Introduction
The term digital divide refers to the gap between those people with effective access to digital and information technology and those without. It includes the imbalances in physical access to technology as well as the imbalances in resources and skills needed to effectively participate as a digital citizen. In other words, it’s the unequal access by some members of the society to information and communications technology, and the unequal acquisition of related skills. Groups often discussed in the context of a digital divide include gender, income, race and location. The term global digital divide refers to differences in technology access between countries.
Origins of the term
The term initially referred to gaps in ownership of computers between groups, during which time the increase of ownership was limited to certain ethnic groups. The term came into regular usage in the mid-1990s, though the term had previously appeared in several news articles and political speeches as early as 1995. President of the United States Bill Clinton and his Vice President Al Gore used the term in a 1996 speech in Knoxville, Tennessee. Larry Irving, a former United States head of the National Telecommunications Infrastructure Administration (NTIA) at the Department of Commerce, Assistant Secretary of Commerce and technology adviser to the Clinton Administration, noted that a series of NTIA surveys; were “catalysts for the popularity, ubiquity, and redefinition” of the term, and he used the term in a series of later reports. Since the start of the George W. Bush Administration, the NTIA reports have tended to focus less on gaps and divides and more on the steady growth of broadband access, especially amongst groups formerly believed to be on the wrong side of the digital divide.
It should be noted that there is a considerable literature on information and digital inequality that predates this current label. The concept of a digital divide is more of a new label and less of a unique concept.
Current usage
There are various definitions of the term "digital divide". Bharat Mehra defines it simply as “the troubling gap between those who use computers and the internet and those who do not”. The term initially referred to gaps in the ownership of, or regular access to, a computer. As Internet access came to be seen as a central aspect of computing, the term's usage shifted to encompass gaps in not just computers but also access to the Internet. Recently, some have used the term to refer to gaps in broadband network access. The term can mean not only unequal access to computer hardware, but also inequalities between groups of people in the ability to use information technology fully.
Due to the range of criteria which can be used to assess the imbalance, and the lack of detailed data on some aspects of technology usage, the exact nature of the digital divide is both contextual and debatable. Criteria often used to distinguish between the 'haves' and the 'have nots' of the digital divide tend to focus on access to hardware, access to the internet, and details relating to both categories. Some scholars fear that these discussions might be discouraging the creation of Internet content that addresses the needs of minority groups that make up the "have nots," as they are portrayed to be technophobic charity cases that lack the desire to adopt new technologies on their own.
The discussions on digital divide often are tied with other concepts. Lisa Servon argued in 2002 that the digital divide "is a symptom of a larger and more complex problem -- the problem of persistent poverty and inequality". As described by Mehra (2004), the four major components that contribute to digital divide are “socioeconomic status, with income, educational level, and race among other factors associated with technological attainment”.
Recognition of digital divide as an immense problem has led scholars, policy makers, and the public to understand the “potential of the internet to improve everyday life for those on the margins of society and to achieve greater social equity and empowerment”.
Digital divide evolution
Typical measurements of inequality distribution used to describe the Digital Divide are the Lorenz Curve and Gini coefficient, however, the question of whether or not the digital divide is growing or closing is difficult to answer.
In Bridging the digital divide: An opportunity for growth for the 21st century, examples of these ways of measuring are illustrated. In the Lorenz curve, perfect equality of internet usage across nations is represented by a 45-degree diagonal line, which has a Gini coefficient of zero. Perfect inequality gives a Gini coefficient of one. Therefore if you look at figures 2.4 and 2.5 in the document, both graphs show a trend of growing equality from 1997 to 2005 with the Gini coefficient decreasing. However, these graphs don’t show the important, detailed analysis of specific income groups. The progress represented is predominantly of the middle-income groups when compared to the highest income groups. The lowest income groups continue to decrease their level of equality in comparison to the high income groups. Therefore, there is still a long way to go before the digital divide will be eliminated.
Digital divide and education
One area of significant focus was school computer access; in the 1990s, rich schools were much more likely to provide their students with regular computer access. In the late 1990s, rich schools were much more likely to have internet access. In the context of schools, which have consistently been involved in the discussion of the divide, current formulations of the divide focus more on how (and whether) computers are used by students, and less on whether there are computers or internet connections.
The E-Rate program (officially the Schools and Libraries Program of the Universal Service Fund), authorized in 1996 and implemented in 1997, directly addressed the technology gap between rich and poor schools by allocating money from telecommunications taxes to poor schools without technology resources. Though the program faced criticism and controversy in its methods of disbursement, E-Rate has been credited with increasing the overall number of public classrooms with Internet access from 14% in 1996 to 95% in 2005. Recently, discussions of a digital divide in school access have broadened to include technology related skills and training in addition to basic access to computers and internet access.
Technology offers a unique opportunity to extend learning support beyond the classroom, something that has been difficult to do until now. “The variety of functions that the internet can serve for the individual user makes it “unprecedentedly malleable” to the user’s current needs and purposes”.
Global digital divide
Another key dimension of the digital divide is the global digital divide, reflecting existing economic divisions in the world, which can clearly be seen in The Global Digital Divide image. This global digital divide widens the gap in economic divisions around the world. Countries with a wide availability of internet access can advance the economics of that country on a local and global scale. In today's society, jobs and education are directly related to the internet, in that the advantages that come from the internet are so significant that neglecting them would leave a company vulnerable in a changing market.“Andy Grove, the former chair of Intel, said that by the mid-2000s all companies will be Internet companies, or they won’t be companies at all.” In countries where the internet and other technologies are not accessible, education is suffering, and uneducated people and societies that are not benefiting from the information age, cannot be competitive in the global economy. This leads to these countries, which tend to be developing countries, suffering greater economic downfall and richer countries advancing their education and economy. However, when dealing with the global aspect of digital divide there are several factors that lead to digital divide. For example, country of residence, ethnicity, gender, age, educational attainment, and income levels are all factors of the global aspects of digital divide. In addition, a survey shows that in 15 Western European countries females, manual workers, elderly, and the less educated have less internet access than males, professional, the young, and the well educated”. The digital divide is a term used to refer to the gap between people who have access to the internet and those that do not. It can also refer to the skills people have – the divide between peoples who are at ease using technology to access and analyse information and those who are not.
Digital divide worldwide
Canada: According to a Fall 2007 Canadian Internet Use Survey, 73% of Canadians aged 16 and older went online in the 12 months prior to the survey, compared to 68% in 2005. In small towns and rural areas, only 65% of residences accessed the internet, compared to 76% in urban areas. The digital divide still exists between the rich and the poor; 91% of people making more than $91,000/year regularly used the internet, compared to 47% of people making less than $24,000. This gap has lowered slightly since 2005.
China: China is the largest developing country in the world and therefore saw their internet population grow by 20% in 2006. However, just over 10% of Chinese people have access to the internet and the digital divide is growing due to factors such as insufficient infrastructure and high online charges. See Digital divide in the People's Republic of China for more information.
Europe: A European Union study from 2005 conducted in 14 European countries and focused on the issue of digital divide found that within the EU, the digital divide is primarily a matter of age and education. Among the young or educated the proportion of computer or Internet users is much higher than with the old or uneducated. Digital divide is also higher in rural areas. The study found that the presence of children in a household increases the chance of having a computer or Internet access, and that small businesses are catching up with larger enterprises when it comes to Internet access. The study also notes that "Despite increasing levels of ICT usage in all sections of society, the divide is not being bridged."
United States: According to a July 2008 Pew Internet & American Life report, “55% of adult Americans have broadband internet connections at home, up from 47% who had high-speed access at home last year at this time [2007]”. This increase of 8% compared to the previous year’s increase of 5% suggests that the digital divide is decreasing. However, the findings go on to show that low-income Americans’ broadband connections decreased by 3%. Therefore as was explained in the Digital Divide Evolution section, the detailed income groups need to be considered. Digital divide is a common subject in US politics and various government policies
Digital divide, e-democracy and e-governance
The theoretical concepts of e-democracy are still in early development, but many scholars agree that blogs (web logs), wikis and mailing lists may have significant effects in broadening the way democracy operates. There is, as yet, no consensus among scholars about the possible outcomes of this revolution; it has so far shown promise in improving electoral administration and reducing fraud and disenfranchisement; particularly positive has been the reception of e-government services related to online delivery of government services, with portals (such as United States USA.gov in English and GobiernoUSA.gov in Spanish) used as intermediaries between the government and the citizen, replacing the need for people to queue in traditional offices.
One of the main problems associated with the digital divide as applied to a liberal democracy is the capacity to participate in the new public space, the cyberspace - as in the extreme case, exclusively computer-based democratic participation (deliberation forums, online voting, etc) could mean that no access meant no vote. Therefore, there is a risk that some social groups — those without adequate access to or knowledge of IT — will be under-represented (or others over-represented) in the policy formation processes and this would be incompatible with the equality principles of democracy.
Proponents of the open content, free software, and open access social movements believe that these movements help equalize access to digital tools and information.
North America is in general ahead of the UK in respect of both PC use and Internet connectivity. It is not therefore surprising that concern over a potential digital divide originated there. According to research conducted by Booz Allen & Hamilton (in a report sent to the Prime Minister) Britain’s Internet population, as for that of North America, exhibits clear demographic and socio-economic lines and in consequence faces a similar digital divide.
Consequences of the Digital Divide
The primary concern is exclusion; social and otherwise. Each year, being digitally connected becomes ever more critical to economic, educational, and social advancement. Those without the appropriate tools (in terms of PCs and Internet connectivity) and applicable skills will become increasingly disadvantaged.
In North America the Internet has been defined as no longer a luxury item but rather a resource used by many (see reference).
As ICT becomes ever more pervasive those elements of society without access will be further disenfranchised in terms of:
• Fewer employment opportunities
• Restricted access to information and support
• Increasingly basic facilities such as email, consumer services, financial services, etc.
Reasons behind the Digital Divide
At the most basic level the digital divide arises where individuals or groups of individuals have no or inadequate access to PCs connected to the Internet. It follows that addressing this problem by providing access should be a constructive measure in terms of reducing the divide. That being said the underlying causes of the divide are in all probability more complex. Research in the USA has identified the following issues:
• Income differences. There are wide disparities amongst income groups. The better off are far more likely to have PCs and Internet connections than others. Those with income in excess of $75K are 20 times more likely to have Internet access than those at the lowest income level.
• Education. The better educated are statistically more likely to have and use connected PCs. In particular those with college degrees or higher are ten times more likely to have access. Only 6.6% of people with an elementary school education or less use the Internet.
• Location. Rural areas relative to cities generally experience lower levels of connectivity. Rural areas in particular lag behind cities in terms of broadband access.
• Age. People over the age of 50 have been less likely to use PCs and the Internet. Less than 30% of this group were “connected” in 2000. Those over 50 and in employment are three times more likely to have access than individuals not in employment.
• Single parent families. Two parent families are more than twice as likely to have Internet access than single families. Further, the oportion in respect of female-headed single families in cities is significantly lower.
