Top

Social Indicators Research

Published in:

30-11-2016

The Matthew Effect in the Italian Digital Context: The Progressive Marginalisation of the “Poor”

Authors: Isabella Mingo, Roberta Bracciale

Published in: Social Indicators Research | Issue 2/2018

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

The Matthew effect describes a model according to which, over time, inequalities fuel ever-widening gaps among individuals and social groups on the basis of the wellknown adage: “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer”. In this paper, we analyse the results of the Matthew effect in Italy in relation to first and second level digital divide, in order to determine the trajectories of closure, persistence or reinforcement of inequalities within the population. The central research question of the work aims to understand whether, when compared with a higher level of dissemination of technology over time, the adoption curves trace a model of progressive inclusion for the “poor” which approach the “richest”, or whether progressive increases are recorded in gaps. Considering a time span of more than a decade, microdata from the Istat multipurpose “Aspects of daily life” survey were used to find an empirically grounded answer to this research question. In terms of methodology, indices of absolute and relative digital exclusion and marginalisation which are necessary to take into account the changing nature of the phenomenon were proposed and used. Techniques of multivariate analysis (cluster analysis and multiple factor analysis) were also applied to detect any changes in the structure of variables and trajectories of the socio-demographic characteristics in question. The main results show the existence of a relative Matthew effect in Italy: despite the general increase in the spread of technologies, we are witnessing a progressive impoverishment of the weakest sectors of the population.

previous article Poverty in Mexico: Its relationship to social and cultural indicators

next article Social Context of Welfare in Manitoba, Canada

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Available only for authorised users

The “rich to get richer” (Kraut et al. 2002) and “accumulation of advantage (AOA) hypothesis” (De Haan 2004) labels identify models similar to the Matthew effect.

In view of the specificity of sociocultural and territorial contexts that it must take into account in its analyses, Eurostat continues to define regular use as “at least once a week (i.e. every day or almost every day or at least once a week but not every day) on average within the last three months before the survey. Use includes all locations and methods of access and any purpose (private or work/business related)” http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-datasets/-/tin00091.

The empirical operationalisation of the concept is determined by certain documents that establish the current regulatory framework (Regulations (EC) Nos 808/2004 and 1006/2009) which govern empirical surveys on ICTs within Europe. This framework serves as a guideline on the items needed to build a useful regional benchmark for comparative analysis which is both longitudinal and transverse.

There might also be a process of closing the gap between “rich” and “poor”, or intermediate combinations in the rate of enrichment and impoverishment. This rare dynamic may happen when the Matthew effect does not occur and when the absolute and relative terms are inverted: in the first case, the rich become poor and the poor become richer; in the second case, both the rich and the poor become richer, but the pace of enrichment of the poor is much faster (Rigney 2010).

In this work, the words “poor” and “rich” are used broadly and do not refer specifically to the economic dimension.

Je(2) is the sum of squared errors in resulting subgroups, while Je(1) is the sum of squared errors in the group that is to be divided.

In 2009 the Internet skills were not detected.

The analysis was conducted using SPAD-TM software.

These are the homologous partial points which are more distant on the first factorial common plane.

Ala-Mutka, K. (2011). Mapping digital competence: Towards a conceptual understanding. Seville. ftp://ftp.jrc.es/pub/EURdoc/EURdoc/JRC67075_TN.pdf. Accessed November 3, 2014.

Anderson, B., & Tracey, K. (2002). The impact (or otherwise) of the internet on everyday british life. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The internet in everyday life (pp. 139–163). Malden: Blackwell.CrossRef

Bakardjieva, M. (2005). Internet society. The internet in everyday life. London: Sage.

Bawden, D. (2008). Origins and concepts of digital literacy. In C. Lankshear & M. Knobel (Eds.), Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and practices (pp. 17–32). New York: Peter Lang.

Bentivegna, S. (2009). Disuguaglianze digitali. Le nuove forme di esclusione nella società dell’informazione. Roma-Bari: Laterza.

