Digital Leadership in the Economies of the G20 Countries: A Secondary Research
1
Institute of Economics, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Páter Karoly u.1., H-2100 Gödöllő, Hungary
2
Faculty of Economics, Sriwijaya University, Jl. Raya Palembang-Prabumulih Km. 32, Indralaya 30662, Indonesia
3
Vanderbijlpark Campus, North-West University, Vanderbijlpark 1900, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Economies 2021, 9(1), 32; https://doi.org/10.3390/economies9010032
Submission received: 30 January 2021
/
Revised: 22 February 2021
/
Accepted: 24 February 2021
/
Published: 8 March 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Leadership in Business and Economics)
Abstract
:Digitalization in leadership practice requires broader research. Today’s economic leaders must be in line with the global mindset in supporting a culture of innovation. The purpose of this study is to investigate the digital leadership capabilities of the G20 countries in terms of digital readiness, innovation, and competitiveness 4.0 and to determine the relationship between these variables. The global digital readiness index 2019 (Cisco 2020) was utilized to obtain data on digital readiness (X), the global innovation index (Cornell University et al. 2019) was applied for the data collection on innovation (Y1), and the global competitiveness 4.0 index (WEF 2019) was used to obtain data on competitiveness 4.0 (Y2). All data were cross-sectional for the year 2019. Digital readiness consists of basic needs, human resources, ease of doing business, business and government investment, start-up environment, technology infrastructure, and technology adoption. The components of innovation are institutions, human capital and research, infrastructure, market sophistication, business sophistication, knowledge and technology outputs, and creative outputs. Competitiveness 4.0 is about institutions, infrastructure, ICT adoption, macroeconomic stability, health, skills, product market, labor market, financial system, market size, business dynamism, and innovation capability. We found that G20 countries had the digital leadership capability in digital readiness, innovation, and competitiveness 4.0. The G20 countries were leaders in global digitalization. Some of them were consistent in digital readiness and innovation. Some were consistent in digital readiness and competitiveness 4.0, and some others were consistent in their 4.0 innovation and competitiveness 4.0. Digital readiness, innovation, and competitiveness 4.0 positively related to each other.
1. Introduction
Victory in an economy cannot be separated from the leadership success that exists inside. It depends on the digital capabilities of the countries’ economies. Economic activities and globalization are broadly inseparable from the existence of digitalization (Strielkowski et al. 2020; Abdurakhmanova et al. 2020; and Borremans et al. 2018). However, most of the research on digital leadership investigated at the microeconomic level. There were over 2,000,000 documents on Google Scholar when we put “digital leadership” as keywords. Scopus showed more than 2000 results, and there were more than 1000 in Web Science. In addition, there were more than 500,000,000 on the Google search engine. The literature on economic leadership remains relative and general in the 21st century (Wang and Torrisi-Steele 2017). Thus, research on digital leadership on a macroeconomic scale is vital to understand leadership knowledge more broadly.
Flexibility in responding to digitalization is a measure of the success of global businesses that will encourage the revival of the countries’ economies (Shkarlet et al. 2020). Business actors use supporting infrastructures that include resources and management using computer networks (Barefoot et al. 2018). It is a solution to economic problems in creating product-oriented efforts (Watanabea et al. 2018). Internet penetration and a high degree of digitization of device usage are prerequisites for its development (Nagy 2017). Through asymmetric information and the agency relations (Veselovsky et al. 2018), digitalization brought a significant technological change in the economy (Curran 2017).
Digital development is a demanding aspect for all economies to maintain their leadership positions (Gapsalamov et al. 2020). The G20 is an international forum that brings together the world’s major economies. Its members account for more than eighty percent of the world’s GDP, seventy-five percent of global trade, and sixty percent of the world’s population. This forum has been conducting meetings annually since 1999. The innovations made by the G20 forum, either individually or collectively, have tremendous implications for global outcomes. Its members are the big producers of technology and drivers of digitization as well as education. In total, they account for nearly 95 percent of all investment in research and development. Nearly 90 percent of all scientific publications on artificial intelligence came from members of the G20. The opportunities and challenges posed by digital transformation and subsequent production revolution technologies increase the importance of policies that can help world countries take advantage of these new technologies at risk (OECD 2019). Understanding the leadership capabilities of the G20 countries is vital. G20 countries must be ready to engage in digitalization. They must also be innovative and competitive.
After the global crisis, the process of deglobalization has intensified and has raised questions about which countries will be the world economic leaders. The global leadership change in the economy means a profound rearrangement of economic systems (Shavshukov and Zhuravleva 2020). An economy with low digitization tends not to be psychologically empowering (Zeike et al. 2019), because digital leadership is a combination of digital culture and digital competence. Thus, the digitalization of business processes and changes in leadership practices are factors that must be taken into account more seriously today (Jakubik and Berazhny 2017). Economic leadership must be in line with a global mindset and be more creative in supporting the culture of innovation (Mihardjo et al. 2019). After focusing on increasing productivity, efficiency, and profitability, all economic leaders realize that the approach and culture in leading must adapt (Bolte et al. 2018). Digital leadership strongly encourages market orientation in the economy (Sasmoko et al. 2019). It generates knowledge about the new digital world, modern technology, and interpersonal skills (Kalashnikov et al. 2019). A clear digital leadership image must be built together with high intrinsic value to grow with technological change (Breuer and Szillat 2019). Digital leadership is also known as e-leadership or virtual leadership (Saputra and Saputra 2020). It is about creating an expanding digital environment that leads to a high level of effectiveness, productivity, and morale (Roman et al. 2018). The digital technology that will disrupt nearly every industry has become a reality. However, it is an economic opportunity (Kane et al. 2016).