• Disabilities. Although 25% of the able bodied have never used a PC the proportion for the disabled rises to 60%. In general the disabled are half as likely to use PCs and have Internet access. Among those with a disability, people who have impaired vision and problems with manual dexterity have even lower rates of Internet access and are less likely to use a computer regularly than people with hearing and mobility problems. This difference holds in the aggregate, as well as across age groups.
• Race and ethnic groups. Large gaps exist regarding Internet penetration rates among households of different races and ethnic origins. Further, large gaps remain when measured against the National average for Internet penetration.
Differences in income and education do not fully account for this facet of the digital divide. Estimates of what Internet access rates for this group would be had they had income and education levels in line with the Nation as a whole show that these two factors account for approximately 50% of the differences.
Additional Factors
Home access
To the extent that the digital divide is a function of PC and Internet access it is appropriate to question the qualitative aspects of “access”. Internet kiosks for example may provide cheap Internet access and whilst appropriate for certain tasks they arguably provide a less satisfactory experience for other Web activities. The real question therefore becomes whether the type of access provided lends itself to the full range of activities available to “connected” users. It is possible that the divide will not be bridged unless home access becomes fully available. To the extent that this is impracticable an alternative would be to provide common access points capable of providing an “appropriate” experience.
Broadband
The digital divide is not just a function of access; speed of access is also important or is likely to become so. Until recently for most users the speed of access has been limited to traditional modems. Although modem technology has increased significantly over the last ten years and is now capable of offering data throughput of up to 56K bits per second that speed is a small fraction of what is likely to be required in the next few years. Unless this factor is recognised there is a danger that the current digital divide could be reduced merely to find that it re-opens due to a vast difference in speed available to some but not all users. In short the digital divide of the (not too distant) future may be one of access speed.
Closing the Gap
As indicated above, measures to provide appropriate access are likely to have a beneficial impact. Indeed US data from August 2000 claims that schools, libraries, and other public access points continue to serve those groups that do not have home access. The use of those facilities however is not uniform and they are more likely to be used by some groups than other.
Equally given the complex nature of the underlying problems it is unlikely that improved access will of itself provide the whole answer.
With respect to the UK it would be inappropriate to assume that the same underlying factors creating the divide in North America obtain albeit that there are likely to be strong similarities. Research is necessary (if it has not already been undertaken) to identify the true causes. Once identified targeted action can be taken by addressing the detailed needs of specific groups in particular locations.
If, following research, home access was found to be significant element of the divide new strategies would need to be formulated to address that requirement. For example "cut-down” or recycled PCs could be offered in conjunction with community based Internet access lines.
Summary
The digital divide is a serious issue confronting society. At the most basic level it arises from a lack of appropriate access for certain sections of society to PCs and Internet connectivity. The underlying causes however are more complex. Improving access is likely to help but it is possible that the beneficial effect would be greater if the causes were clearly identified and the required action appropriately customised
Overcoming the digital divide
Projects like One Laptop per Child and 50x15 offer a partial solution to the global digital divide; these projects tend to rely heavily upon open standards and free open source software. The OLPC XO-1 is an inexpensive laptop computer intended to be distributed to children in developing countries around the world, to provide them with access to knowledge. Programmer and free software advocate Richard Stallman has highlighted the importance of free software among groups concerned with the digital divide such as the World Summit on the Information Society.
Organizations such as Geekcorps, EduVision and Inveneo also help to overcome the digital divide. They often do so through the use of education systems that draw on information technology. The technology they employ often includes low-cost laptops/subnotebooks, handhelds (eg Simputer, E-slate, ...), tablet PCs, Mini-ITX PCs and low-cost WiFi-extending technology as cantennas and WokFis. In addition, other information technology material usable in the classroom can also be made diy to lower expenses, including projectors .
In Digital Nation, Anthony G. Wilhelm calls on politicians to develop a national ICT agenda.
Yet another solution is to try to better understand the lifestyle of a minority or marginalized community. In doing this, researchers can figure out “what is meaningful to them [minorities and marginalized users] and how they use (or do not use) different forms of the internet for meeting their objectives”. Furthermore, “a need for a re-examination of questions based on traditional ways of looking at people, their social dynamics, and their interactions with technology”. However, researchers still tend to “set a ‘method’ for studying the impact of internet use or assuming a golden rule for application that will function in all situations will not work”. Additionally, “One strategy is to transfer goal-setting, decision making, and choice-determining processes into the hands of the disadvantaged users in order that they ‘fit’ internet into their daily lives in ways that they themselves consider to be meaningful”.
International cooperation between governments have begun, aiming at dealing with the global digital divide. For example, in an attempt to bridge this digital divide, an agreement between the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Egyptian government emerged. The USAID funded state-of-the-art equipment for Egyptian education, their brilliance of knowledge in using such equipment caused such equipment to increase in use throughout the years. Now, Egyptian society is more computer literate and knowledgeable about computers than they used to be. Nonetheless it's a sign of progress that such attempts at bridging the digital divide are seriously being made. Additional participants in such endeavors include the United Nations Global Alliance for ICT and Development and the Digital alliance Foundation.
Some experts and researchers consider the digital divide to be merely an economic problem that affects poor countries; although the greatest part of these technologies is manufactured in developing countries, those ones who can afford them lack the necessary literacy and knowledge of how to use them.
However, identifying the problem exclusively in the economic condition would result inappropriate: the digital divide expresses itself also in the impossibility to use digital technologies within a considerable percentage of the industrialized countries population. This means that even when people can afford buying a computer or a mobile phone, they are not automatically capable of using it.
Another aspect of the digital divide issue is the one that addresses empowerment, which is the ability to fully use the opportunities provided by digital technologies; even if those technologies were accessible and very easy to use, many people would still not be able to take full advantage of their potential.
First aspect: economy
The lack of opportunities for business and the low level of economic progress that characterizes most of the developing countries is certainly the primary reason of the digital divide. The governments of poor countries challenge themselves with more pressing concerns, such as food, health care and security, rather than technological improvements.
As a result, the population of these countries does not reach higher levels of education and is not provided with the knowledge that is necessary to utilize them. On March 14th 2005 the United Nations launched the Digital Solidarity Fund to finance projects that deal with “the distribution and use of new information and communication technologies” and “enable excluded people and countries to enter the new era of the information society”.
A very interesting article published by The Economist points out that the digital divide is not a problem in itself, but a symptom of deeper, more important gaps: of income, development and literacy. The author of the article says: “The debate over the digital divide seems to be founded on the belief that bringing the internet to the poor countries will help them to become rich rapidly. “
On the other hand, the diffusion of mobile phones might represent an important growth opportunity for developing countries and here is the reason: the benefits of mobile phone technologies lay on the fact that mobile devices do not need a permanent electricity supply and can be used by people who can neither read nor write.
New researches found out that mobile phones raise long-term growth rates and their impact is twice as big in developing nations as in developed ones. The real digital divide, then, is between those with access to a mobile network and those without. The UN has set a minimum goal of 50% access to mobile networks to be reached in developing countries by 2015, but a more recent report from the World Bank notes that 77% of the world's population already lives within range of a mobile network.
In areas like North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia's advanced countries, computer cost is no longer an issue, let alone the cost of mobile phones. The cheapest computer on the market costs less than $400. While it's true that a few people can't even afford $400, computers prices decrease almost every year and mobile prices decrease even faster.
It is worth mentioning the so called "One laptop per child" project, which aims at distributing flexible, ultra low-cost and power-efficient laptops to young individuals that live in developing countries. The computer will cost $100 and will be equipped with all the necessary devices to connect to the internet.
Second aspect: usability
Digital technologies are still far from being “simple” and “easy to use” for many people. This issue is valid both for educated and uneducated people and is transversal to any geographical locations. Many people would still be unable to use a computer even if they got it for free.
The level of literacy skills among the owners of a computer is very low: only 40%. Additionally, only few websites follow the guidelines for writing for low-literacy users and many institutional sites aimed at poorer citizens usually adopt a very complicated language.
Lower literacy, however, is different than illiteracy: people with lower literacy can read, but they encounter difficulties doing so. The most remarkable difference between lower- and higher-literacy users is that lower-literacy users can't understand a text by glancing at it. They must read word for word and often spend considerable time trying to understand multi-syllabic words. Senior users face the second-biggest accessibility problem, but again there is little interest in the guidelines for making websites easier for older users.
Third aspect: empowerment
Most of the people who use digital technologies are still devoted to a limited use of their capabilities and are not yet ready to make a step forward. Sometimes, users utilize them inappropriately or incompletely: a good example is the one related to web search engines.
People don’t understand the use of advanced search features or don’t know exactly which keywords to enter. Many of them uncritically select the search results and are unaware of the fact that search engines prioritize certain items because they are advertisements.
Another interesting issue that helps the digital divide grow is the so called “participation inequality”, which refers to the fact that in online communities and social networks that rely on users, most users don’t participate at all and prefer to stay in the background.
Because they lack the initiative and skills to participate and contribute to the growth of online communities, some users remain at the mercy of other people's decisions. For instance, people sometimes accept the default home page chosen by their computer vendor or ISP (search engines pay very well for that), rather than select one that suits to their needs.
The limited accessibility of digital technologies - also known as "digital divide" - is a problem that characterizes both developed and under-developed countries. In the industrialized areas of the world digital technologies are cheap, but there is still a great percentage of people that is unable to fully unveil their potential. On the other hand, developing countries are limited in their access to digital technologies both by economic and educational issues (although the largest part of digital technologies available nowadays are built in developing countries).
The digital divide must then be fought on at least two battlefields: economy and education. Regarding the possibility to allow more people to be able to afford a computer or a mobile phone, a good accomplishment is represented by the fact that the cost of digital technologies lowers year after year. The UN are currently helping eliminating the digital divide in developing countries by promoting international initiatives, and also private institutions are contributing with ideas such as the "One Laptop Per Child" project.
On the other hand, there is still a lot to do to make sure everyone can properly use digital technologies; for example, the Internet - which is the expression of the new media world - is still not completely accessible and interactive to most of its users. Starting with web design, a big accomplishment would represent a more distributed adoption of the W3C accessibility guidelines, let alone the use of a writing style that is based on simple grammar and makes content easily searchable and readable.
The major issue, however, remains the lack of education that influences many people and does not allow them to access certain information sources that are only reachable via digital technologies. In this case, the progressive spread of mobile phones and the expansion of mobile networks (as stated in a recent report by Word Bank) might certainly represent a significant improvement in the lives of all those individuals whose access to the digital era is still denied.
Information Society and digital divide by the light of cultural globalisation
The term digital divide appeared for the first time in 1996, in the United States. Since then it has been adopted to point out the gap – both quantitative and qualitative – in the use of Information and Communication Technologies, particularly Internet.
In a society where the access to information is the necessary condition (and pre-condition) for most exchange processes and transactions, digital divide is at the same time mirror and driving force of a cultural, social and economic gap. The distance between “info-poor” and “info-rich” boosts the overall effects of globalisation, with a “winner-takes-all”consequence.In his trilogy “The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture”, the sociologist Manuel Castells states that knowledge and cultural values are the effective tools of change. In this perspective, influencing cultural codes is the only real challenge to modify the status quo: “If you win the battle of minds, you win the battle of politics, the battle of economy, because people will decide what they want to buy or what they don’t want to buy, for instance.”
