Skip to main content

Comparisons of Countries

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Global Digital Divides

Part of the book series: Progress in IS ((PROIS))

Abstract

The intra-national digital divides differ among countries. Comparisons are made between the study nations of China, India, Japan, and the United States to determine what correlates of ICTs are common and which ones are unique to a single nation. Conceptual frameworks for comparing socio-economic phenomena between geographical units are examined, which range from models having identical variables across different units to those with mostly unique variables or that use qualitative methods. The present comparison is a hybrid, that includes both common factors and unique ones. Results indicate the states/provinces/prefectures within the 4 nations have the common factors of urban location, economic prosperity, education, and infrastructure for four phone and internet/broadband variables; but lack of common factors for social media, albeit only comparing only two nations with available data. Many unique factors are identified for each of the four nations. The comparisons support that that intra-national digital divides are distinctive and culturally influenced. A case study of Lenovo illustrates success at understanding province-level distinctiveness in China but also recognition of cultural differences for its U.S. presence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Arai, Y., & Naganuma, S. (2010). The geographical digital divide in broadband access and governmental policies in Japan: Three case studies. Networks and Communication Studies, 24(1–2), 7–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baerjee, R., & Muley, V. (2008). Engineering education in India. Delhi: India Observer Research Foundation

    Google Scholar 

  • Baliamoune-Lutz, M. (2003). An analysis of the determinants and effects of ICT diffusion in developing countries. Information Technology for Development, 10(3), 151–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhuri, A. (2012). Creeping tiger, souring dragon: India, China and competition in information technologies. China and World Economy, 20(6), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Compaine, B. M. (2001). The digital divide: Facing a crisis or creating a myth?. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doron, A., & Jeffrey, R. (2013). The great Indian phone book. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dutta, S., & Bilbao-Osorio, B. (Eds.). (2012). The global information technology report 2012. Geneva: World Economic Forum and INSEAD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebbinghaus, (2005). When less is more: Selection problems in large-N and small-N cross-national comparisons. International Sociology, 20(2), 133–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, J., Kraemer, K. L., & Dedrick, J. (2003). Environment and policy factors shaping global e-commerce diffusion: A cross-country comparison. The Information Society, 19, 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grubesic, T. H. (2006). A spatial taxonomy of broadband regions in the United States. Information Economics and Policy, 18, 423–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guillén, M. F., & Suárez, S. I. (2004). Explaining the global digital divide: Economic, political and sociological drivers of cross-national internet use. Social Forces, 84(2), 681–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 749–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hantrais, L. (1999). Contextualization in cross-national comparative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 2(2), 93–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ITU. (2013). Measuring the information society. Geneva, Switzerland: International Telecommunications Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagami, M., Tsuji, M., & Giovannetti, E. (2004). Conclusion (Chap. 15). In K. Kagami, M. Tsuji, & E. Giovannetti (Eds.), Information technology and the digital divide (pp. 303–307). Cheltenham, JK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan, S. (2005). WSIS and the United Nations ICT task force. In D. Stauffacher & W. Kleinwachter (Eds.), The world summit on the information society: Moving from the past into the future (pp. 41–43). New York, NY: United Nations ICT Task Force.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraemer, K. L., Gibbs, J., & Dedrick, J. (2005). Impacts of globalization on e-commerce use and firm performance: A cross-country investigation. The Information Society, 21, 323–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenovo Group Ltd. (2014). Lenovo 2013/14 annual report. Morrisville, NC: Lenovo Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, C. Z. (2007). An executive’s note: Lenovo: An example of globalization of Chinese enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 38, 573–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X., & Buck, T. (2009). The internationalization strategies of Chinese firms: Lenovo and BOE. Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies, 7(2), 167–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, M., van de Bunt, G. G., & de Bruijn, J. (2006). Comparative research: Persistent problems and promising solutions. International Sociology, 21(5), 619–931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NSF Science and Education Indicators (2012). Chap 2: Higher education in science and engineering. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ono, H., & Zavodny, M. (2007). Digital inequality: A five country comparison using microdata. Social Science Research, 36, 1135–1155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Population Reference Bureau. (2012). 2012 World population data sheet. Washington, D.C.: Population Reference Bureau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Press Trust of India (2014). Motorola and Lenovo brands to co-exist in India. New Delhi: Press Trust of India. 31 Oct.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robison, K. K., & Crenshaw, E. M. (2002). Post-industrial transformations and cyber-space: A cross-national analysis of internet development. Social Science Research, 31, 334–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Top500 (2014). Top 500 supercomputer sites. Waibstadt-Daisbach, Germany: Top500 supercomputer sites. http://www.top500.org/lists/2014/06. Available Sept 20, 2014.

  • U.S. Census Bureau. (2014). American FactFinder. Washington, D.C.: United States Census Bureau.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations (2014). World urbanization prospects: 2014 revision. New York, NY: Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2012). World development indicators. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Economic Forum. (2014a). Annual Report 2013–2014. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Economic Forum (2014b). Issues, the world economic forum. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum. Available at www.weforum.org.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James B. Pick .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pick, J.B., Sarkar, A. (2015). Comparisons of Countries. In: The Global Digital Divides. Progress in IS. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46602-5_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics