Digital transformation offers tremendous opportunities for emerging economies like Turkey. However, the full potential of digital advancements can only be achieved with the widespread adoption of digital technologies, which depends on the capable delivery of information and communication technologies (ICT) and their effective usability. Despite increased Internet penetration rates in Turkey in recent years, disparities in Internet adoption continue to persist. This study investigates whether and to what extent key demographic and socioeconomic factors are associated with the first-level digital divide in Turkey. The phenomenon is discussed in three aspects: device access, Internet access, and Internet use. The findings demonstrate that the vast majority of people in Turkey have Internet-enabled devices, mainly smartphones. Age, income, and education are significant predictors of Internet access. However, even when access is available, large disparities exist among gender, age, income, education, and employment groups in terms of Internet use. Moreover, our findings reveal significant regional differences in both Internet access and use. The results point to the need for a more coherent vision on ICT policies such that the need for demand-side programs are intended to stimulate broadband adoption widely by those groups. This paper provides useful pointers that can facilitate further academic research and structural decisions among policy-makers, by emphasizing the high-priority target groups.
AcilarA. (2011). Exploring the aspects of digital divide in a developing country. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 8, 231–244.
2.
AnılBülentKöksalEmin (2016). Türkiye’de Interneti Kimler, Ne Için Kullanıyor?Marmara University Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences, 38(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.14780/iibd.61602
3.
AntonioA.TuffleyD. (2014). The gender digital divide in developing countries. Future Internet, 6(4), 673–687. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi6040673
BonfadelliH. (2002). The internet and knowledge gaps: A theoretical and empirical investigation. European Journal of Communication, 17(1), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323102017001607
6.
BrajnikG.YesiladaY.HarperS. (2011). Web accessibility guideline aggregation for older users and its validation. Universal Access in the Information Society, 10(4), 403–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-011-0220-5
7.
BucyE. P.NewhagenJ. E. (2004). Media access: Social and psychological dimensions of new technology use. Psychology Press.
8.
CavenderA. C.BighamJ. P. (2011). Toward web accessibility for older users. Universal Access in the Information Society, 10(4), 357–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-011-0219-y
9.
ChaudhuriA.FlammK. S.HorriganJ. (2005). An analysis of the determinants of internet access. Telecommunications Policy, 29(9), 731–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2005.07.001
CzajaS. J.CharnessN.FiskA. D.HertzogC.NairS. N.RogersW. A.SharitJ. (2006). Factors predicting the use of technology: Findings from the center for research and education on aging and technology enhancement (create). Psychology and Aging, 21(2), 333–352. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.21.2.333
12.
DalgıçB.FazlıoğluB. (2020). The impact of broadband speed on productivity: Findings from Turkish firms. Applied Economics Letters, 27(21), 1764–1767. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2020.1722789
13.
DasguptaS.LallS.WheelerD. (2005). Policy reform, economic growth and the digital divide. Oxford Development Studies, 33(2), 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600810500137889
14.
DavisF. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38(3), 475–487. https://doi.org/10.1006/imms.1993.1022
15.
DiMaggioP.HargittaiE.CelesteC.ShaferS. (2004). From unequal access to differentiated use: A literature review and agenda for research on digital inequality. Social Inequality, 1, 355–400.
European Commission. (2020b). Human capital and digital skills. Digital single market – European commission. Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) Report 2020 - Human capital. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/human-capital
FuchsC. (2009). The role of income inequality in a multivariate cross-national analysis of the digital divide. Social Science Computer Review, 27(1), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439308321628
20.
GonzalesA. (2016). The contemporary US digital divide: From initial access to technology maintenance. Information, Communication & Society, 19(2), 234–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1050438
21.
GrayT. J.GainousJ.WagnerK. M. (2017). Gender and the digital divide in Latin America*. Social Science Quarterly, 98(1), 326–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12270
22.
GrishchenkoN. (2020). The gap not only closes: Resistance and reverse shifts in the digital divide in Russia. Telecommunications Policy, 44(8), 102004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2020.102004
23.
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(4), 503–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.891633
24.
HargittaiE. (1999). Weaving the western web: Explaining differences in internet connectivity among OECD countries. Telecommunications Policy, 23(10), 701–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-5961(99)00050-6
25.
HaugeJ. A.PriegerJ. E. (2010). Demand-side programs to stimulate adoption of broadband: What works?Review of Network Economics, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.2202/1446-9022.1234
26.
HilbertM. (2011). 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(6), 479–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2011.07.001
ITU. (2018). Measuring the Information Society Report 2018. Geneva
29.
ITU. (2020). Measuring Digital Development ICT Price Trends 2020. Geneva
30.
KhanM. L.WelserH. T.CisnerosC.ManatongG.IdrisI. K. (2020). Digital inequality in the Appalachian Ohio: Understanding how demographics, internet access, and skills can shape vital information use (VIU). Telematics and Informatics, 50, 101380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101380
31.
KöksalE. (2021). Regulation of fiber and the internet. In EroğluM.FingerM. (Eds.), The regulation of Turkish network industries (pp. 383–401). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81720-6_19
32.
