SPECIAL ARTICLE
From Mobile Access to Use
Evidence of Feature-level Digital Divides in India
Jang Bahadur Singh, M Vimalkumar
The digital divide is the disparity between individuals
with respect to access to information and
communication technologies. The growing prevalence
of mobile phones in India is often linked to phones
becoming access points to various government
schemes and services. However, ICTs have various
features that are not uniformly operated by different
users. The use of mobile phones is examined
using micro-level data to highlight how the
socio-demographic characteristics of individuals
(age, gender, literacy, etc) influence their engagement
with the various features of a mobile phone.
We express our sincere gratitude to the anonymous reviewer(s) for their
time and constructive feedback on the initial draft of the paper, as we
feel that they have helped produce a stronger manuscript.
Jang Bahadur Singh (jbs@iimtrichy.ac.in) teaches management
information systems (MIS) at and M Vimalkumar (vimalkumar.f15005@
iimtrichy.ac.in) is a fellow at the Indian Institute of Management,
Tiruchirappalli with MIS as his subject area.
60
I
nformation and communications technologies (ICTs) facilitate
the economic development of the poor and marginalised
by improving their access to education, healthcare, and
financial services (Waverman et al 2005; O’Riain 2004;
Steinmuller 2001). Thus, it is important to bridge the digital
divide—the inequality between the technological “haves” and
“have nots” (Dewan and Riggins 2005; OECD 2001; Wei et al
2011)—and promote equitable access to ICTs such as personal
computers and mobile phones.
Over the last decade, India has witnessed an exponential
growth in the penetration of mobile phones, and according to
recent statistics, there are 88 mobile phone connections for
every 100 individuals (TRAI 2017). Mobile phones are a major
channel for accessing the internet in India—approximately
81% of internet users in India access it using smartphones
(Neeraj 2016). Although smartphone penetration is still low,
its growth has been robust due to the recent availability of
low-cost handsets (Euromonitor 2017). This has led to growing
optimism that the digital divide can be bridged with mobile
phones. In recent years, the government has been trying to
improve access to government services by linking delivery to
mobile phones and mobile internet. With policy interventions
like Digital India (2015), the current government envisions a
digital society in which a cashless economy will feature
prominently, made possible by mobile banking and digital
payments. However, the challenges associated with imple-
menting technology-based policy interventions among a
diverse population have sparked a renewed debate on their
efficacy in addressing social problems (for example, Prakash
2016a; Mannathukkaren 2015).
The literature on the digital divide treats all ICTs as mono-
lithic. However, ICTs—like mobile phones—have various fea-
tures and functionalities (for example, voice calls, text mess-
ages, and internet applications) that all users may not operate
similarly (Selwyn 2004; van Dijk 2012). Furthermore, research
on the digital divide focuses predominantly on developed
countries (Reinartz 2016; Wei et al 2011). Given the increasing
reliance on ICTs to promote inclusive development in deve-
loping countries, there is a need to explore whether differences
exist in feature usage among mobile phone users in these
nations (Donner 2006). This paper adopts a feature-centric
approach to characterise the digital divide among Indian
mobile phone users.
Even though a number of government services are being
delivered digitally, particularly through mobile devices, to the
august 10, 2019 vol lIV no 32 EPW Economic & Political Weekly

best of our knowledge, there is no countrywide study of India
to understand the scope of the digital divide based on users’
engagement with the various features of ICTs. Thus, the
objective of this study is to understand how users’ engagement
with various feature categories varies in different socio-
demographic groups.
Understanding the Digital Divide
In the past decade, digital divide research has received signi-
ficant attention from scholars in various disciplines—for
example, social sciences, developmental studies, and information
systems (Reinartz 2016). The literature identifies the nature
of the digital divide, its antecedents, and its consequences
(Wei et al 2011).
Based on the literature review in Dewan and Riggins’ (2005)
study on the digital divide, Wei et al (2011) developed a
framework with three levels to help understand the extant
literature. In this framework, each successive level indicates a
higher order—they are digital access divide, digital capability
divide, and digital outcome divide. The digital access divide
focuses on inequalities in access to ICTs such as personal
computers, mobile phones, and internet in the home, school,
or workplace (Dewan and Riggins 2005). The digital capabili-
ty divide refers to inequalities in ICT capabilities (Wei et al
2011)—“the ability to use technology” when people have
access to it (Dewan and Riggins 2005: 301). The digital access
and capability divides, and other contextual factors, lead to
differences in outcomes caused by ICT usage, leading to a digital
outcome divide (Wei et al 2011). The literature suggests that
various key socio-demographic factors influence the digital
access divide. Socio-economic status profoundly impacts the
access divide (Reinartz 2016; Hsieh et al 2011; Goldfarb and
Prince 2008). Age, in particular, can significantly influence
access to mobile phones and the internet (Chen 2013; Boase
2010; Rice and Katz 2003). Along with age, income and educa-
tion are important factors that affect individuals’ digital skills
(Hargittai 2002). Studies show that people with higher educa-
tion levels and higher incomes exhibit a greater capacity to adopt
information technology (IT) services (Akhter 2003; Lindsay
2005; Bélanger and Carter 2009). Even though a few studies
suggest that there is a disparity between men and women with
respect to digital capability (Wei et al 2011; Sharma 2003), there
is a lack of consensus on the role of gender in the digital divide
in studies carried out in countries like the United States and
Singapore (Reinartz 2016).
The existing research provides a rich understanding of the
digital divide; however, two issues remain under-explored.
