Digital Divide

Digital divide and economicdevelopment: case study of

sub-Saharan AfricaStephen M. Mutula

Department of Library and Information Studies, University of Botswana,Gaborone, Botswana

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the nexus between the digital divide anddevelopment and discusses attempts being made at continental, regional and country levels to bridgethe digital divide in sub-Saharan Africa.

Design/methodology/approach – An analytical and comparative approach of global e-readiness,digital opportunity, and information society indices is applied to infer the status of the digital divide insub-Saharan Africa.

Findings – The paper finds that there is a link between bridging the digital divide and economicdevelopment. However, there is as yet no unanimity as to whether the digital divide is narrowing orwidening in developing countries including those in sub-Saharan Africa. Nevertheless, countries insub-Saharan Africa are making tremendous strides, especially in infrastructure development andmobile phone connectivity, to bridge the digital divide.

Research limitations/implications – An empirical study is needed to determine the impact of thesurge in infrastructure and policy development in sub-Saharan Africa with regard to bridging thedigital divide.

Practical implications – Hitherto, attempts to measure the extent of the digital divide between andwithin countries have largely relied on e-readiness rankings and have rarely used other relevantindices that are available, such as e-government, information society, and digital opportunity indices.The use of a wide range of indices to infer the breadth and depth of the digital divide betweensub-Saharan Africa and the developed world would provide a clearer picture of the extent of the divide.

Originality/value – The paper demonstrates that several tools other than e-readiness ranking canbe used to measure the breadth and depth of the digital divide. The paper brings to the fore theimportance of addressing sub-Saharan Africa’s digital divide peculiarities using extraordinaryinterventions.

Keywords Communication technologies, Economic development, Sub Saharan Africa

Paper type Case study

IntroductionGovernments the world over are now preoccupied with how to meet the MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs) by the year 2015. The MDGs include:

. the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger;

. the achievement of universal primary education;

. the promotion of gender equality, empowerment of women;

. the reduction of child mortality;

. the improvement of maternal health;

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0264-0473.htm

EL26,4

468

Received 14 June 2007Revised 9 July 2007Accepted 13 July 2007

The Electronic LibraryVol. 26 No. 4, 2008pp. 468-489q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0264-0473DOI 10.1108/02640470810893738

. combating HIV/AIDs, malaria and other diseases;

. ensuring environmental sustainability; and

. developing global partnerships for the attainment of a more peaceful, just andprosperous world.

One of the key catalysts in the attainment of MDGs is inclusive access to and effectiveuse of information and communication technologies (ICTs) by the entire populace ofevery country on the globe. Universal access and universal service have emerged askey strategies that governments are using in their attempts to bridge the digital dividewithin their countries and with the rest of the world. In general, the term “universalaccess” has come to be associated with enabling every person to have access tonecessary ICTs within a given distance for enhanced communication. However, itwould seem individual countries define the concept rather differently. The governmentof Botswana, for example, defines universal access as access to a telephone in everylocality of more than 500 people. On the other hand, the South African governmentperceives universal access as access to a telephone within a 30-minute travelingdistance (Jensen, 2000; cited by Lumba, 2006). The term “universal access” has beenexpanded and now includes access to internet facilities (PANOS, 2004; cited by Lumba,2006). Moreover, the concept of universal access is closely tied to the concept ofuniversal service, which is taken to mean that ICT should, in addition to being accessedby all, be used by all people irrespective of their physical (dis)abilities.

As already pointed out, universal access and universal service are increasinglybeing perceived by governments as critical components in achieving the MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs). However, the so called “digital divide” poses the greatestchallenge, especially in the developing world and particularly in the countries ofAfrica. The concept of the “digital divide” has been defined variously by differentauthorities. Spectar (2000) for example, views the “digital divide” in terms ofinequitable access to ICTs such as PCs, internet, telephones, cable and otherinternet-related technologies by individuals or groups of people in a country orbetween countries. This definition, however, fails to address issues of use and qualityof access that have become pertinent in an increasingly interconnected world. Thisdefinition implies that addressing the digital divide is merely narrowing the digitalgaps by improving access to ICT by people within and between countries. However,Peters (2003) rightly points out that installing computers and connections inunderdeveloped communities is only part of what is needed to put information andcommunications technology to use for socio-economic development. Similarly, theInternational Telecommunications Union (ITU) points out that the so-called “new” or“quality” digital divide is not attributable to the lack of equipment or connections, butin its present form, the character of the phenomenon is changing from “basic toadvanced communications and from quantity to quality” (InternationalTelecommunications Union, 2002). Increasingly, the digital divide should be seenand addressed holistically in terms of access, the effective use of ICT and content. Inaddition, the quality of networks, the adequacy of bandwidth and the value derivedfrom use of such ICTs to enhance the status of individuals or the population in acountry should be issues to be addressed in any attempt to bridge digital gaps withinand between countries (Gerhan and Mutula, 2007).

Digital divideand economicdevelopment

469

The origin of the concept of a “digital divide” remains a mystery, though it has cometo be attributed to some professionals and bureaucracy in the USA. For example, LarryIrving, a one-time Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information atCommerce, is reported to have used the concept in 1995. Similarly, the origin of theconcept is attributed to Jonathan Webber and Amy Harmon of the Los Angeles Timesduring 1995 when they reportedly used the term to describe the social division betweenthose who were very involved in technology and those who were not. On the otherhand, the Benton Foundation believes that former US President Bill Clinton was thefirst to use the term in an address to the National Information Infrastructure (NII)Advisory Council in 1993 (Foster and Borowski, 2000). But Miranda (2006) observesthat Albert Gore used the phrase “digital divide” for the first time in 1996 in a MayWhite House ceremony when he observed that “as part of our empowerment zoneinitiatives we launched this cyber-Ed Truck, a book mobile for the digital age [. . .] it isrolling into communities, connecting schools in our poorest neighborhoods and pavingover the digital divide”. Thereafter, it is reported that the term started to find its wayinto US policy statements and documents.

Despite the mystery that surrounds the origin of the phrase “digital divide”, it hastaken its place in the ICT and development literature and is coming of age. It is nowgenerally assumed that bridging the digital divide is inextricably intertwined withsocial, economic and political development. Endeavors by countries to bridge thedigital divide in order to reap digital dividends should therefore be seen in this context.Birdsall (2000) points out that the digital divide is now increasingly being perceived asa public policy challenge. For example, in both Canada and the USA the issue of thedigital divide has become an administrative problem (Reddick, 2000). Moreover, it hasshifted out of the political public policy arena into bureaucratic programs. Formulatedas an administrative issue, the digital divide is now representative of the liberalpragmatic vein of the political cultures of both the USA and Canada (Reddick, 2000).

Despite the contradicting positions about who originated the concept of “digitaldivide”, it would seem that the emergence of the phrase is attributed in part to therevolution in ICT, especially the internet technology that swept across the worldduring the 1990s. However, digital gaps have existed since the invention of computertechnology. For example, Birdsall (2000) points out that although the phrase “digitaldivide” is relatively new to Canada, the issue of the equitable distribution of access tomodes of communication is one that extends throughout Canadian history. Forinstance, during the nineteenth century, universalism in Canada became central totwentieth century public policy when it was adopted in the provision of health care,and in other spheres of public policy.

