Inequality and Poverty in the Digital Age
- Autores: Goffe N.V1
-
Afiliações:
- Primakov National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations Russian Academy of Sciences (IMEMO)
- Edição: Nº 6 (127) (2024)
- Páginas: 179-190
- Seção: SOCIAL SPHERE
- URL: https://ter-arkhiv.ru/0201-7083/article/view/652307
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.31857/S0201708324060160
- ID: 652307
Citar
Resumo
As a result of the technological revolution, there is a doubling of the reality in which modern man operates. Many resources, activities, public and private services are moving to a virtual environment. Along with the phenomena of the surrounding world that are familiar to people, their digital varieties arise, closely interacting with their real-life counterparts. The article is devoted to digital inequality and digital poverty, the evolution of approaches to their study in domestic and foreign academic literature. It is concluded that the theories explaining their existence organically complement each other, giving an idea of the necessary and sufficient conditions for full human participation in the life of a network society. The coverage of different segments of the population with new technologies was not uniform. Special attention is paid to the factors preventing vulnerable segments of the population within the European Union from taking full advantage of technological innovations and fully participating in society. The division of society into digitally engaged and outsiders is a big social and political problem that humanity will have to deal with in the 21st century.
Sobre autores
N. Goffe
Primakov National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations Russian Academy of Sciences (IMEMO)
Email: nina-goffe@yandex.ru
Candidate of Sciences (Economics) Leading Researcher of Center for Comparative Socio-Economic and Political Studies Moscow, Russia
Bibliografia
- Вартанова Е, Гладкова А. (2021) Цифровое неравенство, цифровой капитал, цифровая включенность: динамика теоретических подходов и политических решений. Вестник Московского Университета. Серия 10. Журналистика. № 1. С. 3-29. doi: 10.30547/vestnik.journ.1.2021.329
- Вартанова Е.Л. (2018) Концептуализация цифрового неравенства: основные этапы. МедиаАльманах. № 5. C. 8-12. doi: 10.30547/mediaalma
- Говорова Н. (2021) Бедность и неравенство: вызовы пандемии COVID-19. Общественные науки и современность. № 3. С. 75-87. doi: 10.31857/S086904990015422-6
- Лункин Р.Н. (2023) Социальное неравенство в современном обществе риска. Современная Европа. № 7. С. 176-191 doi: 10.31857/S0201708323070148
- Barrantes Cáceres R. (2007) Digital Poverty: Concept and Measurement, with an Application to Peru. Kellog Institute for International Studies. Working Paper No. 337. 34 p. URL: https://kellogg.nd.edu/sites/default/files/old_files/documents/337_0.pdf (дата обращения: 15.07.2024).
- Friemel Th.N. (2014) The digital divide has grown old: Determinants of a digital divide among seniors. New Media & Society. Vol. 18. No. 2. P. 313-331.
- Gómez D.C. (2018) The Three Levels of the Digital Divide: Barriers in Access, Use and Utility of Internet among Young People in Spain. Interaçoes Sociedade e as novas modernidades. No. 34. P. 64-91. doi: 10.31211/interacoes.n34.2018.a4
- Mason Sh.M., Hacker K.L. (2003) Applying Communication Theory to Digital Divide Research. IT&Society. Vol. 1. No. 5. P. 40-55.
- Ragnedda M. (2018) Conceptualizing digital capital. Telematics and Informatics. Vol. 35. No. 8. P. 2366-2375.
- Ragnedda M. (2020) Enhancing Digital Equity: Connecting the Digital Underclass. Palgrave Macmillan. 121 p. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-49079-9
- Ragnedda M., Muschert G.W. (2015) Max Weber and Digital Divide Studies?: Introduction. International Journal of Communication. No. 9. P. 2757-2762.
- Ragnedda, M. (2017) The Third Digital Divide: A Weberian Approach to Digital Inequalities. Routledge, N.Y., USA. 128 p.
- Van Deursen A.J.A.M., Van Dijk J.A.G.M. (2019) The first-level digital divide shifts from inequalities in physical access to inequalities in material access. New Media & Society. Vol. 21. No. 2. P. 354-375. doi: 10.1177/1461444818797082
Arquivos suplementares
