Digital divide and social inclusion: policy challenge for social development in Hong Kong and South Korea

Abstract

The computer and Internet technologies have fundamentally changed the way the economy develops and the way people live in various countries. Asian countries have been performing very well in adopting these new technologies and developing themselves into information societies. However, at the same time, we are also witnessing a growing gap, a new form of divide, gradually separating those who can derive many benefits from the information society and those who are not able to. Such a divide, referred to as the digital divide, manifests itself at international, national (across regions) as well as societal levels. At the societal level, digital divide has grave implications for social development because it limits social mobility, creates barriers to employment and aggravates social exclusion for the low income, older people and other disadvantaged groups. The first step to tackle digital divide is to have a comprehensive measurement of the state of divide. This article discusses the issue of digital divide and the implication for social development, as well as describes the attempts made by South Korea and Hong Kong in measuring the digital divide within their society. It also discusses how the information obtained can inform policy decisions to address the divide and promote social development.

Keywords:

• digital divide
• Hong Kong
• China
• South Korea
• social development

Introduction

We are living in the midst of rapid changes brought about by information technology (IT). We have experienced spectacular changes in the way we learn, work, relate with others and entertain ourselves in this information society within a period of less than 15 years. At the same time, we have also witnessed a growing gap, a new form of divide or exclusion, gradually separating those who can derive many benefits from the new information society and those who cannot. Such a divide, referred to as the digital divide, manifests itself at international, national (across regions) and societal levels. At the societal level, digital divide has grave implications for social development because it limits social mobility for children of low-income households, creates barriers to employment for those who do not know how to use the computer and Internet and aggravates social exclusion for the low-income, older people and other disadvantaged groups, which are usually on the wrong side of the divide. The first step to tackle digital divide is to have a comprehensive measurement of the state of the divide. Such measurement should be able to provide information for policy decisions. In Asia, South Korea and Hong Kong occupy the top positions in the table of the ICT Development Index developed by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a United Nations agency for information and communication technology issues. The index measures and compares the level of access, use and skills in ICT across countries. South Korea and Hong Kong both have led other Asian countries in developing such comprehensive measures to gauge digital divide in their society. This article discusses the issue of digital divide and the implications for social development, as well as describes the attempts in South Korea and Hong Kong in measuring digital divide. This article also discusses how the information obtained can inform policy decisions to address the divide and promote social development.

Digital divide

The digital divide refers to ‘the difference in rates of access to computers and the Internet’ (US Department of Commerce 2000, p. 2). It is ‘commonly understood as the gap between information and communications technology (ICT) “haves” and “have-nots” ’ (Sciadas 2002, p. 2). These definitions, though simple, have been widely used by governments and international organizations (WSIS 2003, EC 2005). Such differences in access result in the exclusion of those who do not have access or have only limited access from taking part in the information society. This new form of exclusion imposes limits not only on individuals, in terms of how they can share in the benefits of the information society and maximize their life chances, but also on the overall economic and social development in a fast-changing and globalized world.

The information society has become more pervasive in recent decades, thanks to the development of computers and Internet technology and their fast-shrinking prices. It has fundamentally changed the way people live their lives – how they obtain information, connect with friends and interact with others, do their work and conduct business and enjoy their leisure hours. Information is important in all forms of societies, but the proportion of people involved in producing, distributing and consuming information has reached an unprecedented level. In the information society, the emerging economy is known as the knowledge economy as it relies heavily on the creation and use of knowledge and information to create wealth. Since knowledge and information can move across the globe easily and rapidly, firms and individuals that possess and heavily use knowledge and information hasten the ever-spreading process of globalization (OECD 2005).

Internet connectivity has grown rapidly since it came into wider usage among the general public in the mid-1990s. In 2009, over a quarter (25.9%) of the world's population ¹ were Internet users. However, figures from 2007 show that while the number of Internet users in the developed world made up 55.4% of the population, the figure was only 12.8% among developing countries. In Asian countries, the figure was 14%, though this represents a huge increase from the figure of 6% in 2002 (ITU 2009, p. 5).

