research on the relationship between rational choice theory and social sci-
ence issues. Chai (2008) also calls for more vigorous dialogue between social
scientists and hard scientist studying a social phenomenon. Few studies have
linked rational choice to the digital divide. This occurrence could be largely
due to the misunderstanding of the theory (Hechter & Kanazawa, 1997).
One of the most common arguments against using rational choice theory
outside of economics is association with unrealistic assumptions about indi-
vidual behavior (Lehtinen & Kuorikoski, 2007). Recent criticism of rational
choice theory states that people tend to deviate from systematic decision mak-
ing (Rooderkerk, Heerde, & Bijmolt, 2011). However within the last 5 years,
rational choice theory has been closely related to philosophy and law research
(Bar-Gill, 2008; Higgins, 2007; Seipel & Eifl er
fl , 2010). The theory can also be
used to understand other social and economic behavior. Gul and Pesendorfer
(2005) state “our main point is that the separation of economics and other
social sciences are a consequence of specialization around diff eren
ff
t questions
and diff eren
ff
t data.” RCT enables researchers to take a more comprehensive
148 Porche
Millington and Lemuria Carter
approach to studying the digital divide. This chapter is an initial attempt
toward highlighting the potential benefi t
fi s of using RCT to explore the digital
divide; future research should conduct a qualitative or quantitative empirical
study that explores the impact of rational choice theory on the digital divide.
Future studies should identify theory from other referent disciplines that may
help shed light on this phenomenon.
This chapter does not address alternative devices such as mobile phones
and tablets that may impact an individual’s rational choice to use the Inter-
net. Future research should explore the impact of alternative devices on
closing the gap. Future empirical research may allow researchers to fi
find
patterns in individuals aff
ffected by access barriers. Statistics show that phys-
ical disabilities also impact Internet use. In America, one in four adults live
with a disability that interferes with their day-to-day activities (Fox, 2011).
About 81 percent of adults in the survey stated they use the Internet while
only 54 percent of adults with a disability use the Internet (Fox, 2011).
Future research should address users and non-users with disability and how
this group of individuals fall within the four access divides.
4 CONCLUSION
The digital divide is a challenge with immense social, economic and tech-
nological implications. Wattal et al. (2011) posit the diff
ffusion of technology
is highly correlated to the existing social class lines; with an arrival of new
technologies comes the perpetuation of the divide. International organiza-
tions continue to call for research dealing with global and regional digital
divide and digital environment (Anonymous, 2012). This chapter is an ini-
tial step toward an enhanced understanding of the multiple elements of the
digital divide and their impact on society. It shows possible connections
from the digital divide to theories from referent disciplines. According to
Wei et al. (2011) , there is a lack of research that uses a “theoretical account
for the eff
ffects of the digital divide.” The chapter highlights the need for
more research on the various components of the digital divide.
REFERENCES
Akers, R. L. (1990). Rational choice, deterrence, and social learning theory in
criminology: The Path not taken. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology,
81(3), 653–676.
Anonymous. (2010). U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey: Computer
and Internet Use. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
Anonymous (Producer). (2011). ICT Facts and Figures. Retrieved from http://www.itu.
int/ITU-D/ict/facts/2011/material/ICTFactsFigures2011.pdf on January 25, 2012
Anonymous (Producer). (2012). Digital Divide Working Group Call for Papers.
Retrieved from http://iamcr.org/s-wg/mcpl/digital-divide-mainmenu-146/825-
iamcr2012ddicfp on January 25, 2012.
Rational Choice Theory 149
Bar-Gill, O. (2008). The law, economics and psychology of subprime mortgage
contracts. The Berkeley Electronic Press. Retrieved from http://law.bepress.
com/alea on September 18, 2011.
Barzilai-Nahon, K. (2006). Gaps and bits: Conceptualizing measurement for digi-
tal divides. The Information Society, 22(5), 269–278.
Barzilai-Nahon, K., Gomez, R., & Ambikar, R. (2008). Conceptualizing a con-
textual measurement for digital divides: Using an intergrated narrative. In E.
Ferro, Y. K. Dwivedi, & R. G. Williams (Eds.), Overcoming digital divides:
Constructing an equitable and competitive information society. Seattle,
Washington:University of Washington, Center of Information & Society.
Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of
Political Economy, 76(2), 169–217.
Becker, G. S. (1978). The economic approach to human behavior. C
r
hicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Belanger, F., & Carter, L. (2009). The impact on the digital divide on E-govern-
ment use. Communications of the ACM, 52(4), 132–135.
Chai, S.-K. (2008). Rational choice theory: A forum for exchange of ideas
between the hard and social sciences in predictive behavioral modeling.
Paper presented at the Social Computing, Behavioral Modeling, and Predic-
tion, Phoenix, Arizona.
Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (1987). Understanding crime displacement: An
application of rational choice theory. Criminology, 25(4), 933–948.
D’Arcy, J., Hovav, A., & Galletta, D. (2009). User awareness of security counter-
measures and its impact on information systems misuse: A detterence approach.
Information Systems Research, 20(1), 1–20.
Dewan, S., & Riggins, F. J. (2005). The digital divide: Current and future research directions. Journal of Association for Information Systems, 6(12), 298–337.
Epstein, D., Nibset, E. C., & Gillespie, T. (2011). Who’s responsible for the digital divide? Public perceptions and policy implications. The Information Society,
27, 9
7
2–104.
Fang, Z. (2002). E-government in digital era: Concept, practice, and development. international Journal of The Computer, The Internet and Management, 10(2), 1–22.
Fontenay, A. B. d., & Beltran, F. (May 20, 2008). Inequality and economic growth: Should we be concerned by the digital divide? Paper presented at the Information Technology Systems, Montreal.
Fox, S. (Producer). (2011, January 25, 2012). Americans living with disability and
their technology profi
file. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/
Disability.aspx on January 26, 2012.
Fuller, R. M., Vician, C., & Brown, S. A. (2006). E-learning and individual characteristics: The role of computer anxiety and communication apprehension. Jour-
nal of Computer Information
Systems, 46(4), 103–115.
Green, D. P., & Shapiro, I. (1996). Pathologies of rational choice theory: A critique of applications in political science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Gul, F., & Pesendorfer, W. (2005). The Case for Mindless Economics. Princeton: Princeton University.
Hargittai, E. (2003). The digital divide and what to do about it. New economy
handbook (pp. 821–839). San Diego, California: Elsevier Science.
Hechter, M., & Kanazawa, S. (1997). Sociological rational choice theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 191–214.
Helbig, N., Gil-Garcia, J. R., & Ferro, E. (2009). Understanding the complexity of electronic government: Implications from the digital divide literature. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 89–97.
Herrnstein, R. J. (1990). Rational choice theory: Necessary but not sufficient.
American Psychologist, 45(3), 356–367.
150 Porche Millington and Lemuria Carter
Higgins, G. E. (2007). Digital piracy, self-control theory, and rational choice: An
examination of the role of value. International Journal of Cyber Criminology,
1(1), 33–55.
Hogarth, R. M., & Reder, M. W. (1987). Rational choice: The contrast between
economics and psychology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hsieh, J. J. P.-A., Rai, A., & Keil, M. (2008). Understanding digital inequality:
Comparing continued use behavioral models of the soci-economically advan-
taged and disadvantaged. MIS Quarterly, 32(1), 97–126.
Johnson, C. (1997). Preconception vs. observation, or the contributions of rational
choice theory and area studies to contemporary political science. Political Sci-
ence and Politics, 30(2), 170–174.
Kettemann, M. C. (2008). E-inclusion as a means to bridge the digital divides:
Conceptual issues and international approaches. In W. Benedek, V. Bauer & M.
C. Kettemann (Eds.), Internet governance and the information society: Global
perspectives and European dimensions. The Netherlands: Eleven International
Publishing.
Korupp, S. E., & Szydlik, M. (2005). Causes and trends of the digital divide. European Sociological Review, 21(4), 409–422.
Lehtinen, A., & Kuorikoski, J. (2007). Unrealistic assumptions in rational choice
theory. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 37(2), 115–138.
Lenhart, A., Horrigan, J., Rainie, L., Allen, K., Boyce, A., & Madden, M. (2003).
The ever-shifting Internet population: A new look at Internet access and the dig-
ital divide. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.
pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2003/PIP_Shifting_Net_Pop_Report.
pdf.pdf on October 13, 2011.
Li, H., Zhang, J., & Sarathy, R. (2010). Understanding compliance with Internet
use policy from the perspective of rational choice theory. Decision Support Sys-
tem, 48(4), 635–645.
Livermore, C. R. (2011). Intelligent technologies for bridging the grey digital divide.
Australasian Journal on Ageing, 30(33), 170–171.
Masatilioglu, Y., & Ok, E. A. (2005). Rational choice with status quo bias. Journal of Economic Theory, 121(1), 1–29.
Morris, A. (2007). E-literacy and the grey digital divide: A review with recommen-
dations. Journal of Information Literacy, 1(3), 13–28.
North, D. C. (1994). Economic performance through time. The American Eco-
nomic Review, 84(3), 359–368.
NTIA. (2011). New commerce department report shows broadband adoption
rises but digital divide persists. Retrieved from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2011/new-commerce-department-report-shows-broadband-adoption-
rises-digital-divide-pers on January 22, 2012.
Riker, W. H. (1990). Political science and raional choice Perspectives on positive political economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robinson, J. P., Dimaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. (2003). New social survey perspec-
tives on the digital divide. IT & Society, 1(5), 1–22.
