The UK and eGovernment: Chapter V, The Digital Divide

Around 40 percent of adults in the UK have no experience of using a computer and only 50 percent of homes have some kind of access to the Internet. [1] One report even goes far enough to suggest that over 140,000 families are at risk of being excluded by the fast development of the knowledge economy. This even extends to more successful UK cities, with a third of Londoners lacking skills and living in ‘skills poverty’. [2]

Dugdale, Daly et al suggest that this is “one of the leading challenges to the success of e-government is the lack of participation in the information society by those groups in the population who are the biggest users of government services.” [3]

The factors creating this Digital Divide are the same historic factors of social exclusion, namely income, employment and age.

Although the costs of PCs and the Internet are becoming increasingly competitive, there are still a large number of people for which these are unaffordable. Efforts to improve equality of access through PCs in libraries and centres help but are unable to fully solve this problem. For example, for socially excluded groups only 6 percent had Internet access at work compared to 38 percent for all UK users found by an ONS study. [4] Initiatives to encourage employers to increase access to the Internet and ICT training in the workplace should be encouraged, particularly areas with higher incidences of social exclusion.

The most significant factor is age. Older people have lived the majority of their life without going online and many are indifferent to the benefits, despite the potential benefits to them.

There is much debate as to whether the Internet will exaggerate existing social trends, with the more dynamic in society reaping the benefits of technological development, leaving the least off behind, or whether the advancement of broadband and development of technology into all areas of society will eventually make everybody proficient.

For Bourdieu, theories of social reproduction suggest that technological innovation and change unwittingly reinforce existing social power relations and modes of consciousness that legitimises those relations.[5] In the context of the Internet, the socially deprived have limited opportunities to familiarise themselves with technology they stand a greater chance of being left behind by others who are able to benefit from technological advances. GLA research has voiced concerns following research into the Digital Divide that it does still exist and that there is a risk that it will widen rather than reduce, if appropriate measures are not adopted to avoid it. [6]

On the other hand, many consider the growth of broadband and its application in all areas of life in the future will make the Digital Divide disappear. London Connects takes the optimistic approach, considering that this will happen through market forces and intervention by the year 2012, in time for the Smart City Vision.

In regards to the development of eDemocracy, whereby people on the Internet are able to form part of the decision-making process any Digital Divide could have consequences to the form of Democracy in the future. Jenson voices concerns that without significant equality of use and appropriate regulation online public spheres will end up becoming the coffee houses of the eighteenth century. [7] This concern is backed up by Torres, Pina and Acrete, who feel that despite increased government transparency, efficiency and customer orientated service delivery that “technology is behaving as an enabler within pre-existing social and political structures.”[8] However, Jenson still is aware that the opportunity for new media helps to provide “citizens with enhanced possibilities for gaining information and communicating with politicians, which altogether might potentially lead to a revitalisation of the public sphere.” [9]

As Warscauer points out, there is no overriding factor for determining or closing such a divide, as it is “woven into social systems and processes.” To deal with this he argues that this involves “not only providing computers and Internet links or shifting to online patterns but also developing relevant content in diverse languages, promoting literacy and education and mobilising community and institutional support toward achieving community goals.”[10]

One of the main concerns for people attempting to counteract symptoms of deprivation is that ICT is often not articulated in any meaningful or coherent way. For example, in London there is no evidence or data with which to measure local demand for ICT which makes it difficult for policymakers to support and continue ICT projects, as it is difficult to make business cases from their budget or apply for government grants.

Reaching Out to Disadvantaged Group

There is no ‘one size fits all’ approach to encouraging use of the Internet, with experience showing that a careful understanding of target groups and their needs is critical to any project success. This approach is likely to benefit local authorities rather than central government, given their greater contact and understanding of constituents’ issues.

The route to users buying computers at home is usually two stage. Firstly, people experiment with the Internet in public access points. This usually lasted a couple of months, with only 26 percent of participants using the Internet for less than twelve months having access from home. [11] If people purchase a computer later it is because their greater use has made then more aware of its benefits.

