Joni 1

Joni, Albertus
Dr. Grant Silva
PHIL 6710 101 – Political Philosophy
12/11/2018

The Problem of Digital Divide and Inequality in Big Data Analysis

Albertus Joni

1. Introduction

The rapid development of information and communication technology (ICT) and the explosion of
digital data has been claimed by their proponents as two essential factors that enable the
researchers to render into data many elements of our lives, to create a corelations among massive
variables, and to finally create the predictive analysis of future occurences. This process, which
we call “big data analysis,” offers us the data-driven models that might inform decisions and
policies in broad aspects: economy, politics, healthcare, education, cultures, etc. Big data from
traffic and navigation apps, for example, might show us how to manage better the time-delay
among the traffic lights in urban area (Silva et al. 2015). Health-insurance companies, as another
example, use the digital health-monitoring apps and activity trackers to provide the policyholders
the early-intervention and risk-prevention (Keller 2018, 6).

However, behind all the benefits of big data analysis, there lies a problem of inequality that is
rooted in the digital divide. The lack of access to the ICT and the gap of skill-sets to utilize the
ICT impact heavily the data-productions among the non-white bodies. The problem of digital
divide creates a social class that Douglas Massey calls “the out-group members;” a class that is
equally called by Mark Prensky as “the digital immigrants.”

This paper will discuss digital divide problems in realtion with the big data analysis using Douglas
Massey and Plato's political analysis. I argue that (1) the gap in data-productions caused by the
digital divide between white and non-white bodies mimics the Massey’s mechanism of social
exclusion. (2) The process of recognizing and ignoring the biased-data seems to affirm the
Massey’s analysis on opportunity hoarding and exploitation. Finally, I will (3) explore the issue
of reciprocity and responsibility …

2. Digital Divide and Big Data: Terminology

Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines 'digital divide' as the economic, educational, and social
inequalities between those who have computers and online access and those who do not. This
simple definition is based on the disproportion of ownership of the tool (computer) and the access
to ICT. Eric Roberts of Stanford University defines 'digital divide' in the context of the United
States in more detail: “(It) is a gap between the underprivileged members of society, especially the
poor, rural, elderly, and handicapped population, who do not have access to computers or the
internet; and the wealthy, middle-class, young Americans living in urban and suburban areas who
have access (Roberts 2018).
 Joni 2

However, this digital divide definition does not mean that our society is only divided between the
‘haves and the have-nots.’ The digital divide can also be expanded in ICT quality gaps, as lower-
performance computers, lower quality or high-quality connections (i.e., dial-up versus boradband
connection), difficulties in obtaining technical assistance, and lower access to subscription-based
contents. In a broader sense, the digital divide can also be defined as the skill-sets gap to utilize
the information and the speed to posses and adapt to the new hardware and software (Ragnedda
2017, 18-19). The digital divide, therefore, is more a social problem than merely a technical one.

A report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology defined big data as consisting
of “extensive datasets – primarily in the characteristics of volume, velocity, and/or variability –
that require a scalable architecture for efficient storage, manipulation, and analysis” (NSIT 2015,
4). Similarly, TechAmerica Foundation defines big data as “a term that describes large volumes of
high velocity, complex and variable data that require advanced techniques and technologies to
enable capture, storage, distribution, management, and analysis of information (TechAmerica
Foundation 2012). Gandomi and Haider (2014) point that the Big Data aims to predictive analytics,
through reviewing digital text, audio, video, and social media data that are produced in the internet
or networks.

