This article was downloaded by: [University of Huddersfield]

On: 30 January 2011

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 773557273]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Information Society

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713669588

A Critical Analysis of Current Indexes for Digital Divide Measurement

Giuseppe Brunoa; Emilio Espositoa; Andrea Genovesea; Kholekile L. Gwebub
a
Department of Business and Management Engineering, University of Naples “Federico II”, Naples,
Italy b Whittemore School of Business and Economics, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New
Hampshire, USA

Online publication date: 06 January 2011

To cite this Article Bruno, Giuseppe , Esposito, Emilio , Genovese, Andrea and Gwebu, Kholekile L.(2011) 'A Critical
Analysis of Current Indexes for Digital Divide Measurement', The Information Society, 27: 1, 16 — 28
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/01972243.2010.534364
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2010.534364

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 The Information Society, 27: 16–28, 2011
Copyright

c Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0197-2243 print / 1087-6537 online
DOI: 10.1080/01972243.2010.534364
A Critical Analysis of Current Indexes for Digital
Divide Measurement
Giuseppe Bruno, Emilio Esposito, and Andrea Genovese
Department of Business and Management Engineering, University of Naples “Federico II,”
Naples, Italy
Kholekile L. Gwebu
Whittemore School of Business and Economics, University of New Hampshire, Durham,
New Hampshire, USA
Downloaded By: [University of Huddersfield] At: 09:44 30 January 2011
Several composite indexes grouping several variables into a sin-
gle figure have been proposed for measuring the digital divide. In
this article, the authors analyze shortcomings of extant indexes.
Using multivariate analysis tools, they show that in the definition
of composite indexes it is possible to individuate a limited set of
more influencing and significant variables. This finding suggests
the possibility of replacing some redundant variables with other
dimensions that include other aspects of the digital divide that are
not considered in extant measures.
Keywords composite indexes, digital divide, principal component
analysis
The rapid development of information and communi-
cation technologies (ICTs) and their pervasive role in eco-
nomic activities can be considered one of the fundamental
factors fueling growth and transforming the way business
is conducted in many countries (Mansell and Wehn 1998;
Mansell 1999; Cette et al. 2000; Jorgenson 2001; Rao
2001; Colecchia and Schreyer 2002). However, there is
a striking and alarming disparity in ICTs access and us-
age among economies. The term “digital divide” has been
coined to describe this phenomenon and to draw atten-
tion to the existing gap in ICT access and in the ability
of individuals and economies to participate in the global
Received 15 September 2008; accepted 10 August 2010.
Address correspondence to Andrea Genovese, University of
Naples “Federico II,” Business and Management Engineering De-
partment, Piazzale Tecchio 80, 80125 Napoli (NA), Italy. E-mail:
giuseppe.bruno@unina.it
16
information society (readers interested in the origins of
the term “digital divide” are encouraged to read Gunkel
2003). In this context, different questions have surfaced
about the dynamic evolution of the digital divide and the
identification of its main determining factors. We focus on
the emerging need for performance evaluation and bench-
marking tools to assess the magnitude and the evolution
of digital divide.
Institutions and organizations such as the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU) have proposed various
composite indexes that aggregate several indicators into
a single number to capture the complexity of the digital
divide (ITU 2009). The first significant index released by
the ITU was the “Digital Access Index” (DAI), which was
developed to measure the overall ability of individuals in
a country to access and use ICT (ITU 2003). At about the
same time, a network of hundreds of communication lead-
ers from academia, the media, business, and government
circles (Orbicom) developed a conceptual framework for
digital divide measurement that formed the basis of the
“Infostate Index” (Orbicom 2003). In 2005 ITU and Or-
bicom decided to merge the DAI and the Infostate Index to
create the “ICT Opportunity Index” (ICT-OI) (ITU 2005)
to avoid a duplication of indexes with similar characteris-
tics. In the same year the ITU also proposed the “Digital
Opportunity Index” (DOI), later updated in 2007, to mea-
sure the potential opportunities of countries to benefit from
access to ICTs (ITU 2007). Although the two indexes (DOI
and ICT-OI) differ in terms of indicators and the method-
ology used, an effort has been made to develop a single
index because statistical analysis has demonstrated that
the two indexes were closely correlated (Abuqayyas and
Audin 2008). The need for a single index has also been
affirmed during various international summits on ICTs
 DIGITAL DIVIDE INDEXES
development (ITU 2003, 2005, 2009). Accordingly, ITU
recently released a new index, the “ICT Development In-
dex” (IDI), which represents a synthesis of the previous
ITU indexes (2009).
The development of an assortment of indexes in such
a short period suggests that the digital divide index is
still a work in progress. Moreover, it highlights the dif-
ficulty in synthesizing a composite index for a complex
concept that relies on aggregation of indicators with dif-
ferent characteristics. From a methodological viewpoint,
the indexes are calculated by a linear or nonlinear com-
bination of the indicators using a set of weights. Even if
composite indexes are widely exploited as useful tools in
policy analysis, caution should be exercised in their design
and implementation to avoid possible misrepresentation or
misinterpretation, as highlighted in Organization for Eco-
nomic Cooperation and Development (OECD; 2008). For
Downloaded By: [University of Huddersfield] At: 09:44 30 January 2011
this reason, a debate has arisen about the reliability of the
digital divide indexes.
In this article, we discuss digital divide measurement
through an assessment of two existing indexes (ICT-OI and
IDI), based on principal component analysis, and high-
light their shortcomings. The analysis focuses on these
two indexes because they are likely to be used exten-
sively in years to come by a wide array of stakeholders—
policymakers, academics, and the public—to measure dig-
ital divide. Here are some important points to consider:
r The IDI is the most recent index and represents
the evolution and the synthesis of the previous
r indexes suggested by the ITU.
The ICT-OI is the result of the merging of two
indexes, the DAI proposed by the ITU and the
r Infostate developed by the Orbicom.
The ICT-OI is also representative of the DOI
since the two indexes are strongly correlated
r (Abuqayyas and Audin 2008).
The ICT-OI (employing the geometric average)
and the IDI (utilizing a weighted sum) are repre-
sentative of two different aggregation methodolo-
gies.
This analysis is relevant since an index, whose aim is to
measure digital divide among different countries, should
be an operative tool for international institutions and local
governments. From this standpoint, a good index should
be both efficient and effective (Jollands et al. 2004).
Efficiency refers to the ability to represent the phe-
nomenon without using redundant variables, which can
confuse policymakers. Effectiveness refers to the ability
to interpret the different ways in which the phenomenon
occurs and thereby provide policymakers with an opera-
tive and concrete opportunity to intervene. The trade-off
between the need to reduce the number of used variables
and the necessity to include variables representative of
17
the phenomenon as a whole is the focus of this analysis.
In particular, this analysis seeks to verify the potential
presence of a limited set of more influencing and signif-
icant indicators. If such indicators are indeed present, it
could open the possibility of replacing some redundant
indicators with other dimensions that allow inclusion of
