Inclusion in the Information Age:
Reframing the Debate

Dr. Kenan Patrick Jarboe
October 2001

Executive Summary

As America enters the 21st Century, we are simultaneously confronted with great opportunities and formidable challenges. A fundamental change is occurring in how human beings organize work and economic activity, driven only in part by developments in information technology (IT). Information, knowledge and other “intangibles” dominate business and commerce, both as inputs to the production process and as end products in and of themselves.

As part of this transformation, those individuals and communities currently left behind are in danger of being further disadvantaged. Others who are currently just coping are at risk of being left behind. Over the past few years, concerns over this possibility have crystallized around the concept of a “digital divide.” Both the concept and the statistics to back it up are powerfully compelling – both nationally and internationally. As the conversation on the “digital divide” goes forward, it is critical that it address a broad set of issues and involve a wide range of stakeholders and experts.

To explore these issues, Athena Alliance hosted a conference on “New IT – New Equity – New Economy,” bringing together individuals from across the nation and from a variety of view points to discuss issues of access, governance and economic development in the emerging digital economy.

The discussion at that conference – and subsequent events – leads to a straightforward conclusion: it is time to broaden the debate. We must move from “divide” to “inclusion” as the central organizing principle of our analysis and actions. In other words, we must move the debate from access to the Internet – the original definition of the digital divide – to inclusion in the information economy. The issue is not simply the utilization of IT. Our task is to develop a more encompassing description of the technological, economic and social aspects of the revolution in IT and the rise of a new economy.

<top>

The Context

Understanding the nature and consequences of what we have come to call the “digital divide” requires understanding the nature of the change occurring in our economy and society. Too often attention is focused on the surface – at the explosion of the Internet and the fluctuations in the fortunes of the dot-coms. As a consequence, much of the debate over the “digital divide” remains focused on access to the Internet and personal computers. Yet, the changes to our economy are much deeper – and much older than the recent rise of the Internet.

Some see the changes, in the form of the rise of the so-called New Economy, as simply new industries added on to the existing core of economic activity. Others see these new industries dominating and overwhelming the Old Economy, much the same way that manufacturing dominated previously agricultural economics. However, the changes are broader than the rise of the new IT-related industries. The changes are part of an on-going transformation from an Industrial Economy to an Information Economy. There is no New Economy sector. All parts of the economy and all sectors are affected by the shift to an Information Economy.

The macro change is driving a series of mezzo and micro changes. The list is well known and includes: new organizational structures; different sets of skills needed by both individuals and groups; increased levels of productivity; new business models; greater intensity of communications; changes in economic behaviors; and different political and civic interactions.

Small- and medium-size enterprises (SMEs) are hit especially hard by these changes. While larger firms have the resources to cope with the changes, small companies often find it difficult to undertake the efforts needed to make the transition. On the other hand, smaller firms are many times quicker to respond to change.

These changes have the potential for dramatic consequences, not simply in business but in how government works and in how communities function. For example, we don’t really know the ramifications of the rise of e-commerce on local communities. Part of the concern is the combination of the IT and globalization. The digital economy is clearly one of increased national and internationalization. This trend of globalization, in and of itself, raises questions about the economic and social viability of some communities. Yet, much of the hype about e-commerce has proven to be just that – hype. Clearly the new Information Economy will be different from the previous Industrial Economy. We are just not sure exactly what the effect of that difference will be.

The extent of that difference depends on whether we view the new technologies as having a fundamental impact on society. There are those who view the technology almost solely in terms of communications and entertainment. From this point of view, the changes in society and the economy are a continuation of the existing situation.

Others are concerned that the chances wrought by the technology are both dramatic and potentially dangerous. For example, in the education arena there is a debate over whether the effects of computers on children and learning are negative or positive.

