Based on a sample of 21,546 individuals and 5,224 households, we use multilevel probit models to analyze the divides in the use of the Internet and online governmental services in Oman. We also study the main self-reported reasons for not using the Internet. The results reveal that characteristics such as education, employment status, nationality, role in the household, or age influence the likelihood of using both the Internet and online governmental services. Gender is only a relevant explanatory variable in the Internet use case. Although a gender divide exists in the online governmental services use, it is explained by differences in other individual characteristics. No need, lack of basic Information and Communication Technology skills and illiteracy are the most common explanations for not using the Internet.
Al-MamariQ.CorbittB.Oyaro GekaraV. (2013). E-government adoption in Oman: Motivating factors from a government perspective. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 7, 199–224.
2.
AlozieN. O.Akpan-ObongP. (2017). The digital gender divide: Confronting obstacles to women’s development in Africa. Development Policy Review, 35, 137–160.
3.
The American Association for Public Opinion Research (2016). Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys (9th ed.). Lenexa, KS: AAPOR.
4.
AntonioA.TuffleyD. (2014). The gender digital divide in developing countries. Future Internet, 6, 673–687.
5.
BarnidgeM.DiehlT.RojasH. (2019). Second screening for news and digital divides. Social Science Computer Review, 37, 55–72.
6.
ChoudrieJ.GhineaG.SongonugaV. N. (2013). Silver surfers, e-government and the digital divide: An exploratory study of UK local authority websites and older citizens. Interacting With Computers, 25, 417–442.
7.
ChowG. C. (1960). Tests of equality between sets of coefficients in two linear regressions. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 28, 591–605.
8.
DimitrovaD. V.ChenY. C. (2006). Profiling the adopters of e-government information and services: The influence of psychological characteristics, civic mindedness, and information channels. Social Science Computer Review, 24, 172–188.
9.
EstevezE.JanowskiT. (2013). Electronic governance for sustainable development—conceptual framework and state of research. Government Information Quarterly, 30, S94–S109.
10.
FriemelT. N. (2016). The digital divide has grown old: Determinants of a digital divide among seniors. New Media & Society, 18, 313–331.
11.
FuchsC. (2009). The role of income inequality in a multivariate cross-national analysis of the digital divide. Social Science Computer Review, 27, 41–58.
12.
GrayT. J.GainousJ.WagnerK. M. (2017). Gender and the digital divide in Latin America. Social Science Quarterly, 98, 326–340.
13.
HaightM.Quan-HaaseA.CorbettB. A. (2014). Revisiting the digital divide in Canada: The impact of demographic factors on access to the internet, level of online activity, and social networking site usage. Information, Communication & Society, 17, 503–519.
14.
HilbertM. (2011, November). Digital gender divide or technologically empowered women in developing countries? A typical case of lies, damned lies, and statistics. Women’s Studies International Forum, 34, 479–489.
15.
HilbertM. (2016). The bad news is that the digital access divide is here to stay: Domestically installed bandwidths among 172 countries for 1986–2014. Telecommunications Policy, 40, 567–581.
16.
HoffmanD. L.NovakT. P. (1998). Bridging the racial divide on the internet. Science, 280, 390–391.
17.
LiuY.LiH.KostakosV.GoncalvesJ.HosioS.HuF. (2014). An empirical investigation of mobile government adoption in rural China: A case study in Zhejiang province. Government Information Quarterly, 31, 432–442.
18.
LivingstoneS.HelsperE. (2007). Gradations in digital inclusion: Children, young people and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 9, 671–696.
19.
LogesW. E.JungJ. Y. (2001). Exploring the digital divide: Internet connectedness and age. Communication Research, 28, 536–562.
20.
MansourA. M. (2012). E-government in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries: A comparative study. Journal of the Social Sciences, 40, 2102.
21.
MumporezeN.PrielerM. (2017). Gender digital divide in Rwanda: A qualitative analysis of socioeconomic factors. Telematics and Informatics, 34, 1285–1293.
22.
NisbetE. C.StoycheffE.PearceK. E. (2012). Internet use and democratic demands: A multinational, multilevel model of Internet use and citizen attitudes about democracy. Journal of Communication, 62, 249–265.
23.
RashidA. T. (2016). Digital inclusion and social inequality: Gender differences in ICT access and use in five developing countries. Gender, Technology and Development, 20, 306–332.
24.
ReddickC.AnthopoulosL. (2014). Interactions with e-government, new digital media and traditional channel choices: Citizen-initiated factors. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 8, 398–419.
25.
RodriguesG.SarabdeenJ.BalasubramanianS. (2016). Factors that influence consumer adoption of e-government services in the UAE: A UTAUT model perspective. Journal of Internet Commerce, 15, 18–39.
26.
SharmaS. K. (2015). Adoption of e-government services: The role of service quality dimensions and demographic variables. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 9, 207–222.
27.
ShelleyM.ThraneL.ShulmanS.LangE.BeisserS.LarsonT.MutitiJ. (2004). Digital citizenship: Parameters of the digital divide. Social Science Computer Review, 22, 256–269.
28.
ShiraziF.GholamiR.HigónD. A. (2009). The impact of information and communication technology (ICT), education and regulation on economic freedom in Islamic Middle Eastern countries. Information & Management, 46, 426–433.
29.
ThomasJ. C.StreibG. (2003). The new face of government: Citizen-initiated contacts in the era of E-Government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13, 83–102.
30.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2016). E-government survey 2016. E-government in support of sustainable development. New York, NY: United Nations.
31.
WarrenM. (2007). The digital vicious cycle: Links between social disadvantage and digital exclusion in rural areas. Telecommunications Policy, 31, 374–388.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
