Journal of Social Research & Policy, Vol. 5, Issue 1, July 2014

E-Inclusion Policies for Contemporary Knowledge Economies and Societies: An Examination of the Main Issues GEORGIOS C. PENTZAROPOULOS 1 Department of Economics University of Athens, Greece

DESPOINA TSIOUGOU Department of Economics University of Athens, Greece

Abstract Contemporary knowledge societies are largely driven by the dynamics of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). ICTs contribute to economic growth, innovation, well-being and social change. There are substantial benefits as there are problems. One of the most alarming problems here is the inequality between people who have access to new technologies and to others who have not: this phenomenon is known as “digital divide”. Although this form of divide still exists, especially in the developing world, it is gradually being replaced by a new “use divide”. In this work, we examine key policies and initiatives aimed at greater digital/social coherence, or “einclusion”. At first, we briefly examine knowledge acquisition and its connection with present-day information processing activities. Next, we look at knowledge diffusion and its problems. Evidence of the main on-going and planned e-inclusion strategies is also presented from the developed and developing worlds. Known policy applications highlight the complexity of national and international policies for better digital/social coherence. Finally, it is noted that a new form of digital capital is needed today, comprised of high-capacity networks and digital skills. Keywords: Information & communication technologies; Knowledge acquisition; Inclusion; Sustainability; Ethics; Social cohesion; Digital convergence. Introduction The study of technology and its impact on social and cultural life has always been an important part in many diverse scientific fields including sociology, economics, information science, and philosophy. In ancient Greece, the word “techne” specified the knowledge and skills associated with forms of human activity collectively known as “poiesis”. “Techne” has been transformed, through the ages in many innovative ways and is now incorporated in several modern words: two obvious examples are technique and technology. Information technologies are now ubiquitous. Human-computer interaction also implies that the human brain is regularly exposed to new forms of information. Thus, much of our knowledge today is gained via perception. 1

Postal Address: University of Athens, Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences, Department of Economics, 1 Sophocleous Street, 10559 Athens, Greece. E-mail Address: [email protected]

2 | JSRP

Georgios C. Pentzaropoulos & Despoina Tsiougou

Our efforts to interact with the surrounding world confirm Aristotle’s thesis (mainly in the Metaphysics, see Bambrough, 2011) that people by nature desire to acquire new knowledge. Experts in organizational science, e.g. Argyris (1996), often refer to actionable knowledge while epistemologists, e.g. Pritchard (2008), make a distinction between propositional and ability or know-how knowledge. The latter kind of knowledge is considered important in our times as it is often connected with practical (ICT) skills. Such skills, although not superior to pure knowledge, are considered by many as useful given the ubiquity of new technologies within modern society. It is clear that much of our business and social activity today depends on the Internet, seen both as infrastructure and service. However, one must be aware of possible socio-economic implications as this medium continues to expand irregularly. Some authors have expressed their concerns, in this respect, by focusing mainly on digital inequalities. For instance, Mansell (2013) recently introduced the concept of social imaginary in Internet-based activities. In the present article, we examine briefly the elements of knowledge acquisition, its properties, and its connection with information processing activities. We also pay due attention to information and communication technologies (ICTs) as the building blocks of an evolving “knowledge economy and society”. Let it be noted that this term is preferred here to the much older information society, or to the more specific information economy, since many people are moving beyond a rather passive access to information trying to exploit knowledge in more creative patterns. Next, we turn our attention to a major issue of our society: knowledge diffusion. Problems such as the so-called “digital divide” as well as key initiatives for greater digital and social coherence or e-inclusion are also examined in subsequent sections. Known policy applications highlight the complexity of policies for a better digital/social coherence. We conclude with an account of policies and initiatives for an inclusive, innovative, secure and sustainable knowledge society. Knowledge and Information Technology Information technology may be seen as a continuous-time very complex process involving the development, maintenance and use of computer systems, software and networks for the processing of data and its distribution (Encyclopaedia Britannica). Computer scientists place information in the middle layers of a conceptual pyramid. The bottom layer contains the (raw) data, the middle layers are occupied by all types of information and their associations, while the top layer is reserved for an entity of higher importance: knowledge. In computer science and technology, information is seen as the result of applying processing to data: this process gives to data meaning in a particular context. Knowledge, therefore, differs from either data or information. According to the above discussion, information obtained from external sources (e.g. the Internet) is a prerequisite for knowledge. Also, in everyday life, the notion of information is commonly associated with order; however, lack of order often brings about uncertainty. Knowledge gained via our senses almost always contains some uncertainty: this is due to methods of obtaining data and then transforming such data into information. Knowledge acquisition as described above can lead to the kind of ability or know-how knowledge mentioned in the Introduction. This is associated with practical skills and, as such, has gained importance in modern knowledge economies and societies. Can such practical knowledge be transferred from one person to another? A good answer has been given by Klempner (2001) who sees two sides of knowledge: subjective and objective. Given the complexity of the human brain and how information from external sources is encoded or encrypted there, this author comes to the following conclusion: “There is an unsurpassable gulf between the subjective and objective sides of practical knowledge, the dual aspects of the agent's attunement with the external world”. Therefore, it is clear that only objective knowledge can be transferred; thus, we have to make the following hypothesis: “Knowledge that comes from information via the external world must be considered objective”. The Internet is a primary example of such an external world provided, of course, that access to it is available. Information processing, as noted, allows data to be transformed into knowledge. Although information processing is not equal to