A corollary to this argument over the effect of the technology concerns the degree to which the technology is truly empowering. Much has been said about the liberating nature of IT. However, both the way in which the technology is utilized and the business model in which the technology is deployed can limit that freedom.
Flowing from the question of technology’s effect is one of whether the demographic differences in usage are a new phenomena or reflect existing “divides.”

Everyone agrees that there are significant differences in computer technology usage patterns among socio-economic groups. However, some argue that the difference in usage is not a problem. As with any new technology, there are earlier adopters and those who lag behind. This pattern is a function of technological development. As a technology improves, its usage becomes more wide-spread. In a similar vein, some argue that divide creates no problem. The well-off have always had the latest and most expensive gadgets, while the poor make due with cheaper substitutes.

Yet, there is reason to be skeptical of the argument that the problem will take care of itself. Public policies may be needed to make sure that the adoption rates for computers and the Internet continue to increase. With other technologies often cited for comparison, government actions played an important role in their deployment.
Even if adoption rates for advanced information technologies follow the historical pattern, numerous issues remain. There is the issue of “have now and have later.” Will those who are in the category of “have later” be significantly disadvantaged? And what should be done, if anything, about the millions of Americans who don’t want to be connected?

The argument over rates of technology adoption highlights one of the difficulties of the discussion: what is the problem? The digital divide has been framed in terms of the technology utilization, especially existing data on PC and Internet usage. But, both the technology and the way in which the technology are used are rapidly changing. There is no reason to believe that access to the Internet of today (especially the domination of the PC as the point of access) will remain the defining characteristic of the divide in the future.

For some, the answer to this “so-what” question focuses on the linkage between the economic and the technological. The causation runs from technology utilization to economic outcomes and back to technology utilization. Telecommunications and information technologies are not just consumer devices. They are production tools. Simply put: by utilizing the technology, the haves are able to get more; the have-nots are shut out even more. Lack of access leads to a lack of wealth and income, which was the reason for the lack of access.

Nor is it simply a divide between those who have access to the technology and those who do not. A great part of the divide is between those who benefit from the wealth created by the explosive growth of the technology and those who don’t.

The concerns over the divide is that the wealth gap and community stratification may be intensifying or radically changing their appearance and nature. For every new Silicon Valley there are numerous communities left behind. And the problem is not only an increase in the already enormous disparities between these communities. There is a significant threat to currently viable, but digitally impoverished, working class and middle class communities. These communities are in danger of joining the ranks of the left-behind.

The danger of intense inequality is both economic and social. On the economic side, it is unclear whether the transformation can continue when a significant portion on the population is not participating. The social danger is as stark: rising inequality can lead to a rise in social tension and a decline in democracy.

<top>

The Issues

The framework discussions lead to an exploration of three facets of the issue of equity in the new world of information technology: access, governance and economic development. All three are closely linked. Governance and economic development are a deepening of the definition of access. Governance is concerned with the equitable access both to government services and information and to participation in the governance process. Economic development is access to the benefits of the information technology revolution: skills, jobs, income and wealth. Each of these two subsume the question of access by addressing the issue of access for what purpose.

Access

Access must be defined on many levels and in many different ways. Access does not mean only the physical availability of the technology. Affordability and usability are both key factors. However, device and connections costs are only part of the overall problem. Training, maintenance and upgrade costs must also be considered. Likewise, the physical availability of the supporting technologies of telephone and electricity are still a problem in some areas.

The problems of usability are especially acute for people with disabilities. Yet, designs to enhance usability would benefit all users, following a long history of technologies for the disabled where the benefits accrue to the non-disabled.

The lack of access to the technology by people with disabilities illustrates some fundamental issues. Designed correctly, the technology is providing employment opportunities for disabled individuals that might not have been available. Designed poorly, those opportunities are foreclosed. The same economic problem confronts all other groups and individuals who lack access. It is also a case study of the importance of participation in decision making. Clearly the voices of users with disabilities were not originally part of the discussions. They have since been heard loud and clear.

