Save file in Microsoft Word format (for Windows or Macintosh) and name it with your work code (found in our letter).Check text carefully before sending it. Contents of articles are not reviewed and any error will be published as is. No corrections of texts received are allowed.

Digital divide in the European UnionCARADAICĂ Mihail1

1 National University of Political Studies and Public Administration (Romania)E-mail: mihai.caradaica@dri.snspa.ro

Abstract

Today, more and more debates on economic and environment issues are linked with new technologies such as Artificial Intelligence, Internet of Things, Blockchain, Big Data or 5G network. But trying to find new ways to boost the economy or to fight against climate change in a more effective manner, are often missing the social dimension and could generate a social inequality phenomenon known as "digital divide". This term was first used in the 1990s, when a gap was observed between those who had access to ICT and those who did not. Today, the main concern regarding the digital divide is focused on poor people and the possibility of them becoming even more marginalized due to the lack of basic skills using new technologies or the capacity to afford them.

Starting from this theoretical framework, I will extend my analysis to the field of European public policies and programs and ask the following research question: what is EU’s plan for tackling with new technologies’ potential to increase the “digital gap”? I will try to answer this question by analysing strategic documents or public policies of the European Union. EU policies aimed at the development of digital economy and information society, represent a strategic direction of public policies, referring to the fragmentation of the current digital space and to the uneven development of digital competences in the companies of the EU member states. Even though progress has been made over the last few years through the Commission's Digital Agenda of 2015 - with goals such as providing broadband access to all households in the EU and 75% of Europeans using the internet - there is a danger that standards related to broadband and fast internet will not be reached, especially in rural areas. Moreover, new technologies such as AI, Blockchain or 5G network could further worsen the situation of poor people and enlarge the social gaps.

Keywords: digital divide, poverty, European Union, technology.

Theoretical Framework

In this paper I will try to settle if there is, in fact, a digital divide in the European Union and how EU institutions are trying to tackle this phenomenon. But in order to do this, I need to define the concept of digital divide and to present its main characteristics. It is important to start saying that this issue is getting more and more attention in the last decades due to the important technological advancement that has impacted our society and also due to the increase of inequality in both, national and global level [1]. While all the new technologies and internet seem available everywhere, “a large section of society is still on the wrong side of the digital divide, unable to fully enjoy the benefits of the revolutionary changes taking place” [2].

The digital divide can be discussed since early 20th century with the emergence of the landline telephone, a technology that boosted both economy and communication, but which created gaps between those who had access and those who had not. At the end of the 20th century, another communication technology gained more importance and created new social and economic gaps: the internet. Regarding digital dividing, the internet passed through some important stages, as Antonio Hidalgoa, Samuel Gabalyb, Gustavo Morales-Alonsoa and Alberto Urueñaa have stated:

- The first level of digital divide was focused on connectivity;- The second level of digital divide was worrying about the development of skills and abilities required

to use ICT;- The third level of digital divide was measuring the tangible results of the use of the Internet [3].According to this division, the first problem regarding internet was accession. Manuel Castells was

developing an argument in this regard, saying that the digital divide, “in terms of access to the Internet, will be mainly the concern of the poorest, most discriminated segment of the population-thus furthering their marginality” [4]. But he was optimistic and stated that the access issue will be solved in the future. Then, while broadband and mobile connectivity have spread and the internet access had increased, the issue of skills appeared to be the next threshold. “Digital skills comprise the competencies of individuals that allow them to take advantage of the use of new technologies. Because these competences are not present in the same way among all the population, this concept is integrated into the analysis of the digital divide” [3, p. 2] (Hidalgo, Gabaly, Morales-Alonso, Urueña Pg 2). In the last level of the digital divide, there can be analyses based on the results of using the internet and we can merely see who are the winners and who are the losers.

These three levels of digital divide could manifest both at national, and international level. Developed states tend to have public policies aiming to expand access to internet as much as possible and to invest in digital education, but the situation is not the same for underdeveloped countries. The lack of resources and an unappealing environment for Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) increased the technological gap between the Global South and Global North. The process seems to continue indefinetly, as Manuel Castells observed since 2001 that the global economic, social and political arrangements are “simultaneously increasing wealth and poverty, productivity and social exclusion, with its effects being differentially distributed in various areas of the world and in various social groups. And because the Internet is at the heart of the new sociotechnical pattern of organization, this global process of uneven development is perhaps the most dramatic expression of the digital divide” [4, p. 265] (Castells 2001, p. 265). And also, it seems to be a one-way process. Excepting a global disaster, it looks like not even the threat of climate changes not adjusting the way society is developing. Thus, “it is unlikely that societies around the world would engage freely in non-technological forms of development-among other reasons, because the interests and ideology of their elites are deeply rooted in the current model of development” [4, p. 270] (Castells 2001, p. 270). And if the Internet-based logic of production is setting the trend in global development, there are also other ways people are fighting with global poverty.

