The digital divide within theEuropean Union

Sjaak HubregtseInstitute of Media and Information Management,

University of Higher Professional Education, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Abstract

Purpose – Attempts to define the digital divide and examines the significant differences in, andimplications of, the extent of internet connectivity both globally and, more specifically, within theEuropean Union (EU).

Design/methodology/approach – The paper was designed using and combining objective dataand literature, adding the author’s personal experiences and opinions.

Findings – After 1 May 2004, when the EU was enlarged from 15 to 25 member states, the digitaldivide in the EU widened substantially (national connectivity varying from less than 10 to more than60 per cent), caused by regional lack of technological infrastructure as well as cultural andpsychological factors.

Research limitations/implications – Many “most recent” national data on internet-connectivityare two years old.

Practical implications – Inequality in internet-connectivity in the EU will increase dramatically,with all consequences for communication, dissemination of information, economy (e-commerce!), etc.Consequently, parallel to digital media, traditional means of dissemination of information – such asprinted books, public libraries, local broadcasting – should be maintained and furthered.

Keywords European Union, Libraries, Digital storage, Generation and dissemination of information

Paper type Research paper

The first World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was held in Geneva on10-12 December 2003. A total of 6,000 delegates from 180 countries attended thisconference, which was organised by the United Nations. The many topics discussedincluded “the availability of information”, “safety and privacy on the internet”, “thespam problem” and “the right to knowledge versus intellectual property”. However, thecentral theme was “the digital divide”. This theme was referred to again by AndrisViks, of the National Latvian Library, in the opening session of the Bobcatsss[1]Symposium in January 2004 at Riga. Also in 2004, a workshop was held in Brussels on“The digital divide: opportunities and threats at the verge of EU enlargement”. Clearly,the digital divide is a very real and important topic, especially so in the EuropeanUnion (EU), which, as from May 2004, consists of 25 member states as compared withthe previous 15.

The introduction of new media and some of the consequencesAccording to ancient Egyptian mythology, script was an invention of one of the gods,called Thoth. Hieroglyphs, meaning “words of God”, were considered to be a gift of thegods. Consequently, only priests were able and allowed to decipher the sacred signs.Thus we see that, after the introduction of this new medium, script, there was a sharpdivide between information haves and have-nots: a divide which maybe we could callthe divine divide. Unfortunately, this situation can be seen again during the Middle

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0307-4803.htm

NLW106,1210/1211

164

New Library WorldVol. 106 No. 1210/1211, 2005pp. 164-172q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0307-4803DOI 10.1108/03074800510587363

Ages, when once more only the priesthood – now of Roman Catholic denomination –had the privilege to spend a lifetime in library and scriptorium. This repressive role ofscript was only brought to an end, basically, through the invention of printing and theprotestant Reformation. “Basically”, because firstly, as always after the introduction ofa new medium, a conservative elite hangs on to the old medium and rejects the new oneas an inferior substitute. In the case of printing, many rich people kept on preferringthe manuscript book to the printed book. Secondly, because certainly not everyonefrom the beginning could afford to buy books. So, for some time after Gutenberg’sinvention, there were information haves and have-nots – there was an informationdivide. An explanation follows as to why the present digital divide is much morealarming and less promising to be bridged.

What exactly is the digital divide?About seven years ago, April 1997, a United Nations Committee stated:

We are profoundly concerned at the deepening maldistribution of access, resources andopportunities in the information and communication field. The information and technologygap and related inequities between industrialised and developing nations are widening: a newtype of poverty – information poverty – looms (United Nations, 1998).

This “information and technology gap” is now better known as the “digital divide”, butwhat exactly is it? The above mentioned World Summit of 2003 gave this definition:“We use the term ‘digital divide’ to refer to the gap between those who can effectivelyuse new information and communication tools, such as the internet, and those whocannot”. This definition, however, is disappointing, as it is rather too simplistic. It istrue that the most dramatic kind of digital divide is the global divide: some countriescan use the internet, and others cannot, because of the simple fact that theindispensable technological infrastructure is missing. However, also, there arecountries that do have, to some degree at least, the technological possibilities, but donot allow freedom of information and communication to all people, and consequentlymake internet use impossible. Examples are Cuba, Myanmar (formerly known asBurma) and China.