But is it possible to draw the frontiers of the digital divide? And does it really mark an overall process of globalisation? Although there are still a “North” and a “South” of development, the exchange model settled through Internet – and Information and Communication Technologies in general - is becoming headless and, in this sense, more democratic. The widely accepted categories of a “North” and a “South” are too restrictive: relational and socio-economic factors lead the game, much more than geographical distance or proximity. These elements give rise to the so-called “worldly techno-apartheid”(2), a two-speed social geography which excludes whole regions of the Globe and creates narrow ties between territories far from each other. The result is a polymorphous space, shaped by the dialectics between the hubs of knowledge – linked to specific backgrounds – and its spreading through the networks of communication. In this way, information society conciliates globalisation and localisation, strengthening somehow the need of physical interaction and nearness (a clear example is the concentration of IT labs, researchers and firms in the Sylicon Valley pole).
Compared with the over-simplified perspective of a world ruled by big groups and lobbies of economic power, information society allows freedom of expression of the niches, boosting the voice of ecologists, feminists, religious fundamentalisms and of all localisms.
Nowadays we can witness a twofold process of development: on one hand, the growth of global networks and massive economic interests; on the other, the attempt to oppose dominant values and to search for alternative sources of meaning. It’s a cultural revolution generated by the system itself, and carried out through the tools which originally exclude alternative voices and values.
Therefore, new technologies of communication can lead to different outcomes, according to different backgrounds: in the interview 'Identity and Change in the Network Society'Castells reverses the terms “think globally, act locally”, stating that actions always arise from tangible needs, which are then spread through global networks. In the on-going play between local and global the negotiable balance of the network systems is being constantly (re)shaped.
Telematic networks play with the complexity of contemporary society, by prompting the development of hybrid systems (the metissage, to quote the anthropologist Serge Gruzinski, where the appropriation and the re-appropriation of values and ideas is always an active process. The anthropologist Ulf Hannerz describes the new technologies of communication as “media of life”, highlighting their interactivity and the power to foster collective identities by strengthening long-distance bonds, through an ongoing process of reorganization of sense.
In this perspective communication and international communication are vehicles for the transmission of new cultural values. An example? The Sem Terra in South America, one of the first movement to have adopted Internet to spread their protest throughout the world
Attempts to Bridge the Divide
The issue of an “information” divide has been a matter for consideration since the 1970s. Developing countries argued for a New World Information and Communications Order (NWICO) through UNESCO and other UN agencies as an aspect of the New International Economic Order. While the main thrust of NWICO was in terms of the news media, telecommunications and information technologies were also involved with the hope expressed that international organisations would offer assistance in areas such as “technology transfers, aid for higher education in communications science within Third World countries, tariff reductions for communications flowing from developing countries, and research and development of new, inexpensive, and more user friendly technology. The New International Economic Order movement attempted to combine the notions of global equity and national sovereignty. However, Western governments, particularly the US, supported free market-based flows of information in which they had a dominant position and NWICO had very little impact.
The new initiatives on the digital divide take place in a very different environment of free market based globalisation. The attempt to create the Global Information Infrastructure and a Global Information Society linking the world have been largely dominated by the concerns to develop e-commerce.13 They take place in the context of a regulatory environment which emphasises competition and economic liberalisation.
Attempts to bridge the divide have taken place through variety of international forums such as the UN, international financial institutions, the OECD, the G8, the EU and other donor countries. A key development was the G8 summit at Kyushu-Okinawa in 2000 which adopted the Charter on the Global Information Society and agreed to establish a Digital Opportunity Task Force (DOT Force), to integrate efforts to bridge the digital divide with the main aim of facilitating discussions with developing countries, international organisations and other stakeholders to promote international co-operation with a view to fostering policy, regulatory and network readiness; improving connectivity, increasing access and lowering cost; building human capacity; and encouraging participation in global e-commerce.
The Report suggested a number of initiatives including:
• National e-strategies: These would be encouraged and linked to national and international development goals. However, the main thrust would be a “procompetitive regulatory framework” including economic liberal- isation to foster local and foreign entrepreneurs.
• Participation in international regulatory efforts: Developing countries would be supported to participate in international regulatory efforts including global self regulation such as for Internet domain names.
• Improving connectivity, increasing access and lowering costs: There would be emphasis in targeted interventions on community-based access points. Backbone access would be promoted through the private sector, but there would be support for joint stakeholder initiatives such as the African Partnership and the Africa Connection.
• Building human capacity: There would be targeted training, education, knowledge creation and sharing initiatives, including in the use of ICT for health including HIV/AIDS.
• National and international effort to support local content and applications creation: This would include promoting local software communities and developing country relevant software and content encouraging both cheap commercial and non-commercial applications.
• Prioritising ICT in the G8 and other development assistance policies and programs and enhance coordination of multilateral Initiatives: Development policies including those of the G8 countries as well as of the international financial institutions and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) would prioritise ICT but in ways which integrate ICT consideration as part of wider programmes in areas such as health, education and poverty relief.
In principle, the DOT Report adheres to the global orthodoxy of an underlying belief in market competition as the best solution to the problem. This orthodoxy is especially apparent in developed country policies in relation to national digital divides. The OECD Report on the Digital Divide in 2001 considered that the main basis for promoting an information society.The delivery of new services on a highly cross-subsidised, uniform price basis reduces or eliminates the prospect of competitive entry and discourages theincumbent from further investment and service improvement in non- profitable or less profitable areas of the market.
The EU Universal Service Directive does not extend the concept of universal service to broadband Internet , but leaves it to member states to determine. This does not prohibit a member state from taking its own initiative to make broadband services publicly available in its own territory. But no compensation mechanism involving specific undertakings, operators or service providers may be imposed. Instead any support has to come out of general revenue. In the circumstances, only the Scandinavian countries which are the most advanced Internet users have provided funding support for backbone development which would provide universal broadband access. On the other hand, of the OECD countries, Korea has considered it important to provide state funding for backbone development as have other South East Asian countries with “development state” policies.
For the poorer countries, the advantage of the DOT Report is the development of a coordinated agenda. The UNDP, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and other donors have provided support for telecommunications development and project funding for specific ICT projects. While these are significant and have increasingly involved funding which goes beyond provision of equipment to interesting initiatives such as the Grameen phone, rural telecentres and support for school teachers, the funding is insufficient for more than pilot projects.
A major emphasis is on regulatory reform to promote economic liberal- isation. On the whole, while Wolfensohn and Annan see the consequences of the digital deprivation to be key to future development and poverty alleviation, there is realisation that insufficient funding is available to make a substantial difference. Thus we have innovative initiatives such as the UN Secretary General’s Digital Volunteer force as an ameliorative device.
Regulating the Globalisation of Technology Diffusion
Thus the underlying strategy of technology diffusion is the global information infrastructure “GII”, supporting a global information society “GIS”. This is based on the development of free market reforms with only minor obeisance to notions of amelioration of the digital divide. In this section, I suggest that the underlying thrust of wider policies on international trade be to promote a system of information technology diffusion which supports economic globalisation on terms advantageous to multi-national corporations based in developed countries.
The WTO has had a major impact in the development of this approach. Thus, the Basic Telecommunications Agreement annexed to GATS—the General Agreement on Trade in Services—provided a key regulatory thrust for dismantling the previous global telecoms structures which were dominated by state telecom monopolies. Henceforth, the state’s role is to regulate the market in the interest of transparent and fair competition.18 Some obeisance is made in the agreement to the special needs of a developing country which can place under its accession schedules: reasonable conditions on access to and use of public telecommunications . . . to strengthen its domestic telecommunications infrastructure and service capacity and to increase its participation in international trade in telecommunication services.
However, international agencies such as the IMF and the World Bank have promoted full liberalisation of the telecoms sector in developing countries as part of structural adjustment and, now, poverty relief programs. Similarly developed member countries are exhorted under the Tele- communications Agreement Article 6 to assist the efforts of international agencies such as the ITU, the UNDP and the World Bank in improving the telecommunications infrastructure in developing countries. While this has seen some improvements in telecommunications in developing countries, the results are far from impressive. In Africa, the promise of Africa One, the telecom ring around Africa largely developed through private enterprise, is continuing to miss deadlines.
The Information Technology Agreement provides for the abolition of all customs and other duties on information technology goods. The agreement was entered into only between a minority of countries but the underlying principle was that technology diffusion requires full competition with minimum of import duties. This would result in overall reduction in the costs of the GIS. Yet few developing countries other than newly industrialising countries (NICs) subscribed to this agreement, because the dilemma for most developing countries is that they are largely technology importing countries often with precarious balance of payments. Customs and excise duties often represent an important revenue resource and, secondly, eliminating tariff barriers for expensive products might exacerbate balance of payments difficulties. The issue is more neutral for NICs such as Taiwan, Singapore and Malaysia which export high-tech products. It is again more complicated for countries such as India which have historically attempted to develop their own import substitutes. The advent of competition can either kill off their home-grown feather-bedded industries or lead to sufficient reform for a thorough restructuring. The economic argument is that the social and economic costs of discontinuing uneconomic or poor quality local production of goods such as PCs have to be set off against the reduced costs and value throughout the information economy of cheaper and or more efficient imports.
A key thrust of the GII and GIS is e-commerce. A significant decision was made on e-commerce by the WTO in providing temporarily in 1998 that e-commerce transmissions should be free of customs duties. This was continued at Doha and a WTO work programme intends to consider aspects of e-commerce including implications for developing countries. Some argue that e-commerce provides possibilities for developing countries to leapfrog by not having to undergo the costs of earlier technology. Examples are occasionally cited of positive aspects of ecommerce for developing countries such as the purchase by a German woman of a bicycle from Sri Lanka on the Internet . A more important phenomenon is the growing development of trade in “back office” services such as data entry and call centres, which can make a strong contribution to the export trade of high-skilled developing countries such as India.21 On the other hand, significant participation in e-commerce is only possible if there is a sufficient infrastructure to enable ecommerce. This includes the availability at low cost of hardware and software, a suitable low cost communications system for linkage to Internet, including a reliable power supply and electronic transactions systems to enable payments by credit cards and foreign exchange transactions and an appropriate level of personnel to operate the system. In this respect, only the NICs, which have the capacity to invest in infrastructure, are capable of taking reasonable advantage of the potential of e-commerce. The other developing countries, particularly the poor ones, are likely to suffer in the absence of significant funding for infrastructure development.
A second issue is whether the type of e-commerce services in which developing countries have a comparative advantage are provided access by developed countries in their schedules under GATS. Until recently liberalisation commitments in relation to services have largely been in areas where developed countries are exporters and developing countries importers.22 In principle, the reformed regulatory regime may not enable the theoretical advantages of e-commerce to be obtained by any but a small group of developing countries. At the same time, it may expose their markets to services from developed countries, creating difficulties for customs revenue and balance of payments as well as leading to losses and decline of their own service sectors.