ITU has developed the ICT Development Index (IDI) to compare ICT development across countries and regions. IDI captures information along three dimensions, namely ICT access, ICT use and ICT skills. In each of these dimensions, indicators have been set up to compute the scores. For example, for ICT access, one of the five indicators is ‘Proportion of households with Internet access at home’. If the percentage for this indicator for a country is 60%, the score will be obtained by dividing this value by a benchmark or reference value (100%), which is the highest possible percentage in the world. The score for this indicator will be 0.6 for this country. A weighting procedure is then applied to various indicators and dimensions, and the total IDI scores are obtained for all countries being compared. Other examples of ICT access indicators are ‘Mobile cellular telephone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants’ and ‘International Internet bandwidth (bit/s) per Internet user’. Examples of ICT use indicators include ‘Internet users per 100 inhabitants’ and ‘Fixed broadband Internet subscribers per 100 inhabitants’. For ICT skills, directly measured indicators are unlikely to be available for extensive country comparisons; thus proxies are used. The proxy indicators are ‘Adult literacy rates’, ‘Secondary gross enrolment ratio’ and ‘Tertiary gross enrolment ratio.’ All the reference values are 100%, which is the highest possible ratio. All three indicators are given equal weighting. The overall weighting for ICT skills is 20%, compared to 40% for each of the other two sub-dimensions, ICT access and ICT use.

The highest possible IDI score, when each indicator value is equal to the reference value, is 10. The lowest possible IDI score is 0. Table 1 presents the IDI index in 2002 and 2007 among the highest-ranking economies. In general, IDI scores appear to hold a linear relationship with the logarithm of Gross National Income (GNI PPP $) per capita. South Korea is an exception because it ranked 50th in terms of income per capita (GDP PPP $) in the world, ² but it was at the very top position in the IDI table in 2002 and 2007 (Table 1).

Table 1. ICT Development Index (IDI) of select high-ranking countries (2002 and 2007)

Economy	Rank 2007	IDI 2007	Rank 2002	IDI 2002
Sweden	1	7.50	1	6.05
South Korea	2	7.26	3	5.83
Demark	3	7.22	4	5.78
The Netherlands	4	7.14	6	5.43
Finland	9	6.79	8	5.38
United Kingdom	10	6.78	10	5.27
Hong Kong, China	11	6.70	12	5.10
Japan	12	6.64	18	4.82
Germany	13	6.61	14	5.02
Austria	14	6.58	13	5.02
Singapore	15	6.57	16	4.83
United States	17	6.44	11	5.25
Taiwan	25	6.04	17	4.82
China	73	3.11	90	1.95
Source: ITU (2009, p. 22). Asian countries are highlighted for easy reference.

Recently, the digital divide across countries increasingly manifests itself in the form of bandwidth divide. Households in rich countries can usually enjoy fast broadband connection to the Internet at a tiny fraction of their household income. However, the cost for broadband Internet connection in low-income countries can be prohibitively high even for high-income households. If the cost of broadband Internet connection is expressed as a fraction of the GNI per capita, the value for the United States is 0.4, and for Canada it is 0.6. Most rich European countries have a value of less than 1.2. The values for East Asian countries are also low: 0.7 for Taiwan, 0.8 for Singapore, 1.0 for Hong Kong and 1.2 for South Korea. The values for India and China, on the other hand, are very high (respectively 7.7 and 9.4), indicating that most of their households cannot afford a broadband connection. Seven countries, mostly in Africa, have a value well over 1000 (ITU 2009, p. 56). The bandwidth of Internet connection, which is expressed in terms of international Internet bandwidth per Internet user (bit/s), is well over 10,000 bit/s for developed countries, but it can be well under 1000 for developing countries (ITU 2009, p. 92). Although the percentages of Internet users have been growing fast in developing countries, the online experience, such as the speed they can browse websites, access graphics and download audio-visual materials, can be very much different. In fact, the ICT among developing countries is still predominately mobile phone technology. Thus, the fast development of information societies and knowledge-based economies enabled by ICT actually results in a growing disparity between the developed and the developing world.

Implications of the digital divide for social development

The disparity of access within countries has also become a major concern of developed countries, affecting not only the life chances and well-being of its members, but also their survival in the new knowledge economy. In 2000, the European Council considered that ‘the emergence of new information and communication technologies constitutes an exceptional opportunity, provided that the risk of creating an ever-widening gap between those who have access to the new knowledge and those who do not is avoided’ [Introductory Note ‘Issues in the fight against poverty and social exclusion’, European Council, 17 October 2000]. In 2005, after years of effort to reduce the disparities within their countries, they are still worried that the ‘very slow development [in access] concerning low income and less educated groups … [will become] a history of ever evolving delays and/or permanent exclusion …’ (EC 2005, p. 12).

In 1995, 1998 and 2000, the US Department of Commerce released its Falling through the Net reports. These reports examined unequal access to the Internet in terms of several different demographic factors, including race, education level, gender and age. In 2000, the OECD released Understanding the Digital Divide, which examined the unequal distribution of access throughout the OECD countries (OECD 2004, p. 298). Initially, affordability and literacy (which affects the confidence to take up new technology) were the major barriers that accounted for disparities in access within developed countries. However, with better infrastructure and the falling price of computers and Internet services in recent years due to market competition, affordability and access to facilities have become less important factors. Instead, the ‘main barriers seem related to literacy, language, lack of cultural diversity, [and] lack of local content’ (EC 2005, p. 15). Furthermore, as some have adopted a higher-quality but more expensive broadband service, a new type of divide – a ‘broadband divide’ – has begun to take shape (OECD 2004, p. 298). This divide represents a disparity in the quality of information services, in terms of both the transmission speed and the content of the information. This will ultimately affect the development of the information society, or, in other words, the level of inclusion in an information society, especially for disadvantaged groups.

