63

AN EXTENDED APPROACH TO E-INCLUSION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR ROMANIA

Viorel Niţă*

Abstract** : Depending on the exist ing social patterns and trends, development of information society creates new opportunit ies and r isks and restructures the establ ished areas of public pol icy. For example, e- inclusion becomes more and more today’s predominant form of social inclusion. Despite the diversi ty of approaches developed, i ts intr insic mult i -dimension nature and the chal lenges posed by the continuous evolut ion of global digi tal technologies and networks make e- inclusion a problematic scienti f ic and poli t ical concept. This art icle proposes an extended approach to e- inclusion, seen as the cumulat ive result of three inter locking contr ibutors - i ) g lobal evolut ion of digi tal technologies and networks, i i ) the levels of ICT access, usage and ski l ls and i i i ) the exist ing social s t ructures - and examine i ts pol icy implicat ions for Romania. An important conclusion ar ises f rom this explorat ion: Romania is poorly prepared to cope with e- inclusion chal lenges. The country’s relat ively incipient s tage of information society development and i ts ser ious social problems and the emergence of new forms of digi tal divide demand a holis t ic pol icy response capable of coherently capturing and tackl ing al l factors of e- inclusion, beyond the conventional f ragmentat ion of public pol icy areas. Without i t , social inclusion process wil l be hindered and Romania wil l not ful ly reap the social and economic benefi ts of information society.

Keywords: information society; ICT adoption and di f fusion; social inclusion; e- inclusion; Romania.

JEL classif icat ion: O33; O38; I28; L86.

* Viorel Niţă is researcher within the Competitiveness and Innovation Department, Institute of World Economy at the Romanian Academy. He holds degrees in Economics and Philosophy and is currently a Ph.D. student in Economics. Main research interests: information society, R&D and innovation, competitiveness, industrial policy and sustainability. E-mail: viorel.nita1@gmail.com** This paper has been elaborated within the research project Dynamic model for supporting e-inclusion policy making, which was financed by the programme IDEI in the framework of the Romanian National Plan for Research, Development and Innovation 2007-2013

ROMANIAN JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN AFFAIRS Vol. 11, No. 1, 2011

64

VIOREL NIŢĂ

Introduction

Transition to information society requires significant socio-economic changes1 and broadens the scope and instruments of traditional fields of public policy. In addition, it poses serious challenges to social sciences2.

As it has already been proved, the adoption and use of information and communications technologies (ICT)3 result in significant economic benefits - in terms of industrial productivity and competitiveness gains4 - as well as positive social externalities - human and social capital development (e.g. Zinnbauer, 2007); political participation (e.g. Gibson et al., 2004); social equity contribution (e.g. Mossberger et al., 2008). However, ICT are not evenly diffused within and across the countries: the rapid pace of ICT development and different degrees of their adoption and use have already brought about significant digital divides among individuals, social groups and countries5. Due to the negative effects of digital divides6 - e.g. ”global economic stratification” (Warschauer, 2003) and social exclusion

- bridging them should be considered as an important policy objective by both developed and lagging-behind countries in information society development.

In this paper, I first propose a three-level conceptual framework in which e-inclusion is seen as the cumulative result of the interaction of three main interlocking determinants: i) global evolution of digital technologies and networks, ii) the levels of ICT access, usage and skills and iii) the existing social structures in global evolution of ICT. I then proceed with explaining its policy implications for Romania. While the first determinant is rather an exogenous factor of national e-inclusion process, the other two are highly dependent on a country’ specific context.

In the first section of the paper I deal with the intricacy of e-inclusion concept. In the second section, on the basis of the most important contributions to the clarification of e-inclusion concept, I set out the three main determinants of e-inclusion and reveal their intertwining. After examining the most relevant indicators to e-inclusion

1 The recent technological changes, including ICT, have caused changes in employment and labour market structure, such as: i) changes in employment forms, work intensity and time and labour structure; ii) increasing employment in service sector, iii) outsourcing expansion, and iv) increasing use of ICT at work (EASHW, 2002; Work Research Centre, 2004). In the United States, due to the increasing weight of knowledge-intensive industries, ”technological change is the most important factor driving the rising wage inequality between low-skilled and high-skilled workers” (Mossberger et al., 2008).2 As DiMaggio and Hargittai (2001) explain, ”the digital revolution represents a challenge to the social sciences … to demonstrate their ability to help society understand and anticipate the consequences of technological change as it is taking place”.3 Along the entire article, by ICT I mean the internet and computers. 4 We witness a shifting form traditional manufacturing sectors to information-intensive and service sectors and an increasing role of information as a factor of production. ICT ”are at the roots of new productivity sources, of new organizational forms, and of the formation of a global economy” and ”allows countries to leapfrog stages of economic growth by being able to modernize their production systems and increase their competitiveness faster than in the past” (Castells, 1999). 5 As far as the country gaps are concerned, they are partly rooted in differences related to information society development stage and the existing socio-economic structure. In addition, as the developed countries manage to be the first adopters and subsequently more sophisticated users, beyond the simple ICT access gaps, new qualitative divides among countries emerge (e.g., Molnár, 2003; Gheorghiu and Unguru, 2009). 6 There are mainly two types of digital divide: i) the traditional one, related simply to ICT access, ii) and the ”second digital divide”, related especially to the meaningfulness and sophistication of ICT use.

