1
The Digital Divide Still An Issue
Yao Marc Kouadio
PhD candidate in Information Sciences at the University of Regensburg (Germany)
yao.kouadio@stud.uni-r.de
Edited. Dec./ 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract
Globalisation has enabled new opportunities for individuals to navigate information and
communications technologies (ICTs) in the new information society. Numerous factors,
however, have decreased the opportunity to realise the goal of mass participation in the new
digital world. Beyond connection and literacy factors, there should exist a better definition of
indicators where cultural aspects should also be included. Bridging the digital divide must
also take into account the diffusion of innovations theory of E. Rogers; otherwise, it would be
difficult to reach this goal. Some models have already been formulated, but no one is
transferable to each community and country, as every community has to elaborate a plan with
its own specific needs. The international community has made many efforts to find ways to
overcome the digital divide, but this question still remains very problematic. Further efforts
are required, particularly in developing countries. There are also NGOs, who have done much
in those poor countries to help support important initiatives. Even if a redefinition of the
indicators is conceivable, one must recognise that developing countries are the less connected
and the more excluded. From an ethical point of view, the international community should
undertake more in order to help the developing world connect to and participate in the new
information society.
Introduction
The ‘digital divide’ has often been discussed in the last decade, and the new dynamic of an
international society has created an existing gap in society as well. It is, therefore, not a
surprise that this same international community has tried via many mechanisms to solve this
growing problem. But it is not only the duty of the international community to find solutions.
Many other organisations have tried to find ways to close the gap as well. Even if this issue
has been discussed everywhere, there is no doubt that developing countries are the ones who
continue to suffer from the problem. This article will attempt to index the factors of the digital
divide while considering the efforts which have been undertaken thus far, and it will also
illustrate the future of new ICTs, especially in developing countries.
1. Digital divide: definition and critic
1.1. Definition
The digital divide has been defined by the OECD1 as the gap between different individuals,
households, businesses and geographical areas at different social-economic levels with regard
to their opportunities to access IT and their use of the Internet. (OECD, 2001)
For Capurro,
1
The OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) is a group of 30 countries member
sharing a commitment to democratic government and the market economy.
2
“the term digital divide is a label for a situation with explosive force. It refers, at first sight, to
the technological gap between those who are networked and those who (for a variety of
reasons) already are and most likely will remain excluded. Being online does not simply mean
- as the case in the 20th century mass media – to have access to a plenitude of broadcast
stations, rather it implies the ability to participate actively in information and communication
processes”.2 (http://www.capurro.de/augsburg2-programm.htm#call%20german)
The digital divide can be seen as connection and knowledge gap between communities or
countries. As Capurro said, to be connected to the internet is not only the matter. So for
Michel (2001), the digital gap can generally be defined as an inequality in relation to the
possibilities of reaching and of contributing to information, knowledge and the networks, such
as profiting from the major capacities of development offered by ICTs. These elements are
some of the most visible in the digital gap, which actually results in a combination of vast
socio-economic factors, in particular the insufficiencies of the infrastructures, the high cost of
the access, the lack of local creation of contents and the unequal capacity to benefit, on
economic and social levels, of activities with strong intensity of information.
As new ICTs become a firm component of everyday life, they enable many people to lead
more productive and rewarding lives. But while they can help societies to solve long-standing
economic and social problems, they also bring new challenges. Those who have no access to
IT skills and knowledge gradually become less and less capable of participating in the new
information society. This has resulted in a so-called “digital divide” within our society.
Today, many countries acknowledge the digital divide as a real social problem resulting from
a clash between cultural and social systems and newly emerging communications
technologies. Such disparities might be created by factors such as limited understanding and
mastery of these technologies, or by limited opportunities to learn about and use new media.
While many countries are trying to bridge the gap between the information-rich and the
information-poor, there are still great differences in access and usage, as well as social
behaviour between developed and less developed countries, and within these countries
themselves.
1.2. A critical view about the digital divide
Ahmed (2005) criticises the tendencies to measure the progress towards the information
society by the use of quantitative and statistical indicators elaborated by “neo-liberal”
international organizations based mainly on criteria of computers and telecommunications
equipments. Ahmed thinks that in order to determine the extent of the digital divide, a new
range of indicators, such as the Digital Access Index (DAI) of the International Union of
Telecommunications (ITU), should be applied to the arrangements of the World Summit on
the information society (WSIS Geneva, 2003), or to those of the World Bank’s Network
Readiness of Economies in which telematic equipment is made as a reference. Even though it
seems true that the connection criteria are necessary, they are certainly not a sufficient
condition to implement the information society. (See Graphics (DAI) in Appendix)
Ahmed rejects this unified conceptualization of the information society and declines the
standard measures of the digital gap. The reasons are that they are noticeably technical and
market–oriented; comparative measures, such as DAI of the ITU, dissimilate the terms of the
2
http://www.capurro.de/augsburg2-programm.htm
3
information society as defined by the declaration of principles and the action plan of the
WSIS. The image that this society should be culturally influential via the libraries and not by
the domination of cables and electronic chips draws a miserable portrait of African countries
by ITU’s index in which the two thirds of these countries lie at the bottom of the Ranking.
Based on objective matters, according to Ahmed, that consider the value of informational
culture and literacy, it can alternatively be proposed that indicators focus on the frequent use
of libraries in order to estimate the preparation to the Information Society, or the "ereadiness".
Taking into account that the indicators of behaviour and cultural practices facilitates the
description of the information society in a more rational way and considering the criteria of
reading and informational culture, Africa would reveal a better image of a culturally rich and
promising continent. Through the divergence of the two ideological and methodological
views, one can show the close liaison between the digital divide and the "statistical gap“ as
established by the international neo-liberalism.