Blank, G. (2013). Who creates content? Stratification and content creation on the Internet. Information, Communication and Society, 16(4), 590–612. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.777758.CrossRef

Blank, G., & Groselj, D. (2014). Dimensions of Internet use: amount, variety, and types. Information, Communication and Society, 17(4), 417–435. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2014.889189.CrossRef

Bonfadelli, H. (2002). The internet and knowledge gaps: A theoretical and empirical investigation. European Journal of Communication, 17(1), 65–84. doi:10.1177/0267323102017001607.CrossRef

Bourdieu, P. (2001). La distinzione. Critica sociale del gusto. Bologna: il Mulino.

Bracciale, R. (2010). Donne nella rete. Disuguaglianze digitali di genere. Milano: FrancoAngeli.

Bracciale, R., & Mingo, I. (2009). La e-inclusion e le competenze digitali: il contesto Europeo e il caso dell’Italia. In I. Mingo (Ed.), Concetti e quantità. Percorsi di statistica sociale (pp. 179–214). Acireale-Roma: Bonanno.

Bracciale, R., & Mingo, I. (2015). Digital divide in time of crisis in Europe: Do the rich get richer, the poor get poorer? In A. Borghini & E. Campo (Eds.), Exploring the crisis: theoretical perspectives and empirical investigation (pp. 41–57). Pisa: Pisa University Press.

Brandtzæg, P. B., Heim, J., & Karahasanović, A. (2011). Understanding the new digital divide—A typology of Internet users in Europe. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 69(3), 123–138. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2010.11.004.CrossRef

Bunz, U., Curry, C., & Voon, W. (2007). Perceived versus actual computer-email-web fluency. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(5), 2321–2344. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2006.03.008.CrossRef

Castells, M. (2000). End of millennium. The information age: Economy, society, and culture. Oxford: Blackwell.

Chen, W., & Wellman, B. (2004). The global digital divide—within and between countries. It and Society, 1(7), 39–45.

Cruz-Jesus, F., Oliveira, T., & Bacao, F. (2012). Digital divide across the European Union. Information Management, 49(6), 278–291. doi:10.1016/j.im.2012.09.003.CrossRef

De Haan, J. (2004). A multifaceted dynamic model of the digital divide. It and Society, 1(7), 66–88.

DiMaggio, P., & Garipp, F. (2012). Network effects and social inequality. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 93–118.CrossRef

DiMaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. (2001). From the ‘digital divide’ to ‘digital inequality’: Studying Internet use as penetration increases (No. 15). https://www.princeton.edu/~artspol/workpap/WP15%20-%20DiMaggio+Hargittai.pdf. Accessed September 29, 2012.

DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). Digital inequality. From unequal access to differential use. In K. M. Neckerman (Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 549–566). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

DiPrete, T. A., & Eirich, G. M. (2006). Cumulative advantage as a mechanism for inequality: A review of theoretical and empirical developments. Annual Review of Sociology, 32(1), 271–297. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.32.061604.123127.CrossRef

Donat, E., Brandtweiner, R., & Kerschbaum, J. (2009). Attitudes and the digital divide: Attitude measurement as instrument to predict internet usage. Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 12, 37–56. http://www.inform.nu/Articles/Vol12/ISJv12p037-056Donat229.pdf. Accessed September 29, 2012.

Drori, G. S., & Jang, Y. S. (2003). The global digital divide a sociological assessment of trends and causes. Social Science Computer Review, 21(2), 144–161. doi:10.1177/0894439303251556.CrossRef

Duda, R. O., Hart, P. E., & Stork, D. G. (1973). Pattern classification (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Escofier, B., & Pagès, J. (1988). Analyses factorielles simples et multiples. Objectifs, methodes et interpretation. Paris: Dunod.

Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital competence in practice: An analysis of frameworks. Seville. http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC68116.pdf. Accessed November 3, 2014.

Guerrieri, P., & Bentivegna, S. (Eds.). (2011). The economic impact of digital technologies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Gui, M., & Argentin, G. (2011). Digital skills of internet natives: Different forms of digital literacy in a random sample of northern Italian high school students. New Media and Society, 13(6), 963–980.CrossRef

Haddon, L. (2004). Information and communication technologies in everyday life: A concise introduction and research guide. Oxford: Berg.

