Use of mobile phones by the rural poor; Gender perspectives from selected Asian countries

The literature on the digital gender divide is extensive. Equally extensive are the varying explanations and the degree to which it occurs. Empirical work that explores the digital gender divide in urban versus rural contexts is currently lacking.

The analysis finds that despite mobile phone ownership being greater amongst the urbanites
than those from rural areas, the suggestion that there is a greater likelihood of mobile ownership
amongst urbanites compared to rural dwellers; however, it is not statistically significant. This is the case for five of the six study countries, with the exception being Indonesia (Java only) where mobile phone ownership amongst urbanites is 66.9% more likely than amongst those from rural areas.

In terms of gender, the analysis contradicts other recent work (e.g. Hilbert, 2011), and points to a digital gender divide. Mobile phone ownership amongst women is less likely than amongst men and these results are statistically significant. The only country where the gender divide was reversed was in Thailand, where women are 42.9% more likely than men to own mobile phones.

What is confirmed in this paper’s findings is that whilst gender and location can matter in some instances (more so with the former than the latter), the gap is not even. This necessitates a more country specific policy (rather than a generic one) with regards to reducing (and ultimately eradicating) the digital gender divide.

CONTENTS

Preface………………………………………………….vii
Acknowledgment………………………….. ix
Executive Summary……………………………………….. xi
Through the looking glass: BOP perspectives on mobile phone use and
ownership in Indonesia and Sri Lanka…………….. 1
1. Introduction…………………………………1
1.1 Teleuse@BOP 4………………………………….. 1

2. Sample selection and methodology………………………2
2.1 Target respondents………………………………….. 3
2.1.1 Mobile users (owners/non owners)……………………….. 3
2.1.2 Gender………………………….. 4
2.1.3 Location……………………………….. 4
2.1.4 Age………………………………………… 4
2.1.5 Other aspects……………………………… 4
2.2 Methodology for Indonesia………………………… 4
2.3 Methodology for Sri Lanka………………………. 5

3. Results from the focus group discussions……………….6
3.1 Understanding the BOP mobile owner………. 6
3.2 Aiding work………………………………………….. 9
3.3 Keeping in touch…………………………………… 11
3.4 Does location matter?…………………………….. 12
3.5 Does gender matter?………………………………. 13
3.5.1 Men’s need for a phone…………………………… 13
3.5.2 Women’s need for a phone………………………….. 14
3.6 To call or text?……………… 15
3.7 Is language a barrier?………………………………. 16
3.8 Does age matter?……………………………………. 16
3.9 Who makes the decision to purchase a phone?…………………………………………………. 17
3.10 What brand of phone to buy?……………….. 17
3.11 More than a phone (m-Lullaby)………………………… 18
3.12 It’s MY phone………………………………………. 19

4. Digging deeper: results from the in-depth interviews in Sri Lanka……………………………….. 20
4.1 Credit/Loan………………………………………. 20
4.2 Learning when needed…………………………… 20
4.3 Status symbol……………………………………….. 20

5. Conclusion…………………………………………. 21

Separating myth from reality: Do location and
gender really matter for mobile ownership…………… 23
1. Introduction and Policy Relevance……………………. 23
2. Literature Review…………………………………. 23
2.1 Mobile ownership……………………………………. 24
3. Methodology………………………………………… 24
3.1 Data source………………………………………….. 27
4. Results and discussion………………………….. 30
4.1 Bangladesh……………………………………….. 31
4.2 Pakistan……………………….. 33
4.3 India…………………….. 35
4.4 Sri Lanka………………….. 37
4.5 Thailand…………………………… 38
4.6 Indonesia (Java only)…………………………….. 39
5. Conclusion………………………. 41
6. References……………………………… 42

Annex 1: SEC classification in Indonesia……………………. 45
Annex 2: SEC classifications in Sri Lanka………………… 47
Annex 3: Gender and location disaggregated regressions from T@BOP4…………………………… 48
Annex 4: Qualitative fieldwork classifications and summary…………………………………………….. 50