65

AN EXTENDED APPROACH TO E-INCLUSION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR ROMANIA

in Romania, the fourth section shows the policy implications for Romania deriving from the conceptual framework developed. It also sketches the features of the holistic public policy response the country needs to develop in order to cope with the barriers to e-inclusion process. The fifth section will sum up the main findings of the paper.

1. E-inclusion and digital divide

Within the new framework of today’s transition to information society and beyond the traditional paradigms of redistribution and social integration7, social inclusion becomes reconfigured. Caught in the interplay between ICT spread and social structure, e-inclusion becomes more and more the new form of social inclusion8. Its expected social and economic benefits (e.g. Castells, 1999 and Warschauer, 2003) have increased the concern about the discrepancies related to ICT access and use, and have put e-inclusion high on the political agenda. As they offer new employment opportunities to disadvantaged people (e.g. UN, 2005), ICT access and use becomes also important instruments of poverty reduction and levelling of social discrepancies. Moreover, failing to ensure equal access to the rapidly spread of ICT may result in maintaining or even amplifying the existing social inequalities.

As far as the EU information society policy is concerned, e-inclusion was a pillar of the i2010 strategy policy initiative (European Commission, 2005) and is now included as an important dimension of new Digital Agenda (European Commission, 2010a) and Europe 2020 strategy (European Commission, 2010c). In all these strategic policy documents, e-inclusion remains insufficiently elaborated, they enunciating mainly its general principles and target groups.

Broadly speaking, as a policy concept stemming from both liberal and egalitarian discourse9, e-inclusion focuses on removing the individual, group, regional and national differences in keeping up with ICT development and ensuring the participation of individuals in all dimensions of information society10. It thus has two main goals: i) a ”negative” one - preventing digital exclusion, by removing the economic, social and technological barriers to the equitable adoption and use of ICT and ii) a ”positive” one - digital inclusion of socially disadvantaged people or groups, or less-favoured areas (European Commission, 2001; Empirica, 2006; WRC, 2004). Understood in this way, e-inclusion is closely related to other policy concepts: i) social inclusion, i.e. the societal objective of eliminating poverty and social inequalities; ii) social exclusion, i.e. the process of marginalisation of individuals or

7 While the first paradigm of social exclusion aims at poverty eradication and levelling of social inequalities through the redistribution of wealth, the latter is rather focused on the social integration of citizens into the labour market. For more details, Levitas (2005). 8 For example, Codagnone (2009) states that ”digital exclusion/inclusion is the quintessential form of social exclusion/inclusion today”.9 For details on how the political discourse has shaped the concept of e-inclusion see Mossberger et al. (2008). The egalitarian perspective on e-inclusion has focused almost exclusively on access to computers and the internet, failing to take into account differences in their use (e.g. DiMaggio and Celeste, 2004). On the other hand, the liberal view focuses on the equality of opportunity and removing the social, economic and technological barriers to ICT access and use. 10 See Riga Ministerial Declaration and European Commission (2010a).

66

VIOREL NIŢĂ

groups (for a detailed analysis, see Empirica, 2006; also WRC, 2004); iii) e-exclusion, i.e. inequalities in ICT access and use, as an effect of social exclusion (Empirica, 2006).

What makes e-inclusion problematic is the diversity of approaches developed, its intrinsic multidisciplinary nature and the challenges posed by the new forms of digital divide. Theoretically, e-inclusion has evolved in parallel with the closely-related digital divide debate and, at least in its incipient phase, within a theoretical framework similar to the adoption stages of innovation11. From a ICT-neutral point of view, Witte and Mannon (2010) contend that, being a ”social institution”, digital divide is rather a mirror of the already existing social inequalities. In a strictly economic view, e-inclusion has been seen as i) a mean to integrate and maintain people in labour market12 and i) an important mechanism of knowledge economy development.

