Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101226

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Internet adoption and usage patterns in rural Mexico

Marlen Martínez-Domínguez a, Jorge Mora-Rivera b, *
a
Conacyt-Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social, Pacífico Sur., Sierra Nevada 347 Col. Loma Linda, Oaxaca, C. P. 68024, Oaxaca,
Mexico
b
Tecnologico de Monterrey, Campus Ciudad de Mexico, Calle del Puente 222 Col. Ejidos de Huipulco, Tlalpan, C.P. 14380, Mexico City, Mexico

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

Keywords: The aim of this paper is to identify the socioeconomic and demographic factors that stimulate Internet adoption
Digital divide and use among Mexico’s rural population. Using an econometric model to deal with potential selection bias
Internet problems, and information from Mexico’s National Survey on Availability and Use of Information Technologies
Rural areas
in Households (ENDUTIH), our results suggest that the probability of using the Internet is higher for people who
Mexico
have digital skills and for women. Internet usage patterns differ by age, educational level, employment type, and
geographic location. Young people are more likely to take part in online activities for entertainment purposes,
while people of working age go online for information, communication, and e-commerce-related activities. These
findings provide evidence on the existing digital divide in terms of Internet penetration and usage in Mexico’s
rural sector, which is in the early stages of Internet diffusion.

1. Introduction discourage market participants from investing in telecommunications

Increasingly, the Internet is used in every sphere of society as it
comprises a development tool that strengthens the new modes of social
and commercial interaction and provides wider access to a diversity of
formal and informal learning opportunities [1–4]. In 2017, the esti­
mated Internet usage rate for the American continent was 65.9%,
compared to 79.6% in Europe [5]. Moreover, between 2005 and 2016,
the gap of Internet use narrowed in South America and Mexico [6];
Mexico’s telecommunications sector, however, has developed slowly,
with penetration rates lower than regional averages, in spite of the
liberalization process that began in the sector in the 1990s [5].
Most South American users (Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, Brazil, and
Colombia) have a broadband connection at home, while Internet speeds
in Mexico remain slow [7]. Regarding Internet access, Mexico’s rural
areas continue to be at a digital disadvantage.1 According to figures from
the National Survey on Availability and Use of Information Technologies
in Households (ENDUTIH, Spanish acronym), in 2017, the rate of
Internet adoption in Mexico’s rural areas was 39.2%, in comparison with
71.2% in urban areas [16].2 These percentages show the existing divide
in digital connectivity in rural areas, due in part to low population
densities and the greater distances that must be covered: aspects that
infrastructure [9]. Internet access, however, does not imply usage. For
the Internet to generate expected benefits, people must use it effectively
and efficiently [3,10].
The aim of this study is to analyze Internet diffusion in Mexico’s rural
sector from the perspective of demand by identifying the socioeconomic
and demographic determinants for Internet access, adoption, and usage
patterns, as well as to identify whether these factors match those
observed in previous studies in developing countries. To reach this
objective, we use data from the 2017 ENDUTIH survey and implement
an econometric model that considers the selectivity inherent in the type
of individual decisions made by Internet consumers. Some research on
Internet diffusion from a perspective of demand have been previously
documented, including recent studies by Manlove and Whitacre [2]; and
Quaglione et al. [11].
This article contributes to the debate on the digital divide in the rural
areas of developing countries, fundamentally in three aspects. In the first
place, studies that address the rural digital gap are limited, since the
phenomenon is believed to occur basically in urban areas. In addition,
such studies focus primarily on countries in South America, Africa, and
Asia [9,12,13]. In the case of Mexico, existing literature is practically
nonexistent (an exception are the articles by Refs. [14,15], although