A similar argument about technology transfer can be made about the consequences of the Agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Hardware and software patents and software and information copyright have become crucial new forms of intellectual property in recent years. The agreement is an apparently protectionist measure entrenching intellectual property rights, which are claimed overwhelmingly by trans- national corporations, and denying access to technological knowledge and preventing innovation, especially by small players and by developing countries. However, TRIPS was justified by the WTO on the grounds it sought a balance between the “the short-term interests in maximizing access and the long-term interests in promoting creativity and innovation.”
Under Art. 7, its objectives are to promote technological innovation, transfer and dissemination, the mutual advantage of producers and users, social and economic welfare and a balance between rights and obligations. In the absence of protection, corporations would be unwilling to trade or transfer technology.24 As Trebilcock and Howse indicate, neoclassical trade theory does not support the case for a global increase in welfare as a consequence of strong intellectual property protection. This is because for some countries the comparative advantage may lie in innovation and for others in imitation and adaptation of others’ innovations. In the circumstances, strong protection will advantage the innovators but disadvantage the imitators both in developed and developing countries. Furthermore, stronger intellectual property rights will have a tendency to raise prices of goods and services using those rights. Overall they suggest, relying on Maskus, that global welfare would suffer through increased intellectual property protection.25 In the circumstances, US insistence on stronger protection was not so much calculated to promote global welfare as to protect the interests of major US firms, which were responsible, in collaboration with the USTR and the OECD, for developing and promoting TRIPS.26 The beneficial effects for US firms and the US economy of TRIPS and other developments in intellectual property can be observed in the positive correlation between the enactment of intellectual property protection in countries and the increase in US exports to those countries.
In an era of corporate globalisation, arguments about intellectual property protection go beyond simple issues of protection of innovation. The protection of intellectual property has always been about the trade- off between promoting innovation through remuneration of innovative development and promoting the spread of knowledge, research and development as a public good.
In essence TRIPS involves an attempt at global harmonisation of intellectual property in ways which make it difficult for any players other than global corporations to participate in effective use of innovations. This will either be because of the resources and effort required for obtaining patents on a worldwide basis or because of use of intellectual property laws to ensure that the limited monopoly they provide is made much more extensive by devices such as obtaining new patents as a result of slight changes in the patented product, complex combinations of a range of rights in a single innovative development in ways which make it difficult to involve others and which discourage reverse engineering through provision of insufficient information.
On the one hand, there are the advantages of global corporations as the most dynamic force in international economy. On the other is a new enclosure movement in which global commons in knowledge and innovative development are effectively monopolised by global corporations.28 A possible consequence for developing countries is that global corporations and small firms will spread research and development to them as part of their global operations in the new global division of labour, as is the case with the use of programmers in India and other countries.29 However, the extent to which there will be a real shift in research and developments is not clear. The involvement of developing countries in research and development activities until now has largely been in low level activities such as data input and low level programming.30 A more likely consequence is that developing countries are denied the path to development through imitative adaptation of technologies which enabled Japanese and South Korean acceleration of development. A further consequence may be that as the world of innovation is cast in the multi-national mould, all forms of innovative activity, such as small firm and alternative technology-based development, are undermined or taken over and substituted by the new multinational culture.
More significantly for developing countries and all those on the other side of the digital divide, they have put the cost of attaining the goods as well as the cost of developing or adapting technology-based products into a dimension which results in unequal and inequitable participation in the diffusion and development of information technology.
The Global Digital Divide and the Internet
As computers become more pervasive in the western world, it can be easy to forget that not every country has equal access to key digital resources and infrastructure. Broadband speed Internet is almost considered a necessity in many developed countries today, and yet many people in parts of the developing world do not have any ability to go online at all. This difference in ability of accessing digital and information technology is commonly referred to as the digital divide.
This gap between people exists for a number of reasons; some of them due to physical and resource imbalances and some of them based on an imbalance in knowledge and education standards. The divide can be illustrated within many different groups across the entire spectrum of the world's population. Socioeconomic and generational gaps definitely exist within countries, however when the digital dividing line is studied in the context of geographical and racial factors, a real global disparity rises to the surface.
The global digital divide in the context of the Internet is perhaps the most striking example, as countries that are well connected reap enormous benefits while leaving other parts of the world trailing behind. Developed nations who have the economic ability to invest into digital infrastructures are reaping rewards due to fast communication speeds and complex networking. The countries that can't afford to invest are not keeping up and are missing out, leaving the developed world to forge ahead at break neck speed.
Western Europe, North America, Australasia and a few parts of Asia like South Korea and Japan are those on the right side of the tracks, digitally speaking. While much of South America, Africa and South East Asia are the ones currently in the slow lane. The Internet and the nature of digital data in general promises much in terms of acting as a common global equaliser. The truth however is that this data is dependent on many other factors including material resources for transmission and language for comprehension . Data only travels at equal speeds through the exact same cables and can only be useful if it is understood by the person at the end of the line.
The global digital divide is a complex problem that is probably not going to be sorted out any time soon. There are many obstacles in the way of a genuine solution, and these obstacles are extremely entrenched within the global economies and political realities of the places involved. It is in the most basic of terms a problem of not enough money, developing countries require computers and they need ways of linking them together effectively. This is a problem of resources. People also need to be trained in order to access and be able to use digital information and to understand the default language of the Internet, English, this is a problem of education.
The digital divide is easy to see in the context of many different groupings, but between countries the effect is impossible to ignore. While this global divide can refer to any digital device or technology, it is the Internet where it is probably felt the most. For a variety of reasons developing nations are missing out on the many benefits of fast and reliable online activity, and it is crucial that effort is made both now and into the future to try and fill this gap.
NATION
Dailekh bridges the digital divide
Cost and language used to be barriers to computer use in Nepali schools. No longer.
SHRISTEE GURUNG
EARLY START: These children in schools in Lalitpur (top) and in Dailekh saw computers for the first time last month because of a new pilot project to provide cheaper networks with Nepali language commands.
The two factors restricting the spread of computers in Nepal are cost and language. But a pilot scheme to test a Linux-based LAN system in schools in Dailekh and Lalitpur have shown that accessibility and affordability needn't be a problem anymore.
The digital divide doesn't just exist between rich and poor countries, but also within countries like Nepal. More than 80 percent of the computers and internet connections in Nepal are located inside Kathmandu's Ring Road.
The challenge is to encourage computer usage in Nepali language and also equipment that would be cost-effective for the school management. Madan Puraskar Pustakalaya's Linux Terminal Server Project (LTSP) is trying to test initiative and see if it works. The idea is not to distribute laptops to every school child, but set up a computer lab so students can learn basic skills.
LTSP is a Linux add-on package where one powerful server is shared among dumb terminals (also known as 'thin clients'). The server is a high-end computer with a hard disk of 120 GB capacity, a powerful processor of 2.6 GHz and 512 MB RAM. Although the cost of the server is 20 percent higher than a standard computer, the cheaper thin clients cut down overall cost of the network. Because the dumb terminals don't need CD-ROMS and other accessories they are 40 percent cheaper than standard computers.
This is an excellent way, for example, to recycle used CPUs from companies and individuals in Kathmandu willing to donate them when they upgrade to more powerful equipment. It can be up to 25 percent cheaper to install four computers under LTSP compared to standard costs (see table).
At Dailekh's Kimugaon a pilot LTSP project was implemented at the Basanta Madyamik Bidayala which has 400 students, most of whom have never seen a computer before. So, the first computer they used had a Neplinux 2.0 operating system so everything on the screen was in Nepali.
Grade Four student Laxmi Kumari Thapa couldn't hide her excitement. "I hadn't even seen a television before this," she said, "I can't wait to tell my parents that I used a computer."
Installing the computers in the school was also an exhilarating experience for enginners Amit Aryal and Dayaram Budathoki who went to Dailekh to teach teachers and students basic concepts of mouse, keyboard, monitor, writing and saving files with Nepali text.
"It was my first encounter with the reality of Nepali schools in remote areas and I was really moved, it was very rewarding," says Dayaram.
Basanta Madhyamik was the first school in Dailekh to ever have computers, so there was excitement not just at the school but also among local government officials, political parties and parents.
Says Amit: "In Kathmandu we've become so blas? about computers, and to see the excitement in the faces of the students really made it worthwhile for me."
Teachers are planning to make computer class compulsory for students of grades two to eight. And since the desktop commands are all in Nepali there won't be any barrier to use.
The LTSP project is already running successfully in Phulchoki Primary School in Godavari south of Kathmandu, and Dailekh was the second pilot. Two more schools in Dang and Bhaktapur are getting LTSP networks with a grant from the Helap Nepal Network from the Nepali diaspora. Students from class one to five can now use computers to play educational games, learn to type text files, and send emails in Nepali.
More Nepali schools can benefit from this scheme because the computer applications are accessible and also within the budget of most schools in the country.
Cheaper and better
Unit Price Cost LTSP Normal cost
Server 1 33,300 33,300
Thin client 3 15,400 46,200
Normal cost 4 26,400 106,000
TOTAL 79,500 106,000
If a school were to install four computers under the prevailing costs, the bill for four computers would come to Rs 106,000. But if the hardware was networked through a server and three dumb terminals, it would be less than Rs 80,000, saving more than Rs 26,000. References
• Bargh, John A.; McKenna, Katelyn Y.A. (2004), "The Internet and Social Life", Annual Review of Psychology 55: 573-90
• Cheung, Charles (2004), "Identity construction and self-presentation on personal homepages: Emancipatory potentials and reality constraints", Web Studies (New York: Oxford: In D. Guantlett & R. Horsley (Eds.)): 53-68
• Compaine, Benjamin M. (ed.) (2001), The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth?, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, ISBN 0262531933
• Fizz, Robyn; Mansur, Karla (2008-6-4), "Helping MIT neighbors cross the 'digital divide'", MIT Tech Talk (Cambridge: MIT): 3, http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/techtalk52-28.pdf
• Flew, Terry (2008), New Media: An Introduction, Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780195551495
• Horrigan, John B., "Home Broadband Adoption 2008 Report", Pew Internet & American Life, http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Broadband_2008.pdf, retrieved on 4 September 2008
• Mehra, Bharat; Merkel, Cecelia; Bishop, Ann P. (2004), "The internet for empowerment of minority and marginalized users", New Media and Society 6: 781-802
• Rice, Ronald (2002), Primary Issues in Internet Use: Access, Civic and Community Involvement, and Social Interaction and Expression, London: In L. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), pp. 105-129
• Servon, Lisa (2002), Bridging the Digital Divide: Technology, Community, and Public Policy, Malden, MA: Blackwell, ISBN 0-631-23242-7
• Stallman, Richard (06 October 2006), "Transcript of Richard Stallman's speech at World Summit of the Information Society (WSIS) on "Is Free/Open Source Software the Answer?"", Fellowship of Free Software Foundation Europe, http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/transcript_of_rms_at_wsis_on_is_free_open_source_software_the_answer, retrieved on 27 October 2007
• Young, Jeffrey R. (November 9, 2001), "Does 'Digital Divide' Rhetoric Do More Harm Than Good?", The Chronicle of Higher Education 48: 1-5, http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i11/11a05101.htm, retrieved on 21 November 2007
The term digital divide refers to the gap between those people with effective access to digital and information technology and those without. It includes the imbalances in physical access to technology as well as the imbalances in resources and skills needed to effectively participate as a digital citizen. In other words, it’s the unequal access by some members of the society to information and communications technology, and the unequal acquisition of related skills. Groups often discussed in the context of a digital divide include gender, income, race and location. The term global digital divide refers to differences in technology access between countries.
