International days give us the opportunity to cast light on key socioeconomic topics. Several things are commemorated every year on May 17th, including IDAHOBIT and information and communication technologies (ICT), which have been honoured yearly on this day since 1969 to mark the founding of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The celebration dubbed World Telecommunication Day until early 2006 and World Information Society Day for a brief period in 2006, consolidates the two since late 2006 into World Telecommunication & Information Society Day.
This day serves as a reminder of the great progress accomplished in recent decades in extending connectivity and access to key digital resources around the world, but also of the need to step up efforts to leave no one behind and bridge the digital divide. Digital innovation can help tackle the world’s most pressing challenges, but it may bring about challenges of its own. Also, lack of infrastructure, equipment, and skills may keep a significant part of the world from reaping the benefits of this innovation.
In the world of work, the impact of digital technologies is wide-ranging and multidimensional, including opportunities for employment creation and improvements in working conditions but also challenges. According to the ILO’s Global Employment Trends for Youth 2022 report, achieving universal broadband coverage by 2030 could lead to the creation of 24 million new jobs worldwide, but harnessing the potential of digitalization for employment creation, quality and productivity, requires targeted and forward-looking policies.
This blog provides an overview of the state of connectivity around the world, summarizes the opportunities and challenges of the advent of digital technologies in the world of work, and analyzes the depth and implications of the digital divide.
Progress in connectivity has been steady around the world but differences across countries persist
Given the increasing importance of connectivity for numerous dimensions of life, the right to Internet access has been gaining ground in the international public debate. It synthesizes the idea that everyone must be able to access the Internet for their (other) basic rights to be fulfilled. In December 2003, the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) adopted its Declaration of Principles, reaffirming the importance of the Information Society in guaranteeing human rights. In 2010, Finland became the first country to officially recognize the right to Internet access in law, but many others have passed legislation or adopted policies to ensure or ease widespread Internet access.
In fact, according to data compiled by the ITU, in over 70 per cent of the 178 countries with data, broadband services are part of a universal service or access scheme. This is so in 60 per cent of high-income countries with data, 69 per cent of upper-middle income countries, 79.6 per cent of lower-middle income countries, and 78.3 per cent of low-income countries.
Both the number and the share of people using the Internet in the world have drastically increased in the past few decades. Only 15.6 per cent of the world’s population used the Internet in 2005 (a little over one billion people), compared to 67.6 per cent in 2024 (over 5.5 billion people). But despite this outstanding growth, universal connectivity remains elusive, with almost 2.5 billion people in the world without access to the Internet.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, there is a noticeable pattern in Internet access by income group, whereby access remains tightly linked to income level. The number and share of people using the Internet rose significantly in every income group in the last few decades, but the increase was fastest in middle-income countries, where, by 2024 66.7 per cent of the population were online. However, they still have not reached the connectivity levels of high-income countries (where the 2024 penetration rate was 93.4 per cent). What is more, connectivity challenges remain strong in many countries, with a 2024 penetration rate of only 26.5 per cent in low-income countries.
Interestingly, even though the share of people using the Internet is the largest in high-income countries by a wide margin, in absolute numbers of Internet users they lag behind upper-middle and lower-middle income counties. In fact, only 21 per cent of the world’s Internet users live in high-income countries, compared to 75 per cent in middle-income countries.
Logically following the same trend as the number of Internet access, the number of fixed-broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants in the world has continuously increased since 2005 (when it stood at 3.4) to reach 19.6 by 2024. While the number of fixed-telephone subscriptions per 100 inhabitants in the world declined from 19.1 in 2005 to 10.3 in 2024, the number of mobile-cellular subscriptions per 100 inhabitants soared from 33.9 in 2005 to 112.1 in 2024. That is, by 2024 there were more mobile subscriptions than people in the world.
The number of fixed-broadband subscriptions and that of mobile subscriptions per 100 inhabitants also increase with national income, with high-income countries boasting the highest rates and low-income ones lagging far behind in connectivity.
The advent of digital technology in the world of work brings opportunities and challenges
Digital technologies have been reshaping the world of work for quite some time, and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. The impacts of digitalization are wide-ranging and multidimensional, including the creation of new jobs and occupations, the destruction of those rendered obsolete, (potential) productivity gains, improvements in some areas of employment quality, and deterioration in others, to name a few. Thus, employment policy has a central role to play in maximizing the positive impact of digitalization in terms of employment creation, productivity, and quality, while minimizing its inherent negative impacts.
Some suggest that in many aspects, digitalization has made the world of work a better place, contributing to productivity and income growth, particularly because workers can benefit from tools that make their tasks easier and/or faster. Also, digital technologies have enabled or created new work modalities and patterns, such as the rise in remote work or telework. They have also made possible the digitalization of processes and the emergence of new business models.