Moreover, awareness about emerging digital gaps is traced back to the informationtechnology ideology that emerged in the USA in the 1970s in political circles whenconservative politics started to embrace free market values and technologicaldeterminism (Birdsall, 1996, 1997). This ideology was borne out of the convergencebetween computing and telecommunications, driven by the perception thattechnological foundation was a catalyst for economic growth. Consequently,information technology with free market economics and conservative politicalvalues was adopted by the Republican and Democratic parties. During the mid-1990sthe Democratic Party through the then Vice-President Albert Gore became a prominent

EL26,4

470

proponent of the development of a National Information Infrastructure (NII) as aneconomic growth strategy.

ICT-driven economic developmentEconomic development is increasingly being tied to the breadth and depth of digitalgaps within and between nations. Countries with low digital gaps are more developed(developed world) than countries with high digital gaps (developing countries). Zaidi(2005) defines economic development as growth in GDP accompanied by relevantsocial and institutional changes by which that growth can be sustained. These changesinclude reduction in absolute poverty, a better quality of life, high literacy level,improved productivity of labor, sophisticated techniques of production, developmentof physical and commercial infrastructure, higher savings, increase in employmentopportunities, a positive attitude towards life and work, and a stable political system.

Sein and Harindranath (2004, p. 15), in their model analyzing the role of informationand communications technology (ICT) in national development, tried to understandhow ICT affects national development. They pointed out that ICT can be can be brokendown into four aspects with regard to development, namely ICT as:

(1) commodity;

(2) supporting development activity;

(3) driver of the economy; and

(4) directed at specific development projects.

On the other hand, the World Summit on the Information Society (2003) noted that thedigital revolution fired by the engines of the information and communicationtechnologies had fundamentally brought new ways of creating knowledge, educatingpeople and disseminating information, conducting economic and business practices,running government, engaging politically, providing speedy delivery of humanitarianaid and healthcare, and improving living standards for millions of people around theworld, among others.

The impetus for integrating ICT in US policy documents was largely to achieveeconomic development and increased productivity. The US advanced this idea byadvocating a Global Information Infrastructure (GII) through the World TradeOrganization and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Similarly, atthe 1994 ITU International Conference in Buenos Aires, Albert Gore noted that NII andGII would lead to sustainable economic progress, improved health care, etc. Moreover,GII would lead to a global free market and global decentralized democracies, morefreedom of individuals, and more choices, etc. (Miranda, 2006).

Measuring the breadth and depth of digital divideThough there are various instruments or tools available that can be used to measurethe breadth and extent of the digital divide, only e-readiness assessment tools, it wouldseem, were developed specifically for this purpose. However, tools such as the DigitalOpportunity Index (DOI), the Information Society Index (ISI) and the eGovernmentIndex (EGI) can effectively be used to measure the extent of the digital divide,especially between countries.

Digital divideand economicdevelopment

471

E-readinessThe concept of e-readiness was originated by the intent to provide a unified frameworkto evaluate the breadth and depth of the digital divide between more and lessdeveloped countries during the later part of 1990s. Several tools were thereafterdeveloped by academia, the private sector and development agencies to assist inmeasuring the extent of the digital divide. For example, in 1998 the Computer SystemsPolicy Project (CSPP) in the USA developed an e-readiness assessment tool known asthe “Readiness Guide for Living in the Networked World”. This tool definede-readiness with respect to a community that has high-speed access in a competitivemarket; with constant access and application of ICTs in schools, government offices,businesses, healthcare facilities and homes; user privacy and online security; andgovernment policies which are favorable to promoting connectedness and use of thenetwork (Bridges.org, 2001).

Similarly, the Economist Intelligence Unit has, since 2000, regularly publishedannual e-readiness rankings of the world’s 60 largest economies, using a tool thatdefines a country’s e-readiness as essentially a measure of its e-business environment,a collection of factors that indicate how amenable a market is to internet-basedopportunities. The ranking allows governments to gauge the success of theirtechnology initiatives against those of other countries (Economist Intelligence Unit andIBM Corporation, 2004). For example, the 2006 global e-readiness rankings of countriesby the Economist Intelligence Unit showed that of the 68 countries that were ranked,Denmark retained its top position from the previous year, followed by the USA,Switzerland, and Sweden. The next five high performing countries were the UK, TheNetherlands, Finland, Australia and Canada. Overall, Europe remained the dominantregion worldwide. In Africa the only countries that made it to the list of those that wereranked included South Africa (35th), Egypt (55th), Nigeria (60th) and Algeria (63rd).South Africa was ahead of countries such as Malaysia (37th), Argentina (42nd), Turkey(45th), Saudi Arabia (46th), Thailand (47th), Russia (52nd), India (53rd) and China(57th) (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2006). Nearly all countries that were favorablyranked had made significant progress investing in broadband wireless technologiessuch as WiFi and WiMax for improved online access. In addition, leaders in e-readinesshad put in place voice over IP (VoIP) for enhanced connectivity.

Likewise, the International Records Management Trust (IRMT) has developed ane-records readiness tool, which is designed for use in conjunction with other existinge-readiness tools (including those that have already been described above) to providehigh level assessment in determining what government records, and whether theinformation infrastructure is capable of supporting e-government initiatives(International Records Management Trust, 2004). The tool uses a brief questionnairethat provides a risk assessment of e-records readiness in government, at national andenterprise levels. The tool consists of 12 components of e-records readiness. This toolconsists of measures that are compliant with information management proceduressuch as confidentiality; guidelines and good practices for computer system security,backup and business continuity planning; documentation standards and systemengineering procedures for ICT; guidelines for the management of electronic records;standards formats for storage and retrieval of data; basic classification schemes; andpolicy on how information should be organized.

EL26,4

472

Digital Opportunity Index (DOI)The other tool that can be used to measure the digital divide is the Digital OpportunityIndex (DOI). DOI measures and evaluates the opportunity, infrastructure andutilization of ICTs. DOI monitors the growth of mobile communications in many partsof the world, as well as more recent technologies such as broadband and mobileinternet access. Moreover, it looks at the falling prices of broadband, and increasingbroadband speeds (World Information Society Report, 2006). For example, during2005, the DOI for SADC member states in global ranking, as shown in Table I, was notcompetitive.

Information Society Index (ISI)The Information Society Index is another indicator that can be used to surmise thebreadth and depth of the digital divide. ISI examines how nations are positioningthemselves to compete in the global information economy. The Index is calculatedbased on 15 key data variables, including:

(1) IT spending as a percentage of GDP;

(2) software spending;

(3) IT services spending;

(4) PC penetration;

(5) internet users;

(6) home internet users;

(7) mobile internet users;

(8) e-commerce spending;

(9) broadband households;

(10) wireless subscribers;

Country World rank 2004/2005

Angola 135Botswana 102Democratic Republic of the Congo 150Lesotho 133Madagascar 162Malawi 174Mauritius 50Mozambique 169Namibia 109Seychelles 54South Africa 91Swaziland 116Tanzania 165Zambia 160Zimbabwe 149

Source: World Information Society Report (2006)

Table I.DOI for SADC member

states (number ofcountries ranked

globally ¼ 180)

Digital divideand economicdevelopment

473

(11) handset shipments;

(12) secondary education levels;

(13) tertiary education levels;

(14) civil liberties; and

(15) government corruption.

