ABSTRACT
The development of telecommunication over the last century has afforded the populations in most developed countries almost ubiquitous access to telephone, with a reported 97 percent penetration rate by the International Telecommunication Union as early as 2007.1 In contrast, internet access in the United States, even with the rapid development of internet technologies and social media over the last two decades, is still below a 90 percent penetration rate as of 2015.2 Ideal digital governance requires the ability of citizens, businesses, and non-profits to connect and communicate with governments via digital means. Therefore, governments around the world are particularly concerned with the issue of access because e-government, like other public services, should strive for universal access. The digital divide has been a concern for public administration scholars
and practitioners alike because of its implications for social equity and economic development. As a result, it is important to understand the type and nature of such a divide. Typically, digital divide is primarily viewed as an access divide between people who have internet access and those who do not. However, digital divide, as argued by Mossberger, Tolbert, and Stansbury (2003) and Helsper (2012), extends beyond access to include skills, economic opportunities, and democratic participation. A careful examination into these aspects of digital divide suggests the need to consider education, income, race, culture, location, and other issues. In managing digital governance, public managers need to confront the
digital divide seen in their jurisdictions. A strategy for digital inclusion to address digital divide should be part of the overall digital governance strategy.Thenatureofdigital divide seen in a countryor community is likely todetermine the compositionof an appropriate strategy. For instance,when access divide is the predominant form of digital divide, making internet access available should be the focus. Similarly, a skill divide for virtual inequality would call for appropriate educational and training programs. For serving the hardest-to-reach populations, such as the elderly and disabled, a human agent equipped with mobile technology powered by an
integrated government service information system is probably more effective thanoffering trainingworkshops to this particular population.Overall, this strategy should focus on delivering public values (as suggested in the management framework mentioned in Chapter 2) while taking into account all external interactions and internal capacity-building. An inclusive program to bridge digital divide will provide citizens and
other stakeholder groups with digital opportunities. On the most basic level, citizens should be able to receive public services in a way that is more convenient for them (24/7) and in a more integrated manner (via a single portal or system). The use of human agents empowered with technology could help provide digital opportunities even for peoplewhodonot use any technology to benefit from e-government services. These are opportunities for governments to improve their relationship with citizens by providing high-quality services.Moreover, a digital opportunity program focusing on public education and universal access could further economic and civic engagement opportunities for all to create digital citizenship (Mossberger, Tolbert, and McNeal 2008). This chapter will first describe the state and nature of digital divide to
increase our understanding and knowledge about various aspects of digital divide and their sources. In addition to the general internet access divide, special attention is given to the divide seen between internet users who utilize e-government and those who do not, as well as the divide between governments with high-level vs. low-level e-government services. Then, this chapter turns to policies, programs, and management strategies for digital inclusion with examples of specific digital opportunity programs. This chapter concludes with a summary of the main points and their connection to the framework of managing digital governance detailed in Chapter 2.