First, most studies in the digital divide domain conceptualise ICTs
as a monolithic black box (for example, Dewan and Riggins
2005; Wei et al 2011; DiMaggio and Bonikowski 2008), instead
of considering that users may operate some features but not
others. Thus, an analysis of what features are accessible to users
is needed. Second, the existing studies were predominantly
conducted in developed countries, and this data may not hold
true for the developing world. Thus, a feature-centric study of
the digital divide in the developing world is needed.
Economic & Political Weekly EPW august 10, 2019 vol lIV no 32
SPECIAL ARTICLE
There are limited studies on the use of ICTs that address
the characteristics or features of ICT devices. Scholars have
identified a range of “divides” among users in their approach to
different forms of ICT hardware. Pearce and Rice (2013) cate-
gorise the research on disparities among users based on hard-
ware. For instance, based on internet usage patterns, Donner
et al (2011) propose four hardware-based access categories—
neither computer- nor mobile-based access, computer-based
access, mobile phone-based access, and mobile and computer-
based access—and show that there are differences among
these various types of hardware users.
These studies offer insights on the various kinds of digital
divides by exploring the differences in people’s use of various
features. The use of ICT features can be studied based on
hardware or software (van Dijk 2005). While there are studies
on the uses of hardware features (for example, Chigona et al
2009; Donner et al 2011; Pearce and Rice 2013), to the best of
our knowledge, there have been no significant efforts to
understand differences in usage in terms of the software
features of ICT devices, particularly mobile phones.
The software of an ICT device is essentially a combination of
multiple features that various users operate differently; thus,
researchers have expressed the need for a feature-centric
disaggregation of technology (for example, Donner 2006;
Jasperson et al 2005). Considering that the delivery of govern-
ment entitlements relies on mobile phone penetration and the
range of mobile phone features available to users, it is useful
to disaggregate mobile phone features into voice calls, text
messages, and internet applications. Such a disaggregation
will lead to a whole range of studies on the adoption, access,
and outcomes of ICTs as tools for social inclusion.
Categorising Mobile Phones Based on Features
In this section, a brief history of mobile phone models is
presented and a framework to categorise the various features
of mobile phones is proposed. Mobile phone service started in
India in 1995, with the provision of basic features such as
making and receiving telephone calls and short message
service (SMS). First-generation mobile phones (also known as
basic phones) are still popular in India due to their simplicity,
low prices, and long battery lives (Agence France-Presse 2012).
As technology advanced, mobile phones incorporated more
features such as music players, cameras, and games. These
mid-range phones are also known as feature phones. They
were the first handsets to receive internet connectivity through
GPRS (General Packet Radio Services), popularly known as
second generation (2G) internet technology (Singh 2012).
However, the mobile phone industry massively changed
with the introduction of advanced computing platforms—
popularly known as mobile operating systems—such as
Android, iOS, and Windows. These platforms supported mobile
application development by third parties and created appli-
cation delivery channels, such as the Play Store or App Store,
through which users could download and install various
applications. These applications range from simple utility
applications like calculators and notepads to mobile games,
61
SPECIAL ARTICLE
Figure 1: A Framework to Disaggregate Mobile Phone Use Based on Feature Use
Complexity of the application
Group 2
General features
High
eg, SMS, MMS, caller tunes
Group 1
Basic feautres
Low
eg, Making/receiving calls
No
Dependency on the internet
social media applications, health monitoring applications, and
applications to access government services. Currently, both
Android’s Play Store and Apple’s App Store host more than two
million applications each (Statista 2017). The phones that come
with these mobile operating systems are known as smart-
phones, and they are typically capable of internet connectivity.
The features of these phones can be extended through the
myriad applications available through the app stores.
As explained above, mobile phones offer users various
features and functionalities. These features can be grouped
according to two broad characteristics—the complexity of the
feature and its dependency on the internet. Using these two
characteristics, we propose a framework to categorise mobile
phone features into four distinct groups. Such a framework
facilitates empirical analysis by helping divide a range of
features into a finite set of categories.
The proposed 2*2 framework disaggregates mobile devices
based on their features (Figure 1). One important characteristic
of mobile devices in this era is internet dependency (van Dijk
2012). We broadly categorise the applications available on
mobile phones into two kinds—applications that require an
internet connection and applications that do not. For instance,
activities like making phone calls and taking pictures do not
need access to the internet, whereas browsing through social
media and mobile banking do. Hence, the features of mobile
phones can be grouped based on whether they require internet
access. In the framework, we conceptualise this characteristic
along the horizontal axis.
Along similar lines, the other characteristic of mobile appli-
cations considered in this framework is the complexity of the
application. Using the notion of medium-related skills, van
Deursen and van Dijk (2010) define complexity as the degree
of effort and the set of skills required by users to access a
feature. The greater the degree of effort employed or the skills
required to operate the feature, the greater the complexity,
and vice versa. For example, to make a phone call, users just
need numeracy—they dial the number and press the call
button. Thus, such features are on the lower end of the
complexity scale. On the other hand, to make an e-commerce
transaction on a mobile phone, users must be literate, be able
to search for products, compare and choose products, add
products to a virtual shopping cart, enter delivery and billing
addresses, decide whether to make the payment online (in
which case they must have access to bank accounts or mobile
62
wallets), and so on. Thus, such features appear at the higher
end of the complexity axis.