E-Inclusion Policies for Contemporary Knowledge Economies and Societies

3 | JSRP

understanding, as earlier suggested by Greenfield (2008), it has recently been argued by Pentzaropoulos (2012) that reliable data combined with careful processing almost always leads to more stable knowledge and thereafter to better decisions. Pritchard (2008) links knowledge stability to the underlying reliability of information. Therefore, knowledge gained through reliable information sources has greater instrumental value than mere true belief and is always stable. Stable knowledge is shown by Pentzaropoulos (2014) to have low entropy. The Internet together with its multimedia digital content are the building blocks of new knowledge societies. Recent reports from OECD’s Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry (OECD, 2010; 2012) state that Internet-based applications underpin all major socioeconomic advances. Areas include science, education, business, health, government, environmental monitoring, and transport management. These developments clearly reflect our reliance on the Internet for carrying out scientific, business, and social activities.

Problems with Knowledge Diffusion Contemporary societies, especially in the developed parts of the world, are largely driven by the dynamics of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). ICTs are now considered drivers of research, innovation, growth and social change. According to EU estimates, almost half of European productivity growth over the last decade has been driven by the ICT sector and this trend is likely to accelerate (European Commission, 2010a). The Digital Agenda is an ambitious strategy requiring the commitment of all EU Member States (European Commission, 2010b). One important pillar of this strategy, known as “einclusion”, has already been adopted by international organizations, governments, and NGOs for lessening the disparities in the access and use of ICTs. As stated by Neelie Kroes, Commission Vice-President for EU’s Digital Agenda: We must put the interests of Europe's citizens and businesses at the forefront of the digital revolution and so maximise the potential of Information and Communications Technologies to advance job creation, sustainability and social inclusion. Similar thoughts as regards the potential of new technologies and Internet-based applications have also been expressed by the OECD in its assessment of the state of the Internet economy (OECD, 2010; 2012): The Internet is becoming a key economic infrastructure, revolutionising businesses and serving as a new platform for innovation. ICT policies are mainstream economic policies. They are underpinning growth and jobs, increasing productivity, and achieving broad socio-economic objectives in the areas of health care, education, climate change, energy efficiency, employment and social development. In the developed world, the Internet also includes “objects” other than computers, laptops, tablets, and fixed/mobile phones. Electrical appliances, office equipment, and cars are gradually connected to the Internet, adding flexibility to its operation. This new functionality is expected to encompass many devices per home and thousands of devices per company. The factors driving this trend are the ubiquity of high-speed networks and services, and the lower than ever prices for connecting users’ devices. Although the exact impact of the Internet on the knowledge economy and society is still unclear, we must be aware of its potential as this medium continues to grow. The picture is quite different in the developing world. In most of the third world economies the likelihood of exclusion from the benefits of ICTs is already evident. This is partly due to

