See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/319588474

Digital Divide(s)

Chapter · February 2015

DOI: 10.1002/9781118767771.wbiedcs012

CITATIONS READS
2 3,179

1 author:

Martin Hilbert
University of California, Davis
80 PUBLICATIONS   4,069 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Social media and Elections View project

entropy: Special Issue "Information Theory for Human and Social Processes" View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Martin Hilbert on 10 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Digital Divide(s)
MARTIN HILBERT
University of California, Davis, US
The Digital Divide’s Intellectual and Social
Context
The importance of inequality in the diffusion
of digital ICT (information and communica-
tion technology) stems from the fact that these
technologies are a paradigm provoking “general
purpose technologies,” which impacts on all
kinds of social, economic, political, and cultural
dynamics. The analysis of digital divide falls into
the broader group of the study of the diffusion
of innovations (Rogers, 2003). No innovation
invades society in a uniform and immediate
fashion. Innovations diffuse through social net-
works over time, which inevitably creates a divide
between the different actors of the given social
network. The result of the implied network effects
is an S-shaped diffusion curve that leads from
fast exponential growth of technology adoption
among innovators and early adopters, over an
inflection point when the early and late majorities
are reached, to slower growth during the stages of
saturation. Several theoretical models have been
proposed to explain the nature of this S-shaped
curve, including network and epidemic models
(which place (the lack of) information about
the new technology at the center of analysis);
probit-rank approaches (which focus on the char-
acteristics of the adopters); population ecological
models (which focus on density dependence);
and combinations thereof. To explain why some
agents adopt innovations faster than others, a
variety of supply- and demand-side variables can
be used. Supply-side variables put emphasis on
the characteristics of the innovation, such as the
prevailing market structure, price and trade dif-
ferences, regulation, competition, and switching
costs; while demand-side variables underline the
characteristics of the adopters of the innovation,
such as the sociodemographic characteristics
The International Encyclopedia of Digital Communication and Society, First Edition.
Edited by Robin Mansell and Peng Hwa Ang.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118290743/wbiedcs012
of the agents (e.g., income, education, age, and
geographic location), social-level characteristics
(e.g., the number of previous adopters and net-
work effects), and organizational and strategic
practices that provide complementarities.
Major Dimensions of the Demand Side
of the Digital Divide
Demand-side research on the digital divide can be
grouped into four different areas (Hilbert, 2011a).
Who are the subjects in the social
network?
ICTs diffuse through some kind of social network
and this social context can be examined at dif-
ferent levels of fine-graining such as individuals,
organizations, enterprises, schools, or countries.
A frequently made distinction refers to the divide
between societies (the so-called international or
global digital divide) and within societies (the
domestic digital divide) (Norris, 2001). In the
former case, the subjects of analysis are countries;
in the latter, some other form of smaller-scale
agents within a country. This distinction can
be justified by the fact that the country is a
natural unit of political, economic, social, and
cultural union. From a theoretical perspective,
however, these are just two of many possible
levels of fine-graining on which to set the lenses
of analysis. Some researchers compare regions of
countries (e.g., Asia vs. Africa); others, regions
within countries (e.g., urban vs. rural); while still
others compare all kinds of organizational enti-
ties (e.g., businesses, hospitals, municipalities)
or individuals. Each offers a different analytical
perspective on distinct forms of complementary
digital divides.
Which are the characteristics of the
selected subjects?
Perhaps the largest body of literature on the
digital divide focuses on the identification of
2 D I G I TA L D I V I D E ( S )
the determinants of the divide such as income,
education, age, geographic location, etc. These
are the conceptual attributes that describe the
subjects that constitute the social network (the
“nodes” of the network) (Hilbert, 2011a). Most
investigations use some kind of statistical anal-
ysis that links independent demographic and
socioeconomic variable(s) with ICT-related vari-
able(s) (e.g., Katz & Rice, 2002). The urban–rural
distinction traditionally has been used as one
of the main attributes of analysis (NTIA, 1995).
Income and education, but also age, have also
been shown to have quite strong independent
correlations with ICT access and use. The correla-
tion with education and income can be read both
ways since these variables, as well as others, foster
ICT adoption and vice versa. Correlations with
other variables such as sex and gender have been
questioned as explanatory variables, since studies
have identified them as confounding variables
leading to spurious correlations. The fact that
fewer women use ICT than men stems from the
fact that women are discriminated against in
terms of income, education, and employment,
which may be the sources of diminished ICT
usage (independent of the sex or gender of the
user) (Hilbert, 2011b).