2. The factors of the digital divide
Among the many known barriers that Gartner (2000) assumes can be subsumed under socioeconomic status are four key issues that need much more attention, and which are not
dependant on socio-economic status alone. Any attempt to deal with the digital divide must
take these potential barriers into account if it is to succeed. These four key issues are:
physical access to ICTs, ICT skills and support, attitudes and content.
2.1. The connecting factors or physical access to ICTs
The connecting infrastructures (PC, phone and cable system, software, hardware, etc.), are
among the main barriers identified under a lack of physical access to a robust
telecommunications infrastructure with sufficient reliable band-width for Internet
connections. In countries where the telecommunications industry is privately owned, the
industry is visibly is reluctant to make a substantial investment in markets which represent a
tiny percentage of the revenue stream. Technical problems are likely therefore to continue to
inhibit access in rural communities for some time to come, while the cost of both the
equipment, and especially monthly charges, remains an issue within lower socio-economic
groups in both rural and urban areas.
Physical access also includes provision of access for people with disabilities. It is a critical
question to make the Internet accessible to allow all people in the community full
participation in communications systems, education, employment and other economic
opportunities, regardless of their physical capacity. Demand for access to the Internet by
people with disabilities is steadily increasing, and such access is now regarded as a human
rights issue. While physical disabilities inhibit keyboard use, visual impairment inhibits
screen use and learning disabilities prevent large numbers of users from participating in the
benefits of the Internet and its rich resources.
2.2 Using factors or lack of ICT skills and support
Lack of ICT skills and support is another significant factor in preventing certain groups of
users from using the Internet. Many people are often prevented from making use of ICTs
because of low levels of computing and technology skills, and also, very importantly, literacy
skills. Whereas people in business or professional occupations acquire skills as part of their
employment, manual workers and the unemployed are less likely to be exposed to such
learning opportunities.
4
The interaction of factors such as: cost, restricting access to equipment; low educational
achievement; and cultural-, age- or gender-based exclusion from literacy and computing skills
counteracts against the dissemination of such skills in disadvantaged communities.
Educational programmes intended to bring these skills to such groups must overcome a range
of such barriers.
2.3. Cultural or attitudinal factors
Closely aligned with lack of skill and support are cultural and behavioural attitudes towards
technology. There exists concern over the lack of security of personal information or the
notion that computers are ‘unsafe’ for families because of the amount of unsuitable material
on the Internet. Although in developed societies the disparities between Internet access by
gender are not large, disparities between male and female use of ICTs, and therefore access to
the Internet, are much greater in developing countries. The involvement of women may be as
low as 5% in some areas (United Nations. ECOSOC, 2000). This has serious implications for
women’s participation in a growing global economy.
For Cullen (2001) attitudinal barriers can also be culturally based. In many cultures which
place high value on oral culture, personal communication and strong family and kinship
networks, the use of computers for communication purposes will not be a high priority. Such
barriers may apply to the lowest socioeconomic groups of developed nations, to strongly
networked cultural minorities, to indigenous groups emerging from an oral culture, and nonliterate rural communities throughout the world.
2.4. Content
One significant reason why some groups choose not to access the Internet is because the
content is not relevant or interesting to them. This may apply to specific groups in society,
such as the elderly, or women, but more significantly again, to cultural or ethnic groups
outside the predominantly Western culture of the Internet.
2.5 Other factors
• Electricity supply: Without electricity it difficult to use the new ICTs.
• Fees: The partially higher connection fees are an obstacle particularly in developing
countries.
• Income: People with low income are less connected. High-income countries account
for 16% of the world’s population and 90% have Internet host computers. By the end
of 2003, some 47.5 million European families were connected to Internet. In India,
despite having the second-largest population of English speaking scientific
professionals in the world after the United States, the number of Internet hosts per
1,000 is just 6.8 (India) as compared to 179.1 (USA). The telephone connectivity in
Germany, the USA etc. is 90%, computer saturation is over 50% and home-based
Internet connectivity is 50%, in Africa and South America it is 5%. In Asia, China,
Indonesia, etc. (80% of the world’s population), telephone connectivity is only
measured at about 3%. According to United Nations Human Development Report,
there were only 38 telephone connections and 6 per mobile phone per thousand
population by the end of 2001. Many Indian villages have never even made a single
call. (Kumar, 2004)
• Residency: Residency is also a main factor. People with a residence in the city or
downtown are more connected than those in rural areas.
5
•
Social origin or ethnicity: Surveys Bridges (2000) have shown that the African
American population in the USA is less connected to the Internet than Caucasians.
• Illiteracy: This is a main obstacle in developing countries. The majority of the
population in developing nations is illiterate; therefore, it is difficult to introduce such
technology into those countries.
• Language: Another handicap of Internet usage is language literacy. Over 60% of the
websites worldwide are available in English. In addition, very few people in
developing countries are able to speak the official language such as English, French,
Spanish or Portuguese – the language barrier is too much. In India, there are officially
18 languages, but only some people can read and understand English instructions on
computers. Very few websites are in other languages, especially in Indian languages.
Very few business organisations there have corporate websites except for a few rich
companies and corporations. (Kumar, 2004)
While content development is not often seen as a primary factor in Internet uptake,
inappropriate or inaccessible content continues to be a major deterrent. The use of English as
the main language of the Internet is far more inhibiting than English speakers realise.
