Introduction
The social issue of the "digital divide" has courted much political and scholarly attention in the last decade. There is, however, less consensus over the origin of the term, even though it is generally associated with the advancement and diffusion of information technology. According to Jan Steyaert and Nick Gould (2004), the concept of the digital divide is believed to have gained media and academic currency in the mid-1990s. In 1998, the United Nations labelled the digital divide as a new type of poverty that was dividing the world (cf. Hubregtse, 2005). A UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) report in 1999 (cf. Norris, 2000) stated that "the network society is creating parallel communications systems" that increase the divisions between rich and poor nations (p.3). The term, in effect, captures the social inequality of access to technology, particularly the Internet, as well as the long-term consequences of this inequality for nations and societies.
The significance of the term is embedded within the notion of an information society, where information is an important component of the global economy in terms of production, development, and social enrichment of societies and nations. The diffusion of technologies, such as the Internet, has meant the surfacing of various social issues including technology's impact on society, its relationship with older media forms, and its immediate impact on people's social and political lives (Robinson, 2003, p. i). New technologies, such as the Internet, are seen as transforming the globe into an information society with the ability to promote new forms of social identity and social networks while decentralizing power (Castells, 1996, p. 2001). Robin and Webster (1999, p. 91), nevertheless, are ofthe view that the contextualization of the digital divide debates within the issue of information revolution is misleading, for it "politicises the process of technological development by framing it as a matter of shift in the availability of and access of information."
The term digital divide conveys the broader context of international social and economic relations and in particular, the centre-periphery power configuration marked by American dominance over the rest of the world (Chen & Wellman, 2004, p. 41). In fact, rhetoric and literature on technology and information have always emphasized this divide (see Galtung & Ruge, 1965), not to mention the debates that were sparked in the 1980s by UNESCO's proclamation of the New World Information Order (cf. Norris, 2000). The term has been analysed both at global and regional levels, and has involved the investigation of socioeconomic contexts, global governance, policy issues, as well as cultural elements. The analysis of the digital divide on a global level may entail comparisons of large regions, between developed and developing countries, and between rural and urban areas. In modern consciousness, the phrase captures the disadvantages and inequalities of those who lack access or refrain from using ICTs in their everyday lives (Cullen, 2003).
Background
The imbalances between North and South in the field of communications and information were published in the Macbride Report in 1980, under the auspices of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The report concluded that there were stark discrepancies between industrialised and developing countries with regard to information flows and capacticites for active participation in the communication process (Modoux, 2002, p.2). The report was instrumental in the formation of a New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO), led by the United Nations and UNESCO to address the imbalances. With the appropriation of the NWICO as a "Cold War" agenda and the illumination of information and communication as a key tool of control and propaganda, the debates about the information and communication imbalances became subsumed under this climate of political hostility. In the 1970s and 1980s, the fear that development in the communication field might predominantly benefit the authoritarian regimes in the South (Modoux, 2002, p. 7) mediated much of the rhetoric and, as such, the global political context was important in situating debates on communication and information disparities.
The digital divide, as an issue, dominated the G8 summit in Okinawa in 2000, and has also dominated similar discussions at the first World Social Forum in Porto Alegre in Brazil and the Davos World Economic Forum (Menou, 2001, p. 112). In the same vein, the "World Bank has, from the early 1990s, published a number of reports on information technology and the Internet, stressing it as a major area of concern for the world. Other global initiatives naturally include the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) meetings in Geneva in 2003 and Tunis in 2005" (Luyt, 2006, p. 276). In July 2001 at the Genoa Summit, the G8, comprising the most highly industrialized countries, adopted a plan to clarify the role of information and development strategies and their contribution to the fight against poverty. In its agenda, the "Genoa Plan of Action" embraced intia-tives aimed at "creating conditions such that everyone, in the years ahead, should be able to participate in the 'information society' and share its benefits." The agenda, as Luyt notes (2004, 2006), to position the digital divide as a global issue, has been shaped by powerful corporations, governments, and civil society organisations. International agencies such as the World Bank, UNDP, and ITU (International Telecommunications Union) have reiterated the need for central government, local government, nonprofit organizations, and the private sector to bridge the global divide.