International Policy for Development and Cooperation is a tool used by the developed states (Global North) to help undeveloped states (Global South) to reduce the gap and boost their economies. But the process is slow and criticized by many scholars, especially Marxists such as Andre Gunder Frank, as creating more economic dependence without solving the problem. Kieron O’Hara and David Stevens are considering, on the other hand, that closing the inequality gap, including the field of digital inequality, is not a totally absurd idea. But, “As a matter of urgency, preventing starvation and premature death via the provision of food supplies and medicine is clearly a priority. To deliver shiny desktop PCs to starving citizens in refugee camps outside Darfur would be ridiculous, if not perverse” [5]. In their point of view, the long-term solutions would be to shift the emphasis from consuming to investing.

Furthermore, they consider that technology is a key element to a country’s economic development significantly increasing the productivity of workers. And, any long-term plan integrated in the assistance of the more developed nations, should be focused on technological development. Also, “this assistance must come not only in the form of immediate aid, such as famine relief, but also in the form of assistance to struggling populations to provide for themselves once the famine, disease, war and all the other pressing dangers have been alleviated” [5, p. 147] (O’Hara and Stevens, 2006, p. 147). Applying this theoretical model to the European Union, it would look like a transnational mechanism of redistribution. Of course, EU

is much more than that, being a political body with its own democratic institutions and a single market. But, especially after the expansion wave of 2004 and 2007, EU acted also like a genuine mechanism of redistribution especially through its Cohesion Policy.

In the next chapter I will focus on the digital divide in the European Union and I will show that, even after many years of absorption of European funds, there is still a socio-economic gap that has a digital component as well.

Digital Divide in the European Union

In this chapter I will present the actual status-quo of the digital divide between the member states of the European Union, in order to outline a general picture of the situation and be able to see, in the next chapter, if all of those problems are properly tackled within the EU’s strategies and public policies. I will look at the digital divide in the European Union through the theoretical lens presented in the first chapter, more exactly through the stages of Antonio Hidalgoa, Samuel Gabalyb, Gustavo Morales-Alonsoa and Alberto Urueñaa. Thereby, I will analyse the digital divide in the field of connectivity, digital skills and other indicators on the economic impact of digital economy.

Figure 1 [6]To have an overview of the situation regarding digital divide in the European Union, Figure 1 – Digital

Economy and Society Index – is showing us how developed the EU member states are in the digital field, in terms of connectivity, human capital, use of internet services, integration of digital technology and digital public services. Looking at all those indicators, one may find both global development cleavages: East-West and South-North. Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Denmark, the countries that scored the highest ratings in DESI 2019, and the countries that are also global leaders in the digitalization field, are representing the North-West, while Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, Poland or Italy are the South-Est.

In terms of connectivity, there are two sides of the same coin. On the one side, there is the technical dimension, where the infrastructure is the key element, and on the other side, there is the social dimension, where one can see how many people are able to benefit from the advantages of the infrastructure.

According to the Figure 2 and Figure 3, infrastructure seems to be well developed and manages to cover almost all population of the European Union. Fixed broadband cover around 97% of the European homes, while in 10 Member States more than 99 % of homes are covered. In countries like Poland, Lithuania, Romania or Slovakia homes covered are less than 90%, but this is still a good score. However, “overall coverage of fixed broadband has only marginally increased since 2011. Rural coverage improved from 80 % in 2011 to 87 % in 2018” [6]. But the main reason for this situation is the increasing importance and spreading of the 4G coverage. The figures for 4G coverage are: 99 % of homes are covered by at least one operator in Europe and the Rural coverage went up from 38 % in 2014 to 96 % in 2018 [6].

Figure 2 [6]

Figure 3 [6]The other side of the coin is the social dimension, where the digital divide is more present. Household

penetration of the fixed broadband looks totally different in this case. According to Eurostat, 70 % of rural homes in the EU had a fixed broadband subscription in 2018. The Netherlands, the UK, Germany or Luxembourg registered the highest figures, while in Bulgaria, Latvia, Romania or Poland, less than half of rural homes subscribed. There is also “a substantial gap between rural and national penetration rates. However, this gap slightly decreased from 11 percentage points in 2010 to 7 percentage points in 2018” [6]. In this case the digital divide is following the initial cleavages with North-West countries in the top and South-East at the bottom, and is also showing a significant internal gap between rural and urban areas.