other aspects of the digital divide, not considered in extant
measures.
The remainder of the article is organized as follows.
The next section provides a brief overview on the defi-
nitions proposed for the digital divide. Subsequently, the
methodologies used to build the proposed indexes are de-
scribed with particular reference to the ICT-OI and the IDI,
along with the main comments and criticisms in the liter-
ature. Thereafter the methodology used for the analysis is
illustrated and the results are presented. Finally, findings
are discussed and possible avenues for future research are
outlined.
THE DIGITAL DIVIDE CONCEPT AND
DEFINITIONS
The digital divide is a complex, dynamic, multifaceted
concept. Consequently, different streams of research of-
ten define it in different ways. For example, in one stream
of research, which focuses on the crucial role of techno-
logical resources, Mehra et al. (2004) simply define digital
divide as the gap between individuals who use comput-
ers and the Internet and individuals who do not. Other
authors in this stream suggest that it refers to the distinc-
tion between the information haves and have-nots (Dewan
and Riggins 2005; Ida and Horiguchi 2008; Bélanger and
Carter 2009). Along similar lines, Dewan and Riggins
(2005) suggest that the digital divide refers to the division
among persons who have access to digital ICTs and those
who do not. Moreover, they consider three different levels
of digital divide: individual, organizational, and global.
Campbell (2001) and James (2008) describe the digital
divide as the division between those who have access to
ICT and are using it effectively, and those who do not.
A second stream of research highlights the determi-
nants of the digital divide, emphasizing that both techno-
logical and nontechnological factors are important. Norris
(2001) believes that the digital divide should be viewed
as consisting of three distinct dimensions—global divide,
social divide, and democratic divide. The global divide
is the difference in Internet access among industrialized
and nonindustrialized nations; the social divide is the gap
between those with and those without information access
within a country; and the democratic divide represents
the gap between individuals who do and individuals who
do not utilize digital resources to engage and mobilize
in the public life. Other authors also highlight that fac-
tors such as the availability of digital resources (relevant
 18 G. BRUNO ET AL.
content in diverse languages), human resources (literacy
and education), and social resources (institutional struc-
tures) contribute to the digital divide (Warschauer 2003;
Bertot 2003; Cuervo and Menendez 2006). Mossberger
et al. (2003) see the digital divide as the disparity in in-
formation technology due to various factors such as race,
ethnicity, gender, and income. Chinn and Fairlie (2006),
through a statistical analysis based on a sample encom-
passing 161 developed and developing countries, highlight
the importance of per capita income, of the telecommu-
nications infrastructure, and of the quality of regulation
in explaining the gap in computer and Internet use. They
also affirm that education has a low impact on Internet ac-
cess. Using data on 118 countries during the 1997–2001
period, Guillen and Suarez (2005) argue that the global
digital divide is the result of the economic, regulatory, and
sociopolitical characteristics of countries and their evolu-
Downloaded By: [University of Huddersfield] At: 09:44 30 January 2011
tion over time.
Examining a panel of 40 countries from 1985–2001,
based on data from three distinct generations of informa-
tion technology (IT; mainframe, personal computer, and
Internet), Dewan et al. (2005) find that information tech-
nology (IT) penetration is positively associated with per
capita income, years of schooling, and size of the trade
sector, while it is negatively related to telecommunica-
tion costs and size of urban population. In fact, according
to Van Dijk (2006, 223), the urgent question is: “What
is exactly new about the inequality of access to and use
of Information and Communication Technology as com-
pared to other scarce material and immaterial resources
in society?” Finally, Fuchs (2008) criticizes approaches
that attempt to explain the digital divide primarily based
on economic factors. Accordingly, he suggests that other
aspects should be taken into account, such as motivational
access, skills access, usage access, the degree to which
users benefit from usage, and the degree to which tech-
nologies enable political participation.
A third stream of research tries to deal with the criti-
cisms that have emerged from the second research stream
and suggests more comprehensive definitions. In line with
requests for a sophisticated depiction of the phenomenon,
ITU and Orbicom propose a more comprehensive def-
inition that sees the digital divide as “the relative dif-
ference in Infostate among economies” (Sciadas 2005)
based on the concept of Infostate, an aggregation of info-
density (including ICTs infrastructure and skills) and info-
use (including ICTs uptake and intensity of use). Fuchs
(2009, 46) proposes the following comprehensive defini-
tion, which strives to address the already-mentioned crit-
icisms, stating that the digital divide represents “unequal
patterns of material access to, usage capabilities of, and
benefits from computer-based information and communi-
cation technologies that are caused by certain stratification
processes that produce classes of winner and losers of the
information society, and of participation in institutions
governing ICTs and society.”
The preceding discussion highlights two main points:
r There exists a heated ongoing debate among prac-
titioners and academic circles about the definition
r of the digital divide.
The digital divide is an evolving concept, which
is shifting from a preoccupation with mere access
to technological resources to a multidimensional
understanding of inequality (e.g. global, social,
and democratic divides).
The liveliness of the discussion has also influenced the
measurement methodologies, as they reflect the various
conceptual frameworks proposed for underlying the digi-
tal divide concept. The body of literature on theoretical and
empirical studies in this area is significant (e.g., Corrocher
and Ordanini 2002; Sciadas 2002; Cuervo and Menendez
2006; ITU 2005, 2006, 2007). In any case, even if the par-
ticipation in the debate on the definition of digital divide
definition is beyond the scope of this article, the variety of
positions seems to confirm, as noted by Fuchs (2008), that
its measurement it cannot be limited to economic factors
but should be more comprehensive in scope.
DIGITAL DIVIDE MEASUREMENT
Comparing country performances to identify evolutionary
trends and establish benchmarks is a common practice in
a wide range of fields (e.g. environment, economics, and
technological development). Such comparisons are often
performed by introducing composite indexes calculated
through the aggregation of individual indicators, repro-
ducing quantitative or qualitative measures of factors with
the aim of representing the relative position of a country
on a conceptual space (OECD 2008). Indicators can be
grouped into categories in accordance with their meaning.
The aggregation of indicators and/or categories is per-
formed according to an underlying mathematical model.
Hence composite indexes mainly differ on the basis of
the selected indicators and the aggregation methodology.
The proposed digital divide indexes are characterized by
different numbers and types of indicators and methodolo-
gies. The choice of the indicators to be considered depends
on the conceptual framework assumed to describe and to
represent the process of ICTs penetration and diffusion
among countries.
The first index considered here, the DAI (“Digital Ac-
cess Index”), uses eight indicators, which are grouped into
five categories (infrastructure, affordability, knowledge,
quality, and actual usage of ICTs). Indicator values are
normalized with reference to upper values limits and then
averaged to obtain category scores, and, finally, averaged
to calculate the overall index value. The next index, the
 DIGITAL DIVIDE INDEXES 19

