Global digital divide

“In the twenty-first century, the capacity to communicate will almost certainly be a key human right. Eliminating the distinction between the information-rich and information-poor is also critical to eliminating economic and other inequalities between North and South, and to improve the life of all humanity.” -Nelson Mandela, TELECOM 95, October 3, 1995 (Wilson, 2004, 1)

The global digital divide is a term used to describe “great disparities in opportunity to access the Internet and the information and educational/business opportunities tied to this access … between developed and developing countries”. Unlike the traditional notion of the "digital divide" between social classes, the "global digital divide" is essentially a geographical division.

Over 30 years ago, “Hans Singer (1970) introduced the concept of international technological dualism, by which he meant essentially unequal developments in the area of science, technology, between rich and poor countries” (James, 2004, p. 11-12). Today, the "rapidly growing disparities in the utilization, expenditure, and availability of technology" (Pick & Azari, 2008, p. 91) on a worldwide scale is known as the Global Digital Divide. The global digital divide involves "economic, educational, and social aspects" (Pick & Azari, p. 92) that influence the levels of information communication technology development in each country. A 2002 World Economic Forum report on the global digital divide found that, "88% of all Internet users are from industrialized countries that comprise only 15% of the world's population" (Pick & Azari, p. 93).

The global digital divide versus the digital divide

Within countries around the world there is a gap that exists among those that have access to information and communication technology (Azam, 2007), including computers and the Internet, and those that do not. This term has been coined the “digital divide”. In addition to access, it is noted that the ability to use these technologies, as well as find and produce relevant content, define the “digital divide” as well (Azam, 2007).

The "global digital divide" is distinguishable from the "digital divide", in that “Internet has developed unevenly throughout the world” (Guillen, M. F. & Suarez, S. L. 2005, p. 681) causing some countries to fall behind in technology, education, labor, democracy, and tourism. The concept of the “digital divide” was originally popularized with regard to the disparity in Internet access between rural and urban areas of the United States of America. The “global digital divide” relates to disparity among less developed nations from developed nations. Unlike the case in many classical economic analyses of income disparity, there is no claim in this case that the developed nations' advances in information and communication technologies (ICT) have fed off the labor or resources of developing nations. Conversely, there is generally no claim that developing nations are faring absolutely worse because developed nations are doing better. The "global digital divide" also contributes to the inequality of access to goods and services available through technology. Computers and internet provide users with improved education and higher wages and therefore those nations and people with limited access are disadvantaged. (Krueger 1993; Attewell and Battle 1999).

The geographical divide

It is argued that developed nations with the resources to invest in and develop ICT infrastructure are reaping enormous benefits from the information age, while developing nations are trailing along at a much slower pace. One of the main differences in correlation between developing and developed nations is that developing nation’s technology level is more influenced by FDI and government initiatives, while wealthier nations’ technology level is more associated with labor force participation of women and educational variables. (Pick & Azari, p. 24). This difference in rates of technological adoption has been blamed for widening the economic disparity between the most developed nations of the world (primarily Canada, the United States, Japan, South Korea, Western Europe and Australasia) and the underdeveloped and developing ones (primarily some Latin American countries, Africa, and Southeast Asia), thus creating a digital (that is, digitally-fostered) divide. This global divide is often characterized as falling along what is sometimes called the north-south divide of "northern" wealthier nations and "southern" poorer ones.

Despite the explosive growth of the Internet access and use in developing countries, a disproportionate number of users are still concentrated in developed countries, especially the United States (Chen & Wellman, 2004, p. 40). The G8 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK and the US) are home to almost 50% of the world’s total Internet users even though they had just 15% of the world’s population (WSIS, 2005, Did you know that…? Section). Discrepancies in international Internet bandwidth are even higher because developing countries often have to pay the high full cost of a link to a hub in a developed country (WSIS, 2005). For example, Denmark has more than twice the international Internet bandwidth that the whole of Latin American and the Caribbean combined (WSIS, 2005). Even within the Americas, it has its own North-South divide: the United States and Canada have roughly 6 times the Internet penetration rate of the countries of Central and South America and the Caribbean (WSIS, 2005, Americas section). Asia-Pacific region is the world’s most diverse region and it also has the most pronounced digital divide (WSIS, 2005, Asia-Pacific section). The Internet penetration ranges from below 1% in countries like Bangladesh, to above 65% in countries like Australia and Republic of Korea (WSIS, 2005, Asia-Pacific section). The top three countries in terms of broadband penetration were Republic of Korea, Hong Kong (China) and Netherlands in 2004 (WSIS, 2005).