In 2006, 70 nations were surveyed (International Data Corporation, 2007). Thecountries that were found to be leaders in the Information Society Index for 2006included South Korea (1st), Japan (2nd), Denmark (3rd), Iceland (4th), Hong Kong (5th),Sweden (6th), the UK (7th), Norway (8th), The Netherlands (9th) and Taiwan (10th).African member states were not ranked favorably. Moreover, a similar ISI ranking of53 countries worldwide in 2003 and 2004 placed South Africa and Egypt (the onlycountries from Africa) at positions 30 and 47, respectively (Minton, 2003; InternationalData Corporation, 2004).

E-Goverment Index (EGI)The E-Government Index can also be used to determine the extent of digital gapsbetween countries. For example, in a 2005 global digital government study of 98municipalities (in countries with an online population of more than 160,000 people)undertaken under the auspices of the Division for Public Administration andDevelopment Management Department of Economic Affairs of the United Nations andthe American Society for Public Administration, the city of Cape Town (South Africa)was the only representative from Africa, and was ranked at 31st (Holzer and Kim,2005). The evaluation focused on current practices in government with regard to digitalgovernance (the delivery of public services) and digital democracy (citizenparticipation in government). The variables under study included security, usability,content of websites, type of online services being offered and citizens’ participationthrough websites established by city governments.

Status of the digital divide in sub-Saharan AfricaAtkins (2005), quoting the World Bank, wrote “The ‘digital divide’ between rich andpoor nations is narrowing fast, calling into question a costly United Nations campaignto bring hi-tech telecommunications to the developing world”. According to the WorldBank, telecommunications services to poor countries were growing at an explosive rateand the digital divide was rapidly closing. The World Bank report was based on thepremise that people in the developing world were getting more access, especially to cellphone communications, far faster than they got access to new technologies in the past.The Report noted that half of the world’s population now enjoyed access to a fixed-linetelephone, and 77 percent to a mobile network – surpassing a WSIS campaign goalthat calls for 50 percent access by 2015.

The World Bank study, however, did not take into account the multiple dimensionsof the digital divide, such as quality of access, adequacy of content in the wires and theability of the general populace to use the technology and content. In a nutshell, theReport could be right with respect to telecommunications growth, particularly mobiletelephony, but it is debatable that the digital divide phenomenon could be narrowing,

EL26,4

474

especially in Africa, from the point of view of quality of access, adequacy of content,effective usage and affordability of access. Moreover, sub-Saharan Africa has a lot ofcatching up to do compared with the developed world with regard to digital literacy,availability of relevant content, affordability of access, quality of networks, universalaccess and universal service. Similarly the extent of digital divide is inextricablyintertwined with levels of development, yet development gaps between developed anddeveloping countries are widening. For example, estimates of the world distribution ofincome show that global distribution of income is very unequal and the inequality hasnot been falling over time between low and high income countries (Bourguignon andMorrison, 2002; Milanovic, 2002, 2005).

Additionally, the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and theInternational Network of Unesco published the ICT Opportunity Index (IOI) in timefor the second WSIS meeting in Tunis in 2005, which showed that digital opportunitiesare unequally distributed between developed and developing countries and suggestedthat the gap between the ICT-poorest countries and most others is actually growing.The report noted that the Infostate gap between countries ranges from a high of 225 toa low of 8. They concluded that literally, the “have” and “have-not” countries areworlds apart. Moreover, countries with the least developed Infostates are heavilyconcentrated in Africa, with some Asian countries as well (InternationalTelecommunications Union, 2005).

The digital divide in developing countries, especially in Africa, is exacerbated bythe predominant use of satellites, which are a more expensive mode of communicationcompared to fiber optics (which the continent, especially the Southern and EasternAfrican regions, lacks). For example, the cost of international data transfer via satellitein the Eastern and Southern Africa regions was about US$5,000 per megabit inSeptember 2004, compared with US$500 per megabit with a maritime link (underseafiber cable). Further, while a satellite-hop to the UK took 650 microseconds, the fiberoptic link took 150 microseconds (Kenya Times, 2007). On the other hand, a study bythe Business Leadership Group of 15 countries worldwide said that ADSL (broadband)costs in South Africa were 139 percent higher than the average rate in the nationssurveyed. The study noted that local calls at peak hours were 199 percent moreexpensive (Naidoo, 2007). Consequently, if the cost of access in South Africa is taken asthe barometer for the rest of the continent (given that South Africa has a welldeveloped telecommunication infrastructure), then the situation in other countries canonly be anybody’s guess. This is confirmed by the World Bank as cited by Nyasatoand Kathuri (2007), who observe that international phone call and high-speed internetconnection charges in 25 East and Southern Africa countries are beyond the reach ofthe average person.

Bridging the digital divide in its multifaceted forms between Africa and theWestern world may for now be a pipe-dream, given that economic gaps have neverbeen effectively narrowed between developed and developing countries despiteprotracted interventions by multilateral financial institutions such as the World Bankand the IMF. For example, during the 1990s, the IMF set in motion StructuralAdjustment Programmes (SAPs), in which the recipients of donor funding, especiallyin the developing world, were expected to implement to address their economicmeltdown (International Labour Organisation, 1998). However, the 2000 UNDP Human

Digital divideand economicdevelopment

475

Development Report noted that since 1913, the global poverty gaps between theworld’s richest quintiles and the poorest quantiles has been widening significantly. Forexample, in 1913, the gap between the world’s richest quintile and poorest quintile was13:1; in 1990, this rose to 60:1 and in 1997, this gap had reached 74:1 (United NationsDevelopment Program, 2001).

Moreover, despite recent hype about bridging the digital divide by bringing onboard the majority of people who remain excluded, especially those living in ruralareas in developing countries, little impact has been achieved. For example, in somevillages in India (new India) discussed elsewhere in this article, so-called knowledgecenters situated in rural areas well detached from urban centers meant well in principlein bridging the urban/rural divide, but it has emerged that some of the residents livingnext to the so-called knowledge centres do not even know that they exist and/or whatthey are all about (The Economist Newspaper and the Economist Group, 2005). Thissituation reveals the unexamined urban/rural digital divide. This contrasts with theoptimism of the 1990s that rural ICTs would leapfrog development, informationsocieties and a host of other electronic age applications for previously excludedcommunities.

Similarly, Bill Gates observed that community centers or similar ventures aredistractions from the real problems of development. He pointed out that 99 percent ofthe benefits of having a PC come when you have provided reasonable health andliteracy to the person who is going to sit down and use it (The Economist Newspaperand the Economist Group, 2005). These observations concur with the outcome ofe-readiness assessments in Botswana in 2005, where rural communities preferredinterventions that would enhance access to anti-retroviral drugs, information aboutwhere they would fetch good prices for their goods, and information on how to tracklost cattle, rather than having access to the internet or computers (Maitlamo, 2005).Similar observations have been reported in South Africa, where people are morepreoccupied with issues of security, shelter, access to clean water, electricity, andaccess to health facilities rather than internet connectivity (Maitlamo, 2005).

The G7 group of countries sponsored a conference on “Information Society andDevelopment” in South Africa in May 1996, which concluded that a large gap existedbetween industrialized and less industrialized countries in terms of informationinfrastructure. The conference noted that this gap was occasioned by far lessinvestment in ICT infrastructure by developing countries. The conference urgeddeveloping countries to increase investment in ICT infrastructures to narrow thedigital gap with the industrialized countries.

Likewise, the March 2007 NEPAD Support Unit of Economic Commission for Africa(ECA) publication noted that electricity use per capita on the African continent is lessthan 2 percent. The report concludes that without access to sufficient, quality andreliable energy, every social and development activity was critically constrained inAfrica. Moreover, the report noted that for Africa, to achieve MDGs in a sustainablemanner, it must address the unique challenges that energy deficits create. Africancountries must also pursue initiatives which will secure access to energy for at least 35percent of Africa’s population within 20 years, especially in rural areas (EconomicCommission for Africa, 2006). In Africa, electricity supply shortages make it difficultfor connectivity to the internet even where infrastructure such as wireless technologies

EL26,4

476

like VSAT could be easily deployed. Additionally, even where there is a power grid,power outages due to droughts affect the capacity of hydropower generating plants insuch countries as Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and Zimbabwe. This forces consumers,including large government installations, to revert to using power generators that arenot suited to powering delicate gadgets such as computers.

The energy crisis in Africa, it would seem, will not be resolved in the foreseeablefuture. The Eskom power utility in South Africa has for decades had excess electricitysupply which it was exporting to neighboring countries such as Botswana, Zimbabwe,Lesotho, and Swaziland. Moreover, the utility company was in due course expected toexport electricity to the rest of Africa by installing fiber optic cable to expand thepower grid into a continent-wide network to tap the electricity generation potential ofthe Congo. However, for the last three years, South Africa has increasingly found itdifficult to meet its own domestic electricity demand, due in part to the rapidindustrialization taking place in the country. This does not augur well for Africa,where most parts of the continent experience perennial shortages of electricity supply,with rural areas bearing the brunt.

The World Bank report on the “African Region Communications InfrastructureProgramme” released in early April 2007 (Nyasato and Kathuri, 2007), observes thatthe East and Southern Africa region suffers bandwidth deficiency, as it accounts forless than 1 percent of the world’s international bandwidth capacity. Additionally, thecountries in the region lack direct terrestrial access to global information andcommunications infrastructure, relying on expensive satellite connectivity to link upwith the rest of the world. As a result, telecommunication users face some of thehighest costs in the world. The countries affected in the region include Angola,Botswana, Burundi, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea,Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia,Rwanda, Seychelles, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda,Zambia, and Zimbabwe. The report further notes that international wholesalebandwidth prices in the region are 20-40 times higher than in the USA, andinternational calls are on average ten to 20 times more costly than in other developingcountries.

The importance of bridging the digital divide cannot be over-emphasized. Theworld over, countries that have low digital gaps are also best performing in terms ofeconomic development. For example, countries such as Switzerland, Finland, Sweden,Denmark, Singapore, the USA, Japan, Germany, The Netherlands and the UK are theworld’s top ten performing economies according to The Global Competitiveness Report2006-2007 (World Economic Forum, 2006). These countries are also leaders ine-governance systems and score highly on the Digital Opportunity Index, e-readinessrankings, the Information Society Index and the E-Government Index.

Current strategies for bridging the digital divide in sub-Saharan AfricaThere are several conventional initiatives taking place in sub-Saharan Africa aimed atbridging the digital divide. For example, the African Information Society Initiative(AISI) was entrenched at the May 1995 21st Meeting of the Economic Commission forAfrica (ECA) Conference of Ministers of Social and Economic Development andPlanning. AISI seeks to build Africa’s information highway, which would utilize

Digital divideand economicdevelopment

477

information and communications technologies to accelerate the socio-economicdevelopment of Africa and its people. The action framework of AISI calls for theimplementation of national information and communication infrastructure; buildinginstitutional frameworks; human, information and technological resources in allAfrican countries; and the pursuit of priority strategies, programs and projects for asustainable information society in African countries (Amoako, 1996).

Similarly, the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) is a broad-basedICT institutional framework whose desire is to initiate the implementation of its ICTprojects with a view to encouraging decentralized collaboration within Africa andbetween Africa and the rest of the world. NEPAD, in partnership with the privatesector, has embarked on an e-school project across the continent through collaborationwith respective ministries of education in member countries. Africa’s first NEPADe-school was launched in Uganda in July 2005. The project included equipping theschool with computers and accessories, a server, the internet, electricity, a mobiletelephone booster mast, computer desks, DSTV, an e-health facility, and trainedteachers. Other countries where the e-school project is being rolled out include Algeria,Burkina Faso, Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon,Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Mali, Mauritius, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, andSouth Africa (Mikenga, 2005; Association for Progressive Communications, 2005).

The other African initiative aimed at bridging the digital divide is the AfricanRegional Bureau, a key outcome of the Africa Regional Conference on the WorldSummit on Information Society (WSIS), held in Bamako, Mali, in May 2002 andattended by 51 African states with representatives from government, the privatesector, civil society, NGOs, the media and international development agencies. TheAfrican Regional Bureau was established to work with the WSIS secretariat. TheBureau was charged with the task of developing a set of principles andrecommendations for developing a common African vision for an informationsociety. The Bureau is expected through various activities to ensure that every citizenhas access to information as a basic human right. Moreover, the Bureau is expected tofacilitate the removal of regulatory, political and financial obstacles to the developmentof communication facilities, as well as addressing linguistic specificities (Faye, 2002).

During the 2003 WSIS in Geneva, poorer countries, particularly those from Africa,lobbied successfully for the establishment of a “Digital Solidarity Fund” to help financethe infrastructure that is very much needed to close the perceived technology gap.African states argued that one of the key problems affecting access to ICT in Africa isthe lack of an adequate requisite infrastructure, including telephone access, a roadnetwork, mass media and other forms of communication systems (The PANOSInstitute, 2004).

Additionally, most countries in sub-Saharan Africa have realized the folly of highlyregulating telecommunications markets and are now increasingly opening markets tocompetition by liberalizing their telecoms industry. This change in thinking hasrealized phenomenal growth in mobile phone communications, modest growth in fixedline telephony, a gradual opening up of voice over internet protocol (VoIP) and verysmall aperture terminal (VSAT). These developments have occasioned growth intelephone communications, and data/internet, thus offering a major opportunity forrural areas to communicate and access information. Africa is reported to boast the

EL26,4

478

fastest growth rate in the world, forecast to add 265 million new mobile subscribersover the next six years. Moreover, Africa was estimated to have 113.55 million mobilesubscribers by the end of 2005, and it has been forecast that this number will rise to 378million by 2011 (Mobiledia Corp., 2006).

There are also regional initiatives for bridging the digital divide in Africa. Forexample, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) member states haveestablished some institutional frameworks to enhance e-readiness and propel theregion into an information society and also to enable countries of the region to playgreat roles in the information age. For example, in 2001, the SADC heads of statesestablished the Southern African Development Community (2002) to study thee-readiness status of the region in order to provide a framework to address issuesrelating to bridging the digital divide in order to propel the region to informationsociety status. Similarly, SADC member states are signatories to the SADC IT protocol,which among other things focuses on developing an information society in SouthernAfrica, encouraging the growth of software and hardware, improving human resourcecapacity, increasing investment in information and communication technologyinfrastructure services, enhancing economic and social development, increasingproductivity and competitiveness, reducing costs related to IT, and developing aSADC-wide ICT infrastructure (Southern African Development Community, 1999,p. 27).

Similarly, some SADC member countries have agreed to co-ordinate their sciencepolicies and work together to develop the region’s science and technologyinfrastructure. In particular, the countries – which include Botswana, Namibia,Zambia, and Zimbabwe – will harmonize some of the rules governing how scientificresearch is carried out, especially customs regulations on the movement of researchersand scientific equipment. They have also agreed that although primary and secondaryeducation will remain a national responsibility, higher education should be coordinatedat the regional level and that the creation of regional training centers should be made apriority. These decisions were taken at the regional meeting of the ministers of scienceand technology of the states involved in this partnership in Maputo, Mozambique, onDecember 1, 2005 (SciDev.Net, 2005).

Similarly, in the East African region, the East African Community (EAC) memberstates consisting of Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania are working collaboratively toenhance the region’s participation in the information society through variousinitiatives. The East African Community Secretariat, for example, has developed avision for the regional e-government framework which covers all major aspects ofregional cooperation such as online public services, e-education for publicadministration, and e-business and entrepreneurial support. Currently, the threeEast Africa Community countries are individually and collectively at different stagesof developing national ICT policies.

Within the West African region, the Economic Community of West African States(ECOWAS) consisting of 15 member states (Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Coted’Ivoire, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria,Senegal, Sierra Leone and Togo) in a meeting in 2006 in Lome, Togo, promulgated anICT policy framework that would address the challenges of building the informationsociety at the ECOWAS level, including harmonizing national ICT policies and plans,

Digital divideand economicdevelopment

479

developing an enabling environment, building a regional infrastructure/backbone, anddeveloping local content and financing mechanisms for the information society (Faye,2006; Bureau of African Affairs, 2002).

There are also individual national initiatives aimed at bridging the digital divide inAfrica. For example, there are attempts to establish internet exchange points that willobviate the need for traffic to be routed through Europe even when communicationinvolves two parties in the same country. Kenya and Tanzania have established suchinternet exchange points, while stakeholders in Botswana are discussing thepossibility of such internet exchange points (International Telecommunications Union,2006). Additionally, in Tanzania mobile phone coverage has now exceeded the fixedline networks. There are an estimated four million mobile phone owners in the country,with a growing coverage of rural areas. Similarly, Kenya was estimated to have aboutten million mobile phone subscribers against fixed lines of 280,000 in early 2007(Reuters, 2007). On the other hand, in Botswana, mobile phone subscribers wereestimated at about 700,000 in 2007 against about 150,000 fixed lines. In South Africamobile phone subscribers were estimated at 35 million by December 2005 (MobileTelephone Networks, 2006) in a population of about 47 million people.

Infrastructure initiatives of bridging the digital divide in sub-SaharanAfricaThe Eastern and Southern Africa region lacks a fiber optic cable system. Consequently,the region relies exclusively on satellite links for voice and data transmission at aboutten times the cost and at transmission speeds of less than a quarter those of fiber opticlinks. For example, annual cost of using satellite communications is estimated at$15,000 (Sh1.05 million) per megabyte (Morris, 2007).

The high cost of connectivity has prompted major infrastructure projects across theAfrican continent by regional governments to enhance access and bridge the digitaldivide within the continent and between Africa and other continents. Some of theseprojects include:

. East African Submarine Cable System (EASSy);

. SEACOM – “carriers’ carrier” project;

. SAT/SAFE 3 – South Atlantic 3/West Africa Submarine Cable;

. multipurpose community centres;

. COMESA Telecommunication project (COMTEL); and

. Kenyan Government’s TEAMS undersea fiber optic project.

The East African Submarine Cable System (EASSy) is proposed to cover 9,900 kmwith undersea fiber optic cable. The project is the brainchild of 13 Eastern Africacountries. It is believed that the installation of the fiber optic network would slashinternet costs and open avenues in the information and communications technologysector in the region, which has lagged behind due to lack of an optical fiber connectingthe country to the rest of the world. Apart from Kenya and Djibouti, other countriesinvolved in the project are South Africa, Sudan, Mozambique, Madagascar, Tanzania,Uganda, Rwanda, Malawi, Botswana, Ethiopia and Somalia. The undersea cablesystem will link Mtunzini, located just North of Durban in South Africa, to Port Sudan

EL26,4

480

in the Sudan (Morris, 2007). It is envisaged that with the EASSy fibre in place, theannual cost of connectivity will go down to as little as $500 in a period of less than sixyears (Morris, 2007). The EASSy project, when completed, will link with SAT3/SAFEon the Western part of Africa, thus encircling Africa and consequently reducing theregion’s dependency on satellite communications.

SEACOM is a “carriers’ carrier” project planned to be implemented on the Easternseaboard of Africa. The SEAMCOM cable will follow the same route as the EASSycable, but it will connect internationally directly into either Italy or India via VNSL(Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd network). The project is reportedly being funded by theAfrica and Middle East Fund, based in Europe, and two private equity groups inAfrica. The project will invest in terrestrial backhaul directly or buy it from backboneproviders. SEACOM is expected to bring down the price of bandwidth to US$91 permbps per month in ten years’ time (Southwood, 2007).

During 2004, the Common Market for East and Southern Africa (COMESA) signed adeal with what was then the Anderberg-Ericsson Consortium of Mauritius as thestrategic partner for the regional Communication Telecommunication project(COMTEL). The planned network was designed to connect the 21 countries ofCOMESA, using a combination of microwave and fiber links. The entire network, ifand when built, would be 18,000 km long (Southwood, 2005). This project would beAfrica’s premier voice and data network when completed. Though the project has beenmired in problems of a political, technical, investment and management nature since itwas conceived, it is hoped that once it is up and running, it will go a long way toaddressing bandwidth and connectivity problems in East and Southern Africa.

South Atlantic 3/West Africa Submarine Cable (SAT-3/WASC) is a submarinecommunications cable linking Portugal and Spain to South Africa, with connections toseveral West African countries along the route. It forms part of theSAT-3/WASC/SAFE cable system, where the SAFE cable links South Africa toAsia. The SAT-3/WASC/SAFE system provides a path between Asia and Europe fortelecommunications traffic.

Africa has also stepped up efforts in rolling out community telecentres. Forexample, in Tanzania, Multipurpose Community Telecentres (MCTs) have beenimplemented in several villages and they have proved useful in raising awareness onthe use of ICTs (Kapange, 2002). Moreover, there are lots of public call offices (PCOs) inurban centers which are now spilling over to rural areas to provide access to theinternet. The African Connection, Centre for Strategic Planning (2002) recommendsthat community telecenters are the most viable model for internet access to themajority who are excluded from mainstream internet connectivity in offices, homes,libraries and schools. Tanzania has Internet Points of Presence at each districtheadquarters, and the trend is trickling further down to smaller towns and somevillages (Kapange, 2006). Moreover, internet kiosks, cyber cafes and other forms ofpublic internet access are increasingly being set up in several countries. For example,the cyber cafe sector is booming in several countries in sub-Saharan Africa, such asTanzania, Malawi, Kenya, Mozambique, Eritrea, Mali and Senegal to mention but afew. Some of these telecenters are established in community phone-shops, schools,police stations and clinics, bringing information access to the doorsteps of consumersin rural areas.