Affordability and usability are visible barriers. The greatest invisible barriers are the functional inability and the lack of motivation to use the technology. Use of the technology requires training and cognitive skills. These can be insurmountable barriers to the functionally illiterate population. On the other hand, the technology can be use as a means of overcoming illiteracy, in all its forms.

The issue of motivation raises the question of access to what and for what. “To what” means what content is available. “For what” means the purposes of that access. The questions of “to what” and “for what” are connected. Access to communications resources and access to information resources are two very different things. Access to information resources is highly individual and must be tailored to the specific need. Access to communications resources is a community issue because the purpose is to interact with others.

With respect to content, the question is one of determining both what content is needed and ways of providing that content. Only the individual and the community can answer the question of “access to what.” There is no one-size-fits-all solution.

The “for what” question must be answered in terms of efficacy. The result of access should be to improve peoples’ lives – either directly or through capacity building for both individuals and communities. The technology must be both structured and used in such a way that it makes a difference. The greatest danger is that the technology leads down the blind path of doing nothing under the guise of doing something.

Two of the answers to the questions of “to what” and “for what” concern issues of governance and economic development.

Governance

Governance is part and parcel of the issue of access. In essence, the question of governance comes down to two points:

The ability to access government services is a fundamental right of the citizenry. Information and communications technology can be a facilitator of government services. Just as in the private sector, the delivery of many services can be faster, more reliable and more efficient using the new technologies.

Yet, poor systems designs can make the technology unusable. Governments are in a very different situation from the private sector. Effectiveness and universal availability is a requirement. Multiple access mechanisms are a must, even at the expense of efficiency. But the promise of e-government is not just increased effectiveness or efficiency. It can help us re-think how government is organized and the function it performs.

Access to information is also a fundamental right. Transparency of government actions and of government information is a key factor in building trust and legitimacy. Technologies that can be used to increase that transparency will foster participation.

Access to information is the prerequisite for effective participation. The question of participation has two components. The first is the issue of who is and is not in the discussion as the technology is developed and deployed. As the example of people with disabilities points out, if your voice is not heard in the design process, usability cannot be assumed.

The second concern is over the use of the technology in the larger process of civic engagement. This is an issue of finding ways to increase both participation and accountability. The technology has a tremendous capacity to make our political processes work better and help us build better communities. Yet, it is not clear that the technology is living up to that potential of fostering better public deliberation.

Both increased effectiveness in the delivery of government services and improved participation in the process can and should be our end goals.

Economic Development

The other answer to the question of “access for what” is economic development: reaping the monetary benefits of information technology. Yet, we do not really understand the relationship between advanced information technology and economic development. Three key areas stand out:

One of the cornerstones of economic development in the information economy is workforce development. Education is, and must be, the starting point. But is not just a question of education. Most of the workforce of tomorrow is already working today. While we tend to focus on new entrants to the workforce, we must also devote attention to the transition for incumbent workers.

Part of the question of workforce development is the issue of literacy. Literacy comes in many different varieties. It goes beyond the use of computers. In this information rich age, it involves not just being able to handle data, but being able to interpret data. Literacy includes basic skills (reading, writing and arithmetic); computer skills; visual skills; technical skills; mathematics and logic skills; cross-language and cross-cultural skills. All forms of literacy must be addressed. This presents a new set of challenges to workforce development activities.

Beyond the issue of workforce development, the rise of the Information Economy presents new challenges to economic development strategies. At the most basic level is the relationship between taxation and e-commerce. If large numbers of the companies go to e-commerce, what does that do to the local tax base? Conversely, what happens to that basic economic development tool of tax breaks, especially on property taxes, in an era of virtual companies?

On a more fundamental level, the Information Economy is about more than just high skill and high wage jobs. It is about new opportunities for ownership, business creation and wealth creation. Telecommunications and IT are an important part that process. IT is not just a consumer tool. In the Information Economy, it is a production tool.

