|
|
Excerpts from "A Qualitative Study of the Influence That Technology in General, and the Internet in Specific has on Economic Disparity"(Barbu, 2000)
INTRODUCTION, HARD DATA, AND HISTORICAL TRENDS
INTRODUCTION
This paper is a qualitative examination to see if technology/the Internet has an influence on the economic disparity in society. I am seeking a yes or no, not necessarily a how much. I will be examining both global and domestic data, and what is required of the reader is an open mind as to the interpretation(s) of the data. The thesis question is: does technology/the Internet influence the economic disparity in society? In other words, are people better off financially as a result of technology? Are they being left behind if they lack tech skills? What common tendencies do the haves share? The have-nots? Because of technology like the Internet and computers, are people more employable? Do they have a better chance at the American dream?
To answer these questions, I will examine statistical data, trends, and other factors that may also explain the economic disparity. At the end you will be asked to compare your own answer with the opinion that I shall give.
Just to light a little ray of sunshine, section IV is on solutions to the disparity that we are examining, but at this point there will be no disclosure as to how I voted.
HARD DATA
The phenomenon known as the digital divide, at face value, has some interesting disparities. The haves appear to be middle class (or higher), English speaking, American, male, post-pubescent but pre-retirement urban dwellers. The have-nots tend to be people of color, non-English speakers, non-American, female, financially challenged, and elderly. Some groups have not been included, such as the youth, because their status may be considered as transitional. This is the DD at face value. Of course, I will back this up numerically (this section), and even offer counter claims/alternative claims to the DD issue (following sections), and then we can see how accurate the face value really is. The bulk of this research covers domestic issues, however, some global issues will also be addressed. This first section is a slaughterhouse of data, raw and marbled. Our goal here is to absorb, and later we will dissect it further.
I would like to thank the NTIA (National Telecommunications and Information Administration--a division of the U.S. Dept. of Commerce) for its monumental work, Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide (see sources cited), of which this first section is heavily dependent on for statistical data. This section will be delineated according to the following criteria:
a) geographic--rural versus urban
b) gender--male versus female
c) race--White versus non-White
d) age--majority versus fringe groups
e) language--English versus non-English
f) economy--upper versus lower economic groups
g) national--American versus non-American
h) household type--single versus both parent(s)
i) education level
The Geographic disparity of the haves and have-nots is not the result of factors such as how much money a person has, per say, any more than the availability of the technology itself. In this instance, those who dwell in the countryside are at a disadvantage. From Falling Through the Net it is stated that "Regardless of income level, Americans living in rural areas are lagging behind in Internet access. Indeed, at the lowest income levels, those in urban areas are more than twice as likely to have Internet access than those earning the same income in rural areas" (NTIA, xv). Also, the same source indicates that the Western and Northeast sections of the U.S. have the highest usage, while the South lagged behind (NTIA, 85). So, what does this mean? Part of the reason for the disparity between urban and rural is availability. What is readily available to consumers in urban areas may not be available (or cost effective) in sparsely populated areas. The chart at the bottom of this page shows the disparity in telephony, which is a major medium for the Internet (via phone lines). By looking at these percentages, you can see a trend where the more rural places have less phones (of course, the argument could also be that no matter what region, income level is also a significant contributor). Kevin Tagland states that "With all the attention on the DD, 6.3+ million American households are still not connected to the most basic of telecommunications services: plain old telephone" (1). The Navajo nation is a good example. From the Associated Press (2000, Feb. 06) it is noted that of a population of 151K Navajo-Americans, only 77.5% of them have telephones. In one better known example, a young Navajo girl named Myra Jodie won a computer in a contest, but has been unable to utilize the Internet because her family has no telephone service (see TechRepublic, 2000, April 18; also see Gunn). So, looking again to the chart below, it is not hard to see that without telephony there is little Internet, and those who tend to be without (geographically), tend to be rural.
Gender disparity is portrayed by men being traditionally more involved in the hard sciences, whereas women have traditionally chosen other fields of study. This is a hurdle for women to overcome. I am not implying that women are not as good as men, but as far as the sciences go, that has been an (erroneous) assumption in many circle. Another hurdle is with women themselves; some simply are not interested in doing the Internet thing! Martha Woodall reports that "...female students account for only 17% of the high school students who take the College Board's Advanced Placement exam in computer science to seek college credit and that women earn only 28% of the bachelor's degrees in computer science (which is a significant drop from 37% in the previous decade--see Mendels, p2) and make up only 20% of IT (information technology) professionals (1). This trend of women lessening their presence is endangering their representative voice. Pamela Mendels argues that "...the industry is losing the insights of half the population...if girls are not at the table when the technology is being designed and created, the technology is less likely to speak to all of us" (2). Further, some women may be simply disenchanted with computers, and that they see computer science as anti-social and lonely, hence they are not interested in pursuing it (see Mendels, p3). Hence, there is a clear trend regarding widening chasm that favors a male-dominated Internet.
