Debunking the Optimists: an Evaluation of Conventional Wisdom about the factors underlying the Digital Divide in the British Isles
by George C Ryder

Abstract

The ‘digital divide’, which is defined as the gap that exists between those with and those without access to the Internet, (i.e. the digital ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’) has been widely debated. The main protagonists are split broadly into two groups, the technology ‘optimists’ and the technology ‘pessimists’. Conventional wisdom is represented by the optimists’ view that the divide is caused by barriers to Internet connectivity such as low levels of education, income and technology proliferation. The pessimists disagree and hold that the significant government funds being used to address these barriers are misdirected. This paper reports on a study in the Isle of Man (IOM) to evaluate the validity of the optimistic position.

As a microcosm of the UK, the IOM was found to be generally reflective of it with similar e-Government programmes and income levels, but having better levels of education and social stability. Based on these key factors, the IOM should be characterized by a higher or similar level of Internet connectivity to the UK: if the ‘optimists’ are right! There was a diametrically opposite finding however, represented by the IOM trailing the UK connectivity level by a significant 12% to 14%. This unexpected outcome could constitute a dilemma for many Governments in wondering if the significant monies being spent on e-Government and the challenge of the digital divide qualifies as wise investment or optimistic folly.

Keywords

Digital divide, e-Government, Internet connectivity, IOM, UK

Introduction

The advent of universal access to the Internet, especially over the last decade, has generated widespread prosperity and growth, as well as giving rise to a number of accompanying issues. One issue in particular, that of the ‘digital divide’, has been the subject of controversy and debate from varying perspectives, geographies and contexts by some of the world’s leading academics. The debate about this ‘divide’, which is generally described as the gap that exists between those with and without Internet access, (the information ‘haves’ and  ‘have nots’), is dominated by two opposing groups, known collectively as the ‘optimists’ and the ‘pessimists’. The naming of the protagonists in the debate is credited to Lentz, (2000, pp 359 and 366), who said that ‘in addition to technology optimists, there are also technology pessimists, who believe that at best cyberspace can only create a useless pseudo-community’. A typical technology pessimist is Powell (2002), who maintained that the position of the  ‘optimists’ applied in the mid-nineties, when the Internet was only a few years old as a popular medium and personal computers cost thousands of dollars. He concludes that today however, ‘with dirt-cheap Internet access and computers approaching the cost of television sets, assertions of a digital divide or racial ravine are misplaced. As a result, billions of dollars might be spent to address needs that no longer exist’.

A more conventional wisdom is professed by the ‘optimists’ who maintain that the digital divide is a real and addressable societal problem, especially for Government, because it results from barriers to Internet connectivity such as low levels of education, income and access to technology.

Judging by their statements and actions, policy makers, i.e. Governments and their leadership, possibly responding to optimistic opinions held by many leading academics and experts in the field, mostly reflect the view that the digital divide is indeed a fundamental problem in society which can and must be addressed.

One of the most evident results of this, which constitutes a central theme for contemporary governmental activities in most post-industrial societies such as the UK, is the emphasis placed on e-Government policies and programmes.

The considerable effort and resource invested generally by governments and in particular their e-Government programmes, is either fully justified or a potential waste, depending on which side of the debate about the digital divide proves to be closer to the truth.

Evaluating which side of the debate applies, including a supportive assessment of the pivotal role of e-Government in narrowing the Internet connectivity gap, is the subject of this article.

In order to avoid the significant time and cost implications of an evaluation based on a large population such as the UK, the approach taken was akin to that of a laboratory experiment. This typically involves looking at a problem in microcosm, under ideal conditions and drawing conclusions which may then be tested against other experimental configurations.

The choice of the Isle of Man (IOM) especially suited this type of evaluation. It is an  independent political entity with a very stable society and  successful economy. In addition, its size facilitated the assessment of information at the level of a population while retaining the dimensions of a large representative sample. The IOM’s historic and cultural similarities with the UK further underpinned a comparison of their levels of barriers and connectivity to the Internet, in order to determine if the ‘optimists’ or ‘pessimists are right. A  ‘pessimist’ result from this research could have serious or potentially damning implications for some Governments, including their approach to and expenditure on e-Government.