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: marlenmartinez7@gmail.com (M. Martínez-Domínguez), jjmora@tec.mx (J. Mora-Rivera).
1
In this study, Internet access and usage refer to the presence of a fixed and/or mobile connection in the home.
2
The percentage of mobile telephone users in the urban sector was 77.7%, while the corresponding percentage in the rural sector was 53.8% [16].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101226
Received 28 June 2019; Received in revised form 9 October 2019; Accepted 4 December 2019
Available online 9 December 2019
0160-791X/© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M. Martínez-Domínguez and J. Mora-Rivera
23% of Mexico’s population lives in rural areas, along with 20% of the
employed population [8]. Mexico is an interesting country for studying
the digital divide because its telecommunications sector was highly
concentrated until 2013; the result was low levels of competition and
Internet penetration. In addition, Mexico has diverse geographical
conditions and extremely variable population densities, especially in
rural communities [17–19]. Therefore, the current article can be
considered as a pioneer for Mexico’s case; its results contribute unpub­
lished evidence of the factors that influence the use and appropriation of
the Internet in Mexico and in rural areas with similar characteristics in
other countries.
In the second place, having microeconomic information of the type
used in this research, permits clear visualization of the digital divide as
an additional form of inequality that permeates rural economies. The
digital divide adds to the economic, social, and political inequalities that
weigh on rural dwellers and limit their social mobility, and could
contribute to decreased levels of well-being. In third place, this study
provides solid empirical evidence for designing public policies aimed at
increasing the benefits derived from the adequate, efficient handling of
information technologies (including the Internet), which are presum­
ably ever more available in the rural areas of developing countries.
Currently, around 27 million people live in rural Mexico, making it
an ideal setting to analyze Internet diffusion and the digital divide.
According to the Mexican census [8], 23% of Mexico’s population lives
in rural areas, and the remaining percentage in urban areas. In terms of
socioeconomic characteristics, data from the 2016 National Households
Income and Expenditure Survey (ENIGH) indicate that the current
average quarterly income in urban areas was double that of rural areas
(52,215 and 26,004 Mexican pesos, respectively) [20]. Estimates from
the National Council for the Evaluation of Social Development Policy
(CONEVAL) show that 58.2% of rural dwellers lived in poverty in 2016
[21].
Moreover, Mexico’s telecommunications sector is less developed
than that of other Latin American countries, since the entire sector was
concentrated in a single company (Am�erica Mo �vil with Telmex and
Telcel) until 2013.3 According to research by Ovando and Olivera [17];
and Ayala et al. [18]; the market’s concentration in a single dominant
firm, high connection costs, and weak regulating agencies explain why
the cell phone subscription rate in Mexico (88.51%) is below America’s
average (114%)4: In 2017, the landline subscription rate was very low
(15.95%), as was the Internet penetration rate (63.9%) [22]. Likewise,
the network connection price (wired and wireless) remains high. Thus,
around 50% of households do not have home access to this service and
instead use the Internet at work or at an Internet caf� e [16].
According to statistics from The Global Information Report
2009–2010 and 2016 for Mexico [23,24], in 2016 the rate of broadband
Internet subscriptions was 10.5%, while the Networked Readiness
Index—which evaluates the development of the information and com­
munications technology (ICT) sector—showed a slight increase, rising
from 3.61 in 2009 to 4.0 in 2016 (on a scale of 1–7). In 2017, the per­
centage of Internet users within this population and the proportion of
households with a network connection was 44.4% and 34.4%, respec­
tively [24].
Mexico’s rural sector, like other rural regions in developing coun­
tries, has experienced a slow Internet diffusion process.5 To analyze this
process in detail, it is essential to have access to information such as that
3
In June 2013, a regulatory reform was passed to encourage competition in
this sector, reduce the prices of land and mobile phone services, and increase
the coverage and penetration of these services [18].
4
This figure suggests that there are 114 mobile telephone subscriptions for
every 100 people.
5
The digital divide is very evident in developing countries, where urban
dwellers are more likely to have a broadband connection than rural dwellers
[89].
2
Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101226
contained in the ENDUTIH, a representative survey in a rural setting
with data that allow us to determine the profile of Internet users and
define various Internet usage patterns [16].
Several studies argue that disparities in Internet use can be attributed
to differences in age, gender, educational level, and digital skills [25,
26]. According to De la Selva [27]; the digital divide is an expression of
twenty-first century inequalities. Other authors, such as Scheerder et al.
[28] and Selwyn [29]; suggest that the digital divide plays a significant
role in the reinforcement of existing social inequalities.
The results of the study in Mexico’s rural sector show that women
and individuals with higher educational levels have a greater probability
of going online. Internet use is higher for young people and individuals
with digital skills and computer literacy. Internet usage patterns vary by
age, educational level, and geographic location. Individuals with post-
primary education go online for activities such as information
searches, while young people are more likely to use the Internet for
entertainment. Our results suggest the need to favor digital connectivity
in rural areas; yet it is essential to train users, so that they can enhance
their online experience and improve the beneficial outcomes derived
from more productive and efficient Internet usage.
The next section introduces the theoretical approach behind this
research. The determinants of new rurality, the digital divide, and
Internet access and use are established in the literature review. Section
three describes the ENDUTIH survey along with the variables used for
the econometric models. Section four includes the results for Internet
access, use, and usage patterns in rural Mexico. Lastly, the conclusions
and political implications are presented.
2. Theoretical and conceptual perspectives
This section outlines the theoretical framework supporting this
study. Its objective is to emphasize the key elements associated with the
role of information technologies as an essential part of rural develop­
ment. The new rurality allows us to visualize the rural sector as a space
made up of multiple and unique characteristics, among which the digital
divide appears as a new expression of its characteristic inequalities. In
addition, a literature review that compares the differences in Internet
access and use in developing and developed countries is presented.
2.1. The new rurality
In Latin America, rural societies and economies have undergone
structural changes arising from globalization and the implementation of
liberal policies, which in turn have caused increasing levels of economic
inequality and poverty [30–32]. These transformations have led to the
development of the new rurality as a novel approach that allows us to
analyze more thoroughly the development of rural economies [33,34].
This approach recognizes the pluractivity of rural areas; that is, it em­
phasizes the multifunctional role of rural spaces due to the growing
relevance of non-agricultural activities (industry, commerce, and ser­
vices), as well as the nexus between rural-urban and local-global di­
mensions [32,35].
Among the trends considered in this new rurality is the incorporation
and use of ICTs as a key element of change in country life [36]. Proof of
this is how, thanks to the use of the Internet and modern means of
transportation, the rural sector has become more connected to urban
areas, allowing the transition from the agricultural sector to other sec­
tors [9].
Regarding digital connectivity, rural areas have fewer providers,
higher costs, and slower Internet diffusion [10,12], as well as limited
infrastructure compared to urban areas. This makes rural regions less
attractive markets due to the high costs involved when covering greater
distances [37,38], something that consequently creates major disad­
vantages for rural dwellers who cannot access the benefits of ICT
products and services [12].
M. Martínez-Domínguez and J. Mora-Rivera
2.2. The digital divide
The term “digital divide” originated during the 1990s in the United
States and quickly became a topic of interest as the use and penetration
of ICTs spread [39–41]. Since then, the concept has evolved, generating
more complex conceptualizations that now include indicators of use and
access to ICTs [29,42].
Three levels can be discerned within the understandings of this
concept. The first alludes to the inequality among those who have ma­
terial access to ICTs and those who do not. This level refers to both
infrastructure and the availability of goods and services associated with
ICTs. Initially, the determining factors at this level were considered to be
on the supply side [29,40], but recent studies have revealed that access
is influenced by other socioeconomic factors such as income,
geographical location, educational level, age, and digital skills [28,43,
44]. Research on this category shows that Internet penetration is un­
equal among individuals with different sociodemographic characteris­
tics such as those listed above [42,45].
The second level is linked to both the use and skills needed for the
efficient use of ICTs [46,47]. Studies focusing on this level have explored
the types of activities that people perform online and the skills needed
for this purpose [48,49]. Regarding Internet use, Van Deursen and Van
Dijk [49] mention the need to acquire new skills when going online due
to the enormous amount of data and people’s growing dependency on
the exploration of this information.
Lastly, the third-level digital divide consists of using the Internet to
obtain a specific benefit; therefore, insufficient skills hinder the effi­
ciency to perform certain online tasks [28,50]. Research dealing with
this category has studied individuals who benefit from Internet use in
terms of a wide range of offline outcomes [48,51]. According to Van
Deursen and Helsper [50]; the ability to turn ICT usage into tangible
outcomes depends on the individual’s operational, Internet browsing,
and social and creative skills.
Additionally, current studies provide further details on the differ­
ences in Internet use. These works are based on the assumption that
some activities are more beneficial to Internet users as they offer, for
example, more opportunities and resources to improve their education,
employment, professional life, and social position, compared to activ­
ities that offer only consumption or entertainment benefits [46,49].
According to Hargittai and Hinnant [52]; and DiMaggio et al. [53];
analyzing Internet usage provides greater insight into the differences in
equipment, uses, skills, and purposes for which the Internet is employed.
2.3. Literature review: from internet access to internet use
Research addressing Internet access and use focuses on both devel­
oped and developing countries. In the case of Latin America, some au­
thors indicate that the digital gap is present and can be identified
through an analysis of groups and individuals, whether segmented by
age [54], gender [55], or vulnerability, such as the elderly or native
speakers of indigenous languages [56]. The first two studies emphasize
that the digital gap persists in the analyzed groups and that doing online
activities depends on the specific characteristics of each group; they
conclude that public policies must be implemented to promote Internet
access and use among those individuals who are the most excluded, such
as women. Employing information from Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico,
and Peru; Galperin [56] states that the barriers to adopting Internet are
associated with high costs, the limited availability of services, and the
lack of digital skills.
Furthermore, a group of researchers has recently begun to explore
the differences in Internet penetration rates in poor and rich countries
[57–63]. These studies highlight that when considering supply and de­
mand perspectives, the main factors that explain Internet access are
related to income, educational level, infrastructure, and level of
competition among service providers. Based on OECD data from 60
countries, and a focus on supply perspective, Kiiski and Pohjola [63]
3
Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101226
found that income, land telephone costs, and years of schooling are the
main factors that determine online access. From the same perspective,
Chinn and Fairlie [61] use more recent data with similar results: The
divide between developed and developing countries is related to in­
come, telephone density, and legal and institutional environment. Other
studies with the same perspective mention that the availability of
Internet infrastructure in rural areas is at an incipient stage, due pri­
marily to low population density and high network costs [12,64,65].
From the demand side, income disparities within a country prevent
Internet diffusion [60]. Furthermore, Dohse and Cheng [57] consider
geographic location, which is particularly important when analyzing the
distribution of the digital divide. This finding can be explained as the
result of a lack of telecommunications infrastructure in rural and remote
areas.6 Some studies have centered on the decision to have an Internet
connection at home, a factor that shows a positive correlation with in­
come, educational level, and the presence of children at home [66,67].
Another set of studies has focused on identifying the determinants of
Internet uses [68–70]. These studies show that socioeconomic factors
such as age, income, and educational level influence the decision to use
the Internet, but they do not influence the activities that users conduct
online. Internet usage patterns like communication, entertainment, so­
cial networks, and e-commerce can be largely explained as dependent on
digital skills [71].
Literature focusing on countries in the Latin American region is less
extensive [13,15,72,73] and [74,75]. Regarding Internet diffusion,
Grazzi and Vergara [74] found that, in addition to the traditional so­
cioeconomic factors that determine Internet access, network effects also
play a central role as does the presence of students in the household.
Guti�errez and Gamboa [75] identified that the most significant limita­
tion for Internet usage in low-income populations in Colombia, Mexico,
and Peru, is lack of education. In another study, Grazzi and Vergara [73]
analyzed the effects of language on Internet use in Paraguayan house­
holds, and their results suggest that the Guaraní language is a cultural
barrier for ICT diffusion in the country. Using data from 2005, 2008,
2011, and 2013, Nishijima et al. [72] explored the evolution of the
digital divide in Brazil and found that the factors that foster Internet
usage are linked to a higher level of education, income, employment,
and number of household members.
In their analysis of 22 communities in Chile, Correa et al. [13] found
that age, income, social capital, and the presence of children at home
explain the level of Internet usage. In Mexico’s case, few studies have
addressed the digital divide in urban and rural contexts by using mi­
croeconomic data [14]. A recent study by Martínez-Domínguez [15]
identified the determinants of Internet access and use at the national
level. Yet this research focuses only on general Internet usage, and does
not investigate the types of uses (communication, entertainment, social
networks, e-commerce, and e-government). The latter task has become
central to achieving the study objective. Therefore, in distinguishing
among types of Internet usage, the goal is to broaden and deepen
knowledge of Internet access, use, and usage patterns among Internet
users in Mexico’s rural sector, which presumably is in the early stages of
Internet diffusion.
3. Data and methodology
3.1. Data description
Data used in this study was collected from the ENDUTIH 2017 sur­
vey,7 which was conducted throughout Mexico during the second
6
[90] reveal that Internet use is influenced by the geographic location, in
addition to social, economic, governmental, and social openness factors.
7
Since 2017, the sampling design of ENDUTIH has been probabilistic.
Therefore, the results can be generalized in the following domains: nation,
state, urban setting, rural setting, and city.
M. Martínez-Domínguez and J. Mora-Rivera Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101226