As the information society unfolds, having access to and being able to use new technology, especially the Internet, also means being an integral part of society and being effective citizens (Shelley et al. 2006). People with limited access will be outpaced by those who are ahead in the ability to select and process information (Mason and Hacker 2003, p. 46). Thus, digital exclusion has become a new form of social exclusion. It implies that in a society there exist ‘two distinct groups: one being socially included and the other not sharing the characteristics of the first group, thus being excluded from whatever the first group has access to’ (Lombe and Sherraden 2008, p. 286). For example, it is becoming more difficult to speak to a real person when using a telephone hotline or to be served by a bank teller when depositing or withdrawing money because these services are disappearing fast and are being replaced by the cheaper auto-teller machines and online services. It is also becoming very difficult to take part in political processes as most of these processes are now occurring in the cyber-world. It is becoming harder to express views and influence decisions regarding political and social issues without having access to or participating in electronic forums, or without getting the most up-to-date information, which usually comes in a digital format.

The concept of ‘e-citizenship’ has become more relevant in the discussion of citizen rights in the information society. This is an extension of the idea of social citizenship proposed by T.H. Marshall (1950). Social citizenship encompasses the idea that members of a society should have rights of access to an array of social protections, such as retirement income, health care and housing, in case they cannot adequately provide for themselves.

E-citizenship entails a new form of rights that a state must guarantee, namely the rights and capabilities of its citizens (in terms of knowledge, accessibility and affordability) to take part in the information society enabled by modern ICT. Specifically, members of a society should be able to access the vast and growing body of information on the Internet, use cyberspace channels to communicate with friends, express their opinions and conduct transactions with government and business operators. If e-citizenship is a right, the state should have a strong role to play in ensuring that members of society are effective e-citizens. IT literacy should therefore be considered as part of general literacy. Enabling citizens to use major technology and applications should also be accorded a high priority (Wong et al. 2009).

Social development is about looking at the development of the well-being of the population as a whole in conjunction with a dynamic process of economic development (Midgley 1995). Instead of merely looking at economic indicators, such as GDP growth rate and income per capita, social development looks at employment situations, social protection, health and education and other aspects of human development as well as social inclusion and cohesion, which are important aspects of the well-being of the population as a whole. In fact, these are integral parts of economic development also. Taking this perspective, it is also not enough simply to look at how social security can prevent people from living in poverty; it is necessary to look at how economic and human capital development can bring decent and sustainable employment to the population, particularly those more disadvantaged.

The digital divide is therefore an important concern in the promotion of social development. The most obvious area to which it relates is employment opportunities. ICT has become an important part of the production process of various economic sectors as companies endeavour to improve productivity and deliver goods and services that are only possible with the help of the new technology. For those who are on the wrong side of the divide, their jobs are always under the threat of being replaced by technology, software and other automated procedures.

The impact upon children in low-income households is more acute if they are left behind in terms of school performance simply because they do not have access to the Internet, which has become essential for teaching and learning today. This has great implications for the overall human capital development of any society. Internet access becomes a crucial block to social mobility for low-income children if their parents cannot afford to provide a computer with an Internet connection at home, or do not know the importance of doing so for their children. Since social development also refers to the need for development for the impoverished regions and disadvantaged populations in areas associated with health and disability, education, women's roles, industrialization and urbanization with its related problems (Payne 2005, p. 210), the new technology has an important role to play in enabling the disadvantaged populations to obtain information and related services.

Digital exclusion in Hong Kong and South Korea

Both South Korea (ranks 2nd in 2007) and Hong Kong (ranks 11th in 2007) had very high IDI scores in 2002 and 2007 (ITU 2009). Both also had a high rate of urbanization (81% in South Korea and 100% in Hong Kong ³ ), making ICT infrastructure readily accessible to their population. However, the digital divide is still a problem that needs tackling. Table 2 compares the digital divides in Hong Kong and South Korea with that in the United States. The percentages of Internet users among their respective populations are high. The percentage for South Korea is 77.6% (among those aged 6 or above), while for Hong Kong it is 66.7% (among those aged 10 or above). These percentages are close to that of the United States. However, the first sign of the digital divide appears in relation to gender. Whereas the percentages of Internet users among the male (78%) and female (75%) populations in the United States are very similar, the gap is larger in South Korea (82.4% for males and 71.9% for females in 2009; see KCC & KISA 2009) and Hong Kong (70.0% for males and 63.5% for females in 2008; see C&SD 2008).

