IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/telpol/v47y2023i7s0308596123000848.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The influence of digital divide frames on legislative passage and partisan sponsorship: A content analysis of digital equity legislation in the U.S. from 1990 to 2020

Author

Listed:
  • King, Jesse
  • Gonzales, Amy L.

Abstract

Government funding is essential for digital equity. Scholarship on policies to improve internet access often examines the funding mechanisms behind subsidies, or the quality and reach of services provided. However, a better understanding of the issues and constituencies to receive government support to date may help digital equity activists more strategically lobby for new digital divide policies in the future. To do this, we take a macro-level approach to Van Dijk's resources and appropriation theory and examine how the framing of all digital divide–related U.S. Congressional legislation introduced between 1990 and 2020 may be associated with a bill's passage or the political party of its sponsor. Content analysis revealed that bills highlighting privacy literacy programs, educational outcomes, and corporate transparency were more likely to be passed into legislation. Bills sponsored by Republicans were 422% more likely of being passed into legislation. Certain frames were also associated with partisan sponsorship: Republican-sponsored bills were more often framed around deregulation, privacy programs, corporate transparency, and rural access, whereas Democrat-sponsored bills were more often framed around digital skills such as digital literacy and educational outcomes. Findings serve as a historical record of digital equity priorities in the U.S. and highlight possible strategies for future policy design.