According to the ITU report (2005), the digital divide, in the last 10 years, has been shrinking in terms of the number of fixed phone lines, mobile subscribers, and Internet users throughout the world. However, there remain significant disparities from nation to nation in terms of access to such technology. According to ITU estimates, some 8,000,000 villages-representing one billion people worldwide-presently lack connection to any kind of ICTs. Statistics also revealed that in 2004 fewer than 3 out of every 100 Africans used the Internet, compared with an average of 1 out of every 2 inhabitants of the G8 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK, and the US). In addition, in 2004 there were approximately the same total number of Internet users in the G8 countries as in the rest of the world combined. This translates into 429m Internet users in G8 countries and 444m users in non-G8 countries.
The digital divide is often measured by the degree of access to ICTs and the Internet. With the rapid proliferation of information and communication technologies, there is growing concern over the disproportionate number of users concentrated in developed countries. In 2001 for example, 169m Americans were online, accounting for 60% of the US population and 29% of the world's Internet population (Chen & Wellman, 2004, p. 40). According to a 2005 ITU report, the present digital divide not only refers to inequalities of access to telephones and the Internet, but also to mobile phones, RFID (radio-frequency identification), and sensors. The report stressed that far from there being a single digital divide, there is instead a terrain of varying levels of access to ICTs that may widen the gulf between developed and developing countries if the latter do not actively invest in these fields. Martin and Robinson (2004, p. 2) point out that researchers and policy makers agree that there are presently profound differences in Internet use across incomes, educational levels, races, and ages both in the US and other nations, and often the disagreement is over how long these differences will persist or what these trends will be.
The Main Issues
Beyond the contemporary currency of digital divide, the unequal development between rich and poor nations in technology and science had been termed by Hans Singer as "international technological dualism" more than three decades ago (cf. Gudmunsdottir, 2005). The digital divide captures the relationship between the Internet and social inequality, and as the Internet becomes more important in society, those who remain off-line (Martin & Robinson2007, p. 1). The term situates two meta-issues: on the one hand it focuses on the issue of access and connectivity, and on the other it ventures beyond access issues into media literacy and associated skills and on to issues of social cohesion, civic engagement, and participation (Sciadas, 2002, p. 4). The problem of global information imbalance is often seen beyond the technology paradigm, and is often equated with cultural hegemony (Kema, 2005).
The digital divide refers mainly to the division between the information rich and the information poor, whether they be individuals or societies. It is also common to deploy the term to divide the globe geographically, as in the "North-South" dichotomy or the "West and the rest" (Gudmunsdot-tir, 2005, p. 3). At a global level, the digital divide results from the fact there is a huge and growing gap between the more advanced countries and the rest regarding the size and intensity of their ICT applications (Menou, 2001, p. 112). According to Rowena Cullen (2001, p, 311), "the digital divide has been applied to the gap that exists in most countries between those with ready access to the tools of ICTs, and the knowledge that they provide access to, and those without such access or skills. This may then be attributed to socioeconomic factors, geographical factors, educational, at-titudinal and generational factors." Van Dijk (1999) lists four barriers of access that can impact on digitial divide, and this can include mental access (i.e., the lack of interest), material access (i.e., the lack of infrastructure), skills access (i.e., lack of literacy), and usage acess, which refers to the ability to embrace opportunities to access technology. Others, such as Warschauer (2004), have categorised these impediments as human resources, social resources, digital resources, and physical resources. Similar to Van Dijk's categories, these refer to the lack of infrastructure, language barriers, media literacies and skills, and additionally they focus on the social resources such as the agencies offered through the context of the community, as well as institutions that can mediate policy and deployment of technology.
