1) The digital divide is a gap many influential bodies are trying to close. How many so called solutions have actually worked and have successfully made permanent positive change in a region. Use supportive evidence in your argument

What is the digital divide?

For most people living in developed countries, technology is something we are all familiar with. It is fast, it is dynamic, and it changes rapidly. It is everywhere in our lives. Change is ongoing, it is constant. From the emergence of the first personal computers in the 1970s (Beekman and Beekman, 2012), to smart phones today that make earlier computers look like dinosaurs, technology has come a long way. It is so ingrained in our lives it is almost unimaginable to fathom living in a world without it. And yet, some still do. It also begs the question that if ever connectivity was lost would it cause the western world to devolve and become 2nd world countries, or even third world. This paper explores the Digital Divide as it is defined today, the areas which are most affected by this divide, and focuses on Africa, and solutions implemented to try to close the gap.

The term “Digital Divide” was coined some time in the 1990s, evolving from a number of definitions. One of its earlier definitions was by Woolinksy, defined as the lack of access to computers (Gunkel, 2003). It has since evolved to be known as the social concern that various groups in the world have a lack of access to Information and Communications Technology (ICT). However, it is not just limited to the lack of access. It is also about the socio-economic inequalities that exist within countries, ability, access, gender, ethnicity, culture, age, language, educational level, income and connectivity to the Internet (OECD, 2001 and Economist Intelligence Unit, 2012). Most importantly, it is the divide in the level of skill and proficiency in which one is able to benefit from the use of computers (Trucano, 2010).

Why is there a need to close the gap ?

The world we live in today is dubbed the “Information Age” (Beekman & Beekman, 2012), where knowledge is power. It is about information and the ability to access information, fast. It is because of this rapid and constant development that the need to close this proverbial gap is crucial. Not only because of the advancement in technology that leaves these countries and groups behind, but also because of the economic benefits to be had. According to the World Economic Forum (Bilbao-Osorio and Dutta et al., 2013), a country’s economy is affected by good broadband Internet access countrywide, resulting in an increase of 0.25% to 1.4% in economic growth. Because of the delays to implement country wide broadband ICT, South Africa’s growth was said to be delayed (WEF, 2013). Economic benefits aside, it is also about social inclusion and education, and bridging that gap between those with, and those without. According to ITU, in 2010, developed countries had 72% of the population that used the Internet, while only 21% of the population in developing countries did so. (See Appendix 1) This means that more than half the world is losing out and falling behind.

Where is the Digital Divide most apparent?

The digital divide exists everywhere (See Appendix 2). For five main countries in particular, also known as BRICS – Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa – this disparity is most prevalent. And it is also very significant because of the large populations that these countries have, which amount to approximately 3 billion people combined. These countries are classified as developing or newly industrialized countries, and the potential for economic growth with ICT infrastructures in place could be tremendous. One of the main issues with these countries is the sheer landmass, which makes implementing ICT infrastructures difficult. Another issue is the sheer number of people, and in turn lack of resources to provide these people infrastructures as well as education to effectively utilize ICT.

In China, because of its land mass and huge population, access to technology can be difficult. Despite the fact that China has built metropolitan cities like Beijing and Shanghai, many parts of China still do not have access to ICT. According to the World Internet Statistics, the percentage of Internet users went from 1.7% in 2000 to 31.6% in 2010 (See Appendix 3). The percentage has since increased to approximately 40%. It is so important for china to bridge this gap because of the huge percentage of the population that could be left out. 60% without access – That’s approximately 700 million people that are “left behind” so to speak.

Aside from these countries, places like rural Australia, Italy, Germany and even America are some of the developed countries that have pockets that experience this divide, for different reasons. This is attributed also to the lack of infrastructure in rural areas where it simply is not cost effective or profitable for ICT companies to build ICT infrastructure where conditions are harsh and maintenance is required. Other factors include income, age, religion and perhaps even choice.

What are the solutions to closing the gap?

There are many initiatives and plans to close the digital divide. ICT reports by the World Economic Forum (WEF), as well as the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) rank countries in accordance to access and availability of ICT infrastructure. Education is important, but without the access to these technologies, it would be rendered obsolete (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2012). Whilst not a direct solution, these rankings call attention to countries lacking in ICT, and could be effective. It is also a useful measure of progress, or lack thereof and identifies what a country is lacking in terms of ICT.

Some governments have stepped in to implement policies or strategies to bridge the gap. Countries such as Australia have implemented mandatory broadband network access countrywide as part of their strategy. In the case of South Africa, they have the broadband policy for SA, which was adopted in 2010 (Bilbao-Osorio and Dutta et al., 2013). However, some countries like Cuba and Nicaragua have not yet adopted any policies, and are ranked The importance of having countries Broadband ready is not just for bridging the digital divide, it is also due to the fact that there is a positive relation between broadband infrastructure and positive economic impact (Bilbao-Osorio and Dutta et al., 2013).