As the approaches to digital divide are widening, e-inclusion concept proves to be more and more complex. At the beginning, e-inclusion was regarded as a solution to the ICT access problem and a way to overcome the division between ”haves” and ”have-nots”, with the goal of minimising the residue not yet included in information society. In addition to it, the objectives of e-inclusion aims nowadays at levelling the structural discrepancies within the digital society that were caused by different degrees of ICT appropriation, the progressive sophistication in use and the homogeneity of skills among individuals and social groups (Molnár, 2003; Levitas, 2005; European Commission, 2009). Following this research path, DiMaggio and

Hargittai (2001) have taken an important step further by broadening the scope of digital divide – to cover ‘‘inequalities in access to the Internet, extent of use, knowledge of search strategies, quality of technical connections and social support, ability to evaluate the quality of information, and diversity of uses’’.

The scope of ICT skills has broadened as well: the integration in information society broadens the qualification demand, requiring an array of competences: i) e-literacy, ii) a heterogeneous mix of cognitive, technical, digital and communicational skills and iii) a more regular and sophisticated use of ICT (Mossberger et al., 2008)13. It means recognizing that ICT access represents just a simple opportunity, and not the capacity of fully using ICT. Consequently, acquiring and continuously upgrading this mix of skills represent significant challenges not only for at-risk groups - e.g. persons with disabilities, people living in rural areas, less-literate and elderly - but also for ”blue-collar” workers already taking part in the labour market - unskilled manual workers, low-skill workers or employees belonging to the traditional occupations (e.g. De Grip and Zwick; WRC, 2004). That points to the discrepancies inside information society and calls for a more structural and dynamic approach to e-inclusion. First, we witness the continuous polarization of occupational structure, with several privileged categories – managers, professionals, etc. Second, the more educated, urban and younger individuals are capable of deepening and extending their ICT use and skills much more quickly (e.g. DiMaggio and Celeste, 2004).

11 For details, WRC (2004). 12 However, the relationship between ICT access and use and its employability is not clear at all: the latter is not a direct and necessary result of the former. As Codagnone (2009) shows, despite the existence of a correlation between e-inclusion (in terms of access and use of computer and internet) and employability level can be tested empirically, a causal relationship between them can hardly be contended.13 Mossberger et al. (2008) focus on the frequency of use, equating ”digital citizenship” with the regular use of internet.

67

AN EXTENDED APPROACH TO E-INCLUSION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR ROMANIA

The entire evolution of the debate implicitly means the recognition that e-inclusion is in fact an intricate multi-dimension process. The relationship between access and use of ICT, on the one hand, and the existing social structures, on the other hand, is rather an equivocal one. ICT access and use can increase the opportunities for social integration, while the existing social structures can either spur the ICT access and use or prevent at-risks groups from ripping the benefits of information society. As van Dijk (2008) states, not only ”all familial, social and cultural differences in society are reflected in computer and Internet use”, but also ”these differences tend to be reinforced by computer and Internet use”. To put it differently, even though ICT access and use may be an adequate response to social inclusion problems, they are in turn a mirror of a particular social configuration.

ICT access and use are rather intertwined with the existing social structures through a virtuous circle characterized by Warschauer (2003) as ”a complex mutually evolving relationship”. There is no causal relationship between ICT access and social inclusion. ICT access and use are rather ”woven in a complex manner into social systems and processes” (ibidem). Mark Warschauer identifies four main drivers of ICT access for the purpose of social inclusion: - i) physical resources (i.e. access to computers and telecommunication connections); ii) digital resources (i.e. connectivity, content and language); iii) human resources (i.e. education and e-literacy), and iv) social resources (community, institutional, and societal structures that support access to ICT) - and recommends that e-inclusion analysis starts rather with ”the examination of social structures, social problems, social organization, and social relations rather than with an accounting of computer equipment

and Internet lines” (Warschauer, 2003). To some extent, this close relationship between the two dimensions of e-inclusion – i.e. ICT access and the level of social inclusion/exclusion – underlies also the definition proposed by Bianchi et al. (2006), where the objectives of e-inclusion are broadened, by including i) using ICT for addressing all dimensions of societal inclusion/exclusion; ii) creating new opportunities for social inclusion through ICT; and, iii) preventing new forms of social exclusion brought about ICT spread.

Beyond the dynamic interdependency between ICT access and use, on the one hand, and the social structures, on the other hand, the overall stage of e-inclusion process is also greatly influenced by an external variable, i.e. the evolution pace of global ICT technologies and networks. To my knowledge, the intertwining of all these three determinants and their impact on the national e-inclusion process has never been researched into depth so far.