Harambam, J., Aupers, S., & Houtman, D. (2012). The Contentious Gap. From Digital divide to cultural beliefs about online interactions. Information, Communication and Society. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2012.687006.

Hargittai, E. (2002). Second-level digital divide: Differences in People’s Online Skills. First Monday, 7(4), 1–17. http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/942. Accessed September 29, 2012.

Hargittai, E. (2003). The digital divide and what to do about it. In D. C. Jones (Ed.), New economy handbook (pp. 821–841). San Diego: Academic Press.

Hargittai, E. (2005). Survey measures of web-oriented digital literacy. Social Science Computer Review, 23(3), 371–379.CrossRef

Hargittai, E. (2008). The digital reproduction of inequality. In D. Grusky (Ed.), Social stratification (pp. 936–944). Boulder: Westview Press.

Hargittai, E., & Hinnant, A. (2008). Digital inequality: Differences in young adults’ use of the internet. Communication Research, 35(5), 602–621.CrossRef

Hargittai, E., & Hsieh, Y. P. (2013). Digital inequality. In W. H. Dutton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook for internet studies (pp. 129–150). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hargittai, E., & Shafer, S. (2006). Differences in actual and perceived online skills: The role of gender. Social Science Quarterly, 87(2), 432–448.CrossRef

Helsper, E. J. (2012). A corresponding fields model for the links between social and digital exclusion. Communication Theory, 22(4), 403–426.CrossRef

Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2013). Distinct skill pathways to digital engagement. European Journal of Communication, 28(6), 696–713.CrossRef

Helsper, E. J., Eynon, R., & van Deursen, A. J. A. M. (2016). Measuring types of internet use. From digital skills to tangible outcomes project report. http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/From-digital-skills-to-tangible-outcomes.aspx. Accessed September 7, 2016.

Helsper, E. J., van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & Eynon, R. (2015). Tangible outcomes of internet use. From digital skills to tangible outcomes project report. www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=112. Accessed June 20, 2015.

Hunsinger, J., Klastrup, L., & Allen, M. (Eds.). (2010). International handbook of internet research. London, New York: Springer.

ISTAT-FUB. (2015). Internet@Italia 2014. L’uso di Internet da parte di cittadini e imprese.

Kalmus, V., Realo, A., & Siibak, A. (2011). Motives for Internet use and their relationships with personality traits and socio-demographic factors. Trames, 15(4), 385–403. doi:10.3176/tr.2011.4.04.CrossRef

Katz, J. E., & Rice, R. E. (2002). Social consequences of Internet use. Access, involvement, and interaction. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. (2002). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 49–74. doi:10.1111/1540-4560.00248.CrossRef

Liff, S., & Shepherd, A. (2004). An evolving gender digital divide? OII, Oxford Internet Institute, 2, 1–17. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1308492.

Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63. doi:10.1126/science.159.3810.56.CrossRef

Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C., & Stansbury, M. (2003). Virtual inequality. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.

Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the internet wOrldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

NTIA (National Telecommunication and Information Administration Us Department of Commerce). (1999). Falling through the net: Defining the digital divide. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/fttn99/contents.html. Accessed April 15, 2015.

Ono, H., & Zavodny, M. (2007). Digital inequality: A five country comparison using microdata. Social Science Research, 36(3), 1135–1155. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2006.09.001.CrossRef

Papacharissi, Z., & Rubin, A. M. (2000). Predictors of internet use. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 44(2), 175–196. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4402_2.CrossRef

Prezerakos, G. N., & Polykalas, S. E. (2014). Implications of the financial crisis to the digital divide across European union. In International Conference on Information Society (i-Society 2014). doi:10.13140/2.1.2099.4887.

Rigney, D. (2010). The Matthew effect: How advantage begets further advantage. New York: Columbia University Press. doi:10.7312/rign14948.