One of the most widely publicized and prominent efforts to close the digital gap is the non-profit One Laptop Per Child movement. This was pioneered by two Massachusetts Institute of Technology colleagues, Nicholas Negroponte and Seymour Papert. Negroponte first announced the OLPC initiative in 2005 to at the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting (50x15.org, 2005). The idea was to distribute these XO laptops, dubbed the “$100 dollar laptop”, to developing nations around the world. This transformative idea gained interest from many countries. From there, they moved to developing the XO laptop, which is dust proof, scratch resistant, water resistant, and could be charged using solar power.

Papert, the founder of the constructionist view of education, instilled this of education in the OLPC project. Their vision and five core principles are child ownership, low ages, saturation, connection, and free and open source technology.

Another organization is the 50x15 Foundation launched by AMD in 2004, which aims to achieve 50% access and ability to ICT in developing countries by 2015. They work in tandem with private and public organizations as well as local and global entities to construct facilities called “learning labs” to educate these communities, while considering sustainability and affordability with respect to the local environment (50x15.org, 2010). The initiative collaborates with various companies to provide equipment like the OLPC XO laptop, as well as other low cost PCs such as HCL and DTK, FIC's Mini PC, the Linutop diskless computer, all of which use AMD processors. To date, the 50x15 initiative has set up 30 learning labs in 12 countries since its inception.

The OLPC project faced initial setbacks. Their initial goal was to distribute 150 million XO laptops globally by 2007 (Shah, 2011). In reality, only a few hundred thousand laptops had been sold (see Appendix 4). “Buy one get one” marketing program failed to get the volume of orders they conceived they would have. Cost of material and delivery to these countries affected the price of the laptop as well. It was initially called the “$100 Laptop” because that was that goal – To have these laptops cheap enough for governments and organizations to purchase for children in developing nations. While the concept of the “$100 dollar laptop” was appealing to governments in third world countries, issues faced with manufacturers caused the price to increase, which made a few governments such as India back out of purchasing these laptops. Also, the OLPC gave governments and organizations a minimum of 1 million laptops per order, which was either deemed too risky or too expensive for the governments to purchase (Shah, 2011). Other criticisms included the fact that these children were living in countries that experienced extreme poverty, and technology was not a basic human need. One critic even likened Negroponte to Marie Antoinette with the phrase “Let them eat Laptops” (Winston, 2007).

It seems like however, the OLPC has inspired many other entities and governing bodies to create similar programs to bridge the digital divide with respect to education. In 2010, elite IIT public university based Indian engineers collaborated with the Indian government and Datawind to produce the $20 tablet pc, which was distributed to tertiary institutes when it was first launched (Agence France-Presse, 2012). It is called the Aakash tablet. While the first 100,000 tablets were sold to tertiary institutes as well as engineering colleges in India, the aim is to eventually distribute these tablets to schools nationwide. The government made full use of their low cost of labour and raw materials, as well as government subsidies and external aid in order to mass-produce and distribute these low cost tablets. What the Indian government did that the OLPC did not do upon its initial launch of the XO laptop was to ensure that teachers were trained to use the Aakash tablets for educational purposes. This seems to be a good first step towards the three principles in bridging the gap – Access, Ability and Empowerment. It has not yet been reported however, whether children in rural areas of India will receive such devices. And while the Aakash faced issues of poor battery life and not enough memory, the development to push out a better, faster model, the Aakash 2 was quick. Within the span of a year, the battery life was improved, the RAM was increased, and the OS was updated to Android 4.0.

According to the ICT Report from the WEF (2013), “Policymakers can harness these varying effects of digitization through three main measures that go beyond their current roles of setting policy and regulations. First, they should create digitization plans for targeted sectors in which they wish to maximize the impact of digitization. Second, they should encourage the development of the necessary capabilities and enablers to achieve these digitization plans. Finally, policymakers should work
in concert with industry, consumers, and government agencies to establish an inclusive ICT ecosystem that encourages greater uptake and usage of digital services”

-------------------------------------------------
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) policies seem to also be a popular way for companies to get involved, especially if they have a global presence. However this begs the question if they truly are helping for the sake of improvement, or if there are any vested interests (tax breaks). Is it then a question of ethics, morals, or simply “for the greater good”?

Africa: ICT infrastructure

Africa is the third largest continent in the world and home to 15% of the world’s population. However, in terms of Internet usage, it only makes up 7% of the world’s Internet users. (see appendix 5)
This is largely due to the lack of infrastructure within the sub continent. Many of the African Telecommunication companies do not have the funds to build these infrastructures largely due to the sheer size of the subcontinent. Civil unrest amongst different countries in Africa also disrupts the development of ICT infrastructure between different countries to make access to the Internet far more readily available. Also, because of the high crime rate in Africa and thus lack of security, technical support for faulty connections is limited to office hours, which means that if there are issues with the Internet at night, there would be no one available to fix it.