Table 2. The digital divide in the USA, Hong Kong and South Korea

Population groups	USA	South Korea	Hong Kong
	Internet users (%)
Gender
Male	78%	82.4%	70.0%
Female	75%	71.9%	63.5%
Age
60–71	56% (62–71)	20.1% (60 or above)	7.0% (65 or above)
71+	29%
Low income	61% (≤$40,000)^a	48.4^b	37.0^c
	91% ($40,000+)
All	76%	77.6%	66.7%^d
Age groups	Completed secondary school education ^e (%)
25–34	87%	97%	79%
55–64	87%	37%	32%
^aEstabrook and Rainie (2007).
^bFigure indicates situation at the end of 2006 (Cho 2007). Low income refers to those entitled for ‘Low Income Subsidiary Scheme’.
^cPer cent of households having a computer at home (74.6% for all households); low income for Hong Kong refers to those with less than HK$10,000 a month (14.7% of households); the median household income was HK$22,800 in 2008 (C&SD 2008).
^dAge 10 or above, 2008 figure (C&SD 2008).
^eOECD (2009); Hong Kong figures come from C&SD (2008).

The second sign of the divide can be found in relation to age. In the United States, the percentage of Internet users is high even among those aged between 62 and 71 (56% in 2007). For those even older, the figure is 29%. However, the percentage is very low in Hong Kong (7.0% for those aged 65 or above) and is only somewhat better in South Korea (20.1% for those aged 60 or above). The major reason for this obvious divide is that both Hong Kong and South Korea started their industrialization in the 1960s and 1970s. Only then was education available to the general population. Thus, among the older cohorts, those who had completed upper secondary school education or above were in the minority (37% in South Korea and 32% in Hong Kong among those aged between 55 and 64 in 2006; see OECD 2009 and C&SD 2007). This contrasts sharply with the situation in the United States, where 87% of this age cohort have had upper secondary school education.

The third sign of the divide can be found in the different levels of household income. In the case of Hong Kong, while 74.6% of all households have a computer at home, the figure is only about half (37.0%) among low-income households. Measured at less than half (HK$10,000) of the median household income (HK$22,800 in 2008), the low-income households constitute 14.7% of the total number of households. The median household income in the United States was US$50,740 in 2007. ⁴ For people living in a household earning $40,000 or less, only 61% of them are Internet users compared to 91% of those living in households with an income more than this amount. Similarly, in South Korea, only about 48.4% of those eligible for Low Income Subsidiary Scheme are Internet users. However, since older people who live alone or live only with their spouse tend to have a lower household income, the figure does not actually reflect low-income households with children, but it is children who suffer more if they do not have Internet access at home.

Measuring digital exclusion

The concept of digital inclusion refers to the extent to which different socio-economic sectors of a society have equal opportunities to take part in the information society. The ability to take part in the information society, in practice, means the capacity to use and the actual extent of using services enabled by ICT. Thus, digital inclusion does not only take into account the accessibility of different sectors of people in a society to the new technology, though this is a necessary condition, but also the degree of actual usage of services enabled by ICT. Also, the degree of actual usage cannot be taken as the only dimension for digital inclusion. Conceptually, having access, for example, to an Internet connection at home but using it infrequently can still be regarded as better, in terms of the opportunity to take part in the information society, than having no access at home.

There are several important factors that affect the level of accessibility and usage, for example, computer skills/literacy in using the technology-enabled services, and having enough money to acquire essential devices and pay for services. Such factors not only affect the degree of access and usage but also have unique implications for the capacity and potential (or opportunities) for members to take part in the information society. Such factors should also be considered in measuring the degree of digital inclusiveness of a society.

Figure 1 presents the major factors that are important to accessibility and the degree of usage. Such factors include affordability, ICT skills/literacy, availability of the essential technology (e.g. in some neighbourhoods, no Internet connection is available for its members), the existence of applications and desired content and other socio-cultural factors (e.g., having no interest to use imported technology).

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of digital inclusion.

Some of the factors can be easily measured and in some cases data can be obtained from secondary sources, for example, affordability, which is mainly represented by the household income of its members. Other factors, such as the existence of desired content and application, and socio-cultural factors, are subjective perceptions of its members and are difficult to capture, let alone conduct international comparisons. To measure the two observable dimensions, namely the accessibility and usage of digital inclusion, and its related factors, they can be operationalized into relevant indicators.