Group 4 By arranging these features—according to complexity and
Advanced features internet dependency—on a 2*2 matrix, we obtain four cate-
eg, Mobile banking, e-commerce gories of mobile phone features. The basic features (Group 1)
rank low in complexity and do not require internet access. For
Group 3
instance, making or receiving calls does not require linguistic
Social features
skills nor internet access, so it is considered low in complexity.
eg, Social media apps/browsing
General features (Group 2) encompass those that are high in
complexity, but which do not require internet access. For
Yes
example, use of SMS necessitates language and typing skills.
Similarly, taking a picture with a camera phone needs the user
to adjust the lighting, focus, and zoom. These features do not
require internet access to function.
Social features (Group 3) are generally user-friendly applica-
tions that are comparatively low in complexity, but need internet
access to operate. For instance, social networking applications
like Facebook, WhatsApp, and Twitter require internet access and
are relatively user-friendly, and users with fundamental language
skills, with minimal effort, can easily use these applications.
Finally, Group 4—advanced features—are complex and also
need internet access to function. For instance, e-commerce and
mobile banking applications require internet access, and users
must go through multiple steps to perform a single transaction.
Based on this framework, we analysed empirical data obtained
from a nationwide survey of Indian adults about their usage
of various mobile phone features. The details of the empirical
analysis and results are discussed in the next section.
Research Methodology
To understand whether disparities exist among individuals—
with regard to their ability to use features in the four
categories—an empirical study was conducted and described
the following sections.
Data collection and description: This study utilises an
individual-level data set from InterMedia’s Financial Inclusion
Insights Tracker Survey (InterMedia 2016). The data set features
information from an annual national representative survey
with a sample size of 45,036 of Indian adults, aged 15 years
and above. The survey was conducted between 6 March and
10 April 2015, across 29 Indian states. Its breadth of coverage
is one of the data set’s strengths, as it represents people of
varying ages across states (Mukhopadhyay 2016). Primarily,
the survey measures trends and market developments in digital
financial services, based on the first and second surveys
conducted in 2013 and 2014, respectively. It used a multistage,
stratified, clustered, and randomised sampling methodology,
which generated a proportional distribution of samples across
all Indian states, based on the 2011 Census of India. The data
were collected through face-to-face interviews with individuals,
each lasting an average of 49 minutes. The collected data set
contained information on basic demographics, household
characteristics, and access to and use of mobile devices, mobile
money, formal financial ser vices, financial literacy, and other
general financial behaviour.
august 10, 2019 vol lIV no 32 EPW Economic & Political Weekly
 SPECIAL ARTICLE

For our analysis, we have selected a part of the data set received SMS or MMS, opted for caller tunes, and took photos.
containing the variables of interest (see the next section for However, they did not perform any activities that required
details) and we recoded them to simplify the analysis. A internet access. Group 3—social users—includes those who
description of the recoded variables and a statistical summary made internet searches or used social media applications to
of the data set is provided in Table 1. The acquired data set gather information and interact with other users. Respondents
includes both, mobile phone users and non-users. This study who used Facebook, WhatsApp, or Twitter on their phones
only considers respondents with access to mobile phones. were categorised in Group 3. Finally, Group 4—advanced
Hence, the subsample included 37,672 respondents, of whom users—are those who used their phones for mobile banking, to
42.7% were male and 57.3% were female. download songs, and to perform other advanced operations.
The higher order groups also used the features used by the
Dependent variables: The data set obtained describes mobile lower order groups. Thus, Group 4 members use advanced
phone usage behaviour along with demographics and related features like mobile banking, along with some or all of the
information. The data includes information on the different features used by Groups 1, 2 and 3.
features that individuals use such as making and receiving
phone calls, sending text messages, browsing the internet, and Independent variables: Existing literature on the digital divide
using social networking sites. Respondents were asked whether notes that users’ abilities affect the digital divide on different
they had used any of these features in the recent past. Based levels. For instance, studies show that socio-demographic factors
on the respondents’ reported use of features, we categorised like age, income, education, and area of residence influence
them into four groups, in line with the proposed framework. the digital divide (Chen 2013; Hsieh et al 2011; Boase 2010;
These four feature-use categories are the dependent variables. Goldfarb and Prince 2008; Rice and Katz 2003). Similarly, we
Group 1—basic users—are those who either made or received believe that these variables might also affect the feature-use
calls in the past three months and did not perform any other divide. Hence, the first set of independent variables for this
mobile phone operations. Group 2—general users—are analysis includes demographic variables such as age, area of
those who, apart from making and receiving calls, also sent or residence, education, and occupation/work. Earlier studies on
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics and Variables gender have shown inconsistent out-
Variable Description Categories Number Average Min Max comes with regard to the effect of gender
Gender Gender Male 16,094 on the digital divide. While some studies
Female 21,578 show that men are more likely to adopt
Age Years 38 15 100
ICTs than women (Hoffman et al 2006;
Area Area of residence Rural 25,856
Meneses and Mominó 2010), others find
Urban 11,816
that these effects disappear once other
Education Highest level of Illiterate/no formal education 8,791
education Schooling until Class 8 14,289 variables like age or income are controlled
Classes 8 to 12 10,944 for (LaRose et al 2007; Rice and Katz
Diploma (no graduation) 817 2003). These mixed findings prompted
Graduate and above 2,831 us to consider the gender of respond-
Work Primary job (that is, the Full-time worker 6,246 ents as an important independent vari-
job where you spend Working part-time 6,086 able to study its impact on the feature-
most of your time) Self-employed 5,026
use divide.