The characterization of the connected subjects
also suggests its negative complement, which
sheds light on the question of why some people
do not connect. In this case, the attribute that is
analyzed does not have to be socioeconomic or
demographic, but might be an attitude or opin-
ion. While cost and access prices are often cited
hindrances in developing countries (which are
supply-side variables), these considerations have
less importance in more developed countries
where users frequently state that they simply have
no interest in, see no usefulness for, or are con-
fused by the technology (WIP, 2012). A certain
level of self-reinforcing digital self-efficacy has
been detected, whereas the belief in one’s capa-
bilities and the usefulness of digital interaction
has been found to grow with prior experience,
outcome expectancies, and the increased use of
digital tools.
What kind of technology is considered?
Until the late 1980s, much of the ICT landscape
consisted of analog storage and computational
devices and fixed line telephones (with only 20%
of the latter digitized globally). Over the next
decade, the introduction of a myriad of digital
ICTs changed this scenario, such that, by 2007,
99.9% of global network traffic was digitized
(Hilbert, 2013). This leads to the question of
which technology to measure in order to track
the divide: fixed lines, mobile phones, narrow
or broadband internet, or, for instance, digital
television. Some studies evaluate a mix of tech-
nologies using ICT indices. The widely cited ICT
Development Index (IDI) of the United Nations
International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
includes a weighted mix of (1) fixed-telephone
subscriptions, (2) mobile cellular telephone sub-
scriptions, (3) international internet bandwidth
per internet user, (4) percentage of households
with a computer, (5) percentage of households
with internet access, (6) fixed (wired) broadband
subscriptions, and (7) active mobile broadband
(ITU, 2012). The subjectivity of this approach
stems from the fact that each of these technolo-
gies has to be assigned a specific weight that
prescribes its importance in the final mix/index.
ITU’s IDI, for example, assigns a larger weight
to the last two variables of the above list (broad-
band) than to the first five variables. This is not
without criticism. An evaluation of different
ICT indices reconfirmed the observation that
the weight of each ingredient predetermines the
resulting average score and the final result to a
large extent. Some studies employ expert opin-
ion or statistical methods to tackle the widely
acknowledged problem of subjectivity in the cre-
ation of such indices. These approaches attempt to
be more objective, but pass the responsibility for
achieving this to the methodological level (based
on expert sampling and the chosen clustering
technique).
In the light of this challenge, other studies
suggest the unification of the tracking of a diverse
set of ICT by focusing on the underlying variable
that describes the informational performance
of these technologies, measured in bits (or one
of its equivalent on the kilo-, mega-, or giga-
scale) (Hilbert, 2013). As such, the “bit becomes
a unifying variable enabling comparisons and
aggregations across different kinds of commu-
nication technologies” (ITU, 2012, p. 182). The
analysis of telecommunication capacity in terms
of kilobits per second also leads to rather different
 D I G I TA L D I V I D E ( S )
results than the tracking of devices, since different
devices can have vastly different informational
performances. It turns out that the digital divide
measured in terms of telecommunication devices
is rapidly closing, especially considering that
9 out of 10 people worldwide have access to a
mobile phone (ITU, 2012). While this led to the
indisputable fact that everybody is better off in
absolute terms, some are much better off than
others and, since inequality is a relative, not an
absolute, measure, inequality in terms of digital
communication capacity (in data speed and
traffic) actually increased during the mid-2000s:
while the average inhabitant of the developed
world experienced some 40 kbps greater data
speed than the average inhabitant in developing
countries in 2001, this gap grew to over 3 mbps
per capita in 2010 (Hilbert, 2013).
How sophisticated is the connectivity?
In his classical treatment of the diffusion of
innovations, Rogers (2003) distinguished among
five stages of adoption: (i) initial exposure to an
innovation; (ii) persuasion and the development
of a positive or negative attitude; (iii) decision to
access or reject the innovation (this is the stage
that is often measured in contemporary ICT
statistics); (iv) implementation and actual usage;
and (v) confirmation of its utility to continue
and improve. This last step implies that the user
is not only using the innovation effectively, but
has started to internalize its benefits and mold
it according to particular needs. It is common
practice among researchers (Katz & Rice, 2002)
and practitioners (OECD, 2001) to simplify these
five stages, and to focus mainly on the last three,
distinguishing among: (1) mere access to the
technology; (2) effective usage of the technology;
and (3) social integration and tangible impact of
the technology.
Cross-country research shows that the charac-
teristics and challenges differ when focusing on
mere access, on usage, or on perceived impact
(WIP, 2012). The classification of usage tradition-
ally follows different levels of intensity (number
of hours or frequency of usage) or characteristic
of content (such as communicating, informing,