Table 1
Descriptive statistics for rural Mexico’s population and Internet users, 2017.
Variable Definition Mean of rural population (standard Mean of rural Internet users (standard
deviation) deviation)

Internet access The household has a fixed or mobile Internet 26.79 (0.442)
connection (Yes ¼ 1)
Internet adoption Has used the Internet in the last 3 months 39.67 (0.489)
Gender Female ¼ 1 51.13 (0.500) 51.04 (0.500)
Age (12–32) Respondents aged 12–32 years (Yes ¼ 1) 48.20 (0.499) 71.38 (0.452)
Age (33–64) Respondents aged 33–64 years (Yes ¼ 1) 47.01 (0.499) 28.14 (0.450)
Age (65 and over) Respondents aged 65 years and older (Yes ¼ 1) 4.80 (0.214) 0.48 (0.069)
No formal education Unschooled (Yes ¼ 1) 5.87 (0.235) 0.40 (0.063)
Primary education Primary school (Yes ¼ 1) 36.36 (0.481) 16.54 (0.372)
Secondary education Secondary school (Yes ¼ 1 37.22 (0.483) 43.12 (0.495)
High school education High school or equivalent (Yes ¼ 1) 15.86 (0.365) 28.99 (0.454)
University education University (Yes ¼ 1) 4.80 (0.214) 10.95 (0.312)
Day worker Works in the agricultural sector (Yes ¼ 1) 11.57 (0.320) 5.88 (0.235)
Manual worker Works in industry, commerce or services (Yes ¼ 1) 24.14 (0.428) 31.72 (0.465)
Business owner Employer who hires workers (Yes ¼ 1) 0.57 (0.075) 0.79 (0.089)
Self-employed worker Self-employed and does not hire workers (Yes ¼ 1) 12.02 (0.325) 8.41 (0.278)
Unpaid work Unpaid work in a family or non-family business (Yes 1.93 (0.138) 1.83 (0.134)
¼ 1)
Does not work Retiree, housewife, disabled, unemployed, or student 49.77 (0.500) 51.37 (0.500)
(Yes ¼ 1)
Wealth index Household wealth index 0.91 (1.934) 0.36 (1.567)
Software or applications Ability to download software or applications (Yes ¼ 5.82 (0.234) 12.88 (0.336)
1)
Computer Owns a computer or similar device (Yes ¼ 1) 23.25 (0.422) 55.62 (0.497)
Cell phone Has a cell phone (Yes ¼ 1) 66.14 (0.473) 93.86 (0.240)
Relatives within household who use the At least one household member uses the Internet (Yes 42.02 (0.494) 66.85 (0.471)
Internet ¼ 1)
Northwest region Lives in the Northwest region 17.82 (0.383) 21.09 (0.408)
Northeast region Lives in the Northeast region 8.69 (0.282) 8.76 (0.283)
West region Lives in the West region 12.41 (0.330) 12.93 (0.336)
South-Central region Lives in the South-Central region 6.99 (0.255) 8.13 (0.273)
North-Central region Lives in the North-Central region 16.96 (0.375) 15.37 (0.361)
East region Lives in the East region 13.65 (0.343) 12.24 (0.328)
Southeast region Lives in the Southeast region 13.52 (0.342) 14.76 (0.355)
Southwest region Lives in the Southwest region 9.95 (0.299) 6.72 (0.250)
Number of observations 73676 29224

Source: By author based on data from the ENDUTIH survey, 2017.

Note: Yes ¼ 1 indicates the presence of the respective attribute or characteristic.

quarter of 2017. The units of analysis are households and individuals.
The methodological procedure is based on the current international
norm.8 This survey compiles information on the availability and use of
ICT by households and household members, who include people aged six
and older who reside in Mexico. During the fieldwork, households are
visited and personal interviews are carried out with household members
selected randomly; their experience with ICT is inputted. Due to the
survey’s sampling design, the compiled information is statistically
representative of the rural Mexican sector.
The sample includes information from 74,932 individuals between
12 and 70 years of age, and thus represents Mexico’s rural9 population
within this age range. The data contain sociodemographic information
such as gender, age, educational level, and occupation. The survey’s
main topic is ICT availability and use (desktop computer, laptop or
tablet, Internet and mobile telephone).10 Participants were asked about
the frequency of usage, connection equipment, online activities, and
reasons for using the Internet. The survey also provides information on
individuals’ digital skills and the electronic devices they own (tablet,
8
ENDUTIH concepts and methodology are based on the International Tele­
communication Union’s manual for measuring ICT use and access by house­
holds and individuals [91].
9
In Mexico, the rural sector is defined as towns with less than 2500 in­
habitants [8].
10
Regarding Internet access at home, respondents were asked about their
network connection type (dedicated telephone line, cable Internet, satellite
connection, open WiFi signal, and landline).
computer, and conventional telephone or smartphone).
Table 1 shows descriptive statistics from the sample. In terms of
gender, 51% of the respondents are female and the rest are male; 48.20%
are 32 years old or younger, which reflects the presence of a young
population in rural areas. Regarding education, 36.36% were enrolled in
primary school, 37.22% in secondary school, 15.86% in high school, and
only 4.80% in college. This data reflects the limited opportunities and
educational achievements typical of Mexico’s rural regions, a factor that
deepens inequalities within the sector and increases the exclusion and
educational backwardness of the rural population.
With regard to work, 50.23% of the respondents are employed
mainly in the categories of manual labor and day labor (24.14% and
11.57%, respectively), which together represent 35.71% of employed
individuals.11 The rest are either housewives, retirees, or students.
As for digital connectivity in Mexico’s rural areas, although only
7.97% of households had an Internet connection in 2017, 40.51% of the
respondents use the Internet in other places such as the workplace,
school, an Internet caf�
e, free public spaces, another person’s home, and
even in their own houses. Additionally, the proportion of rural mobile
telephone users is 66.14%.
11
This distinction between the two types of occupations is relevant because, in
spite of their coexistence in rural areas, the secondary and tertiary sectors have
become in recent decades the main sources of employment and income in rural
Mexico [92].

