Technology & Innovation

Counting your digital divides

July 11, 2012

Global

Computer Chip

July 11, 2012

Global
Denis McCauley

Consultant

Denis McCauley contributes to EIU research published on a bespoke basis in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

He works closely with the research directors and editors in each of these regions to improve the insightfulness, relevance and timeliness of their analysis.

Mr McCauley previously directed the company's global technology practice, with responsibility for managing research projects dealing with the impact of information and communications technology (ICT) on businesses and societies.

He is often interviewed by the media, including the BBC, CNBC and Financial Times, for his views on technology industry developments.

"The digital divide is narrowing." Or, "The digital divide is widening." In recent years versions of both headlines could typically be found in discussions about populations' access to the online world.

Which one is right? The answer is, probably both. It depends on which sort of digital divide one has in mind, because the reality is that there are many. The common denominator in all of them is the exclusion of some part of the population from the digital economy, a type of segregation that policymakers in many countries have vowed to eradicate.

At the broadest level, digital divides exist between countries – those with high levels of access to information and communications technology (ICT), especially fixed and mobile broadband, and those without. But such comparisons can sometimes be simplistic, as some highly connected cities – Shanghai or Moscow, for example – in countries with lower overall levels of ICT penetration compare well with many western cities. Indeed, arguably the most pervasive type of digital divide is that between urban and rural populations in the same countries. Geography, however, is just one dimension.

Our own recent report on the subject, Smart policies to close the digital divide, makes what in my view is a useful contribution to the discourse by listing, in a handy table, 15 different flavours of digital divide. There are certainly more, but the most fundamental ones are here. In addition to location, they include age (many computer-challenged elderly fail to gain access to health and other social services now available online), gender (females in some developing countries often have poorer access to ICT than males) and levels of education. Language can be another barrier, especially in countries where there is a dearth of local content available. Most internet content today is, of course, in English and, increasingly, in Mandarin and Spanish. Translating – or better, developing – internet content in the local language is one effective way of attracting more people into the digital world.

Recognising and labelling different types of digital divide is one challenge; measuring them is another. The aforementioned report describes the frustrations of researchers in Russia with the government's practice of measuring digital progress in schools by tracking their internet connections; there is no information available on the extent to which teachers and students actually use the connections. The South Korean government is one of the world's most avid trackers of its population's online activity; in 2004 it created its own Digital Divide Index which, in addition to access, attempts to assess actual internet use and how effective such use is. But the agency which administers the Index acknowledges that tracking the utility of digital channels is an ongoing challenge.

Precision is important when it comes to measuring societies' digital progress. Many governments pay close attention, for example, to their countries' standing in international rankings and benchmarks of ICT development, such as those published by the International Telecommunications Union and United Nations. A country's decline in such rankings will attract policymakers' attention, and can result – as happened in Finland in the late 2000s – in decisions to fund new initiatives or set new targets for the government agencies charged with promoting digital development.

When it comes to measuring digital divides, access (mainly penetration levels) and, to some extent, usage, are the only types that have thus far lent themselves to international comparison. Within their own countries, many governments now measure online access, affordability and usage by age groups, levels of education, gender, income groups and other socio-economic classifications. Expert proposals for standardising such metrics between countries abound, but agreement has curiously been elusive. Agreeing a taxonomy of the digital divides that most governments recognise would be a good place to start.
 

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited (EIU) or any other member of The Economist Group. The Economist Group (including the EIU) cannot accept any responsibility or liability for reliance by any person on this article or any of the information, opinions or conclusions set out in the article.

Enjoy in-depth insights and expert analysis - subscribe to our Perspectives newsletter, delivered every week