Much of investment infrastructure in Africa has gone to Mobile network infrastructure. Companies like Airtel Nigeria and Globacom have invested, or are making a bid to invest a significant amount in mobile networks in African countries like Nigeria. Similarly for Kenya, big players like Vodafone have bought a 40% stake in the country’s largest mobile network provider, Safaricom. The African governments are also pushing to invite investors in Africa, resulting in huge increase in investment in mobile technology and mobile Internet access.
Because of this increase in investment, Africa saw its mobile broadband penetration increase from 2% to 11% in a span of 3 years, from 2009 to 2012 (ITU, 2013). While the cost of mobile broadband in Africa is considerably more expensive compared to the rest of the world, (See appendix 6), it is still considerably cheaper than fixed Internet, hence its popularity.

An estimated 63% of Africans have mobile phone access (See Appendix 7), as compared to 15% that have access too the Internet. An interesting fact is that 70% of Internet access in all of Africa is via a mobile phone network and not fixed infrastructure. This in itself clearly defines the lack of infrastructure and its quality. However, smartphones make up slightly less the 20% of the handsets in Africa (Manson, 2013). An example as to where this is seen to becoming very successful, most of the large and mid sized banks in Africa have or are in the process of launching mobile applications to allow mobile banking. Also, a large number of gameplayers like Samsung, Huawei, Nokia, Microsoft and Google are looking for ways to upgrade the market from basic cell phones to smartphones (Manson, 2013).

It would seem more likely that the use of smartphones to be connected could possibly overtake the use of computers in Africa, what with the lack of infrastructure and cost of fixed internet networks.

Africa: Government Policies

Government policies also play a large part in the bid to close the gap. This is especially important because influence from the government and careful planning could help map out the way the country develops its ICT infrastructure, whether or not it heads towards mobile wireless networks, which has a higher penetration rate, or whether it focuses solely on fixed network infrastructure.

For example, National Broadband Policies (Bilbao-Osorio and Dutta et al., 2013) were implemented in Rwanda, Africa, in 2009. In 2012, Rwanda was said to be leading ICT development in Africa (Allafrica.com, 2012).

Africa: Company CSR

As mentioned before, company CSR policies could possibly aid resource strapped governments in Africa.

Take Huawei’s CSR policies for example – Bridging the digital divide in rural areas by giving pairing up with local governments and developing ICT structures in remote areas (Huawei.com, 2011). It is interesting to note however, that despite Huawei’s publicized international efforts, there is nothing on the company website regarding CSR within China itself, where the gap between the rich and poor, ergo, the technology have and have not’s is still big. It is also worth noting that Huawei has, in recent years, donated millions of dollars worth of network equipment and training facilities to African countries such as Ethiopia, Ghana, South Africa and Kenya (Huawei.com, 2011). It looks like Huawei is set to reap the benefits of newly trained, low cost African employees. The next China perhaps?

Mutual benefits aside, Huawei has worked closely with African governments and donated a fair amount of infrastructure within Africa, as well as set up educational facilities to train and educate Africans about IT and technology.

Africa: Educational measures?

OLPC’s co founder Negroponte conducted an experiment in Ethiopia. He had delivered boxes of tablets that were preloaded with educational apps and games, with no instructions to rural villages to illiterate children. The only thing that was taught were the adults who were instructed by Ethiopian technicians as to how to charge these solar powered tablets. What was discovered was that these illiterate children taught themselves how to draw, write, and sing simple songs. Negroponte said that the idea was to see whether illiterate children could teach themselves using this technology (Talbot, 2012). Ed McNierney, OLPC’s chief technology officer, said that this was different to the OLPC’s XO Laptops, both in terms of function and in terms of learning. This was centered around the millions of children who did not have access to schools or an education. Whilst this experiment was not a permanent solution, it could potentially prove groundbreaking in reaching the masses of untapped potential. Furthermore, education these Ethiopian children received is permanent, and cannot be taken away from them. Is that then deemed a success?

As mentioned before, the OLPC initiative’ original target was to distribute 150 million $100 dollar laptops by 2007. The actual target reached was in the hundred thousands. As such, critics deemed it a failure. What was worse was that the teachers who taught these students did not know how to use these laptops and so, did not use them for educational purposes. To date, approximately 2.4 million XO laptops have been distributed worldwide (laptop.org, 2013). Learning from its mistakes from its initial launch, OLPC has fixed the issues it had initially by training teachers to use the laptops in the classroom. In South Africa alone, approximately 1400 laptops have been distributed since 2008. The OLPC laptops were also distributed to Rwanda from 2009, and to date, approximately 110 000 laptops have been deployed (outpostmag.com, 2011). The difference between the two countries is that for Rwanda, the government strongly recognizes the importance of education and access, and the president of Rwanda pushed for and publicly supported the OLPC initiative.

As mentioned before, Huawei has donated equipment to and educated Africans in South Africa, Kenya and Ghana. Whilst the intent was to gain mutual benefits, education is something one can never take away, and being empowered with skills to better one’s self is priceless.

Conclusion:

While progress and growth in ICT in Africa has been slow over the past year (WEF, 2013), there has been improvement in terms of ICT infrastructure and connectivity over the years (See appendix 8), because of government policies, as well as external investors seeing Africa as a potential untapped market for ICT. Statistics show growth in mobile network penetration as well as broadband network penetration throughout the continent. Such measures are easily quantifiable through statistics and measurement indexes. But what about how success with educational initiatives measured?

If we look at OLPC and its original goal of 150 million laptops, it was a phenomenal failure. However the numbers were just a means to an end goal – education. Yes, the numbers who received the education are far less, but are they not better off knowledge wise with the laptops than without? Would that not be a measure of success in itself? One more child gaining an education is one more child having the ability to close the gap. Is that not a step in the right direction?

Initiatives that have seemed to work best are those whereby the African governments are seen to make money out of the venture. Lesser impact is made by the Not for profits because they do not reap financial rewards for the government, but rather, require financial assistance in order to provide for Africa. One could even go so far as to say that decision making is centered around the here and now, and not for the long term if there is no financial incentive.

Perhaps a way to look at it is that Africa is a continent where a multifaceted, collaborative approach is needed to chip away at the issues it faces, in order for the various nations to succeed, from government initiatives, to corporate initiatives, to education of the people, to not for profit assistance.

Appendix

Appendix 1

ITU (2013) internet users. [image online] Available at: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/material/graphs/2010/Internet_users_00-10.jpg [Accessed: 20 May 2013].

Appendix 2

Bilbao-Osorio, B. and Dutta, S., et al. (2013) The Global Information Technology Report 2013. [e-book] World Economic Forum and INSEAD. Available through: weforum.org http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GITR_Report_2013.pdf [Accessed: 15 May 2013].

Appendix 3

Internet Usage and Population Statistics for China:

YEAR | Users | Population | % Pen. | Usage Source | 2000 | 22,500,000 | 1,288,307,100 | 1.7 % | ITU | 2001 | 33,700,000 | 1,288,307,100 | 2.6 % | ITU | 2002 | 59,100,000 | 1,288,307,100 | 4.6 % | ITU | 2003 | 69,000,000 | 1,288,307,100 | 5.4 % | CNNIC | 2004 | 94,000,000 | 1,288,307,100 | 7.3 % | CNNIC | 2005 | 103,000,000 | 1,289,664,808 | 7.9 % | CNNIC | 2006 | 137,000,000 | 1,317,431,495 | 10.4 % | CNNIC | 2007 | 162,000,000 | 1,317,431,495 | 12.3 % | CNNIC | 2008 | 253,000,000 | 1,330,044,605 | 19.0 % | CNNIC | 2009 | 384,000,000 | 1,338,612,968 | 28.7 % | CNNIC | 2010 | 420,000,000 | 1,330,141,295 | 31.6 % | CNNIC |

Internetworldstats.com (n.d.) China Internet, Telecommunications and MarketReport. [online] Available at: http://www.internetworldstats.com/asia/cn.htm [Accessed: 20 May 2013].

Appendix 4

Country | OLPC Web site | Actual Deployments | Date of Actual Deployment Information/Detail | Uruguay | 202,000 | 150,000 | November 2008 | Peru | 145, 000 | 40,000 | 100,000 in distribution | Mexico | 50,000 | 50,000 | Starting to be shipped | Haiti | 13,000 | Dozens | Pilot began in summer 2008 | Afghanistan | 11,000 | 450 | Expected to rise to 2010 | Mongolia | 10,100 | 3,000 | G1G1 laptops beneficiary | Rwanda | 16,000 | 10,000 | Arrived, not deployed; infrastructure issues | Nepal | 6,000 | 6,000 | Delivered April 2007 | Ethiopia | 5,000 | 5,000 | Three schools | Paraguay | 4,000 | 150 | 4,000 planned next quarter | Cambodia | 3,200 | 1,040 | January 29, 2009 | Guatemala | 3,000 | — | Planned before third quarter 2009 | Colombia | 2,600 | 1,580 | January 25, 2009; agreement to buy 65,000 XOs | Brazil | 2,600 | 630 | February 6, 2009 | India | 505 | 31 | January 20, 2009 |
Figure 1. Worldwide Distribution of XO Laptops5

Shah, N. (2011) A Blurry Vision: Reconsidering the Failure of the One Laptop Per Child Initiative » Writing Program » Boston University. [online] Available at: http://www.bu.edu/writingprogram/journal/past-issues/issue-3/shah/ [Accessed: 25 May 2013].