4
M. Martínez-Domínguez and J. Mora-Rivera
Table 2
Descriptive statistics for Internet use in Mexico’s rural sector, 2017.
Variable Definition Frequency of
usage (%)
Information Health, employment, education, travel, 79.90
blogs, and online courses
Communication Phone conversations, emails, and instant 91.99
messaging
Entertainment Books, magazines, multimedia content, and 80.27
online games
Social networks Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, 79.83
and Snapchat
E-commerce Buying and selling products or services 10.43
online
E-government Government procedures and finding 29.21
government information
Source: By author based on data from the ENDUTIH survey, 2017.
3.2. Methodological approach
To identify the factors that determine Internet usage patterns in rural
Mexico, six usage types were identified: information searches, commu­
nication, entertainment, social networks, e-commerce, and e-govern­
ment. Table 2 shows the proportion of Internet users by activity type.
Outstanding among these activities are communication (phone conver­
sations, sending emails, and instant messaging) and entertainment
(multimedia content, such as videos and music). Overall, e-commerce is
the activity that rural users carry out least frequently when going online.
First, a logistic regression model was used to estimate the de­
terminants of Internet access, where the dependent variable is binary (1
indicates that the household has an Internet connection and 0 indicates
that it does not) and the independent variables are a set of socioeco­
nomic and demographic characteristics at the household and individual
level. Second, two equations were established to model the Internet
adoption decisions and Internet usage patterns in the rural sector. It is
noteworthy that the selection of online activities is conditioned by the
decision to use the Internet. Given that population characteristics differ
in the two models, the second equation may present selectivity prob­
lems. To solve the potential presence of such bias, Heckman’s two-stage
method [76] was used, to provide consistent and asymptotically effi­
cient estimates for all parameters in the models.
To identify the determining factors of Internet adoption and usage,
we have decided to follow the recommendations of some studies that
point out that such dependent variables can be explained with a higher
confidence level by incorporating the existing differences between in­
dividuals and households; in this way, econometric results are more
precise and reliable, and permit generating public policy recommen­
dations with a more defined focus and target [13,43,72,77].
The first equation represents a probit model, whereby the individual
chooses whether to adopt the Internet or not. The basis of this
perspective is the utility maximization model, which explains that the
usefulness of adopting the Internet depends on a set of individual and
household characteristics: a reflection of differences in education, skills
in ICT usage, financial circumstances, social capital, and age, among
other variables. This theoretical focus has been used in recent studies by
Alderete [1] and Quaglione et al. [11]. Due to the above, the adoption
decision is determined by the maximization of utility in using the
Internet per individual and can be represented by:
y*i0 ¼ Xi0 β0 þ εi0
where Xi0 is a matrix of independent variables such as sociodemographic
characteristics, social capital, and digital skills, and β0 represents the
coefficient vector and εi0 is the normally distributed random error term.
The total utility is not observable, but the decision to adopt the Internet
or not is. Consequently, yi0 is the result of a decision-making process
influenced by the explanatory variables Xi0 . Thus, yi0 ¼ 1 indicates that
5
Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101226
the individual has decided to use the Internet and yi0 ¼ 0 indicates
otherwise. Accordingly, yi0 ¼ 1 if y*i0 > 0 , and yi0 ¼ 0 if y*i0 � 0.
The second equation establishes the selection of online activities,
which are conditioned by the decision to use the Internet. Internet usage
patterns j (where j ¼ 1;…;J) are defined in the equation yij ¼ Xij βj þ εij ,
where yij measures usage, Xij represents the matrix of independent
variables, and εij is the normally distributed random error term. To es­
timate these equations, Heckman’s two-stage method was applied under
the assumption that εi0 and εij follow a bivariate normal distribution
with zero mean and correlation ðεi0 ; εij Þ ¼ ρ. As a result, when applying
this methodology we can state that if the estimated ρ (rho) coefficient is
significantly different from zero, then it indicates the presence of a bias
[78,79].
3.3. Description of variables
The independent variables in the first (Internet adoption) and second
(Internet usage patterns) equation are grouped into three categories:
respondents’ socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, digital
skills, and availability of electronic devices, in addition to social capital.
Socioeconomic variables include gender, age, educational level,
household wealth index, and the individual’s occupation. With regard to
the effect of the gender variable, Gray et al. [80]; and Hilbert [81] argue
that, in the initial stages of diffusion of a new technology, men are the
first ones to use it; however, as time goes by and the technology con­
tinues to spread, the gap between men and women is narrowed. Thus it
is expected that women in Mexico’s rural sector are less likely to use the
Internet.
Regarding age, studies by Tirado-Morueta et al. [51]; and Hargittai
and Hinnant [52] reveal that Internet users are, to a great extent, young
people. Consequently, and in order to identify the effect of age on
Internet adoption and use, three age ranges were established: 12–32
years; 33–64 years; 65 years and older. A negative relationship between
age and the decision to use the Internet is expected; that is, the older a
person is, the less likely that person will use the Internet.
Another crucial factor is education, since using the Internet requires
basic reading and writing skills. A higher educational level is associated
with greater benefits when adopting the Internet [68]. To measure the
educational level, five categories were established: primary education,
secondary education, high school education, university or higher, and
no formal education (level used as a reference category). Therefore, we
expect to find that a higher educational level means a greater likelihood
of using the Internet.
Similarly, respondents’ employment situation was considered by
classifying them into the following categories: day worker, manual
worker, business owner, unpaid worker, and self-employed worker, the
latter being the reference occupation. Evidence indicates that employ­
ment in commerce and service-related activities increases the possibil­
ities of having and using the Internet in the workplace.
Income is also a key element in explaining Internet adoption [80].
Since ENDUTIH 2017 does not include information to estimate indi­
vidual income, a wealth index was calculated using the Principal
Component Analysis (PCA) method, which included variables related to
household characteristics and ownership of durable goods [82].12 It is
assumed that the wealth index is a suitable proxy variable for income, as
it reflects the families’ living conditions.
In terms of digital skills, research carried out by Scheerder et al. [28];
and Van Deursen and Helsper [50] shows the positive effect of these
skills when using the Internet. Skill levels were measured in terms of an
individual’s ability to download software or applications. Only 5.98% of
respondents have sufficient knowledge to install software. This could
12
Variables included in the index are: flooring material, drinking water,
sewage, electric power, refrigerator, and washing machine.
M. Martínez-Domínguez and J. Mora-Rivera Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101226

Table 3 Table 4
Results of logit model for the determinants of Internet access in rural Mexico, Determinants of Internet use (first stage).
2017. Variable Marginal Effects (Standard error)
Variables Marginal effects (standard error)
Gender (Female ¼ 1) 2.64*** (0.0058)
Gender (Female ¼ 1) 1.82*** (0.0039) Age (12–32 years) 21.24*** (0.0053)
Age 0.17** (0.0007) Age (33–64 years) Reference
Age squared 0.001 (0.0000) Age (65 years and older) 18.04*** (0.0122)
Education (years of schooling) 2.04*** (0.0005) No formal education Reference
Student 7.20*** (0.0066) Primary education 16.94*** (0.0196)
Day worker 3.84*** (0.0066) Secondary education 29.33*** (0.0191)
Manual worker 1.99*** (0.0060) High school education 35.95*** (0.0207)
Business owner 19.43*** (0.0256) University education 44.51*** (0.0229)
Unpaid worker 5.02*** (0.0115) Day worker 6.13*** (0.0095)
Self-employed worker Reference Manual worker 2.94*** (0.0086)
Unemployed 3.19*** (0.0059) Business owner 16.86*** (0.0326)
Household’s wealth index 5.52*** (0.0011) Self-employed worker Reference
Household size 1.97*** (0.0011) Unpaid worker 2.73 (0.0184)
Number of underage children at home 1.66*** (0.0016) Unemployed 0.89 (0.0086)
Number of elderly people at home 4.51*** (0.0033) Household’s wealth index 2.85*** (0.0015)
Northwest region 23.99*** (0.0086) Can download software and applications 17.71*** (0.0142)
Northeast region 4.88*** (0.0074) Owns a computer 70.36*** (0.0059)
West region 0.19 (0.0076) Owns a cell phone 45.50*** (0.0044)
South central region 6.12*** (0.0091) Household members who use the Internet 27.59*** (0.0050)
North central region 5.17*** (0.0066) Northwest region 4.45*** (0.0108)
East region 7.89*** (0.0064) Northeast region 3.40** (0.0123)
Southeast region 19.37*** (0.0088) West region 3.72*** (0.0115)
Southwest region Reference South central region 1.18 (0.0123)
Log likelihood 36299.858 North central region 5.53*** (0.0102)
Wald chi2 10539.15 East region 1.79* (0.0108)
Number of observations 73676 Southeast region 11.41*** (0.0119)
Southwest region Reference
Note: ***, **: significant at 1% and 5%, respectively. Log likelihood 21849.187
Wald Chi2 16397.74
reflect the low levels of digital skills in Mexico’s rural population. Number of observations 73676