Suggested Citation

  • King, Jesse & Gonzales, Amy L., 2023. "The influence of digital divide frames on legislative passage and partisan sponsorship: A content analysis of digital equity legislation in the U.S. from 1990 to 2020," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:telpol:v:47:y:2023:i:7:s0308596123000848
    DOI: 10.1016/j.telpol.2023.102573
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308596123000848
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.telpol.2023.102573?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Whitacre, Brian & Gallardo, Roberto, 2020. "State broadband policy: Impacts on availability," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(9).
    2. Clarissa David & Jenna Atun & Antonio La Viña, 2012. "Framing in Legislation: The Case of Population Policy in the Philippines," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 31(2), pages 297-319, April.
    3. Appiah-Otoo, Isaac & Song, Na, 2021. "The impact of ICT on economic growth-Comparing rich and poor countries," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(2).
    4. Jacob L. Vigdor & Helen F. Ladd & Erika Martinez, 2014. "Scaling The Digital Divide: Home Computer Technology And Student Achievement," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 52(3), pages 1103-1119, July.
    5. Jacob Jensen & Ethan Kaplan & Suresh Naidu & Laurence Wilse-Samson, 2012. "Political Polarization and the Dynamics of Political Language: Evidence from 130 Years of Partisan Speech," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 43(2 (Fall)), pages 1-81.
    6. Glass, Victor & Tardiff, Timothy, 2021. "Reforming funding of universal access to telecommunications and broadband services: Approaches for the new decade," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(2).
    7. Grubesic, Tony H., 2012. "The U.S. National Broadband Map: Data limitations and implications," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 113-126.
    8. Berg, Sanford V. & Jiang, Liangliang & Lin, Chen, 2011. "Universal service subsidies and cost overstatement: Evidence from the U.S. telecommunications sector," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 583-591, August.
    9. Silva, Simone & Badasyan, Narine & Busby, Michael, 2018. "Diversity and digital divide: Using the National Broadband Map to identify the non-adopters of broadband," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 361-373.
    10. Jacob Jensen & Ethan Kaplan & Suresh Naidu & Laurence Wilse-Samson, 2012. "Political Polarization and the Dynamics of Political Language: Evidence from 130 Years of Partisan Speech," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 45(2 (Fall)), pages 1-81.
    11. Vikki S Katz & Amy B Jordan & Katherine Ognyanova, 2021. "Digital inequality, faculty communication, and remote learning experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic: A survey of U.S. undergraduates," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-16, February.
    12. Lee, Hyun Ji & Whitacre, Brian, 2017. "Estimating willingness-to-pay for broadband attributes among low-income consumers: Results from two FCC lifeline pilot projects," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 769-780.
    13. Strover, Sharon & Riedl, Martin J. & Dickey, Selena, 2021. "Scoping new policy frameworks for local and community broadband networks," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(10).
    14. James Prieger, 2015. "The broadband digital divide and the benefits of mobile broadband for minorities," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 13(3), pages 373-400, September.
    15. Hernan Galperin & M. Fernanda Viecens, 2017. "Connected for Development? Theory and evidence about the impact of Internet technologies on poverty alleviation," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 35(3), pages 315-336, 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. Isley, Catherine & Low, Sarah A., 2022. "Broadband adoption and availability: Impacts on rural employment during COVID-19," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(7).
    2. Campbell, Richard Cole, 2024. "Need for speed: Fiber and student achievement," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6).
    3. Xia, Jun, 2022. "Juggling ecumenical wisdoms and xenophobic institutions: Framing and modelling China's telecommunications universal service and rural digitalization initiatives and policies," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(2).
    4. Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro & Matt Taddy, 2019. "Measuring Group Differences in High‐Dimensional Choices: Method and Application to Congressional Speech," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(4), pages 1307-1340, July.
    5. M. Niaz Asadullah & Anindita Bhattacharjee, 2022. "Digital Divide or Digital Provide? Technology, Time Use, and Learning Loss during COVID-19," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(10), pages 1934-1957, October.
    6. Azzimonti, Marina, 2018. "Partisan conflict and private investment," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 114-131.
    7. Gloria Gennaro & Giampaolo Lecce & Massimo Morelli, 2019. "Intertemporal Evidence on the Strategy of Populism," Working Papers 647, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    8. Derksen, Laura & Leclerc, Catherine Michaud & Souza, Pedro CL, 2019. "Searching for Answers : The Impact of Student Access to Wikipedia," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1236, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    9. Mirko Draca & Carlo Schwarz, 2024. "How Polarised are Citizens? Measuring Ideology from the Ground up," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 134(661), pages 1950-1984.
    10. Scott R. Baker & Nicholas Bloom & Brandice Canes-Wrone & Steven J. Davis & Jonathan Rodden, 2014. "Why Has US Policy Uncertainty Risen since 1960?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(5), pages 56-60, May.
    11. Elliott Ash & Daniel L. Chen & Suresh Naidu, 2022. "Ideas Have Consequences : The Impact of Law and Economics on American Justice," Working Papers hal-03899739, HAL.
    12. Roland G. Fryer, Jr. & Philipp Harms & Matthew O. Jackson, 2013. "Updating Beliefs with Ambiguous Evidence: Implications for Polarization," NBER Working Papers 19114, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Bose, Neha, 2020. "Attitude towards Immigrants: Evidence from U.S. Congressional Speeches," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 464, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    14. Bose, Neha, 2020. "Attitude towards Immigrants: Evidence from U.S. Congressional Speeches," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1259, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    15. Hacioglu Hoke, Sinem, 2019. "Macroeconomic effects of political risk shocks," Bank of England working papers 841, Bank of England.
    16. Caroline Le Pennec, 2024. "Strategic Campaign Communication: Evidence from 30,000 Candidate Manifestos," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 134(658), pages 785-810.
    17. Caldarulo, Mattia & Mossberger, Karen & Howell, Anthony, 2023. "Community-wide broadband adoption and student academic achievement," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1).
    18. Ash, Elliott & Gauthier, Germain & Widmer, Philine, 2024. "Relatio: Text Semantics Capture Political and Economic Narratives," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(1), pages 115-132, January.
    19. Gloria Gennaro & Elliott Ash, 2022. "Emotion and Reason in Political Language," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 132(643), pages 1037-1059.
    20. Sabina J Sloman & Daniel M Oppenheimer & Simon DeDeo, 2021. "Can we detect conditioned variation in political speech? two kinds of discussion and types of conversation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-28, February.

    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:eee:telpol:v:47:y:2023:i:7:s0308596123000848. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30471/description#description .

    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.