Template-Type: ReDIF-Article 1.0
Author-Name: Livia García
Title:  Desigualdad digital en España: la adopción diferenciada de los usos beneficiosos de internet (2017-2019)
Abstract: Resumen:Este
trabajo analiza la desigualdad digital en España, definida como la diferente
adopción entre los internautas de los usos más beneficiosos de internet. Usando
datos del INE (2017 y 2019) y del CIS (2017), se proponen índices para medir el
uso de internet con fines formativos, con fines laborales y para participar
políticamente y se aplican regresiones lineales y logísticas para analizar qué
categorías sociales adoptan en mayor medida estos usos beneficiosos. Los
resultados muestran que las personas con mayores recursos (educativos y
económicos), más jóvenes, los hombres y los residentes en entornos urbanos obtienen
más ventajas de internet.  Abstract:
Internet
access is nowadays widespread in Spanish society. Nevertheless, a digital
divide still exists. The term “digital divide” is defined by the OECD (2001:5)
as “the gap between individuals, household, businesses and geographic areas at
different socio-economic levels with regard both to their opportunities to
access information and communication technologies (ICTs) and to their use of
the internet for a wide variety of activities”. In this context, Norris (2001)
proposed three dimensions of the digital divide: (1) global divide, the divergence
of Internet access between countries; (2) social divide, the usability gap
between different  groups as a result of
social stratification; and (3) democratic divide,  the gap between those who use and do not use digital
resources for political mobilization and participation in public life. Other
authors differentiate between three divides: in access, in skills and in
outcomes (Wei et al. 2011).  Digital
divide research began with the study of the access to Internet and its use (the
so-called first divide), although soon after the interest moved to the uses
that different social groups made of Internet. Di Maggio et al. (2004) distinguished capital-enhancing
activities (activities that improve social status) from social and recreational
activities. These different uses of internet give rise to “digital inequalities”.
In this paper, three digital divides are considered:
the first is related to the access, the second to using or not Internet and the
third to three capital-enhancing activities. We use representative samples
(2017 and 2019) from the National Institute of Statistics (INE in Spanish) and
the Center for Sociological Research (CIS in Spanish). The size of the sample
is 12,156 (INE 2017), 13,190 (INE 2019) and 1,864 (CIS 2017).
We first analyse the access gap and reasons why
households are not connected. Second, we study the evolution of users of
Internet (2006-2019). Third, we create different indexes for measuring three capital-enhancing
activities: and index of educational purposes, an index of professional
purposes, and two indexes for measuring civic and political participation.   
The index of educational purposes includes four
items: 1) make an online course, 2) use Internet content for learning purpose,
3) communicate with students and teachers through websites; and 4) other
e-learning activities. The index of professional purposes includes two items: 1)
search or apply for a job through Internet; and 2) participate in professional
networks. Lastly, in order to measure political and civic participation two
indexes are proposed. First, the index includes three items from the INE
dataset: 1) reading news online; express opinions about social, civic and
political topics; and 3) participate in online enquiry or vote about civic and
political topics. Second,  the index
includes six items from the CIS dataset: 1) contact with a politician or
political party; 2) communication with an association or organization; 3)
subscribe to a list about current topics; 4) write comment about social and
political topics; 5) donation to association/organization; and 6) sign a
petition or join a campaign.
The analytical strategy first includes a
descriptive analysis of the dependent variables, comparing how different social
categories use Internet and participate online. Second, we carry out regression
analyses to discover which of the different independent variables (level of education,
age, sex, size of habitat, employment status and income) better predict the use
of internet for capital-enhancing activities and online political and civic
participation.
Regarding access, although it is true that
Internet access has become widespread, in 2019 more than 10% of households do
not have access to the Internet at home. The analysis of why household are not
connected shows that motivational access (attitudes towards Internet) is the
most frequent explanation for this trend. In 2019, among those habitants living
in households without Internet, more than 75% explains that they don’t need
Internet and more than 50% considers they don’t have enough knowledge to use
it.  This motivational access is indeed
stratified: these reasons are more frequent in rural areas and in poorer
families. Other motives also mentioned, although to a lesser extent (around one
in four), are related to economic difficulties (costs of equipment and
connection). Finally, difficulties of access to broadband internet connections,
especially in rural areas, also are mentioned.