As for ownership of electronic equipment and devices, 24.24% of the
respondents own a computer and 66.64% have a cell phone. The
availability of these electronic devices is complementary to Internet use;
in other words, interest in using these technologies should encourage
Internet usage.
Likewise, social capital influences the decision to adopt new tech­
nologies. Studies by Puspitasari and Ishii [25]; Grazzi and Vergara [74];
Hierro et al. [83]; and Franzen [84] highlight the ways that friends and
relatives can influence ICT usage. On this point, Schleife [85] shows the
positive effects of social capital in Germany, where the probability of
being a new Internet user is higher for individuals who are surrounded
by already experienced users. Therefore, family networks play a crucial
role in adopting and learning how to use the Internet by strengthening
external networks and increasing the benefits of this technology [86,87].
To measure the effects of family networks, a binary variable was
established, where 1 indicates the presence of other household members
who use the Internet and 0 indicates otherwise. It is expected that having
relatives who go online promotes the frequency of Internet usage and
encourages a variety of usage types, especially in the case of commu­
nication through phone conversations, emails, and instant messaging. As
for sociodemographic characteristics and ICTs, Penard et al. [68] point
out that they indirectly influence usage through differences in oppor­
tunity cost and digital skills.
Lastly, geographic location is essential for Internet penetration in the
rural sector. According to data from Mexico’s national census of 2010,
23.2% of the nation’s inhabitants were living in rural areas; the southern
states (Veracruz, Chiapas, Oaxaca, and Guerrero) had one-third of the
nation’s rural population along with the highest levels of marginaliza­
tion and poverty [88]. In contrast, the states in the central and northern
regions had the highest levels of social, economic, industrial, and ICT
infrastructure development [15]. To incorporate the heterogeneity of
Mexico’s rural sector into the econometric models, the country was
Note: ***, **, *: significant at 1%, 5% and 10%, respectively.
divided into eight regions: south central, northwest, west, northeast,
north central, east, southeast, and southwest (reference region).13
By considering the above aspects and variables, the principal
objective is that the results of the econometric estimations will allow
reliable identification of the factors that determine the most recurrent
Internet uses (information search, communication, entertainment, social
networks, e-commerce, and e-government).
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Determinants of internet access
The results of the Internet access estimates for Mexico’s rural areas
are shown in Table 3. Our findings confirm that wealth index and
educational level are key to Internet penetration; that is, households
with the highest physical and human capital have greater incentives to
use the Internet, a result consistent with the study by Chaudhuri et al.
[67]; who mention that such variables positively impact Internet access.
As for household characteristics, having a greater number of students at
home increases the chances of using this ICT, a finding that suggests that
the Internet is used mainly for educational purposes. Similarly, the
presence of children under age twelve discourages Internet access, since
the greater the number of economic dependents, the lower the Internet
access. This evidence contrasts with the findings by Michailidis et al.
[66]; who point out that Internet access is influenced by a greater
number of underage family members. Regarding geographic location,
rural households located in the northeast region are more likely to be
connected to the Internet. This coincides with the study by Martí­
nez-Domínguez [15]; which reveals that a set of federal and state public

13
The 2018 study of Internet Users’ Habits in Mexico was used as a reference
to divide the country into geographic areas [93].

6
M. Martínez-Domínguez and J. Mora-Rivera Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101226

Table 5
Determinants of Internet uses (second stage).
Variables Information Communi-cation Entertain- ment Social networks E-commerce E-government
Searches

Marginal effects (standard error)

Gender (female ¼ 1) 1.88*** (0.0028) 3.14*** (0.0029) 0.43 (0.0029) 2.10*** (0.0024) 0.08 (0.0006) 0.74*** (0.0018)
Age (12–32) 0.29 (0.0032) 0.15 (0.0031) 1.01*** (0.0033) 1.53*** (0.0024) 0.12 (0.0009) 0.71*** (0.0020)
Age (33–64) Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference
Age (65 and older) 1.77 (0.0201) 4.21** (0.0209) 5.57** (0.0265) 0.68 (0.0129) 0.21 (0.0062 1.36 (0.0170)
No formal education Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference
Primary education 3.98 (0.0286) 0.58 (0.0180) 2.95 (0.0266) 1.31 (0.0182) 0.34 (0.0056) 9.74** (0.0954)
Secondary education 5.22* (0.0292) 1.16 (0.0188) 3.22 (0.0265) 3.19* (0.0193) 0.12 (0.0059) 5.85 (0.0383)
High school education 7.85** (0.0396) 1.77 (0.0208) 4.20 (0.0316) 4.68* (0.0251) 0.38 (0.0080) 7.20 (0.0574)
University education 10.18** (0.0482) 2.18 (0.0227 4.83 (0.0353) 4.94* (0.0282) 1.52 (0.0159) 16.48* (0.1006)
Day worker 3.05*** (0.0052) 1.32** (0.0056) 0.62 (0.0069) 0.48 (0.0051) 0.47*** (0.0011) 1.30*** (0.0037)
Manual worker 1.58*** (0.0043) 1.53*** (0.0040) 1.15** (0.0048) 0.79** (0.0036) 0.26*** (0.0009) 0.34 (0.0032)
Business owner 0.58 (0.0124) 0.39 (0.0122) 0.56 (0.0134) 0.86 (0.0102) 0.04 (0.0026) 1.35 (0.0120)
Self-employed worker Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference
Unpaid worker 1.89** (0.0081) 2.65*** (0.0070) 1.94** (0.0089) 2.23*** (0.0056) 0.19*** (0.0019) 0.25 (0.0066)
Unemployed 0.54 (0.0047) 2.94*** (0.0047) 1.53*** 1.66*** (0.0039) 0.72*** (0.0016) 1.52*** (0.0034)
(0.0052)
Can download software and 66.05*** (0.0120) 81.74*** (0.0106) 73.33*** 62.34*** (0.0134) 8.08*** (0.0088) 22.11*** (0.0127)
applications (0.0109)
Household members who use the 20.01*** (0.0061) 23.24*** (0.0063) 20.68*** 17.48*** (0.0054) 1.17*** (0.0016) 7.14*** (0.0050)
Internet (0.0061)
Northwest region 0.75 (0.0054) 0.47 (0.0054) 0.72 (0.0057) 1.11** (0.0051) 1.52*** (0.0041) 0.06 (0.0036)
Northeast region 1.03* (0.0059) 0.27 (0.0062) 1.26** (0.0062) 1.32** (0.0060) 1.66*** (0.0053) 0.51 (0.0038)
West region 1.37** (0.0054) 0.69 (0.0056) 1.19** (0.0059) 0.48 (0.0052) 0.58** (0.0029) 0.45 (0.0036)
South central region 0.77 (0.0059) 1.91*** (0.0052) 1.46** (0.0060) 0.83* (0.0047) 0.37 (0.0027) 1.53*** (0.0055)
North central region 0.60 (0.0056) 1.30** (0.0052) 1.03* (0.0058) 0.09 (0.0047) 0.60** (0.0028) 0.16 (0.0039)
East region 0.70 (0.0065) 0.32 (0.0059) 0.54 (0.0063) 0.09 (0.0050) 0.26 (0.0023) 0.92** (0.0047)
Southeast region 1.81*** (0.0051) 0.17 (0.0057) 2.51*** 1.86*** (0.0040) 0.17 (0.0021) 0.03 (0.0039)
(0.0052)
Southwest region Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference Reference
Log pseudolikelihood 31920.8 31993.6 31529.8 31945.4 24941.8 28012.2
Rho 0.0597** (0.0279) 0.4138*** 0.0446 (0.0301) 0.2709*** 0.2606*** 0.3954***
(0.0336) (0.0315) (0.0454) (0.0307)
Number of observations 73676 73676 73676 73676 73676 73676

Note: ***, **, *: significant at 1%, 5% and 10%, respectively.

policies have been implemented in states located closer to the US border positive effect on individual usage as it encourages using the Internet as
to boost access to ICTs. a tool for communication, entertainment, the search for information,
and social networks. This finding is consistent with research by Hierro
et al. [83]; which highlights the influence of friends and relatives on
4.2. Determinants of internet use Internet usage.

Table 4 shows the results for the determinants of Internet use.

Overall, deciding whether to use the Internet or not depends on the
benefits expected from going online and the monetary and cognitive
costs. The likelihood of using the Internet is higher for women, young
people, and people with higher educational levels. There is an evident
gap in terms of age: The older a person is, the less likely that person is to
use the Internet: a finding that indicates that young people are more
engaged with technology, while older adults adapt less to new
technologies.
Material access and affordability are essential when using the
Internet given that people with a better economic standing are, to a
greater extent, Internet users. A similar result was found by Kilenthong
and Odton [69] for Thailand. As for occupation, business owners have
more probabilities of using the Internet, while the opposite happens
with day workers.
As for digital skills, the likelihood of using the Internet increases
when a person possesses sufficient abilities to download software and
applications from the Internet. This result is consistent with research
conducted by Grazzi and Vergara [74] for seven Latin American coun­
tries, thus highlighting the relevance of digital skills in taking advantage
of the Internet’s potential.
Likewise, geographic location is essential for Internet usage, since
people living in the country’s northern region are more likely to go
online, a finding observed in other developing countries in a study by
Dohse and Cheng [57]. Lastly, having relatives who go online has a
4.3. Determinants of internet use
Table 5 shows the results of Heckman’s two-stage model on the de­
terminants of the most common Internet uses in Mexico’s rural sector
(search for information, communication, entertainment, social net­
works, e-commerce, and e-government). Internet usage patterns are
influenced by gender, age, educational level, occupation, digital skills,
and geographic location. Women use the Internet to search for infor­
mation and to communicate, a finding which coincides with that re­
ported by Penard et al. [68] for Cameroon. This result suggests that
women begin using the Internet to maintain networks of family and
friends, an activity that is broadly related to women’s roles in traditional
settings such as those of rural Mexico. On the other hand, young in­
dividuals are more likely to use the Internet for leisure activities
(entertainment and social networks) than older age groups.
In terms of education, the individuals most likely to use the Internet
for searching for information are those who are enrolled in secondary
school, which suggests that Internet usage has educational purposes.
This matches Grazzi and Vergara’s [74] results, whose study emphasizes
the Internet’s potential to develop human capital. As for occupation, day
workers and manual workers are the least likely to conduct activities
online.
Geographic location is essential to explain Internet usage patterns.
The results on the regional scale prove the heterogeneity of Mexico’s