However, despite its dominance in cyberspace, English is, in fact, declining in terms of the
number of speakers, as cultures using other languages grow more rapidly. The development of
local content and more widespread use of automatic translation systems are necessary to
address this issue. The example of China is often given, and the fact that only when the
Internet in China was developed in Chinese characters did the 95% of the population who do
not read English show any interest in connecting to the Internet. Usage multiplied
immediately 10-fold and continues to grow at the same rate. The same rapid expansion was
experienced in Russia after the introduction of Cyrillic letters to the Web interface. If we wish
to accelerate the adoption of the Internet as a new technology innovation, relevant content in
the vernacular or language of each community is a key issue in persuading users of the
relative advantage of the technology, and reducing the complexity involved in its use. (Cullen,
2001)
Cullen (2001) resumes these barriers in the statement below:
“A number of research and policy papers addressing the issue of the Digital Divide
identify specific groups of people as being especially disadvantaged in their uptake of
ICTs. These include: people on low incomes, people with few educational
qualifications or with low literacy levels, the unemployed, elderly people, people in
isolated or rural areas, people with disabilities, sole parents, elderly, women and
girls. Because they are often already disadvantaged in terms of education, income and
health status, and also because of their profound cultural differences from the
dominant Western culture of the developed world, many indigenous peoples, and some
migrant and ethnic minority groups, are identified as having a very low uptake of
ICTs. In the United States, therefore, Afro-Americans, Latinos, as well as North
American Indian nations are identified as needing targeted programmes to increase
their participation in the digital economy.”
6
Figure 1. ICT Factors
Source: Warschauer, (2002) available at
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_7/warschauer/
3. Reasons of closing the gap
According to Kumar (2004), the Internet is growing faster than all the other technologies that
have preceded it, e.g. radio, which existed for 38 years before. Fifty million people were
listening to it. TV took only 13 years to reach this mark and the Internet only four years.
Internet use is increasing dramatically, and by 2002 less than 5% of world population was
unable to access the Internet. (See Figure 1. below)
Figure 2. E-readiness Ranking 2005 and 2006
Technologies can exert a powerful influence on the lifelong learning process, as well as to
help overcome various inequalities in society. Ready access to IT enables people to increase
their potential income, and therefore enables them to afford still newer technologies. The
already well educated, in general, have access to better services. There is thus a risk that the
7
educated and information-rich may become richer while the less educated and the
information-poor become poorer, thus widening the “digital divide”.
These figures dramatically show the urgent need to tackle the “digital divide” and to raise the
question of how the problem can be dealt with at the international level. The “digital divide”
is becoming more of a recognized reality as technology makes phenomenal progress in the
new information age. The United Nations Human Development Report (2001) illustrates that:
•
High income (OECD) countries, with only 14% of the world’s population, are home to
79% of all Internet users;
Only 0.4% of people in South Asia are online although the region is home to one-fifth
• of the world’s population;
• Increasing social inequality: More than ever society is divided because of this new
gap;
• New illiteracy: In this new age, it is no longer sufficient to simply know how to read
and write. Managing new ICTs is the main issue;
• Accentuation of the gap between industrialized countries and developing countries.
According to Kumar et al, (2004) “Digital divide is chiefly responsible for information
illiteracy in a digital environment”;
• Freedom of Information: Everyone should have the right to communicate;
• Supporting Democracy: As Cullen (2001) says: “Internet for everybody”, must be a
reality;
• Using advantages of new ICTs such as E-Learning, Telemedicine, Training, etc;
• Improvement of flexibility and speed in the economy’s production process;
• Promotion and acceleration of development
3.1. Declaration of principles (WSIS)
First of all, to see the importance of new ICTs or the fight against the digital divide, it is
interesting to refer to the declaration of principles for the WSIS3. Chapter one of this
declaration states:
“We, the representatives of the peoples of the world, assembled in Geneva from 1012 December 2003 for the first phase of the World Summit on the Information
Society, declare our common desire and commitment to build a people-centred,
inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create,
access, utilize and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals,
communities and peoples to achieve their full potential in promoting their sustainable
development and improving their quality of life, premised on the purposes and
principles of the Charter of the United Nations and respecting fully and upholding the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights”.
And in chapter four:
“We reaffirm, as an essential foundation of the Information Society, and as outlined in
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that everyone has the right
to freedom of opinion and expression; that this right includes freedom to hold opinions
without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through
3
World Summit of the International Society Geneva 2003 – Tunis 2005 available at
http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html
8
any media and regardless of frontiers. Communication is a fundamental social
process, a basic human need and the foundation of all social organization. It is central
to the Information Society. Everyone, everywhere, should have the opportunity to
participate and no one should be excluded from the benefits the Information Society
offers”.
These quotes from the declaration of principles demonstrate that the international Community
is aware of the problem and is ready to find solutions. They further indicate, therefore, that it
is more than a duty to create a real solution; it is also a matter of ethics. Everyone must have
the opportunity to share the benefits of the new information society. No person should be
excluded.
As Tambini (2000) said, new ICTs offer opportunities for renewing democracy, fostering
innovation, opportunity and economic development, and provide resources and opportunities
which were not possible in the past decade. For example, children who have few books at
home could use the virtual libraries, ensuring access to publicly owned digital education
resources. Citizens could be empowered by easier access to government services and those
who provide them. And workers could develop skills necessary to perform in the new
economy, thereby benefiting themselves and the broader society in the process.
4. Solutions and bridging measures
How realistic is the prospect to offer everyone the opportunity to use new ICTs? This chapter
will explain possible solutions and also analyse what has been concretely done so far to
combat the digital divide.
4.1. Diffusion of innovation theory
According to Rogers (1995), diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communicated
through certain channels over time among the members of a social system. Given that
decisions are not authoritative or collective, each member of the social system faces his/her
own innovation-decision that follows a 5-step process: (See Figure 2. below)
1) Knowledge – the person becomes aware of an innovation and has some idea of how it
functions
2) Persuasion – the person forms a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward the innovation
3) Decision – the person engages in activities that lead to a choice to adopt or reject the
innovation
4) Implementation – the person puts an innovation into use
5) Confirmation – the person evaluates the results of an innovation-decision already made
9
Figure 3. Diffusion of Innovation Theory (Rogers, 1995)
The research of solutions must take into account the diffusion of innovation theory of
(Rogers, 1995). According to Rogers, the five characteristics are: relative advantage,
compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability. Cullen (2001) thinks that some of the
research into the digital divide, in particular barriers to the adoption of the Internet by groups,
can be interpreted in the perspective of this well tested and useful theory. The relative
advantage of the innovation over previous means of obtaining information, education and
communicating with friends and family must be demonstrated to potential users, and must
outweigh any disadvantages inherent in the technology. Keeping in touch with family is
definitely one of the advantages for older people in New Zealand. Compatibility of the
technology with other cultural norms is also important. For example, when using a machine to
communicate, dependence on reading/writing as the basis of communication is often not
compatible with cultural norms that focus on oral culture. In addition, information on the
Internet inhabits an uncontrolled environment where cultural sanctions cannot protect it. This
has been a major issue for the New Zealand Maori, for instance, whose often sacred
information and icons may be displayed on the Internet without their permission, just as it is
for religious groups whose icons and images are inappropriately used.