However, there are other manifestations of the divide, maybe amazing to somepeople and self-evident to others, but anyway too important to be ignored – as theyexactly match the multiculturality theme of the Bobcatsss Symposium. Also, after thetechnological and political aspects, the usually neglected cultural or psychologicalaspect must be taken into account.

There are people, or cultures, that, as a matter of fact, can use new information andcommunication tools, such as the internet – but choose not to do so. Two real-lifeexamples will illustrate this, one coming from Western culture, and one from the East.

The first example comes from the USA, to be more precise from one of thespokesmen of The National Leadership Network of Conservative African-Americans:

The information age is here. Computers bring an exciting new frontier for research, commerceand educational opportunity. It also brings a new angle on victimisation. It’s called the“digital divide”. It assumes that millions of poor and black Americans are left behind whileothers enjoy the opportunities brought by the internet. Never missing an opportunity toexpand the role – and subsequent control – of the federal government, presidentialcandidates and activists disguise their thirst for more power as “solutions” in order to

Digital dividewithin the EU

165

confiscate more money from taxpayers, launch new government programs, create massivebureaucracies and redistribute revenue into budgets that mostly pay salaries. We are told thegovernment will close the digital divide by making sure the poor and minorities can accessthe internet. The truth is that we are being hoodwinked again, with the government hopingwe’ll buy its latest excuse to raid our pockets. There really is no digital divide. This newvictim syndrome was concocted to continue coddling the poor and minorities by saying theyhave been slighted and deprived of equal opportunity. It is nothing more than a scam to openup another door for federal intrusion and expansion. The goal is to foster guilt, and it milks usall to pay for it . . . The “digital divide” is just another scheme being used to divide Americaand allow liberal socialists into our political system to devise new methods of incrementalgovernment expansion that may someday be impossible to reverse (Green, 2000).

The second example comes from Southeast Asia. A news editor of the Bangkok Postwrote the following:

Many people nowadays, those at the United Nations included, see information and relatedtechnologies as if they are merely a neutral business tool in the same way that they seeglobalisation as opening up the world for “free” trade. This misleading view of information isbehind the drive to wire the entire globe to reduce it to some imaginary global village. Butinformation is not neutral. It can never be. Information carries with it layers of humanprejudice, values, loves, hates and fears. It may be desirable to wire the world but its goalmust be questioned. The connotation of a global village, in its sense that it is beingpopularised, is that of a single community with a single set of values. To be crude about it, it’sthe McDonaldisation of the world. Because much of the information on the internet, as well asin other popular media, is created in the Western world, it is inevitable that the entire world isbeing Westernised (Techawongtham, 2002).

Opinions like these – which may contain utterly paranoid and stupid statements aswell as true and wise ones – bring to the mind two very interesting and contradicting“basic information rights”, the first being “The right to remain ignorant”. DutchInformation professor Hamelink (1995, p. 9)writes about this:

The problem is complex: deficiencies on the supply-side and deficiencies on the demand-sidemutually strengthen each other. The professional mechanisms of information mediationstand in the way of a comprehensive, and unbiased provision of information. Equally, thedisinterest of the world’s citizens to be fully informed, obstructs the information flows. Intheir preference for third-rate video and TV products and popular magazines andnewspapers, millions of people state they have the right to be ignorant. As a result, ourexpanding and complex world has a double problem: the means of information provision arehighly inadequate and the users are largely uncritical.

Furthermore, once having agreed on the right to remain ignorant, the other basicinformation right becomes very interesting too: “The first right of every man incivilized society is the right to be protected against the consequences of his ownstupidity” (Edmund Burke, as quoted in McLuhan and Fiore, 2001, p. 49). Incidentally,the contradiction between these two “rights” could be a very interesting theme for afuture conference, Bobcatsss or otherwise!

The digital divide in general – world-wideSome countries can use the internet and other countries cannot, as they do not have thetechnological infrastructure. It is the technological problem that makes the digital

NLW106,1210/1211

166

divide much more alarming than other information divides that used to occur after theintroduction of a new medium.