Communities need an up-to-date telecommunications infrastructure and a conventional infrastructure (buildings, highways, etc.) to support business activities. Quality of life issues must also be addressed in order to both recruit new companies and entrepreneurs and retain their homegrown companies and entrepreneurs.
Unfortunately, many of the attempts at a IT-centered strategy are simply trying to recreate Silicon Valley. This is not necessarily a particularly effective strategy for most of the country. Economic development is not simply a case of necessarily creating advanced technology companies and workers. The goal is to help companies, especially SMEs, use the technology systems. By using IT, small businesses can increase their market presence and improve their internal operations. Key is the development of local and individual assets. In the information economy, information and knowledge assets are a major source of competitive advantage. Identifying and building upon local information assets – and connecting those assets to the global market – is an important new strategy in this emerging networked economy.

Financing the transformation is another concern. New innovative financial mechanisms are needed for an era where “intangible” assets are the most important. We especially need efforts to reach out to those areas left behind. One good example is the pioneering efforts of the Corporation for Enterprise Development with Individual Development Accounts and micro-loans. The New Markets Initiative in the FY2001 budget deal is another case in point. These provisions provide for, among other things, expanded empowerment zones, new tax credits for investments in low-income communities and ways of spurring capital formation for these investments.

Information technology can also be a powerful tool in facilitating the economic development process. But few have harnessed the communications and organizing aspects of the technology to improve practices through use on knowledge management techniques. Information technology can be used in conjunction with, and to augment, old fashioned methods of information sharing at local level. Technology must be used as a tool in the economic development process, not allowed to dominate or distort the process.

<top>

New Challenges

Broadening of the debate brings with it a new set of challenges and policy issues. It requires an understanding of and ability to manage the interconnection between a number of currently separate policy streams. For example, we currently treat privacy, computer security, intellectual property rights, freedom of information, “right-to-know” policies and free speech issues as separate policy areas. Yet, they are all part of managing the information commons: what information is and should be private, what information is and should be proprietary and what information is and should be public. A more comprehensive approach is needed.

This new debate also requires increased attention to the process and institutions of governance itself. The role of government, the private sector, unions and civic organizations all must be examined. One of our greatest challenges may be the inability of our institutions to rapidly adapt to changing circumstances. Viewed from this perspective, the issue is not one of a digital divide but an institutional lag. Overcoming that institutional lag may be the most important step we can take to enhance inclusion.

<top>

Points of Consideration

The discussion at that conference – and subsequent events – has resulted in the following points of consideration concerning the technological, economic and social aspects of the revolution in IT and the rise of a new economy. Each of these points contains a number of both general and specific recommendations. Obviously, this is not an exhaustive list of recommendation or a detailed analysis of each item. It is, rather, a series of points of consideration which may be of use in guiding our future activities.

Point one: Focus on the transformation, not the technology.

The issue of concern is the transformation to the Information Age. It is not simply a question of technological deployment. The end purpose is not to narrow some gap, but to ensure that everyone has access to the expanded opportunities. Our framework should be one of inclusion for all the in broader activities that make up society and the economy.

Point two: Review and coordinate efforts.

The problem has aspects of telecommunications policy, such as infrastructure and standards and elements of technology policy, such as research and development and technology deployment. But it also has aspects of policies on training and workforce development, education, economic development, housing and community development, human services and trade. Reaching our goal requires a coordinated approach – in the private, public and non-governmental sectors – that combines the various elements of providing opportunity and inclusion in the information age. To coordinate policy, the focus of governmental digital opportunity efforts should be the White House, not in any one department or agency.

It is also time to take a new look at some policy areas. A comprehensive approach is needed toward all parts of managing the information commons: privacy, intellectual property rights, “right-to-know” policies and other related areas.

Point three: Work to ensure that everyone has access to the technological infrastructure.