Regarding use, Internet is widespread among
young and more educated population (99% of people aged 16 to 24 and with
tertiary education in 2019) but it is remarkable the expansion among old people
(almost two-thirds of those aged 65 to 74 have accessed Internet in the last
three years). Similar trends of diffusion of the Internet use could be observed
in all levels of education and size of habitat. The only group where
non-Internet outnumbers Internet users in 2019 are people who have not finished
primary education. Finally, it is remarkable how the gender gap has disappeared
in 2019.
Regarding capital-enhancing activities in
Internet, the data confirm the so-called “Matthew effect” (Merton, 1968), or “rich
get richer effect”, that is, the most beneficial Internet uses in order to
improve social status are practiced by people who already occupy a well-off
position in the offline world. This result is in line with previous studies (Di
Maggio et al. 2004, Hargittai and Hinnats 2008).  This is especially the case when Internet is
used for educational purposes or for creating contacts in professional
networks. Regarding the use of Internet for educational purposes, regressions
show that this activity is more widespread among younger, more educated people
and students. Regarding professional purposes, as expected, the unemployed is
the group who uses more often the web when they search for a job, but also the
most educated and youngest people use the Internet most frequently to improve
their job position. Nevertheless, regressions show a negative association
between family income and the use of Internet for professional purposes.
Further research is needed to explain which channels use the better off people
to improve their professional status.
Lastly, the results on online civic and
political participation corroborate that the groups with the greatest
involvement coincide with those with higher traditional participation.
Regressions show that sex, level of education, age and income are the most
important predictors of political participation: men, the more educated,
younger and the better off participate more online than women, the less
educated, older and the economic disadvantage population. Nonetheless it can also
be observed that online participation gives space to new activism, at least to
some extent. Some groups less involved in the conventional channels of
political participation take a more active role here, such as students and
people aged 16 to 24. 
Our findings confirm the hypothesis that those
who are taking more advantage of the digital world are the same people who are
better situated in the offline world. In our analysis, two variables stand out
above all as the most relevant: educational level and age. Other variables are
relevant, although to a lesser extent: employment status, income, size of
habitat and gender. These findings confirm previous research carried out in Spain
focused on the distinction between Internet users or not (Robles and Molina
2007, Robles and Torres-Albero 2012). The results also corroborate recent
research on the second gap in Spain, although this second gap was previously
measured focusing on other activities such as e-shopping (Torres Albero 2017). 
Further research is needed to study how the
material access impact in Spanish digital divide. That is, we need to focus on
aspects as differences in device opportunity, device and peripheral diversity
and maintenance expenses of devices and peripherals (van Deursen and van Dijk 2019).
It is also needed to study other capital-enhancing activities and to compare if
those groups more involved these types of activities are at the same time more
involved in recreational activities.  
This work shows that, even though the Internet
is widespread, the uses that could be more beneficial for the social position
of the users are more frequent among people who already occupy a good social
position in the offline world. Internet itself does not causes social
exclusion, but digital inequalities reinforce the inequalities of the offline
world if authorities do not act. These findings have clear political
implications. First, public authorities should concentrate on those social
groups with more negative attitudes towards Internet because the motivational
access is the first step of the appropriation process (van Deursen and van Dijk 2019). Second, an effort should be made
to improve material access in disadvantaged areas and groups. Third, digital
alphabetization (increasing digital skills) is needed in order to decrease the
“Matthew effect”, so disadvantaged groups could use Internet to improve their
social status.
Classification-JEL: R1
Keywords: Brecha digital, Desigualdades, Participación Cívica, Participación política, Redes Profesionales, Digital Divide, Social Inequalities, Civic Participation, Political Participation, Professional Networks
Pages: 73-100
Volume: 2
Year: 2022
File-URL: http://www.revistaestudiosregionales.com/documentos/articulos/pdf-articulo-2632.pdf
File-Format: Application/pdf
Handle: RePEc:rer:articu:v:2:y:2022:p:73-100