An established first step in this type of evaluation is to review contemporary literature on the subjects involved.  The information resulting from this review provided a theoretical basis for gathering data to empirically derive an answer to the debate, within the context of the British Isles.

e-Government – Summary of Literature Review

From the mid-90s onwards, literature records an increased emphasis on the need for a more strategic approach to e-Government and also on the external, constituent serving, aspects and associated benefits, of it. Providing increasing online services to the general public is considered to be a ‘holy grail’ by many governments. A key difference identified between Government and business is that e-Government is not just e-business on a larger scale. Representing the public, they have reason to be concerned about the digital divide because unlike businesses, who can by and large choose their customers, Governments cannot.

The main factors identified as characterising e-Government by a relatively modest level of literature on the subject, have been arranged into a series of clusters as follows:

These factors provided the theoretical foundation for the questionnaire used to survey and quality test e-Government on the IOM. A positive outcome to this test, confirming its international standing generally, and by implication with the UK program, was essential in order to underpin a general comparison of barriers to and levels of Internet connectivity.

The digital divide – Background

In contrast with e-Government, there is an important body of literature and associated research about the digital divide, its global scope and the underlying causes of it.

Norris, (2001,p 4), defines the scope of the digital divide in the following way:

(a) The Global divide: Internet access gap between industrialised and developing countries

(b) The Social divide: the gap between information rich and poor in each nation.

(c) The Democratic Divide: the difference between those who do and do not use digital resources to participate in public life.

At the time of writing, Norris expected that world-wide, 400 million users, including more than 50% of Americans, would use the Internet by mid 2000 with many of the existing barriers being broken down by a combination of:

·        Technological breakthrough e.g. PDA, WAP and iTV.

·        Market Competition.

·        State Intervention.

In order to determine a consensus among the authors reviewed as to the causes of the digital divide and the barriers to Internet connectivity they represent, a panel of thirty one was analyzed.

The outcome of this analysis graphically is as follows:

         Figure 1. Principal Barriers to Internet Connectivity

This graph shows that based on an analysis of the work of some of the leading academics in the field, a consensus emerges indicating Education, followed by GDP per Capita/Income and Age as being the three principal causal factors underlying the digital divide.

Methodology

The principal objective of this article was to evaluate the quality of the IOM e-Government strategy and implementation; deemed to be a key factor in increasing Internet connectivity, and test a ‘pessimist’ hypothesis about the digital divide through macro comparisons to the UK

The methodology used for the IOM survey was based on a positivist paradigm, with a quantitative analytical approach to the research undertaken. The data used for the overall evaluation came from two sources

• The survey of e-Government on the IOM to underpin the macro comparisons.
• Macro level government statistical and census data for the IOM and the UK 

Results

The main results of the survey on e-Government on the IOM, which were quality tested through comparing them to a recognised US benchmark were:

·        The IOM Government has a good standard of e-Government strategy and implementation

·        The necessary structural and legislative e-Government enabling factors are in place.

·        Comparison with the US Meta (2000) survey benchmark revealed some weaknesses in the IOM e-Government programme in the areas of infrastructure, general readiness for e-Government and the approach to the usage of knowledge management tools

·        The IOM Government expects its e-Government programme to achieve a material level of narrowing of the digital divide on the Island.

With a well established e-Government program, a stable, educated society and strong economy, the IOM ought to compare well, if the ‘optimists’ are correct, in terms of Internet connectivity levels with most post industrial modern societies including the UK, with which is has so much in common. In order to test if this was the case, the macro-level data, which impacts these levels, was reviewed in conjunction with that of the UK.

Macro level data for the IOM and UK

IOM macro level factors were compared to corresponding data for the UK, in order to determine the relative degree of similarity or advantage in terms of barriers to Internet connectivity, which obtains between the two entities:
The following is a summary of the comparison between the IOM and the UK. A relative advantage of one entity over the other is highlighted in bold:

This comparison reflects the main barriers to Internet connectivity of education, age and GDP/income, in line with the ‘optimists’ position on the causes of the digital divide. The outcome was that while the IOM population had a similar age structure and GPD/income to the UK, the IOM level of secondary education and general social conditions are better. This, together with the quality of the IOM e-Government programme, from the standpoint of the optimistic view of the digital divide, should have resulted in a similar or greater level of Internet connectivity there, than in the UK. The reverse, to a significant 12% to 14%, was in fact the case.

The implications of such a clear result that favors the viewpoint of the pessimistic body of literature on the digital divide may be a catalyst for analysis and discussion well beyond the scope of this article. 