2. An extended conceptual framework of e-inclusion

In what follows I attempt to overcome the partial perspectives on e-inclusion by advancing a more extended conceptual framework bringing together debated issues such as the recursive appropriation of digital technologies, social and economic opportunities of ICT access and use and social embeddedness of ICT. According to the view proposed here, e-inclusion becomes the cumulative result of three interlocking determinants: i) global evolution of digital technologies and networks, ii) ICT access, use and skills and iii) social structure configuration (Figure 1). According to this extended view, e-inclusion may be defined as the processes of increasing the number of

68

VIOREL NIŢĂ

individuals fully connected14 to the today`s global ICT technologies and networks with the ultimate goal of enhancing social inclusion.

The first determinant, global digital technologies and networks, needs some clarification. Access to and use of ICT, as well as possessing ICT skills, are not one-stage processes, but they need continuous updating15 to global ICT evolution pace, emerging of new technologies and network development tendencies16. The mechanisms of this continuous process are highly similar to those of the technological innovation diffusion, in a developer-based approach. Moreover, the degree of keeping up with

the ICT developments and of integration into the global networks sets up to a considerable degree the amplitude of digital divide between a certain country`s information

society development stage and the today’s level of global technology and networks evolution17. As to the latter, as DiMaggio and Hargittai (2001) point out, “the internet itself is not a fixed object, but rather a protean family of technologies and services that is being rapidly reshaped through the interacting efforts of profit-seeking corporations, government agencies and nongovernmental organizations”. Hence, up-to-date ICT access, use and skills mean ensuring both continuous full appropriation

14 By ”individuals fully connected” I mean those individuals who i) have access to ICT, possess the necessary up-to-date ICT skills and whose ICT usage results in socially and economically meaningful ends.15 According to Castells (1999)”the reintegration of social development and economic growth in the information age will require massive technological upgrading of countries, firms and households around the world”.16 E.g. web 2.0 and the emerging web 3.0, semantic web, virtual and content-creating communities, internet of things, new generation networks etc. For more details, Castells (1999) and Gheorghiu and Unguru (2009).17 As Castells (2001) shows, ”the extreme social unevenness of the development process is linked to the networking logic and global reach of the new economy”.

Figure 1: The determinants of e-inclusion

69

AN EXTENDED APPROACH TO E-INCLUSION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR ROMANIA

of newly diffused ICT technologies and connection to the endless evolution of global networks. Otherwise, they generate continuously new degrees of digital divide.

ICT access, use and skills. As already emphasized by other authors (e.g. DiMaggio and Hargittai, 2001); van Dijk, 2008) digital divide has been initially seen as a strictly quantitative gap related to the ICT adoption (i.e. the division between ”haves” and ”have-nots”). A high level of ICT adoption was supposed to translate into a lower level of social inequalities. Since ICT diffusion and adoption are not sufficient for analysing the social discrepancies in information society, a broader digital divide paradigm would prove to be more adequate - namely one which focuses on the importance of ICT skills and the quality and meaningfulness18 of ICT use (Mossberger et al., 2008), and which takes into account more factors of social inclusion/exclusion brought about by ICT spread (e.g., UN, 2005).

Social structure. Pre-existing social problems, above all those related to income and educational level and distribution, as well as those related to the traditional determinants of social exclusion - e.g. poverty, unemployment, living conditions, etc. (e.g. Eurostat, 2010) - are hardly surmountable barriers to e-inclusiveness. Low-level income affects ICT-adoption level through the quantity and quality of ICT devices and services purchased. If e-literacy19 and education attainment are directly correlated

to the labour access and income, social discrepancies related to income distribution disparities, rural-urban gaps, employment level and structure, at-risk-exclusion groups volume and structure, population age structure, etc. affect e-inclusion process as well, preventing people from fully participating in information society.

3. ICT-related and social indicators for Romania

In this section I attempt to identify the actual determinants and barriers to e-inclusion in Romania by screening the available empirical evidence on ICT access, use and skills and social structure and dynamics.

Indicators of ICT access, use and skills Examining ICT-related indicators

for Romania reveals significant gaps in comparison to the other EU countries. First, special attention needs to be given to those indicators pertaining to i) broadband penetration and ii) internet and computer access. Low levels and significant gaps in comparison to EU-27 average related to ICT infrastructure (i.e. DSL coverage in rural areas and broadband penetration) and access to internet/broadband connection20 (Table 1) are mirrored in low-level internet usage (Table 2).