3. The Mimicry to the Offline Social Stratification

The massive, quantitative and predictive characters in big data analysis make it a useful instrument
to see the present trend and how to act accordingly. The quality and effectiveness of public services
depends on the result of this analysis (Azzone 2018, 116). Since the process of big data analysis
ultimately depends on the data-production, the digital divide – in terms of inequal access to the
ICT – will determine the quantity of the data-production. Normore and Lahera mentioned six
dividing factors in the problem of the digital divide: socio-economic status, educational level,
gender, age, geography, and race/ethnicity (Normore & Lahera 2018, 25-28). Eric Roberts (2018)
uses a simpler model with three main factors gaps in the digital divide: education, income, and
race. In this paper, I choose to use Ragnedda’s (2017, 19) more straightforward thesis showing
that the digital divide problem comes as the consequence of the economic and social disparities.
In the next section, the sociological data will picture the gap of access to ICT in corelation with
the two main factors: (1) the racial and ethnic backgrounds and (2) the income-gap.

3.1. Racial disparity in the access to the ICT

One early study on the digital divide in 1995 showed that the poorest households had the lowest
telephone, computer, and modem penetration. It then further subdivided the poor by where they
lived: rural, city centers, and urban as well as racial and ethnic groups, age and education
(Compaine 2001, 3). The 1995 survey result (Compaine 2001, 13) shows that the rural Blacks have
the lowest computer rates (6.4%), followed by central-city Blacks (10.4%), central-city Hispanics
(10.5%) and urban Blacks (11.8%). In 2016 – twenty-one years later – the Pew Research Center’s
survey shows that Blacks (60%) and Hispanics (66%) remain less likely than whites (83%) to own
a traditional computer or have high-speed internet at home.
 Joni 3

From the year of 2013 – 2015, fixed broadband access in American declining households in the
median of 3% with the most dramatic decline among the Blacks in the number of 8% (Rainie,
2017). This case might corelate with the case of ‘homework gaps’ where the teens have problems
to finish their homeworks due to the lack access of technologies at home. This ‘homework gaps’
is more common among black teens: “One-quarter of black teens say they are at least sometimes
unable to complete their homework due to a lack of digital access, including 13% who say this
happens to them often. Just 4% of white teens and 6% of Hispanic teens say this often happens to
them” (Anderson & Perrin 2018).

The researches show that the digital divide is not a color-blind problem. If the access to the ICT
are lower in the non-white bodies, we can fairly assume that there will also be lower quantity that
represent their existence and interest in the data-production quantity. In the big data analysis, this
gap would mean that the policy-making processes that heavily account on the quantity of the data-
production will not equally embody the non-white existence.

3.2. Economic gaps: the have and the have-nots

There is an irony between the growth in consumer technology industry and the low percentage of
access to ICT among the pepole with low income. The Monitor Market 2018 reviews that the retail
revenues in the US consumer technology industry are expected to hit a record-breaking USD 351
billion in 2018, exhibiting growth of 3.9% in 2017 (Atradius 2018, 13). Yet in the same year, it is
estimated that 10% of all Americans do not have access to high-speed Internet; an equivalent of
almost 34 million people (Kang 2017). The Pew Research Center’s report “Digital Differences”
shows us that only 62% of households who make less than $30,000 a year use the Internet, while
90% of those making between $50,000 and $75,000 had access (Zickhur & Smith 2012). Lower-
income Americans continue to lag behind in technology adoption.

In the broader global economic narrative, the development of ICT is claimed to have helped
improving the quality of life of many people in at least three ways: encouraging the advancement
of modern industrialization, increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of production and
improving the economic level of society (Karatsu 1988, 177-180). The gross domestic product of
Asia Pacific, for example, surpasses North America and Europe with almost tripling in the third
quarter of 2018 compared to the previous two decades (International Monetary Fund, 2018).

