repubblica.it
Global Digital Divide: 2.6 Billion Offline, Hindering Growth and Equity
A new report by ISPI and Deloitte reveals that 2.6 billion people lack internet access, severely impacting economic growth and social equity, particularly in low-income countries where only 27% of the population is online, hindering access to essential services, finance and creating significant gender disparities.
- How does the lack of digital connectivity affect access to financial services and investment in low- and middle-income countries?
- The digital divide exacerbates existing inequalities. A 10% increase in mobile broadband penetration boosts GDP per capita by 1.5-1.6%, according to the World Bank. Conversely, the lack of digital financial services slows GDP growth by 20-33% in low- and middle-income countries, disproportionately affecting micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs).
- What are the most significant economic consequences of the global digital divide, and how do these consequences disproportionately affect specific populations?
- Two-thirds of the global population — 2.6 billion people — lack internet access, significantly impacting economic growth and social equity. This digital divide is particularly pronounced in low-income countries, where only 27% of the population is online, hindering access to essential services and financial opportunities.
- What are the long-term implications of the digital divide for global economic growth and social equity, considering the increasing importance of AI and digital skills?
- Failure to bridge the digital divide will worsen global inequalities. The International Monetary Fund's AI Preparedness Index reveals a stark contrast between advanced economies (average score 0.68) and low-income countries (0.32), highlighting the limited access to education and training in developing nations. This hinders the adoption of AI and creates significant employment disparities, particularly for women.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the negative consequences of the digital divide, particularly for developing countries and vulnerable groups. The use of statistics about lagging economic growth and limited access to opportunities reinforces this negative framing. While accurate, a more balanced approach might also highlight potential solutions and positive impacts of bridging the gap.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral and objective, relying on statistics and data from reputable sources. However, phrases like "deep inequalities" and "severely penalized" could be considered slightly loaded, although they accurately reflect the gravity of the situation. More neutral alternatives might include phrases such as "significant disparities" and "disadvantaged.
Bias by Omission
The analysis focuses heavily on the negative impacts of the digital divide, but it could benefit from including examples of successful digital inclusion initiatives or policies that are mitigating the gap. While the challenges are significant, showcasing positive developments would provide a more balanced perspective.
Gender Bias
The analysis explicitly highlights the disproportionate impact of the digital divide on young women, providing statistics on their limited access to the internet and digital skills. This focus on gender inequality is a strength of the analysis.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the digital divide, where 2.6 billion people lack internet access, exacerbating existing inequalities. This disproportionately affects low-income countries, rural areas, and young women, limiting their access to education, jobs, and financial services. The lack of digital access hinders economic growth and creates a gap in opportunities, thus negatively impacting the goal of reduced inequality.