TABLE 1
Characteristics of the released indexes for the digital divide measurement

Index Year Institution No. categories No. indicators Methodology

DAI 2003 ITU 5 8 Average of category scores which are averages of the
respective indicators
Infostate 2003 Orbicom 2 21 Geometrical mean of category scores which are geometrical
means of the respective indicators
DOI 2005 ITU 3 11 As for the DAI
ICT-OI 2005 ITU-Orbicom 2 10 As for the Infostate
IDI 2009 ITU 3 11 As for the DAI
Notes. DAI = Digital Access Index; DOI = Digital Opportunity Index; ICT-OI = Information and Communication Technologies–Opportunity
Index; IDI = Information and Communication Technologies Development Index; ITU = International Telecommunication Union.

Orbicom Infostate index, introduces two categories (info- shows the ICT-OI indicators and their groupings into cat-
Downloaded By: [University of Huddersfield] At: 09:44 30 January 2011

density and info-use) with a total of twenty-one indicators. egories and the aggregation schema used to calculate the
Although many indicators are aggregated, others are pre- index.
liminarily combined to form intermediate-level composite As mentioned earlier, the ICT-OI adopts most of the
indicators. After the normalization, the aggregation is per- indicators from the DAI, reducing them from seventeen to
formed through the geometric mean (for a more detailed
explanation, see Sciadas 2005).
The DOI (“digital opportunity index”) includes eleven TABLE 2
indicators grouped into three categories (opportunity, in- Indicators used for the calculation of Information and
frastructure, use). The category scores are calculated as Communication Technologies–Opportunity Index (ICT-OI)
arithmetic averages of the respective indicators, while the
DOI is the arithmetic average of the three category scores. Indicator
The ICT-OI (“ICT opportunity index”) assumes the same Category Subcategory symbol Indicator
framework, main categories (info-density and info-use),
and mathematical model used in the definition of the In- Info-density Networks DN1 Main telephone lines per
fostate. The total number of adopted indicators is reduced 100 inhabitants
to ten, with many overlapping with the ones introduced DN2 Mobile cellular subscribers
for the definition of the DAI. per 100 inhabitants
The last and most recently developed index, the IDI DN3 International internet
(“ICT development index”), considers eleven indicators bandwidth
organized into three categories (access, use, and skills) (kbps/inhabitant)
and the calculation is similar to the one of the DOI. Table 1 Skills DS1 Adult literacy rates (Source:
summarizes the characteristics of the described indexes. UNESCO)
In the following subsections, a more detailed descrip- DS2 Gross enrolment rates
tion of recently proposed indexes (ICT-OI and IDI) is (Source: UNESCO)
provided. Info-use Uptake IU1 Internet users per 100
inhabitants
IU2 Proportion of households
The ICT-OI with a TV
IU3 Computers per 100
The ICT-OI was designed to monitor the global digital inhabitants
divide and to track a country’s progress over time in Intensity II1 Total broadband internet
comparison to other countries of similar income levels. subscribers per 100
Based on the Orbicom Infostate conceptual framework, inhabitants
the ICT-OI includes two categories—info-density (with II2 International outgoing
subcategories networks and skills) and info-use (with sub- telephone traffic
categories intensity and uptake). This combined frame- (minutes) per capita
work brings together a total of ten indicators. Table 2
 20 G. BRUNO ET AL.

ten. In this way, the ICT-OI can be calculated for a larger groupings into categories and the weights assigned to each
number of countries (183) compared to its predecessor, indicator and category.
the Infostate Index (139 countries). The IDI for a given country i(IDIi ) is computed as
The ICT-OI for a given country i(ICT-OIi ) is computed follows:
as follows:

I DIi = 0.4∗ (I CT Access)i + 0.4∗ (I CT U se)i
ICT-OIi = I nf oDensity i ∗ I nf oU sei
+ 0.2∗ (I CT Skills)i
in which:

in which:
InfoDensityi = Networksi ∗ Skillsi

(I CT Access)i = 0.2∗ (I CT A1i + I CT A2i
InfoUsei = I ntensityi ∗ Uptakei

+ I CT A3i + I CT A4i + I CT A5i )
Networksi = 3 DN1i ∗ DN2i ∗ DN3

(I CT U se)i = 0.33∗ (I CT U 1i + I CT U 2i
Intensityi = I I 1i ∗ I I 2i + I CT U 3i )


Skillsi = DS1i ∗ DS2i
Downloaded By: [University of Huddersfield] At: 09:44 30 January 2011

(I CT Skills)i = 0.33∗ (I CT S1i + I CT S2i

Uptakei = 3 I U 1i ∗ I U 2i ∗ I U 3i + I CT S3i )

Each category score is calculated as the arithmetic av-

In practice, each category score is calculated as the erage of the respective indicators. Then the three category
geometric average of the respective indicators. scores are aggregated utilizing a weighted sum method.