Using the Karllson and Liljevern’s (2017) research model, we can see a correlation between
increasing GDP among countries in high-income groups with significant support for growth in
ICT capital services. This correlation is in line with data from the United Nations Economic and
Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) which noted that over 52.3 percent of
globally fixed broadband subscribers in 2016 come from the Asia Pacific region, a dramatic
increase from 2005 when the region constituted only 38.1 percent (UNESCAP 2016, 8). Although
there is a strong correlation between the development and adaptation of ICT and increasing GDP
in developed countries, ironically the digital divide problem is also increasingly apparent.
UNESCAP noted that “less than 2 percent of the population adopted for fixed broadband is as
many as 20 countries in Asia and the Pacific, widening the digital divide between high-income
and low-income countries and alarming speed” (UNESCAP 2016, 9)
 Joni 4

These national and international economic datasets affirm that the problem of the digital divide -
which leads to the disparity in data-production in big data analysis - mimic the social inequality
in the real life. Compaine once writes that “before there was ‘the digital divide’ there were the
‘information haves and the have-nots'“(Compaine 2001, 3).

4. Massey’s Mechanism of Inequality in the Era of “Too Much Tech”

Despite the increasing numbers of ownership of ICT tools as the 2106 data shows above, we still
see the same pattern of inequalities. We have also assumed that the inequality of access to ICT that
mimics the real social inequalities would result in the gaps of data-production; the input data in
big data analysis. The way big data works and interprets these inequal inputs has its inherent
problem too. Williams et. al. (2018) detailed how computerized decisions can lead to racial and
ethnic biases in the absence of social category data and, moreover, in some contexts, may even
sustain biases that arise by random chance.

I argue that big data’s inherent problem lies in the process of recognizing the data-production from
'the haves' while at the same time ignoring 'the have-nots.' This mechanism will only reinforce the
inequal social stratification as Massey oversee in his term “opportunity hoarding”. I also suspect
that (2) in the cases where the access to ICT is relatively equal, the low skill-set among the non-
white bodies becomes the threshold of potential exploitation.

4.1. The process of recognizing and ignoring: opportunity hoarding

In my opinion, the data presented on the point 3.1. and 3.2. support Douglas Massey's hypothesis
on how the mechanism of categorical inequality works. Massey suggests that there are two basic
mechanisms that contribute to the problem of inequality: “the allocation of people to social
categories”; and “the institutionalization of practices that allocate resources unequally across these
categories” (Massey 2008, 5-6). As the digital divide in Big Data analysis mimics the social
categories of people (mainly based on the race and income), it also creates the categories of data-
inputs and heavily rely upon the data production-quantity from the majority of the ICT users, which
are the white-bodies.

Big data in turns might create a predictive analysis that fails to benefit the non-white bodies due
to the low accessibility of ICT among them. The process of recognizing data from ‘the haves’ and
ignoring data from the ‘have-nots’ can also be equated with Massey's concept of ‘opportunity
hoarding.’ Opportunity hoarding occurs when one social group restricts access to the data, has the
ability and chance for bigger numbers of data production – which represents participation in
policy-making at the next level – either through “outright denial or by exercising monopoly control
that requires the ‘out-group members’ to pay rent in return for access” (Massey 2012, 6). Cathy
O’Neil, a data scientist, tells us how the big data analysis based on the inequal input might reinforce
this opportunity hoarding: “if a poor student cannot get a loan because a lending model deems him
too risky (by virtue of his zip code), he is then cut off from the kind of education that could pull
him out of poverty, and a vicious spiral ensues” (O’Neil 2018).
 Joni 5

The predictive data that takes the white-bodies’ side will ironically appear as bias-free calculation
due to the computational and mechanical processes. Many computer programs that process data,
including so-called “artificial intelligence” and “machine learning” algorithms, learn from
patterns. They might be programmed to categorize, score, or make decisions about different people
or groups (Williams et al. 2018, 83). Yet, at the end of this highly-potential biased analysis, the
result will generally be considered as something “impartial” or “neutral.” We can compare this
“bias-free computation” with Massey’s cognitive mechanism that creates framing and boundaries
at a pre-conscious level. Both the subjects and the objects of this opportunity hoarding will not be
aware of this process. Massey writes:

“…a person may quite sincerely believe in equal opportunity and racial justice and yet
harbor unconscious anti-black sentiments and associations that were created through some
process of conditioning (such as the repeated visual pairing of violent crime scenes with
black perpetrators on television), even though this prejudice may be inconsistent with the
person’s explicit beliefs” (Massey 2008, 10).