From a social constructionist perspective, Luyt argues (2006, p. 279; Sciadas, 2002) that the global digital divide is not a social or policy problem but one technological condition among many in a world with divisions of many kinds. According to Luyt, what makes the lack of access to ICTs a policy problem is the work of claim makers who have generated much publicity about the condition and the negative consequences for those experiencing it. Carsten Fink and Charles Kenny (2003, pp. 16-17) argue that a widening absolute gap in per-capita ICT access does not necessaily imply that poor countries are falling behind. They call for researchers to look at relative rates of growth due to the fact that "if poor countries experience faster rates of growth in ICT usage and access levels, it is mathematically inevitable that in the short term the absolute gap may continue to widen even though they may surpass the rich world at some point." Comparing growth rates for users in rich and poor countries since the early 1990s till 2000, Fink and Kenny (2003, p. 17) conclude that the gap between the countries in terms of usage has been shrinking in relative terms and hence the most striking feature of the digital divide is not how large it is but how rapidly it is closing. For example, in the mid 1990s over 90% of Internet hosts were found in North America and Western Europe while Asia only had a share of 3% of the global Internet hosts. However, by 2001 Asia had 144 million users compared to 180 million and 155 million users in North American and Western Europe, respectively (cf. Hao & Chao, 2004)
As mentioned, the digital divide can equally refer to both the lack of resources and infrastructure as well as the lack of media proficiency (i.e., literacy) and support infrastructure (i.e., education, policies and communal networks), which can create disparities between nations in the information age. The disparity between the digitally empowered and disempowered is expected to intensify without some degree of intervention at the global level. Language issues can also present a barrier to democratizing the digital revolution. This is mainly due to the fact that only about half of the world's Internet users are native English speakers and about three-quarters of all Web sites are in English (cf. Chen & Wellman 2004, p. 42). Besides linguistic barriers, various other factors including socioeconomic status, gender, life stage, and geographical locations can affect people's use and appropriation of new media technologies (Chen & Wellman, 2004, p. 42, Stayert & Gould, 2004). Bearing these five factors in mind, De Han and Rijken (2002) emphasise that the digital divide is another aspect of social exclusion in societies where barriers to accessing new media are no different from barriers to accessing other needs such as health, education, and employment.
Various factors can influence the diffusion of technology in developing countries and these can include infrastructure, government policies, regulations, economic development, culture, and language (cf. Bazar & Boalch, 1997; Cullen, 2003). The digital divide in countries may then be influenced by and reflect social demographics as well as public policies and social issues. As such, the marginalised or those with less social mobility may require public policy interventions to close the gap. In the US, for example, Afro-Americans, Latinos, and North American Indians have been identified as needing public programmes to widen their inclusion (Cullen, 2001, p. 312; Norris, 2000). Martin and Robinson (2007, p.1-2) point out that income inequality is a distinctive economic barrier to Internet use. According to Paul Dimaggio et al. (cf. Martin & Robinson, 2007, p. 2), persons of higher socioeconomic status employ the Internet more productively and to greater economic gain than their less privileged but still connected peers. Analysts (cf. Chowdhury, 2004; Cul-len, 2001) point out that while improved access to ICTs and the Internet are important, one should not assume that they alone can solve all the problems that accompany the digital divide within and between countries. For example, new figures from the European Union's Official Statistics body reveals that in 2004, on average, 85% of European students used the Internet compared with only one in eight retired people (eGov Monitor). Secondly, as Cullen (2001, p. 312, 2003) reiterates, new technology does not always replace the old, and in the process of coexisting, they may enhance the range of human experience even if users opt not to favour newer technologies over older ones.