Accessibility

Accessibility refers to the accessibility of personal computers and Internet connections, at home and in other locations, so that individuals can connect to the Internet to use its services. Increasingly, the quality of technology – for example, having a broadband connection, and higher processing power and storage capacity – affects the intention and satisfaction of using technology-enabled services; this will be included as indicators to the accessibility dimension also. These indicators included the extent to which individuals

• have a home computer (desktop and/or notebook computer).

• have home computers connected to the Internet.

• have a good-quality computer.

• have a broadband connection.

• have a computer at home that can be used without permission.

Usage

Usage refers to the actual usage of the computer and services enabled by ICT. Services include those that are commonly available and are essential to the functioning of individuals in a society. Such essential functions include searching for information on the Internet, communicating with others (unsynchronized, such as sending and receiving email, short messages, bulletin board messages; synchronized, such as interacting with others in chat rooms, using instant messages), using e-government services (e.g. venue booking, licence application), conducting online business transactions (e.g. auctioning, online payment, online shopping) and producing websites to share information with others. It also captures the amount of time spent in using those technology-enabled services. The indicators include the following:

• Whether used a computer earlier

• Duration of having used a computer

• Frequency of using the Internet

• Average duration (number of hours) of using the Internet each time (in the past 3 months)

Computer skills/literacy

Computer skills/literacy refers to individuals' self-assessment of their ability to use the technology-enabled services mentioned above. It also captures their self-perception of their knowledge of using computers and the Internet as well as the number of hours of training in computer and Internet usage that they have received. In fact, computer skills/literacy is highly correlated with general literacy and educational attainment. For international comparison, data about educational attainment, which are readily available from all countries, is taken as a reliable and accurate proxy for computer skills/literacy. The indicators for computer skills/literacy include the following:

• Knowledge (self-assessment) of doing various kinds of online activities

• Overall knowledge (self-perception) of using computers and the Internet

• Computer training received

Affordability

Affordability refers to the ability to pay for devices and services in order to take part in the information society. Since the market is generally open to all (except that in some localities, Internet service providers (ISPs) are not free to operate), household income reflects the affordability of devices and services. Household income is preferred to individual income because individuals with little or no income (e.g. older adults, women doing housework) might have a high level of affordability if they come from a household with a high level of income.

Measuring digital exclusion in South Korea and Hong Kong

There have been various attempts at both national and international levels to measure the digital divide within a society. According to ITU (2005), most of these measurements compare the degree of access to ICT among different demographic groups in a society. The general approach is to compare the level of access to ICT of certain disadvantaged groups (such as older people, those on a low income) with the benchmark or that of non-disadvantaged groups (such as those who are younger and better educated). The comparison usually takes three forms. Method A involves finding the absolute difference between the two groups (disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged); for example, if the non-disadvantaged group has an access rate of 90% while the disadvantaged group has an access rate of 45%, then the difference between them is 45%. Method B involves computing the ratio between the levels of access of the two groups; in this case, the ratio is 0.5. Both A and B can be used to trace changes across years in order to see whether the divide has been narrowing or growing. For example if over 5 years ICT access reaches 60% for the disadvantaged group and 100% for the non-disadvantaged group, then the difference is reduced to 40% by Method A (a reduction of 5%) and 0.6 by Method B (also an improvement). To trace the changes, Method C, which involves comparing the rate of change in the level of access between the two groups, can also be used.

Two recent attempts were made to develop measurements that included not only access to ICT, but also other dimensions relevant to the concept of digital inclusion. Both attempts adopted Method B. The first one was the Personal Informatization Scores developed by the former Korean Agency for Digital Opportunity & Promotion (KADO ⁵ ) (ITU 2005), while the second one was the Digital Inclusion Index (DII) developed by The University of Hong Kong for the Office of Government Chief Information Officer (OGCIO) of the Hong Kong SAR Government (2006, Wong et al. 2009b). The following section will outline and discuss these two approaches.