While Massey’s analysis in intended to describe how the subconscious dispositions of human
being contribute to the stereotyping others, I find that his thought is also applicable in our effort to
question the neutrality of big data.

4.2. Potential exploitation in the scenario of equal access

Massey always couples his idea of opportunity hoarding with the word “exploitation” in order to
explain not only how wealth is extracted from nonwhite bodies but also how it is kept out of their
hands (Silva 2018, 21). According to Massey, exploitation occurs when people in one social group
expose resources produced by members of another social group and prevent them from realizing
the full value of their efforts in producing it. I see the potential exploitation of the non-white bodies
and the low-income class in the era of “too much tech.”

A 2015 OECD report that compared students' digital skills across the globe claimed a fine line
between technology being helpful and harmful; that “even with equal access, not all students have
the knowledge and skills to be able to benefit from the resources of current gaps in reading, writing,
and mathematics skills are not narrowed, inequalities in digital skills will persist, even if all internet
services are available free of charge” (Sarkisyan 2018).

How could we see this mechanism for equal access to ICT? In this scenario of equal access to ICT,
the white bodies that represent the people of the better education system will have (1) faster
adaptibility to the new software and hardware, and (2) more intellectual capacity, knowledge and
chance to produce new ICT tools and inventions. Meanwhile, the non-white bodies will always be
vulnerable of being a passive-consumers of the techonology (Sarkisyan 2018). The non-white
bodies is in the vulnerable positition to be exploited as they lack of access, adaptibility and
knowledge. In this sense, we can understand how wealth is extracted from nonwhite bodies by
making them the consumers of the technological inventories and at the same time the knowledge
to produce and to ivent technology is kept out of their hands. More than just accessibility,
individuals need to know how to use information and communication tools once they exist within
 Joni 6

a community. Otherwise, they will never fully utilize the full meaning and value of ICT. Anny
Murphy Paul writes an interesting comparison below:

“One thousand: That’s approximately the number of instructional hours required of U.S.
middle school and high school students each year. Four thousand: That’s approximately
the number of hours of digital media content U.S. youths aged 8 to 18 absorb each year. (If
you doubt that’s possible, be sure you are considering the near-universal practice of “media
multitasking,” or consuming content on more than one platform at a time, as when a
teenager listens to a song on his MP3 player while scrolling through Facebook on his
smartphone while watching a video on his laptop)” (Paul 2014).

We, of course, can debate the validity of this numbers, but assumed that this numbers in correct
then we find the time spent for engagement with media-multitasking is four times bigger than the
time spent for formal studies. I am afraid that living in this ‘too much tech’ era would make us all
consuming technology more than creating and inventing a new one.

4. Bonum Commune and Egality: Negotiating the Artificial Border

The problem of digital divide in big data analysis can be considered as an artificial border among
the different classes in the offline social stratification. In other words, the issue of racial and
economic inequality seems to separate and categorize people in the ‘online’ sphere of life.
According to William Kennard, the ex-Chair of the FCC, as quoted by Roberts: “In a society where
it is increasingly we are defined by access to information, and what we can learn, if you don't have
access to technology, you are going to be left in the digital dark ages. That's what the digital divide
is all about” (Roberts 2018). The artificial border of digital divide and big data anlysis is marked
by the dynamic and fluid process. It is the result of the projections of power by political entities;
it emerges through socio-political border-making that takes place within society. In this sense, this
technological border is not something given naturally. Instead, it is a dynamic process of people
in the new-polis, the online polis as well as the old one, the offline polis.

In the context of ancient Greece, the polis was a political space consisting of a small city with the
adjacent territories. In this relatively limited population and small area, Aristotelian sense of
borders seem to function as a protection of one polis from the ‘different’ others. The world seen
in this way is compartmentalized into several polis-shapes and territories which are fixed, lacking
internal fluidity. However, in the context of digital globalization, borders are not only defined by
the territory or common language but also by the so many racial, economical and political
discourses among the haves and the have-nots as we have described.

That is the reason in the last section of this paper, I would like to develop the idea of reciprocity
and responsibility as found in Aristotelian friendship of virtue and to project this idea in the
conversation between the haves and the have-nots. I find this Aristotelian concept of bonum
commune as the main frame of our effort in negotiating the artificial border of ICT and big data
analysis. For Aristotle, friendship of virtue is undoubtedly superior to any desires; for desire relates
to something that “I” want. But in the love of friendship, it is more a matter of the good that I
 Joni 7

desire for another. I argue that this concept will be helpful for negotiating the artifical border of
digital divide and inequalities of big data analysis.

There two important insights from the friendship of virtue. Firstly, the Aristotelian friendship of
virtue is based on the goal of a civic society which creates a broader framework regarding bonum
commune as the end purpose. Secondly, the nature of reciprocity in friendship helps each person
to develop a certain level of personal maturity, independence, and autonomy to build an egalitarian
relationship.

Aristotle’s friendship of virtue is the highest form of friendship where the bond is founded on two
friends embrace together to the standard of virtue and giving a witness of virtue to each other.
These people involved in the bond of virtue are not chasing bodily pleasure, but the happiness of
their souls. This form of happiness - for Aristotle - is related firstly to the goal of creating a civic
society. Leontsini argues that “(f)or Aristotle, the role of friendship in the city is to generate
homonoia, i.e., concord (unanimity; agreement; consensus), and to safeguard justice” (Leontsini
2013, 31). Aristotle suggests that there is a clear political dimension to friendship since it is both
what holds the city together and the main reason for its existence. The city is formed for the good
life which requires relations with one's fellows; it also involves parents, children, wives, and in
general one's friends and fellow-citizens. (Aristotle, NE 1155a 22-28).

Based on this theory, I suggest that (1) all classes in social-stratification – the haves and the have-
nots – need to set the goal of creating a civic society – a sense of consensus – on the effort to build
a inclusive digital welfare though the political instruments. If the initial focus ICT and big data
analysis was aimed at improving efficiency and productivity, in the longer term, “the use of digital
technologies will need to be considered in the broader context in which governments are
operating” (OECD Comparative Study 2016, 9). Instead of utilizing the big data analysis that
heavily depended upon the inequal data-production, the political system needs to focus on the
equal “digitization of education, healthcare, and social care and protection services, including
smarter use of well-proven assistive technologies” (OECD Comparative Study 2016, 9).

(2) While this form of friendship enables every individual to go beyond the scope of his/her
interests and considers the interests of others, the “in-group members” or “the haves” or the white-
bodies must learn how to build an egalitarian approach to the “out-group members” or the “have-
nots” or “the non-white-bodies.” They need to realize that every individual – regardless of their
race and income – must be given equal access to ICT and data-production in order to achieve the
better social and cultural capital as well as to achieve economic advantages.

By realizing this virtue of friendship, the haves will need to stop thinking that the poor does not
deserve the access to the ICT since they cannot afford it. Massey reminds us that human beings
have “a natural tendency to attribute behavioral outcomes to characteristics of the people involved
rather than the structure of the situation” (Massey 2008, 14). Thus, the poor are considered to be
deserved of being poor “because they are lazy, lack a work ethic, have no sense of responsibility,
are careless in their choices, or are just plain immoral, not because they lost their job or were born
into a social position that did not give them the resources they needed to develop” (Massey 2008,
14). Instead of judging the unfortunate condition of the non-white bodies, it is better to give them
a systematic way-out to exist and to be represented in the online world.
 Joni 8

(3) The focus on digitization of education, healthcare, and social care and protection services,
including smarter use of well-proven assistive technologies – must not exclude the poor and the
non-white bodies as they are also part of the polis. In the arena of the big data, the scientist must
realize that by removing sensitive categories (such as race, gender, income, etc.) in data-input, it
will not prevent algorithmic discrimination (Williams et al. 2018, 96). Instead by considering this
socially sensitive categories, the outcomes might improve and might show us the “true color” of
the data.

