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 divide3) Democratic divide

2655

101

149

201

1840

5673

106

148

407

0

100

200

300

400

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Mill

ions

Worldwide including the US

US

How many online? www.NUA.ie

World% pop. online

37.3 to 44.4 (6)19.8 to 37.3 (8)7.8 to 19.8 (14)3.5 to 7.8 (15)1.5 to 3.5 (16)0.3 to 1.5 (30)0.0 to 0.3 (83)

% Online

51.5

42.8

20.4

7.6 7.43.3 3.1

0.50.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

% P

op

.

% Online Worldwide Fall 2000

% Online, EU-15Eurobarometer Nov-Dec 2000

26

61

53 50 48

4033

27 25 23 22 20 2016

12 11

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

ALLEU-15

Swe Dk NL Fin UK Lux Aus Ire Bel It Ger Fr Sp Por Gr

Economic Development and Internet Use

Percentage of population online

501051.5.1.05.01.005

Per

Cap

ita G

DP

US

$ (

1997

)

40000

20000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

1000

800

600

400

Development Level

High

Medium

Low

Total Population

Rsq = 0.7686

Zam

Van

Uzb

Swazi

Sur

StK

Sol

SLeo

Sey

STom

Sam

Rwan

Qua

Pap

Nep

Mal

Mal

Mac

Lux

Les

Lat

Kyr

Kaz

India

Hait

Guin

G-Biss

Gre

Geo

Fiji

Ethi

Erit

Equ

ElSal

DomRDom

Dji

Cyp

Cuba

Cong

Comor

China

Chad

CAR

CVerd

Cam

Bur

Bul Bel

Bel

Bar

Bang

Bah

Aze

Alb

Burk

MozMali

Ang

NigYem

BenKenUga

VietGam

Sene

Mad

Maur

Togo

Cam

Pak

CD'Ivo

Nam

Tanz

Bots Gab

Nig

Ind

Gha

SLan

Sud

Phil

Para

Alg

Syr MorJor

Nic

Tun

Egy

Iran

Peru

Arm

ThaiSAfr

SAra

Mex

Ecu

Turk

Bol

Jam

CRica

Chi

Braz

Rom

Col

VenMal

Rus

Tri

Mol

Om

Pol

Lith

Uru

UAE

Ukr

Slovk

PorSp

Leb

Hung

GreSlov

Est

Kuw

Czech

Isr

Ire ItaAus Fr

SKor

NZ

Neth

Jap Den

UKSweFin

US

The Information Society

New Media Scale (Logged %PCs+Hosts+Online)

200100504030201054321.5.4.3.2.1.05.04.03.02

Old

Med

ia In

dex

(Log

ged

%Pa

per+

Rad

io+

TVs+

Tel+

Mob

ile)

200

100

50

40

30

20

10

5

4

3

2

1

Development Level

High

Medium

Low

Total Population

Rsq = 0.8201

BurkMoz

Mali

AngNig

YemBen

KenUga Zim

VietGam Sene

MadMaur TogoCam PakCD'Ivo

Gue NamTanz

BotsGabNig

IndGha SLanSud Phil

ParaAlgSyrMor Jor

Nic TunEgyIran HonPeruArm Thai SAfr

Pan

SAraMexEcu Turk

Bol CRicaChi MauRom Col Ven Mal

Rus CroMol

Om Arg PolLith Uru UAE

UkrSlovk

PorSp

Leb HungGre

Slov

EstCzech Ire

ItaBel

SKor NZGer

Sing

JapCan

DenUK AustlSwe

FinUS

Worldwide Diffusion of TV Sets

0

20

40

60

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

% p

er 1

000

pop. Postindustrial

Developing

Source: UNESCO Yearbooks

Worldwide Diffusion of Radio Receivers

0

30

60

90

120

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

% p

er 1

000

pop.

Postindustrial

Developing

Source: UNESCO Yearbooks

II: Evidence?

1) Global divide2) Social divide

3) Democratic divide

% Of Group with Internet Access, US Spring 2000(Pew)

6658

4113

1836

6474

5146

5035

46

0 20 40 60 80

18-2930-4950-64

65+EDUC

Less than HighHigh sch GradSome College

College Degree

MenWomen

WhitesBlacks

Hispanics

Social Divide% Online EU-15 Eurobarometer Spring 1999

0 10 20 30 40 50

ALL

15-2526-4445-64

65+INCOME

---+

++EDUC

Up to 1516-19

20+

MenWomen

ManagersOther White Collar

Manual WorkerHome workerUnemployed

Student

% Online by Household Income EU-15, Spring 1999

0

20

40

60

80

Source: Eurobarometer 51.0

% O

nli

ne

Highest

Lowest

II: Evidence?

1) Global divide2) Social divide3) Democratic divide

N. of Parties Online

35 to 67 (9)22 to 35 (7)13 to 22 (17)7 to 13 (22)3 to 7 (32)1 to 3 (42)0 to 1 (41)

Online Parties

Average number of online parties per nation

41

25

19

75 5 5

2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

N.America Weurope Scand C&EEurope

Asia-Pac Meast S.Amer Africa

Types of Parties OnlineClassified by % of parliamentary seats

31

4752

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Fringe Minor Major

Types of parties online

42

52

71

37

5762

51

41

19

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Extr.Left

SocDem

Green Center Libs C.Demo Cons Nats,Far Rt

Others

Level of Democratization (Freedom House Rate 1999)

87654321.9

Tota

l num

ber

of a

ll pa

rty

web

site

s70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

-10

Level of Development

High

Medium

Low

Total Population

Rsq = 0.2190

Ven

US

UK

Ukr

Syr

Sp

SAfr

Rus

Phil

Peru

ParaOm

Neth

Mex

Mali

Mal

Mac

Laos Jor

Ita

IreIraqIran

India

Gre

Fin

Ethi

Den

Cyp

Cro

China

Can

Braz

Bots

Bol

Bar

Austl

Arg

Alg

Alb

Infosoc Index (Old+New Media)

200100504030201054321

Tota

l num

ber

of a

ll pa

rty

web

site

s 70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

-10

Level of Development

High

Medium

Low

Total Population

Rsq = 0.4828

Yem Viet

Ven

US

UK

Turk

Togo

Swi

Swe

Sud

Sp

SAfr

SingSAra

Rus

PolPeru

PanPak

Om

Nor

Niger

Nic

NZ

Neth

Moz

Mex

Mali Kuw

SKor

KenJor

Ita

Isr

IreInd

Gha

Ger

Fr

Est

Den

CzechCro

Col

Can

Bol

Belg

Aus

Austl

Arg

Ang

Conclusions:

I. Global inequalities • Substantial & growing • Reflects long-term N-S divide

II. Social stratification• Widespread & unlikely to close in short-term

III. Democratic divide• Individual-level - activates the active• May empower challengers with know-how

Policy initiativesClosing 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.comDigital Divide CUP August 2001