Barriers to access to the infrastructure are many. Ways of overcoming those barriers are also varied, including public access facilities that can combine access with training and other activities as well as home access. We need to re-look at the concept of universal access. We also need to address the development of broadband capabilities – both at home and at work. Both home use and public access points are important. Multiple access public points are needed, such as existing public facilities, training centers, libraries, and after-school centers. For these facilities, sustainability is the key. But, it is not enough to simply provide access. The goal should be to weave information technology into the operations of community groups in a way that will both help individuals use the technology and will make those groups more efficient and effective in their core mission.

Some of the barriers to digital inclusion are physical: the usability of the technology. This is not, as commonly thought of, an issue only for those with disabilities. The problems of usability and human-machine interfaces affect all of us and research on ways to increase access for those with disabilities will pay off in increased usability for all.

Point four: Encourage and facilitate participation and involvement by all in the digital economy and information society.

Technology must meet people’s needs – not define those needs. Information technology can help people in their day-to-day lives if it is designed and structured in such a way that it helps answer their questions and solve their problems. Otherwise it becomes a barrier and a source of frustration. This is the danger of what some refer to as the “over-wired” world.

It is important to understand that individuals have different needs. A one-size-fits-all may help some – and increase their participation and involvement – but will block others. By focusing on “demand-pull,” rather than “technology-push,” we can better tailor the technology to the meet individual needs.

Development of meaningful content, including more locally-based content, is one of the ways to increase the level of participation. E-government is one important form of meaningful content. But, we must also insure that those who are not on-line are not left behind. No services or information should be removed or dramatically cut back from traditional means of dissemination in favor of electronic dissemination until and unless all members of the community have access to that electronic means as easily as they have to the traditional means.

Point five: Focus economic development on the Information Economy, not the Internet Economy.

The information age will require a new approach to economic development. Key to the process is using and developing assets: financial, social, skill-based, and information assets. We must focus on building the local economy’s vitality and ability to compete in the age of globalization and help people make the switch to the new economy.

Our priorities should include:

We must also develop and utilize new mechanisms for financing the transformation, including Individual Development Accounts and new ways of financing intangible assets.

The New Markets Initiative is another example of a way to reach out to communities left behind. It is a true bipartisan effort, which the Bush Administration and Congress would do well to emulate and build upon.
Collaborative learning and sharing of information is also important in the larger process of economic development. There are a number of examples of information assets being applied within businesses and local economies. We need to utilize new knowledge management techniques and old-fashioned communications techniques to collect, disseminate and better utilize that information.
Point six: We need a better understanding of what is going on.

The transition to the information economy is underway – quick at times, slowly at others. Yet, we lack good data, especially at the local level of the trends and the underlying issues in local economies. The problem of data extends beyond the scope of local economic data. We need both better data and expanded analysis of the socioeconomic aspects of the information technology. That research must be translated into policy relevant terms. For this reason, Congress should seriously consider re-establishing the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)

Point seven: The decision making process must be open.

True inclusion and opportunity can only occur in if the process of decision making is open and transparent. Information technology has a tremendous potential for opening and maintaining channels for general input and advocacy. However, decisions made about the technology can have the effect of closing off the process rather than opening it up. We must insure that all parties are at the table when decisions, including issues such as standard setting, are made.

Point eight: Innovate and experiment.

We are in a time of transformation and change. The speed of that change and the pace of economic activity will vary. Yet the change is real and will continue. In such a time, we must often invent new ways of coping with our problems and new policies for guiding our economy and society. Such experimentation will require great policy discipline, however. It requires a strong, unbiased means of evaluating programs and policies – and the political discipline to follow the guidance of that evaluation. We must also find means to ensure that evaluations are timely for the fast moving policy arena. The goal in evaluation is not simply proving the effectiveness of an action – it is to facilitate learning. Learning is the hallmark of the Information Age. Our public policy process must embrace that concept as tightly as the rest of our economy and society already have.

<top>