Jos De Haan (2004, pp. 67-68) postulates that social inequality lies at the heart of the debate on the rise of the information society, but too often these discussions are limited to, and centre on, access without fully analysing the consequences of differences in IT access. He argues that Internet access is seen as binary (i.e., whether one is a user of the Internet or not), and this hinders earlier theoretical progress in understanding the influence of communication processes of social change. Instead, he suggests a multidimensional model that includes motivation, possession, and digital skills. Motivation looks at attitudes, interests, the will to use technology, and the fears surrounding it. Possession accounts for access notjust in the home, but in other places a user may find himself or herself . The third component looks at the extent to which potential users are able to handle IT. As such, De Hann stresses the need to analyse cultural and attitudinal factors in shaping consumption and behaviour towards technology.
Kubicek (2004) points out that within the developing world the digital divide is growing, as there are discrepancies between urban and rural populations. In addition to geographical remoteness, lack of relevant content and lack of technological support can constitute barriers for the use of the Internet in disadvantaged communities (Chen & Wellman, 2004). The issue of the digital divide is also bound up with the availability of telecommunications infrastructure along with technical capacities (i.e., telephone lines, broadband, satellite services, etc.) Wiring up rural areas entails major investments of capital, and often governments may opt to liberalise the telecommunications industry to allow private investments in these sectors. Where telecommunications industries are privately owned there may be reluctance on the part of investors to inject capital into areas that do not maximize their revenue stream, and this may include rural areas.
In most Western countries, governments actively engage and devise policies to ensure citizens' access to and consumption of ICTs to enable participation in social, educational, and economic activities (Cullen, 2001, p. 113, 2003). The Clinton administration, in 2000, proposed a new plan in which tax breaks were offered to private companies to help close the digital divide between the haves and the have-nots. Clinton's programme also included other support infrastructure such as teacher training programs and Community Technology Centres. As such, public programs are deemed just as important as investing in technical infrastructure to ensure access to the Internet. Other Western European countries have also harnessed public and private resources to achieve increased Internet literacy and access. Rao et al. (cf. Norris, 2000) also point to private and public initiatives to include rural areas in South Asia through remote access, community centres, and Internet kiosks.
The rhetoric of the digital divide distracts the world community from concentrating on society's more urgent needs such as health care and education (Cullen, 2001, 2003; Menou, 2001). Cullen (2001, p. 312) stresses that bringing the Internet to Africa and associating it with better education and increased awareness "concentrates on the wrong end of the technology spectrum as the Internet in itself is not education, does not develop literacy or skills to access and interpret information found." A better alternative, Cullen (2001) suggests, would be to "use basic technologies to promote traditional forms of education, enhance the delivery of health care and improve animal husbandry and crop management. Conversely, Internet technologies can provide different forms of benefits as in the sharing of expertise in health and farming initiatives as well as in tourism, trade and e-commerce"(p. 114).
On the other hand, information technology is deemed crucial in enabling less developed nations to participate in the global market place, to create networks and connections with the global communities. As Norris (2000) points out, "the effect of the Internet in broadening and enhancing access to information and communication may be greatest in poorer nations as it can allow the developing world to enter global trading markets directly irrespective of the traditional barriers of distance, costs of advertising and the intermediate distribution chains" (p. 2). In this sense, the Internet can highlight the concerns of developing societies in the international arena by connecting disparate social movements with global civic society.
Measures to restrict access to technologies such as the Internet can take a number of forms, and these can include financial, technical, administrative, or legislative issues in different countries (Modoux, 2002, p. 5). China, for example, imposes strict censorship laws on the Internet, and users can face severe sanctions if they transgress these regulations. There were an estimated 137 million Internet users in China in 2007, which is second in number to the United States (cf. Fallows, 2007). China, like Singapore, is a paradox due to the fact that despite increasing Internet access it has harsh censorship laws. As such, increasing Internet penetration may not equate to equal access to information when compared to other states with more liberal policies. Digital divide can then manifest in a myriad of forms, and can be politicised differentially in the national and global context. Additionally, China, like other countries, has an urban-rural divide, with only 17% of the total Internet population accruing from rural areas in 2007 (Fallows, 2007).