Housewife 14,487
Mobile phone ownership—the number
Student 3,474
of mobiles in a household—affects
Not working 2,353
Ownership Owns mobile phone Yes 23,509
the computer self-efficacy of individuals
No 14,163 (Wei et al 2011). Studies show that own-
Num of Mob Number of mobile 1 0 10 ing mobile phones enhances individuals’
phones in household self-efficacy. In contrast, the number of
Need_Asst Needs assistance use Yes 11,906 phones in a household indicates access
the phone No 25,766
to phones and the availability of resources.
Eng_prof English proficiency None at all 19,724
Thus, we have considered access to mobile
Very bad 5,152
Somewhat bad 5,583
phones and resource availability as in-
Good 5,290 dependent variables. Given that most
Excellent 1,923 features on mobile phones use English
Bank_Ac Holds bank account Yes 25,857 (Prakash 2016b), users’ proficiency in the
No 11,815 language plays a major role in their use
Groups User groups based on Basic 23,182 of various applications. Similarly, users’
(dependent the mobile phone use General 11,205
ability to operate phones independently
variable) Social 2,736
Advanced 549 is a direct measure of their self-efficacy,
Source: Authors' calculation. and vice versa (Marakas et al 1998).
Economic & Political Weekly EPW august 10, 2019 vol lIV no 32 63
SPECIAL ARTICLE

Thus, we consider English proficiency and users’ ability to to test for the multicollinearity of categorical variables. There
operate phones independently as the other set of independent is no significant correlation among the variables.
variables in the feature-use divide analysis. Finally, another For the multinomial logistic regression analysis, we used
variable we have considered is bank account ownership. We the “mlogit” package available in the R software. The results
considered this variable because individuals with bank ac- of the regression (equation 1) are provided in Table 2. Since
counts are more motivated to use advanced features like mobile the multinomial logistic regression is functionally similar to
banking and e-commerce applications. These variables and the logistic regression, to interpret the coefficient we calcu-
the descriptive statistics are available in Table 1. lated the odds ratio. Considering the log-likelihood ratio
(ChiSquare value) and the significant p-value, the model is
Analysis method and model: The present study attempts to statistically acceptable. For a multinomial logistic regression,
predict the likelihood of users being categorised in the four McFadden’s Pseudo R2 of 0.16 is regarded as an acceptable fit
feature-use groups, based on their demographics and other (McFadden 1977).
characteristics. As the dependent variable has multiple cate- On analysing the data in the table, we find that gender is
gories, we use a multinomial logistic regression to analyse highly significant in predicting the likelihood of group mem-
the data. The multinomial logistic regression is an extension bership. Compared to women, men have significantly higher
of logistic regression and is employed when the dependent chances of being in Group 2 as compared to Group 1, that is,
variable is nominal and contains more than two categories. the odds ratio indicates that for every three men in Group 2,
This regression predicts the probability of a given member two women are likely to be in Group 2. The disparity is even
belonging to a category of the dependent variable (Stark- higher between men and women in Groups 3 and 4. Consider-
weather and Moske 2011). Independent variables can either be ing the odds ratio, for every four men in Group 3, there are two
dichotomous (that is, binary) or continuous (that is, interval or women. This clearly indicates that as the complexity of appli-
ratio in scale). To examine the feature-use divide, we concep- cations and the internet access requirement increases from
tualised the following model. Groups 1 to 4, the feature-use divide increases between male
Equation 1: Regression Model for Feature-use Divide and female users. The results indicate that women are more
α + β1 Gender + β2 Age + β3 Eng_prof + β4 Education likely to only use the voice call feature as compared to men,
when controlling for other factors. Similarly, the pattern
Groups = +β5 Ownership +β6 Work+β7 NumOfMob+β Need_asst
8 repeats for the rural and urban divide. The area of residence
+ β9 Area + β10 Bank_ Ac + ε variable is significant and the odds ratios are greater than one.
Before running the multinomial logistic regression model, we The results suggest that people living in urban areas have a
winsorised the age factor—the only ratio scale variable—to higher chance of being in Group 2 compared to people living in
three standard deviations to minimise the effect of outliers. rural areas. The likelihood of belonging to Groups 3 and 4 is
Appendix 1 (p 67) presents the matrix for Spearman’s correlation, even higher for urban as compared to rural residents, as the
Table 2: Output of the Multinomial Logistic Regression
Group 2 Group 3 Group 4
Parameters β Odds Ratio Pr(>|t|) p β Odds Ratio Pr(>|t|) p β Odds Ratio Pr(>|t|) p
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)
(intercept) -1.084 0.338 0.000 *** -5.728 0.003 0.000 *** -7.965 0.000 0.000 ***
Gender 1 (male) 0.437 1.548 0.000 *** 0.852 2.345 0.000 *** 0.994 2.701 0.000 ***
Education2 -0.228 0.796 0.000 *** 0.254 1.289 0.161 -0.462 0.630 0.158
Education3 -0.065 0.937 0.123 0.973 2.645 0.000 *** -0.021 0.979 0.947
Education4 0.180 1.198 0.076 . 1.678 5.353 0.000 *** 0.857 2.355 0.017 *
Education5 0.329 1.390 0.000 *** 1.651 5.212 0.000 *** 0.951 2.588 0.005 **
Work2 0.022 1.022 0.608 -0.248 0.781 0.007 ** -0.327 0.721 0.067 .
Work3 0.471 1.602 0.000 *** -0.008 0.992 0.924 -0.317 0.729 0.056 .