Analysis and Discussion

A gap of 12% to 14% less Internet connectivity than in the UK confirmed the ‘pessimists’ view about the digital divide as obtaining in the IOM. The significance of this connectivity disparity is not appreciably mitigated by factors such as sampling errors, which for surveys like Kitchen (2000), are typically between 1% and 2%.

This overall result does not auger well for the expectation of the IOM Government that their modern and proactive approach to e-Government should have an identifiable and material positive mitigating impact on this divide. If this was the case, and the optimistic argument was correct resulting in similar levels of connectivity for both entities, e-Government activity could have manifested itself as the expected identifiable, if marginal, increment in connectivity levels compared to the UK.

Although the impact of barrier levels and e-Government have not individually been assessed in this research, the significant overall connectivity gap between the IOM and the UK would indicate the hypothesis of this article as being sustained.

One of the key implications of the ‘pessimist’ position in the digital divide debate, is that misjudgement of its causes can end up costing large amounts of public funds. It may be significant also that this pessimistic implication is stressed by more contemporary contributors to the debate, such as Powell (2002), Harvey (2002) and Schement (2002), who have the benefit of being able to observe Government efforts in general and more specifically e-Government programmes, at a more mature stage in their development. The ‘pessimists’ maintain that one of the principal causes of the digital divide is that the inequalities and complexities that exist in society cannot be addressed by technology, as claimed by the ‘optimists’. Their position would appear to be vindicated by recent examples in both the G2C and G2B areas in the UK. Notable among these is the disappointing public usage of on-line income tax and value added tax (VAT) returns, despite relatively high levels of government investment and promotion. (Harvey 2002).

The microscopic reasons which contribute to the relatively low levels of Internet connectivity in a society like the IOM may be viable candidates for further investigation. This would be justified, not out of academic interest alone, but more importantly in order to determine if the significant sums of stakeholder money which the IOM Government in common with many others spend yearly on their e-Government programmes, is well directed and invested.

Summary and Conclusions

The  ‘pessimist’ result from the research undertaken could have serious or indeed potentially damning implications for some Governments.

The test of Internet access poses something of a dilemma for the IOM in that they trailed the UK connectivity level by between 12% to 14%; a diametrically opposite result to that expected based on the optimistic point of view. This outcome may give rise to some fundamental questions for the IOM Government and those with similar e-Government and Digital Divide challenges:

The similarities in terms of barriers with the UK points to e-Government as one identifiable variable which could and is expected to account for connectivity improvements in the IOM. This outcome of this research however would render that expectation as being in need of reassessment.

Current connectivity levels mean that legacy systems and processes may have to be perpetuated indefinitely. This will at best delay many of the benefits and savings associated with e-Government, leading to potentially increased stakeholder costs and inconvenience.

A societal saturation point may underlie this result, whereby once Internet connectivity has reached a certain level in particular environments or social structural mixes, diminishing returns on incremental investment to increase it may apply.

Governments may use the result of this evaluation to beneficially inform or predicate the way they direct their future investments in e-Government. Those who have taken a minimalist approach to providing for example ‘brochure-ware’ via their portals; stage one and two as identified by Symonds (2000), may choose to ignore it. Those however, with more ambitious plans for e-Government and narrowing the digital divide, involving potentially the investment of significant public funds, may be unwise to do so. Further investigation and experience should definitively confirm if such investment is indeed money well spent or the continuation of optimistic folly.

References.

Harvey, F (2002) ‘E-envoys pledge’, The Financial Times, 5 April, p. 4.

Kitchen, P (2000) Can't surf, won't surf the digital divide, Which Online in association with MORI.

Lentz, R (2000) ‘The e-volution of the digital divide in the US a Mayhem of computing metrics’, Inf,; vol. 2. no. 4, pp 355-377

META Group, (2000) E-Government Multi-Client Study Findings , META Group Inc, Federal Sources Inc.

Norris, P, (2001) Digital Divide, Cambridge University Press.

Powell, A, (2002) Falling through the Gap, whatever happened to the Digital Divide, The MIT Press. 

Schement, J, (2002) Of Gaps by which Democracy we Measure, The MIT Press

Symonds, M (2000) ‘A survey of Government and the Internet Island site’ The Economist, 24 June, p.16.

( Published by The Research Journal in the December 2004 issue)