Advantages and Disadvantages of Improving the Digital Divide - Literature review Example

Digital Divide xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Name xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Course xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Instructor xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date What the digital divide is and discuss the аdvаntаgе and disаdvаntаgеs of improving the digital divide In a today world where knowledge intensive activities are considered to be an important element of the economy, the allocation of knowledge across societies is progressively more linked to stratification. According to Al-mutawkkil, Heshmati and Hwang (2009), the increased dissemination of the internet across the societies has led to postulation about the potential effects of the new medium on population at large. Enthusiasts have heralded the potential advantage of technology indicating that technology will reduce the inequality through lowering barriers to information allowing individuals of all environments to advance their human capita, have easy access to health and education, enlarge their social networks and develop their living opportunities thus enhancing their life chances. On the other hand, other people caution that the degree of difference in the spread of technology across societies will lead to increasing inequalities improving the point of view of those who are already in privileged positions while denying opportunities for development to the underprivileged. According to Al-mutawkkil, Heshmati and Hwang (2009), evidently, most of research as well as policy has focused on what parts of society has access to technology in regard to internet. Access is defined as having a network connected machine at workplaces or home. This paper discusses what digital divide is. In order to have a clear understanding of digital divide, the paper will discuss some of the advantages and disadvantages of improving digital divide. Finally, the paper will discuss the type of policy approach that may assists in doing away with new inequalities emerging from differential access to and use of technology with main focus on internet. With increased importance of internet in almost all spheres of life, there has been a growing concern regarding the various patterns of its dispersion across society. The different patterns of internet diffusion have led to the growth of digital divide (Barzilai-Nahon 2006). Digital divide is defined as societal stratification due to unequal capability to adapt access and create knowledge through the use of information and communication technologies. In a simpler definition, digital divide is the inequalities in access to as well as use of the internet or medium, with lower level of connectivity among ethnic and racial minorities, women, individuals with lower incomes, illiterate people and rural dwellers. Barzilai-Nahon (2006) maintains that, the digital divide can be viewed as a sub set of the broader divides that largely characterizes the universe. With many reports identifying differences among segments of the society, recent times have seen the emphasis on the increasing dispersion of internet among the society at large (Caselli and Coleman 2001). Kiiski and Pohjola (2001) maintain that there is increased disagreement about whether inequalities in access and use of internet are decreasing or increasing across different demographic categories. While some argue with time, most of the population will be online and no policy intervention is essential to attain equal distribution of internet across the population others, put emphasis on the increasing differences among the differences segments of the society at large (Caselli and Coleman 2001). According to Caselli and Coleman (2001), digital divides is extensively regarded as a unitary occurrence. There are four digital divides across the globe. The first digital divide exists within every country, developing or industrialized, between the powerful and those that are not, between the poor and rich and between the educated and not educated. For instance, education and income in U.S distinguishes radically between those who own computers and those that do not, those who have the ability to access internet and those that do not (Chinn and Fairlie 2004). This pattern is notable in India which is a developing country. The individual who have access to and use internet are the small rich individuals and the English speaking minorities. The second divide that is not well noted is one that exists between cultural and linguistic differences. In many countries, this divides separates those speaking English or any other West Europe language from individuals who do not. In U.S despite the fact that 95% of their inhabitants speak excellent English, there are large differences in access to internet among different cultural and ethnic groups (Chinn and Fairlie 2004). For instance, in 1998 blacks had 23% computer ownership, with 25% Hispanic, 52% white Americans and 55% Asian American (Chinn and Fairlie 2004). Differences in the ethnic and cultural groups can be attributed to the simple corollary of income disparities between American of Asian origin, Americans of European, Americans of Hispanic and America of Africa origin. Corrocher and Ordanini (2002) maintain that, these cultural and ethnic differences in the US are also notable in India where they are largely compounded through linguistic issues. Most of the websites are in English with almost the rest are in main Northern languages such as French, Chinese and German. In India which is similar to countries in South Asia, 2 to 10% of the population speaks excellent English while the rest speak in other languages. Corrocher and Ordanini (2002) maintain