While Gutenberg’s printing press was a relatively simple wood and ironstructure, the technology needed to be internet connected is complicated andexpensive. And, although telephony was introduced 128 years ago, still today largeparts of the world are practically deprived of it. As can be read in nearly everyarticle on the digital divide (e.g. “The global information infrastructure” (InfodevSymposium, 1999) and “Information technology and globalization” (Kulturnet,2000)), Manhattan has more telephone connections than Africa, though the blackcontinents population is 500 times higher (and then two out of three Africantelephones usually are out of order). Alarming, and not promising to disappear, isthe digital divide, because, as was stressed at the World Summit in December 2003:“The gap between those with and without access to the internet continues toincrease throughout the world”.

For those who want figures to be convinced, they can be seen in Table I.In 1997, the average connectivity in four industrialised countries was 9.3 per cent, in

seven developing countries 0.4 per cent: a divide of 8.9 per cent. Less than five yearslater in the same countries the difference was 58.7 per cent versus 3.0 per cent, i.e. adivide of 55.7 per cent.

And not only “throughout the world”, but also within every single country thedivide is widening.

In India, a giant divide separates an extremely small minority of urban net usersfrom the vast rural majority, who may have to walk for days just to get to the nearestworking telephone. But – maybe surprisingly – also in Great Britain in the year 2003,95 per cent of urban households are online, while only 7 per cent of rural villages areconnected (Hirsch, 2003).

There would be much more to say about the domestic divide, if there was space todo so. Apart from this urban/rural division, for example, there are also dividesnoticeable along the criteria of race and gender.

Percentage onlineJuly 1997

Percentage onlineFebruary 1999

Percentage onlineDecember 2001

% Avg. % Avg. % Avg.

The Netherlands 5.5 13.7 56.4Sweden 11.0 37.8 64.0UK 2.0 18.5 56.0USA 19.0 9.3 30.7 25.2 58.5 58.7

Brazil 0.6 1.6 5.8China 0.001 0.2 2.4Cuba ? 0.3 1.1Egypt 0.05 0.06 0.85India 0.01 0.1 0.8Mexico 0.4 0.6 3.4South Africa 1.5 0.4 3.2 0.87 7.0 3.0

Source: NUA (www.nue.ie.surveys/how_many_online/index.html) Table I.

Digital dividewithin the EU

167

The digital divide in the EU before 1 May 2004It will be no surprise that also within the EU, even before the enlargement of 1 May2004, there was a divide (see Table II). (These figures are more than two years old, butSeptember 2001 is the last time internet connections in all 15 countries were counted.)

Table II shows that between the first country, Sweden, and the last, Greece, there isa divide of over 50 per cent. Consequently, also the divide between the top five andbottom five is significant – 33 per cent.

The column to the right, with more recent data, shows the figures of most countriesat August 2002, indicating that in the EU in less than a year the average connectivitypercentage increased with 7,5 per cent.

The digital divide in the EU as it is since May 2004Although the new EU members amount to only ten, even within this small group thedivide is wide: 30 per cent between Slovenia at the top and Lithuania at the bottom.The average figures for top and bottom fives are self-evident (see Table III).

The main point is how did the entrance of the ten new members affect the overallconnectivity within the new enlarged EU? It is striking, of course, that the averagepercentage of the ten new members is even lower than the bottom five of the 15 oldmember states: 20.9 versus 22.3 per cent. When all 15 old and ten new members aremerged into one table (see Table IV), it can be seen at a glance that the absolute dividebetween the top and bottom country increases from 50 per cent to 56 per cent, and thatthe overall average drops from 38 to 30 per cent.

Of the new countries only two enter the top ten, and six of them can be found at thevery bottom of the chart. In other words: to witness a serious digital divide, we do nothave to look at the third world or far-away countries. The divide is right here in themiddle of the EU. It has been here all the time, but since May 2004 it is wider than itever was.