Uptake of innovations also depends on trialability and observability. Whereas in wealthier
communities people can learn the technology at work and assess its value to them in a
domestic setting, unemployed and manual workers may not have this same opportunity. Lack
of knowledge in the community affects the exposure of individuals to Internet-based
technologies, as well as their ability to observe and employ the technology. In order to ensure
a successful outcome, any solution to the problems of the digital divide must take these
factors into account and build them into projects intended to reduce the divide. (Cullen, 2001).
Nevertheless, there are some important strategies which should concretely help to close the
gap:
• Guarantee of connectivity conditions: price reductions, more favourable or free
software
• Modernization of cable systems and extension in rural areas
• Training of experts
• Creation of basic legal conditions
• Adjustment for local needs (touchscreen, local language...)
• Plans to fight illiteracy
• Improvement in the electricity supply
• Development of, and more efficient execution of, policy
• Privatisation of the telecommunications sector and intensified competition
10
•
•
•
Definition of clear and transparent rules
Improvement of the connection to the public
Improvement of Internet connectivity
4.2. What has been done so far to overcome the digital divide
According to Cullen, (2001) in his report to ECOSOC, the Secretary General of the UN
focused on some key points that need to be addressed in order to help developing nations
increase their adoption of the Internet in their own communities and enhance their
participation in the global economy. Many of these involve international development
initiatives and collaborative efforts between governments, donor organisations, and NGOs. He
calls for a more effective transfer of knowledge from the rich Northern hemisphere to the
South, and he notes the increasing number of scientific and research publications appearing
on the World Wide Web, a development which brings more benefits to the developing South
than to researchers in the North who have other forms of access. The importance of
information flows from South–South, and South-North should also be recognised and fostered
so that expertise in successful planning and implementation of ICT development projects can
be shared and resources are not ultimately wasted.
4.2.1 The Botha Model
The Botha report also looked at several other community access models, analysing the
potential of each to address the problems of rural communities in New Zealand. The models
identified were: the social service model, the free market model, the extension model (based
on existing community services in schools and libraries), the SeniorNet model, and the mobile
model (Botha, 2001, pp25-26).
Several examples of free market model community access programmes were identified in
both urban and rural areas across North America and Europe, known either as telecentres or
telecottages. These are usually based on the concept of a salaried manager, offering access
and training within the community on a semi-commercial, self-sustaining basis. Few of these
have had the major success of the Canadian initiative, and they are often not sustainable
beyond the expiry of their initial subsidy. The success of the Canadian model is assumed to be
due to visionary leadership, a highly effective national coordination committee aligned with
strong community participation, and a successful strategy that combines financial and training
incentives for communities and community leaders, as well as effective utilisation of
technology to maximise resources and minimise bureaucracy. (Botha, 2001, p41)
The Botha report’s analysis of the success and failure of a large number of initiatives around
the world in sustaining such community access centres reaches the following conclusions:
• financially self-sustaining access centres seem to be unworkable in rural areas – the
failure rate in most parts of the world is high;
• coordination teams promoting such ventures nationally should ideally be independent
of any one government agency, but should act as a catalyst among government
agencies, businesses and the community;
• community access centres need to be community-driven, have high community
participation, and focus on community needs rather than on technology;
• training in ICT and other skills that people value are essential for community
involvement;
• clear incentives are required to foster the development of such centres, and
cooperation between community groups, businesses and schools. (Botha, 2001, p48))
11
4.2.2 UN and ITU
Within the UN system, the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) plays a key role in
the area of telecommunications: setting standards for frequency spectrum management,
interconnection standards, telecommunications regulatory issues, accounting rates, etc.
Through its Telecommunications Development Bureau, the ITU also provides technical
assistance to its developing country members. The ITU coordinated, on behalf of the UN
system, the preparation of the World Summit on Information Society, which was to be
organised in two phases, the first one in Geneva in 2003 and the second one in Tunis in 2005.
OECD, (2001). These two world summits of Information Society justify the commitment of
the International community to narrow the digital divide.
The main initiative, apart from the declaration of principles, is the solidarity fund. This
solidarity fund has not been successful, however, because several developed countries did not
agree to pay for the poorer countries. As Kuhlen, (2004) said, the WSIS should therefore
originally be a world summit for development under the special technical and medial
conditions of the information society. The countries of the south required a financially
equipped solidarity fund. The states of the west and the north, however, were rather sceptical.
In the final explanation, the requirement for such a solidarity fund was recognized, but at the
same time, so was the necessity to measure the basic conditions for a fund requirement
through the use of the Digital Solidarity Agenda (DSA).(
http://www.wissensgesellschaft.org/themen/wissensoekonomie/Kuhlen_nachhaltigkeit_wsis.p
df)
4.2.3. Other organisations
Several other international organisations are active in ICT issues within their respective
guidelines. In 1996, the WTO adopted an Agreement on Trade in Information Technology
Products to provide for the elimination of duties on a large number of IT products. There are
currently 55 signatories to this agreement. Developing countries have been granted extended
transitional periods for some products. The WTO concluded in 1997 an agreement on
telecommunications services that opened the market for investments and introduced procompetitive regulatory frameworks in a number of countries, countries acceding the WTO
afterwards (which represents all developing countries) also adopted this model. In 1998, the
WTO adopted a declaration introducing a moratorium on customs duties for electronic
supplies. It also launched a work programme to study the application of trade rules to ecommerce, including its impact on developing countries. Since the beginning of 2000, the
WTO has embarked upon negotiations for all services to further liberalisation and investment.
