IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/itso20/224848.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Disaggregating the drivers of mobile technology adoption: the threat of unobservable gender biases

Author

Listed:
  • Butler, Caroline

Abstract

As the reach of mobile technology grows, it is becoming an increasingly powerful tool for access to welfare-enhancing information and services in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, digital inclusion remains far from universal. Across LMICs, 14 per cent of adults still do not own a mobile phone, 39 per cent do not use mobile internet, and 38 per cent do not own a smartphone. Among other characteristics, these digitally excluded individuals are predominantly female. This study seeks to better understand the key drivers of mobile ownership, mobile internet, and smartphone use, with a particular focus on gender. Discrete-choice models, including logit, probit and linear models, are used to estimate the probability of adoption of these three types of technology. By including a suite of control variables for observable drivers of mobile adoption (e.g. education levels, age, employment, rural-urban location), the coefficient for gender represents non-observable effects which could be a product of discrimination and cultural norms. Furthermore, importance is placed on the inclusion of interaction terms in the regressions (for example, gender interacted with rural location), in order to isolate different degrees of marginalisation across the female population. In addition to the focus on gender, the marginal effects of the dependent variables for other factors (such as geography, education, employment, and age) will aid understanding of the key predictors of mobile use more generally. This research also shows how these predictors might vary by country and region, how they relate to each other, and which are the most important. This will provide relevant and important information for policy-makers. The research makes use of multiple years (2017, 2018, and 2019) of data from face-to-face consumer surveys sourced from the GSMA, which includes nationally representative samples of at least 1,000 respondents for 31 low- and middle-income countries. The wide geographic scope, and multi-year nature of the survey data results in a unique contribution to the literature, and the substantial number of observations allows for novel analysis of intersections of the female population. In summary, the initial results find that: women are 5 percentage points (pp) less likely to own a mobile phone then men, 6pp less likely to use mobile internet, and 4pp less likely to own a smartphone, even when other relevant socioeconomic and demographic factors are controlled for. This unobservable gender effect is more pronounced in certain regions, especially South Asia, but with no significant link in Latin America and Caribbean. The marginal effects of the interaction variables indicate that the negative impact is enhanced for women that live in rural areas, have low levels of literacy, and are not working. In addition, this study finds that the probability of mobile technology adoption increases (with varying magnitudes by technology type and region) with income, education, urban location, literacy, and employment. Adoption of mobile technology largely declines with age, but the impact generally does not appear to start until age 45 and above for mobile ownership.

Suggested Citation

  • Butler, Caroline, 2020. "Disaggregating the drivers of mobile technology adoption: the threat of unobservable gender biases," ITS Conference, Online Event 2020 224848, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:itso20:224848
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/224848/1/Butler.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Allen, Franklin & Demirguc-Kunt, Asli & Klapper, Leora & Martinez Peria, Maria Soledad, 2016. "The foundations of financial inclusion: Understanding ownership and use of formal accounts," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 1-30.
    2. Jenny C. Aker & Isaac M. Mbiti, 2010. "Mobile Phones and Economic Development in Africa," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 24(3), pages 207-232, Summer.
    3. Rodrik, Dani, 2008. "The New Development Economics: We Shall Experiment, but How Shall We Learn?," Working Paper Series rwp08-055, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    4. Ai, Chunrong & Norton, Edward C., 2003. "Interaction terms in logit and probit models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 123-129, July.
    5. Forenbacher, Ivan & Husnjak, Siniša & Cvitić, Ivan & Jovović, Ivan, 2019. "Determinants of mobile phone ownership in Nigeria," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1-1.
    6. Maarten L. Buis, 2010. "Stata tip 87: Interpretation of interactions in nonlinear models," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 10(2), pages 305-308, June.
    7. Greene, William, 2010. "Testing hypotheses about interaction terms in nonlinear models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 291-296, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vyrastekova, Jana & Funaki, Yukihiko, 2018. "Cooperation in a sequential dilemma game: How much transparency is good for cooperation?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 88-95.
    2. Axel Dreher & Sarah Langlotz & Silvia Marchesi, 2017. "Information Transmission And Ownership Consolidation In Aid Programs," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(4), pages 1671-1688, October.
    3. Barbara Dluhosch, 2018. "Trade, Inequality, and Subjective Well-Being: Getting at the Roots of the Backlash Against Globalization," LIS Working papers 741, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.
    4. Doidge, Craig & Karolyi, G. Andrew & Stulz, René M., 2013. "The U.S. left behind? Financial globalization and the rise of IPOs outside the U.S," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(3), pages 546-573.
    5. Tien Vu, 2014. "One male offspring preference: evidence from Vietnam using a split-population model," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 689-715, December.
    6. Li, Fengfei & Lin, Chen & Lin, Tse-Chun, 2021. "Salient anchor and analyst recommendation downgrade," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    7. Feri, Francesco & Giannetti, Caterina & Jentzsch, Nicola, 2016. "Disclosure of personal information under risk of privacy shocks," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 138-148.
    8. Justin Hung Nguyen, 2018. "Carbon risk and firm performance: Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 43(1), pages 65-90, February.
    9. Mertens, K. & Jacobs, L. & Maes, J. & Poesen, J. & Kervyn, M. & Vranken, L., 2018. "Disaster risk reduction among households exposed to landslide hazard: A crucial role for self-efficacy?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 77-91.
    10. Nisha Nataraj & Julie Simmons Ivy & Fay Cobb Payton & Joseph Norman, 2018. "Diabetes and the hospitalized patient," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 534-553, December.
    11. Achim Hecker & Alois Ganter, 2016. "Organisational And Technological Innovation And The Moderating Effect Of Open Innovation Strategies," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(02), pages 1-31, February.
    12. Button, Patrick & Walker, Brigham, 2020. "Employment discrimination against Indigenous Peoples in the United States: Evidence from a field experiment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    13. Kristian D. Allee & Daniel D. Wangerin, 2018. "Auditor monitoring and verification in financial contracts: evidence from earnouts and SFAS 141(R)," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 1629-1664, December.
    14. Lammertjan Dam & Michael Koetter, 2011. "Bank bailouts, interventions, and moral hazard," Proceedings 1131, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
    15. Cui, Jingbo & Moschini, GianCarlo, 2020. "Firm internal network, environmental regulation, and plant death," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    16. Abdulqadir, Idris A. & Asongu, Simplice A., 2022. "The asymmetric effect of internet access on economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 44-61.
    17. Menon Martina & Perali Federico & Veronesi Marcella, 2017. "“Leaving No Child Behind:” Preferences for Social Inclusion and Altruism," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 17(3), pages 1-19, July.
    18. Sam Tavassoli & Viroj Jienwatcharamongkhol & Pia Arenius, 2023. "Colocation of Entrepreneurs and New Firm Survival: Role of New Firm Founder’s Experiential Relatedness to Local Entrepreneurs," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 47(4), pages 1421-1459, July.
    19. Schleich, Joachim & Faure, Corinne & Meissner, Thomas, 2021. "Adoption of retrofit measures among homeowners in EU countries: The effects of access to capital and debt aversion," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    20. Degryse, H.A. & Elahi, M.A. & Penas, M.F., 2012. "Determinants of Banking System Fragility : A Regional Perspective," Discussion Paper 2012-015, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:itso20:224848. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.itseurope.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.