Appendix 5

Appendix 6

% of GNI Per Capita | Europe | Arab States | CIS | The Americas | Asia & the Pacific | Africa | Prepaid handset-based (500 MB) | 1.1 | 5.7 | 5.7 | 5.9 | 5.9 | 38.8 | Postpaid handset-based (500 MB) | 1.1 | 2.2 | 5.6 | 5.0 | 3.5 | 36.2 | Prepaid computer-based (1 GB) | 1.9 | 7.4 | 7.6 | 11.1 | 12.6 | 58.3 | Postpaid computer-based (1 GB) | 1.2 | 2.5 | 7.4 | 8.0 | 10.6 | 54.6 |

Jensen, M. (2003) ICT in Africa: A Status Report. [e-book] Available through: weforum.org http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Global_Competitiveness_Reports/Reports/GITR_2002_2003/ICT_Africa.pdf [Accessed: 15 May 2013].

Appendix 7
Mobile Cellular Penetration, 2013

Jensen, M. (2003) ICT in Africa: A Status Report. [e-book] Available through: weforum.org http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Global_Competitiveness_Reports/Reports/GITR_2002_2003/ICT_Africa.pdf [Accessed: 15 May 2013].

Appendix 8

INTERNET USERS, POPULATION AND FACEBOOK STATISTICS FOR AFRICA
2012 Q2 | AFRICA | Population
(2012 Est.) | Internet Users
Dec/2000 | Internet Users
30-June-2012 | Penetration
(% Population) | Internet
% Africa | Facebook
31-Dec-2012 | Algeria | 37,367,226 | 50,000 | 5,230,000 | 14.0 % | 3.1 % | 4,111,320 | Angola | 20,139,765 | 30,000 | 2,976,657 | 14.8 % | 1.8 % | 645,460 | Benin | 9,598,787 | 15,000 | 335,957 | 3.5 % | 0.2 % | 171,780 | Botswana | 2,098,018 | 15,000 | 268,620 | 12.8 % | 0.2 % | 294,000 | Burkina Faso | 17,275,115 | 10,000 | 518,253 | 3.0 % | 0.3 % | 141,740 | Burundi | 10,557,259 | 3,000 | 176,040 | 1.7 % | 0.1 % | 41,900 | Cameroon | 20,129,878 | 20,000 | 1,006,494 | 5.0 % | 0.6 % | 562,480 | Cape Verde | 523,568 | 8,000 | 167,542 | 32.0 % | 0.1 % | 107,340 | Central African Rep. | 5,057,208 | 1,500 | 150,920 | 3.0 % | 0.1 % | 163,780 | Chad | 10,975,648 | 1,000 | 208,537 | 1.9 % | 0.1 % | 43,120 | Comoros | 737,284 | 1,500 | 40,550 | 5.5 % | 0.0 % | 19,940 | Congo | 4,366,266 | 500 | 295,132 | 6.8 % | 0.2 % | 107,640 | Congo, Dem. Rep. | 73,599,190 | 500 | 915,400 | 1.2 % | 0.5 % | 903,020 | Cote d'Ivoire | 21,952,093 | 40,000 | 968,000 | 4.4 % | 0.6 % | n/a | Djibouti | 774,389 | 1,400 | 61,320 | 7.9 % | 0.0 % | 50,140 | Egypt | 83,688,164 | 450,000 | 29,809,724 | 35.6 % | 17.8 % | 12,173,540 | Equatorial Guinea | 685,991 | 500 | 42,024 | 6.1 % | 0.0 % | 32,980 | Eritrea | 6,086,495 | 5,000 | 377,363 | 6.2 % | 0.2 % | 20,940 | Ethiopia | 87,302,819 | 10,000 | 960,331 | 1.1 % | 0.6 % | 902,440 | Gabon | 1,608,321 | 15,000 | 128,665 | 8.0 % | 0.1 % | 132,000 | Gambia | 1,840,454 | 4,000 | 200,057 | 10.9 % | 0.1 % | 97,280 | Ghana | 25,292,392 | 30,000 | 3,568,757 | 14.1 % | 2.1 % | 1,630,420 | Guinea | 10,884,958 | 8,000 | 141,504 | 1.3 % | 0.1 % | 68,780 | Guinea-Bissau | 1,628,603 | 1,500 | 43,484 | 2.7 % | 0.0 % | n/a | Kenya | 43,013,341 | 200,000 | 12,043,735 | 28.0 % | 7.2 % | 2,045,900 | Lesotho | 1,930,493 | 4,000 | 83,813 | 4.3 % | 0.1 % | 51,440 | Liberia | 3,887,886 | 500 | 116,637 | 3.0 % | 0.1 % | n/a | Libya | 5,613,380 | 10,000 | 954,275 | 17.0 % | 0.6 % | 781,700 | Madagascar | 22,005,222 | 30,000 | 418,099 | 1.9 % | 0.2 % | 282,880 | Malawi | 16,323,044 | 15,000 | 716,400 | 4.4 % | 0.4 % | 203,840 | Mali | 15,494,466 | 18,800 | 414,985 | 2.7 % | 0.2 % | 212,020 | Mauritania | 3,359,185 | 5,000 | 151,163 | 4.5 % | 0.1 % | 106,200 | Mauritius | 1,313,095 | 87,000 | 458,927 | 35.0 % | 0.3 % | 367,900 | Mayotte (FR) | 223,426 | n/a | 18,640 | 8.3 % | 0.0 % | 19,500 | Morocco | 32,309,239 | 100,000 | 16,477,712 | 51.0 % | 9.8 % | 5,091,760 | Mozambique | 23,515,934 | 30,000 | 1,011,185 | 4.3 % | 0.6 % | 362,560 | Namibia | 2,165,828 | 30,000 | 259,899 | 12.0 % | 0.2 % | 231,340 | Niger | 16,344,687 | 5,000 | 212,480 | 1.3 % | 0.1 % | 63,500 | Nigeria | 170,123,740 | 200,000 | 48,366,179 | 28.4 % | 28.9 % | 6,630,200 | Reunion (FR) | 843,459 | 130,000 | 300,000 | 35.6 % | 0.2 % | 240,040 | Rwanda | 11,689,696 | 5,000 | 818,048 | 7.0 % | 0.5 % | 188,800 | Saint Helena (UK) | 3,687 | n/a | 1,217 | 33.0 % | 0.0 % | n/a | Sao Tome & Principe | 183,176 | 6,500 | 36,928 | 20.2 % | 0.0 % | 6,940 | Senegal | 12,969,606 | 40,000 | 2,269,681 | 17.5 % | 1.4 % | 675,820 | Seychelles | 90,024 | 6,000 | 38,854 | 43.2 % | 0.0 % | 27,600 | Sierra Leone | 5,485,998 | 5,000 | 69,240 | 1.3 % | 0.0 % | 76,880 | Somalia | 10,085,638 | 200 | 126,070 | 1.2 % | 0.1 % | 123,480 | South Africa | 48,810,427 | 2,400,000 | 8,500,000 | 17.4 % | 5.1 % | 6,269,600 | South Sudan | 10,625,176 | n/a | 100 | 0.0 % | 0.0 % | n/a | Sudan | 34,206,710 | 30,000 | 6,499,275 | 19.0 % | 3.9 % | n/a | Swaziland | 1,386,914 | 10,000 | 251,448 | 18.1 % | 0.2 % | 89,500 | Tanzania | 46,912,768 | 115,000 | 5,629,532 | 12.0 % | 3.4 % | 705,460 | Togo | 6,961,049 | 100,000 | 356,300 | 5.1 % | 0.2 % | 117,420 | Tunisia | 10,732,900 | 100,000 | 4,196,564 | 39.1 % | 2.5 % | 3,328,300 | Uganda | 33,640,833 | 40,000 | 4,376,672 | 13.0 % | 2.6 % | 562,240 | Western Sahara | 522,928 | n/a | n/a | n/a | 0.0 % | n/a | Zambia | 13,817,479 | 20,000 | 1,589,010 | 11.5 % | 0.9 % | 327,600 | Zimbabwe | 12,619,600 | 50,000 | 1,981,277 | 15.7 % | 1.2 % | n/a | TOTAL AFRICA | 1,073,380,925 | 4,514,400 | 167,335,676 | 15.6 % | 100.0 % | 51,612,460 | | | | | | | |

Internetworldstats.com (2012) Africa Internet Usage, Facebook and Population Statistics. [online] Available at: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats1.htm [Accessed: 25 May 2013].