The disparity in race applies to White versus non-White Internet users. Starting with childhood, it is written in the NTIA report that "A child in a low-income White family is 3x as likely to have Internet access as a child in a comparable (re: income level, geography, etc.) Black family, and 4x as likely to have access as children in a comparable Hispanic household" (1999, p1). This can be (partially) attributed to telephony usage: White households, 95% regardless of location; rural-dwelling Aleuts/Native Americans/Eskimos, 76.4%; Hispanics, 84.6%; and Blacks, 85.4% (NTIA, 1999, p3). But the Internet usage difference is actually increasing. The racial ravine grew a whopping 39.2% between the years 1994-1998 for White-Black, and 42.6% for White-Hispanic (see NTIA, 1999, p8). Whites are more likely to have Internet access from home than Blacks/Hispanics are from any location (see NTIA, 1999, p33). Overall, as of 1999, 30% of White Americans are connected to the Internet while only 11% Black Americans are (Nance, 1). For whatever other factors are involved, there is a disparity in the sheer numbers between White and non-White Internet users.
Briefly we will cover the age disparity of Internet usage. The NTIA (1999) report states that "While seniors have the highest penetration rates for telephones, they trail all other age groups with respect to computer ownership (25.8%) and Internet access (14.6%). Young households (under age 25) exhibit the 2nd lowest penetration rates (32.3% for PC's, 20.5% for Internet access)... while Households in the middle-age brackets (35-55 years) lead all others in PC penetration (nearly 55%) and Internet access (over 34%)" (p7). Regarding seniors, since they have the highest penetration with telephony, we have to look to other sources (income, interest, applicability) as to why Internet usage is lax. The NTIA (1999) states that "Internet usage rises with age until people reach their senior (55+) years" (p35), and then it spirals down. The youth can be improved by implementation in the school system, even though the 2nd most frequently used access point is K through 12 (NTIA, 1999, p36) (we will discuss this later in more detail). Cost is a significant factor in determining Internet usage for the above mentioned groups, as is lack of interest (especially in the 55+ group--see NTIA, 1999, p39). Hence, how old or young a target group is has a determining factor in Internet usage.
The disparity between English and non-English speakers is also a large hurdle to the Internet. Prosperetti states that "On the cultural side, it is quite easy from an American perspective to underrate the importance of a taken-for-granted common language and culture in the rapid building of a critical mass of popular applications" (59). This may (partially) explain why the Internet is not being used abroad as much as it is in the United States, not to mention why White households use it more than Hispanic households (although there are more factors to consider).
The disparity based on income is a significant factor, or, at least it had been in the past (we will discuss the effect of free Internet and lower computer prices in a later section). According to the NTIA, "Those with an income over are more than 5x as likely to have a computer at home and are more than 7x as likely to have home Internet access as those with an income under (1999, p6). In fact, the disparity has widened recently, growing 29% from 1997 to 1998 (re: Internet access--see NTIA, 1999, p9). This has happened despite a particularly high rate of telephone usage among households that have traditionally been the least connected (low income--see NTIA, 1999, p81), as well as consistently lower Internet-associated costs (p77).
The national disparity between the United States and everyone else is quite startling. Mody states that "...more than 97% of all Internet host computers are concentrated in 29 developed countries, which together contain less than one-fourth of the world's 5.6 billion people...the majority of the world's population who live in the 129 developing countries, (are) presently served by less than 3% of all Internet host computers" (69). Mody furthers her point; "There were 0.5 Internet users per 1000 people in developing countries (1995 stat.), as compared with 18 per thousand in industrial countries" (80). Much of the disparity can be attributed to the Internet being predominantly English, or that the telephony in the U.S. is high, or even that Americans have a higher income than most nations. We also use more energy than most people. Mody states that "Developing countries average, per capita, a real GDP (gross domestic product) of and electricity consumption of 814 KW hours, as compared to industrial country equivalents of and 7542 KW hours" (70). Also, Mody argues that "Differences in GDP do not explain all the differences in the rate of diffusion of the Internet; differential diffusion rates are evident among even the most developed countries. The higher a country's income level, the higher the number of Internet users"(82). At this point, it looks as though income is the primary factor, but again, a deeper examination is called for.
The disparity between types of households, single parent versus both parents, is almost predictable. According to the NTIA (1999) report, a child in a dual parent household is between twice to four times as likely than a child in a single parent household to have Internet access (2). The report also states that "Whether one is married or has children also effects the likelihood of having telephone service...Single parents with children have the lowest phone rates" (3). Again, cost may be a significant factor here, as is lack of interest (see NTIA, 1999, p39). It is interesting to note that "Computer ownership lags among single-parent households, especially female-headed households (31.7%), compared to married couples with children (61.8%)...When holding race constant, it is clear that family composition can still have a significant impact on Internet access. Overall, dual-parent White families are nearly twice as likely to have Internet access as single-parent White households. Black families with two parents are nearly four times as likely to have Internet access as single-parent Black households. And children of two-parent Hispanic households are nearly two and a half times as likely to have Internet access as their single-parent counterparts" (NTIA, 1999, pp.6-7). When Income is taken into account along with the previous parameters, it varies slightly. For instance, the NTIA (1999) report states that "For Hispanic and White households with two parents, clear cut differences emerge only for incomes above . For these households, Whites are one and a half times more likely and Hispanics are twice as likely to have Internet access" (7).