Origins of the term
The term initially referred to gaps in ownership of computers between groups, during which time the increase of ownership was limited to certain ethnic groups. The term came into regular usage in the mid-1990s, though the term had previously appeared in several news articles and political speeches as early as 1995. President of the United States Bill Clinton and his Vice President Al Gore used the term in a 1996 speech in Knoxville, Tennessee. Larry Irving, a former United States head of the National Telecommunications Infrastructure Administration (NTIA) at the Department of Commerce, Assistant Secretary of Commerce and technology adviser to the Clinton Administration, noted that a series of NTIA surveys; were “catalysts for the popularity, ubiquity, and redefinition” of the term, and he used the term in a series of later reports. Since the start of the George W. Bush Administration, the NTIA reports have tended to focus less on gaps and divides and more on the steady growth of broadband access, especially amongst groups formerly believed to be on the wrong side of the digital divide.
It should be noted that there is a considerable literature on information and digital inequality that predates this current label. The concept of a digital divide is more of a new label and less of a unique concept.
Current usage
There are various definitions of the term "digital divide". Bharat Mehra defines it simply as “the troubling gap between those who use computers and the internet and those who do not”. The term initially referred to gaps in the ownership of, or regular access to, a computer. As Internet access came to be seen as a central aspect of computing, the term's usage shifted to encompass gaps in not just computers but also access to the Internet. Recently, some have used the term to refer to gaps in broadband network access. The term can mean not only unequal access to computer hardware, but also inequalities between groups of people in the ability to use information technology fully.
Due to the range of criteria which can be used to assess the imbalance, and the lack of detailed data on some aspects of technology usage, the exact nature of the digital divide is both contextual and debatable. Criteria often used to distinguish between the 'haves' and the 'have nots' of the digital divide tend to focus on access to hardware, access to the internet, and details relating to both categories. Some scholars fear that these discussions might be discouraging the creation of Internet content that addresses the needs of minority groups that make up the "have nots," as they are portrayed to be technophobic charity cases that lack the desire to adopt new technologies on their own.
The discussions on digital divide often are tied with other concepts. Lisa Servon argued in 2002 that the digital divide "is a symptom of a larger and more complex problem -- the problem of persistent poverty and inequality". As described by Mehra (2004), the four major components that contribute to digital divide are “socioeconomic status, with income, educational level, and race among other factors associated with technological attainment”.
Recognition of digital divide as an immense problem has led scholars, policy makers, and the public to understand the “potential of the internet to improve everyday life for those on the margins of society and to achieve greater social equity and empowerment”.
Digital divide evolution
Typical measurements of inequality distribution used to describe the Digital Divide are the Lorenz Curve and Gini coefficient, however, the question of whether or not the digital divide is growing or closing is difficult to answer.
In Bridging the digital divide: An opportunity for growth for the 21st century, examples of these ways of measuring are illustrated. In the Lorenz curve, perfect equality of internet usage across nations is represented by a 45-degree diagonal line, which has a Gini coefficient of zero. Perfect inequality gives a Gini coefficient of one. Therefore if you look at figures 2.4 and 2.5 in the document, both graphs show a trend of growing equality from 1997 to 2005 with the Gini coefficient decreasing. However, these graphs don’t show the important, detailed analysis of specific income groups. The progress represented is predominantly of the middle-income groups when compared to the highest income groups. The lowest income groups continue to decrease their level of equality in comparison to the high income groups. Therefore, there is still a long way to go before the digital divide will be eliminated.
Digital divide and education
One area of significant focus was school computer access; in the 1990s, rich schools were much more likely to provide their students with regular computer access. In the late 1990s, rich schools were much more likely to have internet access. In the context of schools, which have consistently been involved in the discussion of the divide, current formulations of the divide focus more on how (and whether) computers are used by students, and less on whether there are computers or internet connections.
The E-Rate program (officially the Schools and Libraries Program of the Universal Service Fund), authorized in 1996 and implemented in 1997, directly addressed the technology gap between rich and poor schools by allocating money from telecommunications taxes to poor schools without technology resources. Though the program faced criticism and controversy in its methods of disbursement, E-Rate has been credited with increasing the overall number of public classrooms with Internet access from 14% in 1996 to 95% in 2005. Recently, discussions of a digital divide in school access have broadened to include technology related skills and training in addition to basic access to computers and internet access.
Technology offers a unique opportunity to extend learning support beyond the classroom, something that has been difficult to do until now. “The variety of functions that the internet can serve for the individual user makes it “unprecedentedly malleable” to the user’s current needs and purposes”.
Global digital divide
Another key dimension of the digital divide is the global digital divide, reflecting existing economic divisions in the world, which can clearly be seen in The Global Digital Divide image. This global digital divide widens the gap in economic divisions around the world. Countries with a wide availability of internet access can advance the economics of that country on a local and global scale. In today's society, jobs and education are directly related to the internet, in that the advantages that come from the internet are so significant that neglecting them would leave a company vulnerable in a changing market.“Andy Grove, the former chair of Intel, said that by the mid-2000s all companies will be Internet companies, or they won’t be companies at all.” In countries where the internet and other technologies are not accessible, education is suffering, and uneducated people and societies that are not benefiting from the information age, cannot be competitive in the global economy. This leads to these countries, which tend to be developing countries, suffering greater economic downfall and richer countries advancing their education and economy. However, when dealing with the global aspect of digital divide there are several factors that lead to digital divide. For example, country of residence, ethnicity, gender, age, educational attainment, and income levels are all factors of the global aspects of digital divide. In addition, a survey shows that in 15 Western European countries females, manual workers, elderly, and the less educated have less internet access than males, professional, the young, and the well educated”. The digital divide is a term used to refer to the gap between people who have access to the internet and those that do not. It can also refer to the skills people have – the divide between peoples who are at ease using technology to access and analyse information and those who are not.
Digital divide worldwide
Canada: According to a Fall 2007 Canadian Internet Use Survey, 73% of Canadians aged 16 and older went online in the 12 months prior to the survey, compared to 68% in 2005. In small towns and rural areas, only 65% of residences accessed the internet, compared to 76% in urban areas. The digital divide still exists between the rich and the poor; 91% of people making more than $91,000/year regularly used the internet, compared to 47% of people making less than $24,000. This gap has lowered slightly since 2005.
China: China is the largest developing country in the world and therefore saw their internet population grow by 20% in 2006. However, just over 10% of Chinese people have access to the internet and the digital divide is growing due to factors such as insufficient infrastructure and high online charges. See Digital divide in the People's Republic of China for more information.
Europe: A European Union study from 2005 conducted in 14 European countries and focused on the issue of digital divide found that within the EU, the digital divide is primarily a matter of age and education. Among the young or educated the proportion of computer or Internet users is much higher than with the old or uneducated. Digital divide is also higher in rural areas. The study found that the presence of children in a household increases the chance of having a computer or Internet access, and that small businesses are catching up with larger enterprises when it comes to Internet access. The study also notes that "Despite increasing levels of ICT usage in all sections of society, the divide is not being bridged."
United States: According to a July 2008 Pew Internet & American Life report, “55% of adult Americans have broadband internet connections at home, up from 47% who had high-speed access at home last year at this time [2007]”. This increase of 8% compared to the previous year’s increase of 5% suggests that the digital divide is decreasing. However, the findings go on to show that low-income Americans’ broadband connections decreased by 3%. Therefore as was explained in the Digital Divide Evolution section, the detailed income groups need to be considered. Digital divide is a common subject in US politics and various government policies
Digital divide, e-democracy and e-governance
The theoretical concepts of e-democracy are still in early development, but many scholars agree that blogs (web logs), wikis and mailing lists may have significant effects in broadening the way democracy operates. There is, as yet, no consensus among scholars about the possible outcomes of this revolution; it has so far shown promise in improving electoral administration and reducing fraud and disenfranchisement; particularly positive has been the reception of e-government services related to online delivery of government services, with portals (such as United States USA.gov in English and GobiernoUSA.gov in Spanish) used as intermediaries between the government and the citizen, replacing the need for people to queue in traditional offices.
One of the main problems associated with the digital divide as applied to a liberal democracy is the capacity to participate in the new public space, the cyberspace - as in the extreme case, exclusively computer-based democratic participation (deliberation forums, online voting, etc) could mean that no access meant no vote. Therefore, there is a risk that some social groups — those without adequate access to or knowledge of IT — will be under-represented (or others over-represented) in the policy formation processes and this would be incompatible with the equality principles of democracy.
Proponents of the open content, free software, and open access social movements believe that these movements help equalize access to digital tools and information.
North America is in general ahead of the UK in respect of both PC use and Internet connectivity. It is not therefore surprising that concern over a potential digital divide originated there. According to research conducted by Booz Allen & Hamilton (in a report sent to the Prime Minister) Britain’s Internet population, as for that of North America, exhibits clear demographic and socio-economic lines and in consequence faces a similar digital divide.
Consequences of the Digital Divide
The primary concern is exclusion; social and otherwise. Each year, being digitally connected becomes ever more critical to economic, educational, and social advancement. Those without the appropriate tools (in terms of PCs and Internet connectivity) and applicable skills will become increasingly disadvantaged.
In North America the Internet has been defined as no longer a luxury item but rather a resource used by many (see reference).
As ICT becomes ever more pervasive those elements of society without access will be further disenfranchised in terms of:
• Fewer employment opportunities
• Restricted access to information and support
• Increasingly basic facilities such as email, consumer services, financial services, etc.
Reasons behind the Digital Divide
At the most basic level the digital divide arises where individuals or groups of individuals have no or inadequate access to PCs connected to the Internet. It follows that addressing this problem by providing access should be a constructive measure in terms of reducing the divide. That being said the underlying causes of the divide are in all probability more complex. Research in the USA has identified the following issues:
• Income differences. There are wide disparities amongst income groups. The better off are far more likely to have PCs and Internet connections than others. Those with income in excess of $75K are 20 times more likely to have Internet access than those at the lowest income level.
• Education. The better educated are statistically more likely to have and use connected PCs. In particular those with college degrees or higher are ten times more likely to have access. Only 6.6% of people with an elementary school education or less use the Internet.
• Location. Rural areas relative to cities generally experience lower levels of connectivity. Rural areas in particular lag behind cities in terms of broadband access.
• Age. People over the age of 50 have been less likely to use PCs and the Internet. Less than 30% of this group were “connected” in 2000. Those over 50 and in employment are three times more likely to have access than individuals not in employment.
• Single parent families. Two parent families are more than twice as likely to have Internet access than single families. Further, the oportion in respect of female-headed single families in cities is significantly lower.
• Disabilities. Although 25% of the able bodied have never used a PC the proportion for the disabled rises to 60%. In general the disabled are half as likely to use PCs and have Internet access. Among those with a disability, people who have impaired vision and problems with manual dexterity have even lower rates of Internet access and are less likely to use a computer regularly than people with hearing and mobility problems. This difference holds in the aggregate, as well as across age groups.