that, Indians who do not or speak little English, the barrier to the information and communication technology age are almost insuperable. Most of the operating system requires vast knowledge of English or one of the main Northern languages. Therefore, no matter how brilliant and wealthy Indians are, their little or no knowledge on English language internet access and computer use are out of questions. Kiiski and Pohjola (2001) maintains that the third digital divide follows unavoidably from the first and second is the increasingly growing digital gap between the poor and rich countries. In 1999, United Nations Report on Human Development devotes its chapter to widening gap between information poor countries of the south and the information rich countries of the North (Dasgupta, Lall and Wheeler 2001). The report indicate that at one extreme end are US and Nordic nations such as Finland, Sweden, German and Iceland where computer saturation, telephone connectivity and home based internet access are 50%, 90% and 50% respectively (Dasgupta, Lall and Wheeler 2001). On the other extreme lie most of the Asians and African countries with 80% of telephone connectivity, less than 3% personal computer ownership and less than 2% internet connectivity. The global disparities in access to information and communication technologies are indeed a reflection of other differences between the poor and rich countries (Dasgupta, Lall and Wheeler 2001). Finally, the fourth digital divide is rising as a result of the upcoming new elite group. This new elite group is considered to be the most beneficiary of the huge successful IT industry as well as other known knowledge based sector of the economy. Kiiski and Pohjola (2001) maintains that the main question in this digital divide is whether the prosperity of this group spread to the rest of the population or whether it will enhance the current increasinging differences. From the four digital divides, it is evident that they are closely related. According to Dewan, Ganley and Kraemer (2004) with increased technological advancement, increased internet usage is spreading at various rates across different segments of the society. From the different types of digital divide, it is quite evident that the spread of internet usage will lead to a significant increase in inequalities benefiting those already in more advantageous positions and thus denying access to better resources to the disadvantaged. According to Dewan, Ganley and Kraemer (2004) mass media fueled by internet usage continues to reinforce knowledge gaps across the globe. As the world become more globalised, more people are using the internet for communication and this therefore gives an indication that it is less practical to just look at the binary organization on who is online discussing the questions of disparity in relation to internet. Rather, there is need to focus on both the advantages and disadvantages of improving the digital divide. According to Dewan, Ganley and Kraemer (2004) many organizations today have made their mission to improve economic, social and educational opportunities for the underprivileged students as well as their families through providing them with computer and technological skills. One way of improving the digital divide is through market led interventions. Here technological operators target low socio economic population to spread technological skills (Dewan and Riggins 2005). This method of improving digital divide has both risks and benefits. Based on the risks, market may not lead due to the fact that low socio economic populations are viewed to be of lower opportunity and credit risk to technological operators. Further, this method of improving digital divide has no coordinated strategy to ensure effective bridging the digital divide hence unable to influence the low socio-economic groups. Dewan and Riggins (2005) maintain that, the advantage here is that this method does not require investment from social-housing providers. In the developing nations, improvement in information and communication technology is assisting in alleviating poverty while at the same time enhancing economic growth (DiMaggio and Hargittai 2001). For instance, in Africa more Africans are able to own mobile phones despite the fact that they initially lacked access to the fixed line phone. The use of mobile phones is given the opportunity to create new businesses as well as employment opportunities thus increased developments within communities. Caselli and Coleman (2001), put emphasis on the other devastating disadvantages of improving digital divide through pointing out while developed markets could lose the opportunities to develop new markets to trade with. Further on the other hand, the developing globe would also lose the opportunity to grow. DiMaggio and Hargittai (2001) maintain that digital divide may result to an increased risk of growing economic and social turmoil which could result to exclusion of the majority universal populations from the new economy (Husing and Selhofer 2004). These consequences could harm regional, local and international stability. From this discussion, it is quite evident that raising the level of digital inclusion that is increasing the number of individuals who have access to and use ICT of the digital age is of vital importance. Husing and Selhofer (2004) maintain that, the other advantage of improving digital divide is the fact that students even in low socioeconomic population are able to have access online library. Evidently, a more decentralized information resources through internet search engines such as Yahoo and Google offer information that is convenient for student in their research and school work. In the industrialized nations, internet has enhanced the growth of journalism