Governments around the world are all at different phases of their digital transformation and have varying priorities on their national agendas toward building a digital economy. Agile digital government is the first and foremost essential step in establishing and developing a modern digital economy with comprehensive growth (DGRA 2020). The impact of automation, artificial intelligence, and the Internet of Things (IoT) is felt almost everywhere, in all countries, industries, and everyday life. However, while the impact of digitization is widespread, the benefits it yields are distributed unevenly. This study aims to determine the digital leadership capabilities of the G20 countries in terms of digital readiness, innovation, competitiveness 4.0, and to investigate the relationship between these variables. It explains digital leadership at a macroeconomic scale which is key to economic growth in the G20 countries.
Our paper focuses on digital leadership in the G20 countries in the context of the economy. It is structured as follows: first, the introduction explains a research gap and the linkages between the economy and the digital leadership capabilities of the G20 countries. Second, the literature review describes the definitions and pillars of digital readiness, innovation, and competitiveness 4.0. Third, methodology explains measurement variables, hypotheses, and research design. Fourth, results and discussion elaborates the digital readiness, the innovation, and the competitiveness of the G20 countries globally, the consistency and the correlation between the three variables, and their implications. Last but not least, the conclusion summarizes the discussion concerning the overall objectives of the study. Moreover, it states the limitations of the research that are the niches for future research.
2. Literature Review
All economies are facing challenges for the next generation (Maresova et al. 2018). Regarding the circular economy (Basl and Doucek 2019), digitization, robotization, and automation are the main goals in the industry trend 4.0. Digitalization is a mystery in various fields of study related to industry 4.0 and globalization. Industry 4.0 uses the terms digitization and transformation a lot (Machado et al. 2019) and requires high digital performance measurement by countries to see their maturity in facing this paradigm. Common ideas about digital readiness are scarce, especially in academia. New technology and business have clouded the focus on it (Bican and Brem 2020). Readiness refers to the knowledge, skills, and capabilities of technical infrastructure. It is the guide to digitization for processing and utilizing their resources as efficiently and effectively as possible (Pai et al. 2020). The term “readiness” has also led to innovation (Lokuge et al. 2019). Digital readiness is a strong desire to adopt digital technology to create new opportunities (Debrenti 2020). It is vital for individuals, organizations, industries, and even countries to achieve their economic goals faster and in bigger ways. Digital readiness is indeed a scourge for conventional competitive advantage in the economy (Ertan 2018).
Global innovation connects to local digitalization (Isaac et al. 2019). Digital technology becomes a driver of innovation and modern global economic growth and has contributed to national competitiveness (Nesterova et al. 2018; Sepashvili 2020). Innovation has been the basis for and has created a dependency on the modern competitive economy in economic growth. Territorial competitiveness is the subject of studies in various branches of the economy. In general, competitiveness is the ability to realize a mission (objectives, functions, and tasks) with the quality and value required in a competitive market. Competitiveness refers to the ability to maintain relatively high levels of income and employment while remaining open to international competition (Dmitrieva and Guseva 2019). Being competitive, economic actors must embrace technological innovation’s applications (which is also one of the biggest challenges today) and, in parallel, must face the fifth industrial revolution (Manta 2019).
Digital readiness was defined using a holistic model based on seven components, including technological aspects such as technology, infrastructure, and technology adoption, but also measuring the ease of doing business, human capital development, business and government investment, basic human needs, and the start-up environment (Yoo et al. 2018). All countries facilitate digital services for their people equally to be able to develop internally and externally (Florin et al. 2012). Several indices that measure digital readiness are DESI (European Commission), NRI (Portulans Institute), World Economic Forum, DAI (World Bank) DRI (Cisco Systems), DiGiX (BBVA Research), Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, GCI (World Economic Forum), and World Economic Forum DB (World Bank). It is also related to the digital maturity index (Zhang et al. 2019), network readiness index, computer information technology development index, cybersecurity index, digital competitiveness index, and digital evolution index (Plutova et al. 2019). National innovation activities have been hindered by the demanding progress and speed of globalization (Lee et al. 2020).
Building our understanding of the factors supporting digital readiness, seven different components to build a complete picture of a county’s digital readiness were provided by the Cisco Global Digital Readiness Index 2019. First, basic needs. The true value of technology and infrastructure is delivered through a population’s ability to take advantage of it. Second, human capital. The ability to utilize and create advanced digital services is determined in part by the digital skills level within the workforce. Third, ease of doing business. Because human capital skills can only contribute to the economy if people are gainfully employed, having a thriving business ecosystem is another key determinant of a country’s digital readiness. Fourth, business and government investment. Building digital infrastructure and capabilities requires significant investment on behalf of both governments and businesses. Fifth, start-up environment. Start-ups create new innovations that can benefit entire markets and communities. Sixth, technology infrastructure. Infrastructure plays a key role in enabling countries to advance digital services. Seventh, technology adoption. The level of technology availability, utilization, and adoption reflects a country’s current level of digital readiness. The seven components to measure innovation were provided by Cornell University Global Innovation Index 2019 including institutions, human capital and research, infrastructure, market sophistication, business sophistication, knowledge and technology outputs, and creative outputs. Competitiveness 4.0 were explained by WEF Global Competitiveness Index 2019 consisting of twenty pillars, which are institutions, infrastructure, ICT adoption, macroeconomic stability, health, skills, product market, labor market, financial system, market size, business dynamism, and innovation capability.