Figure 4 [6]Digital skills of EU citizens are furtherly showing the same gap at the European level. According to

Eurostat, 43 % of the EU population had an insufficient level of digital skills, and 17 % had none at all, which means that they do not use the internet or use it in a defective manner. “These figures imply serious risks of digital exclusion in a context of rapid digitisation. There are proportionally more men than women with at least basic digital skills (respectively, 60 % and 55 %). In addition, only about 31 % of people with

low education levels or no education have at least basic digital skills. 49% of those living in rural areas have basic digital skills compared with 63% in urban areas” [7]. Meanwhile, there is still huge disparities between member states: in Romania and Bulgaria people with no skills or no internet use are close to 40%, while in a country like Luxembourg people with basic and above basic skills reach around 85%.

Figure 5 [7] Other indicators regarding tangible results of the use of internet that I choose for my research are e-

commerce and the business digitization index. As Figure 6 shows, Ireland is clearly in the lead among countries where e-commerce is the main shopping activity, with nearly 80%, followed by Sweden, Denmark, Czech Republic or Belgium, while Bulgaria, Romania, Latvia or Greece are at the bottom of the list. The meaning of e-commerce development is passing beyond the mere spread of internet infrastructure, and is indicating also the level of digital education and trust in electronic services. “When it comes to e-business technologies, the leading countries are the Netherlands (2nd among EU Member States in three indicators: electronic information sharing, social media and big data analysis; 3rd in cloud solutions), Finland (forerunner in the use of cloud solutions) and Belgium (first in electronic information sharing)” [8]. Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Poland or Latvia are scoring the lowest regarding the adoption of e-business technologies, situation that reflect local lack of capital, low digitals skills of the employees, or a low quality of jobs.

Figure 6 [8]

Digital divide and the European policy framework

The internet and other digital technologies are deeply transforming the European societies by creating new ways of socializing, new opportunities for business and new perspectives on our lives. In this context, the access to ICT is considered to be as fundamental as is education today, because almost all the jobs and all social life are and will be even more depending on it. Considering those arguments and the nature of digital divide in the European Union, in this section I will analyse strategic documents of the EU to see how they deal with and plan to face this new form of inequality.

In the European Commission document, A Digital Agenda for Europe, released in 2010, there is a dedicated chapter to enhancing digital literacy, skills and inclusion. The main purpose of the digital era is

defined as an empowerment and emancipation of all the people where background or skills should not be a barrier to access the new ICT technologies. “Bridging this digital divide can help members of disadvantaged social groups to participate on a more equal footing in digital society (including services of direct interest to them such as eLearning, eGovernment, eHealth) and to tackle their disadvantage through increased employability. Digital competence is thus one of the eight key competences which are fundamental for individuals in a knowledge-based society” [9].

To tackle this issue, the European Commission identifies two different directions. The first one is about digital literacy and skills, and states that it is essential to educate European citizens to use ITC technology in order to meet the market demand on digital skills. The second direction is about inclusive digital services, and refers to the benefits of the digital society which should be available for all, especially for the persons with disabilities. In order to do this, the European Commission proposes two key measures that are focusing on digital literacy and competences as a priority for the European Social Fund regulation, and on developing tools to identify and recognise the ICT competences, and link them to the European Qualifications Framework [9].

In 2015, European Parliament addressed especially the problem of digital divide in a research document called Bridging the digital divide in the EU, directed by the European Parliamentary Research Service. The document recognises in the first instance that a lot of progress was made and states that “The number of regular internet users in the EU increased substantially over the last decade from 43% in 2005 to 75% in 2014. Usage is also more frequent, with 43% of the population (i.e. 77% of regular users) now using the internet almost every day, compared to 29% in 2005. Likewise, the number of non-users (16-74 years old) has more than halved over the period, from 43% in 2005 to 18% in 2014 (close to the Digital Agenda target of 15% non-users by 2015)” [10]. Even if the digital divide has been substantially reduced over the last decade, there is still much effort to be done, especially in rural areas.

Also, in 2015, the European Commission, through A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe, addressed for the last time the issue of digital divide, and dedicated a chapter to an inclusive e-society. The most important aspect for an inclusive future e-society consists of e-skills. The demand for digitally skilled employees in 2015 was expected to grow by 4% each year and vacant jobs in the digital field to be around 1 million. But “the responsibility for curricula lies with the Member States which need urgently to address the lack of essential digital skills. The Commission will support their efforts and will play its role in enhancing the recognition of digital skills and qualifications and increasing the level of ICT professionalism in Europe” [11]. The other aspect is the importance of digital public services in generating a proper environment for both citizens and business.