The lack of infrastructure is a major obstacle to the diffusion of technology. For example, the lack of telephone lines and electricity in many villages in India and the shortage of telephone lines in main cities of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkemenistan (cf. Hao & Chan, 2004) exercabate the discrepancies between populations in rural and urban areas.
future trends
The digital divide underpins a degree of vulnerability for those who do not have access to technology, however, the debates become confounded when users, particularly those in the developed world, refuse to engage with technology even when access is not an issue. According to research firm Point Topic, 44% or 11.2 million households in the UK refuse Internet connections and out of these, over 40% have little or no intention of getting connected to the Internet, and as the number of Internet households increase, those that are left are increasingly resistant to its appeal (BBC). As De Haan (2004, p. 84) observes, at the heart of inequality in the information society lies the question of the differential behavioural consequences of inequalities in IT access.
Beyond the attitudinal issues, it will remain a challenge for the global community and less developed countries to keep the digital divide on the global agenda in the coming years. While there is consensus, the narrowing of the digital divide should be a global issue rather than one left to indigenous governments and to the political interests of powerful stakeholders who will continue to mediate the issues and concerns raised at the global level. With much concern over the dominance of the US in the governance of the Internet, developing countries have voiced concerns over the political economy of the global resource that is the Internet.
Beyond being a cliche of the differentials and inequalities in society, the term can be positively enforced in both policy making and global consciousness to enforce equity and deter exploitation. As observed by Fink and Kenny (2003, p. 20), the digital divide paradigm can be used to "promote good policy as in the regulation of private comptetition in information infrastructure provision to ensure improved efficiency, lower costs and increased access." Inversely, they warn that it can lead to countries having an ill-conceived or over-ambitious infrastructure target leading to excessive competition, and which thwart the objectives of national policies and imperatives.
The endeavour to close the gap between the digitally empowered and the disempowered will inevitably entail high costs, and often it has to be weighed against other serious and pressing issues such as poverty and disease; it is difficult to argue that the digital divide is a bigger concern or threat to the people in developing worlds.
conclusion
The issue of the digital divide has been raised as a global concern in the last decade to highlight yet another type of social inequality that could have future consequences for the world. The concept is tightly aligned with the emergence of a postindustrial or information society in which information is seen as a key resource that enables new modes of production, commerce, and civic engagements. The assumption that underpins the digital divide is that societies would be disadvantaged socially, politically, and culturally if they did not respond by ensuring that their citizens have access to technology and to information. Interventions to remedy the problems of the digital divide would include investments in infrastructure as well as public programmes to promote media literacy and digital skills. In both developed and developing countries, these have involved private and public partnerships, as well as the liberalization of the telecommunications market to encourage private investments in infrastructure. The reliance on private-sector investments to build infrastructure has, in many instances, sustained inequalities between urban and rural areas. Additionally, in many countries, digital inequality has mirrored the patterns of socioeconomic inequality. The digital divide as a term, then, addresses both the lack of access as well as the long-term social consequences of not utilizing new technologies that create the potential for global connectivity, as well as new forms of social and political engagements. For developing countries, the term has often led to a false belief that it will remedy the existing problems of poverty or disease, mirroring old debates where technology is perceived to be a panacea for complex social problems. However, as more governments reconfigure politics and civic engagements through new technological platforms, the issue of the digital divide will involve not just literacy, but cultural and attitudinal factors that shape interactions with both technology and politics.
key terms
Digital Divide: The separation between the information rich, or haves, and information poor, or have-nots.
ICTs: Information and communication technologies, which are seen as the driving force of globalization and new forms of connectivity.
Information Society: The transition from the modern and industrial age in which modes of production, exchange, and social capital are increasingly defined through information
Network Society: The rise of the information society will see the emergence of a network society in which information and technology will enable the formation of networks and strategic planning.