ABSTRACT
Access for all is important for internet politics in the world. This certainly goes for Europe where at least the policy texts of the European Union abound with phrases such as “an information society for all” and “e-inclusion.” Yet, reality shows otherwise, as even in the latest Eurobarometer statistics persistent large access gaps appear between Northern and Southern or Eastern and Western European countries and between people with different social class, education, age, and gender within all these countries. The second part of the chapter will
deal with policy issues. What solutions have been proposed and practiced in the European Union? What are the prospects of solving this presumed problem in an environment of increasing global economic and informational inequality? What are the political implications when the digital divide problem in Europe, and elsewhere, is not sufficiently solved? But first of all, we have to take a closer
look at the core concepts of digital divide, universal access, or simply access to computers and the internet. The digital divide commonly refers to the gap between
those who do and those who do not have access to new forms of information technology. Most often these forms are computers and their networks but other digital equipment such as mobile telephony and digital television are also included by some users of the term. The term digital divide probably has
caused more confusion than clarification. According to Gunkel (2003) it is a deeply ambiguous term that is caused by the sharp dichotomy it refers to. Van Dijk (2003, 2005) has warned of a number of pitfalls of this metaphor. First, the metaphor suggests a simple divide between two clearly divided groups with a yawning gap between them. Second, it suggests that the gap is very difficult to bridge. A third misunderstanding might be the impression that the divide is about absolute inequalities between those included and those excluded. In reality most inequalities of access to digital technology observed are of a relative kind. A final wrong connotation might be the suggestion that the divide is a static condition while in fact the gaps observed are continually shifting. Both Gunkel and van
Dijk have emphasized that the term echoes some kind of technological determinism. It is often suggested that the origins of the inequalities referred to lie in the specific problems of getting physical access to digital technology and that achieving such access for all would solve particular problems in the economy and society. In the last suggestion not only a technological bias but also a normative bias is revealed. The great merit of the sudden rise of
the term digital divide at the turn of the century is that it has put the important issue of inequality in the information society on the scholarly and political agenda. Between the years 2000 and 2004 hundreds of scientific and policy conferences and thousands of sessions on regular conferences have been dedicated to this issue under the call of the term digital divide. In the years 2004 and 2005 attention has started to decline. In terms of policy and politics many observers, particularly in the rich and developed countries, reached the conclusion that the problem was almost solved. After all, a rapidly increasing majority of their inhabitants obtained access to computers, the internet, and other digital technologies. From a scientific point of view the
concept ran into difficulties; ever more expressions such as “redefining the digital divide” and “beyond access” appeared. However, this does not mean that the concept has become an empty cover. On the contrary, it is more of a container concept carrying too many meanings. Therefore, one should carefully distinguish between different kinds of digital divide. In this chapter this will be done by a distinction of four types of access. Universal access also has been defined
rather differently. We have to observe that the developed and the developing countries try to realize this principle of (tele)communication policy in different ways. In the developed countries universal access usually means household
access for all. For those not connected at home, public access and public service in community and government buildings, libraries, telecenters, and internet cafés are the second option. In developing countries household access is a luxury that is far beyond reach. There public access is the first option; access in public buildings, community centers, and commercial telecenters or cafés is the only achievable aim of access in a short or medium term. However, the biggest conceptual pro-
blem is caused by the term access itself. Usually access is equated with physical access. This narrow definition causes many problems. It does not sufficiently explain the diversity of phenomena that are related to inequality concerning the use of digital technology. It is no surprise that all conceptual elaborations of the terms digital divide and technology access of the last five years have tried to extend the concept of access or to go beyond access narrowly defined. My own research is characterized by a model with four successive and accumulative types of access that mark the steps to be taken by individual users in the process of appropriating digital technology. The first type is motivation or motivational access. The second is material access, particularly physical access. Then comes skills access: a number of “digital skills” required to work with digital technology. The last type of access is the purpose of the whole process of technology appropriation: usage. This model of access (Figure 21.1) will
serve as a framework for the current state of the many digital divides in Europe to be described in the following large section.