4 | JSRP

Georgios C. Pentzaropoulos & Despoina Tsiougou

lack of modern ICT infrastructures and services. A report from the United Nations on the state of the information economy (UN, 2010) provides valuable information at the intersection of ICTs, enterprises, and poverty alleviation in third world economies. As stated in the report: The relationship between poverty and economic growth is quite complex. Sustainable economic growth is thought absolutely necessary for achieving substantial progress towards reducing poverty. The challenge for policy-makers is to identify and facilitate growth in ways that reduce poverty and inequality, and that empower those in poverty to enhance their livelihoods. ICTs are part of the globalization process and, as such, affect the political, economic and technological status of our times. There are benefits as there are many problems. The most alarming problem is the inequality between people who “have” access to new technologies and to others who “have not”. This phenomenon is referred to as “digital divide”. Also, the basic problem of “access divide” is in many cases gradually being replaced by a new “use divide”. Both forms exist between different countries, geographical regions, and social groups. Each form is characterized by its background, evolution, tendencies, and social profile. However, the common goal is “digital inclusion”. We explore these matters below. Digital divide: the global form This form normally refers to the unequal access to ICTs and their use between countries from the developed and developing worlds. It presents a major obstacle for the global economy to become a true knowledge economy in the years to come. Considering that a large number of poor countries fail to keep up with the global trends in economic growth, the benefits that a knowledge economy/society would bring to those countries are still a far-reaching possibility. For several third world economies the likelihood of exclusion from the benefits of ICTs is already evident, and this is partly due to the lack of modern ICT infrastructures and services. However, new technologies can be powerful instruments, which many governments in developing countries now try to integrate into their national plans for economic growth and prosperity. For the first time in modern history, many of the world’s low-income countries have realistic opportunities to allow their inhabitants, especially those living in rural and remote areas, to get connected via ICTs. Evidence shows that several developing countries are now exploring the opportunities. The existing knowledge base grows considerably. Access to ICTs continues to grow in many poorer countries. Even in rural populations with lack of access to standard telephony, mobile usage is rising, and this is particularly true amongst the least developed countries (LDCs). For many of the poorer countries mobile telecommunications emerge as the ICT sector offering the best opportunities for employment and wealth creation. The mobile sector, as the most dynamic of ICT-enabled technologies, appears to be the best solution for creating micro-enterprises. As a result, a growing number of mobile entrepreneurs in many LDCs are now able to meet the demand in mobile usage and support. One of the best known examples is the so-called “village phone” project designed and subsequently operated by Grameen Bank for rural Bangladesh and described by Yunus (1994, 2003). This has been a very successful initiative which was later adopted by the governments of several other countries. In 2006 Professor Yunus and Grameen Bank received jointly the Nobel Peace Prize. Digital divide: the social form In recent years, a new form of digital divide has become apparent. This social kind of divide now affects individuals, groups of people, even entire societies. Factors like age, gender, social class, and hierarchy, can trigger digital divides within a society irrespective of its level of economic status. The American society is a good example here. Back in the 1990s, when the digital divide first made its appearance, the main problem was that poor people did not have enough access to computers and the Internet. Many of those people were part of various racial minorities originating from Latin America and Africa, the low-income working class, as well as some groups of people living in rural and/or remote areas.

E-Inclusion Policies for Contemporary Knowledge Economies and Societies

5 | JSRP

The enforcement of proper inclusion policies in recent years has made it possible for nearly every citizen in the US to gain access to ICTs; thus, today, access is no longer a major concern. Digital inequalities in the US appear today in the form of two marketplaces as suggested by Crawford (2011): the “first-class” high-speed Internet for the citizens who can afford it, and the “second-class” for the rest. Therefore, in the US, and possibly in other OECD economies, the well-known problem of “access divide” is gradually being replaced by a new “use divide” (Richtel, 2012). This distinction is thought by many specialists to be consistent with the preferences for digital content by the majority of the US population. Such content typically includes various entertainment programmes, multimedia reproduction, and social networking activities. At the same time, the potential of other important online services such as the growing number of distance learning programmes, information about employment opportunities, and initiatives for new entrepreneurial activities, remains largely unexploited. Many of these problems are also present in a number of European countries, and not only in the newcomers to the European Union. EU’s new ICT policy code-named the “Digital Agenda” aims inter alia to empower all Europeans with digital skills, thus unleashing the potential of ICTs to the benefit of society. We present the main features of this new policy in the next section. Key E-Inclusion Policies and Initiatives Bridging the digital divide, whether that involves countries, regions, or groups of people within a society, calls for innovative and well-designed strategies. In many parts of the developed world the policy measures being applied today focus mainly on technology infrastructure (ICTs), education, health, government, as well as on economic stability. Technological progress is a key driver as the implementation of appropriate technology policies is thought to stimulate sustainable economic growth. New technology policies, combined with green practices, as for example in the field of environmental protection, can form optimal strategies which modern societies should try to include in their priorities. European Commission (EU) The European information society acknowledges the importance of ICTs in forming its citizens’ everyday life in a variety of social issues that range from interpersonal communications, entertainment, culture, to health, education, and employment. In the latter case, ICTs’ influence on labour productivity is notable in both the private and public sectors. It is also true that many European citizens now make better use of online public services as a result of deployment of e-governance plans in their respective countries. Present-day EU policies reflect all major global concerns, including socio-economic, political and environmental issues. Every member country should naturally adhere to EU common rules, regulations and strategies, but it also has several “degrees of freedom”. Therefore, a member country is responsible for adapting EU policies into its economy and for regulating issues like social inclusion, education, culture, regional development, manufacturing, and internal market. The present European policy for “e-inclusion” aims to integrate all of its citizens into the benefits of the digital era. Therefore, several initiatives and actions aiming towards the diffusion of new technologies are underway. Effectively, this means access to ICTs for all European citizens including network infrastructures, affordable and useful on-line services, and skilful involvement in new technologies. Implementing strategies to diffuse ICTs across all European regions will certainly help create new employment opportunities, improve regions’ economic performance, enhanced social welfare, and increase citizens’ participation and social cohesion. These strategies are already evident in the recent EU strategic plan under the name “Europe 2020” (European Commission, 2010a). This new plan is set to lead Europe out of the global crisis and to prepare its economy for the next decade. Three key drivers for growth have been identified here: (a) Smart growth: knowledge, innovation, education, and digital society. (b) Sustainable growth: efficient production with greater competitiveness. (c) Inclusive growth: greater labour market, better skills, fight against poverty.