Finally, the last category briefly discussed in this section will be the disparity in level of education and Internet use. The NTIA (1999) report states that "Those with a college degree are more than 8x as likely to have a computer at home, and nearly 16x as likely to have home Internet access, as those with an elementary school education" (1). On top of that, the report states that "...the degree of phone ownership closely correlates with the level of education. For those with college degrees, the rate exceeds 97%...those with only some high school education have the lowest penetration rates, particularly in central city areas (85%)" (3). Much of this is a result of economic conditions, but the situation only degrades with time. For example, the use of computers on the college campus has furthered the beneficence to the haves, and has contributed to enlarging the DD. Keeping the above statistics in mind about college students being more likely to have Internet access at home, McQueen states that "Campus computers are increasingly helping students take classes or earn degrees...In just one year, the number of colleges offering online degrees doubled...7 in 10 colleges now offer some form of distance learning, including courses, lecture notes, and online study groups" (College Internet Use Rising, p1). Although it is being argued that this should be beneficial to people who are not currently in college, the use of computers/distance learning is almost exclusively the aegis of the University right now. The use of computers in this respect has made it easier for those already in school, while those who are not in school are still being left behind in this example. If people were able to access distance learning at home, when they could find time (as opposed to being in a classroom at a certain time), and at a cost significantly less than on-site tuition, then I feel that the DD would be lessened in this area.
We have finished our meal. From this raw data it is apparent that technology has a pronounced influence to global and domestic mechanisms. However, it is too soon to make a judgment--more work is needed.
HISTORICAL TRENDS
Looking to history for answers doesn't always work, but there is something about Santayana's adage, which goes something like whoever fails to learn from the past is doomed to repeat it. In this section we will examine the technological trends relevant to today's Internet, what has influenced what, and how tomorrow will be predicted to look like.
It was Marshall McCluhan that actually saw into the future of telecommunications and gave us his utopian vision. Schement states that McCluhan "...provided the first generalized vision of the information age to come when, in 1962, he introduced the metaphor of a global village...a quarter of a century after publication of (his) book, McCluhan's argument carries new weight in connection with the Internet" (v). MM wanted a world that was hooked up to each other, in contrast to what had been a commodity for the privileged. Some examples of increasing (domestic) usage of telecommunication/electronic devices are as follows: Radio: In 1925, less than 25% of all households owned radios; by 1930 penetration reached 46%. By 1940, penetration reached 82%, and radio reached saturation by 1950 (see Tagland, p3). Television: In 1950, less than 10% of households owned a television. By 1965, less than 10% of homes were without a television (see Tagland, p3). Telephone: Between 1878 and 1958, telephone penetration went from zero to 75% with dips along the way during the depression. Penetration did not flatten until 1970 at 93%, where it has remained since (see Tagland, p4). McCluhan's vision is a good one, but it certainly isn't based on past performance; according to Tagland "...information services (like the telephone and now the Internet) require the household to make monthly payments. It took 60 years to reach saturation for electric service, 100 years for telephone service, and it has been 55 years and counting for cable TV service to reach saturation" (4). Abroad, the numbers are startling. Mody states that "...for every thousand people in developing countries (1995 data), there were only 185 radio receivers, 145 television receivers, 39 main telephone lines, 3.6 cellular subscribers, 6.5 PC's, and 0.5 Internet users" (73). This can severely cripple business--driving global clients to the corporations that are without boundary. To emphasize the potential of this issue, Drake argues that "...we are entering not only a new millennium, but also a new era--one in which networked firms and markets increasingly will transcend boundaries, integrate national economies, and present new challenges to territorially-based nation-states" (The New Information Infrastructure Debate, p305). Again, Mody states that "Forrester Research predicts that by the year 2002, the value of goods and services traded between companies over the Internet will represent 1% of the global economy, app. billion...the international. Telecommunications Union (ITU) reports that 70% of U.S. firms are online, compared to 10% in Europe, and only 1% in Asian-Pacific countries" (79-80). The Internet may not reach saturation in the lifetime of anyone today if we base its chances on some of these examples.
