition to this we have asked colleagues involved in similar projects in Europe for opinions and suggestions to consider to be able to develop a sustainable ecosystem. 3.1 Definitions Disability According to EU’s definition, disability is that a person is considered to have a disability if he or she has a long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in interaction with various barriers, may hinder his or her full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others . Definition of Disability according to Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and EU. Stakeholder A “stakeholder” is “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the solution of the problem addressed by the network. Taxonomy (from Ancient Greek “arrangement and method”) is the science of identifying and naming species, and arranging them into a classification. The Dynamics of Development taxonomies have been applied to the classification of biological species and organisms, but the concept has been adapted to refer to the classification of many complex phenomena. Platforms Some networks seek to provide platforms for other networks to organize. This category is completely new, enabled by the Internet, which provides the technology infrastructure for platforms. Platforms are more than technology. They include some kind of technology but also organizational capability that facilitates collective action. Exchange covers various match-making activities such as services. It also covers traditional exchanges such as, internet sites for business-to-business, person-to-business, and person-to-person transactions, various kinds of brokers (insurance and real estate) and financial exchanges for securities and futures contracts. Exchanges include also a variety of businesses that provide brokerage services. These include publishers (readers and authors), literary agents (authors and publishers), and individual based services (people who go to get some individual, and people who sponsor, or sell the services). Business models were defined in a previous report as “a description of how an organization creates, delivers and captures value of boundary-spanning activities (performed by a focal firm or others) focusing mainly on value creation as well as on value capture” (Zott et al, 2011). Multi-side platforms were defined in a previous report as: “an organization that creates value primarily by enabling direct interaction between two (or more) distinct types of customers”. They are characterized by bringing together two or more interdependent groups of customers and by creating value through network effects. 3.2 Data Used; Disability and Limitations This analysis relies exclusively on data provided by Eurostat . This data includes overall macroeconomic data and indicators and specific information on people with disabilities. This data is available for both the entire EU and for all of the 28 individual member states. Macroeconomic data from 2013 was the most complete and widely available and is what is used here. All estimates are for average annual impact. Where appropriate, only working age population (15-64) are considered. The 2011 European Health and Social Integration Survey (EHSIS) forms the basis for the economic participation and disability data used to estimate the gaps between those with and without disabilities. The data collected in that survey differentiated individuals into three levels of impairment severity based on limitations in life areas. From the metadata definitions for the survey data : According to the biopsychosocial model applied to the survey, people with disabilities are those who face barriers to participation in any of 10 life areas, associated inter alia with a health problem or basic activity limitation. Therefore, a person identifying a health problem or basic activity limitation as barrier in any life domain is categorised as disabled.
As regards the severity of disability, several measures can be derived from the survey. The following ones were considered for presenting the results: Severity of disability indicator calculated by adding up the number of life areas where a respondent encounters a barrier associated with a health problem or basic activity limitation. The following levels were created: LD1 Barriers to participation in 1 life domain LD2-3 Barriers to participation in 2-3 life domains LD_GE4 Barriers to participation in 4 or more life domains
This definition results in disability determination based on limitations, a functional based approach, which fits well with the potential impacts of Prosperity4All in reducing or elimination functional limitations with ICT and ICT-related accessibility. It also aligns with the typical framework of identifying disabilities as being moderate (LD1), mild (LD2-3), or severe (LD_GE4). While the estimates and discussion are based on the idea of increasing inclusion, the actual data being used supports an analysis based on reducing or eliminating barriers and limitations. While it can easily be argued that those two ideas, increasing inclusion/eliminating barriers, are the same thing as in the case in this analysis which relies on reducing barriers to increase participation, it should be noted that increasing inclusion and inclusive design are more than accessibility and eliminating barriers. Inclusion is an active process that should go beyond merely increasing accessibility. While accessibility is an important and necessary first step, it is, by itself, insufficient to guarantee inclusion. The goal should always be to enhance inclusion and not just increase accessibility. 3.3 EU-wide and Country Specific Estimation Approach 3.3.1 Labor Market Impacts Both EU-wide and member-nation-specific estimates for potential annual impact from increased inclusion are developed . These estimates are developed for: (1) increasing employment of those with disabilities to equal averages; (2) increasing income levels of those with disabilities so the distribution matches the overall distribution; and (3) increasing educational attainment, with corresponding wage impacts, of those with disabilities to equal averages. Both EU-wide and national averages are considered. A similar process is used for each of these three estimates: 1. Determine the gap between the overall average and the average for those with a disability using the three limitation (severity) levels. 2. For each gap, estimate the potential to close that gap using optimistic, realistic, and pessimistic assumptions. These assumptions are based on the share of the gap that can be closed . Those assumptions are: a. “Optimistic” i. 100% for those with 1 limitation (mild disability) ii. 75% for those with 2-3 limitations (moderate disability) iii. 25% for those with 4 or more limitations (severe disability) b. “Realistic” i. 75% for those with 1 limitation (mild disability) ii. 50% for those with 2-3 limitations (moderate disability) iii. 25% for those with 4 or more limitations (severe disability) c. “Pessimistic” i. 50% for those with 1 limitation (mild disability) ii. 25% for those with 2-3 limitations (moderate disability) iii. 10% for those with 4 or more limitations (severe disability) 3. Convert those estimates to annual economic impact (in Euro) based on those with a disability closing a portion of the gap and reaching overall average levels. 4. These estimates will show the overall potential macroeconomic impact of increased inclusion which will later be adjusted to estimate the potential impact resulting from the implementation of Prosperity4All. 3.3.2 Market (Supply/Demand) Impacts The second area in which to consider potential macroeconomic impacts is market impacts. Those impacts could emerge in two distinct ways. The first would be the indirect impact that enabling the ecosystem with the Prosperity4All infrastructure would have on the general market for goods and services. This is not expected to be a proportionally large impact but a small effect spread over a fairly large number. The second way that impacts could emerge would be the more direct effect of Prosperity4All on the ICT and ICT-based market for accessible and accessibility goods and services.