As far as the ICT usage indicators in Romania are concerned, the most worrying

18 DiMaggio and Hargittai (2001) distinguish among several purposes of individual ICT use: i) for increasing economic productivity, ii) for political or social capital formation and iii) for entertainment.19 Nowadays, acquiring digital literacy has perhaps a more significant societal polarizing effect than literacy had once. As the German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk pointed out, ”literacy itself, at least until the very recent accomplishment of universal literacy, has had a sharply selective sorting effect. It sharply divided our culture and created a yawning gulf between the literate and the illiterate, a gulf that in its insuperability amounted almost to a species differentiation” (Sloterdijk, 2009). For a detailed analysis of the meaning and importance of literacy in information society, Warschauer (2003).20 Mossberger et al. (2008) advance the hypothesis that home broadband access promotes the acquisition of technology skills.

70

VIOREL NIŢĂ

data are those related to people who never used computer and internet: in 2009, 62% of Romanian citizens never used internet (EU-27 average is 30%), and 56% never used a computer (EU-27 average is 26%). As to the quality of use - correlated by Mossberger et al. (2008) with frequency in use - data reveal again significant gaps: the

percentage of regular internet users (i.e. those using the internet at least once a week) is almost half of EU-27 average, and the gap related to the frequent users (i.e. those using the internet every day or almost every day) is much broader (19% in Romania, while EU-27 average is 48%) (Table 2).

Table 1: Internet-related indicators for Romania

Romania EU 27 Ranking

Indicator 2006 2007 2008 2009 2009

Total DSL coverage (as percentage of total population)

67.6 74.0 94.0 27

DSL coverage in rural areas (as percentage of total population)

34.0 45.0 79.7 24

Broadband penetration (as percentage of total population)

5.0 9.0 11.7 13.0 24.8 26

Percentage of households with an internet connection

14 22 30 38 65 26

Percentage of households with a broadband connection

5 8 13 24 56 27

Percentage of population using a laptop via wireless connection away from home/work to access the internet

1 2 2 17 27

Source: European Commission (2010b) and Eurostat

Table 2: Computer and internet usage in Romania

Romania EU 27 Ranking

Indicator 2006 2007 2008 2009 2009

Percentage of individuals who used a computer, on average, every day or almost every day in the last 3 months

17 18 20 23 53 27

Households having access to, via one of its members, a computer (%)

26 34 38 46 71 26

Percentage of individuals who used a computer in the last 3 months

30 34 35 42 68 27

Percentage of individuals who have never used a computer

64 58 58 56 26 27

71

AN EXTENDED APPROACH TO E-INCLUSION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR ROMANIA

As to the indicators pertaining to ICT employment and skills, Romania also holds the lowest levels in EU-27 (Table 3). I have included among ICT skills the indicators of

foreign language knowledge, which seem to be essential for meaningul use of ICT and also for fully integrating into global networks.

Percent of population who are regular internet users (using the internet at least once a week)

18 22 26 31 60 27

Percent of population who are frequent internet users (using the internet every day or almost every day)

9 12 15 19 48 27

Percent of population who have never used the internet

74 69 64 62 30 27

Source: European Commission (2010b) and Eurostat

Table 3: ICT employment and skills in Romania

Romania EU 27 Ranking

Indicator 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2009

Persons employed using computers connected to the Internet (%)

21 40 26

Percentage of the ICT personnel on total employment

1.31 1.45 1.65 2.7* 25

Percentage of persons employed with ICT user skills

6.28 8.7 9.12 9.56 18.34** 27

Percentage of persons employed with ICT specialist skills

1.77 2.43 2.5 3.05*** 24

Employees using any computer 26 50 26

(at least once a week) 14 33*** 26

Percentage of individuals who judge their computer skills to be sufficient if they were to look for a job or change jobs within a year

75 38.3 27

No foreign knowledge known (%) 4.9 15.9 27

Good level of the best known foreign language (%)

5.2 13.3 27

Proficient level of the best known foreign language (%)

Notes: * data for 2006; ** data for 2008; *** data for 2007.

Source: Eurostat

72

VIOREL NIŢĂ

The above data provides sufficient reasons to conclude that, despite some progress, information society is still in an incipient stage in Romania. According to the European Commission (2010b), these lowest-level rates of ICT access and usage in Romania are the result of the high percentage of citizens living in rural areas (45%) and their low level of income. That is a true statement as, for example, in 2006, urban rate of absolute poverty was 6.8%, while rural rate of absolute poverty was much higher – 22.3% (ICCV, 2010). However, this is an incomplete explanation, as the existing social structure of Romania affects the levels of ICT access, use and skills through many other factors.