playing, and buying). It has been found that the
step from access to some kind of more sophis-
ticated usage to some kind of impact requires
3
complementary factors which include skills and
capabilities, cultural attitudes, strategic choices,
the institutional environment, and social reor-
ganization, among others (Hargittai, 2002; Van
Dijk, 2005). Thus, “this focus on social inclusion
shifts the discussion of the ‘digital divide’ from
gaps to be overcome by providing equipment to
social development challenges to be addressed
through the effective integration of technology
into communities, institutions, and societies”
(Warschauer, 2004, p. 268). The analysis of
impact has led to the demolition of some persis-
tent myths. For example, it has been shown that,
on average, active ICT usage leads to intensified
social relations with family and friends, and not
to general social alienation through some sort of
virtual isolation (WIP, 2012).
Major Dimensions of the Supply Side
of the Digital Divide
On the supply side of the digital divide, research
builds on the literature concerning industrial
organization and market regulation. Much anal-
ysis centers on the structure and functionality of
the respective technology markets that provide
ICTs, especially telecommunications, computer
hardware, and software. Telecommunications
markets have several particularities such as high
fixed costs and large economies of scale which
complicate the roll-out of networks in regions
where a critical mass of users is missing, such
as in rural areas. The analysis of the supply of
hardware focuses on user friendliness and often
on the cost of technology. It has been shown that
in developing regions, ICTs have taken on the
economic characteristics of a so-called “necessity
good” rather than a “luxury good.” This suggests
that people now consider a certain minimum of
ICT as a basic necessity and will spend as much
of their available disposable income as they can
to achieve this minimum connectivity (identified
as being roughly an average of US$10 per person
per month in Latin America based on national
household and income and expenditure surveys
(Hilbert, 2011a, p. 724)). Since 50% of the world
population lives on less than US$75 per month
(PPP), ICTs are a basic necessity that cannot be
satisfied for many since few can afford to spend
more than 10% of their income on ICTs.
4 D I G I TA L D I V I D E ( S )
Strategies to drive down costs and prices may
include more efficient regulation of the relevant
markets (e.g., through increased competition),
the provision of low-cost ICTs such as low-
cost computers and laptops in schools, as well
as the provision of public ICT access centers.
With regard to software, the discussion of cost,
user-friendliness, adaptability, and inclusion cen-
ters on far-reaching issues such as open source
software, content regulation, and open content.
The policy-relevant discussion on the digital
divide has historical roots in the expansion of
the fixed-line telephone network. The installation
of public telephone booths at the beginning of
the 1900s aimed at bridging the emerging divide
between those who were increasingly connected
to the incipient global communication infrastruc-
ture and those who were excluded. A conceptual
distinction emerged between so-called “universal
access” (where everyone has access to some kind
of communication network facility, which might
be through a public payphone or telecentres) and
“universal service” (where everyone maintains
individualized communications services, e.g. in
households). This discussion promoted some of
the most powerful policy instruments still in place
to fight the digital divide: universal service funds.
These were financed initially by sector-specific
taxes collected from telecommunications opera-
tors that were then used to invest in infrastructure
and to foster the installation of public payphone
booths. Many countries continue to maintain
public access funds through the collection of a
certain percentage of telecommunications service
revenues, and some are using these funds for
fixed-line expansion and to subsidize the financ-
ing of the modern ICT landscape including fiber
optic backbones, mobile broadband expansion,
and community telecentres.
Digital Divide(s) – Trends over Time
and Outlook
The digital age initially was characterized by a
dichotomy between those who assumed it to be
inherently decentralizing, globalizing, harmo-
nizing, and empowering and those who coined
the term “digital divide.” Interpreting the nature
and severity of the divide, several stylized schools
of thought can be distinguished (Yu, 2006). One
contends that existing disparities in ICT access
and usage are the normal and unavoidable result
of the diffusion of innovations and are main-
tained by market forces. This group of scholars
(e.g., Compaine, 2001) argues that the divide
will naturally decline since ICT producers will
undoubtedly seek to expand their markets and
eventually find solutions to bring ICT products
and services to everyone. This group sees neither
urgency nor a necessity for public or government
intervention in this process. Another school of
thought (e.g., OECD, 2001) contends that the dig-
ital divide is real and persistent and that it is one
of the most acute developmental problems among
and within societies. This group agrees with the
first group about the importance of market forces
in eliminating the digital divide, but proposes
active public policy intervention such as promo-
tion of competition, copyright management, tax
and tariff incentives, the development of tech-
nology parks, and international aid. A further