Work4 0.353 1.424 0.000 *** -0.314 0.731 0.001 *** -0.400 0.670 0.024 *
Work5 0.411 1.508 0.000 *** 0.097 1.101 0.253 -0.041 0.960 0.778
Work6 0.070 1.073 0.235 -0.398 0.672 0.000 *** -0.570 0.566 0.003 **
NumOfMob 0.018 1.019 0.189 0.441 1.554 0.000 *** 0.457 1.579 0.000 ***
Need_Asst1 (Need _Asst = Yes) -0.024 0.976 0.360 0.196 1.217 0.000 *** 0.303 1.355 0.001 **
Bank_Ac1 (Bank_Ac = Yes) 0.237 1.268 0.000 *** 0.292 1.339 0.000 *** 0.453 1.574 0.000 ***
Eng_prof 0.119 1.126 0.000 *** 0.536 1.709 0.000 *** 0.658 1.930 0.000 ***
Age -0.016 0.984 0.000 *** -0.061 0.941 0.000 *** -0.052 0.949 0.000 ***
Area1 (urban) 0.125 1.134 0.000 *** 0.805 2.237 0.000 *** 1.186 3.274 0.000 ***
Ownership1 (ownership = Yes) 0.257 1.293 0.000 *** 1.773 5.890 0.000 *** 2.083 8.027 0.000 ***
Significance (p)codes:0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1.
Log-likelihood: -29,011.
McFadden R 2:0.15513.
Likelihood ratio test: chisquare = 10,655 (p-value = < 2.22e-16).
Source: Authors' calculation.

64 august 10, 2019 vol lIV no 32 EPW Economic & Political Weekly

odds ratio is significantly greater than one. For every rural
resident in Group 3, there are two urban residents, and for
every rural resident in Group 4 there are three urban residents.
These results indicate the existing feature-use divide between
urban and rural residents—the divide is smallest in Group 1
and highest in Group 4.
Consistent with existing studies (Niehaves and Plattfraut
2014; Lam and Lee 2006), the analysis suggests that age is an
important variable in determining the extent of the digital
divide. With an increase in age, self-efficacy in the use of
digital devices decreases. The results for age are reported in
Table 1. The results indicate that a unit increase in age reduces
the chances of respondents belonging to Group 2 as compared
to Group 1. Similarly, the results show that respondents’
likelihood of belonging to Groups 3 and 4 reduce even further
with age. Thus, the feature-use divide increases with an
increase in age differences among individuals.
Contrary to our expectations, education and occupation do
not significantly affect the feature-use divide. Although
higher educational attainment was expected to significantly
reduce the feature-use divide, its significance is limited to a
p-value of 0.017. Occupation does not significantly affect the
feature-use divide, indicating the ubiquitous nature of
mobile phones.
Two interesting results emerged regarding proficiency in
English and mobile phone ownership, both of which affect the
feature-use divide. Given that most applications on mobile
phones, and the majority of content on the internet, are avail-
able in English, proficiency in the language becomes impor-
tant. Hence, consistent with expectations, the results suggest
that a person more proficient in English is more likely to be in
Groups 3 or 4, as compared to people with lower proficiencies.
Similarly, owning mobile phones might increase people’s self-
efficacy, as it may motivate them to try new and more
applications. The results indicate that people who own mobile
phones are significantly more likely to be in the advanced
feature-use category (Group 4), as compared to people who do
not own mobile phones. Thus, mobile phone ownership can
assist in bridging the feature-use divide.
Other variables considered in the study were the number of
mobile phones in households and people’s dependency on
others to use mobile phones. We found that these variables
were not significant predictors of membership in Group 2, but
were highly significant for Groups 3 and 4, as compared to
Group 1. This indicates that when there are more mobile
phones in households and more family members using phones,
it leads to vicarious learning (Wei et al 2011) that helps the
focal people learn to operate more complex applications. Indi-
vidual independence in terms of operating mobile phones is
significant, as people who can operate mobile phones
independently are more likely to be in Groups 3 or 4, as com-
pared to those who need assistance to use phones.
Finally, the holding a bank account variable is also signi-
ficant and has an odds ratio greater than one. This indicates
that compared to Group 1, having a bank account increases the
chances of people belonging to advanced feature-use groups
Economic & Political Weekly EPW august 10, 2019 vol lIV no 32
SPECIAL ARTICLE
(Groups 2, 3 and 4), as compared to those who do not hold
bank accounts.
The following sections discuss the implications on research
and policy suggestions in light of our findings.
Discussion and Policy Implications
The Prime Minister, at the Digital India dinner, 2015, declared,
“We have attacked poverty by using the power of networks
and mobile phones to launch a new era of empowerment and
inclusion” (Press Information Bureau 2015a).
The Prime Minister’s words echo the strong supposition of
the government that the digitisation of welfare services can
improve their reach among the poor and marginalised, and,
particularly, that mobile phones and the internet can help to
elevate the quality of life of the marginalised. Thus, services,
such as e-government, financial inclusion, direct benefit tra-
nsfer, and mobile money, are centred on digital technologies.
However, this study reveals that mobile phone usage is not
uniform, and, thus, the disparity among users can constrain
the government in achieving the desired outcomes. The study
provides evidence of the differences in feature use between
individual mobile phone users based on different socio-
demographics characteristics, such as gender, age, place of
residence, and education. Thus, to achieve more inclusive
governance, the government needs a deeper understanding
of the digital divide among mobile phone and internet users.
Without such an understanding of the digital divide, the
efforts of the government to empower marginalised sections
of society will not materialise as expected. This paper
attempts to enhance our understanding of the digital divide
in terms of feature use.
