Reader Response Draft 3

Reader Response Draft 3

In “World wakes up to digital divide”, Wakefield (2010) asserts that digital divide is a worldwide issue. Research by International Telecommunications Union (ITU) states that digital divide within a country correlates with its economic status. To solve this issue, governments of poorer countries built infrastructure to introduce network for less developed areas. Digital divide not only exists in developing countries but also in developed countries. Accordingly to New America Foundation’s (NAF) study, disparity exist in America where only a significantly small proportion of Native Americans use Internet. However, it has shown that Internet not only help minorities keep alive their culture, but also improve their standard of living. Through the study, America should be the role model, where technologies are taught how to use rather then simply providing them which shows the need for a change in strategy to resolve the problem of digital divide

In the article, Wakefield (2008) gives examples of success in the Wi-Fi Villages in Hungary, but also mention the concern that the technology could be too advanced for the villagers. This is also my concern when I first come across the term “Wi-Fi villages” in the article.  The government has attempted to solve the digital divide by providing Wi-Fi infrastructure and cheaper computers.

However, I would like to question if this strategy could holistically resolve the issue of digital divide. According to Fink and Kenny (2003), digital divide is not just because people do not have access to technology, but is also due to the differences in ability to use, actual usage and impact of usage (Beltran & Fontenay, 2008). I will explore how the digital divide can be narrow by using this definition, as the government seems to overlook the gap in the people’s ability to use Wi-Fi technology by just simply providing technology and expecting that people would reap the benefits.

In my opinion, there are barriers to overcome before people have the ability to fully utilize the technology. Firstly, the government would have to resolve the problem of language barriers. The Government is targeting villagers living below the poverty line where many villagers could be illiterate and require education. Also, poverty would be barrier for people to fully utilize the technology. Even though the government is providing cheaper computers to cater to the needs of poor people, it is unlikely that villagers having difficulties making ends meet would splurge on computers which may not necessary improve their lives. As a result, even with access to Wi-Fi technology, the villagers may not have the ability to use. Therefore, perhaps the government should consider the correlation between digital divide and the economic status mention by ITU and resolve the issue of poverty first.

Next, we have to acknowledge that there will always be a digital divide and the role of the government would be to narrow it. After the implementation of the technology, the government has to ensure that it is fully utilize, and not become a white elephant infrastructure. Even though improving connectivity in the rural villages would naturally lead to comparative advantage and attract foreign investments, villages may not be knowledgeable in incorporating technology into their businesses. Also, villagers may not utilize Wi-Fi like a city dweller, but it could be incorporated into their lives by the government to ensure actual usage. One interesting success in Africa was how technology improved the lives of previously marginalized villages and improved their lives significantly. African farmers were able to consult experts on their crop failure and through the advise they saved their crops and livelihood (Treisman, 2014). As long as there is actual usage and the people are able to feel the impact or benefit after using technology, the divide of actual usage and impact of usage could be narrowed.

I feel that the government’s “Wi-Fi villages” can be successful even though the technology may be too advanced for the villagers. The government had taken the first step to provide the technology and with policies to educate the villagers, they could harness the technology to improve their lives. This example of Wi-Fi village is particularly relevant to Singapore’s digital divide due to our greying population. Similar to the villagers, we cannot expect elderly to utilize Internet technology like the younger generation and digital natives. However, through the technology we could improve the healthcare quality provided for our elderly (Tham, 2014). In all, I feel that the main aim of resolving the digital divide will be to ensure that people are not left out from the benefits of technology, which can marginalize them from the society as well as economy.

References:

Bourdeau de Fontenay, A. & Beltran, F. (2008). Inequality and economic growth: Should we be concerned by the digital divide? ITS Montreal 2008. May, 1-37. Retrieved http://www.imaginar.org/taller/its2008/37.pdf

Tham, I. (2014, March 17). Bridging the digital divide. The Straits Times. Retrieved from http://www.straitstimes.com/the-big-story/case-you-missed-it/story/bridging-the-digital-divide-20140317

Treisman, L. (2014). Access to information: bridging the digital divide in Africa. The Gaurdian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2014/jan/24/digital-divide-access-to-information-africa