KöksalE.AnılB. (2015). The Determinants of Broadband Access and Usage in Turkey: Do Regions Matter? Topics in Middle Eastern and African Economies, 17(1), 113–132. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2362376
33.
KöksalE.ArdiyokÇ. (2015). Reviewing regulatory policy for broadband in Turkey: The failure of service-based competition and the prospect of facility-based competition. Competition and Regulation in Network Industries, 16(4), 354–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/178359171501600403
34.
KoruppS. E.SzydlikM. (2005). Causes and trends of the digital divide. European Sociological Review, 21(4), 409–422. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jci030
35.
Lucendo-MonederoA. L.Ruiz-RodríguezF.González-RelañoR. (2019). Measuring the digital divide at regional level. A spatial analysis of the inequalities in digital development of households and individuals in Europe. Telematics and Informatics, 41(2019), 197–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.05.002
36.
McFaddenD. (1979). Quantitative methods for analysing travel behaviour of individuals: Some recent developments. In Behavioural travel modelling. Routledge.
37.
MehraB.MerkelC.BishopA. P. (2004). The internet for empowerment of minority and marginalized users. New Media & Society, 6(6), 781–802. https://doi.org/10.1177/146144804047513
38.
MossbergerK.TolbertC. J.GilbertM. (2006). Race, Place, and Information Technology. Urban Affairs Review, 41(5), 583–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087405283511
39.
MossbergerK.TolbertC. J.HamiltonA. (2012). Broadband Adoption| measuring digital citizenship: Mobile access and broadband. International Journal of Communication, 6(0), 37.
40.
MumporezeN.PrielerM. (2017). Gender digital divide in Rwanda: A qualitative analysis of socioeconomic factors. Telematics and Informatics, 34(7), 1285–1293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.05.014
41.
NgwenyamaO.MorawczynskiO. (2009). Factors affecting ICT expansion in emerging economies: An analysis of ICT infrastructure expansion in five Latin American countries. Information Technology for Development, 15(4), 237–258. https://doi.org/10.1002/itdj.20128
42.
PeacockS. E.KünemundH. (2007). Senior citizens and Internet technology: Reasons and correlates of access versus non-access in a European comparative perspective. European Journal of Ageing, 4(4), 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-007-0067-z
43.
PearceK. E.RiceR. E. (2013). Digital divides from access to activities: Comparing mobile and personal computer internet users. Journal of Communication, 63(4), 721–744. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12045
RagneddaM.RuiuM. L.AddeoF. (2022). The self-reinforcing effect of digital and social exclusion: The inequality loop. Telematics and Informatics, 72(2022), 101852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2022.101852
RigginsF.DewanS. (2005). The digital divide: Current and future research directions. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 6(12), 298–337. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00074
48.
RobinsonL.CottenS. R.OnoH.Quan-HaaseA.MeschG.ChenW.SchulzJ.HaleT. M.SternM. J. (2015). Digital inequalities and why they matter. Information, Communication & Society, 18(5), 569–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1012532
49.
Ruiz-RodríguezF.Lucendo-MonederoA. L.González-RelañoR. (2018). Measurement and characterisation of the Digital Divide of Spanish regions at enterprise level. A comparative analysis with the European context. Telecommunications Policy, 42(3), 187–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2017.11.007
50.
SaleminkK.StrijkerD.BosworthG. (2017). Rural development in the digital age: A systematic literature review on unequal ICT availability, adoption, and use in rural areas. Journal of Rural Studies, 54(2017), 360–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.09.001
51.
ScheerderA.van DeursenA.van DijkJ. (2017). Determinants of Internet skills, uses and outcomes. A systematic review of the second- and third-level digital divide. Telematics and Informatics, 34(8), 1607–1624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.07.007
52.
SelwynN. (2004). Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide. New Media & Society, 6(3), 341–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804042519
53.
SelwynN.GorardS.FurlongJ.MaddenL. (2003). Older adults’ use of information and communications technology in everyday life. Ageing & Society, 23(5), 561–582. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X03001302
54.
SicherlP. (2019). Different statistical measures create different perceptions of the digital divide. The Information Society, 35(3), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2019.1582568
55.
TalukdarD.GauriD. K. (2011). Home internet access and usage in the USA: Trends in the socio-economic digital divide. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 28(7). https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.02807
56.
TsetsiE.RainsS. A. (2017). Smartphone Internet access and use: Extending the digital divide and usage gap. Mobile Media & Communication, 5(3), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157917708329
van DeursenA. J.van DijkJ. A. (2019). The first-level digital divide shifts from inequalities in physical access to inequalities in material access. New Media & Society, 21(2), 354–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818797082
61.
van DijkJ.HackerK. (2003). The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. The Information Society, 19(4), 315–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240309487
62.
van DijkJ. A. G. M. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. SAGE Publications.
63.
WeiL. (2012). Number matters: The multimodality of internet use as an indicator of the digital inequalities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3), 303–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01578.x
64.
WhiteH. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48(4), 817–838. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912934
65.
WilsonK. R.WallinJ. S.ReiserC. (2003). Social stratification and the digital divide. Social Science Computer Review, 21(2), 133–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439303021002001
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.