Mannathukkaren (2015) argues that development aimed at
the marginalised and impoverished by simply providing them
the mobile and internet services to access government services
is just “dilution,” as they have not caught up with technological
advancements. Observing the widespread presence of mobile
phones but not development, Prakash (2016a) claims that the
features and facilities that the government offers in the form
of digital services are accessible only to certain sections of so-
ciety. Anecdotal evidence shows that the demonetisation of
2016 did not affect many urban residents, especially since they
tend to shop using credit/debit cards and use app-based taxi
services. However, people residing in villages—who buy gro-
ceries from pushcarts, travel by autorickshaw, and use their
phones just to make calls—suffered as a result of this monetary
upheaval (Prakash 2016b). The results of this study demon-
strate a disparity among users belonging to different feature-
use categories, based on their socio-demographic profiles. This
following section focuses on the implications of our findings
for public policy design.
Gender inequality is a grave concern in India, which ranked
125 out of 159 countries on the Gender Inequality Index (GII) in
2015 (HDR 2016). This is apparent in the use of mobile phone
features. Women are adversely affected by the feature-use
divide and primarily use basic features like voice calls. Thus,
government policies should encourage or incentivise women to
65
SPECIAL ARTICLE

utilise more advanced applications. Anecdotal evidence shows Our analysis suggests that people who own mobile phones
that encouraging women to use ICTs can be advantageous, as utilise more features than those who borrow phones from
they provide women with opportunities to upgrade their others. Owning mobile phones allows people to experiment
learning and self-employment prospects (Viswanath 2017). with services and try new features.
Government initiatives such as the Pradhan Mantri Gramin Policy interventions targeting weaker sections of society,
Digital Saksharta Abhiyan (launched in 2017), which intends such as Digital India and the drive for cashless transactions,
to educate citizens to use digital technologies, must focus on rely on internet-dependent mobile phone features. This paper
educating women more effectively. reveals that most marginalised respondents tend to use mobile
Even though internet connectivity is rapidly expanding, driven phones only for voice calls (Tables 1 and 2). This means that
mainly by mobile data plans, the growth is seemingly inequita- the intended beneficiaries are the least capable of using the
ble between urban and rural regions. According to the Telecom features through which services are delivered, which might
Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), by the end of 2016, 61.9% reinforce or even worsen inequality.
of people in urban India and only 13.7% of those in rural India While digitisation has its benefits, the use of mobile
had internet subscriptions (Krishnan 2017). The disparity phones to deliver government services must consider the
between rural and urban residents indicates a digital divide. socio -economic barriers that restrict ordinary citizens
Our findings reconfirm this feature-use divide. To make Digital from gaining access to these services. The major barriers to
India services accessible to rural residents, there must be a gaining access are the affordability of advanced technolo-
strong focus on building better network infrastructure in rural gies and the lack of digital education. Programmes like the
areas and making mobile internet connections affordable. National Digital Literacy Mission should incorporate feature
BharatNet, an ambitious project of Digital India, aimed at literacy to overcome the divide. A good example is the
establishing network infrastructure in rural India, envisaged decision to use voice-based interventions in the Jaankari
equipping one lakh gram panchayats with broadband connecti- (information) Project of Bihar, which allows illiterate
vity by March 2017 (BBNL 2016). However, as of March 2019, people to register right to information (RTI) applications via
43,179 gram panchayats have been connected, of which only mobile phones.
12,740 were operational (BBNL 2019).
Another significant factor affecting the digital divide is Conclusions
literacy, particularly English proficiency. Much of the content Considering the significance of mobile phones in developing
on the internet is in non-Indian languages. This results in the countries, this paper attempts to enhance our understanding
consumption of digital technologies being highly skewed to- of the digital divide. It demonstrates that people with access
wards those fluent in English. Rural residents who rely on to technology may not be able to use all its features equitably.
vernacular languages are limited to making voice calls and This study develops a framework to disaggregate the features
consuming audiovisual entertainment available on the inter- into four categories—basic, general, social, and advanced.
net. Though efforts are being made to translate applications Then, using large-scale survey data, the study reveals the
available in English to local languages, developers usually existing disparity among Indian mobile phone users—the
assume that applications specifically intended for marginal- feature-use divide. This is an exploratory study that utilises
ised users need not be appealing and user-friendly (Prakash secondary survey data that was originally collected for a
2016b). This results in low-quality and low-cost applications different purpose. The major limiting factor of the study
for rural residents. To overcome such disparities, developers was that the secondary data did not capture factors such as
should design applications with an understanding of the ca- income, which might impact the feature-use divide. Hence,
pabilities and needs of consumers. future research should consider a large-scale study focused
Finally, owning mobile phones is a major factor that can on the feature-use divide, which may uncover more explana-
reduce the feature-use divide across the different age groups. tory variables.
References Communication of the ACM, Vol 52, No 4, DiMaggio, P and B Bonikowski (2008): “Make
Agence France-Presse (2012): “Revealed! Difference pp 132–35. Money Surfing the Web? The Impact of Internet
between Mobile Phone, Feature Phone and Boase, J (2010): “The Consequences of Personal Use on the Earnings of US Workers,” American
Smartphone,” Hindustan Times, 26 July, http: Networks for Internet Use in Rural Areas,” Sociological Review, Vol 73, No 2, pp 227–50.