15 EU member statesSeptember 2001 August 2002

% Avg. %

SwedenThe NetherlandsUKDenmarkFinland

64.056.455.354.747.0 55.5

67.860.857.262.751.9

AustriaGermanyPortugalItalyBelgium

43.534.534.433.433.1 35.8

45.238.943.6

?36.6

IrelandLuxembourgFranceSpainGreece

32.523.823.618.413.2 22.3

33.7?

28.419.7

?Average 37.9 (45.5)

Source: NUA (www.nue.ie.surveys/how_many_online/index.html)Table II.

NLW106,1210/1211

168

Ten new membersSeptember 2001 (latest estimation)

% Avg.

SloveniaEstoniaCzech RepublicMaltaCyprus

38.134.726.224.919.6 28.7

PolandSlovakiaLatviaHungaryLithuania

16.615.913.111.98.2 13.1

Average 20.9

Source: NUA (www.nue.ie.surveys/how_many_online/index.html) Table III.

2001 (%) Average

SwedenThe NetherlandsUKDenmarkFinlandAustriaSloveniaEstoniaGermanyPortugal

64.056.455.354.747.043.538.134.734.534.4 46.3

ItalyBelgiumIrelandCzech RepublicMalta

33.433.132.526.224.9 30.0

LuxembourgFranceCyprusSpainPolandSlovakiaGreeceLatviaHungaryLithuania

23.823.619.618.416.615.913.213.111.98.2 14.4

Overall average 30.3

Note: 25 member states as from May 2004Source: NUA (www.nue.ie.surveys/how_many_online/index.html) Table IV.

Digital dividewithin the EU

169

ConclusionThe ten new countries are supposed to benefit from a process that has been going onfor more than 50 years in Europe and has resulted in economic growth, increasedemployment and improved social cohesion. At the same time, the new members willhave to rise to the challenge of improving the competitiveness of their economies, so asto promote sustainable economic, social and environmental development. One of thekey factors for achieving this is the development of the information society.

So the next question is: how to realise this information society? This brings us backto the World Summit (mentioned earlier), as at the end of the conference a “Declarationof principles” and a “Plan of action” were published. One of the principles is, notsurprisingly, “We are fully committed to turning this digital divide into a digitalopportunity for all, particularly for those who risk being left behind and being furthermarginalized”. Furthermore, the corresponding plan of action goes like this:“Infrastructure is central in achieving the goal of digital inclusion, enablinguniversal, sustainable, ubiquitous and affordable access to ICTs by all, taking intoaccount relevant solutions already in place in developing countries and countries witheconomies in transition”. This affirms that building a technological infrastructure is acentral solution to the problem. So the next question is: how to realise thisinfrastructure? One way might be what was one of the main recommendations in adiscussion paper of 2001 called “Potential for the digital economy in the Baltic states”:“The prime objective should be the mobilisation of the private sector” (Lindroos, 2001,p. 18).

However, we always should be aware of what was stated one year before in thepaper “Internet access in Central and Eastern Europe”:

In much of Central and Eastern Europe, due to the influence of the European Union,telecommunications policy is focused on privatization and competition. It is apparent thatthese are necessary but not sufficient conditions for the expansion of access to both basictelecommunications and internet services (Global Internet Liberty Campaign, 2000, p. 4).

As for the subject privatization, it should be noticed that one should be very carefulabout this, as inadequate implementation can have all kinds of nasty and evendramatic consequences – as citizens of several West European countries will be readyto confirm.

It maybe that some now expect to see the mythical entity “globalisation” enteringthe stage of solutions. But not so. In a recent Polish book, The Faces of Globalisation,one of the chapters deals with the relations between globalisation processes andinformation society. The author demonstrates that the developing global informationinfrastructure is “excluding”, which means that it is used only by societies with accessto basic informational instruments – and so far, “these societies constitute only a smallpart of the global population” (Pawłowska, 2002, p. 109). This is no surprise, asglobalisation in itself is not at all an agent of change. At its best it is the result ofsomething else.