The IDI Shortcomings of the Extant Indexes

For several years, the ITU has been publishing two in-
dexes to track digital divide (the ICT-OI and DOI) among
countries. In 2007 it started considering the possibility of
merging the two indexes and creating a single index. The
process ended in 2009 with the publication of the IDI.
The IDI includes three categories (Access, Use, Skills)
and eleven indicators according to the schema illustrated
in table 3. The table also shows the indicators and their
Using synthetic composite indexes to represent a complex
phenomenon provides, in general, advantages and limi-
tations. Saisana and Tarantola (2002) propose a list of
pros and cons summarized in table 4, also cited in OECD
(2008).
As previously mentioned, shortcomings of composite
indexes have been highlighted in the literature. One of the
most severe critiques is by Van Dijk (2006), who argues

TABLE 3
Indicators used for the calculation of Information and Communication Technologies Development Index (IDI)

Category Category weight Indicator symbol Indicator Indicator weight

ICT access 0.40 ICTA1 Fixed telephone lines per 100 inhabitants 0.20
ICTA2 Mobile cellular telephone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants 0.20
ICTA3 International Internet bandwidth (bit/s) per Internet user 0.20
ICTA4 Proportion of households with a computer 0.20
ICTA5 Proportion of households with Internet access at home 0.20
ICT use 0.40 ICTU1 Internet users per 100 inhabitants 0.33
ICTU2 Fixed broadband Internet subscribers per 100 inhabitants 0.33
ICTU3 Mobile broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants 0.33
ICT skills 0.20 ICTS1 Adult literacy rate 0.33
ICTS2 Secondary gross enrolment ratio 0.33
ICTS3 Tertiary gross enrolment ratio 0.33
Note. ICT = information and communication techonology
 DIGITAL DIVIDE INDEXES 21

TABLE 4 developing countries. It results in missing data, which ul-

Pros and cons in using composite indexes (OECD, 2008)
Pro
Can summarize complex,
multidimensional
phenomena with a view to
supporting decision makers.
Are easier to interpret than a
battery of many separate
indicators
Can assess progress of
countries over time.
Reduce the visible size of a set
of indicators without
dropping the underlying
information base.
Downloaded By: [University of Huddersfield] At: 09:44 30 January 2011
Cons
May send misleading policy
messages if poorly
constructed or
misinterpreted.
May invite simplistic policy
conclusions.
May be misused, for example,
to support a desired policy,
if the construction process
is not transparent or lacks
sound statistical or
conceptual principles.
The selection of indicators
timately has an adverse effect on the rankings produced
by composite indexes. Indexes including fewer indica-
tors will help mitigate such problems. Menou and Taylor
(2006) point out that bias is introduced by data standard-
ization and normalization operations. They also note that
national average measures are not very meaningful un-
less they can be disaggregated at a more detailed level.
Barzilai-Nahon (2006) criticizes indexes for only measur-
ing the digital divide at the national and international level
while ignoring community level inequalities.
Barzilai-Nahon (2006) and James (2007) point out that
the choice of the aggregation methodology of individual
indicators is responsible for significant biases. This aspect
is crucial in the definition of weights when linear and/or
geometric aggregations are performed (Munda and Nardo
2005). In particular, since indicators are often weighted

according to equal values, statistical or empirical evidence

Thus make it possible to and weights could be the explaining that all indicators are “worth” the same should
include more information subject of political dispute. be provided (OECD 2008). Thus, Vehovar et al. (2006)
within the existing size limit. May disguise serious failings suggest the use of statistical tools (such as multivariate
Place issues of country in some dimensions and analysis) to understand the interactions among indicators
performance and progress at increase the difficulty of to avoid data redundancies.
the centre of the policy identifying proper remedial
arena. action, if the construction
Facilitate communication with process is not transparent. METHODOLOGY
general public (i.e., citizens, May lead to inappropriate A composite index is intended to describe how an observed
media) and promote policies if dimensions of phenomenon (e.g., the digital divide) is simultaneously de-
accountability. performance that are termined by several factors (indicators). In the definition of
Help to construct or underpin difficult to measure are such an index, indicators should be selected while consid-
narratives for lay and literate ignored. ering the interrelationships (correlations) among them, to
audiences avoid the presence of some overweighted factors (Saisana
Enable users to compare et al. 2005). This way it could be possible to obtain almost
complex dimensions the same results using a reduced number of indicators that
effectively. better represent the influence on the phenomenon. Also,
the OECD (2008) suggests that minimizing the number
of indicators in an index may be desirable for promoting
that attempts to keep track of and measure the digital di- transparency and parsimony.
vide suffer from a lack of adequate theoretical frameworks. With regard to the most recently released digital di-
Indeed, most of the proposed indexes emphasize income, vide composite indexes, we propose a methodology for
education, age, sex, and ethnicity, while not fully address- selecting the most significant indicators and minimizing
ing the deeper social, cultural, and psychological causes redundancies based on appropriate statistical tools. Let
behind access inequalities. Additionally, there tends to be Idx be an index calculated through the aggregation of a
a lack of conceptual elaboration and definition of the indi- set I of n indicators (Idx = f (I1 , . . . , In )). We calculate
cators used in composite indexes (e.g., computer literacy, and analyze the correlation among each pair of indicators
Internet use). Statements supported by theory and valid on a reliable data set of adequate size. In the presence
operational definitions for empirical research could con- of significant correlations, a principal component analysis
siderably help in building reliable indexes. Also, Fuchs is performed. The steps entailed in the methodology are
(2009) criticizes the choice of the indicators in the current described next.
indexes as they reduce the role of socioeconomic, political,
cultural, and social factors.
The Principal Component Analysis
From a methodological perspective, Braithwaite’s
(2007) critique is that existence and use of too many Within a data set, the principal component analysis method
indicators makes data collection difficult, especially for (Kim and Mueller 1978a, 1978b; Stevens 1986) detects a
 22 G. BRUNO ET AL.

set of variables (principal components) able to signifi- TABLE 5A

cantly represent the phenomenon. In practice considering Composition of the Information and Communication
the set I of n indicators and a data set, it is possible to Technologies–Opportunity Index (ICT-OI) sample based
define n principal components Ck (k = 1, . . . , n) as: on the Human Development Index (HDI)

Ck = bk1 I1 + · · · + bkj Ij + · · · + bkn In High Medium Low

Variable HDI HDI HDI Total
for which the generic bkj is a weight associated with the Countries in the data set 61 69 19 149
indicator j of the component k and is “optimally” calcu- Percentage (data set) 40.94 46.31 12.75 100.00
lated through appropriate algorithms. The principal com- Percentage (all countries) 41.42 45.56 13.02 100.00
ponents are then ranked in descending order according to
their significance in the explanation of the phenomenon
(in terms of variance within the data set). Methodologies observations from 149 countries for the ICT-OI indicators
for the selection of principal components are described in and from 154 countries for the IDI indicators.
Joliffe (2002) and OECD (2008). In this context we se- To show the general characteristics of the data set,
lect the first p < n components such that the cumulative tables 5A and 5B indicate the distribution of the avail-
percentage of the total variance is at least equal to a given able countries on the basis of the Human Development In-
Downloaded By: [University of Huddersfield] At: 09:44 30 January 2011