//www.hindustantimes.com/gadgets/revealed- American Behavioral Scientist, Vol 53, No 9, Donner, J (2006): “The Use of Mobile Phones by
difference-between-mobile-phone-feature- pp 1257–67. Microentrepreneurs in Kigali, Rwanda: Changes
phone-and-smartphone/story-g9oSjD3Lqce25d- to Social and Business Networks,” Information
Chen, W (2013): “The Implications of Social Capital
8MaU2BzI.html. Technologies & International Development,
for the Digital Divides in America,” The Infor- Vol 3, No 2, p 3.
Akhter, S (2003): “Digital Divide and Purchase
mation Society, Vol 29, No 1, pp 13–25.
Intention: Why Demographic Psychology Donner, J, S Gitau and G Marsden (2011): “Exploring
Matters,” Journal of Economic Psychology, Chigona, W, D Beukes, J Vally and M Tanner Mobile-Only Internet Use: Results of a Training
Vol 24, No 3, pp 321–27. (2009): “Can Mobile Internet Help Alleviate Study in Urban South Africa,” International
BBNL (2016): “BharatNet,” Vikashpedia, http://vi- Social Exclusion in Developing Countries?,” Journal of Communication, Vol 5, pp 574–97.
kaspedia.in/e-governance/digital-india/natio- The Electronic Journal of Information Systems Euromonitor (2017): “Mobile Phones in India:
nal-optical-fibre-network-nofn. in Developing Countries, Vol 36, No 7, pp 1–16. Country Report,” Euromonitor International,
— (2019): “Status of Bharatnet,” http://bbnl.nic. Dewan, S and F J Riggins (2005): “The Digital Di- https://www.portal.euromonitor.com/portal/
in/usage2.pdf. vide: Current and Future Research Directions,” analysis/tab.
Bélanger, Fand L Carter (2009): “The Impact of Journal of the Association for Infor mation Sys- Goldfarb, A and J Prince (2008): “Internet
the Digital Divide on E-Government Use,” tems, Vol 6, No 12, p 13. Adoption and Usage Patterns are Different: Im-

66 august 10, 2019 vol lIV no 32 EPW Economic & Political Weekly

plications for the Digital Divide,” Infor mation
Economics and Policy, Vol 20, No 1,
pp 2–15.
Hargittai, E (2002): “Second-level Digital Divide:
Differences in People’s Online Skills,” First
Monday, Vol 7, No 4.
HDR (2016): “Human Development Report: Human
Development for Everyone,” document, UNDP,
http://hdr.undp.org/sites/all/themes/hdr_
theme/country-notes/IND.pdf.
Hoffman, D L, T P Novak and A Schlosser (2006):
“The Evolution of the Digital Divide: How
Gaps in Internet Access May Impact Electronic
Commerce,” Journal of Computer-mediated
Communication, Vol 5, No 3.
Hsieh, J J P-A, A Rai and M Keil (2011): “Addressing
Digital Inequality for the Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged through Government Initia-
tives: Forms of Capital that Affect ICT Utili-
sation,” Information Systems Research, Vol 22,
No 2, pp 233–53.
InterMedia (2016): “The Financial Inclusion Insights
Program,” http://finclusion.org/.
Jasperson, J S, P E Carter and R W Zmud (2005): “A
Comprehensive Conceptualisation of Post
Adoptive Behaviours Associated with Infor-
mation Technology Enabled Work Sys-
tems,” MIS Quarterly, Vol 29, No 3, pp 525–57.
Krishnan, Aarati (2017): “How Many Indians Have
Internet?,” Hindu, 26 March, http://www.the
hindu.com/business/how-many-indians-have-
internet/article17668272.ece.
Lam, J C Y and M K O Lee (2006): “Digital Inclu-
siveness—Longitudinal Study of Internet
Adoption by Older Adults,” Journal of Manage-
ment Information Systems, Vol 22, No 4,
pp 177–206.
LaRose, R et al (2007): “Closing the Rural Broad-
band Gap: Promoting Adoption of the Internet
in Rural America,” Telecommunications, Vol 31,
Nos 6 –7, pp 359–73.
Lindsay, C D (2005): “Employability, Services for
Unemployed Job Seekers and the Digital
Divide,” Urban Studies, Vol 42, No 2, pp 325–39.
Mannathukkaren, Nissim (2015): “The Grand
Delusion of Digital India,” Hindu, 6 October,
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/
the-grand-delusion-of-digital-india/arti-
cle7727159.ece.
Marakas, G M, Mun Y Yi and Richard D Johnson
(1998): “The Multilevel and Multifaceted Char-
acter of Computer Self-Efficacy: Toward Clari-
fication of the Construct and an Integrative
Framework for Research,” Infor mation Systems
Research, Vol 9, No 2, pp 126–63.
McFadden, D (1977): “Quantitative Methods for
Analysing Travel Behaviour of Individuals:
Appendix 1: Spearman’s Correlation Table
1 2
1 Gender
2 Education -0.20
3 Work 0.37 0.09
4 NumOfMob -0.05 0.36
5 Ownership 0.30 -0.32
6 Need_Asst 0.16 -0.21
7 Bank_Ac 0.12 -0.15
8 Eng_prof -0.15 0.70
9 Age -0.07 -0.32
10 Area 0.01 0.22
11 Group -0.16 0.29
Economic & Political Weekly EPW august 10, 2019
Some Recent Developments,” Cowles Foun-
dation Discussion, 474, New Haven, CT: Yale
University.
Meneses, Julio and Joseph Maria Mominó (2010):
“Putting Digital Literacyin Practice: How
Schools Contribute to Digital Inclusion in the
Network Society,” The Information Society,
Vol 26, No 3, pp 197–208.