where information is shared effectively. Further, improving the digital divide has led to the growth of online trading across the globe (Kiiski and Pohjola 2001). Organizations are engaged in finding new markets through monitoring as well as exploiting search engines and social sites. Bridging the digital divide now provides all people with unlimited choices of goods and services worldwide. Kiiski and Pohjola (2001) maintains that small business which are normally managed by people from low economic status are able to minimize their cost of advertising as they are in a position to promote themselves effectively amidst their conglomerate competitors by way of focusing on specific markets. Kiiski and Pohjola (2001) maintains that contrary to enhanced business opportunity, improving digital divide in the third world nations, internet and technological growth is largely impeded by both structural and financial limitation. Further, most of the webs are in English thus creating a language barrier for people of lower socioeconomic population populations. With English as the most requested language on the Web, a lot of minority languages individuals have suffered online. Nonetheless, 35.6% of the universe internet users are based in Asia, with Japanese and Chinese are the second individuals frequent in internet usage. Kiiski and Pohjola (2001) maintain that improved digital divide has led to increased cyber crime. Today, there are increased cases of credit card fraud. Online criminals across the globe are constantly involved in developing new methods to steal bank information and credit card details despite the effectiveness of software to prevent these fraud activities. Kiiski and Pohjola (2001) maintain that easy access to pornographic content is another growing concern amongst more parents especially in developing nations. Adult verifications as well as parental filters are easily bypassed by the increased number of computer literate individuals. In conclusion, ICT is changing every aspect of our lives. The digital nature is changing the way business is being conducted, the way people live and most important the way people learn. To be in the unfortunate side of the digital divide implies having a lesser opportunity to be part of the growing information based economy especially with most jobs requiring computer skills. The fact that a growing number of individuals and organizations are constantly making the use of ICT in their daily activities, individuals who lack access to technological tools are at a growing disadvantage. Enabling all people to make empowered and informed choices about the uses of information, communication technology is through ensuring people are able to access and use internet so that they can be in a position to act on these choices. Ensuring that people especially in the underprivileged societies are in a position to have adequate access to software and hardware is key towards solving the problems linked to digital divide. Even with efforts to bridge the digital divide, digital inclusion is largely predicated upon ensuring that people have adequate access to important as well as relevant content and services. Lacking access to important service when a majority in population have such as service, both middle and low income earner clearly find themselves at a more severe disadvantage and in a more vicious cycle. Not only does lack of economic resources causes an initial lack of access but also lack of access becomes the main cause of lack of nation economic resources. Organizations and nations need to understand that digital divide should be analyzed in a dynamic technological environment. Therefore, in order to effectively bridge the existing digital gap across the globe there is need for a multinational approach to digital divide taking into considerations various factors namely; education, race, age, gender and disability. References Al-mutawkkil, A., Heshmati, A., & Hwang, J, 2009, Development of telecommunication and broadcasting infrastructure indices at the global level. Telecommunications Policy, 33, 176–199. Barzilai-Nahon, K, 2006, Gaps and bits: Conceptualizing measurements for digital divide/s. The Information Society, 22)5), 269-278. Caselli, F., & Coleman, W. J, 2001, Cross-country technology diffusion: The case of computers. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of EconomicResearch. Chinn, M. D., & Fairlie, R. W, 2004, The determinants of the global digital divide: A cross-country analysis of computer and internet penetration. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Madison, and NBER. Corrocher, N., & Ordanini, A, 2002, Measuring the digital divide: A framework for the analysis of cross country differences. Journal of Information Technology, 17, 9–19. Dasgupta, S., Lall, S., & Wheeler, S, 2001, Policy reform, economic growth, and the digital divide: An econometric analysis. Washington, DC: Development Research Group, World Bank. Dewan, S., Ganley, D., & Kraemer, K. L, 2004, Across the digital divide: A cross-country analysis of the determinants of IT penetration. Irvine, CA: Personal Computing Industry Center. Dewan, S., & Riggins, F. J, 2005, The digital divide: Current and future research directions. Journal of Association for Information Systems, 6(2), 298–337. DiMaggio, P., & Hargittai, E, 2001,. From the “digital divide” to digital inequality: Studying internet use as penetration increase. Princeton, NJ: Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Princeton University. Husing, T., & Selhofer, H, 2004, DIDIX: A digital divide index for measuring social inequality in IT Diffusion. IT & Society, 1(7), 26–42. Kiiski, S., & Pohjola, M, 2001, Cross-country diffusion of the Internet. Information Economics and Policy, 14(2), 297–310. Read More