(OECD, 2001).
In 1998, the OECD introduced the so-called Taxation Framework Conditions for e-commerce
among its members. UNESCO and WHO are exploring the role of ICT in education and
health, respectively. Of the UN Economic Commissions, the Economic Commission for
Africa has been particularly active in supporting analytic work and policy formulation in the
context of the African Information Society Initiative. Building partly on this work, the New
African Initiative that was launched by a group of five African Leaders in July 2001 called
for African states to “extricate themselves and the continent from underdevelopment and
exclusion in a globalising world”. ICTs feature explicitly as part of the overall strategy.
The World Economic Forum, the think tank of world leaders meeting regularly in Davos,
launched in 2000 a Global Digital Initiative to transform the digital divide into an
opportunity for growth. The Task Force created for this purpose has been very active,
particularly in connection with the G8 process.
12
On the occasion of its millennium session, the UN General Assembly paid special attention to
ICTs on the basis of a report by a high-level panel of experts. It acknowledged the existence
of a widening digital divide and the need to narrow the gap between developed and
developing countries. A UN ICT Task Force has thus been created as a practical step aimed
at strengthening the UN system's role and leadership and in developing effective partnerships
with the private sector, civil society and other relevant stakeholders. The July 2001 ECOSOC
session revisited the theme of ICTs with a special emphasis on knowledge networks. A very
important participant is also the World Bank. Its wide and diversified portfolio of activities
include support for telecom reform, the financing of innovative pilot projects (InfoDev)4,
applications for distance education (e.g. African Virtual University, cofinanced by the EC)
and the creation of knowledge tools (Global Development Gateway)5.
In recent years, the UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) has also shown itself to
be a creative and proactive player by launching several initiatives and partnerships with the
private sector and foundations. It also implemented country-level assistance to build national
strategies and it contributed to the general policy debate. The 2001 Human Development
Report focuses on the role of new technologies in development.
Another active forum for discussion is the G8. At the Okinawa Summit of July 2000, the G8
produced the ‘Okinawa Charter’ on the global information society and created a ‘Digital
Opportunity Task Force’. The ‘DOT Force’, as it is colloquially known, produced a report,
‘Digital Opportunities for all: meeting the challenge’, that was submitted to the G8 Summit
in Genoa in July 2001. The report is the result of a unique international collaboration effort
over several months among representatives of the G8 countries plus the European
Commission, nine developing countries, multilateral organisations, and both the private sector
and non-governmental organisations. It has charted the roles and responsibilities of the
various participants - national governments, the private sector, civil society organisations,
international organisations - in creating digital opportunities for all.
The DOT Force6 report concluded that, when wisely applied, ICTs offer enormous
opportunities to narrow social and economic inequalities and support sustainable local wealth
creation, and thus help to achieve the broader development goals that the international
community has set. The report acknowledged that ICTs are no panacea for all development
problems, but by improving communication and exchange of information, they can create
powerful social and economic networks, which in turn provide the basis for major advances in
development. (OECD, 2001)
• UN-Economic Commissions: Under the UN Economic Commissions, the Economic
Commission for Africa was particularly active and supported analytic activities as well
as the definition of the policy in the context of the African Information Society
Initiative.
• The African Information Society Initiative (AISI) is an action framework that has been
the basis for information and communication activities in Africa since 1996. AISI is
not about technology; it is about giving Africans the means to improve the quality of
their lives and fight against poverty. AISI was launched as Africa needed a common
vision for its quest not only to bridge the digital divide between Africa and the rest of
4
infoDev works to promote better understanding and effective use of information and communication
technologies (ICTs) as tools of poverty reduction and broad-based, sustainable development.
5
Portal for development information and knowledge sharing worldwide. The tools on the Web site bring
together people and organizations around the globe who are working to improve life in developing countries.
6
The Digital Opportunity Task Force (DOT Force) was launched by the G8 government leaders to look at how
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) can bring digitally enabled opportunities to developing
communities and help bridge the widening global socio-economic divide.
13
•
the world but, more importantly, to create effective digital opportunities to be
developed by Africans and their partners, and to speed the continent's entry into the
information and knowledge global economy. Support was provided to 28 African
countries to develop their own national information and communication infrastructure
(NICI) policies, plans and strategies (http://www.uneca.org/aisi/)
Partnership for Information and Communication Technologies in Africa (PICTA) The
Connect Africa Summit which took place in Kigali, Rwanda, on 29th – 30th October
2007, ended with the adoption of five goals to bridge the digital divide in Africa.
o Goal 1: Interconnect all African capitals and major cities with ICT broadband
infrastructure and strengthen connectivity to the rest of the world by 2012.
o Goal 2: Connect African villages to broadband ICT services by 2015 and
implement shared access initiatives such as community telecentres and village
phones.
o Goal 3: Adopt key regulatory measures that promote affordable, widespread
access to a full range of broadband ICT services, including technology and
service neutral licensing/authorization practices, allocating spectrum for
multiple, competitive broadband wireless service providers, creating national
Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) and implementing competition in the
provision of international Internet connectivity.
o Goal 4: Support the development of a critical mass of ICT skills required by
the knowledge economy, notably through the establishment of a network of
ICT Centres of Excellence in each sub-region of Africa and ICT capacitybuilding and training centres in each country, with the aim of achieving a
broad network of inter-linked physical and virtual centres, while ensuring
coordination between academia and industry by 2015.
o Goal 5: Adopt a national e-strategy, including a cyber security framework, and
deploy at least one flagship e-government service as well as e-education, ecommerce and e-health services using accessible technologies in each country
in Africa by 2012, with the aim of making multiple e-government and other eservices widely available by 2015.