In any case, the implementation of all this (mobilisation of a reliable private sector, atechnological infrastructure, a further developed information society) will take muchtime and money. In the meantime – this as a warning and an advise – as long as thereis no up-to-date Digital Information Society, in order to provide every citizen of the EU(and of the world at large) adequately with information, libraries should not be closedor neglected. Dissemination of information should continue to be made not only by

NLW106,1210/1211

170

digital means but also by means of the analogue medium that has proved satisfactoryfor over 500 years: the printed book. In the opening session of the Bobcatsssconference, Prof. Inta Brikse (Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences, University ofLatvia) stressed the continuing importance of libraries for the access of information,and Dr Denis Hanov (Secretariat of the Minister for Special Assignments for SocietyIntegration Affairs) said that in information society, as well as in cultural life, librariesstill are in the forefront. Or, as the World Summit put it: “[Not only digitality, but] [t]hemedia – in their various forms and with a diversity of ownership – as an actor, havean essential role in the development of the information society and are recognized as animportant contributor to freedom of expression and plurality of information.[Consequently, we] encourage the media – print and broadcast as well as new media –to continue to play an important role in the Information Society.” In other words: ininformation society affairs one never should bet on one horse only.

Member states should help to bridge the digital divide by all possible means, whichmay differ from state to state. It is their duty to do so, as it is, of course, in the mutualinterest of both new and old members that all countries within the expanded Union canexchange information as well as other economical goods on a basis of equality andequivalence.

Note

1. This article is based on a paper presented at the 12th “Bobcatsss” Symposium, theme“Library and information in multicultural societies”, in Riga University, Latvia, on 28January 2004. The acronym Bobcatsss consists of the initials of the nine hometowns(Budapest, Oslo, Barcelona, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Tampere, Stuttgart, Szombately,Sheffield) of the Library and Information Schools that initiated the first Bobcatssssymposium in 1993 in Budapest. Now Bobcatsss is an established annual symposium, to beheld in a middle European country or Baltic state, and organised by students at a number ofuniversities in Europe. Every year two new universities organise the symposium. Theuniversities have in common that they educate in the field of library and informationeducation and research under the umbrella of EUCLID (European Association for Libraryand Information Education and Research). Target groups of the Bobcatsss Symposia areinformation specialists (including new media), students, professors in the field of library andinformation education and research and employees of libraries and information departments,publishers, etc. For Bobcatsss 2005, once again in Budapest, see: http://bobcatsss.mine.nu

References

Global Internet Liberty Campaign (2000), Bridging the Digital Divide: Internet Access in Centraland Eastern Europe, March, available at: www.gilc.org

Green, M. (2000), “The ‘digital divide’ is a voluntary gap”, New Visions Commentary:The National Leadership Network of Conservative African-Americans, April, The NationalCenter for Public Policy Research, Washington, DC, available at: www.nationalcenter.org

Hamelink, C. (1995), World Communication: Disempowerment and Self-empowerment, ZedBooks/Third World Network, London, Atlantic Highlands, NJ and Penang.

Hirsch, T. (2003), “Digital divide ‘hits rural business’”, BBC News [online], 7 May, available at:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3005493.stm

Infodev Symposium (1999), “The global information infrastructure – what is at stake for thedeveloping world?”, address to the Infodev Symposium, 9 November, available at: www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/mbeki/1999/tm1109a.html

Digital dividewithin the EU

171

Kulturnet (2000), Information Technology and Globalization, 7 August, Kulturnet, Copenhagen,available at: www.kulturnet.dk/kulturnyt/en/nyhed_45.html

Lindroos, P. (2001), “Potential for the digital economy in the Baltic states: some observations”,discussion paper for Digital Economy: Policies Exchange and Development for SMEs(DEEDS), Brussels.

McLuhan, M. and Fiore, Q. (2001), War and Peace in the Global Village, Gingko Press, CorteMadera, CA.

Pawłowska, A. (2002), “Information society and globalisation”, in Pietras, M. (Ed.), The Faces ofGlobalisation, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University Press, Lublin, pp. 103-13.

Techawongtham, W. (2002), “A global village has individual parts”, Bangkok Post, 22 June.

United Nations (1998), World Telecommunications Development Report 1998 – Universal Access,executive summary, March, International Telecommunication Union, Geneva, p. 3.

NLW106,1210/1211

172