Mapping the global digital divide

Abstract

The global digital divide as a concept is intuitively understood by most academicians, politicians and public policy makers. However, to date little empirical work exists to explain differences in per country access to Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). The research that does exists places heavy influence on the impact of country wealth, as measured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, on the diffusion of ICTs. While GDP per capita certainly influences the diffusion of ICTs within a country, it is not the sole determinant of a country's location versus other countries vis-a-vis the global digital divide.To investigate and map the global digital divide, as it currently exists, the authors utilize modelbased cluster analysis to determine cohorts of countries based on three variables: personal computers The results indicate that the global digital divide consists of four tiers. And although all of the developed countries are included in the first tier, some surprising results are obtained. Implications of the results are discussed and directions for future research are provided.

Analysis of the Digital Divide Using Fuzzy Forecasting

“…Consequently, they do not achieve the benefits of digitalisation. In addition, it is constantly evolving and covers more and more areas of social life [23][24][25][26][27]. According to the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) the term digital divide refers to "the gap between individuals, households, businesses and geographic areas at different socio-economic levels with regard both to their opportunities to access ICT and to their use of the Internet for a wide variety of activities" [28].…”

ICT Diffusion in Developing Countries

“…• Establishing autonomous regulatory authorities (if there are none) to provide legal frameworks for developing telecommunication markets, to lower the risk for operators who aim to invest in high-risk markets with low initial penetration rates (e.g., Addison and Heshmati 2003;Guerrieri et al 2011); • Complete the transition to fully liberalised and competitive markets (eliminate monopolies) to encourage maximum participation by private companies (e.g., Wresch and Fraser 2012); • Implement and support pricing policies to ensure continuing price reductions (for both mobile cellular services and Internet access) for greater affordability (Baliamoune-Lutz 2003; ITU 2011a) • Promote further development of backbone infrastructures to, inter alia, ensure greater access to electrification (regions permanently lacking power shortages should receive special attention) (e.g., Eberhard et al 2008;ITU 2006Romijn and Caniëls 2011); • Pay special attention to ICT deployment in rural, geographically isolated and poorly populated regions to gradually close the rural-urban digital divide (e.g., Chen and Wellman 2004;Robison and Crenshaw 2010;White et al 2011;Nakamura and Chow-White 2013); • Focus on developing wireless networks (e.g., Thapa 2011;Hanson and Narula 2013;Gourhant et al 2014) to ensure better connectivity, especially in underserved and remote regions.…”

An Analytical Framework to Incorporate ICT as an Independent Variable

“…For example, texts from education(OECD 2010;Prado et al 2009), economics/business (e.g White et al 2011(Thatcher and Ndabeni 2011;Reig 2012) have been revised.…”