7
M. Martínez-Domínguez and J. Mora-Rivera
rural sector. For instance, in the northwest and northeast regions, the
Internet is used for e-commerce activities, due to the regions’ proximity
to the United States (a nation with high levels of ICT access and usage).
In addition, the northern states have promoted public policies to favor
Internet usage, which in turn has encouraged marked growth in social
networks. In contrast, the south central and southeast regions are less
likely to show online use for searching for information, communication,
entertainment, or social networks, due to the high levels of poverty and
lags in education, health, basic services, and housing in these regions.
Lastly, having at least one family member at home who uses the Internet
increases the probability that other members will perform online
activities.
5. Conclusions
The aim of this study was to identify the determinants of Internet
availability, Internet use, and Internet usage patterns in Mexico’s rural
areas, based on information from the ENDUTIH 2017 survey. The results
of the econometric estimates suggest that the factors explaining Internet
access and use in rural Mexico are similar to those observed in other
developing countries for the initial stage of Internet diffusion. In general,
we can deduce that rural Internet users are young and educated people
with a good economic standing and knowledge of digital technologies.
Internet usage patterns (search for information, communication, enter­
tainment, social networks, e-commerce, and e-government) differ
significantly by gender, age, educational level, occupation, and
geographic location, resulting in a digital divide between those who
know how to use and take advantage of the Internet, and those who do
not.
As mentioned above, the literature has identified three levels within
the digital divide: access, usage, and benefits [40,48,49]. This research
provides empirical evidence on the existence of the first two levels of the
digital divide in rural Mexico’s Internet use. This information contrib­
utes to a discussion of academic literature on the digital divide by
showing the factors that explain individuals’ Internet usage behaviors. It
is worthwhile to note that very few studies have looked at this topic in
the rural context due to a lack of information at the microeconomic
level.
The findings of the analysis show that the divide in terms of Internet
access is still considerable in Mexico’s rural sector. Nevertheless,
Internet use is an equally important challenge since a large portion of the
rural population has low educational levels (6.5 years) and is not in
contact with ICTs. Therefore, reducing the digital divide requires:
improving access conditions by developing adequate infrastructure and
providing high-speed Internet service; reducing the costs associated with
connecting to the Internet by encouraging greater competition among
service providers; and teaching digital literacy to individuals in a way
that highlights the advantages and benefits derived from efficient
Internet usage.
The results also reveal that Internet usage patterns for younger users
are related to entertainment and social networks, a factor that poses an
important challenge for the Mexican government. On one hand, young
people must receive digital training in order to foster efficient Internet
use, and ICTs must become an essential part of educational programs
from primary school through university. On the other hand, creating
local content that promotes the preservation of indigenous languages,
local music, and information must be encouraged with the goal of pro­
tecting the traditions and cultures of the rural population.
In 2017, rural Mexico had mobile telephone and Internet usage rate
of 53.83% and 39.16%, respectively. These numbers reflect higher
mobile telephone coverage in the past few years, thus making it relevant
to research and compare usage patterns. To this end, it is essential to
have appropriate data that will allow observing the evolution of the
digital divide and identifying user profiles, as well as providing the
required elements to design digital policies centered on cell phone
diffusion with the purpose of offering employment, education, and
8
Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101226
health-related services and applications that benefit rural populations in
developing countries.
It is important to point out that this study does not cover the third
level of the digital divide, due to the limitations of the information
contained in ENDUTIH. This area represents an opportunity for future
research; in other words, databases could be generated to consider the
benefits of Internet usage and the element could be added to the analysis
of the digital divide. On the other hand, the possibility also exists to
employ additional methods to strengthen our findings and support
recommendations for public policies that promote the well-being of the
rural population in developing countries like Mexico.
References
[1] M.V. Alderete, Examining the drivers of internet use among the poor: the case of
Bahía Blanca city in Argentina, Technol. Soc. 59 (2019) 42–58, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101179.
[2] J. Manlove, B. Whitacre, Understanding the trend to mobile-only internet
connections: a decomposition analysis, Telecommun. Policy 43 (1) (2019) 76–87,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2018.03.012.
[3] S. Park, Digital inequalities in rural Australia: a double jeopardy of remoteness and
social exclusion, J. Rural Stud. 54 (2017) 399–407, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jrurstud.2015.12.018.
[4] P. Verdegem, P. Verhoest, Profiling the non-user: rethinking policy initiatives
stimulating ICT acceptance, Telecommun. Policy 33 (10–11) (2009) 642–652,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2009.08.009.
[5] International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Percentage of Individuals Using the
Internet 2000-2017, 2017. Retrieved from, https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statist
ics/Documents/statistics/2018/Individuals_Internet_2000-2017.xls.
[6] Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Key ICT
Indicators. Households with Access to the Internet in Selected OECD Countries,
2017. Retrieved from, http://www.oecd.org/internet/ieconomy/oecdkeyictindic
ators.htm.
[7] Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Broadband
Penetration and GDP, 2017. Retrieved from, http://www.oecd.org/sti/broadband/
broadband-statistics/.
[8] Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI), Encuesta Intercensal 2015,
2015. Retrieved from, https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/intercensal/2015/.
[9] K. Onitsuka, R. Hidayat, W. Huang, Challenges for the next level of digital divide in
rural Indonesian communities, Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Dev. Ctries. 84 (2) (2018)
1–25, https://doi.org/10.1002/isd2.12021.
[10] K. Salemink, D. Strijker, G. Bosworth, Rural development in the digital age: a
systematic literature review on unequal ICT availability, adoption, and use in rural
areas, J. Rural Stud. 54 (2015) 360–371, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jrurstud.2015.09.001.
[11] D. Quaglione, M. Agovino, C. Di Berardino, A. Sarra, Exploring additional
determinants of fixed broadband adoption: policy implications for narrowing the
broadband demand gap, Econ. Innovat. N. Technol. 27 (4) (2018) 307–327,
https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2017.1350358.
[12] L. Gwaka, J. May, W. Tucker, Toward low-cost community networks in rural
communities: the impact of context using the case study of Beitbridge, Zimbabwe,
Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Dev. Ctries. 84 (3) (2018) 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1002/
isd2.12029.
[13] T. Correa, I. Pavez, J. Contreras, Beyond access: a relational and resource-based
model of household Internet adoption in isolated communities, Telecommun.
Policy 41 (9) (2017) 757–768, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2017.03.008.
[14] D. Toudert, Brecha digital, uso frecuente y aprovechamiento de Internet en M�exico,
Convergencia Revista de Ciencias Sociales 79 (2019) 1–27, https://doi.org/
10.29101/crcs.v0i79.10332.
[15] M. Martínez-Domínguez, Acceso y uso de tecnologías de la informaci� on y
comunicaci� on en M� exico: factores determinantes, PAAKAT Revista de Tecnología y
Sociedad 14 (8) (2018) 1–18. Retrieved from, http://www.udgvirtual.udg.mx/paa
kat/index.php/paakat/article/download/316/pdf.
[16] Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI), Encuesta Nacional Sobre
