What time period?

1. How do you define "phonetic alphabetic"? Because a completely phonetic alphabet is unnecessary, impractical, and has never existed. (Adding that IPA is used for scientific purposes, and can, but still usually does not describe irrelevant sounds in perfect detail).

Does that mean Finnish and Spanish count but English doesn't? Or does that mean any language that uses the Roman alphabet counts automatically? So does Arabic and Hebrew count for using letters to denote sounds, or do they not count for not writing short vowels? Korean maybe counts, and Chinese obviously doesn't. But what about Japanese that uses both systems ("logographic" and phonetic) simultaneously but can still rely entirely on one or the other?

2. A *purely" logographic script has never existed. So do you umbrella different systems like hieroglyphs and Chinese characters?

If you want to compare the only countries today left that use "characters" to all the countries that use say the Roman, Greek, and Cyrillic alphabets, you will find lower literacy among the alphabet scripts and the scripts of Japan, Taiwan, and China. This is for many reasons... many languages (such as Quechua) may officially use the Roman alphabet even though the vast majority of speakers have never been literate in it.

You also find huge ranges in the acquisition of literacy among Roman alphabet using languages. It consistently takes 1 year in Spanish or Finnish to acquire what takes English speaking students anywhere from 4-6 years (these numbers are very controversial because of the nature of testing reading skills).

Acquisition of Chinese and Japanese writing is a K-12 process, even a life-long one. So where do you draw the line of "acquisition"?

We know that literacy in Ancient Egypt was VERY low. We know from texts in this case the basic process and how limited it was. We can also count things like the number of libraries built, or texts available from a given period to get an idea for how widespread literacy was. Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome we know experienced MUCH higher literacy than Ancient Egypt, but it was still a relatively "well-to-do" skill by today's standards.

However, during the middle ages of Europe, when you could rule an empire without knowing how to read. I doubt the Church's bureaucracy (the bastion of literacy of the time) was larger than that of the contemporaneous Tang Dynasty, and that at that time it is possible that literacy was more common in Chinese script than the Roman script (but I would hazard that the Greek alphabet still enjoyed a relatively healthy literacy percentage because their bureaucracy didn't collapse). This would obviously change again though.