Personal Informatization Score – South Korea

The Personal Informatization Score consists of a weighted computation of three dimensions (or categories) – access, capacity and utilization. Like other personal measures, such as IQ and self-esteem scores, it can be calculated for every individual. An average score can thus be computed for a group of individuals and compared to the average of the general population or other social groups of concern. The access dimension measures the degree to which each person has access to ICT. Items in this dimension include ‘Ease of access to computer and Internet when needed’, ‘Possession of IT devices’ and ‘Quality of computer/speed of Internet connection’. The capacity dimension measures a person's ability to use IT. It includes items relating to the individual's ability to use a computer and the Internet. The utilization dimension measures both the quantity and quality of the individual's use of a computer and the Internet. Two items are used to measure quantity of use: ‘Yes or no on using computer/Internet’ and ‘Average hours of computer/Internet use per day’. The items adopted for quality of use include ‘Perceived usefulness of computers’ and ‘Degree of using “desirable” software and contents’. The quality of utilization measures the satisfaction of the individual with his or her use of computers in general and with certain types of desirable applications in particular. Desirable software and contents are pre-selected for each of the social groups to reflect people's needs. The items thus include ‘Perceived usefulness of computers’ and ‘Degree of using “desirable” software and contents’ (ITU 2005). An expert panel was appointed to assign weighting to the three dimensions. They came up with 0.3 for access, 0.2 for capacity, and 0.5 for utilization. Table 3 presents the dimensions (grand-categories and categories), items (sub-categories) and their weighting information. The points were added to compute the scores of the respective categories; the weighting (in brackets) was a simple way of showing their relative importance, which was already reflected in the maximum possible points in each category or sub-category

Table 3. Weighting of items for the Personal Informatization Score

Grand-category	Category	Sub-category
Access (0.3) 30 points	Ownership of IT devices (0.2) 6 points	PC ownership (0.4) 2.4 points^a
		Home Internet connection (0.4) 2.4 points
		Ownership of wireless Internet device (0.2) 1.2 points
	Availability of IT devices (0.6) 18 points	Availability of PC when needed (0.17) 3 points
		Ease of access PC (0.33) 6 points
		Availability of the Internet when needed (0.17) 3 points
		Ease of access to the Internet (0.33) 6 points
	Quality of IT devices (0.2) 6 points	Quality of PC (0.5) 3 points
		Quality of Internet connection (0.5) 3 points
Capacity (0.2) 20 points	Capacity to use computer (0.5) 10 points	Ability to use eight computer-related items (1) 10 points
	Capacity to use the Internet (0.5) 10 points	Ability to use nine Internet-related items (1) 10 points
Utilization (0.5) 50 points	Quantity of usage (0.6) 30 points	Usage of PC/the Internet (0.7) 21 points
		Average hours of usage PC/Internet (0.3) 9 points
	Quality of usage (0.4) 20 points	Usefulness on five areas of Internet activities (0.5) 10 points
		Usage of needed Internet/computer activities (0.5) 10 points
Source: KADO, Survey for the measurement of the digital divide in 2004 (cited in ITU 2005, p. 95).
^aThe points indicate the maximum possible points of the categories/sub-categories.

.

The Personal Informatization Scores for individuals belonging to a particular social/demographic group can be averaged to calculate the Personal Informatization Score for that particular group. Table 4 presents the results of the Personal Informatization Score for the general population in 2006 obtained from a national survey (Cho 2007). The other population groups in the table include low-income people, people with disabilities and the elderly. The figure in each cell represents the ratio (expressed in the form of a percentage) of the scores between the particular disadvantaged group and the general population. Thus, for the general population, the scores for various categories were: Access (89.1), Capacity (37.4), Quantity of Usage (63.5), and Quality of Usage (38.7). The overall Personal Informatization Score was 61.0. The range of scores for each category and the overall scores was 0 to 100. For the disadvantaged groups, the ratio indicated how these groups were performing compared to the general population. The result indicates that farmers and fishermen had the lowest ratio (49.8%), followed by the elderly (58.4%). A longitudinal comparison is also shown if the information across years was available.

Table 4. Comparison of Personal Informatization Scores

	Category^a
Population Groups	Access (0.3)	Capacity (0.2)	Quantity of Usage (0.3)	Quality of Usage (0.2)	Personal Informatization Score
General population	89.1	37.4	63.5	38.7	61.0
	Relative Personal Informatization Score (General population = 100)
Farmers/Fishermen	69.5	29.1	38.1	31.3	49.8
Low-income people	79.6	67.1	69.3	64.9	73.0
People with disabilities	85.4	61.0	67.8	62.0	73.9
The elderly	82.9	32.4	41.7	39.5	58.4
^aThe range of scores for each category is 0 to 100. Source: Cho (2007).

The cumulative scores of the Personal Informatization Score and its sub-dimension scores (Access, Capacity, Utility) of a population sample can also be used to construct a Lorenz distribution. The values of the distribution can then be computed into a digital Gini ratio/coefficient similar to that of the Gini coefficient for measuring income disparity. Figure 2 presents the Lorenz curves for the accumulated sub-dimension scores of the Personal Informatization Score. The digital Gini ratio/coefficient (which ranges from 0 to 1) reflects the disparity within the population studied in terms of access, capacity and utility. The 0 value represents absolute disparity – only 1 person had a score larger than zero, while all the rest had a score of zero. A value of 1 represents a state of complete equality – everyone has the same score.

Figure 2. Digital Gini Ratio in Korea for 2004.