Digital divideand economicdevelopment

481

At the national level, infrastructure developments are also taking place to bridge thedigital divide in Africa. For example, the government of Kenya is spearheading TheEast Africa Marine Systems (TEAMS) undersea fiber optic cable, which is expected tobe operational by 2009. The cable is proposed to run from Fujaira in the United ArabEmirates (UAE) to Mombasa in Kenya, covering a distance of 4,726 km. The project isa joint venture of the government of Kenya through Telkom Kenya and the UAE,through its telecommunication service provider Etisalat (Southwood, 2007). TEAMSwill provide high-speed internet connectivity, which is expected to reduce the cost ofdoing business and promote economic growth in Eastern Africa. Moreover, after itscompletion, expected in 2009, interconnectivity between East Africa and the rest of theworld will be greatly enhanced. The project will connect several East and Horn ofAfrica countries, including Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Rwanda, Tanzaniaand Uganda, to the rest of the world.

Similarly, the Kenyan government has completed part of a fiber optic cable fromMombasa to Malaba, a town on the border with Uganda. It is expected that this cablewill enhance the quality of telephone and internet connections in Western Kenya. Theproject is among several others that will see all provinces and districts in the countryconnected through fiber-optic cable in the country. It will open up towns and ruralareas to ICT business, including call centers, where even a small firm in a rural towncan supposedly serve clients from around the world, offering such services asswitchboard monitoring of calls, and connections from remote locations. TheNairobi-Malaba cable has been laid alongside the oil pipeline owned by the KenyaPipeline Corporation (KPC). Telkom will, in return, connect KPC’s depots and offices tothe cable network (Business Week, 2006).

Peculiarity of Africa’s digital divide: the way forwardThe peculiarity of Africa in terms of the diversity of its people and languages, poorinfrastructure, high illiteracy levels, expansive landmass, wide intra-urban/ruraldivides, etc., demands extraordinary measures in attempts to bridge the digital divide.For example, outdoor advertising, use of roadshows, billboards, and promotionposters, advertisements around strategic places such as shops, churches, schools,stadium, airports, clubs, and public transport, which have helped to entrench mobilephone connectivity in rural areas in Africa, could similarly be applied to createawareness about the increasing digital opportunities that can be accessed by thepopulace. However, care should be taken for such campaigns not to target the largelyaffluent and leave out the rural majority.

Similarly, the integration of local content in promotion campaigns to make peopleaware of new technologies and how they can use them would help to enhance access.For example, community video programs and theatre can be useful tools to bringconnectivity to the people. NGOs could produce local content using videos about therural communities where they operate, and show them within and to neighboringvillages. The involvement of communities in ICT projects through telecenters, the useof open source software to develop local applications and the involvement of women,who make up a great proportion of the rural population, could seriously enhance thedevelopment of local content that is easily accessible and relevant to communities (Ettaand Wamahiu, 2003). Additionally, the use of low cost technologies such as radio,

EL26,4

482

which is pervasive in Africa, could enhance access to information. Governments shouldbe lobbied and encouraged to enact local content policies to spur relevant contentdevelopment (Hyder, 2005). E-government systems being implemented by Africanstates can be used to provide access to development information, service delivery andcommunication between a people and its government.

Africa suffers from a paucity of infrastructure for internet connectivity and also forelectricity supply. However, there is equally an under-utilization of availableinfrastructural facilities. For example, in Botswana, the Botswana TelevisionCorporation (BTV), the Botswana Telecommunication Corporation (BTC), BotswanaRailways Services (BRS), Botswana Police Services (BPS) and the Botswana PowerCorporation (BPS) each have extensive fiber optic cable running in some parts ofcountry with spare bandwidth that could be used, for example, to provide internetconnectivity, power or telephone services to unserviced areas (Maitlamo, 2005). On theother hand, the South African portion of the SAT3/SAFE undersea fiber optic cablewithin the control of Telkom South Africa, which runs from the Western part of Africafrom Cape Town to Far East Asia, is reportedly under-utilized (Davie, 2007). Thisunder-utilization arises out of Telkom’s pricing monopoly powers.

Solutions to Africa’s digital divide problems should be engineered for the poorinfrastructure on the continent and should also take cognizance of the inadequate andinefficient electricity supply. Similarly, applications programs for this environment,which has linguistic and cultural diversity, should fit in well with the cultural realitiesand sensibilities of the people of Africa. Additionally, the technology should betransferred (adapted to local engineering practices, skills and capabilities) rather thanbeing transplanted, akin to technology dumping (Mutula, 2005a, b).

The peculiarities of the digital divide in Africa demand a combination ofinterventions, including the use of unconventional approaches to bridging the divide.For example, traditional broadcasting media have maintained a larger coverage thanthe internet in Africa, and are in many cases cost-effective and more appropriate forsimple information dissemination. However, they have remained commercialized,consequently limiting their use. Commercial media tend to reach only those who areprivileged in society, well schooled and moneyed. There is a need to enhance access tomedia using local language newspapers and community radio stations that canaddress the unique information needs of local communities, such as rainfall patterns,food security, cultural practices, politics, government projects, health, education,church functions, weddings, etc. Some countries are making good attempts tointroduce community radios. They include among others, Mozambique, South Africa,Kenya, Uganda, and Ghana, to mention but a few. Other countries, includingBotswana, are yet to agree on the way forward as far as community radio stations areconcerned.

Mobile cinemas can help bridge the digital divide. For example, in Tanzania, mobilecinemas run by church organizations and some government ministries, involve vanscarrying a videonic projector and screen. The vans travel on fixed monthly itinerariesfrom one location to another giving outdoor shows in the evenings with no entrancecharges. Mobile cinemas provide a unique opportunity of reaching out to a rural anddown-market audience, targeting males and females in equal proportions as well aschildren (Kapange, 2006). On the other hand, in Kenya, the government has made

Digital divideand economicdevelopment

483

attempts to deploy VSAT to enhance internet connectivity to remote outpost schoolsand government centers that lack fixed line connectivity.

The use of cell phones is increasingly enhancing bridging the digital divide inAfrica because of their wide reach, especially in remote rural areas. Mobile subscribernumbers in Africa increased by over 1,000 percent between 1998 and reached 51.8million in 2003 (International Telecommunications Union, 2004). Moreover, mobile usernumbers have long passed those of fixed line telephones, which stood at 25.1 million atthe end of 2003 (International Telecommunications Union, 2004) as shown in theprojections in Figure 1.

ConclusionBridging the digital divide has become a preoccupation of many countries around theworld. This is because of the realization that countries that have high infostates standbetter chances of economic, social and political development. In Africa, there arevarious initiatives at continental, regional and national levels aimed at bridging thedivide within and between countries. These initiatives are largely in the areas ofinfrastructure development, legal and policy framework, with focus on the laying ofundersea and terrestrial fiber optic cable to connect with other parts of the world,liberalization of the telecommunication sectors, investment in mobile phoneconnectivity, e-governance and more. However, these efforts should take cognizanceof Africa’s peculiarities, especially in terms of its linguistic and cultural diversity, ifthey have to bear the desired fruits of bridging the digital gaps.