Another ugly trend that may well prohibit McCluhan's vision is that of economic disparity. As it has been proposed in the previous section, lack of funds can be a major detriment to Internet usage, both domestically and globally. The Western Nations listed in the first section are the overwhelming majority of Internet users, possibly due to the larger GDP. The wealthiest Western nations (the G7 nations) have really advanced. Mody states that "In 1965, average per capita income of the G-7 industrialized countries was 20x that of the world's poorest 7 countries; by 1995, the difference was 39x as much...there are fewer countries in the middle-income group today than before: a few have moved upwards, many have moved backwards" (72). We have more money, and the poor nations ask for financial help to aid their economic recoveries. But the trend has been lately for the U.S. to increase the DD with foreign nations, perhaps indirectly, by continually reducing the amount of aid we give them. Our economy has benefited from technology. Daley states that "A third of America's economic growth in recent years has come from information technologies...some 19 million new jobs...and low inflation, is a direct result of computers...Within several years, more than a trillion dollars in business transactions may be done over the Internet. And we'll need to hire some 1.4 million more computer workers..." (1). Our economy has benefited from the computer industry, but the rest of the world is far behind. One reason they are behind could be the aid to jump start their tech industries that is gradually getting smaller. Briscoe states that "As America grows richer, the portion of U.S. funds going to the world's poorest nations is headed for the lowest level ever...Other donating countries are also giving less aid in proportion to their wealth, but they are all now ahead of the U.S." (1). If the DD is a problem in the U.S., and the average American receives 56x the annual income of residents in the world's lowest income nations (see Briscoe, 1), then McCluhan's vision of a global village may as well write off most of the world.
To make matters worse, the actual cost (outside of the R&D, of course) for tech has plummeted in the past several years. Posch states that "In 1957--4K people--.50 to make a transistor. In 1997--maybe a 500 millionth of a cent to produce millions--today. What happens in a decade or so, when a micro-processor, memory controller, and memory are all consolidated on one tiny chip containing billions of transistors?" (4). To answer Posch's question, I don't know. I would like to say that the downward spiral in cost will afford us as a nation to be able to finally close the DD, but I don't know if it will. Of course, if the problem is more than simply economic, then we will have to dig deeper. Drake argues that "...while the Internet was experiencing explosive growth in the U.S. during the early 1990's, many governments abroad impeded its development within their countries...In part, this was due to a 'not invented here' mentality" (Conclusion: Policies for the National and Global Information Infrastructure, p375). It should also be mentioned that we were lucky in the U.S. that there was explosive growth in the 90's--Americans have definitely benefited from the fact that our military/industrial endeavors have given us the head start and the opportunity to see the Internet gradually built up, instead of having to face the reality (as are other nations now) of leaping into technology (special thanks to Ted Jenkins of Intel for those observations!).
With the startling statistics of Internet usage between the haves and the have-nots, it is interesting to note that as of 1998, as Mody states, "...all formerly unconnected countries got on to the Internet, making the international network nominally global" (76). There is much room for improvement, and I agree with Blumenthal's assessment that "Despite the narrow scope of its early history and widening uncertainty about its institutional future, the Internet is the key to global networking" (39). Unfortunately, the network almost seems exclusive to a few giants. Taylor states that "...the U.S. and Canada still constitute the largest presence on the Internet, accounting for 84% of the users (U.S., 75%; Canada, 9%)...By the year 2005...the second largest projected Internet-using country in the world will be China (37.3 million users), followed by Japan (34.7 million users), Germany (17.5 million users), and then Canada" (102). The prospect of non-English countries is encouraging, to say the least. From the U.S. Dept. of Commerce Emerging Digital Economy Report (see Taylor, pp101-102) it is predicted that by 2002, the Internet may be used for more than billion worth of commerce, and that as many as one billion people may be on the Internet by 2005. From the NTIA (2000) report Falling Through the Net II it is reported that "The computer penetration rate (overall)...has grown substantially in the last three years: PC ownership has increased 51.9%, modem ownership has grown 139.1%, and E-mail access has expanded by 397.1%" (2). Just like in the old tale of the ancient Mariner, this is an Albatross over an ocean of despair, but it is a very large ocean. Also, addressing the English dominance issue, Hafner reports that "...the gap is narrowing for Hispanics, and that the rate at which Hispanics in this country are buying computers far outstrips that of the general population" (Hispanics are Narrowing the Digital Divide, p1). From the same source, Korzenny states that part of the reason for this increase is based on motivation to not be left behind (2). This is certainly promising, but is it enough to overcome the gaping chasm already in progress?
From the information presented in this section, can we answer the question does the Internet influence the economic disparity in society? Not yet--although it appears as if the manifest destiny of technology is continuing today in the form of the Internet, there are still variables to consider.
|
|
|
IS TECHNOLOGY THE PROBLEM, OR ARE THERE OTHER FACTORS?
Good question! If technology is the problem, then I can answer my thesis question yes, the Internet does, in fact, influence the economic disparity in society. If there are other factors, then the answer would need to be investigated further. This section will look into other possible factors such as technological diffusion: the have-nots are haves-in-waiting, poverty: we need food, not computers, a dilapidated school system, and applicability of access to certain groups of net users. We will then postulate confirming the thesis question, and then disaffirming the thesis question.
