The Digital Divide

1
The Digital Divide

• Frederick W. H. HOCommissioner for Census and
  StatisticsHong Kong, China

2
Paper on The Digital DivideDiffusion and Use
of ICTs

• P. Montagnier, E. Muller and G. Vickery
• Digital divide measured in terms of the extent of
  diffusion and use of ICTs
• Major aspects to measure, viz.
• infrastructure readiness
• ICT penetration
• determinants and patterns of use

3
Paper on Measuring Technology Achievementof
Nations and the Capacity to Participate in the
Network Age

• M. Desai, S. Fukuda-Parr,
• C. Johansson and F. Sagasti
• Technology Achievement Index (TAI) computed based
  on eight indicators which
• are related to four dimensions, i.e.
• capacity to create new technology
• diffusion of recent innovations
• diffusion of old innovations
• stock of human skills

4

• Ranking of economies based on TAI to show
  different levels of technological achievements
• Consistent with the notion that digital divide is
  a continuum in technological achievement rather
  than a binary phenomenon

5
Points to discuss

• Adequacy of indicators to cover relevant aspects
  of digital divide
• Digital divide is not a simple phenomenon, so the
  use of a simple indicator or just a small set of
  indicators may end up with misleading results
  about whether the divide is widening or closing
• Broader meaning of digital-divide - presence of
  social and economic disparity due to difference
  not only in the ability to access and use of ICT
  but also the ability to create knowledge
• Can indicators be extended to relate to creation
  of knowledge at the personal or the community
  level as well?

6
Points to discuss

• Whether indicators on negative effects related to
  use of ICT should also be created for studies
  related to the question of balanced and
  sustainable development?
• Example Indicators on health hazards and
  unfavourable psychological and social
  consequences related to use of ICT

7
Points to discuss

• To what extent policy priorities and emphasis
  would affect the type of measures of digital
  divide required?

8

• The TAI has the advantage of structural
  simplicity and limited demand on data requirement
• Specific economies at different stages of
  economic and social development with different
  target policy priorities may need different sets
  of indicators

9

• Likewise, different approaches adopted for
  achieving a policy target may call for different
  indicators for use during the policy analysis and
  evaluation stages
• Example Cost of using digital technology may be
  lowered through government subsidisation or
  through improved market competition by
  deregulation measures. Each approach requires
  different indicators

10

• Cautious interpretation of the ranking of
  economies in terms of TAI
• Economies with the same TAI do not necessarily
  have the same or very similar technological
  achievements
• TAI does not consider details on the use of ICTs
  (e.g. amount of time access and purpose of use)
• To caution against the over-interpretation of the
  ranking table, especially given that there is
  great temptation to the mass media to write
  sensational reports based on the simple ranking

11

• Applicability of measures of inequality in access
  and use of information technologies
• In the paper on The Digital Divide Diffusion
  and Use of ICTs, Gini coefficients are computed
  to show the degree of equality in the
  distribution of access to computers and the
  Internet by income

12

• In interpreting the Gini coefficient, great care
  is needed to isolate relevant factors and often
  it will be necessary to look at a set of Gini
  coefficients rather than at just one

13

• Considerations regarding definition of basic
  needs of digital technology
• No clear and standard definition of the basic
  needs of digital technology
• Different definitions of the basic needs would
  have impact on the type of statistical indicators
  to be compiled for assessing and monitoring the
  issue of digital divide

14

• Technical considerations in the compilation of
  indicators
• Definition and scope of indicators mentioned in
  the two papers may deserve further discussion
  (e.g. definition of high- and medium-technology
  exports (proposed by Lall (2000)) and
  classification of patents into ICT and non-ICT
  applications)
• Regular review on the classifications is required
  as the classifications may change over time