After 2015, the issue of digital divide was not a priority for the European Union. In the European Pillar of Social Rights for example, an indirect reference can be found in the chapter regarding access to essential services: “Everyone has the right to access essential services of good quality, including water, sanitation, energy, transport, financial services and digital communications” [12]. In the Juncker Commission's ten priorities, there is no reference to any digital divide. The focus is only on economic growth and improving access to digital goods and services for consumers and businesses (European Parliament, 2018).

At the end of 2019, the then candidate for president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, unveiled her Political Guidelines for the next European Commission 2019-2024. The digital field has an entire chapter entitled “A Europe fit for the digital age”. Nothing about a digital divide could be found there, but there are many mentions on new technologies: the importance of 5G implementation, Internet of Things and the communication between devices and sensors, and, of course, the central role of the Artificial Intelligence where von der Leyen promises that, in first 100 days in office, she will put forward legislation for a coordinated European approach on the human and ethical implications of Artificial Intelligence [13]. Thereby, the objective of the new Commission is to achieve technological sovereignty in some critical

technology areas, not to fight the digital divide or to explore the possibility that those new technologies could create new forms of social and economic inequality.

Conclusions

In this paper I argued that, according to the newest data of Eurostat, we still face a significant digital divide in the European Union, and the main cleavages are between North-West and South-East of EU. Following Antonio Hidalgoa, Samuel Gabalyb, Gustavo Morales-Alonsoa and Alberto Urueñaa, there are three stages of digital divide: connectivity, digital skills and other indicators on the economic impact of digital economy. According to those stages, I showed that in terms of connectivity infrastructure, EU has made some big steps forward, but there is much to do regarding the penetration of internet in the citizens’ homes, especially in the rural area. In terms of digital skills and implementation of ICT in the business field, South-Eastern Europe faces a significant gap that also reflects the socio-economic conditions of the area.

After I provided this general overview on the state of digital divide in the European Union, I analysed strategic documents of the EU to see how they deal and plan to face this new form of inequality. I found out that the issue of digital divide was addressed until 2015, and between 2015 and 2020 the focus was on economic growth, business development and new technologies. When the documents were talking about digital divide, they mainly referred to connectivity, digital skills and digital public services. Also, there is no geographical interpretation of digital divide, even if the numbers are almost every time split by countries.

The focus on new technologies does not suppose the end of digital divide or future increasing of socio-economic gap generated by new digital devices or software programmes. Accessing 5G, understanding and using blockchain technology, Internet of Things or Artificial Intelligence may generate new forms of inequality and/or contribute to the reduction of the gap I presented in this research. In the end, it is not technology that produces inequality, it is the way people implement technology. Without public policy strategies that focus on the digital divide, the risk of an increasing gap is higher.

REFERENCES

[1] Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty- First Century. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, London.

[2] Datta A., Bhatia V., Noll J. and Dixit S. (2019). “Bridging the Digital Divide Challenges in opening the digital world to the elderly, poor, and digitally illiterate”. IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine, pp. 70.

[3] Hidalgoa A., Gabalyb S., Morales-Alonsoa G. and Urueñaa A. (2020). The digital divide in light of sustainable development: An approach through advanced machine learning techniques. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume 150, January 2020, pp. 1.

[4] Castells M. (2001). The Internet Galaxy. Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 254.

[5] O’Hara K. and Stevens D. (2006). Inequality.com. Power, Poverty and the Digital Divide. Oneworld Publications, Oxford, pp. 146

[6] European Commission (2019). Connectivity. Broadband market developments in the EU. Digital Economy and Society Index Report 2019. Connectivity.

[7] European Commission (2019). Human Capital. Digital Inclusion and Skills. Digital Economy and Society Index Report 2019. Human capital.

[8] European Commission (2019). Integration of Digital Technology. Digital Economy and Society Index Report 2019. Integration of Digital Technology.

[9] European Commission (2010). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and The Committee of the Regions. A Digital Agenda for Europe. Brussels. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0245:FIN:EN:PDF

[10] European Parliament (2015). Bridging the digital divide in the EU. European Parliamentary Research Service. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2015/573884/EPRS_BRI(2015)573884_EN.pdf (accessed Mar. 16, 2020).

[11] European Commission (2015). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and The Committee of the Regions. A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52015DC0192 (accessed Mar. 16, 2020).

[12] European Commission (2017). European Pillar of Social Rights – booklet. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/social-summit-european-pillar-social-rights-booklet_en.pdf (accessed Mar. 16, 2020).

[13] European Commission (2019). Political Guidelines for the next European Commission 2019-2024. Ursula von der Leyen, Candidate for the European Commission President. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/political-guidelines-next-commission_en.pdf (accessed Mar. 16, 2020).