The differences in the Internet penetration rate both within and between countries are contributed by socioeconomic, technological and linguistic factors (Chen & Wellman, 2004, p. 39). High costs, economic priorities, English language dominance, the lack of relevant content, the lack of technological support and disparity in literacy rate are some of the barriers for disadvantaged communities to be overcome (Foulger, 2001; Chen & Wellman, 2004). Appropriate public policies and regulatory frameworks in telecommunication, social resources, education and infrastructure are prerequisites for the developing countries to narrow the gap (Chen & Wellman, 2004; WSIS, 2008). In some countries, the digital divide is even deepening even as the number of Internet users increases because the newcomers to the Internet are demographically similar to those already online. The disadvantaged social groups or nations may be increasingly excluded from knowledge based societies and economies and continued to be affected by the social inequality (Chen & Wellness, 2004).

The promise and potential of the Internet

The Internet has been hailed as a “great equalizer” (Brynjolfsson and Smith 2000),” allowing the smallest of businesses to access markets and have a presence that allows them to compete against the giants of their industry (Borland, 1998). It is also a revolutionary technological tool that enables efficient transfer of information on a global scale. This global information could be used for international trade, online digital libraries, online education, telemedicine, e-government and many other applications that would solve vital problems in the developing world. Norris states that, “in poorer villages and isolated communities, a well-placed computer, like a communal well or an irrigation pump, may become another development tool, providing essential information about storm warnings and crop prices for farmers, or medical services and legal land records for villagers” (Norris, 2001, p. 40).

The fundamental commonality of this class of problems is the realization that the developed nations have in abundance many of the resources that the developing ones could use to solve some of their problems, but geographical, political, philosophical, ideological, and cultural barriers exist that make it difficult or impossible for these solutions to be transferred effectively.

Sources of widespread public information such as broadcast television, telephone services, educational institutions and public libraries are considered a norm in developed countries. In developing countries, however, these modes of communication and information sources are not easily accessible. This limits citizens’ ability to gather information and coordinate with each other to solve their problems. The Internet’s ability to promote the efficient dissemination of information promises huge improvements to internal communications in and among developing countries.

Programs like One Laptop Per Child are attempting to bridge the digital divide by bringing laptops to all students.

Obstacles to overcoming the global digital divide

Many argue that basic necessities need to be considered before achieving digital inclusion, such as an ample food supply and quality healthcare. Minimizing the global digital divide requires considering and addressing the following types of access:

• Physical Access

Involves, “the distribution of ICT devices per capita…and land lines per thousands” (Wilson, III. E.J., 2004, p. 306). Individuals need to obtain access to computers, landlines, and networks in order to access the Internet.

• Financial Access

The cost of ICT applications, technician and educator training, software, maintenance and infrastructures require ongoing financial support.

• Cognitive Access

In order to use computer technology, a certain level of information literacy is needed. Further challenges include information overload and the ability to find and use reliable information.

• Design Access

Computers need to be accessible to individuals with different learning and physical abilities including complying with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.

• Institutional Access

In illustrating institutional access, Wilson (2004) states “the numbers of users are greatly affected by whether access is offered only through individual homes or whether it is offered through schools, community centers, religious institutions, cybercafés, or post offices, especially in poor countries where computer access at work or home is highly limited” (p. 303).

• Political Access

Guillen & Suarez (2005), argue that that “democratic political regimes enable a faster growth of the Internet than authoritarian or totalitarian regimes” (p. 687). The Internet is considered a form of e-democracy and attempting to control what citizens can or cannot view is in contradiction to this. Recently situations in Iran and China have denied people the ability to access certain website and disseminate information. Iran has also prohibited the use of high-speed Internet in the country and has removed many satellite dishes in order to prevent the influence of western culture, such as music and television (Tait, 2006).

Concrete examples of the global digital divide

In the early 21st century, residents of First World countries enjoy many Internet services which are not yet widely available in Third World countries, including:

• In tandem with the above point, mobile phones and small electronic communication devices;
• E-communities and social-networking;
• Fast broadband Internet connections, enabling advanced Internet applications;
• Affordable and widespread Internet access, either through personal computers at home or work, through public terminals in public libraries and Internet cafes, and through wireless access points;
• E-commerce enabled by efficient electronic payment networks like credit cards and reliable shipping services;
• Virtual globes featuring street maps searchable down to individual street addresses and detailed satellite and aerial photography;
• Online research systems like LexisNexis and ProQuest which enable users to peruse newspaper and magazine articles that may be centuries old, without having to leave home;
• Electronic readers such as Kindle, Sony Reader, Samsung Papyrus and Iliad by iRex Technologies;
• Price engines like Google Product Search which help consumers find the best possible online prices, and similar services like ShopLocal which find the best possible prices at local retailers;
• Electronic services delivery of government services, such as the ability to pay taxes, fees, and fines online.
• Further civic engagement through e-government and other sources such as finding information about candidates regarding political situations.