3. Methodology
The overall objective of this study is to determine the digital leadership capabilities of the G20 countries. Figure 1 show the main variables, which are digital readiness (X), innovation (Y1), and competitiveness (Y2). The seven components of digital readiness are basic needs, human capital, ease of doing business, business and government investment, environment start-ups, technology infrastructure, and technology adoption (Cisco 2020). The seven components to measure innovation are institutions, human capital and research, infrastructure, market sophistication, business sophistication, knowledge and technology outputs, and creative outputs (Cornell University et al. 2019). Competitiveness 4.0 has twenty pillars: institutions, infrastructure, ICT adoption, macroeconomic stability, health, skills, product market, labor market, financial system, market size, business dynamism, and innovation capability (WEF 2019).
In pursuit of the purposes, we defined the following specific objectives: objective 1—to determine the consistency between digital readiness and innovation of the G20 countries; objective 2—to determine the consistency between digital readiness and competitiveness 4.0 of the G20 countries; objective 3—to determine the consistency between innovation and competitiveness 4.0 of the G20 countries; objective 4—determine the consistency between digital readiness, innovation, and competitiveness 4.0 of the G20 countries; and objective 5—to determine the relationship between digital readiness, innovation, and competitiveness 4.0. Once these objectives had been established and a review of the existing literature conducted, we formulated the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Digital readiness has a positive relationship with innovation.
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Digital readiness has a positive relationship with competitiveness 4.0.
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
Innovation has a positive relationship with competitiveness 4.0.
We followed the Wallace Foundation on secondary research (Workbook B; secondary data analysis). Figure 2 includes four steps in secondary research (Wallace n.d.): identifying the source of information, collecting existing data, normalizing data, and analyzing data. In the first step, the sources of information we used are the global digital Readiness index 2019 (Cisco 2020), the global innovation index 2019 (Cornell University et al. 2019), and the global competitiveness index 4.0 2019 (WEF 2019). We used a cross-sectional approach for the year 2019 data. In the second step, we used the global digital readiness rankings, the global innovation rankings, and the global competitiveness rankings. Based on these data, in the third step, we tabulated a digital rating for global digital readiness, global innovation, and global competitiveness 4.0 for the G20 countries. Next, in the fourth step, we conducted a comparative analysis between the G20 global digital readiness data and the G20 global innovation data, between the G20 global digital readiness data and the global competitiveness 4.0 data, and between the global innovation data and the global competitiveness 4.0 data. This was done to see whether the global digital readiness, global innovation, and global competitiveness ratings showed consistencies. Finally, we conducted a Pearson correlation analysis using SPSS to determine the relationship between the three variables. We used the available scores in the sources of each country based on each variable.
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Global Digital Readiness of G20 Countries
This subsection shows the digital readiness score of the G20 countries, a basis for analyzing objective 1 (consistency between digital readiness and innovation), objective 2 (consistency between digital readiness and 4.0 competitiveness), and objective 4 (consistency between digital readiness, innovation, and competitiveness of 4.0). Based on secondary data in the form of scores and stages from the global digital readiness index 2019, we compiled the digital readiness data for the G20 countries as shown in Table 1. Each country had a digital readiness score derived from seven components (basic needs, human resources, ease of doing business, business and government investment, start-up environment, technology infrastructure, and technology adoption). The score determined what stages each country had gone through. Countries in the activate stage were going through the earliest stages of digitalization dynamics with an average digital readiness score of 6.24 out of 25. Countries that were in the accelerate stage were those with average digital readiness scores of 11.82. They had taken several steps forward and had the opportunity to accelerate their digital readiness. In the third stage, amplify, they were the countries with an average digital readiness score of 17.89. They were matured into digital but were not a guarantee for sustainability.
Table 1 showed that the G20 countries were categorized into amplify and accelerate stages. All G20 countries’ digital readiness scores ranged between 9.6 and 19.03 on a scale of 25. The G20 countries in the amplify stage were (1) the United States of America, (2) South Korea, (3) Australia, (4) The United Kingdom, (5) Germany, (6) Japan, (7) Canada, and (8) France. The other eleven G20 countries in the accelerate stage were (1) Italy, (2) Russia, (3) Saudi Arabia, (4) China, (5) Argentina, (6) Turkey, (7) Mexico, (8) Brazil, (9) Indonesia, (10) South Africa, and (11) India.
4.2. Global Innovation of G20 Countries
In line with the previous subsection, this subsection will explain the score of the innovation of G20 countries for analyzing objective 1, objective 3 (consistency between innovation and competitiveness 4.0), and objective 4. We compiled innovation data for the G20 countries as shown in Table 2 based on secondary data in scores and income groups from the global Innovation Index 2019. The four income categories were HI = high income; UM = upper-middle-income; LM = lower-middle-income; and LI = low income. Table 2 shows that the eleven countries in the HI category were (1) the United States of America, (2) The United Kingdom, (3) Germany, (4) South Korea, (5) Japan, (6) French, (7) Canada, (8) Australia, (9) Italy, (10) Saudi Arabia, and (11) Argentina. The six countries in the UM category were (1) China, (2) Russia, (3) Turkey, (4) Mexico, (5) South Africa, and (6) Brazil. The two countries in the LM category were (1) India and (2) Indonesia.
Even though China was in the UM category, its innovation score (institutions, human capital and research, infrastructure, market sophistication, business sophistication, knowledge and technology outputs, and creative outputs) was higher than the innovation ranks of Japan, France, Canada, Australia, Italy, Saudi Arabia, and Argentina. India’s innovation rank was higher than the innovation ranks in Mexico, South Africa, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and Argentina despite being in the LM category.