References
50x15.org (2005) Nicholas Negroponte | 50x15.org. [online] Available at: http://50x15.org/resource-center/interviews/nicholas-negroponte [Accessed: 23 May 2013].
Acilar, A. and Markin, M., et al. (2011) Exploring the Digital Divide: A Case of Russia and Turkey. [e-book] SSRN. Available through: SSRN http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1883104 [Accessed: 20 May 2013].
Agence France-Presse (2012) India unveils new version of ‘world’s cheapest tablet’. [online] Available at: http://technology.inquirer.net/20252/india-unveils-new-version-of-worlds-cheapest-tablet [Accessed: 26 May 2013].
Allafrica.com (2012) allAfrica.com: Africa: Digital Divide Closing, But Still Significant, Says United Nations Telecoms Agency. [online] Available at: http://allafrica.com/stories/201210121421.html [Accessed: 15 May 2013].
Allafrica.com (2012) allAfrica.com: Rwanda Tops Africa in Broadband Speed. [online] Available at: http://allafrica.com/stories/201211200075.html [Accessed: 15 May 2013].
Beekman, G. and Beekman, B. (2012) Digital planet. Boston: Prentice Hall, p.2-35.
Bilbao-Osorio, B. and Dutta, S., et al. (2013) The Global Information Technology Report 2013. [e-book] World Economic Forum and INSEAD. Available through: weforum.org http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GITR_Report_2013.pdf [Accessed: 15 May 2013].
Chinn, M. and Fairlie, R. (2004) ECONOMIC GROWTH CENTER YALE UNIVERSITY P.O. Box 208269 New Haven, CT 06520-8269 http://www.econ.yale.edu/~egcenter/ CENTER DISCUSSION PAPER NO. 881 THE DETERMINANTS OF THE GLOBAL DIGITAL DIVIDE: A CROSS-COUNTRY ANALYSIS OF COMPUTER AND INTERNET PENETRATION. [e-book] Available through: Social Science Research Network http://ssrn.com/abstract=519082 [Accessed: 15 May 2013].
Databank.worldbank.org (2012) Internet Users Per 100 . [online] Available at: http://databank.worldbank.org/data/views/reports/tableview.aspx [Accessed: 26 May 2013].
Economist Intelligence Unit (2012) Smart policies to close the digital divide: Best practices from around the world. [e-book] The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2012. Available through: unpan1.un.org http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un-dpadm/unpan049753.pdf [Accessed: 15 May 2013].
Enigda, T. (2012) ICT-enhanced teacher standards for Africa (ICTeTSA). [e-book] Ethiopia: UNESCO-IICBA. Available through: UNESCO http://doc.iiep.unesco.org/cgi-bin/wwwi32.exe/%5Bin=epidoc1.in%5D/?t2000=031299/%28100%29 [Accessed: 15 May 2013].
Fong, M. (2009) Digital divide between urban and rural areas of China. [e-book] Victoria University. Available through: ejisdc.org http://www.ejisdc.org/ojs2/index.php/ejisdc/article/viewFile/532/268 [Accessed: 15 May 2013].
Global Digital Divide Task Force (2002) annual report of the global digital divide initiative. [e-book] World Economic Forum. Available through: weforum.org http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Initiatives/Digital_Divide_Report_2001_2002.pdf [Accessed: 15 May 2013].
Global Information Technology Report Highlights Emergence of a New Digital Divide | World Economic Forum (2012) Global Information Technology Report Highlights Emergence of a New Digital Divide. [online] Available at: http://www.weforum.org/news/global-information-technology-report-highlights-emergence-new-digital-divide [Accessed: 15 May 2013].
Global Information Technology Report highlights lack of progress in bridging the new digital divide | World Economic Forum (2013) Global Information Technology Report highlights lack of progress in bridging the new digital divide. [online] Available at: http://www.weforum.org/news/global-information-technology-report-highlights-lack-progress-bridging-new-digital-divide [Accessed: 15 May 2013].
Huawei.com (2000) Huawei Russia - Bridging the Digital Divide. [online] Available at: http://www.huawei.com/ru/about-huawei/corporate-citizenship/bridging-digital-divide/ [Accessed: 25 May 2013].
Ime.usp.br (2007) A CRITICAL VIEW OF THE �ONE LAPTOP PER CHILD� PROJECT. [online] Available at: http://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer/OLPC.html [Accessed: 15 May 2013].
Internetworldstats.com (1990) Digital Divide - ICT Information Communications Technology - 50x15 Initiative. [online] Available at: http://www.internetworldstats.com/links10.htm [Accessed: 15 May 2013].
Internetworldstats.com (2012) Africa Internet Usage, Facebook and Population Statistics. [online] Available at: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats1.htm [Accessed: 25 May 2013].
ITU (2010) World Telecommunication/ICT Development Report 2010 Executive Summary. [e-book] Geneva: International Telecommunication Union. Available through: itu.int http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/publications/wtdr_10/material/WTDR2010_ExecSum-en.pdf [Accessed: 15 May 2013].