6 | JSRP

Georgios C. Pentzaropoulos & Despoina Tsiougou

The above strategy is EU’s socio-technical action plan for the decade 2010-2020. The European Commission proposed this plan on 3 May 2010, as a continuation of its former “Lisbon Strategy” (2000-2010), to assist in economic recovery from the severe 2008 recession. In the words of Commission President Barrosso: We must decisively tackle our weaknesses and also exploit our many strengths. We need to build a new economic model based on knowledge, low-carbon economy and high employment levels. This battle requires mobilisation of all actors across Europe. Actions are already under way at both the EU and national levels. Such actions should foster knowledge, education, innovation, and digital cohesion. These should make European production more resource-efficient, while boosting competitiveness and participation in the labour market. At the same time, the acquisition of new skills (digital literacy) can be used in the fight against poverty. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development The OECD is responsible mainly for helping governments tackle economic, social and governance challenges. Current challenges facing the organisation refer to the emergence of global information economy. Bridging the digital divide in the OECD area has received great attention in recent years, while governments and policy-makers give top priority to this matter as a means of achieving better social cohesion. The European Commission takes part in the work of the OECD; thus, EU policy for the digital divide is part of a constructive dialogue between these two institutions. EU policy is in accordance with the policies being developed by the OECD services. Given the current global economic situation, OECD’s interest is primarily focused on economic recovery. In times of crisis, efforts focus on policies for innovation, creation of new jobs, enhancement of skills, and respect to the environment. The global restructure of production has enabled the integration of ICTs into the framework of a wide range of economies including a number of economies from the developing world (LDCs). This restructure already shows a positive impact on the efforts towards narrowing the digital divide. OECD services have identified the following ICT policies as key priority areas for recovering from the crisis: Table 1: Top ICT policies for economic recovery (OECD) 1. ICT skills and employment 2. Broadband technologies 3. R&D and innovation programmes 4. Venture finance (start-up firms) 5. Enabling environmental impacts of ICTs Source: Directorate for Science, Technology & Industry. Recent policy emphasis is on areas that contribute to short- and long-term growth: new jobs, broadband, R&D and venture finance, and smart ICTs. Many governments have already given priority to at least one of the above ICT policy areas.

United Nations (UNCTAD) UN is an international organisation with strong and decisive development goals aiming for the abatement of inequalities and the fight against poverty. UN fully recognizes the lack of access to information considered vital for people’s lives. The contribution of ICTs to poverty alleviation can provide poor people with access to improved information and better communications, which will help them improve their lives. Present UN initiatives for bridging the digital divide give priority to entrepreneurship in small and micro-enterprises. These initiatives require affordable connectivity and access to different ICT services. Policy-makers need to consider all key socio-economic factors, while introducing ICTs into workplaces and