4.3. Global Competitiveness 4.0 of the G20 Countries
This subsection describes the global digital competitiveness score 4.0 of the G20 countries to analyze objective 2, objective 3, and objective 4. We collected competitiveness 4.0 data for the G20 countries as shown in Table 3 based on secondary data in scores and differences from the previous year from the global competitiveness report 2019. The six countries had increased: namely, (1) Korea, (2) France, (3) Saudi Arabia, (4) Italy, (5) South Africa, and (6) Brazil. On the other hand, the ten countries experienced a downgrade compared to the previous year’s ranking. They were (1) the United States of America, (2) Japan, (3) Germany, (4) The United Kingdom, (5) Canada, (6) Australia, (7) Mexico, (8) Indonesia, (9) India, and (10) Argentina. The three other stable ones were namely (1) China, (2) Russia, and (3) Turkey.
Despite the decline, the United States of America still had the highest scores obtained from assessing institutions, infrastructure, ICT adoption, macroeconomic stability, health, skills, product market, labor market, financial system, market size, business dynamism, and innovation capability. The highest increase was by South Africa (+7). On the contrary, the highest decrease was by India (−10).
4.4. Consistency between Digital Readiness Ranks, Innovation Ranks, and the Competitiveness 4.0 Ranks of G20 Countries
This subsection elaborates the consistency between global digital readiness, global innovation, and global competitiveness 4.0 of the G20 countries. We compare the ranks described in the previous subsections to analyze objective 1, objective 2, objective 3, and objective 4.
Table 4 showed that the United States of America was the only G20 country consistent in its digital readiness, innovation, and competitiveness 4.0 and consistently ranked the highest. The six G20 countries that had partial consistency, or only two of the three variables (digital readiness, innovation, and competitiveness 4.0), were namely (1) Germany (innovation and competitiveness), (2) England (digital readiness and 4.0 competitiveness), (3) Japan (digital readiness and innovation), (4) France (innovation and competitiveness 4.0), (5) South Africa (innovation and competitiveness 4.0), and (6) Brazil (digital readiness and innovation). The twelve other countries that did not show consistency in the three variables were (1) South Korea, (2) Australia, (3) China, (4) Canada, (5) Italy, (6) Russia, (7) Arabic Saudi, (8) Turkey, (9) Argentina, (10) Mexico, (11) India, and (12) Indonesia.
4.5. Correlation between Global Digital Readiness Scores, Global Innovation Scores and Global Competitiveness 4.0 Scores of the G20 Countries
This subsection explains the correlation between global digital readiness, global innovation, and global competitiveness 4.0 of G20 countries. We compare the scores described in Section 4.1, Section 4.2 and Section 4.3 to analyze objective 5 (the relationship between digital readiness, innovation, and competitiveness 4.0). Based on the digital readiness score, innovation and competitiveness 4.0, Table 5 showed that the United States was the G20 country with the highest score. In terms of digital readiness, South Korea was second best and Australia third. Britain was second best and Germany third when it comes to innovation. Japan was in second place and Germany third in terms of 4.0 competitiveness. (1) The United States, (2) South Korea, (3) Australia, (4) the United Kingdom, (5) Japan, and (6) Germany were the countries with the highest digital capabilities.
Table 6 showed a significant and strong positive relationship (0.600–0.799) existed between digital readiness and innovation (0.603). There was also a significant and strong positive relationship between digital readiness and competitiveness of 0.77. Meanwhile, a significant and very strong positive relationship (0.800–1000) existed between innovation and competitiveness 4.0 (0.931). Table 7 show that hypothesis 1, hypothesis 2, and hypothesis 3 are accepted.
4.6. Discussion
The results of this study have shown that digital leadership exists at a macroeconomic or country level. We proved empirically that the G20 countries had digitally ready basic needs, human capital, ease of doing business, business and government investment, start-up environment, technology infrastructure, and technology adoption in 2019. They had innovative institutions, human capital and research, infrastructure, market sophistication, business sophistication, knowledge and technology outputs, and creative outputs in 2019. They also had competitive 4.0 institutions, infrastructure, ICT adoption, macroeconomic stability, health, skills, product market, labor market, financial system, market size, business dynamism, and competitive innovation capability in 2019.
Because the world digital capability was explained through digital readiness only by Cisco in 2019, the results of this research showed that digital readiness collectively explained with innovation by WIPO in 2019 and competitiveness 4.0 by WEF in 2019. We indicate that the G20 countries had high innovation in institutions, human capital and research, infrastructure, market sophistication, business sophistication, knowledge, technology outputs, and creative outputs in 2019. It was in line with the global outcomes achieved by the G20 countries either individually or collectively. Moreover, the G20 countries have had competitiveness 4.0 in institutions, infrastructure, ICT adoption, macroeconomic stability, health, skills, product market, labor market, financial system, market size, business dynamism, and innovation capability. It followed the fact that the G20 countries were the big producers of technology and drivers of digitization. Eventually, our finding showed that the G20 countries had high and wide digital capabilities, not only digital readiness, or only innovation, or even competitiveness 4.0 only. It matched with the world’s major economies that had been achieved by the G20 countries as an international economics forum.
5. Conclusions
Digital readiness, innovation, and 4.0 competitiveness are positively and significantly related. The G20 countries had the digital leadership in digital readiness, innovation, and competitiveness. It is a consideration at the macroeconomic level not microeconomics. The digital readiness of the G20 countries had been compared in innovation and the competitiveness of 4.0. Indeed, these three variables could be analyzed simultaneously. The G20 countries were adopting digital technology to create new opportunities. They were the drivers of modern global economic growth. They depended on the competitive economy to determine economic growth and realize the global mission (goals, functions, tasks).
