Technology in Society 64 (2021) 101452

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technology in Society
journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/techsoc

The digital divide and its impact on the development of

Mediterranean countries
Miguel Ángel Pérez-Castro a, Miriem Mohamed-Maslouhi b, Miguel Ángel Montero-Alonso c, *
a
Department of Applied Economy, University of Granada, Spain, c/Santander, 1 (University Campus in Melilla), 52071, Melilla, Spain
b
University of Granada, c/Santander, 1 (University Campus in Melilla), 52071, Melilla, Spain
c
Department of Statistics and Operational Research, University of Granada, Spain, c/ Santander, 1 (University Campus in Melilla), 52071, Melilla, Spain

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The dramatic increase in communications, trade interaction and interdependence has made it necessary to
HDI implement new metrics to compare the development rate of nations and their economies. There is much research
IDI that analyses the impact of information and communication technology on human development. These studies
ICT
have analyzed and compared human development indicators (HDI) and information and communication tech­
Development
Mediterranean countries
nology (ICT) development index (IDI) from various geographical areas or on a randomized basis. There is much
Globalization research that analyses the impact of IDI on HDI. This study wants to analyze the economic and digital divide
between the countries that make up a region whose economic and cultural relation have a long historical
tradition. For this purpose, we chose the countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea, since, in addition to these
traditional relations, there are recent Euro-Mediterranean association agreements between the European Union
and the countries of North Africa and the Middle East, whose objective, among others, is scientific, technical and
technological collaboration. The potential relationship between the HDI and the HDI is to be known and whether
it can improve the way different countries assess their level of development. The descriptive analysis of the HDI
and IDI behavior shows us that human and technological development was progressing with average growth
rates of 23% and 2.5%, respectively. Differences between countries also narrowed further in HDI, with a decrease
of 7.4%, compared with a 5.2% decrease in IDI. When the conversion was done to the same scale, there was an
average difference of 0.2 points between the two index values. Consequently, the Mediterranean countries
studied were closer to achieving a rapprochement in human development than in technological development.
This study can be used as a tool by policymakers, especially in developing countries, to reinforce their intentions
to support the use and implementation of ICT.

1. Introduction development, the focus is now on socio-economic development. Since

Countries are often compared and classified in terms of their devel­
opment, based on their gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, growth
rates, industrial importance, etc. Such studies often compare developing
“third-world” countries to developed “first-world” countries [1]. The
status and development of countries generally used economic criteria
whose growth depends significantly on technological advances. Such
criteria are regarded by politicians, economists, international agencies,
and the media as the leading indicators of a nation’s health and eco­
nomic well-being. In 1990, the United Nations Development Program
(UNDP) defined a new model to evaluate people’s capabilities instead of
the economic resources in a territory [2]. Instead of economic
this evaluation model is based on humans and their capabilities, it em­
phasizes the importance of well-being (e.g., a decent living standard)
over means (e.g., income per capita). The goal is for human development
to be ultimately more equitable and sustainable. Apart from the annual
report of the UNDP, numerous studies have analyzed HDI concerning
different aspects and issues.
Based on theories proposed by Haq [3] and Nobel-Prize winner, Sen
[4], this new model associates social well-being with people and their
capabilities instead of with their satisfaction. In other words, the op­
portunities provided to citizens measure a country’s development
instead of the activities they engage in [5]. This idea is behind HDI,
which, thanks to the simplicity of its indicators, is applicable to all

