Monday 21 February 2011

Exploring the "digital divide": Mobile adoption across the developing world


Adoption of mobile phones has accelerated globally during the current decade, but has the “digital divide” been lessening as a result? Researchers are desperate to discover ways in which mobile technology can stimulate economic activity in poorer countries, creating a better standard of living. Hence, this post will firstly, analyse the "digital divide" and secondly, identify how mobile phones are being used to great effect across the world.

The emphatic “dot-com bubble” spanning between 1995 to 2000 created a revolution as well as a worrying proposition. As people in the rich world embraced new computing and communications technologies, people in the poor world became stranded on the wrong side of the “digital divide” (The Economist-Technology, 2005) (see figure 1). Goggin (2006) notes that low-income countries have little more than 4 per cent mobile penetration in comparison to higher income countries which are nearing 77 per cent.

Figure 1:


In response, the United Nations launched a “Digital Solidarity Fund” (DCS, 2008) in 2005 to fund projects that address “the uneven distribution and use of new information and communication technologies” and “enable excluded people and countries to enter the new era of the information society” (The Economist-Technology, 2005).

However, the “digital divide” has often been questioned as a myth brought about by a misunderstanding. Plugging poor countries into the Internet will not help them create economic growth because the “digital divide” is not a problem in itself; it is a derivative of other divides such as income, literacy and development (The Economist-Technology, 2005). These symptoms are at the heart of the problem and thus, need to be tackled with integrity.

This leads us nicely onto mobile telephony and it’s rapid expansion across the world. It is this form of technology that holds the potential to drive development in poorer countries both economically and socially (Peterson and Malhotra, 1997). Mobile phones do not rely on a permanent electricity supply and can be used by people who cannot read or write. Therefore, mobiles are very well suited to people living in poor environments.

Across the world, mobile phones are becoming increasingly used as a payment method. For example, the local Coca Cola distributor in Zambia’s capital city pays for a shipment using his mobile phone. A full load costs 10m Kwacha (about $2,000) and in cash, this is a difficult amount to get hold of and takes time to count. Moreover, this sum is ten times the average wage and therefore, a temptation to thieves (The Economist-Economics Focus, 2005). All it takes is a text message to the driver and a receipt is issued.

This is just one of the dynamic ways in which poorer countries are using mobile phones to progress. Fishermen and farmers can check prices at different markets before selling produce, people can look for jobs more effectively and wasted journeys can be prevented. We have to remember that travel is expensive and extremely time consuming. A quick phone call can be the difference from a trip that would normally take a day to one that takes an hour. It is said that in a typical developing country, an increase of ten mobile phones per 100 people boosts GDP growth by 0.6 percentage points (The Economist-Economics Focus, 2005).

In conclusion, mobile holds the potential for developing nations to leapfrog technologically since they are able to bypass the development of landline telephone systems (Stump et al, 2008). It also holds the potential for creating economic benefits thus, restricting the “digital divide”. Yes the divide is still a significant problem, but with projects such as the “Digital Solidarity Fund” there is evidence that mobile technology has the ability to improve living standards for the poor and in turn, tighten the digital gap. As we speak, mobile phones are the world’s most widely distributed computers (The Economist, 2011). Even in poor countries about two-thirds of people have access to one (see figure 2).

Figure 2:

No comments:

Post a Comment