• Race and ethnic groups. Large gaps exist regarding Internet penetration rates among households of different races and ethnic origins. Further, large gaps remain when measured against the National average for Internet penetration.
Differences in income and education do not fully account for this facet of the digital divide. Estimates of what Internet access rates for this group would be had they had income and education levels in line with the Nation as a whole show that these two factors account for approximately 50% of the differences.
Additional Factors
Home access
To the extent that the digital divide is a function of PC and Internet access it is appropriate to question the qualitative aspects of “access”. Internet kiosks for example may provide cheap Internet access and whilst appropriate for certain tasks they arguably provide a less satisfactory experience for other Web activities. The real question therefore becomes whether the type of access provided lends itself to the full range of activities available to “connected” users. It is possible that the divide will not be bridged unless home access becomes fully available. To the extent that this is impracticable an alternative would be to provide common access points capable of providing an “appropriate” experience.
Broadband
The digital divide is not just a function of access; speed of access is also important or is likely to become so. Until recently for most users the speed of access has been limited to traditional modems. Although modem technology has increased significantly over the last ten years and is now capable of offering data throughput of up to 56K bits per second that speed is a small fraction of what is likely to be required in the next few years. Unless this factor is recognised there is a danger that the current digital divide could be reduced merely to find that it re-opens due to a vast difference in speed available to some but not all users. In short the digital divide of the (not too distant) future may be one of access speed.
Closing the Gap
As indicated above, measures to provide appropriate access are likely to have a beneficial impact. Indeed US data from August 2000 claims that schools, libraries, and other public access points continue to serve those groups that do not have home access. The use of those facilities however is not uniform and they are more likely to be used by some groups than other.
Equally given the complex nature of the underlying problems it is unlikely that improved access will of itself provide the whole answer.
With respect to the UK it would be inappropriate to assume that the same underlying factors creating the divide in North America obtain albeit that there are likely to be strong similarities. Research is necessary (if it has not already been undertaken) to identify the true causes. Once identified targeted action can be taken by addressing the detailed needs of specific groups in particular locations.
If, following research, home access was found to be significant element of the divide new strategies would need to be formulated to address that requirement. For example "cut-down” or recycled PCs could be offered in conjunction with community based Internet access lines.
Summary
The digital divide is a serious issue confronting society. At the most basic level it arises from a lack of appropriate access for certain sections of society to PCs and Internet connectivity. The underlying causes however are more complex. Improving access is likely to help but it is possible that the beneficial effect would be greater if the causes were clearly identified and the required action appropriately customised
Overcoming the digital divide
Projects like One Laptop per Child and 50x15 offer a partial solution to the global digital divide; these projects tend to rely heavily upon open standards and free open source software. The OLPC XO-1 is an inexpensive laptop computer intended to be distributed to children in developing countries around the world, to provide them with access to knowledge. Programmer and free software advocate Richard Stallman has highlighted the importance of free software among groups concerned with the digital divide such as the World Summit on the Information Society.
Organizations such as Geekcorps, EduVision and Inveneo also help to overcome the digital divide. They often do so through the use of education systems that draw on information technology. The technology they employ often includes low-cost laptops/subnotebooks, handhelds (eg Simputer, E-slate, ...), tablet PCs, Mini-ITX PCs and low-cost WiFi-extending technology as cantennas and WokFis. In addition, other information technology material usable in the classroom can also be made diy to lower expenses, including projectors .
In Digital Nation, Anthony G. Wilhelm calls on politicians to develop a national ICT agenda.
Yet another solution is to try to better understand the lifestyle of a minority or marginalized community. In doing this, researchers can figure out “what is meaningful to them [minorities and marginalized users] and how they use (or do not use) different forms of the internet for meeting their objectives”. Furthermore, “a need for a re-examination of questions based on traditional ways of looking at people, their social dynamics, and their interactions with technology”. However, researchers still tend to “set a ‘method’ for studying the impact of internet use or assuming a golden rule for application that will function in all situations will not work”. Additionally, “One strategy is to transfer goal-setting, decision making, and choice-determining processes into the hands of the disadvantaged users in order that they ‘fit’ internet into their daily lives in ways that they themselves consider to be meaningful”.
International cooperation between governments have begun, aiming at dealing with the global digital divide. For example, in an attempt to bridge this digital divide, an agreement between the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Egyptian government emerged. The USAID funded state-of-the-art equipment for Egyptian education, their brilliance of knowledge in using such equipment caused such equipment to increase in use throughout the years. Now, Egyptian society is more computer literate and knowledgeable about computers than they used to be. Nonetheless it's a sign of progress that such attempts at bridging the digital divide are seriously being made. Additional participants in such endeavors include the United Nations Global Alliance for ICT and Development and the Digital alliance Foundation.
Some experts and researchers consider the digital divide to be merely an economic problem that affects poor countries; although the greatest part of these technologies is manufactured in developing countries, those ones who can afford them lack the necessary literacy and knowledge of how to use them.
However, identifying the problem exclusively in the economic condition would result inappropriate: the digital divide expresses itself also in the impossibility to use digital technologies within a considerable percentage of the industrialized countries population. This means that even when people can afford buying a computer or a mobile phone, they are not automatically capable of using it.
Another aspect of the digital divide issue is the one that addresses empowerment, which is the ability to fully use the opportunities provided by digital technologies; even if those technologies were accessible and very easy to use, many people would still not be able to take full advantage of their potential.
First aspect: economy
The lack of opportunities for business and the low level of economic progress that characterizes most of the developing countries is certainly the primary reason of the digital divide. The governments of poor countries challenge themselves with more pressing concerns, such as food, health care and security, rather than technological improvements.
As a result, the population of these countries does not reach higher levels of education and is not provided with the knowledge that is necessary to utilize them. On March 14th 2005 the United Nations launched the Digital Solidarity Fund to finance projects that deal with “the distribution and use of new information and communication technologies” and “enable excluded people and countries to enter the new era of the information society”.
A very interesting article published by The Economist points out that the digital divide is not a problem in itself, but a symptom of deeper, more important gaps: of income, development and literacy. The author of the article says: “The debate over the digital divide seems to be founded on the belief that bringing the internet to the poor countries will help them to become rich rapidly. “
On the other hand, the diffusion of mobile phones might represent an important growth opportunity for developing countries and here is the reason: the benefits of mobile phone technologies lay on the fact that mobile devices do not need a permanent electricity supply and can be used by people who can neither read nor write.
New researches found out that mobile phones raise long-term growth rates and their impact is twice as big in developing nations as in developed ones. The real digital divide, then, is between those with access to a mobile network and those without. The UN has set a minimum goal of 50% access to mobile networks to be reached in developing countries by 2015, but a more recent report from the World Bank notes that 77% of the world's population already lives within range of a mobile network.
In areas like North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia's advanced countries, computer cost is no longer an issue, let alone the cost of mobile phones. The cheapest computer on the market costs less than $400. While it's true that a few people can't even afford $400, computers prices decrease almost every year and mobile prices decrease even faster.
It is worth mentioning the so called "One laptop per child" project, which aims at distributing flexible, ultra low-cost and power-efficient laptops to young individuals that live in developing countries. The computer will cost $100 and will be equipped with all the necessary devices to connect to the internet.
Second aspect: usability
Digital technologies are still far from being “simple” and “easy to use” for many people. This issue is valid both for educated and uneducated people and is transversal to any geographical locations. Many people would still be unable to use a computer even if they got it for free.
The level of literacy skills among the owners of a computer is very low: only 40%. Additionally, only few websites follow the guidelines for writing for low-literacy users and many institutional sites aimed at poorer citizens usually adopt a very complicated language.
Lower literacy, however, is different than illiteracy: people with lower literacy can read, but they encounter difficulties doing so. The most remarkable difference between lower- and higher-literacy users is that lower-literacy users can't understand a text by glancing at it. They must read word for word and often spend considerable time trying to understand multi-syllabic words. Senior users face the second-biggest accessibility problem, but again there is little interest in the guidelines for making websites easier for older users.
Third aspect: empowerment
Most of the people who use digital technologies are still devoted to a limited use of their capabilities and are not yet ready to make a step forward. Sometimes, users utilize them inappropriately or incompletely: a good example is the one related to web search engines.
People don’t understand the use of advanced search features or don’t know exactly which keywords to enter. Many of them uncritically select the search results and are unaware of the fact that search engines prioritize certain items because they are advertisements.
Another interesting issue that helps the digital divide grow is the so called “participation inequality”, which refers to the fact that in online communities and social networks that rely on users, most users don’t participate at all and prefer to stay in the background.
Because they lack the initiative and skills to participate and contribute to the growth of online communities, some users remain at the mercy of other people's decisions. For instance, people sometimes accept the default home page chosen by their computer vendor or ISP (search engines pay very well for that), rather than select one that suits to their needs.
The limited accessibility of digital technologies - also known as "digital divide" - is a problem that characterizes both developed and under-developed countries. In the industrialized areas of the world digital technologies are cheap, but there is still a great percentage of people that is unable to fully unveil their potential. On the other hand, developing countries are limited in their access to digital technologies both by economic and educational issues (although the largest part of digital technologies available nowadays are built in developing countries).
The digital divide must then be fought on at least two battlefields: economy and education. Regarding the possibility to allow more people to be able to afford a computer or a mobile phone, a good accomplishment is represented by the fact that the cost of digital technologies lowers year after year. The UN are currently helping eliminating the digital divide in developing countries by promoting international initiatives, and also private institutions are contributing with ideas such as the "One Laptop Per Child" project.
On the other hand, there is still a lot to do to make sure everyone can properly use digital technologies; for example, the Internet - which is the expression of the new media world - is still not completely accessible and interactive to most of its users. Starting with web design, a big accomplishment would represent a more distributed adoption of the W3C accessibility guidelines, let alone the use of a writing style that is based on simple grammar and makes content easily searchable and readable.
The major issue, however, remains the lack of education that influences many people and does not allow them to access certain information sources that are only reachable via digital technologies. In this case, the progressive spread of mobile phones and the expansion of mobile networks (as stated in a recent report by Word Bank) might certainly represent a significant improvement in the lives of all those individuals whose access to the digital era is still denied.
Information Society and digital divide by the light of cultural globalisation
The term digital divide appeared for the first time in 1996, in the United States. Since then it has been adopted to point out the gap – both quantitative and qualitative – in the use of Information and Communication Technologies, particularly Internet.
In a society where the access to information is the necessary condition (and pre-condition) for most exchange processes and transactions, digital divide is at the same time mirror and driving force of a cultural, social and economic gap. The distance between “info-poor” and “info-rich” boosts the overall effects of globalisation, with a “winner-takes-all”consequence.In his trilogy “The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture”, the sociologist Manuel Castells states that knowledge and cultural values are the effective tools of change. In this perspective, influencing cultural codes is the only real challenge to modify the status quo: “If you win the battle of minds, you win the battle of politics, the battle of economy, because people will decide what they want to buy or what they don’t want to buy, for instance.”