Digital Inclusion Index – Hong Kong

The approach used to construct the Digital Inclusion Index (DII) is in some ways similar to that used to construct the Personal Informatization Score. The DII also measures several dimensions pertinent to the concept of digital inclusion, namely accessibility, knowledge, usage and affordability. It also employs the Method B comparison approach – comparing the scores of certain disadvantaged groups in those dimensions with the goalpost, that is, the scores of the non-disadvantaged ones. The index score computed can also be used to trace changes longitudinally.

The DII was computed for select disadvantaged groups. In Hong Kong, the groups selected were older people, new arrivals, single parents, female homemakers, children in low-income households and persons with disabilities and chronic illnesses (PWD/CIs) (Wong et al. 2009b). The DII was computed for each disadvantaged group and all disadvantaged persons were also considered together as one single group. Representative samples were obtained from local households for each selected group.

Sub-index scores were calculated for each pertinent dimension. As a result, there are four sub-indexes, namely the accessibility sub-index, the knowledge sub-index, the usage sub-index and the affordability sub-index. Table 5 presents the sub-index items and their values. No weighting was applied

Table 5. Indicators of the Digital Inclusion Index

	Older people	New arrivals	Single parents	Female homemakers	Children (low income)	PWD/CIs^a	All disadvantaged persons	Non-disadvantaged persons
No. of individuals	1107	296	61	452	277	966	2312	284
Indicators
Accessibility sub-index
% having a computer at home	46.4	64.2	65.6	69.9	70.4	50.6	58.6	91.1
% having a computer connected to the Internet at home (for those having a computer at home)	92.8	93.7	95.0	94.3	94.9	92.4	93.9	97.8
% who can use a computer without permission (for those who have used a computer and have a home computer)	95.4	98.3	93.3	91.1	85.8	90.1	91.1	96.4
% having no constraints in using software (for those who have used a computer and have a home computer)	100.0	95.0	100.0	100.0	97.9	99.3	98.1	95.3
% who have a broadband connection (for those with a home computer connected to the Internet)	97.0	98.8	97.3	97.9	96.1	96.2	97.3	98.3
Knowledge sub-index
% having a medium or above level of knowledge about using computers	1.7	24.7	14.8	1.3	41.2	6.8	11.8	58.1
% having a medium or above level of knowledge about using the Internet	1.6	24.3	13.1	2.0	41.9	7.2	11.9	57.8
% know in general/know well how to search information	4.4	42.2	24.6	5.1	68.6	11.7	20.4	69.7
% know in general/know well how to send email	3.5	39.2	24.6	3.5	64.6	10.6	18.8	68.5
% know in general/know well how to join chat rooms, forums	2.3	29.4	19.7	2.0	56.3	7.9	14.8	57.7
% know in general/know well how to shop online	1.3	14.5	14.8	1.5	27.8	5.7	8.3	38.8
% know in general/know well how to get e-service	1.2	15.5	18.0	1.1	30.3	5.8	8.8	44.4
% know in general/know well how to publish a web page	0.5	15.5	9.8	0.2	30.7	3.0	7.2	27.5
% having taken computer training course(s)	0.5	8.1	11.5	1.3	14.4	2.0	3.8	10.7
Usage sub-index
% having ever used a computer	6.7	51.4	31.1	10.6	84.8	16.4	26.4	78.6
% ever having used the Internet (among computer users)	85.1	94.7	84.2	83.3	96.6	90.5	93.3	99.0
% who use the Internet daily (those who have used a computer)	44.4	54.9	50.0	35.0	52.0	49.0	51.7	68.0
Average hours online each time	1.26	2.11	1.86	1.78	2.31	2.48	2.23	2.35
% who have searched for information (those who have used the Internet in the last 3 months)	96.6	92.8	100.0	97.1	87.7	92.5	92.4	95.9
% who have sent email, etc. (those who have used the Internet in the last 3 months)	50.0	71.2	56.3	42.9	64.1	71.4	66.3	81.2
% who have used chat rooms, instant messaging or forums (those who have used the Internet in the last 3 months)	10.3	46.8	18.8	20.0	51.8	27.1	39.8	44.3
% who have shopped online (those who have used the Internet in the last 3 months)	1.7	2.2	0.0	5.7	2.7	17.3	5.9	8.4
% who have used e-service (those who have used the Internet in the last 3 months)	5.2	4.3	0.0	2.9	5.5	6.0	5.2	9.9
% who have published a web page (those who have used the Internet in the last 3 months)	1.7	8.6	0.0	0.0	10.5	3.8	7.6	10.1
Affordability sub-index
% of people living in households with equal to or higher than the median household income for their household size	47.7	68.6	45.8	59.7	0.0%	51.8	50.4	96.1
^aPWD/CIs stands for persons with disabilities/chronic illnesses.