The G20 countries were leaders in global digitization. The United States of America, Japan, and Brazil were consistent in digital readiness and innovation. The United States of America and the United Kingdom were consistent in digital readiness and competitiveness 4.0. The United States of America, Germany, France, and South Africa were consistent in their 4.0 innovation and competitiveness. In particular, the United States of America was the only G20 country consistent in digital readiness, innovation, and 4.0 competitiveness. Inconsistencies were in more G20 countries, namely in 12 countries. They were (1) South Korea, (2) Australia, (3) China, (4) Canada, (5) Italy, (6) Russia, (7) Saudi Arabia, (8) Turkey, (9) Argentina, (10) Mexico, (11) India, and (12) Indonesia. It showed that the consistency between digital readiness, innovation, and 4.0 competitiveness in the G20 was still low in that time.
This paper focuses on digital leadership capabilities. It contributes to the main preceding works through an original idea from us. We combined global digital readiness researched by Cisco in 2019, innovation researched by (Cornell University et al. 2019), and competitiveness 4.0 researched by (WEF 2019) to be the main components of digital leadership capabilities in the economy. In this context, we used the G20 countries as the objects.
Further research will need to analyze digital capabilities in more groups of countries such as Asian countries, European countries, developed countries and developing countries. Digital capabilities at the macroeconomic level are closely related to the gross domestic product, inflation, unemployment, government spending, interest rates, and exchange rates. It is a niche and a need for future study.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, A.C., R.M.; methodology, A.C.; software, A.C.; validation, A.C.; formal analysis, A.C.; investigation, A.C.; resources, A.C.; data curation, A.C.; writing—original draft preparation, A.C.; writing—review and editing, A.C., R.M.; visualization, A.C.; supervision, R.M.; funding acquisition, R.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
The APC was funded by Habil. Magda, Róbert, Head of Department, Institute of Economics, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Hungary.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Abdurakhmanova, Gulnora, Narkiza Shayusupova, Aziza Irmatova, and Dostonbek Rustamov. 2020. The role of the digital economy in the development of the human capital market. International Journal of Psychological Rehabilitation 24: 8043–51. [Google Scholar]
- Barefoot, Kevin, Dave Curtis, William Jolliff, Jessica R. Nicholson, and Robert Omohundro. 2018. Defining and Measuring the Digital Economy; Working Paper. Washington: Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Departement of Commerce, p. 20233. Available online: www.bea.gov (accessed on 4 March 2021).
- Basl, Josef, and Petr Doucek. 2019. A metamodel for evaluating enterprise readiness in the context of industry 4.0. Information 10: 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bican, Peter M., and Alexander Brem. 2020. Digital business model, digital transformation, digital entrepreneurship: Is there a sustainable “digital”? Sustainability 12: 5239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolte, Sophia, Joanna Dehmer, and Jörg Niemann. 2018. Digital Leadership 4.0. Technical University of Cluj-Napoca. Acta Technica Napocensis. Series: Applied Mathematics, Mechanics, and Engineering. Volume 61. Issue IV. Available online: https://atna-mam.utcluj.ro/index.php/Acta/article/view/1102 (accessed on 4 March 2021).
- Borremans, Alexandra D., Irina M. Zaychenko, and Oksana Yu Iliashenko. 2018. Digital Economy. IT Strategy of the Company Development. Applied Mathematics, Mechanics, and Engineering 61: 01034. [Google Scholar]
- Breuer, Stefan, and Patrick Szillat. 2019. Leadership and digitalization: Contemporary approaches towards leading in the modern day workplace. E-Journal. Dialogue 1. Available online: https://dlib.uni-svishtov.bg/bitstream/handle/10610/4066/be7780cf4bac05d35accf2396c95f65e.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on 4 March 2021).
- Cisco. 2020. Cisco Global Digital Readiness Index 2019. San Jose: White Paper Cisco Public. [Google Scholar]
- Cornell University, INSEAD, and WIPO. 2019. The Global Innovation Index 2019: Creating Healthy Lives—The Future of Medical Innovation. Ithaca: Cornell University, Fontainebleau: INSEAD, Geneva: WIPO. [Google Scholar]
- Curran, Dean. 2017. Risk, innovation, and democracy in the digital economy. European Journal of Social Theory. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Debrenti, S. A. 2020. Measuring digital readiness in food industry. Journal of EcoAgriTourism 16: 11–20. [Google Scholar]
- DGRA—The Foundation of Digital Development, the Core Team. 2020. Digital Government Readiness Assessment (DGRA) Toolkit V.3 1, Guidelines for Task Teams, Version 3.0. Public Disclosure Authorized. Washington: World Bank. [Google Scholar]
- Dmitrieva, E. O., and S. M. Guseva. 2019. Accounting for the Digitalization Factor in Assessing Territorial Competitiveness. SHS Web of Conferences 62: 13003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ertan, Joakim. 2018. Digital Readiness of Swedish Organizations. Trita-Itm-Ex 2018:334. Master’s thesis, Examensarbete Inom Industriell Ekonomi, Avancerad Nivå, Stockholm, Sverige. [Google Scholar]
- Florin, Martin, Cristescu Marian Pompiliu, and Vasilciuc Bogdan. 2012. E-Readiness of Romania. Conference: Knowledge-Based Organization. Project: Software Reliability Analysis Based on Binary Diagrams Decision. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235878858 (accessed on 4 March 2021).