The first possible factor that I will discuss involves the rate of diffusion of technology. Dordick states that "...newspapers and television trumpet the arrival of a national information infrastructure and multimedia as a panacea for high unemployment, inadequate education, poor health care, and more. Once again, the consumer and small businessperson must wait for this information infrastructure to trickle down to them. Meanwhile, the gap between the information haves and have-nots continues to widen" (172). This trickle down philosophy rarely works; what is left is a lot of people who either can't afford the technology, or they fail to see that they are being left behind. Some of the left-behind's are those who are in the wrong market. Borland states that "...big phone and cable TV companies have focused on high-tech and high-population areas to introduce cable Net and digital subscriber line (DSL) services. Even there, those introductions are relatively slow..." (1). Borland cites economic incentive and the quickest return on investment as the primary reason for rural people to be on the bottom of the barrel. He further states that "There's a simple reason the big companies aren't going for the small markets: they're expensive to serve, and there aren't many customers. For companies focused on making billions of dollars in revenue, rather than a few million here and there, that's not much of an incentive...when you have only so much capital, you have to invest where you will get the greatest return sooner" (1). In this instance, it is our economic system that has more influence than any type of social responsibility to equality of implementation.
Another possible factor is that of poverty. The simple rationale is that when you only have so much money to spend, you tend to buy food or spend on housing before you buy computer stuff. M.L. King III argues that "The masses of poor people who are trying to survive, basically some are not sure whether they're going to eat every day, are not able to focus on technology--you can't eat a computer" (Bynum, p1). Remember little Myra Jodie, who won the computer but didn't have a telephone to hook her up to the Internet? Her family survives on child support and the rugs that her mother hand weaves (see Cassidy, p3). On top of that, her home doesn't even have running water--they live in poverty, to say the least--the Internet is a little further from the Jodie household (in a heirarchy of needs) than food and rent are (see Cassidy, p1). Again, our social system and the way we provide for our poor is very significant in determining who will use the Internet and who won't. Globally, it is just as bleak. The Associated press (2000, Feb. 27) reports that although only one person in six use the Internet in North America and Europe, only one person in 5K in Africa use the Internet; developing countries are lagging due to poverty, lack of skills, and the lack of an infrastructure. Lanvin states that "About 30% of the world's population, roughly 1.3 billion people, live below the absolute poverty threshhold...77% of the world's population owns just 7% of the total wealth of the planet and 0.7% of its telephones...If present disparities in the distribution of telecommunications facilities were to persist, the global information economy would be global in name only" (206).
The possible factor of education having influence in economic disparity is also a consideration. Vice President Gore sums up the urgency when he says "We need to treat the existence of failing schools as a national emergency" (Bynum, p1). Gore pinpoints the problem as technological: "Computers and the Internet have become as vital to education in this century as a blackboard and chalk were in the last century..." (Bynum, p1). King affirms Gore's position by arguing that "If you're not able to learn to use the existing technology, then you almost become obsolete..." (Bynum, p1). With this in mind, implementation becomes the timely key. However, there are always going to be problems in a large bureaucracy. One such problem is the E-rate (which is beyond the scope of this paper--we will only use this as an example). A Benton Foundation study found that "A key component of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the E-rate provides school districts and libraries significant discounts in buying telecommunications services. 36K applications have been filed in the E-rate program's third year, and nearly 60% of those came from the country's neediest schools and libraries" (1). But there were hurdles for many. According to the Benton report, "We found in most instances that school building basics delayed the deployment of information technology funded by the E-rate..."(2). During my personal experiences with 'Net Day' projects (putting in the wires to hook a school up to the Internet), I have been told that certain schools were not 'computer ready' because the roof leaked, or some other ridiculous (& irrelevant) reason. This is unacceptable. It is reported that in East Palo Alto, just outside of the very area responsible for the computer wizardry, in the Silicone valley, that "More than 24% of the youngsters in East Palo Alto live in poverty and over 80% are eligible for the free-lunch program. Schools have just one computer for every 28 students" (TechRepublic, 2000, April 18, p1). The TechRepublic article goes on to state that as a result of these conditions, "The Navajo high school dropout rate averages 20% for 9th graders, and that only 25% of adult Navajos have graduated from high school" (2). From the NTIA (1999) report in the first section we have seen the statistics regarding higher education and Internet use, so it is easy to put one and one together--poor schools equal poor students. In general, McQueen states that "Hispanic students are twice as likely as Blacks and 3x as likely as Whites to drop out of high school..." (Hispanic Dropout Numbers Alarming, p1). Worst of all, once a school gets the computers, there is a high probability that they won't utilize it to its full potential. Americorps has stated in its literature that "Only 6% of all wired schools have the trained personnel to actually put technology to use in the curriculum" (1). SIX PERCENT! So, even if you are fortunate enough to go to school in an area that has adequate computers, you still have only a one in sixteen chance that someone knows how to maximize its use.