ITU (2013) ICT Facts and Figures. [e-book] Geneva: nternational Telecommunication Union. http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2013.pdf [Accessed: 15 May 2013].
ITU (2013) internet users. [image online] Available at: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/material/graphs/2010/Internet_users_00-10.jpg [Accessed: 20 May 2013].
Jensen, M. (2003) ICT in Africa: A Status Report. [e-book] Available through: weforum.org http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Global_Competitiveness_Reports/Reports/GITR_2002_2003/ICT_Africa.pdf [Accessed: 15 May 2013].
Kanyesigye, . (2012) allAfrica.com: Africa: ITU Ranks Rwanda High in ICT Development. [online] Available at: http://allafrica.com/stories/201210130064.html [Accessed: 15 May 2013].
Manson, K. (2013) Africa takes lead in mobile revolution - FT.com. [online] Available at: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/0846ab76-8c8d-11e2-8ee0-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2UPAjlMqJ [Accessed: 26 May 2013].
Montagnier, P. and Wirthmann, A. (2011) igital Divide: From Computer Access to Online Activities – A Micro Data Analysis”. [e-book] OECD Publishing. Available through: OECD http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kg0lk60rr30-en [Accessed: 15 May 2013].
OECD (2001) Understanding the Digital Divide. [e-book] OECD Publishing. Available through: oecd.org http://www.oecd.org/sti/1888451.pdf [Accessed: 15 May 2013].
Oecdobserver.org (2008) A new digital divide? - OECD Observer. [online] Available at: http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/3288/A_new_digital_divide_.html [Accessed: 25 May 2013].
Outpost Mag (2011) OLPC Transforms Rwanda into Africa’s first ICT Hub. [online] Available at: http://outpostmag.net/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=111:olpc-transforms-rwanda-into-africas-first-ict-hub&catid=47:issue-3-january-march&Itemid=87 [Accessed: 26 May 2013].
Robbins, S. and Decenzo, D., et al. (2011) Fundamentals of management. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, p.204.
Shah, N. (2011) A Blurry Vision: Reconsidering the Failure of the One Laptop Per Child Initiative » Writing Program » Boston University. [online] Available at: http://www.bu.edu/writingprogram/journal/past-issues/issue-3/shah/ [Accessed: 25 May 2013].
Sinoafrica.org (2013) Chinese CSR in Africa | 见证非洲 | China in Africa. [online] Available at: http://www.sinoafrica.org/en/node/2275 [Accessed: 20 May 2013].
Stanford University And Chinese Academy Of Sciences (2010) OWNERSHIP, ACCESS AND USE OF COMPUTERS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND OTHER E-TECHNOLOGIES BY STUDENTS IN SUBURBAN BEIJING SCHOOLS. [e-book] Stanford University. Available through: governanceproject.stanford.edu http://iis-db.stanford.edu/res/2954/Report_on_Student_Technology_Access_Suburban_Public_Schools.pdf [Accessed: 20 May 2013].
Talbot, D. (2012) Given Tablets but No Teachers, Ethiopian Children Teach Themselves | MIT Technology Review. [online] Available at: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/506466/given-tablets-but-no-teachers-ethiopian-children-teach-themselves/ [Accessed: 20 May 2013].
Theaustralian.com.au (2013) One Laptop Per Child program boosted. [online] Available at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/government/one-l... [Accessed: 15 May 2013].
Trucano, M. (2010) The Second Digital Divide. [online] Available at: http://blogs.worldbank.org/edutech/the-second-digital-divide [Accessed: 25 May 2013].
Trucano, M. (2013) A new wave of educational efforts across Africa exploring the use of ICTs. [online] Available at: http://blogs.worldbank.org/edutech/new-wave-in-africa-maybe [Accessed: 20 May 2013].
Turim-Nygren, M. (2013) Can tech really transform the third world? A One Laptop Per Child report card | Digital Trends. [online] Available at: http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/from-australia-to-africa-olpc-gives-students-a-window-on-the-world/ [Accessed: 25 May 2013].
Warman, M. (2009) One laptop per child - Telegraph. [online] Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/6247728/One-laptop-per-child.html [Accessed: 15 May 2013].
Warschauer, M. and Cotten, S., et al. (2012) One Laptop per Child Birmingham: Case Study of a Radical Experiment. [e-book] Massachusetts Institute of Technology. p.61-73. Available through: dmlcentral.net http://dmlcentral.net/sites/dmlcentral/files/resource_files/4.pdf [Accessed: 15 May 2013].
Wilson, G. (2013) GSMA chooses Kenya for Africa office | TechCentral. [online] Available at: http://www.techcentral.co.za/gsma-chooses-kenya-for-africa-office/40533/ [Accessed: 26 May 2013].
ZDNet (2009) A laptop for every poor child | ZDNet. [online] Available at: http://www.zdnet.com/a-laptop-for-every-poor-child-2062056166/ [Accessed: 15 May 2013].