Selected social indicators

There have been several tendencies in the last 20 years which may help have a clearer view on the evolution of social structure in Romania (ICCV, 2010 and Eurostat data):

i) Despite the period of economic growth between 2000 and 2008, the social inequalities pertaining to income distribution widened.

ii) The number of employees decreased from approximately 9.3 millions in 2005 to 9.17 in 2009, while the number of pensioners increased substantially (increasing by 55% from 1989 to 2009). As far as employment structure is concerned, Romania has by far the highest percentage of employees in agriculture in EU-27 (27.8, in 2009, while EU-27 average was 5.6) and the lowest percentage of employees in service sector in EU-27 (40.9, in 2009, while EU-27 average was 70.4).

iii) Despite a positive rate of income per capita between 2000 and 2009, Romania has the highest percentage of at-risk-of-poverty population from EU-27 states, measured at various thresholds – 40%, 50%, 60%, 70% of the national median (Eurostat, 2010).

Figure 2: Percentage of population below 60% of median equivalised income

Source: Eurostat

73

AN EXTENDED APPROACH TO E-INCLUSION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR ROMANIA

iii) Also, Romania has the lowest level of social protection expenditure (in PPS) per head of population in EU-27 and one of

the lowest efficiency of public expenditure for poverty reduction in EU-27 (Figures 3, 4 and 5).

Figure 3: Total expenditure on social protection per head of population (PPS)

Source: EurostatNote: Data for EU27, EU25 and EU15, for 2006 and 2007, are provisional.

Figure 4: At-risk-of-poverty rate before social transfers - total (%)

Source: Eurostat

74

VIOREL NIŢĂ

iv) Social groups with the highest risk of poverty are elderly people and citizens with lower secondary education. In 2009, while the percentage of citizens aged 15-64 with lower secondary education in Romania

was approximately equal to EU-27 and EU-15 average, the percentage of persons with tertiary secondary education attainment was almost half of EU-27 and EU-25 average (Figure 6).

Figure 5: At-risk-of-poverty rate after social transfers - total (%)

Source: EurostatNote: Data for EU27, EU25 and EU15, for 2005 and 2006, are Eurostat estimate.

Figure 6: Distribution of population aged 15-64 by education level (2009)

Source: Eurostat

75

AN EXTENDED APPROACH TO E-INCLUSION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR ROMANIA

The particular importance of education for e-inclusion is justified by both the significant role of high educational attainment in ”deepening the internet use” (DiMaggio and Celeste, 2004) and in acquiring advanced ICT competencies (ICT user or ICT professional competencies, analytical21 and technical skills, etc.). Tertiary secondary education is highly relevant

for e-inclusion in Romania as it points to the potential of i) high-level of ICT skills and ii) sophistication and social and economic purposefulness of ICT use, necessary for avoiding new qualitative divides. As it is shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8, the individual high level of basic computer/internet skills are by far lower than EU-27 and EU-25 average, Romania ranking the last positions in EU-27.

Figure 7: Individuals level of computer skills (2009)

Source: EurostatNote: The three categories of skills correspond to the Eurostat classification of computer skills.

21 As Mossberger et al. (2008) note, ”today, quality public education fostering literacy and critical thinking skills must be matched with universal access with the goal of promoting digital citizenship”.

76

VIOREL NIŢĂ

4. Implications for e-inclusion policy in Romania

The conceptual framework developed in this paper has shed light on the main dimensions of e-inclusion process and examined their mutual dependence. In order to design and put into practice an effective mix of effective strategies, policies and programmes it must be taken into account that e-inclusion is a dynamic, multidimensional and circumstance-dependent process. Hence, a prerequisite for a systematic approach to such an intricate social phenomenon as e-inclusion process is the examination of its specific challenges, obstacles and factors, as well as the negative effects on non-action. Although it requires some more clarification, this extended approach provides both a more comprehensive insight of e-inclusion process stage in Romania and valuable potential for future research on the topic.

Almost all relevant indicators examined show that e-inclusion process in Romania faces serious challenges. It is being caught in the vicious circle of significant gaps in ICT access, usage and skills, on the one hand, and social problems and discrepancies, on the other hand. The last, as well as the simultaneous existence of low-level ICT access, use and skills, prevent their mutually reinforcing interaction effect and the expected social and economic spillovers (social capital formation, increased participation, changes in employment structure, economic returns of information society development etc.). Romania’s problems related to relatively low level of tertiary education attainment, high proportion of at-risk-of-poverty population, relatively low efficiency of poverty reduction policies and large weight of agricultural sector in total employment and may impede pervasive ICT access, usage sophistication and acquiring high-

Figure 8: Individuals level of internet skills (2007)

Source: EurostatNote: The three categories of skills correspond to the Eurostat classification of computer skills.