Then there is the problem with applicability: not everyone is being served by the content on the Internet. For starters, there are the people the in lower income bracket. There are agencies that use computers and the Internet to aid these people in finding jobs, but the problem is both content and support. Americorps states in their article that "...as more agencies become involved in assisting low-income residents from welfare to work, the need for technology training will only increase" (1). Lazarus ponders the problem and states that "The Children's Partnership (report)--which analyzed the availability, quality, and appeal of Internet content for low-income Americans, found a dearth of local and community-based information, especially on local jobs and housing...low-income folks see the web as a way for self-improvement and for job opportunities, which makes the practical content all the more important" (Hafner, 2000, March 23, p1). The same report also stated that "...at least 50 million Americans are poorly served by the Internet because of a dearth of Web sites targeting the needs of people with low incomes and those who don't read or speak English well" (Shiver, p1). The report's finding is that "The overall trend in Internet content and E-commerce is to target national and global communities that are wealthier and have more disposable income--the people who make merchants and advertisers salivate" (O'Brien, p1). Moving on, Gillmore argues that "Computers and networks have little or no utility for people who are semi-literate" (1). Here is another group of people not served well by the Internet. Since much of the Internet is textual, and not graphic or audio, much of the Internet is hard to use for this group. Hood states that "As recently as 1993, there were fewer than 200 Web sites. Today, there are close to a million, and about two-thirds of them are commercial sites" (2). Then there are the people who are physically challenged from accessing the Internet. LeBlanc states that "The disabled, many of whom are unemployed or underemployed, are often a marginalized group in our society" (200, March 10, p2). LeBlanc argues that access is "...being able to get to a computer for its use...unfortunately, there exists a range of challenges built into the technologies and the current employment of them" (2000, March 10, pp1-2). These challenges include physical, aural, visual, and even design (see pp2-6). The Internet is great for commerce, but some of the people who need it are not being considered.
Now, let's talk jobs. The new information infrastructure promises more tech jobs, but what about the decrease in other types of work? Lanvin states that "Capital, technology, and information are heavily concentrated in a handful of countries, all of them in the developed world...The employment-reducing effects of the information revolution have yet to be offset by its employment-creating effects...automation takes its toll on unskilled and semiskilled jobs" (207). The transition from an industrial world to an information world is taking its human sacrifices--the non-technical worker. On the other hand, there are jobs to be had--provided you have acquired the proper level of education. Holstein argues that in Austin, Texas, there are two separate worlds divided by the level of technical expertise. He states that "High-tech companies...are crying out for programmers and database architects, and have thousands of jobs they can't fill. Yet some 800 people a month visit the DeWitty Job Training & Employment Center in East Austin looking for work. Since a high proportion of them either have criminal records or haven't finished high school, the mismatch in skills is nearly total" (2). Austin is just a surrogate for everywhere else--too many people are too far behind. Perry sums it up perfectly when he says that "There's so much we need to do to bring the Old Economy up to speed...How do we pull people on board when technology is changing so fast?" (Holstein, p4).
I believe that we are near the heart of the matter--the economic disparity can be found in the difference between a plethora of emerging tech jobs and a lessening of industrial jobs. First of all, we have shown how the link between education and the Internet, or income and the Internet have put certain groups in the dust. On the surface, the thesis question of does technology/the Internet influence the economic disparity in society can probably be answered yes. However, as we saw above, there are other variables that can also explain the disparity between those who have, and those who don't. At this point, the best that I can offer is that technology influences the economic disparity in society if combined with other factors such as those listed in the first section.
We still have to consider the antithesis, namely, is there a digital divide? To say that there isn't would answer my question no, technology does not influence the economic disparity because there would be other reasons for it. Right? Hmmm! To start, what if technology is merely a symptom of a dynamic economic condition? I mean, there has always been advancement movements that have contributed to disadvantageous situations for the late adopters (such as agrarian to factory, factory to information technology, etc.)--someone will always have to be left behind, right? (Thanks again to Ted Jenkins of Intel for his wonderful insight!). Also, let's look at the inner city. The stereotype has always been that people of the inner city are poor and don't have the opportunities that the 'burbs people have, right? Well, according to the Sm@rt Reseller (this is not a typo), "...inner city shoppers spend over billion annually on retail goods...and buy by mail more often than the average shopper. Those who have access to the Web shop online more often than the average consumer, and they are willing to pay top dollar...Among inner city households that access the Net, 30% buy online versus 27% of consumers overall" (Hakala, 1). The inner city is traditionally where the poverty is, but if the highest spending is there also, then we don't have conclusive proof. Also, Business Week states that "We're entering the age of free computing...This could be a new form of corporate welfare". The implication is that since the price of computing is rapidly falling, and some Internet providers are now free, trying to get the government to subsidize the sales of more computer technology to whoever is left without a computer is like adding on a dessert to a dinner check--an add-on sale, a little gravy for the potatoes, if you will. Collins states that "The last thing we need is to turn the Info Superhighway into a public works project" (Business Week). And there are also those who simply say that the Digital Divide is Bunk! Nie & Erbring argue that the DD is nothing but a myth (Somerson, p1). Their findings? They state that "...the most important factors facilitating or inhibiting Internet access are education and age, and not income--nor race/ethnicity or gender, each of which accounts for less than a 5% change in rates of access and is statistically insignificant" (1). Emphasizing the educational role, Somerson argues that "Internet access is cheap, or even free. But if you can't read, you're going to have a tough time surfing the Net...44 million adults in this country are functionally illiterate. It also helps if you understand English" (1). The point is that technology is not the problem, the people or the education system are. So why try to close the DD? According to Somerson, it is a way for industry to get the government to pay for lots of equipment that otherwise would not be sold; "To them it's just one more chance to pump up another bloated government bureaucracy and flush billions down the bunghole, money that they'll get from taxing you...The ironic thing is that the Internet is truly color-, age-, disability-, and gender-blind" (2). So, is there a digital divide? Although some factors, such as poverty or education, could also be interpreted as having an influential effect on economic disparity, they are not conclusive. Similarly, the lack of telephone lines leads me to swing in the direction of tech does influence, but I will wait until the last section to disclose. For now, we will look to the next section and go on the premise that there is a DD, and look to possible solutions and ongoing strategies.