threshold. dex provided by the United Nation Development Program

Indicators Selection
The performed principal components analysis is used to
reduce the number of indicators. However, principal com-
ponents do not have physical meaning, as they represent
some sort of artificial variables. For this reason, we cor-
relate each indicator and each of the p selected principal
components. Then we individuate the indicators with the
highest values of correlation for each principal compo-
nent. This way we select a subset I = ik : k = 1, . . . , p of
p indicators that are more strongly correlated with each of
the principal components. By doing this, a good approx-
imation of the principal components is obtained through
the use of some of the original indicators.
Verification Process
On the basis of the obtained results, we can define a “re-
duced index” Idxreduced = f (i1 , . . . ,ip ) in which the set I
of n original indicators has been replaced by the reduced
set I of p < n indicators. To verify whether the reduced
index is a good synthesis of the original index we calculate
the correlation index between Idxreduced and the original
Idx. In the presence of a significant value of correlation,
indeed, we can affirm that the reduction of indicators does
not produce a significant loss in the representation of the
phenomenon.
(UNDP 2003). Following Efron and Tibshirani (1993),
countries are classified as high, medium, and low with
respect to the Human Development Index. The tables re-
veal that the distribution of the data set is similar to the
distribution of the total number of countries. Thus, we can
affirm that the sample is not affected by biases due to a
nonhomogeneous selection of the countries.
In tables 6A and 6B the correlation matrix for the ICT-
OI and IDI is reported. These matrices reveal that there is
significant correlation among the indicators. In particular,
for the ICT-OI, the indicator “Main telephone lines per
100 inhabitants” has a correlation coefficient greater than
0.70 with five other indicators. Indicators “mobile cellu-
lar subscribers per 100 inhabitants,” “computers per 100
inhabitants,” and “total broadband subscribers per 100 in-
habitants” show the same high correlation levels with the
other components. The degree of correlation among the
skills indicators (“literacy rate,” “enrollment rate”) and
all the others indicators is quite low (0.11 < rij < 0.29).
This result reveals that the relationship between educa-
tion levels and technological opportunities is weak. Fur-
thermore, the two skills indicators are strongly correlated
(rij = 0.79) with each other; this could suggest that the
TABLE 5B
Composition of the Information and Communication
Technologies Development Index (IDI) sample based on
the Human Development Index (HDI)

High Medium Low

EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS Variable HDI HDI HDI Total
The methodology described in the previous section was Countries in the data set 62 71 21 154
employed using 2005 data for the ICT-OI and 2007 data Percentage (data set) 40.26 46.10 13.64 100.00
for the IDI, which are the most recent available data sets Percentage (all countries) 41.42 45.56% 13.02 100.00
for the two indexes (ITU 2009). The data sets consist of
 DIGITAL DIVIDE INDEXES 23

TABLE 6A
Correlation matrix for indicators of Information and Communication Technologies–Opportunity Index (ICT-OI)

Indicator DN1 DN2 DN3 IU1 IU2 IU3 II1 II2 DS1 DS2

Main telephone lines per 100 inhabitants DN1 1.00

Mobile cellular subscribers per 100 inhabitants DN2 0.83 1.00
International internet bandwidth (kbps/inhabitant) DN3 0.60 0.53 1.00
Adult literacy rates (Source: UNESCO) IU1 0.89 0.82 0.66 1.00
Gross enrolment rates (Source: UNESCO) IU2 0.72 0.75 0.30 0.65 1.00
Internet users per 100 inhabitants IU3 0.87 0.74 0.73 0.88 0.53 1.00
Proportion of households with a TV II1 0.84 0.70 0.75 0.85 0.46 0.90 1.00
Computers per 100 inhabitants II2 0.54 0.38 0.27 0.44 0.31 0.56 0.48 1.00
Total broadband internet subscribers per 100 inhab. DS1 0.20 0.21 0.12 0.20 0.20 0.17 0.21 0.12 1.00
Intern.outgoing telephone traffic (minutes) per capita DS2 0.25 0.26 0.23 0.28 0.24 0.22 0.29 0.11 0.79 1.00

skills category can be described using only one of the two subscribers”) and some ICT access indicators (“House-
Downloaded By: [University of Huddersfield] At: 09:44 30 January 2011

indicators. hold with a computer,” “household with Internet access”),

With regard to the IDI, the indicator “fixed telephone
lines” correlates significantly (rij ≥ 0.70) with all the indi-
cators except the “international Internet bandwidth”,” the
“mobile broadband subscribers,” and the “tertiary gross
enrollment ratio.” There is a very high correlation be-
tween “household with a computer” and “household with
Internet access,” which means that users working on a per-
sonal computer (PC) also use the Internet. In addition, a
high correlation can be observed among some ICT use in-
dicators (i.e. “Internet users”,” “fixed broadband Internet
as can be expected.
The significance level for these calculated correlation
coefficients is shown in tables 7A and 7B. According to
a t-Student test, p values less than or equal to .005 allow
us to reject the null hypothesis (that the two variables are
not correlated). For the ICT-OI, all the correlation coeffi-
cients between technological indicators (networks, uptake,
and intensity) are associated with very low p values. The
correlation between the two skills indicators is also signif-
icant (p value of 5.00E-32). Regarding the IDI, Table 7B

TABLE 6B
Correlation matrix for indicators of Information and Communication Technologies Development Index (IDI)

Indicator ICTA1 ICTA2 ICTA3 ICTA4 ICTA5 ICTU1 ICTU2 ICTU3 ICTS1 ICTS2 ICTS3

Fixed telephone lines ICTA1 1.00

Cellular subscriptions ICTA2 0.72 1.00
Internet bandwidth ICTA3 0.16 0.12 1.00
Households with a ICTA4 0.89 0.72 0.17 1,00
computer
Households with ICTA5 0.87 0.68 0.18 0.97 1.00
Internet at home
Internet users per 100 ICTU1 0.88 0.71 0.18 0.94 0.94 1.00
inhabitants
Fixed broadband ICTU2 0.87 0.64 0.18 0.92 0.94 0.92 1.00
Internet subscribers
Mobile broadband ICTU3 0.64 0.52 0.27 0.71 0.72 0.67 0.68 1.00
subscribers
Adult literacy rate ICTS1 0.74 0.71 0.07 0.71 0.66 0.71 0.62 0.43 1.00
Secondary gross ICTS2 0.72 0.62 −0.06 0.69 0.67 0.71 0.67 0.42 0.77 1.00
enrolment ratio
Tertiary gross ICTS3 0.55 0.53 0.07 0.49 0.43 0.48 0.40 0.26 0.70 0.55 1.00
enrolment ratio
 24 G. BRUNO ET AL.

TABLE 7A
Significance levels for correlation coefficients of Information and Communication Technologies–Opportunity Index
(ICT-OI) indicators
DN1 DN2 DN3 IU1 IU2 IU3 II1 II2 DS1 DS2

DN1 0.0000
DN2 0.0000 0.0000
DN3 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
IU1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
IU2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000
IU3 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
II1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
II2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
DS1 0.0100 0.0060 0.0820 0.0090 0.0095 0.0239 0.0080 0.0740 0.0000
DS2 0.0010 0.0009 0.0030 0.0004 0.0022 0.0038 0.0003 0.0950 0.0000 0.0000
Downloaded By: [University of Huddersfield] At: 09:44 30 January 2011

confirms that “International Internet bandwidth per Inter- TABLE 8A

net user” indicator is not at all related to all the other ones, Principal component extraction for Information and
as p values are extremely high. Communication Technologies–Opportunity Index
(ICT-OI) indicators
Principal Component Analysis and Components Principal % explained % cumulative explained
Selection component variance variance
The presence of significant correlations among pairs of 1 58.01 58.01
indicators of ICT-OI and IDI necessitates the use of tech- 2 16.29 74.30
niques such as principal component analysis to reduce 3 8.67 82.97
the redundancy. Table 8A shows the extracted principal 4 7.72 90.69
components for the ICT-OI sorted in decreasing order of 5 2.74 93.43
the percentage of explained variance for ICT-OI. The table 6 1.98 95.42
suggests that 58.01 percent of the variance in the ICT-OI is 7 1.81 97.23
explained by component 1, while the first two components 8 1.16 98.38
together explain 74.30 percent of the variance. Similarly, 9 0.87 99.25
table 8B suggests that 66.45 percent of the variance in 10 0.75 100.00
the IDI data set is explained by component 1, while the

TABLE 7B
Significance levels for correlation coefficients of Information and Communication Technologies Development Index
(IDI)
ICTA1 ICTA2 ICTA3 ICTA4 ICTA5 ICTU1 ICTU2 ICTU3 ICTS1 ICTS2 ICTS3

ICTA1
ICTA2 0.0000
ICTA3 0.0261 0.0620
ICTA4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0187
ICTA5 0.0000 0.0000 0.0127 0.0000
ICTU1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0132 0.0000 0.0000
ICTU2 0.0000 0.0000 0.0117 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
ICTU3 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
ICTS1 0.0000 0.0000 0.2007 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
ICTS2 0.0000 0.0000 0.2364 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
ICTS3 0.0000 0.0000 0.1958 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000
 DIGITAL DIVIDE INDEXES 25

TABLE 8B Indicators Selection

Principal component extraction for Information and
Communication Technologies Development Index Tables 9A and 9B show the correlation matrix between
(IDI) indicators each ICT-OI and IDI indicator and the four selected com-
ponents. We observe that extracted components are often
Principal % explained % cumulative explained highly correlated with indicators belonging to different
component variance variance categories. This result suggests that the grouping into cat-
egories would require further considerations and attention.
1 66.45 66.45 Based on the findings detailed in table 9A, we selected
2 11.20 77.66 ICT-OI indicators with the highest correlation levels to
3 8.02 85.67 each of the selected principal components:
4
5
3.79
3.36
89.47
92.83
r International Internet bandwidth per Internet user
6 2.85 95.68 r (DN3).
7 1.69 97.37 r Proportion of households with a televisions (IU2).
8
9
1.23
0.62
98.60
99.22
r International outgoing telephone traffic per capita
Adult literacy rates (DS1).

10 0.62 99.83 (II2).

Downloaded By: [University of Huddersfield] At: 09:44 30 January 2011

11 0.17 100.00 Similarly, with regard to the IDI, to explain the four
selected principal components, we considered:

first two components together explain 77.66 percent of the

variance.
The number of components that could help explain a
significant portion of the variance in the ICT-OI was se-
r Fixed broadband Internet subscribers per 100 in-
r habitants (ICTU2).
r Mobile broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants
Tertiary gross enrolment ratio (ICTS3).

lected by fixing an optimal threshold of 90 percent for the

cumulative variance to be explained and individuating the
r (ICTU3).
International Internet bandwidth per Internet user
number of components that allows obtaining an amount (ICTA3).
of cumulative variance as close as possible to 90 percent.
Consequently, for either the ICT-OI or for the IDI, four Verification Process
components turn out to be relevant. For the ICT-OI they
explain 90.69 percent of the total variance, while for the For the ICT-OI for each country i we calculated a reduced
IDI they explain 89.47 percent. This suggests the possi- version of the index as the geometric average of the
bility of using a restricted number of indicators to obtain selected indicators.
“similar” results to the one provided by the original ICT-

OI and IDI. (I CT −OIreduced )i = 4 DN3i ∗ I U 2i ∗ I I 2i ∗ DS1i

TABLE 9A
Correlation analysis among Information and Communication Technologies–Opportunity Index (ICT-OI) indicators
and selected principal components

Category Subcategory Indicator Component 1 Component 2 Component 3 Component 4

Info-density Networks DN1 0.601 0.672 0.094 0.319

DN2 0.480 0.781 0.116 0.119
DN3 0.923 0.099 0.084 −0.010
Skills DS1 0.032 0.093 0.943 0.071
DS2 0.159 0.107 0.930 −0.001
Info-use Uptake IU1 0.696 0.600 0.115 0.199
IU2 0.134 0.931 0.118 0.093
IU3 0.782 0.423 0.069 0.352
Intensity II1 0.833 0.344 0.134 0.27
II2 0.225 0.176 0.048 0.945
 26 G. BRUNO ET AL.