77

AN EXTENDED APPROACH TO E-INCLUSION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR ROMANIA

level ICT skills in Romania, and accordingly the e-inclusion process.

For getting the whole picture, the following issues should be further elaborated:

i) the structural changes, social inequalities and polarizing effects brought about by information society development and their generating mechanisms;

ii) identification of at-risk-of-exclusion groups, their specific needs (e.g. related to income, education, foreign language knowledge, living environment, e-literacy, e-skills) and their specific opportunities for integration into the information society offered by e-inclusion;

iii) the interplay between information society and the other relevant public policy domains (e.g. education, employment, etc.). In fact, ICT adoption, usage and skills are affected by a multitude of factors – financial resources, ICT penetration, occupational structure, educational level etc. Therefore, in addition to information society policies, traditional policies – related to education, employment, and structural policies, as well as national initiatives of promoting high-skill industrial sectors – can effectively contribute to e-inclusion process.

In order to prevent further marginalization and societal structure stratification, a holistic and multi-dimensional approach of e-inclusion policy seems to be most desirable public policy view. The two-fold policy objective of e-inclusion policy thus becomes i) increasing access to and meaningful use of ICT for the broader goal of social inclusion and ii) government-supported solving of societal problems for facilitating universal ICT adoption and purposeful usage. It becomes now more evident that e-inclusion should subsume many other currently disparate public policy objectives: increasing social protection, levelling the

social disparities, integration into labour market of marginalised groups (elderly, unemployed, low-skill workers, people leaving in rural environment, the least educated, etc.), improving educational attainment level, etc. And a coherently combined and continuously changing mix of policy instruments which aims at enhancing ICT access, usage and skills and thus yielding more economic and social opportunities will have to take due account of these objectives, be tailored to the specific needs of non-adopters or gradual categories of ICT adopters, and be permanently adjusted to the emerging technologies and new digital practices. Moreover, e-inclusion needs to gain the due place in any long-term economic strategy, as already highlighted by EU 2020 Strategy.

Conclusions

Pervasive access to and meaningful use of ICT, as well as constant updating with the evolution of global digital technologies and networks, are essential preconditions for fully reaping the social and economic benefits of information society development and preventing the widening of digital divides and increasing of social exclusion. Thus, e-inclusion becomes nowadays an important public policy objective.

The extended conceptual framework proposed in this paper redefines the concept of e-inclusion and broadens its spatial and time horizon. By applying it to the case of Romania, I have tried to answer the following question: to what extent is the country prepared to deal with e-inclusion process? An important conclusion can be drawn from this exploration: due to specific problems pertaining to key priority issues of social inclusion - education, income employment structure etc. - as well as still insufficient ICT adoption, use and skills, a

78

VIOREL NIŢĂ

relatively considerable part of Romanian citizens will not be capable of fully integrating into information society and benefit from the transformative potential of ICT. Moreover, the continuous evolution of global digital technologies and networks, the Romania’s relative incipient stage of information society development and its serious social problems call for a holistic and

multidimensional public policy response, beyond the conventional fragmentation of public policy areas. Without this coherently articulated national public policies, e-inclusion process will be hindered in Romania and not only that social exclusion will not be reduced, but, even worse, new sources of exclusion will emerge.

References:

• Bianchi, A., Barrios, S., Cabrera, M., Cachia, R., Compañó, R., Malanowski, N., Punie, Y., Turlea, G., Zinnbauer, G. and Centeno, C. (2006), Revisiting eInclusion: from Vision to Action, European Commission, Joint Research Center.

• Castells, M. (1999), Information Technology, Globalization and Social Development, UNRISD Discussion Paper No. 114, September 1999.

• Castells, M. (2001), The Internet Galaxy. Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society, Oxford University Press.

• Codagnone, C. (ed.) (2009), Vienna Study on Inclusive Innovation for Growth and Cohesion: Modelling and demonstrating the impact of eInclusion, http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/einclusion/library/studies/docs/eco_report.pdf

• De Grip A. and Zwick T., The employability of low-skilled workers in the knowledge economy, http://rlab.lse.ac.uk/lower/final_papers/grip.pdf

• DiMaggio, P. J., and E. Hargittai (2001), From the “digital divide” to “digital inequality”: Studying Internet use as penetration increases, Working Paper 19, Princeton, N.J.: Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University.