Disponibilidad y Uso de Tecnologías de la Informaci� on en los Hogares 2017, 2017.
Retrieved from, https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/dutih/2017/.
[17] C. Ovando, E. Olivera, Was household internet adoption driven by the reform?
Evaluation of the 2013 telecommunication reform in Mexico, Telecommun. Policy
42 (9) (2018) 700–714, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2018.03.005.
[18] E. Ayala, J. Chapa, L. García, A. Hibert, Welfare effects of the telecommunication
reform in Mexico, Telecommun. Policy 42 (1) (2018) 24–36, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.telpol.2017.07.013.
[19] A.J. Mariscal, L.S. Benítez, A.M. Martínez, The informational life of the poor: a
study of digital access in three Mexican towns, Telecommun. Policy 40 (7) (2016)
661–672, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2015.11.001.
[20] Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI), Encuesta Nacional de
Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 2016, 2016. Retrieved from, https://www.inegi.
org.mx/programas/enigh/nc/2016/.
[21] Consejo Nacional de Evaluaci� on de la Política Social (CONEVAL), Coneval informa
la evoluci�
on de la pobreza 2010-2016, 2016. Retrieved from, https://www.coneva
l.org.mx/SalaPrensa/Comunicadosprensa/Documents/Comunicado-09-Medicio
n-pobreza-2016.pdf.
M. Martínez-Domínguez and J. Mora-Rivera
[22] International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Fixed-telephone Subscriptions
2000-2017, 2017. Retrieved from, https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/
Documents/statistics/2018/Fixed_tel_2000-2017.xls.
[23] S. Dutta, I. Mia, The Global Information Technology Report 2009-2010, World
Economic Forum, Geneva, 2010. Retrieved from, https://www.itu.int/net/wsis
/implementation/2010/forum/geneva/docs/publications/GITR%202009-2010_Fu
ll_Report_final.pdf.
[24] S. Baller, S. Dutta, B. Lanvin, The Global Information Technology Report, World
Economic Forum, Geneva, 2016. Retrieved from, http://www3.weforum.org
/docs/GITR2016/WEF_GITR_Full_Report.pdf.
[25] L. Puspitasari, K. Ishii, Digital divides and mobile internet in Indonesia: impact of
smartphones, Telematics Inf. 33 (2) (2016) 472–483, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tele.2015.11.001.
[26] T. Penard, N. Poussing, G. Zomo, P. Nsi, Comparing the determinants of internet
and cellphone use in Africa: evidence from Gabon, Digiworld Econ. J. 86 (2) (2012)
65–83. Retrieved from, http://repec.idate.org/RePEc/idt/journl/CS8603/CS86_
PENARD_et_al.pdf.
[27] A.R.A. De la Selva, Los nuevos rostros de la desigualdad en el siglo XXI: la brecha
digital, Rev. Mex. Ciencias Polit. Soc. 60 (223) (2015) 265–285, https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0185-1918(15)72138-0.
[28] A. Scheerder, A. Van Deursen, J. Van Dijk, Determinants of internet skills, uses and
outcomes: a systematic review of the second-and the third-level digital divide,
Telematics Inf. 34 (8) (2017) 1607–1624, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tele.2017.07.007.
[29] N. Selwyn, Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital
divide, New Media Soc. 6 (3) (2004) 341–362, https://doi.org/10.1177/
1461444804042519.
[30] P. Urquijo, G. Bocco, A. Boni-Noguez, New rurality and the experience of place: the
small rural locality of La Ni~na, Buenos Aires, Argentina, Geojournal 83 (6) (2017)
1301–1315, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-017-9834-3.
[31] C. Kay, La transformaci� on neoliberal del mundo rural: procesos de concentraci� on
de la tierra y del capital y la intensificaci�
on de la precariedad del trabajo, Revista
latinoamericana de estudios rurales 1 (1) (2016) 1–26. Retrieved from, http://hdl.
handle.net/1765/93272.
[32] C. Kay, Estudios rurales en Am�erica Latina en el periodo de globalizaci� on
neoliberal: ¿una nueva ruralidad? Rev. Mex. Soc. 71 (4) (2009) 607–645, https://
doi.org/10.22201/iis.01882503p.2009.004.17769.
[33] E. Pisani, G. Franceschetti, Enfoque territorial para el desarrollo rural en Am�erica
latina: un estudio de caso en Chile, Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias
UNcuyo 43 (1) (2011) 201–218. Retrieved from, http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.
php?script¼sci_arttext&pid¼S1853-86652011000100014&lng¼pt&tlng¼.
[34] H. De Grammont, La nueva ruralidad en Am�erica Latina, Rev. Mex. Soc. 66 (1)
(2004) 279–300, https://doi.org/10.2307/3541454.
[35] R. Blumberg, Alternative food networks and farmer livelihoods: a spatializing
livelihoods perspective, Geoforum 88 (2018) 161–173, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geoforum.2017.10.007.
[36] H. De Grammont, Hacia una ruralidad fragmentada, Nueva Soc. 262 (2016) 51–63.
Retrieved from, http://nuso.org/media/articles/downloads/2.TC_de_Grammont_
262.pdf.
[37] B. Whitacre, B. Mills, Infrastructure and the rural-urban divide in high-speed
residential internet access, Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 30 (3) (2007) 249–273, https://doi.
org/10.1177/0160017607301606.
[38] E. Malecki, Digital development in rural areas: potentials and pitfalls, J. Rural Stud.
19 (2) (2003) 201–214, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(02)00068-2.
[39] M. Erdiaw-Kwasie, A. Khorshed, Towards understanding digital divide in rural
partnerships and development: a framework and evidence from rural Australia,
J. Rural Stud. 43 (2016) 214–224, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jrurstud.2015.12.002.
[40] J. Van Dijk, Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings, Poetics 34
(4–5) (2006) 221–235, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2006.05.004.
[41] D.J. Gunkel, Second thoughts: toward a critique of the digital divide, New Media
Soc. 5 (4) (2003) 499–522, https://doi.org/10.1177/146144480354003.
[42] A. Van Deursen, J. Van Dijk, Internet skills and the digital divide, New Media Soc.
13 (6) (2011) 893–911, https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810386774.
[43] I. Forenbacher, S. Husnjak, I. Cviti�c, I. Jovovi�c, Determinants of mobile phone
ownership in Nigeria, Telecommun. Policy 43 (7) (2019) 1–12, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.telpol.2019.03.001.
[44] M. R� aileanu, New insights from a multilevel approach to the regional digital divide
in the European Union, Telecommun. Policy 42 (6) (2018) 452–463, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.telpol.2018.03.007.
[45] J. Van Dijk, Digital Divide: Impact of Access, The International Encyclopedia of
Media Effects, 2017, pp. 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783764.
wbieme0043.
[46] N. Zillien, E. Hargittai, Digital distinction: status-specific types of internet usage,
Soc. Sci. Q. 90 (2) (2009) 274–291, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
6237.2009.00617.x.
[47] E. Hargittai, Second-level digital divide: mapping differences in people’s online
skills, Clin. Hemorheol. and Microcirc. 7 (4) (2002), https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.
v7i4.942.
[48] A. Van Deursen, E. Helsper, R. Eynon, J. Van Dijk, The compoundness and
sequentiality inequality, Int. J. Commun. 11 (2017) 452–473. Retrieved from,
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/68921.
[49] A. Van Deursen, J. Van Dijk, The digital divide shifts to differences in usage, New
Media Soc. 16 (3) (2014) 507–526, https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813487959.
[50] A. Van Deursen, E. Helsper, The third-level digital divide: who benefits most from
being online? in: L. Robinson, S. Cotten, J. Schulz, T. Hale, A. Williams (Eds.),
9
Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101226
Communication and Information Technologies Annual Emerald Group Publishing
Limited, 2015, pp. 29–52.
[51] R. Tirado-Morueta, M. Mendoza-Zambrano, I. Aguaded-G� omez, I. y Marín-
Guti�errez, Empirical study of a sequence of access to Internet use in Ecuador,
Telematics Inf. 34 (4) (2017) 171–183, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tele.2016.12.012.
[52] E. Hargittai, A. Hinnant, Digital inequality: differences in young adults’ use of the
Internet, Commun. Res. 35 (5) (2008) 602–621, https://doi.org/10.1177/
0093650208321782.
[53] P. DiMaggio, E. Hargittai, C. Celeste, S. Shafer, From unequal access to
differentiated use: a literature review and agenda for research on digital inequality,
in: N. Kathryn (Ed.), Social Inequality, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 2004.
[54] R. Barrantes, E. Vargas, Different paths and same destinations? An analysis of the
convergence in Internet usage patterns between different age groups, Electron. J.