- Gapsalamov, Almaz, Elvir Aetshin, Tatyana Bochkareva, Vladimir Vasilev, and Tatyana Anisimova. 2020. Comparative analysis of education quality and the level of competitiveness of leader countries under digitalization conditions. Journal of Social Studies Education Research 10: 133–50. [Google Scholar]
- Isaac, Victor Ragazzi, Felipe Mendes Borini, Muhammad Mustafa Raziq, and Gabriel RG Benito. 2019. From local to global innovation: The role of subsidiaries’ external relational embeddedness in an emerging market. International Business Review 28: 638–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jakubik, Maria, and Ivan Berazhny. 2017. Rethinking Leadership and It´s Practices in the Digital Era. Paper presented at the Management International Conference, Monastier di Treviso (Venice), Italy, May 24–27; pp. 471–83. [Google Scholar]
- Kalashnikov, Alexander, Elena Peredreeva, and Katarina Hercegova. 2019. Digital Leadership as the Basis of Modern Business. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Social, Economic, and Academic Leadership (ICSEAL 2019), Prague, Czech Republic, March 23–24; Volume 318. [Google Scholar]
- Kane, Gerald C., Doug Palmer, Anh Nguyen Phillips, David Kiron, and Natasha Buckley. 2016. Aligning the Organization for Its Digital Future. MITSloan Management Review, Research Report. #Digitalevolution, Reprint Number 58180. London: Deloitte University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, Sungjoo, Hakyeon Lee, and Changyong Lee. 2020. Open innovation at the national level: Towards a global innovation system. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 151: 119842. [Google Scholar]
- Lokuge, Sachithra, Darshana Sederaa, Varun Groverb, and Dongming Xu. 2019. Organizational readiness for digital innovation: Development and empirical calibration of a construct. Information & Management 56: 445–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Machado, Carla Gonçalves, Mats Winroth, Dan Carlsson, Peter Almström, Victor Centerholt, and Malin Hallin. 2019. Industry 4.0 Readiness in Manufacturing Companies: Challanges and Enablers towards Increased Digitalization. Paper presented at the 52nd CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems. Procedia CIRP 81, Ljubljana, Slovenia, June 12–14; pp. 1113–18. [Google Scholar]
- Manta, Otilia. 2019. The Role of Competitiveness on the Sustainability of the National Real Economy. The Journal Contemporary Economy 4: 138–46. [Google Scholar]
- Maresova, Petra, Ivan Soukal, Libuse Svobodova, Martina Hedvicakova, Ehsan Javanmardi, Ali Selamat, and Ondrej Krejcar. 2018. Consequences of Industry 4.0 in Business and Economics. Economies 6: 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mihardjo, L., S. Sasmoko, F. Alamsjah, and E. Elidjen. 2019. Digital leadership role in developing business model innovation and customer experience orientation in industry 4.0. Management Science Letters 9: 1749–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nagy, Szabolcs. 2017. Digital Economy and Society—A cross country comparison of Hungary and Ukraine. arXiv arXiv:1901.00283. [Google Scholar]
- Nesterova, Z. V., T. Zh Solosichenko, and E. I. Makovkina. 2018. Digitalization Process as a Factor Increasing Austrian Competitiveness. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research. In 2nd International Scientific Conference on New Industrialization: Global, National, Regional Dimension (SICNI). Amsterdam: Atlantis Press, vol. 240. [Google Scholar]
- OECD. 2019. Public Governance Policy Papers, Digital Government Index. OECD Public Governance Policy Papers No. 03. Paris: OECD. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pai, Prajnya R., Althaf Navab, and A. S. Sureshc. 2020. Factors of Digital Readiness and Its Impact on Adoption of Industrial Internet of Things. Journal of Xi’an University of Architecture & Technology XII: 5703. [Google Scholar]
- Plutova, M. I., E. E. Lagutina, and I. V. Sadkova. 2019. Competency readiness of labor resources to digital economy. Paper presented at the 1st International Scientific and Practical Conference on Digital Economy (ISCDE 2019), Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, Chelyabinsk, Russia, November 7–8. [Google Scholar]
- Roman, Alexandru V., Montgomery Van Wart, Xiao Hu Wang, Cheol Liu, Soonhee Kim, and Alma McCarthy. 2018. Defining E-leadership as Competence in ICT-Mediated Communications: An Exploratory Assessment. Public Administration Review 79: 853–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saputra, Nopriadi, and Aldy Maulana Saputra. 2020. Transforming into Digital Organization by Orchestrating Culture, Leadership and Competence in Digital Context. GATR Global Journal of Business & Social Science Review 8: 208–16. [Google Scholar]
- Sasmoko, S., L. Mihardjo, F. Alamsjah, and E. Elidjen. 2019. Dynamic capability: The effect of digital leadership on fostering innovation capability based on market orientation Management Science Letters. Management Science Letters 9: 1633–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sepashvili, E. 2020. Supporting Digitalization: Key Goal for National Competitiveness in Digital Global Economy. Economia Aziendale Online 11: 191–98. [Google Scholar]
- Shavshukov, Viacheslav M., and Natalia A. Zhuravleva. 2020. Global Economy: New Risks and Leadership Problems. International Journal of Financial Studies 8: 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shkarlet, Serhiy, Maksym Dubyna, Khrystyna Shtyrkhun, and Liudmyla Verbivska. 2020. Transformation of the Paradigm of the Economic Entities Development in Digital Economy. Wseas Transactions on Enovironment and Development. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strielkowski, Wadim, Vyacheslav Volchik, Artyom Maskaev, and Pavel Savko. 2020. Leadership and Effective Institutional Economics Design in the Context of Education Reforms. Economies 8: 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Veselovsky, Mikhail Yakovlevich, Tatiana Vitalievna Pogodina, Raisa Vasilyevna Ilyukhina, Tatyana Anatolyevna Sigunova, and Nina Fedorovna Kuzovleva. 2018. Financial and Economic Mechanisms of Promoting Innovative Activity in the Context of the Digital Economy Formation. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center 5: 672–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wallace, Foundation. n.d. Workbook B; Secondary Data Analysis. Available online: https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/Workbook-B-Secondary-Research.pdf (accessed on 23 December 2020).