E-Inclusion Policies for Contemporary Knowledge Economies and Societies

7 | JSRP

households. E-governance can also reinforce ICT diffusion within the society and help reduce digital exclusion. Progress with ICTs drives economic growth and will lead to sustainable development, but there are still barriers (UN, 2010): With ICT access increasingly reaching poor people in low-income countries, there are now much better possibilities than before to ensure that ICTs contribute to poverty reduction. It is the shared responsibility of all relevant stakeholders to make the most of the many new emerging opportunities as regards the potential of new technologies. Access to information and knowledge is also supported by UNESCO initiatives which promote access to information for educational institutions, professional groups and the community at large. The main focus is on the innovative use of ICTs including open educational resources, content creation and educational opportunities. Also, access to scientific research and information is considered a priority. UN and other world-wide agencies collaborate with academic and publishing partners in the “Research4Life” partnership. The partnership offers access to peer-reviewed journals for developing countries at little or no cost. Capacity-building is also a priority. UN actively promotes e-learning activities including teacher training, digital textbooks and curricula. Mobile learning is one of the agency’s most recent activities. Emphasis is also placed on affordability and appropriate content. Also, conferences, workshops and training initiatives aim at building the capacity of policymakers, especially in developing countries. International Telecommunications Union ITU is a United Nations specialized agency in the field of telecommunications and information matters worldwide. Within its area of interests, the agency is actively involved in measuring the digital divide and publishing annual reports and statistics. In times of societal transition, from a simple information society to a more elaborate knowledge society, several questions concerning information technology and people still remain open. With respect to the digital divide, policy-makers must then take into account the transformation of known information societies to true inclusive societies. Present priority actions are as follows (ITU, 2012): Stage 1: Readiness, the level of networking and access to ICTs. Stage 2: Intensity, reflecting the diffusion of ICTs in society. Stage 3: Impact, associated with the effective use of ICTs. Making progress through these stages requires: (i) the availability of modern ICT infrastructures and services with affordable tariff policies for people, enterprises, and public/private organizations; (ii) a more effective usage of available ICT services; and (iii) the capability to use ICTs in an innovative way. Achieving full potential of what ICTs have to offer to the economy/society depends primarily on the readiness of each country to adopt new technologies quickly and make them available to its citizens as widely as possible. As an aid to the above requirements, a special service named the Broadband Commission for Digital Development was launched in 2010 by ITU and UNESCO to debate policy guidance and best practices in the deployment of broadband networks and services. ITU’s human capacity-building programme by means of its workshops, e-learning and experiencesharing provides training opportunities, through distance learning or traditional lectures. The overall focus of the programme is on digital inclusion and especially e-readiness. Evidence and discussion of findings This section provides evidence and discussion in connection with known applications of policy measures from both the developed and developing worlds. Evidence is provided from Europe, the USA, Canada, countries of the BRIC group, and some of the LDCs. Let it be noted that the

8 | JSRP

Georgios C. Pentzaropoulos & Despoina Tsiougou

acronym BRIC characterizes four of the fastest-growing non-OECD economies and stands for “Brazil, Russia, India, and China”. The acronym LDCs refers to the least developed countries. One of the main goals of the Digital Agenda for Europe, as discussed previously, is to enable all European citizens to use the Internet, especially broadband networks, regularly both at work and home. There has been considerable success during recent years as Figure 1 shows (Ferrari, 2013).

Figure 1: The “bright” side of European Information Society. Source: Eurostat. Progress in getting EU citizens online has been remarkable, especially when the situation before year 2000 is taken into account. However, non-use of the Internet by large EU populations is still a major concern. The Digital Agenda for Europe has set as its performance target to halve the number of non-users (approx. 30% in 2009) to about 15% by 2015. Presently, about 22% of the EU population has still never used the Internet - an alarming figure for Europe. Across the entire EU27 area, non-use exhibits a high variability ranging from 5% to approx. 40%. This major split is mainly geographical and highlights the traditional north-south divide. Regarding the access problem in the EU27 area, Eurostat estimates that, in 2012, some 76% of households had access to the Internet; this leaves almost a quarter of households without access. Figure 2 shows this finding and includes the most recent projection for 2013 (European Commission, 2014). As already noted, digital skills are essential in the effective usage of ICTs. According to Eurostat, the distribution of European citizens’ skills is more shifted towards low (30%) and medium (32%) values, with only 11% of people exhibiting higher level skills. Consequently, 27% had none of the essential skills. Data is drawn from 2011 as no data on skills is available for 2012 (European Commission, 2014).

Figure 2: The “less-than-bright” side of European Information Society. Source: Eurostat.