(http://www.uneca.org/aisi/picta/pictabulletin/pb66.htm)
4.2.4. The role of NGOs
Several NGOs such as SchoolNet, Acacia Initiatives, Bridges and others have been looking
for ways or solutions to especially help people in developing countries. So far, various
governments, in collaboration with associations and NGOs, have implemented specific
initiatives, including:
• Conducting surveys to monitor IT adoption
• Enhancing the use of IT in education
• Education policy - A new education policy could be a big advantage for IT teaching in
schools. Digital technologies are changing the role of teachers as well as our
understanding of the learning process. These technologies give learners direct access
to vast bodies of knowledge, as well as the necessary tools to search for and analyse
information as well as to teach students. To eliminate the potential risk of a “digital
divide” in future generations, IT teaching in schools is crucial.)
• Increasing the number of Internet connections for schools, as children are a society’s
future assets. In addition to the traditional curriculum, the government must encourage
continuous learning through different media such as the Internet, with proper guidance
14
•
•
•
•
•
from teachers. To encourage and enable students to use the Internet for self-learning at
school, the government must provide recurrent grants to enable schools to connect to
the Internet. This enables teachers and students to share information, and to tap into
the wealth of knowledge available from various electronic networks worldwide.
Providing free computer facilities for public use, improving computer access for the
under-privileged
Free access to IT facilities
Offering free IT awareness courses
Enhancing web accessibility
Making telecommunications connections available at affordable prices
5. Possible solutions
5.1 For the global digital divide
For Cullen (2001), there are no quick or easy solutions to the problem of the digital divide,
either within or between nations. The disadvantaged in both rich and poor nations have too
little cash to attract the attention of multi-national computer and telecommunications giants
for long, and profits are likely to be made in higher band-width and new technologies.
However, in the plethora of UN, government and commercial reports concerning the digital
divide, there are a range of proposed solutions, and some of them specifically address the
barriers to Internet use which we noted earlier: lack of physical access to ICTs, lack of ICT
skills and support, negative attitudes, and lack of relevant content.
But the lack of physical telecommunications infrastructure is not the key problem in many
parts of the developing world where mobile technology is already well developed. Internet
access for mobile telephone owners was predicted to reach nearly 1 billion people by 2003,
although as we noted earlier this does not guarantee access in areas remote from normal
transmission services. However, mobile technology is developing rapidly and these problems
may well be resolved in the next few years. A more intractable issue is the fact that 98% of
Internet Protocol bandwidth globally connects to and from North America. The US operates
as the hub of Internet traffic and countries must make payments for traffic exchange and
connectivity to US telecommunications carriers. Not only does this require foreign exchange
payments in prohibitively high US dollars, which developing countries can barely afford, it
reverses the accounting system for telephone traffic where the cash flow is from the
developed to the developing world. As more and more users transfer land telephone systems
to the Internet, not only do developing nations lose cash income, they must also pay increased
charges for this connectivity. Careful renegotiation of existing global telecommunications
agreements and a restructuring of the World Wide Web, a difficult task when the Web has no
formal governance structure, will be needed to address these issues.
At the country level, one of the most important issues raised in the UN report is the success
that has been achieved in developing local community access centres, whether these are
established in existing community centres, schools, meeting houses etc, or brought to the
community in mobile units, not unlike mobile libraries.
5.2. For the developing countries
The UN Secretary General’s report refers to an example cited in the report of the expert panel,
of mobile Internet units in Cost Rica, known as LINCOS (Little Intelligent Communities)
which are multipurpose multimedia mobile units housed in cargo containers and powered by a
generator. LINCOS offer Internet access, e-mail, and training in ICT as well as banking
15
facilities, telemedicine, soil testing and FM radio and TV in a small setting. Cargo containers
have been used for telephone centres in Africa for some years, and container-based
Multipurpose Community Telecentres are being set up in several African states on a trial basis
as part of an African Information Society Initiative (www.bellanet.org/partners/
aisi/telepro2.htm). This is perhaps a solution for the poorest communities across Africa, which
has the lowest levels of connectivity in the world, but only where existing literacy levels are
adequate for advantage to be taken of the rich resource being offered.
In all the factors listed above the well tested principles of Diffusion of Innovations Theory are
evident, and can be shown to be the underlying principles lying behind the success or failure
of the various initiatives. Critical success factors identified by Botha et al mirror the five
factors of Diffusion of Innovations. Assisting communities in developing their own access
and training facilities, and using subsidies and incentives, enables the relative advantage of
promoting and acquiring ICT skills in the community to be explored and demonstrated within
that community; prompting communities to take the initiative within the parameters of a
national scheme ensures the compatibility with community values and activities; the use of
low-cost access to initial training and the use of volunteers and members of the community to
carry out the programmes and assist each other reduces the apparent complexity of the
innovation, and it provides a non-threatening environment in which the application of ICT is
both observable and trialable. Affordability of telecommunications services policies must be
on the agenda for governments to provide a favorable environment in which information and
communication technologies may become widely adopted in the community.
5. 3. Other conceivable/possible or alternative solutions
Affordable routine access is essential for participation in this new information age. While
access is not dependant on home ownership, but can be severely constrained in the workplace,
there are also constraints on the type of activity that can be carried out in the public
environment of a community access centre or cyber-café.