Moreover, it is important that the various efforts being undertaken to bridge thedigital divide should be followed by impact assessments to determine whether thedesired outcomes are being achieved. This is imperative given that there are conflictingreports of whether the divide is narrowing or widening, especially in developingcountries. Impact studies would provide some indication of where change of strategyand more investment with regard to infrastructure development and policy changesare needed. When all is said and done, it is right at this point in time to state that mobilephone connectivity has pervaded most of rural Africa, which for a long time had nofixed line presence, thus contributing in no small way in bridging the intra-country,

Figure 1.Projected cell phonegrowth in Africa

EL26,4

484

rural/urban and inter-country digital divides. The focus in addressing the digitaldivide in sub-Saharan Africa should shift from mere access to improving the quality ofnetworks, enhancing relevant content, and taking advantage of the proliferation ofmobile phones to enhance the connectivity of the masses among other customized andlocally adapted interventions.

References

African Connection, Centre for Strategic Planning (2002), The Next Step: A Rural ICTProgramme for Africa, Draft 2 Report prepared by Intelcom Research and ConsultancyLtd, Intel Research and Consultancy, Vancouver.

Amoako, K.Y. (1996), “Conference on Empowering Communities in the Information Society: aKeynote Address”, 15 May, available at: www.uneca.org/eca_resources/Speeches/amoako/96_97/empower2.htm (accessed 28 August 2004).

Association for Progressive Communications (2005), “Kenya: 6 schools to gain from Nepad ICTprogramme”, available at: http://rights.apc.org/africa/index.shtml?apc ¼ 21878ne_1&x ¼ 554614 (accessed 20 April 2007).

Atkins, T. (2005), “Digital divide narrowing fast, World Bank says”, news item, Reuters,24 February.

Birdsall, W.F. (1996), “The internet and the ideology of information technology”, available at:www.free.net:8001/Docs/inet96/e3/e3_2.html (accessed 17 April 2007).

Birdsall, W.F. (1997), “The ideology of information technology”, Queen’s Quarterly, Vol. 104,Summer, pp. 287-99.

Birdsall, W.F. (2000), “The digital divide”, available at: www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_12/birdsall/ (accessed 1 April 2007).

Bourguignon, F. and Morrison, C. (2002), “Inequality among world citizens: 1820-1992”,American Economic Review, Vol. 92 No. 4, pp. 731-2.

Bridges.org (2001), “Comparison of e-readiness assessment models: final draft”, available at:www.bridges.org/eredainess/tools.html (accessed 16 July 2003).

Bureau of African Affairs (2002), Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS),US Department of State, Washington, DC.

Business Week (2006), “Telkom Kenya unveils optic fibre cable to connect Nairobi, Mombasa”,available at: www.busiweek.com/index.php?option ¼ com_content&task ¼ view&id ¼

1867&Itemid ¼ 39 (accessed 20 April 2007).

Davie, K. (2007), “The identity of Telkom’s 52% controlling shareholder may come as a surpriseto some”, Mail Guardian Business, 13 April, p. 21.

Economic Commission for Africa (2006), “Per capita electricity use in Africa is less than 2percent, says new report by ECA’s NEPAD Unit”, available at: www.uneca.org/nepad/Story070326.htm (accessed 2 April 2007).

Economist Intelligence Unit (2006), The 2006 E-Readiness Rankings, Economist IntelligenceUnit, London.

Economist Intelligence Unit and IBM Corporation (2004), “Scandinavia consolidates lead in fifthannual Economist Intelligence Unit e-readiness rankings”, available at: www.store.eiu.com/index.asp?layout ¼ pr_story&press_id ¼ 1260000726 (accessed 16 April 2004).

Digital divideand economicdevelopment

485

(The) Economist Newspaper and the Economist Group (2005), “Behind the digital divide”,available at: www.economist.com/printedition/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID ¼ 3714058(accessed 10 April 2007).

Etta, E. and Wamahiu, P.S. (2003), Information and Communication Technologies for

Development in Africa: The Experiences with Community Telecentres, InternationalDevelopment Research Centre, Ottawa.

Faye, M. (2002), “Bamako 2002 spells out vision for African information society”, ECA, AddisAbaba, available at: www.uneca.org/eca_resources/press_releases/2002_pressreleases/pressrelease0902.htm (accessed 31 March 2006).

Faye, M. (2006), “ECOWAS experts adopt a draft information society declaration”, Vol. 30,available at: www.uneca.org/eca_resources/news/020606disd_dna.htm (accessed 30 March2006).

Foster, S. and Borowski, A. (2000), “Who coined the term? Origin of ‘digital divide’ escapes eventhe experts”, available at: www1.soc.american.edu/students/ij/co_3/digitaldivide/history.htm (accessed 10 April 2007).

Gerhan, D. and Mutula, S.M. (2007), “Testing a recent model of ICT in development: Botswanaand its University”, Information Technology for Development, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 197-217.

Holzer, M. and Kim, S.T. (2005), “Digital governance in municipalities worldwide (2005): alongitudinal assessment of municipal websites across the world”, available at: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/ASPA/UNPAN022839.pdf (accessed15 February 2007).

Hyder, S. (2005), “The information society measurements biased by capitalism and its intent tocontrol dependent societies: a critical perspective”, The International Information andLibrary Review, Vol. 37, pp. 25-7.

International Data Corporation (2004), “Information society index: Middle East and Africa”,available at: www.idc.com/groups/isi/main.html (accessed 22 February 2006).

International Data Corporation (2007), “Information society index: an IDC report series”,available at: www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId ¼ IDC_P7066 (accessed 12 February2007).

International Labour Organisation (1998), “Report on human resource development in thecontext of structural adjustment and transition”, available at: www.ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/sector/techmeet/jmps98/jmpsrep3.htm (accessed 3 June 2006).

International Records Management Trust (2004), The E-Records Readiness Tool, InternationalRecords Management Trust, London.

International Telecommunications Union (2002), World Telecommunication Development Report:Reinventing Telecom, 6th ed., International Telecommunications Union, Geneva.

International Telecommunications Union (2004), Africa: The World’s Fastest Growing Mobile

Market: Does Mobile Technology Hold the Key to Widening Access to ICTs in Africa?,International Telecommunications Union, Geneva.

International Telecommunications Union (2005), “ITU and Orbicom publish ICT opportunityindex: a step towards the implementation of the WSIS’s Plan of Action”, available at:www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/dd/summary.html (accessed 17 April 2007).

International Telecommunications Union (2006), “In brief: digital broadcasting goes global by2015”, available at: www.physorg.com/news69687991.html (accessed 19 April 2007).

EL26,4

486

Jensen, M. (2000), “Trail blazer or lost leader: South Africa’s ICT policies”, Into or Out of the

Digital Divide: Perspectives on ICTs and Development in Southern Africa, PANOSSouthern Africa, Lusaka.

Kapange, B. (2002), “ICTs and national agricultural research systems: the case of Tanzania”,available at: www.isnar.cgiar.org/pdf/inars/tanzania.pdf (accessed 14 February 2006).

Kapange, B. (2006), “Globalizing agricultural information: improving access to remote areas inTanzania”, paper prepared for the First IAALD Africa Chapter Conference, Nairobi,21-26 May.

Kenya Times (2007), “World Bank’s Sh8b boost to TEAMS project”, available at: www.timesnews.co.ke/10april07/business/buns2.html (accessed 10 April 2007).

Lumba, P.H. (2006), “From access to knowledge networking: a holistic paradigm on bridging thedigital divide”, paper prepared for the First IAALD Africa Chapter Conference, Nairobi,21-26 May.