E-Inclusion Policies for Contemporary Knowledge Economies and Societies

9 | JSRP

Also within the EU, independent researchers such as Vicente & López (2011) stress the need to address digital inequalities not only across the EU as a whole, but also within its regions, as large discrepancies exist there. Similarly, Mesa del Olmo & Monje (2012) present policy implications within the European Union by focusing on Sweden, the UK, Germany, and Spain. In their survey, Sweden is viewed as a model country targeting “digital citizenship”. The UK represents the liberal kind of socio-economic model which gives priority to connectivity for citizens and e-business. Germany is a model which promotes programmes for greater inclusion especially for elderly, women and disabled people, while addressing issues such as competitiveness and employment. Spanish policy is focused more on the positive impacts of widespread Internet use, e-government, and security. Evidence indicates that Sweden is the champion of “e-inclusion”, followed by the UK, Germany and Spain. Jaeger (2012) investigates policy decisions in Denmark, a country well-known for its commitment to digital and social inclusion. The Danish government actively promotes the goal of e-government for both citizens and public authorities. The study makes clear that bridging the digital divide is a complex political problem which calls for action beyond the forces of the market. In Germany, Coneus & Schleife (2010) make a distinction between the first and second level of the digital divide: the former refers to individuals’ access to ICTs, while the latter is concerned with differences in users’ preferences. Their study indicates that the intensity of ICT usage and the digital content accessed is less attributable to socio-economic factors such as skills, income or motivation; it is more determined by users’ preferences. The subject of second level of the digital divide in connection with the duality “access/use” is also investigated by Hargittai (2001; 2004). The importance of broadband technology cannot be over-emphasized as this forms the basis of today’s network economy and society. However, it is true that broadband penetration has been, and still remains, uneven within many parts of the European Union. For example, while the nordic countries and the Netherlands have achieved very good results within a short period of time, in France, the United Kingdom, and some countries of the mediterrennean region broadband penetration has been relatively slow, as shown by Bouckaert, van Dijk & Verboven (2010). Therefore, a new form of digital capital is needed which will mainly be comprised of high-speed networks and digital skills. This is certainly a challenge given the rise of new technologies like Cloud Computing and the Internet of Things. Market-led diffusion of ICTs appears to be a favourable option in the United States and Canada according to Ηοward, Busch & Sheets (2010). In that study, current market-led policies as well as state intervention for narrowing the digital gap are examined but with unclear outcome regarding universal accessibility of ICTs. What emerges as a more concrete result is Canadian government’s pioneering work in public investment, especially for schools, libraries, and community centres. However, Canada’s digital policy has recently been re-directed primarily to issues of broadband penetration and market-friendly approaches, as Huang, Klein & Eveno demonstrate (2012). In the US, strategies aimed at greater digital literacy seem to play a lesser role in the fight against the digital divide according to Warf (2013) and Hudson (2012). Competition amongst ISP providers is considered by the US administration more important in shaping access patterns and interests of the American population. Overall, the US has persistently lagged behind the EU in the shaping of coherent strategies for e-inclusion. In China and India, two prominent members of the BRIC group with very high economic growth rates, state intervention has historically played a central role in telecommunications investment. Nevertheless, this has changed in recent years as the state authorities have renewed their policies concerning the involvement of private investors as shown by Gulati & Yates (2012). In the LDC region, ICTs are still a new source of development. Identifying and tackling digital inequalities is an on-going activity for many policy-makers contributing to the economic growth and social advancement of the LDCs according to Heeks (2010). In recent years, a new form of social divide has become apparent with digital inequalities present in both the US and Europe. Evidence shows that the recent EU policy for “e-inclusion” has gained wide acceptance amongst its member states and is now on the track to success. The Digital Agenda (2010-2020) contains some novel strategies to diffuse ICTs across all European regions. However, as the use of the Internet becomes increasingly global, developments in the field of ICTs give rise to new sources of inequality. Some authors, e.g. Mansell (2009; 2010),