But is it possible to draw the frontiers of the digital divide? And does it really mark an overall process of globalisation? Although there are still a “North” and a “South” of development, the exchange model settled through Internet – and Information and Communication Technologies in general - is becoming headless and, in this sense, more democratic. The widely accepted categories of a “North” and a “South” are too restrictive: relational and socio-economic factors lead the game, much more than geographical distance or proximity. These elements give rise to the so-called “worldly techno-apartheid”(2), a two-speed social geography which excludes whole regions of the Globe and creates narrow ties between territories far from each other. The result is a polymorphous space, shaped by the dialectics between the hubs of knowledge – linked to specific backgrounds – and its spreading through the networks of communication. In this way, information society conciliates globalisation and localisation, strengthening somehow the need of physical interaction and nearness (a clear example is the concentration of IT labs, researchers and firms in the Sylicon Valley pole).
Compared with the over-simplified perspective of a world ruled by big groups and lobbies of economic power, information society allows freedom of expression of the niches, boosting the voice of ecologists, feminists, religious fundamentalisms and of all localisms.
Nowadays we can witness a twofold process of development: on one hand, the growth of global networks and massive economic interests; on the other, the attempt to oppose dominant values and to search for alternative sources of meaning. It’s a cultural revolution generated by the system itself, and carried out through the tools which originally exclude alternative voices and values.
Therefore, new technologies of communication can lead to different outcomes, according to different backgrounds: in the interview 'Identity and Change in the Network Society'Castells reverses the terms “think globally, act locally”, stating that actions always arise from tangible needs, which are then spread through global networks. In the on-going play between local and global the negotiable balance of the network systems is being constantly (re)shaped.
Telematic networks play with the complexity of contemporary society, by prompting the development of hybrid systems (the metissage, to quote the anthropologist Serge Gruzinski, where the appropriation and the re-appropriation of values and ideas is always an active process. The anthropologist Ulf Hannerz describes the new technologies of communication as “media of life”, highlighting their interactivity and the power to foster collective identities by strengthening long-distance bonds, through an ongoing process of reorganization of sense.
In this perspective communication and international communication are vehicles for the transmission of new cultural values. An example? The Sem Terra in South America, one of the first movement to have adopted Internet to spread their protest throughout the world
Attempts to Bridge the Divide
The issue of an “information” divide has been a matter for consideration since the 1970s. Developing countries argued for a New World Information and Communications Order (NWICO) through UNESCO and other UN agencies as an aspect of the New International Economic Order. While the main thrust of NWICO was in terms of the news media, telecommunications and information technologies were also involved with the hope expressed that international organisations would offer assistance in areas such as “technology transfers, aid for higher education in communications science within Third World countries, tariff reductions for communications flowing from developing countries, and research and development of new, inexpensive, and more user friendly technology. The New International Economic Order movement attempted to combine the notions of global equity and national sovereignty. However, Western governments, particularly the US, supported free market-based flows of information in which they had a dominant position and NWICO had very little impact.
The new initiatives on the digital divide take place in a very different environment of free market based globalisation. The attempt to create the Global Information Infrastructure and a Global Information Society linking the world have been largely dominated by the concerns to develop e-commerce.13 They take place in the context of a regulatory environment which emphasises competition and economic liberalisation.
Attempts to bridge the divide have taken place through variety of international forums such as the UN, international financial institutions, the OECD, the G8, the EU and other donor countries. A key development was the G8 summit at Kyushu-Okinawa in 2000 which adopted the Charter on the Global Information Society and agreed to establish a Digital Opportunity Task Force (DOT Force), to integrate efforts to bridge the digital divide with the main aim of facilitating discussions with developing countries, international organisations and other stakeholders to promote international co-operation with a view to fostering policy, regulatory and network readiness; improving connectivity, increasing access and lowering cost; building human capacity; and encouraging participation in global e-commerce.
The Report suggested a number of initiatives including:
• National e-strategies: These would be encouraged and linked to national and international development goals. However, the main thrust would be a “procompetitive regulatory framework” including economic liberal- isation to foster local and foreign entrepreneurs.
• Participation in international regulatory efforts: Developing countries would be supported to participate in international regulatory efforts including global self regulation such as for Internet domain names.
• Improving connectivity, increasing access and lowering costs: There would be emphasis in targeted interventions on community-based access points. Backbone access would be promoted through the private sector, but there would be support for joint stakeholder initiatives such as the African Partnership and the Africa Connection.
• Building human capacity: There would be targeted training, education, knowledge creation and sharing initiatives, including in the use of ICT for health including HIV/AIDS.
• National and international effort to support local content and applications creation: This would include promoting local software communities and developing country relevant software and content encouraging both cheap commercial and non-commercial applications.
• Prioritising ICT in the G8 and other development assistance policies and programs and enhance coordination of multilateral Initiatives: Development policies including those of the G8 countries as well as of the international financial institutions and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) would prioritise ICT but in ways which integrate ICT consideration as part of wider programmes in areas such as health, education and poverty relief.
In principle, the DOT Report adheres to the global orthodoxy of an underlying belief in market competition as the best solution to the problem. This orthodoxy is especially apparent in developed country policies in relation to national digital divides. The OECD Report on the Digital Divide in 2001 considered that the main basis for promoting an information society.The delivery of new services on a highly cross-subsidised, uniform price basis reduces or eliminates the prospect of competitive entry and discourages theincumbent from further investment and service improvement in non- profitable or less profitable areas of the market.
The EU Universal Service Directive does not extend the concept of universal service to broadband Internet , but leaves it to member states to determine. This does not prohibit a member state from taking its own initiative to make broadband services publicly available in its own territory. But no compensation mechanism involving specific undertakings, operators or service providers may be imposed. Instead any support has to come out of general revenue. In the circumstances, only the Scandinavian countries which are the most advanced Internet users have provided funding support for backbone development which would provide universal broadband access. On the other hand, of the OECD countries, Korea has considered it important to provide state funding for backbone development as have other South East Asian countries with “development state” policies.
For the poorer countries, the advantage of the DOT Report is the development of a coordinated agenda. The UNDP, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and other donors have provided support for telecommunications development and project funding for specific ICT projects. While these are significant and have increasingly involved funding which goes beyond provision of equipment to interesting initiatives such as the Grameen phone, rural telecentres and support for school teachers, the funding is insufficient for more than pilot projects.
A major emphasis is on regulatory reform to promote economic liberal- isation. On the whole, while Wolfensohn and Annan see the consequences of the digital deprivation to be key to future development and poverty alleviation, there is realisation that insufficient funding is available to make a substantial difference. Thus we have innovative initiatives such as the UN Secretary General’s Digital Volunteer force as an ameliorative device.
Regulating the Globalisation of Technology Diffusion
Thus the underlying strategy of technology diffusion is the global information infrastructure “GII”, supporting a global information society “GIS”. This is based on the development of free market reforms with only minor obeisance to notions of amelioration of the digital divide. In this section, I suggest that the underlying thrust of wider policies on international trade be to promote a system of information technology diffusion which supports economic globalisation on terms advantageous to multi-national corporations based in developed countries.
The WTO has had a major impact in the development of this approach. Thus, the Basic Telecommunications Agreement annexed to GATS—the General Agreement on Trade in Services—provided a key regulatory thrust for dismantling the previous global telecoms structures which were dominated by state telecom monopolies. Henceforth, the state’s role is to regulate the market in the interest of transparent and fair competition.18 Some obeisance is made in the agreement to the special needs of a developing country which can place under its accession schedules: reasonable conditions on access to and use of public telecommunications . . . to strengthen its domestic telecommunications infrastructure and service capacity and to increase its participation in international trade in telecommunication services.
However, international agencies such as the IMF and the World Bank have promoted full liberalisation of the telecoms sector in developing countries as part of structural adjustment and, now, poverty relief programs. Similarly developed member countries are exhorted under the Tele- communications Agreement Article 6 to assist the efforts of international agencies such as the ITU, the UNDP and the World Bank in improving the telecommunications infrastructure in developing countries. While this has seen some improvements in telecommunications in developing countries, the results are far from impressive. In Africa, the promise of Africa One, the telecom ring around Africa largely developed through private enterprise, is continuing to miss deadlines.
The Information Technology Agreement provides for the abolition of all customs and other duties on information technology goods. The agreement was entered into only between a minority of countries but the underlying principle was that technology diffusion requires full competition with minimum of import duties. This would result in overall reduction in the costs of the GIS. Yet few developing countries other than newly industrialising countries (NICs) subscribed to this agreement, because the dilemma for most developing countries is that they are largely technology importing countries often with precarious balance of payments. Customs and excise duties often represent an important revenue resource and, secondly, eliminating tariff barriers for expensive products might exacerbate balance of payments difficulties. The issue is more neutral for NICs such as Taiwan, Singapore and Malaysia which export high-tech products. It is again more complicated for countries such as India which have historically attempted to develop their own import substitutes. The advent of competition can either kill off their home-grown feather-bedded industries or lead to sufficient reform for a thorough restructuring. The economic argument is that the social and economic costs of discontinuing uneconomic or poor quality local production of goods such as PCs have to be set off against the reduced costs and value throughout the information economy of cheaper and or more efficient imports.
A key thrust of the GII and GIS is e-commerce. A significant decision was made on e-commerce by the WTO in providing temporarily in 1998 that e-commerce transmissions should be free of customs duties. This was continued at Doha and a WTO work programme intends to consider aspects of e-commerce including implications for developing countries. Some argue that e-commerce provides possibilities for developing countries to leapfrog by not having to undergo the costs of earlier technology. Examples are occasionally cited of positive aspects of ecommerce for developing countries such as the purchase by a German woman of a bicycle from Sri Lanka on the Internet . A more important phenomenon is the growing development of trade in “back office” services such as data entry and call centres, which can make a strong contribution to the export trade of high-skilled developing countries such as India.21 On the other hand, significant participation in e-commerce is only possible if there is a sufficient infrastructure to enable ecommerce. This includes the availability at low cost of hardware and software, a suitable low cost communications system for linkage to Internet, including a reliable power supply and electronic transactions systems to enable payments by credit cards and foreign exchange transactions and an appropriate level of personnel to operate the system. In this respect, only the NICs, which have the capacity to invest in infrastructure, are capable of taking reasonable advantage of the potential of e-commerce. The other developing countries, particularly the poor ones, are likely to suffer in the absence of significant funding for infrastructure development.
A second issue is whether the type of e-commerce services in which developing countries have a comparative advantage are provided access by developed countries in their schedules under GATS. Until recently liberalisation commitments in relation to services have largely been in areas where developed countries are exporters and developing countries importers.22 In principle, the reformed regulatory regime may not enable the theoretical advantages of e-commerce to be obtained by any but a small group of developing countries. At the same time, it may expose their markets to services from developed countries, creating difficulties for customs revenue and balance of payments as well as leading to losses and decline of their own service sectors.
A similar argument about technology transfer can be made about the consequences of the Agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Hardware and software patents and software and information copyright have become crucial new forms of intellectual property in recent years. The agreement is an apparently protectionist measure entrenching intellectual property rights, which are claimed overwhelmingly by trans- national corporations, and denying access to technological knowledge and preventing innovation, especially by small players and by developing countries. However, TRIPS was justified by the WTO on the grounds it sought a balance between the “the short-term interests in maximizing access and the long-term interests in promoting creativity and innovation.”