Maitlamo (2005), ICT Sector Survey in Botswana, Report, National ICT Consultancy forBotswana, Consulting and Audit Canada, Gaborone, pp. 1-68.

Mikenga, S. (2005), Africa’s First NEPAD E-school is Launched in Uganda, Nepad e-AfricaCommission, Pretoria.

Milanovic, B. (2002), “True world income distribution, 1988 and 1993: first calculation based onhousehold surveys alone”, Economic Journal, Vol. 112 No. 476, pp. 51-92.

Milanovic, B. (2005), Worlds Apart: Measuring International and Global Inequality, PrincetonUniversity Press, Princeton, NJ.

Minton, S. (2003), “Nordic nations still top information index”, The World Paper, available at:www.worldpaper.com/2003/oct02/isi1.html (accessed 13 August 2004).

Miranda, A.D. (2006), “Technological determinism and ideology: questioning the ‘information’society and the ‘digital divide’”, available at: www.ces.uc.pt/bss/documentos/2006_11_13_alvaro_de_miranda.pdf (accessed 2 April 2007).

Mobiledia Corp. (2006), “Half the world will use a cell phone by 2009”, available at: www.mobiledia.com/news/43104.html (accessed 18 April 2007).

Mobile Telephone Networks (2006), “Country profiles: MTN South Africa”, available at: www.mtn.com/mtn.group.web/investor/profile/southafrica.asp (accessed 18 April 2007).

Morris, A. (2007), “SatCom Africa celebrates 10 years of business excellence”, available at: www.satcomafrica.com/ (accessed 9 April 2007).

Mutula, S.M. (2005a), “Bridging the digital divide through e-governance: a proposal for Africa’slibraries and information centres”, The Electronic Library, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 591-602.

Mutula, S.M. (2005b), “Peculiarities of digital divide in sub-Saharan Africa”, Program: Electronic

Library and Information Systems, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 122-38.

Naidoo, S. (2007), “Telkom has lost its head”, Business Times, 8 April 2007, available at: www.mybroadband.co.za/nephp/?m ¼ show&id ¼ 6099 (accessed 18 April 2007).

Nyasato, R. and Kathuri, B. (2007), “High phone charges hamper region’s growth, says W Bank”,The Standard, available at: www.eastandard.net/hm_news/news.php?articleid ¼

1143967136 (accessed 10 April 2007).

(The) PANOS Institute (2004), “Completing the revolution: the challenge of rural telephony inAfrica”, PANOS Report No. 48, The PANOS Institute, London.

Digital divideand economicdevelopment

487

Peters, T. (2003), “Bridging the digital divide-global issues”, An Electronic Journal of the USDepartment of State, Vol. 8 No. 3, available at: http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/1103/ijge/gj08.htm (accessed 17 April 2007).

Reddick, A. (2000), The Dual Digital Divide: The Information Highway in Canada, Public InterestAdvocacy Centre, Ottawa.

Reuters (2007), “Celtel Kenya starts mobile phone money transfers”, available at: www.engineeringnews.co.za/article.php?a_id ¼ 106838 (accessed 18 April 2007).

Southern African Development Community (1999), SADC in the Next Millennium: TheOpportunities and Challenges of Information Technology, SADC Secretariat, Gaborone,pp. 1-64.

Southern African Development Community (2002), E-readiness Task Force SADC E-readinessReview and Strategy, Southern African Development Community, Johannesburg, p. 1060.

SciDev.Net (2005), “Southern Africa adopts a regional approach to science”, available at: www.scidev.net/content/news/eng/southern-africa-adopts-a-regional-approach-to-science.cfm(accessed 30 March 2006).

Sein, M.K. and Harindranath, G. (2004), “Conceptualizing the ICT artifact: toward understandingthe role of ICT in national development”, The Information Society, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 15-24.

Southwood, R. (2005), “Heavy blow to COMTEL fibre project as Ericsson says it will not be aninvestor”, Balancing Act, No. 262, 24 June, available at: www.balancingact-africa.com/news/back/balancing-act_262.html (accessed 10 April 2007).

Southwood, R. (2007), “Outsider east coast fibre project comes in from the cold – SEACOM goespublic”, Balancing Act, No. 349, 31 March, available at: www.balancingact-africa.com/news/back/balancing-act_349.html (accessed 20 April 2007).

Spectar, J. (2000), “Bridging the global divide: frameworks for access and the world wirelessweb”, North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation, Vol. 26,p. 57.

United Nations Development Program (2001), Human Development Report 2001, OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.

World Economic Forum (2006), “Global competitiveness report 2006-2007”, available at: www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/gcp/Global%20Competitiveness%20Report/index.htm(accessed 18 April 2007).

World Information Society Report (2006), “Digital opportunity index 2005: world”, available at:www.itu.int/osg/spu/publications/worldinformationsociety/2006/World.pdf (accessed13 February 2007).

World Summit on the Information Society (2003), “World Summit on the Information Society:Draft Declaration of Principles”, WSIS Civil Society Working Group, Geneva, available at:www.wsis-pct-org/prepcom2-declaration.html (accessed 7 November 2004).

Zaidi, H.H. (2005), “The meaning of economic development”, available at: www.dawn.com/2005/01/17/ebr2.htm (accessed 11 April 2007).

Further reading

Adam, L. and Wood, F. (1999), “An investigation of the impact of information andcommunications technologies in Sub-Saharan Africa”, Journal of Information Science,Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 307-18.

EL26,4

488

African Technology Development Forum (2007), “Mobile communications in Africa”, availableat: www.atdforum.org/spip.php?article89 (accessed 10 April 2007).

Heeks, R. (2002), E-government in Africa: Promise and Practice, Institute for Development Policyand Management, University of Manchester, Manchester.

Liang, G. and Wei, B. (2002), “Internet use in China: a comparative analysis”, in Zhang, J. andWoesler, M. (Eds), China’s Digital Dream; The Impact of the Internet on Chinese Society,The University Press Bochum, Bochum, pp. 71-92.

Suber, P. (2005), “Open access overview”, available at: www.earlham.edu/,peters/fos/overview.htm (accessed 17 April 2007).

UNESCO-CI (2004), “E-governance”, available at: http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID ¼ 3038&URL_DO ¼ DO_TOPIC&URL_SEC (accessed 15 March 2005).

United Nations (2005), “Global e-government readiness report”, available at: http//:unpan1.un.org(accessed 17 April 2007).

About the authorStephen M. Mutula is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Library and Information Studies,University of Botswana. He holds a PhD in Information Science (University of Johannesburg,South Africa), a Master’s degree in Information Science (University of Wales, UK), aPostgraduate Diploma in Computer Science (University of Nairobi, Kenya) and a Bachelor’sdegree in Education (Kenyatta University, Kenya). He has published extensively in internationalrefereed journals and books. He is a first co-author of a book entitled Web InformationManagement: A Cross Disciplinary Textbook, published by Chandos Publishing, London (2007).Dr Mutula serves on several international editorial boards, including: Journal of InformationTechnology Research (JITR), Online Information Review, Journal of Interlibrary Loan, DocumentDelivery and Electronic Reserve, African Journal of Library and Information Science, etc. DrMutula teaches at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels in the areas of web informationsystems, digital libraries, distributed systems, data communications, database systems, andorganizing internet resources.

Digital divideand economicdevelopment

489

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints