Transcript The Worldwide Digital Divide - International Institute for

Digital Divide?
Civic Engagement, Information Poverty and the Internet
NY: Cambridge University Press August 2001
www.pippanorris.com
I. Types of inequality in the wired world
 Global divide
•
Core v. peripheries
 Social divide
•
Income/SES, generation, education, gender, race/ethnicity
 Democratic divide
•
Equality in civic engagement
Structure
I.
Theoretical debate:
What are the causes & consequences of
inequality in the wired world?
II.
Evidence:
Compare 179 nations worldwide
III.
Conclusions and Policy Initiatives
I. Theoretical debate
Cyber-optimists
• Predict ‘normalization’ of Internet pop.
– Technological innovations
– Market competition
– State initiatives
Cyber-skeptics
• Technology adapts to society not vice versa
Cyber-pessimists
• Predict worsening inequalities of power and wealth
Data:
Data in 179 nations
– % Online, PCs, etc.
Contents of websites 179 nations
– Governments, parliaments, & parties
Surveys in EU and US
– How do people use the Internet?
II: Current Evidence?
1) Global divide
2) Social divide
3) Democratic divide
How many online? www.NUA.ie
400
407
Millions
300
Worldwide including the US
201
200
149
148
106
101
100
26
18
0
1995
55
40
1996
56
1997
73
1998
US
1999
2000
% Online
World
% pop. online
37 .3
19 .8
7.8
3.5
1.5
0.3
0.0
to 44 .4 (6)
to 37 .3 (8)
to 19 .8 (14)
to 7.8 (15)
to 3.5 (16)
to 1.5 (30)
to 0.3 (83)
% Online Worldwide
Fall 2000
60.0
51.5
50.0
42.8
% Pop.
40.0
30.0
20.4
20.0
10.0
7.6
7.4
3.3
3.1
0.5
0.0
Sc
No
Ce
We
Mi
As
an
dd
rth
ntr
ia
s
t
di n
l
ern
al
eE
Am
&
avi
ast
Eu
eri
Ea
a
ca
rop
s te
e
rn
So
u th
Eu
rop
e
Afr
i ca
Am
eri
ca
% Online, EU-15
Eurobarometer Nov-Dec 2000
70
61
60
53
50
50 48
40
40
30
33
26
20
27 25
23 22
20 20
16
10
12 11
0
ALL Swe
EU15
Dk
NL
Fin
UK
Lux Aus
Ire
Bel
It
Ger
Fr
Sp
Por
Gr
Economic Development and Internet Use
40000
Lux
Kuw
Aus
Qua
UAE
Isr
20000
Bah
Por
Chi
Gre
SAra
10000
Slov
Uru
Sey StK
Mal
SAfr
Hung
Tri
Ecu
Bel
Peru
Alg
DomR
Dom
Tun
Nam
4000
Ind
Kaz
Van
Syr
CVerd
Pap
Kyr
Alb
Equ
2000
Sud
Cam
Les CD'Ivo
Maur
Aze
Viet
CAR
Cam
Bang
Nig
Nig
1000
Chad
Mali
Rwan
SLan
Pak
Gam
Arm
Ukr
Nic
GuinSTom
Geo
Est
Gre
BulLith
Sam
Phil
Jor
Swazi Mor
China Mac
Cuba
Egy
ElSal
Bol
Uzb
Sur
Rom
Fiji
Para
Slovk
Braz Pol
Leb
Iran
6000
SKor
Czech
Bots Gab
Col
CRica
Turk
Swe
NZ
Sp
Cyp
Mal
Mex
Thai
Jap Den
Neth
UKFin
Ire Ita
Bar
Om
Ven
8000
800
Fr
US
RusBel
Lat
Jam
Sol
Development Level
Sene
India
Gha
MolComor
Togo
Ang
Hait
Ben
Uga
Nep
Burk
Mad
G-BissCong
Erit Yem
Moz
Mal
High
Dji
Ken
Medium
Zam
Low
Bur
Tanz
600
Ethi
Total Population
SLeo
400
.005
.01
Rsq = 0.7686
.05
Percentage of population online
.1
.5
1
5
10
50
The Information Society
200
US
Fin
100
Jap
50
40
30
Col Ven
CRicaChi
Turk
Mex
SAra
Rom
Bol
Ecu
20
Iran
Alg
10
SLan
Gha
Gab
Gue
CD'Ivo
Pak Maur Togo
Cam
Czech
Est
Hung
Por
Slovk
Sp
Uru
Lith
UAE
Pol
Rus
Mal
Slov
Cro
Mau
SAfr
Ind
Nig
Tanz
Pan
Thai
Peru
Hon
Nic Egy Tun
Jor
MorSyr
Para
Phil
Arm
Sud
Arg
Om
Mol
Den Austl
Swe
Can
SKor Ger
NZ Sing
Ita
Bel
Ire
Gre
Leb
Ukr
UK
Bots
Nam
Mad
Sene
Gam
Development Level
Viet
5
Zim
Uga
4
Ken
Yem
High
Ben
3
Nig
Medium
Ang
2
Mali
Low
Moz
Burk
Total Population
1
Rsq = 0.8201
.02
.03
.04 .05
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
New Media Scale (Logged %PCs+Hosts+Online)
1
2
3
4
5
10
20
30
40 50
100
200
Worldwide Diffusion of TV Sets
% per 1000 pop.
60
40
Postindustrial
20
Developing
0
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
Source: UNESCO Yearbooks
1995
2000
Worldwide Diffusion of Radio Receivers
120
% per 1000 pop.
90
Postindustrial
60
30
Developing
0
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
Source: UNESCO Yearbooks
1995
2000
II: Evidence?
1) Global divide
2) Social divide
3) Democratic divide
% Of Group with Internet Access, US Spring 2000(Pew)
0
18-29
30-49
50-64
65+
EDUC
Less than High
High sch Grad
Some College
College Degree
20
40
80
66
58
41
13
18
36
64
74
51
Men
Women
Whites
Blacks
Hispanics
60
46
50
35
46
Social Divide
% Online EU-15 Eurobarometer Spring 1999
0
ALL
15-25
26-44
45-64
65+
INC OM E
-+
++
EDUC
Up to 15
16-19
20+
Men
Wo m e n
M a na ge rs
Othe r White C o lla r
M a nua l Wo rke r
Ho m e wo rke r
Une m plo ye d
S tude nt
10
20
30
40
50
% Online by Household Income
EU-15, Spring 1999
80
% Online
60
40
Highest
20
Low est
0
Por Gre Ger Spa Fra Bel Au Irel It aly U K Lux Ne Fin De Swe
t h lan nm de
tug ece man in nce g iumst ria and
d
ark n
al
y
Source: Eurobarometer 51.0
II: Evidence?
1) Global divide
2) Social divide
3) Democratic divide
Online Parties
N. of Parties Online
35to67
22to35
13to22
7 to13
3 to 7
1 to 3
0 to 1
(9)
(7)
(17)
(22)
(32)
(42)
(41)
Average number of online parties
per nation
45
41
40
35
30
25
25
19
20
15
7
10
5
5
5
5
Asia-Pac
Meast
S.Amer
2
0
N.America
Weurope
Scand
C&E
Europe
Africa
Types of Parties Online
Classified by % of parliamentary seats
60
52
47
50
40
31
30
20
10
0
Fringe
Minor
Major
Types of parties online
80
71
70
62
57
60
50
52
51
42
41
37
40
30
19
20
10
0
Extr.
Left
Soc
Dem
Green
Center
Libs
C.Demo
Cons
Nats,
Far Rt
Others
70
US
60
Sp
50
Ita
Can
UK
40
Austl
Neth
Arg
30
Den
Braz
Rus
India
20
Cro
Mal
Mex
Gre
Iraq
Ire
China
10
Iran
Peru
Alg
Ven Ukr
Ethi
Bol
Laos
Alb
Om
High
Cyp
Mac
Medium
Phil
Syr
Level of Development
SAfr Fin
Jor Para Mali
Bots
Bar
Low
0
Total Population
-10
Rsq = 0.2190
.9
1
2
3
Level of Democ ratization (Freedom House Rate 1999)
4
5
6
7
8
70
US
60
Sp
Ger
50
Ita
Can
UK
Fr
Belg
40
Austl
Neth
Swe
Den
Arg
30
Turk Rus
20
SAfr
Ind
Cro
Mex
Pol
Peru
10
Ang
Moz Mali Niger
Pak
Viet
YemKen
Togo
Sud
Gha
Nic
Jor
Isr
Czech
Swi Nor
NZ
Est
IreAus
BolVen
Level of Development
High
SKor
Medium
Pan
SAra
Col
Om
Kuw
Sing
Low
0
Total Population
-10
Rsq = 0.4828
1
2
3
4
5
Infosoc Index ( Old+New Media)
10
20
30
40 50
100
200
Conclusions:
I.
Global inequalities
•
•
II.
Substantial & growing
Reflects long-term N-S divide
Social stratification
•
Widespread & unlikely to close in short-term
III. Democratic divide
•
•
Individual-level - activates the active
May empower challengers with know-how
Policy initiatives
Closing the divide:
– Access
• Schools, community centers, libraries, cafes, village centers
– Skills
• Target populations, eg younger generation, unemployed, women,
community leaders
– Costs
• Competition and deregulation in telecoms, ISP connections, servers
– Democratization
• Training and facilities for civic society: media, parties, groups
• Leadership role for open government
Details: www.pippanorris.com
Digital Divide
CUP August 2001