Sassi, S. (2005). Cultural differentiation or social segregation? Four approaches to the digital divide. New Media and Society, 7(5), 684–700. doi:10.1177/1461444805056012.CrossRef

Selwyn, N. (2003). Apart from technology: Understanding people’s non-use of information and communication technologies in everyday life. Technology in Society, 25(1), 99–116. doi:10.1016/S0160-791X(02)00062-3.CrossRef

Selwyn, N. (2004). Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide. New Media and Society, 6(3), 341–362. doi:10.1177/1461444804042519.CrossRef

Sieverding, M., & Koch, S. C. (2009). (Self-)Evaluation of computer competence: How gender matters. Computers and Education, 52(3), 696–701.CrossRef

van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & Helsper, E. J. (2015). The third-level digital divide: Who benefits most from being online? In L. Robinson, S. R. Cotten, J. Schulz, T. M. Hale, & A. Williams (Eds.), Communication and information technologies annual (pp. 29–52). Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley. doi:10.1108/S2050-206020150000010002.

van Deursen, A. J. A. M., Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2014). Measuring digital skills. From digital skills to tangible outcomes project report. www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=112. Accessed June 20, 2015.

van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2010). Measuring internet skills. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 26(10), 891–916. doi:10.1080/10447318.2010.496338.CrossRef

van Deursen, A. J. A. M., & van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2014). The digital divide shifts to differences in usage. New Media and Society, 16, 507–526.CrossRef

van Deursen, A. J. A. M., van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & Peters, O. (2011). Rethinking Internet skills: The contribution of gender, age, education, Internet experience, and hours online to medium- and content-related Internet skills. Poetics, 39(2), 125–144.CrossRef

van Deursen, A. J. A. M., van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & Peters, O. (2012). Proposing a survey instrument for measuring operational, formal, information, and strategic internet skills. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 28(12), 827–837.CrossRef

van Deursen, A. J. A. M., van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & ten Klooster, P. M. (2015). Increasing inequalities in what we do online: A longitudinal cross sectional analysis of Internet activities among the Dutch population (2010 to 2013) over gender, age, education, and income. Telematics and Informatics, 32(2), 259–272. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2014.09.003.CrossRef

van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics, 34(4–5), 221–235.CrossRef

van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2009). One Europe, digitally divided. In A. Chadwick & P. N. Howard (Eds.), Routledge handbook of internet politics (pp. 288–304). London-New York: Routledge.

van Dijk, J. A. G. M., & van Deursen, A. J. A. M. (2014). Digital skills. Unlocking the information society. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Vicente, M. R., & López, A. J. (2011). Assessing the regional digital divide across the European Union-27. Telecommunications Policy, 35(3), 220–237. doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2010.12.013.CrossRef

Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Wasserman, I. M., & Richmond-Abbott, M. (2005). Gender and the internet: Causes of variation in access, level, and scope of use. Social Science Quarterly, 86(1), 252–270. doi:10.1111/j.0038-4941.2005.00301.x.CrossRef

Wellman, B., & Haythornthwaite, C. (Eds.). (2002). The internet in everyday life. Malden: Blackwell.

Witte, J. C., & Mannon, S. E. (2010). The internet and social inequalities. New York-London: Routledge.

Zillien, N., & Hargittai, E. (2009). Digital distinction: Status-specific types of internet usage. Social Science Quarterly, 90(2), 274–291.CrossRef

Title: The Matthew Effect in the Italian Digital Context: The Progressive Marginalisation of the “Poor”
Authors: Isabella Mingo
Roberta Bracciale
Publication date: 30-11-2016
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: Social Indicators Research / Issue 2/2018
Print ISSN: 0303-8300
Electronic ISSN: 1573-0921
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1511-2

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 2/2018

Research on Fertility Policy in China: The Relative Necessity for Reform Among the Different Provinces

Crisis in the Horn of Africa: Measurement of Progress Towards Millennium Development Goals

Setting the Weights: The Women’s Capabilities Index for Malawi

Economic Growth and Child Malnutrition in Egypt: New Evidence from National Demographic and Health Survey

Neighborhood Social Determinants of Public Health: Analysis of Three Prevalent Non-communicable Chronic Diseases in Shenzhen, China

A Space–Time Study for Mapping Quality of Life in Andalusia During the Crisis