10 | JSRP

Georgios C. Pentzaropoulos & Despoina Tsiougou

argue that it is the structural dynamics and power relations in a society that influence the terms by which people may be able to fully participate - or not - in their information societies. In addition, Warschauer (2004) highlights the need for an analytical framework focusing on social inclusion rather than on arbitrary divides. Other researchers, e.g. Compaine (2001), are confident that ICTs and applications will eventually reach even the poorest of the world’s users. Couldry (2003) emphasizes that the design, cost and application of ICTs and their services must always be tailored to specific needs and choices. Wilson (2004) demonstrates the difficulties with regard to the sources of exclusion for people living in areas with severe structural and institutional constraints. Also, research by Mansell (2001, 2002) and Avgerou & Madon (2005) examine the validity of the assumptions commonly made about the uses of ICTs in developing countries. In a different spirit, Oxley et al. (2008) argue that one of the most important problems with the notion of a global knowledge economy and society appears to be the lack of an appropriate theory. Quantitative aspects of the knowledge economy and society are discussed in Leydesdorff (2006). Finally, in a new OECD study (2013) the authors examine the requirements for global participation in the digital economy. Concluding Remarks The forces driving the global knowledge economies and societies are complex and their impact can only be examined in the long term. In many parts of the developed world as in Europe and the OECD area, there are signs of ubiquitous transformation from an information society to a true knowledge economy and society. One can see people and enterprises moving beyond a rather passive access to information to its exploitation using creative patterns. This development is largely due to the combined forces of computer and information technology and advanced telecommunications. ICTs underpin almost every human activity in the developed world, so they need to be considered in much the same way as, e.g. energy or education. That, in turn, calls for more constructive policies for citizens and enterprises. The picture as regards ICTs is quite different in the developing world where knowledge diffusion and acquisition are problems awaiting solution. In many low-income economies the likelihood of exclusion from the benefits of ICTs is evident. However, access to ICTs continues to grow in many of the LDCs. This can partially be explained by the remarkable rise of the mobile sector: this sector emerges as the the most dynamic one within ICT technologies offering the best opportunities for employment and wealth creation. Mobile technology coupled with appropriate telematic services appears to be the best solution for creating micro-enterprises. Crossing the digital divide is a hard task even for countries with the best of plans. The narrowing of this divide, primarily, requires the measurement of its magnitude and the evaluation of its content. However, data collection and measurements are particularly difficult in many parts of the developing world due to the lack of reliable data and statistics. In our opinion, empirical research is just as important as theory, especially in the case of low-income economies (LDCs). For instance, the success of the well-known “village phone project” illustrates that such initiatives are necessary. The people of the developing world need practical assistance today; they cannot afford to wait for the emergence of a theory of knowledge society. Perhaps, the most promising plan of our times is Europe’s policy towards a Green Knowledge Society (2009). This plan is essentially a new vision for Europe in which citizens, organizations and enterprises are empowered through new technologies in an inclusive, innovative, secure and sustainable knowledge society. Acknowledgements This work has been partially financed by grant “elke/70/11698”, awarded by the Research Committee of the University of Athens, Greece. Thanks are also due to the JSRP reviewers for their constructive comments.

E-Inclusion Policies for Contemporary Knowledge Economies and Societies

11 | JSRP

References 1.

Bambrough, R. (2011). The Philosophy of Aristotle. Signet Classics: New York.

2.

Argyris, C. (1996). Actionable knowledge: design causality in the service of consequential theory. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 32(4), pp. 390-406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886396324004

3.

Avgerou, C. & Madon, S. (2005). Information society and the digital divide problem in developing countries. In J. Berleur & C. Avgerou (Eds.), Perspectives and policies on ICT in society (pp. 205-218). New York: Springer.

4.

Bouckaert, J., van Dijk, T., & Verboven, F. (2010). Access regulation, competition and broadband penetration: An international study. Telecommunications Policy, 34(11), pp. 661-671. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2010.09.001

5.

Compaine, B.M. (Ed.) (2001). Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth? MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.

6.

Coneus, K., & Schleife, K. (2010). Online but Still Divided – Inequality in Private Internet Use in Germany. ZEW Discussion Paper, No. 10-042.

7.

Couldry, N. (2003). Digital Divide or Discursive Design? On the Emerging Ethics of Information Space. Ethics and Information Technology, 5(2), pp. 89-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024916618904

8.

Crawford, S.P. (2011). Internet Access and the New Divide, New York Times, December 3, 2011.

9.

Encyclopaedia Britannica (online). Information Technology, Definition. Retrieved October 14, 2014 from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/130675/computer-science

10. European Commission (2010a). Europe 2020: Commission proposes new economic strategy in Europe (IP/10/225). EC: Brussels. 11. European Commission (2010b). Digital Agenda: Commission outlines action plan to boost Europe's prosperity and well-being (IP/10/581). EC: Brussels. 12. European Commission (2014). Measuring Digital Skills across the EU: EU-Wide Indicators of Digital Competence. DG Connect, EC: Brussels. 13. Ferrari, A. (2013). DIGCOMP: A Framework for Developing and Understanding Digital Competence in Europe. JRC Scientific and Policy Reports. 14. Government Offices of Sweden (2009). A Green Knowledge Society: An ICT Policy Agenda to 2015 for Europe’s Future Knowledge Society. EC: Brussels. 15. Greenfield, S. (2008). ID - The Quest for Identity in the 21st Century. Proceedings of the Thomas More Institute, London. 16. Gulati, G.J., & Yates, D.J. (2012). Different Paths to Universal Access: The Impact of Policy and Regulation on Broadband Diffusion in the Developed and Developing Worlds. Telecommunications Policy, 36(9), pp. 749-761. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2012.06.013