Nevertheless, without infrastructure, equipment and/or skills, these opportunities for employment creation, productivity gains, and working conditions improvements will be missed. Indeed, many groups of workers, and especially those already left behind in other areas, face the compounded challenge of both lack of access to digital technologies and lack of digital skills.
What is more, digital technology (including robotics and artificial intelligence) may lead to considerable displacement of certain jobs. For example, an ILO study suggests that generative AI will cause relatively small employment losses overall, but recognizes that these losses will be concentrated, particularly among clerical support workers, with strong impacts for the workers in question.
Moreover, digitalization has enabled the rise of digital platforms, where people can buy and sell a wide range of goods and services. This has facilitated the gig economy, with some upsides for workers (such as increased flexibility and autonomy for instance in determining work days and hours), which are unfortunately often overweighed by the downsides (including job insecurity and income unpredictability and variability).
Discouragingly, ILO research suggests there is little evidence if and how digitalization can actually foster development, structural information, and the local economy. Indeed, digitalization may be increasing insecurity and uncertainty for workers in many sectors, particularly in the informal economy, and even well-educated and highly skilled workers are affected. Development does not seem to be driven primarily by technological change, but there are other social, economic and institutional forces at work. Thus, it is questionable whether digitalization taking place in a context of weak institutional capacity and high inequality (as is often the case in developing countries) will contribute to the local economy and lead to development, without targeted policy action directing digital transformation towards sustainable, fair and inclusive development.
The digital divide remains wide, feeding off and reinforcing other inequalities
Although access to modern ICT has dramatically increased in the past few decades around the world, there are still many individuals, communities, and areas left behind. In fact, in 2024, almost a third of the global population did not use the Internet. This digital divide feeds off other existing inequalities (for instance, income inequalities and inequalities of access to education, health, and public infrastructure) and also reinforces them, with those without digital access unable to benefit from digital information, education and job opportunities, and job-search platforms, for instance.
Furthermore, the frequent emergence of new technologies requires constant efforts to catch up, meaning that bridging the digital divide is a dynamic process going well beyond a one-off investment.
According to data compiled by the ITU, 49 per cent of those who do not have access to the Internet say it is because they do not need it, while for 24 per cent the cost of the service is too high, and for 22 per cent the cost of the equipment is too high (unweighted averages based on data available for 78 countries). The reasons for not having access to the Internet may cumulate (more than one reason can apply).
The digital divide is particularly glaring between rural and urban areas. While 82.9 per cent of the world’s urban population used the Internet in 2024, only 47.5 per cent of the rural population did so (and 16.1 per cent of low-income countries’ rural population). Coverage by a mobile network was universal in 2024 in urban areas, while the coverage rate was 95 per cent in rural areas, but the gap widens if we factor in also the quality of the network: 67.1 per cent of the urban population was covered by at least a 5G mobile network compared to only 29.2 per cent of the rural population.
There are no strong differences between rural and urban in the prevalence of some reasons for not having Internet, such as the cost of the service, the cost of the equipment, cultural reasons, and privacy or security concerns. However, the difference is larger for other reasons: in rural areas, Internet service not being available in the area and not having electricity in the household are on average more prevalent reasons for not accessing the Internet. In urban areas, having access to the Internet elsewhere is more prevalent as a reason not to have it in the household than in rural areas, pointing also to the additional connectivity challenges of rural areas.
A key pilar to bridge the digital divide is affordability of infrastructure and equipment. Reassuringly, both the data-only mobile broadband basket and the fixed-broadband basket are becoming more affordable around the globe. The median price of the mobile broadband basket declined from 1.3 to 1.1 per cent of gross national income (GNI) per capita between 2023 and 2024, and that of the fixed-broadband basket dropped from 2.8 to 2.5 per cent. Still, affordability continues to be a challenge, particularly in low-income countries, where mobile broadband cost 8.6 per cent of GNI per capita in 2024, and fixed broadband cost 31.1 per cent. Considering that the affordability target of the Broadband Commission for 2025 is less than 2 per cent of GNI per capita, we still have a ways to go to ensure affordable and equitable access to connectivity.
Concluding remarks
While significant progress has been made in extending connectivity and access to digital resources globally, some sectors of the population are still at risk of being left behind. The digital divide is narrowing, but it remains significant. Public policy has a key role to play in the path towards universal access to digital tools and services, and in ensuring that digitalization, which can be a driver of social good, does not become a driver of social exclusion. This applies also (and particularly) to the world of work, where targeted policies are needed to harness the potential of digital technologies for employment creation, productivity gains, and working conditions improvements, while mitigating the risks.