More remote areas remain outside normal mobile telephone service, and development of
mobile services in remote areas is regarded as prohibitively expensive. Satellite services, also
promoted as a solution, solve only part of the problem since although they allow high
bandwidth traffic inwards, they are unlikely to support a very high level of outward
connectivity. Other technical solutions on the horizon, such as Internet access through cable
TV, are also likely to exclude those in the lowest socio-economic groups. They are already the
least likely group to subscribe to cable TV systems. It must also be recognised that all of these
technical solutions carry costs which must either be borne by consumers, or by central
government or local authorities and passed on through taxes.
6. Future of the Digital divide
Because of all the difficulties which surround the development of ICTs, particularly in the
developing countries, great and positive results are not yet to be expected in every country.
Weiland, (2002) thinks that the digital divide accents in particularly striking way the gap
between developed and developing countries. It cannot be denied that new information and
communications technologies point to completely new ways and possibilities for democratic
formation in the global context up through the notion of cyberdemocracy. Also in cooperative
development, special efforts have been undertaken to share with partner countries the
programs for the e-Learning and e-Government. But the increasing technological imbalance
and the solid, global commercialization pressure in the communication sector point out that
the participation chances of the poor population majority worsen rather than improve. To that
extent, the democratising effects proceeding from this kind of cooperative medium should be
16
seen sceptically. With the concentration on modern technology and the activities running in
parallel with international conferences and in international organizations, it is feared that in
order to manufacture rules for the application of the communication technologies, hard work
already completed on this basis will be neglected.
Experience teaches us that development does not only serve to address and modify a small
Internet elite within itself. In view of permanent technical innovations in the data
communication area and the associated high application costs, the digital divide will continue
to increase for the time being, without having a direct effect on the population of poorer
countries. In addition, this means that high democratization effects from this technology
should not to be expected. The efforts of developmental policy should also not neglect the
classical media broadcast, TV, and press with their democracy-promoting effects.
(http://www.cameco.org/mez/pdf/2weiland.pdf)
But the last surveys and facts underscore the notion that there is progress toward ICT in
developing countries. The efforts of several governments of poor countries in collaboration
with NGOs have had some positive results and are even mentioned by the ITU. Information
and Communication Technologies offer both challenges and promises for social and
economic development and this is nowhere more apparent than in the world's poorest
countries. ICTs offer enormous opportunities to decrease social and economic inequalities and
to support sustainable local wealth creation, thus helping achieve the broader development
goals. On the other hand, misapplied ICTs might result in a further marginalisation of the
poor and disaffected, thus adding a digital dimension to the existing social and economic
inequalities in and amongst developing countries.
As with other development challenges, the decision to embrace these new opportunities
belongs to developing countries themselves and the relevant stakeholders, notably the local
communities. Ownership by them is indispensable. For its part, the international community
can play an active role, by pointing to the potential benefits of new policies and assisting
interested countries in designing appropriate policies in function of their situation and
priorities. (OECD, 2001)
Conclusion
The Digital divide cannot be abolished as long as preconditions as the electricity supply, for
example, are not fulfilled. The fight against the digital divide is a chance for developing
countries to improve determined ranges of their infrastructures such as electricity supply,
roads, and their education policies. It has been said that ICTs are not a universal remedy for
all developmental problems; they can, however, by improvement in communication and
information exchange, create high performance social and economical nets which form the
basis for substantial progress in such development. The ICT politics should enable a broader
strategy which promotes fair economic development, neutral trade formation, and improves
the development of capacities and the supply of social services which can be revalued by
ICTs.
17
References
Ahmed K. (2005). De la fracture numérique en Afrique a la fracture statistique, IFLA 2005
Botha, N., Small, B., Crutchley, P., Wilson, J. (2001). Addressing the Rural Digital Divide in
New Zealand, Wellington, http://www.maf.govt.nz/MAFnet/publications/techpap.html,
Cullen R. (2001). Addressing the Digital Divide. In Online Information Review. Jg.25 5/2001
Elie Michel, Le fossé numérique. L’Internet, facteur de nouvelles inégalités ?,
Problèmes politiques et sociaux, La documentation française, n°861, août 2001, p. 32.
Gartner Group (2000). The Digital Divide and American Society, October, 2000
Kumar S. et al., (2004). Information literacy mission in digital environment – a prospects and
plans for developing society in India IFLA 2004
Kuhlen R. (2004). Informationsethik, Konstanz, UVK-Verlag. S. 136-156
Peña-López, Ismael World Telecommunication/ICT Development Report 2006: digital divide
narrowing? ICTlogy (ISSN 1886-5208). Issue #32, May 2006 URL
http://ictlogy.net/review/20060525-world-telecommunicationict-development-report-2006digital-divide-narrowing/
OECD (2001). Understanding the digital divide. Retrieved on August 25 from
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/38/57/1888451.pdf.
Rogers E. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edition, New York, London, Free Press
Tambini D. (2000). Universal Internet Access: A Realistic View , Policy Action Team 15:
2000: Closing The Digital Divide – information and communication, IPPR/Citizens Online
Research Publication No 1
Warschauer M. (2002). Reconceptualising the Digital Divide, First Monday, volume 7,
number 7 (July 2002), URL: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_7/warschauer/index.html
http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2001/04/07/000094946_01
032705352348/Rendered/PDF/multi0page.pdf
http://www.glow-boell.de/media/de/txt_rubrik_3/Interview_mit_Wambui.pdf
http://www.cameco.org/mez/pdf/2weiland.pdf
http://www.cameco.org/mez/pdf/13massmann.pdf
http://old.bridges.org/spanning/chpt2.html
http://www.techniksoziologie-dortmund.de/Sektion/files/Abstracts-Sektion-WuTMuenchen.pdf
http://www.evolutionarymedia.com/papers/digitalDivide.htm
http://www.itu.int/wsis/index.html
http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/dai/material/DAI_ITUNews_e.pdf
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/38/57/1888451.pdf
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_7/warschauer/
http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html
http://www.unige.ch/iued/wsis/DEVDOT/02098.HTM
http://www.capurro.de/augsburg2-programm.htm#call%20german
http://www.capurro.de/augsburg2-papers.htm#Capurro
http://a330.g.akamai.net/7/330/25828/20060531174642/graphics.eiu.com/files/ad_pdfs/2006E
readiness_Ranking_WP.pdf
http://www.uneca.org/disd/events/2007/ict-measurement/
http://www.uneca.org/index.htm
http://www.infodev.org/en/index.html
http://www.developmentgateway.org/
http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html
http://www.wissensgesellschaft.org/themen/wissensoekonomie/Kuhlen_nachhaltigkeit_wsis.p
df
18
Abbreviations
DOI: Diffusion Of Innovations
ICT: Information and Communications Technologies
IT: Information Technologies
NGO: Non – Government Organisation
DAI: Digital Access Index
ITU: International Telecommunications Union
WSIS: World Summit on the Information Society
ECOSOC: Economic and Social Council
DSA: Digital Solidarity Agenda
UN: United Nations
ECA: The Economic Commission for Africa (established by the ECOSOC of the United
Nations in 1958 as one of the United Nation's five regional commissions). The ECA's
mandate is to promote the economic and social development of its member States, foster
intra-regional integration, and promote international cooperation for Africa's development.