|
|
CONCLUSION/ CAN IT BE FIXED?
In this section, we are going on the premise that the DD does exist, so here are some possible solutions--a bonus section, if you will. From the data in the first section it is hard to deny that there is a huge disparity between people who have, and those who don't. From the NTIA (1999) report, the following challenges have been presented. The report states that "To be connected today increasingly means to have access to telephones, computers, and the Internet...Additionally, obtaining services and information increasingly requires access to the Internet" (77). The accessibility solution, for many, is economic. The NTIA (1999) report states that "Lower prices, leasing arrangements, and even free computer deals will bridge the digital gap" (77). This directly conflicts with the point of view of Somerson, who in the last section stated that the lower costs associated with technology should be good enough for all of the underprivileged, in fact, that the DD is conclusively a myth because the availability of resource is present, and there are other reasons why certain people shy away from the Internet. The NTIA (1999) report also specifies that solutions can be found universal service, addressing cultural issues, and increasing outreach programs (see p77). By utilizing public areas (such as libraries and schools--see p78 of NTIA, 1999) and asking for corporate donations, we can help the current generation of users as well as students of tomorrow. Specific recommendations will be addressed in the following order: industrial donation, language, federal aid, and other educational possibilities.
One of my favorite memories as an undergrad was Dr. O'Connor's 'Net Day' outings. We went to high schools and wired them for LAN's (local area networks) and the Internet. Industry was always present, and there were always donations of time and equipment. But these good intentions are sometime of no help, especially if the equipment is too old or in need of repair. Although some recipients are highly selective (see Pescovitz) and want only the latest and greatest models, most recipients are grateful to have anything. But here is the problem. TechRepublic reports that "...used computers often require expensive hardware and software overhauls after they arrive...Maintaining a variety of computer platforms and software incurs enormous costs...many of the computers that arrive on the doorstep of a school, in fact, are very labor-intensive" (1). Even if the computers are updated, the need still exists for trained people to offer support. Holstein states that "One-time donations of computers...don't do much to close the digital gap...you have to have people to help them and the technical support to keep the machines up and running" (3). However, providing that the equipment is in good shape, with the proper support, will benefit enormously. Some of the contributors are:
Gateway--providing tech training to 75K teachers (TechRepublic, 2000, April 18, p2)
Novell--donating several million dollars in software (TechRepublic, 2000, April 18, p2)
Hewlett-Packard--investing several million dollars in a digital village initiative (TechRepublic, 2000, April 18, p2)
Qualcomm--will commit several million dollars toward helping San Diego, Ca. (TechRepublic, 2000, April 18, p2)
AOL, Applied Materials, SEMI, AT&T, People PC, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and Microsoft (TechRepublic, 2000, April 18, pp2-3)
The United Neighborhood Houses (UNH)--working with large donating companies to wire underprivileged people (Twist, p5)
The non-profit Corporation for Educational Technology--putting students and their parents on PC's (Twist, p5)
Cisco Systems--the Cisco Networking Academy Program (Twist, p5)
The Markle Foundation--donation of 1 million dollars for low-income Americans (Shiver, p2)
With the aid of these companies, the DD should be much closer to bridging.
In order to combat the inability of non-English speakers entering a Web environment, some companies have created search engines in languages other than English. Jesdanun reports that "In an effort to get more Hispanics online, a Spanish-English Web site is handing out more than 2 million CD's offering free Internet access customized for bilingual use". QuePasa.com kills two birds with one stone--it offers language as well as economic relief for Spanish speakers. In Austin, Texas, the non-profit organization Austin Free-Net utilizes the ISP to allow Mexican Nationals to speak to their relatives back home (see Holstein, p3). Hopefully others will follow in other languages to take a chunk out of the English language hegemony we are currently experiencing on the Internet.