At last but not least, the recognition of the presence and power of the poor and non-white bodies
– both offline and online – is in line with the Aristotelian idea of bonum communae that recognizes
the good of the community as a real good, as an element in the total common good of the individual
- totum bonum communae (Cavalier 2002). This kind of quality among good friends makes them
as it were of the same mind wishing for and aiming in common at what is just and beneficial
(Leontsini 2013, 32).

---
I would like to thank Dr. Grant Silva for his insightful class and helpful comments that encouraged me to explore this
topic.

Bibliography:

Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by Terence Irwin. 2nd ed. Indianapolis/Cambridge:

Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1999.

Azzone, Giovanni. “Big Data and Public Policies” in Sangali, Laura (ed.). Statistics and
Probability Letter. Vol. 136 (2018): 116-120.

Compaine, Benjamin. The Digital Divide : Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth? Massachucests:
MIT Press, 2001.

Cukier, Kennet; Mayer-Schoenenberg, Viktor. “The Rise of Big Data: How It’s Changing the
Way We Thing about the World” in Foreign Affairs. Vol. 92. No. 3 (2013): 28-40.

Eubanks, Virginia. Automating Inequality: How High-tech Tools Profile, Police and Punish the
Poor. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2017.

Inamura, Kazutaka. Justice and Reciprocity in Aristotle's Political Philosophy. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Karatsu, Hajime. “Improving the Quality of Life with Technology” in National Research
Council. Globalization of Technology: International Perspectives. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press, 1988.

Karrlson, Emil; Liljevern, Jennie. “ICT Investment and Effect on Economic Growth: A
Comparative Study across Four Income Groups.” Sweden: Jönköping University
 Joni 9

Bachelor Thesis, 2017.

Leontsini, Eleni. “The Motive of Society: Aristotle on Civic Friendship, Justice, and Concord.”
Res Publica Vol. 19. no. 1 (2003): 21-35.

Market Monitor, “Focus on ICT Performance and Outlook” in Atradius. June 2018.

Massey, Douglas S. Categorically Unequal. New York: Russel Sage Foundation, 2008.

Massey, Douglas S. and Nancy A Denton. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of
the Underclass. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993.

O’Neil, Cathy. Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens
Democracy. New York: Broadway Books, 2017.

Ragnedda, Massimo. The Third Digital Divide. London & New York: Routledge, 2017.

Sarkar, Urmimala; Karter, Andrew J.; Liu, Jeniffer Y.; Adler Nancy E.; Nguyen, Robert; Lopez,
Andrea; Schilinger, Dean. “Social disparities in internet patient portal use in diabetes:
evidence that the digital divide extends beyond access.” Journal of the American Medical
Informatics Association 18 (2011): 318-321.

Silva, Grant. “Racism as Self-love.” Class handout, Marquette University. Milwaukee, WI. Fall
Semester, 2018

Silva, Janduí; França, Barbara; Lima, Leonardo, Souto, Victor; Ferraz, Felipe. “Towards Smart
Traffic Lights Using big data to Improve Urban Traffic.” The Fourth International
Conference on Smart Systems, Devices and Technologies. Brussel (2015): 31-33.

Warschauer, Mark. Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide.
Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2013.

William, Betsy Anne; Brooks, Catherine F.; Smarghad, Yotam. “How Algorithms Discriminate
Based on Data they Lack: Challenges, Solutions, and Policy Implications.” Journal of
Information Policy Vol 8 (2018): 78-115.