WHO: World Health Organisation
EC: European Community
InfoDev: Information for Development Program
UNDP: United Nations Development Programme
19
Appendix List of Graphics
Digital Access Index (DAI) Source: ITU
High-access (0.7 and above)
Countries
Sweden
Denmark
Iceland
Korea
Norway
DAI
0.85
0.83
0.82
0.82
0.79
Countries
Singapore
Japan
DAI
0.75
0.75
Luxem
bourg
0.75
Nether
lands
0.79
Hong
Kong
0.79
Finland
Taiwan
Canada
USA
UK
0.79
0.79
0.78
0.78
0.77
Austria
Germany
Australia
Belgium
0.75
0.74
0.74
0.74
New
Zealand
0.72
Switzer
land
0.76
Italy
France
Slovenia
Israel
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.70
Upper access (0.5 – 0.69)
Counties
Ireland
Cyprus
Estonia
Spain
Malta
Czech
Rep
Greece
Portu
gal
UAE
Macao
Hun
gary
Baha
mas
DAI
0.69
0.68
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.66
0.66
0.65
0.64
0.64
0.63
0.62
Countries
Malay
sia
Lithua
nia
Qatar
Bru
nei
Latvia
Uru
guay
Sey
chelles
Domi
nica
Argen
tina
DAI
0.57
0.56
0.55
0.55
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.53
Trini
dad
Tobago
0.53
St.
Kitts
Nevis
0.60
Poland
Slovak
Rep.
Croa
tia
Bahrain
Chile
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.58
0.58
Antigua
and
Barbuda
0.57
Barbados
0.57
Bul
garia
Jamai
ca
Costa
Rica
St.
Lucia
Ku
wait
Gre
nada
Mauri
tius
Rus
sia
Mexi
co
Brazil
0.53
0.53
0.52
0.52
0.51
0.51
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
20
Middle-access (0.3-0.49)
Countries
Bela
rus
0.49
Leba
non
0.48
Thai
land
0.48
Countries
Bots
wana
Iran
(I.R.)
Ukraine
Gu
yana
Phili
ppines
Oman
Mal
dives
Libya
DAI
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.42
DAI
Countries
DAI
Sri
Lanka
0.38
Boli
via
0.38
Roma
nia
0.48
Turkey
Mace
donia
0.48
0.48
Cuba
Samoa
0.38
0.37
Alge
ria
0.37
Pana
ma
0.47
Turkme
nistan
0.37
Vene
zuela
0.47
Geor
gia
0.37
Belize
0.47
St.
Vincent
0.46
Bosnia
Domi
nican
Rep
0.42
Swazi
land
0.37
South
Africa
0.45
Colom
bia
0.45
Jordan
0.46
Suri
name
0.46
Tunisia
Ecua
dor
Kazakh
stan
Egypt
Cape
Verde
Alba
nia
Para
guay
Nami
bia
Guate
mala
Salva
dor
Palestine
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.40
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.38
0.38
0.38
Kyrgy
zstan
0.32
Viet
Nam
0.31
Armenia
0.30
Mol
dova
0.37
Mon
golia
0.35
Indo
nesia
0.34
Serbia
Mont.
0.45
0.45
Saudi
Arabia
0.44
Peru
China
Fiji
0.44
0.43
0.43
Gabon
Morocco
India
Uzbekistan
0.34
0.33
0.32
Kenya
Nica
ragua
Leso
tho
Ne
pal
Bangla
desh
Yemen
Togo
Solomon Islands
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.31
Low access (0.29 an below)
Countries
Zimba
bwe
Hon
duras
Syria
DAI
0.29
0.29
0.28
Countries
Uganda
Zambia
Myanmar
Congo
Cameroon
DAI
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.16
Countries
Bhu
tan
0.13
DAI
Sudan
Comoros
0.13
0.13
Papua
New
Guinea
0.26
Côte
d’Ivoire
0.13
Vanuatu
Pakis
tan
Azerbai
jan
0.24
0.24
0.24
Eritrea
0.13
D.R.
Congo
0.12
Cam
bodia
0.16
Benin
0.12
Lao
P.D.R
0.15
S.
Tome
Principe
0.23
0.21
Equa
torial
Guinea
0.20
Ghana
Malawi
Tanzania
Haiti
Nigeria
Djibouti
Rwanda
Madagascar
Mauritania
Senegal
Gambia
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.14
0.14
0.13
Burkina
Faso
0.08
Mozam
bique
0.12
Taji
kistan
Angola
Burundi
0.11
0.10
Gui
nea
0.10
SierraLeone
0.10
CentralAfrican
Rep
0.10
Ethiopia
GuinaBissau
Chad
Mali
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.09
Niger
0.04