The government can also play a vital role in eliminating the DD by offering programs that get more disadvantaged people on board. President Clinton is very pro-active in this struggle, and has initiated many programs. Some of these programs are:
President Clinton's $1-a-month telephone service to 300K American Indian households, including several million dollars in pledges from the computer industry (TechRepublic, 2000, April 18, p1)
President Clinton's .5 million dollar funding initiative toward the development of a 750-person tech volunteer force (Associated Press, 2000, April 07, p2)
President Clinton's billion dollar tax incentive to the private sector to encourage more donation and sponsorship (LeBlanc, 2000, Feb. 08, p1)
million dollar new teacher training in technology proposal (LeBlanc, 2000, Feb. 08, p2)
several million dollars to create community tech centers, and another million partnership to develop home access for low income (LeBlanc, 2000, Feb. 08, pp2-3)
Just to name a few in the works. Benedetto states that "Clinton wants teachers to be trained and communities, government and businesses to help make sure every home has a computer, especially those of low-income families" (1). President Clinton states that "It can save you and your children 30 years in moving into the economic mainstream" (Benedetto, p1). Alongside the president is VP Gore, who has "...reiterated his promise to have every classroom and library linked to the Internet by the end of his first term...(Gore) wants every child to be computer literate before they start high school" (Bynum, p1).
Then there is also the E-rate, which is targeted at getting schools ready for the computer onslaught. From the FCC it is reported that "The E-rate...provides a 20 to 90 percent discount on telecommunication services, Internet access, and internal connections to public and private schools and libraries. Overall, the program has committed several million dollars to schools and libraries". Similarly, the U.S. Dept. of Commerce has announced that "...it has received grant applications proposing 662 projects that support the innovative use of advanced technologies to bring the benefits of information technology to underserved areas of the country...approximately .5 million dollars will be available for TOP grants this year" (pp1-2).
And then there are the libraries. By maximizing the resources of the public library or community center, low income people can participate in the Internet without having to own any equipment (for an excellent source, see LeBlanc, 2000, April 06, pp1-4).
A final thought for this section deals with education and how important it is in fixing the DD. Geller sees education as the foundry of our essence, and that the role of telecommunications is pivotal in our strength: "To endure, a representative democracy must have an educated citizenry. To flourish, a nation will need a well-educated work force...telecommunications, although no panacea, can and must contribute greatly to the educational process..." (116). A way to provide education to our citizens is through the Internet itself--people who could not make it into a brick-and-mortar building could do so online, and then Geller's vision could be promoted (for a good source, see Techniques).
CONCLUSION
So, let's go back to the question that we have been pondering throughout this paper; does technology/the Internet influence the economic disparity in society? Certainly, there has to be more than one answer, but I am going to give my own opinion based on how I have interpreted the data and viewpoints expressed in this paper. From the common sense that I possess, I agree, first of all, with Gillmore's assessment that "People who can use computers are more employable, more able to get jobs that pay above the minimum wage" (2). And that, according to Blumenthal, "...the Internet does promise to lessen communication's current status as the privilege of a global minority" (2). But mostly, as Downing has stated, "...the Internet may be used in both directions. We will still have to see whether it will be used mostly for good or for ill" (152). Downing has summed up my feeling in the matter; it can go either way. We can use the brilliance of technology to improve our collective situation, and among that our economic situation, or it can be used to harm some and help others. Either way, it is my opinion that influence is definitely present. Such an influence, in fact, that intervention of a global scale is needed. Lanvin states that "In the absence of adequate international support, progress toward democracy and more liberal economies may produce too little, too late. If that happens, the backlash could be very costly to the international community as a whole and to Western democracies in particular...Less advanced countries that cannot upgrade their infrastructures and practices...will not be able to escape the vicious cycle of poverty, and a large share of the world's population will remain at the periphery of the global information economy...these countries would then be tempted to regard the global information economy as a new instrument of exploitation of the poor by the rich" (208). With this in mind, Mody states that "When 32% of the population live below the $1-a-day income poverty line, what should the average developing country invest in first: food, clothing, shelter, or an Internet backbone and public access centers? The answer is surely not which first?, but how much of which under what conditions?" (82).
Technology and the Internet influences domestically as well as globally the economic disparity in society, one's economic station in life, but it is still a matter of more research needed to answer how much? Qualitatively, I feel that I have answered my thesis question--how did you answer it?
Chart
The worst and best states (regions) for telephone subscribership
Bottom 15
Arkansas--87.2%
Mississippi--87.8%
New Mexico--88.6%
Alabama--89.9%
Nevada--91.1%
Texas--91.4%
Kentucky & Oklahoma--91.5%
Florida--92.0%
Louisiana & DC--92.1%
Kansas & South Dakota--92.2%
Illinois & West Virginia--92.4%
Top 15
Pennsylvania--97.5%
Maine, Minnesota, & New Hampshire--97.3%
North Dakota--97.2%
Colorado--97.1%
Connecticut--97.0%
Utah--96.6%
Massachusetts & Vermont--96.1%
California &Hawaii--95.9%
Nebraska--95.8%
Wisconsin--95.4%
New York--95.3%
Source: (Tagland, 2).
Music selection: DON'T FEAR THE REAPER
|
|
|