- Wang, Victor X., and Geraldine Torrisi-Steele. 2017. Digital Leadership in the New Century. Category: Leadership. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watanabea, Chihiro, Kashif Naveeda, Yuji Touc, and Pekka Neittaanmäkia. 2018. Measuring GDP in the digital economy: Increasing dependence on uncaptured GDP. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 137: 226–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- WEF. 2019. The Global Competitiveness Report 2019, Insight Report. Cologny/Geneva: World Economic Forum. [Google Scholar]
- Yoo, Tae, Mary de Wysocki, and Amanda Cumberland. 2018. Country Digital Readiness: Research to Determine a Country’s Digital Readiness and Key Interventions. Cisco Corporate Affairs. May. Available online: https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/assets/csr/pdf/Country-Digital-Readiness-White-Paper-US.pdf (accessed on 4 March 2021).
- Zeike, Sabrina, Katherine Bradbury, Lara Lindert, and Holger Pfaff. 2019. Digital Leadership Skills and Associations with Psychological Well-Being. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16: 2628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, Dayong, Lei Lei, Qiang Ji, and Ali M. Kutan. 2019. Economic policy uncertainty in the US and China and their impact on the global markets. Economic Modelling 79: 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Digital readiness, innovation, competitiveness 4.0.
Figure 2.
Steps in secondary research (Wallace n.d.).
Figure 2.
Steps in secondary research (Wallace n.d.).
Table 1.
Scores and stages of digital readiness for G20 countries in 2019.
| Ranks | G20 Countries | Scores (0–25) | Stages |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | The United States of America | 19.03 | Amplify |
| 2 | South Korea | 18.22 | Amplify |
| 3 | Australia | 17.89 | Amplify |
| 4 | The United Kingdom | 17.86 | Amplify |
| 5 | Germany | 17.85 | Amplify |
| 6 | Japan | 17.69 | Amplify |
| 7 | Canada | 17.33 | Amplify |
| 8 | France | 16.25 | Amplify |
| 9 | Italy | 14.84 | Accelerate |
| 10 | Russia | 13.63 | Accelerate |
| 11 | Saudi Arabia | 13.40 | Accelerate |
| 12 | China | 13.22 | Accelerate |
| 13 | Argentina | 13.06 | Accelerate |
| 14 | Turkey | 12.88 | Accelerate |
| 15 | Mexico | 12.34 | Accelerate |
| 16 | Brazil | 12.31 | Accelerate |
| 17 | Indonesia | 11.68 | Accelerate |
| 18 | South Africa | 11.39 | Accelerate |
| 19 | India | 9.6 | Accelerate |
Source: Adopted from The Global Digital Readiness Index 2019 (Cisco 2020).
Table 2.
Scores and incomes of G20 countries in 2019.
| Ranks | G20 Countries | Scores (0–100) | Incomes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | The United States of America | 61.73 | HI |
| 2 | The United Kingdom | 61.30 | HI |
| 3 | Germany | 58.19 | HI |
| 4 | Republic of Korea (South Korea) | 56.55 | HI |
| 5 | China | 54.82 | UM |
| 6 | Japan | 54.68 | HI |
| 7 | France | 54.25 | HI |
| 8 | Canada | 53.88 | HI |
| 9 | Australia | 50.34 | HI |
| 10 | Italy | 46.30 | HI |
| 11 | Russia (Russia Federation) | 37.62 | UM |
| 12 | Turkey | 36.95 | UM |
| 13 | India | 36.58 | LM |
| 14 | Mexico | 36.06 | UM |
| 15 | South Africa | 34.04 | UM |
| 16 | Brazil | 33.82 | UM |
| 17 | Saudi Arabia | 32.93 | HI |
| 18 | Argentina | 31.95 | HI |
| 19 | Indonesia | 29.72 | LM |
Source: Adapted from Cornell University Global Innovation Index 2019 (Cornell University et al. 2019).
Table 3.
Global competitiveness 4.0 scores and their fluctuations of G20 countries in 2019.
| Ranks | Countries | Scores (0–100) | Fluctuations from 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States of America | 83.7 | Decrease (−1) |
| 2 | Japan | 82.3 | Decrease (−1) |
| 3 | Germany | 81.8 | Decrease (−4) |
| 4 | The United Kingdom | 81.2 | Decrease (−1) |
| 5 | Korea Representative | 79.6 | Increase (+2) |
| 6 | Canada | 79.6 | Decrease (−2) |
| 7 | France | 78.8 | Increase (+2) |
| 8 | Australia | 78.7 | Decrease (−2) |
| 9 | China | 73.9 | Stable |
| 10 | Saudi Arabia | 70.0 | Increase (+3) |
| 11 | Italy | 71.5 | Increase (+1) |
| 12 | Russia Federation | 66.7 | Stable |
| 13 | Mexico | 64.9 | Decrease (−2) |
| 14 | Indonesia | 64.6 | Decrease (−5) |
| 15 | South Africa | 62.4 | Increase (+7) |
| 16 | Turkey | 62.1 | Stable |
| 17 | India | 61.4 | Decrease (−10) |
| 18 | Brazil | 60.9 | Increase (+1) |
| 19 | Argentina | 57.2 | Decrease (−2) |
Source: Adapted from WEF Global Competitiveness Report 2019 (WEF 2019).
Table 4.
Global digital readiness ranks, global innovation ranks, global competitiveness 4.0 ranks and their consistencies of the G20 countries.
Table 4.