Inf. Syst. Dev. Ctries. (2019) 1–17, https://doi.org/10.1002/isd2.12105.
[55] J. Mariscal, G. Mayne, U. Aneja, A. Sorgner, Bridging the gender digital gap,
Economics: Open-Access, Open-Assess. E-J. 13 (2019) 1–12, https://doi.org/
10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2019-9.
[56] H. Galperin, Why are half of Latin Americans not online? A four-country study of
reasons for Internet non-adoption, Int. J. Commun. 11 (2017) 3332–3354. https://
ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/6287.
[57] D. Dohse, L. Cheng, Bad neighborhood and internet adoption in poor countries:
what is behind the persistent digital gap? Growth Chang. 49 (1) (2018) 241–262,
https://doi.org/10.1111/grow.12220.
[58] X. Zhang, Exploring the patterns and determinants of the global mobile divide,
Telematics Inf. 34 (1) (2017) 438–449, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tele.2016.06.010.
[59] S. Sujarwoto, G. Tampubolon, Spatial inequality and the internet divide in
Indonesia 2010-2012, Telecommun. Policy 40 (7) (2016) 602–616, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.telpol.2015.08.008.
[60] C. Srinuan, E. Bohlin, Analysis of fixed broadband access and use in Thailand:
drivers and barriers, Telecommun. Policy 37 (8) (2013) 615–625, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.telpol.2013.03.006.
[61] M. Chinn, R. Fairlie, ICT use in the developing world: an analysis of differences in
computer and internet penetration, Rev. Int. Econ. 18 (1) (2010) 153–167, https://
doi.org/10.3386/w12382.
[62] M.G. Quibria, S.N. Ahmed, T. Tschang, M.L. Reyes-Macasaquit, Digital divide:
determinants and policies with special reference to Asia, J. Asian Econ. 13 (6)
(2003) 811–825, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1049-0078(02)00186-0.
[63] S. Kiiski, M. Pohjola, Cross-country diffusion of the internet, Inf. Econ. Policy 14
(2) (2002) 297–310, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6245(01)00071-3.
[64] S. Park, J. Freeman, C. Middleton, Intersections between connectivity and digital
inclusion in rural communities, Commun. Res. Pract. 5 (2) (2019) 139–155,
https://doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2019.1601493.
[65] K. Salemink, D. Strijker, G. Bosworth, Rural development in the digital age: a
systematic literature review on unequal ICT availability, adoption, and use in rural
areas, J. Rural Stud. 54 (2017) 360–371, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jrurstud.2015.09.001.
[66] A. Michailidis, M. Partalidou, A. Nastis, A. Papadaki-Klavdianou, C. Charatsari,
Who goes online? Evidence of internet use patterns from rural Greece,
Telecommun. Policy 35 (4) (2011) 333–343, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
telpol.2011.02.006.
[67] A. Chaudhuri, S. Flamm, J. Horrigan, An analysis of the determinants of internet
access, Telecommun. Policy 29 (9–10) (2005) 731–755, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
telpol.2005.07.001.
[68] T. Penard, N. Poussing, B. Mukoko, T. Piaptie, Internet adoption and usage patterns
in Africa: evidence from Cameroon, Technol. Soc. 42 (2015) 71–80, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2015.03.004.
[69] T. Kilenthong, P. Odton, Access to ICT in rural and urban Thailand, Telecommun.
Policy 38 (11) (2014) 1146–1159, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2014.10.005.
[70] J.E. Prieger, The broadband digital divide and the economic benefits of mobile
broadband for rural areas, Telecommun. Policy 37 (6–7) (2013) 483–502, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2012.11.003.
[71] T. Garín-Mu~ noz, R. L� opez, T. P�
erez-Amaral, I. Herguera, A. Valarezo, Models for
individual adoption of eCommerce, eBanking and eGovernment in Spain,
Telecommun. Policy 43 (1) (2019) 110–111, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
telpol.2018.01.002.
[72] M. Nishijima, I.T. Macedo, S.F. Mori, Evolution and determinants of digital divide
in Brazil (2005–2013), Telecommun. Policy 41 (1) (2017) 12–24, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.telpol.2016.10.004.
[73] M. Grazzi, S. Vergara, ICT in developing countries: are language barriers relevant?
Evidence from Paraguay, Inf. Econ. Policy 24 (2) (2012) 161–171, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.infoecopol.2011.11.001.
[74] M. Grazzi, S. Vergara, Internet in Latin America: who uses it?… and for what?
Econ. Innovat. N. Technol. 23 (4) (2014) 327–352, https://doi.org/10.1080/
10438599.2013.854513.
[75] H. Guti�errez, F. Gamboa, Determinants of ICT usage among low-income groups in
Colombia, Mexico, and Peru, Inf. Soc. 26 (5) (2010) 346–363, https://doi.org/
10.1080/01972243.2010.511559.
[76] J. Heckman, Sample selection bias as a specification error, Econometrica 47 (1)
(1979) 153–161, https://doi.org/10.2307/1912352.
[77] G. Mascheroni, K. Olafsson,
� The mobile Internet: access, use, opportunities and
divides among European children, New Media Soc. 18 (8) (2016) 1657–1679,
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814567986.
[78] J.M. Wooldridge, Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data, second
ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, 2010.
M. Martínez-Domínguez and J. Mora-Rivera
[79] G.S. Maddala, Limited-dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics,
Econometric Society Monographs, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983.
[80] J. Gray, J. Gainous, K. Wagner, Gender and the digital divide in Latin America, Soc.
Sci. Q. 98 (1) (2017) 326–340, https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12270.
[81] M. Hilbert, Digital gender divide or technologically empowered women in
developing countries? A typical case of lies, damned lies, and statistics, Women’s
Stud. Int. Forum 34 (6) (2011) 479–489, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wsif.2011.07.001.
[82] D. Filmer, H. Pritchett, Estimating wealth effects without expenditure data—or
tears: an application to educational enrollments in states of India, Demography 38
(1) (2001) 115–132, https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.2001.0003.
[83] A. Hierro, E. Espinoza, J. Gonz�alez, W. Pría, Estudio sobre el impacto de las TICs en
la formaci�on de capitales: el caso de Talea de Castro y Santa María Yaviche, 2014.
Oaxaca. Retrieved from, https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/bitstream/hand
le/10625/55609/IDL-55609.pdf?sequence¼1&isAllowed¼y.
[84] A. Franzen, Social capital and the Internet: evidence form Swiss panel data, Kyklos
56 (3) (2003) 341–360, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0023-5962.2003.00224.x.
[85] K. Schleife, What really matters: regional versus individual determinants of the
digital divide in Germany, Res. Policy 39 (1) (2010) 173–185, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.respol.2009.11.003.
[86] B. Barbosa, J. Fonseca, Latent class models in action: bridging social capital &
internet usage, Soc. Sci. Res. 50 (2015) 15–30, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ssresearch.2014.11.002.
10
Technology in Society 60 (2020) 101226
[87] T. Penard, N. Poussing, Internet use and social capital: the strength of virtual ties,
J. Econ. Issues 44 (3) (2010) 569–595, https://doi.org/10.2753/JEI0021-
3624440301.
[88] D.M. Martínez, M. De Souza, R.J. Mora, Cambios en el empleo e ingreso de los
hogares rurales de M�exico, 2002-2007, Regi� on Soc. 30 (71) (2018) 66–95, https://
doi.org/10.22198/rys.2018.71.a772.
[89] International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Measuring the Information Society
Report 2017, 2017. Retrieved from, https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Doc
uments/publications/misr2017/MISR2017_Volume1.pdf.
[90] J.B. Pick, T. Nishida, Digital divides in the world and its regions: a spatial and
multivariate analysis of technological utilization, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 91
(2015) 1–17, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.12.026.
[91] International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Manual for Measuring ICT Access
and Use by Households and Individuals, 2014. Retrieved from, https://www.itu.
int/dms_pub/itu-d/opb/ind/D-IND-ITCMEAS-2014-PDF-E.pdf.
[92] J. Mora-Rivera, D.M. Martínez, V.J.L. Jaramillo, A.M.D.L.A. � Ch�avez, Participation
in the non-agricultural sector in rural Mexico: a gender perspective, Rev. Bras.
Estud. Popul. 34 (2) (2017) 367–389, https://doi.org/10.20947/s0102-
3098a0020.
[93] Asociaci�on de internet, 14 Estudio sobre los h� abitos de los usuarios de internet en
M�exico 2018, 2018. Retrieved from, https://www.asociaciondeinternet.mx/es
/component/remository/Habitos-de-Internet/orderby,7/lang,es-es/?Itemid¼.