Solutions

Main article: Information and Communication Technologies for Development

Using previous studies (Gamos, 2003; Nsengiyuma & Stork, 2005; Harwit, 2004 as cited in James), James asserts that in developing countries, “internet use has taken place overwhelmingly among the upper-income, educated, and urban segments” (James, 2008, p. 58) largely due to the high literacy rates of this sector of the population. As such, James suggests that part of the solution requires that developing countries first build up the literacy/language skills, computer literacy, and technical competence that low-income and rural populations need in order to make use of ICT.

From an economic perspective, Pick & Azari (2008) state that “in developing nations…foreign direct investment (FDI), primary education, educational investment, access to education, and government prioritization of ICT as all important” (p. 112). Specific solutions proposed by the study include: “invest in stimulating, attracting, and growing creative technical and scientific workforce; increase the access to education and digital literacy; reduce the gender divide and empower women to participate in the ICT workforce; emphasize investing in intensive Research and Development for selected metropolitan areas and regions within nations” (Pick & Azari, p. 111).

There are projects worldwide that have implemented, to various degrees, the solutions outlined above. Many such projects have taken the form of Information Communications Technology Centers (ICT centers). Rahnman explains that “the main role of ICT intermediaries is defined as an organization providing effective support to local communities in the use and adaptation of technology. Most commonly an ICT intermediary will be a specialized organization from outside the community, such as a non-governmental organization, local government, or international donor. On the other hand, a social intermediary is defined as a local institution from within the community, such as a community-based organization” (Rahman, 2006, p. 128).

Other proposed solutions that the Internet promises for developing countries are the provision of efficient communications within and among developing countries, so that citizens worldwide can effectively help each other to solve their own problems. Grameen Banks and Kiva loans are two microcredit systems designed to help citizens worldwide to contribute online towards entrepreneurship in developing communities. Economic opportunities range from entrepreneurs who can afford the hardware and broadband access required to maintain Internet cafés to agribusinesses having control over the seeds they plant.

At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the IMARA organization (from Swahili word for "power") sponsors a variety of outreach programs which bridge the Global Digital Divide. Its aim is to find and implement long-term, sustainable solutions which will increase the availability of educational technology and resources to domestic and international communities. These projects are run under the aegis of the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) and staffed by MIT volunteers who give training, install and donate computer setups in greater Boston, Massachusetts, Kenya, Indian reservations the American Southwest such as the Navajo Nation, the Middle East, and Fiji Islands. The CommuniTech project strives to empower underserved communities through sustainable technology and education.

Building on the premise that any effective solution must be decentralized, allowing the local communities in developing nations to generate their own content, one scholar has posited that social media -- like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter -- may be useful tools in closing the divide. As Amir Hatem Ali (2011) suggests, “the popularity and generative nature of social media empower individuals to combat some of the main obstacles to bridging the digital divide” (p. 188). Facebook’s statistics reinforce this claim. According to Facebook, more than seventy-five percent of its users reside outside of the US. </ref>http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics</ref> Moreover, more than seventy languages are presented on its website. </ref>http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics</ref> The reasons for the high number of international users are due to many the qualities of Facebook and other social media. Amongst them, are its ability to offer a means of interacting with others, user-friendly features, and the fact that most sites are available at no cost. The problem with social media, however, is that it can be accessible, provided that there is physical access. Nevertheless, with its ability to encourage digital inclusion , social media can be used as a tool to bridge the global digital divide.

Other examples include:

• NEPAD e-Africa Commission projects: The NEPAD ICT Infrastructure Project and the NEPAD e-schools Initiative in Africa
• Telecentre networks around the world
• Vasconcelos Program in Veracruz, Mexico
• READ Nepal in Nepal
• OldNet in São Paulo, Brazil
• Digital Equalizer (DE) Program in India
• Development Authority of Singapore (IDA) in Singapore
• The Evergreen Education Foundation in China
• Northern Territory Library in Australia in Australia
• Asia Plays with hi-tech visions in various Asian countries

Some cities in the world have started programs to bridge the digital divide for their residents, school children, students, parents and the elderly. One such program, founded in 1996, was sponsored by the city of Boston and called the Boston Digital Bridge Foundation. It especially concentrates on school children and their parents, helping to make both equally and similarly knowledgeable about computers, using application programs, and navigating the Internet.

See also

• Digital divide in China
• Global Internet usage
• Inveneo
• List of e-book readers
• One Laptop per Child
• Rural Internet
• Computer technology for developing areas
• World Summit on the Information Society
• Community film

Notes

http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics

References

• Azam, M. (2007). Working together toward the inclusive digital world. Digital Opportunity Forum. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved July 17, 2009, from http://www.dof.or.kr/pdf/Bangladesh%5BPPT%5D.pdf
• Borland, J. (1998, April 13). “Move Over Megamalls, Cyberspace Is the Great Retailing Equalizer.” Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News.
• Brynjolfsson, Erik and Michael D. Smith (2000). The great equalizer? Consumer choice behavior at Internet shopbots. Journal article, July 2000. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
• Fizz, Robyn; Mansur, Karla (2008-06-04), "Helping MIT neighbors cross the 'digital divide'" (PDF), MIT Tech Talk, Cambridge: MIT, p. 3{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
• Chen, W. & Wellman, B. (2004) The global digital divide within and between countries. IT & Society, 1(7), 39-45.
• DiMaggio, P. & Hargittai, E. (2001). From the 'digital divide' to 'digital inequality': Studying internet me as penetration increases (Working Paper No. 15). Retrieved May 31, 2009 from Princeton University,WebUse: Scientific Research on the Internet Web http://www.princeton.edu/~artspol/workpap/WP15%20-%20DiMaggio%2BHargittai.pdf
• Foulger, D. (2001). Seven bridges over the global digital divide. IAMCR & ICA Symposium on Digital Divide. Retrieved July 17, 2009 from http://evolutionarymedia.com/papers/digitalDivide.htm
• Guillen, M. F., & Suárez, S. L. (2005). Explaining the global digital divide: Economic, political and sociological drivers of cross-national internet use. Social Forces, 84(2), 681-708.
• James, J. (2004). Information Technology and Development. New York, NY: Routledge.
• James, J. (2008). Digital Divide Complacency: Misconceptions and Dangers. The Information Society, 24, 54-61.
• Lu, M. (2001). Digital divide in developing countries. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 4(3), 1-4.
• Madon, S., Reinhard, N., Roode, D., & Walsham, G. (2007). Digital inclusion projects in developing countries: Processes of institutionalization. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Social Implications of Computers in Developing Countries. Retrieved July 13, 2009 from http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/files/25684/11973000111e-gov.pdf/e-gov.pdf

• Norris, P. (2001) Digital Divide : Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Pick, J. & Azari, R. (2008). Global Digital Divide: Influence of Socioeconomic, Governmental,and Accessibility Factors on Information Technology. Information Technology for Development, 14(2), 91-115
• Rahman, H. (2006). Empowering Marginal Communities and Information Networking.Hershey, Pennsylvania: Idea Group Publishing.
• Rumiany, D. (2007). Reducing the Global Digital Divide in Sub-Saharan Africa. Posted on Global Envision with permission from Development Gateway. Retrieved July 17, 2009 from http://www.globalenvision.org/library/7/1406
• Tait, R. (2005, Wednesday, October 25). Iran bans fast internet to cut west's influence. The Guardian, Retrieved July 17, 2009 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/oct/18/news.iran
• Wilson, III. E.J. (2004). The Information Revolution and Developing Countries. Cambridge,MA: The MIT Press.
• World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). (2005). What's the state of ICT accessaround the world? Retrieved July 17, 2009 from http://www.itu.int/wsis/tunis/newsroom/stats/index.html
• World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). (2008). ICTs in Africa: Digital Divide to Digital Opportunity. Retrieved July 17, 2009 from http://www.itu.int/newsroom/features/ict_africa.html

Further reading

• "Bridging Brazil's digital divide", BBC, Digital Planet, São Paulo Special, BBC World Service, Thursday, 2 October 2008.
• "Telecom use at the Bottom of the Pyramid in Emerging Asia", LIRNEasia, 2007. (See also [1])
• "The Digital Divide Within Web 2.0 Data", Floatingsheep Blog, June 15, 2009.
• James, J. (2005). "The global digital divide in the Internet: developed countries constructs and Third World realities", Journal of Information Science, 31 (2), 114-23.
• NTIS, "Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide", United States Department of Commerce, July 1999. PDF
• NTIS, "A Nation Online: Entering the Broadband Age", United States Department of Commerce, September 2004.

External links

• Free statistics on global adoption of ICTs from the International Telecommunication Union: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/index.html