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: pcastro@ugr.es (M.Á. Pérez-Castro), miriamz@correo.ugr.es (M. Mohamed-Maslouhi), mmontero@ugr.es (M.Á. Montero-Alonso).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101452
Received 23 December 2019; Received in revised form 20 August 2020; Accepted 5 November 2020
Available online 17 November 2020
0160-791X/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.Á. Pérez-Castro et al.
countries and regions. This theory has made it a handy research tool.
The HDI is composed of the following key dimensions of human devel­
opment: (i) health dimension; (ii) education dimension; (iii) economic
dimension. The health dimension focuses on whether a population has a
long and healthy life. Education signifies their being knowledgeable,
and the economic dimension is directly related to their ability to lead a
decent human life. The resulting indicator is the average value of these
three parameters [2].
Since society is in constant evolution, the measurement of human
development should be modified accordingly. The United Nations (UN)
is aware of this and envisages the possibility of incorporating more
variables into HDI. For this reason, it has created complementary in­
dexes that provide deeper insights, such as the Gender Development
Index (GDI) and the Human Poverty Index (HPI), among others [6]. The
modified Human Development Index (MHDI) measures the effects of
human development in different countries. This index includes social
variables, such as the adult literacy rate, education level, health effects,
civil rights, etc. [7]. However, due to its simplicity, it remains the most
critical indicator in the world for measuring the development of soci­
eties and making a comparison between countries. It is clear that tech­
nological advances allow greater depth in the analyses, but this indicator
remains useful. For example, it serves to study the progress of the Sus­
tainable Development Goals (SDGs) for 2015–2030. More specifically,
about no poverty (goal 1), improving health and well-being (goal 3),
quality education (goal 4), economic growth (goal 8), and reducing in­
equalities (goal 10).
Regarding the concept of ICT within the context of development [8],
affirms that ICT includes all technologies that facilitate different forms
of communication, and the handling of information between humans
and electronic systems. Soeftestad and Sein [9] summarize the different
conceptualizations of ICT discussed in Ref. [10]. For example, ICT can be
regarded as any of the following: (i) algorithms, codes, and models that
comprise an information system; (ii) a technical entity and a means to
achieve something; and (iii) specific social and cultural contexts per­
formed in activities and interactions. The definition of the term “ICT’,
which [11] has agreed upon with numerous definitions introduced by
researchers of the matter, can be considered reasonable. ICT is “Tech­
nological devices (hardware and software) that allow you to edit, pro­
duce, store, exchange, and transmit data between different information
systems that have common protocols. These applications, which inte­
grate computer, telecommunications, and networking, enable both
interpersonal communication and collaboration (person-to-person) and
multidirectional (one-to-many or many-to-many). These tools play a
substantive role in the generation, exchange, dissemination, manage­
ment and access to knowledge”.
Interestingly [9], ask if it is possible to prevent the use of ICT from
perpetuating existing economic and social imbalances. They also
mention the debate on the Appropriate Technology (AT) and Indigenous
Knowledge movements (IK) as part of the answer to this question. They
conclude that the emphasis should be on how ICT is used and that ICT
use should be assessed in terms of human development factors. In this
same line, Blunt and Warren [12] affirm that IK systems constitute a
bridge to mutual understanding and communication between the local
communities and development professionals.
Some authors [13–15] specifically mention ICT, such as the use of
computers and the Internet for educational purposes. These tools open
the door to pedagogical and didactic activities based on the incorpora­
tion of ICT as part of the classroom routine. Notwithstanding, even
though the use of such tools leads to the greater involvement of both
students and teachers in-class activities, it does not necessarily improve
the learning process or guarantee equal access to the use of technology
[16].
Other authors [17,18] found that in certain countries, the mere
presence of computers were insufficient to modify the structure of
practice classes. Even though the format changed, the teaching contents
remained the same.
Technology in Society 64 (2021) 101452
In this sense, the Internet, mobile telephones, computers, and ad­
vances in engineering and biotechnology have significantly impact most
fields. Over the last 20 years, cultural and social paradigms have been
significantly modified. This new panorama is opposed to former ones
because of the exponential growth of technology. Data transmission,
reception, and processing, which play a crucial role in today’s society,
occur in real-time [17]. For this reason, this period has been called the
“Third Industrial Revolution” for the enormous impact of technological
advances on all spheres of society [19].
Many studies have related ICT to the country’s education level and
its economic progress [20–26]. Other research affirms that bridging the
digital divide is not only a question of technology, and many barriers
that must be overcome are educational, cultural, and linguistic [27].
Evidently, without an educated population, high-capacity Internet in
itself cannot transform society. Education is a thus crucial factor in so­
cial development [28]. From a somewhat different perspective, Mam­
tani et al. [29] affirm that migrant workers negatively affect the
educational dimension of the HDI because these workers tend to have
fewer years of schooling and a lower education level than other sectors
of the population. Mohamed-Mimon et al. [30] evaluated how ICT led to
better teaching in field outings.
Differences in countries’ capacity to use ICT will determine patterns
of global development and poverty in the 21st century. The 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development explicitly recognizes the potential
of ICT to facilitate global interconnectedness and accelerate human
development. The emergence of the global marketplace now requires all
countries to be technologically connected and harnessed together as a
tool for human development [31–34]. The International Telecommu­
nications Union (ITU) [35] performed case studies in various countries.
It measured the impact of ICT on the gross national product (GNP) as
well as on economic growth, and [36] also studied the ratio between the
cost of Internet access and the GNP per capita in Organization for Eco­
nomic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries.
Various indexes have been used to measure the impact of ICT on
socio-economic development. Some of these indexes coincide with each
other even though they base their evaluations on rather different
criteria. Those that collect data from many different countries and are
used throughout the world are the following: (i) ICT Development Index
(IDI); (ii) E-government Development Index (EGDI); (iii) Networked
Readiness Index (NRI); (iv) Global Competitiveness Index (GCI); (v)
Technology Achievement Index (TAI); (vi) Digitalization Index (DI); and
(vii) Global Innovation Index (GII).
The United Nations International Telecommunication Union pub­
lished IDI and is based on 11 ICT indicators grouped in three clusters:
access, use, and skills. The E-Government Development Index (EGDI) is
presented twice a year by the United Nations Department of Economic
and Social Affairs (UNDESA). It is a composite indicator with three in­
dexes (online service index, telecommunication index, and human
capital index), which measure the use of ICT to provide public services
to citizens, depending on the state of e-government readiness and the
extent of e-participation.
NRI published by the World Economic Forum (WEF), measures
countries propensity to exploit the opportunities offered by ICT, and it
on base a list of 68 analytical variables. Its components are the envi­
ronment for ICT (market, infrastructure, and regulatory) and the prep­
aration of the country’s key stakeholders.
GCI, also published by the WEF since 2005, assesses the ability of
countries to provide levels of prosperity to their population, mainly
through excellent public and private institutions, a stable macroeco­
nomic framework, sufficient infrastructure, and good healthcare and
primary education.
TAI reflects the capacity of a country to participate in the network
age. TAI assessment is based on a single composite measure. In contrast,
IDI is a composite index based on six equally-weighted components:
infrastructure investment, network access, accessibility, capacity, usage,
and human capital, all of which mark the path towards a digital society.