group of scholars is mainly informed by ethical,
sociocultural, and political economy considera-
tions. They are critical of the notion of a discourse
on digital opportunity without addressing the
larger challenges of social, political, and cultural
issues associated with inequality. In their more
moderate version, these authors argue that the
divide is social, not technological, in nature
(e.g., Warschauer, 2004; Van Dijk, 2005). A more
extreme version of this school of thought is
against activities or policies that create “hype”
about the digital divide, contending that it dis-
tracts government attention from more pressing
matters, leads to the misuse of public resources,
and simply increases technological dependence.
This group sees a threat in the ongoing expansion
of ICTs and argues, among other things, that the
uneven global playing field will lead to a digital
heritage characterized by an ongoing trend that
promotes the commercial imperative and disre-
gards cultural heritage and traditional knowledge
(Yu, 2006).
Over the years both utopian claims and dystopic
warnings have given way to more nuanced and
circumscribed understandings of the ambiguous
mix of effects of ICTs on social inequality. The
emerging consensus among scholars is a mix of
these stylized schools of thought. The impressive
success of mobile telephony is just one example
that has shown that private markets have an
 D I G I TA L D I V I D E ( S )
unpredictable potential to diffuse technology.
The mobile phone can be considered to be the
fastest diffusing technology in human history,
having reached 9 out of 10 people worldwide in
less than two decades. This has provided impor-
tant leapfrogging benefits for many, especially in
the least developed countries.
The continuous evolution of ICT has shown, at
the same time, that the digital divide is a moving
target. Despite remarkable progress in absolute
terms, different segments move at different speeds
on the collective wave of technological change.
The result is the epitome of what economists call
the notorious “red queen effect” (which refers
to the Red Queen in Alice’s Wonderland, who
explains that one has to constantly run simply
to stay in the same place). If one wants to catch
up with incessant technological progress, it is
necessary to run even faster, or to leapfrog certain
stages. This implies that everyone’s advancement
in absolute terms is not automatically accompa-
nied by equality in relative terms. The empirical
evidence suggests that inequality in terms of
technological devices has been monotonically
decreasing over recent decades (everyone has
more technological devices), but that inequal-
ity in terms of communication capacity is not
(compared to an historical rather egalitarian
landscape, today some have much more telecom-
munication capacity than others) (Hilbert, 2013).
Rapid and continuing technological change
in ICTs replicates the digital divide in ongo-
ing structural characteristics of societies which
open up with each innovation. Once everyone
is equipped with top-notch smartphones and
fiber-optic connections – the technological fron-
tier in 2014 – others will have holograms and
brain–computer interfaces, or some other kind of
as yet unpredictable product of the ceaseless cre-
ative destruction that accompanies technological
innovation.
This implies that the digital divide will never
be “closed” but that, in some cases, it may be
“bridged,” which implies a relative, not an abso-
lute conceptualization of the divide. For example,
almost 150 years after the invention of the mod-
ern automobile, not everyone in the world has a
state-of-the-art car. However, over time, a mix of
private sector innovation and public intervention
has yielded numerous solutions to provide a
certain level of minimum access to the benefits
5
of the motorized transport revolution for nearly
everyone, including the introduction of motor-
cycles and scooters, and heavily subsidized sys-
tems of public transportation (which are key
means of transportation for large segments of
today’s population in developing countries). It is
expected that the digital revolution will follow
a route similar to the revolution in motorized
transport, with the difference being that the
solutions provided by private sector innovation
and public intervention to access inequalities are
still in the process of social creation. At the end,
constant technological progress also requires
constant adjustment with regard to current tech-
nological frontiers. This distance is relative, not
absolute. Similar to the constant updating of
public transport systems, the minimally accept-
able level of connectivity will constantly evolve.
The “bridge” over the digital divide represents
the current socially acceptable distance to the
ever-moving technological frontier.
It is commonly accepted, furthermore, that the
digital divide is not only socially embedded but
goes beyond the assessment of the technological
aspects. On the one hand, this makes it part of
a larger socioeconomic, political, and cultural
framework that may be more or less egalitarian,
more or less public, more or less collective, more
or less capitalistic, and more or less commercial.
These aspects frame and give rise to specific
digital dynamics. On the other hand, ICTs are
often considered merely to be tools to selected
ends. The issue of ICT inequality inevitably raises
an underlying question of “for what?” Any dis-
cussion of inequality in access and use of the tool
can be meaningful only when considered in the
context of a specific end (Hilbert, 2011a). ICT
can be put to a myriad of ends. Establishing a
policy for fighting the digital divide and creating