Where participants use the Internet [12]

Centres
The UK has been successful at creating an infrastructure for everybody to have the opportunity to access the Internet, such as through a network of over 6000 UK Online centres, providing community-based access and learning points.[13] Also, the Peoples Network Initiative (PNI), a National Lottery initiative has helped to invest £120 million in key frontline services[14] through putting computers in every library in the country.

Research has found that these centres and IT facilities have played a very important role in assisting socially excluded groups to get online. Clayton considers that with 340 million visits a year public libraries are the biggest generator in ‘customer capital’ in the local public sector. [15] The interest from many in learning how to use computers from many people who lacked basic literacy skills was a major encouragement for such centres, as the curiosity factor was enough to initiate self betterment from some. One poll on the effect of informal ICT learning from library users was highly positive, with:

51 percent ending up having the Internet at home

42 percent making online purchases

77 percent becoming more interested and confident in working

36 percent applying for a job or starting up a business

40 percent finding a job

48 percent progressing to accredited training courses[16]

However, there are concerns for the infrastructure. Firstly, many of these centres lack of scale or size has left them unable to develop their activities sufficiently. A more concerning development has been the lack of long-term funding for computing equipment, as the PNI investment was one off. The cost of sustaining computers, including upgrades, servicing and software licensing is getting to the point where libraries are having to make the difficult choice between scaling back the number of computers available or cut funding in books. Clayton and Hepworth consider part of this funding crisis to be as a result of libraries ‘falling between the cracks or silos’, between the DfES, DCMS, and ODPM nationally, and between council departments and partnership agencies locally and regionally. [17]

There have been a number of concerns raised by participants that there is a bewildering array of Internet training and skills development courses offered by ICT centres and learning centres. Some policymakers have suggested that one way to deal with this is to create a Public Resource Centre to provide a unified front to people enquiring for courses and shared access to resources such as staff training, mentoring, equipment and the development of best practices.

Support Structures
There have been a range of support services introduced to different communities beyond just installing centres. These often reflect the communities individual characteristics.

For example, in Westminster councillors noticed a lack of interest from its Bengali community in its libraries. To counteract this they hired an outreach worker who could speak Bengali in order to teach ICT courses. This was a huge success, with over 59 percent of the Bengali community becoming active library users, particularly women, far higher than the 5 percent target envisaged. The library involved has now become the main point of access to community services of the Bengali community in Westminster and has now helped many to get onto the jobs market.

The importance of community-based advocates of Internet technology has slowly been realised. Research has found that many new Internet users are keen to volunteer and to assist others to start using the Internet. They would be useful in buddy schemes or to lead groups to help reduce the stigma of not understanding computers and provide role models to demonstrate the advantages of ICT. Demand for such existing schemes is high and appears to be a cost effective way to reach out to people. However, they need much support and perhaps training in order to reach out and increase awareness of ICT effectively.

Creating forums between businesses and getting them into the same room in order to encourage their use of ICTs and promoting partnerships should greatly increase the strength of UK ICT companies. For example, Brixton Online, a social entrepreneurship works with approximately 150 to 200 businesses a year, providing consultations, ICT packages and workshops to encourage young businesses to embrace ICT.

Encouraging social entrepreneurship is a useful way of building partnerships within the community. For example, the Mayor of London works in partnership with Maxitech to refurbish computers and redistribute them to Age Concern centres in the capital.

Projects
Shoreditch is at the centre of London’s Smart City plan for 2012. Currently it suffers from being one of Europe’s most deprived areas, with 40 percent of people economically inactive despite having over one thousand SMEs located in an area less than the size of two local authority wards.[18] However, due to massive levels of investment coordinated with the Mayor of London’s investment in the East End it should become the largest ICT literate broadband community in Europe, covering over twenty thousand residents and its businesses. [19]

The network offers an ultra high speed broadband connection five times faster than regular lines. It will offer households:

· Entertainment e.g. digital TV, video on demand, network games, music file sharing

· Welfare to work e.g. Online NVQ courses, basic skills, English as a Second Language courses, local jobs website

· Consumer e.g. local ‘e-bay’ and ‘Loot’ services, online group buying for utilities, repair reporting to local authority, approved list of personal service suppliers like childcare, plumbers, carpenters etc.