Mukhopadhyay, J P (2016): “Financial Inclusion in
India: A Demand-Side Approach,” Economic &
Political Weekly, Vol 51, No 49, pp 46–54.
Neeraj, M (2016): “Mobile Internet Users in India
2016: 371 Mn by June, 76% Growth in 2015,”
Dazeinfo, 8 February, https://dazeinfo.com/
2016/02/08/mobile-internet-users-in-india-
2016-smartphone-adoption-2015/.
Niehaves, B and R Plattfaut (2014): “Internet
Adoption by the Elderly: Employing IS Tech-
nology Acceptance Theories for Understand-
ing the Age-related Digital Divide,” European
Journal of Information System, Vol 23, No 6,
pp 708–26.
OECD (2001): Understanding the Digital Divide,
Paris: OECD Publications, https://www.oecd.
org/sti/1888451.pdf.
O’Riain, S (2004): The Politics of High Tech Growth:
Developmental Network States in the Global
Economy, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Pearce, K E and R E Rice (2013): “Digital Divides
from Access to Activities: Comparing Mobile
and Personal Computer Internet Users,” Journal
of Communication, Vol 63, No 4, pp 721–44.
Prakash, Amit (2016a): “Enabling Human Capacity
in ICT Development Programmes,” Deccan
Herald, 9 July, http://www.deccanherald.com
/content/556767/enabling-human-capacity-
ict-development.html.
— (2016b): “Design Logic in Digital, Less-cash
Age Needs Reality Check,” Deccan Herald,
12 December, http://www.deccanherald.com/
content/586119/design-logic-digital-less-cash.
html.
Press Information Bureau (2015a): “Text of Speech
by Prime Minister at the Digital India Dinner
26 September 2015, San Jose, California,” Gov-
ernment of India, Prime Minister’s Office,
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.
aspx?relid=128215.
— (2015b): “Prime Minister Modi at Digital India
Dinner: We Will Make Governance More
Accountable and Transparent.”
Reinartz, A (2016): “Digital Inequality and the Use
of Information Communication Technology,”
Doctoral Thesis, Universität Passau, https://
opus4.kobv.de/opus4-uni-passau/frontdoor/
index/index/docId/365.
3 4 5 6
0.09
0.18 -0.35
0.05 -0.09 0.22
0.11 -0.11 0.17 0.04
0.12 0.36 -0.28 -0.18
-0.21 -0.08 0.04 0.14
0.07 0.26 -0.15 -0.06
0.03 0.22 -0.20 -0.10
vol lIV no 32
SPECIAL ARTICLE
Rice, R E and J E Katz (2003): “Comparing
Internet and Mobile Phone Usage: Digital
Divides of Usage, Adoption and Dropouts,”
Telecommunications Policy, Vol 27, Nos 8–9,
pp 597–623.
Selwyn, N (2004): “Reconsidering Political and
Popular Understandings of the Digital Divide,”
New Media & Society, Vol 6, No 3, pp 341–62.
Sharma, U (2003): Women Empowerment through
Information Technology, Delhi: Aut hors Press.
Singh, Simran (2012): “Difference between Smart-
phones and Feature Phones,” The Gadget Square,
12 November, http://the gadgetsquare.com/
958/difference-between-smartphones-and-
feature-phones/.
Starkweather, Jon and Amanda Kay Moske (2011):
“Multinomial Logistic Regression,” https://it.
unt.edu/sites/default/files/mlr_ jds_aug2011.
pdf.
Statista (2017): “Number of Apps Available in
Leading App Stores 2017,” Statista, https://
www.statista.com/statistics/276623/number-
of-apps-available-in-leading-app-stores/.
Steinmueller, W E (2001): “ICTs and the Possi-
bilities for Leapfrogging by Developing Coun-
tries,” International Labour Review, Vol 140,
No 2, pp 193–210.
TRAI (2017): “Highlights of Telecom Subscription
Data as on 31 December, 2016,” TRAI Press
Release No 12/2017, http://www.trai.gov.in/
sites/default/files/Press_Release_11_17_Feb_
2017_Eng_0.pdf.
van Deursen, A J A M and J van Dijk (2010): “Inter-
net Skills and the Digital Divide,” New Media &
Society, Vol 13, No 6, pp 893–911.
Van, Dijk, J A (2005): The Deepening Divide:
Inequality in the Information Society, India:
Sage Publications.
— (2012): The Evolution of the Digital Divide: The
Digital Divide Turns to Inequality of Skills and
Usage, Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Viswanath, Vanita (2017): “A Digital Literacy Initia-
tive Is Helping Improve the Lives of Women in
Uttar Pradesh’s Villages,” Firstpost, 6 February,
http://www.firstpost.com/living/a-digital-
literacy-initiative-is-helping-improve-the-
lives-of-women-in-uttar-pradeshs-villag-
es-3362176.html.
Waverman, L, M Meschi and M Fuss (2005): “The
Impact of Telecoms on Economic Growth in
Developing Countries,” The Vodafone Policy
Paper Series, Vol 2, No 3, pp 10–24.
Wei, K K, H H Teo, H C Chan and B C Tan (2011):
“Conceptualising and Testinga Social Cog-
nitive Model of the Digital Divide,” Information
Systems Research, Vol 22, No 1, pp 170–87.
7 8 9 10
-0.14
-0.19 -0.27
-0.05 0.25 -0.01
-0.09 0.32 -0.20 0.15
67