digital opportunities for children will be different
than doing the same for women, for democratic
participation, for health benefits, or for small and
medium-sized enterprises. In each instance, a
different combination of issues is raised around
the question of who, with which attributes, con-
nects how to what kind of ICT. There is, therefore,
no single outlook on or solution to the digital
divide.
In summary, the emerging consensus among
scholars is, first, that the digital divide is here
to stay since it reopens with each new digital
6 D I G I TA L D I V I D E ( S )
innovation, and has joined the list of perma-
nent structural social characteristics of today’s
societies. If it cannot be “closed,” it will constantly
have to be “bridged.” This calls for the establish-
ment of enduring and sustainable institutional
mechanisms that can constantly react to the
ever-changing nature of the digital divide. Sec-
ond, the divide is social and the complementary
nature of ICTs requires a policy framework that
goes beyond the installation of technological
infrastructure. Finally, the key question of how to
address the digital divide is closely related with
the question of what specific benefit is expected
with ICTs. Only with the answer to this question
in mind can the digital divide meaningfully be
bridged in a way that leads to real-world positive
impact. This requires a decentralized approach
that works with tailor-made solutions for specific
challenges, but also to create cross-thematic
synergies in the manifold challenges posed by the
digital divide(s).
SEE ALSO: Geographical Information Sys-
tems in the Global South; ICT4D; ICT4D and
e-Business; ICT4D and Mobile Communication;
ICT4D, Monitoring and Evaluation of; ICT4D
and Participatory Design; ICT4D and Sustain-
ability; ICT, the Environment, and Climate
Change; ICT and Gender; Mobile Money; Online
Labor and Business Outsourcing; Open Content
References
Compaine, B. M. (2001). The digital divide: Facing a cri-
sis or creating a myth? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hargittai, E. (2002). Second-level digital divide:
Differences in people’s online skills. First Mon-
day, 7(4). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.
org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/
viewArticle/942/864
Hilbert, M. (2011a). The end justifies the defi-
nition: The manifold outlooks on the digital
divide and their practical usefulness for policy-
making. Telecommunications Policy, 35(8), 715–736.
doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2011.06.012
Hilbert, M. (2011b). Digital gender divide or techno-
logically empowered women in developing coun-
tries? A typical case of lies, damned lies, and statis-
tics. Women’s Studies International Forum, 34(6),
479–489. doi:16/j.wsif.2011.07.001
Hilbert, M. (2013). Technological information inequal-
ity as an incessantly moving target: The redistribution
of information and communication capacities
between 1986 and 2010. Journal of the Association for
Information Science and Technology, 65(4), 821–835.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.
23020/abstract
ITU (2012). Measuring the information society 2012.
Geneva, Switzerland: International Telecommuni-
cation Union, ITU-D. Retrieved from http://www.
itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/idi/material/2012/
MIS2012_without_Annex_4.pdf
Katz, J. E., & Rice, R. E. (2002). Social consequences
of internet use: Access, involvement, and interaction.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, infor-
mation poverty, and the internet worldwide. Cam-
bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
NTIA (1995). Falling through the net: A survey of
the “have nots” in rural and urban America. Wash-
ington: National Telecommunications and Informa-
tion Administration, US Department of Commerce.
Retrieved from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/
fallingthru.html
OECD (2001). Understanding the digital divide
(OECD Digital Economy Papers). Paris, France:
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development, Directorate for Science, Technology
and Industry. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/
dataoecd/38/57/1888451.pdf
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.).
New York, NY: Free Press.
Van Dijk, J. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in
the information society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and social inclusion:
Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
WIP (2012). World internet international report 2012.
USC Annenberg School Center for the Digital
Future. Retrieved from www.worldinternetproject.
net
Yu, L. (2006). Understanding information inequal-
ity: Making sense of the literature of the infor-
mation and digital divides. Journal of Librari-
anship and Information Science, 38(4), 229–252.
doi:10.1177/0961000606070600
Martin Hilbert pursues a multidisciplinary
approach to understanding the role of infor-
mation, communication, and knowledge in the
development of complex social systems. He holds
doctorates in communication, and in economics
and social sciences, and has been an Economic
 D I G I TA L D I V I D E ( S ) 7

Affairs Officer of the UN Secretariat for 15 years.
His has published in the academic journals
Science, Psychological Bulletin, and World Devel-
opment, and has featured in popular magazines
such as Scientific American, The Economist, WSJ,
Wired, Washington Post, and BBC, among others.
He has provided technical assistance to heads
of state, legislators, diplomats, companies, and
NGOs in more than 20 countries.

View publication stats