12 | JSRP

Georgios C. Pentzaropoulos & Despoina Tsiougou

17. Hargittai, E. (2001). Second-Level Digital Divide: Mapping Differences in People's Online Skills. Cornell University Library. Retrieved October 14, 2014 from http://arxiv.org/pdf/cs/0109068.pdf 18. Hargittai, E. (2004). Internet Access and Use in Context. New Media and Society, 6(1), pp. 137–143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444804042310 19. Heeks, R. (2010). Do Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) Contribute to Development? Journal of International Development, 22(5), pp. 625-640. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jid.1716 20. Howard, P.N., Busch, L., & Sheets, P. (2010). Comparing digital divides: Internet access and social inequality in Canada and the United States, Canadian Journal of Communication, 35(1), pp. 109-128. 21. Huang, P., Klein, J-L., & Eveno, E. (2012). ICT Policy Development: the Case of Canada. International Conference on ICT Innovation and Information Management (ICIIM 2012), 36, pp. 231-235. 22. Hudson, H. (2012). Canadian and US Broadband Policies: A comparative Analysis. In: A. Clement, M. Gurstein, G. Longford, M. Moll, & L.R. Shade (Eds.) Connecting Canadians: Investigations in Community Informatics (pp. 90-102). Athabasca University Press, Canada. 23. International Telecommunications Union (ITU) (2012). Measuring the Information Society. ITU Publications: Geneva. 24. Jaeger, B. (2012, 5-8 September). New Frontiers in the Digital Divide: Revisiting Policies for Digital Inclusion. Paper presented at the EGPA Annual Conference, Bergen, Norway. 25. Klempner, G. (2001). Truth and Subjective Knowledge. E-book, Retrieved October 14, 2014 from http://weblog.sophist.co.uk/glasshouse/documents/shap.html 26. Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modelled, Measured, Simulated. Universal Publishers: Boca Raton (FL). 27. Mansell, R. (2009). Introduction to Volume 2: Information Societies: Knowledge, Economics and Organization. In: R. Mansell (Ed.) The Information Society. Critical Concepts in Sociology (pp. 1-24). Routledge: London. 28. Mansell, R. (2010). The life and times of the Information Society. Prometheus: Critical Studies in Innovation, 28(2), pp. 165-186. 29. Mansell, R. (2013). Introduction: Imagining the Internet: Open, Closed or in Between? In: F. Perini, B. Girard (Eds.) Enabling Openness: The Future of the Information Society in Latin America and the Caribbean (pp. 9-20), IDRC, Canada. 30. Mansell, R. (2001). Digital Opportunities and the Missing Link for Developing Countries. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 17(2), pp. 282-295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/17.2.282 31. Mansell, R. (2002). From Digital Divides to Digital Entitlements in Knowledge Societies. Current Sociology, 50(3), pp. 407-426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011392102050003007

E-Inclusion Policies for Contemporary Knowledge Economies and Societies

13 | JSRP

32. Mesa del Olmo, A., & Monje, M.P.M. (2012). E-Strategies to Break the Digital Divide in Various European Countries: A Comparative Perspective. In: Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on eGovernment (pp. 431-437), Institute of Public Governance and Management: Barcelona, Spain. 33. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2010). Information Technology Outlook: Summary in English. OECD Publications: Paris. 34. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2012). Internet Economy Outlook: Summary in English. OECD: Paris. 35. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2013). Ensuring the Global Participation in the Internet Economy for Development; OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 227, OECD Publications: Paris. 36. Oxley, L., Walker, P., Thorns, D., & Wang, H. (2008). Knowledge Economy and Society: The Latest Example of “Measurement Without Theory?” Journal of Philosophical Economics, II(1), pp. 20-54. 37. Pentzaropoulos, G.C. (2012). From data and information to actionable knowledge. Philosophy for Business, 75, Part III. 38. Pentzaropoulos, G.C. (2014). Conceptual framework for modelling knowledge acquisition across Internet servers. Advanced Modelling and Optimization, 16 (1), pp. 199-210. 39. Pritchard, D. (2008). What is this Thing Called Knowledge? Routledge: Abingdon (UK). 40. Richtel, M. (2012). Wasting Time Is New Divide In Digital Era, New York Times, May 29, 2012. 41. United Nations (UN) (2010). Information Economy Report. ICTs, Enterprises and Poverty Alleviation. UN: New York and Geneva. 42. Yunus, M. (1994). Grameen Bank, as I See it. Grameen Bank Publications. 43. Yunus, M. (2003). Banker to the Poor: Micro-Lending and the Battle Against World Poverty. Public Affairs: New York, NY. 44. Vicente, M.R., & Lopez, A.J. (2011). Assessing the Regional Digital Divide across the European Union-27. Telecommunications Policy, 35(3), pp. 220-237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2010.12.013 45. Warf, B. (2013). Contemporary Digital Divides in the United States. Tijdschrift voor Economischeen Sociale Geografie, 104(1), pp. 1-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9663.2012.00720.x 46. Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA. 47. Wilson, E.J. (2004). The Information Revolution and Developing Countries, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.