• http://www.princeton.edu/culturalpolicy/workpap/WP15%20-%20DiMaggio%2BHargittai.pdf

• DiMaggio, P., E. Hargittai, W. Neuman, and J. Robinson. 2001. Social Implications of the Internet. Annual Review of Sociology 27:307–336

• DiMaggio, P., and C. Celeste. 2004. Technological Careers: Adoption, Deepening, and Dropping Out in a Panel of Internet Users. Available at www.russellsage.org/publications/workingpapers

• European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (2002), Forum Report, http://agency.osha.eu.int/publications/forum/5/en/index.htm

• Empirica (2006), Benchmarking in a Policy Perspective: einclusion, Gesellschaft für Kommunikations- und Technologieforschung mbH, Bonn, Germany, Report no. 5, December 2006.

79

AN EXTENDED APPROACH TO E-INCLUSION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR ROMANIA

• European Commission (2001), The information society’s potential for social inclusion in Europe, SEC(2001)1428, Brussels, 18.09.2001.

• European Commission (2005), i2010 – A European Information Society for growth and employment, COM(2005) 229 final.

• European Commission (2007), Measuring progress in e-Inclusion. Riga Dashboard 2007, http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/einclusion/docs/i2010_initiative/rigadashboard.pdf

• European Commission (2008), Internet of Things in 2020. A Roadmap for the Future, European Platform for Smart Systems Integration.

• European Commission (2009), Europe’s Digital Competitiveness Report. Volume 1: i2010 - Annual Information Society Report 2009 Benchmarking i2010: Trends and main achievements, COM(2009) 390.

• European Commission (2010a), A Digital Agenda for Europe, COM(2010) 245, Brussels, 19 May 2010.

• European Commission (2010b), Europe’s Digital Competitiveness Report, vol. II, ICT Country Profiles, SEC(2010) 627, 17 May 2010.

• European Commission (2010c), Europe 2020. A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, COM(2010) 2020, 03.03.2010, Brussels.

• Eurostat (2010), Combating poverty and social exclusion. A statistical portrait of the European Union, 2010 edition.

• Gheorghiu, R. and Unguru, M. (2009), Beyond Connectivity. Future Challanges for E-inclusion Policies, Romanian Journal of European Affairs, no. 2, vol. 9.

• Gibson, R.K., Römmele, A. and Ward, S.J. (2004), Electronic Democracy. Mobilisation, organization and participation via new ICTs, Routledge.

• Institutul de Cercetare a Calităţii Vieţii (2010), Raportul social al ICCV. Dupa 20 de ani: optiuni pentru România, Academia Română, Bucureşti, 10 iunie 2010.

• Levitas, R. (2005), The Inclusive Society?. Social Exclusion and New Labour, second edition, Palgrave Macmillan.

• Molnár S. (2003), The explanation frame of the digital divide, Information Society 2002/4., “INFONIA” Foundation, Budapest, Hungary.

• Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. and Stansbury, M. (2003), Virtual Inequality: Beyond the Digital Divide, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

• Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. and McNeal, R.S. (2008), Digital citizenship : the internet, society, and participation, MIT Press,

• Riga Ministerial Declaration, 11 June 2006, Riga, Latvia, http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/events/ict_riga_2006/index_en.htm

• Sloterdijk, P. (2009), Rules for the Human Zoo: a response to the Letter on Humanism, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space200, volume 27, pages 12-28.

• United Nations (2005), UN Global E-government Readiness Report 2005. From E-government to E-inclusion, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Public Administration and Development Management, New York.

80

VIOREL NIŢĂ

• van Dijk, Jan A.G.M. (2008), The Digital Divide in Europe, http://www.utwente.nl/gw/mco/bestanden/digitaldivide.pdf

• Ward, T., Lelkes, O., Sutherland, H. and Tóth, I.G. (2009), European Inequalities. Social Inclusion and Income Distribution in the European Union, TARKI Social Rereasch Institute, Budapest

• Warschauer, M. (2003), Technology and Social Inclusion. Rethinking the Digital Divide, MIT Press.

• Witte, J.C. and Mannon, S.E. (2010), The Internet and Social Inequalities, Routledge.

• Witten I.H., Gori M. and Numerico T. (2007), Web dragons. Inside the Myths of Search Engine Technology, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.

• Work Research Centre (2004), Strengthening eInclusion and eAccessibility across Europe, project, final version, October, 2004 http://www.empirica.com/themen/einclusion/documents/eInclusion_Analytic-framework.pdf

• Zinnbauer, D. (2007), What can Social Capital and ICT do for Inclusion?, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Sevilla, Spain.