· Security e.g. online webcam CCTV across the estates that can be monitored by residents in their homes, through the Network

· Community information e.g. GP Surgery opening times, GP bookings, benefits entitlements

· Communications e.g. free local phone calls, e-mail, PC applications like MS Office and internet explorer, community chat rooms, community voting

For businesses, especially SMEs it will include:

· Network services e.g. latest versions of MS Office, Sage, specialist software needed by knowledge economy enterprises, backup of files on network drive

· Security e.g. Online webcam CCTV, monitoring premises and surrounding areas, that can be viewed by SMEs over the network. Panic buttons and security systems, enabled by the high speed connection.

· Business support e.g. award winning online support packages developed by London Met University New Media lab, online premises matching services, online loan finance through ShOW’s SME loan development fund

· Business services e.g. approved lists of service suppliers such as Accountants, Legal, HR etc.; online group buying of common services such as utilities, online sector forums and networking areas

There will very generous introductory offers to encourage initial uptake. Although there will be a subscription to the service in order to guarantee its long-term sustainability the large economies involved are expected to save households £300 a year.

This investment examines the strengths of weaknesses and creates a framework that should be successful both socially and efficiently at transforming the region.

Written by Jonathan McHugh in June 2007.

Part of Electronic Horizon: An Examination of the Importance of eGovernment and the UK Governments Approach to ICT, the Internet and its Impact on Modern Government

---

[1] Acting now to provide for an exciting future (Western Morning News) September 14, 2006

[2] The London Knowledge Economy (Knowledge Economy Network) 2006 p. 6E

[3] A. Dugdale, A. Daly et al Accessing e-government: challenges for citizens and Organizations (International Review of Administrative Sciences) 2005 p116-7

[4] P Foley, X Alfonso, et al Connecting people: tackling exclusion? An examination of the impact on and use of the Internet by socially excluded groups in London (Greater London Authority) 2006 p. 8

[5] R. Morrow C. Torres Social Theory and Education: A Critique of Theories of Social and Cultural Reproduction. (New York Press) 1995

[6] The digital divide in a world city, GLA, June 2002

[7] J. Jensen Public Spheres on the Internet: Anarchic or Government-Sponsored – A Comparison (Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 26 – No. 4) 2003 p350

[8] L. Torres, V. Pina, and B. Acerete E-Governance Developments in European Union Cities: Reshaping Government’s Relationship with Citizens (Blackwell Publishing) 2006 p. 300

[9] J. Jensen Public Spheres on the Internet: Anarchic or Government-Sponsored – A Comparison (Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 26 – No. 4) 2003 p349

[10] M. Warschauer Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide (MIT Press) 2003 p. 39

[11] P Foley, X Alfonso, et al Connecting people: tackling exclusion? An examination of the impact on and use of the Internet by socially excluded groups in London (Greater London Authority) 2006 p. 7

[12] P Foley, X Alfonso, et al Connecting people: tackling exclusion? An examination of the impact on and use of the Internet by socially excluded groups in London (Greater London Authority) 2006 p. 38

[13] G. Kuk The Digital Divide and the Quality of Electronic Service Delivery in Local Government in the United Kingdom (Government Information Quarterly) 2002 p. 355

[14] N. Clayton and M. Hepworth Public Libraries in the Knowledge Economy (Museums, Libraries and Archives Council) 2006 p. 64

[15] N. Clayton and M. Hepworth Public Libraries in the Knowledge Economy (Museums, Libraries and Archives Council) 2006 p. 7

[16] N. Clayton and M. Hepworth Public Libraries in the Knowledge Economy (Museums, Libraries and Archives Council) 2006 p. 64

[17] N. Clayton and M. Hepworth Public Libraries in the Knowledge Economy (Museums, Libraries and Archives Council) 2006 p. 65

[18] Shoreditch: The Digital Bridge

[19] Shoreditch: The Digital Bridge