This paper presents a comprehensive framework for describing the diffusion of the Internet in a country. It incorporates insights gained from in-depth studies of about 25 countries undertaken since 1997. The framework characterizes diffusion using six dimensions, defining them in detail, and examines how the six dimensions relate to underlying bodies of theory from the national systems of innovation and diffusion of innovations approaches. It addresses how to apply the framework in practice, highlighting Internet diffusion determinants. This framework is useful for business stakeholders wanting to make use of and invest in the Internet, for policy makers debating how to positively (or negatively) influence its use and development, and for researchers studying the large-scale diffusion of complex, interrelated technologies.

Against the backdrop of creeping authoritarianism by the Putin administration, this paper examines whether or not Russian efforts to enact e-government are enhancing, inhibiting, or neutral towards the establishment of preconditions for democracy in Russia. Eighty official regional governmental websites in 2003 and 85 in 2004 are examined to benchmark their contents according to a set of measures related to Information, Communications / Participation, Action / Transaction, and Integration. This paper also considers the contributions of the Electronic Russia (E-Russia) program launched in 2002 as a nine-year, $2.57B effort to bring egovernment to Russia. It is concluded that the main thrust of the websites was on the Information category, with some increases in the Communications / Participation from 2003 to 2004. Almost no services were enacted. Using a detailed analysis of the E-Russia expenditures, it is concluded that this program was focused more on building infrastructure than on building up e-government websites or increasing Internet access. Most support is found for the proposition that Russian egovernment efforts so far have done little to enhance the preconditions for democracy, but at the same time should not be viewed as a "Potemkin village," i.e. as a means to conceal moves away from democracy.

In the decade of the 1990s, India leapt ahead of all other competitors for offshore programming business, giving the impression that Russia had not lived up to its potential. This paper uses case studies of firms and clients and available literature to investigate what Russia has achieved so far, what bottlenecks and hindrances have prevented it from going further, and how those problems are now being addressed. Based on the Heeks/Nicholson and Carmel models, it is concluded that there have been important improvements in domestic input factors, infrastructure, and software industry characteristics; some improvements in linkages with customer firms; and relatively little progress in improving national vision and strategy. The industry has achieved a "platform of maturity" from which further growth is now possible. C 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The USSR has carried out a large-scale program to bring computer-based information systems, called Automated Enterprise Management Systems (ASUPs), to industrial enterprises. This program illustrates the extent to which computer-based information systems are inextricably embedded in the surrounding social, economic, and political systems.

With our colleagues in the Mosaic group, we have done several studies of the state of the Internet in India and in China beginning in 1998. These studies were conducted using a six-dimension framework we have developed for characterizing the state of the Internet in a nation. In 1999, we published a comparison of the state of the Internet in China and India. At that time we found that China had a clear lead in each of our six dimensions. This paper updates the comparison. We compare China and India on our six dimensions and find that China continues to have a substantial lead. We also see that India has made significant strides since our 1999 comparison. After examining the six dimensions, we turn to determinants of the values of those dimensions. What has led to China's lead and the progress that both nations have made recently? We conclude that the following factors were important in shaping China's lead over India. (1)A lthough Indian universities undertook Internet experiments before those of China, China decided to make the Internet a priority and began building it in earnest before India. (2) Chinese economic reforms, which began in the late 1980s, provided both capital for and openness to the Internet. (3) The pre-Internet Chinese decision to invest in telecommunication infrastructure and information technology industries provided complementary infrastructure and human resources for the Internet. (4) The Chinese ability to execute by decree rather than consensus building followed by legislative and regulatory reform accelerated the diffusion of the Internet. (5) The Chinese were able to create competition among government-owned organizations without taking time for legislative change and the raising of private capital. (6) The Chinese were able to establish competitors to the incumbent telephone company relatively rapidly. Although these factors jump-started the Chinese Internet, and will continue to work in its favor, market forces and openness of access and content may serve India well in the long run. Furthermore, there are also great similarities between the two nations, and we hope they will learn from each other and lead other developing nations. (c) 2003 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Information Technologies and International Development.