.

Under each sub-index, indicators were selected and each indicator has an item score which is expressed as a ratio between the value of the disadvantaged group for that indicator and the value of the comparison group (the non-disadvantaged group) for that indicator. For example, under the accessibility sub-index, one of the indicators was the percentage of individuals having a home computer. The item score is the ratio between the percentage of persons having a home computer in the particular disadvantaged group under study and the percentage of non-disadvantaged persons having a home computer. For example, if the percentage value for the disadvantaged group is 30% and that for the comparison group is 60%, the item score is 0.5. The sub-index score was computed through a combination of multiplication and summation of the related item scores depending on the nature of the indicators. Table 6 presents the final results of the computation (Hong Kong SAR Government 2006, Wong et al. 2009)

Table 6. Digital Inclusion Index (DII) scores for the major disadvantaged groups

Sub-indexes	Older people	New immigrants	Single parents	Female homemakers	Children (low income)	PWD/CI^a	All Disadvantaged persons
Accessibility	0.50	0.70	0.71	0.75	0.72	0.53	0.62
Usage	0.04	0.50	0.19	0.06	0.88	0.17	0.26
Knowledge	0.04	0.52	0.41	0.05	0.92	0.14	0.25
Affordability	0.50	0.71	0.48	0.62	0.00	0.54	0.52
DII	0.27	0.61	0.45	0.37	0.63	0.35	0.41
The index ranges from 0 to 1 for disadvantaged groups. The higher the value, the closer is the group to the non-disadvantaged groups in terms of ICT accessibility, knowledge, usage and affordability.
^aPWD/CIs stands for persons with disabilities/chronic illnesses.

.

Discussion and conclusion

It is becoming clear that the digital divide has grave implications for developing countries. Developing countries have always found it hard to play the catch-up game with the developed countries, which have been moving ahead fast in developing their knowledge economies enabled by new technologies. Within countries and societies, the digital divide has presented a significant problem to social development. The first step to tackling the digital divide or to promoting digital inclusion is to have a better understanding of the problem and locate target areas for action. This article describes the innovations introduced by South Korea and Hong Kong to accurately measure the digital divide in their societies.

Both the Personal Informatization Score and the DII go beyond measuring the accessibility to ICT hardware/software to also include information about utilization/usage, capacity/knowledge and affordability. Both measures can serve to show how a particular disadvantaged group was performing in each sub-dimension compared to the benchmark, usually represented by the general population or the more advantaged sector of society. Given this information, policy makers can promote digital inclusion by targeting resources and programs for specific dimensions. For example, for low-income children, the best approach would be to provide computers and Internet connections for free or at a concessional price. For older people, given their low take-up rate, it would be more useful to develop suitable applications, contents and easy-to-use input devices, such as touch screens, to promote usage. Networking and organizing activities to promote their usage would also be useful (Wong et al. 2009a).

Nevertheless, both approaches, though comprehensive, require costly household surveys to collect data. This limits the possibility of international comparison. Proxy measures that involve only secondary data collection could be more useful. For example, instead of perceived knowledge and skills in computer and Internet usage, educational attainment could be used. In addition, secondary data regarding some of the disadvantaged groups might not be readily available. While information about Internet usage across genders, levels of household income and age groups is usually available for comparison, information about persons of disabilities and single parents is difficult to obtain.

The information society has created fundamental changes. It enables many (including individuals, countries and societies) to derive great benefits but it also magnifies existing divisions and exclusions as well as creating new ones. Its implications for social development manifest in employment opportunities, human capital development and social exclusion of those on the wrong side of the digital divide. The discussion of e-citizenship and associated rights from the state has an important role to play, particularly in ensuring access and digital literacy, so that all members can effectively take part in society. To bridge the digital divide, or promote digital inclusion, the first step is to have a framework and method to measure what and where they are. This article outlines attempts to measure and monitor the level of digital inclusion in a society. Gaining a better knowledge of this situation is the first step to evaluating, comparing and addressing this new form of exclusion.

Notes

Source of information: The World in 2009: ICT facts and figures retrieved from http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/. Internet users are those who have access to the Internet and the basic knowledge to use it.

According to the CIA World Factbook, South Korea had a GDP per capita (PPP) of US$27,700 (2008 est.), and it ranked 50th in comparison to other countries. Retrieved from: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/.

See CIA the World Factbook 2009. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/.

See http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/saipe/national.cgi#SA91.

Since May 2009, KADO was replaced by National Information Society Agency (NIA), Korea's principal agency devoted to informatization. See http://www.nia.or.kr/koil/aboutkado/Introduction01.asp.