Rooderkerk, R. P., Heerde, H. J. V., & Bijmolt, T. H. A. (2011). Incorporating context eff e
ff cts into a choice model. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(4), 767–780.
Scott, J. (2002). Rational choice theory. In G. Browning, A. Halcli & F. Webster
(Eds.), Understanding contemporary society: Theories of the present. Thou-
sand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Seipel, C., & Eifl
fler, S. (2010). Opportunities, rational choice, and self-control.
Crime & Delinquency, 56(2), 167–197.
Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Seybert, H. (Producer). (2011). Internet use in households and by individuals in
2011. Statistics in Focus. Retrieved from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/
Rational Choice Theory 151
cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-11–066/EN/KS-SF-11–066-EN.PDF on January
25, 2012
Sidrauski, M. (1967). Rational choice and patterns of growth in a monetary econ-
omy. The American Economic Review, 57(2), 534–544.
Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal
of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.
Simon, H. A. (1985). Human nature in politics: The dialogue of psychology with
political science. The American Political Science Review, 79(2), 293–304.
Smith, A. (Producer). (2010a). Home Broadband 2012. Retrieved from http://
pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Home-Broadband-2010/Part-1/Most-non-inter-
net-users-have-limited-exposure-to-online-life.aspx on January 29, 2012.
Smith, A. (2010b). Mobile Access 2010: Pew Internet &American Life Project.
Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2010/PIP_
Mobile_Access_2010.pdf on October 24, 2011
Vale, P. H. (2010). Addiction—and Rational Choice Theory. International Journal
of Consumer Studies, 34(1), 38–45.
van Dijk, J. (1999). The Network Society, Social Aspects of New Media. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage.
van Dijk, J. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poet-
ics, 34, 221–235.
van Dijk, J., & Hacker, K. (2000). The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. Paper presented at the International Communication Association, Acapulco.
Vehovar, V., Sicherl, P., Husing, T., & Dolnicar, V. (2006). Methodological chal-
lenges of digital divide measurements. The Information Society, 22, 279–290.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology
acceptance model: four longitudinal fi
field studies. Management Science, 46,
186–204.
Wattal, S., Hong, Y., Mandviwalla, M., & Jain, A. (2011). Technology diffusion in the society: analyzing digital divide in the context of social class. Paper presented at the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Wei, K.-K., Teo, H.-H., Chan, H. C., & Tan, B. C. Y. (2011). Conceptualizing
and testing a social cognitive model of the digital divide. Information Systems
Research, 22(1), 170–187.
12 E-Government for All
From Improving Access to Improving
the Lives of the Disadvantaged
Jeremy Millard
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
Applying ICT to public services has attracted huge investment in Europe
over the past 10 to 15 years. The impact of this, though generally positive,
has been mixed, with two main areas of concern: the disappointing take-up
of e-government services and the general failure
of e-government to improve
the lives of the socially and digitally disadvantaged. Various strategies have
and are being applied to address these challenges, including e-accessibility
and e-skills, multi-channel service delivery, the role of intermediaries, cit-
izen-centric services, better integration of services, and collaborative ser-
vice production and delivery. This has lead policy-makers and practitioners
to realise that seeing the ‘digital divide’ as purely about ICT access is far
from adequate. The real success or otherwise of inclusive e-government
(or e-government for all) is instead the impact it has on the lives of users,
particularly those who are disadvantaged in some way, whether or not they
themselves have access. This conclusion has important policy implications
for how e-government services are designed and deployed.
This chapter is a meta-study of selected previous studies, largely under-
taken for the European Commission. It examines a relatively unexplored
but increasingly important area of e-government (i.e., how ICT used by the
public sector can improve the lives of disadvantaged people whether or not
they themselves are using ICT). It identifies common trends and conclu-
sions relevant for both practitioners and policy-makers, whilst researchers
are also invited to undertake follow-up empirical studies to test them.
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Context and Rationale of Chapter
In developing Europe’s Information Society, the emphasis has always been
that it should be an “inclusive” society. Not only is this necessary to avoid new technologies leading to further exclusion of the groups in society that are
E-Government for All 153
already on the margins (the unemployed, less well educated, elderly people,
etc.), but the aim is also to use these technologies to off e
ff r new opportunities
for “inclusion.”
Since the early 2000s, much evidence has emerged that e-government
can provide more inclusive services in an eff
ffective, appropriate and acces-
sible manner for specifi
fic groups at risk of exclusion, such as younger people
in situations of disadvantage, low-income groups, the unemployed, retired
people, older citizens, ethnic groups and the disabled. However, it has also
since become clear that for, the foreseeable future, no matter what is done
Public Sector Transformation Through E-Government Page 27