TABLE 9B
Correlation analysis among Information and Communication Technologies Development Index (IDI) indicators and
selected principal components

Category Indicator Component 1 Component 2 Component 3 Component 4

Access ICTA1 0.788 0.435 0.259 0.070

ICTA2 0.433 0.606 0.466 0.012
ICTA3 0.084 0.018 0.089 0.987
ICTA4 0.849 0.333 0.335 0.071
ICTA5 0.883 0.254 0.328 0.084
Usage ICTU1 0.863 0.336 0.266 0.086
ICTU2 0.905 0.213 0.255 0.092
ICTU3 0.504 0.091 0.787 0.150
Skills ICTS1 0.496 0.774 0.113 −0.004
ICTS2 0.669 0,575 −0.034 −0.164
ICTS3 0.163 0.901 0.070 0.067
Downloaded By: [University of Huddersfield] At: 09:44 30 January 2011

TABLE 11A
The same process can be applied to IDI, as stated next:
Linear regression analysis among
Information and Communication
(I D Ireduced )i = (I CT U 2i + I CT S3i Technologies–Opportunity Index
+ I CT U 3i + I CT A3i )/4 (ICT-OI) and gross domestic
product per capita scores
Thus, we performed a linear regression between ICT- Variable Factor
OIreduced and ICT-OI and between IDIreduced and IDI,
whose results are highlighted in tables 10A and 10B, re- rICT−OI,GDP 0.942
spectively. The presence of a high and significant corre- 2
RICT−OI,GDP 0.887
lation, in both the cases, between the original versions of p(1-tailed) 0.0000
the indexes and the reduced ones suggests that the current Observations 139

TABLE 10A versions of the indexes harbor redundancies in terms of

Linear regression analysis among number of used indicators.
Information and Communication
Technologies–Opportunity Index
(ICT-OI) and ICT-OIreduced scores FURTHER RESULTS
rICT−OIreduced ,ICT−OI 0.946 The application of the methodology based on correlation
2
RICT−OI 0.896 evaluation and principal component analysis reveals sig-
reduced ,ICT−OI
p (1-tailed) 0.0000 nificant redundancies in the structure of the two digital di-
Observations 149 vide indexes under investigation. This evidence confirms
the shortcomings that can affect digital divide measures,
as already highlighted by Vehovar et al. (2006) and, more
generally, by OECD (2008) best practices for constructing
TABLE 10B synthetic indexes. To further verify the efficiency (ability
Linear regression analysis among to represent the digital divide without using redundant
Information and Communication variables) of ICT-OI and IDI, further analysis was per-
Technologies Development Index formed that evaluated the degree of correlation among
(IDI) and IDIreduced scores the two indexes scores and gross domestic product (GDP)
rIDIreduced ,IDI 0.916
values for each country.
2
RID 0.839
Empirical results show that both the indexes are
Ireduced ,IDI
p(1-tailed) 0.0000
strongly and significantly correlated with the gross do-
Observations 153
mestic product, as reported in tables 11A and 11B. In par-
ticular, ICT-OI and IDI present a correlation coefficient
 DIGITAL DIVIDE INDEXES
TABLE 11B
Linear regression analysis among Information
and Communication Technologies
Development Index (IDI) and gross domestic
product per capita scores
Variable Factor
rIDI,GDP 0.921
2
RICT−OI,GDP 0.845
p(1-tailed) 0.0000
Observations 145
equal to .946 and .916, respectively; p values are, in both
cases, less than 10−5 . Thus, even if digital divide is a still
evolving and complex concept, the main indexes seem to
describe a phenomenon that appears highly and signifi-
Downloaded By: [University of Huddersfield] At: 09:44 30 January 2011
cantly correlated to the difference in income among coun-
tries. Therefore, besides presenting significant redundan-
cies in their formulation, both the indexes seem to provide
a “reductionistic” approach to digital divide measurement
(see for instance Van Dijk 2006; Fuchs 2009) that does not
emphasize the role of socioeconomic, political,cultural,
and social factors.
CONCLUSIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE
RESEARCH
As noted earlier, digital divide is no longer seen as the
simple divide in the access to technological resources,
but increasingly it is being perceived as a multidimen-
sional phenomenon that includes a set of complex divides
(global, social, and democratic) caused by a variety of
factors (digital resources, gender, income, etc.). In line
with this evolution, the literature has proposed numerous
definitions, which range from simply the “gap between in-
dividuals who use computers and Internet and individuals
who do not” (Mehra et al. 2004) to the more compre-
hensive definition that defines digital divide as “unequal
patterns of material access to, usage capabilities of, and
benefits from computer-based information and communi-
cation technologies that are caused by certain stratification
processes that produce classes of winner and losers of the
information society, and of participation in institutions
governing ICTs and society” (Fuchs 2008).
In this context, several composite indexes have been
proposed to measure the digital divide among countries.
In this article we focused on two indexes: ICT-OI and
IDI. The ICT-OI is the result of the merging of two in-
dexes, DAI proposed by ITU and Infostate developed by
Orbicom; IDI is the most recent index and represents the
evolution and the synthesis of the previous indexes re-
leased by ITU. In particular, we present an empirical in-
27
vestigation that employs principal component analysis to
highlight that both indexes present redundant indicators.
This means that it is possible to increase their efficiency
by reducing the number of indicators and using the same
technique of aggregation (average in the case of ICT-OI
and geometric mean in the case of IDI). The reduction in
the number of indicators could also enlarge the sample of
countries involved in the analysis.
Our analysis also showed that both indexes are strongly
correlated with gross domestic product. This finding high-
lights that although digital divide is a complex concept,
main indexes describe a phenomenon that appears highly
correlated with the difference in income among countries.
Thus, the results of this analysis provide an analytic val-
idation of critiques by Van Dijk (2005, 2006) and Fuchs
(2009), who argue that current digital divide research is
affected by a “reductionistic” approach to measurement
that does not emphasize the role of factors other than
technological access and use.
This study could represent a starting point for the defini-
tion of digital divide composite indexes that shun indicator
redundancies and include ecological, socioeconomic, po-
litical, and cultural factors that influence digital divide.
Further analysis on the dynamic evolution of the indexes
to evaluate their ability to capture differences among coun-
tries across time could be also performed.
REFERENCES
Abuqayyas, A., and C. Audin. 2008. Measuring the information society.
In Proceedings of ITU Regional Workshop on Universal Service
Funding (Damascus, Syria). Geneva: ITU.
Barzilai-Nahon, K. 2006. Gaps and bits: Conceptualizing mea-
surements for digital divides. The Information Society 22(5):
269–78.
Bélanger, F., and L. Carter. 2009. The impact of the digital divide on
e-government use. Communications of the ACM 52(4): 132–35.
Bertot, J. C. 2003. The multiple dimensions of the digital divide: More
than the technology “haves” and “have nots.” Government Informa-
tion Quarterly 20(2): 185–91.
Braithwaite, S. 2007. Measuring the information society: Proposals for
measuring the information society in Guyana and the wider world
(Technical report). Georgetown, Guyana: University of Guyana.
Campbell, D. 2001. Can the digital divide be contained? International
Labour Review 140(2): 119–41.
Cette, G., J. Mairesse, and Y. Kocoglu. 2000. The diffusion of infor-
mation and communication technologies in France. Measurement
and contribution to economic growth and productivity. Economie et
Statistique 339–40:73–91.
Chinn, M. D., and R. Fairlie. 2006. The determinants of the global
digital divide: A cross-country analysis of computer and Internet
penetration. Oxford Economic Papers 59(1): 16.
Colecchia, A., and P. Schreyer. 2002. ICT investment and economic
growth in the 1990s: Is the United States a unique case? A compar-
ative study of nine OECD countries. Review of Economic Dynamics
5:408–42.
 28 G. BRUNO ET AL.
Corrocher, N., and A. Ordanini. 2002. Measuring the digital divide: A
framework for the analysis of cross-countries differences. Journal
of Information Technology 17:9–19.
Cuervo, M. R. V., and A. J. L. Menendez. 2006. A multivariate frame-
work for the analysis of the digital divide evidence for the European
Union—15. Information and Management 43:56−76.
Dewan, S., and F. J. Riggins. 2005. The digital divide: Current and
future research directions. Journal of the Association for Information
Systems 6(12): 298–337.
Dewan, S., D. Ganley, and K. L. Kraemer. 2005. Across the digital
divide: A cross-country multi-technology analysis of the determi-
nants of IT penetration. Journal of the Association for Information
Systems 6(12): 409–32.
Efron, B., and R. Tibshirani. 1993. An introduction to the bootstrap.
Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall.
Fuchs, C. 2008. The implications of new information and communica-
tion technologies for sustainability. Environment, Development and
Sustainability 10(3): 291–309.
———. 2009. The role of income inequality in a multivariate cross-
Downloaded By: [University of Huddersfield] At: 09:44 30 January 2011
national analysis of the digital divide. Social Science Computer Re-
view 27(1): 41–58.
Guillen, M. F., and S. L. Suárez. 2005. Explaining the global digital
divide: Economic, political and sociological drivers of cross-national
Internet use. Social Forces 84(2): 681–708.
Gunkel, D. 2003. Second thoughts: toward a critique of the digital
divide. New Media and Society 5(4): 499–522.
Ida, T., and Y. Horiguchi. 2008. Consumer benefits of public services
over FTTH in Japan: Comparative analysis of provincial and urban
areas by using discrete choice experiment. The Information Society
24(1): 1–17.
International Telecommunication Union. 2003. Measuring the in-
formation society. Annual report of International Telecom-
munication Union, Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.itu.int/ITU
-D/ict/publications/
———. 2005. Measuring the information society. Annual report
of International Telecommunication Union, Geneva, Switzerland.
http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/
———. 2006. Measuring the information society. Annual report
of International Telecommunication Union, Geneva, Switzerland.
http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/
———. 2007. Measuring the information society. Annual report
of International Telecommunication Union, Geneva, Switzerland.
http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/
———. 2009. Measuring the information society. Annual report
of International Telecommunication Union, Geneva, Switzerland.
http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/
James, J. 2007. Cumulative bias in the new Digital Opportunity Index:
Sources and consequences. Current Science 92(1): 46–50.
———. 2008. Digital preparedness versus the digital divide: A confu-
sion of means and ends. Journal of the American Society for Infor-
mation Science and Technology 59(5): 785–91.
Joliffe, I. T. 2002. Principal component analysis. Berlin: Springer-
Verlag.
Jollands, N., J. Lermit, and M. Patterson. 2004. Aggregate eco-
efficiency indices for New Zealand: A principal components analy-
sis. Journal of Environmental Management 73: 293–305.
Jorgenson, D. W. (2001). Information technology and the U.S. econ-
omy. American Economic Review 91:1–31.
Kim, J. O., and C. W. Mueller. 1978a. Introduction to factor analysis:
What it is and how to do it. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
———. 1978b. Factor analysis: Statistical methods and practical is-
sues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Mansell, R. 1999. Information and communication technologies for
development: Assessing the potential and the risks. Telecommunica-
tions Policy 23(1): 35−50.
Mansell, R., and U. When, eds. 1998. Knowledge societies: Infor-
mation technology for sustainable development. New York: Oxford
University Press for the United Nations Commission on Science and
Technology for Development.
Mehra, B., C. Merkel, and A. P. Bishop. 2004. Internet for empower-
ment of minority and marginalized communities. New Media and
Society 6(5): 781–802.
Menou, M., and R. Taylor. 2006. A grand challenge: Measuring infor-
mation societies. Information Society 22(5): 261–67.
Mossberger, K., C. J. Tolbert, and M. Stansbury. 2003. Virtual in-
equality: Beyond the digital divide. Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press.
Munda, G., and M. Nardo. 2005. Constructing consistent composite
indicators: The issue of weights (EUR 21834 EN). Luxembourg:
Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities.
Norris, P. 2001. Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty
and the internet worldwide. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, European
Commission, Joint Research Centre. 2008. Handbook on construct-
ing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide (OECD pub-
lication code: 302008251E1). Paris: OECD.
Orbicom. 2003. Monitoring the digital divide and beyond. Ottawa:
National Research Council of Canada.
Rao, P. M. 2001. The ICT revolution, internationalization of
technological activity, and the emerging economies: Implica-
tions for global marketing. International Business Review 10:
571–96.
Saisana, M., and S. Tarantola. 2002. State-of-the-art report on current
methodologies and practices for composite indicator development
(EUR Report 20408 EN). Ispra, Italy: European Commission.
Saisana M., S. Tarantola, and A. Saltelli. 2005. Uncertainty and sen-
sitivity techniques as tools for the analysis and validation of com-
posite indicators. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 168(2):
1–17.
Sciadas, G. 2002. Monitoring the digital divide. Montreal: Orbicom.
Sciadas, G. 2005. From the digital divide to digital opportunities:
Measuring infostates for development. Geneva: ITU.
Stevens, J. 1986. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
United Nations Development Programme. 2003. Millennium develop-
ment goals: A compact among nations to end human poverty. New
York: Author.
Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. 2005. Deepening digital divide: Inequality in the
information society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
————. 2006. Digital divide research, achievements and shortcom-
ings. Poetics 34:221–35.
Vehovar, V., P. Sicherl, T. Hüsing, and V. Dolnicar. 2006. Methodolog-
ical challenges of digital divide measurements. Information Society
22(5):279–90.
Warschauer, M. 2003. Dissecting the digital divide: A case study in
Egypt. Information Society 19(4):297–304.