Global digital readiness ranks, global innovation ranks, global competitiveness 4.0 ranks and their consistencies of the G20 countries.
| Digital Capabilities’ Ranks | Digital Readiness Ranks | Innovation Ranks | Competitiveness 4.0 Ranks | Consistencies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | The United States of America | The United States of America | The United States of America | Full |
| 2 | South Korea | The United Kingdom | Japan | No |
| 3 | Australia | Germany | Germany | Partial |
| 4 | The United Kingdom | Republic of Korea (South Korea) | The United Kingdom | Partial |
| 5 | Germany | China | Korea Rep. | No |
| 6 | Japan | Japan | Canada | Partial |
| 7 | Canada | France | France | Partial |
| 8 | France | Canada | Australia | No |
| 9 | Italy | Australia | China | No |
| 10 | Russia | Italy | Saudi Arabia | No |
| 11 | Saudi Arabia | Russia (Russia Federation) | Italy | No |
| 12 | China | Turkey | Russia Federation | No |
| 13 | Argentina | India | Mexico | No |
| 14 | Turkey | Mexico | Indonesia | No |
| 15 | Mexico | South Africa | South Africa | Partial |
| 16 | Brazil | Brazil | Turkey | Partial |
| 17 | Indonesia | Saudi Arabia | India | No |
| 18 | South Africa | Argentina | Brazil | No |
| 19 | India | Indonesia | Argentina | No |
Source: Adapted from Global Digital Readiness Index 2019 (Cisco 2020); Global Innovation Index 2019 (Cornell University et al. 2019); Global Competitiveness 4.0 Report 2019 (WEF 2019).
Table 5.
Global Digital Readiness Scores, Global Innovation Scores and Global Competitiveness 4.0 Scores of the G20 Countries.
Table 5.
Global Digital Readiness Scores, Global Innovation Scores and Global Competitiveness 4.0 Scores of the G20 Countries.
| Ranks | G20 Countries | Digital Readiness Scores | Innovation Scores | Competitiveness 4.0 Scores |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | The United States | 19.03 | 61.73 | 83.7 |
| 2 | South Korea | 18.22 | 56.55 | 79.6 |
| 3 | Australia | 17.89 | 50.34 | 78.7 |
| 4 | The United Kingdom | 17.86 | 61.30 | 81.2 |
| 5 | Germany | 17.85 | 58.19 | 81.8 |
| 6 | Japan | 17.69 | 54.68 | 82.3 |
| 7 | Canada | 17.33 | 53.88 | 79.6 |
| 8 | France | 16.25 | 54.25 | 78.8 |
| 9 | Italy | 14.84 | 46.30 | 71.5 |
| 10 | Russia | 13.63 | 37.62 | 66.7 |
| 11 | Saudi Arabia | 13.40 | 32.93 | 70.0 |
| 12 | China | 13.22 | 54.82 | 73.9 |
| 13 | Argentina | 13.06 | 31.95 | 57.2 |
| 14 | Turkey | 12.88 | 36.95 | 62.1 |
| 15 | Mexico | 12.34 | 36.06 | 64.9 |
| 16 | Brazil | 12.31 | 33.82 | 60.9 |
| 17 | Indonesia | 11.68 | 29.72 | 64.6 |
| 18 | South Africa | 11.39 | 34.04 | 62.4 |
| 19 | India | 9.6 | 36.58 | 61.4 |
Source: Adapted from the Global Digital Readiness Index 2019 (Cisco 2020); Global Innovation Index 2019 (Cornell University et al. 2019); and Global Competitiveness 4.0 Report 2019 (WEF 2019).
Table 6.
Pearson Correlations between Digital Readiness, Innovation, and Competitiveness 4.0 of the G20 Countries.
Table 6.
Pearson Correlations between Digital Readiness, Innovation, and Competitiveness 4.0 of the G20 Countries.
| Digital Readiness | Innovation | Competitiveness | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Digital Readiness | Pearson correlation | 1 | 0.694 ** | 0.770 ** |
| Sig. (two-tailed) | 0.001 | 0.000 | ||
| N | 19 | 19 | 19 | |
| Innovation | Pearson correlation | 0.694 ** | 1 | 0.932 ** |
| Sig. (two-tailed) | 0.001 | 0.000 | ||
| N | 19 | 19 | 19 | |
| Competitiveness | Pearson correlation | 0.770 ** | 0.932 ** | 1 |
| Sig. (two-tailed) | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||
| N | 19 | 19 | 19 |
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Source: Output of SPSS conducted by the authors (2020).
Table 7.
Conclusion of Hypotheses.
| Hypotheses | Pearson Correlation | Conclusions |
|---|---|---|
| H1. Digital readiness and innovativeness are related | 0.694 | Accepted |
| H2. Digital readiness and competitiveness 4.0 are related | 0.770 | Accepted |
| H3. Innovation and competitiveness 4.0 are related | 0.931 | Accepted |
Source: Output of SPSS conducted by authors (2020).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Cahyadi, A.; Magda, R. Digital Leadership in the Economies of the G20 Countries: A Secondary Research. Economies 2021, 9, 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies9010032
AMA Style
Cahyadi A, Magda R. Digital Leadership in the Economies of the G20 Countries: A Secondary Research. Economies. 2021; 9(1):32. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies9010032
Chicago/Turabian StyleCahyadi, Afriyadi, and Róbert Magda. 2021. "Digital Leadership in the Economies of the G20 Countries: A Secondary Research" Economies 9, no. 1: 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies9010032
APA StyleCahyadi, A., & Magda, R. (2021). Digital Leadership in the Economies of the G20 Countries: A Secondary Research. Economies, 9(1), 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies9010032
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
