Information Network Villages: A community-focused digital divide reduction policy in rural Korea

Abstract

This study examines South Korea's Information Network Village (INVIL) project as an exemplary policy of building sustainable communities through a digital divide policy implemented in small rural areas. INVIL project has three objectives: to close the digital gap between urban and rural areas, to create new sources of revenues from existing industries, and to build sustainable local communities. The conception was that rural digital divide can only be resolved by addressing deep rooted rural issues that influence the provision and adoption of ICT. While the INVIL programs may not remedy the gap in the short term, it provides a future vision to the communities. Due to this multi-layered and long term approach, the villages have been successful in narrowing the digital divide, not only in terms of access but also in effectively utilising broadband to enhance the local economy and building sustainable communities. This paper introduces the INVIL project, the plans and outcomes, as well as a qualitative evaluation of the process across a decade. Following a general description of the project, an in-depth case study of three successful INVILs is provided. The uniqueness of the program is that it emphasises investment in human capital rather than on infrastructure and includes a tailored vision of each local community. This motivates local residents to be active participants, which is the key to the success of the policy.

The Multi-layers of Digital Exclusion in Rural Australia

“…This is particularly the case in rural communities where citizens and organisations typically lack necessary skills [38]. Holistic outreach programs with inbound strategies to attract people to communities, and with continuous digital literacy training programs, can improve digital engagement in rural communities [28]. Local institutional contexts affect both the development and likely success of initiatives to increase digital engagement [21].…”

Rural smartness: Its determinants and impacts on rural economic welfare

“…On the other hand, from a theoretical perspective, the achievement of a good overall model fit suggests that the validated theoretical model can be used as a reference to study rural smartness. Academics can experiment with and refine the provided operationalization of the theoretical model with samples coming from other rural areas involved in similar initiatives, such as the villages from the Information Network Village (INVIL) project in South Korea (Jung et al, 2014) or the Taobao villages in China (Lulu, 2019). Such experiments can enrich the understanding of the underlying mechanisms leading to rural smartness.…”

“…Although the empirical results of the model validation are very likely to hold for other rural areas that have similar settings, having just one sample might be a threat to the generalizability claim of our findings. Therefore, to strengthen the generalizability, future research is recommended to test the theoretical model with a sample chosen from a combination of different regions or countries, especially the ones involve in similar initiatives, such as the villages from the Information Network Village (INVIL) project in South Korea (Jung et al, 2014) or the Taobao villages in China (Lulu, 2019).…”

“…Previous studies found that the organizational entity that plays an important role in the initiatives toward rural smartness is the government (Jung et al, 2014;Mishbah et al, 2018;Zavratnik et al, 2018). This finding implies that organizational readiness in the context of rural smartness is actually synonymous with the readiness of the government.…”

“…The low purchasing power, the low education level of human resources, and the high logistics and transportation costs make the investment in rural areas not economically attractive for the private sector. Therefore, the initiation of programs for rural smartness must be the responsibility of the government (Jung et al, 2014;Mishbah et al, 2018;Wiggins & Proctor, 2001;Zavratnik et al, 2018), as explained below.…”