Under Art. 7, its objectives are to promote technological innovation, transfer and dissemination, the mutual advantage of producers and users, social and economic welfare and a balance between rights and obligations. In the absence of protection, corporations would be unwilling to trade or transfer technology.24 As Trebilcock and Howse indicate, neoclassical trade theory does not support the case for a global increase in welfare as a consequence of strong intellectual property protection. This is because for some countries the comparative advantage may lie in innovation and for others in imitation and adaptation of others’ innovations. In the circumstances, strong protection will advantage the innovators but disadvantage the imitators both in developed and developing countries. Furthermore, stronger intellectual property rights will have a tendency to raise prices of goods and services using those rights. Overall they suggest, relying on Maskus, that global welfare would suffer through increased intellectual property protection.25 In the circumstances, US insistence on stronger protection was not so much calculated to promote global welfare as to protect the interests of major US firms, which were responsible, in collaboration with the USTR and the OECD, for developing and promoting TRIPS.26 The beneficial effects for US firms and the US economy of TRIPS and other developments in intellectual property can be observed in the positive correlation between the enactment of intellectual property protection in countries and the increase in US exports to those countries.
In an era of corporate globalisation, arguments about intellectual property protection go beyond simple issues of protection of innovation. The protection of intellectual property has always been about the trade- off between promoting innovation through remuneration of innovative development and promoting the spread of knowledge, research and development as a public good.
In essence TRIPS involves an attempt at global harmonisation of intellectual property in ways which make it difficult for any players other than global corporations to participate in effective use of innovations. This will either be because of the resources and effort required for obtaining patents on a worldwide basis or because of use of intellectual property laws to ensure that the limited monopoly they provide is made much more extensive by devices such as obtaining new patents as a result of slight changes in the patented product, complex combinations of a range of rights in a single innovative development in ways which make it difficult to involve others and which discourage reverse engineering through provision of insufficient information.
On the one hand, there are the advantages of global corporations as the most dynamic force in international economy. On the other is a new enclosure movement in which global commons in knowledge and innovative development are effectively monopolised by global corporations.28 A possible consequence for developing countries is that global corporations and small firms will spread research and development to them as part of their global operations in the new global division of labour, as is the case with the use of programmers in India and other countries.29 However, the extent to which there will be a real shift in research and developments is not clear. The involvement of developing countries in research and development activities until now has largely been in low level activities such as data input and low level programming.30 A more likely consequence is that developing countries are denied the path to development through imitative adaptation of technologies which enabled Japanese and South Korean acceleration of development. A further consequence may be that as the world of innovation is cast in the multi-national mould, all forms of innovative activity, such as small firm and alternative technology-based development, are undermined or taken over and substituted by the new multinational culture.
More significantly for developing countries and all those on the other side of the digital divide, they have put the cost of attaining the goods as well as the cost of developing or adapting technology-based products into a dimension which results in unequal and inequitable participation in the diffusion and development of information technology.
The Global Digital Divide and the Internet
As computers become more pervasive in the western world, it can be easy to forget that not every country has equal access to key digital resources and infrastructure. Broadband speed Internet is almost considered a necessity in many developed countries today, and yet many people in parts of the developing world do not have any ability to go online at all. This difference in ability of accessing digital and information technology is commonly referred to as the digital divide.
This gap between people exists for a number of reasons; some of them due to physical and resource imbalances and some of them based on an imbalance in knowledge and education standards. The divide can be illustrated within many different groups across the entire spectrum of the world's population. Socioeconomic and generational gaps definitely exist within countries, however when the digital dividing line is studied in the context of geographical and racial factors, a real global disparity rises to the surface.
The global digital divide in the context of the Internet is perhaps the most striking example, as countries that are well connected reap enormous benefits while leaving other parts of the world trailing behind. Developed nations who have the economic ability to invest into digital infrastructures are reaping rewards due to fast communication speeds and complex networking. The countries that can't afford to invest are not keeping up and are missing out, leaving the developed world to forge ahead at break neck speed.
Western Europe, North America, Australasia and a few parts of Asia like South Korea and Japan are those on the right side of the tracks, digitally speaking. While much of South America, Africa and South East Asia are the ones currently in the slow lane. The Internet and the nature of digital data in general promises much in terms of acting as a common global equaliser. The truth however is that this data is dependent on many other factors including material resources for transmission and language for comprehension . Data only travels at equal speeds through the exact same cables and can only be useful if it is understood by the person at the end of the line.
The global digital divide is a complex problem that is probably not going to be sorted out any time soon. There are many obstacles in the way of a genuine solution, and these obstacles are extremely entrenched within the global economies and political realities of the places involved. It is in the most basic of terms a problem of not enough money, developing countries require computers and they need ways of linking them together effectively. This is a problem of resources. People also need to be trained in order to access and be able to use digital information and to understand the default language of the Internet, English, this is a problem of education.
The digital divide is easy to see in the context of many different groupings, but between countries the effect is impossible to ignore. While this global divide can refer to any digital device or technology, it is the Internet where it is probably felt the most. For a variety of reasons developing nations are missing out on the many benefits of fast and reliable online activity, and it is crucial that effort is made both now and into the future to try and fill this gap.
NATION
Dailekh bridges the digital divide
Cost and language used to be barriers to computer use in Nepali schools. No longer.
SHRISTEE GURUNG
EARLY START: These children in schools in Lalitpur (top) and in Dailekh saw computers for the first time last month because of a new pilot project to provide cheaper networks with Nepali language commands.
The two factors restricting the spread of computers in Nepal are cost and language. But a pilot scheme to test a Linux-based LAN system in schools in Dailekh and Lalitpur have shown that accessibility and affordability needn't be a problem anymore.
The digital divide doesn't just exist between rich and poor countries, but also within countries like Nepal. More than 80 percent of the computers and internet connections in Nepal are located inside Kathmandu's Ring Road.
The challenge is to encourage computer usage in Nepali language and also equipment that would be cost-effective for the school management. Madan Puraskar Pustakalaya's Linux Terminal Server Project (LTSP) is trying to test initiative and see if it works. The idea is not to distribute laptops to every school child, but set up a computer lab so students can learn basic skills.
LTSP is a Linux add-on package where one powerful server is shared among dumb terminals (also known as 'thin clients'). The server is a high-end computer with a hard disk of 120 GB capacity, a powerful processor of 2.6 GHz and 512 MB RAM. Although the cost of the server is 20 percent higher than a standard computer, the cheaper thin clients cut down overall cost of the network. Because the dumb terminals don't need CD-ROMS and other accessories they are 40 percent cheaper than standard computers.
This is an excellent way, for example, to recycle used CPUs from companies and individuals in Kathmandu willing to donate them when they upgrade to more powerful equipment. It can be up to 25 percent cheaper to install four computers under LTSP compared to standard costs (see table).
At Dailekh's Kimugaon a pilot LTSP project was implemented at the Basanta Madyamik Bidayala which has 400 students, most of whom have never seen a computer before. So, the first computer they used had a Neplinux 2.0 operating system so everything on the screen was in Nepali.
Grade Four student Laxmi Kumari Thapa couldn't hide her excitement. "I hadn't even seen a television before this," she said, "I can't wait to tell my parents that I used a computer."
Installing the computers in the school was also an exhilarating experience for enginners Amit Aryal and Dayaram Budathoki who went to Dailekh to teach teachers and students basic concepts of mouse, keyboard, monitor, writing and saving files with Nepali text.
"It was my first encounter with the reality of Nepali schools in remote areas and I was really moved, it was very rewarding," says Dayaram.
Basanta Madhyamik was the first school in Dailekh to ever have computers, so there was excitement not just at the school but also among local government officials, political parties and parents.
Says Amit: "In Kathmandu we've become so blas? about computers, and to see the excitement in the faces of the students really made it worthwhile for me."
Teachers are planning to make computer class compulsory for students of grades two to eight. And since the desktop commands are all in Nepali there won't be any barrier to use.
The LTSP project is already running successfully in Phulchoki Primary School in Godavari south of Kathmandu, and Dailekh was the second pilot. Two more schools in Dang and Bhaktapur are getting LTSP networks with a grant from the Helap Nepal Network from the Nepali diaspora. Students from class one to five can now use computers to play educational games, learn to type text files, and send emails in Nepali.
More Nepali schools can benefit from this scheme because the computer applications are accessible and also within the budget of most schools in the country.
Cheaper and better
Unit Price Cost LTSP Normal cost
Server 1 33,300 33,300
Thin client 3 15,400 46,200
Normal cost 4 26,400 106,000
TOTAL 79,500 106,000
If a school were to install four computers under the prevailing costs, the bill for four computers would come to Rs 106,000. But if the hardware was networked through a server and three dumb terminals, it would be less than Rs 80,000, saving more than Rs 26,000. References
• Bargh, John A.; McKenna, Katelyn Y.A. (2004), "The Internet and Social Life", Annual Review of Psychology 55: 573-90
• Cheung, Charles (2004), "Identity construction and self-presentation on personal homepages: Emancipatory potentials and reality constraints", Web Studies (New York: Oxford: In D. Guantlett & R. Horsley (Eds.)): 53-68
• Compaine, Benjamin M. (ed.) (2001), The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth?, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, ISBN 0262531933
• Fizz, Robyn; Mansur, Karla (2008-6-4), "Helping MIT neighbors cross the 'digital divide'", MIT Tech Talk (Cambridge: MIT): 3, http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/techtalk52-28.pdf
• Flew, Terry (2008), New Media: An Introduction, Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780195551495
• Horrigan, John B., "Home Broadband Adoption 2008 Report", Pew Internet & American Life, http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Broadband_2008.pdf, retrieved on 4 September 2008
• Mehra, Bharat; Merkel, Cecelia; Bishop, Ann P. (2004), "The internet for empowerment of minority and marginalized users", New Media and Society 6: 781-802
• Rice, Ronald (2002), Primary Issues in Internet Use: Access, Civic and Community Involvement, and Social Interaction and Expression, London: In L. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), pp. 105-129
• Servon, Lisa (2002), Bridging the Digital Divide: Technology, Community, and Public Policy, Malden, MA: Blackwell, ISBN 0-631-23242-7
• Stallman, Richard (06 October 2006), "Transcript of Richard Stallman's speech at World Summit of the Information Society (WSIS) on "Is Free/Open Source Software the Answer?"", Fellowship of Free Software Foundation Europe, http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/transcript_of_rms_at_wsis_on_is_free_open_source_software_the_answer, retrieved on 27 October 2007
• Young, Jeffrey R. (November 9, 2001), "Does 'Digital Divide' Rhetoric Do More Harm Than Good?", The Chronicle of Higher Education 48: 1-5, http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i11/11a05101.htm, retrieved on 21 November 2007
1 comment:
Anyone experience anything about the easy google profit kit? I discovered a lot of advertisements around it. I also found a site that is supposedly a review of the program, but the whole thing seems kind of sketchy to me. However, the cost is low so I’m going to go ahead and try it out, unless any of you have experience with this system first hand?
www.onlineuniversalwork
Post a Comment