Electronic Resources:

Andreson, Monica; Perrin, Andrew. 2018. “Nearly one-in-five teens can’t always finish their
homework because of the digital divide.” Pew Research Center.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/26/nearly-one-in-five-teens-cant-always-
finish-their-homework-because-of-the-digital-divide/
Accessed December 12, 2018.
Cavalier, Ron. 2002. “Utilitarian Theories”, CMU Philosophy Department Web Page.
http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/80130/part2/sect9.html.
 Joni 10

Accessed November 14, 2018.

International Monetary Fund. 2018. “IMF Data Mapper 2018”

https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPD@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWO
RLD
Accessed November 29, 2018.

Kang, Cecilia. 2016. “The Challenges of Closing the Digital Divide.” The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/09/technology/the-challenges-of-closing-the-digital-
divide.html
Accessed December 11,2018.

Keller, Benno. 2018. “Big Data and Insurance: Implications for Innovation, Competition and
Privacy.” The Geneva Association.
https://www.genevaassociation.org/sites/default/files/research-topics-documenttype
/pdfpublic /bigdataandinsurance-implicationsforinnovationcompetitionandprivacy.pdf
Accessed December 11, 2018.

Kraut, Richard. 2017. “Aristotle's Ethics.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/aristotle-ethics/
Accessed November 18, 2018.

National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Big Data Interoperability Framework:
Volume 1, Definitions.
https://bigdatawg.nist.gov/_uploadfiles/NIST.SP.1500-1.pdf
Accessed Desember 11, 2018.

OECD Comparative Study, “Digital Government Strategies for Transforming Public Services in
the Welfare Areas.” Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
http://www.oecd.org/gov/digital-government/Digital-Government-Strategies-Welfare-
Service.pdf
Accessed December 13, 2018.

O’Neil, Cathy. “How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy.”
http://crownpublishing.com/archives/feature/big-data-increases-inequality-threatens-
democracy
Accessed December 12, 2018.

Paul, Anny Murphy. “Too Much Tech?” The Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/08/26/too-much-tech-an-
argument-for-keeping-schools-low-tech/
Accessed December 13, 2018.

Perrin, Andrew. 2018. “Smartphones help blacks, Hispanics bridge some – but not all – digital
gaps with whites”
 Joni 11

Fact-tank http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/31/smartphones-help-blacks-
hispanics-bridge-some-but-not-all-digital-gaps-with-whites/
Accessed December 8, 2018.

Rainie, Lee. 2017. “Digital Divide- Feeding America”

http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/02/09/digital-divides-feeding-america/
Accessed December 8, 2018.

Roberts, Eric. 2018. “Digital Divide”

https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/digital-divide/start.html.
Accessed Accessed December 8, 2018.

Sarkisyan, Adelina. 2018. “The Digital Divide is Evolving – Will we ever catch up?”
https://blog.learnosity.com/2018/03/06/the-digital-divide-evolving-will-ever-catch/
Accessed December 10, 2018.

UNESCAP. “State of ICT in Asia and the Pacific 2016”

https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/State%20of%20ICT%20in%20Asia%20and%
20the%20Pacific%202016_0.pdf.
Accessed December 6, 2018.

UNESCAP. “State of ICT in Asia and the Pacific 2016: Uncovering the Widening Broadband
Divide”
https://www.unescap.org/resources/state-ict-asia-and-pacific-2016-uncovering-widening-
broadband-divide. August 17, 2016.
Accessed December 6, 2018.

TechAmerica Foundation's Federal Big Data Commission. 2012. “Demystifying big data: A
practical guide to transforming the business of Government”
http://www.techamerica.org/Docs/fileManager.cfm?f=techamerica-bigdatareport-final.pdf.
Accessed December 8, 2018.

Zikhur, Kathryn; Smith, Aaron. 2012. “Digital Differences.” Pew Research Center.
http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/04/13/digital-differences/
Accessed December 12, 2018.